A Postmodern Crime at TED2009 - <AUTHOR> http://duncandavidson.com/2009/02/a-postmodern-crime-at-ted2009.html

<comment><USER2> Perhaps this was the same crazy guy who spat on Michael Arrington recently.

I think we have a rogue entrepreneur running around, driven mad by trying to get his product off the ground.

<comment><USER3> The desperation of some entrepreneurs is actually quite scary (especially now), and when it's mixed with transparent access to the gatekeepers and power players — it seems only a matter of time before an wantra/entrepreneur takes rejection and/or failure out on someone else.

<comment><USER4> Wow, sounds like a scary horror movie.

"Is your family protected? Maybe someone close to you is an entrepreneur ready to burst. Concerned parents should avoid letting kids play in the vicinity of start-ups and other gang related entrepreneurial areas, such as Santa Clara"

<comment><USER3> How many delusional entrepreneurs have you met? How many have you met that have poured their life savings and dreams into an idea? I've met a quite a few in the few years I've been doing this, and sometimes the stress will make a person break. Entrepreneurs with big exists have been glamorized in the media like rock stars, and therefore startups (and the dream) have become popularized. Maybe John Lennon can write the soundtrack to the entrepreneurs worse nightmare.

While I wish I could agree with your mockery about this, I think you're undermining very real threats that sadly exists in this day and age. It's even scarier when you consider location-aware, real-time social services... It won't surprise me if you see more of this behavior as the economic squeeze unfolds.

Not trying to sound like a CNN report, just saying there are valid reasons for concern and caution.

<comment><USER4> Sorry man, it wasn't my intention to ridicule a valid concern about people who get stressed out beyond imagination.

I think there is reason for entrepreneurial people to be more open about the negative effects of the emotional roller coaster that starting a business is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Crime is an inevitable result of division and exclusivity through monetary means.

In this case, TED is keeping knowledge exclusive. It's a shame really. Why don't they just live broadcast the presentations to the world?

With all their presenations and lectures on benevolence and making the world a better place, why don't they share the content with the world immediately? How much better would the world be if they had access to the information at TED? There's a lot of good stuff there, why hoard it all for the intellectual and wealthy elites who are invited and can afford it?

<comment><USER6> No one would go if it was all freely broadcast. If no one went it wouldn't be an event. If it wasn't an event there would be nothing to freely broadcast.

Their putting hundreds of lectures up for free online is already a great deal, I don't see a need to complain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Duncan had to make a quick decision and I'm glad to learn that is doing fine now. However, I can't help but think that giving up the badge may have led to the attacker's arrest, if he ever attempted to enter TED with it. I think I would have given up my badge for that reason alone.

<comment><USER8> But you see that is the very thing Duncan thought of in retrospect. It's easy for any of us to say we would have done this or that, but until you are actually placed in a like situation you have no idea what you would actually do.

As always, hindsight is 20/20.

<comment><USER7> Absolutely. He did the right thing at the moment.

<comment><USER9> Well, he did _a_ right thing at the moment. His instinctive decision was completely understandable, and fortunately he read the situation correctly: The guy was obviously nuts, but not murderously nuts.

It could, however, have been different. The guy could have killed him. Crazy people should not be underestimated. Or the guy could have kneecapped him or dislocated his shoulder, sent him into PT or even surgery. Even losing a tooth wouldn't be worthwhile over a TED badge, for all the reasons which Davidson now understands in retrospect.

And there _is_ something you can do about these things: instincts can be _trained_. You can _rehearse_ situations, mentally or (better yet) physically, with actors standing in for muggers. And you can helpfully tell others so that they can rehearse and prepare, as Davidson has done. Thanks to him, I have a whole new retinue of tips I might follow:

Don't wear my conference badge outside the conference.

Don't store stuff that I can't afford to lose with my conference badge if that badge cost me thousands of dollars.

Travel in groups when possible, stay in the light, move quickly when approached, yadda yadda yadda. Pack as light as possible. Don't wear shoes that prevent me from running at a decent speed.

Get around to this project: Pack up a decoy wallet to carry around in the city, containing $20, some kind of old expired ID, and a bunch of expired credit cards. When mugged, drop that wallet and run. If that doesn't work, hand over the real wallet and run.

Don't carry _anything_ that you're not willing to hand over in a mugging. Which is to say: Program yourself to understand that it's not worth fighting over your _things_. You may have to struggle (or not -- you kind of have to play it by ear) to avoid being raped or kidnapped or shot or stabbed, but when someone demands a _thing_ the proper default response is to drop it and run. Credit cards can be replaced. Cash can be replaced, even $1000 worth of cash. Expensive cameras can be replaced. Even passports can be replaced. Your body cannot be replaced. And street fighting is not as easy as it looks in the movies.

<comment><USER10> A life of fear is not worth being lived. I don't think all this overhead of "preparing" for those unlikely scenarios is worth it, especially since being in the situation it's likely you'll forget all your "preparation" and you'll screw up anyway.

<comment><USER9> Also a very good point. I don't live a life of fear. I just gaily lose possessions from time to time.

On my second trip to Europe I had my $400 digicam pickpocketed in a touristy Paris metro station [1]. That made me sad, so I decided to stop carrying around $400 digicams in touristy places. On my third trip to Europe I carried a $10 disposable film camera in a day bag that I had gotten for free as a donation gift. The bag was stolen (from _behind the desk at a museum_ , where I had checked it) on the _second day_ of my trip. And I laughed a lot (the most difficult part of the whole thing was convincing the despondent museum staff that I wasn't badly hurt by the loss and didn't want to accept a cash settlement from an obscure but interesting museum) and I had a lot of fun shopping for a new disposable camera and a nice new cheap bag which I use to this day.

\---

[1] Montmartre. Home of some fine pickpocket talent -- back then, at any rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> a friend of mine goes to conferences for free using all sorts of trickery. he finds out the name of guests at hotels by lying to the front desk, he get conference badges and alters them with his name and picture. he sleeps in bathroom stalls and lobby sofas and the like. i don't think he'd every hurt someone---more of the civil disobedience type. it's amazing what he can do in a "wow i'm free" kind of way.

<comment><USER12> Karma is a bitch, I hope he realizes this.

<comment><USER11> wait, are you implying that what he did was wrong? karma-ically i thought he was doing good. spreading knowledge. equal opportunity.

the thief in the submission who threatened violence: now that's a bit much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> James Duncan Davis' description of assault at TED2009 is harrowing, because it could have ended _much_ worse and because it wasn't associated with a particularly risky behavior on his part. One single person rabid enough about getting into TED that he would manhandle and persist in trying to get Davis' TED badge despite vigorous struggle and loud screaming... also makes you aware Davis was at much greater risk if it had been _two_ assailants or a knife/gun weilding one.

Really a shame that common strategies such as walking in groups after dark (always urged at LA conferences I've been to) are important in Long Beach and at "A place where great thinkers and optimists gather." Sure glad his person, wallet & photog gear as well as his TED badge ended up safe. _Not_ pleased that the crazed attacker was not apprehended and may _not_ have learned a lesson from his unsuccessful attack.

<comment><USER14> >Really a shame that common strategies... are important in Long Beach

Long Beach is only a short half-hour drive from downtown LA, and I can't imagine that advice is any different anywhere else. Of course, I'm overly sensitive to this because I'm female and young and everyone around me has hammered in that whole rape scenario before...but that is good advice no matter what.

> ...and at "A place where great thinkers and optimists gather."

Well, you'd never encounter these assaults at most conferences...too many people in too tight of a space. But I can see someone mugging for a TED badge for the access it could provide. Or any other conference, outside of wherever the conference is located.

Let me just finish off with the idea that people should be taking off badges as they exit a conference as well, even if it's only for a short lunch or something. Sometimes I get lazy or convinced I'm going to lose it, but I've come across the realization that lots of people around me treat me differently, or could find out more information about me than I care to let know if I leave the badge on, even partially hidden under a jacket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Somewhat related. Remember reading about a semi-famous blogger being approached at a soccer game or such and being asked 'how their kids' illnesses were'. She didn't know him. She stopped blogging and/or put up a walled garden.

