Mou 1.0 coming early 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mou-1-0-markdown-editor-on-os-x-for-you/x/8756561

<comment><USER2> What bugs me is the developer hadn't touched Mou in a year and was trying to sell it at one point [1]. Then some developers decided to make an open source version of it called MacDown [2], which rubbed the Mou developer the wrong way, and he and his friends were bashing it as a blatant rip off of Mou [3]. The renewed interest in the project only seemed to come about when MacDown started getting traction.

I've used Mou and I think it's pretty stable. I don't see a problem with simply charging for it now. It seems unnecessary to raise money and bring on a whole team.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7948079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7948079)

[2]: [https://github.com/uranusjr/macdown](https://github.com/uranusjr/macdown)

[3]: [https://twitter.com/remaerd/status/484914820408279040](https://twitter.com/remaerd/status/484914820408279040)

<comment><USER3> The developers are lazy about maintaining this software. It's not called 'stable'. I don't expect they would do better after this campaign. If you don't do it right, there is no reason to criticize others for doing it better.

<comment><AUTHOR> It should be 'developer', not 'developers'. It was my personal project, you could say me lazy.

That's exactly why I'm founding a team, trying to do it better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've used Mou since very early on, and have donated to the developer also. I use Mou every single day, without fail, and so glad to see that it's getting attention again.

My only issue is that the app has been fairly dormant for several months, maybe even up to a year, and I'm not sure what's prompted the urgency to finish and release Mou. It's come such a long way gradually and I hope it isn't rushed at the end.

I also hope it'll be taken in the same direction as originally intended, rather than to extract every last penny out of it. Of course, it's great to see Chen getting the sales he deserves, but I really hope he keeps in mind his original vision.

</comment><comment><USER3> Or maybe you consider open-source this project, let those who really want to add more new features and fix bugs to do your job, rather than getting paid and doing nothing.

The developers of this project just don't actively respond to users' need. The development is so slow and I don't think they deserve the money.

I guess the Mou developers don't use GitHub at all? So why the software don't support GitHub Flavored Markdown (for a long time)? Every time I open the README.md of some project containing highlight syntax like this:

```js

var test;

```

the document is a mess! I end up writing my README.md in ST3 or vim.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're working on GFM, check this tweet:

[https://twitter.com/chenluois/status/482107255584612352](https://twitter.com/chenluois/status/482107255584612352)

<comment><USER3> It's been months and you are still working on it? YGBKM!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's why we need to found a team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use Mou every day as well. But the _goal_ of this project seems very vague. Exactly what is going to be added in the "1.0" release? Mou works pretty well for me _right now_. What is going to be added that will make it worth my while sponsoring this project?

The project vaguely states: "We'll pick the most wanted features from our contributors, implement them in 1.0." But there needs to be a little more meat here. What are some examples of the types of features you are considering? What are the new killer features that will be coming?

<comment><USER4> I agree, in its current form I don't have any issues regarding bugs or stability, but assuming Yosemite support will be needed some time soon, as well as potentially a Mac App Store integration.

Other than that, I'd say it's a good candidate for a 1.0.0 release, so I'm not sure exactly what the need for $20k is, unless it's to reimburse for time already spent?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I got an email from Mau about their fundraising campaign but the page their email linked to had a link to _this_ HN article. Which is hilarious because (1) I got the backstory on Mau and this fundraising they are doing (which decreased my sympathy for them a lot, and (2) I discovered MacDown which _crushes_ Mau. I opened 5 different README.md files and all of them were rendered much better by MacDown. Wow, what an F-up by the Mau people!

<comment><AUTHOR> Please show some respect to the original design. Without the original work, the copycat you're mentioning won't even exist.

We're working on some killing features for Mou 1.0, we keep it secret, the copycat will never know until we ship it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I donated before, in the hope that the visual synchronisation between left and right panel would improve (select something right, and it gets selected in the source left). Unfortunately, nothing happened within a year.

</comment><comment><USER8> I switched to MacDown [1] months ago. It has more features, seems to be maintained and it is open source.

[1]: [http://macdown.uranusjr.com/](http://macdown.uranusjr.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I really like Mou. I use it nearly every day and I'd love to see this campaign to be successful.

<comment><USER10> Same here. It's changed the way I write. I recall how much I've already contributed though! This 1.0 release as been a long time coming.

