Inconvenient Truths About the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@flyosity/inconvenient-truths-about-the-apple-watch-11bafa44551b <comment><USER2> > When Apple first showed off the Apple Watch, I was stunned. It looked > glorious and larger than life. Shiny and precision-machined. Like an object > from the future that time-traveled back to the present just to blow everyone > away.

I too was stunned, but for the exact opposite reason. I thought, and still think, the Apple Watch looks hideous. And no, I'm not exaggerating. I _really_ don't like it. This is coming from a non-apple user who thinks Apple makes beautiful hardware.

<comment><USER3> Got to admit that the Moto 360 looks beautiful and classy while the Apple watch looks like a cheap casio from the 80s:

[http://i.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz.png](http://i.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz.png)

<comment><USER4> It's way too big though.

[http://i.imgur.com/MAmL4a4.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/MAmL4a4.jpg)

<comment><USER5> That is just a really skinny arm. Here is how it looks on someone ~160lbs (like myself): [http://imgur.com/Cejo1rl.jpg](http://imgur.com/Cejo1rl.jpg)

<comment><USER6> I mean, it looks a little better, but I still feel that the watch face is unnecessarily large. It doesn't look proportional. And while the rectangular face of the Apple Watch is evocative of Casio watches, it looks proportional to the band and the wearer's wrist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This picture is completely inappropriate.

[https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbah...](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbahUyF8jDgRF4Q.png)

He's trying to claim that the watch interface isn't sharp. I don't know if that's true or not (I have never seen an Apple Watch) but it's downright mendacious to illustrate this claim with a grotesquely high-ISO, grainy image which makes the watch display look as bad as possible.

<comment><USER8> I agree that that's a very unflattering image, but it's purpose is to highlight the start difference between the marketing pics (which clearly show vector interfaces) and the reality of a pixelated display. Also, I think more of the unflattering-ness of the picture is due to the actually poor interface than the quality of the picture.

<comment><USER9> The digital crown looks about as pixelated and processed as the actual display pixels. I'd like to see a much better picture before I trusted anything in this image at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Something finally clicked for me. The OP disses the watch, but buys one anyway so he can write apps for it.

Apple always hypes their products, but they usually lowball expectations. For the Watch, they've really ramped up expectations, really setting themselves up for a let-down. It's been obvious for a while that the Watch was going to be more like iPhone v1 than iPad v1: showing lots of promise, but needing a couple of iterations to nail it and really become a mass market product. So I expect good numbers, but not huge numbers.

So why would Apple risk the Watch being branded a failure by missing expectations? Apps. If devs expect a huge success, they'll jump in heavy. So when gen 2 or 3 rolls around the news stories will be about this watch being the one that rectifies the failure of gen 1, but it will be also be about the killer apps that you can get.

<comment><USER11> Much more like the iPod than iPhone, IMHO. An accessory, a fashion object, very cool but totally optional and not life-changing in the way the smartphone has been.

<comment><USER12> Ah, but the iPod paved the way for the iPhone.

Where Apple succeeds is in creating products that people covet. White earbuds were a status symbol for some time until the knockoffs came. They signaled that you had enough disposable income for an expensive MP3 player.

Now they've made something you _wear_ \-- so there's no missing the signal.

And yes, I totally fall for it every time -- but as a developer I have a convenient alibi :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand this obsession with big sizes watches maybe it's because I actually don't wear a watch but I've ordered the 38mm model (and I'm a man). My reasonning is that the last thing I want is something big on my wrist.

<comment><USER14> Exactly this. Why would you want a big watch? Mine is the smallest and lightest I could find and I still feel it's a little too big!

<comment><USER15> If I have a watch for telling time, I want it to be as small and thin as reasonable.

If I have a watch as a fashion accessory/jewelry, being small is no longer a design parameter, and in fact being larger might be seen as positive- like a large diamond ring.

Watches are not always worn just to tell time.

<comment><USER16> Large diamond rings are also tacky. I've not met a single girl who prefers grandiose rings. Ever.

<comment><USER17> Every 'girl' you've offered a large diamond ring has declined the offer? Perhaps the problem is not the size of the ring but with you

<comment><USER16> Don't know how you came up with that interpretation. I'll go ahead and break this down for you, since it seems like you've never actually proposed to somebody. Typically you talk to your friends about rings, shop around, etc. You've likely already been talking about getting engaged, and asked for your girlfriend's opinions on rings as well. Throughout this process you'll get a good estimation of people's opinions on what is aesthetically pleasing -- from my experience this tended to be low set, solitaire or princess, moderately sized diamond rings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As Daringfireball's review of the Apple watch said, there are two kinds of people: those who currently wear watches, and people who don't.

The first ones have to be convinced to switch to the Apple watch because, as a watch, it's a better watch than the one currently on their wrist.

The others just have to believe the Apple watch will answer a need that isn't met by any other device.

I think the second proposition has a fighting chance (maybe) but the first is an uphill battle. The Apple watch is ugly and, simply, not a real watch. Watch people will probably never switch.

That may not matter much, since they're a small minority anyway; but it would simplify Apple's marketing if it didn't try to talk to them at all.

<comment><USER19> Kind of person 2.5: those who don't wear a watch because the iPhone "pocket watch" is an incredibly useful compact information device, and until 4/24/15 a watch just tells time ... and who would jump at the chance to move the iPhone's "at a glance" functionality to their wrist. (Ex.: me)

Not a real watch? Why, the same reason e-books aren't "real books" because they don't smell like old paper? (not trying to be snide, it's a complaint I hear often) It tells time, better than any mechanical watch (50ms accuracy, change the face to whatever you like), _and_ includes all that functionality you keep flipping your iPhone out of your pocket for every few minutes.

<comment><USER18> You should read Gruber's piece: [http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch](http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch)

The Apple Watch is not a real watch mainly because there's a lag between the time you glance at it and the time you see what's on it -- if you turn your wrist. If your wrist is already turned, or you can't turn it (for example, because you're typing) then you have to _touch_ the face to turn it on.

It's not waterproof. I'm not sure it's readable in very bright sunlight.

It's very accurate, yes... contrary to the most expensive watches, which are the less accurate of all watches. Believe it or not, extreme accuracy is not a required feature of "real" watches.

<comment><USER19> I did read it. Like many other major steps in technology, it's a litany of trivial imperfections. Golly, it might take a moment or trivial effort to turn on! ok, that's not as instant as a normal watch, but the vast capabilities (over mere time) more than compensate. Golly, it's not completely waterproof! though washing your hands or showering with it (which few people do with their watches) is actively encouraged. Golly, it's not perfectly readable in bright sunlight! most people aren't in bright sunlight, and a little shade resolves the problem suitably. Golly, it's very accurate! always irritated me that hand-set watches are typically off by minutes (reality check: starting _right now_ , wait 3 minutes before reading the rest of this post, then tell me how that didn't annoy you), and though just twice a year DST adjustments are a PITA.

You've got accurate time, weather, stocks, email, texting, photos, games, health, etc info all on your wrist...and Gruber's complaining it takes a moment to turn on and you can't go diving with it? c'mon, that's practically proof it's awesome.

<comment><USER18> You're just confirming you're not a watch person. That's fine... and that was my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A consistent thread through reviews of the aWatch is that the sport band is surprisingly awesome-feeling.

Which is a sign for hope from Apple. The truth of the aWatch is that only the success of the $350-$400 models matters. If those sell well and summon up customer enthusiasm, then the watch has at least a fighting chance to be successful. If people don't like the $350-$400 models, then all the enthusiasm in the world for the $1,000-$17,000 models will not create an ecosystem, and the aWatch will be, at best, a tiny niche product.

If Apple has recognized that and not bought into their own marketing hype about premium whatever, and focused all their attention on making the basic model as good as possible, then they're making the smart play.

</comment><comment><USER21> Ever since reading that article about how dangerous it is to criticize Apple, and how authors always start out by flying their Apple cred... man I notice it all the time in any article that has to say something critical.

<comment><USER22> That article claiming it's dangerous to criticize Apple was complete bullshit, but it did serve to highlight how anyone writing anti-Apple posts loves to try and trot out their credentials as an Apple user as if that lends authority to whatever they're about to write.

<comment><USER23> > as if that lends authority to whatever they're about to write

I think it does. Apple has a lot of True Believers and there are also a lot of people who have never used Apple products but take every opportunity to bash them. When I see a critical post written by someone who uses and likes Apple products, I consider the points made more carefully than a positive post by a brainwashee or a negative post by someone with an axe to grind.

