iPhone Nonsensus: Apple's Debt to Bloggers - <AUTHOR> https://mondaynote.com/iphone-nonsensus-apples-debt-to-bloogers-cb879589f55e#.3rs6k4qcj <comment><USER2> As I read this article I thought "wait, didn't Android manufacturers beat Apple to the dual camera schtick?", and found this article to explain the differences [http://www.androidcentral.com/how-iphone-7-plus-dual- camera-...](http://www.androidcentral.com/how-iphone-7-plus-dual-camera- different-android-cameras)

<comment><USER3> So basically better zoom, which is nice, and more snapchat filters.

Not seeing a reason to upgrade from the 6 yet (other than Apple gracing those of us who want to actually be able to hold their phones in 1 hand with OIS).

<comment><USER4> I had a 6 and upgraded. There are a few things:

1\. The camera is much nicer. Besides being newer technology the 7 now has Optical Image Stabilization which is good for 1-3 stops and should help a ton in low light.

2\. The phone is at least 2x as fast as the chip in the 6 and you can feel it

3\. It is supposed to get about 2 hours more battery life than a new 6s, so (especially if your battery is wearing out) there is a good difference there.

4\. Waterproofing is nice for some people.

I'm not saying there is a _need_ but it's a very good upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe people didn't flip their shit about the dual camera because they don't really see what that adds, necessarily? They just know 'I need a camera to take a picture'. Maybe if they investigated it more they'd care, or seen pictures side by side, but for a lot of lay-people (with decent phones), their phone already takes good-enough pictures for their needs.

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1600/1*8Hmq2oVwZAm...](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1600/1*8Hmq2oVwZAmwI8YKIe3YRA.png)

Why does it say digital cameras were introduced in 1999? I remember seeing the first consumer cameras at least a couple of years earlier.

<comment><USER7> 1999 seems to be the first year CIPA tracked digital camera sales. Also, I hadn t realized how completely digital camera sales have collapsed.

[http://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history- of-...](http://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history-of-camera- sales-looks-like-with-smartphones-included/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Telephoto was an interesting choice - in my day to day photographs though I'm rarely missing zoom capability that's not covered by digital zoom. What _is_ missing though often enough is even better low-light capability. Honestly, I think most competitors did it right to include a second same-angle monochrome CCD for better luma SNR. Apple obviously couldn't do this to not look like followers of the herd. Really interested how it pans out in real life...

<comment><USER9> > _Telephoto was an interesting choice - in my day to day photographs though I > 'm rarely missing zoom capability that's not covered by digital zoom_

Most day to day phone photography is portraits (friends etc).

And for them the added 56mm (equiv) lens makes more sense that a 28mm (equiv) one in regular iPones cameras.

Digital zoom is never a good solution.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to validate people's willingness to buy without breaking promises? - <AUTHOR> I recently read an article [1] that was about how to validate a business idea on the cheap (both time and money). The article was well-written, and the business this individual started seems to be going well.
In a nutshell, the author was seeking to answer two questions. The first was trying to assess whether there was a potential market for the author's idea. The second question was seeking an answer was: "Will people pay enough to make this a meaningful business?" It is how the author goes about answering the second question that concerns me here.
The author put up a basic web page with a simple web site with a button to order the product in question. The button actually sent the potential customer into a purchase work-flow which ends up charging their credit card. The author follows-up with an email indicating that the product is not available and offers a full refund. Some "customers" request this, but the majority do not. Eventually, the author ends up refunding all of the "customers" since the author is not able to deliver on the promise of fulfilling the order in the time frame specified in the follow-up email. I do not think the author was intentionally misleading the "customers" on this point. I think the author did not realize how much work would be involved in actually fulfilling that promise. It comes out later in the article that an unspecified amount of money is spent over a time frame approaching a year before they were able to deliver on the initial promise. (I do not know whether the business was able to deliver on the promise to the original "customers".)
Is there a way to do an experiment on the cheap, that does reliably validate the business without misleading potential customers in the process?
[1] I debated about whether I should link to the article. I have decided not to. Really, this article could have been written (and has been written) by any number of folks about any number of businesses. <comment><USER2> I'm not particularly fan of this or similar practices because A) it's a bit morally grey to say the least, and B) you're not actually testing a business idea, you're simply testing how a product sounds.

A half decent example is Evernote (recent financial troubles aside). Imagine trying to cook up a super quick landing page for Evernote and then buying some adwords. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get very far because who wants "Notetaking App #784" (which is about all the information you can give in such circumstances)?

Based on that you'd assume no one wants to pay for/download a note-taking app. Of course this is provably false as many people pay for myriad note-taking apps. Where's the discrepancy?

When you land on a products landing page there's far more than just product screenshots. There's also the impression created by the brand, one you've probably heard of before you got there. There's customer reviews, there's well thought out pricing designed to make you pay exactly what you can afford, there's a thousand techniques used to make sure they get the sale.

Effectively, I'd say it's very difficult to distill all this down into a quick experiment that proves anything.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What troubles me is that this is seen in many start-up/business circles as not only okay, but even a preferred method of idea validation. The original "customers" acted in good faith. The "business" was not forthcoming with the non-existence of the product (and my guess is the non-existence of the company). Since refunds were given, all is okay, many would say. I do not agree with this viewpoint.

In asking my question and relating the background, I am not seeking for folks to change my opinion of the ethics or to disparage anyone who disagrees with me. I _am_ seeking to understand whether there is a way to experiment in a way that does not make promises that may or may not be kept. (Promises are broken, for example, when only a handful of people "purchase" the product, and the "business owner", therefore, chooses not to pursue the business, even if refunds are provided.)</comment>


Ask HN: Methods for finding niche business opportunities - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
I found one of the most interesting parts of Tim Ferris' 4 Hour Work Week to be the practical advice for finding viable niche business opportunities. In particular, going to the store and looking at the magazine section and making enquiries based on those, using google test ads etc.
I was wondering if anyone would be prepared to share any other highly practical methods like these that they have for finding niche problems/opportunities to pursue?
Despite what you might think about the rest of the content in that book, I thought the practical advice was very thought provoking, valueable and something we do not see enough of. Thought it would be worth trying to elicit some more!
Thanks!
T <comment><USER2> For non-startup type products (small niche softwares, affiliate websites, or to ensure easy SEO traffic), I do the following:

\- I list the frustrations I had in the last two months

\- I list the list I like to do

With that list, I head over to google keyword tool, and search for keywords related to what I found in step 1 that have more than 3000 searches per month and less than 30000 exact keyword pages in google (the 30 day challenge method: <http://thirtydaychallenge.com>)

I keep brainstorming until I find a list of keywords that are in demand but have low competition (When you are a one man show, you'd rather focus on a non-too-competitive niche).

Then I use Market Samourai to check the competition on the first 10 pages of Google to ensure I will be able to rank my website high in Google on my keywords.

Next, I put up a website a la Tim Ferriss to test the market a little bit more. This method only adds value if the test tells you you have a profitable product. If you can't prove it during the test, it doesn't mean you should stop.

In parallel, I "talk" (surveys, interviews, forums) to as many potential customers as I can.

If I feel I am to something, I start coding :)

I wrote about this very topic on my blog.

I published my frustrations there: <http://aymeric.gaurat.net/index.php/2010/my-frustrations/>

How to test the viability of your idea: [http://aymeric.gaurat.net/index.php/2010/how-to-test-the- via...](http://aymeric.gaurat.net/index.php/2010/how-to-test-the-viability-of- your-online-business-idea/)

<comment><USER3> Fantastic! Though the process sounds interesting in theory, I have always wondered the effectiveness of this process. Can you walk through a sample keyword research process with examples? I'm sure this will make an interesting blog post.

<comment><USER2> You should check out the 30 day challenge. It is free and the market analysis videos are very interesting (first 10 videos).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Shameless selfpromotion:

<http://000fff.org/a-simple-model-for-innovation/>

I wrote this to help people cover the possible option spaces.

Basically there are four areas that your product or service can compete in:

1) Do what others do, but do it better. 2) Do what others do, but do more. 3) Do what others do, but for a new audience 4) Do what no other is doing

The obvious space you want to be in is obviously 4) when it comes to niche business. But one often overlooked area is 3) where you take an existing product or technology and repurpose for a new audience.

My old marketing teacher told us a story about a company that he used to for worked for.

The company sold heavy duty soap for industrial use but weren't doing well.

The company had a lab that he would often spend some time in to see what was going on.

One of the things the lab had been playing around with was the color of the soap. One of the soap colors where bordering pink. It also just so happened that his daughter loved everything that sparkles. So they ended up making a soap that was pink with small sparkling bits in it, much less dry sold it as Fairydust or something like that for kids.

According to him it was a great success. And none the less it's a great way to explain point 3)

</comment><comment><USER5> Talk to people who have money and problems. Ask them what their problems are. Figure out which problems are tractable to a software solution. Sell solution for money.

