DOJ challenges landmark Microsoft warrant case - <AUTHOR> https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/301055-doj-challenges-microsofts-landmark-irish-email-case <comment><USER2> "it will hamper our investigation" Well boo hoo. We have checks and balances and due process for a reason. It isn't about catching the bad guy at all costs.

<comment><USER3> Borders are in place to hamper agents. That is their whole purpose.

Crossing borders without permission is provoking conflict and war.

Crossing borders traditionally requires negotiation. This is the way in any governance framework.

A world without any respected borders is a world in which there is no escalation, protection and where government is melting down. An agency that is tasked with protecting the borders of the law should understand that. If anyone struggles just think how it feels (for the sake of the argument here it is irrelevant whether true or not) to be at the receiving end of Russian cyber bullying interfering with the election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They are systematically destroying the American tech industry with these types of moves.

In a global economy who is going to want to use American tech when they know any server will be wide open to the government.

</comment><comment><USER5> Every time the government does this, they have to understand that the flood gates open for other governments to do this. Next thing you know, China will request data on Americans

<comment><USER6> Assuming that they have not already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please write an email, or better yet call, your state and federal representatives/assembly people and senators if you care about this. There is an honest belief, on the Hill, that Americans don't care about this.

<comment><USER8> There's an honest belief, off the hill, that Americans can't actually change a damn thing about our political system, whether through activism or calling our state and federal representatives or voting or basically anything. That we can't control a damn thing that happens on the state or federal scope.

<comment><USER6> Yeah the five separate occasions I've reached out to my representatives I've received 4 form style responses and one that was never responded to at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > And it says that responding to the warrant would not circumvent the privacy > of users, because they have no way to know, or control, where their data is > stored.

So if they add an option somewhere in the settings to allow users to pick where their data is stored this becomes invalid?

<comment><USER10> Wouldn't it be great if all these web apps running on AWS, Azure, etc., would run instances in different regions and let the user choose which instance they want to make use of (and, thus, where their data is stored)?

<comment><USER11> I think even better would be to stripe all data across a bunch of regions.

<comment><USER12> ... after encryption

<comment><USER11> Naturally. :) Hmm, I wonder if there's an actual addressable market niche here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So, the U.S. government would be OK with another country requesting data on the U.S. Gov't AWS cloud that Amazon has setup?

<comment><USER14> That's not really an analogous situation. The analogous situation would be another country asking a company located and incorporated in that other country for a copy of an electronic document that is under the control of that company, which they have stored on a server in the US. That company has remote access to the server and can copy/move the document without needing the cooperation or even awareness of anyone in the US.

I doubt that the US would object to the other country's government requiring the company to make a copy of the document and giving it to that government.

<comment><USER13> And such a company would be Amazon, and such an example would be Amazon's services for the government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It scares me to think that the US will most likely have a president that not only doesn't understand technology but has proven that she cannot seem to appoint the right expertise to make up for that short coming.

I foresee more of this in the future. :-/

<comment><USER15> > that not only doesn't understand technology

She understands it. They just play it off that she doesn't so she can claim ignorance when the has classified info on a private exchange server.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> File: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3141942-Microsoft- Si...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3141942-Microsoft-Silk-Road- DOJ-United-States-Appellee.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> Hopefully they appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court so it can become precedent for the whole country.

</comment><comment><USER17> > "This effect is already harming important investigations, and it has > potentially far-reaching consequences."

So do some of the amendments to the Bill of Rights. Should we get rid of that too?

Edit: wow, this is being downvoted into oblivion. In the time it took me to write my comment, it went from the first page to the second. Other than DoJ operatives, I don't know who would downvote this, as it is important to our industry.

</comment><comment><USER18> " And it (DOJ) says that responding to the warrant would not circumvent the privacy of users, because they have no way to know, or control, where their data is stored"

Heh.

</comment><comment><USER19> Jennifer Daskal has some interesting perspectives on this on Just Security.

[https://www.justsecurity.org/33577/dangerous-implications- mi...](https://www.justsecurity.org/33577/dangerous-implications-microsoft- ireland-case/)

</comment><comment><USER20> "far-reaching consequences", they say.

Indeed.</comment>


Reinventing the Wheel to Power Electic Vehicle Future - <AUTHOR> https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-firm-truly-reinvents-the-wheel-to-power-electric-vehicle-future-595083 <comment><USER2> This was first proposed at the MIT Media Lab in partnership with GM about 10 years ago: [https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/citycar/overview/](https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/citycar/overview/)

<comment><USER3> That may have been the first to combine steering, suspension, and powering, but I wouldn't bet on it. "In-wheel" motors are a lot older. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_hub_motor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_hub_motor):

 _"Wellington Adams of St. Louis first conceived of building an electric motor directly in the vehicle wheel, though it was attached via complicated gearing. The Adams patent is U.S. Patent 300,827 in 1884."_

It even mentions an in-wheel Diesel engine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looking at this illustration (something I found via googling "REE motor wheel"):

[https://imgur.com/8iAOOAG](https://imgur.com/8iAOOAG)

...which was linked off of:

[https://newatlas.com/ree-modular-mobility- platform/60486/](https://newatlas.com/ree-modular-mobility-platform/60486/)

It appears that the motor and gearbox are outside of the wheel, not an integrated part. Then there's a flat plate, then the wheel (that plate also seems to limit ground clearance).

It's nice that it's an all-in-one package, I guess - but not what I was really expecting (with the motor integrated into the rim, possibly the suspension being part of the wheel via sprung spokes or something).

While it would be great to have everything "in the wheel" \- leaving tons of room for occupants and/or batteries on the chassis (not to mention fewer parts to wear) - the issue has always been how to cope with "unsprung weight" \- which can lead to handling issues and "bad feel".

It might be possible (as my ideas noted above) - but it would require an almost complete rethinking and design of what a wheel, suspension, and motor should be; virtually the whole unit would need to be rethought - and my guess would be that the wheel/rim would essentially be a "rotor" in some fashion composed of "sprung segments". That rotor would either be some kind of PM structure (with the drive coils on the spindle/axle the rotor/wheel would rotate around), or it would be some kind of "squirrel cage" shaded-pole AC motor or something like that. There would likely need to be gearing incorporated to increase the torque, unless the motor could be designed to take tons of voltage and current (how to dump the heat generated?).

All things well outside my knowledge area, though.

<comment><USER5> And even if you do all that, you are placing an equipment that is fairly expensive into one of the worst environment of a car: next to the ground, lot's of shock and vibration, even higher thermal changes, water and other liquids in very close proximity. These were also the reasons why the Smart ended up with a classical design.

Wheels need to be somewhat expandable otherwise you increase your cost. And what happens if you have a flat, has the spare wheel got a motor as well?</comment></comment>


Elevate Web Design at the University Level - <AUTHOR> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elevatewebdesignattheuniversitylevel <comment><USER2> I did a 'web design' course (it was called 'masters in interactive design' at the time I think, this was 7 years ago). The lecturers tried to compensate for the fast-moving technologies by focusing on intangibles rather than the technical content of the final product (greater emphasis was placed on the thought process that went into the projects than the final result). The theory was pulled rather haphazardly from other disciplines such as semiotics, art, design etc.

I have a rather poor opinion of the course and the extent to which I benefited from it. The most interesting parts were when someone with industry experience came to talk about some projects they were working on, which I probably could have gained outside the course. The theoretical content of the course was weak. There was no-one with any real technical know-how in the faculty. The main advantage is gaining practical experience working on projects (even if they were only course projects), which once again you can do by yourself (although you can learn more quickly when projects are short and focussed as on such a course).

