The Urban Village: Data Viz of How Human Interactions Scale with City Size - <AUTHOR> http://senseable.mit.edu/urbanvillages/

<comment><USER2> It seems odd to me, assuming I'm reading the blue plots right, that the single most common number of contacts to have is one. I also wonder if it's just phone calls, or if texts are included, since it now seem to call far fewer people than I text, and probably in different ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> The white paper ([http://senseable.mit.edu/urbanvillages/img/manuscript.pdf](http://senseable.mit.edu/urbanvillages/img/manuscript.pdf)) gives the assumptions to explain why call data is representative: "Mobile phone communication data are not necessarily a direct representation of the underlying social network. For instance, two individuals may maintain a strong tie through face-to-face interactions or other means of communication, without relying on regular phone calls [23]. Nevertheless, despite such a po- tential bias, a recent comparison with a questionnaire-based survey has shown that mobile phone communication data are, in general, a reliable proxy for the strength of individual- based social interactions [25]. Moreover, even if two subscribers maintain a close relationship and usually communicate via other means, it seems reasonable to assume that both individ- uals have called each other at least once during the relatively long observation period of 15 months, thus reducing the chance of missing such relationships in our network [21, 26, 27]"

<comment><USER3> Then it's even more odd. You mean to tell me there are a significant number of people who have only called one other person in 15 months? Seems fishy to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> But the old advice still seems to stay true - know (and stay in contact with) lots of different poeple - you will become a hub through which communication between networks occurs.

In short, routers are more likely to be able to extract a percentage than a node in a homogeneous network.</comment>


Freelance Pilots - <AUTHOR> http://romansnitko.com/blog/freelance-pilots.html <comment><USER2> Falls apart right here: "Imagine David. David is an airline captain lincenced to fly B737, B747-400, B-747-800 and any B777" There may be pilots who have flown 737, 747, and 777 before, but there are none (or practically none) who are current in all three at once. To get your currency back in a particular airframe could be as simple as a single check ride with a qualified (and current) pilot if it's only been a few weeks since you've flown last, all the way up to a review test and multiple check rides if they haven't flown in that airframe in quite a while.

And how did David get qualified in each of said airframes? An airline wanted David to fly a different route that used a different plane so they PAID for him to get the training and get certified. That would not happen in a freelance system.

There would likely be a freelance community around each type of plane, especially the smaller commuter varieties, but each pilot would basically be restricted to a single airframe until he/she could afford to pay for certification in a bigger and more lucrative jet on their own.

Would the FAA allow such a system to arise? Probably not. The status quo of having airlines schedule crews on routes that they are familiar with (with the occasional change) seems safer than having every single flight be with a crew that is unfamiliar with their route.

<comment><USER3> I don't think the system where airlines sponsor pilot's education/certification is the only viable one. Other institutions, such as banks, can offer student loans. Another point you made about the fact that pilots cannot fly multiple airplanes is simply false. The older the pilot is, the more chances there are he flew multiple types of aircraft working for different companies. I know at least one who flew b737 of various models, b757, b767 and then b777 and he's nothing out of the ordinary.

<comment><USER4> > Another point you made about the fact that pilots cannot fly multiple > airplanes is simply false.

He didn't say this anywhere.

<comment><USER3> Apologies, you're right. But I don't think he's right about the fact that a pilot cannot fly three types of aircraft either.

<comment><USER5> OP is right. You can get qualified on multiple aircraft types, but to maintain currency is a different topic altogether. In the US for example, at least for private pilots, you need at least 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days in the aircraft (category/class/type-rating) to be able to carry passengers. Then there's extra requirements for night currency and instrument rating currency.

I would imagine the airlines have even tougher currency requirements. That said, it's probably possible to maintain currency in several aircraft types depending on the frequency and how the jobs are scheduled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article was written by somebody who knows very little about airlines:

\- an airline has to have pilots at the gate on time, guaranteed

\- each airline has its own operating rules and checklists

\- planes and airports have unique combinations of Cat III landings

\- airline pilots are route-checked. they don't fly random routes.

\- most major airlines have unions, so freelancers are not allowed.

However, he could be describing ferry pilots or Netjet pilots or some other non-scheduled route.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, the author addresses some of these points at the end:

> The only two reasons this system is not widespread now are regulations and > unions. I'm more than convinced had regulations allowed for such a system > and had not the unions had so much power, you'd see this happening already.

…… of course, he's ignoring the fact that many of these regulations are there for _very_ good reason.

<comment><USER8> Yes, those are the kind of regulation you can revisit, the good kind. If you can solve the issues another way you change them.

Regulations that exist for no good reason are there for the whim of someone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This makes little to no sense. Flight schedules are worked out months in advance, it's a carefully planned system where many pilots fly particular routes only, and often back and forth. There's no way it could work with pilots signing up for arbitrary flights to whatever destinations mere hours before takeoff, unless there was a huge surplus of pilots waiting at all airports who are willing to constantly go to random places and have no certainty about where they might be tomorrow. It would be massively inefficient. I doubt any current pilots have unplanned 15 hour downtimes because they have to wait around for the right flight to come along. I just don't believe that many pilots want to bounce around randomly, never knowing what's happening beyond the next flight. The article also seems to ignore the existence of short domestic flights.

 _Passengers more freedom in deciding what 's safe for them_

This seems to be creating a problem where one doesn't exist. Today most people accept that any pilot on an established airline will be considered safe, and you don't have to give it any more thought. I don't think any airline will want to advertise varying levels of safety...

And yeah the Bitcoin product placement seems totally unnecessary.

<comment><USER10> _Passengers more freedom in deciding what 's safe for them_

No, this is totally in line with the Bitcoin "do your own risk assessment" product placement: a total disregard of how hard it is for the end user to work out what's safe or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have my certificate and know many career pilots. I can for aure say that pilots want a schedule more than anything. When they're on the road so much all they look forward to is getting home. Leaving that up to the mercy of a free market wouldn't work for a majority of career pilots. Many young pilots do charters and it's basically slave labor like this... The charter co's will only fly the jet home if the leg is paid for. So these guys end up spending a lot of time doing nothing while they wait for new legs to be booked. And those legs will turn into many stops before coming home. It's grueling work but pilots do it to build a lot of hours. Number one complaint is not knowing when they're going home.

</comment><comment><USER12> I thought this was going to be a counterpoint about "so, pilots don't fly this way -- why should developers?" or something.

