Why Mobile Apps Will Soon be Dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/26778 <comment><USER2> I think its a silly piece, and not really a cogent argument. The author claims 'mobile' apps will be supplanted by 'web' apps (presumably running in a browser which is running on a mobile device). The reasoning breaks down into three claims;

1) There are many more web users than there are mobile users (author claims 2 Billion vs 50 Million)

2) There are some browser apps (Angry birds and NY Times cited) which give you 'offline' access.

3)The HTML5 in the browser will become a unifying API to local functions which will ease development.

So lets take these claims one by one and see how they hold up.

Market Size - ok there are a lot more web browsers than mobile users. And yet if you look at growth rates (especially if you count 'tablets') the number of users with 'mobile' capability is growing faster than pure web browser seats. If you look at user capability the 'mobile' user may want to do things like 'check in' (location based) or navigate which the generic browser user doesn't do. Finally if you consider the underlying UX tools its just as painful to make an App which works well on 1920 x 1080 screen with mouse/keyboard as it does on an 800 x 400 screen with just touch points.

Browser Apps with offline access - This moves the browser closer to hosting the 'OS experience' of the device away from the underlying OS. Google would love to do that since they would realize Sun Microsystem's dream of being able to ship a browser which was the OS can cut out the OS provider (either Microsoft or Apple in this case). However adding this layer not only impacts performance, it also impacts compability since browsers with the same name and version work differently from platform to platform. Not so with mobile apps.

HTML5 will develop access to native APIs - I read this, and I imagine all of the zero day exploits that will come of it, if it comes to pass. You take two engineering teams in two separate companies, one providing an OS API and the other providing access to it, and you get Flash all over again. Both development teams come from the problem from different directions and create unexpected problems for the other.

Bottom line for me is that I'm not convinced the browser can kill anything except other browsers. That being said, I also think there are big opportunities in mobile / tablet device space for innovations in the operating system, the UX frameworks, and the distribution mechanisms.

Disclaimer though is that I was one of the Java guys and I had completely bought into the notion of 'write once, run anywhere'. Making that true turned out to be impossible for a number of reasons, not the least of which that the underlying OS providers were hostile to the idea. So creating an HTML5 uber- alles experience for developing apps seems optimistic to me.

<comment><USER3> "Disclaimer though is that I was one of the Java guys and I had completely bought into the notion of 'write once, run anywhere'. Making that true turned out to be impossible for a number of reasons, not the least of which that the underlying OS providers were hostile to the idea."

The company I work for uses Java and targets Windows, AIX, HP-UX, AS/400, and Linux. We have remarkably few portability problems with our Java code. It all "just works", as advertised.

I'd be curious to know where all your Java portability problems stem from. The UI (Swing)?

In any case, I do share some concern and skepticism that web apps will rule the roost. At least one company, Microsoft, would seem motivated to make sure web apps cannot completely replace desktop apps, and thus will always subtly cripple IE, the dominant web browser.

<comment><USER2> So if you run a Java program, under the JRE-xx you will get the maximum possible portability. I was the Director of Systems at FreeGate (an internet Appliance company) and we decided to do our 'UI' in Java, in the browser. (feeling it would give us wide reach) but at that time in particular (1996 - 2000) there was a lot of churn in the browser market and point releases of the browser could change significant behaviors.

Today that is less of an issue as pretty much everyone has punted on supplying their own version of Java for the browser and instead relying on the Snoracle version. However the UI compatibility is tied up inside the support for CSS and/or HTMLx where x is 4, 4.1, or 5 even.

Mobile apps for say Android which use their toolkit, and written in Java of course, are reasonably compatible across Android devices. However challenges with Honeycomb seem to have highlighted what happens when you change around some base assumptions. Even the migration from Android 1.6 and 2.0 was fraught with issues around new capabilities (and diverse capabilities) between handsets.

Configuration Management is a Hard Problem (tm) on any system and people see the Windows eco-system or the MacOS eco-system and feel like they should be able to do that cross-platform. I agree that if that problem gets solved in a meaningful way it will forever change the way we interact with our machines, but I don't think browsers are the great hope for cross platform compatibility.

<comment><USER4> @ChuckMcM - "Disclaimer though is that I was one of the Java guys and I had completely bought into the notion of 'write once, run anywhere'. Making that true turned out to be impossible for a number of reasons, not the least of which that the underlying OS providers were hostile to the idea."

"Configuration Management is a Hard Problem (tm) on any system and people see the Windows eco-system or the MacOS eco-system and feel like they should be able to do that cross-platform."

\---

I'll just pipe in here real quick as cross-platform Java apps are core to the open source / middleware product I'm releasing called TyphonRT this summer. It's something I've personally worked on for many years well before Android's emergence. Fragmentation is difficult to solve alone across the variety of OS and device differentiation in the Android ecosystem without even considering cross-platform compatibility with the J2SE.

TyphonRT is one such effort though and is built with a scalable configuration system via a component architecture. Major engineering of the client SDK / runtime will hopefully wrap up by the end of June with a closed beta for those interested w/ public launch end of summer / Q3.

To support distribution across the Android ecosystem and desktop configurations part of TyphonRT is a PaaS system such as when a TyphonRT app is installed it will download any OS or device specific modifications / alternate components to "patch" or provide a stable middleware layer in attempt to keep that write once / run anywhere promise or get as close as possible.

Of note I'll also be dumping over 10 years of solid Java real time app / game dev knowledge too through an expanding tutorial series w/ lots of code examples styled in a similar manner to Khan Academy.

<http://www.typhonrt.org/>

Ok not to hijack this thread, but the work I am doing as an indie / startup is relevant to this discussion. This kind of solution with the current landscape surrounding Java is only going to come from the open source / indie area.

<comment><USER2> Sounds kind of like Marimba on steroids. I like the notion of it running on Android 1.6, if I could drive the price down for a 1.6 capable module to sub $25-$35 I think I've got an enterprise use for it :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _(think of the Newton, his first attempt to create an iPhone-like device)_

FWIW, Jobs didn't create the Newton, he killed it. You don't have to look to hard to know this - <http://www.pencomputing.com/frames/newton_obituary.html>

As long as native apps have access to parts of the platform off-limits to web apps there will be a place for them.

<comment><USER6> I agree, although I expect that will be a dwindling proportion of the apps people actually use. All but a small handful of the things I used to do with native apps on my laptop I now do with web apps.

<comment><USER5> I agree to some extent (the interesting and innovative applications will tend to be native, because they will be using the device in ways unanticipated by the browser vendors). There is another angle to native apps that these articles rarely mention and that is the "channel" created by the app store.

For example, many common applications I'm asked to develop for corporate clients can easily be written as HTML5 web apps, and it makes sense to write them this way for cross-platform reason, but all of the clients I've spoken with decide to go the "PhoneGap" route because they want their app to appear in the App Store because this is where there customers are going to be looking for it.

There are plenty of practical reasons to host your web app off a wing of your regular website (bypassing App Store approval being the big one) but so many users have become accustom to getting their apps via the App Store that making your app available in an App Store, even if it's HTML5 wrapped in a native- code package, makes sense (at least for now).

Of course there is also the monitization issue, but I believe there are some solutions to that already?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's always seemed to me that the shift away from native desktop apps had a lot more to do with Windows headaches, rather than any inherent consumer preference for web apps.

And for the average user, today's mobile platforms don't have much at all in common with the Windows software life cycle [1]. So I'm not sure why it would be in the users' interests to move to web apps. And thus I'm puzzled at why people _expect_ it to spontaneously happen. Particularly when evidence seems to suggest the exact opposite, people moving _toward_ native apps, on console- like devices.

[1] finding, vetting, scanning, installing, using, moving to new machine, syncing, fiddling, repairing, upgrading, cursing, uninstalling.

</comment><comment><USER8> Without bindings to hosted mobile functions, like sensor access, etc. you are just making a website. So that's an argument for why mobile apps won't go away.

<comment><USER9> It seems just a matter of time before APIs for these become part of HTML5.

<comment><USER8> It's been quite a while. Apple started down that direction, but then the app storm hit and that has been the end of that. And HTML revs much much slower than any phone API, so the native experience will always be superior.

<comment><USER10> This is a key advantage of native code, but it is being eroded by the rapid development of WebKit and Gecko. Browser makers are driving the environment faster than we initially expected, with the tradeoff of potential fragmentation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mobile apps will die off for the simple reason that it is too expensive for businesses to create and support 6 mobile platforms in addition to their websites. How many businesses are going to pay top dollar for an Android developer to port their IOS app? Dollar for dollar they're better off adding mobile capabilities to their website and support every platform.

</comment><comment><USER12> What's the interest in the "Web vs. Mobile App" fight? Both sides are converging towards each other. Hell, look at Google itself – they're sponsoring both Android and Chrome OS and both teams are adding features "claimed" by the other.

Solve the problems faced by your users, using the technologies that best amplify your expertise and meet their needs. Period. In the end, almost all users won't give a damn whether they're using a web or native app – they just want something that works well.

