A Social Network That Costs 10¢ to Post - <AUTHOR> https://www.yours.org/content/why-we-built-a-social-network-that-costs-10--to-post-content-b82af95f96bf/ <comment><USER2> As an American kid born along with the digital epoch of the 90s, I'm a bit of an oddity because the only social media I've ever used (& still use) is LinkedIn, which feels like sharing a room with a vipor. I have it set up with a dedicated email address and I only interact w/it in a sandboxed browser on VPN with a dedicated email address. (I guess you could add HN, StackExchange and GitHub to the list since there are pretty social aspects to all three, but I don't know if they count.)

Because I am this weirdo, I can't help being astounded at the level of comfortability people have in ecosystems like the ones Facebook and Google have cultivated. These are really creepy and dystopian models at their core. And they are not helping your damn social life! Believe me, people don't mind being in touch and coordinating through more direct means, in fact most people respond more genuinely to it.

So this is awesome right? Here's something proposing a fresh new model. Except nothing in this article/pitch addresses my concerns/issues with current social media. Like, as a paying member, are they aggregating "marketing" data on me? Are they going to try to follow me around the web and ID me with tracking scripts and under the table data trades with other players? Will they organize my data and sell it on as an "anonymized" individual profile ("Emperor {username}, we bring you new clothes. This is a magical anonymization cloak, making you invisible to any unsavory entities we sell your data to").

In fact, now I have even more questions/concerns! For example:

1) can toxic or just plain wrong information simply be brute-forced to the top with money (or digital tulips or whatever)?

2) how is this not just buying popularity and influence in a contrived environment?

3) do they cap the value of a post / vote or is this susceptible to weird bubbles?

4) if you do break the rules, do you pay to get out of trouble?

This whole thing sounds like someone's been spending a long time getting investors on board and now can't seem to remember what the pitch to the consumers originally was.

<comment><USER3> I used to feel that social networks were a waste of time (even when I worked for Facebook) but in the last couple years that has changed. My social life has been dramatically improved by Facebook because I started using it to socialize with people who share my hobby (growing fruit). Through Facebook groups I've made a number of new friends I never would have met otherwise. We communicate and share details of our hobby on a daily basis. It's great fun. I hardly use the site to socialize with my family and old friends - it's basically a glorified message board.

<comment><USER2> That's great and that is a positive contribution to your life, but it follows the same formula I'm very used to hearing:

usecases = ["group events", "messaging", "staying in touch with people", "networking", "checking in once a month", &c()];

singleUsecase = pickWhatevs(usecases);

otherStuff = pickNotWhatevs(singleUsecase, usecases);

responseStr = "Well, I only use it for " \+ singleCase + ". I rarely use it for " \+ otherStuff + "."

As a former employee you might have more insight than I do, but how exactly has a glorified message board which doesn't charge its users become one of the richest companies in the world?

Sure they're a bit interested in the fruit growing hobby and that network, but they're also very interested in the ways you "hardly use the site" and they're even more interested in the things your doing when you don't even know they're still watching you. Even more interesting, you're actions on and off their platform can be correlated with heavy users of the site to infer traits they'll assign to you and sell on, true or not.

At the end of the day, the way the species is evolving with the internet, giving someone permission to follow you around the web and collect that data on you is the same as giving them insights into your inner psyche, the majority of what composes your reality, and the things you value most in your life, among other things.

These are things we should have a right to offer explicitly, not implicitly surrender.

[edits to elaborate on a couple points and add helpers to the why I use FB excuse]

<comment> Joe-Z >...but how exactly has a glorified message board which doesn't charge its users become one of the richest companies in the world?

Because, as you just demonstrated with your programming example: For HIM it's a glorified message board. Other people may use it in completely different ways and appreciate it for them.

I'm not the greatest facebook-fan either, but I think you're really overstating the control they have over people's lives here and at the same time understating the value it can provide to people. Unless of course all people using facebook are just damn idiots and don't know what they're getting themselves into!

EDIT: 'control over people's lives' might be better phrased as 'knowledge about their activities/preferences'

<comment><USER2> I think you're missing my point. Google and Facebook are conditioning the population to say no big deal. It's creeping normalcy. Remember when Sergei was trying to make peeps comfortable with Gmail? [para-phrasing here:] "It's not a person reading your email, it's just a robot." Well now the robot is a neural net and I'm pretty convinced (if it's not already) that neural net will start feeding data to other nets built by other powerful institutions that decide whether you get higher education, loans, whether you're likely to be guilty or innocent, &c. Didn't provide enough data, well hell, that's suspicious, throw a red flag.

And people will accept it because we're pragmatic. And those who don't just need to grow up and start pleasing the AI.

A whole new industry will pop up from the ones training nets in the first place. Hey do this and that and our calculations will read you better, you'll get the results you want. We just suggest you don't talk about these things at all, don't shop at these stores, don't have this name or be associated with that demographic ...

<comment><USER4> Google no longer reads gmail emails:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/google- wi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/google-will-stop- reading-your-emails-for-gmail-ads)

Though I'm guessing that they are only now okay giving up on email data because they have so many other sources of tracking your behavior.

<comment><USER5> Google is no longer using email data for _gmail_ ads. They might still use it for their google search ads or anything else they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A problem with "social networks", and perhaps the Internet in general, in my opinion, is that they encourage groupthink.

> Each vote costs 10¢ and the payment is distributed amongst earlier voters.

This sort of pyramidal scheme actually gives people a monetary incentive to try to vote how others will vote, regardless of their actual opinion. Like other gambling, it may be a good business model, but it serves to exacerbate the groupthink problem.

<comment><USER7> I had similar thoughts about the following:

> It costs 10¢ to post a comment and the money goes to the original author. > Our users enjoy paying the original creator to post a nice comment next to > their work.

Which would seem to discourage discourage diversity of discussion since profits go to the OP.

<comment><USER8> What if they tweaked things so if you reply with an agreement to an opposing author, that money is,either split or goes to the opposing opinion's author outright?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I encourage you all to check out Minds.

In my opinion, Minds has a much more interesting compensation model: you can directly send money to creators (feature called Wire) either generally or on a specific post. There is also an internal points system where you are compensated by interactions with your content. If you have enough points, they have a real monetary value.

Also, as an added bonus, the website and apps are open source, and actually function quite well. It overall has a Facebook sort of feel in terms of feature set; but with a model that seems less exploitative and more collaborative.

[https://minds.com/](https://minds.com/)

<comment> aaron-lebo That homepage looks like someone made a wordpress site for a megachurch. Gaudy as fuck. When service doesn't get design this early and instead just crams everything they can into a page, it's good sign they're lacking taste, and that's something that can't really be overcome. It's like they're so unsure about their own service that they feel they need to overcompensate by talking about all the features it has instead of just naturally showing them.

And points for hourly check ins? Modals reminding me to install apps when reading posts (got one when trying to read the terms of service, too)? In fact, you apparently can't visit the groups link without getting the pop up. I just want to try your damn site. Ugh. 18 MBs of content on load? Don't do that to the web.

Despite it's own limitations, Yours is lot, lot cleaner.

Compare: [http://www.scientology.org/](http://www.scientology.org/) (is that the same font in the header?)

After some more searching around, it's like the same audience repeated across all of these sites ("alt right" and cryptocurrency obsessed). Stefan Molyneux one of the main users of minds and also one of the first users of Yours? You guys are setting yourselves up for failure if you don't diversify your audience quick.

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com](https://firstname.lastname@example.com)

[https://www.minds.com/StefanMolyneux](https://www.minds.com/StefanMolyneux)

[https://www.yours.org/profile/b32fd24245734d632b5f3ee35a2b85...](https://www.yours.org/profile/b32fd24245734d632b5f3ee35a2b85d622b7b1f84a46dbb360a4979996484413)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#Cult_accusatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#Cult_accusations)

Here's the third most followed user, "truth":

[https://www.minds.com/truth](https://www.minds.com/truth)

Complete with

"Antifa victim, Kiara Robles, speaks out about political violence in Berkeley."

"Hillary Clinton blames everyone from James Comey to Bernie Sanders for her blistering defeat to Donald Trump"

"Why Did World Trade Center Building 7 Fall? New Study Claims Gov't Story Is False"

I hear r/conspiracy is nice this time of year, but there's not Bitcoin to be made if that gets big, yeah?

<comment><USER10> We suspect that is not the real Stefan Molyneux. We will have flagging and moderation to deal with this soon. Also we will allow more auth options so people can prove who they are (twitter auth, e.g.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was intrigued, until I read that the payment system is in bitcoin cash. I've really lost interest in cryptocurrency over the past couple of years. I don't want to jump through the requisite hoops to manage another digital wallet just for the sake of engaging on an obscure platform that launched its beta 3 weeks ago.

I have nothing against the site, it's an interesting concept. But having to read about whatever recent bitcoin drama is going on to understand its hard forks and implications (BCC is a hard fork, right?), setup and manage a new wallet, take appropriate security precautions, etc, just to manage my site balance is a lot more burdensome than asking for ten cents to comment.

<comment><USER12> Easiest solution: send BTC to [https://shapeshift.io](https://shapeshift.io) which they will convert to BCC and deposit it directly to whatever address needs to receive BCC. Shapeshift's main feature is to convert between cryptos with the minimum amount of hassle.

Edit: nevermind, I didn't know yours.org had shapeshift integrated.

<comment><USER13> Of course, Ryan wouldn't want to miss out on Eric's affiliate fees from SS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Having some limit to posts is an interesting idea. But I don't see much of a return on investment for the users in this approach. Why should I pay to have people see my post? Shouldn't I have to pay people to see their posts instead?

