The Decline and Fall of the American Empire (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire/ <comment><USER2> The ridiculous thing is that there's _no reason_ America has to be in decline right now except hubris. The idea that military superiority is the end-all-be- all of power, the idea that every American deserves to be richer than than the average Chinese, etc. We still have amazing natural resources and an amazing entrepreneurial can-do cultural attitude.

The problem is too many resources devoted to skimming the cream at the top of the economy, decade after decade of ill-advised military waste, too much easy money in finance, too gullible of a pacified electorate ready and willing to vote against their interests at the siren song of two parties who claim to represent their values, but spend 95% of their time fundraising and earning it from the private interests who expect their ear.

If as a country we got back to the basics of hard work and innovation and spent less time hand-wringing over our safety and global dominance, and making sure that the GDP is growing at all costs, then I think we'd be well positioned for the coming centuries of increased parity between countries. Insistence that we have to maintain the post-WWII imbalance that America enjoyed due entirely to a accidental confluence of events is foolhardy and will lead to bad decisions.

<comment><USER3> Empire is built on the back of military power and political influence. America's military power is in decline, but more importantly, its political influence is tanking. So the end of empire is here.

At this point it looks like Russia will be the next imperial world power although they are certainly doing it differently than other empires of the past. The Euro-Asian Union is likely to officially hold the crown but as we all know, the size of Russia will mean that it dominates in that Union.

Of course, that empire too will run its course and I wonder if humanity can continue on the road paved by Russia. First, it was the Russian people who ended the Soviet Union and that was a remarkably peaceful event because Russians actually don't like wars. Next, the way that they are building the EAU as a partnership based on the model of the EU holds out some hope that it will be an empire that is less willing to throw its weight around globally. And finally, there has to be an end to empire. We humans have to learn how to share this planet under a different covenant than the one given to us by history. The EU is an example that all countries need to emulate, not by expanding the EU but by applying the EU principles in a broader more global way so that countries are no longer sovereign, but are subject to some sort of regional federation which mediates political and social affairs within and without the countries in the region.

<comment><USER4> I am not big fan of US imperialism. However, if one examine the facts, it is unlikely that China and Russia/Europe will be the dominant force anytime soon. US still can dominates EVERYTHING if they really wanted to with their military, political and economic power.

If you read

The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century

Jim Norman

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Oil-Card-Economic- Warfare/dp/09777...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Oil-Card-Economic- Warfare/dp/097779539X)

A high oil price checkmates China (with its large population) but puts money in Putin's coffers. Going back to the cold war one will see the fall of Soviet Union is engineered by suppression of Oil Prices during the cold war. After 1989 the Soviet reexamine, they agrees that it is cheap oil price that checkmated them.

The trick now has a lot to do with strategy and game theory. I find that to be a bit depressing. As Dave Logan who wrote Tribal Leadership says:

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."

It would be nice to see the countries foster a kind of culture that will generate wealth for all, instead of devising game theory and strategy to out compete each other or different corporate factions.

Healthy competition is a great instrument on small individual scale, it is idiosyncratic/inefficient on the country scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I cant say whether this it right or wrong, I find these are articles to be extremely rigid in their determining facts. Just like in the professional world there is a massive difference between becoming an industry player and an extremely dominant company. Through a tech lense, just because snapchat is growing faster than facebook, does not make snapchat Facebook in 2020. The underscoring of the civil growing pains of wealth inequity, western influence amongst consumption, civil unrest and basic quality of life problems (India and China) are never taken into account. Its always, their economy is expanding so given enough time they will win.

In a worse case scenario I see a melding of eastern and western ideals set up against a terrible widening of the wealth inequity. The big sharp edge of a connected economy is that people with power and information asyemtry can now use global communication to economically conquer areas much larger than their immediate reach (list it used to be). The more likely scenario here is a world reset, than a post-American future.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article does not mention climate change, salinization, loss of glaciers (to feed rivers) contamination of soil and groundwater (from mining or maybe all the fracking the US has been doing) over-irrigation. These and others are real threats the US faces and will result in reduced fresh water and food.

<comment> mark-r There's no reason to believe these factors will affect the US to a greater degree than any other nation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One reason we are in decline is that for better or worse, our own people are a bit too mercenary for our own good. We have built giant multi-billion dollar corporations, which in theory should make us incredibly more wealthy and powerful, but they are no longer American companies, they are global entities that operate in a multitude of countries.

The jobs and profit don't necessarily stay in the USA either. In many cases the best place to hire workers or produce goods or services is not the USA. There are thousands or millions of talented people elsewhere who can do it better for cheaper and the profit that happens off of the difference is not going to come back to the USA.

If you think in terms of the "global" economy, there is no particular reason why the USA would have to stay #1 forever. Without significant effort, it is almost impossible to imagine how America stays on top for the same reasons that it is hard to believe that either Portugal or Great Britain could maintain such large empires from such tiny countries with limited resources.

I don't think USA goes from #1 to #50 overnight, but dropping to #3 or #5 seems plausible.

</comment><comment><USER8> The article is giving me a 502, so I'll just say this:

I think the American decline is a lot like the iPad market share.

Most nations today are peaceful market economies who believe in individual rights and trading internationally. As a result, the U.S. is becoming less "indispensable". Is that something to fear, lament...or to celebrate?

As a U.S. citizen I'm bullish on the future.

<comment><USER9> No kidding. I dream of a world economy that has grown such that the median Chinese or Indian citizen can enjoy the lifestyle of the median American or Swede today. I don't think people can conceive of the magic that kind of productive bounty would represent.

<comment><USER10> genuinely curious here, why would a bigger economy mean a better quality of life for regular citizens? who's to say the wealth wouldn't be all concentrated in one area of society? as far as i've understood it, in free market capitalism, companies increase their profits by cutting their marginal costs (like worker's wages)

<comment><USER11> The basic tenet of free market economics is that people engage in transactions voluntarily and with good information. GDP is a crude measure of all the transactions that take place in an economy, and from the preceding tenet each transaction makes both parties happier (or why would they take part?). It follows that happiness monotonically increases with economic activity.

In theory.

In practice it works pretty well. The happiness isn't evenly distributed, to be sure, but despite all the stuff you've heard about globalization, Monsanto, the rich getting richer, etc. go look at Hans Rosling's presentations and you'll see that everyone is getting better off as economies grow.

The big gripe about jobs being exported overseas is kind of racist. At bottom it says that an American should get a job instead of a better qualified or cheaper foreigner. Why? Is it not OK to look for the best deal you can get? Now, the fact that capital can cross borders and people can't is the real problem. But the same people who want to keep jobs at home also want to close borders to people.

<comment><USER10> hmm. i agree about the subtle racism of the job-exporting argument. well not that the argument itself is racist, but that it goes hand in hand with xenophobia.

the core problem though is that free trade has created a race to the bottom where american workers' wages will have to drop to meet those of malaysian / mexican / chinese / taiwanese workers, who have a pretty terrible quality of life. we are competing with countries with ingrained caste systems in their cultures, countries that completely accept treating some people like dirt.

the basic tenet of real life is that people have to get jobs to survive, it's not a voluntary choice. yes, the transaction of paying a sweatshop worker $1/day for stapling fabric to a chair will make that worker happier than he would be with $0, but one party is clearly coming out much better in this scenario. when the best deal you can get is based on exploiting a human being, imo, it is not OK to look for the best deal you can get. not moral, at least. we can have capitalism, a robust economy for business, and treat workers ethically as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Note: Published December 5, 2010.

<comment><USER13> Well then, since Obama has steered the ship of state in an entirely different direction for the past 5 years, we should be OK by now. /s

<comment><USER14> I'd say a key turning point was just a few months ago when Obama backed down on attacking Syria. It was surreal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Most empires end through overreach. The tiny nuggets at the center of the Roman, Mongol, Ottoman, British, Austrian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German and Japanese empires couldn't maintain the many nationalities they lorded over. So they collapsed. The Soviets lasted a long time, despite their worthless, murderous government, simply because the Russians had a huge core in the center.

The American empire received its death blow in 1965. The barbarians were not at the gates. There were no gates. The barbarians were invited, by the millions and millions, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, at the bequest of the American elites, to conquer a continent at no risk to themselves. That is what historians--probably Chinese historians--will write about decades from now about America...in mystified, contemptuous marvel at American stupidity.

<comment><USER16> the sad thing is that you have such weak confidence in U.S.A.'s capability to assimilating immigrants.

Of course I admit it is harder to assimilate Muslims. But East Asians? East Asians are probably more white than white in accepting U.S.A value system.

<comment> __--__ That's because they were assimilated before the age of PC and multiculturalism. We used to insist that immigrants adopt the same culture and values that we have. Now, we encourage those people to recreate their own cultures here, only better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yes, America will decline, yet it'll survive, the only thing that will ever Kill America, is the unrest of it's people, and as long as consumerism keeps everyone complacent and enslaved, people won't rise up, to enact any real change.

It's a fact that short of nuclear war(global suicide), nobody can invade/destroy America militarily, but our presence worldwide, will, and SHOULD end. We need to go back to being neutral and not giving a shit about world affairs, -- people in America are starving, yet we spend trillions to police other countries. -- Some protectionism, and pull-back on military spending would make for a stronger, more private America.

