"Apple Is Not Fighting Jailbreaking": Wait, What? - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/story/23748/_quot_Apple_Is_Not_Fighting_Jailbreaking_quot_Wait_What_

<comment><USER2> As Chairman Gruber already replied [ <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/30/holwerda> ] Thom is misrepresenting or at least misinterpreting his statement and its context. In order to say that Apple are "fighting" jailbreaking we'd have to see them taking active steps in preventing it - e.g. putting an e-fuse, like the one in some Motorola Droid phones, in the iPhone or at least have something on the device verify the origin and integrity of iOS images before allowing them to be installed or run. Just because Apple are patching the vulnerabilities used in jailbreaking and have stated that they won't support jailbroken iPhones, I would not say they are fighting it - not enabling or encouraging it, certainly, but not fighting it.

I also want to take exception to Thom's statement that Apple "fought hard to maintain jailbreaking as an illegal activity". It might not have been "[a] figment of our collective imagination", but without a shred of support provided in the post, it might very well have been. And I don't think Apple care too much about its legality. Yes, we love to poke fun of how litigious Apple are, but I can't remember them picking a fight that they don't have a good chance of winning. Certainly the folks at Apple realize they won't be able to stop the practice of jailbreaking by pulling a RIAA and carpet bombing jailbreakers with lawsuits. As I said, if Apple wanted to prevent jailbreaking, they would have come up with an effective technical measure to do so, not a legal one.

<comment><USER3> _have something on the device verify the origin and integrity of iOS images before allowing them to be installed or run._

iOS already does this. The device won't accept an iOS image unless it has been signed by Apple. Not only that, but iTunes now "verifies with Apple" over the Internet that you are allowed to install the update before proceeding. Not only that, but _all_ binaries including App Store apps and even debug builds of apps produced by the iOS SDK must be signed.

I think Apple is using all the "effective technical measures" available to them. The only way to run code not signed by Apple is to exploit a vulnerability, and e-fuses wouldn't patch the vulnerabilities that allow jailbreaking. At best e-fuses would allow Apple to brick a jailbroken device if the owner was foolish enough to attempt an OS upgrade. The only way I could see them making iOS tighter is rewriting the whole thing in a safer language than C to cut the number of vulnerabilities.

<comment><USER4> I'm not really all that informed about the details of the iOS but didn't Apple do this since day one, long before there even was a App Store? Before the first jailbreak came out? If it has been this way forever I see no way how you could call this 'fighting' jailbreaking.

<comment><USER3> Before the iPhone even came out it was obvious people would try to jailbreak them, and signed firmwares are a necessary part of jailbreak defense. You're right that Apple couldn't have been defending the App Store from jailbreaks before it was invented, but back then they _did_ care about the carriers. They had a lot to prove. Now Apple is the darling of the industry and they have no reason to kowtow to the carriers any more, but they continue to fight jailbreaks to protect the App Store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great example of a false dichotomy. It's not _if_ Apple if fighting jailbreaking but _how_much_ they are.

Apple definitely goes for the low hanging fruits: any avenue that is relatively simple to fix gets fixed. And obviously anything that is a serious security flaw gets fixed.

And, despite how much the hackers may hate it, Apple has (and has always had) a philosophy where they do not care much for side-effects, or annoying a minor niche of jailbreakers. What I mean is that, if you find a way to hack your way around Apple's system, Apple doesn't care, but at the same time if/when Apple is going to upgrade the system or make changes you can't expect _any_ effort by Apple to not disturb your hack. That means they don't care about downgrading, and they don't care if an upgrade makes the jailbreak not work: that's your problem.

How much further than that they go? So far I haven't see much. They could have really pursued it further. And maybe one day they will, but not so far.

<comment><USER6> If they fix a security hole deliberately, or change something in the firmware that stops the break from working, that does not mean they are fighting jailbreaking.

And there has been no evidence to suggest that they are going actively doing this, thought they still might be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple is not fighting jailbreaking, at least not with more than token efforts to appease people like AT&T and other carriers. All iPhones revisions out there can be jailbroken and can be unlocked and there is a huge number of iPhones out there in countries that don't even have an official iPhone carrier.

Apple collects a nice sum of money for every iPhone sold and does not care whether that was carrier subsidized and whether said carrier now makes a loss due to the fact that the phone was jailbroken and unlocked and used one a different network.

<comment><USER3> Apple is fighting jailbreaking, but not for the carriers. (Steve Jobs famously called them "orifices".) Apple is fighting jailbreaking to prevent piracy of App Store apps.

<comment><USER8> And they really aren't fighting it very hard. The last thing they fixed was a remotely exploitable hole which, when combined with another bug, let remote root a phone without the user's knowledge from a mere web page.

<comment><USER3> The fact that a remote root vulnerability existed means Apple doesn't care about jailbreaking? By that logic OpenBSD doesn't care about security because they've had _two_ remote root vulnerabilities.

<comment><USER4> I guess the point he was making is that making jailbreaking impossible by fixing the vulnerability was absolutely necessary.

<comment><USER3> Oh, I see, but that doesn't demonstrate his point that Apple isn't fighting jailbreaking very hard. For that he would need an example of a vulnerability that Apple _didn't_ fix.

<comment><USER4> Well, there's a thing that won't happen :)

I guess the point is that updates which fix vulnerabilities (which are the only way to jailbreak) can never be evidence the Apple is fighting jailbreaking. Apple will always fix vulnerabilities, everyone always should.

<comment><USER3> Remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, yes, but local vulnerabilities are much less urgent to fix. If Apple truly didn't care about jailbreaks, local-only vulnerabilities might stick around a _lot_ longer.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is PHP still a mess? - <AUTHOR> PHP is that one language that people love to hate. And from what I've read of the days before I got into programming, they have good reason to. However, a lot of these popular articles I've found are in the 2008-2012 time frame. Did PHP 5.5 alleviate a lot of concerns? Or did people just get tired of writing WoT about the issue?<p>In addition, now that PHP 7 is out, would you still consider it to be a hot mess? Is it getting worse? Better? Or staying the same? <comment><USER2> First, PHP isn't perfect. I've worked with PHP since I started developing and i love it. When you're developing for web it's the way to go. And with PHP 7 the language has matured a lot.

</comment><comment><USER3> These days, not so much. Also, the PHP ecosystem has really matured, and great best practices and standards have arisen. That all being said, people have moved on regardless.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have been using PHP for over a decade in my personal and professional life. I also use Python for some projects and I'm also learning Go. Every language has its strengths and weaknesses.

PHP 7.X is the latest release. It has some nice features like type hinting, major speedups to the core language, and a whole host of other things.

It still has many things that could be improved (no language is perfect), but I still use it for the back-end of most web sites/apps. It's been battle tested by many major sites and still gets the job done.

Many people hate PHP because it's cool to do so. New fad languages and frameworks aren't always the best thing for a new project. Especially when they haven't been thoroughly tested in a production environment.</comment>


Charlie Stross on indespensible Android apps. - <AUTHOR> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/09/gadget-patrol-indispensible-an.html#1

<comment><USER2> The tone of the article is odd. The introduction is borderline hostile but from the rest of the piece it's clear that here is someone who has not only bought an Android device, but put a bunch of time into it.

In terms of the list of must have apps my impression was two fold:

On one hand I was pretty underwhelmed. Maybe Charles Stross's primary use cases are different to mine but there seems nothing that impressive on his list. The office software looks nice (though less impressive is the hoop jumping to get it) but I think most people stopped being excited by document editing on the go way before iOS and Android came into being.

On the other though, thinking about what I have on my iPad and use, there are some nice little things there but I can't say any of them have changed my life or are indispensable to me.

The reality is that the massive bulk of what I do is covered off by the pre- installed apps - browsing, video, reading (where there are solid options on both platforms if you don't like the defaults), maps. Yes I can edit video or mess about with music creation on there, but it's not a great platform for either.

Perhaps it's just me but I wonder if the gap between app availability on the two platforms is a bit of a red herring at this point. It feels like we're still trying to work out what tablets are for, and while app evolution will be a big part of that, right now it's a perceived differentiator rather than one that has a major impact on usage.

EDIT: Removed a snippy last line on the grounds that it was a cheap and undeserved shot at the OP and his replying politely and ignoring it has made me realise I was being a dick.

<comment><USER3> Two points:

1\. I've seen OS's come and go since CP/M. I don't get all fanboy-ish over them if I can help it.

2\. I'm more interested in utility than ideology.

3\. (There is always one more point than you expect when you begin a list.) I was trying to call out the less common items I use, not the stuff everyone knows about and sees in every "ten vital utilities for your Android" article on the web.

<comment><USER4> _1\. I've seen OS's come and go since CP/M. I don't get all fanboy-ish over them if I can help it._

Likewise, but doesn't this seem like a kind of a crucial fork in the road for consumer electronics technology?

