FTC Warns It Is Illegal to Condition Warranty on Use of Specified Parts/Services - <AUTHOR> https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16803512](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16803512)

Slightly different in that it concerns the use of "warranty void if removed" seals.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had a Husqvarna lawn edger attachment that broke during the warranty period. After a back and forth with customer service, their only solution for me was to bring to an "Authorized repair center". I would have no problem with that if there wasn't a diagnostic fee, that would be waived if the repair was going to be covered under warranty, or I would have to pay if it was not. The potential fee was $50 on a $100 item. The thing is I could literally hold the broken part in my hand and say "this is what is broken, here is the part number, is it covered?". They could not answer that unless the repair center looked at it. It is a known issue with the flex shaft that many people have documented online. Husq doesn't care, in fact most of their twitter feed is filled with customer complaints.

Credit Card warranty couldn't help because it was within manufacturer's warranty.

I got the Attn. General involved who basically arbitrated the conversation, ultimately did not help one bit. I even cited the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act mentioned here by the FTC.

This has re-invigorated me to try going down the FTC complaint route. It's not about the $100 now, it's about Husq standing behind their products and fixing known issues, and not lying to consumers with BS warranties on the box.

Not helping my case: I bought another one because the attachment is basically the best on the market. I fully expect the same thing will happen again, armed myself with a better 3rd party warranty this time. I hope it at least makes it through 1 season.

<comment><USER4> I'm glad I don't have any warranty nightmare stories, mine have been universally painless (mostly for computer parts). I've sent back a couple of hard drives over the years and I don't think I even had to talk to customer service for those, the entire process was automated. I had a fairly expensive mouse bite the dust after six months and that only took a short conversation with customer service to get the warranty process started.

<comment><USER5> Was it a razer chroma or deathadder?

Almost everyone I recommended this mouse to, the wheel broke. Curious if you had the same experience.

<comment><USER4> No, it was a Logitech G900.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if Keurig will have to change their brewer warranty:

"Only the use of Keurig® K-Cup® brand pods and accessories will guarantee the proper functioning and lifetime of your Keurig® brewer. Any damage to or malfunction of your brewer resulting from the use of non-Keurig® pods and accessories may not be covered by this warranty or may result in a service fee if the damage or malfunction is determined to be caused by such use."

[http://support.keurig.com/article?id=kA036000000CJGOCA4](http://support.keurig.com/article?id=kA036000000CJGOCA4)

<comment><USER7> That's likely what their legal team decided on, not what they actually enforce at the customer support level. I've replaced a Keurig. I called them, told them it was not working when plugged in, they asked I send in the little k-cup holder, and sent me a replacement unit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> A few years back, there was a well-known issue with HP Touchpads where the plastic near the speakers would start to crack.[0][1] HP accepted the Touchpads more or less without question and offered to repair them free of charge.

After I sent mine in, I got a call several weeks later from an HP employee who informed me that they had found "third-party firmware" flashed onto the device (like pretty much everyone who bought a Touchpad after HP discontinued them, I loaded Android onto it). I argued with him for a few minutes about what relevance that has to a well-known _hardware defect_ on the device, but he insisted that flashing a third-party OS voids the warranty. He eventually agreed to repair it, issuing me a "warning" about future repairs and saying that they would wipe it and flash a stock image before sending it back to me.

Would the FTC's warning have covered my incident above had HP not eventually agreed to repair it?

[0][https://forum.xda- developers.com/showthread.php?t=1250645](https://forum.xda- developers.com/showthread.php?t=1250645)

[1][https://forum.xda- developers.com/showthread.php?t=1502123](https://forum.xda- developers.com/showthread.php?t=1502123)

<comment><USER9> I had almost the exact same experience with my MacBook. I made it into a hackintosh and later tried to have the keyboard replaced (the white ones that would stain yellow).

They gave me a hard time about it but ultimately agreed to do so. I think the store person was just following a script.

<comment><USER10> How can a MacBook be a hackintosh?

<comment><USER11> I assume Waterluvian is using the term to refer to a mac laptop with Windows or Linux installed onto it.

<comment><USER9> Correct. I used the wrong term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool! I own a Traeger wood pellet grill (smoker), and there's a big warning label that says if I don't use their brand of pellets that my warranty may be void.

I thought this was pretty much BS, but good to hear officially that this kind of thing is not OK.

<comment><USER13> Two thoughts:

First, using pellets intended for heating rather than cooking is a health hazard.

Second, low-quality pellets that disintegrate, are improperly sized (aka too big, clog the auger, too small, cause burn temp inconsistencies) can damage the machine.

Odds are, it's standard boilerplate to cover them in case you use it improperly, and would only be invoked if that is obvious upon inspection.

Yeah, the wording sucks, because it seems like they would turn down repairs that aren't caused by the pellets in use. Maybe there's a better way to word it- IANAL.

<comment><USER14> But including unenforceable clauses into a contract arguably constitutes a deliberate attempt to deter the consumer from exercising his rights. That's what at stake here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wait, does this mean I can root my Kindle fire and my Android phone without voiding their warranties?

<comment><USER16> It's an interesting question. I can think of a valid reasons for software voiding a warranty. E.g. if I use non-recommended software to drive a CNC machine, and it causes a destructive head crash, or custom engine management software to make my car go faster and it wears out the engine more quickly. Increasingly, the integrity of machines is dependent on software.

It may also be unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the warranty issuer, that the damage was caused by the user's arbitrary choice of software.

If the validity of the warranty clause depends on the extent to which the software may affect the device's physical integrity, then I can imagine some manufacturers locking users into their software by making that dependence more opaque.

<comment><USER17> One school of thought is that it's defective hardware design if well-behaved software is all that's keeping hardware from catastrophically failing.

<comment><USER16> Often the line between hardware and software is blurred (is FPGA logic or processor microcode hardware?). Avoiding catastrophic failure may be a non- trivial problem. In the example case of a CNC machine, you must avoid putting too much strain on a tool, or suddenly colliding with the workpiece, thus requiring knowledge of the workpiece geometry. Software can also be easily updated to mitigate hardware faults or design problems (e.g. processor bugs).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So how does this law interact with garbage products that enforce "Use of Specified Parts/Services" with DRM?

Better yet, how do we know when its a DRM factor, vs not?

</comment><comment><USER19> This seems overly generous to the consumer. If I buy a product such as an iPad, then break the screen, then replace the screen with an inferior (dimmer, say) part, can I now claim back to Apple that the product is unsuitable and expect a replacement within the terms of the warranty?

Even if this is about unrelated parts, such as a battery failure after replacing the screen, how much effort will it take the manufacturer to a) ensure that the device has no other less obvious changes and b) ensure that the parts that were replaced didn't have an unexpected effect? Certainly I've seen, in manufacturing devices that emit EM, unintended consequences where parts caused interference significant enough to damage other parts (usually through unexpected signals.)

It's clearly a win for consumers but I wonder how companies can carry the burden. Perhaps all-inclusive warranties will fade into history as a result.

<comment><USER20> This is entirely a straw man, and doesn't even represent the reality (or age!) of the law.

What the law implies is that Apple needs to continue to warrant the REST of the iPad, even if someone else has done work on the iPad at some point, unless that work _caused_ the damage being claimed under warranty. They are perfectly able to say that they won't cover damage caused by you (or, by extension, anyone you hire to work on your iPad).

If the screen came from another provider, then Apple no longer needs to cover _the screen_ at all, in fact. That's perfectly legal under current law. But Apple can't cancel the warranty on the rest of the device if the screen replacement procedure didn't cause the damage.

If, for instance, the iPad (the one with a replaced screen above) stops holding any charge after six months due to a faulty battery, and there is no connection between that new problem and the screen replacement procedure, then Apple still needs to cover the repair or replacement of the battery.

The problem is that if a competent screen repair voids _all_ warranties, then you are being forced to go to Apple for all repairs. And that's what is illegal.

If a car dealer requires that you get the oil changed at a dealer in order to maintain your warranty, but something completely unrelated fails, they can't then say "Sorry, your warranty is void because you didn't pay our high maintenance rates."

That's what the law is about, and it's been that way since 1975 (!!), so I don't think we're going to suddenly see a drop in all-inclusive warranties just because the FTC is cracking down on a half dozen companies that aren't in compliance.

<comment><USER21> This isn't entirely a strawman. One of the things that pretty much all repair professionals seem to hate is dealing with hardware that people have tried to fix themselves, especially stuff dating from the days where this was possible, because it's a huge amount of work to try and figure out what they could've screwed up. Now every company with a warranty has to either put in that work or give no-questions-asked warranty replacements to people who damage the products they sell, and all their other customers have to pay for it.

<comment><USER20> Only for versions of "now" that date back to _1975_ , since that's when the law was passed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The first warranty I checked had clear violations.

