Show HN: (Video) Customer Discovery search engine. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2eRpmEb2xPU Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster here, this is a search engine for finding people who want to buy your products.
It's definitely lean at the moment, I would have loved to add more  features in but I need to see if this is something people actually want.
Oh and I'm looking for a tech co-founder ! , Email germc21 [at] gmail.com if you're interested :-). Applied to Yc and will be applying to Techstars too.
Here s the vid : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2eRpmEb2xPU
Please sign up for the beta and let me know any other comments you have.
Cheers, Ger <comment><USER2> Interesting that you didn't even bother to register a domain. Pretty damn lean. Not so sure about the idea of parsing Twitter for customer wants but that's what you're trying to MVP, I guess...</comment>


Arscoin, our own custom cryptocurrency - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/behold-arscoin-our-own-custom-cryptocurrency/ <comment><USER2> > The dollar is said to be "elastic," as the Fed can increase or decrease the > money supply at any given time essentially by telling the Bureau of > Engraving and Printing to simply print more money using fancy moneymaking > machines and crazy-complicated inks and textiles.

Or they could just tell them to conduct open-market operations and buy an existing US Treasury bond from the lowest bidder on the open market. Which is what they _really_ do to manipulate the supply.

(To say nothing of banks creating money with loans...)

<comment><USER3> Don't you hate it when people conflate money with credit. That's why all the bitcoin fans can never win; even if bitcoin was the world reserve currency (similar to how gold still is today - held by central banks), it would mean jack shit because everyone would use fractional reserve lending and credit, like we've done for ages, with the booms and busts and skimming that go with it. So IMHO nothing will _ever_ change.

<comment><USER4> > Don't you hate it when people conflate money with credit

Is it any wonder? _Any_ medium-of-exchange immediately becomes credit -- a claim on some unknown-person's future offering of something.

Everything else more-complicated derives from this inherent money-is-a-claim characteristic IMHO.

The medium truly is the claim, aka credit.

<comment><USER5> Did I just realize that all money in our current form is credit and I never actually own anything? And whom ever controls the biggest source of credit controls the value of the "money" in my pocket at anytime? The only truly valuable thing is experience.

<comment><USER4> > Did I just realize that all money in our current form is credit and I never > actually own anything?

You own whatever you exchange your money for, in the simplest terms. Even if it's a bitcoin or a "financial security" or a share or a chunk of gold, or indeed a pork-belly, an iPad etc. etc.

<comment><USER5> It is actually the credit aspect I just started to understand. Money represents credit. Just like politics, you can ignore it but you can't escape it.

<comment><USER3> Try this on for size:

How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0)

in particular, see the graph of total domestic debt (i.e. credit) to gdp, and how they have short and long term cycles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6>
        "The whole point is that we're not a quick scam," Nathan
        Gudmunson, the chairman of the Worldcoin Foundation, told
        Ars. "Our coin is clearly not that, and we're trying to
        build up a payment system around it.

...well that didn't turn out too well. Gudmunson and several other (now former) Worldcoin Foundation board members started an exchange/payment system called Scharmbeck. Scharmbeck took large amount of investor money by selling "fee shares." Scharmbeck shut down shortly after. Gudmunson and several other members were removed from the Worldcoin Foundation board, the cryptocurrency collapsed and has never recovered. Investors holding Scharmbeck "fee shares" will likely never see a return and have lost almost all of their initial investments

</comment><comment><USER7> This has been predicted by Ethereum's founder (and others, I'm sure). There will be _millions_ of crypto-coins in the future. Any company could launch its own crypto-coin, as some sort of "shares" from the company, and a way to fund the company as some sort of mini-IPO. Think of it like Kickstarter for crowdfunding, but you'd actually own part of the company by buying their coins, and your coins will grow in value as the company's value grows. You could also easily sell those coins back into other currencies whenever you want.

Of course, this would be much easier if all of these millions of coins would be built on top of a crypto-coin _platform_ , where you could also have P2P exchanges that can exchange these currencies much more easily and securely than a centralized exchange can. Things could get easier still for doing this, if companies just become Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. That's basically what Ethereum is trying to achieve, among other things.

[http://www.coindesk.com/ethererum-launches- cryptocurrency-2-...](http://www.coindesk.com/ethererum-launches- cryptocurrency-2-0-network/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dpjN3Mwps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dpjN3Mwps)

<comment><USER8> > There will be millions of crypto-coins in the future

This doesn't make sense. If everyone had their own altcoin, even if they all used Scrypt, nobody would be secure because a 50% attack on your personal blockchain would be trivial. Bitcoins security relies solely on it being one of few significant coins of its kind.

In any case, Bitcoin is huge because its decentralised and nobody has to make decisions. If everyone had to decide what chains to trust then you may as well switch to a superior cryptographic protocol that allows you to mint your own coin without a blockchain. These exist, there's just no incentive for them inside the traditional banking system (too anonymous), or indeed on the inter- personal micro scale (too inconvenient).

Coloured coins make sense, but that's not really the same thing.

<comment><USER9> So a form of arbitrage against Bitcoin may be to create your own cryptocurrency, mint a few million of them for yourself, hype it on HN, then cash out and profit? Sounds like a classic pump-and-dump junk bond scam, to me.

<comment><USER10> This is called premining and it's a common accusation towards new altcoins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> CryptoCurrency as a replacement for internet karma points and JesusBucks given away at Wednesday night Methodist Youth Fellowship meetings.

When my hairdresser has their own CryptoCurrency how shall I maintain my faith that bitcoin has a value these others don't?

<comment><USER12> "If I had before me a fly and an elephant, having never seen more than one such magnitude of either kind; and if the fly were to endeavor to persuade me that he was larger than the elephant, I might by possibility be placed in a difficulty. The apparently little creature might use such arguments about the effect of distance, and might appeal to such laws of sight and hearing as I, if unlearned in those things, might be unable wholly to reject. But if there were a thousand flies, all buzzing, to appearance, about the great creature; and, to a fly, declaring, each one for himself, that he was bigger than the quadruped; and all giving different and frequently contradictory reasons; and each one despising and opposing the reasons of the others—I should feel quite at my ease. I should certainly say, My little friends, the case of each one of you is destroyed by the rest. I intend to show flies in the swarm, with a few larger animals, for reasons to be given."

[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23100/23100-h/23100-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23100/23100-h/23100-h.htm)

<comment><USER13> How on earth did you pull this quote out of thin air?

<comment><USER12> I have owned the book for quite a while, the quote was originally about science- but it is so harsh it stuck with me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Off topic: as someone who grew up learning British English, ars[e]coin is a very unfortunate name.

<comment><USER15> What makes you think that wasn't partially intended? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Speaking of altcoins/cryptocurrency…

Has anyone heard much about MazaCoin?

It just became the official currency for the Lakota nation. Wanted to hear what fellow HN'ers think about this.

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5469510/native-americans- as...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5469510/native-americans-assert-their- independence-through-cryptocurrency-mazacoin)

Out of all the altcoins, seems like this one has strong real-world application and brings a lot of value to these Indian tribes. Similar to what Bitcoin has done in other nations that lack a strong national currency.

MazaCoin is also the "official national currency" of a Sovereign Nation, so it can't "technically" be outlawed. Huge step forward for crypto currencies? Outright scam? What do you guys think?

Thoughts on this coin in specific? Altcoins/cryptocurrency in general?

<comment><USER17> For now it's just another altcoin (zetacoin clone) that is riding the same speculative trend as auroracoin has been for the last couple weeks. _If_ it is actually officially recognized by the tribe and _if_ it starts getting used more like a real currency on tribal lands, it stands a chance at establishing a more stable value and breaking new ground as a cryptocurrency. I figure this is at least several years off and is highly speculative in itself. The coin additionally still has the problem that all the others do, and most of them will end up in the hands of cryptocurrency speculators and not indians, which would seem to cast a rather uncertain future on the coin.

That being said, I bought some and am mining some, I think it's cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Arscoin ? I think they would have been better served with Technicoin or something like that ...

<comment><USER19> Don't you want some arse coins?

<comment><USER20> Let's get them all out the way:

* Get your ars out!

* Mining ars.

* There's no liquidity in ars.

* Where can I sell my ars?

<comment><USER21> * Pulling coins our of our ars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Soon there will be a "make your own crypturrency" kit and every little retailer will offer them like giftcards. It's almost like the rise of money all over again, expect this time instead of nationstates, it will be large multinational corporations likely to dominate. What's the Target/Walmart rate today on the forex?

I'd be surprised if Paypal (or the people likely to kill them) aren't secretly chewing on this as we speak.

<comment><USER23> Which will be kind of like the olden days of a hundred or two hundred years ago, when every state issued its own currency, or every bank, or every goldsmith.

Which is to say that it will fly in the face of the general trend of development of these things, which has been towards _fewer_ currencies, not more. More currencies means more friction in trade and commerce, since it makes price comparisons harder and forces buyer and seller to constantly be making conversions; this in turn means less commerce happens, which makes everyone poorer. That's a bad thing, not a good thing.

<comment><USER24> If only there was some sort of device that could automate the conversion process, perhaps to the extent that humans never have to worry about any friction on their level at all.

<comment><USER25> "Just give me a few minutes to upload my XCoins from my XWallet to XY- Exchange, convert them to YCoins, and a few more minutes to transfer my YCoins to my YWallet".

