84-Year-Old Gamer Has More Than 900k 'Grandkids' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/style/shirley-curry-skyrim-youtube.html <comment><USER2> I'm not the only one who thought this was going to be more of a Genghis Khan situation rather than a PewDiePie, right...?

<comment><USER3> No you're not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not entirely surprising. My parents bought me a Nintendo because ... well, they wanted one. I started on an Atari VCS 2600 because they got one while my mother was pregnant. Two years old and all of us (sister included) would be playing Missile Command, Clowns, Pac-Man or Centipede as a family.

I got things like Zelda, Metroid and R.C. Pro-AM because my father wanted them. For years after I was sent to bed, I'd hear the hum and screeching of R.C. Pro-AM coming from the living room. Or the sounds of Snake Rattle N' Roll.

He's a bit frustrated with his mind going, but my father still plays and 100%s Zelda games without looking for a guide. My mom spends a lot of time with Roller Coaster Tycoon, Stardew Valley and recently FTL, but she still breaks out the Wii for Virtual Console favorites of hers (mostly "black box" NES games).

With a fixed income, video games are astonishing amount of entertainment per dollar, and old games don't get, "less fun" over time. I still have all my old games (and still play them) for that reason.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow, I did not expect clickbait to make its way to the number 1 spot on HN. I would be curious to see if this was due to some someone gaming the algorithm or people carelessly upvoting the headline. Though it is a bit funny that the platform that clickbait is most prevalent on is part of the topic of discussion. Youtube subscribers in this case = Grandkids in the title.

<comment> iso8859-1 Old users have not upvoted this, I recommend sticking to Hacker News Classic: [https://news.ycombinator.com/classic](https://news.ycombinator.com/classic)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for that hidden feature. And there's no ads aswell! Do you know what is the difference in the algorithm? They just count "old users" votes? How long do you need to have an account for to be considered old?

<comment><USER7> It's the same algorithm as the regular front page, with the difference that the votes are those by users before Feb 13, 2008. A long time ago! It wasn't such a distant past when pg created it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=607271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=607271).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can always count on HN to take an uplifting story, ignore its contents, and complain about a perfectly reasonable headline.

Anyway, when was a kid I used to think retirement would be the perfect opportunity to do a massive amount of gaming. I tend to not be that optimistic since I worry I won't have the eyesight, memory, or even interest in my 80s, if I even make it that long. It's pretty remarkable to see someone doing it and doing it really well.

</comment><comment><USER6> I recently heard a podcast in which a disabled lady, 76 years old, talked about how she played The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. In real life, she could hardly move, so it was her way of going for a walk. She would wandered arround in the woods, or climbed mountains, just to enjoy the sceneries. It helped her cope through her disablily. I thought it was a wonderful way of using a game. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> What's the opposite of flagging a post here on HN? Upvoting?

How many people does it take to get something flagged?

<comment> em-bee commenting on it. i saw a suggestion that moderators would remove a flag if it had more comments than flag votes.

unfortunately so far this post only has 3 on topic comments. the rest are about the title or the flag

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This title is starving for your clicks. Here's an accurate and honest title that represents this article:

84 Year Old Gamer has 900k+ Online Followers on YouTube.

It's not really hard to strive for honest titles, but I guess clicks matter in desperate times for the New York Times. What a shame for journalism there.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. Title I posted:

>84-year-old gamer Shirley Curry has 900k YouTube followers

I suspect if moderator hadn't changed title to New York Times headline, it wouldn't have been flagged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> TLDR: An old person does a thing that other people do, somehow this is newsworthy and is presented with factually incorrect title, even on printed media as "She Has 900,000 Grandkids and Fights Big Spiders"

<comment><USER12> "Grandkids" is in quotes in even the original article's title, clearly indicating it's being used metaphorically.

<comment><USER11> Not on the original one printed on Sept. 6, 2020 , Section ST, Page 4 of the New York edition

<comment><USER13> There could be typographic reasons for that, space matters more on paper.

<comment><USER14> Or, maybe, the quotes are just there to tell you something, like the fact they're not literal grandkids and internet readers need extra help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ur-whale Not worth reading, but if you really feel you need to: [https://archive.is/mBjOr](https://archive.is/mBjOr)</comment>


Re-live your memories with VR - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/teleport-capture-relive-your-best-memories <comment><USER2> A creative way to re-live with your memories. Can not buy time, but you can turn it back with VR tech. Nice design also.

</comment><comment><USER3> Love idea, Goodluck Anh Duy</comment>


My life in London's houseboat slums (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge <comment><USER2> Point 1: A lot of people want to live in London. More, in point of fact, than there's really room for.

Point 2: We, as a society, really dislike the idea of telling people where they can and cannot live. "Your papers, please" is a punchline, not a blueprint.

Point 3: Britain, in specific, is very leary about development. Not without reason, but even though it would be absurdly profitable to build a fuckton of cheap, efficient, high rise apartments, it is and will remain illegal. (Which is fine; build the apartments and then you have traffic issues, etc. My point is that you can't do this, not that you should.)

Combine these three points, and you'll get high rents and frustrated people. But unless you have a suggestion on how to change one of those points, it's not going to change, is it? (Well, I guess you could say the high cost of housing is changing point 1 by making London less desirable, but clearly, it's not happening quickly.)

Seriously though, it feels like the article is missing a conclusion. "Here's a thing that sucks, but let's not think about why it exists or how it might be fixed."

(But maybe I'm just being grumpy, I dunno.)

<comment><USER3> The population of London has been declining for many years, so point #1 is out.

<comment> m-i-l According to many sources (e.g. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england- london-31082941](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31082941) ) the population of London has recently reached a record high and predicted to rise by 25-30% over the next 35 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A good partial solution to London's housing problem is to tax the thousands of empty houses being used as investments.

For example, there's a road in London called Bishops Avenue. The Saudi royal family owns about 1/3 of the houses on that road. ONE THIRD. Those houses are completely empty, they are just being used as investment by the Saudi elite (who can apparently amass as much money as they can because the US protects their kingdom against any democratic struggle). You can tax these houses (the Saudis have no objection paying property taxes in the US and they won't have an objection paying it in the UK) and use the tax money to build cheaper houses for people who need them.

Get these Arabs, Indians, Russians who are hoarding London property to pay a tidy sum for being allowed in London. What you've got left is enough of London that Londoners can share. It is about time society realizes that the right to life and shelter is more important than property rights for foreigners.

<comment><USER5> Yes, because if this woman in the article wasn't living on a barge she'd have spent £20m on a 10 bedroom mansion on Bishops Avenue.

<comment><USER6> There is an obvious ripple effect here which your comment ignores. Oligarchs buy in Knightsbridge, pushing aristocrats to Notting Hill. That pushes the international managerial types to places like Chiswick, which pushes the mere professionals to Ealing. And so on. If the oligarchs disappear, everyone moves in one slot, and this woman gets to live in a decent but modest home instead of a slum.

<comment><USER7> Someone paying £280/month to live in a boat is playing in a different market from the professionals and families looking to buy though.

People looking to rent by the room aren't necessarily worse off from the investment bubble if families are priced into the Home Counties and ordinary four-bedroom houses tend instead to be owned by absentee landlords anticipating far too much in the way of capital gains to be worried about maximizing rental yields (but not quite enough to consider leaving the properties empty)

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of ratcheting capital gains tax on properties owned by parties not tax-resident in the UK up to >90%, but the dynamics of how it'll all play out in the housing market aren't straightforward and euthanising the rentiers might actually make low-end rentals harder to come buy - social housing is really the only solution to that.

<comment><USER6> There is no "different market" though. It's all one market for occupation of land, and one of the least regulated in the world... a place where speculators compete with residents, where locals compete with foreigners, Panama- registered limited companies compete with PAYE earners, and so on. That is a huge part of the problem.

<comment><USER7> The property speculators don't compete to _occupy_ land though. They purchase it from existing occupants - a group whose net movement is out of London altogether - and then compete to _supply_ it to renters.

The separation between the rental-by-the-room and the market to buy freeholds is well illustrated by the tendency of an influx of property speculators to increase supply in the former at the same time as they unambiguously decrease it in the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm giving some light consideration to running for Mayor of London with all my policies focused on one aim: Hyper-Aggressive Rent Control.

Quite simply, the current situation for renters and first time buyers in London is unfair and needs to be addressed in a way that restores the balance between those that live and work in London, and those that just own property here.

Although it costs £10k to run, because that's the type of democracy we have here in the UK apparently.

UPDATE: I've not outlined a single policy - and I'm already being told I'm wrong.

<comment><USER9> Rent controls don't work. It will just partition the price into over- and under-table parts.

As I see it, there are three solutions, all of which should be done simultaneously:

1\. Requiring occupants to live in their housing for a significant portion of the year's days (a third, for example). Enforcement requires some loss of privacy, but living in central London is not a human right.

