Ask HN: What was the source of your last big lump sum - <AUTHOR> Think back to the last time you received $100k or more in a single lump sum.  What was its source?  Salary?  Stock RSUs?  Capital gains from an after-tax investment? <comment><USER2> I've never received $10k in a lump sum, much less $100k. I think the largest lump sum I've ever gotten from any source is around $5k, which was a relocation thing for my current job.

</comment><comment><USER3> Selling $20k worth of acid in college. Everything else has been salaried or otherwise amortized.

</comment><comment><USER4> Inheritance. Not $100K, but still high. Paid off my student loans and quit my terrible job for a while.

</comment><comment><USER5> The biggest lump sum I received was for selling a house we had purchased as a hud repo. After fixing it up, we got a nice profit, plus we didn't have to pay capital gains taxes on the profit since we had used it as our primary residence for enough years.

I believe I know more people who make good, consistent money from on-the-side real-estate transactions than people who make 5-figure yearly bonuses.

</comment><comment><USER6> 185k from a yahoo buying a company I had options in.

</comment><comment><USER7> My last lump sum was $21,000 for three weeks of consulting (my own practice).

I'm not sure if this counts however, as it's a case of my salary being paid out every three or four weeks (depending on the pipeline) instead of every two weeks.

I've never received a lump sum of more than 20 or maybe 30 thousand at once. I have received a five figure bonus before though.

</comment><comment><USER8> I made $1750 on a domain sale the other day. That was the biggest lump sum I've gotten in years other than paychecks (which are that exact size).

I'm not very rich.

</comment><comment><USER9> Largest lump sum was a 45k signing bonus. After tax it was more like 19k (California)

I think I sold a good chunk of Amazon stocks ~ 50k as well (after tax)

</comment><comment><USER10> $25k, business plan / startup competition

</comment><comment><USER11> Parents</comment>


Tectonic Preview Available with Kubernetes V1 - <AUTHOR> https://tectonic.com/blog/announcing-the-tectonic-preview/ <comment><USER2> Wow... $1,500/mo to preview beta software?</comment>


Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited - <AUTHOR> http://www.victoriassecret.com/site-terms-and-notices/

<comment><USER2> > Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express > written permission. Associating or juxtaposing our Web site or its Materials > (e.g., through framing or inline linking) with advertisements and/or other > information not originating from our Web site is expressly prohibited.

There are a bunch of websites with similar "restrictions".

A notable example is from the UK: The Shetland Times vs The Shetland News ([http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases- deeplinks.htm#Shetla...](http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases- deeplinks.htm#Shetland) Times v. Shetland News) Mentioned on the talk page of the wikipedia article (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Shetland_Times>)

British American Tobacco is a good example of a site from a company with too many lawyers: ([http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive...](http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52GBWX?opendocument&SKN=1))

> [...] _and you may make use of the embedded share button and Email a Friend > functions to share parts of this website via the particular social media > networks or by email (using the Email a Friend function) as applicable. > Other than as stated in these conditions of use, you may not make any part > of the website available as part of another website, whether by hyperlink > framing on the Internet or otherwise unless you have been authorised to do > so in writing by British American Tobacco._

Guess I've just broken their TOS?

<comment><USER3> I'd love to know what the link between Victoria's secret and British American Tobacco is.

<comment><USER4> Both gave too much weight to the advice of their in-house counsel?

I bet they have that silly legal footer at the bottom of their outgoing email about how you have to delete the message if you aren't the intended recipient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've seen similar restrictions in other websites and I could argue that the lawyers writing these TOS are either clueless about SEO or very aware of how SEO works (I know I am citing the 2 opposite but I'm explaining why below).

Clueless about SEO: I have no idea why a website would like to limit another site from linking to it. It is counterintuitive and would likely go against the same site's SEO strategy.

Aware of how SEO works: I could argue that lawyer knows how SEO works and are just trying to cover their assess if they'll need a link removed in the future (I doubt they'll never use that clause legally against someone unless they really need to). Why would they need to? I've heard of some black hat SEO stories where certain individuals would link with a farm of sites that are either flagged or irrelevant to another site all in hope to get it flagged or down in google ranks. I'm not sure if that would work and could question the motivation of these individuals but I've even personally witnessed trackbacks and links from "porn" sites and irrelevant sites to my website and blog. These lawyers could potentially use that clause to sue that individual without having to prove there have been any damages from the links.

I would go with option A however since I'm not sure this is the case here.

</comment><comment><USER6> Context matters hugely. Here is their full Linking section, which does not include anything from the title:

"

Periodically, links may be established from this Web Site to one or more external web sites or resources operated by third parties (the "Third Party Sites"). These links are provided for your convenience only. In addition, certain Third Party Sites also may provide links to this Web Site. None of such links should be deemed to imply that Victoria's Secret endorses the Third Party Sites or any content therein.

We do not control and are not responsible or liable for any Third Party Sites or any content, advertising, products, or other materials on or available through such Third Party Sites. Access to any Third Party Sites is at your own risk and we will have no liability arising out of or related to such web sites and/or their content or for any damages or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with any purchase, use of or reliance on any such content, goods, or services available on or through any such Third Party Site.

"

It seems fine to me. The text in the title actually is the following special section:

"

Special Notice

We have a no-tolerance policy regarding the use of our trademarks or names (e.g., of Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, or Pink Nation) in metatags and/or hidden text. Specifically, the use of our trademarks or names in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks or names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes of gaining higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition. Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express written permission. Associating or juxtaposing our Web site or its Materials (e.g., through framing or inline linking) with advertisements and/or other information not originating from our Web site is expressly prohibited.

"

This seems quite reasonable to me. Apparently, spammers must be getting their pages higher for searches of Victoria's Secret than the site itself is at.

I think the policy is perfectly reasonable in context, and I think anyone reading this knows exactly what VS is talking about.

<comment><USER7> " Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express written permission. "

That still doesn't seem reasonable to me. Simply making this link: <http://www.victoriassecret.com/site-terms-and-notices/> is linking to a web page on that site and I didn't, in fact, get their express written permission. Does that 'prohibition' seem reasonable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The relevent text, for the lazy:

> We have a no-tolerance policy regarding the use of our trademarks or names > (e.g., of Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, or Pink Nation) in > metatags and/or hidden text. Specifically, the use of our trademarks or > names in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of > trademarks or names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes > of gaining higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition. > Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express > written permission. Associating or juxtaposing our Web site or its Materials > (e.g., through framing or inline linking) with advertisements and/or other > information not originating from our Web site is expressly prohibited.

<comment><USER9> Would the law actually consider the use of a trademark inside a meta tag, where people couldn't see it, to be an infringement? Has this legal theory ever been tested in a court?

<comment><USER10> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=meta+tag+trademark>

<comment><USER9> It looks like it depends on the context. If your web page is actually making a statement about Victoria's Secret (e.g., "our products are as good as theirs, but cheaper"), then it looks like putting their trademark into your meta tag would be allowed as fair use. But just adding their trademark to your meta tag to get a hit when someone searches for them could be considered infringement, since you're using the trademark to confuse the consumer into believing that your site is somehow associated with their trademark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So this submission is, itself, against the terms and conditions.

In case you're wondering, the specific sentence is in the section called "Special Notice" and the sentences starts with the word "Linking"

</comment><comment><USER12> It probably has something to do with the sentence preceding it about SEO.

"Specifically, the use of our trademarks or names in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks or names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes of gaining higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition."

<comment><USER13> This clause itself may be void depending on where you are. You might be liable by law, but what's the point having the clause in the TOS where you can never prove that the infringer ever saw the TOS, let alone accepted it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> They're not the only ones. [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Linking%20to%20any%20we...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Linking%20to%20any%20web%20page%20on%20this%20Web%20site%20is%20prohibited%20absent%20our%20express%20written%20permission.%22)

</comment><comment><USER15> Did OP just break the Victoria's Secret Web Site Terms, Conditions and Notices? Were it enforceable, what sort of penalty could OP face?

<comment><USER9> Did the OP ever agree to the terms and conditions for this web site? There is no legal contract unless it's voluntarily agreed to by both parties, and when you go to victoriassecret.com, there's nothing that says "click here to confirm that you agree to the terms of this web site".

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So here's an interesting legal question- do you 'own' the full URL to a website by registering the domain?

I have never been to the Victoria's Secret website, so I have not read their TOS. Yet, if I see a link on a page (say, these comments) and I re-link to it (<http://www.victoriassecret.com/shoes>), am I in violation of their TOS?

Do they have _any_ legal ground to stand on to stop me from posting this link? If millions of others post similar links, and they don't defend against those, does it show that they have less of a case?

This all seems absurd to me. My guess is that its posturing on VS's part, and while they might send out some nastygrams from their legal team, they probably wouldn't get far in court if they tried to press the issue more.

