World's dumbest iPhone game - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/thumbit./id823909785

<comment><AUTHOR> It has a fun tag feature, which is quite awesome for sending custom thumbit messages to friends.</comment>


Dwolla - online money without plastic cards - <AUTHOR> https://www.dwolla.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Any comments on its success?</comment>


Ask HN: Free stuff during Covid-19 pandemic? - <AUTHOR> What are all the stuff that became free during Covid-19 pandemic?? <comment><AUTHOR> Pluralsight is free for the month of april [https://www.pluralsight.com/offer/2020/free-april- month](https://www.pluralsight.com/offer/2020/free-april-month)

Coursera providing free courses [https://www.classcentral.com/report/coursera- free-certificat...](https://www.classcentral.com/report/coursera-free- certificate-covid-19/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Most of the stuff is listed here [https://www.komando.com/coronavirus/company- freebies-coronav...](https://www.komando.com/coronavirus/company-freebies- coronavirus/732147/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Audible providing free audiobooks to listen for teens and chilidren [https://stories.audible.com/discovery](https://stories.audible.com/discovery)</comment>


Video Game Copyright Law Explained by Pac-Man, Donkey Kong and Zombie Decapitation - <AUTHOR> http://adlervermillion.com/copyright-illustrated-video-game-clones/

<comment><AUTHOR> edited the title to simply "Copyright Law Illustrated: Video Game Clones"</comment>


Your Bank Balance is at Zero - <AUTHOR> http://www.ideasonideas.com/2010/11/your-bank-balance-is-at-zero/

<comment><USER3> It strikes me that choosing to rent over owning is the antithesis to the theme of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (recommended book).

The driving metaphor comes from the contrast between (effectively) renting a BMW motorcycle (since they are hard to repair), and owning a simpler model that can be maintained by oneself.

The stated benefit is greater autonomy and satisfaction derived through taking ownership and solving one's own problems - a more classical approach to life. Rather than taking a "fix this for me" attitude, you see the world as something that you have control over.

Personally, I've found it very satisfying every time I'm able to repair something in my car, which I've owned for 8 years.

<comment><USER4> The parts are sourced from a retailer. You're just pushing the "fix this for me" up one level and ignoring the entire inextricable chains of production.

The sense of control is a false one. Is there control in the availability of parts, or their manufacture?

<comment><USER3> That's a false dilemma - the choice isn't between full-service rentals and forging my own steel from ore I dig out of the ground.

Increasing one's autonomy has value, whether or not you ever reach full autonomy.

<comment><USER4> Oh, it does, definitely. But it's more along the lines of being able to deal with increasingly large daily emergencies. Being able to forge steel would be an apocalypse-sized emergency.

As an ego-booster, I'm not so sure. Since everything is so connected, why gloat? As someone who has actually _built_ a car from scrap metal and a loose engine, I feel that there isn't much difference between putting a pre-made part in a car yourself, or having someone else do it. Everything's a tinkertoy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People buy things for all kinds of reasons that aren't discussed in the article.

Convenience!

For me this is a prime motivator. I have sufficient demands on my time that added expense of owning a car is worth the 20 minutes it would take to access the closest virtu-car, and the 90 minutes I save every day driving in stead of busing.

I have enough space in my house for cold storage and a freezer. This means I can buy food in bulk and don't have to go to store as often.

Security!

Landlords kick tenants out out now and then. Rents can go up all of a sudden. My family rented for a long time when I was a kid, and we got booted out of several houses when the landlord decided not to renew to lease for one reason or another; wanted to give the house to a relative, wanted a pile more rent, et. cet.

Agency!

For some people home improvement and 'puttering around the house' is a big source of pleasure and recreation. Many people express themselves with the work of their hands, and owning tools and infrastructure to build things and so forth is important too them.

Finally, NRP's planet money has a great blog about the issue of buying vs. renting housing: [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/05/131105373/the- frid...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/05/131105373/the-friday- podcast-finally-an-apology#more)

tl;dr: this is about way more than money. It's about personal value choices

<comment><USER6> A great blog post from Tim Ellis on buying vs renting: [http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/07/16/renting-vs- buyi...](http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/07/16/renting-vs-buying-the- realities-of-home-buying/)

<comment><USER7> It should be noted that Tim wrote this near the peak of the housing bubble in Seattle (Kenmore neighborhood). The house he identified for $425k in that piece would now sell for about $300k, which puts monthly costs at about 25% more expensive than renting instead of 78% more expensive.

In a completely average, non-bubble housing market, buying (counting insurance, taxes and breaks, maintenance, etc.) is about 20% more expensive than renting in the short term, but after 5-10 years of inflation and rent increases, renting becomes more expensive. There's a definite tradeoff between short-term savings with no equity but high flexibility vs. long-term savings with equity and permanence. That tradeoff was slanted heavily in favor of renting in Kenmore, WA in 2007, but as Tim's conclusion notes, it is not always so; whatever your situation, "run the numbers ... and do what works for you."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A few months back I realized one main aspect of travel, I tremendously enjoy: the lack of stuff. Traveling around with just one suitcase of clothes and my laptop opened my eyes: Of all the stuff I own, everything I really needed for my every day life was right there with me. And it is so easily replaceable...

I never was a big gatherer, but since then I really cut down on buying things. In addition to that I'm getting rid of my things, some are easier to lose some are harder to give away or sell, but in the end it feels great. I actually find it liberating to stand in a store and _not_ buy the fancy item which would inevitably be degraded to be clutter on the shelf in a few weeks. The money I spend goes into the few things I really use all the time, like my iPhone. I also eat better. All in all I'd say it made me a happier person.

<comment><USER9> I moved to Asia for 5 months and found the same thing.

I brought a big suitcase full of items, but probably only used a backpack full. I purchased local clothes (for cheap) that were better suited to the climate and everything else was easily replaceable.

I also agree investing heavily into a few key items is important. My Macbook was irreplaceable. I wish I spent more on a better camera, it was a good one but I used it enough to justify getting a great one.

Now that I am back I realize I have a lot of stuff that is completely unnecessary. It is surprisingly difficult to get rid of, but I am donating it in chunks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's rather interesting and jarring to me to see how many of the reply's in this thread are so aggressively defensive of the very idea that owning more stuff might not always be better than _not_ owning more stuff.

I've been watching a marathon of back episodes of "Hoarders" (<http://www.aetv.com/hoarders/index.jsp>) on NetFlix streaming, and it's somewhat startling to me how much some of the replies here sound like the defensive responses of some of the hoarders in the show.

<comment><USER11> I think that these threads always end up being more about ideology than hard facts. There are a lot of people that enjoy not being 'tied down' and being 'free and easy,' which things like 'having kids' or 'owning a house' tend to prevent. It then becomes more of a decision to pursue a particular lifestyle than anything else.

That said, the reaction of the people on Hoarders tend to be defensive reactions due to not wanting to deal with the issue at hand (i.e. extreme procrastination). Which is probably why most of them pick up their hoarding habits after the loss of a close loved one (usually a parent). They don't want to deal with the loss, so they are constantly pushing it away, and not dealing with it.

{edit} This tends to bleeding into everything else in their lives. They live for the momentary thrill of acquiring things, while not bothering with 'the boring stuff' like cleaning their house, or sorting their acquired items, or even deciding which items are/aren't worthless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Somebody_ has to own the stuff you're renting. If I'm a renter I'm just passing along the responsibility to someone else. If the vast majority of us are renters rather than owners, who has incentive to do any maintenance or improvement? The landlord and her employees will do the minimum cosmetic fixes to keep rents increasing. The residents have no reason to keep the place nice --they can just move on. This article is not an indictment of our disposable culture. It's an amplification of that culture to encompass our whole lives.

Look, I think we fill our lives with too much stuff, but refusing to take an ownership stake in housing, transportation, etc. will lead to worse outcomes, not better.

<comment><USER13> "If the vast majority of us are renters rather than owners, who has incentive to do any maintenance or improvement?"

This doesn't make sense. The remaining owners will still compete for renters. If my landlord does a bad job, I will find a better landlord. In fact, you can argue that concentrating ownership makes maintenance more efficient. My landlord has much more experience at plumbing, painting, installing appliances etc. than I ever would.

<comment><USER14> Renting introduces a Principal-Agent problem[1] because the owner's incentives are not entirely in line with yours. Maximum profit is realized by doing the minimum amount of repairs necessary to keep people from moving out. Switching apartments is not free (in time, money or effort) so the bar a landlord has to clear is only 'not bad enough to leave'. I doubt homeowners would choose the same standard.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem>

<comment><USER15> Your logic is sound, but my observation in reality does not match.

There are slumlords - but that's usually caused by a compression in supply (e.g., when I was in college, any place near school had notorious landlords). When supply is open though, everything works out.

You have your uber-cheap rentals where nothing will ever get fixed, and then you have your more premium rentals where they'll turnaround a stove in 24 hours or less. Like all markets, a low-end and high-end are established and work just peachy.

Of course, this is not geographically true everywhere - especially when you introduce artificial supply and demand factors (rent control, anyone?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Having lost money on 3 of the 4 houses we've owned, I can confidently state that if you can't see staying in the same house when switching jobs you're better off renting. Houses might be "investments you can live in", but they are a long-term investment. The US favors home ownership, but that is not the case, say, in Canada. Do the math, and see which investment provides the better return for your time window. But invest it somewhere...

