Introducing .app, a more secure home for apps on the web - daniel-alex https://www.blog.google/topics/developers/introducing-app-more-secure-home-apps-web/ <comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the play store of websites. Where we need to get permissions and approvals and can get banned. No thanks, Google is trying to bring their walled garden idea for websites. Don't trust Google on this. They just turned off their service rather than support signal, what if signal was signal.app would they block em? Don't trust Google on this. It's a decent idea but no.

<comment><USER2> Is there any precedent for a TLD owner doing what you describe? I think this is HSTS preload and nothing more.

<comment><USER3> Yes:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/daily-stormer-being-dumped-by- go...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/daily-stormer-being-dumped-by-godaddy- apparently-seized-by-anonymous/)

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/godaddy-boots-the-daily- stor...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/godaddy-boots-the-daily-stormer- because-of-what-it-wrote-about-charlottesville-victim.html)

<comment><USER4> Both of those are articles are about registrars refusing to do business with one specific hate group. They're not about registries.

<comment><USER3> Aren't Google and Godaddy both TLD owners?

<comment><USER5> Yes, technically. But GoDaddy's GTLD (.godaddy) isn't available for public use, so your point is moot.

<comment><USER3> My point is that google will ban your website off the internet in whatever way possible for them, if they don't agree with what you're saying. They have demonstrated this as I linked. Just because their role is now TLD owner, doesn't mean they will not do what they think is necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The big difference is that HTTPS is required to connect to all .app > websites...Because .app will be the first TLD with enforced security made > available for general registration, it's helping move the web to an HTTPS- > everywhere future in a big way.

This sounds good but how does it really help users or developers compared to having a .com website that uses HTTPS? Expecting that users will think "oh, .app, must be secure" doesn't seem like an improvement over expecting them to look for key icons in the browser, or showing them scary alerts for non-https sites.

The only play I see here is that if the new TLD becomes so popular that everyone must have one, then, well, everyone must have HTTPS. But that's not going to happen either. Even .com never reached a high enough level of importance that absolutely every website, including those who weren't interested in providing HTTPS, needed to use .com for their domain.

<comment><USER4> Tech lead of Google Registry here. I can help answer some questions.

HSTS preloading offers the highest possible level of security, as the user's browser is enforcing the use of HTTPS. Merely serving via HTTPS is only optional security, as any man-in-the-middle attacker can strip that encryption (see sslstrip, released six years ago). For more information see my blog post from last year: [https://security.googleblog.com/2017/09/broadening-hsts- to-s...](https://security.googleblog.com/2017/09/broadening-hsts-to-secure- more-of-web.html)

Preloading the entire TLD rather than individual domains has a number of benefits, including the fact that (a) it's effective now rather than several months from now for a newly created domain, (b) you don't individually have to configure anything, and (c) it keeps the size of the list down (which is important since the list is built into web browsers).

And in addition to all that, you're right, it is a play to move more sites to HTTPS, which is better for the safety and security of the web overall. Chrome is soon going to display "Insecure" for every single http site, which is another nudge to help move the web towards a secure future.

<comment><USER7> Trying to register via google domain says "Google Domains does not support the .APP ending". Is that on purpose (Google domain is listed on get.app as compatible) ? A cache issue ?

<comment><USER4> I can't speak specifically for Google Domains as that's a completely different team that we have limited interactions with.

What I can say is that we are currently in the Early Access Period, and that General Availability begins on May 8 at 16:00:00.000 Z. That's when you'd expect to see any remaining registrars not yet selling them start to sell them.

<comment><USER8> Wait, so you put out this launch announcement telling people they can early register .app domains. It links to a bunch of partners including Google Domains, but you have no idea whether I can actually register a domain there or not? Why promise it in your launch announcement then?

<comment><USER9> They put this announcement out so they can sell spots on the "Priority Pre Registration" list for $16,000.

It's just another fucking cash grab.

<comment><USER10> For end users it costs ~$20, right now from one of the EAP registrars.

Outrage is great, but it's a good idea to read before firing off like this.

<comment><USER11> That's misleading. That won't fire until May 9 (GA). If it's left.

(You can use your TMCH SMD file to register your trademark.app for ~$20, but that's not really what we're taking about here.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sigh. As I've said before, we need stronger identity profiles and user agents that verify _much_ more than legitimate-sounding names. A name _alone_ should effectively be treated like it could be _completely and utterly fake_ , period.

Yes, they're requiring "https" but it's not like it is hard to acquire a certificate anymore.

All the ".app" domain will do is screw app developers into paying to register their chosen name on a particular domain. Again. After all, if you don't register then _someone else could_ , giving their site perceived legitimacy over yours. Let's not forget, many apps are _not_ making millions on top-10 lists; developers aren't exactly eager to further cut into their meager earnings to cover web sites.

We already know that _entire apps_ are being copied. Scammers have never been deterred from copying entire web sites either (just look at those E-mails from "your bank"). This new domain might serve mainly as a way for scammers to make stolen copies seem _even more real_. Frankly, I predict that all the real talented developers will be slowly discouraged from continuing to try to make money in an environment where obvious fakes can thrive so easily and the costs just keep going up.

<comment><USER4> HTTPS and SSL certificates are primarily used for encrypting the connection, thus protecting your data from snooping and modification in transit. They are not actually that useful for authenticating identity. Users tend to simply ignore the padlock icon, which is why Chrome is moving away from an affirmative security display model (which users don't pay much attention to) to displaying prominent warnings for insecure or hijacked connections, which users do pay more attention to. SSL certificates' inability to properly authenticate identity is also why many of the largest tech companies in the world do not even bother with EV certificates (e.g. Google, Amazon, and Facebook for starters).

In order to fully establish identity and provide strong authentication, you would need a much stronger centralized system. Additionally, browsers would need to refuse to make connections to endpoints not authenticated through this system, otherwise you'd have the same kind of lackadaisical user response as we see now to the padlock icon. I don't think anyone present here wants anything like that, and I'm sure that if we were proposing such a walled garden vision for the Internet, the responses would rightfully be much more negative. Instead, we just want everyone's connections to be encrypted.

As for some of your other points, having a strong, short, memorable domain name is good for overall Web security and does help cut down on fraudulent apps and the other problems you've identified. To give you one example, I recently saw an ad for an app called "Curb" (it's a yellow tax ride-hailing app). Out of curiosity I wanted to see more information about it, but there was no domain name on the app; it simply said "Download the Curb app". So I searched the app store for "Curb" and there were dozens of apps with that name, many of them clearly imitators. The best "security" measure was trying to remember what the app's icon looked like.

Now imagine that that ad had instead said "Go to curb.app to get our app", and that said site had prominent links to mobile app stores. That's taking advantage of the global uniqueness property of domain names to guarantee that I won't be tricked away by a scammer. "curb.app" is short and memorable, gets users to the right place, and because .app is a fresh namespace, is still available. Good luck getting any domain name close to that good on .com. .com is fully mined out, and any good names that are available are being sold for minimums of tens of thousands of dollars by squatters and resellers.

I'll be talking about these issues and more in depth at I/O, if you'd like to watch/stream it: [https://events.google.com/io/schedule/?section=may-8&sid=7ac...](https://events.google.com/io/schedule/?section=may-8&sid=7ac8be59-1ecc-4d90-aea5-e62deab5ee7f)

<comment><USER13> > Now imagine that that ad had instead said "Go to curb.app to get our app", > and that said site had prominent links to mobile app stores.

Now imagine it's a year or two from now and you have the exact same problems that you had with curb.com.

What's the strategy for when .app gets mined out? Are we just going to keep creating new tlds over and over for eternity?

Bear in mind that the only way .app won't get mined out will be if either very few people use it, or if users ignore it and don't treat it any differently than any other namespace. Ironically, the only way this will be useful for developers like me is if Google's advertising campaign utterly fails and it's ignored by most people.

The solution to identity management can't be that users will stay one tld ahead of hackers. That's just never gonna happen. Users are slower than hackers.

<comment><USER14> > Are we just going to keep creating new tlds over and over for eternity?

Yes. The "easily memorable global namespace" is a limited natural resource, there is no definitive fix and there can't be - unless you accept the totalitarian single gatekeeper scheme Cyde describes.

In an open system, you always need to deal with the Sybil attack and the only solution is proof of work, resources - money. This means domain squatters will always capture a rent, by guessing domain names that will be valuable latter on. The way to minimize that rent on the long run is to periodically reset the game by bringing new TLDs into existence, thereby devaluing the investment in older TLDs, thereby making squatting a more risky activity. The GTLD liberalization greatly diminished the price pressure on .com .org and the like.

Keep in mind the web has seen exponential increase in the last decades; the upside now is much more limited, maybe another order of magnitude until complete worldwide market saturation and web growth figures get more inline to global economic growth numbers. Once that is achieved the problem becomes much less serious.

<comment><USER15> Wouldn't it be easier to just raise domain registration /renewal prices, making squatting a poor return on investment?

<comment><USER14> I think that would hurt small businesses more than it would dissuade squatters of truly valuable domains. The trick is to move money from the squatters to the public and domain owners, not to the registry itself, that is basically just another big squatter.

Maybe a TLD like .app could increase the annual renewal fee to something like $100 while bundling premium features like business Gmail, Adwords credits or Google Cloud services, all usable only on that domain name. This way, low level owners get their money back, big corporations don't care and squatters are hurt since they can't make use of the services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If it's not clear from the article, HTTPS is required for all .app domains, which Google accomplished by adding the .app TLD to the default chrome HSTS preload list.

Interestingly that will only ensure HTTPS only when using a browser with HSTS enabled with a preload list that includes the .app TLD.

Therefore non-web code, or code in browsers without the TLD in the HSTS preload list, will be able to make HTTP requests to a .app domain.