Personally, I'm all for a contracting America, that stops worrying about global affairs, and worries more about feeding, clothing, and putting everyone to work, and combatting poverty at home.

We have real problems here in America such as : A failing war on drugs, Healthcare issues, Education, NSA/Security scandals, Poverty/Unemployment, Securing our borders/ports of entry, Mental Health(school shootings, etc..), Bloated government spending -- gov't should not be allowed to spend more than they bring in via taxes, period - end of discussion.

I say AMEN to the end of America's world domination, and Hello to the era of "let's take care of our own".

</comment><comment><USER18> > Between 1973 and 2007, oil imports have risen from 36% of energy consumed in > the U.S. to 66%.

It's interesting they didn't cite figures from 2007 to 2013 yet they link to them. From their EIA link, it appears we import about as many barrels per month as we did in 1973.

<comment><USER19> It's an inconvenient truth. The oil boom in this country over the last 6 years seems to go mostly unnoticed by the media, except for the odd article here and there about housing shortages. (Way to find the "problem", media!)

I guess the oil boom doesn't advance the narrative that everything is going wrong for the blue collar workers in the US, that we're completely dependent on foreign oil, that we're not making "good jobs" anymore for people without a college education, etc.

I'm really curious how long it will take for the culture to come around on this one.

<comment> mark-r The oil boom is real and welcome, and wasn't at all obvious when the article was written in 2010. Unfortunately it only postpones the day of reckoning. We're still dependent on foreign oil, just less so than predicted. Our economy is almost entirely dependent on the amount of oil we can consume.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm shocked that CBS would publish such a sober and realistic assessment of how damaging the wars of the past decade have been, and how horrifying the end of the petrodollar will be.

</comment><comment><USER20> War will not happen between the US and China (2 economies which are inexorably intertwined) for no other reason than it will be exceedingly bad for business.

<comment><USER21> _War will not happen between the US and China (2 economies which are inexorably intertwined) for no other reason than it will be exceedingly bad for business._

One could have said this about the U.S. and Germany in 1927.

I don't think war between the U.S. and China is likely, and I certainly hope it would never happen because no one would win that, but I don't think that argument has historic validity.

<comment><USER22> >One could have said this about the U.S. and Germany in 1927.

Source?

I read about history sometimes and am a big fan of WW2.

I've never heard Germany and the US being "inexorably intertwined" and find the comparison to China/US almost preposterous given the modern global economy and the feeder/lecher relationships we have now.

<comment><USER23> German was(/still-is) the biggest community in USA:

"They comprise about 50 million people, making them the largest ancestry group ahead of Irish Americans, African Americans and English Americans."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> People act like their self-identity were dependent on everlasting American super-hegemony. Then trolls like this author come around and push your buttons to make themselves feel important. This author and his stories of futuristic lethal space robot battles mean what to whom? We're all going to be killed by China's space lasers and there's nothing to be done of it? Ok great thanks. Not being #1 means absolutely nothing to me. Lots of fine countries in this world do just fine not being #1.

</comment><comment><USER21> No one can predict the future, and this is sensationalism and speculation, not reasoned journalism.

Let's talk about the "fall" of the UK. The British have universal healthcare and London is a leading global city. The biggest things that can be said for bad about the UK are (1) that London is extremely expensive, and (2) that the weather sucks. (1) is true but hardly seems to have anything to do with global decline; (2) is easy enough to deal with when you have $50 airfares to Spain and Italy and 5 weeks of vacation required by law.

So... is that what "decline" looks like? It doesn't sound so bad.

The UK certainly did have a period of economic privation that was longer than ours. Ours fit neatly between a stock market crash (1929) and the end of a war (1945) while theirs lingered on for about 15 years longer. That wasn't because the British Empire fell. That was because Britain got thoroughly devastated by Nazi bombing, while we lost one military base in Hawaii. Even the countries that "won" World Wars I and II mostly lost, economically speaking.

Sure, the American Empire is toast. It's already fading in importance, and the economic and cultural malaise that OP argues come along with imperial collapse are already happening. In fact, the pattern of ignominious military misadventure didn't start in 2003 with Iraq; the war in Vietnam was worse. Does this mean that we're headed for economic collapse or World War III? No. Sure, those things could happen. I don't see them as especially likely.

The American Empire is unwinding because nation-states themselves are becoming less relevant. The global elite (which includes many highly wealthy Americans, but has no allegiance to any specific country or ideology) has pushed aside the national elites. They don't matter anymore, except for ceremonial purposes. The rise of the global elite (the WEF fuckheads) isn't a good thing. For all of its flaws, the WASP aristocracy was a hell of a lot more virtuous and pro-democratic (and, more to the point, it gave a shit what happened to the U.S.) than the new elite of Russian blatnoy-oligarchs and the oil sheikhs from countries where it's legal to fuck a 9-year-old (if you're married to her). Where this global elite is headed, and what the rest of us in the 99.99% will have to do with or to them is another discussion, and I don't care to have it...

This idea that the U.S. is destined for economic ruin, however, has no basis. Sure, there are some nasty problems we're going to face, nationally and globally. But there has never been a time in history when that wasn't the case.

<comment><USER25> Here's an article from 1995 titled "Japan May Still Surpass U.s. To Become Leading Economic Power By The Year 2000":[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/95041...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/9504100029_1_eamonn- fingleton-japan-yen)

While the overall trajectory maybe right, the comparisons between the likes of USSR is really incorrect. The actual "fall" of the USSR came at the dissolution of the lands conquered by the old Russian Empire. The tensions driving that, besides obvious greed for money and power, were that those pieces weren't always together to begin with. Russia, Belarus and most of Ukraine were, but much of the rest was absorbed through violence. Even today, Ukraine's west and east are at odds with each other - one part wanting to come back to Russia and the other wanting to go back to Poland/Europe.

The military strength is likely to depend a lot more on unmanned machinery in the next few decades rather than on human soldiers. If true, that would erode much of the advantage China and India hold from the sheer numbers stand point.

Economically, China may very well develop to be #1. That said, they do have a long road ahead of them in terms of really sustaining their own buying behaviors. Currently, US is #1 through much of its own consumption. This is a very remarkable feat. The extremely robust domestic market is not something most other countries can really boast. Currently, both India and China need others to consume a very large share of what they produce. While I'm not really sure of all the measures McKinsey analysts are using here, it is a good illustration of just how much China still depends on exports: [http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_pictu...](http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_picture_of_chinas_export_machine)

The article does note a shift to more finished goods export and focus on the internal market, it is far from a complete process. Incidentally, these shifts and the strengthening of the middle class that seems so vital, will also likely bring about more political unrest.

India is likely to experience social issues as the population gets wealthier, as shown by the recent debacle with the Indian diplomat and her house servant...

<comment><USER3> China's biggest challenge is ecology and with that, natural resources. It is a mountainous country with human habitation mostly in narrow valleys except for a few large river valleys and deltas. And it has too many people. This is likely to lead to ecological collapse in one way or another. One way to stave that off would be to subordinate themselves to Russia so that Russia provides raw materials and therefore China doesn't have to dig up so many mountains, but that doesn't solve all the ecological issues.

<comment><USER25> Eh... more likely China and Russia will end up going to war over Siberian resources. Russia has a huge Chinese immigration problem on their hands and China has provoked skirmishes even in Soviet times: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino- Soviet_border_conflict](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino- Soviet_border_conflict)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is my opinion. The world is built on American financial institutions such as World Bank, World Trade Organization. These entities ensure American dominance when it comes to economic power. China maybe taking the 2nd spot, but that's where it ends. The stage is always rigged so that United States prevails. The rules change in favor of United States, at the whim of it's administration.

Then comes the military power. No other country has had as much experience as the united states. Air superiority still remains to be the most essential battlefield in any war. Those who control the skies determine where their territories end. The United States by far has a great deal of experience in this field and it's spending on military hardware eclipses the entire world by many times.

The perfect empire is the one we can't see, and that is the empire of US dollar. As long as we depend on oil for energy output, so will the world's dependence on American dollar.

<comment><USER24> > The world is built on American financial institutions such as World Bank, > World Trade Organization.

Those are not American financial institutions. The World Bank is an international organization and the WTO's headquarters are in Switzerland.

<comment><USER27> Nominally true.

But at least the World Bank is blatantly pro-American. Every World Bank president has been American. The Chief Economist up to 2000 are all pretty much American (one Israeli + one dual Israeli/American).</comment></comment></comment>


Training a Neural Network to Fall - <AUTHOR> https://semiengineering.com/training-a-neural-network-to-fall <comment><AUTHOR> The article's title, in the formal sense, is a bit misleading, as the neural network's purpose is for the detection (and not simulation) of falls.

IMO an interesting part in the article which is in regards to the training data is: "the client's data science firm used stunts people to fall like elderly people while wearing the sensors and streaming the collected data..".

<comment><USER2> It's an eyecatcher. Clickbait.

Training a neural net to detect elderly people falling? Interesting for a niche.

Training a neural net to fall? What? Did I read that right? Better check it out! -> Interesting for many more people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So this is pretty speculative, but I think Google already has similar models in production that they use for targeted advertisements.