</comment><comment><USER17> What about building a greater than zero balance for your loved ones or children? If you never save and always rent you will never be able to pass anything along to the next generation creating another set of folks that have to start from zero.

When I hear these arguments I always figure they already have a great enough balance to counteract these issues or have no loved ones to pass along equity too.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure he's saying you shouldn't save. You could leave a good amount of capital to your kids too without owning a house.

<comment><USER19> Hmm. While this is definitely true, I think you stand to leave more to your children if you own, opposed to renting. If your rent is comparable to mortgage (assumption, I know) you will wind up paying less after the mortgage is over. If you die at 80, and start paying rent at 20, that's 60 years of rent, compared to, say, a 30-year mortgage. That's 30 more years of rent.

I know, I know, someone is going to say "well, what about upkeep and maintenance and killing rats and xyz?" The way I'm seeing this (which, by the by, is originating completely from a 3-beer-deep opinionated loudmouth) is that it's negligible compared to the fact that you are investing your money in something that is of material value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think this news item from yesterday is related:

[http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/11/ny-fed- continued-d...](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/11/ny-fed-continued- decline-in-consumer.html) "Since its peak in the third quarter of 2008, nearly $1 trillion has been shaved from outstanding consumer debts." "So are consumers becoming more frugal? Yes. Holding aside defaults, they are indeed reducing their debts at a pace not seen over the last ten years."

Looks like we're moving from a loan-and-own economy to an age of access, where you only pay for access to stuff (aka "rent").

I can only go as far as to my self.

I don't buy CDs anymore, I pay for access to Spotify.

I don't buy books anymore, I pay for access to an ebook on my Kindle (although it's a one time fee).

I don't buy DVDs, I pay to get access to an online stream.

And so forth.

</comment><comment><USER21> I feel as though with all things, there is a balance. I know people who are addicted to "stuff" and always keep acquiring huge piles of things. There is an optimistic point of minimalism though. Ownership is a commitment that can pay dividends or it can put you in shackles, a bit like human relationships. So, consider every purchase in this light and you might find the optimal point of "stuff."

<comment><AUTHOR> Precisely. I'm not against owning things; I just question whether we need to own everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I recently sold my huge apartment + furnitures, don't have a car anymore. I really felt owning these things were limiting my freedom and having a huge cost both economically as well as mentally. I'm really excited about embarking on a more minimalistic lifestyle, where I think twice about the cost of ownership. I now have more money and more freedom. Great article.

<comment><USER23> I have moved to Britain recently and did not take much stuff. Most of what I do have is replaceable.

Sometimes I feel more uprooted than liberated by the lack of stuff.

<comment><USER24> I have recently offloaded a whole bunch of stuff, streamlining my possessions before going travelling - and it is weird at first. My feelings are definitely a mix of uprooted and liberated, in equal measures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In SunDog, you'd start out without much cash, but you also started with a spaceship. Now, in order to keep the spaceship you had to fulfill a contract. To fulfill that contract, you had to make money to keep the ship going, and you had to explore a bunch of planets. The spaceship was reasonably roomy, could land on planets, and had a large all-terrain vehicle for exploring the surface and bringing back cargo.

I could see not needing an apartment, if I had an FTL spaceship like that.

<comment><USER26> The same was true in Elite. In Elite II you inherited (tax free) from a recently-deceased relative 100 credits plus an Eagle starship.

Despite the game's apparent freedom, it only gives you one option - to take the ship and go. You can't, for example, sell the expensive space ship, re- invest it into the fish processing plant you work in and use the proceeds to live like a king on the poverty-stricken planet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Link is broken, here:

[http://www.ideasonideas.com/2010/11/your-bank-balance-is- at-...](http://www.ideasonideas.com/2010/11/your-bank-balance-is-at-zero/)

</comment><comment><USER28> While I've spent years reading this message in various places (most recently at <http://mnmlist.com> and <http://farbeyondthestars.com>), I'm always refreshed by it.

Perhaps it's not the author's main point, but living lightly means we have more time to invest in the things and experiences that interest us, and that is a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER29> There is an interesting video from Khan Academy related to this: "The math of renting vs. buying a home. Challenging the notion that it is always better to buy." [http://www.khanacademy.org/video/renting-vs--buying-a- home?p...](http://www.khanacademy.org/video/renting-vs--buying-a- home?playlist=Finance)

<comment><USER10> That's interesting to see it actually analyzed by someone with Mr. Khan's math skills. Not to mention the spreadsheet liked to from the 3rd video in the renting-vs-buying looks like it be a useful tool for running the comparison in your own local market/circumstances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd just like to post that I agree with the comment from 'Russ' in the article.

This article is a one-sided exploration of the buy-vs-rent debate. It doesn't explore all of the emotional connotations of owning something durable, and overweights certain experiences from the point of view of the author, when this cannot possible apply to a population of people.

Finally, as Russ comments - it's wrong to sneer at the purchase of a handbag or BMW - the person might be spending their money on a combination of quality product and brand, but once you start getting into the argument of purchasing x is right, and purchasing y is wrong- you're arguing simply from a relative point of view. As long as the transaction was not done under duress, where is the problem? My neighbour spends all his money on sailing. I find it a waste of money, but he clearly gets enjoyment from it. Who is right? Is it remotely possible for me to suggest that buying a sailboat is wrong? Wrong to who? As compared to what? Free choices are just that.

Owning a house in a falling market may seem like a foolish position, and for many, perhaps it is. But that goes to assume that the person owning a house does it for purely financial reasons, which, again, is wrong. Another neighbour of mine is an old lady in her 80's who owns her house and lives by herself. By any object measure she'd be better off selling the house and both investing and spending the considerable cash that would generate. But she enjoys her garden and the memories of a house that once contained her husband and family over the span of 40 years. Is she wrong to hold this position? Financially perhaps, but perhaps the currency aspect means very little to her in comparison with pleasure of her little piece of land with a house on it. She could sell her house, rent a nice retirement apartment and afford a around-the-world cruise. A rental-is-best mindset would recommend this view. How can I tell her she is wrong and someone else is right?

</comment><comment><USER31> I generally like the idea that we should take some time to assess what is important in life. I dont, however think there is a one size fits all answer to what we should own and what we should rent, or how we should spend our money. I have read posts similar to this before, and they can seem to smack of some sense of condescension. I sense a bit at the end with the Louis Vutton/BMW comments.

Like I said, it is great to encourage others to evaluate what is a need vs a want, but I dont necessarily think something should be considered a cage just because it is purchased or unnecessary for life.

</comment><comment><USER32> This article mirrors an implicit assumption that I see in a lot of these anti- materialist articles - that being that accumulation is the desired result of the undesired (and presumably unfulfilling), all dreaded, "work." For some of us accumulation of material possessions is a welcome side effect of a highly fulfilling passion which is "work." When I say work I say it with a prideful passion in my voice, not with disdain at the damned capitalists for forcing me into this materialist trap. I love my work first, but the car is nice too. Perhaps the author just needs to find some purpose.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm quite convinced I have found some purpose. For that matter, I quite like my work.

What concerns me is the idea that so many feel they need to own something, in order to enjoy it.

<comment><USER32> I think that class of people is attempting to fill a void in their life with possessions, but that doesn't imply that all or even most ownership is unhealthy/bad. If you are buying things to find fulfillment you might as well eat the money, but if you are fulfilled and buying things (responsibly) - <USER2> applaud you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I know that there is just _way_ too much profit in the monthly payments, but a car company that somehow forced you to pay in cash woudl quickly create a status symbol for itself.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd really encourage anyone interested in this discussion to read this comment: <http://bit.ly/adXv1l>

I believe it gets a little closer to the heart of what I was working to convey --particularly as the discussion seemed to later spiral into a primarily financial one.

</comment><comment><USER34> my favorite part of the article:

Few of us want to die, as evidenced by such statements as, "if I die…" (like there's some possibility of an alternative). I hate to break it to you, but the only real variables are how and when. Other than that, we're probably best to accept that you and I are both just toast. I find a kind of liberty in this knowledge. In fact, it suggests that most of the things I fret over are largely inconsequential, and that I shouldn't squander these moments.</comment>


Turn GitHub Stars into Hearts - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jandre/heartthrob

<comment><USER2> After installing this software, I increased my number of Hearted repositories by 33%!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I dig these little hacks that make the apps you use more entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER3> <3</comment>


"Without his shoes, I couldn't walk": a cobbler with a mission - <AUTHOR> http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024730849_madeinseattle12xml.html

<comment><USER2> Somewhat related, for years and years I've walked a lot (average is 4-5 miles a day, every day). About 5 years ago I started having pain in the ball of my feet and I couldn't walk much. I was about to give up, when I discovered MBTs, which are a "rocker" style shoe. It saved me. Now, I have 4 pairs that I rotate and I have many fewer issues. They gave me a scare a few years ago when they declared bankruptcy, but they came back a couple of years ago.

I believe I have Morton's neuroma, and it makes sense that a rocker-style shoe would help this malady.