</comment><comment><USER16> Seems like a new nature of crime which is rising. Last was the attack on Michael Arlington.

In this case as speculated it could be for access from a very _normal_ guy, not terrorists not criminals. Is it a indication of losing patience, values and rise of intense rage and i-dont-care attitude among general public?

<comment><USER7> Success is earned, no one is entitled to it. The difference between a "normal" person and a criminal is all in his actions. Maybe the attacker wasn't a habitual criminal but now he is a criminal nevertheless. Those who are willing to work hard and wait for success may have a chance at it. The few who opt for illegal shortcuts are criminals, even when they don't look like ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> _"There were questions in my head as well. Questions like why didn't he want my wallet? Or the camera gear on my back? Who the hell tries to mug somebody for a badge to a conference?"_

Not just any conference, a $6,000 conference...

</comment><comment><USER18> The worrying thing is that most people at the conference are at an email away. Or is it worrying? Somehow I feel better knowing it.

</comment><comment><USER19> _All I know is that he didn't want money. He wanted access. Cash isn't always the most important currency._

</comment><comment><USER20> I sure hate to "blame the victim", but unfortunately, what happened to him can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Each of us must take personal responsibility to keep our wits about us and take the proper steps to protect ourselves _before_ anything happens. By the time OP was accosted, it was too late; he had already made his mistakes.

A TED badge might as well be a bullseye. Just like an expensive bag, electronics, flashy jewelry, or a bulge in a back pocket. Walking alone in a secluded area is never a good idea.

People in urban areas have always known this. Looks like the rest of us have to now. Glad to hear OP is OK. It could have been a lot worse.

<comment><USER21> _what happened to him can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere._

Violent confrontation is more likely to occur in a fringe area: <http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fringe.html>

_Fringe areas are places "in between." And it is here that criminals usually operate. This is where you are most likely to be attacked, mugged or raped.

It isn't until you begin to consciously look for them that you begin to see how many you pass through each day. A fringe area is not inherently dangerous, which is why we don't normally notice them. There is no reason to fear them; it is what lurks there that you need to fear.

Fringe areas are usually places that you pass through on you way to and from the crowd. In the middle of the crowd, there are too many people for the criminal to operate safely. Too far from it, there is nobody for him to attack. At the fringes, there are enough people going through that the criminal can find victims, but not enough to effectively hinder him.

The main thing to remember is any fringe area is transitional. It is a place that we pass through on our way to something else_

Davidson had positioned himself for violent victimization by walking alone in such a fringe area.

 _I was walking back to my hotel, the Hilton, down Ocean Boulevard. It's a 3/4 mile walk. Not a big deal, even with a backpack full of camera gear on my back. It wasn't pleasant on feet that were sore from the day, but not bad. Mostly, I thought of if as a good way to unwind after a very full day.

As I walked under the trees by the civic center, I was grabbed from behind._

Events, such as conferences, provide easy access to victims: <http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fringe.html#muggers>

_Leaving an event/location

Any place that attracts large numbers of people is usually safe. Leaving such a place, however, is often dangerous . It is not uncommon for criminals to position themselves along the walkways to and from such areas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people leaving an establishment will usually head towards the closest parking lot.

It is a simple feat to position oneself along that route in a way where you can successfully mug someone._

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _All I know is that he didn't want money. He wanted access._

Which is why I would tend to sympathize with this crime if it weren't for the dangerous and unpredictable nature of such stunts. The physical nature of the attack makes it repulsive, but I would've cheered it on if it were a "let me into TED or I out <X about you> to your family" type "crime", or infinitely better yet, some sort of subversive and victimless hacking. Access to an event like TED or Davos is worth playing an occasional red card, and a person with such an opportunity is right to take it.

This is definitely a sign of a new era. Although the crude physical nature of the attack is repulsive and damnable, I'm glad to see that a new and flatter shape of society shall soon emerge, because the will is there.

<comment><USER23> So what you're saying is that you'd be okay with using blackmail to get into TED?

<comment><USER22> Threat-of: sure. No harm done. The real criminals who make up 95% of society's leadership ("power elite" if you choose to use incendiary language) do worse on a daily basis. Gate-crashing is small potatoes.

The degree of corruption in modern society is so high that such a "crime" would be a blip on the radar. Of course, if you got caught, you'd still be strung up quite badly, since the upper crust want to keep "the likes of you" out.

The reason it's a good thing to do something like this is that such a "crime" changes the shape of society by force, but by nonviolent force.

Subversive methods such as hacking the guest list or bribing a gatekeeper are a lot better, though. I don't think I could bring myself to blackmail someone, even if I knew I wasn't going to follow through.

Actually following through and ruining the guy's life: No. Not acceptable. Doesn't do any good for anyone.</comment></comment></comment>


Employee Turns Gaming Network Into Private Bitcoin Mine - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/esea/

<comment><USER2> Could this be a source of income for indie game developers? While users play the (free/cheap/torrented) game, the users graphics card spends its spare cycles on mining for the game developers. No obnoxious ads, no paying $60 for a game you only play a few times.

<comment><USER3> Once ASICs become mainstream, GPU mining will no longer be profitable.

<comment><USER2> The Avalon ASIC can perform 68,000 Mhash/s which is ~110x more powerful than a 7970 GPU (at ~600 Mhash/s) at around 3x the cost.

It's obviously better value for an individual to buy an ASIC than a bunch of GPUS, but I think you could still earn a few coins if you've got thousands of gamers with spare GPU cycles.

<comment><USER4> If you can buy one.

The problem with ASICs is that, once they get under the profit curve, they have no other usage. I can very reliably expect a 7970 to be useful for a few years at least. An Avalon, if I manage to get it, may or may not pay for itself before difficulty makes it unprofitable to run. And then it's completely useless.

Lots of hypothesis and conjectures.

<comment><USER3> Could you repurpose them for password cracking?

<comment><USER4> Nope.

FPGAs yes, ASICs no.

They are just machines or iteratively calculating sha-256( sha-256( something ) ) and they are hard-wired to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just wait until WebCL is widely deployed and any webpage could use your GPU to mine bitcoins!

<comment><USER6> I suppose it's better than ads-only. When there are less ads, an ad will become more valuable and fewer need to be shown. Perhaps it'll one day be possible to run without Adblock Plus and not have three flashing 300x300 blocks on your screen at any given time. Also mining keeps a cryptocurrency's network secure. It sounds really good to me ^^

<comment><USER7> Well, it's not so good if you're trying to use laptop on battery power.

Having said that - I wouldn't mind websites charging me automatically fractions of cents for reading their contents

<comment><USER6> Interesting idea, "charging fractions of cents". Usually when people talk about covering the costs, ideas like monthly subscriptions and donations are mentioned, but I haven't heard about very small automatic fees.

Then again, not all content is worth reading. It should be proportional to how long you are on the site, or you should be able to revoke it manually or something. Anyhow, an interesting idea to think about and toy with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> yesterday's discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5636233>

EDIT: wow has wired always been this bad? 16 trackers/ads according to ghostery, 20 according to disconnect

<comment><USER9> As are all sites owned by Conde Nast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is ridiculous, it wasn't an employee it was the CEO, who dropped hints they were doing it all through April. Shouldn't expect better from Wired I guess.

This being a entrepreneur tech site, it looks like there's a market for non- terrible companies providing video game-related software and services to niche multiplayer communities.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this a viable revenue stream for free app developers? Would it ever make it past the Apple review process?

<comment><USER12> Could you imagine the reviews about draining battery life?

<comment><USER11> Absolutely.

I'd be really interesting in seeing if the energy cost is lower than the average long term output. I'd be perfectly fine with leaving my iPhone plugged in all night if it meant it could generate me $x/night, where $x is greater than the electricity hit I get.

<comment><USER13> I'd be surprised if it were worth it. Even with fairly efficient GPU mining rigs it's getting close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Would it be viable to rent a (GPU) cluster for mining? $3700 in 14 days seems doable...

</comment><comment><USER15> If only this option was available more in the gator browser bar heyday.

</comment><comment><USER16> I smell bullshit. Sounds like the company tried it, got caught, and blamed it on a (fictitious?) rogue employee.

<comment><USER17> > In just a couple of weeks, he netted close to BTC30, or about $3,700.

