How rich would you be if you'd bought Apple shares instead of a Mac in 2003? - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2013/05/27/what-if-you-bought-apple-shares-instead-of-a-17-powerbook-g4-in-2003/?awesm=tnw.to_i0fCx&utm_content=How%20rich%20would%20you%20be%20if%20youd%20bought%20Apple%20shares%20instead%20of%20a%20PowerBook%20in%202003

<comment><USER2> In 2003, Apple was picking up steam, but the iPod was a 2 year old product, and they weren't selling music until late April. There was no iPhone, and no iPad.

At the time, if you wanted to ride the technology wave to riches, it would have seemed a safer bet to buy Palm or RIM.

<comment><USER3> Proving what my dad is always telling me "The stock market is essentially gambling. If you're going to buy stock do it to own the company not to speculate"

<comment><USER4> > If you're going to buy stock do it to own the company not to speculate

Why would you want to own (a small part of) the company? The only reason I can think of is to receive dividends, but unless you know the future dividends that is still speculation.

<comment><USER3> We weren't talking small parts but influence the board/seat on the board parts:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The first major purchase I ever made was a Macbook Pro in 2009 - I spent ~$3000 that I didn't really have on it.

I would wager that in terms of increased personal learning and productivity in the 3-4 years or 10000+ hours of use since then, I've made far better returns on that purchase than even a purchase of AAPL stock in its heyday.

<comment><USER6> > I would wager that in terms of increased personal learning and productivity > in the 3-4 years or 10000+ hours of use since then, I've made far better > returns on that purchase than even a purchase of AAPL stock in its heyday.

Which was a return of ~$216.6k according to the OP. So, you've made a marginal $55,000 a year since 2009 which you would not have made with any cheaper laptop?

<comment><USER5> Haha, I appreciate the skepticism for my apple praise. :) For what it's worth, I don't care much for the rest of Apple's offerings.

It's only 2013 - I get another six years for my macbook investment to play out. In April 2007, AAPL sold for $90/share, which works out to profit of $36k over the same length of time, four years.

Have I made $9k/year more than I would have had I not bought the macbook? Not likely. But it's helped me to work _and learn_ efficiently and productively, and $9k/year is inexpensive tuition.

Could I have done the same with a different laptop? Maybe. But my point is that it's important to invest (judiciously) in yourself, too. Whatever tools you need to learn and become the best at what you want to do may be different, but don't underestimate the utility of that investment.

<comment><USER7> of course, you are both comparing the difference to... zero?!

(you should compare the price difference to an equivalent laptop (however defined) if you're talking "marginal")

<comment><USER6> I'm not comparing the difference to zero. Note my convoluted phrasing which I wrote specifically to forestall your objection:

> you've made a marginal $55,000 a year since 2009 which you would not have > made with any cheaper laptop?

Of course I don't think he actually has, and that he would have gained pretty much whatever he has gained with a much-cheaper-than-$3k-laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://www.kyleconroy.com/2010/04/apple-stock>

<comment><USER9> Thanks, I was wondering if that was going to make an appearance. I'd almost call what the next web is writing here to be plagiarism, but probably just lazy reporting (didn't know it existed and didn't even try to look).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty poor, since I needed that Mac for work.

</comment><comment><USER11> What would have happened if you had _all_ done that, though? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER12> I bought my first Mac in 2002 (an iBook) for, I think, 800 Eur. Back then I was really, really poor, and I considered the Mac an investment in education (I wanted to run a Unix OS to learn about it, while still being able to use Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, and Cubase).

Sadly, I wouldn't have had the money to buy Apple stock for 800 Eur instead. I should have bought the stock a couple years later, in 2004 or 2005, when I was absolutely sure Apple would be huge; I just never thought about buying stock..

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't think it makes sense to correct for inflation given that the $7.57/AAPL price was in 2003 dollars and the $216,678 is in 2013 dollars.

</comment><comment><USER14> We'd all retire rich!</comment>


Reddit purges 1/2 of The Donald's moderators – replaces them with approved mods - <AUTHOR> https://reclaimthenet.org/the-donald-moderators-purged/ <comment><USER2> I find it kind of funny that people are getting so excited. Reddit has long had a policy of banning users who breach the site rules. /r/The_donald has long had a policy of breaching site rules including brigading, harassment, threats and sharing personal information. The users of that forum have literally been linked to public shootings. Given how often the breaches occur it seems quite reasonable to actually step in.

You'll note that with literally any other sub-reddit, the response to this behaviour would have simply been to shut down the sub-reddit. How many second chances do you need? Personally I would've thought the first person shooting up a restaurant would've been the red line but apparently not.

<comment><USER3> That's not true. It's plastered all over not to brigade. NP links are required to prevent it. Ironically T_D deals with brigading from other subs all the time.

The mods at T_D have followed every rule to the tee. Other subs are not expected to control all of their users, but at least to enforce the site rules, T_D mods have done this. I haven't seen any evidence otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent if we want to use the fairest judgement standard.

<comment><USER4> NP links aren't 100% effective in stopping brigading. You can simply remove the "np." from the URL.

<comment><USER5> The point was the mods were following the guidelines to prevent encouragement of brigading.

Of course you can change the link, any user in any sub can change a link and brigade, at that point the blame is on the individual, not the group.

I could show you many examples of rule breaking all over Reddit, that doesn't mean you quarantine the entire sub, there would be nothing left.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I personally think that this article buried the lede as far as controversial Reddit actions go. Users now can be (and have been) banned for upvoting posts in quarantined subreddits (both on the right - T_D - and the left - Chapo Trap House - among others). I've seen controversy erupt all around Reddit about this and it doesn't feel right to me. If the content that people are upvoting is bad enough to get banned over shouldn't it just be removed from the site and not left up to upvote?

Edit: the official policy is that only upvoting rule breaking posts will be cause for banning which makes sense. The Redditors I've heard from claim differently but are obviously biased. So take what I said with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER7> FYI, Reddit's major investors include one big Internet company from Shenzhen

Advance publications is also having huge exposure to China through Condenast's business in China

<comment><USER8> Oh interesting. I thought it was a Conde Nast company. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit) says it's headquartered in San Francisco and owned by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications) which is headquartered in NYC. Where do the Chinese come into play?

<comment><USER9> Tencent invested in reddit's series D financing round in 2019. Can't figure out what % they "own", but OP implying full ownership is not entirely correct.

Edit: and looks like OP edited their comment to clarify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is more info & conjecture on r/subredditdrama for those interested:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/f9g0t9/redd...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/f9g0t9/reddit_today_announced_that_it_would_be_removing/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/f9xk6p/cont...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/f9xk6p/continuing_on_from_yesterdays_shit_show_the_mod/)

</comment><comment><USER11> It's ironic that this publication is ostensibly anti-censorship. One of the few things I know about this subreddit is how quick they were to delete posts and ban commenters that didn't fit in with their worldview.

<comment><USER12> Similary the conservative subreddit has a rule stating it is not a debate platform and dissent or debate will be removed.

It's an echo chamber of self-victimization that probably sees the Youtube case earlier this week on first amendment application as both a win for private companies and a loss of what they consider their right to free speech.

<comment><USER13> The same echo chambers exist on the left. I was banned almost immediately from the Bernie subreddit for asking why he's running on a platform of getting money out of politics while at the same time being the most aggressive campaign when it comes to requesting donations. The "I am once again asking for your financial support" meme perfectly captures this.

<comment><USER14> > I was banned almost immediately from the Bernie subreddit for asking why > he's running on a platform of getting money out of politics while at the > same time being the most aggressive campaign when it comes to requesting > donations.

It seems like you were rightly banned for being deliberately obtuse. Pretending that there's no difference between grassroots small money donations and the kind of money that Sanders wants to eliminate from politics is straight up trolling. Even if you believe that both categories need to be eliminated, you didn't start with anything resembling a lead-in to a reasonable discussion on the matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Don't know about the politics, but we beat up each other too much:

People end up in groups based on their journey to find someone who validates their hardship.

In 201x, the process goes something like this:

When we struggle, we reach out for help, and rather than finding articles that are soothing chicken soup, they're news articles that we are worthy of contempt based on characteristics we have. The reader may get angered, as preposterously, some how, a specified group of people's needs and niche circumstance eclipses everything else. The algorithms leads to a string of sensational articles about how society needs to be restructured honor the whims of people based on a trait and exceptional edgecase circumstances.

Respect is conditional based on tribal loyalty and repeating generalized tropes with religious zeal - if you dare to dissect it as a social construction - you're out of the club. You're not enlightened, don't get it, and generally what's wrong with society, somehow.

I think general miserliness and insensitivity create the conditions for people to resort to unifying over absurd polarizing generalizations above all else. If our feelings and worth are based on preconditions, I'd assume it'd be pretty hard to build consensus, cooperate and make everyone feel loved and cared for.

That said, when people squabble over rhetorical devices instead of unifying to improve the conditions of legal persons universally, it's great for the stock market.