<comment><USER17> It seems to be you would just be "renting" the URL. You "rent" a domain on a yearly basis from the registrar which "owns" it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does this mean that Google is violating their terms by listing them in search results? I think someone from Google should maybe try to comply with this, I bet VS will be thrilled ;)

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if they seriously have a use case where it is BAD to link to this site, or if it's just some crazy-ass boilerplate cut and paste from a document written in 1997.

<comment><USER5> It's probably a copy-paste but here's a use case:

A bunch of bad/flagged sites that link to victoria secret in attempt to get it flagged too and get sandboxed by google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> No, that's ridiculous. You can't stop people from linking to your site. However, on the off chance the paperwork will be hand-delivered by a VS model:

<http://www.victoriassecret.com/shoes>

</comment><comment><USER21> Apparently Victoria would like her web site to remain a Secret.

</comment><comment><USER22> I ♥ Karlie Kloss!

[http://pink.victoriassecret.com/m/pink_hearts/image.jsp?imag...](http://pink.victoriassecret.com/m/pink_hearts/image.jsp?image_id=46&category_id=6)

</comment><comment><USER23> This is just an educated guess, but I am fairly certain that this wouldn't hold up in a US court if they were to sue over it. Banning something as broad as a link to a website would probably run into serious first amendment issues. Further, they probably would never sue over it, because once they test in in court and lose, then the clause is demonstrably invalid. If it's never tested, they can still use it in C&D notices to try to intimidate people.

</comment><comment><USER24> I doubt they strictly enforce this. It's most likely there so they have the power to have links removed if they think it is hurting their rep.

</comment><comment><USER25> Oddly enough, if everyone complies with their wishes, there will be no way to discover or get to their website. Suits me fine.

<comment><USER26> In a world where this clause mattered, people can still link if they have consent and VS can still advertise it themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not exactly a new phenomenon. Who remembers Microsoft Sidewalk?

Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Suit on Internet Linking (1999). [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/15/business/ticketmaster- and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/15/business/ticketmaster-and- microsoft-settle-suit-on-internet-linking.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> I just want to know what they mean in the next section by:

"We may, but are not obligated to, use-in any way we see fir-any ideas, concepts, know-how, text, photographs, images or techniques..."

Is "seeing fir" a Christmas thing? And what exactly is their position on tinsel? I think more lawyers are needed.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think too many businesses are misunderstanding differences between laws and their self-written self-fullfilling TOS-es and policies. In other words not following someone's TOS is not illegal and cannot be prohibited by the business itself, unless it somehow conflicts with country laws.

</comment><comment><USER29> So.. Does Google obey these TOS? And - are they obliged to?

<comment><USER30> Looks like they are implicitly permitting google via robots.txt:

<http://www.victoriassecret.com/robots.txt>

        User-agent: ia_archiver
        Disallow: /

        User-agent: *
        Disallow: /commerce/application?namespace=shoppingBag&origin=myMain.jsp&event=link.viewBag
        Disallow: /commerce/logoff.vs
        Disallow: /commerce/signin.vs
        Disallow: /commerce/registration.vs
        Disallow: /commerce/logon.vs
        Disallow: /commerce/addressbook/index.jsp
        Disallow: /commerce/changePasswordJsf.vs

        Sitemap: http://www.victoriassecret.com/sitemap.xml

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> You have violated the TOS by linking to the TOS.

</comment><comment><USER32> Well, that's not exactly going to help the SEO

<comment><USER33> Hah! So one might think.. but right now they're linked from HN, with more links in the discussion. I never was to that site before, and probably never would have if it wasn't for this story. Like here, it's going to be linked on a lot of blogs, forums etc. that would otherwise not have linked to it. They can change whatever they want about their TOS and robots.txt any time they wish; most of those links will stay for a long, long time.

This is either very stupid or very smart; or maybe so stupid it wraps around to smart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wait! Didn't you just violate their TOS?

</comment><comment><USER35> Victoria told me a secret. I know Victoria's secret. Sue me.</comment>


On the road to continuous delivery - <AUTHOR> http://blog.crisp.se/2013/01/28/yassalsundman/on-the-road-to-continuous-delivery

<comment><AUTHOR> An honest account of a journey that stumbled. Refreshing to read someone who did not succeed at every turn</comment>


Finding a New Voice - <AUTHOR> http://distributionhacks.com/finding-a-new-voice

<comment><USER2> Never thought this was how my theater minor would come in handy one day.</comment>


The Universe Is Made of Mathematics - <AUTHOR> http://disagreeableme.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-universe-is-made-of-mathematics.html <comment><USER4> Lets say you select all the aspects of a person's life that you consider to have any relevance to anyone and write down a description of every one of them—is that person now 'made' of words? That's how ridiculous this is.

I think what this is missing is a justification for thinking the universe somehow 'uses' mathematics in this sense; being /describable/ by it, is not at all the same as actually being generated by it.

There is a mistaken assumptions here that consistent rules from /within/ the universe would apply to its own operation. It's like assuming that because some rules must always hold when Monopoly is played, that the rules governing its physical constitution must be drawn from the same set.

"Confusing the moon with the finger pointing at it" —is a simple concept to understand, but seeing all the subtle places where we actually make the mistake in our mental lives requires another level of effort.

<comment><USER5> I think mathematics and physics sets the bar higher then subjective relevance when formulating descriptions. If you did manage to create a description that would accurately predict every response of a person then you would have a hard time (if not impossible) discerning the difference between the two agents.

<comment><USER4> But one of them wouldn't be something anyone would call an 'agent.' One would be a description of an agent, or a recipe for producing one—but at the end of the day, one is meat and the other is a set of symbols.

<comment><USER6> But aye..that's the rub. Is there any difference between meat that appears to operate _EXACTLY_ the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)? Computationally, no. But if two things in an information-theoretic world, are informationally equivalent, then for all intensive purposes, they are equivelent. Quantum physics says this with regard to quantum states, there's no meat to differentiate electrons, only informational states.

You guys basically complemented each-other, and came back to the beauty of the question.

I'd say what's more pressing is, does the information match the implementation. That is, is there any glimpse of external forces (that implement our universe) inside of it.

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

If our whole reality is more of a rouge, rather than an accident, then it's possible our reality has almost nothing to do with the parent-verse. And well, everything we seem to value as good models for the true implementation, are well, garbage.

<comment><USER4> I think you have a mistake here:

> ...the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)?

Your answer is talking about a comparison between, e.g., a human and an essentially identical human /constructed/ using a set of symbols that encodes our understanding of the human's constitution.

The original question is comparing, e.g. a human and a set of symbols which describes the human.

I consider each of the following to be meaningfully separate questions:

Reality is mathematics.

Reality can be created with mathematics.

Something equivalent to reality can be created using mathematics, if 'informational equivalence' is the equivalence relation in question.

<comment><USER6> True reality is ineffable. The subjective does not equal the objective.

The nature of consciousness is a black box. Therefore the nature of measurement, of assurance that mathematics matches reality, is only within the context of conscious observation, which is therefore subjective.

The objective truth will not be found within subjection.

<comment><USER5> > The nature of consciousness is a black box. Therefore the nature of > measurement, of assurance that mathematics matches reality, is only within > the context of conscious observation, which is therefore subjective.

Consciousness has a track record of taking a black box and deducing what is going on inside.

> The objective truth will not be found within subjection.

Wouldn't you need to understand the nature of subjective processes in order to stipulate such a limit? If you don't understand consciousness then you do not understand its limits.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but it all rests on a foundation that the inside of the black box is similar to the outside of the black box. And that, may be totally false.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The reasons presented in favor of a mathematical universe read somewhat like rehashed arguments used by deists/theists.

> For something to be physical it must be present at some time and place > within the universe, and for something to be abstract it must exist outside > of space and time.

No. He is redefining words here. 'Physical' is not usually defined as "exists in space and time". Abstract thoughts or concepts do not exist outside of space and time. Abstract thoughts are the results of the modeling capabilities of brains and exist very much in the physical world. It isn't even known whether "existing outside of space and time" is a coherent concept.

> but if the universe is a mathematical object, it needs no creator (on > Platonism at least),

Firstly, this is the Kalam argument all over again. It isn't clear at all that the Universe _needs_ a beginning or whether the 'beginning of the Universe' is a coherent concept at all.

Secondly, even assuming mathematical platonism is true, and even if 'creation' was a prerequisite for the universe, mathematical platonism has no construct to go from 'describing a universe' to 'creating a universe'. That seems to be quite an important thing to miss.

> Our universe is fine-tuned because it is one which has the ability to > support conscious thought selected from an infinite multitude of > mathematical structures, most of which are lifeless.

This is very problematic. Once you start thinking about "different mathematics", you lose all foundations upon which you can reason. Logic does not work anymore. Even if it were true at all, no human could possibly have meaningful thoughts about it. Besides, if we abandon the concept of our 'mathematical structures' in other universes, what do the words true and false itself even mean?

