Study: Searchers Choose Google Over Bing When Google's Name Is The Results - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/users-prefer-google-even-when-155682

<comment><USER2> This isn't surprising at all. It's the power of brand. People trust Google, and most I suspect don't know what Bing is.

In comparison, I wonder what would happen if somebody was given a Windows 8 touch-screen laptop and told it was made by Apple? Would they comment on how beautiful and easy to use it is? I suspect they would.

<comment><USER3> Dissonance is powerful. In the book _Mistakes were made, but not by me_ the authors describe several experiments like this.

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_(But_Not_by...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_\(But_Not_by_Me\)))

For example, a group of schoolboys are split into 2 random groups. There's a bit of handwavey explanation about the split. One group is called "under estimators" and the other group is called "over estimators". The groups quickly develop loyalty.

It's changed my behaviour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Actual title: "Study: Many Searchers Choose Google Over Bing Even When Google's Name Is On Bing's Results"

In other words, people chose Google's results, even when they were labelled "Bing".</comment>


Getting some air, Atlas? [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSohj-Iclc&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> Atlas is free!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmfJgqw3oU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmfJgqw3oU)

<comment><USER3> "No Disassemble! Number 5 is alive!"

That would have been a very different movie with Atlas in the starring role.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder what proportion of the development efforts go into securing these things.

Imagine what would be happen, if these robots start getting hacked. A virus would no longer be just sitting inside a computer, it would manifest itself in a physical form.

Hardcore viruses/trojans/worms/whatever can create physical implications: disrupting power grids, sabotaging nuclear programs[0], etc.

But, even the basic forms of viruses which hackers will start out with, can cause serious consequences because of the physicality of these robots. And not just advanced robots like BostonDynamics', even basic autonomous robots have a high potential to do physical harm, if hacked.

I somehow feel, people should focus more on securing these things vs empowering them with increased intelligence, agility and sheer strength.

I would like to know, if security of these systems rely on the current state of computers, or do they have a different set of guidelines to abide by, considering that the attack vectors can be vastly different.

With the current computer systems, most attacks are done via the internet. But with these, physical access can exploit a whole different range of vulnerabilities, which can be difficult for the bot the detect. Like, how the old PS/2 hardware keyloggers turned out to be quite difficult to detect[1]. What if someone just sticks a different kind of lens in front of the camera(s)/sensor(s) these systems rely on, which can just break all the math it is doing around visuals.

Does the current state of the art of securing these systems, handle these cases ?

[0] Quora -> [http://qr.ae/TUTPJK](http://qr.ae/TUTPJK)

[1] [https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/79124/detecting...](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/79124/detecting- hardware-keyloggers-elegant-solutions)

<comment><USER5> I imagine what some creative blackhats could do if they rooted Tesla's systems, and could now control a few hundred thousand cars.

<comment><USER6> The prospect of an OTA update hijacking your car seems to get closer and closer every day.

<comment><USER7> Daemon by Daniel Suarez is about connected nodes (including automated cars) being taken over by a rogue program.

[https://www.amazon.com/DAEMON-Daniel- Suarez/dp/0451228731](https://www.amazon.com/DAEMON-Daniel- Suarez/dp/0451228731)

<comment><USER8> I loved this book. The destruction a few thousand remotely controlled cars could wreck is terrifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've rewatched this video maybe 10 times since it came out a few days ago. The jogging part -- it's so hard to believe, still seems like CG but looking forward to seeing this in person. I love this stuff -- so much world- revolutionizing potential captured in this video!

<comment><USER2> The jogging seems to be much slower than a human would jog (for now), which contributes to the unreal look (I think).

<comment><USER10> As Elon Musk quipped, in a few years this thing will move so fast you'll need a strobe to see it. It's not subject to the human reaction time or mechanical constraints.

<comment><USER11> It is subject to mechanical constraints AKA laws of physics.

Acceleration is limited by the grip on the ground under its feet. It could slowly accelerate to amazing speeds though.

<comment><USER12> Compressed-air rockets. Or H2O2 with a platinum catalyst; "decomposition ... into steam and oxygen" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide#Propellant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide#Propellant)

We're spit-balling hero-bots, not nasty kill-bots, riiiight?

<comment><USER11> But then it's not robotics, it's rockets!!! Yay rockets!

Let's invent a new Godwin's law reached when any discussion devolves (upgrades?) into rocket talks.

<comment><USER12> Me: _mutters under his breath, "rockets are robots..."_ ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm kinda curious which Boston Dynamics exec has robots running around in the backyard of his summer home in the Berkshires

</comment><comment><USER14> Exciting and scary! We live in the time where this if finally a real thing after almost a century of discussion of humanoid robots. I wonder when / if this will become a real commercial thing.

<comment><USER15> For me the exciting part died out with the understanding of how locomotion actually works. Now it's almost a solved problem, only requiring some hardware advantages and a lot of (excruciatingly boring) man-hours to implement.

So I'm only left with the scary part. This will hit the streets in less than 5 years. Things are going the exact opposite direction of where they should be for the deployment of such robots to be beneficial to the masses. I don't like this, and I'm not alone.

<comment><USER16> > Things are going the exact opposite direction of where they should be for > the deployment of such robots to be beneficial to the masses

Just going to toss that out with no explanation?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The speed at which these robots are advancing is simply astonishing.

Any predictions on how long until we see a bi-pedal robot in a manufacturing environment?

</comment><comment><USER18> This was from 2013:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgaEE27nsQw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgaEE27nsQw)

I'm wondering what challenges we have solved since then, beside the mechanical implementation.

<comment><USER19> I think it's a bit disingenuous comparing a simple simulation of a 3d model with dubious physics with the problems involved in designing a real robot.</comment></comment>


Judge's Ruling Offers Peek into Private Equity's Secret World - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/business/judges-ruling-offers-peek-into-private-equitys-secret-world.html <comment><USER2> I wonder if history will judge the PE business model as being illegitimate. For the moment, it sounds legal, (IANAL) but it also sounds like the corporate system was not meant to be run this way.

In short, what is generally done (and also in this case) is that when you buy a company, you can have the company borrow money, and transfer that money to the PE owner. You can do this because you have good bank connections, and the company is a large going concern that is used to borrowing some money from its lenders. I couldn't just open a company tomorrow and fleece the bank by paying it all to myself.

Our corporate system grew out of the industrial revolution. There was a need to finance large undertakings in a way that wouldn't be ruinous if it went wrong. Gathering a bunch of money from investors wasn't a new idea (various "Indian" trading companies) but limited liability was seen as a necessity for risk taking. During the 1800s a bunch of western countries created the modern forms of the law ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability)).

With the PE type model, you can take over a company, load it with debt, and transfer risk-free money to a parent fund. The company doesn't necessarily go bankrupt, but it's more likely if you take a lot of debt. If the company does well, great. You can take that account statement to your bank and... pile more debt on.

Most people who run a company will not behave like this. The idea is not to have a company that is constantly on the brink, but to pay out some dividends when it's safe to do so.

<comment><USER3> >Most people who run a company will not behave like this.

No, but companies that are taken over by PE firms are fairly special.

In any case, since the fund is forced to sell the company after a few years, they're still interested in LT value maximization.

Also, high debt levels aren't just a way of taking back some of the money the fund put in. Debt helps to fix the companies. The PE business model essentially focuses on fixing principal-agent issues (i.e. management working against the best interests of shareholders). Improved governance, high equity ownership by management, and high debt loads are how they do it. "Debt disciplines management" because it forces them to eliminate -NPV projects and increase cash flows.

<comment><USER4> Did you take this straight from a PE playbook?

Debt is what makes PE (and banks) money. That is why it exists.

You think Apax and TPG trashed Hellas because they were interested in making its management "more effective"? Is that why they redeemed 1 billion euros right after the purchase? To reward themselves for all the debt-management value they brought to the company and its employees?

<comment><USER3> They bought the company for 1.6b in 2005.

They sold the company for 3.4b in 2007.

Did this happen because they made its management less effective? Do you think people who spend 3.4b to buy a company are unsophisticated investors?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Case docket here:

[http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2lf62q01i/new-york- southern...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2lf62q01i/new-york-southern- bankruptcy-court/hellas-telecommunications-luxembourg-ii-sca-and-tpg-capital- management-lp-adversary-proceeding/)

Related case:

[http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2lf6dcjz7/new-york- southern...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2lf6dcjz7/new-york-southern- district-court/in-re-hellas-telecommunications-luxembourg-ii-sca/)

I'm pretty sure the court order discussed in the article (which is never specified) is this one, Document 188 from the first link:

[http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=215714507&...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=215714507&z=327e9d74)

</comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of the Silver Lake buyout of Avaya. The debt from the acquisition has pretty much destroyed the company, but it limps on. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7VU3...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7VU34fMLHns&refer=home)

<comment><USER7> The moral being that, in these kinds of dealings, you are allowed to cripple a company, but not outright destroy it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You almost always want to sell the portfolio firm after three to five years. It is therefore in the PE firm's interests to have the firm healthy and thriving. The idea is very definitely not to cripple or harm the portfolio firm.

For an excellent example of best practice look at what Blackstone have done with the Hilton Group, Wolfskin, Merlin Entertainments ( owner of Legoland, Madame Tussaud's, London Eye ), the Bujagali Hydropower Project in Uganda or the Moser Baer Projects in India.

