Statement on Google's conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG-116-JU05-20190716-SD015.pdf <comment><USER4> The primary case here made against Google might be questionable behavior from Google, but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can't be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL).

What looks _far more_ inculpatory to me is this, on the last page:

[…] _Because it controls essentially the entire internet, Google has endless levers at its disposal to significantly harm or snuff out a rival._

 _I don't think it's a coincidence that our organic rankings have continued to suffer since I've become a vocal critic of their practices. Earlier this year, within weeks of the publication of a Wired magazine article that included quotes from me and a recap of our story, the CNW mobile app was banned from the Google Play store without explanation or recourse. As a result we were also banned from using the Google's dominant Ad Mob mobile ad platform._

This is far more damning of Google abusing its monopoly, not only on search, but also on the Android platform.

<comment><USER5> > This is far more damning of Google abusing its monopoly, not only on search, > but also on the Android platform.

No, it's really not. I just visited celebritynetworth.com. One article took 462 http requests, loaded 9mb of content and though DOM content loaded in 434ms, it took 1 minute to finish loading everything.

The sheer amount of adware on this site is staggering.

Let's put down the pitchforks and put on our critical thinking caps. Does serving all that adware provide anything close to an acceptable user experience?? And if not, doesn't it look more like this website merely fell out of search engine fashion as things like performance and UX began to trump other factors?

<comment><USER6> Maybe if they served up some of Google's AMP™ pages they would get higher search rankings.

<comment><USER7> I know you are being sarcastic but it would result in a 10x better experience for the user.

<comment><USER6> The joke I'm trying to make is that if they had a much nicer site design it still wouldn't be ranked higher. It would only be ranked higher if and only if Amp was used... because of bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Google is incredibly shady. There's been a manual penalty in place against my website The Online Slang Dictionary ([http://onlineslangdictionary.com](http://onlineslangdictionary.com)) for the better part of a decade. I know this because the data suggested it - and then a Google employee confirmed it.

It would be easy to explain it away because Aaron Peckham, owner of Urban Dictionary, worked at Google when Matt Cutts was head of the Web Spam team, and they knew each other. But that's incredibly circumstantial. I do know that when I confronted Cutts about the penalty here on HN he lied about it - <USER2> does lead one to wonder about his motive.

I've written in length about the manual penalty here: [http://onlineslangdictionary.com/pages/google-panda- penalty/](http://onlineslangdictionary.com/pages/google-panda-penalty/)

Edit 0825 Pacific: I have to work. I'll respond to comments later. You can also reach out directly - contact info is in my profile.

<comment><USER9> Do you have any evidence at all for these extraordinary claims? Why would Urban Dictionary go to such lengths to suppress a competitor which posed no threat[0]?

I also notice that the homepage hasn't been updated at all for at least 8 years[1]. I suspect this may have had something to do with its decline.

[0]: [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-10%202...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-10%202014-01-10&geo=US&q=online%20slang%20dictionary,urban%20dictionary)

[1]: [https://web.archive.org/web/20120107121814/http://onlineslan...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120107121814/http://onlineslangdictionary.com/)

<comment><USER10> You may want to read these posts:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9977372](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9977372)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5419890](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5419890)

<comment><USER11> I have to say, after reading those posts, Matt is looking more trustworthy than the OP.

Especially considering the definitely-not-a-sock-puppet post by jimboykin [1], an account that was created immediately after this thread and has but a single post on HN.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5476100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5476100)

<comment><USER12> I mean part of this issue is that there is no feedback to the website owner, which is shown by the guy only getting a response here on HN.

Like isn't it kind of insane that the top Google search engineer provided customer service to OP, but he couldn't get a response thru a normal channel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > And what about those conjured celebrities I added as a precaution? All five > were all scraped right into Google's search result pages. It provided > undeniable proof that after being turned down, Google simply went ahead and > stole the entire database of content CNW took eight years and over a million > dollars to build.

I remember a few years ago Google had a big blog post about how they'd injected some fake search results to catch Bing scraping like this. It certainly seemed like they thought it was a bad thing back then.

<comment><USER14> I worked at Microsoft from 2010-2012, and the crux of the issue there was that, for Microsoft users who had the Bing toolbar installed, the toolbar would track what you were visiting in your browser and use that session/journey information to try and improve the relevancy of Bing results. If a lot of people who searched for "best pancake house" (regardless of what search engine you used) end up visiting ihop.com within the same browser session, well then Bing would want to rank ihop.com higher for that search phrase.

Google noticed this, and for unique/low-traffic search terms, was able to synthetically generate enough "fake" traffic that the "fake" traffic became the dominating signal for those terms, and therefore Bing started directing users to the fake results.

The bad thing here IMO is the level of tracking of users via this toolbar, but fundamentally this seems as bad as any other digital fingerprinting or advertiser tracking as anything else that's become common on the web. This is not to excuse Microsoft for doing a bad thing, but it really had very little to do with "scraping Google", which somehow became the popular media takeaway for this.

EDIT: a decent contemporaneous article in Wired: [https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies- google/](https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies-google/), mentioning how Microsoft was using the clickstream data from the browser/toolbar, not scraping Google results per se

<comment><USER15> That's the first I've heard of that side of the story, and I'm pretty appalled because everyone I know believes "Bing scraped Google" \- which I think was how Google framed it.

I wonder how common misunderstandings like this can be prevented or treated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> And yet I constantly get CAPTCHA's just from blocking tracking cookies.

The biggest scraper of them all goes to incredible lengths to prevent scraping. How ironic.

I hope the US govt demolishes these monopolies. It's not just in web either, the closest historical precedent I can think of is the Robber Barons of the 30's

<comment><USER17> There's a thing called a robot.txt.

<comment><USER18> Yes, and google has been observed several times to ignore the robots.txt file

<comment><USER17> No, this is true in general. Maybe there's been some bugs (I would be surprised, can you link these multiple examples?) but Google respects robot.txt files

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I searched for a couple of celebrities, and in one case celebritynetworth.com is the top result, in the other it is the third result.

Both queries show info boxes with the estimated net worth, both cite other pages (no link to celebritynetworth.com), and one showed another number than celebritynetworth.com.

celebritynetworth.com has a robots.txt. This file has no restriction on Google or any other bot.

Each celebrity page seems to have the following meta tag:

      <meta name=googlebot content="index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1">

Given the above, it seems like Google is correctly listing celebritynetworth.com high in it's rankings, and using other resources for the info box, which is what celebritynetworth.com is asking them to do.

While it's hard to speculate about what happened in the past, it looks like Google is doing the correct thing now, and that this information isn't actually so novel in general.

</comment><comment><USER20> "The Featured Snippet also incorporated images of the celebrity scraped from the web to create a widget that took up 40% of a desktop result page and 80% of a mobile result page. This is still how Google displays most net worth results today"

FWIW I tried "larry david net worth" and "craig david net worth" on Google from the UK and didn't get this result - Larry David was a snippet from Wikipedia, clearly attributed, and Craig David was from CNW, again clearly attributed - basically an oversize search result with the relevant bit highlighted. Not sure if this is a recent change in response to this or not

</comment><comment><USER21> Out of curiosity, I tried searching a number of "$X Net Worth Queries" to see how it looks today. Snoop Dogg, Mike Trout, Will Smith.

For each I got an infobox sourced from Wikipedia or a news article and Celebrity Net Worth was somewhere in the top 1-3 organic results.

<comment><USER22> When you consider the impact/cost of an anti-trust case vs. the ease for Google to change rankings so that the evidence site (CNW) is back in the top 3 results...

Of course you would do that if you were Google... And here there's nothing illegal, it would just defuse more journalistic bombs for Google. Smart move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I only see one solution: Make Google split the search business out so that it only provides search and nothing else. That was Google's stated 'point' of their own site and they should be held to it.

They are like a bad rash, just ripping off from businesses of all sizes and relying on their dominance in search and financial muscle to get away with it.

Siphoning off search into its own unit would defang Google's ability to use their search engine dominance to upend others business models and would also reduce the incentives to do such shady things as well.

<comment><USER24> Another solution is to make Google pay for the estimated damages caused to the website (I think it's reasonable to extrapolate growth for a few more years) as well as a massive punitive damage as well because of the callousness and deliberate manner in which they contacted the site owners AND TOLD HIM THEY WOULD TAKE WHAT THEY WANT. I hope Google is forced to pay CNW no less than one billion dollars for this obvious abuse of their position and theft of their content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think this quote is the most interesting in the testimony:

 _In June 2019, search engine analyst Rand Fishkin put together a report about Google using data from web analytics firm Jumpshot. The data show that today an estimated 48.96% of all Google searches end with the searcher NOT clicking through to a website. The same report estimates that 7% of all search clicks go to a paid ad result and 12% go to properties owned by Google's parent company Alphabet. Moreover, those stats do not even show the full extent of the problem because the data largely relied upon desktop devices and could not track searches that took users to a Google-owned app like the YouTube or Google Maps._

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm not sure if this is ethical and legal problem. But one thing for sure is Google has too much leverage both technically and financially.

Google has slowly increased the reliability on Google for consumers everywhere that they are essentially a monopoly which is bad for the market. It is about time a new player comes into picture with same user interface and different business model which can empower these internet entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER27> The same could be said for Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc. At least Google open sources their operating system, browser and are mostly responsible for Kubernetes. If people are going to have such high expectations of one company why do they not equally apply the judgement.

