If You Think Basic Income Is "Free Money" or Socialism, Think Again - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/basic-income/if-you-think-basic-income-is-free-money-or-socialism-think-again-4a17e8d15b1 <comment><USER3> Basic income is a bottom-up stimulus package, like how bailouts for banks are "stimulus" packages but nestled in Reaganomics, i.e., expecting the money to trickle down. Except that bailouts sequester the money almost exclusively in the banking industry and so are useless for everyone except those who are already rich, and the government itself.

Basic income fills the economy with money that can be really spent, and like the article says people will vote with their dollars. I can't understand why free market fanboys don't like it! It's the best way to incite competition in the marketplace by removing the exploitative (i.e., freedom-revoking) abilities of the companies that prey on the lifestyles of low-income workers who are stuck working multiple jobs just to get by.

<comment><USER4> How about I just point out the huge flaw here:

Bank bailouts, in theory, are to be paid back, with interest. In a lot of cases they were. Not all, of course, but the economy turned. Net, bank bailouts were a good investment. QE may turn out to be as well (I may doubt that, but truth it the jury's still out)

If that same deal can be made, believably, for basic income, we wouldn't be having this argument: we'd provide basic income, today, as a loan. Hell, I'd fight to add my own money to provide that basic income.

Since you pretty much don't like me anymore at this point, why not just go ahead and fully state the problem:

What we cannot have in the economy, is a large, and potentially exponentially growing, group of expenses without any useful work.

And when I mean "we cannot" I don't mean that I'm denying this to you. I don't mean states don't want it. I don't mean I don't want to give everyone that. I mean we cannot. Any such policy must fail in a limited amount of time.

I mean you cannot have basic income for any length of time in the same sense that you cannot paint the sky green. Disappointing perhaps, but simply a parameter of existence, nothing more.

You shouldn't blame economics for this. Nor should you blame states, banks, the rich, or anyone. The only things to be blamed for it is thermodynamics. Of course the universe couldn't exist stably without those laws, so maybe math itself should bear the guilt.

<comment><USER5> In risk adjusted terms bailouts lose money by having easier terms than private investments.

Further, bailout money came from loans (bonds), and the government lost money both from the loan payment and the higher interest rate from selling more bonds.

People in prison do no work yet society has plenty of surplus to cover them. The reality is minimum wage jobs are a tiny slice of the economy because they create so little value. If BI means 1/2 of those jobs don't get done then no great loss.

<comment><USER6> Lots of prisoners work and they are paid below minimum wage to subsidize there housing cost.

<comment><USER7> In the US, paying prisoners is technically optional per the 13th amendment loophole.

Furthermore, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and combined with for-profit prisons' political contributions, there are perverse incentives and outright corruption to overprosecute poor and minorities, as evidenced by the skewed prison vs. entire US demographics.

And it's _"their"_

<comment><USER6> Yes, that is the point, they are not paying them fairly and pocketing the difference to subsidize prison costs. Meaning using prisons as an example of UBI being viable isn't a compelling argument.

Pointing out typos like that is boorish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well, it _is_ free money, that's the point; but neither that nor being "socialism" automatically makes it bad.

This article is an interesting way of pitching basic income to a "capitalist"/right audience by phrasing it in ways like "basic income is fuel for markets", "buying is like voting" (!) and "I like markets. I want to reduce the size of government. I want less bureaucracy. I want less administration. I want fewer government jobs."

<comment><USER9> Yes, it was an unusual article in that the author was doing a lot of work to strawman-out conservatives and then make the UBI pitch.

It wasn't a _bad_ pitch, but it felt really loose and meandering, like it could have ran a third of its length and been much more cogent and direct. Instead of direct and succinct, I got the feeling of an author standing out in a field, waving their arms around, while breathlessly making all sorts of tangentially-related generalizations and responses.

And I think that's the problem here: folks on both sides of the UBI issue would rather deal in generalities and grandstanding instead of just trying the dang thing out a bunch of times and seeing what works and what doesn't.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. was obviously in need of some kind of revamping of its healthcare system. Instead of trying hundreds of things out and quickly iterating a learning over time, what happened was that the issue was argued at the highest level of abstraction and in generic terms: what kind of modern country doesn't provide healthcare for it's people?

It took decades of argument, and in the end we got a one-size-fits-all solution that is now going to take decades to modify and adjust. If you want responsive government, this way of discussion and change is a dysfunctional way to improve the quality of people's lives.

So with UBI, I'm quite interested in the various experiments and the low-level details of what was tried and what kind of results are produced, much more so than some nebulous arguing and strawmanning around the concept in general. I support the concept in general -- if we're going to spend a lot of money on the poorer folks in society (I believe that isn't changing), then we should be constantly looking for ways to make the outcomes better. Big, animated discussions around what socialism is or isn't? Not part of an effective national dialog.

Also, Alaska is not a conservative state. It's a libertarian one. Many, many people seem to want to conflate libertarianism with conservatism. They are entirely separate (Insert long discussion here about the differences between libertarianism in the states and conservatism. Also another discussin about just what the heck conservatism is after the election of the recent president. Neither of these discussions are probably useful or germane to the topic of the essay)

<comment><USER10> Like most Medium posts, the author could have used an editor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Everyone should get enough money to be able to refuse to work. That way, the > incentive is shifted to employers, where it should be. Want someone to do > something? Pay them enough to do it.

This sounds nice in theory, but how doesn't this result in price inflation? Not only are you going to be taking a portion of businesses' profits in taxes, but now you are increasing the cost of labour. And frankly, some jobs suck so badly that no one is going to want to do them without being paid a ton of money. For example, manual agricultural labor. Food costs would almost certainly skyrocket. (Unless you account for illegal immigrants, which you couldn't naturalize because then you'd have to give them a UBI).

<comment><USER12> I don't know about the US but in my country manual agricultural labor pays so much only immigrants living in hay barns can afford to do the work. for everyone else it doesn't pay enough to do the work

<comment><USER13> Would be nice if you would mention what is your country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can't manage to get past about paragraph two. What an idiotic piece of writing with zero basis in reality.

Money is not a means to "vote" on what we should produce. Money is a means to reduce friction in the trade process. It does other things as well, but its primary purpose is to make it easier to get the things we want by reducing how much time and effort goes into coming up with a thing to trade for the thing we want.

So, say you want a steak dinner and you are a programmer. You don't have to go to the restaurant and offer to program something for the owner in order to get your steak dinner. You program for your employer. They give you money. You take money to the restaurant. The restaurant doesn't have to have immediate need of programming to cut a deal with you.

There is an argument to be made wrt the idea that lots of people are adding value to the system that is hard to quantify, hard to translate into money, etc and those people shouldn't be left out in the cold, not just because it is cruel, but because it actively harms the system as a whole. I was a homemaker and the _feminization of poverty_ is a genuine phenomenon. A big piece of that puzzle isn't sexism per se, but the simple fact that women are expected to invest time and energy in taking care of other people on an ongoing basis. The degree to which they do this for other people often doesn't really come back to them.

But, I am doubtful that basic income does anything to remedy that situation. In fact, I have fears that it would only serve to entrench the expectation that women should just accept basically being treated like slaves by the world around them. I don't think this is a good thing. It is one of the reasons I am not pro UBI.

I think there are much better ways to try to not leave people out in the cold entirely. They include universal basic healthcare and access to genuinely affordable housing. Addressing those two issues wouldn't fix everything for everyone, but neither will UBI.

I think this is an unusually good write up of some of what is broken with the idea of UBI:

[https://email@example.com/after-universal-basic- incom...](https://email@example.com/after-universal-basic-income-the- flood-217db9889c07)

<comment><USER15> The article that you linked was well-thought and well-written. I liked the more bottom-up approach to the issues and that Mr Sarris at least offered kernels of alternatives.

Ignoring for a moment that the decision-making ability of the US legislature is all but broken, I worry that the sheer complexity of the issues surrounding UBI would make adoption – or even learned consideration – impossible.

And, as you and Sarris mention, the relationship between UBI and healthcare and housing (rents) is a whole other can of complexity.

<comment><USER14> His article is a delight to read, if only for how he wittily plays with words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think that some sort of UBI has become absolutely necessary.

People who have money tend to have so much of it that they can't possibly spend it efficiently - There is no way for the money to trickle down evenly because wealthy individuals rarely interact with people who are outside of their own social class. In the case of extremely wealthy individuals, they even have to hire a security detail in order to further insulate themselves from the lower classes.

I think that's why cryptocurrencies are going up so much; the very rich can afford to keep 'throwing away' an unlimited amount of surplus money. I don't think cryptocurrencies are a bubble because bubbles only pop when the fear sets in; but if you have unlimited money which you don't care about losing, you have nothing to fear. The way I see it, cryptocurrencies are like UBI for tech people.

