PayPal blocks donations to The Grayzone that mention Iran - <AUTHOR> https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/09/paypal-blocks-donations-iran/ <comment><USER3> _How to take payments without a chance of political censorship in 2019_ , stolen from The Ancient Wizards of Technology's Past:

View the following.

[https://about.usps.com/forms/ps1093.pdf](https://about.usps.com/forms/ps1093.pdf)

Follow the instructions to get a PO Box. To avoid mail containing harmful or annoying items, I recommend a small one.

Put the mailing address of your PO Box on your website, and tell people sending cash to it to address it to "YOURSITE," possibly appending "Donation Fund" if applicable.

Be careful to remind the reader that they need not put their real (or any) name on it, and that they can get stamps anonymously and location-randomized with ease if desired.

This also works _amazingly_ if you want to charge for hardware or hosting, especially hardware or hosting that's privacy-focused.

Congratulations! Your readers/customers can send you money from almost anywhere without identifying themselves, and you can rest easy knowing that any dollars meant for you will reach you.

<comment><USER4> Ha! I just lost a hundred dollars just last week this way. Funny story - <USER2> aunt has a habit of mailing family holiday cards with $$cash$$. I am subscribed to "informed delivery digest" from US Postal service. I even saw the image of the letter I am (was) going to get. That was the last I heard of it!

<comment><USER3> [https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Mail- Theft](https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Mail-Theft) [https://ehome.uspis.gov/fcsexternal/default.aspx](https://ehome.uspis.gov/fcsexternal/default.aspx)

Lots of people are employed by the Fed to handle these exact cases! I'd recommend getting it investigated, if nothing else, it'll help them keep justifying their jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For everyone in this thread mentioning Bitcoin/crypto: in no way does using cryptocurrency exempt you from US sanctions. Given the way most crypto exchanges are run, I wouldn't even think that it offers much protection against getting caught.

<comment><USER6> Its not an issue of US Sanctions. Grayzone is a US publication owned and operated by Americans in the United States. Its a matter of circumnavigating Paypal's interference in their receiving donations. Nobody has suggested that any of this money came from Iran (where Paypal doesn't even operate). Use crypto would potentially be an effective way to donate to Grayzone without requiring Paypal's approval.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whether it's in the from of government regulations or the free market deciding to prefer another service, society shouldn't be allowing this sort of behavior from large companies, but the sad truth is, many people don't care and most likely just rationalize it as "it doesn't affect me" or "It's just a few dollars".

</comment><comment><USER8> Iran is on the FATF black list and features a lot in the OFAC sanctions lists, any transaction mentioning Iran is going to be blocked.

<comment><USER9> No idea why this is downvoted; it's the plain truth. The same thing goes for other sanctioned countries: (Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria), as well as for transactions mentioning sanctioned individuals or organizations.

<comment><USER10> Is Cuba still sanctioned? I thought the main embargo was lifted a few years ago.

<comment><USER9> Cuba was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list in 2015, but it remains under heavy economic sanctions and travel restrictions -- enough so that mentioning "Cuba" or "Havana" in an electronic payment memo will probably get your account locked temporarily while the compliance department takes a look at it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The US government is so strict on all transactions due to Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing laws. This donation clearly meant well, but it's totally understandable that PayPal blocked it given everything that has just happened in Iran.

Yes, this clearly pushes people towards crypto, but PayPal is doing what the Government is mandating and is merely protecting itself.

<comment><USER9> Current events in Iran aren't a factor -- this is a sanctions issue and always has been. If you tried to make a Paypal donation mentioning Iran a month ago, that would have gotten blocked too.

<comment><USER11> Agree. Iran has been sanctioned for a long time, But PayPal would almost certainly would be overly cautious given recent events and maybe more edge cases are getting denied than a few months ago.

Anyway, either way we clearly agree here

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sort of financial censorship is a textbook example of a problem perfectly solved by Bitcoin-class cryptocurrencies. A censorship-resistant digital currency may not be useful to _you_ personally, but it's painfully obvious there are heaps of people who legitimately need them in our modern world for use cases that would never cross your mind.

<comment><USER13> Bitcoin isn't censorship resistant when you want to pay out into real money. The exchanges can block it, especially if you're on one of the various "do not trade" lists.

<comment><USER14> Huh? The world is full of exchangers that require no KYC whatsoever.

The Russian guy who pays my rent with SEPA transfers has never asked for my name.

<comment><USER15> Not certain, but I think most of the time, rent will be under the amount/volume threshold for KYC requirements.

<comment><USER14> My rent is firmly in the Bay Area territory, so probably not.

Anyway, none of these guys do KYC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just another reminder how powerful the US is and how extreme sanctions they have put on Iran.

</comment><comment><USER17> The United States seized funds my supervisor sent to his friend who mentioned the word "ISIS" in a Venmo transaction.

Be careful of your transaction messages.

<comment><USER18> And maybe avoid banking services that are less culpable to their customers than even traditional banks? Paypal, venmo, etc are aggressively customer hostile even compared to the traditional banking sector.

<comment><USER19> Yup. People look at me weird once in a while, but cash always works. No fees. Censorship resistant, close to anonymous, and accepted everywhere, network or not. I can do without yet another app selling my data.

<comment><USER18> Cash is fine, too. But really I am just advocating for like, Credit Unions, or even traditional for-profit banks like Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, etc as places for storing your money rather than Paypal or Venmo. Zelle instead of Venmo for quick payments to friends. Credit cards or debit cards or whatever instead of Paypal anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems like just a dumb keyword match. At least make it more context sensitive or have a human review it first.

<comment><USER18> FWIW, you would see reports of this kind of thing long before the recent violence. People would mention "persian rug" and get their accounts locked or transactions reversed. Super lazy embargo enforcement.

<comment><USER7> > Super lazy embargo enforcement.

In a way I can understand that; if you just want to do your job and some politician decides now that "iranians = bad" and makes you responsible for restricting your transactions with them, you wouldn't be very motivated either.

They probably just considered the costs and concluded that it'd be cheaper in the short term to block a few unrelated transactions than to implement a huge system to accurately filter out only the right transactions.

This is no defense, but we already knew that big companies like paypal don't care to be "the good guys"

<comment><USER9> Well, even simpler than that: the penalties for failing to block an actually- bad transaction are massive, potentially denominated in millions of dollars. The financial consequences of blocking a legitimate transaction are comparatively minor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well done PayPal. You have just legitimised the use case for using cryptocurrencies as a way of sending money without being censored.

What a spectacular own goal here.

</comment><comment><USER22> Am I missing something or where is the screenshot of a mail saying anything about Iran?

</comment><comment><USER23> So stop using PayPal?

</comment><comment><USER24> Use Bitcoin, problem solved

<comment><USER7> For as much flaws as bitcoin has, this kind of bullshit is the biggest reason why I hope it will ultimately become a more viable form of payment.

<comment><USER25> I would even use Dogecoin if it came down to it. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A solution for this kind of payment filtering is using a cryptocurrency like Nano. Unlike PayPal, it has no fees, and the transfer takes less time too. There are many other advantages that I won't go into.

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe a solution would be for people to use cryptocurrency for donations.

</comment><comment><USER28> >"To comply with government regulations, PayPal is required to review certain transactions."

For mentioning the word Iran. Terrifying.

I guess the best to hope for is that the Institute for Justice or the ACLU pick this up and sue for their free speech rights. But even then, the only consequence would be taxpayers burdened to pay up.

<comment><USER18> They were doing this long before last week.

2019: [https://www.newsweek.com/venmo-flags-payments-persia- allows-...](https://www.newsweek.com/venmo-flags-payments-persia-allows- nazis-1339871)

2016: [https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/venmo-reportedly- blocking-...](https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/venmo-reportedly-blocking- payments-that-use-the-word-persian.html)

2014: [http://valleywag.gawker.com/venmo-racial-profiling- account-f...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/venmo-racial-profiling-account- frozen-for-typing-the-w-1646766081)

<comment><USER28> I am aware. Even going back in history, I find most are surprised to know even Abraham Lincoln really went after journalists and the press.

Anyways, I don't know why I was downvoted. Hopefully not because people disagree with that hope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So Paypal is the Cloudflare for money?

<comment><USER30> 4-5 years ago, didn't they block Wikileaks on a whim?

