Bing: Why Google's Wrong In Its Accusations - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279 <comment><USER3> Given that Bing clearly uses the clickstream to influence its results pages, at what point to SEO folks run farms of machines in a network which resolve 'google.com' to a process that returns a fixed set of results for a given query?

Imagine this scenario, I create 10,000 VM instances of windows running IE8 with the Bing toolbar. I create a local host to 'stand in' for Google such that it emulates the actual Google site (one could even used scraped Google content) and for my 'target' query it returns my spammy results, and then my VM machine clicks on one of the spammy links.

It seems that Google's sting worked because their queries had small return rates, but with some resources it would seem a viable way to inject SEO love right into the bloodstream of Bing's ranking algorithm. As I see it, a whole new front just opened up for spammers.

\--Chuck

<comment><USER4> This is like gaming Google Suggest. You're going to need a lot of IP's because they're not idiots in Redmond OR Mountain View and it's pretty simple to detect behavior like that coming from a single IP.

If the spammer gets 10,000 IPs then more power to him. But there's probably more cost effective ways of black-hat SEO.

<comment><USER5> The spammers already control botnets of that size. They could duplicate the clickstream data with a few lines of code (it's a simple HTTP request feeding Bing the clicks; the only sticky parts are deciding which Bing IP to send them to and harvesting the per-computer ID it sends to Bing).

In short, this gives them a new service to sell when they rent out their existing botnet.

<comment><USER4> Then by your logic, they're already gaming Google Suggest. And with Instant Search, that's the holy grail. Who needs to optimize placement on a given keyword if you can just nudge users towards your desired keyword.

Or, what's more likely, is that the respective companies are aware of this very obvious vector and have attended to it.

<comment><USER5> What makes you assume that no one is attempting that?

Botnets are run off of the computers of ordinary, clueless folks, who might be real Bing users submitting real data in addition to whatever the botnet sends.

I've already linked to an analysis of the actual protocol data submitted by the toolbar and I can see obvious ways to copy and fake it.

If you use only the computers in your set that already have Bing, copy that unique ID and figure out what IP they're sending it to, your data will be identical to that sent by a real user.

At that point, you have to harden the protocol and hope it stands up to reverse engineering, or start spam filtering it (if they weren't already). Maybe they can do a good job of that, but it really lowers the quality of the data they're getting once enough people are feeding them garbage.

SEO types already set up thousands of spam websites to game PageRank. I don't see why this would be any different.

<comment><USER3> I suspect that they are, and when you can simulate a million users doing what ever activity you want them to be doing then the impact on Google and lots of stuff will change.

Of course my favorite was the Amazon hack of repeatedly putting some item in a shopping cart and then adding in a bit of pr0n (or some other weird combination) so that Amazon would put the other item in their auto suggest product combination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very clear writeup. I thought this was an excellent point:

"PR is not leading this dispute. It's following behind. This dispute is happening because real engineers at Google felt there was a deep injustice going on — as reflected in the quote from Google's Amit Singhal in my original article. I've known Singhal for years. I've never seen him speak like this before. It's not because Google PR told him to. It's because he's fundamentally bothered by what he's seen — as are members of his team.

This dispute is also happening because real engineers at Bing feel there's a deep injustice going on — as reflected in the quote from Harry Shum above. Bing's worked incredibly hard to build a search engine that's worthy of respect. Now here's Google suggesting that Bing has simply cheated its way to relevancy."

The conversation with moultano on a thread a couple days ago was a good example of this. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2177354>

</comment><comment><USER7> From this article:

"We're not going to stop using that signal, unless it messes up relevancy. It doesn't make sense to exclude that large amount of traffic from our usage set," Weitz said.

From the TechCrunch article a few days back [1]:

"Google had employees log onto ms customer feedback system and send results to Microsoft."

(to which Matt Cutts replied: normal people call that "IE8")

Unlike many others, I do not think this is a cut-and-dry issue, but the squirrelly responses from the MS folks on this have really made me think they are just up to no good, true to the form of so much of their corporate history. Arguing with vague technical terms and ad-hominem attacks are not a good way to convince a highly technical crowd of your virtues.

[1] <http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/01/bing-google-fight/>

<comment><USER8> From the article: "Meanwhile, I'm on my third day of waiting to hear back from Google about just what exactly it does with its own toolbar. Now that the company has fired off accusations against Bing about data collection, Google loses the right to stay as tight-lipped as it has been in the past about how the toolbar may be used in search results."

And Google's sudden silence you don't find suspicious. This is the same company that invited the author of the original article to their headquarters the day after he wrote it.

<comment><USER9> You suggest Google Toolbar collects Bing search results?

<comment><USER8> Inadvertently like the Bing toolbar. It has been shown to log every pageview like Bing toolbar. Whether they filter out the pageviews when a user goes to Bing no one knows besides Google. (ie: The article below shows they definetly do not filter it out at the application level as a Yahoo query is sent back by the Google Toolbar and Yahoo now runs on Bing).

<http://www.benedelman.org/news/012610-1.html>

<comment><USER10> Well MS now knows how to perform this sting, so I'm sure we'll hear if their results show up on google. Until then, you have zero evidence.

<comment><USER8> Sigh....Two things: 1) Performing this sting and it working or failing wouldn't prove if they did it in the past...The cat's out of the bag. Bing or Google could have easily changed their systems. (and I'm sure the way the two incorporate clickstreams into their search engine is VASTLY different)

2) More importantly, why would Microsoft need to prove google is also using clickstreams? Microsoft does not believe using clickstreams is wrong.

<comment><USER11> > 2) More importantly, why would Microsoft need to prove google is also using > clickstreams? Microsoft does not believe using clickstreams is wrong.

If they can make Google a hypocrite, the issue goes away. that's motivation enough for Bing to investigate the Google side (though I doubt they'd find much).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would wager most of the people commenting don't work in search and how to use datamining to improve search. I think it is useful to see the perspective of someone that actually thinks long and hard about building these types of systems before commenting on whether it is fair or innovative or just plain stealing. <http://hunch.net/?p=1660>

</comment><comment><USER13> So Microsoft's defense is that they are not copying Google in particular -- they are copying _every_ search engine?

<comment><USER14> Exactly. <http://www.bonkersworld.net/2011/02/04/copying/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So it somehow eluded them that most of the searches done anywhere are done on Google? I don't buy it. If you have a "search signal" it's going to be effectively a "Google signal," and they aren't being honest if they contend otherwise.

<comment><USER16> They didn't say "web search", they said "search". Nearly every website has a search box. Most of my searches in any given day are not on Google - they're on Amazon, Wikipedia, Netflix, StackOverflow, Facebook, etc. Bing's toolbar is watching all of those.

<comment><USER17> Most of the searches I do are on the firefox search field. If I want to search within a specific site, I use the "site:" parameter to restrict results by domain.

<comment><USER18> The number of people who use that feature is not of statistical significance.

<comment><USER19> And your data showing is....where?

I can of course say, I use this feature, and of course point to others who do, but I don't have data to say it is significant. However, you have stipulated it is not, but have not provided any data to prove it.

<comment><USER18> I don't have any data showing that, but come on. Think about alllll the people out there who log into Facebook by Googling "www.facebook.com". That's your average internet user, not you and me.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure how much you interact with the "average internet user", but when I do help desk roles, as well as my role working for a floating university, I interact with hundreds of non-technical end users (Given my job history, I've interacted with thousands over the years). What I can tell you is that basing any theory about statistical anomalies on your preconceived notions without any hard data to back it up is usually an exercise in failure.

<comment><USER18> And how many of the people you talk to do you think use the site: operator?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I worked on the Bing AI team (pre-launch), they didn't copy Google. If anything, both search engines copy wikipedia. I believe that this was the click-stream research done by an intern researcher from UBC.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think there is a DEEP flaw in this argument:

"Here's another one. This time, it's a misspelling of "bombilate," a rare word I cited above. I searched for "bombilete," instead.."

In essence, they say that Google only pointed to the typo, but Bing redirected to it. Thus, "it's very unlikely it figured this out from Google". For me, making that argument is insulting to the readers intelligence.

<comment><USER22> You missed part of the argument:

"But it's very unlikely it figured this out from Google, given that for the misspelling, Google doesn't auto-correct the word nor provide the same answer."

Bing's nr 1 result is not in Google's results at all.

<comment><USER15> Google has the spell correction. Microsoft could certainly be harvesting that data directly. (Which appears to be what they are doing on that query.)

