A world without power - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/a-world-without-power <comment><USER3> Complex systems, like the human body, are incredibly robust (failure rates of the death penalty in the US, for example, are surprisingly high), and incredibly fragile (we've all heard stories about the person who slipped on the ice, hit their head and instantly died). We get used to the robust and we sometimes forget the fragile.

When I lived in Switzerland I was surprised to find that every modern building has a nuclear bunker in the basement, and that even now they are kept up: supplies are rotated, there are inspections, etc. At first it seemed quaint, but then I realized that as arguably the richest country in the world, they're not as interested in getting richer as they are in preserving what they have -- thus different forms of insurance, including even bunkers. I now find that quite smart, actually.

<comment><USER4> Switzerland's bunker policy is the logical extension of that country's historically defensive posture.

The Swiss have deliberately made it very, very difficult to perform a conventional invasion of their country; the geography makes it a natural fortress and they've studiously added to it.

If conventional invasion is impossible, then the next option is weapons of mass destruction. Relatively cheap and effective. The Swiss have no WMD deterrent of their own, therefore they have to bet on survivability. Hence the bunkers.

As a country they definitely take the very long view.

<comment><USER5> It's also worth to notice the way Swiss survived WWII. They sat on critical supply routes, and organized guerilla before anyone could invade, giving them an incredibly strong bargaining position.

Keeping bunkers actually works well with that. And they're not really wasted space — people use them as wine cellars, washing rooms or whatever else.

<comment><USER6> I don't think their neutrality would have lasted very long had Hitler finished off the UK and USSR.

They also turned away plenty of Jewish refugees, as well as secreting gold stolen from concentration camp victims.

Their record during WWII is shameful.

<comment><USER7> The US also turned away plenty of Jewish refugees. US and the UK refused to let Black Free French soldiers take part in the freeing of Paris since they wanted it to be a "white victory". The US also put Japanese Americans in internment camps.

Its ridiculous to single out the Swiss as shameful in WW2, looking at norms 70 years ago would make all people "shameful" in some way.

<comment><USER8> >Its ridiculous to single out the Swiss as shameful in WW2, looking at norms 70 years ago would make all people "shameful" in some way.

Are you actually equating all acts of 'shamefulness' during the 30s/40s at the same level? Your statement is tantamount to equating the actions of the allies with the axis, which is obviously ludicrous. The Swiss acted uncharacteristically selfishly and shamefully, even when compared to the record of the US. There's no need to jump to some half-baked defense of the Swiss, they deserve every bit of criticism leveled at them for their actions during WW2.

<comment><USER7> I was only replying specifically to the two claims that you made.

The first of which was exactly the same in the US (and possibly less justified; given it's size, the US could have absorbed Jewish refugees much more easily than the Swiss).

The second was almost certainly done at a smaller scale by US banks, and is mostly just because the US didn't have the opportunity since fewer Holocaust victims had their Gold in American banks than Swiss banks. It's ridiculous to think that Americans were so much more moral than the Swiss just because they had fewer opportunities to steal.

If there are other things that the Swiss did that were so shameful, I am interested in knowing.

<comment><USER8> >I was only replying specifically to the two claims that you made.

Well, that's not really true. Your post acted as a rebuff of the criticism of Switzerland, based on the logic that the US undertook similar actions. You said Switzerland "shouldn't be singled out" for criticism, yet OP _wasn't_ singling Switzerland out but merely adding information to the topic at hand, which was Switzerland's record during WW2. So why even bring the US up? Nothing they did eliminates the need to remind people of Switzerland's abhorrent actions during WW2, and yet you still state this shouldn't be done ("Its ridiculous to single out the Swiss as shameful in WW2.")

Secondly, the statement that I quoted of yours made quite a specific argument that you didn't mention most recently, regarding how Switzerland's actions should be viewed in perspective of the times. I argued it was fallacious to say that flattening the morality of the issue just because standards were lower during the war results in less of a need to discuss Switzerland's crimes during this time. You haven't attempted to refute this point, yet your latest post still made the statement that "I was only replying specifically to the two claims that you made [Swiss rejection of refugees and theft from Holocaust victims]" (which is aside from the fact that I am not the original author of the post you first responded to.)

So it's still curious why you felt the need to rebuff gadders criticism of the Swiss during WW2 given that it was on topic, even acknowledging similar actions take by the US.

<comment><USER7> I understood the original post as implying that the Swiss were effectively Nazi sympathizers since they turned away people fleeing the Holocaust; the statement is very misleading when stated alone. I mention the US did the same and they are very unlikely to be accused of being Nazi collaborators.

The reason I bring up the context of other countries at the same time period is _not_ to say the actions are admirable, I am providing context of what else was happening at the same time. I think many people don't fully realize that actions that used to be routine would be reviled through the lens of today's politics and norms; examine any one country and you can easily condemn anyone.

I assumed the response most readers would have with that knowledge is to vilify the Swiss while still holding the Allies in high esteem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Great Outage of 2003 was a fun time. We had a gas stove so we could still cook dinner (though as a newspaper columnist friend of mine wrote at the time, the entire neighbourhood was suffused with the smell of everything out of every fridge cooking on the barbecue), and several neighbours came by to share a glass of wine on our front porch.

It was breathtaking, that night, to look up at the clear sky and see the countless stars blazing down without having to compete with light pollution from the city. Normally you have to go several hours into northern Ontario to see the like.

