How Driscoll's Reinvented the Strawberry - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/how-driscolls-reinvented-the-strawberry/ <comment><USER2> Give me ugly, small, tasty berries any day instead of the opposite of that. Wonder if strawberries will join tomatoes and apples: return to variety, more focus on taste vs aesthetics.

<comment><USER3> It's sad that tomatoes have gotten so bland that nowadays I instinctively correlate ugliness with good taste.

When I see an asymmetric tomato, in both size and color, I think, " _Hey I bet that tastes good.._ ".

EDIT: _s /funny/sad/_

<comment><USER4> Same with apples, at least around here. The correlation is usually "small, ugly, wrinkly → tasty and cheaper". Plus almost always produced nearer.

I frankly don't know why anyone buys the shiny ones more than once.

<comment><USER5> For someone like me, there is no amount of apple flavor that outweighs the texture of a good apple. I don't eat many apples, but if apples were entirely tasteless (and that wasn't weird...), I wouldn't eat any fewer apples, because the best thing about biting into an apple is the "snap!" and the mouthfeel. One reason I don't buy and eat more apples now is that I have no reliable way to tell if a nice-looking apple will provide that, or whether it will be soft. Biting into an apple which is soft is not worth five good ones, so I mostly do not bother. :/

<comment><USER6> I pretty much only get these big ol Honeycrisp apples, they've never let me down and last possibly forever in the refrigerator (need to do more research) - [http://www.honeybearbrands.com/products/](http://www.honeybearbrands.com/products/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is being patronising a marketing tactic, or were the "Joy Makers" just not briefed on how to speak to journalists about their competition? I can't imagine anything more offputting coming from a company whose main competition is essentially pro-bono researchers than "you don't know how to enjoy our (proprietary) product". A statement of healthy competition would at least have maintained a public image.

</comment><comment><USER8> Driscoll's fruit is complete and utter shit in terms of quality and taste. I avoid their brand at all costs.

<comment><USER9> Also their labor practices are shit. But enjoy those bland berries...

[https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/08/01/driscolls-tied-to- centr...](https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/08/01/driscolls-tied-to-central- coast-chemical-incident-that-sickened-farmworkers/)

[https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-18/workers-who-pick- your...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-18/workers-who-pick-your-summer- berries-are-asking-you-not-buy-them)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/08/07/209925420/why...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/08/07/209925420/why- picking-your-berries-for-8-000-a-year-hurts-a-lot)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Previous article from Bloomberg in 2015 about Driscoll's: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-07-29/how- drisc...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-07-29/how-driscoll-s- is-hacking-the-strawberry-of-the-future)

</comment><comment><USER11> Driscoll blackberries are incredible. The size of my thumb (huge) and a sweet taste almost like wine. Respect from me for the work that must have gone into all aspects of breeding, growing, transporting and marketing.

<comment><USER12> Yes! I totally agree with everyone else about Driscoll strawberries (pretty but not sweet, a bit tart), but their blackberries are awesome (although only sometimes!). I've had the small organic ones that are wonderful, but also the big conventional monstrous ones that just melt in your mouth that are sweet, but closer to wine than the small ones. I've also had just mediocre blackberries from them - I think mediocre blackberries are better than mediocre strawberries though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> For years we have commented and purchased Driscolls.. They are the most flavorful and last even longer than picked-your-own by me..

What i wonder is how driscoll and others are all grouped together in the supermarket... The only difference is the label. Are they from the same growers fields? How does a grocery store receive its berries?

<comment><USER14> I'm a produce buyer for a small grocery in Maine. We focus on local vegetables, but also buy produce from the national supply chain.

We work with a broker at the Chelsea produce market in Chelsea, MA. Twice a week, I email him an order for the produce we need from the national market, specifying details about each product (size, grower, production region). He uses his knowledge and relationships to buy the best product he can, from the large wholesalers there. The market has around 240 dock bays, and is open from 2 am to noon. We send a truck down to arrive at 8 am, and pickup the produce from the wholesalers where our broker ordered.

The overall produce market is structured into growers, that grow and harvest the crops. Packers, that purchase crops from the growers, wash, cool and pack them, and shippers, that purchase from packers. The wholesalers in Boston purchase from shippers, and sell to regional retail and wholesale customers. Many companies are vertically integrated, and own multiple links in this chain. Larger groceries and supermarkets either negotiate directly with the packers, or the wholesalers at the Chelsea market. A large store can commit to buying on a large enough scale to drive their retail price below what I can pay wholesale during the peak season for a commodity.

<comment><USER15> Woah, where in Maine? I never see anyone from Maine on HN, since we're basically the furthest state from the silicon valley as you can get.

<comment><USER14> Portland

<comment><USER16> I don't know the USA geography very well as I'm not a native, but isn't Portland in Oregon? Or are there more than one Portland cities?

<comment><USER17> Oh boy, you're in for a surprise: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_common_U.S....](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_common_U.S._place_names)

Lots of states use the same names over and over. For example, Portland, OR being named after Portland, Maine. It gets worse, because some states have multiple towns of the same name. There are five different towns in Wisconsin all called Springfield!

<comment><USER16> Oh wow...dayum.

I knew that Springfield was used for the Simpsons town because there we so many that used that name, but I thought it was just an oddity or something.

I guess I was indeed in for a surprise!

Thanks for the link!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The only fresh strawberries I ever eat are local and in season. Everything else is just too disappointing.</comment>


The Rizzoli Conundrum - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2012/11/the-rizzoli-conundrum.html

<comment><USER2> the buttons on the left side and bottom row means maximum stretch for the most common right hand thumb using crowd. Maximum stretch may be translating to maximum pressure. Just a wild guess...</comment>


Crowdsourcing 'How long does Apple take to review an app?' - <AUTHOR> http://reviewtimes.shinydevelopment.com/

<comment><USER2> You might want to additionally split this by:

\- Free v paid/iAPS

\- How expensive the app is

No doubt there's other ways to split it (e.g. "controversy level", "complexity") but those are potentially a bit tricky to quantify.

<comment><USER3> If it gets a decent amount of use it might be fun to add some more hashtags to let people break it down more.

Again, if it gets decent data coming through it there might be some nice things I can do with visualisation of that data too. We will see ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool idea. How accurate do you expect the figures to be? Might people whose apps are reviewed particularly slowly be more inclined to report review times, thereby skewing results?

<comment><USER3> I am (possibly optimistically) hoping that people will be accurate with the data :)

It needs a decent amount of usage to be anything like accurate anyway and so I hope that the occasional bad data point will be hidden by the averages. I will be watching to see how accurate the data "feels" by watching the kind of tweets people are putting through it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Brilliant timing, because I am in the middle of the developer program enrollment process and have a Mac app that's almost finished.

</comment><comment><USER6> [OT] While I can see the the usefulness of gathering data from tweets keyed by hashtag, I don't quite get the point here. I would expect a web page to have a more direct means of entering data.

It is a great idea for gathering data from tweet followers, however.

<comment><USER3> Main reason... I wanted to keep it really simple in terms of implementation and also so people might see the hashtag being used and go investigate what it was :) It was knocked up in a few hours total.

However, I also think it would be easier just add the hash tag to a tweet that you may even already be typing rather than have to go to a separate web page and enter a form. I would certainly prefer to do it this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple used to show the current average review time on their developer portal. Are they not doing that anymore?

<comment><USER3> I had forgotten about that, just checked and they do show a percentage of iOS (no Mac) apps which are reviewed within 7 days (currently 75%) but it is kinda tucked away in the middle of a page and not really obvious. It will be interesting to see if the user generated average settles on ~7 days, my feeling is that it probably will be around that mark.

Also, if I get a decent amount of data coming through the system there is the possibility of gathering more data or creating some interesting visualisations of it. We will see.</comment></comment>


Google Code Blog: Introducing the Google Font API & Google Font Directory - <AUTHOR> http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-google-font-api-google-font.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FDcni+%28Google+Code+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> Unfortunately their blog's "example" is just a static image (what are they thinking?). If you want to actually see samples of what the fonts look like go directly to the Font Directory: <http://code.google.com/webfonts>

<comment><USER3> As the article mentioned, you can see the implementation in wild here: <http://www.smashingmagazine.com/>

<comment><USER4> You linked to a homepage but I guess you meant to post a specific URL.

<comment><USER5> No, the article headlines use it.

<comment><USER4> Ah, I did not notice it. Thanks for the clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kilimanjaro called it yesterday :) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1357578>

<comment><USER7> Thanks google, love ya guys ;-)

Now, what would be the benefit of calling:

      http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Inconsolata

which in turn serves the css that contains the real call to the font:

      @font-face { font-family: 'Inconsolata';
      src: url('http://themes.googleusercontent.com/font?kit=J_eeEGgHN8Gk3Eud0dz8jw')
      format('truetype'); }

So, why two trips, instead of just one?

What I'd do is just call the font directly and teach developers to use @font- face

And shrink the url a bit:

      http://fonts.googleapis.com/Inconsolata

Remember, once it gets widespread use it would be harder to change a single char

<comment><USER8> It is important to note as well that [http://themes.googleusercontent.com/font?kit=J_eeEGgHN8Gk3Eu...](http://themes.googleusercontent.com/font?kit=J_eeEGgHN8Gk3Eud0dz8jw) doesn't return just the font but the font that works with the browser that requested it. In IE it gives the EOT font in Chrome it gives the TTF

<comment><USER9> Another very important advantage is that the browser can cache the stylesheet and the font, and can reuse them across multiple websites.