> 4.1.1 Exclusions. Customer has no warranty rights with respect to defects or > non-conformities caused by (i) use of the Products with hardware or software > that Company has not specified as suitable; ... (v) installation or > maintenance of Products by someone other than Company; ...

[https://www.seagate.com/css/terms-us/hardware-sales- terms/](https://www.seagate.com/css/terms-us/hardware-sales-terms/)

<comment><USER23> That's not a violation. It specifically says "caused by". If it said something like "Customer has no warranty rights wrt defects or non-conformities _if they 've used the product with hardware or software..._", then that would be an actual violation.

</comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 I'm wondering how Apple will handle this regarding third-party parts.

<comment><USER24> A lot of people don't now that for years (well at least a decade, actually) Apple policy has been that users can do their own upgrades without voiding the warranty. For hard drives, example. Obviously this doesn't apply for soldered- in SSD drives, I'm talking about spinning drives converted to SSD, or capacity upgrades for those same traditional form factor drives, using third party drives (well all traditional drives are third party for Apple, but you get the point).

Apple has a lot more sense than haters give them credit for. Their policies vary on a case by case basis depending on the specifics of the part and the potential impacts on important factors like security. For example you don't want an adversary or an abusive household member being able to install their own hacked version of the fingerprint sensor hardware on your phone while you are not looking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Things are only as strong as the legal cases behind them.

Apple recently told me that my battery, despite being well within it's advertised number of charge cycles, needed to be replaced, and that it would cost some absurd amount of money.

This is obviously bait and switch, but am I really going to take them to court over $300? Just the lost time of filing any paperwork about it would end up costing me more money.

So yeah, this stuff is all great, but who cares if none of us actually have the time to take them to court.

<comment><USER26> $300 to replace battery? I thought battery replacements are $79 and $29 under their promotional pricing from the controversy? Or did you replace a macbook battery?

FYI, Apple has replaced things for me out of warranty all the time (macbook battery, charger, etc, for free). The Genius bar staff have a lot of leeway and when I'm sitting there I always observe some people being extremely discourteous or playing obviously dumb, and in response getting completely different service than what I would normally get.

<comment><USER25> >$300 to replace battery?

Sorry, it was actually $200: [https://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/en/battery_body.htm...](https://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/en/battery_body.html)

<comment><USER26> If your 2012 macbook is well within the normal amount of charge cycles at this point then you must not have used it much.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Capturing ARKit scene into WebRTC video stream for React Native - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jhen0409/rn-webrtc-arkit-integration <comment><USER2> The reason you use React Native is because you are platform independent, if this doesn't integrate with Android in more or less the same way it's a hard sell.

I'm working with this myself (painting over WebRTC frames) and it's definitely not out that different by itself comparing Android to iOS.

<comment><USER3> _The reason you use React Native is because you are platform independent..._

That's _a_ reason to use it, but it's not the only reason.

For example, where I live it's _much_ easier to recruit JS developers with React and React Native experience than it is to recruit native mobile developers (it's not a cost thing; there just aren't many native mobile devs looking for work). Consequently it's better to build with React Native _even if you 're only targeting one platform_ because the long term support for the app would be basically impossible if you can't recruit someone capable of doing it.

<comment><USER4> That assumes that building quality mobile apps in js doesn't require knowledge of native app dev and specialization in mobile app dev (it does). And if those things don't matter you might as well just hire anyone willing to learn native mobile dev - react native wont make their job any easier beyond the first day (in fact it would make it more complex).

<comment><USER5> This is what native mobile devs tell themselves to preserve their self worth... but unfortunately it's no longer true that you need a dedicated native iOS or android dev to make a useful and performant app.

<comment><USER4> I'm actually not a mobile dev, just deal with a bunch tech surrounding that space. Also, nothing against react native - used it for building quick things myself too - it's just not something I'd pick to build say an Uber app, or something. And if you're not building that level of an app, why bother? Web is enough.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm the Accidental Owner of a Banksy - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/im-the-accidental-owner-of-a-banksy.html <comment><USER2> The whole "high-art = big money" mindset is what ruins everything. Just let it be. It's an image that people enjoy looking at, and it's right there for everyone to see - touchable, fragile, transient. Giving it a monetary value defeats the whole purpose of it. It's not meant to be preserved, it's just a curio that livens up the outdoor scene.

Stop _valuing_ it so much - it's meant to be weathered and destroyed. Enjoy the art for what it is and let urban nature take its course.

<comment><USER3> This is one of those things, like complaining that the developer of a webapp you like "sold out" to a large company, that sounds nice unless it's your app with an offer or your building that just got tagged by Banksy. The owners of this building didn't _assign_ the value; they inherited it. In any case it would be plain dumb to ignore it and I have no idea why anybody would upvote a comment suggesting that they do so.

<comment><USER4> _it would be plain dumb to ignore it and I have no idea why anybody would upvote a comment suggesting that they do so._

I upvoted it because I was going to write essentially the same thing.

I've been thinking about it since Colbert publicly non-invited Banksy to paint the wall outside his studio. I don't believe that dollars are an appropriate unit of measurement for life experiences. I do believe that graffiti and others forms of street art are intentionally impermanent and functions of their location.

I would support trying to sell it if the building owners were living hand to mouth, but that's obviously not the case. The author's already monetized the "inheritance" by selling a literary "piece" to NY Magazine. She doesn't _need_ to sell it so leaving it as part of the gestalt the artist created is the greater good. If it gets defaced by some other graffiti artist or the police/Bloomberg (who are only feeding the frenzy with their attitude) then so be it, the limited lifespan of graffiti is an inherent part of the art. Like making sandcastles.

I would probably set up a hidden video cam in case someone else came along and tried to steal it. Not that the stealing is necessarily a problem for street- art, but taking it would involve damage to the building itself and that would be unacceptably outside the scope of screet-art.

<comment><USER5> _I don 't believe that dollars are an appropriate unit of measurement for life experiences. I do believe that graffiti and others forms of street art are intentionally impermanent and functions of their location._

But Banksy isn't graffiti in general or something other people decided was worth money after someone just did it for joy. Banksy's shtick is calculated to generate publicity and a whiff subversion specifically as a part of him maintain his position as a highly paid, highly valued, highly publicized. Banksy could have gone to NYC and done anonymous graffiti for year and no one would have notice if there wasn't any publicity.

<comment><USER6> Unlikely. His shopworn "social commentary" is typically a dead giveaway. ("I remember when all this was trees.")

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is interesting - I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. I don't think anyone could argue that Banksy hasn't cemented a place in the 'history of art' and the books our children read that cover this period will feature his work.

In the UK a lot of people are genuinely gutted when a Banksy gets removed or covered - like something (a gift?) has been removed from the community. People who have their buildings 'vandalised' are often incredibly proud. But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism and I can understand Bloomberg's zero tolerance attitude. I wonder how he'd feel if it was on a building he privately owned (not that he needs the money...)?

<comment><USER8> Well, most art critics don't take Banksy seriously, so I wouldn't count on him having a place in the history books any more than a novelty musician like Weird Al, for example. In fact that comparison makes Banksy sound more important than he is. David Blaine, maybe? [http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...](http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/oct/02/banksy- warhol-footsteps-new-york-street-art)

<comment><USER9> It's funny he contrasted Banksy with Pollack. I've always thought of Pollack (and many other modern artists) as a sort of charming guy who figured out that the art industry is a weird product of status games and so decided to create positional goods with the least amount of effort possible.

<comment><USER10> Seriously? This is like saying "poets are just lazy writers who decided to create work with the least amount of effort possible."

<comment><USER9> Notice the performance in the following description of Pollock at work:

>A dripping wet canvas covered the entire floor … There was complete silence … Pollock looked at the painting. Then, unexpectedly, he picked up can and paint brush and started to move around the canvas. It was as if he suddenly realized the painting was not finished. His movements, slow at first, gradually became faster and more dance like as he flung black, white, and rust colored paint onto the canvas. He completely forgot that Lee and I were there; he did not seem to hear the click of the camera shutter … My photography session lasted as long as he kept painting, perhaps half an hour. In all that time, Pollock did not stop. How could one keep up this level of activity? Finally, he said 'This is it.'

In many ways it mirrors the accounts of psychics or other frauds, many of whom are self-deluded and thus not frauds in the common sense. The lone genius, the strange process, the way the world falls away while he's at work, a flaw no one but the guru can keen - these are the type of things we seem to be wired adore. So we should be suspicious of any new tastes we acquire while exposed to them.

Once his work became popular, they became positional goods, like yachts or a diamonds, so we should be doubly suspicious of the tastes of those who paid for it.

