Ask HN: Is this a good time to buy stock? - <AUTHOR> I've long been pondering and putting off buying stock. With the fears of Coronavirus, it seems the stock market is down. Is this a good time to buy stock?<p>Any favorites you'd recommend? <comment><USER2> Never catch a falling knife.

Timing the market is a futile game. Take the Buffet approach... Buy because you like the fundamentals and hold forever.

<comment><USER3> Using this logic the time to buy is now. If you're not timing the market just buy whenever you have the money and know what you want.

And it's a better time then two weeks ago, because basically everything is cheaper.

I will say though, if you are buying now, be prepared to take losses initially. This could keep going down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> All in on Tesla, elon's gonna invent a cure any day now surely!

Seriously, the market is now back to where it was six months ago. Consider what that says about people trying you to tell you to "buy the dip now that things are cheap". You've got two choices... Buy index funds slowly and consistently regardless of the news, or learn to pick decently priced individual stocks based on your own fundamental analysis.

Ignore anyone who tells you to use technical analysis, they're an idiot, and if you venture into reddit/wallstreetbets, you are screwed.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER5> This isn't a serious reply to bash anyone here but it makes me sad that after a crisis like this hits and many people die because they weren't prepared or they used all of their money as a result of the crisis, to think that a relative handful of people who have the capital to freely invest money into stocks of wealthy companies so that they can profit off them at a later point after the economy has recovered. It's always the same people isn't it? These opportunities don't come unless you've already got the money and education to make use of them. So what's the future look like? More of the same. Don't get me wrong though. It's the best thing to do if the opportunity is there for you.

I want to be wrong about this though. Maybe I'm seeing it from the wrong light. So if someone wants to tell me otherwise, feel free.

<comment><USER6> > These opportunities don't come unless you've already got the money and > education to make use of them.

The question is if that's even an opportunity. The market may very well fall or be flat for the next decade. Having money does not equate to automatic making of more money - there's plenty of moneyed families who lost it all and went on to became cab drivers etc.

> So what's the future look like? More of the same.

The future looks relatively bright. In general, gigantic, unprecedented numbers of people are lifted out of poverty every year now. The world is already an amazing place compared to where it was just a hundred years ago, and it looks like the trend will continue. There are threats like climate change, resource depletion etc. but it's unclear if they can wipe out all of the gains we've already made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The best time to buy an S&P 500 index fund was March 4, 1957. The second best time is tomorrow (markets are closed today, so you can't do it today).

</comment><comment><USER8> Until the it peeks you have no idea of impact. Cash is king. Buy low.

</comment><comment><USER9> It is a better time than two months ago.

My take is this: at the beginning of the Trump administration, P/E ratios were at the high range of "normal". There is another factor of four you could get in the "bubble" range but that is a special phenomenon that happens once a generation or so.

Today you always have people asking "is this a bubble?" because we remember the 1990s, but maybe by 2040 or so it something people might be ready to believe.

Under the Trump admin I think the stock market has gone up without visible means of support, but it has not gotten into the extreme bubble territory that we saw in the 1920s, 1960s and 1990s.

Thus now is certainly a chance to get in, but I can't be too excited about the market now.

I suggest you get a good ETF like QQQ.</comment>


Ask HN: Know of a site for a wide range of political views on specific news? - <AUTHOR> I'd like to see thoughtful conservative commentary juxtaposed with progressive commentary. I don't really know of any site that does this. <comment><USER2> Commentary != News

You could follow columnists from either side, but I don't know how many I'd call thoughtful.</comment>


Show HN: Make your own Kanye West album cover with HTML5 canvas - <AUTHOR> http://brandly.github.io/pablo/ <comment><USER2> I'm a Kanye nerd. Just posted this on /r/kanye on Reddit.</comment>


Porn watchers will have to prove they are over 18 under new laws - <AUTHOR> https://news.sky.com/story/porn-watchers-will-have-to-prove-they-are-over-18-under-new-laws-11224093?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter <comment><USER2> There is a censorial streak in the British Conservative Party. In addition to porn, they also want to censor "extremist" views, with a very broad definition of "extremism". In fact, the British Labour Party isn't too hot on free speech either. A lot of laws restricting speech were passed under Blair's tenure. And the current Labour leadership isn't exactly clamoring for their repeal.

Is censorship really a popular stance in the UK? What gives? I would love to hear from a British person about this.

<comment><USER3> Censorship is a popular stance all over, depending entirely on _who /what_ is being censored.

In the UK, it's porn. In Germany, it's Nazi memorabilia. In Canada, it's pronoun use and "hate" speech. In Iran and China, it's government dissidents. In the US, it's companies instead of governments doing it but the result is the same.

Same Stupid, Different day

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find this, quite peculiar. Who is pushing for this and why would they want to do this? Is this some convert way to better track people, online? What other motive could there be?

<comment><USER4> British conservatives have been pushing a porn crackdown for a while. I (as someone on the other side of the Atlantic) believe real identity verification is just a tool to crackdown on porn in general. Everyone knows that if you keep porn records, they'll get out (accidentally, hackers, governments, or all of the above).

On the other hand, the company the British are paying to do this, MindGeek, is not just developing the AgeID checking system. They also run most of the popular Porn websites. And they own many popular Porn production studios.

So this is also a case of an aggressive vertical monopoly corrupting a government into enriching and deepening their extremely profitable monopoly. Now, a private porn distribution company that ALSO makes porn will now have EXCLUSIVE rights to porn related age verification for all UK citizens. They're the Porn Company King of UK, and all other companies now exist on a second, less-government-supported tier.

It also means the UK Government is effectively subsidizing pornography, in a way.

<comment><USER5> So it's a way of getting a porn "moat" if you will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Failing to understand the logic behind this. How could the UK government possibly think letting an adult company collect user-data is for their own citizen protection.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the government/ISPs to take care of the AgeID product themselves? They are the gatekeepers to the internet basically isn't it?

<comment><USER3> Why should _anyone_ collect this data? Can you imagine the first time it's hacked and we have complete details of everything that anyone watches and when? It will be awful, hilarious, and horrifying all at once.

 _" Your Royal Majesty, according to the recent Mindgeek hack, it appears you.."_

NO ONE in their right mind wants that.

<comment><USER6> Needless to say it shouldn't be done, but if anybody...a 3rd party?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We should have a serious discussion about the impact of mass porn consumption on developing persons. Does it have no effect at all? Does it increase sex drive? Does it decrease sex drive? Does it cause depression? Does it lower depression? Does it effect sexual preferences?

I feel like our understanding on mental wellness is so pitifully small that something a innate as porn should be heavily studied.

<comment><USER8> I agree. It's like we are in the big tobacco phase where everyone is saying it's normal and healthy. To say otherwise is considered prudish and sexually repressive.

<comment><USER9> It would be nice to see it studied scientifically, without knee-jerk reactions. But I hear one of the problems is finding enough people for studies who don't watch pornography.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What the title suggest will never happen. But maybe users of big porn sites might have to prove they are over 18.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you want out of social media? - <AUTHOR> Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, etc are all garbage products from my POV for a host of reasons, and I know I'm not the only one that feels the same way.
If you're no longer into any of the existing social media platforms a) how are they failing you, and b) what do you actually want out of social media?
For me personally, I want a way to keep in touch with people/ people to keep in touch with me, but that doesn't sell my data to advertisers and is resistant to virality and toxic behavior. <comment><USER2> For the most part I don't use social media. My Facebook exists so that members of my family and friends can contact me via messenger when either of phone numbers change. I use Twitter to show my interest in the web development community to potential clients and employers.

</comment><comment><USER3> IMO the problems with social media are not technological problems or even product problems. They're problems of human behavior and social psychology. I don't think you can fix that with a different product offering.

</comment><comment><USER4> lately I watch the news on sling and deep learning videos on youtube. This and IH. That's about it. I have accounts but mostly don't use them. when I want to talk to somebody I call them. text but mostly to my wife.</comment>


FundersClub (YC S12) Wants To Bypass VC And Let You Invest In Startups - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/25/fundersclub/ <comment><USER2> " _I don't think crowdfunding is good for startups. For startups, having large numbers of investors is bad, and having inexperienced investors is bad. So having a very large number of inexperienced investors is the worst scenario possible. The right way to get money from large numbers of people is to sell them your product, like Inpulse did, not to sell them your stock._ " -pg

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3893783>

<comment><USER3> From my understanding, FundersClub actually solves this crowdfunding problem by acting as the sole investor on the cap table. As far as you are concerned as a startup, there is only 1 investor, and if there are any shareholder approvals, you only have 1 shareholder to go to.

This is sort of the best of both worlds. The small investor gets the ability to invest in a (risky) company they wouldn't normally be able to, and collect (potentially) disproportionate rewards. The company doesn't have to deal with the hassle of having a ton of shareholders to contend with on the books. They are just along for the ride, and nothing more.

<comment><USER4> So they are much like a "virtual VC"? But you do understand that VCs have value because they bring "unfair advantage" or "connections" or "good advice & experience"? FundersClub has to think of two sides of the problem - how to shield large number of inexperienced investors from the founders and how to provide network, unfair advantage and smart advice to the founders.

One of the biggest values of YC is the second part. Replicating this is going to be difficult.