Anyway, all of luck to them. I'd like to know what might develop from this.

Though they really should have asked for two cents instead of ten. I mean, come on: how could you miss this?

<comment><USER15> >Why should I pay to have people see my post? Shouldn't I have to pay people to see their posts instead?

I think people like to write things that others will read. How else to explain why people post so much on e.g. Facebook that is not informational or helpful to others but merely something they want others to read? Introspectively, I recognize that I enjoy commenting on Hacker News and am not exactly doing it wholly out of the goodness of my heart for the benefit of all of you.

<comment><USER14> From observing the behavior of some people online, I think that there are people out there who just like to write stuff, regardless of whether anyone might read or care. This can be good or bad. I've read good posts from clearly forgotten blogs. I've also read in certain communities posts so inane and out of context that it's hard to even understand why they were written in the first place.

"Shitposting" in it's strictest sense is very much an example of the latter, because it's a repeated pattern of stupid behavior which doesn't even qualify as joking, and which is repeated regardless of whether people pay attention to it or not. It's like drawing swastikas on bathroom stalls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >People love to pay money to vote on things. Who would have thought?

Anyone who's active in virtual worlds knows people love to buy content and tip creators and performers.

>Why didn't micropayments ever take off? No one ever tried.

Except virtual worlds, which have whole economies based on micropayments.

<comment><USER17> My mind was recently blown by how much people tip on gamer streams. I was watching Shroud play PUBG, he suddenly gets tipped $550, doesn't even acknowledge it.

Apparently $10-20K tips happen quite often:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/231p6e/sum...](https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/231p6e/summit_the_highest_paid_cs_player/)

So yeah, if you're entertaining enough, people will throw money at you.

<comment><USER18> > So yeah, if you're entertaining enough, people will throw money at you.

Which was a well known fact since the beginning of strip clubs... Twitch and co are no different from sexcams.

<comment><USER19> >Twitch and co are no different from sexcams

Once you get past the fact that they are both livestreams the similarity ends. Twitch explicitly forbids sexual content [0]. There are some streamers that dress suggestively, but they're in the minority.

Your statement is not much different from calling YouTube no different from PornHub.

[0] - [https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/community- guidelines/](https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/community-guidelines/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> aaron-lebo _We started charging 10¢ to post content on our social network. Our users didn't leave. In fact, they are posting more than ever, and the quality of content has improved. Our experiment seems to be working. People are willing to pay to post content._

Neat concept (and good domain), but your top post has $2.28. The entire site has 20 new posts ($2?) over the last 24 hours. You don't gotta exaggerate to sell, it just makes me less inclined to trust you and your service.

Seems to be competing roughly with Steem. These services have a problem where the initial adopters are Bitcoin users or fanatical unpopular views (voat), which biases and ruins the community early. Interested to see if this avoids it.

Also, does anyone know what kind of regulatory upkeep a project like this requires? If a site like this operates with multiple currencies, it's essentially an exchange and probably has to register as such (they've outsourced this). However, if it just keeps user balances (not really a bank, but similar), does it have to register with any particular authorities?

edit: your site allows a blank password, the title is "Yours | undefined" on profile pages and the menu controls to the left of the message input are very unintuitive. How do they work? Also, the profile ids are from hell:

/90b5a6c4bfb6530398c8c5aa27e2b60e3a4611ddb2184c366b7d3ad41f0e9f16/

Don't men to be too picky, it's just very rough around the edges.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for your great comments. We launched the beta only three weeks ago so it is definitely rough around the edges :) Fixing issues as fast as we can.

> Also, does anyone know what kind of regulatory upkeep a project like this > requires? If a site like this operates with multiple currencies, it's > essentially an exchange and probably has to register as such (they've > outsourced this). However, if it just keeps user balances (not really a > bank, but similar), does it have to register with any particular > authorities?

We have discussed with lawyers and are sure to stay inside the law. Because all payments are p2p and we are not a custodian, the regulatory burden for us is a lot lower than many other similar projects.

> edit: your site allows a blank password, the title is "Yours | undefined" on > profile pages and the menu controls to the left of the message input are > very unintuitive. How do they work? Also, the profile ids are from hell:

Will fix soon. These things are already on our issues list :)

<comment><USER20> So if every payment is p2p does that mean every transaction in yours is a bitcoin cash transaction? Are those cheap enough? I don't know much about bitcoin cash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> People interested in this idea might also be interested in Hashcash. Someone who wants to send and email to someone else also has to provide a "proof of work" with their message, essentially the same thing as Bitcoin mining. The point of it is to reduce email spam by attaching a small cost to each email, since, today, there is no cost difference between sending 1 email and 1 million, which enables spammers to send out so many.

The main benefit is that no real currency is ever involved, which reduces a lot of administrative overhead.

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

<comment><USER13> So Hashcash was proposed by Adam Back, who is now the CTO of blockstream, a major bitcoin development firm. His vision, and the vision you describe is actually bitcoin.

A 2017 Hashcash was actually implemented recently and published at [http://hashcash.com/](http://hashcash.com/) Bad news is that it requires something to store the value, so this requires bitcoin as the token transferred via hashcash.

What you have described in your post doesn't actually work that way in the real world -- You cant set a global proof of work value (bitcoin difficulty adjustment) or able to build a proof of work that would allow a phone or desktop to hash -- it will be eaten alive by spam farms with ASICs (bitcoin mining asic farms).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hey everyone, Ryan X. Charles here, Cofounder & CEO of Yours. Happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER22> > Our users also spend money to upvote content. Each vote costs 10¢ and the > payment is distributed amongst earlier voters. This is our most popular > activity. People love to pay money to vote on things. Who would have > thought?

That quote caught my attention. Is this kind of gambling or being a day trader? I like the mechanic that unearthing good content gets rewarded -- was that the goal? Have you found this system subject to gaming or collusion (a few people posting and upvoting content to increase the odds of getting a payout)? Do you see less clickbait getting upvoted than, say, on fb? What's the incentive for later readers to upvote an already popular title?

Pretty cool that you taken such a different approach. Wish you the best! I'm pretty much burned out on all social media, but will check it out regardless.

edit: Big question what's your vig or house cut on all the money changing hands?

2nd edit: I see the answer to my last question: you keep $0.10 from from each post and credit yourself as the "first voter on every post". So you get the largest cut of the cost of the upvotes on each post?

<comment><USER10> > That quote caught my attention. Is this kind of gambling or being a day > trader? I like the mechanic that unearthing good content gets rewarded -- > was that the goal? Have you found this system subject to gaming or collusion > (a few people posting and upvoting content to increase the odds of getting a > payout)? Do you see less clickbait getting upvoted than, say, on fb? What's > the incentive for later readers to upvote an already popular title?

The vote model encourages hotness. If you want to earn money, you are encouraged to vote quickly. We will have alternate models to encourage different things soon. The next step in rating content will be something we call reviews. After purchasing content, you will be asked: "was this content worth paying for? yes/no". We believe the information we get from that will be a very good measure of quality.

> Pretty cool that you taken such a different approach. Wish you the best! I'm > pretty much burned out on all social media, but will check it out > regardless.

Thank you very much!

> edit: Big question what's your vig or house cut on all the money changing > hands?

Currently our revenue comes from two places: The 10¢ it costs to post content and getting the first vote on all pieces of content.

> 2nd edit: I see the answer to my last question: you keep $0.10 from from > each post and credit yourself as the "first voter on every post". So you get > the largest cut of the cost of the upvotes on each post?

Yes. This is something we will change soon, probably by either giving the creator the first vote and then charging 20% of all votes or by giving the creator the second vote. It's important that Yours Inc. gets some of the money to prevent infinite self-upvotes. We had that problem originally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interesting concept. There is definitely an opportunity out there for some kind of Patreon meets reddit model but the execution on these types of businesses is particularly hard to pull off.

<comment><USER10> Thank you. Hopefully we can pull it off. We have a great asset - very low fees while not being a custodian of user funds. Allows rapid iteration of the product with fewer regulatory concerns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The authors claim that their users post high quality content but a brief browse found _subjectively_ awful content. I didn't see a single interesting article.

</comment><comment><USER25> >Micropayments have been talked about since the 1990s.

A little longer than that, perhaps. [http://transcopyright.org/hcoinRemarks-D28.html](http://transcopyright.org/hcoinRemarks-D28.html)

<comment><USER10> Awesome article. Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Our users also spend money to upvote content. Each vote costs 10¢ and the payment is distributed amongst earlier voters. This is our most popular activity. People love to pay money to vote on things. Who would have thought?"

Is the payout to early voters greater than 10 cents? And do voters know when they're an early voter? If so, maybe this is why it's such a popular activity!

<comment><USER27> Every post is a miniature pyramid scheme. Like those chain letters that say 'send a dollar to everyone on this list, then add your name to the list and pass it along to everyone you know'.

<comment><USER28> Indeed. That's why it might work :-) gamification of content generation.. now if they can only keep the content quality high.. how about allowing people to downvote and punish low quality content? I tried something like that on booklove.rs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Yesterday I found and posted about leeroy.io [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15247336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15247336)

It's a Twitter clone that stores usernames, follows and posts in EthereumVM. Transactions are optimised for costs, right now it's around 0.01USD to follow/post

</comment><comment><USER30> > _Most people told us it would never work, but we did it anyway: We started > charging 10¢ to post content on our social network. Our users didn't leave. > In fact, they are posting more than ever, and the quality of content has > improved. Our experiment seems to be working. People are willing to pay to > post content. That is not the only thing we've done differently. Our users > can submit content with a pay wall, at a location and price of their > choosing, and charge to access the full version of their content. Most users > charge 10¢. Quality content sells. Sometimes for $1.00 or more. Many people > told us this would never work, but it seems they were wrong. Our users are > willing to pay for good content._

I think those users meant "it will never work at scale".

