The Hidden Monopolies That Raise Drug Prices - <AUTHOR> http://prospect.org/article/hidden-monopolies-raise-drug-prices-0#main-content <comment><USER2> The article does a good job of starting to explain the forces, but it's actually even more complicated.

A number of the PBMs are cross invested in pharmacies and insurance companies, and the incentives of 2-3 large pharmacies that control the majority of the market (and how they get paid) is very different than how small pharmacies get paid.

Additionally the way the generic market works vs the branded (patented) meds is completely different. (and the system of how drugs move from patented to generic is _nothing_ like the way patents work in software)

Which is all to say, it's a fascinating space. It's very ripe for innovation.

If you're interested in this kind of thing at Blink we're building a price transparency and payment platform that both routes over and routes around PBMs and gives a unified fair price for everyone in the US.

If you're interested in roughly what the wholesale price is plus a very small markup, you can find it on [https://blinkhealth.com](https://blinkhealth.com)

And we're hiring. [https://www.blinkhealth.com/careers](https://www.blinkhealth.com/careers)

Also the re-importing from Canada is a total red herring. As is implied in the term "re-importing" these drugs are made here in the US, there is nothing special about sending them to Canada and bringing them back. There just needs to be a payment platform that allows people to pay the wholesale price with a small markup (vs the "Average Wholesale Price" which is often a 2000-3000% markup over the real wholesale)

Finally one of the challenges with moving to a centrally managed pricing solution like what works so well in Canada and most of Western Europe is right now R&D into pharmaceuticals is largely financed by the opportunity size available in the US market. If you were to just adopt the centralized model tomorrow R&D would grind to a stop, at least for some period of time until we found new ways to finance it.

<comment><USER3> _" Finally one of the challenges with moving to a centrally managed pricing solution like what works so well in Canada and most of Western Europe is right now R&D into pharmaceuticals is largely financed by the opportunity size available in the US market. If you were to just adopt the centralized model tomorrow R&D would grind to a stop, at least for some period of time until we found new ways to finance it."_

That would be bad. Based on 5 minutes of googling and 10 minutes of reading, the largest US pharma company is Johnson & Johnson. Their latest earnings report has the following for the 12 months in 2016 (not all expenses are listed here):

\- Sales (i.e. revenue): $71.8bn

\- Marketing expense: $19.9bn

\- R&D expense: $9.1bn

\- After tax, after expenses profit: $16.5bn

So, on behalf of my fellow Australians, I'd just like to thank J&J for selling into my country at a substantial loss (and, in doing so, bravely running the risk of breaching their fiduciary duties to their shareholders).

I'd also like to express my gratitude to consumers in the United State, who are apparently so generous that they are willing to subsidise my country's single-purchaser medical system. It's a shame you can't have one as well, but at least you have the world's gratitude for your sacrifice. USA #1!

EDIT: Link - [http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/JNJ/4178180194x0x9249...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/JNJ/4178180194x0x924921/BCDFDBBF-7CC2-49FF-8ECF-3EC12FC88406/JNJ_News_2017_1_24_Financial_Releases.pdf)

<comment><USER4> With all the sarcasm, it's hard to tell how broad of a point you're trying to make. Do dispute the fact that Australia free-rides to a non-trivial extent on US medical R&D?

<comment><USER3> Yes I do dispute that notion. Actually I dispute the entire idiot notion that the US is somehow subsidising the rest of the worlds' healthcare.

In actual fact, pharmaceutical / medical device companies will simply charge whatever the market will bear, and it just so happens the US market will bear almost any price. If some market won't bear a profit making price, pharma companies simply won't sell into it.

It makes utterly no sense to sell at a loss and then cross subsidise using the massive rents extracted from US markets, yet that is exactly what most people here seem to think is happening. Although maybe Trump really has managed to 'make America great again'. Speaking of great...

The US spends 17.1% of of its GDP on healthcare. The 5 countries that are richer than the USA (GDP per capita) pay an average of 7.77%. Excluding Qatar, it's 9.03%. The top 10 richest countries (excluding the USA) spend an average of 8.03% of their GDP on healthcare, and I'm pretty sure at least a few of these have universal public health insurance.

You're paying more than DOUBLE compared to the 9 other richest countries in the world. You're simply getting gouged. If you can't even admit that maybe there's a problem here, and instead want to persist with all these insane American exceptionalist fantasies, it's unlikely anything is going to change in American healthcare.

Data from here: [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?end=2014&...](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?end=2014&start=2014&view=bar&year_high_desc=false)

And here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\)_per_capita) (using IMF GDP figures)

<comment><USER4> That's a long rant that doesn't even address the standard econ 101 argument. It's especially weird to quote spending data since that's what one would expect if the US was subsidizing the world.

<comment><USER3> It's also what one would expect if US consumers are getting horribly gouged on prices. But then I guess you'd also expect to see pharmaceutical companies enjoying super high profit levels... Oh wait...

EDIT: Given I am unable to address the 'econ101 argument', would you care to take a shot?

<comment><USER4> No, I think your tone is completely inappropriate for HN and is not compatible with a constructive discussion.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough.

FWIW I do apologise for the sarcastic tone of my posts above. You're right; it's probably not the right way to spark a constructive discussion. To be honest, my tone was a fairly deliberate departure from how I usually post. It's just that I've been in a number of these 'US Healthcare' discussions on HN now and have seen the same points and counterpoints made many times, yet no progress seems to have been made.

I suppose that's a good indication that I should just stay out of these threads until I can maintain a civil tone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I deal with Express Scripts and CVS Caremark. I have Hemophilia, a bleeding disorder condition I've been born with.

By far, these are the most corrupt organizations in the medical/drug industry. At least the phrama companies actually make something at the end of the day and do research, and employ more than just business people. I am forced by whatever insurance plan I have, to deal with these companies directly because they have whats called a "carve out" \-- an exclusive agreement with the major insurance carriers that requires I deal with them directly. I literally have no choice or alternative from which to get my medication.

The reason is clear: my medication costs between $60,000 - $150,000 per month. I'm not kidding, either. It's been this way forever, despite the patents expiring on the medication. Its so lucrative and it makes me ill that so many people are benefiting and using me as some kind of financial conduit due to my medical condition. A significant amount of the money goes to one of these companies. They literally have a markup on the medication on a per-unit basis. So they tack on 20% or 30% to each unit of my medication (think pills, but its actually IU potency units -- its an IV medication I give to myself).

I'm fortunate that, because of these extreme costs, these companies have actually worked out in my favor: they have a dedicated rep assigned to me, and continually renegotiate their position with the insurance carriers to maximize their profit (I'm a high-profit user and thus very important to them).

These companies have no interest in getting costs down, and actually fight for the opposite. A few years ago they bullied the drug companies into offering a co-pay assistance program so they can literally take my insurance for all its worth. Their goal is to max out whatever benefits I have, and at that point usually the patient can be a blocker because they don't have the money for the maximum yearly deductible. However, they basically worked with/forced the drug companies into creating a co-pay program, then raised up the prices for the first order of the year. What happens is the first order I place is always more expensive, and then it gets discounted by some amount (usually my yearly co-pay). I don't have to pay this money however, it comes directly from the manufacture's co-pay assistance program.

