Why Internal Technical Documentation Is Hard - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@JohnTeasdale/why-internal-technical-documentation-is-hard-8dbd3c8179c0 <comment><USER2> I have created technical documentation several times in my career because things were so complex in the software and I needed something to contain answers to how the software works and why.

However, almost every time I move on to the next project that documentation is either forgotten (ex-manager didn't care to remember we had documentation) or deleted (this isn't code).

</comment><comment><USER3> The lessons in this piece could be applied as an approach to project communications in general.</comment>


Humans can acquire TB from deer - <AUTHOR> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6837a3.htm <comment><USER3> A hunter in our area back at home told us this was an issue (this was something around a decade ago). Mentioned that he always checked his catch on- site for TB, and if it showed any symptoms he'd just leave it there. It's not worth the risk.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is pretty scary. Wisconsin has been tracking CWD[1] through the harvested heads of deer each fall despite no evidence that prions infecting deer jump to humans. This is different.

[1]: [https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/prevalence.html](https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/prevalence.html)

<comment><USER5> Not sure why it's scary? In NZ we've got bovine TB, and you need to learn to identify it in animals you're butchering, deer can get it but wild pigs are more prone due to their predilection for scavenging carcasses - <USER2> possums, an introduced pest from Australia, are the main vector for cattle, deer and pigs.

When I started hunting, I was taught, "don't eat the lumpy ones", and of course, always make sure you properly autopsy the animal, liver, lungs, heart etc. And if you shoot a TB infected animal, don't transport the offal (especially not the heads of pigs, for some reason bovine TB has a predilection for their jaws), and bury or burn it if you can to prevent scavenging and further infection.

[https://ospri.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/TB- Information-...](https://ospri.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/TB-Information- for-Hunters.pdf)

To the best of my knowledge,human infection by bovine TB in NZ is very rare since the introduction of pasteurisation, although large pest control efforts (using a controversial (with some) poison) are undertaken to control the brushtail possum population.

But I dunno, maybe we gut our deer differently to how they do in America or something?

As a Kiwi hunter, what scares me disease wise about American hunting compared to ours is the ticks the animals typically carry - and the ticks in the forests!

<comment><USER6> The ticks aren't so bad if you know how to pull them out of your skin.

<comment><USER7> I don't know, as someone who eats a lot of meat the idea of catching a meat allergy from a tick bite is pretty terrifying [https://acaai.org/allergies/types/food-allergies/types- food-...](https://acaai.org/allergies/types/food-allergies/types-food- allergy/meat-allergy)

<comment><USER8> Wow one more weird reason to fear ticks. I wonder why ticks are such effective disease vectors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Of course we can, but wolves are good cleaning it in wild mammals, and cattle is routinely watched for suspicious symptoms currently. TB is a common acronym for human tuberculosis. Here TB means the disease caused by Bovine Tuberculosis, a different organism that makes just for a small part of the cases in humans, does not necessarily develop symptoms or adverse effects and can remain indetectable on carriers for a indefinite amount of time.

Fishermen have also their own mycobacteriosis. Is interesting that picking tuberculosis by fishes is impossible because the organism in this case can't stand our inner temperature. They cause a totally different set of symptoms on humans

</comment><comment><USER10> There are some who believe Jane Austen died of bovine TB.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6692503/J...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6692503/Jane- Austen-died-of-tuberculosis-not-hormonal-disorder.html)</comment>


UK officials raid Guardian, destroy HDDs to stop Snowden stories - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/19/4638202/uk-officials-destroy-guardian-hard-drives-in-misguided-effort-to-stop

<comment><USER2> 2nd hand summary of [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david- miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters)</comment>


Mitt: 200 byte functional event emitter / pubsub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/developit/mitt <comment><USER2> This is nice, but I'm not sure I understand. What advantage does this have over the stock event emitter in node, require(`events`)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just size and a few really minor API nitpicks. If you're writing for Node, just use the built-in one.</comment></comment>


Startup Bloom Energy Debuts New Fuel Cell on 60 Minutes [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

<comment><USER2> So many submissions about Bloom: <http://searchyc.com/submissions/bloom?sort=by_date>

Here's the earlier submission of which yours is a duplicate: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144035></comment>


Researchers generate complete human X chromosome sequence - <AUTHOR> https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/NHGRI-researchers-generate-complete-human-x-chromosome-sequence <comment><USER2> Dumb question: is there a x_chromosome.txt with the sequence in order? Why do geneticists not talk about it this way?

<comment><USER3> There is! You can find the current "agreed upon" human genome reference segmented by chromosome here: [https://hgdownload.soe.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/hg38/chromosomes/](https://hgdownload.soe.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/hg38/chromosomes/). (It's not the assembly that's described in the article here.)

People do talk about the genome and its elements using the location by chromosome number and range like you'd describe an index in a string. There has even been special notation developed to do so [1]. However, it depends on _how_ you're looking at biology.

I think an analogy would be: you can describe all code as machine code, but when there are higher level abstractions you wouldn't choose to do so.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_(genetics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_\(genetics\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article doesn't mention but now I'm curious what kind of read length and error rate they are achieving. This could have huge impacts across all sequencing.

<comment><USER5> It looks like they're using Oxford nanopore and PacBio sequencing technologies for the long reads. These are two up-and-coming sequencing technologies focused on extremely long reads. My understanding of both is that their error rates on individual base pairs are too high to reliably determine the actual sequence on their own (something like 15% error rates). Typically the long reads from these technologies are used as a "scaffold" to resolve the large- scale structure of a DNA sequence, while another sequencing technology, usually Illumina, is used to resolve the actual sequence. (Illumina produces short reads, but it produces a _lot_ of them, and the error rate is much lower, about 1%-5%.) In addition, since PacBio and Oxford Nanopore are very different technologies, I'm guessing that they probably have different "error profiles", so they probably partially cover for each others' deficiencies when you use both of them at the same time.

Note: Don't take any of the specific numbers above as gospel. These technologies develop extremely quickly, so it's quite likely that my knowledge of typical error rates is out of date.

In any case, here's the relevant quote from the original link (to phys.org), before it was changed to the less technical press release, which doesn't mention any specific technologies used:

"The new project built on that effort, combining nanopore sequencing with other sequencing technologies from PacBio and Illumina, and optical maps from BioNano Genomics. Using these technologies, the team produced a whole-genome assembly that exceeds all prior human genome assemblies in terms of continuity, completeness, and accuracy, even surpassing the current human reference genome by some metrics."

<comment><USER6> I dont think you can call pacbio up and coming at this point, but nanopore certainly.

And those error rate examples are way way too high - illumina is closer to Q30, which is a 1/1000 error rate[0]. 15% would result in an unusable sequence.

[https://emea.illumina.com/science/technology/next- generation...](https://emea.illumina.com/science/technology/next-generation- sequencing/plan-experiments/quality-scores.html)

<comment><USER5> The sequencer may report a quality score of 30, but that doesn't guarantee that the error rate when you align to the genome will actually be 1/1000\. Still, you're right that good quality Illumina data can do significantly better than 1% error rate. You can't always get "good quality" data, but I imagine that the researchers on this project probably could, given the well- controlled experimental setup.

And yes, a 15% error rate does result in a sequence that is unusable for the purposes of actually knowing the sequence. But a bunch of really long reads with 15% error can still be used to resolve the large-scale structure of a sequence, and then the lower-error-rate Illumina reads can be aligned onto this large-scale scaffold in order to resolve the actual sequence. At least, this is my understanding of how these technologies are typically used together, and given the mention of PacBio, nanopore, _and_ Illumina, that seems to be what was done in this case.

<comment><USER6> Yes the higher error ones are used for alignment- and even then too high an error rate in a very repetitive region (especially depending on the error type - misreads vs skipped bases etc) make it too challenging to build a scaffold to align your illumina reads.

As of 2018 error rate for alignments with nanopore was around 3-6 percent

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053456/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053456/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In a simple English, could someone explain why is this good and what does it all mean?

<comment><USER8> From the article: "Repetitive DNA sequences are common throughout the genome and have always posed a challenge for sequencing because most technologies produce relatively short "reads" of the sequence, which then have to be pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle to assemble the genome. Repetitive sequences yield lots of short reads that look almost identical, like a large expanse of blue sky in a puzzle, with no clues to how the pieces fit together or how many repeats there are. . . . Filling in the remaining gaps in the human genome sequence opens up new regions of the genome where researchers can search for associations between sequence variations and disease and for other clues to important questions about human biology and evolution."

Or, to make this more simple: Finding the complete DNA sequence of chromosomes is difficult. That's because some parts of the sequence are highly repetitive. Using a new type of lab machine, the scientists were able sequence the repetitive parts of the X chromosome. This gives a more complete picture of the X chromosome. And that can help scientists fight diseases and understand human biology better.

<comment><USER9> So 20 years ago when we "sequenced the human genome", we actually didn't? If you'd asked me whether or not we had a complete sequence of an X chromosome before I saw this I would have said, "Of course we have one, for over 20 years".