<comment><USER22> It's really hard to take anyone seriously when they accuse Apple users of being "believers" or being "brainwash[ed]". Do you honestly believe that there's a large chunk of Apple customers out there (some even imply a majority of them) that only use Apple products out of some religious fervor or slavish devotion to the memory of Steve Jobs or whatever other justification you want to use? If anything, all of the Apple users that I know (and I know a lot) are more prone to be critical of Apple products than anyone I know is of any other company's products.

(edit: That's actually a serious question. I genuinely don't understand why people try to make this argument)

<comment><USER23> Can you point out where I suggested that all users of Apple products are brainwashed?

One look at the Macrumors forum shows you that these people exist in some number (just like one look at a guitar forum shows you that Gibson has some believers). I work with one person who is absolutely insufferable with Apple evangelization.

I didn't make the argument you thought I did, and while your weaving skills are admirable, I don't really need any strawmen.

<comment><USER22> > _Can you point out where I suggested that all users of Apple products are > brainwashed?_

I never accused you of saying _all_ users of Apple products are brainwashed. Misrepresenting my comment isn't a very effective strategy when my comment is right there for everyone to read. And you very specifically used the term "brainwashee" in the context of Apple users, so yes you did in fact accuse _some_ users of Apple products of being brainwashed.

> _I didn 't make the argument you thought I did_

You said the Apple customer base has "a lot of True Believers" and having people you think are "brainwash[ed]". That's not a description I'd expect to see anyone use for any company other than Apple (even if you personally think there are customers of other companies that exhibit the same traits, you almost certainly wouldn't think to apply those specific labels). Which is why I asked my question. Why do you think those labels are appropriate, and what portion of Apple's customer base do you think they apply to? If you think that this description is only appropriate for a very small number of people, why even bring it up? If you think it applies to a large number of people, what justification do you have for describing Apple's user base as if it were a cult and do you really think that this does anything other than make anyone reading your comment dismiss it out of hand (which is the same general reaction to a comment including the word "fanboy").

> _I don 't really need any straw men._

Do you actually know what a straw man argument is, or are you just using the term to try and shut down conversation?

<comment><USER23> >I never accused you of saying all users of Apple products

> when they accuse Apple users of

I did not accuse Apple users in general, just a set of them.

> even if you personally think there are customers of other companies that > exhibit the same traits, you almost certainly wouldn't think to apply those > specific labels

Yes, I would, and I do.

> Why do you think those labels are appropriate

Because they accurately describe the groups I apply them to.

> what portion of Apple's customer base do you think they apply to?

A significant portion of their vocal user base.

> If you think that this description is only appropriate for a very small > number of people, why even bring it up?

Because they are the loudest ones and they lower the signal-to-noise ratio considerably. Why do you care that I bring it up?

> Do you actually know what a straw man argument is

Yes, you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument so you can appear to have successfully attacked it. And now you are trying to belittle my intelligence by accusing me of not knowing what a strawman is and that I'm attempting to "shut down conversation" (which is laughable, here in a public comments thread, where I have no ability to shut down anything). Given your defensiveness, intellectual dishonesty, and inability to read a dissenting opinion without exploding, I have to imagine that you are one of the _True Believers._

 _edit: just so we 're clear, that last line was sarcastic, so please don't have a conniption_

<comment><USER22> I thought we were having a debate in good faith. It's clear that you're not interested in doing so, and instead are attempting to "win" on technicalities (such as your continued insistence that I claimed you thought _all_ Apple users were brainwashed), and have now resorted to personal insults and gross misrepresentation of my words. I don't understand why you're behaving this way. I thought my question was fairly straightforward, but you seem to be doing your best to avoid having to answer it. If you don't want to answer, then just don't reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> That picture of the screen makes it look like a Sega Game Gear. Yikes.

<comment><USER25> Fear not the Game Gear had a PPI of 67.27, the Apple Watch is ~250.

Game Gear 160x144 pixel resolution 3.2 inche screen 67.27 ppi

<comment><USER26> At least the game gear had crisp pixels, which I remember appreciating about it. Contemporary pc screens had blurry blotches instead of pixels, unless you were lucky enough to own a trinitron.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I just viewed them in the apple store and thought the interface was incredibly fluid, screen was very crisp and bright, and the touch screen was impossibly accurate.

I still don't want to buy one as the battery life is too short and I would rather wait for the apps to catch up so it can be more useful, but I don't think it's the failure this guy is setting it up to be.

</comment><comment><USER19> I just tried one on a few minutes ago. It's bright, sharp, large, responsive, ...just right. While the author is spending time complaining about the leather being so good it's in an uncanny valley of feeling wrong (akin to e-book naysayers complaining about missing the _smell_ of old paper), I'm amazed at how far advanced the core functionality & responsiveness (what you're actually paying for) is beyond other smartwatches.

Perfect? maybe not. But way better than anything else out there.

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't know what he's talking about re size. I tried on both and the 42 felt plenty large to me. I wouldn't want it any larger.

The screen also isn't nearly as bad as his photo. I have no idea what's going on there. Yes it isn't as sharp as my iPhone 6 but it's not blurry at all.

The only thing that I agree with is that apples bands all look like crap. Their buckles on the leather look very feminine, and everything has a cheap feel. The one that doesn't is the Milanese loop. It looked gorgeous. Too bad it grabbed my arm hair and the sales guys said that was very common. Oops.

I got the cheapest band and will wait for the 3rd party market to do something decent.

<comment><USER29> Maybe if you're a civilized silverback gorilla looking for something classy to wear you might be out of luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> His claims may or may not have merit. However the formula of 1) establish your apple cred by naming how many devices you own since the history of ever 2) tell people how excited you are about this product 3) trash it

is tired. For the record, Im not interested in a watch from anyone, I don't like things on my wrist hands or face that didn't come with me from birth. I think it was inevitable that Apple entered this market, and Im sure that for some people it will exceed their expectations, and for some, disappoint.

<comment><USER31> You didn't follow the same formula by distancing yourself from watch ownership?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> tl;dr: "If you're interested in the Apple Watch and are considering buying one, go to an Apple Store and try it on."

</comment><comment><USER33> Pretty devastating review. I don't know about the sizing but if the screen really looks that bad this is a bait and switch. Where are all the "screen images simulated" disclaimers? I bet only a tiny fraction of buyers see the watch in person before they buy it. Seems like there might be a lot of disappointed owners.

<comment><USER22> Good news! It doesn't look like the picture. Something is very wrong with that picture; either he intentionally took it badly or his camera has issues.

<comment><USER34> I'm sure he took it with an iPhone 6 cause that's the phone he has but it also looks like higher than usual ISO probably due to bad lighting.

The bigger issue is think about how close you would have to hold the watch up to your face to make it that big in real life. If you did that you'd be able to see the pixels but you wouldn't hold it that close.

[http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch- review](http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review) has much better real life shots that mirror what I saw at the Apple store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think this product is an interesting one. When the iPhone, iPod, or iPad came out you didn't have reviewers establishing their credibility as a "MP3 Player" or "Tablet" enthusiast in order to give their perspective merit.

With the Apple Watch you have watch enthusiasts though who come out and discuss why it is a poor comparison to industry standards established for the market. Ultimately I think a lot of "watch enthusiasts" will see through the marketing and be displeased while tech enthusiasts will judge the product on different standards.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm very curious to see how the Apple Watch holds up in daily wear, especially the Sport version. I am having a hard time imagining an aluminum and glass watch looking nice after a couple months of daily wear on a wrist. Same goes for the leather bands: if they're like the leather iPhone cases in any color other than black, they look pretty shabby after a short time (and I love broken in leather!).

</comment><comment><USER37> Yes, it's narrower than watches which have to be round by the nature of their engineering. Someone made the design decision that a rectangle looks nicer on your wrist than a perfect square, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

</comment><comment><USER38> tl;dr: The Apple Watch is different from what I'm used to.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's so "Apple" to that obsessed with pixel densitites ...

</comment><comment><USER40> Convenient Truth #0: A smartwatch isn't a watch.

Don't compare apples and oranges. Just because you can wear this device on the wrist doesn't make it a watch.

<comment><USER25> It is a watch, clues in the name. However it's not a conventional watch.

<comment><USER41> To put it more precisely: it functions as a watch, but the design is not meant to status-signal through the traditional means by which watches status-signal. Apple don't care about "big for the sake of big" (more like "remove until you can't remove any more"); Apple don't care about leather that looks like artisanal leather with stitching et al, just that the material has the physical properties (e.g. sweat absorption) of leather while still having all the features they promised.