Regarding the article, I don't know why some of these people can't just buy two pairs of shoes of different sizes and just use the correct shoe from each pair for each foot.

<comment><USER3> I would imagine that where there is an issue of feet of different sizes, they also correlate to different heights. If you were to get two shoes of different sizes they might individually fit better, but not correct the overall balance issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He charges $550 to make the lasts (foot-shaped molds for the leather). And he does about 30 pairs of shoes a yea --, not sure how many lasts. Maybe a 3D printer could pay for itself in a somewhat reasonable amount of time?

<comment><USER5> Lastmaking is much more complex than it might sound. It sounds like you're hinting at an easier method of last design, but printing a replica of a foot doesn't give you a last -- it needs to be sculpted to fit the foot throughout the day, with appropriate adjustments for foot expansion, stretching, length, etc.

The last also has an enormous impact on the external appearance of the shoe. A custom dress last and a custom workboot last made for the same foot will differ signigicantly, and not in a way a computerized process could easily adjust for. (I'm sure it could be done, but it would take a concerted effort by someone with substantial resources and access to tons of feet to measure and study.)

The limiting factor isn't in last production, but rather design. And that's not something that 3d printing will help.

<comment><USER6> That's really interesting, but I'm not convinced that automation has no role here. When a human sculpts a last, she must be using _some_ techniques and rules of thumb, even if a large part of the craft is "by eye". It seems that "starter" or "template" lasts could be produced using foot scans and whatever rules the sculptor will divulge. Then the sculptor could use the templates in making the final lasts...

<comment><USER7> Sure, but automation is not free. Supose you could design a machine to make it twice as fast for 10 million and sell them at 10,000$ a pop. Your world wide market would need to be ~1,000 of them a year which is probably not even close to realistic. You can't really charge more as the hand made approach is reasonably fast and nobody is going to dump 20+K to buy one if it's only saving the, a few hours a week.

PS: Feel free to play with the numbers but there is a reason so much of the world is sill not automated.

<comment><USER6> That explains why this wasn't done back in the industrial age. Lots of people seem to think that manufacturing 3D objects is going to get much easier soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Somewhat surprised White's couldn't help him. They make absolutely fantastic custom boots. I have two pair and they're easily the best footwear I've ever worn.

</comment><comment><USER9> nice :)</comment>


Ask HN: What should I focus on to get my first internship this summer? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I'm Wiktor, I'm 20 years old and I'm from Poland.
Soon I'll have school leaving exams and then 4 months of summer break. I'd like to get the most out of it so I plan to get the internship as a developer. In my area, there are no companies looking for interns, so I think I'll have to work remotely or abroad.
I've been programming for around 8 years now and got some experience (personal projects, open source, and occasional freelance) in C++, C#, Java (on Android), PHP, RoR, Python, and Golang. I also know how to work with Git. I'm not a specialist in one specific language, but I'm acquainted with many of them and I learn quickly.
Recently I created my resume and refreshed my projects on GitHub (added screenshots, so interested people can see it right away). I will link to my resume and GitHub page below.
What do you think I should do now? Should I focus on one technology/language and try to get the internship in it or try with everything I'm familiar with. I don't have one favorite language (it often changes) so I don't see a problem with it. Should I change something in my resume or on my GitHub? Should I learn something new before applying? Just looking for tips to be prepared for it.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks for the help.
Resume: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88843294/resume.pdf GitHub: https://github.com/Sekhmet <comment> tips-from-cosby Go outside and enjoy your youth. You'll have time to program once you're in a 9-5, but you won't be able to play a pickup basketball game with your friends. When you wake up on your 40th birthday, you're not going to wish you had spent more time programming computers 20 years ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really enjoy programming, so I don't think I will regret getting some experience. I got injured during workout recently as well and I'm not able to do physical work, play most games or workout, so just not to waste time I'd love to get the internship.

<comment><USER2> Sorry to hear about your injury, bud!! I'm curious though, is there any chance sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day could hurt your recovery? If so, honestly, it's way better to waste time for a summer than risk developing a chronic injury.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your interest.

Not really. I was training for the entrance test to military school and damaged my elbow. It's not serious for normal activities, though. Just can't push it too hard. I think I won't be operated on before the end of this year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You could also try searching for jobs in some bigger Polish cities with a large IT job market. If you plan to move somewhere for college, you could try working there throughout the summer to get to know the city before the academic year.

Good luck with the search! (And with your finals in May!)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just to make links clickable:

Resume: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88843294/resume.pdf](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88843294/resume.pdf)

GitHub: [https://github.com/Sekhmet](https://github.com/Sekhmet)

</comment><comment><USER2> Have you considered Google Summer of Code?? They start accepting student applications on March 20th.

[https://developers.google.com/open- source/gsoc/](https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this link.

I'm afraid I won't be able to attend GSOC this year. It requires you to be college student prior to 7th May. I finish secondary school this year, so I will officially become college student mid-July.</comment></comment>


What countries take the most hands-off approach to Internet regulation? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Here in The Netherlands we're pretty Liberal ( or libertarian, if you will), but I guess it depends on what you're looking for. Political freedom? Nothern Europe is a safe bet, Sweden for instance. Financially shady stuff? Try Antigua. I guess it depends on what you mean by a hands off regulation.</comment>


Pragmatism in URL design - <AUTHOR> http://www.frankieroberto.com/weblog/1621

<comment><USER2> Let the "name" in the url be irrelevant. Build your links so that there is a unique identifier in the url that takes you to the page you want that will never change. Then the name can change frequently without breaking links.

So if you have an album like this: <http://albumsite.com/albums/1/This_Great_Album> and the name changes to This great cd, then the url becomes <http://albumsite.com/albums/1/This_Great_cd> and both links continue to work forever. Where the unique identifier in this case is 1.

Of course that makes users have to know what the unique ID is, but you can put the permalink on the page.

<comment><USER3> An example in the wild:

[http://ask.metafilter.com/147349/Government-funding-for-a- ne...](http://ask.metafilter.com/147349/Government-funding-for-a-new-UK- limited-company)

Everything after the number is just for humans.

<comment><USER2> In practice, I use a slight enhancement. Not only does the url contain the ID to the element, but changing a part of it can tell the site how to _display_ the data.

For example: [http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/11/Nat...](http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/11/NathanMyhrvoldsIntellectualVentures) Is a url that shows the data for a human.

[http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/35/Nat...](http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/35/NathanMyhrvoldsIntellectualVentures) or [http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/json/N...](http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/json/NathanMyhrvoldsIntellectualVentures)

Will show the data in JSON format. Or you can get it in CSV if you prefer: [http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/csv/Na...](http://www.shellcompanyfinder.com/ShellCompanies/7845/csv/NathanMyhrvoldsIntellectualVentures)

Makes it easy to show human forms and also keep it accessible to automation and integration in an easy and consistent manner.

<comment><USER4> Why not use .json/.csv instead of embedding it midway through the URL?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're at all interested in getting users to click on links to your site, then you need to make the url relevant. All the discussion of unique ids and other parts is for technical types who want to split definitions. If you are after traffic, whether, search, referral or text advertising (adwords) then you'll want a short, concise Url that closely matches what the searcher wants. Click through rates for adwords where the url matches the search term can be twice as high as when they don't match.

Rightly or wrongly, the average internet user equates the Url as a strong indicator of the content on a page. Google follows what people do, so they weight it highly as well.

Want traffic? Short human readable Urls you need.</comment>


Real Hedge-Fund Managers Have Some Thoughts on What Epstein Was Doing - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/hedge-funders-have-some-thoughts-on-what-epstein-was-doing.html <comment><AUTHOR> spoiler: blackmail scheme under the cover of a hedge fund.</comment>


Kinect for Windows SDK (Silverlight Required) - <AUTHOR> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/kinectsdk/ <comment><USER3> This is unreal-- from the FAQ:

Q:I know that other drivers and development software for Kinect are available on the Web. Can I use the Kinect sensor device with these other drivers or software instead of the SDK Beta?

A: No. Use of the Kinect sensor device is subject to its own warranty and software license agreement that allow you to use it solely in connection with an Xbox 360 or Xbox 360 S console. Only Microsoft can grant you the additional rights that you need to use the Kinect sensor device with a personal computer. Microsoft grants these additional rights in the SDK Beta license, but only for uses of the Kinect sensor device in connection with the SDK Beta. If you use the Kinect sensor with a platform other than Xbox 360, Xbox 360 S, or Windows (with the SDK Beta), you void the warranty you received when you purchased the Kinect sensor device.

<comment><USER4> Can't you just be happy for a minute that they even released a public SDK?

<comment><USER5> The terms on the beta are pretty restrictive. It's better than nothing, but basically it's non-profit, educational stuff only. A little discouraging to start working with, especially when I couldn't find any concrete info about future commercial SDK.

<comment><USER4> It's a beta for something they never even meant to make a pre-alpha of. They probably just don't want to be held responsible when a commercial user makes a fit over lack of support for bugs he found in _beta software_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the demos shown on Channel 9, it seems the SDK comes with skeletal tracking. This would be big!!

Edit: I just looked at the Skeletal viewer sample. Looks like they do have skeleton tracking in the SDK. Woot!

Edit 2: They also have sound localization from the Kinect's microphones!!