So if your website uses a font that is used by another website which the user has already visited, the browser doesn't need to download the font again. It doesn't even need to check the modification date on Googles server.

As many fonts add ~100 KB to the download size for a page, this really makes a difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> On my Windows 7 machine, they're really ugly (in IE, FF, Chrome and Safari). I double checked to make sure ClearType was enabled, and it is.

I don't think I'd use any of these in a project where I needed a polished look and feel.

I much prefer Smashing Magazine's non-Google font-ified header font.

Kudos to Google for taking on this project, though. As others have said, this could be a catalyst in getting the foundries to open up their fonts to the web.

<comment><USER11> Could you share some screenshots? The browsershots link [1] posted earlier only contains Windows XP.

It's hard to tell exactly what the quality is in Windos because the browsershots images are low-res, but it looks like the edges are very noisy.

[1] <http://browsershots.org/http://code.google.com/webfonts>

<comment><USER10> Before I saw your request, I put this one together: <http://imgur.com/pR1IL.png>

It's Win7 FF on the left, Safari on Mac on the right. I'll try to get some more when I'm at work tomorrow.

<comment><USER12> Looks nice on Mac. According to the screenshots, they're antialiased in Ubuntu also.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wow this looks great. Just include the stylesheet and use the font in your CSS.

Seems like the big type foundries are going to regret dragging their feet on agreeing to a reasonable scheme for web fonts. I know that these are probably inferior in some ways to commercial fonts, but it will be a steep hill to climb to get people to pay for fonts if this project gains traction.

</comment><comment><USER14> They don't have many fonts available yet, but if there is something I've learned about Google is that they always think big. Maybe in a couple of days they will announce the buy out of one of the foundries?

Here's hoping...

<comment><USER15> To be honest, how many fonts do you need? This is the web, and it is not 1998, when a lot of people would want to use as many fonts on their page as possible. Show some restraint.

<comment><USER16> More choice doesn't mean more typefaces on a single page.

Even if you use only 3 typefaces on a page, it doesn't mean you don't want access a library of a thousand fonts so you can use the perfect 3-5 typefaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Google will tell you that they do things like this to make the web more usable, or on a larger scale, to make information more accessible. I think it's mostly a sincere sentiment; what's good for the web is good for google.

</comment><comment><USER18> I just tried it in IE7, and the JavaScript from Google causes an error. The font still renders, however.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was just redesigning one of my sites and was thinking seriously about using Typekit. This makes me rethink my strategy and will probably be a hard hit on Typekit.

<comment><USER20> It seems Typekit and Google made a deal: [https://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.ht...](https://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader.html) I suppose they plan on 'sharing' the API where Google will supply/host the free fonts, and Typekit the paid ones?

<comment><USER21> Does Typekit have any advantages over Google? Google has better infrastructure, a simpler impelentation (no signup required), and a budget to license a wider variety of fonts.

<comment><USER5> They sell non-free fonts that allow font-face embedding in their licenses. Google will only offer free fonts.

<comment><USER12> Yes, and typekit has a huge and varying library of fonts available: <http://typekit.com/libraries/full>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a very exciting development that will offer great long-term benefits to the web. Relying on cross-platform fonts when building web pages was always challenging and limiting. I'm looking forward to this expansion of the font directory.

I also hope this improves the web browsing experience on Linux out of the box.

</comment><comment><USER23> Disappointing that the gallery doesn't render in the android browser, considering the mentions of droid fonts.

<comment><USER24> Nor on Mobile Safari.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are these free for commercial-use like fontsquirrel.com?

<comment><USER5> Yes. In fact, nearly all of the fonts are also available on fontsquirrel.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The fonts render really ugly with Firefox 3.6.3 on Windows 7 (cleartype on). Anyone care to throw a few screenshots from Chrome?

<comment><USER27> On Windows 7 it looks the same (ugly aliased) everywhere (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, Explorer).

On Windows XP it's even uglier (according to BrowserShots screenshots linked upthread).

On Ubuntu, Chromium and Firefox are pretty, Opera didn't render anything.

<comment><USER26> I need to try it tomorrow then at work. So it seems that the fonts themselves aren't that bad, they are just incompatible with most browsers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The descenders in the Droid sans headlines on Smashing are cropping for me in vista. The fonts are also aliased, but if I remember correctly, typekit also only produced aliased fonts in windows.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am terrified that we're going to see a lot of people start using Droid Serif and Droid Sans. These are not hideous fonts, but I find them somewhat graceless and unappealing.

</comment><comment><USER29> this currently doesn't support SVG which means no support for the iPhone and iPad

</comment><comment><USER30> Doesn't work on opera.

</comment><comment><USER7> One little thing that makes the web a happier and prettier place.

Thanks Google, we owe you big.

</comment><comment><USER31> Google webfont previewer: <http://code.google.com/webfonts/preview>

</comment><comment><USER32> can anyone shed some light on why some people are reporting aliased text (even with clear type)?

I'm looking at them on XP and they look stunning in all browsers.

It's not a bulletproof system. I tried looking at the sample page at work where we have a restrictive proxy filter and it was a no-go.

</comment><comment><USER33> Yet another attempt by Google to control our words and by proxy, our minds. Once everyone depends on this font API to make their social mobisodes pretty, Google will do some clever pixel altering to insert favorable articles about itself into the New York Times. They'll change the Chinese government's website to say "we suck", and a virtual stop-hitting-yourself slapfight will spillover into real world bloodshed.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

<comment><USER34> Nah, they just want to move people out of making graphics they can't crawl/translate/etc and instead encourage people to use a textual format that Google (and anyone else) can index.

<comment><USER35> Naturally, the most insightful comment so far is a reply to a massively- downvoted "wake up sheeple" post.</comment></comment></comment>


A pragmatic approach to mobile architecture (iOS and Android) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@omerfarukgul/a-pragmatic-approach-to-mobile-architecture-f5e12175aacf <comment><USER2> Great work.</comment>


Proofing Spirits with a Homemade Electrobalance - <AUTHOR> http://blog.qqrs.us/blog/2015/08/21/proofing-spirits-with-homemade-electrobalance/ <comment><USER2> Very nice hobbyist project.

The measurement more so than the apparatus would be so humidity & temperature dependent that it very well may be a more accurate relative humidity or dew point measurement device than it would be for alcohol content of beverages.

The beverage data sure does look good though, varation perhaps due mostly to slight changes in ambient conditions, as well as matrix effects like sugar content of lower proof beverages.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool! I'd never of thought of doing this, that way.

I've wondered before if you could measure alcohol ABV using a fuel cell alcoholmeter.

<comment><USER2> Professionally, directly measuring Alcohol By Volume (ABV) which is the property that is regulated, could not be most accurately accomplished with any technique that comes to mind.

In the lab, alcohol content is always best determined by weight, then converted to volume percent using a number of traditional conversions.

You might have something there with a fuel cell approach, but if you are detecting mass or relative mass the only way to arrive at volume is by conversion.

Even when you calibrate using precisely prepared volumetric reference materials, if you are still detecting mass then you would be better off using precisely prepared gravimetric reference materials instead.

Gravimetrically I can be traceable to NIST using only traceable reference weights without requiring NIST ampoules of reference alcohol.</comment></comment>


Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 <comment><AUTHOR> Comments section is on point...

\- The most outrageously patient human being alive.

\- "1+1 = 2". So you're saying 3 is not a number?

\- This is the most impressive display of dealing with a hostile interviewer I have seen in my life

\- Jordan Peterson: Hi

Cathy Newman: So you are saying "Heil Hitler"?</comment>


Github Pull Request Widget - <AUTHOR> http://lenni.info/pull-request-widget/

<comment><USER2> I might use this on my personal website.</comment>


Klerksdorp spheres: created or naturally occuring? - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere <comment><USER2> Please don't editorialise titles needlessly. This is not reddit and HN does not welcome clickbait.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>


Ask HN: A small-scale business idea with gmail API? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> If your business is dependent on the Gmail API, your primary risk is that Google changes or deprecates the Gmail API, and you will have zero recourse if they do.</comment>


Show HN: Checkr.io – API for background checks - <AUTHOR> https://checkr.io/free-background-check <comment><USER2> Talk about a great way to phish any unsuspecting saps who might try out the service.

Also, I'm vaguely horrified at the notion that background checks might become standard even for 'sharing economy' gigs. Ah, well, you see, your pot charge disqualifies you from picking up my laundry.

<comment><USER3> Would you ever want a stranger driving you home who wasn't background checked in some way?

I wouldn't.

<comment><USER2> I have the privilege of being a white male who lives in a safe city and thus rarely feels threatened.

So, it's not something I think about. What's the threat model? They're going to case your house and rob you at some point in the future?

In an ideal world, that sounds plausible. Let's keep child molesters away from child care! Who can disagree with that?

But in practice, it means that all offenders are permanent second class citizens barred from non-marginal employment opportunities.

It's extremely pernicious, and you don't have to exaggerate anything to reach slippery slopes. Because there is no discretion in the system, anyone remotely tagged by law enforcement can be screwed by this.

Recently here in Canada it turns out that non-offense data was turning up in background checks. So, some guy was in the process of becoming a nurse, iirc, but was not allowed to graduate - because his neighbour five years ago was a drug dealer. That's it. The background check revealed that he was asked some questions and that's that. Four years of tuition down the drain.