2\. Expanding the city vertically. Encourage high-rise apartment complexes.

3\. Higher speed trains to the suburbs to shorten the time distance.

<comment><USER10> 1) is doable but politically difficult - too much opposition to taxing the rich (see "mansion tax").

2) is already happening with new build, but requires demolishing existing buildings to really make a difference. This changes the appearance of London quite dramatically and encounters architectural preservation resistance.

3) Nowhere to put extra train lines without demolishing some very expensive property. HS2 is demonstrating this for just a single line. The existing lines are running at capacity. What _might_ be feasible is going to double-decker trains in places, which merely requires rebuilding all the bridges and tunnels.

I would add (4) encourage movement of jobs to other parts of the UK. There are bits of this happening such as moving the BBC to Manchester. But the way London works is most of the high-paid jobs are basically standing around with buckets trying to catch money dripping off the mega-wealthy, and the associated trickle down around this.

Perhaps plan to move the civil service to Birmingham once HS2 is finished, giving a Brussels/Strasbourg dynamic to the place.

The US is very fortunate that the seat of government, the financial center, the commodity wealth center, the media center, and the tech center are in different cities.

<comment><USER11> Double-decker trains only increase train capacity by ~33% (the stairwells and so on take up room), and on busy lines like those in central London they can actually reduce capacity because they increase dwell times at the platform. What's needed is Crossrail and Crossrail 2, and what's especially needed is to fund Crossrail 2 _now_ , before the skilled Crossrail workforce goes to Malaysia or China because that's where the jobs are. But as always, political shortsightedness rules the day.

You've got to remember that London doesn't just compete with Birmingham; many of the people and companies moving into London are world citizens who would otherwise go to Frankfurt / New York / Zurich / etc. Make London worse and they simply go to another country, which is worse for the entire UK, Birmingham included.

It would be great if we could build Manchester or Birmingham up to be the equal of London, to the point where international companies want to put their headquarters there, but that's going to take decades. And at the end of those decades, you're going to have a city that has all the same problems London is currently facing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288085](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288085)

</comment><comment><USER13> Instead of fighting over different ways to tax property, why not try new methods of housing? Like why not make the housing smaller, with one common kitchen for an entire appartment where you pick your meals every day (and save the time to cook, clean and maintain a kitchen?), why not have the old alcove system where your bed is essentially in a closet so that you can get by with just one room per family? Would a common shower room (separated by gender, obviously) really be so bad?

Hacker news is place of thinking new, can we please try that? Admittably not all ideas are going to be good, but can we please do something new?

<comment><USER14> Because the last thing I want in my life right now is to go back to living at a university campus, with shared kitchen and shower.

There will be a lot of people who are alright with this - and there is such housing available to those people. But generally, people who are done with education and are "working professionals" would rather not live in a frat house anymore.

<comment><USER13> I was just trying to come up with some suggestions for alternatives, I do not necessarily support any of them.

Also I didn't intent for that to be a shared kitchen but a kitchen you ordered from and had others cook your food - it simply makes little sense for me to have every household spend time every single day to make food for themselves.

<comment><USER15> How is that any different than running to the McDonalds for every meal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's a solution: a city- or nation-wide graduated tax on per-square-foot rent applied to the profit above property tax with a fixed allowance for maintenance. Add in a limited deduction for physical property improvements.

Graduate the tax and put it on owners for several effects:

* Diminishing or negative returns on increasing rent price * Reduced ROI for top priced real estate lowering demand for investment ownership and price * Increased relative ROI for improving lower quality properties & cheap places to live unaffected

</comment><comment><USER17> > As more and more areas of London become unaffordable to anyone but wealthy > professionals,

Is this a joke?

I know some people who live on Barges in London and they are no where near as shit as those in the article.

<comment> jon-wood Good for them. That doesn't really change the fact that living in London is increasingly difficult for anyone who isn't working in finance though.

<comment><USER17> Or marketing, or law, or biochem, or architecture, or technology, or recruitment, or property.

Yes apart from those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If anybody's interested, here's a petition against evictions of boat dwellers:

[https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/boats-are-homes- preve...](https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/boats-are-homes-prevent-the- eviction-of-boat-dwellers)

<comment><USER12> I used to live on a boat; I still own one; and I don't support that petition.

The Canal & River Trust is an underfunded charity whose aims are to preserve and maintain Britain's historic waterway network.

They are not funded to provide affordable housing for people. That is, and should be, the role of local and central Government.

When you buy a boat in the UK (on CRT waterways), there are clear rules, in force since 1992, that you must either have a permanent mooring for it or undertake to move on to a different place every 14 days ("continuously cruising"). Numerous people have tried to avoid the expense of a permanent mooring by declaring themselves to be "continuously cruising" but actually staying in the same place. That is what this petition is seeking to legalise.

If it were accepted, CRT would lose out two-fold: it would have greater costs in providing facilities and maintaining the waterways as more people bought boats simply to use as cheap houses, and it would have significantly lower income as people learned that they can get away without paying for a permanent mooring. Yet even now, CRT doesn't have enough money to maintain its 2,500 miles of waterways to a safe, reliable standard - just look at the recent breach on the Trent & Mersey Canal as an example.

I feel for the people who can't afford to live in London and have alighted on boats as a cheap way to do so. I believe the city would be better as a vibrant, varied community rather than a rich ghetto. But expecting an underfunded heritage charity to fix London's housing problem is unfair and unrealistic. Target Whitehall and City Hall, not CRT.

<comment><USER19> I'm on a French canal, and I wish we had a continuous cruising status. It would keep canals alive, force boats to be maintained in working condition, and drive off most people who see liveaboard boats as an alternative to a flat.

Unfortunately, I'm sure French civil services would fail to enforce it, and we'd end up with the kind of floating shacks described in the article. Actually, we already have many of them, and they're already powerless to get rid of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Article summary : "I can't afford to live in london so I'll live somewhere terrible instead of living somewhere I can afford and whine about it on the internet instead"

<comment><USER21> The point is that London is driving it's lower income citizen's to accommodations like this. And London needs this citizen's just as hard as the higher paid individuals.

<comment><USER5> London has a pretty decent infrastructure for commuting. Buses/tubes/trains/light railways etc. Perhaps they just don't want to get up an hour earlier?

<comment><USER4> Yes people don't want to sacrifice their time to account for the failed policies that led to a housing shortage. What a shocker.

<comment><USER22> If only there was a way they could be productive while riding the train into town...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know someone who lived on his boat in Boston Harbor because he did not want give up collecting rent from his apartments... basically if you have a boat, this is one way to maximize its value. Even so I think winter living was not fun.

</comment><comment><USER24> My girlfriend grew up on a boat in San Diego. Better weather makes it a viable option.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm a Rails developer in the US and my dream is to live in London and work. I should forget it, eh?

</comment><comment><USER26> hn could start grouping stories by "hot topics"

(i wish hn would provide competition for custom frontpage algorithms)

<comment><USER11> Use lobste.rs instead and hide tags for things you're not interested in?

<comment><USER26> I thought I had a login; but I don't. Can you invite me?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I never understood people complaining about raising rents. If demand is bigger than supply prices will regulate the market, here: prices will increase.

This is market economy and is there any reason real-estate shouldn't follow this model in a market economy?</comment>


Summer Internships at FreeAgent – Class of 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.freeagent.com/2012/11/21/summer-internships-in-engineering-class-of-2013/

<comment><USER2> Great to see Scottish startups providing internships for students. Essential to stop the flood of talent heading to the financial sector and/or out of the country.

</comment><comment><USER3> EU students stand no chance, why :(?</comment>


Sprint reportedly preparing bid to purchase T-Mobile in 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/13/5208312/sprint-reportedly-preparing-to-purchase-t-mobile-in-2014 <comment><USER2> no. no. no. I really like t-mobile. Don't mess it up.</comment>


Sailors Die at Sea While USCG Drone Program Remains Hard Aground - <AUTHOR> http://gcaptain.com/sailors-die-sea-uscg-drone-program-remains-hard-aground/ <comment><USER2> My dad was in the United States Marine Corps, and he used to joke that the Marines were so poor equipment-acquisition-wise they got the hand-me-downs from the Army.

It has been my personal experiences that the Coast Guard is even worse off as far as the funding they get versus the vitally important life saving (and you know, coast guarding) missions they are supposed to accomplish. There have been a blizzard of radar technology, drone and UAV technology and boat building technology advancements that would dramatically increase their success rate, but they can't because of antiquated funding and a creaky old- fashioned leadership.

IMO we spend way too much on power project capability with the Navy versus what we could do for the Coast Guard.

<comment><USER3> My impression is that the Coast Guard has been somewhat militarized in the drug war, such that any request for equipment to help "save" people has to be in quotes.

<comment><USER4> USCG has been militarized since it was formed in 1915.