Effectively, Apple is trying to replace traditional watch status-signalling with more smartphone-esque status-signalling, where a product looks more expensive the more like a mysterious featureless glowing glass bead it manages to seem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The article has a real-world picture of the watch face in use.[1] The display looks blurry and low-resolution. (It's not the photo; the knurls on the knob are sharp.) It's so different from the ads that Apple may be in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission for misleading advertising, for showing renders on their site that look much better than the actual product.

[1] [https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbah...](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbahUyF8jDgRF4Q.png)

<comment><USER43> It is the photo. It's an extremely low quality grainy photograph. The Apple Watch display looks much better than that.

<comment><USER42> The bezel, the hairs on the guy's arm, and the knurling on the knob are in clear focus. Only the screen looks fuzzy. It's not a photograph problem.</comment></comment></comment>


Emacs Screencast: Artist Mode - ASCII Photoshop for Emacs - <AUTHOR> http://www.cinsk.org/emacs/emacs-artist.html

<comment><USER2> That's pretty awesome.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some great comment threads on HN? - <AUTHOR> I came across a couple today (on the cloud costs, life-changing ideas etc). I have book-marked some in the past also. Wondering what else I missed. <comment><USER2> I personally liked this comment thread on LIDAR from last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20631535](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20631535)</comment>


China Bans Financial Companies From Bitcoin Transactions - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-05/china-s-pboc-bans-financial-companies-from-bitcoin-transactions.html <comment><USER2> According to someone on Bitcointalk.org, it might not be as bad as it seems ([https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358341.msg3832549#ms...](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358341.msg3832549#msg3832549)):

No. You Western guys completely misunderstood the news. To me, this is actually BULLISH!

TL;DR, the document says:

1\. Bitcoin is a virtual commodity, not a real currency

2\. People have the freedom to trade bitcoin, but they need to take their own risk

3\. At this stage, financial institutions cannot denominate services and products in bitcoin, cannot trade bitcoin, cannot run bitcoin exchange, cannot provide bitcoin related services, cannot store bitcoin for clients, cannot establish bitcoin trust or fund, etc.

4\. Bitcoin exchanges must be registered, and follow AML and KYC rules

This means major Chinese bitcoin exchanges like BTCChina will stay. You just won't see any Chinese bitcoin ETF anytime soon.

<comment><USER3> I disagree. This is not good news for Bitcoin.

>3\. At this stage, financial institutions cannot denominate services and products in bitcoin, cannot trade bitcoin, cannot run bitcoin exchange, cannot provide bitcoin related services, cannot store bitcoin for clients, cannot establish bitcoin trust or fund, etc.

I don't speak Chinese so I can't speculate too much, but by the sounds of the Reuters article this basically rules out any hope of a Coinbase equivalent emerging in China, allowing people to transact freely between their bank and their BTC wallet. Banks in China aren't going to touch Bitcoin, or BTC-related businesses with a barge pole now. Not only this, anyone else planning on starting a Bitcoin business will probably have trouble with banks. It's really not good at all for BTC in China.

<comment><USER4> I disagree with you, I think that it means that a chinese Coinbase can't also be a bank, and since they just ruled that bitcoin is not a currency, it will be sold and bought freely as a commodity in this case a virtual commodity

<comment><USER5> Trading physical goods for virtual commodities? No thank you.

The pudding of bitcoin was the promise of a new currency.

<comment><USER6> Since it's decentralized, it doesn't need banks to prosper. That's the beauty of bitcoin. It can function as a currency while still being seen as a commodity in the eyes of the law.

<comment><USER7> Yes - it doesn't need banks. I think there is lots of confusion as to how this system works. As long as it's legal to own and exchange bitcoins, everyone can be _their own_ financial institution.

<comment><USER5> I think I cant understand what a world run on bitcoin would look like without a global war.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pretty disappointed in this statement from Greenspan:

"It has to have intrinsic value. You have to really stretch your imagination to infer what the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is. I haven't been able to do it. Maybe somebody else can."

All money has no intrinsic value, including gold. Things have value because other people want them. That's it. People want bitcoin, then it has value.

Pretty much the only thing with intrinsic value is food since people don't want it, they require it.

Everything else has value because people say it has value.

<comment><USER9> Intrinsic value (in the context of finance) usually refers to the value of something when not used as investment or money. Gold has intrinsic value because you can use it for jewellery and electronics. A bitcoin has no intrinsic value because you only have it to get something else in return later.

Physical money has intrinsic value equal to the metal or paper it's made of. Of course that is not what makes physical money valuable and I am equally confused by that quote.

<comment><USER10> >> _Physical money has intrinsic value equal to the metal or paper it 's made of. Of course that is not what makes physical money valuable and I am equally confused by that quote._

USD/EUR/JPY currency (either physical as bank notes and coins, or electronic) has intrinsic value because it is almost universally accepted, taxable, and backed by debt that (at least in theory) will have to be repaid at some point in time. Bitcoin proponents like to point out that bitcoins are decentralized as if that's only an advantage of the currency, but it's the fact that commonly accepted currencies are centralized, controlled and regulated that makes them trustworthy enough that people keep accepting them in exchange for goods or labor. It's called 'fiat money' for a reason. Bitcoin has none of this, and the 'value' it derives from the 'trust' people buying them is based on nothing but speculation and hype. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Disclaimer: I'm not 'anti-bitcoin', 'anti-cryptocurrency', 'pro-government' or a big fan of fiat money and how central banks are handling it. I'm just stating my observation how the bitcoin hype and echo-chamber has made people almost blind to see the risk it will some day go to zero (maybe soon)

<comment><USER11> If you consider those things to bestow "intrinsic value" (a fallacious concept), the Bitcoin has "intrinsic value" because it is portable, divisible, fungible, scarce, and has all the other properties we want from a scarcity- based currency while having all the great benefits (and more) of digital fiat money.

<comment><USER12> Bitcoin isn't portable (you can't carry it, try using it without the internet).

All regular currencies are fungible and its super-questionable that BTC is divisible (the network can't handle more then what, a million transactions per second? What's the use of a currency that splits into microscopic sizes if you can't make lots of micropayments with it).

<comment><USER13> This must be red herring day on HN.

USD may be the most ubiquitous currency on the planet. However, go visit a country like Japan. Once you're out of reach of any currency exchange, you won't have much luck using your USD. Ironically, you'll have better luck using a Visa/Mastercard (which, btw, are not used anywhere other than perhaps ATMs). Those credit cards require a network to be used.

I've been to Internet cafes in Japan. But I never bought a single thing with USD. I don't see Bitcoin having any issues here. Internet is more widely available than places that take whatever your paper currency is.

You can easily take Bitcoin with you. You take your credit card with you. Both require electronic communication to work. There is no difference here.

<comment><USER12> Once your out of the reach of any currency exchange, you won't be able to use Bitcoin either, what's your point?

The difference is, all national currencies have an offline only form which is good anywhere within that nation. Bitcoin does not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From the Google translation of the original source:

"However, Bitcoin transaction as a commodity trading behavior on the Internet, ordinary people have the freedom to participate in the premise own risk."

The new bitcoin policy here isn't that much more conservative than the USA's bitcoin policy, and Beijing just legalized bitcoin for ordinary citizen gamblers, speculators, savers, and options traders! This is a good sign for bitcoin, and the market is reacting negatively anyways, probably encouraged by whales selling off trying to hit stop loss orders.

As the Chinese social-mediasphere dissects this announcement over the next day, the price should recover. Great buying opportunity right now for the short term, even if you're not long on bitcoin.

<comment><USER15> I don't see how it's a "good sign for Bitcoin". Until now people thought Bitcoin is going to explode in China, but now China put some serious restrictions on it. Why would that be a good sign?

Also, what happens if exchanges won't be allowed to have a bank account with the banks either? That's always been one of the biggest fears regarding Bitcoin - that if the governments decided to go after Bitcoin, that may not kill Bitcoin, but it would seriously slow down its growth and liquidity if they made it illegal for exchange companies to exchange Bitcoin.

<comment><USER16> The restrictions appear to be placed on banks and other financial institutions creating any bitcoin related instruments (ETFs, etc.) or dealing directly with bitcoin (eg. exchange RMB for BTC or the reverse). Also, it would essentially prevent a bank using it's reserve for a bitcoin investment.

