YouTube: "Finding bugs without running or even looking at code" by Jay Parlar - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvNRlE4E9QQ <comment><AUTHOR> [http://alloytools.org/](http://alloytools.org/)</comment>


How I Passed My U.S. Citizenship Test: By Keeping the Right Answers to Myself - <AUTHOR> http://www.propublica.org/article/how-i-passed-my-us-citizenship-test-by-keeping-the-right-answers-to-myself

<comment><USER2> >Why does the flag have 13 stripes? The official answer: "because there were 13 original colonies." In fact, the flag has 13 stripes for the 13 original states.

Maybe I misunderstand the point, but Delaware was the first state to be granted statehood in 1787, a full 10 years after the "Betsy Ross" flag with 13 stripes was in use. If you're going to write a super-pedantic article, you should be super-accurate too.

<comment><USER3> In that case, though, the "Betsy Ross" flag was not the United States flag, since they were not states.

Anyway, when the number of stripes was set at 13, it could very well be because of the 13 original states. After all, it was replacing a flag with 15 stripes. (When Vermont and Kentucky became states, both stars and stripes were added, so the flag -- of "Star Spangled Banner" fame --had 15 stripes.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a famous story, possibly apocryphal, about Kurt Gödel going to his citizenship exam accompanied by Einstein and another friend.

The story goes that he had studied the Constitution and come to the conclusion that it was flawed, and contained a loophole that would allow the President to become a dictator (given the role the Weimar Constitution played in Hitler rise to power, this would not have been an altogether silly concern). He wanted to explain that the to the judge who was examining him, but he was finally convinced by his friends that it wouldn't be a good idea.

<comment><USER5> Gödel believed there could be a complete and consistent set of axioms for government? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I took my test, most of the people in the waiting room were struggling with basic English. They tested my ability to write English by asking me to write the phrase, "The US flag has 50 stripes", but I got it wrong because I wrote "fifty" instead of using Arabic numerals, and they awkwardly discussed whether or not to tell me my mistake and ask me to redo it, or fail me. They tested my ability to read by showing me three similar sentences, reading one aloud, and having me point at the one they had read. The test questions and answers are published online for the same types of people who might be challenged by these questions: people who haven't patiently gone through the whole process. None of it really assesses your ability to communicate in America or participate in the democratic process.

This article feels like picking at the unlikelihood of the legal situation in Dr. Doolittle. "Animals have been talking this whole time..." \-- Josh Sneed.

<comment><USER6> edit: I believe the phrase would have been "50 stars", not "50 stripes". THAT would be a flagrant error in the test :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've taken numerous (1 EPA, 2 FCC, 16 USCG) government administered tests and they are all have these poorly written, blatantly wrong answers. Fortunately, with larger question pools and more questions on a test it doesn't throw your final score off if you get one or two where the wrong answer. I wouldn't want to take a test with 100 question pool and only 10 questions.

</comment><comment><USER8> I expected this to be something more abstract so the concrete examples of factual inaccuracies were interesting.

My dad claims to have answered that the US was a financial oligarchy when asked what type of government the US had on his citizenship test but I suspect that was a joke.

</comment><comment><USER9> "a tremendous honor" \-- wait, what?

Why should becoming a citizen of a country be "an honour"?

(Especially when the country in question is the US; it fits the "US americans are superior humans" theme just right, even when realistically it doesn't seem to be something to be proud of... but that's besides the point.)

<comment><USER10> Becoming a citizen of any country, be it Canada, Australia or Iceland, is an honour. The only reason you go through this painful process is because you _want_ it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The questions accepting both the correct answer and the slighly incorrect answer I can understand. The "rule of law"-question, however, seemed more serious. I really wonder how things like that come to be.

<comment><USER12> I'm guessing the test was not written by a lawyer, is how.

<comment><USER13> Not only that, but its not intended to be answered by lawyers either. For a bar exam that question wouldn't be a good one, for a test to see if someone grasps the general concepts of how America works, it seems perfectly reasonable.</comment></comment></comment>


Demystifying Word2Vec - <AUTHOR> http://www.deeplearningweekly.com/blog/demystifying-word2vec <comment><USER2> I'm reading the New Michael Lewis book right now, on kahneman and tversky, and there's a point where the notion of encoding similarity as distances is first very popular, but then torn apart in the sixties.

Essentially, it comes down to statements like 'this woman is like Queen Elizabeth' being different from 'Queen Elizabeth is like this woman.' human perception of similarity is assymetric. Tversky's suggestion is that we essentially think if things as a collection of tags, and A is like B if A's tags are mostly a subset of B's tags. But if B has more tags (because it's a specific thing that we know a lot about, for example) then B's tags won't mostly be a subset of A's tags, creating the asymmetry.

This directly attacks the kind of similarity that word2vec relies on, and I'm wondering if there are critiques along these lines on the literature.

<comment><USER3> I've not noticed this as a specific critique of Word2Vec models, but despite their near-magic for some purposes it's well-understood that they don't capture all interesting shades of human-perceived meaning – at least not yet.

There are some interesting extensions of the basic model which include echoes of this 'tags' idea.

First, some projects have also modeled each word's vector as a sum-of- subvectors, based on the word's substrings-of-various-lengths. (Notably this is a feature of Facebook's FastText library.) This also learns useful vectors for subword features (like linguistic morphemes/roots), which then lets models often bootstrap useful vectors for new words, not included in the training corpus, based on their similarity with known words. (While those are strictly composing 'tags' of orthographic representation, it would be natural to seek a way to decompose words into varying-sized collections of more primal concepts/denotations/connotations.)

Second, modeling longer texts (like sentences) as collections-of-word-vectors gives some interesting ways to calculate similarities between texts. A first, simple way is to treat a text as some (perhaps significance-weighted) average of all its words, thus getting a single vector, in the word-space, for the text. Another is to treat the text as having an invisible floating pseudo-word that tries to help in the same word-prediction task that's used to create word-vectors. When that pseudo-word is trained-up, as if it were a rare word, treat it as a vector for the text. (That's Mikolov/Le's 'Paragraph Vector', often referred-to as 'Doc2Vec'.)

But following a practice useful from image-color-histogram comparisons, you can also treat the constituent word-vectors of text as if they were 'piles of meaning' at their individual vector coordinates, and calculate the distance between texts as the sum-of-distances/efforts to move one sentence's pile configuration to another. With text this has been called "Word Mover's Distance" but is analogous to "Earth Mover's Distance"/"Wasserstein Distance" in statistics/probability.

As this has been applied to texts – multi-word collections – I could easily see it also applied to decomposed words/concepts - multi-tag collections, per your summary of Tversky's model above. At some point, I'd also expect these models to account for words/sentences as large 'smears' in space, rather than single points, to better capture the full range of _possible_ meanings, and then _likely intended_ meanings, based on other relevant context.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And if you want an interactive vis, there is one: [https://lamyiowce.github.io/word2viz/](https://lamyiowce.github.io/word2viz/) (and some discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13346104](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13346104)).

<comment><AUTHOR> This is great! Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Isn't this all based on LSA (Latent Semantic Analysis; e.g. first major paper was by by Landauer back in 1990, and going back to the 1960's)?

I implemented LSA a few years ago based on these papers and it just seems like LSA/LSI to me..

[Update]

Just found this:

> In this sense we have come full circle to the methods presented earlier that > rely on matrix factorization (such as LSA). Where LSA uses SVD to find the > best fitting subspace in terms of the co-variances of words across > documents, the Glove model explicitly optimizes wordvectors to reflect the > likelihood of their co-occurrence. The point, however, stands that Word2Vec > is not an entirely novel approach to arrive at word vectors that capture > semantic meaning in their substructure.

<comment><USER6> Just for some extra clarification:

With LSA, each document is transformed into a single vector that has the length of the vocabulary. The length of the vocabulary is the number of unique words across all documents. If a word is present in a document, it is represented as a 1 in the vector and 0 if it is not. So after this transformation, the text is transformed in an D by V matrix where D is the number of documents and V is the vocabulary size.

GloVe (and word2vec by equivalence) however, work on a different matrix. In this algorithm, the matrix is V by V, where V is the vocabulary size and each cell counts the number of the times a word appears next to another word in a document. That is, the matrix represents the counts of how often words are neighbors across all documents. (There are some other technicalities, by this the thrust of GloVe).

The similarity between LSA and GloVe is that once the respective matrix is built, it is followed by matrix factorization. By matrix factorization, I mean SVD. This is a process which takes an N by M matrix and returns an N by K matrix, essentially squeezing the matrix into fewer columns (K is a free parameter that is smaller than M).

