What you need to know about employee stock options - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/c4ac448850b7 <comment><USER2> There are a couple key omissions (though there are many -- this is not a particularly substantive article):

\- When you are joining a company, the first question you should ask is "How many outstanding shares are there?" All you really care about is the % of the company you are potentially getting and the current value of the company.

\- The AMT is a _big_ deal that can heavily impact your life when you exercise options. There is no point in getting to the details here, but if you happen to be lucky enough to be working for a company that has gone up significantly in value, the AMT can be an expense to consider when exercising options. It can also indirectly affect: a) Whether or not financially you can leave a company (because if you leave you are forced to exercise your options) or b) If you should exercise your options early for smart tax planning

\-----

Kudos to the author for trying to inform people, but if you work for a successful startup and have questions about stock options, do not listen to this article at all and talk to an accountant!

<comment><USER3> _" All you really care about is the % of the company you are potentially getting and the current value of the company."_

Respectfully disagree: what you care about is strike price, share price, and quantity. Percentage _can_ be a good indicator, but ultimately, those 3 figures are what will determine your payout. As a hypothetical, getting 10% of a company with a strike price just shy of the share price on exit is still pretty worthless.

<comment><USER4> The share price for the types of companies this article focuses on is generally unknown (as anything other than wild ass guesstimates) at the time this would be a concern for new employees. Percentage of ownership isn't unknown and thus may be more useful, but ultimately neither is a guarantee of anything since either way you can be virtually wiped out by future dilution if you're just a common share pleb, which is by far the norm for non-founder early employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nothing about liquidation preference, which can make these options absolutely worthless even in the midst of a seemingly successful acquisition.

[http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/16/beware-the-trappings-of- li...](http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/16/beware-the-trappings-of-liquidation- preference/)

I was once at a startup that was offered a $100M buyout. This would have netted me maybe $200K except that the liquidation preference obliterated all profit for the founders and employees. So instead, the CEO chose to ride the thing into the ground. He went on to make the big bucks at his next gig though.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like the founders took some pretty poor funding...

<comment><USER7> But I, well how do I put it, have to smile a little bit about his actions.

By the way, learned yet more about these things in this article and the venturebeat-link.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, that VentureBeat article is very useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "You don't owe any taxes until you sell the shares."

This isn't true; if you exercise - and don't sell - your options, you will be subject to the AMT. (Alternative Minimum Tax). During the original Internet bubble (and bust) this caused significant hardship for many people. Tip - don't take tax planning advice from random blogs.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, pretty irresponsible for an article that says "all you need to know". You absolutely need to know the ins and outs of this if you have a significant number of options on a company with an increasing FMV. You own AMT on the paper gains between your strike price and the current FMV. However this _only_ applies if you don't sell the shares. If you sell the shares before the end of the _calendar_ year then the AMT calculation is nullified and you just pay taxes on your actual gains.

In a dotcom bubble scenario this can make the difference between owing millions of dollars of taxes _despite having never seen a dime_ and owing your standard income tax on actual profits.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a fair point, I didn't really take AMT into account. Feel free to leave a comment on the post, it's useful information.

<comment><USER10> Wait, what? You didn't take AMT into account? Because I have colleagues that AMT has nearly bankrupted, and who spent _years_ having their wages garnished by the IRS because of it.

Feel free to edit your post so as not to send people to the poor house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Best thing to do: forget about them. If and when the time comes, you'll know what to do. Glance at when they expire, mark it on your calendar, and when you're within a year or so of that date, if you're still in business, consider it. More often than not, they'll be worth little to nothing (especially once you factor in any taxes that come along with them). Don't waste time or energy trying to figure out how much they're worth, because it'll change a thousand times before you actually do anything with them.

<comment><USER11> > Best thing to do: forget about them. If and when the time comes, you'll know > what to do.

That is terrible advice.

If you work at a startup then compensation will be a mixture of salary and equity. You should know your worth and negotiate your number when joining a startup. You should understand the details of the last financing: how much was raised? who were the investors? how long is the runway? what were the high- level economic terms of the deal?

You should ask around to see what is fair market terms for the options you should receive. You should do a search on angel.co/jobs and look at comparables.

Read Venture Deals by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson even if you are not a founder. Founders and investors know this stuff. If you are naive going into your employment you may end up being screwed out of upside.

Get your papers straight.

<comment><USER6> Sure, use it as part of your negotiation up-front, keeping in mind that 2% of $0 is still $0. If things go incredibly well, with a ton of luck, maybe you'll get something. Maybe it's part of your compensation, but it's a pretty useless part: you can't spend it for many years (usually at least 4, assuming you can sell after they all vest), and it's not guaranteed. You get the percentage of the scraps--after the VCs have taken their cut, and the founders have taken theirs. Call it compensation if you want, and certainly it's good to have some skin in the game, but there's no good reason to really follow it that closely after you've signed on with the company.

Once they're in your employment contract, forget them. Stick them in a file cabinet someplace marked +4 years and see where things go. In that time, there will (probably) be more rounds of funding, which will dilute your shares. Things will change: valuations, personnel, perhaps executives. Don't waste time re-calculating your options all the time, it's an exercise in futility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Useful, but a far better and more complete guide is here (via dweekly):

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/55945011/An-Introduction-to- Stock-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/55945011/An-Introduction-to-Stock- Options-for-the-Tech-Entrepreneur-or-Startup-Employee)

<comment><USER13> Yes, title is highly misleading. "Everything" you need to know? More like two things you need to know, and I won't mention these other 5 that are actually more important.

Basically bad advice.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a jump to go from saying it's not "everything" (which it isn't, and which I don't claim in the post) to saying it's bad advice. From my experience helping friends who had no idea how to manager their options and whether to exercise them and even how much they're worth, this information would have been very useful. What do you think would be better?

<comment><USER14> The exclusion of AMT from the discussion about exercising ISOs was pretty egregious. A _lot_ of people seem to get burned by that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am increasingly of the opinion that seeing "medium.com" in the URL is an excellent predictor of a mediocre lightweight article. (Just as seeing "physorg.com" in the URL is an excellent predictor of a recycled press release that's usually less informative than the original press release -- but I've beaten that drum enough already.)

</comment><comment><USER16> Everything you need to know except taking an 83b election? That doesn't seem very comprehensive. If you're serious about getting out someday - keeping an extra 10-20% of your exit seems prudent to me.

<comment><USER17> _When a startup grants stock options to its key people...83(b) has no bearing on any of them except for one special case. If options are granted to key people who are given the right to exercise them early..._

[http://www.grellas.com/faq_business_startup_004.html](http://www.grellas.com/faq_business_startup_004.html)

<comment><USER16> Fair enough, I wasn't thinking only options grants, but rather equity as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Always drives me crazy when friends join startups and talk about their options. Them: "They gave me 5000 stock options!" Me: "What's the strike price? How many shares are outstanding?" Them: "What?"

<comment><USER19> I have to share my war story of trying to get prospective employees and offering them 2000 shares, 0.1% of the company. Only to find out they someplace else that offered them 50,000 shares, because 50K > 2K.

And, no, it's not the case that I'm better off without these people.

<comment><USER18> That's an aspect I have to admit I didn't consider. What do you do if your prospective employees simply don't understand options and don't ask the right questions when getting offers? 2,000 shares of 10000 outstanding is much better than 50,000 out of 1,000,000,000. Many highly intelligent people I know simply have never had this explained to them. Maybe the solution is if you are giving them a great deal that you think can compete with any other reasonable offer, you make sure to explain thoroughly what it means and how to evaluate competing offers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a terrible article. It makes no mention of 83b elections or AMT, and contrary to the article, you will pay taxes on exercise.

Real advice: Research "83b elections" heavily before joining, negotiate well, and if the company is succeeding as well as, say Nest or Pinterest, start shopping for an accountant to tell you more.