</comment><comment><USER17> The author also has a series of different ideas on how to pay for it without raising income taxes. I found that more interesting than this, but I already fully support and believe in the capacity for amazing stuff from people who are set free

[https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare- and...](https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare-and-taxes-to- provide-every-american-citizen-with-a-basic-income-bc67d3f4c2b8)

</comment><comment><USER18> UBI is free money for landlords.

Just once, just one single time, I'd like to hear or read a convincing explanation for how UBI will not be completely captured by rents. I'm still waiting.

<comment><USER19> You fund it with a Georgist style land value tax.

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

<comment><USER20> When you tax something you penalize it - so in this case you'd penalize owning land. This would seem to concentrate land in the hands of the wealthy as far as I can see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> After a few years of reading UBI (Universal Basic Income) debates I come to the conclusion that it is impossible to teach humans new tricks. The way you earn and spend money is deeply ingrained into our brains.

When the Neanderthal used the ATM he knew that it was his successful killing of a sabre tooth that lead to the money he had in his hands.

Maybe we should just skip this immediate step and go full on Star Trek/Venus Project.

<comment><USER22> Some things are already free, such as the air. We don't worry about it day-to- dzy, because we have that need met. Once a need is met, we worry about the next one. There is no end to our needs and wants. So, with basic income, it just means all those needs step up one rung.

But without basic needs met, a workforce is less productive.

It's a similar argument as for universal health care and education. If that's too contentious, consider that most civilizations provide many things to their citizens, such as roads, currency, military, law and law enforcement. that are free to the user.

Thw difference is that today, basic income can be afforded by the state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What are good alternatives?

How can we motivate people to work but still keep them from being poor?

I have some ideas, but no real solution.

For example, I work as a software developer and after I switched to self employment I noticed that I made more money by working less. I started seeing people everywhere making money with stuff that requires far less "hard skills" then software development.

And still people do this, they work for much less than they're worth, so it can't be "just money" that motivates people to work.

<comment><USER24> >What are good alternatives?

I'm not an expert but here is my thinking:

Basic income could be interest-free debt extended by the government, whose repayment is done entirely from future taxes, i.e. without increasing the taxes they would have otherwise paid.

This would motivate people to stop accumulating the debt quickly, it would force people to make investments into their education (to increase earnings later), and it would act as a smaller incentive to game the system than a pure money transfer.

The basic reason basic income is so important is that people are not able to make any investment of their time if they are trying to make ends meet: going to work for McDonald's is not an effective strategy for climbing out of the poverty hole.

Staying home and attending classes or learning a skill, however, is. There are few people whose natural talents are so low that after investing 5-10 years, they cannot become skilled or productive enough to contribute meaningfully to society.

Additionally it would finance artistic endeavors which often take over a decade of practice before producing anything worth being sold.

Indeed, many artists could fail ever to make a meaningful tax contribution (to repay the basic income they were given), however, this may be a burden society as a whole could bear.

In addition there should be some kind of easy grace period or tapered end of benefits so that accepting a job does not "endanger" someone's benefits that they're already receiving.

We can't talk about all the different parts of society, but to talk about this incentives thing in terms of hackers: some programmers will choose to devote themselves to open source and take a basic income. This is simply a fact. For years, (5-10-20 years) they will live on basic income and contribute to open source. This is just a simple byproduct of introducing basic income.

So what needs to happen is that after someone has done that for 15 years, if a commercial company wants to hire that hacker for some reason, then there needs to be a smooth way for the hacker to accept that salary. This transition is a difficult one, but ideally, over a few years of working for their corporate sponsors, they'll have generated enough taxes to repay all of their previous transfer payments. All of the future taxes they generate are now tax base value that never would have existed without the basic income.

So this kind of a 'success story' can work. Basic income needs to be quite low, i.e. not much of an incentive, and it is important for people not to feel like they are endangering their basic income, by taking paid work.

I believe these issues can be solved very well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Yes, it's a free money! What else it could be??

You give free money to people who don't work (and probably don't want to work at all) and you naively expect them to have high-level of responsibility in the sense they eventually find a job and pay back money in form of taxes.

Do you know what's happen if you give free money to people? They just ask for more money! They won't feel guilty for not working because they would think it's rich people who has to pay back what they "stole from society" during last centuries. They would create complicated conspiracy stories which justify their side.

Many people (if not most!) are completely irresponsible for their own life. Face it! If it were not true, people in Russia wouldn't support paternalistic ideology of Putin's government, people in Venezuela wouldn't buy free-lunch ideology of Hugo Chavez, people around the world wouldn't believe in god to whom they would beg for solving their problems.

The only reason many people work (and contribute to economy) instead of drinking beer is that they need money for that beer. If you don't believe me, just go to Ibiza's San Antonio West End street and see how brits got wasted.

<comment> vertex-four Perhaps, as a society, we don't need everyone "working" (as in participating in work-for-wages, as opposed to other forms of ad-hoc and uncompensated work). In fact, the idea that we do is very new - it's only really in the last 60 years or so that women, a good 50% of the working-age population, have entered the workforce.

Instead of using involuntary sexism as a basis for shrinking the working population, perhaps building a system in which working several hours 5-7 days a week for a wage is more voluntary would be a good thing and allow the rebuilding of communities and society.

<comment><USER26> Anecdotally, I have been on the receiving end of 'free' food and shelter from a friend or family member on several occasions (as an adult fully capable of working, but un- or under-employed). The benefits to my mental health were immediate and lasting, which in turn benefited those around me. I had free time and energy to further my education, write songs, produce videos, and try out some business ideas. I was also glad to take up more of the yuckier household chores, so those who were earning more wouldn't have to.

In the end, I found that yes, it was easier to be 'more lazy', but that allowing myself to didn't make me happier (more contented, perhaps, but not by much in the long run). I realized I would ultimately be better off bringing in more money doing something that matched well with my higher abilities.

As a man, it didn't fully occur to me until I read your comment how closely my experience matched that of housewives of the past-- many of whom, as it turned out, very much wanted to do more sophisticated and lucrative work once they had the chance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The term "free money" is a silly put down term designed to close a discussion before it even started. Nothing is free. Money comes from somewhere, and it goes somewhere.

Even if this money did not end up creating more jobs, or reducing health care costs and so on, it's still going somewhere and doing something.

<comment> bjelkeman-again > Money comes from somewhere

Someone entering a few zeros behind another non-zero number into a bank lending system.

[http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create- mo...](http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Money is not a market demand signal, it is a medium of labor exchange. I buy your labor with my labor. Some labor is more in demand than other labor, some is in short supply. Money bridges all the divides between these.

Where UBI fails is that it cuts labor out of the mix and allows some to benefit from the labor of others without performing any labor in exchange. Of course, banks and politicians have been doing this for decades, but a host can only support so many parasites.

</comment><comment><USER29> It's very biased, so the people that get the UBI won't be able to afford nice things or to live in nice suburbs near good social/health/education services as people with earned money will be competing for those. Choosing not to work is choosing to not take part in society, social services are part of a society.

It still needs some sort of utopia to work, that's where it has some similarity to socialism, but there is no utopia.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think UBI needs to be thoughtfully and strategically phased so as not to disrupt the status quo derogatorily. An overnight switch to UBI seems politically unfeasible because of typical quixotism of so many people. It's an experiment on a grand scale which always unnerves markets.

</comment><comment><USER31> "First, saying basic income is socialism is as absurd as saying money is socialism. It's money. It's all it is. What do people do with money? They use it in markets. In other words, basic income is fuel for markets."

The brilliant flow of thoughts and deduction just blew my mind.

<comment><USER32> If Basic Income isn't socialism, I shudder to think of what the author would consider socialism.

<comment><USER33> Socialism might be central planning. Basic income is almost the opposite of central planning, because it replaces all sorts of conditional and focused welfare with what is equivalent to a negative income tax.

That's why so many libertarians are on board with the idea.

<comment><USER32> That doesn't sound right to me. Speaking as someone with mild Libertarian tendencies, UBI seems pretty contra to Libertarian ideals. Not the UBI itself, but the taxation required to fund it. Can you give references to any well- known Libertarian thinkers who are on board with UBI?

<comment><USER34> There is more than one strand of libertarianism, and not all of them strive to minimize taxation. See e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left- libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism)

<comment><USER32> Thanks for showing me this. I never knew about "Libertarian Socialists". I'm afraid of falling into the Scottsman fallacy, but they don't sound like the other Libertarians I've read.

I couldn't find anything about basic income on that page. Is there any writing from a self-proclaimed Libertarian in support of UBI?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This looks more like an exercise by someone trying (and in my opinion failing) to pass an ideological Turing test than a real argument.

<comment><USER30> What is an ideological Turing test? I don't think I understand your parenthetical remark.

<comment><USER36> The "ideological Turing test" is the attempt to argue for a position indistinguishably from a supporter of that position, when you yourself are not. If you can't convincingly do so, it's strong evidence you do not understand what supporters believe. Related to, but not identical with, "steelmanning".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > It's really hard to look at the evidence and say giving people money is > wrong, because having enough money means being able to buy enough food.