One of the things that impressed me was how civil everyone was. I was at the downtown library when the power failed, and the 2 km walk home was filled with curiosity (just how big _is_ this thing?) but free of incident.

Even at intersections, nearly everyone slowed down or stopped and eased through without trouble. On a few corners, self-appointed crossing guards helped maintain order - in fact, those tended to be the worst intersections, because drivers would cede responsibility to the crossing guard instead of responding directly to the conditions.

<comment><USER10> It was fun because you knew there would be an end to it and the power would go back on. If it lasted a month and there was no communication, survival mode would kick in.

<comment><USER11> A month is generous, though it depends on the community, I suppose.

<comment><USER12> If you want to see how strong society is turn off the water supply, and leave it off. Never mind the power.

<comment><USER13> What's that supposed to do, exactly? Worst case is you buy $1 gallons of water at the grocery store for a while and don't shower.

<comment><USER14> And don't use the bathroom?

<comment><USER15> Humanity got by for quite a long time without flush toilets. That would be relatively low on my list of concerns.

<comment><USER16> Humanity got by without a lot of things for a very long time. But around 1800, the population begun to climb. After taking 200,000 years to reach our first billion we, reached our seventh just 200 years later. A sudden reversion to the conditions known by America's Founding Fathers would leave ~7/8th of the global population unsupported.

So yes, flush toilets would be the least of your concerns, what with the zombie apocalypse in full swing and everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> According to the IEEE, another geomagnetic storm like the ones that happened in 1921 and 1859 would take out power grids continent-wide, for years: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter- grid/a-perfect-s...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter- grid/a-perfect-storm-of-planetary-proportions/0)

The main problem is high-voltage transformers, which are built mostly by hand by highly-skilled labor. There's a fairly simple way to protect them, but no utility does it.

<comment><USER18> _There's a fairly simple way to protect them, but no utility does it._

You mean a faraday cage? Will wrapping it with foil work?

<comment><USER11> > _First, the intense magnetic field variations in the magnetosphere induce > electric fields and currents over large areas of Earth's surface. In turn, > this geoelectric field creates what are known as geomagnetically induced > currents, or GICs, which flow in any available conductor, including high- > voltage transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines, railways, and undersea > communications cables. These interconnecting networks essentially act as > giant antennas that channel the induced currents from the ground. Hit with a > 300-ampere GIC, a high-voltage transformer's paper tape insulation will > burn, its copper winding will melt, and the transformer will fail, either > right then and there or in the future._

> _There is a quick and relatively cheap fix to help protect these > transformers from geomagnetically induced currents: They can be retrofitted > to block the inflow of GICs. But no utilities anywhere routinely protect > their multimillion-dollar transformers in this way._

<comment><USER19> So this is basically just fusing the transformer, right? The grid will still be down?

<comment><USER20> Well, if both the transformers and actual long distance wires survive the event, then the grid can be brought back up.

Most of grid 'defenses' involve some temporary disconnection of components; the robustness question is how quickly you can reconnect again - is it an automatic switch after half a second, or does it require sending repair squads to thousand remote locations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My lesson is slightly different - regulation really does matter. I know many (myself included) subscribe to a small (ish) government - but infrastructure is one of those areas that has to be regulated.

The markets did not correct the situation (jacques gas station is not now the preferred suppliers for all Ontario) So a simple regulation (you must be designed to keep your service flowing) seems to deal with a huge amount of this - power companies that don't have rolling brown outs get to be in business the next day etc

<comment><USER12> Jacques' gas station actually went out of business: [http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/stick-to-what-you-know-a- tale...](http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/stick-to-what-you-know-a-tale-of-an- investment-gone-wrong)

<comment><USER22> Due to lax accounting, it seems. (There's a more proximate reason, but the story's too good to spoil with a tl;dr).

<comment><USER12> More due to a lack of oversight and an excess of trust.

I'm pretty sure my Canadian accountant would be quite upset at your conclusion. Cash disappearing has nothing at all to do with accounting.

<comment><USER22> Maybe I'm using the term "accounting" a bit loosely. It's not the accountants job to monitor day-to-day cashflow, that's more a bookkeeper's or manager's job. If they're crooked, it's a bit harder to catch (especially if they are able to offset cash losses with by opening secret a line of credit with a supplier).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's funny, we're so highly dependent on electricity for everything that there's not more failsafes in place. Generators aren't exactly super cheap, but they're at a price point where if your business requires power then having one in the wings is useful. Even more surprising that a big petrol station wouldn't have one.

It's also telling that when power goes down, or there's a big event (inclement weather and so on), there's a rash of panic buying, some incredibly ugly behaviour (looting, greedy price increases) but offset by some truly wonderful behaviour (free gas to stranded people? Friends for life at that stage). Society might be a veneer of polish, but at it's core there's still a lot of incredibly nice people.

<comment><USER24> Price increases are the natural response from market forces given the reduction or merely risk of reduction in supply. This has at least two important beneficial effects: 1) people are less likely to panic buy 2) the incentive for supplying increases.

<comment><USER23> No doubt, free market economies do love price increases but it's often at a level that could be viewed as price gouging to make money off someones misfortune. Whether that's a truly bad thing is probably a longer conversation for a different day (is there a morality in the marketplace, and so on).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Every Infrastructure-We-All-Rely-On (electricity, water, roads, medicine, banking IT) person I've ever talked to says a variation on the same thing: it's a good thing that terrorists are so fond of "hollywood plots".