<comment><USER21> For incentive stock options, at least, you can't make an 83(b) election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is very far from "everything". There are many startup scams out there right now that would appear legit according to this guide. I've seen startups that delay valuation, so that you pay higher prices for stock. Sometimes you are outright asked to actively improve the perceived value of the company so that that more you work, the more money you will end up paying to buy the stock later. It is important to know that startups are legally required to give you strike price no lower than the valuation, but they are actually allowed to give you any price higher than the valuation without disclosing it. There are a ton of subtle ways the founders can screw you over if they want. If they don't have your back 101%, the options are worthless. Anyone with financial background would laugh at what some developers are asked to sign.

</comment><comment><USER23> Don't ask for advice on the internet. If there is real money involved with stock options, engage a CPA tax accountant to help, now. Really. If you just lazily let things slide, you could find yourself in a deep hole due to the tax rules. (One friend of mine paid no attention and found out he owed more to the IRS than his net worth.)

It's like if you've got a medical problem - go see a real doctor.

</comment><comment><USER24> Flagging because this isn't even close to everything you need to know, and the treatment of ISOs is overly simplistic.

As others have mentioned in the thread, David Weekly's guide is a much better resource.

</comment><comment><USER25> You know all of this financial ruining AMT bullshit and brain damage with non- liquid start up stock would disappear if the stock options didn't expire in a few months when people leave.

I'd much rather sacrifice what ever special treatment ISOs get and the %5 tax difference from long term capital gains in exchange for a far less risky form of compensation. Whats even worse there is nearly zero upside and all downside for this amount of risk for the employee.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you've got them, here's the trick: \- hold your shares for 1 year and pay cap gains tax instead of: \- selling shares before 1 year and paying income tax

<comment><USER27> If the stock appreciated enough to make the LTCG trick worthwhile, it appreciated enough to generate AMT liability at the point of exercise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> >There are lots of ways that your stock options might become "non-qualified" stock options, though. If you exercise them less than a year after receiving them, or sell them less than a year after exercising them, you could owe a ton of money to Uncle Sam. At this point, it's best to call your accountant.

I wish they'd gone into this more ...

</comment><comment><USER29> I feel like it's a bigger picture than what is described. There are more options and details to each: [http://giacomoballi.com/paid-at-startup-salary- equity-shares...](http://giacomoballi.com/paid-at-startup-salary-equity- shares-vesting/)

</comment><comment><USER30> So....... how bout them NSOs and the tax I'll owe on them?

Clearly it wasn't _all_ I need to know

</comment><comment><USER31> Anyone else getting "Please sign in to view this" ?

<comment><USER32> It loaded the article right away for me. Chrome Mac 28.0.1500.95 here with Ghostery and Adblock running.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Grrr, why disable pinchzoom?

</comment><comment><USER34> A good start, but I want to add more.

This may seem unrelated, but there's a difference between poker and slots. Both are "gambling", but one has a performance effect and one doesn't: if you're good at poker, you can make money at it (of course, many people lose). With slots, there's no skill. If it's viewed entertainment, fine; but don't think it should take a major place in your lifestyle because it's just going to lose you money. Playing slots is not a sound financial move. For some (top ~2% of poker players) poker is.

I'll get back to that.

Now... let's say that you're a typical 28-year-old programmer making $120,000 per year in a cushy corporate job. Your financial advisor comes to you, one day, and tells you that you should invest $30,000 of your annual income in penny stocks. Not only that, but it's a _single_ and _illiquid_ penny stock, with tax implications you don't fully understand. Oh, and the company issuing it is your employer and has about a 20% first-year chance of firing you without severance ("for performance" because tech startups never do an honest layoff; they'd rather hurt your reputation than theirs by admitting contraction) and invalidate your investment (called "cliffing") outright. That's your financial advisor's proposal: buy illiquid penny stocks from your boss.

What would you do? You'd fire the fuck out of that financial advisor, that's what you'd do.

Yet there are plenty of people who'd work for $90,000 (instead of the $120,000) plus "equity" whose expected value is much, much less than $30,000-- maybe $10-15k at-valuation, from the perspective of VCs who have a much higher risk tolerance, who also get control of the company and preferred shares in the deal.

It's a shit deal. Don't take it.

Now, back to poker vs. slots. If you're a founder, your equity holding (which is likely substantial, unlike typical employee bullshit) is more like poker, because your performance at your job can have a macroscopic effect on the company. Your ability and performance directly affect your payoff (of course, there's a lot of luck, too). You're still gambling in the abstract sense that everything (even driving) is a gamble, but you're taking bets on yourself, which any self-respecting person would do.

If you're an engineer or, really, anyone outside of the top O(N^0.25) executives, you're playing slots because nothing you do will have a real effect on the macroscopic performance of the firm. You're betting on people and factors over which you have no influence. Even whether you get that full that 4 years or are fired first is (let's be honest here) outside of your control.

Employee equity is a nice-to-have for an otherwise good job paying a market salary (if not above-market, to account for startup risks) but it doesn't justify taking the kinds of pay cuts involved at most of these startups.

<comment><USER35> The first 10 employees hired (most of whom should be engineers at a tech startup) have a _huge_ effect on the trajectory of a startup. One bad hire there will sink the company.

I know Google employees with employee numbers in the hundreds that had a measurable (and very visible) effect on the success of the company.

<comment><USER34> _The first 10 employees hired (most of whom should be engineers at a tech startup) have a huge effect on the trajectory of a startup. One bad hire there will sink the company._

If that's true, then why aren't they given more equity and more respect?

At least in New York, it's a lot more common to hire unproven 22-year-olds at ~60-70k and 0.25% for the first 10 employees. Of course, a couple of those will turn out to be really good, but that's not a hiring strategy you'd take if one bad hire could sink the firm, because you're also going to take in a couple of bozos.

A single bad executive, yes; a single bad engineer, maybe, but founders don't act as if that were the case.

<comment><USER35> And most of those startups fail, right? And their stock options are worthless. So it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: most companies fail, and so stock options are worthless, and so those companies attract mediocre talent, and so the company fails.

I've found that the best employees look for two major things when evaluating startups: that there's a market for what they're building, and that the founders aren't idiots. And the reason for this is that startups are full of necessary but not sufficient conditions: if any of market|team|design|engineering|investors are not present, the company doesn't take off. So a good engineer will look for companies where engineering is the missing ingredient, and he will take an equity hit if necessary to ensure that the other elements are present. That maximizes his expected payoff, because suddenly his 1% is of a potentially huge number that is under his control.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has the COVID-19 crisis made you abandon a personal project or path? - <AUTHOR> Hello all,
For the past three years, I've been working full time as an independent AI researcher, focused on an alternative neural network architecture. My efforts ate through my savings and culminated in securing a Vising Researcher position at a prestigious university in California, which I'm proud of given that I only hold a bachelor's thus far. While trying to secure a high paying scholarship and the required US visa, the COVID-19 crisis hits.
Now, even though I retain supreme confidence in its potential, my work does not seem timely or prudent; it's unclear when the school, funding agency, and embassy will resume service; and I also need money to replenish my coffers. I want to contribute more directly to the virus-borne crisis that is affecting us all. Feeling useless sucks.
How many of you are in the same boat? Have you had to abandon a project or a path for financial reasons or to work on the crisis? How have you managed or what new work are you pursuing?
I'm struggling with the massive context switch, both emotionally and with my day to day routine and work output. I'm sure many others, especially HN readers, are having similar challenges. Maybe some solidarity will help! <comment><USER2> I have had the opposite experience. I have gotten more confident in what I am doing and why I am doing it.

I went to a meditation retreat in December and formed a bond with the teacher. He reached out to me a week ago to create a relief project for COVID-19. I worked all weekend on it from thinking of a name, creating a logo, building a website, setting up donation system, setting up social media, creating a campaign. He had another person work on outreach to hospitals, collecting data for the shipments of masks.