Either that or you keep all your coins sitting in said exchange so you can instantaneously convert them and pay out. And then lose them all permanently when the exchange has a security flaw.

Currency of the future.

<comment><USER24> Mocking on the basis of the clumsiest possible option isn't very convincing, it's just lazy.

<comment><USER25> I provided the convenient option. It's just that it leaves your funds massively exposed. The relatively lengthy transaction times built into *-coin transfers are going to make most conversions 'clumsy'. What alternative would you recommend?

<comment><USER24> One possible option that required 10 seconds of thought to come up with- multicoin wallets on both ends of the transaction.

Why can't people (on this site of all places) spend just a little bit of time thinking about how things could work well instead of merely pointing out problems?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Will there be a CaaS (Cryptocurrency as a service)? To allow anyone to create their own branded altcoin.

<comment><USER27> [http://coingen.io/](http://coingen.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28>
      The whole value proposition [of cryptocurrency] is the digital
      scarcity, and if you have a million of these things then you've
      devalued all of them.

...

      I say the more the merrier, the more people trying stuff. You can
      create these economies out of nothing! ... I will buy any coins I
      can get my hands on.

I haven't seen much discussion of this topic. If you assume that Bitcoin and Litecoin have value, and that value is preserved through scarcity, what does it mean when anyone can clone it and create their own currency?

<comment><USER29> > have value, and that value is preserved through scarcity

Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomad Malthus, David Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill etc. and all the early economists did not believe value was preserved through scarcity.

People tried to change this idea in the 19th century, but in the early 1950s the idea that value was preserved through scarcity was only held widely in the USA, and perhaps in some quarters in Western Europe.

Nowadays things are contradictory. Contradictory in the sense that the establishment speaks about government and free market in a certain way, then flips to the total opposite idea and demands banks be bailed out by taxpayers, then flips back to what they were originally saying once that is done.

The establishment economists say value is through scarcity. Then they demand that mp3's, movies etc. not be "pirated" because "artists deserve the fruit of their labors" and the value they imputed to these mp3's, movies etc. But how can that be if value is derived through scarcity? If things are write once, read many, then there is no unfairness going on if no one buys movies and songs and "pirates" them.

The mainstream economists say value is derived through scarcity, but then, when things can be reproduced digitially with no more scarcity, they try to impose the old legal system on things - the legal system which always more-or- less acknowledged that value came from labor time, whether or not the idealogues acknowledged things as such.

This is also why Bitcoins are as worthless as tulips were in 1637 Holland ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) ), or bum real estate projects in 2008, or Pets.com and Webvan stock in 2000 etc. The Mt. Gox collapse and such is just the heralding of the inevitable collapse of the worth of Bitcoins.

In science, facts, such as say the inevitable collapse as Bitcoin, or the contradiction of where mp3's derive their value, and so forth, change established theory. But as who gets a bigger piece of the big pie is not a scientific endeavor, it's a struggle with lots of propaganda and such. If scientists predicted something, and then the evidence showed them wrong, they would change their theories. The inevitable collapse of Bitcoin will not change its slick huckster's propaganda one iota. They'll just sucker you into buying into their next MLM scheme. How long until it happens? However long Dutch tulip bulbs, or the housing bubble, or the dot-com bubble went on should be a clue. As Keynes said, markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. But those who want to understand how the world really works, will look at the inevitable crash of Bitcoin, meaning when they are worth not $630 or so each, but 63 cents each, or less - those who want to understand how the world works will see when that happens and will reconsider whether value comes from scarcity or not. Most won't. The ones who hype it today will have other reasons for why that collapse, which today they say will never happen, will have had happened. The propaganda will go on. But those who want to understand the world can take that time to reconsider things. Even though the discourse will be dominated even then by the phonies and hucksters who were just proven to be frauds. That day will come in the next few years, as it is impossible for Bitcoins to retain value due to "scarcity".

<comment><USER30> I would be inclined to agree; that value is _not_ entirely caused by scarcity. (Though I will point out that if a resource is scarce, people might put more value on it and try to acquire more now because they're afraid they might not be able to get it later.)

However, for a currency, scarcity is critical! Let's say it was easy (and cheap) for people to print their own dollars. You then want to buy an apple. How much is an apple these days, about $1? That doesn't make sense, the apple store can easily print $1 worth of money and keep the apple. What about for $100? Same thing: it's still one bill. What about $1000000? Maybe. Depends how much harder it is to acquire that amount of paper and ink than the apple. At this point, congratulations, your currency is basically paper and ink. Buying anything remotely expensive (like groceries) involves hauling around tons of paper and ink.

[http://w3.newsmax.com/newsletters/uwr/images/transcript- img1...](http://w3.newsmax.com/newsletters/uwr/images/transcript-img14.jpg)

<comment><USER29> Currency is a commodity, just like any other commodity. Why have certain commodities, such as gold, often become currencies over the past millennia? Because certain commodities like gold are durable, divisible, portable, uniform etc. and thus make good currencies. The US dollar was just a note exchangable for equivalent gold at the Federal Reserve until 1971.

States have tried to issue currencies without backing for thousands of years. Have any of those currencies lasted long? The answer is no. There's nothing about the US dollar which makes me think it will be any different than such schemes hatched in Ancient Mesopotamia or Greece. In fact the worth of three dollars today is about equivalent to one 1980 dollar. The dollar will not retain its value over time, while an ounce of gold from 4000 years ago has a somewhat equivalent value to an ounce of gold today. Inevitably there will be a crisis of confidence, and the dollar, euro, yen etc. will either become worthless, or will be backed by gold, or silver or the like. It's not as if governments today have some magic which makes their dollars and euros valuable in a way that governments 2000 years ago could not.

I can pay taxes with dollars, I can go to USPS and buy stuff, I can go to an Army PX and buy stuff - but this only goes so far. The day will come, maybe decades from now, maybe a century or two from now, when a crisis of confidence happens and the dollar either becomes worthless or backed by gold from Fort Knox.

If the dollar has a real underlying value - WHY does the government still stockpile gold in Fort Knox?

Again I want to stress I'm talking historically and what must happen in a century or two. I am not claiming the dollar's value will collapse in the next year. But if it is not backed by a real commodity once a real crisis of confidence occurs, then it will inevitably lose its value.

Scarcity has nothing to do with it. The dollar until 1971 backed by the commodity gold, is the historical norm. The past 40-something years is the historic abnormality. Which will inevitably transform back to the old way.

<comment><USER31> If I could make gold out of air, how long do you think it would remain in use?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So in the end each of us will have our own crypto-currency who's value is determined by how popular we are.

<comment><USER4> KloutCoin? So all the "attention economy" peddlers had it right after all? Then many of us doing old-school value-adding are royally screwed.

<comment><USER32> Haha KloutCoin. Don't tell that to klout they WILL do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> You know what would be _totally_ awesome? A cryptocoin whose core workings are derived from _Charity_. A coin based on Charity† would offer stronger safety guarantees for complex contracts than any other existing or proposed coin (certainly more than Ethereum). Especially if extended to _implicitly capture complexity_.

†If you understand the multiple levels on which that statement works - especially on a site named after a fixed point combinator - then I think you will agree I deserve to feel as clever as I did when I wrote it =D.

<comment><USER34> Could you elaborate a bit? This sounds promising but I'm having trouble understanding how it would work. You need to donate to charity to verify a transaction?

<comment><USER35> Charity is an experimental FP language. < [http://pll.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/charity1/www/home.html](http://pll.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/charity1/www/home.html) >

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's a shame they cannot figure out how to make a SETIcoin or folding@home coin, where you earn based on how much data you process for the cause.

Would be better than just burning electrons for scrypt.

<comment><USER37> While they haven't yet figured out how to make a proof-of-work do useful work, one can make a relatively low-power one that mostly (95%) substitutes memory latency for computation, as in my [https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo](https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "if you look at Bitcoin and you see the contributor list, it's a dozen people writing a majority of the code. If you lower the barrier to entry and allow people to experiment, you bring more people to develop it in the space."

So true, the biggest complaint from the Bitcoin core devs is that there are few people contributing. Especially when there are heavily funded companies relying on this code.

</comment><comment><USER39> Ok so let's launch HNcoin

</comment><comment><USER40> Breaking News: 300 Arscoins just stolen. Film at 11.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I love that you can use it to buy hats. Clearly they have bought into the Valve method of raking in (crypto-)cash!

</comment><comment><USER41> I have always wondered that why we cannot make intangibles like happiness, emotions as a currency. Even though they are more often than not treated as the real wealth a person can have, we have never ever been able to count these intangibles and store them.

Of course this seems to be an absurd idea at first. But, lets try to think about it, doesn't matter how ridiculous or implausible this might sound.

My mind goes back to the movie "In Time", where time was treated as currency, something on which your life depended, literally.

Can't the smartest people on this planet, think of some thing absolutely fascinating, that may let us, mortal people gather our happiness and maybe able to trade it.

Consider for example that someone who helps people out, people who may not have enough money, but who have the intention to bless that person. Can't that person count/take the blessings and become rich in process.

If this is possible, their might a big motivation for everyone to do good, help people out, get their genuine blessings ...

I know this all sounds really crazy!! Just wanted to dish my thoughts out :)

<comment><USER42> I think we need a thin client on your Google Glass that feeds your personal interactions continuously to an AI engine in the cloud.

