Verizon Up offers rewards in exchange for customers' personal information - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build-an-advertising-juggernaut-it-needs-your-data-first-1504603801 <comment><USER2> Is this not what all rewards programs are? How is this different from the local supermarket rewards card that I have, which "rewards" me with coupons targeted towards my purchasing habits?

I'm not sure how to better inform people on these issues.

<comment><USER3> It's similar to other rewards programs but "Customers must give the carrier access to their web-browsing history, app usage and location data" is a lot more information about me than "what I've bought at <local supermarket> in the past year".

<comment><USER4> >"what I've bought at <local supermarket> in the past year".

They get so much more than that. If you use a credit card at the store, the record now knows about this card, and any other credit card you have ever used while using that rewards program. This can all then be connected to other databases that track personal credit card spending in similar ways. A surprisingly detailed profile is quite likely to be out there on all of us, even if we are not always identified by name. If you have last 4 digits of a card plus zip code... You have a whole lot.

My memory is a little vague on the sources for this but I will try to dig up some relevant stories.

<comment><USER5> I believe it is illegal (at least in some states) to use the card information for anything other than processing the payment. That is, I believe they cannot use it to track you and your purchase. This is one of the main reasons there are loyalty cards — to get you to explicitly consent to tracking.

edit: If they are allowed to track based on credit card, this would be a good reason to use Apple Pay, or some other payment method that generates a unique "card number" for every purchase.

<comment><USER6> I see. So, Google's use of CC data to track whether their ads work [0] is illegal, huh? I find it hard to believe they would announce doing it if so.

Edit: so you just want to hand over your info to Apple instead of some other big corporation?

[0]: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/08/01/google_tr...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/08/01/google_tracks_people_offline_to_see_if_online_ads_work.html)

<comment><USER7> I have yet to be worried about Apple advertisements and tracking. Any reason I should be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me that this is he future we are heading, where privacy is only accessible for higher classes, it's a shame we are going in this direction just in the name of profit.

<comment><USER9> If we stop punishing companies when they have a bad quarter, this probably would not be happening.

<comment><USER10> Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders.

But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good behavior, that might move the needle.

<comment><USER11> > Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their > shareholders.

That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists in the 1970s.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson- the-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of- maximizing-shareholder- value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)

<comment><USER6> Not unless they hopped in their time machine and went back to infiltrate the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919. _Dodge v. Ford Motor Company_ [0] established the principle in law almost 100 years ago.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co).

<comment><USER12> That would only be a binding precedent in the State of Michigan though, no? And from the same Wikipedia page:

 _In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As far as disgusting invasions of privacy go, at least in this case, the customer has a choice of whether or not to opt in. Usually, megacorps simply siphon the data and use it however they wish, regardless of what the customer wants.

Still, this pushes society further along the spectrum away from valuing one's own privacy.

<comment><USER14> This is the way to go, make it a voluntary exchange. But in return there should be controls on price hikes so that they don't push everyone to "voluntarily" exchange their privacy to avoid the $10,000 monthly bill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think a bunch of people are giving Verizon a hard time for this program but it at least has a much better value proposition than any other advertising system most people interact with. Google and Facebook slurp all your data with the justification that they will be able to personalize it better and you get nothing in return. Hopefully this may set a precedent so that others may follow.

<comment><USER16> What you _get in return_ , is the ability/privilege to use Google, and Facebook. I'm not saying it's worth it, but it's not _nothing_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is going to be a natural result of the incoming GDPR. My own startup will be doing something similar in order to remain compliant.

You now have to ask politely for people's data, and then give them a carrot in return for it.

<comment><USER18> Verizon is US-only; the GDPR doesn't seem applicable.

<comment><USER17> It is applicable if Verizon have a single EU citizen on their books, which they do; if the EU wish to pursue them I'm sure there is some way they could be held accountable.

I am not so sure that american companies can just "hide" from this, they are actually quite exposed. Delta airlines, for example, appear to be quite worried by it internally, and are making changes to suit.

<comment><USER19> A large airline by its nature will provide services to individuals around the world. It is a clear candidate for the GDPR to apply to it in respect of those activities as a result.

The scope of GDPR extends to entities providing services to individuals in the European Union so is not limited solely to citizens. Additionally, if an EU citizen is in the US and uses a US service provider's services, then that US service provider is not within the scope of the GDPR.

The legal disclaimer on the Verizon Up specifically states that the offer is only available to US residents.

On that basis I would say that Verizon, in relation to this specific programme, does not appear subject to the GDPR.

I don't know about the full extent of their services however so may be subject to GDPR if they satisfy the Art 3 GDPR requirements ([https://gdpr- info.eu/art-3-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> From the article

"For every $300 customers spend on their Verizon bills, they receive one Up credit, which can be used for rewards such as Uber rides, four free months of Apple Music or chances to win tickets to see performers such as Lady Gaga."

"Verizon makes it clear during the sign-up process what data consumers are giving up: Information about their demographics and interests, what websites they visit, what apps and features they use, and their location."

\- signup for it and use a VPN. You get all the benefits with sharing minimal data.

<comment><USER21> That only solves one of the issues listed. It won't help with location, demographics, or what apps you use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think it's clear to most people that this is a data collection initiative. It's marketed more as a let us show you cool things we think you'll like.

Rewards like this are bullshit also, you usually end up with a coupon that lets you buy something for slightly more then you could if you waited for a sale.

</comment><comment><USER23> This sort of disgusting privacy intrusion plus the rising costs of smartphones and their associated data plans have me thinking that eventually we'll just reach a breaking point where people choose to go back to dumbphones. I'm already nearly at that point myself.

<comment><USER24> Depends on who "we" is. A point that political advocates (privacy, open source, anything really) tend to forget is that politics isn't even on most people's radar when making decisions about what widget to use. Doubly so when that political stance doesn't have any tangible impact on their lives. ("Google tracks you for ads!" "Okay, and?")

The number of people willing to forego a smartphone because of data collection is statistically insignificant.

Personally, I'm not bothered enough by Google's business plan to go through contortions, making my life more annoying just to avoid some nebulous, unrealistic dystopian hypothetical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is a form of exploitation.

The company gets excellent "data-driven marketing insights" by providing users some _carrots_.

The users become co-creators of value for the company; and the carrots already cost _less_ than value produced by the collected data.

I doubt the users have the right to withdraw their data completely too. The data of users, which is a result of their _labor_ , stays forever with the company while the carrots are gone.

What it means that the company "shares" how data is used when nobody reads that Terms of Service that gets "changed" all the time anyway?

A better treatment would be each individual _user_ having the right to control over how the data is used and shared with whom, and having the right to remove data at will. As long as we keep thinking that this is a right of a company, rather than users, it will take much longer for many implications of giving up data privacy to be realized.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think this is the way to go with data and privacy, and it might be even better than what GDPR provides. Be open with what you collect, who you share it with, and for how long you store it instead of syphoning all the data you can with shady practices (for example, browser extensions capturing your browsing history). In return provide some real benefits, not just services which are used for free (and which are really cheap for this kind of companies, since they spend most on processing data and showing relevant advertising).

Even better, it creates a competition for your data which will drive down margins of ad companies and give you rewards. In this sense it's similar to what we have with airline and credit card rewards.

</comment><comment><USER27> [https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build- an-a...](https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build-an- advertising-juggernaut-it-needs-your-data-first-1504603801)

</comment><comment><USER28> unpaywalled mirror: [http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/05/verizon- wants...](http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/05/verizon-wants-to- build-advertising-juggernaut-it-needs-your-data-first.html)

I'm actually ok with this idea, because it introduces the concept of companies "paying" for your data. To me, that means a couple things:

1\. People with privacy concerns can use verizon but _not_ participate in their data collection program.