We have raised over $250k from almost 2000 donors in just 4 days. I may have a contact at the NYT now as well based on my reddit posts. here is the site: [https://dharmarelief.org/](https://dharmarelief.org/)

This is just a small project compared the things I am working on in 'secret'. I've been researching and developing something that goes beyond social media for 10 years now. I feel it's time to release it. I have been training as a monk in this time, so I am ready to lead it as well. The world is hungry for what I am building, I am not afraid anymore of being laughed at or rejected. I've been through hell and back without ever letting go of this vision.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your story is inspiring, I wish you all the best! Keep at it and make the most of this period!</comment></comment>


Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof - <AUTHOR> http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=663393

<comment><USER2> Keep in mind that _the term "parse" here is being used in its strict sense to mean static parsing -- taking a piece of code and determining its structure without executing it. In that strict sense the Perl program does not parse Perl. The Perl program executes Perl code, but does not determine its structure._

A less alarmist title would have been "Perl cannot be parsed unambiguously without runtime information". A less technical summary:

        whatever  / 25 ; # / ; die "this dies!";

Could be parsed both as (using parentheses to show arguments):

        whatever( / 25 ; # / );
        die "this dies!";

Or:

        whatever / 25; # the rest is a comment

This depends on whether `whatever' is a function of one argument or not, which you don't know until runtime.

<comment><USER3> I once attempted to learn Perl, several years ago. I always felt I was walking on quicksand because I was never sure how a program should be parsed. It's nice to confirm that it wasn't just my unfamiliarity with the system; the actual design of the lanugage is deeply, deeply defective.

<comment><USER4>
       ... lanugage is deeply, deeply defective

With great power comes great responsibility ;-)

If i switch on warnings it will provide... well warnings on this example! If I run Perl::Critic over it then it spews lots of things that I should be concerned about!

You're unfortunately over sensationalising what is otherwise a very good Perlmonks article.

<comment><USER3> > _With great power comes great responsibility_

Most people agree that Lisp is very powerful. Yet Lisp isn't hard to parse, in fact its syntax is extremely simple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interestingly, C suffers from a somewhat similar ambiguity, where not the results of runtime-at-compile-time but rather type definitions affect the parsing.

[http://calculist.blogspot.com/2009/02/c-typedef-parsing- prob...](http://calculist.blogspot.com/2009/02/c-typedef-parsing-problem.html)

<comment><USER6> In C++, the problem becomes so bad that the language designers capitulated in some instances, and you have to tell the compiler if something is a type or an identifier. Haven't tested this example, but you get the point:

      struct test
      {
        typedef int bar;
      };

      template <class T> struct foo
      {
        typename T::bar x; // if you leave off 'typename', it won't compile
      };

      foo<test> y;
      y.x = 5;

What I don't quite understand is why, if it won't compile in the first place (i.e. there is no ambiguity, just correct or incorrect), you need to specify it in the first place. I suspect it somehow makes compiler implementation easier.

<comment><USER7> It's not about making compiler implementations easier -- it's about protecting template authors against having someone write:

        class MyBadClass {
          static int bar;
        };
        foo<MyBadClass> y;

By writing "typename", the template author can indicate that "T::bar" the template author can indicate that "bar" is expected to be a type, not a variable. This is explained in more detail here: <http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~driscoll/typename.html>.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but my argument is that such an instantiation could easily be determined automatically. The declaration

      T::bar x;

makes no sense under any circumstances if T::bar is not a type. Ergo, putting typename in front is redundant.

<comment><USER7> Yes but what if your declaration was:

        T::bar * x;

Now the parse is ambiguous. While the language could say "you only need to use typename if the declaration would otherwise be ambiguous," it's simpler and more consistent to say "all qualified dependent types must use typename."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> And yet ... it is.

To quote Lao Tsu:

"The Tao that can be parsed is not the true Tao."

Who knew? (Probably Larry)

</comment><comment><USER9> The value of this is extremely limited. The Perl that most people write can be parsed just fine.

(Just like many programs halt, even though it's proved that this is not the case for _any_ input to _any_ turing machine.)

<comment><USER10> I don't think so. It is an example of how Perl's interpreter changes what a program means, based on information gathered at runtime. The halting problem stuff is just a formalization of the difficulty, to show that in some cases it's actually impossible to parse.

Try this one:

       #!/usr/bin/perl

       BEGIN {
         my $x = int(rand(2));
         print "randomly picked $x\n";
         if ($x) {
           eval '
             sub foo($) {
               print "executed foo()\n";
             }
           ';
         }
       }
       foo / 25; #/ ; die "DIED\n";
       print "DID NOT DIE\n";

This is technically parseable but only by thinking of it as a program that branches at every call of 'foo'. And think about what would happen if many such cases interacted.

"Modern" Perl programmers use a lot of syntax-perverting trickery, so this isn't as unlikely as it may appear.

<comment><USER5> can you please point to a real example of code like this?

just because a pathological case is possible, doesn't mean that it's actually common, or even existent.

<comment><USER11> That it's even possible is relevant - most programming languages can be parsed.

<comment><USER5> There's nothing preventing symbol table modifications done by Perl modules at compile time to be reified into some sort of linkage unit, with which a parser could then statically parse the code.

Similarly it's possible to prove that a certain block of code does nothing but link in such deterministic units, removing the nondeterminism of function prototypes.

Most of the source code out there can be parsed statically without resorting to anything drastic. The semantics of this hypothetical Perl 5 variant do differ, but as a strict subset it will still properly most of the useful code out there.

<comment><USER11> That's not the point. It is interesting, from a programming language theory perspective, that Perl 5 can not be parsed statically. The person who wrote the proof sketch cares very much about the practical implications of that theoretical result because he's writing Perl parsing libraries.

Also, what you're describing is no longer static parsing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another case of science telling us what we already know?

:D

<comment><USER13> Another case of science telling us that what we always strongly suspected but could never be 100% sure about, was indeed correct.

This is (in the general case) more useful than people tend to realise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The halting theorem, which this result relies on, relies on the infinte length of the tape in the turing machine.

<comment><USER15> And? That doesn't change the result. Whether you can implement the turing machine or not is irrelevant, it's simply that you are able to frame the problem as "does this halt?", which is unanswerable in the general case.

"Running out of storage" doesn't really count as "termination", especially because we can't reasonably answer the question "will this run out of storage?" in the general case either.

<comment><USER14> If you restrict yourself to a limited amount of storage then it is possible to decide if a given program halts.

There are not many pieces of code that run with an infinite amount of storage.

<comment><USER15> OK, I'm not sure I agree with that in the general case either, but that still wouldn't be important to the proof. We can safely assume infinite tape and then the proof is fine.

If you think we _must_ implement the turing machine in order for the proof to be believed, then you've only weakened the proof to "The static parsing behaviour of Perl is dependent on the length of tape available", which is basically just reducing the problem to a rather unhelpful interpretation of "deterministic behaviour", approximately equivalent to the example using randomisation (except you move the random element from the program under consideration to the environment in which it is being considered).

Am I missing why you think this is a significant point?

<comment><USER14> If the tape is finite then there are a finite number of states. In which case a halting oracle can exist - it detects repeated states.

I can't see how we can assume an infinite tape exists - there has never been such an implementation, nor is it easy to see how this might be achieved.

The weakened proof only proves that a static parse could be possible if we give the parser enough tape. The size of tape for the parser is determined by the size of tape the perl program is allowed.

I'm afraid I don't understand your statements about deterministic behaviour or randomisation.

<comment><USER15> Why does it need to be a real implementation of a turing machine? Why does the (hypothetical) turing machine need to be implementable? The thing is, if you can contrive a halting oracle for a machine with a tape of length _n_ , then I can contrive another turing machine with a tape of length _n+1_ , and so on. The result is uh... the halting problem.

And once again, I don't see why any of this even matters. Assuming the existence of some Turing machine (with infinite tape) is a garden-variety proof technique for these kinds of proofs. I still don't understand why you are insisting that it must be implementable?

Computer memory is finite - does that mean we've solved the halting problem for all the programs we care about?

<comment><USER14> If you don't have infinite memory (and who does) then there is no proof that a halting oracle does not exist. In fact, there is a proof that such an oracle does exist.

So, yes, we can solve the halting problem where there is finite memory as long as our oracle is allowed more (perhaps much more) memory than that finite amount. The fact that the oracle is allowed more memory than the program obviates your n->n+1 objection.

