Digital hoarders: Our terabytes are put to use for the betterment of mankind - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/?p=1667508 <comment><USER3> I hoard because shows, youtube videos (youtube-dl) and websites disappear. I use some GTD methods to organize my data (e.g. folders a,b, c...z) I use recoll to find data [https://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/](https://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/)

I would like to use an online backup service but I would like to have my data encrypted.

I tried [https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage- box](https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box)

But data throughput to an encrypted storage was abysmal. I tried several methods, even included running an encrypted filesystem in a 10TB file. I tried [https://www.cryfs.org/](https://www.cryfs.org/) but nothing worked good and reliable.

I looked into [https://www.infomaniak.com/en/kdrive/](https://www.infomaniak.com/en/kdrive/) but the encryption method seems like snake oil.

Any suggestions?

<comment><USER4> I use restic with backblaze. It works great and super cheap. Kinda slow, but you can always order one of their portable drives and ship it back to them for the initial upload.

<comment><USER3> 60 USD for unrestricted per year? Can I store 10 TB there?

<comment><USER5> You can. I haven't checked their products in a long time. Look out for:

[1] Old file versions and deleted file retention - default was 30 days I think. You pay extra to make it a 1 year, and more to make it forever forever.

[2] Keep connecting the external drives or lose that data. Because the last time I checked if you don't connect your drive (or maybe the computer/laptop too, not sure) regularly the files are marked as "deleted" and [1] will kick in even though you'll keep paying (unless you are paying extra).

[3] They didn't have restore option from the app - either use their website (I am not sure how the partial/interrupted restores were handled from a browser) or they will send a restore drive to your home (it was free iirc).

If it works for you you can give the service a shot. Their Mac app, at least, is really really good (way better than competition including the relic called Time Machine).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand the negativity the article associates with "hoarding" data.

It is the nature of the internet that any content or website you see can disappear at any moment without a prior warning or an explanation. From an author deleting their earlier work they were later dissatisfied with, to copyright claims, to people losing interest in their hobby project, to site owner forgetting to extend their domain, to website becoming impossible to find in search engines.

It always pays to be properly paranoid and have backups in case the worst happens. Storage is cheap, so what's exactly the downside?

My personal archive may not bring "the betterment of mankind", but it saves me from disappointment when looking up older content that has since disappeared, and also allows me to help other people find what they're looking for.

<comment><USER7> When you think about it is quite insane that you can find rock tablets from thousands of years back with text on them but we can lose all the data on the internet just like that.

<comment><USER8> Is that insane? It's not like every stone tablet or parchment or scroll survived, many were lost. Some were lost immediately, some after a few years, some after a few centuries. Not every word on the Internet survives for long but not every word written on stone tablets lasted very long either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I "hoard" because there is a lot of media I own that I can't find elsewhere. I had stopped buying physical media and ripping them to my disks in the last 2 years and moved full time to streaming - Spotify for discovery, Apple Music for maintaining the library (both are cheap here in India).

But recently I saw that a lot of music I owned was missing from both services. That made me decide to go back to my old ways. Also, having spent the effort in cataloging and ripping my collection has made me intimately familiar with my collection and has been an activity I can partake in to relax/wind-down.

<comment><USER10> >But recently I saw that a lot of music I owned was missing from both services.

It's not just that, it's also that apple "transparently" changes the version of the music that you "bought". I had a version of a musical album with a particular song in it. When my ipod died and I re-downloaded that album on my new computer, I found that they had helpfully "upgraded" it to the newer release (without the song I wanted on it). And there's no easy way for me to get it back unless I find a physical copy somewhere and buy it again.

<comment><USER11> Added to that concern is that streaming services often feature only recent versions of albums that are pitched as "remastered", and they might replace earlier audio with whatever the label now sells. The supposed remastering is not any improvement on earlier digital-era releases, it just reduces the dynamic range because labels know that people are listening to music on their phones in noisy places these days. So, if you have a nice stereo and listening environment and you want to get a version of the album with actual room to breathe dynamic-wise, your only choices are buying a used CD or torrenting it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I do not like the shaming tone of this article. Petabyte server today is a small box that fits anywhere. Meanwhile some people have hundreds of shoes or clothes, but nobody calls them "hoarders".

Anyway, I have offline storage, because my internet connectivity is slow. I do not like waiting, so all my content is downloaded overnight with a few cron scripts.

<comment><USER13> People with lots of clothing and shoes and other things absolutely might be criticised for their behaviour, and may be called hoarders. (I have direct personal experience of such people.)

There is definitely a mindset —at its most extreme, a pathology— associated with hoarding behaviour.

Digital hoarding _may_ mostly avoid the negative life consequences of hoarding —as you say, you can store a lot of data in a relatively small physical space— but this doesn't change the nature of the psychology behind the behaviour. (Although I'd wonder how many digital hoarders really have a small neat modern NAS as you imply, versus a room full of old racks?)

Interestingly, the rationalisation given in the headline ("betterment of mankind") isn't so very far away (although maybe more grandiose) than the rationalisations that physical hoarders offer to justify their behaviour, around the perceived intrinsic value of their belongings.

<comment><USER14> > this doesn't change the nature of the psychology behind the behaviour.

The "psychology" behind the behavior isn't the problem with hoarders, it's the actual hoarding. The reason we try to change hoarders' thinking is because of the physical consequences of their hoarding - we define this as illness because of its distressful results, if it had no consequences it wouldn't be illness.

edit: I think you're accidentally using circular logic to rationalize a bit of magical thinking (person who obsessively collects garbage is ill, therefore person who obsessively collects anything is ill.) It's not the obsession that's the problem, it's the garbage and the distress.

<comment><USER11> I know that some of the members of the organized data-hoarder community are spending huge amounts of money on disks month after month, and it really bothers their spouses. So, even if there is no physical mess being created in their homes, their obsession is still affecting their lives and other people around them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yes, hoarder here. Started with scanning old family photos, progressed from there. Was psyched to find youtube-dl after I had discovered many of the YouTube videos I had playlisted years ago, are now missing. Perhaps not very interesting things to most: research footage testing some aspect of the X-20 Dynasoar space plane, etc. Many things gone missing I don't even know what they were since YouTube doesn't indicate what the missing video was. So, yeah, hoard it is. "Japanology"? Got all I could find. "How It's Made?" Yep. Live footage of the band "The Embarrassment" sleeps on my drives as well....

<comment><USER16> 2nd youtube-dl

Feels insane to store youtube vids, but quite often they are simply gone for one reason or other after a few years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm definitely a digital hoarder but not on the level of the people in the subreddit. It started when I was in grad school and a web site I wanted to reference went down before I was able to archive it and it wasn't in archive.org and youtube wasn't a thing. So I started downloading copies of anything I thought relevant to my research. I know I have some rare stuff that is gone from the internet. One of these days I'll get around to posting them on archive.org. Until them I practice 3-2-1 backup to make sure I don't lose anything.

</comment><comment><USER18> My only regret about digitizing my music over the years is that I didn't care about the quality as much when I was younger. I'm older now - with better equipment - and would love if everything was FLAC rather than mixed .mp3

Years ago, I was a member on a private file trading site that only exchanged old and unusual art films. The kind of stuff that is entirely non-viable commercially and will never be found on a streaming device. It shut down - <USER2> I miss having that small corner of the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER19> Just picked up two more 36 bay sata 4Us for the garage on eBay - only $500 each!

Shoot me an email if you have bulk old/used sata drives for cheap. I'm buying.

<comment><USER20> Are multiple used smaller drives really more cost effective than fewer new larger drives once you take into account cost of power, HBA, backplane and lifetime of used drives?

I'm a data hoarder too (proof): [https://i.imgur.com/j9jk9OP.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/j9jk9OP.jpg)

But always been curious about cost so let's do some sums...

With a used 3TB setup. Assume 12x3TB = 36TB storage. A reasonable 2U server would be needed to support that which would include a backplane and HBA. Power consumtpion would be 12x 5W (HD) + 10W (HBA) + 65W (server). Total is 135W. Power cost in UK for one year at 24/7 is approx £176. Assuming used 3TB drives give us two years of reliable operation and cost £30 each to buy (going price on ebay a few months back) total cost to buy would be £360 of just the drives (not including the server). Add cost of electricity for two years operation and we get a total of £712. Average the cost per year (£712/2) and we come to £356 per annum for the 3TB drive setup.

Now with new 12TB drives. 3x12TB consumes 3x 5W of power + 30W for the server (no backplane or HBA needed). Total is 45W. Power cost in UK for one year at 24/7 is approx £60. Cost of drives would be 3x£300 = £900. Assume we get 5 years of life out of these new drives, plus electricity costs of £60 - over 5 years total would be £1200. Averaged the cost per year (£1200/5) and we come to £240 per annum for the 12TB drive setup.

(I have not counted the additional cost of the 2U server for the 3TB scenario since that would complicate the math since servers tend to last longer than drives.)

So I'm wondering what the appeal of large servers with lots of small drives is when back of the envelope math suggests it costs more in the long run. Unless of course it's because you like those blinkin' lights :) [https://i.imgur.com/4ypumBQ.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4ypumBQ.jpg)

<comment><USER21> The calculations might depend on whether the drives are powered on all the time.

<comment><USER22> That's my sense too. Unless someone has to have access to that data relatively quickly all the time I don't see why the system couldn't be left off.

