Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads - <AUTHOR> http://techland.time.com/2011/11/21/universal-music-sues-music-streaming-service-for-100000-illegal-uploads/?iid=tl-article-mostpop1

<comment><USER2> Universal doesn't want a settlement or share of ad revenue. They want Grooveshark gone. A Universal insider was quoted as saying the label has declared 'legal jihad' against the startup.[1] This was 1 year ago. So they've had plenty of time to build their war strategy.

Besides, even if Grooveshark wanted to make a deal (I'm sure they do), they couldn't afford Universal. The vast majority of grooveshark users don't pay, but just get ads. For the ones that do pay, their monthly fee still pales in comparison to the value of the hundreds or thousands of songs they've stored in their account. I've got 300 songs in my GrooveShark. Even if were paying the $6 per month, it would take 50 months to cover the costs of those songs at $0.99 each. And during those 50 months, I would have probably added another 300 songs.

The only end game I see here is GrooveShark going out of business. And I say this with great sadness, because I'm a regular user and love the service.

1\. <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/090310groovesharkumg>

<comment><USER3> One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.

<comment><USER4> Grooveshark did this without inking the necessary deals. If I understand correctly, their library is provided by their users uploading.

<comment><USER5> Right, Grooveshark's entire business model is centered around DMCA protections. Only "user-generated content" affords a DMCA safe harbor defense, so all the copyrighted music they host has to be uploaded by individual users who each assert that they have the rights to distribute the song.

<comment><USER6> Why can't the labels just send mass DMCA takedown letters? Are users really uploading songs faster than they can be taken down?

<comment><USER7> They have and the tracks pop back up*

*According to the leaked emails.

<comment><USER6> Do you have a link to the full story? DevX101's link doesn't say anything about DMCA takedown notices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a former employee of GS I can say that getting sued is nothing new and may in fact be a good thing for them in a wierd and twisted way. The reason being is that sometimes (this was the case with EMI atleast) the labels use a lawsuit to begin negotiations. Getting sued is almost like a stamp of approval. Obviously I don't know anything about this lawsuit but if they can outlast the legal costs and emerge with a stronger subscriber base from their redesign, they'll be ok.

<comment><USER9> I really see this as more of an attempt to kill GS than to extract any value from them. The music industry is not going to just lie down and accept their irrelevance; they'll take out as many people as possible with them.

<comment><USER8> You are probably right but this is a war of attrition. There are many, if not the majority, of industry music types who will act this way, but the old guard is literally dying away. So if GS doesn't outlast then a new company most certainly will, it's just a question of when. The power is starting to shift to the artists anyways, and I predict you'll soon start seeing the music industry being run by former artists or artist managers. Take a look at Troy Carter for example, who is Lady Gaga's manager. I'm pretty sure he is an investor in Turntable.fm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like Grooveshark's business model.. I think it's one of the most clever of all the new media companies.

Media is a two way market. Both content owners and buyers must be completely satisfied for the market to work effectively.

The two problems with labels: 1. they want to get paid alot and 2. they want to control their catalogs so that they can control their marketing.

The two problems with customers: 1. they want to pay less and 2. they want to listen to whatever they like.

Grooveshark solves these problems completely. They pay copyright holders to stream songs on the system and charge customers through ads or fees for the service.

At the same time, missing songs in the library can be uploaded by users and they get fairly paid for the "work" from Grooveshark's profits. Content owners don't have to do any work to seed the system with their content but they get paid for every stream or download.

So labels save money by not having to manage their content, since, in theory, it's already been uploaded by users and the crowdsourcers make money "working" for Grooveshark.

The catalog ends up more complete than labels typically allow and the users are happier. Everybody wins.

The only problem is that the system only works if the labels give up some control and they HATE that.

Hopefully Grooveshark survives, I think it has the best shot at finding a workable path for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER11> "UMG is seeking maximum damages of up to $150,000 per infringement from Grooveshark, which could mean more than a $15 billion payout if the lawsuit is successful."

Those numbers seem ridiculous. I imagine the only real purpose they serve is to create fear in similar / emerging ventures and to set an upper bound that guarantees bankruptcy.

It seems as pointless as condemning somebody to 1000 death sentences.

<comment><USER12> I think it's safe to assume without digging up legislative history that those amounts represent a theoretical deterrent, not an estimated measure of lost profits.

<comment><USER13> Statutory damages are different from an estimated measure of lost profits.

US copyright act: "the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action".

Statutory damages in the US are a minimum of $200 per work and a max of $150k. The minimum is quite the minimum too: "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200".

s. 504 "Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits" <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf>

Also can get lawyer fees under s. 505. So statutory minimum + big legal costs.

<comment><USER12> Having to defend against claims for damages that do not need to be supported by any proof of loss is itself a deterrent, whatever the amounts may be, in my opinion.

Universal's actual losses might be zero but as long as they can prove infringement and that the defendant (intentionally or not) was an infringer, they can get a judgment for damages.

Of course winning some copyright litigation and winning the larger battle over monopolistic control of music distribution channels may be two different things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not really surprised. I've always been astounded that Grooveshark (which is an awesome service, I use it everyday) was able to do what they do.

I figured that the labels were simply building enough evidence to simply destroy the service outright which will clearly send a message to anyone else who wants to do something similar.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

<comment><USER15> I agree. I'm a paying customer, I love Grooveshark (and the jailbreak-only iPhone app that I've missed since switching to the 4S), but it's always been obvious that it's just a matter of time before they get shut down. I'm surprised they've lasted this long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't understand why the CEO was uploading illegal files. Seems like the worst possible thing he could have done -- really kills any "we're trying to provide a legal service; not our fault our users are uploading copyrighted material" arguments. The safe harbors won't protect them if this is true.

I remember hearing Shawn Fanning say he never shared anything illegal on Napster.

<comment><USER17> I think the assumption was that the uploading of files to Grooveshark was covered by the DCMA's fair use clause. I guess he was confident of their model and its legality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Paying Grooveshark member here, will be sad to see this go. As unorganized as their service is, their library is massive. Of course, it's obviously illegal how their library is able to be so massive. I'm hoping I can at least save my playlists so I don't have to recreate them later off memory.

I would really love it if Spotify could take some UI lessons from Grooveshark.

<comment><USER19> It says a lot about the music industry when any service that is good is "obviously illegal."

<comment><USER20> Every industry has deals that are too good to be true. Hell, buying stolen cartons of cigarettes out the back of a truck is "obviously illegal" but people have done it for centuries. No, I'm not equating copyright violation with theft - you could say "it says a lot about the software industry that a site where you could type in the name of a program and download it for free is 'obviously illegal'". Kind of like the vast majority of uses of the pirate bay are illegal. It doesn't say anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The sad thing about this whole deal is that Grooveshark is awesome! Nevermind the fact that a simple Firefox plugin lets you download the MP3 for each song that you listen to for free...

In retrospect, it's only a matter of time before the labels go all Napster on their ass.

<comment><USER22>
        Nevermind the fact that a simple Firefox plugin lets you download the MP3 for each song that you listen to for free...

Well, you could've also done that in combination with Youtube instead of GS (s/grooveshark/youtube).

<comment><USER23> But the vast majority of videos on youtube are noninfringing, and the vast majority of music on grooveshark is infringing.

<comment><USER24> [citation needed]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Saw this coming. I am a GS subscriber, but it's quite obviously a streaming version of napster.

It is really poorly organized like napster was as well - every user who has renamed a song or used alternate spelling comes up, names that make no sense, poor quality rips, etc.

</comment><comment><USER26> This was only a matter of time.

I've been using Grooveshark for a couple of years now and I didn't even know they were illegal (I figured they had deals with all of the record companies) until I saw info posted about it here on HN.

<comment><USER9> They aren't technically illegal, as they (in theory) comply with takedown requests. Now, if GS staff are uploading songs themselves, then the safe harbor provision of the DMCA doesn't apply and they're in a world of legal hurt. IIRC, Universal's claim that staff are uploading the songs comes from an anonymous posting on a message board, so I doubt that claim will hold up if that's all it's based on.

<comment><USER27> The CNET article[0] says Universal's claim is justified by Grooveshark's upload database, obtained in discovery during a previous lawsuit.

[0]: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57327815-261/lawsuit- claim...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57327815-261/lawsuit-claims- grooveshark-workers-posted-100000-pirated-songs/)

<comment><USER26> Don't they also store all of the uploads?

<comment><USER9> Yes, but that's what the safe harbor clause is for. If a user uploads something, the site owner is not liable provided they comply quickly with takedown requests. It's why YouTube can allow users to upload videos, and a similar principle is the reason 4chan is still in existence despite the hundreds of thousands of child porn pics that have been uploaded to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm shocked that Grooveshark has made it this long. Especially when you compare it to the legal cases successfully prosecuted against individuals for file sharing which were clearly not commercial. A part of this that I don't hear people discussing is that for a legal right to remain relevant it needs to be enforced. If legal and cultural precedent move towards a weakening of copyright in general, then certainly the music business (and all digital content business) will be drastically affected, even if in a specific instance (Grooveshark) they are not losing revenues. Another thing that I think many people aren't aware of is how expensive it is to produce and market music. It's insanely expensive. The vast majority of artists with actual record deals don't come close to recouping the expense. The labels have always made money on hits, which have to cover the costs of producing and marketing them, plus all the costs of the non-hits. I'm curious, do folks on this forum who are anti copyright enforcement for music feel the same way about software?