A few months ago I was riding my bike and fell down. A few hours later while looking at my Google Pixel I saw an advertisement for a nearby medical clinic. The ad was a guy on the ground holding his knee after a fall. It could be a coincidence, but I have never seen any similar ads before or after. It occurred to me that it wouldn't be too difficult to build a fall classifier based on the phone's accelerometer and gyroscope data.

</comment><comment><USER4> Who would have thought that choosing an LSTM on iteration 1 for embedded C code would have been fraught with challenges.</comment>


SF Mayor on why open source is the new software policy in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2010/01/22/open-source-san-francisco/

<comment><USER2> "The underlying source code is not copyrighted and therefore available free of charge to read, modify, and build upon."

This is a serious misconception as open source code _is_ copyrighted -- it's just licensed to end users with terms that may allow modification and creation of derivative works. If you don't abide by terms of the particular open source license, then it's still copyright infringement.

<comment><USER3> Very true. He was probably confusing Open Source with Public Domain there.

I also don't like how the article speaks about financial benefit. I mean, that's more the smaller part of the benefit you get. Oh well..

<comment><USER4> From a mayoral point of view, thats the only thing that matters to him and the most important reason for choosing to use OSS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was worried about the apparent onslaught of communism until I got to this:

 _San Francisco's new policy requires city departments to consider open source software equally with commercial products when purchasing new software._

Seems like a reasonable policy. Although a better policy would be to consider all solutions on their fitness (open or closed) and demand open formats and protocols. Busting data lock-in would significantly improve competition and available choices.

<comment><USER6> >Busting data lock-in would significantly improve competition and available choices.

For various reasons, proprietary software is a lot more likely to employ proprietary data formats than open source software.

Of course, there are exceptions - e.g. the native GIMP format, which I understand to be a real hairball; but apparently the developers are working on a new open standard to replace it in future versions.

<comment><USER7> "Of course, there are exceptions - e.g. the native GIMP format, which I understand to be a real hairball; but apparently the developers are working on a new open standard to replace it in future versions."

Doesn't having the source code of a reference implementation freely available make it non-proprietary?

I believe GIMP folks will be perfectly fine if you use their format for the pictures your paint program saves.

<comment><USER8> Depends how hairy the code is really. Any format can be reverse engineered, but that doesn't make it open. Is it really open if the code is so hard to read it's not much easier than reverse engineering from a compiled program?

I don't actually know anything about The GIMP's format, just talking in general.

<comment><USER7> I have seen ISO standards (even pre-OOXML ones) that were more obscure than any code I ever saw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the policy (linked from the article): _Open source software means that the underlying source code is not copyrighted and therefore available free of charge to read, modify, and build upon._ Isn't this factually incorrect? I thought that, say, GPL was technically a type of copyright.

<comment><USER10> GPL is not a "type of copyright"; it's a license that derives its power from copyright. The same is true of pretty much any license that tries to limit what you can do -- which includes most open source licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache).

There are also open source "licenses" that essentially place the code in the public domain. These are the only ones that fit the article's description.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately the public domain concept is not recognized in all countries. If you wish for your software to be truly available in these nations you will still need to apply some sort of copyright license, no matter how liberal.

<comment><USER12> Even open-source software has a potential problem in some countries. For example, while OSS is often received free of charge, the government can argue that the user still got an item of value. So they have to pay taxes on this "gift".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ultimately, I feel like this is more of a "hey, it's free!" decision than a "we are going to use, and give back to the community" decision. Open Source is not a donation to City Government. They should give back to the community if they are going to have an explicit policy like this.

<comment><USER14> I think it's more of an explicit "just because it's free doesn't mean it sucks" policy. Most organizations need to learn that lesson and it's much quicker to have the head of the org communicate it than to wait for the IT people to convince everyone above them in the chain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Massachusetts had a similar policy back in 2003, but I don't remember what the outcome was. I think the policy was thrown out(??).

<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-131911.html>

<comment><USER16> You do not remember that whole thing? Microsoft swooped in with their marketers and lobbyists and got the Mass government to change its mind. The ostensible reason was that open source software was less compatible with certain devices for blind people. So Microsoft won that particular round, and it will be interesting to see what will happen in SF.

However, MS cannot keep throwing millions of dollars at lobbyists and politicians every time a government decides to look at open source. If they keep doing it, some governments will go open source just for a slice of those MS lobbying money. So eventually something will give out.

<comment><USER15> _You do not remember that whole thing?_

My memory is coming back now :) I wonder if San Francisco will see anything similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Given the recent article about how San Francisco is the worst run city in the US:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=998554>

Isn't this a good reason NOT to use open source? ;)

<comment><USER18> That whole thing was bogus, they mixed expenses from the County of San Francisco with the City of San Francisco (because the boundaries are the same). Factor for that, and it's actually well run for a city with a major port, an airport, a great public transit system, and an open source policy.

I'd say it's a good reason FOR using open source.

<comment><USER19> The "City and County of San Francisco" is one legal entity.</comment></comment></comment>


Design well managed - <AUTHOR> http://algrim.co/posts/11-design-well-managed <comment><USER2> > "Let's try it in green" or "Can we use a slider instead" are potentially > hazardous forms of feedback considering marketable solutions don't come from > the UI. This causes the designer to shuffle through hundreds of UI elements > and burn valuable time.

> A designer is paid ~$110k/y on average in San Francisco. Scratch figure of > $43/hr. A great designer can change the UI elements on a Photoshop document > in about an hour. You have a one-hour meeting to provide feedback. Three > days to produce changes. Multiply that by how many team members involved in > the meeting, plus the daily burn of the Company. For a cost- effective > average startup, that's around $4,309.00 every time you provide feedback.

This math doesn't add up. I don't know what companies the OP is basing his assumptions on, but a "cost-effective average startup" doesn't spend $4,000 every time a designer is asked to change a color or form element.

There are some good points in this post but hyperbolic warnings like this take away from them.

</comment><comment><USER3> This might be an unpopular opinion, but I've seen the exact opposite of this. Given too much freedom, I've seen designers and product managers derail entire development cycles. Compare a few days for a single designer against two weeks for even a small development team and not only have you lost an amazing amount of money, but the opportunity cost of not getting something into the users' hands and iterating on it is huge.

For the same reason I've also pushed for aesthetic changes to be moved to following iterations. If your wireframe is solid and agreed upon up front, then iteration can happen on both the development and the design side as you move forward. I think it's alright to release something that isn't fully baked because what you learn in the end is so much more valuable than trying to get it right the first time.

Bottom line: get something out the door and iterate. Too often people don't do either. Either they try to perfect it and take too long to learn from it, or they push it out and move on to the next thing. Nothing is going to be perfect the first time, so just get it out there and continue to work on it. Just because you're targeting a feature in a single iteration doesn't mean you should forget about it afterwards.

</comment><comment><USER4> The point about challenges over tweaks is great, but I don't understand the headline.

From the green button example:

> A great designer can change the UI elements on a Photoshop document in about > an hour. You have a one-hour meeting to provide feedback. Three days to > produce changes.

How does he get from two hours to three days? An hour for the mockup, an hour for the meeting... and 22 more for changing the css?

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the comment. The estimation is for a series of feedback items which is fairly common for those types of sittings. In general you can expect a 3 day churn.

<comment><USER6> >Multiply that by how many team members involved in the meeting

Are you multiplying the full three days by the number of people in the meeting or are you just multiplying the hour of meeting by everyone in the meeting? The 4300 figure would be 100 hours or 3 days for 4 people. Even if there are a few changes, it sounds more like 4 people talking about changes and one person making them, which even with 3 days of changes would only be $1200. The other 3 people can work on other things during those 3 days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of folks are asking about the math breakdown. So here it is:

\- 3 employees discussing design at $110/k/y or $43/h napkin \- 1 founder discussing design at $90/k/y or $36/h napkin \- 1 meeting — $165

3 days of work to follow: \- 1 designer making edits — $903 \- 2 working on projects related to said design — $1806

Total: $2874

\- ~2 hour meeting to discuss, examine, make notes, etc. — $335

Total: $3,209.00

\- Opportunity cost of founders 3 hours — $1,100 napkin (based on potential hourly value not pay)

Total: $4,309.00

Please note this is generally napkin math based on my own experiences & numbers. It is generally impossible to get an exact number but you can get very close.

<comment><USER6> >2 working on projects related to said design

Why is this included? If two people are working on the back end for a widget, and the designer spends 3 days changing the colors of buttons and types of sliders on a widget, why does this mean that the two people working on the backend aren't making their usual progress in the meantime? Maybe they lose a few hours of time to integrating the design changes, but a few days?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7>
      > A great designer can change the UI elements on a Photoshop
      > document in about an hour.

If you had an artist paint the UI mockup on canvas, it would take longer and cost even more! My point is why is Photoshop still used as the default tool in many places? Photoshop is meant for photographs. We have so many tools at our disposal which can give lightning quick feedback: change a single CSS element from "color: red" to "color: green" and the entire site updates as soon as you save the .css file.