I now generally think that apprenticeships are the best model for studying practical disciplines (in general, not just for web design). Most people like that their disciplines to have university studies, because raising the barriers to entry (e.g. a university degree) raises their own value (or at least their sense of their own value); but I'm not sure of the extent to which it actually furthers the discipline.</comment>


7 Earth-Size Planets Identified in Orbit Around a Dwarf Star - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/science/trappist-1-exoplanets-nasa.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews&region=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=64947516&pgtype=Homepage <comment><AUTHOR> Link to NASA Release: [https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-telescope- reveals-la...](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-telescope-reveals- largest-batch-of-earth-size-habitable-zone-planets-around/)

and video presentation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKFaAS30X8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKFaAS30X8)

and Nature article: [http://www.nature.com/news/these-seven-alien-worlds- could-he...](http://www.nature.com/news/these-seven-alien-worlds-could-help- explain-how-planets-form-1.21512)

<comment><USER2> Discussion of Nature article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13707547](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13707547)

<comment><USER3> Thanks, we've moved the comments there.</comment></comment></comment>


Cheat Sheets for Everything - <AUTHOR> http://www.cheat-sheets.org/ <comment><USER2> "We strongly recommend you to install the Firefox for better viewing"

No</comment>


A Market Forecast That Says 'Take Cover' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/your-money/04stra.html?src=me&ref=general

<comment><USER2> This guy (a) has a theory that sounds totally unjustified and crazy, even if it happens to make a good prediction now and so often, and (b) underperforms the markets (noted on the second page of the article). Hard to see why anyone should listen.</comment>


Bitcoin: The Most Important Innovation in the History of Money - <AUTHOR> http://briankellycap.tumblr.com/post/102534739817/bitcoin-the-most-important-innovation-in-the-history

<comment><USER2> You forgot to add: "In my humble opinion."</comment>


DC startup Changecause doubles donations #givingTuesday - <AUTHOR> http://www.changecause.com

<comment><USER2> Great to see $ go further - this is a good idea, guys!</comment>


You're an artist too - <AUTHOR> http://stevecorona.com/youre-an-artist

<comment><USER2> And if $50 is too much, a really nice pencil and some decent paper can be had for closer to $5.</comment>


Visualizing the Creative Process - <AUTHOR> http://www.lostgarden.com/2010/08/visualizing-creative-process.html

<comment><USER2> "You can spot a newbie designer from a thousand yards by suggesting they kill a feature that doesn't seem to be contributing much. Their nostrils flair and their voice rises. A litany of denials, excuses and accusations pour forth. And you know immediately that their project is going to be an incoherent piece of crap. This is a good coaching moment. :-)"

Ah, memories. However, I don't think that's limited to newbies... It also applies to anyone who is egotistical and controlling. They think any idea they have is an idea that everyone will love, and can't accept it when you tell them otherwise. This obviously makes them bad designers.</comment>


Code Avengers: High School programming the MARVELous way - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codeavengers.com/2012/05/making-high-school-programming-fun.html

<comment><USER2> This has some really interesting problems to solve. You should give it a try even if you know how to program.

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, and they have really improved the user experience a lot than before.

Keep up the good work guys!

</comment><comment><USER3> This site does a great job of making JavaScript fun to learn. The challenges help you remember what you have learned. I highly recommend trying it out!</comment>


Need name approval from community - <AUTHOR>

What do you think of 2 names for startup: "Flekko"   and   "Amusly" We're very excited to launch. Will be coming soon.
We're going to give best p2p experiences in real life. ps - I'm really not advertising, but really need comments on name from community. Really appreciate. Thanks) Adam <comment><USER2> I don't like either.

Flekko sounds like Blekko (easy to get confused). And what the heck does Flekko mean anyway? Don't just use cute-sounding word, but meaningfully cute- sounding word.

Amusly... I know where you are coming from, but this sounds like a gross grammar throwup. I feel irritated just seeing the word because it is wrong in spelling (why isn't it amusely?), grammar (amuse doesn't go with ly), and sound (rhyme with must or muse?). It just feels wrong. Not just wrong, but three wrongs. If you must use this... use Amusely. At least it is less disgusting-looking.

I am sorry I don't like either names. Hope you don't mind the _very_ direct feedback. If I must choose, I choose Flekko.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really loce direct feedback, that's the reason why I posted here. Yep, I own that name too (amusely) and Flekko is confusing me with the same reason you've mentioned. Thanks for respond!

<comment><AUTHOR> loce=LOVE

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I personally can't stand names that end with "ly" for no good reason (assistly, embedly, ugh. If its an actual word, like "carefully", then fine) So that leaves Flekko, which is neither good nor bad IMO.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not a fan of either – Flekko is too similar to Blekko and Amusly seems weird to me without the "e".

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant "AmusEly" actually. I don't know why I put it wrong here) Thanks)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Flekko seems easier to pronounce.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> ps - we have to choose one) but like em both! What are your thoughts?</comment>


Fatal toxicity of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with metformin in mice [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.31.018556v1.full.pdf <comment><USER2> I don't see how any of this is coming as a surprise to anyone, or even why people are bothering (questionable science behind the choloroquine paper aside, even).

This is a comment I posted to HN three weeks ago, when I was pretty sure (but unfortunately wrong!) that the suggested chloroquine dosage for purportedly treating covid-19 was being reported in the wrong units because it was so high, using only the information in the FDA docs on the chloroquines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22611041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22611041)

Choloroquine is very well known to have an extremely low therapeutic index (ratio of fatal dosage to effective dosage) and people (well, non-infant children) have been known to die from just a 1g dose. The recommendation for Covid-19 starts at an order of magnitude higher than the recommended FDA dosage for malarial suppression.

(Pretty much) everything can kill viruses at high enough doses. The question is if it can do it without killing the patient as well, and it is eminently clear from existing, solid research that choloroquine doesn't fit that bill.

Hydroxychloroquine is better tolerated than chloroquine base, but not that much more to sufficiently matter. It also has its own horrible dangers (including complete blindness from accelerated macular degeneration) that have been well documented at long-term "low" dosages; it is not a stretch to assume they would happen with short term high dosages.

There is a reason these only work in vitro - you don't have to worry about killing the patient there.

<comment><USER3> The half lives of these medications are very long, 30+ days I believe. This makes a large dose for a short number of days more reasonable than at first glance.

<comment><USER2> But the recommendation is for a high dose once or twice a day for a week +, which can easily add up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> OK, so this is a little sobering for someone on 200 mg/day hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis. And they were thinking about doubling that, until I complained that it made me feel brain dead. But then, the naproxen that I've been taking for decades is damaging my kidneys. And hurting all the time sucks.

But anyway, I see that metformin is used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. And I vaguely recall that the incidence of that disorder has been increasing dramatically. So this is arguably a key red flag for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. But not for me, fortunately.

<comment><USER5> What do you mean it made you feel brain dead?

<comment><USER6> Methotrexate (Sarcoidosis) here, not hydroxychloroquine, both are DMARDs.

"Brain fog" is a more commonly used term, although no doubt people experience different things and would describe them differently. For me, it's a weird feeling of vagueness, and to what extent varies significantly. Sometimes it's hard to focus and do work, but not always. Usually it's just like everything is sort of "passing me by". You wouldn't know talking to me, I function just fine, so maybe it mostly just affects my perception of time and/or memories. It's subtle and weird.

<comment><USER7> interesting. do they know why it's happening ?

<comment><USER6> I'm actually not sure, but it's one of the most common side effects. These are pretty intense drugs. Methotrexate quite literally stops cell division; in much higher doses than I take, it's used to abort nonviable pregnancies.

 _EDIT: I should probably note that stopping cell division isn 't the primary mechanism by which Methotrexate treats Sarcoidosis. You basically take Methotrexate then 24+ hours later counteract it with folic acid. They actually don't know how it works!_

In my case it probably doesn't help that "brain fog" is also a side effect of Sarcoidosis itself; I mean that's obviously pretty minor in comparison to the fact if left unchecked it'd destroy my lungs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's really bad news for diabetic mice that have contracted the COVID-19...

As far as humans are concerned - who knows...

<comment><USER9> show me a study where the mouse model had negative correlation to the human trial : [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746847/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746847/) , with relation to diabetic drugs and anti malarials?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a public index of candidate treatments, regional success rates and drug interactions?