Having established that you were the recipient of a well-merited compliment that significantly pleased you, the identity of the complimenter, and the fact that your benefactor is HappyCoin(tm)-enabled, the engine would automatically calculate the exact monetary value of your happiness and create a microtransaction as payment, which you would then hopefully approve while still uplifted.

<comment><USER24> There's a Bruce Sterling story, "Maneki Neko", that's always fascinated me as model for a potential future. In it, a master computer tells people to perform certain actions it knows will fulfill other people's needs. The more you put in, the more you're eligible to get out. It is, in essence, a gift economy organized by the cloud.

It's the sort of idea that seems tantalizingly plausible with smartphones and the cloud, but is hard to actually put into practice. It's definitely the kind of thing that could drive a host of startup ideas, though.

Here's the full story online: [http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/maneki- neko/](http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/maneki-neko/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Does everyone and their dog(e) have to start his/her own cryptocurrency?!

I wonder when we'll see such inventions as MaruCoin, GrumpyCoin or, for what it's worth, FlappyCoin.

Such currency. Much chaos. Very wow.

edit: please, do not start these altcoins, we've got too much of 'em already...

<comment><USER44> We've had FlappyCoin for weeks now: [http://reddit.com/r/flappycoin](http://reddit.com/r/flappycoin)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm mining this right now on a linode VPS with around 10khashs. It's nothing at all but hey, why not

<comment><USER46> Isn't that against the TOS?

<comment><USER45> You saw nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm holding out for Kriegerands.

</comment><comment><USER48> I am not sure that an Arse-coin sounds that cool, rather it hits a bum note, has a whiff of suspicion, people might get wind of it, and what happens if it gets wiped (out)?

<comment><USER49> Thank you for this.</comment></comment>


Climate change could cost younger generations $530 trillion if nothing is done - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-will-cost-future-generations-trillions-2017-7 <comment><USER2> This is a ridiculous assessment. What is the cost of adapting to it? If that is cheaper than avoiding it, let alone fixing it, then it is the better answer.</comment>


Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/researchers-orbit-a-muon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/ <comment><USER2> Title is garbage, seemingly typical of the decline of science journalism.

The researchers orbited a muon around a _deuterium nucleus_ , not an atom. And physics isn't broken, but this experiment adds to to recent evidence that the Standard Model (and supersymmetry) are showing serious flaws.

<comment><USER3> Can you cite the other recent anti-standard-model results?

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I should have said only "anti-supersymmetry." While I'm an interested amateur, I only have undergraduate degree in physics. Perhaps someone who is currently working in the field can comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice garbage title about an experiment where the interviewed researchers repeatedly say that they're explicitly not claiming that "physics is broken".

While yes, one interpretation could be that this indicates some new physics, the most likely explanation in their opinion (which might be a bit more trustworthy than the "journalists") is that the physics is as-is but simply our current/earlier estimates of the Rydberg constant are wrong, and that _this_ needs some extra experiments to verify.

The earlier article at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12270483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12270483) about the same experiment explains this far more better, this is a poor quality dupe.</comment>


The Lightning Network Cannot Be a Decentralized Bitcoin Scaling Solution - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 <comment><AUTHOR> So, yes inflammatory and yes it's early days, but I am interested in getting my head round Lightning, and this seemed an interesting take.

A second interesting take that I don't quite get is that the payment channel sets a limit on the amount of money (bitcoin) that can be transferred to the amount the parties commit in setting up the channel.

Also the money seems to be "locked up". let's say I want to have a payment channel between my employer and me. we set up a channel of the monthly amount. And then ... we pay me and Inwant to spend it onwards. so i cash out. that has now got two blockchain transactions and we need to do it again next month?

Or is there a way to onward spend still on the lightning network?</comment>


This device sends an automatic 911 call from your motorcycle in case of a crash - <AUTHOR> https://ridemetry.com/en/ <comment><USER2> In the U.S., I don't think that any automated calling of 911 is legal.</comment>


Chess Thrives Online Despite Pandemic - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/sports/coronavirus-chess-online-tournament.html <comment><AUTHOR> Somebody also analyzed the game database of lichess[1] and the amount of time spend playing has seen quite an increase in march: [https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/gejorp/chess_in_the_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/gejorp/chess_in_the_time_of_corona_220_million_games_on/)

[1] [https://database.lichess.org/](https://database.lichess.org/)</comment>


Tesla is the Lisp Machine of cars? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2018/04/01/tesla-is-the-lisp-machine-of-cars/ <comment><USER2> I'm really glad it's not. It's an interesting comparison for sure, but after the initial few seconds you start to realize that all auto makers are now shifting to the new propulsion technology & Tesla themselves still have a very long list of orders to fulfill.

I did learn about Lisp Machines, though, which is nice.</comment>


Ask HN: Remote/Global Work - <AUTHOR> I am an exFANG senior sw engineer living out of US    due to things out of my control(family, health and finally covid). I got offers with in US but nothing pure Remote or should I say Global. What is the best way to get a Global/Remote job? Do YC startups accept developers out of US? Can having a LLC in US or with in the country you are in helps to find a pure remote/global job? Why a developer can make more than quarter million dollars in US but nothing when out of US with the same skill set and contribution chance? <comment><USER2> The best way to get a remote job is to only talk to remote companies. Filter the Who Is Hiring monthly post here on HN or Work At A Startup ([https://www.workatastartup.com/](https://www.workatastartup.com/)) by remote. I don't know about bigger job boards but this works with startups. And when you start interviewing, have good answers for how you have been/will be effective at working remotely. A lot of employers ask about communication and productivity so make sure you mention those.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did this and majority of them returned with a fixed email like I was filtered out by an automation. I do believe majority of them are US only with same time zone preference. I got an offer which wanted me to work as low as $10hr, the way they interact was unprofessional with disrespect. I do not mind starting with a lower rate if I know they will raise it when they see the value in a short period of time.The people who I worked with before keep saying you should be hired blink of a eye but no luck for getting interviews for out of US jobs. Same resume recently let me get two big offers for US only positions so I am highly puzzled where am I doing wrong and start to become demotivated.

<comment><USER2> I think the markets aren't amazing right now, but that shouldn't deter you. Getting a job is not really a numbers game in a good market but right now it seems more competitive than typically. The more quality applications you're submitting the more you'll weed out those "We'll pay you under market to start but you'll get to work your way up!" kind of offers. How many are you applying to each week?

Also if you find an interesting startup (that's not too big yet) see if you can find the founders' emails and email them directly in detail about why you want to join and what you bring. Then negotiate/bring remote into those early conversations once they see you bring value to the table.

<comment><AUTHOR> I applied total of 15 so far. Now I am sending emails pre checking their remote working possibility by explaining my story. May be I should wait for starlink which can create remote job opportunities for people like me when out of US.

<comment><USER2> Nice, quality over quantity of course, but I would apply to a lot more if you want to weed out lower offers. You can try to get 2 offers and use that as negotiating leverage. Applying to more will allow you to simply ignore/skip companies that aren't paying good rates.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you David with all of your helps! I will start applying more. Would you mind having a chat offline?

Did you heard anybody getting hired out of US by a YC backed startup, I am asking this to narrow my search and focus. In the past I seen job posts to hire somebody on visa and when you apply it is almost clear you will not be hired but will lose time. Are there similar things I need to watch out? Some companies are looking same timezone or at least 4 hour overlap, do you think promising 4 hour overlap can help if it is written in cover letter? Is there a way to get help from a recruiter or some sort of an agency?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Are there any essays about this from PG?

<comment><AUTHOR> All questions are for real, would prefer a simple comment with no to a down vote.

<comment><AUTHOR> Go a head with more down votes this will show your quality of helping other people, I am sure when it comes to talk about it you have tons to say.</comment></comment></comment>


Scholrly Launches Comments for Academic Papers - <AUTHOR> http://scholrly.tumblr.com/post/42288661833/need-a-clarification-on-a-paper-you-recently-read

<comment><AUTHOR> After seeing the OpenJournal HN post (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5287825>), I realized we never let HN know that we enable comments!

For now we're testing user interest with Disqus, but are planning a more sophisticated system. We're also going to start pinging first and last authors on paper comments to help keep discussions going- I'd love your feedback.</comment>


How to disable all security checks for the login process to my Google account? - <AUTHOR> Google keeps locking me out of my accounts because they don't recognize the device (I don't let them track me as much as they would like, I guess)... A login and password is sufficient for most of my accounts. <comment><USER2> You don't want them to track you but are happy with them reading emails?

Anyways, I guess the login cookie and/or session storage is being cleared. Then they obviously can't keep you logged in.</comment>


How I Almost Got Acquired By Apple And Then Snubbed - <AUTHOR> http://kandarpmadhav.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/itunes-semantic-search-project-derailed-by-apple/ <comment><USER2> Welcome to the wild ride of dealing with large corporations. What you encountered here is absolutely standard -- in fact, I'd say it's actually better than what you'd get when dealing with most large companies, since Steve actually replied back at the end with a "not interested".

You may have put a lot of hope in the "if you've already incorporated, we could acquire your company" line but I can guarantee they didn't put a lot of thought into it.

They were just talking about hiring you (with "acquisition" as the legal mechanism, or not). Maybe with a bit of a hiring bonus.

The standard play when dealing with any large company is always "hurry up and wait". For whatever reason, this is just something you need to get used to.