My point matters because the proof doesn't prove that you can't create a static parser for a perl program with only finite memory (in practice all perl programs). In other words, we shouldn't discourage someone from trying to build a static perl parser - it might well be possible.

If you assume an infinite tape to prove a theorem then that theorem can only be applied in situations where an infinite tape is available.

<comment><USER15> But you're describing a well-known intractable problem in computability. Finite-length tape doesn't make the problem any easier to solve, especially within the sorts of time limits that would be acceptable to users of static parsers.

E.g. from Minsky (1967), referring to a machine with a million parts:

"Even if such a machine were to operate at the frequencies of cosmic rays, the aeons of galactic evolution would be as nothing compared to the time of a journey through such a cycle"

So the conclusion stands. If you presuppose an infinite tape, you get equivalence to the halting problem, and if you presuppose a finite tape beyond any non-trivial size, you get complete intractability.

<comment><USER14> Intractible doesn't mean impossible: perhaps someone will come up with a great new approach. The proof says nothing about what is possible with a finite tape.

I hope you now feel that I have made a point that is, at least vaguely, relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This result fills me with visceral glee, for it is very much the way of perl.

<comment><USER17> This is old and incorrect. Adam Kennedy released the PPI module and has been working steadily on the Padre editor which is capable of refactoring Perl code as well as parsing it.

Padre: <http://padre.perlide.org/> PPI: <http://search.cpan.org/dist/PPI/>

<comment><USER13> No it's not. PPI's goal is only to do a "good enough" job. It explicitly states in the documentation that it is not capable of actually parsing Perl code and the discussion he gives in that documentation was what led to this formal proof being developed. Furthermore, in the PerlMonks discussion linked, Adam also commented: "This totally makes my day. Would you mind if I converted this to POD and included it the documentation for PPI?"</comment></comment></comment>


Python Tools for Visual Studio Now on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Microsoft/PTVS

<comment><USER2> Going one level up: [https://github.com/Microsoft](https://github.com/Microsoft)

Good to see Microsoft having 100 plus open source projects out there!

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how this will stack up against Jetbrains PyCharm. I am always amazed at what the guys at how excellent PyCharm is, maybe Microsoft can do even better.

<comment><USER4> There's a lot of common ground feature-wise, but both also have their strong points. PyCharm's biggest one is that it's cross-platform, but also good integration with GAE and AWS, and neat features such as Cython editing. PTVS, on the other hand, is Windows-only, but has neat stuff like debugging Python and C++ side by side: [https://github.com/Microsoft/ptvs/wiki/Mixed-Mode- Debugging](https://github.com/Microsoft/ptvs/wiki/Mixed-Mode-Debugging)

<comment><USER5> I was going to mention this, but didn't find the page. This is really neat. Not sure what other IDE's let you do that with Python.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if Microsoft is working on a cross-platform version of Visual Studio. Anyone has any experience running it on OS X using Parallels or similar?

Or is Visual Studio Code the philosophical successor to Visual Studio? Anyone familiar enough with Microsoft to elaborate?

<comment><USER7> Visual Studio works fine in a VM. I've used it in VMware and Parallels. I like the overall integration better in Parallels, but either one will do.

Visual Studio Code is a completely different product that happens to (confusingly!) share the same name.

<comment><USER8> Exactly visual studio code and visual studio they have almost same name , nothing else , visual studio code is on top of web technology (as far as I know) , something like Bracket , Atom. But Visual Studio have completely different software stack/

<comment><USER6> I understand that they are different and yet share some of the same tools that drive the analysis and autocompletion (?).

I'd just like to understand how they compare from a product strategy point of view going forward in case anyone knows.

<comment><USER8> I have had this question in mind too,but I think this not going anywhere.because for example visual studio extension development is in C#( am I right?).So using managed code base in something related to web , I think is almost impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does this work with Visual Studio Community 2013?

<comment><USER10> it does. in fact, that is the default recommendation, ie PTVS installed into Community Edition:

[https://github.com/Microsoft/PTVS/wiki/PTVS- Installation](https://github.com/Microsoft/PTVS/wiki/PTVS-Installation)

<comment><USER9> Thanks. Excellent Wiki. Kudos to Christopher Wilcox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aww, I hoped this was for Code :(</comment>


FBI weighs if it can share hacking tool with local law enforcement - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-weighs-if-it-can-share-hacking-tool-with-local-law-enforcement/2016/04/01/f4ff94ce-f831-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> It was not Cellebrite who helped unlock the device. That other company is unnamed but was paid a one time fee. The tool is classified, so how any evidence was acquired likely can't be fully disclosed to the defense.</comment>


NSA-Developed Technology Sqrrl is a Great Development for Enterprise - <AUTHOR> http://venturefizz.com/blog/sqrrl-only-good-thing-come-out-nsa#.Uufq0FAyJvs.hackernews <comment><USER2> Not to be confused with Steve Gibson's SQRL authentication system: [https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.htm](https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.htm)</comment>


The Economics of AI Today - <AUTHOR> https://thegradient.pub/the-economics-of-ai-today/ <comment><USER3> That's kind of broad. Also, the robots shown have very little "AI".

Maybe machine learning has reached a peak. It's routine now to make classifiers that are about 90% accurate, and really hard to get much beyond that. What we really have are systems which extract lots of signals from an input set and construct a statistical model that maps signals to results. This works moderately well with enough data, but hits a limit at some point. It's great for the class of problems where that's good enough. Like ad targeting and search. Not so great where a wrong result is a serious problem. Like self- driving cars and medical diagnosis.

I wonder what the next idea will be. I'd like to see progress on "common sense", defined as being able to predict the consequences of real-world actions as a guide to what to do next.

<comment><USER4> > Also, the robots shown have very little "AI".

That's what happens when you change what "AI" means every time there's a breakthrough.

<comment><USER5> The bar has been getting raised overall though, as more computer tasks get taken for granted. Unless your requirement is nothing short of scifi machine consciousness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This worth reading - a serious and interesting write up.

I'm concerned by the language around how the economy works here "that suggests that the market expects..." The market doesn't expect a thing - the market is made of a herd that flocks from shiny thing to shiny thing. It's not a rational system and modelling it as such is surely completely debunked at this point?

Also the section on regulation is narrow; the responses cited - <USER2> managers in, licensing a regulator to check outcomes - are weak and old fashioned. Two fundamentals are not mentioned; first an investigative and proselytizing enforcement agency as per areospace that can identify specific routes to failure and then communicate them to the professional and business actors. Secondly professions in the sense of proper engineers who are personally liable and insured and _required_ for the use of the technology (brew what you like in your room, but if you use it on people then prison beckons). Third process and infrasturture that is required for use and that no professional would contemplate life without (like design drawings and stress analysis in engineering).

The section on the political economy of AI is interesting, it put me in mind of the latest William Gibson book "Agency" in there there is a quote - something along the lines of "at the boundary of unauthorized military research and the most reckless kind of commercial use" describing the origination of an AI. The framing and narrative of the book is much more plagent and potent than the literature of economic analysis; the data and logic of the economists so far are not as convincing as fiction and polemic. If I was an economist I would be concerned by that.

<comment><USER7> Has any one read both Agency & the Peripheral? Which one is the lighter read?

<comment><USER6> They are both pretty light and riproaring. Definitely novels of ideas not characters, fantastic language and clever plots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well-sourced conference report. Actually saves me a lot of time. To summarize: it's still the Wild West in AI. But there is broad recognition that governance is essential

I'll just add one more report, as if the dozens already mentioned were not enough. It's from Berkeley's Center For Long-Term Cybersecurity. And it addresses the enormous challenge of securing AI systems from adversarial attack. A glimpse into the vortex of how the "industrialization of AI" creates a self-perpetuating, fractal-like cycle of eternal dependencies. Requiring us to create ever stronger AI to protect and serve the AI on which our new engineering platforms will be founded upon

[https://cltc.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/CLTC_Cu...](https://cltc.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/CLTC_Cussins_Toward_AI_Security.pdf)

It stands to reason then, the ultimate AI-mediated prediction problem is predicting the impacts of AI itself ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> At least in my bubble, AI discussions have been going in predictable ways.. and getting grounded in the same places.