As for the specific issues you're raising about identity and fees, I'm having none of those issues, but then I also avoid PP whenever possible so I use it maybe once every other month.</comment></comment>


Naomi Wolf: US publisher cancels book release after accuracy concerns - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50153743 <comment><USER2> This is tough news for any author.

But the hard-charging, political take-no-prisoners attitude of today needs to be rethought. She had an agenda and then looked for flimsy facts to bolster it. I would like a return to the days when authors tried to step back and write a well-considered and balanced view of what happened, not try to write a polemic.</comment>


Amazon's new Kindle Paperwhite e-reader comes with frontlit screen - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/amazons-new-kindle-paperwhite-e-reader-comes-with-frontlit-screen/ <comment><USER2> As an engineer this may finally solve one of the most vexing problems I deal with, data sheets. They are all PDFs these days and they are unreadable on the old style Kindle (kinda ok on the DX) nice but a bit of overkill on the 3rd gen iPad.

The reason I want an e-ink screen device for data sheets is that it often sits on my desk for long periods on the pinout page or the 'example circuit' page. On an e-ink display it just sits there forever, on an iPad the display goes to sleep or if I keep it awake I burn through power too fast.

<comment><USER3> What's the problem with datasheets on the old style Kindles?

<comment><USER2> If I zoom them to be readable they look like crap (and its very tiring to read them) I've got an Illiad V2 which I originally used for this (167 dpi) and its "ok" but not great, and not enough real estate for the whole document. My 3rd gen iPad is quite nice but has the issues noted above. I had hoped the Plastic Logic folks would have made a dent here but alas that was not to be.

<comment><USER3> Illiad V2 looks nice.

My dream is just having an e-paper monitor next to my regular monitor to which I can just pull text over to read. I wish I could just get my hands on an e-paper screen of a decent size to hack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel a bit sorry for Kobo, who have announced essentially the same thing but with less fanfare: <http://www.kobo.com/koboglo/>

<comment><USER5> The kobo is great but I love the Kindle due to the integration with Amazon. Wirelessly getting books via whispersync is awesome.

<comment><USER4> How is that different from what Kobo does? I have a Kobo Touch (and my family have their own Kobo Touches on the same account) and I have Kobo apps on my Android phone and tablet, Windows and Chrome/Chromium browser. They all stay in sync, when I buy a book it appears on all the devices, and when I read a book on one, the others all update their bookmarks to where I stopped. Does the Kindle sync offer anything more?

<comment><USER6> Does Kobo have a similar collection of books? Allows you to purchase from Amazon? Otherwise the difference (and a huge one at that) is the collection of books available on Kindle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The biggest news about the new Kindle lineup is the one-year 4G subscription for only $49 available for the Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G.

<comment><USER5> Is there a data cap?

<comment><USER8> Yes, 250mb/month. Not exactly an incredible announcement, if you ask me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if this actually makes it less easy on the eyes than regular e-ink.

I really like e-ink technology but the Kindle approach scares me a bit with it's reluctance to give me proper ownership over the device and content I buy.

<comment><USER9> I have bought only 3 books for my Kindle over Amazon -

I use calibre to convert all kinds of e-book-formats to mobi/azw on Fedora, then a USB-cable to transfer them over (I think WLAN works, too). 3G is never on. Calibre also has a plugin to remove DRM from Amazon-books so that the few ones I bought are actually mine.

You can also install alternative OSes like Duokan for even more control, haven't really tried that out - deinstalled an old version after a short bit of trying when the book was displayed "smudgy".

<comment><USER10> Thank you for the pointer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thank god for front lighting, my wife keeps me up reading every night.

<comment><USER6> Get her one of these: [http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Kindle-Lighted-Leather- Paperwhi...](http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Kindle-Lighted-Leather- Paperwhite/dp/B004SD2562/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So these don't have side-mounted page turn buttons? Only touchscreen to turn pages? Can anyone comment on how that compares (usability wise) to the old buttons?

<comment><USER13> The hardware buttons are better in my experience.

Even after months of practice with the touchscreen, I find that one out of every 10 or so page turns I get a response different from my intention: the page turns in the wrong direction, turns two pages instead of one, triggers "open menu" command incorrectly, or does no action. I've found the swipes somewhat more accurate, net-net, than tapping, but they are a little awkward one-handed.

I've had miscues with the hardware buttons as well, but they're much less common.

The touchscreen's advantage is its on-screen keyboard. I found this a little better than the physical keyboard (which added too much size/weight) and d-pad selection. Though I only use that function once in a long while.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I have the same problem every once in a while. --Probably not every 10 pages, more like every 30-50, but still.

But it looks like the Paperwhite Kindle now has a capacitive touchscreen (rather than using IR sensing as the Touch does), so that may help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am excited whenever I hear of better eink displays. I am waiting for the day I can get an eink laptop so I can work outside.

<comment><USER16> This doesn't seem to be an e-ink display though. Am I wrong? I hope they aren't planning on getting rid of e-ink I much prefer it to any screen.

<comment><USER15> Yes it is e-ink, higher res and whiter background then previous versions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good devices but I hope that Amazon updates their devices more often: the Kindle devices haven't the same firmware (Kindle keyboard, Kindle touch... different firmware).

</comment><comment><USER18> Can you turn off justification on the Kindles?

<comment><USER19> Turn off... justification? o_O

I don't need to justify this with an actual response.

<comment><USER20> He means to ask if you can turn off text justification and have a ragged edge. The answer is no, at least on my Kindle Keyboard 3G running v3.3 of the Kindle Firmware.</comment></comment></comment>


HN:  Are you (esp. multilinguals) getting an ebook reader?  Which?  Why? - <AUTHOR> http://sgharms.pbworks.com/eReader Hello,
There are a number of ebook readers out there, although the Kindle marketing campaign might have you thinking otherwise.
But hackers, my people, only here have people weighed the DRM, the text, the technology, and the longevity.  Neither Ars nor Endgaget seem to have done a multi-row matrix comparison of the contenders so I'm asking you all.
The URL points to a primitive listing of my concerns.  I'm looking to use an e-book reader to consolidate my dead-paper library as I contemplate moving to smaller environs.  Any help here would be appreciated, either in comments here at HN or at the linked URL.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I don't get it. Why ask HN a question on a webpage?

Anyway, to answer your question. yes, get one. I got a Sony PRS-505 and i got it mainly to save cost on the technical books that become obsolete very quickly. Having said that, ebooks are still a bit too expensive considering the distribution medium savings.

On the bright side, some publishers are already starting to see the light and providing their books in some digital format. And the reader devices are getting better and better. If only Amazon would allow international customers(by convincing the publishers) to buy kindle books.

<comment><AUTHOR> ( link to web page was for context )

Very good factors you've provided here. My main concern is lack of portability of my dead-tree library. If I could save even /half/ the # of boxes to move I'd be much happier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm getting a Kindle 2 in a few days. Why? I love reading but don't have the time to go to the bookstore or library. I've finished a couple of books on my iPhone Kindle app and want the real Kindle since (1) it's getting hard to read on the iPhone screen (2) you can't "buy" the books from the iPhone Kindle app (you have to visit the website, or use the amazon.com iphone app) and (3) there are a ton of free books that I like and because I read a lot, I might actually save money with the Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a PRS-505 and am quite happy with it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd recommend a couple of days browsing over at <http://www.mobileread.com>

They've got opinions and facts on all your questions.

My take: for tech/PDFs, bite the bullet and buy the iRex 10 incher; fiction, take you choice of the 800x600 6 inchers (or wait for the new 800x600 5 inch readers: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=588353> )</comment>


Would learning a second language for business, now be a waste of time? - <AUTHOR> I predict within 5 years we will have near instant, even more accurate translation services and apps. And 10 years, probably babelfish-like devices.<p>What do you guys think? <comment><USER2> I think you're over-optimistic. Human language is extremely nuanced and tricky to get right, and highly contextual. There's no substitute for human understanding.

Basically what you're claiming is human-equivalent AI in 10 years. No way. Ordering in restaurant? Sure. Business negotiation? You really don't want to do that via translation. Even human translation will miss things.

<comment><USER3> Yup you've nailed it, the nuances in a language are vast. Tone,culture, popular media, common jokes add up to a ridiculous combination of possible meanings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Imagine the awkwardness in picking up girls with a translation app, let alone do business. You will get better deals if you speak the language.