If you can never find a way to reasonably support yourself, regardless of how much you've turned your life around, then we've created a self fulfilling prophesy in terms of recidivism rates.

Keep in mind we're talking about _the sharing economy_ , which almost by definition are going to be bottom of the barrel 'gigs' to begin with.

Does it matter if person folding your laundry got into a drunken fight when they were 19? Not really.

<comment><USER3> "Does it matter if person folding your laundry got into a drunken fight when they were 19? Not really."

No. It doesn't.

Does it matter if a person with a history of DUIs (or even ONE) drives me for Lyft? Yes.

Does it matter if a person with a history of armed robbery or home invasion delivers groceries to my house for Instacart? Yes.

<comment><USER4> Why? Are they Drunk when they pick you up? If not why does not matter if they were drunk 5 years ago, or 1 day ago, they are not drunk at the moment so that is all that should concern you.

I see you have a huge amount of faith in the legal system... That is sad

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I am the cofounder and I want to jump in. The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates the background screening industry and gives rights to consumers. We cannot disclose offenses older than 7 years old. [https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair- credit-r...](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit- reporting-act.pdf)

<comment><USER5> I see nothing in there having to do with criminal charges. Only credit and financial records. Am I missing something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes the FCRA regulates consumer reports and background checks are consumer reports even if they are not mentioned in the text. [https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0157-employment- backgr...](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0157-employment-background- checks) Please speak to a lawyer before making false statements.

<comment><USER4> Actually it appears we are both right.

Companies such as yours are prohibited from disclosing it because you are classified as "consumer reporting agency" however the disclosure of criminal records by non-consumer reporting agencies is not limited to 7 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> My friend and I hacked an API to run background checks. We wanted to show it to the HN community and get your feedback on it. You can run 1 background check on yourself for free.

<comment><USER6> Seems to require a SSN, so I assume it's only good in the US?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, only in the US for now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Previous address history was pretty rough (it listed the same address twice as consecutive residences, put me in a city I'd never lived in, and got most of the dates wrong).

That being said, I'm into it. Those arguing about it's usefulness seem either oblivious to, or annoyed by, the vast number of background checks that are run in this country every day.

</comment><comment><USER8> Without knowing too much about this project (which looks pretty cool), I don't think it's a good idea to put in your SSN.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm probably not the only one but I'd feel uncomfortable putting my SSN in a site that just released.

</comment><comment><USER10> I prefer the reverse of this - [1]Repp. You confirm your own background and provide it to companies.

[1] [https://myrepp.com/](https://myrepp.com/)

<comment><USER11> I love the idea. Always thought about it. Is this working? Is there anyone using it?

<comment><USER10> I believe so! I haven't talked with them for a while but I believe they are still growing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What are the exact sources of some of this data, like SSN validation, address history, criminal searches, motor vehicle reports?

<comment><USER13> I'd like to know this as well- I was doing some research into it recently for KYC purposes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

The sources are the 3 credit bureaus for SSN, direct access to DMVs for MVR, and different databases and sources for criminal data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The fear of the SSN input in the comments is interesting. That was my knee- jerk reaction as well.

I'm not saying the fear is unwarranted, but do you know where your employer is inputting your SSN and where they keep it? How safe do you think your personal data is?

I built an employment application 'web app' for a job not too long ago. It was _terrible_ , and against all my objections, we ended up asking for the applicants SSN. It certainly wasn't secure by any stretch of the imagination, and I cringe a little every time I see an application come in. I'm sure this sort of thing happens daily.

Anyway, I went ahead and put my SSN in to Checkr. It came up with an address I've never lived at, next to 3 addresses I actually have lived at. Not sure what that's about.

<comment><USER15> if OP open sourced the code I would feel more comfortable about it. its weird that the first thought of hesitation was "that's weird they didn't do any customization to bootstrap" then this: [http://builtwith.com/?https%3a%2f%2fcheckr.io%2f](http://builtwith.com/?https%3a%2f%2fcheckr.io%2f)

I dont see any backend language or framework. what does this mean?

<comment><USER16> It simply means there's no obvious fingerprint that builtwith.com was able to detect.

For example, the default Express app contains `X-Powered-By: Express` in the response header. Ruby on Rails is usually sniffed by its predictable cookie signature.

You gain nothing from broadcasting your back-end stack to the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Like someone else pointed out, it would be ideal to be able to delete reports (or at a minimum ssn information).

The site looks nice and clean. After running a report on myself, I noticed it said for a minute or so that my ssn was incorrect before it changed to stating it was cleared.

Also, while the national check for me came back clear (as expected), I was curious if that was literally all the report said. I would love to see more detailed reporting underlying the results. Obviously if it doesn't say anything more than "clear" or "no results" or something, then this probably wouldn't be useful.

Pricing-wise, I think it is somewhat fair and were I a bigger company with an HR group, you would be a solid candidate as a vendor.

<comment><AUTHOR> please email daniel at checkr.io and we will delete your SSN and personal data.

This is a light version of a background check (since we have to pay for it). Our pricing page references packages with extensive screenings and results.

<comment><USER17> Isn't the point of the test to get exactly what I can expect as a result as a paying customer? Otherwise, what am I really validating?

I will happily email daniel for deleting the personal data. While that works well for a HN comment thread, I still think it shouldn't require interaction on your part.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for your feedback, we will add the ability to delete an account and all related data in our product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Also, why does the GitHub login require full access to personal user data?

"This application will be able to read and write all user data. This includes the following: Private email addresses Profile information Followers"

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a genuinely hard problem and it's great to see new companies taking it on. Unfortunately this particular instance is close to useless - US only is a non starter, it's why this stuff is hard in the first place.

Dealing with country-specific services is as good as aggregating relevant databases directly.

I'd pay good money for a single API that covered most of the western world, and seamlessly integrated external services (e.g. Equifax in the UK)

<comment><USER20> I agree with you but I am wondering how would that work on a country specific level. Each country in Europe has their own privacy laws when it comes to query these kind of databases. Not to mention the EU adding another layer in the process.

Take for instance the credit scoring system. There is no such thing as Expedia or privately maintained credit scoring system outside the UK. In France, the Bank of France maintains files which are only available to financial institutions holding a licence.

Another example, in the UK, the sex offenders register is only available through the police, in other countries, there have been citizen initiatives to create such database for specific areas.

This kind of service is more realistic in the US as their SSN is the main ID for background check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just ran one on myself. Turnaround time was 2 hours. It came up with a ticket I got in 2009 for "Motor Vehicle Noise". I've had several speeding tickets that didn't show up, so not sure how much I would trust the data from this.

</comment><comment><USER22> I filed a report earlier this morning on myself with an incorrect SSN (off by one digit). It came through with a 'clear' on SSN verification and background check, but reported incorrect addresses. I think you guys should look into this.

</comment><comment><USER23> Interesting idea, but like the others I have to say there is no way I am entering my SSN into your site. I'm half convinced the fear is irrational, but there it is.

</comment><comment><USER24> Not as instant as I would have hoped. I've been pending for a few minutes now

</comment><comment><USER25> You probably should have mentioned that the service is available only in the US.

<comment><USER26> Would be nice to be able to delete your account once you've registered and found out that's the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is great API, added it to the Mashape community for easy consumption ;)

</comment><comment><USER28> So the premium TASKER plan is $25 once for unlimited requests?

<comment><USER29> Unlimited counties, not requests. I assume that would be limited to one request per county.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry if this is not clear on the pricing page. We will make updates. The pricing is for 1 report on 1 person. Unlimited county searches in the counties where the person lived in the last 7 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Anyone know what tool they use to generate their API docs?

</comment><comment><USER31> s/mininum/minimum/ on the signup page.</comment>


It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-most-ridiculous-law-of-2013-so-far-it-is-now-a-crime-to-unlock-your-smartphone/272552/

<comment><USER2> There was much earlier discussion of this (not all very aware of the legal background in the United States) three days ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5109847>

The earlier discussion got off to a bad start, in part because of bad reporting in the submitted source, an annoying problem here on Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER3> i) How is unlocking a phone circumventing copyright protection measures?

ii) Most people do not unlock their own phones, but take their phones to a service to be unlocked. Thus, they are breaking a law, but the service is more likely to be breaking the "commercial advantage or private financial gain" clause.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to see some more information on this but can't seem to find much. This feels pretty wrong.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's also a huge prison sentence to change the IMEI on phones, or be in possession of IMEI changing software in most countries.

Only phones I use are unlocked samsung phones like Nexus S and Galaxy so I can custom build android source I refuse to buy a locked phone anymore</comment>


Trinity College experiment succeeds after 69 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/463097-trinity-college-dublin-pitch-experiment/ <comment><USER2> "The experiment was begun by a colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton in the physics department of Trinity in 1944."

Am I the only one who finds this insulting? They could at least name the guy!!!

<comment><USER3> "Over the years, the identity of the scientist who began the experiment was forgotten, and the experiment lay unattended on a shelf where it continued to shed drops uninterrupted while gathering layers of dust. Physicists at Trinity College recently began to monitor the experiment again. Last April they set up a webcam so that anyone could watch and try to be the first person ever to witness the drop fall live." \- [http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest- moving-drop-caugh...](http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop- caught-on-camera-at-last-1.13418)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first thought that popped into my punny little brain was: Why didn't they use a centrifuge to accelerate results?

The one variable that could be controlled is the gravitational force on the substance. If we were on the moon the experiment, as designed, would take far longer to produce a drop. By using a centrifuge they could have easily simulated significantly greater gravitational forces and arrived at a result much sooner.