Take a random person, get him or her to drip paint onto a canvas however they see fit. Create many paintings every day, save the ones that seem, by hap, to be the most pretty. I contend critics and buyers alike would not be able to reliably distinguish between the works of Pollack and the works of the random person. He created a new style of painting - one that happens to require no skill. I have no idea if he bought his own shtick, but I like the idea that he didn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's terribly comical, considering it's just a graffiti piece. Banksy will find the fuzz it creates hilarious, I'm certain. Actually, the reactions it creates could be seen as the much grander art performance, compared to his previous 'art sale' [1]

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX54DIpacNE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX54DIpacNE)

<comment><USER12> What an effective display of the issues I have with art.

Only a few people want these pieces, they are worthless in a vacuum. Only when shown in the context of "These pieces are by _legendary artist banksy_ " do they become valuable treasures, in great demand.

It distresses me the number of things on this planet that are valuable because people think they are valuable, not because they have any actual use.

I suppose their value is in manipulating others. That is a form of utility, I admit.

<comment><USER13> What's your definition of "no use"? I'm quite confused by that. When I was last walking through a museum I felt tremendous joy and very much loved looking at everything. That's a use, right? That makes those are pieces useful. It should be quite obvious that things capable of doing that acquire value.

Sometimes that gets a bit ridiculous but a blanket claim that art has no use (or, even more specifically, that Banksy's art has no use) seems equally ridiculous.

<comment><USER14> >What's your definition of "no use"? I'm quite confused by that. When I was last walking through a museum I felt tremendous joy and very much loved looking at everything. That's a use, right? That makes those are pieces useful. It should be quite obvious that things capable of doing that acquire value.

But an original and a copy of a great picture inspire just as much joy when looking at them. Yet one is treated as far more valuable than the other. So something's funny there.

<comment><USER15> Original artworks have greater value due to scarcity. It's pretty simple supply/demand - if everyone wants artwork from a certain artist, those pieces become more valuable. The same reason the value of artwork tends to spike after an artists death - no more artworks will be produced, so there is a definite cap on the amount of art.

Mayor Bloomberg's statement that he intends to target Banksy's artworks to destroy them will make them very valuable indeed, in a "last chance to see" way.

<comment><USER14> Just making something scarce doesn't inherently make it valuable; there needs to be some reason it's "better" than non-scarce equivalents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It took ten minutes of reading articles and comments to convince myself this was real and not a joke. You can't make this stuff up:

"A scuffle broke out at the scene of Banksy's latest piece in Williamsburg as a building manager and bystanders manhandled a vandal who tagged over the piece [of graffiti]."

"The building manager grabbed him and threw him down and was calling the cops, but the guy bolted"

<comment><USER17> To be fair, Banksy put up something good-looking, and the vandal put up his tag. If you caught someone putting the latter _anywhere_ , grabbed him and called the cops, I'd say you're probably on the right track.

It's got more in common with "graffiti on a tasteful outdoor mural" than with typical graffiti-on-graffiti.

<comment><USER16> I'm just going to quote from the comments section of [1]:

theoddfather: Already dissed? Jesus, why are people so ghetto?

bronxflash: how is that 'ghetto?'

theoddfather: Tagging is ghetto bullshit with no redeeming social or artistic value. It's garbage and obviously in this case was meant to simply deface something that clearly has a great deal of value to many people.

bronxflash: while i appreciate the fact that you said 'tagging' and not the all-inclusive 'graffiti,' tagging was the foundation in the early seventies of an entire visual aesthetic that came to be related to the explosion of urban culture; hey, it had to start somewhere and it started with tagging. graffiti was at no point in its origins exclusively 'ghetto': white kids on the upper west side, in south brooklyn, and the east bronx all did graffiti. maybe more kids in the hood did it, because not everyone had the same social outlets by way of moeny and power and social status. banksy wouldn't even exist without what filtered out of upper manhattan and the southern bronx and was known as 'tagging.'

[1] [http://gothamist.com/2013/10/17/banksy_bed_stuy.php](http://gothamist.com/2013/10/17/banksy_bed_stuy.php)

<comment><USER18> "banksy wouldn't even exist without what filtered out of upper manhattan and the southern bronx and was known as 'tagging.'"

Fair, but we've reached the point where we can discern the difference between something that conveys a message, and what is merely a trademark. A tag is territorial and self serving - a trademark. It might have been what gave birth to other forms of street art, but its value is intrinsically less than something that exists to conjure discussion and consideration, even if the public sentiment towards it is negative.

<comment><USER16> What you say gets to the essence of the difference: a man who wants to assert his ego, against others and the state, vs a man who entertains the middle class with whimsical, nostalgic, left wing drawings (basically the XKCD of graffiti).

I think both are equally valid forms of expression. However my main surprise was with the people in the story who believe that artistic merit should determine who gets to break the law.

<comment><USER14> > However my main surprise was with the people in the story who believe that > artistic merit should determine who gets to break the law.

Really? The law is and should be subservient to morality; people who've done something good but illegal are naturally lauded (and those who've done something bad but legal are condemned). I don't think any of this is surprising.

<comment><USER18> "The law is and should be subservient to morality; people who've done something good but illegal are naturally lauded (and those who've done something bad but legal are condemned)"

Really thoughtful response. I think that really captures the spirit of what people find attractive in modern day Robin Hoods like Dread Pirate Roberts, Satoshi Nakamoto and, in the art world, Banksy (consider that they could be collectives, not individuals). People would argue it's romance, and wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but the core of our admiration is fighting things which inhibit progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I tried to find out the owner of a commercial building that was Banksied in order to buy a cut out of the wall from him, but by the time I had gotten anywhere the work had been overtagged :(

</comment><comment><USER20> The whole Banksy craze tells me how much of the value in art is things being famous for their own sake. It isn't that it's art (or graffiti) that causes the problem (or value) it's that it's someone famous.

There is a story in NYC about the French embassy finding they had a Michelangelo in the lobby of their building. (It was there when they bought the building) Once they realized what they had (years later) then they had a problem. They couldn't sell, it, and it required security, so ultimately they gave it to a museum.

[http://www.thearttribune.com/The-Cupid-attributed- to.html](http://www.thearttribune.com/The-Cupid-attributed-to.html) [http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-statue- for-a-...](http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-statue-for-a-statue- sort-of/?_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER21> "Will it make us money?" and describing this as "our plight" are wrong-headed and hilarious, but par for the course in a city where the mayor doesn't see the beauty in such art.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think my favorite one so far was his "art stand" where he was selling his original Banksy stencils for $60 -- I'm assuming these will likely start popping up in auction for quite a bit more.

I would have likely walked by a stand like that and assumed it was a scam. But if you had told me it was real and I could have bought one for $60 bucks, I would have tried to immediately buy them all.

[http://instagram.com/p/fa_ndFq-3W/](http://instagram.com/p/fa_ndFq-3W/)

<comment><USER23> Only 8 were sold, 4 to one guy to decorate his new home in Chicago. I bet he's happy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If your family owns a building in NYC you're already rich. No idea why people would ask you that.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's not graffiti, it's disrupting the entrenched fine art distribution incumbent oligopoly.

hacking is just like painting and all that - [http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> In my opinion, graffiti is a very temporal, fleeting art form. Enjoy it while it lasts, but it's impossible to preserve graffiti, especially from an infamous artist..

</comment><comment><USER27> "No. 17 will forever be ours"

imho art like this belongs to the city.

<comment><USER28> They were, confusingly, referring to 'No[v]. 17'. The prior sentence refers to a new day coming, which is 'No[v]. 18'. I have no idea why they didn't go with the accepted abbreviation of November as 'Nov'. They weren't referring to building number 17.

Just clarifying, not disagreeing with your statement :)

<comment><USER29> It means the #17, as in the 17th painting by Banksy, as the article says early on.

<comment><USER28> Aha, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

It makes more sense now that I think about it; I'm almost a month early for it to be Nov. 17th.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Who is Banksy? Is he Satoshi Nakamoto?

</comment><comment><USER31> HN, please don't feed the trolls, even if they're PR-hungry artists.

<comment><USER32> HN is interested in the indivudal or collective knows as Banksy as he/it successfully hacks mainstream culture with critical messages.

<comment><USER33> Your language exhibits a bias that says: a) Banksy is a culture hacker b) Banksy is outside mainstream culture c) Banksy is a successful hacker. All of that is arguable, but one thing we can say for sure is Banksy is interesting because people are interested in Banksy - famous for being famous like Paris Hilton.

<comment><USER32> I assert A, B, and C, yes. Banksy managed to simultaneously profit from, and socially comment globally using, a street medium. Paris Hilton was born with the looks and means needed to make connections and she worked from that, gaining notoriety through her lack of inhibition. I can see the comparison in that their trajectories were both unconventional to some degree, but beyond that, not much simularity.