<comment><USER10> So much about the original announcements was overhyped PR. The original assembly was super-crappy and super-gappy. The folks running the two projects were exhausted and declared victory, then moved on.

Of all the fields that I've worked in, genomics has been one of the most overhyped (virtual drug discovery is the other) and it takes a ton of training just to understand how messed up the field is.

<comment><USER9> Wow, this is news to me. What a farce haha. Thanks for adding clarity here and breaking a bad assumption I had!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I thought the human genome was mapped in 2003, when the Human Genome Project wrapped up: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project)

What's different about this?

<comment><USER12> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23852177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23852177) explains it, with a quote from the article. They weren't able to map the whole thing, because of repeating patterns. That's now starting to change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is a space missing in the title ("X chromosome").

<comment><USER14> OP probably ran into the HN character limit.

Edit: Upon testing, that appears to not be the case. Probably a typo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So how do you actually isolate one chromosome to sequence it?

<comment><USER16> Step 1: the researchers use a diploid cell line where the entire diploid X chromosome is homozygous: both copies of the X chromosome in this cell line are identical. This is part of why the researchers chose to look at the X chromosome.

> To circumvent the complexity of assembling both haplotypes of a diploid > genome, we selected the effectively haploid CHM13hTERT cell line for > sequencing (abbr. CHM13)

Incidentally, they do capture the other chromosomes in this process:

> Several chromosomes were captured in two contigs, broken only at the > centromere (Fig 1a).

> > [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/735928v3.full.pdf](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/735928v3.full.pdf)

Step 2: Follow a procedure for DNA prep that results in long stretches of DNA (though not an entire chromosome-length) and amplify (make multiple copies of) the mixture, per this reference:

> > [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5889714/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5889714/)

Step 3: Run the mixture through a nanopore sequencer (essentially a hole a few nanometres across), reading the change in current in response to the different bases, including methylated bases.

Step 4: Repeat this many many times to get multiple reads of each region of the data:

> In total, we sequenced 98 MinION flow cells for a total of 155 Gb (50× > coverage, 1.6 Gb/flow cell, SNote 2). Half of all sequenced bases were > contained in reads of 70 kb or longer (78 Gb, 25× genome coverage) and the > longest validated read was 1.04 Mb.

Step 5: Overlay the data from the long measurements

> Once we had collected sufficient sequencing coverage for de novo assembly, > we combined 39× of the ultra-long reads with 70× coverage of previously > generated PacBio data 18 and assembled the CHM13 genome using Canu 19. This > initial assembly totaled 2.90 Gbp with half of the genome contained in > contiguous sequences (contigs) of length 75 Mbp or greater (NG50), which > exceeds the continuity of the reference genome GRCh38 (75 vs. 56 Mbp NG50).

> The read was placed in the location of the assembly having the most unique > markers in common with the read. Alignments were further filtered to exclude > short and low identity alignments. This process was repeated after each > polishing round, with new unique markers and alignments recomputed after > each round.

Step 6: Check up the data against the reference genome:

> The corrected contigs were then ordered and oriented relative to one another > using the optical map and assigned to chromosomes using the human reference > genome.

> The final assembly consists of 2.94 Gbp in 590 contigs with a contig NG50 of > 72 Mbp. We estimate the median consensus accuracy of this assembly to be > >99.99%.

Essentially, this work closes up difficult-to-read gaps in the reference genome ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_genome#Human_referen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_genome#Human_reference_genome) )

<comment><USER15> Great write up! Thanks!

Regarding step 1 how can any human have an entire homozygous X chromosome?

Also/rather why not just use a male with one X chromosome?

<comment><USER17> there are long regions on the Y chromosome that are very similar to the X chromosome, which would make the analysis difficult:

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When I read the title my first thought was "Scientists found complete assembly language of human Xchromosome".

</comment><comment><USER19> go banana slugs!

</comment><comment><USER20> The press release is better than the link:

[https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/NHGRI- researchers-g...](https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/NHGRI-researchers- generate-complete-human-x-chromosome-sequence)

<comment><USER21> Ok, changed from [https://phys.org/news/2020-07-scientists-human- chromosome.ht...](https://phys.org/news/2020-07-scientists-human- chromosome.html). Thanks!</comment></comment>


Are EV certificates worth it? A technical guide to SSL validation - <AUTHOR> https://certsimple.com/blog/are-ev-ssl-certificates-worth-it <comment> jon-wood I'd be really curious to see some numbers on not the technical side, but the human side.

In the past I've chosen not to buy EV certs not because the process is more involved, but because it just doesn't seem worth the extra cost - I've never heard of someone choosing not to do business because a site had the wrong kind of SSL certificate. Most people would probably put their credit card details into a completely unencrypted website given half a chance.

<comment><AUTHOR> _nod_ what you really want is someone like usertesting.com to do this, ie, interested in conversion rates, not selling certificates.

This hasn't happened with EV yet, but it did happen with 'site seals' \- those images (or in Symantec's case Flash objects) that promote a particular certificate brand in a web page.

CertSimple sells certs that come with a DigiCert 'site seals' but I'll happily tell you that usertesting tested CRO with site seals a little while ago and found out that, in one case, removing 'site seals' completely was better for conversion - apparently reminding people they're not being hacked doesn't inspire confidence. Let me know and I'll dig up the event recording.

I _feel_ EV is a different situation - it's the only chrome displayed by the actual browser concerning identity of a website (which as we know is not the same ting as the origin). But I don't have numbers to say and I shouldn't be the one to conduct the research since I'm clearly biased.

<comment><USER2> This might be an unfair question: Do you see the cost of EV certificates coming down in the future, or is that level of cost actually required due to how involved validation is?

For a lot of SMBs and individuals it is hard to justify additional $150 a EV certificate costs. Plus the loss of convenience that wildcard DV certificates provide (and EV certificates cannot).

I like the concept of EV, but unless I was running a large company with deep pockets or was in a sector where EV is helping (e.g. finance/payments/etc) then I'd just skip it. I'm not even sure it helps mitigate phishing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Essentially the cost of EV is the cost of validation. As time goes on, and as there are more CAs, I suspect the competition will increase and the price of EV will go down.

However, the current per-year price of EV is less than a half day's work by an average programmer. I'm not necessary sure that's out of the question for most businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> That sounds all great and fancy, but one quite critical piece is missing: the ability to trust CA's. I'm frankly somewhat impressed at the level of diligence described in the article, if it is really what happens for each and every EV cert from every CA. But the cynic in me finds it it difficult to trust that that would be the case. Does the EV certification process put any requirements on the CA, such as mandatory independent audits or some other overwatch mechanism?

<comment><USER4> EV is simply a signal that the website is backed by a real company. Even if you can't trust the CA's to always do a good job (there are too many instances of CA's _really_ doing the opposite), they still don't give them away for free. To get one, you have to be prepared to spend hundreds of dollars on top of the typical incorporation and startup costs, so at least you can trust that someone actually ponied up for the certificate cost itself, incorporated, and maintains that incorporation in good standing.

We bought EV for [https://Userify.com](https://Userify.com) even though we're a startup, because it demonstrates our level of commitment to security and that we're serious in the marketplace. We also use a wildcard TLS certificate for customer-specific logins. EV-TLS also fights phishing attacks.

It's somewhat shocking that AWS doesn't use EV-TLS for the console login, especially when they're so good about other things (like searching for customer keys on Github, watching for phishing exploits, etc.)

<comment><USER5> > AWS doesn't use EV-TLS for the console login, especially when they're so > good about other things

You mean _this_ AMZN?:

[http://imgur.com/S1Pz155,TdRDjIq#0](http://imgur.com/S1Pz155,TdRDjIq#0)

It's shocking to me that they aren't even using proper TLS settings even though I'm sure they're perfectly capable and aware. Doesn't inspire confidence in their security.

<comment><USER4> Agreed! (but, in fairness, portal.aws.amazon.com might be an obsolete domain, since it just redirects to the correct aws.amazon.com... the actual console login does use TLS 1.2 etc.)

Even so, it still blows my mind that even the main Amazon.com main page uses no SSL at all by default, and they're an e-commerce site, unlike Google and FB. Seems to show a lack of respect for customer privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> EDIT: here's an answer for Zokier's excellent question (I'm rate limited right now):

> Does the EV certification process put any requirements on the CA, such as > mandatory independent audits or some other overwatch mechanism?

The EV Requirements themselves do not.

However Google required since Jan 1 2015 that ALL EV certificates have certificate transparency enabled. See the links in the article - I've tweaked it a little to directly address your point too.

Certificate Transparency makes it much harder for a CA to issue a certificate for someone else's keypair in your name.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>

Original response below:

Hi there, author here. I hope you don't mind the foul language but I couldn't convey the general feeling towards CAs at EdgeConf much better.

This is by no means a replacement for reading the EV requirements (and baseline requirements) but does capture the typical validation process for all the (around 30) EV certificates we've been involved in so far.