<comment><USER28> There is also similar problems with all those companies too, not sure why you think that is some kind of defence of Google.

<comment><USER27> Because those companies are ignored while everyone jumps aboard the Google hate train, and if anything is going to be done to fix it then those changes need to be applied equally to all companies at the same time. Otherwise it does more harm than good.

<comment><USER28> People complain about the actions of all those companies quite regularly, Google isn't a victim here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Doesn't this behavior eventually hurt Google? If there's no incentive for third parties to collate, verify, and organize facts...eventually there isn't anyone to scrape. And the facts go stale.

<comment><USER30> It would depend on how the websites google are collecting data from operate. For example, somewhere like wikipedia isn't harmed through google's re-use of the facts they collate.

<comment><USER31> They are if they have less visitors to see their donation requests, stop making enough money and shut down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> An odd witness for the very true issues people have with Google Search. Google is crediting all websites it uses information from. It might be sad for such a site but I wonder how the creator thought that this is sustainable. Sites with biographical data for famous people already existed and for them adding net worth information is easy. So if not Google had kill them, they might have being killed by IMDb oder Wikipedia.

<comment><USER33> According to the document, the net worth was unique researched data that is still yet to be accurately replicated. In other words, the company created the data, they did not simply display it. If they were sunk by IMDb copying their data then the data source goes away too, unless IMDb invests in a research team.

What happens when CNW goes offline, how will Google replace the now missing data? Remembering that celebrities constantly change net worth and new ones show up every week, so it's a moving target that someone needs to chase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Surely they can find a stronger example than a spammy SEO business that didn't exist before google, couldn't exist without and doesn't exist after? Google sucks now but not finding this compelling

<comment><USER35> Why would the nature of the business be relevant to a House committee hearing? CNW is not on trial here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Information without DRM can easily become a public good: it can be copied without limits and a loss in quality. Once it's out in the open, people will access it easier, but that also makes it near-impossible for the information- owner to make a living. At the beginning, Google was beneficial to both the information-seekers and the information-owners because it connected them (while showing ads in the search results). With the "featured snippet" it increased the user experience by a little (and multiply this with the user count), while depriving the original owner of information from its entire revenue. (Much like how Spotify made music cheaper for everyone, at the expense of artists.) The nice way to solve this would be if Google gave a cut to CelebrityNetWorth, as Spotify gives to artists. (While Google would bring CNW more requests this way, their price would also be depressed; Spotify doesn't pave the way to the riches. [1])

[1]: [https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/04/12/streaming- music-...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/04/12/streaming-music- services-rates-2018/)

</comment><comment><USER37> I have Zero respect for the Google engineers and PMs who worked on this project, scraping content without attributing to the original source, and subsequent change in the search ranking of the original source.

A very bad taste in the mouth indeed.

<comment><USER38> I am not trying to defend Google or its practices. But how is the activity of CNW researchers different from what is Google doing? Unless the author elaborates on their method, "Educated guess" sounds like scrapping content without sourcing the author in the first place.

<comment><USER39> AFAIK there's no other database that they scrapped from. Reading sources like news articles, documents etc. is very different from copying the database that someone else created.

It's like the difference of tapping Yelp's API and create a competing service and looking at Yelp, Google, Squirespace etc. to create a restorant recommendations website.

<comment><USER38> Humans can also scrap. If CNW employs researchers, they must be using sources. These sources are not referenced in their content. Either CNW is merely making up the net worth figures, or their researchers are pulling data from somewhere to provide information about 25,000+ celebrities. If the second is valid, they aren't that different from what Google is doing.

<comment><USER39> I answered your question about how CNW researchers are different. Using sources to create a knowledge base for something is very different than hooking up to a knowledge base that was already curated and displaying it as your own without compensating the people who curated it.

Yes, sure. It would be nice of them to disclose their own sources too but I fail to see how this is related to Google straight out copying their curated database and showing it to its own users.

Like, why are we discussing it? What is the agenda here? Are we trying to conclude that CNW owners are also not that nice? Are you claiming that CNW copied your own research and demand justice too? If you explain what is your point here, maybe we can have a productive discussion instead of repeating the same stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It looks more like an ethical argument than a legal one. I don't understand how this data would be protected under US law. Can someone explain if you think otherwise?

Is the issue that the data was scraped? Or is the issue Google appropriated the scraped data for use in their search results?

From my perspective it just looks like a bad business model: spend a lot of time and effort estimating net worth, and then publish it on the open web. Publicly available data can be freely and legally scraped (and I wouldn't want it any other way): [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/09/victory-ruling-hiq- v-l...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/09/victory-ruling-hiq-v-linkedin- protects-scraping-public-data)

<comment><USER41> This has been settled case law for decades thanks to sports almanacs. Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation of facts can be.

If CNW had published a book, Google purchased it off of Amazon, and paid an intern to retype it in to fact boxes - that is clear copyright violation.

The fact that Google bought the data from a third party data broker who scraped CNW does not absolve them of liability in my mind.

<comment><USER42> > Facts (like someones net worth) cannot be copyrighted. However a compilation > of facts can be.

It's my understanding that this ceased to be true in the USA in 1991 and that a minimal degree of creativity is required [0]. Other countries have started following suit more recently.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co).

<comment><USER43> IMO there's a huge difference between a list of names and numbers generated by a research team estimating someone's net worth, and a phone book.

One is a list of informed estimates, the other is a list of (essentially) facts.

Informed guesses are IMO essentially much longer pieces of creative content, just condensed into a number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> You would not expect of such big business to behave in a different way. What we consumers can do is to try to use alternative services where we can, e.g. I am happy with using Firefox instead of Chrome

<comment><USER45> same + duckduckgo & protonmail

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Many commenters are interpreting this as strictly a matter of copyright violation, and are asking the question of whether facts can be copyrighted. But that's too narrow a way of looking at this; there's also antitrust law. If Google scrapes everything interesting off of other sites and presents it as their own, even if it finds a way to do this that does not violate copyright, it's anti-competitive behavior that may violate antitrust law.

(I'm not addressing the European database protection rules which may also apply).

</comment><comment><USER47> > Earlier this year, within weeks of the publication of a Wired magazine > article that included quotes from me and a recap of our story, the CNW > mobile app was banned from the Google Play store without explanation or > recourse

A lot of talk here about the scrapping and capturing of the ad revenue, but I thought this was the most scary part. It's one thing to capture ad revenue from SEO companies, it's another thing to act like the mob and start taking retribution against anyone that speaks out against you.

<comment><USER48> I think thats the point of a monopoly. They have such a large overarching reach that they don't need to respond in a direct way that could be proved to be retribution. They respond in another avenue that affects your business in another platform they control, in ways they don't have to explain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think many would be surprised at the trivial and childish changes that Google does to hurt web sites.

Many don't speak out for fear of further being punished by Google.

</comment><comment><USER50> There's evidence of Google engaging in similar behavior with regard to song lyrics on Genius.com: [https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/genius- google-...](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/genius-google-stole- lyrics-morse-code-848781/)

I think the points about people voluntarily building their businesses on Google's platform, and being thus beholden to Google's whims are well-made. The law, as it exists, doesn't seem to prevent that kind of thing since they're all private businesses, and this behavior benefits the consumer (arguably) even if it does hurt other businesses. Antitrust law (in the US) seems ill-prepared for the 21st century.

I tend to get interested in the policy concerns. Is web search so important that it should be considered a public utility, and thus regulated by the government? I think there's a case to be made there.

</comment><comment><USER51> Wow! Holy smokes. What a terrible company.

Oddly enough, as their practices may destroy the internet perhaps they will eventually destroy their own livelihood.

Speaking for myself, I no longer search for product reviews and comparisons. Why waste my time when all the content is fake? Probably fake due to the Google search ranking tweaks. Now I go straight to the sellers.

What is sad in all this is all the great people that work for such shitty companies and what that implies regarding the state of our morality as computer scientists and engineers.

</comment><comment><USER52> The impression I got from reading comments here is that CelebrityNetWorth.com isn't much more than a compilation of net worth figures in a database. I don't think this is a fair analysis of the holistic value of that website.

For instance, when I look at the analysis of Tim Cook, [https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest- businessmen/ceos/t...](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest- businessmen/ceos/tim-cook-net-wrth/), who's in the news this week partly because Bloomberg reported that his net worth has reached $1 billion, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-10/apple- s-c...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-10/apple-s-cook- becomes-billionaire-via-the-less-traveled-ceo-route), I see the value of CNW's news articles. The CNW news article has a similar value to the analysis that's present in the Bloomberg article reporting on the same thing.

In terms of how much of the intrinsic value of CelebrityNetWorth's website Google should be allowed to report directly in its search results, I'd say it would be fair to report CelebrityNetWorth's estimate of a celebrity's net worth so long as Google clearly attributed the data to the site that is their basis, and provided a link to the original information.

But in my opinion, the real value of CelebrityNetWorth.com in 2020 is the curated biographical content about the celebrities and their analytical pieces presented in context with their net worth estimates.

</comment><comment><USER53> People are saying this was a bad business model, but looking at the numbers it clearly wasn't—-unless we're also acknowledging that the bad part of the model was relying on Google to stay true to its stated policies.

</comment><comment><USER54> Isn't this a question if just scraping published data? How is this materially different from LinkedIn v hIQ ?