Also, anything you've ever seen on a retail shelf has to move $100k gross a year or it can't justify being made. Many times that if it is at Wal-Mart. Consider whether you can make software which competes with the physical good.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use market samurai. I wrote a review about it today <http://freestylemind.com/market-samurai>

It's a genuine review and I really recommend it for internet marketing. That said, there's my affiliate code in it but you can access the product directly from <http://www.marketsamurai.com/>

<comment><USER7> It looks like you really spent some time to make some useful videos. I'm sure you've earned any affiliate sign-ups you get.

On the other hand, their site looks extremely scammy. They have a gigantic page for their full product, crammed with testimonials and claims of how much you can save, but the price you actually have to pay isn't anywhere in sight.

<comment><USER8> The product is made by people whose profession is internet marketing. I'm inclined to think that "scammy" style is what sells, to judge by how often it pops up.

<comment><USER7> That much is clear. It's also why actual scams are set up the way they are. Saying it's effective in no way means it's not sketchy.

E.g. the famous art gallery scam is what sells art near tourist attractions, to judge by how often it pops up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Google Adwords Keyword Tool or Wordtracker (if you want to pay for it)

</comment><comment><USER10> MicroNicheFinder, it looks like another one of those Internet marketing apps with a splash page but it's very good for niche & keyword research.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I've looked at this and it would fulfill this need quite nicely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't help but think of this article on Study Hacks. In particular, scroll down to the section called The Insider Advantage. [http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/03/26/how-to-get-into- stanfo...](http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/03/26/how-to-get-into-stanford- with-bs-on-your-transcript-failed-simulations-the-surprising-psychology-of- impressiveness/)

</comment><comment><USER13> ruby -e '%w(proven_to_work_good_ideas_like_task_management_or_erp.txt professions_and_niches.txt).each_with_index{|x,y|puts (a=File.read(x).split("\n"))[rand(a.size)]+((y==0)?" for":" :)")}'</comment>


Ask HN: What is required to hire myself as a contractor in the US? - <AUTHOR>

I wonder what is required to hire myself as a contractor in the US?
Background: I live in the UK and very recently I started contracting.
I have my own limited company, bank account, accountant and annual tax returns to fill.
If I'm doing this in the UK, I wonder if it is possible to do the same in the US?
Say - establish Delaware corporation and offer services to businesses located in the US...
I already have a tourist visa allowing me to stay for 6 months at a time...
Has anyone got any idea? (all the feedback appreaciated)
---
I was in the US twice already and I envy the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. And obviously the weather in California is much better than in London :)
Getting H1-B (official working visa) is a real hassle, but maybe the is a loophole allowing me to overcome it...
Thank you in advance! <comment><USER2> It looks like employment is prohibited under a visitor visa. Even the "business visa" subcategory (B-1) only allows you to do things like "consult with business associates" (this seems to mean something like having a meeting with foreign employees of your company, not consulting for hire) or attend a conference.

[http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/visit/visitor....](http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/visit/visitor.html)</comment>


Ask HN: MBA or Masters in Computer Science? - <AUTHOR> I am on the verge of graduating with a B.S. in Computer Science. I'm still considering on what to do afterwards.
I'm currently working at a great company in California, I really love what I do there. My family has been encouraging me to continue on with my education. At this point I am contemplating the idea. However, I still can't decide which would be my better option, to get a Masters in Computer Science or an MBA. I really love both subjects. I need some points that would make my decision a bit easier.
Were you ever in my position? If so, what did you end up doing, what was the outcome? Even if you weren't in my position, what would you recommend? Thank you in advance! <comment> barry-cotter For the love of God, take your time.

Under no circumstances do an MBA with less than two years of work experience. You won't get into a top ranked programme and if your programme isn't top ranked you'd be better off doing it by distance education while working. If you were going to do a second entry degree a J.D. would be a much better idea.

An M.Sc. in CS probably has a better ROI than most MBA programmes, and it'd let you compete for jobs that wouldn't be available to you fresh out of a Bachelors. The thing is you might be able to get enough real world experience in the time that you'd be doing a Masters that you'd be at the same level in the same time, but you'd have been earning and making contacts in that time.

If you love what you're doing keep doing it until it palls.

Don't pay to do an M.S. get in as a Ph.D. and bail once you've got what you want. Alternatively come to Europe where education is dead cheap. Karlsruhe in Germany has a fantastic CS programme, and it's a beautiful, beautiful city.

For an MBA, consider INSEAD. It's highly ranked and it only takes one year.

<comment><USER2> _For the love of God, take your time._

Absolutely. If you really want to learn, you'll do far better by apprenticing than by studying in the classroom. Check out Corey Haines (<http://www.coreyhaines.com/>) for inspiration.

Then, if you want a little more formal understanding, go back to school. But don't go until you've worked for a while - like 10 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Generally, to get a promotion past first-level-supervisor requires some business degree, and this is usually (an unspoken) policy at most larger corporations. It is my belief that far too many folks have gone for MBA degrees and that they no longer really work for sifting employees. Anecdotally, there are several programmers I know who have MBAs working in my company and it has done nothing for them.

As for myself, I'm working on a masters in accounting. It is a business masters, so it meets the requirement for a business masters degree, but one that I think opens a couple additional options. I live in CO, and here (as well as MA), one can sit for the CPA exam with a masters in accounting (with no on-the-job time hired as an accounting). For me, this is one of my "Plan B" strategies to possibly transition out of IT. A CPA with a background in IT should be able to do well with sox/cobit/sas70 auditing.

For yourself, the question should be along the lines of "do you want to move into management" or "do you want to stay in technology." Because I think the answer to that question decides what degree to go for (and really, I can't answer that for you, I can only say "I did X and why" and perhaps that might be useful to help you decide). And I think you should only consider the masters if your company (or family) is footing the bill, as I think this is a terrible time to get into debt for college.

</comment><comment> b-man Have you ever consider creating your own way, as in, researching a path for yourself, away from formal education?

Won't earn you a degree, but it is a path that perhaps would be more enjoyable. It certainly was/is for me.</comment>


Digital Asset Transactions: Remarks at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit - <AUTHOR> https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418 <comment><USER2> Relevant quote:

> And putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, > based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum > network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether > are not securities transactions. And, as with Bitcoin, applying the > disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to current transactions in > Ether would seem to add little value. Over time, there may be other > sufficiently decentralized networks and systems where regulating the tokens > or coins that function on them as securities may not be required. And of > course there will continue to be systems that rely on central actors whose > efforts are a key to the success of the enterprise. In those cases, > application of the securities laws protects the investors who purchase the > tokens or coins.

<comment><USER3> It's an interesting distinction which begs the question of how securities enforcement will work on currencies which start off looking like securities and "evolve" out of that designation like Bitcoin and Ether did. As implied by the statement, the "fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether" would probably qualify as a securities offering since it absolutely relied on central actors to maintain initial development until it had grown sufficiently to become more of a decentralized platform. At what point are token purchases no longer protected by securities law?

The SEC (or SEC leadership) has shown a willingness to take a fairly nuanced view on how cryptocurrencies are classified. Will be interesting to see how this thinking evolves as nuance comes with complexity.

<comment><USER4> be careful of relying on that quote..Ethereum applied and got registered to fund raise under current laws...see the blog announcemnet of said crowdsale: [https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/launching-the-ether- sal...](https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/launching-the-ether-sale/)

<comment><USER5> Applied is a mischaracterization of what Ethereum did.

Ethereum got a legal opinion from a law firm in the United States, and simultaneously convinced the regulators in the Canton of Zug, Switzerland to create a completely new term for them. State regulations in the Swiss Confederacy extend to the sovereign protection of the Switzerland brand and all of its economic treaties.

Ethereum nor the Ethereum foundation applied for US securities anything. Not a Reg D offering, not Reg S, not anything.

The parent question remains valid: if one did register as a security, how does the asset transition to not being a security.

Sounds like we need a new Reg for transitional securities. As it stands, the SEC is still applying its broad discretion to not levy criminal and civil sanctions to unregistered transitional securities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Keep in mind the definition we can use legally for a security is "a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howey_test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howey_test))

What's interesting about this ruling with respect to Ethereum is that one of the main reasons Ethereum has done so well is because of the development team. If they were terrible, Ethereum investors could have lost all of their money, but instead the developers have done a wonderful job and that has resulted in substantial profits for those holding ether.

The investors do not get dividends or equity, but they absolutely have invested in a common enterprise (Ethereum, the Ethereum network, and the Ethereum codebase) with an expectation of profit (obviously) based on the efforts of a third party (the developers - who control the entire codebase and have moved Ethereum forward every step of the way).

Although this ruling is obviously good news for Ethereum, it seems to set a bit of a double standard with respect to what we've seen about Ethereum tokens, where the situation is very similar to this, but yet they're instead ruled as being securities due to the above reasons. It is interesting that one of the key points here is their notice of 'decentralization' \- how much decentralization is required for something to not be a security? It's a very difficult question, because development is generally always centralized in any project, there's few other ways to get things done efficiently.