This person is conflating cash transfers (welfare) with UBI. One can think cash transfers and general welfare are good while still thinking UBI may have fatal flaws. And anyone that paints UBI experiments as approaching what truly _Universal_ Basic Income would look like are deceiving. This person is repeatedly dodging real criticisms.

This article is mostly a verbose emotional string of arguments, but it doesn't do a very good job of explaining either of its two title claims.

Claim 1: Many people say "socialism" to mean top-down social programs funded by taxes, e.g. when people say uncontroversially "Sweden is more socialist than the USA," this is what they mean. UBI is a top-down social program. If you don't think that, ask yourself: What happens to the payments if the federal gov collapses or is incapacitated? (Is unable to organize payments or tax collection). UBI halts everywhere.

As a contrast, Farming is bottom up: For example the government of Afghanistan could collapse and it may take _years_ before remote individual farmers even know that it happened. UBI receivers on the other hand would know as soon as the first check didn't come.

Claim 2: But UBI _is_ "Free Money." That's the point. It has to be unconditional to be UBI, that's how they draw the distinction. Most people who advocate for UBI _contrast it specifically_ with means-tested welfare.

> Have you ever played the game Monopoly? I'm sure you have. Is that a game > about socialism? According to "free money is socialism" logic it is, because > everyone starts the game with free money and everyone gets free money for > simply passing Go.

This is a silly analogy. It's not free money even within the game rules. Passing Go is the condition. You can go to jail in the game, being forced to skip passing Go, even. Citing a game mechanic as a proof that UBI isn't free money is bonkers.

When UBI proponents say universal or unconditional, that's what they (proponents and opponents) are talking about when they mean free.

I made my own criticisms of UBI last week (OP's article is from Sept) where I raise objections that I think are relevant _even if UBI is agreeably implemented:_ [https://email@example.com/after-universal-basic- incom...](https://email@example.com/after-universal-basic-income-the- flood-217db9889c07)

Convincing people that it's not socalism or free money is not enough. You have to make the argument that price inflation won't occur, that it can fail gracefully, that destroying the other welfare programs that do more than just give cash (like case workers in medicaid) is a good idea, and so on. UBI proponents ignore these just like Marx ignored implementation details, relying on the World-spirit-of-the-people (an odd kind of hand-waving mysticism) to ensure that it would work.

If you meet someone pro-UBI, ask them this: What happens if it fails or we can no longer afford it, after 30 years running? What does the generation that was never required to work, do?

If they say it won't fail, you know you're not talking to someone interested in creating a robust system. If your ideal is incapable of planning for failure, you haven't really thought about your ideals much. We know what large scale top down social failure looks like, after the last century.

</comment><comment><USER38> The thing I would worry about mainly is inflation.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's free money by definition. It's a bad idea because it will serve as a sedative.

</comment><comment><USER40> I feel like this basic income ideology is really rooted in laziness - like, everyone likes free things, right? You don't have to work for it?

But - do we ever really ask where that money is coming from? The rich just give it? So then, why would I work hard to become rich, if its just going to be taken from me?

Its like income tax. Everyone loves paying tax on their income, right? (I, personally, do not.). So why don't we switch to taxing spending, instead? I'd much rather see the income tax abolished before any UBI fantasy ...

<comment><USER41> Comparing it with laziness is not far away from saying poor people are lazy. Laziness has nothing to do with it.

More often than not, such claims are often connected with not seeing hidden privilege as a competitive advantage. Of all of my successful friends, only one come from a socioeconomic environment that isn't middle class or above.

The ability to climb on the socioeconomic ladder is much harder for those without means and connections - these means and connections are almost always directly correlated to your family.

As a personal anecdote, all of my kids friends have parents which are able to support them financially and are able to work 40-hour weeks. They are all academics and their kids get the benefit from having the language and mindset of academics from an early age.

At the same time, my cousin is a couple of steps down on the same ladder. Her kids friends parents are working part time, often several jobs, and still have a hard time making ends meet.

My kids are according to studies (on phone so won't be able to reference - <USER2> easy Google away) more likely to achieve economic success, go to college and have a better chance ending up one step up on the ladder. Her kids are more likely to end up in crime, less likely to go to college, more likely to stay in the same socioeconomic class.

I'm pretty sure my work gives me more slack and ability to be able to be lazy than the part time factory worker. "Free money" would probably create more equality and a better chance for all kids. Your statement is shortsighted.

<comment><USER32> In my opinion, informed by what I've witnessed personally amongst my peers, poor people _are_ lazier, at least in a statistical, group-average sort of way. This isn't meant to contradict anything you say about privilege or economic status of parents. In fact kids learn that hard work and contentiousness pay off from their role models, parents, and peers. So successful parents end up having successful kids, and the phenomenon is not explained fully by Dad's connections. Saying it's "privilege" is only the beginning of understanding. There are some aspects of personality that parents are imparting to kids, and if you're interested in helping the rest of the kids, you have to understand what that is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I want to write a loooong point-by-point rebuttal but I'm just too lazy. Now if I were awarded a basic income maybe I'd take out a day and write it up! But here's a summary:

I am in the top 20% whose income is still going up and whose tax will be used to pay out the UBI. What's in it for me? Why should I care? I really don't. And all the politicians are also in the top 1% (POTUS is a fucking billionaire, former POTUS gets $400k for a speech). Even a poor man becomes rich when he is elected. Why would he care about the 80%. There is no rational world in which a UBI will work or be implemented as envisioned by the author.

<comment><USER43> The poor won't burn your neighbourhood and threaten your children. That's what's in for the rich. That sounds dramatic, but look at Brazil, and you can see that what I'm saying is not hyperbolic.

There is a huge correlation of the success of one person and their surrounding. In other words, for ones own interest the success of those around one is important. Helping the weaker helps a lot of other people.

<comment><USER44> I feel like you're saying that basic income is extortion? That seems like a bit of an extreme stance.

<comment><USER43> I think it depends on how you want to frame what I said. Helping the poor at least around you is good for you. Now, you could say equivalently not helping the poor around you is bad for you. Rephrase what I said if you feel uncomfortable with how I stated it.

If in a mafia controlled city you tell a friend not to publicly expose a mafioso for else he and is family is in danger, are you blackmailing your friend or are you simply stating facts?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's your craziest, far out there idea you have? - <AUTHOR> Here's a list of a couple of mine. <comment><USER2> So, one project I've been working on in the background for the past few years is a NIAC (NASA innovative advanced concepts program) proposal for using gravitational assists between a pair of planets to harvest energy from planetary motion by transferring momentum from the inner planet to the outer one. The harvested energy could be used to accelerate more mass into the loop and exponentially increase the coupling. In theory, this could move Mars into an Earth-like orbit over the course of a century while harvesting millions of yottajoules of usable energy. I call the proposal "Moving planets for fun and profit".

If you know anyone who is into orbital mechanics, I could use a collaborator. I have to spend most of my time on slightly less far-out projects.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tagging everything in a city so people can create an resource issue for a city counsel and track how long it takes for a city to fix it.

<comment><AUTHOR> makes sense.

<comment><USER3> yeah, I really wanted to do it, it even got to the city mayor, but I guess he didn't want the office to be kept responsible for long wait times ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A business debt reconciliation service. Company A owes B owes C owes A. So the software would simultaneously issue credit notes to each. It would have to linked up to a widely used book keeping software though.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Trade box. for craigslist where you could trade tickets, other things. but it takes a picture inside the box and you use an app to unlock it.

</comment><comment><USER5> A service I pay for which restricts the amount of time I can browse the internet or go on my phone. I'd have to trust it quite a lot but they'd have the ability to restrict my bandwidth and remotely mess with my devices.

There would be a monthly review where we decide how much time is reasonable to spend on each device or website.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Time trader. you trade time with others. eventually skill levels, geography, task types with project plans would be added.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Project tipper but you pledge time, hosting, resources. more for community based projects.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> something that logs into email, facebook, banks and downloads the data to database so I can manage the data locally.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> MLM but for junk in your closest.

</comment><comment><USER6> world peace</comment>


Posting a notice on your Facebook wall will not protect your privacy rights - <AUTHOR> http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp <comment><USER2> The fact is that I'm not sure that people totally believe what they are doing will hold up in a court of law. The thought that it _might_ and it is _so easy_ to do, coupled with the herd mentality (all of their friends are doing it), make posting something like this seem to have no downside, but only upside. After all, wouldn't you hate to be the one rube whose privacy is invaded because you didn't simply post something to your wall? To someone with little understanding of technology and law, it's like Pascal's Wager (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager>), right?

Of course, my opinion of these friends of mine drops, but what do they care about that? :)

<comment><USER3> Your last point is actually quite alarming: I have often been told that in order to be successful, I should surround myself with people much smarter than I am. But, when I see all these Facebook notices and FREE $500 COSTCO GIFT CARD shares, I can't seem to shake the feeling that I have thus failed in life.