Do you really expect either Steve or this engineering manager to be replying within 48 hours? I think the second you started badgering them and brought Steve back in the loop, you were toast.

<comment><USER3> Exactly, given the great opportunity he had a chance at the author should have been far more patient and dare I say a bit more professional.

The experience I've had with dealing with big corps is very much "hurry up and wait". Often this is a symptom of the structure and politics of bigger institutions, where you don't have to convince just the person you are dealing with but convince them to convince others. If they decide to try to bring you in it is their reputation on the line, a reputation that could be damaged even if the deal never goes anywhere.

I've been caught in the middle of some nasty office politics that have totally killed negotiations because I had the wrong guy championing my cause.

Oh and does it strike anyone else as a bit unprofessional to go posting correspondence to the world? I'd certainly think twice before dealing with anyone who had done this in the past, talk about burning bridges! Or am I alone in expecting a certain measure of privacy in my business comms?

<comment><USER4> I agree 100%, the author comes off a bit unprofessional, pushy, and demanding. You can't even begin to imagine how many people send in suggestions, feature requests, ideas, etc. to companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft. I know because in middle school I sent such an email to Capcom on killer game ideas. After some time I received a nice letter in the company letterhead from them encouraging me to stay in school and excel in math. Even though I didn't get acquired or got a job, that letter meant so much to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it possible that the picture the author had in his head of "Being acquired" was skewing things here? I don't see any clear indications that an "Acquisition" was ever in the offing here. He emailed Steve, Steve forwarded it to an engineer who the author was lucky enough to hear back from at all.

Most likely they looked at what he was outputting and weren't impressed, or had another solution in mind. I'm assuming (and hoping for his sake) from my interpretation that he never submitted actual code to them - just output.

<comment><USER6> If you believe the OP the potential for acquisition was noted here: "Next he says that if I have incorporated the startup, Apple could acquire it or he could hire me to work with him."

Who knows.

I will say that it was handled very poorly. At the point they weren't interested they should have said it rather than just not responding to email.

<comment><USER5> Emailing Steve the first time he was lucky it got handed off to someone in engineering.

But to continue to pester the engineer and worse, Steve... What kind of response do you expect?

Further, does he think the software engineer has nothing to do but work on this project with him?

<comment><USER7> In reading the email communication and also paying attention to the timeline, I did not get the impression that the OP was "pestering" the Apple Manager. He was cordial and gently reminding that he was promised a response and had not received one.

If anything, I got the impression that the Apple Manager was stalling (or maybe he really was ill and it really took him 10 days - from May 4 to May 14 - to "get back on his feet")

<comment><USER8> _If anything, I got the impression that the Apple Manager was stalling (or maybe he really was ill and it really took him 10 days - from May 4 to May 14 - to "get back on his feet")_

Or else he's just a busy guy with a lot on his plate apart from this one project which he's not _that_ interested in with some guy who keeps pestering him.

<comment><USER9> Especially considering the timeframe - right around WWDC. This eng manager was likely scrambling like crazy to get ready for that.

Also, if the manager was considering hiring this guy, he was probably looking not just at his code, but evaluating what kind of a person he is and culture fit. If they're hustling to get ready for WWDC while this guy keeps emailing and pointing out what competitors like Google are doing (as if they don't know this), he may have concluded that this is someone he just doesn't want to work with, regardless of the guy's algorithm.

<comment><USER10> He could have simply said that he will take a month or so to thoroughly evaluate and get back to him. Wouldn't that be a better approach?

<comment><USER9> Yes, it would have - I'm not arguing against that point, only speculating why this guy didn't hear back from Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You sound awfully pushy, and can't you just take a hint? I have been not called back by women, customers, partners, and everyone else. They have expressed interest and left me hanging.

At first, you be persistent, and you get more dates and more contracts because of it. But you also learn when to take a hint, and Apple gave you several.

<comment><USER12> If a woman said she's interested in you, never calls back, and says SHE will call YOU, you wouldn't have hope and stay interested?

I don't understand why this thread seems to be going out of their way to shit on this guy. It's not like Apple said "eh" and didn't respond, they kept saying they'd get back to him and never bothered.

It's called leading someone on, it's rude, and I'm startled at the number of excuses that are being made for this guy.

<comment><USER13> > If a woman said she's interested in you, never calls back, and says SHE will > call YOU, you wouldn't have hope and stay interested?

Wait, what? This is the classic way by which someone expresses that they are not interested without saying so directly. Don't call us; we'll call you.

<comment><USER12> That's shitty and I still can't believe people are making excuses for this type of behavior. It's pathetic.

<comment><USER12> Most pathetic downmodding I've seen on HN. This isn't even passive aggressive, this is just being a shitty human being. Fuck you all.

It's really cool that HN is going the reddit route of downmodding comments that they disagree with. Although I don't even think my comments would have been downmodded over there. Because we're all hip and "hackers" at HN we just tolerate and expect people to be shitty to each other in the business world. Real cool guys.

<comment><USER14> People are downvoting you because your response was so acerbic. This reply isn't helping.

<comment><USER12> No it's not. Point out what was so "acerbic" in my original reply. I've read it twice now and there's nothing out of line in it.

The only emotion I injected was "I am startled". Yeah, really `acid in temper or mood`. Especially when * ironically* I was addressing the acerbic comments being pointed at the author for ACTUALLY BELIEVING people when they told him they were interested.

Is it opposite day on HN or did I miss a memo?

<comment><USER14> I didn't say it was out of line, just acerbic.

"shitty" "can't believe" "pathetic"

Strong words. HN will generally downvote strong displays of negative emotions, especially if it's something purely subjective.

It was also slightly accusatory, saying other HN users were "making excuses" for this behavior. There's some ambiguity as to whether you meant the behavior itself was pathetic or the people "making excuses" were pathetic. I think you meant the latter.

Maybe this is an easier way to understand it: imagine you're in a room filled with people talking about this issue, and you stood up and said what you said out loud. How do you expect people to react? Positively?

I can't believe I'm explaining this in such detail. Haha.

<comment><USER12> I would call people out for excusing leading people on and lying to their faces. In public. In a room full of people that disagree with me. If I am in the wrong and downvotes (or in our analogy looks of disapproval or murmurs of hatred in my direction) are my punishment I will take them proudly. I think excusing the behavior is nearly as shameful as being the person doing the lying and deceiving.

I can't believe _I'm_ explaining this in such deal. I meant the usage quite literally. I'm shocked that an intelligent community such as HN is excusing the behavior because it's supposedly "normal". I think the treatment and thus the excuses are "shitty" which doesn't have a formal definition for me to rattle off, but suffice it to say I think it covers "unacceptable behavior" which is a category that lying and leading people on generally falls into.

<comment><USER14> You go, girl.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is not what "almost getting acquired" looks like. At a stretch it might be what almost getting _hired_ looks like, but even that would be pushing it I think.

Of course it would be nice if people would just tell you when they're not interested, but generally nobody does that. Adjust your filters accordingly - if someone doesn't seem _excited_ , they're probably not interested at all.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. Startups get acquired because the executives at the big company like the founders and have been friends with them for a long time, not because they've solved some semantic problem. The poster doesn't really seem to understand how these things work.

<comment><USER15> _Startups get acquired because the executives at the big company like the founders and have been friends with them for a long time..._

Maybe it happens, but this has not been my experience, or the experience of several of my friends who have had their startups acquired.

<comment><USER16> If you have enough power to purchase another company, you're probably making at least 500k year. If the company you acquire does great, then you'll probably get a small bonus. And if they tank, you'll get fired. Thus the individuals within the company doing the acquiring have a strong incentive to be extremely conservative. (Unless there are unusual circumstances, like a stock market bubble, some new technology, or a competitor buying a rival startup.)

So basically to get acquired, you need to look like you're not going to embarrass the person doing the acquiring. The best way to do this is to have a longterm relationship with that person and their colleagues. This makes you feel like much more of a known entity in the eyes of the acquirer. Because at the end of the day, regardless of what the book say you never really know what you're getting when you buy a company. Everything piece of the company could be independently audited, but that's not going to stop a critical 5M dollar machine from breaking in half the day after you buy the business.

Anyway I'm not an expert, this is just what I've heard from other people who have been acquired.

<comment><USER17> _If you have enough power to purchase another company, you're probably making at least 500k year. If the company you acquire does great, then you'll probably get a small bonus. And if they tank, you'll get fired_

I wish (speaking from my own experience). It may be true for very large companies acquiring really small ones, but there is an entire world out there of acquisitions of small players by slightly larger companies. Neither the 500K salary nor the small bonus apply. Such acquisitions almost look like mergers: they can make or kill the entire company. We are not talking about a small bonus here, it's the livehood of the entire startup. It matters a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think continuing to email Steve was his fatal mistake. It shows a manager that you are willing to jump rank at a moments notice. Some times you have to, but in this case 3 days go by and the manager says he is sick. Take him at face value and understand that managers of large corporations are extremely busy. I am sure that Steve told the manager to pull back after receiving secondary emails, realizing that this would be a high maintenance relationship in which he felt that he could ping Steve at a moments notice (a person who is even more busy)

<comment><USER19> Read the dates again.

The manager said he was sick on May 4. On May 14 he said he was caught up and would get back next Monday (which is May 17). There was another nudge on Wednesday, May 19. Almost a week after that, on May 25, Steve gets CCed again.