I'm not sure about others, but I I did not expect either features to be in the initial SDK. This might explain why it took them so long (they said it would be released in Spring). They seem to have gone all-out!

<comment><USER7> OpenNI comes with skeleton tracking as well!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Kinect for Windows is, IMHO, Microsoft's only chance of really getting back in the game. It is an Apple level sea change if they can capitalize on it.

I mean lets be real here. Touch is a great way to interact with computing devices but it screws up the screen. Until someone invents a smudge proof surface that will always be the case. Beyond that usability studies show touch screens on PCs just don't work. People's shoulders start to hurt very quickly.

Kinect solves that. It's touch without touching. It can be done without having to reach over the keyboard. It IS the future if Microsoft can capitalize on it.

<comment><USER9> Remember that apple R&D, that found that mousing was quicker than keyboarding (because its low cognitive load doesn't interrupt your train of thought - <USER2> just seems quicker because you have amnesia when immersed in working out the right keys... [ _not applicable to expert fingers_ ])?

Perhaps touching the screen _instead of acquiring the mouse_ would be quicker and even lower cognitive load. This wouldn't be for every interaction, but as an adjunct to the keyboard - as the mouse is.

Not sure if true though - my mouse is at the same elevation as the keyboard, whereas the screen requires raising a hand about a foot. The cognitive load is lower though - people often instinctively touch the screen (if they haven't been screen-trained), especially when looking at someone else's screen. Perhaps that's a key? Collaborative use: a mouse is per person, but several can look and touch a screen.

<comment><USER10> Do you have a link to that Apple study? I find that very exciting and never heard about it before. Though it would mean, that me and many other geeks are plain wrong about their preferred input method.

You might be interested in _DiamondTouch_ [1] which allows multiple users on one touch table. I tried it out at a presentation at the MediaLab in Nov 2010. The trick, if I remember correct, is that the user sits on a special chair. The chair, then detects an electric connection between the user and the table.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiamondTouch>

<comment><USER11> I believe he's referring to this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2657135>

<comment><USER9> Yes, that's it, thanks. For the GP, please note I said: _[not applicable to expert fingers]_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fun facts from the Kinect SDK FAQ, at [http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/redmond/projects/kine...](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/redmond/projects/kinectsdk/faq.aspx)

\- You can't copy the runtimes with your application. Everyone has to download the SDK

\- All non SDK software (OpenKinect, OpenNI + OK, etc...) is now warrenty voiding

\- Assume all software you see may be violating the SDK license

"Built to be open". Yup.

<comment><USER13> A couple of points:

1) For virtually every MS SDK I can think of, everyone has to download it. I can't think of any where this isn't the case, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a couple. That's standard MS practice.

2) I think those things always voided the warranty. In general, I think _hacks_ , whether on Android, iPhone, Wii, Roombas, Dysons, or whatever will void the warranty.

<comment><USER14> 2) the open kinect libraries do not in any way modify the kinect hardware, firmware or otherwise. there is no 'jailbreaking' involved here. its a -usb driver-!

<comment><USER13> Given that the device potentially draws power based in part on the driver, I think its reasonable. It's unlikely to cause any problem, but warranties are about expected use -- not to cover any use including those of hackers. They're NOT prohibiting hackers from using it, but if you brick it, then its yours to unbrick. That seems very fair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Word on the street says that drivers for Kinect are going to ship with Windows 8.

I don't think that the new Metro UI shipping in Windows 8 is just about touch, I also suspect that the new interface is going to be gesture sensitive as well.

Windows 8 is looking very shiny.

<comment><USER16> I have heard this is the case from a few reputable internal sources. Windows 8 <3s Kinect

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand why Microsoft couldn't have just endorsed OpenNI, fixed the drivers, created some Visual Studio/.net integration and been done with it. Would have spent half as much time in development, cost them less and given them the same exact product. And anyone, even without a Windows Machine or Visual Studio could have worked on this.

I definitely answered my own question.

</comment><comment><USER18> The missing pieces of Minority Report are coming together.

<comment><USER19> If you couple this technology with Playstation 9, then yes :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd love to try this, but the all-Microsoft stack required to use this SDK is a huge barrier to entry. I use a Mac, I don't know C#, Silverlight, Visual studio etc. In order to use this SDK I need to buy into MS tech on many levels. A browser plugin with a JavaScript API (even if IE only), would be very compelling and a lot more accessible.

<comment><USER21> Yeah that would be like Apple requiring Mac hardware, OS X, Xcode, and Objective-C to do iOS development...

<comment><USER20> I have the same criticism there too. I prefer multi-platform IDE's.

<comment><USER22> At least a PC can be got for $300 to $500, unlike a Mac starting at $699.

<comment><USER23> ...neither of which is really the point. Even if they both gave you free hardware, you've got to learn their technology stack just to try it out. Unlike, say, web development, where a few seconds of text editing gives you a "hello world" that will work on any platform.

<comment><USER24> How is that not the point? For a for-profit business, to make a sale _eventually_ , is the major point.

<comment><USER25> I bought the Kinect. I'll use it as I see fit. Is that not a sale?

The previous poster's point was that the open source software allows one to use the Kinect in a cross-platform, standards-compliant setting. Microsoft's coming out with something half as featureful, with serious platform restrictions. Their SDK's only advantages are "officialness" and a more complete audio API.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember my friend coded a program that Alt+Tab each time he moves his face to the right, and Alt+Shift+Tab when he moved his face to the left. It was awesome. :)

</comment><comment><USER27> It's a shame that the license is non-commercial only. I wonder if they've got a commercial version available if you know the right people.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure that's the issue.

For Microsoft to release a commercial license they have to be able to support it. That means relatively no bugs, staffing tech support, etc... I don't think Microsoft is ready to do that with Kinect.

In fact, I think this SDK is a response to the homebrew solutions that were coming out. I think Microsoft saw the focus shifting off them and onto the open source community and they didn't want to lose the good PR. Meaning this SDK was probably rushed out the door (and I'd suspect has some serious bugs in it)

<comment><USER24> While I concur to the premise, I must disagree with the drawn conclusion.

At the risk of speculating, I'd say MS need some more time before the release the commercial license, for the reasons mentioned by you (robustness of the code, staffing tech support etc.) and also to possibly see the reception of the software by the developer community, before deciding on commercial terms (It IS labelled beta afterall).

Edit - From [http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/redmond/projects/kine...](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/redmond/projects/kinectsdk/about.aspx)

> "This SDK is designed for non-commercial purposes only; _a commercial > version is expected to be available at a later date._ "

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a nice SDK. It's biggest improvement over the Open Source ones is the inclusion of the skeletal tracking. This high level interface opens a lot of great opportunities in human behavior tracking.

I'm just going to miss libfreenect and using my Mac to do this development.

<comment><USER29> NITE allowed skeleton tracking for ages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I really like that website design. Very different from what i'm used to from microsoft

<comment><USER22> That's the Metro UI(the UI in Zune, WP7 and Win 8) at work. More details here if you want to go in-depth.

<http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487>

<http://www.riagenic.com/archives/493>

<comment><USER31> Wow! That was really interesting. They're fit to be in a hn post of their own

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I still think the Kinect technology is most interesting for the living room or public places (where you don't want ppl interacting with a physical object, if at all possible). Not sure I think my office is where it has as much use.

</comment><comment><USER32> Can't watch the launch demo because I don't have silverlight! Not what I hoped for as the SDK, but as others have said I think its their most innovative product and what may in the end crack open an area for them to innovate in.

</comment><comment><USER13> Didn't expect to see Anoop Gupta there. Very cool that he was invovled.</comment>


We need us: Artistic visualization of Zooniverse data - <AUTHOR> http://www.weneedus.org

<comment><USER2> Visualization is supposed to show some connections that are not obvious from looking at the data.

This is not visualization, it's just some computer-generated art.</comment>


Competing with BigCo - <AUTHOR> https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/competing-with-bigco-2018-edition-6f475b7be86d <comment><USER3> Quite trite. The problem is that as a start-up you won't be able to command much of any enterprise unless you're specifically in the business of long term support plans. (And no one will believe you are.) This is how "filling the seam" fails.

Making a truly best product rewrites a comparable marketing effort.

Where disruption actually happened is with new areas with clout to back it up or entirely new fields. Amazon had sales clout, MS had already sold its BASIC to enterprise (a new product you couldn't get anywhere else) before the Windows and Office hits. To IBM too.

Apple made a quite cheap and fully functional microcomputer when it was a fledgling field. Later expanded the portfolio using accumulated clout.

Google made a great internet search engine. They used clout accumulated by that to push more complex services like GMail or platforms like Android. (YouTube was a buy.)

I would like to see some examples to the contrary. The blog lacks a lot of concrete examples.

<comment><USER4> Yes this exactly.

We were a consumer facing company that moved into supporting enterprise and saw this firsthand. At the beginning our potential clients would go with a sub-par product because they were really buying the support, network, relationship etc... of an existing vendor of theirs who was doing a poor version of what we do. After years in the industry people start to trust you and they buy your product cause they know you.

Start small is always the best approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Article started off well and nothing seemed to be wrong with it except it was quite long and couldn't keep me engaged until the end. Sorry - <USER2> feedback!