<comment><USER5> The Revenue Cutter service, half of what became the USCG in 1915, dates from 1790. It was an armed service from that time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


French Senate Backs Bid To Force Google To Disclose Search Algorithm Workings - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/17/french-senate-backs-bid-to-force-google-to-disclose-search-algorithm-workings/#.dpycrz:HNHc <comment><USER2> This seems stupid to most sane people, but there's a kind of logic behind it.

1) This is clearly bullshit designed to distract from more pressing issues that the French government can't solve or is unwilling to solve.

2) France's notorious protectionism, while immensely irritating to outsiders, does a reasonable job at preserving French language and culture, and creating a local vacuum for French native solutions. Trade and culture protectionism has a long-history of working quite well in many countries seeking to create national identity and industry when used correctly.

These two riffs will continue to get played, with #2 reinforcing #1 while necessary, to try and encourage native French solutions. France is under tremendous economic and cultural pressure from better performing regional partners like Germany and the U.K., and globally by the U.S., China and Japan (pick whichever you think is better performing in terms of economics and cultural expansion).

It kind of sucks, but it's also why, when you go to France, and even Paris, you know you're in Paris and not yet another cosmopolitan mega-city. It's also part of the reason why French culture and ideas continue to be interesting and exportable.

Much of this of course is France's continued decline as a global power. London, New York and Paris used to be a given global triumvirate. And Paris's membership in the top-3 isn't a given any more. It's now in a mix of second- tier alpha cities with Tokyo, Beijing and Dubai.

Outsiders look at this and say "of course Paris is in decline, this kind of behavior is why". Tighter global integration and more openness seems to be the way to the top and maintaining it. But for French leadership, losing cultural identity is not worth it. What if the world thought La Défense = Paris and the rest of the city was just some curious suburb? Is this [1] something that anybody cares about?

1 - [http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/067/b/7/skyline_la_de...](http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/067/b/7/skyline_la_defense_02_by_eolneth-d79d8ck.jpg)

<comment><USER3> As a french guy living currently in London, I clearly agree. I hope Paris never becomes a second London. If you live there you will understand why. London just lost almost all it's culture in just a few years, the London you see in movies is long gone. Just the red bricks and a few cultural things from the past are remaining but all the rest is gone. There is hard consequences to accept to become a truly global city, it's clearly not only positive consequences for the city.

For Google, it's quite complicated. The problem is that Google is representing more than 90% of all the requests in France (the usage is also the same for most of european countries anyway). So we can technically say that Google is in a monopoly position for search. The problem is that it's hurting local startups and businesses there. The solution would be to break Google into smaller parts (it's what you do normaly when a monopoly is hurting the free market) but since that's impossible due to the fact that Google is an American company, the government is taking some measures to limit Google's influence. This is one of the measures, the second one which is currently being voted would be to force Google to display competitors on the home page (a bit like Microsoft's ballot screen). I guess that given the current context, they have no other option.

<comment><USER4> Except here's the thing -- it's not a natural monopoly. There aren't physical wires with no alternative like Ma Bell. There aren't things that google is doing that prevents other search engines from coming into existence -- they can't prevent new web crawls. Even Firefox now uses yahoo by default, and the open crawler data even gives anyone a head start on crawling the web!

Competition, if it were much better, could easily take away search market share. Having better localized results for France could be one of those ways. People aren't using google because they have no other choice, it's because google is genuinely doing a better job. That's not a reason to break up a company.

<comment><USER5> In France most of google users does not even know there is an alternative to Google, most of people I met in France that are not under 30 or working in a web related area just does not get it clear what is the difference between a web browser and Google. They launch it, write what they are looking for in the address bar and they just get a google search result which they think is a feature from their browser to enter the web. IMHO that's why there were only 30 congressmen from the existing 577 that came to vote for the last law regarding internet trafic monitoring [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9386820](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9386820)

<comment><USER4> But this isn't because google is using their existing size in a way to punish other people and crowd them out...

The only way that Google could be monopolizing search results were to be if they told companies to put bing/yahoo/etc in their robots.txt and only let Google crawl them or google will drop them. That would be an anti-competitive monopolist practice abusing their size and power. They're not doing this.

When you're talking about LAW, and using law to force competition, it shouldn't be because people don't know the difference between a web browser and google. Educating consumers on how to use your product is something google spent a lot of time doing in the beginning when they weren't the default. That's up to you having such a good product that people type in the name of your service into google to get to it assuming google is already their default engine.

<comment><USER5> The way I explain how google got a de facto monopoly on search in France (and in Europe) is a combination of : -being a good product with no real good competitor for european languages (except for russian where Yandex exists) -set as the default search engine for mozilla, opera and then chrome from the start. Bing is the default one on IE but bing just came along in 2009. Before that I'm not even sure what was the default search engine in europe for IE. Things have changed in the last years but most people configuration once set won't change even if google is not the default search engine for firefox anymore.

I was actually not speaking about using law to force competition but just saying that the general web literacy in France and probably in most of europe is so low that every law that deals with internet does not get any traction with congressmen and in the media because most people doesn't understand an inch of what is as stake therefore they do not care.

<comment><USER6> > _Bing is the default one on IE but bing just came along in 2009. Before that > I 'm not even sure what was the default search engine in europe for IE_

MSN Search -> Live Search -> Bing

> _Things have changed in the last years but most people configuration once > set won 't change even if google is not the default search engine for > firefox anymore_

If you never changed your default search provider in Firefox it was switched for you after the Yahoo deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> FRENCH SENATOR (via translator): "Mr. Page, on page 1123 of Exhibit D we see that a signal component called NewInvSqPR is retrieved from a service of similar name. However, cross-referencing with Exhibit P, we see on page 8987 what appears to be a description of this service. This description leads with the text 'DEPRECATED DO NOT USE TO BE REPLACED BY Q2 2010'. Can you account for the current status of this service, and the provenance of any data it relies upon?

Furthermore, after the NewInvSqPR is retrieved, if that indeed ever does take place, the resulting data is placed into a field in a ranking output message, but it is unclear from where that field is read. On page 6766 of Exhibit E, the field appears to be cleared, but the surrounding functionality looks like it is disabled by a flag. Can you explain to this chamber the meaning of this information, specifically with regards to ranking of Google properties relative to competing vertical search websites?"

LARRY PAGE: "..."

</comment><comment><USER8> They have no concept of how complex ranking is. There are millions of factors being fed into massive machine learning systems that try to predict which results users want (which is different from which they are most likely to click). It's like asking to see the algorithm for a cat.

They should go back to working on their own "Google killer" search engine :) [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating- systems/e...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating- systems/europe-s--google-killer--goes-into-hiding.html)

<comment><USER9> It's convenient to think our work is so sophisticated, and that lawmakers are simpletons. But that's a naive view.

They want the algorithm disclosed as a legal matter to determine whether competitors are disadvantaged. Which probably means they are more interested in email than source code. There exist hyperintelligent lawyers. Yes, smart enough to understand search. A law firm like Keker and Van Nest [1] could go in there and answer the question. France could be willing to spend a billion to find out, and that's more than they need.

Legislation of technology is frightening to any technologist. But it's much more dangerous if we dismiss the process as ridiculous and refuse to recognize any underlying concerns. Because then technologists won't have any say in the outcome.

[1] [http://www.kvn.com/](http://www.kvn.com/)

EDIT: Paul you're such a prominent guy, I don't mean to speak too strongly, but people really listen to what you say. Entrepreneurs ought to know that legal matters are not so easily dismissed. I do hope, generously speaking, the startups are the ones that call KVN and not the legislators.

<comment><USER10> Google has (very effectively) played the "oh noes, it's all machine learning" card. But machine learning is nothing more than codified human judgement (yes, I get that for example the conditional expectation minimizes the expected squared error, but who picked the expected squared error to minimize?) The point is, they wish the ranking algorithm to be seen as some divine choice and hence not subject to criticism rather than a mathematical extension of human choices.

So has google put a finger on the scale to rank google properties more highly? Based on their behavior with the results page (vs yelp, for example), I would be surprised if they do, but not very surprised.

Nonetheless, now that google search results are the internet for many people -- and chrome's address bar is used to help blur that distinction -- it's fair that people outside google, represented by governments, start having a say in who shows up and where. That's what happens when you're a monopoly.

It is slightly ironic that bing is the best thing that's happened to google in a decade. Where it not for Balmer deciding to play search engine, google would be known to be a 95+% monopoly in the US as well. Bing allows them to pretend they aren't (though on my blog, for example, 99.28% of ~7k search referral visitors comes from google.)

<comment><USER11> The fallacy is, there's mostly likely no one single 'algorithm' anymore. There are most likely hundreds, farmed out in a distributed manner, with the final SERP page coming from merging many different rankings together.

<comment><USER10> That doesn't matter. At the end of the day, for each query, there is produced a single ranking.

