How To Use Amazon EC2 as Your Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://blog.restbackup.com/how-to-use-amazon-ec2-as-your-desktop <comment><USER2> A few years ago I stopped thinking in terms of desktops. This was around the time that I settled into system administration and web development for multiple groups at a time. I set up my Linux desktop and began to really develop good command-line skills. I also made the effort to learn Vim.

A few years on and I really don't think about my computer, but rather a network of computers. It is not uncommon for me to be logged into four different systems at a time, running different things on each. If I need more processing power, I log into one of the beefier systems and start a job. If I'm just editing email it's local, but if I'm editing web files, it's probably on a server hosting my dev instance so my changes are live. I just do each task wherever it is most appropriate.

The real change is that you stop having one entry point to your "computer". I can access the same resources from almost any laptop or desktop. I keep desktops with large dual monitors at work and at home and rarely worry about synchronizing them because the work is actually being done in the same place.

It really is liberating to build your own set of cloud resources and realize that your desktop is just another resource at your disposal in your network.

<comment><USER3> I do the majority of development locally and I find it works out just fine. I have ssh open to my machine and have a bunch of git repos offloaded to a server somewhere so I can work from practically anywhere, too. You don't have to have a network of four-five computers to work this way. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have been doing this for a year with a Linode small instance and it works like a charm - although I only use it through a Putty terminal.

I had initially set it up to code small ruby scripts remotely that help me with my day job (mostly to scrape websites with the excellent Scrapi gem). Since IT would not let anyone install anything on their computers, but still left port 443 wide open, I gave it a try.

The added benefit is that working on a linux box through Putty forces you to learn a real terminal text editor - in my case Emacs. I guess I can thank IT now ;)

<comment><USER5> I've been using my linode box now for about a year and a half as my primary development machine. The reason here is twofold: I can access the machine from anywhere, and I have much better bandwidth on the machine than I'd get from where I currently live. That last bit is key - I live in Hawaii and the internet speeds here leave much to be desired (which is expected for an island in the middle of the pacific). If I need the latest build of ruby, it's not a 20 minute download, it's a 20 second one.

I do all of my work over ssh now. Key based auth allows me to hop in and out as needed, and more importantly it allows me to use libnotify + growl to alert me when things happen on my server. Code finished compiling? Growl pop up to let me know. Message via irssi? Pop up. Makes things feel very seamless. I use git to sync things as needed, vim for development, screen as my multiplexer, and irssi+bitlbee for messaging. It's lovely.

<comment><USER6> How do you get libnotify to work over SSH?

<comment><USER7> Probably via growl, which can listen over a network (and presumably, forwarded ports via SSH). Not sure on details though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why would I need a _desktop_ in the cloud?

Everything can be done _much_ faster via an ssh command line. I don't get it.

Very nice tutorial though, good intro to EC2 for newbies.

<comment><USER9> Persistent desktop accessible from anywhere via VPN.

<comment><USER10> He said he shuts the machine down on nights and weekends. I am not familiar with EC2, but doesn't that mean that the desktop isn't persistent from day to day? Yes, he can connect and disconnect at will throughout the day while it stays the same, but shutting down the machine at night shuts down all the apps he had open I assume. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER11> No differently than if you shut your computer down and boot it up again, if he's configured it accordingly with an elastic block store for the filesystem, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _This works out to about $315 per year for a development machine._

Am I the only one who thinks that's ridiculous? I mean, after two years, you'll already be at the cost of a decent laptop. Three years will get you the cost of a MacBook. Unless you're upgrading your laptop every year, there is no way that this is cheaper than developing on localhost.

<comment><USER13> don't forget about energy consumption costs

<comment><USER14> Maybe I'm missing something, but he still needs a physical computer to connect to his development machine in the cloud right?

I personally think this is expensive for the benefits it brings but clearly for the author it is worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> on a similar note, I've been doing web development on my CR-48 with an ec2-hosted development environment. I documented my setup here: [http://www.dustingetz.com/dev-etc/app-engine-web- development...](http://www.dustingetz.com/dev-etc/app-engine-web-development- on-your-cr-48)

<comment><USER16> Re: your post. No need to kill ssh when it hangs. Type <ENTER> <~> <.> to kill the session. There's other commands available - type "~?" to see them.

<comment><USER17> Thanks for this - I've been running into similar problems. I'll try it out when I get back to my cr48.. didn't bring it into the office today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One reason that someone might want to do this (besides learning about ec2) is if they are itinerant. For example, suppose you work for a company where you travel a lot and there are restrictions on vpn usage--you could start an instance of this (assuming that you can still comply with the IP/PII policies of your workplace) and access it from anywhere.

Another thought--if you are playing with web services such as twilio for example, you need an IP address for the response to your REST requests--this could be a problem for people doing development at home without a static ip (sure, you could use localtunnel, but this does have some appeal). This way, you can test this on your development machine without going live...

Anywho, just a few thoughts.

<comment><USER19> This is exactly why I set up my first (and now my second0 EC2 instance for development. I've been playing with services that need an external static IP address. My ISP is pretty hostile towards that kind of thing, and it's a PITA if you're travelling and need to do some work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This does have the obvious problem that you need a PC / Tablet / Laptop to connect to Amazon EC2 in the first place so why not just use that.

<comment><USER21> In this specific example it's a problem because a fair bit of local software is required. If you set it up so that all you have to do is VNC or RDP, possibly over ssh, all you need is a USB key and access to _a_ computer to get access to _your_ computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sorry but that seems a lot of effort to go through. Why would you bother?

<comment><AUTHOR> Learning to use EC2 for development is a great way to learn to use it for production.

<comment><USER23> I disagree. Running EC2 isn't rocket science. With web console, they have made it more simple.

What is little hard is, auto load balancing, shutting down instances based on req/minute, monitoring and stuff. But you don't play with that, if you are using remote EC2 machine as desktop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I just learned how to do this! If anyone's interested I could write out the steps for doing this on Ubuntu.

I've been toying with the idea of offering managed dev environment using this. Some pain points it would solve: -no new installation/configuration when you buy a new laptop -let an outsourced sysadmin take care of annoying things like installing java, adding environment variables, installing mobile app sdk's etc. -environment is accessible anywhere you have Internet access

The ultimate benefit is: spend less time installing things and more time developing.

I probably don't know enough about UNIX to do this myself, but I think it's a worthy idea.