<comment><USER11> I use it quite a bit too, and have donated before too, even though you can get it for free, I thought the developer deserved something for his work, as it is truly an amazing app to get for free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Go to here via spam email from author. Feel sick about him.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi dear Hu Miao,

Sorry for disturbed you. We only send this news to those who have asked me for help previously.

Since you have emailed me a question about Mou in Augest 21, 2012 (I anwsered your question immediately), we thought you'd be interested in this news and you might be glad to help us.

We're not trying to spam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> One of my favorite apps. Deserves to hit the finish line.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do criminals rob banks and not millionaires? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Bank robbers are not rational[1]. The risk/reward profile of bank robberies is far worse than many other crimes, like selling weed.

Even for a rational person, robbing millionaires isn't easy because few millionaires have something light, portable, and generic to steal (i.e. cash) lying around the house. Jewelry may be hard to find, kept in a safe, and/or easily identifiable, which reduces its value and makes it less liquid. Cash is the most liquid and generic store of value, and it's also very portable.

Further, I'd suggest that robbing liquor stores is probably a much more common crime because they also often have lots of cash in the register and aren't as well-guarded as banks.

1\. [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/11/what-you- shou...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/11/what-you-should-know- before-robbing-a-bank)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's an easier crime to commit, although maybe not to get away with. There are banks on every corner, their layouts and policies are similar, and you know where the cash is.

If you were going to rob a millionaire, where would you start? Who would you target, how would you case their home, and what would you try to steal? As smt88 points out, it's not like they're likely to have lots of liquid assets lying around the house. A lot of millionaires have a big portion of their net worth in equities and real estate, and the majority of their cash is almost certainly in the bank.

</comment><comment><USER4> Because millionaires tend to not have much _cash on hand_ (assuming they are in a legal trade).

As Willie Sutton reputedly replied to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks, "that's where the money is!"

</comment><comment><USER5> millionaires? You mean like successful lawyers and doctors, members of the middle class? Someone worth a couple million? I guess criminals do rob them, using home invasion techniques. Generally though I guess these people are more often the target of burglaries.

Maybe you mean Billionaires? In which case, they don't because of private security, they're difficult to find, and anyway those people don't care cash.

</comment><comment><USER6> Because millionaires have something to lose.</comment>


Why we built an app to SMS links - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@linktexting/why-we-built-linktexting-com-9708d6a52b91

<comment><USER2> The .gifs in the article are _extremely_ distracting and make the neighboring text hard to read.

<comment><AUTHOR> I got contrary feedback on both.

I'll move the text away from the animated gifs for now.

Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.</comment></comment>


Russia is meddling in 2020 campaign to help Trump, intelligence officials say - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/20/21146191/russia-election-meddling-2020-hack-trump-intelligence <comment><USER2> I've never heard a convincing explanation of why the Russians would prefer Trump to any of his opponents. This article doesn't speak to that question either.</comment>


Ask HN: How to manage developers who aren't very good? - <AUTHOR>

Before becoming a team lead, I was the type of developer who, when given a task, would dig into the application api's, the database schema, the configuration, whatever it took to fill in the gaps to accomplish the task.  Sure I'd get stumped sometimes, but I'd always try to ask for help sooner rather than later.
Now, I'm a lead of 4 developers. Two are like I was, I can give them a task, they'll go do it with minimal guidance.  The other two will spend hugely more time on tasks.  I've notice they tend to go off on tangents, spending time things that aren't relevant, like setting up vm envirnoments they don't need when they can develop and test locally.  There have been occassions when they have asked me for help, and then a week later come back with the same question as though we had never talked about it.
It's baffling to me, it's like they're "scatterbrained", ie not focused or concentrated.  How does one manage people like this? <comment><USER2> Have you asked why they spend time setting up VMs they don't need?

A good first step is stop saying, "people like this." Perhaps try starting with the five whys: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys)

<comment><AUTHOR> What's wrong with saying "people like this"? Seems like a pretty clear delineation between proactive, pragmatic developers, and developers who aren't?

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure you've established the problem is the individual developers. Of course you can't provide all relevant information for diagnosing the issue in an HN post. I'm just making general suggestions.

I recommend that you rule out other possible explanations: (1) A former manager told them to always use a VM. (2) A CS professor taught them to do this and no one has instructed them to do otherwise at your company.