The price of Ethereum is up almost 10% in the last 24 hours, partially related to this news as we see a spike in price coinciding with this announcement across the market ([https://coinmarketcap.com/](https://coinmarketcap.com/)).

<comment><USER7> >>What's interesting about this ruling with respect to Ethereum is that one of the main reasons Ethereum has done so well is because of the development team. If they were terrible, Ethereum investors could have lost all of their money, but instead the developers have done a wonderful job and that has resulted in substantial profits for those holding ether.

It is certainly one of the main reasons, but it's not clear it's the majority of the reason. The community around Ethereum was very large from the very start.

Much of the value generated has been as a result of independent teams creating DApps and various utilities (e.g. blockchain explorers like Ethercan, browser extensions like MetaMask, web-based wallets/DApp-browsers like myetherwallet.com), and unpaid volunteers contributing to its EIP process.

The token sale smart contract template that set off the token sale boom was created by one of the early independent projects, I believe Digix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Key points regarding Ether:

>And putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions.

>I would like to emphasize that the analysis of whether something is a security is not static and does not strictly inhere to the instrument.[10] Even digital assets with utility that function solely as a means of exchange in a decentralized network could be packaged and sold as an investment strategy that can be a security. If a promoter were to place Bitcoin [or Ether] in a fund or trust and sell interests, it would create a new security.

Recommend changing the title to Bitcoin/Ether, but even that is a serious simplification; more like: "Sales of Ether/Bitcoin are not inherently securities transactions"

<comment><USER9> > Recommend changing the title to Bitcoin/Ether

The SEC commented before that Bitcoin is not a security, so the Bitcoin related part is not news.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The interesting takeaway here is the idea that decentralization is the key factor in determining whether a token is a security.

<comment><USER11> There are other key factors, specifically the manner of sale and whether the purchasers are led to an expectation of profits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems to me that eth would trigger many of his factors (listed below) for determining whether or not it is a security. How many people are buying eth for "gas" vs holding it for a return?

> What are some of the factors to consider in assessing whether a digital > asset is offered as an investment contract and is thus a security? > Primarily, consider whether a third party – be it a person, entity or > coordinated group of actors – drives the expectation of a return. That > question will always depend on the particular facts and circumstances, and > this list is illustrative, not exhaustive:

> Is there a person or group that has sponsored or promoted the creation and > sale of the digital asset, the efforts of whom play a significant role in > the development and maintenance of the asset and its potential increase in > value?

> Has this person or group retained a stake or other interest in the digital > asset such that it would be motivated to expend efforts to cause an increase > in value in the digital asset? Would purchasers reasonably believe such > efforts will be undertaken and may result in a return on their investment in > the digital asset?

> Has the promoter raised an amount of funds in excess of what may be needed > to establish a functional network, and, if so, has it indicated how those > funds may be used to support the value of the tokens or to increase the > value of the enterprise? Does the promoter continue to expend funds from > proceeds or operations to enhance the functionality and/or value of the > system within which the tokens operate?

> Are purchasers "investing," that is seeking a return? In that regard, is the > instrument marketed and sold to the general public instead of to potential > users of the network for a price that reasonably correlates with the market > value of the good or service in the network?

> Does application of the Securities Act protections make sense? Is there a > person or entity others are relying on that plays a key role in the profit- > making of the enterprise such that disclosure of their activities and plans > would be important to investors? Do informational asymmetries exist between > the promoters and potential purchasers/investors in the digital asset?

> Do persons or entities other than the promoter exercise governance rights or > meaningful influence?

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't see how the SEC could rule eth is a security and maintain its integrity, which is critical when dealing with this new technology if it wishes to retain some form of control into the future.

The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie _not_ packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car.

However, based on the statements, there are going to be a lot of coins that are a security and a lot of coins are going to blur the line to the point of near invisibility. It is arguable that Eth is already doing this.

It's clear the SEC is far behind, and needs a new framework by which to judge these coins, instead of hammering them into existing frameworks designed explicitly for older financial vehicles.

<comment><USER14> >The primary use of ether in its purest abstraction (ie not packaged in an index fund), is in the form of gas to power the individual steps of the computer. It is no more a security than the gasoline in your car.

I'm sure if you compared the number of people who bought ETH to actually use as gas to facilitate a transaction vs simply investing for profit compared to the number of people who bought gas to fuel their cars vs resell for profit...you might not get so wrapped up in you analogy

<comment><USER9> The relevant part is not if you can make a profit, but if there is a "promoter" which says that. He gave an example how buying a house is not a security even if you expect prices to go up, but buying the same house through another legal entity with management can be a security.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's something I can't reconcile in my head about crypto: What is the vested interest in a country like the US allowing crypto to become the de facto world currency, thus stripping the power of the Reserve away from the US (and indeed any other country with an interest in managing its own currency)? Doesn't it behoove countries with this interest to work to the bitter end to prevent crypto from becoming de facto?

And if I'm right, and crypto _can't_ become de facto, what is it aside from a security, since it would have no "home"?

<comment><USER16> A decent fraction of the people in charge of making these decisions understand that new, risky forms of enterprise can lead to benefits for a lot of people.

Despite being a regulatory body, the SEC has a very free-market culture.

<comment><USER15> I think you're right insofar as wanting to get out of the way of companies, but I think when it comes to something as fundamental as _the currency which operates at a national level_, it would decidedly be more cautious, especially in giving away the power to inflate or offer 0% interest overnight loans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So basically Ethereum is not security but any crypto tokens created on top of Ethereum to make _public offering_ are still securities.

<comment><USER18> Not _any_. The SEC has previously acknowledged the different types of tokens (utility, security, commodity, collectible, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This will probably become the new new wannabe loophole. "Our SAFT is a security but when the token launches it won't be."

<comment><USER7> That's not a loophole. It has a significant effect on the flexibility and participation set of initial fundraising. I would argue it reinforces the traditional VC paradigm that limits accessibility to the wealthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> FTFA:

> And putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, > based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum > network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether > are not securities transactions.

Wouldn't the hard forks seem to go against this?

</comment><comment><USER21> Of course it's not a security. It's a commodity... right?

</comment><comment><USER22> It's all in the marketing.

Scammy ICO promises? It's a security.

The number of promises the Ethereum foundation and developers have made with regard to expected ROI? Pretty much zero in centralized fashion. Not a security.

If I sell potatoes on the street promising MOON RETURNS 50% a month, i'm selling securities.

<comment><USER23> > It's all in the marketing.

But it's not:

> simply labeling a digital asset a "utility token" does not turn the asset > into something that is not a security.

Your point only works in one direction: of course if something is marketed promising returns then it is a security. The lack of such marketing does not imply anything in either direction.

That said, I do believe that Ether is a utility token.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can we please change the title to "SEC Director of Corporation Finance thinks Ethereum is not a security" or something along those lines? Because it is not SEC's view that Ethereum is not a security but someone working there.

<comment><USER8> Unless the SEC disavows this statement, wouldn't a director's view be seen as the SEC's view?

<comment><USER25> No, the SEC would have to explicitly issue a ruling.

This would be equivalent to equating the opinion of a single Supreme Court Justice to a ruling of the Supreme Court on a subject.

<comment><USER14> That's not exactly how it works.

Check out United States v. Baker for _reliance on authority of a Government Official_.

A good practical example is where Obama said his Justice Dept would not enforce Federal Laws on Marijuana in States where actors are complying with those State Laws. If the Federal Government preceded to crack down, U.S. v. Baker would provide a solid defense of good faith reliance on authority of a Givernment Official where the act is otherwise in clear violation of federal law.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Demo app: how to structure large/modular angular app - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Moncef12/ng_talk_app_demo <comment><USER2> I've vouched for this, because it really shouldn't be deaf. But a better README would be good :-)</comment>


Ask HN: What's your most underrated sci fi favorite book? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'd choose one of these two, since they both completely qualify as underrated:

A) "Psychohistorical Crisis" by Donald Kingsbury, which is an unauthorized sequel set in the world of Asimov's Foundation Series.

B) "Venus Equilateral" by George O. Smith, which is an old, rather cheesy sci- fi novel from the 1940s, which is basically a bunch of engineers on a communications space station fighting lawyers, bureaucracy, and space pirates through inventing stuff.

</comment><comment><USER3> I enjoy Adam Roberts, and he doesn't tend to get much mention on HN. I particularly enjoyed _Salt_ and _New Model Army_.

I also enjoy _Allen Steele_ , and again he doesn't get much mention on HN. I really enjoyed the _Coyete_ series, although many people get stuck on the lack of science in them.

I don't know about underrated, but I also loved reading Interzone when I was younger, and the anthologies are great if you can get hold of them.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have no mouth and I must scream - Harlan Ellison (Short story) We are Legion We are Bob - Dennis Taylor (Highly rated. Good anyway)

<comment><USER5> Thumbs up for We are Bob

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The Man Who Folded Himself"

Probably the best time travel book I have read!