<comment><USER5> ^^^ This. Do you think a bunch of executives are going to be sitting around a boardroom with their iphones? Do you think a client wants to be taken out to dinner or a bar and talk the whole time through an app?

The mere existence of the idea that foreign language interaction can be completely replaced by software proves what most outside the tech sector already know: tech people live in a delusional bubble where human interaction and real society do not matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> no. even human translation doesn't work as good as being able to communicate in a language yourself. machine translation is awesome and it would become a useful tool for rudimentary stuff, but that's it

</comment><comment><USER7> Waste of time, considering the advancement.</comment>


IT Admin Trashes Railroad Company's Network Before He Leaves - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/it-admin-trashes-railroad-companys-network-before-he-leaves/ <comment><USER2> I find it hard to understand why one would do something like this, effectively sabotaging your own career and likely facing severe legal consequences..

<comment><USER3> for the same reason other crime happens, they don't pause and think about consequences before taking action.</comment></comment>


ANSI colors in your browser - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/GabLeRoux/ansi-colors-chrome-extension <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, this is a chrome extension to convert ANSI characters to colors.

Posting here just in case someone is interested in giving a hand, it's just for fun, but could be handy for some users.

It's kind of cool as I was able to get browserify to work within a chrome extension and it currently strips ANSI characters on a single button click so our eyes can stop bleeding ;)</comment>


Does Amazon Have More Power Than the Federal Reserve? - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/150938/amazon-power-federal-reserve <comment><USER2> Although I don't disagree with the premise of the article, there seems to be a lot of hand waving. Are relying on underlying data for proof or just putting up hypothesis?</comment>


There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else. - <AUTHOR> http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/prolegomena%281%29.htm

<comment><USER3> He seems to be suggesting that the only economic model for software development is to sell it as a product. That might make sense if your business is selling software. The rest of us are in the business of designing websites, running universities and large enterprises, selling widgets etc. In other words, our business is making other kinds of stuff or just in providing services. In the course of running that business we need to use software. If there's free stuff (especially stuff that can be freely customized to fit my business) then great. If we improve it, we might give it back to the community and everyone benefits. Well, everyone, except that poor sap who's trying to sell the commercial software that doesn't benefit from the stream of incremental improvements that come from the community. Or maybe they've still got a better solution than the FOSS product. That's excellent and if they make money, more power to them! But there's nothing broken or wrong with the FOSS model and the writer doesn't offer much evidence to support his argument other than an anecdote about how Ubuntu from four years ago (!) didn't work for him. Sheesh.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article is difficult to understand because it is written as a flamebait rather than an objective critique.

Here is what I understand so far. His primary point is that for a FOSS project it is not easy to have it economically self-sustainable. I believe he is almost correct on this point and counter arguments exist elsewhere in this thread and on the internet. As for whether FOSS is useful or not or how to solve the problem described, he gives no suggestion. However, he does take many cheap shots at RMS and FOSS supporters.

Anyhow, my counterpoint, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, is the contribution of FOSS is beyond direct monetary compensation. For organizations FOSS provides cheap, commoditized off-the-shelf parts for internal software projects. For consumers, FOSS allows independence from software producers and system lock-ins. These benefits are real in economic terms and can not simply be waved away.

<comment><USER5> Further, the funding of a lot of free software has already taken place because a company needed to scratch its own itch. After that, the question is, "Does keeping this software closed source provide us a significant competitive advantage?" If the answer is "no," then there's really no point in _not_ sharing the source. Anyone that thinks shrink-wrap sales of their pet Lisp dialect are going to make up the cornerstone of a viable business model is freaking deluded; these things are dime a dozen, and the market is next to non-existent.

Pretty much all of the open source stuff that comes out of Google comes out for this reason; they're not in the software sales biz, so if they develop something neat that helps them get things done but is not core to their business, they give it away. Economically speaking it's neutral to positive for them (helps PR quite a bit, and gets programmers invested in the Google ecosystem), and positive for everyone else.

My immediate response to the article: no shit, software takes time to write, even the most hardcore FOSS advocate wouldn't claim otherwise. But once those costs are funded (which they will be if you need the functionality yourself), if there's no money to be made by keeping the results a secret then you should be indifferent to opening it up. Yes, this means that FOSS is driven more by big companies than by basement programmers, because they generate a lot more code, but nobody ever claimed otherwise, except when constructing strawmen to knock down.

I was going to bring up the obvious point that most of the Internet runs on FOSS software (convenient not to mention Apache in a rant like this, arguably the producers of the most successful FOSS in existence), but upon checking, I can't call him out for hypocrisy - check out any non-existent url (for instance, <http://www.lambdassociates.org/doesnotexist>), at least he's actually drinking the Microsoft Kool-aid as he rails against the poor quality of open source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Of course large, important projects require a certain amount of funding to succeed. I'm not sure where this is really disputed, I don't see the actual argument the author is railing against. Fedora Linux may not generate revenue directly, but it is an important component to the development of RHEL, which is the core component of Red Hat's highly successful business model.

There are many, many, many organizations of all types all over the world that use different economic models to fund various different interests. I sing in a choir. We're a non-profit organization and raise money in a variety of ways to pay for music, a professional director, various instrument ensembles, venues to perform in, and people to record the concerts. The choir itself is auditioned, but all volunteer. We spend a few hours per week for fun because it enriches our lives, and as a result people get to come enjoy our concerts. Last spring we performed Mendelssohn's Elijah at Sanders Theater in Harvard Square. Unlikely to happen, but in theory the recording of that concert could become popular, and for a trivial cost via file sharing networks that performance could be listened to by 1 million people all over the world. Demand for those digital copies on that scale might average $0.001/per copy. Not worth it to try and charge for it anyway.

But we aren't a business. There are a few people associated with the choir who are compensated for their work. They are highly trained and skilled and put in more than the typical 3 hours per week. The rest of us are not paid and in fact pay dues. Is it really that different from the way an OSS project might work? 2-3 key maintainers and a hundred other contributors averaging 3-ish hours per week?

According to their website, WCVB-TV supports 484 non-profit organizations in the Boston area. [http://cf.thebostonchannel.com/bos/sh/charity/front_charity....](http://cf.thebostonchannel.com/bos/sh/charity/front_charity.cfm)

There are many valid ways to fund software projects. Some of those projects turn out to be extremely successful and popular, and in many cases the Open Source nature of the product actually adds real value to end-users. Sure, there is some bad software, but I've used lots of bad software in my life, both free and not-free. The fact that people might be working without the compensation they might deserve in a perfectly balanced economic world is not really a big concern. That's life. It doesn't just apply to software, and the reverse is also true. It is most assuredly the case that some large companies are paying some programmers far more than they theoretically deserve for the software that company sells.

</comment><comment><USER7> Oh, my. It is free as in "freedom", you idiot, not free as in "gratis", RMS would tell you. And he would be right. You've debunked only your own misunderstanding of the problem...

<comment><USER8> I think you misunderstood the point he's trying to make. Here's the conclusion of the article:

 _The problem is that FOSS is part of an equation that has never been properly balanced. The other part of the equation is an economic one and one that has not been thought through. Instead ad hoc and unconvincing explanations have been floated for why FOSS makes money when in fact, as presently constituted, it so often does not and is parasitic on conventional capitalism or state money_

It's a rant about the economics of FOSS, not freedom. And you know what? He's right.

<comment><USER9> No he isn't.

If Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they open source the software, and improvements to it by outside contributors result in them saving another $500,000.

Then, Company Y adopts the software and uses it to save $2,000,000. They improve it as well, which results in them saving another $500,000 and Company X saving another $300,000.

Total profit: $3.8m

Compare this to the alternative:

Company X gains $1,000,000 savings due to investing $700,000 in developing a piece of software, they have earned $300,000. Then, they keep the software closed. No contributions are made by outside users.

Then, Company Y writes their own version of the software for $700,000 and uses it to save $1,500,000, less because they don't have the improvements made by outside contributors. They don't have the logic from Company X to combine with theirs, so they don't improve it, and they don't save any extra money. Company X doesn't save money either, since they don't get anything back.

