Stranger Things: The Rise and Fall of UFOs and Life on the Moon - <AUTHOR> http://bostonreview.net/literature-culture/john-crowley-stranger-things-rise-and-fall-ufos-and-life-moon <comment><USER2> Nearly everything in UFOlogy is obvious folklore, hoaxes, and wishful thinking, with probably some misinformation to cover up classified aircraft projects thrown in. But here's the thing...

If life and intelligence are natural phenomena, and if Earth-like planets are common (as Kepler has shown), then ET presence is if not a full blown prediction of science then at least a reasonable possibility.

The fact that we don't see it everywhere is known as the Fermi paradox, and it is genuinely such. There should be ET probes and signals at least.

<comment><USER3> There's several proposed, common sense resolutions to the paradox that still allow for plenty of ET life.

For example, regarding signals and probes, it may simply be that our time scale does not overlap with ET's. The universe is 1e10 years old but our civilization is only around 2e3. Perhaps the last signal aimed our way passed us millions of years ago and the next won't be for millions more. Similarly for probes coming here: if one landed a few million years ago, it would probably be buried under miles of rock by now. Perhaps we've seen one in our time and dismissed it as airliner lights.

Another explanation is the math is simply too hard to cross the galaxy. It would take tens or hundreds of thousands of years just to get to nearby stars, most of the industrial output of a planet, and you have to be really sure where you're going because by the time you get there, the civilization might be long gone.

ET might simply be stuck like we are.

<comment><USER4> The problem with that is it only takes one civilization that develops a basic self replicating probe to fill the entire galaxy with robotic life.

The fact that this hasn't happened means that either intelligent technological life is extremely rare or there is a great filter that prevents a civilization from ever reaching that point in the first place.

We do not have any where near the amount of information to answer the question if are we first, rare or screwed.

But the more time passes the more likely it is the latter.

<comment><USER2> There are many more possibilities.

Another is that we are late. The universe has already been bum rushed by von Neumann probes and other such things. This happened a billion years ago. The cowboy era of the cosmos is now over.

We are now in an era when mature highly advanced beings have some system of governance in place. This includes a kind of prime directive for simpler newcomers to protect them from premature contamination.

We don't see these beings because our solar system is a nature preserve (due to our biosphere being in it), and their surveillance takes such advanced unobtrusive forms that it is undetectable to us.

Radio silence in this scenario could be explained by distance, the use of cellular and complex modulations over inefficient broadcasting, or the discovery of something much better than radio that renders it obsolete.

Perhaps intentional high amplitude signals toward naive worlds are illegal, as is detectable visitation.

The only bugaboo with this speculation is where the megastructures are. Maybe highly advanced means so miniaturized and efficient that such big iron is pointless. The benevolent space brothers are immortal quantum computer brains at liquid helium temperature that consume a few watts of power, and space flight is done using low energy slow methods because when you are immortal who cares how long it takes.

I'll call this one the wise old universe hypothesis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just want to add that, if you like this article, the author, John Crowley, is an amazing and underread novelist. Little, Big is the best fantasy novel I've read for people who are sort of lukewarm about fantasy (and one of the greatest novels of the last half century in my opinion).

</comment><comment><USER6> > Sometime late in the 1960s, in the countryside of Vermont, my sister and I > saw in the evening sky three round lights, apparently far-off, perfectly > still and unchanging, each the size of a thumbnail held up before the eye. > We hadn't seen them appear—they were just there. They remained for a few > moments, and then with instantaneous acceleration vanished over the horizon: > in the blink, that is, of an eye.

Which was a jet that had been coming right at them that changed course 90 degrees. Probably the source of 99% of sightings if not more. Anything with three lights (white, red, green) or similar lights that appear to be "rotating" (because they blink, it causes the mind to come up with explanation of the blinking) is likely a human aircraft.

A sufficiently advanced alien civilization tends to fly without FAA-approved lighting.</comment>


Leave No Network Unexploited: The Story of China Telecom's BGP Hijacking [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=mca <comment><USER2> The paper is generally very interesting, but there are some moments that I felt really put the credibility of the authors into question, despite their credentials... for example:

"Each AS controls a set of 'internet protocol' (IP) addresses assigned in blocks of consecutive numbers. These blocks are assigned much like telephone number area codes; for example, blocks in the US are now regulated in the US by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)"

I feel that the authors should be well aware that the FCC is involved in the issuance of neither IP addresses nor telephone numbers, those are handled by ARIN and the NANPA respectively. The NANPA is at least contracted to Neustar explicitly from the FCC, but ARIN's authority historically traces back to the National Science Foundation, not the FCC.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Original title is _China's Maxim – Leave No Access Point Unexploited: The Hidden Story of China Telecom's BGP Hijacking_ , but it was too long to submit.</comment>


WireGuard and Torrent on Linux - <AUTHOR> https://www.aaflalo.me/2019/08/wireguard-and-torrent-on-linux/ <comment><USER2> There needs to be some sort of PSA that VPNs != Privacy. Having a VPN won't do jack if the protocol includes identifying information.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do not like this solution. Here's what I'd do: Torrent client runs dockered on a VLAN that the router routes through the VPN.</comment>


Strange multiplication behavior in Guile Scheme interpreter - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14495636/strange-multiplication-behavior-in-guile-scheme-interpreter <comment><USER2> [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commit;h=2...](http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commit;h=2355f01709eadfd5350c510cdb095b4e3f71f17c)

Fixed by Mark H Weaver, on Fri, 7 Dec 2012.

Avoid signed integer overflow in scm_product

* libguile/numbers.c (scm_product): Avoid signed integer overflow, which modern C compilers are allowed to assume will never happen, thus allowing them to optimize out our overflow checks.

* test-suite/tests/numbers.test (*): Add tests.

<comment><USER3> A nice example for Regehr's post: C and C++ Aren't Future Proof

<http://blog.regehr.org/archives/880>

<comment><USER4> Awesome, I've added a link to the bottom of the post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It boils down to:

> (* 4294967296 4294967296)

$1 = 0

My guess is that guile uses the native int type to store small numbers, and then switches to a bignums, backed by GNU MP when the native ints are too small. Maybe in that particular case, the check fails, and the computation overflows the native int.

<comment><USER6> Then why 2^488 works correctly but nothing in 2^(64..487) ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This shows that C and C++ are getting more and more out of sync with modern CPUs. Outdated if you want.

Modern CPUs have wide multiplies (32x32->64), wide divides (64/32->32), a whole bunch of useful arithmetic status flags, yet C gives you access to nothing of that. Instead, it forces you to divide first (very slow) before multiplying to ensure that overflow won't happen.

Even a simple division check before multiplying isn't sufficient, since there's a border case where the two operands are INT_MIN and -1. In 2nd complement arithmetic, both division and multiplication will overflow. So you need yet another check.

But gcc folks are also obtuse: an implementation is allowed to define what is technically UB. Optimizing out operations that are perfectly defined on a 2nd- complement architecture seems to be against the "spirit" of C -- that you can guess the compiler's output with reasonable certainty. I'd call this outright maliciousness on the part of compiler implementors.

People dislike C++ saying too much is happening behind the curtains. But examples like this show that C is not much better either.

