Mysterious Gmail account lockouts prompt hack fears - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/24/gmail_hack_fears/ <comment><USER2> I was forcibly logged out of my google acccount across all devices the same day as the cloudflare news came out. I am not aware of google using cloudflare but I assumed they were "protecting me" somehow and dutifully logged back in across my five devices.

It's actually more alarming that google says it is unrelated.

<comment><USER3> Same. I immediately thought they were connected. My iCloud session was also logged out on a few computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Call me naive, but I REALLY think people are overreacting on this. Yes, the timing does seem quite coincidental given the Cloudflare bug, but Google has a pretty good record of being transparent with these things.

On top of this, Google does not use Cloudflare and as far as I know there have been no reports of accounts actually being comprised, only logged out. I would wager whatever maintenance routine they were carrying out accidentally invalided some user sessions.

</comment><comment><USER5> I suspect the lockouts happened when people tried to re-log back in and did not know their passwords. According to [https://support.google.com/accounts#topic=3382296](https://support.google.com/accounts#topic=3382296) a banner on the Accounts help page says:

"During routine maintenance, a number of users were signed-out from their Google accounts. If you were affected, please sign back in using your usual username and password at [https://accounts.google.com](https://accounts.google.com). If you can't remember your password or can't sign in for another reason, recover your account password here. For security reasons, our support agents are unable to assist with password issues."

<comment><USER6> They didn't. My mom got it on her phone (for the Android session) and she doesn't know how to log out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Google Cloud status page had a message about some 'long-lived' OAuth tokens being invalidated on the same day that the mass logouts occurred. They took it down quite quickly, and it doesn't appear in the incident history.

FWIW, I only use Gmail via browser (with the regular web-based sign-in, not through Chrome/Chromium), and all of my sessions stayed intact.

<comment><USER8> This makes sense. Over here only Thunderbird got deauthed, everything else (devices and apps) kept working fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We manage many Google integrations and they had a large number of failed auth tokens during the same window. I'm guessing it was related - but no details have been shared yet.

</comment><comment><USER10> This happened on my phone as well. Got a notification from Play Services that something had changed in my account and I needed to log in again. My browser session, however, remained intact.

</comment><comment><USER11> This happened to me moments after visiting the paste bin containing one of the Phineas Fisher after action write ups on my phone, so needless to say I was initially pretty terrified.

I haven't seen any indications of new sign ins on my account, nor has my friend who this also happened to.

</comment><comment><USER12> Google is denying and it could just be coincidental but I was logged out of the only account that had a domain linked with cloudfare. And as I manage that domain for my dad who asked me for a password reset as he was also logged out and couldn't recall his password.

</comment><comment><USER13> So... any update on this? I just had to sing in across all my devices. Started Thursday, I had one of my work emails log me out and I thought it was odd... today was my main Gmail account. All of my accounts have now been signed out at some point in the last 4 days.

</comment><comment><USER14> Happened to me as well on android phone I had to enter password and code from sms into form I have never seen before on my phone. Then on desktop I had to login into my gmail again.

<comment><USER10> > Then on desktop I had to login into my gmail again.

What browser do you use on your desktop? I was logged out on my android device as well, but on desktop, on Firefox browser, I wasn't. My friend, on the other hand, who uses Chrome was logged out both on his desktop and his android phone.

<comment><USER14> Chrome

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Was this not simply part of the Cloudbleed remedy?

<comment><USER16> No, Google confirmed they weren't related [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project- zero/issues/detail?id=11...](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project- zero/issues/detail?id=1139#c23)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was asked to sign in on my phone and was very suspicious!

</comment><comment><USER18> My password didn't work and I had to reset it so I'm not sure if Google is saying the whole truth here. The same timing as Clouflare leak - couldn't be a coincidence.

</comment><comment><USER19> No, Google does not use CloudFlare.</comment>


Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex into Journals - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html <comment><AUTHOR> This reminds me of the legendary Spy Magazine "Bunny Burgers" prank on Madison Avenue PR firms:

[http://www.maximumfun.org/2009/06/05/spy-magazine-bunny- burg...](http://www.maximumfun.org/2009/06/05/spy-magazine-bunny-burgers)</comment>


Show HN: StrudelPy – Easy email library for Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/harel/strudelpy

<comment><USER2> Very nice - looks supereasy.

Will give it a go over the weekend</comment>


Building a multiplayer HTML5 game using Node, Socket.io - nodejs-news http://www.nodejs-news.com/nodejs-tech/Building-Multiplayer-Game-HTML5-Node-Socketio <comment><AUTHOR> Should really be titled 'Building an HTML5 game using Impact'.

I didn't see any multiplayer, Node, or Socket.io specific discussion in the videos.

<comment> nodejs-news according to the author, these 2 videos are the beginning of the series ! I hope, because, I made this post, that next videos will give us more node.js !? Anyway to have multiplayer realtime game node.js and socket.io are the ATeam ? I will update my blog post on nodejs-news.com as soon as the author will add new one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> In the spirit of this post, I'm a little wary of posting this yet (it's incomplete and not very robust), but I made a little toy 3D chat program recently using webgl,socket.io,express,node. Code can be found here: <https://github.com/nkassis/EntangledGL>

Hope it's of interest to someone.

P.S. ignore the color ;p I picked something at random.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is the username green for nodejs-news?

<comment> nodejs-news I create the account for nodejs-news few weeks ago :) I'm green :p</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why doesn't netflix use failover for amazon web services? - <AUTHOR>

When reading the details about the Netflix outage, it looks like the N Virgina data centers were having problems.  And upon reading further it looks like they only have one data center in the US.<p>What I don't understand is why doesn't Netflix failover to another datacenter (US-West for example) to continue at least partial service?  Isn't that why the HA services exist?  Thoughts? <comment><USER3> Netflix does use failover. Failover is to multiple availability zones - <USER2> is the mechanism that AWS provides. This particular outage was due to a major failure with Amazon's ELB service.

</comment><comment><USER4> AWS doesn't provide HA like that, but yeah, they could. I suspect they do some of this for cost reasons, and its unfeasable for other locations.</comment>


My conversation with the great John McCarthy - <AUTHOR> http://nathanmarz.com/blog/john-mccarthy/ <comment><USER2> That's pretty cool of McCarthy to invite the kid over to his house in response to a cold email.</comment>


How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?hp <comment><USER2> The implied but never fully-articulated point of this article is that high-tax domiciles resent it when rational actors having a choice in the matter will routinely structure their business affairs to incur tax to the maximum extent possible in low-tax as opposed to high-tax domiciles.

The issue becomes almost formulaic. Given (1) rational actors, (2) freedom to choose and to structure business affairs using a multiplicity of entities for different purposes, (3) resources with which to hire and pay for the talent needed to sort out the tax issues and their complexities, (4) a business goal of maximizing after-tax profits, (5) a multiplicity of domiciles from which to choose, and (6) a ready means by which to direct resources from one domicile to another (as with digital assets), it inevitably follows that every sophisticated company meeting these criteria will avail itself of the tax avoidance/minimization strategies. As the article notes, it is perfectly legal and every big company does it (see, e.g., this similar write-up from a couple of years ago on Google's comparable tax strategies: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1815195>).

