The Death of the Party - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/fashion/death-of-the-party.html <comment><USER2> I find the whole US experience quite odd. Among everyone I knew up until my mid-late 20s (before I went abroad), the only viable options for nighttime fun were clubs and bars. Period. Luckily, I knew foreigners who would have house parties, bbqs and picnics.

When I moved to Brazil, people met on the beach, or were otherwise mostly in public spaces (you can drink on the street there). In Portugal, it's a mix of bar/club and public space* (drinking on the street is allowed), plus house parties. Whether in Brazil or Portugal, I can go out and spend $15 (incl. two- way transportation) and have a great time. Try doing that in the States.

* pretty typical scenes in Lisbon on the weekends [http://imgur.com/a/5Fcvt](http://imgur.com/a/5Fcvt)

<comment><USER3> On an observational basis, the public parks in LA are almost always filled with people having fun, having picnics, holding parties, et al. Drive by them on any weekend and they're full.

BBQ is a massive industry in the US for a reason. It has gotten bigger, not smaller. More people today BBQ, not less.

Potlucks are extremely common in the US as well.

I think your criticism is unfounded. It's trivially easy to hold group get- togethers in public parks in the US and only be out $15.

<comment><USER4> > "only be out $15."

It very likely won't involve alcohol. There's almost nothing in the states you can do in public involving alcohol that will put you out < $15 _and_ satisfy the notion of 'event' that anyone wanting alcohol would agree with.

The "going out with friends and getting drunk" for $15 might fly in other countries, but probably not here.

<comment><USER5> You'll have to be more specific than "in the states" because when I do that, it feels like an "event" to me.

<comment><USER4> not sure I can be more specific, but it's a generalization based on 20+ years of "going out" in various states (US).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think they buried the most rational conclusion. After complaining about expensive cheese (really? someone lives in a hipster bubble) and awkward sorry-didn't-invite-you situations (which always existed), the NYT gets to the point:

"More financially injurious, however, is the exorbitant rents that millennials often pay..."

House parties take space. Space costs money, especially in and near Manhattan. They also require either lots of room between homes (to keep noise down) or amazing soundproofing. Neither of which is common in Manhattan.

And _everyone_ pays crazy rent. Remember when housing prices crashed in 2007-2008 and the government was brainstorming ways to keep them up? This isn't a force of nature, and it's not extra hard on millenials. It's policy. If anything, it's harder on families, since they need more space for kids (who don't pay rent) and have less tolerance for walkups (strollers) or rough neighborhoods.

Besides, there are plenty of house parties across the country. They call them BBQs or pool parties, and they have them during the day in places where people with steady jobs can afford to own or rent a home with a yard or pool. You know, flyover country. The places that don't read the Style section of the NYT.

<comment><USER7> > This isn't a force of nature, and it's not extra hard on millenials.

Older people are more likely to own their homes (even in expensive cities like SF), so higher rent absolutely hits millenials harder.

<comment><USER5> Increased land prices mean higher taxes for homeowners too.

<comment><USER8> And if property taxes go up on my landlord, my rent goes up to cover it.

<comment><USER9> Why would this have any more impact on your rent than if your landlord's car payments were to go up?

<comment><USER10> Taxes affect the whole market; the landlord's car payments just affect that landlord.

Similar apartments in your area are similarly priced. That's because they're obeying supply and demand. If your landlord's car payments go up and she raises the rent to make up the difference, the similar apartment down the street--owned by someone who's car payments haven't changed--suddenly looks more attractive so you move. So she can't raise the rents like that because the market has no reason to move as a whole. Her car payments don't alter the supply or demand for apartments in your area.

But if the taxes she has to pay go up, they go up for all the landlords in your area. That impacts the cost of providing an apartment and removes apartments that are marginally profitable from the market; in economic terms it's an inward shift in the supply curve. So the price for apartments in your area goes up.

<comment><USER9> "That impacts the cost of providing an apartment and removes apartments that are marginally profitable from the market"

It doesn't remove them from the market, because the new (higher) property tax must be paid whether the landlord continues to let the property, lives there herself, or sells the property to a new owner.

If we were talking about an increase in the income taxes levied on rental income, then your thesis would hold. In this case, as taxes on rental income were to rise, so would the additional benefit of renting vs. living in the property myself. At some point, it flips, and it becomes better for me to just live there. The post-tax rent just isn't worth it compared to the benefit of me (the landlord) living there.

However, a property tax which is fixed with respect to the use of the property (rented or owner-occupied) and, if applicable, rental income, would not have the same effect. The annual property tax must be paid whatever happens, and it is a sunk cost that everybody must pay. It does not affect marginal decisions (buy vs. keep; rent vs. owner-occupy).

<comment><USER10> > It does not affect marginal decisions (buy vs. keep; rent vs. owner-occupy).

Hmm, I don't see how increasing the price of an input fails to increase its price. The "somebody's gotta own it" argument isn't convincing.

Not that confident in this, but here's my take: it does affect keep vs sell: if you can't afford to to keep it (because your rent income no longer justifies your costs) then you have to sell it. To whom do you sell it? Not other people who wish to be landlords, presumably, because they'd in the same bind as you. But the housing price sinks until someone buys it to live in (their property taxes sink too!). Perhaps you even sell to yourself by refinancing and then move in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I know I'm in the minority but our street has had house parties fairly frequently over the past years since we've lived here. Here's our story:

When we first moved in, we went to each home in the area and invited them to come over and meet their neighbors that weekend. It was a cold weekend and all of those that came had coffee and hot chocolate in the garage and spoke for a little while.

From then on, other neighbors and ourselves would periodically make extra cookies or other food and just take it over to a neighbor's house. When the weather is nice, people would just walk around the neighborhood and stop by to talk to others that happened to be outside. We put a fridge in the garage and offered people a soda, beer, or glass of wine when they stopped by, and over time others would gather and talk.

Eventually people started to have dinner parties. Cocktails were served, chips, appetizers, etc. Ours is not an affluent neighborhood, but those that could afford it did all they could.

Over the years, it has slowed down a little. There have been some weird friends that messed up relationships, and other mistakes with people drinking too much, etc. But, there have also been solid friendships that came out of it, and people still get together.

It doesn't happen everywhere, for sure. We consider ourselves blessed to have such good friends and neighbors. But, I think that if you do similar things, you could have a chance at the same type of experience.

</comment><comment><USER12> Seems like a very different situation here in the Netherlands. Most people live somewhat close by, within 15 minutes of biking, and its not at all unusual for everyone to show up with some drinks or snacks. This takes care of two of the main reasons the article claims Americans are not having a house party.

At one point in the article someone said that only have a 400ft space, and can only host 5-6 people before it gets crowded. I was just at a gathering yesterday in a room of less than 16m^2 (172ft^2) with 12 people without a problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same in Ireland, house parties are pretty common. I'm wondering if it's to do with the population density and public transportation (you don't want to drive drunk), among many other factors already mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER13> It's been awhile since I've been to Ireland (10 years) but I remember the cost of alcohol being very high, not just in tourist areas.

I also notice police being very proactive against drink-driving - in the centre of Dublin at least.

<comment><AUTHOR> Drinks are much cheaper in shops compared to pubs/bars (the latter are taxed much more heavily). Another reason for Ireland to party at home :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Poorly written story based on 3 anecdotes and misused facts from BLS. I am on sabbatical in NYC for the year, and I've seen "the party" occur in common spaces, like parks.

For the last 20 years in nyc, people _right out of college_ have always used public spaces (parks, bars, clubs) as venues for their parties.

On any fair-weather Saturday during spring-fall in Morningside park, there are 100s of people having parties with outdoor bbqs, lounging, bubble-making, etc.

Same in central park. A friend of ours had their post-wedding party in central park around a huge oak tree; maybe 80 people showed up. The same couple hosted at least 3 parties during the year in their 1bd Village apartment (900 sq ft).

It seems contradictory that the guests of parties expect "bourgeois cheese and beer" and yet themselves have limited budgets.

<comment><USER15> > It seems contradictory that the guests of parties expect "bourgeois cheese > and beer" and yet themselves have limited budgets.

Not if the guests see themselves as children and their hosts as parents.

<comment><USER16> That's funny, but I think it touches on the effects of easy credit to this whole phenomenon. Kids are graduating university today with what was previously considered unconscionable debt, and then they pile up credit card debt because they want the best of the best that they see every day on Facebook and Pinterest.

I'm not saying this as a blank statement against young people, there are irresponsible people living beyond their means at all ages. But consumerism as a trend in aggregate has amped up to record levels, and SV is a significant part of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> UK here - people don't really do this in their 20's anymore, but in their 30's, and what hosting is seems rather different. It's more about enjoying social company around food, some music on Spotify, and probably a board game. It's an excuse to spend time with people you like outside of a work context.

Most of the people I know have someone over to a house around once a month or so, or do an event of some kind (gallery showing, horse trials etc) for similar purposes.

<comment><USER18> Australian here (Sydney) - House parties are alive and well in my local area. Last night my neighbors were going 'til about 4AM (I'm in Newtown, which is renowned for being a bit different [1], so this is probably a terrible data point).