<comment><USER13> Fully agree. Question is on what distribution channel will be used for web apps. Will it be in the browser or applications including a WebView? Users seem to like/get used to the concept of stores as distribution channel for web apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's several billion radio listeners. And yet for some reason Amazon and Apple have billions of MP3 downloads.

The article confuses the tech with the marketplace. Not the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER15> There are many apps that could be just as easily done with current web technologies, so in a sense some of the mobile app space will die. Do I really need a native app for every single website out there that already has a rich web app? As more and more hardware features are exposed through the browser, I think a lot of app programmers will move to web interfaces and technology.

That said, there are still several classes of apps that can use the resources provided by native frameworks. Streaming media, high power games, and apps that can be accessed quickly on the local device without network connections all still have a place on the various mobile platforms. Like every new platform, there is an artificially high demand for native apps from developers and hiring companies, but that desire will subside eventually.

</comment><comment><USER16> The reason why app developers will only reluctantly leave apps behind in favor of web apps, is because of the money. It's very easy to moneytize apps, it comes with the territory; but for web apps? People are used to "free" for web apps, and no wishful thinking can change that.

<comment><USER17> People get used to whatever you ask them for. I've got 5 active subscriptions to online services, and barrier to entry is indeed higher, but that's only because the competition is tougher (you can't really sell fart apps on the web, but to me that's a feature) - just wait another 2 years and the iTunes store will be filled with freemium.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Desktop apps aren't dead, but I sort of hope things trend this way. I had fun playing with mobile stuff, but... I don't like the idea of rewriting everything 2/3/4 times.

<comment><USER19> This is the same sort of application churn that was underway before the bulk of the PC market largely settled on MS-DOS and then on Windows, or the morass that was the then-current and then-far-more-fragmented Unix market, which led many vendors to support multiple then-current platforms. With the associated costs.

Split your application into its core pieces (written in something reasonably portable, and kept modular where you can) and partition the rest into the platform-specific frameworks and calls, assuming that you can't find an analog to what was once called a "4GL" that meets your requirements and your budget.

And from the last time that the third-party 4GL schemes and their sales- critters were prowling the areas I was then working in, it was easy to end up looking at Morton's fork choice. More than a few folks saw their "portable" applications locked into the 4GL frameworks and its continued development plans. Which wasn't a whole lot better than getting tied to the platform, if/when the 4GL vaporized, or raised its rates, or otherwise became less desirable.

All common-sense stuff, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can someone explain to me why people think it is reasonable to try turning the browser into a cross platform VM when we already have quite capable and optimized cross platform VMs like Java and .Net/Mono?

<comment><USER17> Both VMs you mention are too heavy and not real standards.

<comment><USER21> The Java world is "standardized" (de facto, since it's not a "real" standards board, but still) by the Java Community Process. For .NET, you have ECMA-335 specifying the CLR and ECMA-334 specifying the C# language itself; standards by an internationally recognized body.

As for too heavy, I think that's a pretty silly argument, especially considering that Java runs on everything from phones (there's J2ME and Blackberry, plus Android's Dalvik is just an alternative way to look at Java -- register-based rather than stack-based, which speeds up interpretation considerably) to big iron, and .NET runs on everything from microcontrollers (I have a Netduino board sitting next to me) to the 360 to desktops to phones to servers. Heaviness comes from use cases, not intrinsic properties.

<comment><USER17>
         Heaviness comes from use cases, not intrinsic
         properties.

Use cases are precisely the reason Javascript is better for the web. And the current web standards broken as they are, are real standard as in nobody owns them and everybody can improve on top. That's the reason you aren't stuck with IExplorer 6.

         The Java world is "standardized" (de facto, since
         it's not a "real" standards board, but still)

Windows is a de facto standard too. A standard is meaningless when Oracle threatens with patents the development of alternative implementations. A supposedly standards body is meaningless when the voices and votes of members can't do shit (until Apache Harmony gets access to the TCK, the JCP is basically a lie).

         .NET, you have ECMA-335 specifying the CLR and
         ECMA-334 specifying the C# language itself;

It's not really .NET, but rather the CLR + C# 2.0.

Silverlight, the new stuff from C# 3.0 and onward (Linq, dynamic), haven't been added to ECMA yet and there is no deadline (C# 3.0 released in 2007, 4 years ago). Even the W3C moves faster lately and I'm not holding my breath that Microsoft will ever add anything else to those 2 standards.

         Java runs on everything from phones ...

J2ME is a piece of shit. Android Dalvik is not Java - unless you can also say that .NET is Java (checkout IKVM).

Java SE is good for server-side and an all-around good VM, but getting anything usable done for desktop consumers is a frustrating experience at best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is exactly why I thought PalmOS had the best app model of all the platforms. Was very surprised to see at the Palm developer event when most of the devs complained about the JS app model.

<comment><USER23> _Was very surprised to see at the Palm developer event when most of the devs complained about the JS app model._

I'm not. HTML was fundamentally designed to display static documents. After years of hacks, we've managed to turn it into a somewhat usable application framework, but there's always going to be an impedance mismatch compared to APIs designed for apps from the beginning.

<comment><USER24> This, this is so true. It's a pity, it's like we have come this far with HTML5 and all, but we just can't get the last 100 miles, where.. a webapp can do at the same speed what a native app can.

I'm afraid we wont ever get there, not with current implementations / DOM / js, whatever. Which makes me sad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I highly dislike the fact that native is still more awesome than webapps. It's just not quite there, canvas is slow, webgl is slow to its native counterparts. I mean come on when will this change? Will it ever? Until that day it just feels "meh" to develop "cool" webapps. :(

//Disgruntled js developer

</comment><comment><USER25> Markup and javascript are simply too slow to generate crisp, engaging user interfaces. To do that, you need a plugin, which is a)not portable and b) not functionally different from an iOS or Android app.

Can you load a web app and its attendant plugins from any old web site? Sure. But by the time you figure out how to monetize the app via some clearinghouse, you've pretty much got the equivalent of an app store, albeit without the clean search and publication tools available to such a store.

The bottom line, though, is that the idea of totally portable, script- and markup-driven apps has been a complete failure so far, and is unlikely to change much in the future. Hard coded apps--albeit with increasingly sophisticated porting and distribution tools--are here to stay.

<comment><USER26> The slowness is not in the JS and markup itself, but because in the past the rendering engines (browsers) didn't know how to interpret most of the JS calls as defined UI changes. With requestAnimationFrame, CSS animations, and WebGL this is changing -- Browsers are now being told directly which code is UI- specific, so it can be accelerated with hardware and the timing can be synchronized.

Translating JS into these more 'native' UI calls across multiple devices and software stacks is already shown as profitable with tools like Appcelerator (iOS, Android, BB, Desktop) and PhoneGap -- which appear native to the average user.

Also don't forget that internally the Mozilla suite and many other desktop 'native' apps are built largely with JavaScript, not to mention Palm's WebOS.

JS itself is very fast and creating fluid UIs was always possible with a native wrapper (or plugin, as you mention) but now that the tech is making its way into the average browser we will be seeing more and more 'crisp' interfaces on 'average' websites. 'Hard coded' apps will always have their place, but look out: many portable, JS-driven apps are very successful, and are already changing the future. Many people who just think of JS as browser script are being left behind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> So really they are describing Mobile Apps that run on the browser rather than directly on the OS.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

</comment><comment><USER28> This reminds me "Shortchanging Your Business with User-Hostile Platforms" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2108294>

It's about drawbacks of using Adobe AIR as kind of a cross-platform shortcut for building apps. From such perspective HTML is really not that different. If you want to deliver the best possible user experience, native apps is the only option in a lot of cases.

In a way that is good news for developers since it creates niches.

</comment><comment><USER29> The Roman empire analogy is upside down - the 'web apps' are the Romans, and the 'native apps' are the Visigoths. Three years ago the momentum was with web apps - nobody was developing new 'native' apps. That has all changed.

Even websites whose content is perfect for a browser (eg. newspaper and magazine websites, real-estate listings, train timetables, etc) are producing native app versions of their product. How does the author explain that?

</comment><comment><USER30> I think I've read this exact article dozens of times since almost since I began writing mobile applications in 2003. The message is always the same 'Web Apps are Coming! They're going to take over! Steve Jobs thought so!'

In reality, we'll probably see something that's half-way between a web-app and a mobile app. In the meantime, can we stop predicting the doom of mobile software and get on with fixing what's broken about it?

</comment><comment><USER31> Why is it one or the other? Can't they just be different views for the same model (assuming the app doesn't need access to lower-level functionality)?

</comment><comment><USER32> i'm pretty sure you can't replace something graphically intensive as Unreal's Infinity Blade with a cross-mobile-browser web app.

<comment><USER33> I think the proponents of web apps only consider the twitter/facebook/etc type of apps in these arguments. If the types of game you're interested in are relatively simple affairs (Angry Birds/Cut the Rope/etc), sure, you could probably make it performant with HTML5. Good luck doing anything more complex (Unreal, PhotoSynth, GarageBand, etc) with javascript without at least 3-4 generations of hardware improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Amen to that. I wonder how long we have to wait for the w3c to create APIs for all sorts of device capabilities, like camera, compass etc. Open standards FTW.