<comment><USER23> Very true...they might be doing this as part of their "cost cutting" exercises.Hasheem had mentioned this and I am not sure what made him to mention "cost cutting" in that panel discussion where Matt and Blekko CEO participated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Round and round the speculation wheel goes! Where it stops, no one knows!

</comment><comment><USER24> Using what people click on from search results from competing search engines sounds like copying the competition to me.

It sounds like they automated the process of piggy backing off the work of other search engines, not just Google.

They should exclude all competing search engines from this process.

</comment><comment><USER25> From the article (about spell correction):

> Well, above is the same situation where Bing gets a misspelled word right — > a link to a definition of the correctly spelled word at the top of the list. > But it's very unlikely it figured this out from Google, given that for the > misspelling, Google doesn't auto-correct the word nor provide the same > answer.

Perhaps because people first click on the spell correction and then on the result - so maybe they don't yet copy also the spell correction, only the results. I think this is even stronger that they copy the results, not weaker.

</comment><comment><USER26> Doesn't this passage suggest that Google ignores robots.txt in its own cross- comparisons of search relevancy:

 _Google said in October that it found statistical evidence that Bing suddenly became more Google-like. More listings in the first page of results of both search engines seemed to match, as did more of the number one results._

How would you get statistically significant results for such things, over time, without constant automated probe queries against Bing?

I think such probes are both legal and wise... but Google should drop the pretense that robots.txt is a sacred barrier across which no analysis can be done, no matter how indirect or for what purpose.

Also, I'd wager at some time in its history – if not constantly even today – Google has shown panels of users results from Google and its competitors in various combinations – side-by-side, with and without branding, intermixed randomly – and used their reactions to detect areas where the competitors are doing well, and Google could improve.

Further, either human eyes or algorithms then tried to determine adjustments to close any gaps in user satisfaction. The net effect of any such process is – surprise, surprise! – leveraging strengths of _other_ engines to patch weaknesses in Google. This is normal, expected behavior by any serious search competitor.

<comment><USER27> I think there is a major difference between identifying areas for improvement and copying a specific search result from a competitor.

<comment><USER26> I don't see it as that different. If the panel suggests a competitor's top-10 result is strongly preferred, and then Google examines why they didn't have that in their top-10, and tinkers with their weightings until they do, then they've used a competitor's output signals to train their own systems.

<comment><USER15> >I don't see it as that different.

It is _very very_ different. You can't tinker with the weighting of something that doesn't exist, and if you don't have the necessary data, no amount of reweighting is going to improve things. Microsoft in this case no longer needs to come up with any data of their own, they can just use clicks on Google as a proxy for any combination of signals.

<comment><USER26> Does Google use clicks from anywhere on the web other than their own sites as a ranking signal?

<comment><USER15> I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of everything we do, and I couldn't tell you if I did.

Amit has made it _very_ clear however, that we will _never_ do anything that would cause us to directly or indirectly copy a competitor's search results.

<comment><USER26> It's clear to me Google wouldn't intentionally do something identical to what Bing's done.

But given what Googlers can't say, and don't even know about what other groups within Google are doing, it's not ' _very_ clear' to me that you aren't already doing _very very_ analogous things, with regard to every other site on the internet.

You've got the data; you're allowed to use it by your privacy policy; you've got the rationalizations handy. ("Sites didn't block us; fully-informed users opted-in; this is a crucial way to fight the manipulators; it's only helping us weight things we already found by other means; etc.")

Amit's not made anything clear to me, with his finessed "put any results" wording. Danny Sullivan picked this up too, as he remarks in the headlined article:

 _Google's initial denial that it has never used toolbar data "to put any results on Google's results pages" immediately took a blow given that site speed measurements done by the toolbar DO play a role in this. So what else might the toolbar do?_

There's wiggle room in the definitions of 'copy' and 'competitor' in your 'never' promise, too. Is it OK if Google Toolbar data hoovers up implied editorial-quality signals from user navigation on every site that isn't a 'competitor'? (And given Google's size, what site isn't a competitor in some respects for audience share?) Is it 'copying' if your use of clicktrails makes a preexisting result move from #11 to #9 after you observe it satisfying people in other browsing sessions? Move from #99 to #2?

(Has the effect of any of Google's competitive analysis ever resulted in a single result moving closer to the position, higher or lower, that it had at a studied competitor? Some people could call that 'copying'.)

Maybe none of the clickstream sources Google uses stick out as a dominating factor because Google has so effectively "commoditized its complements" – and no one other entity (except maybe Facebook) has access to as much clickstream data as Google does, simply from its own sites.

Given that, it seems a little convenient that Google's standard is "every aggressively creative use of behavioral trails that led up to our 70%-90% share dominance was OK, but from now on let's be really rigorous about letting others observe our info-effluents."

<comment><USER15> For more official policy you'd have to ask either Amit or Matt. I can't speak for the company here.

Speaking only for myself and only on the ethics, I generally feel that any site that allows itself to be indexed is pretty happy with Google (or bing) doing whatever they can to rank it better. Even with the link data that sites provide, you can add rel=nofollow to the links if you don't want search engines to use them but still want your pages indexed (yelp has done this for instance.)

For me that's the ethical boundary. Sites have various ways of indicating their wishes, and that ought to be respected in spirit beyond the technical details.

Legally, the technologies that make the internet work all rely on the idea of fair use, so it is very important whether something is "fair."

<comment><USER26> I've seen no statement that Google throws out Toolbar (and other) clickstream data for sites/pages that Googlebot can't visit (which includes not just robots-precluded but also login-required pages). Not that I think you should throw such data out; that's not what robots.txt was meant for, and the user arguably has more claim to that interaction trail than the site. But that seems the standard you're suggesting.

If Google doesn't want IE features or the Bing Toolbar observing its site interactions, it can disallow such visitors. A steep price to pay, at too coarse a level of control? Yes, just like a site deciding to bar Googlebot.

I would agree that a 'fair use'-like analysis makes sense.

I would further agree that any site solely, or predominantly, powered by indirect observations of Google users would be an unfair taking. You'd crush such a site in court.

Meanwhile, a site that tallies Google referrer inclicks for itself, or for a network of participating sites (as with analytics inserts), even republishing summaries of Google source URLs and search terms as public data, is almost certainly fair use. It's taking data you're dropping freely onto third-party site logs, and making a transformative report of it.

What Bing is doing seems to me somewhere in-between. The mechanism avoids literal copying of specific artifacts but the net effect in some cases approaches the same result. As with other 'fair use' analysis, it's rarely black-and-white. The magnitude of the information used, its effects on the market, and the value-added transformation afterward are all important. I don't know how a court would rule in such a suit but the discovery process would surely be fun for spectators like myself!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I found this very strange... Did Bing increase clickstream data usage in their algorithm when Google saw Bing results get more Google-like in October of 2010 or not?

 _Shrum:_

      Not so, Bing told me. In October, Bing says it rolled out a new
      ranking algorithm plus a new experimental system called "Aether"
      that allows them to test changes in their ranking methodology.
      That's what caused the bump that Google saw, not some sudden use
      of the surfstream, Bing said.

_Web (during October 2010):_

[http://www.google.com/search?q=Bing+new+ranking+algorithm...](http://www.google.com/search?q=Bing+new+ranking+algorithm&&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:10/1/2010,cd_max:10/31/2010)

</comment><comment><USER29> Good article (a surprisingly heartfelt article -- odd for a tech blog). Key paragraphs: _Bing says it does NOT do this. It says there is no Google specific search signal that it being used, no list of all the popular pages as selected just by Google users. Instead, it has a 'search signal' based on searching activity observed across a range of sites.

For example, if you did a search on Amazon, Bing might detect that. A search on eBay might get spotted. A search on Yahoo, that also might get extracted. Any number of searches might be identified. Bing would associate the next page you went to after doing those searches as being a possible 'answer' to those searches._

<comment><USER30> I think comparisons to Amazon or eBay search are misleading. Amazon only indexes and searches its own site - the same goes for eBay. So of course these companies wouldn't mind if Bing copied some of their search results - <USER2> all, this would only end up driving more traffic to their sites - since their search results link back to their own sites.

It's a much different case when Microsoft is copying search results from Google or another whole-web search site. There Microsoft is directly competing with their product, and the bottom-line is that it's fundamentally fishy for Microsoft to be using their own search results against them.

<comment><USER4> Copying search results. I love the notion of that.

Somewhere in the world at this moment there's a person with the Bing Toolbar installed searching for something using Google. One of his results is to a website, for the sake of narrative lets suppose it's one of our own: A YC startup.