</comment><comment><USER16> What is really happening is reddit is just taking over all the most popular subreddits. They want to control the main vibe of the site. Understandable for a corporation but not in line with the original idea of the founders.

<comment><USER17> You're correct that it isn't surprising.

Best action is to bring this to light. Make everyone aware that Reddit is not a free speech zone--its a closely monitored and profit-driven business.

<comment><USER18> Yes we all know closely moderated speech has been Reddit's hallmark for success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Advertising and free discussion do not mix, at all. It is not surprising this sort of thing is being done by a company whose true customers are their advertisers, not users. Internet companies who mess with user content to appease advertisers are going to learn soon enough that they can't serve both masters at least for anything anyone is very passionate about, like politics.

When I was a kid®, this sort content lived in web forums or newsgroups hosted by interested parties. You were unlikely to find any of it unless you went looking for it. It is probably best if it goes back to that.

Internet pro-tip: If you don't want to be beholden to reddit, YouTube, Twitter, etc. don't use them, it is really that simple.

<comment><USER20> The problem is there aren't many places where free discussion can be had without ad funding. It's one of the reasons I started plebia.io -- because ad funded discussion platforms will ultimately make decisions that are in the best interest of their customers (ad companies), not their users.

I go into more depth in a blog post here: [https://www.plebia.io/blogs/site/uDIkCFPp2b8+Online- Discussi...](https://www.plebia.io/blogs/site/uDIkCFPp2b8+Online-Discussion- Platforms-Have-Changed)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> """

Under these new rules, users can be warned or even suspended for simply "upvoting policy-breaking content within quarantined communities."

"""

That's an interesting policy. I can see the benefit if one's goal, as owner of a forum, is to constrain the tone of the forum.

I wonder how the tone of Hacker News, for example, is changed by users upvoting comments in clear violation of forum policy.

<comment><USER22> As owner of a large HN dataset (~4M submissions, all the submissions since starting HNNotify.xyz), I've wanted to do some analysis on this.

Currently I only collect submissions, but it isn't hard to also look at the users and their age/karma as well.

<comment><USER23> How can you own data that is submitted to a site you don't own? Or do users submit to hacker news through your site?

<comment><USER22> I do not own it in a legal/licensed sense, I own the bytes that are stored in my database. As it it is easily queryable by me, where it wouldn't normally be if only using the API.

<comment><USER23> Ah, thanks for the clarification! English isnt my first language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Worth pointing out that Reddit up/downvotes have been heavily monitored for as long as Reddit fought voting rings. At least ten years. Any "suspicious" account has its voting rights neutered: The arrows become placebo buttons. I've observed this with every Reddit account I've owned (another certain website does this).

</comment><comment><USER25> It looks like they've moved to [https://thedonald.win/](https://thedonald.win/) \- I wonder if they're using a fork of reddit's old source code. The site feels like a subreddit.

<comment><USER26> It's far more active than I would have imagined from this sort of splinter forum. Though it's also the height of T_D drama which lights the perfect fire under a splinter forum.

<comment><USER3> It's been the official website of the T_D subreddit for awhile now.

This is not the first wave of drama T_D mods have dealt with. They've dealt with quarantines, post-editing, brigading, and ranking algorithm changes, that's why they have a site already and are using it as a primary platform as opposed to a backup (although the subreddit still has a much larger user base, the content is fresher on the main site).

Also, half of America approves of Trump's job, it's not crazy to think that there's a large amount of traffic, they have to go somewhere online.

<comment><USER27> Less than half. About 43% according to 538

<comment><USER3> 50% according to Gallup

46.4% according to the RCP polling average, within the margin of error to say half.

[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_tru...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls)

The average approval rating is strong enough to hold my point that there is a large number of supporters, do you disagree?

<comment><USER27> there's no doubt there is a large number of supporters. the evidence suggests that number is less than 50%

<comment><USER28> Just wait. Next week they'll be trying to impeach him because he asked the prime minister of Italy for a pizza. By the end of that, he'll be up at about 58%. Good job!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So I tried to visit [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/) to see what the fuss is about, but apparently Reddit wants me to jump through hoops to give them my email to even be able to view it. Is there any archive site or whatever that will let me view this subreddit without giving reddit my personal information?

<comment><USER30> AFAIK, when you make a reddit account it asks you for your email, but you can just leave that field blank.

<comment><USER31> They only make it look like your email address is required... black pattern by Reddit...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What does this do besides drive them to Whatsapp? Indian Nationalist movement grew to the level it is today in part because of the rapid growth of Nationalist whatsapp echo-chambers.

<comment><USER33> In the end, the reddit admins aren't responsible for moderating whatsapp. Replacing TD moderators isn't a solution to end white nationalism, it's just about policing a forum which consistently flaunts site rules. If those people want to build their own site, with blackjack and hookers, they're more than welcome to. I mean, that's where Voat came from.

<comment><USER34> Whatever one's personal views, selective enforcement has been used as a stick with which to beat certain groups and should concern everyone, even if–perhaps especially if–you aren't a member of the group being beaten at the moment:

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

<comment><USER35> Reddit's platform, Reddit's rules. I get to pick and choose who I let yell from my front yard too, but the sidewalk is mostly fair game.

<comment><USER34> Sure. But selective enforcement of rules on a platform undermines its value as a platform.

<comment><USER36> If anything, the_donald has gotten preferential treatment compared to everyone else. They've routinely broke rules and ignored warnings from admins. If any other subreddit did what they've done it'd be banned instantly. Instead Reddit keeps giving r/T_D leeway because they don't want to seem biased.

Here's a list from a year ago of rules they've broken: [https://old.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/851r...](https://old.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/851rgd/i_compiled_a_list_showcasing_the_donalds_50_worst/)

<comment><USER37> I'm not sure that AgainstHateSubreddits is exactly an impartial observer here. Or anything close to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Reddit's letter to the forum mods:

[https://i.imgur.com/lX83eZV.png](https://i.imgur.com/lX83eZV.png)

<comment><USER39> > Sign in required

>This page may contain erotic or adult imagery. You'll need to sign in if you still want to view it.

Fuck that.

<comment><USER38> That's usually due to supporters of the forum in question flagging it to prevent others from viewing it easily. If you have the mobile Imgur app it can view the link without being signed in.

<comment><USER40> It's also due to Imgur's new anti-user policy trying to get more logins.

They could easily have a button to bypass, but require signin. Same with YouTube and others following this asshole design pattern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> A theoretical example

1\. I develop a community dedicated to fascism. 2\. I appoint moderators who are themselves avid ideological defenders of fascism. 3\. Given the motives for belonging to the subreddit, the users naturally chafe at and violate the sitewide rules for reddit. They have their own interpretations of how to best implement and promote fascism. 4\. Because of the moderators' sympathies for the underlying motives and tendencies, abuse and rule-breaking continues.

Is anyone at fault here other than myself, the moderators, and the users?

PS: This article is poorly written and doesn't actually explain any of actual things going on in the_donald, it just insinuates a political agenda to this happening.

<comment><USER42> So, Trump memes are now fascism? Are we going to be surprised (again) when he wins again?

<comment><USER41> This is a bad take. I don't follow the_donald or its memes. I'm saying that if you build a community that is committed to breaking the rules of reddit it's going to get banned. You can insert knitting for fascism. It's the same across the board.

<comment><USER42> Only difference is that apparently fascism violates the ToS and knitting does not.

<comment><USER41> The actual difference is that certain ideologies attract people who think the ends justify the means or find transgression itself attractive and amusing; these qualities in the right combination lead to communities that will inevitably break the rules and undo themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> News sites like NYT and WSJ have introduced a featured comments section that is curated by the editorial team. In order to expose reddit users to different biases could the politics sub appoint a moderation team "fairly" and pick a few featured comments to expose reddit users to different leanings?

<comment><USER44> I would venture that reddit subs in "The_Donald" are not there to be exposed to reddit users of different biases.

<comment><USER43> I would argue that that's true for most reddit users. The US House has rules for decorum in the political arena where people take turns speaking. Should we try to recreate that for the politics subreddit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Reddit has become highly successful as a political discussion forum for people from pretty much every part of the spectrum, but the moderation is utterly opaque. Even relatively centrist subreddits, such as /r/Canada, have mods who ignore the published moderation rules of their own subreddit and do what they please. If they don't like a thread or post it just disappears, even if it violated no rule. Reddit's moderation system is designed to prevent users from seeing how it works.

The result is a cocktail of factors ripe for exploitation:

1\. Some political subreddits have hundreds of thousands of users and are highly influential.

2\. Mods have unrestricted power and virtually no accountability. Users have no way to check that moderation is fair and unbiased.

3\. Mods are unpaid and anonymous.

If Russia or China specifically set out to design a way to influence foreign politics, Reddit would be a fantastic platform to do just that. If you can get mods in your pocket you can promote or suppress issues to suit whatever agenda you desire.