<comment><USER55> NAL, but IIRC it was alleged in the lawsuit that LinkedIn was making a competing product to hiQ. It also seems related to Associated Press vs Meltwater US Holdings, where the AP has developed a network to investigate and promulgate cutting news, and another company was copying parts of the news under "fair use", which was deemed infringement [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_v._Meltwater_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_v._Meltwater_U.S._Holdings,_Inc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> No moat? Don't be surprised when someone destroys your business model.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Don't be evil" ;-)

Is it still Google's motto?

<comment><USER57> They deprecated that years ago.

<comment><USER58> Gotta say, I preferred Google v1.0. The subsequent patches suck.

<comment><USER27> Android, Chromium and Kubernetes have come a long way. Plus there are a lot of other major open source projects that come out of Google. Way more than Microsoft, Apple and Amazon.

<comment><USER59> >Plus there are a lot of other major open source projects that come out of Google. Way more than Microsoft, Apple and Amazon.

Is it even true? MS does a lot of open source

<comment><USER27> Yes if you compare the code base size and the core components. Microsoft still hasn't open sourced it's main consumer operating system and neither has Apple.

<comment><USER60> Not a valid comparison since those are core products of both companies. Google hasn't and never will open source Search.

<comment><USER27> Android is one of Google's core products, as well as web (including Chromium).

<comment><USER61> chromium is open source because webkit (khtml) was open source

many useful parts of android are closed, and open source versions of most apps are languishing (calendar, contacts, dialer etc)

<comment><USER27> Have you checked out F-Droid lately, and how does this compare to Apple or Microsoft?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Information wants to be free, man.

<comment><USER22> Yes, that's OK if it's symmetrical: why can't we easily automate Google search results?

It's asymetry here that is the problem, not Information Freedom.

And i'm pretty sure this is the line/dark pattern Google is hoping for: that people give credit to Google for "Information Freedom"... missing the real issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> > Are everyday consumers harmed by Google's practices YES

How are consumers harmed by Google presenting extracted data in an infobox? Isn't it more convenient?

<comment><USER44> I think what author said is explained in the article, as that such approach undermines small businesses which provide informational services. They won't be able to hire data analysts and researchers anymore, hence quality of information in info boxes will decline as information gets outdated. In other words Google is stealing data presenting as it's own taking all the benefits of embedding ads data

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> > When pressed, the Google team said it would be good exposure for our brand.

Offering to pay people in exposure is a really slimy attempt at exploitation, full stop.

</comment><comment><USER65> I think Google is in the right here. Facts are not protected by copyright and they shouldn't be. Imagine being able to copyright the density of steel or the list of historical US presidents. It would be a disaster.

<comment><USER66> Some things _are_ facts, like the density of steel or the list of historical US presidents. But other things _aren 't_ facts, and where something isn't a fact but instead is implicit knowledge derived from a set of both data and assumptions (like a model or an algorithm) Google should absolutely not be taking that data and treating it as their own. Given the PDF includes this quote " _I decided to build a company that attempted to make educated guesses based on the sourcing of a full-time research team._ " I think we can assume that the data on CelebrityNetWorth wasn't "facts".

However, _even if CelebrityNetWorth 's data were facts_, I don't believe Google should be able allowed to replicate the work that people have put in to building a website that lists facts. Google could, and eventually probably will, replace every fact based website with a sidebar in their results page. People can't compete with that. That's using Google's (de facto) search results monopoly to _stop people searching the web_. That's making the web worse. That's stifling innovation. I might be able to dream up some way of using CelebrityNetWorth data to improve the world (somehow...), and Google would be stopping that.

The engineers who work at Google need to stop ruining the web by trying to turn it in to their own walled garden.

<comment><USER67> This is interesting. The final outcome could be that CNW shuts down. Then, the data won't be updated. So then google will have to drop the info box. And then someone will come along with an idea to track the net worth of celebrities...

Has Google set up some kind of hysteresis that results in the long term, repeated building and subsequent crushing of data aggregation companies?

<comment><USER68> > Then, the data won't be updated. So then google will have to drop the info > box

Google won't drop the info box, they don't care if the information is accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> The scariest thing for Google might be that generally people aren't cheering for them anymore, and many are following them closely to catch them as soon as possible.

Compare that to 10 years ago when I and others would cut them 9 yards of slack.

</comment><comment><USER70> I am not sure why copyright law doesn't apply? Also celebrity net worth should create a trademark net worth which is obviously an approximation of the true net worth. That's different than a sports fact.. But still I don't see why copyright law doesn't apply if Google is directly sourcing material.

</comment><comment><USER54> Anti-trust q: how is celebrity net worth "your" business if ~100% of your users came from Google in the first place?

Seems to me, you're entitled to lock up the data behind a paywall, and Google is entitled to not send you its users. Google's users can switch search engines.m and some do, e.g. I use duckduckgo for incognito.

More to the point, how would regulating Google change any of this? Who would determine a fair price for every piece of information?

My sense: to the extent you don't care about the privacy impassioned of CNW, they're a legit value- added service. The exact economic value is somewhere between $0.01 per year and $100B. The free market can be cruel, but it's the best mechanism we have for price optimization.

Personally, I'd have pushed back on Google researchers and told them that we know our content is unique, and if they want accurate results, to consider entering into a legit partnership... for example, publish N year old data for free but require captcha/ToS (excluding search engines) for current data. Individual users may not care, but search engines will want the fresh stuff as a competitive matter.

Of course, this all assumes there isn't a second CNW competitor with good- enough data, offering it for less than CNW... and if less=free, then too bad CNW...

This to me is the weakest link in the CNW business: too easy to gather good enough data cheaply and there's not enough value beyond the basic number e.g. what's the breakdown of CelebrityXs NW, NW over time etc etc - very little market for this premium content.

Put another way, i could create a website called "what's the current time in Minsk?" but its economic value would be closer to $.01/yr because it's undifferentiated and there's no premium value, so search engines can and should just display the time.

Now let's take weather: in some places the weather is pretty easy (see LA Story, with Steve Martin) and in others (cough nyc cough) the free feeds like NWS are crap and you never know whether to pack an umbrella. Accurate weather for NYC would be amazing value to millions of people and highly differentiated. The problem is that this data is super hard to get - <USER3> current data are often wrong! But if by some miracle you had this data, no way would i publish it - instead show that you've got the goods and license it. Google might play cheapskate but the weather apps would pay up and probably uber/lyft, the city of NY etc. Once you've got a few customers then approach Google: this data would be useful across the enterprise. You'd make a killing. But oh yeah, it's really freaking hard (unlike CNW).

</comment><comment><USER71> I read the statement and think Google used and then and abused their service, but at the same time, publishing a database of people's net worth strikes me as being pretty unethical. Would they have been able to handle a GDPR request? Why didn't they put their own and their families info up there first?

<comment><USER72> In Sweden, Finland, and Norway, everyone's income tax records are public. Is that unethical?

<comment><USER73> Ethical is a bit of a wide term but I'm sure it's easy to construct situations that are problematic.

E.g. an abusive ex partner can check whether you're likely to have switched job, even from the most basic info. If tax paid is revealed then you can work out what government benefits a person might be on, including those relating to health and disability.

Isn't the implementation in Norway such that the press have special access not afforded to individuals? That also seems pretty questionable.

<comment><USER74> Everyone have access but you have to log in with your ID and the ones you check can see that you checked them. You can check 500 people each month.

Your scenario seems pretty far fetched to me since this information will be published in October for the previous year. It contains the income and tax for the whole year only. It would be pretty difficult to know the information you suggest from the limited, delayed records.

As a Norwegian I fully support our system with public tax records.

<comment><USER73> I'm not sure how delayed records would stop you working out disability status or any other sensitive status that affects tax paid. The tax regime for any given year is presumably public info.

People are notified but that's hardly going to stop someone seeking to upset you as in the example scenario.

Though as I understand the press can do mass lookups with no notification. Don't you find that disparity concerning? The idea that the government gets to decide what counts as 'press' is already something people from countries that don't operate that way would consider objectionable. Let alone giving them the power to decide who should be 'outed' for their tax affairs.

To be fair, that's perhaps more an issue of this particular implementation, rather than fundamental. But it's an example of how it can be used to entrench the establishment.

<comment><USER74> Everyone have pretty much unlimited access in practice so I dont see that the press have any special advantage. The press have guidelines that they should only publish the tax of public figures and I have not seen them abuse this so far.

We are a country with a high degree of social trust, and that is what I believe makes our country great. I realize that our system is not for everyone and that is fair.

<comment><USER73> Sure, I've spent some time in Norway, I get it. It's definitely very different to societies like the UK or US.

I'm not fundamentally against open tax records like this, but even in Norway there are bad actors and if we are going to play a game of 'how can this be exploited', I think it's definitely possible to do so.

I can't really agree that a 500 limit with notification is 'in practice' the same as no limit with no notification. Data mining and other techniques are possible at scale but not with only 500 records. It also makes exploitation more profitable. Harvesting data for e.g. commercial targeting is not very appealing for n = 500. It's definitely appealing at n = 5 million.

Do the press abuse it in this way? Well, they don't publish stories about doing it. But how would you really know otherwise until some scandal breaks? Are lookups by press orgs also open to public inspection? Maybe you have some freedom of information laws that would let you request that data.