<comment><USER25> Although most infrastructure things seem to be distributed and don't usually have single points of failure that would make good targets for terrorist attacks. Or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER26> You could poison water. After 9/11 in Warsaw, Poland we had some jounralists sneak up to a municipal water storage facility and pour powdered sugar to water supplies on camera to show how easy would it be to do the same thing with another, more lethal, white powder.

Also I guess doing serious damage to power grid isn't beyond the realms of possibility? You could of course bomb a substation, but I guess there are more subtle (and difficult to repair) ways you could inflict the damage if you took control over a small part of the grid. I guess I should stop speculating and leave the specifics to those in the know ;).

Big (and long lasting) infrastructure failures will have more damaging impact on both the local economy[0] and people's "ease of mind" than a random mall bombing.

[0] - remember the recent jwz story about power cable? How as long as it wasn't repaired, it costed the city $13k/hour? <http://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/11/engineering-pornography/>

<comment><USER25> Don't know about the power grid, but I think at least in Europe it seems to be networked among several countries. If one country does not produce enough power, it can import power from other countries. Unless there is a single main line between the countries, it seems difficult to destroy.

<comment><USER12> Ask the Czechs and the Poles how they like their hook-up with Germany.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/windmills- overload-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/windmills-overload- east-europe-s-grid-risking-blackout-energy.html)

<comment><USER25> Too much energy - funny problem :-)

I don't think this is much of an issue, though.

<comment><USER12> On the contrary, it's a huge problem. Sooner or later there will be the surge they can't deal with and then we could easily get the same cascade issues that destabilized the North American grid during the outage. Island mode - <USER2> disconnection of all external connections - is the failsafe of last resort but by that time there will be large areas of Europe in the dark ages.

The grid has become so interconnected with such highly fluctuating loads that it's a miracle we haven't seen a serious outage yet.

Basically Germany uses Polish, Czech and Hungarian grids as a load leveler and as a way to transport power inside the union to countries they have deals with. But exactly those grids are amongst the oldest and weakest that we've got.

This is not a simple problem and the potential for error is much larger than you'd expect given the number of people that rely on these systems. So far so good. I personally believe that Germany should pay for the conditioning equipment to deal with the varying load of their windplants, the load patterns are a direct consequence of using wind energy and it should not fall to Germany's neighbours to fund a chunk of infrastructure that solely exists to deal with the wind surges.

In the United States every windplant has a conditioner at the uplink to make sure that the relatively fragile long distance network does not suffer. That's one single economic entity so there is no externalization possible.

<comment><USER25> So the terrorist plot would be to overload the power grid. Since they come from oil rich countries, they'd probably have the spare energy to do that :-) Place some oil powered generators at strategic locations and blam - darkness...

But in seriousness, I find the issue interesting, but it seems solvable.

<comment><USER12> It's mostly a matter of who picks up the bill. Until then we're playing chicken with a critical resource.

<comment><USER25> True - while I think it is solvable, I have less confidence that it will be solved :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Eliminate price gouging laws and give gas station owners an incentive to buy generators and this problem goes away. Also gives an incentive to truck gas in from afar. Obviously people view increased prices during a crisis to be morally repugnant, hence the laws. Just sayin' it would work.

<comment><USER12> In Northern Ontario everything except for lumber, iron ore and moose meat gets trucked in from afar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's very interesting to see how quickly things turn ugly (or at least uglier) in situations like that. With power down for two days, did they see any increase in crime beyond what you described?

As it happens I was watching a TV-series yesterday that has this exact plot/theme, not exactly HN material as it's Sci-Fi but anyway: The world loses power globally. Anything using power is dead. Planes, Cars, batteries, etc.

Not sure if it's a hit that will last but I found it entertaining and it made me think a bit, what would I be able to do to survive something like that? What would my plan be?

I'm not about to go all doomsday prepper but I guess it does not hurt to at least have an idea.

Or just be prepared like in the story, preparing for the worst as we usually do when designing redundant solutions.

<http://www.tvrage.com/Revolution>

<comment><USER29> Revolution is the silliest TV show ever contrived. 15 years in the power outage, they still wear clean tailored designer clothes. Resistance fights the only organizing and governing force, why?, just because. Electricity is out (or rather blocked), but diesel engines don't work either - surprise, many diesel engines don't depend on electricity to operate.

<comment><USER28> Well yes, I'm not saying the show is not flawed or silly. But I found it entertaining enough simply because it made me think 'what if .. ?'

<comment><USER30> I like the premise because exploring the ramifications is interesting and useful. Unfortunately they then turn to magical plot devices. I was very let down by that; it got steadily less entertaining after the first few episodes (just like Fringe).

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I love the idea of the show, but then I read about the execution ( [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-10-dumbest-things-tv-so- far-...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-10-dumbest-things-tv-so-far-this- season/) ) and have nothing to do but sigh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is a brilliant story. I wonder how other infrastructure coped with the outage (water supply network and sewers). Living in a dormitory in Russia, we had outages in water supply periodically (once it lasted for whole two weeks) and that quickly translated into a horrible mess of insanitary.

Also loved the little episode with bikers, as I'm fascinated with their craft. Hope there is a going to be a followup about them.

<comment><USER32> Systems that relied on pumping for pressure ended up under boil water advisories. Detroit, Cleveland, others. I think water pressure was mostly restored 3 or 4 days in though.