<comment><USER8> Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Compile this for 32-bit x86 (gcc -m32 -O3 -S):

uint64_t foo(uint64_t x, uint64_t y) { return (uint64_t) x * (uint64_t) y; }

Big, ugly, as expected: 3 multiplies and 2 adds. Now compile this:

uint64_t foo(uint32_t x, uint32_t y) { return (uint64_t) x * (uint64_t) y; }

One instruction (mull). GCC totally knows about 32x32 -> 64 multiplies; you just don't know how to use them.

<comment><USER7> Dude, YOU have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about C, the language, not what one particular implementation gives you. AFAIK, C11 doesn't have a 128-bit int type, so how do you get the full result of 64x64 bit multiply? How do you access the carry flag? The overflow flag? Etc.

<comment><USER8> The C language doesn't, and has never, said anything about what the assembled code should look like. If you want performance, you _have to_ use a good compiler. That's true with any language.

You're right, C11 doesn't have a 128-bit integer type; that should be remedied. Fortunately all major compilers (GCC, LLVM, VC++, and ICC) provide one.

Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag.

Overflow: "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag.

And the best part is, code written like this is portable to architectures such as TileGX that _don't_ have status flags.

<comment><USER7> > Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag.

If x and y are signed, you're relying on UB, which the compiler might optimize out.

> "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag.

Again, which type are x and y? If signed, this code is UB. If unsigned, then the result of conversion to int32 may not fit into int32, in which case the result is implementation-defined, or and implementation-defined signal is raised.

Portable? Right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does the behavior change if you take out the even condition, or if you make the algorithm tail recursive?

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks to me like an underlying overflow bit isn't being checked properly in some cases.

</comment><comment><USER10> Looking at guile version 2.0 this behaviour is fixed.

<comment><USER5> I could reproduce it in guile 2.0.6

<comment><USER10> What version of C compiler are you using?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Viability of an Economy Based on an Energy Standard - <AUTHOR> In the US, we currently live in an economy tied to the price of energy. If oil prices go up, the prices of everything else increases. If oil prices go down, (usually) the price of everything else decreases.
From my understanding, we used to be on the "gold standard" in which each treasury note was backed by the presence of physical gold held in the treasury. From my limited research it would be difficult to go back to the gold standard, but would it be possible to refactor our economy to use energy as the sole medium of exchange.
The idea would be similar to the following:
Customers wishing to purchase goods or services would exchange energy (specifically electricity) for the item in question. Energy could be exchanged in a variety of ways like small "button-style" batteries or by the transfer of energy from a larger battery (maybe the size of a standard "trifold" wallet). The medium of exchange would need to be standardized but would be "pluggable" so new technologies could be adopted in a backwards-compatible way.
Potential benefits include the ability for almost anyone to convert expertise and work into a valuable commodity with minimal overhead. For instance, facilities could be established where if one has no other way to earn money they could come and ride a stationary bicycle to charge batteries which they could then use to purchase the things they need. A percentage would be taken off the top for the owner/operator of the facility. Also with some investment in time and materials, one could guarantee a steady income for their family by the installation of solar panels, wind turbines or even gasoline generators.
My interest is specifically in other potential benefits or any potential problems or pitfalls.
This question is really meant as a thought exercise to help me understand how the exchange of value operates at both a micro and macro level.
Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> The cost of a battery would be >>> than the cost of the energy it stored. Also, you can't transfer energy around the would as easy as bits, you lose energy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point about the cost of the battery. The way I was thinking the battery would be rechargeable and ownership would be retained by the customer. This precludes my thought on "button-style" batteries, but I would not be against carrying a rechargeable battery in lieu of a wallet.

The second point is really good as well, and after reading it I am thinking that existing Power Plants and grids would transition to a sort of bank where value could be allocated and disbursed like a check or money order. For instance, I am in Pennsylvania and I have a diesel power plant serving my needs. I could theoretically store my energy by back-feeding into the grid and I could send that energy to you by having my power plant tell your power plant to allocate some of my energy to you. This would require a sort of clearing house which might take the form of a world-wide smart grid where taxes and tariffs could be automatically deducted in transit across national or state boundaries.</comment></comment>


Color Scheme Designer 3 - <AUTHOR> http://colorschemedesigner.com/ <comment><USER2> If anyone's curious, the title is typeset in Fertigo Pro, an awesome, free typeface from Jos Buivenga's exljbris foundry. You can grab it at <http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/fertigo.html>

Along with color schemes, keep typography in mind for your next design!

Of course, non-standard typefaces are still rather limited on the web, and sIFR isn't the solution. Nonetheless, exceptions can be made for wordmarks and logotypes. With luck, Webkit's expanding market share will finally bring font embedding to the web. Progressive enhancement, anyone?

Prediction: Jos Buivenga will become the implicit answer to John Gruber's dilemma of embedded typefaces: "The fonts you're allowed to embed legally aren't worth using; the fonts that are worth using aren't embeddable."

<comment><USER3> I've been loving this guy's fonts for about a year or two now, he gets featured regularly in smashingmagazine and it's totally deserved.

For something with a bit more personality (which means you can't use it on _every_ project) check out his Diavlo font, it's the one I used in this piece of my portfolio:

<http://alabut.com/work.html#paybackable>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> very nice...but leaves me hanging for my purposes.

I would pay to have an export of the sample pages in a programmer friendly CSS "starter kit" such as Blueprint or more to my needs, Compass.

Forget about micro-charging or recurring monthly bills. Charge $100 or more for 30 days of exports to various well done programmer friendly formats.

This is good stuff. I'm waiting for someone to come up with the next step to enable programmers to create all-in-one CSS grid and typography and color palette starter kits.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is an excellent tool. I especially like the built-in preview systems and the "color-blind" modes, so that I can be sure I'm generating enough contrast for those users.

Kudos.

</comment><comment><USER6> That is probably the awesomest thing I've ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's great but it won't solve the problem that programmers can't design. I did the error hundred times to think that nice colors generates nice websites but in fact, colors should be the last detail in designing. Layout should be king. But I'm just a programmer...

<comment><USER5> Yes, but even on simple sites and simple layouts, you still need to be sure that you are using a decent color pallete, especially when you don't have / can't afford to hire a designer for what you're working on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not bad at all. I've been using Kuler: <http://kuler.adobe.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> I've used a lot of color scheme picker web sites. You've just made them all irrelevant. My hat's off to you.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like this a lot. I'm having trouble linking the colors shown in "Scheme Info" with the ones in the main display at right. Could you number the areas somehow? Or show the codes within the lorem ipsum text?

</comment><comment><USER11> this is Sofa King awesome for us developer designer hybrids. It's excellent. My only feedback is that maybe the hue/angle popups could be sliders and the color popup could be one of those WSIWYG color pickers.

Also, maybe showcase some really nice ones that are preset to give people some ideas. I guess for a future release people could submit their schemes or post them.

</comment><comment><USER12> The site preview options were very nice.

</comment><comment><USER13> I had no idea that only 85.5% of the population had normal color vision.

<comment><USER14> I had no idea that anyone was completely black-and-white colorblind. Imagine how abstract the concept of "color" would be if you've never seen it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was always looking for a good tool that does this! This one is great!</comment>


Stochastic, Nerdtastic Restaurant Bill Splitting - <AUTHOR> http://messymatters.com/expectorant/ <comment><USER3> Why is the bill-splitting problem so much more interesting to techies compared to the tons of other real-life math application problems out there? I see more apps and websites on how to split a bill n-way than I see for predicting cashflows, organizing tables/chairs, and maximizing toothpaste usage combined. I think it is a fun problem as any other, but what makes it more interesting than others?