If you haven't, I'd recommend watching the humorous Banksy-related documentary "Exit Through the Gift Shop". It's quite interesting and entertaining and not what you'd expect.

<comment><USER34> Another really good one to watch is "Bomb It" on Netflix/iTunes. The sequel is out soon.

<comment><USER33> I haven't finished it, but I like this a lot better because it's authentic street art from the people who grew up in those locales. The Banksy collective on the other hand has a lot of money behind it and feels more like rich people appropriating street art.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If the mayor was serious about catching Banksy then he would go to the phone companies and get all of the phones that were within a 200 metre radius on the night that the artwork went up for each and every piece. Then he could put them in a database, get his 'SQL for Dummies' book out and select just the phone records that are common to all incidents.

He can then go back to the phone companies and get the billing details for Banksy and his entourage. He could also ask them to let him know exactly where they are, follow them and catch them red handed doing their next piece.

Personally I see Banksy as a cartoonist rather than as a graffiti artist. He does not have a formal arrangement with the papers to syndicate his work, he does not even have to churn something out every day. Instead he gets his work prominently shown in all of the British papers, reaching an audience that no other cartoonist can. He has Robin Hood grade street cred. due to this audience reach.

Whereas other cartoonists use pen and paper, Banksy uses the side of some house or another wall as the medium. It is an intermediate form much like the conventional cartoonist's paper is. Although of value to the crazies that go mad for such things it is of no value to Banksy if his aim is to get his work into the paper, to reach a mass audience.

As for the people who have inherited the work, they could just let the boring 'tag' graffiti artists vandalise the Banksy masterpiece as quickly as possible, whilst there is still the media interest. It will then be known that it has been destroyed and the troublesome visitors will cease to turn up. They can then paint it over, to restore their property back to normal and get on with life.

Getting back to the mayor, if the trick works for catching Banksy then it will probably work for all of the inane tagging losers out there. So long as citizens report new tag-vandalisms in a timely fashion then the police should be able to get a reasonable sized list of phone numbers to work with.

I have known and known of 'tag' graffiti artists in my time. I still don't see why they are so determined to do what they do and for so late into adult life. I feel sorry for them not having any meaning to their 'art'. The strangest thing to me are the 'tags' put up in some foreign town. Imagine going to another country, a place you do not live, just to paint your tag up on some walls that you are not going to see again.

With a Banksy it cannot be said to truly exist until the papers report the new birth. With small time tedious tagging types they get Facebook instead of the media to show off their efforts. Invariably those that tag post their tags online somewhere. The phones can lead the authorities to where this is and get the evidence needed for prosecution.

<comment><USER36> as someone who in her time did millions in "damage" to the rail network your average writer has decent opsec besides the fact they almost all use burner phones on a day to day basis. they wont take phones with them on missions. last thing you want is your phone to ring when your hiding from the transit police. (what banksy opsec is like IDK ) also stencils are for people that cant actually paint.

<comment><USER35> > "stencils are for people that cant actually paint."

That is a bit like saying that those that use a sewing machine for embroidery cannot sew. Or musicians that use a computer cannot perform live. Or writers that use word processors 'cant' use punctuation.

Banksy has a style, technique and message that makes his work his, and highly regarded by untold millions of people. People that do gormless tags (most graffiti 'artists') have just the tag.

There is a difference between art and craft. So what if you have learned the craft, i.e. how to hold a spray can, it does not make it art. There is more to it than that. You have to find a voice deeper than a tag.

'Opsec' is a confabulated word to describe 'trying not to get caught'. Obviously anyone committing a crime does what they consider prudent to not get caught. However, the intelligence level of a tag 'artist' is not that high, hence, when they do get caught there is invariably pictures of their tags on their mobile phone and facebook-instagram-whatever page. So, the HN reading you might be that clever at 'opsec' to not get caught, but, the rest of those taggers out there - fish in a barrel (if only the police didn't have such small fish to dry).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Just enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER38> First-world problem...</comment>


Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports - <AUTHOR> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101207_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl

<comment><USER2> I will _never_ understand what quality education and sports have in common.

In fact, with the rate of brain-damage suffered by american football players, I suspect sports are actually a detriment to education, not even counting the resources they suck from it.

EDIT: Another case against college sports, and sports scholarships: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/drexel- basketball-r...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/drexel-basketball- robbery_n_659387.html)

<comment><USER3> _I will never understand what quality education and sports have in common._

Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference?

<comment><USER2> Excellent point. People showing up to a school for non-academic reasons clearly provide an academic benefit... Not.

I also haven't seen a theoretical physics conference gather dozens students late on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean kegs are good for education.

<comment><USER4> Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?

<comment><USER5> Of course not. The question is does the amount we spend on athletics (millions) really do anything for academics? No one is saying athletics have no place in university. But why are we spending so much on it, compared to the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper? When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.

<comment><USER4> > No one is saying athletics have no place in university.

burgerbrain seems to be saying this, which is what I responded to.

> When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.

Tie in differently, not better. There are many ways to learn and many lessons to be learned. Drama, debate, music, newspaper, and sports, among others, are all different paths to learn those lessons.

I am not justifying the large amounts of money spent on sports programs. What I am saying is that sports do educate people and provide an important opportunity for students in many ways. Saying "nothing is learned while playing sports" is false.

<comment><USER2> _" > No one is saying athletics have no place in university.

burgerbrain seems to be saying this"_

Absolutely incorrect. I merely believe they should _not_ receive disproportionate funding, compared to other non-academic clubs; and assert that like other _non-academic_ clubs, they should play _absolutely no_ role in acceptance.

 _"Tie in differently, not better"_

BULLSHIT. Journalism (newspaper club) is a respected academic study. Tackling dudes on a lawn over a ball is _not_. Drama, debate, and music are similarly intellectual endeavours, _not_ sports.

 _"What I am saying is that sports do educate people"_

Spoken like a true meathead. Even if they _did_ educate, which is a laughable claim, they have no place in the curriculum of universities.

<comment><USER6> Please keep this respectful. I happen to agree with you but there's way too much virulence running through this post (and much of this thread, IMHO).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As much as I love TMQB, and I do agree about the excesses in administration levels at both college and pro ranks (I believe his post superbowl column dealt with the extravagance of pro front offices, in terms of the labor talks). There are obvious biases to his work :

 _Some coaches' salaries are covered by booster funds, not by the school itself: but booster funds funnel money that otherwise might have been donated to a school's academic programs_

This is simply untrue for most major sports universities. Boosters by and large donate to the school for sports, primarily, and then to education, secondarily. Phil Knight's largesses to the University of Oregon help both athletic and scholarly activities, but when the rumor that he gets to call one play a game [1] indicate the real reason for his contributions. Robert Burton's several million dollar donation to UCONN was primarily focused on its athletics [2] and his lack of approval in their hiring of Paul Pasqualoni resulted in his desire to have his $3million donation refunded.

Rich people aren't bragging to their friends about the SAT scores of their schools, but are bragging when their team beats your team.

[1][http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/feb/06/uconn- contro...](http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/feb/06/uconn-controversy- shines-light-on-influence-of/?tigerextra)

[2][http://terrapinstationmd.com/2011/01/26/uconn-donor- writes-v...](http://terrapinstationmd.com/2011/01/26/uconn-donor-writes-very- angry-letter-mentions-randy-edsall/)

</comment><comment><USER8> One of the big reasons Universities compete in sports is to attract alumni donors. If you just look at it at a micro level, the direct expense on sports is probably more than the revenue from sports. But if you factor in alumni donations, then I've heard that the benefits far outweigh the costs.

I was in a Division II school, and they made a big push to get into Division I. And the main reason they gave was to get alumni involvement in the school.

<comment><USER9> The article address this fallacy. More often than not, those alumni donors are giving money to the athletic booster programs, not the school's academic programs. As a result, everyone who attends the university and pays tuition pays for the athletic program, even though only a small percentage actually play sports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Did anyone actually read the article and his source?!? The article's author, Gregg Easterbrook, appears to have misread the NCAA report that supports his main thesis.

Here is the key statement from Easterbrook's article: "Recently the NCAA reported that only 14 Division I-A programs clear a profit, while no college or university in the United States has an athletic department that is financially self-sustaining. Nobody in Division I -- not Alabama, not Auburn, not Oklahoma, nobody -- has an athletic department that pays its own way. "

In this quote he makes reference to this NCAA report: [http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_201...](http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_2010.pdf)

Apparently, he got that statement from the page 8 of the report, where there is a summary of findings. Here is the statement: "A total of 14 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2009 fiscal year, which represents a decrease from the 25 reported in 2008. The gap between the "profitable" programs and the remainder continued to grow, however a bit more slowly. (3.5)"

Anyone notice the mistake he made?

Revenue is the _input_ side of the ledger. Profit is the revenue minus expenses.