Age seems to have nothing to do with it. My said neighbors are uni students, I'm in my late 30's, my other neighbors are in their late 50's, and we've all been known to keep the block awake all night. No one complains, especially considering that friendly pre-party warnings / invitations are usually letter- box-dropped, and the late parties are usually confined to Friday / Saturday nights.

I personally love the house party vibe where I live. We may not all share the same music tastes, but it does my soul good to hear people having a good time pretty much every weekend!

It's possible that the reasons given in other comments (increased rent prices, social media redefining relationships etc.) are valid in Sydney as a whole, but thankfully they're having little effect in my surrounding area!

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtown,_New_South_Wales#Cultu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtown,_New_South_Wales#Culture)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Rent is higher

> More Millenials unemployed

> More Millenials living at home

> More geographic dispersion after school (good friends end up all over the > world)

> City scene is all about bars and clubs, especially for those who can afford > it and want the prestige factor

> Everything more competitive than 50 years ago when U.S. enjoyed an economic > heyday after WWII

>>> Millennials still party all the time regardless, and it's not that big of a deal

</comment><comment><USER20> I lived the last 5 years in the NL, as a foreigner, where I finished a MSc. In the last, say, 2 years I have been working full-time, and I noticed how throwing house parties became harder being in my late-20s: people have tight schedules, need to commute early because of work etc. Nonetheless, with my partner, we threw a handful each year. We lived in shared house but it was big, with a backyard and ok neighbors. We would always have some kind of big dinner and then mostly gather around the fire outside, sometimes watching stuff with a projector on a canvas we would put on the back wall. Although always a lot of effort, I really enjoyed it, it creates a nice and safe space so that people can be really open with each other, I have seen many people getting to know each other and "relationships" (work/feelings related) bootstrap. We have recently moved to the UK, outside London, in a smaller house. I don't know much of the people and the town, and I am observing on myself how I spend more time on the internet or watching movies. Maybe it's not related to being in 2015, maybe it's just that after 25 in modern societies it gets more difficult to get close to people. I wonder if it is a problem that a private or public venture could address in an innovative way.

<comment><USER21> "Maybe it's not related to being in 2015, maybe it's just that after 25 in modern societies it gets more difficult to get close to people."

Being a student used to mean being a teen, and that gives maybe a decade to party before the biological clock starts ringing and nobody can party all night because they have little kids. Sure, outliers always existed, but they were rare. Post teens were adults with adult incomes but not adult responsibilities, like kids, for quite a few years, usually.

The modern economic strategy of extending childhood by about a decade by extending education and eliminating entry level positions and near elimination of the high school grad career path has all kinds of fascinating economic effect, mostly bad, but one big effect is by the time the advanced degrees and internships are done and someone finally has an above poverty level income and medical insurance and a place to live other than parents house, the biological clock is ringing and if you don't immediately start popping out newborns, you aren't going to have biological time to do it, thus dramatically limited party culture.

So lets say culturally theres a shift from the delay between "I graduated and now I'm an adult" and "I got a herd of kids and after school stuff to attend and kids sports and ..." used to be a decade and now its maybe two years? So you'd naturally expect a decline of maybe 80% in party culture, taking it from dominant activity in the 20s to its basically gone?

There is also the biological effect that scenes from the movie "Animal House" look like fun to a teenage brain, maybe not so much to an older brain, so increasing the drinking age and dramatically criminalizing drinking while also socially pushing the mantra often heard on HN that its impossible to socialize (party) without being an alcoholic (which is criminalized) will result in a natural decline in party culture.

<comment><USER22> > Post teens were adults with adult incomes but not adult responsibilities, > like kids, for quite a few years, usually.

Hmm, not sure I agree with that really.

I agree with most of your sentiment about elimination of entry-level jobs and extended education, but I think the natural response (and the response we see) is for women to have children at older ages ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age)).

It used to be the case that you'd graduate high school and start having children in your early 20s, so I'm not sure I agree that there was ever a time when it was "socially acceptable" to be an adult with an adult income and no children for several years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I hosted a few house parties a year in SF. I love doing it. I don't mind the prep or the cleanup (though it would be nice to have help; :P)

The problem is I lived in an apartment and the neighbors weren't happy about it. If I didn't have to worry about them I'd have thrown 3x more house parties.

I probably got that from my family who threw large family parties and a giant new years party at our house with > 80 people every other year.

One thing I liked about living in Tokyo, it was relatively trivial to rent an entire bar. So, people have parties and they don't have to worry about noise or cleanup. Of course one thing they do have to do is charge for the party but I guess that's a cultural thing. No one has a problem paying because they're used to it. And by paying I mean $20-$40 a person.

<comment><USER24> $20-40 per person actually sounds reasonable, considering prices you'd normally pay for drinks in a bar. Hell, even just being at home having a party one could easily spend that on drinks and snacks. Plus, you're in a bar with non-strangers, which is something i'd also gladly pay for. Sounds like a right good idea to me!

</comment></comment><comment> ezequiel-garzon When I saw the title of the article and the source I was convinced it would be about the end of the _political_ party, in view of the poll numbers for outsiders such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

</comment><comment><USER25> Acc. to the article, New York is the only place where they party.

Screw New York. Move to Texas. We have plenty of room to party.

</comment><comment><USER26> And of course you have raves that draw in hundreds of thousands in the US (134,000 for one night of this year's Electric Daisy Carnival for example), something unheard of in the 90's or 2000's here, so while house parties may not be as popular, partying itself obviously still is.

I do think people are much more disconnected socially, but I don't think that's a different scenario than ten or twenty years ago, just one that's ramped up. It is possible to live today in the US and have close to zero social interactions. I can work from home, get all my goods delivered by Amazon or Instacart, all my entertainment delivered digital, and all my socializing online. This isn't a hypothetical: other than my immediate family, this has been a sort of experiment for the last year and a half or so. It's certainly unusual, but also can be very appealing in its own right. There are, however, many things that are quite unappealing as you might imagine. I certainly wouldn't recommend it for long periods because of them, but I wonder if this isn't the direction that society as a whole is heading, but I fear that it might very well be.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm a millennial and I go to parties all the time. I chose my apartment partly on party-throwing amenities. And my social network has parties too. Maybe it's just the city (Boston)? House parties have always been a big thing for me throughout college and after.

<comment><USER28> I was going to ask, but I figured I'd google it.

"Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends. Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s."

<comment><USER29> When did generation y get absorbed by the word millennials? Last time I looked they were 2 distinct ones. Soon gen x and baby boomer gonnna get gobbled up too?

<comment><USER28> "In August 1993, the phrase Generation Y first appeared in an Ad Age editorial to describe those who were aged 11 or younger as well as the teenagers of the upcoming ten years who Ad Age defined as different from Generation X.[6] Since then, the company has sometimes used 1982 as the starting birth year.[7] According to Horovitz, in 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y",[1] and by 2014, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age said to NPR "the Generation Y label was a placeholder until we found out more about them".[8]"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Cheeses, food, and expensive alcohol? Sounds like a gathering I'd attend now that I'm in my 30s...in my 20s it was all bottom-shelf liquor and terrible beer (and pretty much no food unless someone thought they were being classy by buying a shrimp ring)

</comment><comment><USER31> They seem to have missed an important data point involving alcohol. If the stories I hear are accurate, a few decades ago if you were pulled over while intoxicated, the officer would likely say "You boys drive straight on home mkay?" We've become much less tolerant of alcohol-related accidents, and so that same situation sudenly becomes a much bigger problem. Who wants to risk a DUI to hang out with a bunch of squares from the office?

</comment><comment><USER32> Everything has been commercialized into absolute death.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think the party went out of fashion in the UK when Abigail's Party ended up on TV in the 1970s: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail%27s_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail%27s_Party)

I basically hate house parties. I prefer spending time with my friends in pubs/bars, or going out to museums/galleries and that sort of thing. Occasionally we'll have people who want to spend time in our neck of the woods (London) and they can stay with us for a weekend and we'll do things like that. Occasionally we'll head back to our home town (Manchester), and we'll go and do things around there.

The idea of a bunch of probable strangers in a house with a poor/prescribed collection of booze just doesn't interest me. It is too open to posturing, egos clashing, being unable to drift away or having "forced fun".

<comment><USER2> I suppose the definition matters in this case. While house parties used to mean "probable strangers in a house" when I was in my teens, for me it's now more like the UK experience described below by another HNer in this thread.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247096)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> One bit of hard data and a whole lot of anecdotes and speculation. Not worth it.

<comment><USER5> Interpreting history is a valid way of getting insight. Not everything is rigorous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Parties used to be mostly full of strangers? And have no food and no alcohol? So... what did people do at a party?

<comment><USER35> Listen to music? Talk? Pass a joint around? Those that played instruments brought them and would jam.

I know I'm getting old and was kind of a prole but most parties that I went to in Atlantic Canada were like that, you brought what you could afford and the people holding the party provided the venue.

You had strangers at the party because friends would invite their friends who'd bring some other friends. One never knew if the party would be huge or a bust.

We were relatively poor students so food wasn't common unless people kicked in for a pizza or went out for donairs, whatever was plentiful and cheap and easy.

The worst parties usually involved alcohol, I spent New Years Eve (1989) cleaning a walk-in kitchen pantry at a friend's flat because my then- girlfriend had barfed in it after she ran to what she thought was the bathroom. I was a bit disillusioned with parties after that.