Given access to the data, or more ideally the ability to rapidly batch query, one could ask does being a google owned or rev-share site affect rankings? And if so, up or down? These are the questions statistics is made to answer.

edit -- and it doesn't even necessarily need be hardwired. For example, google could have more visibility into site interactions on google owned or tooled (GA) sites, and that could tend to lead to lower serps. Ie just the presence of certain features, only available to google when google owns or tools a site, could tend to produce lower ratings _no matter what those features are_. This is, I would argue, dirty pool for what is effectively a monopoly. And statistics can answer these questions.

<comment><USER12> Imagine if latency was one of the signals Google used to determine ranking. Now imagine that Googlebot gets a ping of half for an application that uses Google App Engine as opposed to someone who uses a raspberry pie at home. Would you say that the makers and users of Raspberry pie now have grounds to sue Google for ranking them lower?

<comment><USER10> Because lots of the internet is being served off raspberry pis located in peoples' living rooms? Don't be deliberately obtuse.

<comment><USER13> Raspberry Pi was a poor example for him to use, but App Engine (or any Google Cloud solution) was a good example. The Google-hosted sites (including the properties Google owns & operates) will always seem to have lower latency to Google versus everything from AWS down to a Raspberry Pi in a basement. Should that be considered an unfair impartiality in Google's algorithm?

<comment><USER10> Lower latency to google should have no bearing on serps.

Lower latency to the user should. If, ceteris paribus, google sites are lower ranked then yes, that should be illegal. ie consider regression and compute I[google] + site_speed; after controlling for site speed, being a google owned property shouldn't matter. It's fine if google owned sites tend to be faster and hence are more lowly ranked.

I specifically meant more along the lines of google can view your navigation through GA tooled sites, and there is a wealth of information that can be derived from that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm sorry, but the switch over cost to setting Bing as your home page instead of Google, or using Firefox which defaults to Yahoo, just isn't that much. It's one thing to have a lock on the desktop market where switching over your desktop software (or 10,000 company desktops) is a significant cost.

For users with IE or Firefox they have specifically set the search engine to Google. That means users are actively seeking out Google. Maybe require all French citizens to switch search engines once a year? Make browser vendors randomize the choice of search engine?

I would imagine that people would still use Google, regardless, even if links to Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo were on the page. I like Duck Duck Go, but every once and awhile I go back to Google because they do a better job.

Things I'm more worried about than Google's search hegemony:

1) The fact that new computers may soon be unable to load unsigned kernels

2) You buy a device, like a console, it is illegal for you to root it.

3) Content is locked out region by region, and VPN users are considered pirates.

4) Governments want to incorporate back doors to encryption - leaving all less secure

<comment><USER15> 1) Microsoft mandates that PC vendors allow users to disable Secure Boot. In the last rev it's up to the hardware manufacture. Do research before you buy. 2)root is not allowed to be illegal. 3)I've never had this issue but I don't play by the rules. 4)This is two issues a)it will not be less secure it would be the same as having a second key for your front door, or creating a second private key. Just because you have two keys does not mean it's less secure the proof is in the proof (it's math problem). b)government spying/big brother/what have you... I don't know anyone who would like this.

<comment><USER16> > it would be the same as having a second key

This is a bad analogy (unless you mean to say that this second key would be identical for every door, in which case.. sort of).

A better analogy would be that everyone was forced to install a second entry method to their house that only the government knew how to operate.

The inherent problem with this is that as soon as someone else figures out how to operate it, everything with this entry method installed would be accessible to them until it changes or is fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If France doesn't want its citizens to use Google search, then be straight up and admit that. Why are they playing games and penalizing Google? After all, the people of France prefer it and indeed choose to use it.l, no doubt because it's good at etsy it does. Why on earth would Google reveal its algorithm, it's a vital competative advantage. And why is it illegal for search to be biased. If it's bad then people won't use it. If France wants its citizens to avoid Google, instead of crying about it, it ought to advertise a better solution, or in the extreme case, pass a law barring people from using it. Not all lawyers and politicians are bad, but a lot seem detached from reality and cause serious problems as result of their ignorance.

<comment><USER18> >If it's bad then people won't use it.

It doesn't have to be _that_ bad to be uncompetitive. They can steer people towards their properties in a way that won't bother most people, but will do tremendous harm to their competitors.

> And why is it illegal for search to be biased.

It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. Google got this market share by being better than everyone else no doubt, but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have.

Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will.

<comment><USER19> _> but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have_

Competition law doesn't punish market power. Punishing success would be insane. The _abuse_ of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven.

Yes, Google Maps is the first result if you search for "maps" on Google. Search for "maps" on Bing and the first result is... also Google Maps. So maybe, Google Maps is just the leading mapping service on the Web?

 _> So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator_

So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but can we be sure that he hasn't? No, but: _In dubio pro reo._

<comment><USER18> >Competition law doesn't punish market power, that would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven.

Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior. Yes to punish Google executives criminally would require proof of illegal behavior.

But congress could easily pass a law that said search engine companies are subject to government search algorithm audits, with no proof of illegal activity required.

>So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but...

This is a regulatory issue, not a criminal trial. I'm not suggesting that any Google executives be punished for anything.

I'm suggesting that the potential for Google to do harm is too large not to examine the possibility of regulation. We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great. In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet.

<comment><USER19> _> Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior._

Sanctions under competition law do require proof of abuse of market power.

ISP-like regulation, which is a different beast, is usually being justified by the fact that ISPs are natural monopolies. [1]

 _> In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet._

What makes a search engine useful? The relevance of results. In my opinion, private companies (Google in particular) do a fairly good job at providing relevant results. I prefer that over a government-approved "neutral" algorithm, whatever that would even mean.

If you feel that Google's results aren't relevant, give a competitor a try. Nothing stops you. Do you run a web site that was blocked by Google without justification? Go ahead, complain. The mere possibility of abuse doesn't justify tight regulation.

 _> We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great._

Yeah, should Google ever choose to sell WMD to my neighbor, switching to Bing wouldn't really help me.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975)

<comment><USER18> >Sanctions under competition law do require proof of abuse of market power.

And I'm not promoting sanctions. The only thing I've proposed is some kind of transparency, like 3rd party auditing.

>If you feel that Google's results aren't relevant, give a competitor a try. Nothing stops you.

That won't do a thing to mitigate the harm I'm talking about. If 1 company controls every news organization in the country except for a few college newspapers, would you tell me that me personally reading the college newspaper would help the situation?

>The mere possibility of abuse doesn't justify tight regulation.

Publicly traded companies and financial institutions deal with plenty of tight regulation because of the possibility of abuse. We already force publicly traded companies to require independent financial auditing, why not require the gateway to the internet to undergo independent search auditing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why is it that so many people misunderstand monopoly/anti-trust? This isn't about search or pagerank, because having a monopoly is generally _not_ illegal. It doesn't matter what the future of the _search_ market might be or the ease in which customers can switch to a different _search_ service. The complaint, according to the article, is:

        "...accusation being that it uses this closed code
        to promote its own products ahead of rivals."

Search only matters in how it might be a tool that can be abused to gain influence in _other, not-search_ markets.

Being a monopoly is usually legal. Monopoly status simply means new laws apply relating to how that power is used. Google is patently a search monopoly _right now_ , so France is well within their right to accuse them of abusing that power to take over other markets. Some sort of trial will determine if those charges are true or not.

What is obvious - regardless of the outcome or politics surrounding France's legal action - is that the exact nature of how Google's search algorithms work is the _exact_ evidence needed to properly judge how Google's search service (via the algorithm it relies upon) is unfairly interfering with the markets that Google may also be participating in.

<comment><USER21> > Google is patently a search monopoly right now

No. Bing is a click away and provides comparable results. A monopoly occurs when the consumer has no choice but the monopolist. That's clearly not the case here.

<comment><USER20> This is exactly the misunderstanding of antitrust laws that I was talking about. Contrary to popular belief, this is not about how much of the market a given business.

Monopoly starts to be covered by the antitrust acts when "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market"[1]. Controlling a very large percentage of the market is merely one of the easier ways to demonstrate the existence of that power.

[1] United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

<comment><USER22> Please explain. The suggestion that Google has "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market" in the search market is clearly false. Google's search product is free. Are you suggesting Google could start charging for search without a significant loss of market share?

<comment><USER23> Advertisements. It's no use advertising on other search engines if nearly no one uses that. The market is probably changing now that Facebook is now also interesting for ads, but there was definitely a period where internet advertising meant Google Ads.

Of course, asking to disclose Google's search algorithm borderlines insanity.

<comment><USER24> But there are certainly _plenty_ of non-Google places and means to advertise. Google could raise prices on AdWords across the board and advertisers would have plenty of alternative means through which to hawk their wares.