You honestly think the company would risk something like that for such a small amount of money?

<comment><USER16> I think they acknowledged they were willing to risk it by considering it in the first place.

<comment><USER18> That's what I found to be strange too. Why was it ever considered?

<comment><USER19> Customers with a low cost of electricity and a hot GPU could have used it to offset the cost of their subscription. They would not have needed to learn anything about Bitcoin or manage their own financial account.

<comment><USER20> Hmmm, I wonder if you could somehow plot bitcoin mining rates against location and temperature/climate? I wonder if there are people who selectively turn on their mining boxen to use as room heaters, effectively getting the computation (and bitcoins) "for free" since they'd be consuming the power for heating anyway?

<comment><USER18> Thoughts like this are why I love this site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Instead of donating to charity, they should have given it to the gamers who had their computers illegally used. They do not realize the criminal and civil actions that can arise from this.

<comment><USER22> Are you sure there are grounds for a criminal case? When you install and run a piece of software on your computer, you grant it a fairly wide license to run. Very little actual harm was done (I can't think of anything beyond power consumption and perhaps an infinitesimal amount of wear and tear), and certainly much less than a bug that causes the computer to crash. If crashing the user's computer could be grounds for a criminal case if would have very far-reaching consequences.

<comment><USER23> _If crashing the user's computer could be grounds for a criminal case if would have very far-reaching consequences._

It's not "crashing the user's computer". The guy intentionally added hidden functionality to his company's software that he knew would cause an extremely high load on the client. It's the difference between a mistake and deliberate sabotage.

<comment><USER22> I'm aware it didn't crash the computer, it's an analogy.

Also, "sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction". Clearly not what's going on here, and it's this kind of hyperbole I'm arguing against.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple now has more cash than Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/25/apple_earnings_profits_and_cash_embarrass_microsoft.html

<comment><USER2> The link is an interesting comparison of Apple and Microsoft, but I don't understand why cash on hand is very meaningful. Cash isn't terribly profitable, otherwise I as a market player would just keep cash around directly instead of buying apple or microsoft. Too much cash _can_ mean that the company is having a hard time finding valuable things to invest that cash in.

If microsoft wanted to, it could easily raise more cash by issuing more shares (or stopping the dividend as others have pointed out). The cash comparison is thus not meaningful.

That said, the comparison of real revenues and profits is tremendously interesting - Apple is within spitting distance of Microsoft on revenue and has a similar profit margin. The profit margin is what interests me. Microsoft has always enjoyed a bigger profit margin as a software company than as a hardware company. Apple is more of a hybrid, but has still managed to come away with a high profit margin.

<comment><USER3> If Apple didn't have large amounts of cash on hand when Jobs came back, Apple would have died or been swallowed up.

If Sun didn't have massive amounts of cash on hand after the dot com boom, Sun would have died or been swallowed up.

Cash is King. Especially in hard times ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This actually lines up reasonably well with market cap -- Apple is at $85B and Microsoft at $195B. Apple has seen resurgence in growth (75% year over year is pretty kick ass), but they are much more heavily tied to consumers than microsoft so it seems logical that the current economic troubles will hit them harder.

Personally, the only thing I would like more than Apple surpassing Microsoft as the giant computing behemoth is Ubuntu making good on its goal of surpassing Apple in usability/UI.

<comment><USER5> Ubuntu can't surpass Apple until someone figures out how to teach open source developers to create good UIs. Or at least get them to stick to standards.

<comment><USER6> I think a lot of people are confusing "good UIs" with "pretty windows". When it comes to usability and general quality of the UI, Gnome has surpassed dumbed-down OSX UI long time ago, they just don't have pretty windows to win the masses.

I own a Mac and use it daily. I can't stand how poorly everything is made and how limited I am on a Mac compared to Ubuntu/Gnome. A few obvious examples:

\- Non-resizeable windows (only one corner)

\- Non-maximizale windows (the first lesson I learned on OSX - never click on a green "+" button: generally you never know what's going to happen)

\- File open dialog doesn't have a edit field for me to type a file name, so I can't quickly open /etc/whaterver when I need to.

\- Spaces are dysfunctional: applications aren't isolated in their virtual desktops, all mixed up together in a giant Alt+Tab list

\- Finder is a joke: nearly impossible to use without a mouse and its list of limitations is well known

\- Poor support for FTP/SFTP

\- Poor keyboard support (users are unable to assign hot keys they want, generally limited to a pre-defined list), many functions aren't available for keyboard users (cut/paste files, resize/move windows and many more). Hey, I can't even get to a specific top-level menu item from a keyboard. That's something even Windows 3.0 could easily do. Fuck, even most confirmation dialogs on OSX have keyboard disabled: you're forced to use the mouse to pick Yes/No/Cancel. Jesus...

\- Poor window/application management. The concept of "every app can be switched to and everybody shares a menu" doesn't work, and stop pretending that it does. On my Mac I have only Safari running yet my "Alt-Tab" list is HUGE: it includes background-running Audim, Skype, Performance Monitor and Finder - 6 apps total with only one (!) visible window.

\- Mandatory iTunes for everything. Probably the worst application I ever had to deal with on a daily basis.

I could go on and on forever. For instance I've failed to find a working solution that allows me to use Spotlight to pull up links I saved on del.icio.us. Gnome has it built-in.

The main reason I use my Mac is Safari and multi-touch: super-fast browser coupled with finger gestures for zoom, scroll and page flipping is awesome: worth tolerating general dumbness and poor usability of Leopard and apps that are bundled with it.

For prolonged coding sessions I fire up Ubuntu: everything is a keystroke away there. The only drawbacks are slow&buggy Firefox and the pathetic LCD on my Thinkpad.

<comment><USER7> I think that some of these things are a matter of personal preference. And I agree with you on some things and I can see why you think others, but I'd still like to put in an argument about some of the things that you mention, as a member of the Loyal Opposition.

 _Non-resizeable windows (only one corner)_

This is something that I found myself really liking: it makes the windows feel more stable to me. I know that I can move a window by clicking the chrome in an app, and that that's ALL clicking the chrome does, and I know what corner I need to use to resize. Going back to Windows, the windows seemed much clunkier and much less focused for precisely that reason.

 _Non-maximizale windows_

This one seems odd at first, but it fits in with the aesthetic that the window scheme tries to use, namely: the windows are not the entire experience of the computer. It encourages more focus on actually manipulating items between windows when there's no option to stick the window to the sides of the screens. Frankly, I think that Apple ought to ditch the + button entirely, since I don't see a point in maximizing at all. I think that a full screen keyboard shortcut across applications would work much better for when you only need one application at a time. A few apps have it already; I think Apple ought to standardize that.

 _File open dialog doesn't have a edit field for me to type a file name, so I can't quickly open /etc/whaterver when I need to._

That's related to Finder, which I think is absolutely the worst part of the OS. Rumor has it Finder's being replaced in 10.6; we can only hope.

 _Spaces are dysfunctional: applications aren't isolated in their virtual desktops, all mixed up together in a giant Alt+Tab list_

What do you mean? You can set applications either to stick to one desktop, or make it open-ended and move windows where you see fit. Or do you mean that Spaces _lets_ you move applications that are "stuck" to other windows? In which case you're right, but when I used Spaces I found it much easier to deal with when I could quickly navigate around. (I don't see the point of virtual spaces whatsoever, so perhaps my perspective isn't the most useful here.)

 _Finder is a joke: nearly impossible to use without a mouse and its list of limitations is well known_

Agreed. It's better on a laptop, since I find that multitouch makes navigation really simple when you're in the windowpane view (which, by the way, is the single best view that I've found in any OS), but it still needs a lot of fixes.

 _Poor keyboard support (users are unable to assign hot keys they want, generally limited to a pre-defined list), many functions aren't available for keyboard users (cut/paste files, resize/move windows and many more). Hey, I can't even get to a specific top-level menu item from a keyboard. That's something even Windows 3.0 could easily do. Fuck, even most confirmation dialogs on OSX have keyboard disabled: you're forced to use the mouse to pick Yes/No/Cancel. Jesus..._

That's because OS X focuses on using a hybrid of keyboard and mouse. I get where you're coming from, and I think it would be nice to have more focus on keyboard-only out of the box, but there are plug-ins that fix those problems, and I've found the hybrid that Apple encourages to be pretty easy to use.