<comment><USER36> I'm not young (38), but my parents used to throw these kinds of open parties all the time when I was growing up. We had an open door policy, too, where anyone who showed up around a meal time was automatically served, too, and that provided a really awesome opportunity for us to build and strengthen friendships (being older and more worldly now, I know this is pretty common in large parts of the world, but it wasn't in central Virginia in the early 80s). We had a couple acres, and our house parties ranged from just a couple of folks over to hang out to large outdoor events with up to about 250 folks. In those cases it was always friends-of-friends-of-friends. As mentioned elsewhere, my family provided the venue and some general amenities (some drinks, core food) but it was expected that attendees would bring something to contribute.

As adults now, my wife & I try to have friends over regularly, too, but it's a lot more complicated in suburban US because of dual-income households, kids that either don't go to neighborhood schools or are involved in lots of extracurriculars, and generally antisocial neighbors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Curious to post this on a Saturday evening when ya'll should be partying... But its been an hour with no comments. So it would seem like at least some of us on HN have a life. Then again, its an interesting article but not super HN- pertinent.

<comment><USER38> Why _should_ we all be partying? Who are you to tell us what to do?

<comment><USER39> You created an account to say this?

<comment><USER38> Yeah I did actually create a throwaway to save personal attacks.

Often on HN there's some discussion and people feel that they can tell other people what they should be doing about some subjective thing.

One example is this thread. Some people don't like to party. The commenter said that we _should_ go and party. Even if we don't like it. We should all like what they like and we should all do what they want to do. That's a brilliant example of the kind of pushy asshole I don't like to meet at parties. It's like those people that try to force you to dance at weddings. I don't like to dance - that's my decision.

Another recent example was mother's day. I don't like my mother. She seriously neglected me as a child until I was removed by the state, which still causes me medical problems to this day. But everyone feels entitled to say that I _should_ call my mother to say hi. Why should I? Because they have a good relationship with their mother? Good for them. But don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do.

<comment><USER40> In this thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9519994](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9519994) I said this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9520124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9520124)

(25 points)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


WoSign's secret purchase of StartCom: WoSign threatened legal actions - <AUTHOR> http://www.percya.com/2016/09/wosigns-secret-purchase-of-startcom.html <comment><USER3> StartCom has always been scummy. We've created hundreds of certificates in clear violation of their ToS and they ignored it after we payed some hush money; and then there's the whole "asking for money to revoke certificates affected by heartbleed" affair. And StartEncrypt.

Both should be revoked.

<comment><USER4> The whole CA system should be abolished. The only thing needed is certificates for domain control, as LE does. We need one or two non-profit organizations for that who do that work transparently. Remove the market from where should be none.

<comment><USER5> What we have is DANE and 0 nonprofits. Instead you add RRs in the domain (which you control, right?).

<comment><USER6> > domain (which you control, right?)

You never control a domain - ICANN, your TLD registry and your immediate domain registrar do. So, technically, it's just replacing one trust vector with another.

However, given that we don't have a proper crypto in DNS (not even DNSSEC which many don't like and urge to abolish), it would be terrible. Anyone who can feed you spoofed DNS responses (i.e. starting from a cafe hotspot) would be able to impersonate just anything.

<comment><USER7> > You never control a domain

Then don't use DNS if you can't trust it? You have to trust at some point. Or create your own infrastructure and convince others to trust you, if you want more than a private network.

> Anyone who can feed you spoofed DNS responses

The tendency goes towards running your own local DNS resolver. It was not possible in the 90s, but since then both the network and computer got a lot faster and smarter.

DNSSEC has also evolved quite a bit and is the best we will get for long time. I really encourage to have a look again before dismissing it outright.

[http://blog.easydns.org/2015/08/06/for- dnssec/](http://blog.easydns.org/2015/08/06/for-dnssec/)

<comment><USER8> Among many other problems, DNSSEC+DANE permanently concedes .COM, .NET, .ORG, .CO.UK, and .IO to the FVEY Intelligence Community --- the TLDs are controlled by world governments, as we all know from watching the DOJ use that control to attack file sharing sites.

Not only that, but DNSSEC+DANE does this _without eliminating CAs_. It can't, because browsers can't rely on DANE in the real world, for technical reasons.

Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12383795](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12383795)

<comment><USER9> > Among many other problems, DNSSEC+DANE permanently concedes .COM, .NET, > .ORG, .CO.UK, and .IO to the FVEY Intelligence Community --- the TLDs are > controlled by world governments, as we all know from watching the DOJ use > that control to attack file sharing sites.

I'm all for trying to reduce the need to trust one's government, but I think this is getting out of hand.

Currently, if you really want to trust the little https lock icon, you need to trust your government, pretty much everyone else's government, a whole lot of non-governmental companies of which many are demonstrably untrustworthy, and anyone who can hijack internet traffic well enough to spoof domain validation. And you need to trust everyone with control over DNS, because they can very easily spoof domain validation. That's a lot of people, any of whom can force a certificate.

With DANE, you need to trust the DNSSEC roots and the hierarchy from the roots to your domain. That's it.

So the argument that Verisign and your registrar (and presumably your government) can potentially defeat DANE is an argument against a ridiculous straw man: Verisign and your registrar can defeat the existing system just as easily.

At least with DANE, a whole bunch of other governments, registrars, AS operators, etc can't also impersonate your web site.

<comment><USER10> If a site deploys certificate pinning via HPKP, you don't need to trust anyone other than whoever the site deems trustworthy. So why bother with a new system that might be an improvement for a small subset of the trust problem (and comes with a huge set of other problems) when we already have a system that's supported by a large number of browsers, is in use by a number of high-profile sites and has shown that is effective against compromised CAs in the past?

Of course you can argue that HPKP is not quite there yet, but that is also true for DNSSEC in general, and even more true for DANE. If we somehow, against all odds end up in a situation where DNSSEC is actually widely deployed, it wouldn't even be a bad thing for the domain validation process in general - preventing at least some attack vectors, though I'd argue it's not worth the cost. However, it should never be a replacement for efforts like certificate pinning, Certificate Transparency, etc.

<comment><USER9> I don't think that I or anyone else has suggested that DANE is in any respect whatsoever a replacement for HPKP. DANE could partially replace or augment the CA system.

IMO we would ideally use DANE _and_ HPKP with CA roots kept around for legacy clients.

<comment><USER10> The threat model you described did not take HPKP into account at all, and the existence of HPKP has a large effect on the question of whether DANE is worth the hassle (and the problems it comes with).

<comment><USER9> HPKP doesn't really solve these problems. It requires initialization, so a naive browser isn't protected at all. It also makes a bunch of smaller operators nervous because, if they lose their keys, it's game over. DANE gives a happy middle ground where you can easily re-key and only a small number of third parties can potentially tamper with the keying.

<comment><USER8> No, that is only half the HPKP story. The other half is that when a pin breaks in a browser, _the browser can report it_. Your browser might not have a certificate pinned yet (though: for the most important sites on the Internet, it does, because they're preloaded). But hundreds of thousands of other browsers do.

Every HPKP-enabled browser functions as part of a global surveillance system monitoring certificate issuance.

This works because under the TLS CA hierarchy, we have _trust agility_. When a CA screws up badly, they can be limited by the browsers (Chrome has repeatedly shown themselves willing to do that), or removed entirely.

DNSSEC+DANE gives us _no trust agility_. You cannot revoke .COM without breaking the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I reluctantly stopped all usage and recommendation of StartSSL last year after concerning information came up about a shift to Chinese ownership/control due to their hosting by Qihoo 360 (previous discussed on HN [1]), which went poorly in the context of both their lack of transparency and their long standing insistence that certain keys be generated in the browser rather then a user supplied CSR. But it really was _reluctant_ because their actual model was fantastic and how I desperately wish other CAs operated. They charged only for the actions that actually take human time: manual identity verification. Machine verification was always free, but then there was the option to get basic identity verified for a reasonable price (getting a level 2 cert), then an organization, and then a more extensive organization verification. At each step once you had a given level of verification done you could then get certs without further payment for the validity period, in stark contrast to the artificial expense CAs normally add. In an ideal world cryptographic authentication would be part of the standard services offered by government, and in fact authentication should be a core function of government period, but that is not the case.

And no, Let's Encrypt is not a full substitute unfortunately, as it offers only SSL certs. GPG has poor mobile and native platform support compared S/MIME. So I do think it's a bummer that StartCom is toast.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11107740](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11107740)

Edited to add: just to be clear, they absolutely had their flaws all along too, primarily in terms of charging for revocations which rightly earned criticism. But I still wish a better organization would take the good bits and improve rather then the entire thing vanishing into the annals of history. I feel like we're really treading water when it comes to authentication, despite it being an ever more critical part of life. All the math and basic tech needed to solve it correctly and in a user friendly way has been around for at least a decade or two at this point, yet most people and organizations still send messages with no real authentication (which in turn is the direct root of much spam and scams), password use (and resultant problems) is still near universal standard practice, etc.

<comment><USER12> This was the final straw on StartSSL for me. :(

I have now dropped my ongoing EV verification with them (has taken 7 months so far!) in favor of CertSimple, and we've also moved all non-EV to LetsEncrypt/AWS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Now that LetsEncrypt exists there's no excuse for anyone to use StartCom. They've had a whiff of dodginess for ages, and their customer service is among the rudest I've known. This should be the final straw. Their root needs removing from browsers. Give their existing customers a year's warning.