The claim in the NCAA report is that only 14 schools had a net increase in revenue (year over year).

It does not claim that only 14 schools were profitable!!!

This can be further confirmed by using the NCAA's own financial database:

<http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/>

Univ of Mich had a net profit of $17mil Univ of Texas had a net profit of $7mil Auburn Uni. had a new profit of $121k Univ of Alabama (Roll Tide) reported a neglible loss for 2010, but I suspect this is an anamoly (big capital improvement plans just completed--new stadium expansion etc.)

Note where most of the profit comes from: football! Also note that typically the men's programs (football and basketball) make huge profits which cover the losses for women's and other programs.

</comment><comment><USER11> Theses statistics come up several times a year, and they are always misleading. It's Hard to measure how much money a University makes on sports teams. I go to a school that has a BCS football program that makes more money then it spends (objectively, spent ~18 million last year and made ~23 million). I don't know about the athletic program at large. But beyond that $23M in revenue directly from the football program, there are some other revenue sources that are hard to measure.

Schools like UT make a whole lot of their money off of alumni donating directly to the program. When UT lost their head coach, on of the alumni flew in several potential candidates for the position on his private jet. How do you measure that in revenue?

Further, I would not have gone to the school I chose if it weren't for the football program. Season tickets, even in the nosebleeds, for a team that has won its conference more often then not in the past 5 years, has way more value to me then the ~$300 that I pay. That definitely reflected in my decision to go here, and I probably would have gone somewhere else otherwise. So we can claim at least ~$30k per year to my school for their athletic program.

Also, depending on what they include in the athletic program, it can be even more involved. Would you have gone to a school with no intramural programs? What about if they had no gym? Maybe a lot of people would have, but the majority would not.

<comment><USER12> If it made 5 million that year it is one of the few that made money. And besides, I doubt the school would have made money if only profitable teams were allowed to play in the division, so its still a net loss.

And that plane trip shouldn't be considered profit. The lack of a major sports team would have meant the lack of a free plane trip, but it would also have meant the lack of a need for a plane trip.

And I highly doubt your school's net profit is 30k per student per year.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, the plane trip wasn't meant as an example of where schools make extra money, just an example of how donors contribute that may or may not show up in the revenue. If they donated their private jet, they also donated a fair bit of cash, which I'm not sure if it shows up in revenue.

Also, the ~$5M profit wasn't meant to be presented as the standard, just to give context as to where my comment was coming from. It was meant as "I don't need to rationalize my school's waste of money, and I might be in a minority of schools that do make a profit". My school sinks a lot of money into a not very good (but getting better) basketball program, so it wouldn't surprise me if we were a net loss for athletics.

Profit per student is also a tricky thing. Most professors are a sunk cost (tenure), so while the profit per student is less then $30k per year, the marginal profit per student is ~$30k. But ignoring that, they have to be making at least some profit off of me and other students that would not have gone here if it weren't for the football program. It wouldn't be $30k per person, but it also wouldn't be 0.

My comment wasn't meant to disprove the statistic, as it wouldn't surprise me if a significant portion of schools lose on their athletic program, but to argue that it might be less then they asserted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a weekly football column, most of which is about the topic in question, when you get to the words "Brett Favre" you can stop reading. Do follow the links, though, the USA Today one is especially damning.

</comment><comment><USER13> So why are student clubs being giving an effectively unlimited budget out of proportion with the number of members?

At all the universities in my country, student clubs (whether they are about sport, non-sport competitive activities, interests and hobbies, or even 'drinking clubs') get paid by the student association (which has a finite budget to provide services to students) based on the number of students in the club. Student sports clubs are unlikely to be able to afford any full-time staff - but that isn't really necessary when there are plenty of club members willing to volunteer.

I have to wonder how any university could not have at least some limits on how much university money clubs could spend per member.

</comment><comment><USER14> There clearly seems to be an agenda with this post (and certainly in some of the comments). My question is, why would you make THIS your agenda?

Clearly there is a benefit to Universities having athletics. As other commenters have stated, this mostly shows itself in alumni donations, alumni engagement, and alumni pride.

Other reason probably have to do with the fact that when recruiting 18 year old kids to pursue a 4 year course of study it may be helpful to select individuals that have show the ability to focus on something to a level of success. It takes a lot of effort to be a collegiate level athlete in anything. My guess is that this generally and consistently translates to the ability to succeed in academics and life in general. When your 18 you may not have had a whole lot of chances to apply your self to anything. Just something gets you halfway there.

At least 6 US presidents have played athletics for a university.(random tidbit)

I didn't play. I received an academic scholarship for making an awesome grade on a standardized test that I paid a bunch of money to prep for. Yeah me. At the time I thought they gave it to me because I did awesome on the test. 15 years later I look back realize that it was the fact that I did the focused work to succeed that they were more interested in.

Beyond the actual contribution of athletics to the University ecosystem, why do we have to live in a world that is so small that we have to make a decision one way or another? Who peed in your cheerios? Who is hurt by college athletics? Certainly there are some issues around Football Concussions at the moment, but that is addressable outside of 'Lets get rid of sports because you don't have to study'.

</comment><comment><USER15> That's just appalling. In Europe, AFAIK there is usually no such thing as college/university sports--competition-wise, that is (aside of the known the Oxford/Cambridge rowing competition.)

I just recently discovered the following site, which just makes me sad: <http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/?name=papadimitriou>

Why are UC-Berkeley and UCLA head coaches earning more than 8 times as much as Christos Papadimitriou? Granted his salary is stellar by comparison, but there are a couple of other well-known UC professors who earn _much_ less. (Richard Karp [of Rabin-Karp fame and Turing-Award winner] gets 166k [14 times less than the UC-Berkeley head-coach].) In addition, the professors from the med- schools seem to do a lot better; even though they are quite out of proportion, at least they're saving lives.

Previously, I supposed these were profitable investments, but when one head coach salaries buys you 14 Dick Karps or 8 Christos Papadimitrious, I really think it doesn't make any sense at all...

<comment><USER16> In Europe, they do do it differently. Players turn professional at 16-18 depending on the sport and then ride the bench until their mid-20s unless they are truly prodigies. Pro teams are responsible for developing talent and have feeder clubs that field toddlers; they also support B/C/D/E-level leagues which play on town/village level.

What's happening in the US is that the educational system is subsidizing player development and regional promotion for the big pro leagues--which are such a big business it's not even funny.

<comment><USER17> "The High School Football Team" is an incredibly common movie and TV stereotype, that has no equivalent whatsoever over here, and until recently I never really thought about how completely different the situations are.

How did this happen? Why did junior sports become attached to high schools and colleges in the US when there's nothing like it in Europe?

<comment><USER18> In scotland rugby developed this way, so that now the "FP" (i.e. school) teams feature promininently in the top two tiers: GHA, Boroughmuir, Watsonians, Heriots, Dundee High, Edinburgh Academicals, Aberdeen Grammar, Stewart's Melville are all such teams.

School\Uni rugby (universities compete in a separate competition) is the closest equivalent we have, though it's utterly unable to compete in terms of attendance and money :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nearly all US universities lose money on education too. The average Ivy league school spends 3x more per student than it charges for tuition.

<comment><USER2> All the more reason why they shouldn't be losing money on sports as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Oklahoma pays it's own way. In fact, it gives nearly $1 MM to the general scholarship fund annually.

Of course, the only citation I can offer is being a former student athlete, and having my support staff, coaches, and university executives repeat the statistic on the record like, well, a broken record. I haven't seen the line items though myself -- I wasn't on the student liaison committee.

<comment><USER5> Heresay is what that is called. You ought find a better source and stop repeating heresay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Colleges are only partially there for academics. All in all they exist to prepare you for "the real world" and to be a productive part of society. Certainly you can go to college and not socialize and not watch/play any sports and focus only on preparing for your career in academia. That's a choice. However, most people gain a lot more out of their college experience outside of the classroom. I was a student-athlete in the ACC and I certainly gained a lot more preparation for life after school from my experience as an athlete than as a student. To say sports aren't important in college is simply naive. As a matter of fact, to the poster that said "that doesn't mean kegs are good for education" I'll play devil's advocate and say that there is a ton of education that comes out of socializing and partying. It helps you become a lot more comfortable in social settings. In turn this helps you in other facets of your future career.

tldr; IMO, out-of-class activities during college are just as important if not more important than the in class education.

</comment><comment><USER22> look guys, when nearly every single player in a mature market is doing the same thing, its a good bet that what they're doing is good for business. instead of screaming about it, maybe we should try to understand.

<comment><USER23> public schools do not exist in a market. what private schools do is their business, the issue here is that they are spending your money on what amounts to a hole in the ground benefits wise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What about merchandise sales? I doubt those directly show up on the athletic department balance sheets, but every time a Alabama hoodie is sold, that is almost entirely because of athletics. I strongly doubt that in reality most of these departments are operating in anything resembling the red.