<comment><USER6> To be fair it does say on top: 25 min read (feature of Medium).

<comment><USER7> OP is onto something. While there's nothing wrong with a long article, structure becomes important. The argument structure, choice of headlines, first sentence of each paragraph, paragraph length, etc, make all the difference between keeping your readers engaged or losing them partway.</comment></comment></comment>


Spooky Action at a Distance - <AUTHOR> http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html

<comment><USER2> I found this paper interesting:

The "Chaotic Ball" model,local realism and the Bell test loopholes

(<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210150>):</comment>


Squaring Venture Capital Valuations with Reality - <AUTHOR> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2955455 <comment><USER2> Of equal interest is author's other paper entitled "How Do Venture Capitalist's Make Decisions?" And after 900+ interviews it's neither jockey nor horse nor any other correlation, but spray and pray all around.

Am currently negotiating a small ($10k) angel investment in an ecommerce startup in Indonesia. All "go" signals are there: ambitious team, growing market, outside foreign investment, etc. But as far as calculating a probability for any IRR? 50% it goes to zero, 50% chance 10x or better return, is as good as any model for the risks faced at early stage.

So what was the data point that finally tipped the scale for me to pull the trigger? The fact that in Jakarta you can hire a fresh, world-class engineering graduate for $500 a month to come work for you!

<comment><USER3> _> The fact that in Jakarta you can hire a fresh, world-class engineering graduate for $500 a month to come work for you!_

That's nuts, considering English teachers make about $1000 per month. Then again, there's such a dearth of opportunity for talent in Indonesia that I don't doubt your figure at all. I can't count how many engineering graduates from Bandung I met who are low-skilled office or vocational careers.

I noticed you didn't mention government connections to the startup. At some point they need to either pay unsustainable bribes or call a highly-placed friend or relative to stay in business, or so I have been led to believe.

Jakarta is an amazing city. I would love to use a product developed in Indonesia. I hope to see that startup's Show HN sometime soon.

<comment><USER2> Will definitely post 6 months or so from today! And maybe in a year you can buy my shares ;)

For now, check out this interview with Adrian Li, partner at Convergence Ventures, dedicated to seed investments in Indonesian startups, as well as their portfolio:

Video: Indonesia is the next hyper-growth market

[https://www.kauffmanfellows.org/video-indonesia-is-the- next-...](https://www.kauffmanfellows.org/video-indonesia-is-the-next-hyper- growth-market/)

Convergence Ventures | Companies

[http://www.convergencevc.com/companies/](http://www.convergencevc.com/companies/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _The rank and file employees of VC-backed companies often receive much of their pay as stock options. The naiive approach, likely used by many of employees, would dramatically overvalue their wealth. For example, the stock options Square issued around the time of its 2014 funding round had a strike price of $9.11.4 The naiive approach would take Square's 2014 financing round at $15.46 per share and view these options as $6 in the money. Our approach shows the "fair" common share price was actually closer to $5.62, so these options were significantly out of the money._

Seems like this paper could provide a new 409a-compliant valuation method for common stock which might help to price employee options a bit better for these later-stage companies.

<comment><USER5> Existing 409A valuations already take all of that into account. When an employee is issued options, the one thing he can be reasonably sure of is that they are _not_ in the money. Options have to be issued at or above the FMV for common stock, or it is taxable compensation to the employee. Note the "at or above" language. An employee's option has to be out of the money the day it is issued, but that could be by .01 or many dollars. The Board almost always has a valuation report done by a third party that values each class of stock separately, taking into account the various preferences and so forth. All of that is taken into account when assigning a value to the common options being issued.

<comment><USER6> Correct me if I'm wrong but the relevant 409A valuation is the most recent one done when you exercise your options and taxes on them become due. I think that's the situation GP was referring to, that this approach might help fix.

Unless you're saying that when Square's valuation suggested a share price of ~$15, a 409A done at the same time would have returned a value closer to the ~$5 that the paper suggests is more reflective of the average employee's situation.

<comment><USER5> The relevant 409A is the one that is done prior to options being _issued_. If the company issues options below FMV (i.e. below the FMV determined by an objective third party, "the 409A valuation"), they are giving you in-the-money options, that is, they are giving you something of value at that moment. That's compensation and needs to be taxed as such. Later, when you exercise, either it is because the company was just acquired (and the share is immediately sold and you pay taxes on the profit) or the company has gone public and the shares are now tradable, so FMV is set by the market not by a 409A report. (I am ignoring for simplicity the rarer case where an employee exercises an option that is not freely tradable).

<comment><USER6> > when you exercise, either it is because the company was just acquired (and > the share is immediately sold and you pay taxes on the profit) or the > company has gone public and the shares are now tradable,

Nope. I'd argue the most common case of exercising stock options is actually when you leave a company before it has had a liquidity event (and you have to exercise the options because of a 90-day exercise limit). It's also when you want the lowest possible 409A/FMV, so that your taxes are as low as possible. Because you can't sell the shares to pay taxes.

There's also the rarer case (as you said) of employees exercising options of a private company while still remaining employed there. This is done in anticipation of an IPO or similar, to get a head start on the long-term capital gains tax clock. It's still not _that_ rare though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related: Stewart Butterfield on his Unicorn status: "It's arbitrary as f*ck. There's no logic to what you get valued at" => [https://pando.com/2015/02/10/stewart-butterfield-on-his- unic...](https://pando.com/2015/02/10/stewart-butterfield-on-his-unicorn- status-its-arbitrary-as-fuck-theres-no-logic-to-what-you-get-valued-at/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I wouldn't even call these complex mechanics - TFA basically says more favorable terms in later rounds (liquidations preferences, etc) mean that the high share price in those rounds shouldn't be used as the price for all outstanding shares. This is a great point that I hadn't really thought about before, but I would also expect people smarter than me to bake into their valuations.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was always confused by this response:

> pg: "Yes, investors with preferred stock usually get their money back first. > Sometimes they get a multiple, but that's considered overreaching nowadays > and the more promising startups never have to agree to that. I suppose that > is implicitly a target valuation in a sense. But no one views it as a > target, because it only matters if things go badly." > [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6896833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6896833)

Of course it only matters if things go badly..

<comment><USER10> That's how I feel about it as an employee. If the startup doesn't do well my equity is worthless anyway, so I don't really care if it is a clean round or lots of tricks to get the valuation/share price up like that by promising investors more preference when it doesn't do well.

<comment><USER4> This is pretty short-sighted though. The definition of "doing well" is relative to the last round's valuation, regardless of business fundamentals.

So if your company is actually worth $100M, but you raise $150M at a $1B valuation with a 1x preference, you would get nothing if the company sells for $150M later that year. That would have been a 50% return on the actual true company valuation, had you actually raised at that.

This is an extreme example but hopefully you get what I'm saying.

<comment><USER11> In your example the company has lost $100M, not gained 50%...

E.g. company has $100M cash and no other assets, receives $150M cash, then later sells company for $150M.

<comment><USER4> Yes, that's my point. The company "didn't do well" by the standards of the previous round they raised. But had they raised a round that valued them more appropriately, they may have "done well".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm actually surprised that it's as low as 50% of unicorns playing these valuation games.

</comment><comment><USER13> Some interesting data points and explanation of some of those terms

[https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/the-terms- behind-...](https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/the-terms-behind-the- unicorn-valuations.aspx)

[https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/unicorn-survey- as...](https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/unicorn-survey-as-of- december-31-2016.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER14> Reminds me of the over-inflated house prices of Istanbul. (300% increase over the course of 5 years)

Perhaps prices aren't as dependent on "complex stock mechanics" as it is dependent on supply/demand. Demand being made up of increasing levels of wealth (or credit) and supply being made up of pure greed.

<comment><USER15> Isn't the massive devaluation of the lira over that time period the main factor?

<comment><USER14> Average devaluation is 10%/year in other sectors. Doesn't look like a main factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's always the press claiming that valuation for the whole is equal to the latest preferred share price. Companies merely say, we issued a new class of shares and raised $ at price X. Company total value = sum of each class of stock _#outstanding_ price$

</comment><comment><USER17> And the other other half are undervalued then.

<comment><USER18> It's not a zero sum game. Company valuations are independent.

<comment><USER19> But can't you be only either undervalued or overvalued? There is a knife's edge at properly valued but seems like almost all companies are one or the other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would worry less about their value and figure out if they can make money or if after the IPO people believe it.

</comment><comment><USER21> How is the paper getting its data? Maybe I didn't read carefully enough, but don't they need to know the liquidation preferences of the rounds?

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not overvalued if people are still paying the price. Only the last fool in a long line will get hurt.

<comment><USER23> The last fool is likely to be some guy who eats and breathes finance. The last fool who did not negotiate liquidation preferences, ratchet provisions and a board seat will get hurt, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Reminds me of @dhh [1] except with causation. The example he used was Facebook but I think the oncoming adtech implosion might prove him right .

[1] [https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not- worth-33...](https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not- worth-33000000000)

<comment><USER25> Given that Facebook is now worth $500B, this seems like a weird article to post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Don't companies get bought out on the basis of how many users they have not some funny-number "valuation"?</comment>


Pakistan quake island off Gwadar 'emits flammable gas' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24272552 <comment><USER3> > "There were dead fish on the surface. And on one side we could hear the > hissing sound of the escaping gas," Mr Baloch said.