It does seem like a positive step, but to be honest the solution seems a bit clumsy and ineffective, closer to security theater than actual security. Also, and this is just a feeling, it seems obtrusive for google to force such a policy across the TLD. Of course it's their right since they own the TLD, but the cynic in me can't help but think it sets an overbearing precedent. Based on Google's behavior in the past, this looks like the second step of the "embrace/extend/extinguish" cycle Google has used so effectively in the past.

<comment><USER17> How does that work in say, Firefox?

<comment><USER18> Exactly the same, the preload list data is public and used by all the major browsers.

<comment><USER16> What is the "single source of truth" for the HSTS preload list? It must be on a server somewhere... who runs the server? Which browsers use this list by default?

<comment><USER4> See [https://hstspreload.org/](https://hstspreload.org/). And all major browsers. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, IE, and Edge for starters.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for that. But that site doesn't seem to mention the loading process across browsers. Generally speaking , do the major browsers ship the HSTS list compiled into the build? Or do they update it at runtime? If so, from where do they fetch the updated list, and how often?

<comment><USER4> Yes, the major browsers ship the HSTS preload list compiled directly into the build. That's why it can take months for a domain to, once submitted, actually be preloaded across a majority of users -- because the browser nightly/beta/release build cycle alone is 2-3 months, plus the time that it takes the average user to update their browser.

Incidentally, this is one of the major advantages of HSTS preloading at the TLD level, namely, that all .app domains are already preloaded and have been since 2017.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Supporting https is only an infinitesimal part of what makes downloading apps on the internet like playing Russian Roulette. It still doesn't prevent unsuspecting users from downloading malware, adware, ransomware, and apps that siphon user data. It also doesn't prevent users of sites depending on third party ad networks from being a victim of the same vulnerabilities they are now.

<comment><USER20> Later google will launch .ampp for apps that are certified to only have Google and their thousands of partners sharing your PII 'securely'.

<comment><USER21> That honestly doesn't even sound like a joke. I'd believe it if you said that's a quote from the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is being cynical about this allowed?

Google throws down a few hundred grand to get the .app domain, in concert with modifying their web browser to deliberately mark others' traffic as "Insecure" (it is not necessarily!), and reaps the fees now and in perpetuity ever year thereafter for maintaining a simple database of DNS glue entries which you literally could maintain using MS Access (by which I mean, the database schema and maintainence is bog-simple).

How is the coming Chrome modification not "tying"? Anyone familiar with anti- trust laws care to comment?

<comment><USER4> .app was a tiny bit more expensive to acquire than that ... [http://www.businessinsider.com/google-just- paid-25-million-t...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-just- paid-25-million-to-buy-the-entire-app-web-domain-2015-2)

We're not expecting to make our money back on this one. And these amounts are a drop in bucket compared to many other Google products anyway.

So a cynical profit motive is not why we're doing it. We're doing it for the stated reasons, to move security forward on the Web; see [https://security.googleblog.com/2017/09/broadening-hsts- to-s...](https://security.googleblog.com/2017/09/broadening-hsts-to-secure- more-of-web.html) and [https://security.googleblog.com/2018/02/a-secure-web- is-here...](https://security.googleblog.com/2018/02/a-secure-web-is-here-to- stay.html)

Also, I could talk your ear off about the design of our infrastructure for hours. Suffice it to say, it's a lot harder than you're making it out to be, particularly as regards to scaling. Our registry platform is open source, so feel free to inspect the code at [https://nomulus.foo](https://nomulus.foo) . And that's not even getting into DNS hosting, which involves a very large number of instances distributed around the entire globe.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the correction about the price.

However, 10 years of 1 million domains, even if Google's cut is only $1 out of the registration price, is still $10 million per year * 10 years = $100 million.

If Google's own registry is used and you capture more of the ($17/year ?) domain fee, it goes up by multiples of that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but serving the DNS entries of .app will be almost the same as serving up a DNS entry for another domain like .com: the HSTS/https-only requirements will be set up in the browser, not the DNS server.

And serving DNS has been handled successfully and profitably by Namecheap/GoDaddy/Moniker et al for years.

<comment><USER23> Alphabet made $31B in revenue last _quarter_. [1] CydeWeys already addressed their costs, but $100M over 10 years doesn't exactly sound like something they get out of bed for, especially considering they're already out $25M and they really will have expenses to cover for this.

[1] [https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_releas...](https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I want to clarify some details on how the Early Access Program (EAP) works because I'm seeing some confusion here in the comments.

EAP is a 7-day period in advance of General Availability (GA) during which domains can be _registered_ immediately (not pre-ordered). EAP is a descending price ("Dutch") auction, meaning that prices start off high and then decrease as the auction goes on. The reason for this is to efficiently allocate domains to those who want them the most, rather than allowing desirable ones to be snatched up by those with the intent of reselling them. It's the concert ticket problem in domain name form.

We are currently in the first day of EAP. Each price tier lasts for the entirety of the day, and then ticks over to the next lower tier at precisely 16:00:00.000 Z. There are price drops over the first four transitions, and then the final three days are all at the lowest price tier. EAP is a one-time acquisition fee; you do not pay that on subsequent renewal. Different registrars choose different amounts for EAP tiers just like they choose different rates for base registration. EAP began today at 2018-05-01 16:00:00 Z and ends precisely when GA begins, which is at 2018-05-08 16:00:00 Z.

The confusion around EAP is stemming from the fact that many registrars are offering preorders for specific EAP price tiers (or GA). So while we're not yet in the lowest price tier, you can put in a preorder for the lowest price tier now, and the registrar will then attempt to register the domain for you within the first moments of that price tier once it begins. Whereas if you buy a domain in the current price tier, the registration goes through immediately and there's no element of chance like there is for preorders. Typically preorders that you don't win are refunded, though some registrars may charge non-refundable application fees.

Separately from all of that, there are also premium domains; those prices are orthogonal to EAP and affect renewal prices as well as initial registrations. EAP fees disappear entirely once we hit GA, but premium fees persist. Again, the intent of all of these is efficient domain allocation. You may be asking "why both?", and the answer is that both pricing mechanisms are good at solving different aspects of the problem of efficient allocation.

For a full list of registrars selling .app, see [https://get.app](https://get.app) and [https://www.registry.google/about/register.html](https://www.registry.google/about/register.html)

<comment><USER24> Both pricing mechanisms are great at:

(a) transferring wealth from the secondary market to registrars, and

(b) guaranteeing that desirable domain names get allocated purely on economic value terms, thus effectively shutting out non-profit-oriented enterprises from the best domain names. If someone with some quirky desire to name a domain name after their cat would like to grab the domain name and refuse to sell, this pricing scheme guarantees that such sentimental value counts for zero in the "efficient allocation" measure.

Both of these seem pretty shitty to me.

<comment><USER25> Desirable domains are by definition scarce -- there is not enough of them to go round to those who desire them.

The current approach is essentially saying "if you really desire domain X badly, put your money where your mouth is".

Do you have an alternative proposal on how these desirable domains could be allocated more efficiently?

<comment><USER24> "Efficiently" is a concept defined only by your target. If your target is economic value, then, sure this kind of auction does a pretty good job at allocating efficiently with respect to it. If your target is something like desire-satisfaction, or promoting novelty/creative use, then it might be worth trying to think about ways to preferentially allocate to people willing to put in more effort too, or, e.g., introduce some kind of lottery system for some domains for non-commercial uses.

<comment><USER26> In what units do you measure "desire-satisfaction" and "promoting creative use"? How do you know that an outcome was optimal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Took me a while to figure out that Google Domains isn't participating in the Early Access Program.

Apparently the "additional fee" for early access is extraordinarily high from some registrars.

For example -> [https://imgur.com/a/E9WRqTI](https://imgur.com/a/E9WRqTI)

<comment><USER28> I just tried to buy one. Got an email saying I'd be invoiced on allocation of that domain to the registrar. WTF does that mean? How can they take my money if they don't even know they'll have the domain to sell?

<comment><USER4> I believe that, as a general policy, registrars refund your money if they don't actually manage to acquire the domain name on your behalf.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd be pretty uncomfortable basing my online identity on a domain where the registrar is already picking which web standards do and don't work.

</comment><comment><USER30> Barely related question: does Google plan to deploy the .google gTLD for use in its services, i.e. will mail.google.com become mail.google, and drive.google.com change to drive.google just like they did for blog.google and registry.com?

<comment><USER31> I think they'd like to possibly but there are concerns. I have had trouble with vanity tlds and I can imagine with google being so ubiquitous, there could be so many issues.

And also security. I know there's an implicit trust of .com and so I wonder if seeing just google will lead to people thinking it's safer. I have Metcalfe.rocks and more than once I've had people try Metcalfe.rocks.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Arbitrarily picking web standards seems like an abuse of power. If this is the direction in which they want the internet to steer (a great one as far as I'm concerned) Google should advocate for the deprecation of HTTP in the appropriate bodies instead though.

It baffles me that TLDs are at the mercy of private companies... I guess I should read more about the history of the internet to understand how this came to be.

Finally, maybe the management of authoritative DNS is one of the few applications for which a blockchain could actually make sense. Still pondering on the specific model though, does anybody know of existing projects in this direction?

<comment><USER33> It's not arbitrarily. You can use the standard HSTS to be applied domain wide [https://hstspreload.org/#tld](https://hstspreload.org/#tld)

<comment><USER32> That's fair, given that HSTS is after all a standard itself and Google is merely applying it.

Then I guess my perplexity is towards IETF in that they allow for two conflicting standards to exist.

What if I want to use local.my.app for development; Or, in a more textbook example, i want to use workstation-1.building-a.my.internal.my.app without https?