</comment><comment><USER6> From the average user's POV: no

They won't know the difference between a lock and a green bar. I would bet a percentage of users don't even notice if they are browsing an site using SSL or even understand why HTTP without SSL is bad. This was proven with tools like Firesheep where people are more than happy to browse facebook on an open wifi connection without using SSL.

I know I saw a discussion with the Chrome team talking about showing an error- like page for all non HTTPS traffic. This is not the solution - the solution is to show some sort of message to the user that is non-blocking that says "hey your information is sent in the clear". Also - change the self-signed SSL to not look like an error page. Using self-signed SSL is more secure than not using SSL at all - even if the certificate isn't verified your data over the wire is encrypted.

<comment><USER7> > They won't know the difference between a lock and a green bar. I would bet a > percentage of users don't even notice if they are browsing an site using SSL > or even understand why HTTP without SSL is bad.

I would bet this percentage is much higher than many people here think. Most people have no idea what "http" means, or even what a protocol is or why they would need one, much less URLs, HTTPS, SSL certs, encryption, identity, validation, etc. Many users whom I observe don't understand the URL field. If they want to load [http://cnn.com](http://cnn.com), they type "cnn" into the Google search field and click the first link -- for sites they regularly visit, every time, multiple times per day! Many don't know what a web browser is. [1]

The idea that they will grasp EV certs, and all knowledge required for that it (certs, issuers, identity, encryption, what does encryption have to do with identity, etc etc etc) seems very unlikely.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ)

<comment><USER5> > they type "cnn" into the Google search field and click the first link

Yeah, they even click the ad links, which makes me cringe every time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Suggestion to the author: I could really benefit from a short sentence that explains to me what DV means. I get from the context that EV likely means "Extended Validation". Then again, all I ever did was set up SSL on Heroku and a bit of openssl magic to get Github running - so maybe not the target for the article?

Edit for clarification: There is a short description of DV & EV, but it doesn't mention what DV/EV stands for. I'd love to know that (without Googling, because lazy).

<comment><USER9> As perfTerm noted, DV stands for Domain Validation. DV is where, basically, you prove ("validate") that you own the domain you're requesting a certificate for, typically by being able to receive an e-mail sent to one of the contacts listed in WHOIS for the domain.

This is similar to Google requiring you to create a file in the root directory of a web site or creating a TXT RR (with a specific value) in the DNS zone for a domain for Google Analytics (if you've ever done that).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's the thing, the reason EV SSL certificates aren't a good purchase is nothing to do with the technicalities of the matter.

It has to do with "will users trust my site more if they see an EV cert"

And the answer to that (IMHO) is, no, definitely not.

Most users don't even notice when a site goes from HTTPS to HTTP, the chances that they will notice the difference between the display of an EV cert. and a DV cert. is negligable.

Ask yourself this, can you list the sites that you visit that use EV certs? If you can't, what's the chances your users will....

<comment><USER11> Well, my bank uses an EV cert. That's one of the few that matter.

Of the last few sites where I brought something, most use a DV cert. I always check that, but I don't mind them not having an EV (I only mind plain text and bad crypto).

Of course, I don't want to imply that my behavior is typical, because it's not. I'm just answering your question...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> EV-SSL is a browser signal and is not usually visible on mobile, so it will probably have decreasing importance over time.

<comment><USER12> When EV is used, iOS ONLY shows the EV information - not the URL - in the address bar.

<comment><USER7> > When EV is used, iOS ONLY shows the EV information - not the URL - in the > address bar.

I expect only a tiny portion of users understands this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Any info on how the /companies API collects data? eg [https://certsimple.com/companies?legal- name=testing&country-...](https://certsimple.com/companies?legal- name=testing&country-code=US)

</comment><comment><USER14> Technically I'd say no. I had to apply for one when I was the lead software developer at a healthcare startup two years ago, and it was more involved. My boss had to submit a bunch of paperwork.

</comment><comment><USER15> summary of article: no... assuming you've got £15 to set up a company (such as the pirate one in the article), and £149 for a cert, anyone can have one

<comment><AUTHOR> That's not an accurate summary. The certificate is that you're at that company: only someone with sufficient authority in that specific company can acquire a certificate saying you're that company.

As the article mentions, that not to say there isn't flaws in the process. But most attacks against EV have come in the form of DV downgrades rather than falsely issued EV certificates.

Actually, if you have info on _any_ falsely issued EV certificates I'd be really interested.

<comment><USER15> right, so if I have £15, I can pay £15 to Companies House to start a company, and then I can authorise anything.

EV offers nothing over normal certs, other than the company name and the green bar, and I can control the company name if I have another £15...

<comment><AUTHOR> You can authorise a certificate only for the company you just created, which is most definitely not 'anything'

<comment><USER16> What stops a Russian EV cert vendor for authorizing a EV cert for impostor company Example LLC, when the real corp is Example Inc?

<comment><AUTHOR> > What stops a Russian EV cert vendor for authorizing a EV cert for impostor > company Example LLC, when the real corp is Example Inc?

\- The Registry of Companies & Intellectual Property in Russia must accept Example LLC as a valid business name which may be difficult if Example Inc was well known.

\- The issuing CA must manually inspect all requested domain names in the EV cert and ensure there is no phishing attempt. A certificate request for the hostname 'example.com.example.ru' would be rejected. Depending on how well known Example Inc is - eg, say they were Bank of America - even 'example.ru' may be rejected.

\- If for some reason this failed and a certificate for the identically named Russian company was issued, it would read 'Example LLC [RU]' in the address bar rather than 'Example Inc [US]'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Obligatory comment pointing out that SSL certificates are a racket and it's appalling that we have to pay for an SSL certificate.

<comment><USER17> If you're okay with not having "authenticated pulls" (i.e., the request from the CF edge to your server being unencrypted), Cloudflare gives you SSL for free. Their SSL config gets an A+ on SSLLabs tester, too.

Far from a solution to the SSL problem, but an interesting and free option for a lot of sites that otherwise would not bother with SSL.

<comment><USER18> I wonder why Cloudflare doesn't sign certs for their users to be used just for CF connecting to them. Seems like an obvious step to take.

<comment><USER9> They do. It's a part of their "Universal SSL" [0] called "Strict Mode".

[0]: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/universal-ssl-encryption-all- the...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/universal-ssl-encryption-all-the-way-to- the-origin-for-free/)

<comment><USER18> Well I feel silly. I looked in the dashboard several times, but the "valid cert required" was a CA-issued one, I thought. Cool!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Toodledo/rackspace outage, customer reaction - <AUTHOR> http://www.toodledo.com/forums/1/2182/0/and-were-back-from-a-very-prolonged-outage.html

<comment><AUTHOR> (I submitted this story, I am a happy toodledo pro user but have zero other connection with the company)

Summary: due to a combination of a rackspace oopsie and some sub-optimal data engineering, the online task management service at toodledo.com was off air for 16 (!!) hours. The story is the thread in their customer forum relating to the event.

Aside from the technical explanation, the thing that makes this story interesting is how their users (a significant portion of which can barely function without the site, being twitchy GTDers) reacted to all this. The predominant feeling in the forum responses is "Hey, these things happen, never mind".

In my experience, the toodledo folks could give lectures on customer-company interaction - their handling of their user forums has always been impeccable in the year I have used them. I think this goes to show that if you treat your users right, they will really cut you some slack when the Bad Stuff happens.

A lesson some other services I use could usefully learn...</comment>


Not a single mention of Panama leaks on front page of NYTimes? - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com <comment><USER2> It took them longer to get something there because they were not part of to consortium that received the leaks and broke the story. They found out about it the same time the public did, and do not have access to the documents.

They have posted an explanation of this: [http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no- big-...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash- for-panama-papers/)

<comment><USER3> Also personally I prefer detailed articles that are well-investigated instead of quick, unverified news shots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Panama leaks were, surprisingly, covered by the news tickers in buses/trams in Graz… after the sports news. In _English_ only. I guess it's the though that counts. /s

</comment><comment><USER5> Not too surprised, generally, by time things hit the New York Times, it's old news. They'll be all over this by this afternoon and tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's there: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/leaked- documen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/leaked-documents- offshore-accounts-putin.html)</comment>


Another view of game piracy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Another-view-of-game-piracy <comment><USER2> I have to take issue with two points:

"relatively few gamers are pirates" : sadly, I don't believe that. I work in the games industry and I am surrounded by people who pirate. They also buy a lot of expensive games too, but they continue to pirate games and movies.

"Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers because create games that are designed from the beginning to work well with the mouse and keyboard" : Blizzard are successful because they created the first main-stream, polished MMO. MMOs are the future of games exactly because the server component cannot be pirated.

<comment><USER3> _Blizzard are successful because they created the first main-stream, polished MMO._

Blizzard was already _incredibly_ successful before World of Warcraft. The foundation of World of Warcraft is the brand Blizzard started to build in 1996.

