The Last of the Tiger Parents - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/opinion/sunday/asian-american-tiger-parents.html <comment><USER2> From my experience, Tiger Parenting is a very effective way of propelling people through standardized testing and competitive exams/admissions. I think it tends to stop working once there is not a clearly delineated pathway to achievement - for example in independent research.

It's absurd to think that _no-one_ who came up with a Tiger Parent philosophy won't be a good researcher or independently creative, but there does seem to be a rapid winnowing of people who were previously overperforming on tests and 'routine intellectual work'.

<comment><USER3> As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is 'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart. The vast majority of academia are collectively and slowly boiling over problems, rather than taking bold and independent strives.

<comment><USER4> > As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is > 'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart.

While this is very true, the "movers and shakers" are the ones who set the standard of a research culture. Frankly, that's why the US has a major research advantage over most (probably all) countries that strongly embrace tiger parenting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> c-smile There are alternatives to Tiger Parenting …

I had two friends at school and met exactly same situation visiting their families one day. We were given some homework to do...

Jewish family: Misha, you are so smart, why you cannot solve this exercise?

Russian family (same Tiger style): Vladimir, why you cannot solve this exercise, why you are so lazy?

I do remember that the comparison impressed me - parenthood is an art of creating proper motivations really.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm interested in what really qualifies as "Tiger Parenting", especially over whether my childhood counts as tiger parenting:

I don't remember elementary school that much. I remember getting my homework done quick because I could play the N64 or Xbox when my homework was done. Maybe that instilled in me the notion that academics come first. I also remember taking math quizzes and being pretty good at them in elementary school. It was like a game to see if I could be the first one to finish and still get 100%.

When I was in middle school and high school I was always aiming for As. Part of it was because I was genuinely interested and motivated to learn. More cynically, if I failed (or was even below average) academically it would be big blow to my sense of self-worth. Also because I desired the status and money that going to a good university would bring.

That said, I don't really think my parents ever strictly enforced academic commitment. Sure, I got As, but I also spent a ton of time playing video games, hanging out with friends, etc. I didn't have a bed time - I distinctly remember binging through a whole season of Dexter on a school night once. When my parents found a beer bottle tucked away in a closet (damn friends couldn't clean up for shit) they were more mad that I got caught rather than that my friends and I experimented with alcohol. I'd speculate that if I started getting mostly Bs or Cs they'd probably crack down on recreational time, but this was something that neither I nor my sister ever put to the test.

I don't want this to sound self-congratulatory, but I really think in retrospect my childhood was a great outcome. I had academic success because my parents instilled the principles in me at a young age, and by late childhood or young adulthood I was self motivated academically. Thus, in high school I was free to balance school and social life myself any my parents trusted me to get good grades without much input on their part.

It's also the kind of childhood I'd want to pass on to my kids. I'd want to instill in them the value of academic and professional success, but want them to be self motivated to achieve those goals beyond early childhood years.

<comment><USER6> This is pretty much exactly my situation, and comparing it to a kid a year younger than me (and his siblings), as well as a few others I know, I'd say it definitely wasn't tiger parenting.

I worked to get good grades for myself, not because my parents really pushed me to. They certainly encouraged and helped, but that was it. I was very introverted my first few years of high school (did have online friends through games, and friends in real life, but rarely stayed overnight with them, etc) but my parents pushed me to get out of that even. I didn't do much studying, either (bit me in the ass in college tho because I didn't know how to study well lol), and didn't have a bedtime.

Now, my brother wasn't as motivated to do good as I was, even though he could. And my parents didn't push him either. They let him have his friends over every weekend and get Bs and such. I'm really really glad I had that kind of upbringing when comparing it to the other kid who had to have straight As, had over 1000 volunteer hours a year, did Tae Kwan Do and several other extracurriculars (his parents wanted him and siblings to go to Naval Academy;they all did end up going). There were times his life seemed awful, even tho he hung out with friends a lot and had fun... His siblings both had it worse off, and it showed in how they interacted with people (i.e. Grades decided worth, no real social skills, etc etc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is something I sometimes think about. My parents were pretty strict and emphasized education but were not "tiger parent" strict. I did pretty well in school but not "straight-A valedictorian" well. I'm out of college now with a job at the big 5 but I wonder where I would be had I studied harder in school and gotten into a better college. And would I be "happier"?

<comment><USER8> My parents were divorced and, anyways, completely hands off when it came to my sister's and my education. I got a PhD, worked for research labs, and so on; my sister is a waitress and a bartender.

There is some nature to consider, not just nuture, I guess.

<comment><USER9> That's a nice story. Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > When I became a parent, I felt the wonder and uncertainty that accompany the > awesome responsibility of fatherhood. But I was absolutely sure of one > thing: The childhood I devise for my two young daughters will look nothing > like mine. They will feel valued and supported. They will know home as a > place of joy and fun. They will never wonder whether their father's love is > conditioned on an unblemished report card.

I wonder if that does your kids or anyone else a favor. As someone in position similar to the author, I've chosen to Tiger parent my kids. As my Asian immigrant parents understood: money is really important. It matters so much that financial stress is a leading cause of divorce and people die because they don't have the money for proper healthcare. I don't want my kids to suffer for lack of money. Nor do I want them to feel like they can have their cake and eat it too because they can depend on their parents' money.

There's also a question of whether it helps anyone else. Our world is facing immense challenges. Many of the things cans we've been kicking down the road for these past decades are going to pile up on the generation to come. Their generation needs people slaving away in labs or in front of computers. That need might be existential. Your kids shouldn't get a pass on that just because they are privileged and their parents were well-off enough that they could be comfortable without necessarily striving.

<comment><USER11> Is it really either/or? Can't parenting utilize both styles?

<comment><USER10> There is a spectrum, of course. But at the end of the day, you have concrete choices to make. When picking classes for my five year old daughter's summer school, I can check the box for "Disney Princess" dancing or "Little Engineers."

<comment><USER12> Out of curiosity, which one do you think your daughter would pick?

<comment><USER10> If I had asked her (this was last year), she would've chosen Princess dance. But I didn't (because she's five and what does she know) and signed her up for Little Engineers (and Little Chemist and the math classes, etc.) and she loved it. This year, I signed her up for Princess Dance the first week, then Little Engineers one of the other weeks. She enjoyed Princess dance, but asked if I had signed her up for Little Engineers because she was looking forward to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This seems like a pretty convincing refutation of the effectiveness of the "tiger mom" philosophy: [http://sci- hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...](http://sci- hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915301227)

</comment><comment><USER14> I was fine with this article until he tried to bring all Asian Americans into it. Surprise surprise, but not all high-performing Asian Americans grew up under the caricature of Asian parenting the author presents throughout the article.

</comment><comment><USER15> Coercion is irrelevant. The differentiator is valuing education and viewing it as the sole way for social mobility. Once a child internalizes this world view as fair and implacable, she will chose to do well in school, just as easily as she will breathe. The endlessly adaptable blank mind of the young Homo Sapiens will have latched on to the rules of the tribe in which they have been born, and remain set for life.

<comment><USER16> Rebellion against the status quo has an equally rich academic tradition. "Education" in the abstract doesn't prefer one view over the other.

Further education is in no way a guaranteed path to success: I have two BS degrees Physics and Geology with math and CS minors, and yet I am a stock boy at Target.

Nothing is a path to anything. We of course hear from the successful children of "tiger moms" but how many stories in the last 50 years do you remember with the headline "my mother demanded everything and I am a fork lift operator at an industrial door warehouse" and yet [https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6) Asian Americans are statistically poorer than most...

<comment><USER17> >Asian Americans are statistically poorer than most...

Not only is that untrue, it's the exact opposite of the truth.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income)

<comment><USER16> Sorry "Asians Americans in the largest city in the country".

<comment><USER17> Percent living below the povery line in 1 city has more to do with the geographical distribution of immigrants from poor countries than it does with anything else.

Poor Asian immigrants are just more likely to settle in NYC.

<comment><USER16> Oh yeah sure because NYC is definitely the cheapest city to immigrate to...

<comment><USER17> Poor immigrants in NYC often share housing with far more people than native born Americans would tolerate. How do you think all those people making below the poverty line afford to live there?

They move there because of the existing immigrant communities already in place.

3/4 of Asian Americans in NYC are immigrants.

<comment><USER16> which part of what you just said makes you feel comfortable arguing against immigrant poverty?