Exchanges can still operate as exchanges and can continue to have bank accounts as long as said banks do not deal themselves in bitcoins.

Individuals and businesses are free to use bitcoin. This is actually very good news. The government was silent all this while and though they haven't said "Bitcoin is the new reserve currency", the Chinese stance is essentially the exact same stance that the US Senate took last month. I'm sure US banks also cannot deal with something that isn't a 'valid currency'.

This is a much better translation of the bitcoin notice: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_tra...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_translation_of_the_china_regulation/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _" Bitcoin prices plunged after the PBOC announcement."_

Where? It's still trading over $1000 on every exchange I follow. This announcement seems to have almost no perceptible effect on the price of Bitcoin.

This is an interestingly biased article, actually. It quotes Alan Greenspan, whose history as a stubborn gold bug (in his Ayn Rand worshiping days) and whose pretty awful performance at the Federal Reserve make his opinion on this matter somewhat expected and mostly moot.

I'm willing to believe Bitcoin is overvalued for its current utility. Maybe. But, this article exhibits such a lack of understanding of what it is that I find it hard to take them seriously when they discuss what it might be worth or how this policy in China will effect it.

<comment><USER18> > Where? It's still trading over $1000 on every exchange I follow. This > announcement seems to have almost no perceptible effect on the price of > Bitcoin.

Well, the prices did drop about $200 on MtGox after the news. It's debatable whether this qualifies as 'plunged'.

<comment><USER19> in any other situation a 20% drop in value would be considered a "plunge" I think

<comment><USER20> The thing is this is relatively "normal" volatility for Bitcoin. It bounced up 80-90 points again briefly at my broker a short while ago. Back down. Up 50 or so points again since then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well, this was predictable. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818821](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818821)

Edit: Having read the (Google translation of the) PBOC's Notice, it looks like concern over money laundering contributed to the decision to issue this notice. There's a fairly comprehensive ban on financial institutions doing any kind of Bitcoin-denominated business. It also appears that Bitcoin exchanges must register with the telecommunications regulatory agencies and comply with anti-money laundering provisions (i.e. similar to the approach FinCEN took in the US).

<comment><USER22> Predictable?

> the price would plunge.

9 hours later... the prices have stabilized after dropping $100. We can add that to the hundredth time people have predicted the death of Bitcoin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The PBOC notice (in Chinese):

[http://www.pbc.gov.cn/publish/goutongjiaoliu/524/2013/201312...](http://www.pbc.gov.cn/publish/goutongjiaoliu/524/2013/20131205153156832222251/20131205153156832222251_.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> So, in short, they are still allowed to trade with it and use it, as long as they are 'okay' with the 'risk'. It's only financial institutions that can't work with Bitcoin anymore? Is this right?

<comment><USER25> Yes. I read the full text and it said that websites are people can have and trade bitoins at their own risk. Financial institutions cannot join this market due to the non-currency property.

<comment><USER26> I doubt any financial institutions were using it to begin with so this is a non issue for the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Difficult to understand at this point what this decision really means. Are bitcoins still able to be traded as a commodity but not currency?

What does "The public is free to participate in Internet transactions provided they take on the risk themselves, it said" even mean?

Are they saying people deciding to exchange goods and services for bitcoin is ok, but not exchanging it directly into currency?

If anyone has actual insight or knowledge here it would be greatly appreciated.

<comment><USER28> it might mean that currently operating exchanges need licenses, need to confirm IDs, or even get shut down. Shrug. Wild West.

<comment><USER29> I read it as the opposite, that trading websites effectively cannot be licensed.

This keeps the inherent risk with the buyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> BTCChina reaction: [http://i.imgur.com/cNuESY7.png](http://i.imgur.com/cNuESY7.png)

<comment><USER31> So it went down from 6979 to 6200.01 quite quickly. That's about 11%, not the utter plummet that ignoring the scale on your picture would suggest.

<comment><USER32> If an actual currency was devauled 11% from a news article...

<comment><USER33> What do you think would happen to the XAU/CNY rate if China announced that gold was no longer accepted in banks?

<comment><USER32> ... which is why they wouldn't do that, because it would be catastrophic.

<comment><USER33> so in other words, XBT behaved exactly as you expected XAU would in the same situation, yet somehow to you that reflects badly on XBT but not on XAU.

<comment><USER32> No my point is that the Chinese government can control things so that this never happens. BTC cannot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> My read of this is that businesses are not allowed to price their goods in bitcoin which is a huge hit; beyond this nothing seems terribly surprising.

> "Notice" requirement, at this stage, financial institutions and payment > institutions are not allowed to Bitcoin price for the product or service,

edit: from: [http://www.pbc.gov.cn/publish/goutongjiaoliu/524/2013/201312...](http://www.pbc.gov.cn/publish/goutongjiaoliu/524/2013/20131205153156832222251/20131205153156832222251_.html)

<comment><USER16> I'm confused about what constitutes a payment institution. Does this mean that credit card processors cannot price in bitcoin ? Or does this mean that Starbucks cannot price in bitcoin ?

There seems to be a distinction between a business and a payment institution. Or maybe what's said here is that a bitcoin transaction is like a 'coupon code' and not governed under the same rules that paying with money would be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I read the full text. They said that "Bitcoin is not currency. It is a tradable virtual good. You can buy and sell it, but financial institutions cannot work with BTC."

</comment><comment><USER35> Here is a human-made translation of the actual notice: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_tra...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_translation_of_the_china_regulation/)

Seems far less dramatic than would justify the price correction we are seeing...

</comment><comment><USER36> I personally think this is bad news for Bitcoin as it limits it to a speculator tool. With price growing constantly, it's not a good tool for e-commerce either - price in BTC needs to have 20-30%, plus, who'd spend their BTC and not their fiat if fiat stays the same and BTC keeps growing? I think BTC will drop under $1,000 and will stay there for a bit until some "real" positive news come in. Currently at the moment there's a pump-and-dump process going on as not everybody was able to sell yesterday. I'd say, ether buy below $900 or above $1,300 as for days BTC was trying to break $1,200 without success. I don't think there's positive enough news for it to break it today or tomorrow. Volumes of trading dropped significantly above the $1,100 levels, so, that's a good sign of Bitcoin running out of steam.

</comment><comment><USER37> Its a good thing more and more states acknowledge the existence of BTC and its clones.

Its not some spooky internet stuff its on the radar of the biggest financial regulators on this planet. Not bad for something created 2009 and only really took off 1-2 years ago.

But BTC is still in its infancy.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Don't think strict currency activity was affected by this, but one of the main reasons this is important is that it's really really difficult to convert large amounts of RMB into any other currency. BTC provides an alternative to going through the banking system which I suspect drives some of its popularity in China. A lot of light is made about the problems BTC poses for the dollar - it's much more of a threat to anywhere that currency is controlled, because it's a straight bypass. The volatility is obviously a stumbling block but when you have no other alternative, it's pretty attractive.

</comment><comment><USER38> Am I wrong to read the Chinese comments as essentially "We can't manipulate, control, or interfere with Bitcoin, therefore it is bad?"

That sounds like basically the entire argument in favor of BTC to me.

</comment><comment><USER39> There's a lot of money sitting on the sidelines waiting for an entry point. The question is how low will the price go before it all starts piling in.

<comment><USER40> Also a lot of people who think its too high and were waiting for a sign it was time to take their profits and get out.

<comment><USER39> Well, either way, the next few hours should be interesting as the east coast wakes up and sees the headlines. Will they panic sell and push the price down further? Or will they notice that selloff at BTC-China exchange is over and see it as buying signal?

<comment><USER41> I tried logged into coinbase to sell my bitcoins after hearing the news and seeing the price dropping on btcchina. While I was doing this, coinbase's security sms messager took forever to come in, and because I sent in a request too many times coinbase blocked me out and said to try logging in again in 24 hours...

oh well, the price for the most part is recovered after the bump (here and in China) -- so I'm luck in some sense, BUT ... It's nice to know that if I ever needed to sell my btc in a jiffy coinbase will try to screw me...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It's boring to see all these "news" and some trying to manipulate the mass' sentiment. Cba really.

</comment><comment><USER43> Down to 860 on coinbase.

<comment><USER44> Back beyond 1000 now

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Bitcoin threatens the dollar system. China bought a lot of US debt in dollar. China has to keep dollar strong to get its money back, anything that could affect US Dollar is a no-no to China.

does this simple logic make sense...