<comment><USER74> Sure, almost any system can be exploited so at some point we just have to compare the advantages with the disadvantages. I am not aware of any abuse of this system. Everyone knows that their tax and income is pretty much public knowledge so they will live their life by that assumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I felt sad reading the whole thing. I searched "will smith net worth" and after wikipedia snippet, the first result was celebrity net worth.

CNW depends on google, uses them to make money. Google is a search tool and wants to show whatever results makes users happy. CNW can simply remove itself from the platform and tell google never to use their data. It almost sounds like CNW is trying to bite the hand of only company made them something. I feel bad for CNW but this is natural. I've seen many of my and my clients' sites go rock bottom because of google updates.

"Google Stole My Business" sounds harsh. More like "google doesn't do what I want them to do." CNW was nothing before google. Maybe CNW could make technical changes to their content the way wallpaper/graphics sites made changes after google image search updates.

<comment><USER76> "Google Takes My Data and Presents It as Their Own" a better title for you?

<comment><USER75> No of course not. My point is that google will change things as they did in the past. The way google snippet works is simple, they scan the data and sum it up.

I searched multiple results right now. "bill gates net worth" data was taken from Wikipedia and CNW didn't even exist on the first page.

"Beyonce net worth" showed a detailed snippet for businessinsider, and second link was CNW. Same for Eminem, 210M from groovewallet, and second result was CNW.

I just couldn't find what CNW is complaining about.

<comment><USER76> And the wikipedia page cites [https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill- gates/?list=billionaires...](https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill- gates/?list=billionaires#46f7f1c3689f)

As the source for Bill Gates' net worth. Why can a free, community edited website successfully attribute it's sources but a trillion dollar company cannot?

<comment><USER75> Can you or anyone show me an example? I searched over ten celebrities and only found CNW as either 2nd or 3rd result. All snippets were giving full details to the sites.

<comment><USER76> CNW's statement was about 2012 to the present. The damage is done.

I distinctly remember even recently that Google wouldn't provide attribution in the snippet.

Though now, it sure seems like the #1 results for most of my "{celebrity} net worth" queries are AMP (AKA Google approved™) pages.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: where do you get your SSL certificates? - <AUTHOR>

I got a certificate from GoDaddy, and it only seems to work without throwing user warnings on only a handful of browsers (FF on windows, but not on Linux, not chrome, etc).  Shelling out several hundred bucks for a Verisign certificate seems awfully steep for a shoe string operation.  Are there better alternatives? <comment><USER2> This is a known issue with GoDaddy certificates, and can be corrected by specifying an intermediate cert. I ran into the same issue at one point in the past and had to Google a bit to fix it.

GoDaddy itself is not a trusted CA on all platforms. It is backed by a trusted CA. To make this work, you have to add a "certificate chain" in your web server and provide the additional certificate linking GoDaddy to that trusted CA.

Read more about the configuration here. Note that you'll have to download one additional certificate, not just the main signed certificate. <http://help.godaddy.com/article/5346>

Here is what my ssl.conf looks like in Apache:

       SSLCertificateFile /etc/httpd/foo.crt
       SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/httpd/foo.key
       SSLCertificateChainFile /etc/httpd/gd_bundle.crt

That gd_bundle.crt is what you're probably missing. Hope this helps.

<comment><USER3> I use godaddy cert's at work and have ran into the same issue. A tip for anyone using nginx. Cat the intermediate cert into your ssl certificate file. It fixes the warnings.

Part 3 here: [http://nginx.groups.wuyasea.com/articles/how-to-setup- godadd...](http://nginx.groups.wuyasea.com/articles/how-to-setup-godaddy-ssl- certificate-on-nginx/2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.trustico.co.uk/products/rapidssl/cheap- rapidssl-s...](http://www.trustico.co.uk/products/rapidssl/cheap-rapidssl-ssl- certificate.php)

Cheap, no certificate chain, and everything seems to have the roots installed.

It doesn't really matter where you get them from, the whole thing is a bit of a scam anyway. Since your security is as weak as the worst issuer, there's no point in buying a "premium" certificate.

<comment><USER5> _Since your security is as weak as the worst issuer, there's no point in buying a "premium" certificate._

True for most of us here, but not universally true. Extended validation certificates are expensive but provide an unparalleled level of reassurance for users: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificate>

<comment><USER6> I respectfully disagree. I recently bought an EV certificate from VeriSign and, apart from some paperwork, the only "extended" validation was a two minute phone call from a VeriSign rep. Well worth the EUR 575,- :/

<comment><USER7> I assume they verified that you are in fact a citizen of a first-world country, possibly with an actual company that pays its taxes. That's basically all the trust an average site needs. It's not so much that your website can now be trusted to never do anything nasty, but if it ever does there is someone to hold accountable.

<comment><USER8> There will of been at minimum checking for address and phone listings for the company (yell or scoot for UK EV's) in addition to the human telephone validation for signer and approver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I use NameCheap's RapidSSL product for $10/yr. The only thing I don't like about it is that when you register, the 'Organization' value you enter gets overwritten with the common name/domain name. This means that when someone reads the certificate details in their browser, they can't find any reference to your actual company name.

<comment><USER10> We also went with this option, after finding out about it here on HN about a month ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1317987>

Having the domain name as the certificate "Organization" value is not an issue for us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like DigiCert.

One nice thing they do is give you a www alt name for your domain. (e.g. alt name == www.apple.com for domain apple.com). Thawte charges a minimum of $169 for this.

This means that your certificate will be able to be used by www.domain.com and domain.com.

Some certs aren't able to be used for both (<https://amazon.com>), and the alternative is to buy two certs.

</comment><comment><USER12> Check out this thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=464916>

Also, you might want to provide a bit more about the cert you currently have if you want to know why it's not working on other browsers. Finally, you might want to consider asking/browsing on serverfault.com. There are good discussions on the topic of SSL on that site.

</comment><comment><USER13> I bought RateMyStudentRental's SSL cert from Godaddy and it was a PITA to setup compared to if you get a trusted root certificate (that does not need to be chained).

After reading this thread [1] I bought LeadNuke's SSL cert from NameCheap (a rebranded RapidSSL certificate). Sure enough it was incredibly easy to setup, and is trusted on all the main browsers.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1318340>

</comment><comment><USER14> StartCom - their "domain validated" certificates (which other CAs charge for) are free: <http://www.startssl.com/>

<comment><USER15> StartCom is great, but 2 caveats: I found that StartCom's root authority is not recognized by some IE6 installs, and is still not recognized by Java (so applets, web start, java clients talking to your server _may_ have problems ...).

<comment><USER16> The first time a user goes to StartCom on Windows XP on IE6, it will pop up with a "cert error". This is because the user hasn't recently updated their root certs through a super-optional Windows Update install. However, any subsequent loads will work as Windows will check and update their root certificates in the background.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We like Gandi, they offer very good customer service.

<http://en.gandi.net/ssl>

</comment><comment><USER18> I use gandi.net. Gandi provides a free SSL certificate (for one year) when you buy/renew a domain from them. It's quite a good deal.

<http://en.gandi.net/ssl>

</comment><comment><USER19> I was thinking about this just today. I want a cert to use with Heroku. I love Dreamhost and I use them for all my static websites, backup storage, git hosting, and domain registration. They provide SSl certs for $15, but I've never bought one and they don't provide a lot of details. They mention that you can use them with other hosts, but not much else.

Anyone have experience with Dreamhost SSL?

<comment><USER20> I've used them and they work fine. They say they don't provide IIS support (indeed, the format of their certs doesn't work for IIS, but you can use an online convertor to get them into the right format).

I believe they just resell comodo from when I used it last, but you could probably check

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> We use a Comodo certificate, but it's been so long since we got it issued, I don't think they even offer it anymore?!?

I would try these sites:

\- <http://instantssl.com> (comodo)

\- <http://www.sslmatic.com> (retailer of various)

That should be a start.

</comment><comment><USER22> You probably forgot to combine the intermediate certs with your domain cert. That said, I use startcom (<http://www.startssl.com/>). You can get free SSL certs there that work in 99% of browsers. If you pay the identity verification fee (I think about $50), you can get free WILDCARD certificates!

</comment><comment><USER23> Are SSL certificates internationally recognized? In other words, if I have users coming from both the US as well as a variety of other nations, will SSL certificates be recognized regardless of the user's origin, or is there such a thing as an international SSL certificate?

<comment><USER8> Yes, though check with your CA for IDN support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> (Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about) You might want to try DigiCert: I researched a few different providers earlier this year, and DigiCert seemed to be cheap and trusted. No direct experience with them, tho.

</comment><comment><USER25> my next HTTPS cert will be from DynaDot since I liked how they run their DNS registrar service (with optional API, yeah!) and generally got a "smart" vibe from them. I've gotten certs from VeriSign and generally found it surprisingly expensive, complex and slow. Fundamentally, a file needs to be generated. Generating that file should be pretty fast on a modern computer, and a commodity service. Yes there's some extra stuff potentially involved. But at it's core it should be a pretty simple and fast and therefore cheap process. IMO.

</comment><comment><USER26> <https://www.geocerts.com>

Fast provisioning and a simple-to-use interface. I've bought many certs from them and am very satisfied.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: Used RapidSSL, paid $10.95. Best lunch's worth of money ever spent. Beats GoDaddy, as no cert chains are not required.