<comment><USER17> You're gonna need to restate that because I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

<comment><USER16> you seem to have claimed that people immigrating from Asia move to NYC because it's cheap but at the same time you claim it's cheap because they are willing to live umpteen to a room, vs. literally any other city in the country where it's a fraction of the price per sq ft.

I am claiming that if one of the most populous cities in the country/world sees a high degree of poverty in a demographic it might be because that demographic has a high degree of poverty.

<comment><USER17> No. I'm saying they move there because of the existing communities in place, and they live in cramped condtions in order to afford it.

>I am claiming that if one of the most populous cities in the country/world sees a high degree of poverty in a demographic it might be because that demographic has a high degree of poverty.

You could actually look at the overall numbers though instead of extrapolating from a non-random sample.

You'd find that Asian Americans are less likely to live in poverty than than any other minority group, and even less likely than the general population.

Clearly NYC is an anomaly. That anomaly is caused by disproportionately large number of poor Asian immigrants.

The only thing this demonstrates is that people from Asian countries poorer than the US disproportionately move to NYC. It isn't in any way useful in a discussion on Asian parenting methods or the benefits of education.

<comment><USER16> and why should we believe that "living in NYC" should select for "under achieving children" or "not tiger moms"?

also why is "Asian countries poorer than the US" so easily dismiss-able for purposes of parenting when almost all "Asian Countries" are poorer than the US?

<comment><USER17> Looking at the income of first generation immigrants in relation to the income of the general population tells you absolutely nothing about the merits of the parenting methods of those immigrants.

If you don't understand why that is the case, there really isn't much point in continuing this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a second generation Asian American who is living in Hong Kong, this article (and most discussions about tiger parents) sounds like the writer has a blind spot - specifically, he wonders if he will emulate tiger parents without any understanding of the cultural values that cause tiger parents to be that way.

In Asian culture, obedience, order, and hierarchy are the values that shape society. Western cultures value individualism, but in Asian cultures, you are part of a unit or group, be it family, department or otherwise. This unit has a clear head/leader (parents or boss) who makes decisions for the entire unit with everyone else expected to obediently follow, and this obedience and hierarchy that makes the unit successful is seen as the highest moral standard in Confucian philosophy. However, the head must also be responsible to the subordinates, sacrificing for the subordinates what the subordinates do for the head. If the head acts in this way, he is morally right and the subordinates' obedience is a reciprocation or agreement of a mutually moral relationship.

See [http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Confucius.html](http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Confucius.html) for a quick summary.

If you're a poor Asian immigrant strategizing how to get your family ahead, you will think about it from the perspective of the family unit, ignoring the individual. The generalized strategy would be for the parents to sacrifice themselves to push the kids as much as possible. In Confucian philosophy, the head is 'moral' in beating the kids into studying because they fulfill their responsibility to the kids in providing opportunities for a better life, and the subordinates, (kids) to reciprocate morality, should obediently follow.

Unfortunately, the kids grow up westernized. Confucian philosophy works because the moral obedience and obligation to the unit gets so deeply ingrained, it defines your satisfaction and value system on a deeper, instinctual level. You can get pushed to do things you wouldn't want to do as an individual because you get value out of it elsewhere in a moral or social context. However, if there is no carrot because instead of Confucian values of the unit, western values of individualism is instilled, then there is a problem - from the kid's point of view, it's all suffering. Even worse, it's a direct affront to what society is teaching should be valued (independence and autonomy), and it creates deep feelings of your parents 'being wrong' in asian american kids, enough to be a widespread phenomenon.

2nd generation Asian American adults often feel slighted by their parents very deeply beyond rationalism, and it's a moral wrong, a slight to the fundamental rights of human beings - the right to be an individual. But the result is a successful upper-middle class lifestyle, jumping multiple generations of wealth accumulation in just one. This duality makes a lot of Asian American adults at odds with themselves and their culture.

A lot of 2nd gen try to push while respecting individual feelings, but there's too little fuel to go full tiger parent - you don't need to jump wealth gaps, you value individualism too much, and most importantly, you just don't want your kids to suffer as much as you did.

In this sense, the 2nd generation is similar to the 1st. The major motivation for Asian immigrants was to have a better life, and for their family to not suffer so much. Compared to starving, or being hunted down by communists, or living in old open air houses with no ac or sanitation, what's a bit of forced studying?

Contrary to the view of the article, I don't see modern Asian Americans as regressing. I think we have the background and tools to combine the best parts of both cultures - a little pushing to go beyond themselves, with the empowerment that comes from western individual thought - to create a very strong next generation in the future.

<comment><USER19> Well put, I definitely grew up with resentment of my parents ways, especially when all the cool kids around me were partying and having fun and they told me to go home for dinner, and I felt this really hampered my social skills which weren't given enough activation energy to blossom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The author has the privilege to not have to raise his child the way he was, because he is very successful and rich. Once you have economic wealth, you reach higher and higher on the Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs. He and his children have the privilege and luxury of pursuing the top echelon, which is self-fulfillment. He doesn't have to force education down his children's throats because they will inherit his and his wife's wealth. His children can graduate from a city college and still be millionaires from their inheritance.

His parents didn't have that luxury, and most of us do not either. So it might not have been pretty, but it did exactly the job that his parents wanted to do. This is how families pull themselves out of the cycle of poverty, through unapologetic adherence to top education and work ethic.

<comment><USER21> I vehemently disagree for multiple reasons. I'll address them in order:

The first is that tiger parenting requires a large investment of a parent's time to be successful. For those that are absolutely poor and barely surviving they have little time nor energy to actively participate in their kid's schooling.

The second is the factor of luck which I firmly believe is far more important. My parents were the exact opposite of the parenting style in the OP because they couldn't be. The only reason why I managed to escape the cycle of poverty was due (un)lucky circumstances that allowed me to scrape by and survive through college. Families don't pull themselves out of poverty through adherence to education or work ethic. Not in America at least.

And finally there's also survivorship bias in play. We can say that tiger parenting is successful because of successful people being raised in that environment but we ignore the many people that committed suicide, burned out or otherwise didn't make it as a result of such intense stress. On average those exposed to this style tend to do worse.

<comment><USER22> I want to agree with your position. I've seen some data about suicide rates based on parenting strictness, and have anecdata of losing people due to exactly this style of parenting. The tradeoffs some parents make when faced with extreme poverty are sad. Hell, the fact that a modern industrialized society has as many suffering people as ours does is sad.

But I don't think your refutations hold up. This will be a bit of a tome, sorry.

> For those [parents] that are absolutely poor and barely surviving they have > little time nor energy to actively participate in their kid's schooling.

That's true for a lot of people. Structural disadvantages are huge. But at the same time, it's not true for large classes of deeply impoverished people. As the author of TFA pointed out, [east] Asian immigrants are, by some metrics, the poorest group of people in the New York area--and definitely severely economically disadvantaged no matter what measurement you use. And yet the academic performance of those groups--even in that area--continues to surpass many others. Given how endemic poverty is among those demographics, I don't think "it's not the poor kids doing super well in school" holds up; the intersection must be large, and something must be materially different about the practices of those folks in order to combat what, elsewhere in the country/world, would be the multiple-generation-damning sentence of poverty.

> Families don't pull themselves out of poverty through adherence to education > or work ethic.

That's anecdotal. In general, this is a dangerously politicized area. To argue that families _do not_ , as a rule, pull themselves out of poverty flies in the face of many areas in which they do so in very significant numbers (like the one discussed in the article). However, to argue that therefore all impoverished families _can_ and/or _should_ do this is to echo the most callous and ignorant positions of modern American conservatism.

I think that escaping poverty is possible--not just among outlier families out in the statistical noise--and that figuring out how/when this occurs is important to improving a lot of people's quality of life. I also think it's super important not to let those investigations ever take on the tone of "...and anyone who _doesn 't_ bootstrap themselves out of poverty has nobody to blame but themselves". Study in this area must not come at a tradeoff with acting compassionately--compassionately at macro (e.g. political/voting and economic policies/investments), medium (e.g. donating to causes and activism), and micro (e.g. offering what help you can to people you see suffering on the way to work each day) levels--towards those struggling with poverty.

> there's also survivorship bias in play.

I can relate to this personally, having lost people (suicide, overdose, other) due to circumstances correlated with both insanely strict parenting and severe poverty. But I don't think these answers to the question of "how/why/when do families escape poverty with minimal outside assistance?" is an instance of survivorship bias. The hypothesis being tested is "X allowed these specific groups to escape extreme poverty". Nobody's arguing that many (most) others in that situation don't escape, and nobody's arguing that poverty doesn't exist because some people escaped it--that would be survivorship bias. As you point out, there may be long-term costs that are being overlooked, but that's not the same thing.