 _MMOs are the future of games exactly because the server component cannot be pirated._

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There are tons of private World of Warcraft servers. And you can be sure the same will happen for Starcraft 2. It's the social aspect of the server, not the server itself, that can't be pirated.

<comment><USER4>
        the brand Blizzard started to build in 1996.

The first Warcraft game (Warcraft: Orcs & Humans) was released in 1994.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The common industry assumption is that developers are losing 90% of their revenue. That is, pirates would have bought every single game that they downloaded."

As a long time game industry veteran, allow me to tell you that this is simply not true. In fact, that is actually the internet's straw man counter argument, which is fueled by a couple poor PR incidents where a few people have made it seem that way.

But the reality is that there are a lot of lost sales, and if you can prevent someone from pirating it, there is a nonzero chance that they will go out and buy it instead of waiting.

What is that number? Who knows! But it's certainly greater than zero, and there's certainly enough impact of piracy to make it worth it to explore methods of minimizing that impact.

I have other issues with the article, such as the assertion that most pirates can't afford the games. Well, my counter anecdote is that I have a bunch of friends who pirate, who make plenty of money and could easily afford the games. They pirate them because they can.

I would expect that everyone knows pirates, and I would expect that everyone knows pirates who make enough money to pay for (most of) the games they play.

(These are my own personal opinions and not necessarily those of my employer)

<comment><USER6> > What is that number? Who knows!

From article:

When Reflexive games performed a series of experiments with anti-piracy measures, they found that they only made one extra sale for every 1000 pirated copies they blocked

Besides if you successfully lock away pirates you loose all the good publicity that they give you on forums (provided that your game is any good of course).

<comment><USER5> And you also lose the bad publicity they give you on forums. See Titan Quest, which was maligned on forums (and even some reviews) due to crashing problems which were entirely related to the pirated version, and weren't seen at all on the release version.

<comment><USER7> From what I recall, that was due to the DRM used, in an attempt to reduce the quality for pirates. In hindsight, a bad idea on the part of developers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> while the 10% number of lost sales might be correct, there's one more thing you should factor into the calculation: The cost you need to pay for these 90% illegitimate users.

There's support cost (some pirates are for sure dumb enough to call/email support even though they didn't pay), then there's the cost of infrastructure. Depending on the type of your game this can just be hosting a high score list or much more on the server side.

So depending on your game, a pirate isn't just lost revenue but it will actually cost you some amount of money - in some cases a significant one.

In reverse, that means that honest players are in a way paying for the pirates as the developer of the game has to ask honest players for enough money to run the infrastructure for everyone - including the pirates.

<comment><USER9> _So depending on your game, a pirate isn't just lost revenue but it will actually cost you some amount of money - in some cases a significant one._

But in most cases an insignificant one. I expect a very small number of pirates are dumb enough to contact or email support. And I expect most pirating is distributed over bit torrent, and are hacked so that they are pirated so that they don't ever report back home (that's half the job, right)

It would be interesting if wolfire too a look at this aspect but i doubt the result is significant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't really like though how we justify piracy by saying people wouldn't have brought it anyway. Isn't that how our economy works? You either have the money for something and you buy it or you don't have to money so you don't get it.

If someone exchanges 3 hours of pay for a game how is it fair for them that the guy sitting at home doing nothing gets it for nothing and it goes down to he wouldn't have been able to afford it anyway.

<comment><USER11> Why does it matter if it's "fair?" Our economy is based on _value_ propositions—that's why we can charge 100x the price for a box labelled "enterprise edition" that contains a stream of bits no different than the one labelled "home edition." The enterprise values the software 100x as much, so we make one exchange of value with them, and then make another value exchange with (presumably a larger number of) home users for a smaller price. For some people, the value proposition you exchange with them simply is "zero dollars per license."

Also,

> Isn't that how our economy works? You either have the money for something > and you buy it or you don't have to money so you don't get it.

No, that's how a _scarcity economy_ works; the people who don't pay don't get an X so there are Xs left over for the people who _do_ want them. An information economy works completely differently: the best possible "solution" to distributing an information product is to have everyone in the world owning it at the maximum price they're willing to pay, on a value gradient all the way from $billions to $0.

<comment><USER12> "Why does it matter if it's "fair?" Our economy is based on value propositions—that's why we can charge 100x the price for a box labelled "enterprise edition" that contains a stream of bits no different than the one labelled "home edition."

Using this comparison, one piece of fine art is no different in value than the other because the value of the paint used to create each is the same.

"that's how a scarcity economy works; "

I keep hearing this argument and it's just wrong. Just like art, the scarcity isn't in the bits that you can copy. It's in the talent, time, and energy used to arrange those bits on a higher level.

When anyone can create (not copy) Photoshop CS5 in a few hours on their computer, you might have a point.

"An information economy works completely differently"

I like how software, music, and movies are called "information" only to make the argument that it should be free.

"the best possible "solution" to distributing an information product is to have everyone in the world owning it at the maximum price they're willing to pay, on a value gradient all the way from $billions to $0."

If you want to make a living, this doesn't work. If people are given the choice of paying $100 or $0, most will pay $0. This is why business doesn't work on the basis of donations.

<comment><USER13> But talent, time, and energy aren't the products being sold. Those are capital expenditures, and are already sunk costs by the time there is any product to sell.

The product itself _is_ the set of copyable bits, and this _is_ scarcity-free, due to having zero marginal cost of production.

In a non-scarce market, people pirating your game is economically equivalent to e.g. people reading books instead, or spending their time writing their own games. Pirates are just another category of people who aren't your customer.

The best possible solution to piracy is to _ignore_ it, and focus on identifying your actual paying customers and developing products for them.

But if you absolutely must think of piracy as lost sales, then use piracy volume as an input into your demand curve and adjust your pricing model accordingly.

But don't waste your talent, time, and energy trying to fight a Quixotic battle against a macro-level phenomenon that you have no actual control over.

<comment><USER12> "The product itself _is_ the set of copyable bits, and this _is_ scarcity- free, due to having zero marginal cost of production."

It doesn't have a $0 cost of production. Did it cost Microsoft $0 to develop windows?

"The best possible solution to piracy is to _ignore_ it, and focus on identifying your actual paying customers and developing products for them."

I disagree. While it is good to focus on paying customers, if an industry ignores it, they will quickly put themselves out of a job.

"But don't waste your talent, time, and energy trying to fight a Quixotic battle against a macro-level phenomenon that you have no actual control over."

It's the people that want free stuff that are trying to tell me I have no control over it. I know for sure that adding copy protection for software increases sales.

The other issue is with search engines like Google. If the pirates get organic keywords that are higher than a legitimate source and offer the same thing for free, many users will go to the illegitimate source and never purchase.

It's okay though. With the Internet getting faster and cheaper, I see most software apps going to a service eventually.

<comment><USER11> > It doesn't have a $0 cost of production.

You skipped over the word "marginal," which was the most important word in that sentence. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost>

<comment><USER12> "You skipped over the word "marginal,"

Most pieces of software cost millions to develop, so I don't think it even applies.

<comment><USER13> The cost of development is a capital investment, not a production cost. You may or may not recover that investment, depending upon a whole host of variables, most of which you will have no direct control over, presuming you even recognize their existence.

Software does have zero marginal cost of production, so someone making an illegal copy of your software does not create any actual cost for you in the way that someone stealing your physical inventory would. So the impact of an individual using a pirated copy of your software is the same as that individual not buying your software for any other reason. The macro-level impact of piracy is the same as the impact of any other macro-level factor that discourages people from buying your product, e.g. a competitor offering an equivalent or better product at a lower price point.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't assert your copyright in the face of brazen piracy. But the best way to earn your ROI for developing the product is to maximize the value that it creates, and thereby maximize the number of people who will willingly pay for your product. Focusing on pirates, who are manifestly unwilling to pay you, is a dead-end. Spending money on DRM is a waste of capital that could be used to improve the product and attract more paying customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good luck getting Joe Public to get their heads around this - have you seen how they handle anything even remotely like Bayesian maths?

</comment><comment><USER15> So how much effort is wasted on anti-piracy, and how many lost sales are there because of DRM?

As TechDirt says about music, obscurity, not piracy, is the problem for many artists. As someone that enjoys playing games, I find this often to be the case when trying to find good games.

</comment><comment><USER16> _The average pirate downloads a lot more games than the average customer buys. This means that even though games see that 80% of their copies are pirated, only 10% of their potential customers are pirates, which means they are losing at most 10% of their sales._

This is simply not true: Sales are not distributed evenly amongst customers. It could very well be that people who are pirating would usually buy a lot more apps than the usual customer. Sure, if you don't have to pay for stuff you consume more, but they are probably more likely to spend more than average in the first place.