There's lots of handwaving with (very) incoherent concepts and dubious logic in this post to make the argument for a mathematical universe.

<comment><USER8> Concepts can indeed exist outside physical brain matter. Such as the concept of math. The idea that 1+1=2 does not need a physical human brain to exist. If humans never existed the concept of math would still exist "beyond space and time". Abstract thoughts cannot exist outside space and time for human comprehension but those same concepts do not need humans to exist.

<comment><USER7> I'd love to have some evidence that such things as 'concepts' and 'ideas' can exist independent of brains. You can't just assert it and make it so. All concepts and ideas I've ever heard of were the results of brains attempting to model or describe.

By the way, I'm not talking about physical human brains. I'm talking about _any_ brain, which includes human brains, dolphin brains, computers, and whatever other modeling machines exist in the universe.

<comment><USER6> The thing is, the definition of a concept, is the axiom that it exists outside of human understanding. Concepts are informational objects. Anyhow, the question you really ask, is does information exist outside of conscious humanity. And it might not. It might just be an interpretation.

<comment><USER7> > The thing is, the definition of a concept, is the axiom that it exists > outside of human understanding.

I don't agree with that definition of a concept.

Idea = mental representation of an object, or a set of objects and their interactions.

Concept = generalization of an idea.

wherein 'mental' justifiably implicates the working of a brain. It is very much tied to what we call brain understanding. Sorry for taking this discussion to the definition of words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not much of a mathematician, but I found "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" by Morris Kline ([http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Loss-Certainty- Oxford-Pape...](http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Loss-Certainty-Oxford- Paperbacks/dp/0195030850)) very insightful in regards to the development and current state of mathematics. A brief synopsis:

From Amazon: "This work stresses the illogical manner in which mathematics has developed, the question of applied mathematics as against 'pure' mathematics, and the challenges to the consistency of mathematics' logical structure that have occurred in the twentieth century."

From goodreads.com: "Most intelligent people today still believe that mathematics is a body of unshakable truths about the physical world and that mathematical reasoning is exact and infallible. Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty refutes that myth."

Edit: This was also interesting: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlMMeqO7wOI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlMMeqO7wOI) , a video by Stephen Wolfram. I know he is often criticized for various reasons, but much of what he says makes intuitive sense.

<comment><USER10> > Most intelligent people today still believe that mathematics is a body of > unshakable truths about the physical world and that mathematical reasoning > is exact and infallible.

I had always thought of mathematics as the language of science. (Instead of saying i want more apples, i can say as i want 5 apples). Physics and other sciences use mathematics to explain the physical world or make predictions about them. Is there something more to it ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 1) All mathematical objects exist abstractly and independently of minds (mathematical Platonism)

Without a mind to understand, interpret, and define mathematics, does it exist? This is a core philosophical problem at the intersection of science and feeling. Without observation, no mathematics exists (for the observer). By proving it exists, you must also have an implicit observer.

2) The mind is a computational process (The Computational Theory of Mind or CTM)

Pretty big assumption, considering we still have no idea how the mind works (e.g. quantum fluctuations that lead to patterns and thoughts, the origin of which are not known to us or predictable by us.)

3) The universe behaves according to laws of physics which are expressible mathematically (metaphysical naturalism)

What about where those laws break down, such as inside a black hole or at the beginning of the Big Bang? Do those places and times extend beyond our Universe? If so, where exactly do you draw the line between where our Universe ends and something else exists?

These arguments feel quite tenuous to me, another attempt by an intelligent person to say, "Ah, I've figured it all out, THIS is how everything is."

<comment><USER12> > _Without a mind to understand, interpret, and define mathematics, does it > exist?_

Unquestioningly so. For instance, there is a number 2 and a number pi which are not caused by thinking. Beings which evolve on separate planets (or whatever) in separate universes have to to come to the conclusion that the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle is a certain number. Those numbers will be found to agree, though there is no causal link between the two. You can define what constitutes a circle, and define the question of the ratio of its parts, but you don't get to define pi.

Or, if you define "composite" and "prime", you don't get to decide which integers are one or the other, or facts like that two is the smallest prime and the only even one.

The question is: what is the difference between _your_ existence and the existence of pi? Maybe there isn't any.

<comment><USER13> > facts like that two is the smallest prime and the only even one

I see the fact that two is the only even prime brought up from time to time as if it's inherently interesting. Why is it more interesting than the identical observation that 37 is the only prime which is a multiple of 37?

I guess this bothers me because 2 being the only even prime isn't a consequence of the definition of "prime"... it's _part_ of the definition.

<comment><USER12> You're right in that evenness is divisibility by two by definition. For any P which is prime, P is the smallest divisible by P.

It is probably that divisibility by two (evenness) is interesting.

For example, it has the property that if we know the evenness of two integers, then we know the evenness of their sum or product.

Division of cases by even versus odd occurs regularly; in few circumstances do you have to separately reason about cases corresponding somehow to the elements of the congruence modulo 37.

<comment><USER13> As regards your third line, I feel compelled to note that if we know the equivalence class of two integers (mod 37), we also know the equivalence class (mod 37) of their sum and product. ;)

<comment><USER12> Indeed, it just the mod 37 congruence doesn't correspond to nice Boolean:

      odd(x + y) = odd(x) XOR odd(y)
      odd(x * y) = odd(x) AND odd(y)

There.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord In very broad terms, this is part of an age-old debate in the philosophy of science about how mathematics should be interpreted - <USER2> (manipulating symbols) versus realists (mathematics underpins objective reality).

Realism is obviously popular because any viewpoint which attaches grandiose "meaning" and "purpose" to things is bound to be more popular over what is seen as "colder" and analytic.

There's actually several sides, but those two are the main ones.

EDIT:

In addition,

 _For a creator God, we are left to ask who created the creator - but if the universe is a mathematical object, it needs no creator (on Platonism at least), so this is a very satisfying answer to that eternal question. It has always existed and will always exist outside of space-time as a mathematical construct._

No. In fact, a lot of people who subscribe to creationism make the exact same argument - that God has always existed outside of space-time and requires no creator. Your handwaving this in the same fashion is not a satisfying answer in the slightest.

</comment><comment><USER14> If the universe was "made of mathematics," then there would necessarily exist a Grand Unified Theory. But, Hawking asserts that Gödel's Theorems imply that not only does a Grand Unified Theory not exist, but that the formulation of one is impossible ([http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of- physics.html](http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html)).

The author stresses that all of reality is mathematical in structure, but this is at odds with the fact that all mathematical systems containing self- reference are necessarily incomplete. Physics is a self-referential system.

If the structure of the universe is mathematical, it is probably a very different math than humans are used to. Insert your favorite flavor of metaphysics here!

<comment><USER15> Hmm. That's an interesting counterpoint.

Suppose we discover our universe is a simulation. This would imply that the universe is Turing-computable. Would there not therefore exist a "Grand Unified Theory" that simply described, with absolute precision, the operation of the simulator? Or would it be impossible to produce such a specification?

<comment><USER16> So if you Gödelized the universe - mapped every conceivable state to a number (proving that that is possible left as an exercise for the reader) - <USER3> created mathematical operations on those numbers that transitioned the universe from one state to another 'physically possible' successor state.. I guess Gödel would be able to give you a number representing a universe such that you could not prove whether its state was possible or not?

Then all you have to do is demonstrate that we live in such a universe, and all the philosophers can retire because we've found the ultimate answer to the ultimate question.

I think we all know exactly what the Gödel number for our universe would be...

<comment><USER17> 420?

<comment><USER14> My money's on 69.

Rudy Rucker had some interesting conversations with Gödel about a deterministic universe in which (because time is illusory) backward time travel exists: [http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/08/01/memories-of- kurt-g...](http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/08/01/memories-of-kurt-godel/)

<comment><USER16> Thankyou - fascinating account.

I particularly like how, in describing Gödel's office, he mentions "On the empty desk sat an empty glass of milk." The paradox seems appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every result in physics hitherto has been some sort of mathematics: an equation or a constant (measured or otherwise established to some digits of precision). What is a particle? A collection of mathematical properties. So is a wave. If we extrapolate from the past to the future, we can expect more of the same: no "non-mathematical bottom" will be found. Nobody is even looking; the researchers expect all new results to take the shape of math. So the notion that "maybe it's just math all the way down" is actually quite rational. One day we may hit bottom, the way a (terminating) recursive function does, and realize; this is it: there is nothing more going forward, and if we look back, it's just a collection of math.

<comment><USER7> You're just describing the fact that we can make up _descriptions_ of physics all the way down. If current mathematics is unable to describe physics, then new mathematics is invented [1]. Just because the descriptions work rather well does not mean that those descriptions are somehow more than mere descriptions. It just means that they are very good descriptions.

You're making the same category error as mentioned in the blog post.