The struggle between Apple (and Microsoft's) walled garden approach vs the Android bazaar seems to me to carry implications larger than previous rounds of this game, particularly when huge numbers of people are about to come online for the first time.

<comment><USER5> As one of the people users often come to asking "how do I root my XYZ", I must point out that while Android-the-platform sometimes feels like a bazaar, Android-the-product is a set of walled gardens that are slowly being organized under centralized management.

The device you purchase may be able to install apps from third-party sources, but you are still limited to "apps" (not the kinds of hacks and features you find in Cydia for jailbroken iOS devices, except for a few carefully-chosen extensibility points such as "custom input manager").

The device itself is often still locked down, which is why people cheer on companies like Motorola saying they will allow people to unlock the bootloaders on their devices (and then immediately must jeer at them when they find out their device isn't actually on the supported list).

Even at the OS level, the code is only open to a degree: getting patches in (and, to be clear: I succeeded early enough that some of my code is certainly on your device, so I'm not whining because I had code rejected) is painful because so much of the development is behind closed doors with releases to normal developers only happening right before actual product releases.

The result is that if you find regressions in new versions, such as 4.1 (as I recently did: an issue with how bionic's linker handles constructors) the chance that it will be able to be fixed before the release (and subsequent stagnation) is really small (which also burned 4.0: there were issues where multi-CPU APKs extracted the wrong files).

Meanwhile, Google is slowly replacing things that used to be open-source components of the base platform with closed-source "Google experience" apps (which vendors must license and then can't modify): the one that has seemed to cause the biggest stir (based on negative feedback from large hardware partners I talked to at I/O) being how Browser (which some vendors had tweaked to better take advantage of their video drivers) was replaced by Chrome (which, as many people don't realize this, I will point out is closed source on mobile: you can check out the test cases, but not the actual codebase to run on a device).

The result is that this "crucial fork", to some, certainly to myself, feels more like choosing "the lesser of two evils" when faced with a two-party political system: where both candidates are saying 95% of the same things you disagree with, but you have to vote within the 5% they differ where you hope your opinion matters.

Finally, even with all of that aside, even if you largely agree with one side of a debate, once you become a "fanboy" you lose your objectivity: everyone has some things they do poorly or that you disagree with, and to defend a position you have to admit those things to be trusted.

(Thereby, I am somewhat saddened by the idea by the idea this thread started with: that if someone has purchased a product--a far cry from buying into a vision--and then "put a bunch of time into it", possibly even carefully comparing it to alternatives over a long decision period, that they then must _like_ it.)

<comment><USER4> Android is certainly far from ideal, but in life we very rarely get the ideal. At least with Android I can take my business to another vendor if I disagree with a policy. And it may not be as open as I might like but there is still a world of difference between AOSP and what it enables and what is possible on iOS only through illegal hacks.

<comment><USER5> (I feel like I should take offense at you calling what I do "illegal": while nothing is easily proven "legal"--one can always just sue and see if it sticks --jailbreaking iPhones does not break any obvious laws and even managed to get an explicit exemption from the strongest candidate, the DCMA.)

<comment><USER4> I actually think jail breaking is a bad thing because it enables piracy and diminishes the appeal of less controlling alternatives.

But I also think that it should be legal to do the kind of hacking you do so I support the method if not the results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Android 4.1 is just about acceptable as an alternative to iOS. The user > interface is rather less polished

If you're still not satisfied at this point, there's not much that can be done. Looking at any review of Jelly Bean by a major tech blog will tell you they're satisfied with the interface and that it's on par with iOS.

<comment><USER7> Just because a major tech blog says something is true does not mean every man and his dog will agree, especially over something like UI polish.

I personally think it's _much_ better compared to a few generations ago, but still has a few more rough spots than iOS.

<comment><USER6> > Just because a major tech blog says something is true does not mean every > man and his dog will agree, especially over something like UI polish.

That's exactly what I meant...my point is that a journalist's (supposedly) unbiased assessment is much more reliable than some random guy's opinion on the matter.

> I personally think it's much better compared to a few generations ago, but > still has a few more rough spots than iOS.

I would love to know what some of these "rough spots" are. I don't own any Apple products, but happened to use a friend's iPad 3 yesterday, the first time I was using the device. After hearing so much praise on HN about how the interface was "so smooth", I was rather disappointed to find that basic things like text input and scrolling caused significant lag. Now I'm finding it difficult to take praise of iOS at face value.

<comment><USER7> Everyone is biased, I'd prefer someone like Charlie Stross who's love of Apple products is firmly on his sleeve to say "I've got a Nexus, it's pretty decent but..." because you know a) he's biased towards Apple, so he's comparing it to his base of reference, and b) if he says it's approaching the level of quality it's very good. A lot of tech bloggers hide behind 'we're unbiased!' and troll for clicks by changing their minds on a company/product every 6 months.

<comment><USER8> Given the pace of technology, it seems like an unbiased observer would change their mind every few months.

<comment><USER7> Not necessarily, the pace of technology is fast but not as fast as a flip-flop for click bait. I think one of the best examples is when Gizmodo went from being overwhelmingly positive about almost _everything_ Apple produced, to being overwhelmingly negative in the space of about 2 weeks, whilst the rest of the tech press was giving Apple favourable reviews.

There's the pace of technology and then there's the pace of public opinion and there's few things that move faster than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > it tends to lack the design aesthetic of apps written by Apple fanboys who > have been brainwashed with the Cult of Cupertino's desire for things to be > functional, pleasing, and useful.

Pre-emptive counter-snark is something that seems enormously funny to you when you write it, but rather paranoid when you read it.

</comment><comment><USER10> The title of this submission: "Charlie Stross on _indespensible_ Android apps" (emphasis added)

The title of the linked article: "Gadget patrol: _indispensable_ Android apps" (Emphasis added)

Please do not type in headlines, because you will surely get it wrong. Instead, _copy them_.

</comment><comment><USER11> I guess ultimately there are just not many apps that are really necessary, apart from browser and ebook reader. Web apps are winning after all...

That said, are there any good children apps for Android? I mean apps for toddlers, no questionable "learning apps", just nice pictures that move when you touch them? It's the only thing that makes me think an iPad might be worthwhile to entertain my kid.

<comment><USER12> The Duck Duck Moose and Sesame Street apps are good. But for toddlers, iPad as much, much better. My toddlers, who have no trouble using iPad, have a terrible time with the Nexus.

<comment><USER11> What I loathe about my Galaxy Tab is the menu bar at the bottom. Impossible not to touch for a toddler, and with the blink of an eye he get's thrown out of the current app again.

Thanks for the app suggestions anyway!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> …or in other words, how to turn your tablet into a quite lackluster Unix laptop. Once you add up external storage and a bluetooth accessories (incl. crappy keyboards), are you really that far removed from an X-series Thinkpad (or one of those new-fangled ultrabooks), albeit with worse performance?

<comment><USER4> I just cannot see the point of trying to turn a tablet into a laptop. If the shift to mobile taught us anything wasn't it that one device can not adapt equally well to all tasks?

<comment><USER13> I really hope that this isn't a true "shift", but disregarding that, if you look just a few years back you had a PDA and a phone, now that's done by one "smart"phone (that, plus GPS and camera).

I'd say that most tablets certainly would be capable of doing that when it comes to raw power (hey, they're faster than SGI Indys), but the ergonomics are quite odd, which is a problem that Moore's law doesn't solve automatically. And when you're carrying your Android tablet _in addition_ to an iPad…

But hey, there's been online IDEs, a lot of "distraction free" writing environments etc. for tablets, so the line to draw between tablet and laptop usage is obviously a very individual choice. And, well, as an emergency Unix shell connector even I can see the point, and I'm definitely in the "tablets are for consuming" camp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't quite understand the 'Rotation Locker' link. Android 4.1 includes a _very_ exposed button for that.

Pull down the notification area (works from all non-fullscreen apps) and it's right there, next to the settings button. In fact, it's probably the most accessible setting you get on that device.

So .. given that the pitch is "Rotation Locker makes it easy to lock or unlock automatic screen rotation" I've to say that this doesn't make sense.

The app _does_ seem to have a purpose though (with profiles tied to Locale/Tracker - or if you're stuck on an old version of Android). Just not a big one on the Nexus 7.

<comment><AUTHOR> Running Jelly Bean on a Galaxy Nexus - I don't seem to have a button there for that.

Edit: Aaah - it seems to only be on the Nexus 7. How odd.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the clarification. Having only access to a single JB device (my Nexus 7) myself I didn't even know that this is 'special'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It amazes me that there is still no usable firewall on Android. Droidwall et al that require pre-configuration of apps with very limited granularity make no sense in an environment that regularly gets new software installed with unknown characteristics.