Coming back with the same question multiple times is problematic, but maybe you didn't offer a sufficiently clear explanation. Next time you explain something say, "Do you understand?" or "Was that clear?" Then you'll be able to say, "people like this" next time they ask the question.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much equity is a business plan worth? - <AUTHOR>

Say one person comes up with the idea for a startup, and spends a significant amount of time over 2 years developing the business plan. That person then asks others to join the startup as co-founders to help build the startup.
When allocating equity to each co-founder, how much equity is that existing business plan worth?
-- Edit 2011-06-22 17:23 GMT
This is a pretty open-ended question. I should've included more details:
The person who wrote the business plan is the startup's CEO.
The business revolves around a website marketplace.
The business plan includes:
- multiple lucrative sources of revenue
 - a basic plan for user acquisition
 - identification of additional roles that will need to be filled
 - financial projections
 - detailed, yet incomplete, explanation of the website's functionality
 - some validated learning[1]
The other co-founders are the CTO, the front-end designer and coder, and the artist.
[1] http://lean.st/principles/validated-learning <comment><USER2> My suggestion is zero. A formal business plan simply isn't useful unless it can be used to get funding. And it really doesn't matter how much time this person has spent on it since the plan isn't likely to survive first contact with the market. What is needed is the hard work of building the product and iterating it again and again while getting users and traffic.

On the other hand, taking the initiative to get a project off the ground is actually worth quite a bit. But that work doesn't stop with handing a business plan over to someone else to execute.

<comment><AUTHOR> The CEO (who had the idea and wrote the business plan) has validated the idea in the market. Also, we have a direct, funded competitor now, which has also validated the idea, and one of our revenue streams.

So the idea is valid and lucrative. I'm just not sure how much equity should be attributed to that.

<comment><USER2> Your CEO hasn't validated anything. Your competition has, and if you aren't giving them equity it isn't clear why this guy deserves anything. Factor in that the idea isn't original and I don't see what value is being provided here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a contracted business plan and grant writer on the side as I work at a startup. I've also entered and placed in / won a few national biz plan competitions in multiple industries (biotech, pharma, semicon, ren. energy, B2C software, B2B software) so I feel like I may be able to gauge this.

Odds are strong that your plan, if in the consumer space, is already outdated. Unless you have real, long-lasting IP (not just 'patent pending', but literally a process that is revolutionary and incredibly hard to reverse engineer, typical with university tech) the market has likely shifted away from your assumptions. Unless this is true, the business plan is only worth the paper and ink it's printed on.

That said, if you have been able to secure the first partnership, funding, or start carrying out the actual plan, you have something much more valuable than 30 bound pages and a spreadsheet. That deserves equity, and a lot of it.

Also, and I apologize if this sounds rude, 2 years of writing a biz plan is about 15-18 months too long. I can bang out a complete draft sans graphics in ~4 weekends. Any more time that that, and I get into the "law of diminishing returns" space. Whatever you do, don't rewrite it -- you've already sunk enough time into it. Fundraise full time, line up partners, presell the product with your next time period, but another day tweaking that plan is another day lost.

For the record -- I'm not a fan of writing business plans at all, but it pays the bills, and organizations are happy to write me big checks so they don't have to write them either. Some big industries require them (bio, semicon, green energy), but those same players also want ironclad IP, so its a completely different world than the modern web space.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your insight, aspir. Much appreciated.

Despite the CEO having worked on the business plan for the last 2 years, it's actually not out of date. This is because it's been updated as time has gone on, and a direct, funded competitor just launched, which validates the idea and one of the planned revenue streams.

Since I and others have joined the startup:

* we've just barely begun looking for our first round of funding.

* the CEO's been successful in obtaining a few beta testers to generate our initial content.

* we've built 70% of the MVP.

<comment><USER3> Factoring all of that in, I'd still say that if there were equity for the plan, it would be small. A lot of this planning work is within the CEO's job description by default. It takes the bruden off the technical team so that they can do their best work. In my opinion, if you can convert the beta testers to paying customers (even if they are for tiny amounts of cash) your valuation is significantly higher, with or without a plan (with is always better, though).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very good point: this planning is part of the role of the CEO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Depends on the business plan ;).

If the plan is excellent, and actually describes the problem, solution, and route to profit, then it's probably worth a lot.

However, if it's like most business plans that I've written or read, then it's probably not accurately describing the problem. A ton can change in a market in 2 years, so I would guess that parts of that plan are pretty out of date.