<comment><USER9> Well it seems that in this case PE firms have managed to cripple the firm _and_ then sell it. Strangely the details of that sale are not discussed in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I remember doing a lot of research about PE when it was a hot topic during the Romney days. It's hard to put your finger on what makes it feel unsavory. After all, there are a bunch of players who have different interests who all have to agree on the deal for it to go through. Presumably, if it were a rigged game, these deals wouldn't get closed. The whole "fool me twice" thing, and all.

Yet, these big PE firms seem to come out ahead. Certainly their principles do. On the other hand, when big companies falter, there are the bystanders: the working people, clients of the business, the community, and other non-equity- holding stakeholders. None of these people seem to stand to gain much no matter who wins the game of thrones in the boardroom. And it's not as though these people will just frictionlessly proceed on to some alternative in the market.

<comment><USER11> When accounting tricks can hide national debt (for a time), using it to hide corporate debt is likely to be relatively simple in comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can someone explain how, if I borrow to buy a company, the company carries the debt after the sale? This seems to me what happened here, am I correct?

<comment><USER13> Because you borrow money as a new company called NewCo formed offshore and then you buy the old company with a loan tied to the assets and performance of old company. This loan is also contingent on NewCo completing the acquisition of old company. Ideally you give no personal guarantees so the bank only collects assets of old company if it fails and you walk away with your fees and dividends that you've received since then.

<comment><USER14> Doesn't seem like a good deal for the banks. And bankers aren't the ones to let themselves be fooled like that. Something's fishy.

<comment><USER15> This depends. There are certain types of debt with different risk levels.

The debt with the lowest levels of interest tends to be traditional bank debt. If the company goes under, they are first in line to recover any losses. The more debt involved in a deal, the riskier it gets.

If you fund a $100m deal with $40m in debt, and $60m in equity, that's fine. That's usually low risk if it's a healthy company.

Now imagine the same deal, $80m debt and $20m in equity. Traditional banks might only give you a loan for $50m. The remaining $30m you will need to get from other investors, who will be further in line to recover any losses (meaning they will charge a higher rate of interest).

Why do banks love big deals? Easy: these deals generate a lot of profit. On a $100m loan, they'll be making $4-6m a year.

Usually the risk level is acceptable for them, since they're first in line when the company gets liquidated.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


So you're thinking about investing in Bitcoin? Don't - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/15/should-i-invest-bitcoin-dont-mr-money-moustache <comment><USER2> Almost everything in this article is wrong. This is someone that does not understand bitcoin or crytpo. In many ways, the market is overvalued but not in every way. There is too much here to try to clear but its clear that mr. mustache has no real understanding of this.

This is not tulips or finger nail clippings. this is something new. something wonderful. but yes with its own problems.

<comment><USER3> for one tulips and nail clippings are psychical and can't be transferred around the world near instantly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Even if you win money through dumb luck, you have lost time and energy, which means you have lost."

Winning money while losing time and energy is what happens to most when working a job, should we just give up on working as well then?

The story about the cancerpill also isn't comparable to cryptocurrencies.

"You could make the same argument about my fingernail clippings: they may have no intrinsic value, but they're in limited supply so let's use them as the new world currency."

If everybody can agree on this then you have a new currency, no? Isn't that the same as our current currency? We just agree on pieces of paper to represent a monetary value.

<comment><USER5> How do you get everyone to agree when the barrier to creating yet another crypto currency is so exceptionally low?

<comment><USER2> Maybe explain why you think its low? I think it may actually be very hard to build one of any value. 90% of crypto is worthless. But so is 90% of fiat currency. Unless you think your Haitian currency is worth something.

<comment><USER3> creating a crypto currency easy. creating one that lots of people will trade and use quite another.

Then even if you were to get a lot of paper wealth as a founder, sell large quantities of it without disrupting the market price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Who the hell is writing these articles? The author sounds like the kind of person who loves his 20 second reads on Slate. I didn't expect much better coming from The Guardian. It makes me wonder, are they just pushing out these articles to force weak hands to fold or never enter in the first place?

So you're thinking about writing an article about Bitcoin? Don't

</comment><comment><USER3> You could make the case for momentum investing as well. The underlying asset has value but not at the premium you paid for it. or any stock that doesn't pay a dividend it has no intrinsic cash flow.

</comment><comment><USER3> To me one of the neat early ICO projects is shared wifi access. outside of the coin that can only be traded space. which is were the true potential of crypto currencies can shine.

</comment><comment><USER7> (...) we need to separate the usefulness of the underlying technology called "blockchain" from the mania of people turning bitcoin into a big dumb lottery. Blockchain is simply a nifty software invention (which is open-source and free for anyone to use), whereas bitcoin is just one well-known way to use it. (...)

Will just comment on this sentence: careful here, blockchain is just one of the technologies that Bitcoin uses. But there are other important elements to Bitcoin, such as the concept of decentralization. A company or a bank can use blockchain in a centralized manner. This video by Andreas Antonopoulos (bitcoin advocate) helps make the distinction: Bitcoin vs. blockchain ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHbtp7pOftU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHbtp7pOftU)).

From the video description: "Blockchains are only one of the foundational technologies. In an attempt to co-opt the interest around Bitcoin, companies and governments are trying to circle the square by creating centralised and permissioned versions while entirely missing the point: decentralization."

PS: That being said, Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency using blockchain and decentralization.</comment>


Why dojo toolkit get so little spotlight on HN compared to other js frameworks? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys, I often see how much praise does jquery/sensa get here.<p>But very little is posted about dojo toolkit (http://dojotoolkit.org/), and I feel that it deserves more recognition, since requirejs/AMD formats come from http://dojofoundation.org/, same goes for cometd protocol back in early web 2.0 days.
Since I'm a pretty early user (from 0.4.x days), I know that documentation wasn't good enough etc. But things have changed considerably since those days - and currently the framework is very modern with it's AMD approach to build things, application/model infrastructure, widget infrastructure, topic system, i18n support, a11y support. There is a good Zend Framework integration layer in PHP. So this makes me wonder, why we don't hear more about it here and other places?
Is it that it's more verbose when it comes to code? The only place I often see dojo mentioned would be javascript positions in banks since they probably use a lot of their widgets.
I seriously think that this is the most underpraised (is that even a word?) javascript framework, so I would love to hear why people are not using it, is it because everyone knows jquery/needs their plugins? (a lot of what is available externally there is bundled as dojox/dijit component in dojo) <comment><USER2> I run JavaScript Weekly (for context, it's an e-mail newsletter with about 33k subscribers) and I get asked this quite a lot.

The answer is made up of many variables but comes down to it not being as popular, it not having anywhere near the volume of plugins being made for it as jQuery, nowhere near as much content produced about it, and so on.

Dojo is great but there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to promote it in a way that it hits critical mass with regards to other people generating screencasts, tutorials, plugins, etc, that do well on sites like HN, Reddit, or even getting shared on Twitter.

For something to have wide exposure, it doesn't matter how good it is. What matters is how it's promoted, pitched, and marketed. Things like jQuery, MongoDB, and Rails have done a great job of the latter even if they're not the most technically excellent solutions.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, but what always puzzled me, what exists there as jquery plugins is often available as dijit, dojox - provided directly by framework itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think the issue is that Dojo and jQuery are very different in their aims, Dojo is a comprehensive toolkit, where jQuery is more focused on selectors and the dom, it has grown over time but it is not as complete as Dojo or some of the other project that's goal is to be a comprehensive toolkit. Dojo targets the same market as YUI or Ext and out of those I personally prefer Dojo. Dojo is a good tool when you are looking to replace a tradition large application with an HTML based equivalent. It's not so great for packaging up a 3rd party widget that people can just drop on their page.

Further I see Dojo as following the Java or .NET model of one large well integrated project where building apps with jQuery is more like the Perl approach of small projects contributed by a host of individuals. So with jQuery you generally go out and get Require.js, Underscore.js, Backbone.js and piecemeal together your libraries as you need them. There are merits to both models but some prefer one over the other. For me I use both, but it depends on the requirements. If someone wants a large corporate app replaced with a HTML version, I choose Dojo, if someone wants a widget that they can give out to third parties I choose jQuery.

</comment><comment><USER4> I love just about everything about dojo. The source is easily understandable (compared to jquery in my opinion, also the extensive inline documentation is very well done), and it is a great framework. Having said that I think dojo never caught on to the mainstream masses not because it lacked online docs or a nice browsable api like jquery has (although it wouldn't have hurt it), but mainly because you simply have to understand what you're doing when you use dojo. jQ abstracts so much from the dom and simplifies it to such an extent that a complete newb can in notime get some web interactivity going (which is all most people have wanted / still want). Also the fact that jquery keeps its purpose domain small (just dom api, no graphics widgets, etc), means it concentrates on the 80-90% common use cases for site owners.</comment>


Snowden: 'Not all spying bad' but NSA program 'divorced from reason' - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57617680-38/snowden-not-all-spying-bad-but-nsa-program-divorced-from-reason/

<comment><AUTHOR> A couple of quotes from the article

> The people at the working level at the NSA, CIA, or any other member of the > [Intelligence Community] are not out to get you. They're good people trying > to do the right thing, and I can tell you from personal experience that they > were worried about the same things I was.