2\. It opens up the idea of a competitive market for your data. Google and others have gotten away with "all your data for free access to [product]" for too long, which is almost like a fixed exchange rate. Clearly, Google makes enough money in search that they could have started "paying" users to use their products long ago.

<comment><USER29> Verizon is already being paid to provide you with access. So now on top of that they also want rather unfethered access to your online activity for which you might receive a small token in return, which may or may not be a reward you actually want. Your connection fees plus the amount of money theyll get for reselling your data isnt remotely evenly matched, theyre not really paying for anything. This is just another scheme to milk their customers further.

<comment><USER30> I think you mean unfettered, rather than unfethered, which I don't believe is a word.

I'm sorry to be that person.

<comment><USER29> No worries, I don't actually mind. And you're right!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's amazing how the internet used to be a decentralized tool of anonymity, freedom and exchange of information to a centralized tool of monitoring, information siphoning and control.

As a kid growing up with the internet in the 90s, I used to laugh at people who said the internet could become a tool of control and monitoring. Now it seems inevitable as the internet becomes more centralized.

<comment><USER32> It's pretty depressing isn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > "Deli Meeks, a 26-year-old forklift operator in Atlanta, said he doesn't > mind Verizon accessing his data."

I am perfectly fine with this. One of the biggest issues people have had in recent years is the level of invasive practices companies have been using in the name of advertising. My current assumption is that yes, while it is a breach of privacy, the issue is that is was something I produced that I didn't get to have a say in being sold/used. I've been using Google Rewards for a while now, even recently broke the $100 mark. When I was a kid, I scoured the internet for sites that would pay me to take surveys.

Some people obviously don't want their privacy invaded, and for that I definitely advocate for better privacy policies maintaining that.

However, this 'data' that I am generating, I'm not doing anything with it. And companies WANT it. I am a producer, producing a good (data) that a consumer (companies) want. Getting back to my first paragraph, I am more upset I'm not being compensated for all this arbitrary data I'm generating that companies are taking from me for free. When companies offer these types of rewards, I'm fine with it. So what, they know how to tailor goods to me. I have enough discipline to recognize an ad.

[For anyone pointing to people that cannot tell whats an ad, that's more an educating people issue and I'll argue another point like privacy policies]

<comment><USER31> > "Deli Meeks, a 26-year-old forklift operator in Atlanta, said he doesn't > mind Verizon accessing his data."

That's his prerogative but I wonder whether he truly understands what he is giving up?

He is giving up identifiable ISP data which can be sold. That means his future employers, dating interest and even family members can potentially get access to his data.

<comment><USER33> That begins to pan more into the realm of maintaining a good online presence and why I advocate for stronger privacy policies. Online presence simply comes from educating people on what people can see and Privacy policies to dictate what I am willing to release for compensation. Finally, I'm willing to assume the data is somewhat sanitize to remove identifiable marks (again, that's a privacy policy issue).

If we extend the idea of data to include anything - my GPS data from my phone, heart rate via Fitbit, viewing habits; this is all data that we generate. Going back to my producer analogy, image if I was using a "Water-As-A-Service" company (WaaS) to water land I own; mind you, I'm not a farmer, I simply own this 'thing'. Now assume that WaaS has been taking anything that the grows on that land (say 'wild strawberries') without paying me and then selling it for another profit.

In this scenario, I'm upset as an individual because 1) I never gave permission to WaaS to take that product and 2) they are making money off of my hard work - they gave my a tool (water), but I did all the legwork to create the product.

In the same light, change water to cellular connection and strawberries to activity. Right now, we freely give our product away for free, which turns back to the story. I am willing to be compensated for my data. I'd prefer a better compensation model than "3 Months of HBO GO Free", but I look at this as a positive step in the right direction.

Furthermore, it could be used to incentive under represented statistical models. How a Caucasian male uses a system / service is probably a saturated market, but a Native American female model would be willing to pay more because that data is rarer. This can different for data point to data point, but now we're talking the economy of individual data and I'm not well versed enough in how that'd work.

Ultimately, I've accepted that in the current era, my data is out there. All it takes is one bad data breach and the goes any anonymity I've worked towards maintaining. Even to take a more cynical approach, I know Big Brother is watching - its simply too easy to do so. Its not a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, I just accept it as a consequence if I want to live in a digital world. However, I don't blindly accept this as there's nothing I can do, 1984 Orwellian times, but as a capitalistic viewpoint. I produce something, now pay me if you want it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Isn't that what all silicon valley crowd-source social sharing platforms do all the time anyway?

</comment><comment><USER34> Based on the title, I thought this was going to be an interesting bug bounty type program.

</comment><comment><USER35> In my country broadband Internet connection provided by two major ISPs has a price that increases by about 1.5$/month, if you don't agree for your personal data to be used for marketing purposes.

<comment><USER36> What? Care to share the country you are in?

<comment><USER35> It is in Poland, the companies are UPC and Orange. If you know Polish, here is the example UPC Internet offer for 49PLN/month that increases to 54PLN/month if you don't agree to marketing (it's called Marketing Communication Discount/Ulga za Komunikację Marketingową):

[https://www.upc.pl/internet/internet-tak- bardzo-24-miesiace/...](https://www.upc.pl/internet/internet-tak- bardzo-24-miesiace/fiber-power-60-online/)

(Orange shows this opt-out discount during checkout so it is hard to link).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> UPC, the branch of Liberty Global in Europe is doing exactly the same these days.

I wonder if the same folks are consulting all over the world with the same privacy invading options.

</comment><comment><USER38> If you enjoyed your telecom's support experience in the old days as the customer, you're going to love it even more being the product.

</comment><comment><USER39> Happened already in Germany. Www.netzclub.net free internet provided you get some ads,allow personal data for analytics.

</comment><comment><USER40> At least it's optional

</comment><comment><USER32> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF0cGt5-69k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF0cGt5-69k)

</comment><comment><USER41> and what do i get if i allow Verizon to install a camera in my apt?! woot! RealityRoulette anyone?!

</comment><comment><USER42> This is particularly messed up because you know poorer people will take this option so they can afford their next phone or device. It preys on lower-income individuals unaware of what is going on. People who generally aren't aware of what rights are being tossed out, or may not even have the luxury to put personal rights above cost.

<comment><USER43> Poorer people's browsing histories are also less valuable to Verizon.

<comment><USER44> To Verizon, yes, but who said there isn't a secondary market for that information? I'm reminded of how Facebook is a net buyer of information _from_ Oracle: there's a thriving resale market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> On one hand, they easily could have just left this in their ToS and the average person wouldn't have been any wiser about it. It's kind of a good thing they're at least offering something for our personal information. So many companies just take it as a bonus on top now, and don't catch enough flak for it.

</comment><comment><USER46> At least with Verizon you get something out of it. AT&T just charges you extra if you want privacy.

<comment> ryan-c AFAIK, AT&T stopped doing that. They claim not to be doing the snooping on anyone now, but it's AT&T...

<comment><USER6> Ah, yes, AT&T, of Room 641a fame[0].

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What happens when a funded startup realises it can't succeed? - <AUTHOR> ..And still has a ton of funding left over in the bank? <comment><USER3> Ethical companies seem to have either shut down and returned the money (giving employees a few months of severance) or pivoted. Pivoting seems much more common.

Some unethical companies just keep going until the money runs out. It's hard to know who falls into this category from the outside, though.

</comment><comment><USER4> The board should go to the shareholders with a plan or ask for process to be started to approve of a plan do go forward, which might mean give a pro-rated portion back and go off in one or more new directions with the balance - <USER2> any?</comment>


Ask HN: PHP Book for Advanced Programmers - <AUTHOR> Hi!
I am contributing to a Laravel project written in PHP7.4.
I am looking for an up-to-date book to conceptually learn PHP for advanced programmers. It seems PHP has changed a lot in the recent years, so I would like to find a book which is relevant for current best practices in PHP.
What I am not looking for:
- a book aimed at beginners in programming (e.g. I don't need to learn what a for-loop is).
- a book only about MySQL and web development with PHP.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Not a book per se, but (since you mention Laravel) the Laravel framework documentation is excellent for high-level best practices for PHP web development.