Even if the data is accessed frequently, lets say once every day or few, it could still be left off most of the time if someone is OK with waiting a few minutes for everything to power up.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: nomadlist.txt - <AUTHOR> http://2.nomadlist.com/txt

<comment><USER2> The actual web site has an interface to do this if you prefer:

[https://nomadlist.com/](https://nomadlist.com/)

It also has links to much, _much_ more data so you can explore the options more completely

Just for goofs I created a spreadsheet from the data so you can download it and sort on whichever field(s) you like:

[http://www.solipsys.co.uk/HackerNews/NomadList.xls](http://www.solipsys.co.uk/HackerNews/NomadList.xls)

I'll probably delete that in a few days, so if you're interested, get it now!

</comment><comment><USER3> seems interesting, any thoughts on how this cities are ranked in the order?</comment>


Entrepreneurship in Michigan: Nerds & rich people - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mlive.com/oak_business_review/2008/02/guest_opinion_entrepreneurship.html

<comment><USER2> A year and half ago, I did some research on MI/IN/OH. There were only 5-6 Venture Funded companies in the three states.

The only way to make a firm grow in the midwest is to self fund based on your revenue. With out that it is just not going to happen.

The one internet startup out of Michigan that anyone here has even heard of (slashdot) had to tie itself to a coastal firm to enable its growth.

Secondly this guy and Grandholm can pontificate all they want on making MI at hub for "cool cities" (thanks a lot R. Florida....) but without a major change in the culture. Its not going to happen.

I really wish that the situation for Mi wasn't so hopeless But it is what it is. I honestly think that the best hope for the state is to let attrition take its toll. Everyone who can get out, move out. Let the state continue its slow decent into the darkness for the next 20-30 years. When the situation finally gets bleak enough, the people there will realize their stuborn redneck ways are costing them, and bring about the change from within. But we are just going to have to sit on the coasts wait it out.

A 10 year Michigan resident and property owner.</comment>


Will We Ever Be Able to Download Our Brains Like in Westworld? - <AUTHOR> https://techsquidtv.com/blog/will-we-ever-be-able-to-download-our-brains-like-in-westworld/ <comment> java-man no.</comment>


The Myth of an Open-Source Hero [rant] - <AUTHOR> http://nikolay.rocks/2017-06-06-mythical-contributors <comment><USER2> "Now, if a half of those projects decide to spend 1-2-3 human days to go through the pain of upgrading to the next major version, how much do you think this costs the industry collectively? [...] We're talking about a mind blowing $20-40M in industry wide damages. Let me repeat this for you. This mess costed us collectively tenths of millions of dollars to sort it out."

So if a mere botched release costs the users 20 to 40 millions, how comes there's no way to move money toward the freedom software developers so they may hire testers and quality assurance people (and perhaps pay themselves so they can develop during the day, instead of tired, after work) and thus avoid botching releases?

<comment><USER3> Not only. This phrase seems to suggest that, if the industry is dependent on my code (without directly paying me for it), I am in some ways responsible of the costs they incur if I decide to ruin, kill or modify it. Nobody would ever write OSS if that was the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Why do you think it attracts so many a-hole-ish educated white male types?"

Those damn _white males_ again!

</comment><comment><USER3> "Should all people be thankful to Jesus and roll over for the church?"

What does this phrase even mean? How is it even logically related with the previous paragraphs?</comment>


WebAmp: WinAmp 2 in Your Browser - <AUTHOR> https://webamp.org/ <comment><USER2> Previous discussion from 5 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16333550](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16333550) (208 comments)

<comment><USER3> The biggest change since then is the addition of MilkDrop emulation with butterchurn: [https://butterchurnviz.com/](https://butterchurnviz.com/) and [https://github.com/jberg/butterchurn](https://github.com/jberg/butterchurn)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah the nostalgia!

I'd love an Android app that is just the main WinAmp window in portrait mode on my phone, and has the same basic features (simple MP3 player basically, maybe try add support for podcasts and some streaming music). It'd be so perfect for my car. WinAmp for car audio, Google Maps for mapping. I know it's purely for the nostalgia kick and the stock audio players work fine, but... WinAmp!

<comment><USER5> Do many apps have support for custom skins? I've never heard of any of them doing that, but it seems like it would be an awesome feature to be able to customize the UI.

If someone made a music player app that could use existing Winamp skins that would be really cool. If nothing else you've get a lot of nostalgia installs. Also, do sites like Spotify and Pandora have APIs that allow other apps to integrate with their service? If you could integrate the Winamp playlist with different streaming services you would have a cool and useful music player. I don't even buy apps, but I would probably pay a couple bucks for something like that.

<comment><USER6> By skin do you mean purely colors or also positioning of items? I have a really hard time imagining now that would work for iOS/Android apps in terms of implementation. Colors are easy because you just pull then from a styles file but you'd need a really good abstraction for custom views

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This really whips the llama's ass.

<comment><USER8> Here's the reference: [https://youtu.be/HaF-nRS_CWM](https://youtu.be/HaF- nRS_CWM)

<comment><USER9> It's right there in the webamp, as the first item in the playlist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am very happy to report that the classic top bar easter egg[1] was reproduced in webamp.

[1]: [http://forums.shoutcast.com/showthread.php?t=72571](http://forums.shoutcast.com/showthread.php?t=72571)

<comment><USER11> I wasn't sure anyone would notice :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you'd like to download the compilation (good songs, depending on taste), you can get it here:

[https://freemusicarchive.org/music/netBloc_Artists/netBloc_V...](https://freemusicarchive.org/music/netBloc_Artists/netBloc_Vol_24_tiuqottigeloot/)

</comment><comment><USER13> When I minimized the "components" and put them side-by-side, I immediately had a flashback to high school LAN parties. Almost everyone had this sitting above their taskbar in always on-top mode.

</comment><comment><USER14> Please make this an Electron app. I would use this all the time.

Also it needs the equalizer presets. "Rock" was my favorite.

<comment><USER15> Wouldn't running actual Winamp 2 be much better? It works with wine so you can run it in Linux and I guess if you needed support for newer formats a plugin can be made for them.

<comment><USER16> Agreed on running the real thing rather than a web version, but under Linux qmmp looks close enough to bring some memories as well and doesn't need wine. [http://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/](http://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/)

<comment><USER17> Audacious too.The default skin is a windowed UI but it can be changed to WinAmp skin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Mac OSX v1.5 (Aqua) skin is its own share of nostalgia.

</comment><comment><USER18> Forget about WebAmp, let's talk about the killer play list that has been prepopulated!

<comment><USER11> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17584642](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17584642)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The last time I used WinAmp it had a memory leak of about 4K/sec on windows.

You could look at the task on windows and see it grow slowly over time.

I'm curious if this version still has this leak.

<comment> crooked-v It's a new implementation, not a port.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm wondering if even Atwood knew how right he'd be.

</comment><comment><USER21> dang!! what a blast from the past. I miss winamp.

<comment><USER22> Miss it? I still run it. You can have my WinAmp when you pry it from my cold, dead hard drive.

<comment><USER23> Same. Runs as fine on Windows 10 as it did on Windows 98 20 years ago.

Just because it didn't get a new release in years doesn't mean it's somehow got worse.

Some software just works.

<comment><USER11> Just FYI, there are a few known security vulnerabilities: [https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- list/vendor_id-7545...](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- list/vendor_id-7545/Winamp.html)

<comment><USER23> Thanks. They are all related to using Winamp to play rather obscure formats (Flash video and Univox streams - I had to look up the latter - and mp4 in a RAR when the user does something).

In short, none related to how people use Winamp: to play music files and streams.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ironically, "Add URL" is the only feature that doesn't work...

<comment><USER11> This is due to cross origin restrictions enforced by the browser. It's a bummer!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This inspired me to create this comic: [https://comic.browserling.com/13](https://comic.browserling.com/13)

</comment><comment><USER26> I tried to get this to build so hard 6 months or so ago whenever it first came on hacker news, but no luck at all!

<comment><USER11> Would you file an issue? I'd be curious to know what's not working. I'd love to try to help. Documentation has improved a bit since then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The milkdrop is running better in the browser than it used to natively run in my old desktop.

<comment><USER11> The MilkDrop port is a separate project which we've work together to integrate into Webamp. Check it out here: [https://github.com/jberg/butterchurn](https://github.com/jberg/butterchurn)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It has the xmms skin, love it.

</comment><comment><USER29> Would be awesome if it stored your skin preference in local storage.

<comment><USER11> We have an open issue for storing your state in local storage. Just haven't gotten to it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Flashbacks!</comment>


Amazon is preparing to launch streaming music service – sources - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-music-exclusive-idUSKCN0YW28U <comment><USER2> I installed the Prime music app and found the catalog to be so limited (albeit "free" with my prime membership) that it wasn't worth it. Also the app nags you randomly even when it's not running to rate and share titles. I uninstalled it after a couple of months.

Probably not inclined to commit to $9.99 for yet another music service, I already have YouTube Red and SoundCloud.

<comment><USER3> As a counterpoint, I don't feel a great need for a streaming music service, so Amazon's "free" service (with Prime) hits the right price point and is good enough for my purposes,

<comment><USER4> Out of curiosity, do you buy albums outright, or not listen to enough music to justify paying monthly?