> "I think a person should be able to dial a number, make a purchase, send an > SMS, write an e-mail, or visit a Web site without having to think about what > it's going to look like on their permanent record."</comment>


Ask HN: F/OSS Build Automation for C# - <AUTHOR>

I've been really trying to get comfortable developing in C#.Net, as the platforming at work has been constrained to Microsoft offerings.  Presented with a classic blank slate problem, I decided (perhaps in poor judgement and time mis-managed) to invest some time into starting a ('automatable') build process.
Anyways, if you've got a minute and can take a look (link at bottom), recommend any tools/tooling missing, and any good books that speak to these topics. Or, any constructive criticism that occurs to you as it might be entirely to sparse on the details.  Thanks!
http://kleevr.blogspot.com/2008/05/c-build-automation-using-svn-havent.html
* I just realized I may have been using 'Ask YC:', when I should've been using 'Ask HN:',... or perhaps 'Ask 1:' *
 and just remember shift-8 makes things italic <comment><USER2> I've implemented systems using CruiseControl.Net and have had pretty decent luck with it.

It works fine with SVN.

Here is a good book to get you started:

[http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Delivery-Using-CruiseControl- NE...](http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Delivery-Using-CruiseControl-NET- Experts/dp/1590594851/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Build automation is not a waste of time, it's a sound practice among others. See The Joel Test: 12 Steps to Better Code

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html>

       1. Do you use source control?
       2. Can you make a build in one step?
       3. Do you make daily builds?
       4. Do you have a bug database?
       5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code?
       6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule?
       7. Do you have a spec?
       8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?
       9. Do you use the best tools money can buy?
      10. Do you have testers?
      11. Do new candidates write code during their interview?
      12. Do you do hallway usability testing?

<comment><AUTHOR> I remember reading that article what seems like years ago, and I think's it's always been hanging around in the back of my mind ever since. It was good to read it again-- like re-watching a good movie.

<comment><USER3> These days I read it an it seems obvious to me, which means Joel did his job well. The "old" Joel is classic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You have two major choices, NAnt and MSBuild. I recommend you learn MSBuild and how to deal with visual studio with it. That way you'll be more effective in the long run.

Unless, of course, you're not using the MS toolchain. Then NAnt is the only real choice.

<comment><USER4> Also, you should seriously consider replacing NUnit with mbUnit. It's far more powerful and will save you a lot of time once you get comfortable with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> First question: are you using source code control? If not, how many developers are on your team? If it's just you and you don't need/want-to use source code control, consider batch file builds scheduled as Scheduled Tasks in XP/Vista/OS.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I was thinking I was only a scheduled batch file or two away from some semblance of automation. Also if I could find a XSLT to beautify the XML tree that comes from NUnit.

 _edit_ , I'm currently the only developer, but hopefully that won't be true for too long, I've been trying to get our office ready for a collabrative environment, because we're about to step outside the scope of 1-person-1-project

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> link: [http://kleevr.blogspot.com/2008/05/c-build-automation- using-...](http://kleevr.blogspot.com/2008/05/c-build-automation-using-svn- havent.html)</comment>


Saving 80% in 90 Seconds? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.lemonade.com/2017/02/15/saving-80-in-80-seconds/ <comment><USER2> Why is the title here mention AI if the post itself has absolutely no mention of it? This is basically blatant advertisement for lemonade. Geico, Metlife, and others offer very competitive rates for renters insurance (<$80/year) in major metro areas and have done so for several years

<comment><USER3> I have similar questions after seeing the example monthly rates they give for the competition. I've never in my life paid that much for renter's insurance, it's always been around ~100/year. Progressive and Geico (reselling Travelers), mainly.

So I just kinda assume it doesn't apply to me, or are best-case edge scenarios where they judge risk of certain customers dramatically differently. But it certainly can't be "legacy insurers have enormous overheads, making a $60 product ($5/month) impossible" as a unique advantage, since I pay $75 a year today.

(And it does cover property damage liability, not simply personal property, something they seem to indicate their own does not: "Renters insurance covers personal property, rather than real-estate." Maybe they mean renters policies usually carry less property coverage, like $100K instead of full value of the property, I don't know, but it's just another weird thing in a weird-reading sales pitch that doesn't seem to apply to the world I've been living in.)

<comment><USER4> You are not covered for property damage with a renter's insurance policy. The $100,000 coverage is for liability (e.g. a guest slips and falls and she's you.)

You are also covered by a smaller amount (e.g. $10,000) for your personal property.

<comment><USER4> "and she's you" -> and she sues you

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Prototaph" by Keith Laumer is a short story with this premise. All the computers refuse to insure a man, so he goes on a quest to figure out why. It's a fun read and incredibly prescient, published in 1966!

It's available online legally:

[http://hell.pl/szymon/Baen/The%20Baltic%20War/The%20Lighter%...](http://hell.pl/szymon/Baen/The%20Baltic%20War/The%20Lighter%20Side/0743435370__21.htm)

<comment><USER6> What a great read! The language is a bit bumpy at times, but it _was_ published over 50 years ago.

What does 'BB' mean?

<comment><USER7> There's an English idiom "sweating bullets" [0] which refers to a state of panic or dread, possibly with the image that droplets of sweat are being forced out at speed.

I believe the author is replacing "bullets" with "BBs" [1] to fit the youthful 21-year-old protagonist. BBs are a much tamer kind of spherical projectile popularized by a variety of teen-toys. The actual origin of "BB" goes back to serious guns again, as a defined size of metal buckshot pellets.

[0] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sweat_bullets](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sweat_bullets)

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

<comment><USER6> Ahh, excellent explanation, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They've sold less than $100,000 worth of renter's insurance, after spending millions of dollars pre and post launch. Their reinsurance costs are almost as much as their premiums, and they haven't dealt with any large claims yet. Frankly, they have no idea what their overhead and acquisition costs will be if and when they sell a material number of policies.

As far as I know, they use standard ISO loss tables with a 50% claims cost expectation. Even if that pans out, you need to sell a heck of a lot of $60 policies to even cover what they've spent to date.

</comment><comment><USER8> There are a lot of smart people working in competitive insurance markets. To think AI or Lemonade can drastically reduce the cost of an intangible product is naive. Most of the cost in insurance is insuring the risk opposed to admin.

<comment><USER9> I am curious if they are going to make an AI hedge fund. This is how insurance companies make money. If they can create money without having to pay traders and analysts, it just might work.

<comment><USER2> Insurance companies are _not_ hedge funds. They are also typically quite low margin, volume business. Further, in more common products such as life ins policies, the risk models are pretty heavily regulated on state/federal level.

Insurance companies make money on fees and on "using" the cash you're paying (upfront due to amortized payments) for your policies by making low- to mid- risk investments in various - typically low-liquidity - assets.

(Source: I create risk management systems for insurance companies)

<comment><USER9> Fair enough. What I meant is that they will shovel funds into the markets in order to actually make money. The best way to do this is to have a higher risk approach plus no human traders.

<comment><USER10> That sure sounded great to the people running AIG in 2006!

<comment><USER9> We've come a long way in 10 years. This company was recently discussed on HN [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-06/silicon-v...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-06/silicon- valley-hedge-fund-takes-on-wall-street-with-ai-trader)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I had state farm (auto) for a few years and at some point their algorithm just decided to screw me more than doubling my premium. My agent couldn't explain it so I just had to switch providers. Even this is basically a submarine for lemonade it'd be interesting to know how many insurers are using Machine learning and if not why not.

<comment><USER12> I've always wondered if there was a market for a startup like Credit Karma for car/renters/homeowner's insurance. Instead of checking for cheaper rates at policy expiration, the broker startup would check constantly (daily? weekly?) across as many insurers as possible, and automatically have a new policy written for you if it was able to find another policy matching your existing coverage at a lower price.

<comment><USER13> Why would the rates change so often? I thought they are based on some risk profiles that don't change that quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A lot of commenters are speculating as to AI analyzing the risk, which, as they also point out, isn't necessarily a new idea. However, if I interpret the article correctly:

>Indeed it has so been achieved. It is available 24/7, courtesy of a delightful bot who will fashion you a $5 policy in 90 seconds and with zero paperwork.

Between this and the comments about acquisition costs, it seems like they're saving a lot compared to traditional (legacy) insurance companies by cutting out customer service reps and agents.

<comment><USER15> I'm a happy Lemonade customer. I signed up because a) the policy was dirt cheap, and b) the policy agreement was clear and also quite generous. It was not AI-generated: it's just a PDF like every other insurance policy agreement. And the policy was only so cheap because they let you take out a policy with a lower coverage limit than you would normally be able to find from a traditional insurer. Moreover, I didn't get pushy sales calls after getting a quote (Liberty Mutual was particularly offensive in this regard).

I was skeptical, then my phone got stolen. I reached right out to their "emergency hotline" and told them what happened. After some initial confusion I got to work directly with a customer service rep who basically bent over backwards to ensure that I was satisfied. It didn't seem like a terribly sustainable way to do things, and I wouldn't expect that kind of service once they start to grow, but it worked out great for me and I sure as heck got my money's worth in coverage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I work in property insurance, and I'm curious as to how lemonade got their product past state regulators if it's truly some whiz-bang AI or machine learning stuff driving their model. Most states want to be able to review and understand filings, and a black box isn't conducive to that. Maybe they're using it for feature selection?

Edit: Found one of their filings on SERFF public filing access. Lookup WESA-130711665 on [https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/home/NY](https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/home/NY) if you're interested. 'Rate Support.pdf' has the meat.

It doesn't look like anything special, honestly. They admit most of it is copied from the largest insurers in the state, and they use a proprietary credit model from Transunion. This makes sense given that they don't have any data to train it on since they're, you know, new.