So I guess its a triumph in the fact I don't really have to pay much -- if anything for my medication, but that's only because its extreme high price. I'm sure its not like this for other people on the middle and lower ends of the system.

<comment><USER6> So I read this and I'm horrified. And I know that no one in the coming years will make this or anything like it a priority in Congress. They give no shits about us. The media spends all day talking about tweets and Russian influence in our election and on our newly minted government officials. Yeah, the latter is important, but health care is really, really important. It's the reason our new POTUS was elected, according to the post-mortums I've seen. NOTHING WILL BE DONE (that is good for the people, things might be done that will be great for businesses).

<comment><USER7> Remember, Donald Trump was elected because people want change. Most people are aware at this point that the system is rigged, and are looking to change it. It's unclear currently whether populism or socialism will win in the long run, but don't lose hope yet.

<comment><USER8> Socialism and populism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Quite often socialism takes the form of populist socialism (think Bernie Sanders or Chavez).

Also, I think anyone who voted Trump to generate populist change, are likely getting a raw deal. The administration is loaded with Billionaires and business leaders, the opposite of populism. And, they've already set about enacting changes that negatively affect average people, like rolling back privacy protections, and pushing for health reforms that would cause 20 million people to lose insurance coverage, while according to the CBO raising costs.

<comment><USER7> Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. I thought they were completely different. How would Trump's direction be described, then? Nationalism?

Also, I agree that electing Trump was a raw deal. But between the two presidential candidates, Trump was the Change candidate and Clinton was the Status Quo candidate. From what I understand, a lot of studies show that Sanders would have won the election if he wasn't suppressed on the Democratic side. Most people don't feel like the country is going in the right direction, and they want change.

<comment><USER8> Trump is more or less a (far-ish)right populist and economic nationalist.

Not to rehash the election unnecessarily, but I seriously doubt Sanders had any chance nationally. The US has a political center that is center right to right wing on an absolute scale, meaning the average American Democrat would fit comfortable in most moderate/centrist conservative parties in the rest of the developed world. No judgement there, it's just a historical fact and likely the result of some political realignments in the 20th century due to the Cold War. That is to say that someone as far left of center as Sanders would have no chance in most swing states where the election is decided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Americans pay the highest health-care prices in the world, including the > highest for drugs, medical devices, and other health-care services and > products. Our fragmented system produces many opportunities for excessive > charges. But one lesser-known reason for those high prices is the > stranglehold that a few giant intermediaries have secured over distribution. > The antitrust laws are supposed to provide protection against just this kind > of concentrated economic power. But in one area after another in today's > economy, federal antitrust authorities and the courts have failed to > intervene. In this case, PBMs are sucking money out of the health-care > system—and our wallets—with hardly any public awareness of what they are > doing.

As I and other have mentioned before, the easiest way to fix this would be to permit re-importing drugs that were manufactured within the US.

For example, permitting trade across the US-Canadian border provides an equalizing force on the prices across the border, even though, at steady- state, no drugs actually need to make the return trip. In other words, allowing the trade puts an upper bound on the difference between the prices charged in the US and the prices charged in Canada: that difference can be no greater than the costs of reimporting those drugs, or else it becomes cheaper for people to source their drugs from Canada.

By disallowing the trade, we allow the difference to grow unbounded.

A few days before Obama left office, there was a bill that would have fixed that, but nine Democrats joined the Republicans in voting it down: [https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020)

<comment><USER10> We "disallow trade" for lots of legitimate reasons. One such reason is when government intervention in another country drives prices below market levels ( _e.g._ we put high tariffs on Chinese steel to counter heavy Chinese government subsidization of that industry).

That's exactly what happens in Canada. Because the healthcare system is publicly funded, the government has enormous market power that it can use to drive drug prices below efficient levels: [http://www.becker-posner- blog.com/2009/12/should-the-governm...](http://www.becker-posner- blog.com/2009/12/should-the-government-use-its-monopsony-power-to-reduce-the- price-of-drugs-posner.html). Allowing re-importation of those drugs into the U.S. would create a price ceiling at whatever level the Canadian government had negotiated, and would effectively allow the Canadian government to set drug prices in the U.S.

That would be good for consumers in the short term, but not necessarily in the long term. It's no coincidence that the U.S. is the epicenter of pharmaceutical advancements. When I was a kid (early 1990s), HIV/AIDS was something we regarded as a death sentence. I vividly remember people talking in hushed tones when Magic Johnson was diagnosed in 1991. 26 years later, Magic Johnson is still kicking, HIV is no longer a death sentence, and we have Big Pharma to thank for it (and not Canada).

<comment><USER9> > we put high tariffs on Chinese steel to counter heavy Chinese government > subsidization of that industry

That's not a good comparison, because we're talking about _reimportation_ \- ie, drugs that are produced in the US and exported to another country before being reimported. In general, nobody's interested in reimporting steel produced in the US and exported to China.

> Because the healthcare system is publicly funded, the government has > enormous market power that it can use to drive drug prices below efficient > levels

First, Canadian healthcare is run at the provincial level, not at the federal level. So while each province/territory is a monopsony, they're each fairly small.

Secondly, pharmaceuticals are typically _not_ covered in Canada; patients pay for most drugs out of pocket, and their generic prices are actually not much lower than they are in the US[0]

> Allowing re-importation of those drugs into the U.S. in effect allows the > Canadian government to set drug prices in the U.S.

With free trade, another country is still free to subsidize the goods that it imports from the US, but with the knowledge that they'll be subsidizing whatever portion of Americans choose to reimport those drugs at the subsidized prices.

In reality, that reimportation won't need to happen, because it'll just apply backpressure on the initial sale prices in both markets from the manufacturer.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107113/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107113/)

<comment><USER4> > patients pay for most drugs out of pocket, and their generic prices are > actually not much lower than they are in the US[0]

But rayiner's entire point is about incentivizing R&D by allowing the collection of monopoly rents on _patented_ drugs; he's not talking about generics. How the market for generics is structure has essentially no impact on R&D. And as you say, since Canada's generics are nearly as expensive as in the US, or are more expensive (see below), re-importing generics does not usefully push down prices.

[http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/this-is-why- canada-...](http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/this-is-why-canada-has- the-second-highest-medication-costs-in-the-world)

<comment><USER9> > But rayiner's entire point is about incentivizing R&D by allowing the > collection of monopoly rents on patented drugs.

I'm pointing to the generics as an illustration of Canada's pharmaceutical prices not being as controlled as people often think. (In fact, in Canada they're not controlled directly at all - they're simply pegged by law to other countries which set their own prices).

I actually agree with rayiner's point about incentivizing R&D by allowing (temporary) collection of monopoly rents on patented drugs. I'm just saying that they should be collecting those monopoly rents from all countries that consume the drugs. Right now, they basically collect them only in the US, and allowing reimporting from other countries which respect US patent laws would ensure that all countries are contributing towards that in proportion to the amount that they actually consume the results of the R&D.

<comment><USER4> Ahh, I see. Thank you for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting how the villains of drug pricing have gone from the drug companies to the PBMs.

At any rate, I don't agree that PBMs cause drug costs to increase. PBMs are simply purchasing groups for insurance companies. They take advantage of bulk purchasing and offer that service to insurers. They also handle the all the complexities in setting a formulary which includes evaluating new drugs, negotiating with drug companies and adjudicating claims. That has real value.