<comment><USER35> The standards for access to device capabilities are already defined. Just waiting for platforms/browsers to adopt them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I remember 20 years ago when File > Save page as... > html archive would make me a very nice web app on the fly.

App is the latest craze that has replaced the cloud, suddenly even the direct opposite of an app, the web, becomes an app. Strange. Didnt people know that you could save a web page and access it when you are offline before starting to call it a web app?</comment>


Things you need to know about VR project management - <AUTHOR> https://www.toptal.com/project-managers/technical/vr-project-management <comment><AUTHOR> Posting as an author, happy to answer any questions here.</comment>


Automotive Grade Linux Adds Five New Members - <AUTHOR> https://www.automotivelinux.org/announcements/2017/10/18/automotive-grade-linux-adds-six-new-members-including-first-voice-recognition-and-digital-marketing-members <comment><USER2> ewwww...Adobe?

<comment><USER3> It gets worse.

"With Adobe Experience Cloud, brands have the analytics insights and content management capabilities to deliver great, personalized experiences. As connected and driverless cars gain more traction, it is opening up new ways for consumers to enjoy their favorite services, and we are building technology to help brands capitalize on these opportunities," said Colin Morris, director of product management, Adobe Analytics Cloud. "We believe that in order to drive these connected car innovations, it will require close cooperation across car makers, operating system providers, and important open source initiatives like Automotive Grade Linux."

<comment><USER2> but...you gotta be able to tweet while you're being autonomously chauffered! Or maybe the car needs to be able to tweet ([https://antipaucity.com/2010/05/13/cloudy-driving-in- progres...](https://antipaucity.com/2010/05/13/cloudy-driving-in- progress/#.Wei105OnHgo)) to tell lesser, mortal drivers where traffic is heaviest (or would they tweet misinformation to make their own drives better?)

oh - and be sure to let the car tell you what coffee shops have the latest artisanal Vanuatu-Uraguay-Uzbekistani blonde blend available on your ride into work

or where your favorite punk reggae lounge band is performing tonight, so you can be sure to swing-by and enjoy the show after work</comment></comment></comment>


The Law That Makes U.S. Expats Toxic - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-law-that-makes-u-s-expats-toxic-1444330827-lMyQjAxMTI1MTE1MjkxOTI0Wj <comment><USER3> Related rules have also made holding US accounts more difficult for Americans overseas. I had my retirement accounts frozen by their previous custodian: "Sorry, our regulator doesn't let us deal with Americans overseas." I'm unsure whether that was sincerely "doesn't let us" or meant "would require a paperwork burden we find unacceptable relative to the money you few guys make us" but either way I was given thirty days to move very-much-on-the-books money to another US financial firm.

It's annoying as heck, particularly as the burden falls mostly on folks who are coloring squarely within the lines. I pay enough for an accountant that I know with $10k of financial engineering the problem goes away for forever, which makes me think the guys with $30 million in untaxed capital gains that they're _really_ worried about are probably not getting meaningfully inconvenienced by this policy.

<comment><USER4> > with $10k of financial engineering the problem goes away for forever

As an American this upsets me greatly to hear. I feel it makes living abroad, especially to families of average means in this country, almost an impossible feat.

I also wonder if only leaving the country for short duration vacation/business contributes to the "We're the best country ever!" mentality here and the "Wow, look at those weirdos over in America" mentality abroad. Or maybe that's just me paying too much attention to the news lately.

<comment><USER5> If you're "of average means", then you can simply color within the lines, do exactly what the law tells you to do, and almost certainly have no problems at all. You only need the $10k to successfully cheat.

<comment> T-hawk _Figuring out_ "exactly what the law tells you to do" is the tricky part. The law merely prescribes the step-by-step instructions for each form. It will not explain the emergent behavior that you'll need to know to optimize your way through the system. It will not advise you ahead of time to do things like spend no more than 30 days in the US to qualify as a foreign resident. You wouldn't even know that's a relevant question to ask unless informed by a suitable expert.

This sort of thing is the financial engineering that patio11 is talking about. It's not cheating, it's doing what the system is meant to let you do, if only you understood the best paths through the system.

I have a similar situation on a smaller scale. I live in one US state and work in another. I file income tax for both, and there's a form that takes my tax liability to my state of work and backs it out of my liability to my state of residence. I wouldn't have known that form existed and would have just assumed I had to pay full tax to both states, if not for TurboTax directing me to that form.

The law will direct you how to mechanically comply, but it won't direct you against complying in ways hurtful to yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Unfortunately, no single member of Congress represents these American constituents who together would rank, if a state, 12th in population size after New Jersey and before Virginia. By virtue of living abroad, they are second-class citizens, paying onerous tax burdens without representation."

Compare this to Switzerland that considers its citizens living abroad part of the "fifth Switzerland" (there are 4 official language regions in Switzerland). They can vote online (in some Kantons/States) and participate in government programs to keep in touch with or learn about their roots. All without taxation.

Of course, people here complain about citizens living abroad voting in local elections... Representation without taxation!

<comment><USER7> I don't agree with what that quote is saying. Americans living abroad can still vote, and therefore are still represented. It's true that Americans living abroad don't all have the _same_ representatives, since they're represented by the elected officials from where they're registered to vote in the US, but that's a far different thing from saying that they have no representation at all.

<comment><USER8> I'm an american living in Norway. I can vote for president, sure. Supposedly I am allowed to vote in the district I last lived in the states, but trying to get any of this done is difficult, especially since the state I live in requires proof of address for voter registration. I understand the likelihood of the representatives there to care about any issues I have is pretty minimal. After all, americans living abroad are usually a minute slice of a representative's voter base, even if we add up to quite a number overall. I can probably get more accomplished through the embassy 10 hours travel time away. On the other hand, I can vote in local elections here in Norway simply by living legally here for 3 years:: I cannot vote in national elections until I am a citizen. I do not have to be a citizen to hold local offices either - <USER2> can be pretty active and involved if I choose. My situation comes down to having theoretical representation in the states as compared to actual representation here.

<comment><USER9> Yup, came here to say the same thing. Most people who haven't lived abroad for a significant amount of time don't realize the difficulty of trying to vote. In addition to that, the effectiveness of getting your voice heard by your "representatives" (the reps from your last permanent residence in the US) is much more difficult. I used to be able to pick up my phone and get myself heard on issues that I cared about. Living abroad, the best you can hope for is to contact your rep online and hope they care enough to give you a copy- pasted response.

<comment><USER7> Why can't you call your representative while living abroad?

<comment><USER9> Time difference + cost makes it almost prohibitively difficult in my case.

<comment><USER7> Unless you sleep for 16 hours a day, your waking time will overlap with office hours in Washington at some point. Skype can call to the US for very low cost.

<comment><USER9> Umm... do you even figure having a full time job into account? One that often goes into the weekends? Also, you are painting broad strokes.

1\. With my time difference, I'd have to call my reps at a time when I'd normally be getting ready to sleep just to catch them in the morning.

2\. In addition to that, not everyone has good internet connection. Especially if you live in a remote area. Prior to a year ago, my internet connection at home was fairly slow.

3\. Yes, I'll admit that I forgot about Skype since it wasn't reliable for me in the first few years I was here. However, cost is cost. And having to manage Skype Credits, which I'd never use elsewhere, is just an extra burden compared to what it was like back in the States.

<comment><USER7> I get that it's not quite as easy as it would be from the US. But "prohibitively difficult" makes it sound like you're looking for excuses rather than solutions. It might be a little harder but it's not exactly hard. Twenty years ago you'd be paying painful long distance charges just to make that call within the US.

<comment><USER9> Yes, I'll take back the prohibitively part since I had my internet upgraded a year ago. But prior to that, it was. Can you think of a way to do so without Skype? Or a reliable internet connection? Something that would be possible to do from home since the only overlapping hours are after 9/10pm in my timezone?

And aside from that, it still does not detract from my original statement:

> the effectiveness of getting your voice heard by your "representatives" (the > reps from your last permanent residence in the US) is __much more difficult > __

It 's not just the contacting. It's also getting them to even care because you don't live on US soil. None of what I'm saying is an excuse, and I don't know why you seem intent on not acknowledging that it can be legitimately difficult.

<comment><USER7> If you have a phone at all, there are cards you can buy to make cheap international calls by bouncing through a local number. If you don't have a phone, well, you're stuck, but that's hardly characteristic of being abroad, and you'd have the same trouble from a shack in the mountains in the US.

As for caring about your opinion, why would they care any less about you compared to any other voter?

<comment><USER9> Never knew about or seen the phone card before. Good thing to remember, but do they really have this in every country? But do note that with a shack in the mountains, you'd probably have normal landline access and even possibly cellular reception, so it's not a good comparison.

I said the caring part out of frustration with the current system. I've always felt that if they couldn't map you to a US address within their jurisdiction, then they'd know that you had less of an ability to influence other voters around you via petitions, grassroots campaigns, etc. So discounting your opinion wouldn't matter as much.