When you say "On average those exposed to this style tend to do worse", do you mean worse compared to remaining in poverty? If so, citation needed. Or do you mean that "tiger" parenting has worse outcomes compared to other strategies? I don't think most people would disagree with you there. The important question, though, is why this strategy is practiced so effectively among severely impoverished people, and why it has positive results compared to the "control" majority--which, as you point out, is a vicious cycle of poverty feeding back into lack of energy feeding back into lower parent participating feeding back into stunted academic development.

<comment><USER21> >That's true for a lot of people. Structural disadvantages are huge. But at the same time, it's not true for large classes of deeply impoverished people. As the author of TFA pointed out, [east] Asian immigrants are, by some metrics, the poorest group of people in the New York area--and definitely severely economically disadvantaged no matter what measurement you use. And yet the academic performance of those groups--even in that area--continues to surpass many others. Given how endemic poverty is among those demographics, I don't think "it's not the poor kids doing super well in school" holds up; the intersection must be large, and something must be materially different about the practices of those folks in order to combat what, elsewhere in the country/world, would be the multiple-generation-damning sentence of poverty.

This could be explained through quite a few different avenues. For example, Asian-Americans tend to be lumped together despite how many different cultures actually make up that group. There's also the greater paradox you bring up in that they both compose a group grappling with deep poverty and a group that has seen academic success. It's hard to say therefore that the two are necessarily correlated because we should see academic success tied with decreasing rates of poverty. While it has dropped slightly over the past few years they still remain deep in poverty and have been for decades.

>That's anecdotal. In general, this is a dangerously politicized area. To argue that families do not, as a rule, pull themselves out of poverty flies in the face of many areas in which they do so in very significant numbers (like the one discussed in the article). However, to argue that therefore all impoverished families can and/or should do this is to echo the most callous and ignorant positions of modern American conservatism.

Saying it's politicized would be objectively and statistically incorrect. Socioeconomic mobility in America is incredibly low. People do not, on average, pull themselves out of poverty at any significant rate in America [1]. I believe it would be fair to state as a rule if you are born in poverty, the chances of you rising up the rungs are not very high.

People escape out of poverty due to a lucky alignment of circumstances that give them the opportunities that other people are more easily afforded access to. The way to therefore improve people's QoL is to ensure that people have these opportunities by improving healthcare, reducing burdens on poor families and ensuring that people have equal opportunity regardless of race or gender.

>When you say "On average those exposed to this style tend to do worse", do you mean worse compared to remaining in poverty? If so, citation needed.

Please read the article before you request citations. The author directly cites a study which states that tiger parenting has the opposite result on average [2].

For the rest of your points, these specific groups tend to have successful people that are propped up as a result of the model minority stereotype. That would be almost exactly survivorship bias because we only see the successful people, not those that tried and failed or are still part of the huge group still living in deep poverty.

[1] [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04...](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04/26/1917/understanding- mobility-in-america/)

[2] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641860/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641860/)

<comment><USER22> In what is nearly an internet first, most of my re-responses are of the "sorry, I was actually closer to your position and mis-stated mine" variety:

> It's hard to say therefore that the two are necessarily correlated because > we should see academic success tied with decreasing rates of poverty. [..but > we don't]

No factual disagreement here. I think that the cases in which it _does_ trade off are important--but not because I think we (the US, if you're a citizen) as a society should double down on education as the sole/primary solution to poverty, but simply because these dynamics are important to understand. As you imply, there are many other things also needed to address poverty as a social concern.

> Saying it's politicized would be objectively and statistically incorrect.

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest your _claim_ was suspect because it's a politicized area, just that discussions about the _implications_ of claims here need to be undertaken carefully given the chargedness of the subject. You are not an exemplar of that polemic.

> If you are born in poverty, the chances of you rising up the rungs are not > very high.

In general, I agree.

> People escape out of poverty due to a lucky alignment of circumstances

"Lucky" does not explain the trends described in TFA. Explanation follows.

> The author directly cites a study which states that tiger parenting has the > opposite result on average.

Correct. The cited study does not find a conclusive advantage in the "tiger" parenting style (and finds several potential disadvantages). However, my original claim was narrow: that this parenting style appears, given the other claims of the article to be _practicable_ and _effective_ in the face of extreme poverty. My question was not about the choice between "tiger" parenting and other styles in general; rather, it was about why it (according to TFA) is (practiced|able to be practiced|effectively practiced) by people in impoverished situations that, as you say, are usually correlated with "poverty as multigenerational sentence, caveat luck".

I have no speculations on why that difference exists, though it's fascinating --and, I suspect, important to some aspects of social progress. If there is research suggesting that there is not such a correlation, I'd be interested in that as well. Let's just be clear: this is about parenting/upbringing strategies that, in contrast to the norm, _counteract or appear to counteract the effects of severe socioeconomic disadvantage_ , not such strategies on balance in other situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Offtopic but do most HN'ers have NYT subscriptions or use extensions to workaround the paywalls? Anyone else wish they could filter out paywalled links from HN?

<comment><USER24> I've got a subscription. When I finally felt on my feet as a programmer I got a subscription to the NY Times and my hometown paper. I think we should support publications that do good work, rather than trying to avoid them/hack around it.

If you're a working programmer/job-in-tech a newspaper subscriptions is almost nothing money wise, but contributes lots back.

<comment><USER25> Sure, if you don't mind the NYT/WaPo in their current incarnation as the official organs of the establishment.

(See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird) .)</comment></comment></comment>


The Trials of Vasily Grossman - <AUTHOR> https://harpers.org/archive/2019/07/the-trials-of-vasily-grossman/ <comment><USER2> > This is the philosophy of a loser who has fallen into despair, who is unable > to achieve anything through labour but who is endowed with a strong mind, > ferocious energy and a burning ambition.

Could something like this also be said about at least some of us, who similarly have mind and spirit but seemingly can't convert that to achievements?</comment>


Toy Story 2 Got Deleted Twice, Once on Accident, Again on Purpose (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/media/2012/05/21/how-pixars-toy-story-2-was-deleted-twice-once-by-technology-and-again-for-its-own-good/ <comment><USER2> _Then she would receive incremental updates over her ISDN internet connection. For those not in the know, that was like two 56kbps modems duct taped together (welcome to 1998)._

This one quote is an example of how a real tech journalist site should explain technology to a wider audience. Even though not technically correct, it's close enough. The article was the right mix of technical and approachable.

Compare this to anything written about technology in the NYT.

<comment><USER3> > For those not in the know, that was like two 56kbps modems duct taped > together (welcome to 1998)

Agree. One of my early professional experiences was as an intern on the Remote Access at Sun Microsystems. My first task was to detect connections to the ISDN modem bank and push firmware and software updates down the line to the subscriber. The author's description is pretty much how I described things to others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A fascinating article. Reminds you that backups are useless unless you verify you can restore the data.

</comment><comment><USER5> 'It was not a good movie.'

I personally would love to know more about the original story!</comment>


Ask HN: Most accurate ML speech-to-text API? - <AUTHOR> I'm building a project that relies on at least pretty-good transcription with timestamps for each word and ideally speaker diarization.
Right now I'm using Google Cloud's Speech-to-Text, but the accuracy is underwhelming when transcribing a Zoom call (50%ish).
Am I likely to fare much better with Azure/AWS? What about Symbl.ai? <comment><USER2> Which model are you using on the zoom calls? Also are you used enhanced or just default? There a lot of factors with any engine.

</comment><comment><USER3> While sometimes more expensive, I've found GCP the best option (from an accuracy standpoint) for STT diarization</comment>


OpenStreetMap provider CloudMade shuts its doors on small users - <AUTHOR> http://notes.ericjiang.com/posts/741 <comment><USER2> Just started using OpenStreetMap on the weekend. I found Mapbox[1] to be very easy to get started with. Their plans also seem to specifically benefit the 'small user' (I.e., free developer account). At the same time I have to assume they serve big customers well too, since Foursquare is listed as a customer.

I'm no OpenStreetMap expert (yet), so maybe a CloudMade Mapbox comparison isn't entirely fair.

