Offer HN: iOS prototype, before Christmas $999 - <AUTHOR>

I'm a full time iOS freelance developer for the last 4 years, based in the UK.
I've ended up with the next week available (client can't provide assets until the new year). At the same time I'd like to purchase a little gift for myself but can't justify dipping in to savings for it.
Since its Christmas I'm offering 4 or 5 full days iOS development to get your app prototyped, or even completed depending on complexity, for only $999 (or $1000 - it is the holidays after all).
Anything goes, any idea, preferably simple so we can concentrate on getting the basic prototype slick and smooth. My strengths are in consuming web services, IAP, UIKit, Games built with UIKit, etc. Happy to delve in to other areas but my real strength is in the core of iOS dev rather than audio/video/3D games.
I'm comfortable taking care of design/layout providing you have some rough ideas. I usually take on the role of design and suggesting what would work for my clients, although I'm not a designer by trade. Existing branding, or examples of what needs to be achieved is required to start this.
Some ideas: A client for your startup, or portion of.
Mashup of some APIs you find interesting.
A small utility to make your life easier.
Something fun, small game or something entertaining that you'd like to release in the App Store.
Further development past this week would be charged at normal rates ($100/hr). On the off chance that its something I find interesting we could even discuss further development at reduced costs (if there's little left to do).
You can get in touch with me at Lewis.Sharder at gmail <comment><AUTHOR> 1) If it's got some up votes then someone has found it vaguely interesting. (Believe me or not but I haven't up voted it myself)

2) I've used my brother-in-laws name as I would prefer to keep this away from my name

3) If anyone is seriously interested I'd be happy to provide a portfolio etc

4) I've been a regular on HN for about 3 years

</comment><comment><USER2> This is just spam, right? Why does it have three upvotes?

Here's a guy who (a) just created an account a few days ago, (b) doesn't appear to exist in real life (<https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+sharder>), and has no history here.</comment>


Online CSS grid generator - <AUTHOR> http://kematzy.com/blueprint-generator/

<comment><USER2> I remember when I first did some web programming, way back in 1996, people were already warning against pixel-based code. Seriously, what happened? Did people decide it's just too difficult to do percentage-based layouts?

<comment><USER3> No, w3c just redefined "px" in CSS to be a relative measurement, not necessarily corresponding an actual screen pixel. Problem solved!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> here's yahoo's version for yui: <http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/grids/builder/></comment>


How to Ship a Mobile App - <AUTHOR> https://www.runway.team/blog/how-to-ship-a-mobile-app <comment><USER2> The whole app release process is a total mess. Having to hop between Asana/Trello, Teams/Slack, Android Studio, Bitrise/App Center, Firebase and the app stores multiple times is a real pain. It'd be nice if there's a glue to link all these systems together -- if Runway can do it without needing a lot of setup code/config, even better

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> My team and I have been doing some thinking on the mobile app release process. It's such a necessary part of the overall mobile development lifecycle, but it often seems overlooked: having been through hundreds of mobile releases ourselves, we realized we had never paused to think about what the end-to-end process actually entails.

So, we tried to capture it all in writing. It's a high-level piece aimed at the entire cross-disciplinary mobile team (not just engineers!) and other stakeholders.

We'd love to hear your thoughts! Does anything stand out to you? Have we forgotten or overemphasized any steps in the process? How does your team ship apps?</comment>


Ask HN: What are tech fields that physicians can get involved in? - <AUTHOR> I'm a medical student and one of my career goals is to figure out how to combine my interest in technology/medicine. Thus far I've done so in research but I'm looking for other areas to explore. Does anyone have any experience in this? <comment><USER2> From someone who has built sensor/tech-enabled digital health products in a variety of settings (PT/OT, sports med, neurosurgery) I think the most helpful thing for joining (or building your own) product teams is: 1) using your leverage/support staff as an MD to speed up IRB/patient testing - can be super difficult for independent teams to get access to patients even for the most basic user testing/info 2) help understand the economics of a new medical idea. Dive deep into what the current billing codes are, how they're used, and how they can be leveraged to build economic space for novel tech. As an MD you have access/influence to a lot of billing info that's closely held otherwise

<comment><AUTHOR> #2 is pretty interesting. As a medical student, I haven't had much exposure to billing codes but that will soon change. I'll keep your idea in mind while I'm learning. Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would say in all the companies I worked in the medical field (mostly devices not pharma) I have seen a few ways in which MDs have collaborated:

\- KOLs in that specific medical field are invited to be board members mainly working to steer the product towards market fit. And provide insight into what will work or not in 'the real-world'.

\- MD's working as Clinical Advisors in 'research boards' they would come in every 2 weeks and join R&D/Product brainstorming sessions or demo days and provide feedback, suggestions, insights.

\- MDs actively working as clinical researchers designing and coordinating clinical trials

\- (less common) But a few people in my professional network are full time C level execs that have a Medical background (CTO/COO/CEOs) but they are all in more bio-tec/materials fields and most actually started the companies they are in.

The takeaway is tech companies usually struggle with access to clinical research, and have knowledge gaps about hospital workflow, procedures, surgical sub-steps etc. In both of those areas clinical staff is always needed.

I think another big part of the answer is that it will depend a lot on what medical specialty you choose in your medical career. Some fields are much more active then others in terms medical tech. (Cardio, Neuro, Pneumo, ENT, Sleep, Ortho, Endocrin) Hope it helps.

</comment><comment><USER4> Drug development is the second biggest sector receiving VC funding after software. Most biopharma startups are founded by PhDs and MDs

If you're interested I'm running a program called Biotech Startup School on how to start biotech companies: [https://www.baybridgebio.com/biotech-startup- school.html](https://www.baybridgebio.com/biotech-startup-school.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Anything biomedical related, we have a bunch of clinical collaborators at the research institute I work at, plenty of tech that needs clinical expertise.

</comment><comment><USER6> I work in digital mental health at the Division of Digital Psychiatry; perhaps some of our projects can serve as inspiration ([https://digitalpsych.org/](https://digitalpsych.org/)).

</comment><comment><USER7> NLP, Information Retrieval, and Data Discovery focused on empowering patients. My family has been writing clinical trial search and visualization tools to help inform kin in need

</comment><comment><USER8> I moderate a small, low traffic Google Group called Health Techies. You are welcome to join it if you wish.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! I sent an invite.

<comment><USER8> I am running into a weird glitch. I have an email indicating a join request, but you don't show under "pending members." However, trying to direct add you gets me a message stating you are already a pending member.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><AUTHOR> Weird! Thanks for trying. I'll see if I can re-join on my end.

<comment><USER8> You've probably been added now, as of some time in the past couple of days or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Drug development, medical devices.</comment>


Tim Hortons agrees to Burger King offer for $94 a share - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tim-hortons-agrees-to-burger-king-offer-for-94-a-share-1.2746948 <comment><USER2> Tim Hortons has been owned by a large U.S. chain before. It was spun off from Wendy's in 2006 and became a publicly listed company that is now widely held by Canadian financial institutions, without one controlling shareholder (Quoting from The Star).

Reproducing relevant parts from an recent article from The Economist:

America's corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes.

The second flaw is that America levies tax on a company's income no matter where in the world it is earned. In contrast, every other large rich country taxes only income earned within its borders. Here, too, America's system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money. Firms do not have to pay tax on foreign profits until they bring them back home. Not surprisingly, many do not: American multinationals have some $2 trillion sitting on their foreign units' balance-sheets, and growing.

The real solution is to lower the corporate rate, eliminate tax breaks and move America from a worldwide system to a territorial one.

<comment><USER3> I've never heard anyone say that American corporations pay too much taxes before. That's a first. It's always that they're getting away with paying not enough.

<comment><USER4> Strictly speaking, that's partly what he said (IE. The tax rate is much higher, however loopholes means they end-up with much less tax in the end). Lowering the tax rate could still result in companies overall paying more tax if tax breaks are removed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The real story here is in the nature of the acquisition, a so-called "inversion" that will create a combined Canadian, rather than American, company, which is likely to substantially reduce Burger King's corporate tax liability.

<comment><USER6> So? -- Seems like a smart business move, if that is really the case.

I'm getting tired of people trying to name-n-shame companies that are leaving the US in favor of substantially better tax laws.

Instead of groaning and trying to patronize these companies with some sort of nationalist pride, how about we do something about the damn tax laws that are making companies _want_ to leave in the first place.

<comment><USER7> Sure, because a race to the bottom (the best tax rate from a companys perspective? 0%) is exactly what the world needs. I've never understood why companies should only be liable to taxes in the country they are incorporated in. You do business here? Then you pay tax here.

Should be easy to fix. Somehow it isn't.