<comment><USER7> I've seen those cards in lots of places, but I'll admit it's far from a complete survey. People love to call home, and there are expats almost everywhere, so I'd expect they'd be available just about everywhere.

As for petitions and such, I imagine that would be much less of a factor now with the rise of social networks and such. But the views of our elected officials may take some time to catch up to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is taxing expats abroad really a problem? First, there is a large baseline exemption and most expats abroad don't pay U.S. taxes. Second, if you're intending to permanently leave the U.S. why should you keep U.S. Citizenship? And if you're intending to come back, is it really unfair to tax you?

American citizenship has real benefits, especially if you're rich enough to pay expat taxes. The U.S. protects you and your property everywhere in the world. My dad was stuck in Yemen when the civil war there broke out. His hotel was shelled. That blue passport was his ticket out on a C-130.

<comment><USER11> It is a big one. Many expats had to resign their US citizenship to avoid this silly law.

Double taxation only exists in Aethopia and the US.

Read this blog: [http://www.overseas-exile.com/](http://www.overseas- exile.com/)

Protection? Yes, maybe that's the reason. To support the US military efforts and budget.

On a side-note: If I would applied to the US greencard, and then decided to move back to Germany, I would have to pay double income taxes. To Germany and to the US. You don't even need to be US citizen.

<comment><USER5> To be clear, you wouldn't actually _pay_ double-taxes (I think -- if you make more than $100k, it depends on if the Germans and Americans have a treaty over it, but most countries do, I think). You'd have to file twice, but the US side would consist of forms that say you don't owe the US government anything because you already paid more to the Germans than the US would have charged.

<comment><USER12> Double taxation does happen pretty regularly, in particular, the USA often doesn't recognise various types of European investment and pension instruments and that causes complications. It's a really byzantine system that shouldn't even exist at all. People who live outside the USA get nothing from the US government, so they should pay no taxes. Every other country has this figured out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have experience dealing with this. I'm not a U.S. person, but I have a company in a EU country that I co-own with a U.S. citizen (through personal holding companies). Our (EU) bank first demanded we fill in 9 ridiculously extensive forms detailing our entire business, then raised our bank fees from 5 to 105 euro per month, and then closed our account, giving us 2 weeks to send our balance elsewhere. All within a year time.

It's extremely hard for us to find a new bank outside the U.S., and inside the U.S. isn't easy either, since we're not a U.S. company, and do no business there. Thank god we're liquidating this company anyway.

Doing consulting work, I actually did some work for the bank that closed our account. And honestly, while I didn't get close to the departments that deal with FATCA, I can't say I blame them for closing our account. You should see how much of a headache all of the new regulations in the financial industry are for the institutions.

<comment><USER14> What country was this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The government's actual "solution" to this problem has been to raise the fee of renouncing citizenship, from $450 to $2,350. No problem for wealthy people who want to avoid tax, but quite a large burden on everyone else.

I plan to become a German citizen eventually, because I'm probably going to retire here. But thanks to Germany's disallowance of naturalized dual citizenship and America's tax complexities, that requires weighing a huge number of problems. At least my German bank (DKB) didn't kick me out.

<comment><USER16> I keep seeing people repeat this, yet I can't find any information to confirm it. you can become a German citizen and still retain your US citizenship, from everything I've read and everyone I've asked on the matter.

<comment><USER17> It's probably similar to how most EU countries work - you can have two citizenships,but both of those countries will only recognize their citizenship. So for example - if you had a dual Polish/British citizenship, Poland would only recognize your Polish citizenship. As long as you are in Poland, you are a Polish citizen in the eyes of the law, and you would not be officially treated as a foreigner, or even recignized as one. You could go to the British embassy, but they would be unable to help in regards to Polish law, because Polish law would not recognize your British citizenship. The same works in reverse, if you were in Britain, only your British citizenship would be recognized. However, if you traveled to any other country, you get to pick which citizenship you want to use for official purposes.

<comment><USER18> No. In Germany we had a big debate about doppelte staatsbügerschaft at the beginning of the millenium. It was already a big undertaking to enable that at all, for children born here from parent with foreign citizenship. It does not go further than this, in general if you want to be german, you are german and nothing else. There are some exceptions as listed above, but they should not apply here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It really doesn't make sense how the US is the only country which insists on taxing their citizens, no matter where they live. It makes American labor less competitive and promotes the insularity of American culture.

I'm living abroad and you can definitely see the impact of the US tax system in the background of expats: Americans are severely underrepresented. The same salary, when offered to a British expat and an American, is much less attractive to the American because of the 30+% tax burden imposed.

<comment><USER5> I'm also an American expat (Iceland), and for a lot of people, there will be no difference except for inconvenience. If you make less than about $100,000 per year, you exclude that income from US taxes completely. You still have to file a 1040, but you just declare the income on one line and negate it five lines later. You send the IRS the completed form showing you owe $0 and you're done.

And if you make more than $100,000 but live in a country that isn't a tax- haven, you exclude that income too because you're only taxed on the difference between the taxes you would owe the US government and the taxes you paid in your home country. In Europe at least, you're almost always taxed at a higher rate than the US would have taxed you, so again, you don't owe anything. You're only looking at that 30% burden if you live in a country with no taxes and you make millions of dollars (because again, the first $100k is excluded).

I agree it's a bit crazy that the US taxes worldwide income, but the practical consequences seem pretty minimal. My bank has no problem with me as a customer, or at least if they do, they haven't said anything to me about it.

<comment><USER20> > there will be no difference except for inconvenience.

There also appears to be a factor of risk. I'm not American but have had Americans in my team. A slight procedural error, either by themselves or by the IRS, can be a huge financial and legal problem, and expose the person to litigation. It seems draconian and unfair to me.

Thus the practical consequences are more than minimal.

<comment><USER5> I actually talked with an accountant in the US my first tax year living year, and her advice was "don't use an accountant". I have no idea if this is true or not, but according to her, the IRS's view is basically, "we know this is complicated stuff, so do your best, and if you make a mistake, no big deal", whereas if you hire an accountant and get something wrong, the assumption is that you're trying to avoid taxes.

<comment><USER21> It seems tax authorities can be surprisingly flexible as long as they don't get a whiff of attempted tax evasion anywhere.

E.g. at some point around 2000 or so, I'd just moved to the UK, and my personal finances were total chaos around the move. I'd sold quite a lot of shares in Norway, and traded quite a bit on NASDAQ via a US brokerage account (in 2000... yes, it got ugly; thankfully not that much money), and had income from both UK and Norway split between employment and contracting in the same tax year. And transfers back and forth between my UK, US and Norwegian accounts... To make it more annoying, UK and Norway have different tax years (Norway follow calendar year, UK does not). And to be honest my record-keeping at the time was shoddy to the extreme.

So I wrote a letter to UK and Norwegian tax authorities where I set out the details of my income, assets and losses as best I could. I told them I had no clue how to accurately figure out exactly what was due (for the US it was easy because it was all losses that year; the US brokerage account was just relevant because it provided deductions for losses on my Norwegian taxes). Gave them a number each that I thought was close to correct. Filled in my tax returns with estimates (and explained in my letters that the numbers were estimates). Both just accepted my estimate with no arguments, and no requests for further documentation. No fines, or angry letters, or conflicting estimated tax calculations or anything, which was what I feared when I sent it all off.

<comment><USER5> Yes. I moved to Iceland from Tennessee, a state with no state income tax. However, I needed a permanent address where I was sure I'd get mail, because I hadn't yet found a long-term rental in Iceland, so I did my Federal tax return using my mom's address in Arkansas, where there is a state income tax.

A couple of years later, Arkansas wanted to know why I didn't pay them any tax on my income from that year. I called someone, explained the situation, and he just had me write a letter. Problem solved.

We're conditioned to fear the IRS because audits look horrible on fictionalized TV shows. In reality, I think you're right. The IRS is just a collection of people, and if you make an honest effort, the person on the other end isn't out to ruin you.

<comment><USER20> > The IRS is just a collection of people, and if you make an honest effort, > the person on the other end isn't out to ruin you.

Yes, they are people, but if what happens to you depends on people, the end results can be rather unpredictable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My wife and I had been planning on buying a home in either Belize or Costa Rica but gave up this plans because of FACTA. Too bad because I really like Central America and was looking forward to a major lifestyle change from integrating into a local rural community.

Really a messed up law and messed up policy.

I do understand why our government did it: not good for the economy to have older people spend their social security money in a relatively inexpensive foreign country. I think the money laundering and anti terrorism arguments may just be a smokescreen. This may also be just our government throwing their weight around, bullying other countries.

<comment><USER23> You really changed your life plans because of FATCA? Are there really no banks in Central America willing to work with Americans? I'm in Singapore, and though I've had to close one bank account due to it, I've had no problems with my others. Filling out an FBAR the first year took me a couple of hours to figure out, but every year after it took me like 10 minutes.

<comment><USER22> Yes I did. My wife and I had a pro and con sheet for reasons to move and reasons not to move. FACTA tipped the scales, so to speak, and we decided to not do move.