<comment><USER16> I believe LBE Guard allows you to sandbox any arbitrary Permission on android, and can be configured to ask you whenever a new (or existing) application is started. Requires a rooted device, but I found it to be effective.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lbe.securi...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lbe.security.lite&hl=en)

<comment><USER15> LBE works for Android permissions but not for distinct network endpoints per application.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra I'm amused to see FBReader making inroads to international readers community.</comment>


Why Don't Restaurants Charge for Reservations? - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/why-dont-restaurants-charge-for-reservations/

<comment><USER4> What I've never understood is the opposite, is those restaurants which have _insane_ lines, as in 2+ hours waiting outside to get a seat, why they don't simply raise their prices by $1 or $2.

There was a restaurant that everyone in college in Vancouver went to back in 1993-1994, Antons Pasta, and you always had to wait incredibly long for - <USER2> place was packed 100% of the time at night.

I would see this line (fresh from my economics class), and wonder, instead of charging $5 for the tortellini, and have a 3 hour line, why don't they charge $5.50, or heck, even $6.00, and only have a 1 hour line. It's not as though having a 1 hour line is going to result in any lost business.

I'm thinking that part of this is the fact that a long line outside, means there will always be business _inside_ , and there is always some paranoia in a restaurant of having empty seats inside, and better to have slightly missed profit opportunity, than to have some seats go empty and make a "reasonable" profit.

That's the only theory I could come up with.

<comment><USER5> There's also the fact that not all restauranteurs are thirsty entrepreneurs. Honestly, if you were, you likely wouldn't get into the restaurant business as it's hardly a great market - most restaurants end up closed and in financial ruin.

Many restaurant owners (and I know a couple) are quite happy to earn enough to live comfortably, and to be - for want of a better term - a cultural hotspot. I bet the owner of Anton's Pasta loves that his restaurant is that popular.

<comment><USER6> _most restaurants end up closed and in financial ruin_

Isn't this also the case for most tech startups?

<comment><USER5> Sure. I'd wager (anecdotally) that there are more big successes in the startup world, though. Even the most phenomenally successful restaurants don't go on to have IPOs unless they become massive national chains. And you can transfer your startup experience to a high paying job at Google, Facebook, etc. - <USER3> a failed restauranteur doesn't have the same marketability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Chez Panisse charges a $25 deposit for reservations, that goes towards your meal. But they have two seatings per night, so it is more difficult to fill tables for no-shows. It's still impossible to get reservations there.

<comment><USER4> That's a good system - presumably if you cancel your reservation, you get back your deposit, and it allows the people on the waiting list a chance at the seat.

<comment><USER8> _presumably if you cancel your reservation, you get back your deposit_

Yes, as long as you cancel more than 48 hours before the reservation.

<comment><USER9> Otherwise, what would be the point...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I imagine at some point we will see this happen, as society stratifies even further. You can already pay to skip lines at places like Disney.

<comment><USER11> (a) Society is currently less stratified than pretty much any point in recorded history, so if you don't like stratification then don't complain.

(b) On the other hand, popular and in-demand restaurants already have schemes for letting rich and/or important people get reservations ahead of the plebs. When I went to French Laundry (after a six-month odyssey to get a reservation) the waiter mentioned that only about half their tables are actually open for reservation by the ordinary scheme, the others are reserved for booking by other means. If you're a rich dude who likes to bring clients there and always buys the expensive wine, you'd better believe that they're gonna give you the number for their secret reservation hotline.

<comment><USER12> > (a) Society is currently less stratified than pretty much any point in > recorded history, so if you don't like stratification then don't complain.

In terms of the share of U.S. income going to the top 10% or 1%, the data would seem to imply that the U.S. is currently the most stratified it's been in over 80 years [1].

[1] [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get- ri...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer- through-the-recovery/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've encountered another approach in NYC which I haven't seen mentioned here. Some higher-end restaurants require a credit card number (over the phone, maybe online is possible too) which they tell you they will charge e.g. $25 per person for no-shows. The first time I was a bit put-off (giving out CC numbers on the phone never feels great), but now I'm more sanguine about it.

Aside: in central London, booking is essential. Many decent (not even high- end) restaurants have most of their tables booked in advance. I did a double- take the first time I walked into a place with two-thirds of its tables empty and was turned away. "Fully booked" seems a lot more common there. I never knew a restaurant to charge for booking, but I did know people who paid "unofficially" to get tables, or had office assistants scramble for them.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's interesting, I remember listening to NPR awhile back and they had a story about how high end restaurants are experimenting with a "ticket" system for reservations. Part of the problem is that even for restaurants where say you reserve well in advance for a holiday, it's surprisingly common for people to cancel at the last minute. So, some have tried to have people prepay for the meal. It might only work for rather pricey restaurants though...Here's the link: [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/08/05/337834577/no- mor...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/08/05/337834577/no-more- reservations-exclusive-restaurants-require-tickets-instead)

</comment><comment><USER15> There are some places that are remarkably successful and ticket for tables: [http://website.alinearestaurant.com/site/2014/06/tickets- for...](http://website.alinearestaurant.com/site/2014/06/tickets-for- restaurants/)

</comment><comment><USER16> There are a lot of good options that don't involve staying in a line or rushing to make a reservation.

I've heard about restaurants wanting charge for reservations by "prepayment of the meal", and it's somewhere I wouldn't go to.

"Alicia's reluctance to user her and her restaurant's name suggests one reason: customers are very sensitive not only to prices but to the perception of a rip-off."

Exactly

</comment><comment><USER17> My opinion is that having a long queue, possibly longer than any of the competitors' queues is more important for the owners than a few more bucks, especially in the long run.

Amongst their peers, chefs are more interested about their fame than their pockets.

</comment><comment><USER18> Would you go to a restaurant that charged for reservations?

Personally, I would not... I imagine that is why.

<comment><USER10> If I wanted to eat at a highly-acclaimed restaurant and was given the option of either waiting three months or paying some fee of $X to guarantee a reservation tonight, then there are some non-zero values of X in which I would gladly pay.

<comment><USER19> do you have a few minutes to chat over the next few days? would love to talk to you about this comment. working on a solution that would allow you to do just that -- with a twist. you can email me at josh at mptonight dot com.

<comment><USER20> If you want to do this for customer validation, don't bother, the market for this already exists. Sometime ago, there was a post here about a startup making a killing selling software which sells reservations for restaurants and bars.

If you believe you can execute it, go for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think it's because there's a general cost in uncertainty for table occupancy. A reservation makes that go away.

If you have a restaurant that will always have a permanent line waiting on tables, then maybe you could charge. But it would be easier to hide that cost in the bill.

</comment><comment><USER22> San Francisco, where allocating resources by paying for them is vulgar. You should instead come by them honestly, such as by telling the concierge at the Four Seasons that you wish to partake in the cultural delights of the city.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why do restaurants take reservations at all?

Reservations force tables to remain unoccupied, and even when they're occupied, diners feel no need to rush to make room for the next set of diners since they reserved their time slot. A restaurant that's not popular enough to fill up completely doesn't need reservations, and one popular enough that they have to turn away people is losing money accepting reservations. So, why do so many restaurants do it?

<comment><USER24> Because customers are willing to pay higher food prices in exchange for reliably being able to arrive at the establishment at a particular time and be seated.

I've been to restaurants that don't take reservations, and instead take a wait-list. It took something like 3 hours of waiting to get a table.

I could never go there for a client or investor dinner, because the unreliability of the table timing means I can't schedule it in. Considering a meeting like that is worth tends of thousands of dollars and requires that people with busy schedules all be around at the same time, I don't mind the extra $50-100 a person meals at those places tend to run.

tl;dr: They do charge a reservation premium, it just gets mixed in to the food expense rather than being a separate item. Additionally, people scheduling tend to bring large parties or are there for special events, which tend to spend more money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> He same reason most economically obvious things don't happen in practice: transaction costs. But with mobile electronic payments, this is changing across the economy.</comment>


Ask HN: Travelling to the US. What can I expect at border security? - <AUTHOR> I am travelling to the US from Australia next month on a solo holiday (not business) trip.  Though travelling on an Australian passport, I am of sub-continental heritage, and was born in a Muslim country.  I am also highly active on multiple social media channels.<p>My question is: Does US border security still ask for sign on information to social media?  If they do, what is the best/legal response to that?  I have nothing to hide, but want my privacy respected, and don't want to divulge my FB/Twitter etc. password as I use those apps to authenticate to _other_ services which I use for running my business, so there is a risk of business IP being exposed if someone else has those logins. <comment><USER2> My own experiences of border security in USA is they are the rudest, most ignorant bunch of slobs I have ever had the displeasure to come across. It's almost like they are specially selected to have the highest level of bad manners and obnoxiousness. I have travelled to over 40 countries but came to dread dealing with these people.