<comment><USER25> It'd be difficult to trust the admin in that case. Same reason you see instructions for how to shrink the official ubuntu ami down to something smaller for a micro instance instead of a blog that say "here, mount this one I already shrunk"

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hmm, private key posted fully in the image...

<comment><AUTHOR> You can type it in and try it out... :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> One advantage of this setup not mentioned in the article: you needn't be afraid of ${airport_security} searching your laptop at the border.

</comment><comment><USER28> What's the point of the _cloud_? Sure, EC2 scales well, but does desktop needs scaling? (Unless you want to buzzword that your desktop is _web scale_ , haha)

<comment><USER29> it's accessible from anywhere at anytime (if you don't shut it down) from any device capable of executing a ssh client (iPhone, iPad, for example) also you can have a development environment exactly equal to your production environment and you are safe from hardware failures.

<comment><USER28> So is usual non-cloud hosting. Well, not turning off my home desktop PC is certainly not "cloud", but, given I have fast and stable network connection and power supply, it works equally (?) well.

That's why my question emphasized the "cloud" word.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I did something like this with Dropbox:

<http://valyagolev.net/article/develop_windows_linux/>

bash on windows without Cygwin's lameness. problem solved

(I moved to ubuntu & emacs eventually, although their usability is crazy)

<comment><USER12> I read your article, and I'm still wondering why you didn't install a virtual machine. Is there any particular reason?

<comment><USER30> yes. i tried them but they weren't nearly as fast as I wanted. they were like cygwin in terms of perfomance and slowed down the whole old laptop of mine

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Since you will still have your local computer running to actually use it, you have to add its electricity costs to the dev machine cloud hosting aswell. You actually also need to buy the local machine to do work anyway, so it doesnt save any money, but adds 300 USD to your current dev enviroment. That said, i can get a plain old Vserver similar to an EC2 mini instance (i think its even more powerful) for 80 bucks a year and that would be running 24/7. If you dont need the benefits of EC2 which are scaling and such, there are much cheaper solutions.

</comment><comment><USER11> Tried following the instructions - ended up with some "command not found" stuff when trying to connect with the NX BEta client for OSX (the older client requires rosetta, which most modern OSX machines don't have)

The instructions could use an update to the latest version of ubuntu too.... but this will make for a fun weekend project - excellent find (more for the EBS shortcuts and bootstrapping method + NX tips than the concept itself)

<comment><USER32> OS X will prompt you to download and install Rosetta from Apple, hassle-free, if you attempt to launch a PPC application and you don't have it installed already.

It only works if you're launching an app bundle, though, not if you're trying to run a bare binary from the command line. I just downloaded some old PPC- only shareware app and launched it.

Apparantly there's a .pkg file somewhere on the OS install DVD too, but I couldn't find it on my MacBook's restore USB stick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I did this a few weeks ago and tried to use it form a fairly old MacBook. I intended to use RubyMine which had a few minor issues while scrolling. What kille dit for me however was that all short keys would go to my local machine. Since using RubyMine lives from extensive short key usage this setup wasn't an option for me.

The nice thing however is that you can also stop your instance and only pay as you go.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'd actually tried to do this on a Linode machine before, but could never get NX to connect. VNC worked but is a bit slow, of course. Actually, I've _never_ seen NX actually work. I'll have to try the directions here and see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER35> 2noobs questions:

\- Do you think that it's possible to use AWS Free Usage Tier with micro instance do to that ?

\- Is it possible to have a graphic interface?

<comment><AUTHOR> \- A micro instance should work, although you'll only have 600 MB of memory. Also, I hear that micro instances have poor cpu scheduling, which would make your apps to feel jerky and sometimes freeze for 1-2 seconds. If you try it please let me know how it works.

\- FreeNX provides a graphical interface. It makes your Linux program windows appear on your Windows machine.

<comment><USER36> I don't know about the FreeNX server, but if you use a lightweight window manager like fluxbox 600MB of memory will be more than you need for most things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I am trying to figure out exactly what restbackup.com does. Does it backup customer info from a desktop app or the web app?

Anyone know?

<comment><AUTHOR> RestBackup is a web service. You can HTTP PUT files to <https://us.restbackup.com/> and then HTTP GET them later. The uploaded files are deleted automatically after a specified period of time.

The RestBackup Management API lets you create separate backup accounts for your users. Your app/script/cronjob can back up each user's data from their machine/device to a separate and private account.

Using RestBackup, you can have automatic backups without adding any new servers or equipment. It works for mobile apps, desktop apps, and hosted applications. It also works well for normal file backups.

At the moment, the only way to use RestBackup is with curl or your own program. More client software will be available soon.

<comment><USER37> Ahh...I see.

Well, if you don't mind, can I give you some feedback (assuming that you are the founder).

On the landing page, talk about benefits - not technology. No matter how much I read and searched the site, I couldn't figure out what it does and who it does it for. It's not because I am stupid either, well...could be but I doubt it.

I would choose one niche, and communicate that in the copy on the main page.

Also, pricing is an important value communicator. Honestly, I think your pricing is too cheap. Perhaps you should figure out another way to charge more. $9.99 is WAYY too cheap, and it worries me that you might not be around - especially for my backup purposes.

I don't want to be worried that you are going to disappear.

Hope that helps!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> this is pretty fascinating.

we're already seeing people switch over to the new mac air which runs IOS.

once it becomes more cost efficient to run your desktop in the cloud its clear this is a major trend which is about to start and permanently change computing. far for the better IMHO, i'm sick of handling upgrades myself.

<comment><USER39> What are you talking about. What Macbook Air runs iOS?</comment></comment>


Seth's Blog: Advice on equity - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/03/advice-on-equity.html <comment><USER3> This doesn't sound like vesting, but a list of milestones to reach before granting the stock. That is a horrible idea.

<comment><USER4> Any list of milestones you draw up when you start a company is likely to contain things you mistakenly thought would be important, and omit things that turned out to _actually_ be important. Doesn't sound very workable to me, agreed.

<comment><USER5> Precisely. So the right solution is vesting, which is a way to say:

a) today we both accomplished only 5% of all the work that needs to be done (that's Seth's point of view)

b) there are many things that still need to be done (still in line with the article)

c) we can't predict what else will be important, but we'll work on whatever needs to be done (that's where vesting beats Seth's proposal)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I disagree with Seth. Any discussion about who contributed what and who more may absorb a lot of energy from the startup. Founders starting together should have the same equity because they can expect from each other to give their maximum to drive the success of their company. And they will have the same motivation and interest to give their maximum.

