Extreme Minimalism: this guy owns just 15 things - <AUTHOR> http://andrewhy.de/extreme-minimalism/ <comment><USER4> This isn't minimalism in any sense of the word, it's just a consumerist vanity.

OP's 'minimalism' is sustained by a reliance upon huge amounts of infrastructure, most of it environmentally unsustainable. He doesn't carry stuff with him, but uses money to access what he needs. It's like claiming to be a minimalist because you own a second house where you keep all your stuff. OP outsources the burden of sustaining his lifestyle to people poorer and browner than himself.

He eats without pans and plates because he relies on an army of immigrant workers to cook for him and wash his dishes. He doesn't own bedsheets or a sweeping brush because an immigrant maid cleans his hotel rooms. I don't believe that such an economic relationship is necessarily immoral or exploitative, but it certainly isn't minimalist.

OP flew more miles in the summer of 2010 than most people fly in a lifetime. That's hundreds of kilos of Jet-A fuel, a substantial share of the fleet and fixed infrastructure, plus untold amounts of carbon (magnified manifold by being emitted at altitude). He eats meat, which has a vast footprint in terms of land, water and energy use. How minimal is a lifestyle that leads to irrevocable climate change? How minimal is a lifestyle that wastes good soy protein to raise beef cattle?

Real minimalists take less than their fair share, not more.

<comment><USER5> OP here.

I don't see your point but feel all your anger. Not sure if I'm just catching it from another project, but it is odd to me that you default from a guy owning a few shirts to causing major economic injustices.

I don't own much physically. I spend my days volunteering and traveling living a pretty simple life. I write posts and sometimes people like and share them. This post was written in May of last year and reached HN today. I'm not trying to promote this much, I'm just doing something for me and sharing it on a bloggity.

The assumption that I'm just snapping my fingers to have an immigrant army at my beck and call is laughable. I couchsurf most nights. I've slept under overpasses. Not just swiping my credit card.

I flew more miles in 2010 than humanity did ~300 years ago. Times are a changing. I could fly around the world for the equivalent to a mortgage payment. What is excessive there? Do you default to negativity for anything related to what is possible?

I'm living a different life that almost everyone I know. Nothing jaw dropping or amazing here, just different, and treat it as such.

Hello from Colorado (this week).

<comment><USER4> > I don't own much physically. I spend my days volunteering and traveling > living a pretty simple life.

That's the nub - you don't live a simple life, you live a very complicated life where the "stuff" in your life has been abstracted out of sight.

To define ownership by physical possession is utterly facile. The economic decisions you make result in great mountains of "stuff" being made and used and consumed. You haven't structured your life to have less "stuff" in it, only that you avoid having to carry it.

Aviation fuel is stuff. It has mass and volume, it smells and tastes of something. Huge facilities have been built to extract and refine it, and vast areas of land and sea have been irrevocably damaged by that process. Very real, physical wars were fought over it. Your plane ticket is a stake in all of that, a fractional ownership of the machinery that puts a plane in the air.

Viewed from inside your head, your life seems minimal. But from a bird's eye, it looks like a bulldozer on the rampage.

This community is one of hackers, people who strive to look more deeply, to understand how things work at the most fundamental level. If we do not understand the deep impact of the things we consume and the lives we lead, who else?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Curious that he doesn't mention "big bank balance" which makes life a lot more comfortable for him.

He needs food? He buys food. He needs emergency accommodation? (Because his friend's house burns down or some such) He can buy that accommodation for the nights he needs it.

Having just become homeless[1] myself (not through choice) I've whittled down my possessions to something that's easy to carry. Following his rules (stuff that'd be annoying to buy again) I have a computer; a games console; an mp3 player; some headphones; a kindle; one pair trousers.

I have more clothes, but they're easy to replace. The Kindle is odd - <USER2> item, with many books on it. But they are easy to replace. Personally, I think that's a flaw in his method.

By a more reasonable counting system I have money (not much, but much more than other people in similar situations in my country, and very very much more than people in other countries); I have the gadgets (and associated chargers / headphones / cases / bags / media / software); I have clothes.

[1] As I've mentioned it, take a look at this website.

(<http://gloshomeseeker.co.uk>)

It's aimed at people needing "social housing". (I don't; I have no idea why I was given that URL, maybe it's just the script they follow.) IT IS AN APPALLING WEBSITE, AND A DREADFUL FORM. From the broken security mixing secure and insecure stuff, to the weird form flow.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure if Mr Hyde's definition of a personal possession was a (well- played) PR trick or simply a certain lack of accounting intuition. Which is a shame, because his putative balance sheet should be a fascinating thing to think about.

If we were to take a look at his assets and guess reasonable values for each category of asset, I wouldn't be surprised if all 15 items he listed (give or take his wallet and computer) ended up in a catch-all 1%-of-total-value "other assets" category.

In reality, Mr Hyde's own description of how he lives (and how he manages to get around with so few 'objects') suggests that the most valuable things he has, by far, are (and probably in that order): his contacts, his reputation, and his cash.

Close to these three, his clothes, iPod and sneakers, however annoying to replace he imagines them to be, should be next to meaningless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> When you go to starbucks each morning, spending $100 a month there instead of owning your own coffeemaker - it's not minimalism.

It's consumerism.

Trying living with just what he has in a 3rd world country and it's minimalism.

<comment><USER9> Starbucks does add up, but I would say that it is minimalism (Especially if you are using it as an office)

From an individual's perspective, it is not minimalist, because now you will need to have an entire coffee shop in your life to obtain coffee. However, from a societal viewpoint, it is very minimalist, because now each person can share the means to produce coffee, thus consuming less: electricity, water (assuming most dump some out), coffee supplies/coffee, and coffee brewing equipment (really, we don't all need our own machine... well, I do. but that's why I am a capitalist)

<comment><USER10> I think just printing a receipt for each cup makes the whole process less efficient for society. Let alone disposable cups etc.

<comment><USER11> Starbucks doesn't print a receipt unless you want one, and you are welcome to bring & fill your own mug there. You can even use your smartphone to pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had a boss once who went on at great length about the benefits of the paperless office. His office was indeed devoid of paper storage, his secretary's office however, had loads of filing cabinets stuffed full of papers.

Self-regarding parasites like this just offload all their support systems onto other people and then brag about how minimal and self sufficient they are.

<comment><USER13> _Mr. Hyde [...] is currently homeless_

 _I don't have a permanent address_

 _Alex Hillman let me crash on his couch_

So basically: Homeless man has few possessions.

<comment><USER6> ...and is lucky that he know people who do have houses, and houses big enough (with couches) who let him stay.

<comment><USER14> ...and TVs for him to watch, food for him to eat, coffee makers for him to use...

Years ago I was pretty minimalist. I didn't want to own anything that I couldn't walk away from. So in my apartment I had a bed, a computer, a small TV, a surfboard, and a couple of plastic deck chairs to sit on.

Today I have quite a few more things in my house but my _attitude_ towards what I own is still the same. That I think is what is important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My own experience from living out of a max 20kg suitcase is that owning too few things forces you to think about things a lot more than you would like to. Do I keep this? What do I throw away instead? Where do I get this quickly if such and such event occurs? What's the cost of buying this versus keeping/transporting it. Who can I borrow this from? Am I bothering them too much if I borrow this again? Etc, etc.

My conclusion is that owning too much stuff increases complexity, but owning too little does too and it can be very expensive.

<comment><USER16> Agree. I think the key idea is to minimize the time it takes to think about the things you own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In this picture as well as many other such collections, one thing that stands out to me is the fact that no one has any food. The idea put forth here is to keep in ones life only "absolutely necessary" things, ostensibly as a reaction to consumerism, but when creating lists of absolute necessities, somehow _food_ and _shelter_ do not make the cut. How is this possible?

My view is that this "reaction to consumerism" is actually a _celebration of_ consumerism; consumerism boiled down to a pure extract. "Don't do anything for yourself, don't make anything for yourself, don't clean up for yourself: Buy and Throw Away Everything."

Some critics have described this lifestyle as parasitic, but I might also suggest "infantile." Someone who lives this way becomes less and less able to care for themself until... well, until they don't know how to make a cup of coffee! That's not extreme minimalism, it's extreme dependence.

<comment><USER18> Well written critique, much better that the up voted one that is just mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Having been a "minimalism-addict", I've come to the conclusion that the best part is the act of _getting rid of things_ , not the act of _having few things_.

Getting rid of junk is liberating; living with 15 things is just a pain in the ass.

<comment><USER20> Absolutely... the spirit of reducing waste and consumerism is admirable, but this guy is being ridiculous by claiming that he only owns "15 things". Not only is he missing the point, but his hyperbole is out of control. A toiletry kit is 1 item? Right.

Bike Snob NYC has a hilarious post on Hyde if you haven't seen it: [http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/05/paring-down-and- pair...](http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/05/paring-down-and-pairing-up- its-not-size.html)

<comment><USER21> Actually, the OP provides a fairly insightful definition of "item":

 _I count my things as resellable items I would be pissed if someone took._

By this definition an "item" is "one emotional connection to an object", not merely an object itself.

Yes, this means that the guy carries around many more physical objects than he counts as "items". This seems emotionally healthy, though, if one can afford it. And affording it is easier than ever: This is not the 18th century, and underwear is so cheap that, were a pair to be stolen, you're out the cost of a cup of coffee.