So ultimately, what we get with LSA is a D by K matrix (where K is just an arbitrary number, like 100). The interpretation of this matrix is that each row represents a document and each column represents a topic. In GloVe, we get a V by K matrix where each row represents a word and each column represents an embedding.

<comment><USER7> From LSA/SVD you get a V x K matrix as well - that's exactly what the factorisation is doing.

The following two papers also go into detail about the mathematical similarities between LSA and neural embeddings and achieving similar performance with both:

Levy, O. and Goldberg, Y. (2014). Neural word embedding as implicit matrix factorization. [https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~yoavg/publications/nips2014pmi.pdf](https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~yoavg/publications/nips2014pmi.pdf)

Levy, O., Goldberg, Y., and Dagan, I. (2015). Improving distributional similarity with lessons learned from word embeddings. [http://www.anthology.aclweb.org/Q/Q15/Q15-1016.pdf](http://www.anthology.aclweb.org/Q/Q15/Q15-1016.pdf)

<comment><USER6> True, you could use the right matrix of the SVD on the term document matrix. As far as I know, the embeddings won't have the same interpretation as the left matrix from SVD on the word-context matrix. (By LSA I mean SVD on the term document matrix).

Those are excellent papers, by the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A good read, thanks! This technique largely inspired a project we did for school this year, a subreddit recommender system with an RNN learning an embedding space for subreddits. I've just finished up exams and am starting work on getting a minimal webapp up for people to play with, but links to the final report and an interactive bokeh plot of the final embedding can be found here: [http://cole-maclean.github.io/blog/RNN-Based-Subreddit- Recom...](http://cole-maclean.github.io/blog/RNN-Based-Subreddit-Recommender- System/)

</comment><comment><USER9> This may be helpful, too: [https://deeplearning4j.org/word2vec](https://deeplearning4j.org/word2vec)</comment>


Seldon – Serves predictions via a REST API - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SeldonIO/seldon-server <comment><USER2> Hey folks, thanks for your interest in Seldon. It's exciting to see all of our hard work come to life!

Our plan is to build out and support the strongest ecosystem of data scientists in the predictive machine learning space. We adopted the permissive Apache 2.0 license, so you are free to build domain-specific algorithms and functionality to either contribute back into the core platform or release under a separate license.

We would love to hear your feedback, both first impressions and thoughts as you start using the platform. And, of course, how you would like to see the project evolve in the long term.

Suggestions on the functionality that you would find useful would also be appreciated - we're hooked on customer and developer community feedback! :)

<comment><USER3> Alex, The idea is very cool and I am glad that the developments are going to be contributed to an open source version.

As a developer while we can try VM setup and as well as Amazon instance, can you also host it on one of your server and provide a demo access to developers to get acquainted with system and architecture before they can try on VM or Amazon AMI?

<comment><USER2> Thanks, Hassan!

We were originally a SaaS recommendation engine and will continue to provide a fully-managed cloud-based solution. It's now serving recommendations on hundreds of millions of page views per month.

There are a few pretty significant technical tasks we need to complete to make the API provisioning streamlined enough to support trial accounts since there are some manual steps required to configure the metadata properly, etc.

Since we decided to go open-source last September, all of our R&D focus has been in preparing this open-source release instead of the self-serve. Streamlining our cloud service is in the roadmap, and it's now powered by the same codebase as the open-source project.

The feedback we received from developers who tried the AMI and VM are that it's super quick to get started. And as you can see we've spent a lot of time recently on documentation.

If you're interested in the hosted API, please email firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Will this project cope with the appearance of The Mule?

<comment><USER5> Perhaps if you run it on FoundationDB, it can fall back to a second FoundationDB server in the event of a crisis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks interesting, seems like a neat product.

Some thoughts on how to make the webpage more informative:

\- Improve the schematic overview[1], e.g. what's the purpose of a logging cluster? General logging? The MySQL database, what's it's role? My initial reaction is that logging/sql-storage could be handled outside of Seldon. I may be wrong, but you should help people here.

\- Same with load-balancers, seems like it should be outside the scope of a prediction service. If not, an explanation would help.

\- Clarify which parts are open-source, and which ones are closed. E.g. with ElasticSearch, it's obvious on their front-page which components are open- source and which-ones are paid.

\- Add a comparison to prediction.io (RethinkDB's comparison with MongoDB[2] is a good example). It's an obvious question people will have, answering it upfront is helpful. Keep it fair/unbiased.

[1] [http://www.seldon.io/open-source/](http://www.seldon.io/open-source/) [2] [http://rethinkdb.com/docs/comparison- tables/](http://rethinkdb.com/docs/comparison-tables/)

<comment><USER2> Thanks - this is all useful feedback.

You're right about the load balancers - this doesn't form part of the project codebase, but it's important for people to know that the API servers are stateless and can scale horizontally. However, the other infrastructure components are required as Seldon provides the full end-to-end platform not just collection of predictive algorithms.

We will review your comments and for now we linked to the infrastructure page in our docs: [http://docs.seldon.io/tech.html](http://docs.seldon.io/tech.html)

We are planning to release some functionality under a separate commercial license, just as anyone is free to do. Everything you currently see on the website and Github repos is open-source and licensed under Apache 2.0.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems interesting. Does it support user-defined algorithms? Or does it have to be a combination of the exsiting algorithms that Seldon provides? I don't seem to able to get a definite answer from this page: [http://docs.seldon.io/configuration.html](http://docs.seldon.io/configuration.html)

<comment><USER8> We are targeting to provide this in the next few weeks. Sign up for the newsletter or follow the project and we'll notify you when it's available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi, I'm a developer on this project so I can answer any technical questions you may have.

<comment><USER9> Hey this looks sweet. I'm still new to this field, but I'm looking to do some collaborative filtering across large datasets (4 billion rows+)

I was looking at using Prediction.IO and this looks suitable too, can you elaborate on the high level differences between this project and prediction.io?

I'm also curious about horizontal scaling.

<comment><USER8> Presently most of our CF algorithms utilize Apache Spark but we intend to be agnostic on this and allow any machine learning platform to be integrated. I believe that Spark can easily handle this size of data set.

With regards to horizontal scaling, there are two parts to consider. Creating the models and serving the recommendations (the Seldon server project).

Model creation is done in a variety of ways, but but can be managed with scalable technologies such as Spark.

The Seldon Server project can be deployed on as many machines are you require and they will work together to provide recommendations behind a load balancer. We have experience working with some very large news websites so this part of our technology is well developed.

<comment><USER9> Great thanks for your feedback, I will setup an installation in my home lab this weekend, super excited!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great name - nice Asimov reference

</comment><comment><USER11> How does this compare to PredictionIO?

<comment><USER2> It looks like they have built an interesting platform, but to be honest we haven't really paid attention to the details. We've been 100% focussed on our own product, but here's my reply to a similar question which covers some of the unique benefits of Seldon: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9262971](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9262971)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had no idea what this was, but found the main web site here: [http://www.seldon.io/](http://www.seldon.io/) (It features a carousel which updates faster than you can casually read the text, which I did not find encouraging.)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for highlighting this issue, we've slowed down the carousel.</comment></comment>


TSA Logo Contest - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/tsa_logo_contes.html

<comment><USER2> I cant help feeling this one: <http://www.schneier.com/images/logocontest/Auximinus.i.jpg>

Is an example of Godwin's Law in practice [1].

To be honest I cant see the point of this; it's barely productive or conducive to addressing the issues.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law>

<comment><USER3> > To be honest I cant see the point of this; it's barely productive or > conducive to addressing the issues.

Firmly disagree - I love this. The biggest problem with government agencies are that you can't put them out of business by refusing to patronize them, so you have to whip the public into a frenzy and get politicians' attention. This should help with that.

As for TSA: I'm an American, I travel a lot, and I think TSA is absolutely a mess and a joke and a disgrace. I don't support how I get treated and how visitors to our country get treated. If we can get enough pressure to shut down TSA or reform it, who knows, maybe we can move on to other scummy branches from there. It's a longshot, but it's really our only hope at this point from the giant bureaucracy snowball that's rolling down the hill really fast gaining speed.

<comment><USER2> I kinda see what your saying; but the images are possibly going too far. Now the view Scheiner is supporting (certainly the right one) could start to look just as silly or extreme because of the supporting actions.