</comment><comment><USER29> From what I've heard, Grooveshark has been pre-emptively making payments to the labels monthly for over the past year so that they don't sue. They labels seemed to be okay with this as they sort of figured out what Grooveshark was - I wonder what happened to cause the change of heart by Universal.

<comment><USER30> What changed is their lawyers gathered enough evidence to bring them to trial. Grooveshark pre-emptively paying labels is not a replacement for a licensing deal. Grooveshark is a company formed to exploit a legal technicality, nothing more. Their service is indeed good for the end user who doesn't have to pay to listen to any song that they want, but it is obviously bad for music labels and artists.

<comment><USER31> 'obviously' is a very strong term.

My own experience anecdotally disproves your last statement entirely, but the case against freely available music 'obviously' being bad for music labels and artists doesn't' end there.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds- pira...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy- more-music) [http://www.pcworld.com/article/236214/study_casts_pirate_sit...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/236214/study_casts_pirate_site_users_in_good_light.html) [http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys- most...](http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most- valuable-customers-100122/)

Indeed, your position has a fantastic history of ridiculousness: [http://www.diabolicalplan.com/uploaded_images/Home_taping_is...](http://www.diabolicalplan.com/uploaded_images/Home_taping_is_killing_music-714739.png)

And let's bring the crusade against the VCR while we're at it: <http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id408.htm> and then, move on to how rented videos became a source of greater profit for studios than theaters.

I, personally, buy music that is available on Grooveshark. I can think of several Bands I discovered on Limewire way back ended up benefiting from my becoming a long-term fan, attending several concerts, and purchasing many albums... which never would have happened if all I had was 30 second samples on Amazon, for example.

Next, Grooveshark is absolutely not a 'company formed to exploit a legal technicality, nothing more' - they are a pioneering company bucking the ridiculous status quo.

To top it all off, I'm a working musician. Have a nice day.

<comment><USER20> My experience, anecdotally, is that I haven't met a single person who bought a song that was available on grooveshark. We even share accounts so that we can create playlists for shared tastes, to save each other the trouble of looking up songs that we don't want to pay for.

Have you considered that being a working musician may be why you are willing to pay for music that is otherwise free?

<comment><USER31> There you go, you've met me! I've bought a song that was available on Grooveshark. Not sure why this would be unusual, but my reasons would be

a: you can't count on a given album remaining on grooveshark forever b: streaming is not as convenient as having a real file c: I genuinely appreciate music and want to support my favored semi-obscure musicians d: albums on GS may be incomplete or lower quality e: I don't have an issue coming up with $10 here and there

This may be related to my personality and experiences but I don't think it's related to my income sources (which are not solely music of course).

I mainly use GS to discover new music, and listen to mixes and live shows which are not for sale.

<comment><USER20> > I mainly use GS to discover new music, and listen to mixes and live shows > which are not for sale.

Do you think this is a mainstream position to hold? See, I'm not an audiophile, I don't often go to concerts, and neither are anybody I know in real life. We just listen to music because it's nice. Do you think people like me actually are buying music in droves, and I'm just an outlier? Because from my perspective, people who like "semi-obscure" bands and people who want to pay for stuff not on groove shark are by far the minority.

<comment><USER31> I'm not an audiophile, I don't often go to concerts, and neither are anybody I know in real life either. I don't even spend that much on music, probably only 10-15 albums a month.

A _lot_ of people use Youtube as their radio, and basically I see Grooveshark as doing the same thing. Why be forced to stream a video when you just want to hear the audio?

<comment><USER20> Wait, 10-15 albums a _month_? You buy well over 100 albums a year?

.... that's a lot of music to buy, dude. Did you mean "10-15 dollars"?

<comment><USER32> Probably was supposed to be $10-15 _on_ albums, since it's preceded by "I don't spend that much".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I wonder if there will be many winners from these music wars? I've been seeking out music released under Creative Commons licenses via Jamendo and the Internet Archive for a while now, and the quality and selection continues to improve (not just click hop, noise or tracker-based techno anymore). _Most_ artists don't benefit from their relationships with labels, so anything that reduces their exposure can hurt their main sources of income (performances, merchandise, etc.). It will be interesting to see if new artists start ignoring labels because they simply aren't worth the trouble.

</comment><comment><USER34> If they go down, I´d love to see them open source all the tech behind their site... maybe as a way to say Universal "now there are 1000 more sites like us, fuck you".

</comment><comment><USER35> "UMG is seeking maximum damages of up to $150,000 per infringement from Grooveshark, which could mean more than a $15 billion payout if the lawsuit is successful."

If the RIAA/MPAA should rule our world, then $15 billion should be the price of a sandwich.

</comment><comment><USER36> Grooveshark is highly successful on facebook (much more than spotify and pandora), and its been gaining even more fans lately.

<http://99like.com/music.php>

</comment><comment><USER37> slightly offtopic: would it work to tag music on Youtube via Musicbrainz(eg <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Jaikoz>) and replace GS tracks with YT streams? Would it offset legal issues onto YT?

Probably better to do for a new startup.

<comment><USER19> I can't remember what is is, but I'm pretty sure there's some program that uses an interface similar to Napster/Limewire, but in the background it searches YouTube for a song, downloads the video, and extracts the mp3.

A service like this is bound to yield inconsistent quality, and YouTube will constantly be removing videos, but I suppose it could be made to work.

<comment><USER37> Yes, there's been tons of YT interfaces over the years, but for some reason I always go back to youtube.com. I didn't know about downloading the mp3. I think that'd be against YT's terms, although I would like to be able to access a vid's soundtrack and not be forced to dl the video.

The innovation is really about labeling YT vids with the correct metadata automatically, rather than manually. In fact, YT should be connecting its music and artists to Musicbrainz already upon upload. It's about connecting artists and songs on yt to their corresponding pages on MB,

In effect, there could be a browser plugin that placed a play button next to each song here that gets the right song every time: [http://musicbrainz.org/release/8d0bc6d4-8700-44e8-90c8-b86c2...](http://musicbrainz.org/release/8d0bc6d4-8700-44e8-90c8-b86c23e7ff14) \- you could also bookmark songs for your collection.

YT must be already catalogging its music to some extent to produce artist pages like this: <http://www.youtube.com/artist/Pearl_Jam>

So you could take your local mp3 collection, tag it, save as a playlist, delete all the files and then access all the music on site from YT via the playlist.

I think the best way to operate such a system without YT involvement would be to have a browser plugin that fingerprints and tags YT music vids as they're played in the browser, there'd have to be some interaction, but as a distributed effort, you'd gradually build up a yt-mb database.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> And juuusst as the anti-SOPA movements were giving me hope.

Way to go, Universal.

</comment><comment><USER39> When you cant pivot, litigate.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here are the questions I have every time I see these music lawsuits:

How many of the people using this Grooveshark service are present/former/would-be Universal customers?

How do you prove this? Should you attempt to prove it before deciding to sue?

What if the people using Grooveshark are just too cheap or too poor to ever buy Universal releases? Is that possible?

On the flipside, what if they are also Universal's best customers? Is that possible?

The article says they named specific uploaders in the complaint. Maybe they have been able make some assumptions about them as existing/potential customers? (e.g. They have some assets and/or they've bought Universal releases in the past.)

</comment><comment><USER40> I've been wondering how Grooveshark's existence was even possible. I assumed they just hadnt been messed with yet by content owners, and that was why it was still around. Maybe that's about to change.</comment>


A rare book written by Apple - "1998: The Year of Thinking Different" - <AUTHOR> http://bradgessler.com/thinking-different

<comment><AUTHOR> I was surprised to see that the book Apple wrote to kick off their second rise in 1998 was barely mentioned on the web, so I thought it would be a good idea to share the forward that Steve Jobs wrote with everybody.

Enjoy!</comment>


Examples of How City Services Privatization Leads to Inequality Are Piling Up - <AUTHOR> https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/privatization-water-utilities-inequality-poverty <comment><USER3> I consider myself a relatively gung-ho free-market type, where it's appropriate. Utility and transport networks are one place where it isn't appropriate. This is for three fundamental reasons:

1\. A free-market dynamic requires an actual market. If the buyer can't chose among competing sellers, then it's not a market. At the grocery store you can choose from among many different sellers: that's a functional market. The point where your plumbing connects to the water main, simply isn't.