The searcher clicks to the YC startup, it's exactly what he's looking for, he converts.

Now, another searcher, using Bing by choice, searches that same term. That YC startup is in the results. The click is made, another conversion happens.

The first user consented to his click analysis by installing the toolbar.

The startup will surely agree that yes, we are a very good result for that term! We should show up on Bing, DDG, Google, Whatever! And we don't care how we get there!

The second user gets a result that's maybe ranked higher because of the first users click was noticed by Bing.

Google doesn't lose a customer because the second searcher was already on Bing to begin with.

Bing does nothing but analyze their own users' behavior (users of their toolbar) to deliver better results.

I find controversy over this beyond absurd.

<comment><USER31> > The first user consented to his click analysis by installing the toolbar.

The toolbar says nothing about taking his data to improve Bing, only for Site- Suggestion which, to average user, is clearly a browser feature.

> Google doesn't lose a customer because the second searcher was already on > Bing to begin with.

What about one who could have converted to Google if he search on Bing and didn't find a result?

Google couldn't lose a customer but there's no way Google would gain a conversion from Bing in this situation.

> Bing does nothing but analyze their own users' behavior

Assuming that this is a search result that Bing wouldn't have found by itself, then this "user behavior" wouldn't have occurred for Bing to capture had Google not exist.

Without Google each user can then probably only have behavior of clicking same old web site they have collected from long ago, there's no search engine for them to learn new relevant site easily.

<comment><USER4> Don't take it personally that I'm not going to "line by line" your comment the way you did mine -- I'm pretty busy today.

But the issue is, my clickstream is _mine_. If I chose to share it with somebody -- Bing, Google, My Mom -- it's my choice.

If I, as a user, don't want Bing to have access to my clickstream, I won't install their toolbar.

But if I do, it's not Google's business.

<comment><USER23> The issue is simple..google uses all its heavy resources to rank that startup as #1. (good or bad).But bing just uses their toolbar to capture that information and rank them. They call this "cost cutting".Doesn't this sound cheap?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It is known to all that both use user data in whatever way possible.But what bing seem to be doing it is use it on users searching on google (through IE etc. or maybe even windows) and find the more relevant ones.Did you guys notice Harry Shum mentioning about "cost cutting" in the video where Matt, he and the blekko CEO discuss on this issue.

So, it looks like bing is indirectly using google's data by incurring lesser cost and this is how they seem do it.Spy on google searchers and build the right database. instead of spending on innovation and new ways on the algorithm. Let google do that part while we piggy back on their good ones.

This is what has really irritated google.

</comment><comment><USER32> Remember when the polarizing search battle was between Google and Yahoo? ...yeah neither do I.

These battles do nothing more than establish the two dominate players.</comment>


Brexit: European Commission Wants to Cancel 317,000 .eu Domains Owned by Brits - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/brexit-european-commission-wants-to-cancel-317-000-eu-domains-owned-by-brits/ <comment><AUTHOR> Link to the official notice here: [http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426832-Notice-to- Sta...](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426832-Notice-to-Stakeholders- Brexit-Eu-Domain-Names.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16714581](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16714581)</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg's Philanthropy Uses L.L.C. For More Control - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/technology/zuckerbergs-philanthropy-uses-llc-for-more-control.html <comment><USER2> I don't think I've seen a single positive statement about Zuckerberg's foundation.

It would have been 100% fully within his right to simply keep it all, or blow his fortune on snorting Fabergé eggs, or buying classic cars and crashing them.

Instead, he's giving almost all of it away. He's choosing to retain control over how it's given away? Well so what! It's still way better than keeping it all.

I am no fan of Facebook, but man, the amount of vitriol coming out about this move just astounds me. Giving away 99% of your wealth is apparently not commendable unless you do it _just right_. Meanwhile, how much are the commenters themselves giving away? Oh, somewhat less than 99%? Yeah.

<comment><USER3> "Meanwhile, how much are the commenters themselves giving away? Oh, somewhat less than 99%? Yeah."

Terrible statement. If a commenter here makes 100,000 and gives away 99% well they are now extremely poor. If I have billions and give away 99% my life isn't likely to change.

<comment><USER4> Well, 50%? 25%? 5%?

<comment><USER5> Even 5% is a lot if you already have difficulties making ends meet. I mean you still want to invest something to have some kind of a cushion if you lose your job right?

So yes, for someone with little income donating 5% can already be too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> By putting money in the LLC he can avoid estate taxes and still give his family control if he wants.

>To sum up, his money is not going to a charity, but to his own LLC, which will let him evade tax by moving his private assets into a foundation.

>Unlike a charitable trust, which is compelled to spend its money on charity, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC will be able to spend its money on whatever it wants, including private, profit-generating investment.

From: [http://says.com/my/news/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about- mar...](http://says.com/my/news/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-mark- zuckerberg-donating-99-of-his-fortune-to-charity)

<comment><USER7> I don't see how this is a problem. He's following the law and organizing his affairs to retain control of the money he earned.

You aren't less of a citizen because you try to not pay more tax than you owe. The exemptions for certain types of income are put there because the legislature wants to promote certain activities as beneficial to the public good. Charitable Remainder Trusts are one of those things written into the law. Complain to your lawmakers if you think that's unfair.

Seriously. does anyone reading this post think the government is a better steward of their income than they are? If you think so, then donate 100% of your income to the government and live on public assistance. That option is provided on the tax return you sign here in the USA.

<comment><USER8> This sort of mindset only works when rich people are not the ones making laws in the first place. The law is not independent of the rich - they can influence the laws they follow. That's why it is a problem.

<comment><USER9> and what happens when we let the "poor" make laws? Endless welfare, unaffordable backroom union deals, massive corruption, massive taxation to move money from the uppers to the lowers, etc. Just visit Chicago or Greece to see what happens when the power shifts to the unions instead of companies.

Also, 'rich' is often a placeholder for companies. Companies want to be successful. That means compromise in a million different ways as bold moves can lead to bankruptcy, boycotts, competitors coming in and taking your market share, etc. Companies have an incentive to play ball as they want to survive and be competitive. Government, on the other hand, survives by default and doesn't have to be efficient at all.

The reality is that good government works when we have all players mobilized and part of the process. Its incredibly cynical to just claim the rich make laws to benefit themselves, especially considering that the US runs on a popular democracy model to the point of directly electing the highest office, which is unheard of in parliamentary democracies. The rich are vastly outnumbered. Perhaps you should consider that a lot of regular people vote in policies that are pro-business because they want jobs and wealth in their area. Not everyone can become a silicon valley hotshot or NYC finance banker. Those 'red state' policies you hate so much bring in employers, jobs, create wealth, etc. We tried communism. Turns out it didnt work. In fact it led to the deaths of 50-100m people and created autocracies, war, political persecution, poverty, and misery on a level unimaginable before.

My friends here in Chicago are all looking for new jobs because a couple employers have already left and many are planning on leaving as the tax level and anti-business attitudes here are killing the economy. This is a city of 3m people with a $550b GDP and we have a junk credit rating and no one knows how to pay off these fatcat union pensions. So yeah, be careful what you wish for. When the average guy has political power, he just writes checks for his friends at the cost of the taxpayer and the local economy. Without the business owning class calling some of the shots, there's really no incentive to do anything right as you can just keep dipping into the public treasury and when that runs out just keep raising taxes per the Chicago model. Which inevitably culminates into a Detriot-like bankruptcy.

<comment><USER8> A transfer of wealth from the upper class to the lower class is the price we pay for civilization. No welfare to the poor means they have no incentive not to kill you.

<comment><USER7> AYFKM?

If you kill all the rich people and take their money, who is going to be left to organize businesses or produce the kinds of inventions that benefit society? The "next-richest" people?

A society that demonizes its most successful members is a doomed one.

<comment><USER8> Inventions can be made through state grants (a lot of innovation is already funded by state grants like NIH). Who told you rich people finance innovation?

A society that demonizes its poorest is a doomed one.

<comment><USER9> >state grants like NIH

The PhD's, researchers, and managers at Federal organizations make salaries that would classy them as "rich" in this scenario. Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean its thrifty, efficient, or "for the people." If anything, considering what we know of how governments all over the world work, its more than likely public research and programs are wasteful and corrupt compared to private equivalents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If anything, this transaction will actually result in more taxes being levied than if he had transferred it to a foundation. There still will be capital gains tax when the LLC sells Facebook shares. It will pay income tax on any dividends. Any investments it makes will similarly be treated. There will be no estate tax dodge. The LLC will be valued at the value of its assets at the death of the last spouse and estate tax will be levied at 40% on that value.