<comment><USER34> Arbitrarily across an entire TLD.

Because IANA decided to start selling off the web for companies to abuse.

> What if I want to use local.my.app for development;

You can switch to .dev... oh right.

<comment><USER35> RFC-6761 [1] reserves .example, .invalid, .localhost, and .test — the latter two seem like nice alternatives.

[1]: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> In case someone is wondering about availability:

[https://www.registry.google/](https://www.registry.google/)

 _Here are the important dates to be aware of in 2018:

Mar 29 - May 1: Trademark holders can register .app domains (known as the "Sunrise" period).

May 1 - May 8: Anyone can register available .app domains for an extra fee (known as the "Early Access" period).

May 8 and onwards: Anyone can register available .app domains (known as "General Availability")._

<comment><USER37> Anyone know of any registrars supporting the early access registration? My usual haunts all say they don't support .app

<comment><USER38> Confirmed that gandi.net does support it

<comment><USER37> That must have been a just-missed thing - I checked Gandi just before my post

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Excellent, this will surely cause no confusion with macOS executables.

<comment><USER40> Just like .com didn't cause confusion with DOS and Windows .com executables.

<comment><USER41> It helped a little that .com executables were pretty much obsolete by the time the web became common, but that was still a pretty nice gift to early malware authors.

<comment><USER42> I remember when I first started hearing about the web (around circa 95) and I was playing alot with DOS thinking that the two were connected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Why is Google launching a TLD and you cannot purchase it through Google Domains?

It's currently showing as "Not Supported" even though they link to Google Domains from get.app.

It's mind-boggling to think they couldn't come up with a "coming soon" blip if somebody tries to look up a Google-owned TLD on Google Domains.

<comment><USER44> From another post in this thread, ICANN rules prevent the two from coordinating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Mandatory HTTPS? This discussion from 2 days ago seems relevant: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16951831](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16951831)

</comment><comment><USER46> > HTTPS is required to connect to all .app websites, helping protect against > ad malware

Can somebody explain this claim? How does HTTPS protect against malware? Does no malware use HTTPS, so it all gets blocked?

<comment><USER47> It doesn't. They are likely referring to some malware attack vectors that rely on hijacking local DNS or routing between the web browser and the server (eg, at your coffee shop wifi, or your ISP injecting junk into the HTTP stream), and requiring HTTPS makes such attacks a little bit harder. But there are plenty of other ways to send "ad malware" to browsers that work just fine over HTTPS. And as for ISPs, they could easily (in some places, they likely do, and someday most probably will) require you to install their own custom certs in your trusted store and MITM all your web traffic. TLS 1.3 tried to work around this threat as well, but enterprise security people who "need" to monitor all traffic in and out of their network blew that up. But your browser will show a green lock icon, so it's fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Is google domains not taking preorders? It says the .app extension is not supported.

<comment><USER49> This was ironic to me too. I had to preorder app domains from a third party called Marcaria. 101domain supports it as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Ted from Namecheap here - we've been excited about this TLD launch for a couple of years now and we plan to sell .app domains! Stoked it's launching very soon.

<comment><USER51> Ted, any reason why you don't permit pasting the 2-factor auth code into the input box?

<comment><USER50> trust me, it's on the backlog to fix.

<comment><USER52> Is everything on the backlog? Still not supporting long DKIM keys. Still using deprecated and discouraged SMS as 2factor. Are your margins really that thin? It's been years :(

<comment><USER50> We introduced an alternative to 2FA SMS - Authy OneTouch. We're working on adding TOTP as well.

<comment> et-al Hey Ted, since you're here, may I please suggest that the future implementation of 2FA _not_ require a separate app? Even though Namecheap is using Authy OneTouch, it still requires a dedicate app, which is unnecessary. Thanks.

<comment><USER50> We partnered with Authy/Twilio on this integration to try something new. Totally get that we need additional options.

<comment> et-al Thanks for the reply Ted. Looking forward to something more standardised!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Here is a small script for the Terminal lovers.

        #!/bin/bash
        DOMAIN="${1:-google}"
        RESPONSE=$(
            curl -XGET -s \
            -H "Accept-Language: en-us" \
            -H "Accept: */*" \
            -H "Connection: keep-alive" \
            -H "Host: domain-registry.appspot.com" \
            -H "Origin: https://get.app" \
            -H "Referer: https://get.app/" \
            -H "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/537.36" \
            "https://domain-registry.appspot.com/check?domain=${DOMAIN}.app"
        )
        echo "$RESPONSE" | sed "s/{\"/{\"domain\":\"${DOMAIN}.app\",\"/g"

<comment><USER54> Simpler:

        $ curl -sL https://domain-registry.appspot.com/check?domain=$DOMAIN.app
        {"status":"success","available":true,"tier":"standard"}

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> This is confusing because Mac apps literally end in that extension, and if I say Messages.app you would know what I mean.

Also, if I say "dingus dot app" it confuses people because that's not a mobile app, it's a site or web app.

<comment><USER56> Old DOS executables (actually, commands) (which still run on Windows) ended in .com ; there was an overlap with the Internet when they were still quite common (command.com was how you started a command prompt on windows 95), and no-one seemed to get confused

<comment><USER55> This is a fair & fun point, however maybe a bit of a stretch to compare here; DOS binaries were almost all .EXE well into DOS 3.x, which was many generations before Windows 95. I would say the exception to that had been command.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Registration opens May 8th.

I went through a few of the registrars and got error messages that the TLD wasn't supported.

Godaddy of course has a solidly gouging pre-registration price.

Set an alarm to park park park.

Edit: Godaddy isn't straight up gouging. Seems like dictionary words are much more expensive than made up words or non-dictionary brand names.

Name.com somehow has a "buy it now" option in the 10k+ range. Curious how _that_ works.

<comment><USER58> .app is in the sunrise phase right now -- I think all the registrars pay the same wholesale rate and it's possible that the actual price is set as well.

It'll drop to the regular price on 5/8.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> [https://blog.google/topics/developers/introducing-app- more-s...](https://blog.google/topics/developers/introducing-app-more-secure- home-apps-web/)

It may just be on my end, but attempting to access the page using www.blog.google does not work, but blog.google works. The link may need to be changed...

      > nslookup www.blog.google

      Non-authoritative answer:
      Name:       ghs-svc-https-sni.ghs-ssl.googlehosted.com
      Addresses:  2607:f8b0:4009:80b::2013
                  220.127.116.11
      Aliases:    www.blog.google

      > nslookup blog.google

      Non-authoritative answer:
      Name:       blog.google
      Addresses:  2001:4860:4802:38::15
                  2001:4860:4802:32::15
                  2001:4860:4802:36::15
                  2001:4860:4802:34::15
                  220.127.116.11
                  188.8.131.52
                  220.127.116.11
                  188.8.131.52

</comment><comment><USER60> Not surprisingly Google has already prevented registration(pre pre registration) of anything related to their services alphabet[1], chrome[2], chromeos[3], etc... I guess you can do whatever you want when you own the domain extension.

[1] [https://www.godaddy.com/dpp/find?checkAvail=1&tmskey=&domain...](https://www.godaddy.com/dpp/find?checkAvail=1&tmskey=&domainToCheck=alphabet.app)

[2] [https://www.godaddy.com/dpp/find?checkAvail=1&tmskey=&domain...](https://www.godaddy.com/dpp/find?checkAvail=1&tmskey=&domainToCheck=chrome.app)

[3] [https://www.godaddy.com/dpp/find?checkAvail=1&tmskey=&domain...](https://www.godaddy.com/dpp/find?checkAvail=1&tmskey=&domainToCheck=chrome.app)

<comment><USER61> > Mar 29 - May 1: Trademark holders can register .app domains (known as the > "Sunrise" period).

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Note that most registrars participating in EAP or landrush charge a non- refundable fee, which is major chunk of the price increase from day 7 to day 1. It doesn't seem that there is "no cost" to participating in this period if one doesn't get the domain name.

</comment><comment><USER63> Why can't they add a new URL scheme "secure://" to Chrome that will only support HTTPS?

Adding a new scheme would support _all existing https websites_ on the internet _today_ with no need to pay anyone money or rush to reserve domains.

This .app thing is needlessly difficult, and just a way for Google to push its brand on technology concepts en-masse, like the .dev fiasco. Now everyone in the world has to register a new domain (and make it work for their site) to make sure their URL is always secure.

<comment><USER64> How would "secure://" differ from "[https://"](https://")?

<comment><USER63> Most people don't know what [https://](https://) means, and is often confused with [http://](http://). Plus, [https://](https://) has allowed people to do things like click through certificate warnings, which secure:// should never do. Finally, secure:// should require all standard best practices for the security of web apps, first simply by refusing to render obviously insecure sites, and then by requiring extra parameters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> _Starting today at 9:00am PDT and through May 7, .app domains are available to register as part of our Early Access Program, where, for an additional fee, you can secure your desired domains ahead of general availability._

Additional fee:

hackernews.app is available! CA $25.72 per year (pre-registration) CA $16,082.01 (early access)

Helluva fee.

[https://www.name.com/preorder/app?domain=hackernews.app&tld=...](https://www.name.com/preorder/app?domain=hackernews.app&tld=app)

</comment><comment><USER66> Does GoDaddy refund if you dont get the domain ?

EDIT: Found the FAQ -

 _Does pre-registering a domain guarantee I 'll get it? No. Pre-registering reserves your place in our queue for that domain. The instant the registration phase opens, we'll submit our list of registrations electronically. If you don't get the domain you've pre-registered, we'll refund the cost of the registration. Any application fees are non-refundable however._

<comment><USER67> Is the "Early Registration Fee" considered a "cost of registration" or "application fee"? It's listed as "Early Registration Fee (non-refundable)" in the cart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> So, Google paid big bucks to secure a juicy top-level domain name. Now it says it's good because "hey, if you pay us money, we'll get you in our registry, call you secure, prominently display you in search (not now, but logical next step), and pretend it's all for great good and not to extend and protect our dominance".