I am still a little sad about our decision though. I think that life is more interesting living in different places, doing different kinds of jobs, etc.

BTW, I didn't want to move for financial reasons as much as wanting a low key lifestyle. There is something about Central America that makes me feel great just hanging around. Anyway, my wife and I live in the mountains of Central Arizona, and I also love our lifestyle here, so life is good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Major banks in the Czech Republic will not issue checking accounts to US citizens because of the costs of FACTA. This leaves expats with large, bureaucratic, formerly state-owned banks, like Ceska Sporitelna, which charge exorbitant fees and have dubious customer service. FACTA is a big problem. It is comical that major banks in Europe have a "No Americans" policy because of this stupid legislation; it needs to end.

</comment><comment><USER25> I suspect that the U.S. taxing its citizens abroad has a lot to do with it being the world's richest country and not wanting people (billionaires and such particularly) to be able to easily escape their tax burden by moving abroad.

<comment><USER26> Genuine question though – why should citizens living abroad (i.e. not using US public services) pay for those services through taxation?

<comment><USER27> The key is to look at the current budget: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget#Outlays_by_budget_function)

It can be split into three families of spending:

\- defense, which benefits you globally via Pax Americana, free trade routes etc. and should you require it, "Captain Phillips" style rescue.

\- "socialism", in the form of benefits that everybody has to pay for and that you can receive if you trigger certain situations (retirement, unemployment, etc.). Most expatriated Americans probably already benefitted from free education which is included here.

\- "generally making the country locally better" (justice, environment, etc.).

Of these, only the latter doesn't directly impact Americans abroad. The first benefits you wherever you are; foreign citizen somewhat benefit from Pax Americana but there is no guarantee it will continue, whilst US citizen are covered globally with much more certainty. The second is a form of compulsory insurance for life developments that will probably coincide with repatriation. But that's about 7% of the budget (rough back of the envelope).

The question is why don't other countries tax their citizen abroad? I think it is mainly because they can't afford to enforce it (good luck, Estonia, forcing JP Morgan to give you access to their New York client data). If they could, with any degree of certainty, they would in a heartbeat. France proposes to do it every 6 months.

<comment><USER28> \- defense, which benefits you globally via Pax Americana,

This is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim.

\- Most expatriated Americans probably already benefitted from free education which is included here.

When I point out the insanity of the law that denies free choice of public schools, its defenders usually try to justify it by saying schools are funded by local property tax rather than national income tax. Is this not the case?

<comment><USER27> Pax Americana started in WWII (which killed over 55 million people) and since then, there has been no global conflict of a similar scale. Cf [http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html](http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html) (top result in DDG).

Whether you consider that global relatively free trade is not beneficial to the rest of the world is up to you, but as a citizen of the rest of the world who did benefit I'm quite glad the US did not go isolationist after WWII.

Regarding schools, whether the taxpayer's money is used appropriately is another discussion, irrelevant here since Americans, through their elected representatives, chose to spent the money in this way.

Funding-wise, last year's budget spent $100bn and this year wants $117bn on the Federal end for "Education, Training, Employment and Social Services" (see link above) of which $69bn in 2015 is for Education (see: [http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama- administration-2...](http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama- administration-2015-budget-prioritizes-key-education-investments-provide- opportunities-all-americans)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I said this before, but I will say it again - as a child, I dreamed of emigrating to the US and getting a US citizenship. Nowadays, I would reject one if anybody offered, and if I had one I would denounce it. Like the article states - being American abroad is now seen as liability, and I am not surprised Americans living abroad give up their citizenship just to stop dealing with this nonsense.

<comment><USER29> I really find it hard to feel sympathetic about rich Americans (only applies to income of 100k+) paying no more taxes than if they lived in America (live in a country with higher income tax, pay US nothing, country with lower tax, pay US the difference.)

This seems hardly worth 'denouncing' American citizenship. Can you explain?

I feel like threads like these really illustrate the difference between someone on HN and the average person.

<comment><USER17> It's not about America per se - I would feel the same way about any country. I live and work in UK while being a Polish citizen. If Poland now asked me to pay income tax in Poland based off my income in UK, I would be very very upset - I already pay income tax in the UK, so paying it twice sounds absolutely ridiculous. On the most basic level - Poland has absolutely no "right" to any of that money. I would denounce my Polish citizenship over this if that was the case. And US feels like they do have the right to the money of their citizens, even if they made it abroad. Every single person I spoke to about this said the exact same thing - the US tax system is stupid, and it's the example of US behaving like it owns the world and its own citizens. Just because it only targets "rich" people doesn't make it any less stupid.

<comment><USER29> > I already pay income tax in the UK, so paying it twice sounds absolutely > ridiculous.

You aren't paying twice. That's the point. Assume the US has a 30% tax rate in your bracket. Poland has a 35% rate for that same bracket. Then as an American expat, you would pay 35% in taxes. If Poland had a 25% rate, you'd pay 30% (25 + 5) in taxes. You aren't paying 65% of your income in taxes. You aren't paying twice.

> On the most basic level - Poland has absolutely no "right" to any of that > money.

Then Poland has the right to say you are no longer a Polish citizen that can take advantage of Polish embassies or move back to Poland at any time as a full citizen.

It seems perfectly sensible to me.

<comment><USER17> So basically "you will always pay us a bit of your income,no matter where that income comes from, or you are no longer our citizen"? That's a bit of a mob mentality, and in general, not how countries work. You don't need to pay taxes to be a citizen and enjoy protection of the law, otherwise what would we do with people who really don't earn anything? Kick them out? I'm perfectly happy to pay income tax on the money made in Poland. But I see no reason to pay income tax on the money made elsewhere.

And yeah, I'm not totally sure about your example. I'm quite certain that I would pay 30% of my income in Poland, and then US would want a further 30% of the remaining amount, IRS would not care that I have already paid income tax in Poland.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am a business owner living overseas in Asia. I generally spend about $2500/year on tax preparation, between my personal return and the 5471 form that I have to file to report my company information on my US tax return. While my financial life does have it's complexity, I have to pay this simply for compliance, independent of income. The $100K/year deduction is on "earned income", i.e. salary. So if you have other income, e.g. dividends or other capital gains on real estate or selling your company, you have to pay at your full standard income rate (small company dividends are not "qualified" unless the US has a corporate tax treaty with the host country).

As a business owner, my best strategy from a personal tax perspective is that my company makes no profit - it should all go to me as salary. In the past, that has put me in conflict with a non-US partner, as it didn't match his best strategy. And it means that "profit sharing" for employees doesn't make sense.

So US tax law costs me considerable money in compliance costs and fundamentally distorts the way I run my business, for no additional tax revenues to the US.

Fundamentally, residence based taxation makes more sense. It's more direct and easier to manage. People talk about these benefits of being a US citizen, as if I don't get services from the country where I live.

</comment><comment><USER31> They mention at the end of the article the "same country exemption" which is a realistic solution. If you are an American, you can contact your representative and ask them to support it. Here you can find more info from the ACA about FACTA and how it is harmful to Americans abroad: [https://americansabroad.org/issues/fatca](https://americansabroad.org/issues/fatca)

</comment><comment><USER32> Try opening a bank account as a foreign US resident. It took my over a month to get my bank account and required copious documentation and a lawyer. All the time there was no guarantee that I would actually get the account. I personally know several US expats who were unable to get bank accounts. It's so much work for the banks that many are just not accepting US citizens for new accounts.

</comment><comment><USER23> My general experience with FATCA has been quite mild. I've been in Singapore for 5 years, and I had one investment account that had to be closed, but all my bank accounts were fine. The FBAR took me a few hours to figure out how to fill out the first time, but every year after it only took 10 minutes to update the numbers. The laws about starting a business are much more onerous. If I become a founder/shareholder/director of a company not incorporated in the US, there are all sorts of painful compliance requirements that are basically there to make me rather incorporate in Delaware or something. Net net, I sense that except for a few unfortunate cases, most of the pain of compliance with FATCA is coming from those who it was meant to target: wealthy tax evaders. This article did appear in the WSJ...

</comment><comment><USER33> It appears the first $100,000 you make overseas is tax exempt by the FEIE[0].

As far as I understand my rent details as well as bank accounts overseas are reported to the IRS. This extra work can be seen as a burden for both parties.

[0] [https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International- Taxpayers/Fore...](https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International- Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion)

*edit grammar

</comment><comment><USER34> Funny thing is that this affects not only American citizens, but also anyone who studied, lived or worked in the US, regardless of citizenship, since unless you prove otherwise, that could be taken as evidence that you are a "US person".

</comment><comment><USER35> "The best solution is for the U.S. to join the rest of the world in taxing based on residency rather than citizenship."

As a former expat, this would have made my life significantly easier. The current U.S. tax code is appalling in its overreach.