It wasn't just me - most people I have spoken with have had bad experiences traveling to USA - I personally will never go there again.

A friend (British) recently travelled there and had a hell of a time with them - his wife is Iranian although she now has a British Passport. The line of questioning around the wife's origins showed breathtaking ignorance of anything at all to do with the situation in the Middle East.

To use an American turn of phrase: total bunch of asshats.

<comment><USER3> That's interesting. I've travelled to the US about 20 times during the past 6 years, and each time has been reasonably smooth. I have found the CBP officers to be reasonably polite and efficient.

I recall only two instances of being asked more than 2 questions:

1\. Once when I had two trips to the US with a very short gap (a business trip to my employer's head office, followed a week later by a job interview for a non-US job at a US-owned company, at their HQ in a different US city).

2\. Once (~10 years ago) when I travelled to the US on a whim to visit a friend, and didn't answer clearly a question about who I planned to see when I was in the US (because I hadn't yet called to arrange to meet all the friends I wanted to see).

In both cases the CBP officers asked reasonable questions, and were polite enough. It's probably useful for them to act in a way that makes people a little nervous, though.

<comment><USER2> Sounds like your experience wasn't too bad. Just curious - were you flying into SFO by any chance?

<comment><USER3> 2/3 SFO, 1/3 SEA

<comment><USER2> Thought so. I had few issues at SFO and SEA. Chicago on the other hand... I guess it depends a lot on which airport you are coming in through?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Basecamp have a guide for travelling to the US:

[https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/internation...](https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/international- travel-guide.md)

This doesn't cover social media accounts though. I'd suggest letting them log in and change passwords and log out all sessions immediately afterwards. You could also temporarily revoke permissions for any 3rd party app and grant those again once you've cleared border security.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you fear of credential usage, use 2FA on the accounts you use to log in on third party applications.

If asked for credentials, log in as requested, and _after_ you clear security, 1: change the passwordws and 2: force log out other sessions.

I wouldn't mention anything about that accounts are used for logging in somewhere because that will flag you as someone weird/nonstandard and might lead you to some questioning. It they ask you stuff and you get nervous, you will be looked more. So, just do what you're asked and everything will be fine.

BTW: your worst enemy crossing borders is Jet Lag. Since you're traveling from west to the east I guess this won't be an issue to you; but get some rest before boarding the plane and if you do not understand/hear well something tell the officer politely.

</comment><comment><USER6> If they really do not want you there they will not let you enter the plane in the first place.

I had my "interview" before I even left EU because it was suspicious to them that I am traveling cross-atlantic with only hand-luggage.

When I arrived it was pretty OK, they asked where I will be staying and other general stupid questions you'd expect. All in all it was decent and nothing out of ordinary, definitely didn't ask me to unlock my phone/computer.

I will never forget the last sentences with the border agency.

> Patrol: So how much are you making?

> Me: I'm making this and that EUR a month.

> Patrol: So you must have decent amount of money.

> Me: Yes.

> Patrol: Welcome to United States. _stamps my passport_

<comment><USER7> And this is what all border security want to know. "Do you have money to spend?"

<comment><USER8> He has enough money to lead a stable and fullfilled life back home so he will either A) return back home or B) in case he goes full illegal immigrant he has money to spend and is not prone to be homeless/poor/criminal etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mem Fox, a 70 year-old Australian author of children's books, says she was treated with complete contempt:

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-25/mem-fox-detained-at- lo...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-25/mem-fox-detained-at-los-angeles- airport-by-us-officials/8303366)

So I think be prepared for that possibility.

<comment><USER10> Interesting, thanks.

Kind of bizarre though how Mem and the writer seem to inhabit a world in which Australia doesn't have dreadful offshore detention centres for would-be- immigrants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> No one can really say.

They don't let you board the plane if they actually don't want you there.

Doesn't mean you won't get some questions. But it also depends which airport you arrive at (SFO CBP are nice, LAX and JFK are... not).

You have no rights as an "alien" at the US border. Either you unlock or you go back home.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm... I am entering/exiting via LAX.

<comment><USER5> I guess entering won't be an issue since you have an exit ticket.

I had bad experience exiting the US in LAX and JFK: Getting there takes a lot of time, and clearing security needs a lot of time, and the airports are quite big.

Try to arrive early. Sleeping near the airport helps ;-).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> [https://www.quora.com/If-you-are-asked-at-a-US-port-of- entry...](https://www.quora.com/If-you-are-asked-at-a-US-port-of-entry-for- your-social-media-information-can-you-refuse)

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't carry any electronic devices.</comment>


When will YClist be updated again? - <AUTHOR> http://yclist.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious to see what new companies have come through the summer batch and how the current ones are doing. Thoughts?</comment>


The new $100 bill and the war against counterfeiting - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575200093609290372.html?mod=WSJ_earnings_MiddleTopHighlights

<comment><USER2> Related: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation>

You can see it clearly on the left of the banknote in the article. My favourite however is the use of it on the musical notes on the old Elgar £20 note.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow. That $100 bill sure is ugly. I get tradition, I get that being green is what makes the Dollar the Dollar, but there sure must be ways of preserving greenness and some traditional elements without making it so ugly.

The Euro banknotes have many of the same security features [1] and they aren't ugly. Kitsch, maybe, but rather that than this. (Quite astonishing, actually, that Euro coins and bills are in general not ugly. Considering what a giant clusterfuck those discussions between the different members of the Eurozone must have been.)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_banknotes></comment>


When the Copyright Office Meets, the Future Needs a Seat at the Table - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/when-copyright-office-meets-future-doesnt-get-seat-table <comment><USER2> This ties heavily with 'right to repair' as a lot of the software/protocol blocks are infact "access controls for copyrighted works".

It's often impossible to reverse engineer and document a protocol or replace a proprietary tool without breaking DRM first.</comment>


Excel incorrectly assumes that the year 1900 is a leap year - <AUTHOR> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office/troubleshoot/excel/wrongly-assumes-1900-is-leap-year <comment><USER2> This was to be compatible with the spreadsheet program called Lotus 123. At the time microsoft made excel, Lotus was very popular. As such compatibility was essential. Lotus 123 made the mistake.</comment>


The Potemkinism of Privacy Pragmatism - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/09/data_use_regulation_the_libertarian_push_behind_a_new_take_on_privacy.single.html <comment> vezzy-fnord There needs to be restrictions on both, conceptually. Actual implementation is yet to be proposed. Relying purely on data usage reform is a pipe dream, just as the ideal of having an intelligence agency that works completely within the framework of law. It didn't work for the Church Committee, and the whole point of an intelligence agency is that it will do borderline or outright illegal acts (black bag operations, disinformation, psyops, etc.) to further state interests. Almost inevitably, this includes domestic surveillance, which the USA has been conducting en masse since at least 1945.

</comment><comment><USER2> Europe (Czech) already has several limitations, and it works well. It is illegal to cross reference some database and so on.

But limitations usually apply only to commercial companies, state agencies have several exceptions. What I really miss are limitations on government usage of data. We already have:

* national medical registry (with all prescription purchases),

* public transport ID cards,

* bank history and financial records,

* cell phone location history (tower based +-1 mile),

* phone calls registry...

And 2% of population have unrestricted access to all of this. In theory you need court permission, but in practice it is just a few key strokes away...

</comment><comment><USER3> The foundation of good privacy regulation is the definition of ownership. All data about you belongs to you, no matter who collected it why and how.

If you don't own your data, you don't have any privacy.

Yes, that is very hard to properly regulate, leaves a lot of fair use grey areas and with the rapid pace of technologies leads to hastily created regulation like the "cookie-law" or the right-to-be-forgotten. (Although in both cases the industry deliberately made a circus of the implementation, and especially the latter is now backfiring hard on Google.)

But the bottom line is, if the law doesn't recognize your fundamental ownership of your data, you have no privacy and you never will, no matter what other forms of legislation and self-regulation get implemented in the areas of collecting and using that data.

The US is one of the few Western democracies that doesn't recognize this fundamental aspect of privacy, and in the information age, that makes any form of privacy regulation a complete joke.

Step one should be to put the individual in control of their data at any time. If people are not informed about what happens to their data _if and when it happens_ and are not in a position to stop it, they've already lost their privacy.

Privacy should not be a faux "right" like copyright, something you can just sign away for someone else to exploit. It's a fundamental civil right, and without it we have no freedom.

</comment><comment><USER4> Each time I read that I'm reminded of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes can look at a person and tell you everything about them by just deducing facts from observable facts and cross-referencing what he knows. He can do that, because he's exceptionally smart and knowledgeable, neither of which is illegal - you can't forbid people from being smart and knowing things. Having a machine to do it for you, to me, is a natural extension of your mind, so I feel very much against outlawing a method of doing something, which would not be illegal if you could do it by being exceptionally smart.