<comment><USER33> The tap water in Detroit never tasted the same afterwards, though no one else in my family felt the same way. I felt like I could taste and sometimes smell chlorine. Even the last time I visited Detroit (years later, and in a completely different part of the surrounding area).

<comment><USER12> You can get sensitized to Chlorine. (and to lots of other stuff as well).

<comment><USER33> The Detroit water system completely lost pressure. My assumption was that they upped the chlorine content to compensate for possible contamination in the system. They probably never reduced the concentration (either by design or by accident).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > _if you're in the infrastructure business design as if lives depend on it._

This. Is not as simple as it sounds.

It is why some colleagues of mine stubbornly refuse to write software for medical appliances: even if they design as if their lives depend on it, they might make a mistake and cause serious harm.

<comment><USER12> Smart guys. Know your limits. I have daily fights on this subject :) (colleagues, all in good humor but serious all the same, we'd rather not ship than ship something that breaks which has slowed us down in a terrible way).

<comment><USER35> I once designed an ultrasound system that was used to decide the magnification of the plastic lens implanted in a cataract patient's eye. It scares me more now than it did then (the late '80s / early '90s).

It takes a while to learn your limits ... and to become a "sage". Once you become a "sage", you realize that you don't actually know much in the grand scheme of things. More people look up to me now that I know less ... That's pretty amusing in its own way.

<comment><USER12> It's funny how over the years my programming style changed. First it was 'C100', then it was more and more complex with ever increasing mastery of the language and ditto for other languages that I'm familiar with. Now I find I've come full circle. I keep things as simple as possible even if I know the 'perfect' (but more complex) way to solve something I'll stick to simple patterns and bullet proof rather than 'clever'. It took me a long time to come to the realization that clever code really isn't.

<comment><USER36> "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? " - Brian Kernighan (Sourced from wikipedia)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I remember watching the first episode of "Connections" when I was a kid and being pretty badly frightened by the power-loss scenario that James Burke described: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOp-nz3lHg>

<comment><USER38> For those of you who haven't seen Connections - they're all on YouTube:

<http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeWeb>

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> A reasonable part of this conversation is the possibility that an EMP could be deployed in our atmosphere that would knock out power from coast-to-coast. US government commissions have been setup to study this, and they have come back with dire predictions about how quickly society would collapse in that event. And, if you'll pardon the author's bias, someone recently wrote ([http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/north- korea-...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/north-korea-emp- attack-could-destroy-us-now/)) about how North Korea's new ICBM capabilities threaten the US right now.

I'm not saying we should all be running around waving our hands in the air and acting like our hair is on fire, but if you want to talk about single points of failure, you apparently need look no further than your nearest wall outlet.

</comment><comment><USER40> Sometimes it bothers me that consumption is very cheap. It makes us unaware. Unaware of environment issues, ethical issues, safety issues, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER41> >>Infrastructure is invisible, as long as it works.

This is exactly why it is so difficult to convince politicians and the general public that infrastructure spending is absolutely worthwhile. Even though it makes the entire economy more efficient and fail-proof, most people take it for granted until it fails.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've never understood why gas stations don't have generators. They already meet most of the permitting requirements (having underground tanks is the big thing), are generally staffed, and are fairly well distributed.

Maybe it's not frequent enough (and, with anti-gouging and no consumer loyalty, not a worthwhile investment), but that just means the business model is broken. Either do it as a subscription service (if you have amex platinum, you get access to a network of hardened gas stations; or, if you pay $50/yr), or have government do it.

If the homeland security people lost $1-2b in budget and it got used to put generators and caches of supplies at them (maybe just a cell site with long runtime), we'd be a lot better off.

</comment><comment><USER43> One of the things I often like to point out to those that criticize India's unreliable infrastructure is this: If it came to be that India were at war, taking out its power stations would give very little benefit to an enemy. Most industries and businesses have made provisions for generators and inverters (huge batteries that store electricity for a few hours of use) so as to not depend on the flaky power utilities

</comment><comment><USER44> I think the trick is to distribute power generation and other services and goods manufacturing as widely as possible. Ideally, each individual home or building could provide for its own basic needs, or at least a significant portion or backup. I think that new technologies (nanotech, biotech, greentech, etc.) and popular dissemination of older technologies could make this possible.

</comment><comment><USER45> Two years ago I visited the site of a company in South Africa that delivers (short-term) emergency power to remote areas in modularized fashion.

I wrote about it here: <http://joubert.posterous.com/modular-mobile-power>

<comment><AUTHOR> Now submitted as an item in its own right: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998770>

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> excellent writing. how long until similar "world w/o Internet-access" type essays?

even today, something to keep in mind as we design and implement Internet dependent/co-dependent systems and processes?</comment>


Best of Show 2012 - The International Obfuscated C Code Contest - <AUTHOR> http://www.ioccc.org/2011/akari/hint.html

<comment><AUTHOR> A friend at MIT graphics sent this along.

"<http://www.ioccc.org/2011/akari/akari.c>

Not only is the input program ASCII art, but it can downsample .PPM/.PGM...and also text. In fact, it downsamples itself, into the source code for a C program with reduced functionality. And it can do it 4 times:

<http://www.ioccc.org/2011/akari/hint.html></comment>


American Idol and Venture Capital - <AUTHOR> http://redeye.firstround.com/2007/04/american_idol.html <comment><USER2> Because it is so rare among VCs, Simon-like feedback would be refreshing, almost welcome.

Then again, unlike judging singing ability, the chances of being correct as often as Simon is are low.