2\. The entire purpose of infrastructure is to generate positive externalities. Ready availability of transport, water and electricity, etc., makes it easy and desirable to do business in a place and with each other. This leads to emergent urban economies, where mutual comparative advantage among a heterogeneous population leads to mutually beneficial exchange, which in turn leads to more growth and prosperity for everyone. The fewer low-level frictions, the more prosperous everyone becomes. But capturing value at the point-of-use -- which is what private operators generally do -- creates a low- level friction with substantial knock-on effects. Every dollar you extract from the farebox of a public transport system, for example, is many dollars removed from the wider economy. It's much more appropriate to subsidise the infrastructure networks and then tax the positive externalities (via sales, income, and property taxes) _after_ the uplift has been created.

3\. There are broader socio-economic issues of accessibility to services that profit-driven companies have no incentive to be responsive to.

<comment><USER4> > I consider myself a relatively gung-ho free-market type, where it's > appropriate. Utility and transport networks are one place where it isn't > appropriate. This is for three fundamental reasons:

Cable internet falls into that category too. The common setup in the USA is effectively a municipally sponsored monopoly.

> 1\. A free-market dynamic requires an actual market. If the buyer can't > chose among competing sellers, then it's not a market. At the grocery store > you can choose from among many different sellers: that's a functional > market. The point where your plumbing connects to the water main, simply > isn't.

Sure but rather than directly hiring N people to run the water works and plumbing crews, the city could contract out the maintenance of those things to a private company. It would still own the pipes and be on the hook for the maintenance, but it wouldn't be directly employing the workers. If company X doesn't work out (say due to crappy service), then they could award the maintenance contract to company Y. In this model, the private company doesn't get a local monopoly on the resource, only a contract to provide the service for some limited duration (say N years).

It may well be that there are services that are _not_ profitable to operate. It's governments job to fund those based on excess tax dollars it collects from other services. A bus route to a poor part of town that it's particularly popular isn't going to fund itself. Government smooths those bumps to provide services where they're needed.

<comment><USER5> > Sure but rather than directly hiring N people to run the water works and > plumbing crews, the city could contract out the maintenance of those things > to a private company.

I know this can work, but in addition to the usual misalignment of goals between public and private sector, I still see more inefficiency with this than just letting the government do it.

For example, the government has to pay all the workers (indirectly, at least). On top of that, it has to pay to negotiate contracts, and an entire layer of oversight of the contractors (which also have their own HR and bureaucracy that you are paying for). On top of that, they will likely have built-in some extra profit to give them some flexibility in case they don't get the next contract. Plus money for lobbying in many instances.

If you find the contractors aren't doing their job, now you will probably have to get lawyers and whatnot, and have expensive, time-consuming litigation. Then, if the government wants to change companies at some point, you have a large expense in finding a new one, with bidding, etc. And that is if there is another contractor available in your area. And then you have lobbying, cronyism, and other political issues.

The entire reason for hiring another company to do this is to get around public pay and pension issues. If this is all just a workaround for that, fix the source of that problem, rather than trying to abstract away responsibility.

<comment><USER4> > If you find the contractors aren't doing their job, now you will probably > have to get lawyers and whatnot, and have expensive, time-consuming > litigation. Then, if the government wants to change companies at some point, > you have a large expense in finding a new one, with bidding, etc. And that > is if there is another contractor available in your area. And then you have > lobbying, cronyism, and other political issues.

Business contract law is _much_ simpler to deal with than employment law. Plus it wouldn't be the governments job to deal with individuals at all. Only the end result of the service provided. It'd be the private companies job to deal with their own employees and contractors.

> The entire reason for hiring another company to do this is to get around > public pay and pension issues. If this is all just a workaround for that, > fix the source of that problem, rather than trying to abstract away > responsibility.

That's exactly the point! Because no private company would be stupid enough to enter those types of agreements with their workers because they can't maintain their end of them. The government can't do it either (without bankrupting and/or eroding it's tax base) so the solution is to prevent government from ever having a chance to enter those agreements. Otherwise some weak willed politician will hand out defined benefit plans like it's candy to get votes for _one_ election, only to doom their children's children for years to come.

<comment><USER5> That's an interesting way of looking at it. Not sure I completely agree or that there isn't a better way, but it's certainly a point of view I didn't see. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is terrible. Sure you can find examples of privatization having less than stellar results. But it's not uniformly so and I doubt it's even commonly so.

> The report, "How Privatization Increases Inequality," is full of such > examples. There's the transit system of Nassau County, New York, privatized > in 2012 in an effort to cut costs. Almost immediately after Veolia signed a > contract with the city, the company reduced service on 30 routes, and > eliminated several lines all together. A year later, fares increased. > They've gone up every year since. More lines have been eliminated, and still > the transit system continues to face budget shortfalls.

If they care so much about which lines are operated, that should be part of the contract. Why would the company continue to operate lines that would be running at a loss? Sounds like the residents should be complaining about whoever negotiated this terrible contract (i.e. whoever was wined and dined into signing it).

> Oftentimes, it's worker's wages, which worsens income inequality. Government > jobs used to offer healthy salary and benefit packages, making them steady > careers that could stabilize communities, the report notes. But privatized > positions for the same work often offer lower wages, reduced benefits and > little to no retirement security.

Who's going to pay those healthy salaries and pensions? If the latter are just unfunded mandates, it's hardly fair to compare them against a private company that has to cover it's obligations as they come in, via defined contribution plans or into a sinking fund, based on the money it's actually collecting (v.s. future higher taxes).

<comment><USER6> The basic privatization question is this:

Service was not producing a profit, it will be. Where exactly is that money coming from?

<comment><USER7> Historically it's from improved efficiencies, which privitazation incentivizes and government does not.

<comment><USER8> That's certainly the party line, but is there any evidence that it's actually true? I've seen little to support it, especially when you disregard "efficiency" gains that come from cutting what a municipal agency would have called "services."

The problem, as many others are also pointing out, is that government entities and private businesses typically have (and often should have different motivations). So when a private business takes over and makes things more efficient, this often comes at the expense of things that we want our government to value, not economize on.

<comment><USER9> Interesting case. Isn't it true, however, that everything is economized whether we like it or not? Even public works that add "value" still rely on finite resources (human labor, natural resources, etc...). Can we really just ignore the laws of resource allocation because we "value" something? If we really "valued" something, why not let the market strike the balance between value and efficiency?

<comment><USER6> Externalities, generally prevent profit from aligning with optimum resource allocation for society. I may only be willing to pay X to ride a subway and it might cost Y to provide subway service, but having one less commuter on the roads is worth Z to society. In a classic free market if X < Y then I don't ride the subway, but if X < (Y - Z) society is better off if I do ride the subway.

Further, subways systems, electricity, water, etc are far more efficient as a single provider which suggests a heavily regulated utility. But, if the government is going to subsidizes and heavily regulate a company like this then it's not really a company any more just a government organization with a funky org chart.

To further complicate things, this opens the door for a huge range of corruption as someone is legally allowed to take taxpayer money and profit.

<comment><USER9> "Z" is a premise I disagree with; especially when government/force is involved. If you want to ride the subway to a determent of yourself for society's benefit, that's your decision. Hell, I might even be sharing the subway with you. However, I'm not about to make that decision for others. Pushing aside the individual for the collective is something I am vehemently opposed to on moral grounds. So, I guess I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with the premise.

<comment><USER6> It's not about forcing people to ride the subway it's building and subsidizing a subway so people will ride it. Abstractly, it's little different from building and maintaining a bridge.

Supose you save 1/1,000th of a second of commute time on average per driver that takes the subway * 1,000,000 drivers taking the subway. That's 16 minutes eat way or 30 minutes a day. Ethics or not that _is_ actual value.

Now if you you feel morally opposed to subsides and are not willing to pay for them fine, but that does not mean they can't work. Further, building and maintaining infrastructure has been one of the hallmarks of government for 8,000+ years it's not going to change any time soon.

But hey, if you want to argue for less efficient systems that's your right.

<comment><USER9> I don't oppose subsides, per se; I oppose the involuntary collection of tax money, or any involuntary transfer of property. If for example, a subway is inherently more efficient than other means of travel, and it can be funded via ticket sales, I am SO for it. If it can't survive or exist without the involuntary collection of property, then I oppose it.

And infrastructure has been a major role for governments for quite some time, and I completely agree it's a legitimate role. However, it should be based on usage fees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> These are examples of monopolies, and not free market. I think, and it's my opinion: If you make something private in a _free_ market, it's always good for quality and prices.

There are two possibilities that can make this promise false:

1\. The market is not free. For example, a metro subway. It's a monopoly. You can't have 6 subway lines and you pick one of them.

2\. The market was heavily financed by tax payers money. For example, a bus route that it is not profitable but still running for the benefit of the few poor people using it. This can happen in a government situation but not in a private situation.

<comment><USER11> > 1\. The market is not free. For example, a metro subway. It's a monopoly. > You can't have 6 subway lines and you pick one of them.