<comment><USER4> nerd attempt at social skills. you don't maximize toothpaste usage with friends!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Where I live, it's very widespread and perfectly acceptable to pay exactly what you owe, especially if you're drinking/dining with peers. Waiters typically ask if you want to share a common bill or if you want to pay separately; if it's the latter they'll do the adding up for you.

<comment><USER6> Where do you live?

<comment><USER5> Germany. Gosh I hope that's not just a German thing.

<comment><USER7> In Sweden it is also in many situations acceptable to pay for just your items.

<comment><USER8> Shit guys I do this in America. Delegate the work to the waiter by telling her you want to split the checks up front. Problem solved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> With good friends I generally just split the bill evenly, but that tends to be non-scalable.

One method I found which seems to work quite nicely is each person puts in what they think they owe, and any difference between that and the total bill is split evenly between the group. This tends to work out nearly-equitable and is very fast.

<comment><USER10> I agree.

I generally offer more if I feel I've consumed more - "hey, I had four drinks and you had two, you don't have to pay for me" - but if they insist on splitting evenly I am OK with that.

Same thing if I'm the underconsumer - I don't want to show up at 2230, have a beer, and split a check that's been open since 1700, but if the differences are small then even split is just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Appropriately, "Expectorant" also refers to a medication which helps produce mucus. This is roughly the social equivalent.

</comment><comment><USER12> The (unfair) credit card roulette that they mention is a more "baller" version of this, and a favorite around certain groups of friends.

<comment><USER10> I love credit card roulette! Great low-stakes bonding experience with friends and co-workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Excerpt that describes the actual mechanism:

Start with any item on the bill. The person who ordered that item pays the bill with probability equal to the cost of that item divided by the subtotal. Flip the appropriately biased coin; if that person is it, then you're done. If not, then subtract that item from the subtotal and repeat, recursively, with another arbitrary item. If you start with expensive items then you'll probably find the person who's paying after a handful of items, but it doesn't matter for fairness what order you pick things in. You won't have to figure out all the confusing drinks and appetizers (yet the outcome is as fair as if you had!).

<comment><USER14> I've tried this with a group. It's good for generating endless conversation on principles of economic fairness. It completely fails to be a time-saving mechanism.

There is the completely rational mind and then there are humans - <USER2> represents a separation point :)

<comment><USER13> Ha! Touche! Yes, this has never actually saved time. Well, among me and Bethany Soule (coauthor of the Android app described in the article) and Sharad Goel (co-blogger at Messy Matters) I think it's now routine enough that it saves time.

But it's so the Right Way to do it! I guess it's like trying to get Americans to use the metric system. It would be worth it if it actually worked...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> TL;DR - This is not splitting the bill, but rather a gamble of paying the entire bill with a probability equal to your share of it.

<comment><USER13> Quite right! But I think the cool thing from a mathematical/nerd perspective is that you can have everyone pay with that probability (splitting the bill stochastically) without figuring out what those probabilities are. Ie, without figuring out what everyone ordered.

<comment><USER8> So the guy who orders more expensive items or more items pays for the whole bill more often then that? Sorry joe, you owe me for your entree whether or not I had 2 beers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This makes me start thinking what other problems can be handled more efficiently if everyone agreed to be satisfied with an "expectation" of fairness in the long term.

You gain efficiency, at the loss of acquiring short term risk. Might be a useful exchange in some cases.

One good example: in a traffic jam everyone decides to maintain a minimum of 50ft between them and the car in front of them.

</comment><comment><USER17> I usually just pay what I owe and a 15 - 20% tip. Occasionally, and it depends on the acquaintances/friends. I am with, I will do equal split (total + tip) / number of people.

Is this really that difficult?

</comment><comment><USER18> Note the dreadful UI on their app implementation! (You type something like '100:5,25,60' and invite someone to guess a number on each round)

Why wouldn't they do something like:

1\. Enter the subtotal (becomes permanently printed at the top) 2\. Enter successive item amounts, after each entry the app says 'pay' or 'continue'

<comment><USER13> True. The historical reason is that it was (well still is) originally a general biased coin flipper where you could enter any expression that evaluated to a probability. Then we added syntactic sugar for the case of restaurant bill splitting.

UI improvements welcome! Bethany has it on github: <https://github.com/bsoule/Expectorant>

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I solved this recursively, but with a different algorithm... will try this out now :) Looks like fun!

<comment><USER16> What algorithm? I think these problems are fun.

<comment><USER19> I don't got a name for it, as it wasn't a specific algorithm being followed, I Just "solved it" by coding it. I had to do it recursively because calling it once would not give an accurate number, so it called itself until the numbers matched up :) I can share the Ruby code once I clean it up. I intend to open source the web app anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I find it hard to believe this would be faster than just adding up what everyone ordered, and then either picking someone with weighted random (absolutely equivalent to the given algorithm), or just everyone paying for their own stuff (perfectly fair).

<comment><USER13> I think the real beauty of this method is that you don't have to figure out what everyone ordered (only a few people usually).

<comment><USER20> The probability you use is the value of that item divided by the total, no? So on average you'll get halfway down the menu, and have to have figured out who ordered half the things, in slow bits and pieces.

Thinking about it, I think I have a faster way to do it: 1. generate a random number between 0 and bill amount. 2. "Count" that much money down the bill. 3. Whoever ordered the item you stop on pays.

<comment><USER13> Ooh, I like that!

But to clarify, the method in the article is quite a bit better than you think:

"On average you'll only traverse half the bill — and that's half in terms of dollar value, not number of items. So much less than half the items if most of the bill is concentrated in a few expensive entrees."

I actually think it's kind of fun, with the multiple trials for who will pay. But I'm eager to try your idea now!

EDIT: You're totally right, this is a faster fair way! It's not as simple as it sounds though: if you land on, say, a $2 drink of which there are multiple such on the bill then you need a protocol to disambiguate. You could randomize again among the people who got one of those items.

What I like most about the method in the article is that you can avoid the confusing smaller items with high probability. Maybe the way to achieve that with your method is to walk down the items in decreasing order of price. That also forces you to identify sets of things that all cost the same, so you can do the second randomization if necessary. (You could also just pick a canonical order of the people, like alphabetical, or where they're seated, since there's enough randomness in the original random number.)

<comment><USER13> You're even righter than I thought. This is definitively faster than the method in the article. And with your method there's no point in rearranging the items. You're no more likely to have to deal with a confusing small item than with the method in the article.

The only possibly worse aspect is that, when the item is chosen, you have to make sure to identify everyone who got a copy of that item. With the method in the article you always consider items one at a time, in isolation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> All that math just complicates the roulette-ness.

How about just toss all the credit cards in a bag/box/etc and ask your nice waiter to pick one at random.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have an even better idea. How about anyone who thinks this is even marginally interesting just leaves me out of their dinner plans.

There are only two ways to take care of the check. Either one person pays, or n people pay equally like the opening scene in American Psycho. Any sort of bookkeeping at the dinner table is really bad manners.

EDIT, more etiquette hints:

when looking at the check, make at most a quick glance. Ideally don't look at the check at all. If you can't trust them to prepare a check you probably shouldn't trust their cooking either.

How do you figure out who picks up the check?