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

<comment><USER12> > _If current mathematics is unable to describe physics, then new mathematics > is invented_

Now suppose that this process stops. One day, mathematics describes physics. What does that mean? It means that some pencil-and-paper mathematics descriptions hint at an abstraction, and that abstraction _is_ physics.

The mathematics which was used prior to that point was not the right one. That mathematics still corresponds to a universe, just not this one.

The idea is that every mathematical object is a universe (not to be confused with some representation of that object, like a definition in plain language, or a diagram, equation).

The world may be exactly the same _category_ of thing as _dodecahedron_ or _pi_. (Not in the category of pencil-and-paper description of such things; the category of those thing themselves.)

<comment><USER17> Now suppose that it doesn't stop. Suppose it can't stop.

Suppose no mathematical system is sufficient to describe any universe. It's always just a rough approximation.

Either could be true, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If the universe we find ourselves in is a result of post-selecting for mathematical models where life can exist (i.e. by the anthropic principle), why is the universe _so large_ and _so rich in neg-entropy_? Shouldn't minimally-viable-habitat universes be vastly, _vastly_ more numerous (and don't forget about Boltzmann brains!)? Shouldn't we expect to be in one of those, instead of here, and be forced to penalize the hypothesis by a corresponding amount? [1]

> _So, as cosmologists, we have an issue to address — why was the entropy of > our early universe so small? If high-entropy states are "natural," why don't > we live in one? You might think to appeal to the dreaded anthropic > principle, and argue that life couldn't exist in a state with really high > entropy. But that turns out not to be good enough; the entropy of our > universe is much much lower than it needs to be to support the existence of > life. So we are faced with the "arrow of time problem."_

1: [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2004/10/27/the- arro...](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2004/10/27/the-arrow-of- time/)

<comment><USER16> The problem with these kinds of arguments-from-probability is that they are valid arguments _even in highly improbable universes_. So yes, maybe on average, most sentient life forms that ponder these questions are living inside tiny simulated universes created as undergraduate term projects for passing credit. But we happen to be in a really big universe. Maybe ours is a grad student lab project. Or an exhibit in a museum. Or maybe we hit the jackpot and ours is _real_. Point of such arguments is you can't really tell from a sample size of one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "A map is not the territory"

<comment><USER12> In this case, it may be. The territory is never observed other than through maps, and the maps are all math. That is to say, the maps may be of the same "stuff" as the territory, and as the differences between the maps and the territory are erased, eventually you arrive at the map being the territory.

At least, they are all math beyond those subjective observations that are possible through the human senses. You might think that some hot gas is "glowing blue", and that this is not "math" to you in any sense, but a more advanced understanding of the light emanating from it gives us a spectrum, and that is just a math function.

Of course when we look at an actual map of some place, we know that the place isn't a picture with symbols denoting its features. It's not so clear for features of the universe. When you're far from the bottom, the descriptions look like maps. The mass and acceleration arrows on a free body diagram of an automobile aren't the automobile; it's all just a diagram.

But the more detailed you make the description of something, the less of a distinction there is between the description and the thing! At some point, the description must be the thing. (If it isn't then just alter whatever is different between the two and patch the description; then repeat.)

Another thing to keep in mind is that math _itself_ has map/territory descriptions. The formula or graph representing a mathematical object isn't that object.

When we say that the universe may just be math, we don't mean that the written math is the universe, but rather that the abstract math described by those representations is identifiable with what is real: the map isn't the territory, but those two territories are identifiable with each other!

<comment><USER7> > The territory is never observed other than through maps, and the maps are > all math.

Be careful with words here. The universe is observed through other means than maps all the time. In fact, it is what everyone is doing all the time.

The universe is _described_ using maths. It is also often described by neuron firing patterns in brains or less accurately using English or Russian. Just like territories are described by maps or less accurately using English or Russian.

> But the more detailed you make the description of something, the less of a > distinction there is between the description and the thing! At some point, > the description must be the thing. (If it isn't then just alter whatever is > different between the two and patch the description; then repeat.)

That doesn't follow. At the limit to infinity, the description is the perfect description. There is no reason to believe it becomes the thing itself.

The line segment representing the radius of a circle perfectly describes a circle. That does not mean a line segment is the same as a circle.

<comment><USER12> _The line segment representing the radius of a circle perfectly describes a circle. That does not mean a line segment is the same as a circle._

Aha, but there is a territory here: the abstract circle. Now suppose we equate that territory with another territory: something in the real world. Then we have a description of a circle (the map), but two different territories. If we say those are the same, it's not a map/territory confusion. At best it is a territory/territory confusion.

The description of the math will never be the math; but the correct math may in fact coincide with reality.

If a mathematical model of the world is completely accurate, then the math which it describes _is_ the world. The world doesn't have any properties which the math doesn't and vice versa; it doesn't "do" anything which the math doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't understand why people still believe in this concept. For me it's quite simple:

1\. Our nervous system has quite narrow and well defined capability of receiving signals from the outside world. Every of our senses has own limitations. We can't see UV or IR etc.

2\. Our body has a specific way of interacting with the world : we have specific size, strength, have to operate as one, undivided entity etc.

3\. With such input coming from the above points, our brain creates a specific model of the outside world to function in it, interact, count apples and lions etc.

4\. Part of this model is this cool toolset containing math and logic. It's very useful for us to predict and analyze the world and it's so flexible that we can expand and bend it according to our will in face of mismatch between observable reality and math.

So there is no surprise that we keep seeing math around us. We created it as a result of interaction with the world.

But to insist that math is the real way the world works is ridiculous. It's like saying that there's nothing beyond the visible spectrum of light because we can't see it.

I'm quite sure that any creatures with significantly different bodies than ours would come up with different "math" and different view of the universe.

EDIT: I was trying to imagine such creatures but gaps in my knowledge and limitations of my homo sapiens mind are hard to escape and imagine something unimaginable. But I'll give it a try: Think of a creature built of 100 autonomously moving clouds of particles, sharing one consciousness. The clouds can change their sizes in the ping-pong - planet range and communicate by radio waves. I think that just the ability to watch specific event from 100 perspectives would give this alien completely different psychology and approach to the logic, truth etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> Here is the documentary if you don't want to read the blog post: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0)

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe the universe is a user interface for your consciousness, and physical objects don't really exist.</comment>


Software Firms Overwhelmingly Against Patents - <AUTHOR> http://techdirt.com/blog/itinnovation/articles/20100729/03245410408.shtml <comment><USER2> To be fair, software firms are also overwhelmingly in favor of each Fortune 500 being liquidated, and the proceeds being evenly distributed to the remaining software firms.

<comment><USER3> I'm not so sure. Heck, there was pretty mixed reaction to 0% cap gains taxes yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1555363>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The nice thing about this is that it establishes what we all knew was true. What would be interesting to know is what the big players' position on patents are. There certainly aren't several hundred "largest" tech firms by definition (or you'd dilute the definition of "largest").

For example, I don't know a single Google engineer who is for patents, and the official Google line calls for "reform" of the system. Meanwhile, Microsoft's position is mum, and the #4 search on "microsoft position patents" is a 37signals article on how they trolled Salesforce.

It would be interesting if someone did a quantitative analysis of the big firms, say, the top 20. Slot each one depending on their public position on patents (if any), whether they have trolled other firms, etc., and basically decide if they are pro/con on the issue. Then give them a "vote" weighted by their market cap. It would also be useful to see the combined market of however many firms are included, compared to the software industry as a whole.</comment>


Square COO: There's no value in NFC - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2011/09/26/square-mobilize-2011/

<comment><USER2> NFC can be used for more things than just payments. You could get your monthly bus card sent to your phone instead of needing to carry a separate card. When entering the subway/bus/traingates, put your phone near the reader.

Since it works offline, it can also be of value to businesses. For instance, if you have a secure service station, you could send the rights to open the door lock to a technicians phone over the air, and set the credentials to be valid for a limited time (say a day).

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that I read this article today as yesterday my bank called and said that they are sending a new debit card with this technology. I never heard the technical term of NFC before but it's been around my country for awhile under the more consumer friendly term of "touch and pay".

And BTW I live in Canada, not some European country or Japan. Why is America so slow to adopt these things?

<comment><USER4> This is all anecdotal but: Here in the US, I got a "PayPass" NFC debit card four years ago when I opened a bank account. Even though the terminals are deployed to almost every restaurant and grocery chain near me, I've never used it. I've always paid with cash, or swiped the card. If I think about it a bit more, I don't think many local businesses accept credit or debit cards period. That probably reinforces my habit of paying for trivial purchases with cash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr: company denigrates a new technology which could disrupt their business</comment>


Tell HN: You can now set a custom top-bar color on Hacker News - <AUTHOR> Go to your profile settings enter the six-character hex code of you preferred color in the "topcolor" field. <comment><USER2> Previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913397)

Direct: [https://news.ycombinator.com/topcolors](https://news.ycombinator.com/topcolors)

<comment><AUTHOR> My apologies! Moderators, please delete this post.