Still, I really don't want corporations to have such power over people. The difference between Sherlock Holmes deducing that I usually ride a bicycle to work and a computer system deducing that, is that the computer system then proceeds absolutely automatically to spam me with offers about bike safety gear and indiscriminately shares that information with third parties.

So perhaps the answer here is not to outright outlaw data collection, but to find a model where there is someone personally responsible for your data that will safeguard it and make sure it's not misused.

Imagine a data bank institution, which collects and stores your data and then only allows a very limited access to it to certain parties. You sign up with a databank and pay a monthly fee for your account. Then, whoever wants to collect data from you uploads it to the databank's servers, never stores it locally, and you have full access to it. Each party that collects data on you can access all the data they have stored on the databank's servers, but not the data of some other party, without your permission, and you can always revoke sharing rights or just disallow someone to store data about you, effectively turning off data collection for them. It might also be a good idea to disallow parties that upload data to a databank to compute locally with that data. That is, if someone wants to perform some inference on the data they've collected, they upload a program to the databank, the databank runs it on their servers, subject to access controls that you can modify, and then they get back the results of that computation.

In this model you're the one paying for the safety of your data and the people keeping it are making money not from giving it away, but from keeping it safe. And you can't keep people's personal data without being a registered and regulated databank.

So next time you sign up for a Target card, you give them your databank account number and have full control over your own data.

<comment><USER5> "Having a machine to do it for you, to me, is a natural extension of your mind"

To you, just to you, really.</comment></comment>


Author of 'Sapiens' on how meditation made him a better historian - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2017/2/28/14745596/yuval-harari-sapiens-interview-meditation-ezra-klein <comment><USER2> Does anyone else have experience meditating this much? Many people seem to attribute a lot of their success to meditating daily and swear its benefits elsewhere in life. However, two hours a day as well as one sixth of the year nonstop is a lot of meditating. At that point are you meditating just because you enjoy it or is it still beneficial enough to be worth the time commitment?

<comment><USER3> Think of meditation as exercise for the mind. the more time you spend, the healthier it can be. Although like anything, in excess it can cause problems. Think of an elite athlete. They can be injured or need to retire early or surgeries from over use. Too much meditation can bring a person too far away from their physical reality. Everything in moderation.

I meditate between 1-2 hours a day. Sometimes I will do more and sometimes less. I find it saves me more time that it costs. I get distracted less, I need less sleep and I find myself in the right place at the right time more often. I also have more clarity on what is important so the time I have, I use wisely.

<comment><USER4> I disagree that it can bring a person too far away from their physical reality. On the contrary, it can bring to into such acute awareness of all of your senses in the present moment that those around you feel painfully distracted, or even creeped out by your expansive attention.

Not that this a state I attain very frequently :P

<comment><USER3> Wonderful that you connect to that state at all!

There are certain breath techniques that will land you in the clouds. If you do a practice like that without proper grounding, you are likely to be very disconnected from physical reality. That's my opinion and personal experience. In general (and they have the science to back this up) it heightens awareness of your senses. Though people who meditate have higher pain tolerance -- not because they feel less (since they feel more) -- because they have developed willpower to not react to stimulus the same way. Super fascinating!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If nothing else, I could see meditation helping with history work in that it sort of forces you to be more honest with yourself. I say 'sort of,' because that way of writing it may give the wrong impression. It's like, you can see your alternate motivations at play more readily and decide against following up, whereas ordinarily we trick ourselves into thinking we have only pure motivations.

To give an example, consider how this might affect authors of literature. Hemingway among others has made a big deal about writing that is 'truly honest'. Part of the difficulty there is that when you're writing, you have competing motivations in constructing all aspects from high level plot and characters to individual sentences. Some of those motivations have to do with vanity, career goals, laziness, etc. (e.g. writing in a style that establishes your intelligence, rather than because it serves communication). After enough time practicing meditation of a certain style (excellent description in the article), you start seeing the presence of these other factors as you work on things and can more easily choose to let them go.

</comment><comment><USER6> >> human rights are a fictional story just like God and heaven

What a heretical thought. It makes me want to read the book of the author. Somehow similar like [http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm](http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm)

<comment><USER7> It does not seem as heretical when taken in context (rights do not exist, biologically speaking).

<comment><USER8> Neither do maths, physical laws, etc. I think it is wrong and dangerous to equal Human Rights, which are an ethical decision, to religious beliefs, which are cultural construct much closer to "fictional stories" for non-believers. This new trend in anti-humanism carried by Harari, who is read widely, or Peter Singer, is frightening.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, I interpreted it as human rights not having basis in physical science and therefore all the more important for individuals and society to champion. However I do see how the quote can be seen as equating human rights to cultural fiction of arguable merit, which I agree is dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 60 days of retreat sounds so difficult and also impossible for somebody like me who is tied to daily job. Curious s where is the retreat that he visits every year? Also any other daily practice which can have an equivalent effect?

<comment><USER10> I don't think you can expect a daily practice to have "an equivalent effect" to a 60-day retreat. I know there are 10-day retreats for vipassana meditation just about everywhere in the world (probably for many other types of meditation too), though I've never been to one (scares the hell out of me to be honest, must be so incredibly hard - both mentally and physically).

I recently started meditating for 20-30 minutes at a time, once or twice a day, and the eerie calmness that settles in when I'm done (for the "good" sessions) is a great feeling. I can only imagine what 10 and 60 days can do.

<comment><USER11> It's worth it. I've done two 10 day courses and you learn to develop your focus in ways that are pretty hard to believe without going through it.

I know about a dozen people who have done the 10-day Goenka course. It is definitely hard _work_ because you are meditating for around 10 hours a day, but it isn't actually what I would call hard to do; all your needs and schedule are taken care of and you just give into it.

A lot of the resistance for me was actually preparing family and clients for me being completely offline and unreachable for 10 days, and going through that was a revelation separate from the benefits of the meditation.

The recommendation I give to everyone is that if you have any interest, just book a course several months out when you think you may be able to make it. If you end up not being able to or not feeling ready, then you can very easily cancel in advance, and there is usually a waiting list anyway. However, booking a spot seems to set the wheels in motion.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for sharing, good to hear stories from people that have done it.

<comment><USER12> _good to hear stories from people that have done it._

FYI, there are now many articles/blog posts/etc. by people who have done these Vipissana retreats -- this Google search will find you some:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=vipissana+10+day+retreats](https://www.google.com/search?q=vipissana+10+day+retreats)

(Here's one with the details of the daily schedule (among other things), if that's of interest:

[https://oneshrinksperspective.com/2013/06/27/i-am-slowly- goi...](https://oneshrinksperspective.com/2013/06/27/i-am-slowly-going-crazy- my-experience-of-a-10-day-silent-vipassana-meditation-course/) )

<comment><USER13> It's important to note that the sales line of this being purely practical without dogma is completely false. Goenka is very clear in the lectures that meditation is all about purifying yourself for reincarnation. There's tons of anti science stuff, like claiming Buddha knew more about physics than the inventor of the cloud chamber.

The entire time, he chants in a dead language, and they want you to blindly recite things in said dead language. He purposely plays with his accent and speaking in order to push a bit of mystical properties to what he's saying (repeating words over and over, laying on a thick accent, whereas at other times he is capable of speaking very clearly).

The actual practise may be fine, but I found the woo-factor to be incredibly high - false advertising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In addition to this interview with Ezra Klein, Harari was also interviewed recently by noted proponent of Vipassana meditation, Sam Harris, in a podcast episode released earlier today:

[https://overcast.fm/+BSCDk9Xmk](https://overcast.fm/+BSCDk9Xmk)

</comment><comment><USER14> What would be a good way to start meditating? Nothing too intense - just to dip a toe in.

<comment><USER15> I found the app "Headspace" to be a good introduction to the process and concept.

After completing the first 10 guided sessions, I read most of "Mindfulness in Plain English" by Henepola Gunaratana. It was good for a deeper dive into Vipassana meditation in particular and did a good job of keeping the more religious overtones to a minimum. I definitely recommend it.

<comment><USER16> Agree with the Headspace recommendation. It seems cheesy to need an app to concentrate, but Headspace makes it so easy to get started...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In case anyone is interested, you can do a 10-day Vipassana meditation retreat for free. You can sign up and read more about it at [http://dhamma.org](http://dhamma.org)

They have locations all over the world and are run by volunteers. It is not affiliated with any religion.

I highly recommend it! (I have done two 10-day retreats)

</comment><comment><USER18> A great book. I listened to Audible on my last roadtrip.

</comment><comment><USER19> > The Israeli historian's mind-bending tour through the obama of Homo sapiens > is a favorite of, among others, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Donald > Trump.