First, we try to build the (proverbial) foundation: What is AI? What is intelligence? Is it general? _Lots_ of places to get stuck here. Can machines understand meaning? Is general intelligence statistical. Can it be?

No real way of settling these, so we have poor foundations.

Then we ask: What can it do? When? What _will it_ do? Why? Can it automate driving? Other stuff? How big a deal is this economically? Will all cars be taxis?

At this point, foundations crack. We're trying to predict the economic side- effects of a technology, its viability, timelines, regulation... and we're building these predictions on very abstract foundations. Obviously, it's all too squishy so we end up nowhere.

Anyway, the effects of technology are very hard to predict... especially recent ones. Computerisation of offices _has not measurably increased productivity_ since the 80s/90s[1], for example. A PC landed on every desk. Many more people work at a desk than before. What predictions would we have made in the 90s, when this was starting to look inevitable.

[1]David Graeber, Tyler Cowen & others highlight this point. It's hard to define or measure, so most economists don't. But within wide margins of error, it does not seem to

<comment><USER10> >Computerisation of offices has not measurably increased productivity since the 80s/90s[1],

As far as I can tell. It isn't AI, or whatever technology that is not getting productivities increases in business. When was the last time you saw a CRM / ERP replacement that had any productivities increase? It seems there is a very clear divider in between all Technology Companies vs Other non-tech company. It is that No one knows how to best integrate the two to maximise potentials. Only the one which have their feet on both side ( Amazon ) seems to understand it.

<comment><USER9> I think it runs deeper than " _can 't figure out how to X._"

We're very good at figuring out productivities when dealing with a factory or somesuch. A transport authority or facebook "business headquarters" doesn't interplay with technology in the same ways.

<comment><USER10> >I think it runs deeper than "can't figure out how to X."

Yes. I wish there is an in depth article to explain some of these observation we see in real life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Had hoped an article like this would shed some light on the environmental impacts of the additional compute required to build and maintain a feature backed by AI. My understanding is it takes significantly more compute + data, and therefore electricity, to build and maintain a feature baked by AI. As AI becomes increasingly accessible, particularly through offerings from cloud providers, the power consumption would increase faster than when folks were exclusively writing scripts/uploading binaries to process transactions. My hope is it's negligible. Haven't had the time to crunch numbers to figure this out as it's out of my daily lane.

Maybe I skimmed the article too fast and missed it while enjoying my coffee and bagel sandwich. Let me know if that happened.

<comment><USER11> *backed

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> related to ide.mit.edu ?</comment>


Ask HN: Interested in electronics where to start - <AUTHOR> I've no knowledge of electronics other than some basic stuff like resistance, conductivity, capacitors, transistors etc... Where can I start? My end goal is to be able to build all electronics (home wiring/gadgets/robots etc...) if I am left in wild. <comment><USER2> I think a great place to start is on kits. There are TONS of great materials these days on:

[https://learn.adafruit.com](https://learn.adafruit.com)

[https://learn.sparkfun.com](https://learn.sparkfun.com)

They basically trade you knowledge in the hope of you buying some of their kits, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

Past that, you should consider eventually diving into making your own PCBs. I think this is a transformative skill because it replaces breadboarding and wires. I created a couple of free low-investment tutorials using the open source layout program called KiCad:

[https://contextualelectronics.com/courses/shine-on-you- crazy...](https://contextualelectronics.com/courses/shine-on-you-crazy-kicad/)

[https://contextualelectronics.com/courses/getting-to- blinky/](https://contextualelectronics.com/courses/getting-to-blinky/)

There are lots of forums out there as well to start asking your questions. I hang out at the following:

[https://eevblog.com/forum](https://eevblog.com/forum) (ranges from beginner to advanced)

[https://forum.contextualelectronics.com](https://forum.contextualelectronics.com)

[https://forums.adafruit.com](https://forums.adafruit.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> I recommend "Make: Electronics: Learning Through Discovery" 2nd edition. It's fun and highly practical. There are also kits out there containing everything you need to do the lessons.</comment>


Magit 2.13 released - <AUTHOR> https://emacsair.me/2018/06/02/magit-2.13/ <comment><USER2> My colleagues think I'm weird for using emacs, like i'm some 1980s retro fanboy.

I can access my calendar (org-gcal), my email (mu4e), git (magit), edit files on a remote server (tramp) and have a full code editor with pep8 syntax checker and repl all from a single application.

That same application also encompasses my file manager, my todo list, my pdf reader, my image viewer and if I really need it, a web-browser.

<comment><USER3> How does this fit in with the Unix philosophy?

<comment><USER4> It doesn't, because "the Unix philosophy", in the meaning implied by your question, is oversimplified nonsense. There is both utility and architectural value to be found in integrated user experiences. To throw out just a few small examples, such experiences done well may reduce context switching and/or build on the user's deep skills in the integrated environment (esp. w/ Emacs' and vim's text manipulation support). Likewise, there is immense utility in a scriptable, user-programmable working environment, especially for developer's tools.

Also note that Emacs and vim often comply with the oft-cited first bullet point (there's more than one!) of "the Unix philosophy" by reusing powerful yet single-purpose external tools under the hood. Case in point: git(this thread!), ag/ack, and so forth.

So please forget the idea that bullet-point-one of the Unix philosophy is a sacred tablet from some ridiculous Unixy religion. It's just an old, occasionally useful, architectural rule of thumb that applies in relatively narrow circumstances relative to the breadth of modern computing experiences and implementations.

<comment><USER3> Haha, sorry, I know my question was begging for that response. But even if you (and many others) appreciate tighter integration, others would appreciate the flexibility of being able to pick and choose what they like from emacs without being overwhelmed by what is an incredibly foreign environment.

<comment><USER5> You can use emacs to run elisp the exact same way you'd use a python script, emacs is pretty much an elisp shell. And there is no loss of flexibility, emacs doesn't reimplement everything from the ground up and most features are reliant on "shell programs". Dired for example is pretty much a sophisticated skin over an ls call if i'm not mistaken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I started using magit about 3 months ago - it's definitely one of my favorite parts of emacs now. I highly recommend it to anyone using emacs as a daily driver.

<comment><USER7> how would you compare it to other git interfaces ? unless you used to use the bare git program in a shell.

<comment><USER8> It's the best git client I've used, comparing to git (CLI & gitk), PyCharm's builtin (even with the recent improvements e.g. hunkwise selection), tig, Sourcetree, gitx (various forks) and gitextensions.

The rebase and interactive stage/unstage are especially stellar.

It does get a tad slow on huge repositories, but that's the case of most git clients.

Despite using pycharm for $dayjob, most of my interactions with git are through magit. Basically the only ones which are not are annotations-browsing (IDE integration is too convenient there) and branch-switching ($dayjob repo being huge, switching major branches can take some time and magit completely locks up emacs + has no feedback, so CLI is more convenient)

<comment><USER9> I found my Magit was particularly slow on my OSX Aquamacs instance, and then learned that it was a known performance regression that apparently stemmed from Aquamacs not using vfork on OSX. A one-character source edit and a rebuild, and my Magit was pretty zippy again.

<comment><USER10> Emacs in particular, and a lot of Unix software in general, run very poorly in Mac OS X compared to Linux or OpenBSD. I had to look up what _vfork_ was, and learned that it was deprecated in POSIX 2008. Not surprising. Mac OS X seems to be in perpetual beta mode, where it is always half-way behind on basic Unix features, and the other half are proprietary interfaces that get deprecated/broken/incompatible changes every major release. Switch to a better operating system.

<comment><USER11> _"Switch to a better operating system"_

Even if better Operating Systems exists, there are no better Deskop Environments ;-)

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't consider a desktop environment that forces one to put up with useless transition animations even a good desktop enviroment.

<comment><USER11> That doesn't bother me but to each their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Magit is great. I found myself use the command line git less and less, and just get things done with Magit.