Why, then, do people still use the digital equivalent of painting on canvas? An effective design agency would come up with the overall information architecture including layout, font, and recommend color scheme based on the client's brand. Then give the client a very user-friendly tool to adjust the elements that the designers have specified as being configurable. The design agency can put whatever constraints on it they want, but then let the client have at it while the designers guide the client through the whole design process, offering feedback on why something does or does not work.

<comment><USER8> > Why, then, do people still use the digital equivalent of painting on canvas?

Because anyone who pilots Photoshop can use the title "web designer" and still get hired. It's somehow accepted by most in the industry that the work of a designer stops at a mockup.

> An effective design agency would come up with the overall information > architecture including layout, font, and recommend color scheme based on the > client's brand.

This is what designers are supposed to deliver. In the real world, the managers will ask for a mockup of the product, something they can show to stakeholders _right now_ to show progress, and that will almost never be implemented because requirement changes/flaws will be found during development, and the design ends up being realized by the developer. I've worked on / know about a handful of companies where the process is exactly this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Or you could do the smart thing and hire a designer that can sling front-end code worth a damn for $150k, and the feedback cycle becomes much cheaper and faster. "Let's see it in green" should take no more than 10 seconds, and can be done in-meeting.

As an aside, that sounds a lot like design-by-committee, which isn't known for producing the greatest results. If there are problems with the design (not branded enough, important button isn't emphasized enough, etc), then make sure that the point of the meeting is to _highlight those problems_ and let the designer take care of the solutions later. If a (non-designer) founder is picking button colors, that founder isn't delegating properly.</comment>


Tell HN: EBay offer mechanism is insecure - <AUTHOR> eBay allows sellers to provide an offer mechanism for the buyers. Exchanges between them are also communicated over email.<p>I noticed today that accepting offer redirects to a insecure http://offer.ebay.de where I was able to accept the offer. <comment><USER2> eBay is not known for their attention to security.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/technology/ebay- reports-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/technology/ebay-reports- attack-on-its-computer-network.html)

[https://www.cnet.com/news/ebay-hacked-requests-all-users- cha...](https://www.cnet.com/news/ebay-hacked-requests-all-users-change- passwords/)

[https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/ebay-hacked-again- bbc-r...](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/ebay-hacked-again-bbc-reports- hijacked-seller-accounts-092314.html)

That said, I wonder whether that particular exposure is limited to eBay Germany or is paralleled worldwide.</comment>


Germany tells Netanyahu: We are responsible for the Holocaust - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34599706 <comment><USER2> The whole affair was pretty hilarious. Of course the way Germany has internalized the WWII atrocities is totally unhealthy and will backlash brutally soon. And Israel is moving to the right with blazing speed - so we are up for interesting times.

<comment><USER3> This Land Is Mine, by Nina Paley

[https://vimeo.com/50531435](https://vimeo.com/50531435)</comment></comment>


Building A Holographic World - <AUTHOR> http://interactivemultimediatechnology.blogspot.com/2009/05/world-builder-interaction-of-future.html

<comment><AUTHOR> it uses ruby or python?</comment>


New Features in Python 3.8 - <AUTHOR> https://deepsource.io/blog/python-3-8-whats-new/ <comment><USER2> Looks great but you missed the [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/)

<comment><USER3> This PEP has mentioned the python version as 3.9 Are you sure this will be there in 3.8?

<comment><USER2> [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/#provisional- status](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0554/#provisional-status) :) I am sure, Guido told me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good post. I especially like the walrus operator, which, as far as I understand, improves readability and promotes brevity. About positional args, though, if it has been introduced only recently, how does the doc in this reference: [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0570/#numpy- ufuncs](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0570/#numpy-ufuncs) use them already?

</comment><comment><USER3> Nicely written! Looking forward to getting my hands dirty with Python 3.8.</comment>


Can I Use CloudFlare in DigitalOcean Droplet? - <AUTHOR>

I am using DigitalOcean VPS hosting to host all of my blogs. Now I'd like to speed up all of my blogs by using cloudflare, But Not sure If it requires any configuration? <comment><USER2> Yes, you just need to update your nameservers from your domain registrar to use Cloudflare's, instead of Digital Ocean.

[https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/sections/200038206-H...](https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/sections/200038206-How-to-change-DNS-at-your-registrar-to-CloudFlare-s- nameservers)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's mean there is no additional configuration needed? If no configuration needed then It must be like this [http://www.bloggingguts.com/settings-up- cloudflare-cdn-websi...](http://www.bloggingguts.com/settings-up-cloudflare- cdn-website/) ?

Thanks!!</comment></comment>


I Came, I Saw, I Commented: Was It Worth It? - <AUTHOR> http://www.problogger.net/archives/2009/09/19/i-came-i-saw-i-commented-was-it-worth-it/

<comment><USER2> It raises an interesting question in my mind about the merits of conversing here on HN (where you're more likely to begin a conversation) v leaving your thoughts on a linked blog.

I know some HNers do both [1], which presumably has the benefit of acknowledging the source OP at the source, and also participating in our community locally. Is that worth it?

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=837930>

<comment><USER3> No, I find it annoying (although I can't speak for the community as a whole) when people try to draw such attention to their websites and very rarely click on links to blogs and personal websites on blog or social news comments. If I find a person's comment insightful, then I click on their username, visit the sites they blog on/have made/twitter, and see if they're worth subscribing to.

<comment> onreact-com So you prefer main stream media like TechCrunch, NYT, Wired etc. instead of sites and blogs by regular people? Why don't you just use an RSS reader then?

IMHO one of the best things about social news sites is that you get sources you wouldn't otherwise find. HN tends to copy Digg where only a few sources get attention while other get ignored altogether.

<comment><USER3> I guess what I'm saying is that it feels forced when someone promotes their own blog in a comment, especially on a popular story. But I will read their blog if I like their comment and possibly subscribe to it. Perhaps the best way to increase traffic is to not call attention to yourself and just write and post insightful stuff on HN. This will naturally get people to click on your username and go to your bio where most have their blog linked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Any market for a web service that generates paid comments via tools similar to what spam marketers use and possibly Mechanical Turk for premium packages?</comment>


The Young Man's Business Model - <AUTHOR> http://paultyma.blogspot.com/

<comment><USER2> Best nugget of truth: The best business model is one that makes your customer money.

From my personal experience eyeballs and race to the bottom savings never work in your favor unless your'e YouTube or WalMart.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I'm just old (and by old I mean almost 40) but this is the only business model that has ever made sense to me.

I'm obviously impressed with the Facebooks and the HotorNots and everyone else who manages to make a truckload of money without any actual product or service (that I can identify the value in anyway), but I can't ever seem to get interested in doing "business" that way.

For me, if you don't actually have a real customer, or what you're doing doesn't make them money, then what have you built? It doesn't sound like a business to me...but I might just be old.

<comment><USER4> In the hacker world, there have always been people who try to make things that they think ought to exist, regardless of whether they can figure out how people will pay them to do it. On one end of the continuum, you have projects like Linux (and the original Unix), Lisp, Perl, Python, Apache, and so on -- projects where the originators never really worried about monetizing the result at all. On the other end of the spectrum are things like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, where the originators always planned to find a way to make money, but didn't worry too much about the details until they had developed a product that a lot of people wanted to use.

In any case, there are an awful lot of businesses that don't make their customers money. Consumer products, retail, mass media, home construction, automobiles. Making your customers money is basic in business-to-business, but unless I'm missing something, it's rarely a core part of a business-to- consumer model. Perhaps it's B to C in general that you're not comfortable with?

<comment><USER5> Business to consumer media businesses makes the advertiser money, in that the increase in sales revenue should exceed the cost of advertising or they won't keep buying ads. The other consumer businesses you cite--consumer products, retail, automobiles--are typically sold through distribution, and the distributor makes money on the markup. Home construction is somewhere between a service and a craft business.

<comment><USER4> Well, yes. But that isn't always the most useful paradigm for thinking about some of those businesses, and it doesn't always apply. When I go buy an iPod at an Apple store, what customer makes money off the purchase? When Safeway sells me a pork roast, what customer makes money off the purchase? When I subscribe to a premium account at ESPN, is there a customer that makes money off the purchase?

For manufacturers, it is certainly important to develop a value proposition for distributors and retailers. For ad-driven media businesses, it is critically important to develop a value proposition for advertisers. But it's at least as important to make something that people want. If you have a product that nobody wants, it doesn't matter how good the retail markup is. If you have a media property with no eyeballs, what good will really brilliant advertising packages do potential advertisers?

<comment><USER5> A media business is driven by the ability to deliver a well characterized audience, and the value those characteristics imply to advertisers.

The challenge is not a media property with no eyeballs. The challenge is what audience can you gather to sell to your advertisers. If they are undifferentiated then you have to have millions because they are not of much value. If it's presidents of Fortune 500 firms then you only need an audience of a few hundred to be able to make a lot of money.

So I would suggest it's not "people" but a well characterized audience at an acquisition cost that allows you to mark them up to your advertisers who will in turn make more money from the purchases your audience makes.

The YC mantra of "make something people want" gets interpreted in ways that cause a lot of startups to overlook the value of a niche focus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> zinxq: Permalinks are good.

</comment><comment><USER7> Gender bias much?