<comment><USER14> I know I'm in the minority on here, but...

LetsEncrypt's certs are not trusted on Blackberrys (including BB10 devices), and because Blackberry's big thing is 'a secure OS' there's no way to side- load[1] a root cert.

Although dwindling rapidly - there's still some big business out there that are still issuing Blackberrys to it's users.

My main home server is behind a StartCom cert... and I use a BB10 device - <USER2> no LetsEncrypt migration for me :(

\--

[1] Happy to be corrected on this, If I'm wrong!

<comment><USER15> > LetsEncrypt's certs are not trusted on Blackberrys (including BB10 devices), > and because Blackberry's big thing is 'a secure OS' there's no way to side- > load[1] a root cert.

> Although dwindling rapidly - there's still some big business out there that > are still issuing Blackberrys to it's users.

What business are you in that Blackberry users are a factor? What percent (or total number of users) would be impacted?

Only time I've seen a Blackberry in recent memory is as a stock image on a " _Why RIM failed..._ " article.

<comment><USER14> Believe it or not - Large Financial still roll out BBs, mainly because they have a big investment in the BES backend, and don't want to replace it unless they absolutely HAVE to. Latest version of BES (v12) supports iPhone and Android now, but it's not as complete as native BB support.

My Blackberry is personal though (I love hard keyboards!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How to disable CAs on firefox (thanks user nmc):

The GUI way: [https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:UserCertDB#Deleting_a_Root_Certi...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:UserCertDB#Deleting_a_Root_Certificate)

The CLI way: [http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/285831](http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/285831)

Chrome/Chromium: search "certificate" in settings to get to the certificate manager, edit trust settings for certificates.

<comment><USER17> How can laypeople know which certs can currently be trusted? Is there a list of ratings somewhere, or maybe a whitelist of some kind?

<comment><USER18> I'm working on such a project. The ratings are based on a few well-defined criteria. Stay tuned!

<comment><USER19> How do I stay tuned? Sounds quite interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> WoSign seems to give away all the signs of malicious CA. Why haven't browser vendors banned them (both) already?

</comment><comment><USER21> It doesn't seem like browsers are willing to revoke certificates from these dangerous CAs, but what about a compromise that flags some certificates as less trustworthy?--a certificate tier, if you will. I'm envisioning a warning page in the style of Firefox's "This Connection is Untrusted" that would require the user to consent before proceeding to the page. Or removing the lock icon if that's too intrusive. It wouldn't break websites but it would bring attention to websites' choice of security and probably spur action from those affected. The whole system needs an overhaul but we also need a stopgap.

<comment><USER19> I think this is definitely needed to keep CAs viable, but this requires cross- signing to be much easier. It should also be possible to get signed certificates by many CAs.

Without this, it would be quite difficult to ensure you can serve a customer a valid certificate. At the same time with much more cross-signing, trust would be established much better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Damn, we (sqlitebrowser.org) recently went through the process of obtaining a MS code signing certificate... from StartCom. (so we can sign our release binaries)

 _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER23>
        I call for a detailed investigation over WoSign's purchase of StartCom
        and the current status of StartCom. If StartCom is deemed untrusted in connection with WoSign,
        it should be revoked as well.

        I further call for all current users of WoSign or StartCom to switch to Let's Encrypt as soon as possible.

First off, it's impractical for all StartCom/WoSign customers to switch to LE because LE doesn't offer wildcard and EV TLS certificates, neither do they offer certificates that are valid more than 90 days.

Second of all, there are 175 root certificates[1] (close to a hundred CAs) trusted by Mozilla, why does this blogger targets the one and only CA in China; go above and beyond digging into private business deals to prove his point and trying so hard to gather up public support to revoke WoSign's root certificates?

I mean, sure WoSign was pretty bad in those incidences of certificate mis- issurances and have had some really shitty practices exposed (I suspect incompetence might also contributed), but is WoSign the ONLY one out there who does these shitty practices in the CA business? We don't know, until someone's look into it. But publicly shaming a single CA doesn't make all of us securer, rising awareness and promote security best practices do.

PS: if you read the rest of his blog posts in Chinese (resource links ), you would most certainly agree that the blogger is A) knows Chinese really well and B) is a political dissident. So is there any hidden motive of why the blogger did what s/he had done? Personal revenge? You guess is as good as mine.

[1] [https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:IncludedCAs](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:IncludedCAs)

<comment><USER24> I think you're right, this blogger is focusing their attention on this CA.

Even though you're probably correct, it's irrelevant. Every CA should be able to stand up to whatever scrutiny people choose to put them under. Just because this person is not targeting all of them does not make what he finds LESS valid.

If he's making stuff up, then yeah, that's obviously it's a problem.

To Straw Man you, it's crazy to say "I'll ignore these facts because the messenger has a bias".

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> To un-trust on OS X:

1\. Open Keychain

2\. Search for Startcom (3 results)

3\. Double click each certificate

4\. Open Trust section (expand small arrow)

5\. Select "Never Trust" for the first option.</comment>


Historians are using facial recognition to identify people in Civil War photos - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2018/11/civil-war-photo-sleuth-facial-recognition.html <comment><USER2> For all the people talking about consent in this thread... I just want to point out that the Civil War significantly predated the phone camera, modern digital cameras, or even the first film point and shoot cameras.

We call it "posing" for a photo because they literally had to pose without moving for at least 15 minutes (and probably more in the mid-1800s).. just like you would have to remain in-place holding a pose for hours while having your portrait painted in the eras past.

Interesting fact: it's also the reason why photos from the 1900s all feature the same grim countenance and subjects look like they've lost all interest in life - it's not possible to hold a friendly face for the duration of time it takes the film to expose.

<comment><USER3> There are a couple myths here. Civil War photography achieved shutter speeds on the order of seconds, and camera technology isn't the strongest explanation for the lack of smiles.

Source: [http://time.com/4568032/smile-serious-old- photos/](http://time.com/4568032/smile-serious-old-photos/)

<comment><USER4> Interesting. Early photograph subjects may have posed as if they were objects of portrait painting. And

> Though saints might be depicted with faint smiles, wider smiles were > "associated with madness, lewdness, loudness, drunkenness, all sorts of > states of being that were not particularly decorous," says Trumble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this a repeat?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18587607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18587607)

</comment><comment><USER6> I like this type of application for this technology. A good tightrope rabbit hole is: what if "the unknown soldier" is identified writ large?

Personally, I would love to have some folks in Ye Olde Family Photographs identified.

<comment><USER2> For those that aren't aware, at least in the case of the United States, the soldier buried in The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier's identity was not _initially_ unknown. They started off with several bodies of appropriate stature whose identity was known (but closely guarded) to those that procured them, then mixed them up and played a game of shells with the coffins to purposely un-know the identity.

All that is to say, if somehow "facial recognition" could identify the remains of the Unknown Soldier, the hope is that whosoever discovers that keeps it to themself.

<comment><USER7> > whose identity was known (but closely guarded)

I can't find any resources online to confirm this - everything seems to indicate several unknown soldiers were exhumed and one was selected (from each conflict). Do you have any pointers to references where I could learn more?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We're doing something similar for school archive photos in our product. We use class photos to find student labels, then use that to cross reference other photos around the same time period.

</comment><comment><USER9> This work is unethical. Those people never approved for their privacy to be violated in such a flagrant way.

Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as you or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de- platformed?

<comment><USER10> Sarcasm? If so, it's very well done.

If not:

> Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial > recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as > you or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de- > platformed?

My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce off my face. And I don't own anything after I'm dead.

<comment><USER11> >My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce off my face.

They should not exist in the first place, except made by people who have my clear consent for that specific picture. And those would know the limitations on publishing them.

Mass surveillance is a clear and apparent threat to society. The idea of a completely transparent human without any shred of privacy left is simply abhorrent.

Hello 1984

edit: I read "Photos"

<comment><USER12> No. At least in the US you have no rights to photos taken of you in a public place except for certain specific situations. For examples, photos used for commercial purposes (e.g. ads, marketing materials) in which you are clearly recognizable (not part of a crowd shot) require model releases. However if I take a photo of you on the street and publish it in a personal blog, article, etc. you basically have no recourse. If you hold your breath and turn purple, I might take it down to make you go away but I have no obligation to do so.

<comment><USER11> I am not from the US and have no plans to ever go there. Germany has the righ to the use of the personal image. "Recht am eigenen Bild". There are limits, as when you are just a person in a crowd or a person of public interests, but focused shots without your consent are generally a no go. It is part of the right for "Informational self-determination"

<comment><USER10> What you are describing as a "right" is actually nothing more than an abridgment of the right to conduct simple journalism. You have no right to direct what I remember and your government has carefully spun this to ensure that you can't remember what you want to without being subject to absurd legal frameworks.

Fortunately, at least for the moment, this law is not enforced, as evinced by the people taking photos of people all over the place in Berlin without asking for "consent."

<comment><USER11> It is a basic human right. Sadly one you do not enjoy. And I am sorry it is that way.

I didnt think I had to have this kind of discussion here. What would I say to a person that thought freedom of religion was nothing but a legal framework?