Nothing, of course, stops a given company from voluntarily subjecting itself to higher tax rates by declining to follow this formula but why would it? Big companies will routinely want to avoid high taxes if they can. So too do small businesses. People may have social views that higher taxes are desirable but, as individual economic actors, they will seek to avoid them. This may be right or wrong but it is reality.

This means that high-tax domiciles will have no choice but to continue to remain frustrated that they cannot have unchecked means of taxing their citizens. As long as people have freedom, governments have to strike a balance that people can live with. And that is not a bad thing.

<comment><USER3> Your first sentence of your last paragraph shows one of the problems with globalization. We have seen in the U.S. municipalities competing with each other to see who can give the most subsidies to large corporations. The effects have not been so desirable. Now we are seeing this played out on a grand, global scale. It's potentially a race to the bottom.

I think globalization without a proper international regulating agency is a bad thing. It's great for the people who have the ability to move from one country to the next. Who can find the optimal place for them to live in. Most people don't have this luxury.

<comment><USER4> > Most people don't have this luxury.

Why not? Seriously. What's stopping anyone from doing this exact thing? Inertia...that's really all - when you get right down to it..

<comment><USER5> Well, you may call it inertia. But really, once you add up all these challenges, it tends to be quite substantial.

For example, say, you are a skilled plumber who owns a similar business repairing/installing plumbing in Shanghai, China. Theoretically, all these skills would actually make him/her eminently employable or set up a similar business, say in Sweden.

Unfortunately, that is really not the case.

Be as much as most of us would wish, capital has really achieved utter victory over labour. Till we have some major innovation which will neutralize the advantages of having mass amounts of capital, we are transitioning towards a new feudalism.

As I was mentioning to a colleague, the only reasons why we have a job is that software development/programming/computer systems is still sufficiently complex enough for up to 80% of the world population.

Or else we would actually be quite screwed as well. ;)

<comment><USER4> OK...skilled plumber...he might not be able to move...I studied economics in college and there are examples of industries that the professors would always cite...like hair stylists...plumbers...etc. Sure.

BUT...that plumber could create a company hiring local plumbers in 20 different countries, and sell plumbing services locally in each of those countries, and incorporate the overall business in a friendly tax country.

So your example isn't really valid. I argue that ANYONE can take advantage of globalization with a little thought. If you choose not to, and Apple chooses TO do...well its really your own fault and choice...isn't it?

That's just one simple example...that plumber could create a digital course that teaches others to become plumbers...or teaches plumbers to market their services better...he could package that digital product, incorporate a company in singapore or WHEREVER he finds the best corporate tax rate, and take advantage of the same things Apple does...

I could go on and on...it's all choice. You chose to be proactive or you choose to snipe at others who do...A thing is not unfair if everyone has the ability to take advantage of it...and some simply choose not to because it's hard.

<comment><USER5> Ah. Be careful where you are stepping.

Yes, its one choice. But personally, I find that to be rather too smug / elitist and smacks of "Oh, its HIS/HER choice - there's nothing DEFICIENT or FLAWED with the current setup" rather than recognizing that the market/world is inherently complex and difficult to navigate.

Arguing that it's one choice is just sophistry. Kinda like those just world people I meet who argue that the poor deserve their station because its their choice.

<comment><USER4> Sure there's tons of stuff flawed with the current system...but that's the system, not Apple. Change the system if you don't like it, don't penalize companies like Apple who play by the rules of that system. You can't have it both ways...

I don't think my argument is sophistry...choice is very important. It's the cornerstone of my beliefs and it's a valid philosophy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a really important lesson from all of this, and it is not that Apple is wrong for rationally exploiting global tax laws to avoid paying US taxes.

The fact that California has no tax jurisdiction in Nevada, and that the US has no tax jurisdiction in Ireland, is an unassailable fact of life. Tax laws are subject to regulatory competition like many other things, and ignoring that -- insisting that this is an issue of morality or fairness -- is silly.

If the US had a globally competitive corporate tax rate (say 15%), it would make most of these tactics irrelevant. There's no need to shelter income in Ireland if they have the same tax rates. Because of the reduced sheltering, such a reform would probably raise revenue on net. But even if it didn't, it would have many ancillary benefits, such as repatriating many billions of dollars in corporate profits and increasing the degree to which they are deployed in the US, which would far exceed the costs.

Even better would be to reduce corporate income tax to 0% and increase dividend and capital gains rates to personal-income-tax levels to make up for it. The main reason dividend income is treated preferentially in the US is that corporate profits are already being taxed (in theory). Those multi-level nature of the US tax code creates unnecessary loopholes, as well as costs and confusion. Counter-intuitively, eliminating the corporate income tax would make it much easier to tax corporate income, because those profits _necessarily_ flow back to investors either in the form of dividends or capital gains. If you are a resident of the US (and california) and you own 1 apple share, you pay taxes on your share of Apple's income. Even better, it would be progressive. Rich people pay more, poorer people pay less.

Simple, right?

<comment><USER7> Of course it is an issue of morality. I could choose to avoid paying taxes in the society that I'm a part of. It would be in my economic interest to do so.

But it is morally wrong because it is that same society that enables me to make my money in the first place.

Simple, right?

<comment><USER8> That doesn't make any sense at all. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. Tax evasion is not. Playing within the rules created by society is not morally wrong. Every deduction you take on your personal income taxes falls under tax avoidance which you can't possibly be describing as morally wrong.

"The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." - US Supreme Court

<comment><USER9> > Playing within the rules created by society is not morally wrong.

There are people who honestly believe that? It's not that simple, it really isn't.

I, for example, think there are many immoral but legal things and I want it to stay that way. The law is not supposed to perfectly mirror our morality, that would be a clusterfuck, tyranny, and otherwise a really bad idea. (For example: I think not tipping in the restaurant is immoral. I, however, never ever want that to become a law. Just one example.)

In short: Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's not right, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

<comment><USER10> Taxes are purely a construct of law though. The only reason it's immoral not to pay taxes is because it's immoral to break the law, at least if the law is just. But we're not talking about people breaking the law, we're talking about people obeying the law.

Think of it this way: if you can get an effective tax rate of x% by doing this and y% by doing that, and x < y, what's the moral difference between doing what you need to do to pay x% and the government changing the tax rate so you pay x% either way? It's not a question of what's the most moral percentage to pay in tax, it's a question of whether or not you're defying the law, which you aren't in either case. If the government lowered the tax rate to x% and you decided to cut out the middleman and just pay it, no one would howl at you to voluntarily pay more. So why do people howl at you for obeying _other_ laws that allow you to effectively lower your effective tax rate to the same amount?

<comment><USER11> The reason it is immoral to pay taxes is that you are still benefiting from the existence of the government but putting the burden of supporting it on others.