</comment><comment><USER25> I see no numbers for individual sports. Athletic departments losing money does not mean that the football team is losing money.

</comment><comment><USER26> My college quiz bowl team did not make my university any money, and I am not more educated because I participated in it.

Maybe there are better places to re-fight high school nerds v jocks battles than HN?

</comment><comment><USER27> It's advertising. I bet most University research programmes don't make money either. But they do move undergrad degrees, and endowments. Harvard does not have a rowing team for the benefit of the Winkelvoss twins, it has a rowing team because that is the kind of thing that their parents and other alumni expect.

</comment><comment><USER28> Of course this would be on HN.</comment>


Ask HN: What's up with these flexport ads and can anyone else make them? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> HN is owned by YCombinator, so YC startups get the privileges of putting up ads and creating Launch HNs. Edit: More information can be found here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)</comment>


Ask HN: Majority of Bitcoin mining can give you control over the block chain - <AUTHOR> Is is true that if a agent controls majority of the miners on the bitcoin network he/she can control the blockchain? <comment><USER2> [https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack](https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack)

<comment><USER2> Here's a list of other attacks:

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes</comment>


Scala 2.12 Roadmap - <AUTHOR> http://scala-lang.org/news/2.12-roadmap <comment><USER2> Honest question: with tooling (IDE) and build tools (SBT) to my understanding remaining as-is despite of developer feedback, and Java 8 presenting itself as a nice comeback (in my opinion) - is Scala adoption for big companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter) still going up as it were in the high times of it?

<comment><USER3> (Scala tech lead here). We're doing everything within our means to improve tooling -- we agree it's crucial. Which changes would you like to see that aren't happening?

One engineer on the Scala team (Grzegorz Kossakowski) spent all of last year on a much better algorithm for incremental compilation (name hashing), sbt 0.13 was a giant leap in usability IMO, and both IDE plugins have made enormous progress over the last years (again, IMO).

<comment><USER4> I'm just starting with Scala and I find the IntelliJ Scala plugin immensely non-intuitive (and I'm a big JetBrains fan normally).

Why do I have three different, apparently non-equivalent ways to create a new project (Java->Scala, SBT, Scala Module)?

The tooling and documentation seems to assume familiarity with the Java ecosystem. I'm not a Java developer (nor do I want to be), I'm a Python guy. Am I really expected to learn Java first just so I can learn Scala?

<comment><USER5> My advice would be to just drop the IDE and go for editor+compiler. IDEs are always confusing.

<comment><USER6> I always wondered how that worked with scala. Giving how complex some libraries could be with use of implicits and not explicitly defining the return time I always thought it would be a bit troublesome to try to program without any use of intellisense. Then again I guess the same would apply to dynamic languages such as javascript and python so maybe my concerns are not really concerns.

<comment><USER7> As a counterpoint to this popular meme: Most developers I know are VIM converts (from TextMate).

I've never seen their choice of editor improve their coding speed. Haven't seen it on videos online. The idea that being fluent in VIM makes you an all around faster/better coder and the IDE is a crutch just isn't supported by evidence IME.

I use IntelliJ. The startup is a bit slower. And the minute or so pause if I change up dependencies can be annoying (though that's rare). On the other hand I always have method signatures at my fingertips, depend a lot less on the web version (of the same documentation), can jump into compiled libraries for exploring interfaces, and instead of a fuzzy "ack-like" symbol search, I have true jump-to-definition/open-class, etc. I have access to the FSC which provides continuous feedback as well. Ensime is a pale shadow of IntelliJ IME.

Maybe those things aren't important to some people. I find it makes me very productive though, and I haven't met a VIM user who can outpace me yet (though I did see some true VS.NET/RAD-tooling masters back in the day that could put me to shame).

All this just to say: Use what works for you. If that's IntelliJ, cool. If it's VIM, great. But there's a lot of anti-IDE sentiment out there. It's just another tool. Use it if it makes sense. Judge it on it's own merits. You are not less (or more) of a coder for using IntelliJ.

As long as you stay away from Eclipse at least. I think we can all agree on that. ;-) (Seriously Eclipse... It's 2014, and you still can't easily theme your IDE with a couple clicks?)

<comment><USER5> Well, I haven't tried Intellij, but in my experience the best coding environment is: 1\. Visual Studio 2\. gEdit

Visual Studio has incredibly good fuzzy code completion and gEdit has a total lack of features to be confused by and good font rendering. I just look at all the menus and buttons in Eclipse and I can't stand it. All this stuff can't possibly be necessary.

Since VS is not available for neither Scala nor Linux I'm left with gEdit.

<comment><USER7> IntelliJ keeps most of it's buttons hidden (in v13 at least). Might be worth a shot. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fuzzy code completion", but IntelliJ supports case-insensitive-in-order-partial-symbol matching.

For example, "jsfmt" with match "jsonFormat", and display the matches as I type so I can arrow-down and hit ENTER if I see what I want (or just keep typing until the list filters down to the one I want).

Implicit invocations get underlined by default as well. Which is nice since I'm rarely at loss for understanding what the compiler is doing to make this code work.

<comment><USER5> With fuzzy I mean that I can search for "tunnel" and get "channel". It does sound fuzzy, unless it's hardcoded. Code completion in Eclipse isn't fuzzy, so "temrinal" doesn't get you "terminal". In Eclipse it's basically just a regex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As others are going to say, I wish they spent some of the time optimizing the compile times, yes you can fix it with multi-projects and the incremental compiler but sometimes that doesn't work to well especially when you start to throw in advance scala features like macros. But maybe they are hoping the new backend helps, from the docs it looks like it may in some cases.

<comment><USER3> First off, macros are not just an advanced feature. They are experimental. Investments in tooling will always focus on official features first (not to say we ignore macros, but we have to prioritize).

We spend a lot of time optimizing the compiler. Several big users have reported nice speed ups on 2.11. I won't quote numbers (too hard to benchmark accurately), but encourage you to give it a go. The upgrade is easy.

Also, it's just generally a good idea to design your software so that it can be compiled incrementally in smaller modules.

<comment><USER6> With 2.11 I have noticed the same speed up so thank you for all the current optimizations that have been happening.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, happy to hear it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The requirement of Java 8 slightly shocked me at first, but then I saw that Scala 2.12 isn't expected before 2016, so now I guess it's right.

</comment><comment><USER9> I would be more excited to use Scala if the compile times didn't suck so much. Even on a tiny project, it just feels like it takes too long to do anything.

I guess I'm too used to Ruby and PHP where I save and things happen right away. My test suite runs in less than a second. Stuff like that.

Instead, everything takes 5-10 sec and that just breaks my flow constantly. I used Golang and while I don't love the language I love the compiler a lot. It's really fast and nice and feels like a dynamic language.

Anyhow, Scala compiler has been slow forever and probably will be slow forever. Oh well.

<comment><USER3> This is where IDEs and sbt's ~compile come in handy. I don't hit build very often, since the IDE tells me about my mistakes interactively, and, once it's happy, a build makes for a great micro-break :-)

<comment><USER10> One of the things I was hoping for in improved scala tooling was better IDE agnostic solutions for developers.

For instance, I much prefer to use vim than an IDE, but due to the near requirement to have syntax checking in the editor to avoid long compile cycles I always end up giving up and using an IDE. That a common response to slow tooling complaints is that an IDE hides these issues is an indictment of the scala tool chain.

<comment><USER11> SBTs upcoming client server split[1] should make such tooling IDE agnostic.

[1] [https://github.com/sbt/sbt/wiki/Client-server- split](https://github.com/sbt/sbt/wiki/Client-server-split)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > We can't have one Scala binary version target two different Java versions > without further artifactId name mangling.

Yes you can. The classifier is made for this and the POM reference even uses this as an example.

> Even if maven did have support for specifying the required Java version,

It does. You can for example use different profiles that are activated by the JDK version. Again the POM reference covers this.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why not call it Scala 3, since it's a rather big change?

<comment><USER14> Scala 3 will be a bigger undertaking, likely to have a major amount of breaking of core language contructs and other fundamental changes. Experimentation is already underway: it's called the Dotty compiler [1].

[1]: [https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty](https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty)

<comment><USER3> The changes as seen from the outside will be much more conservative than that. We're not ready to comment on specifics yet, but the main focus is to remove warts (deprecating them in 2.12/2.13 first where possible), make the type system and (thus) type inference more regular, and make safari^W scalac snappier.

The compiler internals and language concepts are being simplified substantially (we've learned a lot of interesting lessons in compiler engineering in the last decade, some of which require bigger changes).