If Reddit were going to try to reign in the very worst of its mods, /r/The_Donald would probably be a good place to start. Most reddit users view that forum as a cesspool that was quarantined for good reason. However, the methods Reddit is using here are as opaque as that of the moderators themselves. There has been no direct communication to users. All the reporting on this "purge" is sourced from the purged moderators themselves. While I have no sympathy for the mods of /r/The_Donald whatsoever, the way Reddit is operating here is indeed reminiscent of a totalitarian state's propaganda ministry. They permit much, but certain things bring the fist down hard, and it's done in a way that most people are not meant to see.

If you rely on Reddit for political information then you are making yourself vulnerable to unknown influences. While reddit is a fantastic resource in many ways, it's simply not safe to rely upon for certain things.

With most traditional news sources now being owned by a small number of international conglomerates, there is a real need for alternative forums of political discussion. Reddit, as it currently exists, should not be that forum. However, with changes something like Reddit could be made to work. Such a forum would need to make moderation much more transparent. You can't give mods the power to simply disappear that which they don't like. Users need to be able to examine the actions of moderators and question them. Taking away the toy of unchecked, anonymous power would naturally make it harder to find mods, so they might actually have to be _paid_. How you make money like Reddit does without volunteer moderators is a problem worth solving, as is finding a way to select moderators that can be trusted by the community they serve and not necessarily the company paying them.

<comment><USER20> This is a huge problem with popular discussion platforms. Users have no oversight over moderator action, and forums are run like fiefdoms. This can be a real problem when these forums grow to 100k+ users, and moderators abuse their power for person gain or just to stroke their own egos.

I'm going to shamelessly plug my own discussion platform [https://plebia.io](https://plebia.io), where there is total oversight over all moderator action (a record of deleted posts and banned users), and users can actually change the rules of their forums and _replace moderators_ through a voting system. If your mod is absent or abusive, you now have a mechanism to replace them with someone who is better.

Forums should work best for their users, not their moderators, and most importantly, not their advertisers (basing a discussion platform on ad revenue never ends well, which is why Plebia will never run ads of any kind).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Reddit is a private site, and everyone is free to host their own site with their opinions, right? What's the problem?

</comment><comment><USER47> Any other subreddit would have simply been banned long ago for unremitting and unrepentant rule breaking and evasion. And by the subreddit moderators themselves, no less, not just the users!

<comment><USER48> Well, I don't follow this _that_ closely, but I do sort of follow, and it's still not clear exactly what rules they were actually breaking: after all, Reddit doesn't have that many. No illegal content, no real names, and no "group voting" (did I miss any)? Have the mods actually engaged in any of that? This seems to me to be very selective rule enforcement; every time I've looked through t_d, all I ever saw was silly pro-trump and anti-democrat pictures.

<comment><USER38> You did not look closely or often enough, and there is sufficient evidence to disprove your "it seemed fine to me" anecdote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> where do these users go ?

<comment><USER50> The writing has been on the wall for a very long time, so thedonald.win was started by r/the_donald moderators in anticipation of the inevitable. That's the recommended place for r/the_donald users to migrate.

Check out r/worldnews or r/politics for reddit's consensus view of "impartial moderation". The recent events are to be expected and certainly were.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The 'frontpage of the internet' is actively taking control of the subreddit of a presidential candidate, in an election year. I know that HN is highly against Trump, and probably cheer for this decision, but how is this not a democratic issue?

<comment><USER52> I am continually amazed at how many people believe that "free speech" applies to anything other than the government.

No government agency is allowed to impede free speech (with a handful of exceptions). This rule does not apply to any other organization.

<comment><USER53> I'm continually amazed at how many people believe that "free speech" didn't exist before the 1st amendment was added to the constitution of the USA.

<comment><USER54> What's your point? That because in theory you might have been able to say something without losing your head before the US constitution existed, that suddenly we should apply constraints meant only for the government to private entities or citizens? Seems like a non sequitur to me.

<comment><USER3> It's funny how pro-capitalistic people get here when this comes up.

Everyone here is big government, anti-censorship, pro-speech, pro- decentralization, anti-corporation UNTIL conservatives are targeted.

As a conservative (libertarian) yes, legally speaking they can do whatever they want, but morally speaking, it's fucked up.

Ironic the quote below now applies to the opposite side.

\----

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

<comment><USER54> I see nothing wrong with it according to my morals. Maybe you could expand on what moral system would force people to interact with trolls. And I'm surprised to hear from a self-avowed libertarian that doesn't seem to have heard of the concept of freedom of association.

The "they" in that poem refers to the Nazi government. Reddit is not a government. It is people having discussions on a website run by a company. Everyone has a choice of whether or not to use it; not so with the Nazi regime.

Have you never had to throw unruly people out of a house party? If not, well then lucky you, but that's basically what's being done here.

<comment><USER3> > I see nothing wrong with it according to my morals.

Then you're blinded by bias.

> Maybe you could expand on what moral system would force people to interact > with trolls.

The members overall aren't trolls and trolling isn't concentrated just in the T_D. Stopping all trolling is impossible and T_D mods did not encourage it in anyway. I have yet to see proof in this thread or the Reddit announcements.

> libertarian that doesn't seem to have heard of the concept of freedom of > association

I wouldn't mention freedom of association because it's heavily tied into freedom of speech in the US judicial system (NAACP v. Alabama). It rules that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

> Reddit is not a government.

Well this contradicts your previous point above, but sure let's take this path. Yes, Reddit can do whatever they want, I noted that above saying it's legal. That does not mean if makes it right. If the government couldn't do it because it violates the Constitution then it's wrong in my eyes for a company to do it, even if they can legally.

> Everyone has a choice of whether or not to use it; not so with the Nazi > regime.

No they don't, because they are being kicked out and the rules have been changing specifically for them.

> Have you never had to throw unruly people out of a house party?

Have you ever thrown a small get together and everyone in the block called the cops because they just hate you and want to see your fun shut down? That's more what it's like it my eyes.

<comment><USER54> >> Everyone has a choice

> No they don't

You misinterpret my point. Nobody is forced to use Reddit. It is a privilege, not a right or requirement.

> Have you ever thrown a small get together and everyone in the block called > the cops because they just hate you and want to see your fun shut down? > That's more what it's like it my eyes.

I disagree this is a better analogy. That would be more like Twitter/Facebook/etc wielding some power of e.g. regulatory capture to shut down Reddit.

But you do raise an interesting point. This is like the rule "if you run into an asshole on your way to work, chances are they're just an asshole. If everyone you meet is an asshole, it's probably just you that's the asshole."

If you really have multiple neighbors shutting down your house parties, chances are much higher you were fucking up, either with the party itself, or generally in your relations with those neighbors.

Same goes for T_D. It's much more likely they are the assholes here. Split hairs all you want, they're getting kicked out because they just aren't pleasant citizens of the site in the opinion of the admins, which at the end of the day, are the only opinions that matter on _their site._

I won't hold my breath waiting for thedonald.win to adhere to your moral system of fairness. Nor would I expect them to with _their own site._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Good news for once.

</comment><comment><USER56> can they do the same for r/bitcoin

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think the approach is bizarre. How will replacing 1/2 of T_D mods with new management solve anything? What is the goal? I would really like to understand what is going on in the room when these ideas are presented.

T_D is a cesspool. It's not the only cesspool on Reddit. It is a special cesspool with special attention and solutions that are tricky, especially in an election year. At some point, big tech companies are going to have to articulate their role (wanted or not) in tweaking society.

<comment><USER14> Reddit is pretty clearly trying to find any viable alternative to outright banning T_D. They're attempting a proof by exhaustion that the community will not cooperate with any viable moderation policy. They're rightly afraid to just pull the trigger and delete the whole subreddit.

There's also some chance that they can get the community in its current form to die in a more organic and less sudden manner, by expunging enough of the worst users and behaviors that it is no longer such a self-sustaining cesspool. Banning mods who directly encourage "shitposting" _by name_ seems like a reasonable step toward that goal.

<comment><USER57> If you think shitposting is a "bad" thing that should invoke bans you're a little bit out of touch with the web jargon.

<comment><USER14> What obscure and/or twisted definition of "shitposting" are you operating under where you _don 't_ see it as bad for a forum that's intended to foster civilized discussion?

If you _want_ shitposting, why would you ever choose a platform that has moderation and content guidelines in the first place?

<comment><USER57> > If you want shitposting, why would you ever choose a platform that has > moderation and content guidelines in the first place?

That's a totally legit argument. People shouldn't. But as someone that was on reddit from 2008 on there were a few years were it wasn't corporate run and actually celebrated free speech in both words and policy. Then that changed. I stopped. But network effect keeps groups there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple has a record $250B in the bank - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/apple/2017/05/apple-has-a-record-250-billion-in-the-bank/ <comment><USER2> The St. Louis FED did a story on this last year [1] that basically said there are two main reasons why you would stockpile cash if you're a regular company (non-finance, non-utility): precautionary motive and repatriation taxes.

With respect to the first it comes down to uncertainty and credit constraints. Since the credit issue is basically zero for thees companies then it likely comes down to uncertainty in the market.