You personally may agree or disagree with this, but that's what someone probably means when they say it is immoral to avoid paying taxes, even if it is perfectly legal. Taxes are part of the general social contract of our society, and aggressively finding ways to avoid paying them tends to a tragedy of the commons type situation.

<comment><USER12> You're thinking at country level. If you expand the thought to global level, the supposed immorality disappears - in this case, the taxes are just paid in another country, at a lower rate, but it still helps a part of society...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No matter the tax rate or how diligently one tries to fix loopholes, in a global world big corporations are going to dodge taxes (not always a bad thing). It's just that this is much harder for small companies who don't have armies of lawyers at their disposal, so it essentially creates an unfair advantage for bigger corporations (leverage) over startups and skews the economy towards the BigCo. This is why big corporations are often fine with regulations, higher taxes and raised minimum wages, because they know it will cement their market share. Just putting it out there, I find that it's often overlooked when discussing regulations, tax rates and so on.

<comment><USER14> I'm reminded of an old poker saying: "The more wild cards and crazy rules, the better the expert's advantage."

<comment><USER15> This is very true

What the "regulation fans" don't realize is that the bigger the company the more lawyers/accountants it can hire and work the cracks in the system.

This is also valid in the case of Starbucks. Regulation is increased for a reason, and the only company that has the resources to comply with it is Starbucks.

Regulation has to be simple, and in the case of transnational corporations, were country borders are mere a detail, increasing regulation will mean essentially nothing to the company and a loss of revenue to the country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This kind of thing (on a smaller scale, admittedly) is what I do in my day job.

In the same way we hear "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" we can say "Money interprets taxation as damage and routes around it."

Someone imposing censorship upon the internet might have all of the morality and justification in the world behind his/her argument. Irrelevant. So too with taxation. You can talk about moral imperatives all you want -- one should support the country you're in by paying taxes. Irrelevant.

You make tangible objects float in mid-air by altering the law of gravity, or by using magnificent quantities of effort (e.g., fly tons of metal through the sky by burning vast quantities of fuel).

You (as a government) make money change course and come to rest elsewhere by altering the law of taxation or by using magnificent quantities of rhetoric (look for "should" and "ought" and "them" in sentences). Or you use magnificent quantities of enforcement (tax audits, put people in jail, etc. I live in this universe, too.)

Ultimately, the point by @yummyfajitas is correct. Countries have sovereignty and can do as they damn well please.

The U.S. has the bullying power of the U.S. dollar and a lot of guns to convince other countries to behave in ways that the U.S. wants them to behave. This will work until it doesn't work anymore.

The way this will cease working for the U.S. government is that the bullying will become unacceptable for other governments. They will rightly see this as ceding national sovereignty to the U.S. government. This will not happen until the U.S. dollar weakens and a plausible reserve currency appears. China's slow moves to relaxing currency controls tells you where the next likely reserve currency will be.

The other way this will cease working is visible in the cited article. Large economic organizations -- like Apple -- are starting to develop their own anti-gravitation fields and can float above tax laws of any particular country.

It's fun to watch. Put your moral imperatives in your pocket for a while and just observe. What is Congress doing, and why? Why, for instance, is a lot of the anti-international tax legislation in Congress coming from Senator Levin (D-Mich)? What are companies doing? After you see something happen, don't ask "Why?" Better to ask, "And then what will happen?"

You might surprise yourself. The unintended consequences are sitting there, in plain sight.

</comment><comment><USER17> My personal feeling on this is that the moment the tax system becomes so complicated that you've got to employ lots of people to figure it out then you've turned taxes into a business expense which is as susceptible to optimisation as any other part of your business.

</comment><comment><USER18> Regarding how Ireland is mentioned in the article- Apple has had a significant presence in Ireland since the year 1980, has a workforce nearing 3000 and is expanding, announcing 500 jobs just this month [1]. Hardly "little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office " as could be misinterpreted rather easily from this article.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/us-apple- ireland-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/us-apple-ireland- idUSBRE83J0PI20120420)

<comment><USER19> To put it in perspective, the 80s in Ireland were very bad economically, very few jobs, lots of emigration. Apple also have their office in Cork (not Dublin) which would have fewer native industries and employment, so they probably qualify chore all kinds of 'kindness' grants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> They do this by following the tax laws; laws which we as a society have created in order to induce businesses to behave in certain ways.

<comment><USER21> So innovating the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich is "following" the law? It's more akin to hacking or circumventing them while still staying legal. Just because something is legal does not mean that it was the spirit of the law or the intention of society. That's why you see laws being changed to frequently to adapt to new scenarios and "innovations".

Not to mention that society hasn't much of a say these days, Congressmen need campaign money from corporate firms. As they re-invest some of that saved money into politicians to further gain more money, what chance does an individual voter have? Voting people out doesn't matter much when the alternatives are almost the same and need money for their re-election too.

<comment><USER20> And yet, we are the ones who have voted for these people who have created this system. It's not like the voters are without agency; I can still vote for the nominee with $100 in her bank account even if her opponent has $1 trillion in his.

<comment><USER22> How exactly would a nominee with $100 in her bank account even let you know she exists?

<comment><USER23> The internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well I'll just say it as I do not think anyone else has: I find this disgusting and it seems like capitalism gone too far. California is struggling and would benefit from the contributions of the worlds largest contributions that reside within its borders.

<comment><USER25> California is "struggling" because of atrociously bad management. It's not like the state lacks in physical or human capital. I mean, Jeebus, the Golden State is home to the capitals of two of the world's greatest industries (entertainment and technology). It takes world-class incompetence to squander such riches.

Don't blame the state government, though. The problems are structural, not personal. If we replaced the current slate of corrupt, incompetent politicians, new ones would take their place. The internal incentives of the system would see to that. In modern politics, corruption is a winning strategy.

On the other hand, if the state government of California were run more like, say, _Apple_ , they wouldn't be in such a bind. But that would mean running California more like a for-profit business. This suggests a possibility: the problem may not be that capitalism has gone too far—it could be that it simply hasn't gone far enough.

<comment><USER26> What if pushing capitalism far enough results in California being run like an Enron, a Blockbuster, a Lehman, or any number of tech bubble 1.0 darling businesses instead of like Apple? Apple is pretty lean and is winning the market cap game right now, but the largest companies haven't always been as good.

<comment><USER25> Such disasters could happen, and minimizing their frequency is an important engineering problem. But you have a long road to hoe if you want to argue that the average quality of private management isn't _much_ better than the average quality of public governance.

<comment><USER26> It's not the disasters we should really be concerned about, it's the normal bigcorp experience. People are promoted based on office politics and taking credit for others' work. Big useless projects to raise a manager's profile happen all the time. Consultants are hired to produce reports that say exactly what the company, or part of the company, wants them to say to cover people's asses. Market leads and shareholder value are squandered by corporations unable to adjust to changing business or consumer climates.

Plenty of people on this site quit their bigcorp jobs because they couldn't stand the wastefulness and the politics. Every time HR is brought up, HN seethes hate at their uselessness. Middle management, that most corporate of jobs, is almost universally derided.