I am making a moral argument here. Developing facial recognition software is a step towards a dystopia

<comment><USER10> I come to Germany all the time. The reality on the ground is no different: people enjoy a right to use cameras (and otherwise conduct journalism). I didn't even realize you had this absolutely stupid law on the books, but for your sake, I'm glad its unenforced.

<comment><USER11> Tbh I am shoked that this is that big of a cultural difference, but i guess god to know? The right to ones private information is one of the core principles of the German Hacker community.

Do you by any chance have some material on the moral position of the US hacker community on privacy? It seemed I assumed far to many similarities.

<comment><USER10> No, it is not a cultural difference. People in Germany do not largely believe that they own every particle that bounces off of them. Your position is ridiculous and not widely held.

<comment><USER11> Thats a hypothesis you can easily test the next time you are in Germany. Shove random people in the street a camera in the face and scream "PHOTONS WANT TO BE FREE".

<comment><USER10> People in both places will react negatively to having their personal space invaded. People in both places will react positively to freedom of journalism and expression.

Although there are many cultural differences between our homes, this is not one of them.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The disruptive force of technology is killing off older companies - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/technology-killing-off-corporations-average-lifespan-of-company-under-20-years.html <comment><AUTHOR> Global X Robotics & Artificial Intelligence ETF (BOTZ:NASDAQ)

[https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=BOTZ](https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=BOTZ)</comment>


Pair Programming Is Not a Panacea (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.mattgreer.org/articles/pair-programming-is-not-a-panacea/ <comment><USER2> Some good conversations on pair programming and other related issues in this thread. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12285541](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12285541) The author posted the link in that discussion as an illistration, which is why this was probably posted as salient.</comment>


Show HN: Unlimited web development support for your agency / development studio - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/greenpinebot/2c08c7342ff665f3ff0920ba5b08bb25 <comment> dev-ious Great idea, following. How much do you charge?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Please email me at email@example.com for pricing.</comment></comment>


Prism and NSA Spying: why I don't (entirely) believe it. - <AUTHOR> http://www.brunton-spall.co.uk/post/2013/06/07/prism-and-nsa-spying-why-i-dont-entirely-believe-it/

<comment><USER2> You know, there's a conspiracy theory angle here.

A tactic I have observed for dealing with awkward leaks is to allow the speculation about the unknown aspects of the leak ramp up to extreme levels, then rebut the more ridiculous theories without addressing the sensible ones. Joe average reads the rebuttal, feels let down that the story wasn't quite as inflammatory as the hype had led him to believe, and moves on.

This PRISM business (of which there had been no hint before) is a massive one- up on the seriousness of the Verizon scandal, and its timing in relation to it is deeply suspicious. It wouldn't be too difficult for someone in the intelligence services to make an extremely pithy PowerPoint presentation (also suspicious - it's basically a bunch of arrows from the top tech companies to the NSA) about how the NSA slurps data from all and sundry and fake a leak to a newspaper.

I predict that this story will turn out to be a complete wash, and in the meantime everyone will have forgotten about the not-as-sexy but much-more-true Verizon leak.</comment>


Using Weather Data to Determine Your Perfect Vacation Destination - <AUTHOR> http://anishshah.net/post/1531587653/theres-always-a-better-way

<comment><USER2> This is a good idea in principle but hampered by lack of usable data.

For one thing, average temperature is not much use for a holiday. Places that are weather dependent (tropical islands, beach holidays, ski holidays) generally will have the right temperature at the time of year you're thinking of going, but the actual experience of the trip is less temperature related than precipitation and wind related. A holiday on a tropical island with 5 days of rain is miserable even if it's warm. A skiing holiday with a blizzard isn't much fun, and being on a cloudy beach is only half as much fun as being on a sunny one.

Unless you could mine a probability of sunshine in a reasonable forecast period - and this depends on your travel timeframe - the data is always going to be problematic. That's not a slight on the author, it's a problem inherent in weather prediction. And lets face it, some of the biggest computing power in the world goes into weather prediction.

The cynic in me says you can get just as much information on potential destinations just looking at a globe and picking a hemisphere / latitude based on time of year, and gridding down to a set of locations that way.

<comment><USER3> I totally agree with you.

Whilst the basic notion that travel sites could do a better job at giving you suggestions based on your preferences - and temperature definitely being one factor - temperature is not everything.

The author did a nice job collecting all the temperature information, but for an end user the simple names of the destinations don't mean much (where exactly is "Metehara" without asking Google?). I wouldn't find myself just looking for a temperature and in accordance to that look for destinations. Much more important for a holiday is the price range, so if I'd use the Excel file to find my perfect destination I would still have to find all the prices associated with the destinations (e.g. traveling to Ethiopia / Metehara will be quite expensive).

All in all: Good start. Incorporate this data within a larger travel search engine and let the user have one more option to narrow down the search.

<comment><USER4> I'm thinking of making all the locations that get outputted hyperlinked to Google Maps. What I'd really like is for the outputted list of destinations to be outputted onto Google Maps as pin drops - but I couldn't find any help on how to do that online. Any ideas?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious why the Department of Energy has weather data. I thought that the NOAA was the 'weather agency.'

<comment><USER6> The data in question appears to be simulated and intended for use in developing energy calculations for buildings:

[http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdat...](http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_sources.cfm)

That said, DOE is probably keenly interested in gathering reliable weather data so that they can keep the power grid working.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Wozber – Smart Resume Builder - <AUTHOR> https://www.wozber.com? <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, fellow hackers!

There are many moving parts in a resume and cover letter that play a role in the recruiter's decision. To make it easier for people to build their professional stories, we have developed a smart resume builder.

For the past four years, we have been integrating the best industry practices into this tool, making it smarter and friendlier to use. Our primary focus is on the user's written content and its quality.

What Wozber has to offer:

      - A virtual assistant that provides all the needed help along the way
      - Instant job ad analysis for the main keywords' extraction
      - Step-based process for writing a resume and cover letter
      - Resume design customization
      - Multilingual resume templates
      - Resume version management

Right now, we're limiting the content length to a single page, but the solution for unlimited length resume is coming soon!

Few more facts about us:

      - We're the team of two: one designer and one developer (myself)
      - We're self-funded
      - We're based in Europe, but providing the services worldwide

Can't wait to hear what you think about Wozber!</comment>


Intrusive Thoughts: Normal or Not? (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-normal/201110/intrusive-thoughts-normal-or-not <comment><AUTHOR> The human mind is such a fascinating, yet incredibly strange place.</comment>


Ask HN: Using consumer cellphones for an IoT network? - <AUTHOR> I have been looking into LoRaWAN for a low cost waterproof asset tracker I am looking at building. AFAIK, the primary benefits of LoraWAN over say LTE-M or cellular are: no connectivity costs and  potentially lower power consumption.<p>What I'm wondering is: why can't we use our own cellphones as the "base station" that the IOT device talks with? We can do this with bluetooth and WiFi, why not cell? Is it the LTE protocol that prevents it? Physics? What am I missing? <comment><USER2> You can have your (very) low power LTE base station. Bandwidths ie radio spectrum frequency allocations, including LTE are licensed/managed by respective governments. Carriers pay these governing entities for use of the bandwidth for a period of time. Carriers once secure the licenses, deploy technology (towers, earth stations, satellites, etc.) for the use of purchased bandwidth. They hope they will recoup those costs and profit through selling the use of the equipment and bandwidth use to you.

Put it in a different way, you do not have the LTE infrastructure & licensing, therefore you must rely on a cellphone carrier to provide you the towers and such.</comment>


Vintage and obsolete Apple products - <AUTHOR> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624 <comment><USER2> Apple Lisa and Macintosh XL not on the list. Apple II & Apple III listed under Mac Desktops.</comment>


1981: First Version of Online Newspapers [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.wimp.com/theinternet/

<comment><USER2> I miss the 80s!</comment>


HelloFax (YC W11) kills the fax machine, but it's really about e-signatures - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2011/03/30/hellofax-lets-you-ditch-your-fax-machine-and-sign-everything-electronically/

<comment><USER2> In my ideal world I wouldn't need to futz with "e-signatures" or any sort of visual representation of my signature. I fail to see what's wrong with standard public key encryption - why can't I sign a document the same way I sign an email - with my keypair.

When it came time to renew my lease for my St. Louis apartment, but I was still in San Francsico, I had to do exactly what is described in this article. Sign a blank paper, photograph my signature, paste the photo into the PDF on the signature line, and send it back via eFax. How dumb is that? Its not secure in any way, and there's absolutely ZERO proof that it came from me. On the other hand if I sign it with my private key, there may not be a pretty handwritten copy of my name on the line - but there's fairly strong proof that I am the one that actually submitted the form.

Maybe there needs to be a fancy GUI on top of all of it that somehow links PGP signatures to images of handwritten signatures to satisfy people that are fixated on them, but to me, electronically signing documents with an honest- to-god handwritten signature is something that needs to die: yesterday.

<comment><USER3> as visual representation of the signature isn't a requirement as a matter of law. places like docusign, etc., use it because it makes people feel safe and secure, as if they're hand signing paper documents. imagine if the question as to whether you signed a document came before a court. you're right: the question would be, what evidence shows that thecoffman signed this? and public key encryption would be stronger than an image of a handsigning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My understanding is that electronic signatures are actually legally binding, and an electronic signature just means anything that signifies intent to sign (e.g. no crypto required). So the patent office accepts your name in slashes, as I recall.