I probably wouldn't ever assign more than 5-10% of a business' value (equity, here) to the b-plan. That would be for a world class, how-could-we-not-have- seen-this, b-plan.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I realize that I didn't include much information, so I've added more details to the question.</comment>


IEEE Spectrum: Can Machines Be Conscious? - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6278

<comment><USER2> Sigh, you first need to define consciousness before you can answer any questions about it. What is consciousness? My dream is to develop artificial intelligence, so I've thought about this a lot. Generally people have it very wrong.

I would define it in two parts:

1\. Consciousness of facts: What you "know" is what you are conscious of. Machines are already conscious because they have memory.

2\. Meta-consciousness: You know that you know, or you know what you know. This is a feedback loop on knowledge, unlimited in recursion. Sort of like the check if a pointer is null (and a check if the check is null, etc.).

I know hardly anybody agrees with this, but I'm pretty serious about it. People tend to confuse what they see as the world with what any entity should see. To make computer more _human_ , is to create human senses, simulate human techniques of interpretation and memory and add a comparable experience of time.

But in my eyes there is no reason not to claim that computers are already conscious. Consciousness just isn't the goal.

<comment><USER3> Indeed,

Consciousness might not have anything to do with intelligence as such or the human brain. It might just be a muddled cultural remnant of Western philosophy or a glitch in the endocrine system or an artifact of our language or something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article was pretty vague on what it meant by integrated intelligence as the criterion for consciousness. For example it was not even clear to me as to whether or not linear separability was a requirement of their "integrated intelligence system", i.e., whether a conscious system should be able to solve linear separable problems. Using a term like "integrated intelligence" does not say what, specifically, needs to be integrated.</comment>


TETHR – A Beautiful iOS Design Kit by Invision - <AUTHOR> http://www.invisionapp.com/tethr

<comment><USER2> The website works horribly wrong on firefox (win).</comment>


Show HN: Browser-Based Blockchain Nimiq Token Sale - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/nimiq-network/announcing-the-nimiq-network-token-sale-64b2bcd577ee <comment><USER2> How do you prevent timewarp attack. How do you prevent sha-256 miners just mining you until high difficulty retarget, then dropping you? The "whitepaper" you link to, appears to be just a blog post?

<comment><USER3> Not OP at all, but note that the protocol is not using sha256. That is only for the test net, just fyi.</comment></comment>


Remnants of a Disappearing UI - <AUTHOR> http://news.designlanguage.com/post/1611663345/

<comment><USER2> Regarding a disappearing UI: I'm probably not the only one who had to highlight the text to read it. In case the author is here, please reconsider the offwhite-on-white scheme.

<comment><AUTHOR> I upvoted you because you are obviously right but at the same time I'm once again astonished by how fascinated HN readers are by tangents about the linked website's design. It just seems so irrelevant and pointless and has nothing to do with the content. It's off topic and mean spirited, especially in a case like this where the author doesn't give any advice. (It's a bit different if the author writes about usability or design.) If you can't read it don't comment and don't upvote.

One nice comment about it (like yours) might be ok but eight? Seriously?

<comment><USER3> I didn't upvote you because in this specific case it is relevant. If someone's website exists to highlight design and the linked article is design-specific, I think it perfectly legitimate to point out that the design of the site, while arguably pretty, is a usability nightmare and this site fits in that description.

I'm sure it looks great on the designer's computer, but he needs to learn the painful lesson that not everyone is viewing his website on a monitor of the exact same resolution and gamma he is using(I would guess a Macbook of some type considing the gamma and resolution (laptopish) that would be required for the site to be at least somewhat reasonable to use). If he can't get that right, how can we be expected to listen to him on issues of design or UX even when that just involves him showing positive bias towards various existing designs?

If the link were to the blog of some programmer who was writing about some advanced algorithm that would be a totally different situation but it isn't. And in that case we'd probably point out he totally doesn't understand big-O notation (if he clearly didn't), regardless of how useful his algorithm actually is, for similar reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see a reason to complain about it. Ignore and move on. Again, it's not advice, it's a neato visualization without any claim to expertise. It stands on its own.

What annoys me that this happens all the time. It's annoying (if there is more than one comment about it) and just not relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for visiting my site and for all the comments and suggestions. I don't take criticism personally, so I appreciate the honest feedback. I think the contrast probably was a bit light, so I tried to tweak it a bit without losing the spirit of the site. To address a couple points:

Gojomo - I was thinking the same thing about there being an app running in the background that records taps and swipes. That would be pretty cool.