I think there are better ways to cause a fuss than have someone design a logo with a Nazi connotations! It can't help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like the motto on the second one: "The Perception Of Security Is As Good As Actual Security", but I can't help feel that what that really needs is to be in Latin. Can anyone help me out on that? (Suitably pith-ified, if that would help; I'm looking for the ideas not a literal word-for-word.)

</comment><comment><USER5> I nominate this picture: [http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01...](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/goldblog- bait.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the body scanner one in the bottom right.

It's got layers.</comment>


Show HN: Trop – command line utility for transmission-remote - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/bkazemi/trop <comment><USER2> What is transmission-remote?

<comment><USER3> It's the bundled command-line tool for talking to Transmission's API. Transmission is a BitTorrent client.

<comment><USER2> Oh, I knew about Transmission, but would never think of it when reading something about "transmission-remote".</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone know the story behind the default twitter avatar? - <AUTHOR> http://s.twimg.com/a/1251493570/images/default_profile_bigger.png

<comment><USER2> Not sure if this the official story??

<http://www.seoconsultants.com/twitter/avatars/></comment>


Proposition 30: Yet Another Way California Screws Entrepreneurs Over - <AUTHOR> http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/13/proposition-30-yet-another-way-california-screws-entrepreneurs-over/

<comment><USER2> Interesting how we all live in our own little echo chambers and bubbles.

In which nothing worse has ever occurred in all of history:

"one of the most shameful and despicable acts of legislation in American history"

And in which we are the type of people who matter most:

"second-time entrepreneurs...they're the ones who matter most."

Maybe this myopic view is presented for effect. Or maybe not.

</comment><comment><USER3> At some point you would think people would rather run their companies in a state that actually wants their business.

<comment><USER4> yes indeed. my next co. will likely be out of state.</comment></comment>


Amazon profits dive after heavy Kindle investment - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15455938 <comment><USER2> Only time will tell if the gamble pays off. Like when Amazon started spending heaps of money building warehouses and people thought they were crazy. It paid off in the end. Efficient shipping attracted customers.</comment>


Music publishers: iTunes not paying fair share - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10355448-93.html <comment><USER2> There's something decidedly cannibalistic about the business of music rights management. At what point is it simply easier to hire an in-house musician and be done with the mountains of paperwork, days of haggling and thousands of dollars coughed up?

</comment><comment><USER3> you're burying the lead, so to speak:

 _Songwriters, composers, and music publishers are making preparations to one day collect performance fees from Apple and other e-tailers for not just traditional music downloads but for downloads of films and TV shows as well. Those downloads contain music after all.

These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples._

<comment><USER4> Part of this stems from the amazingly messy rights situation that most music falls under. There are rights to text, rights to music, performance rights, neighbouring rights, sometimes the text gets translated and so on.

You have to make deals with many parties if you want to use a piece of music.

What I don't get about the hypothetical case against Apple here is that Apple made a deal with the labels, does that not mean that the labels compensate those who were in on the creative side as well ?

A single licensing entity would be a great idea from a rights perspective, even the rights organization do not know if they are the right person to represent the rights to many songs / texts. But they can offer indemnification in some cases, which is really weird, they don't own the rights, they'll take your money and if you get sued they indemnify.

Great business model.

In Europe the market is even more complex, almost every little country has their own licensing agencies, usually pseudo-government. And now the market is 'open' so these compete with each other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I can't hear it, I can't buy it. Yeah, there are bands I would buy without question, and if enough people whose opinion I trust agree... But otherwise, I'm going to be somebody they can't sell to.

And no, I'm not making micropayments to get stuff to decide to make macropayments.

</comment><comment><USER6> If I were Apple, I would say, "Hmmm... Nah. How about we keep selling your music just the way we are now."

I mean, what are they going to do about it? They are always welcome to pull out of iTunes. But, strangely, they don't want to do that. I wonder why not?</comment>


Robot See, Robot Do - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/05/22/robot-see-robot-do/

<comment><USER2> Though interesting to watch, this is undoubtedly the same method that has been implemented in surgical robotics for years and is little more than a series of go-to-point operations. The fact that both the slave and the masters are of the same general design even makes inverse kinematics unnecessary.</comment>


Airbnb's Money-Laundering Problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-airbnbs-russian-money-laundering-problem <comment><USER3> I really don't understand how this is Airbnb's problem. Why do people attack these kinds of services so often? It's not their fault people are paying through them and then having people send the money back. What are they supposed to do? Send someone to the home to check that the person is actually staying there?

I mean, the way this works you could literally use any service ever. Why is AirBnB, in this case, any different than like Paypal, eBay, or Amazon or literally any online fund transferring for goods service?

<comment><USER4> I fail to see your point: Paypal, eBay and Amazon are also under the obligation to adequately monitor and prevent money-laundering.

<comment><USER3> My point is they call AirBnB out specifically when they're not the only ones that have this issue and that could be used to do this. They even state in the article that AirBnB is just being used as an example and many services could be seeing this kind of usage. If that's the case, why call out AirBnB specifically? That company gets so much flack for the way its users act. I'm not sure what it's expected to do in many of these cases.

<comment><USER5> > That company gets so much flack for the way its users act.

Gig economy companies blur the line between user and employee. If a hotel chain had a problem with its hotel managers laundering money, would you be saying this?

What you're saying here is tantamount to claiming that AirBnB isn't responsible for its employees' actions because they didn't bother to vet their employees. Companies aren't simply exempt from laws because their business model refers to their employees as "users".

<comment><USER6> The gig economy is individuals leveraging their time and personal assets to make money. They aren't employees, just like a musician playing a pub isn't an employee. purpose of a company to provide a product or service on a scale larger than one person could provide. A company's primary goal isn't to police employees the same way Facebook isn't responsible for the content I write on their website. They have some duty to clean up afterwords but they do very little in the way of supervision. If someone does an investigation and finds criminal behavior the company has a responsibility to report that behavior to authorities. A company wants to avoid damaging its reputation over something like a laundering scheme.

The Uber and Airbnb model is more like a credit card gateway for a specific industry and their ideal user is, 'I'm an individual who does whatever I want with my time and property and I would like to make some money on the side' that is not an employee's mindset.

Its a little upsetting that there are people who are more invested in their Airbnb and Uber status therefore claim employee status. If my YouTube channel takes off and I make a bunch of money on views can I claim employee status at yt? Clearly the answer is no

<comment><USER7> Seeing as you're already upset, I hate to break it to you that special purpose credit card gateways have similar regulatory requirements.

That said, your characterization of Uber and such is egregiously inaccurate. Uber does not hire individuals who do whatever they want with their time and property. They hire individuals who are willing to use only very specific property, in very specific age and condition, to make money in specific places, in an exceedingly specific manner, while following very specific rules.

As such, you're not just peddling a false dichotomy, you're doing so using grossly distorted portrayals of reality.

<comment><USER6> 'Upset' and 'not thrilled' are interchangeable in my lexicon. Didn't mean to convey hyperbole.

It's generally understood that employees have all the rules you mention. I have been a contractor for 20 years and I have all those rules as well. So when does a consultant become an employee? Is it when I'm a 1099 or a W2 in the eyes of the IRS?

The difference is in the initial negotiation; the benefits and a promise of future work for employees, but no such commitment for consultants. It's negotiated up front and must be renegotiated by both parties for any change. If I'm hired as a consultant, I don't get to claim I'm an employee later on because they worked me too hard. I have been worked too hard, but I know the rules, I made it through what ever the commitment I made, then either renegotiated or fired the client. That's what consultants have to do every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The actual title is "Inside Airbnb's Russian Money-Laundering Problem", which is more suitable IMHO, as it highlights this is a local issue in Russia, not AirBnB as a whole

<comment><USER9> What makes you confident in asserting this? While it appears to be Russian speakers who are looking for cooperative hosts, it's not at all clear that the issue is limited to Russia. From the article:

 _The laundering may work outside Russia as well. In another post, a sixth scammer, who is also willing to split the cash 50-50, says they are looking for hosts and "the country does not matter," their post reads. Another post on a Russian-language forum is looking for EU-based hosts._

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So let me get this straight:

1.) they book a night at a cooperating-host with a stolen credit card

2.) host receives payment minus AirBnB fees 2 days later

3.) host transfers amount minus his own cut to criminals

4.) chargeback from CC owner. I'd guess that Airbnb either charges the Host for the chargeback or cancels the entire account. How is this "scalable laundering"?