<comment><USER25> Wouldn't you agree that the ad market via search is much different than the overall web ad market, especially when 90% of users (in some markets) go through search to find things?

<comment><USER24> No, I don't really think I would. Search is a great place to capture consumer intent, but it's hardly the only one. Advertising dollars are finite, and Google absolutely competes against non-search advertising publishers for its piece of that pie. Why do you think they run the AdSense program?

Even if it _were_ a different market, Google doesn't hold a monopoly on it by a long shot. Bing is over 20% of search volume in the US, and Yahoo holds another 13%. Searching for products on either of those will return results for relevant advertisers; the simple fact that they have paid ads to run is an empirical contradiction to claims of a search advertising monopoly (or is empirical proof that a large number of very successful companies are economically irrational and are throwing money down a money hole, but that seems highly improbable).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _the upper house of parliament yesterday voted to support an amendment to a draft economy bill that would require search engines to display at least three rivals on their homepage_

That's just absurd. Can someone acquainted with the situation shed light on why they are doing this? Simple populism and lobbying from local businesses or something else?

<comment><USER27> Not the answer you're looking for, but French protectionism (agriculture, film, etc.) is consistently stronger than the Western norm in the rest of Europe and the US. In those cases it is to protect domestic interests, which of course comes with its own consequences.

<comment><USER28> Consequences, like that the last time France had annual budget surplus was in 1974.

<comment><USER29> A time when France was a lot more protectionist and interventionist than today, actually.

<comment><USER28> Like all countries were; however, economic growth has been since stimulated by opening trade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It won't be the first time a company has to disclose its source code to a government to keep doing business in that country.

Apple 2015 [http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the- chinese-...](http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese- government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/)

Microsoft 2003 [http://news.cnet.com/China-to-view-Windows- code/2100-1007_3-...](http://news.cnet.com/China-to-view-Windows- code/2100-1007_3-990526.html)

<comment><USER13> It will potentially be the first time that the effectiveness of the product is impacted by the disclosure. It depends on what the factors are in Google's algorithm, of course, but having to disclose them potentially opens up Google to a whole lot more webspam. If that happened, they would need to fall back more heavily on the "difficult to fake" (eg. reputable links) factors rather than the "everyone can fake" (eg. optimal pattern of keywords on page) factors.

In practice it may negatively impact on the quality of search results, even though in theory their algorithm including more "difficult to fake" factors should result in it being more durable.

<comment><USER31> Not only this, but I'd think their current, exact ranking algorithm would rank pretty high on their list of important trade secrets to protect.

If a competitor gets ahold of their exact ranking algorithm, that's a huge piece of the formula for building a search engine that is as good as Google Search at finding what someone's looking for.

<comment><USER32> Absolutly correct, but there is also much more too this, there is page layout and look. There is speed of results depended on ability to trawl and return answers. There are complimentary platforms holing to their ecosystem. There is information they have access to only known to google from past searches or alternate platforms. There are masses of manual non algorithmic overrides. There is simple inertia of typing Google into the address bar for many.

Yes giving up the source algorithm would be a loss. Google have seen this coming for years and have been building the moat so even this information shared wouldn't really help a competitor take any significant chunk of their business in the short to medium term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Google should make a really, really simple alorigthm for search and use that only for french people and show that to the french goverment. I don't see why that should not be allowed, they allready have diffrent alorithm for diffrent places.

<comment><USER34> The only truly egalitarian algorithm is a random sort.

<comment><USER35> No it's not - if I put up more webpages than you, the first random page is more likely to be mine than yours.

The only truly egalitarian algorithm is to send all queries to a state-run committee of experts and have them sort it out.

That said... are the Chinese worse off due to their protectionism that gave Baidu an advantage? I sincerely don't know. When everybody plays dirty, it's hard to know which sequence of dirty moves will let one get the farthest ahead...

(What's really interesting here is how much actual sovereignty the French have, and if it's enough to pull off this particular move. There are trade agreements and even regardless of these, governments intervene to protect their companies.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's not the genuine article, but reading the title I imagined the effort it would require for Google to teach the French Senate how their algorithm worked. This has an assumption that the algorithm is understandable first by politicians and second by... humans!

I have no firsthand knowledge at all of Google's "algorithm", but I assume given the investment they have in ML that it is on the side of "optimization, feature selection, and tuning" instead of "logical, human-understandable decision process".

<comment><USER37> That's actually pretty fair. All the big players more or less have a handle on how to do Google-style search. The big differentiator is the data backing that search algorithm.

The primary (not only) reason Google keeps its search algorithm details a secret is to prevent people from having an edge on gaming the system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems. Back in the day Microsoft tried to avoid politics, and the US government almost broke them up.

"You may have all the money, Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." (Frank Underwood, House of Cards)

Looks like you're going to have to start paying more attention to the wallets of those with all the guns Google.

<comment><USER39> _> Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems._

That's by design: Campaign contributions are heavily regulated in France: [http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign- finance/france.php](http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php)

<comment><USER40> Without knowing much about french politicians I'd wager the guess that they receive the same amount of contributions as their colleagues in every other country, just through less public channels.

<comment><USER41> It's more a party thing, usually (the conservative party has been embroiled in a series of scandals concerning the last presidential elections, and the one before).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There is no way they would reveal their most precious secret sauce for the sake of satisfying one country's law and I can only think of one way this can end - Google pulling off another Google News Spain, by shutting down Google.fr.

Forcing Google's hand did not go well neither in Germany nor Spain not too long ago. How are law makers failing to see this? How are even the lobbyists fuelling the whole thing not seeing this?

</comment><comment><USER43> for non french, let me remind people what is the political debate in the country : on the left side, people want a state-owned economy, and on the other side, they want a state-governed economy ( "etat stratège", meaning the state takes all the strategic decision).

The belief that a state could stick to ensuring fair competition and simply foster innovation, instead of directly acting on the companies themselves ( or even worse, directly owning them), is shared by less than 5% of the population ( highest score of the "economicaly liberal" party during the past 30 years elections).

If they wanted to hurt google a bit, all they had to do is hit them at the tax level ( they're currently trying that as well, but it has a low chance of working, the main problem being that ireland is both in europe and has 0% tax).

Now, with all that being said, i'm still curious to know what are the true complaints regarding google search engine practices before i completely dismiss the whole affair as another typically french symptom.

</comment><comment><USER44> While this story is good feedstock for the Internet noise machine, I feel that if we discussed every stupid idea that came out of one half of a bicameral legislature in any country, we'd be buried in stupidity. An amendment to a draft bill in one house of parliament in a single small country does not amount to a movement.

</comment><comment><USER34> How curious that being the best in a competition is seen as anti-competitive, and that keeping one's innovations secret is seen as a barrier to entry.

"[T]he English language... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

<comment><USER45> I think that some people misinterpret the premise of a free (or freeish) market to mean that, no matter how successful a player is, barriers to entry should still remain constant and neutral. This appeals to the ideal image of a lone entrepreneur disrupting industries from their garage with pocket money, sweat and genius, but obviously doesn't consider that the last thing _any_ successful company wants is to provide a level playing field for their competitors.

Of course it's "anti-competitive", in a sense, but not unfair. No one is stopping other companies from competing against Google. It just happens that the market decided Google won... years ago. And now they own Youtube and Gmail and the OS that runs on a lot of mobile phones and they have so much money to burn they can try to make cars that drive themselves. No one is stopping people from using other search engines as well, it just happens that people decided years ago that Google worked better than anything else. This is the way it's supposed to work. The superior product wins and dominates, and redefines the market so that everyone has to play on their terms, while everything else dies, or limps along in the shadows hoping not to get eaten. But maybe if you're lucky, you find a niche, or the dinosaurs get wiped out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> As a french i'm ashamed about how useless/bad/mediocre our politics are (all of them)

<comment><USER47> Why is it bad? it's definitely bad for Google but for french citizens I can't see how fomenting diversity in a market hurts.

<comment><USER48> It's bad because they were unable to compete in an open market and must turn to the government to handicap Google.

There's nothing preventing a French company from producing their own equal or superior search engine - other than competence or will.

<comment><USER49> "Producing an equal or superior product" does not necessarily give the ability to "compete in an open market". That's an idealistic view of capitalism which simply doesn't work. It's merely a factor, and a fairly small one at that.

For all you know, there's plenty of "equal or superior products" to [anything] out there. You've just never heard of them for reasons that have nothing to do with their quality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Until recently, I believed that while Google abuses its search dominance in order to promote its own services above the fold, their actual search results are still fair. Then I saw the search results for "domains" and "domain." It is a big stretch to imagine how a fair algorithm can rank recently launched beta of Google Domains #4 and #1 against the competitors, such as GoDaddy or NameCheap, or even against informational websites.

<comment><USER51> I just searched for domains (from the UK) and the only reference to Google Domains I see is an advert. If you see differently, I guess there's some reason for that, but it doesn't seem to happen everywhere.