<comment><USER3> A combination of things:

I do have a big collection of music going back decades. (ripped from CDs mostly although also acquired from, um, other sources when that first became possible)

I also buy some--more typically individual songs than complete albums-- although, to be honest, I'm not especially aggressive or adventurous in terms of finding new music.

So, yeah, I've subscribed to streaming music services. (Rhapsody way back when and Apple Music more recently) and ultimately decided that they weren't subscriptions I was getting my money's worth from especially given that I have access to some things for no additional money. (And I probably have a bias toward owning anything I really like.)

<comment><USER5> Apple's Music Match may suit you if you want to have anywhere access to your music.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. Yeah, I'm mostly fine with just having the physical MP3s. I'm often on airplanes or otherwise don't want to consider whether I have inexpensive data network access or not. I actually had Apple Match but canceled it because I wasn't using it (after I matched a number of sub-optimal song version I had initially).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I genuinely wonder how long it will be until an independent (as in, not vertically integrated in another company with different sources of revenue) service like Spotify just gets bought out by one of these companies. Or is it just that the other players don't feel the need to do any acquiring because they can just siphon off (and gain new) subscribers?

(For one, I like that Spotify and Rhapsody are separate because they work basically everywhere and aren't trying to lock me into another company's ecosystem...which seems to be the name of the game for almost everybody these days.)

<comment><USER7> Every case is different. This made sense for Amazon because if you're already a Prime subscriber, you may consider using less of Spotify/Pandora/Apple Music/Youtube RED down the road. And if you're not, Prime just became a better value proposition and becomes harder to resist.

You're spot on about the ecosystem. This move is more of a hedge against Apple and Google than against the independent ones, although it will hurt them too. They'll become acquisition targets for companies that want to become a 'media company'. Yahoo tried this [1]... Verizon wants to [2].

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/marissa-mayers- mavens/](https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/marissa-mayers-mavens/) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go90)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would welcome a larger library in Prime music but would definitely not kick in another $10/month.

</comment><comment><USER9> This fits in well with Amazons' existing services. Surprised they didn't do it long ago.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sure, why not? Because the world needs the billionth streaming service. //sarcasm

<comment><USER11> More competition the better for us all (the consumer)

<comment><USER10> I rather see people invest in harder world problems (battery capacity, co2 sequestration, habitat preservation, humane recycle programs, cancer research ) rather than the next copy of x.

<comment><USER12> "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."

<comment><USER13> Source: Jeff Hammerbacher, 2011

www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_17/b4225060960537.htm

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Might consider it if artists like Taylor Swift are onboard

<comment><USER15> Wow, wonder about the downvotes here. This is a highly relevant question. So far the balkanized music rights are a major headache for consumers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What I use to stream music off Amazon's S3. [https://github.com/etopian/amazon-s3-music- player](https://github.com/etopian/amazon-s3-music-player)

I have given up on the concept that any third party service can provide music streaming for any significant length of time.

</comment><comment><USER17> Url changed from [http://www.businesshabit.com/2016/06/exclusive-amazon-is- pre...](http://www.businesshabit.com/2016/06/exclusive-amazon-is-preparing-to- launch.html), which copies this.

</comment><comment><USER15> If they give me lossless FLAC streaming and let me augment their catalog with my uploaded CDs, I will run to them with open arms.</comment>


Facebook rolls out code to nullify Adblock Plus' workaround - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/11/friendblock/ <comment><USER2> Current discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12274224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12274224)

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook response is incredibly stupid:

"We're disappointed that ad blocking companies are punishing people on Facebook as these new attempts don't just block ads but also posts from friends and Pages. This isn't a good experience for people and we plan to address the issue.".

Ad-blocker can be easily uninstalled so how can they "punish" anyone. Facebook should just silently block ad-blockers and not act as if they are working in their user's interest.

</comment><comment><USER4> So, how long till the adblockers get past Facebook's new work around and it all repeats again?

This sort of cat and mouse game is going to accomplish nothing in the long run.

<comment><USER5> The sidebar content should be blockable, but the inline content... they can make that indistinguishable from user content, can't they?

<comment><USER6> Which will get them in trouble with FTC and local equivalents for not making it clear what's an ad/"sponsored content".

<comment><USER7> FTC, actually [0]. I have to wonder if Facebook's anti-adblocking games are going to, at some point, get the FTC to stomp them flat.

[0] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking)

<comment><USER6> fixed, thanks. to many TLAs...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> FB shouldn't even bother, it's their company vs millions of extremely motivated people who hate their ads. My bet is on the adblockers

</comment><comment><USER9> And so the cat and mouse game begins. Users of Facebook are using the service free of charge(unless you're advertising or paying for something). I think if fb can detect that a user is a paying customer they should disable ads but for the majority of users this isn't the case.

Couldn't one just add fb ad server dns entries to their host file as 127.0.0.1? What could facebook do in that case besides bring up ad servers on new domains?

Could we set up an ad blocking DNS service? (Again..another game of cat and mouse.)

In either case, you are playing a losing game on a ball court owned by Facebook. If you don't like the ads, don't use the service?

<comment><USER10> I was just wondering about that — does this only affect ads in Facebook, or does it affect those embeds strewn everywhere?

I couldn't care less about what they do within their own garbage heap, but if this enables to their junk across the rest of the web, it's a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Facebook's plans to circumvent adblockers is illegal (in EU):

[https://www.privacy- news.net/news_article/57ab2d7184f6fd5f5a...](https://www.privacy- news.net/news_article/57ab2d7184f6fd5f5ad2ddcd)

[http://news.softpedia.com/news/blocking-ad-blockers-may- be-i...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/blocking-ad-blockers-may-be-illegal- in-the-eu-thanks-to-the-cookie-law-503359.shtml)

<comment><USER12> It depends on how it is implemented. Those articles are about invading the privacy of the user by detecting what software is on the machine. However, you don't need to detect that someone has an ad-blocker to circumvent it.

First, you can simply disguise your ads. You can disguise them for everyone. That doesn't require you to peek into what software is on the machine. You've simply made it difficult for an ad-blocker to detect the ads.

Second, you don't have to peek into the software on a machine to determine that content isn't loading. Let's say that someone is blocking my ad server via /etc/hosts. I shouldn't be able to write code that tries to read a user's /etc/hosts, but I can load content via AJAX, see that the content isn't loading, and then take action based on that (maybe loading from a secondary source, maybe not displaying the page if not all content can be loaded).

I'm not saying that Facebook is circumventing ad-blocking in this way, but you certainly can attempt ad-block circumvention without reading a user's local configuration. Facebook can install the ad-blockers like anyone else on their own machines and see how they can disguise the ads as content so that the ad- blockers don't detect them.

<comment><USER13> If you disguise it so that a constantly updating piece of software can't recognise it that means you've disguised it enough that the ad blocker creators can no longer tell it's an ad - Which is illegal in at least the UK, EU and US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just use F.B. Purity, it is far superior

[http://www.fbpurity.com/](http://www.fbpurity.com/)

<comment><USER13> That site looks like it will try to steal something. Dodgy as hell scam site feel to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Quick Batman, to the rendering engine!</comment>


Show HN: Halfmoon – Bootstrap alternative with a built-in dark mode - <AUTHOR> https://www.gethalfmoon.com/ <comment><USER2> This looks quite good, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to support the `prefers-color-scheme` media query (yet).

<comment><AUTHOR> It does this via JavaScript: [https://www.gethalfmoon.com/docs/core- javascript-library/#se...](https://www.gethalfmoon.com/docs/core-javascript- library/#setting-preferred-theme-onload)</comment></comment>


My success has alienated me from my friend group and I don't know what to do - <AUTHOR>

To put it frankly, I've been making a lot of money recently and I feel distanced from my core group of friends, who are all great people that I share many genuinely fond memories with. Most of them are humanities and art grads from my old school so I've known them for 6+ years but I've feel as though I'm being stigmatized for having a great job (only a few years out of school, mid six-figures) in the sense that I am called "the millionaire" and there are a lot of references, snide and otherwise, to my income. It's just strange because we've been friends for so long. I love these people and I don't know what to do. <comment><USER2> Let them know how you feel and if still doesn't stop you are better off without them. True friends would be proud and happy for you about you being successful rather than jealous.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do you still have common interests?

School / work / hobbies bring people together, but a lack thereof can pull people apart.

</comment><comment><USER4> This for that; that for this.

</comment><comment><USER5> just chill..and enjoy your life</comment>


Ancient 'Sea Monster' Found in Antarctica - <AUTHOR> https://qubitsnews.com/2016/11/16/ancient-sea-monster-found-in-antarctica/ <comment><USER2> Title made it sound like something more. It was simply they found bones of a known dinosaur somewhere they didn't expect it, Antarctica.

"Dinosaur 'mosasaur' remains found in unlikely Antarctica"

<comment><USER3> Clickbait blogspam site. Every article seems to be almost a word-for-word copy if its referenced source.

All postings from this site are from the same person, like mattermark.</comment></comment>


Paradise Papers: A Special Investigation – Paradise-Papers – The Guardian - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/paradise-papers <comment><USER2> Relevant for HN audience:

"Leaked files show that a state-controlled bank in Moscow helped to fuel Yuri Milner's ascent in Silicon Valley, where the Russia investigation has put tech companies under scrutiny"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner- faceboo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-facebook- twitter-russia.html)

<comment><USER3> could someone explain, is the reveal here only that a state bank chose to invest its capital in american companies? should a bank not do that? I mean, Putin can lick my tiny gonads but I also think Al Franken and much of the media are channelling the dead corpse of McCarthy when they assume everyone should be suspicious of anything russian, so I'm generally suspicious of much of russia-bate being thrown out there. To me, when I read this article, I see greedy capitalists finding a profitable place to invest there capital, not much more.