<comment><USER5> Who knows, the value of say 100 or even 1000 less powerful, but by no means powerless, investors might be greater than that of 10 VCs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This scares me way more than sub prime mortgages. The stories of how granny and gramps put the remains of their retirement savings into "startups" because they have like 1000x returns right? And then want their money back and discover that some large fraction of these companies are kids with no clue, no work experience, and have just burned through their 'seed' round buying a server farm that turns out overloads the circuit breakers in the garage.

Rational folks will say "Gee, that was a poor choice on their part." but the rest of the world will be screaming "Ponzi!" "Tricksters!" "Scams!" and it will be sad sad sad.

I really hope that I am wrong, but I really _like_ the accredited investor rules, it selects from a smaller pool of victims.

<comment><USER7> I've had 6 figures in funds (but not 7) that I would have been investing in startups over the past 4 years, but I have not been allowed to because people like you think I should be prevented.

Meanwhile, any weekend I choose, I could have gone to Las Vegas and blown the whole lot in a weekend.

This is just another example of where regulation is used to keep regular people behind and to benefit the well connected and wealthy.

<comment><USER6> You misconstrue my concern. I am happy to allow anyone who is willing to risk losing everything, give their money to some entrepreneur in the hopes of a big payday. It is exactly like going to Vegas with your funds and throwing it away.

My concern is that the exact argument was used with 'sub prime' mortgages as well, which was that plenty of people who couldn't qualify with the existing rules were perfectly capable of paying a mortgage. And they did. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who did not qualify under the 'old' rules but could get in under the 'new' looser rules. More money was unlocked for mortgages, more mortgages were written, unscrupulous people exploited than and herded that money into a giant pool of risk and when the balloon went up, blam! We took a big hit which we are collectively paying off through a stagnant economy.

That _exact_ mechanism (to my way of thinking, happy to find someone who can show me why I shouldn't worry) is going to be enabled by the combination of the JOBS Act and stuff like this. Unscrupulous people will convince folks to invest in startups. There will be LOTs of money chasing few startups, valuations will skyrocket as the money tries to find a place to land which will on paper present illusory massive returns (on paper).

This is exactly analogous that the sub-prime rule changes allowed more people to buy houses, but the supply of houses didn't suddenly go up so the price per house when up instead. That raised house valuations which allowed for 'flipping' and some quick gains which people exploited which drove a bubble in real estate.

There aren't that many more startups, and startups that can't get funded today suddenly have access to funds that lets them get funded. So now you, with your 100K$ of 'mad money' to invest get less equity for your investment and your risk is increased because there are more places out there which are bad investments, getting funded anyway and creating noise in the system.

We showed quite clearly in the 90's that when 'retail investors' aka people with money they really can't afford to lose but seeking returns that aren't defensible by economic reasoning, get involved, the sharks come out and fleece them. After the fact a few of the more egregious offenders get prosecuted but the cost is huge.

We should know better. We should find a way to let you invest where you have to make some sort of binding personal responsibility oath which says "I will never ever ask anyone else to cover my losses by this activity even if those losses are the direct result of being swindled by a smooth talking tool of a salesguy."

If you're willing to sign such an affadavit, then more power to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this is great. The comments here are yet another case of unnecessary HN negativity. Kickstarter has strict guidelines around what sort of companies are allowed to raise money (only creative projects) and they have left room for many competitors to fill the gaps.

The concerns about "Granny and Gramps" dumping their retirement savings into startups is overblown. As long as the commitment amounts are capped at a reasonable level ($1000-$5000), I don't see the harm. I've seen much worse decisions being made by "accredited" investors who don't have any limits.

</comment><comment><USER9> There have been at least a half dozen YC companies that I wished I could invest in the moment I met the founders...but, I'm not quite to "high net worth individual" status. I wasn't aware that the JOBS act would allow me to invest in startups. I had vague feelings of unease about the JOBS act (because anything with that kind of Orwellian name coming from government can't possibly be good), but I certainly would like to be able to invest like the rich folk. It's a damned dirty shame that us common folk have been pushed out of early stage investing entirely, even if we have a stomach for the risk and the money and connections to be useful.

So, this sounds cool, but I'm more excited to learn that I might be able to invest directly in startups soon (and sooner than reaching that $200k/year "high net worth" line).

<comment><USER10> Joe - I believe you can take your paper value of equity in Virtualmin to count towards being a "high net worth individual".

So you probably do qualify if there is any sort of valuation event for Virtualmin that sets your equity at a high enough value. I know lots of founders that do this.

<comment><USER9> Good thought, Immad. I hadn't even considered that. However, we haven't raised any additional funding after YC, so our valuation is indeterminate from a legal perspective (or way too low, since the YC money valued us at something like 300k five years ago), I guess? We'd only have revenues to go on, which would comfortably value us in the right sphere, but without a funding round or exit of some sort, I'm not sure how else to make that valuation stick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the article:

 _"Investors are only charged the small accounting, state entity, and filing fees FundersClub has to pay and nothing more. Otherwise it's free."_

Apparently, though, they charge 12% of your investment (at least, it was 12% for my test values of 2.5k, 5k, and 10k):

 _"Investment Amount: $5,000. Administrative fees: $600 ($85/yr x 7 year average fund life). Total to be charged: $5,600."_

</comment><comment><USER12> This looks like what they intended when they passed the JOBS Act. If it has even 10% the impact on general startups that Kickstarter has had on consumer hardware projects, it will be huge.

</comment><comment><USER13> I worked in this space for 18 months (09-10) with a few partners. <http://www.techcrunch50.com/2009/sprowtt-marketplace/>

There's room for money to be made in accredited investor platforms, both in facilitating relationships and facilitating transactions. But I don't think there's a lot of room. Several players over the past few years are making decent cash, though I wouldn't say any are truly disruptive nor are they home runs. And ideas like FundersClub have come and gone, tried by bootstrapped startups all the way up to Goldman Sachs. Like most aspects of the investment banking industry, if you can market your services well, gain a reputation, AND actually facilitate stock deals for good companies, you'll pull in _some_ dough.

The possibility of _some_ dough may be enough for FundersClub to be funded itself. But truly disruptive businesses on the equity offering platform side of things are up against massive hurdles. I don't see anything here that seems revolutionary -- just a play to eventually make _something_ off the crowdfunding revolution.

There's probably going to be a flurry of startup activity trying to capitalize on the securities aspects of the JOBS Act. The SEC rules may simplify some things so much that the technical (legal) barrier to being in the stock offering game will be incredibly low, at least compared with what it is now. But what happens if the barrier does get lowered? Lots of bad deals, lots of public noise, and for successful VCs and angels it's either going to not change their process at all or make it even harder to find quality. It still doesn't change my position that equity investment should be allowed by anyone, with limitations, but a sustainable system for offering stock in early stage companies is going to take a lot more complex work than just finding a way to structure the investments technically.

As a side note, outside these kind of "pie in the sky" offering platform dreams, which I myself threw personal money and time into, there is still obvious room for innovation, albeit unsexy, in automating various aspects of securities compliance. During Q&A Tim O'Reilly rightly encouraged us to pursue that piece of our efforts (definitely trying to bite off more than we could chew). We had NYC bankers telling us the same thing.

BTW, I recommend anyone thinking about or already involved in a securities- related startup to make friends with bankers and M&A folk in NYC. Our clearest, sanest advice came from Wall Street connections we made.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd use bitcoin myself: lower transaction costs, make micropayments possible, even allow the tracking of coins if they should get usurped. Lastly term the investments as tips rather than investments. Then make everything transparent including the way coins are spent by the startup, revenue received and returns as "thank yous" to tippers. Have a limit to how much a startup can receive.. a certain proportion of tippers need to approve their initial tip to the startup in order for it to raise more funds: build a trust quotient. The startup can game the site by tipping itself to build that trust? Have people send in a copy of their ID and attach it to each user.

other ideas: don't even have the startups register as businesses. Have them only accept bitcoins. Make the site as transparent as possible: who has given to what and when? Have all revenue and expenditure by startups go through the main site for tracking, and the main site can collect a fee for it as it passes through. The main site pays all the taxes.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a really interesting idea. The JOBS act is going to create new opportunities for start ups like FundersClub.

People often confuse 'accredited investor' with 'educated investor'.

Being an accredited investor does not mean you cannot be scammed, it just means you're less likely to suffer drastic financial consequences as you should be able to absorb total investment losses.

If crowd funding start ups does go mainstream there will be an opportunity for a company to provide advice/guidance to these 'new' investors.

The main risk to the likes of FundersClub is that one sour deal would make all the headlines. I guess it is really important that they apply some sort of filter to the start ups that they allow on their platform and react really well if (prob when) this fails.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm interested in this platform, so I signed up and clicked through to the point where you are prompted to pay.

I didn't see cap tables or information about the round being funded, beyond the amount to be raised.

I assume most people would want to (at least) know more about the current round before investing. For example, how can I determine how much of the company I would (indirectly) own?

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting comparing this to Seedrs (<http://seedrs.com>), the closest UK equivalent.

</comment><comment><USER18> Crowd funding/capital is the future, just not sure FundersClub is going to be the KickStarter of this revolution. Their technology and design, honestly is very lacking. What is up with the lion logo?

</comment><comment><USER19> AngelList is already doing what FunderClub are going to do partially, isn't it?

Sorry, I am a PG and I don't well versed in startups.