<comment><USER11> But it can also be:

1.) get "illegal" money from somewhere/anywhere. Create bank accounts under fake names with the "illegal" cash.

2.) host receives payment minus AirBnB fees 2 days later

3.) host transfers amount minus his own cut to criminals

4.) AirBnB never gets notified of anything - it's just another happy customer.

So the problem with this scenario is AirBnB never knows about the problem - <USER2> all the "bad" hosts can go on for long times, and you dont need as many accounts; thats where the "scalability" comes in.

<comment><USER12> _> Create bank accounts under fake names with the "illegal" cash._

In USA, I don't see how this is "scalable" with the stringent "know your customer"[1] laws.

Using a fake drivers license + fake Social Security Number to open a new bank account with a false name is not trivial. Many banks also require a thumb print for identification. The customer's face is also captured on security cameras as he walked through the bank to open the account. All of that can be cross-checked with the FBI.

It seems the preferred method for criminals using banks to wash money is a "shell company" instead of fake personal accounts. E.g. Open a business account for a car washing company or restaurant. But then the criminal has to be careful and make sure his "pattern of deposits" does not raise suspicions. Any unusual banking activity could trigger an investigation for racketeering and money laundering.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is not money laundering. This is a simple case of extracting money out of stolen goods. Since unauthorized transactions on CC would be reversed, it is at most inconvenient.

<comment><USER14> Example of extracting money out of stolen goods: Selling a stolen phone.

Example of money laundering: I have illegitimately earned money, I funnel it through a service which then gives me "clean" money.

I wouldn't say it's money laundering, but I wouldn't say it's _not_ money laundering. Is there a word for where it's kinda-both?

<comment><USER13> The fundamental characteristic of money laundering is that after money is laundered it is in fact clean money and it is not possible for another entity to reach out and get it because the entity that a claim on the dirty money. That's why those with dirty money are willing to pay 20-40% for it.

That's for example, why uncut diamonds are so popular - diamond sourcing business is largely a cash business operating in the grey area - dealers act as mixers of currency sell uncut diamonds for $X. The buyer takes the diamond to a jeweler, gets a finished product, sells it to a different jawler for $Y where $Y is 20-40% lower than $X and that $Y is nearly impossible to link to the initial $X.

Carders cannot do this because no one in businesses like this takes credit cards as the transactions simply gets reversed by the issuing bank at which point whoever was the first hop of the transaction gets money crawled back from him/her.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Money-Laudering is sometimes confused with different crimes because, in the modern world, it is often a necessary adjunct to financially motivated crimes.

Criminals often do business in cash and can't report it on their income taxes. Money laundering is getting this "dirty" cash safely into a bank account or legal investment without revealing the crimes that caused the accumulation of cash.

In the US, banks are required to "know" their customers. Moving between cash and bank accounts is only possible with an account at the bank and every cash transaction over 10K is reported to the government. Furthermore, traveling with more than 10K into or out of the country requires paperwork to be filed with the government. All of this makes it difficult to use the cash sourced from criminal activity.

AirBnB appears to be an easy way to launder a modest amount of money. Heidi Fleiss was the Hollywood Madam and would have had a "dirty" money problem, not a huge dirty money problem like drug cartels, but nevertheless, lots of cash and no way to explain it to the banks: one million dollars in her first four months[1].

It doesn't seem like AirBnB would be practical for such a large operation; however, think of one of her operatives, they might be able to hide a couple of thousand dollars a week of cash income by pretending to be renting out their place as an AirBnB. The challenge would be on the payment side to AirBnB, setting up enough cards under fake names, etc. because the government also tracks these and would detect any trivial cycles between a set of cards and or people.

The Netflix TV series Ozark, a Breaking Bad kind of show, but staring an accountant rather than a chemist, revolves around this problem.

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

</comment><comment><USER16> It makes no sense. Reservations have to be paid by cards, the money is already laundered if it's sitting behind a card in a bank account.

<comment><USER17> Read the article. They are stolen credit cards.

<comment><USER18> From the Guidelines:

> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even > read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article > mentions that."

In my opinion, OP is actually right. It's not money laundering, but simply carding/stealing.

<comment><USER17> Fair point

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I expect that a good question to ask as a founder of a new business these days is, "How might this be used to launder funds?" and if you're the bad kind of entrepreneur make that really easy to boost early growth, and if you're the good kind put controls in place to prevent it from happening.

One of the things I dealt with at Blekko was people clearly trying to use the search engine to find sites with vulnerable (unpatched) Wordpress or Joomla or other storefront frameworks. We spent a lot of time banning IP addresses which were doing that rather than treat them as higher traffic numbers.</comment>


Chrome 61 Beta - happy-go-lucky https://blog.chromium.org/2017/08/chrome-61-beta-javascript-modules.html <comment><AUTHOR> Network Information API and Device RAM API sound like great ways to make it easier to fingerprint a browser.</comment>


Ask HN: Did Google's Data Liberation Front Shut Down? - <AUTHOR>

Their last blog update was 2013: http://dataliberation.blogspot.com/<p>And their last video was 3 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/user/dataliberation <comment><USER2> No, they're still up and running, they're just less publicly visible now. Friends of mine are still working on that team.</comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to setting up a Massachusetts LLC - <AUTHOR>

I live in Massachusetts and run a small web app that brings in about $600/month.
While it's a low risk endeavor, I'd like to get liability protection to cover me in the event of some catastrophe. Setting up and operating a Massachusetts LLC costs $500/year [1], which s a lot relative to the app's income.
Setting up and operating a Delaware LLC, on the other hand, is $90 formation fee + $200/year franchise tax + $50/year for a registered agent ($250/year), which isn't much better, especially when you factor in the complexity of doing it out of state.
Have any of you been in a similar spot? Any recommendations on how to proceed?
[1] http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cor/corpweb/corllc/llcinf.htm <comment><USER2> Nevada is excellent (no corporate income tax, statutory indemnification, some privacy protections).

Colorado is now the cheapest place to file: $50 to form an LLC + $0.99 annual filing fee assuming you do everything online.

[http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/fees/business.ht...](http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/fees/business.html#BIZ)

Most LLCs don't pay corporate income tax anyway (it passes through to the members).

</comment><comment><USER3> If you form an LLC outside of MA, and that entity carries out business inside MA, you will most likely need to register as a foreign LLC with the SOTS [1] - which costs $500.

Not a lawyer, but I've been through this before.

[1] [http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cor/corpweb/corfllc/fllcinf.htm#a...](http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cor/corpweb/corfllc/fllcinf.htm#anchor1609293)

<comment><USER4> Also includes a $500/year annual report. Ouch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think Nevada is supposed to be pretty good. The problem, however, is that you live and do business in Massachusetts, so you would need to have something there in any event - as I understand things, at least.</comment>


A creature that eats its own brain - <AUTHOR> https://goodheartextremescience.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/meet-the-creature-that-eats-its-own-brain/ <comment><USER2> The headline evoked my twisted like a Monty Python youth. Or _the Haggis Poem aka Horace_

      Much to his dad and mum's dismay
      Horace ate himself one day
      He didn't stop to say his grace
      He just sat down and ate his face
      "We can't have this!" his dad declared
      "If that lad's ate he should be shared"
      But even as he spoke they saw
      Horace eating more and more:
      First his legs and then his thighs,
      His arms, his nose, his hair, his eyes
      "Stop him someone!" Mother cried
      "Those eyeballs would be better fried!"
      But all too late for they were gone,
      And he had started on his dong...
      "Oh foolish child!" the father mourned
      "You could have deep-fried those with prawns,
      Some parsely and some tartar sauce..."
      But H was on his second course;
      His liver and his lights and lung,
      His ears, his neck, his chin, his tongue
      "To think I raised himn from the cot
      And now he's gone to scoff the lot!"
      His mother cried what shall we do?
      What's left won't even make a stew..."
      And as she wept her son was seen
      To eat his head his heart his spleen
      And there he lay, a boy no more
     Just a stomach on the floor...
      None the less since it was his
      They ate it - and that's what haggis is

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for mentioning the haggis poem!it brings to mind another of my favourites..the reluctant cannnibal by flanders and swann...altho it has an happier(and tastier) ending...roasted leg of insurance salesman

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ6LzqV1ebk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ6LzqV1ebk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task, it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore, so it eats it! It's rather like getting tenure.