I was under the impression that this is a new feature, and did not realise it was "unlocked" once you reach 250 karma points.

<comment><USER2> Oh, I didn't mean to say "delete"! I'd never found topcolors until I went looking for the origins of it. Thank you for inspiring that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Of course, with a little CSS know-how, it's pretty simple to change that color before one reaches 250 karma as well.</comment>


Logitech's Light-Powered Keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/11/as-wireless-as-it-gets-logitechs-light-powered-keyboard/ <comment><USER2> Fantastic idea! Now all I need is a motion charged mouse.

</comment><comment><USER3> This thing would never get charged in my never-more-than-very-dimly-lit home office.

<comment><USER4> It hold its power for 3 months. You should be ok.</comment></comment>


Mono 3.10.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/3.10.0/

<comment><USER2> I've always wondered at the performance of Mono relative to the Real C#, but I suspect that Microsoft has language in the license to prevent such benchmarks (or something)...

Some benchmarks are in the Game. Looking over the benchmarks, I realized that I shouldn't be comparing Mono to the Real C# since I wouldn't ever run Mono on Windows. I'd only ever run it on Linux, so, if you're running a Linux stack, Mono should be compared to its colleagues in the Linux space.

        Mono vs Java: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/csharp.php
        Mono vs Go  : http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=go
        Mono vs Rust: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=rust

<comment><USER3> With the caveat language != implementation.

<comment><USER4> True, but FWIW that site is somewhat admirable for at least trying to cut implementation out & focus on language.

For example, see the documentation for the binary-trees test: [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=binarytrees)

There are a bunch of notes trying to make it very explicit that this test is supposed to isolate the garbage collector's performance. So they discourage lazy evaluation on the grounds that it might not produce the kind of allocation pattern the test is supposed to generate, and there's that bold admonition against memory management hacks, and all of that.

I'm sure there's still plenty room for gaming the system, but looking at the actual C# & Java implementations for the test reveal that by-and-large they really are roughly equivalent. In particular, the C# doesn't resort to any obvious dirty trick like declaring the tree node datatype as a struct rather than a class. The upshot being, what that particularly test suggests is something that probably shouldn't come as much surprise: Mono's gc, while good, isn't quite as performant as HotSpot's.

<comment><USER3> I am speaking about language implementation, not algorithm implementation.

Most of those tests are using just one single compiler implementation per language.

It would be much fairer to have multiple compiler implementations per language being used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Mono 3.10.0 is the latest version of Mono (released over the weekend); not 3.8.0

<comment><USER6> Release notes appear to be: [http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about- mono/releases/3.10.0/](http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about- mono/releases/3.10.0/)

Weirdly, 3.8.0 is the "latest" news release on their page.

<comment><USER7> Well, both releases are nice, thanks for posting :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What problems if solved, are you willing to pay for? - <AUTHOR>

Just curious...
Inspired by this thread by vijayanands
http://www.quora.com/Startups/What-are-problems-you-face-if-solved-youd-pay-for ( for startups in india ) <comment><USER2> World peace.

More seriously, I have ...

* ... more than 7 ideas for Apps that I think could make money, and no way to connect with people that have complementary skills to mine;

* ... skills that people find useful, but no way to find those who will pay for them;

* ... complex travel arrangements and already pay 4 different people money for different aspects, then spend stupid amounts of time coordinating them;

* ... large amounts of paperwork that I need to deal with, and then file;

* ... a hatred of cooking, but greater hatred of "ready-meals";

* ... many more, but I have no idea what you're really looking for. I suspect neither have you.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Inspired by this thread [http://www.quora.com/Startups/What-are-problems-you- face-if-...](http://www.quora.com/Startups/What-are-problems-you-face-if- solved-youd-pay-for) ( for startups in india )</comment>


YouTuber's Glitter Bomb 2.0 slaps back at package thieves - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/youtuber-debuts-glitter-bomb-2-0-to-get-back-at-package-thieves/ <comment><USER2> I would only post the actual link to the video content [https://youtu.be/a_TSR_v07m0](https://youtu.be/a_TSR_v07m0)

</comment><comment><USER3> Previous one was faked [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6522267/NASA- engine...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6522267/NASA-engineer- admits-thieves-reactions-epic-revenge-package-viral-video-FAKED.html)

<comment><USER4> 2 of the 5 reactions were from associates-of-associates, without his knowledge. Those 2 reactions were excised from the video.

That's a really, really far cry from "was faked," IMO.

<comment><USER3> Yes, they were removed, after the sham was discovered and made public.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best company to buy SSL certificates from? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> StartSSL (<https://www.startssl.com>) are very good in my experience. Class 1 certificates are free.

<comment><USER3> The best option if you want a wild card certificate, a certificate that includes different domains, or many certificates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Honest Achmed's Used Cars and Certificates: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959>

<comment><USER5> > Achmed's business plan is to sell a sufficiently large number of > certificates as quickly as possible in order to become too big to fail (see > "regulatory capture"), at which point most of the rest of this application > will become irrelevant.

Now that's honest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't say whether they're the "best" or not, but I've used NameCheap for everything and have been extremely happy with them. Plenty of options, very good cost.

The only time I didn't use them was a weird edge case recently where I needed a multi-domain certificate, and NameCheap did not support those, so I purchased direct from GeoTrust.

<comment><USER7> I have a PositiveSSL from Namecheap. It's about $8 a year or so.

<comment><USER8> Plus, they used to offer $2 PositiveSSL certificates (for the first year) with the purchase of a domain. Not sure if they still do that, though.

<comment><USER9> What I discovered unfortunately is the PositiveSSL certs often fail on browsers of mobile devices (safari/iphone, chrome/nexus).

I ended up getting an EssentialSSL Cert from namecheap.

<comment><USER10> I had a similar issue where Firefox didn't like Namecheap's certs, but I started including the chain certificate as well and it worked great. Maybe something like that had the same affect in that case?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is no real bad or insecure option. Just make sure the CA is supported by all the platforms / browser you need and that the price is fair. Additionally you may check that their revocation servers have a good internet connection since browsers check these.

It is even totally unimportant if your provider is "insecure". If any of the commonly trusted CAs is hacked it affects the security of your service as well as if it's the CA you use.

Therefore I would go with StartSSL (<https://www.startssl.com/>). They are trusted on all important plattforms, are free for one subdomain per domain and very cheap otherwise. You only pay the verification of your identity, unlimited domains, wildcard etc. then. I haven't seen any cheaper one. You might get some competitive prices if you combine the use of single subdomain ones through SNI, but I wouldn't prefer that over a inexpensive wildcard one.

What is the worst that can happen? If the revocation servers go down, the browser just shows a small warning symbol, but everything still works. If your CA gets hacked and untrusted in common browser, you have to buy a cert somewhere else ... this is the risk of every CA and a new cert is just minutes away ...

There is no way to determine who is more secure against hacks etc. If they are trusted where you need them, they are all equal.

</comment><comment><USER12> As others, I can't say they're the "best" but when I did a straw poll on Twitter a few years ago, I was recommended RapidSSL. I've used them on my own sites and for clients since then without any fuss (5 minutes and one automated call). They seem to be very one size fits all though, quick and easy, but nothing fancy like EV. (If anyone can help there actually, any recs for good but non-expensive EV providers?)

<comment><USER11> > If anyone can help there actually, any recs for good but non-expensive EV > providers?

StartSSL wants $200 for two years, additional ones cost $50 then. Haven't seen anything cheaper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> DigiCert.com is the CA that will give you the trust and assurance with the high verification standards that you would get with the Verisigns (Symantec) of the world but with the start-up like cool customer service and affordable price that customers today deserve.

The cheapest SSL options there ($20 and under) offer NO verification of the applicant of the certificate. Thus, you could be a scammer for all they care, as long as you control your site (even a phishing site) they've give you the "domain validated" certificate.

Stick with either EV (green bar, extra assurance) or a high-assurance only shop like DigiCert, Symantec, Entrust, or GlobalSign. It'll also show your users you care about trust and identity assurance online.

<comment><USER14> > The cheapest SSL options there ($20 and under) offer NO verification of the > applicant of the certificate

Could you explain why that matters for the site owner?

<comment><USER11> It doesn't matter in any way. Especially it has no influence on security. A cert that works works. You might be interested in additional features like EV for the green/blue address bar or a assurance. But that's not the point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Click on the green lock symbol in Chrome to see what certificates each site uses.

Google issues its own, GitHub uses DigiCert(<http://www.digicert.com>), Hacker News uses Entrust (<http://www.entrust.net>).

In general, Verisign (<http://www.verisign.com/>) will be the most expensive and presumably the most widely supported, but there's no need to pay up for it when DigiCert will work just as well.