[1] [https://www.mapbox.com/](https://www.mapbox.com/)

<comment><USER3> We've been using MapBox and are pretty happy with it. They are filling a much needed niche for businesses that are not big enough to be able to afford the $10k google license. We have had good success leveraging their tools for non profits and small to mid size businesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anyone in the OSM community will be unsurprised by this. Cloudmade has done little of any use to anyone for quite a while. This news means next to nothing for OpenStreetMap.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are even more alternatives for small users and providers seem to start every couple of months, e.g. [https://geodienste.lyrk.de/pakete](https://geodienste.lyrk.de/pakete) (German), [http://thunderforest.com/](http://thunderforest.com/), [http://www.toursprung.com/products/maptoolkit/](http://www.toursprung.com/products/maptoolkit/) and the OSM wiki lists [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tiles#Servers](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tiles#Servers)

</comment><comment><USER6> When I got the email that they were shutting down the API at the end of April, the first thing I rushed to check up on was the status of Leaflet.js (which I think had been sponsored by Cloudmade?). Fortunately, it seems it's now sponsored by Mapbox: [http://leafletjs.com/2013/11/18/leaflet-0-7-released- plans-f...](http://leafletjs.com/2013/11/18/leaflet-0-7-released-plans-for- future.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> A few pointers for anyone stranded by this.

Tiles:

* MapQuest Open: free tiles, good all-round cartography, high availability and very generous terms of use. The default option for anyone who "just wants a map". [http://open.mapquest.com/](http://open.mapquest.com/)

* MapBox: need no introduction, easily the biggest and slickest OSM-powered operation out there. Some really great technology, smart guys (they've hired a lot of the brightest stars of OSM), and a bigger commitment to "giving back to OSM" than CloudMade had. Wide range of plans from free to "Enterprise". [http://mapbox.com/](http://mapbox.com/)

* Thunderforest do a range of attractive specialist cartographies, of which OpenCycleMap is the best known, and can design and host styles to order. [http://thunderforest.com/](http://thunderforest.com/)

* Set up your own server: reasonably easy for anyone with a little Unix experience, runs fine on a €59/month Hetzner box. Docs at [http://switch2osm.org/](http://switch2osm.org/) (disclaimer: my site)

* And for the client-side library, pretty much everyone uses Leaflet now: [http://leafletjs.com/](http://leafletjs.com/)

Geocoding:

* MapQuest Open run an instance of Nominatim, the standard OSM geocoder, again with high availability and generous ToUs. Setting up your own Nominatim instance isn't trivial, so use MapQuest's unless you have a really good reason not to.

* Mapbox has a basic geocoding API that comes as part of their plans.

Routing:

* OSRM is the standard router, capable of blisteringly fast results which facilitate Google-style draggable routes. Source and public instance at [http://project-osrm.org/](http://project-osrm.org/) . Be aware that building the routing graph for the whole world takes a _lot_ of RAM (though you can EC2 it if you like). The author, Dennis Luxen, has been hired by MapBox whose Directions product is expected imminently.

* MapQuest Open also offers routing, slower than OSRM but a nice free public instance.

* GraphHopper is gaining some traction for lower memory requirements than OSRM, though also fewer features. Java. [http://graphhopper.com/](http://graphhopper.com/)

All-round OSM shops:

* Geofabrik are very much at the heart of the OSM ecosystem - pretty much everyone has downloaded their invaluable data extracts at one time or another. Hugely knowledgeable, helpful and capable of pretty much anything you can throw at them. [http://www.geofabrik.de/](http://www.geofabrik.de/)

* Gravitystorm, the OSM consultancy side of Thunderforest: [http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/](http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/)

(And a personal note: I do cartography (but not hosting), plus general OSM knowledge with expertise in editors and in routing inter alia. Link in the profile as per usual.)

<comment><USER8> Since the last time I had to pick a maps platform service(last year), it looks like MapBox now offers SSL maps in it's free/cheap payment tiers. It was a dealbreaker for me at the time, so with that out of the way, I'd definitely go back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been deceived by CloudMade some months ago when they told me I couldn't use their free tier on my site because it was "associated with" unpackaged food and their ToUs denied this (as any non transferable good).

They didn't answer me when I asked the reasoning behind this restriction, out of curiosity.

Since then, I use MapQuest Open and no problem so far.

</comment><comment><USER10> Quote: "Now, we're left with almost no options for custom hosted OSM tiles."

As to "custom hosted tiles", yes, but you can always download the entire current OSM database, or any selected subset, and generate your own tiles by converting from the original vector data. There are a number of programs designed to do this for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think there's a decent gap where it doesn't make sense economically to download and run your own OSM tile server. Especially if you need worldwide coverage, the costs of keeping a tile server with a full dataset running plus a redundant spare can easily exceed the cost of paying someone a couple hundred dollars per month to do it for you.

There are hardly any services like what MapBox and CloudMade have. The closest seem to be the various consultancies that will design and host a map for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is such a shame.

Having used the OSM data to generate our own tiles. It takes a lot of time and resource to manage them well (let alone updating the OSM data)

I understand it must be tough to provide such a service at low cost. Hopefully something will come up from the ashes.

<comment><USER4> What ashes? Cloudmade was never less than 90% vapour. MapBox has already done more than Cloudmade did in their entire lifetime and they are far from the only company doing great stuff with OpenStreetMap.

<comment><USER12> It seems unlikely that they where going to achieve the large scale needed to compete with Google/Bing. My guess is that they are turning into a consultancy.

<comment><USER13> Or an acquisition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Did anyone use CloudMade at all? It's always been Mapbox for me</comment>


Sunrise Hour - <AUTHOR> http://sunrisehour.com/sunrise-sunset/united_states/palo_alto_ca

<comment><USER2> I like the monthly graph, but otherwise it seems to offer less information than Wolfram Alpha.</comment>


Writing Shellcode in C/C++ - <AUTHOR> http://expdev.byethost7.com/2015/05/22/shellcode/ <comment><USER2> This site redirects to a malware site called "securesignupoffers". It only appears to do so if your User-Agent looks like a browser, and a quick search suggests that that site attempts to exploit your browser.

It's a server-side redirect, not a script redirect, and searches suggest that it's commonly installed on exploited servers via web server configuration. If the person running the site sees this: check your .htaccess and other web server configuration, and see if your server has been compromised. (Check your browser too.) Might also be a problem with the hosting provider.

Meanwhile, could the submitter or an HN admin please take some steps to prevent exploits of HN readers, such as changing the URL to something innocuous (such as example.org) and posting the original URL in a comment?

<comment><AUTHOR> My account has been suspended. Unfortunately, being it a free host, my hands are tied.

<comment><USER3> Looks like you got the "HN hug of death".

FYI, having used byethost for free hosting before, I don't believe "securesignupoffers" itself is malware. It's what accounts which have been suspended or don't have a valid index page redirect to by default.

What happened is that someone set up a bunch of accounts on the host for malware/phishing/spamming/etc., and those URLs were used by malware. The host has rightly deleted those accounts, causing malware which forces the user into visiting the original URL to be taken to securesignupoffers instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> Officially, my account has been suspended because of the cpu limit. I guess that serving too many pages can do just that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> On Archive.org: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150522211938/http://expdev.bye...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150522211938/http://expdev.byethost7.com/2015/05/22/shellcode/)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a fantastic writeup. Do any of you know of other great PoC security articles like this one?

<comment> vezzy-fnord The Corelan exploit development (and other infosec-related) articles: [https://www.corelan.be/index.php/articles/](https://www.corelan.be/index.php/articles/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Google has a cached page for this article...

To access the cached copy, just search in google with the "cache" keyword prefix

      "cache:" + ${original_URL}

for example:

      cache:expdev.byethost7.com/2015/05/22/shellcode/

</comment><comment><USER7> This must be 32b windows ABI; pushing arguments on the stack instead of using registers.

</comment><comment><USER8> Where can I learn the basics about Windows's internals/kernel?

<comment><USER9> Windows Internals, Parts 1 and 2 by Mark Russinovich. And the leaked source code of NT4.

<comment><USER10> Got any links to the leaked source code of the NT4?

<comment><USER11> It is only a partial Win2K and NT4 leak from Mainsoft (not a typo for Microsoft, Mainsoft leaked it). Kind of hard to find. Check normal piracy sites.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best, Simple, Free Web-based Bookkeeping/Accounting - <AUTHOR> Hey,
Just looking for a simple free web-app for basic bookkeeping/accounting - revenues, expenses, etc..
Anyone know of any?
Thanks <comment><USER2> <http://lessaccounting.com/>

<http://blinksale.com/>

<http://www.freshbooks.com/>

<comment> a-priori I use Freshbooks for my freelance work. It's definitely worth checking out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would advise against anything free in this sector.

In fact.