<comment><USER4> I get some of the weirdest Facebook posts from folks who I know are very smart --like professional musicians and Ph.D. researchers. They're very accomplished in their fields, but just haven't spend enough time online to develop "street smarts" about these things like we have.

<comment><USER5> The same is true for me, I don't use FB but I've seen over the shoulder of it being used by people who would be on my friends list should I use it.

These are often pretty smart people but they seem to mainly use FB for cat memes , pictures of food and the sort of "nerd humour" you might find on reddit.

<comment><USER6> "These are often pretty smart people but they seem to mainly use FB for cat memes , pictures of food and the sort of "nerd humour" you might find on reddit."

FB does not do very well for other purposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a citizen of the EU and a country with strong privacy protection, my privacy rights are protected by law, and neither Facebook's terms nor the fact that any other entity can collect certain information from Facebook negates that right.

The claims by Snopes are equally false: whatever Facebook terms a user may have accepted whenever, they are trumped by the law. You can't give up your civil rights with single click.

<comment><USER8> > You can't give up your civil rights with single click.

Of course you can. Contracts can and do override a right enshrined in law. I can sign an agreement that gags me from talking about something, in which case I've given up my right to free speech (if you're in a country where such a right exists).

You seem to be referring to the EU's Data Protection and privacy policies - there are _explicit exemptions_ under the EU/US Safe Habor (which applies here) that allow contractual opt-out from certain rights. I am not saying this is the case with Facebook: merely that it is naive to assume just because a right is enshrined in law doesn't mean you cannot give it up through a contract.

<comment><USER9> EULAs are "contracts of adhesion":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contract...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion)

While they are not worthless, they are not nearly as binding or enforceable as your normal commercial contract. Standards vary and the jurisprudence is not clear, but indeed you "can't give up your civil rights with single click."

<comment><USER9> vavb: you appear to be hellbanned

I am from the US, and that is certainly not the case here. Contracts of adhesion are relatively weak here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just posted the following: "I declare that facebook can use any of my stuff for any reason they stipulated in the terms of service I didn't read because I am too lazy. I fully recognize that posting a declaration of the opposite will have no actually effect on anything and that the only way for me to not have my privacy negatively impacted would be to stop using facebook. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen because google+ sucks just as bad and all my friends are on here, so long live network effects!"

[EDIT] I probably would have been more accurate to say google+ sucks just as bad with their TOS.

</comment><comment><USER11> That little thing (sometimes huge thing) people put at the end of their emails that "this is confidential" is also pointless as you cannot enter into a confidentiality agreement that way.

<comment><USER5> That's an interesting point. A while ago I got an email that was clearly not intended for me with some big confidentiality warning on the bottom.

So I did as it said, deleted the email and informed the sender. Got a reply back saying "oh, sorry it was intended for firstname.lastname@example.com".

So then I get another one a few days later, this time I deleted it and forwarded it to the intended recipient. Then I informed the sender again getting no response.

Now about once a week I get this stuff into my account (which is basically a throwaway I hardly log into).

I assume I'm not expected to somehow play secretary for these people.

<comment><USER12> I get these too, except it's a cell phone bill for someone in Malaysia. I've tried repeatedly contacting someone at the company but all mails to them get returned as mailbox is full (it's 2012, how is anyone's mailbox full!?) and so they continue. I've even tried tweeting them but no luck. At this point I just mark it as spam, so sorry anyone in Malaysia that uses Celcom if your bills are going in to your spam folders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Snopes article also links to a page on a moonshine distillery website that claims to show you how to get diplomatic immunity: <http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/id53.html>

Well worth reading for kicks, and reads more like a primer on how to make yourself a nuisance to local courts.

tl;dr You have to fill out some documents, notarize them, have state and federal judges sign them, and refuse any case you're involved in to be heard by magistrates in lower courts. In this way you'll be put on the "list" for diplomatic immunity although you are (presumably) not a diplomat. They even sell diplomatic corps car tags.

The legitimacy of the article is undermined by the fact that the author often spells "you" as "ya".

<comment><USER14> > a page on a moonshine distillery website that claims to show you how to get > diplomatic immunity: <http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/id53.html>

In 1995, someone might have put this into a science fiction book. (I mean, it _theoretically_ could have happened. To my knowledge it didn't.)

Then everyone who heard of the book would have laughed. At the author. Because the whole idea is not just idiotic, but a kind of aggressive arm-swinging feces-flinging idiocy that can't possibly exist in real life.

Right.

<comment><USER6> It vaguely reminds me of this idiocy- <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen>

It never works, but people do make a (likely not comfortable) living selling others on the dream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This reminds me of the "No copyright intended" quote people would put on YouTube videos.

<comment><USER16> That phenomenon is actual quite interesting. It shows that lots of people have one view of what is right & wrong, and think that copyright is what they think is right. People think there is nothing wrong with uploading a video of them dancing in a funny way to a popular song if you don't claim the song is yours and youre not making money off it. Thus they think its not against copyright to do that.

The law has a different interpretation.

The fact that lots of people have a different interpretation of what counts as unethical use might mean the law will change

<comment><USER17> "The fact that lots of people have a different interpretation of what counts as unethical use might mean the law will change" -- we can dream, can't we?

But, you're right, in a perfect world, ethics and law would correspond. But, not in this world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The terrible thing about this: it's the sign that users have absolutely zero clue about online privacy and facebook terms and conditions.

Some of my friends (and not the stupidest ones) posted this and really thought they were safe after that...

</comment><comment><USER19> As written, the notice would forbid Facebook from even showing your posts and details to your friends.

</comment><comment><USER20> "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

-Joshua

</comment><comment><USER21> Directly from newsroom.fb.com:

 _Copyright Meme Spreading on Facebook:_

 _There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been._

<http://newsroom.fb.com/Fact-Check>

</comment><comment><USER22> See also: No Copyright Intended

<http://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/>

</comment><comment><USER23> And when one side in a relationship is able to offer take-it-or-leave it terms which may change at any time without notice simply by being published on some arbitrary web page, but the other is not? Does this really meet conditions for a binding contract?

</comment><comment><USER24> This is the third wave I've seen of this on facebook... at least it's better worded this time.

This pretty much proves what many of us knew: the average person has absolutely no idea about copyright or TOS agreements, and what rights they have or are signing away.

<comment><USER25> I think it proves that people will post any copy pasted message you ask them to. Its like those chain emails from back in the day except even more pointless.

<comment><USER24> True, I suppose people pasting the ridiculous chain letter style 'post this to 9 statuses tonight or u will hae bad luck for 10 weeks' posts don't necessarily believe they are averting poor fortune.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > HTTP Error 500-13 - Server too busy

Heh. Never had that before on snopes.com...

</comment><comment><USER27> What is so disheartening about so many of my facebook contacts sharing this? That it is a simple manifestation of the power of herd mentality. You are talking about mature adults with not just children and property, but with degrees of higher education not adhering to the base principles of reason. If an "educated" person does not bother to verify perceived facts before acting on them, what other imbecile lemming behavior are they capable of? There truly are no innocents.

</comment><comment><USER28> Random thought: When presented with a TOS to signup, if you could edit that TOS before clicking submit, is this similar to editing a contract before signing it?

<comment><USER29> If someone sent you a contract to sign, do you think you could scribble your own terms all over it and sign it and have that hold any weight? You can't unilaterally modify the terms of a contract, both parties have to sign and agree.

<comment><USER28> Right, which is why I'm asking what kind of limbo a modified TOS would place you in. Do they have to contact you directly agreeing to your modified version, and until then you're not allowed to use the service, even though you've been signed up?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> And by the way, company x will not donate a dollar to this poor cancer suffering baby for every like the photo gets, Mr mamboto will not transfer 25 trillion dollars to your bank account, and the Microsoft lottery was already won by the early share holders. I don't know why but every time I see those statuses and chain emails (same thing really) I lose faith in the common sense of humanity...

</comment><comment><USER31> So is "liking" something you don't -- intentionally corrupting their business (data) -- going to cause any repercussions?

<comment><USER32> Nope, as long as you post a magic disclaimer on your wall and also forward it to 20 friends. Shall you forget to forward it, very bad things will happen to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Isn't it funny how implied consent only seems to work in one direction?

<comment><USER34> You have the opportunity to read Facebook's privacy policy before consenting to it. Facebook does not have a similar opportunity to read your privacy notice before allowing you to post it to your wall. It happens automatically.

<comment><USER33> They have the ability to and that's a fact worth considering.

<comment><USER35> They also have the ability to hand deliver a big bag of cookies to your house. The problem is, it's expensive and doesn't scale to their 3 billion users (or whatever it is).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Cancel your Facebook account. > (Note that in the last case, you may have > already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling > your account.)