<comment><USER16> Google has their own intermediate certificate. The root they use is Equifax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I get mine from Gandi.net, along with the domain. If you just need a single CN, it's free for the first year. Verification is automated and usually done within the hour.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't know if there's a best, but I use DigiCert.com. They're the perfect combination of easy, quick and affordable. Plus, the support is great.

</comment><comment><USER19> You can buy a RapidSSL standard cert through DNSimple[1] for $20. Easier to set-up then doing it yourself too.

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/x7q6tme55gerkql/2013-05-...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/x7q6tme55gerkql/2013-05-12_at_8.16.19_PM.png)

[1] <https://dnsimple.com>

<comment><USER20> the same rapidssl certificate is $9.45 from namecheap.

after having been a reseller for geotrust for years, lately, i ended up buying all my certificates from namecheap. the namecheap end user prices are even lower than my rapidssl reseller prices...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> <http://swisssign.com/en> might not be the cheapest option, but definitely has some extra cachet. They are really conservative and most of the approval process is manual, but support staff is friendly.

</comment><comment><USER22> I expect it will depend on:

a. whether you want a certificate for a single hostname, several hostnames, or a wildcard;

b. whether you want extended validation or not; and possibly

c. what country you're based in.

Perhaps other factors as well.

<comment><USER11> > c. what country you're based in.

How is that relevant? I would also say the targeted plattforms (which browser, OS) are the most important point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What's a company that you wouldn't ever buy an SSL certificate from again? They all seems about the same to me and I don't think I have ever heard of a bad one.

<comment><USER24> > I don't think I have ever heard of a bad one.

Diginotar

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I use rapidssl.com - no complaints with their service.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is the extra EV (extended validation) add on worth anything?

<comment><USER11> Not in case of security, but you get likely more trust from your visitors. Also might include some assurance thing you can use or advertise with. But I wouldn't say it has any bad influence if it's missing, as long as you aren't a payment provider or something like that.</comment></comment>


Things I learned dealing with psychopaths in startups - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@AlexanderGirau/7-things-i-learned-dealing-with-psychopaths-in-startups-baaae513ee03#.8mg2rovpt <comment><USER2> To me, this article reads as an excuse for the company to behave in a sociopathic way, and then turn around and try to pin the blame on some employee when they (perhaps rightfully) stand up for themselves.

I've been in situations where people performed blatant religious discrimination towards me, and also threatened to reduce my wage due to discussing pay with a coworker (threatening any form of retaliation for discussing pay is blatantly illegal).

The company easily could have raised some of these same complaints towards me just to try to leverage their comparably greater resources to pin blame on the worker rather than own up to the all too common sociopathic tendencies that develop inside bureaucracies.

In the end, both this comment and the parent article are just anecdotes. But I say it's a better prior to be more skeptical of managers/higher- ups/bureaucrats who are willing to drop the "psychopath" nuke on behavior they don't like, than the toxic employee.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well to be frank, I am sharing an experience dealing with a problem member in a 5 person startup. You are correct it is an anecdote. One I want to share in hopes no one has to go through a similar issue. Your victimization does not mean every member-company transgression is due to the company. Minority members that have insider information can do serious damage and not care of the legal ramifications when there are obvious consequence to them.

<comment><USER2> I understand that not every member-company transgression is due to the company. But sources like Moral Mazes give us a vast set of evidence to believe that companies are intrinsically organized to be able to commit such transgressions without ever bearing responsibility for them, and that extraordinary effort is put forward to create organizational frameworks that codify exactly this manner of villifying worker victims and coordinating across organizations to create workplace cultural norms such that any action of standing up for one's self is deemed "unprofessional" or "not becoming of a true team player" or whatever other HR code word you want, all the way up, apparently, to "psychopath."

In this sense, we ought to be more willing to apply skepticism to the company, and more skeptical in general that things like company charter documents, HR policies, company handbooks, or even just email memos about company culture and policy (the more likely case in a start-up), are designed to create legal deniability for the pursuit of illegal and irrational whims of executives, and truly nothing more.

This is so much the modus operandi of companies in general, start-up or otherwise, that until after we account for the huge base rate of company- initiated transgressions, it just has little relevance to focus so much on the "toxic" employee. In fact, one of the most successful scams of the organizational HR world is to draw so much disproportionate attention to the scarecrow "toxic employee."

Both of my worst experiences with outright fraudulent and corrupt managers have come at start-ups, where there wasn't even the thin veneer of an HR apparatus to even pay lip service to protecting us from executive whims.

Now, having said all that, I can certainly still agree that your case might be an exception. But I would prefer if your article was written more that way: that when this happens on the part of an employee, it's generally very rare and the best thing for the company to do is try to learn how they could have handled it better (read: publicly calling someone something as incendiary as "psychopath" is not it, even if it were true), and voiciferously acknowledge that in the vast, vast majority of cases, it is the company being toxic, not the employee who responds by standing up for herself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > CEO & Founder

> psychopaths

> utterly insane

> psychopathic minority member

> latent craziness

> psychopaths

> broken psychology

> psychopath's

> crazy will make the sane crazy

> their crazy existence

> psychopath

> crazy

I should stop being surprised when company owners leave themselves open to litigation. MH is a disability, and disability is a protected characteristic in US law.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do you knoW that this person is a legitimate psychopath?

<comment><USER5> Good question. It feels like this term is being thrown around quite a lot.

Out of curiosity I browsed Wikipedia which had this to say:

        Psychopathy emphasize three observable characteristics to varying degrees:

        - Boldness. Low fear, high tolerance of stress, unfamiliarity and danger, and
          high self-confidence and social assertiveness.

        - Disinhibition. Poor impulse control including problems with planning and
          foresight, lacking affect and urge control, and demand
          for immediate gratification. Low conscientiousness.

        - Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments with others, use of cruelty
          to gain empowerment, exploitative tendencies, defiance
          of authority, and destructive excitement seeking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Definition)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this applies closely.

I am surprised that the tendency to compulsively lie is not also in the Wikipedia definition.

<comment><USER2> But when it comes to something as medically severe as psychopathy isn't it the whole point that it shouldn't matter what you, or me, or any layperson thinks?

If you already don't like this coworker because of disagreements and actions at work, you're very likely to overestimate these symptoms, or believe that someone who is only a little ways along the spectrum to psychopath is actually much further.

Imagine if we believed everyone who went through a bad breakup or divorce and called their ex partner a psychopath out of anger (even justified anger). It just seems really extreme to use some armchair diagnosis from someone emotionally invested in believing bad things about the other person.

<comment><AUTHOR> This isn't as juvenile as a dislike. I spent my PhD on the technology for this company and licensed it from a tier 1 university and started the company. This individual (hindsight is 20/20) coerced me to make probably the worst decision by giving him fully vested equity only to leave for a different opportunity after and yet wish to have a say on issues that are Board issues.

Again this post was a message to any founder finding a partner. Things may be rosy in the beginning but if you are paired with someone who fundamentally is only motivated by money they will always choose their own interest over the company. Even if that means actively sabotaging and slandering.

Again I do not want to air dirty laundry but I was landed the unfortunate worst case scenario.

Anyone who thinks that I am being one sided is allowed to have that prerogative. I cannot give full details but please imagine the worse situation you can get into with a first partner, I am talking them trying to smear your reputation and sabotaging the company in order to get their way, not just some friendship that went bad. Please proceed with caution and do not be overly trustworthy.

If anyone wants to know more I would be happy to talk directly. But I'm sharing this because founders with genuine intentions and the ones who get damaged the most by individuals like this.

<comment><USER6> Hi, I am quite sure I have a good idea of what you're going thru (see my comment history for my rants). I have vented enough over the past 2 years and all the stress has burned out, so I'm over it all (I think). But I can't help but offer support whenever someone raises this sort of topic...

Your problem seems, based on what you say, a lot more narcissistic than the guys I had to deal with - yes, that is actually a positive, believe me. The problem is obvious... I lost 5 years of my life to this stupid startup and got little out of it except some harsh life lessons.

Good luck, and if you don't have a lawyer, get one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Based on my experiences, I would say this person the article speaks of is more probably a schzoid type personality, or borderline personality disorder? I think the popular media driven depiction of psychopaths as bombastic assholes to be click-bait - real psychopaths are a lot more like Patrick Bateman ("American Psycho") - cool as a cucumber and always in control of their emotions

And thus the interaction they have with people. They're like an information black hole - little leaks out of them, but they are sucking up every bit of non-verbal etc info out of you and consciously processing it. Thus they see your blind spots and can devise ways to take advantage of your 'shadow' side or hidden psychological needs.

<comment><USER3> > Based on my experiences, I would say this person the article speaks of is > more probably a schzoid type personality, or borderline personality > disorder?

What the fuck.

This tiny little article gives you nothing with which you can make those claims.

