How I found a data leak of a company during a college lecture - <AUTHOR> http://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/937-how-i-found-a-huge-data-leak-of-a-company-during-a-college-lecture <comment><USER3> > On the next screen I just hit the connect button to see what would happen:

> Not really sure what it does, but I found several Droisys e-mail addresses > in the database and decided to mail them that their database was exposed on > the internet.

Oh man, this is a bad idea.

If you find something out there that you think you can connect to - <USER2> password, no password, etc - you must be _very_ careful.

In some cases, just reporting it will cause you problems. At this point, you probably haven't broken the law but some companies are just jackasses.

But once you connect, the game changes. It is "unauthorized access" and it's _probable_ that you broke your local laws. At that point, it's not just a jackass company that gets involved, it's local law enforcement too.

And then you get data from the database. It's probably going to get even worse for you.

When you go a step further and share a howto on the web... this is a bad idea all around.

This is not proper disclosure. If I was him, I'd get a good lawyer.

<comment><USER4> I've always wondered about the legality of, say, going to google and entering "not for public release filetype:pdf" then downloading (presumably accidentally shared) confidential documents from someone's server. If no authentication is required, is it fair game?

<comment><USER5> If Google has already accessed, indexed, and published it, you are in pretty good company. At the least, you have the lawyers of a multi-billion $$$ company backing you.

<comment><USER6> No, you don't. Knowledge and intent are key factors in many crimes, and you and Google aren't similarly situated.

<comment><USER5> If google is providing you illegal knowledge, that is Google's problem.

<comment><USER6> The law doesn't work that way: knowledge is rarely illegal. Knowingly gathering without permission may be. Using a Google product as a tool in a crime doesn't make Google responsible for the crime and relieve your responsibility.

<comment><USER5> Can you construct a hypothetical situation where clicking a link on a Google result page (or, any page, for that matter) would be a crime?

If such a thing were possible, I would view it as the ultimate betrayal of the browser's "sandbox". Certainly it would be a top priority to categorize links into "known safe to click" and "clicker beware". Who knows, maybe Google's successor will be such an engine.

<comment><USER7> > Can you construct a hypothetical situation where clicking a link on a Google > result page (or, any page, for that matter) would be a crime?

I'm not sure that's even necessary, and there's no point getting into a debate about the browser (you commanded it to do something, after all).

IANAL, but I don't think you need to be one to appreciate the potential for legal trouble. Depending on your interpretation of the CFAA and whether or not you agree with the assertion that the Ninth Circuit limited the scope of the CFAA's reach by requiring a certain degree of _intent_ [1], unauthorized access alone could be construed as a crime. If you want a particularly extreme interpretation of the statute, you can find such almost anywhere you look (here's one from 2005 [2]).

In the latter case, it's notable that if you access material it 1) need not be trademarked, copyrighted, a trade secret, or even particularly sensitive--it need only be "valuable" and 2) unauthorized access is defined rather loosely as accessing "information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain." One could argue that password protected resources or databases that are not publicly advertised are not considered something for dissemination to the public and therefore protected by statute.

So, if we apply the CFAA in a manner similar to what you might expect of a prosecutor who is up for re-election this year, let's look at the abuses the article's author committed:

Unauthorized access - check? There's no _obvious_ revocation of the right to access Unilever's MongoDB database, but it probably passes the "reasonable person" test that this information isn't intended to be public. Playing the game of "intent" is a bit risky, so this might be another option in mounting a defense.

"Valuable" information - definite check (the author stated rather plainly: "Within the databases I found personal details like names, e-mail addresses and also private chat logs;" I suspect this would be considered "valuable" information). I don't think this is something I would have admitted. I _certainly_ wouldn't have posted screen captures.

I admit the timing of this is funny, because I was just about to watch a few videos on bosnianbill's Youtube channel earlier when I got to thinking about how inconsistent lockpick possession laws are in the US, and it's interesting how it applies to this story. In some states (notably Tennessee), simply owning a lockpick without the appropriate license can land you a misdemeanor (fine, maybe jail time, depending on my memory of their law), while other states (like my own) require intent and/or possession of multiple "burglary tools" (e.g. a crowbar in addition to a lockpick). While intent alone is insufficient protection from particularly enthusiastic prosecutors, it does at least afford _some_ defense if you wind up in front of a jury. Hoping for the same under the framework of the CFAA is a bit like playing with fire even if you successfully mount a defense (legal costs, opportunity costs from the time wasted on defense, etc).

Not worth it.

[1] [http://www.bullivant.com/Computer-Fraud-Abuse- Act](http://www.bullivant.com/Computer-Fraud-Abuse-Act)

[2] [https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2005/02/cf...](https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2005/02/cfaa- as-a-civil-remedy-national-law-journal)

<comment><USER6> Federal prosecutors -- the only ones that can prosecute for criminal CFÀA violations -- are Presidential appointees, they are never up for election. So that scenario never actually occurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the words of Phineas Fisher:

"NoSQL, or rather NoAuthentication, has been a huge gift to the hacker community. Just when I was worried that they'd finally patched all of the authentication bypass bugs in MySQL, new databases came into style that lack authentication by design."

From his account of the Hacking Team Hack, worth a read if you missed it.

[http://pastebin.com/raw/0SNSvyjJ](http://pastebin.com/raw/0SNSvyjJ)

<comment><USER9> Step 1) Bemoan how {OldSoftwarePackage} doesn't do X, Y, Z

Step 2) Write {NewSoftwarePackage} that does most of what {OldSoftwarePackage} did + X

Step 3) Spend an order of magnitude more time than expected finishing Y, which turns out to actually be rather hard because {Messy Real World Engineering Details}

Step 4) Never get to Z & eventually come up with a narrative about how Z was stupid anyway

<comment><USER10> Not sure what exactly you mean wrt NoAuth DBs, but having a simple on-connect password would be an improvement to all those databases.

Things like Elasticsearch not having even a basic password (esp since it's HTTP so it's trivial) is simply silly. And it's probably not a good idea to support no-auth connections at all - if it's really a hassle, just set the user/pass to the host name.

<comment><USER11> > Elasticsearch

Yea. I found that surprising when it came time to use ElasticSearch for my own purposes. If you want security, you need to setup something _between_ the ElasticSearch server and the clients to moderate.

<comment><USER12> Setting up nginx to proxy to Elasticsearch with HTTP auth on top is fairly trivial. There's a couple of good articles on the web if you google for it. Also, should you have an Elasticsearch support contract, you get access to the Shield plugin which has extensive access control.

But yes, the fact that it is open OOTB is frustrating.

<comment><USER11> This is exactly what I do, but the fact that it's wide open and relies on you to use a different (and de-coupled) service for permissions was surprising to me (at the time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So you do everything you can to hide the IP address, but reveal that the domain is-savvy.nl resolves to it.

Either you're not actually that good at IT security or you're just making a huge brain fart.

        $ dig +short is-savvy.nl
        188.8.131.52

So it's not really a mystery what the X.X.238.165 and X.X.238.166 addresses actually refer to.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wouldn't it be better and easier to do a WHOIS lookup on the actual IP address, and email whoever shows up there? Sometimes you'll get the hosting provider (and they can contact the customer for you, maybe even anonymously), and sometimes you'll find the company itself.

At least you're not bouncing around domains which can be pointed anywhere

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't know why he bothered to blank out the IP address for is-savvy.nl. DNS will tell you that there is literally one A record which matches the last two bytes.

</comment><comment><USER16> >The database had no username and password configured to protect it, so I assumed it was a public database with data for everyone to see ;-)

No, a wink won't protect you in court. You illegally accessed someone's data. As they say: just because the house is unlocked doesn't mean you're allowed in. Pray this doesn't get you in trouble. Sjonge jonge jonge...

</comment><comment><USER17> For those having a trouble to access the site, this is the archive version: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160514214255/http://sijmen.ruw...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160514214255/http://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/937-how- i-found-a-huge-data-leak-of-a-company-during-a-college-lecture)

</comment><comment><USER18> A few years back I anonymously reported a huge data leak. Weeks later they asked for my name and address so they could "send me a gift".

To this day they still haven't fixed the leak. And I took a pass on that "gift".

</comment><comment><USER19> What kind of laws apply in this locality?

In the US I wouldn't be able to connect to their MongoDB server without it being a crime, password or not.</comment>


Remote job board, now with dark mode - <AUTHOR> https://wfh.team <comment><AUTHOR> I know! I know! Why make another remote job board when there are many others out there? Well, this one has a DARK MODE!

Just kidding! When I started this project I just wanted to see if I can make a better version of what's already out there in one week. I didn't really have a plan to launch it! It took me about 3 weeks of working at night and on the weekends (I have a full-time job) to finally be happy with what I've built.

Now, this is mostly like any other job board out there! But there are also some unique new features I added that I haven't seen on any other job board!

First and foremost, I'm not a designer but tried to make it as user-friendly as possible(something that I feel like is missing from most of the indie job boards out there).

The other unique feature I added is a simple Analytic tool for the job you post on wfh.team. Currently, It is very simple. It shows you how other users interacted with the jobs you posted on wfh.team and it includes information such as the number of likes, clicks, shares, and applies!

I've also tried to reduce the job posting price by more than 65% compared to other job boards in the market. I personally think it can be cheaper! 🧮

Other features include a built-in feedback form and variety of filters on the job board!