 _Poor window/application management. The concept of "every app can be switched to and everybody shares a menu" doesn't work, and stop pretending that it does. On my Mac I have only Safari running yet my "Alt-Tab" list is HUGE: it includes background-running Audim, Skype, Performance Monitor and Finder - 6 apps total with only one (!) visible window._

I'm guessing you were using a euphemism, but: what "alt-tab" list? Do you mean cmd-tab? And you're talking about a difference in window philosophy: Linux and Windows tie a single visible process to each window. Apple treats windows and applications differently: windows have their own key command to switch between. I like it a lot more that way. I like that you get a visible list of what's running in the background, and that you can quickly get to whatever process you want with the keyboard. But - as I said - a lot of that is a matter of difference.

 _I could go on and on forever. For instance I've failed to find a working solution that allows me to use Spotlight to pull up links I saved on del.icio.us. Gnome has it built-in._

The fact that Gnome has built-in support for a web application's functioning is indicative of the philosophy that I don't like: built-in support for external systems rather than an attempt to rely entirely on internals. I've never been a fan of del.icio.us, so take that entire opinion as-is. This looks like it works, though: <http://www.ianhenderson.org/delimport.html>

I can't address some of your things - the only coding I do is web-related, and Coda has the best FTP support I can think of, but I'm no expert - but there are different ways to achieve usability. For me, being able to drag a song from iTunes onto another application is an example of great usability, even though it's not a power-user sort of shortcut. It's a casual shortcut, and it makes my day-to-day life a little bit easier. And that's where the gap is between the Linux crew and the Mac crew, and it's one that I doubt will be bridged any time soon. But I think that for either side to dismiss the other as blindsightedness or stupidity is a mistake. Both sides have merits for different users.

<comment><USER6> Wow, great feedback, thanks for sharing. I largely agree with you on almost all accounts, but my point was not "OSX sucks", I was saying that "Gnome/Linux have a great UI too". For instance in Gnome there is a concept of "horizontally maximized window" or "vertically maximized window" (both have super-flexible hot key assignments), so when I am working with an application that suddenly spits out a lot of information in a window (terminal is a prime example) I can quickly maximize it vertically and quickly go back. Moreover, there is a concept of "window groups" that allow me to "merge" several windows into one and flip it when I need to: great of debugger/code windows or HTML/Browser or whatever. My point is that OSX simply won't let you do that.

When I'm talking about "virtual desktop isolation", I mean that under Linux, applications running in different desktops don't mix: Alt-Tab list (or Command/Tab in OSX) is separate for each desktop, and an application running in desktop A cannot open a prompt on desktop B (something I see happen frequently in OSX: Skype may have a contact list in desktop A, but it opens pop-ups on desktop B, same applies to safari and numerous other apps). Under Linux each "space" or "virtual desktop" feels like another computer altogether: I often run up to 5 desktops on Linux with 10-15 apps running in them, while on OSX it quickly becomes a huge mess: sometimes I hear the sound of someone having sent me a message via Skype but I can't find the goddamn window - it can be anywhere and Command-Tab list is useless.

Back to del.icio.us issue: no, Gnome does not have it "built-in" but Gnome has a very rich system of plug-ins for its desktop search feqture. The community is quite active and del.icio.us plug-in is bundled as an option with Gnome itself, along with a huge list of others. This is a prime example of where a commercial body (Apple Inc) can't compete with the crowd. And no, delimport does not work: I've tried (along with 3 or 4 other apps).

I am not bashing OSX, in fact I'm typing this words in it right now, all I'm saying is that when in comes to UI, Linux is not behind at all, in fact I believe it's ahead of everybody else in some aspects of usability. It's hard to beat Apple because of their "whole banana" philosophy: MBP+OSX is a great combination of hardware/software, something that Windows/Linux simply can't do.

<comment><USER7> I love having discussions like this: I like meeting people that I can talk with without having it before a flamefest.

That "window groups" seems really interesting, as does the hor/vert maximization. I don't know if I've ever seen that before. The groups in particular seems really nice: that would almost serve to do away with apps like Coda (which I use to program on the Mac, and which advertises a one- window everything device), at least for the sake of getting things done for cheap.

The virtual desktop isolation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification! I agree: it would be really nice to have an option for completely separating the spaces from one another. Chalk that up as another thing I didn't know Gnome could do.

Sorry my del.icio.us program didn't work. What fails with it? I'm curious, since it advertises indexing directly. You could try importing your bookmarks as Safari bookmarks, then opening them up like that? Though I don't think Spotlight handles bookmarks very well. I know Google Bookmarks get indexed, but handling two bookmarks sites isn't optimal.

<comment><USER8> I'm running Ubuntu/Gnome right now. One killer feature for me is a particular keybinding I have set up for the 'Windows' key. If I hold it down then I can left-click and drag anywhere on a window and it will move with the mouse. If I hold it and middle-click and drag it resizes the window. And if I hold it and right-click then the title-bar context menu pops up right at the mouse pointer. It eliminates seeking or overshooting the titlebar or corners for window manipulation. I love it.

<comment><USER7> That sounds like a nice little feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple doesn't pay a dividend...

<comment><USER10> This brings up something that's been bothering me for a while: how does MS's dividend make anybody want to buy their stock? IIRC, MS pays a $0.11 dividend per $22 share (price as of this morning). I'm not very familiar with things relating to stocks, but that looks like an interest rate of 0.5%. My checking account does better than that, so why would anybody care at all about a dividend that is so low?

<comment><USER11> That's a quarterly dividend, so if you automatically re-invest dividends thats .5% compounded 4x during a year.

If you're investing in stocks, you're usually not thinking that the dividend will be your greatest return. Dividends usually indicate one of two things - 1) the company is healthy and profitable 2) the company has a massive cash pile.

In the case of Microsoft it was both, but primarily the mountain of cash they used to have (>$60bn) that got investors complaining that MS do something with the cash mountain. MS would easily have more cash than Apple if they didn't put in the effort to get rid of it over the past 5 years or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> MS had decent profits for a quarter that saw the slow selling Vista as their 'big thing' (while Apple has the 3G iPhone to sell). Windows 7 will improve on Vista's issues, I don't see MS losing it's place (on top) anytime soon.

Also, why are we praising 'cash on hand', cash is only good when you use it.

<comment><USER5> I don't believe that Windows 7 will really improve on Vista's issues. Mainly because the real problems with Vista are either imaginary (cf. Mojave) or completely out of Microsoft's control (third party applications, drivers).

A fundamental problem with Vista was that switching operating systems is a pain and users don't like to do it. Further, Apple and Linux now have a lot of mind share among the technical trendsetters. For Apple and Linux users, it's not enough to like Apple or Linux, you have to hate Microsoft too.

When Windows 7 comes along, the press will be exactly the same as it was for Vista: Why switch when your programs already work on the old OS? Why won't it run on X or Y type ancient hardware? Etc, etc. And the Apple and Linux fans will make Windows 7 into exactly the same sort of dirty word that Vista is.

Joe Average computer user doesn't choose his next OS based on what he likes, he does it based on what he hears, and that won't be anything good.

<comment><USER7> _Mainly because the real problems with Vista are either imaginary (cf. Mojave)_

This is a bullshit argument, and I'd really love people to stop using it.

Mojave showed that people using Vista for short amounts of time in factory- approve conditions will think that it's "pretty neat." But Vista's always had the "neat" factor about it. Never as much as OS X, but then, not many people get a computer based on "neat" factor, despite what fanboys on both sides say about each other's products.

Where Vista sours is when you use it for a while and notice the little things. Of course, the security windows - even though you can disable them, that's the iconic one for Vista. I've had that security window crash my old computer, too: if your computer is running a lot of stuff, that window sometimes tips the entire thing over.

The little things bottle up. They build up and tip out. I just came across a post yesterday on Tumblr that mentioned one: I'd _never_ actively thought about this feature, I wouldn't have ever thought to diss Vista for it after I got my Mac, but remembering it, it was awful in a small way.

