Facebook prohibits music or music listening experience on Live - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/legal/music_guidelines <comment><USER2> Our overly restrictive copyright law does a lot of unnecessary damage to our culture and our society. Instead of adapting to technological change, many music companies seem intent on protecting their revenue by limiting the expression of others, and the ability to remix content.

I wonder if there are exceptions for properly licensed music. It is certainly so hard to license most music that such exceptions are practically useless, though.

<comment><USER3> Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like?

If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?

<comment><USER4> Well, like in open source software we have licenses like MIT and WTFPL, in creative industries there's different Creative Commons licenses like CC0 or CC-BY-SA for example which would grant different usage rights in certain circumstances.

There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud releases for example with great success.

If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.

<comment><USER5> The issue with the permissive licensing is when the works get legally used in works that aren't licensed that way. This is a common cause of YouTube contentID legal "false positive" results.

Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this "edge case".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It has been an especially tough time for DJs who as you can imagine are severely affected by Covid19. A game of copyright whack-a-mole has been going on across other platforms for a few years now (SoundCloud, MixCloud, etc.), exacerbated now by a move to live streaming over the last few months.

Live streaming has been a great way to avoid getting tagged for copyright infringement vs a pre-recorded upload which can automatically be scanned for violations, so it is easy to see why this was a problem for Facebook. They basically brute forced a solution to avoid legal responsibility.

Via SoundClouds guidelines: "The best way to avoid copyright infringement is to ensure that you don't use anything created by someone else. Simple as that.". It has just been hard to find an equitable balance between original music creators and mix creators. "Fair Use" is such a gray area here and is barely defensible.

<comment><USER7> I watch a lot of live DJ streams (and have done some myself), and basically right now everyone is either using Twitch or Mixcloud.

Twitch - doesn't enforce any takedowns when you're live, but will mute you after the fact in clips/etc. Very gamer-y, but has friendlier chat features, emojis, and some meta-games around unlocking them. Also has support for hosting (showing someone else's channel in your own for a period of time) and raiding (relocating everyone in your channel to someone else's), which are key for people that want to do multi-artist events.

Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal so muting is far less common. Chat is primitive (no @'s, limited emojis). Streaming quality is good, though.

Facebook - basically a non-starter as they'll mute you live. Only really works if you're playing a literal live show with a band, where you're making noise that the algorithms won't pick. Reach is obviously much bigger, as the platform will shove live videos in your face if people have already liked your fan page.

<comment><USER8> > Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal

Interesting, can you explain how this works? Is there a way for DJs to look up which songs are licensed while you're live-streaming?

<comment><USER9> No, but their licenses are very broad. Their rules are also fairly straightforward: [https://help.mixcloud.com/hc/en- us/articles/360004031080](https://help.mixcloud.com/hc/en- us/articles/360004031080)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Copyright law needs major reform. Technology has hit the point where you have to make a concerted effort to avoid infringing by accident. Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright infringement. Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.

It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.

Copyright on images and audio are just unrealistic. Abolish them, the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway

<comment><USER11> Preface: I absolutely agree on the reform. I can't stress this enough.

I've dealt with copyright professionally and had my fair share of discussions with legal experts... It's definitely a rabbit hole, but it's not a rabbit hole you can readily dismiss and replace with something else. Working with copyrighted materials, copyright hampered us, but other times it backed us as well. It really is a double edged sword depending on where you come from...

So. I hope to give you a bit of an insight why it's not that easy...

At it's core, there are three reasons why copyright - or any law for that matter - is a hard problem:

First, describing a complex reality and codifying them in rules that govern society is a hard problem. Either the principles you derive from reality are too generic; or you end up with a law and volumes upon volumes of exceptions, clarifications, and so on. And in between, you always end up with people who feel that the law doesn't include them.

Secondly, there's the interpretation of the rules. That happens in court. And depending on the legal system that applies to you, this creates a precedent that may or may not be followed in general. Which is where you end up in the murkiness of legal traditions, customs and so on.

Thirdly, as a result, most people have a vague notion of what copyright is... but when you ask them to clarify and apply copyright law to specific cases, they tend have it wrong.

For instance:

> Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. > When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright > infringement.

No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to other people.

You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever. But as soon as you hit the "post" or "publish" button and you make your copy available for the wider world, that's copyright infringement.

> Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.

Depends who publishes them and whether they have permission from the original photographer to publish them. Or whether they are the original photographer themselves.

If you snap a picture and you publish that on Instagram, you are the original photographer and copyright automatically protects your rights. If some paper or magazine downloads that picture and publishes it on their website without your permission: you can send them an e-mail demanding to take that picture down. And they actually will have to comply with your demand less they want to risk you suing them.

If you make a picture of protected materials and you post that on line, well, now you are potentially infringing copyright. Like, if you go to MoMa and you do an Instagram of Andy Warhol. Technically, you published a copy of a creative work which is still under copyright. Or if you publish a 30 second sample from a Walt Disney's Snowwhite on Snapchat: same thing.

You could go "Oh! But Andy Warhol is dead and his art is in a museum, and Snowwhite is 80 years old, what's the harm? They are so well known!" You could argue: let's create exceptions for anything that hits a collection display of a museum; or is so well known that it's part of some implicit cultural canon which is foundational to society...

... but then you end up in a massive rabbit hole: how do you establish equal and fair criteria that say "this creative work is protected by copyright; and this isn't?" Which inevitably leads to endless yak shaving and bike shedding discussions (Yes, I've been there professionally. These are unwinable!).

> the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway

It's the other way around. Artists make their money in other ways today, not because of copyright... but because of technology.

When your band gets signed up with a record label, you actually sign away your own copyright. You waive your rights as an author to your material. You basically say to a record label: "In exchange for leveraging your capability to produce, market and distribute millions of copies, I'll agree to 2, 5 or 10% of the revenue of the distribution." That's the deal you signed up for.

As an artist, it used to be that you earned nicely when music/video/movies were still distributed through movie theatres or record shops where consumers bought a physical record. You'd pay maybe 15 or 20$ for the album of your favourite band. And you'd listen to that album for hours on end.

Digital technology and streaming platforms have completely undercut that model. And the price for content has crashed entirely. Today, you don't pay 15$ for just 20 songs on a single album. You pay 15$ a month to get access to a catalogue of tens of thousands of songs. That's the difference.

The biggest issue is that streaming platforms and digital services have taken over distribution of creative content - audio and video - from traditional record labels, movie produces and so on, and have become the new middle men. And it has happened, the artists who signed away their rights see far less in return for their efforts.

This is a huge debate in the industry: [https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay- musician...](https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay-musicians- more-lets-talk-about-how/)

At the end of the day, copyright isn't going to go anywhere, I'm afraid. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that's why modern copyright emerged some 300 years in the first place: Ironically _because_ of the introduction of a new technology. As it happens, with the proliferation of the printing press and movable type, book printers, authors and publishers wanted to put a halt to others piggybacking on the success of selling their materials.

<comment><USER12> > No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It > prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to > other people.

> You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, > security camera, whatever.