<comment><USER4> The AI stuff they are claiming is to reduce their LAE. (Claimbot type stuff.)

Their rates (and forms) are nothing special--ISO rates + Transunion score. The only thing unusual in their pricing is they allow you to choose low coverage amounts + don't charge installment or credit card fees. So you can buy a decent policy at $5 a month. I am skeptical that will ever be net profitable though....

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> But...aren't these various use cases for Neural Networks that impact regular people's lives in a significant way sooner or later going to have to show how they come up with a particular decision? And won't that be hard to do?

<comment><USER18> Yes. AI is the marketing name for complex algorithms that nobody really know how they work or why they do what they do.

This will ruin countless lives.

<comment><USER15> What? no. "AI" is the marketing name for "machine learning, now with 100% more chat bots". Most "machine learning" is _not_ "complex algorithms". It's mostly just support vector machines, clustering algorithms, and some off-the-shelf neural networks whose behavior is well understood. Whether that's the case here isn't clear, but a project like DeepMind is not representative of AI in the wild.

If it does somehow manage to ruin countless lives, it won't be because of AI. I don't think AI did anything at all for me when I signed up; I didn't even use a chatbot, I just answered the same questions I answered on every other insurance quote, and happened to get a better price with sweeter terms than I got at any other insurer. It also didn't do anything for me when I filed a claim: they have a clearly-defined policy like any other insurer, and I worked directly with a (human) agent to get my claim resolved. The AI stuff is a marketing gimmick.

If it ruins any lives at all, it'll be because the company is selling insurance for a fixed, below-market rate. But Dan Ariely isn't stupid, and I assume they'll at least be able to honor their existing contracts in the event of some kind of widespread catastrophe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting. Seems like the insurance industry will change dramatically with the introduction of more data and AI capabilities. Imagine if an insurer ran a search of social check ins at bars against their auto insurance customers. Seems like some people might be paying $2K/mo for car insurance while others pay $40/mo... since with more analysis it will become a lot easier to determine when those big loses are coming and exactly who from rather than guessing/averaging like they do now.

<comment><USER20> > since with more analysis it will become a lot easier to determine when those > big loses are coming and exactly who from rather than guessing/averaging > like they do now.

This is kind of going to break insurance.

When you create more risk pools, you increase the number of low risk people and decrease the number of high risk people who buy insurance. But it isn't clear that having more uninsured high risk people is a societal win -- especially if it means replacing insurance claims with bankruptcies.

Meanwhile "more [low risk] people with insurance" is not an unmitigated good, because people will buy things when the insurance is paying for it that they wouldn't when paying out of pocket, which significantly increases costs.

And it's easy not to have much sympathy for Those Dirty Drunks About To Get What They Deserve, but it's really the person the drunk hits who suffers when the drunk was driving without insurance because it was prohibitively expensive. Or the hospital who has to treat a bankrupt patient with no medical insurance.

And being high risk isn't always a result of some moral failing on your part. Doing genetic testing for medical conditions would certainly allow people without high risk markers to pay less for insurance, but what happens to the people who have them?

In the limit where the predictions become extremely accurate there is no point in even _having_ insurance because your net lifetime insurance premiums will be so close to your net lifetime insurance claims that the only thing the insurance company is providing you with is overhead.

But if any insurance companies do this then it doesn't even matter whether all of them do, because the ones who do will get all the low risk customers and the other insurers will de facto end up with a high risk pool with high premiums. So we really need to decide if we actually want this as a matter of legislation.

<comment><USER21> The purpose of insurance is to protect you from unpredictable or unlikely risks. If a risk is predictable and likely, what's the point?

If you want to distribute risks fairly, that's more a job of government subsidization. It is unfair that someone born with a genetic disease has to pay large medical bills, and I'm ok with the government subsidizing that.

On the other hand, I don't want to subsidize the risk of serial drunk drivers. It's totally fair they have to pay higher premiums or not be allowed to drive.

Ideally there could be a compromise. Like insurance companies agree to insure bad drivers if they take remedial driving lessons.

It's theoretically possible we could use insurance as a free market solution to government regulation. Instead of building codes, require building insurance. And the insurance companies will do their best to actually predict the risk of various disasters and what things actually work to reduce them.

<comment><USER20> > The purpose of insurance is to protect you from unpredictable or unlikely > risks. If a risk is predictable and likely, what's the point?

That's the problem. The more accurately we can predict insurance claims the less reason there is for anybody to buy insurance because there is less uncertainty to insure against.

And one of the things existing insurance does unintentionally is to spread the cost of misfortune across more people. If the misfortune becomes more accurately predictable then the people not likely to suffer it are spared the cost but that only moves more of it to the people who do.

But you make an interesting point in the sense that it isn't enough to prevent _insurance companies_ from using the information. If insurance _customers_ can accurately learn their own risk, the same result will obtain regardless because the low risk customers will opt out of insurance until the premiums are high enough that the high risk customers do too.

> And the insurance companies will do their best to actually predict the risk > of various disasters and what things actually work to reduce them.

Unfortunately that is completely the opposite of how insurance actually works. The insurance company has little control or involvement in such things because it isn't cost effective for them to micromanage everything. So what actually happens is that if you require insurance, people buy it and then take more risks because they have insurance.

The fundamental tenet of insurance is to buy predictability at the cost of inefficiency. If you independently improve predictability the only thing left is the inefficiency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great marketing until you realise there are no links to their product or home page anywhere on this page.

</comment><comment><USER23> I work in the insurance industry and for them to extrapolate the average customer acquisition cost for car insurance to a renters customer is actually pretty laughable.

</comment><comment><USER24> Mods / Dang, the actual title is "Saving 80% in 90 Seconds?" "When Tech Makes Insurance 5x Cheaper",

The tldr is: "our acquisition costs are already 10x lower than legacy carriers."

<comment><USER25> Ok, we reverted the title. Submitted title was "A "killer business model": AI in the insurance industry".

Submitters: please use the original title except when it is misleading or linkbait – that's in [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm sure no one in the insurance industry has thought of using AI....

</comment><comment><USER27> this is actually pretty interesting, thanks for sharing. didn't realize that upfront CAC represented the lion's share of E[cost] in renter's insurance...

</comment><comment><USER28> Doesn't Geico do the same? They also offer renter's insurance next to car insurance. Also what does using AI mean exactly?

</comment><comment><USER29> So...stats (the same, I presume that a normal insurance company uses) and an online-only, agent-free model?

</comment><comment><USER30> Doesnt work in SF ... anyone knows why?

<comment><USER4> Only filed and approved in NY so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What does AI have to do with anything?

<comment><USER32> AI is becoming a marketing buzzword. All software that do anything remotely clever or interesting is being presented as "AI" helping you solve business goals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > So how can Lemonade be 80% cheaper?

Well, it's just sugar, lemon, and water...</comment>


Ask HN: For a SaaS product, which error monitoring service do you use? - <AUTHOR> I've been looking at error monitoring services for my SaaS app, but there seems to be so many (Airbrake, Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag...) Have you had success with any of them? <comment><USER2> They are all good, but Honeybadger is particularly awesome... I'm a little biased, though, being one of its co-founders. :)</comment>


Meetup at Bin 38 tonight - <AUTHOR> http://plancast.com/p/2dmj

<comment><USER2> Seems like Bin38 will be the biggest beneficiaries of this whole affair.

They should go with it and rename that back room with the big table "the collusion room" and give out free monocles and eyepatches to everyone that books it for a private party.

<comment><USER3> monocles and eyepatches? Sign me up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That was somewhat predictable. I think there will be a lot of 'secret' meetings in the near future.</comment>


Hackathons are really bad for starting (or funding) companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.dirkdekok.com/2013/12/hackathons-are-really-bad-for-starting-or-funding-companies/

<comment><USER2> Meant to do this earlier but got busy organizing a hackathon ;) I think all parties involved should lower or at least get realistic expectations. That is sponsors, participants and organizers. Can't recall the name of the person who said that, but hackathons are great for "sharpening your knives" and I would add - great to play with new tech and potentially meet folks you may want to collaborate with. As an organizer, I'm personally more concerned with how to do a better job at providing tech support and resources after the hackathon is over. Hackathons don't equal startups, let alone funding. And this is perfectly fine.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hackathons are pretty bad ideas, I think. I think they've crossed the threshold into doing more harm than good. I've seen people get excluded. I've seen the same project 10x over. Further, teams are realizing they can stack the odds in their favors by having more graphic designers than programmers. For judges, prettyness outweighs function at these public, often broadcast events.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I have started to avoid certain events. The Dreamforce hackathon with the 1 million dollar prize for instance looked way too much like a marketing gimmick for Salesforce so I declined. AngelHack is becoming more of a company launching program. I just want to write some code with new tech and meet fellow developers and designers

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just gonna throw this out there as a counterpoint ;)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6857213](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6857213)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, when starting a company the demand question should be the first one you are trying to answer. Awesome product!</comment></comment>


Xkcd: Seven Years - <AUTHOR> https://xkcd.com/1928/ <comment><USER2> I'm 7 years out this year, and this hits the nail on the head.

"I'll do my best."

</comment><comment><USER3> Additional context for those who haven't seen it. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1928](http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1928)

</comment><comment><USER4> I saw the "Two Years" comic [1] while my wife and I were on our first year [2][3]. "Seven Years" is meaningful to me as our 6th year anniversary of the surgery is in 14 days.