Some other features that I want to add at some point in the future are a built-in messaging platform between job seekers and recruiters, built-in application processing system, and remote team profiles!

This project is only the first of many projects I'm planning to do in the next couple of months/years. I will continue to add new features to this project and I will dedicate more time to it as I see more traction!

I made this for all the people who want to have that nomad life, but can't find the right fit. Hopefully one day I'll join them too! 🧳

As a thank you gesture to the HN community if you signup using this link in the next 7 days, you'll get one free job posting credit with your account! [https://wfh.team/?ref=hackernews](https://wfh.team/?ref=hackernews)

Feedbacks are greatly appreciated</comment>


WebGL Stats - <AUTHOR> http://webglstats.com/

<comment><USER2> I was a little surprised that Linux and iOs were the worst Desktop and Mobile adoption points. Of course, mobile was slightly cheating, as I doubt that that RimOS stats are significant. Still considering that they found zero support from IE, it's amazing that Windows still beats Linux. I'm guessing it's a driver issue?

<comment><USER3> It isn't surprising at all that Linux is behind. Most linux graphic drivers are in bad state and are blacklisted by both Chrome and Firefox, I use linux by the way. As for iOS, Safari mobile doesn't support WebGL (iAds do), so neither are surprising.

<comment><USER4> Maybe they could just not blacklist.. I think its bullshit.

<comment><USER5> I'd much rather blacklisting than having web-code be able to crash my entire window system, or even just my browser.

(That said, I'm one of the few people lucky enough to have Intel graphics hardware, so I have pretty great Linux drivers. I might feel differently if I were forced to use something from nVidia or ATi.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks like the sites who have the tracker embedded are very developer centric which means that real world WEB GL Adoption is probably much much lower. Nevertheless it should grow quickly in the months to come.

<comment><USER7> I agree with this. The adoption is probably half or even less of what this web site states. I mean, people still use IE 7!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "RimOs: 100%" I do love the great WebGL support on the Playbook browser :)

<comment><USER9> Great browser support is about the only thing Rim is doing right. They should go all in on web apps. Join Mozilla's WebAPI project, make web apps a first- class citizen on BBX (not requiring their own webworks stuff)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting. As a former desktop OpenGL developer I would also care about vertex texture fetch support and mipmap generation.

</comment><comment><USER11> This tool from the site is great in helping you choose what webGL features to use: <http://webglstats.com/canuse.html>

</comment><comment><USER12> Needs _way_ more data points, 11k visits is nothing.

<comment><USER6> also a much broader audience, currently its almost developers/gamers only who of course have up to date browsers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oh look , IE letting the side down _again_</comment>


This is how we ZenPayroll: Our Development Workflow - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.zenpayroll.com/post/66989980498/this-is-how-we-zenpayroll-our-development-workflow

<comment><USER2>
        > Once a code review is accepted, the feature branch is rebased on the
        > development branch ("git rebase development"). After any conflicts are
        > resolved, the feature branch is merged into development ("git checkout
        > development; git merge feature_branch_name"). The nice thing about using
        > Phabricator is that this rebase/merge combo can be executed with a simple
        > "arc land" command.

One interesting note is that Phabricator has moved away from using only rebasing by default for landing git branches. See this commit ( [https://secure.phabricator.com/D4080](https://secure.phabricator.com/D4080) ) for the full story, but now Phabricator lets your dev team use `git merge` while developing feature branches. When you run `arc land`, your master is merged in to your feature branch (forcing you to resolve all conflicts) and then your feature branch is squash-merged in to master. If your developers like to collaborate on the same branch (pushing and pulling from the same remote,) not having to worry about rebasing is nice. At the end, phabricator turns all of your intermediary steps into one commit anyway so who cares what's going on before then?

</comment><comment><USER3> I was thinking about this article in a meta sense. Why was it written? From my perspective there is nothing special about their process. Then it dawned on me: Payroll is critical business software. When I think of a startup, I think of a couple of guys who built something in their garage with a lot of comments that look like this: //TODO fix this later //Major hack, but seems to work for now

In that sense, the word "startup" is a stigma for a company that is trying to create an impression of a stable, reliable, responsible business. Then I noticed this:

 _We're building our company to last 50 years or more, and we want our code to last just as long._

It's so over the top. Writing code that will still be used in 50 years would be more of an exercise in predicting the future than writing the code itself. None the less, it fits the same narrative. It's all a branding play to show that they are a stable, reliable, responsible company. (not a move fast and break things kind of startup that we've all been hearing about)

</comment><comment><USER4> _Don't optimize for the short-term._

How on earth can you possibly succeed as a startup without a monthly pivot and MVP?

 _The name of this test server is Leeroy, who does all this with the help of Jenkins._

Leeroy Jenkins! Your test server is step 7 of a 10 step well-thought out workflow - kinda violating the spirit of your test server's name, no?

</comment><comment><USER5> Why do companies still use backbone when angular and ember are available?</comment>


Github Has Surpassed Sourceforge and Google Code in Popularity - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/06/github-has-passed-sourceforge.php

<comment><USER2> it's interesting the way they measure language popularity by number of commits to the major code forges. It's a way to separate the living & breathing languages that are actually being chosen for new projects from the living-dead languages.</comment>


I have contracted Internet User Paranoia - <AUTHOR> http://coding.pressbin.com/100/I-have-contracted-Internet-user-paranoia/

<comment><USER2> perhaps using a translation service as a proxy irks those who enjoy translation?</comment>


Open Source Backdoor – Copyrighted Under GNU GPL - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sucuri.net/2013/08/open-source-backdoor-copyrighted-under-gnu-gpl.html

<comment><USER2> This article has quite a serious error:

>>> This prototype is stating that a function called Copyright3_6_56() will be declared later on somewhere else in the code.

PHP has no function prototypes that "state that a function will be declared later". This thing just doesn't exist in PHP, unlike C. Copyright3_6_56() would be just a function call (with missing ;, so likely would cause a syntax error unless ; is found later).

<comment><USER3> Yes, you're correct.. Too much C in my mind :) We are going to correct the post. Have a good one!

<comment><USER4> You're also missing "<?php" as the opening php tag. Seems the "?" was removed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The presence of an "eval" makes it pretty obvious that there was something going on.

The only clever thing here is putting the code after the GPL text that usually nobody reads.

Does not Joomla community code reviews the contribution to their code base?

<comment><USER3> As I mentioned in the article the code was inserted into a good core file from Joomla as part of a malicious attack. Thanks for the comment.

<comment><USER6> This was found on a deployed instance, rather than in the main Joomla source repository or download? The article doesn't make this clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Similarly basic PHP backdoors are floating around right now. If you look over your WordPress install for a file named "7c334.php" or "7c34.php" you might find one. Or you could google for it.

I found it hard to believe that such stupid backdoors exist, and even worse, get used successfully.

<comment><USER8> I think this is what you're talking about :

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/apache2/dmM19cYS0oA](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/apache2/dmM19cYS0oA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only actually clever thing is that they put it in a file named copyright.php.

I'm wondering where this backdoored version of Joomla came from.

<comment><USER10> >I'm wondering where this backdoored version of Joomla came from.

It probably was inserted using another vulnerability, and put there to hide it from site owners who were only looking for files that weren't there before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I see so many security problems like this that would be caught so easily if there was just a process with super basic statistical analysis capabilities watching the logs. A POST to the Copyright.php file? I'm guessing that would never be found in your logs before the bad file was deployed. Something that watches the log and determines if the entry is very different from the usual contents of the log (pick up the book 'Programming Collective Intelligence', there are a dozen different techniques you could use for this, and even the simplest should work very well) and alerts you.

And yeah, if you ever see "eval" in any code anywhere, the hair on the back of your neck should stand up.

<comment><USER12> The fact that Copyright.php is a PHP executable sets off red flags to me before I would even open up the file. Thankfully it doesn't seem like Joomla ships with any files stupidly coerced into being executable. Copyright.php was added to this installation.

This attack is very similar to the one that keeps me up at night knowing a logfile (or worse, an entire directory because of a terrible tutorial) is chmod'ed to 777. ACLs in *nix work, use them.

[https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms](https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why is the copyright notice in a scripting file instead of something almost guaranteed to be statically served? Or was that part of the attack?

</comment><comment><USER8> Yet another reason _eval_ is evil and should be in disable_functions : [http://php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.disable- functions](http://php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.disable-functions)

Better yet, if you're on a nix box, you should be using [http://www.hardened- php.net/suhosin/](http://www.hardened-php.net/suhosin/) There are some potential hiccups with off-the-shelf software, but some minor inconvenience is a better alternative than having your system compromised.

<comment><USER14> Believe it or not, this code would be just as bad even if the `eval` call was removed entirely. See:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/1k1875/open_source_b...](http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/1k1875/open_source_backdoor_copyrighted_under_gnu_gpl/cbkjgzj)

I'm not sure if Suhosin also prevents implicit evals of that nature; it very well may. And if it doesn't, this code could effectively be neutralized if only harmless functions could be called (though it'd be hard to guarantee such a thing).

<comment><USER8> Wow! That's just... nuts!

I had no idea that PHP had such a completely insecure inclusion vulnerability. I'm not sure if Suhosin protects against these, but the feature list does mention limits on request variables : [http://www.hardened- php.net/suhosin/a_feature_list.html](http://www.hardened- php.net/suhosin/a_feature_list.html)

As always, yes, it's very difficult to guarantee only harmless functions are called. One of the simplest ways would be to prevent execution of code in the web root directory. Usually, we put the code files outside www and disable file uploads (separate instance for that which will exclusively handle PUT requests).