This is incorrect. It's an offence (although civil, not criminal) to make a copy if you don't have correct authorisation. No-one is going to enforce that for the vast majority of copying, but non-enforcement doesn't mean it's not an offence.

[https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf](https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf)

> Acts restricted by copyright

> It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of > the copyright owner:

> i.Copy the work.

> ii.Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.

> iii.Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.

> iv.Adapt the work

<comment><USER11> > although civil, not criminal

That's exactly why I said that copying is not prohibited. Just that makes a huge difference.

First, it's a right which is granted to natural and legal persons. It's entirely up to that legal person to decide whether or not to seek damages because someone violated that right. What that means is that governments and authorities won't stop original authors from seeking damages in a courtroom.

Second, what it doesn't mean is that public authorities prohibits the act of copying. Extreme example: if copying was prohibited by criminal law, judicial authorities could order law enforcement to search your home on the mere suspicion of you having copied a book using pencil and paper.

Moreover, copyright gives the exclusive right to authorize reproduction to the original author. Mind the wording here: It's not the "exclusive right to reproduce", it's the "exclusive right to authorize".

Finally, that right itself isn't an absolute. The Berne treaty itself already provides for exceptions. In practice, you're looking at Fair Use, Fair Dealing and discussions such as the Treshold of Originality which excludes all kinds of contexts from copyright (i.e. security camera footage).

This entire discussion about the impact of technology is, in truth, a discussion about increased legal liability. The proliferation of camera's and mic's in digital devices have created a huge vector for violating copyright. If Facebook decides to disallow music from being played on it's platform, then that's an attempt to reduce that liability. Let's not forget that there's a huge discussion whether Facebook is merely a service provider of infrastructure, or a publisher, as well. And this move fits within that context.

I'm sorry, but absolutes such as "copyright prohibits you from making a copy" muddle exactly this discussion even more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Clickbait title. Please change to "Facebook Music Guidelines," or something that isn't editorialized to make it sound like Facebook is against music.

At most, this guideline says not to stream other people's music to the internet without a license, which is very reasonable, given that artists want to get paid and wouldn't want you to play their songs on air for 2 billion people to enjoy for free.

Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music for your friends, so long as it is yours.

<comment><USER14> >Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music for your friends, so long as it is yours.

where do you read that?

Cuz when I read the BOLDED statement

>You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience

Your take is not my take.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how long it will take for such measures to reach Twitch and Youtube. I remember some weeks ago some streamers started to get threats from DCMA over playing music on stream, i think some of them even got their clips and videos removed due to copyright claim.

I think this is purely music companies decisions, even the artists are not aware of this.

<comment><USER16> A lot of artists (or their managers) are! I've been watching some YouTube videos from Ricky Beato and he talks about "blockers", and within the same label you have different artists that block or don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening > experience

So basically if you are a DJ you cannot broadcast a mix session on Facebook or even broadcast a live performance of your own music under threat of being removed from Facebook.

Facebook might not want to have to deal with copyright management like Youtube does.

<comment><USER18> Many DJs switched to Twitch

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I mean what's the end goal here? Any video that contains music is just auto blocked? Hopefully as more regular people are impacted each person becomes an advocate for change.

I think we need AI and rules so strict you can't even upload a video at all because you're breaking some rule somewhere. Maybe we can even have AI on this website that says your words are breaking copyright and you're not allowed to publish them.

Only then will we see a real push for changen I feel.

<comment><USER20> Nah, the real goal is music companies want money. Bags and bags of money Facebook clearly doesn't want to pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So...as it reads, per my understanding, Facebook reserves the right to ban my account if I pick up my guitar while on live and play even an original melody.

Am I the only one who sees this as a new gatekeeper preventing the organic rise of new musical talent?

There are alot of young artists in the music industry who first got widely noticed by building a social media following around their singing or other musical talents.

It seems that this is a way to close that door.

<comment><USER22> Not only that, but Facebook _actively_ downranks you if you post a link to Youtube instead of using Facebook video. This is unethical and I wish more people would make noise about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The record industry lashing out against DJs strikes me as a particularly braindead reaction. They're shutting down free promotion of their music. I don't listen to DJs because I want to illegally listen to one song, I listen to find new music and then go off and buy it.

<comment><USER24> I think you're misunderstanding the economic reality of the modern music business for labels. They make their money off streams, not people "buying" music; they have no real incentive to let people stream music for free as a 'promotion.'

Bands make their money off merch, and to a lesser extent, live shows.

<comment><USER23> I also stream the music. The point is a mix is not a medium for listening to one song. It's a medium for listening to a set of songs mixed together. Sometimes you only get 1 or 2 minutes of a 8/9 minute non-Radio-Edit of a track.

To be fair, playing devil's advocate I do know some people who _only_ listen to streams of DJs. I guess the question is what's the breakdown of people who do that. My guess is it's a very small margin. _And_ even if it were more sizable, are those people really gonna go off and go buy individual Drum And Bass tracks or whatever off Beatport? I would doubt it.

The end result is it feels like they cannibalizing or cauterizing off a potential market and generating more bad will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Prohibited.... Unless you have the appropriate licenses for the music.

Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?

<comment><USER26> Firstly, how do I prove to Facebook that I have an appropriate license, or that one isn't required (for example, music in the public domain)?

Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events can be in-person or online. As an example: it is legal ("fair use") for someone in my family to strum a popular, copyrighted tune on their guitar during a family gathering. Another example: it is also legal for us to listen to music that only one family member owns a legal copy of -- this happens any time someone puts on a CD during Christmas. These perfectly legal, normal, un- bureaucratic activities seem to be prohibited by Facebook's new rules.

During COVID-19, online experiences have replaced many experiences that people would otherwise have had in-person. Facebook's rules seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, which is especially disappointing during this time when many experiences people would be having face-to-face are now taking place on its platform, or on competitors' who may imitate Facebook's policies.

<comment> kube-system > Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even > copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events > can be in-person or online.

But it is legal for you and Facebook to enter into an agreement to sublicense that content for Facebook's commercial use? You may get the benefit of Fair Use, but the same may not be the case for Facebook, who also must have a valid right to distribute the content.

<comment><USER25> No. You can't grant a (sub) license of rights you don't have. However, a special licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like covers of songs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's rare that Facebook itself accelerates the thing that desperately needs to happen: people must, en masse, stop donating free content to massive censorship platforms.

This is a good step, counterintuitively.

<comment><USER20> Yep, it's one step towards the death of Facebook. I am also quite pleased about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > We want you to be able to enjoy videos posted by family and friends. > However, if you use videos on our Products to create a music listening > experience for yourself or for others, your videos will be blocked and your > page, profile or group may be deleted. This includes Live.

That sounds like all music videos are banned (not just live stuff).

</comment><comment><USER29> Perhaps in the future you can avoid surveillance by playing Top 50 music at all times?

<comment><USER30> Surely we've had enough examples of governments blatantly disregarding copyright law in election advertisements to establish that this is one of those "rules for thee but not for me" situations.

<comment><USER31> Depends on how deeply record companies get their claws into broad tools. The government may not always have the competence to roll their own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Many gaming streamers on Twitch play music (at least at a low volume) while they stream. A blanket ban like this doesn't make me think that Facebook is going to get a significant part of Twitch's market anytime soon despite their "Facebook Gaming" initiative.