EDIT:

The Queensland experiment data says that it takes about 13 years for a drop to form and fall [1]. You'd need less than 5,000 g's to make it happen within a day or about 160 g's to get results in 30 days.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop- caugh...](http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caught-on- camera-at-last-1.13418)

<comment><USER5> Chemist here. We use centrifuging to separate components of a suspension by weight.

Pitch is a suspension. The heavy stuff would drop to the outside, the viscosity would be affected, no experiment.

<comment><USER4> > Chemist here. We use centrifuging to separate components of a suspension by > weight. Pitch is a suspension.

The last bit is puzzling: Are all suspensions fluids? And all fluids are viscous (even non-newtonian)?

If so, why do we need an experiment to prove that pitch --a suspension-- is a fluid and is viscous?

On the point of using a centrifuge. Is there something particularly special about gravity on earth that does not affect pitch? In other words, if we exposed pitch to 0.1x, 1x, 10x, 100x and 1000x g, at what point would the fundamental characteristics of the material invalidate the experiment. Are fluids and their viscosity only defined on earth (ignoring thermal and other non-gravitational effects)? Perhaps pitch is a viscous fluid on earth but a solid on the moon, where gravity is 1/6 of ours?

Is this experiment only valid at 9.8 m/s^2 then? What's the tolerance based on the substance under test?

<comment><USER5> To answer your second question, there is some critical number, which we do not know empirically, after which pressure will separate pitch.

We could apply some higher acceleration for a shorter time, but that acceleration would have to be highly consistent, and there is no way to shorten the experiment enough to keep that equipment from being unproductive to even contemplate.

Sometimes patience really is the best answer.

<comment><USER4> OK, had a break so I looked around a little to see what I could learn [1], [2], [3] and [4] are my launching points.

So I read that asphalt is actually a colloid and that pitch is not the same as asphalt. The Wikipedia page on pitch [3] says it is a "viscoelastic polymer".

So I have to ask. Can a polymer be a suspension or a colloid on its own or is pitch a polymer colloid in another "host" substance?

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_(chemistry)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_\(chemistry\))

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

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_\(resin\))

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

<comment><USER5> Pitch is also a colloidal suspension, or colloid. The various polymers that make it up are not of equal weight, and there are little bits of graphite in there too. The chemistry of pitch is by no means simple, destructive distillation can go in many directions.

<comment><USER4> Learned a lot through this thread. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I bet the grad student involved is celebrating now that they can _finally_ submit their thesis

<comment><USER7> Woah woah woah, not so fast, Doctorate McPhdsosoon. Science is repeatable. See you at lab meeting next Monday morning. Please come prepared with a roadmap for phase 2 trials. These grants don't write themselves, you know.

<comment><USER8> Phase 2 would be continue to wait to see if the glass funnel would drip in order to prove whether glass is a solid or liquid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It should be noted that this experiment is different than the Queensland experiment, which is still going on.

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

<comment><USER9> How are they different? Both the article and the wikipedia link you gave mention they are similar experiments. It seems they are the same experiment to me.

<comment><USER10> Same experiment, but I for one was interested to know it was not the Queensland one, because that one has a great Radiolab episode about all the times they missed the drop (webcams failing, etc.). Their pitch is due to drop soon too, so it's sort of sad someone else beat them to finally filming it.

<comment><USER11> They didn't really record a 'drop', the tail was still connected, so the experiment is still on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> People have waited through so many failed attempts to record the drop that nobody wants to mention that they didn't 'really' record an unassisted drop. The bead is still connected when it hits bottom, and the tail doesn't break until they raised up the suspended platform.

Check the video and notice that the suspended vessel jumps about 2 inches higher just after the drop.

It's a good recording, but I'm looking forward to a better one in 2026.

</comment><comment><USER13> While I'm fond of this type of down-to-earth experiments, I'm curious about the scientific value of waiting for decades to observe the drop falling due to Earth's gravity, versus placing the apparatus in a centrifuge, which I imagine would dramatically accelerate the process. Maybe the higher forces would affect the way the drop is formed, in a way that was deemed undesirable?

<comment><USER14> _down-to-earth experiments_

Bwahahahah!

<comment><USER15> Please keep the discussion constructive. No, there is no pun there.

<comment><USER16> Don't be so sanctimonious. Calling an experiment involving gravity "down to earth" is mildly amusing and is kind of a pun, albeit a feeble one. Much like your sense of humour it would appear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Um, not to take away from the achievement of the result, but couldn't this result have been obtained in much less time with higher force than 1G in, say, a centrifuge?

<comment><USER18> In other news students preferred "watching the pitch" over lectures by a margin of 2 to 1. :-)

<comment><USER19> They learned as the pitch flowed!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_\(resin\))

<comment><USER21> "Petroleum-derived pitch is black in colour, hence the adjectival phrase, 'pitch-black'."

That was the most interesting thing I found in this experiment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Radiolab had an interesting segment about the Pitch Drop Experiment, interesting to listen: [http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite- now/](http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/)

</comment><comment><USER20> I think (hope) it's worth noting the location of this experiment. Trinity College, and the Irish in general, tend to gravitate towards romanticised notions. Even our scientists.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me in the least if the experiment was initiated knowing full well it would take decades to complete but they went ahead anyway 'for the craic'.

<comment><USER23> "For the craic", the original "for the lulz" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Over several decades a number of drips did form in the funnel and fall into the jar, giving credence to the hypothesis that pitch is indeed viscous."

It sounds like the experiment, as designed, reached a conclusion in far less time than 69 years. It just took 69 years for someone to think about video taping it.

<comment><USER25> Nope, assuming they designed it for scientific rigour. Without observation, it would be impossible to say, for instance, that some external force (vibration, wind, mischievous students) hadn't caused the drip to form or fall/break off. The experiment didn't reach a firm conclusion (to some level of certainty) without observation.

<comment><USER26> That's what the parent said: there were previous chances to definitively end the experiment by observing drips, but no-one thought to monitor it with a video camera until recently. There was no need to wait 69 years.

<comment><USER25> No, they said "It sounds like the experiment, as designed, reached a conclusion". As designed it didn't, as they didn't include camera-based observation in the design, the design called for someone to notice the drip to prove the viscosity of the substance, and that didn't happen until now.

Maybe it was a badly planned experiment (or more likely, the cost/availability of cameras in those days prohibited their inclusion in the plans). Nevertheless, no firm conclusion can be drawn that the experiment could have been ended early, those previous "drips" may not have happened without external forces applied and so even if cameras had been used it may not have ended until now. Its probably likely that it would have ended had cameras been available, but the scientific method generally calls for a greater degree of certainty than "probably likely" before calling an experiment a success.

And of course, it is called an "experiment", not a "certainty". Mistakes happen and they're not always optimal, that's all part of the fun of science!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I call shenanigans. In the time-lapse, the funnel "jumps" upward right when the drop falls (0:56). Unless the funnel's mounted on a spring (?), this is a clear indication that somebody interfered with the drip. I declare this video null and void!

...or maybe the video camera just got jostled when all scientists started dancing around in their glee =)

<comment><USER28> More likely than not, the whole setup there is SIXTY NINE years old and a drop of pitch weighs a bit.

Or they got bored and cheated. 50/50 really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Have they analyzed the dripped substance? My first thought is that it could be from condensation formed on the pitch over a large amount of time due to temperature gradients.

</comment><comment><USER30> The Beal seed viability experiment[1] has been running for 120+ years, and iirc they keep increasing the interval between trials because there are only so many seeds stored, and so far they haven't had a significant failure in germinating and growing them.

[1] [http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/8/1285.full](http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/8/1285.full)

</comment><comment><USER31> My favourite thing about this story is the various times that this and similar experiments around the world missed capturing the actual drip due to various glitches and snafus; imagine the howl of anguish of the researcher coming in one morning to find that _yes_ something has finally happened after all these years, only to discover that some doofus had left the lens cap on ....

</comment><comment><USER32> For a bit more background on the history of this experiment and why the previous drips were missed, check out this recent Radiolab podcast:

[http://joshuafoer.com/radiolab-the-pitch-drop- experiment/](http://joshuafoer.com/radiolab-the-pitch-drop-experiment/)

<comment><USER33> The Radiolab episode was about a similar experiment at the University of Queensland in Australia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The title is misleading. The experiment did succeed before, it just hasn't been captured on camera.

<comment><USER35> Seriously, people did science before there were cameras, right? I think the drop splatted under the funnel is enough evidence to call it done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think, after a few missed drops, that I might have added a backup camera.

<comment><USER37> Well it started in the 1940s. There weren't many webcam then, and video cameras (and tape) were expensive.

<comment><USER36> Of course, I understand that. But it lasted so long, through tenured generation after generation. Even though I'm aware it wasn't anyone's master work, it had to be quite frustrating to miss it decade after decade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Anyone else reminded of those old Heinz Ketchup ads...Anticipation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ)

</comment><comment><USER39> Heard about this the Pitch Drop Experiment on Radiolab couple weeks ago. Very interesting episode: [http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite- now/](http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/)

"...the Pitch Drop Experiment is so slow, you can watch it for hours (check out the live cam) and not detect the slightest movement. But that doesn't mean nothing's happening. Professor John Mainstone tells us about his desperate attempts to catch the flashes of action hiding inside this decades-long experiment."