(By his own definition, I wonder whether the OP really "owns" a toiletry kit. Even a moderately fancy toiletry kit is worth maybe twenty bucks and can be replaced in ten minutes at any drugstore. And they're certainly not resellable. So I tend to suspect the OP's toiletry kit appears in this list mainly for branding purposes: He doesn't want to give readers the impression that his style of minimalism involves never taking a bath. ;) And he doesn't want to get into a lengthy debate over underwear and soap: As he makes clear in the rest of the post, his goal in life is _not_ to ever think or worry about underwear or soap.)

<comment><USER22> _By this definition an "item" is "one emotional connection to an object", not merely an object itself._

This would be a pretty odd definition of an "item". Going with this definition though, I (and suspect quite a few others) don't have more than 1-2 "items", or even any at all. I can't think of a single (physical) object I have emotional connection to, as long as I am reimbursed so that I can replace it it's business as usual.

<comment><USER21> That's probably a good thing. Lots of people are not like you, however.

If you want to understand your fellow humans better, take a glimpse into the opposite extreme with this book on compulsive hoarding:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/books/review/Kramer-t.html>

You may find it quite alien, or perhaps hilarious, or both, but I've met quite a few people on the hoarding spectrum, and it is decidedly not fun.

And I'd venture to say that most people have _something_ with significant emotional resonance that they'd be loath to lose it. A wedding ring. Objects inherited from one's late grandparents. A few pieces of custom-built tools, furniture, or clothing that fit you perfectly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Minimalism and 'getting rid of your possessions' has been one of those hot internet topics for as long as I can remember.

The trend I notice is that the articles preaching the extreme end of this are almost always written by 20-something bloggers who are so much happier now they're couch surfing the world care free rather than 'working 9-5 to pay for that TV'.

Obviously, there is a large truth in there. We all take only a few things on holiday with us and enjoy it. But sleeping on other peoples couches, using their kitchens, bathrooms and towels, and freelancing to get some money to your paypal account now and then isn't a particularly sustainable lifestyle.

I suspect if you came back in 10 years you'll see a different picture. If you want to think about having children or living a generally western lifestyle as opposed to a '3rd world' or really homeless lifestyle then there's a sensible balance point.

I believe rejecting materialism is about giving your energy, focus and love to your passions, your family, and enjoying the experiences life gives you over material things. Not blindly aiming to own 10 or 20 objects while you're basically renting or borrowing everything else to keep living in a western style. All things in moderation :)

<comment><USER24> _I suspect if you came back in 10 years you'll see a different picture. If you want to think about having children or living a generally western lifestyle as opposed to a '3rd world' or really homeless lifestyle then there's a sensible balance point._

There's no reason he couldn't continue to live a substantially minimalist lifestyle while adding a family. He could migrate into living on a sailboat, RV, or in a home considered tiny by Western (American, particularly) standards.

<comment><USER25> > or in a home considered tiny by Western (American, particularly) standards.

You mean a British home?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Most Buddhist monks could easily get under the "15 things" limit-- the standard list of possessions is: three robes, an alms bowl, a cloth belt, a needle and thread, a razor for shaving the head, and a water filter.

<comment><USER27> that's pretty good. source? with a wish-list like that what do they need alms for? I couldn't live without a toothbrush though.

<comment><USER28> The list mentioned is repeated here: [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguid...](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#req4)

I've heard this list other places too but don't have a source. The four requisites mentioned on that page are what I typically think of.

<comment><USER27> toothpaste and toothbrush are definitely medical then, as a dentist definitely is in the field of medicine, and if you don't use them your teeth rot and fall out. oral-B is definitely a medical brand. "warding off disease" simply and clearly covers this, then. Thanks for the informative link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you happen to be interested in more "minimalist porn", I too made a list of the things I was living with at one point last year.

<http://raviudeshi.com/2011/02/75-things>

With hindsight, I can say it's not at all about the number, but more the mentality. I don't know about this guy, but so long as you find a hostel/apartment/friend with some basic cooking utensils and Internet, it's not too hard to keep your costs very low.

<comment><USER30> I'm glad to see you have deodorant, toothbrush, soap et al. That was my biggest issue with the guy in the article.

<comment><USER31> "8. Toiletry kit"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Headline: guy owns 15 things

... read article, guy owns more than 15 things.

New headling: "Guy reaches new heights of extreme minimalism by ignoring a bunch of the things that he owns".

But I guess it was a minimalist headline, so that was too long...?

<comment><USER33> Laptop charger, phone charger, money to own washing powder to wash clothes. "Toiletry kit" is a cheat, so add: razor, shaving foam, blades, toothpaste, toothbrush, towel, shampoo, shower gel, etc. etc. etc.

<comment><USER34> It may not be physical but he has a blog, that's a thing. Email address, tumbler account, Flicker account, etc, etc.

<comment><USER35> I'd disagree, simply because you could take that to the extreme. Does he own the water he drinks, the air he breathes, the life he lives through? As far as I can see, we're talking strictly in physical items.

<comment><USER33> Then let's talk about items that were once physical.

He owns some music. He owns some movies. He owns lots of documents. et cetera.

<comment><USER35> We can take that further. If clumps of data that make up a "file" is a possession, what about the thousands of executable and library files that make up his operating system? He may not use the calculator or chess game, but his computer surely comes with that. What about every bit that make those up?

We need a clear line or this gets silly, and I think physical possessions is a clear enough line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's always interesting how people define what is a thing. He's got a good definition but he should take it a step further. Expand it to anything that you have that you would feel bad if you had to replace. The digital clutter weights on your mind just like physical objects (files on the macbook, email in gmail, all of it).

Also although he list the items that he'd be pissed if he lost he'd probably be a lot less angry them a lot of people if he was robbed. Simpler and cheaper to only have to replace 15 items.

</comment><comment><USER37> There are a bunch of comments that this guy actually owns more than 15 things, and that others cope with less, and he isn't in the 3rd world etc. All true; his system isn't as extreme as the headline would have you believe.

However, I see the takeaway is that he gets by with a _lot_ less stuff than the average person in his demographic, and I think that is something to be applauded. I know I wouldn't relish doing it like he has, but it has made me think I could get by with less.

<comment><USER38> That he doesn't actually seem to get by with less is people's problem. He's essentially just renting everything, very inefficiently at that.

It's ridiculous to applaud the idea -of buying coffee at a restaurant every day instead of owning a coffee maker- as "doing with less"

<comment><USER21> Not ridiculous at all, in context. It's all about marginal costs.

If owning something would require you to rent a room that you might otherwise not have to rent, its marginal cost could be hundreds of dollars per month.

There are portable coffeemakers for backpackers, but there's no such thing as lightweight portable coffee beans, and buying coffee beans in one-cup units on an as-needed basis is pretty expensive, in time if nothing else.

As for whether traveling constantly and renting all your stuff is "inefficient": Well, sure. But to be alive is to be inefficient. Dead people are maximally efficient. But they also aren't having any fun.

There's no prize for having lots of leftover money when you're dead. As they say, you can't take it with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is also the hipster version of this: <http://theburninghouse.com/>

"If your house was burning, what would you take with you? It's a conflict between what's practical, valuable and sentimental."

<comment><USER39> If our home was burning the only things I'd be bothered about getting to safety would by my wife and son, then our cats.

Nothing else matters in that context.

<comment><USER10> It's situational. Outside of a major emergency, taking an extra 15 seconds to get your cellphone, wallet, and key's would probably would probably be worth it, come home and your house is on fire just let it burn. Also, as long as the fire is contained in a single room simply closing the door can do a lot to save your home.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> My wife and I were were struck by something recently while standing at the checkout line at a Nike store, looking at a display case full of specialized, expensive, pedometers.

Not a one was a useful as the jogging app I have on my phone.

And when we're out jogging, I listen to music, or streaming radio...on my phone. And oh yeah, if it's late and I'm going through the local woods, my phone has an app that turns it into a flashlight.

And now suddenly a bit of enlightenment hit us. A modern smartphone replaces a great many discrete devices that we used to have to carry around, or at least store someplace:

Common uses for our phones:

1) A portable phone

2) A small portable computer

3) An address book (yes, I used to carry one around with my old non-smart phone)

4) A map book

5) A GPS

6) An mp3/music player

7) A radio (fm tuner, but more importantly streaming radio, flipping through global stations on my phone reminded my of being 9 with a shortwave receiver and picking up broadcasts of Voice of America going into Europe)

8) A flashlight

9) A pedometer

10) A portable book (actually a library)

11) A thumb drive

12) A portable translator

13) A portable gaming device

14) A camera

15) A videocamera

16) Alarm clock

17) Portable calculator

18) Barcode scanner

19) A wifi signal scanner

20) Portable movie player

21) Starbucks card

And a few others...

And suddenly all that junk is in one device, a _backpack_ full of stuff.

Coming up this year they're going to be useful as credit cards, business cards, some have projectors on them, better optics and I can junk my binoculars, a decent way to hook up a keyboard and monitor (it can already act as it's own trackpad, oh I forgot to mention that, I can use it as a trackpad on my computer) and I can junk my laptop for 85% of what I do.

These aren't phones, these are some kind of sci-fi multi-tool. We're ending up in a measure of minimalism de facto just by having more versatile stuff.

So yeah, looking around my house, I could probably ditch a _ton_ of stuff (I mean literally, I have several full bookshelves I could potentially replace) and not miss it.