Please, someone, tell me how this is a tax dodge.

<comment><USER11> There's no scenario under which this is a tax dodge. A charitable foundation would have been superior when it comes to limiting taxes. People ignorant of LLCs and the tax code are the only ones claiming this is a tax dodge, it's an easy smear because so few understand said tax code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Its sad to see how these comments are going focus on this being a tax dodge. He is doing SOMETHING with 99% of his money for the greater good.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily. He has just moved it around. He is ANNOUNCING he will do something good. He could use all the money to bankroll candidates or invest in for-profit companies. Nothing has changed yet except that he can avoid estate taxes. He however has said he will do something "good".

<comment><USER10> As far as I understand, he wouldn't avoid estate taxes. Whoever dies last would still own the LLC as an asset and the estate is taxed on the value of that asset. With their combined estate tax exemption, about $10.5 million, any value over that would be taxed at 40%. Unless he remains true to his word and he expects to spend it all before he dies.

The only "avoidance" of taxes happening here is during the initial transaction of transferring the Facebook shares to the LLC's ownership. Of course as the LLC sells shares that have gained value, the capital gain would be taxed, as would any dividends or growth from any other investments the LLC makes.

<comment><USER6> I don't want to be totally negative on Zuckerburg. Maybe he will do good with the money. However:

An estate would not be taxed on the value of the LLC, the same way one he is not taxed on the value of his stock. It is taxed when sold. If he assigns family members as owners there would not be additional taxes when he passes away if the LLC's money continues to grow.

>11\. Limited Liability Company (LLC) and Family Limited Partnership (FLP) FLPs and LLCs let you reduce estate taxes by transferring assets like a family business, farm, real estate or stocks to your children now, and still keep some control. They can also protect the assets from future lawsuits and creditors.

>Here's how they work. You and your spouse can set up an LLC or FLP and transfer assets to it. In exchange, you receive ownership interests. Though you have a fiduciary obligation to other owners, you control the LLC (as manager) or FLP (as general partner). You can give ownership interests to your children, which removes value from your taxable estate. These interests cannot be sold or transferred without your approval, and because there is no market for these interests, their value is often discounted. This lets you transfer the underlying assets to your children at a reduced value, without losing control.

[https://www.estateplanning.com/Understanding-Estate- Taxes/](https://www.estateplanning.com/Understanding-Estate-Taxes/)

<comment><USER13> That's not true. The estate would be taxed at 40% for any value of the LLC over about $10.5 million (today's estate-tax exemption).

Family LLCs can work for reducing the estate tax if you transfer ownership interests during your lifetime at a reduced valuation, owing to the fact that the membership interests are not marketable, giving them a lower value than the market value of whatever the LLC holds.

The only way you avoid the estate tax is if you transfer an asset to an irrevocable trust or your family members before the asset gains significant value. If you own, directly or indirectly, an asset that has significant value, it is taxed at death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can we all just reserve judgement until Zuckerberg does something with the money? I'm hoping he'll be able to do something along the lines of what Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation have done/are doing.

<comment><USER15> No, we can't and shouldn't. He made a public announcement of a major action while talking about the public consequences, so public critique is appropriate.

When he actually does something with the money, I'm sure they'll talk about it, so we can talk about it again then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know Mark and can't comment on his essay or this article.

I can, however, note that on at least 3 different occasions in the last year or so I've read a heartfelt essay on somebody making sacrifices for the common good -- only to later realize they were just setting up a tax dodge.

I do not think these things are mutually exclusive. You can both work for the common good while trying to legally avoid paying taxes. Heck, I'd rather smart people actively and passionately manage their money for the greater good, especially people with a track record of doing great things. More power to them. But I can relate that as a reader, once I finally figured it out what was going on, I was very disappointed. It was not a pleasant experience.

<comment><USER17> If you're trying to do as much good as possible for the world, and you don't think government taxes are used for much good, taking advantage of legal tax write-offs is really important to achieve your goal.

</comment></comment><comment> matt-attack I thought it was impossible to donate money (in a tax deductible manner) if you the donor had any direct control of how the money was spent. This was supposed to prevent folks from, say, donating their money to a charity which then sends their own child to college.

<comment><USER18> That's not entirely true. I run a 501(c)(3) and I can donate to it and deduct it from my income. But I also don't pay myself out of it (or anyone really), and I have to be careful not to make purchasing/leasing etc. deals with relatives (not a problem in my case). The issue is not control, but disbursement of funds. Giving is fine, its how you use it that is scrutinized.

Think of it this way: let's say the nonprofit needs pens from office depot. I could also just as easily have paid out of pocket and not donated to the (c)(3) and claimed it as a business expense, with the same net effect and less paperwork

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't blame him after what happened in New Jersey.

<comment><USER20> What happened in New Jersey was that Mark was naive.

<comment><USER16> For those interested, here's a link (I looked it up): [http://www.businessinsider.com/we-now-know-more-about-how- ne...](http://www.businessinsider.com/we-now-know-more-about-how-newark- schools-partially-squandered-mark-zuckerburgs-100-million-donation-2015-10)

<comment><USER21> Any accounts of what happened? This used a whole lot of words to say almost nothing. It basically says it didn't work, but didn't go into any details of why beyond a high level complaint about beurocracy

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is interesting only because Mark didn't address it head on from the start, but honestly it's not all that surprising.

Private foundations have something called "expenditure responsibility" which makes giving funds to a taxable entity (a grant) tremendously annoying. Any misstep makes you liable to some massive surcharges, public scrutiny, and potentially major headaches. It's the antithesis to Mark's "move fast and break things"

There's some argument he should push for a public charity instead. There, expenditure responsibility isn't expressly required, but you're still expected to see that the money you grant is used for our charitable purpose, and still subject to audit.

I'm expecting them to write quite the essay in response. On it's face, I don't think people should fault this decision. I'm fully expecting a strong effort to use this money efficiently, which is no easy task with such a massive sum. Check out GiveWells recent post about trying to "give away" Dustin Moskiwitz and Cari Tuna's money - which I believe is an order of magnitude less in volume, but still very challenging.

</comment><comment><USER23> This article has the issue completely wrong from the first sentence. LLC and corporations are both organizational structures; either an LLC or a corporation can be a regular, tax-exposed operation, or a tax-exempt non- profit under the tax code (including a tax-exempt charity under 501(c)(3)). The fact that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is an LLC _does not_ distinguish it from a non-profit; the fact (if it is a fact, and I can't really see drawing a strong conclusion on that on the basis of an article that starts out from a premise that confuses organization structure with tax-exempt non-profit status -- but the other discussion in the article from other sources seems consistent with it being an LLC that is _not_ intended as a tax-exempt non- profit) that it doesn't comply with any of the categories for tax exemption and hasn't applied for recognition as a tax-exempt non-profit would.

Really, a non-tax-exempt entity (whether LLC, corporation, or any other organizational structure) makes sense to coordinate philanthropic activities if you want to have flexibility that a 501(c)(3) wouldn't have and, since the funds are all coming from you, you don't need the incentive to donors that the tax-deductibility of donations to a 501(c)(3) would provide. If its a disregarded entity for tax purposes (which it can be with a sole owner or, IIRC, co-owners who are a married couple who file jointly), then anything the LLC donates to a 501(c)(3) has the same effect on the taxpayers liability as if the taxpayer had donated directly to the 501(c)(3). The same person could even establish one or more 501(c)(3) entities -- again, of any organizational structure, including LLCs -- through which to which the non-exempt LLC would donate funds for purposes that are within the scope of what is permitted for a 501(c)(3).

</comment><comment><USER24> Good for them, why shouldn't they retain control over how their money is dispersed?

A LLC also has the advantage of being structured by a custom operating agreement, that can allow the members to cover all kinds of different scenarios to insure their vision is executed they way they intend.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll give $300 million for [https://www.change.org/p/independent-nation- for-300-million-...](https://www.change.org/p/independent-nation- for-300-million-india-s-untouchables)

</comment><comment><USER26> Did anybody see the part in the letter to the daughter that went into detail as to why the family made the decision to structure the legacy into an LLC instead of a traditional charity or trust? No? Wonder why they left that part out.</comment>


Mathematical Book Reviews - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/bookrev/bookrev.html

<comment><USER2> The Book Review Column edited by William Gasarch seems to include a rather large proportional of books that, given a suitable undergraduate-level background, a person can hope simply to enjoy. A person can hope to grow with them, rather than climb them. I look forward to flipping through these reviews to see, will I indeed enjoy this or that?