<comment><USER17> If we accept the profile of pirates as typically low-income, then it seems extremely unlikely that pirates would likely spend more than average.</comment></comment>


Nation's top three most expensive places for renters: all in Bay Area - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/14/nations-top-three-most-expensive-places-for-renters-all-in-bay-area/ <comment><USER2> I've lived here since 2014, and have been successively priced out of every single apartment I've had at the end of a lease. I had a ~10 minute commute from West Oakland at first, then when the landlord doubled my rent it became a ~30 minute commute from El Cerrito. When the rent went up 30% there, I was forced all the way out to Pleasant Hill after spending months looking in Berkeley/Albany for something affordable.

I now pay the same rent for a 1 bedroom in Pleasant Hill that my 3 bedroom in West Oakland rented for in 2014. And after 6 months of a hellish 1 hour+ commute I'm realizing it is completely untenable from a mental health perspective. This is for a single person who makes six figures. I can't even imagine what has happened to working class families in that time period.

<comment><USER3> That's surprising to me -- Craigslist shows a number of 1BR places around Oakland in the $1500-$2000 range. Which is still crazy expensive in an absolute sense, granted, but should be reasonably affordable for a single person with a 6-figure income.

<comment><USER4> Deep East Oakland is one of the most dangerous places in the country. It's on a whole other level from an iffy gentrifying area like SOMA. It's something you just don't mess with. $1500-$2000 in one of Oakland's more acceptable areas is likely fraudulent, or is actually advertising a room and not an apartment.

<comment><USER5> Where is deep east Oakland? can you give me a landmark?

<comment><USER2> >Where is deep east Oakland? can you give me a landmark?

Fruitvale

<comment><USER6> No, that's not it. Further south from Fruitvale. Anywhere near the Oakland Coliseum BART station. And south from that BART station is ground zero. There are areas over there that the police won't go to without SWAT and a large presence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> After living here since 2009 I think I've figured out the Bay Area and San Francisco. SF is a city that doesn't want to be a city. It just doesn't want to grow up. Silicon Valley has since spilled over into San Francisco and we have a combination of massive job growth, prosperity and extremely limited new construction. Every year more people arrive than we construct housing for.

Compounding the problem are many local politicians. Serious local political players are divorced from reality denying the relationship between supply and demand with the cost of rent; while focusing on price fixing techniques such as rent control as a solution.

The only way out of this is to build. We have to make this decision.

<comment><USER8> Well, we could also repeal / sunset Prop13 and allow existing properties to reach their actual market values. This would suck in the short term, but it would lead to _way_ more liquidity in the market, even if 0 new units were built.

<comment><USER9> It doesn't need to suck in the short term, either. Phase things in over 10 years. That's plenty of time for people to adjust.

<comment><USER10> Heard of fixed income?

<comment><USER9> Somehow the rest of the country manages to regularly increase property taxes as property values go up...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have two nitpicks with the study:

1\. It uses a two-bedroom home as a baseline instead of a one-bedroom. While I understand that may be interesting for historical reasons, it's not a practical metric for modern considerations. If we want to talk about housing affordability, it's more honest to discuss one-bedroom apartments for single earners. We could also talk about two-bedroom apartments for dual-income earners.

2\. The 30% pre-tax rent metric doesn't make sense to me at all. Why would that be invariant across income levels, and across states, given both graduated taxation and the vast differences in both income tax and sales tax across different states? In California, 30% pre-tax works might work out to more than 40-45% post-tax, depending on your income, and the remainder doesn't translate well to purchasing power given varying state sales taxes.

I'm not saying that affordable housing is not a problem, because it clearly is. Just that, to address the problem honestly, we need to use better metrics to figure out what a fair solution is.

<comment><USER12> 2\. The standard in the Bay Area is for landlords to require tenants have gross earnings of 2.5 to 3.5 times the rent and to verify this with pay stubs. Personally I think this is ridiulous and antiquated as it should be my personal choice to blow half my cash on rent if I want to! But that's the way it is.

<comment><USER13> Landlords don't care about personal choices. They want tenants who can still afford to pay rent even if they have an unexpected major expense one month.

In practice some prospective tenants simply falsify their incomes. I'm not condoning this but all it takes is Photoshop and a ladder printer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think it's very important to note that the entire purpose of minimum wage, per FDR, who instituted it, is to ensure it's enough to _support_ an entire family of four on only one income earner alone, above merely sustenance levels, and allow them not only to rent but to _own_ a home. And by that metric, we've horribly failed as a country.

"By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living." (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

The tech gravy train won't last forever –everyone, us tech workers included, will be better off from advocating for fairer wages, even if that means taking a pay cut in the meantime. Otherwise I fear the extreme wealth gap will bring upon a new Gilded Age worse than the one pre-1929. And we all know how that turned out...

<comment><USER12> It's a nobel intention but home ownership is always going to be impossible for many in a growing city which refuses to build new housing, no matter how much wages are. Elevating the salaries of those at the bottom isn't a solution to SF's current housing problems as those at the top will just bid higher. Building is necessary.

<comment><USER14> I totally agree. There is no excuse for SF and the Bay Area to be restrictively zoned the way it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This thread really paints a bad picture for the mindset of a lot of people in the high-earning technology industry.

That someone would argue against every job being enough to afford a roof over your head just due to their own need for validation of their importance is frankly sickening.

<comment><USER16> There are very real reasons to object to an artificial floor to salaries (minimum wage) that have nothing to do with validation.

How expensive do you really want your burger to be? Operational costs get passed on to the consumer after all. Raising the minimum wage just increases the rate of inflation leaving everyone holding the bag.

Also, jobs should pay what they are worth to the business and nothing more. Why _should_ a high school student working for McDonald's be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment in the Bay Area? That's not some sort of right.

Maybe we should be talking about realigning education to give people valuable skills instead of pushing for the non-skilled to get an artificial raise that evaporates in meaning due to inflation.

EDIT

I'm really surprised by the push back on this from a community of entrepreneurs. Anyone who has run a business will tell you that you can't just raise salaries without increasing costs. It's Econ 101 but apparently that's not the general sentiment here. I hear a lot of complaints about how things "should" be and what's "fair" but the math and reality isn't there to support that. Some jobs just don't have much economic value and pretending that's not the case isn't going to solve anything. It's nice to imagine a situation where janitors and fast food employees can have a middle class lifestyle but who is supposed to pay for that? When the costs of good raise dramatically, their additional pay will get sucked up by inflation. Again, Econ 101.

<comment><USER17> > How expensive do you really want your burger to be? Operational costs get > passed on to the consumer after all. Raising the minimum wage just increases > the rate of inflation leaving everyone holding the bag.

This doesn't make sense to me. If it were possible to raise the price of that burger, why wouldn't it already be raised, regardless of operational costs? A business's costs to produce a good typically does not have much to do with the price customers are willing to pay for it.

<comment><USER16> You're talking about margin and fast food is definitely a low margin business (barring soda).

If salaries increase, the business will literally have to raise the price of goods sold or go out of business. That's different than raising the price to achieve a higher margin (and opening your self up to competition from people who can operate with a lower margin).

<comment><USER17> If a rational business owner could raise prices and make more revenue, they would, regardless of what their costs are. Why would they wait for their costs (salaries) to increase?

<comment><USER18> Because your competition's costs are increasing by the same amount at the same time, and their ability to compete on price is hindered by the increase in costs to the same degree yours is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> At what point do we collectively decide, you know what, this is ridiculous. Why are we funneling most of our money to landlords?

You'd think VCs would push back on this too, because that's where their money is going.

VC -> Startup -> Employee -> Landlord.

<comment><USER20> We've already collectively decided that. The problem is that a significant fraction of people have been misled about which policies will fix it. The problem is that local governments are controlled by the landlords, and they use zoning restrictions to limit supply and keep prices up. The fix is to transfer that power to the state government, which will allow enough housing to be built.

<comment><USER21> Municipalities aren't like states of the Union. Municipalities have no power except that which is granted to them by the state. There is nothing legally stopping any state government from passing a law tomorrow to change how municipalities are run.

<comment><USER22> Except landlords have tons of political capital to expend, most effectively at the state government level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That's what happens when you don't allow population density to grow to its equilibrium state. An overpriced, congested city, with absolutely no culture, as the only people who can justify living in SF are basically engineers, designers, and marketing people at tech companies. People living on a dime trying to do something interesting (art, tech, music, ...) is what gives cities their characters. When you take that away, you get a homogeneous group of people making between 100k and 200k a year who think about nothing other than money.

<comment><USER24> I've always thought it would be cool to create a site which matched people living on a dime trying to do something interesting (art, tech, music, ...) with cities/suburbs (i.e. urban development organizations) looking to diversify and grow a culture scene. Like Sacramento/Gilroy/Detroit/Yakima.

Sort of like an Airbnb but matching cities/towns and culture makers wanting permanent, low cost housing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > The National Low Income Housing Coalition used that number to calculate the > hourly wage a household must earn to afford a home while spending 30 percent > or less of their income on rent.