I have never seen the word 'obama' used like that. Is that a typo?

Edit: NEVER MIND - I got duped by a joke extension that I forgot I had added a long time ago.

<comment><USER20> Funny part is that when I see now the article I read this > Yuval Noah Harari's first book, Sapiens, was an international sensation. The Israeli historian's mind-bending tour through the trump of Homo sapiens is a favorite of, among others, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama.

<comment><USER21> Help, please.

What does "the trump of Homo sapiens" mean?

Victory in natural selection?

Wouldn't that be "the trump by Homo sapiens"?

English is strange.

<comment><USER22> If one thing trumps another, it means the first thing displaces or achieves victory over the second.

"Trump of homo sapiens" means they were victorious, as they trumped the other party.

<comment><USER21> Thanks. I'm familiar with "trump" as a verb. But not as a noun. And I've always had trouble with "of". So "the victory of Homo sapiens" is sounding better now.

<comment><USER23> I feel like there's a chance that they wanted to say 'triumph' but muscle memory took over after 'tr'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What a schmuck :D

<comment><USER25> Please stop posting unsubstantive comments here.</comment></comment>


Physicists spot the signatures of nuclear fusion in a table-top device - <AUTHOR> https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-spot-the-signatures-of-nuclear-fusion-in-a-table-top-device/ <comment><USER2> From the discussions I've had, and research I've read, fusion doesnt seem to be all that hard... (There are lots of different ways to ram ions together fast enough).

Doing it sustainably, without using hundreds of times more energy than it yields is the tricky part.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, the interesting thing about this isn't that it is producing neutrons from a tabletop fusion device (been there, done that), but that it is using gas/plasma flow to stabilize the Z-pinch. This is a different approach than the simple Z-pinches used in Sherwood. I wish them luck.

Also, since this is HN, I should note that it appears that the group that is doing this research is raising series A funding (see: [https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/03_SHUMLAK.pdf](https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/03_SHUMLAK.pdf) , last slide)</comment>


Microsoft cut off game maker's revenue stream, so he built his own replacement - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/random-salad-ceo-offers-own-ad-network-after-microsoft-cuts-support.html <comment><USER2> "People don't consider my games worth what I spent to make them, so I'll sneak in adverts too so I don't have to charge them more and pop their little bubble, so they can continue thinking games are this cheap because the sticker price is still low."

No, this is not acceptable, and holding it up as a Good Thing that it's being perpetuated is stupid.

Microsoft have seen the writing on the wall (because it's been there for, I dunno, at least a decade?) and are saying 'you have to have an actual workable fucking business model now, k?'

<comment><USER3> Sounds reasonable to me - how else is he going to pay bills if not through some ad revenue? You know glorified 9 to 5 jobs are cool, but some of is indies prefer freedom - and that costs money.

<comment><USER2> Then you charge a reasonable price. You don't put a 'free' sticker on it with an unknowable 'ad revenue' cost in the background.

One might argue that the customer should know the price they pay in advertising data-scraping before logging in, these days, but we still convict people of fraud for taking advantage.

Advertising revenue is fraud.

<comment><USER4> Television has been paying for programming through ads for decades now. Do you think that's not a 'real' business model? A good business model is one that makes someone 7 figures a year for cloning solitaire. It might not be the most enjoyable gaming experience, but if purity of solitaire is what you want, then there are plenty of paid alternatives.

<comment> crooked-v A massive difference here is that TV ads don't come with ubiquitous invasions of privacy every time you see them, nor do they have a small but constant risk of malware infecting your TV.

<comment><USER5> But as tv moves away from broadcast signals to VOD services that's going to change. See for an early example 4OD in the UK: [https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/04/28/behind-all-4s-new- pe...](https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/04/28/behind-all-4s-new-personalised- vod-ads-call-out-the-names-viewers)

> Channel 4 earlier this week unveiled a new video on demand advertising > package allowing brands to directly address viewers - in practise this meant > first adopters 20th Century Fox, Foster' and Ronseal, could grab the > attention of by literally calling out their names in their creative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't feel bad for the game developer. Its business model is to publish simple classic games, but with ads.

<comment><USER7> >Its business model is to publish simple classic games, but with ads.

Is this not precisely what Microsoft is doing?

I haven't played game of solitaire since Windows 7 because I'm not going to watch a 15-30 second preroll video advertisement in order to play the Microsoft Solitaire Collection.

And I'm certainly not going to pay monthly to avoid ads for games that used to be included with the OS without advertisements.

<comment><USER8> Have you considered that perhaps it's not the ad itself but that it just takes a 15-30 seconds of a delay to maybe realize that you're about to waste your time / ease your boredom that maybe keeps you from playing?

<comment><USER9> Every ad on YouTube makes me reconsider how badly I want to watch the video. Lots of times I just close YouTube and pull up Bitchute.

<comment><USER10> Tangent: Is there anything on bitchute that isn't right-wing or conspiracy theory? I've just pulled it up for the first time and by the front-page videos it's an alt-right cesspool. I'll use the alternative if it's viable, but this content isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I sorta wonder what will happen to ads in Microsoft's own games (in particular Solitaire). I kinda hope they will be removed, but I doubt that would actually happen.

</comment><comment><USER12> Microsoft is shutting down their ad service but there are plenty others. Why is this dev or his ad sdk interesting?

<comment><USER13> What other ad services are there for Windows apps?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Building a business that relies on a platform you can't function without is irresponsible. It's not just bad for you because of how fragile it makes your business but it's also bad for everyone else because it normalizes it and makes building stable businesses harder.

<comment><USER15> What's the alternative for native mobile apps today? Roll your own smartphone OS?

And yes, I'm deeply frustrated with Apple and Google for so forceably locking everyone into their walled gardens.

<comment><USER16> And what are you going to do about it? I'm researching Google-free LineageOS and checking out Librem's smartphone...

<comment><USER15> If you think there's ever going to be enough people flashing their phones with custom ROMs to support an industry of consumer software developers, I think you're going to be very disappointed.

Now, if we could get some major carriers and/or retailers backing Librem, that could be interesting. I'm not holding my breath, though.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, mostly the second. Though it doesn't stand much of a chance until something (more serious) is done about the GAFAM...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Interested in helping test out my Hacker News app for Windows Phone? - <AUTHOR>

I am working on a Hacker News app for Windows Phone and I need some Windows Phone users that read HN to test it out. If you are interested, send the email address you use for your Microsoft Account to me at email@example.com. I will add your account as a beta tester and then send you a link to download the app on the Windows Phone Store.
Here are some screenshots:
http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/1.png
http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/2.png
http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/3.png
http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/4.png
http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/5.png <comment><USER2> Live links:

<http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/1.png>

<http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/2.png>

<http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/3.png>

<http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/4.png>

<http://files.mbmccormick.com/hn/5.png></comment>


IPad 2 Smart Cover (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbfLeX0Qyqc&feature=player_embedded

<comment><USER2> Such a simple thing, such an elegant design. Color me impressed.</comment>


The Income Rich Take One For The Team. Thanks! - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/01/the-income-rich-take-one-for-the-team-thanks/

<comment><USER3> What's striking to me is how he doesn't even have a grasp of the basic numbers that affect his returns. This speaks more to a "I am so rich and I made my money so easily that I don't care what I get taxed at" attitude.

 _> Nothing the government agreed to in the last few days actually affects the asset wealthy in this country._

The increased tax rate on dividends and capital gains definitely affects the "asset wealthy" in the country. In fact, both the top income tax rate and the dividend/capital gains tax rate for those making over $400k has increased by roughly the same amount [1].

However, complete inaction by government would have increased the dividend tax rate even more, so that it would have been considered ordinary income (43.4% top rate) [2]. The legislation passed on 12/31 and 1/1 by Congress definitely _helped_ the asset wealthy. Oracle pays a 18c dividend per share, and Larry Ellison owns roughly a billion Oracle shares. The dividend tax savings he'll receive from this legislation is massive.

[1] The top income tax rate goes from 35% to 43.4% (39.6% + 3.8% health care tax) and the top dividend/capgains tax rate goes from 15% to 23.8% (20% + 3.8% health care tax). If person A makes $100MM in salary and person B makes $100MM in dividend/capgains in 2013, their relative tax rate increase compared to 2012 is about the same: 8.4% increase vs 8.8% increase.

[2] [http://www.atr.org/trillion-obamacare-tax-hike-hitting- jan-a...](http://www.atr.org/trillion-obamacare-tax-hike-hitting-jan-a7393)

[3][http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/bipartisan-house- ba...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/bipartisan-house-backs-tax- deal-vote-as-next-fight-looms.html)

<comment><USER4> _If person A makes $100MM in salary and person B makes $100MM in dividend/capgains in 2013, their relative tax rate increase compared to 2012 is about the same: 8.4% increase vs 8.8% increase._

Michael's point was that person A (someone with a high ordinary income) will have approximately double the tax bill of person B (someone with capital gains income) on an absolute basis, and that he believes this disparity to be unfair.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure how to define "fair" but haven't the investment money been already taxed as corporate profits before they are paid out to investors? I know some investment vehicles allow to avoid that but most regular investments do not, as far as I know.