</comment><comment><USER13> This sounds like the libertarian fantasy blog post awhile back where a freelance cop is shooting heroin in his patrol car, and deciding whether to take the next radio call.

<comment><USER14> New Yorker:

[http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d- libertaria...](http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian- police-department)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > had not the unions had so much power, you'd see this happening already.

It is funny that you only mention airlines (lufthansa, Air France) where pilots are organized within strong unions. And most pilots would love to work for just those airlines, because they are the last ones which pay good wages.

</comment><comment><USER15> Very good; I can't tell whether it's parody or not.

<comment><USER16> Techies can be pretty cute.

<comment><USER4> Feel honoured, because usually they are rude to people who do not know any facts but propose solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This would never fly (excuse the pun). For all the practical reasons like currency on so many aircraft and the cost (being checked to line on a A380 takes 2-3 months full time - who pays for that? Simulators ain't cheap!)

Above all else, the human aspect is terrible. I'm flabbergasted the author glosses over this. A Frankfurt - Chicago - Frankfurt trip would see a pilot away for 3-4 days as it is. Factor in not getting a direct flight back and waiting 15 hours for the opportunity to fly a 1 hour flight, it's gonna be closer to 5-6 days. What spouse is going to be happy with that?! Pilots already have enough stress worrying about how to their family while away - adding in a variable time frame would be hell on earth.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them"

This makes it seem like reasonable defaults are absent; "safe for them" is a one-size-fits-all when we are talking about air travel.

<comment><USER3> Not really. There are airlines who hire young low paid unskilled pilots, there are pilots from various countries with different English skills, there are pilots who didn't get enough sleep last night. Then there are airports that have different standards for security, different border-control waiting time, different luggage waiting time & equipment, different ground-crew serving the airplane. All this information is obscured from the passengers, but it doesn't mean it's not affecting safety, because it is.

<comment><USER18> Allowing individuals to adjust the safety levers means more people will die, because the vast majority of individuals who use air travel are not qualified or informed enough to make good decisions about these things. More people will die unnecessarily than under the current system.

<comment><USER3> People don't need to make those decisions. Currently, safety decisions are made by the government, which really doesn't have any competition and thus is not incentivized to improve its set of regulations. If you had 2-3 companies providing market review for the passengers, I'm pretty sure the situation would improve, not deteriorate. Perhaps some regulations simply don't make any sense and do not improve safety, but you'd never know that until you have one agency managing it.

<comment><USER19> Airline safety is currently in a state where it is nearly indistinguishable from perfect. Accident rates are so low that it's no longer possible to put an accurate number on the risk of taking a flight. And all of this has been done while keeping ticket prices at extremely low levels. It would be remarkable for any change to this to result in an improvement, since there's almost nowhere to go but down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Uber for pilots! The next big unicorn!

I do think that pilots are commoditized, but not to the extent that they are interchangeable in this manner. The industry is way too heavily regulated for this to ever work, and for good reason.

Honestly, well before something like this would come to pass, there will be whole fleets of autonomous planes in the air, thereby avoiding this scenario altogether.

<comment><USER21> There are already whole fleets of autonomous planes in the air. They have autopilot. The only difference is that when something goes wrong in the air, you can't just pull over and get a tech to the plane. You need someone already in the cockpit who knows what they are doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Imagine how big the reserve army of pilots would have to be for this to work! Like half the world would have to be pilots. They'd make five bucks a flight.

Now imagine something better: Universal Basic Income.

</comment><comment><USER23> My best guess? In less than 15 years most aircraft will be self-flying. It will probably start with cargo planes over ocean routes, then inland, then passengers.</comment>


A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple <comment><USER2> this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility.

also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't know why a business would be incentivized to sell anything but the entire device.

<comment><USER3> > I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a > stretch

I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer

<comment><USER4> I agree with the sentiment, but they may be doing JIT production and literally only have parts to build however many units they build for a day.

Allowing third parties to make the parts is the way to go.

<comment><USER5> They also need to keep the authorized service chain supplied as well. This is why you can walk into your car dealer and they should sell you anything in the fiche. This is what keeps your corner mechanic in business too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wish there was a way to do ensure the Right to Repair without throwing Apple's "Activation Lock" in the garbage.

Activation Lock greatly reduced the amount of thievery associated with Apple devices, and I think it's been a tremendous boon to -humanity- (how? by reducing the whole ecosystem of shit that grows around theft. Without Apple products, it's a less viable 'career' for the disadvantaged, and the scum who feed off them. It's like if half the grass in a field was inedible, it'd support a smaller population of buffalo or something. )

[https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone- thefts/](https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/)

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure how Nebraska's LB67 would defeat Apple's remote-wipe-for-lost- phones feature. Would you elaborate?

<comment><USER8> I assume the poster is not referring to remote wipe, but the fact that it is literally impossible to crack into an iPhone associated to an Apple account you can't authenticate. If an iDevice is iCloud locked and you don't have that password, it's a brick.

<comment><USER9> It is not literally impossible, it is just beyond the grasp of petty thieves at the moment.

Wait until one guy releases a walkthrough on the the two pins you cross or the steps to remove some chip and add a new (or worst case blast some part of an SOC with a laser), then all the geek friends of those pretty criminals will take a stab at it.

Its not like the criminals themselves are doing much with phones and laptops they steal currently. They just sell them for pennies on the dollar to some shop that won't ask questions. The shop wipes the machines, resets keys or does whatever they will do. If the procedure is more involved the shop will pay less for iPhones to offset their costs, which could still deter thievery, but we can't expect it to always be "literally impossible".

<comment><USER10> I think it's slightly more complicated than you make it out. The FBI presumably has the resources to create the "two pins you cross or steps to remove some chip" and yet it still has to ask Apple for device access on newer iPhones.

Either this ability exists, and the FBI is hiding it via creating large numbers of device requests of Apple, or Apple is telling us the truth and the iPhone is not easily hacked.

<comment><USER9> There is a difference between recovering encrypted data and making the phone usable for a second person. One cares about circumventing crypto and the other just wants to re-use a bunch of atoms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a big issue for farmers. I have family who are farmers and the secret to their success is that they are mainly mechanics who fix their own equipment. If you have to rely on other people to fix your equipment your margins disappear quickly.

</comment><comment><USER12> How many more Volkswagen emission scandals are hiding behind this ruse of patent protection. Certainly on every market we will find a proportional example, and if not then why so adamantly defend it? Surely this is just an opportunity for more companies to say to their customers: "hey guys. We are going to stand against fucking you for profit."