The best example of how PBMs have controlled drug pricing is in HCV. Express Script directly attacked the pricing of Harvoni and Sovaldi. However there was nothing they could do since they were the only HCV drugs available. However, when Viekira Pak became available, Express Script did an exclusive deal with Abbvie which caused Gilead to scramble to price match. The cost of HCV drugs came down by almost 40% overnight. It saved the health care system a lot of money.

Now, I do agree that PBMs pull a fast one on some insurance companies. They are intentionally opaque when it comes to how much you pay for their services. The smart insurance companies ask for "pass through" pricing and then pay the PBM a fee for their services. The not-so-smart insurance companies don't ask for those numbers and get put over a barrel.

<comment><USER12> Actually the PBMs are a big villain here. They pocket the difference between the retail price of a drug and the discounts they negotiate with the drug makers. They choose the drugs on their formulary based on this spread.

This one of the reasons why you will see prices for drugs like Insulin going up with each manufacturer raising price in lock-step. The drug makers are not competing to sell the consumer insulin, they are competing to get on the formulary of the PBM.

<comment><USER11> But that's their job! They are supposed to negotiate lower prices. They, in turn, can market their formulary to insurance companies by saying "If you use us, we can offer a lower cost pharmacy benefit."

And if you're a smart insurance company, you do your due diligence and don't negotiate a contract where you have no transparency into the PBMs costs.

<comment><USER13> What "job" is that? There is no reason for these companies to exist. Incentivizing drug companies to raise prices in lockstep... to keep the middlemen happy? That is a very perverse incentive

<comment><USER14> >There is no reason for these companies to exist.

It is clear you don't know much about PBMs. Maybe try to rephrase your comment as a question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is just another example of how messed up the US medical "market" is. Almost everywhere you look there are hidden prices, hidden middlemen and so on. I am not aware of any other market where things are so opaque and convoluted.

If the current administration was serious about markets they should mandate that all pricing becomes transparent so a real functioning market can actually develop.

<comment><USER16> Absolutely agree. Something long the lines of what pricepain.com had in mind. This "market" is so ripe for disruption like no other. Sadly, its guarded by a lot of lobbying power and artificial regulations. I think they get away with it "because health".

<comment><USER15> Americans are now so used to this insane system they can't even conceive that it actually doesn't have to be that way.

<comment><USER3> I see you're getting downvoted, but you're right. This whole thread is filled with utter lunacy. Just look at the top post. It's some middle-man explaining how his company is innovative because they've figured out how to take a cut of the massive economic rents, and everyone seems to just be nodding along sagely.

What really gets me is this idiot notion that the US is somehow subsidising everyone else's healthcare. In actual fact, pharmaceutical / medical device companies will simply charge whatever the market will bear, and it just so happens the US market will bear almost any price. If some market won't bear a profit making price, pharma companies simply won't sell into it.

It makes utterly no sense to sell at a loss and then cross subsidise using the massive rents extracted from US markets, yet that is exactly what most people here seem to believe is happening. Then again, maybe basic economics somehow doesn't apply to these super exceptional markets in the super exceptional USA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting takeaway: going forward I'll always ask the pharmacy if paying out of pocket would actually be cheaper than using my insurance and paying a copay.

<comment><USER18> I have insurance with a high deductible. That means, I'm most likely paying a price similar to a cash patient.

Often, it makes more sense to use a free 3rd party "coupon/membership" prescription company to get a better price.

Here are two that have saved me money.

[https://www.goodrx.com](https://www.goodrx.com) [https://www.blinkhealth.com/](https://www.blinkhealth.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the industry's lobbying > group, claims that PBMs will save health plans $654 billion over the next > decade.

That's about $16 per person per month. Not a very compelling argument for keeping your drug monopolies: eliminating them costs little more than a Netflix subscription.

<comment><USER11> Keep in mind that insurance companies make decisions based on a change in cost of only $0.05 per member. $16 per person is HUGE when you're talking about an insurer who covers 30M+ people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can say this article rings very true. I am generally very impressed by the accuracy of the points raised. But make sure not to associate all PBMs with this practice. We too don't like it. I am pretty high up at a PBM (not one of the big three), and can say our model does not play the same games (crimes!). The point about MAC pricing is not exactly fair however. Some customers prefer to engage this way since it reflects revenue based solely on the usage of medications prescribed. It might sound odd, but this way we reduce (or near zero) other fees that we charge the customer. In general, we DONT recommend this model, but in some cases, it makes sense. I have to stay anon, since I don't speak officially for the company; all opinions are my own.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm going to make the statement that perscription drugs aren't like other products and shouldn't be viewed as such. People literally need them to survive. This whole system of having something you need to survive being subject to market forces like some other widget is ridculous. Price fixing is absolutely a reasonable tactic to employ when the market for prescription drugs in the US is as completely useless at delivering reasonable costs to patients as it is.

<comment><USER22> We need food to survive, and market forces work fine. In fact, I would say that the U.S. supermarket is a model of market efficiency.

<comment><USER21> When I can buy drugs from the Pharamacy for $1.69 a pound I'll be happy to see it driven by market forces. The market simply isn't doing a good enough job getting medications to consumers at a reasonable price.

<comment><USER23> Look at OTC medication costs, every store makes their own generic and they are very cheap.

<comment><USER24> Not to be pedantic, but a handful of pharma companies, like Teva and Perrigo make them on behalf of the stores. It's a small, but important distinction. The pharma market is more of a market than most people appreciate. One pharma co's margin is another's opporunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Besides the freedom of speech issue, what arguments are there for _not_ banning prescription drug ads?

</comment><comment><USER26> Side note:It's also important to remember it takes an extraordinary amount of investment to get a new drug to market. Often our 'staple' drugs are being used to fund future cures.

</comment><comment><USER27> Ah, the tried and true method of making a market non-free. Increase number of middlemen and make processes complicated so that no transparency remains.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think blaming drug companies and wholesalers just misses the point.

Drugs are really good today. Not even the life saving types, but also things like migraine medication or acid reflux relief. If you suffer and have the means, you'll pay what the market demands for relief. And we live in a wealthy country.

<comment><USER29> If your drug is so good, you should let the market decide what the fair price.

The problem is that drug companies and wholesalers don't let that happen by lobbying against open markets and government paid healthcare.

<comment><USER11> _If your drug is so good, you should let the market decide what the fair price._

Contrary to what people think, drug companies can't just charge whatever they want. Take a look at the HCV drugs. They priced too high and their sales are eroding very quickly. If they had priced lower, they probably would have seen even greater profits.

<comment><USER30> How so? There are only so many patients to treat. Sales are eroding mostly because competition has brought prices down and improved drugs allow for shorter treatments.

<comment><USER11> The price was too high. There are millions of untreated HCV patients out there that can't get treated because insurance companies won't pay for the drugs.

<comment><USER30> Now the prices are lower... and the profits as well.

<comment><USER11> Yes, but insurance companies haven't loosened the reins on these drugs. Even with the lower prices, patients are being denied.

<comment><USER30> Not completely true (the restrictions have been eased a bit) but how does this fact support your claim? ("If they had priced lower, they probably would have seen even greater profits.") Profits were higher when prices were higher.