<comment><USER4> While I agree with you, on the flip side the alternative is that they don't sell their goods here, and people wouldn't be very happy about that. You have to draw a line somewhere to decide what's a reasonable price/tax/etc. for everybody, but it's not really an easy thing to do.

<comment><USER8> > _" the flip side the alternative is that they don't sell their goods here"_

That's a silly concern. Businesses do not forgo profit simply because they'd prefer if there were _more_. They _always_ prefer if there were more. And yet they still seek the profit that's available. So long as cost/benefit suggests the US is a profitable market, they will continue to sell their goods here.

The only "risk" of corporations "taking their ball and going home", is if the United States pursued a transparently self-destructive tax rate on foreign- based corporations. Which there is absolutely no reason to expect would even enter rational conversation.

Imagine a husband and wife are talking about what car they should buy next and they disagree on the budget. The analogous case to a tax rate so high corporations leave the US market, is the husband deciding to burn the house down so that there's no garage and no money at all.

While that's certainly a _possible_ alternative to negotiating their differences, discussing that alternative is, at best, silly. And attempting to ascribe serious weight to the possibility is downright intellectually dishonest.

<comment><USER4> I have to disagree. They will go other places if those places aren't going to tax them as much and they expect a similar return. Obviously with Burger King, they're basically everywhere already so it doesn't matter as much, but if the profit margin in the US is smaller then other countries because of tax they'll consider putting stores somewhere else if it's more profitable.

That said, IMO the concern with them selling their goods somewhere else isn't that we won't be able to eat their burgers, but that they employ tons of people at their stores. People are going to be pissed if Burger King decides they're going to close down their slower stores in the US and open some new stores elsewhere that doesn't have tax because they'll end-up making more.

I agree in that we _could_ put a tax in place without anything imploding, they aren't just going to run away obviously. The question is more can we implement a tax which would be worth the money we'd make off of it without it resulting in Burger King closing places around the country because they're not profitable anymore.

<comment><USER8> Both the possibility that corporations may not come to the US market, or may only come to the US market after having expanded into other, more-profitable markets require an assumption that the US would (substantially) _raise_ taxes above the current level.

We're hypothetically setting out to close a loophole that results in two distinct effective rates, a lower rate A for foreign corporations and a higher rate B for US-based corporations.

So, again, why should we spend any time worrying about what might happen if we were to introduce an _even higher_ rate C? No-one's talking about that. It's not on the table. It's not remotely politically plausible. It's not even a thing anyone's seriously proposed.

Talking about it is either entirely besides the point, or a motivated attempt to conflate closing the loophole with raising rates to C, to scare people away from trying to close the loophole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The growth potential for Tim Hortons seems limited in my opinion -- it will continue to fill each corner of Canada, but we already know that and this is priced into its existing valuation. It dominantes Canada but that is because it is seen as part of Canadiana. It's attempts to expand into the US have generally not succeeded.[1]

Both are already large enough to have economies of scale in terms of purchasing power, thus I do not see the reason for this outside of tax savings.

Strangely, a lot of Tim Hortons in Canada share buildings with Wendy's. Thus there is some cross pollination there between these two, maybe the strategy is to take this to the extreme and have nearly each Tim Horton's location be paired with a Burger King.

BTW some of the richest people I know (10,000 sq ft homes) own Tim Horton franchises (usually in central locations in major cities.) A boring business compared to startups, but damn it can be crazy profitable. Might be the time to snap those locations up if they are going to do some major US expansion.

[1] See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons#Northeastern_US_de...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons#Northeastern_US_decline) But another commenter disputes that and he may have more recent information.

<comment><USER10> > _" It's attempts to expand into the US have generally not succeeded."_

[curious] What parts of the US has it tried expanding in, before? I live in northern midwest US, and have never seen any around here. Was it more towards the east or west coast, do you know?

<comment><USER11> There's a tiny TH in Times Sq NYC, but it's horrible. It's basically a small counter top in a KFC or something. The donuts aren't made on premises.

<comment><USER12> My understanding is that the TH in Camada have donuts shipped to them from. Central location rather than baking those on premises. Could be out of date info though, I don't know. I've wanted to try Tim Hortons just because it's a central Canadian think in a webcomic I once read (Avalon) but I have never succumbed to the idea of an insane weekend road trip to canada to try a donut. I do hope they come to the US near me.

<comment><USER13> Honestly, the donuts or the coffee aren't worth the drive. Canadian's love it for the nostalgia, not because it tastes amazing.

As a kid you went there with your parents. As a teen you went there with your friends. In highschool/summer, when you didn't have specific plans (@4pm or @4am), you met up at TH. In university, you'd go get a soup, sandwich and drink, sick of eating the same thing for the 4th time this week. Now as an adult you go back home, and if you're meeting old friends, you know you're meeting at Timmy's. Infact, half the fun is meeting at Timmy's. I think I'm quoting one of their ads but, for Canadian's "Its [just] where life happens".

Anyways, not saying you shouldn't take the road trip. Long drives with a friend or two just for some "mediocre" food are the most fun trips. I have one almost annually for In-N-Out. Definitely don't be expecting ambrosia though, its awesome because its not special, its just a donut and a double double.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's hoping this means TH goes national (if not worldwide). We need a TH in Atlanta; good coffee, donuts better than Krispy Kreme and Dunkin Donuts.

Recalls my notion of a "Franchise In A Box": in a shipping container, pack up all the necessities for installing/opening a retail store/restaurant overnight in a typical retail space, and rapid removal if needed. Good for short-use venue events such as major conventions, or for jumpstarting a business by opening a functional (albeit minimal) store in available short-lease space while a more elaborate/complete/larger implementation is being installed.

I mention this as an eager would-be customer, wishing that BK (having more interest in "lower 48" USA expansion than pre-merger TH) could now just arrange some short-term leases, rent a "Tim Hortons In A Box", and open a few test/introductory locations within a few days. I want my Tim's! Moreso, my Canadian wife wants a Tim's in Atlanta ASAP, and ya gotta realize that to Canadians, Tim Hortons is like Starbucks deified.

<comment><USER15> I really wouldn't say Tim Hortons' coffe is good... I guess it is a matter of taste.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. Of the "cheap" coffees in Canada, I'd rather drink Country Style or McDonald's. Well, at least Tim Horton's tastes better than Coffee Time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Oddly the article doesn't seem to explain why this sort of deal makes sense:

1) Overseas cash for a U.S. corporation isn't taxed unless it's brought into the U.S., so if you have a pile of overseas cash, why not buy something?

2) Moving your headquarters to a country with a lower corporate tax rate can also be good (though I believe Canada has a lower stated corporate tax rate, I'm not sure how its effective corporate tax rate compares to the U.S.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion)

<comment><USER18> Canada has a Effective Corporate Income Tax Rate of 7.2% while the United States is 28.5% though it looks like it varies from sector to sector.

Source: Appendix A (pg. 22) [http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/services/Tax/Focus-on- Tax/Document...](http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/services/Tax/Focus-on- Tax/Documents/kpmg-focus-on-tax-2014-en.pdf)

<comment><USER19> That seems to be only Federal rate - you have to pay corporate tax to the province as well. Tim's is based in Ontario, so they'll likely be paying closer to 25% once all is said & done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The only real reason for this merger is a corporate inversion[1] - a lot of companies are doing it. Corporate inversions allow you to move your HQ outside of the US and reap huge tax benefits.

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

<comment><USER21> Not true. It might be _a_ reason but it's not the only reason, and certainly not the primary reason.

At the moment Burger King pays tax at a rate of 35% or thereabouts, on _all_ of its income, no matter where it is generated. About half of its income is from the US, and half is overseas.

After the acquisition, it will still pay 35% tax on all of its income generated in the US, however it will only pay the local tax rate on its income generated outside the US. For example, this is about 15% in Canada, and 21% in the UK (there aren't many countries where corporation tax is above 35%... Japan comes to mind).

So the saving is the difference between the local corporation tax and the US corporation tax, on about half of BK's income - if the average worldwide corporation tax is 20%, so the difference is 15% and half that is 7.5%. So this is equivalent to reducing the rate of corporation tax in the US from 35% to 27.5%. While nice, it's not quite the "huge tax benefit" that you mention.

<comment><USER22> > there aren't many countries where corporation tax is above 35%... Japan > comes to mind

Japan's is only slightly higher, at 35.64%:

[http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and- res...](http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and- resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx)

but that will actually be cut below 30% in the near future:

[http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/24/news/economy/japan- abenomics...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/24/news/economy/japan-abenomics- tax/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm sure other Canadians on HN might agree - it feels a little weird to see our darling Tim Horton's on the front page of US business sites (and HN of all places!) and to see words like "double-double" and "timbits" used.

<comment><USER23> It has been almost 200 years since you won the War of 1812. Maybe this the first salvo in Tim's conquering the US market.