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't know how highly rated Iain M Banks books are, but they are brilliant

</comment><comment><USER7> "The Revolving Boy", by Gertrude Friedberg.</comment>


Apple to open-source video calling protocol FaceTime - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-introduces-facetime-video-chat-for-iphone-4-2010-6

<comment><USER2> Who's claiming that it's "open-source". They're only claiming that it's an open standard. That just means that they'll tell you how it works. Not provide code or anything else. Nor does it imply that it's royalty free.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well... Without FLOSS-friendly AV codecs in the standard, it's no use to open- source it.

<comment><USER4> why? the encoders / decoders can still be OSS, and you can use h264 for free for personal use. Even if you won't be allowed to do this in the future, the rest of the toolchain can always be used with another standard.

<comment><USER3> > and you can use h264 for free for personal use

I was not aware it could be distributed for free. That's why many Linux distros don't include it on the base install, but allow it for download in countries with sane patent systems.</comment></comment></comment>


HFT Quote Stuffing is a software bug - <AUTHOR> http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/quote_stuffing_is_a_software_bug.html <comment><USER3> So again with all HFT conversations we have to be clear on what we mean with the language we are using.

I've seen quote stuffing used to mean what Chris mentions here. The implication being that HFTs were using large volumes of low quantity orders for nefarious purposes such as DoS the exchange & SIP or confusing your competitors by making the order flow to heavy to process. These kinds of games did occur, but it was very briefly a long time ago because the exchanges themselves had a vested interest in stopping it and an easy mechanism which to do so (fill ratios). I prefer the term quote spamming for this, and I agree with Chris that most of the time when this happens it's just a bad order management bug.

Quote stuffing can also refer to the practice of putting a few large orders into the order book with no intention of trading them in order to make the volume on the book look larger than it is, and then cancelling them quickly to take advantage of the "real" volume. This is a predatory activity designed explicitly to take advantage of market making strategies and is already illegal. Your mileage may vary when it comes to enforcement...

<comment><USER4> The second kind of quote-stuffing you mention, where you place larger orders outside the best bid/offer with the intention of distorting the order book (aka spoofing, see comment below) is certainly nefarious. But it's a special kind of nefarious behaviour that really only affects other market participants who can react quickly enough to the information - i.e. it's mostly HFTs taking money from other HFTs.

<comment><USER5> I think it is more short-term day traders taking money from naive HFTs. I'm sure some people automate this type of manipulation, but I seriously doubt that any of the "big name" market making firms do it. They are under a lot of regulatory scrutiny, make more than enough through legitimate trading, and have the technology & data to enable their internal compliance auditors to detect it.

I also don't think it can make that much. It may work for a little while, but no algo is going to sit there bleeding money to you forever without hitting a risk limit or being reviewed/adjusted. If your business model depends on somebody else doing something dumb, it's not going to work for the long-haul.

<comment><USER6> The cases I know of where the SEC has cracked down were all manual traders leaning the book and essentially taking advantage of naive MM algos. Proceeds < $5mm each time I believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always assumed that step 2 was "DoS your competitors".

This is crudely done with volume of traffic, but more elegantly done with frequency and amplitude (and so on) given some set of (possibly wrong) assumptions about how competing algorithms will respond to this rapid fire order placement.

I know almost nothing (beyond ZH and chapters 1-5, so far, of _Dark Pools_) about HFT, but I can trivially think of ways you could be evil with quote stuffing as it is described in the OP.

<comment><USER5> Manipulation definitely happens where traders will show non-bona fide interest on one side of the market to provoke other traders or algos to react. It's known as layering or spoofing and like any behavior where you're placing orders to influence others rather than out of an interest to trade, it's illegal.

Most cases of this or similar behavior like stop running have involved human traders at loosely regulated click trading shops or smaller electronic firms that don't play by the rules:

[https://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2012/P178687](https://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2012/P178687)

[http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6649-13](http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6649-13)

Aside from the regulatory risk, it doesn't fit the business model for most "HFT" firms, who generally are making many low-risk, low-reward trades with a small statistical edge based on proprietary models. Spoofing usually requires showing large false interest which entails considerable risk if you actually get elected. If you are fast enough to make markets or arb crude oil, you can make way more doing that than manipulating the DOM hoping to push algos into doing something stupid until they figure your tricks out.

Predicting markets is hard. Predicting how thousands of heterogenous agents will react to your order is even harder, if not impossible.

<comment><USER7> "Predicting markets is hard. Predicting how thousands of heterogenous agents will react to your order is even harder, if not impossible."

My very small amount of knowledge on this topic leads me to believe that the idea that one algo would specifically target another algo is not at all farfetched. Who cares how the market responds to your weird trading if you're trying to create distortions for one, or a few, actors ?

<comment><USER5> Because the market has many actors. If I try to push the market down to shake out stop losses, another trader may say, "Hey, this price move doesn't make sense considering recent activity, how the broad market is moving, etc., I'm going to buy more" and prevent me from doing so. Likewise if I'm shifting the depth with a big false order. I might induce some actors to do bad trades, but another actor might see my order as a great opportunity to trade in size and trade against it, so I'll take a loss.

Liquid markets with a diverse set of actors are more resilient to manipulation attempts. It's hard to do unless you have more capital or are willing to take risk that other actors in aggregate are not.

<comment><USER8> _' "Hey, this price move doesn't make sense considering recent activity, how the broad market is moving, etc., I'm going to buy more"'_

Betting you know more than the guy moving large size rarely a good move, though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [http://zacharydavid.com/2014/04/on-hft-part-ii-bugs- features...](http://zacharydavid.com/2014/04/on-hft-part-ii-bugs-features-and- aggressive-incompetence/#A-Bug)

This blog post details similar issues that can lead to rapidly canceled orders. Generally, firms that are smart avoid moving their prices around "too much" since:

a.) You lose your spot in the queue. If I am near the front of the price/time queue buying at 100.01 and move to 100.00 and back up again, now I'm behind everyone else and will either lose opportunity or face more negative selection (I'll only trade when someone wants to sell all the contracts bid at 100.01, whereas before I would get some trades where someone only wants to sell a few).

b.) Sending orders is more computationally expensive than doing nothing. If you send enough orders you will slow down your own system.

c.) Depending on market rules and behavior the messages you send may cause your gateway to queue up or block you from sending more messages which hurts you.

I don't think quote flicker can provide any "evil" benefit to the person doing it. It doesn't make sense to do it to slow down competitors, since most feeds are multicasted to everyone and you still have to process all the orders you send, both from the gateway and over the data feed. If you are faster at handling this situation than your competition then you are going to beat them anyway so what's the benefit in slowing them down?

I do think it can be disruptive in the sense that it places extra load on the exchange and can annoy participants who have trouble taking prices on their screen. Some markets have quote/trade rules to encourage more efficient messaging which is their right and not a bad idea if the limits are set reasonably. Rules like this make more sense than a minimum resting time, which just penalizes makers at the expense of fast takers. Imagine I am putting quotes out in SPY, an S&P 500 ETF, but they need to rest for half a second. Someone sees the S&P 500 futures or the individual stocks move and then my quote becomes a free option to trade at an unfair price. In a market like this, market makers would be forced to put up wider prices to compensate for these losses.

A high quote/trade ratio in itself is not disruptive. A lot of the Nanex charts use thinly traded derivative products like ETFs as their whipping boy. The underlying value of these products will change whenever another stock or commodity changes, so market makers need to update their quotes quite rapidly to avoid trading at unfair prices, even if no trades have occurred in the product itself.

<comment><USER9> > If you are faster at handling this situation than your competition then you > are going to beat them anyway so what's the benefit in slowing them down?

Suppose your fund has invested a lot in some hefty compute hardware but your trading strategies are on the weak side, whereas you know your competitors have better strategies but their computers are slower. Isn't it then in your interest to stuff the order feed and make everyone more dependent on computer power?

<comment><USER5> Maybe? Most guys who are really fast are also really smart. It's hard to make money purely being fast these days.

I can't speak for everyone but most "HFT" models are built around providing some kind of service to the market, generally either making markets to try to make the bid-offer spread or arbitraging away inefficiencies between related products.

Even if you are evil, building a model that solely seeks to take advantage of another trader doesn't make sense in the long run. Eventually they will alter their behavior or exit the market. It's not sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Nanex linked an interesting CS research piece[1] which also discusses other possible reasons for (malicious) quote stuffing including:

\- walking others into the book,

\- creating false midpoints and

\- trying to cause stale pricing and slowing others down.

[1][http://de.scribd.com/doc/116761218/CS-HFT- DETECTION](http://de.scribd.com/doc/116761218/CS-HFT-DETECTION)

<comment><USER5> But even they admit that a market flashing between 100.01 offer and 100.00 offer is sometimes beneficial for them. It says their execution algo will attempt to "pick off" the 100.00 offer with IOCs if they are representing a buyer.

Flashing orders with the intent to manipulate is wrong and is illegal already. It doesn't matter if you do this by hand or with a computer. Putting up a tighter best price, even if it doesn't stay put very long, can only be beneficial. At least some of the time, other traders will get filled at a more advantageous price than they would otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That sure is a lot of hand-wringing for what is a fairly simple and obvious problem. You're reacting to the extremely short-term derivative of a noisy signal. Of course things are going to go crazy from time to time.