IANA's decision to expand and auction off to-level donations was a horrible idea.

</comment><comment><USER69> So what registrars are taking part Early Access Program?

<comment><USER4> See the list here: [https://www.registry.google/about/register.html](https://www.registry.google/about/register.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> How does this work technically? What prevents use of plaintext http on these domains? The preloading seems like a browser specific feature.

<comment><USER33> HSTS can be enabled for whole domain. See here: [https://hstspreload.org/#tld](https://hstspreload.org/#tld)

General information about HSTS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security)

But you are right that it is a browser thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Still waiting for them to release the .dev domains

<comment><USER72> Everyone that has been using that for local development agrees. Though the writing on the wall has been there for awhile - [https://iyware.com/dont-use- dev-for-development/](https://iyware.com/dont-use-dev-for-development/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Why does "his.app" cost $499.99 for pre-registration, but "her.app" only costs $249.99? :)

Is this some built-in gender bias?

<comment><USER74> I am new to domain trading. I have one question - Would I be sued (i.e is it legal?) if I buy some .app domains related to some popular apps of my country and list their google play store and apple store link with some ads on those domains?

<comment><USER44> I don't know if it's _illegal_ , but unless you have a trademark on those names, you're almost certain to lose them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Are already sex.app and dating.app registered?

<comment><USER53> sex.app returns this _" available: false, reason: in use"_.

dating.app returns this _" available: true, tier: premium"_

<comment><USER76> why is it premium?

<comment><USER77> Because it says dating :) Registrars can device on a set of names the wish to withhold, they are usually dictionary names with great interest involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Moves like this intrigue me.

On the one hand, I support creating new platforms with security built-in by default, but on the flip side, the Chrome team just axed HPKP without even so much as bothering to _try_ to refine it to mitigate the footguns.

I don't understand how the web-facing security decisions at Google are made. :/

<comment><USER79> There are motivating reasons for that[0]. The Expect-CT header is its replacement, and is getting picked up by recent versions of Chrome.

[0]: [https://scotthelme.co.uk/im-giving-up-on- hpkp/](https://scotthelme.co.uk/im-giving-up-on-hpkp/)

<comment><USER78> Yep. I contributed rather substantially to one of those reasons with a talk on abuse cases for hpkp at defcon two years back.

I'm still disappointed. I don't feel expect-ct effectively covers the same use cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> What if I put my app's REST backend on my .app domain? Are .app domains only allowed to host brochureware?

<comment><USER4> The only restriction with .app domains is that HTTPS is enforced when connecting from a web browser. We definitely encourage you to use .app for more than mere brochureware, and of course we also encourage you to encrypt all APIs (REST or otherwise). This will be enforced by browsers if said APIs are being hit from a webpage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Finally! I've been waiting for this for the last 11 years [http://www.laktek.com/2007/05/18/app-tld-for-web- application...](http://www.laktek.com/2007/05/18/app-tld-for-web- applications/)

</comment><comment><USER82> HSTS seems to require the website to conform to what google defines as 'Serve a valid certificate.' Does this mean that self-signed certs will not be acceptable for a .app domain and centralized certificate authorities will be required?

<comment><USER4> Validity of SSL certificates is enforced by web browsers. If you choose to allow your self-signed certs in your browser then it will work for you, though of course not for other people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> The defining feature here seems to be HSTS - all .app domains will connect via HTTPS by default, and never try HTTP. Which is nice.

Otherwise... eh. In _theory_ this becomes a home for web sites specifically related to apps. Certainly that seems to be what Google are suggesting. But are web apps "apps"? Is this native only? Are Google going to be actively monitoring these to make sure the content is related to the .app TLD? (spoiler: no).

So it's just another TLD, really.

<comment><USER84> > But are web apps "apps"?

Both Google and Microsoft are both strongly in the "Yes" category here and are heavily pushing PWAs as a future of many types of apps. If a lot of PWAs also want to use .app as their TLD, that serves Google's purposes just fine, I'd imagine.

> Are Google going to be actively monitoring these to make sure the content is > related to the .app TLD?

Where's the creativity in that? The internet decided a long time ago that it would rather do interesting things with TLDs than strictly enforce them; use the origins and "purpose" of a TLD as a loose guideline.

What's the harm in a restaurant deciding that .app fits their brand because they have the best apps (appetizers) in town?

Is it any worse than all the startups that have been using Chagos' country TLD .io without having anything to do with the atoll of Chagos? (Which of course is made worse by the funds from .io going to British corporate colonialists rather than directly to benefit anyone in Chagos. How many startups even think of that when paying for their hip domain name?)

<comment><USER85> Would Chagos get .io if it wasn't British Indian Ocean Territory?

<comment><USER84> Chagos is the preferred name for the atoll that the British named to be "their" Indian Ocean Territory in the colonial empire era.

Chagos should get direct control of .io, but it is a weird political fight.

One awareness campaign: [http://www.thedarksideof.io/](http://www.thedarksideof.io/)

<comment><USER85> I mean why would Chagos, free of ever having the British, end up with IO as a country code?

<comment><USER84> Well, there aren't any obvious alternatives, for one thing: .ch is Switzerland, .ca is Canada, etc.

I don't know, it's a problem for politicians and standards bodies. Even if not "British", Chagos is still inside the "Indian Ocean", so the reason for the country code remains.

<comment><USER85> Ok but that sort of takes away the entire argument that .io "belongs" to these people somehow. It doesn't, it's purely a political issue. It's not some natural resource or anything they'd have claim to otherwise. (And seems that Mauritius might have claim, meaning no extra ccTLD.)

It's fine if people want to raise awareness to Brits behaving badly. But saying .io should go to those people is misleading.

<comment><USER84> .vi is controlled directly by residents of the US Virgin Islands. The primary contact address is on St. Thomas, and the NIC follows some pretty restrictive domain naming rules to favor the residents of the US Virgin Islands. It's run by the local telecom and presumably all money generated from .vi revenue goes to the island economies.

That is much closer to the ccTLD original intent than any of the British territories have seen (.io, .vg, etc). It's not misleading to suggest that the territory control their own ccTLD's destiny, given that was the original presumption of the early IETF and many of the original NICs.

Of course it's not a "natural" resource as a digital artifact of the internet economy, but that doesn't mean the ccTLDs weren't intended to be a resource to a specific locality, and that that specific locality shouldn't most control or best benefit when that ccTLD is exploited by foreign interests find a different use/meaning/domain-hacks for that TLD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I think this domain will be very popular as app means app in almost every language. I hope Google will do something about the domain snapping or all good names will be taken (and not used).

</comment><comment><USER87> What's the pricing? I couldn't find this info on the site.

<comment><USER88> On GoDaddy at least, pricing seems to vary by domain name. beer.app is $1,999.99 while hackernews.app is $16.99. You can check pricing on individual .app domains here: [https://www.godaddy.com/tlds/app- domain](https://www.godaddy.com/tlds/app-domain)

Edit: It appears this pre-registration doesn't even guarantee you'll get the domain. It just increases your chances :( I'm gonna pass...

<comment><USER89> How would it? Godaddy can't buy the domain until General Availability, so they can't guarantee that you'll get it. Someone else could buy it first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> It is very strange.

101domains wanted to charge me ~13,000 USD for a domain / year.

gandi, however, allowed me to purchase it (the same domain!) for ~650 GBP / year.

What is going on?

<comment><USER91> I would assume one is for early phase registration (101domains - May 1-7), and one is general registration (gandi - May 8). If the domain isn't registered in the early phase, you'll be in line to have it registered on May 8.

<comment><USER90> It looks like it, indeed.

I was confused because gandi and 101domains did not explicitly state the phase. And gandi took my money and deducted it from my account but apparently did not actually obtain the domain yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Does this mean all request's will go via Google servers ? Like cloudflare ? Or how else would they enforce httpS ?

<comment><USER92> No. The TLD ".app" is on the HSTS preload list shipped with the browser, so the browser will only accept connections over SSL. It's up to you as the domain registrant to make sure your site supports it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Seen on name.com...

[https://imgur.com/kYyNQQg](https://imgur.com/kYyNQQg) ?!

</comment><comment><USER86> I wish Google or someone else with a lot of money would go and register every word in the English dictionary and then sell domains for reasonable prices. And there should also be a rule against domain squatting, for example only allow five domains per person/company.

<comment><USER94> What if we just sell TLDs directly to consumers?

<comment><USER86> I think it's important that any TLD is open for registration of domains. For example if Facebook bough .book they should need to allow others to register under it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> If there's anyone with an x-rated business idea, f.app is available though it's marked as a "premium" domain, likely due to the single letter.

It'll cost you a cool $1,790.88/year. I wonder how much of that goes to Google.

<comment><USER96> I mean, what kinda of app want's to be called Fapp for $1500+/yr?

<comment><USER97> An app that wants a memorable domain.

<comment><USER98> Well I'm out, Cr is already taken.

<comment><USER96> Well crap

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Get.app said the domain I want is available, but none of the linked websites said they supported that tld

Edit: any recommendations for what to do with my new domain, donaldtrump.app?

<comment><USER100> Right beneath the domain available message should have been a note that these domains aren't available for purchase until May 8th.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> so a web based product can be called an _app_ and get hosted for a certain *.app domain?

</comment><comment><USER102> I was not aware .google was a tld.

Can any company get a tld made? Who's even in charge of that sort of thing?