<comment><USER24> That has to be a joke, right? You mean since the British won the war of 1812.

<comment><USER23> No one really won the War of 1812. Instead everyone just got sick of fighting (the Americans got sick of spending money they didn't have and the British needed to worry more about Napoleon) and said let's act like nothing happened. A lot of people agree that because no one pushed for serious concessions in land or reparations the Treaty of Ghent is one of the main factors that allowed for the close relationship between the American, British, and indirectly, the Canadians for the 200 years following the war. So the running joke is that Canada won, even though Canada didn't even exists because the British retained what then became Canada.

There was one true loser though and that was the Native Americans. Most allied with the British and in the end they basically turned their back on the tribes and let the American do whatever they wanted to the Natives as they pushed west.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is strange to me. I see a lot of burger kings closing up while tims are going strong.

</comment><comment><USER26> Discussion of the merger talks from yesterday [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8222432](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8222432)

</comment><comment><USER27> "But Burger King already managed to get its tax rate down to 27.5 per cent last year, company filings show. Tim Hortons paid 26.8 per cent tax in Canada last year, according the its annual report."

Of course, these are the mean interest rates. If it has the opportunity to shift higher-than-average taxes into lower ones by geo-shifting, without affecting its lower-than-average taxes, it's average rate will go down.

</comment><comment><USER28> Missing some obvious LOTR here, "return of the King" and "One does not simply walk into Canada". You even have the competition, Ronald McDonald, as a stand in for sauron.

I've been looking at it like a near startup style pivot. Can't out mcdonalds the mcdonalds company? Well then pivot and try selling unburned coffee and donuts. It could work.

</comment><comment><USER29> Just for some context, Burger King had $233 million of net income in 2013 and paid $88 million in income taxes.

[http://investor.bk.com/download_arquivos.asp?id_arquivo=C0B7...](http://investor.bk.com/download_arquivos.asp?id_arquivo=C0B7F543-DEA6-4852-ACB8-F589DFD66CC7)

<comment><USER30> Perhaps I'm ignorant, but this seems like and insane corporate tax burden compared to what many (most?) large organizations are reported to be paying. Can anyone explain if my assumption is wrong or why they pay so much?

<comment><USER24> It's not an insane tax burden in the US, it's common. Most corporations get socked with a high rate; most can't dodge taxes as effectively as _some_ multi-nationals.

Exxon paid $86 billion in corporate income taxes the last three fiscal years. They generated $118 billion in net income by comparison. Talk about a tax hammer. Chevron is roughly the same.

Facebook had a $1.25 billion income tax last year, and generated $1.49 billion in net income.

It's popular in the media to pretend corporations evade taxes universally. The fact is, very few are able to. If you remove about 50 huge corporations from the pool that avoid taxes very skillfully and have large incomes, the average corporate income tax rate in the US is typically closer to 27% to 30%, versus the more often quoted 22% to 25%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Glad to see that the Burger King business unit will stay in Miami: [http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/25/4308025/burger-king- in...](http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/25/4308025/burger-king-in-talks-to- buy-tim.html)

</comment><comment><USER32> Daniel Schwartz, CEO of Burger King, is known for being unusual in his industry: [http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/25/investing/burger-king-ceo- ag...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/25/investing/burger-king-ceo-age-33/)

</comment><comment><USER33> All I want to know is whether I can get Timbits in the South Eastern U.S. as a result of this :)

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't get Tim Hortons. Maybe because I'm an American but I feel like other Americans don't really get Tim Hortons as much as Canada does.

<comment><USER35> I attribute Tim Hortons success in part because of patriotism. People go there because it is Canadian and also because it is cheap. If you drink your coffee "double double", it's fine coffee. As for the food it isn't expensive and has the impression of being fresh. They actually don't bake the donut in store anymore, but un-freeze them.

Personally, I'm more of a Starbucks fan since I drink my drip black.

My hope is that they close some Timmies down to open some Burger Kings. Burger Kings has the best poutine in my opinion. Burger Kings are rare these days in Canada.

<comment><USER16> >> If you drink your coffee "double double", it's fine coffee

If you drink your coffee that way, it's fine coffee flavored sugar. If you drink Tim's coffee as regular, it tastes like water.

>> My hope is that they close some Timmies down to open some Burger Kings.

In the 416/905, we have a lot of Tim Horton's + Wendy's locations left over from when they were owned by Wendy's. I wonder if the Wendy's half of those locations will be converted to BK.

<comment><USER35> That would be a great move. Wendy's is really most trashy fast food chain out there. The one in my city still has carpet in it...

<comment><USER34> Really? In my area wendy's is probably the best between mcdonalds and BK. BK is disgusting and haven't eaten there in years. I will do mcdonald's or wendy's if I'm not on a diet and in an absolute hurry and need some food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> As a Canadian working in the US, I have a pipe dream. All Burger Kings turn in to Tim Horton's. Would be awesome.

<comment><USER37> Probably a little irrational, but I think of Tim Horton's as significantly more palatable than Burger King. Might be because I'm from the US and only have good memories of getting 30 cent donuts when I was visiting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Once upon a time, I was an engineer with only the most superficial understanding of taxes and the economy. Today, I'm still only an engineer (at heart), but in the many many years of working and investing I've learned a few things. (I have only had one formal course in economics. At least it was taught by Robert Solow.) Those that already understand the corporate tax even a little should probably skip this post (and to those that really understand it feel free to correct me where I don't understand it well enough). Taxes and their effects are considerably more complex in real life than my examples below.

When a partnership makes money, the profits flow through to the partners and are taxed as ordinary income, so to compare:

        XYZ Parners (having 10 equal parners) makes $10,000,000
        Tom (a parner) has:
          Additional ordinary income: $1,000,000
          Taxes:
            Federal (%39.6)            -$396,000
    	State (CA %12.3)           -$123,000
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
          Net:                          $481,000

        ABC Corp (with say 10 owners) makes $10,000,000 in profit
         Corporate profits         $10,000,000
         Taxes:
           Federal (%35)           -$3,500,000
           State (CA %8.84)        -$  884,000
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
          Net:                      $ 5,616,000

Note that this $5,616,000 can be retained by the corporation, but nobody actually benefits from it until it is distributed to the owners, distributed to it ten owners as dividends:

        Tina (an owner) receives $561,600 dividend payment
          Additional investment income of   $561,600
          Taxes:
            Federal (%23.8)                 -$133,661
    	State (CA %8.84)                -$ 49,645
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
          Net:                               $378,294

There are a few things to notice here, before an owner gets any money out of a C corp, there are four taxes leveied and over %60 of the company's profits are taxed away. This puts corporations at a disadvantage, tax-wise, to parnerships under my very simplified example. They are also at a disadvantage to foriegn corporations that don't have high corporate tax rates.

There are direct ways for the corporation to control its profits. It can increase wages to employees. In this case say there are 100 employees, each compensated the same and all profits are paid out to employees:

        Tim (an employee) receives a bonus of $100,000 (1/100 * 10 Million)
          Additional ordinary income         $100,000
          Taxes:
           Federal (%35)                     -$35,000
           State (CA %8.84)                  -$ 8,840
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
          Net:                                $56,160

These taxes are paid by each of the 100 employees receiving bonuses.

Another way that a corporation can lower its profits is by lowering the price of good sold, which benefits consumers.

Owners of the corporation like Tina above want to make something from the ownership of the company and through the board of directors (voted in by Tina and the others) they expect the company to eventually issue dividends (even if it is too far in the future to benifit Tina the building retained earnings will drive up the value of Tina's shares because of the _anticipation_ of future dividends). This keeps corporations aiming for profits; their owners insist on it. Eventually Tina will have to pay taxes on the capital gains from the increased value of her shares or to pay taxes on dividend issued by the corporation.

Note that parnerships don't pay corporate taxes, instead the owners pay income taxes on the profits. Corporate taxes introduce another layer of taxes and complicate the tax system. Why not have zero corporate tax? Firms structured as parnerships don't pay corporate taxes and the income will still be taxed by the time it gets to Tom or Tina. No indivdual gets away without paying taxes on money he or she receives no matter what the corporate tax rate is. This is why other countries can have lower corporate tax rate that the US.

Of what benefit are corporate taxes. Like VATs, corporate taxes affect the entire population. The impacts are diffuse and a bit opaque so the voters being affected by it are unaware of it, so it is a less painful way for governments to raise more revenue from us. Corporate taxes raise the cost of capital to corporations, which has a negative impact on the growth of the overall economy. Further, it incentivises companies to actively lobby for special breaks and perks. Politicians of all stripes like this system because corporations are big donors that keep the croney capitalism going.