It's odd that he touches on the obvious solution of rate limiting, but doesn't actually discuss it as a way to stop this problem. If quote stuffing is a bug that harms the people carrying it out, then why don't HFT programs have a rate limiter on them that make them stop? He even goes so far as to say that you can get shut down for doing this, so why isn't there a tripwire to make sure you can never, ever do it?

<comment><USER11> The low level of opacity when it comes to electronic trading makes it difficult to make any sense out of exactly what is (or perhaps isn't) happening, which I think is fundamentally the problem.

<comment><USER12> Do you mean the high level of opacity? There is considerably more opacity than in non-electronic trading, surely (everything on record, all data public, no effect from personal relationships etc)?

<comment><USER13> I can't tell whether you're suggesting that "HFT" (heavily automated electronic trading) is more opaque than human trading (ie, the specialist system), but for what it's worth there's a right answer to this question: human market makers are _WAY_ less transparent than algorithms are.

Here's a benchmark: human market makers rigged the public markets so that tradable instruments were quoted in fractions of a dollar, rather than in pennies, so they could surreptitiously increase spreads. It's hard to get more brazen than that.

<comment><USER14> _human market makers rigged the public markets so that tradable instruments were quoted in fractions of a dollar, rather than in pennies, so they could surreptitiously increase spreads._

I don't think this is right. Erh, obviously U.S. equities traded in quarters and eights (and later sixteenths before decimalization), but to say that they were using a weird fractional system _because_ they wanted to rip people off isn't documented anywhere in the literature. They could have moved to decimals and still kept the minimum price variation above a penny†, or they could have just added more fractions (32nds, 64ths, 128ths) that would have moved the minimum price variation into roughly the range you get by quoting in decimals. If you think quoting in 128ths sounds silly I won't argue with you, but it's something they do actually do for the US treasury futures contracts on the CME††.

I suspect that they just used what worked. In a market of human traders, it's much easier to deal with large round numbers. I think that's why odd lots were treated specially too. E.g. It's a lot easier for humans to keep track of 5000 shares at 50 1/2 than in 100 small orders from 200 shares to 5 shares all priced between 50.40 and 50.60. As markets adopted technology, they naturally moved to a smaller minimum price variation (and eliminated the special treatment of odd lots) because computers don't have any problems dealing with an aggregate of small orders vs one big order.

† They are actually talking about doing this for some small cap stocks later this year. [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230427530...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304275304579396861123381346)

†† ctrl-f "Quotation Practices" \-- [http://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/understanding- treasu...](http://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/understanding-treasury- futures.pdf)

<comment><USER13> [https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/nd21a-report.txt](https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/nd21a-report.txt)

Search "odd-eighth".

Decimalization drastically reduced spreads. Scott Patterson suggested in _Dark Pools_ that it literally put many human market makers out of business; in other words: those human market makers were kept afloat by the gross inefficiency of quoting prices in 8ths and 16ths, an inefficiency that was taken out of the hides of investors.

<comment><USER14> I was really just trying to make the points that 1) the minimum price variation of 1/8 of a dollar probably made sense at some point in the past (NYSE being started in the early 19th century) 2) sometimes it's more than just market makers who want larger tick sizes (consider this post from a managing partner at Andreesen Horowitz†) and 3) you can reduce the minimum price variation (the "tick size") without doing decimalization (i.e. smaller fractions) and vice versa -- you can set the minimum price variation at sizes larger than a penny even with decimalized quotations.

† [http://blog.pmarca.com/2013/03/26/unshackle-the-middle- class...](http://blog.pmarca.com/2013/03/26/unshackle-the-middle-class/)

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure what this comment means. You said, earlier: "but to say that they were using a weird fractional system because they wanted to rip people off isn't documented anywhere in the literature." I think I refuted that, effectively.

Can you artificially inflate spreads without making inflated spreads the explicit law of the market by quoting in 1/8ths? Sure. Is that what happens? No.

<comment><USER14> I thought you were making a distinction between quoting in fractions of a dollar vs quoting in pennies. It isn't really material. If you quote in fractions but allow the minimum price variation to be 1/128th of a dollar you have a market that allows for tighter spreads than one in which the minimum price variation is a penny. There is nothing wrong with prices in fractions of a dollar. What matters is the minimum price variation a.k.a. the tick size.

<comment><USER13> It _is_ material, because the fractions of dollars we're talking about were bigger than 1/100th of a dollar. Clearly, they could have moved to sub-decimal fractions, but the point isn't "fractions" versus "decimals"; it's "human market makers fixed the fractions at 1/8ths and 1/16ths of a dollar to artificially increase the spread", versus "algorithmic trading competed the spread down below a penny".

You implied that maybe humans had been using fractions because they were easier to deal with. No. They were using the fractions they were using in order to skim extra money off trades, and they fought tooth and nail to prevent competition from reducing spreads below 1/8ths --- in fact, if you read the link I showed you, it wasn't even 1/8ths; it was 1/4s!

<comment><USER14> What I meant to imply was that the emergence of fractional dollar tick sizes was probably due to the fact that they were easier to deal with before the advent of computerized execution, clearing, and settlement. By the mid nineties most of that had been automated and there was therefore no good reason for such large tick sizes. When humans were still doing all trade processing manually, it made sense to have a system that incentivized fewer large trades (vs more smaller trades). Large minimum price variations and round lot requirements would have been a means to that end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Except, once in a blue moon this happens when the mean signal approaches the threshold and stays there for a while:_

I'm having some trouble with the contention that this is just such a rare thing. I do a lot of audio signal processing so I'm used to dealing with noisy signals at Khz rates. Threshold fluctiations are a fact of life if you're trying to do things like pitch detection, envelope following, or sidechain compression (all of which have obvious analogs in the trading context).

Obviously you don't want to impose too brutal of a low-pass filter on your input because you would miss important signals, but what prevents you from running the input signal to an LPF in parallel and keying a noise gate when the amplitude of the low-frequency (trend) signal drops? This is such a common problem in dealing with audio that we use specific devices called de-essers for recording vocals, because sibilant sounds otherwise tend to throw off other components of the signal chain: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De- esser](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-esser)

Ironically, you mention using XKCD-type graphs because 'nobody reads' the explanations and caveats, but just looks at pictures. I wonder if you aren't missing a trick here by over-engineering your HFT systems for speedy response at the inevitable price of positional confusion. Is it possible that you're using Infinite Impulse Response filtering and running into denormalization problems as a result? If so, can you not rectify the problem by adding a small amount of noise?

I get your point about the negative aspects (for the HFT trader) of quote stuffing, how it can easily lead to being on the wrong side of a trade or punishment by the broker for flooding the output channel with unintended orders. But, you want to make money from automated signal analysis, that's your problem in much the same way that a sound engineer is responsible for preventing transient pops and feedback howls in an audio network. Sure, these problematic signal conditions are statistically rare, but when you're dealing with a high volume of samples you'r going to run into statistically rare conditions on a regular basis - and indeed you mention that this is the sort thing you might expect to happen once a day.

<comment><USER5> I think you are right on the money and most traders do use techniques analogous to the ones you describe when designing models:

[http://www.decal.org/file/2945](http://www.decal.org/file/2945)

"Alpha is often nothing more than taking commonly available data and mathematically encoding it in a signal correctly. Correct often means something as simple as using an rate of change instead of a difference, normalizing a value, smoothing a chaotic signal with an EMA, using a heteroscedastic weighted linear regression instead of a simple regression, or handling all numerical errors or edge cases."

It's not always easy to get this completely correct in every situation and traders face a reward function that doesn't necessarily reward correctness so much as avoiding Type II errors.

<comment><USER15> I feel like I'm in the wrong job - clearly I should be routing ticker prices into my mixing desk and playing the market like a cheap violin instead of being an underpaid sound engineer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> this is an interesting way to look at the problem but in my reasonably informed opinion, flawed.

it seems like this is working backwards from the assumption that quote stuffing must be benign activity, and then trying to rationalize it with signal/noise theories about finding the fair price level.

it is totally inaccurate to say that there is more load on the sender than the general public, and also misses the mark on what the DOS theory alleges.

the exchange bears considerably more load than the sender of orders. the exchange must (1) ack the order, or reject if any flags are populated out-of- spec, (2) add the order to the order book, (3) check for potential matches based on price of order, if so, cross and update feeds, (4) if non-marketable, publish out to (a) depth-of-book feed, (b) SIP feed, etc.

the DOS theory is that excessive activity in a single partition can slow down the publishing of data in that symbol range, which would mess up the quoted price for the exchange in a symbol, which would affect orders priced on the exchange, or anyone using the price in a derived manner (at a dark pool etc).

<comment><USER17> I'm not making the _assumption_ that it's benign. It's based on my own experience - I've quote stuffed hundreds of times in simulation, and I'm sure it happened in production as well. It's a hard bug to completely avoid.