They want to be shielded in the case of a huge crippling depression or global catastrophe. Apple's "burn rate" is about 33BN a year, which means that 250BN would give them ~5-6 years to find a new market in the event of a nuclear holocaust if they kept spending the same with ZERO income.

At the same time, just like Venture Investors, they are all waiting for the next transistor level market shift to happen - whether they can make it or otherwise. So they are plinking away with small investments on projects that are high risk to try and flush them out.

Pick your poison:

Nuclear

Biotech/Genetics

Artificial Intelligence

Augmented Reality

Space Mining

Etc...

It's really about making sure that APPL will be around in the year 2200 irrespective of everything else.

[1][https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional- economist/j...](https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional- economist/january-2013/why-are-corporations-holding-so-much-cash)

<comment><USER3> No, it's all the massive taxes on repatriated profits. Apple doesn't even have $250B because it borrowed $78B to pay out as dividends.

When the 12% tax holiday is approved, almost all of that money comes back and most gets paid as dividends. You don't need it overseas for safety, and you don't need to burn $30B a year if your revenues disappear. A "skeleton crew" can spend a couple billion a year developing new profits in the nuclear meltdown scenario.

<comment><USER2> You don't need it overseas for safety, you just keep more of it for safety.

<comment><USER3> You don't need $250B for "safety". Apple needs maybe $50B tops. If it has a bad year it's going to slash spending. It's got professional management that know pretty much how much it will make in a quarter and how much it can spend. It also has access to further financing, both debt and equity.

Repatriate the $250M, payoff the $78M in debt, and pay out at least $100M to shareholders. Apple will have over $100M in cash again by the end of the year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it's smart to keep cash... we're in economic boom right now with a lot of cheap money around. It will come handy when it's over

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't help but think of Peter Thiel's very appropriate comments (admittedly targeting GOOG, but still applies) here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q26XIKtwXQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q26XIKtwXQ)

As I read it: if AAPL had any idea at all what to do with this cash, they would deploy it. They are completely out of innovative ideas, and are just turning the product crank. Instead, they should return $$ to investors in the form of a dividend.

<comment><USER3> They have, which is why they only have $160B in net cash. They will do more when allowed to repatriate it at a reasonable tax rate.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, how can you do anything just that little amount? /s

The could give their shareholders billions and still have plenty left over to do anything.

<comment><USER3> They've paid shareholders close to $100B and will pay more. But their hands are tied on most of the money until congress passes a tax holiday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why does Apple need all that cash in the bank? Why not spending it in R&D or giving it to the shareholders?

<comment><USER3> Massive US tax penalties for doing either.

<comment><USER8> How about investing

<comment><USER9> That's exactly what they're doing. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If they really want to redistribute, they could reduce prices. They could return to shareholders, sure, but returning to the market (of their customers) would be more economically valuable.</comment>


The Simpsons Cover The Pirate Bay & Anti-Piracy Enforcement - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/the-simpsons-cleverly-cover-the-pirate-bay-anti-piracy-enforcement-140106/ <comment><USER2> I loved the parody of the Hollywood executive doing cocaine just before he called the FBI.</comment>


Pretty good circuit breaker library – c# - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/RokitSalad/Helpful.CircuitBreaker

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been working with microservices recently so I needed an easily implementable circuit breaker. Nothing I saw really did what I wanted so I created this.

Thought I'd share.</comment>


Hillary Clinton ripped by State Department inspector over e-mail flap - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/state-department-inspector-says-clinton-breached-e-mail-security-rules/ <comment><USER2> The "email server" situation has received a lot of air time, so interesting to see some quantification of it. It will surely remain a hot button issue politically, I won't wade into that.

The relevant part of the story would center around the theme "security is hard". Avoiding such a high stakes endeavor seems a good idea, nonetheless the lessons about security apply to anyone running a personal mail server which is something I have been doing.

Turning on encryption, running behind a firewall, etc., seem like normal SOP and I do that. But it's hard to imagine meeting the way "over and above" requirements for securing a server for a high-level government official. Boggles my mind that anyone would take that on unless really knowledgeable about all the necessary procedures and having adequate administrative backup.

Definitely a bad place to be in the shoes of the folks who'd set up that system. Glad not to be there but worth learning from unfortunate high-profile mistakes.

</comment><comment><USER3> Its the reason I wont vote for/ support her. Clearly incompetent

<comment><USER4> Hardly. She seems quite adept at manipulating and threatening employees who question her behavior.

<comment><USER5> You are being downvoted, but it's the sad truth. A Donald Trump type won't get much done because throwing money at things and name calling only gets you so far. She is witty, she is a seasoned lawyer, she knows how to entrap people, she knows how to pull strings, work behind the scenes, all while saying the right things to the people asking the questions to keep just enough of liability off of her. It's disgusting, but it's what gets things done in Washington.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for the kind words. The down-votes say more about HN readers than about the truth. After all, my comment simply restates what the article conveys.

I'm interested to see how President Clinton would use classification policy and government secrecy to attack her political enemies and imprison government employees with dissenting views.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The new litmus test for Silicon Valley startups: How little can you spend? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/13/appirio-startup-google-tech-cz_vmb_0613startup_print.html <comment><USER2> There is a lot of buzz recently for outsourcing software development (thank you Guy Kawasaki), and it still bothers me somewhat. At one point someone made the observation that outsourcing tech is fine as long as tech isn't supposed to be your core speciality.

I can't imagine outsourcing the foundation of a project that I might have to work on for years to come. Maybe this is a bit overly romantic, and it would be more efficient to outsource the initial version, and build a custom one if and only if interest emerges.

Much of my discomfort about the outsourcing stems from the fact that these people are charging 5-10k and taking 4-8 weeks to build something really unspectacular. Then again, its easier to build a slick technology demo than to create a reliable tool...

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a different test. How far can you get with zero "employees", meaning no equity?

Salaries with no equity just keep you on the economic treadmill. Thus I feel somehow it's unethical and expliotative to employ anyone the traditional way. When I read stories about immigrants folding cardboard boxes for HP printers all day, to me that is not an acceptable cost of having a successful company. Of course then there's the issue of motherboard manufacturers in China and Taiwan using sweatshop conditions or something close to it -- making products we all use -- and people claiming this is an improvement for those workers. I find the whole notion of people having to work dead-end jobs -- often in poor or even appalling conditions -- just so they won't starve, to be extremely distasteful.

</comment><comment><USER3> On the referenced page, the banner is of a half-ass shot. Not exactly the image _I'd_ want to convey...

<http://www.appirio.com/downloads/google_gadgets.php>

</comment><comment><USER4> Cogswell - sorry I don't have the link, but check Mark Andreesen's blog on the view of the dot com bubble and how over-hyped the failure rate was. He made some good points about how, despite all the lavish stories, a good number of companies made it through just fine.

</comment><comment><USER5> If Dot Com buble companies had been a little more thrifty, we might see a few more of them around today. I think the cheap factor is just a correction for the spending spree during the first bubble.

</comment><comment><USER6> Usually the cheapest option is not the most efficient. But usually the next cheapest is.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the most efficient way to process large text files in Python? - <AUTHOR> I have fairly large text files (at least 5GB) and I am doing analysis on them. All I want to do is tally totals in one column and then sort using the STANDARD LIBRARY ONLY. However, after researching on Google and StackOverflow, it seems there is no consensus on best approach.
I have tried using Ordered for, CSV, itertools, buffers but it still seems I am not utilizing all resources available to me to make it even faster. I/O is ridiculously slow.
I have 32GB RAM and an Octacore setup. Should it really be taking me more than 10 min to process a single file? How best do i make sure I take full advantage of the memory and power of my machine? <comment><USER2> Why in the world do you want to use the standard library only? This is what Pandas was designed for, with optimized C code.

What are you doing which is different from something like:

      totals = []
      for line in open(filename, "rb"):
        fields = line.split()
        totals.append(fields[2]) # or whatever
      totals.sort()
      ... do something ..

or using collections.Counter()

      with open(filename, "rb") as f:
        c = collections.Counter(line.split()[2] for line in f)
      print(c.most_common(10))

<comment><USER3> Yes, Pandas is what you need. And its CSV processor is really fast compared to the standard CSV module.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you want speed, do multithreaded C or C++ or Rust or Go. Python is one of the slowest languages out there, according to various benchmarks. Cython might help you some.

[https://benchmarksgame- team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...](https://benchmarksgame- team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/fasta.html)

[https://benchmarksgame- team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...](https://benchmarksgame- team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/spectralnorm.html)

(as you can see, Python is 50-100 times slower than C++)

</comment><comment><USER5> stdlib only excludes a bunch of the common answers (i.e. this sounds like a case where pandas etc would be useful, shifting work to native code). That said, 10 min for 5 GB sounds bad - that's only 8 MB/s?