[1] [https://xkcd.com/1141/](https://xkcd.com/1141/) [2] [https://scalability.org/2011/11/ot-it-really-focuses-your- at...](https://scalability.org/2011/11/ot-it-really-focuses-your-attention-on- the-important-things/) [3] [https://scalability.org/2012/01/ot-what-is-and- what-should-n...](https://scalability.org/2012/01/ot-what-is-and-what-should- never-be/)</comment>


GotoAnything for Chrome Tabs - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-searching/mghfpkfegmeanpcabcmiipiknkegjnkd Source code: https://github.com/jiyinyiyong/tab-searching<p>Currently it only searches among Tabs. <comment><USER2> It's a super bad timing regarding recent "Window Resizer" extension snafu — this extension requires for some reason even _more_ permissions, including activity and history browsing...</comment>


Google I/O 2013 - Advanced Go Concurrency Patterns - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDwwePbDtw

<comment><USER2> "So the motivating example here is putting together a feed reader. Recently my favorite feed reader disappeared. I need a new one." :D</comment>


In Favour of Test Driven Development - <AUTHOR> http://joelhughes.co.uk/in-favour-of-test-driven-development

<comment><USER2> When evaluating whether test first or test driven development is worthwhile I would encourage a holistic approach. What is the total cost to the organization for the development, quality assurance, deployment and maintenance of the software? On its first release? Over its lifetime?

Carefully consider the alternatives. No testing? Manual testing? Automated UI testing? Test second?

On the softer side (and more difficult to measure) I ask development teams how test first affects their thinking. Do you converge on users' requirements more quickly or slowly?

Finally, recognize that programming is a hard skill to master. TDD is another skill on top of that one.

<comment><USER3> I don't think that a lot of people do realize that programming is a hard skill to master. Or at least, they keep trying to develop processes that will allow average-ability programmers to turn out exceptional quality software (TDD and various flavors of Agile being the current fad in this area).

Bottom line is that to deliver great software you need a solid conceptual understanding of what it's supposed to do (i.e. good requirements analysis) and smart people to design and implement the software. By its nature, software development will never be reduced to assembly-line work that any warm body can do.

<comment><USER4> This is an excellent and concise statement of software development. I think, the best I've ever read.

I don't think of TDD and Agile as being fads, though, but the best we have to date in an evolving process. It'll go on for decades yet.

That last paragraph, though, is killer: Give great input to very smart people and it might result in a great result. Note the absence of ego.

And people, never forget that all software spends 99.999% of its life in maintenance. Be prepared.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it me, or is the conclusion of the article

1) TDD is not useful for interacting with existing APIs (probably the majority of programming today)

2) TDD works when it works and doesn't when it doesn't (which is rather tautological).

I'm not sure that's in favour of TDD.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose I concluded: that if the engineer has no affinity with TDD then there is little point in continuing and practising it badly. For those who do (or learn to), who may be in the minority, the benefits are well worth the effort.</comment></comment>


Anne Frank Center asks Facebook to remove Holocaust denial pages - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/09/anne-frank-center-facebook-remove-holocaust-denial-pages/ <comment><USER2> Note that the "Anne Frank Center" is a political advocacy organization that simply uses the name, but has no real connection to the person beyond that.

</comment><comment><USER3> The 'Anne Frank' Center needs to be put into context here:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/anne- fr...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/anne-frank- center/524055/)

>With just its famous name and a savvy social-media strategy, the Anne Frank Center has transformed into a putative authority on anti-Semitism and American politics. But it's not at all clear the organization speaks for anybody other than its own leaders—not Holocaust scholars, Anne Frank's family, or the Jewish community. Ultimately, by politicizing Anne Frank, the group may undermine her legacy.

<comment><USER4> They are just a bunch of grifters IMHO. They have no connection to the Frank family nor to any other aspect of the Anne Frank story.

It is the same as if I started the Nikola Tesla Research Center (I have no connection to Tesla).

<comment><USER5> Or a car company?

<comment><USER4> Tesla isn't (aside from the EV evangelism) trying to speak in the public square as a moral authority by using someone else's famous name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's important to note that most holocaust deniers don't actually think the holocaust didn't happen. They just feel like Jews "get a free pass because of it" and want to cause problems for Jews as a response to that.

<comment><USER7> 'The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering is a 2000 book by Norman G. Finkelstein, in which the author argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel.[1] According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust.'

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

<comment><USER8> But can that really be classified as Holocaust Denial though?

It seems like you could write any similar book about racism or sexism or any other form of persecution and argue how it corrupts the authentic struggles of that minority or group.

It is related, but fairly tangential to denying specific historic facts.

<comment><USER9> By people who would do anything to discredit such a book? Sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Denying the Holocaust causes harm.

I'm not sure I agree with this line, but perhaps I can be convinced. The way I see it, with all the world's information in everyone's pocket, blindly taking random social media posts at face value is what causes the harm.

<comment><USER11> The authors of the page clearly have an agenda. We all know the Holocaust occurred, so why let a page challenging or attempting to rewrite history exist? You're delusional if you don't think there are people who get all their news from their filter bubbled Facebook timeline.

<comment><USER12> Not arguing for or against, just something to think about: By that same token, they should also shut down any FlatEarth pages too... But then if we do that, where is the line and who decides it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> To the people who will say that Facebook is a private company, the first amendment doesn't apply, etc: I get it, you're right.

These affronts to freedom of expression are concerning. It's important to allow Holocaust deniers, Sandy hook deniers, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, Christian Scientists, flat earthers, etc to have a platform, for them and for us. You can't protected people from stupid ideas, and more and more we are just forcing these people into echo chambers.

Ideas need to see the light of day, especially bad ones. The more discourse and dialog (and not insults) we share, the more quickly misaligned beliefs will fade.

<comment><USER14> If we truly have a marketplace of ideas then shitty ideas should be able to fail in the market.

Denialism has already seen the light of day. Why must we enforce that it continues to see the light of day forever?

<comment><USER15> >If we truly have a marketplace of ideas then shitty ideas should be able to fail in the market.

This implies that the marketplace of ideas optimizes for truth, which may not be the case.

>Why must we enforce that it continues to see the light of day forever?

Either it lives in the shadows forever, or the light of day forever, but it never goes away. With each succeeding generation as history becomes more abstract, denialism and revisionism becomes easier to justify and accept.

After all, why are there more people who believe the Moon landing was a hoax, now, than believed it when the event was recent, living memory? Because it's no more real to modern people than fiction.

The same effect applies to the Holocaust. History becomes myth, myth becomes farce. We forget the lessons of the past and we're doomed to repeat them. The only thing the suppression of shitty ideas does is make the wheel turn faster.</comment></comment></comment>


Gab.ai faces loss of domain over hate speech - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/twitter-rival-gab-faces-domain-loss-over-extremist-content/ <comment><USER2> previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15275051](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15275051)

</comment><comment><USER3> The DNS provider for The Pirate Bay (TPB) is easydns.com

I'm kinda sad about how a website has to play this kind of registrar whack-a- mole, but if TPB can survive it they certainly can.

</comment><comment><USER4> The headline does not say "hate speech," it says "extremist content."

> Twitter rival Gab faces domain loss over extremist content

<comment><AUTHOR> "Extremist content" is a vague term. According to the article, the Australian registrar is taking action because of national laws that "prohibit public vilification on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic origin." That's pretty much the definition of hate speech, so I thought that this title would be more precise.

If the mods disagree, they can change it back!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [deleted]

<comment><USER6> Would you mind translating your comment to plain English? Dogwhistles of what, disguised as what, directed at whom by whom? Plausible deniability of what on whose part?</comment></comment>


Shedding some light on "dark social" - <AUTHOR> http://5f5.org/ruminations/dark-social-dubious.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a pretty cursory look into some other possiblities of refererless traffic. Given an ordinary browsing session or interaction from an end user, what else could be leading to HTTP requests without the referer header?

<comment><USER2> 1) proxies

2) clever antivirus/firewall software

3) htaccess tricks will often drop headers

4) javascript

5) things like amazon silk

6) people spoofing things to make their browser work

7) anonymizer services

8) proxies

<comment><USER3> 9) links followed from https -> http

10) bookmarks

<comment><USER4> The article in question claims that links followed from https facebook do have a referrer header:

>In testing links from Facebook and Twitter over HTTPS the referer is present in most cases.

<comment><USER3> That's definitely not to spec if the browser is doing it. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-15.1.3>

"Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol."

However, it's possible that Facebook is passing users through an HTTP gateway.

<comment><AUTHOR> It looks like the intermediate 301's referer is being passed thru (For example, all links on Twitter get wrapped as a t.co link, and that's what shows up on the server). I'd imagine that analytics being mined are intelligent enough to collapse twitter.com and t.co as the same social origin.

Give it a try yourself: <https://twitter.com/vikrum5000/status/256898972478763008> Note the protocol.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Off topic a bit, but I just want to say I like the layout and the general approach of your blog. If it's a template I haven't seen it before.

The "pondering" section is intriguing. What if you could accept input as to what topics readers might prefer?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It's not from a template; it's super basic HTML I wrote up by hand with simple CSS behind it. Take a look at the source for <http://5f5.org/ruminations/> — I copy and paste that into a new file and use that as a template for new posts.

The pondering section is where I keep notes to my self for future topics. There's a file in that directory that has a bunch of sentence fragments and ideas for other, not yet formed ideas.