\- if you are dining with the boss, you're the one who pays

\- if you're dining with customers, you're the one who pays

\- if you're dining with your girlfriend and her female friends, you're the one who pays

\- if you're the host in any sense, you're the one who pays

\- if you're dining with students and you're the only one who has a job, you're the one who pays

\- if you're the one who went deep on the wine list, you're the one who pays

There aren't many times that a check gets split, or any sort of turn-taking applies. For the most part, you're the one who pays.

<comment><USER23> Judging from the style of your writing, you seem oblivious to the fact that your list assumes very specific cultural context (hint: you are even assuming the gender and relationship status of the reader, how they call their partner, and very specific gender roles), and may be very debateable even within that context.

<comment><USER22> It's not so much that I'm oblivious, but rather that I think we're better off taking on responsibility than we are obsessively complicating things that can be simple.

When I was in college we had a sink full of dirty dishes until we had a rule to always wash one more dish than you dirtied. It worked even though the math major refused to participate. The problem wasn't an individual free rider, the problem was that humans were involved, humans make mistakes, and the errors accumulated in the sink.

Paying more than your share is a good habit that has good effects elsewhere in your life. Can you fairly split all the little schleps among the founding team of a startup? Best results are obtained when each person does (what feels like) more than their share. Both members of a married couple should make (what feels like) more than their fair share of compromises. As parents we'll make nothing but compromises and be repaid in resentment. But it's one of the most rewarding things we do in life.

Make a game out of finding ways to pay more than your share, sneak it past the anal retentives and militant obsessives. Extra points if they never notice. It's harder than you might think. But it's good practice for the rest of life.</comment></comment></comment>


A quick and easy to use package for Google Cloud BigQuery - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/indatawetrust/bigquery-api <comment><AUTHOR> at least a few comments would have been nice..</comment>


Of Course UPS Picked Portland to Test Out Its Silly New Trike Delivery Service - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/of-course-ups-picked-portland-to-test-out-its-silly-new-1789874248 <comment><USER2> You already see those sort of "trikes" around town sometimes. Not sure what they deliver.</comment>


Thoughts on Google Glass - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2013/12/thoughts_on_google_glass

<comment><USER2> Mat Honan's article was a valuable critique. And interesting. Gruber's reaction on the other hand...

> It's a cool lab demo that they're presenting as a finished product.

Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong.

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does.

Again, assuming it's a mass market product and not the experiment in wearable computing it is.

> In the meantime, to me, Google Glass is the new Tablet PC.

And there it is. Glass is Microsoft's failed foray into tablet computing. He's not even sure that this form factor will be popular, yet he compares it to a technology that took off in spite of an initially poor execution. He's convinced it will succeed, I guess, when someone other than Google does it. I wonder who he has in mind.

<comment><USER3> They said they are going to release a consumer version in 2014. Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.

<comment><USER4> > Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is > they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough > edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.

I remember listening to people discuss Glass on a couple of podcasts after it was released and this is the one thing that sticks in my mind from the reviews. While Google called it a beta, the reviewers said it felt more like an alpha or an engineering sample than a beta product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, > that's everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem > isn't the idea, it's the actual execution. There are no points for being > first to market with a bad product.

This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter. Google started it either way.

<comment><USER6> His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple or whomever tries to follow.

<comment><USER7> My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of industrial time for its time.

If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then it's clearly too early.

<comment><USER8> There is no such thing as being "too early" to market. That is how you cut your teeth, learn and get ahead. You fail when you give up on the idea (or are proven that it will never catch on... either way). However if you create a product that eventually takes off, and if you continue to iterate it and not abandon it, you can't be too early. And, if nothing else, it is 100x less risky to be too early, than too late.

<comment><USER9> History is littered with counterexamples. If you look at people or companies that have been refered to as "ahead of their time", it is frequently in the context of why they ultimately failed.

Tablet PCs are a case in point -- Microsoft or HP had not abandoned the tablet market. They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed to the masses.

Also, regarding the "riskier to be too late" comment: The book "Copycats" by Oded Shenkar makes the case that it's frequently the imitators that win the market rather than the innovators. This blog post reviews it and cites some interesting statistics from it: [http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down- with-innovation-up...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-with- innovation-up-with-imitation)

<comment><USER10> "They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed to the masses."

I think this is a succinct refutation of the Tablet PC being a counterexample to something "ahead of their time". The lack of success of the Tablet PC wasn't because it was "too early for the technology", but it's because Microsoft and HP were developing the wrong device for the wrong market.

That said, I do tend to agree with your premise that you certainly can be "ahead of your time", and that being first to market does not always correlate with being the best to the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I disagree.

I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still awesome. I don't find them _that_ unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing this, which is more convenient." Once I explain that to people, they totally get why I'm wearing Glass.

Glass makes sense and it's a step in the right direction for wearable computing. At least for now.

My gripes:

It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least.

iOS is hamstrung until I can send iMessages. I don't see that changing.

Swiping through all the cards can be kind of a nuisance.

Battery life.

Google is a software company so, I imagine the more Apple opens up their notifications etc, the better Glass will get.

<comment><USER12> _It needs Bluetooth LE. I 'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least._

Does Android even support BLE yet in a way that's accessible and standardized across hardware manufacturers? I was looking at doing some work with Bluetooth LE last year but was amazed at the lack of attention Google was putting into it. It seemed likely they were going to ignore it altogether for a while.

<comment><USER13> Android 4.3 brought about much improved BLE support [1]. Unfortunately, driver support from manufacturers is still fairly limited, and hasn't been appearing very quickly.

[1]: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android- kit...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kitkat- allows-devices-that-support-bluetooth-le-to-act-as-a-periphe)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like gadgets and various electronics, but for some reason Glass just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I guess that could already happen with phones, but at least right now not everything is being recorded at every minute by every person.

If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors, which would make it a pain to use (especially if it's connected to your prescription glasses!).

<comment><USER15> Worse... being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where you are, and from there it probably isn't that difficult to determine what your mood is at the time. It'll be like your own digital stalker out there, times a thousand, given that Google will just use the data to sell ads.

<comment><USER16> > being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that > Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where > you are

What? Glass is not always recording, has no facial recognition and is no more invasive than the smartphones everyone already carries.

<comment><USER15> Yes, because obviously the originally stated intention for the device is the only use the device will ever have. The difference here is that a phone is usually in your pocket. The Glass is usually on your head, and the camera is pointed at the same thing you're currently looking at.

<comment><USER16> I can 100% guarantee the current hardware iteration will never support always on recording. It would kill the battery in 45-60 minutes. That added to the fact that almost everyone has a phone on them that can already be geolocated makes using Glass unnecessary for tracking. You could argue that Glass would be useful in taking a photo snapshot every minute but with the growth of security cameras it's estimated that in some areas people are caught on camera as many as 300 times/day. That makes Glass not all that useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half negative point about the product.

He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in general) fare in the future that Google has out innovated Apple, and he's really having a hard time coming to terms with that idea.

<comment><USER18> I read it more that he's expecting Apple to be the company that comes along with the sexy, socially-acceptable version of Google Glass that takes it mainstream. Admittedly based more on the author than his words.

<comment><USER17> And that might very well happen, but if it does, it will still be described as Apple copying Google, which probably drives Gruber crazy.

Personally, I think that the simple fact that Google came up with the idea means that Apple will never create such a product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _It's a cool lab demo that they're presenting as a finished product._

They do? It seems to me that they've been looking for early adopters that can provide feedback. It'll be a finished product once it's available for order on Google Play.