<http://tumblelog.marco.org/56149922>

And when you've only used Windows, stuff like this is acceptable. It's commonplace. There is no alternative. But when you use any other OS, you realize that a lot of things are done much better. Linux has its own problems, namely drivers, but that was enough to make me hate Windows in no time at all. OS X is even worse for that, because it's better on an order of magnitude. And once a bunch of people started using OS X, and Apple started its campaign actively against Vista, people got very curious, and a lot of people starting noticing the things about Vista that pissed them off.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, but I run Linux, Windows, and OS X. Vista isn't worse than XP in any meaningful way (better in a few), and I have never run into any problems using it. OS X is pretty, but there is nothing about it that makes me go "wow!" And Linux is for people that know way too much about computers (like me, unfortunately) and who don't value their time enough (again me, apparently).

I think that Apple can do really wonderful things -- my iPhone is miles ahead of any Windows Mobile phone I've ever owned. On the other hand, the Zune software simply destroys iTunes in usability and prettiness -- the Zune itself is a very nice device.

The link that you referred to talks about Windows XP (2004 should have been a clue) and isn't quite accurate anyway. I think that Tumblr may want to concentrate on reading dialog boxes a little more carefully.

<comment><USER7> Every day that I use OS X I become more infatuated with it. It isn't perfect, but it's as close to as I've come using any computer.

With Vista, I'm out of love the minute I see needless chrome on the windows. The same with the graphical Linux interfaces I've used. There's the first real biggie. The 1px border design from Apple is one that I absolutely love, and it makes every other design I've ever seen look stupid and outdated.

The menu bar up top and the dock makes for the second thing. Both of them are so incredibly utilitarian. You don't get menus cluttering up every window. The fact that every menu usually complies with HIG and has the exact same keyboard shortcuts is another absolute wow gee love situation. It shouldn't be, but it is. I love knowing that CMD-, opens up preferences for every single application. I love being able to find what I want easily, because the menus are so standardized. And the dock made me hate the taskbar, because it makes the taskbar seem so incredibly outdated and useless. OS X doesn't just provide visuals. It provides a visual interface. Things make logical sense with it: they attempt to simulate a real physical interaction. Like the one I mentioned before: when you have a window open, the fact that you can move whatever file that window represents just by moving the window. Or the ability to move things to and from the dock, to use the dock as a storage space. Little things that just make perfect sense.

Vista will _not stop telling me_ to restart my computer. There is no "Fuck you, I'll install when I'm ready* option. It keeps popping up, and it keeps coming up as I'm hitting Enter for something else, and it keeps pissing me off.

The Zune looks pretty, I'll agree. I don't like its scroll mechanism. And what about the Zune software is better than iTunes? I'm not denying you: I've just never used the Zune software, and I love iTunes. I'd be curious as to what the Zune program does better.

<comment><USER13> So get a theme that has a 1px border. I don't really see a problem here.

Everyday I use OSX I become more infuriated with it. The main reason is because it's tied to _one_ hardware manufacturer which makes it kinda useless really especially when that manufacturer doesn't like to give you a whole lot of choice.

Also, here's something interesting too about your favorite OS. There are no less than 20 Application Launchers (replacements for Spotlight). It seems that the dock isn't such a great replacement for the Start menu / task bar combo. See here:

<http://www.usingmac.com/2008/10/25/mac-application-launchers>

Besides the fact that it's fucking impossible to find anything in the Dock if you have hundreds of programs installed, you can't easily see what's running since the only indicator is a very small blue dot.

This is why you simply can't use it to switch programs and I bet you don't. You probably use Expose. Well, I don't know about you, but when I'm mousing around a lot it takes me a second to switch back into keyboard mode, especially if the keyboard shortcut is something stupid like F10, F11 or F12. On Windows all I do is click on the taskbar item for the program I want. It's much, much quicker.

The dock is simply a marketing gimmick.

Also, if Vista continually tells you to restart, you're doing it wrong. I have a Vista box in my living room which has an uptime of about 3 months now since the last reboot. And there is nothing better than Vista Media Center, it kills Front Row in so many ways.

<comment><USER7> _So get a theme that has a 1px border. I don't really see a problem here._

The point is that with Apple, I don't have to worry about themes. It's already set up for me and the experience largely revolves around it.

 _The main reason is because it's tied to _one_ hardware manufacturer which makes it kinda useless really especially when that manufacturer doesn't like to give you a whole lot of choice._

What aren't you given a choice about? It's possible to replace the camera, the keyboard, the mouse, and pretty much any part of the system that you don't want. You can replace any program that you don't like, too. Though it goes without saying that I like Apple's restrictive hardware, because it means that things work without fiddling.

 _Also, here's something interesting too about your favorite OS. There are no less than 20 Application Launchers (replacements for Spotlight). It seems that the dock isn't such a great replacement for the Start menu / task bar combo. See here:_

A lot of them were created before Leopard, in which Spotlight was sped up immensely. I haven't needed anything beyond Spotlight since 10.5, which was when I began using a Mac as my main computer. The only exception to that is Quicksilver, which is more of a function fiddler than it is an app launcher.

 _Besides the fact that it's fucking impossible to find anything in the Dock if you have hundreds of programs installed, you can't easily see what's running since the only indicator is a very small blue dot._

That's why you don't put every app you have on the dock. It's a storage place for apps that you use often. I actually don't keep any programs on the dock: I only use it to show currently running apps. And the blue dot is pretty high contrast even when the dock is tiny.

 _This is why you simply can't use it to switch programs and I bet you don't. You probably use Expose. Well, I don't know about you, but when I'm mousing around a lot it takes me a second to switch back into keyboard mode, especially if the keyboard shortcut is something stupid like F10, F11 or F12. On Windows all I do is click on the taskbar item for the program I want. It's much, much quicker._

No, because using the mouse for something like app switching is slow and pointless. I use CMD-tab, followed by CMD-` to select the window. It's much, much quicker. And it's faster than alt-tab on Windows, especially when I have a ton of windows open, because selecting the app rather than the window means I can get immediately to what I want. If I've got 15 Quicktime windows open and 1 Safari window open, I can tab over quickly. I also have Exposé turned on to the bottom corner of my window, so it takes a single flick to reveal all my windows. That's another really nice built-in Mac feature: corner commands.

 _The dock is simply a marketing gimmick._

Hardly. The dock is the center of Apple's user experience, as I said. It's been that way since it came out with the first version of OS X. It's a storage spot, a navigation tool, and a launcher. Stacks in particular is a well-loved addition.

 _Also, if Vista continually tells you to restart, you're doing it wrong. I have a Vista box in my living room which has an uptime of about 3 months now since the last reboot._

Every time it installs an update, it constantly prompts a restart. That's a pain in the ass.

 _And there is nothing better than Vista Media Center, it kills Front Row in so many ways._

The last time you provoked an argument, I asked you what makes this the case. You never responded to me. So, tell me now?

Though I recall last time your telling me you weren't going to have this argument any more. Why not let's drop this lengthy argument before we begin? The conversations I've had with you have not been pleasant.

<comment><USER13> "The last time you provoked an argument..."

Gee, nothing like making personal attacks when you've got nothing else to say. Please tell me, when did I make this personal? I didn't...

Anyway, to answer you question...what does Vista Media Center have that Apple Front Row doesn't? Well for one, CableCARD. Secondly, more hardware options, as usual. For instance, a Gyration remote (the best there is, IMO).

Please see this list of many other things, this person says it better than I have time for:

[http://cybernetnews.com/2008/05/12/cybernotes-apple-front- ro...](http://cybernetnews.com/2008/05/12/cybernotes-apple-front-row-vs- windows-media-center/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you were SJ, what would you buy with it?

Buying back shares is a waste at this time and SJ doesn't like buybacks. Some people see Apple buying Adobe. ADBE's market cap is around $12B but to me a big negative is the amount of overlap between their software suites... lots of value will be wasted but on the other hand, Apple would have a virtual monopoly on digital content production. If I were SJ, I'd go after Yahoo. It's now around $17B and would offer Apple more room to grow and would also give Google some things to think about as they're now going after Apple's mobile slice.