<comment><USER41> A portable monitor, keyboard and battery for that monitor will take about as much space and weight as an ultrabook anyway. You'll probably shave off a pound & half an inch and get similar battery life at most. The closest thing I can think of that would be as portable as a phone would be something like a laser keyboard and a mini projector built into one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> OP here. I've updated the items I own list (now 39!) and written a bit more about it here. <http://andrewhy.de/minimalism-project-update-39-things/>

The linked post up top is from May. Lots has changed since then.

Great discussion here. Always interesting how people look at the project.

</comment><comment><USER42> This guy is clearly a professional attention whore. It's good to contrast him with "early retirement extreme" who lives in the RV in the East Bay who gets posted from time to time.

"15 things" isn't sustainable. It's fake minimalism. It's like saying you're a minimalist after your house burns down and you escape with nothing but your cell phone and credit card. He imposes a significantly higher load on the infrastructure around him (whether he pays for it, or just the kindness of friends letting hin crash on the couch).

In contrast, "East Bay RV" really has whittled down his life to just the things he needs.

<comment><USER41> Mr. ERE got a job as a finance quant recently. He's still financially independent.

[http://earlyretirementextreme.com/so-long-and-thanks-for- all...](http://earlyretirementextreme.com/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the- fish.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Amazing how offended some people seem to be by him omitting a few thing - <USER3> really cares

<comment><USER44> > _Amazing how offended some people seem to be by him omitting a few thing - > who really cares_

If I promise to give you 50 bucks for some software you wrote and then I only give you 10, you wouldn't be offended or complain, right?

<comment><USER45> Seriously? Clicking on a link with a vaguely misleading headline is the same as giving someone $50? Really?

<comment><USER44> I was promised something by the (outrageously) surprising claim in the headline and the article could not remotely keep up... and this was the first analogy that came to my mind - in both cases something was promised but then not fulfilled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> That's actually more stuff than most of the middle class Indians have. Hmmm

<comment><USER47> Maybe more retail value, but as for number of items? I believe a typical middle class Indian has a lot more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Minimalism - asceticism for rich people?

Did I get it?

</comment><comment><USER49> If he can group things together like his 'toiletry kit', then I'll do the same with my clothes (though I have toiletries, too). Aside from my clothes, I have 10 books, a laptop and a cell phone. If we're going off of things I'd be pissed if someone stole then that'd be my MBA and all of my clothes...so I guess I kind of own two things.

I've lived like this for 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER50> See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_nomad>

<comment><USER51> [http://www.thrillingheroics.com/digital-nomad- academy-–-were...](http://www.thrillingheroics.com/digital-nomad- academy-–-were-doing-it) Neat site about Digital Nomadist, and an article on the Academy for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Though Andrew is not a perfect minimalist, there are things that we can learn from him. He has a angle on using minimal stuff and they are pretty much valid. Shopping for fun is a plague in US and increasingly so in the rest of the world too.

Here in the bay area, we were given free BART tickets [at the BART stations!] to shop during the holiday season. The kind of minimalism that Andrew has written about needs to be approached from that angle. Of course there is travel, non vegetarian food, use-n-throw things and so on that we need to fix. But this is a step in the right direction.

Btw,

Why do we need to be hyper critics here on HN? The blog was posted on his own site. Not directly on HN. There is no attention seeking in it. I learn a lot from the comments of each post in HN. The information is great and often eye- opening. I just hope the tone of a comment doesn't fend off its readers.

<comment><USER53> If you seek only comments to agree with the post, go to Reddit. If you seek only comments that disagree with the post, go to Hacker News.

Frankly, both have been a HUGE turnoff for me lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> If he didn't have friends or family willing to give him a place to stay then he would have to increase the number of things that he owned.

Which isn't a bad thing.

Certain objects are worthwhile owning. I'm particularly fond of robots which decrease my need to do menial labour.

My washing machine and dishwasher saves me at least 30 minutes a day.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'd like to know how many things he has on that Macbook air.

<comment><USER55> You might be surprised -- a minimalist mindset can extend toward computer habits as well. Also, just as he relies on society to provide him with essentials like food, so too could he rely on cloud providers like Google Docs to take care of his document storage -- though of course he would still own his Google account.

It's no stretch to compare Mimimalism to a thin-client computing design -- it is made possible by the existence of an excellent network of other person- nodes, and it reduces the emotional and physical "computational" overhead of owning things.

Also, in response to come other comments in this thread: to argue that he is parasitic requires the moral stance that using things you do not own is parasitic, regardless of the other contributions you make to society (including paying for the temporary use of those things!). Which is bollocks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> In May 2011 I sold nearly everything I owned and traveled for 6 months with just a small backpack. My list was similar to Andrew's with a few more clothing items.

I should write a blog post but DL;DR version is that it was well worth it. I don't want to live that way continuously but it made me think a lot more about consumerism.

For the most part I lived in hostels and cooked my own food. My living expenses stayed about the same since I wasn't paying rent or maintaining a car.

The biggest problem with owning so few items is convenience. You sacrifice the convenience of doing laundry once a week (or less) and having everything you need at hand.

</comment><comment><USER29> Looks like CNN did a piece on him back in September 2010: [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-17/tech/gahran.blogging.ipad...](http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-17/tech/gahran.blogging.ipad_1_blogging- wi-fi-ipad?_s=PM:TECH)

Interesting that he left his laptop behind and used only an iPad then, but is back to a MacBook Air now.

</comment><comment><USER57> Next step, extrem bootstraping, define the kernel to rebuild everything you need.

      Living From Scratch v1

</comment><comment><USER58> Bit of a success for Apple that this guy pared his life down to 15 things and 2 of them are Apple products.

<comment><USER59> Not only that, but all his consumer electronics are made by them.

Heck, almost everything not wearable or clothe related is Apple's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Balance.

An extreme of "something" is not good...

<comment><USER61> I consider it a good thing when a person is extremely reasonable. Or extremely thoughtful. Or extremely honest. Or extremely patient. Or extremely gracious.

We don't need balance in _all_ things. A rocket only makes it safely to the moon if the engineers are _extremely_ cautious. Bill Gates is _extremely_ charitable. Einstein was _extremely_ intelligent.

The idea that "extreme X for any X" is bad is some sort of pseudo-wisdom that doesn't even pass the sniff test.

<comment><USER33> If you are extremely thoughtful to the point that you never get any work done, then this is also a bad thing.

<comment><USER61> And if you're so patient that you keep waiting for food indefinitely you'll starve. This is just silly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> In terms of software... very bloated.

<comment><USER63> Indeed. If you own a device running a modern processor and OS, you got extreme miniaturization hiding in (skimpy) minimalism's clothes.

A sheepherder in Afghanistan might own a hundred items more than this guy, yet he lives a simpler life by any reasonable definition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> "Headline: guy owns 15 things ... read article, guy owns more than 15 things."

Haha exactly how I felt when I read it. This is a good blog post of gear for this kinda travel or lifestyle <http://tynan.com/2010gear>.

The 14 things I own and the cost of each item. [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsFrsoFjrGmgdFB...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsFrsoFjrGmgdFB6UzFDNXhodFRiNG14bzQ0MWtwVFE)

</comment><comment><USER65> This guy still owns too much. When I was in Nepal with a friend studying migration, we saw many guys wlaking to India with:

Their clothes (2 pieces)

Their plastic slippers

A cloth bag with, inside:

One toothbrush

A few rupies.

<comment><USER11> Whenever preparing to travel, I always try to allay my wife's "maybe I forgot something!" fears by asking "got passport? credit card? yes? then we're ready to go."

My personal version: knife, firestarter, meds <http://db.tt/rU56upUK>

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> It's really really weird to me that someone who wants to own as few things as possible (i.e. be unmaterialistic) is so focused on brands. (which to me is the height of materialism owning/valuing/recognizing something for it's label rather than substance).

Seems like it's just a gimmick, something to fill blog posts with.

<comment><USER67> Brands are often a nice shortcut to find a quality item. I was researching a coat for a woman the other day and was looking at a fancy brand one vs. a knockoff. After reading all the reviews it turned out the brand one was much more fitted (shows off your form, not a shapeless box) and had a better closure mechanism (a series of snaps at the bottom below the zipper for closing it up when you are waiting at a bus or something). The brand one isn't competing on razor thin margins to be the cheapest version on the block, so they can spend more money on materials and design and the like. If you don't know clothes very well, it can be a shortcut to an actual, in person, feature by feature comparison in detail. This might mean being able to buy online, or only after visiting one store, instead of visiting a couple. At many income levels, it can make sense to spend money to save time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> To move out of my rented flat without having anywhere to go - besides hotels, I mean - I gave away most of my belongings and it amazed me watching how many items I owned which were sitting there consuming space.

Then, after leaving my country with just hand luggage, I've been living minimalistic for the last two months. Yes, it can be done, but it's either time-consuming or expensive, depending on how much you are going to outsource. I have to wash my laundry by hand each other day instead of once a week, and lacking many kitchen items means I spend more time preparing my meals.

There is a trade-off to be made between space and time. When you see someone who's consuming little space, it may be that they are consuming either a lot of time or a lot of money.

EDIT: Thus, don't feel uncomfortable about owning a lot of things. If you feel so inclined, feel uncomfortable about owning things you don't use. For those who haven't read PG's essay about this issue, which played a part in making me superfluous-aware: <http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html>

</comment><comment><USER69> There's well over 15 things in the picture. Not shown: toothbrush, soap, wash linens, contacts fluid, deodorant, etc. This seems like vanity over minimalism/utility, much like the EDC "every day carry" crowd with their $150 flashlights and $50 pens.

Focus on frugality, not brands and numbers.