[https://laravel.com/docs/7.x/](https://laravel.com/docs/7.x/)

I reference this site when I'm unsure which approach to follow with PHP.

[https://phptherightway.com/](https://phptherightway.com/)

If interoperability is important, the recommended standards make good reading.

[https://www.php-fig.org/](https://www.php-fig.org/)</comment>


Give It a Rest. Abenomics Is Doing Fine - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-28/give-it-a-rest-abenomics-is-doing-fine-so-far- <comment><USER2> For a country with a "bad" economy, life in Japan is really nice. For some reason we're told that an economy that doesn't grow exponentially is in the gutter. But in Japan the infrastructure is better than here in Germany, the streets are clean, the parks are green, there are (clean!) free public toilets at every corner, employment is high (although there are a lot of bullshit jobs) and basic goods are fairly affordable. I don't see what's so bad about this stagnant economy.</comment>


Twitter Removes "via {client}" Attribution in #newTwitter. Buh-Bye Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.cristinajcordova.com/2010/09/twitter-removes-via-client-attribution-in-newtwitter/

<comment><USER2> This is misleading. She says app attribution is "completely removed and hidden in the details section". If it's in the details section, it's hardly completely hidden, is it?

It's quite prominently displayed in the details pane: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/seldo/5021847660/>

And even more so on the tweet's individual page: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/seldo/5021848326/>

It's absolutely still there. It just moved a little bit. Non-story.

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant completely removed from the main stream and hidden in the details section. Sorry for the confusion. It still removes attribution from how most users view tweets - from within the stream. How many users are likely to view the details for each tweet? Why is the attribution given less face time to the user? I would also disagree with the small type in the details section being "prominent"

<comment><USER3> _still removes attribution from how most users view tweets_

I thought most users view tweets not through the twitter stream on the web but using clients. The clients may or may not show the posting app's attribution, so I don't see this as a major shift of the status quo.

Also the mobile web version doesn't have this attribution either: <http://mobile.twitter.com/>

<comment><USER4> According to <http://blog.twitter.com/2010/09/evolving-ecosystem.html> most people use Twitter's web client.

<comment><USER3> That's a very misleading graph. It's not about how many people read tweets through the different channels.

There are many reasons to log into twitter.com, and so the graph needs to break out (or at least explicitely state) how many people _read_ tweets on twitter.com.

Another, more important, point: there is probably a long tail effect here. I have a hunch that when you aggregate all reading via API vs reading via the web, the breakdown would show a huge API to web ratio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Less is more. Twitter is the embodiment of this ideology. 99% of normal people don't care about Twitter clients.

<comment><USER6> Aren't more people using a Twitter client than the website? Seems like that would mean a whole lot more than 1% of people care.

<comment><USER7> They don't care what client a person is using to send their tweets.

<comment><USER8> OTOH, how are client developers supposed to get the word out? This will just encourage more aggressive tactics, like requiring people to tweet about the app to unlock certain features.

<comment><USER9> Actually, that sounds like a very interesting idea. Is this already used in practice, and does it end up being a problem? If it's already being done, are the features that are unlocked worth the forced spam?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think that the attribution is of interest to most users. It doesn't strike me as something that is as important as name and time, the other two pieces of information displayed in the stream. Showing it among other less important information – namely on the details pane or individual page – seems sensible to me.

I can understand how developers might not be happy about it but I think Twitter would be ill-advised to eschew sensible changes for the users because of what amounts to politics.

</comment><comment><USER11> HN is always talking about metrics, scalability, and engineering, here's my take on this from that perspective:

Imagine a twitter engineer working on the redesign was looking at data from the homepage, looking for something to remove.

It turns out that the least clicked on thing on the entire page is the client attribution.

He looks at eye-tracking data too, and it turns out the only people who look at the client names, are developers!

The engineer opens his iPhone's calculator, and finds that by removing attribution he is reducing dynamic stream content by 33% (tweet, time, attribution) for 100M+ users.

What kind of engineer is not going to jump on this? Especially for a piece nobody except developers is going to complain about losing?

A cleaner, faster homepage is better for users. Sorry developers, the world does not revolve around you.

</comment><comment><USER12> I hate the attribution. I also like the old twitter web interface.

When I'm not using the web interface, I use it through an irc proxy. No pictures, no attribution... nothing but content.

(On my phone, I use Twidroid, but it's so buggy that all tweets attributed to Twidroid from me are usually, "it botched my priceless photo again". Not exactly the advertising they want, I bet...)

</comment><comment><USER13> It's not just the attributions leaving the main feed. Just a few months ago Twitter was going out of their way to promoting 3rd party clients (in the form of free advertising in the web client, in the space now occupied by Who To Follow). The last few months have seen almost all promotion for 3rd party clients disappear.

Going from attributing every tweet in the main feed and promoting outside clients freely on the sidebar of everyone's account to shunting attributions into a secondary info pane, that's a very large shift.

</comment><comment><USER14> even though (like many pointed out) it's only moved- not removed... what's important here is the sentiment, which is the same.

if this was in fact removed intentionally, i can't help but think that this was a conscious decision to make twitter a much more central (at the peril of third parties) experience (much like the overall bigger picture of #newtwitter).

that all said... they did add gist support which is so awesome. i can't take sides on this one.

</comment><comment><USER15> Ok it's actually just moved a little bit, but more importantly...

Why really should Twitter care? Do they have any obligation to developers? No. Correct me if I'm wrong but legally what's stopping Twitter from shutting off its API and creating its own client?

<comment><AUTHOR> Twitter is already its own client. Twitter for iPad, iPhone and web are all produced by Twitter - in competition with Tweetdeck, Brizzly etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A second strike to Twitterific, whose name wasn't mentioned in the #newtitter newsletter, instead some clients less known were listed.

Twitterific is Twitter for iPhone and iPads biggest competitor, so I see why, but it still is kinda evil.

</comment><comment><USER17> Knowing Twitter, I'm going to say that this is a bug.

I'm assuming that removing the "via client" attribution was not intentional

</comment><comment><USER18> For the people who are unhappy about the lack of "attribution", it seems almost as silly as complaining you can't see what web browser was used to submit a tweet via the website.

While it may have been interesting to see, I think there is a perfectly reasonable argument to be made for simplifying an interface and removing as much noise as is possible (especially as they've added so much information/noise to the new interface).</comment>


Ask HN: Show HN links ranking? - d--b Hi there,
I am a bit puzzled about how the Show HN page works. It doesn't show a link that I've posted today and that has a few upvotes, but it displays a bunch of 2-point links from throaway accounts that have been posted several hours ago.
How does this work? <comment><AUTHOR> It looks strange. Try sending an email to the mods email@example.com

<comment> d--b Ok, will do. Thanks</comment></comment>


Announcing the NetBSD Port Tier System - <AUTHOR> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2011/03/30/msg000126.html <comment><USER2> Many major network system vendors rely on NetBSD as part of their devices (Force 10 and Cradlepoint being the ones that come to mind) - I'm wondering how this will affect them.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure these major system vendors can push money in to development efforts to get what they want. To be honest that seems more than fair to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do we have any NetBSD folk who could shed some light? Is it purely an economic decision?

<comment><USER5> I'm not a NetBSD person (though I did work for a NetBSD-dependent company for a while)...

This seems like a smart, pragmatic decision: create a system where modern hardware can be prioritized more, while creating a system where extremely legacy hardware is not hampering kernel and ports decisions. Not to mention the development and testing effort involved in supporting them all.