The real question is who bears the corporate tax and is this the most efficient and fair way to collect taxes [1]. In my own opinion, I don't think it is a good idea. Why not simply raise taxes on dividend income to ordinary rates and eliminate the corporate tax entirely. This would eliminate the competition for loopholes that distort the whole economy and hurt us all.

[1] Who Bears the Corporate Tax? A Review of What We Know, [http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0065.pdf](http://www.nber.org/chapters/c0065.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER39> It's all to do with periodical cicadas populations.

</comment><comment><USER40> Two companies...one mediocre...one I don't believe large enough to pull the deadweight of the other...trying to mitigate tax burden and safe face.......Where I went to University there was a Burger King that was right by my old apartment and it just so happened to sit on a huge piece of property...and property there wasn't cheap (relatively speaking) and we prayed for 5 years that'd they sell it and put in a Panera Bread.</comment>


Building Smarter Artificial Intelligence By ... Shrinking The Body? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificblogging.com/mark_changizi/building_smarter_artificial_intelligence_shrinking_body <comment><USER2> I disagree with that author and I'm not even sure what point he is trying to make.

If a smaller brain is more intelligent than a bigger brain, I assume it is more complex (for instance, it has more interconnections).

In computer science though, it takes more processing power to simulate more complex representations of reality. Therefore, we would need more processing power to represent a small intelligent brain than a big stupid brain.

Software and our analog world are two very different beasts. Small and complex physical things sometimes take more processing power to represent than big simple ones.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you think he's not making any sense, You're halfway to understanding. He's not making any sense.

The author doesn't seem to understand the causal link between intelligence, brain size, and body size. Smaller bodies don't make things smarter. Heavy organs have a survival cost. Animals with bigger brains only do better if the brains pay for themselves with survival-related intelligence. In species that don't generally get a payoff for figuring things out, the lighter and faster dummies breed better.

If you want to think clearly about AI, read Lesswrong.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't believe in this (relatively recent) trend of associating AI with bodies. Why should AIs need bodies? Clearly AIs without bodies must be possible.

Of course if you want AI that resembles humans, bodies might help. But why specialize too soon (creating AI is easier than creating AI that is like humans).

<comment><USER5> _"I don't believe in this (relatively recent) trend of associating AI with bodies."_

The problem is that "strong AI" (ie. an AI considered intelligent in the deepest sense of the term, with intelligence equal to or greater than that of a human) has pretty much run in to a dead end. Lots of approaches have been tried over the decades, and all have failed.

Strong AI research needs new ideas and new approaches. Making a close coupling between the "brain" (or "mind") and the body is one such relatively new approach. As such, I applaud it.

Like the approaches that came before, it also might lead up a blind alley. But at least they're trying something new and different, instead of banging their head on the same wall.

And, apart from the sheer novelty of the approach, there has been a lot of evidence that much of the "processing" that has been assumed to be done in the brain is actually done in the body.

Some relatively recent robotics research has been focused on creating robots without any kind of a "brain", but just with a "nervous system". These robots are able to move around and achieve goals. Here's some information on a conference where these sorts of robots are demonstrated:

[http://ine-web.org/telluride-conference-2010/telluride-2010/...](http://ine- web.org/telluride-conference-2010/telluride-2010/index.html)

These robots are a far cry from achieving the goal of strong AI, but they point to an alternative approach to AI that is not brain-centric, to coin a term.

<comment><USER6> "Lots of approaches have been tried over the decades, and all have failed."

I beg to differ with that.

Marvin Minsky's idea of having 5000 people creating a common sense database of sorts wasn't tried. (the closest is cyc, which only had 20 people most of the time).

Genetic programming has not been tried at all really.

Machine learning hasn't been seriously tried either (the closest efforts have been google goggles and google search maybe).

AI is serious and complicated engineering project. Billions are spent on creating skyscapers, tunnels, and airplanes. Yet the money spent on AI is orders of magnitude less even though the payoff is orders of magnitude more.

If I had to guess, I'd say AI would be easily achievable within a year using any of the above approaches if a trillion dollars were spent on it this year.

<comment><USER7> I beg to differ. All the approaches you mentioned are still under heady investigation. It's only the name of AI that has been tarnished.

And the progress in the tools will eventually lead to more "intelligent" systems.

<comment><USER6> What do you mean by 'heavy investigation'. The latest skyscrapers in dubai cost billions of dollars each. How much is spent on AI per year worldwide. I'd bet it's less than 100 million. I wouldn't call that serious effort.

How has the name of AI been tarnished. If people believe you can spend a fraction of the money spent on a building to create human level intelligence then it's their 'intelligence' that is tarnished.

If your goal is create human level ai, than more 'intelligent' systems is not progress, we've had 'intelligent' tools since the first loom weaving machines were created hundreds of years ago.

<comment><USER8> The game industry does spend some money on AI development. Not sure if it's 100 million, but it's a serious amount as most game development teams have at least one or two AI developers. Although most people probably don't realize how much game AI has advanced in the last decade as most of the advances had been to cope with increasingly complex game worlds.

<comment><USER6> The point is, there are no new advancements to be had in in ai - you either hand code it (good old fashioned ai) or search for (machine learning/genetic programming) or a combination of both. No 'new' algorithms will be found that will magically solve ai. Little bits of coding here and there that use an 'ai' technique don't cut it. Automated trading uses 'ai' techniques, billions of dollars worth, but it won't make a dent towards creating ai.

<comment><USER7> I guess in a roundabout way those will make a difference. Also the `unrelated' working of Moore's law will help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How far can you take a brain out of it's environment before it stops working? For the brain the body size is just an external factor. I suspect changing any factors will probably make copying the brains rather harder than easier.

</comment><comment><USER9> What correlation is the author trying to make? To my knowledge, Blue Brain has so far gotten as far as simulating a single cat cortical column. In most higher mammalian brains, they are built up from hundreds to thousands of these columns. The approach that Blue Brain is taking is to start with the neurons, making sure the simulations match real-world data. Then wire the neurons into the cortical columns and make sure the simulations match real-world data. The idea is to build from the base components, test the hell out of them each time using the best medical data we can get about how neurons work, then scale to the next level. In this case, hooking together an increasing number of columns to simulate ever more functional parts of the brain.

This has crap-all to do with a 'body'. This is such an obvious case of someone not defining their terms that it bugs the hell out of me. In the terms of the Dictionary from Anathem, it comes across as "bullshit" in sense 2.

We are still at the point where we don't have a whole enough picture to completely figure out the math of what makes a thing "think". We have ideas, hypothesis, and some theories. But its all very much in flux.

People quite often make the wrong analogy between the discovery of flight and conscious AI.

Before engineers knew about how air moving over a curved surface creates pressure differentials that provide lift, they tried to build flying machines by simulating wings. For decades, these people were laughed at by the common folk who believed human flight was impossible.

However, once it was discovered how air movement made pressures and it was possible to mathematically describe it, the approach changed. Then the first successes happened. Then there was a huge amount of innovation in the next 40-50 years before the innovation in plane and wing design leveled off.

Figuring out how to organize matter so that it "thinks" is still being figured out. We have some ideas that are well-supported by data. I feel the approach IBM is taking is among the best. Since we don't know the completely mathematical theory that applies to neuron networks to allow some to be conscious and others not, our best chance is to take as much real world data as we can and to build one in simulation. On the way, we discover all kinds of things we didn't know before.

In a way, it sounds like I'm countering my previous argument about how people trying to build wings failed. But, I'm not. It was in the process of attempting to re-create examples of structures that obviously could fly (birds) that we figured out the principles of _how_ they flew.

Blue Brain probably won't become THE method of building AI in the future. However, its one of the first massive attempts to do the modern equivalent of building a wing from the atom up. Along the way, we will start really figuring out exactly what needs to happen to make one network of neurons conscious, and another one not conscious. Then we'll be able to take those mathematical algorithms and start playing with them.

Eventually we will get to a point where we can test an entity for consciousness. Once we can scientifically describe how consciousness works, we can devise tests for neuronal networks of any complexity to say if its actually conscious or not. This opens up the prospect of seeing if other animals on earth ranging from ants to dolphins are conscious in the same way that we are (or not).

It also gives us an actual true test for AI consciousness. If we see the same or similar results on a human that we do for an AI, its fairly obvious that if the AI says "I think, I am" then it probably is.

I've always had a problem with the Turing Test. Its too subjective. Just because you can fool 8 of 10 people, or even 10 of 10 people into thinking something typing to you is conscious doesn't mean it is. You CANNOT determine that without analyzing the structure of the mind that you're communicating with. If that mind is based on biology, you examine the network of neurons. If its based on software, you analyze the structure of the programming and the flow of data. Since the biological systems and software systems would both be using similar patterns of information to describe their structure and functioning, the same tests apply to both.