Which probably explains why there are so many Randys among the VC crowd.

<comment><USER3> It would be hard for investors to give as much feedback as an American Idol judge because they have so much less information. AI judges have actually seen the person perform. An investor merely talks to them about what they _would_ do.

Often you have no more than a gut feel. E.g. "This person seems kind of ineffectual." It would be useless as well as insulting to be candid in that case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think there's a way to be like Simon but without being rude. Just give direct and honest feedback. What's wrong with transparency?

<comment><USER5> Transparency is good for the entrepeneurs, but perhaps not for VCs.

It must take a lot of work to prepare an insightful honest answer. A shady answer gets the entrepeneur out the door without the need for putting together a well-structured argument.

<comment><USER4> I agree that it takes more work, it also takes more work for entrepreneurs to be transparent, honest and open. It's always easier to hide. At least it will always feel easier and safer.

VC's almost unanimously claim that they like what they do because they get to be involved in helping entrepreneurs succeed. I don't doubt that to be true. They could be more helpful with a bit of effort put into providing true, honest feedback to entrepreneurs.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Scammed. Now what? - <AUTHOR> Hey HN,
My wife has just been scammed through a PayPal phishing e-mail. I'm angry as fu*k, but long story short. Here is what she did:

  - typed her PayPal username/password;
  - provided her name, phone number and address
  - shared her credit card details
  - uploaded a photo holding her driver's license and cc. This is the format "required" by the fraudulent web site:
 https://ibb.co/dAC5t6
Now here is what I've done so far:

  - changed her PayPal password
  - locked her CC
  - changed password on other web sites (email, amazon, etc.)
  - reported scammers to PayPal
 Any other immediate steps I should take? <comment><USER2> It's hard to tell through text on a post on HN but make sure you take a breath and gently show your wife that you aren't "angry as f*ck" at her. You might already have done this and if so, disregard this advice. But you sound overly mad. All of this is fixable. But she now had been violated and is the victim here. If I were in her shoes I would not want you to be angry with me as well. Phishers are pretty good at suckering people into these scams and she was caught. Oops. Life will go on.

Second, and this is coming from a guy who has horrible anxiety and panic attacks (me) especially when it comes to money and scams, again take a breath. Relax. It's going to be ok.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I am mad, but I handled it properly. She was deeply frustrated, so I had to give her a hug and explain, that everything is ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No point in locking your CC. Ask for new credit cards. Also, add a security question or key to allow customer service to access your account (different from online one)

Freeze your credit, add a pin.

Get new DL number?

</comment><comment><USER4> Did they buy something? You can make PayPal reverse thr transaction. I was on the other side of this before, a scammer used a stolen account to pay me. PayPal reversed the transaction and I couldn't do anything. Really unfair considering that I wasn't the one phished.

</comment><comment><USER5> You probably need to freeze the credit with the major agencies (experian, equifax, transunion)

This is for equifax: [https://www.freeze.equifax.com](https://www.freeze.equifax.com)

<comment><USER6> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207754](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207754) (Sep 2017) <\- the whole parent discussion there may be at least partially useful

>mistersquid: _tl;dr: Freeze requests for your credit data at the big 3: Equifax [1], Experian [2], and Transunion [3]. (Note: these services may require multiple attempts, some persistence, a service fee, or a phone call to an automated system. YMMV.)_

[1] [https://www.freeze.equifax.com/Freeze/jsp/SFF_PersonalIDInfo...](https://www.freeze.equifax.com/Freeze/jsp/SFF_PersonalIDInfo.jsp)

[2] [https://www.experian.com/freeze/center.html](https://www.experian.com/freeze/center.html)

[3] [https://www.transunion.com/credit-freeze/place-credit- freeze](https://www.transunion.com/credit-freeze/place-credit-freeze)

>MicroBerto: _Don 't forget Innovis_ [https://www.innovis.com/personal/securityFreeze](https://www.innovis.com/personal/securityFreeze)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot! This is helpful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would start with educating your family about phishing.

It might be worth calling the bank(s) you do business with and notifying them of the fraudulent activity so they can keep an eye out too.

</comment><comment><USER8> You should also cancel the credit card and make a new one</comment>


Why I'm Done With Reddit - Could it happen here? - <AUTHOR> http://www.philonoist.net/2008/03/14/im-done-with-reddit/

<comment><USER2> This place is still widely undiscovered, and I'm sure easily moderated if need be. There's always the possibility the site'll get over run with juveniles, but with such a clear cut topic of submissions, it's a slim chance for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER3> I put more faith in the fact that PG doesn't need to make money from ever more traffic to the site, so he's free to use hard tactics.

<comment><USER4> Indeed. Reddit seemed to go downhill when politics went popular. I would hate to see politics here unless it is relevant to hackers/startups in a more direct way (ie for discussion, not arguments).</comment></comment></comment>


New Course: The Design of Everyday Things - <AUTHOR> http://blog.udacity.com/2013/07/new-course-design-of-everyday-things.html <comment><USER2> The "Design of Everyday Things" is probably one of the best books I have ever read on design. It's poignant for any designer of anything a human interacts with. Even though this book doesn't touch computer interaction it's completely relevant. Bonus: everyone you know who reads this book, or takes this course, will annoy you a little with the overuse of their wonderful new word "affordance". :-)

<comment><USER3> you're not the only one here, so please excuse me - this isn't a personal attack - but what does "poignant" mean in american english these days?

as an english english speaker, it's associated with regret, sadness, etc. yet i've seen it used here multiple times to mean something completely different. what?