<comment><USER6> If you want to avoid double taxation, you are certainly free to choose a pass- through form of entity.

If you choose to create/invest in a corporation, you accept double-taxation as the cost of the benefits afforded by the corporate form.

<comment><USER4> You guys are all thinking in terms of forming a business and having income from it. Our tax system doesn't encourage that. Our system heavily incentivizes people to seek capital gains through (for example) stock market and real estate speculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It amazes me at how far to the political left is Silicon Valley. The startup ecosystem depends on the recycling of the profits from successful ventures into new angel investment, venture capital funds, and bootstrapped ventures. An extreme example is Elon Musk, who famously netted $180 million from the Paypal sale and put every last dollar into founding Space X, Tesla, and Solar City. I'm assuming that money was taxed at the long term capital gains rate. If the cap gains loophole were closed, either Space X or Tesla would have been stillborn.

Yet Silicon Valley regularly supports candidates and policies that would place large burdens on the entrepreneurial ecosystem. We have plenty of examples of high-tax, high-regulation economies around the world with no startup scene. You can't grow one by punishing success and preventing innovation.

The deal that happened today means the top California cap gains tax is going up ~11% this year (PPACA, cliff deal, prop 30). That's 11% of new capital for startups being diverted from Palo Alto to Washington.

(And yeah, I'm flagging this article because I don't like seeing pure politics on hacker news. But I'll participate while we're having the discussion)

<comment><USER8> > _It amazes me at how far to the political left is Silicon Valley._

Speaking as a foreign onlooker (I'm in Australia), I see more libertarians than any other stripe, tbqh.

> _Yet Silicon Valley regularly supports candidates and policies that would > place large burdens on the entrepreneurial ecosystem._

The Bay Area is home to San Francisco, a traditional hotbed of leftist activism. It's also home to UCB, a traditional hotbed of leftist activism. Some of the outlying suburbs are ... yes, traditional hotbeds of leftist activism.

Mix in:

1\. The relatively lower presence of traditional / conservative / "silent majority" voters who are motivated voters

2\. That leftists are motivated voters

3\. That libertarians are often _not_ motivated voters

4\. That voting in the USA is voluntary and not compulsory

and the electoral calculus suggests that libertarians will be out-numbered by leftists at the ballot box.

<comment><USER7> >Speaking as a foreign onlooker (I'm in Australia), I see more libertarians than any other stripe, tbqh.

Paul Graham's informal poll of investors had two-thirds voting for Obama. That's a stronger lean than the US as a whole. They might be libertarians, but they're libertarians voting for the unionist/leftist/regulatory party.

<comment><USER9> If Obama is what leftist means in the USA (I still don't believe this), then what would you call a communist? I don't know if there is anywhere else where the political compass is so skewed. To most people I talked to when the US elections were going on, Obama is considered the left of the right.

<comment><USER5> Obama is not a communist by any measure, but he is certainly leftist by any definition - he is for big government, strong unions, strong government intervention in economy via both subsidies and taxation, pervasive regulation of businesses, highly progressive income taxation, abundant welfare services, nationalized healthcare, redistribution of wealth, identity politics. All are common characteristic of modern left.

Could you name one mainstream left concept that Obama opposes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I always thought it's silly for the Congress and WH to be focusing on raising the tax for the high income people (doctors, lawyers, senior engineers, people who are well off but still live off paychecks), whom are already paying a very high effective tax rate. Meanwhile the ultra-rich are mostly untouched by these new laws and people like Romney can still get away with a 13% effective tax rate.

The only significant portion of the new law that MAY make an impact on the uber-riches is raising long-term capital gain to 20% for people who make over $400k (so actually now even better reason for CEOs to take $1 salary and get the rest in stocks) and limit deductibles to $250k per family (So hopefully people like Romney can longer claim the expenses on their horses and everything else as deductibles).

Well, like MA said, the aspiring rich people took a bullet for the real rich people.

<comment><USER11> Side question: are there really senior engineers who make >$400k in salary? I thought you had to go into upper management to break much above $200k in actual salary (paycheck, not equity), even in the Bay Area. But I could well be out of touch with recent developments in Valley pay.

<comment><USER12> A lot of people at Google are north of $500k, I've heard. We're talking engineering and product, not management.

I mean, what would _you_ pay someone like Ken Thompson? There are the outliers like him, of course, but I've also heard that even the less-known folks do well.

Though I've heard all of that from Xooglers, it remains anecdotal. I also remain slightly old-school when dealing with other peoples' salary and give them respect; I'll freely tell you what I make (if permitted legally), but I understand people are not as open as I am and I try to respect their privacy.

<comment><USER13> Anecdotes are perfectly valid evidence for "there exists", albeit checked for all the usual biases of any testimonial evidence.

<comment><USER8> The problem here is the distinction between _discrimination_ (there exists X) and _calibration_ (X is close to true figure Y +/- Z, where Z is inflation from anecdotal inflation bias).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's pretty impressive for someone running a fund to call publicly for the end of the carried interest loophole.

<comment><USER15> Paul, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. In many ways you serve as a role model to me.

But I think you need to be careful calling what Arrington describes a "loophole." Yes, the people running the funds are the beneficiaries of this specific "hole" in the tax code. But have you considered that this could be a loophole by design? In other words, an incentive?

In many ways, _capital_ is the eponymous character of capitalism. Capital drives our economy. It feeds our society. It's also a good indicator of our prosperity level.

No economist will argue with the fact that capital begets more capital, and therefore we should encourage any mechanism that creates it. Normally I avoid such generalities, but economists accept this as such a simple fact that it would be impossible for them to disagree with it.

This "loophole" in the tax code is a great example of an incentive for investing capital. It makes sense to place that incentive in the tax code because investing capital leads to more capital. Policy makers _want_ people running funds to "exploit" this "loophole." The tax benefits are a reward for efficiently "putting the capital to work," so to speak.

If we can agree that this "loophole" in the tax code functions as an incentive, then I think we should also agree not to call it a loophole. When we call this a loophole rather than an incentive, we make it appear as though our profession (well, your profession... I'm still in college) is the business of exploiting loopholes. That is not what we value and I think we should respect ourselves enough to avoid this perception.

Thanks Paul -- I hope you find time to read this.

<comment><USER16> _Of course_ it was created as an incentive, there's a nice justification for pretty much every line of the millions in the tax code, however it is considered a loophole because it turns out that it is really easy to manipulate the structure of investment deals so that all the income is gained as carried interest, and it even more surprisingly turns out people actually do this if there's sufficient incentive, so a lot of people now redefine what would have been 'income' into 'carried interest' in a way that appears not to have been intended when the rule was created.

If you really want people to respect your profession (I assume you intend to go into finance?) you should focus a little more on the ethics of what you actually do and less on how to spin it.

<comment><USER15> I have a lot of respect for your comment and do not mean for this to sound like an _ad hominem_ attack, so please take it as an observation on the societal state of affairs: what you describe as "spinning" I describe as "offering my opinion."

I think the fact that you would describe my opinion as "spin" is indicative of the larger societal disassociation with members of the financial sector. Because of this, people do not like hearing the financial sector described in positive terms. So, often when people are confronted with a positive viewpoint of it, they have no recourse but to caste it as "spin."

Society has harbored a distaste for finance many times throughout history. The Catholic church even went so far as to forbid usury, preferring to delegate tasks as inferior as money lending to Jews. Not surprisingly, this distaste becomes most evident following an economic downturn. Before the current recession, society's view of "Wall Street" was generally very positive. Now, things are a bit different.

The fact of the matter is that we do not live in an ideal world. But we want to move toward one. The best way to do that is through a strong economy. A financial sector is a necessary part of a strong economy. But I worry that people discount its value to our country.

As long as people view the financial sector distastefully, we are going to need to incentivize working in it. Otherwise the only people working in the financial sector will be people who don't care if they are viewed as working in the dregs of society. That is not the type of person we want in charge of the economy.

(FYI - No, I am not going into finance.)

<comment><USER17> We can most certainly demonize the financial sector.

Making money with money is enough of a lure people will still do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Carried interest is just one of the loopholes that hedge funds exploit that should be closed. When I worked for a quant fund, we were making at least one trade a day, but because we were trading futures contracts we were mostly paying long-term instead of short-term capital gains.

</comment><comment><USER19> Looks like high income (250k-1.2million)/small investment portfolio people (doctors and lawyers) are going to be even more screwed since they already pay high taxes and probably have enormous student loans.