<comment><USER15> What would Apple _do_ with Yahoo? Yahoo now is where AOL was in the '90s, symbolic of everything that's cheesy and lame about the Internets. The last thing super-cool Air-toting Apple customers want is to be associated with it.

If Apple buys anyone it should be Sun (or what's left of SGI).

<comment><USER14> One word: Distribution.

<comment><USER15> Of what?

<comment><USER14> Music, movies, webapps, everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Dividends are useful to differentiate cash-rich and otherwise undistinguished stock offerings.

Great mounds of cash allow for some stability and for judicious bargain shopping and for product upgrades during downturns; for a longer horizon.

</comment><comment><USER17> Once a $500B market cap giant, microsoft is now below $200B

Glory days in the past

<comment><USER18> Over evaluated stock during the tech bubble is not my definition of "glory days in the past".

Microsoft have more competitors now but is also stronger than ever.</comment></comment>


SaaS is ripe for disruption - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/product-people/saas-is-ripe-for-disruption-56429324a0ed#.kiorytxl8 <comment><USER2> You don't quite answer your own question, but I enjoyed the article. As someone who is trying to push forward his single-man business, I appreciate this kind of articles which do propose some opportunities that we can choose to pursuit.

I'm curious about pay once web apps, though. I've thought about that myself, as I'm basically building consumer software and consumers are more reluctant to use subscription based software, but I'm curious how companies can guarantee their long term existance? For instance, if said company stops being profitable, it will eventually have to close doors and shut down their servers. What will happen to their users? For desktop apps, this is much less relevant.. Any thoughts?

<comment><USER3> I think you've hit on that once a company goes under, basically you're stuck with whatever lock-in at the time.

Sure a SaaS could evaporate tomorrow, but even desktop apps get old and start breaking within a year or two, faster if it's using some tech that Apple is trying to get rid of.

At this point, it's funny because the business has the leverage, even though it's going under. I guess you can sell the code / rights, or open source...

To be fair, this problem is everywhere. Open source projects are abandoned all the time.</comment></comment>


Apple's Planned Obsolescence Schedule - <AUTHOR> http://tidbits.com/article/12599

<comment><USER2> It's so depressing to me that I can run Windows on a modern Mac but not HyperCard stacks. It's actually forced me to hold on to legacy Macs just so I can see the work I did as little as ten years ago (as in the case of my PageMaker docs -- a program I adored for way too long).</comment>


T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless Shielded from NSA Sweep  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578543800240266368.html

<comment><AUTHOR> TechCrunch took this article, excerpted it badly, and gave it a misleading headline -- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5882123](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5882123)

</comment><comment><USER2> "Available to WSJ.com Subscribers"

<comment><USER3> Too bad I'm such a cheapskate, as I refuse to pay for such content, but viewing the source gives some idea of what it's about.

I find it ludicrous that the spies won't gather data from foreign owned TelComs when it's been common knowledge that all foreign communications in & out of the USA have been under scrutiny for years now.

[http://aapd0418.com/2013/06/13/bush-lets-u-s-spy-on- callers-...](http://aapd0418.com/2013/06/13/bush-lets-u-s-spy-on-callers- without-courts/)

[http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Timeline-of- revel...](http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Timeline-of-revelations- about-US-domestic-spying-4588457.php)

Doesn't anyone remember the SCOTUS granting immunity to Verizon et al for their participation in the unconstitutional domestic surveillance program?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-telecom- immunit...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-telecom-immunity- ruling-idUSTRE7BS0Y720111229)

<comment><USER4> SCOTUS didn't grant immunity. They essentially held there was a valid state secrets privilege claim by the government, and thus, the plaintiff would not be able to actually prove their case.

This is very different.

Now, the decision was still bullshit, but for a very different reason :)

<comment><USER3> Ah, my bad for parroting headlines.

Whatever happened, it's a convoluted mess better suited to Communist East Germany.

Thanks for the clarification.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hackers breached 3 US antivirus companies, researchers reveal - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/05/hackers-breached-3-us-antivirus-companies-researchers-reveal/ <comment><USER2> Haha, is this what it takes to get a fearmongering article into arstechnica? A Wix website and an IDA screenshot that shows.. nothing at all?

Like, that IDA view is literally what you get when you open IDA on a binary or compressed file and pretend it's x86 assembly. Empty functions list and a navigation bar that is showing all white data.

<comment><USER3> You should try and write a fearmongering article and see if it makes it in!

Seriously though, it's not like they ran the story solely because of a screenshot. Other things they likely considered (being a reputable news source [1]) would include the source of the information and historical accuracy of that source, additional source material that was not fit for publication (confidentiality, irrelevent beyond proving accuracy of information, etc.), and other independent verification (reaching out to potential affected companies, communication with the sellers, viewing the advertisement for the material, etc.).

On top of that, writing the article in this way allows for expansion and updates as more information is confirmed or comes to light.

Welcome to how reputable news companies work. They generally don't make stuff up on the spot based on a screenshot.

[1][https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ars- technica/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ars-technica/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anyone know which three us antivirus companies they hacked?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this article doesn't say a whole lot without that information...

<comment><USER6> The article is fine. If you read it you would have discovered that the hackers claim to be selling access to three US AV companies. This is a group of attackers that has a history of selling access to large organizations, so there's a good chance that what they are offering is real. It doesn't sound like the hackers have revealed the names of the companies. If they did reveal the names, the value of what they are selling would be significantly lower.

<comment><USER7> > The article is fine. If you read it you would have discovered that...

> It doesn't sound like the hackers have revealed the names of the companies.

It sounds like the article isn't clearly stating that the hackers haven't revealed the names of the companies, rather requires intuition of the reader to figure out. IMO the journalist should be more clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, they are claiming to have done so but did not reveal which ones?

The spy in me wonders if this is fake to discourage campaigns to use AV software in the coming elections. The non-spy just worries about my company's AV software.

</comment><comment><USER9> It'd be nice to know which ones, so I can push back more effectively if anyone tries to force us to use something besides the builtin Windows AV on our development workstations.

Running Visual Studio or building npm/bower-based web projects on a machine that has one or, god help you, two or three of these deep-scanning real-time protection clusterflips is like watching paint dry in a monsoon.</comment>


2206225:2017 – McGuire VS Capgemini Final Hearing on Sexual Discrimination - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Cecilia16_/status/1051495695994298370 <comment><AUTHOR> Capgemini is a dumpster fire of sexual discrimination, see also other cases: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3126251/Former- fema...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3126251/Former-female- corporate-star-work-100-hours-week-developed-shingles-male-colleagues-given- preferential-treatment.html)

we need to stand up against these corporate bullies and misogyny. If you are in London tomorrow and able to attend her hearing please do.</comment>


What Happens When Americans Don't Pay a Hospital Bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/08/medical-bill-debt-collection/596914/ <comment><USER2> I realized that what will finally cause this system to change is when everyone stops paying these insane medical bills. Because they can't, and no longer even care about mortgages. I think that day is very near indeed...

</comment><comment><USER3> To fix healthcare, we need to gut the health insurance industry like a fish.

</comment><comment><USER4> One part of the article that I noticed particularly was the line about "some hospitals and doctors offices sell their debt to debt buyers, who pay pennies for each dollar owed...".

There's an organization called RIP Medical Debt that takes donations, uses the money to buy medical debt, then forgives the debt, which (should) clear any credit rating problems. John Oliver even covered the issue on one of his programs, and mentioned RIP Medical Debt. His program then donated enough money to clear millions of dollars in medical debt.

<comment><USER5> After seeing this comment and the reference to RIP Medical Debt, I got curious and was Googling around about this and came across this article: [https://blog.credit.com/2016/06/john-oliver-follow- up-146870...](https://blog.credit.com/2016/06/john-oliver-follow-up-146870/)

Looks like there are some questions that still needs to be answered about whether this is necessary and if there are still consequences (like tax) for doing so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it true that in the US that medical bills don't impact your credit if you are making payments -- even $1/month? If so, I don't quite understand why people would go bankrupt from medical bills. Am I misunderstanding somehow?

<comment><USER7> My experience has been that the hospital sets up the monthly payment amount (sometimes with varying plan options). You can't partially pay, and the payment amount is a simple ($total / plan term). Paying $1 isn't really an option.