</comment><comment><USER46> The beginning of a great sell off?)

<comment><USER47> Or the beginning of another soar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> And the Bitcoin drops...

But will rise again :)</comment>


A breakthrough in molding materials at the nanoscale - <AUTHOR> https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news2/newsid=54422.php <comment><USER2> [https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology- news2/newsid=54422.p...](https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology- news2/newsid=54422.php)

Please make this a URL submission of you only post the link anyway</comment>


HEAT2X Engine closeup at 240fps - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4n-2MtECE Link from:
http://copsub.com/autopsy-of-heat-2x-and-tm65le/
Had to edit the title a wee bit. <comment><AUTHOR> Link from:

[http://copsub.com/autopsy-of-heat-2x-and-tm65le/](http://copsub.com/autopsy- of-heat-2x-and-tm65le/)

Had to edit the title a wee bit.

</comment><comment><USER2> It's quite beautiful when the camera finally falls

</comment><comment><USER3> The erratic flame plume tells me there's probably something wrong with the internal pressure regulation.</comment>


GPU-Accelerated Video Playback with NetBSD on the Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> http://www.cambus.net/gpu-accelerated-video-playback-with-netbsd-on-the-raspberry-pi/

<comment><USER2> "I'm ... passionate about text-mode in general."

<comment><USER3> Have you read the article he links to? [http://www.cambus.net/textmode](http://www.cambus.net/textmode)

He's an artist and his medium is ASCII, ANSI or Teletext. I think that's fascinating.

<comment><USER2> Yes I have read it. I too am passionate about text mode, hence the quote. Is that not what you assumed?</comment></comment></comment>


Search plus your world? What's so bad about that? - <AUTHOR> http://thewhatnoise.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-plus-your-world-whats-so-bad.html <comment><USER2> Nothing's wrong with it but the imaginary non issues invented by a bunch of bloggers pretending to be lawyers.

<comment><AUTHOR> More heat than light in the blogosphere - there's a surprise.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Go Leaderboard – A library written in Go using Redis - <AUTHOR> http://dayvson.github.io/go-leaderboard/

<comment><USER2> Would be great if there's a screenshot or demo somewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a library not an application.

But that is a good idea, I'll implement something using Revel.</comment></comment>


Gamer Janken, or How to Pick a First Player - <AUTHOR> https://www.dampfkraft.com/games/gamer-janken.html <comment><USER2> Between my friends and I, we take a very different approach to this. It's still centered on Rock, Paper, Scissors. To us, however, it's a game in its own right.

Instead of trying to optimize the speed with which you figure out who goes first, it's a pre-game with its own rules.

You get knocked out if you lost to both of the individuals on your left and right. If you beat one and one beats you, you stay in for the next round.

For instance, if I throw ROCK and the two people to my side throw PAPER I'm out. The remaining players play another round (until you get down to two people, obviously).

If I throw ROCK and one to my left throws PAPER but the one to the right throws SCISSORS, I'm still in it for the next round.

Even with 6 or 8 people it still takes less than a minute, and the fact that you can so several rounds without getting knocked out builds up a kind of tension, along with the moment after a round where everyone around the table is looking around to evaluate _who_ got knocked out.

I highly recommend you try it. Its pretty fun and really sets a light mood going into whatever game you're _actually_ going to play.

</comment><comment><USER3> I really like the fact that this technique is very fast and doesn't use any external technology (dice) or information.

However, I also have to plug this Android app our gaming group has been using for the last few years. It has one simple job, and does it very well.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tendadigit...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tendadigital.chwaziApp&hl=en_US)

<comment><USER4> I finally downloaded this app at the last session of the board game club before lockdowns started happening. At this rate, I don't know if anyone will want to touch someone else's phone even after things go back to normal...

<comment><USER5> I guess that anyone who's afraid of the phone, will have the same feelings towards meeples, cards, dice and table not to mention spending hour(s) in close proximity to other players. So, probably won't even attend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the original rules for Pandemic, the player who was ill most recently went first.

In Ticket to Ride, i remember it as being the person who was most recently on a train, but on looking it up, it seems it was the player who had travelled the furthest to get to the game (either way, always me, as i used to play with friends who lived across town, at their place!).

So i tend to pick something relevant to the theme of the game, and pick the player who did that most recently. If nobody has done that thing, fall back to weaker versions of it.

Gardens of Alhambra? The player who most recently did some gardening. Fall back to watering a pot plant.

Hanabi? The player who most recently saw some fireworks. Fall back to anything that was on fire.

King of Tokyo? The player who most recently destroyed a skyscraper. Fall back to doing some DIY which involved knocking a wall down, then to breaking a cupboard door.

Settlers of Catan? The player who most recently really annoyed one of their friends.

<comment><USER7> I suspect that these rules are often rough proxies for player age, which is in turn a rough proxy for player experience. The polarity of the test is aligned with whether first player has advantage or disadvantage in that particular game, to give the less-experienced player the advantage. (Just a theory! No hard evidence beside observed correlation with player order rules for subsequent rounds in some games.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If there's a person who won't be playing (let's call them _moderator_ ) then you can instead have everyone play rock-paper-scissors against them at the same time. It works pretty well for large crowds. Everyone draws at the same time and if you don't beat the moderator's hand then you sit down. And then you just keep going until there's only one non-moderator left standing.

</comment><comment><USER9> Normally we just roll dice, highest wins. Even with 2x the possible options per player compared to janken, there's still some rolloffs.

I'm wondering though if you can do better with an even-odd variant; each person is assigned a number 1-n, and players secretly pick and simultaneously reveal a number 1-n. The winner is the person whos number is sum(player picks) mod n.

</comment><comment><USER7> Another method which is applicable to certain 2-player games, which I find interesting, is "I-cut-you-choose" [1]. An arbitrary player (or the more experienced) sets up the initial board positions or takes the first move ("cut"). The other player then chooses whether to go first or second ("choose"). This encourages the "cutter" to set up a fair initial position.

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

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a game of its own, right? I remember playing it as a child as "out/in" or hands face up / face down. Like as a very little child.

</comment><comment><USER11> I like horsengoggle. On the count of 3 everyone holds out a number of fingers. A pre-decided caller counts that many around the circle of players.

<comment><USER12> Right, and that's 100% fair as long as you have 10 or fewer players. It becomes biased in groups of more than 10.

<comment><USER13> Actually, assuming "a number of fingers" is in the range 1..10, thats only fair for 2, 5, or 10 players (or maybe some >10) (if it's 0..10, I think it only works for exactly 11 players).

In the case of 3 players you get random numbers (reduced modulo 3): 1,4,7,10 => 1 40% of the time; 2,5,8 => 2 30%; 3,6,9 => 3 30%

Two random numbers produce: 1 @ 33%; 2 @ 30%; 3 @ 37%

And after adding the third number you get: 1 @ 30.9%; 2 @ 34.9%; 3 @ 34.2%

(These percentages are all exact BTW.)

So this is biased against player 1 (which is not actually the way I was expecting it to go). And if you want to cheat, you should assume the other players will add up to 3, and pick a number accordingly.

I assume 4,6,7,8,9 out of ten and anything out of 11 work similarly, but I haven't checked the numbers.

If "a number of fingers" is 1..N (or 0..^N) then it's unbiased, but just doesn't work at all for >10 (or >11 respectively).

<comment><USER14> I'd never considered it in this light, but drawing straws really does have some pleasant properties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Except it's not actually fair, which some people may not like.</comment>


There's a Gene for That - <AUTHOR> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/theres-a-gene-for-that/ <comment><USER2> The trouble with this article is that it goes around mixing its scientific arguments (it's not necessarily possible to extract particular genes which cause particular phenotypic effects even though it's very easy to find ones which are correlated with them) with political ones (this idea is wrong because it implies political consequences I don't like), which as we all know is like mixing ice cream with dog shit.</comment>


Colossus 237: Apollo 8 Flight Software - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/virtualagc/virtualagc/tree/master/Colossus237 <comment><USER2> Was shocked to see so many issues!

(The issues are for the virtualagc simulator, and include such wonders as correctly emulating processor loads so that you too can have program alarms flash up when you're trying not to crash into the moon)

Also, if you liked type-in programming in the 1980s... :D

<comment><USER2> [http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ScansForConversion/Colossus237...](http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ScansForConversion/Colossus237/1359-P1050981.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Serious question: how can we go about making archaic programming languages and dialects of assembly more accessible?