<comment><USER8> He explains the source of the term in the article: an observation of a specific, real-life experience -- the "young man" way to repair a motorcycle versus the "old man" way to repair a motorcycle. It's not exactly his fault that no old or young women showed up to help him and his friends fix their bikes.</comment></comment>


Predicting the next NSA Revelation - breaking of AES256 & PGP? - <AUTHOR>

So now that everyone foolishly has woken up to the plainly obvious - that NSA and GCHQ is intercepting practically all data on the internet and is about to store it in Nevada.<p>How long to the revelation that AES256 and and PGP have been broken? <comment><AUTHOR> I gonna go with all Intel/AMD chips have a backdoor or weakness...

It's been done before and since:

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/nsa_backdoors_...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/nsa_backdoors_i.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Or allies like Tony Blair: [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6321173#.UbHMYPlYh8E](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6321173#.UbHMYPlYh8E)

</comment><comment><USER2> There's a keyboard sniffer they can activate in every copy of Windows and OSX.

and/or

They can listen into you at any time using your mobile _when you're not on a call_.

</comment><comment><USER3> My bet is on the media finding out that most of this surveillance and of those NSL's weren't actually used to catch or even investigate potential terrorists, but for _completely_ different purposes, and were specifically used to catch Americans, not foreigners.

</comment><comment><USER4> NSA does not need to break AES or PGP. They can access pre-encrypted information or post-decrypted information.

</comment><comment><USER5> One possibility:

Your banking is pwned. Domestic SWIFT-ish scandal. Not for big dollar amounts; _every_ transaction -- at the least, every one that exits a local branch and/or bank.

And/or, my personal favorite:

Your shopping loyalty card mined for "suspicious" foods. ;-)

\--

P.S. Yeah, I know the second one is redundant in as much as so many people shop with credit cards. But I've always been suspicious of those loyalty cards. And everyone knows that, while the [keyword] may shop with cash, they can't pass up a bargain.

</comment><comment><USER6> In the spirit of the _zeitgeist_ ("let 100 flowers bloom"!), I shall disclose: (high ranking, not a cog, multiple conflicts background) UN military COMSEC/SIGINT type, 2012. Looked me in the eyes, measured their words, and then said "PGP [meaning GPG] has been compromised since early versions".

<comment><USER7> Looked you in the eyes, measured his words, and then turned out to be completely full of shit. A 2013 GPG user is creating AES256-CFB ciphertexts with session keys delivered over 2048 bit RSA and DSA signatures.

These are far from the sturdiest constructions we have in cryptography; a conservative design today wouldn't be using RSA or DSA at all. But they're proven and used all over the place, including on government traffic no reasonable person could believe the USG would accept a mass compromise of.

If you believe that anyone at the UN can decrypt PGP and would have under any circumstances ever shared that with you, I have some dead aliens from Roswell to sell you.

It may be that he was confused. Very early versions of PGP, from when Zimmerman was apparently just learning what cryptography was, used a cipher of his own design that turned out to be broken.

Being 2 hops from a lot of people with active clearances, I'll add that this is a very popular bit of gossip. The last one I heard was Blowfish; "don't use Blowfish!" "Why would I? It's super old?" "Never mind that. My friend just got out of NSA and said they could trivially break Blowfish. Something about the sboxes."

A credible claim you might make right now: with some degree of effort (ie, not in real time), it might be possible to break large-ish RSA keys.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What happens next after a successful lockdown? - <AUTHOR> Optimistic scenario - lockdown everywhere is a success and after a month there're single cases here and there, maybe even 0 cases. Would countries resume travel and ease gathering restriction before a vaccine has been invented? Or we can expect to be in a lockdown for 12-14 months until a vaccine comes to market, if it comes to market? <comment><USER2> I remember all of the statistical problems centered around virality that we would have to do in college. The problems always seemed so make-believe and dystopian.

Now my company is close to going out of business and I have just been laid off. Partly due to high-ranking officials not believing in the virality of nCov-19.

I can't get W.B. Yeats "The Second Coming" from 1919 out of my head:

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand; A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

<comment><USER3> Yeats, hunh? No; give me Omar

 _The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it_

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought this interview was illuminating for post-lockdown life in China [https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1238604080571772928?s=2...](https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1238604080571772928?s=20)

It shows just how far behind we are.

TLDW: Temperature checks everywhere. Fever clinics optimized for quarantining the potentially infected.

China is trying to actually contain the virus. The only way out for us unless we significantly ramp up testing and lockdown is to admit defeat and simply optimize for slowing down the onslaught.

<comment><USER5> _> The only way out for us unless we significantly ramp up testing and lockdown is to admit defeat and simply optimize for slowing down the onslaught._

This has already happened. "Flatten the curve" takes it as written that most people will be exposed to the virus, and thus aims instead to just spread those exposures over a long enough period to avoid overwhelming the health care system.

<comment><USER6> I saw a statistical analysis of the flatten the curve idea but assuming we couldn't ramp up the number of intensive care beds, it took 3600 days to fit everyone in under the "available health care" line.

It's still a good strategy for right now because it gives us some extra time to ramp testing and healthcare up.

<comment><USER7> Presumably not everyone needs a hospital bed. Most are fine to take a few days of bed rest, many who would normally be hospitalized out of caution can be cared for by family at home with teledoc guidance, it's a small percentage at high risk who need hospital care.

<comment><USER8> a small percentage of a large number is still a large number. 80% infected within 1 year and ~10% of those require hospitalization. usa: 350m => 80% is 280M => ~30 million hospital/ICU beds for 2-4 weeks. this is on top of regular/ongoing hospitalisation. hence it hitting any african country or india with the same force would be devastating.

<comment><USER9> much less than 10% require hospitalization, though.

<comment><USER8> the beauty of the equation is that you can fiddle with the numbers as much as you want, it will always lead to a collapse of the health care system

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's your typical pandemic response:

\- denial

\- placating measures

\- minor lockdowns

\- major lockdowns and panic (running to the store to stockpile toilet paper, for some reason)

\- total quarantine

\- life slowly returns to normal

China is now on the final stage (restaurants and stores reopening, etc), with the rest of the world between 2 and 3 months behind.

Most people are unable to comprehend exponential growth, so this is the pattern that gets followed.

<comment><USER11> Total quarantine isn't happening in any western country

<comment><USER10> ... except Italy

<comment><USER12> and spain

<comment><USER13> Germany is close, they just announce new measures bit by bit every day. Next step not unlikely to be total quarantine.

<comment><USER14> Switzerland is in state of emergency since today, it's great because they can deploy military to help.

<comment><USER15> It's not even close to the intense measures in Italy or Spain (for example), however. There's a good bit of discontent about that among people I talk to in Switzerland, but there's no good option so that's expected whatever they decide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprised that no one here is mentioning the example of South Korea. [1]

They are not in total lockdown, but they are doing extensive testing and contact tracing, and substantial isolation of anyone who might be contagious.

Once we get testing infrastructure ramped up, this is not an unreasonable plan in the United States.

[1]: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world- asia-51836898](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51836898)

<comment><USER17> Because it's too late. The time for that in the US was at least two weeks ago. This is why the US response to this has been driving so many of us crazy. The later you respond the fewer options you have.

<comment><USER16> The original question was what to do post-lockdown.

To be clear, lockdown is the only option for the US right now. But then what?

<comment><USER18> Wait until the rest of the world catches up with you, else they'll reinfect you as soon as lockdown ends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If social distancing can bring the number of cases down to a manageable level, you can switch to a traditional public health approach: Test anyone showing symptoms, and aggressively trace and test any contacts of known cases.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wouldn't they be afraid that if the rules are relaxed the single cases would spiral up and start it all over again?

<comment><USER19> If you can identify the remaining cases and isolate them, you're fine. The danger is that some cases slip through the contact tracing procedure (e.g. the identified patient forgot about someone they were in contact with) which is why you also want to aggressively test anyone presenting with symptoms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The South Korean model:

1\. Build up testing and contact tracing capabilities.

2\. Massive mask making, everyone required to wear a mask in public.

3\. Hospitals reconfigured to deal with covid patients.

People can then go outside and mingle again.

<comment><USER21> What kind of masks are effective? The one I have seems weird, I just feel the water vapour touching my eyes when I exhale. I guess the mask would block the sneeze/cough projectiles and small spits while talking but if I were sitting in the public transit the water vapour would float around.

<comment><USER20> Wearing a mask is to protect others from your own droplets. This is CDC protocol: if a doctor suspects covid, the patient is given a mask to put on. If that is enough to protect the doctor in close proximity, it is good enough to protect the general public. Like herd immunity if we all wear masks in public, the chance of droplet exchange is greatly reduced. The quality of mask and the manner of mask wearing become irrelevant. This is why we need universal mask wearing. It is the fastest and cheapest way to get the economy back on its foot again.

<comment><USER22> I don't understand why this is not mandated now everywhere. Yes I know supplies are limited but factories could start making these quickly if govt mandated them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's vids all over YouTube from WuHan what to expect. First the jubilant singing and party slogans, then screaming for help all night [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp3jH6iYrnw](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp3jH6iYrnw)

Then each block is allowed movement after 2 months with community punishment if they hide cases and monetary incentive to follow rules, such as keeping contaminated clothing outside. Workers in critical industry will live at work and not allowed home to prevent contamination [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyucJekT87E](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyucJekT87E)

</comment><comment><USER24> Is anybody else wondering about authoritarian power grabs?