We had Quickbooks, it was great, it was Windows only, it was one system only unless we paid an absolute fortune to upgrade to a network version (which was windows only, which wasn't workable due to our IT policy which allowed people to use non-Windows OSes).

We don't use Quickbooks anymore, nor do we recommend it. I would say we'd quite happily pay for a web service providing we can get the data out in a format we can use...

</comment><comment><USER4> Best, Simple, Free: Pick any two. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER5> I know it's not a WebApp (at least last time I checked), but I'd recommend you go with the same product almost every small company in the world uses - Quickbooks. Everything else is just a niche player. Quickbooks will take you all the way to just before 500 employees and going public (Speaking from experience. ) Your financial software should be something you don't even think about. Quickbooks captures that model -plus, every accountant/bookkeeper in the world knows how to use it.

If you are dead set on having a webapp, and are planning on growing, the elements that people are looking for, books that are SOX clean, online expense and Purchase Requests, can be found in products like Netsuite.

Our company went the QuickBooks->Netsuite->OracleFinancials route. And, no matter _how many times_ I go through that routine, OracleFinancials _always_ ends up being a pain to deploy - no matter how much we pay the consultants to make it "smooth, pain free."

</comment><comment><USER6> I've looked at less accounting and played with there free trial. It was kind of mediocre. Most of these posted are invoicing solutions. Here are the other I've looked into:

<http://liteaccounting.com/>

<http://gobootstrap.com/>

<http://www.netbooks.com/>

<http://www.freeagentcentral.com/>

<http://www.clarityaccounting.com/>

From here: <http://mashable.com/2008/09/21/270-online-business-tools/>

<comment><USER7> Ryan, thanks for the mention! I'd love to hear any comments you have about Clarity Accounting - we're working hard to connect with our customers and make it the best it can be.

If your comment is that it is also "mediocre" then so be it :)

\-- Dobes Vandermeer Clarity Accounting Support <http://www.clarityaccounting.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Will plug my UK-based app:

<http://www.pipelineworks.com>

Although it's more tailored to time tracking and invoice generation, we are writing hooks into some accounting packages...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Came across gobootstrap.com - pretty nice

<comment><USER9> I learned something new today thanks to you and I thought I'd share it.

If you select a link then drag and drop it over the "New Tab" toolbar button in firefox, it opens the page in a tab in the background. Nice huh?

I knew you could drop it over the address bar, but I never wanted to leave the current page so I rarely used it that way.

Of course you have to have the "New Tab" button active in your toolbar, which I've always had since phoenix, and I wonder why firefox doesn't come with it active by default, but I digress...

<comment><USER10> Another way: If you have a scroll wheel you can middle-click on a link to open in a new tab.

I totally agree about the "New Tab" button being up by default. It's the first thing I do when I'm on another computer without it.

Edit: But that would only work if it was an actual link. Plain text doesn't work obviously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.simpleinvoices.org> for your free/open-source web-based invoicing needs, soon there will be an accounting extension avilable for it

Cheers

Justin Kelly \- <http://www.simpleinvoices.org>

</comment><comment><USER12> My startup: [http://www.thinkcomputer.com/software/exponent/enterprise.ht...](http://www.thinkcomputer.com/software/exponent/enterprise.html)

Does your books, does your payroll, does your taxes.

</comment><comment><USER13> I haven't tried it personally but this is worth looking into atleast based on the advertised feature set,

<http://invoice.zoho.com/>

</comment><comment><USER14> Any that are good at tracking losses? My company has a lot of red ink, but not a lot of revenue ;)

</comment><comment><USER15> less accounting by far.

</comment><comment><USER16> <http://mint.com>

<comment><USER17> The OP was asking about bookkeeping and accounting, not personal finance. He's going to want things like revenue, expenses, accounts receivable, etc.

Mint is pretty slick for what it does, though.</comment></comment>


The end of Twitter syndication is nigh - <AUTHOR> http://beets.radbox.org/blog/twitter.html

<comment><USER2> Becausr the best way to make your product profitable is to keep making less and less useful for your users.</comment>


U.S. Launches over 50 Missiles at Syrian Military Base - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-launches-missiles-syrian-base-after-chemical-weapons-attack-n743636 <comment><USER2> Well I expect the Doomsday clock will be getting an update soon.

I'm still not convinced that the Chemical Weapons where from Assad or the Russians attack and the probability of them actually being in a weapons store the rebels held, to me seems if not equally probable. Mostly from the aspect that Chemical Weapons in the form of landmine dispersol have been used by ISIS in Iraq. Now the aspect that such types of weapons as a Chemical Weapon dispersal is not one we know that well. So an airstrike upon a weapons depot that had such landmines, could most likely cause the mines to release the chemical weapon. Many experts have said that an airstrike upon a chemical weapon store would destroy the chemical weapons. But we are talking about mines as storage. A factor that may well be overlooked or a large unknown in how they react to airstrikes.

What we will know eventually is if they fingerprint the chemical weapon in this Syrian event and compare to that used by ISIS in Iraq then if they are the same.

So given how Russia and indeed Assad reacts will prove most telling. I also believe Assad would be totally foolish to use Chemical Weapons, more so with Russian support and no need to use them. This and already gave them up, via Russia and again. There was no need for them and they would know the response if they did, and I don't believe even Russia or Assad would be that silly.

So from that perspective, Trump just updated the Doomsday clock.

<comment><USER3> Completely agree. It almost seems like there is a set of individuals in the US gov that have a personal grudge against Assad and have been trying for years under various administrations to take him out. They don't even seem to consider the possibility of Islamist involvement.

<comment><USER4> Personal or geopolitical? They probably see removing Assad as removing Russia.

<comment><USER3> You are right... that makes more sense in its stupidity - maybe some Cold War leftover that just hates the Russians beyond all measure and reason

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Beware of war propaganda. A quick reminder about the first Iraq war and how they lied about Saddam killing babies and used a PR firm in Congressional hearing [0] to build public outrage.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War)

<comment><USER6> "Lantos was a strong supporter of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During the run-up to the war, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Lantos was co- chairman, hosted a young Kuwaiti woman identified only as "Nurse Nayirah", who told of horrific abuses by Iraqi soldiers, including the killing of Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor of the hospital. These alleged atrocities figured prominently in the rhetoric at the time about Iraqi abuses in Kuwait. The girl's account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors.[30]"

"Nurse Nayirah" later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States."

So basically what just happened with the gas attack and all.

<comment><USER5> Yes...this is the same blueprint on Iraq 2, Libya and now Syria. With Syria they got even better by using social media. Example is the 7 year old who writes better twitter post than many native English speakers. She writes very touching yet concise and to the point twitter posts [0]

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo- twitter-girl-syria.html)

<comment><USER7> It's obvious that elements of US government in both parties have been captured by the business of war, for a long time now. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about this, but now I'm mostly just tired. These people are twisted and they need to pay for their crimes. I'll die happy if Bush, Obama, and Trump all spend the rest of their lives in prison. I don't believe a fucking thing from any of these bastards, their PR teams, their 'intelligence' agencies, or their media surrogates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm confused how this is so much more controversial or scary than the drone strikes that have occurred over the last number of years by the US that violated the sovereignty of other countries and resulted in unfortunate death of civilians. For the record, I'm not trying to compare Obama to Trump but rather the fact that the US has a long history of exerting its will in a methodical way, so I'm unclear why this is more... serious? Is it because of potential ramifications from Russia? I can't quite imagine that they really want to be involved in a hot war with the US and it's allies.

<comment><USER9> It's the Russian ramifications -- not least because of the Russians' "firehose of falsehood" media ([http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html)). Russia's initial response here suggests that Putin won't dare to start a nuclear war, if it comes down to that (in Lithuania, for example); but talk is cheap, and he and his minions certainly know how to talk a good game.

<comment><USER10> Certainly Putin wouldn't dare to announce "hey I'm going to start a nuclear war, ok?" However, an ICBM launched from a sub in the Atlantic would reach NYC in, well, less time that it would take for the guys watching the early warning radar scopes to get in touch with the President. There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack. With Manhattan pulverized, the US thrown into total chaos, what's Trump going to do? A response would bring total war and the destruction of everything. Both Trump and Putin know this. Trump would have to accept the loss of one city. The US would effectively be off the world stage forever. Putin just may risk this in order to stop the US from meddling in his affairs once and for all. Dr. Strangelove, except orders given by the Kremlin.

Anyone find this plausible or should I turn off the computer and go to sleep?