There are all these cool, historically significant programs that are open- sourcing: DOS, this, etc. Is there any way to expose the general program structure and algorithms so that they're easier to analyze without learning the specific language they're written in?

<comment><USER4> "Is there any way to expose the general program structure and algorithms so that they're easier to analyze without learning the specific language they're written in?"

No. They are full of crazy shit. Like loading an instruction to a CPU register, and then executing and modifying that register (to speed up IO- operation perhaps?).

<comment><USER5> Long shot, but any sources which accounts the "crazy shit" engineers used to do back then?

<comment><USER4> Well the Apollo Guidance Computer for example had "magic numbers" aka memory addresses where CPU registers were visible. Probably easy task to find jumps to those addresses, if any.

Anyways they would have been much faster to execute than "rope memory", good for IO-intense operations like Moon Landings.

<comment><USER6> _" magic numbers" aka memory addresses where CPU registers were visible_

Anyone who has done some amount of programming with microcontrollers like the 8051 or the Microchip PIC will not find such things unusual; when everything is integrated into one unit, the difference between a register and a memory location decreases.

Of course, if all you've ever known of are the bland RISCs they love to teach in CS courses, then all this is very weird and foreign to you... but it's just a natural consequence of how the hardware was designed.

As such, I do recommend glancing around the documentation for actual computers, from 4-bit microcontrollers to 50s and 60s mainframes, to familiarise yourself with the overwhelming diversity of existent computing devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's a pretty advanced assembler for the day. Float constants and all.</comment>


Rural Indiana man accused of making 14-year old boys into "cam slaves" - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/sextortion-rural-indiana-man-accused-of-making-14-year-old-boys-into-cam-slaves.ars <comment><USER2> The kid should have sent 4chan after him.</comment>


Mayday Pac now taking Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://mayday.us/bitcoin/

<comment><USER2> I believe that (pseudo)anonymous contributions should not be allowed for political and public interest purposes. In this case, Mayday PAC collects full PII, but do they validate?</comment>


Qaeda Plot Leak Has Undermined U.S. Intelligence - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/qaeda-plot-leak-has-undermined-us-intelligence.html

<comment><USER2> _" In recent months, senior administration officials — including the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr. — have drawn attention to the damage that Mr. Snowden's revelations have done, though most have been addressing the impact on national security more broadly, not just the effect on counterterrorism. "_

Is it just me, or do they just not get that if they hadn't been walking way outside their charter in building a surveillance state that Snowden wouldn't have leaked the information he did? Can nobody see the cause and effect here? None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure _from their own employees_ if they had not gone down this path? Ok, enough ranting.

<comment><USER3> _Can nobody see the cause and effect here?_

Danger! Danger! Narrative fallacy ahead!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_fallacy#The_narrative_fallacy)

 _None of their infrastructure would be getting forced exposure from their own employees if they had not gone down this path?_

Careful! Note that Snowden was not an analyst. He didn't actually have access to the programs he has leaked information on. They weren't part of his job. (Similarly with Manning, as it happens.) The people that have first-hand knowledge, and those that are actually involved in the work, _aren 't_ the ones leaking.

<comment><USER2> I realize he wasn't an analyst. But his motivation for leaking the information that he did, was (granted according to his own testimony) because the agency was violating the civil rights of people it was supposed to be protecting.

I have watched large organizations attempt to re-cast the narrative about a series of events as being 'caused' by a rogue employee, without acknowledging the motivations of that employee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there any way to be sure that "al quaeda" is anything more than an imaginary bogey-man trumped up by the State department as a pretext for wars?

I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?

<comment><USER5> What's your alternative explanation for the carefully-planned world-wide bombing etc attempts? Grassroots?

Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there _isn 't_ an underground organization here.

<comment><USER4> How about, various groups acting independently for their own various reasons, and some of them sometimes claiming the name, and others having it attributed to them?

<comment><USER6> So basically they're as real or unreal as Anonymous.

<comment><USER7> That is exactly what I suspect is going on.

Feel like hacking something? Do it, then call yourself "Anonymous" to make sure you get attention for it. Have a new 'hacker group' and want something to give yourselves some credibility? Call yourself "Anonymous". Got hacked and need somebody to blame? Blame it on "Anonymous", who can prove it wasn't? Caught some 'hacker group' and want to make yourself seem impressive? Say you caught the head of "Anonymous".

Basically everyone involved loves the idea of there being an "Anonymous" because that concept is so useful to everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't buy this. Why wouldn't people who know that the entire US "Intelligence Community" is focused on them do things like:

(A) Get underlings to regularly generate traffic on all comm channels, so as to prevent traffic analysis.

(B) Rotate accounts, computers, phones and underlying technology to keep the US on its toes?

(C) Randomly (dice, cards, yarrow stalks whatever is theologically permissible) quit using a channel. Occasionally claim the channel is compromised while you're at it.

(D) Act as if all channels are compromised, and poke fun at the wiretappers with "sigs" that thank the NSA for doing what 9/11 airplanes could not do on their own: take away liberties.

<comment><USER9> Security is hard and (to most people) boring. Do you really doubt that Snowden's leaks prompted internal discussions about securing communications channels? After all, they prompted the exact same discussions right here on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I hurt my head trying to figure out the subtext for why this story was told by "senior intelligence officials" to the NYT at this moment. Is it trying to change the story line from Snowden to something else?

<comment><USER11> My reading of it was that "Senior intelligence officials" could mean anyone that actually agreed with Snowden but didn't have the balls or opportunity to go through with what he did. Now they're taking the opportunity to twist the knife so maybe real change will come about. In other words, it's possible that not everyone in the NSA/government thinks what the NSA is doing is good, and will take the opportunity to point out its ineptness. I doubt Snowden was the only person in the NSA who didn't like what he was seeing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> At the time this story was in the news in August I thought it was most likely leaked on purpose by the government in an attempt to shine the image of the NSA.

Now My thoughts are 1) I hope I was wrong and 2) karma's a bitch.

</comment><comment><USER13> _Since then, each issue of Inspire has offered a how-to section on encrypting communications, recommending MS2 as the main encryption tool._

Awesome, Inspire has a 2600 how-to section.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone know which particular platform these guys were using that was intercepted?

</comment><comment><USER15> it's interesting they use there own custom encryption. Can't help but wonder how they compare to gpg, otr etc.

</comment><comment><USER16> > the damage that Mr. Snowden's revelations have done

This is of course all Snowden's fault.</comment>


Ask HN: How to do payments between users on my site? - <AUTHOR>

I'm building a site where users will be paying each other, with the site taking a cut out of each transaction. I'm having some trouble deciding on how to handle payment processing and could use some advice. I think there are really two ways to handle these payments.
1) I could accept payment into my own account and credit the users on my own system. I can then pay them when they request a withdrawal.
2) I could split each transaction into two parts, with my cut going into my account and the rest going directly to the user.
The first way seems the most reasonable and seems to be the way most sites do this, but I am scared of essentially storing other people's money in my account (especially after reading stories of Paypal accounts being frozen). I am also unclear about the legal issues of doing either method.
Any tips on how to proceed? Any payment processor recommendations? I am a poor college student, so cost of setup is a major issue for me. Thanks!
Edit: the site is a marketplace, not some type of money-transferring service <comment><USER2> The business model that you explained is a true peer to peer payment system. As you know, it's essentially what Paypal is to ebay. It's presents perhaps the highest form of risk in the payments industry. This is especially true with new businesses because there is no track record and typically very little financial stability or backing. There is a graveyard in the payments industry dedicated to peer-to-peer payment startups, including some extremely well funded and connected companies, which is why it's so hard to find any payment provider willing to accept the risk. A lot of money has chased this for a long time now. Last time I checked, even Paypal won't allow provide payment services to other peer-to-peer providers, because, as they've stated, the "excessive risk". To date we've (Braintree) not approved any true peer to peer payment method as you described above, but we do process for a lot of merchants that use an aggregation model similar to Groupon, whereby the merchant accepts payment on behalf of another merchant. It's a small but significant difference.

In terms of revenue. It's always helpful if a business already has a track record and some external funding for validation as well as some stability. That also clearly presents a catch-22. Some providers are wiling to take substantial risks: new business, peer-to-peer track record and no funding while others are only willing to consider this type of high risk businesses who have an established track record.