New York City had three subway companies until the 1940s and the city took them over (one was already owned by the city). Tokyo has two metros and a large number of independent railroads (one metro is owned by the city; one railroad was owned by the government until the late 80s).

<comment><USER12> Were these companies actually competing, or just operating separate but likely connected routes? In other words, if you need to go from specific place A to specific place B, what are the odds you could choose which company to use. If location rather than choice dictate which service you use, it is essentially the same as what we have with cable companies. Each company has a monopoly in the zones they operate, and can charge whatever the consumers will bear without worrying about being undercut by competition, because a competitor would need to build significant infrastructure at which point the original company would just lower prices and the competitor would be unable to recover their costs.

It makes sense that infrastructure like this should be publicly owned, even if operation is contracted privately.

<comment><USER11> Both. Sometimes the routes compete, sometimes they're complementary.

In New York, look at the IND Concourse Line and IRT Jerome Avenue Line, they're 2-4 blocks apart for the entire route. Meanwhile, much of the city has no subway service at all. More nefariously, the IND built a totally- unnecessary lower-level platform at 42nd St./8th Ave. to block the IRT's extension of the Flushing line. Indeed, when this line was finally extended a few years ago, cost was added by having to demolish this superfluous station! (Who knew that the city would eventually own both.)

In Tokyo, the Tokyo metro Fukutoshin Line basically exists to compete with JR's Yamanote Line for people traveling between Ikebukuro/Shinjuku/Shibuya. Sure, now there's a one-seat-ride between Shinrinkouen and Yokohama... but does anyone do that except to post videos on YouTube? I doubt it. Eliminating a transfer probably wasn't worth the billions of yen spent to build a new subway line.

These are the most egregious duplications I can think of, but some are more subtle. I can take the IND or IRT from home to work in the exact same amount of time, depending on whether I want to walk one block in Manhattan or the same distance in Brooklyn. When I lived in Tokyo, we would go out of our way to avoid paying the higher Toei fare when Metro would suffice. (It was called "Eidan" then though!)

<comment><USER13> > In Tokyo, the Tokyo metro Fukutoshin Line basically exists to compete with > JR's Yamanote Line for people traveling between Ikebukuro/Shinjuku/Shibuya

Wasn't this also important for relieving congestion by increasing capacity along that corridor? That's part of what Manhattan is doing with the new 2nd avenue line, which is a 5min walk away from the existing over-capacity Lexington Avenue line.

<comment><USER11> True. True.

But a lot of the Tokyo Metro is overcapacity (Hibiya Line especially, IIRC), and they didn't build a line that competes with their own line. Isn't it convenient that they chose to "help" JR relieve their capacity problems, without worrying about their own ;)

I stand by my argument that railroads can compete with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is inequality in city-services, whether private or public. The underlying economics of delivering water or transportation don't change because of ownership. It's just that inequality manifests itself differently. I actually skimmed through the report. Example after example shows how poor people are gouged by fees piling up, onerous interest rates and so forth. That has nothing to with privatization - there are just as many examples of public sector asset forfeitures.

Most cities and municipalities have huge budget deficits - primarily due to excessive labor and pension costs. As a result, services have to be cut or rationed. In a public ownership setting, services just happen to be cut where they are least politically problematic. Private ownership, faced with the same problem, might cut services as well as raise prices. Citizens expect services, and don't want to pay too much for it. Funding solutions typically lie with those that don't have political voices, and those that can't just get up and leave.

<comment><USER15> > There is inequality in city-services, whether private or public.

While implementations can be a problem in any system, private business has an additional expense: profit for the owners. Labor and production costs will be roughly similar, but private will always have some amount of the money diverted to profits (which can take many forms). Worse, because many of these services (e.g. water) are a natural monopoly, privatizing the service won't gain any benefit from competition.

> primarily due to excessive labor and pension costs

This is a common talking point that isn't based in reality. We've been cutting services for a long time, while _also_ cutting _revenue_. If corporations actually paid proper taxes and/or we taxed wealth-creation properly as income, then most budget deficits would disappear.

> raise prices

That's the point; governments can do the equivalent by increasing taxes. Unfortunately, most people panic at the very idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Free market works in fixing prices if there is competition. In the case of privatized municipal services only is there no competition, the residents are forced to use the service. It's often a super-monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER17> I hear the "government hiring private contractors" argument often as a compromise between complete free market economics and public utilities.

The argument falls apart when there exists effectively no competition between contractors. At thiat point, the government may even end up paying more for its favorite contractor (whether by choice or lock-in) than it would if it managed its own staff.

The advantage of privatization is supposedly efficiency. Private companies must be efficient in order to survive, in large part because if a private company is not efficient, a competitor will be. Therefore, in order to capture this efficiency advantage, there must exist at least two private competitors for every government contract.

I'd be interested to hear of solutions that prioritize competition between private contractors, rather than encouraging nepotism or cronyism in the procurement process. Otherwise, you're just replacing the public monopoly with a private one, losing any gains from what should be the chief advantage of privatization: a competitive market.

</comment><comment><USER18> As far as I know, all prices are unreal - meaning that products prices have no actual fixture in what it costs to create them. For example, I create a beautiful night gown with materials costing me $5 and sell it for $10 - because I think that I should get $5 for my 30 minutes of work I put in creating. If somebody in China makes it, maybe they can buy the materials for 5 cents and feel like charging 10 cents for the entire night gown - <USER2> that's a "standard chinese wage" (inb4 exaggerated numbers). Meaning that my nightgown is valued at 100 times the price of the chinese counterpart. This means that any comparison between my nightgown and the chinese one is meaningless, because the person in China doesn't do the job 100 times more efficently, or with materials created 100 times cheaper. Meaning that racism, sexism and other prejudice values are more important than actual quality and profit. It's because the system isn't based on declaring true value of anything, it's a (incredible crude) system of driving people into overpricing everything for profit - and calling the final agreed upon price a real price, even though the seller often has the upper hand and can simply choose prices by deflating the supply. That's typically done by buying competators, bribing lawmakers and if all else fails: underpinning the competitions prices until they die. So to make an economical argument about a humanitarian issue is no better than giving a religious argument.. "Our current numbers are telling us that you can't have welfare" is equal to saying "Our current belief system is telling us you can't have welfare". Why? Because the idea that capitalism can give us a fair handle on price, supply and specifically demand is just retarded. The only way to create a real scientific price is to have a planned economy that tracks all demands and supplies simultaneously, so that demand doesn't mean lust.

</comment><comment><USER19> Ask any brazilian if he can think of any public service that works.

<comment><AUTHOR> Then ask a German, or a Swede. The answer might be different.

<comment><USER20> Then compare the size of the state and the amount of economic freedom in these countries to Brazil's and everything will become clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Front page of news.yc:

3\. How privatization increases inequality

4\. Examples of How City Services Privatization Leads to Inequality Are Piling Up

each with EXACTLY 7 up-votes.

Sock-puppets, or just a voting brigade?

<comment><AUTHOR> I submitted the NextCity article after reading the article, but then decided to submit the report as well. I do think they can be read without redundancy, as the NC article is a bit easier. I'll leave it up to the mods to drop either, though for completeness that if one of them is drop it should be the NC one, not the original report.

I don't know sock puppets or voting brigades in HN, but I would expect those who upvoted one to do the same to the other. They appeared next to each other in the /new page.

<comment><USER22> Meta comment. I'm not even sure this is the right place for it.

I love things that are fascinating and make me think. Privitization and inequality are in that category.

I don't like feeling that I'm being bullshitted. Two articles on the same politically-charged topic both at the top of HN is whack. I do not want to be on the end of somebody's PR funnel.

Not your fault, I know. Just please post some more Erlang innards stories between the "Evidence continues to validate this thing I know you guys aren't going to agree on" stories.

<comment><AUTHOR> I already said why I posted both. There have been lots of duos and trios of related and equally oriented articles on HN top30 before. Feel free to channel your frustration directly to the PR funnel you mention.

 _Just please post some more Erlang innards stories between the "Evidence continues to validate this thing I know you guys aren't going to agree on" stories._

Not knowing a single bit of Erlang, I will post stuff that I believe _some_ HN folks will be interested in. If you want to see more Erlang innards stories, post them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Pfft, how public city services stole from everyone via inefficiency and rort for decades maybe?

YC is broken if this is up top.</comment>


New Hire to First Commit in Minutes - <AUTHOR> https://www.lob.com/blog/new-hire-to-first-commit-in-10-minutes

<comment><USER2> I like the overall sentiment, but the "ten minute" window is clearly a sensationalization, even by the author's own admission. It will probably take me ten minutes just to get my own basics set up on a new computer, like browser, password manager, and dotfiles.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's with the attempt at hiding some information in the images?

If you are going to do that, use solid black boxes around it. Do not use MS Paint (or whatever) to obscure it by hand, it is readable as is.