Total profit: $1.1m

 _Everyone involved made more money in the first situation than the second_ , despite Company X giving up their source code to be used by other companies as well. This works completely fine under existing systems and requires nobody to arbitrarily throw money at open source for no potential gain.

Open source is the free-market solution to the problem of inefficiency due to competition--everyone implementing their own versions of software and in the end generating a worse result than if they had worked together.

<comment><USER10> What you've proven is that if I choose whatever numbers I want, and add and multiply them together in whatever order I choose, I can get whatever answer I please.

Also, if you read the article, he doesn't argue that source code should be closed - he argues that it should be paid for.

<comment><USER11> Let's turn his analogy around and ask, if every startup and nonprofit that ever wanted to put up a website had to either buy or build a webserver, would the web as we know it exist? More to the point would the standard protocols and encodings that we mostly take for granted have evolved? Or would we all be coding for aolserver and bitching about how to get our websites approved on different cable networks?

And the stuff about the source being paid for is a red herring, only a very few licenses prohibit the sale of software (and the GPL explicitly allows it, the only restriction is that if you sell software built with GPL components you must provide the source as well as the object code).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I suppose the author is one of the people that argue that everything should be paid for by a direct transaction. If I walk to the corner store to get a beer, I should pay for the use of the sidewalk because "someone paid to put it there".

There are things that are better for everyone if the cost is borne by everyone. You could argue that because Linux or Emacs are free (as in beer), there's some sort of circumvention of capitalism going on that robs the economy. But how about the fact that thousands of people now can learn how to run a unix system and write program that would otherwise _never_ have paid to do so? I believe there is a net benefit to society there, just like with publicly funded streets and publicly funded research. It induces activity which otherwise would not happen.

Only the most fundamentalist capitalists would argue that common investments are never good, and this strikes me like the same kind of rant. And I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me one bit.

</comment><comment><USER13> "Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam. It was not invented by Richard Stallman contrary to popular myth, although he did grab the sources and improved them and tried successfully to claim as much credit as he could. It's real cost in market terms was effectively many thousands of tax dollars and it was paid for as such by Joe Schmoe."

This is an interesting bit of history. Is that a correct description of the history? How many other now "open source" projects began with that kind of initial taxpayer subsidy?

<comment><USER12> But what kind of point is that? If it was _really_ paid for by the taxpayers, it should be free (free as in free beer _and_ free as in free speech) because it was funded by taxpayers. How is arguing that it should _not_ be free any kind of solution to this (imagined) problem?

<comment><USER14> Exactly. The real disgrace is all those technologies developed with taxpayer money and yet patented, closed or restricted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "There is no such thing as free software."

This isn't true. It's just exaggerating to make a point.

As a counterexample, <http://pysolar.org>. I wrote the code for free, because I wanted the experience. You can have it for $0 under the GPL. That's free software.

The truth is more like: "Free software is often subsidized by governments or companies." But so what? So is proprietary software. With that revision, I don't see more than a poorly written rant.

<comment><USER16> What about the opportunity cost? You paid for this code with your time, which otherwise, if you felt like it, you presumably could have used to earn money. If your time is worthless, then indeed the code costs nothing; is it? That's the point the author's making.

<comment><USER15> You're confusing the cost to you with the cost to me.

You're correct that there was an opportunity cost for me to write the code. I spent a few hundred hours on it, when I might have been programming for money. Fair enough.

But when we talk about whether software is free, the question is either how much is costs to use it (i.e. is it free as in beer?) or what license it uses (i.e is it free as in freedom?).

In this case, the cost to you is $0-- free as in beer-- and the license is the GPL-- free as in freedom. (Perhaps we can omit the GPL vs. BSD argument here.)

A better counter-argument might talk about the opportunity cost for you to use free software.

<comment><USER16> I'm not confusing anything, I'm explaining to you what the original author meant by software not ever been free. Someone always bears the cost; if the user pays nothing whatsoever, the developer pays with his/her time, which they could have used otherwise to program for money. Yes, this isn't what's usually meant by the code not being free, but _that is the author's entire point_. He's arguing that the usual way to talk about it - the one you recap in your sentence starting "But when we talk about whether software is free, the question is..." - is deceptively incomplete.

The author has a point - one I don't sympathize with much, by the way - <USER2> he's explaining it clearly. His reward? An alarming number of commentators here on YC smugly calling him an idiot and repeating with tedious condescention the standard talking points on freedom, gratis, etc., advertising nothing much beyond their lack of reading comprehension and a healthy knee-jerk reflex.

<comment><USER6> The author has a point, and I think the "free as in freedom" comments are clearly missing that point. But I wouldn't say it is explained very clearly. It's framed as an attack on what appears to be a straw man. Finding a frame of reference to interpret the tirade is hard[1], and the point about the costs of work must be extracted from the rest.

[1] Hard to do well. It's pretty easy to make vague assumptions and proceed from there.

<comment><USER16> You're right, and thanks for checking my ire. I probably exaggerated the merits of the tirade because I was so annoyed by all the smug comments that so clearly missed the not-so-sophisticated point about the cost of work. I still think it's an interesting rant, even if it could have been better structured and less ranty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here is my take on FOSS, I hope you find it interesting:

* FOSS is great at very small number of things: C compiler (gcc), Operating system (Linux), programming languages (zillions), Apache, MySQL, and a few others.

* FOSS is OK at a certain number of larger areas - relatively simple games (BzTank), office applications (Open Office)

* FOSS is absolutely horrible at new product development. Anyone with a brain and a decent idea that SOME people MIGHT pay for can see that FOSS is inferior to all of these:

       * web-based subscription model
       * web-based advertising model
       * closed source shrinkwrap model
       * closed-source consulting model

The only reason you would choose FOSS over these is you don't believe anyone would pay anything for what you want to make (but they might donate after using it). At this point, if you still choose to develop, then

       A) It is a hobby, and the only thing tying you to the project is your interest

       B) You can choose between freeware/shareware and FOSS

The game Dwarf Fortress is a good example of freeware. The creators want to retain artistic control over their creation, so they release as closed source software.

In conclusion, if you release source code, then:

       * others may improve the product, which benefits you because you are using it

       * you may lose artistic control due to fork pressure

If you don't release source code, then:

       * you have to do all of the development yourself or through people you hire

       * you retain total control over the product

Now you know!

</comment><comment><USER18> What an ass clown.

So firstly, it's free as in freedom. We don't mean free as in cost.

But secondly, if someone pays for some software to be developed and it solves their problem and then they give it away then it's truly free as in cost too. They paid money equivalent to the value they got from it, everyone else rides for free.

And thirdly: ass clown.

<comment><USER19> I'll refute you by asking a simple question. If you sell software that you originally designed for your own use, does it not have a value?

<comment><USER20> Free NEVER refers to value. Free refers to price. Also, free does not refer to cost - everything has a cost, even if only the opportunity cost of the time used making or acquiring the free software (or anything else free). Actually, the time acquiring and learning to use the software is why I still use MS software for a lot of things that aren't worth my time fiddling with.

<comment><USER19> It's been a long week. Normally, I would have busted someone's chops for the exact thing I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am reminded of the saying in the military: Freedom isn't free. (I think Heinlein said it was paid for with the blood of patriots.) The article says his time is worth something, and that is a big part of his point: To get all this "free" stuff, you have to have some intelligent, capable person giving away skills and knowledge they could be making money for.

I spent a lot of time giving away information. The information was valued but I wasn't making a cent. (In fact, I was paying for the privilege because of web hosting costs and domain names.) I've seen a number of websites that started with giving stuff away and when they became popular enough they turned into commercial ventures and you could no longer get free stuff from them. The websites basically became advertisements for the skills and products they were offering. I also know some very idealistic webmasters who basically are resentful of the time and energy they have spent on their projects and the fact that they aren't making much money, aren't getting the kind of recognition they crave, etc. At some point I decided I did not want that to be me -- and could no longer afford to follow in the footsteps of people like that.

I still want to give information away for free but these days I also want to figure out how to make money at it. Since I am mainly looking to give information away, I think some of the traditional ways of monetizing that should work, such as advertising. I haven't (yet) spent any time pondering how one would make money from open source software. But it seems to me this is an issue that needs a good solution. As I see it, code is basically information and that's always been a tricky thing to effectively commodify.