I forgot about that. :(

<comment><USER37> Not that the FB privacy disclaimer deals specifically with the copyright on deleted content. Specifically, you do rescind your license to FB by deleting content, but only if no references to it exist (i.e. it has not been reshared or all reshares of it have been deleted).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Facebook's response to the privacy notice: <http://newsroom.fb.com/Fact-Check>

</comment><comment><USER38> As Dr. Watson once said - No Sh*t Sherlock.</comment>


The Postman Always Rings Twice - <AUTHOR> This is an essay that I published some time ago in German: https://www.begleitschreiben.net/wenn-der-postman-mehrfach-klingelt/
The translation I never put anywhere, but as I think now would be the perfect time to rewatch Westworld, I will just put it into the large digital void hoping I may once receive a comment. Have fun!
https://phorkyas.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/the-postman-always-rings-twice/ (would've pumped the essay here itself, but there's this 2000 word limit.) <comment><USER2> You should maybe post it as a proper HN story, if you think it's worth us reading it and discussing.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, will do.</comment></comment>


Using Gmail with Mutt - <AUTHOR> https://smalldata.tech/blog/2016/09/10/gmail-with-mutt <comment><USER2> I've been using Mutt with Gmail for years to great effect, and would very much recommend the set up.

The one caveat that I should point out (because it's not mentioned in the article) is that you will probably never be fully rid of official Gmail clients. There is still no good mechanism to use some features with Mutt like thread muting, and these are essential to effective email these days. It's also often more convenient to read certain types of email (e.g. messages that are heavy in multimedia) from a client that supports graphics.

My usual habit is to read email in the web client or on mobile, and respond to or compose mail from within Mutt.

<comment><USER3> > There is still no good mechanism to use some features with Mutt like thread > muting.

I use `collapse-thread` (Esc-v) on long threads I don't care about, but you're right this is less than ideal. New messages in the thread uncollapse it again, and there's no way to persist the collapsed state, so switching mailboxes or restarting mutt loses it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've got Mutt going with Gmail along the lines of Steve Losh's advice [http://stevelosh.com/blog/2012/10/the-homely- mutt/](http://stevelosh.com/blog/2012/10/the-homely-mutt/)

It works great. Very fast, and it's nice to have a local backup of my email.

<comment><USER5> Agreed, by far the best guide I've found. My setup, based on that guide + some tweaks is at [https://github.com/cbracken/mutt](https://github.com/cbracken/mutt) for anyone who might find another sample useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Like the post. What I did differently is to use fdm to fetch emails and store them locally. I've been using Mutt with Gmail for many years. The features I like most are:

\- regex search

\- faster actions (like batch delete, mark as read) using tag

\- can use my editor to compose. I use emacsclient -nw and it's so easy to copy things from shared buffer.

\- very easy to customize, for example, I want to see the timestamp as local time regardless of the sender's timezone, I wrote a smile Go program to do that [https://github.com/wujiang/localize_mutt;](https://github.com/wujiang/localize_mutt;) I also run a cronjob to archive old emails.

</comment><comment><USER7> I love to use the terminal—I'm a Vim and tmux user—but I was never really able to switch to Mutt. I often receive emails with attached images or HTML code. Maybe some Mutt user can share with me some of the reasons why they like it so much?

<comment><USER8> I am a 20+ year (al)pine user (without gmail - I host my own mail server) and I have a fairly decent attachment/images/links setup ...

First, I use ripmime to dump every single attachment to a folder with dated naming - and so if there is an email in pine with an attachment I want to view, I just web browse a simple apache directory listing and click it. It's not sexy, but it's fast and efficient.

Second, I have a terminal PDF reader installed on my system and defined in alpine as a helper app for pdf files. So I cannot read word or excel _right in alpine_ but I _can_ read PDF docs. So that's nice and slick.

Finally, I never actually click links in alpine, but I defined lynx as a web viewer _anyway_ because that allows me to get the very simple "do you want to view this http link ?" prompt from alpine ... which I always say NO to, but not until I have copied the full URL which they display for me. Then I just open it in a browser.

Fairly happy with this setup.

<comment><USER9> Not trying to be snarky, but why not use something like Thunderbird (or whatever comes default on the OS of the machine that you're using) that will render out the HTML natively?

<comment><USER10> If he's anything like me, a fellow mutt user, he cares more about speed and the text itself than pretty columns. It's surprising how little you miss html, particularly when breezing through email at a rate of knots. Plus system resources. So many resources.

<comment><USER11> Not OP, but...

I find the inability to display HTML emails a feature, not a bug.

<comment><USER8> ding!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> mutt + offlineimap + gmail is fantastic. When I need to use their web interface it is painful. mu gives you almost instant search, but I almost never need to search email so I don't have that dialed in.

<comment><USER13> I use a similar set-up, but I had a really bad time making offlineimap sync work. In the end I switched to isync which was easier to configure. It has fewer features, but it has worked out great for me with `Flatten .` turned on in the configuration file.

<comment><USER12> Yeah. Offlineimap was a bear to get working right. I've heard good things about isync, but I don't really want to touch the house of cards now that it is all working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is it possible to use mutt and Gmail without enabling lesssecureapps? I know this post deals with some of those issues (gpg keys and whatnot), and Google strongly recommends IMAP/SMTP protocol users switch to OAuth 2.0, etc.

<comment><USER15> I was honestly surprised to see all this gpg setup, yet no mention of application-specific passwords. I've been using email clients with what google now calls an "App password" for years.

<comment><USER16> "application-specific passwords" are not actually restricted to a single application. You can restrict the scope (only has access to your emails, for example), but any application could use this password to access your emails.

<comment><USER15> Sure, but you can revoke them without changing your password or revoking other app passwords, making it much easier to recover if they do leak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> daily-q Anyone here coming from nmh, but prefer to use Mutt? I was wondering if Mutt is worth the switch since some things in nmh seem hard to keep up to snuff with the ever-changing www.

<comment><USER17> I much prefer nmh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you like mutt, you will really like alot. [https://github.com/pazz/alot](https://github.com/pazz/alot)

<comment><USER19> I tried alot years ago and loved it, but it had the huge caveat that it didn't write changes back to a maildir. This made it really hard to incorporate into a multi-device setup. Do you know if this has been added? I didn't see an obvious answer on the github page.

<comment><USER18> You mean write to the maildir sent folder? Or metadata like read and other tags? I don't have metadata sync but I bet there's a way to do it via xapian.

For multi-device, I use a MDA[1] on postfix that writes to a maildir, and that's rsynced to my various boxes. When I send, ssh pipes the msg to sendmail on the server, which copies it to the .sent folder.

[1]: [https://github.com/jakeogh/gpgmda/blob/master/gpgmda](https://github.com/jakeogh/gpgmda/blob/master/gpgmda)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Plug for the mutt replacement I'm working on:

[https://github.com/SirCmpwn/aerc](https://github.com/SirCmpwn/aerc)

<comment><USER21> Can you say what about mutt you dislike or want to improve?

<comment><USER20> Mutt doesn't do networking well. It was build to deal with Maildir and mbox on a local disk, not IMAP over the network. aerc is designed to just support IMAP, and it does networking on a second thread so issues there don't lock up the UI. aerc also supports multiple accounts. It also has (imo) better configuration and commands.

<comment><USER10> Can confirm. Long-term mutt-er who frequently switches between wired and wireless networks. I basically just ctrl+z any frozen mutt instance and start over. 'fg 1' brings up the first when back on the first network...

But overall love mutt and think aerc is a great initiative. Nice to have an inbuilt sidebar too! Beats recompiling mutt with sidebar patches.

How's aerc with gpg, search, offline storage?

<comment><USER20> >How's aerc with gpg, search, offline storage?

Currently, terrible. It doesn't support those things at all. It doesn't even have an email reader, it just lets you browse subjects at the moment. It's very much in dev, and I could use some help :)

I intend to have excellent gpg support, decent search support, and no support for offline storage whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I always used what I saw as the simplest Mutt setup possible: [https://gist.github.com/anonymous/ca8dc3ecba60bdee41abb241e6...](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/ca8dc3ecba60bdee41abb241e6f6fc24) along with:

mutt -f imaps://imap.gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER23> google-Calendar as a widget on my linux (mate) desktop. Aside from [1] does anyone have a working setup?

[1] [https://www.linux.com/learn/tricks-using-desktop- integrated-...](https://www.linux.com/learn/tricks-using-desktop-integrated- calendars)</comment>


Ask HN: What is a good way to get into trading cryptocurrency as a developer? - <AUTHOR> I have limited knowledge about trading cryptocurrency, so obviously I need to educate myself about that first (feel free to suggest some resources). I do have a strong CS background thus specifically I'm looking for advice/resources that could show me how to utilize my CS knowledge in cryptocurrency trading. <comment><USER2> I'm assuming you're talking about algorithmic cryptotrading here since you'd like to utilize your CS skills. No need to inform you that trading by bots is extremely risky, i'm sure you already know it.

Well here you go:

 _Grab some foreknowledge of cryptocurriencies from_ [https://github.com/Xel/Blockchain-stuff](https://github.com/Xel/Blockchain- stuff).