<comment><USER20> Can't you substract the interest from your income?

<comment><USER21> Non-American here. Was there/is there a rationale for allowing people to deduct interest from their incomes? It has always seemed odd to these English eyes. Is it considered a way to encourage people to buy property/invest in their education or is there more to it than that? As a home owner, I would love this deduction ;-)

<comment><USER22> _Was there/is there a rationale for allowing people to deduct interest from their incomes?_

Yes. The situation is analogous to borrowing money to invest in the stock market: Your profit is the profit you make from the stocks minus the interest you pay on the loan, and that difference is what you pay tax on.

In Canada, a mortgage on a principle residence is not tax deductible, since Canadian tax law doesn't consider where you live to be an "investment"; this is balanced by a principle residence being exempt from capital gains tax.

<comment><USER23> If you have a 'home office' then the interest you pay on your mortgage is an expense, and is thus a business deduction, as are hydro, gas, communications, etc.

If you have a business that borrows to buy and then rent houses, the same principle pertains; the interest on the mortgage is an expense.

<comment><USER24> AIUI in some areas if the business claims for part of the main residence as a home office over a prolonged period then Capital Gains Tax can be due on that same fraction if there's a profit when the house is sold. IOW, it's not a free lunch.

<comment><USER22> I'm not very familiar with these rules, but you're definitely right that there are some complications. I have a friend who works for CRA and commented that he would never claim costs of a home office in a residence he owned, simply because the tax savings wouldn't be enough to make up for the headaches and tax audits which would result. (Claiming a home office in an apartment you're renting is much easier, since there's no capital gains to worry about and there's an easy paper trail for how much the space costs.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's also the qualified dividend tax rate of 15%.

This is justified by the fact that the corporation will be taxed on any income that is paid out as a dividend. Therefore the effective tax rate on the income is the corporation tax plus the dividend tax rate.

<comment><USER26> Is the effective tax rate on the carried interest loophole just the 15% Arrington mentions, or is it also more?

I ask because we can talk about capital gains tax rates and how low they are, but we should always talk about effective tax rates, in my opinion. That was why Subchapter S Corporations were created, I believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If his tax rate (and those of people similar and better off) did in fact jump from 15% to 20%, then that sounds like this particular policy change (tax the rich a little more) was successful and does not, in fact, apply only to the "income rich". "Tax capital gains much less than ordinary income, even on other people's money" is a seperate policy decision, which was the situation before and is the situation now. In fact, the gap closed very slightly - <USER2> rates on the top income bracket went up 4.6%, whereas tax rates on capital gains for high earners went up 5%.

One thing that is bugging the hell out of me is the news coverage. They continually throw numbers around without being at all precise about what the numbers mean. I saw an op-ed, in the last run, arguing that $250k didn't amount to aaaalll that much once you take taxes out of it so let's not raise taxes on those making around $250k - except the $250k figure everyone was throwing around was post taxes; in pre-tax income $250k was simply not a any sort of interesting point. Now, we're hearing that capital gains is going up for people "making more than X", and the like - is that pre-tax? post-tax? is capital gains counted toward that? These things hugely change the character of the situation, and I flat out can't get it from the press, and that is absurd. Similarly, "Extend the Bush tax cuts for people making more than X" - that's not what anyone was talking about; they were talking about extending for everyone the Bush tax cuts on the first X dollars of income.

<comment><USER5> I would assume $250K and other figures relate to AGI (adjusted gross income). That's how taxes are usually based. As to how to calculate AGI from nominal salary, there's a reason there are 1.7 million accountants in the US :) US tax code is one messed up piece of spaghetti code.

<comment><USER13> For the $250K figure, you would be wrong. When that number was being cited, the top tax bracket started at something north of $350K ($366something, IIRC, but I may not) which wound up being $250k after taxes. This is, of course, precisely what is bugging me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Capital gains is a tough one because the "gain" could just move to a foreign asset

CrunchFund could start being denominated in Pesetas, Roubles, Euro or Sterling.

The interest deduction makes the effective rate of circa 15% internationally competitive.

There is still plenty of room to budge 5% say, but beyond that would get limited returns and capital rehoming.

[http://accf.org/news/publication/an-international- comparison...](http://accf.org/news/publication/an-international-comparison- of-capital-gains-tax-rates)

</comment><comment><USER28> If there was no "carried interest loophole" people would have no incentive to invest money in their own business. Wouldn't this be a bad thing?

<comment><USER29> The number of companies started in any number of countries around the world with substantially higher tax rates demonstrate that people clearly do still have incentive to invest in their own business even if they pay more.

<comment><USER28> this is not really a convincing response; starting a company doesn't have to be capital intensive and you could do it with someone else's money.

<comment><USER29> You did not make any claims about the amount of money invested. You made a blanket claim that closing this loophole would remove the incentive to invest in your own business.

This would translate to investing "someone else's" money too, as that investor or lender would presumably be looking for a return.

More personally: I've co-founded several companies. Never once was tax loopholes or tax levels at all any part of my consideration or the discussions I've had with co-founders or various VC's about whether or not the business was worthwhile. At most taxes would be some line item buried somewhere in a spreadsheet amongst other costs of doing business.

Maybe it affects amount of capital available in the market, but it certainly does not take away the incentive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is there somewhere the detailed effects of the deal are spelled out? I see conflicting reports over such things as whether the 20% capital gains rate applies to everyone and which income the 3.8% surcharge applies too.

</comment><comment><USER12> The first thing I thought of when this bill cleared was the recent news regarding how much Apple pays Tim Cook[1], said to be the highest-paid executive in the country (in total, not just salary). His big RSU grant isn't going to begin vesting until 2016, but he now makes $1.36mm and more in incentives annually (in salary, which is Arrington's point) so presumably this deal will affect his taxes quite a bit. I'd be curious to know just how much to put things into a little bit of perspective.

[1]: [http://www.macworld.com/article/2023491/apple-gives-tim- cook...](http://www.macworld.com/article/2023491/apple-gives-tim- cook-51-percent-salary-increase.html)</comment>


Ask HN: Using 5-drive RAID 0 array as another cache layer - <AUTHOR>

I recently started using Intel Matrix Storage RAID solution that allowed me to use my 5 1TB drives for two RAID volumes. First one a 1TB RAID 0 striped across all 5 drives and second one a RAID 5 across the rest of the free space on all drives (around 2.85TB usable space).
The RAID 0 I use for OS, applications and games while the RAID 5 I use as a more-permanent type storage (photos, projects, etc). Now I do realize that running the OS and applications on RAID 0 across 5 drives is very dangerous, which is what brings up the following question.
Is there a reliable freeware realtime backup application that can backup a set of folders from one drive to another drive (no online backups needed)? I've already tried a few (Mozy, Yadis, Comodo Backup, GFI Backup, Idoo, Crash Plan) but none meet my requirements:
- Low CPU and RAM usage.
- Realtime Backups: as soon as a file is modified in the source folder, it is added to the backup queue which will be processed with the lowest priority when the CPU is idle. This backup queue should persist in cases of computer restarts and crashes (ie: the source and destination folders should always have the same set of files, except for the ones waiting in the backup queue).
- Incremental Backups: if only 10 bytes changed in a 1GB file, the app should only copy those 10 new bytes.
- Ability to back up locked and opened files (some apps, like Yadis, can't back up critical files like browser favorites).
- Ability to run as a service (no need for any user to log-in to have the app started).
Optional requirements:
- Compression of the destination into a well-known format (RAR, Zip) that can be directly read without the use of the application.
- Preset source folders (such as Browser Favorites, Game Saves, Application Settings, etc).
The idea is to use RAID 0 array as "semi-persistent RAM-like" storage which in case of a failure can be quickly rebuilt by reinstalling the OS, apps, games and copying over the settings, saves, favorites from RAID 5. I'm also thinking of taking this RAID 0 as RAM idea to the extreme with SSDs (as soon as we get some nice 6Gb/s SATA III SSDs out there), where a couple of SSDs chained in RAID 0 will work as yet another semi-persistent cache layer sitting between the RAM and the HD and serving all file requests for the OS, games, apps, etc.
Ideally, I need an application (or a loopback driver) that would convert any disk volume into a write-back, read-through cache backed by another disk volume as permanent store. If such an application doesn't exist, I'm thinking of writing one. <comment><USER2> You're way off the deep end here. An SSD would probably be faster and more reliable as a boot drive than your RAID-0. In fact, your RAID-0 is probably no faster than RAID-5 in most cases, but it's obviously more dangerous.

For your backup needs, it sounds like continuous data protection is what you're looking for.

There are two (announced) SSD cache drivers for Linux: <http://github.com/facebook/flashcache> and <http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/30/496></comment>