> Though they couldn't smell methane, they did put a match to the fissures > from where the gas was oozing, and set it on fire.

> "We put the fire out in the end, but it was quite a hassle. Not even the > water could kill it, unless one poured buckets over it."

Yes, this is what I always do when I encounter dead fish and an unknown source of hissing gas: light it with a match.

"Move fast and break things!"

<comment><USER4> I have a sneaking suspicion it's another one of those cognitive biases - <USER2> off a boat onto land and you feel safer. even if the boat will still be floating years after the land is.

You would be a fool to try the match trick in your apartment, but on an island? we just don't have that much experience of the earth blowing up around us.

then again the group of people who are first onto a volcanic island that popped out of the sea are a pretty self selecting bunch of foolhardy idiots :-)

<comment><USER5> The ground doesn't have to explode for a gaseous fireball to envelop you.

<comment><USER4> to be fair, neither has happened to me often enough to make it something I worry about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _" Though they couldn't smell methane, they did put a match to the fissures from where the gas was oozing, and set it on fire."_

You can't smell methane - it's an odorless gas. The methane you use for cooking ("natural gas") has an odor added to it artificially for safety.

<comment><USER7> Canaries should know this very well ;)

As for what they smelled, maybe they are other gasses as well considering what those rocks and earth went through (sulfur?)

<comment><USER8> They're smelling hydrogen sulfide, which is a volcanic gas also found in combination with raw natural gas. It's the "rotten egg" smell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am from Pakistan, and this damn island is all everyone is talking about. My facebook feed is flooded with people planning to go visit the island :P. Personally, i dont see what all the fuss is about. Might just be the rise of planet of the apes people :P

<comment><AUTHOR> When did you last hear of a large island appearing in the space of 30 minutes?

<comment><USER10> I've heard of Atlantis _dis_ appearing over that sort of time span

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The Daily Mail, as usual, has the best photo coverage: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2431913/Massi...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2431913/Massive- Pakistani-earthquake-pushes-brand-new-18-metre-high-island-sea.html)

Also, I really wish HN mods would not reflexively rewrite headlines. The news here was the remarkably sudden appearance of a decent-sized island, the fact that it emits flammable gas is distinctly beside the point.

</comment><comment><USER11> "Buy land, they're not making it anymore." \- Mark Twain

Another real estate cliché proven wrong ;-)

<comment><USER12> Kilauea produces new land regularly.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kīlauea#1952_to_the_present](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kīlauea#1952_to_the_present)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really wonder what it looked like as it happened - if it was instantaneous or if it was gradual, was there a cloud of steam, etc.

</comment><comment><USER14> From a different article about the island: _When a devastating earthquake struck the remote Awaran district in Pakistan 's Baluchistan province on Tuesday, it killed hundreds of people and left thousands homeless, as the government struggles to rescue those who need help._

IIRC, Pakistan is demographically a very young country, with overall low education levels and a lot of challenges. I will voice my hope that this oddity somehow brings them more help with the aftermath of the quake than they might otherwise be likely to get.

<comment><USER15> Actually, Pakistan has reasonable resources to handle this kind of situation. The devastating earth quake of 2005 precipitated the formation of National Disaster Management Authority. With army supporting operations, I am sure things will be handled well.

<comment><USER14> Hoping someone gets additional assistance is not the same thing as calling them incomptent. I used to have friends in Pakistan and I read a bit about the country in relation to the world economy etc. I drew some alarming conclusions about Pakistan and other countries with a similarly young demographic in terms of potential disproportionate impact on global stability and the like. Your implied objections to my well wishes aside, I still hope this oddity calls attention to Pakistan and brings them additional support.

Have a great evening/day/whatever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wonder if they could create Pakistan's version of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell)

<comment><USER17> Which will make the whole affair that much more epic as it sinks back below the waves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> could any seismologists / other geographers go into some more detail: pockets of inflammable gas are stored under 200m of seafloor, seismic activity heats them up and they rise the whole seabed to the ocean surface. and then drift down again?

I can't say its making a lot of sense. what is the inflammable gas? not methane presumably. I guess it's some form of honeycombed rock with lots of little pockets, presumably lava that has rolled over seabed, so not really "attached". I mean how does it all work?

(and that's the driver for all science in a nutshell)

<comment><USER18> Methane hydrate. Basically an ice-like substance of methane trapped in water crystals. It can stay in that form when trapped under ocean sediments (there are vast amounts in the ocean), but when pressure is released and it's exposed to warmth, the methane can escape the water structure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Working video: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57604518/pakistan- earthq...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57604518/pakistan-earthquake- kills-more-than-200-creates-new-island-off-southwest-coast/)

<comment><USER20> I hate that! I switched tabs while the 30s commercial was playing and then realized I just missed the actual video!

When I tried to replay the video, I only got commercials...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Who owns it?

<comment><USER22> Pakistan, I'd say, by virtue of being a short boat ride from the Pakistani coast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This happens in the US too near fracking sites. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/)

<comment><USER24> Babies are also conceived near fracking sites. I wonder if there is a connection ...

Methane coming up from the earth is not uncommon. Considering that 10,000s or 100,000s or more years worth of decayed plants and animals were buried under the earth. Strange that it is coming to the surface of a brand new island.

<comment><USER23> Um, I guess, but conception is typically not like an earth quake where as fracking probably induces similar effects in the earth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The island is made of politicians?

</comment><comment><USER25> Coincidentally, I know some people who emit flammable gas after eating too much Pakistani food.</comment>


Shorten excessive copyright terms - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/shorten-excessive-copyright-terms/XMc72zjc

<comment><USER2> It looks like the Hacker News front page is in danger of being taken over by petitions.whitehouse.gov on this first business day of 2013. The petition kindly submitted here for comment reads in full:

"Current copyright terms are much longer than necessary for promoting progress. Excessive copyright terms limit the usefulness of the works they cover without leading to the creation of more works.

"I ask the government to limit copyright terms to a maximum of 10 years with no exceptions. Compared to current copyright terms 10 years may sound very short, but 10 years is a long time; it may still be too long. I also ask that currently active copyright terms all end within 10 years.

"It is not society's duty to reward authors and artists for their creativity or hard work. Copyright should only exist as an incentive. The excessive monopoly terms must end."

This is a typical doofus petition to the White House in that the author has not even done the elementary research work of looking up the clause in the federal Constitution about copyright:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 clause 8

<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html>

The best way to appeal to Congress (which has the authority on this issue, NOT the President) to change copyright law is to lean hard on the "limited time" language from the Constitution as well as point to real-world examples of places with shorter copyright terms (where?) with beneficial effects for the national economies of those places. Look for empirical examples when arguing about public policy.

Note that the United States Supreme Court has already interpreted the "limited time" language from the Constitution broadly enough to allow the current,

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US 186 (2003).

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1214768485224110...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12147684852241107557&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

long copyright terms in United States law (which was adapted to European law in this regard during my lifetime). Copyright terms in the United States used to be relatively short compared to those in most other countries with modern copyright laws, perhaps because of the constitutional language. But appealing to the constitutional language would be part of the task of persuading Congress to change the current law.

</comment><comment><USER3> Copyright terms need to be reformed, but 10 years is far too short. Right now almost nothing is entering the Public domain and that's wrong, the books/music/movies of my parents and grandparents are still under copyright.

Happy Brthday shows the problems with the system. A killer law review article titled "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" traces how a Happy Birthday to You started out life as Good Morning to All a song with the same melody but different words, written as a classroom greeting by two teachers in the 1890's is still under copyright. It's one of the best things I read in 2012 and readable by a non lawyer. <http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/rbrauneis/happybirthday.htm>

The first copyright law in the english language, the Statute of Anne from 1710 had a term of 14 years renewable for another 14 years. Under those terms things like StarWars would be entering the public domain, which given where it is in culture and the profits lucas has seen sound about right.

Going to 10 years would mean that most authors/comic book creators would NEVER see movie option money and film studios wouldn't

<comment><USER4> I'm not entirely against long-term copyrights, but I'm not for them either. If a company/individual still rakes an exorbitant cashflow from a given copyrighted work, why not let them keep it? Let's make the law smarter. Initial copyright is free (14 yrs); first renewal is free (+4 yrs); subsequent renewals (every four years) increase in cost exponentionally (e.g., $2^n where n is the number of renewals): if a work is still profitable after 20 years, why not extend it another four? However, for a work to be profitable under these extension guidelines after sixty or eighty years it would have to be a monumental work indeed. This also allows less profitable works to fall into the public domain more quickly.

The other issue with our current copyright law is lost works: works where the rightsholder can no longer be found or even identified. This should be changed vis a vis copyright registration - register a work and after the copyright expires it is published freely online in a digital fashion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While we are at it, can we exempt scientific papers from copyright? Copyright only serves the interests of journal publishers, who are entirely redundant now that we have the Internet. Rather than ensuring access to scientific work, copyrights have become a way to restrict access -- even universities cannot guarantee their students and professors access to all journals. Journal articles are reviewed by volunteers, and sometimes journals are even edited by volunteers.