<comment><USER6> That's a nice idea in theory but it ignores the practical fact that contributions _will_ be different, people's commitment _will_ vary over time, and people's expectations _will_ clash.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a study that suggests that equal equity among founders leads to more stable and successful startups: [http://founderresearch.blogspot.com/2006/12/equity-split- res...](http://founderresearch.blogspot.com/2006/12/equity-split-results- part-2.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That strikes me as a terrible idea. His plan would have the founders constantly second-guessing each other over reaching milestones, and would take ordinary disputes ("You never start work before 11AM"; "The design work is taking 3x as long as the development, you're a bottleneck") and turn them into knock-down drag-out brawls over equity every few months.

I'm a fan of splitting things up at the beginning, attaching a vesting schedule, and having everyone work as hard as possible.

You also shouldn't have this conversation until everyone's committed to working full-time on a business. Trying to give equity to someone who has a day job and promises to leave "when the new business is really underway" is a disaster in the making.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. As many have said, Seth's post sounds like a terrible idea. Although there's no simple solution, an up-front equity split will have fewer potential problems down the road.

Whereas vesting is just linked with the passage of time, putting in milestones is very dangerous. It can lead to all sorts of erratic behavior, all in the name of achieving milestones, which may or may not be relevant. You can't just look into the future and know what the right goals will be.

VCs definitely include vesting schedules but tend to avoid milestones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just say Geddy and Alex of Rush on "That Metal Show". They attributed part of the reason that the band has survived so long to having skipped any nonsense about "who contributed what and its relative value" to simply splitting everything evenly, three ways.

<comment><USER10> This would be a compelling story if Neil Peart's predecessor John Rutsey was getting an equal share of revenues from albums after '74, or if you believed that Neil Peart would happily concede his share of future Rush revenue to any drummer that replaced him. Companies are more complicated than bands, but even this story is too oversimplified; Peart is a world-famous drummer and has massively contributed to the Rush brand --- you think his hypothetical replacement would deserve a full share for filling his shoes?

(Disclaimer: though I know a bit about Rush, I do not listen to Rush, and hope to exit this thread with my indie cred intact. Go buy the new Neko Case album.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> or in other words a vesting schedule, which is how almost all funded startups are structured

SG is over-rated, but lets leave that discussion for another time.

<comment><USER12> "or in other words a vesting schedule, which is how almost all funded startups are structured"

FWIW Seth is actually talking about a bootstrapped company and not a venture backed startup. As it stands the software is already complete, and there are maybe ten thousand potential firms who are well-suited to buy licenses. They don't want to grow in any way, so at any given time there are only two things the founders can do that would create value: sell a license, or add a feature / improve UI. Because of this I think some variant of Seth's suggestion actually makes sense in this case, albeit choosing a split upfront and then vesting is normally a much more sensible way to go.

<comment><USER11> Even if you don't intend to seek funding you should still adopt the same model - there are very good reasons why it is used.

Doing an even-split stock grant amongst founders at the formation of a new company is absolutely the worst thing you can do. Almost all company classes allow you to create a stock pool - even if there are only 100 shares. You can then setup vesting schedules for everybody (including employees). I wouldn't even grant a single share to any founder.

I'm speaking from experience - first two companies I was involved with had co- founders that faded quickly and it took forever to work out the allocations after they eventually left. If you grant somebody stock, it is very hard to get it back.

If you started a thread here on HN about horror stories with stock allocations you would probably hear a thousand stories. Almost every startup has one, even the companies that go on to IPO or big acquisitions.

<comment><USER13> So who "owns" the stock that's in the pool? Suppose a company is purchased before everyone is vested, who get's the cash?

<comment><USER11> within vesting agreements there are change of control conditions. For outright sales, it usually works out that those who are over the cliff have their vesting accelerated. In a merger (which a lot of acquisitions technically are), the acquiring entity will usually lock the employees down with a new agreement that includes the requirement to further vest out.

In other words, it depends. The best thing to do is to find a good law firm, pref in the valley and pref a firm that works with startups. Get a fixed price (or fixed price + options - some firms do that) for incorporation docs and establishing the pool and agreements etc. Setup a decent employee pool plus some for advisors and board members down the road. If you do eventually get funding, the VC will have a hard time arguing that you should wipe the slate clean if everything is already setup. VC's use pools and allocations to squeeze you further on a deal, usually without the founders noticing.

Don't use off-the-shelf agreements that you find online, do it properly. It should cost you $1-3k all up for the lot.

I am not sure what YC do as part of their foundation docs, I would be interested to know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _"Today, right now, your contribution is worth 5% of the company and my > creation of the company is worth 5%. The other 90% is based on what each of > us does over the next 18 months. Here's a list of what has to get done, and > what we agree it's worth..."_

Otherwise known as vesting (essentially).

</comment><comment><USER15> Stop arguing about the value of something that doesn't exist and go build it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't get this. Dividing equity is easy in the beginning, just like slicing a pie: equal shares.

The idea of 70/30 or other offset splits only suggests that one partner is more valuable than the other, hence by definition they aren't partners - <USER2> are superior and subordinate. You're already creating a situation where the person with lower equity isn't as motivated as the one with more. That has failure written all over it.

I think if you're talking about taking a business from piece of paper to something real, and you have partners involved, the only way you can ensure any measure of success is to divide things equally.

If the share isn't equal, I don't think partnership is what you should be discussing at all.

<comment><USER10> I don't think you read the article carefully. He's advocating equal shares; 5% each. He's then advocating that further equity grants be structured around milestones, which is an alternative to vesting.

<comment><USER16> But what's the point of leaving all that out there to argue about later on? He's not solving the issue, he's deferring it.

<comment><USER10> Because people who try to "solve" this issue up front always get it wrong, because there isn't enough information to make decisions like this.

<comment><USER16> Which is why I'm suggesting to split equally and get on with it as an alternative.

(Admittedly this is going further than my experience allows)

<comment><USER10> I'm not saying Godin is right, only that you're ignoring his argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> don't you have to assign 100% of ownership when you open a company in US? I mean, in my country, the company contract has to sum the shares up to 100%... there can't be a '90% floating', it's not legal...

</comment><comment><USER18> Equity equates to liability if the company folds and incurred debt. Hence all the shares must be defined at the point in time and not only 5% now and then another 5% when X is done.

<comment><USER19> I think that's wrong on two accounts:

1\. True corporate debt dies when the company dies, just as personal debt dies with the person. If someone has signed a personal guarantee on "corporate" debt, that's not the case, of course, but in that event, the shareholders of the company are not obligated to dip into their pocket to satisfy what amounts to personal debt of someone else.