<comment><USER11> Yes, access has gotten better, somewhat driven by discounts, but also driven by lawsuits against Medicaid.

Where I'm coming from is that there are 3.5M people in the US with HCV. Let's say 10% are in California (350,000). Many of them are on Medicaid. Medicaid estimates it will be spend $1B on these drugs in 2017[1]. Based on that article, it comes out to 14,300 patients. A small fraction of those with HCV.

I would imagine if Gilead had priced lower (maybe starting at $40K and discounting from there) they would have had much less payer pushback and likely a huge increase in numbers treated. Payers are still telling people "yes you have HCV, but no you're not sick enough".

[1][http://californiahealthline.org/news/medi-cal-to-spend- nearl...](http://californiahealthline.org/news/medi-cal-to-spend- nearly-1-billion-on-hepatitis-c-drugs-next-year/)

<comment><USER30> I see is no reason to think the increase in numbers treated would have been so large that payers would have spent more dollars than they did, so its not clear that Gilead's revenue (let alone profit) would have been higher.

<comment><USER11> We agree to disagree!

I think Gilead's pricing scheme left a bad taste in the payer's mouths and probably caused them to be much more restrictive than they otherwise would have.

Yes, payers still would have worried about total budget impact, but a lower price means more value. If a payer can spend another $1M and treat another 50 patients (at $20K) vs. 10 patients (at $100K) I get the sense they would have felt it more worthwhile.

<comment><USER30> But the price is lower now! They could be spending a bit more (or even the same) to treat many more patients than they did in 2015, but instead they choose to spend much less to treat a few more patients. Of course you are free to imagine that it could have happened differently.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why I taught myself 20 languages - <AUTHOR> http://ideas.ted.com/why-i-learned-20-languages-and-what-i-learned-about-myself-in-the-process/

<comment><USER2> I couldn't agree more with his points. My Japanese teacher has a better English vocabulary than I do - but she'll often struggle with "basic" words "everyone" knows!

It's silly that the ability to speak and communicate is placed less importantly than 100% proper grammar or an expansive vocabulary.

I find most polyglots, especially ones capable of holding conversations, do not value 100% correct grammar or large vocabularies. They make do with what little knowledge they have and they constantly improve what they know.

Other awesome polyglots to follow (if you're interested in learning languages or linguistics) Laoshu505000 [https://www.youtube.com/user/laoshu505000](https://www.youtube.com/user/laoshu505000)

Benny Lewis [https://www.youtube.com/user/irishpolyglot](https://www.youtube.com/user/irishpolyglot)</comment>


Mathcard.us - <AUTHOR> http://mathcard.us

<comment><AUTHOR> MathCard.us is a memory app to store flash cards and display them back to make memorizing easy for anyone!

MathCard is a free app anyone can use to keep flash cards memorize and update.

Open Source Version [https://github.com/electronicsleep/FlashCards](https://github.com/electronicsleep/FlashCards)</comment>


Show HN: This page is a truly naked, brutalist HTML quine - <AUTHOR> https://secretgeek.github.io/html_wysiwyg/html.html <comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_\(computing\))

Until today I wondered why on Earth "quine" might mean "A program that outputs its own source" and it turns out to be a tribute to a guy called Quine who did a lot of work on self-referential logic.

<comment><USER3> If you're interested at all. Here's a great interview from the 60s or 70s he did. Wish something of this level was on public access these days. Not sure how accessible it is, but really makes me wish a PhD in philosophy made sense/afford to do.

[https://youtu.be/1iZvycU3I9w](https://youtu.be/1iZvycU3I9w)

<comment><USER3> * I could afford to do

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is more readable than many news websites I've come across

<comment><USER5> Quicker to load too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, I didn't know this was possible: The main trick lies in

      * {
        display: block;
      }

making literally every element visible (including stuff like <head> or <script>). The rest is just CSS ::before and ::after inserting tag's names.

</comment><comment><USER7> This stylesheet would be a really great one to write an HTML/CSS primer in, since it exposes everything -- like a "You, too, can write HTML!"

<comment><USER8> It's kind of like the invisible man. Here's how everything works. Might be a great way to see that webpages aren't magic interfaces, but built on relatively simple rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I once did a very similar thing to render HTML as unrendered Markdown: [https://gist.github.com/ImJasonH/c00cdd7aece6945fb8ea](https://gist.github.com/ImJasonH/c00cdd7aece6945fb8ea)

<comment><USER10> Yes, the article actually links to a demo of this technique!

[https://mrcoles.com/demo/markdown-css/](https://mrcoles.com/demo/markdown- css/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > The only other style that is special is "style" itself, which has to include > an escape character to avoid being taken literally.

        style::before {content:'<style>'}
        style::after {content:'<\/style>'}

I don't think it's a bug. After all, browsers have very lenient parsers and if there's a syntax error (unterminated quote) in the style it shouldn't affect the rest of the HTML. The same goes for JavaScript: you probably still can't use the string literal '</script>' within an inline script.

<comment><USER12> > you probably still can't use the string literal '</script>' within an inline > script.

You're right: [https://jsfiddle.net/pLo9bdhs](https://jsfiddle.net/pLo9bdhs)

<comment><USER13> Think about the failure cases for `</script>` and `</style>` and it's obvious why the spec defines them that way.

If CSS and JS syntax were to decide when the end tags can appear, some malformed CSS or JS would break the end tag and cause the entire rest of the document to vanish as the browser wouldn't recognise it as HTML.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Do we need a better prefix for cool stuff like this? Maybe HN Art?

<comment><USER15> Not really. Show HN already gives it a boost, and keeping track of classifications of Show HN stuff is almost certainly more effort than it's worth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very cool - thanks for sharing, and the shoutout (consider also replacing 38rem/2rem with 70ch/2ch)!

<comment><USER17> I wasn't aware of "ch". Why prefer it to rem? (and isn't ch in family with em, not rem - that is, "advance width" relative to element font size, not root element font size?)

Ed: i guess in this case 1 rem is roughly 2 em (styled element has 50% font size) - and 1 ch is roughly 1 em?

<comment><USER16> see [https://www.reddit.com/r/css/comments/bb73cw/58_bytes_of_css...](https://www.reddit.com/r/css/comments/bb73cw/58_bytes_of_css_to_look_great_nearly_everywhere/ekj8yhm/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is the first time I've seen something that calls itself a "brutalist" web page actually expose its structure, the way I understand brutalism. It also reminded me of reading a literate program. Great work!

</comment><comment><USER19> That's funny, I've only just discovered the Naked Object concept. Reading through Pawson's Phd thesis at the moment: [http://downloads.nakedobjects.net/resources/Pawson%20thesis....](http://downloads.nakedobjects.net/resources/Pawson%20thesis.pdf) at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER20> even though the source is visible, the tags are unselectable. adding that would make it perfect imho. just heard about quines the other day so pretty cool to see one :D good effort!

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't think of a way to do that. When content is added via css it's not selectable. Maybe fork it and see what you can do? [https://github.com/secretGeek/html_wysiwyg/](https://github.com/secretGeek/html_wysiwyg/)

<comment><USER21> i'm on my phone, but wouldn't something like this work?