<comment><USER14> To be fair, it's probably not a security vulnerability in most cases, because it's rare that serious code does the equivalent of `$func = $_GET['func']; $func($_GET['userinput']);`, but it certainly makes for nice backdooring.

Regardless, PHP in general was never designed for security of any sort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this a real trojan found in the wild, or something they came up with to show how sneaky trojans could be?

<comment><USER10> I've seen remote execution backdoors like this in a compromised Joomla site before (at least w/r/t the code snippet that actually does the execution), so I would not be in the least surprised if someone was clever enough to use the copyright file as a place to sneak it in.

I saw one attacker drop the same backdoor php file in a dozen different locations, in hopes that the site owner would just remove the one in particular that was showing up in their logs and none of the others.

<comment><USER16> The most interesting shells I've seen have been done via the htaccess file.

Here is an example: [https://github.com/wireghoul/htshells/blob/master/shell/mod_...](https://github.com/wireghoul/htshells/blob/master/shell/mod_php.shell.htaccess)

<comment><USER17> Nice .htaccess thing

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why did they even make this a PHP file? Why not just HTML or plain text?

<comment><USER18> Oh wait. Okay, I guess the attackers created the file as well.

<comment><USER19> Hmmm... dunno but looks like they really might have had copyright info in a "restricted" executable file.... for literally no reason:

[http://docs.huihoo.com/api/joomla/1.5/ric_COPYRIGHT.php.html](http://docs.huihoo.com/api/joomla/1.5/ric_COPYRIGHT.php.html)

<comment><USER18> Well that's just dumb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> considering there are still hundreds of thousands of Joomla sites running 1.5 or lower this is very scary.

</comment><comment><USER17> the $gnu lol</comment>


What are the most impressive Big Data stories you read? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to collect the most impressive stories of applications of Big Data for a presentation for non-geeks. I'm looking for something that people can relate to and that it's not impressive from the technical side. For example:
Target predicting pregnant women: - http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
Facebook predicting your partner: - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/facebook-relationship-study_n_4784291.html
UPS predicting avoiding turning left will save time and money - http://www.businessinsider.com/save-money-gas-avoid-left-turns-2012-3
Do you have any other success stories? Maybe related to healthcare, finance, science? <comment><USER2> There was a company(maybe a VC) that used big data to predict startup sucsess.

IBM used watson with some emr company to predict heart disease in thousands of patients.</comment>


The Best Program according to Don Knuth - <AUTHOR> http://cycle-gap.blogspot.com/2005/10/best-program-according-to-don-knuth.html

<comment><USER2> I've given up on waiting for the MacPaint source code.

</comment><comment><USER3> Best why?

<comment><USER4> You'd have to ask Knuth why _he_ thinks so. He may have seen the source code, for example.

Speaking merely as a user who remembers when the Mac was first introduced: Because it was a program which you could play with for sixty seconds and immediately get a vision -- not only of exactly what the Mac was all about, but of what the next few decades in computing were going to look like. It's hard to describe the intensity of the experience of seeing it for the first time. I still have the issue of _Popular Science_ in which I first saw a photo of the interface.

Sure, in a sense it was nothing that Engelbart and the PARC guys hadn't done before. But it was no research project; it was a _shipping consumer product_ with a solid, elegant, friendly, minimalist design, built (according to Wikipedia) in 8500 lines of source code, that ran crisply on a PC which cost far less than the $10k Apple Lisa, to say nothing of a $100k piece of custom Xerox research hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> With all these fragmentary, unsourced anecdotes about Donald Knuth, one would think he hadn't given numerous interviews and written several actual books.

<comment><AUTHOR> unsourced ? It's right here: <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/transcripts/001.html> and linked from the post as well. And it's Andy Hertzfeld one of the original Mac developers who related this incident. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hertzfeld>)

What's wrong per se with anecdotes ? It's a great part of the craftsman tradition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> whose favorite program is ms paint ?

</comment><comment><USER7> what ever happened to Nerd tv. Shut down after 1 series? crazy...</comment>


Anti-groping stun gun shorts - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/XylaFoxlin/status/1301253399208394753 <comment><USER2> Big mood. Only I touch my own butt way too often to think this is a good idea...

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the idea, but it's trouble waiting to happen when you need to walk through a crowded room, no...? I've been in clubs and subways where my body is pressed against others on all sides. What's the sting feel like?

<comment><USER4> >What's the sting feel like?

That's where the trouble's waiting to happen.

<comment><USER3> Well yes, that's what I meant. My partner is only 5'2" and she would be highly concerned if someone zapped her arm with their electric rear.</comment></comment></comment>


The economic environment is becoming less favorable for large Western companies - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2015/10/the-future-and-how-to-survive-it <comment><USER2> What's so striking is the high percentage of family-owned large companies in emerging economies. Arguably, this is also happening in the US, with two-tier stock schemes keeping founders in control. 80 people now own half the world's net worth. Here's the list.[1] The 20th century was the century of the big, publicly held corporation. The 21st century may be the century of the oligarch.

This is new. Only four years ago, it was 388 people, not just 80.

The top 10:

        1   Bill Gates	$76B	USA		Tech

        2	Carlos Slim	$72B	Mexico		Telecom

        3	Amancio Ortega	$64B	Spain		Retail

        4	Warren Buffett	$58B	USA		Finance

        5	Larry Ellison	$48B	USA		Tech

        6	Charles Koch	$40B	USA	 	Diversified

        7	David Koch	$40B	USA	 	Diversified

        8	Sheldon Adelson	$38B	USA		Entertainment

        9	Christy Walton	$37B	USA	 	Retail

        10	Jim Walton      $35B	USA	 	Retail

In the 1960s, there was one billionaire in the world - John Paul Getty, of Getty Oil. We've come a long way.

[1] [http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who- ar...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich- as-half-the-world/)

<comment><USER3> One nice thing about having such outsized concentration of wealth is that once the rest of us get totally fed up with this shit, it is much easier to confiscate.

<comment><USER4> So you don't care that all of humanity is living objectively better now vs. the rest of history. You just care that some people are filthy rich and you don't like them one bit. So, lynch them, take their money, made mostly through their labor and inovation and let the proletariat rule! Nice. Very nice actually, except for the fact that this idea already played out and crashed and burned as the biggest mistake in history.

<comment><USER5> Do you know any filthy rich people? Their money is made mostly through other people's labor and innovation. What they're good at is business, which is organizing and capturing the value of other people's labor and innovation.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've started a number of businesses, after all. But let's not worship people whose talent happens to be particular sorts of commerce.

<comment><USER4> Depends on what you mean by filthy rich. By my definition (worth >$1bn), I don't know any.

I do know several people worth several hudrends of millions tho. They are CEOs of their own companies or companies they helped grow. I don't think anyone works harder than them in their companies. If there is someone, it probably is someone from the upper management.

>What they're good at is business, which is organizing and capturing the value of other people's labor and innovation.

You say that like it's easy-peasy. Everyone can do it, right?

<comment><USER5> > They are CEOs of their own companies or companies they helped grow. I don't > think anyone works harder than them in their companies.

I also know people in that bracket. None of them work significantly harder than some of the house cleaners and construction workers I've met. And even if they did, it's not like they work 10 million times harder. There are only so many hours in the week.

> You say that like it's easy-peasy. Everyone can do it, right?

It's not easier than anything else. But it's not appreciably harder. Read Warren Buffet on this. He's one of the best in the world, and he describes his success as coming from talent and luck. E.g.: "I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless."

I note also that he was born into a family with business experience. His grandfather ran a store; his father, a stock brokerage. That sort of early education is of enormous help. (I know myself; my dad started programming computers in the late '60s.)

<comment><USER4> It's not how much you sweat, it's how hard your work is.

Managing a firm with 1200 employees for sure is 10 million times harder than moving boxes around.

But be my guest. Go to North Korea or Cuba. I'm sure people are very happy there. Everybody is equal. Just some are more equal than others.

<comment><USER5> Come now. I've started 5 companies at this point. I volunteer a fair bit helping entrepreneurs. If you can't tell the difference between critique of managerialist tropes and wholesale rejection of capitalism, you aren't trying very hard.

You seem to have shifted your metric from working hard to the work being complicated. But again, plenty of people do complicated work without getting zillions of dollars for it. I know math PhDs who do amazing technical work; it's far more complex than the workaday accounting done by executives. I know organizational consultants and senior HR people who are way better at designing organizations than your average executive. I know plenty of front- line managers who have much more complex managerial problems than senior execs.

What you're missing is that as with Cuba and North Korea, the people on top get disproportionate rewards _solely because they are on top of a large power structure_. They all "deserve" those rewards for the same reason: they won at the musical-chairs game of hierarchy. Were Fidel Castro and Mao Zedong smarter or harder working than their competitors? Maybe. Or maybe they were just lucky in either the talent lottery or in how things played out.

The only difference here is that our game is built around competing entities that, on average, create economic value, so there's possibly more social utility that results from the hierarchy games. But the people creating the economic value are mostly the ones doing the actual work.

I generally don't begrudge people the money they collected. The game is the game. But let's not confuse winning the game with "deserving" the winnings in some moral sense. That's the just world fallacy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just- world_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Misleading (and not original) title. The 'economic environment' has not changed, the prevailing economic environment is that if you're an incumbent, sooner or later someone fitter comes along and eats your lunch. Which is also pretty much the tl;dr of TFA.