<comment><USER6> no, it does. Psychopaths are a lot more calculating, less emotional, and from how the OP wrote it, it seemed like there was a lot more emotional stuff going on with the trouble maker. I have a mother with borderline personality disorder, so I am very experienced with how these types of disorders look. The situation reminded me of my own experiences.

ok, I have no idea why I wrote schizoid. I was probably drunk at the time... I stand corrected on that. I still say 'psychopath' is the wrong term to use though. On the face of it, it seems to be something different - certainly some anti-social personality disorder.</comment></comment></comment>


"Hello John.  It's Gordon Brown" - <AUTHOR> http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/09/hello-john-its-gordon-brown.html

<comment><USER2> You did Alan Turing a big favor. Now you're slightly less indebted to him than the rest of us :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> _Amazing what you can do with 30 minutes of peace and an iPhone._

What's really amazing is how much difference one person can make. We're used to thinking that way in our work, but sometimes it takes a selfless act on a bigger issue to show us that our efforts don't have to be restricted to our own projects.

Thank you, John. You are an inspiration.

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing that's worth talking about, and I'm trying to find a journalist to write about this is that I used a combination of web stuff (my blog, Twitter, Facebook) and pounding on journalists. I kept a really close eye on the rate of change in the signature count and when it started to slow I hammered on old media to get the story out there.

The major inflection points (past the initial push caused by the LGBT press and places like Hacker News) was getting the story on the BBC. Key to that was Richard Dawkins. He simply signed the petition and said so publicly and then went on Channel 4 news. With him on board it was easy to tell a story to the journalists and off it went.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Awesome story! Good one John!

</comment><comment><USER5> John's a cool dude. I hope people pay attention to, _and learn from_ , acts like this.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is great, it really shows what an entrepenurial spirit can do.

</comment><comment><USER7> You rock.

</comment><comment><USER8> well done!

</comment><comment><USER9> Now you just have to get the Queen to give him that knighthood...</comment>


Cloudbursting - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/08/cloudbursting-.html

<comment><USER2> Since I don't have money to waste on hardware I don't need; working 'in the cloud' has been a godsend. I feel like we have finally gotten to the point where we can bootstrap web services extremely inexpensively.

I do have some reservations about data privacy, but a quality provider calms those.

Jer

</comment><comment><USER3> This 'cloudbursting' is what a lot of people, ourselves included, are doing. Basically we run 2 servers for one of our projects and these serve up content, provide 'my account' services and a sales function. We use AWS for the heavy lifting and we run up to 100 instances at a time for processing. We decided not to go 100% AWS because whilst we trust them to a degree, there have been some outages and having a hybrid approach means its easier to communicate with our customers and to provide some kind of buffer if there is a problem with AWS. The bottom line for us is that we are able to do stuff now that would have been prohibitively expensive before.</comment>


OpenStax – openly licensed textbooks - <AUTHOR> https://openstax.org/ <comment><USER2> I teach mathematics at a community college and use free materials in my courses or use materials that I've created. I never use paid materials in my courses. The reason I can do this is because math doesn't change from year to year. I'm in a subject whose content is static. Even so most open textbooks are quite bad. I've only found a few that were really good.

Writing a good book even in a field whose content doesn't change much is hard. There's a need for publishers but just not a need for one that charges hundreds of dollars for a textbook. It might not be economically feasible to have a publisher put out quality textbooks for less money but I can't justify forcing my students to spend $200 to $300 per semester on a math textbook.

<comment><USER3> I wish more teachers of subjects like this had your mindset. I wonder if other colleges have some sort of requirement that the teacher push the book.

<comment><USER2> Every college/university I've taught at allows instructors to choose their own book or has a committee of faculty members in the department choose the book. Increasingly there is a movement in state legislatures that mandate that the university system push open source textbooks. There's definitely a desire amongst a lot of faculty to use an open text book but the book has to be good and that's the hard part.

One thing to keep in mind is that publishers don't publish books to appeal to students. Their client are faculty members. So they include things like websites that handle grading online homework/quizzes. Faculty are going to use what makes their job easier. With pay not commensurate with level of education I understand why faculty have this mindset. Personally I think it's bad to use the online homework/quizzing systems out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've often thought that textbooks would be a productive place to focus excess energy among software freedom types. The way I see it, there are at least three ways in which most technology professionals could effectively contribute:

\- Content production and editing

\- Improving the design and branding of open textbook purveyors

\- Advocating for the adoption of open source textbooks in your local K-12 system and community colleges (especially the more cash-strapped ones)

I know of no organization that attempts to organize community efforts in these directions, though. If there is one, I'd love to know about it and get involved. If not, maybe it's an idea whose time has come.

<comment><USER5> I often suggest Wikimedia use their excess money not spent on Wikipedia itself to create low-cost or openly-licensed textbooks. If adopted by schools, students everywhere would save money on textbooks that were high quality. The collection would grow over time as both revenue and donations come in. They might also do something similar to Coursera. Textbooks just seemed like they'd be easier project with large, positive outcome. Plus, some could be updated rarely (eg 5 years) since the content doesn't change much.

<comment><USER6> There is something called Wikibooks, though I've only spent maybe half an hour reading a particular wikibook years ago and can't speak to overall quality:

[https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page)

<comment><USER5> Yeah but I wasnt impressed with the quality when I looked at them. Im talking about paying good writers and illustrators to do stuff students would actually want to buy. Then, price it affordably. Maybe even tiered with a default price plus discounts for smaller institutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can find those and more here: [https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/](https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/)

I'm still looking for the sources. I would like to compile them to epub format

<comment><USER8> You can find the sources when you go to the link "view online" which will redirect you to the [http://cnx.org](http://cnx.org) website to all the sources (OpenStax was Connections/CNX in the past). It includes all HTML/XML, images and special styling. Here an example for the algebra book (scroll down to downloads): [https://firstname.lastname@example.com:GfaWl1GG@4/Introducti...](https://email@example.com:GfaWl1GG@4/Introduction) Actually they also produced epub in the past (disclaimer: I worked for them in the past) and I'm sure you can get epub versions from them if you contact them.

<comment><USER7> You mean to download the Offline ZIP, right? that's the main book source?

<comment><USER8> yes, right. They produce the real books, PDF, online version out of this "source code" version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _OpenStax at Rice University is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity_

Good to see that OpenStax is a 501(c)(3) charity, which is the nonprofit classification where donations are tax-deductible and thus restricted. That makes it harder for the organization to be influenced too directly by sponsors, since donations cannot be used for purposes which would yield direct marketplace advantage.

I also see that they use a permissive, attribution-based license for their publications. That makes it easier for businesses to consume those materials and also to contribute.

[https://openstax.org/license](https://openstax.org/license)

> _The Creative Commons Attribution license that you and every author must > agree to enables the content to be as reusable as possible._

The combination of 501(c)(3) and business-friendly licensing reminds me of the Apache Software Foundation. The more orgs using that formula, the better!

<comment><USER10> I disagree. I would very much prefer a "GPL type" share-alike licence. The basic principle is: I'm releasing this content to the public, with the expectation that anyone that builds upon it will also do the same. Otherwise people can take what I did, use it for their profit, and not contribute back, hurting the overall community. This doesn't seem fair to me.

<comment><USER11> Long ago, in the LaTeX world, people first licensed stuff as "not for sale" (or even "not for sale to the military"). Then someone wanted to publish a "How to Use LaTeX" book, commercially but basically at cost, with a CD in the back having a complete collection of software. They were faced with being unable to do so because some of the software was licensed as not-for-sale. That seems counter productive, to me.

That even applies to books: I've gotten a good number of inquiries from college bookstores asking if instructors can sell copies. They are worried that money is changing hands, when students buy a physical copy, and I am not getting any of it. I am glad those folks are looking out for my rights, but my point here is that "you can't sell it" is a more complex restriction than at least I (in no way a lawyer) thought when I first started doing this.

<comment><USER12> The CC "share-alike" option and the CC "non-commercial" option are orthogonal for exactly this reason.

<comment><USER9> Even so, complying with share-alike licenses is more costly than complying with attribution-based licenses.

Consider what it takes to rectify license violation (either inadvertent or deliberate). Officially, the full force of copyright law can be brought down, but historically neither tradition wants that -- they just want to bring violators into compliance for future distribution. For share-alike, derivative works must be released under the share-alike license, which can affect business strategy. For attribution-based, adding a few lines of notification suffices.

<comment><USER10> Do you know what would be even more costly? Not having the free content in the first place, ffs. Quit whining just because you have to comply with the licence imposed by someone who is giving up their work for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The content here seems fairly good, but from opening a random sample of textbooks, I notice pretty consistently poor presentation and formatting. Almost everything is presented in a wall of single column text with long paragraphs, a small font, and limited in-set visualization. This was especially bad in Intro Sociology and Intro to U.S. Government from what I checked.