<comment><USER4> People are definitely overreacting, but other people are underreacting. The Russian state-run banks are effectively Putin's tools. So the question really becomes why did the Russian government choose to secretly move hundreds of millions of dollars into American tech companies.

To my mind, there are two plausible answers. The first is that it was a way to offshore a bunch of wealth into what looked like a good investment. You can get into moral issues (e.g. is Russian oligarch money "dirty"), but I think it's not very interesting or concerning from a national security perspective.

An alternative is that Putin perceives many of these technology companies as crucial pieces in the power game, and wanted some level of access to / influence over them. That would be a much more concerning situation, because it means that they may have leveraged their ownership stake against American national interests. We don't yet have evidence of that, but we should investigate the possibility.

<comment><USER5> > The Russian state-run banks are effectively Putin's tools.

Just like anything Russian is "Putin's tool"? Please, at this point it feels like Putin is not just another human but rather some TVtrope bad guy living in a secret bunker under a volcano, scheming how to single-handedly destroy the world because that's what bad guys do.

It's weird how this is labeled across different publications, the business insider article states "Commercial interests and state interest 'go hand in hand' for Russia" like that's a bad thing and Russia is the only country acting like that.

In the end, money got invested in a sector that was deemed very profitable at that time, I have no doubts US institutional investors, and private billionaires, have done the same. Yet nobody questions their influence on Twitter/Facebook, it's only an issue when Russians do it?

Because if "investing for influence" is really the new breaking point, then I think there'd be a ton of more interesting "investments", by US politicians, to "defense contractors" and similar questionable companies.

<comment><USER4> That's just whataboutism. If Russia found that the CIA had invested hundreds of millions of dollars into one of their energy companies, I'd fully expect them to investigate the national security risks. I never argued that it was somehow a unique behavior to Russia, you incorrectly inferred that. The U.S. obviously tries to project influence through corporate "partnerships" as well, e.g. the NSA with AT&T.

And I stand by the Putin comment. He isn't a supervillain, but the power of the Russian state is far more concentrated in his hands than the power of the US is with any individual.

<comment><USER5> It's not whataboutism to point out that simply investing in stocks is hardly a "smoking gun" in regards to the investor having had actual influence over the company he/she invested in.

I'm merely pointing out that if that's the new "breaking point" for collusion then there are literally tons of other cases with much worse implications that should be properly scrutinized.

Is there any actual evidence these investments have been used to influence Twitter/Facebook? Afaik no, there isn't, so all this actually amounts to is "Russians invested in social media stocks", which is hardly scandalous nor should it be breaking news.

Because that's what it actually comes down to: Twitter and Facebook couldn't care less how much Russian state power is concentrated, compared to the US, even if that's actually true, it has literally zero relevance in this case.

<comment><USER4> I didn't say anything about "collusion." I said that it's a worthwhile avenue for a national security investigation, to figure out exactly what you just asked (is there any evidence these investments were misused) and why it was done secretly. You're acting like I said this is a smoking gun, when all I said is that it's worth looking into. And while your whole comment wasn't whataboutism, the "other countries do this too" part definitely was. Your scenario is certainly a possibility—maybe it was just a straightforward investment—but you don't know that and shouldn't assume it's true.

<comment><USER5> > You're acting like I said this is a smoking gun, when all I said is that > it's worth looking into.

Sorry about that, you are right in that you didn't say this is a smoking gun. But that's what this is framed as in many places and I took your framing of "Putin's tool" as going down that same venue.

> And while your whole comment wasn't whataboutism, the "other countries do > this too" part definitely was.

I see it as pointing out double-standards, which is an actual thing and sadly happens quite often without being called out as such. Especially in geopolitics, there's a very easy to spot bias in terms of what some countries are allowed to do while other countries are scrutinized for these very same actions.

Case in point: US modernizing/expanding their nuclear arsenal vs Russia doing the same and how both of those are framed across different media on the globe. When the US modernized their nuclear arsenal station in Germany, the German government literally framed that as "Good US nukes vs evil Russian nukes", like there's any actual difference.

The same can be applied here where it's suddenly super dodgy that actors invested in social media. Why? Because these actors happened to be Russian. Now let's investigate those Russians, but only those Russians!

You can't deny that this evokes certain memories about the McCarthy era and the associated Red Scare. Again: If investing in social media is a dodgy proposition then this should apply to everybody investing, not just Russians because last time I checked it wasn't just some Russian people who had beef with the US, that particular trait is not reserved to some Russian nationals, it's far more widespread than that.

<comment><USER4> I agree with all of what you said, but I'll just point out that I opened by saying that many people are definitely overreacting. Those are all reasonable points in general, though, and I don't think they're incongruous with what I'm saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1.4 TB of data. This is going to be a fun leak to watch unravel, especially in context of the all the political activity around Russian corruption.

<comment><USER7> Is there a mirror? An ipfs link?

<comment><USER8> I came here looking for one too. All they offer is the CSV that powers a Neo4J graph, not a link to the 1.4TB of files (which is what I want to ingest)

<comment><USER9> >On November 5, 2017, ICIJ added data from some politicians featured in the Paradise Papers investigation. ICIJ will be releasing the full structured data connected to this investigation in the coming weeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Director of ICIJ said it's about 1/5th of offshore investments!

</comment><comment><USER10> Gee, I wonder why this hasn't popped up through WikiLeaks.

</comment><comment><USER11> When I click the News tab on Google's results for Paradise Papers I mainly get coverage from British and Australian sources. I have a hard time finding any in the US.

Is this a Google filter (I'm in Europe)? Or related to the affiliations of the investigators? Or a time zone thing?

<comment><USER12> Could be a time zone thing or recent change where google return results based on your current location?

[https://www.blog.google/products/search/making-search- result...](https://www.blog.google/products/search/making-search-results-more- local-and-relevant/)

If you want results from US you can go to the google homepage > settings > search settings > region settings

<comment><USER11> It's indeed on 'Current region' and apparently that includes Australia and UK, but not US. Strange.

As I'm writing this I've only found a mention on the nytimes homepage (rather small). In Europe it seems to be the main (breaking) news on most sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As much as I want this to lead to public change, I don't think it will. The economy seems to be strong enough for people to overlook the outsized shares of others.

I'm more shocked by the lack of outrage over the unfolding Trump-circle ties to Russia. People claim to be patriotic but welcoming to the Cold War's nemesis.

<comment><USER14> You should read it more thoroughly then, because Trump-Russia connection just might be explained by this leak.</comment></comment>


A rant about cross-platform programming with wchar_t - <AUTHOR> http://losingfight.com/blog/2006/07/28/wchar_t-unsafe-at-any-size/

<comment><USER2> ANSI C specified wchar_t in 1989, two years before Unicode 1.0. They couldn't even be sure Unicode was going to win.

Besides, the _whole point_ of wchar_t is to not be variable width. UTF-16 in wchar_t is an abomination that dates back to the industry building APIs that take UCS-2 (which the author really ought to cover) before they realized UCS-2 was too narrow to do its job. So now we have a lot of code that appears to support Unicode but may not handle it correctly, depending on whether QA knew they should try surrogate pairs. Almost nobody realizes UTF-16 needs to be searched and spliced as carefully as UTF-8. Each is just a compression scheme for the million or so actual codepoints, and there aren't many reasons to favor one over the other (in memory, at least).

What's the actual problem here, the team made assumptions that ANSI warned against making? Apple failed to accept UCS-4 for their API?

<comment><AUTHOR> The fact still remains that wchar_t is still a royal pain to use across platforms. Sure, it defines the size of a single character consistently within the platform. But it doesn't define what encoding that is. USC-2? USC-4? And the fact is: different compilers define it differently, which sucks in practice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is silly... not only is the article inaccurate but the problem described is trivial to solve. As long as you know what encoding wchar_t uses and what encoding your data is stored in this is not a big problem, use one format internally and convert your data on the way in as appropriate. Trust me, I solved it with no prior knowledge, no formal education in less than a day, as a distraction during my day job... I did not have to re-write the entire library from scratch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Inaccurate in what way?

It may be trivial to solve, but it's certainly not an issue anyone should _have_ to solve, if the C++ standards committee would have dictated size and encoding information along with the datatype.

<comment><USER3> the MS compiler uses wchar_t as UCS2, not UTF-16 for example

all of the C++ types have platform dependence - expecting a specific number of bits or encoding for wchar_t would make an exception of it, and one that would be impossible to implement in practice.</comment></comment></comment>


The End of the Golden Era of American Chess - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/09/pal-benko-shelby-lyman-and-chess-bobby-fischer-era/597343/ <comment><USER2> Former chess prodigy here. I had the honor of training with Pal Benko in the early 90s when I represented Team USA in the world youth championships. I remember Benko being a real class act, which I can't say about many of the chess personalities I've met over the years. You could tell he was absolutely, passionately in love with chess. In that sense he represented something pure which maybe we've lost in this new era.