</comment><comment><USER40> If you wanted to do this experiment with reasonable statistics, it's quite amenable to parallelization. Pitch is cheap, funnels are cheap, dusty basement shelves are (potentially) cheap, and webcams are inexpensive. Doing ~300 of these in parallel wouldn't be hard, and would allow considerable investigation of systematic effects.

Decade-scale experiments aren't hard, but they do require planning.

</comment><comment><USER41> why did the pitch have to drip? Isn't the fact that a drip was forming proof that the pitch was flowing?

<comment><USER42> Seems like it to me. Maybe they thought the whole drop quantam tunneled to the bottom

I guess you could have asked that if you find a tree that's fallen in a forrest, did it actually fall over if no one saw it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I sort of take issue with "experiment succeeds". You don't (shouldn't) set up an experiment to prove or disprove something, merely to discover.

I'm sure the issue, if indeed there is one, is with the reporting not the scientists though.

<comment><USER44> substitute "ends" for "succeeds" if you're feeling pedantic. I think that for a decades long experiment the two words become synonyms.

<comment><USER45> It's still running!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Science has been confirming results for a long time without the aide of video proof. This sounds like fluff. It's cool fluff, but it's pretty ridiculous to assert that the theory couldn't be proven without video proof.

</comment><comment><USER47> View this one live: [http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop- experiment](http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment)

</comment><comment><USER48> This is really cool. I only wish we knew the name of the "colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton", so he can get credit for this.

</comment><comment><USER49> There couldn't have been an easier way to test this?

</comment><comment><USER28> That pitch was a little thick and quite slow. 6/10.

</comment><comment><USER50> What's up with one sentance per paragraph? Feels like reading the simple wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER51> "...the scientific value was questionable..."

</comment><comment> marco-fiset Am I the only one to think that this is pretty boring?

</comment><comment><USER52> Dude, I'm finding this hilarious. 69 years to prove that something is a fluid? I picture two really old scientists watching the tape, only to have one of the old geezers turning to the other to spill the sacred words: "Told you so".

<comment><USER53> Science isn't about "told you so". It's about rigor, about completion. It may seem hilarious because of the length of time involved for the experiment to complete, but what if the results hadn't been what we assumed? Science is the only enlightenment we have, and to dismiss the outcome as obvious is to climb back into the dark ages.

<comment><USER54> Really? Scientists are people. Proving each other wrong is one of the biggest motivators to do years of painstaking, labour-intensive research. Of course, you can't prove someone wrong without being rigorous.

<comment><USER55> It gets finnier if you imagine Stephen Hawking saying "I told you so." to Leonard Susskind.

      D'OOOH... WERNSTROM!!!

<comment><USER56> You might find this to be "finny": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93Preskill_bet)

<comment><USER55> Finny is a perfectly cromulent word, sir...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dear Obama, from Infosec - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/01/dear-obama-from-infosec.html <comment><USER2> > Russia's involvement is a huge issue

Not really. China's been doing much more overt theft and hacking for years. If you think this is huge issue, you aren't paying attention. Russia got information and then released it to the US public (which nobody wants to authenticate or disavow). I consider this more of a good than a harm.

<comment><USER3> I find this whole thing kind of baffling...

We (UK+US) have been doing this shit for years and much, much more obviously..

It's clearly an outrage though. Influencing the outcome of another countries election is america's job! How dare those pesky russians have an interest in getting a pro-ru govt installed in the US....

I mean, it's totally different to what we've been doing for decades elsewhere... Right...

<comment><USER4> Exactly what I was thinking... While I know it's leaning to one side and highly opinionated, I was watching Oliver Stone's untold history of the United states, right after the election.

I actually felt some anger and disgust into how US has influenced other nations and their own "democratic process" since it's beginning...

<comment><USER5> Not sure why that means we should be OK with the current situation though. That logic is along the lines of "The U.S. has done some imperialistic stuff. Nazi Germany did some imperialistic stuff. Let's call it a draw."

<comment><USER6> Well, the US has orchestrated elections with considerable more manipulation than Russia (allegedly) used here. The US has also overthrown governments that it didn't like. So we can't call it a draw; morally we have to call it a loss for the US. (That is, until you start thinking about things like Russia rolling tanks into Warsaw in 1956 and Prague in 1968...)

<comment><USER5> Well, that's a lot to assume, including a.) that you know categorically that the U.S. really has engaged in "considerably more manipulation" and b.) that the quantity of manipulation alone determines the morality. For instance, does manipulating two elections to depose brutal dictators add up to a "moral loss" against manipulating one election of a peaceful, "benevolent" country to gain access to its resources?

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing which interventions are "more moral"\--just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

So, let's just concede that you are completely correct. That still doesn't argue for the U.S. doing nothing in response, as some seem to suggest. It's actually mind-blowing that people are offering that as a reason that the U.S. should not protect its democratic process--allowing anyone to engage in an all out assault on it with impunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Before the GRIZZLY STEPPE report I found myself asking where the proof for the insinuations of a Russian hack to influence the US elections was. I still ask that question after the report was released. I find it completely plausible. However, given the turbulence and hyper-partisanship of this election cycle, I need a bit more than 'It was the Russians because we say so'.

<comment><USER7> It was first attributed to the Russians by CrowdStrike. I have yet to see any even remote indication of partisanship, especially _pro-Democratic_ partisanship by CrowdStrike or its ownership.

<comment><USER8> CrowdStrike's partisanship is like the news media's: bias towards spectacle, unwarranted certainty, and producing a coherent narrative facts be damned.

<comment><USER7> Seems if that were true that they'd be pretty ineffective at their job as a cybersecurity firm and easily outcompeted in the market.

<comment><USER8> They don't get paid for the accuracy of their public pronouncements, it's just a marketing tool to raise their profile. It doesn't prevent them from being competent and maintaining clients.

Also, most clients would be more than happy to have someone proclaim that the reason they got owned was because they were the target of spooky foreign state actors and not because they're bad at security. There's no money in downplaying the sophistication of an attack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bloody Hell.

I find it very frustrating that intelligent people don't seem to follow through their thought process here.

The intelligence community will _never_ be able to release enough information to satisfy people. The information will either be so non-specific as to be useless ("we had spies who told us" \- would anyone here believe that anymore than they do now?), or so specific it will damage ongoing interests ("We have communication intercepts between the hacking groups and the GRU/FSB, and there they are, and here is how we got them" \- it's likely there are actual humans involved in that process who will die if they are exposed).

It's fair to argue that this issue is _so important_ that burning some resources is worth it, but no one is taking that angle.

Don't mistake this for defending the US report though. It was _terrible_ and made the situation much more confused. Before the report it was much clearer that Russian groups (either government or non-government) were involved, and now people are (incorrectly) questioning even that because of the pathetic report that was produced.

It's much more interesting to discuss the shared conclusion was formed that "the Russians" were trying to throw the election to Trump (rather than just to sow chaos).

<comment><USER10> This _Russians hacked the election_ narrative is just like _Saddam has WMDs_ back ten years ago, only more dangerous. So unless any hard evidence comes to light, we can safely dismiss it as propaganda and not get too excited about it.

<comment><USER11> It's not "just like" that because people in the Bush administration were pressuring the CIA to say the thinnest of evidence proved he had WMDs and was trying to get nukes then repeated the claim again and again.

Cut to 2016 where none of the intelligence branches claim Russians "hacked the election," they claim they hacked the DNC and other political organizations for political ends. There's no evidence that anyone in the Obama administration pressured the CIA, let alone multiple other intelligence branches to make those claims. There have been concerns that Russians tampered with voting machines themselves but they only things LEOs, intelligence branches, and other representatives of the Executive branch have been saying is when they've looked, they've found no evidence that it happened. So, not like "Saddam has WMDs" 14-15 years ago.

<comment><USER12> It's being used as a shield for the DNC leaks (eg, make the issue that the leak happened, rather than e.g. that the government deliberately played down the Benghazi attacks, DNC had already chosen Hillary as the nominee and was working to undermine Sanders), and to delegitamise the new administration, in the same way Iraq WMD was being used as an excuse to build the US's position in the Middle East.

<comment><USER11> Those are not analogous at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Pardon my ignorance, but as a non-American, I still have no bloody clue what the election hacking was about.

That, plus, it shouldn't matter who has done it, since (especially if it was Russia) they most likely won't be persecuted for it. What the focus should be put on is making sure this won't happen again - but that the general public isn't very interested in.

<comment><USER14> > Pardon my ignorance, but as a non-American, I still have no bloody clue what > the election hacking was about.

There was no "election hacking", a DNC executive failed for a fishing scam, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was the Russians.

It's interesting how liberals became CIA and FBI shills in less that 2 weeks after the election, while ignoring the wide spread corruption in their party. Now maybe Russia did it, it doesn't make the content of the emails less true. There is also an interesting display of anti Russian xenophobia on liberal media, which proves that the party of "progress" is also capable of the worst when it comes to hate speech and warmongering, now labelling anyone who disagree as "traitor".

<comment><USER15> > while ignoring the wide spread corruption in their party

Because the crime of breaking in is far more disturbing than what was found, given that even the "victim" brushed it off? If you ask people what the worst part of the emails was, they point to out-of-context blurbs that are either common practices or misleading.

I have legitimate cause for concern when the President to be inaugurated does not believe intelligence about an American adversary.

<comment><USER16> >concern when the President to be inaugurated does not believe intelligence about an American adversary

I dislike Trump for many reasons but, based on the track record of the US intelligence community over the course of the last 10-15 years, if he approaches the intelligence briefings that are fed to him with the same skepticism that he has displayed for climate science, I can only see that as a positive.