Daniel Dennett

<comment><USER4> A classic, and my first thought when I saw the headline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _" The sea squirt larvae begin absorbing all the tadpole-like parts that made them chordates. Where the sea squirt larva once had gills, it develops the intake and exist siphons that will help it bring water and food into its body. It absorbs its twitching tail. It absorbs its primitive eye and its spine-like notocord. Finally, it even absorbs the rudimentary little "brain" (cerebral ganglion) that it used to swim about and find its attachment place."_

By that measure, I suppose a caterpillar also "eats its own brain" during its transformation in to a butterfly.

<comment><USER6> It may be overstated for effect (which the author acknowledges), but it's a little more dramatic than a caterpillar in that it ends up without a brain, while a butterfly doesn't.

I also don't think current thinking holds that the organs of a caterpillar disappear completely during metamorphosis, though I could easily be wrong.

<comment><USER7> A caterpillar becomes a soup of cells, fats, and proteins. Some species do not retain any multi-cellular structures- others only a tiny few.

Interestingly, the still exhibit learned avoidance behaviors after complete this near complete disassembly and reassembly.

<comment><USER6> Are you an expert? If so I defer, but if not I think you're repeating an old understanding of the process. From a bit more reading a substantial portion seems to dissolve, but far from everything.

Here's a paper tracking the metamorphosis of painted lady butterflies in considerable detail:

[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2013.030...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2013.0304)

<comment><USER8> That's an incredible paper! The supplementary materials are exquisite and can be obtained here [0]. I'd very much like to get ahold of the enormous raw dataset, but alas their margin was too small to contain it: "Owing to file size limitations, no repository capable of archiving the entirety of the voxel data for these scans currently exists".

[0] [https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.b451g](https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.b451g)

<comment><USER9> I noticed that too; hopefully in the intervening 7 years these sorts of limitations are no longer, but I suspect scientific data simply expandss to fill the archive space available, and more ;(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task, it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore, so it eats it! (It's rather like getting tenure.)" [0]

[0] Consciousness Explained, Daniel Dennett. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Consciousness_Explained...](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Consciousness_Explained/ZG0SDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=The%20juvenile%20sea%20squirt)

<comment><USER11> Do you recommend that book?

<comment><USER10> If you are interested in consciousness, then yes, __Consciousness Explained __is a worthwhile read. If your interest lies with sea squirts, then not so much.

While I do not necessarily agree with Dennett's position in whole, I believe his arguments make a valuable contribution to the subject of consciousness -- even moreso in the context of Wigner's thought experiment and the recent empirical results.

<comment><USER12> Would you mind sharing a pointer to the recent empirical results?

<comment><USER10> Science magazine [0] and Ars Technica [1] published readable overviews. The paper on the experiment regarding Wigner's friend paradox ("A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox") was published in Nature Physics. [2] [3]

[0] [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox- poin...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky- foundations-reality)

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/quantum-reality- is-e...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/quantum-reality-is-either- weirdly-different-or-it-collapses/)

[2] [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x)

[3] [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0990-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0990-x)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article is reminiscent of the some old science fiction tropes, about _very_ different life cycles.

The article also reminded me of the chicken and egg inversion (I think from a chapter in a Richard Dawkins book) -- the observation that chickens are merely the mechanism through which eggs propagate themselves throughout the world.

</comment><comment><USER14> I looked up what makes an animal an animal. It turns that animals have to eat another living thing to survive. It's quite interesting that the thing that makes us animals is not the brain, limbs, heart, lungs, liver, etc.

It's having a stomach. Every animal has gotta do some sort of ingesting of another lifeform. The sea squirt seems to be the prime example, it's just a stomach. Everything else is replacable.

<comment><USER15> _> I looked up what makes an animal an animal. It turns that animals have to eat another living thing to survive._

I'm not sure where you looked up the definition, but that is very much not what defines animals.

There are plants like pitcher plants that eat living things, as well as many bacteria that eat other living bacteria. And there are animals like earthworms that only eat non-living organic material.

<comment><USER14> > Animals (also called Metazoa) are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that > form the biological kingdomAnimalia. With few exceptions, animals consume > organic material...

Assumes that meant living things?

Other things doing it too doesn't make a different, definitions we use for words are gonna have grey zones, such is the reality of compression.

<comment><USER16> "Organic material" as in organic chemistry as in compounds that form carbon- hydrogen bonds - stuff made up mostly of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and the halogens.

The correct term is _heterotrophic_ but even that is a fuzzy distinction because many (if not most) plants require symbiotic bacterial/fungi colonies due to nitrogen depletion and there are plenty of parasitic plants that can't produce their own nutrition.

Clean classification of such abstract groups after billions of years of evolution is impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know it's not actually relevant. But what a horrible website to read. The grey text is soooo lacking contrast on the white.

</comment><comment><USER18> So their larva is an almost-vertebrate (chordata) but then it changes back to an invertebrate. Neato

</comment><comment><USER19> Is this a case of regressive evolution (devolution)?

<comment><USER20> No, it's just regular evolution. It's a mistake to assume that evolution prefers any particular direction, like increasing complexity or intelligence.

<comment><USER21> Still, a species can evolve to be more similar to some distant ancestor than to a certain more recent one. There's no mistake in asking if that is the case here.</comment></comment></comment>


Google in $5bn lawsuit for tracking in 'private' mode - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52887340 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045)

</comment><comment><USER3> > The search engine says the collection of search history, even in private > viewing mode, helps site owners "better evaluate the performance of their > content, products, marketing and more."

No shit sherlock, but who exactly uses private browsing mode to help site owners to their private data?

</comment><comment><USER4> I believe that if a smaller company broke criminal wiretapping laws, the individual people involved with the criminal activity would be going to prison.

Why is Google, which cannot break the law, only being sued in a civil action? Individual human people at Google broke criminal wiretapping laws.

(I know they're not mutually exclusive, but I cannot see a future in which the DoJ brings criminal conspiracy charges against Google PMs and SWEs/SREs.)

It's almost as if once you hit a certain size, the penalty for a company's staff breaking federal laws becomes "the company writes a check for some percentage of your ill-gotten gains" and not criminal prosecution/prison time.

<comment><USER5> > Here's my (admittedly whimsical) working hypothesis [...] The rot set in > back in the 19th century, when the US legal system began recognizing > corporations as de facto people. [...] Corporations do not share our > priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who > join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate > their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate > objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance. [...] Collectively, > corporate groups lobby international trade treaty negotiations for operating > conditions more conducive to pursuing their three goals [...] We are now > living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non- > human entities with non-human goals. [...] In short, we are living in the > aftermath of an alien invasion.

\-- [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2010/12/invaders...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html)

<comment><USER4> Recognizing corporations as legal persons, as far as I know, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the people who work at those corporations can or should be prosecuted, personally, when they break criminal law (at work or otherwise).

Corporations cannot act, and thus cannot break the law. It is similar to how a military or country cannot kill people: it simply employs murderers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Question: does chrome privat mode automatically set the do-not-track flag?

If so, what are the legal implications if a site sees that and decides to track you anyway?

<comment><USER7> There are no legal implications of not respecting do not track. I don't know definitively, but a search tells me many major companies (including Google) don't respect Do Not Track.

In fact, Do Not Track can in itself be an extra datapoint websites can use to track you, so it's best to leave it off.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, but one might argue that do-not-track is a clear revocation of consent wrt GDPR and CCPA.</comment></comment></comment>


Low-income housing has no impact on nearby home values (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.trulia.com/research/low-income-housing/ <comment><USER2> Short & medium term effects on real estate prices is only part of the issue. Ultimately, NIMBYism exists for a bunch of reasons... and the reasons don't matter much.

Once you have actual organized NIMBYism, you are selling to existing property owners and residents. They have no real reason to "buy" this story. Either low cost housing doesn't affect anything, or it is against their interests. In no scenario does benefit them, so why shouldn't they object... just to be safe? At the least, construction is noisy and unsightly.

I think NIMBYism should be accepted as-is. Existing housing has an interest in preventing new housing by default, especially down market of them. That's how organised NIMBYs see it. That's how it plays out in practice. YIMBYs are not going to beat NIMBYs locally.

NIMBYism exists. The relevant questions are about how to build despite of NIMBYism, not how to reason with it.

<comment><USER3> > how to build despite of NIMBYism, not how to reason with it.

i think it's "easy" \- pay the existing NIMBY people the equivalent in lost value when constructing objects in their "backyard".

<comment><USER4> > i think it's "easy" \- pay the existing NIMBY people the equivalent in lost > value when constructing objects in their "backyard".

Suppose the difference is actually large. Their currently million dollar house will be worth half a million dollars.