That said, let's be clear. The golden era of American chess, and chess in general, is happening now and only getting better. I give credit to to open- source projects like LiChess and Lc0, tournaments like LiChess Titled where mere mortals get a chance to challenge Magnus, and the rise of chess streaming as a thing.

Heck, I'll concede that the golden era of classical chess is over. But it's been over for a while, pretty much since computers advanced opening theory and took all the wins out of classical. RIP classical chess. But for those willing to think on their feet, the golden era of blitz and bullet is here :-)

<comment><USER3> Am watching the World Cup right now. Before that watched the Sinquefield Cup. Both (so far) exciting events, not sure how you can pronounce classical chess dead.

Bullet, lol---chess without thinking. It's the _thinking_ I like about chess. The carefully-worked-out combinations, brilliant defensive plans, drawing swindles etc. If people like playing bullet, great, but it seems another game entirely.

People complaining here about the draws in the last world championship: the WCC matches are much too short these days, players won't take risks as there's no time to catch up if they backfire. But "shorter, faster" is supposed to cure everything. Anyway, Karpov and Kasparov had a lot of draws, 17 in a row in 1984, in virtually the pre-computer era.

<comment><USER2> Re classical, if you don't want to take my word for it, look up the chess24 interview after the last world champs where magnus said it was so unenjoyable he wasn't even sure if he'd defend his title.

No offense, only people who suck at bullet say it doesn't involve thinking. It's the same game, it involves developing and training your intuition. I could teach anyone how to get good, even you... if you were open to learn that is.

(And had the budget or could trade for coding hours :-)

<comment><USER3> If you have to say "No offense" to begin a sentence, it probably doesn't belong on HN. And "..even you..if you were open to learn" is in the same vein. I'm not interested in communicating further.

Edit: Gee, lots of downvotes. Not sure why. Should I have said nothing? I thought the way they spoke to me was utterly unacceptable, as I calmly pointed out. My initial points were mostly obvious things everyone in the chess world knows, including the person I was responding to.

<comment><USER4> > Should I have said nothing?

I'm hoping you want a reply here, or else I'm wasting my time ;-) I have found that letting others have the last word is both magnanimous _and_ a great strategy for extracting myself from conversations with people I no longer wish to talk to. You seem like the kind of person who appreciates strategic thinking, which is why I thought you might enjoy that idea.

<comment><USER5> I read HN for civilised rejoinders such as this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's one interesting change I've noticed in chess and in a number of other fields where we seem to be gradually are losing that _je ne sais pas_ we once had. This [1] is a film from 1925, "Chess Fever". For one bit of unspoken context, the smirking gentleman from the beginning (and the one that makes a few recurring appearances) is Jose Raul Capablanca - a person often considered the most naturally talented player ever and who was reigning world champ when this movie was released. Aside from the humor of the movie, I think there's something much more telling. The movie emphasizes chess as a game for adults, that kids can play.

That was published just following the advent of the USSR which would go on to become the world's powerhouse of chess for many decades, arguably continuing to this day. It seems in the west we've gradually started to reverse that adult-based focus for many things, chess among them: it's a game for kids, that adults can play. We've spent an immense amount of energy, and money, getting chess in schools but I'm not sure we've seen anything like a proportional gain in outcome for it.

For instance this [2] is the home page for the US Chess Federation. They chose of all possible pictures, for their lead image, one of an under 10 year old girl playing, and the strong bias towards scholastic/youth chess is present throughout. The only reason I mention this is because I imagine like many when I was a kid I was reached an age (still a kid) where I was gradually repelled by things I perceived as 'kid things' and drawn to things I perceived as 'adult things.' In my case coding was something I perceived as an adult thing, and that attraction ended up playing a monumental role in shaping my life. I'm quite curious if things would have been different had my school been actively attempting to get kids involved in coding.

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN6m711ddZk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN6m711ddZk)

[2] - [https://new.uschess.org/home/](https://new.uschess.org/home/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I dunno, I feel like "the end of golden era of American chess" is pretty unfair to the amazing things Sinquefield has going on in St. Louis right now, as well as all of the "new" online resources that continue to pop up, and the general penetration chess seems to be achieving in scholastic formats today.

This article seems focused on a handful of luminaries, but I'd argue that a "golden era" of a thing is defined by it's blossoming into popularity and a new kind of explosive growth that thing hasn't previously seen, which (and maybe it's because I didn't grow up with Fischer) feels more like what's happening now.

I don't know if chess is more popular now than it's ever been in America (having read Pawn Sacrifice, I believe Fischer made chess fairly mainstream in America for a time), but it feels like more people are _playing_ chess than ever before in the US, and that strikes me as more of a hallmark of a "golden era" than what this article refers to it as.

<comment><USER8> In a way you can compare it to the "Golden Age" of science fiction, which cemented the genre in our culture, but you can judge its classics on their own merits while also considering them in light of the new works produced in the decades after.

<comment><USER9> Reminded of the well known quip: the golden age of science fiction is 14.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If (like me) you're bored by regular chess now, consider trying out the variant 16x16 "Four Kings one War."

It has been turned into Steam game with a free demo : [https://store.steampowered.com/app/883680/Four_Kings_One_War...](https://store.steampowered.com/app/883680/Four_Kings_One_War/)

The AI for this game was coded in Rust, by me. Good luck!

<comment><USER11> Many Go players were bored chess players.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Pal Benko was one of the world's top grandmasters in the 1950s and 60s, playing in the Candidates Tournaments in 1959 and 1962 and notching up wins against the likes of Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal. He achieved that despite spending a year and a half in a Soviet concentration camp and defecting to the US in 1957.

What a legend! RIP

</comment><comment><USER13> Well clearly the new chess Masters are no longer players but programmers. That doesn't make the game uninteresting though.

A few months ago, one would have thought that we had the best algorithm and that progress would only be slowly incremental for now on... until the approach adopted to best humans at the game of go got applied to chess. Now you have these programs like LeelaChess able to best Stockfish (a program that had been improved over the last fifteen years) after a few months of training. There's definitely a lot more to discover in this game.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if programmers are the new game masters. As far as I know, bots are not allowed in most, if not all, chess competitions. It's not like we stopped doing the 100m dash after the intention of the bicycle or the car. Those are just other racing categories.

<comment><USER15> over the board chess can be a struggle for programmers because we are so used to letting computers do the heavy lifting on calculations that its a struggle to think through tactical situations when you know a simple program would do the trick. It's almost like doing pen and paper arithmetic in the age of calculators.

<comment><USER16> Likely more along the lines of "being good at chess is hard", regardless of whether or not you're a programmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A bit offtopic: is it still possible to create a Chess/Go type game that is easy for humans but hard for AI? Or are we past that point already?

<comment><USER18> I could see a game like Mao being difficult for AI or really any game with an inconsistent ruleset.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_\(card_game\))

<comment><USER19> There is actually an entire field of general game playing that can be extended to receiving partial rulesets at the start of the game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hikaru Nakamura is an American GM that has a pretty entertaining YouTube channel if you are interested in chess.

</comment><comment><USER21> to learn chess, go to India</comment>


Turn ordinary travelers into your own personal, international delivery service - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1841547/social-travel-startup-mmmule-not-about-drugs

<comment><USER2> Hello drug mules!

<comment><USER3> This is going to be the standard response until it has proven itself. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by choosing such a name?</comment></comment>


My Google Interview - <AUTHOR> http://www.cforcoding.com/2010/07/my-google-interview.html <comment><USER2> I had an interview for a systems administrative position way back when that was my primary gig, admittedly this was in the twilight after ten years of experience and I had already mostly gotten sick of systems administration and was deeply into coding so maybe I was just too jaded, but the single question I recall that they asked me I actually found so stupid it was insulting;

What's the default bytes per block in random linux distribution x version y when using filesystem z?

My response;

I'd google it.

Perhaps this is unique to the Australian branch of Google or something but I get the impression that they're much more into the whole meaningless rote memorisation of facts than is often let on.

I had a contact from another Google HR person a couple months back in Estonia, this time for a development position. I can't say I wasn't tempted but this time I turned them down flat.

<comment><USER3> I think if I was in your situation and got that type of question I would have said 'id bing it'

<comment><AUTHOR> Joel Spolsky gave a Google Tech Talk about Stackoverflow. At one point someone asked him about something he said. He had to look it up. He opened up IE and did a search on live.com (pre-bing). It got a good laugh.

<comment><USER4> Plus, doesn't stacckoverflow run on the microsoft stack?

<comment><USER5> Yes it is: [http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/what-was-stack- overflo...](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/what-was-stack-overflow- built-with/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The lack of feedback is crippling. I interviewed at a similar company and I thought the interview went GREAT. I'm usually a great judge of whether or not someone likes me, I pay attention that kind of thing, I got all the answers to their satisfaction while explaining, in detail and concisely, my thought process.

Didn't get the job. I didn't make one mistake and I thought they liked me. I have zero clues as to why. I'm not really upset about it, it was just a very frustrating experience.

All the more reason to do your own thing :-)

<comment><USER7> This is pretty much why I hate the idea of applying for a job. Supposing I get the interview, based on my past experience there's at least a 80% chance I won't get the job. I never got feedback for any of my "no hires" so I just have to assume they will all turn out that way.

The lack of feedback makes me just assume every interview is a crapshoot and there's nothing I can do to try and improve.