<comment><USER13> FYI, they just got a big chunk of users from Mixer, a Microsoft-funded Twitch competitor that shut down.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Their updated terms seem to imply copyrighted music, but it comes off as banning any and all music including original content.

<comment><USER33> _Use of music for commercial or non-personal purposes in particular is prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses._

 _Unauthorized content may be removed_

If you post content that contains music _owned by someone else_ , your content may be blocked, or may be reviewed by the applicable rights owner and removed _if your use of that music is not properly authorized._

Seems fair enough to me.

<comment><USER34> A famous record label sent its lawyers to us, because we used some song to dance at a party an uploaded it on youtube. How that is fair?

<comment><USER28> Advocate for changes to the law.

<comment><USER35> A lot of people have been doing that for a long time. It's not working.

<comment><USER2> Most people don't understand the issue. What actions people generally find acceptable are very different from the actions permitted under copyright law, but most people don't understand that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Shameless plug:

For anyone out there looking for live listening music experiences, I work on Stationhead, a social radio app. We're built on top of Spotify and Apple Music, so all the music is not only 100% legal and licensed, the artists actually get paid when you play or listen to your music.

Download for iOS (Android coming soon): [http://share.stationhead.com/hn](http://share.stationhead.com/hn)

</comment><comment><USER37> Well, that does help explain why one of the local high schools had their livestream abruptly terminate 22 times when they tried to stream their band's senior night concert. It does seem to be a clear TOS violation by the school even though the school was trying to work within Ohio coronavirus guidelines. I guess the effort to build something using OpenBroadcaster has increased urgency now.

</comment><comment><USER38> There are a few problems in copyright laws: \- bad incentives (cf, "mickey mouse law"),

\- one rule for all areas (music, movies, books, graphics) instead of different rules for different areas,

\- not being fit to digital era.

This item emphasize the last one quite strongly, and it's only going to get worse.

</comment><comment><USER39> I know many believe that this is mess is the result of the existing Copyright laws but I disagree. We are in times of change, where Wild Wild West is getting rules and enforcement. It's a painful situation for most, because the rules are ambiguous, made up on spot and change often.

I believe the true solution is through use of scalable and precise technology, brining high transparency and removing ambiguity. I built my whole company around this idea [0], so I'm definitely biased.

I know that many might disagree with me on this, but shattering copyright is not going to do us, the society, any favors. If you, as I, believe that automation is going exceedingly take over more of our responsibilities, IP (intellectual property) [read creativity] is the only thing left to us as humans. While many believe copyright is about extortion of money, I believe it's about proper attribution. This is the founding principle behind Creative Commons which believes that credits needs to be given to the creators. If they choose to make money of their creation, that's their right and should be followed.

I do believe that with transparent rules and removed ambiguity the UGC market will thrive beyond what we seen so far. You can see glimpses of what's possible through platforms like TikTok or Triller that do acquire licenses and are in process of paying creators portion of the revenue. This was one of the most important innovations of YouTube that spurred a whole new market and paved the way for many new platforms.

Imagine that you, as a creator, could know instantly which content of other people can you use under what conditions. If you disagree with them, you just don't use it and choose something else. Especially in music, this gives you a freedom of selection. There is 80M songs. There will be always enough to choose from, even if the major righpshodlers would withhold their catalogues.

I believe that if the rules are know, are stable and unambiguous, then the market will be much stronger and healthier for everyone.

[0] [https://pex.com/attribution-engine/](https://pex.com/attribution-engine/)

</comment><comment><USER40> My favorite is when reporters are out in the field reporting and someone drives by with their car radio on, and the entire clip gets taken down due to copyright.

Streamers listening to music is a common thing while talking, gaming, etc. Something needs to change.

</comment><comment><USER41> This will be a huge problem for people on the ground reporting on news events like protests/riots. Often, people in the crowd are using portable bluetooth speakers and playing commercial music. There are FB accounts (and youtube, twitch, etc) that have several thousand people watching these protests/riots every night, and often make it to mainstream news outlets.

There should be a fair use exemption for live newsworthy events where the music isn't the focus. The music is just in the background and not the main point or even a secondary point. It's inconsequential and you can't even hear it clearly.

</comment><comment><USER42> Facebook is concerned about possibly having to pay licensing fees to music publishers and rights owners. The new policy is a disclaimer, attempting to release Facebook from any responsibility for infringement. It's however unlikely that Facebook would be judged to be in the clear if it's determined that they are benefiting from uploaded content. Most likely they will balance the threat of paying fees against the hurt to the appeal of their product caused by their own restrictions, and that will determine the level of enforcement.

</comment><comment><USER43> Rick Beato had a great video on Youtube blockers recently: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z7a-vh5OzU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z7a-vh5OzU)

<comment><USER44> I expected to go there just to see that the video is blocked

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What about whistling, singing or performing music live? Where is the line?

I mean, are the people enacting such policies even real person living a real life?

<comment><USER46> They're the same people who purposely ruin their products with advertising, pervasive tracking, and hostile UX. Then they claim they're doing their users a favor. By "helping businesses reach their audiences". Because that's clearly what people use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and all other social media services for, right?

Social media companies are waaay out of touch with the real world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I thought Facebook had reached a deal a couple years back with the music publishers so that they wouldn't have to do this?

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook- warner-m...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook-warner-music- deal-songs-user-videos-instagram)

</comment><comment><USER48> Has anyone created an AI annealing tool that can take a basic beat and create a randomized but good-sounding sampling for real-time DJing?

</comment><comment><USER49> Radio hams are not allowed to retransmit music, even that is as simple as having music in the background when you key the mike.

I never heard anyone try this on the east coast but around Southern CA and San Diego I heard it all the time on 2 meters.

There is the exception that you CAN retransmit music from the space shuttle or space station however.

</comment><comment><USER50> Facebook will mute anything that contains music it recognizes that has a copyright. It's annoying and stupid because YouTube is much more liberal about it as most people know. I always post video with music on YouTube and share a link.

<comment><USER22> Not only that, but Facebook _actively_ downranks you if you post a link to Youtube instead of using Facebook video. This is unethical and I wish more people would make noise about it.

Facebook once did the mute thing on my OWN recording of a classical Beethoven piece (long out of copyright) and it was infuriating. I would have used Youtube to avoid the problem except Facebook downranks Youtube videos I post and doesn't show them to most of my friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Just so a few hundred of people can be ultra billionaires we use so much force and violence against any creative endavours that may jeporedize the wealth of these few individuals.

</comment><comment><USER52> I know this hurts people's feelings, but Facebook wasn't supposed to be important or entertaining anyway.

</comment><comment><USER53> It's not even clear from their wording if you can play original music live. Did they not even think of that possibility?

<comment><USER42> I think they are trying to envision every possible scenario. For example, and unknown singer could upload an original song to Facebook, sell the rights to the song, become famous, and have a billion views on Facebook. The owners of the song could then be owed performance royalties from Facebook, according to the current laws that apply to internet streaming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Facebook: "let's distract them with music copyright non-sense while we utterly fail politically."