</comment><comment><USER20> This looks quite similar to CircleUp: <https://circleup.com>

It's going to be interesting watching the land grab as everyone is waiting for the deadline for the JOBS act to pass.

</comment><comment><USER21> Wow. This is a big idea. I wish them success.

</comment><comment><USER22> How do I sign up to get crowdfunded?</comment>


Lucretius saw no boundary between scientific interests and ethical claims - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/lucretius-the-flat-earth-and-the-malaise-of-modern-science <comment><USER2> > _Lucretius's poem, dedicated to Memmius, was an attempt to convince the > boorish Roman that he was obliterating a site of importance._

[Citation needed!!!]

This is so contrary to everything that we know about Memmius, Lucretius, and the place of poets in Ancient Rome that if you want to argue along those lines you'd need an extensive bibliography.

In Rome, "poets" were craftsmen, not "authors" in the modern sense of the term. They worked for hire. Memmius, who was an extremely important man from one of the most famous families, placed an order for an epic poem to Lucretius, in order to appear more gracious and to advance his political career.

Lucretius was happy to oblige.

To think that Lucretius wrote this poem on his own accord and then dedicated it to Memmius in order to lecture him about his behavior is ludicrous.

<comment><USER3> > In Rome, "poets" were craftsmen, not "authors" in the modern sense of the > term. They worked for hire. Memmius, who was an extremely important man from > one of the most famous families, placed an order for an epic poem to > Lucretius, in order to appear more gracious and to advance his political > career.

I wonder if we'd go back to mostly having this if copyright as we know it went away and no alternative way of paying artists (think Patreon-like platforms, governmental support, or unconditional basic income) existed.

For example EVE Online has plenty of poets-for-hire and I sometimes pay one to write me a poem commemorating the loss of one of my ships. Makes you feel better about your loss and also looks good in your character bio...

There's obviously still "contract" work being done by artists in the real world today as well, though probably proportionally less so.

With US artists often signing away the rights to their works completely to their labels and publishers, which is technically the same, we're not even too far off I'd think. But this is not possible in some other legal systems.

How "creative" were ancient cultures, where probably only the well-off or people with patrons/customers could spend meaningful time on art, in comparison to today's culture?

<comment><USER4> The EVE Online poets-for-hire thing is absolutely fascinating. If something that tangential to gameplay arises organically... it makes me think that MMORPGs are an underrated technology for test driving social and government structures. Maybe we should have a sim-world that models our actual world as closely as possible, so that we can test-drive things like Basic Income in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't believe that "we can't get ought from is". This is because there is a connection between what is and the 'ought' actor (namely humans and the laws of the universe). That connection and the most basic reality of being human are enough to get a sense of ought from is. I know this goes against traditional philosophical thought. If you mean some type of ought that would be true after humans are extinct then sure, but it's almost a non-sense question (morality in the absence or human existence). Of course, no one acts as if we can't get ought from is (even if they disagree about the ought in many specific instances).

<comment><USER6> Exactly, human desires, morals and all other sources of 'ought' are ultimately influenced by the way humans 'are'. So if you took in account whole evolutionary history, the way it influenced culture, the way culture developed itself based on that and other external influences (all 'is' questions), you would eventually arrive at human moral framework and that would let you generate 'ought' statements.

Basically what we as humans do every day.

<comment><USER7> So if psychopaths were 100% of the population, and empathy didn't exist at all, would that make most morals null and void? I think most would agree that a useful moral code shouldn't entirely be relativistic, and that an entire society can be in the wrong even if everyone in it considers their actions just.

<comment><USER8> Exactly so: most existent people (myself included) would still insist the current "oughts" still apply in a universe of psychopaths. The question is why. Given that we can not directly observe or measure ought-ness, there must be some psychological feature that evolved to created the idea in us. Further more, that feature is critically necessary for us, often more than life itself.

We also know it breaks down in hypotheticals. In that example about a world of psychopaths, most would agree right and wrong remain constant. But a different hypothetical, where god and sacred texts say the exact opposite of what they do, we would not see as many people saying their god would now be wrong.

Furthermore, we do know somethings about "ought" like that it is not entirely relative, remains constant across world changes and, is vital to pursue. But we don't know were it comes from and why it varies slightly among cultures. So while we know right from wrong and that such distinctions are vital, we don't know how we know this.

It might be that what I am describing is not quite what is meant by "ought". But there are other vital "self evident" concepts that needed adjustment to their definitions yet those adjustments neither destroy the entire concept nor even make any practical difference.

Time, for example, is not quite what people intuit and heat seems self evidently entirely different than light yet is not. Yet those facts make no difference in every day life. I expect a better understanding of the origin of ethics will follow that pattern.

<comment><USER6> To expand on external source of 'ought': I saw a thought experiment somewhere -- what if you found the True Objective Source of Morality and it said something you don't like -- for example that murdering every 14th stranger you meet is justifiable. Thus are the moral laws of Universe.

Society would then promptly adjust the laws to follow suit (it is a true source of morality after all). Would you then consider murdering 14th stranger you meet today if that brings you some benefit (outweighing the risk, etc)?

If not, why not?

(Any similarities to religious texts is intentional)

<comment><USER9> No... because the idea of an objective source of morality is meaningless. I 'ought' to murder someone – or else what? why should I? 'Ought' is fundamentally subjective, existing relative to an agent's basic goals. If I already believe that I ought to do X, an objective source of truth can convince me I ought to do Y by showing that Y will accomplish X. For example, I might at least consider murdering every 14th stranger I met... if you could somehow credibly demonstrate that doing so would save the lives of millions of people in the future. But no source, no matter how authoritative, can say I should murder every 14th stranger "just because" – or, for that matter, that I shouldn't.

Morality only seems universal in our society because we're all human, and most of our morality is derived from emotional responses preprogrammed into the human brain as a product of evolution. To evaluate the morality of more complex actions, we build architectures of logic on top of those emotional responses, and there's plenty of room to argue about the best way to do so. But fundamentally, murder is bad because it feels bad, and it feels bad because we evolved to live in groups; that's all there is to it. Any arguments about how forbidding murder creates a more stable society are fundamentally secondary. At best they're explanations for why we evolved this way, and/or reasons to strengthen a pre-existing moral precept. They can also encourage us to suppress emotional responses inclining us _toward_ murder, because those exist too... but the effect of the suppression is limited, and in practice people sometimes commit murder anyway.

Importantly, though, the fact that my morality is in some sense 'arbitrary' does not mean I have to tolerate other arbitrary choices of morality. If some person or AI is strongly driven to kill lots of people or fill the universe with paperclips, I'm not sure I could argue that my morality is _inherently_ superior. But I'm still going to try to stop them, because that's what my morality tells me to do.

<comment><USER6> Yep, that though experiment is specifically designed to show that idea of objective external source of morality is absurd.

Internal source like you described is also objective, it is shared among all humans and based on objective realities of evolution and history.

I bet psychopaths share significant portion of it with neurotypical humans as well -- they just have different weights among multiple contradicting heuristics and/or certain mechanisms working slightly differently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Okay, but did Memmius end up building over the school or not?

<comment><USER11> Good question. This site seems to suggest that the answer is unknown, as is the location of the Garden!

[http://wiki.epicurism.info/Epicurus%27_Garden/](http://wiki.epicurism.info/Epicurus%27_Garden/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _He presents the splendid argument that, if it had a boundary, then all the > falling atoms would collect at the bottom. From this, it is clear that > Lucretius respected the intuitive idea that there are absolute directions of > up and down. By itself, this makes a globular Earth unfeasible because, > unless perched right on the top, we'd slip off the sides._

I disagree with the author's point here. It seems to me Lucretius uses a bounded object as an example for his claim that the universe must be unbounded. A bounded object inherently has ups and downs, there is no mention on which direction either correspond to. What other phrasing could he have used?

A lot of what the author states actually seem to be grasps at straws.

<comment><USER13> Have you read Lucretius? If not, then you are not really in a position to make a claim as to what he was really thinking.

<comment><USER12> Any reason as to why you'd single me out? I have read On the Nature of Things but what would make you question if I have? We can all contribute opinions, just as the author cannot read Lucretius' mind as to why he would choose to write the way he did

<comment><USER13> In that case my comment was off target. I made it because you didn't state you had read the piece, but I guess I shouldn't have assumed that.

I have not read Lucretius, but I assumed the author was correct because his overall views fit well with what I do know about the history of metaphysics. But perhaps he is mistaken in this particular case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Title works curiously well for Locutus (of Borg) as well.

</comment><comment><USER15> For the record: I'm currently researching on Lucretius as a part of my MA in Philosophy.

This article starts from an assumption on Lucretius intentions that is weird for anyone familiar with the author. The thing is: we actually know way too little about Lucretius to try to make any 'learned' guesses. However, I got the opposite impression reading the article. If that's the starting point of the author's argument, that somewhat taints its point.

Fun fact: all we know about Lucretius is a conjecture. There are so many holes in who he was, how he lived, why he wrote, etc, that some researchers simply go off-script and invent whole biographies for Lucretius [1]. There is even those who go even further and simply state that Lucretius didn't even exist — he was a pseudonym for another author, Titus Pomponius Atticus, a friend of Cicero [2]. Others think that Lucretius' poem was edited by Cicero himself [3]. Others that the poem was tampered by the renaissance humanists [4], trying to make it more coherent and complete.