      *::before, *::after {
        user-select: text; // or `all`?
      }

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a look into it; user-select doesn't apply to before/after content.

This process has taught some interesting things about browsers. For example: `<br>` and `<img />` elements are "replaced" and can't really be shown in the way all other elements are. (I conveniently avoided using them).

And, as described above, ::before/::after content cannot be selected, and generally behave... strangely.

<comment><USER10> `<hr>` too? And `<marquee>`?

Did you see any variance between browsers? Hopefully not, with "common" CSS like this, but it would be interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> adding contenteditable to the <html> tag allows for editing in the browser too

<comment><USER23> Rather surprisingly this allows you to modify the style as well. Not sure anyone's ever used that before.

<comment><USER24> Only those inside <body>, still very cool. I had no idea about _contenteditable_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Tried to replicate the technique in a minimal example:

[https://no-gravity.github.io/html-quine/index.html](https://no- gravity.github.io/html-quine/index.html)

I am getting some additional empty lines in the output. And the closing html tag is missing. Any ideas why?

<comment><USER26> Remove the _white-space: pre;_ from your style.

<comment><USER25> Then the empty lines that _are_ in the source are missing in the output. Looks like the Show HN avoids this by not having empty lines in text.

<comment><USER25> Upon closer inspection, I now see that the Show HN _also_ has additional empty lines in the rendered view.

End of the source:

        </body>
        </html>

Rendered in the browser as:

        </body>

        </html>

<comment><AUTHOR> I get that extra spacing by using:

        margin:1.5em 0

When there was no margin the text was quite ugly and hard to read. Then tried margin 1em and it was better. Pushing it out to 1.5em really did the trick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Super neat!! I enjoyed reading through.

FYI: There's a typo in the word "necessary" (it has double C's and double R's in the original copy).

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks gomox, fixed... (and added "necessary" to my "list of words I seem to commonly misspell" (a list that starts with the word 'misspell'))

<comment><USER28> As a teenager I had a short but curious list of ironies I collected.

The first was a postcard from my grandparents' church thanking me for attending their service "last Sinday". I regret I eventually lost that card.

My favorite was an on-air editorial from a local student-run public radio station. The young woman was lamenting the grief her fellow broadcasters were receiving from the community about pronunciation.

Either deliberately or regrettably, she consistently mispronounced "mispronunciation" by using /ow/ instead of /uh/ for the third syllable.

I miss WAJC. Great eclectic music selection, but Butler University sold it about 25 years ago to fund a TV studio instead.

<comment><USER29> There was a Parish magazine recently that invites readers to a screening of the film Satan & Ollie (Stan & Ollie).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Excuse the off topic, but I can't help thinking that "brutalist" has already become the next "literally"

</comment><comment><USER31> This is fantastic work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Chris. It's a bit of a niche idea, beloved by only a tiny group of wise souls ;)

<comment><USER32> My personal business cards looked like that when I was doing more web dev work. Oh wait, I still have an old (2009) copy:

[https://www.obscure.org/~owend/BizCard.jpg](https://www.obscure.org/~owend/BizCard.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is excellent and inspiring. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER34> While visiting this site for a first time all I saw at the top was huge clunk of JS code. I took me a white to realize that it was some FF extension that injects (non malicious) code to the every webpage (Web MIDI).

It was a truly brutalists experience to see some things more exposed than I was prepared to.

</comment><comment><USER35> Very cool, I do consider this art!

As a side note, I just played through console.log(), and I thought you might want to know that there's an unnecessary apostrophe in the winning text! Of course I only saw it after also discovering, I believe, every possible way to die.

edit: I've submitted a pull request.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for that! i approved it, much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're running certain plugins you might want to check this page in incognito mode (or equivalent). I have an Adobe Analytics debugger plugin installed that adds a gigantic blob of JS to start of this page. Of course, it is now visible when viewing this page.

</comment><comment><USER36> Today I learned a new word - quine. I will stick with 'self replicating program' for light, down the pub conversation.

Being able to make scripts and other elements visible by putting 'display: block' on them is the more useful thing that I learned.

</comment><comment><USER37> I was hoping that the last link to the source code would open the actual HTML source code (instead of the link to github), just to show how it is exactly the same as the page

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you BaraBatman.

Based on your advice I changed these words:

> Viewing the source of this page should

...to be:

> Viewing <a > href='[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/secretGeek/html_wysiwyg/ma...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/secretGeek/html_wysiwyg/master/html.html'>the) > source</a> of this page should

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Who else is old enough to remember WordPerfect's "Reveal Codes" mode? Same thing.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is so cool. Simple and fun. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER40> Brutally beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER41> The funny thing is when you consider applying this very cool stylesheet to a regular web site or app the result would be a complete mess mostly, because those places are often div soup, rather than neat semantic minimal HTML.

<comment><AUTHOR> if you do wish to apply it to a regular website, you can use this stylesheet:

[https://secretgeek.github.io/html_wysiwyg/html.css](https://secretgeek.github.io/html_wysiwyg/html.css)

...but it will need more added to it, depending on the elements and attributes that you want to cover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think what I found particularly beautiful about this was the first ~330k characters of ad-related CSS injected into the header presumably through Github hosting or otherwise. I had to scroll about 85% of the way down the page before I hit the <h1> tag!

<comment><USER43> Noticed the same thing and found that it was caused by Ghostery.

<comment><USER28> Makes the marketing claim that much more amusing.

> …to speed up page loads, eliminate clutter…

<comment><USER44> To be fair, hiding elements may mean not fetching any resources needed for their content, which can be faster despite having to parse a bunch of additional CSS first to determine which ones to hide --- especially if the former involves the execution of JavaScript.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> IMO, I think it would look better if the HTML was faded in to the background more, but it's interesting as it is. What does it mean?

<comment><USER46> That's the beauty of it, it doesn't mean anything!

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's nice... but it's kind of the opposite of brutalist style. If you really want to serve a "brutalist" HTML page easily, just send it with text headers.

<comment><AUTHOR> A brutalist building doesn't have less functionality than a normal building.</comment></comment>


State Attorney fires IT director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case - <AUTHOR> http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-techonology-director-who <comment><USER3> Pursuant to Brady and Giglio, a prosecutor has an affirmative obligation to turn over all testimony and documents that are exculpatory or tend to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.

In layman's terms, a prosecutor has a duty to turn over all evidence of innocence to the defense, and failing to do so is a violation of the law and ethical rules.

I should note this includes expert reports, especially when the underlying evidence is of the "data dump" variety.

Unfortunately, it is extremely common for prosecutors to try to skirt this rule. Much like police protect one another, employees of some district attorneys are expected to cover these violations as an almost routine matter.

As prosecutors enjoy almost absolute judicial immunity, the regulations in the Rules of Professional Conduct are all that provide for sanctions in case of a violation. This measure has proved rather toothless as many state ethics boards, often composed of former prosecutors, are reluctant to issue sanctions.

Even in the most egregious violation of the Brady rule that I have seen, which occurred during the Duke lacrosse team case when ex-DA Nifong hid an exculpatory DNA report, the state ethics bar did not issue sanctions for that violation.

Credentials: I am not a lawyer, but I have worked as a paralegal for several years and captained a mock trial team for both high school and college. I have written documents that have been submitted in the courts after approval by attorneys, some specifically on this point.