While I grant that 3 days out due to sickness excuses some tardiness, the manager was given lots of time to catch up, many opportunities to respond, and over a week past the promised response time before Steve got CCed again.

<comment><USER8> Even so, what did he expect was going to happen by CCing Steve Jobs? Did he think Steve was going to come thundering down to the engineer's office wanting to know why he hadn't replied to that guy's previous email?

Realistically, I'd say that that kind of move, trying to embarrass someone you want something from in front of his boss's boss's boss, can only have negative consequences.

<comment><USER19> My comment was intended to point out that the time spent before escalating was reasonable, even despite the 3 day sickness.

As for the consequences of trying to escalate, it is true that it tends to upset the person you escalated in front of. However it is also true that it can motivate them to actually return to your case. I've seen organizations where it was a guaranteed disaster to use that strategy, and others where it was an effective way to get things done.

If I've seen that much variation between organizations within one country, how much more variation could there be between organizations across multiple countries with multiple cultures?

<comment><USER14> It's reasonable if the engineer in question was actually abandoning his duties, which he wasn't. The OP was deluded as to the nature of the conversation -- it was clear from email #1 it was all very non-committal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As someone who's been through this many times, here's a tip:

Any time someone emails you about acquiring you, hiring you, sponsoring you, etc, just assume the actual odds of it happening are about 1%, and be happily surprised if something eventually comes of it.

If they really, really want you, they'll be hitting you up every chance they get.

<comment><USER21> I think this is true but there's also a whole range of people who are on the fence and can be influenced, and to ignore them is a suboptimal and (imo) losing strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I actually thought the Apple engineer, Patrick Gates, was super polite - a lot of people wouldn't even have bothered to respond. And I don't think anyone ever wanted to acquire anything.

<comment><USER6> How is lying being polite? I'd rather get no response than a flat out lie.

If you email Steve Jobs and he says, "I'm sending you a new iPad in the mail. Just send us your address." Are you happier that he responded then if he hadn't (except for the fact that you now have a good blog story to tell).

Being polite would have been "thanks for contacting us. As you can imagine we're swamped with work, but we are interested in this. I'm going to have to put this on the backburner and get back to it when I can. No promises. I'll follow up with you when it looks like there's a good fit schedulewise. Thanks."

<comment><USER22> Because he isn't lying. Stuff comes up all the time. He was being polite and I'm betting he genuinely wanted to get to it. I'm sympathetic because I've done this often - told someone I'll get back to them and then been absolutely drowned in work. I always hold out hope I'll get back to to it but I never do.

I feel like the Apple engineer is being penalized for being polite. A lot of people would have just said "Thanks but we're busy". It looks like he genuinely wanted to look at it but never got around to it. The OP demonstrated some bad behavior by jumping multiple levels and CCing Jobs. When someone does that to me and CCs my management chain, he or she rarely gets the help they want - they've ticked me off and my management chain is going to trust me to deal with things.

The OP mentions that he posted this just to show how bad Apple's corporate culture was. Though I doubt that's why this was posted, I actually thought this showed some good culture from Apple. The CEO CCes someone down the stack and then _trusts_ his call. That's what you want your management to do.

Across all this, I can't believe the OP thought he was looking at a possible acquisition by AAPL. At best, Patrick Gates was demonstrating polite engineer interest. The OP needs to learn to take a hint and how to deal with email communication.

<comment><USER6> "Because he isn't lying. Stuff comes up all the time. He was being polite and I'm betting he genuinely wanted to get to it. I'm sympathetic because I've done this often - told someone I'll get back to them and then been absolutely drowned in work. I always hold out hope I'll get back to to it but I never do."

I find it hard to believe that you can't spend 30s to shoot a quick email. I think you "think" you're being polite, but you're not. Leading someone on for weeks isn't being polite. That girl who you wanted to date, who leads on for a year, but always has other plans when you go to pick her up isn't being polite. She may think she is, but really she's being selfish.

"Thanks but we're busy" is the right thing to say if you're busy. And if you get busy later say, "Hey, we just got busy, gonna need to put this on hold. Don't know for how long". Took me about 5s to write.

Respect the time of other people as much as you respect your own time (because apparently your time is so valuable that you can't break 30s to send an email). That's being polite.

<comment><USER6> I agree with everything you wrote, except that I think it was not polite. It's not how I handle things.

And speaking of bug reports, I used to run a team and when I started they'd get customer reports and then say "Won't Fix" and delete the report. One of the first things I did was to make sure every customer got a reply. Sometimes it was just "Sorry, this bug isn't going to get fixed this release." The satisfaction from our enthusiast base shot through the ceiling.

Again, I agree with a lot of what you say. The OP didn't handle it well. But with that said, the engineer still wasn't being polite. I don't think he was a jerk. As you note, it is common for people in our field to simply not respond. But it's not how I do thing

Edit: This response is in reference to the post below me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I bet every entrepreneur here would loved to see your startup get acquired, but buddy there were no hint of an acquisition in this guy's communication. You should have been patient, launch your app and keep the communication going. Then maybe, maybe, after 2 years they would look into you.

</comment><comment><USER24> I feel for this guy -- this is a case of not "speaking American." As an American who works with foreigners a lot, I hear a lot of complaints about how we try to let people down nicely instead of being direct. My middle-east coworkers especially hate this.

Email makes it even worse.

</comment><comment><USER25> The interest dropped off right after he submitted the results of the algorithm. So perhaps the algorithm simply wasn't good. Emailing the CEO with a novel algorithm idea and then sending in the results is classic crackpot behavior, not unlike sending your theory of everything to the head of the MIT physics department. I'm surprised anyone responded at all to the initial email.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Given that search is their strength, it will be imperative on Apple to provide a more intuitive itunes/app store search and discovery solution to its users"

No matter if you are right or wrong, I can imagine that Apple doesn't like being taught about what they should do. I imagine they think they have a fairly good idea as to what they should do. Maybe your attitude turned them off a little. Just a guess, though.

</comment><comment><USER27> IMO you were extremely lucky to get any response whatsoever. If I am Patrick I would have quickly dumped you in the pester / annoyance category. Bringing Steve jobs into the mix the second time was fatal, regardless of time frame this is not something to bother him with.

</comment><comment><USER28> Even if Apple almost "acquired" you (I don't really get that impression), I'd say that penning a blog entry complaining about it is not the most productive thing to do (and might even cause investors in the future to think twice about getting involved with you).

</comment><comment><USER29> Apple certainly won't be interested in future projects with this dude.

<comment><USER30> Good!!

Maybe this dude would do something for Android where his time and effort would, hopefully, be more appreciated.

<comment><USER31> Or better yet for himself. Make a generic solution to discoverability, rather than fix one bad implementation or another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What I expected: OP in negotiations with some technology that Apple would like to pick up to improve its product. OP says something like: "Google and Adobe do this better. You should talk to them."

What I got: OP at the level of spam mailing Apple saying that he is the #1 superstar Ace to improve iTunes only to be told to "Get Bent."

</comment><comment><USER33> You didn't really have any leverage in this situation. If you did, you didn't express it in a meaningful way.

It's business, not personal. They have so many things going on, it's a bit like trying to get your resume noticed.

Do something crazy, or obnoxious, or out of the blue that will get you noticed NOW. Then show them how, if they don't pay attention to you, it will cost them money.

</comment><comment><USER34> The Apple engineer made the mistake of casually talking about "acquiring" or "hiring". That would greatly raise anyone's expectations and subsequent anxiety. The other guy made the mistake of being pushy, especially when he cc'ed Steve - it likely pissed off the Apple engineer and certainly would not have made a good impression on Steve.

</comment><comment><USER35> _"It is unethical in all cultures to keep someone waiting while you flout the time commitments."_

I think you mean "impolite", not "unethical". Keeping someone waiting doesn't really have a moral value one way or another.

Secondly, unless you are Margaret Mead or an anthropologist of equal stature, you're not qualified to talk about what is polite in ALL cultures. It might be impolite in YOUR culture, but that doesn't necessarily apply to other cultures.

</comment><comment><USER36> Well if it helps, we held 4 in-person meetings with a company with keen interest before they went totally cold. Took a few months to get a clear "no."

This wasn't too bad. All things aside, I don't think Apple was interested in acquiring you. You did the best you could. They did the best they could. I _really_ don't think you pestering them would matter much if they really wanted your technology.

</comment><comment><USER37> Something I still have yet to understand is how people who develop for and want to improve apple products repeatedly get screwed over by apple. (Granted he may have been a bit quick to jump to the top in this case)

Then they keep going right back to develop and improve apple products. Why keep going back?

<comment><USER8> _Then they keep going right back to develop and improve apple products. Why keep going back?_

Sunk cost? By the time you've mastered the intricacies of Objective C and a gazillion NextStep toolbox calls (or whatever they're called nowadays) what else are you gonna do?

<comment><USER38> Learn something else??

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think in dealing with businesses, as an independent developer (or even as a developer concerned about your long-term career within an organization), you have to think about things in wireframe. Forget shaders, all that is extra.

Wireframe = bottom line and the business requirements and strategies. Everything else on top, giving out free WWDC videos, etc., that's all extra. And it's great when it's available.

But in negotiations you have to look at it in terms of wireframe mode. Otherwise, you'll focus on the wrong local extrema, etc.