Seeing that yours is a totally obscure social network -- it might be OK for a small niche.

Heck, The Well charges for belonging to a discussion group.

<comment><USER31> That was definitely my reaction. "People said it would never work! But it's worked for three whole weeks among cryptocurrency users, a group already selected for a) early adopter status, b) credulity, and c) a currency-focused worldview!"

I look forward to seeing how it goes, and I'm always glad that people are getting out and doing the experiments that they find compelling.

But it's very dangerous to confuse novelty with utility. As examples, consider the 90s wave of VR. Or the many waves of 3D photos/movies/TV. Early try-it-out interest among technophiles is proof of novelty, not long-term utility. And especially these days, social networks are, like the human relationships they channel, long-term propositions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Very interesting. I immediately liked the product when I read this, but giving it a few minutes of thought and it doesnt seem too exciting anymore.

The fundamental problem I see is that it kind-of 'corrupts' gratification. When I make a post, or do a vote, or write a comment, I dont want to think about the monetary value of it. There is 'value' inherent in creating/sharing interesting content and thats all I want to think about.

Adding money to the mix makes it a distraction from a 'pure' experience and takes away value than adding it. Ads do something similar - but imo ads are less distracting than putting a monetary value on an upvote.

Still this is very interesting experiment. Would love to follow updates on hn.

<comment><USER33> The purist.

I am just adding high quality content because I think I'm better off directly charging for my content rather than going the ads-route. I hate ads. I (and probably everybody else on this platform) sees as the greates-valued addon in his browser the ad-blocker.

I will run a few tests, see if people are willing to pay for high quality content.

I don't see this as my facebook-replacement. Facebook is fun, to watch cute little videos while enjoying my "extra privacy" during the day. Facebook isn't for high quality content. Facebook isn't good anymore for staying in touch with friends (for me) - Facebook messenger yes, but the Facebook wall - no.

I also don't think that "yours" will be the next Facebook. I see it as direct payments channel for independent high-quality content creators. Something like steem, just more straight forward for me. I like the concept and I'll see if it works for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> 10c is more expensive than local phone calls are in alot of countries. Not a bad idea though, could make alot of spamming unviable even with a small amount like 1c. What about if you "like" something, a portion of the fee goes to the original poster?

<comment><USER35> "What about if you "like" something, a portion of the fee goes to the original poster?"

Maybe if the likes only got you store credit up to what you've put in but never for profit? If profit from likes was possible, we'd end up with tons of posts karma whores go for.

<comment><USER10> We will have multiple mechanisms for votes, likes, favorites, etc. May the best mechanism win :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I read FAQ for Yours.org. The voting looks like a pyramid scheme:

>You can earn money by voting on good content. Each vote costs 10¢ and the payment is distributed evenly between all earlier voters. Yours Inc. always makes the first vote. You can vote on something as many times as you'd like. You will earn money if you vote on something popular early, because you will get money from all votes after you.[1]

1\. [https://www.yours.org/about/](https://www.yours.org/about/)

</comment><comment><USER37> I've been telling anyone who will listen that we need a public social media platform funded by just such a mechanism, akin to similar institutions like copyright registration and the postal service.

Innovation could occur on top of what is a very simple data model and doesn't need the free market to stay relevant.

Our public institutions are what we make of them. If we despise and distrust them they will wither and die. If we encourage and support them they will flourish and we will all prosper together.

No man is an island!

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm curious, what are the tax implications of this? You're spending money, you're receiving money--does it tell you at the end of the year how much you've taken in vs how much you spent, so you can report it as taxable income? I acknowledge that the average person would probably end up with a negative balance at year-end, but someone who wrote popular posts could end up making hundreds of dollars due to upvotes and comments, right?

</comment><comment><USER39> Make sure your site allows fivefilters to send your blog posts to my kindle. Otherwise, they will not be read. I publish to kindle everything to read & then go for a walk reading along the way. The Lidl checkout line makes for very good reading time.

</comment><comment><USER40> How does this compare to steemit.com?

<comment><USER41> simple. I give a shit about yours.org BECAUSE they didn't create their own token to build a service.

Using bitcoin cash is another positive in my books, since it costs < $0.01 per transaction, versus $7~ per transaction on Bitcoin legacy.

<comment><USER42> In a post above they admit they will issue a token.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> If you click "New" at the parent site, you'll see that essentially it' micro- Patreon/Kickstarter full of beggars and spam that baits you to click "read more" to earn that 10c.

</comment><comment><USER44> I worry about not being able to get refunds for poor content. I clicked around a bit on the domain and there were a couple articles that had click-baity titles - an interesting premise, but I was turned off from the nature of the presentation:

\- How Bitcoin will see massive adoption – it might surprise you.

\- Still Don't Get Bitcoin? Here's an Explanation Even a Five-Year-Old Will Understand

I know reading would only cost $0.10 (or even less) which is not a life affecting amount, but I don't like the idea of that 'test' being seen as some sort of endorsement that I can't revoke.

</comment><comment><USER45> So this might be a feature that facebook will be happy to integrate, social media got their dinosaurs and whales on place, moving on ello

</comment><comment><USER46> Reminds me of [https://www.feespeech.com](https://www.feespeech.com), but with more competition for eyes

</comment><comment><USER47> Looks like the tips are in Bitcoin cash? Of course people are happy to spend the 10c they got for free when it forked.

<comment><USER48> 10c is 10c. As much as I think using bitcoin cash was a big mistake, I wouldn't say that the activity doesn't resemble real activity.

<comment><USER47> I think psychologically it is different, and people are more likely to splash their lottery win money around especially if it's just 10c at a time rather than their hard earned money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think this is awesome, but I'd like a way to just subscribe and not worry about the money.

</comment><comment><USER28> We should all move over and comment on yours.org :-) - did you guys plan on nested comments?

</comment><comment><USER50> ctrl f 'ted nelson' 'xanadu'

no results.

I guess they independently came up with similar notions. Good luck with their initiative. Because I really hope there can be viable alternatives to advertising revenue for online content.

</comment><comment><USER51> That price is too low.

<comment><USER52> Maybe for posting, but 10c to consume or upvote content might be too high. Think about how many pieces of content you consume on a Facebook feed or on your reddit homepage. And 1k upvotes would translate to $100...sounds rich to me. Wonder how they intend on preventing spamming posts / content farming / gaming the system in that kind of environment.

<comment><USER53> It might stop eg "share to pray" posts and viral fake news.

<comment><USER54> "Reply with your prayers to help little Billy afford chemo"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This is where I will start writing my novels.

</comment><comment><USER56> So magnifying the voices of those who have cash to spare, and diminishing the voices of those who are not so fortunate?

</comment><comment><USER57> Might be interesting if 9 of the cents go to charity, otherwise no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER58> oh i love SomethingAwful

</comment><comment><USER13> Bitcoin cash! Ewwwwwwwww, i wont touch that with a 10 foot poll. As a holder of bitcoin, I will never spend the UTXO's on this chain, thus denying this false bitcoin of spendable outputs.

Wouldn't something like lightning network microtx's be better than Bcash?

<comment><USER42> You do know that Bitcoin cash is more like the original Bitcoin than the "Bitcoin" of today?

<comment><USER13> Yeah, we must run MS-DOS forever. All software upgrades and protocol changes are wrong. We don't want no GUI or protected mode runtime, we will hatefork MS-DOS and run it forever. /s</comment></comment></comment>


Techies don't understand what business Apple is in - <AUTHOR> http://caffeine.shugendo.org/2011/01/21/techies-dont-understand-what-apple-makes/

<comment><USER2> People don't suddenly become stupid when they learn how to program. Plenty of "techies" can analyze Apple's strategy just fine. Similarly, being a non-"techie" does not automatically bless you with deep understanding of what Apple's doing.

<comment><USER3> No, they don't become stupid. But their view of the uses of computers changes. Everyone reading this post is in the top 5% in terms of computer skill. The majority of the friends of everyone reading this post are in the top 25% in terms of computer skill. It gives a very warped perspective of the "average computer user". You know that guy who's still getting the hang of EBay and Amazon and who Googles URLs instead of typing them? He's the average computer user[1]. Which means half of all computer users are less capable than him.

For instance, consider the sentence "Angry Birds is lots of fun - you should get it from their website, they take paypal"[2]. To HNers that's incredibly straightforward and simple - (1) Google "Angry Birds", (2) make sure it's a legit site, (3) look for the "Buy" button, (4) check out, (5) enter your paypal information, and (6) install the game. To me (and most HNers, I'd imagine), the hardest part of that is "what was my PayPal password again?", but to the average computer user, that's a confusing 30 minutes, part of which will be spent on an ornithology site. It's for that average user that things like the Mac App Store and locked-down phones were designed.

The point of this long, meandering post is that the reason techies have issues analyzing Apple's strategy is because they mis-over-estimate the skill of the average computer user, for the totally understandable reason that they're surrounded by people with well-above-average computer skills.

[1] - Probably hyperbole, but not by much. [2] - I've actually never played Angry Birds.