 _Much_ better? I'd doubt it, but neither of us has data and personally I'm not sure how that would even be quantified.

<comment><USER27> It's not the disasters we should really be concerned about, it's the normal government experience. People are promoted based on office politics and taking credit for others' work. Big useless projects to raise a manager's profile happen all the time. Consultants are hired to produce reports that say exactly what the department, or politician, wants them to say to cover people's asses. Taxpayer funds and freedoms are squandered by politicians unable to adjust to changing business or consumer climates.

Plenty of people on this site quit their government jobs because they couldn't stand the wastefulness and the politics. Every time HR is brought up, HN seethes hate at their uselessness. Middle management, that most corporate of jobs, is almost universally derided. Much better? I'd doubt it, but neither of us has data and personally I'm not sure how that would even be quantified.

See how that works?

<comment><USER26> Yeah. Sounds fairly similar. You forgot to update the sentence about middle management, further strengthening my point about indistinguishability. Thanks for underlining that private sector isn't "much" better. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There really should be some sort of movement to shame apple (and hopefully other California companies) for doing this. They've benefitted immensely from the infrastructure we've provided and are doing nothing to invest back into it now that they're on top. At the very least they should help with the rising tuition costs at public schools (UCs, Cal States, etc.)

<comment><USER29> Shaming them for what? They're simply taking advantage of the confusing and loophole filled tax laws you provided them.

Nobody pays more taxes than they absolutely have to. If you don't want people to abuse loopholes, fix the loopholes.

<comment><USER9> Using loopholes when you know they are loopholes seems pretty immoral to me. You don't have to agree with me on that, but that would for example be a prime reason for shaming them. Morals are not equal to the law. Immoral things stay immoral even if they are legal. And there is nothing wrong with calling out immoral behavior.

<comment><USER29> Some people would say collecting tax is already immoral.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Apple, as a corporation, should pay ZERO taxes. The resources invested in Apple were taxed before invested, and will be taxed again when investors realize their capital or income gains. Corporate taxes are double taxation.

It is Apple's moral duty to legally pay the minimal amount of taxes possible. Every dollar Washington or Sacramento takes from Apple and gives away as some political handout is one less dollar available for perhaps the most innovative tech company in the world. Taxes on Apple, and other tech leaders, literally undermine American competitiveness...

<comment><USER26> Yeah, especially those political handouts that pay for maintenance on the I-280.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The magic phrase to me in the article is "Apple serves as a window on how technology giants have taken advantage of tax codes written for an industrial age and ill suited to today's digital economy." So true.

Our laws, and not just tax laws, were not created for a digital environment. Throw in multinational corporations spanning the globe and many laws fall apart. I honestly have no idea how that can be fixed nor have I read a realistic proposal to do so. Everyone says "close the loopholes" but I've never seen a list of proposed loophole changes that was viable.

</comment><comment><USER31> Taxing money when it is earned instead of when it is spent will result in the money being shuffled around the globe in complex ways. I always get blasted for saying this, but the only way to get taxes from these profits is by shifting to a sales tax model instead of an income tax model.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's somewhat interesting (or just entertaining) that things large corporations have been doing for ages are gaining new attention because we can throw Apple's name into the mix.

<comment><USER21> It does change the scale of things materially because of Apple's high profits compared to other large organizations that you talk about.

<comment><USER29> Not really. Companies of every size have been taking advantage of stuff like this for decades. Stuff like Delaware's corporation laws [1] are pretty well known. It's common sense, really. Why would anybody pay more taxes than they had to?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_General_Corporation_L...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_General_Corporation_Law).

<comment><USER33> Unless I'm grossly mistaken, there's no tax benefit to incorporating in Delaware. Their franchise tax is actually pretty high. The reason to incorporate there has to do with reducing legal costs, AFAIK, which is a separate matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So when the state takes 50% of the salary, it's bad but it's life. It's what the state needs to survive and enhance.

When companies pay 0% tax rate, quick, defend them. If they did pay the tax, the CA state certainly wouldn't have any money problem. But no, that's not important, right? Shares etc are!

I'm surprised everyone finds it ok. I'd almost dare to say it's an issue that is especially present in the US (that people think it's fine and to "blame the game not the player" kind of crap)

<comment><USER35> or how about the fact that many people think that monopolies are bad, yet are fine with the government completely taking over things like health care, which would create a monopoly. The same rules will also apply (IE: no competition=no innovation).

<comment><USER34> I actually think that some government monopolies are not bad. The problem is that they can't be implemented properly if there's corruption (and there is, always).

For example in France the state owned the electrical company and the telecom company for a long while.

Result?

\- Single electrical network

\- Single, full fiber, telecom network.

\- Health care, even if not perfect, is way better than in the US.

Those work very well and are among the best in the world.

When mobile phones came to the game, they did not interfere in any way. Result?

\- Each operator has a set of frequencies, successful operators have no bandwidth left (I'm sure you know of that issue in NYC, SF, and all big US cities if you're on AT&T. Same issue.)

\- Deployment and coverage takes forever (again in the US it's the same, so many areas don't even have 3G or any cellular network _at all_ ) since not all zones are as profitable

\- Same issue every time a new tech comes up (good luck til all the country is covered by LTE)

This concludes into: the state has to organize and regulate things for the good of the people (which actually also leads to faster innovation, see the fiber example again. France's full fiber network is in place since many decades!)

The problem is that no country really does even a little bit of that anymore. Every party is backed by corporations and sustain only their interests. The scheme is well oiled with several steps, and we aren't very different from the people in Europe from the 1700's (regardless of the country)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> For the truly curious, the source documents for this story are available here: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/29/technology/app...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/29/technology/apple- tax-documents.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> Yep, given a set of rules and the means, people and companies will use them to reduce their bills.

The biggest problem with our tax laws is that they have moved from a way to raise income to being used to control behavior which results in "rule lawyering" to get the best deal. Simple rules mean actual income, complex rules means a lot of employment for accounts and lawyers to get a lower bill.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'd like to see Apple or any company to do as they threaten and move their headquarters. Try asking all of your top talent to move from their nice property values and school districts to some tax haven.

<comment><USER39> Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago in 2001 [0]. A major company moving headquarters is not unheard of.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/22/us/boeing-jolting- seattle-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/22/us/boeing-jolting-seattle-will- move-headquarters.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

<comment><USER40> Boeing moved less than 1 percent of their employees to Chicago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Similarly IKEA pays zero tax by channeling all it's profits through a very complicated setup to an Irish non-profit. GE not only pays zero tax, but also manages to extract tax _refunds_ from the US government.

The big question if an evasive tax setup makes sense at lower profit levels, or if the costs of setting up and maintaining it are prohibitive. Does anyone know?

<comment><USER40> If governments wanted to solve this problem, they could do so trivially by setting wealth taxes on the human owners of those corporations

<comment><USER42> Rich people can afford good accountants and lawyers. Tax avoidance[1] skirts the edge of tax evasion[2], but that's what the good accountants are for.