Now, I have read only a small portion of math books. But, Protter and Morrey, Dummit and Foote, books by Strang, books by Rudin? Isn't this quite a different category? Sure, many mathematical books are books we should note, books we should collect, books we should teach. If you are the kind of person who sits around chewing and digesting such books, congratulations. But then, haven't you probably read all the reviews that you need already?

Edit: Whoops! Now I think that my perception is quite biased because a) many books that he reviews don't require much more than excellent high-school mathematics skills and b) I personally enjoy math books more that are more closely related to computation. Gasarch's book review column is written for SIGACT, ACM's Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory. Still, my point was that this list of math books is not so much like some other lists of math books.

<comment><USER3> I think the authors opinion is interesting. I looked up the review for Analytic Combinatorics and the author suggests going into some depth would take about three semesters. The Coursera MOOC is of course six weeks long and probably not in as much depth. Interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you are into things like this, I also recommend:

[http://www.cargalmathbooks.com/](http://www.cargalmathbooks.com/)

<comment><USER5> Extra resources:

[http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm](http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm) [http://math-blog.com/mathematics-books/](http://math-blog.com/mathematics- books/)</comment></comment>


Priced out of Paris - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a096d1d0-d2ec-11e2-aac2-00144feab7de.html

<comment><USER2> I find it kind of mind-boggling to read an article like this and not mention _why_ cities are so expensive. Is it because construction is expensive? No, it is because restrictive zoning does not permit an increase in supply, meaning nothing can compensate for the increased demand and prices go through the roof.

You can be in favor of restrictive zoning and still recognize that zoning policies are responsible for turning an increase in demand into a dramatic increase in price.

In the past cities were also highly desirable places for elites to live (think 5th avenue in the 1880's). But at that time the poor could also live there because construction was permitted. I don't advocate the massive slum-dwelling of that era, but I think it's important to recognize that it would be illegal to build Manhattan as it currently is anywhere in the United States now, or even in Brooklyn, despite intense demand for such density in areas like Silicon Valley. Essentially, the elite have made it illegal in most cases to construct their own preferred type of housing.

<comment><USER3> I feel the same way and it drives me nuts. When I bring this up many people flatout disagree: they either say that the new buildings will be just as expensive, or (in the bay area) complain about earthquakes. It's a very pressing issue really exacerbating the effects of income inequality, and the saddest part is how self-imposed it is.

This whole thing ordeal really makes me wish for mandatory economics courses: this is one of the simplest, clearest cases of supply and demand, but it's so rarely perceived as such.

<comment><AUTHOR> Having lived in SF and worked on the peninsula for 5 years, I can say that a lot of the earthquake proofing stuff is bunk.

Even if one agreed that limiting building heights to 10 stories significantly reduced quake-related casualties, there are plenty of places around San Francisco that should have higher-density buildings -- I'm looking at you, Mountain View.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Pastec, an open source image recognition platform for your mobile apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.pastec.io/

<comment><USER2> I liked your business model (free API as PRO service by doing as manageable and customization services), Good luck!

I have few question, 1) What does it return as response to API call. I feel like API documentation is not good enough. 2) Is it text extractor tool (or) just image classification tool?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello,

Thanks for your comment.

Pastec only allows to recognize images. You provide reference images with their corresponding unique integer identifiers. Pastec extracts features for each reference image and stores them in its database.

When you perform a request, Pastec compare the features of the request image with the ones stored in the index. If it detects that the request image is similar enough to one or more images of the index, then it returns their identifiers.

You can for example use Pastec to recognize DVD, CD or Book covers in a mobile app.

Currently, it does not allow to extract text from images. The documentation indeed needs improvements. I will work on it.

I Hope I answered your questions!

<comment><USER2> In a nutshell at this moment it is classification tool, but not based on pre- trained model. So, when it looks for feature index does it pick the first available (or) it iterates for best available? good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Inside Pastec, the images are represented using the visual word paradigm: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Word](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Word) During indexing, each image feature is assigned to the nearest visual word among a pre-trained set of 1 million. About 1000 visual words are extracted per image.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks great, I'm currently in the market for something like this.

Can any users give their experience using this over other alternatives? What sort of issues do you run into with regard to speed and/or accuracy?

Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello,

Thank you for your comment.

I have currently a test case with a 140 000 images index. The search time is less than 2 seconds on 3.00GHz Core2 Duo CPU with 4 GB of RAM. The accuracy is then, for me, satisfying . Pastec is still being developed and there are many possible improvements to reduce this time.

It is however difficult to compare Pastec with the competition as most image recognition APIs are not free for large databases.</comment></comment>


Who Do You Want In Your Deal? Do You Want Dead Funding? - <AUTHOR> http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/05/04/who-do-you-want-in-your-deal-do-you-want-dead-funding/

<comment><USER2> It makes a huge difference who your initial investors are. I have seen companies take money and give board seats to investors that know nothing about a start up. They can't give mentorship, and they are dead equity.</comment>


Great Grub Spots for all the SXSW-ers - <AUTHOR> http://fredwilson.vc/post/86646460/a-blog-comment-that-every-sxsw-attendee-should-read <comment><USER2> Thai Passion. My absolute favorite weekly lunch spot, and the best late night eats downtown.

Go on Thursday at lunch for the curry of the day. It's the best panang curry I've ever eaten anywhere (and I live in the valley now, where I live within walking distance of five good Thai restaurants that all serve panang). It's not as good when ordered off the menu, as it hasn't had as long to simmer...the green beans aren't supersaturated with deliciousness the way they are at lunch on Thursday. All of the curries of the day are awesome, but panang is my favorite. Mus mun on Friday might be preferred for folks that like yellow potato-filled curries...but if you can't be there on one of those days, any curry at this place is awesome.

Marakesh Cafe and Grill is another good lunch spot...always crowded at lunch. The falafel sandwich is a lot of food for not much money, and it's almost always delicious. The lunch specials are also often very good (rarely vegetarian, though, unfortunately, so I mostly ordered off the regular menu). Not fancy, just really good food.

</comment><comment><USER3> As a native I have to chuckle at this. #1 Gueros is overrated. #2 Stop crowding my restaurants! #3 There's more than TexMex and BBQ but have at it I guess...</comment>


Ask HN: Feeling grossly incompetent working in opensource. What do I do? - <AUTHOR> While in college I worked three times as hard as any other student and I felt more prepared than any other student in the school. I built toy languages, and compilers while others were working on understanding basic data types. Now I am here working on an OpenSource project and I have come to realize that the multiple layers of abstraction that exists has made it impossible to change even one line of code without it effecting the entire codebase. I have spent the last three weeks attempting to understand all the moving parts, and feel just as lost as when I was brought into the project. No matter how much documentation and how much code I read I come no closer to making any changes in the codebase whatsoever. I still have two more years of college left, and I am starting to wonder if I have what it takes to become a programmer. Any suggestions would be helpful. thanks. <comment><USER3> You are doing everything right. Assuming you enjoy the project or product you are working on, just keep at it.

You are lucky enough to be experiencing what it's like to be part of a real software project. It is not at all unusual to be in this position for weeks or even months depending on the complexity of the code base.

If you somehow manage to continue until graduation, you will have invaluable experience that virtually no other job candidates at your level will have. It will be a massive advantage over your competitors, and when you are asked about your experience you'll have specific and credible stories to draw on when you talk about how you solved problems.

At the very least, congratulations on sticking to this for as long as you have. This stuff is hard. That's why they pay us a lot of money for it.

<comment><USER4> I had a job working on a piece of software that contains bits and pieces written in the 1980s. When I complained about how horribly unproductive I felt, the senior dev on the team just said, "it will take a few years to become productive." It took me a long time to internalize that and appreciate what it meant.

I think it's like becoming an architect spending your career building houses. Houses are small enough that you can reasonably expect to understand every detail of one. And when all you work on is houses, you begin to expect that you'll soon understand the totality of each product you work on.

But then you get a job working on skyscrapers. It's impossible for any single person to understand the entire structure, and you don't appreciate that fact because the concept is still foreign to you. I think a lot of companies have "skyscraper" code bases, and it's not always obvious when you're looking at one. A good hint is probably, any software that's been around for decades and enjoys widespread use is likely to be a skyscraper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Large codebases can do this to you, but it's all about finding manageable tasks for you to start understanding the codebase. As the saying goes: change it to understand it.