<comment><USER4>
          Everyone reading this post is in the top 5% in terms of computer skill

Yeah, pat yourself on the back, you're smart.

         who's still getting the hang of EBay and Amazon, who
         Googles URLs instead of typing them

Never used EBay, never bought anything from Amazon and I also Google for URLs from time to time ... pretty sweat if you can't remember the exact string.

         techies ... mis-over-estimate the skill of the average computer user

I actually think we underestimate the "average" computer user more often than not.

Apple's products are not idiot proof. The iPhone itself does take some time before you become productive with it. But they make the learning process fun and they respect their customers enough to not make them feel like idiots.

Also, there is no such thing as an "average" computer user, as that would mean some kind of common-denominator, which would be false since all people have different personalities / skills.

         I've actually never played Angry Birds.

The game is free of charge in the Android market. Search for it and click install.

<comment><USER5> > Yeah, pat yourself on the back, you're smart.

He put you into that same category ...

> Never used EBay, never bought anything from Amazon and I also Google for > URLs from time to time ... pretty sweat if you can't remember the exact > string.

He is referring to people that type "facebook" into google to go Facebook.com. He is making a generalised statement. Generally to present an argument or point it is okay to make generalised statements to help bring a point across.

> I actually think we underestimate the "average" computer user more often > than not.

I tend to overestimate them, to each their own. Who are you qualifying as "we" here anyhow? Clearly I don't belong in your "we".

> Apple's products are not idiot proof. The iPhone itself does take some time > before you become productive with it. But they make the learning process fun > and they respect their customers enough to not make them feel like idiots.

No, not idiot proof but they are easy enough to pick up and start using by just playing, click on options, turn stuff on and off, download new apps to play with, hit the home button and back you are in familiar territory. The same could not be said for some other pieces of software. It took me a while to figure out how the Zune worked for instance, it wasn't intuitive like my iPod was.

> Also, there is no such thing as an "average" computer user, as that would > mean some kind of common-denominator, which would be false since all people > have different personalities / skills.

"average computer user" is used in the same manner as "average person" or the "average child" (such as "the average child at age 10 can read X").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We understand, it just annoys us.

<comment><USER7> Why? Why do all companies have to operate the way you want them to and why do you have to buy their things?

<comment><USER7> OK, to the two people who have downmodded my post, please clarify. This is a serious question: I don't understand why people who don't buy Apple products complain about Apple. It's not like they completely control the marketplace -- so what's the point (other than whining)?

<comment><USER8> I didn't vote you down, but I'll comment on the issue.

First:

> Why? Why do all companies have to operate the way you want them to and why > do you have to buy their things?

klochner never said companies "have" to operate a certain way. He just said that a company annoys him. That's all. He said nothing about how the company "should" or "must" operate. Just that the current model was annoying.

Second:

> I don't understand why people who don't buy Apple products complain about > Apple.

For the same reason that people who don't run Windows complain about Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft are defining forces in their industries. Even people who don't buy their products are massively affected by the actions of those companies.

Examples: I don't own Windows or Office, so for years I could not reliably open .doc files. [1] Microsoft's proprietary file formats affect those who don't have enough money / don't wish to purchase their products.

I don't own any iOS devices, but I am a software developer. If the future of computing moves to iPad-like devices (say, tablets, phones, whatever the future brings), Apple's closed model affects me greatly. I would be less capable of selling my own software due to their practices.

Microsoft doesn't demand money from you if you want to develop for Windows. Apple _does_ demand money from you if you want to develop for iOS (and seeing as iOS will soon - or already has - gained more users that OS X, I believe this is a fair comparison).

This is not a good model for the future of computing, but it is the model Apple is using and they are a powerful force.

So even though I do not own any Apple products, they are a dominating force in the industry and what they do _matters_ to me.

Edit: [1] I think that .doc is now an "open" standard, right? LibreOffice will probably _eventually_ be fully compatible, but it's not ready yet.

<comment><USER9> Microsoft doesn't charge you to develop for their PCs and neither does Apple. However, if you'd like to develop for the XBox or the Windows 7 phone, you are under almost the same terms as Apple.

This is something Apple pioneered, and you can bet other companies are going to want a slice of that sweet sweet revenue pie.

<comment><USER8> > Microsoft doesn't charge you to develop for their PCs and neither does > Apple.

Yes I know, I tried to address that in my comment. I postulated that there are more iOS users than OS X users, just as there are more Windows users than XBox or WP7 users.

For the purposes of my example, I picked the OS from each company with the greatest number of users. I definitely think my example is valid here, despite the differences between "PCs" and tablets, phones, whatever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _the original Macintoshes were every bit as resistant to consumer meddling and "improvement" as the iPhone 4_

Until the iPhone, Apple never tried to stop you from running whatever software you wanted on your hardware, nor did they accuse you of being a criminal for doing so.

<comment><USER11> Well it's about time someone tried it. Computers have been failing the 99% rest of the market for a long time now. I'm a GPL advocate, but I'd argue the problem Apple is tackling is more important.

<comment><USER12> Linux package managers solved the problem long before Apple's App store.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but the user experience on Linux is nowhere near that what Apple's Mac OS X or iOS provides.

That is the issue, and why Linux has not yet become a major force on the desktop. Too many times stuff will go wrong and it is down to a command line to fix it. Too much configuration exists within the command line there is no graphical user interface for it. There is no single Linux version, so stuff is stored all over the place. There is not a single package manager (Do I need the .deb, or the .rpm?).

This is what confuses users, and the choice paralyses them.

I am a geek, I absolutely love playing with different OS's and whatnot, but I am sick and tired of having to worry that updating is going to cause my OS to not boot (I'm looking at you Ubuntu and your nouveau graphics driver).

Linux package managers may have "solved" the problem, but that is not what you get points for. You get points for getting users to adopt it and use it. Apple gets an A in that category (App Store on Mac OS X and iOS is a success), Linux a D (Package managers are a success, but the user experience isn't).

<comment><USER13> I'd argue the number one reason why Apple's got a bigger marketshare than Linux is that Microsoft delivered Office for one but not the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's a book I read long ago, whose title I've forgotten, that argued all companies compete along five axes: Price, Quality, Experience, Access and Service.

Every company dominates one axis, excels at another and is at par with the rest.

One might argue that Apple dominates in the experience category and is above average in service with everything else more or less at par with the competition.

But they certainly don't sell experience.. they sell computers, mmkay?

<comment><USER3> They definitely sell experience. The average user mostly wants[1] (1) email, (2) Facebook, (3) iTunes, (4) web surfing, and they don't really care about how the box on their desk gets their emails, whether it's open source or closed source, locked down or modifiable, or even if it's electronic or just really fast carrier pigeons.

Like the article said, the average user wants toast, not a toaster.

[1] - it's starting to look like we can add internet video to this list.

<comment><USER15> Wait. Never saw a developer with a Mac? I surely know more developers who own a Mac than any web-facebook-itunes-email guys.

Talk to some Rails developers, I will bet my nuts that none of the experts, ninjas, you name it are developing on a Mac.

<comment><USER16> > Talk to some Rails developers, I will bet my nuts that none of the experts, > ninjas, you name it are developing on a Mac.

I use a Mac with OSX to do rails development. I don't want to stroke by own ego here but I'll be having those nuts. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Many techies are familiar with fast food; particularly pizza.

You pick up your phone and dial the pizza place. [1] You tell them whether you want pepperoni, supreme, or cheese, etc. You tell them the type of crust and quantity. They may ask you if you'd like any of their side options -- soda, salad, wings, breadsticks, etc. You answer them. They tell you the total price and you both hangup.

Then some "magic" happens. And about 30 minutes later your doorbell rings. You get excited because you're really hungry! Afterall, you've been busy hacking and didn't have time or want to spend energy thinking about food. You just want to get back to hacking.

Most people want technology to work like this. They're not interested in hacking. They're at the movies, shopping, playing sports, at bars, raising kids, etc. "Normal" life stuff.

And if you offer a better experience, perhaps by making an especially delicious pizza, or by delivering it faster, even better. You can also probably charge more for it then, too.

Most of the time Pizza and Apple products "just work". And it so happens that there's a significant market that wants (and is willing to pay) for things that "just work".

[1] Or you order online because it's a better experience -- you can focus your energy on what you want.

</comment><comment><USER18> Just a side note about those weird screws.

When dealing with consumer wifi gear, the FCC required that we use non- standard antenna connectors, for instance - to prevent people from just putting whatever they wanted on there.

This wasn't specifically to prevent tampering, but to make it evident that, from our point of view as a company, we do not intend or encourage people to just open it up and mess with it.

<comment><USER19> Is there something more to that story? I have plenty of consumer wifi gear (<$50 routers, <$20 usb adapters) that have 100% standard antenna connectors. In fact, I don't have a piece of consumer radio gear that has a non-standard antenna connector.

<comment><USER20> The FCC requirements about non-user-modifiable equipment are vague, so some people interpreted them to mean non-standard connectors and others interpreted them to mean simply not telling the customer about non-compliant antennas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> App makers should heed this message: You are in the _experience_ business.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think this true cause everytime people are asking my why I use a overpriced machine they are arguing with something like this "Oh what a big deal my 300-dollar-netbook can do that too" and I say yes it can do it but not in the same way and with the same experience. I mean this is saying something like: I could watch a great movie in IMAX 3D which would cost 16 bucks or I could just watch a mambo-cambo movie which will cost just 5 bucks. Saying that boths are movies is true but not the point. We are not going to the cinema cause we want to go to the cinema, no we are going to the cinema cause we want to watch a great movie, right?