</comment><comment><USER13>
      John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don't
      own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
      for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle".

Don't most farmers finance their equipment? If the resale value is low because John Deere's policies make it difficult to use older equipment, then they won't be able to sell tractors with high profit margins because banks won't give them security. They're literally trading higher margins for more volume sales, and begging their competitors to join them to a race to the bottom.

I don't have an MBA, but that seems really short-sighted. Configuring your entire value-add chain, from R&D to sales to marketing, to focus on low-margin volume sales sounds preposterous. I mean, volume will always be meat & potatoes, but the darwinian struggle for high-margin sales is how you nurture growth.

Once the small farmer is gone John Deere will only be able to sell to huge conglomerates. Eventually those conglomerates will dabble with vertical integration and cut John Deere out of the equation all together.

Seems to me if John Deere wants to stay relevant they'd do everything they can to inflate the resale value of their tractors, and that necessarily includes sustaining a high resale value in the used equipment market.

In a world of cheap financing it's easier than ever to keep farmers buying new equipment, and more important than ever to maximize returns based on loose financing. You shouldn't need a lawyer to hold a gun to your customer's head. This obsession with maintaining control of their product after it leaves the factory seems just so epically ridiculous. And that's before we get into any of the minutiae of copyright and the uphill battle they'll face. Anything but the strictest of controls over their software will net them absolutely nothing at the end of the day except alot of pissed-off customers. It certainly won't be an impediment to Chinese knock-offs, who have very capable software engineers. Whoever is telling them that is so misinformed that I'd wonder if they were taking payments on the side from the Chinese.

I guess this is why American manufacturing is slowly dying. I mean, we're still the number one manufacturing country in the world, but despite strategies like these, not because of them.</comment>


Productivity in Plaintext - <AUTHOR> http://lukespear.co.uk/plaintext-productivity <comment><AUTHOR> Any questions on this I'm happy to answer. The link to the examples repo is at the end of the post, or here for convenience:

[https://github.com/luxpir/plaintext- productivity](https://github.com/luxpir/plaintext-productivity)

Summary: A to-do list and calendar template for low-resource, quick management of work and personal life. Also included for good measure are a .vimrc and .muttrc file to borrow from.

</comment><comment><USER2> I love the idea of this, but sadly, it only works when your work is in Plaintext. I'm an audio and graphing sort of guy, and although I try to be in Plaintext as much as I can, it's a constant battle.

One other loss is cross-device compatibility for things like calendaring. I totally get why text calendars are great, but I check my calendar from my phone or tablet enough that I couldn't rely on SSH. And losing calendar based alarms would be tough.

Mutt is great, though. And respect for sticking to an aesthetic :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, that checks out :)

Just a thought. Would sharing the files via Dropbox (shudder) or similar (rsync/syncthing) work on your devices?

That would then rely on a local text editor to edit or just the built-in web- browser if you automated a regular :TOhtml export from vim. Suppose that starts to get a little cumbersome for some use cases. Admittedly I don't have to check my calendar that often. My to-do list, perhaps though.

<comment><USER2> I already do that, actually, via Dropbox (shudder). But plaintext based systems, particularly the symbol-heavy ones, suck terribly on virtual keyboards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is fine and dandy until you get to cooperate (e.g. share task lists) or especially use machines not configured by yourself. The productivity is a third or less then in my experience.

Then it's a losing battle to keep compatibility between your custom solution and everyone elses. To add insult to injury, few of the mainstream tools allow proper import and export which could be automated.

And plenty of web tools don't even allow easy access to single functions, you get to deal with whole AJAX, cookies and all the mess... Bonus if the tool is closed, then it is a large reverse engineering effort.

<comment><AUTHOR> So... nothing's ideal yet?

How does cooperation work with org-mode, taskwarrior or hnb (mentioned below)? Are you describing a more general problem with local productivity software?

A simple sharing service, version control or rsyncing the files to a simple webserver at regular intervals would be an option for sharing. Not something I'll have to deal with for now though.

If you've checked out the files I'm not sure how you conclude that one would lose compatibility any time soon either.

What do you use?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why not just use org-mode? (genuine question not a smart ass question).

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers, no I appreciate that. I mention my issues with org-mode in the post, but it's mainly for simplicity, portability and to save time learning and configuring (and reconfiguring between versions). It's explained a little more fully in the post. In fact the system is a bit anti org-mode, or any productivity software that takes more time to learn (or implement) than to use.

<comment><USER4> Indeed you did, my bad I made it to 5) Email :).

Fair enough whatever works :), though I would point out to anyone reading this that the learning mode for emacs is open file, save file, type in file.

Also not sure what you mean with portability since emacs is literally just plain text as well.

Everything else you'll learn as you go - I wonder if I can do _foo_ followed by I can do _foo_!.

The irony of org-mode is that it made me actually use emacs every day something nothing else ever has (I've used IDE's for programming since the late 90's).

<comment><AUTHOR> I can see why you might not have made it to the end - I get tunnel-vision when writing sometimes. That's the edited down version!

I think there's a lot of mileage left in the emacs + org-mode for productivity discussion, so I can completely see where you're coming from. I won't repeat what I said in the post here, but I'll just reiterate this HN comment[0] from 2 month's back where a frequent user of org-mode complained about backwards- compatibility. And this isn't an isolated case, the devs are apparently forging ahead with the simplification of org-mode at the expense of a few compatibility issues. I don't suppose users of the basic functionality would notice, but then do those users _need_ all the potential complexity of org- mode?

I'll also reiterate that, as per the citations in the post, even RMS can't bring himself to broach the org-mode subject. At least as of 2013.

It probably boils down to there being two camps, those who make full use of org-mode's features _and_ who enjoy delving into the minutae of configuring their productivity suites (most likely already emacs users?). And then there are those who can run their affairs from a paper diary (or who have help), 80s style, but prefer going digital for all the advantages that brings.

I might be wrong, but I get the strong impression from seeing others use it that org-mode lets you, even encourages you to operate a system that holds hundreds of to-do's at any one time. To just get your thoughts into it, however relevant. I've used systems like that before and I didn't like the growing stress resulting from the pile-up.

The final thing I'd say is that as one of the world's vim users (is it a 50/50 split vim:emacs?) I just can't bring myself to embrace the chorded keymappings of emacs. I'd rather learn piano. It'd sure sound nicer.

\--

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Have you tried hierarchical notebook[0]?