<comment><USER6> I like that. Change it to understand it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _multiple layers of abstraction that exists has made it impossible to change > even one line of code without it effecting the entire codebase_

Either you have misunderstood the meaning of "abstraction", or the code base has what people call "leaky" abstractions.

The point of abstraction is to create stable internal APIs, irrespective of implementation details. The _entire point_ of abstraction is to create the separation that your code base seems to be lacking.

> _No matter how much documentation and how much code I read I come no closer > to making any changes in the codebase whatsoever_

This approach is necessary, but you won't really understand the code until you start debugging. Can you tell us more about the stack (and, ideally, the project itself) so that we can give you better tips? Sometimes understanding code is a lot easier with the right tools (IDE, debugger, etc.)

> _I am starting to wonder if I have what it takes to become a programmer_

I'm sure you can do it, but it's also important to figure out if you want to. If you work on multiple code bases, including your own, and you don't enjoy it, or the frustration you're feeling now is not healthy for you, then this might not be the right career for you.

A lot of being a programmer is banging your head against a wall for many hours longer than a typical person would be willing to, until you finally get past an obstacle. Sometimes the obstacle is bad documentation, often it's bad configuration, other times it's a bug.

If the fun parts are not worth the not-fun parts for you, then that sounds like an unpleasant career path.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _The entire point of abstraction is to create the separation that your code > base seems to be lacking._

I think this appears to be the problem. The codebase appears to be very kludgey.

> _This approach is necessary, but you won 't really understand the code until > you start debugging. Can you tell us more about the stack (and, ideally, the > project itself) so that we can give you better tips? Sometimes understanding > code is a lot easier with the right tools (IDE, debugger, etc.)_

I think the architecture is essentially one of the reasons I am having so many problems. I'm not familiar with docker/apache solr/their custom database, etc. However, I think that's more of a tangential issue. It's more of a feeling of imposter syndrome as another poster said. For everyone else in the field it seems like this is effortless.

> _I 'm sure you can do it, but it's also important to figure out if you want > to. If you work on multiple code bases, including your own, and you don't > enjoy it, or the frustration you're feeling now is not healthy for you, then > this might not be the right career for you._

It's not really frustration. So much more as feeling like I will never be good enough at this to be successful in this career.

> _A lot of being a programmer is banging your head against a wall for many > hours longer than a typical person would be willing to, until you finally > get past an obstacle._

This is exactly my personality type, and my wife makes fun of me for you. Once I get my teeth into something I basically don't stop until I got it. It's actually created problems for me in other career fields, but it's seen as an asset for programmers. So I know on a personality level I have what it takes, but yeah... Just get the impression I'm not smart enough for this.

<comment><USER8> Usually understanding a new, large code base comes in at least three phases.

1\. At first, they always look like overcomplicated incomprehensible crap. Every little thing that you would have done in way X but was done in way Y initially looks like that.

2\. But much later on, after you struggled a lot with making changes to the code base, things start to click. You understand why things were made as they were, what the constraints and requirements were. When you want to make changes, you know where they are supposed to go.

3\. Then after much more time, it will look like overcomplicated crap again as you understand that people should have said "no" to the more bizarre of the requests, and that much easier solutions for some of the other things exist.

The _original_ programmers started out somewhere between two and three, and as long as they stay involved, they can always guide people, tell them where their changes go or whether they are ill advised. They know which parts are essential to the architecture and which were never meant as more than temporary crap.

You get problems when none of the original programmers are still involved, and you only get people who have to climb the ladder by themselves. Or only have some people in step 1 left. Then the project is dead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You wrote "This is exactly my personality type, and my wife makes fun of me for you. Once I get my teeth into something I basically don't stop until I got it. It's actually created problems for me in other career fields, but it's seen as an asset for programmers. So I know on a personality level I have what it takes" in another comment.

This is a virtue and a fault. After some successes and some failures, you are likely to learn to be more wise when choosing which problem to deep dive into. The wrong deep dive will damage you.

It also takes time to learn that cowboy duct-tape solutions are sometimes correct: this is best learnt by being in a team with someone who is productive in that manner (the downsides of it are obvious to engineer types; learning the positives of hacks is harder for engineers; judging _when_ to apply fast solutions needs a good engineer). If you can only do anal retentive engineering, then your skills are still super valuable, but perhaps try to veer towards projects where beauty and correctness are valued.

For many engineers, I think it is worthwhile to learn the dark side: how to deliver a quick and dirty compromise that meets a need e.g. most web development. I personally find this difficult: google "yak shaving". Some engineers never learn how to make good compromises, and they sometimes end up stuck in a dead end.

"but yeah... Just get the impression I'm not smart enough for this."

Keep your humility, use it to connect with clients and users. They feel it 10x.

Finally I'll add that the best developers I've ever worked with have been technically mediocre. Their other skills have made them great - abilities to concentrate on the right things and not worry about being technical goddesses or gods. I have worked with technically great people, that just do a shit job because they can't get on with others or they produce something that only they can understand.

</comment><comment><USER10> Running `git log --reverse` on any overwhelming mature project will give you commits in reverse from "Initial commit" to "Updated README.md" to "Add utils".

Do `git show COMMIT_HASH` for the first ones and you'll see the genesis.

You're looking at the result of thousands of commits, each one having required countless hours of thinking and coding. This can be overwhelming.

Here[0] are some tips that help getting to know a codebase. Some may be irrelevant.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924100)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is extremely helpful, thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As everyone has already mentioned it's natural to feel like this and it's just a case of practice.

A concrete suggestion that came to mind is isolate the simplest unit of functionality the project implements and try to implement it yourself fromsscratch using the existing code as a reference; stripping out all the error handling, edge cases etc.

The feasibility of this depends on the project but it can be a useful way to understand both the basics and the rest of the code that seems like spaghetti which is probably due to error handling, edge cases, etc. As an example I implemented part (a simple passwordless connection and select statement) of a database connection library from scratch in c# and it really helped me understand the existing solution better.

</comment><comment><USER12> Other people have already given a lot of great advice, so I'll just add this bit:

Working on someone else's codebase—especially if it's an open source project with many different contributors over a long period of time—is its own distinct thing that has to be learned. Everyone has to learn how to do it, regardless of where their abilities as a programmer are. If you are adept (as it sounds like you are) at building your own software, then it can feel like the rug has been pulled out from under you ("Am I actually any good at this?") when you try to contribute and simply can't grok what's going on, but if you persist, you will pick it up. Don't take your struggles now as a reflection of your abilities.

</comment><comment><USER13> Ask for some mentoring from the other participants. Try to focus on one objective that you feel you can own. Now communicate your ambition, progress and problems to others. Collaboration is the key.

</comment><comment><USER14> If the project is large and old (I hope you're not picking up LLVM or, god help you, GCC?), it can take months to years to feel comfortable within (parts of) its codebase.

</comment><comment><USER15> The best way to tell whether its more about you or the project is to try several comparable ones, some of the biggest and oldest open source projects are practically impenetrable to outside contributors without years or decades of familiarity, this is a problem since the future of such projects is either to be abandoned as their core retires or become entirely dominated by corporations who sponsor the time for people to get on board.

</comment><comment><USER6> Everything is an abstraction. Everything is a protocol.

Keep expanding your knowledge.

Read the new pragmatic programmer.

It took me about 5 years to get over my imposter syndrome.

Dont get hung up over one project. I have written a lot of bad code and a lot of clever code. Both in the same project.

Being a good dev is a lot like being a good doctor. Study and practice, sometimes you will get it right, sometimes you won't.

</comment><comment><USER16> Pain is weakness leaving the body, Feeling stupid is ignorance leaving the mind.

Embrace it. School is designed to give you set pieces that can be understood in isolation, the outside world rairly has that luxury. You won't truly improve without discomfort, though the particulars will be personal and multidimensional.

The end skill is solving problems in the wider world.

</comment><comment><USER17> Read up on the imposter syndrome. The fact that you're actively trying to work on open source means you're already ahead of the pack. I'd say keep trying and engage with others that are active on the same projects and you'll eventually be able to fill in the gaps.

tldr; don't give up.