Sorry to get off on a rant. A "body" has shit all nothing to do with "making a better AI".

<comment><USER6> """Sorry to get off on a rant. A "body" has shit all nothing to do with "making a better AI"."""

So you're saying Rodney Brooks's (previously head of AI at MIT) behavioural ai is wrong. Also, without 'sensory' data from a 'body' machine learning approaches can't work either.

"""Eventually we will get to a point where we can test an entity for consciousness. Once we can scientifically describe how consciousness works, we can devise tests for neuronal networks of any complexity to say if its actually conscious or not """

Are you sure there is such a thing as conciousness? Even if there is, I'd bet we get to AI before we can test for conciousness.</comment></comment>


Morality, Compassion and the Sociopath - <AUTHOR> http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/21/morality-compassion-and-the-sociopath/ <comment><USER2> I think it's sweet that he managed to include a Nietzsche title without (apparently) realizing that he's describing the ubermensch.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the series is inspired by Nietzsche's concepts to a large extent. Did not belabor the connection in the series since it would lose half the readers.

There are subtle differences between what I am describing and the ubermensch concept though. My categories, I'd say, are closer to being varieties of "men without backs"/last men (see Fukuyama's "End of History"... and no I am not a neocon :))

Venkat

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think he should've used the word sociopath. It already has a popularly accepted definition, and the concept that he's trying to represent doesn't fit well with it. If you want to read about real sociopaths, go somewhere else.

<comment><USER5> What word do you think he should have used instead?

<comment><USER4> He could have made one up, or portmanteau-ed something. That's what language is supposed to do when it fails to describe a concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical ground. He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue that morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths is a "good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the group morality he finds questionable elsewhere?

This sort of argument leads to a sort of self contradiction similar to "everything is relative" (in what frame do you evaluate "everything is relative"? Surely not a global, objective one.) If, more charitably, we assume it's not morality, per se, that he questions so much as a sheeplike adherence to it, that's fine, but it's also a bit of a false dichotomy (you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath).

Further, the notion that sociopaths "take responsibility" for their subjective morality seems dubious. It seems just as likely to me that the moral thought of this group is mostly limited to post hoc rationalization.

<comment><USER7> _My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical ground. He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue that morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths is a "good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the group morality he finds questionable elsewhere?_

I'm unfamiliar with the author, but one possible way of resolving the apparent contradiction would be to distinguish between "good vs. evil" and "good vs. bad" - a solution originally, as far as I know, proposed by Nietzsche, where "good vs. evil" is a matter of group, "slave" morality, while "good vs. bad" is a matter of "master" morality. It actually maps quite cleanly to what the author is talking about, though I'm uncertain whether or not that is deliberate.

Edit: Also, statements like

 _(you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath)_

feel a bit like misreading the author to me; he's abusing the word "sociopath", which can be criticized, but here you appear to be using it in a non-value-neutral manner, which rather misses the point of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> he's taking the terminology from this cartoon:

<http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/>

so his choice of labels has a touch of irony and is a bit harsh. Basically, he's saying you can use more euphemistic labels -- self-actualizing; process- oriented; outward-focused/idealist, etc. -- but his labels represent the unvarnished truth, with a touch of bitchiness.

<comment><USER9> But there is research that indicates that people at the top in business organizations do rather frequently have some of the traits of sociopaths. Cartoons frequently use somewhat exaggerated language that would be deemed "inflammatory" in any other context, so I'm cool with that.

And thank you for the reference. That helps explain some of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to read this whole thing right now. Some parts of it are looking rather good. I kind of wish he weren't using "losers" as one of his classifications, but perhaps if I knew more of the background, that would make more sense to me. We have to have words to sum up concepts and a lot of the meaning depends on how those words are used (kind of like some conversation I recall from elsewhere where someone asked "Is 'special' the new 'retard'?"). But, so far, I especially like this point:

 _So yes, this entire edifice I am constructing is a determinedly amoral one. Hitler would count as a sociopath in this sense, but so would Gandhi and Martin Luther King._

<comment><USER10> Along the same lines, I like:

 _Whether good or evil, the morality of a sociopath is something he or she takes responsibility for._

Then later:

 _More people taking individual moral responsibility is a good thing._

<comment><USER11> Sociopaths do not assume responsibility for anything they do. They absolve themselves of the consequences because one of the definitions of a sociopath is that he has no regard or compassion for other beings.

To a sociopath there is no other justice other than whichever favors him the most. The blogger in question has evidently read little to no literature on the subject.

It is interesting to note that over a fourth of all convicts display sociopathic characteristics, among them a complete lack of remorse for their actions.

<comment><USER12> You have to read the first article in the series to get his definitions, sociopath, loser and clueless have specific meanings in this context.

I agree that player, pawn and spectator would have been better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> tldr; herd mentality will ebb and flow, but there will always be some sheep on the edges with their own moral compass. some good, some bad. but the herd perceives them all the same.</comment>


iOS developers: Say goodbye to UDIDs - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=3212013a <comment><USER2> It's not a big deal. Just use the:

        [[ASIdentifierManager sharedManager] advertisingIdentifier];

for advertising across apps from different vendors or:

        [[UIDevice currentDevice] identifierForVendor];

for tracking your own library of apps or save a:

        CFUUIDCreate();

for tracking a specific app.

Developers who are upset that these IDs could be changed by the user if they restore their device or deliberately reset them are precisely the privacy violators that Apple are trying to eliminate. Yes, there are keychain tricks to create a more persistent ID (or MAC IDs to identify the device, regardless of user) but if you truly need long-term persistent, unique identification users, have them log into your service instead of trying to steal their identity without permission.

 _Edit_ : I forgot to mention another clean option for persistent identification... store a uuid from CFUUIDCreate() in an iCloud ubiquity container. Yes, the user will need to have an iCloud account and allow your app to store there. However, it does not require the user log into anything new and is the only measure that will follow a user through both app deletion and device changes (other than logging into your servers).

<comment><USER3> One problem with both advertisingIdentifier and identifierForVendor is that they are iOS 6+ only. That shuts out 10% of my user base.

<comment><USER4> I know you're complaining, but only having 10% of your users not on the latest OS update is really something we should be cheering.

The progress (some) OS vendors have made at keeping people current is really pretty fantastic when you compare to the situation 10 years ago.

<comment><USER5> I have an iPad 1 that was adequate to surf the web on iOS 4.3, and I will never be able to downgrade to that version again. Now I have a brick on iOS 5 (unbearable out-of-memory crashes). I earn my money on iOS and I still can't really cheer at handcuffs. =/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real story here is not the UDID ban which we knew was coming (and is easily counter-able as demonstrated in the comments already), but the forced iPhone 5 support.

Now this wouldn't be an issue except that Apple doesn't allow you to support the iPhone 5 without targeting iOS 4.3 or higher. So this kills off support for iOS 3.1.3-4.2. This might not seem like such a bad thing, but if you're targeting certain demographics like kids (as I am), it cuts off a significant percentage (7% in my case) of users.

<comment><USER7> Apparently, with the lipo tool, you can still support iOS below version 4.3 and Apple won't reject it.

See: <http://stackoverflow.com/a/12678077>

<comment><USER8> Wow. The contrast with Android is stunning.

Google has been focused on enabling backwards compatibility since at least Android 1.5 (well before anyone knew how Android updates would play out in practice): [http://android-developers.blogspot.sg/2009/04/backward- compa...](http://android-developers.blogspot.sg/2009/04/backward- compatibility-for-android.html)

Meanwhile, Apple seems to prefer to make achieving backwards compatibility as hard as possible (short of explicitly banning it).

<comment><USER9> OTOH when developing for Apple platforms there's not a huge loss when developing only for iOS 6+ (85% - 90% of users), whereas on Android you're pretty much required to target very outdated versions of Android as well. For example we target Android versions starting with Froyo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Permalink: <https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=3212013a>

</comment><comment><USER11> Was there ever a good reason for using UDID anyway? The only examples I've seen are user tracking for ads (has privacy issues) or a horribly broken login system.

Anyone bothered by this is probably doing something wrong.

<comment><USER7> One use of UDID is verifying in-app purchase receipts. It's demonstrated in the sample code associated with Apple's article titled "In-App Purchase Receipt Validation on iOS".

See: [https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#releasenotes/StoreK...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#releasenotes/StoreKit/IAP_ReceiptValidation/index.html)

<comment><USER11> Never noticed that as I don't have any in app purchases that actually cost me anything. This usage would seem to be more because the ID is available rather than because it is needed though.

The bit about non-public APIs on that page is interesting though - if there is a genuinely necessary use case for device IDs it may not be affected.

<comment><USER7> The UDID embedded in receipts prevents/deters people from sharing them with others using MITM techniques. Sharing does happen and Apple's article helps address that issue.