2\. If 90% of the shares remain with the company as treasury shares and you and I, as co-founders, each has 5% of the company vested, then our 5% stakes ALSO have a beneficial interest in the proportional share of the treasury shares. In a valueless company, of course that's irrelevant.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do we believe that we need to change the world? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Because it's a mess. Unfortunately too many of the people that actually try to change the world only think they know what they a doing. And the mess just gets worse. And then there are those people who pretend they are doing it, but secretly and knowingly are making more mess just to line their pockets.</comment>


That Spicy Green Paste Next to Your Sushi Is Probably Not Wasabi - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/that-spicy-green-paste-next-to-your-sushi-is-probably-n-1783732832 <comment><USER2> The linked BBC article is much more informative: [http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29082091](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29082091)</comment>


I Want to Start a Bank - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mikekarnj.com/2009/10/17/i-want-to-start-a-bank/

<comment><USER2> It starts out saying that he wants to make a bank because it makes lots of money and then lists a bunch of idea that don't earn money.

"We would only give out credit cards to those who are qualified to receive one" The people who are not qualified are the ones you earn your margin on.

"Oh yeah, our vehicle loans would only be for hybrid vehicles. We would never give out an auto loan for an SUV like a Hummer because of our values." Not even for a 30% loan?

"Yes, we would have a 0% profit margin but the warm fuzzy feeling of doing good is priceless."

The only idea that does make sense is to have a good website, that is the only reason I still have an ING account.

I want to start a bank and be the trading house for all US to CA and Euro currency converting. Take 1cent from every trade and do it a billion times a day. Who wants to join me?

<comment><USER3> Totally agree with your critique, and your point on needing a good website (I bank with Smile Bank in the UK, who have _not changed_ their site design in 11 years - and it is still (IMO) the best bank website design out there).

But what aspect of the existing currency exchange markets makes you think that doing a "billion" (or any other extremely high number) trades per day allows you to break-even only taking 1c per trade?

<comment><USER2> True, 1cent might not be enough, but the basic idea of just sitting in the middle of a large number of trades and skimming a tiny bit off the top is what a number of banks already do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> He doesn't seem to have any understanding of how large banks actually make money. The customer/individual client facing side of it is just the tip of the iceberg of how the finance industry works.

</comment><comment><USER5> "This SafeBank article from Matt Mullenweg about how he would start a bank is the most brilliant piece I've ever read and I agree with everything he says too (Matt – want to start a bank with me?)."

I have to say I lost a tremendous amount of respect for Mullenweg after reading his SafeBank post. He enthusiastically posts his ideas to make the bank stand out (Recommend Firefox to customers! Build an iPhone app and sell it for $2.99!) while demonstrating a clear lack of even basic business principles.

Warren Buffet on Gates: "If Bill had started a hot dog stand, he would have become the hot dog king of the world."

Mullenweg on the other hand would go bankrupt selling umbrellas on a rainy day...

</comment><comment><USER6> Okay, we want to start a bank.

What's the paperwork that we need? What are the restrictions and requirements?

Forget about how you're going to make it awesome -- do you even know what the barriers to entry _are_ , so that you can start thinking about how you'll overcome them?

This guy wants to Start a Bank like I want to Fly Spaceship One -- I think it could possibly be fun, but I don't even care enough to install a flight simulator on my computer.

I'd be much more interested to read a blog post that summarized what your average HN reader would need to do to (legally) start a bank. That seems fascinating.

<comment><USER2> here we go: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=888687>

<http://www.ehow.com/how_2062432_start-bank.html>

<comment><USER7> dead?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thanks for all the comments. Like all entrepreneurs, I believe that the team will overcome any obstacles that get thrown in it's way. Also, I obviously do not come from the finance/banking world which is why I would fill those weak areas with a strong management team.

While doing further research, there are banks out there already applying similar models. My post was a "blue sky" piece. It was never meant to cover every logistical detail. It was an article on how I would start a bank if I had to start one from scratch. I agree that it's an insanely difficult to tackle but what isn't?

A similar bank Kasasa just won Best of Show at the 2009 Finovate Conference. Last year, it was Mint.com. Check it out -- <https://www.kasasa.com/explore>

</comment><comment><USER9> Two things that immediately jump out:

>> we would allow all of our account-holders to withdraw funds from any ATM at NO CHARGE (woo-hoo!).

So he would just eat the interchange fees that the owners of the other ATMs/networks charge him? That would add up pretty quick. There's also the issue of the service fees that non-bank ATMs charge directly to the consumer - would his bank cover those as well?

>> We would only give out credit cards to those who are qualified to receive one.

How do you define this? And what happens when someone goes from "qualified" to "unqualified" (like when they lose their jobs) - a normal bank would just jack up the rate to cover the increased risk. Would he pull the card?

More broadly, this guy has no idea how banks make money, or even what it is that banks do (hint: what they do with individuals is only a small part of it). It's also not one of those businesses you can just buy into - there's all sorts of issues about chartering, insurance, etc.

Anyways, this seems like more an idea for a credit union as opposed to an actual bank. They're easier to start, have an existing legal framework for some of the more unorthodox ideas he's got, and are designed to appeal to a specific group of people with a common goal - which is exactly what he's talking about.

<comment><USER10> >> So he would just eat the interchange fees that the owners of the other ATMs/networks charge him? That would add up pretty quick. There's also the issue of the service fees that non-bank ATMs charge directly to the consumer - would his bank cover those as well?

This is not unprecedented - where I live there's a bank that offers free ATMs worldwide:

<http://www.bangor.com/FreeATMsWorldwide.aspx>

<comment><USER11> Same here in Norway, I don't pay a nickel for withdrawing money – No matter where I might find myself in the world.

<http://sbm.no>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very interesting subject, makes me wonder what it would take to start a bank. But I wouldn't follow this authors advice. I don't know a lot about banking, but this guy sounds like he's deciding to be unsuccessful.

Part of being a successful business is parsing what people actually want vs what they "say" they want. It's amazing how many people shop at wal-mart even though they "hate" it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I agree with most everyone else here. Michael talks a lot about the features he wants, but not about a plan for revenue.

But, it did spark my interest. Now instead of doing homework, I've got about a dozen books in front of me (I was at the school library). Also, I read "Hate your bank? Here's how to start your own." at SmartMoney. Not a terribly great read, but I was reading this paragraph:

"Under one common model, about 20 entrepreneurs each chip in about $100,000-- enough to retain an executive team, outfit a branch, buy a technology package and print a bunch of fancy posters."