That said, anyone who values the support of those systems can put some effort in: "In no way does this mean that NetBSD is abandoning support for old hardware. Support for ports such as vax, mac68k and pmax is still more than welcome. However, users of such ports are asked to take a more active role in development, maintenance and feedback for the platforms they know and love."</comment></comment>


Algo: A set of Ansible scripts that simplify the setup of a personal IPSEC VPN - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/trailofbits/algo <comment><USER2> It's worth mentioning that it is not, nor does TrailOfBits pretend, that the goal of this project is privacy; it is security. Algo doesn't and couldn't care less about your privacy once you reach the endpoint, only about securing the tunnel.

You shouldn't use Algo if you are concerned about surveillance from corporations/governments, you _should_ use Algo if you are concerned about surveillance/attacks from your local network or ISP.

<comment><USER3> Governments take the data from ISP too. And hiding your IP behind VPN is good in any case.

<comment><USER4> That is the parent comment's point. This will protect you from your local ISP. It will not protect you from the government (or the ISP on the other end of the tunnel).

A VPN does not 'hide' your IP address. It merely changes it.

<comment><USER3> > That is the parent comment's point.

"You shouldn't use Algo if you are concerned about surveillance from corporations/governments" \--- wrong, because Govs get all ISP data.

> It will not protect you from the government

But it _will_ , because all the government will see (using ISP data) is some VPN traffic from me, nothing more.

VPN _does_ hide my IP address - all further connections are made from VPN IP, used by thousands, and not from my personal ISP IP.

<comment><USER5> Where would your VPN be? What makes you think the government doesn't monitor traffic flows _there_? They don't even need to monitor traffic flows at your home's ISP, since they can see both legs of the connection just by watching the network your VPN server is on.

If you're in a FVEY country, you can't count on any real network metadata privacy protection (against your own country's government) for near-realtime communication. Multiple hops (e.g. tor) makes it more difficult for them, but also makes your internet connection slow and unreliable, and your traffic becomes even higher priority for them to investigate; if they happen to have flow data on each of the nodes you use, you're probably unmasked.

<comment><USER3> > your traffic becomes even higher priority for them to investigate

You use tor, your ISP marks it, it triggers priority for them to investigate _you_. You use VPN to access tor, it triggers nothing.

<comment><USER6> Evidence?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It should be noted that if you've setup Algo already that it now supports WireGuard. The WireGuard Android app (which would be great to verify that it is indeed published by www.wireguard.com) is stupid easy to setup and enable on your device.

<comment><USER8> It already is linked on the installation page:

[https://www.wireguard.com/install/#android-play-store-f- droi...](https://www.wireguard.com/install/#android-play-store-f-droid)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Use Wireguard. It is wonderful and the community is friendly. `wg-quick` is easy to use but if you need it, I believe Streisand supports automatically provisioning a wireguard setup.

<comment><USER10> Wireguard is awesome, but the kernel module is so far a mess. If you're paranoid I wouldn't rely on it until the code has been cleaned up and perhaps audited.

<comment><USER3> you are not mistaken

<comment><USER4> Based on what evidence?

<comment><USER3> I just think being cautious is wise, given how new WG is. And, AFAIK it is userland only, like OpenVpn, not in linux kernel, think performance.

<comment><USER11> There _is_ a WireGuard kernel module, and it also seems weird to me to say "This is a mess" when what you actually mean is "Nobody yet knows if it is a mess or not and I have no evidence either way."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I prefer [https://github.com/hwdsl2/setup-ipsec- vpn](https://github.com/hwdsl2/setup-ipsec-vpn). Shamless blog post on setting it up on a Raspberry Pi 3 - [https://blog.elasticbyte.net/setting-up-a-native- cisco-ipsec...](https://blog.elasticbyte.net/setting-up-a-native-cisco-ipsec- vpn-server-using-a-raspberry-pi/)

<comment><USER13> Thank you for posting this! I'll be checking this out. I like how the scope of this project is only about setting up an IPsec server automatically on a Linux box.

Algo and Streisand have too much features, making them unwieldy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Does not install Tor, OpenVPN, or other risky servers

Although I recognize IPsec is a widely supported protocol and suitable for this use case, did the readme intend to imply OpenVPN is risky?

<comment><USER15> [https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/issues/36](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/issues/36) I guess they consider TLS to be a considerable risk. Theoretical I guess.

<comment><USER16> There is an FAQ that addresses "Why not OpenVPN?" including the specific security concerns with it:

[https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/blob/master/docs/faq.md#...](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/blob/master/docs/faq.md#why- arent-you-using-openvpn)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Question - are there any guides available to help set up a home-brew router to route all outbound connections through an Algo VPN with exceptions for Netflix/etc.?

Something like this (this is for OpenVPN): [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/how-to-build-your- ow...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/how-to-build-your-own-vpn-if- youre-rightfully-wary-of-commercial-options/)

I currently have a pfSense router set up with Algo, but I have to disable the IPSec policy whenever I want to use Netflix. (Discussion here: [https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/issues/292](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/issues/292) \- see comments near the bottom.)

<comment><USER3> Try OPNsense

Here is detailed tutorial [https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=4979.0](https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=4979.0)

<comment><USER17> I tried it, but the installer keeps crashing. (Device is an HP T620 Plus with a 4-port/1GB Intel server NIC.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I actually tried running Algo through Azure and Microsoft terminated my Azure account citing I was breaking Terms of Service. I had hosted Algo for all of two and a half days before the takedown.

Not sure if anyone else has had luck - that was all I was using Azure for was to test Algo out so had nothing else running on Azure at the time. I also ran into a few snags trying to deplay Algo onto Azure so haven't bothered trying to set it up elsewhere. My goal of the VPN was to get a JP address as a few sites I browse are easier to browse with a JP address (eg: I don't get forced bad English translations with no way to toggle to the JP version of the site because I'm coming from an American IP...)

<comment><USER16> Hello! Developer for AlgoVPN here.

We have many successful reports of using Azure for AlgoVPN. I would appreciate it very much if you could file an issue and include the full details of what happened, including any communications you received from Microsoft ([https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/issues/new](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/issues/new)). I have contacts at Azure that I can escalate this issue to directly.

<comment><USER18> I don't tend to hold onto email as I don't really care for or value them; especially not emails saying my account has been terminated. Those are more of a delete and move on with my life kind of notice. I ended up getting an email from a rep. asking how my experience was and either two or three (I think it was two) calls to speak with me. A funny left-hand not speaking to the right- hand scenario where customer reps tried to salvage a client even though the client had been terminated by the service.

Thanks for extending a hand. I'll look for the email tomorrow - and if found - I'll open an issue. Though if you don't hear from me, it's because the email in all likelihood was deleted shortly after getting it. My use wasn't critical need, so I didn't particularly care to deal with the headache of getting things sorted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Given this post's HN commentary is full of seemingly well-informed perspectives on the relative merits of several VPN service providers and software packages can anyone comment on Private Tunnel? I've been using it for years, having paid something like $20 for 100GB. No complaints, but interested in expert opinion / insights regarding privacy and security. Thanks!

<comment><USER16> My choice is typically between "should I use a hosted provider" vs "should I host my own." IMHO there is not a vast amount of difference between hosted VPN providers. They all suffer from generally the same issues.

Here are some reasons you might want to self-host:

[https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn- th...](https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-that-works/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> >Does not install Tor, OpenVPN, or other risky servers

Does it call OpenVPN a risky server? Why?

Found it [https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/blob/master/docs/faq.md#...](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo/blob/master/docs/faq.md#why- arent-you-using-openvpn)

</comment><comment><USER21> What is the best way to have a VPN in each continent (apart from the obvious option to have an instance in each region)? I used to pay for a commercial service, but I lost this functionality when I switched to a self-hosted solution.

I prefer this feature since I travel a lot and would like to have lower latency wherever I am.