Edit: [https://covid19-druginteractions.org/](https://covid19-druginteractions.org/)

PDF page 9 (April 3rd version) lists green for Metformin with all drugs, including CLQ and HCLQ.

</comment><comment><USER11> The combination with met form in suggests this has little relevance to the Covid-19 discussion?

The drugs are very old and very well understood and have very modest safety profiles.

<comment><AUTHOR> Metformin is one of the most often prescribed drugs, particularly in the older population that might also suffer the most severe complications of covid19. If this is indeed fatal in humans you as a doctor have to be quite sure that you have the correct information on the patient before you attempt to treat with this.

I will also severely limit the scope of people who can be treated this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> And? There's lots of dangerous drug combinations. That's why doctors ask you a bunch of questions.

</comment><comment><USER13> So much effort is going in to the propaganda war against Hydroxychloroquine, it's really terrifying to watch.

<comment><USER14> """ Guided by the principle ofprimum non nocere (first do no harm), we report a cautionary note on the potential fatal toxicity of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in combination with anti-diabetic drug metformin. We observed that the combination of CQ or HCQ and metformin, which were used in our studies as potential anti-cancer drugs, killed 30-40% of mice. While our observations in mice may not translate to toxicity in humans, the reports that CQ or HCQ has anti-COVID-19 activity [1], the use of CQ resulting in toxicity and at least one death, and the recent Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for CQ and HCQ by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prompted our report. Here we report the lethality of CQ or HCQ in combination with metformin as a warning of its potential serious clinical toxicity. We hope that our report will be helpful to stimulate pharmacovigilance and monitoring of adverse drug reactions with the use of CQ or HCQ, particularly with metformin. """

Maybe just read the introduction instead of writting this kind of complotist nonsense? I know that's not the first thing to read in a usual, well-written scientific paper, but there is a lot of papers about covid19 everyday and clinical papers are weird anyway.

HCQ enters trial testing and if we can reduce the number of trial death due to wrong medicamental interactions, it will probably boost the survival of tested people using HCQ, so even if a conspiracy exist, you should be happy that paper like this exist, no?

A thing i saw that works against a conspiracy against HCQ is that on french and US website, everyone is talking about HCQ, well or not, but a lot of other, poorer countries put their hope on interferon (as i do: i take chlorphetamine and other antihistamin drugs that can cause tachycardia especially in spring/summer, and i have arythmia => i'd like to avoid another drug with heart-related secondary effect, my kidney and may spleen are in perfect condition, i'd rather ruin them)

If i couldn't read spanish, i wouldn't even know about interferon tbh, it's much more promising that HCQ: like HCQ it works in vitro against HIV, but unlike CA that agravate AIDS, interferon works in vivo too. Here an AFP article about interferon and sras-cov2 (spanish, works with google translate: [https://factual.afp.com/el-antiviral-cubano-interferon- alfa-...](https://factual.afp.com/el-antiviral-cubano-interferon-alfa-2b-se- usa-en-china-para-tratar-enfermos-del-nuevo-coronavirus))</comment></comment>


The Most Influential SF Movie Never Made - <AUTHOR> http://www.squaremans.com/?p=118

<comment><USER2> Some years ago I watched a fascinating documentary on Jean Giraud (Moebius), one of the visionaries mentioned here that Jodorowsky gathered under his banner for a time. Before watching this film, I had no real idea how all these guys who were involved in or inspired some of my favourite science fiction had come together. The doco mentions how the original screenplay by Dan O'Bannon for Alien was what he did after the collapse of Jodorowsky's Dune project and that much of the team that had assembled for Jodorowsky's Dune (Giger, O'Bannon, Giraud) went on to work on Alien.

I highly recommend this doco if you are interested in the topic of this post and am pleased to find that it can be viewed here:

<http://www.cgexplorer.com/2009/05/05/moebius-redux-video/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I very highly recommend the graphic novel The Incal by Jodorowsky and Mobius.

After Dune fell through, the pair went on to use their Dune inspiration on an incredibly epic and beautiful story. Jodorowsky is known for his mysticism, the story of the Incal is loosely based on the Tarot cards and mixes elements of fantasy, sci-fi, satire, and metaphysics.

Jodorowsky doesn't mess around with his stories. This is a man who released a movie in Mexico which caused _full scale riots_ , and was subsequently banned for its corrupting content.

The Incal may be a little hard to find these days, but it is worth the effort to find and read just to see the work of two men brimming with imagination.

<comment><USER4> > _The Incal may be a little hard to find these days_

It may take a Bit, but its Torrent of insight is worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very informative post, made me add some movies to my Netflix queue. However, I also read it as a cautionary tale for creative people:

"To that end he hired five artists and spent almost 2 million dollars, roughly 1/5th of the film's entire budget, on art and design in preproduction. Looking back, it seems clear that he was perfectly happy spending his budget in creating, rather than on a creation. The process was the goal, not a finished movie."

Unfortunately, this happens way too often with really creative people and teh phenomenal results that would have been obtained had the project succeeded never get realized.

</comment><comment><USER4> As awesome as this movie might have been, I'm content with _Dune_ remaining a book -- a beautiful, mind-blowing book. Thank god there weren't any _other_ attempts to adapt it for screen.

<comment><USER6> It's too awesome in scale and depth to be adapted for a three hour film or "Sci-Fi Miniseries". I love the book, it is my all time favorite.

What I would like to see, however, would be small focused shorts; that could go over well I think (sort of how Neill Blomkamp and Jackson did those Halo shorts).

<comment><USER7> The Sci-Fi miniseries is decent, if and only if you understand it as "a pretty decent theatrical adaptation recorded on film" rather than "a movie". For instance, the Baron's theatrical monologues should be understood as exactly that: theatrical monologues. The use of color in lighting is also very theatrical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am currently reading Dune and I promised myself to never watch the movie so I can keep the images alive in my head. Did the same with His Dark Materials. And even though the movies were good epic movies, I miss my own Lord of the Rings.

<comment><USER9> I enjoyed the LOTR because I understood the compromises that were made and why they were made. Doesn't replace what my imagination came up with though. I still love to read a story over watching it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article is particularly poignant to me, as I watched Jodorowsky's "The Holy Mountain" last night. What a crazy, wild, mysterious, horrifying, over the top movie. The sets are outrageous and one wonders how many drugs he took to come up with it all. However, I could see how his work may not be popular to all as his commentary on society was scathing and often graphic.

</comment><comment><USER11> I liked Dune. The PC game and movie. It could be imminent that a Hollywood remake is in the works.

<comment><USER12> It's safe to say that the new Hollywood remake will be quite successful, but never _influential_.

<comment><USER13> Why's that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone know of good commentary on the causality between sci fi art/books/film and technology? As in, is the artists' work often inspiration for tech or are the artists just making predictions?

</comment><comment><USER15> Reading just the title, my guess was Blade Runner.

<comment><USER16> Never, not ever. I read it as ever myself, at first glance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting topic, but the blog post is milking it for two long. It could be shortened to one paragraph with no loss in information.</comment>


Another Perspective on Cancel Culture - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/16/us/race-newsletter-july-16-trnd/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> Who gets to say: "Vote with your wallets?"

VS

mob rule</comment>


Entrepreneurs: Don't Quit Your Day Job - <AUTHOR> http://tracksuitceo.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/entrepreneurs-dont-quit-your-day-job/ <comment><USER2> I had a jaw deformity, which didn't get corrected until I was an adult. (Had I not been so socially withdrawn, I might have gone to a better school when I was younger.) By the time my condition was treated, years past the time most of my peers would have started families, it was too late: I had become used to having time to work on my own projects, and having to get up every day to do the kind of unfulfilling work fathers typically have to do to provide for a family would have been intollerable. I was spared.

<comment><USER3> That's sad about the jaw. But you know _having_ a family, for me at least, is what fulfils me - not my job. (Which I actually like)

<comment><USER4> Yah seriously. Sure, some fathers have sucky jobs they keep because of their families. But work and family aren't mutually exclusive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His anecdote has nothing to do with entrepreneurs nor does it boil down down to "Keep your day job."