</comment><comment><USER36> You must look at it from the perspective of the Oligarchy: Wars, regime- changes, support to "moderate" forces, spying on the world just cost money. And you cannot afford all that by only taxing those at home. You need every dollar. So, you tax the expats (8.7 million of them!). They are abroad to work after all - they MUST have earnings. As an alibi for your new revenue source, you pass a new law (Fatca) while saying that you fight "terrorism, tax evasion and organised crime". Again! The game you have played so well (and so often) in the past still works. This time it's even easier: Expat "elitists" have no representation, and the Average Joe cannot think about Fatca when he comes back home - tired and overworked - after two jobs, worrying about his CC debt and plethora of other issues.

<comment><USER37> If you asked "Average Joe who is overworked, has two jobs and CC debt" how much he was concerned about the great injustice of requiring expats earning >$100k/yr in low-tax nations to make up the tax difference, you wouldn't get much sympathy. However, it wouldn't be very honest to attribute his lack of sympathy to apathy. I imagine he'd care, and that he'd find the present arrangement agreeable.

<comment><USER36> > attribute his lack of sympathy to apathy

I wrote "the Average Joe cannot think", not "the Average Joe doesn't want to think". Other than that, I agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Maybe I'm wrong, but america is not the only country who taxes globally. Spain is taxing globally also.

<comment><USER39> Only two countries tax non-resident citizens on foreign-earned income: the United States and Eritrea. I'm assuming this is what you meant (non-resident foreign income).

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

You can sort by what you want to see: [http://i.imgur.com/hSsVmwd.png](http://i.imgur.com/hSsVmwd.png)

<comment><USER38> thanks for clarifying this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Interesting article.

</comment><comment><USER41> "By virtue of living abroad, they are second-class citizens, paying onerous tax burdens without representation."

This seems pretty ironic to me given the "no taxation without representation" principle.

<comment><USER42> There's actually a more direct case of this: Washington, DC. Yes, people who live in the capital of the United States have no representation in congress. For years, they've even advertised this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DC_2013.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DC_2013.jpg)

edit: spelling / typo (thanks mikeash)

<comment><USER43> Mmmhmm. Observer status only.

You can vote for president, but you have no voting congressman.

Cultural tidbit: If you're a resident of the D.C. area, and you live in Southern Maryland or Northern Virginia, be careful not to call yourself a Washingtonian. Residents will kinda frown at that. There's a perception that sometimes residents from the neighboring states will make it seem (unintentionally or not) that they're part of the city itself, without paying the cost of being an actual resident: No representation.

Consider that as you will. I always thought it was yet another little quirk of what is a pretty unique city.

(I'm from Northern Virginia. ;)</comment></comment></comment>


Twitter to introduce ability to stop people replying to tweets - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/09/twitter-introduce-ability-stop-people-replying-tweets <comment><USER2> This is a feature that only celebrities with bad/inane/illogical opinions would want. I hope the list of such celebrities that demand this misfeature leaks.</comment>


Horovod: Distributed Training Framework for TensorFlow, Keras, and PyTorch - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/uber/horovod <comment><USER2> Uber engineers gave a great talk on distributed deep learning at the Mesosphere conference back in Oct 2017 where they discuss the problem space and Horovod in detail. Highly recommend it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktc3GjshHcc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktc3GjshHcc)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a little confused by the architecture here. Keras already abstracts TensorFlow and PyTorch - and CNTK. Don't at least TF and CNTK already handle the distributed training use cases natively? (I am not familiar with PyTorch). It's certainly one of CNTK's main selling points. What are the use cases for adding yet another layer to the stack? In what way is this simpler than tweaking to use the distributed features of the underlying packages natively? Which is what they are designed for.

<comment><USER4> > Keras already abstracts TensorFlow and PyTorch - and CNTK.

PyTorch? You mean Theano, right?

<comment><USER3> Yes my mistake! I mainly use Keras and CNTK in R, I made a conscious decision to ignore most of the others to avoid getting bogged down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone able to find any data on time 'til accuracy? I don't see it (even in the video linked in another comment).

Sure it's nice to "achieve 90% scaling efficiency" in images/sec, but images/sec alone doesn't get you where you want to go. Increased accuracy per unit wallclock time is what you want.

<comment><USER6> > Increased accuracy per unit wallclock time is what you want.

yah, especially for a framework for distributed learning!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like before you need distributed training, you need distributed hyperparameter tuning, so I'm disappointed I don't see anything about that here.</comment>


Ask HN: Where and how do you find entrepreneurial backend hackers? - <AUTHOR>

For last 2-3 months I've been trying to get someone on the board as a co-founder who is good or atleast interested in areas like data-mining/information retrieval/Hadoop etc. I've talked to atleast 15 people during that period, but didn't find any success yet. I've tried LinkedIn, Meetup Events, Conferences, etc, but didn't find the right person.
Most of the people I met, were from either business or frontend (UI design) background. I only met handful of data-mining/hadoop guys. The ones with I talked to were either happy about their current jobs or they already have some project going on in the part-time (with no commercial interest), so they can't commit to join startup.
So where do I find backend hackers who are passionate about data-mining, information retrieval, hadoop, etc. and are entrepreneurial and want to start a startup? And how shall I get them on the board? Please advice. <comment><USER2> Just a couple of random thoughts:

Is there a Hadoop User's Group in your area? Or any other Meetup / User's Group on any related topics? Ask there.

Is there a university nearby? Do they have a compsci program? Find a professor who teaches data-mining or information retrieval and ask him/her for leads?

Try the hadoop / weka / mahout / lucene / etc. mailing lists?

You might also post something on Hackers News. ;-) Seriously, how about some info on where you are and exactly what you're looking for. The chances that somebody who posts here will be interested probably aren't half bad.

There are also a couple of sub-reddits you might find it worthwile to checkout, like /r/machinelearning, /r/datamining, /r/hadoop, etc.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> Agreeing to be a co-founder is a pretty big commitment. Are you sure that the people you've talked to just aren't interested in your idea? The more interesting the idea, the more likely you are to find people. No offense to your idea, just a thought.

<comment><USER4> as a programmer entrepreneur.. i have to agree. Theres a few factors why I would join a business guy.

1\. You have raised funding before, and have some sort of proven record. You sold a company, or have enough capital.

Thats about it, otherwise.. I'm already working on several ideas myself, and trying to validate things. You could have a great idea, but I'm not signing any NDA, and have probably heard your idea before, and think the ones I can do are better. Even if I do hear your idea, and think its good, more than likely I don't have the knowledge domain, and if I do, I would then possibly consider it only if you can add real value other than the idea.</comment></comment>


Heisenberg Developers (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2014/06/heisenberg-developers.html <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11024656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11024656)

</comment><comment><USER3> I definitely see where he is coming from but throwing out all management and issue tracking (although yeah, jira is pretty bad) is definitely not always the answer. There are plenty of examples of teams for which fine-grained issue tracking has worked, as well as counter-examples like this one and it is hard to take this post as more than a generalizing anecdote.

From what I read, it honestly sounds like maybe things started slowing down because 1. development generally slows down as a project becomes bigger (even when keeping technical debt in mind) and 2. Because of a shitty feature request. Yeah, it sounds like the PM didn't help either but it's not clear to me that they were the biggest problem here (although it is true that PMs can definitely be hit and miss, even more so when hired in the middle of the project's lifecycle).

<comment><USER4> I don't understand all the JIRA hate, my team has 0 problems with it

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel like the problem came at the beginning: there was a requirement that was a difficult problem, and the developers needed to take the time then and do some Big Design Up Front to the point that they could get the users to collaborate in a solution to understand how Big a problem it was.

The team also needed to evolve, starting with a very small implementation and evolve it to handle each additional use case in a way that the stakeholders felt there was progress in their biggest pain points.

It's an experienced lead that takes their hands off the keyboard for a few weeks and immerses themselves in the social problem. (And yes, sometimes it means breaking big problems into small pieces as a team and organizing around the work in separate steps, even if that feels unsatisfying.)

</comment><comment><USER6> Been there, seen that. Nebulous, pie-n-the-sky requirements coupled with PMs that don't understand software development and probably don't even understand the product.

I feel bad for PMs, because there is a role for them - just usually not the role that they've been assigned to. PMs tied down to small teams usually causes problems. PMs should be facilitating inter-team development. I believe tech-leads and BAs should be assigned the role that PMs seem to find themselves in when they're assigned to small teams.

And please PMs, learn what the product is all about. Too many times I've seen PMs actively not wanting to know what the hell the product is about and instead love getting bogged down in process (and of course meetings).

<comment><USER7> Yup, your PMs should be the one unblocking your developers and not randomizing them in return.

The best PMs I ever worked with I could come to with "I need X from the organization" and within a few hours or less I'd be unblocked and could move forward. The other type that pester developers are poison and should be thrown off the boat for the reasons listed in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think time pressure is the worst thing cited here, and it's the reason I tend to stay away from methods in which I sense agility.

The time estimate and completion time features on tools like Jira make my insides sink a little bit. I think it's somewhat difficult to know ahead of time exactly how long something will take to implement, and, even worse, committing yourself to that puts pressure to ignore unforeseen events or complications or to not take care of them properly. I'd rather be extra careful than quick.