</comment><comment><USER22> > _"But what they really sell is an experience: consistency and ease-of-use, > and working right out of the box, combined with solid and thoughtful > industrial design and user interface"_

What Apple really sells expectations, because actual experience only comes after the money changes hands. It's unfulfilled expectations which frustrate the subset of hackers mentioned in the article. Those expectations are in no small part legitimate. Apple thrives off the mythology of changing the world via the power of the individual...even while the prize is a passive consumption.

<comment><USER23> You just proved the article correct.

<comment><USER22> Consider the current iPad TV ads which show a medical app displaying vital statistics. That segment conveys the idea that the iPad can be adapted to interface with medical devices. It implies a hackablity and flexibility which isn't really accessible to the end user in the sort of setting where such an application would be useful.

<comment><USER23> It doesn't imply Hackability at all. You are projecting your tech knowledge into hackability. The commercial is demonstrating that a medical app runs on the iPad.

<comment><USER22> The commercial doesn't repeatedly flash "iPad Runs..." or "iPad does..."

Instead, the theme is the existential (and grammatically incomplete) "iPad is..." encouraging the viewer to complete the subject. Structured such that the viewer will project their own goals and desires onto the object, it intends to instill the belief that each unique idea can be brought to fruition by the device.

In other words, even such biased completions as "[The] iPad is an energy conversion device" are an valid and grammatically correct. Anything which pops into the viewers mind works within the pattern by marketing intent.

As the article points out, Apple's actions are along the lines of "We don't like people like you." The hurt to hackers when their expectations are unfulfilled by Apple may not be so much technical as social. The disappointment is not, "These damn screws," but rather "Hey, I thought you said I was cool."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Apple doesn't sell computers"? The iPhones and iPods are arguably consumer appliances, but they aren't out of the Macintosh business yet.

<comment><USER25> Apple still sells computers like GE still sells light bulbs. In the meantime, Apple themselves announced the shift to consumer electronics when they changed the name of the company 3 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm a "techie," the kind that dabbles in various areas of software development and I'd choose an Apple computer before any other to do my dabbling with.

</comment><comment><USER27> In my opinion Apple is the best marketing company out there and they just happen to sell (mostly) consumer level computing and entertainment devices.

</comment><comment><USER28> No, we get it. Non-techies don't understand the importance of literacy: <http://min.us/mvfKzrP>

</comment><comment><USER29> Can I get my nickel, please? I was promised one every time the phrase "they're selling an /experience/" was uttered.

</comment><comment><USER30> Apple is just like Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't sell coffee, it sells a user experience.

</comment><comment><USER31> Oh please, it's not just the experience it's everything: the hardware, software, UI, materials, industrial design, aesthetics, and peace of mind. Apple has become a 'trustworthy' company in a marketplace of untrustworthy corporations. By that I mean, if you by an iPod/iPhone/Macbook you know beyond any doubt you will get software updates, that if a problem occurs there is a reasonably easy way to fix it, that the materials and hardware (this includes the case and hinges) will be superior to what else is available. Why would someone by a Creative mp3 player or Archos when there is no guarantee the company will stay in business or that the company will ever bother updating the software. Samsung is in the business of selling phones, not building a software platform. So again, why would I buy a phone that costs as much or more for as an iPhone but may never again be updating?

Think about it, how many different types of laptops does Dell of HP or Toshiba sell? It's absurd. It's like the difference between the GM when there was Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Saturn. There were just too many overlapping products that confused their customers. They (GM, Dell, HP, et al) spread themselves too thin. Look at who ended up doing well: those companies who narrowed their product scope down: BMW, Honda, Acura, Scion. Maybe companies need to think about staying _ahead_ of Apple instead of just playing catch up.

Apple isn't just selling an experience, it's selling security and peace of mind.

<comment><USER32>
      > Why would someone by [sic] a <company> or <company> mp3
      > player when there is no guarantee the company will stay
      > in business

So Apple is the only company that is guaranteed to say in business? Then why don't more people buy Microsoft mp3 players?

If we assume your claim that Apple is guaranteed to stay in business, then we also have to accept the possibility that Apple being the dominant player in the mp3 player is what is driving the other companies out of business. In other words, the fact that people are buying Apple mp3 players instead of other brands is the only reason that Apple is guaranteed to be in business while the other companies (according to you) could go under at any moment. This seems like a feedback cycle to me, and this probably has less to do with the quality of Apple products than it does with feedback cycle itself.

tl;dr If Apple is 'guaranteed' to stay in business while others could fail at any moment, then it has more to do with a feedback cycle of people buying Apple products than it does with the quality of Apple products.

You're also not realizing that (as far as the iPhone is concerned), most people get new phones every 2 years (in the US at least) because they just pay the subsidized price when they sign a new contract.

<comment><USER5> No, but with the iPhone for example is that I with an 3G still was able to get the latest version 4.2.1 for my phone, it is not until 4.3 comes out in the near future that I will no longer be running the latest iOS.

The iPhone 3G was released in July of 2008, I will have gotten software updates with new features, bug fixes and other stuff for almost 3 years. Owners of Samsung Android phones are not getting the latest and greatest (not yet at least).

Also, Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot multiple times. Plays-for-Sure and some of their other music initiatives have not been compatible with each other, especially the Zune. Why would I go with Microsoft if within the next couple of years that I own the device they could suddenly close down a music store or deprecate a certain music format thereby making my device instantly unusable. Apple has proven since the first iPod came out that if I purchase music on the iTunes store that I will be able to listen to it on any Apple device I own for years to come. That stability is important to a consumer.

<comment><USER32> How many 'normal people' even know/care about OS updates?

<comment><USER33> They know that they can't get the game they want because their phone isn't "new enough", when the game just depends on the Android 2.3 gaming improvements and could easily run on their hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Relevant:

Non-Apple's Mistake

<http://www.loper-os.org/?p=132>

</comment><comment><USER35> tl;dl another apple experience fluff piece circa 2007.

</comment><comment><USER36> Even though the author has a valid point on what Apple is selling, there is no reason besides a completely selfish one on Apple's part for them to disable features and discourage customization. They should be able deliver everything the article mentions as their strengths while not disheartening power users if they tried.

<comment><USER37> So where is the company doing this?

<comment><USER38> Is it cold under that rock?</comment></comment></comment>


Vixen: A PV-in-HVM shim - <AUTHOR> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-01/msg00436.html <comment><USER2> PV in HVM, not to be confused with PV on HVM [1] which includes PVHVM and HVM + PV drivers :)

[1] [https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/PV_on_HVM](https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/PV_on_HVM)

<comment><USER3> It sure gets complicated.

[https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Virtualization_Spectrum#The_paravi...](https://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Virtualization_Spectrum#The_paravirtualization_spectrum)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We're still working the details out upstream but the TL;DR is that the way to address Meltdown with Xen PV is to use nested virtualization so that the outer guest is an HVM or PVH guest.

<comment><USER5> Is this what AWS is doing?

<comment><USER4> Yes, all customer PV instances in EC2 are running in an HVM container and are protected against the guest-to-guest Meltdown vulnerability.

As with all virtual and physical machines, patches are necessary to protect against process-to-process Meltdown within the OS itself. Those are starting to roll out from the respective vendors although it will take time for those to work inside a PV instance.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't this still allow to read memory from the hypervisor shared between the PV VMs in a HVM container?

<comment><USER7> The intention, from my understanding, is not to boot multiple PV guests inside of one HVM shim, but instead treat it as more of a packaged deal - for each PV guest, you will be running it inside an independent vixen shim. So 5 PV guests, 5 vixen shims, etc.

<comment><USER8> correct.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Password cracking experts decipher elusive Equation Group crypto hash - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/password-cracking-experts-decipher-elusive-equation-group-crypto-hashes/

<comment><USER2> A clarification from the comments there: It's not Unicode, or an ISO charset, but a codepage mapping.

      $ echo -n غير مسجل | iconv -t CP1256 | md5sum
      e6d290a03b70cfa5d4451da444bdea39 -

<comment><USER3> Not too familiar with this stuff but doesn't the salt get appended to the word before hashing? Whats the point of the salt if you can find the input of the hash like this? Or does this mean that a salt was not used?

<comment><USER2> It looks like the MD5 matches the given one without a salt. I think the hash was taken from the malware, not a password database. In fact these are usernames, not passwords. So the malware was just using this as a quick check of a couple of usernames.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Article[1] and comments[2] from yesterday regarding the Equation Group

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/how-omnipotent- hacke...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/how-omnipotent-hackers-tied- to-the-nsa-hid-for-14-years-and-were-found-at-last/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9058701](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9058701)

</comment><comment><USER5> _Kaspersky Lab spent more than two weeks trying to crack the MD5 hash using a computer that tried more than 300 billion plaintext guesses every second._

Interesting. Aren't MD5s vuln to collisions? [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28convert+2+weeks+to+s...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28convert+2+weeks+to+seconds%29%28300+billion%29)

<comment><USER2> No. You can construct two messages with the same MD5, but only if you control both messages. Finding a message with the same MD5 as a given message, or password, is still infeasible.

Even if you try 3x10^17 ~= 2^58 in two weeks, MD5 has 128 bits of entropy so you'd need 2^70 ~= 1.1x10^21 times that to exhaust the space. Wolfram Alpha says that's 3.3x10^9 times the age of the universe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm curious how these password cracking techniques work. I have almost no background in cryptography, so pardon the basic question: is this basically just running billions of text passwords through the md5 algorithm and comparing the results with the unknown string? I assume that the hash would have been salted, so how would this work exactly (unless they obtained the salt too)?