It's more like Everyone: don't be irresponsible.

<comment><USER6> If you have a wife and/or family, keeping the day job can very well be the most responsible thing to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree, especially when you're responsible for other people like wife or children.

</comment><comment><USER8> who is this guy? what company did he start?

<comment><USER9> Hey Reelman, I'm the TrackSuit CEO, the first company I started is EmployeeInsider, an online job rating forum for all industries. I'll write more about it later (tomorrow?). I've since run several businesses. I do SEO contracting and most recently I've done marketing through one of my companies for ridester.com Thanks for the comment!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> then start one BEFORE you get married

<comment><USER11> Life doesn't always happen in the 'ideal' order...

What if you do start before you are married and aren't successful? I know of people who became successful only after their 10th failed company....

<comment><USER12> "Entrepreneurs: Use Birth Control."

<comment><USER2> Shouldn't your nick be "trojan"? ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey Donna, Thank you for the submission!

<comment><AUTHOR> my pleasure! ;-D</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you migrate? - <AUTHOR> I am a developer. Married. Started my career in tech 3 year ago. Now living in a 3rd world country where the job market is really bad and while living here is cheap, getting a remote job from here is not so easy (timezone dilemma).
Currently I have two options. First option - I can move to India, work at a start up with a decent compensation and settle there. Second option - pursue a Masters degree in CS in Germany/US/Canada then find a job in tech and settle.
While I am sort of biased towards the second option because these are first world countries with better lifestyle/work opportunities. But there is a risk of investing time to go back to Academia (The reason for going back to academia is the difficulty to get a job with relocation facility). But I am scared of starting fresh. Is it worth it?
What would you do in my case? Asking for your opinion. I am really confused.
On a side note: I REALLY REALLY like working in tech. This is the single major reason for my choice of giving up my comfort zone. I am earning more than most of the people with similar experience but the prospects are very low for the future. <comment><USER2> Take the risk. Network your ass off and find a company or friends to help you emigrate to a western country to find better work. Even with all the shot that is going on politically the US would be a good place to be — the salaries are insane and if you ever want to start a company the VC funding available is great. (Or so I am told.) I'd prefer settling in Europe if you can pick up languages quick though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really want to. Any idea on how to network with like minded community while being on a different timezone?

<comment><USER2> Join Facebook groups, seek recruiters on LinkedIn, look for expat groups maybe from your country who have settled in the place where you want to and see what they did. There's a need you just got to find out who needs talent like yours. Also you could look IMO remote work sites like weworkremotely.com if moving doesn't work out. There's no reason a hardworking developer can't put in his or her 8 hours and do so regardless of time zone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> for a developer with 3 year exp, it won't be especially difficult to immigrate to Canada IMO. See [https://www.quora.com/How-hard-for-a-software-developer- to-i...](https://www.quora.com/How-hard-for-a-software-developer-to-immigrate- in-Canada)

Plenty of jobs available. Masters? Hell no, don't waste your time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Express Entry is an option but it's getting difficult every year and also an employer needs to provide a positive LIMA to offer a job to hire an employee outside Canada. Masters will buy me some time (and express entry points) to get there. That's all!</comment></comment>


A World Without Work - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9764498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9764498)</comment>


A Hidden Git Feature: Notes - <AUTHOR> https://brianschrader.com/archive/gits-hidden-feature-notes/ <comment><USER2> Git Appraise uses notes to store code review data: [https://github.com/google/git-appraise](https://github.com/google/git- appraise)

</comment><comment><USER3> SubGit (an application to mirror subversion to git) is using git notes to attribute git commits to svn revisions: [https://subgit.com/book.html#client_config](https://subgit.com/book.html#client_config)

</comment><comment><USER4> If it's just an experimental branch, what is the reason not to commit?

</comment><comment><USER5> Are the notes tied to a specific commit, or is it per object?

<comment><USER6> A note on a commit is stored as a text file, named with the commit id (git sha). The file is revision controlled by git, usually under refs/notes/commits.

You can 'git checkout refs/notes/commits' and see the structure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> actually i think it would be nice also push it to remote repository..

<comment><USER8> Seems possible, just not straightforward: [https://gist.github.com/topheman/ec8cde7c54e24a785e52](https://gist.github.com/topheman/ec8cde7c54e24a785e52)

Hadn't heard about this feature, but as I understand it, the notes are stored as commits, just not in the same namespace/on the same branch as you are working on.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Software Engineers, would you ever try recruiting? - <AUTHOR> I started external recruiting part-time in NYC while I was a full-time engineering lead a few years ago and made more part-time recruiting than my full-time job. Since then I've seen a few recruiters with a technical background have a lot of success in an industry filled with bad players because of their broad technical knowledge and ability to match engineers well, but they are very rare. I personally attribute my success to understanding hiring processes, understanding how to make a pitch compelling, and being able to automate the manual parts of the job.
The job itself ended up being a a healthy mix of sales, career counseling, and matchmaking. In other industries it seems more common for people in the field to jump into recruiting for that field (finance people to jump into recruiting finance people, lawyers jumping into recruiting lawyers).
I've seen job posts on HN for engineers to do interviews part-time or teach part-time. Are there engineers who would be interested in recruiting? Why or why not? <comment><USER2> Yes, but only on the "back end", e.g., reviewing and matching. Phone calls, no. Review take-home programming exercises, yes.

</comment><comment><USER3> How much do you make? How much of your day do you spend on the phone?

<comment><AUTHOR> In my first 12 months, part time, I made ~250k. I split up my time by dedicating one full "day" of work of focused reviewing profiles/taking calls then only had sporadic e-mails and calls for 20-30 minutes throughout the day (usually scheduled for lunch). So ~10 hours/wk? It helped that I only had remote/flexible software engineering jobs.

<comment><USER3> Jeebus. Do you need help?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're serious feel free to e-mail me (in profile).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hell no. :-) I love coding way too much.</comment>


Dying in the E.R., and on TV Without His Family's Consent - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/nyregion/dying-in-the-er-and-on-tv-without-his-familys-consent.html <comment><USER2> > In court filings, the hospital and ABC do not dispute that they did not have > consent from Mr. Chanko or his family, but they say the patient is not > identifiable to the public. The network has asserted that because "NY Med" > is produced by its news division, it is protected by the First Amendment. > Lawyers for NewYork-Presbyterian have argued that the state does not > recognize a common law right to privacy and that any privacy right Mr. > Chanko did have ended upon his death. They say that the Chankos themselves > are responsible for their loss of privacy.

If this isn't a massive HIPAA violation then it SHOULD Be. The fact his wife and likely others could identify him just proves that simply blurring out his face does not protect his privacy(!).

Blaming the family just makes me hate these people. They're profiting off of the misery and suffering of others (see the quote by the hospital PR guy earlier in the article), and it is wrong.

But the US is all about profit over people so this kind of thing is just a natural progression of what is already going on in all kinds of areas.

> The family did not know until the episode was broadcast that a camera was > focusing on the closed door of the room where they had gathered and that > audio of Dr. Schubl was being recorded.

That is got to be illegal, right..? If not that is super immoral.

These people have absolutely no conscience at all. The doctor should have their medical licence reviewed for serious ethical lapses.

<comment><USER3> This is the same show and same hospital NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital where a nurse was fired due to an Instagram photo she posted of a messy ER room (without anyone in it) the hospital administrators deemed insensitive.

<comment><USER4> It was insensitive that she didn't correctly monetize that photo, and cut them in on the profits...

<comment><USER5> The article states that the hospital didn't actually make money off of the show. It was all about publicity, so that when you or a loved one is hurt, their name is the first one to come to mind.

<comment><USER6> They got the publicity all right, just not the kind that they wanted. Now NewYork-Presbyterian will be known as that hospital that tried to get publicity out of their patient's suffering.

<comment><USER7> I don't think I would ever bring a loved one in an hospital with a religious name if I have the choice.