Assuming your team isn't massive or out of control, I think it's possible to have trust in programmers that they won't muck about and will deliver work in the time it takes to deliver the work--which for a good programmer isn't affected by management or Jira or estimates. It's just a constant.

<comment><USER9> I used to hate all previous attempts at being agile. But my current workplace gets it more right than wrong.

People over process right?

<comment><USER8> Maybe it's just whichever process matches the people and vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is probably one of the better posts about development I read this year, full of sound bites, like "Jira strikes fear in a heart of every developer". I just love it and can read it occasionally nodding my head.

</comment><comment><USER11> I view this post as being a rant against this particular shop with potentially subpar management practices which is frustrating, and I sympathesize.

However, if you intend this as an argument against general software project management, I must disagree. (See: "He introduced us to 'Jira', a word that strikes fear into the soul of a developer.")

Lately I've had the opportunity to work at a place with very forward-thinking, progressive, and helpful PMs and generally good organizational structure.

I like our approach and here is why:

* We are not afraid to change things. This might lead to some temporary disagreements between technical leads and PMS, but EVERYONE in the team has transparency into the process, and an opportunity to voice an opinion.

* We taking scoring tickets very seriously. I've been at places where everyone on a team might vote on a ticket, even if they cannot appreciate the true scope of it. Here it's different. For instance, we have seen that in the last couple of weeks, our velocity was unusually high. This might indicate we are scoring tickets too highly, and from what I've seen of my own work, I'm inclined to agree.

I've had a length interview with a PM who spent some time afterwards telling me about his metholodogies (I gladly listened.) When given the choice between Gantt charts which have cliffs (indicating poor future planning and rushing to get things done last minute) and nice step-ladder charts, we see why PMs prefer things the way they do.

Sometimes it gets in the way of just writing code sure. But with good organizational structure, especially in a mid-size company that has upcoming deadlines and business features to ship, we identify priorities quickly while still being aware of things like reducing code debt.

</comment><comment><USER12> You can't have your cake and eat it too. If managers want accurate estimates, they need to allow just as much time planning and estimating as they do for developing. And requirements must be frozen.

Just look at construction - spend years planning for 6 months of development. And there are still schedule overruns!

Sure, you can have detailed estimates. But every company I've worked at wants detailed, accurate estimates with maybe one day's worth of planning. Often they want "guesses" or "rough estimates" on the spot, literally seconds after telling you what they want. I've also never come across a single company that actually froze requirements.

And every developer knows what happens when you say you can't give an accurate estimate quickly: They demand you make a guess anyway and that becomes the estimate. If you give a range, they'll take the minimum as the estimate.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think it really depends on the level to which you use tools like JIRA, and it also depends on how involved the developers are in the project planning.

We use JIRA, but our PMs understand the importance of fixing things that are broken. Refactoring code is usually added as a subtask to stories that have to deal with the code that needs refactored.

I will agree that micro-managing is not a good way to do software development, but many times if you just go pure laissez fair then a lot of times projects go off the rails.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't identify with this at all. One of the first things I started asking for at my most recent job was a better, more clearly-defined process so that we knew exactly what we were building, what it needed to accomplish and what does "finished" mean. I largely got what I was asking for. Its made our engineering team a lot more focused and enabled us to deliver faster than we were before. It also makes it easy to figure out what to work on next.

Maybe the difference for me is that software engineering is my job, not my lifestyle or identity. I don't know.

<comment><USER14> _" so that we knew exactly what we were building, what it needed to accomplish and what does 'finished' mean"_

That only works when the people who are asking for the software know what they want. In the situation described in the article:

 _" The one where you try to replace an expert user's years of experience and intuition with software. What started out as a vague and wooly requirement, soon became a monster as we started to dig into it."_

In my experience, the business people aren't good at turning vague and wooly requirements into precise specifications for software - they're not trained as logical thinkers. Usually, that job falls on the developers, who will try to clarify the requirements until they have something that's precise enough to be translated into logically consistent code. This may involve a lot of trial an error, since trying to extract the requirements from the business people is a non-linear process (e.g., they can change their minds on what the spec is, and a seemingly small change in the spec can have a large effect on the architecture).</comment></comment>


Cows are Sexier than Tensors - <AUTHOR> http://masonporter.blogspot.com/2010/05/cows-are-sexier-than-tensors.html

<comment><USER2> For a moment I thought the "cows" would be a class of user you had identified in your network studies.

Which makes me wonder how popular the network study paper could have become had you indeed invented categories like that.

</comment><comment><USER3> But tensors are more romantic: <http://people.ee.duke.edu/~wrankin/misc/tensor.html></comment>


CCN Is Shutting Down After Google's June 2019 Core Update - <AUTHOR> https://www.ccn.com/ccn-is-shutting-down-after-googles-june-2019-core-update <comment><USER2> This article doesn't really make sense. Yeah, Google changed the algorithm and dropped traffic to CCN by about 50%. But... according to their own charts, that just puts them back to where they where about six months ago, in December!

 _What you need to realize is that we have added more people to the team, both full-timers and part-timers. We do not want to downsize the team, we do not want to break the morale of the team._

So you're shutting down CCN instead of laying people off? Just days after a brief downward blip in traffic? What?

Yeah, it's tough when all your revenue comes from a source is extremely volatile. Maybe you need to be more conservative in hiring, or maybe you just have to take some risks and hire aggressively and then let some people go.

Then later in the article:

 _We are shutting down CCN.com. Google has made that choice for us. We are moving the entire team over to HVY.com to at least try and save modern journalism the way we see it. HVY Journalists is a news platform made by and for journalists._

Ah, now it makes sense. They already had this plan to launch an anti-Google journalism site, HVY. Now maybe they can get some attention to their message, and promote HVY. Nobody is "shutting down", they are just rebranding to HVY.

<comment><USER3> Agree that seemed odd. I'm more confused about that site in general, according to those stats (and alexa rankings seem similar), the site itself looks widely popular.

Could somebody contextualize their significance? Looking at the homepage just shows me a bunch of click-bait that I'd honestly not want to see in my search results, even when searching for something cryptocurrency related. Were they just good at SEO and focussed on the wrong niche? (edit: typo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > We do not want to downsize the team, we do not want to break the morale of > the team.

To avoid breaking the morale of the team you're going to... shut down the entire site?

Lots of things to question here. The site used to get $LESS traffic, then it got $MORE, now it's back down to $LESS again. When the traffic numbers grew, were readers sticking around? Did they read a whole article, click to another, etc? Or did they more or less immediately hit the back button?

If it's the former you should have been trying to engage that audience, creating mailing lists and such to keep (obviously interested) readers around. If it's the latter then Google was sending you people that weren't actually interested in your content, and this is a (painful, but user-first) course correction.

(as an aside, I know this _isn 't_ the reason, but I would love it if Google was penalising CCN for showing a "can we send you notifications?" popup the very second I load the site)

</comment><comment><USER5> The best thing I got out of this is that Mercola and Daily Mail have lost about half of their traffic. Hopefully this severely impacts their financial viability.

CCN seems to have a lot of clickbait headlines. Maybe this change is cracking down on clickbait like some of the DM replies suggested. That would also be great news.

<comment><USER6> Crypto news and clickbait go hand-in-hand in my experience. Lots of newbies in the space, most of whom don't know what they're doing, so they're much more likely to click on sensational headlines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, suppose Google, before changing the algorithm, ran the new algorithm on ALL the top 50K websites. And then sent them an expected change calculation.

Webmasters getting a boost would rejoice, sure.

But what exactly would you do as a loser site? It's not like you can change all your previous content. And it's not really likely that something simple will get you back to where you were. If it were simple, people would game it and all search results would be terrible.

Perhaps the thing that matters is Google's hegemony over search. It should be clear to everyone who relies on search that the algo can just change like that, and business should be built to be robust to the search ranking.

</comment><comment><USER8> The only interesting thing about this article is that humble bundle has lost 34% search traffic. I wonder what's going on there?

It's so weird to me that Google has worked so hard to create a big old black box "algorithm" that I'm willing to be they don't even know what it wants or does, compared to pagerank from back in the 90s that was thoroughly well defined in a pretty great research paper. It's such a 180 degree change

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems like if they were that dependent on Google search results to drive traffic to them, they might not have been engaging enough to be able to convert people into becoming regular visitors thru other traffic channels.

</comment><comment><USER10> Baseless speculation – if Google is trying to rein in "extremism", even through an apolitical lens, you're going to wind up hurting center-right sites more than center-left sites.

</comment><comment><USER11> TLDR: they lost 71% of their traffic overnight due to the Google update. They argue changes that large should have forewarning because people's livelihoods depend on that traffic and Google has zero transparency on the whole process.