</comment><comment><USER18> Three weeks is not enough time. I've worked on code bases that took me 3 - <USER2> months to feel like I had enough understanding to start doing substantial work. You should give yourself permission to take the time you need to get a handle on everything.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you're working on a code base that is this sensitive to change, I recommend you find another project to spend your time on. Choose your battles wisely. Not every hill is worth dying on.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for to everyone who commented on here. The response was more than I anticipated.</comment>


Show HN: Python Crash Course - <AUTHOR> Over the past two years I've been working on Python Crash Course, which is available now through No Starch Press. The first half of the book is an introduction to Python, and the second half is a series of projects that build on the concepts introduced in the first half. Readers can make a Space Invaders clone with Pygame, complete a series of data visualizations using matplotlib and Pygal, and build a simple web app with Django.
Many HN readers already work with Python; I'm introducing it here because my experience in the HN community has been an overwhelmingly positive influence. When I was working on the seventh or eighth draft of a chapter, reading about the hard work others are putting into their projects helped me stay focused.
If you're a non-technical reader who's been thinking of learning Python, please take a look at Python Crash Course. If you already know Python, please consider recommending it to people who ask how they can get started with Python. I'm also quite interested in hearing feedback from experienced programmers who look through the book.
If you want to order the book, the code CRASHCOURSE will get you 30% off when you order directly through the No Starch Press site. Thanks HN for your support and encouragement, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the book or the process of writing an introductory Python book. <comment><AUTHOR> The No Starch page is at: [https://www.nostarch.com/pythoncrashcourse](https://www.nostarch.com/pythoncrashcourse)

The code for the book is available at: [https://github.com/ehmatthes/pcc/](https://github.com/ehmatthes/pcc/)</comment>


Mac App Store is just not going to work - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hiraash.org/2011/03/05/mac-app-store-is-just-not-going-to-work/

<comment><USER2> Nice rant, but I think developers think otherwise. Since the Mac app store has been opened up we have seen awesome success stories from developers who are now using a second or even primary sales channel for their product. With a lot of success.

I agree that Trials are nice to have. Fortunately in many cases you can still go to the developer's site and download a trial or demo copy.

<comment><USER3> 5 reasons why the iPad will fail... [http://webtrends.about.com/b/2010/01/26/5-reasons-why- apples...](http://webtrends.about.com/b/2010/01/26/5-reasons-why-apples- islate-tablet-will-fail.htm)

Sorry, I've read these articles too often to even bother clicking through to the rant.

The Mac App Store will do fine. In fact it will be an amazing, resounding, blindingly successful success. You don't have to like it. There are in fact a lot of things _I_ don't like about it ... but that doesn't change the fact that Apple customers will _LOVE_ it.

If you don't love it, it wasn't meant for you... stop being such a hipster.

... how's that for a rant? ;)</comment></comment>


Distributed Technologies Research - <AUTHOR> https://dtr.org/ <comment><USER2> According to their research manifesto, they seem to only be interested (at least, at the moment) in blockchain-related research. I feel that there is quite a lot of promising research questions in distributed technologies more generally, so hopefully they will consider expanding their scope over time, perhaps as more funding becomes available.

<comment><USER3> It's actually anger-inducing. Blockchain and even BFT topics are a tiny tiny corner of the distributed systems landscape, neither broad nor important enough to co-opt the terminology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Love it: you have to scroll down four sections before they get honest and talk about the fact its just another blockchain thing. Then again, the "based in Switzerland" thing sort of gave us a hint.

</comment><comment><USER5> Strange: why is the organization based in Switzerland when it is fully staffed by USA academic personnel? Under "transparency" it links to a pdf of the Swiss civil code which has 9 pages all numbered page 210. Obscure...

<comment><USER6> Zug Switzerland has some kind of hands-off regulatory environment that crypto companies are latching on to. [https://cryptovalley.swiss/why- switzerland/](https://cryptovalley.swiss/why-switzerland/) I guess this allows companies to say "we're completely legal" (in some place where none of our users reside).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The linked paper on their Research page is pretty interesting: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.08092.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.08092.pdf)</comment>


Designing Your SaaS Database for Scale with Postgres - <AUTHOR> https://www.citusdata.com/blog/2016/10/03/designing-your-saas-database-for-high-scalability/ <comment><USER2> Great info, thanks for posting.</comment>


How Papa John's could have saved $250MM - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sendhub.com/post/35712734203/how-papa-johns-could-have-saved-250mm

<comment><USER2> I think it's important to point out that the potential liability from a class action lawsuit such as this is not the same thing as actually owing $250 million.

And it's not like they're going to pound out a resolution to this in a timely manner.

Still, it's a lot of trouble and legal fees for no good reason.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, we just want to make sure people know text marketing can be done correctly, so it's good for business and consumers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> That blog post left a bad taste in my mouth. It's a post without substance -- pointing out one company's dirty laundry, then making the claim that they'll never do the same.

How do we know they won't? Why even raise the question or put the doubt in our heads?

<comment><AUTHOR> Their dirty laundry? It's a story we found on CNN. We're trying to let people know - both consumers and businesses - they are right ways of doing text marketing, and gave some bets practices on how to avoid the getting into trouble.

Maybe Papa John's won't change but a quarter billion sounds like a strong motivator to them and others.

<comment><USER3> It's funny that you're linking to the HuffPo version of the AP story you found on CNN ;)

And there you go again. You must really dislike Papa John's or their CEO. Is it a political reason or a civil one?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't eat pizza (paleo diet) but I miss it. We have no problem with Papa John's as a whole but this practice is bad for the growing text marketing business we're a member of and working hard to keep clean and useful for everyone.

No politics, just business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Gross negligence by lawyers. I will get 1 cent from this lawsuit while lawyers will get 75 million. Folks this is why America is losing its competitiveness. Why not send the money wasted on lawyers to communities through simple arbitration and refund the costs of the texts to the customers. It's not like anyone was severely harmed. Not to mention this frivolous lawsuit costs society millions through court costs etc etc. We reformed healthcare, now its time for frivolous lawsuit reform (wait that will never happen).

<comment><USER5> Go ahead, you do that.

And tomorrow, I am going to start a company which will inundate you with illegal text messages because your declared stance makes violating those laws very profitable.

What most people refer to as "frivolous lawsuits" are absolutely necessary. If I am a business owner, and I find out that my product hurts or kills people, but that my legal liability for that is less than the cost of fixing the product, especially in America today, I am legally bound to continue hurting and killing customers. It's that simple. Cost-benefit. If it costs $2 million to stop hurting people, and $1 million to settle the lawsuits, the business continues hurting people as a cost of doing business.

The solution to this problem is called punitive damages. When a company does something which society actually wants to stop them from doing in the future, they HAVE TO levy a fine against the business large enough to make it cost- ineffective to continue their behavior. Public opposition to "frivolous lawsuits" and whiny opposition to people 'winning the lottery' with large punitive damage settlements hurt us all. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been caught breaking the law half a dozen times or so, ripping off the public to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In response, the FTC has investigated them over and over, and every time the response is to fine them a piddly $5 or $10 million because public outcry over fining them $5 billion or whatever is actually necessary would be too great. So Goldman Sachs accepts that as a cost of doing business and continues raping the economy.

This is not theory. Automobile companies were caught doing this in the 70s. The cost of producing reliable cars was so much more than simply settling a few lawsuits each year at a million bucks a pop. How do you stop them? Ask nicely? No, if its profitable for them to do things which cause peoples deaths, then they could be sued for negligence if they knowingly changed their business practices and harmed the investments of their shareholders.

<comment><USER6> I'm not super convinced that it's so easy to calculate how much money the business will be losing, though, to "fix" the problem vs. settle it in court.

Sure, it might not matter for Goldman Sachs, but wouldn't a very consumer- centric company like Papa John's risk losing business in the long run if they have a crappy reputation? I'd be more concerned about public perception of my company. Or am I too naive?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am suddenly seeing a lot of negative stories on Papa John's - on reddit and now on HN - over the last few days. Did I miss something in the news?

First, I saw a boycott thread on reddit and now this news about the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, all these actions seem to have kicked off after the election results due to the anti-Obama stance of "Papa John". Can someone help me with a link that is the source of this current backlash?

<comment><AUTHOR> You mean apart from the ads with Peyton?

<comment><USER7> Nope. I have not seen any of those ads. I will go and check it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Could have used that $250 million to pay for big bad Obamacare that papa claims will force him to cut employee hours.

<comment><USER9> Yes, agreed. Or also just a lot more pepperoni to spice up those garbarge pizzas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> $250MM - profits from pizza deals sold to mobile users

</comment><comment><USER11> Why two M's in $250MM?

<comment><USER12> M => a thousand, as in Roman numerals.

MM => a thousand thousands, i.e. a million.

Commonly used in accounting and finance.</comment></comment>


A Simple Dutch Cure for Stress - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/the-simple-dutch-cure-for-stress <comment><USER2> Nonsense! The actual Dutch cure for stress is to claim you have "burnout" (they use the English word), and then take 6 months off work while being paid 80% of your salary.