<comment><USER4> This isn't snark. I legitimately tried explaining in my own words. I wasn't satisfied, so: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poignant](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poignant)

<comment><USER3> hmm. [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/poignant?q=...](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/poignant?q=poignant) (also my dead-tree concise oxford, with a longer entry, doesn't have anything that's not emotionally affected, one way or another).

i suspect it's a cultural variation.

<comment><USER4> As mentioned by one of the other replies, it comes from "to prick" in Old French, so the usage you're seeing—Profoundly moving; touching—seems to align with that fairly well, at a glance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In case the name doesn't ring a bell, The Design of Everyday Things is an extremely readable introduction to usability, and an absolute classic in its field:

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

You'll never look a door the same way again... particularly if it has a handle but still expects to be pushed open.

<comment><USER6> Handles help when you want to close the door. I get your point though.

<comment><USER7> Actually, the points are about push/pull doors and the choice of fixtures placed as affordances to suggest the appropriate action by the user.

<comment><USER8> We know that. The GP is pointing out a secondary purpose that is often overlooked. Automatic door closers are subject to failure, and when they're inoperative then having a handle is a good thing. Commercial building owners also like handles because they can be chained shut easily if the tenant stops paying rent, even if the tenant has changed the locks.

This is not to dispute the (great) value of the book, but to point out that there's often more than one use case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The quality of Udacity courses combined with an updated "Design of Everyday Things" plus Don Norman's direct involvement makes this course sound very attractive. The Udacity "Introduction to Computer Science" course by David Evans, by the way, is excellent. It is the one that I chose for by sons to take online this summer. I liked the balance it provided between pragmatic programming (Python exercises completed and evaluated in-browser) and CS fundamentals (BNF introduced in first lesson, for example). This new design course may have to be next on their list.

<comment><USER10> I totally agree -- the quality of Udacity courses is the best of any of the online learning options (paid or free). Every time a non-CS friend asks me where to start learning to code online I point them to Udacity's CS 101 (over Codecademy or Coursera).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand why you would want to take a course with that book. What on earth do people expect to get out of that they can't get from reading the book?

Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but it's popular because it's easy to understand, not because it necessarily contains actionably insights or complex issues that require a course to unveil.

<comment><USER12> From the preface of the 2013 edition of the book: [http://www.jnd.org/books/design-of-everyday-things- revised.h...](http://www.jnd.org/books/design-of-everyday-things-revised.html)

"When I started, I assumed that the basic principles were still true, so all I needed to do was update the examples. But in the end, I rewrote everything."

"When I wrote the original book I was an academic researcher. Today, I have been an industry executive (Apple, HP, and some startups), a consultant to numerous companies, and a board member of companies. I had to include my learnings from these experiences."

"Finally, one important component of the original edition was its brevity. The book could be read quickly as a basic, general introduction. I kept that feature unchanged. I tried to delete as much as I added to keep the total size about the same. The book is meant to be an introduction: advanced discussions of the topics, as well as a large number of important, but more advanced, topics have been left out to maintain the compactness."

Although these portions were taken from the new book I expect to gain even more insight from this course.

<comment><USER11> I fail to see how that would happen, but each to his own :)

<comment><USER13> When you're just writing, it's hard to tell where the audience will get confused, or grasp a concept quickly and you can move on (or risk boring them). If a lecturer can interact with an audience, he's more likely to be clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's so weird seeing prices on courses, coming from Europe. With that said, I've taken a course heavily based on this book. It is mandatory for all comp. sci. students at my Uni. Many didn't like it, being to "soft" when they wanted to hack, and complaining that "most of it is sooo obvious". And yes, it may be obvious when spelled out, but far too often overlooked and forgotten. I quite liked it.

<comment><USER15> Which university did you study at?

<comment><USER14> NTNU, Norway

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's interesting how many design links pop up here. I came here with a technical background and developed an interest for entrepreneurship reading HN, and I think that in the same way a design interest develops in those who are already sold on the idea of doing a startup. It'll be interesting to see what collective interest will develop here after design has become a core part of the "HN mentality".

</comment><comment><USER17> Don Norman has just released a new version of this book – seems like a smart move to do a course.

<comment><USER18> And it's about time for a new version too. I've been reading through the older version of it (2002) and was talking to family about some of the anachronisms of the book - such as Norman remarking at how much easier videotapes are to use compared to film reels, and ending off by saying "but it doesn't matter, because soon there will be no film, only videotapes". I remarked that many examples in this book would be incomprehensible to 20-year-olds ten years from now, who've never dealt with technologies like a VCR or the button-covered phones of the 80s and 90s.

All in all, though, highly recommended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another great quote from the book:

 _The same technology that simplifies life by providing more functions in each device also complicates life by making the device harder to learn, harder to use. This is the paradox of technology.

The paradox of technology should never be used as an excuse for poor design._

~ The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman

</comment><comment><USER20> I've never read this book but of course now I have to.

I'll suggest reading Henry Petroski's stuff, too. "The Evolution of Useful Things", "The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance", and "To Engineer is Human" all make the case that the design of things around us are shaped less by insight and more by evolution, incrementally building on the mistakes of the past.

If "The Design of Everyday Things" is half as interesting as Petroski's books, I can't wait to read it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Don't bother trying to sign up, after they get you to make an account they tell you: > The Design of Everyday Things > We're still making this course but we'll let you know when it's ready!