<comment><USER3> They've said that they are going to release the consumer version in 2014. Sure it could drastically change from what a developer could be receiving in December 2013 but odds are it is going to be stuff like the price that changes the most, not the actual hardware.

<comment><USER20> That's not really relevant. The point was that Gruber stated that Google is presenting Glass as a finished product, which is something they have never done.

<comment><USER3> Based on this website they are putting A LOT into presenting it to the public as pretty polished [http://www.google.com/glass/start/](http://www.google.com/glass/start/)

That isn't a developer website that is a website designed by marketing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's confusing that people at Wired found Matt Honan's Glass weird.

I also work at a news outlet (NPR), and I have a co-worker who wears Glass during the workday (not every day, but enough that I notice). I've never seen anything but polite interest.

<comment><USER11> I agree. I work at a small mobile dev shop. At least 10 people there own Glass. No one cares.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Google could probably price the glass for just a few hundred dollars, but they don't. Why? Because Glass is not yet a polished consumer product with apps/features that create a compelling reason to wear them all the time. Google is releasing them intentionally to 'thought leaders' who will critique and come up with the ideas for features that will make Glass broadly compelling to consumers. By the time Glass is released as a mass market product it will already have app store loaded with apps. Seems like a simple strategy!

</comment><comment><USER23> What surprises me always is that people act as if Glass was the first of its kind. The tech has been around for ages and actually Glass is very poor in terms of its holographic projection technology. What is new is that Google is the first company who is really serious about this and has the guts about it flying in the face of negative publicity, not shying away from its weirdness for many people. I led an AR/VR project at Vodafone using Sony's far superior tech with local startups and the project while technically successful didn't make it past the prototype stage. All there is: Google has really high innovation reputation, they can shape the market even if it 'feels weird', that is why the article is spot on saying it 'will help grease the wheels for social acceptance'.

</comment><comment><USER24> When I heard that Strava was on it, I instantly wanted one (and had no interest beforehand). Sports is to wearables what the spreadsheet was to the PC.

</comment><comment><USER25> "we won't be able to tell who's wearing built-in-HUD-and-camera glasses and who's just wearing regular glasses"

Oh no! I might have to get laser eye surgery and stop wearing glasses.</comment>


Found a great YouTube channel - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCotwjyJnb-4KW7bmsOoLfkg <comment><USER2> From the guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> _In Submissions_

> _Please don 't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or > exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an > article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's > important._

> _Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or > linkbait. Don 't editorialize._

Also, I usually prefer the submissions of one article/video instead of the whole blog/channel. Which one is your favorite video of the channel?</comment>


DoorDash is looking for fresh funding at a $1B valuation - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/report-doordash-raising-a-round-at-unicorn-valuation-2015-11 <comment><USER2> This article is a shitty stub. That said, I hate door dash as a business and it is undoubtedly not worth $1B. Leaving aside a proper DCF analysis, lets make this simplistic as hell:

$1B = 1000 million.

It would take >8 years to pay this money back if they made $1million in revenue a day at a 33% profit margin.

<comment><USER3> > It would take >8 years to pay this money back if they made $1million in > revenue a day at a 33% profit margin.

Are those numbers actually coming from anywhere in the real world?

<comment><USER2> no. I wrote a great explanation of how valuations work with comparable companies, EBITDA, and DCFs and then hit the back button.

Rest assured, that regardless of how much financial wizardry you perform using models, a back of the napkin approach is probably as accurate at this stage anyway.

Not to mention, Postmates is pretty easy to predict because it will never be worth anything in the public market and therefore doesn't matter. It will be acquired by someone like Uber or Amazon in a best case scenario but will likely just run out of cash and die.</comment></comment></comment>


Hey guys- could use some feedback on my apartment reviews startup, Tenantree - <AUTHOR> http://tenantree.com/ <comment><USER2> What technologies did you use to build such a modern-looking site? It looks the part of a professional site.

As far as feedback goes, my feedback is so far into bikeshed territory you are starting to see unicycles.

The logo and site decor are pleasing, clean. The background colors are a little on the bright side, but not too bad.

If I were looking for an apartment, I might bounce from your site, because though your search box works with javascript disabled, there is no way to submit a search query as there is no search button, and pressing enter does nothing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the encouragement! Great point about the search button / enter, I'll take another look at that

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It should just filter out apartments. Right now it shows private residences as well. Seems it can be misused by people to spread/troll people living in private residences.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah yes...not sure there is an easy way to do this but good call</comment></comment>


Announcing Ribbot.com - build your own Reddit/Hacker News style discussion forum - <AUTHOR> http://brianarmstrong.org/blog/announcing-ribbot-com-build-your-own-reddithacker-news-style-discussion-forum/ <comment><USER2> Good luck with it. It's a very nice site, and interesting project.</comment>


Italy Rejects Reforms, Matteo Renzi Announces Resignation - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-votes-no-in-referendum-projections-indicate-1480891355 <comment><USER2> Doesn't a "no" result maintain the status quo in this case? While populist parties may have been campaigning for "no", is a vote for "keep things as they are" actually a sign of a shift in Italian politics generally?

<comment><USER3> Short answer: yes and no. People wanted to say no to Renzi's politics without a clear reason. The focus shifted from the actual consitituion reform to Renzi's presidency, and he can blame himself.

People felt that Renzi didn't have the right to be the president. People thought that Renzi was a liar, that the constitutional reform was only a way for himself to get more power. So many people voted accordingly to their feelings, not basing their vote on what they tought about the reform. Italy's vote is the result of an irrational hate directed to the establishment. People thought they were "saving" the Constitution. Not joking. In Italy people don't know how many articles are there, when the constitution was written and in which situation it was written. And then they pretend to "save" it.

Sorry for my english. Oh, and that's the opinion from a "yes" voter.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for this explanation!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This has less to do with the EU than people think (or news want to make you believe).

<comment><USER6> This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the EU, despite what Le Pen, Farage and the media, for different reasons, would have us believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> what does the "five star movement" believe in? is it anything like the American anti-establishment movement?

<comment><USER8> So, the five star movement was originally born as a "green-party" kind of movement, the 5 stars representing: public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, right to Internet access, and modernity.

The movement was entirely born on the web, and refused to appear on traditional media like television and newspapers, as they believe traditional media to be undemocratic and corrupted. The focus of the movement is participatory democracy, so they coded an online platform where citizens can propose laws, discuss, and vote on them. These proposals are then brought to the parliament by the elected members of the movement. These are not career politicians, they are common citizens elected on the online platform based on their CV's. It's probably one of the first big experiments in direct democracy.

So, to answer your question, they "believe in" what the majority of citizens believe in. The only constant is they believe in the democratic power of the web.

I think it can be called anti-establishment as it was born from strong negative feelings against the current establishment, and it refuses alliances with any existing political party. It gathers people across the political spectrum, who are unhappy with the status-quo. It's a very interesting experiment, testament to the disruptive power of the web, as the managed to get ~30% with no presence on traditional media and no campaign financing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is big news covered everywhere; why link to a paywalled source instead of a free one??</comment>


Teen's TikTok video about China's Muslim camps goes viral - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50559656 <comment><USER3> I've noticed that stories related to Chinese state censorship garner less comments in HN than stories about US or western government censorship.