Pyre - This study wasn't meant to be more of a brief survey than a comprehensive study. The Safari image was just light browsing and no typing. If you use any two apps long enough and the smudges they leave behind will look similar, so I limited the amount of time I used each app. I would like to pursue this further and dig a little deeper though, and a few people have suggested other apps to try.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how this compares with mouse actions/movement.

</comment><comment><USER6> Beautiful idea, and well executed.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I've been cleaning the fingerprint marks off my iPad for months and never thought to look for patterns. What an interesting study it makes!

In terms of other apps, _Cut the Rope_ would probably have some interesting smudge marks, depending on which levels you play.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not really comprehensive. The Safari one doesn't look like he used the touch keyboard at all. The usage would be different if he were using more interactive sites (forums, email form, etc).

</comment><comment><USER9> Anyone can explain the video one? Why those particular areas?

<comment><USER10> To go to full-screen mode and exit?

<comment><USER9> Is this Video app you're talking about? Video app launches the video in full screen and there's no way to exit unless you stop the video.

I just look at my iPad again and the top area seems to be the play button. Still thinking about the middle one.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can double tap to zoom in (i.e. remove the black bars) anywhere on the screen.

<comment><USER9> Ahhhh. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This phenomenon is actually a security problem. Reducing the search space for a password based on fingerprints on an iPhone/iPad could defeat a lot of security.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder how hard it would be, on a jailbroken iOS or otherwise open device, to make a background app that records all touches in other apps and makes either a picture or high-speed animation from them.</comment>


The Mint.com Story by the 3rd person at Mint - <AUTHOR> http://femgineer.com/?p=289

<comment><USER2> What about the acquisition part of it? I'd call that the climax of the story and you left it out...

<comment><USER3> Acquisition isn't finalized, thats the next part of the story :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As an aside, does anyone else besides me find small white text on a black background incredibly painful to read? My eyes have a very hard time focusing on it.

<comment><USER5> I think the problem must be a bad interaction between the antialiasing of the font renderer and monitor gamma. Font renderer thinks gamma has some value, monitor outputs it with some entirely different gamma value, meaning the antialiasing makes lines look thinner (or thicker) than they actually are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Talk about being in front of a massive opportunity--to be positioned helping people save money just as the disaster hits.

</comment><comment><USER7> is it me or is Mint going to be the one success example that will always get thrown in your face as an example of a successful startup?

<comment><USER8> I'm pretty sure Youtube is still the defacto.</comment></comment>


Executive Order on Principles for Regulating the US Financial System - <AUTHOR> https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/03/presidential-executive-order-core-principles-regulating-united-states <comment><USER2> The order was, of course, deliberately vague in its wording. The NYT provides a succinct translation:

 _President Trump on Friday moved to chisel away at the Obama administration's legacy on financial reform, announcing a series of steps to revisit the rules enacted after the 2008 financial crisis and setting the stage for a showdown with Democrats over the future of Wall Street regulation._

 _After a White House meeting with the executives, Mr. Trump signed a directive calling for his administration to identify potential changes to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown. A second directive he signed will effectively halt an Obama-era Labor Department rule that requires brokers to act in a client's best interest, rather than seek the highest profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice._

 _The executive order impacting Dodd-Frank is vague in its wording and broad in its reach; it never mentions the Dodd-Frank law by name, instead laying out "core principles" for regulating the financial system, including empowering American investors and enhancing the competitiveness of American companies. But it amounts to a broad grant of authority to the Treasury Department to find ways of restructuring major provisions of Dodd-Frank, directing the secretary to conduct a sweeping review of existing laws and make sure they align with the administration's goals._

 _Mr. Trump's action on the fiduciary rule will have a more immediate impact. His memorandum directs the Department of Labor to review whether the rule may "adversely affect" investors' ability to access financial advice — and if it does, he authorized the agency to rescind or revise the rule._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump- congress-financial-regulations.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Where is section (f) ?

<comment><USER4> That's a damn good question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks very wimpy for such a huge majority controlling both Congress and Executive to use a vague Executive Order to wipe a law (Dodd-Frank) rather than to vote on a repeal.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps, but this way no one has to go on the record stating that they're in favor of repealing the rule that financial advisors have to act as fiduciaries.

Of course, one would also think that no one would want to go on record voting to repeal a regulation designed to stop miners from dumping their stuff in our water, but apparently one would be wrong.