Putting different taxes on the owners of some corporation just means that no- one owns the corporation and that everyone is an employee.

[1] Avoidance is legally using loopholes to reduce a tax bill.

[2] Evasion is illegally using loopholes, or just plain not paying tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This seems like an appropriate place to mention that the FairTax proposal makes tax evasion very difficult. If you haven't read about it, you really should -- I think it's pretty well thought out.

<comment><USER40> Sure, if we stop trying to tax, we will stop failing. But that doesn't actually help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I think it is pretty simple. Apple and any other company is required AND expected by its shareholders to minimize taxes paid and keep all expenses under control. Saying "well gee we should pay more tax, it's really the right thing to do, lets change around a bunch of stuff so we pay a higher rate of tax" would never fly.

</comment><comment><USER26> California should call Apple's (and others') bluff. Let companies decide if saving 8% in tax is worth leaving the Silicon Valley ecosystem and infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER45> This indirectly brings up the point that it's hard to make the case for directly taxing corporations at all, aside from the fact that it's convenient. Ultimately, all corporations are owned by tax-paying people (or nonprofits). So why not tax their distributions as income? If I forgo working, and instead develop some skill that I could use to raise my income, nobody taxes me on the increase in notional wealth I have from being more skilled; I get taxed when I get paid in a form that I could use for consumption.

Meanwhile, corporations:

a) Get taxed on their profits

b) May pay lower notional levels, but only by paying people to game the rules

c) Get taxed on their dividends (essentially a 15% surtax on the 35% tax on their profits)

d) Also get taxed through capital gains--which is a change in the (un- inflation-adjusted) net present value of future dividends (which, remember, are taxed when they're earned, then taxed when they're paid).

If you give our tax code enough credit, the 35% tax rate is a lower bound. If the government is willing to let you pay $X less in taxes for doing Y, they're saying that the benefit of Y exceeds the forgone tax income of $X. So if I get a $5K tax credit for installing solar panels, the amount of tax-equivalent benefit the government has derived from my behavior is _at least_ $5K.

You could argue that the tax code is imperfect, and that action Y is not always worth $X. But then you're suggesting that we transfer money _from_ a competent rule-follower _to_ an incompetent rule-writer. If governing skill is constant across tax collection and other government behaviors, then exploiting tax loopholes is just in proportion to how exploitable they are--a government so screwed up that it can't manage to legally tax you for anything is a government that definitely shouldn't have its hands on your money.

Obviously, the government has other core competencies besides taxation. But corporate taxes are worth reconsidering. I'd much rather have dividends taxed as regular income--turning corporations into a pure savings vehicle. Taxing corporation-generated wealth four times--when it's generated, when it's calculated, when it's distributed, and when ownership is transferred--is at least three times too many.

<comment><USER46> Another person suggested this idea and the thread, and this was the problem I had with it:

> Ultimately, all corporations are owned by tax-paying people (or nonprofits). > So why not tax their distributions as income?

Many companies don't pay dividends and sit on their profits for a long period of time, so in practice, that money might never be taxed.

<comment><USER47> Owner of the share/company is going to want to use that profits before they die, so the transfer of money from company to individual will happen one day.

<comment><USER46> But certainly not all of it. As another commenter upthread put it, I might have a company that makes $5 billion/year and a $100 million/year lifestyle. I will never spend all of that money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "As of September 24, 2011 and September 25, 2010, $54.3 billion and $30.8 billion, respectively, of the Company's cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were held by foreign subsidiaries and are generally based in U.S. dollar-denominated holdings. Amounts held by foreign subsidiaries are generally subject to U.S. income taxation on repatriation to the U.S."

[http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1826229879x0xS11...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1826229879x0xS1193125-11-282113/320193/filing.pdf)

These tactics don't exempt corporations from US federal taxation, they just serve to delay when the taxes are payable. Apple owes US federal income taxes on the earnings of its foreign subsidiaries that is payable upon repatriation of the cash to the US. Accordingly, Apple and has booked an $8.9 billion liability for the taxes it owes on the unremitted earnings of foreign subsidiaries. Unless Congress moves forward with a "repatriation holiday," that liability will remain until Apple brings back the cash to the US to fund domestic investment or to return to shareholders and pays the US taxes it owes.

</comment><comment><USER49> These structures only defer taxes. They will eventually be paid somewhere. Surprised there was no mention of the recent large Apple dividend, which will require that cash to be repatriated to the USA.

What is unfair is that an international shareholder in Apple stock only gets their dividend after US taxes are paid and is then hit again with their local taxes.

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen A company will act in its own best interest--this is expected and in no way alarming.

That they try to legally avoid taxes is beneath obvious.

</comment><comment><USER50> Apple isn't the only one. Microsoft has an office in Reno for exactly this purpose ( they deal with all licensing).

</comment><comment><USER51> You know, it's not as if this money has escaped being taxed. At most, it's escaped one layer. It'll be taxed if they use it to pay someone. It'll be taxed when that someone uses it to pay for something else. If they move any of it somewhere else, it'll be taxed, if it becomes someone's capital gains it'll be taxed. If they use it to buy something, that purchase will be taxed, as will the thing they purchased at pretty much every layer. If it does pretty much anything other than sit there, it'll be taxed, and the next people to get it will have their use of the money taxed too. It isn't money that has magically been freed of taxation, it's just money that isn't being taxed this exact second.

</comment><comment><USER52> Every time I read about these tax schemes, I think, "I want to do that, too." Is there any company out there that will help the _little guys_ making all of their money online complete a double Irish Dutch sandwich?

<comment><USER53> Define little. It's only worthwhile when you reach a certain level of profit. There are quite a few lawyers and accountants that specialize in offshoring.

<comment><USER52> Little, as in, a few hundred thousand per year. I was thinking that if the money of several small companies were pooled together, something beneficial could be done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> If I were an aapl shareholder, I would hope they were exploiting every opportunity to avoid paying unnecessary taxes. Adjusting tax rates are used by many jurisdictions to lure (and control) businesses.

</comment><comment><USER55> One reason corporations are so diligent about avoiding taxes is scale. If you can save, say $1 million, byt paying lawyers & accountants $500,000, the decision is a no-brainer. I'm sure this is exactly how Apple's outside counsel sells it.

I think the best approach is just to eliminate corporate taxes. If instead you just tax the dividends, that same $1,000,000 in liability will be distributed among thousands of shareholders, who will not have nearly as strong an incentive to hire $400/hour lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER56> No easy answer to this. All the tech companies do it, and if you start legislating the loopholes closed, they'll go to another state and maybe even another country. And you can't expect the companies to change on their own. They'd be sued if they didn't exploit all legal means of increasing shareholder profits.

I think it will take smart legislation added in increments over the course of years and years. good luck with that, Congress.

</comment><comment><USER57> I don't feel any ill will for Apple. Companies are always going to try and do what is best for them and that makes sense. What is crazy is why the idea of a flat tax has never gained more traction. I understand that there are some potential issues with a flat tax, but at the very least it simplifies things and levels the playing field.