Why is that? I'm not making accusations, and if people are not comfortable about talking about this in this forum that's fine.

inb4: "There's no proof, you failed to quantify your observation, which is anecdotal and all in your head." Similar such comments were made in the 1940s.

<comment><USER4> > _I 've noticed_

That is sample bias. People notice what they dislike and disagree with much more than what they like or agree with.

There have been tons of HN threads about Chinese state activity and nearly all are overwhelmingly critical. The HN Search box at the bottom of the page is helpful for finding things.

> _I 'm not making accusations_

Since that insinuates just the opposite, your comment breaks the site guideline which asks " _Please don 't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting way of getting around censorship. Although I'm curious - <USER2> YouTube can demonetize a video because it hears sweet child of mine playing in the background, could it not also listen for certain words, and immediately censor it?

<comment><USER6> there was a recent article[1] that explained how Tiktok is doing its censoring (for German videos). Interestingly, the censors usually only watch frames of the videos (no sound!) and only have 30 seconds to decide what to do with the video (if they want to fulfill their ratio), meaning the kind of tactic this woman used is actually perfect for circumventing the censors (at least in the short-term)... until they change their proceedings (which they will, they are working on algorithms).

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21619098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21619098)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does the average chinese person care about this? Does the average human care about this?

Are we propagating negative chinese news? I am not suggesting it's fake news, and I am sure it's happening. But literally nothing will come of it. If this is a holocaust, we aren't doing anything about it. There are multiple genocides, and we do nothing about it.

<comment><USER8> The interesting part here is that TikTok kept the video up. That does make their claims that they aren't exporting Chinese-style censorship somewhat convincing.

<comment><USER9> By the letter, sure. It was alredy too late.

They did punish her in every other way, shutting off other phones and other accounts. Not exactly indicitave of integrity.

<comment><USER8> Chinese-style censorship frequently happens after it's "too late" and thousands of people have watched raw footage the government would prefer to keep secret. But that's not actually too late to remove it from recommendations, prevent related hashtags from trending, ignore relevant search terms and delete reuploads to thoroughly kill virality.

It doesn't look like TikTok did any of that in this case, since the BBC didn't appear to have had any trouble finding the video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Honest question ... Is that what the govt wants ... change your religion and you walk free? Why not change then? Are there people who have changed?

<comment><USER11> My (western) understanding is that this is in response to a lot of activity (terrorism might be the right word, or it might not) around cultural repression. The goal from the government is integration and safety/control, as I understand it.

As far as "just change", I'm not sure what to say in response to this. I don't mean this as an attack or anything, but "come on just give up your life/culture/values" seems a bit... crass?

<comment><USER10> I agree with the premise or at least used to agree that religions are bad and people need to move away from them ... but by force? That is definitely inhuman. Reading about this stuff is making me go WTF! On a side note, I consider it deeply hypocritical that the government supports traditional medicine.

I do consider religion as a form of mental illness. Just google end times and watch the insanity roll. It's not rational to think about "end times" however you put it. People can drop out of religion rather willingly.

This is Your Brain on God | Michael Ferguson [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocuqguH1OIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocuqguH1OIw)

Based on the above talk, if you have a neurological need for "god" then removing religion leaves other personality cults, cults or ideologies to take root. That seems to be what is happening in this case.</comment></comment></comment>


Disneyland with the Death Penalty - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson_pr.html?1 <comment><USER2> Singapore is not that bad. If you stay in the touristy areas, yeah, everything is corporate and efficient seeming. You can go from the airport to your hotel without ever going outside. If you go to where people that live in Singapore go, though, it's just like any other city. Okay, not as cool as Manhattan or Tokyo or Hong Kong or London, but still pretty normal.

As for the death penalty, yeah, they have it. Singapore talks tough but it does not feel like a police state there. When I come home to the US, I am asked 20 questions by the immigration agents. I live here, just let me in. In Singapore, they have "death to drug traffickers" written everywhere, but the immigration agents did not ask me a single question. I don't even recall the usual customs line (red lane / green lane). If you change planes in Singapore, you don't even go through security. You are released into the secure area and you just walk to the gate where your other flight leaves. If you want to traffic drugs, they may have the death penalty, but they don't _really_ care. (They say they care, and they make an example out of one in a million people, but they don't _really_ care. Interestingly, everything is like this in Singapore.)

Anyway, on paper, Singapore is terrible. In real life... it's not too different from any other country.

(The US seems upset about Singapore's death penalty, but we murder a lot more criminals than they do...)

<comment><USER3> Challenge the Lee dictatorship and comeback and tell us how little they care.

Yes they do care and yes they will execute you <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=singapore+execute+australian> even if you are not a king pin, just some dumb kid.

Also don't get stuck there with out health cover/travel insurance or you will regret it, its not malaysia/thailand.

<comment><USER4> Could you please elaborate on the health cover/travel insurance thing?

<comment><USER2> Their doctors don't work for free. If you seriously injure yourself in Singapore, you will have to pay money to have yourself fixed up.

This is confusing to people not from the US, apparently.

<comment><USER4> Do you mean that you have to pay for _emergency_ medical services like the ones needed when you are hit by a car or you have appendicitis?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a fan of Gibson, but this isn't really an accurate description of Singapore. Singapore's overwhelmingly the most functional and prosperous place in Southeast Asia, by any metric or measure. People who love politics don't like Singapore, because Singaporean politics are boring. One group is in charge, they do a pretty good job, and everyone likes them. But outside of politics and drugs, you can do pretty much whatever you want in Singapore, you're really safe, and the culture's as vibrant as anywhere else. There's a nice mix of Chinese, Malay, Thai, Indian, American, Japanese, and other kinds of experiences to be had in music, food, clothing, and basically whatever else. Good art, technology, commerce, inventing, education.

After traveling a lot around the region, I can't wrap my mind around articles like these. The second most functional country in SE Asia is Thailand, and it's _way_ more dangerous and less functional than Singapore. Where else? Vietnam? Cambodia? Malaysia? Laos?

I've been to all those places except Laos, and Singapore is nicer in pretty much every way. Don't let the article turn you off from visiting if you get a chance. It's a nice country, with friendly people, and plenty of things to do. If you went, you'd probably enjoy it.

<comment> brown9-2 To be fair, the article is 17 years old.

<comment><USER6> Has Singapore changed much in the last seventeen years? I get the feeling that it hasn't (though my one and only visit to Singapore would have been circa 1998).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I got to know Singapore really well last year while we were working on the Crunchpad there. It is a great place to start a company.

A lot of this article is outdated, but it is infamous. Singapore is still an autocratic regime, but steadily becoming more progressive. For instance, local bloggers used to be tailed/monitored and harassed, while today they are invited to official government events and given blogger passes (like a press pass) to cover events on behalf of the citizenry.

The city/country is very surreal, especially once you begin to dig under the surface.

I have a blog post about it that has been sitting in my drafts for over a year now with a bunch of observations (I met a lot of entrepreneurs, businesses, the government people etc.). I have a lot of interesting stories about Singapore. Reading about Singapore again today has prompted me to dig it up - I will publish it this weekend.

I love that place so much that I would seriously consider opening an office there, or at least hiring some people there, for my next startup. It is definitely the most 'Silicon Valley' like city in this hemisphere.

If anybody on HN needs some tips or intros re: Singapore, feel free to email me.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a famous article from _1993_ , notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Penal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Penalty)

What I find interesting is that this piece doesn't include the words "crime" or "murder". There are what, one or two (solved) murders per year on an island of 5 million people? Freedom includes bad things not happening to you.