Edit: since this was downvoted, I hope someone can explain this: "why now?" What other motivation does FB have to address this, right now?

</comment><comment><USER55> Good. I'd hate to see Facebook get big in the music world in any way.

</comment><comment><USER56> reminds me of this Onion:

"CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website."

[https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives- music-6-8...](https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives- music-6-8-1819569318)

I cannot _wait_ to find out what common human behaviours are regulated online next, after all, if you don't like it, you can just

actually sorry there is only online now</comment>


Ask HN: What's the Reddit voting algorithm? - <AUTHOR>

I just started using Reddit recently for the first time (yes, I'm a slow learner) but I understand that your karma determines something about how much your vote counts for. I've noticed when I log out sometimes, my vote has not registered, maybe because I'm a new user. Has anyone figured out what rules they apply? I assume there's a particular karma threshold at which your votes count more, etc. <comment><USER2> The Reddit ranking algorithm was/is this: <http://redflavor.com/reddit.cf.algorithm.png>

And Hacker News's was/is this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=231209>

<comment><USER3> I tweaked it recently, because the increase in users has caused a few stories to get massive numbers of votes, and these were staying on the frontpage too long. Now it's

      (p - 1)^.8 / (t + 2)^1.8

where p = points and t = age in hours

<comment><USER4> you can do better, if you count new users votes the half. Newbie may vote often, as they are new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't reddit. But both Reddit and HN are open-source, so you should be able to discover the algorithm. HN source is here at <http://ycombinator.com/arc/arc2.tar> and Reddit's can be found at <http://reddit.com/code/> .

<comment><USER6> Reddit does say that their "anti-cheating/spam" code is not public. I suspect that's part of the voting algo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do you mean the HN voting algorithm?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking - I edited my question to make it more clear hopefully. But, no, I meant Reddit. I just started using Reddit recently but the site scares me. I feel like I'm surrounded by a pack of feral dogs.

Aside from that, the HN voting algorithm is pretty straighforward for a new user to figure out. Whereas on Reddit I never know whether the vote I see is the one that is actually registered for me. When I log out of my account I often see that my vote didn't "stick". I don't think that's a good policy on Reddit's part. Just let me know honestly that I'm not at the level yet where my vote can count like a more experienced member.</comment></comment>


The Mission, Vision and Values of WayUp (YC W15) - <AUTHOR> http://missionandvalues.co/episodes/wayup/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Our mission is to connect college students with awesome opportunities. Our vision is to democratize the hiring process for students and employers alike."

Episode 5 of the Mission & Values podcast features the intrepid Liz Wessel, CEO and Co-founder of WayUp. It's a cool way to dive into their culture and how it came to be.

Lmk what you think!</comment>


Expert Gives Tips for National Clean Out Your Computer Day - <AUTHOR> https://www.keyc.com/2020/02/10/expert-gives-tips-national-clean-out-your-computer-day/ <comment><AUTHOR> I suspect tomorrow is, "Where's my back-up day."</comment>


Forget Google Analytics, try realtime web statistics - <AUTHOR> http://www.rosshill.com.au/article/realtime-web-statistics-with-chartbeat/

<comment><USER2> Chartbeat isn't trying to compete with an analytics package like Google Analytics, they don't measure any of the same metrics. Chartbeat allows you to react in real-time when events occur. If your site goes down or suddenly a flood of traffic comes to your site after a review (good or bad) you can get alerted and respond without having to wait a day.

Think of it like this: Google Analytics can tell you how to better position fire hydrants and increase the efficiency of the fire engine's route to your house. Chartbeat can tell you that your house is on fire.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not use Clicky (<http://www.getclicky.com>)? It gives you both the ability to track users in real time using the Spy feature and get the same level of detail that Google delivers.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm, this site has failed me from a usability standpoint.

After browsing there via Firefox, I was told I could not use the site without Flash (which I don't have installed for Firefox). That's usually strike one. But I really was interested in what the site had to offer.

So, after copying the URL and opening Internet Explorer to see the page, which I often do on Flash-centric designs, I got this notification:

=== You need to install Microsoft Silverlight if you want to use chartbeat with Internet Explorer. Or, you can use Firefox or Google Chrome browsers (chartbeat functions smoother with either) ===

I can imagine more than one scenario where users wouldn't be able to install Silverlight (or had painful installion failures like I did).

<comment><USER5> The "users" are the site administrators. I think it's fair to expect an administrator to be able to install Flash or SL.

<comment><USER4> I'm a system administrator and SilverLight has repeatedly failed to install successfully for me. I'm tired of trying to diagnose a problem when no usable errors are found.

However, the crux of my problem is that they are requiring Flash for Mozilla and SilverLight for IE. My advice for them is to pick one and do it "right."

But, it's their site, not mine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The live app ([http://chartbeat.com/dashboard/?url=coverhunt.com&k=2ec3...](http://chartbeat.com/dashboard/?url=coverhunt.com&k=2ec35b11dde5b483de1227326644af50)) is really quite impressive. As far as maintainability goes the page load timer looks very useful.

</comment><comment><USER7> It surely looks great for eye-candy. But, not sure if it is useful though for anything real. I usually need some time to sit down and properly "digest" the statistics before we decide on anything.

</comment><comment><USER8> What would stop google to add a couple of lines to Analytics to match that functionality?

<comment><USER9> Scale. It's easy to give real time stats when you're only monitoring a few hundred sites. There's a lot more data to crunch when you're trying to monitor half the web.

<comment><USER10> getclicky.com monitors over 200,000 sites and it's real time. Sure it's challenging to provide that level of service but without challenge life is dull.

<comment><USER9> I only meant to imply that providing such a feature is more work than a "few lines of code" when you're trying to monitor millions of sites in real time.

<comment><USER10> Oh, ok. I interpreted your comment to mean that no major service could pull real time analytics beacuse it's just too hard. Sure we're a lot smaller than Google but 200,000 is a pretty big number if I do say so myself.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What Practices Has Helped You Reach Productivity Zen/Flow? - <AUTHOR> One could argue that in today's industries our success is tied to how well equipped you are to handle stress from oneself, from the job, as well as from others (family, significant others, coworkers, etc).
With that being said, I would much appreciate you taking a moment to share the activities/practices that you have come across and adopted that helped you feel more secure, that has helped you consistently reach a state of flow/success and would recommend to others?
Many thanks! <comment><USER2> One of the best tools is disconnecting from the internet. This pins my mental compute on the issue at hand and prevents mental threads from even being created. Need something about a specific library? I have its docs on my machine. Don't have docs? I have its code. No search engine, no Stack Overflow, no Wikipedia. Think harder.

Disable WiFi.

The code might not be optimal, but it's unlikely it would have been by looking things up online in the first place for a prototype/poc. Get prototype done, refine later on second pass.

Mail client, browser, and Slack are killed since they have no reason to live.