Interesting - the DOS attack is on the exchange rather than other market participants. But could you be more specific on how this helps you make money?

<comment><USER3> There used to be games where you would attempt to get one order connection on one exchange gateway and then another connection on a different exchange gateway. You'd spam with one connection to slow down all the other participants on that gateway, and use your other connection for your real trades.

Other games involved spamming open auctions, settlement trades etc.

This gaming was a very brief phenomenon (because it is stupid, doesn't make as much money as traditional trading, and trivial to foil). The exchanges got rid of it almost immediately but it still gets passed around as folklore for one of the "predatory" activities that HFT does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is fun

[https://twitter.com/nanexllc/status/458663948800520192](https://twitter.com/nanexllc/status/458663948800520192)

</comment><comment><USER19> Obviously, well written HFTs avoid this by introducing some hysteresis to the signal. i.e. Insert an order when the signal crosses 0.5, but then only delete it if the signal falls below 0.4.

Chris: You've also missed the most common cause of these issues in my experience - feedback from identifying your own orders in the public stream. HFTs need to filter their own orders out of the orderbook they are trading on, or a feedback loop can begin. This can be difficult, since some exchanges don't provide a clear way to identify your own order, or it may be the case that you receive the public UDP packet before the private TCP packet that contains the ID required to match the two.

For example (a basic one), say I have an algo that calculates the midpoint based on the best bid and ask volumes. And can only insert within x distance of the midpoint. I add a bid to the top of the book for a 1 lot, get the UDP public depth update, don't know whether this is my order or someone elses. So I re-calculate the midpoint, which pushes the midpoint upwards (greater bid volume), which means I then pull my bid, which means I recalculate the mid again, then re-insert, etc. etc....

<comment><USER17> I actually mentioned this briefly - see the discussion of the "reconciliation step" in the "Quote Stuffing is not a DOS attack" section.

I guess I assumed everyone's reconciliation system was as good as the one I worked on. But you make a very good point, as well as a meta point - <USER2> stuff isn't easy.

<comment><USER19> Sorry, missed that bit

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The 2. in the series, if I understand it right, is that they overwhelming the derelict SIP feed between market locations, increasing the benefits that their own high speed connections brings. If true, that does make money because they can act "in advance" at other markets before the artificially slowed SIP data gets there.</comment>


Confessions of a Debt Collector - <AUTHOR> http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/15/debtors-prism-confessions-of-a-collector/

<comment><USER2> There's a lot of money in businesses in which you're helping companies "find money". In this case, it's recovering at least something from a bad debt. In others, it could be finding buyers for scrap product or other material that's usually just thrown away. The sellers aren't price sensitive, and unless there's a very competitive secondary market, you can get away with high margins.

</comment><comment><USER3> Disappointing. Didn't live up to its promises of exposing aspects of the business which could only be gleaned by "going into the belly of the beast." The author might not be granted much literary license on most projects, but he sure took it here. (As much in the flowery prose as in the broken promise.)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure where he was going with that reference to strip clubs and plasma clinics at the end.

Did I miss something?

<comment><USER5> I think he alludes to them being unsavory things that still won't go away because there's a demand.

That's what I got out of that sentence.

I'm not quite sure why a plasma clinic would be unsavory. Maybe he's thinking of the (now illegal?) practice of paying donors?

<comment><USER6> It's more that these are ways to make money fast if you're desperate. Plasma donation is usually something people do to get paid, which is why plasma centers are usually in poor neighborhoods.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The topic reminds me of a family anecdote:

When I was a little girl, my dad worked for a time for a small company. He apparently talked the owner into letting him take over the dead accounts as part of his duties on the condition that he get a cut. The owner expected them to be uncollectable, so he figured there was nothing to lose.

My dad would go personally see these people, learn where they lived, learn what day of the month they got their check (often, a welfare check). On that day, he would show up with enough money to cash their check and take out a small payment on the debt they owed. (He swore that if you went even one day later, you weren't going to get a dime.) He was very friendly about it and offered to cash it for their "convenience". He made it an offer they could not refuse.

My dad supposedly collected on upwards of 90% of what the business was owed by these dead accounts, taking his cut, of course.

</comment><comment><USER8> I never have really understood why debtors often seem to have no legal obligation to pay their debts. I mean, a system where all the lender can do is call and say 'please pay us'? That makes no sense.

<comment><USER9> Because the punitive response to default makes even less sense. It doesn't extract much money (most structured BK's fail). It retards entrepreneurship (most new companies fail). It locks debtors into unproductive careers or businesses, which is a net loss for the economy. And, it actually encourages irresponsible lending (greater disincentives to default imply more incentives to lend).

What makes no sense at all is the system of incentives that, over the last 10-15 years, motivated financial institutions to go out of their way to extend credit to people with no discernable way to pay it off. Those incentives had _almost nothing_ to do with consumer responsibility. They appear instead to have been a byproduct of the deliberate mispricing of debt.

<comment><USER10> > Because the punitive response to default makes even less sense.

I always thought that banks don't care for punishing people per-se, as morality it not their business. It seems they just have an excuse to create some bogus losses to offset their gains on paper? Does that makes sense? In other words, they know that some of these debtors will never pay back so they start charging a high (say 35%) interest. All that accumulated "loss" can be written off against their gains for tax purposes.

Does that make any sense or am I completely wrong?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11>
      > The syntactical errors in the ad suggested that it was written by a
      > self-educated man,

Do I need to say anything?

      > This wasn't the way women of my acquaintance talked ... But those women had
      > all been to good schools

Hopefully I don't.</comment>


Space Requirements for Tree Traversal - <AUTHOR> https://eugene-eeo.github.io/blog/tree-traversal-storage.html <comment><USER2> I believe "Iterative deepening depth-first search" should be mentioned since the result is equivalent to breadth-first search but the memory efficiency is basically the same as depth-first search. It also tends to be faster than breadth-first search due to the lower memory complexity.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_deepening_depth- firs...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_deepening_depth-first_search)

<comment><USER3> Oh boy, this is great. Thanks! I was not aware of this when I wrote the article/post. I started out by wanting to make a very generalised pair of expressions for the space requirements so I had to make very little assumptions and would be able compare it to efficiency gains by other algorithms/representations.

Again thanks, I'll try to include it this week end if I have the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article claims that the space requirement for depth-first search of a binary tree is O(log N). This is incomplete for the broader category of binary trees.

The space requirement for depth-first search of a _non-balanced_ binary tree is pretty clearly O(N), not O(log N). (Consider the "linked list" tree.)

For balanced trees, O(log N) is correct. This is because space required for depth-first search is identical to maximum tree depth. And balanced trees bound depth at O(log N), while non-balanced trees can be O(N) deep.

While the article leaves out the mention of the term _balanced_ , the described "perfect" trees happen to be balanced.

<comment><USER3> Hi, original author here. I used "perfect" trees as I wanted to generalise it to trees of other "types", not just binary trees. But yes, you are correct that it is incomplete for the broader category of binary trees.

<comment><USER4> Other types of trees can also be unbalanced :-). E.g., the classic example of DFS is maze-solving, which is usually unbalanced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > iteratively using LIFO queues or FIFO stacks.

Aren't queues FIFO and stacks LIFO? Or am I just confused and there is some FIFO stack thing I haven't heard of yet?

<comment><USER6> It does seem like the author swapped those two.

<comment><USER3> Whoops, you're right. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you want O(1) space complexity and you do not care about modifying the tree, you can do tree rotations essentially flattening out the tree into a singly linked list.

<comment><USER8> Are you assuming that nodes have parent pointers?

<comment><USER7> You don't need parent pointers.

For converting binary tree into a linked list in O(n) time and O(1) space.

You have two pointers, the root and the tail (right child node).

If root has a left subtree, set tail->right = left subtree. Update tail again so it is the last right child node.

root = root->right

Repeat until root is NULL

<comment><USER8> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi, original author here. I did not expect so much discussion and awareness! Once again I have to stress that I wanted to make a very general pair of equations so I could compare the efficiency gains in other algorithms from the naive versions in an 'accurate' way. If anyone has any suggestions for the algorithms involved please let me know (firstname.lastname@example.com) and I'll see if it's suitable to put in. I apologise in advance if I take longer than usual to reply, A levels are a ton of work!

Also I was originally going to see how this applied to traversing really large, cross machine trees so I did not consider the algorithms that mutated the tree, but thanks for making me aware of those.

</comment><comment><USER9> For Red-Black tree (balanced tree) preorder/inorder/postorder traversal, which involves depth first scan, 2 * log(n) additional space is required ([1]).

[1] Here is an example, look for st_tr_aux() function: [https://github.com/faragon/libsrt/blob/master/src/stree.c](https://github.com/faragon/libsrt/blob/master/src/stree.c)

</comment><comment><USER10> If the nodes have parent pointers, which does tend to be somewhat common, then depth-first can be done in constant space. I haven't implemented it before, but I believe breadth-first should also take constant space in this case.

<comment><USER8> If the nodes have parent pointers, _everything_ is paying extra O(n) space.