<comment><USER8> Just to clarify, if given the choice between two hospitals: "St. Joseph's Hospital" and "John Smith's Hospital" and you hear that the former has a statistically significant advantage in the area of care that your loved one needs...

you would choose the second one, because of its name?

<comment><USER7> frankly, I live in a country where only old ones have a religious name (for historical reasons, they are owned buy public entities), the new ones bear the name of a famous doctor, and the free ambulance will send you to the closest public one (unless it's specialized, like extended burns, then it's probably free helicopter to the relevant hospital).

I'm still curious of how carefully selected the publicly available positive statistics on an hospital having a marketing department and operating on a competitive basis are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Holy shit does anyone else see a huge problem with filming a fucking reality show in an E.R? Distracting and intruding upon medical professionals doing their jobs when lives are at stake to make a TV show? Thats absurd!

<comment><USER10> _" That's absurd!"_

You misspelled "American".

<comment><USER11> I don't think those kinds of shows are unique to the US - _24 Hours in A &E_ is very popular here in the UK:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_A%26E](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_A%26E)

Of course, with the NHS there is a general feel good factor in that we get to see our tax money being used to do good. Indeed I have seen criticisms of _24 Hours in A &E_ that because it generally shows the NHS is a positive light and as the NHS is pretty unashamedly a socialist endeavor that shows likes this are politically biased!

<comment><USER12> Australia also has a similar show RPA (named after Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) that ran for at least 13 years:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPA_%28TV_series%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPA_%28TV_series%29) [http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/rpa/episodes/](http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/rpa/episodes/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So because it's news they have the right to film it?

Is there no expectation of privacy from news crews? I thought they could only film in public - a private hospital room should certainly not count.

Anyone have a copy of what the appellate court wrote? (Or can summarize their argument?)

<comment><USER14> I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.

As I understand it, it's legally best to get signed papers from the people involved, or limit filming to public places. But there are ways to broadcast something even if it was filmed in a private area and you don't have permission of the person filmed. The most obvious thing to do is to blur out the person's face, which the show did here. I believe that there is an exception for "hot news" items (although this obviously didn't involve hot news) and there are always obvious arguments about freedom of the press.

This is mainly an area of state law, so the rules will be different across the US. The two big issues are right of publicity and right of privacy ( [http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity) , [http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy) ). The hospital is apparently arguing that New York's right of publicity doesn't cover this case. I have no idea if that is correct.

HIPAA also comes into the picture (federal law, with many similar state laws). I'm certainly no expert on HIPAA, but it seems to me that the obvious argument would be that the hospital didn't release any private medical information, and if the hospital is held responsible for information revealed by the show, the "medical information" was along the lines of "he's dead" and not "he has an STD that he'd prefer to keep private."

This is a case where it's asking how the law applies, how the law should apply, _and_ what kind of reaction the general public should have. The show was certainly insensitive to the family, and the hospital's reputation should take a severe hit. And that applies regardless of what laws might have been broken.

<comment><USER15> I am also not a lawyer. But I did once work in a health-related field and had to go through HIPAA compliance training. And the general issue is that simply blurring out a face isn't enough.

The definition of Protected Health Information (PHI) is interpreted broadly, such that the fact that a patient was in the ER due to an accident, received certain types of treatment and died is protected.

Meanwhile, the definition of what is personally identifiable (i.e., ties information about condition/treatment to a specific person) includes an 18-point list of potential identifiers; responsible practice is to remove all of these prior to making information public. That 18-point list includes both the geographic location of the treatment (should not be given in any form more specific than the state) and the date of treatment (should not be given in a form more specific than the year).

So I can see a strong argument that the hospital is on the wrong side of HIPAA here. And given that their argument seems mostly to be "it wasn't Our Hospital Medical Services, Inc., it was Our Hospital TV News Productions, Inc., and that one isn't covered by HIPAA", I'd begin to suspect they believe it would be a HIPAA violation for the hospital, too.

<comment><USER14> I didn't realize how broadly Personal Health Information applied. Thanks for the information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reality show world is really grasping at straws. Every single one wants to be the next Duck Dynasty and you have all bunch of crazy and strange ideas. In this case they are messing with people's lives. I am just waiting for the meta-reality show -- a show about creating a reality TV show.

<comment><USER17> I don't think they are grasping at straws, the cable subscription model just means there are lots of people willing to fund what ends up being relatively cheap "original" programming.

I suppose a simple step forward would be to require that a broadcaster that is owned by a cable company must offer the channels individually (which probably wouldn't impact Disney, but a Comcast subsidiary shouldn't be using channel bundles to extract revenue from Comcast competitors).

<comment><USER18> Comcast would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. Comcast Sports Net is a huge contention point in negotiations with Verizon, RCN, etc. As far as it impacting Disney, ESPN is the most expensive cable channel you have. Debundling that would lose Disney a lot of money. Disney wouldn't let that happen.

<comment><USER17> Sure, I'm not saying the big industry players would enjoy it, I'm saying I think it would be reasonable regulation (there aren't really big technical efficiencies from integrating production and distribution, especially once you are already doing outside distribution).

I think it wouldn't impact Disney because they aren't really a player in traditional distribution (but they play online with a stake in Hulu and other efforts, but those are sort of already unbundled, I think because they envision better revenues that way).

<comment><USER18> What grounds would regulators have to tell these private businesses they have to distribute that way? Would it just be the creation of a new law requiring it, and that's that? I'm not sure how those sorts of things work, it's well out of my expertise, but I'm legitimately curious. In that scenario, could the company appeal the law?

<comment><USER14> This was actually a big deal a few years ago ( [http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/12/your_cable_bil...](http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/12/your_cable_bill.html) ). The FCC thought it could create this requirement under its existing authority to regulate the airwaves, but the Supreme Court ruled that it would require a new law.

The economics of cable (and satellite) aren't obvious: it really doesn't cost any more to offer 150 channels instead of 100. The signal for every channel the cable company offers makes it to your house, and the cable company's equipment filters out the channels that you haven't paid for.

There's no reason to think it will cost less to get those channels filtered out one at a time instead of as bundles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The TV team should have asked the family of the patients (or the patients themselves, if survived) prior to starting editing.

<comment><USER20> I'm guessing the whole "Hello, I know you husband just died but would you mind if we put his death in a educational TV series designed to encourage people to become doctors" just doesn't across as sensitive. Could they have found the family later? Maybe, I don't know if the TV crew had access to the patient's name and family contact information, it is possible they could not contact the family even if they wanted to.

<comment><USER21> As mentioned elsewhere in this thread "24 hours in A&E" is filmed in an English A&E unit. People die on the show. This show manages to ask permission.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Regardless of legalities, this sort of show lacks taste or any shred of class, and merely tarnishes the hospital's name in pursuit of PR branding. And it's a travesty what was done to that family.

This is one time I hope their lawyers turn the screws on these corporations and extract as much capital as possible.

</comment><comment><USER23> This family strikes me as litigious as hell. if they feel wronged that deeply, and they have the deep pockets that are essential to suing everyone in sight and running a media campaign (of which we are now all a part), then could they find it in their hearts to not sue the person who physically did all he could to help their dead relative? Why sue the doctor?

Because their lawyers said they had a chance at extracting money. Make no mistake; this is about money and pride. People get filmed dying nearly every day, and much of that death reel finds its way to the Public. These people have the means and, though this is a complete guess on my part, the experience to wage a lawsuit battle with a Hospital, a Production Company, and a Doctor.

I am very familiar with the heartlessness required to produce TV, especially reality TV. I hate it every time some dipshit redneck violates a suspect's rights on COPS by being vague, or someone having a horrible day gets mocked by the by-standers as their crappy car gets towed. We are a culture that indulges in the misery of others. Just because a few rich people tasted what everyone from low income areas eat for breakfast does not seem to me a good reason to flip the table and hunt down camera people.

<comment><USER14> I actually wanted to make an argument from the hospital's side of things: some of arguments the hospital's making sound heartless, but there's a very good chance that the hospital's insurance company came up with those arguments (well, the insurance company's lawyers).