Slack is killed because it still has a blue dot from a message on a workspace somewhere. I refuse to fight it for my attention by tweaking notification parameters that don't seem to work. I had tried overwriting `slack-taskbar- highlight. _` and `slack-taskbar-unread._ ` with `slack-taskbar-rest.*`, but it recreates them, and for that reason, killing Slack even offline gives me respite.

Toying with it: unplugging the charger and implementing a feature on battery. Long battery life? Not if you have NVIDIA graphics card activated.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My best productivity habit has been using [https://crushentropy.com/](https://crushentropy.com/) every day. I wrote it for myself but a lot of people use it now.

It's like markdown for high resolution planning.

I used to feel harried trying to cram a lot into the day. Now I spend a few minutes planning the day and when I'm in a certain time block, I can totally relax, not worry about all the other things I need to get done in the day, and really focus.

If the day changes due to interruptions etc, I type that in and the rest of the day reflows around that.

<comment><USER4> I've tried to plan and work like this but I end up getting interrupted and it goes all wrong.

<comment><USER3> That's the cool thing about this. As the schedule evolves, when you make a change, the rest of the day reflows around that change.

        1100,1200,meeting x
        x,+60,lunch

If you change 1200 to 1220, the "lunch" block auto adjusts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Assuming this is for developers:

Close slack and email client for a given amount of time. Say keep it closed for 1 hour, then pop up to check it.

If you need to be urgently contacted sometimes, give such people your phone number, or another way to contact that is more intrusive. e.g. WhatsApp.

When using Slack or email, completely deal with one message (even if just creating a ticket to deal with it later) before reading the next.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I wake up:

\- I play a bit of guitar

\- Lift my weights (all exercises, one set)

\- Shower

\- Drink coffee

That makes me wide awake and ready for the day.

Bonus: if you sleep well this becomes extra amazing.

Note: sleeping well is not a bonus, but unfortunately, sometimes it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing!</comment></comment>


UK makes it an offence to view terrorist propaganda even once - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/13/uk_counter_terror_act_royal_assent/ <comment><USER2> "Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." \-- Robert Heinlein, Revolt in 2100

<comment><USER3> "The rack" ?

<comment><USER4> I thought it was something like a parrilla [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrilla_(torture)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrilla_\(torture\)) but it's another form of torture: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_(torture)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_\(torture\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Over a decade ago a university student got held for six days[0] after viewing (and printing) some terrorist tactics which were apparently directly relevant to his research.

It's concerning that the sentences have now got even stricter and a hacked website could potentially land people in jail? Very bizarre.

[0] - [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/24/highereduc...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/24/highereducation.uk)

<comment><USER6> I don't agree with the whole thing but there is a section saying this is fair use:

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted)

3.4.3a.b.ii

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Lunacy. Want your rival out of business? Spoof an email and get them to click on an untoward link. This burden of proof clause will no doubt be abused.

What about researchers attempting to understand the mechanisms of extremism? Can you get a permit to commit thought crime?

<comment><USER8> Pretty sure the goal is to strengthen their cases against known radicalized individuals, not to send in jail someone that clicked a bad link...

<comment><USER9> The goal matters little if the law, as written, does not discriminate or limit overly expansive wording.

The goal of background checks was to protect the most vulnerable, not create a license to work required for a quarter of all jobs, etc, etc.

<comment><USER10> Judges in the UK don't always follow the letter of the law, it's at their discretion. Precedent and the spirit of the law is pretty important. If someone avoids tax by exploiting a loophole due to a badly worded phrase, then no, they are not complying with the spirit of the law. That works both ways.

It's also completely at the juries discretion to override any order given by a judge, and they apply common sense to the whole situation. If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says.

<comment><USER11> > If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be > arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the > judge says.

They'll have already been arrested, detained for months, and likely spent thousands on legal costs by the time it's before a jury.

<comment><USER12> Agreed! And besides financial bankruptcy, you can also expect personal and reputation ruin from being charged with being a terrorist.

And good luck working after being acquitted, with the Internet history that no doubt will have accumulated.

A jury of your peers is the last line of defense for justice, but in no measure whatsoever does it serve to balance the cruelty of an unjust law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The UK has a serious problem with the term "terrorism". It's effectively defined as "stuff the government doesn't like". So the Stansted 15 get convictions [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/07/un-tells-uk- st...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/07/un-tells-uk-stop-using- terror-charges-against-peaceful-protesters) but far-right bovver boys harassing government rebels outside of parliament gets a blind eye.

<comment><USER14> There's a whole debate about the term being a hindrance more than anything. So called terrorists are just criminals elevated to a boogyman status. This layer of indirection obfuscates the problem, or at least so the argument goes.

It gives you an interesting perspective, because then the obvious question is why are those criminals elevated to that status. You get to everything from fearmongering and manipulation tactics, to our society's fragile sense of security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is one of those laws which will facilitate "selective enforcement" in the most negative and abusive way.

Whatever your politics, this is bad. China censorship bad.

</comment><comment><USER16> Wow, this must be some convincing propaganda to restrict even the viewing of it!

<comment><USER17> So very true. Also I think this is extremely dangerous, because I didn't give a darn thing about watching propaganda material before, but NOW I REALLY WANT TO SEE IT, knowing that it is apparently so bad/convincing that even viewing it is forbidden.

Soon we will have more people watching it like we have more people smoking weed when it is illegal.

<comment><USER18> If you're that interested, putting "Inspire magazine" into Google will reveal PDFs of a big terrorist propaganda magazine that's readily available in English.

Heavy.com and gore sites often have copies of the ISIS videos too - I went hunting for their grenade drone video once out of morbid curiosity...

Both the magazine and videos are surprisingly well edited from a technical standpoint, they have some people who at least know the basics pretty well. Higher production values than local news at least.

The weirdest part of this to me is that this is worse than thought crime in some ways - I've viewed this material for reasons other than planning to commit crime, yet my actions would be made illegal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So basically "crimethink"... How does this shit get passed? They must be aware of the slippery cliff. Are we just out of ideas on how to sanely deal with terrorism?

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

<comment><USER20> Because the slippery cliff/slope almost never happens. It's always threatened, but I really don't see the UK becoming a totalitarian state.

<comment><USER19> I really didn't see it becoming a crime to read something...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Expecting a wave of pranks rickrolling victims into terrorist propaganda content.

<comment><USER22> That might backfire. The section of the law someone else linked to seems to require that you knew or had reason to know that the material you accessed contained forbidden material.

Generally in rickrolling type pranks, it is the sender, and only the sender, who knows what is really contained in the linked site, and so it would be the prankster himself who would be at risk under this.

<comment><USER23> You could deliver the stuff as an ad via an ad network. And sending an email which can't be traced isn't exactly difficult.

I wouldn't choose email as it presumably makes it easy for the victim to get out. The ad route on the other hand could make it much more difficult for the victim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That shouldn't fly with ECHR. Oh, wait...

But it's very practical to deal with uncomfortable dissent.

<comment><USER24> I suspect ou are thinking of the ECJ - which is the supreme court of the EU. The ECHR isn't related to the EU (although I suspect a lot of people don't realise that):

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

<comment><USER25> Maybe he did think of the ECHR. While it is not strictly part of the EU, being in the EU means you are under ECHR jurisprudence.