<comment><USER4> Should there not be some mandate that state ethics boards be made up of approximately 50% prosecutorial and 50% defense attorneys? Ethics boards should exhibit the same adversarial process as the courts.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but it would be difficult to enforce in practice. Many former prosecutors go on to become defense attorneys, plaintiff's attorneys, etc. However, they retain many of the biases they picked up while working in the prosecutor's office. Thus, composing a neutral ethics board would be very difficult.

They do use a form of adversarial process, with attorneys for both the complainant and the state presenting their sides of the case. But with a biased panel, little justice is served.

From my perspective, many attorneys place too much trust in the notion that a lawyer is a trusted "officer of the court." Because most attorneys believe themselves to be capable of neutrality, they trust others to do the same. In reality, everybody carries their bias with them.

The most effective solution is the one we have painstakingly developed over 900 years of common law jurisprudence: neutral juries composed of citizens chosen by lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was a very clear warning to all other state employees: if we sign your paychecks, you better help us throw people in prison when we want to - even if the facts don't support it. If you don't, we will not only fire you, but attempt to ensure that you never work again. It's a scary glimpse into the base nature of people attracted to jobs as prosecutors.

Prosecutors do serve a purpose in society. A small percentage of the people they incarcerate are actually dangerous and need to be restrained. However, the kinds of people that are attracted to spending their lives destroying the lives of other humans tend to be vindictive monsters and generally awful people, not unlike the worst of those they prosecute. I hope he sues for wrongful termination and is successful.

<comment><USER6> That's a hefty slice of bias you've got right there. In what way do you think these facts undermined the prosecution case?

<comment><USER7> The evidence that the state allegedly failed to turn over in discovery included text messages describing Treyvon Martin's fighting, discussions about buying and selling firearms, and a picture of a hand (presumably Martin's) holding a pistol. Had this withheld information been allowed into evidence, it would tend to undermine the claims that Martin was a peaceful person, supporting Zimmerman's assertion that Martin started the fight and ultimately supporting his claim of self-defense.

There is some debate about whether or not the state in fact turned over this evidence. As I understand it, the state turned over an image of Treyvon Martin's cell phone in a format that the defense experts were unable to read. According to the state, this fulfilled their discovery obligations in this matter.

<comment><USER8> > Had this withheld information been allowed into evidence, it would tend to > undermine the claims that Martin was a peaceful person, supporting > Zimmerman's assertion that Martin started the fight and ultimately > supporting his claim of self-defense.

Whether Trayvon Martin was a peaceful person or not is irrelevant, there are no direct witnesses of the actual fight between him and Zimmerman and Martin had definite reason to fear for his own safety that night. This evidence seeks to imply racist stereotypes of black men being hyper-aggressive.

<comment><USER9> Can you explain how the supposed implications of the evidence has anything to do with Martin being black?

It's my opinion that if a white person had those photos on their phone, it would count negatively against a claimed peaceful character as well.

Unfortunately whether Martin was peaceful or not is absolutely not irrelevant. An important part of a trial like this is character construction / deconstruction by the prosecution and defense.

<comment><USER10> Let's say that someone was a big fan of Joe Arpaio, and had photos of themselves on their phone relating to their Minutemen Militia service. And, separately from that, they were involved in an alleged murder of someone who happened to be Latino.

Should their photos be allowed into evidence? I.e. should the jury be allowed to consider: 1) their support for a hardline right-wing sheriff; and/or 2) their membership in an armed anti-immigrant organization? Or would that bias the jury?

<comment><USER6> I can't help noticing that you've switched a homicide victim with a murder defendant. A more appropriate analogy might be of a Joe Arpaio fan allegedly being murdered by someone who happened to be Latino, who then claimed self- defense.

I get that you're trying to pose the question of whether the homicide victim was also an aggressor, but if so we need to include the context that the person in question was fleeing the defendant when the alleged aggression took place.

If I chase you down the street for no good reason, and you turn around and punch me in the nose, who's at fault?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you just chase, not brandishing a weapon, screaming threats or in some other way giving a person being chased reasonable fear for his life, then the person punching is at fault. Running on the street is not a violation of anybody's rights, and you do not have to have any specific "good reason" to run on the street, neither is running while other person is present on the same street. Punching one in the nose, on the other hand, is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >violated public records law for retaining documents,

I doubt that. Most public records laws I have ever seen explicitly state that if you are a State employee and you have documents which you know to be germane to an ongoing criminal investigation that they must not be destroyed, and that knowingly destroying documents in such a case is an offense.

<comment><USER12> I think you misunderstood. The implication was he "violated public records law for retaining documents" _by destroying documents_.

The relevant paragraph is,

 _Peek 's letter contends that on May 24, Kruidbos wiped clean the information on a computer assigned to him, thereby violating public records law._

<comment><USER11> Right you are, I missed that part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting to see this on the HN front page. Is it because of genuine technological interest in the IT aspect of this case? Or because of the prevalence of Ron-Paul-style racist "libertarians" among the HN membership?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is because many IT workers deal with data, some of which present moral choices as they may document various wrongdoing. This poses certain questions before IT workers as to what they are to do in such situations and what the consequences may be. One recent case about it is the Snowden case, widely discussed here, another is this one.

I can't even think what this may have to do with racism other than you trying to play race card at a completely inappropriate occasion or just using "racist" as a general swear word.

<comment><USER10> _I can 't even think what this may have to do with racism_

Then you aren't thinking very hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Enlighten me then. If you've got something beyond crying racism - <USER2> argument behind it - it's time to put it on the table. Not holding my breath though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A perhaps bad analogy: what if this were DNA evidence? Does the defense and prosecution both need to do their own analysis of a sample? Or does the data found by the prosecution automatically get shared to the defense?

<comment><USER12> If the analysis is going to be submitted as evidence or testimony, then yes I believe they must share the results.

<comment><USER14> What if it's not going to be used as evidence by you, but maybe perhaps the defense? How would you know what could necessarily interest the defense? It seems a prosecutor could argue that they had no idea these images they saw would ever be considered evidence. Why bring them up? This just smells retaliatory, though.

<comment><USER12> They have to share that too.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "In March, the office investigated a security breach involving someone hacking computers to obtain disciplinary matters and personal health information about employees, according to Peek's letter. _That investigation followed news reports in February that Corey [the State Attorney] approved using about $342,000 in taxpayer dollars to upgrade pensions for herself and de la Rionda [the lead prosecutor]._ "

I find it disturbing that government employees in Florida can approve raising their _own_ pensions.

</comment><comment><USER16> Do the right thing, wait to get fired? [1]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029823](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6029823)

</comment><comment><USER17> He did not act properly. He should have informed the prosecutor of his concerns before starting to leak. Of course this may be more the fault of his lawyer that acted really inappropriately. It seems the lawyer had an axe to grind against the Attorney General so she might have decided to kind of sacrifice her client in order to embarrass her enemy.

Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cannot defend himself.

There is no dispute that the victim was not armed at the time of the attack. Having died as the result of the attack he did not really have an opportunity to hide his gun afterwards. It being established that he was unarmed at the time of the attack, his relationship with guns before the attack is not really relevant. The fact that he had a picture of a gun on his cell is really irrelevant.