<comment><USER7> You store the salts with the hashes. The basic idea is that salts force attackers to actually do a hash ("slow") instead of pre-computing hashes for common passwords and doing a dictionary lookup ("fast".)

All that is to say that if you (the attacker) have the hash you probably also have the salt.

<comment><USER6> That makes sense. Since md5 can have collisions, is it also safe to assume that the cracked username is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate?

In reading about it some more (particularly the md5 collision demo based on Patrick Stach's implementation), it looks like it would be trivial to create an md5 hash that resolved to a "fake" username while the real username remained uncracked. Although that would mean that both the fake username and the real one would be exempt from the exploit, so there would really be no point to it.

<comment><USER3> Given this context, it seems like the cracked username is accurate (both usernames are "unregistered" in different languages).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't have much experience but in my baaic security class they always reiterate that don't use MD5 or SHA(1 or 2) hashing algorithms because of known vulnerabilities making it easy to crack. Any reasoning behind its use?

<comment><USER9> SHA2 is believed to be highly secure for the present.</comment></comment>


Why Jeff Bezos' Two-Pizza Team Rule Still Holds True in 2018 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.idonethis.com/two-pizza-team/ <comment><USER2> The article suggests "two pizzas feed six to seven people". I don't get it, but maybe I'm coming from a different place. One pizza typically "feeds" one person, if even that. Typical pizza sizes across Europe are between 27 and 33 cm (10-13 inches).

So, for a team of six, we would get between at least five and up to eight pizzas, not two. :-)</comment>


Payment Processing for Canadian Websites - <AUTHOR> http://smallbusinesslove.blogspot.ca/2012/08/payment-processing-for-canadian-websites.html

<comment><USER2> I've used <http://www.merchant-accounts.ca/> in the past and been happy with them.</comment>


The Illuminati Version of LinkedIn and why you can't get in - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@maximetherault/the-illuminati-version-of-linkedin-and-why-you-cant-get-in-9785306da8ec#.ap19b7ljt <comment><USER2> This article seems fishy as fuck.

First, the author:

1\. The author has no other articles attributed to them on Medium.

2\. I would think a 'Freelance Journalist' who can live in 'Paris, France' might have some level of social networking buzz or name recognition across other networks, but I couldn't find them on any major social networks.

Then, the actual site:

Forget all of the bullshit you see on the page and go straight to the dev tools.

The Typeform URL is: [https://vegasjets.typeform.com/to/ZdIJg1?typeform- embed=embe...](https://vegasjets.typeform.com/to/ZdIJg1?typeform-embed=embed- fullpage)

I thought "vegasjets" was interesting given that the author mentions Las Vegas and private jets in the article multiple times (which seems oddly specific given the gravitas they place earlier on exposing this exclusive underground app).

Let's also recognize the user who submitted this link: <AUTHOR>
A LinkedIn search returns "Vegas Jets, Computer Software, 1-10 employees" with the following description, "One Tap books you a Luxury Private Jet. Instantaneous. No waiting. Price Guaranteed. Simple One Tap search, booking and payment via our app." Sure seems like what the author advertises this app to include...

Remember the sparkling reference to Berkshire Hathaway? Yep, that's some bullshit:

Visit the Vegas Jets homepage and we see below the copyright text at the bottom, "Vegas Jets does not own or operate the aircraft on which customers fly. Vegas Jets is not a direct or indirect air carrier. Currently, all Vegas Jets-arranged flights are operated by Executive Jet Management Inc. (Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate# CWQA061D), a subsidiary of Netjets Inc., a Berkshire Hathaway Company."

Now, Executive Jet Management Inc. is legit and registered with the FAA. Vegas Jets seems to be just a middleman. In fact, there are multiple apps that do exactly this: a Google search on "CWQA061D" returns other sites exactly like this one (charterpad.com, jetrequest.com, charterbroker.aero, etc.) all with the same disclosure.

Finally, the people:

Who is the CEO of Vegas Jets? Thomas Schneider (as reported on LinkedIn). Investor in Vegas Jets as well as a very interesting 'Crowdfunded Silicon Valley Venture Fund' called KXTER ([http://kxter.com/members/](http://kxter.com/members/)) which sure seems a hell of a lot like what Stratos claims to be.

tl;dr this thing is so bullshit that I regret writing this comment at all

</comment><comment><USER3> I would bet big bux this is just a marketing story for someone's new app. It's an interesting angle to get new users.

<comment><USER4> Exactly my thoughts. Also uses Typeform to process signup. Please.</comment></comment>


Actalis: Insufficient Serial Number Entropy - <AUTHOR> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1534295 <comment><USER3> Cases like this seem to confirm the approach LetsEncrypt took of only issuing certificates of a somewhat-short lifetime, which kind-of forces a user to fully automate the handling of certificates (monitoring expiration, taking measures to request a new cert in time, deploying the new cert,...).

The practice of issuing certificates with a (sometimes very) long lifetime, from one year and up, results in a situation where such automation is not strictly required, and complex bureaucratic processes can be put in place to replace certs, which becomes a major issue when 'emergency' revocations are necessary. I'd argue such bureaucratic processes don't even increase 'security', because in the end they rely on people performing manual operations (often with more rights granted than strictly required), whilst an automated system can be more easily vetted, tested, and locked down.

</comment><comment><USER4> Aside from the necessity of enforcing good security policy here, it's brutal to observe the situation Actalis was stuck in based on the thread's ongoing comments. They clearly got themselves into bad/unsustainable deals with big customers where they made promises that couldn't be fulfilled in these circumstances, so their choices were to (likely) lose those customers + harm their customers' users, or to risk getting kicked out of the root program. And if they don't play their cards right it's possible they BOTH lose their customers and get booted out of the root program eventually anyway. Not a fun situation to be in, especially because in this case it sounds like they got screwed by a bug in third-party software and not specifically due to bad internal processes.

<comment><USER5> I think Actalis found itself between a very hard rock and an even harder place. I am italian and I have worked with some public entities similar to the ones Actalis provided certificates to. There is a private network "SPC" of public italian organizations, with many machine-to-machine HTTPS web services that MUST by law provide updates to the central government with quite strict deadlines.

On such networks, certificate pinning is very common and possibly even recommended, contrary to the "Basic Requirements" and recommendations of CAs.

Failing to respect such deadlines causes penalties to the local governments, and in grave cases may even be a crime: "public service interruption" which would initiate a trial, with more fines and possibly jail time.

Thus Actalis had to choose between:

1\. follow the CAs "Basic Requirements" that force CAs to quickly revoke certificates when a problem is discovered. Then most of the certificates would be revoked _before_ the public customers managed to replace them - <USER2> their operativity, risking penalties for the missed deadlines and possibly trial and jail time for "public service interruption". To avoid this, they would then need to demonstrate in a public trial that the public customers were well informed that certificates could be revoked and re-issued at any time with very short warning time, and they did everything they could to avoid the "public service interruption", both pre-emptively (when negotiating the sell of certificates and educating the customers) and re-actively (when the serial numbers vulnerability was discovered). Quite a hard path.

2\. contact the customers, push them to quickly replace the compromised certificates, and revoke them only _afterwards_ , thus avoiding service disruptions.

They chose 2. Unluckily italian public organizations are _very_ slow, which in the end caused Actalis to miss their BR deadlines by a long shot.

<comment><USER6> Thank you! Reading between the lines it seemed clear that just revoking the certs would have caused major infrastructure problems, but what you describe sounds severe. No wonder they chose to take the hit in BR deadlines!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I kind of feel for Actalis. It seems like they were caught between a rock and a hard place seeing as their customers were not/could not respond as quickly as hoped and revoking the certs could negatively impact end-users by preventing them from for example obtaining prescriptions etc. The language is dense for me but it also sounded like there was a reasonable explanation in the BR for the exception (paraphrasing: 'negatively impacting a large swath of internet users') but it didn't seem to assuage the concern of Ryan. I hope the Actalis guy didn't lose his job.

<comment><USER8> From the thread is becomes painfully clear how horrible Actalis is set up to act as a CA. Instead it seems they chose to break the BR by default. Almost 5 months to reissue a little over 250k certificates is not what you may expect from a CA that a major browser should trust.

The argument that there might be some end-users unable to renew their prescription seems mostly used to gain sympathy. Also this will most probably not be "a large swath of internet users".

I do hope Actalis step up their game and regain some trust. Or it may become the next symantec.

<comment><USER9> On the other hand, as far as I can tell:

* The baseline requirement is 64 bits of entropy and Actalis were providing 63 bits, i.e. only short by a single bit. It would seem unusual if the baseline requirements were a mere one bit of entropy from insecurity.

* The requirement for 64 bits of entropy is to reduce the risk of hash collision attacks [1] - which have only ever been demonstrated for MD5 and SHA-1, neither of which are used to sign certificates any more.

If web security was a tightrope, this would be like hearing that the _second_ safety net, _underneath_ the first believed-to-be-robust safety net, was found to be strong enough to catch a 900 lbs person, when it was specified for 1000 lbs.

[1] [https://cabforum.org/2016/03/31/ballot-164/](https://cabforum.org/2016/03/31/ballot-164/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Actalis is a major Italian CA that works mainly with big banks and the public sector, like (from the bug report)

\- the Tuscany Region (e.g. O=Rete Telematica Regionale Toscana, etc.)

\- the Piedmont Region (e.g. O=CSI Piemonte, etc.)

\- central public government (eg. O=Bank of Italy, Ministry of Transports, etc.)