It's all so surreal, I can just imagine it. (In the US, I think some primary elections are under discussion for delays.)

I'm not worried, just wondering how to best disarm it from a distance.

</comment><comment><USER25> I would hope the lockdown gives us enough time to do thorough testing & tracing of the virus. Also a lockdown + messaging should convince people to take this thing seriously and follow the precautions.

If we know who has it well enough then we can focus care on them, wait until they can fight off the virus and go back to normal after. That is assuming people don't transmit the virus after recovering from it.

</comment><comment><USER26> The primary goal right now is to flatten the curve so the growth doesn't stay exponential for any longer than it has to.

Once that flattens out and the growth rate slows or decreases a concerns is that folks will head back out, assuming the coast is clear.

That could cause a second wave of infections that restarts this whole thing.

Folks not taking this seriously is a problem, imagine what happens when folks who don't take this seriously think that it's finally over, when it really isn't.

<comment><USER27> Subsequent waves should be a lot easier to contain if we're prepared for them and act immediately at the first signs of renewed spread. Apart from contact tracing, judicious use of targeted, local lockdowns in areas where community spread pops up again can prevent the need for country-wide lockdowns.

<comment><USER28> Health worker will be exhausted, so it will be harder

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Resume work after countries have the capacity to test everyone who has a fever. Maintain strong hygiene and social distance if possible. Firefight clusters of outbreaks where they occur. Wait for treatment and vaccine.

<comment><USER30> > Wait for treatment and vaccine.

Isn't this a virus? There's not a single virus that we have a treatment for - we know how to deal with bacteria but not viruses.

<comment><USER29> Treatment won't be completely effective but can reduce death rate. There are hundreds of trials ongoing, 1 or 2 or 3 may work well enough to give to people.

<comment><USER30> So this is 1-2 years out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If tensions ease too quickly and we release everyone into the wild, it could cause another outbreak. I don't personally know the parameters of that risk, I just know it is a risk.

But on the bold assumption that we somehow contain the virus, we have a global economic collapse to tend to.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's a good question. I've been thinking of it this way;

If we have an "unlimited" (by which I mean we manufacture them faster than we consume them) number of test kits with a turnaround time of < 24 hrs, then everyone on lock down for 14 days. Medical/Drive through facilities set up to process everyone for a test. Get a test, and then within 24 hours get a text on what their status is (infected, uninfected, immune (post infection)).

People who test positive go into quarantine to be re-tested weekly until they are immune.

People who test immune are allowed to resume work movement while keeping good practice (washing hands, coughing into elbow, Etc.)

People who test as non-infected are required to come back for re-testing every week, can move around with social distancing.

I don't know if it would work (I'm not a public health professional) but from a systems perspective surveillance of the infection seems to be the best strategy for staying on top of outbreaks.

Once a vaccine is available it becomes one of the things you get every year like a flu shot.

<comment><USER33> Regarding immunity, there is evidence that such immunity (if it exists) is short-lived, and after a little while recovered individuals are susceptible to being infected again.

<comment><USER34> Do you have a reference for that as I keep hearing it repeated but I'm yet to see any real evidence for it.

<comment><USER33> Here's what Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, had this to say on episode 591 of This Week in Virology[1] a couple of days ago:

Ralph Baric: _" I saw some very interesting data from Stan Perlman the other day, who has been looking at serum neutralization titers of MERS patients from the Middle East kingdom of Saudi Arabia area and it's quite intersting that people peak fairly quickly with high neutralization titers but then they wane over the next year to almost background levels or just slightly above background levels by the second year, and with MERS there have been several reports of people who have seroconverted. They were rtPCR positive and their serum neutralizing titers and even ELISA titers went to almost zero within a few months."_

Baric: _" And it has not been studied and it should be studied, and this is the contemporary human Coronaviruses -- nobody knows how they maintain themselves in human populations. They don't undergo rapid antigenic variation like influenza. There's not 115 common cold or corona virus type genotypes or whatever they're called, serotypes. Sorry Vincent, I just butchered the coronaviruses."_

Vincent Racaniello: _" That's ok."_ <laughter>

Baric: _" So one hypothesis is that they cause a transient protective immune response that wanes quickly and then they can reinfect and cause mild upper- respiratory tract infections and that's how they maintain themselves. So it is quite possible.. there's been a number now of reported cases in China of SARS2 infections where people were documented to be infected and recovered. They were rtPCR negative. They went home and they became reinfected a month later or so."_

Baric: _" In this case the United States has sufficient cases that we can actually track the serologic responses of the individuals and their general immune.. both B- and T-cell responses after infection and we can get a handle on the long term immunity that may be elicited after infection."_

[1] - [http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-591/](http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-591/)

[2] - about 15 minutes and 50 seconds in to the program

<comment><USER35> Could you clarify this for laymen?

<comment><USER36> "The Immune response for MERS tapers off over a year; but we don't know what the immune response is of SARS2, it looks very different, it might be very short lived, we need more evidence"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I anticipate that sooner or later the economic costs of staying on lockdown will overwhelm the benefits. We will probably begin to loosen restrictions and we will probably see periodic outbreaks in various places.

I don't know if that simply continues until a vaccine is viable or some other factor intervenes.

But this new reality won't be short-lived.

<comment><USER38> No actually it will be. It will be gone from the planet more or less within months. Corona viruses don't mutate in a way that invalidates immunity gained from exposure to its ancestors. The flu does that but corona viruses do not. And there is no evidence that this one is an exception. Herd immunity will be achieved and it will stop spreading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't know if anyone is still following this post but does anyone know if there are studies around the cost in lives of the shutdown itself? I recall reading somewhere that every 1% of unemployment equaled some number of additional deaths per year. Does anyone know of a study of the human cost of a shutdown vs. the virus itself ?

</comment><comment><USER40> The commonly stated goal of lockdowns is to slow the spread, flatten the (new cases vs time) curve, and thereby try to manage the rate of new cases so hospital resources (ICU beds, respirators, nursing staff) arn't overwhelmed.

Once (whenever that may be) the curve is shown to be flattening and hostpitals are in control, it'd be logical to see some gradual loosening of the restrictions that are currently being ramped up.

I personally doubt that loosening of restrictions, once above conditions are met, will be contingent on a proven and widely available vaccine having been developed (not least because there's no guarantee that one ever will be).

At this point it's anyone's guess how long it'll be in any given country until things appear to be more under control... Even in South Korea, who seem to have done best job in containing this, I've yet to see any estimates of how long it'll take at current rates on infection for the majority of the population to get it and/or get to "herd immunity" point.

In the US all bets are off.. it seems we were (and still are) extraordinarily slow to recognize the severity of this and take appropriate actions (severe lockdowns, widespread testing and resulting case tracking), so a reasonable expectation is that we may be following the case trajectories of the harder hit countries, with similar measures as they have in place coming to the US.

</comment><comment><USER41> The endgame is to figure out the least cost sustainable measures of getting R0<1 until we have a vaccine or treatment safe enough for people in high risk groups to take.

<comment><USER42> _> The endgame is to figure out the least cost sustainable measures of getting R0<1_

The question assumes this has already been done: "single cases here and there, maybe even 0 cases".

It seems to me that the key question at that point is, if there are no active cases--everyone exposed to the virus who is still alive has either never developed symptoms in the first place, or has recovered from whatever symptoms they had and is now asymptomatic--is there still a risk of spreading the virus further?

<comment><USER43> It does not assume that - Wuhan currently has R0<1 and it did not and still does not have "single cases here and there, maybe even 0 cases"; R0<1 through a lockdown is a tested (in Wuhan) way to get from tens of thousands of cases to just tens of new cases per day and probably eventually to single isolated cases here and there. But we'd really like to find a less invasive, more sustainable set measures than what was done in Wuhan.

<comment><USER42> _> Wuhan currently has R0<1 and it did not and still does not have "single cases here and there, maybe even 0 cases"_

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that R0<1 implies "single cases here and there, maybe even 0 cases". I'm saying the converse: that "single cases here and there, maybe 0 cases" implies R0<1\. Which is obviously true. And the scenario posed in this "Ask HN" question assumed "single cases here and there, maybe 0 cases", so if that implies R0<1, and it does, then the OP's scenario does assume R0<1, even though it doesn't say so explicitly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The purpose of the lockdown is solely to prevent emergency services from being completely overwhelmed. Not make it go away.

</comment><comment><USER45> A country like Colombia could implement a lockdown and stop transmission entirely. The virus would naturally die out there in a few weeks. All foreign travel would have to be quarantined but life could go on after that internally without disruption. Eventually vaccination could bring herd immunity.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've heard an epidemiologist say that if a vaccine becomes available in 18 months it'll be a record.

Experimental treatments are being researched, but with only very small numbers of patients. It'll take quite some time for those treatments to become widely available.

It's unlikely that we're going to even begin to see things return to normal in a month or even three of isolation, especially if that isolation isn't as effectively and universally enforced as in China.