I would offer a friendly word of caution. All too often new companies will find a provider to approve this type of business model only to be shut down at the worst possible time. This happens because sometimes the sales rep doesn't properly explain the business model to the underwriters, the underwriters don't understand it, and/or an application gets auto approval because it's new and has low expected volumes. I'm not suggesting that there are not providers that won't approve this type of business, and I'm also not suggesting that everyone approved for this type of payments model will eventually get shut down. What I am suggesting is that we see merchants getting shut down too frequently, so I'd be cautious if I were you.

Best of luck to you.

Aggregation more fully explained: [http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/blog/high-risk- mech...](http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/blog/high-risk-mechant- account-third-party-payments-aggregation) More information about payments and risk: [http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/services/new-to- pay...](http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/services/new-to-payments)

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazon Payments was created for this use case. I would suggest thinking _long and hard_ about doing this as a poor college student, though: this business model will complicate everything you do, and for a first business you have plenty of things to worry about without the extra complications.

<comment><USER4> Strong second.

You would have a very difficult time establishing a proper merchant account as the fraud risks are incredibly high. While many might be willing to discuss it, it is unlikely that the account would be approved by the processor's sponsoring bank in the underwriting phase.

Amazon's FPS service, while far from ideal in that it requires all parties have Amazon accounts, and requires the transaction occur off-site in Amazon's payflow, is very well-suited to this use case. It's the only quick, affordable, easy to integrate service I can think of that allows for a merchant to broker transactions between two parties (while skimming a percentage).

If you push forward with this, I'd definitely recommend launching with FPS rather than plunking down a large personal guarantee with Authorize.net or Braintree.

Good luck!

<comment><USER5> I attempted something similar in the past.

Quick summary of my experience:

1\. Billing credit cards is easy, _paying_ people through an API using direct deposit is pretty hard to find

2\. Lots of companies won't know what you're talking about. The ones who do will say you are an "aggregator" and high risk.

3\. BrainTree payment solution is a possible exception to this. They "get it" but they also have rejected everyone I know who has applied. They rejected my app also. You need a mil in sales and a track record.

4\. I finally stumbled upon AchDirect.com. They are a two-bit no-name processor in Texas, but they approved my app, and give you an API to do direct deposit. Their customer service was incompetent, documentation was sub-bar, and generally didn't seem like they knew what they were doing. But i _did_ finally get the thing to work.

I had to write a custom ActiveMerchant plugin for AchDirect (if you want the code get in touch with me).

I think WePay is using AchDirect too (not sure).

Anyway, Amazon FPS is much simpler. But your customers experience is much worse. It confuses people because they don't think of Amazon like they do Paypal. And (at least when I tested it) there were too many screens to go through to complete a simple transaction.

Anyway, that was my experience.

<comment><USER2> I'm unsure of the specifics of your business, but we (Braintree) posted above about risk assessment generally. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1494102>

<comment><USER5> Cool to see BrainTree participating here. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> PayPal Adaptive Payments is pretty solid.

<comment><USER7> We used this when building <http://www.jigsawbox.com> and it does work pretty well. The documentation is shockingly bad, however. Really terrible.

<comment><USER6> agreed about the documentation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem with the model (1) and one of the reasons its hard to find someone willing to take the risks with it is that it allows for a not that difficult to pull off money scam. essentially you sell to yourself and then you chargeback on the original payment once you received the money on the seller's side. The "easy" solution to this problem is to have a very high fee on transactions so that the average loss on chargebacks will be less then the total fees, or holding seller's money for 3 to 6 months to make sure there wont be chargeback on it. The harder much better way to solve it it so have better fraud detection and prevention, and not everyone can pull this off. you certainly can't on your own, you need someone else doing the heavy lifting.

</comment><comment><USER9> A lot of companies follow model 1. Eg. Google Adsense, oDesk, Elance, etc. and anybody who has a affiliate program.

Also in the long run you'll have to support more than few modes of withdrawal: checks, payoneer, moneybookers etc. PayPal is still very popular and your users will eventually demand it. If you have international users then it adds another layer of complexity.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is the main focus of your site transferring money between users? If not, why not just use paypal or some other 3rd party service? If it is, you are opening a whole can of worms with regards to the legality of your service. You should consult a lawyer about it, but I'm guessing you won't be able to come up with a cheap solution to the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a marketplace, not a money-transferring service or anything like that. Thanks for reminding me to clarify that.

Paypal is definitely very easy to set up, but I keep hearing stories of accounts getting frozen. If I do opt to use it to hold the earnings of sellers, and that account got frozen, it could be disastrous. The second way would be far less risky because it would just be the site's cut frozen, but splitting up payments doesn't seem to flow well with Paypal (maybe I'm wrong about this?).

<comment><USER11> Having your PayPal account frozen is only a problem if you don't move your money OUT of PayPal after you receive it. If you regularly transfer money into your company checking account, then you won't have any real problems. In the worst case if PayPal freezes your account then you can still mail people checks. Keeping your money in PayPal is kind of dumb anyways, since it doesn't earn interest. I've been using PayPal for two years without any problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> check out new paypal APIs - adptive payments and another one that allows managing accounts. more info @ www.x.com</comment>


Ask HN: Compensation+retention package for engineers of acquihired company - <AUTHOR>

The company I work for could get acquihired soon. What are the typical dollar amounts of retention+compensation packages for top engineers ? <comment><USER2> We all took title bumps and the company gave us all a +20% raise. At acquisition we each asked for +20% raise & some stock. Retention varied from 12 - 24 months for vesting period.

So, back then (2000) I went from 64k to 76 to 92 in a few months. But then everyone went out of business ;)</comment>


Aphrodisiacs? Search This Medieval Islamic Encyclopedia - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/books/review/shihab-al-din-al-nuwayri-ultimate-ambition-in-the-arts-of-erudition.html <comment><USER2> > In whittling down al-Nuwayri's opus, his selections skew to the crowd- > pleasing. Large chunks of history (which made up the bulk of the original > text) and scribal etiquette are jettisoned, while the heart of the > translation consists of marvelous chapters on wildlife ("mute beasts"), > botany and "sexual medicines."

I'm a little disappointed by this. I understand the need to abridge it, but to skew towards the "crowd-pleasing" is a bit much. Maybe it's just me but I'd have rather had things more proportionally represented (ie have some more history!). From the sound of it, every part of this has its own wonder, and I'd rather the translation reflect that.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have an idea that any sufficiently large volume of general knowledge, will contain supposed aphrodisiacs. The corollary is that any mysticism around food or drinks will conclude that virtually everything is an aphrodisiac.

<comment><USER4> the first statement is obvious, isn't it? replace the aphrodisiacs with anything, like 'hammer', it still holds.

the second one is interesting, but I didn't quite get how this can be deduced from the first statement.

<comment><USER3> Considering that aphrodisiacs don't exist, and hammers have for thousands of years, I see a small difference.

<comment><USER5> > Considering that aphrodisiacs don't exist

What do you mean? You're denying the existence of a) libido, b) drugs, or c) the effect of drugs on libido. Could you elaborate? None of the above statements strikes me as true.

<comment><USER3> C... obviously, since neither A nor B fit the definition of "Aphrodisiacs". There are no drugs that I'm aware of which increase sexual desire, can you name some?

<comment><USER6> Anecdotally, I've noticed a consistent marked increase in my sexual desire from eating certain things. Cayenne pepper, ginger root, garlic, and in particular tongkat ali. I naturally have a very high sex drive so perhaps I'm more susceptible than most.

<comment><USER6> It appears there are indeed drugs that have libido enhancing qualities. These include bremelanotide, and phenethylamines

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

<comment><USER3> First was discontinued in safety trials, and phenethylamines require an MAOI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The original is open source (in Arabic) [https://archive.org/details/waq66201](https://archive.org/details/waq66201)</comment>


Should I seek a co-founder before or after building a prototype for my startup? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Startups/Should-I-seek-a-co-founder-before-or-after-building-a-prototype-for-my-startup

<comment><USER2> Business people ruin the world. They shouldn't.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand the link of the HN title to the article at all. It's pointing to a quora post about "Should I seek a cofounder before building a prototype?".

Never mind: I see it's fixed now. The title was "Hackers rule the world. They shouldn't".