<comment><USER12> But you are manufacturing a problem. If you don't think free software works for you, don't write it. Not everyone's a capitalist fanatic and feel like they must be "paid" for (in money) for everything they do. Like you say, plenty of people do volunteer work without any expectation of return apart from feeling like they've helped someone. How can you argue that this "needs a good solution"?

<comment><USER21> I did volunteer work for about 25 years. I've spent a lot of time in that realm and thought a lot about it. I don't mean to imply that what is currently being done must stop. But I agree with the author that his time has value, so if other people expect him to keep giving it away for free, it's basically a parasitic expectation. If he wants to give it away for free, that's his choice. But if he isn't independently wealthy, time put into a FOSS project competes for time he could spend making money or with family and friends, etc. Good projects generally require substantial time and effort. It is common for volunteer situations to result in shoddy work, people you can't count on because they feel no real obligation since they aren't being paid, and similar problems.

I was diagnosed late in life with a serious medical condition. Prior to my diagnosis, I was too ill to pursue a paid career. Many of the idealistic, talented and intelligent people I have known who routinely give away their work for free are also handicapped in some way. (Actually, I can't think of anyone who gives away substantial amounts of their time and skill on a regular basis who isn't seriously handicapped in some manner.) If you are handicapped, doing volunteer work has the easy terms that work for you. Moderating a forum, running a website part-time, and so on are things you can do when you feel up to it and no one can force you to be more consistent. And the quality of the work is generally consistent with the fact that you are unreliable, impaired, etc.

So while I still value some of the free resources made available by other people like me, now that I am well enough to work a full time job, I am somewhat less of a bleeding heart. I still think some things need to be "free" -- in terms of rights and also in terms of financial access -- but I think many of these resources would be of better quality than is currently available if the people running them were compensated in some manner. Non-profits don't operate without budgets. They still need money. That money is typically raised from the community based on the idea that the organization is offering something of value. They aren't "beggars". They are just doing work that has human value more than commercial value and therefore needs to be monetized without directly selling services.

<comment><USER22> Compared to your situation I feel less sympathy for Mr. Tarver since much of his work took place in a university environment and while he claims to have spent 20 years developing the ideas behind Qi, he obviously didn't profit from those efforts in the way that he may have wanted.

But I doubt he would have been as critical of government support for projects had his own efforts been more successful since presumably the university partially supported his research (or at least didn't take the kind of hostile attitude he would have encountered at many corporations).

I think this particular situation shows that there is a difference between _having expertise_ and having _an ability to capitalize that expertise_. Perhaps had he spent a little more time networking to find people who would be willing to support his ideas, things would have worked out better for him.

<comment><USER21> I was inducted into Mu Alpha Theta (a college level math honor society) in 11th grade, the earliest you can be inducted. We did volunteer work tutoring math once or twice a week. I've spent a lot of time in online communities for folks with really smart kids -- the parents are typically also smart and it is an environment where many people come to terms with their own social and emotional problems through trying to do right by their kids. So I've thought a lot about this as well: Smart people are given a lot of messages to the effect that they have a moral obligation to give away what they know for the benefit of all humankind and if, instead, they use it to make big bucks, then they are evil incarnate. This mindset can be extremely hard to escape (at least for some people).

Universities are rife with such "idealism", a form of idealism that I increasingly think is misplaced. To try to put it in a nutshell: One requirement for sainthood is that you be persecuted. We seem to think that good people must suffer horribly as a means to prove their goodness. I'm increasingly disenchanted with the idea that one has to martyr oneself to be a good person, whether that means dying for the cause or just not getting paid adequately for your work. I think all that teaches people is that there are only two kinds of people: victims and victimizers and in order to be good you must be a victim because the other choice is intolerable. I have concluded that trying to be "good" by being a willing victim forces others into the role of victimizer even if they don't want to be there. So I believe that if one wants to genuinely do good in the world, one must pursue a paradigm of symbiotic exchange rather than letting people parasitically use you up and playing the role of martyr/victim.

Symbiotic exchange sounds rather like Capitalism. I don't think that means every thing one does has to be in pursuit of the almighty dollar. I haven't been here long, but I'm impressed with the quality of HN so far. I am struck by the fact that it was initially created as a means for people at Y-Combinator to get to know potential applicants -- ie although it's offered as a "free" service, it ultimately is part of their business strategy. It looks to me like this is why HN is a better run forum than many I have participated in which were all-volunteer. HN can't afford to cater to personal peccadilloes and personality quirks of a volunteer staff. It has to meet a certain professional standard. And to the degree that at least some of the members want to apply to Y-Combinator, the participants have motivation as well to remain professional and polite. It is not a good place to indulge in habits that promote flame-wars and the like because the purpose is not merely social. Not everyone here will have such a goal, but it still impacts group culture. An influential minority can go a long way towards shaping community behavior. For some members, there is potentially millions of dollars at stake (if they can get VC from Y-Combinator and launch a highly successful business). It's strong motivation to behave better than what you see in many online forums where everything is idealistically given away "free" and flame- wars and other problems are the rule, not the exception.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the fastest way to get updated on what's trending on Hacker News? - <AUTHOR> I want to know apart from visiting the website quite often is there any other way to consume hacker news data as and when new things are up?<p>Is there any app recommendations which does help in this process? <comment><USER2> Use hckrnews.com.

It lists entries in a chronological view and let's you filter it by top 10/20/50%/frontpage/all. I've been using it as default HN client for years now and really recommend it.

<comment><USER3> This, since discovering it I've only browsed HN by using it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I consume HN almost exclusively through RSS. hnrss.org offers many options for customizing your feed, including whether you want to link to the linked website or the comments page and many others...

</comment><comment><USER5> RSS reader on [https://news.ycombinator.com/best](https://news.ycombinator.com/best)

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments](https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments)

</comment><comment><USER7> On a sort of similar but different note, does anyone know of a way to get a notification if someone replies to a comment I posted?

<comment><USER8> Try: [https://www.hnreplies.com](https://www.hnreplies.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I created an IFTTT workflow. Whenever there is a post that's gaining traction on Hackernews I get a notification on my Slack. I use some Slack features to remind me of it later if i am busy, also Pin somethings or Star.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was looking for something like this. Any idea whether IFTTT expose some api where i can create custom hooks for some other personal applications may be like android app?

<comment><USER9> Not sure about the API, I just used whatever was currently available. I am sure there might be someplace on IFTTTs api - [https://platform.ifttt.com/docs](https://platform.ifttt.com/docs) this may be a good place to start.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been thinking of trying to hook up a neural network for this that could send me summaries of what I tell it I'm interested in but also what it 'thinks' that I might be interested in.

<comment><AUTHOR> That would be amazing, to get a summary of each article in the top trending 30.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just the normal RSS feed on my rss reader

</comment><comment><USER12> hckrnews: [https://hckrnews.com](https://hckrnews.com)

If you use Telegram, subscribe to the Hacker News Feed channel (top stories with 100+ points). [1]

[1]: [https://t.me/hacker_news_feed](https://t.me/hacker_news_feed)

</comment><comment><USER13> This looks amazing. Nice share.

</comment><comment><USER14> hnrss.org with a filter for points.

[https://hnrss.org/newest?points=500](https://hnrss.org/newest?points=500)

I read the newest posts as they reach 500 upvotes delivered to my RSS reader (feedbin).

</comment><comment><USER15> 8hrs.xyz

<comment><USER16> Nice, though throwing a little context along with the url wouldn't hurt. For those that haven't opened the url yet, it's a list of "trending" HN topics for the last 8, 16 or 24 hours.

Is it only using hacker news as a source, or other sites too? I only saw HN links, but I didn't look at them all.</comment></comment>


IE9 pwn2owned with 0-day with exploit working back from IE6 to IE10 on Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/pwn2own-2012-ie-9-hacked-with-two-0day-vulnerabilities/10621

<comment><USER2> Am I wrong in assuming that Vupen's customers are bad people (for values of spam, trojans, bot-net, phishing bad)?

I'm trying to think of why else they wouldn't disclose the protected mode bypass error, but instead keep it "private for our customers".

<comment><USER3> According to their website, they provide 'offensive exploit services' to governments and intelligence services. So possibly, depending on wether you view those people as bad people.