</comment><comment><USER27> maybe something's wrong with how you configured it. Maybe the host name doesn't match?

<comment><USER28> Why would that change between browsers and operating systems?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because different browsers have different set of root certificates/authorities to authenticate the certificate.

<comment><USER28> Ah. The host name on the root cert. I was thinking that the host name on the server's certificate was being referenced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> We use thawte.

<comment><USER30> I've tried using thawte - I placed 3 sales calls and an email. No one ever answered the phone (an 800 number!) and it took three weeks for someone to call me back after the email. No thanks

<comment><USER31> Seconded - their support and checkout process all suck hard. What's great about SSL's... they are all scams.. but you get to decide the level for which they screw you.

<comment><USER32> Yup. Their interface doesn't even support the ability to add licenses to an existing certificate since their software update. Thanks but no thanks, I can save my company a bomb by going elsewhere

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I got a free 3 month certificate from Comodo and then I used a promotional offer from RapidSSL for Comodo customers to get a free 1 year cert (in addition to 3 months). Result: free 15 month certificate.</comment>


Why a remote workforce is bad for startups - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/11/why-a-remote-workforce-is-bad-for-startups/

<comment><USER2> After being part of several remote teams I would say the dynamics are the same only the medium has changed and if you don't adapt the dynamics to the medium then you will have issue. One one team I was on everything was done in the issue tracker and email as such their was very little dynamics. On another we still had a tracker and email but we also had a developer chat room set up in Skype, as such the developers shared personal stories, interesting news and work related stuff as such the dynamics grew. I think it takes particular individuals to comprise and build a remote team but if you have them then can build just as effective of a team as all on location. The difference is that you have the added advantage of finding talent in other local markets. I think in the not too distant future it will be common wisdom that if you are not competing for talent in other markets you are not competing.</comment>


'Fortnite' Pro's Lawsuit Could Change How Streamers Do Business - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evyb9m/this-fortnite-pros-lawsuit-could-change-how-streamers-do-business <comment><AUTHOR> I wonder if there's a forced arbitration agreement. If so, state law could be irrelevant. Arbitrators can basically do whatever they want.</comment>


Innocent home videos becoming Pakistani 'porn' on YouTube and destroying lives - <AUTHOR> http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-10-11/innocent-home-videos-are-becoming-pakistani-porn-youtube-and-destroying-lives

<comment><USER2> I'm obviously not a cultural expert but I spent two years between Iraq and Afghanistan living with and training the local security forces.

Prior to going over we were taught how culturally sensitive we had to be because the slightest offense (bottom of the shoe, stepping foot inside a mosque, eating/drinking openly during Ramadan) could put us in danger.

No doubt, many are devout and live up to the high standards of their culture. Yet, I was surprised at how many more weren't. I've never been asked for porn so many times in my life. A large number of them seem absolutely obsessed with porn, yet when it comes to their wives and sisters they dare not show their face in public.

We also encountered a number of uncomfortable situations where some of the senior officials would disregard Ramadan and eat/drink openly in front of the (armed) guards, who weren't shy about showing their anger. When offered food/drink we had to choose between offending the official or offending the guard. We chose to offend the people without the weapons and not eat/drink. This was during mid/late 2012 when the incidence of green-on-blue (Afghans killing US forces) was relatively high, so you can imagine the tension.

It's an incredibly difficult place to be without offending someone, especially for young women who are just trying to be happy. I may be describing it incorrectly, but the clash between Sharia law and Western influence will continue as long as fundamentalism is so tightly woven into the culture.

When driving through the countryside and seeing mud hits with satellite dishes on them and their inhabitants with cell phones it seems like a perfect example of the cultural clash.

It's even present with the more modern/forward-thinking people. For example, the interpreters on our team who didn't practice Ramadan were (severely) looked down upon by those who did. There's no real separation between cultural identity and religious identity. Unfortunately, I see the same thing here in America (thankfully to a lesser extent) where people seem to believe that ethics and morals come from religion and unintentionally (or not) force their religious beliefs on others.

Anyway, the saddest thing is that these are really great people but the archaic cultural expectations are suffocating. Even if they don't truly believe it, they have to pretend they do in public. It's a shame-based culture ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society)). The weak seem to follow it blindly while those who are most likely to take a step forward suffer the consequences. Though to a much lesser degree I saw some similarities to my upbringing (13 years of Catholic school, K-12 (guilt- based: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_society](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_society)) with the same guilt and archaic expectations.

Thankfully I think we're moving away from all of this, but as long as people are dying over stupid shit and kids can't be themselves it's not soon enough. And even though we have a little bit of this in America it really is awesome that everyone can openly express themselves. I don't think this kind of freedom, diversity, and tolerance exists anywhere else in the world with such a large population. I guess it just means more to me now since I've seen the alternative, because I never noticed it before.

</comment><comment><USER3> Even in 2013 this is happening on Earth, what a shame to humanity.</comment>


Light Tracer – Experimental GPU ray tracer for web - <AUTHOR> http://lighttracer.org/ <comment><USER2> After clicking "Try it now", I see a loading spinner for a while and then a an empty blue page.

Console outputs a bunch of stuff:

wasm streaming compile failed: TypeError: Response has unsupported MIME type

Assertion failed: glGetError() == 0, at: src/deps\sokol_gfx.h,3008,_sg_create_image

WebGL warning: texImage2D: Requested size at this level is unsupported.

uncaught exception: abort("Assertion failed: glGetError() == 0, at: src/deps\\\sokol_gfx.h,3008,_sg_create_image") at jsStackTrace@[http://lighttracer.org/index.js:1170:13](http://lighttracer.org/index.js:1170:13)

On Firefox 67 on Linux.

</comment><comment><USER3> This site really needs HTTPS. The app is fun, but please add HTTPS.

Caustics look pretty good after increasing the number of passes: [https://gc.gy/28927731.png](https://gc.gy/28927731.png)

</comment><comment><USER4> Does exposing GPU functions to the browser mean that my gaming PC will be mining ether for random sites? Compared to btc/cpu attacks, the reward here would be ludicrous

<comment><USER5> Already happening around the web. A new monetization strategy for web apps pay to 'opt out'

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Needs some selection editor, ability to view the scene nodes as a tree or other representation and make selections. I tried loading an obj of a face, with groups for the face parts, eyeballs, and inner mouth. I can really only change the view because I can only select one geometry group to manipulate, not all or a parent to multiple groups within the obj geometry. Selecting one part is sorta useless, unless one can select multiple for group operations.

</comment><comment><USER7> According to the github issue tracker, it's supposed to also work in Safari, but there's a bug somewhere and they don't know how to find and fix it.

<comment><USER8> Is there a report on bugs.webkit.org? I'm curious what's going on on the WK side, and that's superior to the great black hole of radar

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure the name is good because light tracing means 'ray tracing from the light to the camera'.

Light tracing gives the best results in theory, but it not very usefull because a lot of rays will be rendered without ever ending up in the camera. Which is ofcourse a waste of resourses.

Looks like this is a 'normal' path tracer.

<comment><USER10> It's true that "light tracing" is some times used to describe forward-only ray tracing, but I don't think there is much confusion added by the term here. Anyone who knows the terminology (so could be confused) also knows that no efficient path tracer is forward only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am not sure what is going on, but on my Mac, clicking "Try it out" brings the beach ball and crashes the Finder! 100% reproducible... so be careful if you don't want to loose everything you are working on before clicking...

</comment><comment><USER12> Getting a black screen on iOS Chrome

<comment><USER13> That's because browsers on iOS can't use their own engine and have to use Safaris. Unfortunately, Safari is not supported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Closed source, it seems?

</comment><comment><USER15> > It appears you are using Firefox browser

> Unfortunately open file dialog is unsupported at the moment in this browser.

> Please try to drop a file into the browser instead

Ah the IE memories!</comment>


Operator: Open Source RSS News Reader Circumventing Censorship - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brandonwiley/operator-a-news-reader-that-circumvents-internet-c

<comment><AUTHOR> This project is based on the Dust polymorphic protocol engine: [https://github.com/blanu/Dust](https://github.com/blanu/Dust)

A talk the developer did at Defcon: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z56andRyCY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z56andRyCY)</comment>


Reversing Mobile Traffic Lights - <AUTHOR> http://www.bastibl.net/traffic-lights/ <comment><USER2> In this case, there is a very significant difference between _reversing_ and _reverse engineering_.

<comment><USER3> yeah I thought he was going to tamper with them</comment></comment>


Show HN: HN Reads – the books of hacker news - <AUTHOR> http://www.hnreads.com/ <comment><USER2> I really like this, also wondering why this is not getting more attention here. Some things i would like to see are:

      - beeing able to sort (amount of mentions, threads e.g. )
      - when opening a link in a new tab in chrome a get the start page instead of the detail page
      - direct link to amazon in the overview list

Keep it up :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestions. I was thinking that sorting, as well as limiting the date range, would be useful. I'll also sort out the new tab opening :). If you had any other suggestions, feel free to let me know!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is damn good. Surprised it's not getting attention at all. Well done, bookmarked!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is great. I assume you used the API for this, any chance that's available on GitHub?