<comment><USER22> What is wrong with purchasing a VPN that is made to provide this functionality on the cheap? i don't get why everybody has to try do it themselves. If you're worrying about tainted IPs, pay a little more for a VPN that logs. All good VPNs support connecting via openVPN at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Serious question, do people consider a cloud provider to be more trustworthy than a professional VPN company?

<comment><USER24> Perhaps? If you're using a VPN to protect your internet traffic from being sold to ad companies, probably. The VPN industry has become a racket full of affiliate schemes that push people towards plans and services that don't necessarily act in the user's best interest. Figuring out the food from the bad can be difficult. And I've seen some services that when audited use outdated or insecure stacks.

Of course, if you're using a VPN to try to protect your browsing activity from authorities, obviously a major cloud provider may be more willing to turn your info over to someone else.

<comment><USER25> I've been using VPN services for over a decade. In my opinion, the most privacy friendly are AirVPN, Insorg, IVPN, Mullvad, Private Internet Access and Riseup. To my knowledge, HideMyAss, EarthVPN, IPVanish, PureVPN and WANSecurity have violated their users' privacy. For the most part, by sharing logs with investigators. Prudent providers make damn sure not to have any logs that could be seized.

<comment><USER26> Well, I will not advocate for any big brand here but it is also true that hidemyass, IPvanish, Purevpn has more than 50% total share of VPN users and indeed its true that new VPN services especially Private Internet Access is going great. I recently read some review of them at Bestvpn.co.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How do you decide what vpn tech to use?

I was using openvpn and then switched to wireguard because openvpn was consuming a lot of power on my phone.

Why would I want to use Ipsec?

<comment><USER28> > Why would I want to use Ipsec?

It's already built into your phone. (Probably)

<comment><USER27> It is. But just one tiny app for VPN isn't too bad if that VPN does not ruin internet bandwidth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Also is great. I extend this script and use it as a quick-and-easy way of managing my dev team's vpn into our clouds.

</comment><comment><USER30> Having not done any cloud work myself I have no clue how much this would cost, anyone able to give a rough estimate?

<comment><USER31> $5/month or less is a reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Not enough people have heard of Outline. [https://getoutline.org/](https://getoutline.org/)

It is a shadowsocks client and even non-technical users can provision VPNs on cloud hosting providers.

<comment><USER33> It's a Google/Alphabet project. Hmm.

<comment><USER16> It's not a Google project, it's a Jigsaw project. There's a huge difference, since one is run with extremely low resources and employees between the entities are not shared. Don't trust code that comes from Jigsaw. In my experience, it's all been haphazardly thrown together for a proof of concept and media coverage, not production quality software that people should use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> >Algo supports DigitalOcean (most user friendly), Amazon Lightsail, Amazon EC2, Microsoft Azure, Google Compute Engine, Scaleway and OpenStack.

four of the seven listed are cloud providers that actively encourage censorship for the sake of their business model. at best, you would be a fool to run a personal VPN on them, at worst the fact that support exists at all could be evidence that this software is in fact _worse_ than openVPN or TOR in that it facilitates an obviously poor implementation.

Google and Microsoft both joined the PRISM program in 2009.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_\(surveillance_program\)#Media_disclosure_of_PRISM)

</comment><comment><USER35> IPSEC is broken by (NSA) design. Use Wireguard instead.

[https://www.mail- firstname.lastname@example.com/msg12...](https://www.mail- firstname.lastname@example.com/msg12325.html)

[https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/](https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/)

</comment><comment><USER36> I once wanted to write an Ansible playbook to install VPN on a server but found out that you cannot just pass parameters via command line like

ansible setup-vpn 184.108.40.206

Ansible expects you to write host address into a file in /etc. So inconvenient. Also, Ansible doesn't support Windows and Cygwin.

It turned out it was easier to write instructions into a Bash program. Sadly, it is non-portable and works only with a specific distribution.

It is also surprising how many files are there in the repository for a relatively simple task. And how complicated installation process is. In PHP everything would be easier, because you can pack your application into a single phar archive like in Java.

They don't support builtin Android client. I remember I installed Strongswan or something like this and it worked with Android out of the box.

I wouldn't recommend Digital Ocean. They don't accept virtual debit card (they want a real card so they can charge you whenever they want) and their VPS are too expensive. $5 per month is too expensive when you can find offers as low as 1 euro/month in Europe with pre-paid system.

<comment><USER37> Ansible works on Windows

[https://www.ansible.com/integrations/infrastructure/windows](https://www.ansible.com/integrations/infrastructure/windows)

I don't get the Ansible hate, it's great.

<comment><USER36> It only can manage modern Windows versions. But you cannot use Windows to control other hosts: [https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/user_guide/windows_f...](https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/user_guide/windows_faq.html#can- ansible-run-on-windows)</comment></comment></comment>


How to operate before incorporation? - <AUTHOR>

What is the best way to run your startup before incorporation?  For example if I were getting a startup ready for Y combinator and you recommend not incorporating beforehand, how do you recommend handling any business transactions that would occur in the meantime? <comment><USER2> DBA or LLC. Costs $20 or $200, respectively, and each takes about an afternoon to fill out the forms and file. Or just do business as an individual. If you don't need a business bank account, you can do that too. PayPal and Google checkout will accept money on your behalf without much trouble.</comment>


Unique Hardware and Software IDs in Linux - <AUTHOR> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/ids.html

<comment><USER2> Very cool. We use the "smallest" NIC Mac address at the moment since we generally don't replace NICs much and the dmi info is often bogus.

Didn't know about the dbus thing. Will check it out!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is extraordinarily helpful information, difficult to find in one place elsewhere. Thank you!</comment>


Show HN: Docker webservice for converting AI, EPS and PDF files to SVG - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/theveloped/inkscape <comment><AUTHOR> After getting the question for a converter for AI, EPS and PDF files to SVG I have built a tiny demo using Inkscape and Ghostscript.

It seems however that although there is a ton of references online for the various conversions many of them are very outdated. I'm wondering if anyone used similar conversions in a production environment in the past and what approaches yielded the best results for them.

(if anyone wants to play around with the current implementation I'll leave an instance running here: [https://inkscape- xiaaw3oz6q-ew.a.run.app](https://inkscape-xiaaw3oz6q-ew.a.run.app))</comment>


Magic Roundabout (Swindon) - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) <comment><USER2> A better solution for high traffic flow is the turbo roundabout[0] which is getting increasingly popular in Netherland. Before you enter the roundabout, you select the lane for the direction you want to go. You only cross traffic when entering the roundabout for the first time. After that, you simply follow your lane and it delivery you where you want to go.

It looks complicated from above, but it's very simple once you're on it. It can handle a much higher traffic flow than other kinds of roundabouts. The only potential downside is that you need to know where you want to go before you enter the roundabout. There's no possibility to keep going around until you figure out where you want to go.

[0] [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turborotonde](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turborotonde) (In Dutch, but with images. "Rotonde" is Dutch for roundabout.)

<comment><USER3> I don't understand how the turbo roundabout is any different than a typical two-lane roundabout. It looks like a regular two-lane roundabout from that picture in your link.

<comment><USER4> I'm not seeing the difference between this and two lane roundabouts. We have a bunch of these in the southern suburbs of Minneapolis/St Paul, and they work well even on roads with moderately high traffic. My only issue with them is that I find them somewhat scary as a pedestrian during winter.

The first few times I encountered a two lane roundabout, I had some concerns about whether you had to cut across lanes to exit in some cases (especially when going straight across the roundabout). But after using it a bit, it's clear that it works pretty well, and that it's no worse than a 1 lane roundabout.

<comment><USER5> [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-86.1623079,150a,35y...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-86.1623079,150a,35y,359.17h/data=!3m1!1e3) is a "standard" two lane roundabout. Roundabouts like [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minneapolis,+email@example.com...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minneapolis,+firstname.lastname@example.com,-93.2865412,111m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x52b333909377bbbd:0x939fc9842f7aee07!8m2!3d44.977753!4d-93.2650108) are more similar to a turbo roundabout but does not force traffic out after 3 exits or less, the inner lane could be followed indefinitely.