 _Sound knowledge of Quant,Stats and Economics in general_. Also grab the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb if you can.

 _Learn a bit of technical analysis: Familiarize yourself with indicators_

You'd need to spend some time on exchanges that have APIs, play around with the system a bit.

Learn about what kind of trading is allowed and what types of orders you can make.

Trade by hand just to get a feel of what trading is like. Some exchanges have demo trading in built when you sign up. Play around until you're comfortable

Find the trading strategy you're comfortable and begin to automate it.

 _Be prepared to lose lots of money!!!_

Also join telegram chats of the various cryptogroups. Their analysis is so spot on, it sometimes feels like insider trading. Good luck

<comment><USER3> Can you suggest some good telegram chats?

<comment><USER2> Bitstash chat is a small community, but incredibly helpful

WhaleClubBTC

ICOcountdown - If you're into pump and dump for quick money. This is heartless way of making money IMO

TheCoinFarm

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The top comment in this thread is very informative:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1rhtv1/eli5...](https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1rhtv1/eli5_how_do_cryptocurrency_pump_dumps_work_how_do/)

The "pump & dump" dynamic is extremely important in cryptotrading.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not too sure that CS knowledge would be that applicable (for trading) at least. Trading cryptocurrency for profit is speculation - essentially the same as trading a stock on the stock market. Unless you're working in HFT or trying to build out an algo to trade for you, besides some basic math skills, I can't see how CS knowledge would apply.

<comment><USER6> Trading stock is not pure profit speculation, there are a number of alternative strategies including for example statistical arbitrage. Much of this requires simple statistics understanding for the basics, and a Phd to be particularly useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I found Cryptotrader [1] interesting years ago, & found myself wishing I knew how to code so I could get in on maybe making some money there.

Was using a minimal bot that came as a Chrome extension called "Butter-Bot", but it stopped working right after that one Thanksgiving when it broke $1k- when the market started going sideways. The developer was building a newer version called "Butter-X", which looked promising, but was never completed after money ran out.

[1]

[https://cryptotrader.org](https://cryptotrader.org)

</comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Go to bank.

2\. Withdraw large pile of cash.

3\. Put it in a metal garbage can, away from any flammable materials.

4\. Light the cash on fire.

This will get you to the same destination, only much faster.

<comment><USER9> Why? If cryptocurrencies have value, the value will likely increase in the future. So why not buy?

<comment><USER10> _> If cryptocurrencies have value, the value will likely increase in the future._

That's not axiomatic. You really want to do more to prove this is indeed the case.

<comment><USER11> As long as there is a limited supply, speculators and draconian governments and crime it'll keep going up. I'll bet it'll keep going up.

Threats are hacks, quantum computers and crypto currency competition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You absolutely can make money with bots in cryptocurrency - there are times when different exchanges have $100 differences in the price of bitcoin. During times of volatility you can have bots making money off arbitrage.

<comment><USER7> At least circa whenever it was that BTC broke $100, the state of exchanges' APIs was such that arbitrage wasn't practical. I remember reading about it on an old bitcointalk.org thread when the Butter-Bot developers were soliciting feedback regarding what direction their paid customer base wanted them to go.

The only working arbitrage software I ever saw was this short-lived one with a circular UI (IIRC), & it wasn't fully automated.

I'd be interested to learn the current state of affairs on the subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Start with this

[https://anders.com/blockchain/](https://anders.com/blockchain/)

</comment><comment><USER14> never forget to only play with what you're willing to lose</comment>


How To Find Out Which URLs Are Pre-Rendered By Google  - <AUTHOR> http://www.conceivablytech.com/8055/products/google-preps-big-chrome-upgrades

<comment><AUTHOR> scroll to the bottom of the article.</comment>


Scala comes to .Net - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/10299 <comment><USER2> C# programmers don't have the sense of desperation that Java programmers do.

C# has non-broken generics, (contra/co)variance, closures, method pointers, expression trees, type inference, value types (can implement complex numbers that take up just 8 bytes!) and many other little features that show that the language designers have some respect for programmers.

If anything, C# is the language that Java refugees are looking for, not Scala.

<comment><USER3> And C# programmers have F# to go to if they want to sample ML.

I do not primarily program in C#, and I have done decent amount of Java. As far as languages are concerned, I find C# 4.0 a superior language to Java 6.

I took a look at both Scala and F# - F# seemed simpler and more concise to me.

One of my grudges is absence of a standard package manager for .net - Java has maven, ruby has gem, python has pip, C# has ?

<comment><USER4> C# now has one called NuGet.

Edit* Just wanted to clarify it is not specifically for C# but the .NET platform in general.

<comment><USER5> In typical MS style though it is incredibly over engineered while not quite doing the job.

<comment><USER6> Could you elaborate? (true interest, I didn't downvote)

<comment><USER5> When you first come across it it looks like they're console commands. Yay! You go, the light has been seen at MS! After mucking round with cmd and then power shell for a few minutes you realize, well, no, they're not. There's yet another window added to visual studio to run the commands and it installs a new directory and a crapton of pointless files in your project directory to boot. Woo. Like we needed more of them. And just to be extra useful it puts yet another option in the already vastly overcrowded and poorly organised right-click menu of projects.

I love visual studio and C#. But NuGet's pretty pants, it just feels like you're being treated like a child.

To me this just smacks of the overkill of the asp.net membership system to me. Vastly overcomplicated to do a simple job. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age and it's time to switch to linux. There's lots of little things that bug me in .Net though so it's probably just one of my pet peeves. For example I've always detested the obsession asp.net has with ~ that for the most part is totally and utterly pointless.

With a lot of things MS seem to approach the problem with the most complicated use case in mind rather than the simplest.

<comment><USER7> You mention the complexity of the ASP.NET membership system. I've always found it to be quite straightforward (unless you write your own providers I guess). Where are the pain points for you?

<comment><USER8> It was quite difficult for me when I first tried to pick up ASP.net. In retrospect, I don't think the problem is how difficult ASP.net provider system is, but the absence of assertiveness in the voice in tutorials. They tend to say, you an do it this using Forms Authentication, or Windows or Passport. Which is all true, but presents too many options to someone trying to find their way around a new system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As someone who has recently learned C# and known Scala for a while, I am very impressed with what C# has to offer as a language. However, it is not nearly as well-designed as Scala. Microsoft has piled on feature after feature to the point where many C# are features either mostly deprecated and replaced by newer features or else do not mix well with new language features. Some examples include:

-generic vs non-generic types. For instance, when using the Process class, you have to use StringDictionary.

\- Actions and delegates vs lambdas. This is made more painful by the fact that C# handles the void return type specially, so that there is no way to create a Func<void>. Also, it means that if you want to support higher order functions that support both a void and a generic return type you have to write two different functions.

\- ref and out parameters with lambdas. They just... don't mix!

\- out parameters vs 4.0 tuples. Really C# needed syntactic sugar for multiple return types long ago, but the idiomatic way to do this in C# is with a feature that simply does not play well with functional programming.

There are other things that make Scala nicer as well.

-In Scala every statement is also an expression and Scala has the bottom type, which again makes writing functional code much simpler.

-Scala's collection's library is superior. It has functional collections and it's design enables overriding methods to have much more sensible static return types.

-Scala's way of extending class functionality with implicits is more powerful and object-oriented than C#'s extension methods. In fact, Scala in general feels much more OO than C#.

-Scala has a form of controlled multiple implementation inheritance (traits) that I really miss in C#.

These are just the practical things I can think of on top of my head that I miss in C# versus Scala. On the other hand, I get the impression that C# was originally designed to be a more performant Java by hybridizing it with C++. It's richer value type system, the fact that class methods are non-virtual by deafult, and the ease by which one can drop into unsafe code mean that one can port a lot more performant C-style code to C# than on any JVM-originating language, which I think is C#'s greatest strength compared to Scala.

Still, I think if people gave Scala a chance they would find it to be a very clean, productive, and well-designed language compared to C#. That alone may not be enough to convince people to switch to Scala in droves, but enough so that people who want to target both platforms will be willing to consider Scala as a solution rather than to use something like Mono.

<comment><USER10> >> so that there is no way to create a Func<void>

Does Func<Action> not achieve what you are after?

<comment><USER11> Func<Action> would be a function that takes no arguments and returns an Action. The desire is to be able to specify void as the return type of a Func, so that you can use Funcs for all callbacks, instead of having to use Funcs for callbacks that return a value and Actions for callbacks that don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To me, the obvious use case is not bringing the .Net platform to Scala developers, but bringing Scala to .Net developers.

At my company, we do a large majority of our work in .Net languages, mostly C#. Being able to incrementally mix some Scala code into this for additional productivity, especially in the areas where Scala rocks (such as distributed / parallel processing, or in-language DSLs such as Scala's parsing library), sounds like a big win.