\- major banks (e.g. O=Unicredit S.p.A., FinecoBank, etc.)

\- large private companies (e.g. O=SNAM, Terna, Wind, etc.)

\- chambers of commerce

</comment><comment><USER10> On one hand, this incident was a massive amount of work by probably thousands of people to replace all the revoked certificates. Certificates which are perfectly good for communication and do not pose any significant security risk.

On the other hand, allowing a CA to violate the BR's without pain will just encourage others to do so.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Certificates which are perfectly good for communication and do not pose any > significant security risk.

Is it so? I remember that in 2008 someone was able to create a rouge CA certificate because of the predictability of serial numbers[1]. It was a different time: we still used md5, but are you sure the limited entropy used to generate serial numbers does not pose any security risk?

[1][https://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue- ca/](https://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/)

<comment><USER11> The difference here is one bit. The BRs say you must use at least 64-bits of entropy, EJBCA out of the box used 63-bits. A bad guy might need to spend say $40 trillion to make a bogus cert instead of $80 trillion. No bad guys have $40 trillion so it's irrelevant. And that would be if we were still using SHA-1 (which is broken, and so the entropy is all that would keep you safe against collision attacks) but in fact Actalis and other CAs are only issuing with SHA-256 which isn't broken.

This is a Brown M&M ‡. It doesn't actually matter in terms of security, 63-bits, 65-bits, it's never going to make a real difference. But we wrote 64-bits in those rules, if we can't trust you to obey that rule, who says you got the really important parts right?

‡ [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/](https://www.snopes.com/fact- check/brown-out/)

<comment><USER12> It's not that Actalis has not tried to obey, or purposefully withheld information or tried to mislead the community. The disagreement is on how strict the interpretation of the BR should be.

Would Van Halen abort a concert if there was a single brown M&M in a bowl of 1000? Probably not because even though it's a violation of their contract, they got their point across, it still means the organisers had read through the full contract and tried to obey.

Reading through the discussion, I wish I could be as strict as Ryan Sleevi is in demanding that browsers fix their incompatibilities with the web's BR (ehm.. standards). Chrome, there's this bug where this element is placed one pixel off from where it should be (it's by no means critical and does not impact users of any website in any meaningful way, but according to the CSS Box Model Module Level 3 spec, paragraph suchandsuch it's wrong). How about you fix it by next week or I'll uninstall you from all systems on the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Could somebody explain to me why Mozilla (or whatever organisation is using bugzilla here) are in a position to dictate policy here?

If the majority of outstanding certificates were held by the Italian government, major banks and hospitals, what are the CA supposed to do if they're just told "No, you won't revoke the certificates until we're ready, we don't think the risk is worth it"? Further, reading a comment below on the usage of these certificates by the Italian state for mandatory reporting: it sounds like revoking could be considered a criminal offense...

This very much reads like a private entity mandating that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Euros are spent by the Italian state over a very minor security risk.

<comment><USER11> Somebody has to decide who is trusted. Mozilla (a not-for-profit) thinks that it suits their mission best if they're deciding, at least when it comes to their browser, Firefox, by default.

If you think somebody else should decide - maybe the Government of Italy, or the Queen of England, or Donald Trump, or you personally, then here's a few questions for your new Root Trust Programme:

1\. Why? At least Mozilla's rationale is related to a fact, they make Firefox, so it trusts whatever they decide, what would be the rationale for why the Pope gets to decide?

2\. Are they actually doing it? This is largely a tedious responsibility. But, if you decide to slack off, every Firefox user gets screwed. So, you know, you're going to need to put those hours in. Forever. I've lost count of how many people or organisations decided they could do better and didn't last a year.

3\. Where's the transparency? The main way Mozilla stands out from the other big trust store operators (Apple, Microsoft, Google, and arguably Oracle) is that they're a not-for-profit and so they operate transparently. Your contributions are welcome at m.d.s.policy [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.dev.security...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.dev.security.policy) where we are currently discussing the minutiae of Certificate Policy documentation. If your alternative is less transparent, how is that not worse?

<comment><USER13> I'm not saying Mozilla isn't a good organisation to run this, I'm saying it seems insane to have what seems like policies that don't allow for any proportional response.

I don't know how involved you are, but to a lay observer this story seems like Mozilla's policies are entirely black and white, to the benefit of nobody (except perhaps to reduce work I suppose, which is reasonable, but not really a valid reason in terms of security)

Is there no tiered approach to risks? Hell, in this situation it seems like more harm and risk will have been created by the rush to reissue certificates that would have been caused by this theoretical security vulnerability.

Edit: Actually, on further reading, it seems like the issue is more that Actalis didn't correctly invoke their right to this discretionary power?

<comment><USER14> You may also enjoy [https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Incident_Dashboard](https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Incident_Dashboard) , which all the CAs responding to such incidents need to be aware of, and which shows that there is a rather large amount of proportionality, based on an appropriate degree of transparency and communication.

<comment><USER13> That is very interesting, thank you. And yes, the tone and approach in all the incidents I read through there seemed great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For context: This issue affected a large number of CAs because it was an issue in a widely used free CA operation software (EJBCA).

</comment><comment><USER16> What surprises me is that people want OV certificates, since to my knowledge they are no different to DV certs in all applications...

<comment><USER17> Sounds like a good insurance policy where your CA will risk their root program participation, and the managers their jobs to keep your certificates unrevoked for months:

> we have met a lot of resistances and compliances from the enterprise > customers, mainly public entities, to whom we have wrongly responded by > giving more time. Four months to replace some certificates is more than > enough.

> As managing director I have just decided some organization and role changes > with immediate effect: I have removed the SSL infrastructure and Operation > managers</comment></comment>


Revolving Door: Ex-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Takes Job with Hedge Fund Citadel - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/ben-bernanke-isnt-the-problem-the-system-is-the-problem/390669/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> How is this a revolving door?

\- Bernanke has never worked in private industry before

\- The Fed doesn't regulate hedge funds or HFT firms (Citadel has both)

They're hiring him because he's going to be amazing in front of new LPs when Griffin raises funds. How do you not give a global macro firm that employs Ben money?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

<comment><USER3> OK: "Hi Ben, what are your views on rates?" Still OK: "Hi Ben, John Smith is in your old seat, what do you think of him, what does it imply for our strategy?" Less OK (I think, still legal in FICC although not in equities): "Hi Ben, mind giving John a call before his morning press meet to check what he's going to say" [1] Really bad (if somewhat unlikely): "Hi Ben, John's going to be more bullish than expected, but we have a fairly large short on; mind having lunch with him this week before the next meeting and try change his mind?"

The Carlyle Group (headquartered in Washington, unlike, at the time, most of the industry) is probably the most famous for hiring fresh-off-the- administration politicians [2], and being "lucky" with portfolio companies and defence contracts. Disclaimer: I'm of course not implying they are related in any way; could just be that their better insider knowledge allowed them to present a more appropriate offer in those cases.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jan/04/switzerland-...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jan/04/switzerland- central-bank-chief-insider-trading)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Triangle-Inside-Secret- Carlyle/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Triangle-Inside-Secret- Carlyle/dp/0471660620/) \- although the book obviously has an agenda.

<comment><USER2> Yellen has worked at the Fed forever and knows how to speak to private citizens. She's not going to leak her press conference material because her old boss called her up.

Your two links are 1) Outright insider trading 2) An unrelated example where perhaps you do want to look at revolving door rules.

<comment><USER3> That's not what I meant (e.g. Bernanke influencing Yellen), I guess I was not clear enough or the subtleties were lost in translation. The examples are simple, obvious cases of the more subtle fears one could have about public officials moving to the private sector. Influence is not by phone calls asking for things (unless you are really stupid, as Rajaratnam's circle seemed to be) but by cautious alignment of interests and game theoretic considerations (a la House of Cards). You don't ask the CFO how his company is doing; you have someone in your team take him for frequent drinks and lunches and to clubs and get to know him well, and then wait for "mosaic" pieces when he's had too much to drink...

As a more subtle example, some Austrian economists argue (and I can't remember the books off the top of my head) that Keynes' policies were influenced by what politicians and the academic elite of his era wanted to hear; this allegedly enabled Keynes to become the first "superstar" economist with significant personal advantages, in exchange for providing backing for policies that classical economists would not want to touch. (Others might argue that Keynes, as an all-but-by-name Fabian, was thus inclined in the first place and didn't need prompting.)

This is the real risk: when the interests of people close to government start influencing government actions, not necessarily outright or implicitly, but with the same effect on the stakeholders (the governed).

Without wanting to step into a hornet's nest, a more obvious recent example is the way the interests of Mr. Cheney aligned so nicely with the case for war in the Middle East a decade ago. Some argue that, even if the war was justified, the lack of any kind of open bidding process for contracting during the period would be concerning as regards the judicious use of taxpayer money.

From my relatively few and junior years in the global macro space, I didn't get a feel that Bernanke would be a particularly egregious case of this; he struck me as an honest man and competent academic (even if I'm not a fan of his policies); as for what it's worth, seemed Trichet. But it's a discussion worth having because not every departing civil servant is motivated by academic immortality or policy legacy.

Well, I never had a particularly brilliant P&L and eventually left the industry, so maybe my opinion is not worth much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [Sarcasm] Imagine that: an economist takes a job in the finance industry. I, for one, won't stand for it.

<comment><USER5> While I don't hold strong opinions against the Fed's policies in general, I think there is legitimate cause for concern here.