<comment><USER11> True, but that is only one solution and a flawed one, as device ID can legitimately change - no developer needs to know whether I am using the phone I bought today or the one I bought a year ago.

<comment><USER7> Non-consumable in-app purchases are restorable on any iOS device you can sign in with your iTunes account. When you buy a new iOS device and use StoreKit's restore transaction feature, Apple will generate a new receipt with UDID of that device. In-app purchases are tied to your iTunes account whereas embedded UDIDs are tied to devices you sign in with your iTunes credential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> MacAddress or vendor identifier. You could also generate random... but it's a good idea to keychain it under its own namespace.

</comment><comment><USER13> I vaguely remember some apps using the MAC address of the WiFi interface as an identifier. Has this been banned yet?

<comment><USER14> Maybe yes maybe no, but either way that's not a good solution.

iOS 6 - use vendor identifier iOS 5 - create an ID via CFUUIDCreate() and save it iOS 4 - can be safely excluded from support

<comment><USER13> > Maybe yes maybe no, but either way that's not a good solution.

I'm asking this as an end user - I want to see this usage banned so that apps cannot track me using the MAC address.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How will this affect TestFlight and other such apps? Don't they still need your UDID?

<comment><USER16> TestFlight gets your UUID by having you enroll your device in their MDM system. Support for this will likely never go away.

<comment><USER17> They use the UDID when the application runs to associate particular sessions with particular users, which can be extremely valuable for debugging purposes.</comment></comment></comment>


The first-ever audio of what interstellar space sounds like - <AUTHOR> http://explore.noodle.org/post/61049450358/in-1977-the-voyager-1-spacecraft-launched-into

<comment><USER2> We'll it's what the observations converted to audible sound, sounds like.</comment>


Deep Learning Could Automate TSA Screeners - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/synapse-blog/ai-outperforms-certified-xray-operators-972932086f2e <comment><USER2> Hi all- I'm the CTO and Co-founder of Synapse Technology. Happy to answer questions about our tech & product!

p.s. We're hiring CV engineers for our Perception Team. Shoot me a note at sims[at]syntechcorporation.com if you're interested in solving hard problems with state-of-the-art methods in object detection, domain adaptation, incremental learning, and the like!

</comment><comment><USER3> Should we just keep the government shut and replace it with AI?

<comment><AUTHOR> You joke, but there are certain aspects that could be made far more efficient and accurate with AI.</comment></comment>


Smart TVs are invading privacy and should be investigated, senators say - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/smart-tvs-are-invading-privacy-and-should-be-investigated-senators-say/ <comment><USER2> If someone connects one of these TVs to a computer and views their medical information, does that mean the vendor has access to their medical information?</comment>


Gab.com Lands at Uniregistry - brian-armstrong https://www.thedomains.com/2018/10/30/gab-com-lands-at-uniregistry/ <comment><AUTHOR> Anyone has experience with Uniregistry? If one don't want to put all eggs in the Cloudflare Basket.

</comment><comment><USER2> And I thought they were cool..</comment>


Now You Can Jailbreak Your iPhone 4S and iPad 2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/jailbreak_ios_5_iphone_4s_ipad_2.php#.TxmuMYub1tk.hackernews

<comment><USER2> or if you want some more details, in no particular order -

<http://blog.iphone-dev.org/>

<http://pod2g-ios.blogspot.com/></comment>


How the Stock Market Works - <AUTHOR> http://shashankr.me/2019/07/27/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-stock-market-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask.html <comment><USER2> I was expecting something a lot more detailed. I got to the end and was wondering if this was the first part of a series, since it's nowhere near "everything" anyone would want to know about the stock market. It's barely an introduction.

Then there are the inaccuracies. Zero-sum game? No. Derivatives are "a bet on the rate of change" in value? No. Brokers "help you execute a trade at the best possible price"? Well... not really. The NYSE is a "one stop shop" for people who want to trade? Um, NASDAQ? Any number of non-US exchanges?

Overall, very disappointing.

<comment><USER3> Bond market is off too - bond writers don't set the rate, they just describe the payment schedule and auction it off. Market determines a price, which implicitly sets the rate.

It seems like an earnest effort by the author. I'd encourage them to find a pro to run this piece by as a further learning experience. When you stop getting edits, you are ready to teach a simplified version to others!

</comment></comment><comment> 1e-9 "Just like how taking the derivative of a function gives you the slope, a derivative in finance is a bet on the rate of change of the value of a stock, or a bond, or an index."

No. That is just completely wrong. A derivative is a financial instrument that derives value from other things.

As an aside, the derivatives market is far bigger than the stock market.

<comment><USER4> Derivatives is a difficult to asses market, in terms of size. For example, the largest derivatives markets out there - interest rate swaps - trade contracts that usually have ~zero net value at the beginning of their lives, when the sides open the contract. Derivatives typically start small and sometimes end up huge.

The investable universe looks something like that:

[https://imgur.com/a/68U3LsZ](https://imgur.com/a/68U3LsZ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This whole article is terrible:

> derivative in finance is a bet on the rate of change of the value of a stock

No. At least no more than an equity is also based on the change in value of the company. At best it is just a terrible way to describe it. It is a derivative because it derives it's value from the underlying. You can get rid of the "rate" part and it would be more correct.

> The New York Stock Exchange is a company that maintains a database that is a > one-stop shop for people who want to trade stocks and other fancy financial > instruments.

Don't even know where to begin with how misleading that is.

> that is a reflection of a section of the stock market performing "well", in > the sense of investors making money4 on their stock investments.

Not really. It is the value of the companies going up. I'm sure many are losing money too in both a real sense and a "I shouldn't have have sold" opportunity cost regret.

> Depending on what the Fed's interest rate is, you could conceivably buy a > bond off of somebody for lesser than the principal.

Nope. The feds target overnight rate has very little to do with how bonds outside the very short end, and nothing to do with the long end most people would be buying.

> It's a zero-sum game, because there are always winners and losers in the > stock market.

Not really. While each individual trade is zero sum, the collection of them creates more efficient capital flows and helps they health of the market in a very general sense. Without the traders, the market would dry up and nobody would make any money from it.

</comment><comment><USER6> "It's a zero-sum game, because there are always winners and losers in the stock market."

Is this true, outside of options? Most people are long and the stock market has always been on an uptrend.

<comment><USER7> The economy is not a zero-sum game and that's something I wish more people understood. Real GDP per capita grows. The average US citizen has access to more intrinsic values that aristocrats had just a few centuries ago.

However, he may be talking about pure trading, a.k.a speculation, which is very close to a zero-sum game. If you are not in for the dividends, yes, that's close to a casino where the banks who charge for transactions are the inevitable winners.

I wish we followed Warren Buffet's advice and forbid to sell a stock less than 6 month after buying it. I also don't see any interest in making the stock prices change every nano second. A quote a day can be enough if you are an investor, not a speculator.

<comment><USER8> > Real GDP per capita grows.

Do you know if the share of real GDP for the bottom 10% (or in general, bottom x%) of consumers grown? And is there a well-known term/metric for this?

<comment><USER9> The Gini coefficient will give you a measure for the statistical spread of GDP per capita and is used to measure inequality. [1] Taking the time series of the Gini coefficient and the GDP will show the growth for a percentile of interest.

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

<comment><USER8> I guess I'm searching for a graph that has time on the x-axis and (real gdp * % of income that went to the bottom z%) on the y-axis for 5 ~ 10 different values of z. And hopefully it trends upwards for all values. I'm just surprised this isn't something that economists have already thought of as it feels like it would be the most important GDP-derived metric. Or at least "GDP per capita on median" if that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great article, thank you. I still don't understand who buys and sells stocks. Is there just that much volume that if I decide to sell at a certain market price, there's guaranteed to be a buyer? Or could I decide to sell at market price but nobody actually accepts the transaction? There's some financial magic at work here that I don't quite understand.

<comment><USER11> You are partially right. What you miss is that there are the so called market makers - exchanges that ensure liquidity. They buy from you and sell to you while managing order books. These are simply trades records that have a key role in determining the price pressures for it go up or down.

<comment><USER12> > exchanges that ensure liquidity

"market participants" which provide liquidity on an exchange.

<comment><USER11> The exchange itself has a goal to ensure liquidity. Do you really think all your orders are instant because there's somebody on the other side to buy it? I mean, yeah, right - for the very common stocks this is the case, but what about those low liquidity stocks that are still being executed instantly?

<comment><USER13> The exchange can't trade on their own platform, it would be a massive conflict of interest. The liquidity is typically provided by market makers, who are given incentives to do so. They also get to capture the spread, which is itself fairly valuable. You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not understanding why this blog is so highly upvoted. It's just poorly written. Someone starting trading on Robinhood is just screaming I'm a financial newbie.