The last medical bill my family had was something like $3500 and the longest term the hospital offered was 6 months, at $580/mo.

I'm sure they're not all the same, but I could certainly see an unexpected $580/mo being able to cripple a family living paycheck to paycheck.</comment></comment>


Mountain Lion application compatibility - <AUTHOR> http://www.ntinosm.com/blog/2012/07/18/mountain-lion-application-compatibility/

<comment><USER2> Link to actual table:

<http://roaringapps.com/apps:table></comment>


What Is Life? (1944) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://dlab.clemson.edu/11._Erwin_Schrodinger_-_What_is_Life__1944_.pdf <comment><USER2> context: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F)

more:

"A New Physics Theory of Life"

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics- theory-o...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of- the-origin-of-life-20140122)

HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103215)

"An MIT physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties."

 _" Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place. In Schrödinger's day, they could solve the equations of thermodynamics only for closed systems in equilibrium. In the 1960s, the Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine made progress on predicting the behavior of open systems weakly driven by external energy sources (for which he won the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry). But the behavior of systems that are far from equilibrium, which are connected to the outside environment and strongly driven by external sources of energy, could not be predicted."_

or: [http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life- in-...](http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life-in-physics)

<comment><USER3> I've long thought "life is inevitable". Why? In a universe where every possibility plays out, some outcomes are bound to lead to life. [Diverse] Chaos => universal turing machines occurring somewhere + random codes being executed + sufficient computation => life.

I'd love to see these notions made rigorous. Somehow they appear obvious to me.

Order (i.e. life) is necessary to reach the ultimate unordered state (i.e. a cosmic soup of energy)? Now that's a pretty non-trivial statement.

Video by the author: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4)

<comment><USER4> This is a beautiful, romantic view, though I don't see how it can me made all that physically rigorous interpretation.

Here are some thoughts on the philosophy of what you say.

> Life is inevitable

On one level, this is a tautology: the physics of the universe are such that life has formed therefore life occurs with 100% frequency in all known universes.

On a different level, it's not too hard to build "physics" that are too trivial to even encode Peano Arithmetic much less "life" as we would identify it. Thus life isn't obviously inevitable in all physical models of the universe, so we can take the emergence of life as an "experimental constraint".

On a personal level, I too feel the importance of life. However, I don't think any of that special feeling is compromised by taking life to not be somehow "universally fundamental" in some way.

> Life is a fractal

The mathematician in me kind of flinches at this a bit. :p Fractals are super cool though! But, heck, the eastern coast of Cambodia exhibits fractal-like qualities too. As do coupled-pendulum setups and the x86 execution pipeline.

This line of thinking feels to me like putting The Mysterious into some spiritually special place in our thinking.

For myself, when I think something is "obviously true" I usually find that I just don't know enough to appreciate the intricacy of what's really going on. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Anyway, just some 2 cents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a book full of good questions and poor answers.

Or, as the biologist Max Perutz more scathingly put it, "Sadly, a close study of [Schrodinger's] book and of the related literature has shown me that what was true in his book was not original, and most of what was original was known not to be true even when the book was written."

<comment><USER6> I think HN should have a rule that no one makes a general critique without including some specifics.

<comment><USER7> Here's a reference I just found without any effort, from an occurrence of the above quote in Freeman Dyson's Origins of Life.

GP comment does not deserve to be downvoted: a solid searchable reference was provided.

[https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Fqsd-v4LcwC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3...](https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Fqsd-v4LcwC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=close+study+of+%5BSchrodinger%27s%5D+book+and+of+the+related+literature+has+shown+me+that+what+was+true+in+his+book+was+not+original,+and+most+of+what+was+original+was+known+not+to+be+true+even+when+the+book+was+written."&source=bl&ots=yorJ8bz9HX&sig=zWo6OazrFQPgPEQEJo8J3y7iz2Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsj7Cbo63WAhWKKsAKHTaXB40Q6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=close%20study%20of%20%5BSchrodinger's%5D%20book%20and%20of%20the%20related%20literature%20has%20shown%20me%20that%20what%20was%20true%20in%20his%20book%20was%20not%20original%2C%20and%20most%20of%20what%20was%20original%20was%20known%20not%20to%20be%20true%20even%20when%20the%20book%20was%20written.%22&f=false)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. He argues his way to this principle of genetics:

> And the gene is most certainly not just a homogeneous drop of liquid. It is > probably a large protein molecule, in which every atom, every radical, every > heterocyclic ring plays an individual role, more or less different from that > played by any of the other similar atoms, radicals, or rings.

He seems not to have known of (or at least does not cite) some of the points listed in the Wiki summary of the history of DNA research[1] which would have been extant in 1944. Watson/Crick/Franklin published in 1953, and Schrödinger (d. 1961) must have been delighted.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research)

</comment><comment><USER9> Most of this book should be read from a historical point of view. It is also great to read thoughts written by the scientific minds of the 20th century, whose thought processes often went much deeper than today's scientists, trapped in a miscalibrated incentive system can go.

However, if you read just a little of "What is Life?", read chapter VI on Schrödingers idea how living matter is related to negative entropy / information. This is said to contain remarkable thoughts until today, and I met two professors in computational biology by now who told me how this chapter inspired them at the beginning of their career.

To those who enjoyed this one I strongly recommend Heisenbergs "Der Teil und das Ganze".

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a brilliant book, clear, succinct and insightful. Part of the canon on our understanding of what life is / what it means to be animate instead of inanimate.

Other books on the intangible quality of being alive:

\- At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman

\- The Timeless Way of Building by Christopher Alexander

\- Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter

</comment><comment><USER11> Slight tangent. Some of the comments here made me think of a great video on entropy vs. complexity by minutephysics:

[https://youtu.be/MTFY0H4EZx4](https://youtu.be/MTFY0H4EZx4)

It's actually part 3 of 5 from a short miniseries with Sean Carroll. I recommend the whole thing if you are interested, it is quite well done.

<comment><USER12> Wow! That's a great series. Thanks for sharing it. It really changed how I view the world.

<comment><USER11> My pleasure!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Data processing inequality would suggest a breakdown in complex structure as entropy increases.</comment>


The forgotten story of Carlos Kaiser, football's greatest conman - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/apr/26/the-forgotten-story-of-carlos-kaiser-footballs-greatest-conman <comment><AUTHOR> Here's another article on Carlos Kaiser - [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soccers-ultimate- con-m...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soccers-ultimate-con-man-was- a-superstar-who-couldnt-play-the-game)

> Kaiser continued to bounce around from team to team until the early '90s, > before finally hanging up his gently-worn cleats. Was he ashamed of his > ruse? "I do not regret anything," he told Globo. "Clubs already deceive so > many players, someone had to be the avenger."</comment>


Ask HN: Why does Slack connect to so many trackers? - <AUTHOR> I installed Slack for the first time today, and was shocked how many trackers it tried to connect to: - convertro - yahoo - atdmt - quantserve - facebook - doubleclick - google analytics - google ad services - bizographics<p>I wonder how many people using Slack realize that the tracking situation is probably even worse than using GChat/FB messenger. <comment><USER2> I can't say exactly why, but one typical reason is to track roi of their ads on the different networks that you cited. So, in practice (well, assuming my theory is correct), they're giving your "presence" data to so many companies just to know if you originally came from one of their ads. And it's not just Slack. I hope gdpr, if anything, will start cleaning some of this madness.

Edit: typos

<comment><USER3> > I hope gdpr, if anything, will start cleaning some of this madness.

It won't. It will just send the trackers underground, obfuscated by technical loopholes and legalese, i.e. tracking data will be collected on the client, bundled at the first-party server, and then then sprayed from the backend to third party analytics companies without any trail visible to the user.

<comment><USER4> Isn't that illegal under GDPR? It's also easy to catch by targeting the major ad companies with an 'undercover sting' company. They'd get away with it for all of one day probably.</comment></comment></comment>


Support setting up solar power lights for rural villages - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/light-up-the-lives-of-50-families-for-christmas/x/11090378#/ <comment><USER2> This campaign will bring up more awareness and more impact. LOVE IT! share and donate everyone!!