They couldn't get answers about the drop in traffic, so they are giving up on that site and moving their staff to work on another:

"We are shutting down CCN.com. Google has made that choice for us. We are moving the entire team over to HVY.com to at least try and save modern journalism the way we see it. HVY Journalists is a news platform made by and for journalists."</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone successfully installed Arch Linux on a Sony Vaio Z Series? - <AUTHOR>

I'm about to order a Sony Vaio Z Series, with Core i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 1920x1080 screen, and I was wondering if someone had a similar machine and successfully installed Arch Linux on it. Perhaps partially, with some features not working, like the speed/stamina switch, or any other feature.<p>I would also be interested in experiences installing other linux distros on a Z Series Vaio. <comment><USER2> I have a (2 year old) Vaio VGN-Z11WN and it was a bit of a nightmare to get Linux to install correctly on it. The main problem was the Stamina/Speed graphics switch, which is a software switch in this model, where as previously it used to be a hardware switch.

I joined the Launchpad group for the Z-series: <https://launchpad.net/~sony- vaio-z-series> which helped a lot, but there were still things like the microphone not working etc.

I have tried Ubuntus Jaunty, Karmic and Lucid on there with mixed results - karmic for some reason was the best. Fedora 13 installed perfectly (excluding the speed/stamina switch) but then I ended up in dependency hell!

Because of the trouble I have had with getting Linux onto this machine, I don't think I am going to get another Vaio.

My main desktop runs Arch, but I didn't even dare go there on the Vaio!

I would be very interested to hear how you get on. Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for sharing your experience. If Arch is too difficult to install in a Vaio, I'll try something more mainstream like Debian or Ubuntu. Perhaps if I just choose to use either the intel graphics or the nvidia and give up on the switch I can get it working. I'll share my experience!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I report a violation to YC's code of ethics? - <AUTHOR> Staying vague since my last comment was flagged for some reason(?).
What's the right channel to report a violation to YC's code of ethics?
Thanks for the help! <comment><USER2> You could try the contact form on YCombinator's web site:

[https://www.ycombinator.com/contact](https://www.ycombinator.com/contact)

There's also an email address on their "legal" page:

[https://www.ycombinator.com/legal](https://www.ycombinator.com/legal)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a bunch

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a contact link in the footer for the forum and a [https://www.ycombinator.com/contact/](https://www.ycombinator.com/contact/) for the main website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! didn't see this somehow

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is this? I have been investigating the suspicious hosting company behind this whole nonsense for a while. YCombinator's expansion into China as well as its connections with Reddit have made me consider giving up, because now like everybody, even the small European countries no one remembers when it comes to cyber outside of Estonia, are investigating them. They will get the job done :)

Please email me I can put you in contact tonight with the people you need to be speaking to.

firstname.lastname@example.com

Considering Credit Karma and Wilson Sonini are now almost suing me, I like to think I get results from what I've published.

Oh and so is Perkins Coie, but again, they won't file the civil suit for Wyze even though a good amount of emails I have sent asking them.

Fun fact, the new video drone platform from DJI is called...Ryze.

FYI, I have begged CK to please sue me, and have weighed filing a lawsuit myself, simply to enter legal discovery. It never happens though. I wonder what they are avoiding?

I have told them over and over any lawsuit would be for $1 and I want no money.

Maybe it is this?

[https://blog.12security.com/two-minutes-to- midnight/](https://blog.12security.com/two-minutes-to-midnight/)

Tbh probably not they do a lot of bad stuff. Most likely they just infer I know about whatever the "really bad thing" is.

<comment><USER4> To be clear, I would probably wait a few days. Daniel Grackle responded to the very last comment I made some time ago. Reading and digesting now.

Off the cuff, it does seem strange that a new hosting provider hasn't been looked for a while (things happen you always have to recheck), and I'm not clear what happened to his startup skysheet.com (important because you want to know how everyone is getting their money).

Other answers were solid though. Thank you Daniel and I will post a follow up with reasonable questions if needed and drop it after that.</comment></comment>


Database of over 100 VPS hosting plans - <AUTHOR> http://vps-plans.dabbledb.com/publish/linuxvpses I'm shopping around for a VPS, so I thought I'd share the data I've collected with other hackers. <comment><USER2> Well, they missed the company I'm using. Oh well. I find it hard to imagine people paying 100+ a month for a VPS when you can get a dedicated machine for less than that.

Watch out for VPSes by the way. They generally don't allow swap spaces, which can completely prevent the use of certain systems. If you're using LAMP, you're okay, of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> A $100/month dedicated server probably doesn't have RAID 10 or other server- class features, but it will probably have more CPU capacity than a $100/month VPS. As virtualization software improves, I expect the advantages of VPSes to increase.

If anyone knows of a particularly good provider, I'm willing to add it to the database. I just added Prgmr.com since they appear to be cheap and hacker- friendly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just a note concerning the <$20/month table, which is all I've looked at thus far: VPSLink's platform is Virtuozzo.

And I can't speak for any of their other services, but their $7.95/month service SUCKS.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm using <http://prgmr.com> at the moment, $5/month 64MB RAM, 1 GB disk and 10 GB Transfer

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.KnownHost.com> !

</comment><comment><USER6> Dabble: one of the only really innovative Web 2.0 apps out there.

</comment><comment><USER7> linode.com</comment>


Implementing Database Disaster Tolerance and High Availability - <AUTHOR> https://cloudfocus.alibabacloud.com/Database-Recovery-in-GitLab-%E2%80%93-Implementing-Database-Disaster-Tolerance-High-Availability_p247783 <comment><USER2> this requires a login</comment>


Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? - <AUTHOR> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845 <comment><USER2> Authors are Paul and Anne Ehrlich, authors of the famous 1968 book "The Population Bomb" [1].

From early editions of that book: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate."

Fortunately they were wrong, at least in their timing.

From their new article: "Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity."

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb)

<comment><USER3> Based on available facts at the time it seemed like a reasonable conclusion but they should have also realized the facts they did have were limited.

Chemical fertilizers, industrialization, mass production, these all got us out of a jam. The full effect of early bio-engineering efforts had yet to play out, and the work of Normal Borlaug ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug)) wasn't in full swing.

Today we're bumping up against different hard limits, like fresh water, which could cause enormous problems if not dealt with before it reaches a critical state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah yes, Erlichs, still after all these years trying to be right via the stopped-clock technique: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager)

</comment><comment><USER5> For every age we will surely have a bogeyman in our impact, whether it's urban streets covered in manure, excessive smog, food shortages, acid rain, the depletion of the ozone layer, or climate change.

The point in reading a text like this shouldn't be to be scared, but to assert yourself towards whatever the empirical evidence shows will improve matters. After all, there's no trick that will let you escape this fate, whatever it is.

</comment><comment><USER6> Unfortunately, the world is never going to end; it's just going to keep dragging on and on.</comment>


Of Phishing Attacks and WordPress 0days - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/of-phishing-attacks-and-wordpress-0days/

<comment><USER2> _First is username:password@url abuse. This notation - now deprecated because only an idiot would pass credentials in the HTTP query string these days_

Err... username:password@host is not the query string and gets sent down the wire exactly like when you authenticate with the server the "normal" way.</comment>


Show HN: Tennis Grand Slams Visualization - <AUTHOR> I created a simple little visualization to see the grand slams won over the years. Just to be able to visually see when and how many slams have been won by players.<p>https://tennisgrandslams.github.io/<p>(Click on a player to see their wins.) <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: [https://tennisgrandslams.github.io/](https://tennisgrandslams.github.io/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Players' names not clickable on iOS/Safari

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed. Thanks for the feedback!</comment></comment>


Microsoft's decision to patch Windows XP is a mistake - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/microsofts-decision-to-patch-windows-xp-is-a-mistake/

<comment><USER2> I think the real problem is not corporate licenses, but all those bootleg XP copies running in China (and who can blame them, XP is still a perfectly fine OS). MS should offer a free and legal upgrade to Windows7 for home/gaming use to get this somewhat under control.

<comment><USER3> Why? How is that their responsibility?

And what advantage would there be for them?</comment></comment>


New Tinder feature outs its users to their Facebook friends - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/tinder-social-feature-is-a-massive-invasion-of-privacy-for-all-those-using-the-dating-app/news-story/2ff112ff997754d864820394eeaf9a31 <comment><USER2> They always showed common friends who are on tinder, and in the edit profile pane, you could get a list of your friends that other users can potentially see. That list is also Facebook friends on Tinder.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's pretty outrageous that this didn't launch with an option to opt out.</comment>


Corridor Digital: Google/Facebook profit by ignoring copyright violations in ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPYaTF_qE58 <comment><USER2> Copyright violations is just one of many things they'll ignore. Pseudoscience, unsubstantiated medical claims, malware or outright scams. I haven't seen ads in almost a decade myself but looking at what's currently happening (some nice examples on this subreddit: [https://old.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/](https://old.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/)) it seems to have become worse than I remember. Worse, some of these are on platforms like YouTube which are frequently visited by kids and I wouldn't be surprised if some are actually _targeted_ at kids as they might be more likely to fall for a scam if you promise some in-game currency from a popular game.

We need proper regulation for this and have the advertising platform be held liable for wrongdoings of the advertised service/product. Promote a fraud or scam? You are considered complicit of that crime and will be ordered to pay up. That'll force the platforms to better vet the ads they serve if they want to stay in business.</comment>