Pretty annoying it gave me the option of Google/Facebook login, then made me fill out information anyway. The whole reason I picked Google to login is because I don't want to fill out a registration form for site number 1000.

<comment><USER22> So you're telling people they shouldn't sign up because the course isn't available right this instant?

FYI, it says right there on the page:

> Design of Everyday Things will consist of four courses that are tentatively > scheduled to start in Fall 2013.

> If you're interested in enrolling, please click the orange "Add to My > Courses" button on this page and we'll be in touch as more details are > available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I used to give this book away to all my employees who were involved in GUI design. It is great about respecting and understanding your users, even if on the surface it's about door handles.

I wonder how this will play into Udacity, as I view it more as a platform for short quizes and testing via code. This is more a book on conceptual understanding.

</comment><comment><USER24> Wonderful book, but if Norman is updating it, I really hope he drops the 'POET' backronym. It was contrived and awkward, and it's repeated inclusion felt seemed more like a slight to the publisher who changed the name from Psychology Of Everyday Things to its more approachable name.

</comment><comment><USER25> It will be interesting to see how the course is designed, given that nobody has yet to really figure out the design and pedagogy of online teaching. It'd probably be worth checking this out.

</comment><comment><USER26> Has anyone had any luck signing into the udacity course on their ipad using either facebook or google login? My attempts keep resulting in a blank white screen.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's strangely hard to do, but I'll go ahead and admit I found the first couple chapters incredibly dull and put this book down.</comment>


Ask HN: Product Needed – Willing to Pay - <AUTHOR> I'm willing to pay for a product.
Product: Internet search engine
Features: Give me check boxes so I can select: No ads, No Javascript, no autoload vids, forum only, wiki only, .gov only, .edu only, .org only, etc. (ie quick, easy, granular control over my searches).
Code used: As lite as possible. No cutesy jiggly stuff. You can make modern design without all the JS and other crap. No tracking or other BS that you are going to sell to advertisers.
Revenue: I'll pay right now. Use the WhatsApp model (before it got facephuqed) of a buck a year. Heck, I'd pay a buck a month easily. <comment><USER2> What do you search for mostly? Would a vertical search engine work for you?</comment>


Ask HN: Why don't you eat your own dog food ? - <AUTHOR> Some Examples
1. If you work on Android team but use iPhone personally 2. If you work for facebook but never use or have account with facebook 3. Work for AWS but prefer Azure
4. Work in Windows Development but use Linux at home
Why do you do it and what are the reasons for going with competitor products or avoiding your own product. <comment><USER2> Well, it could be the wrong tool for the job, eg. I will likely never port my cell # to VOIP, its not gonna save me any money to do so.

Another aspect is the employee doesn't want to think of work when doing something else. For over a decade after my father sold cellphones, he refused to get one as he considered them personal tracking devices. This was caused by Law Enforcement sending him records requests regularly, thus he was way too familiar with how much data AT&T collected about users at the time.

</comment><comment><USER3> The answer is in the question!

We know what's the best products, and what are not product, but enslavement or spying/privacy infringing systems. We use the former, and avoid the later.

On the other hand, our bosses are not that discerning, they only want to maximize monetary profits, and this mean they will provide average products for the average (undiscerning) customer. Hence Android, facebook, AWS, and MS- Windows.

You can get more insights by studing the bell curve.</comment>


Algerians massacred in Paris in 1961 - <AUTHOR> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/algerians-massacred-in-paris <comment><AUTHOR> "Here's what happened:

Unarmed Algerian Muslims demonstrating in central Paris against a discriminatory curfew were beaten, shot, garotted and even drowned by police and special troops. Thousands were rounded up and taken to detention centers around the city and the prefecture of police, where there were more beatings and killings.

How many died? No one seems to know for sure, even now. Probably around 200."

<comment><USER2> Due to the possible confusion with current events, I think that for a better title is "Algerians massacred in Paris in 1961"</comment></comment>


Most Waymo Patent Claims Dropped in Autonomous Car Fight with Uber - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-07/waymo-drops-most-patent-claims-in-autonomous-car-fight-with-uber <comment><USER2> Title feels a little clickbaity, as it was a request from the Judge prior to going to a Jury:

      U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco has asked
      Waymo to narrow its more than 100 trade secrets claims to
      fewer than 10 to put in front of a jury.

<comment><USER3> Uber's response to it is even more baffling!

 _" Waymo's retreat on three of their four patent claims is yet another sign that they have overpromised and can't deliver," Uber said in a statement. "Not only have they uncovered zero evidence of any of the 14,000 files in question coming to Uber, they now admit that Uber's LiDAR design is actually very different than theirs. Faced with this hard truth, Waymo has resorted to floating conspiracy theories not rooted in fact, doing everything they can to put the focus on sensation rather than substance."_

<comment><USER4> Is it baffling? They're doing what they can to influence the public (and jury, as impartial as they will try to make it).

<comment><USER5> It is baffling because it does a poor job at influencing. Frankly it sounds kinda unprofessional and "Uberish".

<comment><USER6> Many said similar things about Trump's rhetoric a year ago, yet here we are.

<comment><USER7> It could be Trump rhetoric, if it were a little less coherent and drew from a smaller vocabulary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Google is going to increase or fully acquire Uber. Uber has virtually no management in place right now and I could hypothetically see that clearing being pragmatic for the social reasons, but potentially part of a deal with Google for business ones. Maybe they will reach a settlement before this goes to court. This is obviously unfounded speculation but a few other points

whole C suite is pretty much gone

Uber is integrated into Gmaps. Currently running an existing user promo for $15 if executed through maps.