It's hard to imagine a system more effective at upsetting people than the US legal system. There's a good chance that the family brought the doctor into the suit to get money from his insurance company. But they may not have had much choice. In the US, the court will spend a lot of time trying to decide if the right people were sued, and if people should be dropped or others added. I don't see how the doctor would have avoided getting sucked into the suit.

The lawyers will spend a lot of time negotiating behind the scenes. The family will try to get the judge to declare any liability "joint and several" which would allow the family to collect the full judgment (assuming there is one) from any of the parties, who then can work out the details among themselves.

The system encourages, and in some cases requires, this kind of manuevering. So don't assume the people involved are actually this weird, mean or heartless.

<comment><USER24> The doctor was complicit in doing something disgusting and, one hopes, illegal. Why wouldn't you name him in a lawsuit?

classicsnoot mentions that the doctor "physically did everything he could to help their dead relative" but that very obviously didn't include helping to preserve his patient's dignity by keeping a camera crew away from him.

What a nightmare. I'm still slightly in awe that a hospital would put their patients through this. That TV people would put someone through it is, of course, not shocking at all...

<comment><USER14> Until I get further information, I will assume the doctor wasn't actively involved in the show's production. I'll assume that the hospital announced one or more camera crews would be in the emergency room, and the doctor assumed the people editing the footage knew the relevant laws and would act professionally.

Even so, I don't see any way for the doctor to avoid being sued. But I really doubt he had much influence on the show.

<comment><AUTHOR> The doctor was wearing a mic. I think it would be very hard to argue he _wasn 't_ involved in the production. He also has at least a moral obligation to protect the privacy of his patients. It's a shame these things end in lawsuits, but he does deserve some kind of punishment or reprimand. Maybe suspend his license for a few months.

<comment><USER14> I have never been involved in a reality TV show (and my job isn't exciting enough for the TV crews to come knocking) so I have to only guess how it works. But I would expect that wearing a microphone doesn't give the doctor much input on which segments to use, and that the doctor wouldn't have been involved in getting permissions from the patients and families.

It's obvious in this case that the show wasn't able to get permission from the family (and, given that the family was surprised; the show wasn't able to contact the family), so they blurred the guy's face and thought that made him unidentifiable. I don't believe the doctor had any influence on that decision.

<comment><USER14> I find it amusing that I got downvoted for stating the doctor probably had little creative input in the show.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Decoupling of Wage Growth and Productivity Growth? Myth and Reality (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/decoupling-wage-growth-productivity-growth-myth-reality/ <comment><USER2> Have they been coupled historically? Wages are driven by supply and demand, and in the short term, productivity growth would reduce labor demand.

Long term, it feels like there's an open debate between productivity fueling economic growth and productivity causing a plateau of labor demand and people working less.

That, and it's not like real wages can grow forever.</comment>


Improbably Frequent Lottery Winners - <AUTHOR> https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/lottery-winners-foia-reporting.php <comment><USER3> That's funny to see this article. I remember an article about it -- also in CJR -- when the original series broke in 2014 [0]. Looks like this article, which is from today, is about other reporters taking it nationwide. Which is great. One of the more confounding things (to me) about journalism is how a great investigation in one state isn't done in another. Not by the reporting team of the first story, but by any journalist in other states, because it's easy "money", in the sense that you have a framework to copy/imitate, and if there was a corrupt system in one state, there's likely to be something similar in all the other 49 states. And it will still be "news" because of how fundamentally different state laws and bureaucracies are. But then again, sometimes newsrooms have a culture of not wanting to be seen as doing something that has been perceived to have been done, even if it was by a non- competitor (e.g. a non-Florida newspaper, in this case)

Seeing investigative efforts replicated nationwide not only makes for 50 unique-in-their-own way stories, that benefit 50 different jurisdictions. You also get bonus meta-stories about states that are severe outliers, when the 50 are compared and contrasted.

[0] [http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/palm_beach_pos...](http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/palm_beach_post_ferrets_out_florida_lottery_fraud.php)

</comment><comment><USER4> Years ago I had a friend who's father made a living smuggling cigarettes (and probably other stuff) from Northern Africa to Gibraltar. He laundered his income by buying winning lottery tickets.

<comment><USER5> Where would one find sellers of winning lottery tickets? You must either be a store clerk or wait outside for people to cash them in?

<comment><USER6> People who are genuine winners, for example? You pay them a premium for the ticket.

<comment><USER5> Yeah? Where would one _find_ genuine winners? It's not like there's an open market for this, and since winners are random people they are unlikely to be aware of black markets. Paying them a premium is obvious.

<comment><USER7> Paying them a premium is not precisely accurate.

A $100,000 lottery ticket would in the US involve 30-45k in taxes for an unmarried person.

So I bet it would probably sell for around $75,000 cash up front, which is a decrease from the sticker price.

But if I was the winner, I would treat it as extremely shady and probably just go the legit route for almost any price.

The US banking system easily detects large cash deposits under 10k even into bank accounts, and then confiscates the money.

And I don't really want to keep $75,000 cash in my mattress.

<comment><USER8> > The US banking system easily detects large cash deposits under 10k even into > bank accounts, and then confiscates the money.

so you are conflating two concepts because first you are depositing $75,000 in this example.

and no they don't confiscate it just because of that, they will freeze it because of your poor explanation.

and if your explanation still sucks, the bank will unfreeze it and give you your money but close your account.

it will appear confiscated if you can't accept your account being frozen and argue the point, which will only raise more flags from more people in the institution.

but if your explanation was good, and by good I mean generic, then you won't encounter any problems.

the deposits over $10,000 will be reported to the government, but then its just the government's problem, and if the transaction wasn't actually problematic then you don't have a problem.

<comment><USER9> He is probably talking about Asset Seizure by government for unexplained income.

<comment><USER8> and he is also paranoid about it and conflating several concepts

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the book "Ringworld," an excellent work of science fiction that inspired the setting of the Halo franchise, there is a character who was bred for luck (as though it were a genetic trait) via a birthright lottery. The reasoning was that those who won would be luckiest, and she was the descendant of 6 straight generations of birthright lottery winners. The character is impossibly lucky all the time.

<comment><USER11> _Intacto_ is a Spanish film about people who can steal other people's luck.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Never forget João Alves, the Brazilian politician who had won part of 200 lotteries, because, as he said, "God helped me, and I made money".

[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/30/world/new-government- corru...](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/30/world/new-government-corruption- scandal-leaves-brazil-stunned.html)

<comment><USER13> In Spain politician Carlos Fabra won more than 2 million euros in several lotteries, now is in jail and being investigated for corruption. It's famous in Spain for that and for having built an airport that it's empty with almost no flights at all. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castell%C3%B3n%E2%80%93Costa_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castell%C3%B3n%E2%80%93Costa_Azahar_Airport)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Clarance Jones [http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2011/11/05/frequ...](http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2011/11/05/frequent_lottery_winner_wins_again/)

TL;DR - Audited by IRS but had 200 boxes of losing tickets & records in storage facilities, which the auditors apparently didn't want to search through. He ended up winning his defense against the state's tax claims as well.

How does he win so much? Is he psychic?

<comment><USER7> Probably just caught a lucky break when they didn't want to search through the 20 boxes of duds he bought from 7/11 for less than the cost of paper ;)

<comment><USER15> Yeah but how did he win so much?

Edit: just read the article. Seems to be cashing in for others.

<comment><USER7> Yup that's what I think too. Guy has a thing for lottery tickets as income.

Covered his tracks by keeping thousands and thousands of non-winning tickets that he probably bought bulk for pennies per box.

Feds show up and see the boxes and say "shit, this guy must have really bought 300 million bucks worth of lottery tickets!" and walk away.