</comment><comment><USER58> I think a bot should auto repost Graham's Mind the Gap and How to Create Wealth in the comments of every economics post.

</comment><comment><USER59> So- if there is anything unfair about this, it is that small companies that can't choose to relocate from Cali bear the tax burden. But it is ridiculous to make it look like Apple is avoiding paying its bills. Instead why don't we see this as a perfect case in point for why we should privatize government? If we paid government directly for its services rather than requiring it to parasitically suck cash as it is set up to now, then Apple would have to pay its fair share of the services rendered in Cali and elsewhere. But, it won't be billions, because "billions" is not a fair price to pay for what it gets from the government- at least, unless there is something it is getting that I don't know about.

</comment><comment><USER60> The article mentioning Ireland touched home for me. That's where the bulk of RIM's developer payments come from. Until now I thought my dj app was just REALLY popular with the Irish.

</comment><comment><USER61> Would a corporate "buffet rule" solve this? Let companies do whatever shenanigans they want, but if they operate in the US and earn > $1 billion they can't owe less than 15%?

<comment><USER37> It would pretty much hand overseas corporations the US market given the fun of "licensing fees" paid to a parent company overseas. See Monster Cable for a great example. I also believe the Japanese and German car makers pull this one.

The "Buffet Rule" is a pretty good acknowledgement that our tax system is way too complicated, will end up like the problems the AMT is causing, and shows how broken the the discussion is on the news of "amount" and "rate".

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> So if Apple is operating as a foreign entity for selling this stuff, does that not mean they have to pay import taxes, or are they somehow exempt?

</comment><comment><USER63> The Kerry packer (Australian media baron) quote is always appropriate:

During the inquiry he repeatedly berated the politicians conducting it, and the government. When asked about his company's tax minimisation schemes, he replied: "Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!"

</comment><comment><USER64> single page link: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax- strate...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy- aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER65> California rips companies off and begs for this kind of behavior.

Ask anyone who has started a small business in California. For example, your business can make zero dollars (or even lose money), and you will still owe California $800. EVERY YEAR.

Fuck you, California.</comment>


Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages (1983) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.csc.kth.se/utbildning/kth/kurser/DH3050/hcihist11/DM.pdf <comment><USER2> Wow, Ben Shneiderman looks so young in that photo. He's still hard at work making computers easier for people to use, and he just published a major update to his classic book, "Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction", which just went to the printers and will be available on April 26. [1]

I enjoyed working with him at the University of Maryland Human Computer Interaction Lab, and the experience deeply influenced everything I've done since.

Ben is the human who suggested the field be called "Human Computer Interaction" instead of "Computer Human Interaction", to put humans first.

He defined the term Direct Manipulation [2] as:

1) continuous representation of the objects and actions,

2) rapid, incremental, and reversible actions, and

3) physical actions and gestures to replace typed commands.

He also came up with the blue underlined hypertext link, as well as embedded graphical links [3] for the "HyperTIES" system [4].

Here's a paper I published when I was at HCIL, about a visual PostScript programming environment that featured "direct stack manipulation": "The Shape of PSIBER Space - October 1989". [5]

Ben's an avid photographer, and has published this photo history of SIGCHI conferences. [6]

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Designing-User-Interface-Human- Compute...](http://www.amazon.com/Designing-User-Interface-Human-Computer- Interaction/dp/0321537351)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_manipulation_interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_manipulation_interface)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZi4gUjaGAM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZi4gUjaGAM)

[4] [http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/](http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/)

[5] [http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/97](http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/97)

[6] [http://www.sigchi.org/photohistory/lib_viewer.jsp?lib=chi](http://www.sigchi.org/photohistory/lib_viewer.jsp?lib=chi)

</comment><comment><USER3> Unix and the entire Unix OS/process model is an impediment to "direct manipulation" programming.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's funny to see the SPF editor as an example of a friendly, easy to use editor. I guess, if your measuring stick is ed then everything looks user- friendly.

Edit: I use (I)SPF at work. It's ... serviceable but I wouldn't call it friendly. Frex, undoing is complicated- sometimes you can undo the last command by entering UNDO in the command line, sometimes you have to enter RESET to get to the last saved version and some times you have to enter CANCEL to exit without saving and open your file again. Not to mention, if you press PF3 then it exits _and saves_ so it's very easy to lose your work.

Then again, for sheer existential dread nothing beats being trapped in ed's command line for the first time. On a mainframe. With no man pages. And with the lights off.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice paper and it is interesting to see something 33 years old. The paper reminded me of the excitement of graphic 'live' data displays on my old lisp machine and also on Smalltalk systems. A little off topic but: even if you don't care about the Smalltalk programming language it is worthwhile playing with Pharo Smalltalk and packages like Roassal2.

</comment><comment><USER6> The paper seems a little out of touch for its time. A lot about text editing, and screenshots of games that were long dated by 1983. Yet almost no mention of direct manipulation as an operating system and application environment! In the consumer market, the Apple Lisa came out that year (screenshot: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Lisa_Office_System_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Lisa_Office_System_3.1.png)). The first Mac was only a year away. These cribbed ideas seen at Xerox PARC in the late 1970's.

<comment><USER7> People found out about these concepts in the 60s and 70s via exploration and experience. Shneiderman looked back on what was done (the article has many real examples), and generalized on what was really going on. Such generalizations are then invaluable when we want to build new systems, so we just don't blindly cargo cult on what was done before.

<comment><USER2> Ben Shneiderman has made a career of performing controlled experiments, measuring the efficacy of different techniques, comparing them to each other in different contexts, and teaching his students the importance of empirical testing, balanced with human centered design. [1]

He and Ike Nassi developed a goto-less visual programming technique called the Nassi-Shneiderman diagram [2]. He not only studied and summarized the status quo of flowcharting, but also conducted experiments that suggested flowcharts were not helpful for writing, understanding, or modifying computer programs.

He's also done a lot of work with information visualization [3], including tree maps and dynamic query sliders, and developed systems and published papers that have inspired many other people.

He and Christopher Williamson developed and empirically evaluated dynamic query sliders in the ingenious Dynamic Home Finder [4], which applies direct manipulation and infovis techniques to dynamic real time visual real-estate database queries. That inspired me to implement a similar real time information visualization technique in SimCity [5].

By studying, measuring, comparing, and generalizing on what was really going on, he came up with these eight golden rules for interface design:

1) Strive for consistency. Consistent sequences of actions should be required in similar situations...

2) Enable frequent users to use shortcuts. As the frequency of use increases, so do the user's desires to reduce the number of interactions...

3) Offer informative feedback. For every operator action, there should be some system feedback...

4) Design dialog to yield closure. Sequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end...

5) Offer simple error handling. As much as possible, design the system so the user cannot make a serious error...

6) Permit easy reversal of actions. This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone...

7) Support internal locus of control. Experienced operators strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the system responds to their actions. Design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than the responders.