<comment><USER17> Do we want him to brush off the next "Bin Laden determined to strike US" intelligence reports? Let's not forget that the Iraq WMD fiasco was due in large part to Bush being fixated on hitting Iraq even before 9/11 happened and putting his thumb on the whole intelligence process. Obama on the other hand has demonstrated no such predispositions toward confronting Russia and was even criticized by the GOP earlier in his presidency for being too friendly toward them (the US already tried a "reset" with Russia not too long ago).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Assange repeatably - and again tonight - said he was sure it wasn't Russia.

I think it's worth something to consider the main visible actor opinion.

<comment><USER19> I have the same level of skepticism towards Assange that I do for the US intelligence community, but for different reasons.

If Assange received a email dump from a source, how could he possibly know with absolute certainty that the Russian government didn't have any involvement? The only thing I can think of is if he or one of his very trusted associates executed the attacks themselves. Isn't it possible that the Russian government orchestrated the attacks and then handed the data off to a third party? He has the same burden of proof as the CIA. ...and yes I understand that Wikileaks can't reveal its sources but one should not really make such claims if they can't be backed up with evidence.

<comment><USER8> I think he's saying between the lines that his source is a insider, and it's either a leak or an internal hack. That's the only way he could have any reliable information at all about the source.

<comment><USER20> Assange strongly implied that the emails were leaked by Seth Rich.

Not sure if I believe that though, since it seems that Assange would have proved it by now if it were true. Maybe he's withholding the proof as leverage, or maybe he's lying. I do trust Assange much more than the CIA though.

<comment><USER21> >I do trust Assange much more than the CIA though.

But do you trust Assange more than the 17 US intelligence agencies? And the actual president? And members of congress (including many Republicans who would directly benefit from any intelligence pointing another way)?

At this point it's getting close to Assange vs the world. Even Trump won't directly say the Russians weren't involved anymore, he's just muddying the water with "can you really ever prove anything" talk.

<comment><USER22> _But do you trust Assange more than the 17 US intelligence agencies? And the actual president?_

Yes. Does that really surprise you?

<comment><USER21> Not surprised but definitely saddened a bit. Because at this point I doubt anything is going to dispel the conspiracy for you if you think it's that widespread. Anyone who disagrees will merely be "in on it".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The following is a a good fact sheet that puts the hacks in context with some others, and contains some details that don't seem to be reported on:

[https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian- hacks...](https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian-hacks/)

For example, Wikileaks says that they did not get the info from Russia, and this is corroborated by the former British ambassador.

</comment><comment><USER24> This story is so frustrating. I feel like this is my "Gell-Mann Amnesia" moment, and it's turning me off from WaPo, NYTimes, NPR, and all the sources I used to read.

It's so bizarre to me how big this story has become only _now_ when the DNC hacks themselves were done back in June. It's certainly hit a fever pitch since Trump's election, but I can't tell if that's from his tweeting and provocation, or from the Democrats angst at losing the election and trying to save face.

Regardless, compared to China hacking us and stealing our fighter jet plans or the data breach of 18 million personnel records from OPM, compromising the DNC and releasing some authentic but mildly embarrassing emails seems so... minor, I guess. Every time people say "hacking the election" it makes me so frustrated since it minimizes the very _real_ fear of _actual_ election hacking the more we're moving to electronic voting machines, that Bruce Schneier talks about. It's also no surprise that half[0] of Clinton voters believe "hacking the election" means that Russia actually fucking tampered with the vote tallies now.

Surely any impact of the DNC email release months ago was minor compared to say, Comey re-opening the Clinton case right before the election. And I dunno, does an article in the BBC or The Economist count as foreign influence? What about the Snowden leaks to The Guardian?

The evidence that APT28/29 were in the DNC servers is _moderately_ compelling, I think. I can't find the data on the connection between APT28/29 and GRU/FSB, though. In any case, it's clear Russia _could_ have not left a trace if they were so inclined. Maybe they didn't think it was such a big deal so they were a little sloppy? Certainly, a priori, it's hard to imagine the amount of attention releasing DNC and Podesta emails would have gotten.

[0] [https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief- conspiracies...](https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies- largely-depends-political-iden/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Sorry, come again, what part of the election did 'Russia' hack again? I thought it was a private organization.

<comment><USER26> The one that's spelled 'none'. WikiLeaks claimed many times Russia wasn't involved, NYT admitted they faked the story. It's nothing more than liberal tears who can't deal with losing elections in a system they were creating and shaping for years.

<comment><USER27> Last sentence was a bit caustic. Should WikiLeaks even be considered as a reliable source after Assange demonstrated his political bias against Hillary? Also, can you provide a link to NYT admitting to publishing a fake story? Thanks.

<comment><USER28> DKIM verification shows that everything from the Podesta leaks is real.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> First of all this piece should be lauded and it is this type of transparency that ALL administrations should adhere too. Granted without revealing sensitive sources.

Second, the Russians didn't hack the election. As far as we'll all know, no voting machines were compromised. It may have been some email accounts of campaign officials (about which Wikileaks has already publicly stated the leaks didn't come from Russia). So starting off with the propagandist and frankly bullshit headline "Russia hacked the election" is in and of itself already portraying an extremely false narrative. Dangerous. Very dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER30> Does anyone here think that Russia would not try to influence our elections if they had the chance?

I guess i'm confused as to why we should care if they did. Even if Trump didn't win through fair elections, he was still nominated by us. I think that's damning enough to say we deserve him.

</comment><comment><USER31> Did Russians tell DNC chairwoman to leak debate questions to the HRC team? Did Russians tell DNC to backstab Bernie Sanders? It is so crazy that democrats and liberal main stream media are trying so hard to avoid discussing the real problem. And they truly believe that people are stupid enough to no seeing which problem is more important.

<comment><USER32> ...but you were not supposed to know!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have this argument almost every day. Thanks for writing it down.

</comment><comment><USER34> Its so simple. Know the difference between hacking and leaking.

</comment><comment><USER35> Realistically, "Russia tried to access US politicians' emails" isn't news. Surely that has been true every day of every week for at least twenty years.

And realistically, the public is not likely to be surprised by it either. It's barely 3 years since we found out the NSA spied on the United Nations, its own allies, and the Pope. And every day the news is full of western governments wanting to legislate back doors into our iPhones so they can read all our emails. Did anyone think notorious bad guy Putin would have his spy agencies twiddling their thumbs thinking "no, we mustn't - it'd be wrong"?

"Foreign government tried to influence our election" has probably lost a lot of its sting too, since Obama weighed in on the Brexit referendum, and every world politician and their dog weighed in on what they thought of Trump.

Honestly, I don't think much of the public cares how Podesta's emails got released, any more than they care how Trump's open-mike tape got released. And embarrassment aside, I doubt the public thinks any of the leaks had much impact on the result. I imagine much of the public muttering "Trump's a letch, the Democrat higher-ups and parts of the media have a love-in, and politicians think of the public as a mixture of easily-led minions and ignoramuses. Yup, we'd pretty much guessed that already..."

I think the "news" in this is why a famously competent, articulate, and measured president (Obama) is being a bit ham-fisted in his response, suddenly upping the reaction quite late in the day.

If I can theorise for a mo -

The Democrats, and parts of the Republican party, are still coming to terms with the surprise that they didn't win, and therefore believe that surely they will be back in power in four years' time. So they want to make it as hard as possible for Trump to deviate from longstanding policy in the meantime.

Moving to taking a hard diplomatic line on China and a soft line on Russia (rather than the other way around) would be a huge strategic shift from past policy, that would be quite hard to unpick. For nearly 40 years, the US strategic position has been to reach out to China, and that the US's chief strategic opponent has been Russia.

I wonder if the Democrats and GOP are starting to come to grips with where Trump's views really are a bit of a departure from the recent past:

\- he's decided many of the things the US and Russia compete on these days aren't especially important to the US's interests, so it's not worth considering them the US's biggest opponent

\- he's decided that the way to argue/posture with China on points of difference is to use the economy (eg, threat of tariffs) and more belligerent diplomacy (eg, threat of recognising Taiwain), rather than the military (eg, Freedom of navigation operations)

\- he's decided the US should stop trying to act as an altruistic international arbiter, and instead attach unswerving value to being the US's friend (eg, moving embassy in Israel to Jerusalem)

And of course, he seems to think the US is in a position where it can be a bit of a dick about things if it wants to. For most of us, we have to be nice people to work with or people won't work with us. But I guess if you're the US it's quite hard for people to say "well I won't work with the world's biggest economy then".

</comment><comment><USER36> Thanks Obama.</comment>


Tesla Executive Leaves for Waymo - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-executive-leaves-for-alphabet-self-driving-car-unit-waymo-1526160814 <comment><USER2> The bigger picture is that Waymo is now the most interesting company in self- driving technology. If you want to do real work that is the place to be. I hear that people are also leaving Uber's efforts. I expect them to absorb the best people in the industry and building a real business from here.

Waymo has established a multi-year technology advantage over Uber. The best objections to Waymo winning are three-fold:

1) Google doesn't have the user-facing apps - The reality is that Google has a far larger surface area than Uber to consumers. They own Calendar, Maps, Assistant, Android, Gmail and each of these can be entry points into self- driving. "I see you have an appointment in 15 minutes, want me to order you a cab?"