<comment><USER3> "Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cannot defend himself."

That's a dangerous justification.

First, the prosecutor is not the arbiter of relevance. The evidence should be turned over, and then the judge can make a determination as to its relevance. Allowing prosecutors to decide the relevance of evidence in their care would open the door to myriad abuses.

For example, in a DNA case, what would stop a prosecutor from saying a third or fourth sample found that matched other individuals wasn't "relevant" to the case?

Second, the notion that the "victim... cannot defend himself" is not only factually incorrect but immaterial. The deceased, who has not yet been proven to be a victim of anything, has the power of the state, armed with billions of dollars, a prison system, and a small army of investigators to defend him. The defendant has only his counsel and his wits.

More importantly, damage to that person's reputation is not relevant to the prosecution of another individual. Our justice system is supposed to place a premium on the rights of the defendant, since the harm of incarcerating an innocent person is considered so grave. If the deceased's memory is tarnished by messages regarding previous violent actions, or purchases of deadly weapons, that is a price that must be borne to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.

Finally, the bar to relevance is extremely low. The rules of evidence state that relevant evidence it is any item which makes a fact in dispute more or less likely to be true. Note that it does not set any minimum bar on how much the evidence would influence the case, only that it affect an issue in dispute, even in the most minute fashion.

In this case, it is the defense's contention that the deceased acted violently and in fact provoked the confrontation, and that the accused acted only in self defense. It is also their contention that the deceased reached for a firearm.

It is certainly relevant that the deceased's conversion indicate that he had knowledge of firearms, that he purchased deadly weapons in the past, and that had an admitted history of violence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So if I read that correctly, the same image file was available to both the defense and the prosecution.

When Kruidbos' discovery process found information that the defense hadn't found, he was concerned that he should turn it over to them.

Then he sought out a lawyer to parlay with the lawyers involved in the case, avoiding his office's chain of command.

Well, I think we'd need a lawyer to say what should have happened here-- Does anyone know whether the state is responsible for turning over everything they pull out of an image? Or is it enough to provide the image to the defense?

<comment><USER19> I watched the entire testimony on YouTube and from what I can tell, it boils down to this:

\- both sides had an extremely hard to parse, near unintelligible raw source file (data dump from the phone)

\- the prosecutor's office had purchased a software package that could turn this raw source file into a much more easily readable report

\- the prosecutor's office didn't think that the defense would pay the several thousands of dollars for the same software, in order to generate the same report

\- the prosecutor's office provided only the raw source file and declined to provide any of the auto-generated reports which were meant to extract data from, organize and allow for easier analysis of that source file

\- the IT guy knew this and was afraid that in the future, someone could claim he acted in negligence

\- unbeknownst to the IT guy, the defense had indeed purchased other 3rd party software and successfully analyzed the entire source file

\- the prosecutor hinted that the IT guy's testimony is him getting even for being the (unconfirmed) target of a leak investigation earlier in 2012

So does the prosecutor need to turn over the software-generated report to the defense? Or only the raw source files which powered the software? That's the question and I am unqualified to answer. But if it's the former and not the latter then the prosecutor messed up and was caught red handed.

<comment><USER20> Did they say which software was used? Was it EnCase? (Edit: Turns out it was cellbrite. They likely had EnCase for general forensics, at $3k, and cellbrite is another $8k, for phone-specific forensics).

I find it a little disturbing that the choice of software, and particularly the cost of it, can mean the difference between going to prison or not.

In this case, the undiscovered files included someone with a "black hand" holding a gun, text messages related to acquiring a gun, and some kind of marijuana product. None of those are relevant to the case, but do trigger prejudice or emotional responses, so it's probably good that they were left out.

In another case, those might be pictures of a murder victim or some other critical evidence (of either guilt or innocence). It seems pretty unfair that accused with a public defender doesn't generally have access to this.

<comment><USER21> I think it's relevant given how much time the prosecution devoted to painting Trayvon as a child who was merely buying candy and returning from his childish errand back home, when everything occurred.

If prosecutors want to paint a personal portrait of someone for the sympathy of the jurors, stuff like this should absolutely be included by the defense. In fact, I'd say it's their legal obligation to do everything in their power to have it presented.

<comment><USER8> > I think it's relevant given how much time the prosecution devoted to > painting Trayvon as a child who was merely buying candy and returning from > his childish errand back home, when everything occurred.

I don't know what media you saw when this case started, but Travyon was described as a young adult, not a young child. Further he was merely buying candy and going home when he was stalked by Zimmerman, doing nothing that should trigger suspicion or aggression.

> If prosecutors want to paint a personal portrait of someone for the sympathy > of the jurors, stuff like this should absolutely be included by the defense.

The extra photos from the cell phone are entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case and they should not be presented to the court as though they were. The defense wanted to include those photos to paint a portrait of a scary black man to a group of white women in the jurors box.

<comment><USER21> I didn't see any media, I'm talking about the prosecution's presentation of the case during the trial. He was presented as a 17-year-old child (never once heard "young adult" in ~two weeks of watching).

"Stalked" is pretty aggressive language, and according to GZ, his initial suspicion was just related to him not knowing who this person was (he knew most of the residents) walking around at night, in the dark, in the rain, near the houses. I think that's a pretty reasonable case for someone to feel suspicious.

And to re-iterate, when prosecutors are trying to paint a portrait of childish innocence, I think it's perfectly acceptable to introduce evidence to the contrary. They're irrelevant if we don't try to elicit sympathy from the jury, but that's not how the prosecution handled things.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Google is broken for debugging - <AUTHOR> http://www.omniref.com/blog/blog/2014/04/08/why-google-is-broken-for-debugging/

<comment><USER2> It's nice to see they've tried to work around the soft 404 problem in their docs, but it shouldn't be necessary. It's just another case of how Google has optimized out a use case that only developers rely on.

I've voiced similar complaints about how google parses my search query, but they seem to fall on deaf ears.

I don't know exactly when, but at some point between 2009 and 2010, google stopped allowing punctuation in exact string matches. An example, say searching for issues related to C# attributes: The first few results for the query "[StringLength]" are for C++'s string::length method, Java's String.Length, JavaScript, etc etc.

Google used to provide uncannily accurate results for such queries and apparently no one noticed when it was changed.

<comment><USER3> I'm an engineer at Google who worked on the query parser code in 2009 and 2010. I can assure you that at no point around then did punctuation like square brackets get used, inside or outside quotation marks. The results changing from results that suited your intent to results that didn't must have been caused by other changes to the ranking algorithm or the Web as a whole over those years that happened to be unlucky for you.

Punctuation is a huge challenge for us. We can't simply index all the punctuation on every web page on the internet -- think of the blowup of our index! Think how much slower our search pipeline would be! But we're working on it. Now we recognize some common punctuation uses cases like @ and #. Compare the search results for mattcutts vs. @mattcutts, or obama vs. #obama. We'll keep working on the other ones. The programming ones hinder us coders a lot too. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I google for exceptions and stack traces all the time. This person must be doing it wrong.

<comment><USER5> You may search for things, but you probably overestimate the number of times you actually find anything relevant. Most of the time, you'll find a page about the exception class itself (fine; not very useful), or you'll repeat your search with something more specific, and get either nothing, or you'll get some blog post (or worse: forum question) talking about how someone once encountered an exception, without any relevant answer.