We need to stop this nonsense already. Copyright is not an incentive for scientists, it is a burden.

<comment><USER6> Scientists can easily publish free papers online. No change in law needed.

<comment><USER5> It is not just about where the papers are published. A system needs to be established that allows peer review to happen in a meaningful way, archives must be established and maintained, etc. Right now, journals are facilitating peer review and archiving papers, but that carries the cost of papers being locked behind paywalls with outrageously high prices that ensure that the general public has difficulty accessing that work. I would suggest a system in which university libraries act as archives, providing HTTP links for people who want a handful of papers or BitTorrent for people who want large batches and for distributing the archives to other libraries. Peer review would be facilitated in software, using some threshold signature scheme to assert that a paper passed review and using some secure computation protocol to protect the anonymity of authors; people would be invited to review papers by being given a share of the signing key.

My point is that we have a legal system in place now that protects and promotes the existence of a publishing system that is grossly out of date, and that we have a chance to do better (and to abolish the old system).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been thinking a lot about copyright terms lately, and this is what I have come up with: You get 5 years for "free", just like we have now. The next 5 years cost you $10k. The next costs you $100k. Add a zero every 5 years. It's going to be very difficult to keep a copyright for more than 20 or 25 years, but if it's really worth that much to you, then by all means...

</comment><comment><USER8> If someone could provide further detail as to the benefit of this, I might be willing to consider signing. I just dont know enough about both arguments to make a determination.

<comment><USER9> Well, considering that White House Petitions don't work. I wouldn't worry about this one...

To simplify the arguments:

Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests.

Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention.

That's my take of this whole thing anyway. I don't care either way to be honest. It's all high level creation issues, and I've never had a personal run in to warrant an extreme positioning either way. I'd like is someone could give a more detailed explanation or correct any of my takeaways.

<comment><USER5> "Pro (Current) Copyright: We need to protect artists. We need to protect the invested parties interests."

Eh, I don't think you'll hear much talk about artists when the copyright lobbyists meet with our elected representatives. More likely, you'll hear this: copyrights are an important source of revenue for a major part of the US economy. We need stronger copyrights to protect that revenue stream. The only time people talk about artists is when they are appealing to the general public's moral sentiments.

"Against (Current) Copyright: Internet. It's companies who Copyright protects not Artists. Copyright actually stifles creativity and application of invention."

It depends on who you ask. People in the anti-copyright crowd (like myself) are not all united on what should change. RMS has said that copyright can be good e.g. when applied in the way that the GPL applies it, or that it can be bad, so the system should be reformed to ensure that GPL-style application is promoted (or GFDL for written documents, or creative commons, etc.). My view is that copyright was made obsolete by the development of PCs and global computer networks, and that a new system must be developed to ensure that artists are paid, that scientists can publish papers, and that the utility of PCs and the Internet must be legally protected (e.g. we must ensure that we, the general public, have access to computers that are not restricted or designed to fight us, and we must ensure that we continue to have access to a global communication network that makes no distinction between the nodes connected to it). There are some who want to create a complete anarchy, where copying is entirely unregulated -- where no system for ensuring access to creative works exists.

"It's all high level creation issues"

That is not really true. Copyright is about you, even if you do not personally do the sort of work that copyrights cover. Copyright is about your ability to access human knowledge; it is about your right to sing "Happy Birthday;" it is about your continued access to things like the Internet, and ensuring that the Internet does not degenerate into a cable TV network (which is a system designed with copyrights in mind). The combination of PCs and the Internet has the potential to upend copyrights and completely change the way in which knowledge and entertainment spread, having an impact as broad and lasting as the printing press (which was the reason copyright was first created) or as writing itself (which forever changed the way information was passed from generation to generation). Human civilization is made possible by communication, and copyrights are about communication; if you do not care about copyrights today, you will eventually be forced to care, should copyright law continue its outrageous expansion (and there is no reason to think the expansion will stop any time soon).

<comment><USER9> Thank you for the insightful elaborations and clarifications.

Regarding the expansion of copyright in the near future, do you think that the general public of the US will simply allow things to get out of hand before making concessions like you suggested (GFDL/GPL), or will the internet (software?) as we know it simply be overtaken, with the only recourse to simply use another paradigm for open communication and sharing.

My opinion is that, with more and more older people adopting technology, and younger people being born (obviously, right?), we'll in a general public sense, shift our priorities to a more logical and open copyright system. I would give it 20-30 years though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why this is on the HN home page with only 2 votes I'm not too sure, but it does raise a valid point!

<comment><USER9> My guess is that it's programmed that way.

But seriously, I think HN must have a keyword bump, namely for U.S./Copyright/Show HN. It also probably has a few elite sites that rank high, like the Atlantic, and Tech Crunch. That or because it was voted up twice in new within it's first minute of being posted, which resulted in the front page, which only exacerbates the process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wanted to vote for this, but 10 years seems kind of short. Maybe something between 10 and the current "life plus 70". I think 28 years seems pretty fair.

<comment><USER12> 5-10 years should be the default. But let's say you could get another 10 years extension, but you'd have to renew it, but you'd have to pay say $1,000-$5,000. I mean, if you want to renew it, presumably you're making money from it, and it's worth investing copyrights for another decade. If it's not making you money anyway, then it should go into the public domain. I think the end goal was to "enrich" the whole society indirectly, by the authors a monopoly just enough time to make their money back, and be a worthy investment.</comment></comment>


Why gamers are outraged over the latest Star Wars game - <AUTHOR> https://www.thememo.com/2017/11/15/star-wars-battlefront-ii-boycott-microtransaction-ea-game/ <comment><USER2> This works fine in games that are free to play like League of Legends, I actually think it's a fantastic business model. But unsurprisingly, the attention maximizing dopamine slow-release algorithm causes cognitive dissonance when you can bypass it by paying but you've already paid.</comment>


Brian Kernighan on The Elements of Programming Style[video] - b-man http://video.ias.edu/PiTP2009-Kernighan

<comment><AUTHOR> A fairly minor point of the video, but interesting for me, was when he spoke about paranoia and bound checking. I often cannot decide if I should check if strings are NULL, numbers are negative, files are open/closed, etc, etc. I'm often unsure if I should spend, often long stretches of, time worrying about every possible boundary condition of all my variables, which is no simple task when dealing with constructs more complex than integers. When I do this it becomes apparent my functions are getting larger and larger, however; more return values, more if clauses, etc, etc. He offers no solution, but suggests there's a tradeoff, which is strangely reassuring. The problem doesn't make me feel so bad, now I hear that from him. More and more I'm coming to the conclusion it's best to transfer all that checking to a wrapper function, or leave it to the function's user, which will have to become, in effect, the wrapper function.

</comment><comment><USER2> For those you who are nerdy enough like myself: if you stick around for the better part of the end, there a funny moment in which a buzzer goes off, and Brian shake like a female dog. I love the man, but that was unexpectedly hilarious. Hahaha

</comment><comment><USER3> A louder version with actual slide content would be nice.

<comment><USER4> Well, about 4 or 5 minutes in they switch to a PIP view, with the majority of the screen showing the slides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Warning: at 56 minutes or so a fire alarm goes off. You probably want to turn your volume down to compensate.

</comment><comment><USER6> is there slides anywhere?</comment>


Introducing Simple Triage for Your GitHub Issues - <AUTHOR> https://zube.io/blog/introducing-simple-triage-for-your-github-issues/ <comment><USER2> Looks very similar to [https://waffle.io/](https://waffle.io/)</comment>


Programming a Problem-Oriented-Language (1970) - <AUTHOR> https://colorforth.github.io/POL.htm <comment><USER2> Chuck Moore is a genius, and if any self-professed hacker has not dug into the language Forth (including creating an implementation of their own, which is a rite of passage to becoming an "intermediate" Forth programmer), then they have a special treat waiting for them. A lovely antidote, both in form and in practice, to the typical layers of shitcake philosophy that ultimately results in Electron apps ruling the world.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reformatted, with inline figures and corrected references:

[https://github.com/mietek/pol](https://github.com/mietek/pol)

</comment><comment><USER4> > Of course I don't expect that you're in a position to choose a computer.

It's a little funny and a little sad, but this is as true today as it was back then, but for different reasons.

</comment><comment><USER5> Small discussion from 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8387120](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8387120)</comment>


Replacing iOS 6 Maps: Hands-on with MapQuest, Bing, Waze, Google, Nokia - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/replacing-ios-6-maps-hands-on-with-mapquest-bing-waze-google-nokia/ <comment><USER2> If the author searched for John Hancock Center on Bing (which is the actual name, not the John Hancock Building), he would have not only got the right building, but he would have gotten Venue Maps for the inside of the building.

As someone else noted... he doens't use the term "John Hancock Building" or "John Hancock Center" consistently, which you can see from the screenshots.

He used "Building" for Bing and Mapquest (neither found it). He uses the term "Center" for Waze, Google, and Nokia (they all found it).

I'd suggest the author use the same search term for all tests if he wants to draw reasonable conclusions.

<comment><USER3> While I agree the author should use the same search terms for each test (which he very well may have), Bing should still be capable of finding the "John Hancock Center" with a search for the "John Hancock Building".