When I came upon "technology package", that light bulb 'o mine bursted with light. I don't think I'll spend pretty much any time thinking about how to start my own bank, but I'm definitely going to start thinking about what a "technology package" might entail and where the state of things are now.

Any of you guys know?

<comment><USER14> I don't know, but I met someone who makes her living setting up banks. Since she was a captive audience and the same lightbulb went off in my head....

I found out that there are a couple of pieces of technology that you need. For each of them, there's a dominant vendor that makes it easy to get approval and some second tiers that make it possible. If your goal is to set up a real bank, you can't save money by rolling your own.

<comment><USER13> I spent quite a bit of time last night researching financial services (eventually segued to COBOL/mainframes) and one company, Fiserv, kept popping up for a lot of services.

Do you mind sharing some examples of what some of those dominant vendors might be?

<comment><USER14> > Do you mind sharing some examples of what some of those dominant vendors > might be?

Sorry - that stuff isn't intrinsically interesting to me so I stopped paying attention when I figured out that there wasn't any way for me to make money in the area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There are "good" banks that have high credit standards and simple businesses - mutual thrifts (they go back to pre-Colonial America in England when communities would band together, pool capital, and one by one write mortgages so that everyone would end up with a home). If you find one that's operated well, they wont be engaging in sub-prime mortgages of extending to credit to those who shouldn't receive it.

The problem with mutual thrifts is that they're constrained by how much they can grow. They are owned by depositors. Usually, when one grows a bit, they're acquired by a larger player who wants a foothold in your geographic area / wants to take advantage of your excess capitalization (let's say Bank of America is capitalized at 4%, I've seen some thrifts at 13%)... you end up having that excess capitalization because of the high loan standards.

<comment><USER14> > If you find one that's operated well, they wont be engaging in sub-prime > mortgages of extending to credit to those who shouldn't receive it.

And they'll be picketed by ACORN, which will also lobby regulators to shut them down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think that Mike's objectives are laudable and when thinking of how to re- invent an industry one sometimes has to think "blue sky" and the back into what can be achieved in reality. So I prefer not to focus on the problems. One could always raise the finance to buy an existing bank, which is what many private equity firms are doing. And remember, Andy Beal - the poker banker who I have written about - ran his bank using principles so counter-intuitive to conventional wisdom that the regulators were harassing him to find out why. And it has done pretty well for Beal Bank. Keep up the good work Mike. John (aka The Masked Financier)

</comment><comment><USER17> The costs are far higher than people realize to start a regulated finance business. While the author mentions making money from the "get-go", one cannot do that in the banking industry.

First off, you need a very large capital deposit to start a new bank (millions), depending upon charter type and domicile. That money is necessary just to meet the absolute and relative (eg Risk-Based Capital) capital ratios. You don't get to spend it.

Second, plan on spending $100,000 or more just on the application process. Oh, and plan on the application review taking at least 6 months.

Third, you have to invest in the appropriate infrastructure (software, systems, office, etc) before you even open for business.

Fourth, you have to market/advertise to attract deposits.

All of these items (and probably more) most occur PRIOR TO the opportunity to make any revenue. And even if you are successful on the revenue side, banking is a game of narrow margins.

</comment><comment><USER18> This "ideal bank" sounds exactly like ING Direct. High interest, free bill pay / transfer money, no fees ever, etc. They have a nice website, too (except for the new bill pay stuff that is a third-party app with their own CSS; the layout is totally broken in conkeror and firefox).

</comment><comment><USER19> oversimplification is the word that comes to my mind when reading this.

the complexities of the operations of financial markets, not to mention the regulatory requirements, are simply enormous. to fool yourself into thinking that you can create a bank on a whim is just foolish.

</comment><comment><USER20> "What is the burgling of a bank to the founding of a bank?"

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brecht></comment>


Things Japanese people say about English - <AUTHOR> https://notes.ericjiang.com/post/1016/ <comment><USER2> It's also interesting to see sophisticated bilinguals directly discussing vocabulary issues between their two languages. The main place where I've seen this is on the Leo German-English dictionary:

[https://dict.leo.org/forum/index.php?lp=ende&lang=en](https://dict.leo.org/forum/index.php?lp=ende&lang=en)

Quite a few of these people are professional translators or at least use the other language professionally, and they have lots of questions and answers for each other about different nuances. It's impressive partly because many of these subtleties might not otherwise be documented anywhere in print.</comment>


Thought leader gives talk that will inspire your thoughts - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A <comment><USER2> That's so spot-on.</comment>


Please do not buy the Kindle fire - <AUTHOR> http://colabopad.blogspot.com/2013/12/do-not-buy-amazon-kindle-fire.html

<comment><USER2> The author bought the ad-supported version of the Kindle and is now shocked — _shocked_ — that the device is displaying ads.

This post really does add zero, if not negative, value to Hacker News.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe you were quite careful when making your purchase, I wasn't. I only wanted a relatively cheap starter tablet which I thought was what I was getting.

I didn't expect to receive a device primarily meant to serve me ads, sorry if this is a naive expectation.

As far as what should or not be posted to HN, I believe that is why there is an up/down voting system.

Your tone is unnecessarily condescending.

<comment><USER3> _I didn 't expect to receive a device primarily meant to serve me ads, sorry if this is a naive expectation._

The product page says the ads only appear on the lock screen. They do not (or should not) appear when actively using the device.

Is this not true?

I'm genuinely curious because it would suck big time if you are shown ads outside of the limitations the product page describes.

<comment><AUTHOR> They do in fact show ads in the form of other book "recommendations" based on what you've read.

Ultimately I think we may be of different minds about what we consider acceptable consumer/merchant relationship.

When I bought my kindle, looking for hidden gotchas was simply not part of my calculation. I expected I was buying a device...if there was a popup during the checkout process that said this product is ad support, I absolutely would not have bought it.

We haven't even gotten into the insidious implications of this type of intrusive marketing for people (kids especially). This is not about moralizing, I simply consider this unacceptable, others may defer.

<comment><USER3> _When I bought my kindle, looking for hidden gotchas was simply not part of my calculation. I expected I was buying a device...if there was a popup during the checkout process that said this product is ad support, I absolutely would not have bought it._

Interesting. I bought mine from Amazon.com and it was quite clear that I had a choice of ad-supported or, for a higher price, ad-free. All of this info was on the product page, and it never felt like anything was hidden.