Is the market peaking? With so many clueless entering the market. Where would be the next herd of new blood?

</comment><comment><USER4> One thing that you have to in your life is to choose your risk exposure to typical assets: cash, bonds (in particular long term bonds), stocks, real estate, and maybe commodities (like gold, or maybe Bitcoin for the courageous). Sharpe ratio is a good way to measure risk/return.

You have 100% at any given point, where does it go? Not buying anything is going 100% cash. That's why you have to do it - you're always in some exposure.

Then you can always lever up securities, effectively going negative on cash. Example: 105% stocks, 195% long term bonds, -200% cash can be achieved by going 35% UPRO, 65% TLT; only for the brave souls among us that do not fear a 300% leverage. This is roughly how the Bridgewater All-Weather Fund operates (AFAIK you can choose your leverage level there).

Many households are quite levered up by getting a mortgage. A mortgage with downpayment of 20% results in 1/0.2 = 500% leveraged exposure to the real estate market (slowly declining over time as the principal is paid, or if the house appreciates in value).

<comment><USER15> Mortgages have the advantage that you can't get margin called at an inopportune moment.

<comment><USER16> I heard through a realtor / friend that during '08 there were some home equity loans that were called back though. I don't know the exact details of those who had their HEL's called but my friend stressed that mortgages would never be called back (unless capitalism collapses) but HEL's _could_ be even if you're making on-time payments depending on terms.

<comment><USER17> It's also not uncommon to see maintenance (ie tested every x month, not just on initial borrowing) loan to value covenants in commercial Real Estate lending, including at quite small scale (think small independent hotels and the like).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think there is a desire among people to have a simple guide to what markets are and why they exist, so I applaud the author on the idea and the intent.

However, many of the ideas are misunderstood. A couple months of playing around with a stock trading app and maybe reading some blog posts will not teach you what markets are or why they exist.

For quite some time, a significant amount of brain power has gone into understanding and improving markets. All of this work has resulted in significant complexity.

If I had to pick a place to start, were I to teach someone "Everything they ever wanted to know about the stock market," It would actually be with bonds. Lending money has been around for millennia. It is an amazingly simple, yet incredibly useful, idea. It's also extremely useful as a way of teaching someone about equity. Bonds and equities are intricately linked in their development and in the theory of valuation.

</comment><comment><USER19> >It's a zero-sum game, because there are always winners and losers in the stock market.

Not really. Yes, there are winners and losers, but my win doesn't equate your loss.

<comment><USER20> And it's also worth remembering that the stock market has increased in value (inflation adjusted) for decades. So whilst yes, it's true there are winners and losers, most of the time the winners outnumber the losers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Stock is equity in a company. A stock market is where, by and large, publicly listed stock is traded. So why then, all this talk of bonds and governments? Most debt does _not_ trade on a stock market, but via other mechanisms. The author doesn't have a good definition of "stock" which is worrisome in the extreme.

</comment><comment><USER22> Serious question. How does an article like this get so many upvotes, followed by lots of comments saying the content is not upvote-worthy?

</comment><comment><USER23> This falls far short of "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The Stock Market But Were Too Afraid To Ask".

Does anyone have a source that actually begins to explain thi stuff? I want something that goes into long/short, that begins to take a stab (in simple terms) at how to analyse a company's finances to identify red flags, or reasons why investing might be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER24> To get started, I recommend the McKinsey starter's videos at [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJetbEO3QGCosQHb_43jVNg/fea...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJetbEO3QGCosQHb_43jVNg/featured?disable_polymer=1)

<comment><USER25> I think you mean, a personal channel by a former McKinsey consultant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> How can these wildly inaccurate posts about medicine, economics and finance keep getting so many upvotes?

</comment><comment><USER27> For an even deeper dive, you can check out the stock market primer our team published a couple weeks ago: [https://primer.prooftrading.com](https://primer.prooftrading.com)

</comment><comment><USER28> This article is garbage, many books have been written on the market. Please search for the real classics and pick one up.

</comment><comment> rv-de An awkwardly written summary of the Wikipedia page on "stock exchange".

</comment><comment><USER29> I think the one important lesson that is missing here is: never ever try to be smarter than the market except you have money to lose and you like to gamble.

<comment><USER30> It's less about being "smarter," it's really about identifying your advantage and understanding whether you can exploit it. This could be something as obvious as an information advantage (insider trading) to simply having more time/patience. If you can buy and hold for decades, you can wait out the bumps, the people who are forced to sell, and for more money to enter the market.</comment></comment>


Russian submarines have stepped up activity around vital undersea data cables - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-submarines-are-prowling-around-vital-undersea-cables-its-making-nato-nervous/2017/12/22/d4c1f3da-e5d0-11e7-927a-e72eac1e73b6_story.html <comment><USER2> A high probability reason NATO is aware of Russian activity in the vicinity of undersea cables is NATO activity in the vicinity of undersea cables. Activity in the vicinity of undersea cables has been an intelligence option for around fifty years [1].

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft's call for a Geneva convention protecting the internet infrastructure is looking very timely [https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the- issues/2017/02/14/need-di...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the- issues/2017/02/14/need-digital-geneva-convention/)

<comment><USER4> What about the nations who don't become signatories?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How awful. When the british and the US are doing it, it's protecting national security and nothing happens. Then when the russians are doing it it's suddenly cyber crime. It is cyber crime, yes. But don't forget the real offenders.

See [https://www.lawfareblog.com/cutting-cord-legal-regime- protec...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/cutting-cord-legal-regime-protecting- undersea-cables)

</comment><comment><USER6> So have Americans. They've been tapping those lines for decades.</comment>


Caricatures of Nazis and the number four (and letter Г) in Russian - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/lang/etym/four.html <comment><USER2> The assimilation of H to G gives Russian an advantage there...</comment>


Ask HN: Single founder startups: real data and experiences? - <AUTHOR>

... or HN single founder debate take one million. :)
Primer:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77246
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77525
In the first read PG's response and the ensuing debate. The second thread is someone's attempt at statistics. Either PG or the second are wrong.
So are there any good statistics on this, and what do people think now? The startup world has a rapidly evolving base of experiential knowledge.
Why I'm asking:
I'm a single founder of something transitioning from side project to startup: https://www.zerotier.com/
1.4% daily compounding growth on $0 marketing spend (all word of mouth), 1% freemium conversion rate (without much effort to optimize that), lots of happy users, etc.
Most people I talk to say I must have a co-founder. I will fail, nobody will fund it, etc. It's definitely conventional wisdom.
I don't for two reasons. One is circumstantial. I did most of the work to build this in a small town w/no tech scene, then moved to SoCal. I don't know many people here yet. Secondly I am not a bachelor right out of college and am not surrounded by bachelor/ettes right out of college.
Based on a lot of past experience in startups (Boston area), I've observed that a good co-founder is much better than none but a bad one is much worse. Founder conflicts are death. My personal inclination is to put it in my "risks/disadvantages" column and move on and try to compensate in other ways. I'm skeptical about the value of just grabbing someone off the street and entrusting them with something like that.
Yet I hear the constant refrain: "you must have a co-founder."
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> It depends, if you are going after investor dollars from the traditional SV VC bunch then yes, they all talk fairly openly how they favor multi-founder companies. At the same time, most of them have invested in solo founders as well if the plan is strong and the business already has traction.

What is your goal? Do you want investment from a SV VC? Do you need it? Do you have enough traction to even get on their radar? Any connections you can use to get introduced?

I personally think the co-founder thing is over blown, but don't underestimate that the many (if not most) investors prefer it. But frankly, if your business is solid, has traction and is growing an investor will still have interest. As a solo founder though, you will have more to prove and more to show that it is moving and you are capable of keeping up. And it doesn't meant that you may not meet someone along the way to bring into the venture.

Also, remember having a co-founder doesn't necessarily mean that the split is equal, in fact rarely is it ever equal from what I have personally seen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now I'm thinking enough seed for a lean and mean run to increase the growth rate, increase the conversion rate by adding value to pro tier, build out into mobile (iOS/Android), and get into a position where a series A would make sense. I'm thinking 18 months of runway: 12 months to get into position, six for series A. (Assuming no revenue growth... revenue growth would stretch the runway of course and I'd be very, very focused on that.)

That would be enough money to go full time myself, hire another employee, and secure the services of a serious PR firm to begin getting the brand and the message out there. It'd likely be in the $500k-ish neighborhood but I haven't made a real spreadsheet yet... still getting the message, basic pitch, and rough plan outline down. If it happens it'd be Feb-March 2015 in all likelihood.

I'm not in SV, and that's too small for most VCs. It'd be an angel/seed round. I have spoken to one seed-stage VC who expressed a little bit of interest, and I told him I'd update him as things progressed (will probably do that soon).