</comment><comment><USER40> How exactly does a one-entry weblog make it to the front page? Clearly this guy has some semantic mojo.

Otherwise, the story is dumb because it isn't "almost got acquired." It's "dude gets excessively excited because of a couple of emails." Just reread the Panic Audion story for something interesting: <http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/>

</comment><comment><USER41> Sorry, not interested.

</comment><comment><USER42> The thing to do would have been to develop the app and submit it to the app store, get users, become popular, etc. Once you had some real traction acquisition _might_ have been a possibility.

<comment><USER43> He didn't have the dataset.

<comment><USER42> That doesn't seem to have stopped <http://appsaurus.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Maybe I'm just naive, but the final email in that conversation:

"""Thanks Steve.

I'm a bit disappointed.

Wish you all the best and looking forward to seeing more innovative products and services from Apple.

Kandarp"""

sounds very "Thank you sir may I have another?" to me.

<comment><USER45> Nah, he's just making sure Steve Jobs knows there are no hard feelings.

<comment><USER21> I agree, but it's the "I'm a bit disappointed" that is weird, because given his previous communication he's obviously really disappointed.

<comment><USER31> He's saying he's disappointed but it isn't insurmountable and thus he'll get over it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I've written some software which I occasionally receive emails about. I'll say this: if you ask an intelligent question, I will very likely help you. However, if you follow that up by peppering me with further questions or come across as demanding/pushy, I'm very likely to ignore you.

This is also generally true for open source projects and I'm not surprised the same applies for Apple.

OP: you screwed up. you have noone to blame but yourself.

</comment><comment><USER47> Deals fall through.

</comment><comment><USER48> To save time, the gist of it:

1) Author emails Steve Jobs about algorithm to improve Appstore's discover- ability problem. 2) Steve replies. 3) Author gets strung along by a semi cooperating engineer. 4) A month and a few emails later, he is told: we are not interested.

\- At some point the engineer casually mentions that if he (the Author) incorporated, Apple could acquire him (i.e. hire him).

</comment><comment><USER49> When someone drops out of communication with you for more than a week it almost always means they're not that interested. This is true for potential employers, investors, mates, etc. While its unfortunate that people aren't more direct, the fact is, rejection takes work and provides very little upside for the person doing the rejecting.

</comment><comment><USER50> Its a great insight to how the conversation goes with a large corporation, so thanks to whoever posted it. However the conversation becomes rather emotional.

The first email is pretty professional, concisely describing a problem and solution, which got him the initial probing. But if it turns out to be negative in the end, its really nobody to blame.

</comment><comment><USER51> Someone wants to do a deal? Get a face to fact meeting. Get on a plane if you have to.

</comment><comment><USER52> Semantic search? a bounded data set? Hasn't this problem been solved a million times? Surely Apple has a team with exactly this specialty?

</comment><comment><USER53> a) This looks really useful b) Could you create and Android store so people can benefit from your idea?

</comment><comment><USER54> There's no "almost" about this. far, far, far from almost.

</comment><comment><USER55> Doesn't look like it.

</comment><comment><USER56> There are no angels in this little drama.

<comment><USER57> Right. Apple could have treated him a bit better and he could have been professional by not throwing all that up on the net.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Talk is cheap. Show me^H^Hus the code.</comment>


Show HN: Isometricks, easy isometric editor in the browser - <AUTHOR> https://isometricks.com/ <comment><USER2> This is so neat and easy to use, I could easily spend half an hour on it without noticing. Is there a way to de-colour a cell?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Currently there is no way to de-colour, or erase, a face. I admit it, it's a pretty important feature that's still missing, it's the next thing I will add to the editor.

<comment><USER3> Very fun tool, but it definitely needs the erase feature (not just undo :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


An empirical analysis of anonymity in Zcash - <AUTHOR> https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/09/14/an-empirical-analysis-of-anonymity-in-zcash/ <comment><USER2> Which is why Monero values its obligatory confidential transactions! For anyone seeking fungibility, check out Monero</comment>


Can the Nervous System be Hacked? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/magazine/can-the-nervous-system-be-hacked.html <comment><USER3> Quick summary: Rheumatoid arthritis can be put into remission in some patients by stimulating the vagus nerve for some reason. Eventually it may be possible to stimulate the nerve more precisely using one of several exciting technologies.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is one of those rare times where a rhetorical question from a link-bait title is definitely "Yes"!

The author has a great anecdote about the work that is being done to combat rheumatoid-arthritis, however the story preys on our own hubris to believe that our bodies are not made up of very simple parts that have little knowledge of ourselves, rather a fairly strict set of inputs/outputs. So of course if you can manipulate the inputs, then you can achieve your desired outputs.

The true beauty of medical hacks is that the basal inputs and outputs of each individual component is relatively unknown!

<comment><USER5> Agreed - and I think its called Betteridge's Law of Headlines

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes it can.

We can already do it. Let me show you how.

Using a soft screwdriver handle, gently tap the top of your knee where your patellar is located. You're performing the patellar reflex procedure which will cause your hamstrings to contract and your leg to kick out gently.

Its not high tech ghost in the shell stuff but it is technically a hack!

<comment><USER7> Or feign a punch at someone's face and see if they flinch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's interesting how 'we' as a society build up archetypes about the different sciences(and, well, everything really) and instead of fostering and promoting innovation in those areas we oftentimes question/demean/discredit people who bring forth new ideas pertaining to those preconceived notions.(referring loosely to the scientist's skeptical coworkers)

From my limited anecdotal experience(therefore potentially/likely flawed) I would say that it's namely a result of aversion to change, desire to assimilate(fit in), and fear of failure.

It's a shame really; I honestly believe that a LOT of value could be gained from looking at life sciences from a completely blank/unaltered perspective. If they were void of preconceived notions as to how these underlying biological systems function I think that intelligent people would at very least yield novel concepts in terms of comprehending inputs and representing results.

To restate in different vernacular, How it is now:

If you want to do research pertaining to something that interests you personally you've got at _least_ 4 years of college before heading into the industry.(This precludes university research labs (as if you'd have project control anyway)). Not only that, but for most active-minded humans, the 17 years before college are boring as fuck(not to say that an active social life and interesting/engaging childhood makes you, in any way, less-active-minded). We literally teach children to fore-go logic and reasoning and mindlessly obey authority. We train children to read/write/copy/repeat, but we NEVER teach them to discover something novel on their own.

Which is not to say, of course, that every idea is valid(or even worthy of exploration). I mean, the system does 'work'(in that by forcing you to work up the ladder before innovating it weeds out the thoughtless/crazy/impractical ideas and ensures that anyone hoping to do research has a vested interest in the subject matter), but I think that if we, as a society, encouraged/accepted failure and were less hostile towards change we could stand to gain a lot.

Eh. This is a bit of a ramble, I guess TL,DR:

I find that the aversion to failure/change which is so inherent in society today stifles innovation.

What do you guys/gals think? Am I off base here? Would love to hear someone else's opinion on the matter, I can't enumerate the number of times that I've fully fleshed out an opinion only to have reality altering conjecture come into play.

<comment><USER9> The fact that scientists can be overly conservative has been known for a long time - Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shifts" describe this phenomena. Now, of course, you could argue that the naturally conservative nature of academic research is a good thing as it arguably filters out clearly daft idea early on - but a lot of spectacularly good scientific theories looked completely daft to the mainstream at the time they were first suggested (continental drift being a great example).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Kuhnian_paradigm...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Kuhnian_paradigm_shifts)

<comment><USER10> > a lot of spectacularly good scientific theories looked completely daft to > the mainstream at the time they were first suggested (continental drift > being a great example).

Academic "conservatism" hasn't prevented them from taking over the field as collected evidence made their correctness (compared to the old model) overwhelming, so that does not seem to be much of an argument against the existing system.

<comment><USER9> Of course, change does happen but _slowly_ in a lot of cases - as Max Planck famously said:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

<comment><USER11> A quotation by a great scientist is not evidence or proof of your hypothesis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Though I'm unaware of empirical studies, wouldn't attempts in Chinese medicine be precedents here - particularly could the sending of electrical pulses through acupuncture needles inserted at various places to "stimulate the immune system" be some kind of primordial theory connecting the nervous system and the immune system?

In other words, I'm rather surprised that when we can think about and exploit the fact that regular exercise can result in good health, it has been considered a stretch to imagine that the nervous system can be more intimately connected to the immune system. 1998 is disturbingly close in this case.

<comment><USER13> The thing is Traditional Chinese Medicine does not fit into the Myth of Progress (TM), which clearly state that everybody before Francis Bacon were retarded caveman/peasants/alchemist/inquisitors/whatever-triggers-repulsion- in-listener.

The idea that non-European (a.k.a. non-White) peoples of thousands of years ago were making careful observations of natural phenomena, which lead to relatively accurate predictions and techniques that allowed to increase the chances of preferred outcomes - even if the explanations they came out with were off-base and terribly fantastic for our civilization's sensibilities - <USER2> anathema to Modern Science (TM) Dogma.

In the particular case of Acupuncture, they first said that you cannot run a proper clinical trial because the technique is invasive and you cannot control against placebo effect. When pointed out that there are invasive techniques, such as surgery, in modern medicine, they claimed that since the mechanism of action of surgery are evident, it'd be unethical to run tests with double blind controls, but since acupuncture mechanism of action is unknown, it's unethical to run any tests at all.