<comment> SG- That might simply be because Google Domains is US only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I think they would be better off taking all they money they would potentially spend on this stupid ____and putting it up as prize money for a French startup to create a viable Google competitor--encouraging them to view search in a new way. In the very least, it would be a positive message rather than a negative one and maybe an interesting company would come of it. I don 't think this will have anything but a negative effect on Google (which does not mean there will magically be a french competitor to jump in a take its place). It also makes the French government look really dumb...

</comment><comment><USER53> Google should just block French citizens from using any search-related functions on its properties (even things like Youtube search for example). The bill will be repealed in no time.

<comment><USER54> There's a reason why Google won't do this, and it relates to the purpose of the bill.

Google doesn't want competition, and France wants it to compete. This is the whole point of this action.

French businesses can and will produce competitive search products, and the 90% market leader voluntarily leaving the market would be the perfect opportunity.

<comment><USER55>
        Google doesn't want competition

That is a statement that reveals more about your own biases than it does about Google. There is no evidence indicating Google doesn't want competition.

If french businesses can and will produce competitive search products then they wouldn't need the market leader to leave the market to give them the opportunity. There is 0 barrier to entry here. Anyone can spider the same pages Google does. Anyone can develop ML algorithms to rank them. The only thing keeping Google at the top of search is how good they are at it.

Google is global leaving France wouldn't hurt them.

<comment><USER54> Why does any business want competition? I wasn't criticising Google on this particular point; it's an obvious and well-known fact of capitalism.

> The only thing keeping Google at the top of search is how good they are at > it.

As far as I'm aware, other search engines are usually competitive in blind tests for quality. Other things keeping Google at the top include: their incumbency; anti-competitive practices such as browser bundling.

<comment><USER55>
        I wasn't criticising Google on this point;
        it's an obvious part of capitalism.

Except it isn't really. Capitalism the theory may stipulate that an idealized company doesn't want competition but in the real world people run companies and everyone is a different.

Google as a company (speaking from insider experience as a former employee, But not in any official capacity) values competition. It provides a way to measure your success as a company. Google _loves_ measuring things it's so deeply ingrained into their DNA they can't help it. Ranking themselves against other search engines is a vital part of how they work. They would quite possibly be lost without it and very definitely be a different company without it. Google _loves_ competition.

<comment><USER54> So, when you say Google _loves_ competition, what you mean is that Google would be happy to gain market share and be unhappy to lose market share? OK...

 _Edited to add:_ the cost of expressing a dissenting opinion on this site seems to be waves of downvotes followed by a trickle of protective upvotes. Do the downvotes all come from the same place, in this case, I wonder?

<comment><USER56> When Google measures itself against other search engines it is primarily interested in measuring search quality and not market share.

Google has put a lot of effort into creating test query suites and other systems that can be used to evaluate search results and works to make sure that in each region and language it can out perform competitors. I don't know how effective the measurement is but I can tell you that Google takes providing the best search results seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> SG- Being that Google is essentially the gatekeeper of all content for today's world I kind of think they should publish it freely anyways on their own.

I realize there's a wiki page at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank) but there's clearly more to it for ranking of all things and it should be maintained by Google itself too.

<comment><USER57> Part of the reason it works so well is that SEO people who are trying to manipulate the rankings of their site don't know the details of the algorithm. At best they can guess and run experiments.

Google making their algorithm public would result in it being much easier for website owners to inflate their rankings, resulting in lower quality search results, and giving companies who pay enough money to SEO experts an unfair advantage (far more so than is already the case today).

<comment> SG- True, but at the same time I think that's also an issue. How many sites get unfair advantages from ex-Googlers or insiders? I don't actually consider it an issue today, but going forward it will only be amplified even more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> They shouldn't comply with this. Better to lose the entire French market than to set a precedent of allowing themselves to bullied by governments. I would imagine people would vote to get rid of this once they're unable to use Google.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'd love to see how they define "search engine." Would this require amazon's search functionality to also show links from rakuten or barnes & noble? Would tech crunch's search have to show wired articles?

<comment><USER13> One difference between politicians & lawyers when compared with scientists & engineers is that politicians & lawyers don't share the same feeling of needing to precisely define what they mean. They tend to write things that are vague and turn to courts when they desire enforcement.

You might be let down if expecting something so specific that Amazon & TechCrunch are clearly included or excluded.

<comment><USER60> This is certainly true in places with legal systems evolved from that of England. It's less true in France, where precedent is less important and courts don't have the power to make law.

<comment><USER13> Interesting; I had no idea that difference existed. Thank you for correcting me.

<comment><USER61> "Common law" is the name for a system that is mostly built on consistency with prior judgments; "civil law" mostly built on legislation.

[http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/common-law-vs-civil- law/](http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/common-law-vs-civil-law/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Am I missing something? Google search is "just" a very sophisticated algorithm to ranks the pages on internet matching some criteria. If Google doesn't disclose its algorithm and doesn't want to pay the fine ("up to 10% of total global revenue of a search engine business" according to the article), what could France do? Bane Google from the country? Although it would be possible, it would result in a massive loss of productivity for the whole country, since French would have to switch to admittedly inferiors search engines.

I say that as a French expat using duckduckgo as his main search engine.

</comment><comment><USER63> Do Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo also have to disclose their algorithms? Or is it just Google? Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so?

<comment><USER64> >Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so?

Someone who wants money. It's the same argument that Big Pharma presents against those who want to make the patent system lighter, or any company that protests against IP freedom. They just don't want fair competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> My government (USA) seems to be shooting itself in the foot re: hurting our tech industries: NSA collections and back doors cause foreign companies to not use our tech, etc.

France seems to want to catch up with the USA, and hurt its tech industries and infrastructure also.

I don't understand it, unless it is just putting the interest of government bureaucracies ahead of the public good.

</comment><comment><USER66> The worst part will be when they force us to translate all search's source code and internal docs to French. :)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm very concerned with Google's search monopoly. For the vast majority of users (in western countries), Google is the internet.

That's a lot of power for one company to have, and it's only going to get worse as more and more transactions move online. Why should we trust one company with that much power?

<comment><USER67> You certainly don't have to trust or use Google. However, it would certainly be weird to order Google to stop because of its popularity.

The Beatles had the number one position in the billboard charts for almost 60 weeks. That's a lot of popularity for one band to have. Should we have told them to stop making music?

<comment><USER18> You have to look at this practically instead of ideologically. Everything is a matter of degree. The potential harm a band can do by being too popular is far less than the potential harm done by effectively controlling the internet.

Certainly you'll agree that their is a market where it is possible for a company to be "too popular", i.e., the government should step in with regulation.

Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate?

Google is effectively the gateway to the internet, and whether you choose to use them or not you are beholden to that control. If you want to do business a web presence is an absolute necessity, but if Google decides they don't like you, there is no recourse. I'd say that that ability to do harm rises to the level that we should consider potential regulatory remedies.

I don't necessarily support forcing them to make their algorithm public, but I would support some kind of government audit.

<comment><USER68> _Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won 't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate?_

Yes, it is wrong for them to do so (if by regulating you mean setting the company's price for the product that it developed, rather than just the standard regulations that are in place). And the fact that there are people who don't believe it is wrong - probably including politicians - produces a reduction in the amount of money that would be rational to invest to search for such cures, thereby reducing the likelihood of finding them.

<comment><USER18> In this hypothetical situation, the government could step in and save _millions_ of lives per year with a short term loss of profit to one company.

In this situation you'd let millions of people die because you think it _might_ reduce future medical research outcomes?

So obviously I haven't found a hypothetical situation extreme enough for you yet. We make policy decisions that limit how much money companies can make from medical breakthroughs all the time. The FDA approval process, for instance. If we stopped requiring FDA approval, developing drugs would be much more profitable, but as a society we agree that drug safety is a good trade off.

What if drug affordability is a good trade off as well? There's no way to know without investigation, but that is why I'm opposed to making policy on purely ideological grounds. What if it turns out that limiting pharmaceutical profits, decreases medical funding by 10%, but increases access to drugs that are developed by 100%? Again it may work out exactly opposite, but if you oppose limiting the price of drugs just because "it's wrong", you'll never know.

What if it turns out that medical funding isn't the bottleneck in medical breakthroughs. What if the number of people capable of becoming researchers is, and what if that amount goes up with more affordable drug access.

Again, I'm not proposing a specific course of action, but I'm saying that there are situations where the free market doesn't work and regulation is necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> They should show minified versions of their code to the senate under closed doors. Let them make sense of it.

</comment><comment><USER70> Behind closed doors ? Or will the entire world get to see how Google search algorithm works ?

</comment><comment><USER71> PageRank is already public. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank)

But, of course, Google don't solely use that anymore.

</comment><comment><USER72> Realistically though they merely have to show them _a_ search algorithm.