Afterwards there has to be extremely aggressive testing, tracking, and monitoring, or the outbreak has a very good chance of starting all over again.

In addition, the health care system itself has to have time to recover and replenish its equipment, ICU capacity, and healthy and able medical personnel.

<comment><USER46> > I've heard an epidemiologist say that if a vaccine becomes available in 18 > months it'll be a record.

Your epidemiologist should talk to a chemist or look at a wikipedia entry. In 1957, the H2N2 pandemic vaccine was available in 3 months. Still managed to kill a few million people.

[https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc- scen-3_pande...](https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc- scen-3_pandemic-1957.htm)

[https://www.city-journal.org/1957-asian-flu-pandemic](https://www.city- journal.org/1957-asian-flu-pandemic)

<comment><USER47> I think you are nitpicking this doctor's words instead of listening to what he's saying. 18 years and no SARS vaccine. 18 months for SARS 2 would be miraculous.

<comment><USER46> He's an epidemiologist, and I think people aren't listening to what history is saying about the possibility of things. People accept 18 years or 18 months because they're trained to live in a sclerotic bureaucratic hellscape not because those are actual limitations involving long periods of time.

There was a thread last night about people worrying that improvised ventilators aren't FDA tested or whatever. That's a great thing to worry about in soft times. If I (or a member of my family) am facing death while waiting for a ventilator to save my life, I'll take my chances on the doodad cobbled together from a CPAP machine without FDA approval. Same story with vaccinations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think you just gradually make lockdown less strict to throttle number of cases so that it's on the level your healthcare can handle and do that till most of your population already had the virus. And hope for new treatments, vaccines and that immunity from already having the virus lasts at least a year or two.

</comment><comment><USER49> A rational move would be to lock everyone down until a vaccine is proven safe and efficacious can be delivered to enough people. Since no one other than indigenous people living near bats have any immunity to beta-coronaviruses, it doesn't make sense to expose billions of people to unnecessary risks when we can pause nearly all social- economic activity until immune defense is possible or supplies run low.

The vaccine, once developed, should be free for everyone to encourage high uptake herd immunity.

<comment><USER50> Do you think the world could handle two years of two supply chains being disrupted and shut down?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> How long did the HIV vaccine take?

Use that as a yard stuck.

A lockdown isn't 'successful' it does little, except drag society into the dirt while a little time is bought to work things out.

Time China bought us but we squandered.

If you're lucky it's a winter desease so it'll become summer and it'll die off. But that's coin flipping a little.

Treatments might be found but it's hard to know how fast, especially while everyone is on lockdown.

<comment><USER52> > A lockdown isn't 'successful' it does little, except drag society into the > dirt while a little time is bought to work things out.

Slowing down the spread is useful to soften the blow on medicinal infrastructure.

<comment><USER51> The flatten the curve meme has become toxic. Maybe it always was.

Have a look at a flatten the curve with actual numbers not cartoons.

Make sure the hospital capacity is seasonal and accounts for the fact nurses and doctors will wear out and supply's will dwindle.

Then say it softens the blow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> One word...

Summer..

once the summer starts and we see 30c or above , i think the spread will be limited and the quarantine might end.

But, worrying part is what comes next, without a Vaccine, coming Winter might be lethal, and we may end up with same cycle..

[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3074131/coro...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3074131/coronavirus- highly-sensitive-high-temperatures-dont-bank-summer)

<comment><USER54> It's summer in Australia and South Africa. They're still seeing spread. I wouldn't count on that.

<comment><USER55> Is there any information on how many of the ~377 Australian cases originated outside versus inside their borders? I can't find much on that figure.

South Africa only has 62 cases and New Zealand only has 8 cases. Not much there yet.

<comment><USER54> I haven't seen any statistics, but it appears that Rita Wilson and her husband contracted it in Australia from what I've read. That was the more worrying thing to me about that news than the celebrity connection.

<comment><USER56> Two global travelers with frequent contact to other global travelers doesn't prove much.

<comment><USER54> It's anecdata for sure. Apparently though, at least one TV reporter contracted the virus after being in contact with Rita Wilson. Again, anecdata, but it points towards the idea that there is local transmission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The virus isn't serious enough to warrant or motivate total quarantine so a ton of people are going to get it. Then we'll have collective immunity and things will go back to normal. 3 to 6 months from now.

<comment><USER57> It's not that simple. First of all, most people do not develop permanent immunity to the cold which is usually one of the first 4 known human transmissible corona viruses. So there is no reason to think we'll develop long term immunity to this one either.

Second, our reaction has be abysmal which, similar to the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, massively increases the chance of a second or even third wave of massive infection spread. That will be on many peoples's minds.

And one more thing I want to touch on so people here can get it through their thick heads: just because the death rate is supposedly "low" and "only" impacts old people mostly, that doesn't mean it doesn't impact YOU. If YOU have an emergency and the hospital is packed with COVID-19 patients, it doesn't really matter what you have, you are affected.

Even ignoring the ethical implications of just letting people die from this, I think most people who would do that are unlikely to ignore implications to themselves so figure out where you land or not, it doesn't matter, the goal of keeping hospitals from being overloaded affects everyone.

<comment><USER38> Corona viruses are not "the cold." Rhinovirus causes the common cold and corona viruses cause 10% of cold cases. Just like other corona viruses, they make a recurring appearance. But this is not because they mutate in the way the flu does. No corona viruses mutate in the way that the flu does. If you have some evidence to prove me wrong then produce it.

You definitely develop immunity to viruses that sicken you. For the average person who is healthy.

If there is a second wave it will only be because of overly aggressive quarantining. This is why I said it won't happen. For it to work, it would have to be air tight. All these young kids staying home are just saving fuel for a second wave. Old people ought to stay home and let younger people gain herd immunity as quickly as possible.

<comment><USER48> > If there is a second wave it will only be because of overly aggressive > quarantining.

Common cold causing coronaviruses have recurring waves every 2-4 years. If they don't mutate like flu it means that immunity is not that long lasting.

<comment><USER38> No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. If you find a paper or expert testimony that totally unambiguously shows that I'm wrong, I will totally retract what I've said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> tuna-piano The economic loss of a lockdown is just extraordinary. Just think about how many people and resources are idle... Literally trillions of dollars in lost economic potential (let alone the harder to quantify human+health consequences).

So it's crazy to me how little, relative to the hard economic costs of the virus, is being spent on mitigation.

I'm a totally uninformed lay-person, but the below seems reasonable:

Huge testing effort, something like 5% of the country's population gets tested every day (once every 20 days per person). Manage electronically. If positive, quarantine that person and known contacts.

Huge contact tracing and small lockdown strategy (found 10 cases in Omaha, Omaha lockdown for 2 weeks).

Seems that would be doable, cost billions and billions, but enable economic activity and minimize health+human consequences. Would be a great RoI.</comment>


How to Grow Old: Bertrand Russell on What Makes a Fulfilling Life - <AUTHOR> https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/07/03/how-to-grow-old-bertrand-russell/ <comment><USER2> He has a book called The Conquest of Happiness ( [http://russell-j.com/beginner/COH- TEXT.HTM](http://russell-j.com/beginner/COH-TEXT.HTM)) that I would really recommend. : )

He is definitely one of my favorite thinkers to have ever existed. There are even some interviews of him you can still find on YouTube. ( :</comment>


Flowchart : Should you work for Free? - <AUTHOR> http://jhische.com/workforfree.html <comment><USER2> I dislike the "non-profit or charity" section. There is a HUGE difference between a non-profit and a charity. For instance 62% of hospitals are non- profit. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital>

If they don't rely on volunteers to survive, if they have revenue other than donations, then you should be paid.

Ask the person emailing you/calling you if they themselves are a volunteer.

<comment><USER3> I'm a volunteer. I get a $450/month stipend plus room and board. The non- profit I work for has revenue other than donations.

But we definitely rely on volunteers to survive, and that includes real volunteers, though most volunteers do at minimum get room and board. So yes, the non-profit picture is more complicated than the flow chart. But personally, I don't need a stipend to do what I'm doing. A warm room and good food in some of the most beautiful country on Earth is good enough for me.

Incidentally, if any Christian hacker types are interested in spending some time (3+ weeks) in the Cascades, I might have some "volunteer" work for you.

<comment><USER4> At which point does you stop being a volunteer, and start being underpaid?

<comment><USER3> I don't know. I've got all the necessities and plenty of luxuries, so I'm content. Money is a pretty poor way of describing my quality of life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like how every branch from "Is it for a legit business" ends with "NO".

Could have just short-circuited all the decision nodes after that, though that might have been less entertaining.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately human logic does not work like that. A general principle is often not enough. Your thought process is astonishingly capable of being derailed by well-practiced salespeople.

To resist sales pitches, you need training. You can't just train your mind, you must also train your reflexes. You must condition yourself such that when you hear specific phrases _your hand hangs up the phone all by itself._

<comment><USER7> Salespeople are human beings. But when they're selling, you're not talking to a human being, you're talking to an affected persona. That affected persona is no more human than my computer, and hardly any more intelligent, usually. Click.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This flow chart seems to leave out quite a few "work for free initially" scenarios I've seen happen to friends, etc, that eventually led to companies being formed, productive connections, etc. While nobody should work for "nothing", there are far more subtleties to this than are expressed by this flowchart.