Who is paying this money? Low income people who need housing? They haven't got it, that was the original problem. Local taxpayers? That's just the original homeowners paying themselves.

<comment><USER5> If the government believes that it's in the public interest to have low income housing, then the government should pay for it. It's not exactly the same as the homeowners paying themselves, either. Structuring it this way ensures that the cost is allocated fairly across all of society. If we believe that it is in _societies_ interest to have low income housing, then society as a whole should pay for it. The cost shouldn't just fall on a few unlucky homeowners. Making the cost widely and evenly shared makes it equitable.

<comment><USER6> Who's gonna pay for it? The government? How do they get money? Taxes? So we pay the government (they of course pay the federal employees and some pork barreling) to pay for affordable housing? In the end who will really pay for it aside from the people who will live in affordable housing?

<comment><USER5> My whole comment was an answer to that exact question. The government pays, because the government paying smooths out the hit. The cost is more equitably distributed over the whole population, as opposed to being concentrated in a few unlucky neighborhoods.

<comment><USER6> My point is the government never really pays, we pay the government after all, but I understand your point too.

<comment><USER7> The people who pay for affordable housing are those who caused the housing market to be unaffordable. That's only fair.

<comment><USER6> If candy bars are too expensive it's the buyers fault? That's fair?

<comment><USER6> Sorry I misread your comment!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >In the nation's 20 least affordable markets, our analysis of 3,083 low-income housing projects from 1996 to 2006 found no significant effect on home values located near a low-income housing project, with a few exceptions.

Talk about cherry picked years. Why don't they analyse from 1998 to 2008 and say the same thing? Did it really take until 2020 to post this?

>Of the 20 markets examined, Denver was the only metro area where homes located near low-income housing projects registered a positive effect in terms of price per square foot after a project was completed.

And the absence of serious, critical thought. Has trulia never heard of correlation vs causation?

<comment><USER8> > And the absence of serious, critical thought. Has trulia never heard of > correlation vs causation?

They probably don't teach that in data science boot camps

<comment><USER6> They had to cherry pick it. This article is intentionally misleading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am in favor of looser zoning laws and generally consider myself a YIMBY. However, I wouldn't say it is good politically to only support local low- income housing conditional on the fact that there is no negatives. I think that is the best policy but also acknowledge that there will be some tradeoffs.

As others have said I don't think looking at home values in major cities like Boston or Seattle is that interesting. Cities are used to having very rich areas next to poor ones. I grew up in a town of about 20,000 that had close to no housing that wasn't zoned as single family. As a result, the median income was very high, property taxes stayed extremely low as a percentage (since everyone was contributing a lot), and the schools were considered great despite people not having to pay a lot in taxes. The neighboring town had higher taxes (because the median property value was significantly lower) and the schools were known to be bad. I wish there was more state level funding at the time - but there wasn't and don't think there is now.

<comment><USER10> >However, I wouldn't say it is good politically to only support local low- income housing conditional on the fact that there is no negatives.

It obviously isn't but the history of progressive politics demonstrates that ideological purity is a great way of never getting anything real done.

E.g. planned Parenthood's murky beginnings, food stamps (buyer of last resort for leftover agricultural produce), schools (training kids to be obedient factory workers).

I doubt there are any progressive institutions which aren't partly borne out of an uneasy alliance with some powerful but unethical group whose interests either align or are at least aren't all that badly affected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is an interesting example of a pseudo-research article. It indeed looks like it's using scientific approach to an important problem, but the method is questionable:

\- why did the authors pick 2,000 feet and 4,000 feet as thresholds? They refer to another article, but that article doesn't shed much light onto the problem as well

\- why does the research cover the range of 1996-2006?

\- the article looks at the low-income housing project built in 1996-2006. What's about the projects built before that?

\- what was located on the site before the project was built?

</comment><comment><USER12> The low income property makes almost no difference. What matters is low income by _density_. If you spread out low income housing then you get to build it and it has no effect on prices or perceived value. If you had tons of dense blocks of housing, then I could see how youd end up with a deteriorating situation.

</comment><comment><USER13> This study is useless because it looks at this on only a 10 year span.

To go from a "good neighbourhood" to a "bad neighbourhood" takes longer time than just 10 years since more and more houses are build graudually and people move in over longer periods of time until the majority of the population there is low-income.

<comment><USER6> Do you have a study where it shows what happens over a longer period of time? The period of 1996-2006 is very suspect too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> In the markets with already extremely high demand, arguably markets where value and price are already fully uncoupled (eg bubble markets). An analysis on more "normal" markets would, I suspect, paint a very different picture.

<comment><USER15> Ok? But the studied markets are the ones where low income housing is both most needed and also often staunchly opposed by nimbys.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, but that's the point the parent is making. "Most needed" just means "high demand market", and in markets like that it's almost impossible to do anything to upset the trajectory of housing costs - unless we have another 2008-style mortgage crash because of fraud. The lesson to take here is that putting affordable housing in excessively expensive markets might actually be a really smart idea.

<comment><USER17> It tends to be excessively expensive to build in those markets, which is what has led to the excessively high prices in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Unless they expect low-income people to cause issues, why would housing price decrease?

It should increase because the amount of land of normal price decreases.

Also, I always joke that you can help lower housing price in the area by causing non-offense nuisance. Walking shirtless and talking gibberish to yourself loudly. It will probably help a little.

<comment><USER4> > Unless they expect low-income people to cause issues, why would housing > price decrease?

In principle, by supply and demand. If there is more housing then people don't have to outbid each other for the existing housing and the prices decrease.

Obviously this only applies if there is enough new housing to move the needle, which for housing projects like this there often isn't, but that's also the exact reason why programs like this are so ineffective. You have a city of a million households, a quarter of a million can't afford housing (or are having to scrimp in order to afford it), then you build a thousand units and imagine that will do something. What about the other 249,000?

Anything actually effective at making housing more affordable would reduce housing prices, because that's literally what "more affordable" means.

<comment><USER19> I mean the bigger problem is that if amount of housing determined price, cities would be waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than towns. Available housing may drive population growth, pushing _up_ the price, since for whatever reason people like to aggregate.

<comment><USER4> Price is determined by supply and demand. There is more demand in cities so you need more supply to get the same price.

People want to live near other people/businesses, but that's what cities are already, which is why there is already more demand there. There is a limit to the amount of housing you can add before you end up on the other side of the curve and prices start going back down again.

There is also a matter of general policy. If hypothetically one city (and no others) added a lot of new housing so that the cost of housing there was lower there than in other cities then many people might move there, because they'd get to live in a city for less than it costs anywhere else, which would drive prices back up to near equilibrium. But if every city added housing then you wouldn't have that sort of migration because people could get into new housing without moving to another city, and then prices would decline everywhere.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


2015 is the Year of Bore-Sec - <AUTHOR> https://guardianproject.info/2015/01/02/2015-is-the-year-of-bore-sec/

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this makes an interesting point abut how effective crypto will have to be "easy and seamless".</comment>


Only for Startups: 1 year free Userlike account - <AUTHOR>

To give something back to the startup community we'd like to support every startup with a free Userlike Team account.
Sign up on our website and write a mail to firstname.lastname@example.com and you'll get your Userlike live chat account for 1 year.
Cheers, Timoor <comment><USER2> Nice, I'll sign up :) I see you guys are offline now. What times are you online? Perhaps you can assist me with integrating it into my CRM

<comment><AUTHOR> We are mostly online at CET working hours, but feel free to leave us a note and wew get back asap. Contact my on firstname.lastname@example.com and I am happy to assist you.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Feel free to comment on this offer :-)

</comment><comment><USER2> What do you consider a startup?

<comment><AUTHOR> every business that is not operating longer than 3 years.

cheers Timoor

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How long will this offer go on?

<comment><AUTHOR> We offer this deal until end of February. Happy to welcome you if you want to use Userlike.</comment></comment>


Should You Use Bootstrap or Foundation? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/use-bootstrap-or-foundation

<comment><USER2> I've ended up using Bootstrap because numerous 3rd party things work with Bootstrap out of the box and don't always play nicely with Foundation.

I had wanted to use Foundation originally, but encountering similar but, slightly different, (though resolvable) hassles integrating it when lots of those things had out of the box integration with Bootstrap changed my mind.