<comment><USER2> On that second link, I don't see any roundabout at all. It looks like a regular intersection to me.

<comment><USER6> Maybe the aerial imagery is out of date? It looks like a regular intersection on the satellite view, but Google Maps has it marked as a roundabout.

<comment><USER5> This is interesting, I seem to be getting newer aerial imagery than either of you [https://i.imgur.com/tC6fsQm.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tC6fsQm.jpg)

<comment><USER7> If you switch to globe view, the image changes.

<comment><USER5> Yep that's it, globe view has the newer image and legacy mode has the older image.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I first drove this back in the early 90s when I happened to be near Swindon (for some training), and a friend (who often worked in the area) had told me about it, so I deliberately went to it. Bear in mind this is pre-common- internet use era, so everything was hearsay and so on...

He told me it was a 'nightmare', and 'weird' and so on. I was actually pretty underwhelmed when I drove it - it seemed really logical to me, and it was a bit of a non-event - I was expecting some kind of white-khuckle 'driving in Marrakech' sort of experience. I think people's perceptions of it are significantly different from reality, but maybe that's because it makes sense to me, but if it's as safe as they say it is, maybe not...

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't be surprised if it is safe partially _because_ people think it's a nightmare to navigate

<comment><USER10> That's pretty much what the Wikipedia article claims, the roundabout has an "excellent safety record, since traffic moves too slowly to do serious damage in the event of a collision"

<comment><USER11> I used to drive over it occasionally. It was _always_ decorated with broken glass from a collision.

It's true it has a good safety record if you consider fatalities/injuries. But that's because it's impossible to cross it at speed unless it's completely empty.

I suspect its record for minor collision damage is less reassuring.

The fundamental problem is situational awareness. On a normal roundabout you only have to look in one direction. On the magic roundabout you have to be aware of traffic from the left, right, and front - and if you're not a regular user, you have to do this while trying to navigate the design.

<comment><USER12> I've lived within a mile of the 'magic roundabout' for about 10 years. I traverse it frequently. I have never seen a collision or broken glass on it.

Although it is a bit intimidating the first time you use it (especially if you are from a country that doesn't have many roundabouts) the locals like it. It works very well and the traffic keeps flowing even at busy times. They even put the fire station right on the roundabout. ;0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > however, the roundabout provides a better throughput of traffic than other > designs and has an excellent safety record, since traffic moves too slowly > to do serious damage in the event of a collision. In 2010, the National > Cooperative Highway Research Program concluded that the roundabout reduces > injurious crashes by three quarters.

One of the hardest things in local democracy is that the best traffic patterns are often also traffic patterns that are unpopular with motorists. Sometimes that is directly linked (e.g. "road calming" where narrowing the road forces drivers to pay closer attention to their surroundings) and sometimes it's just that the aggregate statistics are counter-intuitive (e.g. "road diets" where trading 2 lanes in each direction for 1 each direction + center turn lane often has no impact on total throughput).

<comment><USER14> The problem, as always, is that parties disagree on what "best" means.

Governments and safety organizations are pushing for "Vision Zero", i.e., safety at any cost. (My economics professor once pointed out that if you really want zero traffic deaths, just limit all cars to 5 mph everywhere.) For people driving on the road, the current level of risk (roughly 1 death per 100M miles) is acceptable, and arriving quickly is desirable.

Once you get to the point where the numbers are really tiny, safety is hard. It's tough to make people follow procedures when they've never seen any problems from violating them.

I see this effect happen with software, too.

<comment><USER15> True, but in this case (apparently) there is the added wrinkle that this roundabout has better throughput than other designs, so what's the downside? I guess it forces people to think harder than they'd normally have to while driving?

I definitely find myself taking slightly longer routes that let me avoid stressful situations, e.g. turning left onto a busy road.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I lived in Swindon for 2 years and while drivers can find different things challenging, I would venture to say that it's a lot more straightforward when you're on it than you might imagine. It separates traffic effectively at peak times according to which roads they enter/leave, and as many have mentioned it slows cars down so you aren't pressured to make snap decisions either if you aren't sure. If all else fails, you can follow the car in front of you and if you picked the correct lane at first entry the chances are you will be led to the correct exit point.

Pedestrians don't really feature from a safety perspective because there are light-controlled crossings all the way around the fringe. The problems I saw were when arrogant/impatient people (as opposed to first-timers) saw a gap that was intentionally left because of the way traffic flows from one roundabout to the next, and would speed past two or three cars then push in. But those people cause problems everywhere.

<comment><USER17> I grew up in Swindon and took my driving test there. The only complication usually is drivers who don't know ho to use it / are timid.

Also the football ground on the corner doesn't help when 1000s of people all arrive at those lights at the same time it can cause chaos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For a real nightmare roundabout, the winner has to be Place Charles de Gaulle around the Arc de Triumph in Paris[0].

It is about 8 lanes across, with no lane markings, and with vehicles entering the roundabout from one of 12 junctions having right-of-way.

I'm not sure what was happening on the day the Google maps aerial photo was taken, as it unfortunately it doesn't show the chaos that normally ensues.

[0] [https://email@example.com...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,2.2943922,208m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47e66fec70fb1d8f:0xd9b5676e112e643d!8m2!3d48.8737917!4d2.2950275)

<comment><USER19> I've never looked at the Google Maps image of the Arc de Triumph before so a question immediately comes to mind upon looking at it. How the hell did all of those tourists/pedestrians get there? There doesn't appear to be parking on the inside of the circle, nor any apparent crosswalks at that 12 lane circular nightmare. Is there a tunnel hidden underneath you can go through? There's no apparent exit unless it is inside of the monument. Is there a shuttlebus that just straight up blocks the inner lane when it shows up?

<comment><USER20> There's a tunnel. I was there with my dad in 1993, and we only discovered the tunnel _after_ we crossed the 8 lanes to get to the monument.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That's not even the best "Magic Roundabout", the one in my town is much better! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Hemel_Hempst...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_\(Hemel_Hempstead\))

<comment><USER22> I'm Canadian. We had a work trip to the UK. My manager kept saying "I think I can handle driving in there, how bad could it be?". I told him we'd die.

As we went through the Hemel Hempstead magic roundabout in the back of a cab, he turned to me and said "Okay... you might have been right."

<comment><USER23> Statistically, you are less likely to die compared to driving in Canada. UK roads may be confusing, but they are significantly safer than Canadian roads, as measured by fatalities per billion km driven.

(And Canada is already among the safest non-European countries, with significantly fewer fatalities compared to the USA)

<comment><USER22> This was years ago and I have actually now driven in the UK myself. Yes, I'm sure overall I'd be less likely to die if I were driving every day in the UK vs driving every day in Canada.

But let me tell you, the _first_ day driving on the other side of the road is a real doozy. And I nearly died a couple of times. And I was doing my very best to avoid "magic roundabouts".

(I actually drove all week through rural Wales, which was a different kind of adventure)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Imagine coming from mainland europe and having to drive on the other side of the road (thus also taking roundabouts the other way round), and then navigating this baby...

<comment><USER25> I strongly believe that the biggest reason people struggle with the Magic Roundabout is because it's called a roundabout, when it's actually just a collection of 5 roundabouts. If you tackle it one roundabout at a time it's actually not that bad at all, it could be much much _better_ , but it's not _bad_.

<comment><USER26> I prefer magic roundabouts to the strange concoction which I've only ever seen in the Staines / Heathrow area; A roundabout with one road continuing straight through the roundabout. In order to run right you need to be left most lane approaching it. Turning right from the side road, it's ambiguous whether you are supposed to turn right onto the section of the main road going straight through or continue all the way around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I guess what this shows is two things:

1\. Scaring people into slowing down is a viable way to avoid accidents.