<comment><USER8> As a consultant, I got to do lots of interviews. I found that questions and programming problems go in fads or cycles. I often get the same programming problem at more than one company. After an interview, I go over the problems to see if I can tighten up the code, or to see what the nut is. If I am weak or unsure about one of my answers, I immediately go over the literature to understand the domain. The same question is sure to come up again. A couple of years ago it was the new java concurrency. This yea, not a single question about Java concurrency. But I did get FizzBuzz. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> TL; DR: Google's recruitment process is opaque and arguably leads to many false negatives. True 3 years ago and apparently still true.

I suspect they would argue the impact of false positives (hired but don't work out) greatly outweighs the loss of false negatives (potentially great employees that can't pass through the filter). This may be true for the one company everyone and their dog wants to work for, but I wouldn't apply this kind of process to my startup.

It also feels like it might result in a surfeit of homogeneity. Genetic diversity is important; if everyone is a clone, all it takes is one pathogen to wipe out the population.

<comment><USER10> In my opinion, the biggest problem with the google-style interview (other companies do the same thing) is that you can practice and get better at it. In fact, you can probably improve how well you do so much that even a mediocre developer can come out looking very good.

So why is that bad? Well, for one thing, the questions asked usually aren't directly to being good at your job. Consider the classic "How can you detect loops in a singly-linked list without modifying nodes / keeping accounting information around?" Very, very few people are going to come up with the correct answer to that question without having seen it before especially in a high pressure interview environment. Yet people ask it all the time in interviews. Why? You're just selecting for people who have had to interview a lot (got rejected a lot).

A newer style of interview that I quite like is to ask someone to write a moderate chunk of code with a laptop, access to the internet, and a few hours. At least you're measuring something that's directly related to software development.

<comment><USER11> > In my opinion, the biggest problem with the google-style interview (other > companies do the same thing) is that you can practice and get better at it. > In fact, you can probably improve how well you do so much that even a > mediocre developer can come out looking very good.

While this is true, isn't quite unlikely? Why not just invest the time into becoming a /good/ developer.

>"How can you detect loops in a singly-linked list without modifying nodes / keeping accounting information around?"

What do you mean by "accounting" information?

In the real-world I'd probably just brute-force it and keep around a set of elements already gone over. However I couldn't imagine ever having a need for that as I'd (and hopefully anyone I was working with) stick to the standard push_back functions available or that I created. So it shouldn't come about...

I feel I've missed something here, so care to elaborate on the answer?

<comment><USER12> _> "How can you detect loops in a singly-linked list without modifying nodes / keeping accounting information around?"

What do you mean by "accounting" information?_

The usual way to state this problem is, "How can you detect loops in a singly- linked list without modifying nodes and using O(1) data."

The answer is that you start with 2 pointers to the beginning of the list. Then follow the pattern of advancing the first twice, and the second one once. You have your answer when the first reaches the end, or the first and second point at the same spot.

There are a lot of problems with a trick like that. And it is true that if you've seen the problem before, you're going to be at an advantage. So practice a few of them to get use to the form. But there are _enough_ such problems out there that it is significantly easier to become a good developer than to learn a broad enough selection of them to have a good chance of getting through a set of interviews off of memory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I seem to always fail spoken interviews, but easily pass ones where I get to write code. As a particularly hilarious example, this spring I completely failed a phone-screen on the subject of 3D graphics, then sometime later I released a 3D terrain engine that is apparently the best of its kind in Flash as of today (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1500338>). And I can't say I know much more about the subject now! I just tend to learn stuff "situationally" and immediately forget it when the problem is solved. That applies to concepts too, but it's like 100x worse for APIs: my work nowadays is mostly ActionScript and JavaScript, but I can't even fill a polygon in AS without having the reference open.

<comment><USER14> I'm the same way. If I'm not currently working in the specific area I'm given a question in, it can take me a few minutes to access that information in my head. And therefore, I look like I don't know the answer.

I recently was in an interview for an iPhone dev job. I was prepared to talk about Objective-C/Apple SDK since I was working with that. However, they started digging into projects I had done at my last job (in Java). I struggled. I just hadn't thought about that work for a few years, and probably came off like I was embellishing my resume. After the interview, once I caught my breath and thought about it, all the details started coming back. Needless to say I was kicking myself for not being able to recall it sooner.

Just the way my mind works....

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Clearly, many of us agree that this process is broken; not specifically at Google, but broken more or less everywhere. So fine, what would you do differently? I hate everything about job interviews, on both sides of the transaction: I don't want to ever job-interview or be job-interviewed again. So let's hear some radical ideas about how else to approach the problem. The crazier the better.

<comment><USER16> I think ITA's job _screening_ process is quite nice: Post an interesting puzzle and ask anyone to submit answers. Spend as much time on it as you wish.

Their puzzle archive: [http://www.itasoftware.com/careers/puzzle_archive.html?catid...](http://www.itasoftware.com/careers/puzzle_archive.html?catid=39)

<comment><USER17> Google used to do that - if you remember their "Great people needed" campaign from 2002-2005, they did fun stuff like putting coding problems on billboards that solved to the phone number you had to call to submit to apply, or the "Google Labs Aptitude Test" that was basically a parody of standardized testing.

I think the reason they don't anymore is that they're a household name. They get tons of applications without any clever tricks. In some ways, I think this is too bad, because it attracts applicants who (in JWZ's words) "want to work for a successful company instead of working to make a company successful." But there's really no way to turn back the clock and make Google hip & unknown anymore.

<comment><USER18> My personal favourite questions from that quiz were:

* How many ways are there of painting the sides of a cube using four different colors?

* Which colors would you choose?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If I have an interview scheduled to go through lunch hours and the company does not offer me lunch, that makes a very bad impression on me. To me it's part professional courtesy as well as an indication of how well things are planned. Also, if you are able to lunch with the team, it lets you get to know each other in a less stressful situation.

<comment><USER17> That seemed very weird to me. When I interviewed, it was customary to have a Googler who was _not_ an interviewer take you to lunch at one of the cafes. If you were a referral, it's usually your referrer; if you know someone at Google, they try to match you up with that person. It's your chance to ask questions of an employee in an informal setting, where they won't be making a report back to the hiring committee. And I know they still do it, because I was the lunch interview for a friend of mine that just applied a month or so ago.

The only thing I can think of is maybe they couldn't find interviewers for the normal time slots, and so they had to schedule one at lunch as well. Qualified interviewers are often a scarce resource at Google, mostly because of people like me who never sign up for it, and they try to avoid assigning more than two interviews/week/person to avoid burnout and let them still get actual work done. It may've been a choice between "schedule one during lunch" or "wait another week until a different interviewer is free".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The key, I think, to hacking most interviews is to take into account the fact that most interviewers overoptimize for their own contribution to the process; i.e., you want to put yourself on a path where the interviewers have some sort of insight into why you're valuable.

This can be the traditional: wow, this person has mastered all these fields very well. But it can equally be: wow, this person did extraordinary things with this thing that I've heard good things about; or, wow: I could totally use a person like that on my team -- I think culturally this type of person is valuable; etc.

Basically, you want to figure out the selection of likely thoughts the interviewer will have about you -- choose the set of most optimal, most distance-traversing in their mind (some of which ideally differentiate you for your peers), and give them some excuse to figure those out.

It's, sadly, not completely unrelated to PUA, as our minds are trained to seek and, with cognitive dissonance, to esteem the general direction of what we've verified before.

Fwiw, same pattern as setting traps in poker. Though hopefully you're not being duplicitous, but rather smoothing out an already error-laden, discontinuous situation.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 _But everyone knew C++. I've read about this before. This combined with my own experience now leads me to believe that C++ isn't optional for any Google applicant. Not because you need to use it to work there. I have no direct experience of this. But because of "interviewer lottery". Some at Google (it seems) do nothing but C++. You might be interviewed by one of these people._

Not true one bit. I don't know a lick of C++ and never encountered it in my interviews there.

In fact, the questions I was asked there could have been easily answered in any language, as they were language-neutral and heavily on the side of pure algorithms.

Your experience may have been thrown off by having C++ on your resume, assuming you do.

<comment><USER21> I had an on-campus interview where they were processing a lot of people quickly. C++ was non-optional. Of course, I have little C++ experience. I would suggest anyone seeking a job at google know C++.

<comment><USER22> Google doesn't do interviews the way you describe. Why are you making shit up?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't know Cletus, I just noticed his profile somehow in StackOverFlow. However, as a brilliant StackOverFlow member with over 100K of points and 3K answers, I really wonder if he is not above the average developer.

Only experienced developers can contribute and answer question in Stackoverflow. Questions are generally hard and random.

So if Google hires only from the top 10% (say in Australia); isn't this a critical fail in the hiring process? (considering cletus with ranking 4 in sof, I can safely say he's among the top 1% or 0.5%)

<comment><USER24> I don't think you can "safely say" that he's among the top 1% of developers based purely on his StackOverflow profile, regardless of how impressive it is.

The only way you can really "safely say" that someone is within the top 1% (That's a pretty elite group. That's like saying "I can safely say he'll get into Harvard.") is if you've seen a significant amount of their actual code (working with them, OSS, etc) and been consistently amazed.

<comment><AUTHOR> The "top 1%" is such a great phenomenon. I remember in the 2000 election the top 1% of earners were daemonized by then VP Gore. In a survey some 20% of people thought they were in the top 1% and another 19% aspired to be.