<comment><USER73> And then lose credibility with all government inquiries in all countries into the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> It is interesting that many people who are so devote to open source software in general are just OK with the software oligopoly of search that is practiced today by Google and a few other companies. I think it is terrible that we don't have a clear idea of what is going on within the most used search engine, and that they are able to change the algorithm without little second thought. It would be very nice if this lawsuit could bring to the forefront the issues involved with the way Google is controlling everyone's access to information.

</comment><comment><USER75> i think we'll see more & more government vs. big internet. for now governments have more power, but I wonder what it will be like 20 or 50 years from now. after all, they want at least 10% growth and starting from 360 billion, you become very big at that rate over 20-50 years.

not sure this world will be as awesome as some may think it could be. sure we don't like our governments & the are incredibly inefficient. maybe that's a good thing though.

</comment><comment><USER76> Are we moving towards socialism of the internet?

</comment><comment><USER77> I will not comment on the debate that exasperates me . However, France is also very angry with the way Google optimizes (legally) its income to pay very little tax in France despite substantial profits. It's not fair for the politicians and also for the whole population that cannot make such optimization. I think France just wants to hit Google in a manner respecting its own laws.

</comment><comment><USER78> Good.

This is an unpopular view, but Google is simply too powerful. Anything that acts against the Google monopoly on search can only be a good thing.</comment>


Immigration Ban Blocks Travelers at Airports Around Globe - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> [https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/live/2017/jan/28/world-d...](https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/live/2017/jan/28/world-digests-donald-trumps-order-to-ban-refugees-from- muslim-countries)

Here are some stories of what is this causing to people around the world, ATM.

"Hamaseh Tayari, a UK resident who holds an Iranian passport, has been on holiday in Costa Rica with her boyfriend for the last week. She was due to fly back to Glasgow, where she works as a vet, this morning but was denied entry onto the flight because her flight went via New York and she would need a transit visa, which was revoked.

Tayari and her boyfriend are trying to find an alternative route home. A flight to Madrid on the 30 January will cost them £2000 and they'll still have to find a way from there to Glasgow. She says: "We had been saving for months for this holiday and it will cost me a month's salary just to get home. "

<comment><AUTHOR> This situation in general, inc. these stories, point to wider global issues that should matter to all of us regardless of nationality...</comment></comment>


Show HN: The Social Media Publisher for Teams - <AUTHOR> https://kunvenu.com <comment><AUTHOR> Founder here. I launch my newest side project for beta users, which are willing to help with they feedback. Cheers Stefan</comment>


Don't Get Pwned on Public WiFi: Use Your Own VPN - <AUTHOR> https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/blog/dont-get-pwned-on-public-wifi-use-your-own-vpn-tutorial-guide-how-to <comment><USER2> I use a VPN for much of my private traffic. Here is where I differ from the article's recommendations, and why:

\- I don't recommend rolling your own on EC2: pick a VPN with a good reputation and a policy of not retaining logs. See: [http://torrentfreak.com/vpn-services-that-take-your- anonymit...](http://torrentfreak.com/vpn-services-that-take-your-anonymity- seriously-2013-edition-130302/) (you don't have to use torrents to need a VPN, btw!!)

\- I recommend using a Debian VM w/ OpenVPN for your private traffic. That way, 'am I using my VM?' is a quick test for whether your traffic is private or public.

\- I can't stress this enough: _be sure to firewall your VM from any traffic not to your VPN provider_. __If OpenVPN drops its connection, it will fallback to sending packets normally! __At least if you firewall, your connection will just die, instead of potentially sending private traffic in the clear. The article doesn 't mention this, and it should.

\- Be sure not to log in to your usual services on your VPN, or there is a possibility that someone can connect your real traffic and your VPN traffic. I use LastPass with random passwords to manage all of my accounts, so I solve this problem by simply not installing LastPass on my VM, which makes logging in a very deliberate action on my VM.

<comment><USER3> How do you firewall your connection from any traffic not to your VPN provider?

<comment><USER2> On Linux, I use a shell script like this:

       servers=( ip1 ip2 ip3 ... )

       # Can fwd over internal network
       iptables -A OUTPUT -s 192.168.0.0/16 -d 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT

       # Can fwd over loopback
       iptables -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT

       # Can fwd over the tunnel
       iptables -A OUTPUT -o tun0 -j ACCEPT

       # Can send packets to VPN
       for server in "${servers[@]}"; do
          echo "Installing rules for $server"
          iptables -A OUTPUT -d $server -j ACCEPT
       done

       # Otherwise drop
       iptables -A OUTPUT -j DROP

Use it with a package like iptables-persistent so you don't have to run this every time at boot.

<comment><USER4> You can do this without IPtables, just make wlan0/eth0 the host route for $server and then make the default gateway the tunnel interface. Decent OpenVPN clients do this by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hi folks. I'm one of the three guys who runs Cloak ([https://www.getcloak.com/](https://www.getcloak.com/)).

Cloak is a super simple VPN where both the back-end service and front-end apps are tightly integrated. (We think of it as the "Dropbox of VPNs" in the sense that, like Dropbox, it's so easy to use.)

Basically, it's the VPN service+applications I wanted for myself when I started looking around and couldn't find anything (1) easy enough and (2) non- sketchy. Right now Cloak supports OS X (10.7+) and iOS (6+). We've been around for a while and I know there are a number of happy customers here on HN.

In any case, please let me know if you have any questions, and please do give it a spin. Cheers!

(EDIT for clarity, and because X of Y descriptions are not always loved.)

<comment><USER6> The "Dropbox of VPNs"? What does that even mean?

<comment><USER5> We think Dropbox is great because it's so easy to use and "just works". We designed Cloak with that thought in mind.

<comment><USER7> While Dropbox is simple to use, it's hardly the first thing that comes to mind when you make a comparison to Dropbox. I'd change that phrase because it's very confusing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good writeup, but why does this piece recommend running the VPN over TCP? Tunneling TCP over TCP, which will be the end result, is known to provide terrible performance in the presence of even minor packet loss.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! I made the change when using the VPN at DefCon but haven't updated the post. I'll do that now.

<comment><USER8> Cool. I was looking around a few weeks ago for a good howto on setting up an OpenVPN server, but didn't find anything straightforward enough for the time constraints I was under. Thanks for writing this up, it'll come in handy for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I too use (open)vpn for 99% of my traffic because _terrorism_ etc.

I can't recommend it enough, the damn thing is super stable and secure, works via NAT via NAT via NAT etc and super flexible (push routes, push dns, proxy and other settings), works in routed mode, bridged mode and so on.

I recommend you get a server or a VPS somewhere "nearby" and install openvpn software on that.

I can't trust VPN providers that they do not monitor or log my traffic and neither should you.

</comment><comment><USER10> Much more practical on Linux/OSX: [https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle](https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle)

No root/admin privileges required on your "VPN server" \- just the ability to ssh. It solves the tcp-over-tcp issue. It just works.

It only does TCP (with a specific hack for DNS, but no general UDP or IP). But it works exceptionally well, and just needs an sshable account on the server.

<comment><USER11> While possible, using ssh on iOS as a tunnel is a giant pain and it times out after 10mins. PPTP is not an option and there is preciously little info out there about properly setting up roadwarrior IPSec in a relatively easy manner.

<comment><USER12> So then why not use OpenVPN?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone know why this is better than a simple SOCKS proxy, which can be set up with one SSH command to your VPS and a quick visit to your system settings?

I use sheepsafe to pull these up automatically when I'm away from a trusted network [https://github.com/nicksieger/sheepsafe](https://github.com/nicksieger/sheepsafe)

<comment><AUTHOR> This answer possibly explains some of the differences between the two: [http://superuser.com/a/423615](http://superuser.com/a/423615)

<comment><USER13> Ah thanks. The TLDR seems to be "VPN can handle UDP and other non TCP connections, e.g. for YouTube".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For this audience, one would assume this isn't anything new.

The next level of 'detail'/risk to consider here is the fact that so many apps, and even browsers, will bind to the "on connection" event of connecting to a wifi hotspot - before you can initiate your VPN your twitter client* has already sent your authenticated token over the wire, etc.

I've tried to hack something together with iptables but that doesn't work either in airports/etc where there are splash screens to negotiate, etc.

 _(_ = yes, you could use a better client, but then the reason we need VPNs in the first place is that so many apps and sites don't use https) _

<comment><USER15> A lame workaround would be to close all apps prior to putting your laptop to sleep, then engaging the vpn and only afterwards restarting the apps.

Shouldn't be too big of a deal now that tabs/sessions are mostly saved in chrome/firefox no? And well not like losing your twitter credentials is a big deal anyway. (i'm not a huge twitter fan btw :D)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ironically, Ghostery prevents the article from being displayed and there are nine trackers detected on that page.