The Fed and mainstream economists argued that they really didn't want to bail out the entire finance industry in the global financial crisis, but they had no choice. But how can they credibly make arguments like this if there is a revolving door with the finance industry? There needs to be some evidence of unbiasedness if the Fed and SEC are to be the enforcers of the deal by which banks are regulated in exchange for this kind of bailout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article makes a good point, but it assumes that Bernanke will somehow exploit his former position. That might or might not be possible, depending on multiple variables. If the article is on to something, then Bernanke's role will most likely be lobbying and not risk analysis, etc.

The most prominent example or revolving door I've ever seen is Hennry Paulson. For some context, see Felix Salmon[2]. IMHO Paulson should be in prison.

[2] [http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/10/how...](http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/10/how- paulson-gave-goldman-the-lehman-headsup.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> The Federal Reserve System does not oversee hedge funds, so the premise of the title is ridiculous.

<comment><USER8> The idea that this is not corrupt because of a regulatory formality about what kind of financial institution he joins is more ridiculous.

<comment><USER9> The whole problem with "revolving doors" is that people regulate the same places they then work at. This creates bad incentives and corruption. If Bernanke was in charge of HF regulation and made special rules that helped Citadel and then went to work there..that's an issue. And it happens all the time in certain industries.

I don't see the corruption angle here. Can you point to specific actions Bernanke took as Fed Chairman that you think he is now being paid for?

<comment><USER8> You want me to point out a moment where Bernanke is corrupt, but I'm suggesting that the setup itself is the corrupt part. The people who steward the economy live and work alongside the people working their hardest to exploit it. With his turn at the helm complete he seamlessly steps across the boundary that never really was there in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Honestly, Citadel is getting exactly what they deserve: Ben Bernanke missed the biggest economic event in three generations, despite having all the resources of the Federal Reserve. If they think they're tapping into his rolodex, do they think that everyone at the SEC or Fed has somehow missed this point?

And the funny part is that he's probably being paid handsomely for that talent.

<comment><USER11> Realistically that was Greenspan, Bernanke was in the fed chairman role for less than two years before SHTF. Greenspan exited at the very height of the bubble just as things were starting to roll over. By the time he was Chairman there was pretty much bugger all he could have done to stop things falling apart, you don't build up a system so chronically imbalanced like that and have it unwind safely.

<comment><USER10> While Greenspan certainly did his part to inflate the housing bubble, he had little to do with the incredible slowness that Bernanke had recognizing the problem. For example:

Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust (2005) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/10...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html)

(2007 Testimony) "At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained." [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke2...](http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20070328a.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Team startups vs team finance. We hate them because HN tells us they're on the other team.

<comment><USER13> In my opinion, "antifinancism", the hate of finance, is rather less ingrained in startup culture than in the overall society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know that authors don't write the headlines, but the New York Times article they linked to ([http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/ben- bernanke-w...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/ben-bernanke- will-work-with-citadel-a-hedge-fund-as-an-adviser.html?_r=1&referrer=)) is at least accurate: Bernanke will be an _adviser_.

I clicked this link bait assuming he was leaving the Brookings Institution.

</comment><comment><USER15> Okay, so let's actually tackle the problem here: what sort of jobs should people who have a high understanding of $technicalfield and policy making be allowed to hold?

</comment><comment><USER13> It almost sounds as if some people want Fed Chairmans which aren't highly sought after in private industry...

</comment><comment><USER16> Paging mods for title de-editorialization...

<comment><USER17> If you look at the tab title for the page, it's the same as the title of the article here.

I presume the in-article title has been changed since?

<comment><USER16> Mods change bad titles even when they're the same as the article; see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399457) for example.</comment></comment></comment>


Simple life Manhattan: a 90-square-foot microstudio  - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZSdrtEqcHU&feature=player_embedded

<comment><USER2> Tip: Don't be afraid to use awesome public transportation if you can't afford a larger apt. right in the center of things.</comment>


Madrid cracks down on 'manspreading' on public transport - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40233435 <comment><USER3> I am much taller than average, way above the 99th percentile. On public transportation and on planes, as a matter of fact, I occupy more space than most people. Sometimes seats are designed so that I cannot help but invade someone else's space. Usually it takes just a second a tiny bit of common sense to ask someone to move a bit. Most often just eye contact is enough.

On the other hand I saw my fair share of jackasses on public transportation (feet over a seat, bringing in bikes during peak hours when it is explicitly forbidden, screaming on phone, drinking beer and then throwing the can on the floor, occupying more than one seat) and -- surprise surprise -- males and females were equally represented among jackasses.

This feminist trend of making up problems and sticking a "male" label on it really makes me sick!

<comment><USER4> Yours is a totally different issue, here we are talking about people occupying much more than the space they need and invading other people personal space.

I am bother by this behavior and I feel it should something people learn when they are kids, not something I should ask for.

<comment><USER3> People may invade your personal space for many reasons: because they are taller than average, because they may be commuting for a long time and need to move their legs a bit, because they simply forgot or think about something else, because they come from different cultures with a different culture of what is personal space (try using public transportation in Beijing and then in Tokyo), or because they are assholes.

I think that we can just try to be humans and ask, it's not really a big deal. As I said even eye contact is enough most often, is it so difficult.

There's no need to start a war, leave along a pointless, sexist war like the proponents of the term "manspreading" are doing.

<comment><USER4> I guess I disagree on your arbitrary definition of "human", but this is a bit off topic.

This campaign is teaching people how they should ask, which is much more efficient and effective that asking one person at the time (moreover if you are the only one ask chanses are you will be seen as an unreasonable person on the train).

For the sexiest part I think it's laughable,as they are not suggesting it's a problem with all men, but that is prominent in men, which for my experience it's true. Btw also their claim as "manspreading" being sexiest is laughable in my opinion, but I agree that it should be stopped (and I am a male).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are so many things that are stupid about this, here is some examples:

1\. IMHO this is directly sexist towards men. There are numerous socially awkward things you may do at a public transport. Why only crack down on one of them?

2\. Even if manspreading would be an issue, which it is my belief that it is absolutely not, it would affect men more than women since men are generally speaking physically larger than women. Have anyone heard a man complain? EDIT: What I meant by this is that if this really was a problem, men would suffer more extensively from it.

3\. This will most likely create the opposite effect and make more people spread their legs just because it is sexist in the first place.

EDIT 2:

Those who simply state that "this is an issue". Have you ever actually asked the person in question if they could take up less room? This "issue" needs a sign just as much as "women who places their handbags on other seats" or "dont stare at people intensively" or "dont dig out your nose in front of everyone" or "dont talk very loudly in the cellphone" or "dont play a music instrument". Also, since this is a it and startup related forum, where the fuck is the actual evidence that this is an issue?

If you would make a sign of every single bad behavior on a public transport, there would be no room for anything else. Just talk to people and if you are too afraid to, that itself is a way larger issue for you than people taking up too much space.

I know at least that if this would come in my hometown, I would manspread in every fucking ride.

<comment><USER6> > _Even if manspreading would be an issue, which it is my belief that it is > absolutely not, ..._

This leads me to believe that you haven't actually see it in action, and I wonder how much you travel on public transport. Absolutely it is a problem - <USER2> can't tell you how often my physical space has been unnecessarily "spread into" by this sort of thing.

> ... _it would affect men more than women since men are generally speaking > physically larger than women._

My observation is that men simply don't "manspread" into another man's space. It's very much a dominance thing. It's ugly, it's obnoxious, and it's borderline threatening.

I have no faith that this initiative will have any effect, but it most definitely is an issue.

<comment><USER5> I have seen it in action and said "excuse me" when I sat down. He made room for me. Would you believe that?

<comment><USER6> I have seen people sit next to a manspreader, said "Excuse me," and been completely ignored, thereby being forced either to push them physically, or shrink away from them.

Would you believe that?

Not everyone is happy with asking someone who is encroaching on their space to move. You may feel this isn't a problem. My observations tell me it is.

Would you believe that?

<comment><USER5> Yes I would believe that. But I would not believe it is the case that is a societal problem that needs a sexist sign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Funny thing is, I see women taking up more space than they need about as often as men. Not with their legs spread wide, perhaps, but by sitting sidewise, or plopping their bag on a seat. It's rude, but it's not gender-specific. I mean, call it what you will, but I think pretending only men do it is only likely to make people treat this less seriously.

(And the sign doesn't actually say man-spreading, so no real issue there)

</comment><comment><USER8> Finally, the real societal issues are getting the attention they deserve.

</comment><comment><USER9> There's a reason men spread their legs: it's hot down there, we need to cool it.

Also, how about shebagging? And all the other unacceptable behavior people have in public transportation? I've seen people clipping their nails, blasting music(?) on their phone, etc

We're headed down a dangerous path with these regulations.

<comment><USER10> what is shebagging? Sounds like we should stop coining phrases like these that fuel debate on sexism

<comment><USER11> It's the practice by a female passenger on public transport of placing a bag on the seat next to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Curious if signs have any effect on behavior that the perpetrator probably already knows is rude.

Maybe it just works by allowing those seated next to them to point at the sign?

</comment><comment><USER13> This is a bullshit issue. I take the bus and the subway almost every day and this never happens. I hate first world feminism.

<comment><USER14> Because you're probably the one spreading. I am a man and I suffer it all the time, including in fucking flights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It would be great to see tube tickets priced by weight as you step through the barriers. Lots of fat people and tourists (with bags) taking up room makes traveling on the tube much more uncomfortable than it needs to be.

<comment><USER15> It's not a weight issue. Many manspreaders aren't particularly fat, they just try to take up as much space as possible.</comment></comment>