I like the idea of suggesting new topics :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Regarding mis-measuring "dark social": For ecommerce, Pinterest traffic is estimated to be 64% larger b/c of the popularity of the iPad app. This is significant given that Pinterest is now the 2nd largest referral source (depending on which ecommerce sites you are measuring).

[http://llsocial.com/2012/07/pinterest-traffic-being- signific...](http://llsocial.com/2012/07/pinterest-traffic-being- significantly-underreported/)

<comment><AUTHOR> With the Facebook and Twitter apps (and iOS apps, in general), they have complete control over how the network call is being made — and the referer makes it to the server (for the post part.) One would imagine Pinterest would want to maximize this number.

I'll try posting the referer detector to some more native apps and see what happens.</comment></comment>


Switching from i3 to Sway on Ubuntu 20.04 - <AUTHOR> https://www.autodidacts.io/switching-to-sway-wayland-from-i3-x11-ubuntu/ <comment> blaser-waffle Good stuff, appreciate the configs and scripting details.

Not quite there myself, but was looking at jumping to a tiling WM, and not being near xorg.</comment>


Facebook missing the fun with new check-in feature - <AUTHOR> http://gamemechanics.levlr.com/post/974937603/facebook-missing-the-fun-with-check-in-feature

<comment><USER2> With the API, developers will be able to build gameplay around the checkins:

<http://developers.facebook.com/docs/api#places></comment>


Ask HN: Writing a contract? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I will be starting contract work very soon and need to know the basics of contract law.
Does anyone know of any good resources for learning this stuff? Preferably Canadian resources if possible. <comment><USER2> You should have a lawyer draw up the contract for you but there are 3 things a contract requires:

1\. An Offer

2\. Acceptance

3\. Mutual Exchange

The reason you should have a lawyer draw up the contract is because, things can become complicated when getting involved in the specifics of each case. For instance it's possible to interpret words in several different ways which means several questions can be created from them and by hiring a lawyer you ensure that you avoid any misinterpretations & try to cover these hypothetical situations before they arise.

</comment><comment><USER3> When you ask a question like this, you'll get a few types of reactions:

1) "What? That's absurd. You're an idiot for even thinking it. I'm an attorney and let me tell you - this is tough stuff and guys like me love guys like you."

2) "What? That's absurb. You're an idiot for even thinking it. My attorney is constantly telling me about how he loves to meet up with guys like you."

3) "Yeah, I do it and I've done it for x+ years without problems."

4) "I copy/paste off the internet. It works for me."

5) "I bought one of those kits and it worked fine for me."

Right or wrong, there's a certain stigma associated with the question.

</comment><comment><USER4> Please don't try to write a contract yourself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice. I'm still 50/50. Because I'm just starting I'm unlikely to be having large projects to start, so less is at risk.

<comment><USER4> If by size you mean price or hours delivered these are potentially very poor proxies for the risk associated with a project.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sigh... I have to agree with you. I should mention that I will be looking for work as a media composer. Copyright and royalties come into play, adding complexity to the contract.

<comment><USER4> That said you could probably save quite a bit on your lawyers bill if you use either of below as a starting point:

[http://composition.org/clc- lcc/content/index.php/en/commissi...](http://composition.org/clc- lcc/content/index.php/en/commissioning/model-contracts)

<http://www.screencomposers.ca/model-contract/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I came across the second one just a few minutes ago. It's probably the best starting point like you said. The first on is new to me and I saved a few others throughout the day. I'm looking them all over including some media companies ones that are rather unfair towards the composer.

PS. I really appreciate your help.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Translating a C++ parser to Haskell - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskellforall.com/2017/06/translating-c-parser-to-haskell.html <comment><USER2> The C++ code here is exactly the kind of thing that game developers complain about when they say C++ encourages inefficiency. Calling Haskell fast because it merely draws with that doesn't really make sense in this context. Yes, it's as fast as C++ code that doesn't care in the slightest about efficiency, but people use C++ for the times when they _do_.

E: As some quick examples, peeking an istream in a loop is extremely inefficient[1], yet is done pervasively. The Derivation type has a bunch of separately allocated strings, and a lot of types like std::map<string, DerivationOutput> are pointer filled. To check whether a string starts with "r:", they allocate a _new string_ and compare it, rather than just doing a normal string comparison.

[1] [https://godbolt.org/g/27o9od](https://godbolt.org/g/27o9od)

<comment><USER3> What is the reason that `peek` is inefficient? Is it just because it is a function call that is not inlined or is there another reason?

<comment><USER2> Really it's the other way around: peek is complex so the compiler didn't inline it. In essence, you do a virtual call which I think winds you up in

[https://github.com/gcc- mirror/gcc/blob/1cb6c2eb3b8361d850be8...](https://github.com/gcc- mirror/gcc/blob/1cb6c2eb3b8361d850be8e8270c597270a1a7967/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/istream.tcc#L620)

which itself redirects to a whole bunch of stuff.

The virtual call alone is a lot more expensive than a simple pointer dereference, and though it's possible proper inlining might have alleviated some of this problem, you're not particularly likely to see it come close to something that's efficient by design.

<comment><USER4> What does the profiler say regarding overall program execution time?

<comment><USER2> No idea, I haven't timed it.

<comment><USER4> So not relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice article, just one small pedantic remark.

> Note that Haskell type synonyms reverse the order of the types compared to > C++.

This is true in the context of the article when compared with the presented _typedef_ definitions, however the modern way to do type synonyms in C++ is via _using declarations_ , which are very similar to the Haskell ones.

        using Path = string;
        using PathSet = set<Path>;

<comment><USER5> "Using" also allows you to have templated aliases, unlike typedefs. There's really no reason to use typedefs.

<comment><USER6> Well, of course, there is ONE reason: Having to use old compilers or old standards for other reasons.

I imagine a lot of people are in that place with C++. Personally I've followed C++ for a long time as a hobby and it seems like it's finally getting to where it wants to be. But I'll talk to someone who works writing C++ and the idea of being able to use C++17 is a distant dream.

For Open Source developers and hobbyists though, you might as well take advantage of whatever features Clang+GCC+MSVC offer. I wish someone would standardize `#pragma once` so I don't have to feel guilty using it.

<comment><USER5> Yeah so the only reason you wouldn't use 'using' is when you can't :)

Modern c++ is awesome. I definitely appreciate being able use c++14 where I work (as well as 'pragma once'). I really look forward to being able to use c++17.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Attoparsec is fast, but used to have bad error messages.

How do the 2 parsers compare w.r.t error messaging?

Haskell has Parsec/Megaparsec which have better error messages, but are extremely slow.

<comment><USER8> I don't think Parsec is "extremely slow." It's not as fast as attoparsec, but not bad either.

Trifecta has the best error messages, but takes some more work to fully make the error messages great.

<comment><USER9> Trifecta has poor documentation. I've been thinking about reading the Idris parser to learn trifecta/parsers.

<comment><USER10> Trifecta is best used via the parsers library, which is fairly well documented. This also (in theory) allows you to switch which parser you use between trifecta, parsec, attoparsec and even ReadP. I say in theory because the the semantics of these libraries differ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Note to the author, I found this post extremely hard to read on mobile. I had to scroll horizontally as the text wouldn't all fit on screen, and zooming seemed broken. When attempting to zoom or horizontally scroll it would sometimes randomly click some invisible popout that would take me to another page.

<comment><USER9> Blogger is actively hostile to phone browsers. For horizontal scrolling, you can try dragging at an angle (to fool the page-change JS) and then vertically scrolling to negate the vertical component of the first motion. It becomes pretty natural after a while :/</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Credit Card honeypot/canary service? - <AUTHOR>

Is there any company that provides a credit card canary/honeypot? i.e. I sign up, they give me a credit card number. If this credit card is used, it is declined, and then I get an email.<p>This could be an(other) way to detect data breechs, but I can't find anyone doing this. <comment><USER2> Credit card will soon become obsolete anyway, but that's another story.

I don't see how you could make use of a CC number that would always be declined. The point is it has to have been active and used successfully to have been recorded somewhere and then stolen.

If you are talking "dummy" number then why should any bank make those numbers public? They would be identified anyway at the moment they are used.

CC fraud is a problem, but I think you probably need to know a lot more about how the transactions take place and what the industry is already doing (from the inside). It's not something that would be widely publicised by any specific bank, because people would close their accounts in droves.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool idea. I know that Visa and Amex, at least, have the one-time use numbers. I don't know, though, if they will notify you if someone tries to use it and it is declined.

</comment><comment><USER4> Could you give a more specific scenario where this would be useful? I'm quite interested in cc fraud at the moment, but I don't quite where you're going ...</comment>


Should you talk to VC's if you don't need money?  YES - <AUTHOR> http://www.topicsoft.com/topicblog/talk-to-vcs

<comment><USER2> My browser is throwing up alarms with this site: "STOP, this site is known to distribute malware". Maybe not the best link to click on?</comment>


The Borderlands Gun Collector's Club - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2012/03/borderlands-gun-collectors-club.html

<comment><USER2> Oh, man. I played _Borderlands_ all the way through (once, anyway), and my reaction to all the things Steve praises was exactly the opposite.

* I had no idea that there was a special benefit to playing the game through a second or third time. That's because _the game doesn't tell you that._ So the only people who will ever discover this are the hardest of hard-core OCD types.