Now (I mean, 15 years ago) someone comes up with a plausible, non mystic, mechanism of action, and they claim that since it is impossible to measure the voltage/amperage of a needle stimulus, only properly designed equipment is good to use. This movement has the double advantage to create a new fancy specialty with a fresh occidental name, and allows ignorant GPs to keep calling acupuncture a quack.

And in the mean time, we force the new field to rediscover literally centuries of accumulated knowledge from first principles. But it is a small price to pay, so that traditional medicines practitioners are kept outside of the "Evidence Based" umbrella.

<comment><USER14> I am confused as to why you are down voted. You make a fair point that a lot of traditional knowledge in a lot of domains is frowned upon by proponents of modern science. I am not saying that all traditional knowledge is valid (i have seen my fare share of baseless myths), but some of these deserve respect for having such advanced knowledge in such ancient times

<comment><USER13> Yes, I was not going to comment, but now that you mention it...

Downvotes are intended to be cast for people that add nothing to the conversation in course. But many people weaponize them and use them against points of view they feel strongly against. Shame of you... you know who you are!

I have formal training as an Technician Acupuncturist, though I can only practice legally under the supervision of a MD with specialization in Human Acupuncture (and being a programmer, that does not make economic sense to me). Since I was at school, I witnessed several times how some GP got offended by this or another pieces of ancient lore and dropped out of the program.

The thing is, you could see they were not thinking. They did not question if the thing worked or not. They just heard some random stuff like "Qi of air and Qi of rice transform into True Qi" and snapped like a devote Catholic would if told that "Virgin Mary was not really a virgin". They were also completely unable to imagine that "Qi of air" could be oxigen, and "Qi of rice" could be glucose, and that both of them get transported by blood vessels to preserve life of tissues across the body. Which from our point of view is a remarkable thing to have been figured out 3 thousand years ago.

<comment><USER14> > They were also completely unable to imagine that "Qi of air" could be > oxigen, and "Qi of rice" could be glucose, and that both of them get > transported by blood vessels to preserve life of tissues across the body. > Which from our point of view is a remarkable thing to have been figured out > 3 thousand years ago.

Wow. I have a new-found respect for acupuncture.

Its interesting that a lot of ancient knowledge is very similar to modern knowledge, they just have different abstract layers. Herbs are sometimes frowned upon as medicine, because people fail to appreciate that our ancestors managed to identify them as a source of some modern organic drug.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The most interesting part of this to me is the link between the brain and the immune system. As the drug in the example had no effect on the body after the vagus nerve was cut, I wonder if when injected into the body the drug still has no effect - if it is all caused by the brain.

If that's the case I wonder if it's possible to achieve the same results just by 'thinking' the right things. It is possible to consciously control your heart rate which is a similar low level brain function (and I think also involves the vagus nerve).

I doubt this research will get much funding though as GSK can't sell a $50,000 device from this :)

<comment><USER16> There has been some research in this area. This paper [http://www.innerfire.nl/files/concentration- pickkers.pdf](http://www.innerfire.nl/files/concentration-pickkers.pdf) has one of my favorite opening sentences ever:

 _Objective: To investigate whether a special concentration /meditation technique employed by a Dutch individual known as 'the iceman' can influence anatomic nervous system activity and the innate immune response._

Looking more broadly in the literature, you can find many "biofeedback" studies related to inflammation and the immune system. For instance [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-010-9139-5](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-010-9139-5) shows some interesting results in normal people (not just "the iceman"), but unfortunately, followup studies by that group were impeded by the untimely death of the last author :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> for anyone related in this topic, you should watch Frequencies (2013) [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2414766/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2414766/)

it's a future that has quantified "luck", "surprises", life partners, and most things we still think can't be quantified. also has a surprise ending.

</comment><comment><USER18> The Ghost in the Shell universe explores these kinds of things.

</comment><comment><USER19> Was I the only one who read Frankenstein instead of Feinstein Institute?

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes, look up research done by Kevin Warwick (a true mad scientist).

</comment><comment><USER21> Humans thought their strength and agility was superior until John Henry lost to the steam drill.

Humans thought their intellect and intuition was superior until Gary Kasparov lost to Deep Blue.

Today, we still hold to the notion that our biology is somehow different, unique, not-just-another-bucket-of-chemicals, but as with the examples above, once we get past this hang-up and accept that we are _not_ special, that is when truly interesting and exciting things can happen.

<comment><USER22> It would be quite a special machine that could feel interest and excitement at hacking its own neurobiology!

<comment><USER23> > It would be quite a special machine

It is "special" only because it's the result of millions of years of evolution, not because some reassuring omnipotent being from another plane selected it to be so. Dozens of species are using tools, building things, solving problems, and feeling things (however small and nascent!). Our species is just early to the party by a fraction of a million years, which is, geologically and cosmologically, peanuts (Not even talking about the time we've been actually toying with electricity and transistors).

Carl Sagan sums up how deceitful an anthropocentric point of view is quite nicely in _Pale Blue Dot_. Although applied to science and cosmologies, it definitely applies to anything we deem sacred just because it's us.

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light."

"Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home."

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

"Once we lose our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe which dwarfs -- in time, in space, and in potential -- the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors."

<comment><USER24> I figured they meant it would be very impressive if [edit: such] a machine was created by people, like a steam powered drill or a computer is.

Maybe that's not what they meant though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Plea for Simplicity – You can't secure what you don't understand. (1999) - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/1999/11/a_plea_for_simplicit.html <comment><USER2> This was written in 1999, I wonder if his opinion on software engineering practices have changed. I've never worked in industry, but based on what I've read there are some pretty good processes that are supposed to have some empirical support, just not many people adopt them. Like I read a paper from 2002 in which basically no companies would consistently use good processes.

Most of the material in my Software Engineering course is outdated, but I imagine most companies still try to get away with minimum security and slack on good software engineering practices, like code reviews and static analysis and thorough security requirements, or what have you. Using these processes in general tends to force simpler systems. Iterative development with clear thought out implementation per iteration etc.

<comment><USER3> It's worth remembering in recent times many companies that write software are not software companies and ones that are don't focus on the quality of software but rather the amount of revenue that can be derived from it.

The only industries that have good software practices are those that are regulated heavily enough for it to matter, see here medical, aviation, military etc.

Unfortunately the vast majority of software is not regulated in this way despite handling data that is potentially just as sensitive from a personal or even financial perspective.

At the end of the day most companies are motivated to produce software quickly and quality is second unless it's causing a reduction in velocity, even then this is simply treated as a debt that is paid down periodically to maintain velocity.

There are exceptions for things like banks that rely on the quality of software to avoid losing money, but we are talking in general here.

A brilliant example of what happens when you have sloppy security/bad incentives AND you underestimate the damage a breach would cause is the Ashley Madison situation. Many companies are in the same situation and have just been lucky enough to avoid a catastrophic data breach.

Sadly velocity is going to be valued over quality (which in turn means security) for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER4> The automobile industry has heavy regulation for their engine (and similar) software, and their code seems to be pretty poor.

The big internet companies, like Google, Facebook etc, have no regulation on their code, yet adopt practices like code review.

Banks have pretty bad software quality, too. (I worked for one bank, and talked to lots of people.) Though that's a generalization: there's lots of places for software in a bank. The parts that directly handle the money tend to have less bugs emerging day to day, but that's more because of low velocity and operating within known parameters (so as not to trigger any lurking bugs in the edge cases).

<comment><USER5> I've never heard of any regulations governing software in ECUs in automotive. Do these exists anywhere? Does anyone actually regulate this? Because ECU software is typically very bad.

<comment><USER6> There are general road safety standards like ISO 26262 that car cover electronics and software.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ChatStep - Online Group Chat with Symmetric Key Encryption - <AUTHOR> https://chatstep.com/#RestoreTheFourth

<comment><USER2> I love these sorts of projects, but I don't trust them as a rule. If I can't independently verify the security myself, I don't use them. What sort of symetric key encryption does it use? What cypher? What hash algorithm? Does it provide perfect forward secrecy? Does it anonymize the sender in some way? What data is logged? Etc.

<comment><USER3> The good thing about symmetric key encryption in the browser is easy enough to check. You just need to make sure that messages/images are encrypted before being sent to the server, and that the password is never sent to the server. Also ChatStep uses sjcl so the crypto isn't homemade like CryptoCat.

<comment><USER2> Sure, I can verify that things aren't being sent in plaintext, and I can verify that they're using sjcl, but I can't verify most of the other things I mentioned. How do I know they're using sjcl right and not introducing some vulnerability (yes, I know I can dig through their JavaScript, but that's a plain in the ass)? I'm not saying I think they've got any problems; I'm just saying, be careful.

These sorts of tools, while convenient, are dangerous without a proper understanding of what you're doing. User beware.

<comment><USER4> And are you going to verify every message? Because the JS can be changed without you ever realizing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> m-app By the way, wasn't Cryptocat shot down initially for its "host-based security" [1]? Why didn't ChatStep learn from that?

[1]: [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/wired_opinion_patri...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/wired_opinion_patrick_ball/all/)

</comment><comment><USER5> How do I self host this? I would like to use something like this but only if it's self hosted.

<comment><USER6> Exactly, otherwise there is no point really.

<comment> m-app Why not? In this case the server doesn't have to be trusted, only the client implementation.