<comment><USER103> yes, any company willing to pay the application fee of $185k and able to pass a review as "capable" of operating a TLD can register a TLD. ICANN is in charge of it.

[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program](https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Any plans to support IDNs?

</comment><comment><USER104> No, Google. Just no.

</comment><comment><USER105> Just for fun, I tried these domain names via the url get.app:

apple.app

facebook.app

instagram.app

twitter.app

ycombinator.app *

snapchat.app *

producthunt.app *

whatsapp.app

amazon.app

microsoft.app

google.app

hotmail.app *

dropbox.app

intercom.app *

pivotal.app *

tesla.app

dell.app

ibm.app *

* AVAILABLE

<comment><USER74> Would I be sued (i.e is it legal?) if I buy some .app domains related to popular apps of my country and list their google play store and apple store link with some ads on those domains?

<comment><USER33> If your intention is to make some money and they have trademarks and already existing similar domains you are not acting legal! There were other people who already had the same thought as you... they failed!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Three arbitrary letters in a list of TLDs and they call it "innovation"...

<comment><USER107> Did you fabricate a quote? (And if so, why?) Neither "innovation" nor any derivatives of "innovate" appear in this post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> I go to [https://domains.google.com](https://domains.google.com) and search for my desired .app domain and it says "Google Domains does not support the .APP ending" :(

</comment><comment><USER109> Why do we have TLDs at all? If ANY COMBINATION OF LETTERS is now a TLD, we should be able to register myname.whatever if I want to, or in fact just whatever as a domain.

Ok, ok, I'll pay GOOGLE, the owner of the internet, for doing this now.

</comment><comment><USER110> Why on earth should I do it? Give me one _good_ reason; enforcing HTTPS doesn't count as one. And yet, it seems like HN crowd is queuing o buy these... Are you planning to get them so that you can sell them at a higher price later? What makes you think this product of Google does better than Google+?</comment>


Ask HN: What do I need to know about water softening? - <AUTHOR> My wife is convinced we need one. I'm convinced we're dealing with people pushing quack science for profit. How do we get to the ground truth on this? <comment><USER2> If you live in an area that has high mineral content in the water it can be somewhere between highly practical and very necessary.

"Hard" water primarily causes scale buildup, as well as changing the effectiveness of soap and other things that interact chemically with water.

In hard water areas if you like lather from your soap in the shower a water softener is necessary. If you like your white articles to not come out looking gray and dingy you need soft water. If you like long appliance life from your dishwasher, washing machine, and hot water heater, a water softener is necessary. And so on.

If you don't have very hard water it becomes less necessary. Still nice to have but a little tedious to maintain. But in very hard water areas, yeah, you want one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reality check!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You mean something like Brita filters?

Soft water isn't healthier (you could even argue that it's less healthy, but the difference is negligible, IMO).

But if your wife likes to drink tea, for example, having soft water is an understandable wish, because the tea tastes better when brewed with soft water.

If she's arguing fo a home-wide filter, not table-top:

She may reasonably wish for soft water, because you don't immediately see lots of water stains on the sink. And your washing machine and dishwasher live longer.

No, you certainly don't need soft water. But it's not quack science, it's actually solid science with the big question if it's worth the money to you.</comment>


The Reasons of Arnold-Chiari I, Idiopathic Syringomyelia, Idiopathic Scoliosis - <AUTHOR> Hello, I know that this site is for technical things. But doctors community is so closed and not friendly). I deciced to ask question here. Maybe someone has the experience or can give some usefull info.
There is institute in Barcelona which concludes that the reason of the diseases: Arnold-Chiari Syndrome Type I, Idiopathic Syringomyelia , Idiopathic Scoliosis, disc protrusions and herniations and others is
abnormally tense Filum Terminale. The description on their site: https://institutchiaribcn.com/en/diseases-we-treat/filum-disease/
They suggests the surgery to cut filum terminale in the coccyx region. This relax tension and stop progress your disease.
The problem is that the traditional approach for Arnold Chiari 1, for example, is decompression surgery in the occiput. Most "traditional" doctors say that approach in Barcelona does not work, they just make money. But cannot give 100% proof that it does not work. Many Barcelona's pacients report that after their surgery have good improvements and quality of life. It's hard to find where the truth.
Is it possible that tension of filum terminale can (hypothetically)causes , for example , scoliosys or disc damages, or chiari 1?
In site they write that the first person who gives attention on relationship between tension and scoliosis was McKenzie, a neurosurgeon from Toronto. If that is true why future investigation was not prolonged in Canada or USA and were just forgotten.
Now I found McKenzie article and am trying to read and understand it. The article http://www.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/jbjsbr/31-B/2/162.full.pdf
Any info or your expirience in such diseases or expirience in Barca will very usefull.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Tethered cord is a recognised cause of scoliosis and we check for it on all MR scans of this region. I'm not aware of it causing some of the other things you list in your post. Where are you based? If you are able to see a reputable neurosurgeon in any first world city locally I would be tempted to just take their advice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for answer. They (insitute in Barcelona) differs "Tethered cord" disease and "tension of filum terminale". They created the new name "Filum Disease" which includes chiari, scoliosys, etc. The link [https://institutchiaribcn.com/en/diseases-we-treat/filum- dis...](https://institutchiaribcn.com/en/diseases-we-treat/filum-disease/)

They insist that the reason of, for example, scoliosis is namely "tension of filum terminale", _not_ tethered cord.

I am from Russia. I met with the best doctors (neurologists, neurosurgeons) specialized on Chiari 1, Syrongomieliya. Much of them does not belive in Barcelona method. But several сautiously say that sometimes the method can help - one our doctor reports reduction of cyst of syringomyelia.

Unfortunately, the community of doctors is not so open for public debates and exchange of the experience as for ex. IT :) The changes in treatment methods are so slow (. Mistrust to each other stops progress in the studying of these diseases.</comment></comment>


Bleeding straight into your underwear is a thing - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1646881409/flux-revolutionary-period-proof-underwear-that-doe <comment><USER2> I know the subject may be a little gross, but this sort of invention, assuming it works, could have a big reduction of household waste, as well as saving quite a lot of money for women. It's also worth considering how this may help in third world countries, refugee camps, or for aid workers and female service personnel deployed into areas where getting sanitary products may be more difficult.</comment>


2011 WWDC Session Videos Now Available - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/06/23/apple-releases-wwdc-session-videos-to-developers/

<comment><AUTHOR> There are 218 videos this year.

Can anyone who attended recommend where to start?</comment>


Please discipline codegirl and make her code very difficult AJAX - <AUTHOR> http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/res/846606372.html

<comment><USER2> On the Internet nobody knows you WANT to code very difficult AJAX. Oh wait...

</comment><comment><USER3> for some reason, that just made me smile</comment>


I, For One, Welcome Our New Immigrants From Pivotal Tracker - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kanbanpad.com/post/7892347841/welcome-pivotal-tracker-users

<comment><USER2> I was really upset when I got that Pivotal Tracker email.. Glad to see a good alternative that won't follow in the Pivotal Tracker path..

</comment><comment><USER3> I love kbp, it's got such a simple mental model, and there's less room for outdated backlogs. It kinda makes those untenable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great to hear. Thank you! We're always looking for ways to improve the UX while staying lean. Glad to hear you are enjoying it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like how kbp visualizes progress, a unique approach.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Visualization" is a big part of what I personally try to pour into the vision of Kanbanpad. We have some cool things coming in to help visualize some more things. Stay tuned!</comment></comment>


What Comp Sci Course should my 72 year old dad take - <AUTHOR>

My dad taught me how to program when I was 8 ... I am now 40.  He came from an era of punch cards and pre object oriented concepts.  He is expressing interest in learning modern programming.
Any recommendations on what open comp sci courses he should take?
He has expressed some interest in machine learning but I feel he needs some modern fundamentals first. <comment><USER2> It would certainly be fun to write a smartphone application. (So either learn Objective-C and iOS, or Java and Android).

But I wouldn't call that "modern programming".

I'd like to suggest learning lisp, and do some AI programming (cf. AIMA, PAIP, ML, etc), but then those all come from the era of punch cards and pre object oriented concepts (even if Common Lisp is the first and till now the best standardized OO language).

So what good "modern programming" has to give us? Perhaps Haskell. Yes, all there is in Haskell was already in Backer's 1972 paper. But it's a little more recent than the 1959's Lisp.

Some days, you really feel trapped inside the Matrix, release 6.0...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In case you are interested this is what I first learned on - [http://oldcomputers.net/ts1000.html](http://oldcomputers.net/ts1000.html)</comment>


Inside Huawei – A Photo Essay - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/may/21/inside-huawei-a-photo-essay <comment><USER2> Wow some really interesting choices in terms of architecture. Quite like how the employees have a nap after lunch. One of the main reasons I don't go for heavy lunches at work is because I feel so sleepy afterwards.</comment>


Why Billings, Montana, Is the Best Town of 2016 [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.outsideonline.com/2107026/why-billings-montana-best-town-ever <comment><USER2> I can't properly describe the cultural phenomenon but there is a sort of intelligent/privileged/rich get-out-there demographic that has been on a steady incline for some time causing gentrification of many rural areas.

Sort of a cross between totally-stoked-Mountain-Dew-guys + farm-to-table- vegan-tatooed-hipster + do-not-really-have-to-worry-about-money + love- ridiculously-over-hoppy-ipas + own-four-bikes + sustainable-forever + into- outdoor-shaming-others [1].

I'm not that knowledgeable on demographic groupings but I think you know the type. Yes stereotypes are dangerous and I hope I don't offend anyone.

EDIT: btw to be clear I don't have any problem with above mentioned traits (as I'm not far from it myself). IMO I prefer it to the rural stereotypes I grew up with which is toting guns and killing animals for sport (which again sadly I don't actually have strong feeling against either). However I do hate IPA beers. The over hoppy beers have to stop (I'm stout, porter guy).