Anyway it was the ECJ which shut down similar UK surveillance laws in the past, and I remember getting rid of its "interference" being one of the arguments in favour of the Brexit.

<comment><USER13> Significantly, though, the UK is not leaving the Council of Europe, so the ECHR will continue to apply. The usual suspect object to the ECHR for the usual suspect reasons, but the fact is that membership of it is a requirement for most forms of security co-operation in Europe. So there's no good case for leaving it.

Doesn't mean we won't one of these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So, it's illegal to do a teardown on propaganda, that sounds like it couldn't possibly go wrong.

Rather than finding (eg in SERPs) counterpoints and dissenters alongside propaganda there will only be supporting voices.

I guess May's moving early on instigating greater totalitarianism in the UK once ECJ is out of the way.

</comment><comment><USER27> "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

Doesn't seem to include propaganda. Just looking up bus and train timetables, diy electronics, chemistry......

<comment><USER7> Yeah, wow. That clause can be warped in far too many ways. "The defendant used the known terrorist network app Telegram to send encrypted information pertaining to local public transportation and multiple images of public landmarks to a Chinese national." <\-- My trip to London on the weekend to see the British Museum, sending photos to my girlfriend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Okay so that's why things like the Radical Militant Library and ParaZite are .onion hidden services (not linking to them here, as I don't want to get downvoted to death). I always presumed they wouldn't last long on the clearnet. They are exponentially more controversial than Stormfront or other neo-nazi websites and actually have elaborate manuals on how to maim or kill your enemy, and are a far cry from silly schoolyard things like The Anarchist Cookbook.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does this mean that if I blast an ISIS recruitment video or whatever in like the House of Lords walls everyone sitting in there is automatically prosecuted?

Sounds like an awfully easy thing to exploit into nothingness.

</comment><comment><USER30> If this is legal (this sort of law) under the ECHR and ECJ, then what's the point of being in the EU?

<comment><USER5> The UK isn't the only country to be getting quite strict in this regard: Germany being a prime example.

<comment><USER31> Do you have examples of people being charged for this in Germany?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not familiar with The Register and haven't seen this anywhere else. Does any know of another source that is reporting on this?

</comment><comment><USER33> Cheers to the UK in recent weeks for helping the US not look as bad /s

</comment><comment><USER34> Does this mean over here in Canada it is legal to look at it once? Because I've read otherwise and felt slightly spooked when I was researching that weird magazine they put out years ago. Not as slick a print PDF production as the media makes you think BTW, definitely just a few graphic design tutorials.

</comment><comment><USER35> The downfall of Britain has been happening for some time. They are scared, and they are only making it worse.

</comment><comment><USER36> "in which a person collects or makes a record... by means of the internet (whether by downloading the record or otherwise)"

Wow. From the surface, this would seem to include an email sent to you. And if so, this would be a great way for a vengeful person to cause a lot of strife for another (by sending inflammatory emails, repeatedly to them).

Hopefully, sane and merciful implementation of these "laws" are enacted. Sadly, from other comments posted here, it's likely to be as bad as it looks!

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted)

</comment><comment><USER37> The increasing censorship is genuinely making living in the UK less appealing.

</comment><comment><USER38> The UK has always had draconian policies ranging from an opt-in program for adult content (you have to tell your ISP you want to view adult content) to now this.

On Internet, there are trolls who will simply get you to click on something for the fun of it. I'm sure many of you remember Last Measure by GNAA (NSFL).

This law is really poor, and I suspect the innocent will be caught up in the crossfire.

<comment><USER39> _> The UK has always had draconian policies ranging from [...]_

We have also always been at war with oceania.

No, there was a time before those policies.

<comment><USER40> Before draconian anti-terrorism policies? When? (Including Northern Ireland in the UK!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wonder why governments never openly address such propaganda, such as debunking claims and whatnot? Are they worried that will legitimize the claims? The alternative does seem to make the government have the weaker argument, just as in a debate the first one to resort to ad hominem or lose their temper seems to have the worse argument.

<comment><USER42> Interesting thought - I'm not sure. My guess is it's a combination of

\- increasing publicity of the propaganda (which I guess is a bit like your comment that it legitimises the claims) - if the propaganda is not already in the open, how does the government target the "debunking" without increasing exposure

\- whether debunking the propaganda would have the desired effect anyway - "confirmation bias" causes people who evidence against a position to reinforce that position in their minds?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> As a Twitter user in the UK I've probably broken this law at least once in the last week - many people interested in politics will retweet anti-western, anti-gay, bizarre ('women on top makes you gay') etc views from Islamists, mainly to laugh at them.

</comment><comment><USER44> Does this include watching videos on [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/)?

</comment><comment><USER45> It seems to me that the text of such law is literally terrorist propaganda, and thus anyone who reads it should logically be prosecuted under it.

</comment><comment><USER46> Now the real fun comes when they start getting creative with the definition of "terrorist".

</comment><comment><USER47> So in effect we're going back to the inquisition era.

</comment><comment><USER48> France tried to push two time such a law (with the difference that it was for viewing terrorist website "regularly")[0]. This law was banned two time by the Conseil Constitutionnel (equivalent of the supreme court I think)[1].

But now EU is trying to put a "terrorist-filter"[2], which, I guess, our law- maker are probably heavily pushing for. Such a proposition might be able to pass through the Conseil Constitutionnel, since banning website (in France) has already been approved and is in place (some website like The Pirate Bay cannot be accessed "normally" in France).

This should really worry us. The definition of terrorism or extremism has always been blurry (see for example the situation with the PKK). And, in any case, it has been shown many time again that this kind of measure could be misused, either intentionally, or by technical ignorance (banning a shared IP). The Australian censorship is a good example of that[3].

All these laws have been also proven ineffective at best and are just a form of power-grab by authorities. A prime example of that is, yet again, France, where most of the "anti-terrorsime" laws passed after the Paris attack have mostly been used against various political militant and, right now, against the protest going on with the gilets jaunes (See for example, the use of emergency state against the COP21 militant [4])

This will not stop, fear has always been used as an excuse to grab more power. Thats why it's important that we keep supporting and funding association like La Quadrature du Net[5] that fight against this kind of laws.

[0] (french) [https://www.legavox.fr/blog/murielle-cahen/nouveau-delit- con...](https://www.legavox.fr/blog/murielle-cahen/nouveau-delit-consultation- sites-djihadistes-23119.htm)

[1] (french) [https://www.conseil- constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/a...](https://www.conseil- constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/decisions/2017682qpc/2017682qpc_ccc.pdf)

[2] (english) [https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/terrorist-upload- filters/](https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/terrorist-upload-filters/)

[3] (english) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Notable_examples)

[4] (french) [https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/27/les- milita...](https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/27/les-militants-de- la-cop21-cible-de-l-etat-d-urgence_4818885_3224.html)

[5] (english) [https://www.laquadrature.net/en/](https://www.laquadrature.net/en/)

</comment><comment><USER49> Even China is not that crazy, except when dealing with Uighurs.