And if you want to hide the name of the repositor, block out the name at the top of the Readme as well.</comment>


Research points the finger at PowerPoint - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/03/1175366240499.html <comment><USER2> This reminds me of Paul Graham's comment about Powerpoint,

"the stated purpose of Powerpoint is to present ideas. Its real role is to overcome people's fear of public speaking. It allows you to give an impressive-looking talk about nothing, and it causes the audience to sit in a dark room looking at slides, instead of a bright one looking at you."

(from <http://paulgraham.com/hiring.html)>

I for one would be happy to see it go by the wayside. In most cases, it makes for boring, formulaic presentations. When used properly, it can serve a good purpose, but most people use it for the purposes that pg stated. I preferred the time where people would instead focus on the speech itself, memorizing much of it. That made talks seem much more dynamic and interesting, in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> They have also challenged popular teaching methods, suggesting that teachers should focus more on giving students the answers, instead of asking them to solve problems on their own.

I don't understand how this connects to the rest of the study.

<comment><USER2> I think their overarching hypothesis was that sensory overload decreases learning. Supposedly, by requiring students to listen to a lecture and view Powerpoint slides at the same time, the information actually gets shoved into short term memory and forgotten, because it is too much to remember all at once.

By the same token, apparently, asking students to solve the problem forces them to focus on a specific problem, and it makes learning the concepts (or even remembering what methods went into solving the problem) more difficult, because of the same brain overload.

At least that's what I took from the article. I personally find that I learn best in a class when I listen closely to the professor and take very minimal notes. In doing so, I can focus on remembering what's being said instead of trying to read slides or write quickly. That's why I appreciate professors who put their notes online; I can listen closely in class and then review the notes later on to reiterate what I learned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two good resources: PresentationZen blog (<http://www.presentationzen.com/> ) and Beyond Bullet Points book (<http://www.beyondbullets.com/> ).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I feel the title is too much of a pun, than a good indicator of what the story is about. But has some nice tips about how to use and compose a visual presentation.</comment>


When Workers Control the Code - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/when-workers-control-gig-economy/ <comment><USER2> Libertarian coders scorn the idea of labor unions for software engineers. Then what do they think of engineer-run co-ops?</comment>


Turkey referendum: Erdogan camp set to win after most votes counted - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39612562 <comment><USER2> A de facto dictator wins the majority in a "democratic" election. News at 11.

<comment><USER3> > With about 98% of ballots counted, "Yes" was on about 51.3% and "No" on > about 48.7%.

What majority? Typical "elections" in the Middle East have the dictator get 80-90% of votes. Examples include Egypt, Tunisia (pre-Arab Spring), Algeria, and Syria.

The guy actually has quite a following in Turkey, so 51.3% voting "Yes" doesn't surprise me at all. I know that Erdogan is proposing a system that gives him virtually unlimited power, but that doesn't mean that the vote was rigged.

<comment><USER4> It's not the outcome, but the referendum itself that's undemocratic. Removing usual safeguards by half the voters is just asking if democracy should be liquidated.

<comment><USER3> Yes, my response was to point out to OP that the referendum itself is probably legitimate. And I think it's the responsibility of the voters to decide if that should happen, just like with (to a lesser extent) Brexit and the recent US presidential election.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Liberalism (in the classic democracy enlightenment-age concept, not the US partisan party sense) has flourished and waned over the years across the globe. It will be interesting to see where this goes in the next 50 years.

</comment><comment><USER6> The Guardian says things are getting messy (not that anyone was expecting anything else, I might add).

"There is still confusion about the number of votes counted in Turkey and any result, whether declared by the president or not, should be treated with caution. [...] the supreme election commission is reporting that only between 65-70% of votes have been counted, while Turkey's official news agency Anadolu is reporting that 97-98% of votes are in."

</comment><comment><USER7> Nationalism has influence on the type of tech developed: [http://www.dailysabah.com/technology/2017/04/08/national- tec...](http://www.dailysabah.com/technology/2017/04/08/national-technology- move-to-transform-turkeys-technology-industry)

Apart from that, foreign investments might also dwindle.

</comment><comment><USER8> And regardless of how much good you think a leader actually does. Two big warnings signs of corruption and self enrichment.

\- staying in power for a very long time. Putin and Erdogan. \- Self enrichment during the time in power.

People should be automatically suspicious why these two want to stay in power for so long, as well as change the laws to give them more power while they're in office.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think, every democracy should have always a "versioning" system, where if 2/3s of the people vote for a return to a certain law revision (in direct vote, on the village center) - the goverment, the jurisdiction, military, finance and/or the totalitarian president are overruled and dispossable.

Are there any democratic islamic countrys left?

</comment><comment><USER10> I think it's better to wait a little bit and see what happens, because there is still controversial things (such as unsealed votes being counted) going on which is usual after every election in Turkey, but who knows.

</comment><comment><USER11> some ballouts are illegally counted as valid. %49 can't do any shit about it. Earning dictatorship in dictated way and showing that it was democratic. He just wants to save his life nothing more.

</comment><comment><USER8> this is a bit outside looking in, but you get a sense of how easily people can be manipulated, or intimated in a democracy, without proper safeguards. Look at our election results!

</comment><comment><USER12> Hope EU is happy about it's long term position toward Turkey.

<comment><USER13> Its long term position of obviously not wanting that a country where more than half the population backs up a dictatorship backed up by fundamentalist Islam joining us and let those people have total unrestrained access across all our borders?

Yup, we are really, really very happy that nobody was so mad as to let you in the EU... or else this that just happened (and in fact what has been happening the last decade backed by the majority of your population) would be a major danger to our existence.

This way we always have the option to just close even more our borders until you deal with this insanity that is going on in Turkey and then when in some medium term future you get back to a democracy and show good will towards respecting everyone's civil rights and liberties we can then resume talks again.

<comment><USER12> I am not from Turkey :) You are already paying the price for head in the sand strategy and if some black swan event does not restrain Russia the global price for let's pretend it's someone else's problem will take the same tall it did last time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This will not end well for Europe. With the pussy governments we have here and Erdogan with complete power over the faucet of refugees, we are at a high risk of becoming Erdogan's bitch.

Either our governments do something, and fast, or the rise of fascism in Europe will only accelerate.

<comment><USER13> Europe just tried to make a "pleasant deal" with Turkey about the refugees, giving Turkey a lot of money in exchange for them to close the border on their side.

But if Erdogan becomes a nuisance Europe can always go through the unpleasant path, close the border from our side and not give Turkey a cent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why the heck is this Hacker News?

<comment><USER16> Because major world events effect everyone.</comment></comment>


The Paper Elephant: Folded News from the Postgres Community [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.pgmag.org/_media/the_paper_elephant_01.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> This little magazine (intended for physical distribution at IT events) has a great short article on what's new in 9.6.</comment>


Red(dit) Alert at the Workplace - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/magazine/red-dit-alert-at-the-workplace.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Unless you're their superior, I don't see how telling someone "you probably shouldn't browse reddit at work" is likely to result in any positive change.</comment>


Ride-Hailing Apps Are Clogging New York's Streets - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/ride-hailing-new-york-traffic/549131/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> "Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up."

This is something both anti-regulation political ideologues and entrepreneurs a little too enthused about disruption seem to forget.

The impacts of increased traffic congestion is one of the many reasons that taxis became regulated in the first place.

British Columbia is one of the last holdouts where ride sharing services are still not allowed, and I'm convinced that among other reasons, the fact that the city of Vancouver is so committed to public transit and active transportation is a contributing factor to this.

<comment><USER3> Oh we know why the fence was put up: to give more money to scum who are not willing to freely compete. So it is with all regulations that limits who can get in to a given business.

edit: also this article skirts around the real problem: shitty public transportation. Make that better and see if it doesn't bring people back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >That adds up to more than 600 million miles of motor-vehicle traffic in the past 3 years alone—reflecting not only the staggering growth in rides, but also a trend toward lengthier trips and more "deadheading," or cars traveling without passengers.

My 2 cents: If and when self-driving cars take off, and if this on-demand ride-hailing model persists, I predict that the streets will be clogged with empty self-driving Ubers and Lyfts, skirting parking fees and constantly circling around for fares.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there any evidence to support the oft-repeated claim that destroying alternatives to public transit yields better transit? Is it credible that New York suffers from a lack of public pressure to maintain/improve its public transit? My understanding is that the MTA is not managing to convert any amount of money or popular support into service improvements, and that over reliance on transit limits its ability to take things down for maintenance when needed.

</comment><comment><USER6> The attached video:

[https://vimeo.com/247866390](https://vimeo.com/247866390)

has an idea to solve the issue - Add to surcharge fees from these ride hailing apps and spend the money in to mass transit. It might not be that bad except government budgets tend to divert money to other purposes and the mass transit might remain the same.

I do wish companies pushed towards more pooling services like UberPool etc.

<comment><USER7> _I do wish companies pushed towards more pooling services like UberPool etc._

I can't recall their name off the top of my head, but there's a company piloting this here in Austin Texas; they exclusively do poolsharing and have a fleet of vans that you'll see following close to some of the same routes as CapMetro does in the city core (if anyone else lives here and can think of the name please share it, they drive the blue and grey vans).