<comment><AUTHOR> I used the haxor python wrapper for the API [https://github.com/avinassh/haxor](https://github.com/avinassh/haxor). It was nice and easy to use :).</comment></comment>


Facebook's Adam Mosseri on Why You'll See Less Video, More from Friends - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-adam-mosseri-on-why-youll-see-less-video-more-from-friends/ <comment><USER2> Why don't they just give us the ability to customize what we want to run on our feed?

Like we could choose chronological, controversial, event based, whatever, I'm sure they could be creative, some could be algorithms. They could keep the default they have now which most people wouldn't change. Then they could inject ads by whatever means they want and we could check them out or click on them or ignore them as we see fit and they could make a little money.

This isn't one of those "Why don't they just..." type posts where it's obvious why not. It's a serious question, like why can't they do this? I mean presumably there's some answer where they say that they have tested it and the current scheme increases engagement, or something like that.

That seems unconvincing though, clearly there's a problem here they are trying to address. It's a piece of software, can't they add some controls to how people use it?

<comment><USER3> _Why don 't they just give us the ability to customize what we want to run on our feed?_

It has to be the same for everybody; they have to maintain a consistent UX because it's harder to sell random reach to advertisers. Remember that you're not Facebook's customer, so this is a move to keep eyeballs from leaving.

Take away the tools that can be used for political manipulation and Facebook starts looking a lot more like Snap/IG/TWTR/some new thing.

<comment><USER4> There's nothing random about Facebook advertising sales. Regardless of how your feed is customized, they know exactly who you are and what you're interested in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not being in control of what I see is why I stopped using Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I want to control what is in my feed, and I want it in chronological order. Twitter and Facebook make me feel passive and helpless.

I use reddit because I'm in control: I only see what I subscribe to, and I can switch between popular and chronological.

<comment><USER6> You can still switch between algorithmic and chronological order on Twitter. At least on their mobile website

<comment><USER5> Are you sure? I have "show best tweets first" turned off and my tweets are not in chronological order after signing in to check right now.

<comment><USER6> From time to time, it shows 5 random older tweets on top. But everything else is in chronological order.

<comment><USER5> I have tweets out of chronological order 20-30+ tweets down from the top...

I'm assuming it's different for you because you check Twitter often? In either case the feed is most definitely not in chronological order, but determined by an opaque, secret algorithm.

<comment><USER6> I check Twitter maybe 5 times a day. "Algo ordered" tweets show if I won't check my feed for two days. I'm from Slovakia so maybe that's the reason - Twitter is testing different features in different countries. In fact, Slovakia has new FB feed for months now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This just reinforces the idea that Facebook has long jumped the shark -- they think their role is to orchestrate your interactions with friends. Not looking forward to 'ostracism-as-a-service'...

</comment><comment><USER8> Never forget that Facebook has "tweaked" its newsfeed to specifically make hundreds of thousands of people feel sad and depressed for days or months, just to see if they could. And then they bragged about how great they are in a published paper that violated all ethics and morals worldwide.

Why will I see less video, and more from friends? Because I won't be on facebook.

Edit: From FTA:

> But the other is a lot of the research that we've done and the research > that's out there in the field and in academia that we've read suggests that > online interacting with people is positively correlated with a lot of > measures of well-being, whereas passively consuming media content online is > less so.

They do their own research on users, by modifying their news feed and measuring their emotions with sentiment analysis. You are not just a product they sell, you are also a product they experiment on. It's not worth it.

Edit 2: On the secret psychological experiments that Facebook executes to torture your mind: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook- tinke...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with- users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html)

The real kicker, is that by using Facebook they argue that you give consent to them to conduct unlimited psychological experiments on you in secret.

> It argued that its 1.28 billion monthly users gave blanket consent to the > company's research as a condition of using the service.

<comment><USER9> "Contagious" by Jonah Berger talks about how anger and anxiety makes people share memes. I find that Facebook and the organizations that use it are NOT interested in my mental health. They're interested in triggering my sharing response.

I quit FB and my mental health improved.

I don't mind using Goodreads because Amazon and I have the same goal: they want me to buy and read books, and guess what? So do I.

<comment><USER10> I also have experience a drop in my basal anxiety since cutting out Facebook. I also learned, since being gone for a month or so, that many of those people aren't really interested in talking with me if it takes leaving the Facebook ecosystem. They can stay. Good riddance to all of it.

<comment><USER9> It also turns out that group text messaging is included on your phone. So anyone you _really_ want to talk to is _always_ nearby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If they wanted to put users in control they'd let us filter out all videos. Instead it's ranking algorithm knows best.

<comment><USER12> This! I don't want to see any video content.

<comment><USER13> I'm fine with video, but I'd like the volume control to be single video specific. Right now, if you watch and listen to one video, the volume remains on for the remaining videos that autoplay when you scroll by. I'd prefer that volume is off unless I tap on a video.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My interpretation is this: Facebook is now going to charge advertisers a lot more money to appear on Newsfeeds.

Eventually the newsfeed will become polluted again, and Facebook will announce sweeping changes to address this and the cycle will continue.

</comment><comment><USER15> >"Video is, primarily, a passive experience. You tend to just sit back and watch it. And while you're watching it, you're not usually liking or comment or speaking with friends."

And how is this different than the passive experience of scrolling endlessly through people's vacation pictures, food pictures and baby pictures? Is clicking on a blue thumb icon really an "active" experience. Is writing a one lime comment about the picture of someones hamburger or their vacation shots really engaging with friends? This is no more of an active social interaction than a bag of potato chips is a meal.

I feel like the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in, regardless of these PR contrivances to convince us otherwise.

However, I'm sure in the next 6 month'z Zuckerberg will be on a press junket telling us all that "the problem is fixed" and that their data shows that people are having meaningful experiences on FB and that FB is bringing people together.

</comment><comment><USER16> Thank god, maybe I will actually want to use FB instead of feeling like I have too because everyone is on it for uses x y and z. It used to actually be a fun place to go and catch up with friends who are in different time zones etc.

</comment><comment><USER17> Haven't seen any mention of it, but it would be in line with these goals to rank posts with lots of angry reacts or angry reacts to comments worse. Wonder if that's going to be a factor.

</comment><comment><USER18> So they figured people tolerate irrelevant posts about their friends, which their friends did not share (Facebook users them to retain attention), more, than irrelevant videos?

</comment><comment><USER19> this correlates a bit. In my circle common is to use fb only as messaging service. most friends dont have fb app even installed anymore as the news feed is trash. I assume this move is to try to get these users back.

</comment><comment><USER20> They obviously have metrics that long time users like myself are quitting and opting out and are getting scared. Their own employees probably hate the feed and the product, and I can't see how they couldn't. Everyone in that office probably feels shitty and raged up all day.

<comment><USER10> I second your sentiments, albeit unfounded by a source. The employee morale at Facebook must be suffering. I have stopped caring about being hirable there ever since I realized the negative impact their product has had on my life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Bit late Facebook. Most people have mostly given up on Facebook now.

<comment><USER13> 1.4 billion daily active users. Your use of the phrase "most people" is not in line with reality.

<comment><USER10> I don't believe those are real users after the crazy amounts of bots I saw during the US election.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure how you could see enough bots to actually put a dent in the 1.4 billion user number. Maybe you suspect you saw 100, maybe even a 1000, maybe 100,000 bots. Which is 0.007% of their users.

<comment><USER10> My experience is just a small sample, like a thimbleful of water from a firehose, but it may be representative of the larger picture.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Steve Young Is Still Earning Millions Off His USFL Contract From 1984 - <AUTHOR> http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/steve-young-is-still-earning-millions-off-his-usfl-contract-from-1984/ <comment><USER2> Just one in a long string of quarterbacks the Tampa Bay Buccaneers squandered.</comment>


Franz Kafka's porn brought out of the closet - <AUTHOR> http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4446131.ece

<comment><USER2> And Kafka's pr0n relates to HN how?

<comment><USER3> I don't know about you, but it has me thinking about making a porn site for Kafka enthusiasts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd like to know if Kafka will eventually be regarded as highly as he has been so far. Obviously he's brilliant. But it seems like much of what he's about is specific to modernity, and it's not clear that these are concerns that people will always have.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't think anyone who knows anything about Kafka sees him as a 'saintly' type. But then, this kind of journalism doesn't typically let reality get in the way of a good story twist.

<comment><USER4> Well, there certainly _was_ such a myth, if not of saintliness then at least a kind of purity, and its effects persist, and the porn does contradict this in a nicely vivid way.

There was an interesting NYRB article a few weeks ago that said similar things about the myths around Kafka that mostly came from Brod (<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21610>).

</comment></comment><comment> patrickg-zill Cockroach porn? Just kidding... I found that for myself, Kafka is best in small doses. When I read a lot at one time, I found myself laughing at the absurdity and wondering why Kafka didn't "get a life".

<comment><USER4> _I found myself laughing at the absurdity_

There's a famous story of Kafka reading his stuff to friends and laughing so hard that he couldn't continue. It seems he was more a comic writer than people think, and your reaction might not be so far off.

It's fascinating how creations come to be inseparable from the filters (e.g., Kafka as prophet of modernist despair) built up by others after the fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Damn, that's disappointing. The headline made me think it was stuff he _wrote_ , not stuff he collected.</comment>


UK schoolboy corrects Nasa data error - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39351833 <comment><USER2> *NASA

<comment><USER3> The BBC has an editorial policy to titlecase acronyms unless they choose not to, such as BBC and IRA.