[0]: [http://hnb.sourceforge.net/](http://hnb.sourceforge.net/)

<comment><USER6> Is shift-up and shift-down for moving nodes broken for you? I submitted a patch to Debian (who seem to be the maintainers now) but nobody else seems to have this problem.

If anyone else does have the problem: add {KEY_SR, "sup"} and {KEY_SF, "sdown"} to ui_binding.c and change "sprevious" and "snext" to "sup" and "sdown" in the configuration file.</comment></comment>


Rate our newb project: Twordsie (your top tweeted words) - <AUTHOR> http://www.twordsie.com

<comment><USER2> <http://www.twordsie.com/statuspage?user=@thomaschaaf> does not work gives error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/base/python_runtime/python_lib/versions/1/google/appengine/ext/webapp/__init__.py", line 511, in __call__ handler.get(*groups) File "/base/data/home/apps/twordsie/1.346586893870275243/main.py", line 55, in get 'rows': [{'c': [{'v': tweet["text"]}]} for tweet in tweets]} TypeError: string indices must be integers

<comment><USER3> We keep seeing that error, and are guessing it has to do with the Twitter API. We need to create some better error handling. Thanks for sharing.

By the way, just refresh a couple of times and you should see your results.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm also not seeing anything at <http://twitter.com/thomaschaaf>. Is that a real handle?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seven out of my ten most tweeted words are other peoples' @names. Since there's already a 'top friends' list, wouldn't it be more useful to keep only actual words in the 'top words' list?

</comment><comment><USER5> Should the "top friends" be "top retweeted accounts"? Other than that, it seemed to work, but it did not give me that surprising results though (since I am the person who wrote my tweets).

Why the focus on "know thyself"? I would think that the bigger value in this tool would be to discover what top words other people used.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like a good idea. We just started with an easy use case and would want to expand further.

Your surprising results might be due to the fact that we only take most recent 200 tweets. We've had trouble with the Twitter API beyond that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I built a similarish app a while ago that turned your tweets into a scrabble like game with your friends. It's actually not similar at all beyond word analysis.

It got pretty underwhelming reviews but I still think there is opportunity to turn tweeting into games.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice. :) It doesn't appear to be handling contractions well (getting "ve" and "ll" as top hits instead of "I've" and I'll") Other than that, nice little idea.

</comment><comment><USER8> URLs seem to be included too - my top word was "clicky" and that's because I use getclicky.com 's URL shortener - clicky.me

</comment><comment><USER9> How are you managing your twitter API rate limits? Have you been whitelisted?

<comment><USER3> Nope, we're just using the standard public API and calling the last 200 tweets. To get at more than 200 we have to use some ugly looping that breaks more often than it works.

<http://dev.twitter.com/doc/get/statuses/user_timeline>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find it full of awesome that you're sharing the source. Nice work.

</comment><comment><USER10> Pretty darn cool. Nice work guys.</comment>


They Own the System: Amazon Rewrites Book Industry by Marching into Publishing - <AUTHOR> https://news.bubblin.io/s/lwzvsr/they_own_system_amazon_rewrites_book <comment><USER3> So their example is a book that got rejected by mainstream NYC publishers and was bought by Amazon for "low five figures", which is actually damned good if you're not a name brand (and if you are you'd rather the royalties anyway).

They've also offered self publishing that, while obviously not offering anything near that in advances or royalties, is an out for everyone else with potentially unlimited upward mobility.

So yes, they have the retail market. If they choose to publish and market the hell out of an unknown title it absolutely could be an overwhelming success. Is that really different than any other publishing house, though?

You could argue that their barrier to entry is a bit lower because they own two arms of the chain and can more quickly cut their losses if it doesn't work out, but really wouldn't it have been the same if Penguin, Simon, or Harper had picked it up? They'd have marketed the hell out of it just like Amazon.

I guess my point is that, just like any industry, there are times where a potential winner isn't picked up by a major league team and then wins big for an underdog. I just don't see how Amazon being the "underdog" is relevant here other than being Amazon.

<comment><USER4> Amazon can advertise for free though on their own platform, unlike other publishers. Since Amazon is basically the only place anyone buys books anymore, that's huge.

Barnes & Noble just closed here. There's no dedicated book store within 50 miles of me now. I suspect many who don't live in major cities are in a similar situation and probably have been for some time now.

<comment><USER5> Is it really free for them if such displaces promotions by others?

<comment><USER6> It's not free, but it's much cheaper than the cost a normal publisher would spend to get the same exposure.

<comment><USER7> How is it cheaper? If Amazon has to decide to promote item A instead of the next Kindle reader or some other product, there's certainly an opportunity cost. To blanketly state it absolutely costs less is too naive and merely an assumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nonfiction author here.

Some potential advantages Amazon may have over other traditional publishers:

Massive amount of data and high-powered data science. Can help inform decisions about what to buy, how much of an advance to pay, etc.

Large coffers. Can take more risks in what to buy and make competitive bids.

Priority of placement. Amazon the retailer gets a cut of every sale. Amazon the publisher gets another. Clearly, it makes sense to prioritize Amazon's own titles against similar titles from other publishers, unless sales of the non- Amazon title are expected to be substantially higher.

A couple of disadvantages:

Agents are wary. They know that cooperating with Amazon is going to threaten the health of every other publisher.

At least in the short term, authors are going to perceive having Amazon as a publisher as having less cachet. It's largely known for its self-publishing arm, and authors aren't going to want their books to be misperceived as having been self-published, where quality is pretty abysmal.

Don't expect your book to end up in brick-and-mortar bookstores.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why is this a link to another Reddit/HN looking site than the article itself?

<comment><AUTHOR> I run that site: it's focused on books—a hacker news of books sorts. Of course HN is a much bigger assembly...

<comment><USER10> Original question still stands, why is that the url linked and not the actual article? The fact that you run the site makes it worse, as this is blatant self promotion masquerading as a real post.

<comment><AUTHOR> The discussion on this thread started due to the discussion on the link that is shared. I could have added this fact on my response earlier, but I thought it was obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Perhaps this is because I've only ever heard about Amazon's march into publishing through interviews of authors and competitors, but the narrative I've picked up seems to revolve around Amazon actually being a terrible publisher. By which I mean you basically never know what you're buying if you're a reader, and they aren't spending a dime to edit or promote you if you're an author. (Not that publishers do those two things much either of late, but that's a different story.)

I suppose that's fine when you've a track record as an author. It probably isn't if you're a new author.

Any odds there are some authors around who can chime in?