And that's with something easily quantifiable. How exactly do you quantify the percentile of a programmer?

FWIW I make no such claim about being the top 1% nor do I claim SO ranking translates to the nebulous concept of a programmer's ranking. If anything, SO reputation is a function of time more than anything else. It's also an indicator of persistence but only a positive indicator (meaning lack of a SO ranking obviously doesn't mean a lack of persistence).

<comment><USER25> > the top 1% of earners were daemonized by then VP Gore

He set them to run in the background and wake up periodically?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "But the process does seem to be a lottery to some extent."

They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. If the feedback from five different interviewers led to a 'no hire' decision, the chances are good that it was the right decision. Of course, no system is perfect. They tend to err on the side of exclusivity; it's much cheaper to decline a suitable candidate than it is to hire someone who won't work out in the long term.

<comment><AUTHOR> > They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case.

That may well be the case and I can't dispute the conclusion because I am unaware of the position. Were they looking for a hardcore C++ programmer? That's not me.

This goes to my observation that feedback is important. I've applied for positions that were slim chances before but I knew they were slim going in so I could set my expectations accordingly.

As for the lottery part, 2/5 didn't know my primary language. That seems open to interpretation.

<comment><USER9> They won't give you feedback for the same reason they don't disclose their search algorithms: information about their process can be used to game the process.

I see the same behavior with VC's -- no usable feedback. It's like in poker -- there's no game-theoretic advantage to show your cards if everyone else folds.

<comment><USER27> It's also arrogant not to even let someone know what the specific position involves. It's a solid reason not to interview with Google if you're not going in there on the basis of contacts.

<comment><USER12> The reason for that is that at the time of the interview there are usually many different positions you could wind up being slotted into.

In many cases this is still true at the time of the hire.

In a few cases this is still true at the time the person starts on the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Interesting how they are scouting stackoverflow profiles for potential hires. I suppose it takes more than 10k reputation (talking about my own profile of course).

The part about being denied because he was Microsoft-centric and yet Jon Skeet was accepted was quite amusing.

<comment><USER29> I was approached by Google recently for an SRE position. I'm not sure where they found my contact information but I don't have accounts with any of the major geek sites - or much of an internet presence at all, really.

The recruiter was a tad vague about it but if I were to venture a guess, I'd say Google scans the high-profile OSS projects and associated mailing lists. That's about the only place they could have found me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> When rejection occurs after an interview, I generally try to my best to identify what I did wrong and prepare to the next interview.

My advice don't feel disappointed if you don't get the OK there are many reasons why someone get rejected, most of them not necessary skill based; so JUST MOVE ON.

</comment><comment><USER31> We're currently going through a hiring cycle, and while admittedly, there's a lot of people applying, I get annoyed by some of our guys doing interviews removing people from consideration for things that simply do not matter.

I would likely have failed our own interview processes, yet I was one of the guys let know I was indispensable and not to worry about my job security by upper management when we were going through layoffs in the middle of the financial crisis, going so far as to offer me a raise in the middle of it.

The post-interview review of candidates needs to be:

(1) Are they smart?

(2) Do they practice self-improvement? A given if (1).

(3) Can we work with them?

But not many people have the balls to take a chance on someone from the left field, so they'll settle for the mediocre plodder who has learned how to game the interview process.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why don't companies just hire people after a quick discussion at 50% salary for the maximum of four months and see how they do.

If, after four months, the people turn out to be "smart and get things done" and the company wants to keep them, they'd get the missing 50% from the first four months as a one-time bonus and 100% salary afterwards.

It costs something but it also costs a lot of time and money for both parties to engage into this mutual guesswork game called job interviewing. It might even cost everyone less as I bet many candidatepeople would have to be fired after only a few weeks or days.

<comment><USER33> _Why don't companies just hire people after a quick discussion at 50% salary for the maximum of four months and see how they do._

Having an incompetent (or malicious even) developer on your team for four months is likely to cost your company much more than 50% of their salary for four months.

<comment><USER32> My point was that this is what happens in the practice: you just won't know until you know, so why not make it that way upfront and not spend lots of effort trying to select the best candidate when you could, based on a much more loose criteria, select the best dozen and see who's really good.

I wasn't envisioning a sweatshop: if the company tried to extract everything out of cheap hires for four months, the company itself would lose. And there are these leeching companies anyway, working within conventional hiring practices as well. I had a good company in mind, one that really needs good programmers and not cheap minions.

An incompetent or malicious developer wouldn't really last four months, not probably four days. The projected four months was the final threshold after which most programmers can tell whether the candidate is really worth hiring.

Having new semi-hires around might certainly add up to the team overhead but on the other hand, that's what happens with conventional hires, too. Lots of teaching, tutoring, and support and things might still get crossed in the first few months. Plus the whole process of interviewing and that some hires quit or get fired within months.

So, to reply to your comment: having a batch of new hires, some incompetent and some possibly stellar, and few weeks to sort out the final candidates and few months to seal the deal, might not cost as much as you're afraid. Even a single new hire (carefully selected by HR, phone interviews, face-to-face interviews, and all) can eat up surprisingly lot of the team's time. Further, like hires in general, you don't want to be doing this _all the time_ , just once a year or when you really, really need more programmers.

<comment><USER34> The issue with this approach is that it doesn't weed out the mediocre. This is why big companies fire people by re-organization. You run into legal problems if you are firing people who are competent, but not excellent. So you round them up into another business unit and then drop the whole unit. I assume you would run into the same legal issues with the proposed 4 month trial period. If the person does a solid, but not great job and you let them go, you are opening yourself up to being sued.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I agree with the fact that not getting any feedback (good or bad) hurts people in the long run. Having feedback and either improving in those areas or adjusting how you approach them would help people and if you don't know their an issue how can you improve them?

I've sent previous interviewing managers questions asking what I can improve when I didn't get a job this year, and none of them returned my e-mail. Very frustrating, especially if you're someone who would like to improve themself!

</comment><comment><USER35> Playing Devil's Advocate:

Has anyone ever thought they randomly fail someone who might pass just to keep all future applicants on their toes?

<comment><USER36> That would assume communication between job applicants. In general, job searh is conducted in secret. When I wa interviewing, nobody but my family and closest friends knew I was doing. I wouldn't appreciate if a candidate kept talking about our hiring processes. Even because they change, vary according to the position and are explained early in the process to the candidate by the HR folks who conduct the first steps.

I have nothing to say about Google's process, with the exception being that I was interviewed by a guy whose research paper I read, something that didn't really surprise me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Interview != Quiz

</comment><comment><USER38> Part of the problem that bit him, I think, is that the traditional interviewing/hiring process is fundamentally flawed and handicapped.

Superficial elements have way too large of an impact. it filters out things that should not be filtered out. and way too big of a judgement is made too early, and on too little information, and with too little confidence in the correctness of that judgment. resumes are demanded and then either not read or not remembered. small comments can be magnified in the mind of the listener and used to conclude things that cannot possibly be concluded. ridiculous questions are asked. and lastly, there's very often too much of an attitude that the company/interviewer is in the superior/owner position and the applicant in the subservient/inferior/slave situation (perhaps carried over from blue collar industry) when in reality it should probably be considered an exchange of equals.

<comment><USER15> _the company/interviewer is in the superior/owner position and the applicant in the subservient/inferior/slave situation (perhaps carried over from blue collar industry)_

Agree 100%. It's a kinder-gentler master-slave dynamic. That's part of why it's so fucked. So what's the alternative? Let's figure something out.</comment></comment>


List of Zoom Alternatives - <AUTHOR> https://startupstash.com/zoom-alternatives/ <comment><USER2> I'll note one thing that was quite annoying on my locked-down browser (via uMatrix): The site appears to be unscrollable without loading scripts from (probably, not spending the time to investigate further) typeform.com or subdomains of it.

Maybe it's just me, but I think having third-party scripting whose absence breaks fundamental features is poor planning.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is nice but I'd also like some kind of detached evaluation of how well they function in practice, in terms of pros and cons. My sense is that in the videochat/conferencing area there's a big difference between feature offering and how well those features actually work at any given time.

</comment><comment><USER4> From one of the Screenhero guys [https://screen.so/](https://screen.so/)</comment>


Attack of the Acqui-hires - <AUTHOR> http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/10/attack-of-the-acqui-hires/ <comment><USER2> The article doesn't mention one of the most important reasons companies do HR acquisitions: competition forces them to. If company A offers to acquire a startup and company B merely offers to hire the founders, all other things being equal the founders will take company A's offer.

<comment><USER3> That explains why companies pay more during an acquihire than they'd pay for a normal hire. But it doesn't explain why acquihires happen instead of just paying a higher salary.

<comment><USER2> The article and the paper it discusses talk about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article raises an interesting question on tax practices regarding aqui- hires. If the IRS does decide that such gains should be treated as ordinary income, will investors still be able to "save face" when, legally speaking, they can't even call it an acquisition?

<comment><USER5> I'm a bit ignorant into corporate law and taxes, but if one legal entity bought another legal entity for reasonable value, how is the sale of the company not capital gains to the previous owners? Unless the buying company vastly overpaid for the acquired company, I'm not sure what the IRS could do about this.

#edited to fix grammatical errors.