The point is: no one really knows. So, when I read/hear someone stating very confidently that Lucretius did this or that, that he was this or that person living this or that life, my alarm bells start ringing: there must be a bit of creative interpretation here that goes beyond what the historical facts allow.

———

[1] Guido Della Valle (1884-1962), according to the account of Carl Joachim Classen (1928–2013).

[2] Aloïs Gerlo (1915-1998), on a paper titled _Pseudo-Lucretius?_.

[3] Saint Jerome (c.347-420) was the first to make this claim.

[4] Lee Fratantuono mentions this in his book _A Reading of Lucretius ' De Rerum Natura_.

<comment><USER16> " _Others think that Lucretius ' poem was edited by Cicero himself._"

That would be odd. Cicero didn't care for Epicurean philosophy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is an excellent article, very informative.</comment>


Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/11/facebook-removes-elizabeth-warren-ads-1216757 <comment><USER3> This is smart politics. Rather than simply telling people FB is a monopoly, she runs a limited experiment that had it been left alone, would have limited effect since the budget was so small ($100). Now this puts FB in a bind. If they really are a middleman for content, then these ads don't violate any laws and shouldn't be blocked. However, FB as a company with a product should block it just like coffee shop wouldn't allow a banner on the wall saying "better coffee down the street".

This sort of overreaction to a small calculated provocation just proves the point that FB is a company first, platform second. This was obvious already to many people, but now there's a clear illustration that'll make it harder for FB to simply say they are a neutral platform.

<comment><USER4> I agree this is smart, because it's a win-win for Warren: either the ad remains online and it does its work, or it gets taken down and that's a forced Streisand.

But I don't think this is an overreaction, specially because this isn't solely about Facebook: if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - <USER2> US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal.

Antitrust issues have been risen when Amazon promoted some products over others.

The main questions, at least for me, are: what kind of action is acceptable for these companies? Have they grown beyond their own governance?

And this applies to other companies as well. If Twitter were to shut down the POTUS account for violating TOU, people would also wonder the state of limbo of some platforms: should everyone be treated in equal terms? Does it bear some responsibility as an intermediary for public officials? Should it be subject to some standard verification protocol other than the one put in place by its engineers?

It also raises questions for the user cases: should governments and public officials use social media indiscriminately? Traditional media has a certain democratic access to government: should governments give a specific social media platform preferential treatment? Should there be a call for bids when choosing a social media platform over others?

<comment><USER5> > But I don't think this is an overreaction

The overreaction was on facebook's part.

<comment><USER6> Well, one could argue that the ad campaign was made in bad faith. Warrens people knew it would be flagged automatically by fb's algorithms because of the logo. No one at Facebook actually decided to pull the ad. And it wouldn't have been, if it weren't for going against ToS. The damage is done. But very insidious tactic still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Serious question(s), not trolling.

Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company?

How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing?

Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of it's operations?

Why would Facebook be expected to restore the ads (which I don't think they should've done).

<comment><USER8> Well, the Warren Campaign was playing them, and they fell right into it. Because, by taking down her ads, they supported her point that they have too much power to control debate.

That is, that they've become a monopoly. So they either need to be very careful not to abuse their monopoly, or be highly regulated, or be broken up.

Edit: Stole from ktjfi. [and spelling]

<comment><USER9> >That is, that they've become a monopoly.

Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.

<comment><USER10> > _Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement_

They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing.

There are strong reasons to break up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

<comment><USER9> I strongly disagree. Political advertisement successfully worked long before internet existed yet alone Facebook. Voters still live in houses, walk on streets, drive cars on roads, use public transit, watch TV/Netflix/YT/whatever. There are still many ways to reach them. Even if other channels are more expensive it doesn't make Facebook a monopolist.

<comment><USER11> People no longer receive daily, or even weekly, deliveries of newspapers. They no longer crowd around the living room radio, and increasingly avoid the television, which increasingly has neither a cable connection nor rabbit ears.

Like it or not, the world has changed.

<comment><USER9> The world has changed, but not _that_ much. People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc. The real life still here, far not everything has moved online. And even for that online part Facebook is not a monopoly.

Influential online company? Absolutely. Monopoly? No.

<comment><USER11> > _People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least > once in a while._

Nothing they receive in their mailbox holds their attention long, the attention market is dominated by digital media.

> _Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc_

With headphones in or bluetooth paired. Who the hell reads a billboard? Who pairs their cellphone with their car, or owns headphones? Damn near everybody. Just _try_ to buy a new car without Bluetooth.

Old propaganda distribution channels are dead men walking, and everybody knows it. Unless you're advertising a _chicken wings and cleavage_ bar at the next exit, you're a damn fool for paying for a billboard.

<comment><USER12> I can name at least three of the snowflake data billboards, I know c3-iot is hiring, and espetus has two billboards (one in San Mateo and one at the 101/80 junction). And I mostly ride the 280, and don't eat that much meat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From what I can tell, Facebook did _not_ take down all the ads Warren posted calling for the breakup of Facebook, there were specific ads which got flagged for use of the Facebook logo.

So it seems to me that Warren's team when fishing for ads about breaking up Facebook which would flag in the automated system, and then ran to report about it.

It smells like a setup.

<comment><USER14> The whole thing is a set-up:

Small businesses are just as likely to block you negatively advertising about them on their platform as large ones, so Warren showing she's blocked doesn't tell us anything about Facebook's size or practices compared to businesses in general, and thus doesn't tell us if they're a problematic monopoly. How many businesses let you use their service to argue against them?

Not even the news, collectively much less individually, accurately reports content on the news — and they're the ones held forward as examples of a self- policing industry serving society.

The only way to conclude that Facebook abused their position here is if you already believe that; otherwise, it really doesn't seem like anything unusual happened.

This seems like acting really aggressively, then whining when you get expected and normal pushback: a common bullying tactic from children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Facebook confirms it took down Elizabeth Warren's ads about Facebook, but is > in the process of restoring them.

> FB spox: "We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use > of our corporate logo. In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are > restoring the ads."

[https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1105241057007087616](https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1105241057007087616)

<comment><USER16> The terms of service suggest that any ad that discusses Facebook is ripe for removal. Her point stands and is expanded by the selective enforcement of their ToS; is this the platform for public discourse that we want for ourselves and do we want any such platform to be this powerful?

<comment><USER17> I thought Warren's demographic loves having top down moderation-heavy social networks?

<comment><USER18> It depends. There are specific things that FB has done that makes their censorship unwelcome in many leftie circles - e.g. the real name policy is seen as transphobic by many, and their "indecent content" standards as sexist. They have also removed comments such as "all white people are racist" as hate speech.

But yes, I would say that most of her voters want different priorities in online censorship, not less of it. It will be interesting how she navigates that - "social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor" is vague enough that Voat could put it on their front page as an endorsement (and they just might, if only for the sake of trolling).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Clever strategy by Elizabeth Warren. The ads might be effective in promoting her platform by themselves. And if the media report on the apparent irony, or FB takes them down, that gives her more publicity. FB's actions may cause a Streisland-like effect as well.

<comment><USER20> It's not clever when you consider most people aren't supportive of it. There's definitely a classist kind of fury right now, aimed a little bit at 'big corps' and 'the rich' \- but I seriously doubt it extends to such moves.

Most people that use Facebook probably like it, pretty much, and don't suffer any visible consequences of their ostensible loss of privacy.

Similar for Google.

I think a smarter approach would be some regulation that hit home, particularly on privacy etc..

<comment><USER18> I can assure you that there are many working class people who have a problem with Facebook.

In fact, every time I see a discussion on Facebook and privacy in non-techie FB communities, it's surprising how negative people feel, and how many say that they would stop using it altogether, if they didn't have some connections there they cared about. It's basically lock-in via social graph, and don't think people are stupid enough that they don't notice.

<comment><USER20> That large groups of Americans have some 'concerns about privacy' is nowhere near enough impetus to think that they want Facebook and Google to be 'broken up'.

HN readers mostly live in bubbles, and 'breaking up Facebook' is definitely one of the things Republicans just hope the Dems will run on, because it's not going to fly.

Consider for a moment how separating Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook is going to fundamentally change privacy anyhow?

This is a political calculation by Warren: she needs to stake out her claim, make some noise, throw some red meat to the Dem primary voters, and take away the noise in the press about her registering as an Aboriginal while living in Texas.

It'll do well for her now, but it's not a winning formula for the general election.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Breakup Facebook rhetoric is so counterproductive. It achieves nothing. It solves no problem.

The country has real problems. "I don't like Facebook" isn't even remotely one of them. I won't be voting for her, that's for sure.

<comment><USER22> This is a very short-sighted interpretation of the "break up Facebook & co." campaign. It is not about Facebook per se, but about the surprising power of tech giants - do you use Google? How about the internet?

Don't think this is a real issue? How about looking at some of the other "real" problems she's addressed in her platform before outright dismissal? The kind of impulsive, single-issue voting you're implicitly advocating for here is exactly what the country does not need.

<comment><USER21> Yes, I use Google and the Internet. What's the _problem_?

To contrast this with healthcare. I can understand diabetics not being able to afford medication for example, or people without the means to afford life sustaining treatments.