Of course the real problem is that the organizations that require faxed signatures don't have any real idea as to why they're doing that or whether they need to do it or even whether it's legal, it's just "that's the way we've always done it"

<comment><USER5> How can it be legally binding if it's not proof in any way? A traditional signature can be analyzed on paper to make sure it is genuine, but everyone can copy/paste your signature under a document digitally. It needs a cryptographic signature to have any value.

<comment><USER4> Because it's pretty easy to fake a traditional signature as well? Particularly if it only needs fax fidelity!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Free faxing isn't revolutionary, you can send one with www.freefax.com or with www.faxzero.com and they have been around for years.

<comment><USER7> yes but they suck. the world is littered with examples of established companies being upset by teams who do a better job.

<comment><USER8> I'm not convinced HelloFax doesn't suck. I tried it a few days ago for a form* I needed to sign, and it destroyed the quality of the PDF to the point of unlegibility.

I wound up futzing around with iAnnotate on the iPad, which required a bit more effort but actually worked.

* <http://dok.dkb.de/pdf/rekla_kk.pdf>

<comment><USER9> Hi TillE, Joseph here, the cofounder of HelloFax.

Sorry it didn't work out for you. We had a day where we redid our document converter. It's possible something happened while we were pushing out changes. If you have a moment, mind trying it again and pinging us at support at hellofax dot com?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Today, I had to print out, sign and send a work agreement. It took an hour, 12 miles of city driving at $3.75/gal, and it cost $10.85. I'm VERY interested in this company. Self employed people need to watch every penny they spend so a way to save over 80% is great. Next time I need to send a contract back, I'll be using this service. Thanks to YC for shedding light on a great idea.

</comment><comment><USER11> This (signatures not faxing) is a much more difficult problem than simply sending a piece of paper with an image of your signature on it.

Basically, if I'm moving all my faxes through your startup's servers, what exactly proves that it is me signing up for credit card offerings, trips to Venice and discount car loans, and not your 2 month employee that is pissed at you for making him work late.

e-signatures bring up so many issues that can cause a world of hurt. To move from fax to e-signature support is a large step.

See here for more information: <http://www.recombo.com/digital-signature/>

(I'm not endorsing this product or company, but it provides some background.)

</comment><comment><USER12> "And as soon as people realize that it's possible to sign a document without printing it out first, they'll abandon their fax machines. The only question is which software or service they'll use instead."

What question is this? Of course they use government issued ID-card and sign documents digitally using free, government backed, official (and open-source) software for that. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_ID_card>

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been waiting for Google to "kill the fax machine" since their voice program launched. Sending faxes for free hasnt been a problem--at the least most public libraries will send a few pages at pennies (or free) per page. Most services to receive faxes cost 10 bucks a month to get your own number. I dream of giving people my Google voice number, and whenever a fax comes through I get it in my inbox as a PDF attachment. _sigh_ Someday...

</comment><comment><USER14> Well done Joseph, congrats on the continuing growth!

People mulling startup ideas take note: A great way to build something people want is to find a process that has become entrenched and stagnant and identify and remove points of friction (like signing digital documents without a physical fax machine).

</comment><comment><USER15> I had the opportunity to meet the two founders the day they got accepted to YC and when they were telling me what working on, I was already canceling my efax account in my mind. Yesterday when I had to fax documents to a bank and Scottrade, it was actually a pleasant experience. The only thing I wish I could have done was prepare a fax and have a link to send to my wife so she could sign the documents as well.

</comment><comment><USER16> I would love to use HelloFax, but most things that I actually need to sign these days are, almost by definition, sensitive or confidential.

E.g.: Investor agreements, stock plans, contracts, etc.

Would anyone else feel uncomfortable about handing over copies of all this to a startup?

</comment><comment><USER17> Will there be as much money in the e-signature business as there is in the e-fax business? The latter seems to be saving the user from a bigger hassle, hence the obvious monetizability. What happens if google docs adds the ability to add physical-esque signatures?</comment>


Show HN: CLEAR Card – AI powered credit card for startups - <AUTHOR> http://getclear.io <comment><USER2> The thread title - and the site tagline - say '... for startups', but I failed to find any specific relevance to startups.

Is there something I'm missing here?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hello HackerNews. Excited to announce CLEAR card, something I have been working on over two years.

Happy to answer any questions from the community and hear your feedback.

<comment><USER3> Curious about the AI technologies behind the card and how they are applied.

On another note, it doesn't seem like there is anything to play with or try out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How is spending controlled? Does this end up being an actual card? If so, How does that work internationally?

<comment><AUTHOR> Banks have a lot more information about the merchant when you swipe your card. We use this information to add smart controls to the card.

Yes this is a REAL credit card, and will have no issues working internationally. However, some of the categorization and controls may not be as accurate as they would be in the US.

We are trying to improve our categorization of transaction using machine learning so when you categorize different transactions it will become more accurate over time. We also are working on technology that pulls data in from different APIs (i.e. Yelp, Foursquare, Google) to get even more details about merchants and locations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looking forward to it!

</comment><comment><USER6> Excited for this!!</comment>


Introducing "Zero", a new app to help you fast - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@kevinrose/introducing-zero-a-new-app-to-help-you-fast-209935e8245d#.arp9ixq1t <comment><USER2> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13265723](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13265723)</comment>


Data science, big data, machine learning and deep learning - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.intenthq.com/2015/05/data-science-big-data-machine-learning-and-deep-learning/ <comment><USER2> This looks like it's just an ad for their book. No real content on the page.

Maybe they can write a blog entry "gaming the HN voting system to get your ad on the front page". That I would read.

<comment><USER3> Yes. Also the guy does not seem to be that knowledgeable.

He did not get the memo that more input data can lead to worse results; he claims the opposite in a slight variation (i.e. the more precise the input data, the higher the quality of the result).</comment></comment>


Sleep under my kitchen table at Inauguration - <AUTHOR> http://airbedandbreakfast.com/airbeds/show/4709 <comment><USER2> They forgot that someone can sleep in the bathtub too.

Reminds me of this craig's list ad:

<http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/907788944.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> I've always thought these kinds of sites are interesting. I would be afraid of getting hacked into a thousand pieces and thrown in a dumpster...

<comment><USER4> You know, I'm not a big fan of Facebook, but this site should use it for vetting. You don't know much from a name, picture, and some attributes, but in all honesty I'd be more inclined to trust someone (at least to not be a psycho killer) after looking at their drunk pictures and wall posts than anything any central authority could issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Word is that demand has actually relatively low for the "sleep on my couch" type offers: [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/washington- ren...](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/washington-rental-boom- a-bust/)

Though, that said, I've heard that people are getting hotels in Fredrick, MD or even _Philly_ for inauguration. That's just nuts.

<comment><USER6> Well, those houses being rented out seem to be in the range of ~$3000/week. That's what's nuts. There would be more people going that route if that price wasn't so high.

</comment></comment><comment> a-priori The blog article that mentions this listing is worth reading as well:

<http://www.airbedandbreakfast.com/blog/?p=409>

</comment><comment><USER7> homepage 404'd?

<http://airbedandbreakfast.com/>

<comment><USER7> Nevermind, looks like its fixed now?

For a second there I thought it was just a 1-pager :)</comment></comment>


Charming Therapeutic Chatbot Debuts on Your FB Messenger - <AUTHOR> https://chatbotsmagazine.com/charming-therapeutic-chatbot-debuts-on-your-fb-messenger-aaf429411816 <comment><USER2> I immediately thought of ELIZA, with it's DOCTOR script. ELIZA was a chatbot from '64: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA)

There will no doubt be privacy issues with people spilling their hearts to a Facebook chatbot, though.</comment>


During a pandemic, Isaac Newton had to work from home. He used the time wisely - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/03/12/during-pandemic-isaac-newton-had-work-home-too-he-used-time-wisely/ <comment><USER2> Democracy dies in darkness... behind a paywall...</comment>


New: Initial text in discussions - <AUTHOR>

Now when you post a question for discussion, you can supply some additional explanation that will show up here at the top of the discussion page.  I'm not 100% sure this is a feature.  The previous version at least forced people to be brief.  We'll see how things go. <comment><USER2> Before this people usually submitted a comment to explain their question, and that comment ends up pushed down the list and new users lose the context of the discussion. So, I think it's a feature.

Another way it can be implemented is by pinning the very first comment to the top if it was submitted by the same user. That way you keep the form simple with two text fields only.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, interesting idea. The trouble with that plan, though, is that it would be unclear whether to reply to that comment, or to the question. So you'd end up with a weird ragged discussion.

<comment><USER3> If one is pinning the comment to the top already, one could easily remove the reply link to that comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, true. But do I also remove the vote link? Presumably. Then I have to remove it wherever it occurs, meaning I have to add a field to the obj saying that it's a special top-comment. And what about deletion? Lots o code.

Whereas all I'm doing here is exposing the text field that was in submissions already, since underneath they're the same kind of obj as comments.

<comment><USER4> PG, I think this is useful for your current setup.