<comment><USER4> They even admit it's not just governments they sell to: _VUPEN customers include worldwide governments and major corporations in finance, technology and manufacturing._ [<http://www.vupen.com/english/company.php>] although their continued use of weasel words does stop just short of admitting that they're enabling industrial espionage.

<comment><USER5> _VUPEN's offensive IT intrusion solutions and government grade exploits enable the Intelligence community and government agencies to achieve their lawful intercept missions using VUPEN's industry-recognized vulnerability research and intelligence._

I am trying to imagine a situation where _lawfuly_ government agencies need to break into someones IE. Any ideas?

<comment><USER6> Collecting information pursuant to a legitimate search warrant?

<comment><USER5> hmmm.. I think law enforcement agencies need to stay in accordance with the law even with their "discovery". Breaking into someone's IE or exploiting vulnerabilities in order to get information otherwise you wouldn't be able to get falls under breaking into someones "property", I think, even if its "just" an Internet browser.

Therefore, you "legitimate" search warrant will be thrown out of window by a judge, and classified as the Fruit of the poisonous tree.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As having personally worked to tell the IE team about a severe bug (crashie.com), I can tell you that their process, community and bureaucracy are by far the worst part of Internet Explorer. You'll get ignored, told that the problem is with your code, mocked in the forums, and then ultimately told the problem isn't a big enough deal (or in my case, too complicated) to fix.

The only way to get the IE team to fix issues is make a public spectacle like Vupen did. And I completely get only exposing bugs when there is a profit to be made, because any other route is counterproductive.

<comment><USER8> There is a difference between security and non-security bugs. Null pointer dereferences and hangs are not security bugs. Security bugs you are supposed to report to MSRC. Non-security bugs typically has to wait until next version of IE to fix.

<comment><USER9> That is assuming that it is easy to tell the difference between security and non-security bugs. Null pointer dereferences can and have been exploited to escape security sandboxes. I read about an interesting one a few years in flash. unfortunately all i can find now are secondary sources ([http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/mark-dowds-null- pointer-d...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/mark-dowds-null-pointer- dereference-exploit-and-advanced-flash-actionscript-techiques-proove- definitively-aliens-do-exist/1030)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Its really great to see that someone is stepping into the public eye and disclosing just how poor protection an average PC provides. Bringing attention to this problem could really improve privacy for your average Joe.

</comment><comment><USER11> So with IE 5.5 on Windows 95 I'm safe, right?

</comment><comment><USER12> Start the clock for seeing how long a fix takes to reach users .... now.

</comment><comment><USER13> The "activate their response process" sounds like it will take weeks or even months to get the fix pushed to users.

<comment><USER14> It's the time to report, analyse, produce a fix, test... and wait for the patch Tuesday, isn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wish someone would use this to 'infect' IE users (particularly older versions) with chrome-frame.

<comment><USER16> Yup. Who would down-vote this :)</comment></comment>


Hacked iRobot Uses XBox Kinect to See The World, Obey Your Commands - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/11/17/hacked-irobot-uses-xbox-kinect-to-see-the-world-obey-your-commands-video/

<comment><USER2> The article claims this is "the first iRobot to finally use SLAM".

See Gerkey's Create+Hokuyo SLAM HOWTO from March 2006, predating this "first" by 4.5 years.

<http://www.ai.sri.com/~gerkey/roomba/index.html>

Also, since the Create was designed and sold for exactly this kind of thing (it is a Roomba without the cleaning guts and with a published external control protocol), how is this a hack? Sigh.

<comment><USER2> To be clear, I'm pointing out only the sloppy "journalism".

The Kinect was slapped on there as a cheap new sensor for already existing SLAM* software. I'm sure the student would not claim novelty for that, and will be facepalming if he reads the linked article. This may be the first working Kinect-based SLAM system (outside Microsoft), a few hours before the next fifty instances. The gesture interpretation shown in the last few seconds is the novel contribution here.

iRobot Creates are used for SLAM every day in tens, maybe hundreds of labs around the world.

It's a shame that this AI-themed blog couldn't be a bit more careful about simple facts.

[*Simultaneous Localization and Mapping]

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Kinect has been out for less than two weeks! I can't wait to see what these hacks look like after a year. There's so much potential in using Kinect as a robot sensor package it's not even funny.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why does it have a rangefinder? Isn't that essentially a sub-function of having a Kinect on board?

<comment><USER5> The Hokuyo device is a linear scanning laser rangefinder with much better accuracy and range than stereo camera + texture projector (like the Kinect) sensors are achieving. It costs around $2000. That device itself was a revolution when it was released since previously everyone used SICK LMS devices at $20,000 each. Now most labs and some undergrad programs can afford the Hokuyo. The Hokuyo is less accurate than the SICK, but it's good enough for many purposes and, hey, it's affordable. The Kinect gives relatively noisy and and low-resolution data, but it's another order of magnitude cheaper AND it's 3D. More choice for the well-off and a whole new world for those without big research grants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe this was obvious, but I would like to point out that I did call it (sort of): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1894708>

</comment><comment><USER7> I almost wonder if Kinect will be big like the Wii due to the impressive amount of hacking done with it's hardware much like the Wii had with it's Wiimote.

<comment><USER8> I don't think the causality (hacking->popularity) runs that way. If anything, I'd think it runs the other way (popularity of the Wii made the Wiimote available in every game store and cheap for hacking on.)

However, the popularity of the Wii would seem to have been due to it being novel and fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Next step is for someone to hook this to the top of their car and teach it to autopilot.

<comment><USER10> I doubt it, last time I checked the kinect had a very low range, below the 4m mark I think, If you stand too far away from the sensor the magic fades away.

<comment><USER11> A nearsighted self-driving car you say? Where's the harm in that? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the thing; this seems amazing. The big question is, what is the killer app?

</comment><comment><USER13> I, for one, welcome our Robot overlords.

<comment><USER10> I, for one, welcome our new kinect powered robot overlords.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple memorial sites, my first location independent income project - <AUTHOR> http://www.memorydove.com A buddy and I put up our first SaaS site today... an attempt at building location independent income.
Basically I couldn't find a decent online obituary site creator when a family friend needed one, so I put together this project to help them out. You can see a page a friend created here: http://www.memorydove.com/marleta
Any feedback would be awesome. Thanks! <comment><AUTHOR> A buddy and I put up our first SaaS site today... an attempt at building location independent income.

Basically I couldn't find a decent online obituary site creator when a family friend needed one, so I put together this project to help them out. You can see a page a friend created here: [http://www.memorydove.com/marleta](http://www.memorydove.com/marleta)

Any feedback would be awesome. Thanks!</comment>


Once it was easy to be obscure, but technology has ended that - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/opinion/data-privacy.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if many people have experienced losing the "practical obscurity" this article talks about firsthand. Property records are public. So are WHOIS records. But it's unrealistic to manually search all the property records, phone books, WHOIS records to find someone you're looking for. However, some websites index these, and some search engines index those sites. I've had people contact me that I would prefer couldn't find me because my information was searchable due to a WHOIS record.

There are people out there slurping up all the information they can find in the public and attempting to connect it together. If you want to see what I mean, go check out your mylife.com profile. Mine has a big red warning because I have neighbors with court records. It says I "may" have sex offenses. What the actual fuck? This company needs to eat shit.

This isn't about people tracking you to give you better ads. Its about people tracking you to sell information to whoever wants to pay them. Its way fucking worse.

<comment><USER3> I didn't know about this site, but checking myself out with it, its information is remarkably incorrect. Maybe that means I'm doing a good job of being a hermit? It claims I'm Christian (I was born into a Lutheran family, so that's an understandable mistake), am married (ha!) and maintain relationships with many people (ha), proceeding to list 5 people I've never heard of[0]. Salary is wrong, home value is wrong, and the only email address it lists is about 20 years out of date. Really no better than the other various people search pages I've seen, which also failed to impress. Hell it even does the fake "we're looking up all this full report information for you... please pay at the next window" thing that they do. If this were the best the corps could track me I would say we have nothing to worry about, but I doubt it is.

[0] Turns out they're my neighbors.

<comment><USER4> Sounds similar to Zillow lowering homes' estimated values (zestimates) to encourage subscriptions with which you can contest their number.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> 1e-9 I continue to be amazed by the level of nearly complete indifference that the general populace still has towards privacy. I don't think the politicians are going to do much of consequence until their constituents think it is important. Those who understand the danger of what is happening should take every opportunity to help others become aware. Possibly the biggest challenge of this is how to avoid coming across as a total paranoid wacko.