Facebook buying Instagram? I don't understand what's wrong with that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What many fail to realize is that Facebook employees who approve/disapprove of ads are not high up and also do so at a very fast pace. They follow the guidelines and are humans, thus subject to some subjectivity. Any advertiser who has done a lot of advertising on Facebook knows that one day an ad can get approved and the next day a duplicate ad is not. The decision was overturned in Warren's case. This is just making FB out to be much more nefarious than they probably are (in this particular scenario).

<comment><USER24> Without a doubt. Plus, the rule of "You can't use FB's logo" is not to stop people criticizing FB. It's to stop fraudulent advertisers from pretending to BE Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> some of the things we have had censored by fb (even after appealing) 1\. illustrations of cupid on valentines day, genitals covered, for nudity. 2\. illustrations of a (non sexually provocative) mouth when the logo of our product was a mouth. 3\. illustrations (not photos) of people of various body types and ethnicities, not sexually provocative, showing skin but no genitals, nipples or buttocks, with flowers and boxes of chocolates, as a 'love comes in all shapes and sizes' valentines campaign. 4\. essentially any image that might insinuate that a woman is capable of feeling pleasure. 5\. a friend's ig project intended to promote education & wellness about women's bodies, in a non-sexual way (e.g. did you know that a clitoris has x thousand nerve endings?), with no images. 6\. pixelated images on red backgrounds with a 'censored' stamp on them (put up after others were censored) ... the list goes on and on, to the point where we have considered launching a website just to showcase the stuff fb (and other faangs) censor. ... meanwhile ig is filled with essentially soft porn (not to mention images of guns together with bags of money, which in my value system is much worse). ... so I, for one, am laughing my head off at all this. they more than had it coming.

<comment><USER26> At this rate they'd probably censor that song from Chicago (the musical) too if someone posted it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> All those people laughing at her proposal, they have no clue that this lady understands tech perfectly well, and sees the problem of centralization in tech industry more clearly. In an interview at SXSW, she addressed to the people working for Big Tech companies, and said that break up will actually make their work more interesting. This is really not some ordinary politician.

</comment><comment><USER28> That's some excellent bait and Facebook fell for it:

1\. Put up a tiny anti-FB campaign that's not gonna reach anyone on FB

2\. FB bans it because their reviewers have to adhere to the rules set by upper mgmt

3\. Now you're the victim -> Backlash for FB

4\. FB restores the ad

5\. Now you're the victim AND the winner

6\. The story spreads amongst anti-FB circles, where it was originally meant to hit, with a massive impact (for little money)

<comment><USER29> Whether they planned for this outcome or not, I think it has merit to highlight whether you're able to criticize Facebook on Facebook, and whether using the Facebook logo int his case - associated directly with criticism/a review of Facebook should be considered fair use; and not just for someone in the political light but for average Janes and Joes, who has someone else in this thread pointed out most everyone couldn't get away with or have the rules 'bent' for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Thats overreach on her part too, however. do her voters realize what this means about her relationship with the press after she gets elected? or maybe she is rehashing trump's entire tirades about corrupt media etc.

<comment><USER31> I'd imagine her relationship with the press would be positive. FB is actively at odds with mainstream media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Tangentially related -- according to Eric Weinstein, Facebook also banned Zero Hedge so you can't share ZH stories anymore. ([https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/110529167842277376...](https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1105291678422773760))

</comment><comment><USER33> Not sure if this is smart by Senator Warren, or just campaign bluster.

The side of me that thinks it's smart, thinks that by asking for a lot (break up of tech giants) she may be able to notch a win that isn't so aggressive (data privacy regulations) It also "breaks the ice" for the argument for when she brings it up on the campaign, it won't be so shocking.

The side of me that thinks it's dumb, thinks that she's misreading her audience, in that most people could give two shits about privacy, and in fact really like these platforms. She may be overplaying the "progressive" hand, and as a result may be perceived as "too radical" to be elected by purple states.

Regardless, I think her presidential aspirations are doomed. She's a woman, smart, successful, outspoken, Harvard educated, progressive and from "the most liberal" state in the country. All these things are toxic to Republicans.

</comment><comment><USER34> Pretty classic provocation and overreaction

<comment><USER34> Amazon bans sales of Trump's "Break up Amazon to MAGA" hats

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This was done algorthmically. No doubt about it.

<comment><USER31> Does it matter?

<comment><USER24> Sure. That algorithmic rule is to prevent people from pretending to be FB or pretending to have FB's authority in ads (the you can't use the fb logo rule). It wasn't meant to target critics of FB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> There seems to be such a simple solution here that would solve the problems without even needing to breakup companies: require companies offering user generated content for free, to host such content under 'copyleft' licenses, unless users explicitly opt out, and provide simple/API means of access and submission. Copyleft meaning that anybody could freely copy and use the user- generated content from these sites, so long as they themselves also enabled anybody to freely copy and use that content.

Content (and other incentives) from users that are opted in would be treated identically to those that opted out. The opt out option is mainly for sites like YouTube where somebody might rely on the site for income and want to voluntarily allow YouTube to publish their video under a restrictive license.

The idea is simple - get rid of the network effect. When content is provided under copyleft licenses, anybody could effectively create a social media system where users could see messages from e.g. Facebook and also post messages that would be cloned to Facebook, yet not on Facebook.

The possibilities here are endless and it would pose a relatively small regulatory burden on companies. And most important of all - it would actually probably work. The network effect works like gravity. Even if you break something apart, it will sooner or later come together again even if under a different form.

\---

The biggest problem I see is a problem that any idea that could work, will never be considered. Big tech is driving big bucks to politicians. As recently as 2012 the FTC's bureau of competition submitted to the commissioners a lengthy analysis that recommended suing Google for conduct that had, and would continue to, cause _" real harm to consumers and to innovation."_ The commissioners, majority Democratic appointees ( _not a partisan jab, but rather emphasizing that this is an institutional /establishment issue - not a partisan one_), chose not to pursue the case. [1]

[1] - [https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/reich/article/Break- up-F...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/reich/article/Break-up- Facebook-13409062.php)

</comment><comment><USER36> Would US be able to breakup non-US tech companies, and if no how would it prevent tech companies from moving outside the US? Some of them have enough money to buy a small country or build a huge seasteading city.

<comment><USER37> Tech companies haven't moved from San Francisco to Sacramento, in the face of multi-million-dollar house prices in the Bay Area.

I find it hard to believe they're incapable of that, yet capable of what you propose :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think I'd rather see it regulated, then broken up.

How are you even going to break it up?

And how do we know it won't just be a matter of time before another single, central social network takes hold?

Social Networks have this property where they are only useful when other people are also on the same one as you. To me, this property will just guarantee that we would end up back in the same situation.

So it would seem smarter to me to just regulate it, so we can limit the bad, and enjoy the good.

</comment><comment><USER39> For everyone claiming that Facebook is a monopoly, I have two questions:

1\. What do they have a monopoly on? 2\. How would Warren's plan (forcing FB to divest WhatsApp and Instagram) eliminate that monopoly?

<comment><USER40> I expect that people making the "monopoly" claim are using imprecise language that may vary in precision based on jurisdictional definitions of monopolies, and fb's market share in any given jurisdiction. Laws about monopolies and antitrust exist to prevent or mitigate certain problems that arise when companies have disproportionate power and influence on society. Whether or not fb qualifies as "monopoly", there are many cogent arguments to be made that about its negative effects due to its disproportionate power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> By removing her ad, Zuckerberger gave Warren's idea a couple of million dollars worth of publicity.

</comment><comment><USER42> Facebook even blocks links to social-media startups like Minds.com for being "unsecure"..

</comment><comment><USER43> Just curious, how many out there use some type of Facebook ad-blocking solution?

<comment><USER44> My Facbook ad-blocking solution has been to:

1 - quit Facebook

2 - use /etc/hosts to resolve any Facebook-related sites (and other advertising/spam/tracking/malware sites) to 255.255.255.255

3 - proxy my web requests through privoxy

4 - use the uMatrix and uBlock Origin addons in Firefox that block anything that gets through the rest

But I mostly browse the web through emacs-w3m, which isn't even capable of running javascript so addons such as uMatrix are not necessary.

Needless to say, I almost never see ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> well Warren now knows first hand what conservatives have been saying for years - FB has no problem censoring those that they disagree with -welcome to the Club

</comment><comment><USER46> While she views Facebook as too powerful, it is ironic she is happy to provide as revenue to the company.

<comment><USER47> It's not ironic, this is the entire point she is trying to make. It is impossible to reach a meaningful chunk of the public today without going through Facebook, and they have the ability to filter content as they see fit.

<comment><USER48> > It is impossible to reach a meaningful chunk of the public today without > going through Facebook

One could argue that the point of advertising is not to reach a meaningful chunk of the public, instead a meaningful chunk of a specific demographic.

<comment><USER49> If that's the case Facebook's position is even more dominant, because of their unique strength at giving advertisers the possibility to target specific demographics.

<comment><USER50> So the lesson is, don't you dare to be too good and too successful in what you do, otherwise we will do our best to have regulations drop on you like a bag of bricks.

<comment><USER51> Basically. See US vs Alcoa [0]

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What William James Got Right About Consciousness - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/what-william-james-got-right-about-consciousness <comment><USER2> The partially examined life podcast has three whole episodes dedicated to William James's theories of the mind and the self, for anyone looking for more.

<comment><USER3> That's a great podcast. I'd recommend listening to all their episodes, on every philosopher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> James's stance is clearly stated: "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."_

Assuming that free will does exist then if James _hadn 't_ believed in free will then by this act would he have made his own will _un_ free?