One problem I have is Magit slowing down somehow. I found out that it's because Magit spawns git and the Windows anti-virus kicks in, trying to verify the files it touches. It doesn't seem to be a problem when running git on command line.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure about antivirus, but magit forks git a ton of times which is really slow on windows. You are often better off running it from inside a linux VM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Off topic and rather personal question: I prefer Mercurial for my own VCS needs because (1) it's written in Python so I can hack on it or write extensions using a proper Python library if needed and (2) I find the UI better. But seeing how Git is becoming just as widespread as the English language in the software world, would it be wiser for me to abandon Mercurial for Git?

<comment><USER16> All of this is transient. Eventually someone will figure out a new paradigm (Darcs/Pijul-style patch theory?) and we'll all move on, like we did from RCS, and CVS, and Subversion. Or something will fall apart on the business side of GitHub, and we'll all go elsewhere. Like we did with SourceForge, CodePlex, and Google Code.

So, what are your goals? Switching to Git might give you access to more tooling, but if you're not presently feeling hindered by Mercurial, it's probably most wise to focus on making software, rather than chasing tools.

Similarly, if you're seeking feedback and patches from strangers online, then going to GitHub is your best bet, which implies forfeiting Mercurial (though maybe something like hg-git [[https://hg-git.github.io/](https://hg- git.github.io/)] could give you the best of both worlds?)

<comment><USER15> Thanks! I already use hg-git for pushing some open-source projects to GitHub, as it makes it easier for people to contribute patches and issues, and if I was looking for a professional software job, that's what people look at, among other things to evaluate you. That said, syncing up multiple branches can be confusing (as git branches are mapped to bookmarks, and mercurial branches don't have git equivalents, so if you have say a default and a dev branch in hg and want equivalent branches in git, you need to manually juggle bookmarks in hg).

My worry, more than my goals, is that would it be a major problem not having mastered git should I look for professional jobs? I do know git to some extent, but don't know common medium-advanced tasks.

WRT your first paragraph, there is a story on the front page of MS having agreed to acquire GH: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great !! I live magit, it's the reason I started mastering git. Finally I can use the log tree and diffs efficiently !!

I haven't figured out how to vc-rename multiple files or a folder. Currently I rename folders with dired or the command line. But I have to make sure to add the renamed files from untracked manually. I wish that were automated !</comment>


Let's connect a GAS OVEN CONTROLto the internet, what could go wrong? - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/internetofshit/status/832640027314225152 <comment><USER2> kickstarter campaign this is about: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/157070440/inirv- react-m...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/157070440/inirv-react-make- your-home-smarter-and-safer)

At first I thought this may be just a monitor or just a shut-off device, but no, apparently it has control.</comment>


Which one should i select for building a website? Django or Zend - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
  I want to run a website.I am a newcomer to web although i experienced c++ development.
  My concerns for website are:
  - Security, mainly for user account/password
  - Scale, to some degree it will decide my success or failure
  - Performance to access
  - Potential functions with Web Instant Messager embedded in Browser(could be light consideration now).
  Based on the above, should i select Django or Zend?
  Thanks in advance, your opinion does matter for me :) <comment><USER2> Which one are you more comfortable with? Python or PHP?

I have long gone the Django way, never looked back.

To be fair, there is one thing I regret in going with Django - our products written in Java always give the opportunity of exposition through heroic action to solve a problem with the products or the servers they run on. The Django systems never do that - they just keep working.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your information, rbanffy, i didn't learn/use Python/Php before, i prefer Python to PHP , but i am not sure whether it is easy to learn and to use(seems PHP is easier to learn/use?) because i don't have so much time to learn

<comment><USER2> If you could drop by my office, I could teach you enough Python for you to get going in about two hours. And I am not a good teacher. ;-)

Having said that, my office is in Brazil. Won't be that easy.

Any intro to Python will do. There are dozens of them floating on the web. "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist" is one that comes to mind. Zed's "Learning Python the Hard Way" is also well regarded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, anyway, Good idea, I hope visit Brazil in 2016:)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Does vintage kernel sound better than more recent one? - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/542664/

<comment><USER2> 4) Kernels sound better after they've been worn in a bit. Don't expect your newly built 2.4 kernel to have that warm sound until you've run with it for a few weeks, but for a really classy sound here's a trick: compile the kernel and then put it somewhere safe (ext2 partition, obviously) to mellow for a month and then boot into it at the last minute before you start recording an important session. Your clients will thank you.

This is a joke, right?

<comment><USER3> No, of course not. It's a true fact.

I only ever play my 192kHz, 24bit quadrophonic recordings of classical concerts with an old 2.4.27-kernel from 2002 I keep around for that special purpose. It's astounding how everything is better localized, more vivid, not as sterile!

Interestingly the effect vanishes after a few hours of uptime, probably the DRAM refresh mechanism wears out the RAM a little. Sound becomes noticeably more dull and void of clarity.</comment></comment>


Show HN: On Demand Pair Programming with Domain Experts - <AUTHOR> https://www.azora.ai/ <comment><USER2> Color me skeptical, anything that couldn't be solved on stackoverflow should require enough domain knowledge and complexity that it would be virtually impossible to come to an conclusion within an hour or two, especially when the said expert has no knowledge of your stack. It sounds more educational but there are enough educational resources already.</comment>


A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit-patent/ <comment><USER2> I am a bit surprised that most comments here focus on whether the guy's genuine or not.

What surprised me, in a bad way, is that to challenge a patent you have to have 6k USD to throw away plus the expertise and time (which the article estimates at 60k USD).

IMHO, if the patent ends up overturned, the patent holder should be liable for those costs. In fact, I can't think of _any_ reason why it shouldn't be that way. Can you?

<comment><USER3> Why is the US Patent Office not liable for these obviously bad patent grants?

I think this patent mess ends when the Patent Office isn't self funded and thus doesn't have the perverse incentive to grant as many patents as possible.

<comment><USER4> If the patent office is liable it can still be self-funded and not have an incentive to grant as many patents as it can. Make the liability some multiple of what they charge for the filling and there you go. Vary the multiple as needed to increase/decrease how careful you want them to be (leading to less patent grants overall)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So Waymo was trying (and succeeding) to patent a basic electronic circuits designs that has existed for decades. This is not surprising at all as the grandiose claims of innovation coming out of SV, perpetuated by unscrupulous and mostly clueless tech news writers who don't understand the technology they're writing about, haven't had any substance behind them for a long while. The USPTO should be embarrassed as well for rubber stamping these applications coming from big companies.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't the USPTO basically rubber stamp every patent claim that is written properly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Makes me wonder if Travis has a connection to Eric through Akamai. Eric's company, Speedera, was also acquired by Akamai in 2005. Travis's company, RedSwoosh, was acquired by Akamai in 2007.

<comment><USER8> I'm thinking the same thing. I mean... this whole article just smells off. It's a press hit about one patent claiming that somehow this invalidates the Waymo case in a dispute that is fundamentally about trade secrets anyway. I mean, he found prior art on a LIDAR patent. Good. But... why do we care?

<comment><USER9> Wired fell for this guy's story. This feels incredibly fishy. A random guy feels sorry for Uber, the lovable plucky underdog of all companies... and invests lots of time and $6K to invalidate patents?

It just doesn't compute. There must be a tie between this guy and someone at Uber. Or it's VC backers.

<comment><USER10> Why would it benefit Uber or its backers to hire him unofficially instead of hiring experts directly?

It seems like he was able to make a solid case for invalidating the patent, and hiring experts to investigate patent claims is pretty standard in patent lawsuits. It makes me wonder why Uber didn't hire such experts, or if they did and this guy beat them to the punch.

<comment><USER11> You don't have to invalidate the patents at the USPTO. You can argue invalidity in court. Uber almost certainly looked for prior art.

And in most cases uber wouldn't use ex parte re-examine. They'd do an inter partes review, which would them to stay in the proceeding and argue for invalidity.

<comment><USER10> What is the difference between inter partes review and ex parte re-examine?