<comment><USER7> From the perspective of large multinational companies, the environment has changed.

Tech and emerging market companies create low margin competition that incumbents can't compete with.

The rate at this happening is higher than ever before and has recently sort of exploded.

<comment><USER6> While I'll certainly agree that the rate is variable, the underlying mechanism seems fundamental to how trade/markets/capitalism function. Perhaps my definition of 'environment' is wonky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >"Moreover, our analysis suggests that rising labor costs could reduce profits by a further $800 billion."

Outrageous ! So you are saying we need to give the peasants MORE money ?? How am I supposed to live !</comment>


Ink: A Responsive Email Framework from ZURB - <AUTHOR> http://zurb.com/ink/ <comment><USER2> So, this is like InK, the responsive framework from SAPO launched over an year ago [http://ink.sapo.pt/](http://ink.sapo.pt/), for E-mail... with the same name... and the same grid concept. Neat.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ink... a web design framework, developed in Portugal and available for a year now. [http://ink.sapo.pt](http://ink.sapo.pt)

It's very naughty, what you're doing.

</comment><comment><USER4> heck yes.</comment>


Quora Raises $80M Led by Tiger Global, Now Valued at $900M - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/04/09/quora-raises-80m-led-by-tiger-global-now-valued-at-900m/

<comment><USER2> As much as I like Quora, I don't think it is growing as fast as it should have as they rely heavily on search engine traffic for new user registration.

I won't be surprised if they add linkedin like features of networking and may offer quora groups, the whole site still looks very beta.

</comment><comment><USER3> Somewhat surprising. I'm just a data point, but I rarely hear, see, or visit Quora anymore. I don't honestly see the difference between it and heavily moderated sub-reddits.</comment>


Launch HN: Wide Open School - <AUTHOR> https://wideopenschool.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Wide Open School is a free and open collection of online learning experiences, and social and community services, for kids and families. It is a place to learn, but also a place to relax, to have fun, and to maintain the human connections among classmates and teachers. Conceptually, it aspires to be Talkspace + Master Class + Zoom + Peleton + Google Classroom + a hushed library + a noisy lunchroom + a playful art class + a buzzing seminar.... because we will need all of these kinds of tools if we hope to support the engagement of kids for several hours a day every day. Wide Open School doesn't plan to build most things itself - it will be assembling the best from everyone who is raising their hands to help."

Let me know if you have any questions and I'd be happy to answer!</comment>


Ask HN: Open source social dashboard (buffer, hootsuite alternative)? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty happy with buffer, its light weight and gets the job done for me. We use it to power [https://ivyleads.co](https://ivyleads.co) and it's very reliable.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, I know about buffer but i'm looking for an open source alternative</comment></comment>


Deconstructing Kitty - <AUTHOR> https://wp.josh.com/2018/05/07/deconstructing-kitty/ <comment><USER2> This is a great example of how much information there is in the design of even simple things, the way in which one design decision constrains others (why not an iron core? Because the magnet would tend to stick to it. But why a magnet? So we can push it. But why push it? Because it is easier to tell when the bob has just passed bottom then when it is about to get there) synergy (with a magnet, we can use the induced voltage in the coil to measure the movement) and KISS (a simple knife-edge bearing.)

Another reminder to make my code as simple as possible.

<comment><USER3> This reminds me of rice cookers, which seem to work like magic yet are actually crazy simple devices - just a simple thermocouple that shuts the pot off when the temperature reaches above boiling point (meaning there's no more water left to be absorbed/turned into steam).

It's the sort of thing that means that even super cheap rice cookers from the supermarket work great - that's all I've ever used.

<comment><USER4> Why do they have separate settings for white and brown rice?

<comment><USER5> I don't know any cooker with a brown rice setting, but this setting should probably first turn the heat on, then turn it down and let the rice sit below boiling point for a while, then turn the heat back on (though not as much as with white rice).

It could still wait for the heat to suddenly rise in order to know when to stop.

<comment><USER6> For standard long grain white rice, 1 part rice to 1.2 parts water. (Rinse rice until mostly clear water comes out), put on the heat(no lid/cover) until it just starts simmering(and I actually mean the preboil simmering). Heat to extremely low and lid/cover on. Timer for 10 minutes. After the timer goes off, heat off and timer for 12 minutes. Don't open the lid/cover at any stage.

That's how your rice cooker makes absorption style rice, and how you do it in a pot. (Also a ton better than boiled)

Source: 18 year experience chef ;-)

<comment><USER4> What about shaking the pot from time to time to keep the rice from adhering? I've read that frequently but not seem it do anything in practice.

<comment><USER6> Don't need to, if you follow what I said, it will come out perfectly fluffy.

Also note I have made a mixture of multiple types of rice, same way, with no issue.

Honestly I only actually learnt the Asian method about 5 years ago and was kicking myself for not researching it earlier. It's so much better and insanely reliable across different types of rice.

Edit: after it is done I tend to take the lid off, stir it and let sit for a bit to let it air out. That helps a lot.

<comment><USER7> My method is similar, except that once it boils, I stir the rice once and then simmer on medium high heat until the water level gets down to the surface of the rice and steam pockets ("rice eyes") appear. Then reduce heat to lowest and cover for 20 min.

I'm going to try your fluffing method.

<comment><USER6> Do, I'll give yours a go as well. Always looking to learn new methods!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For those that don't know, this is Josh Levine's blog. He started Island ECN and is prominently featured in Scott Patterson's Dark Pools [https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Pools-Machine-Traders- Rigging/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Pools-Machine-Traders- Rigging/dp/0307887189).

You can see the old homepage here [http://josh.com/oldindex.htm](http://josh.com/oldindex.htm)

Some of his code (through acquisitions) lives on at the Nasdaq exchange. He's a fascinating person in the history of electronic markets.

<comment><USER9> One of my favorite books. Highly recommend

<comment><USER10> Anyone one else want to weigh in on that? Sounds intriguing, but Amazon reviews suggest it's ruined by technical inaccuracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> These cats are called Maneki-neko [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneki- neko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneki-neko)

<comment><USER12> They're also in the logo of [https://media.ccc.de](https://media.ccc.de) \- At CCC events, the podiums always have a maneki-neko, whose constant movement is used by the video technicians to verify that the feed has not frozen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Fun fact: Back in the early 00's, josh.com simply had a message saying "josh.com is better than chris.com"

</comment><comment><USER14> Nice and elegant. Boss is a hardware dude with a compatible rule of thumb: Don't use a micro until it has to do more than three things.

<comment><USER7> Unless the three things cost more than the micro :-/

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This was a beautifully clear explanation — almost art. Often in question-and- answer teaching the questions devolve into topic headings, but here he anticipated and answered the questions I had and should have had. Excellent and fascinating article.

</comment><comment><USER15> An interesting tidbit talking about the coil used to push the magnet at the end of the bob (the internal mechanism of the kitty hand):

        Why does the coil use air core rather than something
        like iron that would concentrate the magnetic field?

        Because then the magnet would want to stick to it.

Is there a nonmagnetic material that could be used to concentrate the magnetic field? Aluminum?

<comment><USER16> I'm only going by what I just read on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core) , but it seems like a core only works by being magnetic itself. Note that "air core" is a term of art; if there's a nonmagnetic (e.g. plastic or ceramic) core it's still called "air core".

<comment><USER17> Copper being diamagnetic has a very low magnetic permeability, basically the same as air, but now you have an eddy current brake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> These are sometimes called pulse motors, ez-spin or bedinimotors

[https://hackaday.com/2016/01/01/ez-spin-motor-spins- forever/](https://hackaday.com/2016/01/01/ez-spin-motor-spins-forever/) [http://bedinimotors.blogspot.co.uk/](http://bedinimotors.blogspot.co.uk/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I thought the section heading "Why is the coil the secret sauce?" seemed very dubious (as is acknowledged), but it's been long enough since I've done electronics that I can't contradict it in any way.

But an analysis that focuses on the very low resistance of the wire and ignores the back EMF from moving the pendulum seems wrong.</comment>


Acer to launch 3D notebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090608PD206.html

<comment><USER2> As an animator and graphic artist I'm dubious at best about the claim that this can "Convert 2D movies into 3D". Current technology simply can't do a good job of this. As for viewing 3D without the need for glasses, all current systems for this rely on a diffraction grating over the screen which delivers a different image at slightly different viewing angles (think those old '3d' baseball cards). This technology would actually work pretty well in a laptop application becasue the primary limitation is the very specific viewing angle needed, and with a laptop you are virtually assured that the viewer will have the ability to view the content from a dead-center angle. The downside is that the diffraction lens degrades the image for normal 2d applications.</comment>


Show HN: Improve the security of your GitHub Actions in one command - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/mheap/improve-your-github-actions-security-1im7 <comment><AUTHOR> I recently read [https://julienrenaux.fr/2019/12/20/github-actions- security-r...](https://julienrenaux.fr/2019/12/20/github-actions-security- risk/) which reminds us that depending on external GitHub Actions is risky as branch and tag refs are mutable

> Using GitHub actions with branch names or tags is unsafe. Use commit hash > instead.

Instead of updating to use a SHA everywhere, I wrote a tool to do it for you, making a note of the original version (e.g. @master).