<comment><USER12> Are they paying advances? If not, and they are not promoting you either, why would anyone sign with them? You could just self publish and if you don't have the money to have a bunch of books printed, you could just use one of the many print in demand services (including the one offered by Amazon).

Edit: It seems that they are paying authors for their books, which for many authors, is a good enough reason to use them as a publisher. Who cares what the other big publishers could/would do for you if none of them will pick up your book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good, now maybe they can fix the textbook industry which is woefully inept.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not that there is an incentive for Amazon's to be or remain efficient though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The real link would be this one: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/they-own-the- system-amazon-rewr...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/they-own-the-system- amazon-rewrites-book-industry-by-turning-into-a-publisher-11547655267)

Here is the outline'd version: [https://outline.com/Km9vL4](https://outline.com/Km9vL4)

</comment><comment><USER15> Was thinking there would be more about using their data.

They could make some predictions of the form {author, subject, language, etc} -> likely sales.

From there they could make a sensible guess as to the advance to offer the author.

And of course authors could throw their proposals in the machine and get an offer.

I suppose something like this must already exist?

<comment><USER16> Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw (in the window of Gleebooks in Sydney) - <USER2> publisher in an extravagant office saying to a humble author "Give me a novel of 200,000 words that oversteps the bounds of common decency." (something like that, can't find it online now)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> They always supported self publishing with CreateSpace. Not sure what changed? Did they start doing Marketing/sales for the books? Article is not readable without login it seems.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some issues with DNS? - <AUTHOR> Does anyone know where I can look to discover issues that people are currently facing with DNS? <comment><USER2> [https://handshake.org](https://handshake.org) talks about issues with the current system they want to replace.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing. I had no clue they existed. Looks very well thought out and documented.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> People in Catalonia can give you a lot of pointers about censorship issues they've faced with the existing DNS system. [1]

[1] [https://ooni.org/post/internet-censorship-catalonia- independ...](https://ooni.org/post/internet-censorship-catalonia-independence- referendum/)</comment>


W3C: Proposed Recommendations for JSON-LD - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/11/07/proposed-recommendations-for-json-ld/

<comment><USER2> Thankfully, "A JSON-LD document is always a valid JSON document.". Section 2, [http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-json-ld-20131105/](http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR- json-ld-20131105/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Part of the slow evolution of JSON to XML.</comment>


Amazon executive promotes the company's new Echo Buds while wearing AirPods - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/25/amazon-executive-echo-buds-airpods/ <comment><USER2> Reminds me of Linaro conference from years back with every single Chinese dude (allwinner, rockchip, mediatek) rocking iphone.

</comment><comment><USER3> Or the Linux guy at a conference using keynote under MacOS.

Now a real hardcore Linux evangelist would roll their own presentation software hacked together an hour before the talk using open source bits and bobs.</comment>


Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, to be cleared of sex claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-to-be-cleared-of-sex-claims/story-fnb64oi6-1227479938410 <comment><USER2> Better link: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and- order/1179775...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and- order/11797757/Julian-Assange-set-to-be-cleared-as-sex-allegations- expire.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> So two questions:

1\. What's the penalty for bail-jumping in the UK?

2\. Is Sweden's statue of limitations really written such that an accused can avoid trial by hiding for five years? Do statue of limitations in other countries commonly work like that?

<comment><USER3> 2\. This is very common.</comment></comment>


There's the Wrong Way and Jacques Pépin's Way (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/dining/jacques-pepin-demonstrates-cooking-techniques.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> _He simply grabbed a sharpening steel and demonstrated how to run a knife blade along the wand, which he did without flicking his wrist. "Like a conductor," he said. "You have to keep the angle constant."

That angle needs to be about 20 or 30 degrees in relation to the steel._

It's not a sharpening steel, it's a honing steel. It doesn't sharpen knives, it aligns the sharp end from \\\ or // to /|\ (you're looking at the blade from the heel with the tip pointing away from you). Also, 20-30 degrees is very wrong, Japanese-style blades are usually at about 15 degrees, others around 22.

<comment><USER3> Sharpening steels do exist, but they indeed operate differently than honing steels: [https://www.amazon.com/W%C3%BCsthof-4473-Wusthof-10-Inch- Sha...](https://www.amazon.com/W%C3%BCsthof-4473-Wusthof-10-Inch- Sharpening/dp/B00009WDT8)

I don't think we can be sure which he used, and I'd be willing to bet the NYTimes reporter understood the difference.

EDIT: I messed up and linked to a mislabelled honing steel. Replied with a diamond steel that would be more considered a "sharpening steel"

<comment><USER4> You just linked to a honing steel that is incorrectly labelled on amazon as a "sharpening steel" (which no, does not exist) by the random vendor who knows nothing about the products they sell. Read the actual item description from wusthof:

"When that time comes that you need to touch up the sharp edge of your Wusthof knife the 10" steel is a good option. The Wusthof 10" inch steel can realign your knife edge quickly and easily. Honing steels are often confused as sharpeners. Your honing steel will realaign your knife edge but will not put a new edge on it. In trying to explain what a honing steel does try to imaging your sharpening steel and your toothbrush. It is a maintaince tool that you use everyday. In the case of your knife this would be maintaining the knifes edge. Now eventually you would need to see your dentist. That would be a sharpener. This would be a more detailed and agressive action and they would actually remove metal from the edge of the knife. Much like a dentist would do to your teeth. Now to maintain healthy teeth you brush everyday. To maintain a sharp knife you should steel your knife everyday. And remember only go to the Dentist(sharpener) once or twice a year."

<comment><USER5> From wusthof.com ([http://www.wusthof.com/care-and-sharpening/using-a- steel](http://www.wusthof.com/care-and-sharpening/using-a-steel)):

> The difference between honing and sharpening your knife depends on whether > your knife needs regular maintenance or if you need to reset a dull edge. A > honing steel will re-align the microscopic teeth and can be used frequently- > even after each use. A sharpening steel will actually take a small amount of > steel off the blade, creating a new edge.

So although the previously-linked one might not be a sharpening steel, they do actually exist. Further down the page:

> The difference between a diamond steel or ceramic steel and honing steel, is > that a diamond steel and ceramic steel will actually grind away material > from the knife, allowing it to reset the edge.

<comment><USER6> So I've had a diamond steel for years and always thought it "sharpened" \- so after reading this discussion I'm reassured by that quote :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Speaking of sharp knives... there not just for the cooks but the diners as well. You know you are at a good restaurant if they give you a sharp non serrated knife for meat dishes (which they will do at high end french restaurants).