Other freedoms you can enjoy (as far as I know): not having to drive anywhere, being able to hire whoever you want [1]

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1307133>

<comment><USER8>
      > Freedom includes bad things not happening to you.

Huh? So you're not really 'free' unless your government can guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen to you?

<comment><USER7> It's not possible to guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen to someone. But I am definitely more free if the government actually prevents (ex-?)criminals from harming me. A sovereign is responsible when criminals harm people; they have the ability to institute high- and low-tech measures to vastly reduce crime. The government I'm familiar with (USG) does very little, because of structural problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My company is setup in singapore. Everything in singapore can be done online. You can log into every government service using the net. Which is all very convenient.

I think what westernerners misunderstand about singapore is exemplified by the "press button for green man" sign: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/greta325/4906069350/>

Singapore has a lot of people from cultures that don't pay attention to cleanliness and orderliness. So they have very clear and obvious signs and rules as well as punishments, so that people will conform. Westerners were already brought up in such cultures, they don't need to be shown so explicitly.

Also, Singapore has a lot of seedy stuff going on. They let in thai girls who act as hostesses on 6 month working visas to work in singapore as hostesses, for example. Singapore has organized seediness.

And if you talk to the people in singapore, almost everyone is perfectly satisfied with what the government is doing. It has made a very high standard of living and one of the best countries in south east asia. Why would they not be satisfied?

</comment><comment><USER10> It is an old and famous article and there are some interesting facts about the article you should know. You would think that the person charged, "Monetary Authority of Singapore official Shanmugaratnam Tharman", would be facing the death penalty or exiled, but sorry to disappoint you, he is now a Minister for Finance, and with considerable clout.

Anyway, I live here and the article sounds exaggerated and over dramatized, and at the end, I felt it was really humorous. People changed, places changed, rules changed. A well written article doesn't make it real nor the well rehearsed words of a politician. So to say "The author hits it spot on about Singapore", is really bewildering.

I always like to compare the drugs laws here with the gun laws (or lack of) in US. If you care about effectiveness or deaths, which one has ended up with more deaths as a result of the laws based on per capita?

(For the skeptics, oh yeah, you are right, the lee dictatorship is forcing me to write this. Ok I am ready to be downvoted.)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is fascinating. And terrifying. I can't imagine living in an environment like this. I'd be extremely interested to know what (if anything) has changed since 1993 when this when was written.

(Speaking of which, a (1993) in the title might be nice, since there's no date on the print version. The original is here: <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html>)

</comment><comment><USER12> I am a Singaporean, born and raised here. Just starting out on my own after 4 plus years of enterprise work.

The one book which my secondary school teacher recommended and put how Singapore has developed into perspective is 'The Prince'. Although I would say my country is making some of the mistakes the book warned about.

With regards to freedom of speech, Singapore operates based on the principle of OB markers. Many factors have contributed to the existence of these markers, such as the turbulent times that occurred when the countries around the region were gaining independence, the demographics of the surrounding countries ...

Freedom of speech is great when each of us have the wisdom to know when to exercise it or the consequences of a misplaced whisper or misguided rant may not be catastrophic. The fear of certain things being said is from the fear of what the unforeseen consequences might be.

If anyone has questions about Singapore, or interested in starting out here, do contact me.

<comment><USER13> __Throwaway account __

I'm a born and raised Singaporean as well, as well as a member of an opposition party in Singapore.

Its true that while Singapore has draconian laws like the death penalty, or the Internal Security Act (equivalent of the Patriot Act which allows detention without trial) or even the Public Order Act[1], which allows police to charge a citizen for unlawful assembly even if he's just one person with a sign, one can live life pretty peacefully without any worries like any decent citizen in any other developed country.

But that's only if you're not involved in politics that opposes the current ruling party, the People's Action Party.

There is a great double standard in the lands when it comes to the things opposition parties can do and civil society.

For one, when CASE (Consumers Association of Singapore) held its May 1st 'protest', it was not hassled or stopped by the police.

But when another opposition party goes on to do the same, its activists were convicted and faces a fine ranging from $900 to $1,000 and six or seven days of imprisonment in default.[2]

On the other hand, things are slowly being improved, but opposition leaders still face a problem getting their views heard to the mass media (media is state-owned). Contrary to popular belief, political victory is still determined on the grassroots level which consists of mom and pops, uncles and aunties who do not know how to search or read alternative political news online.

The state-media are renown to be able to shape public opinion as well as discarding letters from the public or opposition leaders from being published[3].

If there's anyone who has any questions about being a member of an opposition party in Singapore, I'd be glad to share my input from the other side of the fence.

P/S: I am not affiliated with the Singapore Democratic Party.

[1] [http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MTM5OQ%3D%3D-3Bt...](http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MTM5OQ%3D%3D-3BtUG%2B2xe3A%3D)

[2] [http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4264-singapo...](http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4264-singapore- logic-okay-on-1-may-not-okay-9-aug)

[3] [http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/10/22/singapores-press- fre...](http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/10/22/singapores-press-freedom- drops-to-a-new-low/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author hits it spot on about Singapore. It would probably have more in common with Apple than IBM--efficiently run, capitalist (to an extent), but is more or less a one-party system, as is common in East Asia (with the exception of Australia).

Singapore is perhaps the best example of the so-called Apple 1984-ad state of information purity directives. OK, maybe that is an exaggeration. It is more likely the result of Asian/Confucian culture that views the State as an entity that must not be disagreed with. And like Apple, the standards are very controlled, and those found in violation with its policies are to be eliminated. [1] Like Apple, if you use the product--or the system, in Singapore--as intended, you'll find it very pleasant and easy to use. Try to do something not allowed, and you'll find very little tolerance for it and very little sympathy too.

A lot of Westerners find it bewildering that none of these people will fight for their rights and will let the state erode on their freedoms. That is because it is a result of Confucian influence that has taught them specifically to never be a thorn in the side to anyone: groupthink mentality. So you see that Singapore's codified laws have more in common with the first codes of history or UCMJ than the forgiving laws of the West. Speech is viewed as a privilege in almost all East Asian countries, and those found in abuse will be punished severely and swiftly, and if there are no laws that will allow them to do so, they will be ostracized.

Hong Kong is probably as close as you can get to a free economic state as far as East Asian regions go [2]. It's ironic--I know--that a Chinese region has a relatively free system. But Hong Kong's laws are some of the best in the world --based on Common law framework, right to trial by jury, freedom of speech until 2040. Private banks are authorized to print money/bank notes (HSBC, Standard Chartered, Hang Seng, Bank of China), and the government keeps taxes low (no sales tax and income capped at 15%, 10% if you're in medicine or education). There are no tariffs or excise, and the government sustains public services by hiring and paying good salaries of competent public officials. Hell, their Chief Executive wears a bow tie and his website is <http://www.CEO.gov.hk>

In fact, I was surprised that all phones in Hong Kong are sold unlocked because government regulations require freedom of phone service. Which is where I bought my iPhone. (And it should come as no surprise that Singapore sells them locked.)