<comment><USER4> But you are downloading the client implementation from the server.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Save a CPU – Ditch BCrypt, Use SHA2 Instead - <AUTHOR> https://fusionauth.io/blog/2019/02/21/save-a-cpu-ditch-bcrypt-use-sha2-instead <comment><USER2> Do you know of anyone that has used this strategy in production?</comment>


New Theory Cracks Open the Black Box of Deep Neural Networks - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/new-theory-deep-learning/ <comment><USER2> I prefer to read this article at the source :)

[http://quantamagazine.org](http://quantamagazine.org)</comment>


Uppkoppla – IKEA, UNYQ and Area Academy Puts Gamers Need in Focus - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.inter.ikea.com/news/all/uppkoppla---ikea--unyq-and-area-academy-puts-gamers-need-in-focus/s/28dee5d8-d908-424a-9000-c151c208e475 <comment><AUTHOR> 3D scanning humans and 3D printing medical devices molded to an individual are used in niche, small-scale applications. With this concept, does IKEA plan to scale custom-fit accessories to the mass market? Will cost/time to scan/print become prohibitive?</comment>


The Scripto App Became a Fixture of Late-Night Comedy News (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-scripto-the-app-that-stephen-colbert-helped-build-became-a-fixture-of-late-night-comedy-news <comment><USER2> Previous discussion from a year ago, with the development team showing up in the HN thread! [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16110463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16110463) \- and a great comment from the original developer here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16111620](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16111620)

<comment><USER3> Are you able to see this post on HN anymore? It looks like they removed it. I assume just because Rob asked them to since it made him look bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Huh, the thing that jumped out at me more was "Oh, that's what Rusty Foster (of kuro5hin) moved on to."

</comment><comment><USER3> It says Rob Dubbin coded the original version. That is false. I did a lot of it and Mindy helped with the front end. Rob did not code any of it. And I solved a lot of hard problems. The fact that he just gives me no credit and just says it crashed constantly is slander. It did have a problem I couldn't figure out for a long time with the chat process crashing the server. But it worked fairly well for them in production despite that issue. I solved the hard technical challenges and yet he discounted my work and threw me under the bus. Very unfair. I have no respect for those people.

</comment><comment><USER5>
        I asked Dubbin whether he would ever license Scripto to a conservative show.
        "Fox News wouldn't use it, but I wouldn't sell it to them," he said. "I'm not
        interested in making their job easier."

Seems like a prime opportunity for a competitor to come along and advertise to the other side of the political aisle.

<comment><USER6> This jumped out at me too. To a non-American, it seems like everything that is wrong with American politics: being so unable to empathize with your fellow Americans that one would treat them as an enemy and refuse to help them in any way.

<comment><USER7> As a non-American, it looks to me like one of the primary reasons why America has become so divided and tribal these days is Fox News. It makes a living selling white working class people their own fear and prejudice back to them in order to get them to vote against their own economic self-interest. I think Fox News is one of the few things in this world that you can hate with a pure heart. Hating its viewers would be different though, and that's not something I would agree with (in fact I think one of Democrat's top priorities should be to fund much better public education in rural states) but I don't think that's what was meant by the quote in the article.

<comment><USER8> Fox News is cancer, but that is not even beginning to provide a holistic picture of the political landscape. If you think the left wing has no part in this, you're misinformed or insane.

You understand that James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian recently got an academic paper published which was just Mein Kampf excerpts verbatim, but targeted at white men rather than Jews, correct? They did this as an exercise to show how radically left academia has gone. Or in regards to specifically media, look no further than the portrayal of the Covington Catholic event on your purportedly unbiased news sources, and then watch the source video for yourself. There is a group of Black Israelites who say to the MAGA kids that "your money says 'In God We Trust,' and yet you give rights to F*GGOTS." To which the MAGA kids respond with jeers and "so what, they're people too." CNN reported the incident as the MAGA kids having approached the 2 Native Americans (untrue) and chanting "build the wall" at them (untrue, watch the full 2 hour video if you want to). The only mention of the Black Israelites was that the MAGA students were antagonizing a few "black preachers."

I hate Fox, I hate Trump, but the left wing is deconstructing foundational liberal pillars. To lay the entirety of the current political landscape at the feet of Fox News is just nuts, I'm sorry.

<comment><USER9> Politics has always been about the twin pillars of attacking an opponent and their positions, but we've now reached a point where we attack supporters, too. Discourse seems to have gone from "You're wrong" to "You're literally the worst piece of scum for even thinking this way".

Politics has always been dirty business and defaming candidates is not unusual. The trend towards shaming and dehumanizing candidates' supporters is what really bothers me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (2018)

<comment><USER11> I remember reading about this a whiles before 2018.

Found it: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-17/colbert-r...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-17/colbert- reports-tv-production-software-is-no-joke) (2014)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Learn to code."

<comment><USER13> It sounds like they took their own advice and did just that.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you trust gurus more than prudent scientists? - <AUTHOR> It is so amazing to read the vast amount of inaccurate fluff or plain dangerous advice about coronavirus from gurus and self-proclaimed modellers (the same people relying on science, in normal times) that I need to ask if it is legit that tech giants let them speak and influence... and yes, Musk's latest tweet ramble about kids being immune is just the latest straw? <comment><USER2> The "gurus" you speak of are attention seekers. For them bleating on about some aspect of COVID-19 is just part of their PR playbook. Knowledgeable scientists are the first to admit that the situation is novel and that they are too busy saving lives to undertake statistical analyses of incomplete, inconsistent data sets. It is amazing just how fast information is being shared with the internet and those who have the requisite understanding are striving to come to speed on what works and what doesn't. We will only truly understand COVID-19 a couple of years down the track when the epidemic has been halted and there had been time to collate, clean and then analyse the data.

Elon Musk did a similar stunt with his "submarine" to rescue the trapped children in Thailand. It never got used so we'll never know whether it was even capable of working as claimed.

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you know Musk is incorrect? ( I'm not claiming he's right either) Unless you can be reasonably confident that you know about the subject significantly more than him, you really cannot be sure.

And what is 'science' by your definition? Is it well established main stream literature?</comment>


Why Software Patents Are Harmful (PDF) - <AUTHOR> http://www.sarai.net/research/knowledge-culture/critical-public-legal-resources/whysoftwarepatentsareharmful.pdf An excerpt of the paper taken from the "Open..." blog:
"In other industries, research continues up to a point where further research costs too much to be feasible. At this stage, the industry's output merely consists of replacing parts that have worn out.
However, in the software sector, a computer program that is fully debugged will perform its function forever without requiring maintenance or modification. What this means is that unlike socks that wear out, and breakfast cereal that is eaten, a particular software product can be sold to a particular customer at most once. If it is to be sold to that customer again, it must be enhanced with new features and functionality. This inevitably means that even if the industry were to approach maturity, any software company that does not produce new and innovative products will simply run out of customers! Thus, the industry will remain innovative whether or not software patents exist."
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-software-patents-are-harmful.html <comment><AUTHOR> An excerpt of the paper taken from the "Open..." blog:

"In other industries, research continues up to a point where further research costs too much to be feasible. At this stage, the industry's output merely consists of replacing parts that have worn out.

However, in the software sector, a computer program that is fully debugged will perform its function forever without requiring maintenance or modification. What this means is that unlike socks that wear out, and breakfast cereal that is eaten, a particular software product can be sold to a particular customer at most once. If it is to be sold to that customer again, it must be enhanced with new features and functionality. This inevitably means that even if the industry were to approach maturity, any software company that does not produce new and innovative products will simply run out of customers! Thus, the industry will remain innovative whether or not software patents exist."

[http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-software- paten...](http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-software-patents-are- harmful.html)</comment>


The Evolution of Trust - <AUTHOR> http://ncase.me/trust/ <comment><USER2> Great idea and nicely done. Having said that, this is quite depressing. While the creator does give some positive tips at the end re what we can do to change the situation, they're hardly of any help. The problem is that we can never be quite sure what kind of game we find ourselves in at a given point in time. I've met many "genuinely warm-hearted" people who have stopped being approachable cold turkey whenever they found they've received enough of what they were after. Could be a couple of hours or a couple of years. Before that point they were very reciprocating, though

And so I've grown tired of reaching out to people. There simply have been too many let downs. I mean I don't even expect people to return favors. It's just hard to see "friendships" end abruptly after, say, 2 years just because the other person changes his/her set of goals. In other words, you learn that all the times you had fun together you actually never had a friend.

I wonder whether this kind of behavior has become more prevalent in recent years. I'd like to believe that 10 years ago I was better at seeing through people. But these days? It feels like many people have got the pretending of being genuinely nice down to a fine art.

<comment><USER3> It is always easy to justify non-cooperation. The demo even provides one by showing that partial non-cooperation provide the greatest economic benefit. If the benefit was measured differently, say in terms of character, then the conclusion might be different. Or to put it another way, economic gain may or may not be the best way to decide if cheating is ok.

I mean one of the premises of the simulations is killing off the poor to make room for the rich. Accepting, based on the simulation, that partial non- cooperation strategies are ok means accepting that premise.</comment></comment>


Pro-China Propaganda Act Used Fake Followers Made with AI-Generated Images - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcmag.com/news/pro-china-propaganda-act-used-fake-followers-made-with-ai-generated-images <comment><USER2> Was this headline computer generated too?</comment>