One of the few snobby pet peeves I have is paying ridiculous price at a US steak house (which I luckily don't normally go to anyway) and getting gigantic awkward serrated junk that tears the meat up and shoots juice everywhere.

<comment><USER8> If your steak is "shooting juice everywhere" it hasn't been properly rested. I wouldn't go back to a "steakhouse" that can't be bothered to rest my steak for 5 or 10 minutes.

<comment><USER7> I was speaking more or less about sauces or additional butter.

That being said in my experience rested meat actually spills/explodes more juice on initial cut as it is like a balloon. Unrested and already cut meat have the juice in the plate where the sawing motion of a serrated knife has little impact.

Besides really good meat aka aged fatty pieces actually have very little juice. It is the sauce on top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is no better cooking video on the Internet than Pepin's chicken deboning video. I can debone a chicken in under a minute because of it. It changed my life.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku5p1CcGn70](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku5p1CcGn70)

<comment><USER10> I consider myself a competent cook, though an untrained one that's learned through trial and error (and a lot of error at that!). But when I see professional cooks doing things like this, it's humbling. And it seems like it frequently comes down to technique. The professional chef's technique turns out to be far more efficient than whatever naive brute-force technique I devised on my own. And often it's a "Why didn't I think of that?" kind of obvious-in-hindsight thing, too.

I still have a _lot_ to learn about cooking.

<comment><USER11> A couple of basic technique cooking classes I've taken were far and away the most bang for your buck learning experiences I've had.

A simple knife skills course for instance taught me some techniques in a couple of minutes that I hadn't figured out on my own in years that dramatically improved my efficiency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Twitch's 24/7 food stream (twitch.tv/food) runs a lot of vintage Jacques (Jacques and Julia, Fast Food My Way). As someone whose been cooking for about a decade now I've learned a lot, even from listening to him in the background.

</comment><comment><USER13> > "There's nothing wrong with that," he said kindly. "Sometimes I'm in the > mood for that type of omelet."

Brutal

<comment><USER9> He's being serious! He's making french omelets, and the author is making country omelets. Every time Pepin talks about omelets he says the same thing: there's nothing wrong with other kinds of omelets, this is just a french omelet. Also: there's a video of him making country omelets somewhere.

<comment><USER14> Here he is making both styles of omelet: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The author really doesn't do Jacques Pepin justice. If you have the time, watch some of his videos on YouTube. His mastery of even the most basic of techniques is inspiring, and he cooks in a way that is very different from modern cooking shows.

Also, this page is just shy of 10mb. The UI is daunting and unreadable. Wait, scratch that. After scrolling a bit there was another massive amount of requests on the page. The page now sits at over 700 HTTP requests and 13mb.

Simply scrolling the page creates 20 http requests. What is the utility there? Honestly.

<comment><USER14> My favorite Jacques Pepin video: Deboning a chicken [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfY0lrdXar8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfY0lrdXar8)

<comment><USER16> For me it's his making omelettes, because everybody thinks all omelettes are equals and easy to make until watching his videos ; very humbling.

<comment><USER17> Love watching this dude make an omelette:

[https://youtu.be/Uu5zGHjRaMo?t=72](https://youtu.be/Uu5zGHjRaMo?t=72)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been shaving with a straight razor for almost 20 years. I've been using Japanese chef knives for over 10 years.

Using a straight razor, I know what sharp is and what sharp means. But I've learned over the years that I suck at sharpening and maintaining a blade, not least because I'm too lazy. When it's an implement you use on your face several times a week it's nigh impossible to fool yourself. I still own a high quality leather and canvas strop and an expensive Japanese water stone, but in retrospect those were aspirational purchases.

Some pro tips for people who want the performance but don't want to or cannot invest the necessary time and effort.

Pro tip #1: For a straight razor, buy disposable blades. They're actually _too_ sharp, making razor burn more likely. But a dull or deformed blade will cut you up like nothing else and becomes discouraging very quickly. It's the rare person who will make it 20 years using a straight razor if they have to strop it every day and sharpen it every few weeks, so just use a disposable blade. I've been using Feather razor and blades for years. It's the best of both worlds, just keep a light touch when shaving to avoid razor burn, especially the first couple of shaves out of the box.

Pro tip #2: Buy a high quality chef's knife. It doesn't need to be super expensive, just have a very hard cutting edge. I prefer the Japanese kind with a very hard (high 50s, low 60s on the Rockwell scale), carbon steel core sandwiched in softer stainless steel. Hard steel sharpens more easily and, most importantly, holds an edge better. However, it's much more prone to microscopic breaks and cracks. Stainless steel is softer but more resilient-- it deforms rather than breaks. It follows that you should never "steel" a hard, carbon steel edge; don't buy a knife that is normally used with a honing steel, no matter how expensive or fancy.

Because we're lazy and know we're never going to sharpen it properly, if ever, the trick is remembering that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Use a cutting board made of _soft_ wood. (Or plastic, but I can't speak to that.) There's a reason the old-school hardwood boards were constructed with the end grain oriented up, but those are rare and quite expensive. Most hardwood boards will kill your knife in short-order, especially those tropical ones with embedded silica particles. I got one as a gift and only pretend to use it when they're visiting. For a long time I've been using a cheap wooden board I bought from Giant supermarket. The glue is failing but it treats my knife kindly.

Use a clever or a cheap knife for deboning.

Never let anybody else touch it, ever. They won't respect it like you do. They won't understand.

Never toss it, or even it gently lie it down, in the sink or anywhere else the edge might accidentally so much as touch a hard surface. For obvious reasons, never put it in a drawer.

I've only gone through about 3 chef knives (2, really) in over 15 years, without ever so much as honing one, and they've always been sharper than anything I've ever used in any other household or kitchen. Including Redneck households where the sharpening stone is kept next to the easy chair.

My first one was a $50 special from an online store. It was incredibly sharp, and I used it for years. I was convinced it was magical, and for the first couple of years actually lamented I had no reason to use my sharpening implements. I traveled overseas with it. I made a dish at a party one time and made the mistake of leaving it lying around while I brought the dish to the table. Satan disguised as an innocent young lady used it to cut her brownies, which were in a glass baking dish. Not only did it destroy the knife, but there was a visible deep nick in the blade. No amount of sharpening would have restored it, as given the depth of the nick it likely would have required removing too much metal to be able to restore the original angle (Japanese knifes are like that). And in any event I certainly wouldn't have had the skill, and few "professional" sharpeners would have the skill, either. My other knives were never as good as that one, but they're still better than anything else I've seen.