</comment><comment><USER70> I also own practically nothing apart from my clothes (all bought at discount stores) and the food in my fridge.

All my tech needs are met by work , my furniture came with my (rented) house and my TV etc are mostly other peoples cast offs.

<comment><USER71> Just because you didn't pay for your TV doesn't mean you don't own it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> [tl;dr] Money is fungible.

</comment><comment><USER17> Similar, longer article with a ton of similar discussion can be found here:

<http://boingboing.net/2010/09/10/technomads.html>

</comment><comment><USER73> Never heard of NAU shirts, so I did a minimal look-up, and the minimum price appears to be $72, but they claim to be _sustainable_ , whatever that is.

</comment><comment><USER74> Scheme vs Common Lisp

</comment><comment><USER75> I don't have any issue with the way he counts his things. But seriously, he must eat at resturants most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER76> Well first he has one more thing of value in addition to those mentioned.

He owns andrewhy.de domain name which has links and traffic.

And he can sell that because the traffic and links have value. According the the dubious compete.com numbers traffic spiked to about 25k visitors in Sept. of 2011. (It's less now.) According to alexa.com he has 351 sites linking in.

Oh one more thing.

What he is doing is known as a publicity stunt. I've done them and I know one when I see it.

</comment><comment><USER77> I remember reading somewhere that S. Jobs was of a similar mentality; at times he only kept a Tiffany's lamp, a chair and a bed in this apartment.

</comment><comment><USER78> It's still too many ugly blue shirts.

</comment><comment><USER6> Does he have health insurance? I'm guessing that's a pretty big thing.

</comment><comment><USER79> MacBook Air and iPhone? C'mon!

<comment><USER80> That's everyone I know practically. What exactly are you trying to say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> This reminds me of an old joke:

What do you call a man with no material possessions?

A man without a girlfriend.

<comment><USER82> > What do you call a man with no material possessions?

Recently divorced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> my first thought was: "I bet three of them are macbook pros :)." seriously though...

Where are his toiletries? Stuff for the kitchen? more socks? everyday bag as opposed to that travelling one? a single book he's reading right now, or a reader like a kindle or whatever?

This guy doesnt't look like he's actually living with 15 things, which makes the point kind of moot. He doesn't even have a towel.

Let alone anything like a dress shoes.

I don't think it's possible to get ownership down to 15 things.

Each of the following is an absolutely minimal thing:

1) laptop

2) power adaptor for laptop

3) phone

4) power adapter for phone

5) toothbrush

6) toothpaste

7) underwear

8) underwear

9) underwear

10) pair of socks

11) pair of socks

12) pair of socks

13) shoes

14) jeans

15) jeans

16) everyday bag

17) towel

18) bodywash/shampoo/and shaving cream in one

19) which reminds me: razer BZZZZZZZT over the 15 :) and you're just getting around to being able to shave.

20) shirt

21) shirt

22) shirt

23) sweater

24) sweater

If you add some moisterizing cream and maybe a watch and blazer, maybe a second pair of shoes, you're pretty well set though to move to a new city. You don't need a wallet, that's why jeans have pockets. a belt wouldn't kill you either.

<comment><USER83> If you read the article it says he counts stuff like you were buying it at a store. Laptop and charger count as one item. He also said he only counts things he can resell for value so socks and underwear don't count either.

<comment><USER27> That's interesting, though it's hardly true that "this guy owns just 15 things", which is what the title says. Meanwhile, fuckit, I got an actual viable list down to eleven:

1) toothbrush

2) macbook

3) phone

4-5) charger for macbook, phone USB cable

6) some ID

7) jeans (you're going commando here)

8) shoes

9) heavy shirt/sweater type thing

10) a bag

And...

(laaa - that's angels singing) Credit card.

Bon voyage! You might want to buy a coat at the airport, and deoderant.</comment></comment></comment>


Startup Quote: Arianna Huffington, co-founder, The Huffington Post - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/2102350240

<comment><AUTHOR> You can do not just twice as much but 200 times as much when you have a good partner.

\- Arianna Huffington (@ariannahuff)

<http://startupquote.com/post/2102350240></comment>


Eight years today - <AUTHOR> http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2012/03/eight-years-today.html <comment><AUTHOR> I know this isn't obviously startup related, but it is. Please read.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for writing that, Paul.

Six months ago, I lost a family member to glioblastoma, another one of those "get your affairs in order" cancers. It was 3 months from beginning to end for us as well.

In the interim, it seems like I've had two sorts of conversations. Ones with people who have experienced loss, and ones with those who haven't. The latter group are perfectly nice people, but there's a gap. So I am very grateful that you've taken the time to write about issues that are so present to me and so many others.

And yes, of course this is about startups: Beginnings and endings. Loss and acceptance. Presence in the moment. Creation and joy. And choosing wisely how to spend what little time we each have.

<comment><USER3> I lost my mom to glioblastoma. I remember times, near the end, when my mom was so sick that I almost wished she would die sooner, so I could remember her as she used to be, and not frail, sick, unable to form sentences, or remember who I was.

Indeed there is absolutely a divide between those who have lost a close loved one and those who have (yet) not.

It's been about 5 years since it has happened, and it's affected me in a profound manner. Although I'm only 32, I see how temporary everything is. Perhaps it's a morbid viewpoint but I'm not sad or depressed. It's just an interesting philosophy I have naturally gained from going through something so terrible. It's sort of an "it is what it is" type of mentality, and it's almost like I feel that my real age is like 65.

Ever since then, I "take stock" very frequently to ensure that I am living the life I want to live, and I am happy. If I am not, I make changes. Because I know things can sour very quickly. I understand fully now when older people say things that generally equate to "value being healthy", or "health is wealth". I try to value that philosophy every day, and ensure I find happiness in my job, my friends, and family. Indeed, that is my highest priority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> Sometimes, when I write about startups or other interests of mine, I worry that perhaps I'm communicating the wrong priorities. Investing money, creating new products, and all the other things we do are wonderful games and can be a lot of fun, but it's important to remember that it's all just a game._

It's also a means to an essential end - real wealth creation - that in turn enables us to fund advanced medical research and other long-term bluesky projects that improve the human condition.

There are only a few ways of creating real wealth. You can harvest raw materials from the ground, be they animal, vegetable, or mineral, and apply labor + capital + innovation + time to turn them into products worth more than total cost of their inputs.

That delta in input->output value we call profit, or net revenue, but what it really represents is wealth that was _created out of thin air that didn't previously exist_. This is perhaps the greatest magic trick humanity has ever invented, and makes all else possible.

You can also provide specialized products or services that reduce the cost of labor, capital, innovation, or time in that equation, which also creates wealth. Much of the software-based startup scene is about both reducing the time and cost of innovation and labor and increasing the value of the computer hardware produced by the first method.

So just keep in mind that those of us fortunate enough to be working in this field are not just competing in a game, we're creating real wealth that can then be used to improve the entire human condition, be it medical, social, governmental, etc. Being good to ourselves and each other is not orthogonal or mutually exclusive to our day jobs, but an ultimate outcome of them.

Paul, whether you realized it or not, you were and are working to save your brother's life, and that of everyone else struck by the whim of nature. It just didn't happen quickly enough, but it's a hard task. One day we'll get there.

</comment><comment><USER5> This was incredibly sad, but one of the most deeply relatable stories I've read for anyone who has lost a loved one or struggled with grieving. Thank you for submitting, it brought back a lot of memories (good and bad). This part is the must read: I keep looking for meaning, but all I've found so far is that in order to be at peace with the present, we must be at peace with the past, because the present is a product of the past. Accept.

</comment><comment><USER6> You first learn to accept, accept, accept, then you learn to cope, cope, cope.

You must also learn when to fight, when to submit, and most importantly the balance in between.

For humanity didn't progress by simply accepting, simply coping, nor can it survive further by always fighting.

Take care.

</comment><comment><USER7> I drove by the same tracks earlier today and I had a very similar initial reaction... I was driving my kids to daycare and couldn't figure out why Menlo Park traffic was so busy that time of day. Drivers in front of me were acting odd and I was starting to get a bit angry. I was in a hurry and people were driving like idiots.

Then I drove by the accident. And my mood shifted immediately. I didn't need to see anything more than the police car blocking the tracks. I knew that it was a tragic situation and saving a couple of minutes on the way to drop my kids off were trivial in comparison.

It's a sad what it takes to snap us back to reality.

</comment><comment><USER8> I can relate so much, unfortunately. Reading this post, and all the details that you provide about that day - I can remember so well the day that I learned my sister had an accident... and the night that she passed.

I found out it took a lot more effort to get back to normal life afterwards and I feel encouraged that you have been able to.

The worst part is the need for meaning - in what happened and in what you want to happen for your life - and the high burden it can impose on someone. Two years in, I feel that acceptance is indeed the only way to be able to fly again.

Thank you for this post paul... and good luck handling that day and remember your beloved brother.

</comment><comment><USER9> those whom enjoyed the zen sentiment of this post ("accept, accept, accept") will also enjoy's Paul's "I am nothing". <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2908015>

<comment><USER10> I can't help but think it should be investigation & discernment & equanimity rather than acceptance. In buddhism, (as far as i've seen) peace doesn't come from trusting that there's beauty in everything.

<comment><USER11> Equanimity requires acceptance, at least for me. If you keep asking yourself "Why?" or its terrible cousin "Why me?", it's hard to be equanimous.