<comment><USER5> Or going on record that the mentally ill should be armed.

I honestly don't know how one can explain that sort of thing to his electorate, but clearly one can.

<comment><USER7> What does the rescission of the Social Security rule against gun ownership have to do with this EO?

<comment><USER5> It's in the same category of "insane choices voted-in by duly-elected representatives that will somehow still manage to persuade the electorate to vote against their own common sense".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you just listed the core principles outlined here for anyone I don't see how they could find anything disagreeable. This sounds great, especially points a and b.

<comment><USER9> It sounds great because there is no administration in the last 50 years that didn't already have those principles. This executive order doesn't say anything.

<comment><USER10> You meant to say claimed to have those principles. If everyone actually had those principles, the financial crisis would have never happened.

<comment><USER7> Correct. There are quite a few reasons that both the Bush neocons and the Democrats opposed Trump, and one of those reasons is that Trump attacked the "too big to fail" banks during his campaign.

I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those banks. They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from globalism, and while they are likely to be able to do so, there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated here.

<comment><USER10> Too many indefinite article can be confusing, especially when you're talking about politics and people's/group's interests.

> I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those > banks

You're referring to the EO, or the campaign promise?

> They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from > globalism

Are you referring to the banks or the interests backing Trump?

> there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated > here

We're talking about the banks?

Clearly the banks don't like the rhetoric of "too big to fail". If Trump manages to show an effective display of power over the next 100 days, he _may_ have the leverage he wants to do _something_. Now, I think it's silly for anybody to speculate what that _something_ is because he's been very vague about it. That works for him because it gives him the option to save face with his supported by producing watered-down reform if he's unable to affect truly effective regulatory change.

The question is: What might Trump want from the banks? It's important to enumerate both selfless and self-serving reasons. Does he want something personally, or does he want political support for something he wants to do? What is he willing to negotiate?

Taking on the banks is not an easy feat. I suspect Trump has cozied up with other special interests that will give him the backing to take on the banks, but it will probably cost us our environment and it could very likely lead to more antagonism and campaigns in the Middle East. Some people think he's being dopey when he says, "We should have taken the oil". I suspect he's securing another option that he can call on when he needs something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Trump may not do what you think -- Bannon hates the hippies/anarchists from OWS, but also despises the capture of the government by the big banks. Watch his documentary/propaganda piece Generation Zero to get an idea of his thinking: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8)

<comment><USER12> > Trump may not do what you think

That's very vague and open-ended. (He may not, but he may) + (If not, he could do anything) = Everything = Nothing

A talking point in the last few days has been, 'keep an open mind'. After a year and a half of Trump brazenly announcing his plans and several months of him implementing them, I have a pretty good idea of what Trump is. If he wants to change my mind, he'll have to change his actions.

> the capture of the government by the big banks

If Trump wants to avoid this, his approach of appointing Wall Street titans, removing key Wall Street regulations, and doing nothing for consumer protection (AFAIK), seems odd.

Again, rather than speculating, we have plenty of hard evidence. If Trump wants to surprise us, he has every chance to do it.</comment></comment>


Come Work at Kicksend - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kicksend.com/kicksend-is-hiring

<comment><USER2> Even though the tech fades away, this is mind blowing tech right there, hidden behind all the blue!

<comment><USER3> May I ask how Kicksend is mind blowing "tech"? I was under the impression this was a user-experience company.</comment></comment>


Tesla's Musk Paid at Least $593M in Income Taxes in 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-21/tesla-s-musk-paid-at-least-593-million-in-income-taxes-in-2016 <comment><USER2> That's $593M taxes on $1.34B earnings on exercising stock options...44% tax rate is pretty harsh!

<comment><USER3> For the US maybe. Income tax in the Netherlands (my country) in the top bracket is 52%. On the second hand, we have no capital gains tax so he might come out ahead when exercising options. On the third hand, we have a wealth tax of 1.2% on your entire capital above a certain floor (of about 20k) so he might not come out ahead in the end.

It's always interesting to see the opinions of different cultures about how much tax is reasonable :)

<comment><USER4> Not bad, but doesn't that come with social services like free medical care and greatly subsidized education?

Here in he US the middle income pays taxes and receives almost no directive social benefit, as most social programs are geared towards lower income and the rich can afford accountants and lawyers to keep their tax burden very light.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure how you can say that the rich keep their tax burden light when the topic of this thread is how Musk paid tax amounting to 44% of his income totalling over half a billion dollars.