Generally, it's hard to answer in abstract what the problem might be. Some starting points: You might be unnecessarily creating temporary objects - e.g. large lists. If you don't actually need csv parsing, the csv module might be slower than something simpler. A profiler might help you there. You can modify your program for multiple cores, but that's IMHO a later step once you got the baseline fast.</comment>


The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ <comment><USER2> Sounds very much like Kant, or even moreso Leibniz and his Monads. Obviously these guys didn't know about quantum mechanics (or evolution), but the thing I find interesting is that the developers of relativity and quantum theory were very familiar with Kant and Leibniz. I have to believe their interpretation of modern physics was shaped by their reading of these philosophers.</comment>


Twitch streamers are getting blindsided by years-old copyright notices - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/21284287/twitch-dmca-copyright-takedowns-clips-controversy-broken-system <comment><AUTHOR> Yet another example in the endless story of "how we approach copyright is deeply broken".</comment>


Show HN: thsthn - 2 pictures tell a story - <AUTHOR> http://thsthn.com

<comment><AUTHOR> This week we had a hack day to experiment with integrating our API with mobile. The result was a fun little visual storytelling application we call thsthn.

Two pictures and a simple icon allow you to convey rank, order or cause visually.

We'd love to gather any feedback and hope you find it interesting!</comment>


The Agency Model - a concise description of what Macmillan wants - <AUTHOR> http://fashionista-35.livejournal.com/540618.html

<comment><USER2> I can't really agree with the apparent conclusion that the agency model is a good thing. It's more or less a revival of retail price mandates, where the manufacturer dictates to retailers exactly what they must sell a product for, instead of selling it wholesale and letting the retailer set its own prices.

That sort of manufacturer-set price model is popular in Europe but generally not permitted in the US, because it's rather anticompetitive: it effectively prohibits retailers from competing with each other on price, because they have no control over prices. Europe likes that, because it keeps companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart from undercutting the local bookstore, if it's illegal to sell books under list price; but I'm not sure it's good for consumers or, more generally, efficient markets.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, it is permitted in the US Now:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing>

"In August 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vertical price fixing by a manufacturer and its retailers, also known as retail price maintenance, is not a per se violation."</comment></comment>


Open Source Radio Telescope [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnuradio.org/grcon/grcon18/presentations/open_source_radio_telescopes/2-John_Makous-OSRT.pdf <comment><USER2> Also see [https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/](https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

</comment><comment><USER3> It mentions FRBs which are the new hot thing in radio astronomy. Can those be measured with hobbyist methods? How?

<comment><USER4> I think these are more dreams of future achievements than anything else; they also list phased arrays and interferometers but there is nothing like it on the webpage of the project.

<comment><USER5> The Open Source Radio Telescope project hasn't setup any phased array setups yet, but the Canadian Centre for Experimental Radio Astronomy uses GNU Radio for it's phased array receivers looking at pulsars. [http://www.ccera.ca](http://www.ccera.ca)

<comment><USER6> New Mexico Tech set up a two-element array with a couple of rebuilt K-band satellite-television dishes.

I don't know what they used for the correlator.

The Array Operations Center for the EVLA (Very Large Array) and the VLBA (Very Long-Baseline Array) are on the New Mexico Tech campus; we had a lot of radio- interferometer people in town.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is truly impressive. Is anybody aware of additional practical uses of GNU radio?

<comment><USER5> Hi, I'm one of the GNU Radio project officers (general busybody).

GNU Radio is used extensively in industry and academia. Hawkeye 360 and Spire use GNU Radio for satellite ground stations. Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, and a variety of other aerospace/defense use it as well for other wireless comms applications. DeepSig uses GNU Radio at least to generate test signals for their neural net based signal classification system and communication systems, possibly also internally. Analog Devices uses GNU Radio in their Scopy oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer/signal and logic analyzer application.

As said by the other commenter, check out the videos on our YouTube channel. The project is very fortunate to attract many interesting talks and speakers each year at the conference.

[https://www.youtube.com/GNURadioProject](https://www.youtube.com/GNURadioProject) [https://www.gnuradio.org](https://www.gnuradio.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> from the pdf: [https://opensourceradiotelescopes.org/](https://opensourceradiotelescopes.org/)</comment>


Generative Adversarial Networks – The Story So Far - <AUTHOR> https://blog.floydhub.com/gans-story-so-far/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone. I just published a new blog post which talks about the evolution of GANs over the last few years. You can check it out here.

I think it's fascinating to see sample images generated from these models side by side. It really does give a sense of how fast this field has progressed. In just five years, we've gone from blurry, grayscale pixel arrays that vaguely resemble human faces to thispersondoesnotexist, which can easily fool most people on first glance.

Apart from image samples, I've also included links to papers, code, and other learning resources for each model. So this article could be an excellent place to start if you're a beginner looking to catch up with the latest GAN research.

I hope you enjoy it!

<comment><USER2> Cool! But one thing I'd like to see discussed is to what extent the images in various publications have been cherry-picked.

<comment><USER3> Cherry picking is no longer necessary with recent advancements. The images on [https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/](https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/) are random and have a few artifacts (particularly the backgrounds and hair), but if you weren't looking for it you'd be unlikely to notice anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel like the reporting on these things using just the generated images is completely off point. Showing an image of a face and saying: "can you believe this is fake isn't it amazing?" Just has me going meh? At the very minimum show the "completely fake" generated image next to the closest image from the training sets used. Otherwise how do I know you haven't just built an over- engineered solution that picks a random number between 0 and the number of images you had available for training?

<comment><USER5> The nature of the Generator is that it is seeded with random inputs and trains so it is able to fool the adversarial classifier. I.e. it never sees the "true" data.

<comment><USER6> This isn't completely accurate. The generator sees the training data in the same way supervised learning might, because the discriminator sees the data, and the generator shares gradients with the discriminator.

Your point stands though, that it's obviously not overfitting, and no scientist would publish a result that was just overfitting face generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thank you for this useful summary; I think you should consider a discussion of prior work which may undermine the "revolutionary idea over a pint of beer" narrative, but might encourage independent researchers to press on beyond the idea phase.

Wikipedia GAN history (and talk) indicates it's not quite as clear cut as your framing, and this answer below on that subject from somebody who blogged the idea several years previously demonstrates there is often a hinterland of discussion that gives rise to the (genuinely) independent ideas of Goodfellow et al.

In this case the central idea doesn't seem to have been completely original to Goodfellow, though the credit is his for fully pursuing it to implementation in the current model.

[https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/301280](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/301280)

Note: the linked answer - while in the context of the well known Schmidhuber can of worms, is actually the more obscure and very polite challenge from Niemitalo (who is mentioned in the Wikipedia history). The point stands though, regardless of actor.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how these GANs can be improved to have better symmetry. All these faces seem to have mismatched eyes/ears which must be coming from the locality of CNNs.

<comment><USER9> Self-attention seems to help a lot with that. (My usual example is that with anime faces, GANs which don't use either self-attention or progressive growing frequently have a failure mode of mismatched eye color: red+blue, for example.) Self-attention is expensive, so even BigGAN uses them lightly, typically only once, like at the 64px level, but there's work on making self- attention a lot cheaper and approaches like the Sparse Transformer (which OA recently used for MuseNet to let the Transformer scale to 30k-long sequences) are promising for making self-attention a lot cheaper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The pace of improvement is pretty impressive

</comment><comment><USER11> This basically means you can take any politician or citizen and create a video in which they say or do bad (but fake) things. Age of Fake News has truly arrived. Is there some research on how to distinguish fake generated videos from real ones?

<comment><USER12> The whole idea of Generative Adversarial Networks is that you're simultaneously training a network that can generate fake things, and another network that can distinguish fake from real. The two networks are each other's adversary, the generator trying to fool the discriminator, and the discriminator trying to catch the generator.

The article explains this very accessibly.

<comment><USER13> It also explains that the training is basically done when the discriminator has a roughly 50% (random) ability to discern between real and fake.

<comment><USER12> True. I'm not sure "done" is quite the right word. I think the problem is at that point you no longer have a useful training signal, so you have to stop.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why searches like youtube work very differently/bad on mobile devices? - <AUTHOR>

So why do searches like youtube and google work very differently/bad on mobile devices? If I search for example a song on my iphone on youtube, I often cant find the official song in first few pages of results, but its always the first result on computer. <comment><USER2> When you upload a video to You-tube, you have to explicitly allow it to be played on mobile devices(I'm not sure what the default state is); so if a video cannot be played on mobiles then it does not show up in the search AFAIK.

Since it is mainly producers and official videos that do not show up, my first guess would be maybe allowing playback on mobiles used to reduce Ad-revenue. I remember a while back certain devices could not display ads during videos.