This is a nit, but I don't think that's a reasonable way to calculate the relationship between housing cost and affordability. Some expenses do scale with housing cost (mainly things that depend on local labor), but many important ones don't (car payments, grocery bills). So in an area with very high housing prices and a relatively-high minimum wage, you'd expect low- income workers to be able to spend more than the "standard" 30% on housing, and still be able to afford other daily necessities.

I certainly don't mean this as a refutation of the article however -- the Bay Area is a very hard place to live on a low income.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is why I just ignore Bay Area (in fact, all of California) recruiters these days. I know y'all work on some cool poop over there, but unless you're willing to triple my salary, I'll stay put here in Florida.

<comment><USER26> Imo smart move. No income tax in fl, cheap housing, beaches, decent weather, toruism etc.

Making 50k in fl will net you more cash in your pocket compared to living in sf making 100k after your bills are paid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "To remedy the situation, the coalition urges Congress to invest in housing assistance."

Of course their answer is federal subsidies. Never mind that regulations can be passed at the local level to ameliorate the situation -- without costing the government a cent -- by allowing for more housing construction. With interest groups like these we'll never get anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER28> Well if you would define 'area' by something else, we would have 3 different places.

<comment><USER29> That's true but they aren't arbitrary decisions designed to make one area look bad for the purposes of an article. They are well-defined areas [1] [2].

> Q10. What does the term "HMFA" mean?

> HUD Metro FMR Area. This term indicates that only a portion of the OMB- > defined metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is in the area to which the > income limits (or FMRs) apply. HUD is required by OMB to alter the name of > metropolitan geographic entities it derives from the MSAs when the geography > is not the same as that established by OMB.

Specifically the top 3 are:

        San Francisco, CA HMFA
        San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HMFA
        Oakland-Fremont, CA HMFA

[1] [https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/FAQs-18r.pdf](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/FAQs-18r.pdf)

[2] [https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/area- definit...](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/area-definitions- FY18.pdf)

<comment><USER30> The overriding, _pervasive_ problem with regional comparisons is that people give undue attention to non-standard, arbitrary distinctions -- e.g. political borders -- where comparisons across standardized areas (e.g. those defined by the OMB) would be more useful and generate more informative results.

This is an example of a _good_ comparison in a never-ending sea of bad ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> When I left San Diego for the Bay Area in 2008, I repeatedly heard from others, "I could never leave this place".

As I prep to sell my Bay Area house and move back to San Diego, I have only heard "I don't know if I can stay here much longer". That sentiment is the same regardless of the person's occupation, from VC partner to guy at Staples recycling my old electronics.

</comment><comment><USER32> In Seattle rents are not as high as SF yet, but the growth rate is stunning. 2bd just shy of $3,000 on avg now. [https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent- in-seattle-rent-tren...](https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-seattle- rent-trends/)

<comment><USER33> Not really comparable. You can go on Craigslist and find decent 2bd apartments in Capitol Hill for $1500-2000 during winter when demand dies down (November- February). I've personally lived in these.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm still surprised by that. I visited Manhattan in 2010 and was noticing 1br rents that average around 6k per month. Nothing luxurious, just a decent 1br. Manhattan is far larger than the entirety of SF, but when they talk about rents, they compare the entire greater NYC area to SF, which is disingenuous.

Honestly, I don't think SF is equipped to handle such a high population density. I'm not sure it ever will be. Oakland probably could though.

</comment><comment><USER35> Houston seems to have the best cost of housing to income ratio for technology people.

<comment><USER36> That's because they don't try to stop builders from building more housing, at every turn. Plus, they don't have as much of those awful regulations and zoning as CA

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Absolutely correct. However that can lead to scores of unique problems on their own, from overdevelopment exacerbating the effects of natural disasters (like the flood zone houses being destroyed last year), to utterly hellish development decisions.

I once Googled "Houston zoning fail" with my fiancée when she didn't believe me that Houston had no zoning laws. We saw an arial photo of a huge skyscraper right next to a low density residential neighborhood and maybe 30 parking spots at best, and we laughed for 10 minutes straight.

<comment><USER37> Did you laugh in a 3000U$S 1br with no seismic protection, mandatory solar panels, and crack needles and homeless in your doorstep?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Idk why you're bringing up that California stuff. I was only talking about Houston.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> So, which came first to the bay area? the engineers, or the companies? Are we at a point where most people move in to the bay area for work? Or is it the other way around (ie. companies wanting to establish a foothold in an area known for its prestigious/unique population of software-engineers)?

My point is, not only are the employees losing here, but also the employers. I no longer understand the motivation of companies to continue expanding at problematic locations (such as the bay area and new-york).

If Google left the bay area completely tomorrow, would that somehow restore the equilibrium?

<comment><USER24> For better or worse, I think a good analogy is making a movie in Hollywood versus anywhere else. Yes you could make your movie in New Hampshire, but it'd be that much more inertia to find a screenwriter, to cast the talent, find the crew and get funding, etc.

And for tech startups, where time is of the essence and the secret recipe for making a blockbuster tech IPO is somewhat ephemeral, why risk it if the opportunity really is as amazing as you are telling the VCs and LPs.

Another aspect is a lot of startups have the back-up plan to get acqui-hired by FANG or Cisco which are located in SF/Bay Area, so it make sense to have the key talent on the team prepared for that eventual integration/docking with the mothership.

<comment><USER39> The new non-Hollywood hotspot is Atlanta. Apparently their movie industry has been growing by leaps & bounds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I was shocked when I compared cost of living and discovered various online calculators show that making $60k in Tucson, Arizona is about the same as making somewhere in the $104-140k range in the Bay Area (I'm not sure of what the different assumptions are between calculators that lead to the range, could see it be something like including Oakland vs San Rafael).

<comment><USER26> Yup. I have a friend who works in a sf hospital. Works 2 weeks on and gets 2 weeks off. 12+ hour shifts and lives at the hospital. She owns a home in phoenix and flys into sf every 2 weeks. Gets the high salary and gets low col in phoenix.

<comment><USER39> Does she sleep in a spare hospital room? I feel like the hospital wouldn't allow that due to the fact that the room would potentially need to be allocated to a patient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 'Root Cause' of high housing costs is in the success of the tech companies that are rooted in Silicon Valley. Specifically tech because of their:

1\. Penchant for offering stock options as a form of compensation.

2\. Extraordinary growth in scope and profits.

3\. Leverage of virtually free computing and network power, which makes the output of a single engineer distributable to billions of consumers. This justifies 'whatever it takes' salary structures.

4\. Very high density of these companies in Silicon Valley.

Among the current top 100 US tech companies by Market Cap, 14 are in Silicon Valley, representing > $4 Trillion in 'new money' market cap, combined:

Apple: $929 Billion

Google: $830 Billion

Facebook: $557 Billion

Intel: $256 Billion

Cisco: $207 Billion

Oracle: $187 Billion

Netflix: $171 Billion

Nvidia: etc.

Comcast: etc.

Adobe: etc.

Broadcom:

Paypal:

Qualcomm:

Tesla: (#100 as of this writing)

The housing costs what it costs because supply is highly constrained and the companies that are headquartered here can afford to pay the salaries that enable their workers to pay these astonishing prices.

</comment><comment><USER42> Duh! Those places are probably also the most expensive to buy.

I don't really know about the Bay Area but I would bet that rents are probably "cheap" compared to prices.

Where I live, it currently takes 30 annual rents to buy the same place.

The average over the last couple of decades is 26 annual rents. Which means renting has relatively become cheaper. I bet the same holds true for the Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER43> Opening satellite offices all over the midwest, NE, and south is just begging to happen. Cost of living is comparatively dirt cheap in MN, MI, WI, OH, IL, IN, MS, TN, GA, AR, AL, NY (outside of NYC), PA, etc, and quality of life is very high. But alas those locations aren't trendy, so the west coast obsession continues despite the wild costs.

<comment><USER44> It's also possible that those places don't have something many people (especially young and tech/science oriented) want, such as temperate weather, mountains to hike, national parks, beaches, low humidity, politics, food, marijuana, etc. It's trendy for a reason.

<comment><USER43> Everything you list is in each of those locations, though admittedly California has among the best weather in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Office space rent is similarly outrageous in the bay area... forcing our company to be remote only.

#FirstWorldProblems

</comment><comment><USER46> >There is no state, metropolitan area or county in the U.S. where workers earning minimum wage can afford a two-bedroom rental home by working 40 hours a week, according to the study.

This seems like an unreasonably high standard for a single minimum wage income unless they're using the excess here as a proxy for other necessities.

Edit: This seems unreasonably high because it greatly exceeds the standard of living we expect for a single minimum wage income household. Sure it would be nice if a single minimum wage household could rend a 2br but that's not what we currently expect them to be able to do. Saying "people who make X can't afford Y" when we didn't expect them to afford Y in the first place isn't very meaningful when you're discussing the ability of people making X to have a standard of living that meets our expectations for people making X.

<comment><USER47> There was a time when one could. The minimum wage was originally put in place to make sure a single wage earner could support a family.