<comment><USER3> For me it's the same: I use Bootstrap because I find it easy to theme and it's more supported. But I prefer Foundation grid system...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No purecss?</comment>


No, you don't need a blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://thomaslarock.com/2018/11/no-you-dont-need-a-blockchain/ <comment><USER2> From what I see in discussions about blockchain hype, blockchain is conflated with cryptocurrency by largely ignorant opinions on the Internet.

I concede this: It's true that a blockchain is just an distributed immutable series of transactions, aka a slower database. I agree that that's overhyped and people don't need things like IBM Hyperledger, and basically any private blockchain or one that depends on trusted parties(the great majority of coins that boast to be faster than Bitcoin).

However, I believe all that misses the actual point and proves the ignorance of most such articles, because it is also true that cryptocurrencies solve the previously unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making. Of course, from this I exclude the great majority of centralized shitcoin cash grabs / delusions.

Yes, there are scaling issues which might never be surmounted (I'd call it 50-50 that things like Lightning Network / Ethereum sharding will succeed One Day™). However, having an open, open source global payment/calculation/information network is a thing of great potential.

<comment><USER3> >cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making

In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most currency, then it's not really democratic.

<comment><USER2> In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people (because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having that ability, can:

\- disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in bad faith

\- ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)

<comment><USER4> I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as it currently exists working in practice in human society.

<comment><USER2> I think the instability of the past (contentious forks, DAO, anything else) are growing pains, but with enough time I believe it's possible that we as a sort of hive mind will settle on something more permanent and stable because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network.

<comment><USER4> >because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network

It will always be in someone's interest to attempt to take control of a network, thus eventually causing opposition interest to fork the network, thus continued fragmentation and impenetrability w.r.t. normal users

Basically, how do you solve the "government and/or private individual/group with enough wealth and/or access to resources can take control of a cryptocurrency by acquiring majority consensus" problem?

<comment><USER2> In proof of stake, that could be a problem (though there are mechanisms people claim can handle it). But in a proof of work currency, having majority consensus would mean they'd have to have the majority of miners - and even then they have to follow the rules because users' nodes will just reject invalid blocks. And in the worst of cases, people can fork away, and if they change the PoW algorithm while doing so - they'll also render the malicious actor's ASICs useless.

I'm not saying this is fool proof, but the innovation of Bitcoin is precisely the system which is designed to resist these things (again, it's still very hard).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For those on the "you don't need a blockchain hype train." I suggest your write a dApp, and see how easy it is to connect to a highly fault tolerant function as a service that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. There is a lot more to blockchain than what is discussed in this article.

<comment><USER6> For those on the "blockchain hype train", I suggest you find a business solution that requires a dApp.

> that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to > access other contracts deployed by others.

Outside of crypto (mainly bitcoin), what business problem exists for this problem today and what blockchain solution has been created to solve it?

I've genuinely waited for people to provide a serious answer to this and I'm still waiting for an answer.

<comment><USER7> The storage of information that no one owns for one. Further on chains like Ethereum's one can build a contract based on a contract built by another party. Further using the data in that contract in new and novel ways. So lets say I build an app lets say for simplicity sake, I build a game and expose all the mechanics as a contract but I absolutely hate swords. So I will not implement swords in my contract. You are free to come along and build a contract that extends my contract and adds swords to it. My contract is still 100% whole and unmodified but you are able to get what you want.

From a more practical aspect I see great value in, non-corporate owned data. For example medical records. If everyone had a contract where they can provide their key to their medical providers so that they can add diagnostics, x-rays etc. and then only individuals you grant access to can read said records you would have a nice solution to open but secure medical records. Without a central authority or corporation owning and having control of that data. an open credit report would be another good one. Social networks not owned by Facebook and where anyone can build apps ontop of said data would be another.

It's not a fix all as companies are pitching it based on the buzz but anywhere where open data that needs to be secured and would better off if it where not owned by an organization, block-chain is a great solution. Sure there are speed issue with it right now. But assuming that, the speed issue is addressed I see a lot of uses for it.

<comment><USER8> > My contract is still 100% whole and unmodified but you are able to get what > you want.

So, a VCS fork? We had that for a while.

> medical records

All you're describing is an online folder with a standard API to which you upload encrypted files. The point of the blockchain and friends is to achieve _consensus_. It brings absolutely nothing new to that use case. It's only worse, since it relies only on encryption to protect extremely sensitive data. Do you want all your records open in twenty years when someone breaks whatever algorithm used back then?

<comment><USER9> Free speech. Anonymous speech.

Some kind of electronic notary: Some kind of hash that verifies something hasn't been tampered with which is signed by multiple parties which keeps adding transaction on top of transaction making it costly and costly to change the hash.

<comment><USER8> _Free speech. Anonymous speech._

Doesn't require achieving a global consensus, hence we already have had Freenet for quite a while.

 _electronic notary_

Still no consensus required. Cheaper version: have all parties digitally sign a file with that hash, then upload it to IPFS and share the address.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The hype around "you don't need a blockchain" is reaching a fever pitch as well. Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases.

There are a few good points made, many business scenarios would be fine with a centralized database.

However, the content is highly opinionated and shows a lack of understanding regarding to crypto transactions and block generation, for example.

> many cryptocurrencies rely on trusted third parties to handle payouts. So, > they use blockchain to generate coins, but don't use blockchain to handle > payouts. Because of the issues involved around trust. Let that sink in for a > moment.]

<comment><USER11> > Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases.

I am unaware of any non-currency use case where blockchain brings any advantages to bear.

<comment><USER9> Anonymous Free speech.

Some kind of electronic notary service. \- version labeling for code

You could tie a website to a bitcoin address by posting a file that had a hash which was written to the not in bitcoin.

<comment><USER12> How would a blockchain help for an Anonymous Free speech usecase? Serious question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing > Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of > showing their identity. So, if that sounds like you, then yes, you should > consider using blockchain.

Oh my, this is soo opinionated and short sighted, it starts with complete rubbish, pointless read I guess.

<comment><USER14> Do people not use bitcoin to purchase drugs anonymously on the Internet?

<comment><USER10> Do people not use cash to buy drugs?

<comment><USER14> Not on the internet, as far as I'm aware.

<comment><USER12> Lots of dummies use Facebook to arrange cash drug transactions. Does that count?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Or, if you're running a large logistics company with one or more supply > chains made up of many different vendors, and need to identify, track, > trace, or source the items in the supply chain, then blockchain may be the > solution for you as well.

Can someone explain to me why. You need a block chain for this? Why not just an evented database with a signature field and periodic hashes?

<comment><USER16> How would you prevent a rogue developer from updating/deleting events? Even if you could tell from the hashes that something changed, you would lose whatever data the dev changed. Backups can help mitigate this, but not until after the fact.

<comment><USER17> Have database replicas that only listen to INSERT statements (easy to implement in My/Maria SQL with BEFORE triggers), and design the software that works with the DB as append-only.

<comment><USER8> Right. Or any other append-only system, really. I mean, one wouldn't ask "how do you prevent someone from deleting an email they sent you earlier?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ability to create tokens and make money out of it has created a lot of unnecessary hype. Blockchain has its use-cases, but not as many as some want it to have.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think Blockchain technology as distributed immutable ledger is a very nice data structure for a lot of real world use cases (supply chain, market place, contracts,..). Sure it's also a huge hype thanks to crypto currencies, icos, etc. but the technology fulfills a need. However, I see more advantages in using private quorums leveraging proof of authority instead of public networks of untrusted nodes. I understand that not everyone might be ok with this tradeoff.

<comment><USER8> Distributed immutable logs of data existed long before the Blockchain (as someone pointed out, Git is a good example - just sign your commits). The innovation of the Blockchain was specifically the combination of that with the POW, which enabled coordination between untrusted nodes without falling prey to Sybil attacks.

A private blockchain is just giving another name to a preexisting model. It's like saying "I use a pedelec, but I see more advantages in removing the motor and battery".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article is a clever strawman. Their technical definition of blockchain is accurate, but there is one detail missing which changes everything. Most "blockchain solutions" use smart contracts, which make heavy use of data validation.

So I'd review that checklist again, but this time without the need for all parties to trust each other. Yeah, that's a pretty significant difference.

It's easy to find valid arguments to support the idea that blockchains are overhyped. But I get the impression that the author's understanding of the subject is outdated. Did the author even bother to do any research on why there was a bubble? It would not have taken more than minutes to stumble across the definition of a smart contract.

As they say in cryptoland, this is just FUD.

</comment><comment><USER21> Terminology is such a pain in the arse.

"A blockchain" has been sufficiently generalised by now in common usage that you may as well state "a thing".

Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing. It depends what sort of thing you're doing.

<comment><USER22> > Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing.

Why, yes. Yes I do. Thank you for asking.

<comment><USER21> I've got just the thing for that.

Shameless plug: you may enjoy my consulting company.

We relocate electrons for you, so you don't have to.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows > forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!

Did he get this wrong? Don't blockchain ledgers always get backed up? Isn't the difference being that instead of just backing up to one place and at one specific time like most database setups, blockchain data is backed up with everyone all the time with every transaction? - which is why it can take hours to just updated one record

<comment><USER2> Yes, you are correct. And also, all of those are useful features (except time taken to update, which is a side-effect of consensus/propagation costs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity." Except for the fact that it is kept in a public ledger for eternity.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's easier to just nod yes and take money from your management who's decided they need a blockchain, than spend time burning bridges in explaining why they don't

<comment><USER26> That is sad, life is too short for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a professional blockchain developer and someone who believes and works towards decentralisation and the economic emancipation of the under- represented, I find this type of article very sad.

The author probably buys his drugs in a store like most people do, but he fixates on the payment technology that can allow other to buy them semi- anonymously and securely in the privacy of their own homes, while ignoring TCP/IP or PHP or whatever browser that needs to be used in the same transaction.

This seems like an agenda but experience has thought me that I shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. On the topic of what a blockchain is and what it enables, Thomas is ignorant but also incredibly unaware of his own privilege.

I need a public, decentralised blockchain, smart-contracts and cryptoeconomics to bootstrap digital economies that don't rely on advertising or selling user's data. I also need them to help bring electric power, clean water and food to people that don't buy drugs online with the tokens I create. You know why? Because they are too busy trying to survive failed nation-states.

Thomas, if you read this, please consider that your opinion is your own and you do have the right to express it anyway you want but for now the only thing you've accomplished is that I will stop using and advising Solarwinds to my customers.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like another example of the politician's fallacy. Yes, people need those thing, but one can recognize that while still disagreeing that the blockchain will in any significant way help with that. And that kind of argument - "either you're with me or you hate poor people in failed nation- states!" \- is just emotional manipulation.

<comment><USER27> I might feel more emotional about this because I'm involved right?

From my perspective, I'm not appealing to your feelings, I'm telling you that buying drugs is a very small portion of what makes cryptocurrencies relevant and blockchain based commerce a necessity.

I was just at a talk where Steward Brand, a man known for the Whole Earth Catalog, the Hackers Conferences, the Mother of all Demos as well as the Trips festival (early SF psy-scene) was showing incredible vitality and enthusiasm about what the Ethereum community is accomplishing right now.

Before that, there was this fantastic presentation by Glen Weyl from Radical Markets fame who has a vision for empowering under-privileged and under- represented that relies on blockchain. His work with Vitalik Buterin and others ([https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656)) on Liberal Radicalism is a step forward towards funding of commons and allowing communities to self-organise.

At no point during the last 5 days did I hear one person at this conference mention buying drugs with cryptos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What happens when blockchain "databases" grow to multiple terrabytes or petabytes? This presents a huge barrier to spinning up a new validation (mining) node. Are there plans for sharding blockchains?

<comment><USER29> Yes, there are (and some that already do), but doing it correctly is actually pretty complicated. Checkout Ethereum's sharding docs: [https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding- FAQs](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs)

<comment><USER28> Wow, that's some light reading for later!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Whilst I agree with the general statement of this article, it seems the author doesnt understand that there are different kinds of "blockchain" than that used by bitcoin

</comment><comment><USER31> I wish all universities would put student transcripts on a public blockchain, while addressing privacy concerns.

<comment><USER8> Why?

<comment><USER31> It would make it possible to trust the academic credentials presented by foreign applicants. Currently this process is very cumbersome. Some unversities require applicants to submit notarized transcripts to thirdparty for verification. The process is long and painful. And if the applicant wants to apply in multiple Universities, then they have to get multiple notarized copies of their transcripts. And if they want to apply for post grad , they have to repeat the process for getting notarized transcripts.

<comment><USER8> Seems like you'd be better off by a PDF digitally signed by the university (with the public key hosted on their website, for verification).

I just saved with a few thousand dollars. Where should I send the bill? :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Seems like a database marketing guy attacking its competitor. LOL

</comment><comment><USER33> Here we go again..

First issue with the post: "Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity."

Let's see, there's this thing called _cash_ and you don't need an id to buy drugs with it as well. Weapons can be purchased easily with it. Hits can be put out on people with it. Basically, anything bad in the world anyone would want to do that requires a payment, can be done with cash. The biggest 'offender' in this - the US dollar.

Next: "Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!"

Bullshit - in regard to backing up. Of course it doesn't need to be 'backed up'. It exists in its entirety across the globe, replicated on many thousands of machines, in many different countries. Hmmm, sounds like 'big replication' problem solved. (Marc Andreessen likes it anyway: [https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin- matters/](https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/)) The fact is, it is amazing because it's been running like this for over a decade now with NO HACKS, no data breaches, no hiding of anything based on this scandal or the next. No one company owns it. No one government owns it. And it's worth billions of dollars (meh). It does sound amazing to me.

"Blockchain should make your system more trustworthy, but it does the opposite. Blockchain pushes the burden of trust onto individuals adding transactions to the blockchain. This is how all distributed systems work. The burden of trust goes from a central entity to all participants. And this is the inherent problem with blockchain."

Snooze, bullshit... It is a FACT nowadays that the centralization of the internet has been bad for it. Even the inventor of it has come out against it. Putting trust in a third party is never a good idea in my mind. Strong encryption exists and it empowers the individual to USE IT. When I make a bitcoin transaction, I sign that transaction as valid. Me. I don't need a bank or a government or any other third party to make this happen. This is lost on many people, but having the freedom to transact securely and encrypt YOUR data is about as important of a concept as there can be nowadays. There are many government and corporate entities that do not want you to have this capability (I'm looking at you 'Senator' Feinstein..). You may have to trust Apple to provide 'secure' environments to run your/others apps, but they are not working in your interests and will change course as soon as it suits their profits.

Anyway, this is a stupid article, to be blunt. It's from someone who is rallying against the marketing of blockchain and instead of taking on those messages/issues/marketing directly, he falls into the same trap as the rest of the naysayers.

If you talk to a _real_ blockchain/crypto developer/advocate, they will probably tell you this: "if you want to make a immutable, open, distributed transactional database that isn't blindingly fast, then using a blockchain that has cryptographically signed transactions might be a good idea.". Ethereum has taken this a step further with smart contracts, which, have more or less worked.

But NO ONE I know or talk to on a day to day is saying use a blockchain for your app database needs. And anyone who does, does not know what they are talking about and should probably be fired from any development position they hold.

What is happening right now in this space is the smart people have their heads down and are cranking on the next generation of tech that everyone will be using in 5-10 years. The smart investors see this as well and are all positioning themselves as we speak. I personally stopped working on _legacy_ tech last year and am 100% exclusive on crypto and blockchain products.

I have already seen this movie before twice: the first episode was called the web, the second was called mobile. So, hate if you will but it won't change anything. The early adopter wave is at the end and we'll see more mass adoption in the coming years. Good luck!

TLDR; stupid article, known inaccuracies, known typical trolling content. Move along..

<comment><USER8> Nitpick: that was the creator of the Web, not of the Internet.</comment></comment>


Homebrew: Require analytics opt-in rather than make it a blind default - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/142 <comment><USER2> I figured something was up when I noticed a new hidden file in my home directory: .homebrew_analytics_user_uuid</comment>


Delta IV Rocket Launched from California with Top Secret Payload (Video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12251194

<comment><USER2> If Hugo Chavez suddenly suffers from instant flash evaporation you'll know what the payload was.

<comment><USER3> I seriously doubt that's what the payload is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As long as we're making informed guesses:

"For an imaging spacecraft to provide truly persistent surveillance capability, the satellite should be in a higher orbit, requiring large- aperture deployable mirrors, in the range of 10-20 meters in diameter."

[i.e., need to hover longer over one site -> {higher orbit, larger mirror} -> need bigger rocket]

From page 10 of:

[http://www.docstoc.com/docs/57862449/NPS-Space-Systems- Progr...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/57862449/NPS-Space-Systems-Program)

</comment><comment><USER5> Another spy satellite, I guess.

<comment><USER2> Yes that would normally be the expectation, but at 23 tonnes you have to wonder.</comment></comment>