8) Reduce short-term memory load. The limitation of human information processing in short-term memory requires that displays be kept simple, multiple page displays be consolidated, window-motion frequency be reduced, and sufficient training time be allotted for codes, mnemonics, and sequences of actions.

\----

[1] An Empirical Comparison of Pie vs. Linear Menus: [http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/100](http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/100)

[2] Nassi-Shneiderman diagram: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassi%E2%80%93Shneiderman_diag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassi%E2%80%93Shneiderman_diagram)

[3] InfoVis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_visualization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_visualization)

[4] Dynamic Home Finder: [http://hcil2.cs.umd.edu/trs/92-01/92-01.html](http://hcil2.cs.umd.edu/trs/92-01/92-01.html)

[5] SimCity Frob-O-Matic Dynamic Zone Filter: [https://youtu.be/_fVl4dGwUrA?t=3m35s](https://youtu.be/_fVl4dGwUrA?t=3m35s)</comment></comment></comment>


How to Make a Complete Map of Every Thought you Think - <AUTHOR> http://www.speakeasy.org/~lion/nb/

<comment><USER2> The more you read the crazier it gets. I had to stop reading after a couple of chapters because of the caps and horrible writing.

Before spending more than 5 minutes on this, read "his vision" on this chapter: <http://www.speakeasy.org/~lion/nb/html/doc010.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> I use the open source version: <http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>

brilliant tool. I highly recommend it. I use it constantly.

<comment><USER4> Have you moved the the rc for 0.9, yet? If so, is it stable enough to rely on (in your opinion)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Or use PersonalBrain: <http://www.thebrain.com/></comment>


Show HN: Our iPhone App for sharing stories - pretty much anything creative. - <AUTHOR> http://opuss.com

<comment><AUTHOR> More info on <http://blog.opuss.com/>. This falls into a genre known as Freemium Fiction - which is huge in Asia. The publishing concept is simple: Just. Start. Writing. You get popular and amass a following. Lots of apps to share thoughts and statuses, but we think this is a niche area: Your favourite quotes, stories etc. Would love to know your thoughts.</comment>


Google Acquires Angstro, a Social Networking Start-Up - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/google-acquires-angstro-a-social-networking-start-up/?src=twr <comment><USER2> I wonder if Google believes that acquiring enough social networking startups will enable them to cobble something together that competes with Facebook. I suppose it's possible, but I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER3> It's not like a social network is a difficult thing to build. Google's got the audience, all they have to do is build something that's useful and addictive.

<comment><USER2> > It's not like a social network is a difficult thing to build.

All evidence from the past notwithstanding?

<comment><USER3> I think one of Google's main problems in respect to building apps, is they stick to their overly simple design principles, which don't lend themselves to complex services like social networks. If you log into Orkut as an early adopter, it's not that impressive at all. Similar experience with Wave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was an early user of Angstro, excellent product and team. I discovered tons of interesting & relevant content via Angstro, and Rohit and his team were quick to implement interesting features.

Great acquisition for Google.

</comment><comment><USER5> Beside search, what are the other Google products that are developed in-house?

<comment><USER6> <http://www.googlelabs.com/?status=graduated>

and to come:

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

<comment><USER7> Hmm, that's not entirely accurate. They list Google Docs under Labs, but the word processor part at least came from their acquisition of Writely, if I am not mistaken.

<comment><USER8> If you look at the iPhone, the two most important parts were acquired too. WebKit used to be KDE's KHTML and multitouch was acquired too. And all the cool apps were done by Google.

<comment><USER9> Wow... that's quite a statement.

All the cool apps were not done by Google, but _with_ Google. I can't imagine Apple delegating anything, less of all a main application like maps or youtube.

WebKit was not KHTML. Webcore was KHTML and Webkit, which offered a lot more, was built on top of Webcore. Eventually Apple decided to make Webkit open source (Webcore was already open source since KHTML was).

On the other hand you are very much correct on multitouch, and I would also mention Lala, and their ads company. Also iTunes was acquired. And of course the biggest acquisition of all (for Apple): NeXT. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't seeee why they're wasting their time with this. Why don't they get all those supposedly talented people to stop reinventing the wheel when it comes to social networks?</comment>


The Dark Side of Expertise - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/809556/ddfb98a8a1b2dd92/ <comment><USER2> Expertise has no dark side .

The firefighters just needed more expertise, as they now have.

The building engineers were part of a system where they could pass the buck on responsibility. (The even admit it was new technology, they had no expertise)

[Edit] I get the strange "Priming" link now, it's part of the hip "Thinking Fast and Slow." Daniel Kahneman distanced himself a bit from that chapter though, not that that stops it from being hip - [http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2012/10/05/kahneman-on- th...](http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2012/10/05/kahneman-on-the-storm-of- doubts-surrounding-social-priming-research/)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's funny: the priming tests has apparently been quite criticised as shown in the reply, yet the speaker still use this example, has he been primed on priming?

More likely once you remove the "priming" part, there isn't much left about the talk..

</comment><comment><USER4> The video of this talk:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv4tI6939q0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv4tI6939q0)</comment>


How much does an iPhone app like Twitterrific cost? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/209170/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-an-iphone-application

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting that the numbers varied so much. My thought being that this is an example of how "de-valued" apps are in some people's minds. Lead developer, Craig Hockenberry, finally got a chance to post his answer (see [1] for his reply and then [2] and [3] for the back story) and his numbers were far different than the original best guess. Another (non-Icon Factory developer) answered and his were more in line, but based on experience.

[1] <http://twitter.com/chockenberry/status/27263467482> [2] <http://twitter.com/chockenberry/status/27258821176> [3] <http://twitter.com/chockenberry/status/27256591312></comment>


For-profit colleges' increasingly desperate tactics - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/06/for-profit-colleges-increasingly-desperate-tactics/

<comment><USER2> _the ones who do get a degree often find it worthless in the real world_

While I have no love lost for the for-profit schools, I went to one I know how they operate. I think the above statement is not true. Some of the schools are regionally accredited (the one I went to was). Meaning credits will transfer and other schools will honor the degree when a student seeks a higher degree.

I cant speak for the curriculum taught at all of the schools but I can say that for UOP the curriculum was at a level somewhere between a 4 year community collage and an average state school. I knew the deal going in, an I knew the expense but I was already an executive at the time and needed a degree to move to the CTO spot in the company I was with. It was a no brainier for me. 50k for school was cheap for me so long as school did not interfere with my already overloaded schedule. What sealed the deal for me was the 1 class at a time approach. Instead of 16 week semesters where you take 3-4 classes UOP broke it into 1 focused class over a 5 week period. Given my schedule this allowed me to bank the credits and adjust my schedule. I only needed to plan 5 weeks at a time. And with as busy as I was that was the most I could do. If the next 5 weeks where going to be slammed. I could sign up for the next class when my schedule cooled off.

To say that they are of no value is characteristically unfair, to say that they don't offer a good value proposition to most people is more accurate.