Nasa and others are deliberately titlecased for reasons I can't make heads or tails of: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art201307021...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133530)

<comment><USER4> Looks like if you pronounce them as letters they are capped, otherwise only the first letter gets capped. They'd say a Fisa court allowed the NSA to [do something].</comment></comment></comment>


Loss of Locational Privacy While Traveling in Your Automobile (2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-21/dc-21-presentations/Pukingmonkey/DEFCON-21-Pukingmonkey-The-Road-Less-Surreptitiously-Traveled-Updated.pdf <comment><USER2> This is a nice article that highlights some of the more important case law regarding privacy while traveling in your car. But I think it's important to make clear that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements, car or otherwise (U.S. v Knotts). While most agree that the infallibility and general capability of GPS does create a new technological perception of privacy in public spaces, and that an individual does not shirk all expectations of privacy once they are in a vehicle, one argument is that the technology does not make something that was previously public now private. Carpenter v. U.S. is a landmark case right now that will be decided this summer and is distinct from Jones in that there was no common law trespass to help the court answer the question about tracking via GPS or cell phone records.

<comment><USER3> Maybe s/'public now private'/'private now public'/ ?

And even so, one can mitigate somewhat by sticking to back roads.

<comment><USER4> No, your actions in public have always been public.

A certain amount of privacy came from the cost/effort required to monitor people - you had to have a good reason. So while you could be monitored by a PI/police, it wouldn't happen to people most of the time.

The privacy laws worked in an era where mass collection/mining wasn't feasible. Now, they are broken. Everyone's activity is tracked and logged, referred to for the most minor infraction or mined for indicators of country of origin, shopping preferences, or political affiliation and activism.

<comment><USER5> _A certain amount of privacy came from the cost /effort required to monitor people - you had to have a good reason. So while you could be monitored by a PI/police, it wouldn't happen to people most of the time._

Were the existing legal doctrines developed with this in mind as well? Perhaps it's time the notion that movements are not private gets reevaluated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Atlanta has an extensive deployment of fixed license plate readers which has gone mostly unnoticed. I think this falls into the categories of either not knowing or not caring, and I expect that to continue until there is a publicized misuse. For anyone interested, the largest deployment is in Buckhead, then Brookhaven, then Norcross. I have counted almost a hundred and fifty readers so far, and many more PTZ cameras.

<comment><USER7> Not to mention the rise of mobile readers, it's rare I see a Gwinnett or Dekalb county sheriff car without them. My local PD's newest car has hidden cameras and is always waiting along the most traffic-choked road, seemingly doing nothing... but actually waiting for hits on warrants and insurance violations. Apparently that is more lucrative than the traditional traffic enforcement for profit, as several acquaintances have had the misfortune of discovering on the way to my home.

Pro tip: Don't get busted for lack of auto insurance in Georgia, it is extremely expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. So salting your plates skirts reflectivity and plate obstruction laws because a) the plate is still visually unobstructed, and b) the laws apply specifically to the reflective coating rather than infrared visibility more broadly?

<comment><USER9> In my experience the readers are not that good and you really don't need to intentionally do anything to the plate in order for it to be unreadable. Normal wear and tear is enough at least for the front plate (ie. damage from road gravel, otherwise uninteresting collisions with various obstacles while parking and so on).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This was a really interesting but depressing read.

I'd kinda like to drive around with an RTL-SDR and see if I can spot any of this stuff near me.

<comment><USER11> Should be easy at night if you can detect IR. That's how I'd expect them to "light" up your plate, so that the pic's exposure time can be short enough to not be a blur.

<comment><USER10> It's not just the ANPR though - according to the PDF there is surveillance of tyre pressure sensors, RFID tags in the tyres, toll passes (even when not at a toll).

<comment><USER9> It is not mentioned in the PDF but nowadays it seems that collecting wifi and bluetooth addresses advertised by passing cars is quite common and popular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm guessing this was brought up due to the news about ICE using the scanner technology. [https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/26/16932350/ice- immigration-...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/26/16932350/ice-immigration- customs-license-plate-recognition-contract-vigilant-solutions)

</comment><comment><USER13> This is an excellent set of slides, but most of the U.S. state maps make no sense. He explains the colors in the 46-minute video[1], but it's a shame he didn't put legends on the maps.

[1] [https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2021/DEF%20CON%2021%20sli...](https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2021/DEF%20CON%2021%20slides/DEF%20CON%2021%20Hacking%20Conference%20Presentation%20By%20Pukingmonkey%20-%20The%20Road%20Less%20Surreptitiously%20Traveled%20-%20Slides.m4v)

I still don't understand what he means by the map for "Latest Model Year for YOM" [year of manufacture] even after watching the relevant part of the video (at 19m38s).

</comment><comment><USER14> What exactly is salting a license plate?

<comment><USER15> Looks like drying salt water on the plate

<comment><USER16> So are plates in the Northeast and Midwest immune to readers from first snow until spring?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The white lettering on black background makes this all the more ominous.</comment>


Pathological programming with primes - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/10/prime_number_pathology_fractra.php

<comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=803964>

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops :/</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do JavaScript developers favour many, tiny dependencies? - <AUTHOR> The more I delve in to the world of Javascript the more I come across projects such as:
* is-root: https://www.npmjs.com/package/is-root
* is-even https://www.npmjs.com/package/is-even
Often these are whole npm modules that comprise of a single line of code.
I've never seen anything quite like it when working with Java and Python.
Can anyone explain why? It seems to me adding a dependency I have to suck across the network, that may introduce breaking changes (or just disappear) is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Doing it for a single line of code (that realistically won't need to change anyway) is borderline insane.
Am I being too paranoid or am I missing something? <comment><USER2> You aren't being paranoid IMO, but there are reasons it is done to some level.

Personally, as for depending on 3rd party npm modules that only implement a few lines of Javascript, I generally avoid doing it as it feels wrong. I also wouldn't say Javascript developers favor tiny dependencies, they are just trying to generally avoid rewriting the same line of code across multiple places since that can obviously create a lot of headaches. While there are ways to handle includes, modules etc, across projects it can get messy fast and cause lots of stability issues, but using small versioned packages generally resolves those issues, at least in my personal experience.

My own basic thoughts:

1\. if you only need that code in one project, just create a small module and include it, done.

2\. if you want to share that code amongst multiple projects utilize npm private packages, or create a local npm repository/cache.

I generally opt to use npm private packages as it allows for easy reuse internally across multiple projects without having to copy or reimplement code. Plus you can take advantage of versioning them which makes life a lot more flexible and robust.

Also, don't forget there are license terms that can affect which packages you use too, so that has to come into play as well when you are selecting them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seriously? isEven? That can be done using `!(n % 2)`.

You're generalizing, and yes, you're being too paranoid. Not all of them actually agree on (really very small) modules. [https://medium.com/@Rich_Harris/small-modules-it-s-not- quite...](https://medium.com/@Rich_Harris/small-modules-it-s-not-quite-that- simple-3ca532d65de4)

It all boils down to balance and common-sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's some interesting discussion

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Small and focused is good. Keeps from having to import a huge library (e.g., math.js) for simple functions when you don't need what the rest of the library offers. Small surface.

Would _I_ use is-even? No, I'd keep it in a local utility that bundles up other things my specific app needs, or package groups of small util libs into an app-specific uber-module.</comment>


OpenRA: AI Development Guidelines (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/wiki/AI-Development-Guidelines <comment><USER2> The AI shouldn't cheat, use only information that is available to the player.

I believe that should mean only the audio and video output of the game, just like real humans have to use.

<comment><USER3> Or implement similar constraints.

I've sometimes wondered what an FPS bot would be like, if it had random noise injected into its aim so that it couldn't just aimbot you; or if it tended to forget where people had been. It could still perfectly strategize about its own limits, but those limits would be unavoidable.

Or an RTS AI with a hard max on APM and some kind of attention span switching delay (like scrolling the map to get to where the action is).

<comment><USER4> TA Spring, the open source game inspired by Total Annihilation had multiple AI:s, some of them open source. People just developed them as libraries and talked about them on the forum. You could just download and plug them in to the game. You could even pit them against each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The current title, "AI Development Guidelines", is too broad.

... summons moderator with some unknown spell ... Would it be possible to rename this submission to something along the lines of "Game AI guidelines for OpenRA (open source Command and Conquer)"? Thanks.</comment>


Uber Accused of Saving $500M a Year by Cheating Drivers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/uber-accused-of-saving-500-million-a-year-by-cheating-drivers <comment><USER2> (Autoplay video, with _three_ other autoplay video ads on the page, all running at once)</comment>


Wii U has historically bad January, sells about 50,000 units in U - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/wii-u-has-historically-bad-january-sells-about-50000-units-in-us/

<comment><USER2> We bought one. I have mixed feelings about it. The new Wii U controller and the touch screen feels like more of a novelty than a useful/lasting gameplay dynamic. It kind of feels more distracting than immersive at this point.

Part of the reason for the slow sales may be that there are virtually no games out for it yet. There are several coming out starting in March, so it may be interesting to see what sales numbers are like, then.

Also Nintendo isn't launching with a new Legend of Zelda game to accompany the new console this time. I guess the Gamecube didn't have Windwaker until about a year later, but Ocarina of Time launched with the N64 and Twilight Princess with the Wii. The Zelda franchise alone seems to boost console sales a fair bit (which is pretty telling in its own right).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> essentially ...