<comment><USER6> If it were common for rich people to pay 44 percent of their income in tax, it wouldn't be a newsworthy story.

<comment><USER7> Are there people who receive millions of dollars in income via stock options who pay a lower rate? If so, how does that work?

<comment><USER6> Here's a Bloomberg article from 2012 that lists ten techniques: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-17/how-to- pa...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-17/how-to-pay-no- taxes-10-strategies-used-by-the-rich)

<comment><USER7> It's worth mentioning that none of these techniques actually apply to the case where you exercise stock options - other than the one that says basically "take options as compensation if you can because you don't pay taxes until you exercise them" which is true for everyone who gets options (because you don't get any liquidity) not just rich people with expensive accountants.

The only techniques that apply to income taxes are the "borrow against stock technique" (has a big caveat about a rich person who lost in court when he used it) and the deferred compensation example (which is also zero liquidity; presumably you pay all of the income taxes when you actual get the money).

The article makes a better case for ways to avoid death taxes or real estate taxes though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's very strange how people now seem to feel like they are entitled to see the tax returns of public or well-known figures. Tax returns are nobody else's business! Would you demand to see their medical records as well?

The implicit subtext (especially with highly successful people like Musk) is that we do this to "make sure they pay their fair share". Here's the reality: the top 1% of US tax filers pay nearly half of all US income taxes[1]. The bottom 80% of filers (by income) pay only 15% of all taxes. This myth that the rich don't pay taxes is completely, utterly false. It is a myth promulgated for political purposes.

1\. [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of- fede...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal- income-taxes.html)

<comment><USER9> I think people care that the rich pay a smaller proportionate rate[1] than the poor. People who make under $19k a year pay twice the rate of those making $470k+

Comparing total of taxes paid and leaving it at that is generally a tactic to distract from the proportion problem.

1.[http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php](http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php)

<comment><USER10> 45% of Americans pay 0 federal income tax. That is a very small rate

<comment><USER11> Federal income tax isn't the only tax out there...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The video clip seemed unusually harsh. The reporter said he'd announced the Hyperloop to "thrill and confuse"? Followed by several skeptical tones and questions all while contrasting it with saying he'd done things no one else had.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> On the other hand this: "Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies"

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk- subsidies-2015...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk- subsidies-20150531-story.html)

<comment><USER13> Sounds like money better spent to me than the 5 trillion dollars in global fossil fuel subsidies in 2015, or 500 billion just in the US[1]

That 5 billion number for Musk I think is a grand total of all subsidies, spanning all time.

[1] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867)

<comment><USER14> I don't have to click any like to know that the US did not spend $5t on fossil fuel subsidies. I'm pretty sure the US only spent like $5t total in 2015, and most of that is in medicare and social security.

<comment><USER15> That $5 trillion figure isn't actually spending at all. It's entirely an invented figure, meant to supposedly cover all estimated environment damage for example. Really what it's meant to do, is be massive enough to enable people to throw it around when arguing in favor of obliterating the fossil fuel industry.

Why does the invented aspect matter? Because it's comical. It leads to the premise that over just the next 10 years, the subsidies are a likely cumulative ... $56 trillion or so (about 20%-25% of all wealth on earth). Aka, greater than the combined profit of every oil company in world history going back ~140 years.

<comment><USER16> Imagine you ran a small, successful business. Imagine, as part of that business you killed someone every year.

Now, we could look at your tax returns and see that you have a successful business. Or we could "invent" some figure to represent the lives you ended.

Is it really crazy to imagine that the total we invent would be higher than your yearly, or even total profits?

Just scale that up to the point that you're starting wars, causing a crime epidemic with lead poisoning, overheating the planet, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article mentions that he kept the remaining shares (as opposed to selling them as well). I wonder what is the general strategy for founders to cash out their stocks? Of course holding the shares for 1 or 2 years to get short/long- term capital gains tax breaks makes sense. But outside of that I imagine there is a balancing act of not selling so many shares to raise investor's eyebrows, but also freeing up money to diversify your assets.

</comment><comment> joatmon-snoo Imagining this scaled down to options that someone might get for joining a startup early... wow.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not sure about everyone else, but I'd love to have this problem. Oh I have to pay $593 million in taxes? Boo hoo, let me cry all the way to the bank to write the check.