I'm sure there are more than a few HNers who can attest to this. Many here have worked on side projects with friends (or even strangers) with hardly any hope of profit or payback. It's not always exploitative.

<comment><USER9> Any hope of a quick run down of these other examples? (Or at least a few of them?)

<comment><USER10> How about any internship? You work for free in exchange for the opportunity to learn something and broaden your skills and experience.

<comment><USER11> What crazy world are you from where a coding internship is unpaid?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is surprisingly good, actually.

</comment><comment><USER13> Now I feel bad for charging my mom $$$...

</comment><comment><USER14> This reminds me of when I see ads on Craigslist for a logo designer, with a budget of $20.

</comment><comment><USER15> You could save us a lot of time by just putting a "NO" next to the "legitimate business" question. To be fair, though, your humor is very much enjoyed.

<comment><USER16> I _so_ loved having many different ways to end up a no for the 'legitimate business' track. It really drove home the 'No'. And you get multiple objections covered ("but its a startup...") And you get get separate reasons for the 'No' based on the tree too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am ordering high-res print of this. A friend of mine would definitely make use of it.

</comment><comment><USER18> would be more readable in a tree form

<comment><USER19> The root is a cycle, so that wouldn't work.

<comment><USER20> So you could have the root be "Is it for", and the options being the different people, instead of just yes/no.

That said, it seems like the tree would be more likely to waste a bunch of whitespace. If the goal is actually to have a working flowchart, that might not be a problem, but I think in this case it's more of an "entertain and amuse" kind of production, so I actually prefer the compact arrangement.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why aren't exceptions in JavaScript used often? - <AUTHOR> I always see "success" and "error" callback functions in JavaScript code and libraries.<p>Why aren't exceptions used more often, so that one would only need to pass a callback function, and wrap everything in a "try" statement? <comment><USER2> This is quite good: [http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/144326/try- ca...](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/144326/try-catch-in- javascript-isnt-it-a-good-practice)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

:-)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Google Gmail as a recovery address, function or security hole? - <AUTHOR> Why does Google allow anyone to use your gmail address as their recovery email without requiring confirmation of any kind? If you google for any help on this issue, you'll get forum posts excusing that it's harmless and you can simply "disavow", says the email alert you get when someone enters your email address for their recovery, that somehow it's their mistake and isn't a security issue. That's not really a good answer. I've been getting this "attack" repeatedly and I'm inclined to think that it's a vector which is being probed for social hacking. Google should not allow this practice and they can fix it easily by putting a confirm hold before letting anyone use anybody else's email randomly as a recovery address. <comment><USER2> How does it make you a greater risk? Is it possible you have an email address similar to someone else's? I receive emails obviously targeted at a different person, but because our addresses are so similar It's a common occurrence.

Unless you're speaking of a spear phish trying to lure you into clicking a link, it's just harmless spam. Hell the same could be said if I signed your email up for dirty porn emails, you'd just delete or ignore.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an easy vector for spear phishing because it contains an official click- through button for disavowing. Very easy to manipulate and do the podesta trick with it. Saying it's harmless isn't actually true and also isn't a good answer.

<comment><USER2> Right but the matter stands as this, if you weren't expecting it and it's not relevant to you, it's likely spam, so get rid of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not the same class as spam, as you're insisting. Merely deleting the email doesn't "get rid of it". Now there's a hard association between you and the other party and can be social hacked as a recovery email. It's bad practice on Gmail's part to create an official function which commits without authorization or authentication.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rate my Hacker Resource Page - <AUTHOR> http://jaretmanuel.com/hackerville

<comment><USER2> Do these qualify as hacker?

      * pixlr
      * Grasshopper - "*The Virtual Phone System Designed for Entrepreneurs*"
      * 99logos
      * half of your services section

Where is computer science? Where is security? Where is HACKING.

Hacker does not mean Valley Superstar, sorry. We're upset when the media dilutes the meaning of our beloved "hacker" identity, but like this we do a good job ourselves.

I remember 9 years ago when I was 14 that I used to read UNIX manuals and guides on phreaking from the 80's. I feel terribly old when I see people these days put JQUERY FUNDAMENTALS on a list of "hacker" resources, and I'm 23.

<comment><USER3> All that and

        - where is Vim, Emacs - the most used hacker editors.
        - looks like  PostgreSQL, MySQL and other RDBMS do not qualify as Databases
        - where is SICP; is PG's On Lisp only lisp resource.

and then some.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know much about Lisp, or much of anything yet as this is part of my research and hence why I asked for improvements. Specific suggestions welcome. Thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER3> My 2 cents:

From what I see on the list I am deducing that you work with rails most of time. If that is correct, that is what you should have aimed for "Ruby/Rails Resources Page".

I guess it would have worked better if you had created separate page for Apple resources(just thinking out loud; I do not know anything about Apple app development).

There is a lot of stuff that can be categorized as generic tools and not anything specific to hackers. Either should have been a separate part list or not at all(I am not sure many "hackers" [want to]use 37Signals services).

Listing of resources is almost useless to the reader if you do not provide a short explanation on why you think the tool is on your list. This saves readers' time. Hackers love knowing opinions; even if they don't agree.

Finally, You should have included only those topics on which you possess a good level of expertise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your 2 cents doesn't count. Just kidding. I have outlined for the most part if it is an Apple resource (it is the first one), etc. There are people who disagree with this resource being useless. Something I clearly failed to do and I was trigger happy in the process was calling the subject "Startup Hacker Beginner Resource guide" or something to that effect. Why Ruby/Rails? I have included some Python resources. "Startup" Hackers will use lots of these tools and then some. If plenty of people say a certain resource is junk then I could pull it but I am confident there are some quality resources. I do not have to be an expert to know if something is decent or not as I put plenty of time into this.

To answer your question and be as open as my introduction to the page, I just started learning HTML/CSS & Ruby.

Also, I think you meant to say "Short" not Shot /typo. I clearly failed to use a proper term of a startup Hack or Hacker. My bad to the masses in the peanut gallery of correctness.

Never assume, it's bad for your health and usually incorrect. Thanks again, as I appreciate your input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> s/Hacker/Webdesigner/

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I completely screwed up. I meant to put Startup "Hacker" resource page as I beginner's resource page. My apology to the hardcore "hackers" of the world. May you make it through the day!

<comment><USER3> We all do at one point or the or the other. What separates men from boys is willingness to take on the pounding that follows and improve oneself. So far you seem to be handling it very gracefully. :)

PS: By "pounding" I mean constructive criticism, not the criticism for the sake of criticism.

<comment><AUTHOR> I take rejection as someone blowing a bugle in my ear to wake me up and get going, rather than retreat~ Sylvester Stallone

I eat what people like him will spit out on a bad day! Bill Cosby said I don't know the key to success but the key to failure is trying to please everybody! I screw up a ton, I will screw up a ton more, the difference is I am not afraid to rock the boat. When the boat crashes, I will swim. The key is we learn and help others to learn. A grandiose attitude is for inferior people who have issues getting laid or a low self esteem! Appreciate your comments!</comment></comment></comment>


"Takedown notice" sent to Defense Distributed was fraudulent, from Slovakia - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/nj-ag-takedown-notice-that-led-to-new-gun-file-lawsuit-came-from-slovakia-not-us/ <comment><USER2> >Using the open source tool IPlocation.net, "I learned that the IP address resides in the Slovak Republic," Madrone writes. "Using other open source tools, I confirmed that the geo-location was the Slovak Republic. Also, I confirmed that this IP address is reserved for that provider based in the Slovak Republic. Based upon this investigation, as well as my training and experience, the complaint sent to Cloudflare regarding CodeIsFreeSpeech.com did not originate from the New Jersey Office of Attorney General or its Division of Criminal Justice."

Does "open source" mean something completely different in this context? iplocation.net doesn't seem to be remotely open source...

<comment><USER3> It's an "open source" of information, I think is the usage here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Something troubling about this is the potential for lost forensics when cloudflare hands off takedown requests. It's only because of the legal escalation that cloudflare shared the IP address. Would I get this as a end user if I requested it?

Also, it's pretty surprising that the origin ip was so egregiously wrong. This is a really easy thing to fake, or at least put a smoke screen on.</comment>


US taps data from undersea cables - <AUTHOR> http://www.afr.com/Page/Uuid/06cf41d0-e6ca-11e2-a70e-d7e37254cbcf

<comment><USER2> Subscription required :(

EDIT A similar article appears to be almost the same, and is free on a number of news websites: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/agreements...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/agreements- with-private-companies-protect-us-access-to-cables-data-for- surveillance/2013/07/06/aa5d017a-df77-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html)</comment>


Show HN: Turn your smartphone into a 3D controller with just a web app - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/konaraddio/web-riimote <comment><USER2> Awesome work! It would make smart TV much more usable. I could also see it used for controlling multi-player games on public screens, in a waiting room for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I agree, there's lots of potential applications. Almost anything that can be done by a Wii remote can be done by a web app.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone! I built a web app that turns your smartphone into a 3D controller. No need to install a mobile or desktop app!</comment>