A quick check verifies that Google Maps recognized both. It's little things like these that make the experience less painful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If US experience is subpar, international is even worse. Take HK for example, iOS 6 Maps doesn't even come with basic street numbers! To add to the insult, just try searching for "Hong Kong" on Waze, for a laugh... Yes the deformed blob is meant to be HK! Obviously Tim Cook never tested international searches before recommending it...

Commercially this just doesn't make sense given China is the fastest growing market for Apple.

All in all, a very disappointing user experience.

<comment><USER5> > _try searching for "Hong Kong" on Waze, for a laugh_

Of course, Waze seems to be unabashedly car-oriented, not really a general mapping service—and nobody in their right mind drives in Hong Kong...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been using Waze pretty heavily for almost 3 years, and have only had problems with it very early on, when it didn't have great road connection data.

The fact that I can contribute corrections to the data set makes it a win for me.

<comment><USER7> I second Waze. Its replaced my GPS, a mr T voiced TomTom (Mr T yelling directions at you is awsome...) Only one problem years ago when Waze couldn't give me directions. Its gotten a lot better as more have used it. There are enough drivers using it that don't feel I'm testing the roads for all the drivers behind me anymore.

<comment><USER8> Thirded. It seems to be more aggressive about shaving time of your trip than Google Maps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like Waze for when I drive because it gives you pretty accurate traffic and police reports. Of course this is all socialized so if you live in a less populated area these features become less useful.</comment>


We've hit 10,000 subscribers for PHP Weekly - <AUTHOR> http://phpweekly.com/archive/2014-06-19.html

<comment><AUTHOR> From an embryonic idea we've achieved 10,000 subscribers. Thank you to everyone at Hacker News for the ideas and thoughts when we were first starting. It's really appreciated</comment>


Does publicity influence admission to YC? - <AUTHOR>

If the start-up receives publicity after the application D/L, should we let YC know somehow? <comment><USER2> Not in that way. It influences us directly, i.e. if we've already heard about a startup when they apply. But otherwise not much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Mr. Graham. Please read Pando Daily next week :)</comment></comment>


Protecting Security Researchers - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2018/03/protecting-security-researchers/ <comment><USER2> "A pledge to not initiate legal action for security research conducted pursuant to the policy, including good faith, accidental violations."

This is the major takeaway point. More and more shady companies in the past few years have been starting to file lawsuits and take legal action against researchers who they declare went out of scope, or just outright broke the law by doing research and disclosure against their software/device/product. These companies are trying to stifle legitimate security research because they are too lazy or ignorant to fix their problems. It's nice to see such a large entity taking a public stance on how they feel bug bounties and general security research should operate.

<comment><USER3> This is the first I've heard of such a widespread problem. Do you have any examples?

<comment><USER2> I know there was one about a bug bounty researcher finding massive vulnerabilities in a chinese companies drones(link below). They then claimed he went out of scope(he didn't), and threatened to sue him. A few other cases were reported on zdnet a few months back about some cases like this. Mostly website/product owners leaving their systems vulnerable after being contacted. Months/years later some researchers did a public disclosure and the companies then tried/did take legal action.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15721268](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15721268)

<comment><USER4> I summarized this here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16642155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16642155)

Long story short: they didn't sue him. Their legal demanded that he delete DJI IP and secrets. It wasn't a friendly demand, but that's all it looks like it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a wonderful thing to see and I hope that more vendors will follow suit. Amit Elazari [1] has been doing some amazing work in this field advocating for legal safe harbours for security researchers. She posts regular reviews of security policies encouraging vendors to help protect security researchers using #legalbugbounty on Twitter. [2] In fact, it appears that Amit was responsible for some of the changes to Dropbox' security policy: [https://twitter.com/d0nutptr/status/973322158351921152](https://twitter.com/d0nutptr/status/973322158351921152). Well done, Dropbox and Amit!

[1]: [https://twitter.com/AmitElazari](https://twitter.com/AmitElazari)

[2]: [https://twitter.com/hashtag/legalbugbounty](https://twitter.com/hashtag/legalbugbounty)

</comment><comment><USER6> > 3\. A clear statement that we consider actions consistent with the policy as > constituting "authorized" conduct under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act > (CFAA).

That's hugely important if you want bug bounty programs to appeal to people who are distrusting of federal prosecutors and the FBI.

Without it, there's a lot of anxiety and uncertainty with testing live systems.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is an extremely researcher-friendly VDP, and, powerfully, includes essentially a demand that Dropbox partners adopt comparable VDPs; Facebook did something similar (but less formally) a few years ago when BlueCoat started threatening researchers.

</comment><comment><USER7> At first glance, this seems awesome. I have to applaud Dropbox for their forward stance here.

<comment><USER8> Considering their terrible track record for maintaining users' privacy, I'm glad they're taking a step in the right direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This concerns the bug bounty itself: Is there a Dropbox internal bug bounty program as well? As data is unencrypted, I assume the biggest thread to customer data are Dropbox employees.

<comment><USER10> I don't know of any company that publicly advertises the bonuses they give (if any) to employees for finding vulnerabilities in their own software. That seems more like part of someone's job description.

<comment><USER11> Yeah the incentives get very murky very quickly there. One employee might ignore a vuln now so as to get a bounty for it later. A manager might give a known vuln-maker code access. Any group of employees might conspire to do either of those or something else at some remove. An actual attacker might manipulate any such conspiracy... It might be interesting as a study of Gambit Roulette, but not as any way to run a firm.

It's possible that GP meant giving independent researchers access to internal tools. That would be interesting but also very difficult to pull off safely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I appreciate the transparency.

A few years ago I was testing a service acquired by Dropbox and they updated the scope of the Dropbox acquisitions program on HackerOne to exclude said program while I was in the middle of testing it and I didn't notice (checked later with the "last updated" diff). Unfortunately the vulnerabilitie(s) I discovered didn't count and their reply was all "no harm, no foul, thanks anyway."

</comment><comment><USER13> On the dropbox security issue, does anyone have a way to get a proper changelog for new versions? It does not seem to exist.

<comment><USER14> New versions of.....?

The Google Play Store has a change log.

Websites virtually never have change logs.

<comment><USER13> Dropbox also provides a desktop application : [https://www.dropbox.com/help/desktop-web/desktop- application...](https://www.dropbox.com/help/desktop-web/desktop-application- overview)

I've never used it but I know that it gets updated quite regularly without giving much information : [https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Desktop-client- builds/Stable...](https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Desktop-client- builds/Stable-Build-45-4-92/m-p/269194)

And as you can see I'm not the only to ask for a changelog about this product : > thomas l.14 : CHANGE LOOOOOOOOGS !

edit : It is a shame if this announce only concerns the website and not the full environment :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "A pledge that we won't bring a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) action against a researcher for research consistent with the policy."

Minor issue, but it's DMCA-- if someone reading this has edit rights on the page you may want to fix this.

</comment><comment><USER16> Thank you for posting this, this is what most companies should be push forward!

</comment><comment><USER17> It seems like all of these issues are tied to identity. Is there not some anony0mouse security reporting site ala securedrop?

<comment><USER18> It seems like the issue would be for people who want to publish their results, get paid, and otherwise be able to publicize their accomplishments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is excellent

</comment><comment><USER20> Justin Shafer

</comment><comment><USER21> The best way to get a company to do anything is through public disclosure, however it is reasonable to reach out to them first, anonymously (so that they don't sue you or kill you), and hope that they are descent people too.

<comment><USER22> Did you read the link at all? Or did you just see the title and decide you needed to vomit your opinion?

<comment><USER23> Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't do this again, regardless of how empty another comment is.

You also broke the guideline asking people not to do the "did you read" thing. It would be good if you'd (re-)read [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and follow them when commenting here.

<comment><USER24> Did you just assume someone hadn't read the posting guidelines?

...

Turtles all the way down.

<comment><USER23> I see your point, but the purpose of the awkward "(re-)" bit is to indicate the opposite.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple says it can't read your iMessages. What about everything else? - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/95008/apple-says-it-cant-read-your-imessages-what-about-everything-else/ <comment><USER2> Yes they can, and so can law enforcement. This meme is dangerously misleading.

All this says is that when the Agencies could previously tap cell phone communications without involving Apple, it would capture SMS. iPhones deliberately abstract whether SMS or "iMessage" is being used, so as a result, many "text messages" get routed through that service over a data connection. This means that all these messages are simply going through a channel that AT&T/Verizon/Sprint etc taps provide, and so they do not have visibility into them through _those specific systems_.

They can still get them from Apple directly, and Apple can read them.

<comment><USER3> > For example, conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are > protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can > see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data.

[https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer- privacy/](https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/)

<comment><USER2> Relevant: [http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/06/how-to- backd...](http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/06/how-to-backdoor- encryption-app.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ha... Remember when iMessage went down for a day or two? The timelines just about match with apple joining prism, backdoor much?</comment>


Apple tablet to be called iSlate? - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/25/AR2009122500658.html

<comment><USER2> Maybe it's just me but the iStale sounds like a rather awful name. Regardless, it's still no clear if this will be Apple's tablet or some other product. Hopefully we all know this January.

</comment><comment><USER3> Also parseable as "is late".

Why not iTablet?</comment>