<comment><USER19> Imagine that you are a GAFA CEO 2 years before you IPO and you are asked to pay 593 millions based on the estimated value of your shares.

<comment><USER9> I keep trying to imagine it, but I can't get past the part where I'm excited about having hundreds of millions of dollars.

<comment><USER8> Just having hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't be particularly exciting once the novelty wore off. The exciting part is _earning_ hundreds of millions of dollars via the immense success that it implies/requires.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder how much the founders of Google paid. Or the CEO of Apple. Or Uber's founder. Or for instance Mr Trump.

<comment><USER20> It really depends on the year. The people who top income tax payments one year will generally not be anywhere near it on subsequent years because they don't draw a steady income, but instead cash out periodically. So while none of the people you've listed are likely to be in this years top earners, at some point in the years prior, or in the years to come, you'll likely see their names pop up. And when they do, they'll have paid some massive amount of money in taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> $593M could be used for developing the company and its products.

<comment><USER22> What is the point of this comment?

I initially misread "company" as "country" \- and in that interpretation I wholeheartedly agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wow. That's a yuge amount of income.

<comment><USER24> A narrow and literal reading of events makes Musk the richest african american. It's pretty depressing the richest african american is white

<comment><USER25> I'm not trying to deny the (until very recently legally enforced) class difference between whites and blacks in South Africa, nor the social issues causing hiring discrepancies in the States.

However, it's not a narrow reading of events. Musk is African. Head a bit out of the way in South Africa and you'll find white kids who spend all day running around with black friends with the whole group speaking fluent Zulu. They've grown up there and their families have been there for generations.

<comment><USER26> The problem here lies with the imprecise term 'African American', a designation which, according to customary usage, includes many native-born Americans who have never been to Africa, as well as excludes many native-born Africans (like Musk) who are also Americans.

<comment><USER27> As a thought experiment, if you define Americans as those with natural rights, then every human being on Earth could be considered African American.

Although I've met a surprising number of intelligent people who somehow do not believe we are all descended from Africa. Which I suppose is related to people failing to understand that all individuals have innate inalienable rights, regardless of their citizenship.

<comment><USER26> Sure, we're all descended from Africa. But we all know that ethnographic definitions are arbitrary, and how long ago you or your ancestors immigrated apply more or less to your demographic label depending on a host of cultural, social or economic factors. The definitions are convenient only in labeling populations in broad strokes anyway; every individual has multiple ethnic, religious, cultural, racial identities that can be sliced/defined/labeled any way that society deems 'normal'...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I personally think that after the first 1.5 million that they tax rate should be 100%. That's still an incredibly large amount of money. After that we need the resources to tackle problems and we can't if people hoard them.

I know that it sounds simple, and lots of people on this site will disagree, but I'm having trouble justifying this kind of extreme wealth to myself anymore.

There are so many people in poverty and ignorance. What's it for any way if people are starving and illiterate?

I'm really not looking forward to some of the responses to this comment, but I find myself thinking more and more about the morality of letting people accumulate massive sums when the resources that wealth could muster go unused by the people that need them most.

I don't know. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what other people here have to say if you can keep from being condescending or mean. Please be nice.

<comment><USER29> >I personally think that after the first 1.5 million that they tax rate should be 100% Remember, Elon funded SpaceX and Tesla with the wealth he generated from the sale of Paypal. Where would the funding have come from for those entities if he was taxed at 100% after 1.5mm?

<comment><USER28> To be fair, he has raised money from investors to start those companies. I'm not advocating for the end of banking, so people would still be able to borrow money and invest. I'm also not talking about taxing wealth, but income.

SpaceX is interesting because we could be doing that stuff at NASA if it were funded well.

I get what you are saying though, it would have an effect on investment and speculation. Maybe we don't need as much of those things.

I'm also not saying that this is particularly well thought out.</comment></comment></comment>


Study: Young adults haven't warmed up to Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10253161-36.html <comment><USER2> i think its mostly due to what facebook has implemented. Almost same functionality with already existing network.</comment>


How the NYTimes uses Vanish to keep their servers from crashing - <AUTHOR> http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/using-varnish-so-news-doesnt-break-your-server/

<comment><USER2> For a second I was wondering what weird and glorious hack they came up with using a stain remover in the server room. But sadly, it's just about the Va_r_nish cache.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow! And here I thought they were using a paywall to prevent load from rising too high.</comment>