* Even if it _did_ tell you that, it's ridiculous that it would push the "good stuff" out to the second or third playthrough. Old Man Murray said it best, more than a decade ago (<http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/63.html>):

 _> Here's a note to developers regarding what we hope will become an industry-wide policy: if your game has some good parts, try to put them at the fucking beginning. It takes us ten hours of dismal labor to earn enough money to buy your game, so please commence the entertainment early on. If possible, pack something fun right into the box, for instance a balloon..._

 _> Developers have one goddamn job: entertain us. And we mean now, goddamnit, not in six hours._

* The huge number of randomly generated guns may create a token economy, but it also forces the player to spend way too much time trying to figure out whether Gun # 712,924 is better than Gun # 712,925. Sid Meier is supposed to have said that "a game is a series of interesting choices," and the problem with Borderlands' guns is that choosing between them is usually _not interesting,_ because the differences between most weapons you encounter contemporaneously are so tiny.

This wouldn't be so bad if you could carry an unlimited number of weapons, but you can't, so you're constantly having to compare weapons to decide which ones to discard and which to keep; which means you're constantly being forced to make _uninteresting choices._ It's the opposite of fun.

And on and on. Don't get me wrong, I liked _Borderlands_ ; as a shooter it was OK, and its unique aesthetic was fun. But all the things that Steve is raving about here are things that I experienced as reasons _not_ to like it.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, this is a very odd piece which hinges on the idea that the number of hours you put into a game is indicative of its quality, but you'll find people ploughing hundreds of hours into very poor games. Every game has its fans.

Borderlands balancing itself to only being interesting after 50 hours (assuming the author is correct) is odd and does not help it sell copies or win mindshare. It sounds like the author actually liked Playthrough 2.5 because it didn't have any of the MMORPG trappings, but was actually a balanced first-person shooter.

I've been researching "retention" mechanics (dark patterns/addiction patterns) in games from the POV of behavioral economics for my PhD thesis for a while now. My intuition (no data yet) is that what people seem to miss is that the tricks work for a while, but then they stop working. I'm reaching a conclusion that the tricks work just long enough to keep people playing until their social network joins, and then they're locked in until the game gets boring, and then they jump to the next game, where it seems the retention patterns work again.

What these patterns don't do is make a game enjoyable. The Borderlands gun mechanic, in particular, is not a very good retention mechanic. It'll work... for a time, until players see the inevitable archetypes of variation, and then it won't. The guns are not really valuable, because Borderlands will always give you another one in five minutes. If the player isn't being given something of value, it's not a very good mechanic. The value in the guns isn't the gun itself, but the surprise from the variation, and when that dries up, I'd expect it stops working.

It seems to me the author just really liked Borderlands, which is fine, but is confusing some of the trappings of Borderlands with why she likes it. I think some deeper introspection through the MMORPG smoke and mirrors will find that she just likes the gameplay.

This is not to say MMORPG stuff doesn't work, just that it tapers off. And I think for most people, it tapered off way before Playthrough 2.5.

<comment><USER4> I've played these games and worked in the Addictive Game industry. In my experience, every time the addiction is wearing off, you have to 'up the ante' (either by introducing new content, new mechanics, upping the difficulty curve etc). But the problem is that the addiction is mildly stressful on the player, and every time they increase the addiction mechanics, they increase the stress.

This inevitably leads to burnout and it usually happens in one of two ways:

1-they run out of content or master the learning curve, therefore they run out of stuff to be addicted to; this usually causes a general tapering off of play time

2-the stress overcomes the addiction and they flat out quit, even though they are still addicted

It would be interesting to examine the play patters of various games that have different variations on addiction vs stress vs fun.

LoL -high fun, high stress, low addiction

WoW -med fun, med stress, med addiction

farmville -low fun, high stress, high addiction

edit: the stress of a game like LoL is very different from a game like FV. LoL is high because you must play perfectly in order not to be ridiculed by your teammates. FV is high because you are given a dozen new things to do every time you just want to do the basic stuff, but your compelled to do _everything_ , which generally requires you to keep a large mental queue of everything it throws at you every time you log in.

<comment><USER3> I'd love to talk with you more about this offline :)

I looked at your site and noticed you don't make your email address available (which I am sure is by design), so could you ping me at chris {{{at}}} chris.to ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I actually never finished playing Borderlands. And by God I tried. I had reached a point in the game where I had ended up with very powerful weapons, more powerful than anything I could buy and 99.999% of those that I found. Gun collecting became boring.

Going on fetch quests and fighting the same few enemies? Boring.

Driving around in a weirdly physic'd car that didn't have at least proper driving sound effects and damage models fighting enemies that weren't even a token match? Boring.

Slaying skags by the thousands? Boring.

etc. etc. etc.

Eventually I just gave up. I had "beaten" the game only insomuch as having leveled up a character to the point that he had achieved virtual godhood in the game. Nigh-impervious to damage, wielding weapons Zeus would have feared, there was no progression anymore, I had beaten the difficulty curve simply by grinding my way ahead of it.

<comment><USER6> That's where it goes until around New Haven on the second playthrough. THEN it starts getting crazy again. You start feeling vulnerable and excitement picks up.

I'm not saying it's a good thing that you have to trudge through the game 2+ times for it to really shine, but I absolutely HATE grinding and gave up MMO's because of it... and I can't even begin to guess how many hours I have spent grinding this game because it's so damn fun.

<comment><USER5> That's what I've heard, but I just couldn't see putting the hours into it to find fun days or weeks later...when I could just play something else that was fun now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I played Borderlands and enjoyed it, but I had to stop playing after first act (when you leave first town to go to desert, I don't know whether it's really first act) - because of my severe case of arachnophobia (and worm-and-bug- looking-thins-phobia) - I literally panicked and mashed escape key to pause game, had talk myself to calming down, shoot six bullets and then panic again when this bug suddenly changed direction or second one appeared. After half hour of that I was so mentally exhausted, I quit and never looked back.

I wonder if I'm the only one with such problems.

<comment><USER8> Interesting, I have a friend who also have arachnophobia, but he loves Borderlands. I'll ask him about that.

Have you thought of maybe using the game as a therapeutic means for trying to alleviate the problem? I've heard of treatment where they try to get the patients used to their phobia, until it goes away. So I'd suppose the game would be a good opportunity to do that virtually. Would that even make sense?

<comment><USER9> There's something called "Cognitive Behaviour Therapy" which is a carefully controlled exposure to the thing that causes fear, with a lot of thinking and feeling.

Your example (Let's call him Bob, scared of spiders, and Ann, a therapist).

Ann would explain that Bob is in a safe space, and there are no spiders, and that she's not going to bring any out. Then she'd ask him to think about a spider. She'd ask him what his "hot thought" was; what his "emotion" was; and she'd ask how strongly he felt those.

Bob might say Fear, 50%; "I might get bitten".

Ann would then ask him why he thought that. Is it a reasonable thought? There's some discussion about the probability of being bitten, and so what if you are, and etc. She then asks Bob how he feels, and if it's as strong. Hopefully it's not as strong.

This continues each week; next week she draws a scribble (not even a spider) on a piece of paper; then a spider; then a picture of a spider; then a dead spider; then a live spider but in a sealed box; then a live spider in a box with the lid off; eventually building up to Bob being able to touch a live spider.

Note that all the time Bob is in control of how much exposure to spiders he gets, and it's all very gently progressing. CBT is a very effective treatment for phobias.

Compare this to "FACE YOUR FEARS" - Charles hates elevators, but he decides to face his fears. He goes to the mall. His palms start to get sweaty, his breathing gets faster, his heart beats harder. He's having an adrenaline reaction. He walks up to the elevator. He's really stressed now. He pushes the button to call the elevator. He waits. His stress and fear levels are pretty high now. The elevator arrives, and he gets in. It's small, and he's really panicked. The door closes, and the elevator starts moving with that little jerky clunky move they make. It goes up one floor. Charles is on the verge of a full blown panic attack, and is very uncomfortable. The doors open, and charles leaves the elevator.

As he leaves relief -endorphins- flood through him. He sits, head in his hands, so pleased to be out of the elevator.

All Charles has achieved is to strengthen his fear of elevators - now they're more scary because he's had a really unpleasant experience in one, and he was rewarded when he "escaped" the situation.

Your idea of a virtual computer driven way to introduce people to something they fear is excellent, but only if done carefully.

<comment><USER7>
      >Bob might say Fear, 50%; "I might get bitten".

That's the weird (or is it common?) thing - I'm not afraid that they will hurt me or bite me - I realize that they are mostly harmless (at least where I live.).

I just find them... _repulsive_. I don't know how to put it differently, I just think they're ugly and unpleasant.

<comment><USER9> That's not weird. Very many people are repulsed by bugs for the same reason - bugs are just horrid.

But, if you wanted to work on it you'd be able to get to point where you wouldn't freak out every time you saw a bug and it would only take a few weeks. There's probably something online to help guide you through it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Holy crap he needs an editor.

"Gamification works - give people things to find / build / collect / modify; then count those things; then allow them to display those things; and display your counts too."

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't really understand this. I'd rather have a 10h of actual fun game vs. hundreds (or thousands) of hours of meaningless grinding for tokens. I think I am exactly the opposite of what she thinks is the motivation of a game player.

I do like games with "completion mechanics", but not open ended token counters. But the only reason I'd play Borderlands is for the story -- it looks like a horrible game from a mechanics standpoint.