<comment><USER11> You really think that Russia could nuke NYC and it wouldn't invite a retaliation? It's trivially easy to identify it as Russia - the only other countries that could do it are Britain & France (our allies) and China (who has no motive as of yet, and can just barely reach NYC with land-based ICBMs). There's no way that Trump is would let a nuclear attack on a U.S. city go unpunished, and so his very next step would be to nuke Moscow. From there, the countries have a showdown: either they continue retaliating and that's the end of life on earth as we know it, or they let it stop at one city and both countries have their most populous city reduced to rubble.

Both countries know this, which is why neither Trump or Putin are going to launch the missiles.

<comment><USER12> And exactly why the President has ordered this action (presumably). There are those who have demonstrated that they have no such restraints. They, Assad included, are the wild card that threaten long term stability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does the all run on autopilot? It's like this stuff was on the timeline no matter who got elected. They've been deploying all over the South China Sea and Eastern Europe and it all went along smoothly on autopilot right through the election and transition.

<comment><USER14> I don't think it's fair to say "no matter who got elected". There are minor political parties that are all about non-interventionism. "no matter who got elected out of the major parties" is more accurate.

<comment><USER15> There are also sets of volcanos on this planet which can effect weather. So perhaps a more accurate statement would be "no matter who got elected out of the major parties along + no volcanic activity."

<comment><USER14> Those volcanoes aren't the result of voter actions though so I think it's reasonable to not point them out.

The comment I'm responding to makes it sound like this stuff is beyond democracy and voters have no choice. That's not true at all. Voters just consider bombing others to be an important activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If it turns out not to have been an Assad attack then all those in the US government/military who pushed for escalation should walk the plank.

</comment><comment><USER17> Right now this post is ~1 hour old and 88 points yet is nowhere to be seen on the front page. Did this post get forcibly removed?

<comment><USER18> It was on the front page for about 20 minutes before it started sinking rapidly. Perhaps it was reflexively flagged by users for some reason or perhaps the mods buried it intentionally.

<comment><USER19> Doesn't HN automatically flag/throttle articles if its heuristics detect a possible flamewar or potentially hot button issue? I might be misremembering this.

<comment><USER18> Perhaps, but if you look at the comments from the original submission, there is little evidence of a flame war brewing.

<comment><USER19> True. I do wonder if it may auto-flag rapidly rising submissions as part of astroturfing prevention or similar?

(Flamewar was a bad example, I admit. Sorry about that.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We notified the Russians ahead of the strike. No Russian hardware was harmed in the making of this missile strike.

<comment><USER21> IIRC there is also a report that no Russians were at the target of the attack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hypothesis: this is a message to Xi and North Korea. Syria is a consequence- free zone. Unless we depose Assad and commit to nation building, this has limited non-humanitarian consequence. Bonus: decisive action right after McMasters consolidated Bannon's NSC influence.

<comment><USER4> What's the warning supposed to be? "Don't do anything while we're bogged down in the middle east for another decade"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> And yet just today Rand Paul told Trump not to take unilateral military action, that he needed to clear it with Congress first. (Maybe Trump briefed them. Maybe that's good enough, but I think the idea was that Congress needed to have a chance to vote.)

<comment><USER24> Political idiot here, is that like threatening your parents that you'll hold your breath until you get your way or are there actual checks and balances at play?

<comment><USER23> Yes and no.

Only Congress has the power to declare war. That's the actual check and balance. But if I understand correctly, in a situation like this[1], the President has authority to authorize military force. He just can't continue to use it for more than 90 days (in the same situation) without congressional approval[2].

But no, Republicans in Congress are not going to magically force Trump to un- fire the missiles. Nor are they going to impeach him over this. (If he violates the 90 day limit, it is somewhat more likely that there will be some kind of action, but still far from certain.)

[1] For some value of "like this" \- a situation where, in the President's judgment, military action is urgently needed, where it can't wait for days or weeks while Congress debates and goes through all the procedural motions.

[2] The 90 day limit is there because the Vietnam War came out of a situation like this - a presidentially-authorized use of force that never was a declared war, that turned into nearly a decade of US involvement and 55,000 US dead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> These situations are always unfortunate.

The U.S. does nothing: Innocent people continue to die

The U.S. does something: Innocent people die (It is war, after all)

Whats worse, is what'll happen when one of the strikes inadvertently hits some of Russia's troops?

Whats the solution to all this?

<comment><USER26> It would have been nice if the US hadn't been a direct actor or accomplice in every destabilizing event in the middle east for the past 50 years. isis and the civil war did not emerge out of the vacuum.

<comment><USER23> I'm not sure that the civil war in Syria comes from US intervention, or even from ISIS. ISIS tried to take advantage of an existing situation, which was triggered by Assad's brutality to (initially non-violent) protests of his regime.

<comment><USER27> Iraq --> Syria

<comment><USER9> It was Assad's brutal suppression of protests that started the civil war; ISIS (formerly al-Qaida in Iraq, formerly Tawhid wa-Jihad) moved into the east once it was under way.

<comment><USER26> Who knows how the war would have gone without isis in the picture?

<comment><USER9> I don't think it would've been very different. There would have probably been an Islamist insurgency in that region anyways (Sunnis in arms, especially against secular rulers, tend to be Islamist these days), and it would've probably been about equal to ISIS in ability: less of ISIS' evil "star power", but more military ability since they wouldn't have everyone on the planet bombing them.

<comment><USER26> You say there would have been an insurgency anyway, but daesh was precisely the insurgency that formed from the conditions that made it favorable for such an insurgency to form. These ideologies always exist in a latent form, but they take socioeconomic upheaval to turn into a self sustaining rupture in the political order. The United States both in the short term and the long term has incubated these movements with its ill planned policies and wars.

Like, coordinating coups and dropping bombs over and over again tends to have that effect.

<comment><USER9> DAESH/ISIS didn't form in the civil war; they renamed themselves that, but they already existed as al-Qaida in Iraq. A native east-Syrian Islamist insurgency would probably have been more benign; they certainly wouldn't have had eight years of war with the US to refine their tactics, write _The Management of Savagery_ , develop a webzine, and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "THE US has launched a massive cruise missile strike against Syria – despite a warning from Russia not to get involved."

[http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump- syr...](http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syria-strike- russia-military-action-chemical-weapons-gas-attack-putin-assad-WW3)

<comment><USER28> Dude, you can do better than the Daily Star!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I had never heard of it before, so wasn't sure of it's reputation & whether or not to post it. (...guess not)

<comment><USER29> There's a Lebanese newspaper with the same name with a very good rep

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is bad. This is very bad.

<comment><USER4> Is this how WW3 starts?

<comment><USER31> Just a slight overreaction on your part. Just about every President has launched punitive strikes against targets for bad behavior. None led to WW3.

<comment><USER4> How many of them were under the protection of Russia?

<comment><USER32> [citation needed]

<comment><USER23> [http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for- syria...](http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria-not- unconditional/)

(Dated today.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a Syrian-American who voted for Clinton, I am incredibly happy that Trump has shown resolve where Obama failed to. This may not directly cause the downfall of the abominable Assad regime, but at least it will make Assad think twice before using chemical weapons again. Hopefully, it will be followed by safe zones and arming the Free Syrian Army.

<comment><USER7> This is nothing new though, Obama committed extensive bombing in Syria too. Obama's initial reason for involvement was alleged chemical weapons. I don't see how this qualifies as direct action while everything else we've been doing there for the past 5+ years is not. Still, that's not to say this isn't horrible.

Here's a reminder for people of what Obama was up to:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595999)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Its funny what crosses Americas red line, US forces killing over 200 civs in Mosul the other day didnt warrant much outrage.

<comment><USER35> US forces, or US-backed forces? And was the killing deliberate, or just avoidably collateral?

When judging crimes, intent matters. EDIT: Even if you wish it wasn't.

<comment><USER34> Intent matters, but so does negligence & incompetence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> FUCK

Sorry all. That is what I felt on reading this. We just don't need war.

</comment><comment><USER37> I as an eastern european am really grateful for US interventions. Better dead than red.

</comment><comment><USER38> <comment deleted since people are apparently going to down vote without reading and I'm not interested in ill thought out flame wars based on superficial party affiliation>

<comment><USER39> Sincere question: how did you find such professions credible given how frequently and baldly Trump lied about basically everything? In other words, how can anyone be surprised by this or any other lie he tells?

<comment><USER38> Credible? Who wasn't lying?