</comment><comment><USER3> Search results are personalized so make sure you are logged in on the same account on the phone and the computer. Also, many videos are marked as "not viewable on phone" by their uploaders, so you can't watch them on the phone, and hence they won't appear in search results.</comment>


Man who found - and sold - the missing iPhone unmasked - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100429/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1874

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't look too good for this guy - he has admitted not trying to return it to Apple, and he even used an intermediary to find the highest bidder amongst tech blogs.</comment>


Ask HN: What are good open source projects to lean pure C programming from? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Colin Percival's Tarsnap: [https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap/tree/master/libcperciva](https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap/tree/master/libcperciva)

<comment><USER3> I'd suggest spiped: [https://github.com/Tarsnap/spiped](https://github.com/Tarsnap/spiped)

It has far less "legacy" code than tarsnap.</comment></comment>


An interactive problem website for Clojure beginners - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/dbyrne/4clojure

<comment><USER2> Security-minded folks might be interested in the "clojail" sandboxing library ([https://github.com/cognitivedissonance/clojail/blob/master/s...](https://github.com/cognitivedissonance/clojail/blob/master/src/clojail/testers.clj#L9)) that this webapp uses ([https://github.com/dbyrne/4clojure/blob/74f381701b62a12e2bfb...](https://github.com/dbyrne/4clojure/blob/74f381701b62a12e2bfb7047e67c4a0e8d064221/src/foreclojure/problems.clj#L35)). clojail's README contains some caveats worth reading.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not link to the site directly? <https://www.4clojure.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the repo is more interesting for hackers. I watched it besides solving some problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought this site was very cool, but some of the problems could be explained more clearly. I was getting things without any idea why my answers were incorrect.</comment>


Fish Seek Cooler Waters, Leaving Some Fishermen's Nets Empty - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/science/fish-climate-change-northeast.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I hope the fishermen go tell their new government that the time to deny climate change is over</comment>


Dropouts look to learn from Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f9849650-9eb0-11e0-a4f1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1QMImQE97

<comment><USER2> I see these articles every few years, and they always have about the same thrust. After some "big thing" hits from someone who was luckily well placed at the right time, there is the hue and cry of "HE did it, so can I!". And that's perfectly fine. And I love to see it; it's truly magical to see something out of the box happen by someone who's never seen the box, but these articles (and the people who point to them as some sort of ad-proof that "anyone can do it") fail to point out the almost infinitesimally small occurrences of this actually happening /to them/.

Meanwhile, the rest of the actual world that makes living possible moves ahead with work, sacrifice, and determination.</comment>


Apple Plans to Bankroll Original Podcasts to Fend Off Rivals - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/apple-plans-to-bankroll-original-podcasts-to-fend-off-rivals <comment><AUTHOR> This is very unfortunate. Apple being totally hands off, other than running the iTunes podcast directory, is one of the best things that's ever happened for podcasts.

I like my 3rd party app (Overcast). I don't want to have to use 3 podcast apps to listen to all my podcasts.

I think I agree with some of the podcast app developers: if it's not available in any app it shouldn't be called a 'podcast'.

<comment><USER2> I see a lot of good podcast apps for Apple but I couldn't find a nice one for Android. I would like to pay for one, but I can't a reasonable one that allows me to make my playlists and speed listen without drowning me in ads. Sure I can spend hours trying each one of the dozens, but would my fellow HN have any suggestion?

<comment><USER3> Pocket Casts. End of story. It has speed settings and silence trimming, playlists, syncs across devices, and you pay for it so there's no ads.

<comment><USER2> I just bought it. Looks really nice. I like to speed listen to news podcasts, but music ones must be heard at 1x speed. It is very nice that it has customized settings by podcast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't like where media streaming is headed. This is what everyone is doing:

1\. Create a distribution platform. Users pay $14 a month to stream all content. Everyone is happy.

2\. Once successful, start creating exclusive content.

3\. Content creators on your platform start their own platforms and take content off of yours.

4\. Now users are paying $14 for 6 different distribution/content platforms. Might as well just call them "channels". This is no better than cable.

<comment><USER5> Still a lot better than cable since you can watch what you want in real time and no commercials.

Also you really don't need to subscribe to all of them. Who needs that much content? I can't even keep up with my Netflix or YouTube queue, let alone the others. I have Amazon Prime, but never use it. HBO for a couple shows, but could subscribe only during their seasons.

<comment><USER6> When cable was first introduced there were no commercials...

<comment><USER7> Exactly. As soon as these streaming services become ubiquitous and irreplaceable, they will go the route of cable and start trying to milk the cow for all it's worth.

<comment><USER8> They are already doing that. Amazon Prime Video annoys the shit out of me with those stupid ads for other shows shown before a series episode actually starts.

It is just a small step from this kind of self-promotion to showing ads for stuff on Amazon. After all, they have my purchasing and article browsing profile and could easily try to find articles that I might be inclined to buy. I would put some bucks on the line betting that we will see something like that in the next 5 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live near Gothenburg an a couple of my friends I went to university do work for Spotify. Every couple of months we meet for afterwork. In addition to that I do have my own podcast ([https://jeena.net/pods](https://jeena.net/pods)) which I only publish on my own website and added the link to my RSS feed to iTunes (and [https://gpodder.net/](https://gpodder.net/)).

Last time on afterwork they started asking me why my podcast isn't in Spotify. I hesitated at first because I knew that I'm basically would need to tell them that they're working for a company which does immoral things and that I don't want to help them to destroy the Podcast landscape.

But there was no way around it so I tried to explain it as soft as possible, but they're intelligent people and didn't have a problem in understanding what I'm trying to say even though they themselves never thought in those categories. There was a bit of awkward silence after that. But then we changed the subject.

</comment><comment><USER10> I hope exclusive podcasts don't become a trend. Podcasts are very good media format for informal education / learning. Instead of spending 30 hours reading a book, you can just listen to conversion among smart people in 30 minutes in podcasts. If there are more and more exclusive & paid podcasts, it'll become harder for young people (or people from poor areas) to access to the content.

ps, I built Listen Notes ( [https://www.listennotes.com/](https://www.listennotes.com/) ) to be an independent podcast directory that helps surface long tailed podcasts (public & distributed via rss). If you want to build a better podcast app, you can use Listen Notes API to jumpstart your project: [https://www.listennotes.com/api/](https://www.listennotes.com/api/)

<comment><USER11> >Instead of spending 30 hours reading a book, you can just listen to conversion among smart people in 30 minutes in podcasts

I don't understand this. Why can't that 30 minute conversation be transcribed into a script which you can read in 5 minutes? Either way, you're missing practically everything in the book.

<comment><USER12> Why listen to music when you can read the lyrics? The written word was created out of a need to disseminate information to the masses more efficiently than the author speaking to everyone individually, but that's now a mostly solved problem with podcast distribution. Spoken word allows for certain nuances that are hard or impossible to convey over text. Also, it's just fun to listen to a few good hosts go back and forth.

<comment><USER13> >Why listen to music when you can read the lyrics?

I feel that is a false equivalence as information transfer is not typically part of music.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Next up, exclusive websites that only work in safari?

Podcasts should just be an RSS feed that anyone can consume, but I think exclusivity will be important going forward, along with locking people into apps so they can be tracked and monetized.

<comment><USER15> Or TV shows that only work in Netflix?

<comment><USER16> I feel like there is near universal agreement that service-exclusive content fragmentation is terrible for consumers regardless of media format.

<comment><USER15> What, like exclusive news articles that are only available from that news outlet? Sure, it would be great if content siloing wasn't ever a thing—but it's been a thing since forever.

Hating on Apple for doing what the bulk of the commercial content industry seems misplaced.

Next I suppose you'll be complaining because Apple chooses to be part of the capitalist economy and expects to be paid _money_ for their goods. That's terrible for consumers! _Screw you Apple!_

<comment><USER16> Oh please. Is "embrace, extend, extinguish" bad because it is slowly closing off the open web, or is it fine that Apple, Spotify, etc are buying podcast producers and moving away from RSS for their own proprietary delivery methods.

And I'm not hating on Apple for doing what the bulk of the commercial content industry is doing. I listen to The Daily via their public RSS feeds, and I'm also an NYT subscriber. A significant majority of podcasting is available via public RSS feeds, even subscription-only Slate Plus allows you to plug a personalized RSS feed into the app of your choice. Apple and Spotify aren't building on existing open-web technologies that power RSS to deliver their premium content, they're forcing everybody into their proprietary apps after purchasing podcast producers (some of which, like Gimlet, I was previously ALSO a paid member of).

Perhaps it's best that we default to a highly critical stance when it comes to the most valuable and most profitable company in the world, and the decisions they make that affect the foundational principles of the web as we know it?

<comment><USER15> > Is "embrace, extend, extinguish" bad

Only if there is an extinguish.

Even then I'd say no, because if you don't like what happened, build your own damn thing. Channel your inner RMS, please. If something isn't free to begin with, having it taken away from you isn't a loss—it's a reminder that it was never free to begin with.

> A significant majority of

Thanks for agreeing with my point without realising it. Some podcasts aren't available for free and/or via RSS. As it happens I pay $5/month to access my favourite podcast, which is available via a private RSS feed. And my second- favourite "podcast" is free but not available with an RSS feed.

But no, zaksoup hates a diversity of business models.

> decisions they make that affect the foundational principles of the web as we > know it

Like companies putting journalism behind a paywall? Screw those arseholes! Who are they to charge me for goods and services?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I really wish they'd compete by just making the Podcasts app not a pile of shit.