<comment><USER5> Looking forward to it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How will the requirement for Java 8 affect the ability to write Android apps in Scala 2.12?

<comment><USER16> It will likely be necessary to use existing third-party tools to translate newer bytecode back to a version which Android understand.

(Although I certainly hope that Google finally just deals with it and supports those class files by default in his dex/art software.)

<comment><USER17> They were pretty clear on the Android Google IO fireside talk that Java is Android's official language.

However they refrained to make any comment about Java 8 support when asked about it.

They went cheapskates by not wanting to pay Sun, it is about time they settle their issues with Oracle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to see the Scala version numbers be based on Java versions.</comment>


Firejail now supports X11 sandboxing - <AUTHOR> https://firejail.wordpress.com/documentation-2/x11-guide/ <comment><USER2> Reminder that this breaks basic features like copy/paste, drag-and-drop, and a lot of applications that spawn helper applications and expect them to be on the same display.

There is a reason that the general Linux desktop camp is _not_ adopting solutions like this and instead preferring Wayland, and that's that these systems can never be production ready and support the featureset that traditional X11 can support.

Also, I tested my keylogger [0] on this setup, and it still got through. Oops. They're proxying through XRecord and XTest it seems.

[https://github.com/magcius/keylog](https://github.com/magcius/keylog)

<comment><USER3> That's probably worth an issue?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is sorely needed as part of mainstream desktops due to the extended power of APIs available to web pages like file access for instance.

<comment><USER5> Aren't those already sandboxed browser-local filesystems?

<comment><USER6> The browser can still access your disk though, so any vulnerability in your browser means arbitrary access. An example from last year [https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox- exploit...](https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox-exploit- found-in-the-wild/). That's the reason that I decided to use firejail myself.

<comment><USER5> Okay. So it's a protection against browser exploits, not overreaching web APIs.

<comment><USER7> Good security has layers. That way if one falls through, hopefully the next layer will catch it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Could similar results be achieved with (x)wayland by spawning a separate X server for each application? IIUC xwayland spawns an X server on demand, but just one (so X applications can spy on each-other while wayland apps cannot, and X cannot spy on wayland apps).</comment>


What they claim about NetNeutrality is a lie - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/09/what-they-claim-about-netneutrality-is.html

<comment><USER2> _Instead, I'm trying to prove that the activists protesting today are liars._

Hmmm, not convinced. Why couldn't they just be mistaken?

 _Proponents claim that CDNs aren't the fast lanes they are talking about, but that too is a lie._

"Fast lane" isn't really a technical term, so maybe this disagreement is based partly on misunderstanding? Has anyone ever complained about the idea of CDNs? If I'm unhappy with a particular CDN, can't I just hire another? That puts them in a different category than local broadband service, which is what I thought we were considering. If Graham insists that CDNs are "fast lanes", then we'll just have to be more specific in our complaints.

I would complain _specifically_ about _monopolistic_ (i.e. local) service providers charging me more for the transmission of one particular arrangement of bytes than for some other arrangement of the same number of bytes, _ceteris paribus_. The byte-arrangement preference is actually only a problem because I can't choose from a wide selection of different providers and plans. If the FCC would stop dragging its feet on white spaces so that WISPs could flourish, and if corrupt state legislatures would stop creating barriers to entry to this market, I'd be much less concerned about "net neutrality". I'm not lying!

However, I'm also not a fool, and I've observed this market for 15 years, so I don't expect the FCC to ever _really_ disobey their masters at the Daughters Bell and the cablecos if they can at all avoid it. That's why I don't mind falling in with the "left-wingers" that Graham so mistrusts. Sure, they're mistaken that a federal regulatory agency would ever consider consumers' interests without the threat of Congressional action. However, I'm a consumer, and Congressional action is exactly what I seek! If there were a strong political coalition dedicated to reducing regulatory barriers to entering this market, I'd support that too.

 _The left-wingers may be right, and maybe the government does indeed need to step in and regulate the Internet like a utility. But, we should wait for problems that arise and fix them..._

Graham writes as if all problems with this market are "potential". I guess he's happy that we pay more than consumers in other nations, for worse service. I'm not happy about that, so I'm not convinced by this sort of capitalist-ideology-motivated concern-trolling.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well that was a horribly inaccurate glimpse into a future I don't want.</comment>


Exim4 in Debian/Ubuntu: Fix for a remotely exploitable heap overflow - <AUTHOR> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.security.announce/2697

<comment><AUTHOR> And here is the individual advisory for Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-1618-1/> . Debian's advisory (DSA-2566-1) has not propagated to <http://security.debian.org/> yet.</comment>


Ask HN: Best todo list? - <AUTHOR>

What do you use for a todo list software / service? Not project management, just a todo list, but one that is full-featured. Specifically I want something that can:
1. Create hierarchical lists, so tasks with sub and subsub tasks.
2. Overlapping tags / categories for tasks.
3. Triggers for activating tasks. Simplest would be time-based. So a task would only show up on the todo list at a certain date, and perhaps only stay there for a date range. I also need tasks that are triggered based on other tasks. So task B only becomes active (i.e. shows up on the todo list) when task A is completed. Composite trigger rules with multiple conditions would be ideal.
4. A way to view only a subset of tasks, perhaps randomly chosen. So something like "task of the day", which would be randomly picked from a pool of tasks. Ideally one can have multiple pools, etc.
Anything like this exists? Anyone care to make it? ;-) <comment><USER2> <http://workflowy.com> allows you to #tag items and create hierarchical lists. I like it and use it, but not as much as org-mode.

</comment><comment><USER3> org-mode for emacs is the most useful piece of software I've ever installed.

It can do everything you mentioned and far more. Number 4 might take a little hacking but shouldn't be a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER4> Task Warrior was mentioned <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2596158> a while back on HN.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd like a Got Done List. Like a just a list of things I can say I accomplished in the day, rather than items I've checked off.

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://www.lazymeter.com> ..sort of does what you want

</comment><comment><USER7> I have had used so many to-do apps, but at the end I always come back to .txt.

</comment><comment><USER8> ToodleDo.com

Tasks + Subtaks Tagging, Category, etc... Repeating Feature

</comment><comment> saiko-chriskun hm I actually like the idea of tasks triggering other tasks. I just might have to make a small webapp for this :D

</comment><comment><USER9> i use wunderlist which can be found in the mac app store

</comment><comment><USER10> <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=todo+list>

<comment><AUTHOR> I have specific requirements, particularly numbers 3 and 4. AFAIK none of the ones that show up on google can do those, in particular 3.</comment></comment>


California surpasses France as world's 6th largest economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/17/california-surpasses-france-as-worlds-6th-largest-economy.html <comment><USER2> California was the 5th largest economy at one point in the 90's and early 2000's.

</comment><comment><USER3> Better wines too [1] but that doesn't concern me. I was born in California and have decided that if Republicans end up destroying the Federal government, then I'd be fine with California, Oregon and Washington forming a new country called Cascadia. By the way, Cascadia would have the 2 or 3rd most powerful military in the world.

[1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5013910.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5013910.stm)

</comment><comment><USER4> The article is rather light on proofs and numbers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Where is Europe's Silicon Valley?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash There is only one Silicon Valley: the one in California. Nowhere else in the United States - or the world - has quite the unique mix of red-blooded capitalism, concentrated wealth, and a culture of innovation.

"Silicon Alley" (New York), "silicon roundabout" (London), and so on are simply natural, technologically focused extensions of the existing economies in those areas.

If you want to create a Silicon Valley in Europe, it will take decades until it can compare to Northern California.

<comment><USER6> > Nowhere else in the United States - or the world - has quite the unique mix > of red-blooded capitalism, concentrated wealth, and a culture of innovation.

Now that you put it into a sentence, I find it less surprising that Switzerland is starting to brand itself as "Europe's Silicon Valley".

<comment><USER7> Until the 2014 referendum that might have happened but as it is it's off the table.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Are the middle eastern migrants an economic liability for France? Wasn't Europe sold on the notion that a population influx would help the economy?

<comment><USER9> Many people aren't sold on that notion. I can't see how bring people from vastly different cultural backgrounds, many of whom won't speak the language are going to benefit the economy.

<comment><USER10> Are you familiar with a country called the United States? I hear they've done pretty well with immigrants from vastly different cultural backgrounds, many of whom don't speak the language.

<comment><USER11> Also heard about US/Mexico borders, green card quotas, h-b1, etc. You practice immigration quotas (which may be smart), we do not. I would be interested to see the outcome of a massive muslim immigration in the US.

<comment><USER12> Look up Dearborn Michigan

<comment><USER11> "As of the 2010 census the population of Dearborn was 98,153. The racial and ethnic composition was 89.1% Whites, 4.0% black or African-American, 0.2% Native American, 1.7% Asian, 0.2% Non-Hispanics of some other race, 4.0% reporting two or more races and 3.4% Hispanic or Latino.[14] 41.7% were of Arab ancestry (categorized as "White" in Census collection data)."