Support for C# generics is a must for that, though; you need to be able to pass List<Banana>s around.

Like other commenters said, the only danger is if the Scala guys would decide to stop supporting the CLR in the future again.

<comment><USER12> How does parallel processing in Scala "rock"? Can you point me to studies where Actors outperform, say OpenMP or Task Parallel Library? Does parallel processing on Scala compensate the overhead that Scala generally has over Java, C++, or in this case C#?

I'd seriously like to know. I know that actors are good in some situations (distributed computing where you would normally use message passing), but statements such as the above can often be heard, but seem far to broad.

<comment><USER13> Why and how should actors outperform OpenMP or TPL? They serve completely different goals.

Scala ships by default with sequential, lazy and parallel collections and actors.

Akka (akka.io) provides a different implementation of actors (which will replace the one in the standard library in the future), as well as Agents, STM, Transactors, ... for all your concurrency needs. Akka actors can actually outperform Erlang actors in core areas.

Spark (spark-project.org) provides a (Hadoop-like) framework for distributed collections.

Work is being done to make Scala collections run on GPUs, too.

I would argue that Scala's toolbox is pretty diverse and complete when dealing with parallel and/or concurrent problems.

Without facts I wouldn't claim that Scala is slower than Java/C++/C#.

Scala beats the shit out of Java in situations where Java has to work with boxed types instead of primitives like in ArrayList<Integer>, enables people to write fully generic algorithms supporting any number type without speed penalty.

Scala is certainly nicer than C++ because it just works and has far less weird corners or surprises. It lets you write code faster and gives you more time to actually optimize those places where it matters.

C# is pretty much a kitchen-sink language with many features bolted on in a non-othogonal way, unlike Scala. The unreliable VM doesn't help, although value types and the thing Mono did with SIMD is certainly nice.

<comment><USER12> _Why and how should actors outperform OpenMP or TPL? They serve completely different goals._

Show us numbers. That was the main request of my comment, and you come with a list of libraries? We hear all the time how great Scala is with respect to parallel computing. Show me some good examples, where it beats C++ or C# with TPL, say doing number crunching.

It's all to easy to repeat a mantra (parallel programming in Scala rocks), but it has been proven correct rarely. Given such statements, I would either expect it to be much easier to parallelize programs in Scala (as opposed to, say, adding OpenMP pragmas) or would expect parallelized programs to be much faster. Neither seem to be true.

<comment><USER13> >>> Is driving a car better than eating a banana?

>> They serve completely different goals.

> Show us numbers.

That makes sense, doesn't it?

> That was the main request of my comment, and you come with a list of > libraries?

Well, after you failed to even tell concurrent and parallel computing apart, I assumed giving you an overview first would be beneficial.

Maybe you could use the links I already gave you or use Google. For instance, here is an additional link I found pretty easily: [http://www.azavea.com/blogs/labs/2011/06/scalas-numeric- type...](http://www.azavea.com/blogs/labs/2011/06/scalas-numeric-type-class- pt-2/)

<comment><USER12> First, I am reacting to the original commenter, and pointing out that your post does not answer my question to the original commenter.

Second, I do know the difference between concurrency and parallelism (since I use the latter a lot, and the former in the rare occasion of writing GUI programs). Anyway, your ad hominems do not serve the discussion.

Third, mentioning 'actors' and OpenMP is one sentence was poking a bit of fun at the overly broad statements often made by fans of Scala (and Erlang) about what Actors will do. But the next time I will leave my sardonicism at the door.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since most serious Scala programs will use Java classes or class libraries, I still have to see how portable most Scala code will be between JVM and .NET/CLR, besides the lack of ABI compatibility. It will add complexity to a language that is already fairly complex.

Some commenters have already suggested that Scala has the C++ syndrome, but at least C++ is easily wrapped in C, making binding to anything else fairly easy.

I wonder if it would not be better to stick to the JVM, and tell people that that's the platform. You cannot be everything to everyone without collapsing under the weight.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, Scala is not the simplest language, but I'm not sure why having separate .Net backend will make the language more complex. After all, .Net and JVM are pretty similar at its core so that difference between the two shouldn't affect Scala the language, only Scala the compiler.

As for portability between Scala.Net and Scala.JVM programs, it was never the goal of the programs. Of cource, programs using only Scala API should be source portable, but if one ues Java or .Net classes it will not be.

<comment><USER12> Right, you are paraphrasing my worry: there will be .Net and Java flavors Scala. Sure, the syntax will be portable, but programs do not only consist of syntax.

C# in the .Net 1.0 era was very similar to Java. However, most of the domain- specific knowledge is not in the language, but in the associated class library and runtime. Usage patterns evolve with them.

So, under the assumption that Scala.Net will get traction, in three years, people will be hiring Scala.Net and Scala(JVM) programmers. Educational programs will teaching two different flavors. Books will describe two different flavors.

How does this help Scala or the Scala programmer?

(Then there are more questions, such as: what does Scala.Net offer over C# (which is incorporating functional constructs) and F#?)

<comment><AUTHOR> While we both agree what would happen, I don't see that as a bad thing. With core language being the same, lots of the skill will be portable.

We have the same situation right now with C/C++, where people are hiring Windows C++ programmers and Linux C++ programmers. It doesn't seem to hurt that much C++ as a language. And C++ has even smaller "standard library" than Scala.

<comment><USER12> C++ has a smaller standard library, but has easier interoperability with other languages.

I see your point, but I do think it hurts C++ and C++ programmers. Programming C++ in Windows or programming C++ in a gtkmm context are very different. Even the most basic things are not standardized (unicode string handling, etc.). Middle ground does exist (Qt), but it does replace most of the STL and has some very basic weaknesses, like vectors that are limited to 2^31 − 1 elements on common platforms.

So, again, I am seriously interested in what fragmentation buys you when porting to a platform that already has 1 1/2 functional languages, supported by its developer?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> They should give it a more dot netty name, by picking a letter (maybe F, as it's a functional language) and putting a sharp on the end.

<comment><USER15> S# :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The danger with this is, how long will it be supported? Can the Scala team ensure that it will not be deprecated in the future? With JVM, one is confident of future.

I remember Microsoft letting go of the IronRuby developers, for example, has IronRuby's development stagnated as well? (I'm aware that the work is done by the Scala team in this case, though)

</comment><comment><USER17> This uses IKVM heavily, and it sounds like other people have tried running scala classfiles through IKVM

[http://groups.google.com/group/scala- user/browse_frm/thread/...](http://groups.google.com/group/scala- user/browse_frm/thread/22c59173038a587a#)

and a LLVM backend project is also brewing

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2625405>

</comment><comment><USER18> How many companies that do both .Net and Java development and use Scala there are? Or how many will start developing in Scala if they're already proficient in .net? Definitely there will be some, but to base the compiler of such complexity around these few ... well, I just don't think it's worth the effort.

<comment><USER19> I've always looked at Scala as a great language to go to if you don't want to be on the .Net stack. But if you're happy with the .Net ecosystem, the combination of C# and F# are very tough to beat. The tooling is great, and the languages are really well thought out.

I don't really know what benefits there are to gain from using Scala on .Net other than the fact that it's cool that it could be done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's an interesting project, but in my 6+ years of Enterprise .NET development, I've yet to work in a single shop that released a production .NET application that wasn't written in C# or VB.NET. Even F# seems to be very rarely deployed.

It's hard to get excited about any new CLR-based language development when clearly the broader .NET community and the customer base could care less.

<comment><USER11> This is probably a fair point about the "enterprise .NET" community, which is by nature very conservative and closely aligned to core Microsoft technologies where the guarantees of support are strongest and the developer pool the largest.

However we as a smaller shop have used F# on a couple of projects within the last year -- to embed an expression engine within an analytics product, and for the parser/analyser in our Sass plugin for Visual Studio. But I know I'd have struggled to get that technology choice into the last enterprise environment I worked in. So the lack of uptake may be more to do with the culture of "enterprise .NET" shops, more than the "broader .NET community."

<comment><USER20> Well put. When I wrote "broader .NET community", I was mostly speaking to the vast majority of .NET developers, which are unfortunately stuck in typical Enterprise environments.

There are definitely small shops out there doing interesting things and I love hearing about them!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> And it appears I'm official negligent about learning Scala. I know it's been around for years, but I just really learned about it recently and now it seems to be going crazy.

With the ability to use .NET or the JVM... I mean, wow.

</comment><comment><USER22> Pragmatism over principle again; today's hacker culture is crippled.

<comment><USER23> Getting Shit Done trumps all things. The reality as well is that the majority of the .Net platform (with the exception of the Standard Libraries, I believe) are open ECMA Standards (See among others, #335).

<comment><USER22> The reality is that .NET is a very probable patent trap for the FOSS community and Microsoft is trying hard to make us dependent on it.

Unlike .NET, Java has a free implementation (OpenJDK) and any code derived from OpenJDK is granted Java patents. Apache is a different story as they are developing a Java implementation under permissive license, which means that Apache code could be used in non-free software (including .NET), that would make Java vulnerable to the "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy. That is what Apache is paid for by Microsoft.