<comment><USER6> I assume that last "unless" would be the key: if the acquirer is overpaying for the company, as a way of transmuting what's really a hiring bonus into a capital gain, that could be problematic. But it seems like it'd require actually showing that there was overpayment, which courts tend to not want to get into except in really egregious cases (like politicians overpaying for houses as a way of funneling money somewhere), because of how difficult it is to objectively determine.

<comment><USER7> But if you "overpay" all the investors then it doesn't look like a signing bonus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is done to IP (code, patents) in most of the acq-hire cases?

<comment><USER9> They become the property of the acquirer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Not only because suing an entrepreneur can cause major reputational damage, > but also because the entrepreneur still has the right (in California) to > just up and leave

Because clearly the world would be a better place if financial agreements were more like indentured servitude.

<comment><USER11> While I am reluctant to suggest that the courts require specific performance (continuing to work) for employment contracts, awarding damages to the other party does not seem terrible. Does California law allow for damages to be awarded in such cases?

<comment><USER12> > While I am reluctant to suggest that the courts require specific performance > (continuing to work) for employment contracts, awarding damages to the other > party does not seem terrible.

Why are you assuming that "employees" will sign such contracts?

Suppose someone shows up to work. How does the court determine whether they're working per contract? (If someone says "I don't have any patentable inventions this month", do you think that they should be penalized?)

CA allows non-competes in certain circumstances.

<comment><USER11> I see your argument. Unless an employment contract stipulates specific work deliverables (even showing up, etc.) , it really is just a non-compete which might require the employee to pay the employer in the case of early termination by the employee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How does this work from an employee point of view? Are they compensated in the buyout? Do they get to do any negotiation with their new employer? The cynic in me thinks this could easily be a raw deal for non-owners.

<comment><USER12> > How does this work from an employee point of view? Are they compensated in > the buyout?

It depends on the employee. The employees that the acquirer wants are treated differently than others.

Both are paid for their stock and vested options. "The wanted" may get retention bonuses, additional grants, etc.

> a raw deal for non-owners.

What do you mean by "non-owners"? Are you referring to employees without any options or stock or to folks that don't have much in the way of options/stock?

Stock/options owners are compensated per their ownership.

Of course, the interesting question is how well the stock/options owners are treated, and there are different classes, hence the whole section about VC liquidation preferences.

<comment><USER13> "Non-owner" was a poor choice of terms. I was thinking more in terms of the little guys who have at most a 1-2% ownership stake in the company.

<comment><USER12> > was thinking more in terms of the little guys who have at most a 1-2% > ownership stake in the company.

They get 1/10th the money that folks who own 10-20% get.

What do you think should happen?

There's only 100%. Some investors have liquidation preferences over others.

The buyer, of course, is free to give money to people post-deal as it sees fit.

<comment><USER14> _They get 1/10th the money that folks who own 10-20% get._

That's engineer math, but not financier math.

People at 10-20% are in the room when terms are decided upon, people with 1-2% are typically not. There are a variety of mechanisms by which 1-2% of an acquisition can, in a few failure modes, evaluate to nothing.

Here's one: You own 1% (by current dilution) of a company. This company has not done well. There exists a company which wants to buy it.

The co-founders collectively own 60%, with approximately 30% being owned by investors, and approximately 10% held in aggregate by employees. You watch the M&A team, VC partners, and founders walk into a room. Two hours later, they walk out, and everyone looks fairly happy. You overhear the VC say "$20 million."

You think you're getting $200k, right?

Would it surprise you the next day when you're given a contract to sign and told that you've been allocated a $10k signing bonus with the new company? And that this is, by the way, it?

How the heck did that happen? The VCs were a little displeased with their return, since this company did poorly, so they played hardball with your founders. The VCs got $10 million. (Check those percentages again. Yeah. I know.) This represented 100% of the purchase price, and as it didn't clear the VC's liquidation preference, the common stock is valueless. You and the founders hold common stock. For their participation in the deal, the founders were guaranteed 3x $3 million signing bonuses with the acquirer. This leaves $1 million to pay the lawyers, cover the accountancy costs, etc etc etc. But hey, because you're such a nice guy, despite your options being worthless they fought hard for you and convinced the acquirer to cut a check for _three whole months_ of your old salary.

You would be, of course, free to decline this bonus. The door is on your left.

And, to be fair, you did better than another 1% owner of the company -- employee #1, who went on to greener pastures a year ago. His shares have vested. But he was "disloyal" and "didn't stick it through", so hey, no check for him at all.

<comment><USER12> > That's engineer math, but not financier math.

Engineers read the whole message, including the bit about liquidation preferences and doing things outside the deal.

Why do you find it unreasonable for different people to get different signing bonuses?

Note that they're not getting them because of ownership, but because of perceived value to the acquirer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The reason they do acqui-hires is to bail the VC out. The same VC sits on the board of the aquiring company.

And we all know what happens when you try to hire away employees due to no- poach collusion, the hirer get's fired after Steve Jobs's email.

<comment><USER16> This is much rarer than you think. Cite some examples.

<comment><USER15> Most of the recent aqui-hires. AOL buying Netscape.

<comment><USER16> So you don't have any examples or know what you are talking about. Got it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Expedia makes American flights harder to find - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20101223/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_expedia_american_airlines

<comment><AUTHOR> Could this be construed as anti-competitive behavior? (Effectively colluding with Orbitz?)</comment>


Fabre's Book of Insects (1921) - <AUTHOR> https://publicdomainreview.org/collections/fabres-book-of-insects-1921/ <comment><USER2> I don't know how's the English translation, but I've read the original version and it's really wonderful. Not only for the insects, but it provides at times fascinating glimpses of ordinary life in the 19th century: Fabre tells how as a boy in the 1830s, up until 7 he walked only barefoot and only wore year-long a ragged shirt that dropped to his knees; also don't miss his visit to the village butcher's backyard in search of necrophagous insects...

[edit]: reading the article, this is an abridged version of the Entomological Memoirs. Definitely read the thicker tome, it's well worth it. Plus practically nothing in it had been invalidated scientifically (he was opposed to Evolution, but was not a bigot; he had an interesting and rich correspondence with Darwin).

<comment><USER3> The thicker one (in english) may be somewhat difficult to find.

[https://www.worldcat.org/title/works-of-jh- fabre/oclc/316395...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/works-of-jh- fabre/oclc/316395259&referer=brief_results)

As far as I can tell, there are 3 locations (one in The British Library, St. Pancras under a slightly different entry) in Worldcat, and nothing recently (re)published or scanned, apart from various selections concerning specific insects.

If someone knows otherwise, please do share!

<comment><USER3> The final volume in Teixeira's series (at least, that published on the US side of the pond, and available online) appears to be the Life of the Scorpion ([https://archive.org/details/lifeofscorpion00fabr/](https://archive.org/details/lifeofscorpion00fabr/)) which unfortunately does not have his name attached in the metadata. It is _also_ lacking a translator's note (as he died in 1921, and published 1923, that's not entirely surprising.).

The list of translations at the beginning of Life of the Scorpion, however, appears to be the best aggregation for my above question. Note that 'More Hunting Wasps' also does not appear with Teixeira's name attached in archive.org.

Florence Bicknell also translated what appears to be a rather excellent series on science and natural philosophy by J.H. Fabre, which is freely available: [https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Bicknell%2...](https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Bicknell%2C+Florence+Constable%22), though these lack the fine illustrations in the OP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a child I thoroughly enjoyed reading Gerald Durrell's books about his childhood in Corfu. All a wonderful read, both for his interest in zoology and the various characters that show up. I highly recommend My Family and Other Animals as a starter. At some point his older brother gives him a copy of this Fabre book and I remembered the reference immediately.

</comment><comment><USER5> Although not geared towards children, David Fairchild's [url = [https://books.google.com/books/about/Book_of_Monsters.html?i...](https://books.google.com/books/about/Book_of_Monsters.html?id=ji- cIimRmq4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false)] "Book of Monsters" [/url] is another fascinating glimpse into the lives of insects from the 1920's.

edit: guess I'm not hacker enough to make a working URL ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> Find this, and much more at the Biodiversity Heritage Library. [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/71078#page/11/mode/...](https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/71078#page/11/mode/1up)

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice hand-drawn images inside.</comment>


Ask: Can I use monkey island's curses in my commercial application? - <AUTHOR>

Would love to hear from anyone that understand in cooperate law. Can I integrate curses from monkey island in my app? For example, these:
http://www.worldofmi.com/gamehelp/insults/mi1.php <comment><USER2> IANAL but I think this is just a copyright question - there are legit ways to use copyrighted works but you might be asking for trouble because they're still actively developing those games and that IP for today's platforms. It is probably not worth gambling your software on this.

[http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html](http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

<comment><USER3> In particular, the above link says:

 _" Section 107 [of the U.S. copyright law] contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."_

It doesn't sound like the intended use in a commercial application falls under any of these protected categories.

 _" When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. ... If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."_

It would be much cheaper to get competent legal advice from a lawyer now than it would be to defend yourself against an infringement lawsuit that might be brought against you by the copyright holders. And if you don't have the resources to defend yourself in court, it won't matter whether your usage of this content is "fair use" or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since it is a LucasArts property, I would recommend you contact them directly for permission and any terms that they require.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why don't you just make up your own stuff?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because I really like monkey island's :)</comment></comment>