"Still, if Nintendo's hardware sales numbers stay this low for much longer, a downward spiral of developer and customer expectations will have the Wii U entering the desperation territory of systems like the Dreamcast and the Virtual Boy before too much longer. If Nintendo is going to turn this boat around, it had better do it quickly."

my take: mobile is eating game consoles.

<comment><USER3> Mobile is nibbling at console gaming in general, but it's absolutely FEASTING on Nintendo. While other consoles like Xbox and PlayStation have better GPUs and better network multiplayer integration, which is harder to replicate on mobile hardware, Nintendo has for years operated on the general concept of "games don't have to have real-world graphics to be fun."

And for the most part, up until the last couple of years, they've been right. The Wii launched with 1999-era GameCube graphics, and almost nonexistent networked mutliplayer interaction, and sold stupid ridiculous numbers of consoles, all playing games in glorious 480p resolution.

But the games were darned fun, and made up for it. When I had friends over for game night, the Wii was the regular choice for gaming over anything else.

However, mobile hardware has evolved to the point that they can easily replicate everything that Nintendo hardware can, with the sole exception of actually playing the Nintendo brand games that are still so popular. [Edit: Yeah, I know about emulators, but I mean natively for mainstream users.]

Nintendo's intentional choice to stay behind the bleeding-edge hardware curve is finally coming back to haunt them. Also Nintendo's had a terrible time with actually delivering games for their consoles over the last couple of years. The 3DS has been out for a while now (a year plus, IIRC) and I'm _still_ waiting on the release of two games that were announced as launch titles.

Really the only reason I still buy the hardware at all is primarily to play titles that aren't anywhere else - Nintendo's policy of "Nintendo brands on Nintendo hardware" still sells hardware for long time fans of Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, etc., but even that's waning quickly because of delays in shipping the titles and the lack of real innovation once those titles ship.

It pains me to say it, but Nintendo's headed down a path that's going to be very hard (if not impossible even now) to recover from. I think they could turn their business around nearly overnight if they go the Sega route of either abandoning the hardware business, or at the very least abandoning the exclusivity of putting their big brands on their own hardware.

If you want to sell a few million copies of Pokemon to a new audience eager to give their money to you, release it for iOS.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Most secure IP video camera for expecting parents? - <AUTHOR> Hey HN!
My wife and I are expecting our first child and we are exploring options for baby monitors. However, the common video baby monitors seem to be a security nightmare, with stories of strangers watching live feeds of other folks' kids all over the internet.
We want to find a solution that is reasonably feature-rich, but more importantly, is highly secure. Any thoughts would be appreciated! <comment><USER2> The problem is, you cannot know. There's no such thing as a secure, feature- rich device. If there are any that are self-updating, that's a very very good start.

Why do you need an IP camera? The kind that requires a dedicated monitor, that doesn't use IP, are "secure". Probably not uncrackable-secure, but only your near neighbors would be able to watch.

We had infant optics. It's great, the range only works within the house, multicamera, temp sensor, and more. If you put it on mute, you can watch yourself having sexy time. Not that you will ever have sexy time again.

They also have unbelievably good customer service. For a commodity baby monitor. Just superb.

</comment><comment><USER3> Buy something from a somewhat reputable vendor that you can access over LAN, and completely block it from the internet, both directions.

<comment><USER2> Then what's the point of it being IP.

Also it can be quite hard to block. I mean you have to be an expert. What happens when webRTC opens it up? Or uPNP? Yes you can block these things but you need to be savvy enough to know how. And stay on top of all the techs. As a new parent no one has time for that.</comment></comment>


Virgin America's Web Meltdown: Four Weeks and Counting - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2011/11/22/virgin-america-problems/

<comment><USER2> As a technologist my sympathy goes out to Virgin. Airline reservation systems are some of the most complicated beasts we've ever created. The risks of migrating are enormous and with the busiest travel days ahead you can bet that David Cush has every resource available trying to fix the issues.

That said it is never easy. The changes may amount to just a handful of lines but understanding such systems is key. My most recent encounter with bugs was that the system couldn't find a reservation for me even though I made one while authenticated. I just plugged in the confirmation number manually and that seemed to work. I didn't think too much of it though...maybe because I am use to mediocrity in the airline industry as a whole.

<comment><USER3> Having worked with Sabre and Gallileo (did they merge?), I, too, can attest to the fun and joy of working with airline res systems. Wacky XML, fixed length fields, unique fields that aren't really unique. It's a right of passage that most devs should take so that they (1) Promise never to build something like this and (2) Learn to never work in travel.

<comment><USER4> The problem is that we're having to keep perfect compatibility with stuff that was done in the seventies. So you quickly end up with something just as (if not more) horrendous as the Windows or Office codebase. Take EDIFACT for example...

<comment><USER3> Oh for sure compatibility is a huge issue and getting airlines to update and keep in step with things like herding cats. I don't envy the role of a dev who works for one of the large GDS's

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's their entire system, not just the customer-facing site. "The woes stem from Virgin's switchover from its old reservation system, iFly, to the industry's 800-pound gorilla, Sabre." As stated in the article, "...modern businesses, of all sorts, don't have Web sites. To a remarkable degree, they are Web sites."

Even at the airport if you go to a kiosk to check-in with a bag, you won't be able to print out a boarding pass. You'll have to go stand in line.

<comment><USER6> _The woes stem from Virgin's switchover from its old reservation system, iFly, to the industry's 800-pound gorilla, Sabre_

Ah. I have a hyphenated last name (it's been in my family since the late 1800s), and I was wondering why, on my most recent VA reservation, I was suddenly greeted with the all-too-familiar "Your last name contains invalid characters". Thanks, Sabre.

Virgin's old system supported my real name (as most on the web do, as they should). It's remarkable to me that the industry's 800lb gorilla can't support something as simple as a "-" character in a last name, something that's fairly common (or at least not unheard of).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ah, happy memories of making a big mistake: providing an online airline reservation system with an email address containing a "+".

<http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/you-suck.html>

<comment><USER8> Beautiful. Several times in my career I've passionately resisted that kind of stupidity, most recently concerning phone numbers (we should only accept numeric characters, right?!).

Sigh...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks for the link; I was wondering what the hell has been going on. I've been flying Virgina for a while, and I flew on the weekend of the transition. I think I slipped my online ticket sale in just in time, but check-in, seat selection, frequent flyer info: all screwed.

I'm sure this is a tough job, but I wish they would have disabled the features rather than let them fail. The first several times I tried and failed, I assumed it was a fluke. That these thing sometimes worked and sometimes didn't led me to believe that these were ephemeral problems, and I must have wasted hours retrying things. If that had been the case, I would have just arrived early and done it the old-fashioned. Ultimately, that's what I did, although their internal systems are just as screwed (and I don't think hand-written passenger manifests cut the muster anymore).

Anyway, on my second pass through this mess, I just skipped the website entirely and did everything at the airport. Took a little longer, but it was pretty stress-free. I'd recommend doing so if you're flying with them soon.

To their credit, they did give us miles and candy, and the staff is still the best in the biz. And, if you're flying through SFO, you can make the best of your residual time with a solid burger and a decent drink at Lark Creek Grill.

</comment><comment><USER10> It seems to me that Sabre et al are all overly complex, left over from the days when you had to physically go to a travel agent's office to watch them clatter incantations into a monochrome terminal as they manually assembled your itinerary...

The amount of complexity and arbitrage that goes on in selling plane tickets today is just nuts. I don't like actually flying Southwest, but I think they have the right idea with regards to booking - always, and only, on their website. Ensures a consistent, branded experience and saves them the headache of listing in a GDS.

<comment><USER4> For "regional" airlines such as SouthWest or Ryanair, managing your own system is fine. But if you want to be able to do code-sharing, ground-handling and all the rest of the madness that comes with being a global airline, you don't have a choice.

The single website solution also means you're cutting yourself off from people who are using fare search services.

And let's not forget that in some regions (Asia notably), travel agents with their "cryptic" terminals and "valuable" tickets are still the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Been back and forth to DFW and SFO about 6 times in the last few weeks all on virgin ... for those flights I have probably spent a combined 5 hours on hold for one small change or a misbooked flight etc. but their $139 first class upgrades and friendly staff almost always make it all better for me. I'll be glad when they get this all worked out thats for sure

</comment><comment><USER12> Why would Virgin migrate _to_ SABRE??</comment>


Livestream of Debate Between Peter Thiel and David Graeber (1830 EDT Sep 19) - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebaffler.com/live?u=social

<comment><USER2> I am also frankly shocked that nobody took the username awkardpenguin before now.

</comment><comment><USER2> Does anybody happen to have the video for this talk? I'd like to see it :)

<comment><AUTHOR> On the way, [https://twitter.com/ferenstein/status/514102348382474241](https://twitter.com/ferenstein/status/514102348382474241)</comment></comment>


Get ready to pay for YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/3815196/youtube-paid-subscription-no-ads/

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious how the press keeps touting the "ad-free"... the true benefit will that video content quality will skyrocket. Five months ago I predicted that YouTube would go public with Paid Channels within 3-12 months. At first, people will hate the idea of paying for YouTube, but eventually grow to love it. Here's why: [http://seer.ws/youtube-paid-channels](http://seer.ws/youtube- paid-channels)</comment>