But you know what, I come to this site for tech and science type things. But a large contingent appear to be bent on using it for a political platform. My opinion is they are badly damaging the site. I've tried to register my opinion on things or talk about topics in what I perceive to be an objective manner only to be trolled, flamed and down-voted into oblivion. At this point I'm not going to bother with anything remotely political. If people want to make another ideology bubble fine. It's just not worth the struggle at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin! Who would have thought it would be the US president who Putin "absolutely didn't" put into office?

<comment><USER40> _Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin!_

Except for the fact that the move indicates nothing less than complete and utter chaos in his stance vis-a-vis Russia. And that it remains to be seen how Putin will decide to "stand up" for his symbolic ally in response.

<comment><USER41> What I am not sure I understand is why anyone cares what happens in Syria, save maybe Israel. It's not an oil producer, and it has been a shitshow, rather than a regional power for 20+ years.

<comment><USER9> Human rights more than anything else; Assad's response to the Arab Spring was a pretty ugly one, especially by the standards of people who weren't overthrown. (The other issue is that Russia really likes that naval base. Wouldn't it have saved time to just give them the city and get them to stop interfering with the rest of this?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Fifty missiles, in an area where US aircraft can operate unfettered if they so choose, seems like a statement that one side doesn't want to risk its own people.

Even the US has limits. There are only so many Tomahawks ready to go. 59+ is a significant reduction in that number. They won't do this again as I doubt they could mount a third such salvo. They need to keep a substantial number of missiles in reserve for taking out air defences in support of a broader air war or special forces operation. The next "message" will therefore come via manned aircraft. That's where things between the Russians and the US get tricky. There is only so much airspace over syria.

<comment><USER43> Are you sure? There are 62 destroyers that can launch them:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke- class_destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer)

(among other ships capable of launching them)

Of course they aren't all deployed in the Middle East and won't each have 90 of the missiles ready to go, but 50 doesn't seem like a huge stretch of capabilities.

There are numerous attacks of more than 150 missiles and several thousand available (which I agree doesn't necessarily mean they are all ready for use):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_\(missile\)#United_States_Navy)

<comment><USER42> But how many are actually there today? The fleet must keep in reserve enough missiles to address more pressing issues. Take the 60 missiles to take out a single airport. They probably want to keep twice that many in case they want to strike another airport, perhaps a Russian base. So 60 empty tubes, plus 120 ready to attack another base. Then how many do they need to take out all the air defences should a wider air war start? And then all the deep targets that they wouldn't want to risk manned aircraft to reach during the first wave. Say there are 5 ships x 50 missiles, that's only 250 to spread across all those missions.

I;m interested in how many ships actually fired. Whether one ship fires all/most of them, or whether the tasking was spread amongst the fleet, speaks to the potential timeline. If it all came from one ship, and that ship is now racing back to port to rearm, that says to me that they expect to do this again sooner rather than later as that would get the fleet back to full capacity more quickly than waiting for many ships to rotate out.

<comment><USER19> There's reports of 2 destroyers [1]: USS _Porter_ and USS _Ross_.

[1] [https://news.usni.org/2017/04/06/breaking-u-s-destroyers- fir...](https://news.usni.org/2017/04/06/breaking-u-s-destroyers-fire-dozens- tomahawks-syrian-airfield-retaliation-strike-chemical-attack)

<comment><USER43> Between the rest of that Destroyer Squadron and Carrier Strike Group 2, there's at least 6 other Tomahawk capable ships in the region.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The ugly truth is that if you want to change a culture you must permeate it. This requires a multi-generational commitment. You can not assault an opposition into compliance. You must defeat its leaders and its men and then squat upon its culture until its children know nothing other than your own culture. This is what our grandfathers understood when they placed multi- generational bases in Germany and Japan. Today's metro-sexual culture does not have the understanding nor the resolve for such a commitment.

A civilized culture must abhor violence. But it must also be ready to use it when the alternative is to ignore the suffering of others.</comment>


Pyrect – Gtk+ Meets React and MobX but for Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/samdroid-apps/pyract <comment><AUTHOR> Here is the introduction blog post. [https://learntemail.sam.today/blog/a-new- way-of-writing-gtk+...](https://learntemail.sam.today/blog/a-new-way-of- writing-gtk+-applications/)</comment>


Michael Jackson is dominating Amazon and iTunes sales. - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/06/27/michael-jackson-takes-over-amazon-and-itunes/

<comment><USER2> yeah the media had been talking a lot about, that I wanted to remember some of his songs: I used radio FM.

That has an explanation!</comment>


Ask HN: Is there an easy way to register my international company in Delaware? - <AUTHOR>

Is there a website I can go to, just pay with my credit card, and have everything done for me ? Am I expecting too much?
Or should I contact an attorney?
Any details you can provide of your experience would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> There are any number of service companies which will do the routine filings for you. But what you are contemplating is a step fraught with tax landmines. Don't do anything until you have ironed the tax problems out.

An "international company" means (to me) a corporation organized under the laws of a country other than the United States. If you "register" (this is an imprecise word and could mean many things) your corporation in Delaware you have potentially exposed it to US corporate income taxation. This means that it pays tax on its profit. Then it potentially pays tax of 30% of its after tax profit. (This is the branch profits tax). I give this as one example of the tax cow pie into which the unsuspecting foot can fall.

Figurre out why you are interested in entering the US. Then figure the tax exposure. Then you will understand the "what should I do?" and "who should do this for me?" questions.

There are many ways you can enter the US market with a non-US company. Almost invariably your default best choice starting point will be to form a US company rather than have your non-US company enter the US directly. Figure that as your strategy then try to prove it wrong.

Delaware is overrated unless you are General Motors.

And yes IAAITL (I am an international tax lawyer).

@philiphodgen

<comment><AUTHOR> philliphodgen, my main reason is to be able to get a US bank account, merchant account, payment gateway, etc. which all prefer that I am an incorporated US company.

I have incorporated in Jamaica, and as far as I understand it, there is a double taxation treaty between the US and Jamaica that allows me only paying taxes once (i.e. more than likely in Jamaica) and not having a liability in the US.

I could be mistaken, and if there is another reason for me to take a step back, please let me know.

All I want to be able to do is easily accept all major credit cards, from customers in the US & Europe (all in US dollars), and have the funds deposited into a bank account that gives me the ability to wire to and from electronically.

Based on my research so far, there are a number of banks that have this setup, but the first step is to be incorporated.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER2> If you are selling into the US you can configure your business operations to be nontaxable in the US. If ownership/title transfers from you to your US buyer outside the US, you are not doing business in the US, hence no tax here. That is the simplest way to go but now you have the banking problem.

Your idea will cause your Delaware corporation to be doing business. Depending on how you configure your business operations your Delaware corporation might be acting as your agent (taking a commission) or it might buy from your Jamaican corporation and resell at a profit. Figure out what is best. in situations like this you can often operate your US corporation so it makes modest profits in the US thus pays modest tax in the US. Google "transfer pricing" for he way this game is played at high revenue levels. At low revenue levels it will work fine.

You mention tax treaties. Be sure you qualify for treaty benefits - look at the Limitations on Benefits clause. Be sure that the US won't tax business profits derived in the US.

What you think you can do with a US bank and what you will actually achieve - light years apart. You have to be sitting there in front of the banker with your documentation and your passport and everything. Dim Bulbs Everywhere. :-)

Action plan:

1\. You or a trusted intelligent friend in the US gets explicit advance approval from a bank, credit card service provider, etc. When Mama's happy, everybody's happy. Bank = Mama.

2\. Then solve your tax questions by figuring out how you will sell from Jamaica through your US corporation and through to your US customers, then follow the trail of money back from the customer's credit card through the merchant account to your bank for your US company, then onward to the bank account of your Jamaican company. The path of least resistance (until your revenues push $1 million or so) is to configure your US company to show a modest profit and pay modest tax, with the bulk of profits earned in Jamaica.

US international tax rules are written as if every company is the size of Mitsubishi. Be careful not to be strangled with government-mandated overhead in the form of accounting and legal fees.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow...thanks for the feedback again.

I am simply charging customers for access to a web app. So no buying or selling or transferring of ownership/title will be done.

Think 37signals type pricing model...except that I want to be able to easily access the cash that accrues in my bank account in the US :)

My bank account needs are relatively trivial. Just accepting funds from my merchant account, and doing electronic international wire transfers (which I know a number of financial institutions do, e.g. Bank of America).

So no credit lines, no credit cards, etc....yet.

More than likely, when I am ready for those, I will likely just engage my local bank here.