Also if you are looking for a similar city to Billings I just recently visited Flagstaff Arizona. Flagstaff is pretty darn cool.

[1]: [https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/20/9-making-you- fee...](https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/20/9-making-you-feel-bad- about-not-going-outside/)

<comment><USER3> Rural America is, on the whole, losing population [1], and having the sorts of groups you're lumping move in (for either "hipster farming" or outdoor recreation reasons) provides socioeconomic diversification and robustness to many rural areas that would otherwise be in decline as family farms and natural resource extraction become less profitable.

[1]: [http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016-june/five-years- of-...](http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016-june/five-years-of- population-loss-in-rural-and-small-town-america-may-be-ending.aspx)

<comment><USER4> Any area of rural america that I have observed as doing ok/well for themselves seems to have a strong outdoor recreation/beautiful scenery in or right near town. Mountains; bodies of water; national parks.. I think these areas are going to keep growing but plenty of other towns that don't have much of this draw are dead/dying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It always seems like I'm one of the few in my age cohort (~24), but I'd rather work in Montana than SV/NYC any day. It feels like everyone just wants to be downtown to some major city, but I just want a respectable house on 1/2 acres with mountain views and snow every winter.

<comment><USER6> I think downtown in a major city would be fun for a few years while building up the start of a career, then switch to somewhere like Chattanooga or Asheville and get a comfy house somewhere in the mountains (small cities but not rural). I think my problem is that I like constant novelty. I'm not sure any location is "best" for me — I seem to want different scenery every few years.

<comment><USER7> I think for a lot of people, it is hard to find employment in small cities in their field of work. If you want to have a finance career or software career, you need to be in a big city.

How many software engineers does Billings, Montana hire with comfortable compensation?

<comment><USER5> This is actually a severe problem that I have. I'd really like to work remote, so that I could live anywhere. At the same time, however, what if my company goes under, I get laid off, &c., I'm essentially stuck in a sub-optimal position.

I really wish remote were more frequent a benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Every time I drive through Billings I wish they didn't have several oil refineries in town. Given the choice, I'd always pick a town that did not host major industrial sites.

Source: [https://www.google.com/maps/search/billings+oil+refineries/@...](https://email@example.com,-108.5291916,13z/data=!3m1!4b1) (this query doesn't pick up the refinery in Laurel, just to the West of Billings).

<comment><USER9> This was also my first thought as well. A truly beautiful place ruined, visually, by the refineries.

Of course jobs are nice to have as well, and certainly more important than views to the locals.

<comment><USER8> The refineries also smell pretty bad so they're emitting pollution of some sort into the local atmosphere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That video didn't have a single person that wasn't white and young adult/middle aged. Maybe the hat guy is older, but still – diversity didn't seem a priority in the list of features. Maybe that's entirely representative of the demographics, just found it striking.

<comment><USER11> As an non-USAn, I'm always suprised how much emphasis is put on this in the USA ("look, these office visualisations have only white people in them, that's unacceptable!"), while at the same time very little is done to really improve the lives of minorities.

<comment><USER12> It's because of a painful history, some distant and some not so distant.

So it is in people's minds pretty often. Other places have this as well. In Western Europe it is perhaps ww2 stuff. Someone here just yesterday claimed they don't want to use the 'ss' Linux command to diagnose socket issues because of how it relates to 'ww2'.

In other parts it is all about nationality, if you call someone by a different nationality, they might be terribly offended by it. It looks silly from the outside, but once you live there it makes sense why there is emphasis on certain things like that.

I think you have to grow up in a place to internalize that. When I was in Portland with a co-worker, who was born and raised in US. He leaned over and whispered "Have you noticed, how everyone is white here?. It's freaking me out". But I haven't noticed until he mentioned it. For better or for worse, it is just not something I think about. But he did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The impression I got from the video was simply that Billings is yet another American city on the path to homogenization, as captured (if imprecisely) here: [http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/3/12325104/airbnb- aesthetic-g...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/3/12325104/airbnb-aesthetic- global-minimalism-startup-gentrification)

</comment><comment><USER14> Billings? Really? It gets a bad wrap out here in Montana (unfairly, I will add). Missoula and Bozeman are the 'cool' cities. Billings is just a big oil town. They do have some nice bouldering though.

<comment><USER15> As a New Mexican with family in Libby (near Kalispell), Missoula is the one of the three that interests me. But I'm not a big outdoors buff.

<comment><USER14> There is no better town in the US than Missoula, Montana. Bozeman's nice too, closer in proximity to Yellowstone. There's just something magical about a summer in Missoula.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What about crime rate and stuff like that. For some reason I feel that the town is almost 100% white.

<comment><USER17> i had the exact same sentiment looking at this video. i didn't see a hint of diversity in any of the shots.

<comment><USER16> Would be interesting to know the racial proportions of the town.

<comment><USER18> 86.3% white alone (92,543)

5.5% hispanic (5,860)

4.2% American Indian alone (4,458)

2.1% multiracial (2,223)

1.0% black (1,049)

0.9% Asian alone.

0.06% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone.

0.03% other race alone.

[http://www.city-data.com/city/Billings-Montana.html](http://www.city- data.com/city/Billings-Montana.html)

<comment><USER16> Brilliant. Thanks bro.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Look pretty nice. Anyone else thought they are trying to be the next Portland ? ;-)

Maybe unpopular here, but I for one, like suburbs next to a big city. I can have access to the city once in a while, there is a potential large job market if I want to jump ship, but also have a garden and quiet streets. This is basically an ex-rural town with a history, but it just grew suburbs and tech offices around it.

I rationally understand that it is unsustainable and I watched all the videos about death of suburbia and all that. Yet, am I going to uproot my family because I watched those videos and read a few article on HN? Probably not.

I grew up in a city, in a small apartment, with noisy neighbors, piss in the elevator, being flooded from upstairs, getting pick-picketed in transport. So there is nothing romantic about that for me.

I have also seen farming life and living in the rural areas, getting up at 5am in the cold and rain to feed the animals, worried about crops being eaten by pests, nope not for me either.

I think if more places accepted remote work, and job market would be more stable, there would be a great opportunity to places like Billings.

</comment><comment><USER19> After living in Montana for almost 10 years, this video is kind of funny. It's like an ad for all of the things that _other_ Montana towns like Bozeman and Missoula are famous for!

Granted Billings is obviously changing (for better or worse), but it's known for it's industrial plants, not it's bike trails. I will say the "rimrock" above town is lovely and unique (and it's home to one of the most challenging disc golf courses in the country!) but in terms of trails and other recreational development Bozeman and Missoula are years ahead in development.

Billings actually does have some diversity due to it's close proximity to the Crow Reservation (4.4% Native American), but that fact is just as absent as the 3 oil refineries in this cheery white-washing promo video.

As a side note: it's incredible how many breweries and distilleries are springing up across the country - even in Billings! I love beer, but it's kind of overwhelming.

</comment><comment><USER20> Interesting. I grew up in Kalispell, went to college in Bozeman, and now live in Missoula. I would agree with some other people in the thread that Bozeman and Missoula seem like the 'cooler' cities, but I think the Mission and Flathead valleys take the cake when it comes to views and recreation.

I mean, you cant beat the mountain views of the Missions and Swans with Flathead lake right in the middle. AND Glacier Park just to the north. But I'm biased I guess :).

</comment><comment><USER21> It's tricky stuff. Other people often appear more two dimensional on the surface. it takes spending time with someone to see their depth.

</comment><comment><USER22> When I lived out there (10+ years ago), I remember the locals always grumbling about people from California moving in and ruining it. I wonder if that has changed.

I prefer the Glacier/Whitefish area, but Montana is a thing every American should experience. I miss it every day.

</comment><comment><USER23> How's the tech industry?

<comment><USER8> The tech industry is in Bozeman (140 miles to the West).

<comment><USER24> Yup. Though Missoula (another 180 miles west) is getting big pretty quickly (including a Y-Combinator company), as is Helena (about 90 miles north-west of Bozeman).

<comment><USER25> What's the YCombinator co?

<comment><USER24> Submittable: [https://www.submittable.com/](https://www.submittable.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It seems Outside magazine propelled itself from obscurity by driving traffic to its site with population contests through Facebook. People tend to vote familiarity, so the larger metro area of the two tends to win. The exceptions are the tourist towns that have regional pull. I'm impressed this method continues to work.

<comment><USER27> Outside has been popular for decades. They published the articles that led to Krakauer's books _Into Thin Air_ and _Into the Wild_.

<comment><USER26> My mistake and ignorance on the 'from relative obscurity' part, but the strategy works nonetheless. I'm not knocking the method. If it works, it works. It was just an observation.</comment></comment></comment>


The Linguistic Evolution of 'Like' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/11/the-evolution-of-like/507614/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The author forgot the other common usage of _like_ , that is, in storytelling: "I was like, what are you doing here?" The word prepares you for not only what was said, but what was felt and done and whatever else needs to be communicated. Unfortunately this usage of _like_ is so useful that it is certainly over-used now, and we need to go back to using the proper verbs. But that is easier said than, uh, said!

<comment><USER3> This style of storytelling isn't nearly as useful as you imply. "I asked him what he was doing here," works just as well -- better! -- and saves us all the amateur reenactment.

Edit: I suspect there's something deeper going on here, which is that many of us have _forgotten_ how to tell a story. Instead, we're just relaying what we remember of our own thoughts at the time. Instead of telling others what happened, we're reliving our own perspective of the experience in real time.

Related, I think, is this weird new way of writing in which people tell us that they "decided" to do something before relaying each thing that happened. For example:

"We decided to go to the beach for the day. After a while, we decided to grab some food. After lunch, we were all tired and decided to go home."