<comment><USER50> China used to jail teenage girls who wrote or read slash fiction for "spreading propaganda that clashed with the morality of the party".

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This will get abused on a massive level.

Iirc the French presidential candidate Le Pen was sued for 'spreading terrorist propaganda' for linking some ISIS material in negative context ("we shouldnt allow this kind of people back to France" or something like that).</comment>


Ask HN: How do you pick your domain name? - <AUTHOR>

i started working on a SaaS project a few weeks back and finished the MVP 2 weeks ago. however i can't put it out yet because every domain name that i can think of which related to the business somehow, is taken! so this is postponing my launch.<p>have you guys had the same issue before? do you just give up and pick any random available domain?! How important is it for your domain name to be related to the service you are offering? <comment><USER2> I bump up against this problem myself all the time and it's so infuriating (doubly so when most of the domains you want are registered but not even being used).

Finding a domain name that is available, memorable, easy to spell, snappy AND which quickly gets the idea behind your product/service across is HARD but my advice is to persevere with it. A good domain name makes a big difference when it comes to user traction and seo (and, for me, just feels better than inventing some random name that bears no relation to the site).

A lot of the time I find the .com is taken (but not being used) and the .net is free. So I register the .net and then try and pounce on the .com when it comes up for renewal (this is an art in itself). If the .com gets renewed I occasionally (depending on how badly I want it) approach the owner and ask if they'll sell it (be warned some people have ridiculous ideas of how much a domain is worth).

An alternative is to try extensions other than .com (examples: .io .in .is .to). This is what pinboard.in did and I think it works (pinboard is easy to spell, memorable, snappy and does a good job of explaining what the site does). I use www.eurodns.com when searching for weird domain extensions (as you can check virtually all of them in one go).

Failing all of that, get a thesaurus, dictionary and a few bottles of wine and just lock yourself in a room until something clicks!

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the great response. i was able to use some of your advice and also the website provided below to come up with a good domain!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can't give up. It took us (hall.com) over 6 months. You can always change. We went from companyline, to halleo, to hall.com. Other pointer, test the domain with users to make sure it works. Our story: [http://blog.hall.com/post/13936429456/how-we-got-the-hall- co...](http://blog.hall.com/post/13936429456/how-we-got-the-hall-com-domain)

</comment><comment><USER4> You guys might also like my new web app, Lean Domain Search (<http://www.leandomainsearch.com>), a fast new domain search tool that pairs your search term with 1,000+ other keywords and instantly shows you which of the generated domain names are available.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's always a good idea to pick up a short memorable, maybe hybrid word, if there are no available domain names what you came up with. I posted some of short, memorable, free .com domain names here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3422233>

</comment><comment><USER6> I wrote a blog post a while back that describes what I did (and normally do) to find a domain for my project:

<http://blog.avi.so/post/10049987762/finding-a-domain-name>

<comment><AUTHOR> very interesting read. much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would be happy to try and help you run some names and see if I can find anything. Contact me off my site in profile if you're interested.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Kevin for the offer! i ended up using the bustaname website and got the domain!

cheers

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can you share a little more information about your project? It seems there are plenty of HNers who would like to brainstorm with you.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a clear sign of fear of shipping. Call it anything. Just ship. Change the name later if you have to.

<comment><AUTHOR> it's not so much fear of shipping. i just want to make sure the brand is good. i don't want to call the domain xobiaseaf.com to just get it out there and have to send emails to everyone and notify them of the new name when i come up with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I use <http://bustaname.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> wow! awesome website. thanks a lot for the share. i was able to use that and come up with a cool combination that was available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I might be able to help. Contact me. Email is in my profile.</comment>


Don't use Emacs, says Java's father - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/207799/don_t_use_emacs_says_java_father/

<comment><USER2> Well Java's father invented Java. Why should we care his advices???

</comment><comment><USER3> Funny he should say that. While I mostly use Vim or - on os x - textwrangler, because I found Eclipse intolerable when I wanted to take up android development a colleague suggested netbeans.

After downloading seven hundred fifty megabytes, I launched it, could not see a whole lot that was better than eclipse. Then I created a separate text editor window; that window did not have a menu bar. While key accellerators did work, not all menu items have them.

So I dragged it into the trash along with eclipse, and continue using vim, emacs and textwrangler.</comment>


Show HN: First Release of Transcrypt Python3.5 to JavaScript Compiler - <AUTHOR> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Transcrypt <comment><AUTHOR> After extensive testing under Windows and Linux, Transcrypt is considered ready for production now. The set of supported language features, which already included multiple inheritance, is expanded to include operator overloading as used e.g. in matrix algebra, set comprehensions, lambda's and many other things. Optimizations include call memoizing, compiling e.g. i += 1 to i++ and simplifying for-loops over a closed range of integers to be just as brief and efficient as the matching JS loop. Pip install of Transcrypt and packages for it is now supported. Docs are at [http://www.transcrypt.org](http://www.transcrypt.org). Examples have been added for a.o. node.js, D3.js and jQuery. If you like Python for writing readable, maintainable code, no need to develop browser apps in JS anymore. Bugs and feature requests can be submitted at: [https://github.com/JdeH/Transcrypt](https://github.com/JdeH/Transcrypt)</comment>


Ask HN: Would you use a service that automates accounting for SaaS companies? - <AUTHOR> I've just started a company with Stripe Atlas, which was really streamlined and easy. I was a little surprised to learn that I'll need to pay an accountant thousands of dollars to file my corporate income taxes. I knew I would need help from attorneys and accountants, but it feels like most of this should have been automated by now. And if I use Bench [1], I'll also need to spend $115 per month for bookkeeping.
I'm running a pretty simple SaaS app [2]. I take payments via Stripe, spend money on Heroku and AWS, and... not much else. I feel like it shouldn't be that hard to automate my bookkeeping and automatically file IRS Form 1120 (and Form 5472.)
I'm thinking about building a service that does this for small SaaS startups, and companies that make money from mobile apps. I've put up a landing page: https://www.nanobooks.co
I need to validate the idea before I start writing any code or working with accountants. Please leave a comment (or sign up for the mailing list) if this is something you need, or would have used in the past. I'd also love to hear any feedback, or advice about how I could validate the idea.
Thanks very much!
[1] https://bench.co
[2] https://formapi.io <comment><USER2> A few things:

1) While I pay an accountant to file my taxes, the biggest benefit I get is (a) knowing/understanding the tax law; and (b) most importantly knowing what deductions and/or credits are available to me and my business.

2) In my opinion, if you have a basic business there is no real reason to pay a monthly bookkeeping company. Pay an accountant to get you set up on Quickbooks (or some other online accounting software) initially, and have them teach you how to enter income and expenses.

3) Software such as Quickbooks makes automating taxes pretty straightforward once setup correctly, especially for a simple business.

Where tax filings get complicated is knowing what forms need to be filed when. Once you start mixing state and local taxes into the mix it can be a little overwhelming at first.

The problem with automating all of this is that the tax laws change so much keeping up across all the states and cities would be a challenge. Next, you would possibly have to work with governments to be able to e-file in bulk.