I found some pagination / page break issues (e.g. page 379 in Intro Statistics is empty and the transition from 381 to 382 also has a weird orphan problem). The same section also has section numbering problems. Edit: Reading more, I see a ton of equations that aren't rendered very well (page 405 in intro stats, look at all of the \bar{x} in the first half -- is this even using LaTeX to render or is this like a bad Microsoft Word equation editor thing?)

In the statistics world, OpenIntro Statistics -- [https://www.openintro.org/stat/](https://www.openintro.org/stat/) \-- seems quite a lot better as a textbook

</comment><comment><USER14> If you would like to help, the code is open source at [https://github.com/openstax](https://github.com/openstax) and [https://github.com/connexions](https://github.com/connexions) ... Also, OpenStax is hiring! [https://jobs.rice.edu/postings/14338](https://jobs.rice.edu/postings/14338)

(Disclaimer: I currently work at OpenStax, but am not speaking on behalf of OpenStax)

<comment><USER15> OpenStax CMS[0] is built with Wagtail[1] (Django based CMS framework). This is a good example (live) project to sink my teeth into and learn more about Wagtail. Incidentally does anyone know of any good resources (books, tutorials) to go from beginner to advanced Wagtail developer?

      [0] https://github.com/openstax/openstax-cms
      [1] https://wagtail.io/

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good to see that they offer free slides for the instructor. Now what's missing for widespread adoption is the online autograding system because at teaching colleges instructors are totally overworked and could not keep up with the weekly assignments even if they wanted to. College textbooks are chosen for the online student assignments, which typically cost the students 50 USD or thereabouts.

<comment><USER14> There is a homework tool by OpenStax that has auto-graded homework, among other things -- OpenStax Tutor -- it's for Algebra-based Physics, Introductory Sociology, and Biology courses: [https://tutor.openstax.org](https://tutor.openstax.org).

Also, OpenStax currently has pretty widespread adoption: See [http://news.rice.edu/2018/08/01/48-percent-of- colleges-2-2-m...](http://news.rice.edu/2018/08/01/48-percent-of- colleges-2-2-million-students-using-free-openstax-textbooks-this-year/)

(Disclaimer: I currently work at OpenStax, but am not speaking on behalf of OpenStax)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like it.

For some of these though, I feel like it would be nice if an "order" was established between different books (or the lack thereof mentioned). At least, I do not immediately seem to spot a mention of this.

What I mean is that I assume College Physics comes before University Physics, but at what point are you ready to start Astronomy? Also, where does College Physics for AP Courses fit in? (that might be more obvious for Americans?) How about the Biology books, do I need them for Anatomy?

<comment><USER18> Part of the idea behind Connexions (and later OpenStax) is that educational resources are made available under a CC license, and tools are provided so that educators can use, combine, re-write, and modify the educational texts they use.

In practice, many choose to use the books as is, as they're already pretty high quality, but if you go to cnx.org and do some searches on the database, you'll find a number of variations that have been created by different professors and universities as well.

I don't think the intent (or resources) is there to give you every book for every course in a pre-selected order.

Disclaimer: I'm a former employee and developer for Connexions and OpenStax CNX, although I haven't been there for several years, so my understanding may be out of date.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> KDE has wiki like collaborative program - [https://www.wikitolearn.org/](https://www.wikitolearn.org/)

</comment><comment><USER20> See also: [https://en.wikibooks.org](https://en.wikibooks.org)

</comment><comment><USER21> What's the difference between this and cnx.org? It seems tho have more books

<comment><USER18> cnx.org was the URL used when the organization was called Connexions. It was re-branded a few years ago to reflect its growth and expanded missions. Connexions became OpenStax CNX, within the larger OpenStax organization.

They are all a part of Rice University and based out of Houston, and have been pursuing the goal of providing open education resources since the 1990s.

They're also open source and active on GitHub: [https://github.com/Connexions](https://github.com/Connexions) [https://github.com/openstax](https://github.com/openstax)

Source/Disclaimer: I'm a former employee and developer for Connexions and later OpenStax CNX.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hmm, any technical reason for providing only PDF and no epub format?

<comment><USER23> From their support site.

"Do you have .epub versions of your books?

We no longer support .epub versions of our OpenStax books. Only a small percentage (around 1 percent) of OpenStax readers reported using the .epub format, and maintaing these versions is costly; instead, we focus on providing our online web view, PDF, iBooks, Amazon, and print versions. You can see what formats are available for your subject at OpenStax.org."

<comment><USER24> > _maintaing these versions is costly_

I call bullshit. EPUB is basically a self-contained web site with a built-in index. If the text is maintained as an EPUB to begin with, producing a PDF is functionally identical to rendering it on an EPUB reader with a fixed page size and font.

They provide an online web view. The margin of difference between that and EPUB is building the metadata file and ZIPping it all into a single file. Or it's just an online PDF reader. Besides that, iBooks is based on EPUB, and older Kindle files are based on MobiPocket, which is based on OEBPS, the precursor of EPUB. Amazon has gratis software to convert from EPUB to Kindle file format. The print versions are probably functionally identical to PDF, with printing and cutting margins added to the page size.

If they maintained the book source in EPUB, all other formats that they do provide are essentially free, and can be maintained with a conversion program, a shell script, and cron job.

The real reason is that a lot of the available EPUB readers do not render web pages consistently, and they don't want to test Adobe Digital Editions, Calibre, etc.

<comment><USER25> They used to do it and made an intentional decision to stop. They say it's because it was costly. You come along and say they're lying (meanwhile acknowledging the testing burden). I don't get it. You think this non-profit, dedicated to the widespread distribution of their content, has some unspoken nefarious reason to deny you ePub versions?

<comment><USER24> I am unsatisfied with their explanation for discontinuing EPUB. "Too costly" is a subjective judgment, and they did not reveal the objective measurements or methods they used to reach it. A pack of gum is costly if you already spent all your money on something else.

With the knowledge of what they _do_ continue to support, I suspect that some of the costs they are paying for maintenance are the result of poor architectural decisions. If all book formats had a common source format, supporting any particular book format would be a matter of maintaining a compiler/converter for it, which _could_ be a large initial cost followed by a lower recurring maintenance cost, shared across all books in the system. However, open sourced, community maintained programs are readily available, along with proprietary commercial offerings with paid support.

I know that the difference between raw web site and EPUB is some OEBPS metadata and a ZIP program. The difference between EPUB and iBook is a conversion program maintained by Apple. The difference between EPUB and Kindle is a conversion program maintained by Amazon. The difference between EPUB and PDF is hairier technically, but conceptually it's just non-reflowable fixed page sizes and fonts, which are _theoretically_ handled by CSS "@media print" directives. The difference between PDF and print depends on the printer, but for self-publishing it's mainly just getting the page margins correct between the digital and print PDF versions.

Testing is a branding issue, not a technical burden. You don't actually have to test Adobe Digital Editions support, if you warn people on download that some EPUB readers are not fully compliant with the EPUB spec, and therefore will not render correctly. It's the IE6 problem all over again. If you support only the readers that are currently popular, there is no incentive for their maintainers to move any closer to a standard that would make maintenance easier for you in the long run. You provide the _book_ , not the _reading experience_. That is the responsibility of the reader.

Mainly, I'm just pissed that they axed EPUB, but still do iBook and Kindle. That is implicitly supporting closed, proprietary formats (or embraced and extended formats) rather than open standards. We have already been there once.

<comment><USER22> > Mainly, I'm just pissed that they axed EPUB, but still do iBook and Kindle. > That is implicitly supporting closed, proprietary formats (or embraced and > extended formats) rather than open standards. We have already been there > once.

Yes, exactly, that was my reason for asking to begin with.

But I can buy into their explanation that amazon/iapples are much more downloaded as the number of devices are probably a couple of magnitudes larger.

But still sad a project with "open" in it's name mainly seem to support proprietary formats.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Capital One Announces Data Security Incident - <AUTHOR> http://press.capitalone.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251626&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2405043 <comment><USER2> > We believe that a highly sophisticated individual was able to exploit a > specific configuration vulnerability in our infrastructure. When this was > discovered, we immediately addressed the configuration vulnerability and > verified there are no other instances in our environment.

In other words, someone didn't put a password on their S3 database exposed to the internet...

<comment><USER3> From reading news sites they were compromised by an Amazon employee, exploiting a bad WAF role.

<comment><USER4> An ex-AWS employee, who left 3 years before the facts took place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > No bank account numbers or Social Security numbers were compromised, other > than: About 140,000 Social Security numbers of our credit card customers > About 80,000 linked bank account numbers of our secured credit card > customers

This kind of double speak should double their fine.</comment>


All Software Problems Are People Problems – Interview with Roy Osherove - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fogcreek.com/all-software-problems-are-people-problems-interview-with-roy-osherove/

<comment><USER2> This was probably my most important realization in the last year or two. The largest problem in software development is communication. No technical skills matter if people don't talk to each other.</comment>