An alternative path I've been thinking about is going for a good incubator. There are two decent looking ones near me:

[http://k5launch.com](http://k5launch.com)

[http://launchpad.la](http://launchpad.la)

That might provide a short runway from where I am now to seed, more or less.

Just posted this for a bit of food for thought since I just keep hearing that refrain from all kinds of people, mostly from the SV orbit.

I'm not totally alone BTW. I have assembled an advisory board that is really advising, and I do have some people I bounce ideas off.

<comment><USER2> Yea, the HN crowd is always great for ideas and overall pretty needed brutal honesty.

So my 2 cents, you are looking at angel money, which at 500k means you will likely be held to a salary of $50-70k for yourself and the hiring of a few people to meet your goals. I mention the salary only because you mention you aren't a young fresh out of college person, so I would guess you have some real bills and possibly a family. After about 6 months of work you will need to be on the track to raising your next round as well to get money in place at month 12-14. This all assumes you have never raised before and so have no proven track record using someone else's money, and of course is just my opinion.

An incubator might be a good idea if you can find one that will take you as solo founder, again not impossible but they play to the VC's desires.

Some other ideas/points,

1: look for traditional angel money outside of just the well known SV firms, people etc. High net worth people invest in companies fairly often and usually are more personally involved in the deal (not in a bad way) and many times are a little more flexible with founder salary if that is needed.

2: Bootstrap a little longer and pay a developer part time to help you meet the other goals. If you have a full time position now take $1,500-$2,500 of what you are making monthly and spend it on hiring part time help to get some of the stuff over the finish line before going after money. Either way this moves the ball further down the path so that if you go after money you are that much better off.

3: Definitely put it up on AngelList.

4: Don't focus on a PR firm, they generally are expensive and a waste of money for early traction. We worked with a startup this summer that spent well over $100k of their money on a PR firm that got them less exposure then did spending $2,500 on a 30 second video and spreading it through friends, family and social media sites. As well the founder figured out that by contacting reporters and bloggers directly the response he received was way better than having the PR firm do it, and all it cost him was a few hours every week talking to these people.

5: Update your website, right now it looks like a side project that isn't getting a lot of love. The website is the first impression people see of you and your service/product. If it looks poorly, so will your chances with converting the client. I speak here from great stupidity and experience for myself on this one.

No matter what, good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, especially for #4 and #5.

#4 is really food for thought. I mean really. My gut instinct would be to agree with you wholeheartedly. Maybe PR is an area where "business advice" has wormed its way into my brain. Try as I might, I just can't ignore enough "business advice." :)

If I cut that PR component the required raise drops substantially... at least in half.

So far _all_ my growth and conversion has been from viral, social, direct person-to-person, and other "organic" means, but I've also observed that blogs and press mentions drive traffic and prime the pump. My graphs look like this: a remarkably consistent exponential (straight line on log plot) 1.4% daily compounded growth, but every major press or blog hit just elevates the graph vertically a few ticks where it then continues its 1.4% march. The 1.4% number is so incredibly constant it's spooky... I've never seen anything like it. It just continues no matter what I do, for months and months. This is for active online users, which is the best metric for this system. Is a constant growth rate like that common? I always assumed growth rates would look "rocky" like most other real-world data.

#5 is interesting too. It looks a lot better than it used to, but perhaps that isn't saying much. I might just use a professional web design hosted software suite like Squarespace or The Grid, since I've got better things to do than dink around with HTML/CSS minutia.

It is up on AngelList: [https://angel.co/zerotier- networks](https://angel.co/zerotier-networks)

As far as salary goes you're right. I have a family and kids, so I can't afford a really big pay cut. That's another downside of not being a bachelor right out of college, and is a big part of why the startup scene is so biased toward early-twenty-somethings. But hey, I guess part of doing stuff like this is that you have to deal with what you have as intelligently as you can. You can't change your circumstances in these areas but you can hack around them.

<comment><USER2> You are welcome.

That's great, I totally missed it on AngelList, my bad, glad you posted it.

I have never heard of or seen a growth pattern like that, it is strange. Maybe someone else can comment on it. Usually we see clients that have much more rocky patterns with the overall trend growing but it is up and down and of course has spike trends near events, press coverage etc. Our own growth has seen that same trend so that seems more normal to me, but hey, long as you are growing it is good.

On your website, it isn't horrid, but I just don't think it puts your best foot forward or gives you the first impression of a professional firm yet.

I am in the same position you are overall, solo founder with a wife, kids etc. That is part of what stopped me from taking some investment dollars earlier this year for my product business. We had been seeking out interested investors because we have some traction, but both groups that gave us offers (term sheets + details) were limiting me to such a small founder salary I couldn't support my family on it. Literally one of them was around a $50k salary, which I don't mean to scoff at, but just isn't realistic for this point in my life. We don't live the high life and have little debt/bills overall, but that is just too low for us. The catch is I couldn't be pissed at them because they are focused on making money, it just didn't work for us and they weren't willing to budge. So instead I changed the plan, pulled back some and am regrouping to pull more consulting income again. And I will just bootstrap more until either I make it, the product fails, I fail or I decide to try and raise again. The only part that really sucked to me was that sadly rejecting those offers meant I had to change my team up for that product because I just couldn't support them full time without enough revenue or investment.

Good luck, my email is in my profile if you want to chat offline any.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. I'll drop you a line.

The growth pattern is weird -- in kind of a good way -- and is definitely real as confirmed by admin panel signups, paid conversions, etc. mirroring and confirming it. Those are also pretty solid stable percentages of the overall count.

Web visits follow a much more rocky pattern but if you smooth out the noise you get a rough echo of the 1.4% connected devices growth rate for recurring visits, which make sense and further confirms its reality.

I've just never seen a growth rate so consistent and deterministic. You can hold the edge of a piece of paper under a log(Y) scale graph of "devices online" and the line is straight. Apparently in ten years I will have a device online for every atom in the solar system. /lulz

Granted I've been focusing on bug fixes, software improvements, and working with select customers, so I haven't done much to update the web site or optimize for viral growth. This is very much a "hands off" organic rate. It'll be interesting to see how it responds if I do change things up a bit. The smoothness of it will make any kind of A/B testing a breeze... any change should jump right out and smack me in the face. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a startup founder myself and someone once told me that no one will run a startup like the founder himself, especially in the beginning. I've taken this advice to heart because even during the bad times, I've managed to keep going because I'm passionate about my space and I'm patient and persistent. (almost to a fault)

That being said, I've had team members come and go....mostly because I was hiring young developers that were still in school. Even though I was doing most of the leg work, I did have that assistance at times and was able to have that team feel that investors very much liked.

Teams are always in flux and if you have a bad team member, you'll have to face the difficult decision of letting someone go. It's an evolving process but it gets better everytime. I've been at this for a couple of years and I'm not convinced I have that A+ team quite yet. So on certain occasions, I still think I'm a solo founder (if that makes any sense.) I suppose it's how you look at things.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another thought:

If I were an investor, I would probably have a strong bias toward 2+ founder startups. This wouldn't be because single founder startups never work, but because of "bus factor." Having two or more founders at least halves the likelihood that the single founder will in one way or another become incapacitated. This could refer to medical or personal problems or just to burnout, personality issues, etc. It's a lot of eggs in one basket.

So I suspect that investors like multiple founders because they like to reduce risk.

I also do suspect that single founder startups _are_ at a disadvantage. You have half the networking surface area and are much more prone to getting discouraged without the moral support another person can offer. We are social beings. I'm just curious about whether the disadvantage is as extreme as PG claims. I've seen numerous counterexamples, but honestly I have yet to see any good hard vetted statistics either way. I mostly see a lot of opinion.

I guess it's a tough statistic to really gather, since there is no single central registry of tech startups.</comment>


A Survival Guide For The Hobbyists - <AUTHOR> http://startupcrunch.org/a_survival_guide_for_the_hobbyists

<comment><USER2> Metaphor alert!

"Gong side by side with the above, the danger any new industry faces is that instead of the powerful companies or parents and guardians for want of an analogy, looking after the young, supporting them with their wealth and helping them grow from acorns into a wild symbiotic forest, they cannibalize them, treating them as cattle that they feed from, inevitably leaving a baron desert in their wake."

</comment><comment><USER3> _Google should have absolutely no say what-so-ever as to who links to who and for what motive._

I knew it was a bad article from the introduction, complaining about how capitalism was bad for the poor guy. Anyway, can we say "crappy reasoning"? I don't remember having Google telling me where to place a link.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> _rglullis No we cannot say 'crappy reasoning, you clearly cannot see the wood for the trees.

_ jimbokun Go troll on Techcrunch where you could be of some use.</comment>