<comment><USER11> The biggest difference is ex parte re-exam doesn't allow the requester to participate. It's just the patent owner and the examiners. If the patent owner makes an incorrect statement to try to keep the patent there is nothing you can do. An IPR is a full hearing on the validity. With evidence, depositions, briefing, and oral arguments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Waymo has already dismissed the patent claims in its initial lawsuit, after getting serious pushback on it from the judge over the last year.

See, for example Footnote 2 on page 2 of [http://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Wa...](http://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Waymo-v.-Uber.Alsup- order-on-SJ-1.pdf?et=editorial&bu=Law&cn=20171117&src=EMC- Email&pt=Skilled%20in%20the%20Art):

 _Defendants also moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of Waymo's United States Patent No. 9,368,936, but Waymo's dismissal of its patent claim moots that part of the motion_

<comment><USER13> Yes, that's what the article says. The article says Waymo dismissed their last patent claims after they heard that this guy was contesting them.

<comment><USER12> Ah, you're right. But I'm pretty sure I read some extremely sceptical/dismissive comments by judge Alsup months ago, so I'd hesitate to infer causality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't really understand why this guy would feel like he needed to use a lot of his own time and $6000 to try and help Uber. In the article it says that he felt like it was a larger competitor attacking a larger competitor, but its not like Uber is some small plucky startup. With revenue in the billions, its not like they couldn't even afford millions in legal fees easily. Or is it that its not helping Uber, but fighting against what he feels are predatory practices from Alphabet?

<comment><USER10> When a lawsuit without merit took your startup from success to a below- valuation firesale, any similar situation might feel personal to you and it must feel good to do something about it.

<comment><USER14> I would understand if it was a small small startup like his that was in trouble, but even if Uber got in trouble for violating the patents, its still just research for developing self-driving cars that isn't critical to their day to day business. I am not asking why bother helping a company in a similar situation, but why bother helping a company that didn't really need helping?

<comment><USER15> There are many people who believe that this trial is very important to the survival of Uber. If they lose -- or otherwise can't develop self-driving cars -- they are 100% permanently screwed.

They are burning through way too much money and it's simply not sustainable long term. If they can bring self-driving cars to market -- allowing them to not have to pay drivers -- they'll be able to survive and may even do quite well.

<comment><USER16> Serious question- what is it that Uber does that requires such a burn rate? They've offloaded fleet costs on to the people that drive for them. Their mobile client apps don't need to do much. Whatever they need to run server- side isn't going to be rocket surgery, either.

(I understand that trying to develop self-driving cars is going to be a huge R&D expense. I'm talking about their day-to-day operational costs.)

<comment><USER17> The largest cost will be in sales and marketing. They offer large incentives to get drivers to sign up, such as offering cash for becoming an Uber driver. They also want to provide the best price possible to consumers, so that sometimes that means selling below cost, or at least selling below the cost when all sales and marketing expenses are included.

Growing so quickly in a short period of time there is also typically some level of over staffing as well as generally not being 100% diligent with use of funds.

There was an article before how they were spending over $100MM with an ad agency only to realize the numbers were inflated and eventually dropping them, but that is just one example of ineffective spend.

That's not to imply that they are 50% ineffective, but even being 10% ineffective when budgets are in the billions adds up.

The thought process is that the cost of switching between providers is very low when it comes to Uber/Lyft, when the cost of switching is low to consumers you want to establish your dominance in that market as rapidly as possible otherwise if you move slowly, then a competitor can steal market share away from you.

If there are any network effects to market penetration then that begins to create a bit of a moat. So if you think about the availability of cars/drivers at any time of the day to meet the demand, then having a large marketshare is beneficial to getting a ride for a customer quickly. That couple with marketing and lowering the cost of the ride as much as possible to establish the market is where the majority of that money goes.

<comment><USER16> You raise a good point about how the cost of switching on the consumer side being low implies that establishing a dominant mindshare becomes that much more important. Thanks for the answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In my experience, patent lawyers just keep writing claims until they feel they cover enough to be likely something novel in there. Not a lot of expertise on anybody's part. Lots of software patents in particular wander around making tiny claims for bits and pieces of the system, probably in the hope that something will stick. Not a fan of the process.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is auto playing embedded video is becoming the new norm?

I opened the link on iPad and the video on the page auto plays but on mute. Anyone else having this problem?

<comment><USER20> It's absolutely the new norm. Most news sites have an autoplaying video on almost every article now.

Sometimes the video will even follow you down the page as you scroll. Even worse, sometimes the video isn't even about the same story. I guess they just desperately need to show you a video even if they don't have a very relevant one.

It's terrible, and yet another reason to block almost everything by default with something like uMatrix.

<comment><USER21> I thought I was the last holdout, but I finally added a Chrome plugin that disables javascript on a domain-by-domain basis.

At this point I have JS disabled for pretty much every single news-related site - cnn, nytimes, bloomberg, sfgate, wsj, salon, etc... and dozens of less notable ones. It's _incredible_ how much more usable these websites are without JS. No autoplay, no popups, no "CPU goes to 100% and scrolling takes 5s to respond". And usually it disables the paywall.

These sites are quite literally training their audience to disable Javascript.

<comment><USER15> OT: WRT CNN, you might prefer "CNN Lite" [0]. I certainly do. I can't even stand to view their home page anymore.

[0]: [https://lite.cnn.io/](https://lite.cnn.io/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is epic. Just shows that now even the patent office has the resources to understand the work submitted to them. I am wondering if could automate this and flag all the patents that are granted by error.

</comment><comment><USER23> Reminds me of the Hulk Hogan situation

</comment><comment><USER24> Or just send an email to the Uber lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER25> > He then wrote a $6,000 personal check for the reexamination fee... "It's > definitely not a drop in the bucket for me," he says.

> Swildens tells me from his home in Los Altos Hills, near Mountain View.

I can't help but feel that he's not being totally genuine here

<comment><USER26> > Swildens ended up selling Speedera at a discount to Akamai for $130 million

You're not the only one.

<comment><USER10> I think we are getting stuck on his smallest investment. Even for a middle class person spending the time to research and write a 101-page challenge of the patent far outweighs investing $6k.

<comment><USER27> Most middle class people can find the time to dedicate to things that are important to them (even if those things are a 100 patent challenge). Wringing $6k out of your budget is a different story.

<comment><USER10> From personal experience it was different. When I did my PhD and was very low income I did invest more than 6k in projects, and writing the 120 page thesis was way harder even after my research was done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nice. Lawyers _love_ ex parte and amicus curveballs.

Wasn't there some kind of prior art project set up to coordinate a large part of work like this? I seem to recall a big splash about crowdsourcing citations of prior art a few years ago, and now I'm wondering how this process and that are related. Was someone filing to challenge patents once enough people claimed prior art through that system or something?

Seems strange to make it so expensive to call bullshit, particularly since it sounds like the examiner erred on something so basic as the presence of an inductor.

<comment><USER29> It is cheap/free to do it when it is first filed (pre-issuance submission), it's only more expensive after it is granted.

<comment><USER30> Does the cheap/free pre-issuance submission really matter when you have to spend thousands of dollars on a reexamination fee whether or not the patent gets invalidated or modified in the end?

I get that this is to help cover the USPTO's reexamination costs. But whatever the reason, it's still really expensive to call bullshit. And as the grandparent comment laments, this is a real shame given the low quality of many patents that are granted.

In this case a third party did the job the USPTO should have done when the patent was first filed by actually reading the patents citations and finding that the new patent wasn't a novel innovation on the cited patent.

Wouldn't it be nice if the USPTO paid the third party his $6000 back if they determine that he's right the patent should have never been granted in the first place?

<comment><USER29> Pre-issuance submission goes to the examiner before it is granted. You don't have to pay a reexamination fee I don't think? Any link to that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I smell more bullshit here than when I drive past my local farms on fertilizing day.