Pretty bad investigstion lol

<comment><USER16> OTOH, he could be the front man for one of the lottery syndicates mentioned in: [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how- mit...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how-mit-students- gamed-the-lottery/470349/)

There have been lots of groups that have made lots of money by intelligently playing specific MA lottery games at specific times, so those 300m tickets might be real.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's too bad the article doesn't go in more depth. There are a few plausible explanations for why people claim an unusually high number of prizes:

1) Someone is buying a huge number of tickets, and just winning proportional to the amount that they spend.

2) Someone is a "10 percenter." They buy winning tickets at a discount to the prize amount, collect losing tickets that they didn't actually buy, and commit blatant tax fraud by claiming "losses" that offset their "winnings."

3) Someone knows which tickets are going to win before buying them.

All three of these stories are interesting, but they're very different. Most coverage seems to assume (2), but stops at "tax agency is incompetent at detecting blatant tax fraud" without exploring why the tax agency is so bad at what they do.

<comment><USER16> Since the top claimant was someone from Massachusetts, I wonder if this [1] has anything to do with it. Perhaps he's the person who cashes in tickets for one of the syndicates mentioned in the story.

As an aside, the guy mentioned at the top of the story is named James Harvey and your username is jmharvey...any chance you're him or did we just hit an "improbable" coincidence :-)

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how- mit...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how-mit-students- gamed-the-lottery/470349/)

<comment><USER17> As far as I know, all of those syndicates are out of business after the lottery retired the Cash Winfall game. (And yup, that's me. I could probably make my HN bio a little more explicit on this point.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Persistence might be key? Some people may be addicted to gambling with lottery tickets, or may just buy more than others in the same area.

I remember once early in my IT career, I was doing work for the local government agency that was responsible for issuing all the 'scratch the ticket and find 3 matching symbols' lottery games in our state. They used to sell the tickets at the front counter of the agency office as well as various shops and newsagencies around town etc.

While I was working on a PC in the manager's office, another manager came in and said that one of the games had sold ALL tickets at the other retail outlets, and that they had about a hundred $2 tickets left at their front desk and the main prize of $1000 hadn't gone off yet.

When one manager left the room, the other manager looked at me and said "Well, the rules forbid us from buying those tickets, but if you have a spare couple of hundred on you, I'd buy up all those tickets at the front counter...". I thought it was all a bit weird and didn't bite, but I found out later that a friend of someone who worked there bought all the tickets, and sure enough, won the $1000 prize in that particular game. Made me wonder how many 'friends' of people who worked there were in on the old unsold ticket grey marketing?

Also while growing up, there was a family that lived down the road from us who always seemed to win almost every giveaway competition in our town - <USER2> TV's, food, whitegoods, airline tickets, you name it. One day I was actually there visiting their son who was about the same age, and I noticed that their mother was entering competitions almost as a full time occupation. She would get various catalogues and our local newspaper and sit down with the kids every afternoon cutting out and sending out coupons, competition entries and sweepstakes all the time - they would have to be sending out at least 20+ per day. Way to stack the odds in their favour.

They eventually left town in the most spectacular fashion - when Michael Jackson did one of his huge tours of Australia, the family won a set of tickets to see him in a sweepstakes, then promptly bought tickets for ALL of his other shows in other states in Australia! This information got leaked to the press, and Jackson found out about it, and ended up inviting this family to Neverland in the US where 2 of the kids ended up staying for years.

You that old saying - you make your own luck. I think this particular family lived it.

<comment><USER19> As a parent you would have had to have been insane to leave your kids to live with MJ, not to sure I'd call it lucky.

      This information got leaked to the press,
      and Jackson found out about it, and ended
      up inviting this family to Neverland in
      the US where 2 of the kids ended up staying for years.
      You that old saying - you make your own luck.
      I think this particular family lived it.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, that was a whole other story. Initially, the family jumped to MJ's defence in the local press, then when the lawsuits started happening, they filed one too, saying that the son had been interfered with (!) - it was all really surreal and odd. Lost touch completely with that family now - no idea what they are up to, but I hope they lost that infatuation with winning prizes and accolades and are happily settled somewhere...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This post seems to be a summary of an entire series relating to 'Improbably Frequent Winners'.

The first post of the actual series, which is a lot more in depth, is here: [http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_pa...](http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_part_1.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> I can't say too much, because they are a current client of mine, but I've been doing work with a wholesaler for one of the biggest lotteries here in my country, and they seem to have a LOT of customers who bulk buy lottery tickets in what seems to be patterns.

I am talking hundreds of thousands of dollars of lottery tickets per week. Their winning are also along those lines. I don't know about the industry, but these sound like professional lottery players who check odds and play the system much as they would the stock market. They probably have set systems in place and complex prediction and statistical algorithms which ensures they win just more than they lose?

I am thinking that 'pro' players such as these might skew the statistic for winners to a large extent?

<comment><USER21> I don't believe that odds in favor of a player happen in lotteries, except for rare 'bugs' in the game design, which are fixed as soon as the organizer spots them.

A more probable explanation are addicts or money laundering.

<comment><USER22> > I don't believe that odds in favor of a player happen in lotteries, except > for rare 'bugs' in the game design, which are fixed as soon as the organizer > spots them.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183070/MIT-maths- ge...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183070/MIT-maths-geniuses- netted-8million-Massachusetts-state-lottery-discovering-loophole.html)

If the game is badly designed, some smart cookie will find out and exploit it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A possible rationnal explanation :

In France some scratchcard are sold to merchants in packages containing a proportional number of winning cards. For example, on a lot of 100 cards, sixty are null, 20 allows you to earn five euros, 10 allows you to earn ten euros ...

So the cheat is easy for a merchant (or his complices) : he just needs scratching each cards of a packages until find the maximum earnings. The others cards are sold to customers.

[http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite- france/2008/11/26/01016-200...](http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite- france/2008/11/26/01016-20081126ARTFIG00526-tricherie-la-francaise-des-jeux- perd-son-proces-.php)

sfmbe

</comment><comment><USER24> I have trouble understanding how winning the lottery this often doesn't immediately raise red flags for fraud. Is there some reason that people might buy winning lottery tickets?

<comment><USER25> The article suggests that people who owe back taxes or certain legal fees would have their winnings garnished. So they find a "clean" ostensible winner to claim the winnings, presumably paying him or her a smaller fee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't see that anyone has yet referenced this article.

[https://www.wired.com/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1](https://www.wired.com/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1)

It explains how to win (an old lotto), and more importantly why there is a way to win.

<comment><USER27> Oh wow, I did not know that:

> _The North American lottery system is a $70 billion-a-year business, an > industry bigger than movie tickets, music, and porn combined._

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is a bigger issue here: Why wasn't such an analysis done 50 years ago? Where is the incentive for people to uncover fraud?

All governments should have a rule that says: if you uncover fraud or waste in a government department you get 5% of the money that taxpayers save.

<comment><USER29> Your proposed rule contains a great fraud opportunity: pay someone in government to "accidentally" waste money and then "uncover" it to cash out 5% of the waste.

<comment><USER28> That's a good point - to be honest I hadn't considered that. However, government officials already have the opportunity to 'accidentally' waste money by paying more than necessary for goods or services, then getting a kickback from the supplier. Most likely the kickback would be more than 5%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Maybe their research should have also included a Google search of the statistical unusual winners name in quotes plus the state name plus Lottery winner:

For example, the most winning lottery winner in America was covered by the Boston Globe in 2011: [http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2011/11/05/frequ...](http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2011/11/05/frequent_lottery_winner_wins_again/)

[1] He's been on the radar as a ticket cashier since at least 1999 and has been getting an IRS refund for his gambling losses since 1988.

<comment><USER8> How does he do that? The IRS allows you to deduct up to the amount of your gambling winnings, so you wouldn't get a refund, unless the state was automatically withholding some of his winnings.

There is also the possibility that he set up a company that only engages in gambling, so it can have a Net Operating Loss year over year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> On other news, most _probably_ Mr. Philip Stark ( a statistician at the University of California, Berkeley):

[http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_ma...](http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_math.html)

calculated to be _implausible_ that on Hacker News he would be nominated by someone in a same post with the quote from the Simpsons "Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.".