Note that I'm not a professional chef. If I were a professional I don't think there'd be any way to avoid learning and exercising proper maintenance. But I do cook regularly, and use my knife for almost every aspect of preparation. I'm one of those people who avoids fancy kitchen gadgets, which is actually an easy preference to adopt when your knife works well.

</comment><comment><USER19> He's a food and drink editor and has never sharpened the knives in his Kitchen? Seems odd. Maybe it's the boy scout in me, but sharp knives are critical for all the reasons he discusses.

I've been on a Food Lab kick recently that has been quite successful but Pépin's cookbook seems awesome as well and I've been looking to brush up on my technique. Great article and thanks for posting.

<comment><USER20> I don't feel safe when I use kitchen knives that are dull; it seems like an accident waiting to happen.

<comment><USER21> Exactly! Dull knives are not simply bad for cooking, they are very dangerous, because they force you to press like a madman to do the cut you want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sometimes when I visit friends and see the sorry state of their knives, I just want to fetch our wetstone and fix it in ten minutes. But I don't want to appear too snobbish, so I never mention it.

<comment><USER23> I hear ya. I think it can be done without appearing too snobbish. Most people have some type of honing rod/steel. They just don't use it, because they don't realize how dull their knives actually are.

I often get enlisted into the cooking effort when I visit a friend for big party or over the holidays or whatevs. It's a low-key way for me to take some of the stress off the host, and it's an easy way to start conversations with other guests, which I like as an introvert.

Anyway, when I'm helping in the kitchen, I usually ask the host if I can "sharpen" (really hone but that distinction isn't important to them) their knives. The usual response is "PLEASE DO." I agree it can come off as judgy, but if you're helping them cook, they take it in the positive spirit it's meant.

Just make sure you tell the host. I once honed some knives, got them nice and sharp, and the host immediately cut herself. I asked if it was okay, but I guess she was so used to the dull knives, didn't have good technique, etc.

My other pet peeve is dry and cracked cutting boards. So I also often offer to oil their cutting board if I can find their spoonwax/mineral oil in the back of the pantry.

<comment><USER24> Oh god, my mom has a glass (pyrex?) cutting board. It's SO BAD for knives, and all of her nice knives are so dull, I can barely stand to cook in her house.

<comment><USER23> Haha, yeah, glass cutting boards are the _worst_!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> His use of a metal fork in the non-stick omelette pan really bugged me.

<comment><USER26> It's anodized aluminium and does not scratch the way teflon does.

<comment><USER27> Seconded, buy a decent non-stick pan and you can use and abuse it without worry. I have some Woll Nowo pans that see daily use with metal utensils and nested stacking with other metal pans. Never a scratch, no food sticking at all. Here's an example but shop around as many other brands offer similar construction: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woll-Nowo-Saute-Detachable- Handle/d...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woll-Nowo-Saute-Detachable- Handle/dp/B002A02IYY/) I like the detachable handle because it stays cool, and I don't lose track of which pan just came out of the oven and accidentally grab its handle bare-handed.

When buying pans, look for commercial stuff (or at least make sure the box does not have a photo of a famous TV chef on it). They should be 2x-4x more expensive than the cheap stuff, usually cost less than the really high-end pans, but will last forever and produce great results.</comment></comment></comment>


Please Stop Verifying My Email Address - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/3d96905a4bb9

<comment><USER2> This entire article runs on the assumption that the user will, at a time they choose, type their email address correctly.

This turns out not to be the case.

I've just spent over 2 hours tracking someone down who had registered for a service, but provided an email address that bounced. This is a service that is delivered via email, so this just broke the whole thing.

By all means, don't verify email addresses by habit, but be aware that there are people who really will type their own email address incorrectly.

 _Added in edit: I have upvoted this, because anything that encourages implementors to improve the UI is to be encouraged. Too many developers seem to run on automatic ..._

<comment><USER3> It has been interesting to see the rise of forms that wish you to type in your email address not once, but twice. In an attempt to verify the user entered it correctly.

Those forms annoy me no end, if the mail is invalid you'll get a bounce and will (presumably) not consider me real. I'll not see the mail and will try again later.

I suspect most users copy/paste anyway.

<comment><USER4> > I suspect most users copy/paste anyway.

Some forms disable the paste action in the second box to force you to type it again (to avoid copying an error).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about: consider your use case first.

You cant just say "dont ask me to verify", despite the good reason you've set out. Verifying your email is critical in some cases.

I run a company called Checkout 51. The end result of someone using our service is that we send them money. Its critical we have the correct email address for a range of reasons such as them trying to recover their password, support communications and simple account notifications (i.e. we've sent your cheque OR your account has been credited)

I would love to not verify peoples email addresses, but in some cases its important to do so in order to provide the best possible user experience.

<comment><USER6> Agree, I've had numerous situations with a site I created that didn't have email verification where users reported problems logging back into their account.

The problem should be pretty obvious. They click the "I forgot my email" button so we generate a new password, send it to the email account they registered with and it bounces back. User emails, we try to do a search for it, find it and discover random slight misspellings such as .con.

With verification at least the user is aware that they didn't enter their email properly.

Additionally we send messages about rewards, ones that users would want to receive.

<comment><USER5> Yeah that is the primary issue we encounter regarding logins. People often type .con .cim etc (mainly from our iOS or Android apps) and the end result is confusion.

Our support staff can normally find the email using a %like% type search and correct it for the user, but without verification these users invest time in an account that they ultimately can lose access to without our assistance (not a good experience).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Almost as irritating: requiring that people sign in to your site via Facebook or Twitter, which in turn requires that they be members of these websites. I'm looking at you Medium.com.

</comment><comment><USER8> For a lot of services, verifying e-mail addresses is primarily a means to filter a majority of spam accounts - think bulletin boards, buy/sell sites, etc. It is by no means perfect, but it's an easy, low-hanging fruit. It is only secondarily a check to see if the user misspelled his or her e-mail address (which is often checked by having _two_ e-mail fields and comparing them).

I would still say that tracking down a misspelled e-mail address or have the user completely confused at the next login (because they don't realise they misspelled it) might be worse than having the break in the registration process.

<comment><AUTHOR> Most web browsers remember the email address that was entered on login forms or even on signup forms their email might be pre filled for them. But it's true if the user enters the wrong email address and then never notices it's incorrect, could result in a problem later down the road if the email address is a login.