It's something I only even learned about because my company signed on with them as a service to the workforce a few months ago; people who live south, but work in the North Austin office can park their cars in our garage downtown, and use the shuttle to get north. People who live north, but work in the downtown office park at the North office, and shuttle downtown. Or if you have a meeting at North office but work downtown, shuttles leave every two hours.

As someone who has a car, but takes the bus (because for me there would be no transfers and the total ride lasts about 15 minutes) to work, it's been such a game changer.</comment></comment>


Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/fossil-fuel-subsidy-cash-pay-green-energy-transition <comment><USER2> It is completely insane that fossil fuel companies are still being subsidised. It makes me realise how ridiculous it is that so much emphasis is put on individual action on climate change when governments are still pumping money into the source of the problem. It's just smoke and mirrors to distract from the real source of the problem - political inaction.

I know there's a saying that democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others, but I'm really starting to wonder if it's fit for purpose. It's really not well designed to deal with large tragedy-of-the- commons style issues like climate change.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the pros and cons of taking MOOCs to learn new skills? - <AUTHOR> How was your experience like? What did you love and not love about it? <comment> jerome-jh I do not think there are any cons. I did a number of MOOCs both technical and non-technical, most were really interesting, one was really difficult and took two attempts. Just enjoy it!

The downside is that there is low recognition by recruiters, HR, etc. I bought a Coursera certificate for one of them, and posted it to my linkedin account. Had no effect whatsoever. I cannot find it back anymore so it looks like money sent down the toilets. You have to consider it as a hobby.

Also in the corporate world, companies serve low quality, masochistic MOOCs to their employees, which overall gives a distorted representation to everybody and takes the fun out.

I am currently reading online and physical books on a subject I want to know deeper, and that leave no brain juice for MOOCs right now.</comment>


Harper's Index, April 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://harpers.org/archive/2013/04/harpers-index-349/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for reminding me about the Harper's Index. I love reading these things.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like the e-cigarette business is booming. And CEO's are psychopaths. Good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER4> Let me just subscribe to this RSS feed using....

</comment><comment><USER5> _"Estimated weight in pounds of debris left on the moon by NASA : 36,600"_

Are those Earth pounds or Moon pounds?

<comment><USER6> Yes, slugs would have been a much clearer value to have reported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This feels like a post that is more suited for Reddit</comment>


$8.3B Was Invested In 3,267 VC Deals In 2012; Seed Funding Hits Record Levels  - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/report-8-3b-was-invested-in-3267-vc-deals-in-2012-seed-funding-hits-record-levels/ <comment><USER2> The title seems to be corrected. It's actually $28.3B.</comment>


Show HN: 1200-piece, 4K-resolution jigsaw puzzle for Android tablets - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/PuzzleBoss-Deluxe-Jigsaw-Puzzles/dp/B01BIL9JRY/ref=sr_1_1?s=mobile-apps&ie=UTF8&qid=1454782220&sr=1-1 <comment><USER2> TL;DR: This is about "Amazon Underground", which sounds like an attempt to undercut Google Play, and shift transactions to Amazon. Looks like it's been around since August 2015.

[http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/11/10/amazon-underground- tri...](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/11/10/amazon-underground-triples- library-games-take-google-apple/)

</comment><comment> dan-silver If it's for android tablets, why not publish in the Play store?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is on Play but it's $5 vs free on Underground -

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.puzzleboss...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.puzzleboss.jigsaw1200.Deluxe.google)</comment></comment>


Omive: A simple movie search engine - <AUTHOR> http://omive.com/

<comment><USER2> Is there an API for this?</comment>


Burnout - <AUTHOR> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/burnout/ <comment><USER2> I think there's one fallacy there... you can easily burn out while still engaged in your work. Or rather, you can be fully engaged in your work, happy about it, feeling great and on top of everything, and yet still get to a point where your body and mind just can't take anymore, and then you crash and burn for a few days (or longer, depending on the way your mind works), where you feel totally disengaged and don't do anything productive.

By the time you realise that you're not engaged in your work anymore, imho, you've already crashed.

<comment><USER3> That's burnout? I just take that as a normal work routine - I'll work really hard on something for a week or two, then do nothing for a couple days while I recharge. I figure it's more productive than an arbitrary 5-days-on-2-days-off schedule, and it lets me make better use of the downtime, since I'm more inclined to try something completely different when I really _don't_ feel like doing anything productive than when I'd rather be working.

My cofounder was the same way, and our downtimes never seemed to be synchronized, which was a good thing because it meant there was always someone going full steam ahead.

<comment><USER2> It's burn-out if you don't realise that you need to sit back and relax for a few days to recharge, and keep ploughing on regardless. Once you learn how to manage this burnout cycle, it becomes a feature rather than a bug, as you describe. If you try to keep going, though, a couple of days of downtime can easily turn into weeks of morose can't-be-arsed-to-do-anything-ness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a really good article that does a great job of outlining burnout in the design and development industry, and reiterates why I got out of the service side of it in favor of: startups. Service-oriented design/programming just doesn't do it for me on that level as very few companies are setup for trickle down benefits if the service-agency produces a big win for XXXXX client.

Artists (programmers & designers) are very much alike in that we tend to get very obsessive-compulsive about our work. That being said, I switched over to startups realizing that if I'm going to work this hard then I want to be on the end that receives the big reward if we knock it out of the park (mental, personal growth, fiscal, etc). And unless deep down you feel very passionate about it, working at that intensity can be short-lived.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is it "burnout" when you come to realize that your entire field has the intellectual depth of Saturday morning cartoons?

<comment><USER6> No, it's time for a career change.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to find intellectually deep, non- interpersonal-communication work which does not involve programming in some way, without extensive re-credentialing. I'm working on it, though.

<comment><USER7> You can keep programming, there are many specific disciplines inside software development / programming that are intellectually deep. Getting into them is hard, but the reward is infinite.

<comment><USER5> I have come to deeply loathe all extant programming systems. And in practice, this means that I deeply loathe all programming.

<comment><USER8> There's something missing intellectual depth, but it isn't programming.

<comment><USER5> Instead of thinly veiled insults, say what you mean to my face. Do you believe that despising the nonsensical constraints of today's programming languages marks one as stupid? Pray tell how.

<comment><USER8> Ok, that's fair. It was a cheap shot. Sorry. Here is what I believe:

\- There is great intellectual depth in theoretical computer science. This field includes facets that are very close to programming, such as algorithms, and those that are one layer removed, such as complexity theory. These deep subjects are implied by any kind of programming.

\- If you believe that today's programming languages have nonsensical constraints, you should explain what those are so that we can all benefit from their removal.

<comment><USER5> > There is great intellectual depth in theoretical computer science

No one will pay me to do theoretical computer science. The odds are similar to those facing someone seeking to be a concert violinist in a national symphony orchestra.

> nonsensical constraints, you should explain what those are so that we can > all benefit from their removal

I find forced syntax to be a nonsensical constraint, and prefer to use S-expressions. Most people are happy in their chains and do not wish for their removal.

<comment><USER7> I had a similar problem as the same you are having now... I was a successful game developer (considered by many as one of the field leaders in my country), but I started getting bored. After a lot of trouble, I could manage to start working in machine learning and other related areas of what used to be known as AI. I'm really happy to be working on this now, and I have a lot to learn. Almost every day I work in an interesting challenge, which is very different from what I used to do.

It was not so hard to leave my previous field, which I was bored of, but to get a chance to work on this new field. I got to do this by doing a slow transition, first doing work that was halfway between game development and different areas of AI, and every time pushing forward my objective. It took me a lot of time to do it but now I'm very happy with the results.

If I can give you my advice, investigate the many areas related to programming that exist, investigate what companies that you didn't even know that existed do, and find something that you really wish you could do too. Then start moving in that direction, one step at a time.

I'm not by far as successful in the new field as I was in my previous life. But hey, I'm having a lot of fun. And with time, you get your knowledge and experience back again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One step I used to help lower my stress level and fight burnout was this:

Never check statistics and analytics outside of the office.

I used to be a mouse slapping that cocaine-delivery-bar in my cage: I'd get up from my reading chair every 15 minutes in the evening to click "refresh" in my browser.

Good stats? On top of the world!

Bad stats? Obsess, dwell, worry, calculate.

There's time for that - do it in the office.

If I'm already putting in a 10-12 hour day, there's no need to take that crap home.

<comment><USER10> stats of what?