A lot of people think Hong Kong has been ruined by China, but so far, it reminds me a lot of what a startup country with rights would entail; I would venture to say that it is poster child of libertarianism. It is more capitalist than the States (subway and rail systems are privatized), yet provides excellent government benefits (the government makes money by selling land at market value and hiring good salespeople to do it). There is still no death penalty in Hong Kong, and the judicial system is one of the most balanced in the world, with judges that have remained since even during British rule (you are not required to be a Hong Konger to sit as a judge). Hong Kong isn't as clean as Singapore, but it's certainly friendlier to do business. (many Western businesses will not sign agreements with Chinese companies on the Mainland because of its legal framework; China Mobile, for instance, has its corporate headquarters in Hong Kong for this reason). You can't be put in jail just because you write something the government doesn't like. And a whiff of cannabis won't kill you either.

Singapore is similar, except they are probably closer to the Chinese in their ideaology. A lot of people ask me what I think a free China would look like. I said possibly very similar to Singapore, and the truth is, there is a lot in common with China. Taiwan, the so-called Republic of China or "free China," was a military dictatorship (complete with summary trials/executions) until 1993.

[1] You can see that this sustained China through 5,000 years of tyranny since Confucius was well-liked by Chinese kings since he sold brain-washing as a philosophy; that all must respect the parents, the state, and the teacher, because if you do all three, you'll respect me, the king.

[2] Edited for grammar and clarified that Hong Kong is the top ranking free economic system. The laws which are friendly to civil rights (including no death penalty which is still on the books in Japan, freedom of speech), fair application of the law, make it economically very free. However, 1/3 of the government is controlled by the Mainland, and the 2/3rds by corporate interests and the people. [http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong- blog/freest-econonom...](http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest- econonomy-rankings-2010)

<comment><USER15> > _In fact, I was surprised that all phones in Hong Kong are sold unlocked > because government regulations require freedom of phone service. Which is > where I bought my iPhone. (and it should come as no surprise that Singapore > sells them locked.) I would venture to say that [Hong Kong] is poster child > of libertarianism_

To clear up a common misconception I see (and I have no understanding of where this misunderstanding comes from), 'net neutrality' and everything of that ilk (including regulated phone unlocking) is NOT libertarian. It is the exact opposite.

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't say it's the exact opposite, though it's not libertarian. It does fit into a Hayekian view that government intervention is justified to promote free markets and competition. That's not quite libertarianism, but Hayek fans are often found near libertarian circles.

It seems to be somewhat an ends/means disagreement. Many branches of libertarianism argue that government interference with private contracts is inherently wrong. Other pro-capitalist views (Hayek among them), though, focus more on the outcomes, arguing that capitalism is good because competitive markets with decentralized decision-making mediated by price signals produce the best outcomes for humanity. Those holding the latter view don't have as blanket an opposition to all kinds of regulation, but would allow some kinds of regulation that are narrowly tailored towards promoting competitive markets. Adam Smith is probably the earliest precursor of that view; for example, he opposed most regulation, but supported requiring employers to pay wages in silver, because he thought on balance, prohibiting employers from paying their employees in IOUs promoted a functioning market economy, so the interference with the employer's absolute freedom to negotiate payment methods with their employees was justified. Hayek outlined a number of kinds of intervention he felt justified as well.

<comment><USER15> I mean, the disagreement certainly isn't over if certain government interventions can improve market efficiency, since they certainly can. But I disagree that the disagreement is really as principled as you say, over if the ends justify the means. The disagreement is most likely over if you can somehow give a government body a few powers (like those Hayek outlines) without ending up with something like we have now.

Great post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> (Disclaimer: I was born in Singapore, educated in the US and lived in the SF bay area for a while. Among other things, the overseas experience made me question a lot of things about Singapore and the US)

I beg to differ with the article and wonder if I'm a product of the system as the author described or that maybe he just hasn't lived long enough in Singapore. A lot of the content is outdated, in my opinion.

May I respectfully give a personal perspective on some remarks that I feel are rather over-the-top. Please let me know if you agree/disagree:

> A lot of people ask me what I think a free China would look like. I said > possibly very similar to Singapore, and the truth is, there is a lot in > common with China.

To be frank, I think that could not be further from the truth. As a Singaporean Chinese, I find my way of thinking very different from that of friends and even relatives from mainland China. It has been reported that Deng Xiaoping and other senior members of the Chinese government looked to Singapore for ideas on economic, social and political reform back then, but I think how policies were eventually implemented were very different.

> Don't forget to remember the simple guideline that epitomizes Singapore's > reaction to lawbreaking on the back of the disembarkation card on the plane > in bold, all-caps red letters: "Welcome to Singapore. Death to drug > traffickers under Singapore law."

Like what someone else said, on paper, Singapore looks horrible but in reality, it's just like any other country. I chew gum on the streets, I could leave trash outside of bins if I wanted to, sometimes I forget to flush after using a public restroom... (silly examples but tongue firmly in cheek) all without penalty.

On one hand, some laws like the penalties for drug-trafficking seem draconian by comparison. On the other, I wonder if it is because of these strict laws that one is able to wander around alone almost anywhere at night without fear. Or simply, if you don't want to be arrested, don't bring illegal drugs into the country...

> Also don't get stuck there with out health cover/travel insurance or you > will regret it, its not malaysia/thailand.

You're right that on average Malaysia/Thailand heathcare costs are probably cheaper. Currently I have no health insurance and pay less than US$30 every time I go into a public health clinic for a cold, an annual physical or a dental checkup. A lot of people from the region actually come to Singapore for good, reliable health-care, leading to a medical tourism boom in recent decades.

> Challenge the Lee dictatorship and comeback and tell us how little they > care.

Well, I question government policies openly in public, and so far, I haven't found myself behind bars. Maybe I'm just not important enough ;)

Speaking about the government... I wish for more transparency on how the government invests money from its sovereign funds(i.e. taxpayers' money). I hope silly election tactics like redrawing of electoral boundaries won't be used anymore, etc.

But I do want the efficient, corruption-free(at certain levels, it still helps if one has the right connections though) bureaucratic processes to continue to flourish.

As a startup founder, I found it a breeze to get incorporated(2 days), rent an office and complete the administrative-type tasks. However, innovation certainly seems to be a problem. The jump from years of mainly being indoctrinated with "trust the government to do the right thing", "study hard and be a good worker" to "come up with your own ideas!", "be unique!"(which ironically, is being promoted by the government!) will take some time, I guess.

Government-supported investment funds may abound, but I get the impression that those guys are terribly risk-averse and want to back certain winners.

> Singapore Airlines is notorious for discriminating age, sex, and lookgs for > its flight attendants.

I'm not a fan of Singapore Airlines, but one is certainly free to sue them for discriminatory practices.

Pardon my long, at times sarcastic response. I guess I get somewhat annoyed when binary statements are repeatedly made based on things that I think have obvious shades of gray.

Anyway, come to Singapore and let's have coffee sometime; I'd love to meet up with fellow HNers and chat about this funny island country of mine!

<comment><USER18> > Singapore Airlines is notorious for discriminating age, sex, and looks for > its flight attendants.

That's kind of funny considering the opening of the article was written from the perspective of Hollywood, which isn't exactly known to foster the careers of talented but less attractive actresses, let alone ones past their 30's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I found this to be very interesting but at the same time nearly impossible to read. It might have something to do with the average number of commas per sentence being around 5.

</comment><comment><USER20> Singapore is no longer a Disneyland as there are now two casinos, one is by Sands.

</comment><comment><USER21> Funny thing is that Disneyland _does_ have a death penalty...last time I checked...</comment>