2\. Perceived scariness of an intersection is not indicative of how dangerous it actually is.

<comment><USER28> RE: #2

Absolutely. Within Saskatchewan, east of Regina, we just completed three new bridges for suburban communities to access the main highway. In two of the three bridges were atypical designs using a Diverging Diamond at one point, and dual roundabouts at the other.

When announced lots of people were fearful of the new designs and there was unsurprisingly a lot of outcry from ninnies who were afraid of the unknown. There's been _a couple_ instances of people taking improper directions on the bridges but they're typically by elderly drivers who probably shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place.

I personally have my own qualms with the design of one of the bridges but that's outside this discussion. I like the concept enough that I hope to see them use diverging diamond more and more roundabouts as people get used to the efficient flow.

<comment><USER27> Another example of this is the downtown area of a small PA town I stopped in recently. They had recently re-paved the entire center street with brick and stone. The sidewalks were wide and there were no curbs, only rubber-covered metal posts marking the boundary between car and pedestrian areas. As a driver, I found this design scary, because it was hard to visually see where I should be driving. But I noticed that the natural result of this was that I drove around 15mph despite signs coming into the town saying 25mph as the speed limit. Another cause of this is that the sound of bricks under your tires gives the impression that you're going faster than you actually are. It was scary, but it put my focus as a driver on not hitting pedestrians, poles, or other cars, rather than slavishly following lines and curbs. Not hitting pedestrians, poles, and other cars is the entire point of the lines and curbs, so it's a more direct way to solve the problem.

I think the fear aspect comes from the fact that hitting a pedestrian seemed like a real possibility the entire time I was in the town. But that fear is rational: there _is_ a real possibility of hitting a pedestrian, and a high- foot-traffic area shouldn't be designed to assuage that rational fear. Drivers _should_ be afraid of hitting pedestrians.

A placard commemorating the redesign in the town square said that since the redesign in 2017, car/pedestrian accidents dropped from 279 to 43.

* I'm citing numbers and locations from memory here so take this all with a grain of salt. I only stopped in the town for lunch on a long drive, so I don't remember all the details. My memory for numbers is usually good, but is not infallible.

<comment><USER29> This is actually a fairly common redesign that one can find in several countries around the world over the past decade or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I grew up near a city called Birmingham in the UK which has it's share of... disturbing junctions:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways,_Birmingham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways,_Birmingham)

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

They look insane on a map, they must have been hellish to navigate before GPS.

<comment><USER31> Spaghetti junction is still hellish...

<comment><USER32> It looks like a fairly routine Japanese highway junction though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The traffic engineer who managed to convince authorities that this was the solution to their problems must've been very charismatic.

<comment><USER34> They look scarier than they are in practice. What I hate more is those massive roundabouts with traffic lights on where dual carriageways meet. On those things you still have a mix of cars who don't know where they're going and lanes to be away of, but in addition you have traffic lights and cars moving at much higher speeds than on magic roundabouts.

<comment><USER35> Barcelona. It's fine to have a roundabout where several roads meet, each with multiple lanes, and the circle itself to have 6 or more lanes [1]

[1] As an example [https://email@example.com,2.1491456,232m/data=...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,2.1491456,232m/data=!3m1!1e3)

<comment><USER34> That does look a busy junction but I was thinking more like when motorways cross.

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,0.1993421,304m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d88f64abc6132b:0xe9579511ff3bb274!8m2!3d51.905225!4d0.19691)

This example is by no means the worse in the UK -- far from it -- but it does illustrate how cars can be going round at high speeds even when it's not really safe to.

It amazes me there aren't any fatalities on these kinds of junctions because it's a horrible mix of speed, heavy traffic, lighter and heavier vehicles (eg you get plenty of lorries on there too) and clueless drivers. A real bad recipe. But it might just be my lack of faith in other drivers that makes me nervous on those junctions rather than them being inherently unsafe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I bought a DEC MicroVAX on ebay a few years ago and the seller lived in Swindon. I passed through the Magic Roundabout on the way there and the way back (during rush hour). Having never encountered anything like it before it was... Well, I'd love to tell you a horror story, but to be honest it was all very logical and flowed very well.

</comment><comment><USER37> My favourite part of the entry is that it lead me to the discovery of the UK Roundabout Appreciation Society. Never change Britain.

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

<comment><USER38> Someone gave me the book "Roundabouts of Great Britain"[1].

I haven't read it for a while, but I think there's an explanation in the book from the printing company -- they wanted to test out their new colour printing press, so sent someone round the industrial estate with a camera and made a calendar. Potential clients were given it as a sample, but they then received requests to purchase them, and eventually made the book.

[1] [https://books.google.dk/books/about/Roundabouts_of_Great_Bri...](https://books.google.dk/books/about/Roundabouts_of_Great_Britain.html?id=C9n8AAAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I recently cycled some of the south coast of China. Some small towns there had roundabouts which served to slow traffic down but had a different pattern than westerners are used to. They drive on the right, but people who want to turn left would do so immediately, keeping the centre island on their right side. People turning right or going straight would use the roundabout the same as westerners.

I also encountered a T junction with three lanes in each direction and traffic lights. When the lanes coming from the bottom had green lights they were one right and two left, and at the same time the rightmost lane coming from the right had a green light to go straight. Three inputs and three outputs, but sure surprised me. Traffic patterns are very local and often undocumented. Just like code.

<comment><USER40> Chicago has those as well. I believe you're supposed to go all the way around the central circle when making a left turn, but nobody does.

My favorite roundabout ever is a large traditional one with only two entrances/exits. Reminds me of a lot of codebases I've encountered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Little detail, I love that they actually call it the Magic Roundabout in eg the traffic signs. I mean, it's a children's TV reference. Super nice, not everything official must be boring and dull.

</comment><comment><USER42> When I was visiting the UK, I ended up driving through this intersection a couple of times. It wasn't really a big deal, even for someone not used to roundabouts or driving on the left.

<comment><USER43> Right - people tell me they find roundabouts really confusing but I say: imagine a one way street, and you're joining it at a T-junction. If you're in the UK the one-way street is going left. If you're in Europe or America it's going right. That's literally all a roundabout is. You can forget about the fact that it's circular. There's no extra rules I believe.

<comment><USER44> What about the fact it has two lanes?

<comment><USER43> How's is it different to any other road with two lanes?

If you're about to turn off then be on the inside lane. If you're not turning off then be on the outside lane.

<comment><USER44> On a roundabout there's usually not enough time to consider turning off as two separate maneuvers. Instead you follow certain rules and it "just works".

i.e. join on the outside lane if you're turning off immediately and join the inside lane otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> My driving instructor sketched The Magic on paper and asked me to draw various routes before he let me drive on it. My driving test went over it, so at least I was prepared!

</comment><comment><USER46> with overhead video...

[https://youtu.be/6OGvj7GZSIo](https://youtu.be/6OGvj7GZSIo)

</comment><comment><USER47> Metrics at work:

>however, the roundabout provides a better throughput of traffic than other designs and has an excellent safety record, _since traffic moves too slowly to do serious damage in the event of a collision_.

<comment><USER48> Indeed! This is a great example of why it's important to actually measure the things you care about, and not use a proxy or your gut feeling. If you just go by perception, the slower-moving traffic might fool you into thinking the roundabout has _less_ throughput.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The Swindon Magic Roundabout is a frequent topic on HN:

2012: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4915586](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4915586)

2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11652868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11652868)

2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15211579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15211579)

</comment><comment><USER49> I've navigated this thing a few times. The first time I just stayed on it for 20 minutes, trying to work it out, and yeah .. basically just confused as hell for a while.

Subsequent trips were easy. If you're intimidated, just get on it and stay on it until you feel like you get where it's going. Those crossovers are dodgy AF though, especially with irate lorry drivers who are, most likely, also pretty stressed for having to do the thing ..