Perhaps a notification after a few days along the lines of "verify your email address is correct" top of the page in cases where it appears they haven't received your welcome email would be more appropriate. Rather than barricading them from using the service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have an email for the form firstname.lastname at gmail -- and apparently many people with my name can't remember that that is not their account (I can tell from the geolocation info on some of the emails, England, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, etc). I've been signed up for countless services without verification, and have received DishNetwork bills (enough info to change their subs), gas receipts, Kmart crap, dating website stuff, etc. I have received confidential business deal emails from more than two of them. It is ridiculous that people can't recall their own email address.

If only they would ALL send verification emails!!!!

<comment><USER10> I have a similar issue. I've gotten peoples apple account activation emails when buying new iPhones, emails from realtors, and emails from teachers about a student intended for their parent. I got a contract for a new business just this week which said it was time sensitive and was asking for a signature via right signature. I was hoping there was somewhere in rightsignature to say that the contract was sent to the wrong address but nope all you can do is sign the thing. Luckily the contract listed a phone number and I was able to reach the account manager who had a phone number for the client and got it sorted out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Verifying an address this way is called "double-opt-in". It's the most effective way to ensure the people you're sending mail to actually want to get mail from you.

If you don't do this, you'll have a lot more people marking your mail as spam, increasing your abuse score, and making it more likely that your legitimate mail will get filtered.

Source: [http://mailchimp.com/resources/guides/how-to-avoid-spam- filt...](http://mailchimp.com/resources/guides/how-to-avoid-spam- filters/html/)

<comment><USER12> It's best to describe this as "confirmed opt-in". The term "double opt-in" can also be used by marketers to describe them having received your email twice. Using "confirmed opt-in" is unambiguous. "Double" could mean anything, and in any case registration and confirmation are two separate steps of a single opt- in.

I'm surprised to see Mailchimp using the "double" term.

See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt- in_email](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-in_email)

"The term double opt-in has also been co-opted by spammers, diluting its value."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It is irresponsible to send more than one email to a user-submitted address without verifying it. Otherwise abusers can use you to get emails sent to someone they are targeting.

Since you can only send one email, it has to be the verification email.

You need to send the verification email at registration time, since users are likely to mistake it for spam if you send it at some arbitrary point later.

If, on the other hand, you have no need to send email at all, then there's no need to collect the address and thus no reason to verify it.

<comment><AUTHOR> What about sending them a welcome email that gives them the opportunity to verify.

<comment><USER12> Many users will see the first few words of the welcome. Few will read enough to realise they can verify. Even fewer will actually verify.

Later, your users will wonder why they're not receiving emails from you. If you send them out despite not having verification, then you've got the abuse problem again.

Abused (non-)users will just see every email as spam and ignore them, including the first welcome one. If you continue to send emails out, they will continue to be abused.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why is it better to force them to verify the email and then just start sending them email as through they confirmed that they wanted to receive any?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> For reference, about 20 minutes ago this item triggered the flame-war detector circuit and the resulting penalization of the ranking got it dropped off the front page.

Just so people know why this has 7 points in quick succession, but is not on the front page:

[http://hnrankings.info/6405186/](http://hnrankings.info/6405186/)

<comment><USER13> Fascinating. I'd love to see some sort of visual indication of how "flame-y" a thread is (besides just using it as an input on total hotness calculation.) In fact, could HN be alternately sorted by "least flame-y posts today", bypassing hotness? Would that, perhaps, bring all the objective how-to articles up, and push the editorials down?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > So why make them verify?

To prove they control that email address, to ensure they didn't put it in wrong, and to protect poor bastards like myself with common email addresses from getting SPAMMED with mail for idiots who don't know their own email address.

\----

Seriously, as someone with a firstname.lastname@example.com -- I nearly everyday get dozens of emails from services that do not verify addresses. AT&T, Boost, Netflix, and many more.

At will I can reset these peoples passwords, delete accounts, upgrade/downgrade services, and do much more. There are too many for me to constantly deal with them, and the root cause is this idiotic authors recommendation.

What we need is the exact opposite, we need EVERYONE doing verification of email ownership before sending mail to that account -- else it is borderline spam and harassment.

I am in AWE of how spectacularly the author missed the point.

</comment><comment><USER15> And what about email address as a username? I have it like this on one site so the user has 2 in 1 - username and email in one.

<comment><USER16> Bet bugbear is any site that insist on labelling it username when you try to log-in but it's really your email address. If I don't use the site regularly then I can never remember whether it's going to be user123 or firstname.lastname@example.com. Frustrating experience that is then often followed by the same site have an unusual set of password acceptable letters that I can never remember so I then have to get everything reset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In addition to ensure they typed their email address correctly, I am happy with email verification as users seem to have taken my (short and sweet) address as their catch all email registration. And there's nothing I can do about these reminder emails apart from one provider as there's nothing in the email to tell them 'it's not me so go away'. They just tell me to ignore the email. It's just annoying I have to 'ignore' 100+ emails in my inbox that keeps popping up.

Another gripe I have is some of them don't even care whether or not you verify the address. I receive receipts and shipping status all the time.

</comment><comment><USER18> Uh ok... so if you don't take their email address... how do they reset their password when they (inevitably) forget it? Or do you mean they can put in whatever email they want and you'll accept it? Because if it's the latter, then you've just allowed them to cause you to spam whoever they feel like.

You have to verify email addresses. There's no other way to recover passwords. And if your users value their specific account, then they need to be able to get into that account, even if they forget their password.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's a one to many reltionship. That's why. Yes auser can have an infinite number of email address, but an email address should belong to one user only. Why create a new user id that has to be unique and that I have to remember when I have this unique thing you can additionally use when I firget my password?

</comment><comment><USER20> How about verifying at a later time, and granting access temporarily? At some point they'll check their email? Does this strategy work? And if they typed their email address incorrectly, maintain a cookie to point to the account and allow them to set a new email address (if persistent login is enabled)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Being as polite as possible I would say yes please. When I sign up for a service I may only intend to try it out with the potential of using it long term. So if my email address were incorrect, fixing it later would be something that mattered to me at that time.

Perhaps this is not ideal for the service provider because then they cannot spam me but as this article points out I would just mark those emails as spam or filter in a modern inbox anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Okay, I won't ask you for your email address when creating your account. Instead, please write down this GUID which you'll need to login next time.</comment>


Facebook is going to kill LinkedIn. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/startup-grind/the-death-of-linkedin-19a72f25ba01 <comment><USER2> Sorry, you cannot kill something that's already dead, and LinkedIn is just about as alive as MySpace.</comment>