<comment><USER48> A time when unions were strong, when the 1% were taxed at ~90% and when "social security" and "pensions" were not evil words.

I feel zero sympathy for Americans and for the utter clusterfuck of misery that awaits them over the next 20 years. This is just the beginning.

<comment><USER49> Would you name a country where 1% is taxed @ 90%? and what exactly would it acomplish so a google eng. would suddenly have 30-40K after tax income with 2 mil mortage that would really help make things right.

<comment><USER48> Google engineers are not the top whatever-percent that needs to be taxed like that, no. It's mostly the idle _billionaire_ class. Warren Buffet agrees with me, FWIW.

<comment><USER49> What does it have to do with 1%? there are about 600 billionaires in US so they are like what 0.000001%?

<comment><USER50> >> 0.000001%?

No, 0.000184% (or 0.0000018, a factor of >180 different)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I moved to Brooklyn last year and have zero regrets.

</comment><comment><USER52> Coming from someone not in the bay area the most expensive place I've ever lived was outside of Boston (Waltham) and even then it was a summer sublet. Why is housing so expensive, more importantly why are landlords allowed to adjust their prices so aggressively and based on some anecdotal evidence seen in this thread, randomly? I'm currently locked into a lease and I'm 95% sure the price is pay is what im locked into for a full year, but are landlords really raising prices monthly?

edit: words

<comment><USER53> It's not some landlords who randomly drive prices up, they just respond to increases in property value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I would have thought that a 2 bed over looking central park in NYC would have been more expensive

</comment><comment><USER55> Its only a matter of time before marriage rates and families crash. No one can have kids or get married when they can barely survive.

That will change the nature of society, the economy, demand, demographics and the labour pool. Most societies at this point start trying to bribe people to get married and provide incentives for kids but usually its too late. The sense of well being has been replaced with insecurity and businesses then get increasingly desperate about promoting immigration to keep wages down.

Libertarians and their 'wealth creators' benefactors still stuck in the settler mindset may soon find themselves in the odd position of trying to bribe people to get married and women to have kids. Life is too complex to be reduced to self serving ideologies. Everything has consequences.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm fairly sure that high rents in Marin County are not driving homelessness up. And why the focus on minimum wage? Most people who are working minimum wage jobs live with another primary earner.

<comment><USER57> Remember that homelessness includes people living in cars... something that is pretty apparent around Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and San Francisco.

<comment><USER56> Yes, and are those people earning a living, but just falling a little short of the high prices those areas have? Or, if rents magically dropped in half over night, would they still be homeless?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> And if you subdivide those places just the right way you can have the top 45 most expensive places also be in the Bay Area.

I mean, it is to be expected so the title of the article doesn't pack the punch it seems to.

In NYC and other places there are city blocks or neighborhoods that are the most expensive in the country, if you grouped by blocks.

This is called Simpson's paradox

<comment><USER59> Someone needs to name the process of nitpicking details over obviously true generalizations.

<comment><USER60> Missing the forest for the trees? Cherry-picking?

<comment><USER59> No, there's something else to it. It's often used as a misdirection technique, a way to change the subject from an uncomfortable discussion of something the commenter would like to avoid to a raucous debate about irrelevant details. (Not saying that's what's happening here, but.) Another form of the pattern is to just show off how smart the commenter is, disrupting the discussion in the process by getting caught up in details.

I should go dig into the Greek Sophists. They probably had a word for it. They _definitely_ taught it as a technique.

<comment><USER58> WOW. How about misleading people with cherrypicked examples? That is what is done in Multiple Testing and reporting "sensational" findings. Here are two links:

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-most-expensive- neighbor...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-most-expensive- neighborhoods-in-the-us-2012-11-06)

[https://xkcd.com/882/](https://xkcd.com/882/)

Relevant topics:

Simpson's paradox

Multiple testing

Confirmation bias

Tons of people on HN live in the bay area so they can't imagine things being even more expensive elsewhere in the country. Thus a critique of the methodology behind the loaded headline is dismissed, even voted down.

<comment><USER59> Welcome to HN. Violate the GroupThink, get downvoted into oblivion. It's happened to me twice in two days (and for one of them, I knew when I posted that it would happen).

But back to my point... the true generalization is that the Bay area, broadly, is the most expensive place in the US to live. Worse than New York. If you narrow down, you can find individual blocks of New York that are more expensive, but across the entire metro?

Sure, the headline/argument is a little sensationalist. But reducto absurdum in the other direction is no better.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:  Pain Points of Online Clothes Shopping? - <AUTHOR>

In this discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2726989, three people have already mentioned clothes as an issue.  The OP is not considering getting into this space.  Just wondering if we can have a separate discussion and elaborate on why people hate shopping for clothes.<p>Thanks. <comment><USER2> I will qualify my response by admitting that I actually enjoy shopping for clothes, just not online.

Shopping for clothes online is sort of like walking around Manhattan with a blindfold on. You've got no idea what you're getting into and more often than not, you wish you could rewind and make different choices.

Consider the variables that go into clothes shopping.

Size/Fit - This one drives me insane - I've got an extra 15 or 20 pounds around my waistline so size and fit are especially important to me. Some clothes, while 'my size' don't fit well, to the point that I can't wear them and have to return them. Change rooms are my friend! :)

Colour - There is a huge difference between the colours you see online and the colours you see in person. This makes buying a single item from one store to go with an item from another store rather difficult.

Fabric - Call me a wimp, but I don't like rough fabrics, so I'm on of those annoying shoppers who puts his hands on everything. When I buy online, I'm keenly aware that I could be getting a burlap sack...

Then add in two sales forces:

Immediate gratification - When I was in University, I had a part time job in retail (slanging suits). That was my first taste of working in a mall and I was amazed by the dynamics of it. Specifically, how many people would walk by, see something they like, and come in to purchase it. When I saw the behaviour in others, I became keenly aware of it in myself. Honestly, I'd say that at least 75% of my clothing purchases are like that - I walk around in a mall, randomly see something in a window, and make the purchase.

The upsell - A good employee in retail is a dangerous thing because he/she is the person who will take that immediate gratification purchase and turn it into two bags full. I think I have found some of the coolest garments I own through the upsell and I love the process. Unfortunately, I have yet to find an online shopping site that is really good at this!

Between those things, I would much rather shop in person than online. Is it just me, or is there an idea in here somewhere?? ;)

<comment><USER3> Regarding size/fit see my other comment.

Colour and fabric - While this will never be the same as buying in person, I think the situation can be vastly improved by crowdsourcing real photos and videos (not fake photoshopped catalog ones you see on stores).

Upsell - I fail to understand why online stores (Amazon!) don't have live help. I bet it would increase conversions.

Most people don't shop online because of various fears and trust issues, which I think can be addressed if someone really tried.

<comment><USER4> "Upsell - I fail to understand why online stores (Amazon!) don't have live help. I bet it would increase conversions."

That would be more labor, and maybe not enough upside in the upsell to make it worthwhile. Amazon has staked out the low overhead space for the sweet spot they're aiming at. They have robots pull orders in the warehouse.

<comment><USER3> But Amazon clearly understands the value of going overboard for excellent customer service, otherwise they wouldn't buy Zappos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is exactly the thing we're trying to solve for guys with Bombfell.com. The way I see it there are 3 main problems with shopping online (or shopping for clothes in general)

1) Sizing/Fit: A medium in brand X can be very different than brand Y. So you never end up knowing if what you're getting is actually going to fit or not until it arrives at your door.

2) What to get: There's a tremendous number of brands out there with different styles/patterns/cuts etc. What's the best style that's going to accentuate your look? What cool brands are out there? It's nearly impossible to know these things unless you devote a significant amount of time to reading up/learning fashion.

3) Taking the time out to buy stuff. Certainly this is better online than offline, but shopping online certainly requires a mental-tax and context- switching that I'd pretty much rather avoid.

We thought it would be awesome if clothes that look good and fit great just magically appeared every month and so we're trying to solve that problem with Bombfell.com.

<comment><USER3> Bombfell looks fun, but I wouldn't sign up unless I saw some photos or videos of clothes you have/had in stock. It would take a lot of trust for me to hand over $69 to an unknown company without even seeing what they sell.

<comment><USER5> Take a look at our featured brands section: www.bombfell.com/threads

We also don't charge your card until you decide to keep the clothes we send.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Online shopping for clothes is not sufficient for those that believe that fit is paramount, both in sizing and material (tailoring and suits aside aside).

As sixtofour said, you can't reliably shop for size online unless it's something that most companies are consistent on, like a t-shirt. Even then I wouldn't buy a t-shirt online if I haven't tried it on before: again, fit is paramount and I need to be reasonably sure I feel comfortable in it. Anything below the belt is pretty much out of the question because they are probably the worst culprit of this inconsistency.