</comment><comment><USER50> I live close to this magnificent piece of engineering, AMA.

<comment><USER51> It's not easy to understand _why_ it is structured this way. As a local do you have any idea why it's composed of five mini roundabouts instead of just a single one? Does it feel like it handles high levels of traffic better?

<comment><USER50> I'm not sure on the _actual_ design decision reasonings, however you can reach many of the exit junctions with multiple routes. So if everyone drove around it sensibly, there _would_ be fewer cars stuck in traffic.

<comment><USER52> I'd have to see a study or simulation. I can't take it on faith, because what I see is very many points where cars have to stop and yield. Multiple routes could just imply packing more cars into one ginormous intersection where they block each other trying to get in or out. And where you have multiple routes to one junction, you have merging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My Canadian province has been on a big roundabout building spree. Nothing fancy just one lane or two lane types. I like them but many people fear them for some reason I suspect because they don't understand them. Some people actually go the wrong way when entering (against traffic). Some people will cross from an outside lane over the inner lane nearly crashing into cars.

<comment><USER53> If you live or learned to drive somewhere that doesn't have them I can understand being confused or scared by it. I love them but frequently see people stop in the middle of one because they think they need to yield to those entering

<comment><USER54> This was the default rule in Russia until very recently. Most (but not all) of roundabouts had yield signs on each entrance essentially enforcing "normal" rule, still it's an utter source of confusion as many larger roundabouts have complex priority signs and lights systems, so it couldn't go into muscle memory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Hanger Lane Gyratory System - the most frightening roundabout in the UK (or possibly anywhere) - [https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/ealings- noto...](https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/ealings-notorious- hanger-lane-gyratory-14637375)

<comment><USER56> Having commuted through it every day for 2.5 years, I'm genuinely not sure what the fuss is about. It's just a big roundabout. (And while this isn't a pure positive!) if you were unsure, it was usually so slow moving you had plenty of time to figure out what to do.

The only disturbing aspect it brought to my life wasn't navigation stress, but rather its unpredictable effect on my commute. :)

<comment><USER55> > if you were unsure, it was usually so slow moving you had plenty of time to > figure out what to do.

I don't drive, so I wasn't unsure, just terrified, as you would be if you being driven round it by my then girlfriend, who combined the driving skills of a rally driver with the mentality of Mr Toad from Wind In The Willows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> If this was voted the 4th scariest intersection where the first 3?

NVM: Found the answer in the wiki. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7140892.st...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7140892.stm)

<comment><USER58> In usual fashion, Wikipedia links sources where they can. In this case, this is the source: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8382506.stm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> There's one just like this North of Hatton Cross Station (just outside the perimeter road of Heathrow Airport) ...

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.46733/-0.42398](https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.46733/-0.42398)

</comment><comment><USER60> These are actually pretty easy to drive around: just think of it as a tiny ring road with round-abouts along it.

The only difference between this and a "normal" ring road with round-abouts is that the distance between roundabouts is 50m not 5km :)

</comment><comment><USER61> A sign of globalization: there are now many roundabouts in Montana. I get the impression that every new road construction project, where there is space, uses roundabouts. Many drivers still don't understand how to use them however.

</comment><comment><USER62> The linked page didn't explain how it worked well, but this Wired video does: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OGvj7GZSIo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OGvj7GZSIo)

</comment><comment><USER63> The closest thing to this I've seen in America is a 5 points intersection, which most of just have a sign that says "keep right" or something to that effect. Might as well just say "Good Luck!"

<comment><USER64> Columbus Circle in NYC, on the corner of the park [1]

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I build maps for a living. This roundabout complex has been a test case for map building systems for at least the last fifteen years. It's positively brutal in its special cases.

</comment><comment><USER66> Never change, you brilliant British bastards.

</comment><comment><USER67> This roundabout still gives me shudders after learning to drive (well trying to learn to drive) in Swindon in the 90s.

</comment><comment><USER68> I find the whole "inner ring for people who know what they're doing and outer ring for people who have no business driving in heavy traffic" concept highly attractive but the fact that the safety claims revolve around injuries and makes no mention of overall accidents (if it reduced overall accidents surely they would mention it) makes me suspect this thing is a fender bender (and therefore traffic jam) factory.

<comment><USER69> From tfa:

> In 2010, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program concluded that > the roundabout reduces injurious crashes by three quarters

<comment><USER68> >From tfa:

> In 2010, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program concluded that > the roundabout reduces injurious crashes by three quarters

Since you seem to find it fit to question if I read the article I may as well question whether or not you even read my comment.

I specifically mentioned the article's claims about injury reduction (which I don't doubt). How could I possibly question what is omitted from those claims (overall accident reduction) if I didn't read the article to read those claims in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> pow_pp_-1_v I wonder how people with a terrible sense of direction (like me) handle this roundabout. Seems like a nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER70> Fucking britain. Only then can invent such pointless solution.

</comment><comment><USER71> A valuable thing to remember about roundabouts is that they are generally meant to slow down traffic in areas of high pedestrian activity and are, above all else, a safety mechanism.

<comment><USER52> There are roundabouts in places with no pedestrians at all.

<comment><USER71> I never implied there weren't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I'd crash so hard ...</comment>


Here are the top 5 cities for computer science jobs - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/09/here-are-the-top-5-cities-with-the-most-computer-science-jobs/#vb-gallery:1:802910

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not sure that it is true. I think that linkedin is a the main job-search engine in Silicon Valley. Would be extremely interesting to get similar data from linkedin.</comment>


What your poop says about your health [video] - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/human/videos/what-your-poop-says-about-your-health-video-151106.htm <comment><AUTHOR> Bristol Stool scale info at: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale)</comment>


Ask HN: As a creative developer what are your sources for inspiration? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for websites, twitter profiles, discord channels, books, movies, podcast, etc to get a daily dose of inspiration from new technologies and award winning solutions to fancy preload animations and other tiny details. What are your sources? <comment><USER2> Here is some good quality inspiration: [https://tympanus.net/codrops/](https://tympanus.net/codrops/)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://codyhouse.co/library](https://codyhouse.co/library)

<comment><USER4> This is nice and practical, plus she uses Eric Meyer's CSS Reset! That's a big plus in my book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> HN is one of those sources. Adn i like these [https://thebridge.jp/en/](https://thebridge.jp/en/) [https://www.behance.net/](https://www.behance.net/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't know The Bridge before, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nothing like learning a new tool for me. Recently this has been latex to make a book. Learning new (new to me) tech usually involves a struggle and from that struggle seeds other project ideas and business ideas etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> The design section of WWDC video sessions: [https://developer.apple.com/videos/design/](https://developer.apple.com/videos/design/).

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://dribbble.com](http://dribbble.com)

[http://codepen.io](http://codepen.io)

</comment><comment><USER9> There's [https://www.designernews.co/](https://www.designernews.co/) similar to hackernews.

<comment><USER4> Ironically I think that Hacker News exhibits better design than Designer News. The responsive design of that page is such that it cuts off icons when viewed at a width of 960px (half of a screen in 1080p) and on an iPhone SE there are only four articles visible at a time compared to HN fitting 7 without compromising readability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nature. Nature never hacks, because nature already owns everything. Every bug is a feature.

</comment><comment><USER11> Other developers, designers and people having a generally hard time.

</comment><comment><USER12> We launched projectilo to enable this kind of showcasing/collaboration/inspiration especially for indie devs: [https://projectilo.com](https://projectilo.com)</comment>


Think before you ask in mailing list - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/webpy/browse_thread/thread/fe57d2abd72f49fa

<comment><USER2> I remember my AI Professor telling us about the teddy bear solution where, before you ask a question to someone else, pick up a teddy bear and ask it. More often than not, saying it out loud will most likely answer your question.</comment>