<comment><AUTHOR> I was just quoting the lead answer (by Chris McCoy) "Again, hackers currently rule the world. In reality, really good product and business focused people should."</comment></comment>


Are You Happy Now? Oxford Dictionaries' Word of the Year Is a Damn Emoji - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/16/are-you-happy-now-oxford-dictionaries-word-of-the-year-is-a-damn-emoji/ <comment><USER2> Ugggh. That's as bad (worse) as when 'literally' was redefined to mean 'figuratively'

</comment><comment><USER3> another installment in the yearly attempt by OED to remain relevant.</comment>


Sherry Turkle's 'Reclaiming Conversation' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/books/review/jonathan-franzen-reviews-sherry-turkle-reclaiming-conversation.html <comment><USER2> > Matthew Crawford, in "The World Beyond Your Head," contrasts the world of a > "peon" airport lounge — saturated in advertising, filled with mesmerizing > screens — with the quiet, ad-free world of a business lounge: "To engage in > playful, inventive thinking, and possibly create wealth for oneself during > those idle hours spent at an airport, requires silence. But other people's > minds, over in the peon lounge (or at the bus stop), can be treated as a > resource — a standing reserve of purchasing power."

This is a perfect example of the problem with advertising. It's not that people don't want to know about products, it's that people need to be able to learn about products on their own terms. When you're constantly shoving products in people's faces, you're detracting from all kinds of other pursuits. Advertising is possibly the greatest sink of time and energy in our generation. And what's worse it that the people who are perpetrating this crime on us _know_ that it's a waste of time and energy, which is why they avoid it in their airport lounges.

<comment><USER3> I just had 4 flights over 2 days, and noticed something odd. I've noticed it before, but it really bugged me these trips. Someone reads off 'friendly' announcements trying to get us to sign up for credit card offers - get free skymiles, free bag checks, etc. Sign up today! The sales pitch went on for almost _4 minutes_ on one flight. It was a 30 minute flight, so > 10% of the flight was advertising. What bugged me most was that this was, AFAICT, the _CAPTAIN_ \- the person flying the plane - pitching credit cards WHILE WE ARE FLYING. I have to take my shoes and belt off (sometimes), can't bring liquids in, have to turn off electronic devices - all for purported safety reasons - but someone who is FLYING A PLANE can take several minutes to pitch a credit card. It's sickening. I do think that the first class passengers aren't excluded from these pitches tho - they're going to hear some of it anyway, regardless of where you sit.

I'd really like an airline which didn't constantly pitch stuff at me while I'm flying. I guess it's called "buy your own plane and fly yourself"...

<comment><USER4> Once the plane is in the air a lot of the controls are automated. Also, even if it was the captain of the flight, they have a co-pilot.

Still annoying, I vaguely recall something similar on my last Delta flights, but I'm pretty sure those were by the flight crew and a follow-up to the safety briefing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not bad, getting famed novelist Jonathan Franzen to write your book review! Sherry does noble work and it deserves wide recognition and readership.

I can't say I am hopeful, but I do _hope_ that society's current preoccupation with mobile devices will start to get old, and after a few years people will begin to realize how negatively they're affecting everyday life and interpersonal interactions. Perhaps it will become "cool" to not have a device, or, it will be societally uncool to use it during meals or at restaurants, like cigarettes have become. I kind of hope that the smartphone market splits soon into two camps, one the same old machines that Apple/Samsung etc pump out, and another camp of slightly less smart, less feature-rich phones, fewer apps, designed to be used occasionally not every damn second of the day... phones that are more about infrequent checks on status and more about making calls and occasional text conversations. Devices that start giving your life back to you. I know, dream on. But as the smartphone owner population gets demographically older, I suspect you will start seeing something like this happen.

It would be interesting to design a user interface that was easy to use, but was designed in such a way to dissuade you from constant use. Perhaps it might reward you the less you used it.

<comment><USER6> I doubt it will happen, if human beings were such rational creatures, we would have all quit watching TV and playing video games (I have, but I'm sure I'm the minority, and I think the ratio of people who end up using those vintage phones you mention will be much lower than those who don't watch TV, because of network effect). I have seen plenty of super addictive technologies die off if the value it provides is pure entertainment, but I have never seen any technology that provides clear benefit go away just because it has side effects--people who realize the side effect and want to do something about it will find a way to discipline themselves, but most people are not disciplined enough to be able to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Unlike [...] Evgeny Morozov, whose perspective is Belarussian, Turkle is a > trusted and respected insider.

Forget Turkle, what on earth is the Belrusian perspective?

<comment><USER8> Belarus is the county Morozov apparently comes from.</comment></comment>


How can I customize my bash profile to look like the one on Heroku's homepage? - <AUTHOR> On: https://www.heroku.com/<p>Below the title "Work with the language you already love" is a video of a command-line with some stellar customizations. Is this available for download somewhere? <comment><USER2> That isn't bash, it's zsh.

Specifically, it's oh-my-zsh with the "wild-cherry" theme.

See [https://github.com/mashaal/wild-cherry](https://github.com/mashaal/wild- cherry)

(I found this by guessing it looked oh-my-zsh like, and Googling "oh my zsh emoji")</comment>


For Entrepreneurs 1 Year of Runway Helps (If You Can Get It) - <AUTHOR> http://www.charleshudson.net/for-entrepreneuers-why-1-year-of-runway-helps-if-you-have-it?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CharlesHudsonsWeblog+%28Charles+Hudson%27s+Weblog%29

<comment><USER2> The longer the runway, the longer you can go before finding out you don't have wings.

<comment><USER3> I think it's entirely possible for _ideas_ to have / not have wings, or at least the idea / person / market combo, but wings are not something people can absolutely lack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To me, having lots of runway is just common sense.

I've been doing the whole startup thing for a year, and I've already started and abandoned several projects, at various stages. Luckily, I have savings that can keep me going for a lot longer, if I need it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm wondering, how do you strike a balance between having a long runway and not falling into a sense of well-funded sloppiness?

Many suggest that the lack of funds forces a startup to be lean and mean, but I can see how appropriating funds has the obvious benefit of allowing you to estimate and plan your risks better.

<comment><USER6> If its my own hard earned money, I can't fall into the latter category.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Runway aside, you should have already have a direction and an executed prototype already moving you toward that direction before even thinking about corporations.

I don't know where people get this idea that companies come first before good products. Companies are the establishment of two things: Good People and astonishingly great Core Value.

If you're lucky enough to get those two things into the same room then chances are you will grow to a point where creating a corporate entity is a necessity.

Only then can we start to talk about runway.

<comment><USER8> But to build a prototype you _probably_ are going to have co-founders who are going to build said prototype with you.

Someone(s) is going to have to throw in a little seed money if only to pay for hosting of the prototype.

And between you and your co-founders you would be ill-advised to begin building that astonishing core value and creating out-of-pocket expenses without some kind of legal agreement in place of ownership and ownership %ages.

That's usually what a corporate entity and cap table are for.

I've seen former best friends and college roommates sue the fuck out of each other because they didn't do this back when they began building said prototype.

<comment><USER7> > And between you and your co-founders you would be ill-advised to begin > building that astonishing core value and creating out-of-pocket expenses > without some kind of legal agreement in place of ownership and ownership > %ages.

If you have grown to the point where co-founders are bickering about cap- tables, then hopefully at that point you have Good People and solid Core Value -- time to incorporate.

The problem with most 'entrepreneurs' is that they only have an idea (not even direction!) and they are already working on how they should incorporate and setup shop.

Business and money for that matter is only the transient result of core value -- something that we should all be focusing on delivering.

<comment><USER9> In my experience, you're both right. You need the agreements so that the business doesn't get killed by bickering between co-founders, and you need to not spend a whole lot of time on "corporate matters" when you should be building the product.

The advice you hear from "VCs" very often is that the first thing you should do is not just get incorporated, but get a lawyer, an accountant, etc. All of which is premature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think many entrepreneurs think they need the 12 months in runway and thus the _first step_ for their business is to find someone to give them the money. IF you go and raise that money from investors, it will likely take you 6 months (seriously) and then you'll hire enough people that 6 months into your 12 months you'll have to start trying to raise money again.

Building a business and raising money are mutually exclusive things. If you have a big enough team you can do both, but the CEO is going to be distracted or will have to pick one or the other.

I submit that the best way to get a 12 month runway is to shrink your idea and your company to the point where you have 12 months without any outside investment. No investors means no distraction. No spending half your money trying to raise more money.

Before you have product market fit you need to experiment on the cutting edge. Once you have it, then maybe get some money to help grow the thing.</comment>


Why Response Design is a Waste of Time - <AUTHOR> http://simpleprogrammer.com/2013/09/03/responsive-design-waste-time/

<comment><USER2> I disagree strongly with the premiss. HTML and CSS are designed to make this easy. It only gets complicated if you don't quite understand the concepts and hardcode lots of stuff.</comment>