This allows you to run the tool in the future and have the sha updated to the most recent version whilst still pinning to a specific commit.</comment>


Show HN: Slofile – promote, invite, and analyse your Slack community - <AUTHOR> https://slofile.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Creator here.

Slofile works like a combination of Chit Chats and Slackin - you can list and introduce your slack group and invite new users at one place, without hosting your own Slackin.</comment>


Missed Approach: FAA Says Flytenow Go-around (YC S14) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.flytenow.com/missed-approach-faa-says-flytenow-go-around

<comment><USER2> When I heard about Flytenow, as I private pilot I could not believe they were attempting to set up a ride share market with _private_ pilots. It is so blatantly condradictory to the spirit of the law and the common understanding of the rule among aviators, and I would certainly not want to be the lawyer trying to prove it met some obtuse letter of the law.

The bulletin board justification is also ridiculous; GA airports are out of the way and the average person does not make a trip out to see who might be flying where. How could they not have seen this coming?

Flytenow would have been much better served to encourage a more streamlined process for commercial pilots to ride share and navigate any applicable FARs be it part 135 or other. There is certainly an opportunity, not quite on Uber- terms, but there are plenty of pilots with commercial or near commercial doing crappy CFI (instruction) jobs and building time for an airline transport certificate. They will certainly welcome any new revenue or time-building scheme.

The relevant FAR regarding private pilots is here: [http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&r=PART&n=14y2.0...](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&r=PART&n=14y220.127.116.11.2#se14.2.61_1113)

<comment><USER3> You Sir, are not a pilot, any pilot understand the law, and the FAA is very wrong on the ruling because that ruling actually makes illegal any cost sharing. so if you were a pilot you could not share your gas expense with any passenger even friends or family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I applaud these guys for attempting what is basically the Lyft/UberX model -- comply to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law (i.e. Lyft's original "you're not paying your driver, you're making a donation"), though it's debatable if they're even trying to do that.

BUT! And there's a big but...

Lyft & Uber were/are disrupting a system that heavily regulated/legislated, some would argue unnecessarily, has false barriers to entry, is inefficient, and is essentially an oligopoly. And their entry is lowering prices, making the market more efficient, and making consumer super-happy.

I don't think private aviation is suffering the same ailment. If anything, the airlines are operating below cost because of heavy heavy competition. The FAA licenses private pilots not because they can or they want to charge fees, but because they need to make sure that they're not flying around killing themselves (and despite that regulation, they still are doing that).

So Flytenow's approach here feels more like they found a regulated market they feel like disrupting because they can vs. actually making an inefficient market more efficient and better for consumers.

In summary: Whereas I'm happy to take a ride with random stranger in their Lyft/UberX car, where I'll get a cheaper and generally better-than-Taxi experience, I'm not in any sort of rush to join a random private pilot who has not been commercially-certified by the FAA in his aircraft that isn't designed for commercial passenger transport.

Now - that all being said - that doesn't mean that Flytenow should die! There is indeed an opportunity here, and with the right safety checks and approvals, there could be a market for P2P flights. But this should be done with the FAA, not in spite of it.

<comment><USER5> Right, but thanks to Uber et al and their complete and flaunting disregard for regulations, regulators are now getting hyper aggressive in return. In the past the slow movement of regulations had a lot to do with regulators taking the time to get input from all parties(see FCC and Net Neutrality) before jumping to a decision. But now they know that waiting a year or two to make a decision could render their decision useless so they are forced to make quick barely informed judgements. Which end up basically saying no to everyone.

<comment><USER6> An eloquent summary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the Flytenow TOS:

"Flytenow receives an administrative fee of $30 (the "Bulletin Board Fee") per Enthusiast for each flight."

Interjecting a third party into the agreement is the point at which it starts being a business and not a gentleman's agreement or whatever it should have been.

A bulletin board in an FOB doesn't count because the bulletin board, nor the provider of the board, doesn't make any money off someone putting up a 3x5 card or piece of paper. The bulletin board doesn't actually give a damn about whether anyone accepts the offer or the request, whether money changes hands or not, etc.

I could probably put up an electronic bulletin board for pilots and enthusiasts as long as I had no interest in the offers of, or requests for, flights. I could possibly even charge a yearly or monthly fee for it, as long as it was for access, not about the flights. (I'm guessing on that last bit - the FAA would probably give me squinty looks for a while until they were satisfied I wasn't charging for flights).

But Flytenow had to go putting a per-ride fee on things and that's the moment it because a business transaction.

Their TOS is here: [https://flytenow.com/terms](https://flytenow.com/terms)

\---

Really and honestly, without ever having been involved, I'm thinking the existing system of informal agreements and bulletin boards, etc. is way preferable to dealing with Flytenow. They're adding a middleman where no middleman was really needed, except maybe a neighbor who knows a guy who has a plane.

<comment><USER6> As someone said the other day, why own and run down your own fleet when you can borrow someone else's Sounds like Flytenow is aiming to be the first airline that doesn't have any planes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems fairly straightforward, but I am not a lawyer.

The common carriage rule says a private pilot can't offer to fly people around for money. The exception to this rule is if the money is only defraying the cost of the flight.

The fact that Flytenow charges a fee for connecting pilot and passenger appears to put the system outside of the exception to the rule. The fee does not defray the cost of the flight.

<comment><USER9> Flytenow's fee is irrelevant because the rules apply to a pilot, not a company. It's the pilot who can't receive compensation. For example, the outcome (according to the FAA) would be exactly the same whether or not a fee is charged by the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Flytenow implies the FAA is responding to them, but if you read the letter, this response is actually to a request from one of their competitors, AirPooler.

<comment><AUTHOR> They referenced AirPooler's interpretation in our response. [http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...](http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/data/interps/2014/Winton- AviationLawFirm%20-%20\(2014\)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm getting kind of tired of these startups who think they can bypass the rules by just holding their hands over their ears and shouting "LA LA LA THE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO ME LA LA LA."

The blog post goes into extensive detail about how their service doesn't involve soliciting rides for compensation and it falls on the expense sharing side of things and on and on. Then I visit their home page and I'm greeted by this:

"Go round trip from Boston to Martha's Vineyard for about $120 per person or from Palo Alto to Monterey Bay for about $100 per person."

Plain as day, that's advertising trips for money.

What really irks me in this case is that the requirements for carrying passengers for hire aren't all that tough to meet. You need a commercial pilot's license, a requirement that should be fairly obvious. It's not all _that_ hard to get one. You need some more training and have to fly to higher standards and know more stuff, but it's not particularly tough. The equipment is also held to higher standards, which mostly comes down to getting it inspected more often. This is not like, say, Uber and New York City, where you have to spend a million bucks on a taxi medallion or they'll shut you down. You merely have to meet some fairly basic requirements before you carry passengers for hire to ensure a basic level of competence.

The law is not a computer program. You can't exploit a judge by saying, "Please repeat the following 64kB of data back to me: empty." If it looks like you're advertising services for hire and it acts like you're advertising services for hire, you're advertising services for hire.

<comment><USER12> It's amazing that Flytenow seems to think the FAA's position doesn't "answer ... questions" or is arbitrary.

The FAA's position seems quite clear and based on reasonable ideas, even from the letters Flytenow links to and then seems to wilfully misinterpret. Private pilots can't be compensated for flights. The _exception_ is that, if the pilot and passengers have a _common purpose_ , which doesn't seem to be "oh, we happen to want to go to the same city," then they can share expenses. Thus, if a pilot and some of her friends are sitting around and say "hey, it would be great to go see X," they can pool their money to do so. Nothing the FAA seems to say officially suggests that advertising for random strangers to go on a flight is acceptable, and quite a few articles Flytenow links to seem directly contradicted by the FAA's letters. It's not clear that posting on airport bulletin boards was ever really acceptable, but may have been disregarded in that it only really advertised to other pilots, with a clearer understanding of the risks.

These rules are based on far more vital safety issues than taxis, and, as you point out, the rules around carrying paying passengers are reasonable, unlike taxis. Uber and Lyft can at least argue that they are fighting an unfair system. Flytenow can't.

For that matter, their response, keeping the platform up but removing expense- sharing, seems blatantly in contempt of the letter, and it seems certain that they'll be punished, harshly. What possible reason would there be for a site where pilots can find "non-paying" passengers to tag along with them on flights, significantly increasing their own costs, unless the expectation is that pilots will use the site to find passengers who will pay under the table?

<comment><USER9> The entire ruling was about compensation. Additionally, neither the Federal Aviation Regulations nor the FAA has ever recognized any distinction between friends or strangers, i.e., a prior existing relationship has no bearing on common purpose. Otherwise, how could you decide if common purpose exists? Is there a secret handshake? One conversation, two conversations? Maybe, just asking: can we be friends so we can fly together? That's a slippery slope.

<comment><USER13> > The entire ruling was about compensation.

Right, and, plain as day, _private_ pilots cannot fly people around for money. That's the baseline. You can't accept money in exchange for flying an airplane unless you hold a commercial or ATP certificate.

The FAA carved out an exception that allows pilots to share operating costs with passengers _IF_ the pilot and passengers share a common purpose for the flight _AND_ the pilot isn't advertizing the flight to the public or some subset of the public ("holding out"). I'll grant you there isn't a sharp, black line that divides when a private pilot is and is not breaking the cost sharing rule, but Flytenow is _clearly_ outside the grey zone (or, pilots who use Flytenow are).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The thing that isn't clear to me is whether the FAA has any kind of authority over Flytenow. Technically, doesn't their authority extend only to the pilots who use the service?