I think this page is pretty typical: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CU0NSCU/ref=kin_comp_dk_...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CU0NSCU/ref=kin_comp_dk_so_img)

There's a clear choice of "With Special Offers" and "Without Special Offers" with a link to a popup that explains what this means.

If you bough yours from a different site or if the Amazon page did not indicate these options then I can understand feeling cheated.

I also had planned on rooting my device (at least to the extent that I could replace the ads with my own images) but I was never able to accomplish that. For me it ended up to be not a big deal, but I knew from the description of the product I was buying an ad-supported device in the first place.

 _Ultimately I think we may be of different minds about what we consider acceptable consumer /merchant relationship._

Well, since I agreed to the Kindle deal I'm OK with it. Amazon.com was quite upfront about what they were selling. I would not be OK if there was nothing to indicate I would be seeing ads.

This is something that annoys me with Tivo. I don't recall that they were as clear when I ordered the service that in addition to an annual fee I would also have to look at stupid banner ads on assorted screens. Also, as far as I know, there is no way to opt out of this (such as by paying more, as with the Kindle).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Airline websites don't care about privacy follow-up: Emirates in full-on denial - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/privacy-leaks-round-trip-emirates-com-in-denial-7f99950bcdd <comment><USER2> Here's a completely plausible and terrible idea someone nefarious could do given this vulnerability:

Setup a laptop or some other small device that is listening to data being sent over Wifi at an airport. If you're feeling really brave, hide the device inside the airport, plugged in. Every time it picks up anything being sent over http to one of these insecure third parties, look for booking reference numbers and names, then automatically cancel the ticket using those two pieces of data.

If you did that at a major Emirates hub, you could probably cancel a significant number of tickets, impacting the company enough to get them to actually get their act together.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wish the Emirates tech team understands the gravity of this problem. None of the services they are using to optimize the websites, needs this sensitive information. It's a side-effect of their implementation.

But just a small correction, the third-parties are not on HTTP, it's the email link that it HTTP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Discussion on initial report from 2 days ago, over 170 comments): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16516687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16516687)

Edited for clarification: thanks, 'kkm!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, Yes, That's the first post highlighting the issues. This follow-up post is after Emirates responded via theregister.co.uk. There were so many inaccurate things in their comment that I decided to do a complete post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you think this is bad you should see the network-engineering security practices of some gulf-state (Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, etc) telecoms and ISPs. You will cringe.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is absolute abomination! They really need to get their act together.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hopefully, they do. It's pretty weird how they themselves advice not to share the booking reference with other people and are leaking the same to the third- parties.

<comment><USER5> That was indeed quite ironic. I bet the PR person did not read their own privacy policy before pointing you towards it. Pretty sure they weren't expecting you to read volumes of vague jargon and pick their follies. Well done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now that this is in open , is emirates site safe to use ?

</comment><comment><USER7> wow this is shocking. i am going to watch out in future.

<comment><AUTHOR> As long as you don't look at the network, it is not at all scary.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why have the 2016 Michigan Election results still not been called yet? - <AUTHOR> Here are the results from the Secretary of State in Michigan.
http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.html
Is there a reason why news outlets are hesitant to call the result in Michigan, but comfortable to confirm New Hampshire with its slim margin of victory of 0.3% ? <comment><USER2> [http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.ht...](http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.html)</comment>


Turn your camera on for remote meetings - <AUTHOR> https://critter.blog/2020/08/05/turn-your-camera-on-for-remote-meetings/ <comment><USER2> Since starting working from home I rarely do this because my camera is on the laptop which is 45 degrees to my left and whether a meeting or a collaboration call I'm looking at my main screens... so what people see is my left ear more than anything else. Heck, if I'm looking _at_ the camera there's no way I'm actually doing work.

And yet I cannot argue with the points the author is making so I guess I'll turn on my camera for meetings. Thank you for posting this, mcrittenden!</comment>


UK must embrace conifers in climate fight, says forestry chief - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/26/firs-fair-uk-must-embrace-conifers-in-climate-fight-says-forestry-chief <comment><AUTHOR> A huge number of people nowadays are equating the fight for species conservation with the fight against climate change, or at least assuming that the two are well-aligned. This article is a good example of how they may in fact be in conflict, and of the sort of damage that habitat-generic, long-term climate alteration programs might do to shorter-term, habitat-specific conservation programs.</comment>


My Year of Concussions - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/my-year-of-concussions <comment><USER2> I had a minor fall while snowboarding last January. I just slipped on an ice patch while slowing to a stop, and hit the back of my head. Was wearing a helmet. This was my second concussion as an adult (to my knowledge).

My startup was struggling, but that sealed its fate. Couldn't really work for the next couple months. We ran out of funding and pivoted to consulting (thankfully that's going well).

11 months later and I still have significant symptoms. Can't do any real exercise beyond very mild cardio, can't focus on code for anything challenging for extended periods of time, I get a lot of headaches, I'm a bit less patient, and have general focus and cognitive endurance problems.

When an MRI last month revealed mini hemmorages, it felt like a relief. At least it showed me that my symptoms were caused by something tangible, something a radiologist could point at. Motivated me to finally take a real vacation now. I feel more empathetic towards people with mental health issues now.

This was from a minor fall. Concussions are crazy.

<comment><USER3> I had a pretty severe fall while snowboarding the past season. I caught my heel side edge on a jump and landed on my head. I tried to sleep it off. All I did for a week straight was stay in bed and sleep. I haven't noticed any lingering effects but your story makes me wonder... I still sometimes get flashbacks and I'm not sure I will be returning to the sport.

<comment><USER4> I learned a few years ago that one of the best things to do for a concussion is to literally sleep it off. I was surprised to see recommendations saying do not "use your brain to think hard, read, study or try to learn new material [that] may be very difficult and may aggravate your condition."

[https://health.clevelandclinic.org/suspect-a-concussion- how-...](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/suspect-a-concussion-how-to-help- not-hurt-your-recovery/)

Edit: wording

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I didn't read everything, but this jumped out at me:

> What led to the first concussion? I'd decided to repay an opponent who had, > during a battle for a loose puck, shoved me into the boards head first. I'd > been having neck issues, and this had made them instantly worse.

Imhad a concussion last year. Turned out to have caused a bunch if neck issues that led to post concussion symptoms for many months till I found physio focussing on neck/eye treatment post concussion.