What we're trying to do here is make it possible for people to search for exception messages, and find the code where those exceptions actually get _raised_. It's something I've wanted for a while, personally.

<comment><USER6> Maybe this should say that Ruby exceptions are hard to Google for? I search for Java Exceptions rather frequently, and frequently find good results.

<comment><USER5> It's true that we're only Ruby (for now...), but I've had the same problems in every language I've ever used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Google aggressively tries to not show error and exception results as bad actors could potentially use them to attack a site. For example, if a particular error returned was indicative that a site wasn't safely handling SQL queries, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> I read this article out of curiosity and from what I can it's just a bunch of unrelated words strung together.</comment>


Another death nail on Google TV? - <AUTHOR> http://xbmc.org/theuni/2011/01/20/you-asked-for-it-xbmc-for-appletv2-ipad-iphone4/ <comment><USER2> That sounds like an interesting eggcorn that I haven't heard before, probably derived from "death knell" with echos of "another nail in the coffin".

I see that it's been already discussed at the Eggcorn Database forum: <http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1195> so it's at least somewhat common

For reference, an eggcorn is this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn>

<comment><USER3> "Death Nail" would also make a great name for a heavy metal band.

<comment><USER4> You'd probably want an umlaut over the a in "Nail".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> $99 for a box that can very effectively stream video from your NAS? Sounds like a winner to me.

I run Plex (a Mac-only XMPC derivative) on a Mac Mini, but $699 is a lot more than $99. If your storage is NAS already, about the only advantage the Mac Mini has over a jailbroken AppleTV2 is the ability to play Hulu through Safari and not get blocked. (Well, it's also a lot faster and mostly future-proof as new codecs are introduced.)

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been running XBMC as my media centre for years now, first on a hacked XBox (original) and then on a hacked Apple TV (first gen).

It's a great piece of software, happily streaming from my NAS box, playing music, etc. Not found anything it doesn't play yet.

And there are remote control apps for iPhone and Android too!

<comment><USER6> I've heard of XBMC but I never saw the need for it as it seems to require all this ecosystem around it (storage for movies, computers for downloads, etc) so I might just as well use a laptop directly.

Has it reached a point where I can just install it on some hardware (which?) and leave it at my parents', connected to their TV?

General usecases I see: normal TV(maybe PiP, timeshift, record), youtube, local/remote photos, CD/DVD movie playback, ideally semi-automatic torrent download.

<comment><USER4> It's just a media (photos/music/TV) player.

It's better than a laptop because it just sits under the TV, and you can get it on a box for about $100. Personally, my TV is hooked up to an amp, sits in front of the sofa, and is a much better experience than watching things on a laptop.

If you want timeshifting and recording then you want something like a Tivo (or MythTV if you want to do that yourself).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of my favorite things about XBMC is the plugins. The plugins are basically web scrapers that present content within the interface. If there isn't one you want for a particular website, build your own! They're written in python and could make a fun weekend project. Once your done commit it to the official repository.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do you mean "nail in the coffin" or "death knell".

Sorry to be the grammar Nazi, just trying to help.</comment>


Generate a renaissance masterpiece from your photo - <AUTHOR> https://ai-art.tokyo <comment><USER2> Already discussed [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22859698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22859698)</comment>


Smack a Ho.st - A localhost domain - <AUTHOR> http://tbaggery.com/2010/03/04/smack-a-ho-st.html <comment><USER2> The nice thing about this, for all of you people who understandably don't get it, is that setting up wildcard dns on OS X is a royal PITA. You can't just modify /etc/hosts, you have to [http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200511022035208...](http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005110220352084)

Given all rails developers use a Mac ;) this is useful.

<comment><USER3> Hm, I modify my /etc/hosts all the time and it works as it should.

<comment><USER4> I works, but not as simple for using domain wildcards, as he mentioned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I also wildcard *.localhacks.com to 127.0.0.1

</comment><comment><USER6> Why is this specific to Rails?

The beauty of the web and of the internet protocols it's built on is that you can have multiple implementations that respond to the same interface. DNS doesn't care what language it's pointing to.

<comment><USER7> It's not specific to Rails, only his example URL is - Rails listens on port 3000 by default. You could equally try <http://iwishyouwouldnt.smackaho.st:80/> and get your local web server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're developing on Rack-based webapps on MacOS, check out <http://github.com/alloy/passengerpane> \-- it's a System Preferences panel to automatically sets up local DNS and Apache/Phusion Passenger vhosts for projects.

If there's a similar tool for non-MacOS or non-Rack stuff I'd love to hear about it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Do you need subdomains specificially, or just different addresses that resolve to localhost? If so you could use e.g <http://127.1:3000/>, <http://127.2:3000/> etc. (or the full 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.2 if your browser doesn't like 127.1).

<comment><USER10> Having subdomains is nice when you're developing an app that will use sudomains for accounts in production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> *.somesite.com has been around since 2003 and points to 127.0.0.1.

</comment><comment><USER12> My /etc/hosts has:

127.0.0.1 me

So I can do <http://me/website-to-test/>

<comment><USER13> But if you are developing a site that uses the subdomain as a routing rule, that fails. Your /etc/hosts entry won't make <http://fuck.me/> go to your site, which is what smackaho.st _will_ allow you to do.

Obviously this is easy enough to fake without DNS trickery; just modify the outgoing "Host:" header or teach your proxy how to "resolve" names in the form of "*.me".

<comment><USER14> Please don't - .me is a popular TLD.

<comment><USER13> It's the parent's example, not mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's already a totally unambiguous domain for this -- why not alias *.localhost?</comment>


The Ultimate Cheat Sheet for Reinventing Yourself - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2013/12/the-ultimate-cheat-sheet-for-reinventing-yourself-2/ <comment><USER2> This is an article like many others, that acts as if you simply work yourself as hard as possible, you can be successful.

Most will fail, few will succeed with this approach. I'm much happier enjoying my life, making good money, and spending/saving appropriately.

Stop pretending you're special - you almost certainly aren't. Enjoy your life for what it is and just enjoy it. You only have one.

<comment><USER3> Well you probably have reached your year 5, through circumstance or pure luck. I think this article is for people who have no idea.

I know this articles presents the very cliched aurguments in some cases, but in other cases it presents somethings of value...

I am not defending this article, but I dont think its that bad...And I do think people should read it, cause its better than wasting time on fb...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it's accurate that most will fail and few will succeed. But this is mostly a result of a small percentage sticking with it much longer than the rest.

I left my job a corporate job I was unhappy at 7+ years ago. I pursued my passion for art and design and struggled for years. I often thought I'd made a huge mistake. In fact, I was sure I had made a mistake. I was the dude living a pipe dream.

And then just when I thought I was an idiot it all started to work out. It just took me much longer than I thought. Today I get more fulfillment, more freedom, and more money doing something I'm passionate about. I'm so glad I didn't give up.

Is this path right for everyone? No way. But what James says has merit.

</comment><comment><USER5> Needs 2013 in the title.

I encourage people to read some of Altucher's blog. He has a way of making people "think different". [http://www.jamesaltucher.com/](http://www.jamesaltucher.com/)</comment>