Sorry, 50k is not massive, let's talk about a couple of millions.

<comment><USER13> The Muslim influx was a result of colonial France. Britain has a sizeable Muslim population which is doing relatively well. The problem was discrimation and non-integration. Muslims (of North Africa) are unfortunately INA similar position as blacks in the USA.

The only common factor being their economic status.

But the Arab French have integrated culturally and are highly successful artists, athletes, businessmen, etc. Its only a matter of time before they deliver on the promise of immigration.

P.S. I'm a Muslim of South Asian origin born in Saudi Arabia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Actually it shows how unequal the US states are in terms of economic power, the average US state is on number 31, California on number 5.

Which begs the question, which is the worst doing state in the Union?

(Answer: it is Vermont)

<comment><USER15> > Which begs the question

No, it doesn't - [http://begthequestion.info](http://begthequestion.info)

<comment><USER16> Being a non native in English I'm really grateful for this comment. I've never really understood this BTQ expression.

<comment><USER17> 99% of English speakers do not understand it either, and misuse it constantly.

<comment><USER18> Maybe they use their own language perfectly fine and it's the meaning of the idiom that has changed?

<comment><USER17> Language can both be wrong to its original meaning and also accepted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Imagine the response were some terrible person to edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\))

</comment><comment><USER20> Fifth largest, sixth largest, eighth largest -- it kind of does not matter. A single US state has a larger economy than the vast majority of nations. It's pretty impressive, but it isn't really news. This has been true for a long time. I have seen it said that "California is the American dream squared" or something like that.

<comment><USER21> It's code for California is doing well, there was a time under Gray Davis when it was falling down the rankings.

<comment><USER20> Still, it seems thin for HN. Even given that many people here live in California and HN is headquartered in California, it doesn't seem like something interesting, discussion worthy and meriting hitting the front page.

I mean, I like this little tidbit about California and have for years. But this isn't particularly substantive.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, its definitely Buzzfeed click bait, but there are other interesting indicators of California's growth. For example, California surpassed a number of states in average GDP per capita in the last few years. For example, in 2009 Illinois was ahead of California.

<comment><USER20> And, yet, here we are, discussing the clickbait -- me included.

(I mean, instead of something meatier.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I have physically traveled in time - <AUTHOR> http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Wash-attorney-I-have-physically-traveled-in-time-171952681.html

<comment><USER2> A quote: "It was hard for KOMO News to confirm any of Basiago's claims."

The burden of evidence isn't on KOMO to confirm or refute this tall tale. The burden is entirely on the story's originator, and as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the standard rules of scientific evidence, the burden of proof is on the claimant, no one else. And no one should be encouraging this person in his fantasies unless and until he can offer evidence.</comment>


Ask HN: Web designers: do you consider Adobe CS5 necessary? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a web dev/designer, currently using Photoshop CS3. I don't know CS5, so not sure what I'm missing - would upgrading to CS5 noticeably improve my work or workflow (assuming I learn how to use it)?<p>Do the top web designers consider CS5 necessary? If you mock up sites in CSS instead of Photoshop, do you use CS5 for other important things, or are other programs (or older versions of Photoshop) just as good? <comment><USER2> People on HN/Reddit are pretty biased when it comes to CSS knowledge almost to the point where I really wonder if they've ever worked at a place outside of a startup or a tiny company. If you work at an creative digital agency, chances are the division of labour will mean you won't ever have to touch a line of code. It just makes more sense to divvy up the responsibilities. Plus, during client presentations, most of the designs are mocked up as flats instead of live code.

I'm currently using CS5, but it's largely because of some of the small addition features with smart objects, workflow, and layer styles that annoyed me with CS3. It's one of those things where you have to work with a program for a long time before you notice these small upgrades that really help the day-to-day. I think you're fine with CS3.

The idea that GIMP is more than useful is... debatable. I would say that every notable designer I know in NYC/SF uses Photoshop. Like it or not, it is the industry standard. And while I do sometimes have a love-hate relationship with the program (specifically because I want more stability instead of new features), GIMP is still far behind with regards to it's intuitiveness and penetration.

Now that I've migrated to a startup, I use Photoshop for quick initial concepts before coding scss. Photoshop is pretty solid for making elements or re-using templated elements made from other designers and photo-editing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for your input. I'm glad to hear that it's the industry standard. I think I'd rather swallow a high price point (either now or eventually) and learn the right way to do things, than there not be an industry standard.

I'll probably always be coding anyway since I work as a freelancer - I like coding anyway. I just want to learn best practices and do things the right way. I've at least learned by now that it's worth it to stop cutting corners. (:

I have to admit part of the reason I want CS5 is for the ability to edit RAW images (amateur photography), so I things like content-aware fill and better selection tools are looking pretty sweet... not sure if that's enough to convince me or not.

Speaking of scss - are you on a Mac? I'm thrilled with CSSedit as part of my workflow - I'd seriously miss the live view. But, it appears to not be compatible with scss..

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'd say for a web designer's needs, GIMP should certainly prove more than useful. These days, a designer should know how to mock up sites using CSS3, like you mentioned.

Another advantage of using live mockups is that you suddenly become an animation designer (if any is used on the site). When done well, this could be a very useful skill to have in terms of UX.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, okay - can you explain what you mean by animation designer (maybe with a link)?

<comment><USER3> I don't have a link, but I'm referring to a designer who also has a sense for discreet but pleasing transition animations. I'm talking about the people who designed the G+ circles animations. To me, that's separate from designing or mocking up a site in Photoshop, as there's no easy way to represent such animations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Photoshop is necessary, but in my experience CS3 is usually adequate. CS5 only becomes necessary due to lock-in.

I use GIMP whenever possible. That's maybe 50%. The UI is maddening, but this is a big step in the right direction:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890397>

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, what do you mean by lock-in?

I've tried GIMP, but the maddening UI you mentioned just isn't worth the frustration to me..

<comment><USER4> It's not possible to read a CS5 PSD with CS3. If you don't follow Adobe's upgrade path you're out of business (which means a great opportunity for GIMP).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in></comment></comment></comment>


Common Database Design Mistakes - <AUTHOR> http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/database-administration/ten-common-database-design-mistakes/

<comment><USER2> This is sage advice - but you just shouldn't have to do all that crud.

It assumes that the structure of your data is knowable upfront - but most businesses just discover this as they go along.

So the first quote is brilliant - you have to know where your going. Well even if you know where your going as a business, do you know exactly how you'll get there, will you know precisely what your data will look like?

Should it be static? I think not. We've been doing data for 30 years in basically the same way. We have good stable fast cheap open databases like postgreSQL, but they dont solve the problem. Its just too damn expensive to _change_ the structure of your data, and move your data along at the same time.

BizGeek - "Um. I thought before that there was always just one boss for any given salesperson, but now we need to change that.."

DataGeek "uhuh, yeah it would have been nice to know that upfront, ahh its gonna impact the schema and um, the code.. thats kind of nontrivial."

For a long time I could not understand why people put their valuable data into spreadsheets..losing all the important inter-relationships in the process. But its the right decision, because once they move it into a DB.. they will never ever get to change it!

There just has to be a better way.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article made me wince. It describes a style of programming which has been common among corporate Oracle and Microsoft developers for years but seems very inefficient and outdated now. Writing a set of stored procedures in the database to call for each query you intend running has always seemed absurd to me but if you're using an ORM framework like Rails or Catalyst or whatever it's not even an option. I wonder if the author of this has even heard of things like replication, sharding, memcached or CouchDB or BigTable... Perhaps it would have been better titled "Ten Characteristics of a Very Conventional Corporate Approach to Database Design."</comment>


Obama Campaign trying to built unsolicited GOP voter mailing list - <AUTHOR> http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/12/14/obama-campaign-collecting-republican-emails/

<comment><USER2> I'm not 100% sure of the fine details of the CAN-SPAM act but this sounds like a highly questionably way to build an email distribution list.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm interested to hear the responses on this. If it were a republican doing this, they would be crucified by the online tech community.</comment>


Visual Unit Tests with Cypress - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/razroo/visual-unit-tests-with-cypress-6f310095e10b <comment><USER2> _While unit tests may do very well in determining if an input produces an expected output, it only captures moment in time rather than a complete flow of actual events._

This shows author doesn't understand the difference between unit tests and functional (aka integration) tests. The _entire point_ of a unit test is that it tests an isolated unit of code rather than a larger series of parts. That's so you can isolate a problem. Functional tests are just as important, but that doesn't invalidate the need for unit tests.

Also, "visual unit test" makes no sense.</comment>