I also think my neck issues pre concussion made me predisposed to it, as the neck braces to help protect the brain in a blow. In the years before the concussion, tiny bumps would often leave me feeling discombobulated. Post therapy, I find tiny bumps are fine.

If anyone has had long lasting concussion symptoms, I highly recommend vestibular physio. Here's what I wrote about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Concussion/comments/d8e4zz/symptoms...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Concussion/comments/d8e4zz/symptoms_went_away_entirely_following/)

<comment><USER6> Professional boxers put a lot of emphasis on training neck strength in order to handle being punched in the head. It apparently helps, but if course the concussion risk remains.

<comment><USER5> Yup, the brain is vulnerable. But, I would say anyone who had a concussion should seek vestibular therapy. And so should someone in a high risk field or sport, and who has neck tension.

Would not recommend professional boxing to anyone however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who grew up in TX it still stuns me that in 2019, middle school and high school tackle football are not seen as child-abuse.

Best of luck to anyone recovering, fortunately I've only had one mild concussion from a bike accident where I struck a jaywalking pedestrian.

<comment><USER8> In youth soccer, heading the ball has been eliminated due to concerns about brain injury.

It seems like the more we study the effect of many small impacts, the worse we realize it is. Eventually I think touching the ball with your head should be the same penalty as touching it with your hand.

I'm not sure how you fix football though. I'm just glad my kinds never wanted to play it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the reasons concussion is taken less seriously than perhaps it should be is that it is actually brain damage, but the word "concussion" makes people feel it is less serious than if they heard "brain damage".

<comment> mark-r Concussions are a sub category of injuries referred to collectively as "Traumatic Brain Injury", or "TBI". That's a much scarier term for you.

I had mine this March, fell while roller skating onto a hard wood floor and had a brain bleed. Surgery was required. The extent of the injury wasn't immediately apparent, I'm told I walked into the ambulance. But after the surgery I was in so much pain they put me into an induced coma for a week, with Fentanyl.

The biggest surprise was how random and unpredictable the after effects were. My sense of time was totally messed up; I thought for sure I had killed my chance of getting out of the hospital, after I chased down the doctor and asked him why I was still there when I was scheduled to leave on Tuesday. Then he asked me what day I thought it was, and I realized sheepishly that it was still Monday.

The next week, I was having a conversation with my wife and she was describing the situation where you're trying to remember a word but are not able to. I said "You mean aphasia?" So I was able to remember a word I had probably never used in conversation, but couldn't tell what day of the week it was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I played open grade (no weight restrictions) rugby for a season as an undergrad after playing since I was 6. That year left me with several concussions and about 5 years of headaches. Haven't played contact sports since.

<comment><USER11> There's weight restricted rugby?

<comment><USER10> In New Zealand there is at club level. Also all high school grades, except inter-school matches IIRC, are weight limited.

<comment><USER11> Thanks. That's a really interesting concept and probably good from a safety aspect too.

I've played rugby from age 12 to 35, in Australia, South Africa and England. I'd never heard of weight restricted teams.

Having said that, it's ten years since I retired, and I guess things move on. If such positive safety measures are being implemented, that has to be a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Concussions apparently didn't hurt his writing style. I loved it. Does New Yorker help with the editing?

<comment><USER13> I would be shocked if there isn't a head editor for every section of the New Yorker plus a head editor for the magazine plus several staff editors under each section.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Had multiple concussions in high school, suffered years of symptoms and nothing really helped. Currently in college, where I discovered various forms of CBD as a form of post-concussion treatment.

While here I've had a few more bad ones, but found that using CBD drastically helps with symptoms, both in duration and severity. Sooner you get it in your system after an injury, the better it seems to work. Been able to go from a full concussion back to intense studying w/out symptoms in days, whereas before it would be at least a few months.

Hope this helps someone !

<comment> mark-r This is not one of those situations that calls for self help. The one thing they tried to impress on me was that the sooner you get treatment, the better it works. Based on my own outcome, I believe them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> ...and this is why I stopped play "adult" hockey.

</comment><comment><USER14> mlk</comment>


Show HN: My first Wordpress template in 5 years. Feedback, please? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wilwaldon.com/claire <comment><AUTHOR> I consider this a basic blogger template, nothing too fancy, just good and solid.

This thing has been sitting on my "to do" list for a while and I decided to crank it out to get it out of my head. Any feedback would be appreciated, thank you.

</comment><comment><USER2> [http://wilwaldon.com/403.shtml](http://wilwaldon.com/403.shtml)</comment>


uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions - <AUTHOR> https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/support-ublock-origin/6746/451 <comment><USER2> After being a Chrome user for several years, I've switched back to Firefox for the past two years or so and I'm really, really happy with it.

Latest version does multi-processing, e10s is finally here (though it might still get disabled by usage of certain add-ons, I remember I had to force it to stay enabled).

On performance, in the past it felt sluggish, but now Firefox is fast and for my usage patterns it uses less memory than Chrome.

And one thing I really love is the Awesome Bar, which is a pain point every single time I open Chrome. I have a lot of websites I need to return to and in Chrome I end up searching on Google far more than I should. I guess that's the biggest difference between Firefox and Chrome, as Mozilla does not feel obligated to shareholders to extract ads clicks from you (although I hope that whatever they do keeps them afloat).

Also, tab management. I installed "Tab Center" from the Test Pilot and it's awesome. The experiment is now over unfortunately and the code itself for Tab Center isn't compatible with WebExtensions, but there's work going on to port it and that highlights that Firefox's WebExtensions will be more flexible than Chrome, if they aren't already.

But in the end I actually care more about trusting my browser and its maker to protect my interests. I actually trust Google more than I trust other companies, but something feels very wrong for a company to have so much leverage on me. Which is why, as long as I have a choice, I'll always prefer Firefox over Chrome, or Safari, or Edge.

<comment><USER3> To me, the best feature of Firefox compared to Chromium (both out of the box, no extensions. not sure if there are extensions that could help) is the address bar. Firefox does a fuzzy search into your browsing history and if you visit the same sites often, the suggestions are quite good.

Contrast this with Chrome, where the idea behind address bar user experience seems to be maximizing the number of Google searches done.

But the one that really keeps me on Firefox is Vimperator. It's the best keyboard oriented browser UI in mainstream browsers. The extensions available for Chrome are nowhere near as good (last time I tried).

The worst part of Firefox is the terribly long startup time. It can take up to 10 seconds after a reboot and takes quite a long time even with warm caches. Chromium startup is near instantaneous.