The post didn't say that there's beauty in everything, it said that everything that happens, together forms something beautiful. That life is ultimately meaningful in a beautiful way, despite its terrible moments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I lost my brother a year ago tomorrow, he's also named steve so I found this a bit eerie.. In his case it was self inflicted after a long struggle with bipolar disorder. Thanks for sharing, its good sometimes to hear from others who have gone through an abrupt loss of a loved one too young. Its given me a new perspective on things, at least I hope. It can be hard to find meaning in a career after something like this but I feel one day I will hopefully do something to impact this world in a positive way

</comment><comment><USER13> _A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved._

\- Kurt Vonnegut

</comment><comment><USER14> Well done. Thank you for sharing this intimate part of you. Please, please everyone: take heed: "Those who push only for the sake of some future reward, or to avoid failure, very often burn out, sometimes tragically. Please don't do that."

To those not taking heed: Being and Internet Celebrity today will provide you no comfort in that not-to-distant tomorrow when your spouse, children, family, and friends have realized that they are not the most important ingredients of your life.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Ultimately, the people who learn to love what they do who will be the ones who accomplish the most anyway. Those who push only for the sake of some future reward, or to avoid failure, very often burn out, sometimes tragically."

This is one of the best pieces of advice I've read in a long time. Worthy of being framed and hung on the wall above my workspace.

</comment><comment><USER16> First of all, thanks a lot for sharing this Paul. I have just entered college and have only just started to see the importance of these lessons you illustrate: Accepting the past and being good to ourselves and each other.

Unfortunately, they are learned too late in life by too many people. I myself have spent too much time working for the sake of some future reward instead of the love of my work. The problem with this is that it can create unhealthy feedback loops. You keep working, certain that sooner or later this work you hate will pay off. And when it doesn't, you think you either didn't work hard enough and try again, or you finally decide to find work you love. But when you've spent the past working for a reward that never came, it's really hard to accept the past. That's where some of the most painful burnouts come from.

</comment><comment><USER17> Thank you for sharing this Paul.

It puts 'our world' into perspective and makes you think hard about what really matters to you deep down.

When you're young out of college you don't often think about family and your personal future.

I think we should all do that a bit more.

</comment><comment><USER18> Make it a point to talk to your parents, and siblings every other day. The absolute minimum should be once a week. Even just a quick "I am busy, but I just wanted to see how you guys doing". Just do it.

<comment><USER19> People need attention and affection. That's probably one of the basic human needs to survive (long-term not short-term).

That's not to say that people are crazy for attention...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I know Paul has caveated advice before in a Startup School talk ('advice = over-generalizations + limited life experience...', I think..). But this seems like such useful advice at all timelines (in work and personal life):

 _I keep looking for meaning, but all I've found so far is that in order to be at peace with the present, we must be at peace with the past, because the present is a product of the past._

One of those things that's so obvious that it's easy to overlook its importance.

</comment><comment><USER21> Thanks for a great post Paul.

I had a similar experience when I was in college. I was close to finishing school, partied a lot and generally went through life without a care. One night, we were at a bar, and the trains ran right through town and right behind the bar we were at. I was waiting for a friend. When he finally got there after work, he walked up to our table like a zombie, he was completely pale, like a ghost. We asked what was wrong, and he said he just saw a guy kill himself by walking on the train tracks as the train was coming. He was just getting out of his car and saw the whole thing but was powerless to stop it. He said he didn't feel like drinking tonight and turned to walk out of the bar. My group of friends all looked at each other and we all had the same reaction. Time to go. The rest of the night we talked about the fragility of life, and to make sure you tell your family you love them everyday and to enjoy the time you've been given.

Needless to say, that night was a wakeup call. Ever since then, I try and keep a good perspective on what's really important. It's always nice to get a gentle reminder though, so thank you.

</comment><comment><USER22> "What happened, happened. It's difficult to understand the big picture when our lives are mere brush strokes on the canvas of reality. Trusting that it all fits together to form something beautiful is the purest form of faith. Anything else is a dangerous distraction. No contracts with God, no expectations of reward, just trust."

It has been a principle of mine for the longest time - "Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. There is no reason to vie for a better unknown. Act for here, act for NOW. I can, maybe hope to leave behind a memory for my loved ones to cherish, and if I am fortunate, maybe a legacy for others to look up to."

Thank you for the sentiment, and for sharing. I have not lost anyone close but your words struck a chord with me.

RIP Stephen.

</comment><comment><USER23> _"... What's most important is that we are good too each other, and ourselves. If we "win", but have failed to do that, then we have lost. Winning is nothing.... Please be good to each other, and your self. ..."_

Hard won perspective. I'm sorry for your loss Paul.

</comment><comment><USER24> Thanks for sharing your story, it's good to remember the truly valuable things in life.

</comment><comment><USER25> This reminds me of Paul Graham's recent list:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3686840>

Except there is no mention of cancer. Is a solution really so much out of reach?

I feel like there's an identity issue here to blame, something along the lines of "we're programmers, we're not about making medical breakthroughs".

Yet I can't shake off the notion that everything, absolutely everything, is interlinked, and we're in a better position, perhaps the only position, to understand and exploit this concept fully, in order to solve such problems.

<comment><USER26> PG mentioned cancer 6 times in:

7\. Ongoing Diagnosis

This is a real problem hackers could solve: early detection of health problems which leads to preventative treatments.

Although I lack any type of expertise outside of building a health startup I think this is probably one of the biggest ways we could reduce the impact of cancer on society... given the technology we have right now.

It's not a matter of medical break-through though, but about building the right monitoring tools, creating meaning out of data, getting people to use them and the greatest challenge for startups: dealing with significant government regulation.

<comment><USER27> The sensitivity-specificity curve is going to be a roadblock. If your False Positive rate is 0.5%, True Positive rate is 100% and your incidence of disease is 0.1%, the probability that a positive result is indicative of disease is only 17%.

Take a look at mammography, the false negative rate is estimated as high as 30% and the false positive rate of 65%.

If you can stratify your population (ie. increase the disease incidence), you'll do a bit better, but it's an uphill battle. Sure, late detection is a factor in the median life expectancy with pancreatic cancer. However, I suspect that if tumors were detected 6 months earlier, it would move the median survival time by 6 months and make no dent in the 5-year survival rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have never lost anyone in my immediate family but this made me choke up,

"He was gone, but his belongings were still there... It does not feel good to pack up the remains of your brother's life."

RIP Stephen

</comment><comment><USER29> Fuck Cancer.

<comment><USER30> By "Fuck Cancer", do you mean that "Nations should stand together and help drive forward the research and development it takes to prevent and fight cancer"?

<comment><USER31> The nations of the world aren't going to unite and solve the problem, but the people reading HN could try to figure out what more can be done. Think about these people that we've lost due to pancreatic cancer and maybe it'll motivate enough people, or the right people, that something significant can be done.

Randy Pausch

Steve Jobs

Stephen Buchheit

Patrick Swayze

Ralph Steinman

After Steve Jobs died I looked into where best to give money for research, but I haven't followed through yet. Seems like Stanford or Randy's site might provide the best leads:

[http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/stephen- beck/randypaus...](http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/stephen- beck/randypausch)

<http://cancer.stanford.edu/help/gift.html>

Any other recommendations?

<comment><USER32> Donate blood, too. Platelets are especially helpful with many advanced treatments.

In the Bay Area, I suggest Stanford Blood Center (<http://bloodcenter.stanford.edu/>).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Thanks for writing this paul. From time to time, it's important to recognize the things that truly matter.

</comment><comment><USER34> There are people who lost their loved ones and those who haven't yet. This is something one has to live through to understand and it is life-altering. In other words, former don't need the "be good to each other" advice and latter can't really appreciate it.

It's a good piece though, Paul.

</comment><comment><USER35> Paul, thanks so much for sharing this. It's very touching and really underscores how easy it is to loose sight of the big picture in life. Very appropriate especially for those caught up in all the craziness that comes with a startup.

</comment><comment><USER36> Having just now had a conversation about whether we should trade quality of life for an opportunity to work on something cool and make more money, this felt eerily relevant. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER37> Related?: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/11/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/11/BANI1NJBCP.DTL&tsp=1)

</comment><comment><USER38> You can tell yourself some story that whatever happens is "beautiful" in the end, or that accepting the present moment is somehow "virtuous". Or you can acknowledge the truth, which is that reality sucks, that we weren't made for it, that it wasn't made for us, and that nothing is accomplished by us simply remaining to exist in the face of that. That's right, there's more we can do than just be nice to each other: we can refrain from creating the next generation of sufferers.

Life is unfair, you say. Let's recognize that and act accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER39> Thanks for sharing that Paul, really... thanks.

</comment><comment><USER40> Thanks for sharing your story, Paul. I lost my young brother to a cycling accident last year. Best wishes.