<comment><USER32> Travis resigned June 20. Technically at that point he's not part of Uber, right? Maybe he tipped this guy off and then he has 40 days to prepare the re- exam docs. Even if it's true, though, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to know why or whether it would matter if a "3rd party" challenged the patent instead of Uber, though.</comment></comment>


Magic Lantern Blue Screen of Death April Fools' Prank Bypass - <AUTHOR> If at some point you installed Magic Lantern on your Canon camera and plan to use it today, April 1st, you're going to get a simulated BSOD on your LCD shortly after powering it on, announcing you that the camera "is bricked".
Last year's bug report:
https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/issues/2235/5dmk2-bricked-urgent-please
This means that any compatible Canon camera user that at some point installed ML will be affected, if they boot with a memory card with ML installed on it in the camera.
There is no apparent way of getting rid of the BSOD, restarting your camera won't help.
Here are 2 potential tested solutions:
In both cases, the assumed starting scenario is that you turned on your camera and were shown the BSOD.
If you don't want to use ML today:

  - 1st try to turn off the camera the proper way, using the OFF switch
  - if the LCD won't turn off, open the battery door, wait a few moments and remove the battery
  - with the camera off and with no access to battery power, open the memory card door and remove the card that has ML installed on it
  - replace with empty memory card or at least one that has no traces of ML installed on it
  - put the battery back in again and turn the ON switch
 If you want to use ML today:

  - 1st try to turn off the camera the proper way, using the OFF switch
  - if the LCD won't turn off, open the battery door, wait a few moments and remove the battery
  - with the camera off and with no access to battery power, open the memory card door and remove the card that has ML installed on it
  - put the battery back in again and turn the ON switch
  - go to the Canon official menu and change the date to anything other than April 1st
  - turn the camera OFF switch
  - insert the card with ML installed on it
  - turn the camera ON switch
  - you should no longer see the BSOD and ML will boot up and function as normal in parallel with the Canon firmware
 ML Best Practices:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8286.0 <comment><USER2> FYI - scenario 1 does not work, because the camera still looks for the firmware on the SD card. It just goes blank.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's been 5 days since you commented and I've only just seen it unfortunately, although no longer relevant, I can assure you it does work. ML runs in parallel with Canon firmware. If there's a card in the camera with ML installed on it, it will attempt to run. No card with ML on it, camera boots normally. I've tripled checked both solutions. This post has also been promoted by @autoexec_bin, the official ML Twitter account. You either did something different or your camera is running a different version of ML than mine on a different camera model.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does becoming a Pioneer interest / intrigue you? - <AUTHOR>

For our Startup - OvaFlow, we have set up a pre-launch site to gather interest and hopefully get a select number of users to be the core community that can influence the early iterations of the product. We want the product to be community driven allowing customers to have a say in features and functionality moving forward as well as having a heavy community hints / tips / bug fixes forum.
My question is, what do you think of the term Pioneer to sum this up? Is a simple "Register Interest" or something similar more likely to entice you to signing up?
* To find out more: https://www.ovaflow.com/?ref=hn4
* For more detailed reasons about becoming a Pioneer: https://www.ovaflow.com/blog/2014/06/30/ovaflow-pioneers/?ref=hn4
* For very simple bullets points on Becoming a Pioneer and how to become a Pioneer: https://www.ovaflow.com/register/?ref=hn4
Apologies if this seems like a shameless plug, but it's more feedback we want at this stage.
Cheers for the help, guys <comment><USER2> My honest assessment:

\- I hate your name and your attempt at branding. "OvaView Management Console", "OvaFlow agents", "OvaFlow Environment". Got real sick of that real fast.

\- I don't understand what your product does or how it helps me. There's too much text on your landing page. Also, the main body image looks terrible. Buzzwords like "Global", "Data", "Metrics" blurring into the background. And then lines of "010101010110". What year is this, 1997? A bit behind on design trends.

\- Lastly, your users won't care what title they get. Your product isn't social, so having a label like an Ebay "Power Seller" or Yelp "Elite" does not apply here.

Frankly, I read everything on your homepage and I still don't understand what you do, or how anyone would want to pay for it. Any visitor to your site will spend 1% of the time I did. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Firstly, thank you so much for taking the time to browse through our site, Coryl and thank you for providing the critique. As hard as it is to read such a damning verdict, this is exactly the reason for this question.

I think we will stick with OvaFlow as the name and therefore OvaFlow Agents and Environment are necessary. I can understand how 'An OvaView' etc can become grating though and will probably ease off with this puns.

We fully agree with the fact that there is too much text and needs to be simplified down. Bulletpoints, simple sentences and images/diagrams will take precedence.

This has always been our worry with the site, the fact that the product isn't fully explained. Hopefully we can address this.

We are looking to make changes and hopefully get improved feedback next time!

In the meantime, any more feedback from other users will be hugely appreciated. Even if you 100% agree with this critique, please share your opinion.</comment></comment>


Hey, Techies, Burning Man 2015 Is Buggy. Except It's the Creepy, Crawly Kind - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2015/08/18/hey-techies-burning-man-2015-is-buggy-except-its-the-creepy-crawly-kind/

<comment> bmir-alum-007 Sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata) was recently shown to contain substances as effective as DEET.

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


Crossdomain.xml Invites Cross-site Mayhem - <AUTHOR> http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2008/05/crossdomainxml-invites-cross-site.html

<comment><USER2> From the comments: I came across the "crossdomain.xml" file months ago after I noticed a massive number of requests for it on my own website from an IP I had been serving with a 403 error. I subsequently set this file, which did not exist anyhow, as one of the many that I automatically monitor in order to detect obscure requests. I realized the potential for abuse, but didn't realize how widespread the issue actually was, and never even thought of considering the possible subdomains outlined in the file for accessibility.

This could very quickly become a serious issue if people just set a default file, like robots.txt or favicon.ico and don't consider the consequences. 18% of top companies could already be vulnerable. Have you had an account snarfed? This is how it could have happened.</comment>


Bloomberg News: A Modest Strategy to Rule the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/business/media/15bloom.html?ref=business

<comment><USER2> Bloomberg's offices are, depending on who you ask, either fantastic or terrible.

Yes, they've got a bunch of art and screens everywhere (including a curved escalator, which I had never seen before I went there). Yes, there are some great free snacks. Yes, there is some nice public art, and a decent corporate dining room.

On the other hand, it's still somewhat of a sweatshop. The whole office is open plan - the highest dividers between workstations rise about seven inches above desk-level and louder than they describe it. The whole building is covered in monitors that display, in real-time, information about how terminal sales are going. When you pull up an employee's internal profile page (which is accessible to anyone within the company), it lists what time you badged in and out for the past week.

<comment><USER3> The layout of the office isn't significantly different to what you'll find at any modern investment bank, open plan offices are the norm in the industry. So much so that when they filmed the movie "A Good Year" the scenes of a trading floor were actually filmed in a Bloomberg office rather than at a bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Doesn't ANYONE notice the problem with this sentence?

"We want to be the world's most influential news organization," says Mr. Lack, who oversees Bloomberg's television, radio and dot-com endeavors.

The most influential? If there was ever a more honest statement. Why should news be influential and not informational?

You aim for influence in the news because politics and business are at your mercy? I'm ok with that, but don't call yourself a "news" organization.

News is as cheap as love.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, but in order to get that quality information typically you need to be one of the higher regarded 'brand' news organizations. The journalists at the WSJ and the NYTimes are probably going to have better sources than those at Bloomberg and in turn break better stories... making them more "informational".

<comment><USER4> I understand your logic, but starting with the Drudge report in 1998 -- when they were the first to break the Monica and Clinton scandal -- it looks like the flowered garden is no longer and anyone can break a story.

I don't believe it is "getting quality information".

No, it is "controlling information."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now if only they could invest some of that money into a better website...

<comment><USER5> Looks like the article addresses this point:

"It's also trying to revamp its Web site and television programming — long neglected inside the company — into services that appeal to people who don't trade securities for a living."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So does this suggest that news organizations are not self supporting, that is, Bloomberg's fees from the financial data seem to support the news organization.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that as it stands, this is the reality. The Washington Post is similar in that their Kaplan business supports the newsroom.

What I think may happen though, is that players like WaPo and Bloomberg will ultimately emerge with profitable news businesses because competitors will go out of businesses and their assets will be able to be picked up at fire sale prices and benefit from a lack of competition.</comment></comment>