<comment><USER5> Alternatively: is it possible to choose to believe that one does not have free will?

If you find that question intriguing you might enjoy this:

[http://blog.rongarret.info/2018/01/a-multilogue-on-free- will...](http://blog.rongarret.info/2018/01/a-multilogue-on-free-will.html)

<comment><USER6> This is why Bipolar is considered a disease. You are only truly free if you are in the middle. Too far one way or the other and you become entrapped by either a Dystopia (no freewill) or Utopia (complete freewill).

This is why I also balance my use of legal and illegal drugs. Too far one way or the other is unhealthy.

Some would say Everything In Moderation, Even Moderation.

However I say, Everything In Moderation, Except Moderation.

Consistency is everything. Balance is everything.

This is why the BLOCKCHAIN is a breakthrough. Because it enforces 10m timestamps in the QUANTUM computer we are collectively building.

In the current Quantum computers (the human brain) we have inconsistent timestamps. Somepeople sleep every night, others stay awake for longer.

You can only stay awake maximum 7 days. God made the world in 7 days.

Everytime you sleep you can think of this like the brain producing a BLOCK in your brain on the LARGE block chain.

Likewise, everytime you blink you can think of this like the brain producing a BLOCK in your brain on the SMALL block chain.

These large inconsistencies in BLOCK size between chains causes multiple universes to be created, aka false memories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article has elucidated absolutely nothing. Pure blather.

<comment><USER8> Maybe so, but that's no reason to make HN worse by posting snarky dismissals to the threads. Please don't do that.

If you know more than Gazzaniga, one thing you could do is explain some of what you know so that we all can learn something. Another thing you could do is refrain from posting. But snarky dismissals are definitely not wanted here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


Apple ProRes RAW [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_RAW_White_Paper.pdf <comment><USER2> Funny I'm the first to comment, as this can be a game-changing announcement : "One RAW format to rule them all" from one of the biggest company in the world can push lots of companies to switch from their proprietary or even open (CinemaDNG for ex) filetype to this big one. Maybe that will be the necessary push to go from Log on average camera to RAW on average camera ?</comment>


Project X in real life: riot police called to Dutch hamlet - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/project-x-haren-creates-riots-in-holland-2012-9

<comment><AUTHOR> Seriously, what is wrong with all these people? Apparently, thousands of people showed up after an innocent girl posted on facebook that she would have her birthday party. And lo and behold, just like the movie, thousands of people showed up and began to riot. Why on earth does something simple like this bring up the worst in peoples' minds?

We like to think that we live in a civilized country, that this kind of stuff just doesn't happen here in The Netherlands. It saddens me, makes me ashamed to be Dutch.</comment>


Hyperloop Freight is a Joke - <AUTHOR> https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/hyperloop-freight-is-a-joke/ <comment><USER2> I always come to these hyperloop criticisms expecting to find some sort of fatal flaw in the physics of energy efficient supersonic travel. But to my surprise, they instead tend to be pessimists saying things like, "You'll never get past my friends: the regulators, the government bureaucrats, and especially the lawyers!. We will drive up your costs and make you look foolish".

First, no one said that designing this thing in the USA means it has to be deployed in the USA. Countries without common law legal systems get around these unnecessary costs much easier.

Second, if these are seriously the only objections, then thank god we are actually building this thing. I could see complaints if it were some $100 billion publicly funded project, but the fact that less than $1 billion in private capital has already gone so far into demonstrating the technological feasibility of such an innovative transportation mechanism is a huge win.

<comment><USER3> Pessimism seems to be the default for the HN hivemind. Would be cool if we all just encouraged everyone working on moonshots.

<comment><USER4> Nobody here is trying to crush dreams. The author, and many others, are simply trying to point out that there are much better uses of time and money.

The factors (i.e. physics) underpinning the economics of freight shipping in all forms are well understood. Can a hyperloop be built? Sure. Is it better than existing intermodal cargo shipment infrastructure? Yes and no. It certainly offers speed, but doomedly at the expense of economies of scale: [https://www.usmma.edu/sites/usmma.edu/files/docs/CMA%20Paper...](https://www.usmma.edu/sites/usmma.edu/files/docs/CMA%20Paper%20Murray%201%20%282%29.pdf)

Here's a thoughtful assessment by Olaf Merk posted last month that draws the same conclusion as the author: [http://shippingtoday.eu/musk_maritime/](http://shippingtoday.eu/musk_maritime/)

Bottom line, if you can find enough high value bulk cargo that benefits significantly from high speed transit to only two or three "ports", then hyperloop is your answer. However, that's a very (perhaps nonexistent) niche in the industry.

What we (transport engineering community) need to be expending resources on is: a.) eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, b.) designing a system of transport that scales with global trade demand (vice building 20K+ TEU megaships that can only be served by a few ports and promote trucking congestion in ports). Autonomous shipping, AI implementations in both freight forwarding (the logistics side) and transport control systems themselves, and applications of H2 fuel cells are technologies with great promise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of course the hyperloop is a joke. Elon Musk has zero experience or training in transportation infrastructure, but we are supposed to have faith in some idea he farted out in a white paper, why? Because he has skillfully cultivated his image as a "genius", and we bought it? The hyperloop was nothing more than a (savvy) PR move to cement his image as a "visionary". That it actually got funded only goes to show what gullible shmucks some venture capitalists are.

Edit: I worked on the LHC for several years. The challenges of maintaining a closed vacuum pipe that spanned a mere 17 miles were vast and expensive. Musk proposes doing it on an exponentially larger scale without addressing the challenges and pitfalls involved. Until he does so, I cannot take him seriously.

<comment><USER6> Elon Musk had zero experience building cars, yet he made Tesla happen. Perhaps a high intellect and a good general purpose engineering training can accomplish more than you think.

You, on the other hand, are overwhelmed by the challenge of maintaining vacuum in a tube that spans a mere 17 miles. At the very least, you should restrain yourself from using language like "...some idea he farted out...".

<comment><USER7> be careful, tesla is not successful as a car company yet, and its not in good shape to become one either.

one day it might be, and more generally i do hope that we see more progress in the electric car world... but for now tesla only turns a profit as a car company coupled with government incentives. even then, outside of the US (and inside actually) their market share is tiny or zero with very little growth. saying that it doesn't even exist is a very good approximation to reality... if you ignore tech focused news articles and the like at least.

i wouldn't call that a success just yet... as much as we may admire the mission.

<comment><USER8> In terms of their mission statement which is convince people that electric cars can be 'cool', practical and inexpensive he has succeeded much more than you are giving him and the people at Tesla credit for.

<comment><USER7> fair enough, but its a different metric of success. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When people talk about using high speed rail in the US and talk about how it doesn't work, I think the problem is exemplified by how any rail system seems to get implemented in the US. Basically what I have seen in virtually all cities around the US that I've traveled, the train goes _close_ to downtown or _close_ to the airport, but not actually into the actual terminal in the airport. Or you have a fast train that drops you in some place where you have to transfer to something else like a taxi or bus or another train. For example as I understand it, the new high speed train in California in the SF area will not realistically be any better than riding Caltrain. So since it likely will cost more than Caltrain a big base of people who could be riding it everyday to get between SF and San Jose would not be using it. And I think it stops in like a far flung spot in San Jose probably far away from many people's jobs. So it's like, well may as well just keep taking Caltrain!

<comment><USER10> the goal of high speed rail project in California is not taking you from SF to SJ. it's the bay area to LA area. this is not a train for within Bay Area commuters

Caltrain with express trains works very well. sfo and oak have trains that go into the airport. caltrains goal of electrification if it ever happens should make SF to SJ a lot faster. trains in the Bay Area are not as bad as you make them out to be.

personally I think high speed rail should go from Santa Clarita to gilroy or south San Jose. once you pass up the Central Valley you can take bart or Caltrain to your final destination

<comment><USER9> Yea I understand that the goal of the california HSR is to get you from SF to LA in its current form, but I guess what I'm getting at is that these systems become much more viable when they truly get you from point A to point B for commuters extremely quickly -- ridership goes way up. If it takes you 30 mins to get someplace that previously took an hour or more, then taking that small transfer seems like a small burden to add onto that. So at least if part of your trip is at very high speed that is extremely helpful, and focuses additional density desires for people who want to move there or build houses. For example, the Taiwan HSR can get you from Taipei downtown to Hsinchu in around 45 mins, and its around the same distance between SF and San Jose -- 50-ish miles. The baby bullet assuming you can actually catch one will take around 1.5 hours to get from SF to San Jose. In Taipei, driving to Hsinchu vs taking the HSR is kind of ridiculous because you hit so much traffic just trying to get out of the city and then the toll roads along the way can be backed up at various points.. so the result is that if you can take the HSR, a large percentage of people do take it. BTW to get that 45 minute time between Taipei and Hsinchu, it stops at I think 2-3 stops along the way. So, you could have SF downtown, SFO, maybe Redwood City, Mountain View, and then San Jose. I mean these trains can go 170 miles per hour and they only take a couple of minutes to get up to around 130 mph, so its not like they need to have zero stops. But I guess if a 1.5 hour commute vs. 45 min commute people don't care too much about, then HSR is not really that useful, but I do think people would really want that. The HSR in the SF peninsula area as far as I know will not go much faster than any trains on that same corridor right now for a variety of reasons. So basically what we really need is a totally new corridor that separates grade such as elevated or underground in order to get the speeds and safety.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing the article misses is inflexibility. One of the big disadvantages of rail is that once the track is deployed it is very costly and difficult to upgrade it. One thing I'd want in any "futuristic" freight hauling method would be ease of scaling I don't think Hyperloop offers anything over rail in this regard once track is installed you are more or less stuck with the installed capacity forever.