</comment><comment><USER3> Highly recommended. Awesome campaign!</comment>


How to send a personal email - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/how-to-send-a-p.html <comment><USER2> I'm trying to figure out who the target audience is for this blog post.

I get the feeling it's "people who email Seth Godin"...

<comment><USER3> Like almost all of his other posts, this is directed towards marketers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No smugness intended.

This just has to be mentionned:

My Seth Godin decline letter. Thoughts?, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=398293>

<comment><USER5> Funny, that's exactly the article I was thinking about as I read this.

The impersonal auto-response link above pretty badly contradicts the advice given here. I wonder if Seth Godin wrote the current post as "lessons learned" or just didn't feel like following his own best practices. (Physician, heal thyself.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did Seth just realize he wasn't the only one receiving all those personal emails directly from Barack Obama?

</comment><comment><USER7> Not necessarily on topic, but: when sending personal emails (not even business-personal emails, but actual personal emails between friends&family) do you include a salutation?

<comment><USER8> Dear Noah,

No.

Thanks,

Kirubakaran.

PS: Hope you had a merry Christmas or a happy New Year or both. If not, hang in there buddy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > "5. Don't send HTML or pictures. Personal email doesn't, why are you?"

uh. shouldn't you just do what you normally do? just like the "keep your salutation normal and un-merged" rules?

i personally prefer text only emails, though attachments are fine. i appreciate a client that permits me to "click on" htp://... to automatically see the page rather than copy paste (pine, gmail).

when i set up meetings with people i've never met in person before i often include a picture of myself. i sprinkle that same picture around the internet. maybe interacting with strangers isn't personal, but then the whole point of the picture is to make things more open, friendly and personable.

</comment><comment><USER10> Both business and personal emails are read by people, not machines, so write in the same style. Just keep LOL & C U L8r 4 SMS.

</comment><comment><USER11> i don't agree with him</comment>


1/3200 chance someone will be hit by a satellite next week - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2011-09-17/nasa-satellite-debris/50439656/1

<comment><USER2> What percentage of the earth is occupied by a human?

51,006,560,000,000 square meters landmass on earth.

about 6 billion humans. So they take up about

6,000,000,000 square meters.

or .00118 percent of the earth. So roughly a 1 in 100000 chance of a single piece hitting a person. I'm too drunk to know if this is nonsense.

<comment><USER2> Reply to jcitme:

All of your comments are [dead] and you are probably unaware of it. There is a weird heuristic here that does that occasionally to non-trolls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dead Like Me?

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, if it does hit you, it will probably be going faster than the speed of sound so you won't have time to realize what happened. Will there be a gps coordinate updated somewhere to find out of this chunk of metal is going to take down a skyscraper? How fast is it going to be moving?

<comment><USER5> Pretty sure you'd realise what's happening. After all, we notice lightning flashes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Such a misleading title. I think this means the chances of any individual person getting hit is 1 in 21,680,754,240,000?

<comment><USER7> No, to quote from the article:

"The odds of it hitting someone anywhere on the planet are 1 in 3,200. "

Perhaps you are confusing "chances of any person getting hit" with "chances of you getting hit", which is not what the title says.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are tech salaries high compared to a decade ago? - <AUTHOR> I've always heard this argument that engineers now are earning more than ever before and whatnot..
However, I was having this conversation with a senior manager of mine and he revealed the salary he was making he was around my experience. And it is almost similar to what I'm making now.. (I understand that the sample size is very low, some data around this would be really helpful)
How is this argument even right that back then people were earning less, when the correct argument should be that engineering salaries haven't increased that much from a decade ago? <comment><USER2> Don't forget to factor in inflation. I have heard what someone was making 25 years ago in a help desk type role. It sounded low, but adjusting for inflation showed they were making just as much as I was as an intermediate developer with more responsibilities. They also had more profit sharing than I do now.

I've been at my current job for a little less than a decade. I can say that my pay is pretty similar to when I started if you account for inflation, 1 promotion, and the slight tenure-based increase in profit sharing. Looking at glassdoor's salary estimator, I seem to be priced correctly.

This suggests that salaries might be roughly the same as a decade ago and that salaries may have gone down in the longer term. These are just anecdotal. I seem to remember the longterm trend was covered in an article. I have also heard that you need to job hop to really increase your compensation.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a complicated question because the answer is both location-dependent and requires a comparative analysis. In places like SF, big tech salaries have grown substantially (along with the cost of living) since 2010, while in other locations they haven't grown all that much and in not-big tech the increases haven't been that large. For example, a new hire at Google today can expect a comp package of at least $160K, while in 2010 I seem to remember it being around $120K.

The bigger issue more broadly is that generally speaking, tech salaries have been growing steadily over the last decade while non-tech salaries have been mostly stagnant, so it often seems like tech workers make a huge amount now when effectively a lot of other people just aren't making as much as they should.

</comment><comment><USER4> That depends. Around Y2K, people in infosec made boatloads of money. It could be argued that we still do, but the money isn't anywhere as free-flowing as it was back then.

I keep seeing security gigs offering half of what was on offer for the same positions back then. Although I think a lot of it has to do with how much better automated software has become. You don't need anywhere near the level of skill that was required during infosec genesis. Now everybody thinks they are experts after they've read a book and downloaded metasploit.

</comment><comment><USER5> probably depends alot on the technology/language.</comment>


Show HN: Remote91 – Payroll, Taxation, Hiring of Remote Developers in India - <AUTHOR> https://remote91.in/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure I see the pain point of being a non-employee Indian developer for someone who's already working for a foreign employer.

As a consultant, a developer can file their income tax return under 44ADA and save a huge amount of income tax, compared to being employed by you and mandatorily paying much more income tax as an employee.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. You are right in saying that you can save tax with 44ADA. But it has an upper limit of 50 lac and you have to get a GST number. There are other things as well except taxing. But again different things might matter more or less to different people. I have written in detail the problems based on my experience at [https://kishansagathiya.github.io/blog.html#remote1](https://kishansagathiya.github.io/blog.html#remote1)</comment></comment>


Two Years of Flatiron School - <AUTHOR> http://far.flatironschool.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm also a Flatiron Grad. :) ruby002. Definitely one of the best decisions of my life.

</comment><comment><USER3> Going to Flatiron was the best decision I ever made. Happy to answer any questions.

</comment><comment><USER4> Learned so much here. ruby005

</comment><comment><USER5> 👍

<comment><USER3> this is an emoji thumbs-up, for anyone seeing nothing here.</comment></comment>


What mathematical function starts slow, explodes, and then plateaus? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wepolls.com/p/4618122/What-mathematical-function-starts-slow%2C-explodes%2C-and-then-plateaus

<comment><USER2> This is a really bad web site. The page loaded, I saw the poll for a few seconds then it (apparently) redirected my browser to a blank page that took a long time to load. I could see the poll again, for a few seconds at a time, by repeatedly pressing the Back button. (I'm using Firefox 3.6.23)

Several of the formulas presented I don't know the curve off-hand, but none looked like it matched. The closest I can think of is x = y ^ 3 which approximates a logistic (S) curve; starts slow, rises steeply, then slows again, though it doesn't "plateau". Actually, an odd integer greater than 3 would lead to a steeper rise and flatter plateau, the bigger the integer the better.</comment>


M for Mastodon: A new logo and v1.5 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Gargron/m-for-mastodon-4269c0bf6c8b? <comment><USER2> Nice logo redesign, also [https://instances.social/](https://instances.social/) is great to overcome this choice paralysis. I might try it, but I don't like twitter much and this seems like an open version of it, can anyone who uses it comment on the differences/similarities?

<comment><USER3> The largest difference to me is Mastodon's 500 character limit. It leads to conversations that feel much more nuanced compared to Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is pretty much my favorite new online place for the past 5 or so months. A _lot_ of great conversations.

<comment><USER5> Who do you follow? The decentralized part is kind of confusing to me.

<comment><USER4> firstname.lastname@example.com is someone I engage with a lot.

I follow liberally, engage strangers liberally. It's not twitter, there isn't a "GET OUT OF MY TIMELINE" thing going on where it's not welcome to talk to people.</comment></comment></comment>