2) Google doesn't have experience operating a physical business - This is something they will have to learn. Google has the choice of partnering/purchasing if needed to build fleet operations companies. There are some unorthodox acquisitions to consider here (Avis?). However, Uber and Lyft do not really have this experience either.

3) Google doesn't have a great track record of incubating new businesses - Amazon has a far stronger track record than Uber of bringing up new lines of business.

With the mismanagement of Uber over the past years, Uber is at significant risk of missing the next technology wave, the way traditional taxi companies missed the last shift. Uber might be holding the equivalent of second- generation taxi medallions as the third generation takes off.

<comment><USER3> How does Uber not have experience operating a physical business? They actually have customer support etc (Google has it for minimal products).

<comment><USER2> Answering the phone is very different than operating a local physical products company. Mechanical failures, repairs, accidents, charging the vehicles, vandalism, etc. etc.

Think about how hard it is for consumer companies to sell to enterprises. Microsoft is terrible at consumer. Google is terrible at enterprise.

This is a much bigger leap than consumer -> enterprise. Uber and Waymo both have a lot to learn here. That's why I think companies like Avis etc are potential unorthodox acquisitions that we will see.

<comment><USER4> > Microsoft is terrible at consumer.

care to explain more?

<comment><USER2> IE, Messenger, Hotmail, Windows, Skype are all examples of products in the #1 position that Microsoft mismanaged and lost. Microsoft's success in coming from behind is even worse: Windows Phone, Zune, Spaces (!)

There are minor exceptions. Xbox was incubated in a different group and only survived because they kept Microsoft's crazy ideas out. Even there Xbox is falling behind PS under Satya.

In Enterprise, Microsoft is incredible. Azure is serious competition for AWS. Teams will take share in the slack category. Office is a monster business.

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry to say - you are a bit disconnected.

IE reincarnated as Edge

Hotmail -> Outlook (one of the best if not the best)

Windows (Hugely popular. Windows 10 is the best so far)

Skpye (Unreasonable baby cries)

Xbox one, Hololens - going good so far

<comment><USER5> What is Edge?

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Edge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Edge)

<comment><USER5> I see. Objectively, it has a long way to go in ways of adoption before it can be deemed a success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> WSJ uses Tesla articles to keep their old money media play alive, news at 11. Hackers need not attend.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is working for Elon just awful? I heard SpaceX people flock to Virgin Galactic because of this.

<comment><USER8> It's harder work, if that's what you're asking. People who wish for more work/life balance do tend to migrate to Virgin Galactic, etc. Of course, less lucrative stock options and less exciting work.

<comment><USER9> I think there's an added risk to the stock option from Tesla - the company's future is very volatile - bubble based on Musk's persona

<comment><USER8> Huge upside potential, too. Musk is really good at spotting opportunities and taking risks. The downside is he often doesn't know how to leave well enough alone and he takes risks. I think SpaceX does so well because Gwynne Shotwell helps balance Musk's risk taking.

Tesla could go bankrupt (as GM and others have) or it could be worth a huge amount of money if they crack automation and scale (and there are good technical reasons why they might actually do that... traditional automakers have not exhausted the trade space).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can see a clear correlation between the amount of Tesla stock being shorted and the number of negative Tesla press that shows up on sites like Hacker News / Reddit. It's surprising how blatant it is.

<comment><USER11> I can't believe it, but I guess "correlation doesn't imply causation" needs to be said on a site that is nominally for hackers.

<comment><USER12> Also the possibility of confusing (reversing) cause and effect

<comment><USER10> The prior is assuming of course given the input that WSJ is biased towards negative press against Tesla in general along with the massive short amounts already, it would be in whoever's interest to try and ensure that they can bring as much volatility to the situation in order to make a profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Tesla has been losing executives. VP of finance, Chris Lattner (autopilot), Kelty (batteries).

<comment><USER14> Chris Lattner was at Tesla for the blink of an eye

<comment><USER15> Yep, couldn't stand it longer. Says something about how bad working for Musk is.

<comment><USER16> see the interview with his first wife:

 _As we danced at our wedding reception, Elon told me, "I am the alpha in this relationship." I shrugged it off, just as I would later shrug off signing the postnuptial agreement, but as time went on, I learned that he was serious.

_...the will to compete and dominate that made him so successful in business did not magically shut off when he came home. This, and the vast economic imbalance between us, meant that in the months following our wedding, a certain dynamic began to take hold. Elon's judgment overruled mine, and he was constantly remarking on the ways he found me lacking. "I am your wife," I told him repeatedly, "not your employee." "If you were my employee," he said just as often, "I would fire you."

 _And no matter how many highlights I got, Elon pushed me to be blonder. "Go platinum," he kept saying, and I kept refusing._

If that's how he managed his wife imagine what his execs deal with.

*[https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-start...](https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-starter-wife/)

<comment><USER17> That is a textbook abusive relationship. Pathetic.

<comment><USER18> Well, the guy claims he needs to be in a relationship to be happy. Not the healthiest thing.

>If I'm not in love, if I'm not with a long-term companion, I cannot be happy," he told Rolling Stone. "I will never be happy without having someone. Going to sleep alone kills me. It's not like I don't know what that feels like: Being in a big empty house, and the footsteps echoing through the hallway, no one there -- and no one on the pillow next to you. F--. How do you make yourself happy in a situation like that?"

[https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/elon-musk- personal-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/elon-musk-personal- life-love-relationship-wife-marriage-happy-talulah-riley-a8058611.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What on Earth is going on at this company?

<comment><USER20> Nothing. They're just the focus of the media. Like shark attacks a few years back.

<comment><USER21> Anyone else notice that it's also specifically the Wall Street Journal trying to run this angle?

<comment><USER22> That's funny, the Tesla fans keep hating on Bloomberg. Could it be that everyone who writes critical pieces on their financials are hostiles?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Unsurprising, Tesla is going downhill fast... If a recession occurs before they get their shit together, they will vanish.

<comment><USER24> Surely they're going downhill as their Model 3 production rate accelerates /s

People leave companies, no news here.

I can't imagine it'll be too hard to find someone to replace this role. Is Elon or JB Straubel dead? No? Carry on.

<comment><USER25> A bunch of high-level executives leaving a company in a short span is always a bad sign. These executives were all privy to data that outsiders do not have access to, and it seems that they all decided that the data is bad enough to jump ship despite apparent signs that the ship is righting itself.

<comment><USER26> It could also mean that the project they were leading is transitioning into a phase that they're no longer interested in working on.

Same thing happened as Waymo started ramping up a year or so ago and nobody was freaking out about that.

<comment><USER25> Same thing happened to Theranos...time will tell whether Tesla is a Theranos or a Waymo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Personally I wish Elon would focus on The Boring Company and SpaceX. Tesla just isn't going to matter that much in the long run, it's never going to solve our transportation problems in the way TBC can.

I'd rather see 500,000 new homes in (or within 10 minutes of) San Francisco and cars just won't make that possible.

<comment><USER24> Tesla does not exist to solve just transportation issues. It exists to drive down the cost of utility scale battery storage to allow for renewables alone to supply power to grids.

<comment><USER27> You're entirely right, but he's taken the long path to get there due to overdesign and it's just eating up too much of his time. The model X was a fiasco and the 3 isn't looking much better. He's solving too many minor design issues and not shipping enough cars.

<comment><USER24> It's my understanding that the Model 3 ramp is the fastest cold ramp in auto production history. "Not looking much better" doesn't describe the situation.

<comment><USER25> Considering the QC on the Model 3 has been extremely subpar, being the "fastest cold ramp in auto production history" really just makes Tesla look like the prime example of why you don't do a fast cold ramp.

If Musk had been willing to wait one more year to begin commercial production, the Model 3 could have been _amazing_. Instead, it's a 90s era Kia with a body and a better-looking body.

<comment><USER24> Besides fit and finish, multiple sources have showered praise on the quality of the skateboard (battery, power components, motor, suspension, etc). Fit and finish will improve, and major issues can be corrected in the field post delivery.

Tesla didn't have a year to wait. That's why you sell to fanatics and those passionate first. Early adopters are more forgiving. I'll worry if quality isn't high after the preorders are cleared out.

<comment><USER25> Fit and finish are the hardest parts of the process to improve. The skateboard is generally machined and put together by heavily automated/standardized processes. Fit and finish can be automated, but the final quality control steps are done by hand.

Fit and finish is also the most important elements to most buyers. Nobody cares if the skateboard has oodles of praise if the dashboard panels are misaligned and the window makes a squeaking noise and Bob next door has a much cheaper car with a much nicer interior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I will never understand why people care so much about execs. It's not like they are the ones actually building and testing stuff or developing the new technology.

<comment><USER29> Investors care because exec's have inside information and a mass exit is a bad sign.

In the case of individuals it's mostly just noise, but investing is often trying to read tea leaves slightly better than the next guy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> [http://archive.is/03Zon](http://archive.is/03Zon), though there isn't much there.

</comment><comment><USER31> When you work for very intelligent and driven people, they tend to be disgusted with incompetence or in my case lack of drive, which is the same thing, I noticed. It is completely counter to what they are. This happened to me when I did not have the same passion as one of my supervisors (as a remote contractor working for other clients as well) and did not want to put the same level of care/hours and extremism as this person had. The intelligence part was debatable but he has his skills etc but I know he was certainly obsessed with moving forward as fast as possible and was a standout in his company because of it. You cannot blame him for his drive as in the end it brings results and its who he is from the core. But of course, I disliked him and still do. Regardless, so what. He still is doing well I'm sure. Elon is probably the most amazing human being to ever have lived in terms of intellect/drive/passion/ability etc that I've heard maybe besides Ghengis Khan so of course he is going to be so much more like that to absolutely repel others not inline with his pace and vision. He could be no other way.