<comment><USER11> Space is already O(n)</comment></comment></comment>


Drupal Contrib – Highly Critical – Remote Code Execution PSA-2016-001 - <AUTHOR> https://www.drupal.org/psa-2016-001 <comment><USER2> Oh hey, Elijah! I found out about this HN post because my friend wrote to me about it, so I guess you're doing a good deed for the community.

I want to note that these vulnerabilities are in 3 Drupal 7 contributed modules:

 _RESTWS_ (we personally never used this, but it has 5k installs)

 _Coder_ (we use its scripts all the time, but install it only in Dev environment, not in Drupal codebase. However, we did have a client with 3 projects running it, and they're patching it now)

 _Webform Multiple File Upload_ (we never used this, but it has 3k installs)

So for context, this isn't exactly "Drupalgeddon 2.0", but if you know someone who uses Drupal 7, they should check if they're using these modules, and update them.

<comment><USER3> Small addition re: Coder: It's not necessary for the module to be enabled in order to be exploitable, it just has to be _somewhere_ in your document root[1]. If you share the same code base between dev and production, you might be vulnerable even if it's disabled in production.

[1]: [https://twitter.com/drupalsecurity/status/753263548458004480](https://twitter.com/drupalsecurity/status/753263548458004480)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for posting that very important point about the Coder module. We were mitigated by the fact we used Composer to install an internal distribution and Coder was in our /vendor/drupal/coder directory, not inside docroot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Question from a non-Drupal dev here: this notice deals with third-party modules that don't _sound_ like they'd be ubiquitous for deployments. But it's in the PSA section in which has few posts overall, and seems to focus on Drupal core. Am I underestimating the install base, or overestimating the likelihood of 3rd-party modules having security holes?

(It doesn't seem that WordPress's security section concerns itself with plugin flaws...because if it did, that's be a pretty busy section...)

Edit: Ok this I was also wondering: are these flaws a result of something related to Drupal core?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12088471](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12088471)

Is it standard for Drupal to _not_ disable web access to disabled plugins? Or is this notice for the rare edge custom deployments in which default safeguards are disabled? How can a non-admin reach a disabled plugin (nevermind execute it)?

<comment><USER3> New(ish) projects using popular PHP frameworks typically have all their code stored somewhere outside of the web server's document root - there's usually just a single PHP file in the document root that's responsible for instantiating a front controller or bootstrapping the app in some other way, with a .htaccess (or similar) file telling the web server to redirect all requests to that file.

Drupal (and WordPress, etc.) come from a time where your entire code base would live in the document root, so knowing the path to a .php file is often enough to execute the script. While it would be possible to limit this with something like .htaccess, it's error-prone, web server-specific, and can break existing code in your ecosystem, so that's probably why it's not being done consistently. Changing the code structure of Drupal in a way that would put most of the code outside of the document root would similarly cause a lot of work for the ecosystem and might make installation in typical shared web hosting environments impossible in some scenarios - I've seen hosters who only allow you to upload files straight to the document root, so there'd be no way to use such a project with those plans. This is in essence just another case of things going wrong because compatibility was prioritized over possible security concerns, and I don't even want to blame them _too_ much for that, given the usual outcry when backwards-incompatible changes cause work for (plugin) developers in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like a very small number of sites are affected (1,000 - 10,1000 out of 1.2 million total[1]). Nonetheless, it's a serious bug and to be safe it's probably advisable to assume that your site is vulnerable if it is running Drupal.

1: [https://www.drupal.org/project/usage/drupal](https://www.drupal.org/project/usage/drupal)

</comment><comment><USER6> I am so glad I quit using Drupal years ago (due to its recurring security issues, coincidentally) and "banned" it in our organization.

(Yes, I realize these issues are in third-party/contributed modules.)

<comment><USER7> If you found software to switch to that is free of security issues, I imagine we would all be interested to know what it is.

<comment><USER8> While you can't make software perfectly secure you can make security updates as easy as possible. Drupal is exceptionally bad at this. IMHO Wordpress does the right thing with its auto updates. That still doesn't solve the problem for plugins, but it's probably prevented a lot of hacked sites. I think a CMS without an autoupdate functionality cannot be recommended for general use these days.

<comment><USER9> Drupal has a built-in update mechanism and it's been around for years. Administrators receive update notifications via email, they're surfaced in the status page, and there's a site-wide admin notification on every page when there's a security release available.

You can update both core and modules (similar to plugins for WordPress) using the web interface, which is included with core, or use a command-line utilities like Drush for Drupal 7, or Composer in Drupal 8.

There's lots of very valid reasons to be critical of Drupal, but:

> Drupal is exceptionally bad at this.

I don't think that's accurate.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


John Carmack Keynote at Oculus Connect 5 (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW6tgBcN_fA <comment><USER2> Carmack's talks can be very long, but if you can find an evening to sit in front of YouTube, settle in to the couch, you'll be startled by just how smart this guy is. Deep, in depth discussion on highly technical topics for a long period of time with barely a word mis-said.

Anyone interested in programming should watch at least one long Carmack talk.

<comment><USER3> Also he packs a lot of information in his talks. Some keynote speakers can talk for hours reiterating the same stuff. With Carmack, you travel the tech landscape at a very fast pace, time flies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> John Carmack is a goddamn national treasure.

<comment><AUTHOR> I love how refreshingly honest his keynotes are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of the greatest programmers of the modern age.

He's the type of genius that could have done anything in the field he set his mind to.

I'm really glad it was video games and not ad tech.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> related: Quest and Rift S are shipping now

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/21/oculus-quest-and-rift-s- no...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/21/oculus-quest-and-rift-s-now- shipping/)

</comment><comment><USER6> (2018)

<comment><AUTHOR> added</comment></comment>


Santa Monica Measured Residents' Well-Being for Four Years - <AUTHOR> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/santa-monica-well-being-index_us_5a572e08e4b0a300f905fa58?m=false <comment><USER2> Former Santa Monica resident. The problem with Santa Monica feels like the problem with Silicon Valley.

It's nice if you can afford to live there, but current residents seem hell- bent on blocking new housing.

In particular I'm thinking of the Bergamot Transit Village [1], a proposed mixed-use project that spent years in limbo. Current residents complained about traffic impact.

Eventually, the developers gave up and turned it all into office space, which has a similar traffic impact, but didn't involve the same level of scrutiny.

[1] [https://la.curbed.com/2015/1/9/10003866/developer-giving- up-...](https://la.curbed.com/2015/1/9/10003866/developer-giving-up-on- bergamot-transit-village-and-it-could-be-even)

<comment><USER3> You basically just said its expensive to live there, and residents should somehow feel bad for not making their city worse, to support more people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Of all the cities in the 25 different countries I traveled to, Santa Monica is definitely up there. Great location in LA, amazing food, vibrant neighborhoods, beautiful (and mostly friendly) people. Biggest downside to me is that there isn't enough tech opportunities there. Else I'd move there in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER5> Isn't the Venice/Santa Monica area known as Silicon Beach? I was under the impression there were relatively many media related software jobs there.

I was just there 2 weeks ago and loved it. I like that area much more than some of the popular neighborhoods like SilverLake, etc.

<comment><USER6> Silicon Beach is used to refer to Los Angeles.

<comment><USER7> No, it's generally considered to be the area west of the 405 from north of LAX to the Santa Monica mountains. Hundreds of tech companies, especially startups. (I work at one of them.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Santa Monica people look like a pretty happy crowd to me whenever I get there. Perfect weather, lots to do. As long as you can afford it.

<comment><USER9> > Perfect weather

People say this about a lot of places in California, but it's not my experience. "Perfect weather" seems to mean a dystopia of identical days, no changes, no wind, no clouds, just constant sun. Living in Alameda/Oakland drove me crazy in the summer. Nothing ever changes, every day is exactly the same. Yuck.

Santa Monica weather isn't nice for everyone. But I get it, there's a lot of sun and not much rain.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica,_California#Clima...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica,_California#Climate)

<comment><USER10> Interesting how divergent perspectives can be on this. Your dystopian view is my utopian view. As a California native, I literally exclaim "it's a beautiful day!" every single morning when I look outside and see it's perfectly sunny and blue.

For someone who probably has mild seasonal affective disorder, sunny days really make a considerable boost in my mood.

<comment><USER11> I live in the North of England, day after day of blue sky/sunny days would drive me crazy inside a couple of weeks.

I like rapidly changing weather.

<comment><USER12> My friend moved to Scotland and had a baby there. As toddler, one day she pointed up and exclaimed "look! there's a hole in the clouds!".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Link to actual data instead of clickbait : [https://wellbeing.smgov.net/about/wellbeing- index](https://wellbeing.smgov.net/about/wellbeing-index)

<comment><USER14> Is it really clickbait though?

The article felt well written and useful enough to stand alone. The data you linked has nothing to follow, and seems broken for me - several charts are showing no data and the text is misplaced ([https://i.imgur.com/UzZJdMc.png](https://i.imgur.com/UzZJdMc.png)).