<comment><USER11> Perhaps stats of his business? I guess of his website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Love the "about the author" box:

"XXX as been designing on paper, wood, plastic, metal and that 'ol web thing for around 15 years, most recently as principal at Wishingline, working with clients such as PayPal, Masterfile, and Toronto Life Magazine while somehow still finding time to write, take pictures, perform and release records and actually have a life away from the internet. "

<comment><USER13> Why did you censor his name? He wrote it on the article. (Of course I'll leave it off until I know you reasons.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd recommend reading Thoreau's "Walden Pond." That dude really knew how to chill out.</comment>


A Look Behind the Curtain at Techmeme - <AUTHOR> http://marshallk.com/a-look-behind-the-curtain-at-techmeme-2 <comment><USER2> >> Marshall: So, everyone wants to be an aggregator these days. All the young kids are like "mommy, I'm going to grow up to find recommended stories for an online news publisher."

Shoot.</comment>


Ask HN: Why are we building self driving cars to navigate based off human signs - <AUTHOR> Instead of building self driving cars to visually read stop signs and see other cars with computer vision, why don't we put some sort of chip in signs, lane markers etc that are inexpensive and designed to be read by machines? Would cut down on the difficulty of the problem in my opinion and increase safety <comment><USER2> "Inexpensive" is really an understatement when talking about replacing the entire, worldwide sign and lane marker infrastructure (nb with something that's orders of magnitude more issue-prone than current solution). Who pays for that? What if a state/country says "we don't care about your active signs, WONTFIX"?

Worse, "can't see stop sign" is currently easy to spot and debug; in your proposal, this would require retooling the world over.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1958 "self driving" car: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKOdux6Gjno&feature=share](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKOdux6Gjno&feature=share) \- There is really nothing stoping someone from taking a different approach to driverless cars. Smart highways is not a bad idea at all. In the same way we have a carpool lane, one could provide a driverless interstate lane that is faster and more efficient by equipping this lane with a guiding system. #hyperlane

<comment><USER4> A guiding system? Might we say that such a system is "on rails?"

 _ducks_

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What happens when you come across a sign that doesn't have a special chip?

How many stop signs are there in the world? That almost sounds like a Fermi problem...

</comment><comment><USER6> What if a sign or chip gets removed/knocked over . . . or swapped out maliciously . . . sounds more dangerous.</comment>


Insider Selling Jumps to Highest Level Since 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=au8cyqeJFifg&refer=home <comment><USER2> April 24.

If it was relevant, any strategic maneuvering that one might do to avoid this catastrophe is probably now deep in the past.</comment>


Into the Uknown – The Daredevils Who Flew Across an Ocean - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/bM5diyl48K/alcock <comment><USER2> I'm not sure why the hundredth anniversary of the first trans-atlantic flight is not getting wider coverage. You can bet that when it's the hundredth anniversary of Lindberg's flight, that will get coverage.</comment>


Doom on the web - <AUTHOR> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/doom-on-the-web/

<comment><USER2> Remarkable - browser-based games are due an overhaul in the near future if this kind of stuff can be achieved.</comment>


The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally and Covid-19 [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://drewmcnichols.github.io/Contagion_Externality_Sturgis_Motorcycle_Rally_9-5-20_Dave_et_al.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Anticipating one possible set of responses, the authors also studied COVID-19 impacts of the BLM protests ("we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case or death growth after more than five weeks following the onset of protests") and Tulsa GOP rally ("we find little evidence that COVID-19 grew more rapidly in Tulsa County, its border counties, or in the state of Oklahoma than each's estimated counterfactual during the five-week post-treatment period we observe").

"Black Lives Matter Protests, Social Distancing, and COVID-19" [https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408)

"Risk Aversion, Offsetting Community Effects, and COVID-19: Evidence from an Indoor Political Rally" [https://www.nber.org/papers/w27522](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27522)</comment>


Proposed new tag: IMG [1993] - <AUTHOR> http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html <comment><USER2> The interesting thing is the formats specified in Andreesen's request: Xbm and Xpm. This was a time before JPEG and GIF (and certainly before PNG).

I have some vague memories of the old days, when compressed images were a novelty, and people were talking about how you had to have special software to view GIF, which was described as this special ultra-high-tech format.

I think the main program people recommended was called GIFConverter, which itself is a telling name because it shows just how much of a new concept compression was that you somehow had to "convert" the image in order to display it. (edit: just checked, and not only is GIFConverter _still maintained_ , but it's now available for iOS as well... didn't expect that)

<comment><USER3> Nope, read on, GIF was supported from day one: [http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www- talk.1993q1/0257.ht...](http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www- talk.1993q1/0257.html)

      "Back to the inlined image thread again -- I'm getting
      close to releasing Mosaic v0.10, which will support
      inlined GIF and XBM images/bitmaps, as mentioned
      previously."

\-- Marc Andreessen (Fri, 12 Mar 93)

XBM file support had been removed in Internet Explorer 6 (IE 1-6 is based on Mosaic code, see IE6 about dialog): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBM)

<comment><USER2> Oh, I'm not disputing that. I just thought it was an interesting bit of history that the original message (which OP linked to) mentioned two dead formats and none of the formats that are integral to the modern web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the next message is this gem:

> I was proposing to use the file extension (.xbm above) to tag what format > the image was in, but with the intention that in future, when HTTP2 comes > along, the same format negotiation technique would be used to access images.

</comment><comment><USER3> Marc Andreessen proposal was simple and his Mosaic with inline image support had been release first. Good. Otherwise it would be called ICON instead of IMG or be part of an overly complicated A-tag. It also explains the nuance between the HREF (A-tag) and SRC (IMG-tag) attributes.

</comment><comment><USER5> It is fascinating to go through the thread history and read the names of the people commenting on the proposal: \- Tim Berners-Lee \- Guido van Rossum \- Marc Andreessen

</comment><comment><USER6> Wasn't there some rule to mark old content with the year it was published? So 1993 in this case.

<comment><USER7> I think that would make the link much less fun!</comment></comment>


Ten Startups Debut At TechStars Demo Day - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/20/ten-startups-debut-at-techstars-demo-day/ <comment><USER2> I'm pleasantly surprised. I think this batch is as good as the most recent YC batch, at least from the perspective of business ideas...I don't know if they've executed as well. I kinda thought TechStars would fizzle out as an also-ran, but they seem to be hitting their stride. I still find it a little more than obnoxious that they're so focused on YC: They schedule their demo day for the _same day_ as YC (I guess...YC's Valley Demo Day is today, I think...and the Valley Demo Day is the real one...the one in Boston last week is for practice...nobody ever gets funded in Boston), and they make their companies make a decision about acceptance a few days before YC makes their decision.

If TechStars wants to be a serious long-term contender they need to focus more on their customers and less on their competitors.

On a different note, I'm pretty sure Jamie and I chatted with one group of founders in this batch that also applied to YC. I guess they took the TechStar bird in the hand rather than the YC birds in the bush. We liked them, and I'm pretty sure pg and Co. at least gave them an interview.

<comment><USER3> Hey, we actually got funded by someone who found us at a Boston demo day. I'm pretty sure we're the only ones ever to do so though.

You're right about their cheesy sibling rivalry thing (which doesn't stop at demo day scheduling). I guess what else would you expect given that they straight up lifted their application from YC.

<comment><USER4> i met the disqus guys at boston demo day. i prefer boston demo day to sf demo day. but that's probably the east coast superiority complex coming out in me

<comment><USER2> I've always granted you honorary membership among the ranks of the bold Silicon Valley investors, Fred (you're also smart and good looking, and I bet you can cook, too). But I'm glad to hear that _some_ (at least two) YC companies are getting funded in Boston, since pg doesn't seem interested in moving the SFP to the valley.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favorites in this batch are Devver and Foodzie. I think there's a lot of great stuff that can be done with cloud based development -- especially blurring the line between deployment and development.

Foodzie is something my parents would use -- especially if they can offer some high-end European foods.

Gyminee seems to have a lot of traction already. They're doing one thing right -- even without the social features, it's still useful.

<comment><USER6> Foodzie is something I would definitely try if it existed in my area. It sounds like a combination of farmers' markets and the web. A great idea!

I also like the part about the producers making most of the money. Not only is that a classic cut-out-the-middleman play (in what seems like an inefficient market), it might lead to a whole bunch of interesting niche products becoming viable where they weren't before. Which, not to exaggerate too much, would make the world a better place.

I usually look at new apps from the perspective of a developer... can't remember the last time I got this excited as a customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Personally, I was most impressed with the concept of BuyPlayWin -- the current design isn't great, but I think the idea is very novel -- if the prices are right, and they can reach a critical mass, I could see this becoming quite popular, especially with the college-aged crowd. I'm pretty sure every kid would think they were guaranteed a win, and I could see the process becoming somewhat addicting. Plus, who doesn't want a shot at something free?

<comment><USER8> I have to disagree, I think this one is most likely to fail. The concept is based on the idea that a group of people will somehow collectively gather on an unknown website and buy the same product, at the same time. I mean common, what are the chances?

They'd have to spend big big bucks on marketting to get the amount of visitors needed for this concept to fly. If it was amazon who was launching then it might work.