It routinely doesn't sync where I am between devices and never works correctly on my HomePod. Adding old episodes on one device won't add it anywhere else. The Apple TV version simply doesn't have the ability to add episodes to your library. The less said about iTunes' podcast functionality the better.

I know they're porting the iOS Podcasts app to Mac for the next version so there's some hope.. maybe.

<comment><AUTHOR> Those problems STILL exist? That's what drove me to Overcast many years ago.

<comment><USER17> I should probably just use Overcast, too. It's insane to me how awful the Podcasts app is.

<comment><USER12> I really love Marco Arment and ATP, but I couldn't figure out the UI of Overcast, so if anyone's in the same boat I'd highly recommend Pocket Casts. It's a super nice UI and supports Google Casting.

<comment><USER18> I can't wrap my head around the way queuing works (or more so, doesn't work) in Overcast so I switched to Castro. Indie devs, iOS exclusive. Can't recommend it enough!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't mind if Apple does this. I don't even mind if Apple uses this as an opportunity to promote/feature its podcasts more prominently in Apple Podcasts. But I'm very fearful that Apple will make its podcasts only available in Apple Podcasts and won't adhere to the RSS spec and will only be available in its apps and on its platform.

<comment><USER20> I'd kind of like them to make their podcasts totally open (i.e., like every other non-exclusive podcast), with a proviso that their original podcasts cannot be made available through any app that shares exclusive for-pay content. That is, you can listen to an Apple Original Podcast(tm) on not only Apple Podcasts, but Overcast, Castro, Pocketcasts, etc., but _not_ through Spotify or Luminary.

And, yes, I recognize that'd be kind of a jerk move, but I'm okay with being a jerk in this context.

<comment><USER19> That's interesting. If there was a way to block Luminary — I'd be in favor of that.

Spotify has its own repository that is separate from Apple Podcasts — you have to manually submit to them and they don't just ingest Apple's directory (as others do), but I wouldn't be opposed to _not_ submitting an Apple podcast to Spotify.

That said, I'm not in favor of doing anything to the RSS feed that makes it nonstandard. So if Luminary can add/play files from an RSS feed (not talking about how they import stuff into their own directory) or Spotify had that feature, I'd be opposed to breaking the feed, if that makes sense.

<comment><USER20> Breaking RSS would be a bad idea, definitely. I think if they did anything like this, it would be a matter of licensing rather than a technical change. I've read reports that the New York Times and (possible irony alert) Spotify- owned Anchor and Gimlet Media have blocked Luminary from their podcasts, for instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do you guys think the world would be a better place if platform owners are not allowed to use their control over the platform to gain an advantage in adjacent industries? If this level of vertical integration is deemed monopolistic and illegal? Yes Netflix would have to divest its content business and Disney would have to divest its streaming business, Sony and MS would have to sell their game studios and end their third party exclusives. This way platforms can compete on their own merits as platforms only and content compete as content only. The consumer would win by choosing the best platform and the best content without being forced to bundle bad platform and good content or vice versa.

The situation ATM seems awful.

</comment><comment><USER22> Given the relatively low cost (I imagine), Apple could instead fund regular podcasts, but buy out their entire ad/placement inventory, and continue to make the podcasts available to everyone.

Given Beats 1 as "platform exclusive radio" hasn't made much of a splash (is it still going?), maybe audio content is better thought about as extending awareness as opposed increasing stickiness.

</comment><comment><USER23> Audio is so trivially pirated (and in fact was pretty much the first resource to be pirated in the 90s) that I don't know how many seconds they really expect this content to remain exclusive. All they will achieve is to limit the audience of these podcasts, but if users are keen to listen to them...

</comment><comment><USER24> Why do companies that build platforms and marketplaces keep doing this? Are they really so uncreative that they just can't help but compete with the vendors?

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't know why apple assumes they will be good at making creative content. Podcasts, TV, video games...

They might be. No reason to lean either way. But it's expensive. It feels contrary to the desires of people who invested in apple, the hardware, software, and platform provider...

<comment><USER26> Apple won't be making the content, my guess is they'll pull a Spotify and buy the productions companies who make the content. Things will continue the way they are now, except they're exclusive to Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Personally, I think this is good. It allows more people to make a living off of podcasting, and will hopefully keep Spotify from taking over the market.

At minimum it helps the medium gain a wider adoption.

<comment><USER28> I promise I'm not trying to troll-bait you into saying something that will get you downvoted into oblivion. I'm really curious (please people don't downvote the response, assuming one comes).

Why do you say:

> _and will hopefully keep Spotify from taking over the market._

Why would that be such a bad thing in your opinion?

Spotify seems like a clear underdog with a ton more vulnerability here. If anything I worry about the giants (like Apple) continuing to approach monopoly/gatekeeper status and closing those of us non-Apple users off from more and more.

Somewhat off topic but I literally can't even text some of my friends anymore because I'm a "green bubble" or something like that, and it drives them nuts. I hate the emerging world of have and have-nots that are not for technical reasons at all.

<comment><USER27> I'm happy to explain! From my point of view I see this as an injection of cash into the podcasting market. Personally, I don't see podcasts as being super mainstream (not on the same level as books / music / youtube). I think funding would allow more content to be produced, and hopefully allow for more people to enjoy podcasting. This would grow the market as a whole.

Spotify has most of the music streaming market (more then double Apple Music's share). I do agree that exclusives are bad, but my assumption is that Apple will make an android podcasts app if they do start charging / require service exclusivity (Like they did with apple music).

As for the iMessage issue... I don't really have a good solution for that. I know lots of people use Discord / Signal / GroupMe / Wire for group chats, since its more platform agnostic.

<comment><USER28> > _I know lots of people use Discord / Signal / GroupMe / Wire for group > chats, since its more platform agnostic._

Sadlol, I remember when SMS was platform agnostic :-(

That is really good advice tho. I've started using Keybase, Mattermost, and Telegram quite a bit and while having multiple apps is a pain, it does address the various needs of groups pretty well.

<comment><USER27> It still is agnostic! We just have better alternatives now! I agree having a ton of apps is a pain. I have a folder dedicated to messaging apps.

<comment><USER28> Very true, SMS feels super clunky and hobbled compared to many of the better alternatives we have. Thanks for the optimism :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Here comes the overcommoditized corporate schlock. I hope it doesn't take the air out of the room for the independents. The best thing about podcasting is it's not completely overrun with corporate censors. That's going to be a change for the worse I suspect. We'll get a couple game of thrones caliber podcasts, but in return most are going to be housewives of whatever quality.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's interesting to see this evolution of media over time.

It used to be that it didn't matter who you were - the distribution channel was all that mattered. For example, MTV could make you famous in an instant, but the second the channel let you go and replaced you with the next flavor of the week, you were out of luck.

More recently, we've moved to a model where the platform and medium are less important than the personality. Think Joe Rogan, who pushes his podcast out to every channel possible. Or Barstool Sports, which has various content in the form of podcasts, blogs, YouTube videos, etc.

These power law podcasters (Joe Rogan, Tim Ferriss, etc.) can make more money on their own than through exclusivity with a distribution network. But they are few and far between, and require an entire support system to handle ads, cross-posting content, business admin, etc.

So it seems that the majority of full-time podcasters and content creators, after attracting an audience, will move _back_ towards a walled garden of content.

If you're a creator making a living off of your work, would you rather spend 75% of your time on business admin and cobble together your income through ad and merch sales? Or sign with Apple or Spotify, collect a salary, and spend 100% of your time creating art?

We haven't come full-circle, though. While these creators are locked into the platform, people are coming to the platform for the creators themselves. The creators have far more power than they used to. But the consumer has to pay for a "cable package" of podcast apps and video streaming apps.

Corollary: Lots of people no longer root for teams, but for their favorite athletes. I see a ton of this especially in the NBA, where people are LeBron fans first and just root for whatever team he's currently playing for.

<comment><USER31> I kind of disagree with your take here. This is just the segmentation of the market into aggregators and channels, just like what happened with cable and like is happening with OTT services today. Netflix/Hulu are good examples of aggregators condensing into channels.

The one thing I think that makes this different is that podcasts are stupid cheap to produce and distribute. You could put together a podcast network in a weekend. Getting sponsors is probably harder than getting listeners.

I honestly don't see the value-add of Apple throwing their weight into this market, unless they're planning on monopolizing audio content distribution on iPhones, or paying a lot more than the podcast's sponsor spots are worth. I'd be wary of being tied to a single platform for distribution, because that's played hell with creators on YouTube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hopefully now Tim and Eric can secure their funding!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lInBaMusmO4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lInBaMusmO4)

(A video of Tim prank calling Apple tech support circa 2006 trying to get Apple to fund their podcast. The faux biz speak is great)

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm not sure of the potential for growth on either end that podcasts have. Certainly they remain popular with more educated consumers, but I wonder if it's a case of being unable to see outside of your bubble. On the other end, podcasts have always been super cheap to make. That isn't going to change. Most people have historically just made them for fun or out of passion.