If my US corporation does the 'selling', i.e. the web app is owned by the US corp, and the US corp is wholly owned by the Jamaican corp, can't I 'expense' a transaction - e.g. licensing fee or something - and leave the US corp with a modest profit and pay the taxes on that?

Is this all worth it? Should I just setup a paypal account to work with my Jamaican credentials, and accept money there and go that route first, then move to the merchant account with US corp after I generate a significant amount of revenues?

Thanks for the help by the way, really appreciate it.

And I know this isn't real 'legal advice' and I will corroborate our discussion with 'advisors', if & when I get them - and you will not be held liable for any stupid things I do :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you're asking how to set up a Delaware company as a non-US resident without ever stepping on US soil, then yes, it's possible.

You can do that via an agent. You can find one by googling 'Delaware Inc' or 'Delaware LLC' or by looking at the official list of registered agents at <http://corp.delaware.gov/agents/agts.shtml>. It usually costs around $200-$300 per annum for the basic service.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do you have a good reason for wanting to be a Delaware company?

Delaware does provide some advantages over other states in certain circumstances. A lot of major companies are incorporate there, and so a lot of important lawsuits involving corporate law have been fought there, and so their law is well studied and understood. Their court system also is friendly toward corporate litigation, expediting things so suits don't languish on the calendar.

Delaware also makes a lot of money from fees and such on corporations incorporated therein, and so has tried to make their law friendly, to encourage companies to incorporate there.

If you are a large public company that expects to be involved in a lot of litigation against other companies or expect to get sued a lot by your shareholders and investors, it can make a lot of sense to incorporate in Delaware.

For nearly everyone else, there's no particular advantage to Delaware. It's generally best to just incorporate where you actually are or where you will be doing most of your business. Even some large companies do this. Microsoft is incorporated in Washington, for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting points. Well, I am incorporated in Jamaica (where I am), but a lot of my business will be US based. So, based on what I keep reading, if I am incorporating in the US, it is best to incorporate in Delaware (not only because future investors prefer it, but because of lower/negligent state taxes).

Those were the main reasons, but I will look into it, given your feedback.

My main reason for incorporating in the US, is to get a US bank account, US merchant account, etc. - which makes everything much easier when dealing with other US companies.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER2> Before you do anything, go talk to the bank you want to do business with. I formed 2 companies in Delaware for gentlemen living in the Caribbean and getting accounts opened was a nontrivial task. Can be done, but line it up first.

Same thing is true for your merchant account.

Once you jump those practical hurdles the next question is tax. Are you "doing business" in the US or not? This is going to drive your US tax exposure. This is at a Federal level as well as state level.

Once you understand the tax implications -- then you probably form the company and start making money.

Consider also the overhead of having the Delaware (or other location if preferable) corporation. I figure you should budget $3,000 per year in overhead to keep it afloat. Filing fees, accounting fees, legal fees, etc. That's with minor business operations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well...regarding the banks...that's the thing. I have approached, easily, about 5 - 7 different banks (including Silicon Valley Bank, and Square1Bank) and they all are hesitant without a US corp.

I am trying to get my bank account setup first, if there was a US based bank that allowed me to setup a regular business checking account using foreign credentials, I would definitely prefer that route. Do you happen to know of any that I can try?

Never considered that just having a presence in Delaware would run me about $3K/year. That's interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What do you mean exactly by "international" company? If you register it in Delaware, it will be an American company, pay American taxes etc. (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

Is this a company that already exists? If so, registering it doesn't make any sense. (Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now, I am registered in Jamaica (where I live), but whenever I want to do anything in the US (merchant account, simple checking account, etc.) they need US credentials. It will make life MUCH easier for me to be registered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.ehow.com/how_4696999_register-llc-based- company-d...](http://www.ehow.com/how_4696999_register-llc-based-company- delaware.html) seems fairly authoritative.

</comment><comment><USER7> have you looked at <http://legalzoom.com/> ? i know they provide registered agent services in delaware but i'm not sure if you can do it from outside the country.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have read a bag of mixed reviews for legalzoom.

Are they really good for this type of thing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm an American, but I used <http://www.delawareinc.com/> and I'm happy with their service.</comment>


The rise of young Alexander (Or how Alexander became Alexander the Great) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nontoxin.com/the-rise-of-young-alexander/

<comment><USER2> At the bottom of the page, an interesting approach to gaining wide distribution. The HN poster did not add her/his email address.:

 _Add your email address at the end of this page's URL and share it with your friends on facebook or twitter or blog or email. And when they visit us and click on any Google ads, you will earn monies._

 _[http://www.nontoxin.com/the-rise-of-young- alexander/?u=yourn...](http://www.nontoxin.com/the-rise-of-young- firstname.lastname@example.com*)

_ (Please replace the red part with your email address so that we can track and pay you. Thanks!) _</comment>


RESTful API Server - Doing it right - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mugunthkumar.com/articles/restful-api-server-doing-it-the-right-way-part-1/ Tips on how to get your API server done right, especially when you are a startup. <comment><USER2> Sorry, but it lacks the most misunderstood parts of REST:

\- Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS)

\- Returning concrete mediatypes (standard is great, custom is OK) instead of generic 'application/json' or 'application/xml'

It also contains some misunderstandings:

\- Sending a sha1 of the password to the server is bad, for two reasons:

\- - First, and more importantly, if you send the hash of the password over the wire, the hash _becomes_ a plain-text password! Seems strange? Think about it: if the attacker somehow gets the hash, he can just use it as-is to authenticate to your API - he doesn't need to crack it.

If you're using HTTPS, just use Basic Auth. Otherwise, you should implement (read: use a library!) proper request signing.

\- - Second, sha1 by itself is pitiful - it can be cracked in mere seconds. Use bcrypt (this, on the server).

        Once you know the top level objects and actions in your product,
        designing the endpoints becomes easier and clearer. For example,
        to "add" a new venue, you would probably have to call a method
        similar to /venues/add

Sorry, but no, no.

In REST, there should be a _single_ endpoint. Everything else is done by navigating.

And in REST, there are no method calls! As Roy Fielding would say, this _screams_ RPC! To add a venue you should just POST to /venues/ (URL which you discovered by navigating the API).

Read his blog post with some of the rules that make a REST API: [http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be- hyperte...](http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypertext- driven)

<comment><USER3> not to mention version numbers (a part of content negotiation) in user agents

this isn't REST and only serves to confuse things further

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. Updating my post on this. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I realise it's only part 1, but this post doesn't even mention hypermedia. Its advice on documentation says that you should explain how clients construct URIs. Groan.

I don't fully understand what it is about HATEOAS that people find difficult or unconvincing. They must use web sites every day. When you want to buy a book at Amazon, do you read their documentation and then construct a URL? No, you go to amazon.com and click on shit.

<comment><USER5> I must admit that the author's description of REST sounds awfully like what I thought REST was before I sat down and tried to design a RESTful API. There was a very distinct moment when I "got" the concept of only requiring a single URL and then navigating the resulting documents - as you say exactly like a web browser (which is, of course, the whole point).

It's clearly non-obvious to work with an API primarily as a set of documents rather than as a set of "methods" to be called - I have no idea _why_ it's non-obvious at the start as it is exactly how the Web works and it's pretty obvious and elegant in retrospect.

<comment><USER6> I feel the same way. My first API on my current project was a horrible mess, and did I only realize why it sucked and what I needed to change when I decided to play with Backbone.js over a weekend using my API as a data source. The only way, I think, one can build a RESTful API is to do it from the client's perspective, much like BDD builds software using a list of actions the user wants to make.

If you're not using your own API, then it's probably broken.

<comment><USER5> I found that manually using my API from the command line using cURL helped a lot (with a bit of cutting and pasting to extract the URLs I want).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We do I18N by providing a (cachable) name/value based dictionary using the same REST API and return on error/validation the error source element and an I18N error key. Makes rendering error messages a breeze as we name the input elements by convention the same as the JSON property and therefore can easily use that property in JQuery selectors.

</comment><comment><USER8> About RESTful API, if you have many applications working together, do you build an API and use it in every application or is the API only for applications you don't control and you use the same code that you use for the API in every application you control?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I haven't written anything about HATEOAS, caching and Internationalization intentionally as I'm reserving it for another post.

<comment><USER5> That's a bit like writing an article on how to design boats and reserving mentioning water.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did mention that it's incomplete. It's impossible to write the complete thing in one post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> what's with the PHP hate?

<comment><USER10> Because if you build your startup's site using PHP, you'll never be able to scale like a Flickr, Digg, Wikipedia, or Facebook.

 _// Ahem._</comment></comment>