<comment><USER7> I think you're absolutely right about needing a large amount of visitors (and the Amazon suggestion, obviously) but that's why I put so many ifs -- I'm talking more about the idea itself -- I think it's really neat, and if Amazon were to do this on college textbooks for instance, I think it'd be great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like the concept of Ignighter, reminds me of this quote:

 _"What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured."_

[http://tumblr.iamdanw.com/post/25864804/what-should-young- pe...](http://tumblr.iamdanw.com/post/25864804/what-should-young-people-do- with-their-lives)

</comment><comment><USER10> I really, really like the logo for Travelfli. Whoever put that together, props. Very web 2.0, but with a grown and sexy feel (as Jay-Z might put it).

<comment><USER3> I'm really interested in the product. I used to travel a lot and still have enough friends who hang out on traveltalk to understand the market. It's a biggin.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for your interest. Please send me an email at krista{at}travelfli.com and I will get you a beta invite...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like the concept of Gyminee. I know this is the wrong place to post this, but the techstars batch this time seems more useful than the YC batch. This last YC batch was a bit like features, but the techcrunch stuff is actually useful.

I signed up for Gyminee, because it's a good idea and it's time for me to gain some muscle.

</comment><comment><USER13> Foodzie looks like the most interesting one to try for myself. I hope it will exist in Canada, heh

</comment><comment><USER14> Sucks when a singing girl is picked over you.</comment>


Ask HN: What Are You Doing with Pipes? (IFTTT,Zapier,Bipio,Yahoo Pipes,..) - <AUTHOR>

I'm wondering what some are you are doing with Pipes? There are an unlimited amount of possibilities...<p>What are your recipes and what project/solution are you using? <comment><AUTHOR> A list of the more interesting solutions:

\- Yahoo Pipes [http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/](http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/)

\- Bipio [https://bip.io/](https://bip.io/)

\- Deri Pipes [http://pipes.deri.org/](http://pipes.deri.org/)

\- Zapier [https://zapier.com/](https://zapier.com/)

\- IFTTT [https://ifttt.com/](https://ifttt.com/)

\- Huginn [https://github.com/cantino/huginn](https://github.com/cantino/huginn)

<comment><USER2> Ooh. Some of those are new to me.

Thanks :-)

I use IFTTT to post "funny pictures" I save in dropbox to a facebook group.

I've also linked blog posts to facebook/twitter etc. It's not perfect, but now I know there's other half decent systems out there, I can have a play :D</comment></comment>


Ask HN:Looking for blogs and real life stories about entrepreneur with family's - <AUTHOR>

Hi
i really need to read and learn how startup entrepreneur's that have family's managing to take the big risk and do this crazy thing called "start-up" as i see it from my point of view ( 2 kids and wife + mortgage) its impossible task. Thanks for sharing! <comment><USER2> Hey there, umen. I'm in the same boat as you, although with three kids. I don't have a lot of time to write much at the moment (see above), but I wanted to let you know it is doable. And worth it. I see far more of my family and have a far more rewarding job than I would if I were working in a corporate environment.

In fact, I have a proposed panel in to SXSW on this very topic — your startup and your family would each happily take up your entire life ... so how do you balance the two of them and not fail at both? Once the panel picker opens up for voting (August 9th), I'd love it if you could vote it up.

Anyway, there are a bunch of different ways your startup can go, and a bunch of different ways your family can go.

On the family side, are there any grandparents nearby? Is your wife supportive of what you're trying to do? Is she income-earning? Are the kids super-needy, or are they older, more capable, and more self-contained? Do you have resources in the community that you can rely on (church members, neighbors willing to babysit for free (or trade babysitting time), etc.)? All of those will help.

On the business side, how young is the startup? Are you bootstrapping, or are you looking for investment? If you're going the financed route, have you taken any rounds yet? Are you the only founder, or do you have co-founders? Do _they_ have families? Or are they all single? Those all have a bearing on how things will go.

My super-quick story: I mentioned my wife and three kids. I also have a mortgage. And it's all paid for with our bootstrapped small web-business. Most here would call it a "lifestyle business", as we've neither taken funding nor are looking for funding for it. I also have a second subscription-based web app (<http://monotask.com>) that's just about to launch, that I've worked on with a cofounder who also has a wife and three kids.

Summarizing _my_ advice (recognizing it might be wildly inappropriate for your goals, as I can't give advice on financed startups), I'd say: * build something small that meets a need you either have or see as obvious * launch it as soon as you can, and start getting feedback on it * don't quit your day job until the side project has proven itself * if it doesn't seem like it's going to prove itself, pivot * start to hoard your cash now; don't spend any money you don't absolutely need to; this is your runway * don't wait to get moving on it: as someone said once, almost every person you'll talk to who's started his own business — whether it succeeds or fails — will say "I only wish I'd done this earlier."

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello Charlie park and thanks for the reply I appreciate it. Well some answers From my family side I do have more family here that can help me and my wife to babysit but this can only help not be full job baby sitter. My wife is supportive she is earning but we can't leave only from her income. No way... is my kids small 1 year and 2 years old. From my business side, im only in the idea phase I haven't got any thing I haven't got the time to code prototype. I have no time for any thing I have full time job in the hi-tek industry. if I ever wanted to do something I defiantly will need some investment I don't see any other way around. For now I am single no partners. And no extra cash. Well as you said and I was reading in the net that I need to start and go online as soon as I have something . Some questions How long it toke you to build the first version of your site ? How long it take it to get revenue? Do you still work full time?</comment></comment>


The man who records his entire life - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37631646 <comment><USER2> > "But I don't put [the chest camera] on in the bedroom and stuff like that."

Well, not his "entire life" then. (Plus if you were going to be really picky, you could point out that a photo "every 30 seconds" leaves a lot out.)</comment>


Show HN: Something for chocolate lovers - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/monthly-chocolate-box-from-around-the-world

<comment><USER2> is this your project?

<comment><AUTHOR> it is my friend's project but I am a great lover of chocolates too. Here is a link to the website : <http://sweetsubmarine.com/></comment></comment>


Anyone else dislike the go lang? - <AUTHOR>

i consider myself an computer language collector. i learn languages quickly and enjoy them. from prolog to erlang to lua to scala. ok, here is the thing, i dislike (or hate) Go, the not so new toy from google, even more than C++. anyone else feels it distasteful, or I am just too old for new things (which is what i'm really worried about) <comment><USER2> I don't see any discussion about _why_ you dislike the language. Please elaborate.

<comment><AUTHOR> it's exactly the point annoys me. i don't see anything tech-wise bad. just don't feel right. that's also why i ask if anyone else feel the same way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been experimenting with Go, and I feel like you're expecting something different than what it's supposed to be. In my opinion, one of its strengths is its simplicity – it may not always be elegant, but it's consistent and readable, and there's usually one obvious way to do things (similar to Python). For some areas of programming, it strikes a nice balance between performance (native compilation) and usability (garbage collection, concurrency, etc.) for making fast, reliable software. Spend more time with Scala if you want a large, fancy language.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, you are probably right. i expect any new language to have something ambitious, pronounces unique point of view regarding computing problems. e.g. "everything is a process" Joe Armstrong preaches. maybe Go is too much about performance, refuses to make any bold statement.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't need to make a bold statement, it's about being small and well- designed. Performance wise, C++ is still far ahead, but Go is substantially easier to use.</comment></comment></comment>


Drilling with Curiosity - <AUTHOR> https://www.americanscientist.org/article/drilling-with-curiosity <comment><AUTHOR> This is an excerpt of a forthcoming book on the Design and Engineering of the Curiosity Rover by Emily Lakdawalla [1]

[1] [https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319681443](https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319681443)</comment>


Ask HN: Want to know who is upvoting you? - <AUTHOR>

I love the feature on most social networks that tells you who is "hearting" or "liking" your content.  I find it very motivating when I get a notif in my feed that someone I highly respect "hearts" what I am doing. It sounds superficial when I describe in here, but I find it's a surprisingly powerful social gesture.
I would like to know who the handle is that is upvoting my posts and comments on HN. I envision a simple activity feed that lists who and when, perhaps called "feedback".  Anyone else like this idea?
I could hack together a dotjs or greasemonkey script to prototype it, but if it's not broadly installed it won't be interesting because it will only surface the upvote activity from people who install the script. If there's interest on this post I'll give it a shot. Anyone in? <comment><USER2> This is not a good idea. Chasing and jerkcircles will start appearing and that's not good.</comment>


Intel, Google, Microsoft, and Others Launch Confidential Computing Consortium - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/21/intel-google-microsoft-and-others-launch-confidential-computing-consortium-for-data-security/ <comment><USER2> [https://confidentialcomputing.io/](https://confidentialcomputing.io/)

> CCC is a project community at the Linux Foundation dedicated to defining and > accelerating the adoption of confidential computing. It will embody open > governance and open collaboration that has aided the success of similarly > ambitious efforts.. The effort includes commitments from Arm, Baidu, Google > Cloud, Intel, Microsoft, Red Hat, Swisscom and Tencent.</comment>