</comment><comment><USER3> Regarding the size problem, one idea I've had is to create a set of "sizing" clothes, which you send to new customers for free. They return them to you indicating which size fits best. You keep a record of that to match all future purchases based on the dimensions (not just broad size category) of the best fit. You could probably also do this by asking people to send in their old clothes which fit them well. You just use the clothes for getting the measurement and donate them to charity.

<comment><AUTHOR> This kind of assumes that people don't change size. In my experience, this is not true. I'm female and for women this seems especially problematic, especially once they start having kids. This also sounds to me like a fairly expensive solution for the business. But thanks for the feedback. It's good food for thought.

<comment><USER4> "create a set of "sizing" clothes, which you send to new customers for free. They return them to you indicating which size fits best."

That sounds brilliant on first reading. I think it would take a lot of work and research to make it work, but man what a killer if it does work.

I don't think people change sizes that often, but that's solved by "Does Item XYZ still fit well, or should we send you another set of sizers?"

Note: this has been a surprisingly interesting thread. I really don't care about clothes, as long as I don't look like a derelict. But it's been fun to read and comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, my line of thinking has been more along the lines of an online sizing tool that could be implemented by anyone who owns a tape measure. I can't sew, but I did learn to take measurements as a kid (and I'm handy with a seam-ripper...and a few other things).

Also, I get away with grabbing stuff off the rack in part because of the types of clothes I buy. I strongly favor knits, jersey, and stuff with a smidgeon of spandex. I have a serious medical condition and I suffer edema. I can bloat up so bad overnight that people will congratulate me on my pregnancy (probably in part because they all think I am in my thirties and I am so NOT). So I can't wear anything too fitted because it may not fit from one day to the next.

As I get healthier and these issues resolve, I am finding that I no longer qualify for "women's" sizes and am beginning to have some of the pain points I had in my youth: Tall, thin women have a tough time finding clothes that fit properly. (Men get "big and tall" shops. Women get "petite" (short) and "women's" (fat).) When I was younger, I sometimes fantasized about learning to make my own clothes. That never happened. These days, I fantasize about starting a factory to make the kind of things that work well for me and, oh, turn a tidy profit at the same time. Time will tell if such thoughts lead anywhere. In the mean time, I am contemplating how to address such topics on various websites I own.

Thanks so much for your generous contributions to the thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unless you already know how the sizing runs for a particular brand/model, its a crap shoot in terms of if it will fit. This kills the incentive to choose 'something new'. Most often I end up buying replacements for or variants of stuff I have already.

</comment><comment><USER4> You cannot reliably shop for a size. No two shoes are sized the same, no two shirts or pants. Except for Tshirts and underwear you MUST try something on to be sure it's comfortable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is a significant issue, both online and off. But what if there were an informational solution to this issue? What if a site could give you sufficient data/means to determine the answer?

Thanks for replying.

<comment><USER4> Then I'd probably buy online more often. Certainly the available choices would be better.

I buy a particular model of athletic shoe in part because so far (third pair) the manufacturer hasn't messed with the model, so the sizing hasn't changed. But I still go to the store to try them on.

I will try on five or more pairs of shoes in a store, and sometimes still won't buy a pair. Free shipping both ways doesn't fix that for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hoping this is not taken as offensive, but do you do that with all clothes or with shoes in particular? If it is only shoes, do you have some foot issue. (My oldest son has one foot slightly larger than the other and this makes shoe shopping a challenge for him. He sticks to sandals in part for that reason.)

Thanks for the feedback.

<comment><USER4> My feet may be slightly wider than manufacturers want to fit. It seems like shoes don't come in widths anymore, "just the sizes you see here mate."

I also try on shirts and pants a bit before buying, but shoes seem to be my bigger problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's actually not an uncommon problem. When I had a zillion clothing books and fantasies/aspirations of becoming an image consultant, I read that one thing that at least one image consultant did was hook people up with specialty folks to address specific problems. One of these folks: A woman who made custom shoes for like $300/pair to fit your feet properly if you had foot issues. And people who bought those shoes felt they were well worth the big ticket price. (And this was some years back when $300 was a bigger sticker shock than it would be now.)

Thanks for replying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I want to thank everyone who has replied so far. I have a huge blind spot in this regard. I was born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth when it comes to clothes:

My mother sews beautifully and made a lot of my clothes as a child. She also has crazy mad shopping skills and routinely bought things for me as a kid without me trying them on. I would come home from school and there would be something hanging on my bedroom door and the question was not "does it fit?" it was "do you like it?" She still routinely buys clothes for some relatives without taking them with her. I do this kind of thing for my sons as well. My sister routinely bought clothes off the rack for ten years without necessarily bothering to try them on (I think this changed after she had a baby). When my sons were little, my mother sewed a lot of their clothes and mailed it to us. I occasionally took their measurements and let her know the updated measurements. She can buy you a winter coat for Christmas one year, mail it to you in another state and not see it again and buy gloves the following Christmas that are a perfect match in color (I don't have such amazing perfect color memory -- and the woman is blind in one eye).

I tend to give clothes short shrift, because it's not a big deal for me. A recent conversation with a friend made me realize that. I would like to do something, of some sort, in the clothing space. Still not sure what.

The feedback here is much appreciated.

<comment><USER4> Hire your mum as a consultant.

<comment><AUTHOR> :-)

Yes, that thought had crossed my mind. Still contemplating where I want to go with this.

Thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you consider a technical cofounder? - <AUTHOR> I am curious about what people think about how to judge who is and who is not a technical co-founder. For instance, if someone has a solid understanding of MVC and Ruby on Rails, understands version control, and how to break down features into user stories tracked on pivotal tracker (or whatever), are they technical?  Especially if they are not actually writing the code?  Or even let's say that the development is maybe using React.js or Vue wrapped into the rails project, and they have little idea of how to actually write that code. Are they still qualified as a technical co-founder?  Another way to ask it, if something breaks but they have to rely on other team members to fix it, are they the a technical co-founder?
I ask because tech stacks often change and often change underneath the feet of a founding team. And at some point, and maybe I'm wrong, no one person can fix all things.
So is appreciation for how to do development the qualification to honestly say you're a technical co-founder, or should you only say that if you know the entire stack of your product to a high degree of individual competency?  Asking for a friend ;-) <comment><USER2> I see co-founder owning 30-50% of the company and taking care of IT/development. Could be 20% if there's many founders or others brought in much more initial cash. I've seen job offers asking for a co-founder offering 5%, that's an employee share in my opinion.

Then it's between the founder to decide their roles. I don't expect a non- technical person to be good at filing taxes, writing marketing text or customer acquision (great if they are of course), so I don't expect the technial person to know everything either. It's about taking the initial responsibility as part owner of the company.

If it turns out the first hire is a much better developer it won't change titles. I think somebody joining 6 months later shouldn't be called a founder (ideally by then the market fit of the product is proven, investment raised, overall less risk).

Judging others before starting a startup is hard. Naturally you want the best person in all regards. Look for generalists though, not only the tech stack, lots of assumptions about the business will change, sometimes rapidly.</comment>


What Apple's 'Limit Ad Tracking' Feature Actually Means to Users - <AUTHOR> http://www.doubleencore.com/2013/04/what-apples-limit-ad-tracking-feature-actually-means-to-users/ <comment><USER2> The solution to this problem, of course, would be data protection laws with actual teeth:

Make it a crime to collect, store or distribute personal data without the written, explicit consent of those of whom you collect said data in so far as this data is not absolutely necessary for the expected conduct of business (i.e. billing information when you buy something) and give people the right to a listing of data stored about them and to require the deletion of said data at any time. Then jail the CEO of the next company to violate said law and auction it off to the highest bidder. Boy would people look into only collecting necessary data and respecting their users' privacy.

As an added bonus, all the crappy business ideas that only work because of targeted advertising would go downhill, too, ridding the net of gossip news, irrelevant apps and whatever else one doesn't like :)</comment>


Chicago Manual of Style (1906) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/facsimile/CMSfacsimile_all.pdf

<comment><USER2> Anybody who's read or skimmed around in this (I haven't had a chance to yet) have informed commentary on the differences between this edition and the current CMOS?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I also don't have time to rad the whole thing but even just the first few pages are fun, for example:

Rule 21 assumes there is precisely one religion (not zero and not more than one) and it is christianity (there, I broke rule 9). In fact religion seems to get a lot of mention.

Rule 30 includes capitalization rules for Greek and Latin (which BTW are different from the Greek rules for ancient Greek I leaned in school) as well as French, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, German, Danish and Dutch.

And yet, right in the front they capitalize "the Press" which doesn't seem, on a quick skim, to have been covered in their own capitalization rules!

Unicode should take up these kinds of rules. At least in some languages like French, they are well encoded, and in others, like German, are actually specified by international treaty!

<comment><USER4> > And yet, right in the front they capitalize "the Press" which doesn't seem, > on a quick skim, to have been covered in their own capitalization rules!

They're referring specifically to The Chicago University Press, not journalists in general.

EDIT: Rule 42 seems to cover it. Seems weirdly specific, though!</comment></comment></comment>