</comment><comment><USER11> Oof. Hard to let that Fallout 3 comment slide. New Vegas was a spiritual successor to Fallouts 1 and 2, and was an amazing sequel. I'd like to know more about how she believes Fallout 3 exceeded New Vegas, as New Vegas was arguably closer to the original vision for Van Buren, and a heck of a lot of fun (and funny) to boot.

That aside, I've beaten Crawmerax probably nearly fifty times by now, so everything she says about addiction, I'll agree with. Multiple pearlescents and armory abuses for the win! :D

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd agree that Borderlands was a "more fun" game than Rage, but I think Rage actually entered development before Borderlands?

</comment><comment><USER13> How he's right! I have one soldier with outmaxed stats (only 2 skillpoints missing), and how was it fun! Then day job and family demanded their share... but still farming, YEAHHH!

And yes, all the rest about addcition, token economies etc... he' right, too! ^

What a read!

P.S.: Nicely written, completely in line with the game, I almost pissed myself Chaz... mina!! :-))))) And typing errors, well who cares!

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting article, but the constant juvenile sexual references count against it. I wanted to send this to a girl I know for the addiction topic, except you can't send junk like this to girls. Grow up.

If you like jumping have a look at Cobalt. Quake had rocket jumps and good grenades and you could hack the physics and was way more fun than quake2, which dumbed them down.

<comment><USER15> Totally agree on the jumping front. Rocket jumps have gone out of style unfortunately, but they're still my favorite damn thing. Team Fortress 2 scratches that itch, but I always love me some good explosives assisted jumping.

As for the maturity of the article, it's an article about Borderlands. It's kind of to be expected. And expecting someone to read through that who doesn't care for that style of humor is a lot to ask. Cherry pick the info if you want to get straight to the message, but the bulk of the article's entertainment value is not the message, but the delivery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I never finished Borderlands... Killing tons of skags with an automatic weapon is only fun for about the first 30 minutes for me, but reading this article makes me want to play to the end-game. Then again, the time investment getting to playthrough 2.5 is probably not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Anybody who enjoys Steve's thoughts about gaming addiction will probably enjoy this "hidden gem" too.

<http://www.nickyee.com/hub/addiction/addiction.pdf>

It's a decade old now, but IMO it does an even better job explaining the dynamics of game addiction.

</comment><comment><USER18> > _All this is just another way of saying that rarity creates desirability._

Hmmm. I notice that the iPad3 pre-orders are sold out. Hmmm.</comment>


People are downloading their Facebook data and the results are terrifying - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-sharing-their-terrifying-downloaded-facebook-data-2018-3 <comment><USER2> do these zips represent what fb makes available to advertisers/app publishers/partners/researchers or is it just a dump of everything fb has on you as a user? seems there's at least a few different ways for your info to leak... what exactly is provided to an advertiser? what exactly is provided to an app publisher, assuming the user granted permissions to access the phone & contacts? certainly personally identifiable info in the 2nd case.

is there no safeguard against 1 idiot contact sharing YOUR info without YOUR consent?

<comment> King-Aaron At this stage, it's probably safe to assume that if Facebook has collected it, there will be a price tag to go along with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is far less than Google knows. Google has my entire location history, search, voice search clips, every photo I take, my contacts, every app I open and when.

<comment><USER4> Read this thread. Even though I've always known that this was all stored it's still eye opening to see it methodically laid out:

[https://twitter.com/iamdylancurran/status/977559925680467968](https://twitter.com/iamdylancurran/status/977559925680467968)

<comment><USER5> That is an excellent thread indeed, thank you for the link

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Clickbait</comment>


The American Soviet Mentality - <AUTHOR> https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/american-soviet-mentality <comment><USER2> I wouldn't quite agree here. The Soviet condemnation of Pasternak and others was an orchestrated campaign from the top. The Soviet masses of that time were largely indifferent and the common attitude toward the state propaganda was deep cynicism or apathy. Of course, there were some lay people who "haven't read Pasternak, but condemn him", but it was either naivety or posing. Nobody saw it then but in mere 30 years the USSR would collapse.

I would compare what I see in USA nowadays to a different period in Russian history: the time before the Russian Revolution in 1917. It was a state of great turmoil, there were constant terrorist attacks against state officials and nobility (Lenin's elder brother was executed for attempting to kill the tzar), etc... yet somehow all this was massively supported by the "intelligentsia": the educated, well-off and sometimes very rich people. It was not a problem to give a shelter to "a revolutionary", to pass around leaflets, to help with money, to cover up robberies that were carried off by the radicals in search of funds, and so on. Almost all students were radical. Nobody paid any attention to a few dissenting conservative voices.

"Russia, washed in blood", "The damned days", and "The ashen horse" are the titles of some of the books that described what followed.

<comment><USER3> You are conflating different Russian political groups fighting each other into one. The issues with Russian feudalism were many which led to various groups opposing current goverment.

Russian history deserves to be approach with same seriousness as American rather then being simplified to kindergarten level.

Anyway, America now is not like russia back then at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've tried once explain to American software engineers why people from east Europe and, especially, ex-USSR countries, reacts so hard against black/whitelist renaming in software: because it looks exactly as "back to USSR" for them (I'm from Russia myself but I try to reflect these knee-jerk reactions).

Looks like no one in discussion understood what I want to say, and I was named non-tolerant and "bad" as result of this try.

Please note, I didn't say anything against such changes, I've only try to explain, that people with ex-USSR/Warsaw block background could react against such changes, not because they are racists, but because it revive very painful memories in them. And, yes, as result I'm almost racist too.

<comment><USER5> I really liked how you combined "knee-jerk reaction", "oh no, they're not racists, they just look like racists and behave like racists, but that's just because they were deeply traumatized" and "I don't have anything in common with those racists". A really enjoyable attempt to seat on two seats. The truth is that people from ex-USSR and most of the EU countries were born and grew up in primarily white society. There's no direct connection in their minds between the race and the name of the color. They're not inherently racist so to speak, it's a very American thing, that Americans tend to forget quite often. When I think of a blacklist I imagine a list colored black, not the people of color and all the history behind it. That's exactly why I believe these renaming attempts to be astoundingly stupid, please don't involve the Soviet trauma bs in that.

<comment><USER3> > The truth is that people from ex-USSR and most of the EU countries were born > and grew up in primarily white society. There's no direct connection in > their minds between the race and the name of the color.

The first part is true, second part is not. The people from Eastern block are well aware of the races and do have opinions about which race is how, up to certain races being inferior.

The blacklist as word is not associated with race. But they will make quick judgements about what the words and events and historical characters should mean for black or white Americans. That typically with zero knowledge of American history and race relations. You will also see people assuming native Americans history is what the movie "Winnetou" shows.

For example, when there is conflict about things like Africans complaining about not getting proper scientific attribution, you can count on eastern European people assuming African is crazy and don't deserve that.

<comment><USER5> Well, I'm not saying that they're not aware of the races per se. I'm saying that "black" for them means the name of the color, again, not the racial reference. That's why renaming blacklist/whitelist things is a very american- centric thing, which looks ridiculous to the most of the world outside Americas.

<comment><USER3> So, Americans rename things in American software or writing because of what those words mean to them in their own native language. Then people who have that language as second and dont really know wtf is going on ridicule them and complain about that being american-centric?

When Americans do the same, they are rightfully labeled as arrogant. It is same arrogance when Eastern Europeans do it.

<comment><USER4> It is not so simple, as "arrogance".

First, it is international software. OSS is world-wide and international, not American one.

Second, people for whom English is second language, really know that it is called "censorship", no matter is intentions good or bad. This people have very recent experiences with censorship as one of main tools of dictatorship. And they are afraid, that dictatorship returns, at gut level. They could understand that intentions is good (again, they are not racists or sexists or whatever), but they hate these measures, and they don't believe that "the end justifies the means", because they remember that it was de-facto motto of dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

<comment><USER3> People in eastern Europe are way more accepting of censorship of various kinds and Americans. They also tend to be more pro-authoritarian.

So I don't think this is so valid.

What eastern european has more then that is utter shock over conflicts that arise when people speak their minds more. Plus, it is not like America did not had censorship of private kind in the past. It had. It did not had state one.

Because really, if some place is more at risk of dictatorship coming back, it is various countries in Eastern Europe. So much for people there being scared. Some are, but what others really want is strong hand to squash whatever is perceived of breaking the peace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This really reads like it's overplaying its hand. Some of the concerns are valid, but it's so over the top that I can't take it seriously.

The real American Soviet Mentality is the ossification of the bureaucracy at all levels such that unsolved fundamental problems are leading to collective action because other avenues have completely failed.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. The title suggested discussion of economic-bureaucratic ossification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Something went wrong

An error occurred while loading this page. Try refreshing this page or navigate back to the front page.

<comment><USER9> It wants to run Javascript code before it will show you text.

<comment><USER10> If JS is not enables we get this

> You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.

What does this application actually do? Does it only show the text or does it allow visitors to play games or something more. I'm just puzzled by how often such occurrences happen nowadays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It seems the soviet condemnation of public figures has nothing to do with what happened in USA: in the case of the USSR, the condemnation started from the ruling party, i.e. from the top, whereas in the USA case presented in the article, the condemnation started from the bottom.

And the tweet about "wokes who want to be safe over libertarian values" was indeed insulting.

</comment><comment><USER12> op - thank you for posting. Cogent. Well argued. Timely.</comment>


Clayton Christensen Wants to Transform Capitalism - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/business/2013/02/mf-clayton-christensen-wants-to-transform-capitalism/

<comment><USER2> Fascinating guy that Clayton</comment>