</comment><comment><USER41> Hey, Paul. Nicely put. Thanks for sharing it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I love posts like this. It's always great to get a healthy dose of perspective. I save articles like this to reread for when I'm getting terribly stressed at work. I think it's tremendously important to recenter priorities every so often. This was well written and I'm glad I read it.</comment>


Ask HN: Does Scotiabank security number caller ID resolves to 7-Eleven? - <AUTHOR> This morning I had reason to call Scotia Bank security centre [1]. After I got off the phone I was surprised to see that the caller ID had resolved to 7-Eleven. I called their 1-800 number [2] again, this time watching the display and observed it resolve to 7-Eleven.
I am going to contact someone at Scotiabank security centre to let them know, but first I would be interested in knowing if anyone else can confirm the same. Perhaps I have a localized issue of some sort.
----

    [1]: https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/contact-us/security.html
    [2]: tel:+1-800-472-6842
 <comment><AUTHOR> My email to Scotia Bank

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

To Whom It May Concern,

Today I called Scotia Bank Security Centre using the phone number that their website has published at [https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/contact- us/security.h...](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/contact- us/security.html). Here is the number that I called:

+1-800-472-6842

While this number does seem to connect me with the automated phone dispatch service for the Scotia Bank Security Centre the caller ID that I see on my phone is surprising. The caller ID is resolving to 7-Eleven. Please correct this. It is confusing. It honestly makes me loose trust in the Scotia Bank Security Centre. If I were to receive a phone call from this number and saw that the caller ID was 7-Eleven I would believe it to be fraudulent.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

Scotia Bank's reply to my email

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

Good afternoon,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate your feedback and will certainly escalate to the relevant team to determine a solution.

Regards

Customer Care

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I tried calling Scotia Bank, but the lady whom I spoke with did not seem to understand what I was talking about. I told her that I think it will be easier if I explain this in an email. I have since emailed Scotia Bank about the issue and will post the email correspondence here if I get a reply. Although I don't think this thread has attracted any interest from the HN community which surprised me a little. Perhaps my title was not engaging enough?

</comment><comment><USER2> Yes it always shows up as 7-Eleven for me too, I use an Android phone if that makes a difference.

To avoid it I just saved the number as a contact as "Scotiabank Customer Service".</comment>


Public Domain Movie Streaming - <AUTHOR> http://Moviepigs.com <comment><USER2> Interesting. How are you sourcing these videos? Archive.org?</comment>


Silicon Valley Struggles to Add Conservatives to Its Ranks - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-struggles-to-add-conservatives-to-its-ranks-1512136801 <comment><USER2> Tim Ferris summed it up well: Silicon Valley also has an insidious infection that is spreading -- a peculiar form of McCarthyism ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)) masquerading as liberal open-mindedness. I'm as socially liberal as you get, and I find it nauseating how many topics or dissenting opinions are simply out-of-bounds in Silicon Valley. These days, people with real jobs (unlike me) are risking their careers to even challenge collective delusions in SF. Isn't this supposed to be where people change the world by challenging the consensus reality? By seeing the hidden realities behind the facades? That's the whole reason I traveled west and started over in the Bay Area. Now, more and more, I feel like it's a Russian nesting doll of facades -- Washington DC with fewer neck ties, where people openly lie to one another out of fear of losing their jobs or being publicly crucified. It's weird, unsettling, and, frankly, really dangerous. There's way too much power here for politeness to be sustainable. If no one feels they can say "Hey, I know it makes everyone uncomfortable, but I think there's a leak in the fuel rods in this nuclear submarine..." we're headed for big trouble

<comment><USER3> I moved to the bay from D.C. and while the exterior packaging was different, the commonality of positioning amongst the two cities was actually quite similar. In fact, I found more tolerance to alternative viewpoints in D.C. than I ever did in SV. This notion that SV is an easy going place of acceptance is a bit of a facade. You're accepted, if you accept their viewpoints on topics. If you don't, you either keep your mouth shut, or leave.

<comment><USER4> Damn, SV must be hell then. I fled DC this spring because the political group- think was so oppressive. If you didn't walk around and make a point of being depressed about Trump winning, you were an asshole. The suggestion that Trump is anything but an orange-haired Hitler would make you enemies, even if paired with solid criticism of Trump and his bunch. A lack of fanatical opposition to Trump made me enemies at work, not exaggerating. All Hands Slack chats were filled with anti-Trump news, jokes, and thoughts on a daily basis. It would be no understatement to say that this dominated the office culture. Our CEO (at a tech startup, not a Democrat-aligned non-profit) sent out a pouting email the morning after the election. Every morning I was bombarded with strident political opinions from my deskmates, and you can bet that had I complained to HR, I'd be seen as the problem. I am so, so happy to be out of that place. I am in another city now that is renowned for its liberal politics, and there's none of the stuff I just mentioned. DC is a whole 'nother beast these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a network of conservative tech friends in Seattle and coordinate with various pro-Trump tech individuals around the country.

I think from the comments on here (many done under unattributable usernames) it is clear to see why most stay far under the radar. There is a very real fear of negative career consequences in the tech industry for having views that are mainstream in broad swathes of the country that so enables the tech industry's success.

While some blowback may be manageable for someone with demonstrable skills and few longterm commitments, it has a chilling effect for those with families and mortgages.

And for those who think that none of their peers voted for the US president, I can tell you that you are likely mistaken. For those that think that conservatives can't innovate or fit into the tech industry, I counter that there are very successful people all over the industry, but given that there is little upside and high risk to mentioning it publicly, it is understandable that one would have a different perception.

</comment><comment><USER6> Oh please, there's a difference between "conservative" and "batshit crazy". If you get up and say you don't think medicine can/should be socialized in America, I don't think you're going to get ostracized at most companies, that's a serious debate and there are many sides. If you say gays shouldn't marry or that CNN is fake news media, yea you're going to get ostracized.

Not because you're conservative, but because you're an idiot and are making your coworkers super uncomfortable. The same would happen if you went around saying "people who wear red jackets are inferior" when one of your team members wears their favorite red jacket to work everyday.

<comment><USER7> The same argument could be made about liberals and BSC.

For instance, all the sex-and-ethnicity choosing going on. Totally without scientific merit, yet the left behaves as if it's science.

The pendulum swings both ways. Trump's election is a direct result of left- side hysteria and over-reach.

<comment><USER8> > ethnicity choosing going on. Totally without scientific merit, yet the left > behaves as if it's science.

Are you suggesting that "transracialism" is treated as science or supported by anything approaching the mainstream left?

<comment><USER7> Yes. I haven't seen _anyone_ on the left disputing or disparaging it.

<comment><USER9> And that could be an attitudinal thing. Why should I care about how someone else personally identifies? Why should I be disparaging about something that will have minimal or no effect on me?

I think this is part of why some conservatives find themselves unwelcome. Being outwardly disparaging toward people does not make you friends.

<comment><USER7> I'm offering an alternative view of "bat shit crazy".

It may be harmless (as you correctly point out), but it is not tethered to reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the article:

"In interviews, many tech employees and executives said they believed conservative views on issues like tax policy and regulation are welcome in Silicon Valley. But conservative views on social issues like gay marriage, civil rights and immigration meet more resistance ..."

While many of those issues seem like fair game in a (presumed) secular business environment, I don't see how an expressed conservative viewpoint that actively opposes civil or equal rights can be tolerated in a workplace. It is a necessary basis for any sort of collegiality and cooperation.

At the same time, I can imagine people freely saying disparaging things about conservatives (it's hard for me to resist sometimes) that would make for a hostile environment. I'd hope large SV companies could occasionally remind employees of that fact.

<comment><USER11> The problem, like most in life, is not in the expression of the conservative viewpoints but in the definition and application of 'actively opposing civil or equal rights'.

Some people feel The Wall 'actively opposes civil or equal rights'. Or transgenders in the military. Or etc, etc etc...

Many conservatives feel that conservative viewpoints on hot topic issues are rational decisions. They're often not out to 'actively oppose civil or equal rights'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "unwelcome" would be a significant improvement. Try "ostracized and worried about getting fired for not visibly toeing the party line"

<comment><USER13> Sorry, but I beg to differ. I can say with confidence that I would get fired if I openly exposed my political views at my job, whereas my Liberal counterparts freely discourse their ideas and opinions on a daily-basis without any consequence. The Tech industry is wildly leftist, with zero tolerance for the conservative ideology.

<comment><USER14> If you are talking about your views on tax policy, healthcare, etc, all I can say is that I've never worked anywhere that somebody would be fired or ostracized or anything for their position.

If you are talking about race or gender than yeah, the "conservative" position is terrible and you would rightly face consequences for your awful beliefs.

If you're talking about telling your coworkers that you voted for Trump, well, I don't think that's something that ought to be taboo but he did explicitly embrace the terrible beliefs I mentioned so I think that explicitly renouncing them wouldn't be a bad idea.

<comment><USER15> If conservatives talk about illegal immigration, they would get ostracized and harassed at tech companies even if their position is not "terrible". Its mainly because liberals/democrats/leftists are very vocal about that issue and drown out sensible discussions which do not toe their ideology.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, there's definitely a spectrum there.

"We should change the immigration process to favor skilled workers" \- you're fine.

"We should deport anybody who immigrated illegally" \- you're in the danger zone.

"We need a ban on immigration from Muslim countries" \- you are horrible and you deserve whatever consequences you suffer.

"Build the wall" \- you're an idiot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This reminds me of when the James Damore news first broke out and multiple Google hiring managers were openly bragging on G+ about maintaining blacklists of everyone who didn't denounce the diversity memo.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is "ideological diversity" really a kind of diversity that companies should care about? Party membership isn't a protected class, and Republicans are hardly a persecuted minority during a time when they control all 3 branches of government. Should we be making efforts to be more inclusive of other underrepresented ideologies like creationism, flat-earthism, or geocentrism?

<comment><USER18> >Party membership isn't a protected class

In California it is:

[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california- employmen...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment- discrimination-31690.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is entirely the fault of conservatives. There is no such thing as legitimate conservative thought in the US any longer. The entire movement has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians and racist rich people. Aligning yourself with such an ideology rightfully has a serious social cost now.