Honestly, after working for 6 years in the Netherlands, I don't know of another country that has such good working conditions [1], while having so many people in low stress professional jobs taking time off for burnout. There seems zero social or professional stigma about it.

\- In Australia, I knew of just one person, a teacher. There they called it a "nervous breakdown".

\- In the UK, I struggle to think of any, after 9 years working here.

\- In the Netherlands, probably 30% of my Dutch colleagues had had time off for burnout at some point in their career.

[1] At the Dutch bank I worked for, most of the Dutch staff worked 4 day weeks: take a 10% pay cut, have Fridays off, and nominally work an hour longer on the other 4 days. In practice, they still arrived late so they could drop their kids at school, left early for same reason, took a full hour for lunch, and most days everyone stopped for 30 minutes mid-morning because it was someone's birthday. Nearly the only people who worked full 5-day weeks were the expats.

<comment><USER3> American here living in the Netherlands for the past seven years.

The one thing I've noticed about folks taking these burnout sessions is that some absolutely take advantage of the system. Multiple people have told me firsthand that they're on burnout just because they want to be. Not because they're burned out. It goes so far that they lie during the mandatory therapy session provided by their employer in order to stay on burnout. Feels a bit unfair for the companies that have to buy burnout insurance.

Having said that, I think it's a great benefit of working for a Dutch company. Assuming you really have a burnout! If you don't have a burnout but you don't want to work so much then go 4 days a week. This is super common in the Netherlands.

Anyway, Dutch society in general really care about the well-being of their people. I suppose a few people taking advantage of the system is just the cost of living.

<comment><USER4> I mean, what is "burnout" other than not wanting to work?

Maybe they're just saying that to you because they assume (as an expat) that you don't share their value system?

<comment><USER5> oh wow. i think burnout is more complicated than "i don't want to work". way more complicated.

<comment><USER6> But someone who is burned out might save face by saying that it's just that 'I don't want to work'

<comment><USER7> In what culture is that saving face?

<comment><USER8> A culture that punishes weakness, which seems to apply to most that I can think of.

<comment><USER7> Laziness isn't seen as a weakness?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is another one in a series of articles (like [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/smarter-living/the- case-f...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/smarter-living/the-case-for- doing-nothing.html)) about Americans finding out that there's a word for something in Dutch and making a big deal out of it. It's just so hilarious to me as someone from The Netherlands. Not like we're niksen and uitwaaien every day.

The Dutch version of The Onion made fun of it too: [https://speld.nl/2019/01/25/kwakkelen-the-ancient-dutch- art-...](https://speld.nl/2019/01/25/kwakkelen-the-ancient-dutch-art-of-kind- of-talking-about-your-health/)

<comment><USER10> I concur. We may do it potentially every day, but nobody 'sets out' to do that. They set oit for a walk, and a side effect of that is 'uitwaaien'.

It's definitely not "a popular pastime"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The more bloggers, the more nonsense.

> A growing body of evidence suggests

Ah, weasel words. How telling.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, editors should dis-allow the usage of such terms without citing examples in the text or footnotes.

<comment><USER13> Agreed!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "people who live closer to the coast, like many Netherlanders do, report better physical and psychological health than those farther inland."

The whole randstad area (near the coast, with all the major cities) has more jobs, wealth, opportunities and such..

<comment><USER15> The air is much more polluted in de grandstand, I doubt they will have better physical health.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you know the term "uitwaaien" I'd say this rings pretty much true: "Meyer has lived in the Netherlands for more than 20 years and has come to specialize in the language, despite being a non-native speaker."

In all fairness, I haven't heard or used the word for a couple of years now, so not sure to what extent this is true: "She says uitwaaien is a popular activity where she lives—one believed to have important psychological benefits. "Uitwaaien is something you do to clear your mind and feel refreshed—out with the bad air, in with the good," she tells me. "It's seen as a pleasant, easy, and relaxing experience—a way to destress or escape from daily life.""

<comment><USER17> Yeah this is not something that I've ever heard referenced but I'm not totally fluent.

Also I doubt that the cold and wind part of uitwaaien as described by this non-native speaker is relevant vs. the fact that NL is just often cold and windy and that's the only way you can get outside? :) I'm sure that the Dutch would do this on a sunny day as well if they could find more of them!

This article was junk, but yes Totally agree going for a windy bike ride along the canals or the beach, or a windy dike will certainly clear your head a bit, or allow you to think about things and feel refreshed. Any time away from work / stress to think will do this, though - it's not a "method" to be used.

<comment><USER18> I mean, it _is_ true that a walk out in the wind (say on a beach or wide open nature) can be enjoyable, and you feel refreshed when you go inside again afterwards.

And we do sometimes set out to go for a walk in windy conditions -- because the alternative is to stay inside during all of autumn.

I just don't believe that's an especially Dutch thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wrote about how my bike helps me think, a few years back: [https://journal.dedasys.com/2015/04/20/the-bicycle-a- thinkin...](https://journal.dedasys.com/2015/04/20/the-bicycle-a-thinking- machine/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Walking/hiking through nature (without wind or cold) works fine as well against stress, at least in my experience (and I am Dutch; I find it far too cold there to walk usually).

</comment><comment><USER21> The headline needs an editor.

"Dutch cure" is a euphemism for suicide. A competent editor would, I hope, have caught that.

</comment><comment><USER22> This seems to mirror the idea of forest bathing also known as nature therapy. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_therapy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_therapy)

</comment><comment><USER23> Going outside? Leisure biking / walking? Really? Is this satire?

</comment><comment><USER24> The simple Indian cure for stress - Meditation. a.k.a watching your breath

<comment><USER25> This is not a substantive comment. You could've taken a bit more effort and provided some thoughtful comments on how meditation can help you be in touch with your emotions etc.

Simply saying meditation equals watching your breath doesn't help make your point.

Finally this thread is about the dutch culture and how they deal with stress. Appreciate it, even if it doesn't align with the point you're trying to make.

<comment><USER24> I'm sorry. Should have thought about it for a moment. I am annoyed by the way articles are published. If something is simple, why wouldn't someone put it in a short one liner than providing a detailed explanation?

This is not just about this article, I have been following space/tech/economy. Nothing really provides facts.

For example:

Scientists may have found new variety of black hole - Does it really add to any kind of knowledge / is it a breakthrough. not at all. finding something called black hole, but finding varieties of it, is not. Its just a copied version of someone else's finding and finding some tweaks.

Now to tech, - What good is it doing? New tech comes, couple of years later flaws made by the organisation comes out or they get hacked and users details get leaked. Impact is too much and they escape with an apology letter from CEO. Apology email + fined amount is still a good investment for the leaked data. thats how they see.

list goes on for every field.

Who is the first culprit of all these? the intellectual? Why to race everyone ? What the point ? Doing good isn't. But why money comes into picture in doing good?

Why would anyone encourage doing all these?

If something seems to be flawed, I'm trying to share my opinion in most polite way but for this one It went off the control. Apologies. Lesson taken. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> imho, this only works when walking on a beach, ideally cold but sunny

<comment><USER27> De zon schijnt er is geen reden

Met rotweer en de harde wind

Te gaan fietsen met dat kind

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is why people motorcycle as well, fwiw.

<comment><USER29> As much as i loved my motorcycle when i had it - unfortunately, like most everything else in the U.S., it costs money to own a motorcycle, while walking is...free. But yeah, if one can afford it, riding a motorcycle is really fun and quite good at relieving stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> i wonder how much of the feeling is being outside vs just getting exercise.</comment>


Show HN: Microsounds - Random short sounds from Soundcloud - <AUTHOR> http://microsounds.tumblr.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi!

This is a weekend project kind of application. The goal was to combine HTML5 audio and Soundcloud's streaming capabilities. Vinepeek is obviously an influence, and that's why I wanted to add a picture of the user to give an idea who is behind each sound.

Since the stream is in MP3 format, only Firefox 21+ supports it. Otherwise the app should work on modern browsers. The whole app is written in Javascript.

I have some ideas how to develop the app further: \- Now the sounds are between 3 and 6 seconds long. User could choose the timeframe. User could even choose some more specific filters so the app would allow searching for one minute long punk songs, for example. \- I left basic controls out intentionally to have a very clean UI and simple user experience. Volume control could be useful.</comment>


IBM and the DoE launch the world's fastest supercomputer - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/ibms-world-class-summit-supercomputer-gooses-speed-with-ai-abilities/ <comment><USER2> It could, at least, be pretty...</comment>