</comment><comment><USER15> I find the whole "Regulators are bad!" attitude/narrative tiresome. Regulators are responsible for protecting the interests of the public. They might sometimes be slow to adapt to advances in technology and changes in the market, but I'd rather they erred on the side of caution.

If financial regulators had been a bit less accommodating towards "innovative" products and business models, we might all be a bit better off.

</comment><comment><USER16> I would really like to read a legal memo from an administrative law attorney instead of this sort of amateur law enthusiast argument for a certain position. I am not at all familiar with the relevant law/regulations, but the style and content of the OP leaves me still not sure I got an education.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wish them the best of luck, but I don't really buy their claim that a flight they are publicly listing and charging a fee for is private cost sharing.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think the Flytenow founders are extremely ambitious for attempting to tackle such a beast. Keep at it! Relentlessly Resrouceful.

</comment><comment><USER5> We're finally getting the over the top push back that all those maybe legal startups kept asking for.

This is what happens when you keep poking someone(the regulators) with a stick. Eventually your credibility drops to near zero and everyone coming in behind you, with possibly much more reasonable ideas, will now be associated with your crap and pays the price.

Thanks Uber & Airbnb. Thanks a lot.

<comment><USER19> It's not as if this is a new idea: look at Google and Facebook.

It just seems to be a different take on the usual VC funding strategy: The startup and its investors take a risk, and they are essentially banking on either getting big enough to secure their position effectively or receiving a good exit offer from someone bigger, before they fail.

I don't like a lot of the corners some startups cut, and the kind of thing I read on HN every day does make me wary of trusting any startup enough to become a customer. Then again, some of those startups have become a lot more successful than any of my businesses, so clearly for better or worse society as a whole tolerates the envelope-pushing model at least up to a point where it's worthwhile to have tried.

<comment><USER5> The concern I'm trying to relay here is that at this point no regulator wants to be seen as asleep at the wheel while the next Uber / Airbnb grows to become an 800 pound gorilla. It's all over the news. It's everywhere. So now we are starting to see regulators jump on startups early and hard(see the local SF regulators). In the past regulators would typically get in hot water for saying yes to things they maybe should not have. Now they can get in trouble for both yes and undecided. So now it is turning into, "Is this a startup? Then no". With a hard fast "no" the startup will wilt and die and the regulator will never end up in hot water because everyone will just forget about it. And we have Uber & Airbnb to thank for that. All I can hope is that their investors, founders and vested employees give back to the startup community generously to try and make up for the damage they've done.</comment></comment></comment>


Stop doing corporations' digital busywork for free - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/stop-doing-corporations-digital-busywork-for-free-2017-11 <comment><USER2> So I'm not supposed to read license agreements because the companies should do it for me? I get the aspect of not filling out customer surveys (never do it either) but the rest isn't really work the company could do for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Stop telling _me_ to do or not do something, when the companies are at fault.

Does not exactly help me not to update my firmware and live with blue-screens and crypto malware.</comment>


Hosts of 'Car Talk' to Retire After 35 Years of Automotive Banter - <AUTHOR> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/hosts-of-car-talk-to-retire-after-35-years-of-automotive-banter/?hp

<comment><USER2> oh please</comment>


First Groovy cloud BPM platform - <AUTHOR> http://www.online4m.com/blog/articles/first_groovy_bpm/

<comment><USER2> You submitted this 16 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9034477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9034477)</comment>


If You Think You're Good At Multitasking, You Probably Aren't - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/24/170160105/if-you-think-youre-good-at-multitasking-you-probably-arent <comment><USER2> Why do we believe in this concept of _general multitasking_?

If someone is "really good" at texting while driving (let's say top 1%), it doesn't mean that he is anymore than average at a different multitasking task, like solving math problems while remembering a string of letters!

For a computer any bunch of tasks can be considered equivalent, they are just calculations (yeah, even in this case we have to ignore _a lot_ to say this but bare with me), but the human brain uses different physical subsystems to handle different tasks. So any multitasking performance depends specifically on the tasks being multitasked. Yes, there are things like general attention and interpresonal differences in it, but for the wetware in our skulls, the idea of "general multitasking" and being better or worse at it is bullshit imho.

<comment><USER3> I've never believed Multitasking exists as any sort of skill or ability.

Humans. Can't. Multitask.

We can switch our attention from task to task in rapid succession and call it multitasking, but that only results in doing many things poorly.

I always giggle at the job descriptions that say they are looking for a "great multitasker at home in a fast paced environment".

<comment><USER4> What makes you believe that humans can't multitask?

I can move both of my hands at the same time, or rub my belly and pat my head. Both of these examples are me performing 2 functions simultaneously. I can do these because basic motor skills have become a trivial task through my years of development.

Just like muscle memory, which can be highly developed in professional athletes, I think many tasks can be developed to the point of being able to multitask (like when someone says something becomes 2nd nature, or natural reaction).

As others have mentioned, I don't think multitasking is a proficiency in itself, but rather when you become proficient enough at a task your brain can internalize and multitask it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the article: "Seventy percent of the study participants, all college undergraduates, said they thought they were better than average at multitasking. Of course, _that's statistically impossible_ " [my emphasis]

It's time this misconception ended. I can't remember the amount of times I've read something like "but only 50% of people can be above average!" To put it another way, I imagine most of you reading this comment have an above average number of legs.

<comment><USER2> When people say "better than average", their intuition tends to be "better than half" (the concept here is _the median_ ), as opposed to "better than a particular number that happens to be the average value of that hing" (the concept here is _the average_ or _arithmetic mean_ ). And in this context indeed _only 50% can be above median_.

People's intuition of stats is not that bad actually, but most invariably fuck up when it comes to mapping their fuzzy intuitive concepts to mathematical concepts: they make the mistake of mapping their "intuitive average" with the "mathematical average" when instead it should map to the "median". And yes, for people that understand the word "average" as "arithmetic mean" (as Excel does and most technically literate people do), there is no such "intuitive average" and its wrong mapping to math. But for "lesser minded" people it works like described above, and in their understanding of the words (incorrect... but _real_ , as this how their minds work), the phrase "but only 50% of people can be above average!" is actually valid.

<comment><USER5> You make a fair point. I'm happy to accept that colloquially when someone says "better than average" they mean "better than the median" but it's when an article, such as this, uses strong language like "[it's a] _statistical impossibility_ " that it irks me, because that's a definitive factual statement that's not true (or, at best, not well defined enough to be meaningful).

Statistics are so often abused that rigour is more than just a matter of pedantry. Perhaps if journalists stopped having such a loose relationship with statistics we'd all be better off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The headline cracks me up. Has the implication that if you think you're terrible at it, you might be good.

And computer analogies are terrible here. My body is ridiculously good at multitasking in ways that I have learned through years of doing over and over. I never have to think about how to breath and walk, walk and talk, etc. Oddly, in some respects I'm terrible at talking and typing. Clearly something is going on with a shared resource. (Off topic, but there is a great Feynman video talking about the differences in how some people count in their heads leading to different people being able to do other things at the same time.)

None of this is to say I'm trying to argue for texting while driving. But to think that it is simply a matter of multitasking without some degree of training being involved seems disingenuous. When I first learned standard transmission, talking while driving was difficult to consider. Now, I can eat a taco in mild traffic.

<comment><USER7> "Has the implication that if you think you're terrible at it, you might be good."

Which is often the case. When you understanding something well enough to be good at it, you also understand the limitations of your knowledge, and are more likely to rate yourself poorly as a result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the OP:

> _They asked student volunteers whether they used cellphones while driving, > and whether they were good at multitasking. Then they tested the students' > multitasking ability by asking them to solve math problems while remembering > random strings of letters._

> _They found that the people who multitasked the most in real life — the > impulsive risk-takers — were actually much worse at juggling tasks than > people who rarely drove while phoning._

> _Even worse, these demon multitaskers thought they were terrific at it, > though the cold, hard data proved they weren't._

So a possible upshot is that it's possible that you _can_ be more efficient when multi-tasking. It's just that the kinds of people who multi-task are often the kind of people who _shouldn't_ be doing it (and thus bring down the efficiency scores of those who _are_ able to hack it).

</comment><comment><USER9> I do better focusing on one thing at a time. Instead of multitasking, I choose one task, but allow myself to be interrupted only by small tasks that can be resolved on the spot or within a minute or so. Anything larger goes in the queue. There is something to be said for immediately addressing concerns of customers, vendors, and employees, -even if it _could_ wait. Pays great dividends if your task involves other people. Most of the projects that I focus on one at a time don't suffer if I break off for a minute to send an email or schedule a resource.

If it's just smaller tasks, -just line them up and knock them out. Even a quick email deserves attention to grammar and spelling and can be undermined by a typo while talking on the phone. What are you really gaining?

<comment><USER10> To me, the definition of a person that is good at multitasking isn't the person that sees the least reduction in overall productivity when task- switching. To me, the person that is the best at multitasking is the person that knows where that reduction is irrelevant to the metrics that matter.

In this respect, your post indicates you are an excellent at multitasking.

To add to your point. I've worked in a call center environment where there were two schools of employee: those that documented their interaction with the customer as it was happening (the multitasker) and the employee that did it after the call had ended (the single tasker).