<comment><USER32> What evidence can you provide that Elon is highly intelligent and skilled?

Really appears to have quite mediocre ability to me. Has focused on some quite interesting problems, but mostly his ability seems like PR/marketing.

<comment><USER33> Cofounded PayPal...started a reusable rocket company in SpaceX. Brought electric cars to the mainstream with Tesla...was in a PhD physics program at Stanford and dropped out.

Like, those results don't qualify to you as someone who is intelligent and skilled?

<comment><USER32> Not "most amazing human being to ever have lived" as the parent poster suggested, no.

I guess this isn't the place to suggest it, but really in success like PayPal there is a large element of luck at play. He maybe reasonably smart, but the way some people treat him like the most amazing person who has ever lived is ridiculous.

<comment><USER34> sure "most amazing" is debatable

but that's not what you said. You said he is mediocre. What made you say he is mediocre?

<comment><USER32> Hyperloop?

I don't see this (or any of his other ideas) as coming from someone with an abnormal level of intelligence.

He may have the ability to hire people who can execute well on ideas (though I also think that Tesla's achievement are over-hyped). He may have good business sense, and the ability to raise money. But I don't see him as having an amazing intellect... so I'd be interested in evidence that shows that...

<comment><USER34> Nice!

So you look at Elon's entire history of ideas, and the one thing that caught your eye first was Hyperloop?

Why did you name the Hyperloop? Is Elon working on a Hyperloop company?

Those things you mentioned "hire people who execute well on ideas", "good business sense", "ability to raise money". Those are medicore skills?

We don't know each other in person, but from online-chatting with you, you sound like you have good intelligence. Can you do any of those?

<comment><USER32> Hyperloop is a mediocre (well, actually bad) idea. It indicates that Elon is not some genius level engineer.

I think you underestimate the degree to which luck plays a role in the development of companies.

<comment><USER29> Hyperloop as presented is a good idea, but perhaps not great idea.

High vacuums are expencive to maintain and take longer to achieve after a leak, but would allow for faster speeds. They also force maglev or something like it to achieve those speeds which is expensive. It also forces you to carry an indecent air supply, and cooling becomes a significant issue.

At STP you just have a normal train which is limited to a few hundred miles an hour.

Between those extremes you need to deal with some air but you can compress it for passengers. Further, you can quickly pump down the air pressure using fewer pumps. You can fly / use ground effect avoiding the mag lev issues.

Heat is really the largest issue, compressing air heats it as does friction, and your passengers / equipment also generate heat. So, you would want the air kept at very low temperates.

Why not just use nag lev? You get faster speeds and as strange as it sounds lower cost per mile of track.

TLDR; Lots of useful trade offs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> the departure of one pretty low level executive makes valid news now?</comment>


Color Psychology: Guide for Marketers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nickkolenda.com/color-psychology/ <comment><USER2> This is fantastic. So many sites get the basics wrong. It drives me nuts to see eg food delivery aggregator sites that use a primarily blue color scheme.

It's also worth noting that the color meanings described are Western and can be wildly different for Asian markets: [http://www.illuminantpartners.com/2011/01/17/color/](http://www.illuminantpartners.com/2011/01/17/color/)

I once ran a multicountry eCommerce network and the Chinese partner (alone out of 30+ other countries) insisted the site background for their portal be changed from white to black for cultural reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the kind words. And I hear ya about the cultural aspect. When I started writing the article, I planned to incorporate an in-depth look into the cultural differences. But it was way too overwhelming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I rarely sign up for things; I threw a spare-spare email account at the page this time. This is the special URL I got back, data-URI-obfuscated so the plaintext doesn't get indexed (I don't want to be mean :P):

data:text/plain;base64,aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uaWNra29sZW5kYS5jb20vdGhlLW1lbWJlcnMtYXJlYS8K

(Keyboard shortcuts FTW: select+copy the above, CTRL+T, CTRL+V, click on webpage to focus, CTRL+A, CTRL+C, Alt+D, CTRL+V, Enter.)

Treat it as incentive to subscribe, perhaps. ^^

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a lot of info, would appreciate if someone can make a TL;DR gist of the good stuff

<comment><USER5> From the own article:

 _" I summarized all of my findings in the following table (you can click the image to enlarge it). Next time you need to choose a color, you can use the chart below to guide your decision."_

[http://www.nickkolenda.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/full-c...](http://www.nickkolenda.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/full-color-table2.png)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I want to organise a conference and I have some questions - <AUTHOR>

This is mainly directed at people who have been involved in the organisation of a tech conference before, but I am open to anyone's opinions on these things:
1. Are/how are speakers usually compensated? I have no idea if or how or how much compensation is normally given to speakers. Also, are all speakers compensated the same? Is this negotiated on a per-speaker basis? Is travel assistance provided?
2. Are at least a few main speakers and sponsors usually organised before the conference is even announced? If so,  is it seen as acceptable to just contact people you know of and say something along the lines of "hey, I really look up to you and your work, would you like to do a talk at my conference about X?" if so, is it normal to suggest a subject?
3. (for past organisers only) What are the things which caught you off guard on the day, or things you didn't think of (or brushed off as minor details) which turned out to be a big deal?
Thanks <comment><USER2> Conferences generally start out small, without compensating any of the speakers and without providing travel assistance.

But, then that really depends on your starting budget, and not providing travel assistance will keep you from getting some speakers.

It also matters if you're trying to make money off the conference, are are just doing it for fun. Obviously, you have to convince people you are going to provide $500 worth of value if you charge $500. If you're charging that much, however, the keynotes probably expect to at least get some travel assistance, if not a cut.

I think cold calling a few potential keynotes isn't a bad thing, especially if you're willing to provide travel assistance. If your not, and depending on who you are contacting, cold calling a completely random "semi-famous" person might not go over well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips, for the sake of this advice the intention is just to start another good regular conference in Australia (there is a serious lack, and the few which do happen are very well received thus far).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't use PayPal to get the registration fee. These kinds of events are very risky for PayPal and they will probably freeze your account. Two previous "horror" stories:

* How PayPal could have killed an independent conference (aralbalkan.com) (109 points, 551 days ago, 65 comments) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2877404>

* PayPal Hates Conferences – Especially OpenCamp (openca.mp) (115 points , 953 days ago, 49 comments ) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1491485>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that, even more reason -not- to use PayPal. I've had some bad experiences myself and know enough people who have to not risk something of this scale for their relative convenience.</comment></comment>


DMCA takedown notice database as source of copyrighted media - <AUTHOR> https://www.lumendatabase.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> I just realized DMCA takedown notices are helpfully collected by a third party (Lumen). They have a nice search engine and everything so you'll be sure to find what you're looking for.

Wait, is this ironic?

No, it's just unintentionally hilarious. Damn you Alanis Morrisset. An entire generation misuses that term because of you.</comment>


Vote: How to Detect the Social Sites Your Visitors Use - <AUTHOR> http://azarask.in/blog/post/socialhistoryjs/

<comment><USER2> A very neat hack. Now it could be used for other purposes, for example, I could ignore social sites and look at other major sites (e.g. I could see who goes to CNN.com vs. FoxNews.com). Or a company could see which of its competitors a visitor has visited.

Also, it would probably be possible to recurse on a site and figure out what pages they are visiting. For example, suppose a top-level detect shows that I visit reddit.com, the system could then load up a reddit specific page and discover that I also visit reddit.com/r/funny. I would imagine that for some sites that could be very revealing.

</comment><comment><USER3> wow, that's pretty clever. It uses CSS link-coloring to figure out if you've visited various sites.

I didn't realize that works.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a very active social bookmark user I don't need 'help' bookmarking your site, I already have browser plugins, toolbar links and plenty if incentive to bookmark if I find your article/site/page useful.

<comment><USER5> Most people are lazy though, and if you can get a few votes from the lazy/indifferent, then you are more likely to end up on the front page (and get all that ad revenue or whatever).

That said, I've gotten to the front page of delicious and reddit _without_ stupid tricks like this. I just wrote an article that people liked. (What a concept.) I don't have ads either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very cool. I was thinking this would be some type of cookie hack. This is pretty clever tho.

I'm not positive on the overhead for this. Loading a couple of links in an iframe shouldn't be too expensive.

But if it were a problem you could easily create a solution to store these settings in a cookie, so the iframe would only be loaded once.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's a great find, but a huge security hole. The browsers have got to patch it, even if it breaks some CSS functionality.

<comment><USER8> Very true. There is a a lot of potential for abuse of this kind of thing.

I heard about this technique a while back in a presentation about javascript malware: [http://www.spydynamics.com/spilabs/education/presentations/J...](http://www.spydynamics.com/spilabs/education/presentations/Javascript_malware.pdf)

.. there's a whole section on stealing browser history and how to figure out a user's search history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That is pretty awesome. I was just about to write the social bookmarking code for my new blog engine... this is excellent.

</comment><comment><USER10> I was at a web 2.0 presentation couple weeks ago and there was a company presenting their product, which turned out to be essentially a social- bookmarking-aggregator. What's next? An aggregator for that as well?

</comment><comment><USER11> Or: How to freak your visitors out</comment>