Yet it just happened.

</comment><comment><USER32> I sincerely hope that the states would be willing to look at Oregon and Florida's solutions to the requests. I actually also really like the CD being issued, because it's a physical thing that you could take into court in contrast to a web page (which often isn't quite as useful these days because all of these fancy web apps) and know that it hasn't changed one iota.

It'd be better if it were a usb thumb drive if it's to be a bit more modern.

<comment><USER33> On the contrary, as someone who lives in a place where lottery winners are allowed to remain anonymous, I find it bizarre that these states are willing to give out such full information (even for winnings as small as $600) to anyone who asks, not just to law enforcement investigating potential fraud.

The chance of your life getting ruined after winning the lottery is proportional (among other factors) to the number of people who know that you've suddenly landed a fortune and want a favor. I once read an article about people who continued to live normally after winning the lottery. Most of them only told a few people and tried not to draw attention. One man didn't even tell his wife until he lost his job a few years later and had to explain to her why she shouldn't be worried at all!

But that's going to be impossible if the state publishes your name and the exact amount of your winnings for anyone to see. They might as well publish everyone's tax records, too, including Trump's that everyone's been asking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Maybe a more sophisticated modern numbers game with lottery insiders colluding with 'winners'? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game)

</comment><comment><USER35> Of course there are ways to beat the lottery. For one, ask the clerk which ticket to buy. They will gladly give you the one most people win from.

Also you can study the patterns. If you buy the same ticket over and over, a streak of losing is a good idea that something big is coming (uneven distribution of the odds). Most people at this point would give up and buy a different ticket, but that's a bad strategy. A streak of winning small amounts is actually bad (proper distribution of the odds). With a little social engineering (small talks with other customers), you can gather that intelligence. Evidence of this effect: the powerball, mega millions, etc. When no one wins they balloon. When someone wins each time, they win relatively small amounts.

Another mistake people make is buying different tickets instead of the same. That's why only a few people win.

So much of lottery is reverse psychology.

<comment><USER36> No, not reverse psychology just you seeking and seeing patterns where there are none.

There isn't a strategy you can use as an individual unless you can throw tens of millions at it to exploit basly designed games like the MIT guys did.

Your sad head shaking at those falling for reverse psychology is ironic.

<comment><USER35> Are you saying the evidence I provide is wrong? You seriously believe the lottery is perfectly designed? That's like saying cars/airbags/computers/etc. are always perfectly designed.

I found this example: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183070/MIT- maths-ge...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183070/MIT-maths- geniuses-netted-8million-Massachusetts-state-lottery-discovering- loophole.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> it's possible, some people have gotten struck by lighting over a dozen times, which in theory is as likely as winning the Powerball twice. (1 in 12,000 likelyhood of being struck over your lifetime)

<comment><USER38> Well, the lottery is supposed to be statistically random. If you live in an area with lots of lightning and your job involves being outside up high with metal you might be at an above average risk for getting hit. People aren't supposed to have better chances of winning the lottery than the next player.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Has anyone considered some of these people might be psychic? Professor Daryl Bem's published study "Feeling the Future" comes to mind.

<comment><USER40> You're being serious? I don't mean to be overly hostile, but the implications would be world-shattering and the "mundane" explanation is quite sufficient. Also lottery-winning psychics wouldn't get caught.

<comment><USER39> The mundane explanations doesn't answer anything. It's just pure speculation. They didn't eben talk to the guy who had the most frequent wins. Why wouldn't psychics get caught?

<comment><USER41> Well, let's assume for a second that psychics exist and know that they are psychic. The second assumption is kind of important as if they just act on impulse without knowing they're psychic we can't really differentiate that from all the other chance winnings on a hunch.

For the Powerball, two ways to play: pick your own numbers or randomly generate them. Would a winning psychic choose one over the other more often? An ability to sense and know the future means they would have to either know the winning numbers and pick them, know the machine that produces the numbers (but not necessarily the numbers themselves), or somehow manipulate chance or psychics so that the lottery machine produces the psychic's number during the draw.

Psychic is kind of loosely defined right now by your question so for convenience let's rule out the last one since that's more telekinetic/magic than psychic.

With these conditions, we should see some pattern from the winner: they would either always pick their own and get the winning numbers or they would always happen to go to the right machine at the right time.

Both should show pretty consistent behavior on the part of a psychic, as we can see that the bar for big winnings is pretty low ($600) and multiple statistically improbable winnings would likely be investigated. (per the atriclr, only 10 states do not investigate frequent winners).

So to summarize so far:

Frequent winners very likely investigated unless they are in the 10 states

Psychic will likely pick their own numbers

Psychic will go to a specific machine and have erratic pattern of purchase

If psychic are playing the lottery, my assumptions lead me to think that it makes no sense to frequently win, instead banking on a single explainable big win. This of course would be only if the psychic did not want to be found out as a psychic, which for the purpose of the lottery I think would be a valid want as I believe that there are rules about additional knowledge, etc meant to catch people defrauding the lottery. Future-visions would most definitely qualify, so probably would require that the psychic forfeit their winnings.

The mundane explanations do explain a lot, both from the investigations and admissions from the frequent winners. To me anyways, the psychics, if they exist, would more likely be the one time big winners, not the frequent ones.

<comment><USER14> Good points, but continuing with the thought experiment, I think you fail to consider what might be a reality for your psychics. What if the psychics don't have perfect information, nor perfect control, but have, perhaps varying on the psychic in question, some amount of power that lets them see or control future numbers with some amount of probability, but not certainty?

In that case, they might win more often, but not every time. Given that so many things in nature follow a power curve or a bell curve, I think your presumed psychic abilities, we can assume, follow the same curves, and if most of your psychics then have "some ability" to predict these numbers, but not a certainty, then I think they are more likely to be frequent smaller winners.

For example, if you have an ability that let's you see a 4/8 of the future numbers, with 33% certainty, then one time out of three, you will win 4/8 of the numbers, and sometimes more than 4/8 if you're lucky.

TL;DR -- your presumed psychic abilities probably exist on a spectrum ( bell / power curve ) and likely most of your psychics do not have "perfect" future information.

PS - I have a feeling that psychics would prefer to play the stock market, than lottery. I just sense their expected payoff is higher in that case, probably because there are a lot more factors that affect a stock price, so even partial information across a lot of these seems to provide a better advantage, than partial information on 1 single list of numbers.

<comment><USER41> That's fair. I certainly did forget to include the assumption that they would have perfect clarity into their foresight.

I still think you'd see a pretty clear pattern emerge from winners however, at least should the individual grasp the impact of their ability, even if the picture is incomplete. I also agree stocks or sports betting would be a better choice as partial information seems more valuable in those cases.

But I still feel confident you'd see the same general truths from psychics with partial clarity; still picking numbers and never using random and still an erratic purchase pattern as they chase locations and time. I think the former would likely show more purchases with the same constant numbers from the futuresight and then a spread of other numbers; such behavior may stand out even more as there would be a history of them always getting a small subset right and guessing the rest.

<comment><USER42> The most obvious difference would be people who picked their numbers would have better winning than expected. Which is easy to check, but does not happen.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Can Meg Whitman Fix HP? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/09/meg-whitman-takes-over-hp/

<comment><USER2> I'd like to see her CEO a small startup to prove she was no one-hit-wonder in the right place at the right time.

</comment><comment><USER3> The better question might be if she can reinvent the company -- fixing somehow implies that you can revisit the past and make a few changes. And I'll grant you that I'm not a Meg fan, but as a valley icon I'm rooting for HP.

<comment> Apple-Guy HP board choosing to stay the course that Apotheker laid out won't really improve their chances.

</comment></comment><comment> Apple-Guy No she can't. Not with her "left" ebay after inability to integrate skype, and not with the current HP board.

Why HP is failing: [http://obamapacman.com/2011/09/why-hp-is-failing-better- comm...](http://obamapacman.com/2011/09/why-hp-is-failing-better- communication-skills/)</comment>