But I think this whole 'bubble popular stuff up' is a tad off. Its too binary, IMO humans aren't all that binary - not all of us anyway. How about you use sliders so people can rate stuff more subjectively and you can also use relative font sizes to size up stuff which is more popular and reduce the font size on stuff that isn't. This does not mean that the text becomes too big or too small - its just a subtle change.

This will allow you to disable this whole bubbling scheme and keep things in a natural chronological order while making it easy to spot popular stuff without adding any cognitive load.

Finally, a discussion board must really have a feature that shows all 'unread' or 'updates since your last post' threads in bold or some sort of highlighting. While news.ycombinator implements the unread piece it would be helpful if it highlighted updated threads also.

How can I be sure you read this comment?

<comment><USER5> Binary is good. Do I rate your comment above a 6 or a 7? What does 7 mean to the next guy, and is it the same as it means to me? Up down is good because I only vote when I feel strongly about it.

<comment><USER4> maxklien,

1.My own perspective is that it does not matter whether it is a 6 or a 7 and who interprets it how. That is the whole point of a subjective system it is not objective.

2\. I believe subjective systems should not use numbers or other notations and therefore I suggest a slider not 10 radio buttons or a rating system.

3\. I do not imply that the binary/objective system is no good. It is good for some applications, I would just prefer a more subjective measure around things which incorporate human opinion.

:)

<comment><USER3> Actually from a standpoint of diagramming human intellectual output, both reddit and YC do poorly. Even so, I can't think of any simple mathematical processes that would be better. Systems dealing with human beings must take into account intangibles and not attempt to reduce human beings to machines. This is the fundamental flaw of the Turing project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it possible to add clickable URL links in this comment ? Beeing able to add an clickable image would be great too. Just a small image not higher than this edit box.

You know the saying an image is worth a thousand words. ,-)

</comment><comment><USER7> this is something I've wished reddit had from the very beginning.

<comment><USER8> Reddit didn't even have comments from the very beginning :-). Ah, the nostalgia...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like it.</comment>


What Life Will Be Like Once Artificial Intelligence Is Here - <AUTHOR> http://areatech51.com/what-life-will-be-like-once-artificial-intelligence-is-here/ <comment><USER2> > "Here are some of the things I feel as though would be the most impactful > and meaningful upsides to birthing AI:

\- We would finally be able to travel through time and space \- We would be able to cure all diseases"

And that's where I stopped reading.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gone.</comment>


The Art Of Driving Your Competition Crazy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/03/the_art_of_driv.html

<comment><USER2> We're doing it by offering an Open Source version of our product that is more powerful than our proprietary competitors products (and our commercial version goes several steps farther and is priced competitively). I don't know just how crazy it is driving them, yet, but I do know that we're on the radar for the two major competitors (because I've heard from them via email). Must be at least a little bit worrisome.

I think our next couple of product announcements over the next month or two will also do some damage...we'll be leaping past the competition in dramatic ways, and more importantly, we'll be letting their biggest customers know about it (because we've built up a nice contact list of their biggest customers over the past few years of their customers using our Open Source and earlier products). But, of course, being in the position to do that has taken a very long time...quietly gathering data, writing software, making people like us enough to talk about us, etc.

I don't know any "instant" recipes for this...but I love hearing stories in this vein.</comment>


I am the Coin (Puzzle consisting of 20,000 custom minted coins) - <AUTHOR> http://iamthecoin.com/introduction.html

<comment><USER2> If anyone is interested in actually reading the story, I've put the plaintext up at <http://paste.pocoo.org/raw/162110/>, preserving the line breaks in the original.

Edit: And now, with spacing between words: <http://paste.pocoo.org/raw/162140/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm.

 _Congratulations on correctly locating the coin!

We've been experiencing some technical difficulties and, unfortunately, cannot issue prizes at this time. If you would like a chance at a prize, please check back later today or tomorrow._

<comment><USER2> I just received this email:

 _Dear [Callahad],

Congratulations on locating the coin and thanks so much for visiting the site. I AM THE COIN is a collaboration between artist Micah Lexier, writer Derek McCormack and a dedicated crew of craftspeople who all worked very hard toward producing this year-long installation. In the first few days we have had a flurry of activity on the website, including numerous people who wrote to redeem the FIND THE COIN prize.

We hope we have not overstated the prize, which consists of one of the extra tokens from the installation. It is meant as a symbolic thank you to those who took the time to interact with the project. The site also caught the attention of a group who just looked at the computer code rather than read the story.

We are happy to honour the contest and send you the prize token, but before we do so we wanted to confirm that you do in fact want the prize sent to you. We only have 100 prizes to award and we want to make sure we are sending them to those who wish to have a token of their interaction with this artwork.

Please write us back by JANUARY 11, 2010 to confirm that you would like the prize sent to you. If we do not hear back from you we will assume that you are fine with not receiving the prize.

Thanks so much for your time._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://iamthecoin.com/prize_redemption.php>

:/

</comment><comment><USER5> That was easy....too easy. I am starting to think this was a hoax to get my info. So I did not submit my info....

</comment><comment><USER6> yeah, gotta love easy to solve riddles by looking in the js

<comment><USER2> The question, then, becomes whether or not it is ethical to claim the prize on offer...

<comment><USER7> I...couldn't resist. I am sure there is a way they could have made this more difficult, say, doing the lookup server-side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The answer is in the script.

<comment><USER9> I just saw a link in the HTML.

<comment><USER10> You could also read the vertical text if you want to think ever so slightly less outside the box ;)

<comment><USER9> My box is warm and cozy, thank you very much.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Spars With The Times Over Investigative Article - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/amazon-spars-with-the-times-over-investigative-article.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Media&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article <comment><USER2> Sorry, all the nitpicking about small points in an article don't mean nearly as much to me as the dozen or so people I've known who's been miserable working there for low pay, and told me so personally. Embrace the culture you have, or fix it, but stop denying it exists, Amazon.

<comment><USER3> I don't think anybody in a tech role would say they have low pay. Many problems, but that isn't one.

Edit: I meant in a tech role at Amazon. Amazon are not known for low pay.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Considering most entry-level positions in big tech pay well but come with outrageous hours and no overtime, an accusation of low pay seems justified. I know plenty of Google engineers who recently started in the Bay Area at around $86,000. Considering the amount of time they're expected to work and the costs of living there, that's pretty pathetic for a huge company with deep pockets.

<comment><USER4> I don't believe there are full time engineers at Google making less than 6 figures. Right out of college at Google I'm making 105 base and way more with stocks/bonuses.

<comment><USER5> Wait, so you're making only ~5% more than the threshold you don't believe exists?

You don't think that among the many thousands of people working at Google, perhaps someone has 10% worse negotiating ability than you, or someone's background and experience impressed their interviewers 10% less? Or work in an area of the country with 10% less cost of living?

<comment><USER6> You missed this bit:

> and way more with stocks/bonuses.

The base pay is one thing, the total is quite another. Don't be surprised if the total comes to 200K +.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't imagine this Olson story is over.

AMZN publicly airs personal and damaging information about illegal activity (their words) of a named former employee, in an attempt to destroy his credibility as a source of their story. The former employee publicly refutes those claims, essentially saying that AMZN is intentionally telling a lie. Someone is not telling the truth, and I'm not sure there is much wiggle room in this scenario for both to be plausibly correct.

No matter who is the truthful party, AMZN has taken on a lot of potential legal liability, and for what? In an attempt to refute one source of an article that has many sources. And a source that said people cry at their desk.

Seems a very large bet to place with little to be gained. I would imagine Mr. Olson has already been contacted by lawyers galore.

<comment><USER8> It will likely be settled out of court. AMZN cannot risk having any of the NYT story ex-employees be bought up in a courtroom. The truth could be devastating and validate NYT. If I were Olson I would let the lawyers work on a simple 35-40% commission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing that consistently bothers me about a "down economy" is the ability for some companies to feed off the desperation of good people seeking honest work. This applies both in technology-skilled positions, and also manual-labor positions in the case of Amazon. In different economic conditions, and with the ability of sites like Glassdoor or Medium to spread stories and reviews, I'd like to think Amazon would be forced to hire the least-employable members of society, like Ex-Cons, because nobody else would want to work there.

I'm not laying waste to Amazon as a hopeless pit of despair, but do I give credence to the stories about life in their warehouses? How people are treated? What toll it takes on the human body? Yes, I do. That doesn't start from the concrete floor and go up to the Executive Suite in my experience...

Long ago I remember reading stories on BestBuySucks.org. At one point in my life, I needed a job and got hired on at Best Buy. It did, indeed, suck...but it definitely motivated me to attain my first professional gig.

<comment><USER10> This is capitalism critique 101.

Marx was a tech writer in a way, he wrote about the emerging power asymmetries between the people that owned the machines and the people that operated them. I know you guys are not big for socialists authors in the states, but you should at least read the classics.

PS: I'm not a communist.

<comment><USER11> Thank you for this insight. I think it is spot on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This ongoing spat can't be good in the long term for Amazon's image. Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not perfect, we will try and make it better for our employees." Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper.

<comment><USER13> Carney should be fired (my guess is, he will be). His entire job is to try and make sure that kind of snafu never happens, or if it happens, to make it go away as quietly as possible.