<comment><USER5> That's because to the average person, the privacy fears of the average HNer make no sense. Even if something extremely bad _might_ happen as a result of violations of my privacy, the chances seem fairly low. In that sense, it's no different than millions of other fears high-impact-low-chance fears that we happily go through life ignoring.

What's your most convincing argument for why an average person should care more? Explain it to me like I'm 5.

<comment><USER6> > What's your most convincing argument for why an average person should care > more?

Laymen Argument 1:

Mark Zuckerburg who has majority control of the largest source of private data in the world bought the two plots of land next to him for privacy reasons.

Laymen Argument 2:

Forward me all of your emails if privacy isn't an issue. _crickets_

The average person doesn't care about these because it doesn't affect them _right now_ , but it's a "boil the frog" situation...you won't know you're getting boiled to death until it's too late.

<comment><USER7> > Mark Zuckerburg who has majority control of the largest source of private > data in the world bought the two plots of land next to him for privacy > reasons.

President of USA, travels with a ~100 men security cover all the time, does not mean USA is unsafe to move around and you should stay in home with a gun in hand.

<comment><USER8> > President of USA, travels with a ~100 men security cover all the time, does > not mean USA is unsafe to move around

It doesn't??? Most other OECD presidents/PMs/HoS don't bother.

<comment><USER9> To be fair US president is said to be single most powerful person in the world.

I don't have any data to back it up but I could see them being no. 1 assassination target globally.

OTOH few years back I was walking and passing near former president of my small European country. Since he is rather charismatic I asked if I can shake his hand and get a photo. He agreed and we did so, however I learned few minutes later from a friend lagging behind, that couple random bystanders twitched and totally focused on our interaction. Obviously personal security. So it's not like security isn't there, we might just not see it.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure about that counter-argument. POTUS is _currently_ the most powerful position in the world, but between 1850 and 1915 (approximate dates), I think the British and possibly French empires were more powerful.

In this time period, three American presidents were assassinated. The UK lost one MP, who was not the PM, and apparently the killers only targeted him because he happened to be walking with their main target at the time. None of the UK royals were assassinated in that period.

<comment><USER11> That may be pure luck - there were 8 attempts on Queen Victoria!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "And until lawmakers, corporate leaders and citizens embrace obscurity and move to protect it, your freedom and opportunities to flourish will be in jeopardy."

True! Look no further than NYT's initiatives to collect and sell their readerbase's emotional engagement to their content.[0] From their very own publisher:

"People have little transparency into what is being gathered, where it's being shared and how it's being used — to follow their movements, to charge them more for health insurance or to manipulate them with political messages — and even less agency to do anything about it." Mr. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times [1]

I don't mean to detract from the essay, but I'm pretty skeptical of NYT's "Privacy Project". NYT is the only publication that I read frequently that aggressively tries to prevent me from browsing in private mode with Firefox Focus and I wouldn't be surprised if they collect and sell the most reader information out of all major US publishers. I can only posit that though because they don't disclose any of that information. NYT's attempts at "data transparency"[1] are just excuses justifying the sale of reader information instead of answers regarding what information they collect, what information they sell, and who they sell this information to.

How long until NYT writers start facing pressure to produce stories that will maximize "emotional engagement", even if they're divisive and inflammatory? How long until emotional engagement is inadvertently used to discriminate against certain groups based on their reactions to controversial topics? These outcomes are an inevitability when profit motives are involved because humans are incapable of exercising restraint and saying "That's enough information, we don't need to collect any more or expand our current profit levels." NYT is repeating the same mistakes they're currently criticizing tech companies for and, as usual, the individual will suffer.

[0] [https://investors.nytco.com/press/press-releases/press- relea...](https://investors.nytco.com/press/press-releases/press-release- details/2018/The-New-York-Times-Advertising--Marketing-Solutions-Group- Introduces-nytDEMO-A-Cross-Functional-Team-Focused-on-Bringing-Insights-and- Data-Solutions-to-Brands/default.aspx)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/opinion/sulzberger-new- yo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/opinion/sulzberger-new-york-times- privacy.html)

<comment><USER13> Well,

About the only way to get actual privacy is: individuals valuing privacy, individuals having the tools to protect their privacy, and states not actively removing those tools (which can mostly be prevented by protest and refusal).

This isn't I think this will happen. Every indication is that you won't see individuals caring about privacy. Every day the attitude that there's something insincere about not being online with your real name seems to get more traction, along with the belief that "sharing your life with your friends" can somehow now be compatible with privacy.

It's just that individual is about the only way this could happen. Because no institution wants to do more than protect your privacy _from everyone else_.

<comment><USER12> I understand your point and I agree that individuals need to value privacy, but I also think it's important to recognize that the average individual on HN is much more technologically literate than most. I would posit that most people _do_ care about their privacy, but that most people aren't aware how exposed they really are. You could make the argument that being aware about what information you're exposing is the threshold for caring about your privacy, but the reality is that it's impossible to cover all of your bases and tech companies, and now NYT, are fully exploiting that to their advantage. The average individual isn't aware of how much specific information is collected when they use a credit card, when they connect to a cellular network, when they open a webpage with trackers, etc. Hell, Mr. Sulzberger in [1] admitted himself that NYT isn't even fully aware of what happens to the reader information they sell and whether it ends up in responsible hands.

It's exhausting and impossible to care about privacy today. You can care about privacy today and still end up with all of the same information exposed as someone who couldn't care less. The responsibility doesn't fall on the individual, it falls on the companies that continuously scrape every piece of metadata possible. That's why I can't take NYT's Privacy Project seriously, because in [1] they justify their data collection methods by essentially saying "Well, everyone else is doing it, too! Look at these other publications and companies that also collect data!" instead of taking the opportunity to be transparent and setting a standard. It's disappointing and makes me question the motives behind the project.

<comment><USER13> _I would posit that most people do care about their privacy, but that most people aren 't aware how exposed they really are._

Indeed, well. The average person cares about privacy but they don't _understand_ privacy. I mean, it various ways I probably don't fully understand privacy.

Which is to say, on reflection, that privacy and security are fundamentally intertwined just all the various points-of-entry for the bad guys are intertwined.

And the thing with security is that it isn't a feature and an add-on. In an organization, everyone has to care or no can. And with individuals, the same. A given individual can't expect just AV to protect their security and they can't expect a website by itself to protect their privacy.

Where, as I said above, I'm not optimistic on all these concerns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Its actually practical to keep track of 328 million Americans now. All it takes is money. And it gets easier every year.

<comment><USER15> Seisent, ChoicePoint, others were tracking everyone in North America by at least 2005, with partial coverage for Central America, South America, Caribbean. Just from public records, which at the time was ~1600 data feeds. Seisent's sales person told us the NSA bought one of their clusters and included their own data feeds (communications, transactions).

I assume by now multiple parties, both private and governmental, know everything about everyone, living and dead, in near real time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Data protection laws need to basically create this sort of ephemerality in collected data in that data is destroyed by law after a certain period of time. Outside of that we're a step away from a total surveillance state where everything that you do in any major city outside of your house is on record for eternity.

Here Louis Rossman talks about how all recordings that he has made using his Android phone's voice-to-text feature and Google recording all that audio for years and all of that is on record under his account.

So in terms of storage, if Google is storing that level of data. Then yeah we have the ability to store everything, forever. If that's what we as a society want to do.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vWAF13KigI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vWAF13KigI)

<comment><USER17> >> If that's what we as a society want to do.

I guess I'd argue that we as a society don't really want to do that, and if we as a society paid attention to privacy/security more then we'd force the companies doing this to stop. Or we'd force our government to pass laws that would stop it. But we as a society only have a limited number of hours in our day, and most of society just doesn't care enough to apply pressure where it would make changes. I think most people just don't see why it matters.

<comment><USER18> Those things are happening though. The GDPR has only recently come in and the average person is starting to realize how data collection affects them in ways like manipulating elections and data leaks. Until recently these privacy intrusions have only been a theoretical risk and most people don't care about theoretical risks until they become real risks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ralph Nader has an analysis on how online advertising is often at the root of corporate surveillance.