For me personally, I already pay an accountant that handles these filings and more for me. I would be hesitant to pay another service, especially an unproven one, when it comes to taxes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's great feedback! That's a good point about basic businesses not needing a monthly bookkeeping company. I've been pretty happy with Wave, so I don't think I need Bench yet.

And I agree, it would be difficult to stay up-to-date with all the tax laws. Ideally I would want to have an accountant as a co-founder, or at least work closely with an accountant who specializes in startups. The idea is that one accountant would create a streamlined process for all startups with similar situations. Then startups could pay a much smaller fee for a repeatable process. In your case, it sounds like your tax situation might be a little more complicated. But I do want to stress that we would have an accountant who double-checks everything, especially for the first customers.

<comment><USER3> The problem is on the expense side:

you just bought a computer do you expense it? depreciate it?

You had someone build a component for your website? is that expensed? or was that a capital expenditure?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes! This is one of the most broken aspects of running a SaaS business. My last startup paid tens of thousands for accounting work that had to be constantly redone, across multiple "startup specialist" vendors that we tried. For startups under $1M ARR the strategies for tax compliance/savings are straight forward

</comment><comment><USER5> seriously? thousands of dollars for corporate income taxes? is this because you registered a c corp?

I'm about to register a s corp in California for a SAAS like yours., my friends did it told me that they just hire a local CPA for about 200 bucks.

they even told me turbotax (some beefy version) can do it too.

few thousands bucks for tax filing would be a serious cost for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, that's because Stripe Atlas sets up a c-corp. They set up a lot of companies for non-US citizens, and you have to be a US citizen or resident to set up an s-corp. S-corps don't need to file corporate income taxes at all, because all income is passed through to the owners.

I've just realized that my market is actually non-US citizens who set up a US company (via Stripe Atlas or something else.) On the other hand, maybe I could also help US citizens fill out their individual tax returns (Form 1040), if their only income is from a SaaS product. The bookkeeping piece could still be useful. I might charge something like $150 per year, or $15 per month, and you wouldn't need to hire that CPA for $200.

Thanks, that was extremely helpful!

<comment><USER3> there are plenty of online sites for filing 1040s:

here's a list of efiling companies for 1120s: [https://www.irs.gov/e-file- providers/tax-year-2016-1120x-and...](https://www.irs.gov/e-file- providers/tax-year-2016-1120x-and-7004-modernized-efile-mef-providers)

here's a developer conference: [https://www.irs.gov/2017-software-developers- conference](https://www.irs.gov/2017-software-developers-conference)</comment></comment></comment>


How Not To Make A Commercial Linux Distribution - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2009/02/16/how-not-to-make-a-commercial-linux-distribution/ <comment><USER2> From the website : "You will never get a virus on iMagic OS. There may be one or two that have been written for Linux, but iMagic OS comes with three of the strongest firewalls available, protecting you from any possible threat." They're feeling lucky.</comment>


Tell HN: "Shader Showdown" live coding competition at Revision 2019 - <AUTHOR> Live now: https://www.twitch.tv/revisionseminars<p>Quarterfinals later today, at 22:00 CEST (UTC+2), will probably be on main channel: https://www.twitch.tv/revisionparty<p>(Context: Revision is the biggest annual demoparty, held in Saarbrücken on easter weekend. In the shader showdown, graphics programmers compete against each other to code the best visual effect in 25 minutes, starting from scratch) <comment><USER2> Its really nice to watch.</comment>


Ask HN: So what's the job market like for generalists, really? - <AUTHOR>

As I read all the outrage about the Penny Arcade posting today, I'm troubled by seeing two seemingly contradictory responses: 1. A sad resignation that tons of very smart people will end up applying and be willing to work for the conditions that are offered. 2. A belief that the generalists with skill sets even approaching what is requested are in such high demand/short that this posting is ridiculous.<p>I'm genuinely curious about the state of this job market because as I read the posting I couldn't help but notice that it felt like a perfect match for my own skill set. It sometimes seems like startups are looking for specialists/experts in a particular area to augment the general knowledge they already have. Also, the limited runway provided by seed/angel/VC funding doesn't allow enough time for training. Whereas the Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. size companies don't need someone who can code front-end and back-end, design, and sysadmin all at a passable level because they already have tons of people who can do one of those things at a very high level. <comment><USER2> I can only speak for NYC, but its very hot. A couple of months ago my startup failed and I was looking for a job. I was only interested in early stage startups and wanted to work on every part of the tech stack (frontend, backend, devops....). In the span of 2 weeks I met with over 2 dozen startups and received a number of great offers.

<comment><USER3> how/where did you met them at NYC?

<comment><USER2> About 50% were through my personal network, the rest came from various online sources. Angellist worked really well for me, I highly recommend trying them if you're looking for early stage startups. Linkedin was overloaded with recruiters, I got little use from it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! When my Marine Corps contract expires in about ten months I'm going to be looking and both the advice to try AngelList and the confidence that it will be alright will be a huge help.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How a TV Sitcom Triggered the Downfall of Western Civilization - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@thatdavidhopkins/how-a-tv-sitcom-triggered-the-downfall-of-western-civilization-336e8ccf7dd0#.ud7wlbd9r <comment><USER2> That article shows a remarkable lack of familiarity with the historical corpus of American television.</comment>


Sports data giant Stats buys Bloomberg Sports - <AUTHOR> http://www.builtinchicago.org/blog/stats-llc-buys-bloomberg-sports-advance-its-predictive-sports-statistics-modeling-analysis

<comment><USER2> STATS was recently sold by Fox Sports and the Associated Press to the SF-based private-equity firm Vista Equity Partners. The rumored sale price was around $200M.

We work with STATS data daily and their products are excellent, albeit very expensive.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't wait for the day when sports statistics are easily accessible to amateurs. I'd rather not illegally scrape basketball-reference and just pay somebody to get an api.

<comment><USER4> as an amateur athlete, i want stats too (but not pro stats like you're talking about), which is why i'm working on that for amateur sports. =)

<comment><USER5> Let me know if you need beta users!

<comment><USER4> will do! which sport(s) are you interested in/do you play?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> STATS is the company behind SportVU, and one of the fastest growing sports analytics outfits out there. Despite knowing this, it still surprised me to see them grab Bloomberg sports, particularly since Bloomberg only created that business four years ago. I see this as a kind of acquiescence. They couldn't see themselves challenging STATS, so they may as well may a few bucks off of what they had created.

I think this also speaks to the network effects of entering into contracts with a large number of sports franchises. At a certain point, if a number of teams are benefiting from your analytics, everyone else is going to want them as well. When it comes to sports statistics, the last teams to adopt are often the most tradition bound and least advanced in terms of metrics. They're also the last teams who would try an up-and-comer without having had major upheaval in their ownership or front office situation. Rather, they'll run with what seems to be working elsewhere, and probably half-ass the implementation.

<comment><USER7> SportVU was another STATS acquisition.

<comment><USER6> Right, I should have noted that, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why do they make it so difficult to access the data? There's a single page with a couple paragraphs about the API but nothing more. I'm assuming you have to pay some money, but it doesn't say how or how much!</comment>