Just tell us that you went to the beach, ate some lunch, and then left. I understand _implicitly_ that you had to _decide_ to do each thing before you did it.

<comment><USER4> "I asked him what he was doing here" is not the same. It is not necessarily better story-telling, as I think your edit implies.

How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said, as opposed to actually quoting the characters' words? Quoting is certainly a form of storytelling, and can often convey emotion more succinctly than needing to spell it out.

"He was like ' _okaaay..._ '" vs "He said it was ok, but in a sarcastic manner that implied he was not happy with it."

But, distinct from an actual quote, ("And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'", per the other poster), the quotative-like allows narrator freedom in a way that a direct quotation doesn't. The listener doesn't expect the words to be a literal quote, rather, the _sense_ of what was said is enough, allowing the narrator to simplify, or to exaggerate for emphasis or comedic effect.

<comment><USER3> _How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said_

I should clarify that in the first case I was talking about oral storytelling. My second complaint more generally applies to the written word.

This is entirely subjective, of course, but my choice of the word _reenactment_ was deliberate. Often, I'm not told what happened; I'm given a tedious play-by-play of both sides of the interaction.

        so I was like do you wanna see a movie
        and he was like I guess
        and I was like, what do you mean you guess
        and he's just like, I dunno, I guess
        and I'm like just tell me if you want to or not
        and he's all like get off my back
        and I'm all like I'm not on your back

10 minutes later what I've learned is that you had a fight about indecision; but I also got to see a horribly-acted one-man play!

That's what I'm complaining about, not, more generally, the use of quoting as a literary device.

<comment><USER5> You excluded the main object of the conversation. Even in your contrived example the main point he is trying to convey is his disdain with the other person, how they felt when this altercation happened. your summary doesn't have any of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related to this: I've also noticed that the word "so" is used a lot to terminate a sentence, maybe as a hesitation to stop speaking, or to (intentionally?) leave the final "point" somewhat ambiguous.

E.g.: "You bet! He did this, then that, and so... yeah!" (sometimes another word like "yeah" follows "so")

I'm guilty of it. ;)

<comment><USER7> Slate's language podcast Lexicon Valley did a whole episode on the trailing "so": [http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/04/lexicon_valley_beginning_and_ending_all_of_our_thoughts_with_so_.html)

They also covered what is, to me, an even weirder linguistic phenomenon, the common and growing use of "yeah, no" at the beginning of a response to somebody: [http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/06/yeah_no_lexicon_valley_slate_podcast.html)

I use this "yeah, no" construction myself quite a lot. I have a strong _instinctive_ understanding of how to use it, and what it means. But I don't think I could consciously provide a decent explanation of why I'm saying both yes and no about something.

<comment><USER8> IME when we reply 'Yeah, no...', the first part isn't an affirmation, it's an acknowledgement that you have heard and understood the question.

Think of it as an informal but intimate way of speaking. If you just answered "No." it could come off a little bit cold or professional. By taking the time to use a few extra words you are showing more warmth to the asker.

<comment><USER9> this feels right to me.

"yes I have heard you, but I disagree with your point"

Something like: "did you try it this way?" "yeah, no that didn't work"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Ordinary people, too, have long been using like as an appendage to indicate similarity with a trace of hesitation. The "slow-like" kind of usage is a continuation of this, and Saul Bellow has thoroughly un- Beatnik characters in his novels of the 1950s use like in a way we would expect a decade or two later. "That's the right clue and may do me some good. Something very big. Truth, like," says Tommy Wilhelm in 1956's Seize the Day,"

My grandfather uses "like" often, but only in this way (he grew up in Depression-era semi-rural Canada). I've always found that interesting since I rarely see that usage mentioned.

Anyone else have older relatives who use "like" this way?

<comment><USER11> I've spent a lot of time in rural Wisconsin and Minnesota, and that particular usage of the word like is still common, even among younger individuals. My roommate in college was from a really small town in Minnesota, and he'd describe things as "All [adjective]-like". He used like in the other manners as well though.

<comment><USER12> You see this usage commonly around parts of England, particularly among some of the northwestern dialects like Scouse.

<comment><USER11> Interesting. My roommate is from somewhere in northern England; I'll have to pay attention for this in the future. His parents speak with received pronunciation though, so I suspect he has fewer colloquialisms in his speech than the general population of wherever he's from. He contends that his accent and figures of speech wouldn't be recognized as English at this point, but every American I know pegs him as British almost instantly, so who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Funny: I assumed (due to HN relevance?) the article was about the evolution of the Like button () on social networks. Guess it's time to step out of the filter bubble this morning!

<comment><USER14> I clicked thinking the same but was pleasantly surprised to find, like, a really good article.

I tried to stop myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Loved this article! It reminds me of my middle school English teacher, who enforced a 'no-like zone' (in good humor). Every time anyone noticed the usage of like other than the old 'proper' usage, you'd get another tally added to your name.

I think it was a great idea, not because I'm worried about the new usage of the word like, but because it forced all of us to think carefully about our word choice when speaking in that class.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've actually been called out multiple times for starting sentences with "I don't know..." It took a while, but I've realized it's one way for me to allow my mouth catch up with my brain.

Like a buffer period for me to make sure I'm saying what I'm thinking. Otherwise my words become oddly jumbled and nonsensical. Maybe it might be better if that buffer period was just silence.

<comment><USER17> Except that also serves as a placeholder for your turn to speak. I frequently find myself taking an extra second to think before I speak only to have my turn pass me by, because someone else started up right away.

<comment><USER16> This happens to me all the time. Possibly every day. And normally the conversation just keeps moving.

Maybe it's an introvert thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I respect the descriptive impulse to see the function of 'like' rather than just mocking it. However, I'm not entirely convinced of the two senses of 'like' that the author sees. I imagine similarly nebulous arguments could be made for many other sense of like, which is why the analysis of 'like' as a hedge word or hesitation still might be the best.

</comment><comment><USER14> I feel that like is often used as a verbal em dash, for emphasis and interruption.Once I understoid their intended usages I love the — em dash – en dash and \- hyphen

</comment><comment><USER19> Like, uh, finds a way.

</comment><comment><USER20> I was once sitting in a cafe & overheard the conversation of a group of people sitting on the next table. There was a girl who was super excited to share how her weekend was to her friend. She used "like" at least 1829 time in 2 minutes. It was a machine gun spitting "like" bullets. Thereafter I started hating the "like" word. whenever someone uses "like" more often than it should be then I feel "like" he is trying to kill me with "like" bullets.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's very much akin to the SV habit of starting a sentence with "So, ...". It's a helpful key that you don't really have to pay much attention to what follows.

</comment><comment><USER22> Interesting that it doesn't really mention the social media use of the word "Like" aka the Facebook Like button.

That was what I was expecting the article to be about. But it was overall a good read.

</comment><comment><USER23> Even more relevant than usual: [https://xkcd.com/1483/](https://xkcd.com/1483/)

</comment><comment><USER24> The modern usage of "like" is utterly disgusting.</comment>


Ask HN: Source for data on VC firms? (For a university project, not my company) - <AUTHOR>

I am trying to find some straight forward (and not-so-straight-forward) quantitative and qualitative data points on venture capital firms and thought someone on here might know a source or two for this information (other than the firms' website as my experience so far is that a lot of the information isn't available).
Data points I'm looking for:
- Fund size
- Avg # of investments made per year
- Types and sizes of companies invested in
- Major factors used to evaluate potential investments
- Methodologies used to value firms
- Structure, length, and detail of proposals required of entrepreneurs who are seeking financing
- The typical types of financing provided (some firms do VC, loans, partnerships, etc.)
- The percentage of firms considered who get financing
I completely understand a lot of this information is potentially a source of competitive advantage but I want to get as much as possible.
Thanks in advance for your help! <comment><AUTHOR> So far [https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/index.jsp](https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/index.jsp) is useful but definitely lacking specific past data as well as general information on firms</comment>


D.A. Henderson, 'disease detective' who eradicated smallpox, dies at 87 - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/da-henderson-disease-detective-who-eradicated-smallpox-dies-at-87/2016/08/20/b270406e-63dd-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html <comment><USER2> _The campaign, which cost an estimated total of $300 million, employed a strategy called ring vaccination that was credited to the American epidemiologist William Foege._

Even with inflation, best 300M ever spent.

<comment><USER3> RIP. 'The Heroes of my field have slain one of the horsemen of the apaocalypse, while the heroes of your field have gathered in the desert to create a new one' [https://xkcd.com/1520/](https://xkcd.com/1520/)

Deserves a black bar, doesn't it?

<comment><USER4> I'd like to reiterate the call for an HN black bar today. I think DA Henderson may be responsible for saving the lives of more people than any other single person who has ever lived. And he did it through science, but also through executing on a plan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well this is a moral dilemma:

 _The only officially sanctioned stores of the smallpox virus are held at heavily secured facilities at the CDC in Atlanta and at a Russian facility in Siberia. Some researchers contend that the samples should be preserved for use in the development of future vaccines or treatments._

<comment><USER6> How so? We know that communicable diseases mutate all the time, even when they don't have a single human host, so destroying any samples that could provide a baseline for any future pathogen is nothing short of morally reprehensible. Variola major is one of the deadliest diseases in human history, killing 20+% of those infected, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone. If these samples were destroyed and a mutated smallpox reappears globally, it would be an unmitigated public health disaster and we'd be crippled without being able to experimentally compare the new version to the old. Given the stakes and nature's contempt for geopolitics, it's an unavoidable tradeoff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"...an achievement that was credited with saving tens of millions of lives..."_

This is what "changing the world" actually looks like. What a life to have led, and what a legacy!</comment>


Python reimplementation of cryptonights hash function - <AUTHOR> http://www.nothisispatrik.com/2018/03/30/python-reimplementation-of-cryptonights-hash-function/ <comment><USER2> Was hoping python's inability to guarantee secure erasure of secret data would be addressed in the faq. That's alwayd my number one concern towards a pure python solution.