So my point is that supporting .NET is bad for the ideals of the free software community, yet it is good for pragmatic reasons as it could bring more users. And I have a strong impression that today pragmatism is favored over principle by the community, the decline of copyleft is also a sign of that.

<comment><USER24> So is it that you don't buy the Community Promise, or that you don't know about it? <http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html>

<comment><USER22> FSF: Microsoft's Empty Promise (<http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono>)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Where does logical language come from? The social bootstrapping hypothesis - <AUTHOR> http://babieslearninglanguage.blogspot.com/2018/08/where-does-logical-language-come-from.html <comment><USER2> Abandoning notions of boolean and aristotelian logic at the outset is the first step toward success in understanding developments.

Children have to invent their own logic, and then discover words that fit it. Only later do they learn about other logics, and adjust. Most never get to Boole, never mind Aristotle, but what they have works well enough for what they expect of it. At the same time, they are inventing causality, which formal logic still has not absorbed, and that most statisticians remain deeply suspicious of.

<comment><USER3> Also boolean logic does not concern "all", "any" and "no" (as in no cookies), these are from prepositional logic

But I agree with your point, mathematical logic is a consequence of something that originated with human thinking

<comment><USER4> "all" and "no" are easily extended from boolean logic to unspecified numbers of items for everyday speech, without resorting to unification:

      all not == not A and not B == not (A or B)

      not all == not (A and B) == not A or not B

Seems to work in other natural languages besides English, e.g. 都不 vs 不都 have same variation in meaning as in English where 都="all" and 不="not".

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-saleh I had two thoughts when I read it.

First, I am currently reading Zvonkin's Math from three to seven, and he included an essay where he talks about "language support" when solving math problems. Hypothesis was, that to use language, we often need to process complex rules to use the nuanced meanings of words often based on context, which means that if we formulate a word-problem in right way, language can do a lot of heavy lifting, in a simmilar way, you might transform your numeric problem to vector-operations to be able to run it on GPU.

The example he referenced was his attempt to get boys in his math-circle to figure out some abstract notation to discuss complexity of something they built out of blocks. One of the boys attempted to just to replace words he used to describe the build with symbols. This might show that word as a concept is pretty powerful abstraction you can build on top of, and it is already built in to the language we are using :-)

The other thing this reminded me of, w.r.t. of learning the meaning of "or" and "implies", is that (at least in my language), colloquial meaning of "or" is 99% of time synonymous with "either, or", and "a implies b" is often used as "b happens if and only if a already happened".

This explains a lot of struggle I had when learning the boolean algebra/predicate logic, where "or" as well as "implies" have different definitions.

<comment><USER5> "Or" is also regularly used to mean an exclusive choice, especially when asking questions.

"Would you like the red shirt _or_ the blue shirt?" Or whatever.

My just-turned-2-year-old hasn't quite figured this one out yet. He just repeats the whole thing back, "red shirt or blue shirt", without making a choice.

<comment><USER4> > "Would you like the red shirt _or_ the blue shirt?"

You're writing it wrong -- it should have a comma in there to denote the pause: "Would you like the red shirt, or the blue shirt?"

Are you also speaking it wrong? The part before the pause should be spoken with tone going up, and the part after with tone going down. If you're not pausing and changing tone, then the correct answer is either "yes" or "no", or repeating the whole thing back to mean "yes".

<comment><USER5> > _You 're writing it wrong_

Adding a comma would be non-standard ("incorrect" if you ask a pedantic grammarian) in conventional English prose. Commas don't always match verbal pauses 1:1.

> _The part before the pause should be spoken with tone going up, and the part > after with tone going down._

This is a learned cultural convention, not inherently known at birth. I am sure that within another few months my kid will figure it out.

It's also hard for me to tell sometimes whether he is repeating both because he doesn't understand that a choice is being offered, or because he wants to repeat strings of words, or because he hasn't made a choice, or ....

He doesn't know how to say e.g. "neither one; give me the green shirt" or "you decide for me".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I expect kids can figure out these logical structures from non-verbal input if given the chance (e.g. if you present little puzzles with buttons that must be pressed in logically connected ways or whatever). I have seen tiny kids figure out several-step solutions to physical problems, sometimes quite novel ones that I would not have imagined myself. Simple logic puzzles are no harder than these, albeit usually presented in a less accessible way.

My bias is toward rejecting any claim that particular logic is innate. But I also don't think that language per se is strictly necessary to reason logically.

However, it is certainly true that most situations requiring complicated logic encountered by young children are social / verbal. In which case additional feedback and guidance from adults (not to mention imitation) is probably going to be a faster teacher than pure trial and error / observation.

<comment><USER6> > I also don't think that language per se is strictly necessary to reason > logically.

On a very basic level, probably. But how can you reason about, say, addition and at the same time do not assign some singular representation to a large set of operations you can do when performing addition? And such representations are what language is all about, isn't it?

Or, for that matter, how can you perform addition without a language?

<comment><USER5> Some people's primary representation of numbers is visual and concrete, like configurations of abacus beads or the like. I guess you can decide whether you consider a direct representation like that to be "language".

<comment><USER6> Er, they communicate numbers thru language though. Whether someone can come up with the idea of abacus without a language for numbers is an open question, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > some innate logical concepts [para 4]

1\. I think that people woke up about 130,000 years ago indicated by the sudden appearance of representational art etc. Turing equivalence harnessed to survival/reproduction. Accorsing to this, _of course_ there must be innate logical concepts.

2\. Introspectively, my experience of learning concepts was connecting what they're talking about to what I already know. ( _You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself._ )

Bonus: verbs distributes over "and": _I 'm going to buy eggs and I'm going to buy milk._ Incidently, it's misleading to only consider logical structure within a sentence. _I 'm going to buy eggs. I'm going to buy milk._</comment>


The first official release of Metastore: metadata tool for file system trees - <AUTHOR> https://www.freelists.org/post/metastore-announce/metastore-v110 <comment><AUTHOR> There was another mail sent to ML regarding v1.1.0:

[https://www.freelists.org/post/metastore- announce/metastore-...](https://www.freelists.org/post/metastore- announce/metastore-v110,1)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for working on this and posting it to hn. The security concerns around storing /etc improperly (i.e. like publicly in a version control system) are well known, but if done right, it could really be useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> metastore was used in etckeeper in the past.

[https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/announcing_etckeeper/](https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/announcing_etckeeper/)

In less than half a year it was replaced with find scripts.

[http://git.joeyh.name/?p=etckeeper.git;a=commitdiff;h=a9ce99...](http://git.joeyh.name/?p=etckeeper.git;a=commitdiff;h=a9ce9965c065)

And I cannot blame etckeeper. Using binary format for storing metadata, i.e. owner, group, perms, xattrs, mtime, makes it too opaque for many use cases, especially in VCS.

metastore v1.1.0, as you can already read, was meant to give metastore (from 2008) a proper release, with fixed bugs and small improvements only. There are plans to make metastore more useful in the future, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I guess that some mod intervened here (by bringing this closer to the front page), because even a few hours after posting there were only a few points and it was rather deep in HN. Thank you!

Post title has been also changed, and it's fine. I no longer remember mine, but it was maybe too clunky. But.

metastore should be written using all lowercase letters.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some use cases? Seems cool, but I'm having trouble thinking of how I'd use this... thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let me quote README file first:

        It was originally written as a supplement to git, which does not store
        all metadata, making it unsuitable for e.g. storing /etc in a
        repository.

        metastore can also be helpful if you want to create a tarball of a file
        tree and make sure that "everything" (e.g. xattrs, mtime, owner, group)
        is stored along with the files.

You may use it to store stuff on filesystem that doesn't support perms, owner & group for instance, like FAT, yet still be able to restore it later. Well, FAT doesn't support lot of things, so it's maybe a bad example. Anyway, I did use metastore to store metadata of some ext4 filesystem tree before backuping it on NTFS. It worked quite well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A bit like mtree. I have vague plans to integrate something like this to _git_ and/or _augeas_

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that metastore will become much more valuable tool, when some planned stuff will be implemented.

[https://github.com/przemoc/metastore/issues/6](https://github.com/przemoc/metastore/issues/6)

[https://github.com/przemoc/metastore/issues/7](https://github.com/przemoc/metastore/issues/7)

Drafts described there are not finalized and my view on some matters changed a bit. I'll try to update descriptions one day. metastore needs also some modularization to provide better OS-dependent stuff like xattrs.

All in all metastore will need more or less substantial reworking, to the point where rewriting it and providing converter from binary format may be a simpler solution and leading to cleaner (and thus more maintainable) code.</comment></comment>


Portable Profilers and Where to Find Them - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/730fil/portable_profilers_and_where_to_find_them/ <comment><USER2> hi, feel free to ask me any questions about the post</comment>