There's probably little hope in growing a platform of highly produced podcasts that supports a bunch of creators, regardless of who does it. I think think these efforts will crash and burn. But this isn't a problem for the people who've been recording on a Zoom and paying $5/month to host their libraries for the last 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER34> No Apple don't! Just keep the iTunes aggregator of podcasts open and free. Doing so has kept podcasts vibrant and Apple the defacto curator of the canonical list of podcasts — a huge moat

</comment><comment><USER35> Does the new podcast mac app allow you to see the RSS feed like iTunes? If so, I wonder if you could extract the exclusive podcasts' feed URL and use it in 3rd party apps.

<comment><USER28> I can't answer your question, but as someone who uses ruby scripts to do custom filtering on podcast feeds, I can say that iTunes is one of the biggest PITAs to work with. Constantly evolving to further obscure the inner workings. Apple isn't the only one, but they are definitely the 10,000 lb gorilla.

<comment><USER35> I was more referring to the feature where if you already subscribe to a feed, you can get the URL from either the right-click menu or menu bar menu. Although I remember there being a way to get the RSS feed from the Apple Podcast webpage for the podcast; is this what you are talking about?

<comment><USER28> Sorry I missed your reply earlier. I was more referring to getting at the RSS feed URL from an iTunes link

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> That's so unnecessary.

If Apple wants to fend off rivals, then just stop treating podcasts as second class citizens and built tools for creators, including detailed analytics. I'm not talking about the type of analytics that Google would built (one that reports that you were sitting on john while listening to this part), but one with anonymized usage data that helps creators producing new content and generate revenue through subscription and advertisement.

<comment><USER37> What part of Google analytics do you think are different from what you described?

<comment><USER36> I meant that Google would try to extract any and every information from a user, while Apple can easily just provide the most important information.

Admittedly, I was trying to be a bit funny. Didn't work out obviously.

<comment><USER38> No, I got it. People who get the joke don't leave a comment. They just exhale out their nose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Does anyone else think the Podcast app is unusable? This is what I'd do if I were Apple.

1\. Fix your app for people that sub to more than 10 podcasts, I crash all the time and takes me maybe 5-10 minutes to load into the app. I had to switch to Spotify because I can't use Apple's version anymore.

2\. Host podcasts for premium members. Run ads for them.

3\. Create an Android and Windows app. Separate Mac app. Own this space.

</comment><comment><USER40> One interesting place Apple could add value is offering (once they combine all their services into Apple+, and then maybe only for those users) let podcast creators host ad-free versions of their episodes and give a little kick back to them when an episode is downloaded.

</comment><comment><USER41> Is this where Spotify is heading as well with its acquisition of Gimlet?

<comment><USER42> Yes, and Anchor. Podcasts are on the way out, just like the open Web. It's unfortunate that we refuse to learn from history.

<comment><USER43> Is there any reason we can't just rip podcasts from these, post them in RSS feeds and have the non-owned apps list them for free - thus making them far superior by giving them access to all content?

<comment><USER44> Immediate DMCA claims? These podcasts may be free, but they're not copyleft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Apple is trying to compete on the wrong turf à la Netflix, Prime Video and Spotify. At the end of the day when the "original content" fad ends, its going hurt Apple badly.

</comment><comment><USER46> Pesky RSS 0.92 !

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15851985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15851985)

</comment><comment><USER47> Spotify started this war, but Apple will finish it.

</comment><comment><USER48> Que google releasing their verison: audio adwords for podcasts with optional subscriptions to remove the ads.

</comment><comment><USER49> Curious what kind of content will be in there.

I can't personally imagine Joe Rogan or Sam Harris kind of conversations under the Apple umbrella, since no matter the topic, there's always going to be someone offended and it's now a question of who's gonna spin the "Apple is sponsoring nazis" kind of narrative first.

</comment><comment><USER50> 2019 - The year that podcasting started going downhill because of the greed machine.

Got no problem with people making money off podcasts, but once everything starts getting consolidated, crap just goes south.</comment>


Consumer Webcams finally begin to break 1080p 30fps barrier - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/finally-a-webcam-that-offers-better-than-1080p30 <comment><USER2> Interesting that it's taken so long for web cams to increase their resolution. Especially when you can find several different brands of cheap IP security cameras on Amazon/Ebay that do 4K and/or 60 Hz.

Also, the article reads like a thinly disguised ad for a single vendor.</comment>


Justin Kan: Hack your culture - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/01/hack-your-culture/ <comment><USER2> This really hits home with me. The university where I go to school is very bureaucratic, and I think it lacks a strong community. After a year of not doing anything about it, I finally found people who feel the same way, and after talking briefly we're actively trying to "hack" our culture into something we want.

Even though we haven't changed anything at our school, we now have this tiny community of people who want to build things. But the only way to start is to figure out that there is a problem. I think that's the best message of this article: Figure out what you want, and you're already most of the way there.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's only in the last 3 months that I can really appreciate the argument that Jason is putting forward. I left Ireland and its risk-averse conservative culture behind and have tried to surround myself with entrepreneurial types ever since. The change in attitude and the drive for greatness is infectious. When you find yourself with people who are doing things that you thought out of reach your previously "crazy" dreams become so much more achievable.

<comment><USER4> Where did you move to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ok, I'm going to assume that this article draws from the work of Christakis and Fowler on social networks and happiness, obesity and depression. [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.3862&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

This is really interesting work (and i would love it if it were true) but there are some concerns about the statistical methods used in these claims. See Lyons - the spread of evidence poor medicine: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.2876>

To sum up, this idea that you can affect behaviour and outcomes based on your friend group is very controversial.

There are two possible explanations: homophily - you surround yourself with people similar to you, and contagion - your opinions affect your peer group. The biggest problem is that these explanations cannot be distinguished on the basis of the kind of studies (retrospective observational) reported by Christakis and Fowler. To do this, you would need a prospective controlled experiment tracking friendships and outcomes over a number of years.

That being said, I would like to believe it, but the evidence is not strong enough for this to be accepted uncritically.

<comment><USER6> It's a difficult effect to do a controlled experiment for because of the way homophily acts as a confounding variable. Anecdotal evidence suggests the effect is real though- as Justin said in the article, he didn't actually start riding a motorcycle until he met other people who did.

<comment><USER5> Its doable though. You recruit over a number of years at a college, get them to indicate who their friends are and ask them to fill out some personality questionnaires and demographics. Follow them for their college career, repeating the measures and asking them for their closest friends at each time point (say every month or semester). It would be expensive, but its very achievable.

Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful when dealing with people, given that we tend to reinterpret our pasts based on our presents among other memory biases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Being conscious of biases is really important. I guess the most important thing to know that you probably have a bias to be risk-adverse. As long as you aware of your biases, you can work to counter them.

As an example, I know that most people are influenced by selection bias, so it influences me less than the average person, just because I'm aware of it. I think the same thing could apply to the culture bias that is presented in the article.

<comment><USER8> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "100% failure rate at trying to change a company's culture." - Buffett, [http://billflagg.blogspot.com/2010/05/berkshire- hathaway-201...](http://billflagg.blogspot.com/2010/05/berkshire- hathaway-2010.html)

<comment><USER10> Yes, for the kind of companies which where part of the sample.

Which where no doubt the kind of companies that Buffett likes to invest in.

Which are not the tech start-ups that people who come here wants to start.

It is possible to change the culture for a small company especially if it is you and your friends. It is properly not possible to deliberately change the culture in MS.

<comment><USER9> On the contrary, Buffett actually likes to invest in companies in which he can stay hands-off and not have any influence on the culture at all. He just likes to find real winners and help them keep winning.

That's the significance of that quote, and that's why the personalities of the founders are so very important. You either have a great culture set from the start which lasts, or you have a broken one, which is largely irreversible later on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are"

It's funny, ancient systems of metaphysics from the east have been saying this for countless years.

But we all rush to the entrepreneur's words because he conforms to our idea(s) of success.

In one word: 'satsang'</comment>


Secret laws behind awesome customer support - <AUTHOR> http://www.helpjuice.com/blog/5-secret-laws-behind-awesome-customer-support

<comment><USER2> I propose an alternative (and only) rule, which violates almost all the rules in this list. You be the judge: [http://crazyviraj.blogspot.com/2011/11/customer-support- rule...](http://crazyviraj.blogspot.com/2011/11/customer-support-rule-1-dont- be-robot.html)</comment>


Early Web Startups: Building or Selling - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rafaelcorrales.com/2011/03/early-startups-building-or-selling.html

<comment><USER2> Depends on your definition of Selling.

For us, selling has always been about customer feedback. The reality is that customers are you best product managers, their feedback should build your product.</comment>


Ask HN: Whitelabeled chart.io? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for something I can use for the "BI" feature of a web app - I already have the data, but need something I can use for customizable graphs, charts, tables, filters, etc.<p>Chart.io would be perfect, but it doesn't look like they offer white labeling or reselling. Is there any such SaaS type product that you know of? <comment><USER2> I believe Google offers an API for charts.

<https://developers.google.com/chart/></comment>