<comment><USER17> Ironically, Ghostery is owned by Evidon who sells GhostRank data to businesses.

<comment><USER18> Can you expand on this? I use Ghostery all the time. What exactly is being sold to businesses?

<comment><USER17> The wikipedia article[1] of Ghostery gives a quick & fast overview of what they do. MIT Technology review posted[2]:

> Evidon sells two main services based on the data it collects. One allows > website operators to see which tracking code, from which companies, is > active on their site and how it affects the speed with which its pages load. > The other provides ad companies with figures on how common the tracking code > from different companies is around the Web.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#History_and_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#History_and_use)

[2] [http://m.technologyreview.com/news/516156/a-popular-ad- block...](http://m.technologyreview.com/news/516156/a-popular-ad-blocker-also- helps-the-ad-industry/)

<comment><USER19> Sadly, that article is full of shit. And I'll edit our entry later to remove the Criticism, which is only partly correct.

GhostRank is explicitly for collecting tracker information, and in no way does it allow an advertiser (tho most of the customers are publishers) to somehow improve their targeting.

This explains article what GhostRank does and what its for: [http://purplebox.ghostery.com/?p=1016023438](http://purplebox.ghostery.com/?p=1016023438)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you're planning to run a VPN server on Amazon EC2, be forewarned that lots of sites are going to block you. For example, Yelp, Craigslist, the StackOverflow family, Hulu, and Bank of America.

<comment><USER21> Any idea why they do that?

<comment><USER22> Because often, EC2 is used by spammers, botnets, and the like. Turns out when you make starting a box really simple, evildoers will use your service as well. Craigslist & Co. dislike EC2 in general, for that reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The easiest defense against a pineapple is to create a wifi network titled "Pineapple Connected ALERT ALERT" or something similar to that. No security, no keys, and set it to your highest priority of networks to connect to if you have automatic joining enabled.

As someone who has used these lovely devices to prank others it's a good idea to do so.

<comment><USER14> I'm confused, does the Pineapple device create an additional SSID called this? Sorry, not familiar with the devices.

<comment><USER23> Your computer asks "Hey is ____ SSID available?" and pineapple says "Yep! That's me!" Now your computer connects to the pineapple.

Well if you set the "Pineapple detected" SSID in your computer as the top priority, you'll connect to that when the pineapple is around. You're just putting in a dummy network on your computer to warn you that you've just joined the network f*&%ville, and you're not the mayor.

<comment><USER14> Oh I see.

So anyone running a pineapple should alter the code not to respond to any SSID client probe containing the string "pineapple" and just wait for the next probe, and latch on to that as that will result in the MITM'ing of a high- value target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> [https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle](https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle)

Easy solution and system-wide, if your OS supports it and you can ssh to a trusted server. My personal plan-B tool when a simple ssh -D and firefox's socks-proxy isn't enough.

(BTW, why doesn't Chrome have socks-proxy like Firefox yet?)

</comment><comment><USER25> If you run a Linode, they have similar instructions for each of their Linux images:

[https://library.linode.com/networking/openvpn/ubuntu-10.04-l...](https://library.linode.com/networking/openvpn/ubuntu-10.04-lucid)

</comment><comment><USER26> If you have a decent internet connection at home with reliable uptime, you can also just set up a VPN at home and connect that way. My router comes with OpenVPN on it, so I don't even need to have extra hardware running.

</comment><comment><USER27> I like Tinc VPN ([http://www.tinc-vpn.org/](http://www.tinc-vpn.org/)). It's multiplatform and open source, just as OpenVPN is, but I prefer it for its simplicity and its mesh feature. It doesn't try to do too much (which means you'll have to set up routes yourself).

See [http://www.tinc-vpn.org/documentation-1.1/tinc_4.html#How- co...](http://www.tinc-vpn.org/documentation-1.1/tinc_4.html#How-connections- work) to get an idea of the mesh feature.

</comment><comment><USER28> Of course, you have a problem when the owner of the wifi explicitly prevents anonymisation services.

For example, when I was at Birmingham airport, I couldn't connect to my VPN because they blocked domains of well-known VPN providers and even hijacked all my DNS requests so I couldn't circumvent so easily it.

I guess running your own local DNS server which has your typical requests cached would solve this problem though.

<comment><USER22> Well, if you're running your own on, say, an EC2 or Rackspace or DigitalOcean droplet, they likely won't have it blocked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm still looking for a good config for a raccoon roadwarrior config to a VM behind dd-wrt (as dd-wrt does not come with IPSec support).

Amazingly, there is very little information about this despite what would seem to be a pretty common desired config. Or maybe my google-fu just sucks.

At this point, I can get a tunnel established but it fails to correctly route after the tunnel is set up. Frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER4> The article doesn't mention IPv6 where things can be a bit more tricky. The Android clients don't let you use TAP (layer 2 tunneling), so if you're going to be accessing your VPN from an Android device you'll have to configure IPv6 NAT, or hack around with scripts to add IPv6 addresses dynamically.

</comment><comment><USER29> You know what would be great - The ability to do this automatically, especially on Android.

I would love to see the ability to specify 'safe' or 'trusted' WiFi networks and if you connect to a network other than these, the VPN gets initialized and used.

Setup on the phone is once and usage of the VPN happens automatically after that.

</comment><comment><USER30> I like to use an SSH SOCKS proxy to my home server. It didn't seem to be as much work to set up as this.

</comment><comment><USER31> BTW, for what it's worth, the (very inexpensive) Synology NAS models out there will all act as an openvpn server. It requires a hit of tweaking to get it to work they way you'd expect, but it's nothing beyond what the typical reader here can do.

</comment><comment><USER32> Anyone have experience setting up a VPN on a Raspberry Pi?

I'm guessing that it would cost less than $5/month on energy and I have one sitting on a drawer.

Also, I don't live in the US and proxying all my data through the US and back would introduce unwanted lag.

<comment><USER33> Grab a Kimsurfi dedicated machine in France! Only £3 a month.

<comment><USER32> Well, I'm not in Europe and VPNs/Dedicated servers in my country are tad expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Once your vpn is established do you post to HN, inject SQL, download torrents, or is there something else exciting to do? I'm not in a fraternity (or sorority) so that's out.

</comment><comment><USER35> If you're too cheap to shell out money for a VPN, proXPN has a limited free tier. I've been using it for banking while travelling and it works great!

</comment><comment><USER36> Somebody could probably sell me a solution that does all this automatically without distracting me from I'm supposed to be thinking about.

</comment><comment><USER37> I have a Chromebook (whose security is limited to HTTPs Everywhere, which doesn't lock much at all). How do I set up a VPN for it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like Chromebooks may support it right out of the box: [https://support.google.com/chromeos/answer/1282338](https://support.google.com/chromeos/answer/1282338)

<comment><USER38> But their OpenVPN support is awful and limited, unless you enable developer mode and set it up manually. Prevents Chromebooks from using VPN in our office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wonder why this is so convoluted. NAT used to be like that but since long time it's just `apt-get install ipmasq`

</comment><comment><USER40> subscribing to a VPN provider is typically easier, cheaper and provides more options than rolling your own on EC2

[http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/readerpicks/tp/The- Best-...](http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/readerpicks/tp/The-Best-VPN- Service-Providers.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely true that cheaper is definitely possible, but a DigitalOcean droplet or an EC2 micro can be pretty cheap and you don't have to worry about the other VPN clients as much.

<comment><USER41> It is hell though - recently setup this on a droplet, but getting all the settings right and diagnosed on Ubuntu and some Ubuntu and Android clients was complicated. It never seems to work the first time...

<comment><USER16> L2TP/IPsec is hell. OpenVPN is not more difficult to set up than a web server. Of course, you need L2TP if you want to use the built-in clients on Android, IPhone, Windows...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, mobile support was a bit tricky to set up for us as well, but we managed it with just OpenVPN. The OpenVPN app for iPhone at least was able to be configured without too much headache, although it only supports a subset of the OpenVPN options. It should be compatible with the config in the article.

<comment><USER41> For Android, there's an OpenVPN app too - it uses the very handy and neat Android VPN API and besides needing certificates in the right format (not the text versions), it works well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am using a NoMachine NX remote session to a my server through ssh for this purpose.</comment>


NSA Blames Website Outage on Inclement Weather - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/17/nsa_outage_blamed_on_rain/ <comment><AUTHOR> Color me skeptical. This sustained outage got very little coverage outside the part of the twitterverse inhabited by cybersecurity specialists like @ericgeller</comment>


Ask HN: Who are managers here who needs a tool for 1-1 meetings? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I will love to see if you have created something.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! Thank you for your response. Here's the product we have made specifically for 1 on 1 meetings.

[https://www.identifi.com/](https://www.identifi.com/)

We are currently using it in our company and it helps us a lot. Organizing and keeping track of our 1 on 1 meetings have been a lot easier.</comment></comment>