<comment><USER15> It is! The actual article title is "A California City Measured Residents' Well-Being For 4 Years. What Lawmakers Discovered Surprised Them."

The simple fact of a city measuring residents' well-being is not really interesting. Even after quickly skimming the article trying to find the answer, I _still_ don't know what lawmakers discovered that was surprising to them.</comment></comment></comment>


Like WebEx but it's free - <AUTHOR> http://dimdim.com

<comment><USER2> We used this at [unnamed YC startup I worked with this summer]. It was a little unreliable. When it worked, it worked great, but some of the people we were demoing to couldn't get in.

<comment><USER3> We use GoToMeeting all the time; it's always been rock solid for us; and it is MUCH cheaper than webex.</comment></comment>


Why I contribute to Chromium - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.googleblog.com/2016/12/why-i-contribute-to-chromium.html <comment><USER2> I think if you don't benefit greatly from it, you shouldn't contribute to Chrome (which you are doing by contributing to Chromium). It's a commercial product Google is making money with indirectly by pushing you to Google services and collecting data with it.

Open source shouldn't be about having people work for free or for a laughable amount of money on your commercial project. You shouldn't have to work for free to be able to get a job.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've contributed to chromium devtools. Didn't any financial kudos. Would have been nice. $175 would go a long way for me. I would buy a RC plane and call it buggy.

Chromium being open has resulted in a lot of great projects. I just wished they developed on github. Their bug tracker and review tools really need an upgrade.

<comment><USER4> I feel that open source projects should at least have a mirror or issue repo on Github, I have a lot of issues with Firefox that I'd have reported in a jiffy on Github, but when I open firefox's issue manager, I get lost, plus I have to go, sign up and then report etc It is a hassle that we can avoid if we all use github/gitlab

<comment><USER5> I love GitHub and I use it for my own projects, however the increased reliance of the open-source community on GitHub worries me, because if this relationship goes sour it will be worse than what happened with SourceForge, because GitHub is much bigger with a much greater lock-in effect, because it also turned out to be a sort of social network for developers.

Many high profile projects don't even point at their own domain anymore, GitHub being their homepage, which is reckless for popular projects, given that a domain is only about $10 per year and given that hosting of static pages is essentially free.

Personally I hope that an alternative like GitLab takes off, because in the worst case scenario you can host it yourself.

<comment><USER6> We still have BitBucket. Cheers.

<comment><USER7> I used to root for BitBucket earlier because I too didn't like GitHub being treated as if it was 'The Way to Have Git On The Internet'.

However, after I started working at a place which uses Atlassian's wiki software and JIRA, I don't hold them in high regard anymore.

Now, I root for GitLab.

<comment><USER4> I got so tired with todo tools/ stuff like that, I wrote my own in Go. I don't have to worry about the changes they make to their products and it works offline!

[http://github.com/thewhitetulip/Tasks](http://github.com/thewhitetulip/Tasks)

I am currently working to make it run via ajax, it'll be fun :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > After review by a team of volunteer engineers, the recipients receive our > heartfelt thanks and a small token of our appreciation.

I hadn't heard about this, good for Google. Just how small is the token?

<comment><USER9> From [http://blog.bonus.ly/a-look-at-googles-peer-to-peer-bonus- sy...](http://blog.bonus.ly/a-look-at-googles-peer-to-peer-bonus-system):

> A typical example would be one employee giving $175 to a peer that "coded an > SQL query for me and saved me a lot of time." ... the sums involved might be > considered "insulting".

<comment><USER10> That's the internal peer bonus. Once you factor in taxes (bonuses incur a higher rate), depending on your base salary, you are left with about $100. It's definitely more valuable than a thank you card, but the main point is about acknowledging someone that went beyond duty. It's not for e.g. substantial projects -- that's what spot bonuses and yearly performance bonuses are for. Your snide remark borders more on "insulting".

As for open source contributors, there's definitely schwag involved. I'm not sure if any sums are involved, since there might be legal and financial implications for both sides.

<comment><USER11> No need to bite at the person you're responding to. That's a direct quote from the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> sort of reminds me of this post from a few years back: [http://aaronboodman- com-v1.blogspot.ca/2010/10/wherein-i-hel...](http://aaronboodman- com-v1.blogspot.ca/2010/10/wherein-i-help-you-get-good-job.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> Something about giving away all of my browsing information to Google in total puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I'd rather stick with Firefox and use DuckDuckGo when I want to run an unfiltered(ish) search.

<comment><USER14> Just a friendly reminder that HN considers comments that don't contribute to the article "off-topic" and you are likely to be downvoted as such. If you want to turn around your negative karma, please try and follow the community guidelines. Additionally this week there is a political embargo, so comments like this are even more likely to be penalised.

<comment><USER15> > Additionally this week there is a political embargo

there is? is there some sort of announcement for this?

<comment><USER16> They're referring to this [0] post, which was kinda controversial.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: If you have ever played WoW please critique my new site - <AUTHOR> http://www.pathofahero.com

<comment><USER2> The design is nice. One suggestion would be to better mimic the ui/colors/look and feel of WoW's ingame ui. Also add some sort of clan feature where someone can register a clan that they could also use as their clan/guild website so like a facebook group.

But disturbing too... A social network where instead of being about the users personal life, it is about a video game character they play. Luckily there are a boatload of people whose lives evolve around WoW so it could do very well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Clan/Guild features are definitely something that I am interested in looking into. For the initial release, I just wanted to keep it simple and let the users tell me the sorts of extensions they would be interested in :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It does indeed look very good. Nice design and a good concept to boot.

I hope it does well.

</comment><comment><USER4> FWIW, I'm not a player, but your design looks great. I'm a little iffy about the menu links near the top. I feel like they shouldn't be separated, and could maybe use a background that's a little less translucent. Also the word "legend" is a bit tough to read and should have a period after it.

But the color-scheme and fonts are great. Overall it's pretty solid.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very nice, it could be a great resource for roleplayers (but then I'd remove the 'uber l33t' line, heheh).

I'd like to mention that the navigation through the journal entries didn't feel too easy. I'd suggest adding a link at the bottom of each entry to show the previous one, for example :)

Good luck with your site!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback :)

So you were using the real time slider above the journal, but you thought that a previous and next link placed somewhere would help the navigation?

If so that sounds like a good idea.

<comment><USER5> Oh! OK... I actually missed the slider... I was using the links on the right side (the archives). Now I notice the effect on the picture when I slide and it's super cool, but I think you could maybe make it stand out more somehow, I totally didn't see it.

Also, the slider is a bit far from the text, so I'm not sure I would have related it with the journal entries.

So, I guess I'm trying to say that you should show off the cool stuff a bit more so silly people like me find it easily :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I was worried that people may not see the slider. I am glad that you think it is super cool, so do I :)

I will look into ways to make it more noticeable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks cool. Too bad most WoW players are 13 year old jerks.

<comment><USER7> You'd be surprised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know what your site actually does without signing up or clicking around. The first page gives me a vague explanation and some weird browser-in screenshot.

I would recommend trying to make it easier to understand what you do in your opening page. I see after clicking through that it looks like a journal for your WoW character

</comment><comment><USER9> "Critique" ain't a verb.

<comment><USER10> It's not yet a fully accepted verb, but it's becoming one.</comment></comment>


IPhone loyalty is more than Android - <AUTHOR> http://latestgeeknews.blogspot.com/2010/04/iphone-loyalty-is-more-than-android.html

<comment><USER2> I don't see a way to divine loyalty information from the survey questions asked.</comment>


How's Your Focus? - <AUTHOR> http://gaurab.posterous.com/hows-your-focus

<comment><USER2> There's not enough blue and red lines there really. They should try it with around 20 lines of differing colours so you're really tested. Decent idea though!

</comment><comment><USER3> According to that I got 100% on both so I'm not distractable.

Which is odd, considering I was doing that test as a distraction from something else. :/</comment>


Ask HN: Is it unethical to make a business derived from inside joke with friend - <AUTHOR> I'm starting a business which the idea was derived from an inside joke between my friend and I. The joke mentioned an imaginary product, but we never considered to take it seriously. Half a year later, I haven't spoken to him in months, and at a hackathon I decided why not work on the idea. Is it unethical to not include him in the business?<p>I want to work on it alone because I don't need help to execute with this idea. <comment><USER2> If he is a really good friend, I suppose he won't care at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, it's fine.</comment>


Semantic Editing and Representation of Photos - <AUTHOR> http://blog.techscouter.net/seed-semantic-editing-encoding-and-decoding

<comment><AUTHOR> Summary\ TL;DR: Editing and representing photos (and other media types) at a semantic level, not at the pixel level, has a lot of potential. For example: search, functional and physical object editing, compression, assistive technologies, augmented reality, 'moving in space' and 'moving in time'. This post discusses the approach and its strengths and weaknesses, while its realization depends on future basic research developments.

</comment><comment><USER2> > _It discusses the 'What' rather than the 'How'._

Yeah, because the "how" is AI-complete.</comment>