He worked with the reporters about this story for six months, and a very bad article was produced. He probably feels a little betrayed, and must have endured quite his share of head washing from Bezos.

But now, two months later, he should really try to change the conversation; instead he's throwing former employees under the bus and revealing personal details about them, to make up for failures that are mostly his own.

He's really doing a terrible job.

<comment><USER14>
      He worked with the reporters about this story for six months, and a very bad article was produced. He probably feels a little betrayed

But the guy was a damned reporter _himself_. He should know all the tricks of the trade and moreover, he should know that a reporter is _never_ your friend. She's after the story and if you're in the way: tough luck!

That said. You may be totally right. But such a reaction due to a bad case of bruised ego _from a reporter_ is hard to fathom.

[edit : fixed syntax]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> About a decade ago, the NY Times wrote a story about an event and a group I started. I was interviewed and my wife was present, occasionally saying something. When I read the piece that came out, it was clear the writer had a story line and anything that interfered with the story line was omitted. At least one of the quotes attributed to me was said by my wife.

There was no Medium at that time so I wrote a rebuttal piece on my blog. The author of the NY Times story thought it was great that I had a chance to give my take on the whole thing, which I thought was grand because his piece was on the NY Times and mine was on a personal blog.

Before then, I knew that you couldn't trust what's written in newspapers, particularly those that favor story telling to make the news more interesting. The incident really drove home that opinion.

This is not to say that Amazon is a good place to work. There's been a lot of substantive reports that it isn't a decent workplace. However, it's not surprising the NY Times cherry-picks its quotes to backup the theme of the article.

</comment><comment><USER16> I am not sure I am adding much to the conversation, it may be unfair to Mr.Carney, but when I see a Politically involved person like Mr.Carney who worked as press-secretary, I do not trust his message. I simply do not. Even though I spent some time reading his entire posting, my biases were yelling at me, "do you want to really take this political hack seriously?". Amazon has to find a better spokesperson for public tussle, better in this case would be someone who is not already labeled.

<comment><USER17> It isn't unfair. Amazon hired a spin doctor, and spin is what he produces. My guess is that Amazon will be just fine after this scandal, though-- they're too big to let a petty thing like "bad culture" impact profits.

<comment><USER18> And there is enough people who see Amazon as "getting in the door" that they will tolerate a year or two of utter bullshit so they can jump ship to Google or other more humane jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I worked for Amazon, I found it an abusive workplace. Not just because after a re-org I was taken away from a good boss and put under an abuser, but because the culture of the company is set up by people who clearly don't respect employees. I had interactions with Amazon management all the way up to, and including, Jeff Bezos, and the problems outlined in the article are systematic.

By definition any previous employee who does not like a company is "disgruntled". And while there are employees who are insulated from the abuse, often by working for the good people at Amazon (and there are a lot of good people there) the idea that companies are good by nature is a mistake and there seems to be a bias that any employee who complains must be the problem.

So, it's natural to bash the employee speaking out, and that's the route that Amazon has taken.

Well, there are thousands of us, and what we witnessed was not one off events, but the result of a culture.

<comment><USER20> You post the same thing on every Amazon post. I understand you had a bad experience but it does seem like you are fairly upset at Amazon and have an axe to grind.

<comment><USER21> Don't see how that's any more objectionable than a third of your HN posts supporting Amazon

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think a lot of HN commenters are being too quick to dismiss Amazon's objections - either because they have heard similar anecdotes from friends or because they distrust Mr. Carney.

Amazon's core objections are that A) the NYT flat-out lied to them about the nature of the article they were producing, and B) the NYT failed to subject their sources to the usual standard of scrutiny.

Reading between the lines, it appears to me that Amazon is accusing NYT of deliberately producing a hit piece on them in response to Jeff Bezos's purchase of the Washington Post.

Does Amazon have serious cultural problems? I'm inclined to say yes, and Amazon's reluctance to admit as much is troubling. But I'm also inclined to suspect that the NYT article was indeed a hit piece that greatly exaggerated the issues at Amazon and that this came from a place of business strategy and not genuine journalistic investigation.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's odd that Amazon would stir this up again months after the original NY Times piece came out. Then again, maybe Amazon doesn't really feel like it has anything to lose. And maybe attacking the veracity of the NY Times would be in the best interest of someone who, say, owns the Washington Post.

<comment><USER24> I suspect they're hearing mentions of the article as reasons for people turning down recruiters and job offers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> One of the main reasons Amazon is able to treat its tech workers so poorly is their aggressive use and enforcement of non-compete agreements. Fed up with Amazon and want to jump to Google or Microsoft for better pay or better working conditions? Be prepared for a lawsuit, or at least a threat thereof.

Unlike in California, non-competes are enforceable in Washington state. When will such anti-competitive, anti-free-market behavior be outlawed there? It's hard to imagine that a popular vote on such a referendum would not pass.

</comment><comment><USER26> My best friend has been working there for six years. I've been asking her about these articles. In her experience: (1) she hasn't seen crying, (2) she's had coworkers with medical conditions who were treated very well, and (3) when she or a coworker has had a bad manager, it was no worse an experience than for friends at Google or Microsoft. Her opinion is that the original NYT piece was cherry-picked. She thinks that the anecdotes they used could be true, but that she just hasn't seen any of that in the past six years across different departments.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you're curious as to why Amazon is behaving so foolishly given that this rebuttal serves only to extend the shelf life of the original story, you should consider that the founder and CEO of Amazon happens to own the Washington Post, one of the New York Times' chief competitors.

</comment><comment><USER28> If the times wants to be the news of record, it should do a better job of reporting on news rather than editorializing or trying to sway opinion or garner a writing prize for "investigative" work.

No doubt Amazon has bad managers and may have toxic work cultures, but for the Times to be shoddy in reporting is surprising in light of their house cleaning after the fake news reporting by at least one of their previous and now disgraced journalists, but no, it appears he was more symptom of the management of the NYT rather than mr Blair being a single bad apple.

It's also surprising to see the management dive into what's degenerated into a spat. Report news, dont get into personality fights, keep composed, stay above the fray, if you purport to be a news org.

</comment><comment><USER29> It's really not helping their 'we aren't a bunch of dicks we promise' line at all.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's somewhat disturbing to me that a former President's press secretary is just a gun for hire for the biggest megacorps.

I mean obviously it's totally predictable but at the same time very disturbing.

</comment><comment><USER31> The vigor with which Amazon is fighting back, for me at least, conforms that there are serious problems going on.

It reminds me of cases when someone is guilty and at the slightest mention of the problem they start swearing up and down that they are alright, and everything is fine.

<comment><USER32> I strongly suspect you're correct, but I like the thesis that this is hitting their recruitment hard and that could be the primary driver.

The two go together quite well, we hear that most people don't stay at Amazon for more than 2 years, so this could be an existential threat to their current model if they're no longer able to get enough new warm bodies to replace the attrition.

That it was sparked by the first big, really prominent MSM expose strongly suggests its a perception problem of some sort, that article was just more of the same to those of us on HN.

<comment><USER31> The article got a ridiculous amount of attention and in many way it conformed what I've been hearing about it from the word of mouth, it conforms with my interview experience there -- forgot I was coming that day, didn't call for almost 3 weeks after, forgot about me during lunch, a good number of interviewers seemed disgruntled and seemingly not happy. (Now, to be fair, I heard good things about it as well, and that is why I was initially going for an interview there, and it is a big company after all, but I am talking on average).

In a way if they didn't have a problem, like let's say the same article came out regarding Google or Facebook, there would have been as much talk about it, and author and the news source would have been condemned and discredited, and it would have been blown over quicker. But in case of Amazon that article keeps coming back somehow.

<comment><USER33> I think interview experiences could be the luck of the draw. My AWS interview was actually highly organized and pleasurable barring the emphasis on behavioral questions about Jeff's Commandments. The people were quite nice and professional and even admitted that some parts of Amazon were "grim".

<comment><USER31> Yeah could be. Well, at least I thought that about the first couple of screw ups. But by the last one, it was getting funny, I kept thinking "Nah, this is a cruel joke of some sort, it can't be that bad.."

So it kind of my personal interaction with that company and somehow they managed to screw up so many things in a row, so it definitely left an impression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> An interesting comparison, I think, can be made with the Microsoft bad culture article published by Vanity Fair in 2012:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft- lo...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo- steve-ballmer)

This article received a lot of exposure at the time, yet I don't remember MS hiring political hacks or trying to (at least overtly) discredit sources.

<comment><USER34> Not exactly discrediting a source, but: [http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-frank-shaw-on- why-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-frank-shaw-on-why-he- slammed-david-pogue-2013-10)

anyway I think we know how windows 8 turned out in the long run.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Amazon's arguments are flimsy at best, and it renews the focus back to this piece of news which most people have not talked about. Staying quiet or saying something more humble would dull the backlash a lot.

</comment><comment><USER36> One HN Poll I'd be interested in seeing: Would you accept a competitive offer from Amazon?

"Competitive" here meaning a salary and title as good or slightly better than your current job or next best offer.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think the industry knows that Amazon in terms of HR is on borrowed time. If they want to maintain their dominance it's time to invest more in their employees.

</comment><comment><USER38> Who wants to bet that Mr. Carney is crying at his desk this week?

</comment><comment><USER39> Not so much sparring as debunking.</comment>