A computer analogy I'd give is to think of freight handling like information communication - the big issues are bandwidth (How much can you send/receive in one shipment) latency (How long does it take to arrive) and throughput (How many shipments can you handle at once).

Hyperloop addresses the latency issue but does little to nothing to address the other two problems

From what I see working in a heavy industry which relies on bulk freight (for import and export). Throughput (i.e Congestion) is the hot issue - we have a rail terminal and a deep water berth (which handles capesized ships). The rail corridor is shared and at times pretty heavily congested we use road trains (b-double trucks) to make up for the shortfall.

<comment><USER12> > A computer analogy I'd give is to think of freight handling like information > communication

Unsurprisingly, a lot of the theory for transport networks maps extremely well to computer networks.

Transport is essentially a literal packet switched network. You have routers (depots), routes (roads, rails, etc), packets (in many cases, literally packets), MTUs (twenty foot containers, or truckloads).

Queuing theory equally applies to both as well (and a lot of other physical applications, at university we had an exercise applying it to customer support).

<comment><USER11> Anecdotally one of my Engineering lecturers at university was an expert on human logistics. (i.e the physical queuing of people) I remember talking to her about a project she was working on with a large retail chain advising them on how to funnel people through store checkouts more efficiently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Vactrains might work out. There's nothing wrong with maglev in an evacuated tube. A system where the thing runs on open track until it gets out of the city and can switch to a vacuum tube might work. Then you can get someplace useful. Most of the "hyperloop" proposals, including the MIT demo, are really maglev vactrains.

If you're already a maglev, a tube doesn't add much. Japan's maglev has already reached 600 Km/h. The Shanghai/Transrapid maglev routinely runs at 431 Km/h, and has hit 500 in tests. At those speeds, SF-LA is about an hour. But the track cost is very high.

That's not stopping JR Tokai. The Tokyo to Nagoya maglev line has been under construction for two years now. They're taking the most direct route to get the fastest transit time. There are mountain ranges in the way. They're going straight through them. 90% in tunnel. Completion in 2027. Cost comparable to Twitter's peak market cap. Public support for this is so high that JR is being pushed to build the next section, Nagoya to Osaka, sooner.

With enough money...

<comment><USER14> Hypothetically, the vacuum tube gives you energy efficiency.

Drag power is proportional to the cube of velocity, so drag energy losses over a fixed distance are proportional to the square.

In an ideal world you're paying a fixed cost per unit time to pump the tube down then you shove as much stuff as you can through it at transsonic speed, catch it all with regenerative brakes at the other end, and pay an energy per kg payload cost lower than electric road vehicles.

Of course in practice that fixed cost may turn out astronomically high, but that's the idea.

<comment><USER15> Presumably with all existing systems it has been much, much more cost effective to be aerodynamic rather than building/maintaining/decompressing the worlds largest vacuum tube

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _an expert in logistics asked "why do we need to move cargo at 500 mph?". The problem is one of face._

I guess the 18,000 packages per hour that arrive at ANC by jet must also be a matter of "face"?

What does this even mean?

Edit for clarity: The FedEx terminal at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport can handle 13,400 packages per hour. The UPS terminal there handles about 5,000 packages per hour. Virtually all of these packages arrive from Asia on jets traveling hundreds of miles per hour (as opposed to the alternative, container ships, which are cheaper, but much slower).

That's because Anchorage is the major airport that's closest to being on a great circle route between North America and Asia. Most of the packages clear customs in Anchorage, and are then fed into the FedEx and UPS systems for further distribution throughout North America.

Clearly there is a _very large_ market for moving cargo at 500 miles per hour. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that an "expert in logistics" would make such a statement.

<comment><USER17> Tokyo to Anchorage is roughly 5500km, vs. 600km for LA to San Francisco.

Alternatively, how much cargo does FedEx or UPS fly along the California coast?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I had thought the concept for hyper loop was that the infrastructure cost would be cheaper because it is a tube that does not require power or rails.

But it does seem like saying instead of two rails that allow for deviations both horizontally and vertically and the vehicle stays on top, then now we need a really nicely round tube with a different set of requirements that must be maintained over hundreds or thousands of miles.

I guess if hyperloop teams are still in the phase of proving stuff out and they need money then the money they will get will still probably be tiny compared to what it would cost to actually build a real full blown system when you factor in all of the costs of buying land and permits and construction companies.

</comment><comment><USER18> Side effects, side effects, side effects.

Hyperloop may be an unmitigated disaster. But the effort has clear benefits.

An innovative solution to shifting loads would be immediately useful to air freight, and probably trucking and shipping.

Some solution to the sudden loss of vacuum would be useful in everything from oil pipelines to freeway traffic. Turning the wall of air into a smooth gradient in seconds is perhaps impossible, but even a partial solution would create a whole host of companies to take advantage of the new technique.

New materials developed for the pylons, and techniques for manufacturing those pylons are likely broadly applicable. Bridges are of course an obvious example.

Does every flaw with the hyperloop require science fiction? Or is it just out of reach?

It seems like the Department of Transportation should provide a whole bunch of grad students money to answer the questions, rather than private investors, because those problems sound very big and very risky to me. But if they think they can do it, why not go for it?

</comment><comment><USER19> Of all the hyped up startups out there. I'm personally most bullish on the promise of the Hyperloop. Really Hyperloop One since they're the only one making actual progress.

The article makes some decent sounding criticism on the issue of last mile being the limiting factor. But it all reminds me of what I heard before regarding fast internet connectivity (the issue of the last mile), or why would people need personal computers. The problem with criticizing anything that can impact the future, is that we just don't know how it'll impact it.

I do know that anytime transportation or means of connecting goods or people has been changed, it has had tremendous impact in economy and how the world works.

Do we need to ship cargo at 500 MPH? With today's thinking, maybe no. But I do know by building and experimenting with Hyperloop not only we might just transform the world, in the process will probably make other accidental discoveries as an added bonus.

<comment><USER20> Seems like this is something a company like Amazon could be interested in, for the long tail of products it might be more cost effective to be able to ship via hyperloop vs building more capacity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wish this was readable but this guy comes off as extremely arrogant. It was a white paper for godsakes!!

Is there an app that ensures I never read anything by this guy again? What is his name so I can avoid in the future?

I'm not saying Hyperloop is perfect...its the tone of this jerk.

<comment><USER17> [https://hyperloop-one.com](https://hyperloop-one.com)

$141M funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Put all the passengers on the hyper loop, build a freight-only rail beneath the hyper loop, which can be more efficient because it no longer needs to consider passenger requirements with regards to noise, width, height, or even atmosphere in tunnels.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why not, instead of using an almost-vacuum and a separate means of propulsion, create a stream of air similar to that of bank tubes and just use that for propulsion?

Fans inside of the tube would pull air in the direction of travel, and it could be circulated or pumped in from / out to the outside at the ends. At the end of the tubes a main fan system would be the primary work horse, creating vacuum forces on the arrival end and pushing forces on the departure end.

In the last mile, the fan system could shut down and use the pressure to help stop the vehicle and even store some of the pressure to help start the system in the opposite direction later (i.e., regenerative breaking).

<comment><USER24> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit)

Among other things it's more efficient to send electricity than to send air.

<comment><USER23> I don't mean as a means to maximize efficiency, but to avoid a lot of the problems (e.g., the risks of a vacuum, the cost of engineering one, etc.).

<comment><USER24> Instead of the air resistance of a train-sized object (about a quarter mile long) you'd have air resistance equivalent to a train 300 miles long (think of the tunnel as an inside out train). It's inefficient by several orders of magnitude.

<comment><USER23> Ah, I see what you mean :/

EDIT:

Wait, if the walls were made to be near frictionless, then the aggregate energy, minus what's lost to hear from turbulence, would be used for motion, right?

<comment><USER25> Air has viscosity. Even for extremely smooth surfaces, you would expect the flow to be fully turbulent over such a distance.

<comment><USER23> What I mean is that the energy wouldn't be lost. The turbulence wouldn't result in a net loss of energy, except that which was lost as heat through the walls (a 1cm layer of vacuum would insulate against that).

Am I thinking if this wrong?

<comment><USER25> Totally wrong. All of that turbulence goes into heat, which must be sunk through the walls (or something else), and is therefore lost. "Fully turbulent flow" is a reference to the transition away from (low-friction) laminar flow. Flow gets to be fully turbulent by experiencing high internal fluid friction due to its own viscosity. Air's viscosity is low relative to water, but it still isn't zero. 500 mph flow through a big long tube is extremely lossy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "This is actually worse for freight than for passengers, which is why the speed limits on curves are lower for freight trains than for passenger trains"

I'm 91% sure that this is less to do with freight specifically and more to do with the amount of weight involved and how it's distributed in each car. Then again, I'm no expert on freight trains.