[https://nader.org/2018/10/04/the-root-of-the-internets- disre...](https://nader.org/2018/10/04/the-root-of-the-internets-disrepute- online-advertising/)

Of course, other forms of surveillance, like rulers spying on their own citizens, are time-honoured cornerstones of civilisation. (/s)

</comment><comment><USER20> Although I value privacy and obscurity, this makes me kind of sad for future historians.

<comment><USER21> Future historians don't care about who was in line in the bakery this morning etc. Data that should legitimately be obscure is about personal/small scale everyday actions that could be identifying given a small sample. I'm the first one to fall into data hoarding, but we need to repeatedly acknowledge that most of the things we do are not worth being recorded, and actively not recording them (or making them easily accessible, standardized) does have a lot of value, in terms of social structure.

<comment><USER22> I don't know, some of the most interesting and enlightening things we learn about past civilizations is through the mundane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Now that privacy is gone, I'm surprised that we haven't seen this technology used to unfortunately tarnish people's reputations. I don't want to quite spell it out.

I fear that scandals could retroactively breakout: you're no longer safe from your past. Old public recordings could be used to frame nearly anyone in unfavorable light.

<comment><USER24> Last year one of my wife's uncles had a DNA test done, and he turned out to have a sibling match with someone he had never met (living in a different country). Turns out that her grandfather had a child from a relationship with someone he met before her grandmother, and none of the family had ever known

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I really think at this point that it would be more effective for "privacy advocates" to switch gears. Trying to end the war on drugs, legalize prostitution, make the culture more permissive, etc. actually has a chance of succeeding while privacy has only been losing ground for decades at this point.

<comment><USER26> Miniaturized, cheap, low-power electronics and ubiquitous wireless Internet, plus modern image and audio process/recognition, are the end of it, really. It's over. War's lost as long as those exist, and good luck getting rid of them. Cell phones and giving all our data to 3rd parties who can track us without restriction are making it much worse, but the other tools are there, now. We built the ultimate totalitarian toolkit, and a massive disinformation machine that leaves us even less certain what's "grassroots" and what's enemy action than we ever have been.

We split the privacy atom and no non-proliferation treaty equivalent is anywhere near the Overton window, nor likely to be any time soon.

Whoops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bypass article: [https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.nytimes.com/2019...](https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/opinion/data- privacy.html)

</comment><comment><USER28> Well, you can if you work at it hard enough.

Online, at least. In meatspace, not so much. So you just gotta stay present to that fact that you're under observation at all times. Potentially, at least.

</comment><comment><USER29> The only certainties in life: death, taxes and surveillance

</comment><comment><USER30> The author may know of a great deal of harm caused, but so far I remain about ten pole lengths away from panic over my privacy. My Life did not seem to have much, and I have found more on myself in the past by simply googling. Yeah, I don't like how easy it is for people to see my mostly measly political donations, but only a stalker would give a darn about the facade of my home. Seems like it is more likely we need to fear identity theft than a lack of obscurity. Here's an idea, if you want more privacy/obscurity, refrain from social media or using your real name in comments sections.

<comment><USER23> Your political records alone could land you in trouble in the near future.

Roger Scruton lays this out elegantly in a lecture at Oxford: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUbfMQ91Mps#t=37m](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUbfMQ91Mps#t=37m)

Initially Barack Obama was in favor of homosexual rights, but not in favor of altering the institution of marriage. Scruton continues on, "within a year he was saying I am in favor of gay marriage and within another year he was joining forces with those who say that those who are against gay marriage are homophobes."

"So something which had been judged perfectly legitimate to oppose suddenly becomes the criterion of moral merit. And I think we've seen this in all sorts of issues that we've gone through in recent years. All of us are within one tiny step of being demonized."

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What all of us are witnessing and living through right now is data in its infancy. There is no one to nurture it and help it develop and grow. Only us - to learn as it grows. To change direction on its growth. I wish I would be alive when it truly becomes what it becomes. My grandkids will likely not even be alive. And I don't have grandkids yet.</comment>


Ask HN: Best Ad Network for Tech Blog? - <AUTHOR>

Been using AdSense for quite some time as I am not focused on revenue from blog... but would love to try new networks. Whats working best for tech? <comment><USER2> Without knowing your traffic #'s, I can't say for sure but the big networks require a lot of pageviews/month. Among the lower is Tribal Fusion, which requires around 5,000 uniques per day. My blog is just about at this level, except for lower traffic on weekends, so I am considering applying soon.

Otherwise you might consider private ad sales (not talking about those shady link exchanges emails everyone gets, those are bad news). Not easy to work with but it's the best bet for a small blog (let's say sub-100,000 uniques/month). There's also great potential to work with affiliate stuff if you find products you can honestly recommend and that your readers would trust your opinion on. I make about 1/3 of my blog income from affiliate stuff. Also make sure to invest in a URL tracker so you can hide affiliate links with yourdomain.com/Your_Slug to increase conversions and also let you find click stats, do A/B tests etc. I use one that is a WordPress plugin, you can find it on my blog in my profile, or feel free to email me.

I'm just heading out the door but this is what was on the top of my head. I've tried pretty much everything out there for my blog over the last few years and have now gotten it to be ramen profitable (or in my case, healthier: salad w/ balsamic and chicken profitable)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you've got a reasonably sized readership I'd try Federate Media.

I'm actually working on something in this space at the moment as a side project (smarter ads for tech & programming related content), but I'm not going to be ready to test with users for a couple of months. Feel free to drop me an email though if you're interested and I'll let you know when I go live.

<comment><USER2> As a sidenote, FM usually requires about 1M pageviews/month minimum. I had talked with them a few years ago and they loved my blog & content but from a business and advertising perspective they just needed big traffic #s.

As for what you're working on ig1, I might be interested as well. My email and blog URL are in my profile.

<comment><USER3> I was actually looking at FM data the other day (I was curious about the viability of the business model proposed by the YC journalism startup so was doing some analysis using FM ad pricing as a basis), and only about a third of the sites FM represent do more than 1M pageviews/month. About 15% of their sites do less than 100k pageviews/month.

<comment><USER2> Interesting - I'm guessing that is stemming from the "groups" they have. For example, they have a network for tech blogs, mommy blogs, etc. I am just guessing the tech blogs one I had been talking with them about was very competitive and just based on the nature of tech blogs, fairly high-traffic.

Or they've since changed some of their strategy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have no idea, but I'm interested in answers because when my blog used adsense, I'd always worry about mentioning viruses because of the ads that would show.</comment>


Self-assembling micro-robots created, Judgment Day looms - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/92244-self-assembling-micro-robots-created-judgment-day-looms

<comment><USER2> "In the short term, these micro-robots could be used to deliver cancer drugs (or any kind of medication) in a highly-targeted fashion, rather than the carpet bombing approach that is currently used"

You can almost always find the cancer therapy tie-in with these kinds of things. In this case "near term" would be 15-20 years at best. Getting stuff inside of cells without the immune system going caveman on your nanobot along the way is a _hard_ problem.

<comment><USER3> Inside cells? That certainly is way off - but things like getting chemotherapy drugs mostly to the organ or body part that is cancerous should be much easier.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, similar tech was demonstrated earlier this year I think -- little balls that carried anti-cancer drugs to tumors in mice. I think they were controlled with magnets.

<comment><USER2> Yep, we've cured cancer in mice several times over. Humans are the hard part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They aren't self-assembling, they aren't robots, and Judgment Day does not appear to be looming. Other than that, great headline.

</comment><comment><USER6> Doesn't sound like self-assembly to me - isn't that simply some magnetic particles sticking to a magnet (or as close to the magnet as possible)? Too bad the videos don't show the magnets involved.

<comment><USER7> Then, what is self-assembly to you?

<comment><USER8> We were expecting robots that could assemble _copies_ of themselves, not just robots that could only assemble _themselves_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We've figured out how to move some iron in a 2D plane, using magnetic fields normal to the plane.

...

Cancer therapy (3D, in vivo, ...)!

WTF.</comment>


Google's AI has written some amazingly mournful poetry - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-05/16/google-artificial-intelligence-poetry <comment><USER2> Really? All these poems are garbage to me and of course "humans" can always find "patterns" in garbage too.</comment>