Now, all things being equal, the employee that was not multi-tasking probably didn't make spelling mistakes in their call documentation and might have had marginally better engagement with the customer. However, none of those things were metrics that actually needed to be optimized. So the employee was choosing to optimize one dimension (documentation quality / engagement) at the expense of another (duration).

On the other hand, the multitasking employee could handle 10% more call volume at the end of each day which reduced customer hold time and call abandon rates, which improved a metric our customers (and management) actually did care about.

I'm not making some universal claim. I'm just saying in this particular anecdote, multitasking produced outcomes more aligned with objectives given by management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here are my rules for using the phone in the car.

1\. As little as I reasonably can. (Ah, but what is reasonable?)

2\. When I need to, as short as I can. If you call me, my usual response is, "I'm driving, can I call back later?"

3\. If I have a choice, in a place where driving is as safe as possible. (Freeway driving requires much less active attention than city streets, as long as you can see what is going on waaay ahead.)

4\. The road always comes first. If I catch myself failing to have done regular scans of mirrors and location of nearby cars, this phone call is over.

All of that said, I still feel a minor twinge of guilt every time I call home to give an ETA for when I'll get there. But not much, because it would be more dangerous for me to take the time to get off the road, park, make my call, then get back on the interstate.

<comment><USER12> I was nodding my head in agreement up until that last bit. How is it more dangerous to pull off the interstate and park (assuming you are using an offramp and not just the shoulder) than making a phone call?

<comment><USER13> I think GP probably was talking about using the shoulder. However, keep in mind that both merging on to the interstate, and city driving are significantly more dangerous than interstate driving. Combine that with the fact that calling to give an ETA is a lot less focus-consuming that most calls, and it is _plausible_ that staying on the interstate is safer.

<comment><USER14> Stopping on the shoulder for such a trivial reason as giving an ETA is usually illegal and a bad idea anyways, so it shouldn't even be an option to be considered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This just seems like a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

</comment><comment><USER15> A simple algorithm to determine if you're good at multitasking:

1) you aren't

</comment><comment><USER16> "Good at multitasking" is one thing I would see as a huge red flag if it ever appeared on a programmer's resume.

<comment><USER17> Dang, all this time I thought that putting effort into learning Erlang would /improve/ my job prospects :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This sounds related to Restraint Bias: <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_bias>

</comment><comment><USER19> One problem I have is that in traditional organizational structures, it can be difficult to call "bullshit" on what I've found to be some of the worst multi- taskers: Your management.

Their multi-tasking was a source of endless problems. But "multi-tasking" was the "norm" and the "best practice".

One reason I have very little sympathy for those now proclaiming the ills of multi-tasking. The worst seem to be the same fad-management oriented folks with no deep insight, and I fear -- where I do not already observe -- that the initiatives are not genuine.

One example: Multi-tasking is "bad" for those who count. But they continue to pile it onto the average worker.

P.S. To clarify my concern about such people and their attitude: "It's my performance that is important. (Whereas my dog could do your job.)" Formerly: "my performance" == multi-tasking. Now: "my performance" == not multi-tasking.

But that says nothing about the jobs under their control. In fact, the less they themselves multi-task, the more they may force it down onto their reports. To pick up the slack, as it were.

</comment><comment><USER20> Well, my brain does multitask.

How would we do anything if our brain would stop processing arm movements while processing visual information?

Or stop talking while moving the head?

These are all forms of multitasking, or does the brain do sequential processing for all required information?!

<comment><USER21> Those are different kind of multitasking. They are done behind the scenes. The problem starts when you try to multitask on conscious activities, like programming and having a conversation, or texting and driving. Those tasks compete with each other for high-level processing power, which humans have barely enough for one task.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think I'm good at multitasking, so probably I am!

</comment><comment><USER23> I am excellent at multi-tasking.

I have read and absorbed a great deal of both technical and non-technical literature whilst on the toilet.

</comment><comment><USER24> Is juggling (balls) considered multitasking? Because i'm fairly good at that.

</comment><comment><USER25> another example of taxpayers money well used ...</comment>


Designing Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/words-about-design/e3adc220cfa7 <comment><USER3> Ok, suggestions:

1\. Python world has a documentation "standard" of a markdown language (ReSt) converts to HTML and LaTeX, usually through a preprocessing called sphinx that can link docs intelligently.

There are doc-a-likes in other languages (JS-docco) and they generally look boring and work-a-day.

Luckily they also have abstracted out most of the templating and css.

I suggest that initially try out writin some themes for a markdown output, but with the goal of agreeing target outputs - that is get the output from markdown for page footer to be standardised across all languages - and then there is a target HTML to aim CSS at - in the same way that there are a million themes for Wordpress because all Wordpress HTML output uses same conventions, so designers can iterate against same background, I would love to see a million themes for open documentation, knowing I could write comments and it would already be not ugly

2\. Logos - yeah boring I know but everyone loves them. Offer one to any open source project and they will say yes. So run a gravatar of logos - store the png on (logotar) and link to it via the hash of the repo. Then all I need do is put link of logotar.com/md5hash.png and presto. You have a scorechart and a way to see who has logos for most popular repos and I have a logo in my readme

3\. Wan to get more deeply involved in a project - do mood boards for their site or do button / widget themes (ie bootstrap alterations). In the end we developers need as much practise at getting it right as you guys

Brilliant decision to push on this - good luck

<comment><USER4> 4\. Make an infographic about the project. Could be advertisement, which compares it to competitors. Could be a Tutorial. Could be a cheetsheat.

5\. Build a real website, if the Github project page is the current website. You should probably contact them first to check for backend technology. Not every developer likes Wordpress.

6\. Bug reports about smaller design issues. Graphic designer often have good testing skills (and infrastructure?) for multiple operating systems. You can probably suggest a solution already. Examples: "The website should specify the Frutiger font for OS X, because the sans-serif fallback mixes badly with the fixed-width font." or "The navigation menu is unuseable on smartphones. Add this CSS: ..."

7\. Larger projects need to integrate multiple parts (wiki,forum,bugtracker,etc) in their website. Often there is no unified theme for all components.

Personally, I like lifeisstillgood's point 1 best, because you would help multiple projects at once. For example, Sphinx themes could definitely benefit from a graphic designer: <http://sphinx-doc.org/theming.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes, I am a designer and I have thought about this as well. _However_ stating your message as _We/you should be giving back_ is not going to resonate with a lot of designers. Let me tell you why: Most designers fight of the "why-dont- you-design-a-logo-for-free-for-my-business-because-you-like-to-design" for years. Even though I say "no" most of the time, I still spend a lot of nights designing free stuff for a lot of people.

Buy, like I said: I want to follow this call to arms. Not because I "should" but because occasionally I see a lot of nice Open Source projects out there I'd like to be a part of. Or a great concept I'd like to design the logo, icon or UX for. Why? Because of the best motivator out there: ME. I want it for my own portfolio, or for my own network of cool-people-building-cool-stuff or just to learn and become better at some field. So if you want a designer, tell them you'll _work with them_ and give them feedback, make them part of the team for a specific piece of the project.

I realize people are going to downvote me into the 7th ring of hell for this 'selfish' reply, but I'd like to see this happen and I hope this motivator helps.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, as a developer we also get the occasional "code for free" pitch but I find it much more satisfying to code for free on things I've decided. I would love to see more designers come and help us make open source look great.

EDIT: Is there anything as developers that we can do to attract designers as contributors to our projects ?

<comment><USER5> Is there a hotlist of projects you developers like? A description and what team is building it? Add a few keywords on what is missing (design-wise) for the project and let me reply on the keyword.

<comment><USER6> Not really. We all have our source of hot new projects (eg: <http://thechangelog.com/>) but things we end up using usually come from our own projects / work. From my point of view I see two types of contributions.

The first one is a drive-by contribution. You're using project XY to help reach your goal but it wasn't perfect. The contribution is providing the fix for that. I guess the equivalent for you is that you see the website's using Helvetica and it hurts your eyes so you want to fix it. I would love that kind of contribution but never saw it happen.

The second one is a owned project. It's your baby. I have a couple of those, they're things I think are great and I would like to help them grow. For that I give some of my free time to nurture them. I would love to see a designer adopt them as well and have discussions on the content and form of the documentation or how we could improve the message by changing the design.

I'm not sure if I'm conveying the approach but what I want to say is that it's not really a task list. It should also be your drive-by contribution or a baby. Just choose what you want, no pressure. And let us know if there's anything that we're doing wrong that throws you off.

<comment><USER5> Good insights. Never thought of it that way, but you're right. Thanks for the changelog link. I'll bookmark it and perhaps I'll contribute. Oh, and great name for a url: <http://drivebydesign.com> Too bad some squatter already holds it.

<comment><USER6> Yeah too bad for the domain.

Just some last parting words: It also feels really empowering. You see something that is wrong, you can fix it. That is not something you can do with closed software, you have to cope with whatever the vendor has decided to handle the issue.

The closest I've seen to this in the design world is people doing site re- designs and posting them on their own blog. It shows the world an alternative to the existing design but then it's no a direct path to updating the actual site like we could do in software. I wish there was a solution for that.

EDIT: It reminds me, the Amaya browser which only a few have heard of supports of writing back the changes of a page if the server supports it: <http://www.w3.org/Amaya/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like this, a lot.

This kind of thinking can be applied anywhere, not just to open source. Imagine how much good could be accomplished if the world were a more open, collaborative place.

</comment><comment><USER8> Great post, Jon.