I think the idea of degrees as a job requirement are nonsensical in the first place. If the job falls in a scientific discipline there are already certification (Doctor, Nurse, engineer) that prove (as much as you can) core competency. Legal the same thing (Real Estate, Lawyer, CPA). As well, for the arts it does not matter just because you are study in the arts does not make you good at them.

If people would stop the nonsensical notion that a degree creates a more qualified candidate, we would not have people saddling themselves with debt just to be competitive and the universities would go back to being institutions of repute, where great minds go to collaborate. The rest of us are just getting in their way to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.</comment>


Amazon Signs Climate Pledge to Advance Paris Climate Accords Goals by 10 Years - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2019/09/19/amazon-signs-climate-pledge-to-advance-paris-climate-accords-goals-by-10-years/ <comment><USER2> >I don't know about you people but I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do

\- Gavin Belson, Silicon Valley

</comment><comment><USER3> I do hope the reforestation efforts work out... I also wouldn't mind seeing similar efforts in farming to better re-integrate animal + crop farming again. A lot of actual nutrition has been reduced by mono-farms at scale, which can be more efficient, but that efficiency isn't necessarily better for health of an ecosystem, or the product's consumption.

\-- edit:

I mean matching a lot of experimental farms, fisheries, etc where rotation for grazing animals and/or a more healthy ecosystem are part of the goal and process.

</comment><comment><USER4> Where does AWS Oil & Gas fit into the picture?

[https://aws.amazon.com/oil-and-gas/](https://aws.amazon.com/oil-and-gas/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm impressed by the bit about 10K electric vans by 2022. 100K by 2040 seems less impressive given the likely steep slope of adoption.

I'm curious if they have any projections about how it will effect their competitiveness with their chief rival Walmart.

</comment><comment><USER6> > which it says will save an estimated 4 million metric tons of carbon per > year by 2030.

Can anyone speak to the significance of this estimation? What's the global carbon reduction goal?

<comment><USER7> I don't know what the reduction goal is, but a quick duckduckgoing found a number of 45 billion metric tons of CO2 added each year[1] as of 2017, which comes out to 12.2 billion metric tons of carbon (C is ~27% of CO2 by weight). So 4 million metric tons of carbon is about 0.03 percent of that total.

[1] [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/13/global-...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/13/global- carbon-dioxide-emissions-reach-record-high/859659001/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What are Amazon's other 2040 goals?

What I mean is, why do climate goals all get to be decades out (21 years in this case). That's like saying "I'm going to get in shape by 2040". Does AWS have 2040 goals, too?

I would like to see Amazon carbon neutral by 2022, 3 years out.</comment>


Introducing Sincerely's new "Thoughtfulness Engine" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/05/sincerelys-new-thoughtfulness-engine-will-help-you-remember-birthdays-special-occasions-wont-spam-you-with-alerts/

<comment><AUTHOR> yo HN! Just for you guys - use the promo code: 'hn' in the settings area of the Sesame app to get $10 off a gift set. <http://www.sincerely.com/sesame> Send your pops a father's day gift! (limit 10 codes)</comment>


Nvidia Hacked - <AUTHOR> http://www.nvidia.com/content/forums/index.html

<comment><USER2> There seems to have been an increase in big-name-related releases recently. Is there a particular reason behind it?

Are there more break-ins happening, or more being reported, or are more companies being more open about this kind of thing? Or is it even that the burglars are being more open?

I'm not involved in the field, but am finding it interesting that a lot more of these break-ins appear on my radar.

</comment><comment><USER3> To many high profile names falling in the last few weeks. Must remember to always use different passwords.

<comment><USER4> I have over 50 overly strong passwords in a little black book, encrypted by simple method so I can decipher at "runtime".

I've memorized most of the regulary used ones though.

<comment><USER5> From previous incarnations of this thread on HN (I think the linkedin one...), I have learned to use SuperGenPass.

There are a few similar utilities, basically it hashes your password browser- side with the site domain. This allows you to maintain unique passwords on all different sites by memorizing a single "master password".

<comment><USER6> "hashes your password browser-side with the site domain"

Does this mean using the domain as a salt?

<comment><USER7> yes. and that's a problem.

<comment><USER8> It's only a problem if the secret key is compromised. (But that's a problem for pretty much everything, isn't it?)

<comment><USER7> are you sure? that makes it possible to use rainbow tables (rainbow tables per domain obviously, but still pretty bad). or am i missing something?

<comment><USER8> You wouldn't use rainbow tables for a scheme like using hash(secret phrase + domain) to generate personal passwords, you'd use a dictionary attack where domains are the words, followed by a brute-force technique (which you'd use if you lacked the secret key). If I know you use such a scheme and I learn your secret phrase, your email provider and bank account websites would be the first on my list. It becomes no more secure than using the same password on every site plus the domain name at the end. The benefit is that you never have to trust all those different websites with your secret phrase.

The parenthetical in my above comment calls back to a comment by some early giant in cryptology (I think). It's best to have all the details about your specific method of hiding data known publicly, with the secret key being the only private piece of information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From their email to users: "As a precautionary measure, we strongly recommend that you change any identical passwords that you may be using elsewhere."

I suppose it's a good idea, as a "precautionary" measure. But is this their way of admitting to hashing without salt...?

<comment><USER9> No, unless they're lying. The submitted page says "hashed passwords with random salt value".

That doesn't mean they're doing it right, but it's a good start point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What software are they using for their forums? It seems like you're just begging for this to happen to you if you go with any of the open source options. They all eventually have exploits available for them (some have them all the time). As long as you know what you're doing you should always cook up your own solution for this sort of stuff even if what you come up with lacks features. One day you might be hacked by someone clever who figured out a weakness in your implementation, but at least it won't be a script kiddie with some automated method of attack.

<comment><USER11> This is a classic argument against open source, but security through obscurity never works. If you want to keep safe from script kiddies, always keep your software up to date.

<comment><USER12> Keeping your software up to date is great advise. However I do not entirely agree with the statement that security through obscurity never works. It can never work _alone_ \- true. But in combination with other measures it can be a great help.

And with respect to the point cshimmin makes, there is some merit to it. Yes nearly every piece of software, open or closed source is bound to have vulnerabilities. However, the chance of someone taking the time for finding and exploiting a moderately hard to find bug (not referring to a run-of-the- mill sql injection) in a piece of software I've written myself and I'am the only user of is vastly lower than in case of a popular piece of open source forum software (to some extend depending on who I - the only user - am of course).

<comment><USER7> unless, of course, you are vulnerable to a certain class of attacks (e.g. the ruby on rails attack this year). the chance that others have already fixed it is way better when more people use the same software.

i'm not subscribing to the "enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"-argument, but the opposite is also wrong. deeply wrong.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pwned in 7 seconds: Hackers use Flash and IE to target Forbes visitors - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/pwned-in-7-seconds-hackers-use-flash-and-ie-to-target-forbes-visitors/ <comment><USER2> At this point, why does anyone (that's knowledgeable enough to read this) have flash enabled?</comment>