Whole Uber team has apparently trained on Googles tech already so on boarding will be easier

It's Googles core competency

They already own a smallish percentage

They seem to be focused on production, key exec was let go from Ford for wrecking a Frenemy partnership trade of AI / Tech for Ford production expertise. They have the synergy with Gmaps, much of the AI and prototyping with Waymo and they can turn around the negative sentiment. They need the network short term to ramp up whatever their play is for the future.

I can see this being reasonable. Uber is a financial mess with limited upside if this case goes south and is only attractive to a few buyers. Google, already being an investor is one of they few Incs with the knowledge and capital to actually get value from this cash fire.

<comment><USER9> How would Google deal with Uber's massively inflated $69 billion valuation?

Would investors who bought shares be compensated with pennies on the dollar? Would some investors get more than others?

What motivates people to put in money at these absurd valuations? The hope that they'll come true just some of the time?

<comment><USER10> If Uber is like the other unicorn companies, the investors that gave it the massive valuation have shareholder agreements that allow them to get paid before everyone else does. Anyone with common shares (e.g. employees, etc.) would get virtually nothing.

<comment><USER11> Would suck big time but also be entirely predictable for employees with options/golden-handcuffs who end up with nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Misleading title. Makes it sound like they were wrong and are backing off. The patents being dropped are those which Uber is no longer using but was using at some point in their prototypes. There remains one key patent that Uber is still using and Alphabet is still suing them for it.

<comment><USER13> Google's spin is that they're dropping them because they're no longer using them, but the reality is that the judge has told them they're wrong:

> Judge William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, who is > overseeing the case, urged the company's lawyers at a hearing on June 7 to > drop the patent claims because "you're going to lose on all these patent > claims unless you pull some rabbit out of a hat."

<comment><USER12> "you're going to lose on all these patent claims ..." because Uber is no longer using them.

Waiting to be asked by the judge to drop them is the only valid political chess move they had. Withdrawing them without being asked would be worse, IMO. But the reason remains the same: Uber used to have them in their design/prototypes but they no longer do.

<comment><USER13> The judge asked them to drop all the patent claims, even the one that Google claims Uber is still using/infringing, which means it's unlikely to be related to whether or not Uber was or continues to infringe on them and more likely to be related to the strength of the patents themselves. A lot of patents get invalidated during cases like these...

<comment><USER12> "Likely to ne related to the strength of the patents" means that the patents have been scrutinized by the court and determined to be invalid. But that is not the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The trade secrets part of the case supposedly has legs, just not very long ones given Uber didn't use the trade secrets Levandowski supposedly stole.

When Waymo first levied the case against Uber I was of the unpopular opinion that it wasn't as strong as it looked. Nonetheless, it ruined Levandowski's career and counted for about a gallon's worth of gasoline on the fire of negative public opinion and investor rage against Uber and it's leadership. Even if Waymo loses in court, it's still a win.

<comment><USER15> > it ruined Levandowski's caree

How so? Like saying police ruined a criminal's normal life?...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> TL;DR: Not much real change. "Most" is "3 out of 4". That's not quite as dramatic as the headline makes it sound. Also note that the case is primarily about trade secrets, not patents.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone know if those 14k files have any evidence linking to Uber's design? If there is no wrongdoing, Uber should continue to figure out autonomous cars as a service model.

<comment><USER18> I imagine google think they have, but the truth is, a document saying that approach X does not work would save anyone who read it a lot of money. And the only thing you'd see in the final design was that it didn't use X.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Reformatted for mobile users:

EDIT: The parent edited their comment, so I've removed my reply, as it's no longer necessary.

This seems like a valuable service, and I'd like to continue doing this, but perhaps I'll add a disclaimer asking people not to talk about HN in the replies to minimize noise. If you have questions or concerns about the site, please email firstname.lastname@example.com rather than leaving a comment.

<comment><USER20> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14720569](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14720569) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER19> Thanks! I don't know whether to keep doing this or not so if you have an opinion one way or the other, let me know.

The community seems to appreciate it, but on the other hand it adds noise. Though one benefit is that it nudges users toward using italics for quotes instead of code blocks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems to me, that Waymo/Google has no real interest in their self-driving car program.

Anthony Levandowski went to Uber because he is interested in furthering self- driving car technology into practical applications and Uber offered to actually, really prioritize his project and make his dreams a reality. That's the only logical explanation of his actions; he thought Uber would be a better technology and business partner.

Setting aside the legal issues of whether what he did was right or not, I don't think Google would be the right custodian of this project anyway. For the greater good of the world, we need self-driving cars to become a reality.

And Google just isn't going to do it. They are invested in self-driving cars like they are invested in contact lenses, or drones, or robots, or go-playing AI, and half-dozen other things. Uber was/is a far more logical choice for a company that is going to be both motivated and pragmatic enough to bring this technology to market.

Google has been working on it for ages and we have yet to see a serious attempt at a non-academic implementation.

<comment><USER22> > Google has been working on it for ages and we have yet to see a serious > attempt at a non-academic implementation.

I trust Google way more than Uber to do something like this right (i.e. not kill people), even if it takes "forever."

<comment><USER23> As much as I personally dislike Google, I have to agree with you here.</comment></comment></comment>