As a brown person, do you know what my first thoughts of someone who describes themselves as "conservative" are? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. You can't blame people for not wanting to be made uncomfortable in that way.

<comment><USER20> I think there's a wide difference between "classical" conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. It's racism that's not.

<comment><USER19> >I think there's a wide difference between "classical" conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent.

Precisely. We need conservatism. We need that part of our conscience which says "well, hold on a minute", or "hey we can't afford that" in order to function properly as a democracy. It's loss is a tragedy, and the corruption of those ideals over the past 30 years into what it has become is breaking our country.

<comment><USER21> > We need conservatism

I disagree at this point honestly.

course all I've ever seen of american conservatism is the current republican party.

<comment><USER22> This seems like an instance of SV's bias toward the young biting SV in the collective butt.

People who remember the 70s and 80s remember a different political environment.

<comment><USER7> Yes, true.

When things seem overwhelming, I like to remind myself that in the 60s things seemed worse. (To me, the 80s and 90s were very good.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't disagree with there being a liberal bias in SV companies, I think that's pretty damn obvious.

I'm curious though why such observations are made for SV only, why don't publicly social conservative organizations e.g Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-a etc get asked similar questions? It would be safe to assume that things like same sex marriage, contraception would be considered out of bounds there.

Is it just because of the size/reach of the tech industry ?

<comment><USER24> I guess the argument would be that you can buy craft supplies/chicken sandwiches from alternate sellers

<comment><USER23> Well no one is forced used SV services, people are free not to use them. Also my point was not from a consumer standpoint but more from an employee/media standpoint.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Isn't this a good thing?

I mean if there aren't any conservatives now, it means it got big without them. Why should it add such people? This would only lead to its demise.

<comment><USER26> While you (and others) may believe conservatives are fundamentally 'bad' people and Silicon Valley (and the world) would simply be a better place without them, this is short-sighted (amongst other things). Conservatives and liberals obviously see the world differently. One ways that manifests itself is that conservatives are typically more detail oriented and liberals are typically more creative. As Dr. Jordan B Peterson phrases it: "Each of those different temperamental types needs the other type so economically speaking, for example, we need liberals to start businesses, and we need conservatives to run them." [https://vid.me/3Dik](https://vid.me/3Dik)

Seems like Silicon Valley would very much suffer in the long term from a lack of multiple viewpoints. Is this not what the call for diversity aims to achieve?

We should be careful not to dehumanize our political opponents. That way lies violence.

<comment><USER25> Yes, I see it that way.

The world was run long enough by conservative people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not being in the US, I have a variety of friends including communists, feminists, social democrats, libertarians, free-market opportunists, and conservative catholics.

But under no circumstances would I legitimise what currently passes as a "conservative" in the US by associating with them.

Just take the current Trump vs all of Britain disagreement as an example: I think Brexit is among the worst ideas, ever. Yet I would never turn down the opportunity for a tea with Theresa May, because we share a fundamental understanding that it's probably a bad idea to endorse xenophobic hate groups by retweeting their fake propaganda.

<comment><USER7> I'd like to point out that Trump was a Democrat for nearly his entire life, just up until the point when he hijacked the Republican party (against great efforts from the Bush family, Mitt Romney, etc.)

Confusing Donald Trump with a conservative is a mistake.

As for Evangelical conservatives, I'd suggest you have a few conversations with some and then form an opinion. So long as you are respectful and make reasonable assertions, I am sure you'll come away with a different point of view.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm working on a memo about how conservatives are just less interested in tech. /s

Is this a tech problem or a Californian city problem?

<comment><USER30> Plenty of conservatives in the central valley. Maybe it's a Bay Area phenomenon.

<comment><USER31> I haven't observed it so it's probably a Bay Area/California thing. I'm in the south east and while it's slightly more liberal than the norm for the area most the people are still very capitalist, moderate right wing, and usually traditional social norms.

So yeah if you live in a super liberal place people are going to have a liberal bias. I was born and raised in the south, it has a conservative bias, and I don't pretend that it's magically going to go away. I think if you're aware that your political positions are a far deviation from the norm for your area it's probably wise to not be loud about it. Especially if your position is somewhere along the lines of "My coworker shouldn't be here for reasons that are a protected class". They'll fire you just to CYA, independent of whether they agree with you or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't see why this is a struggle</comment>


Thoughtful programming and Forth - <AUTHOR> http://www.ultratechnology.com/forth.htm

<comment><USER2> I think the philosophy expressed here is true regardless of the language you're programming with. Where Chuck Moore differs is that he has attacked the inefficiencies at the lowest possible levels where the rest of us grin and bear it.</comment>


Google donates money to help run the Kubernetes infrastructure - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/29/google-steps-back-from-running-the-kubernetes-infrastructure/ <comment><USER2> Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.

I think the headline confuses the issue. The community wanted more input and ability to control the release and testing process for Kubernetes. It was a fair question to say "Why can only Google cut a release?". We're still happy to fund it, but to make Kubernetes more fully owned by the community and not Google, this was an important step.

Edit: Fwiw, I think William's blog post ([https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud- gran...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud-grants-9m-in- credits-for-the-operation-of-the-kubernetes-project)) is more informative, since the TechCrunch article just quotes from it.

<comment><USER3> The headline is definitely confusing. I thought it was implying that Google was no longer going to use Kubernetes at all. The first couple of sentences of the article cleared that up, but the title should've been something like "Google hands off Kubernetes development to open source community."

<comment><USER2> Even that's not quite right :).

"Google opens up the management of Kubernetes testing and releases with the community" (or something).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes CI / Infra etc.

The tooling, configs, etc are all open source [1] (and largely run on Kubernetes!), but the actual deployments have been Google operated. This is about opening up access to operation of the deployments. I'm not about to stop working on the automation etc. :-)

[1] [https://github.com/kubernetes/test- infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra)

Edit: if anyone is interested in more, we have a post out on the Kubernetes blog today about some of the infrastructure: [https://kubernetes.io/blog/2018/08/29/the-machines-can-do- th...](https://kubernetes.io/blog/2018/08/29/the-machines-can-do-the-work-a- story-of-kubernetes-testing-ci-and-automating-the-contributor-experience/)

<comment><USER5> It's really great that Google people are coming forward to clarify it but what's with the scare-disclosurinating? Your affiliation is not a source of potential conflict of interest with some detail of what you have to say. It's the most relevant bit and the reason you can make a knowledgable comment. Say it loud, say it proud, etc...

<comment><USER6> I just want to be transparent. Everyone has an agenda, I don't want to be perceived as "sneaky" (have been accused in the past, even changed my username)

<comment><USER5> Yeah that is great and you should say it, when it matters. It's just that none of you are journalists who are write regularly and are expected by their audience to be reasonably neutral and who then disclose potential random conflicts in a standardized parenthetical.

You can just say 'I work at Google on whatnot and here is what I know/think/etc'. Lighthearted Suggestion: There's no need at all to write like HK-47 or Dwight Schrute.

<comment><USER6> Appreciate the feedback. From my end, I have been both accused of name- dropping (ooh, look at Mr special, he works at Google!) and of having an unstated agenda (hey, he's a phony, he works there!).

I found that simply stating is the compromise. I am not using my employer.ent to justify my opinion, just making my alignment clear.

And in fact, I align with Google AND with Kubernetes.

<comment><USER5> Yep, I understand it's fraught and as I've just amply demonstrated, someone is always going to whine about something. It's just weird to see you all line up one after the other and and robotically announce your affiliation in the format typically used for unexpected-conflict-of-interest when it's actually important, not a conflict and you're trying to be helpful.

That and I enjoy the largely futile but infinitely noble fight against various HN-mandated atrocities against basic English style and I want you to be free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> FYI this headline is wrong is in now way is Google "stepping back" \- this is Google becoming more open/transparent with how they traditionally handled CI/CD for the Kubernetes project.

Disclosure: I help run CNCF.io

</comment><comment><USER8> Since people are complaining about the title, I took a crack at making it less misleading. If anyone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again. It's a bit hard for an outsider to read exactly what happened here, or why it matters.

<comment><USER6> That's better. I really see this as "Google opens administration of Kubernetes infra, donates $9M in credits to keep it running".

<comment><USER6> We could also just link to Google's blog.

[https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud- gran...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud-grants-9m-in- credits-for-the-operation-of-the-kubernetes-project)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yeah the title is misleading, makes it sound like Google is abandoning the project

</comment><comment><USER6> Disclosure: I worked on this grant.

TL;DR is that CNCF owns kubernetes, but until now I could not include non- Google people in the administration of (ostensibly) community owned stuff (google.com security policies in GCP). Now I can.

Google's involvement and commitment is in no way diminished, this is just a bad headline.

<comment><USER10> I've not been an avid reader of TechCrunch in the past, but there seems to be a trend of poor, baity headlines (and often story angles) at least among articles that make it to HN. Not sure if they've always been this way, if I'm reading the wrong articles, or if they're another casualty of declining integrity across the industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So, this is unrelated, but since there are some googlers here - does Google really pay mediocre senior developers $250,000, on average?

<comment><USER12> Define mediocre. Google's hiring process is great but not perfect. Someone can always slip through the cracks in any company. As for compensation, Google can't differentiate who is worth 250K and who isn't solely based on the hiring process. A "mediocre" engineer getting paid 250K will likely not get promoted within the proper time and could be forced to leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone got a gdpr;dr for those of us who don't want to click ok on their cookiewall?

<comment><USER14> Google tired of fronting the bill for k8s dev infra, welcomes CNCF to the neighborhood with $9m housewarming gift to maintain.