Is this safe against side-channel and secret leak attacks?</comment>


Open Source Databases Widely Used, Seldom Paid For  - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080402/tc_cmp/207000893;_ylt=AiHvIGuLJ_7Rc3rJtJKI1MQjtBAF

<comment><USER2> I don't see the point of the article?</comment>


Programmed Deallocation without Dangling Reference (1983) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://lem12.uksw.edu.pl/images/5/54/Programmed-deallocation-without-Dangling-Reference-I.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Using fat pointers and indirect addressing, the authors make free(p) set to null not only p but also all the copies of p.</comment>


My 11-year-old son auditioned at Juilliard, learned how top performers practice - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/my-11-year-old-son-auditioned-at-juilliard-2017-5 <comment><USER2> Maybe it's time we stopped doing things simply to become better at them?

That's like focusing on the spelling or formatting instead of quality content.</comment>


The American Corporation Is in Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://bostonreview.net/forum/lenore-palladino-american-corporation-crisis%E2%80%94lets-rethink-it <comment><USER5> Interestingly, this is something that pirates (yes, maritime pirates) actually figured out several hundred years ago. They had the problem of trying to run fairly large organizations in a particularly extralegal environment. (It's hard to sue your manager for not paying you when the legal system would frankly rather see all of you hanged.)

For pirates, the solution was multifaceted, but the most critical components were: * Profit sharing - The riches captured by a pirate vessel were split amongst the pirates in a remarkably egalitarian model. * Democracy - <USER3> Captain and Quartermaster of a pirate ship were elected democratically by the crew.

The result was pirate ships were able to outfox the established navies of the time and manage ships with crews upwards of 100 all without the support of established judicial systems.

Disclaimer: I am one of the co-founders of a design and development studio based on these exact same principles:

[https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate- code-1...](https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate- code-1aa1b2e02bf6)

<comment><USER6> > For pirates, the solution was multifaceted, but the most critical components > were: * Profit sharing - The riches captured by a pirate vessel were split > amongst the pirates in a remarkably egalitarian model. * Democracy - <USER3> > Captain and Quartermaster of a pirate ship were elected democratically by > the crew.

> The result was pirate ships were able to outfox the established navies of > the time and manage ships with crews upwards of 100 all without the support > of established judicial systems.

This is fascinating to me. Do you happen to have any references or further reading you're willing to share?

<comment><USER5> Definitely, I highly recommend Peter Leeson's book on the subject, The Invisible Hook:

[https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hook-Hidden-Economics- Pirat...](https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hook-Hidden-Economics- Pirates/dp/0691150095)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Article is long but well written and argued. I found this paragraph about a proposal in UK especially interesting:

"The Labour Party's plan is detailed. It ensures that investors are not injured by having their share value diluted because it institutes a transition process: every year, employees gain a 1 percent ownership stake, up to a cap of 10 percent. Once funds are in a trust, then the shares are not available to be resold. This is crucial: the stakes are not a private, freely transferable wealth asset, and since employees don't purchase stakes, they can't sell them when they leave employment. Rather, by becoming an employee of the corporation, you receive an ownership stake in the employee collective trust—a stake that remains in the trust if you move to a different job. So long as you are an employee, though, that stake grants you governance rights and the right to receive a share of the profits."

<comment><USER8> > In September 2018 the UK Labour Party proposed a policy for "Inclusive > Ownership Funds," which would require corporations with over 250 employees > to ensure that employees receive dividends.

But most professional employees get an 'ownership stake' (shares) in the company as part of their compensation anyway.

<comment><USER9> Really?

Most - greatest in amount or degree i.e. greater than 50%

Professional - engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.

Were you being facetious, or do you honestly believe that most people in the world receive shares as compensation in their full time jobs?

Neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever received shares as part of an employment contract.

<comment><USER8> That's not what 'professional' means in this context, and I'm sure you know that.

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional_class](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional_class)

Most public-sector jobs for university educated people include shares of some form or another for employees. Some times it's a very large proportion of the compensation, or even essentially all of it, for some management.

<comment><USER9> But the Labour party aren't using this definition. They are talking about _all_ employees, regardless of education, training or position.

Forgive me if I am misreading your post, but it appear you're saying that a minority elites that are employed by a company already receive shares, so this is already happening.

Under this plan, all employees receive a stake in the company, which is more in line with what the original article was suggesting.

<comment><USER8> > But the Labour party aren't using this definition.

...err well they aren't using the word at all so it's a bit odd to say it's not the definition they're using.

> Forgive me if I am misreading your post

My point was that it wasn't some new radical idea - many people (not really elites - random programmers at tech companies, or marketers at agencies, or whatever aren't 'elites' by any stretch) are already getting this and it works fine without government intervention.

I would guess that at least 10% of Google, for example, is already owned by the employees? I may be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think that the American Corporation is not in crisis, and is doing a better job at performing its primary function of benefitting shareholders better than ever.

I think, on the other hand, that public benefit corporations and other governance structures are in crisis, because it is evident that they are getting outplayed everywhere you look.

EDIT: Non-profits have been doing well though. It seems easier to go "all in" on a charitable cause, or "all in" on a greedy cause, but combining the two into an amalgamated pro-social gung-ho business (a la public benefit corporations) is not easy to do.

<comment><USER11> The thesis of this article is based around the idea that the primary function of a corporation is not to create wealth for shareholders, but to involve more stakeholders. The crisis is therefore not in profitability of a corporation, which is still rather high; the crisis is in the effects of shareholder primacy on the environment, on labor, and on managers. Which is to say, unemployment is low but so are wages, inequality is high and increasing, and we're on the verge of a mass extinction event caused by human activity - <USER4> this to maximize shareholder returns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Oh boy, try looking outside America. The US is still the shining example of how to do things. Most of the world, even in Europe, are decades behind.

<comment><USER13> Ah yes, Amtrack is an amazing experience compared to the European passenger rail network.

US housing also extremely efficient for filtering unwanted people out of populated areas. Europeans could stand to learn a thing or two from that (although I've heard London is doing a good job of emulating us.)

<comment><USER12> Ah, so you have actually have places to live in the US?

In the UK, there are no new houses at all in most cities and developers aren't allowed to build new ones because of planning regulation (designed by people who already have houses in that area). Also, remember that the UK is a small island with a fairly large amount of people on it (and remember that population density numbers are skewed by Scotland which is the same size as England but has 7% of the population)...that kind of thing isn't obvious when you live somewhere with infinite land.

Pointing to one or two things and saying: "Oh this is so terrible, we need to knock it all down" is not a smart approach. Most European countries have experimented with this (the UK went bankrupt doing this), it isn't a good idea (particularly when you have a system that is already the most successful).

<comment><USER14> > Ah, so you have actually have places to live in the US?

Only outside the East Coast and California metro areas.

<comment><USER15> USA has a lot of places. However, everyone wants to live in CA. That doesn't mean other areas are bad. They are very good.

<comment><USER16> > everyone wants to live in CA

Except for the people who actually live in CA. They all want to live in Oregon, Colorado or Texas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The ideology of generating shareholder profit "has caused immeasurable harm"? Really? The author is casting aside decades of economic growth, peace, and innovation.

> New policies could ensure that all the stakeholders who collectively > generate a corporation's prosperity then benefit from its wealth.

I don't agree with this slight-of-hand. Employees are stakeholders, sure; they will lose their job if a company goes under, and may not get a promotion if growth at the company stops. But they are NOT owners of the company in equity terms.

<comment><USER18> _" The author is casting aside decades of economic growth, peace, and innovation."_

What about things like healthcare costs, lifespan estimates, mass shootings, addiction rates, cost of housecare, and economic movement?

EDIT: Wait, decades? Are you sure? Wasn't the 2008 recession just over a decade ago?

<comment><USER19> > What about things like healthcare costs, lifespan estimates, mass shootings, > addiction rates, cost of housecare, and economic movement?

What do any of these things have to do with corporations?

It sounds like your gripe is with something else.

<comment><USER20> It has a lot to do with corporations given that corporations actively lobby for policies that have adverse affects on the general public, collude with each other to fix prices/wages, and monopolize industries to push out competition, among other things. All of this due to them carrying out their "fiduciary responsibilities".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The real crisis is lack of high quality shareholders. Basing businesses on stakeholders rarely works as groupthink sets in quickly; the current shareholders are however mostly either persons that inherited wealth with no real connection to business itself or pension funds that are unable to guarantee contractual monthly retirement benefits, pushing for short-term stock profits.

</comment><comment><USER22> It is the American people that are in crisis, not the corporation. The corporation is doing pretty fine, it's just the profit is not distributed in the best of the interests of the smaller share holders (ordinary people).

</comment><comment><USER23> This looks like direct quotation out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged.

<comment><USER24> Why do you say that? the headline might have been hyperbolic, but the contents of the article don't seem anywhere near Ayn Rand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Including workers in ownership and governance is necessary to lessen the hold on corporate wealth by affluent white families."

Why should this be a goal? Is there something wrong with affluent people, or white people, or affluent white people?

<comment><USER26> Extreme wealth inequality has historically led to social instability, so there's that.

<comment><USER27> none of this speaks to the 'problem' as it relates to race manifested in 'white ownership'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> [https://imgur.com/gallery/3Cu7f2T](https://imgur.com/gallery/3Cu7f2T)

<comment><USER29> Thank you for this.</comment></comment>