</comment><comment><USER27> The author spends the first 2 paragraphs discussing how existing rail and pylon technology wouldn't work for the hyperloop. I find this to be short sighted as it seems entirely reasonable to use different "rail" and "pylon" designs for the hyperloop. Surely engineers might come up with a different solution for a different problem?

</comment><comment><USER28> At this point Hyperloop would have to support Intermodal freight transport to even have a chance. The technical limitations of container ships or the containers themselves would need to be considered. Hard to be beat taking a container off a ship and dropping it right onto a train car.

</comment><comment><USER29> Freight networks are critical and hyperloop has a claim to high efficiency transport. This might not work out as hoped but it is most certainly not a joke.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm never quite trusting of any article that starts by linking to their own previous article, with a tone of "I told you so."

</comment><comment><USER31> Here's an idea: Ditch the vacuum and instead put a mixture of 80% helium and 20% oxygen at half sea level pressure. This way you'll get a breathable atmosphere that is five times less dense than air and causes as much less drag. Imagine Teslas hurtling 155mph through these tunnels using only as much energy as if they were traveling at 85mph.

<comment><USER32> Where do you get all that helium?

<comment><USER31> I don't know, maybe from the 175 million cubic meters produced annually? For a 300km, two lane stretch you'd require around 7.5mln cubic meters - sure, that's a lot, but it's not an impossible amount.

<comment><USER6> Helium, for the time being, is a non-renewable resource, and there are concerns of a helium shortage for important applications like cryogenics. It is probably not a good idea to use helium as you suggested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What I find annoying about this "hyperloop" hype is that it's just a rehash of the concept of a vactrain, but because Musk wrote it is suddenly genius and visionary ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain)).

</comment><comment><USER34> Are all the hyperloop proposals really for a single tube instead of a bank of tubes?

</comment><comment><USER35> Every time I see the HyperRail stuff, I just get this little song monoloop'd into my head. It's so strange. Anyone else have that too?

EDIT: I found the song!: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM)

</comment><comment><USER7> i still think there is a much bigger problem in simply getting the thing through the red tape necessary too... even if it was useful, it would be a real struggle to be allowed to operate at all imo...

</comment><comment><USER36> I would totally comment on this article if I could read it. Contrast is terrible and not even per usual design guidelines, as background is white.

</comment><comment><USER37> Yawn. Freight has much bigger problems, like, in the US you have the Jones act, which essentially means freight from foreign countries gets bulk broken at a small number of ports instead of more directly moved to the ports it should go to. See, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#Ef...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#Effects)

</comment><comment><USER38> What's a joke is "journalists" making blaming comments about a company they'd unlikely be fit to work at.</comment>


Too frequent use of digital media reduces the mental capacity of children - <AUTHOR> http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=2095

<comment><USER2> Folks are going to have to suck it up and accept the fact that the human experience is always changing. Cursive writing and the Dewey Decimal system were once important, and we may be getting to the point now where rote memorization is universally a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is digital media itself harmful? I really doubt it. I think there is a considerable luddite element amongst some academics. I would guess the problem with digital media is the opportunity cost. It is time that could be spent understanding the natural world, other people, exercising, reading, creating things etc. Kids simply spend too much time with technology and do too much of the same thing with it. The sensible thing for parents would be to set limits and to encourage the use of technology as more of a tool.

Many of the same arguments people make about digital media damaging kids brains could be made about schools.

</comment><comment><USER4> But analog media was OK, right?

</comment><comment><USER5> Adults, too.</comment>


WeWork employees caught spying on competition - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2017/10/23/wework-employees-caught-spying-on-competition/ <comment><USER2> This seems overly sensationalized - the use of terms like 'infiltrate' and 'spy' are at the very least over to top to describe what is basically a secret-shopper run.

I'm legitimately curious - what 'trade secrets' could one possibly get by posing as a prospective customer?

In my industry it's commonplace for our competitors to use shill resellers to buy our products for testing. It's annoying but nobody ever calls it spying or infiltrating - it's just 'competitive engineering' (unless they actually reverse engineer and steal some IP - that tends to involve lawyers and is incredibly rare).

</comment><comment><USER3> In other news, every major retailer uses secret shoppers to do essentially the same thing.

<comment><USER4> > In other news, every major retailer uses secret shoppers to do essentially > the same thing.

They send their employees with fake names, trying to lure customers from their competitors? At least that's what the article claims.

<comment><USER5> The article doesn't actually mention them attempting to lure Knotel customers away - it just says that they _didn 't_:

> _No Knotel customers were stolen as a result of the spying episode, Sarva > said._

Knotel claims they tried, but there's no actual evidence of this whatsoever.

<comment><USER4> > The article doesn't actually mention them attempting to lure Knotel > customers away

I saw this in the article:

\---

WeWork, the No. 1 player in the sector, allegedly sent two spies to infiltrate rival Knotel — to steal info and some customers

\---

<comment><USER5> But that's not backed up by anything else in the article. Knotel just claims that was the objective, but provides no backup for this.

<comment><USER4> I went by what the article claims. I didn't independently verify those claims. Presumably OP also didn't talk to either party to know who is right or wrong, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's always funny to me that instead of being angry, most people just say, "oh, well, they're not the only ones."

 _What a world we live in._

"Apple, Google and others colluded to suppress employee wages."

> Oh, well, they're not the only ones.

\---

I just hope people claiming this isn't a big deal never complain about companies screwing them over, ever.

<comment><USER7> I think ethics is at its demise. No professional seems to value it anymore.

<comment><USER8> When was the ethics at its peak?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "...pilfer Knotel's proprietary information and trade secrets"

I really want to know what kind of trade secrets a co-working space uses to its advantage

<comment><USER10> \- Regular coffee mate but ALSO French vanilla coffee mate available

\- Member wifi ALSO guest wifi

\- Potato chips

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this news? I'd be surprised if they didn't.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." - Sun Tzu

<comment><USER12> It's the NY Post. This is exactly the sort of thing they do: take non-stories and sensationalize them to play on commonly held sentiments, such as a distrust of startups.

<comment><USER13> > take non-stories and sensationalize them to play on commonly held sentiments

This is also true of almost every startups blog and press releases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _No Knotel customers were stolen as a result of the spying episode, Sarva > said._

Probably because it doesn't sound like that was the intent of this secret- shopping mission, which only "stole" top secrets that are likely available on Knotel's webpage.

The article says that Knotel claims they were trying to steal customers, but offers no evidence of this.

</comment><comment><USER14> Bit of actual news that just came over the ticker: WeWork to open spaces in Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Chengdu next year according to Caixin

</comment><comment><USER15> "Mystery shopping" competitive offerings is common in many industries.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is stupid. Why is this on the front page?

</comment><comment><USER17> And yet, when Uber does it, there's a huge lawsuit.

<comment><USER18> There's a lawsuit b/c Lyft feels they can show that Uber actually caused monetary damages (and violated their TOS). If Knotel could do the same, they would also have a case. That's how civil law works. AFAIK, Uber wasn't accused of committing a crime in those instances.

<comment><USER19> WeWork apparently gave one of their customers 1 year free of charge to stop them from going to Knotel. I'm pretty sure they could "prove damages", too.

<comment> squeaky-clean I don't think this counts as damages anymore than Burger King could sue McDonald's for damages for offering a coupon on Big Macs. Uber actually booked time and fake rides with competing services so they couldn't pick up legitimate riders.

A more apt comparison would be creating fake companies and renting out Knotel so a location fills up and real companies can't rent working space. Then never paying Knotel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I cant even be bothered reading the article why wouldnt you spy on competitors. Time share sales guys were the worst as they would even hang around to collect the 200 fags or 1l red label too, in for penny in for a pound.</comment>


Ask HN: Which night vision camera for Linux? - <AUTHOR> Most USB web cams don't seem to have IR/nightvision. Are there any camera under $50 that can be used with Linux, have night vision, and don't have weird connections to Chinese IP addresses? (Either a web cam or IP camera.)
I want to place a camera in my room in case the land lady's drug addict son tries to pull something again at night.
I'm using a Heimvision HM205, but I don't trust the app, PixPlus. <comment><USER2> Most cheap cameras are sensitive to 850nm infrared. If they aren't sensitive it is because there is a filter in front of them. This might be a filter that goes in front of the camera, or filters built into the "Bayer matrix" that creates color vision.

Try seeing if your cheap webcam can see the light from an IR remote control. Remember that IR webcams don't really "see in the dark" but instead they see a scene illuminated by 850 nm LEDs. If your camera can see the light from an IR remote control you will just need to build yourself an IR illuminator which is just a handful of LEDs in a simple circuit.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I decided to increase the budget and get a $60-$70 Amcrest camera: [https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amcrest/node/7648105011](https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amcrest/node/7648105011)

They are compatible with ZoneMinder and have a web interface for configuration. I found out about them from a blog post: [https://blog.jasonantman.com/2018/05/amcrest-ip-camera- first...](https://blog.jasonantman.com/2018/05/amcrest-ip-camera-first- impressions/)

Some of the Amcrest cameras, maybe all, also have an API.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is also this camera: [https://www.amazon.com/Security-Ethernet- Surveillance-Waterp...](https://www.amazon.com/Security-Ethernet-Surveillance- Waterproof-Connection/dp/B01G1U4MVA/)

It's compatible with ONVIF, Blue Iris and Zoneminder.</comment></comment>