<comment><USER6> That's hyperbolic. Part of the announcement is a commitment to re-evaluate the numbers as time goes on.

Google is in No Way stepping back from this.

<comment><USER14> Uh I tried to summarize in the same tone as the article. That's kind of the point of a tldr. I agree the article was clickbait and it's obvious Google wouldn't abandon kubernetes.

Thanks for the downvotes though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When Google gives projects back to the comunity like this it usually also means that they will stop investing so many internal resources on them, and will move on to the next product.

<comment><USER6> We gave this project to CNCF years ago, and Google is still pretty heavily invested in Kubernetes. :)

This is the end of the last vestige of exclusive control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _Google doesn't say so outright, but it's fair to assume that it wanted > others to shoulder some of the burdens of running the Kubernetes > infrastructure, too._

Might be a far fetched, but this might play together with the Commons Clause discussion. Nobody wants to do all the work without being compensated, while others make profits with the work.

I hope the transfer of projects to foundations and other open forums continues, and they are backed by industry leaders making the profits.

It should even go as far as finally paying solo-developers through some fairly devided pool of funds. Everybody wins when libraries are free, openly developed, production ready _and_ financially backed for LTS.</comment>


Ask HN: What new dishes have you cooked during shelter-in-place? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Too many to count...I joined a FB group called Quarantine Culinary where people share amazing dishes they've cooked at home, often with limited supplies or ingredients. I bought a new griddle and I have been experimenting a lot on that. I am particularly proud of the Mongolian BBQ I have made on it.</comment>


A/B and Qualitative User Testing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.slicedbreaddesign.com/index.php/2009/05/ab_qual_testing/

<comment><USER2> Hey guys, a shameless plug but my startup is creating a product that tries to take A/B testing to the next level. It combines A/B testing with multiple goals, WYSIWYG editor, visitor segmentation, powerful analytics and funnel analysis to provide a very powerful environment for testing and targeting. Plus we provide developer API for testing, analytics and targeting.

Here is the link to the product tour: <http://www.wingify.com/learn-more.php>

Buzz me at firstname.lastname@example.com if anyone is interested in trying out the product.

<comment><USER3> Went to your site, and couldn't find any info on pricing. As a startup guy that's pinching pennies I could probably handle a $19 or $29 monthly subscription for a testing/metrics service that's better than Google Website Optimizer, but anything more than that would cut into my ramen budget. All the features you have listed here are great, but I care more about when you will be launching in beta, and how much the service will cost.

<comment><USER2> I agree that the pricing is not visible on the website and the reason for that is that we are still in the price discovery mode. You gave a perspective on pricing which is very useful in this regard.

Another reason of not having pricing on the site right now is that we have two possible paths to go forward: pure product selling OR a providing complete solution (product + testing strategy + implementation). The latter one leads to variable pricing which is very client dependent.

Anyway, let me know if you want to try out the solution. I'd be happy to provide you with an account.

<comment><USER4> Methinks you are hiding form customers. Not displaying any clue on pricing is the best way to not get any feedback. Unless you are overwhelmed with prospect and have a good reason to hide from new ones, I suggest some soul searching in this regard. If nothing pops, refer to "customer development" by Steven Blank.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe I'm ignorant of the proper way to do A/B testing, but I shy away from it because of the prospect of presenting users with inconsistent/volatile interfaces.

<comment><USER6> This is an implementation issue.

Assuming you are talking about presenting users inconsistent interfaces in terms of User Bob seeing both the A and B, then this is not too hard to solve. If your issue is with evolving your interface rapidly enough that User Bob would see A1, B2, A3, A4, and A5 in the period of two weeks, then that's a bit outside the scope of this discussion, but it is a pace-of-change issue rather than strictly speaking an A/B testing issue.

Anyhow, back to Bob. When we first see Bob on our site, we assign him a random identifier which is presumed to be unique. Should Bob log in or otherwise demonstrate his identity to us, we associate the random identifier durably with the identity. Any other anonymous user who signs in as Bob will henceforth have their random identifier overwritten with the canonical Bob identifier.

Observe that this means anyone who we know is Bob will always have the same constant random identifier, from here on out.

OK, now for each A/B test we do, we take a unique identifier of the test (the database primary key, or the name if we can guarantee names are unique, or what have you) and concatenate it with the user's identity, then hit that string with a good hash function. MD5 works fine in practice: it doesn't have to be cryptographically secure, it just has to provide good entropy.

We now have a big number which is entropic but which will always be the same for a given user/test pair. Splendid: take the modulus of the number of choices, and give that user the Nth option.

Thus, as long as Bob logs in prior to seeing the A/B test, Bob will always see the same alternative for that test, until you cancel the test.

Now, if users do not log in, it gets a wee bit trickier. You can cookie them the first time you see them, store identifiers in a session, use their IP address (or hash of it) as an identifier, or use other tricks, but it is fundamentally difficult to follow humans across computers without them taking affirmative steps to declare their identity to you.

If this explanation leaves you scratching your head, and you'd prefer seeing it in commented code, I suggest looking at the source code and usage docs of A/Bingo. ( <http://abingo.org> ) Disclaimer: I wrote it.

<comment><USER7> The hash trick is clever. But what happens when you start with 4 versions, then find that one version is worse than the others? Do you have to start the test over? Is there some kind of rebucketing algorithm you use?

<comment><USER6> I'd just start the test over. If you want to do rebucketing, see the following Ruby-esque psuedocode:

<http://pastie.org/610630></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best framework for displaying web elements using VR headset? - <AUTHOR> I have an admin dashboard that includes several graphs and real time statistics, My goal is displaying this data using VR technology. what would be the best framework for that case? Android VR? Unity? React Web VR? (I will to use my phone with VR headset) <comment><USER2> I'm building a framework for this type of use case - atlasreality.xyz

Render HTML components in AR / VR.

I'd love to chat - firstname.lastname@example.com if you're interested.

</comment><comment><USER3> The only really web vr framework you mention is React Web VR, but there is also AFrame +1</comment>


Researchers find computer code that VW used to cheat - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-05-code-volkswagen-emissions.html <comment><USER2> It looks like the same stuff that was presented in great detail at CCC over a year ago: [https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...](https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scandal_dieselgate)

Does anyone know how this research differs or builds upon the previous work?

<comment><USER3> And also 2 years ago in even greater detail. What I read so far, the Fiat 500X delay trick is new, the Fiat/Chrylser investigation is new and the rest is stricter, formally better, but the conclusions behind are lacking.

The CAN parametrization A2L cheat for the low temp trigger is missing/fixed, they identified it as acoustic mode. InjCrv_stNsCharCor, "Status der Akustikbedingung" All the other manifacturers they caught cheating are missing. But at least they confirmed now Bosch as the real culprit, in their EDC17 diesel ECU software. Major news and US law still is targeting VW only. In fairness I believe Bosch implemented the cycle detection as project for Audi, and the delay for Fiat/Chrysler.

"Notably, we find strong evidence that both defeat devices were created by Bosch and then enabled by Volkswagen and Fiat for their respective vehicles"

The real workflow for the 4 deactivating conditions is described better though, but the A2L is missing, which is what Bosch describes to their partners. How to activate the cheat.

Read here: [http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~klevchen/diesel- sp17.pdf](http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~klevchen/diesel-sp17.pdf)

[Update: The A2L is there, all clear.]

For explanation: Car manufacturers/customers get the basic ECU diagram/model pictures and the A2L files, which contains the descriptions what they can do with the controller software in the ECU. So for this "crime" there needs to be a partnership between the creator (Bosch) and the user (VW), which demanded that feature, and then Bosch describing it to VW how to activate or deactivate it. Under which name it is hidden.

Also note that under european law it is not a crime. European law only cares for emission testing during the test cycle, and also only for a few selected engines upfront. Under european emission law catching a real engine cheating with their NOx will have no consequences. US law is different. US regulations avoid the simple to detect cycles, and use a real driver on a chassis dyno. So the US is cheating by using specialized drivers who are experts like F1 drivers driving through the tests, while the Europeans and Asians use the test cycle detection SW.

<comment><USER4> Not Simulink diagram, ASCET ([https://www.etas.com/en/products/ascet_software_products.php](https://www.etas.com/en/products/ascet_software_products.php)) diagram.

Also, it seems to me that the functions in question that enabled cheating can be seen as "dual use". The customer could have given some innocuous reason for their need for these customer specific functions, but then used them for cheating.

If I remember the CCC talks correctly, it was quite the nontrivial/involved feat for VW to configure the software in such a way that the cycle detection signal influences ad blue injection rates, although the EDC architecture is quite data-driven.

<comment><USER3> Agree with the plausible deniability. They obviously came up with some innocent names and only told co-conspirators the real meaning behind.

Interesting: [https://www.etas.com/en/products/ascet_developer.php](https://www.etas.com/en/products/ascet_developer.php) Generates C via models. I prefer SimuLink RealTime-Workshop (now Simulink Coder) though. You only need very few C there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is this even necessary? If they were found in court to be guilty of having this cheat mode, why weren't they also compelled to produce said code that enables it (and the cheat mode code respectively)? IIUC, the 5th is not applicable to legal entities, hence VW could not claim it so they should be able to be forced to produced it, under penalty of law otherwise.

<comment><USER5> (I do think that we should not trust whatever they would've produced as the full story though. As I learned in the military, the colloqial saying "Trust is good, control is better (as in checking the result)".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So where is the code?</comment>