A few months ago there was a thread about a new operating system some people wanted to develop that would rely heavily on aesthetics. The mockups/prototypes I saw for it were weak and mostly stolen concepts from OS X. When I asked - as a designer - how I would get involved in these projects before they begin (because designing after-the-fact is no fun for anyone), I was told simply to try to get in touch with someone on the existing project. Unfortunately, tearing up what they'd already done so far didn't really sound appealing to me as I did not want to ruffle any feathers with whoever was currently designing _or_ developing it.

I'm a lot more interested in raising my hand _before_ work is already underway to say "Hey, I'm here. Here's what I've done in the past and here's what I'm interested in doing in the future." To this point, I wish Github had a section for designers who truly want to contribute to open-source so people could get in touch with them right on the site they would be hosting those projects on. I guess I could put something in my Dribbble profile about that, but I don't think that's where devs wanting free work are looking.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)

I think 'not ruffling feathers' is sure to be one of the biggest challenges; we also have to figure out how to manage team size (if >1) and work load. In 'the real world' we have things like budgets to constrain them and I wonder how that translates to projects where, theoretically, anyone can get involved. It would be a step backwards if we ended up lots of mediocre design-by- committee.

That said, lots of the most impressive products in recent software engineering have been accomplished by remote, disparate groups of strangers. I think that's really cool and something we as designers should get over our egos and strive to be a part of :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Designers shouldn't look at Open Source as some kind of charity or that they owe something. Most of the best open source work is done out of necessity. If you believe in a product and it's something you need then contribute something that improves everyone's lives.

I've thought about this topic a lot and I honestly don't know how to involve more designers. My current stance is we need to figure out how to educate more engineers on how to make better interaction and product design decisions. It's a much bigger audience and if we can elevate the people writing code then we have a much better chance at creating better products.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think the design process is completly different from coding, and I don't think the right tools for effective collaboration have already been built. Sometimes I wonder if that's even possible. Design seems to work best when it's a one two persons vision than something made with a group, since it lack the level of objectivity found in coding. Stuff like twitter bootstrap might be pointing in the right direction... o modular base that a lot of people can agree uppon and that can be easily changed or themed.

<comment><USER4> What kind of design are we talking about?

A programmer does lots of design. She designs APIs, component architectures, network protocols, database schemas, etc. All of these have a great dose of subjectivity in them. Design by committee also has a bad image here.

You are probably talking about graphic and typographic design. What does a designer do?

In my opinion a big part of design activity is communication. As a graphic designer your job is to visualize other peoples vision. A programmer's job is implement other peoples business rules. Not to develop their own. You need to find out about the values, goals, process, and language of your client and maybe even his customers.

Then a designer goes back to his Mac and fires up his Adobe tools for the next iteration. A programmer goes back to her IDE for the next iteration. This is not in a group for either of them.

tl;dr I do not believe the difference is that big

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great article. As a developer I have very similar feelings, I imagine there are more like me. Often the perceived barriers are very similar to the ones mentioned here (not feeling smart enough, not knowing where to start, etc.)

One nice project that came up on HN recently, but people may have missed, is codetriage (<http://http://www.codetriage.com/>) which I have signed up for, but have yet to take any action on. It provides a gentle run-way into contributing to projects on github, by emailing you issues from projects you have expressed an interest in helping out with. Even if you are not so confident in your coding skills, there is still plenty of helpful work to be done here. From the emails codetriage sends out:

      Goals of Triage

      Help share the weight of maintaining a project
     Minimize un-needed issues
     Prevent stale issues
     Encourage productive communication
     Teach good citizenship
     To become a better coder
     How To Triage?

      First, carefully read over the issue, title, and description, if there are any comments read over all the comments, carefully. If a member of this repo is engaging actively there is no need to do anything, leaving a comment in the issue would just add to the clutter.

      If the issue hasn't been updated in awhile, or if no one has commented consider the issue, if it is a bug try to reproduce it. If it is a pull request consider what an alternate implementation might look like. If there is something you don't understand about the issue and feel others will have that same question please leave your question in the comments. Be as descriptive as possible. Comments like "I don't understand this" are not helpful and counter productive. A better comment might be "Can you help me understand a use case for this?".

      If you can reproduce the issue or you believe it is a good pull request, add a comment and say why you think that is. Try to stay positive while triaging issues, ask questions before you :-1: something. If you do decide to :+1: or :-1: on an issue, leave a comment as to why you feel that way. Issues are for social coding, if you help someone make better issues, you're helping the community.

      If the issue goes stale, leave a comment asking if it is still a problem. If you get no response for a number of days, you can leave another comment suggesting to the repo owner that they should close the issue.

      Go forth and make the world a better place

My point is - I love the idea about contributing with design, but don't write off helping with code issues either! You may surprise yourself! Also worth bearing in mind other areas that may be lacking people-power - for example if you are multi-lingual, translations are another great way to contribute....

</comment><comment><USER12> I think this is a great idea. My own little open source projects have always suffered on the frontend design site due to my lack of skills. Having people with those skills contributing can sometimes make a huge difference to a project , especially as most would be unable to validate paying for design work for something they're producing for free.

Maybe I can't find it but there doesn't seem to be a place where open source projects can interactive with designers who are willing to contribute their time freely. Maybe something that could bridge the gap between a designer community site and something like github?

</comment><comment><USER13> > As designers we've been put off of 'work we don't get paid for' by clients- > from-hell, 99designs & eLance

I'm curious - As a developer without design skills, I've used 99designs several times and was always happy with both the process and the results. Does it have a bad rep among designers? Why?

<comment><USER3> As a developer I have used 99designs and was able to find something acceptable. I have however worked with designers of real and rare skill, and they do work that inspires and changes the direction of my development. That's stuff if I could do I would not do for 200 bucks.

That's kind of the issue - before 99 designs I had to have no design or use my own abilities to get there. It was awful. Now 99designs has raised the awful to acceptable for merely 200 bucks. From my point of view that's great - <USER2> it seems there were a lot of people paying designers when they just wanted a logo and a theme

I should say that bootstrap and wordpress has done as much to take this source of incone away as 99deigns. There is now an automated bottom to the market. So it's harder now to find clients. Good designers need to show value add, like the rest of us. I would suggest they a lid the idea of a single site rewrite and join up with AB testers and offer site improvement services in a monthly payment cycle.

The top of the market through is still game change time

<comment><AUTHOR> Bootstrap is a great example of something that might have taken _some_ work away from _some_ designers, but the whole it contributes back to is much richer as a result.

Since Bootstrap and other high-quality frameworks have been released I've noticed an all-around higher baseline quality of design (which is a good thing - I'm well aware that there's not always the time or money to involve a designer), and more importantly they provide a nice _baseline_ for developers to get more interested in honing their own design skills.

A parallel might be…say…Rails? I could never have dreamt of making my own web apps in Ruby without it - as a beginner things would have just been far too intimidating. Too many things to learn. But Rails quickly got me to a base level of competency from which I could add skills, and go back to basics (and write things in vanilla Ruby etc). A bit of hand-holding is great.

But yeah - as a craftsman who respects others I try to always employ highly- paid local engineers. That's kind of why we don't (always) like 99designs (but that's a different discussion for a different day I think)

<comment><USER3> I don't really know the designer market, but I was not arguing that bootstrap was overall a bad thing, but I get the impression that you don't need a designer to get a basic site off the ground, much like php or rails means you don't need a developer to get off the ground.

I would suggest we are eliminating the basement level of incompetant design or development, at the cost of not having any basement level clients. This is again probably a good thing.

And yes discussion is going off on a tangent. Stopping now :-)

Edit : thinking it through I would say that the 99designs logo was actually unsatisfactory. It was not technically so (vector graphics, nice clean lines, looks vaguely cloud)

What it was not was anything to do with my business my values my goals or the clients I want to communicate with.

As such it was unsatisfactory - and I guess that's the pain point a good designer needs to beat. Just as I as a custom software developer needs to solve a clients actual problems to be more value than an off shelf product, same for designers.

Just wanted to point out the 99designs et al are not what I think a "designer" does.

ok now really stopping</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Please do not default to using Google nameservers - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761658 <comment><USER2> Sadly, I can't think of any other sane default. Note that it is only used as a fallback in Debian.

<comment><USER3> The only sane default is to have no nameservers configured.</comment></comment>


There is only one best charity - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gj/efficient_charity_do_unto_others/

<comment><USER2> _...and so a beautiful painting remains in a British museum and somewhere in the Third World a thousand people are dead._

This kind of moralizing about other people's choices leaves me very cold. It's their money; they can spend it as they see fit.

The point about the insecticide nets being more effective per dollar than antimalarial drugs is better taken; in that case the goal is the same, and only the means are in question. But if people want to give their money for an entirely different purpose, such as keeping a painting in a museum, that is their choice.

So no, there is not only one best charity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Moralizing isn't the point. The point is that, for a given value system, there is one charity that best optimizes for those values. The vast majority of the people who donated to that museum would agree that the thousand lives are more important than the painting, yet they donated to the museum instead of the third world anyway. This isn't because they're immoral, it's because they're irrational: they're not optimizing with respect to their own value systems.</comment></comment>


Leaders should create gaps - <AUTHOR> http://www.alphadevx.com/a/518-Leaders-should-create-gaps <comment><USER2> > Creating silence

A tremendous tool not just if you're a leader. People feel compelled to fill the gap, often in an interesting way.</comment>