<comment><USER4> > The worst part of Firefox is the terribly long startup time. It can take up > to 10 seconds after a reboot and takes quite a long time even with warm > caches.

If you're the type with a lot of tabs open, that should improve a lot in the next few releases.

[https://metafluff.com/2017/07/21/i-am-a-tab- hoarder/index.ht...](https://metafluff.com/2017/07/21/i-am-a-tab- hoarder/index.html)

<comment><USER3> > If you're the type with a lot of tabs open

I'm not and I don't store/restore tabs on close, so that's not the case here. It's just Firefox + Vimperator + uBlock origin with about:blank as home page.

I'm on Linux/X11 if that matters.

<comment><USER5> This is probably a good place to plug the fact that Vimperator is going to die with FF57 [1].

If anyone wants to help with making an alternative, look through that thread. I'm particularly invested in Tridactyl [2] but other people are working on others.

[1] [https://github.com/vimperator/vimperator- labs/issues/705](https://github.com/vimperator/vimperator-labs/issues/705)

[2] [https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl](https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl)

<comment><USER6> I've been using VimFX all along, which is actively maintained and already compatible with multiprocess.

It's a web browser, not an _actual_ text editor. 99% of the time, you're just wanting familiar keyboard commands for navigation. It feels like Vimperator does so many impractical things almost tongue-in-cheek, just to show how cool it is that they're theoretically possible.

<comment><USER7> VimFx is _not_ compatible with multiprocess, it will stop working soon.

See [https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860](https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860) :

        - You can use the current VimFx for the rest of 2017.
        - Then, Vimium is your best bet: philc/vimium#2425
        - VimFx is free software, so if somebody feels like converting it to a WebExtension they're totally free to do so! (But you're probably going to spend your time more wisely on Vimium.)
        - I hope to create a new add-on with the best parts from VimFx some day.
        - Firefox will become a better browser! It's sad but worth the sacrifice.

Vimium-FF does works right now: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/)

<comment><USER8> VimFx _is_ perfectly compatible with multiprocess, as stated in the issue you linked:

[https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860#issuecomme...](https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx/issues/860#issuecomment-308726645)

The issue is that VimFx is not feasible to convert into a WebExtension.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > It baffles me that some people thinks Firefox is becoming a "Chrome clone", > it's just not the case, it's just plain silly to make such statement.

That's probably the single most reassuring statement about Firefox that I've heard in some time, coming from a serious dev who makes a popular cross- platform addon for both Firefox and Chrome.

<comment><USER10> I think as an extension developer he is particularly sensitive to the tech behind Firefox, which makes him understand some of Mozilla's decisions. For example, the move from legacy add-ons to WebExtensions is surely one less maintenance burden for Mozilla.

As a user who doesn't think about such issues, it terribly looks like it's becoming a Chrome clone. I think it's Mozilla's responsibility to have a clearer communication if that's not the case.

<comment> Paul-ish Also, the move to WebExtensions is a move to a more secure extension model. Traditional XUL extensions were comparable to the extension developer compiling their own code into the browser. Yikes.

WebExtensions should be better sandboxed and have better permissions management.

You can't get those security benefits if you allow older XUL extensions to stick around. You have to sunset XUL extension at some point.

<comment><USER11> To be perfectly honest I'm not at all interested in "better permissions" for plugins when it comes with the removal of flexibility that you get for free. If I've got plugin-installing malware on my system, I've got worse problems than a rogue plugin.

Give me more useful over more secure any day of the week.

<comment><USER12> As someone worried about security; I hope that is not the majority opinion.

<comment><USER13> It's not entirely unreasonable. We use software because it's useful. If you make it so secure that it is no longer useful, what have you got left?

In the case of Firefox extensions, I'm aware of the risks of the old model, but the fact is that the only observable difference it has made to me so far is that when I accidentally hit back on a page with an unsubmitted form the other day I lost about 20 minutes' worth of work, because the extension I used to use that would have saved everything automatically no longer works. This is not progress.

<comment><USER14> The idea that the XUL extension model is necessary for a browser to be useful is obviously false. The majority of Web users use browsers that do not have a XUL extension model.

(And, of course, I don't believe your desired functionality is incompatible with Web Extensions anyhow.)

<comment><USER13> With respect, that doesn't really matter.

I used to have a useful feature that worked.

Now I don't.

That was the practical result of the change we're talking about for this user, regardless of any theoretical benefits elsewhere or any theoretical ability to provide equivalent functionality within the new architecture.

Other people are welcome to use other browsers, but I was using Firefox, and a big reason I was still using Firefox despite various other changes I didn't particularly want was the range of useful extensions I could choose from.

<comment><USER15> > I used to have a useful feature that worked.

> Now I don't.

Well, imagine for a moment that you're whoever is in charge of firefox development at mozilla:

\- You want to take advantage of modern hardware such as multiple cores, GPU's etc.

\- You want to get rid of XUL which is an evolutionary dead end.

\- You have an existing extension model which basically allows extensions to more or less freely poke about in the internals of the browser

\- You want to improve security for users, both against malicious sites and (to a lesser extent, I suppose, but still) malicious browser extensions.

Now, what would YOU do if the constraint is that you can never ever break existing extensions?

<comment><USER16> I guess you would lose some of your remaining market share to chrome and wonder how much smaller your revenue is going to be when the yahoo deal expires?

<comment><USER17> > I guess you would lose some of your remaining market share to chrome

So, you're saying that:

\- some people kept using Firefox because it had more powerful extensions than Google Chrome.

\- these people are upset because mozilla is breaking the old extensions in favor of a less powerful alternative (still better than Chrome's, that the main point of the OP)

\- then people are going to move to Google Chrome which still is the worst browser for extensions

Who reasons this way ? There are legitimate reasons for being upset (my favorite addon disapeared and that makes me sad / I need to rewrite all my addons, depending if you're a user or an addon dev), but I don't think anyone will shoot himself in the foot and use a worse (addon-wise at least) alternative just because mozilla's people are mean !

<comment><USER16> Most users aren't developers they aren't judging the relative power of extension systems they just are liable to notice useful extensions going away.

Firefox on Linux seems to me to be slower and crappier save for interesting extensions.

Enough so that I've just decided to ditch Firefox even before interesting extensions go south.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I found this disturbing:

"Chromium-based browsers are being "infested" by Instart Logic tech which works around blockers and worst, around browser privacy settings (they may start "infecting" Firefox eventually, but that is not happening now)."

From his linked post:

"Instart Logic will detect when the developer console opens, and cleanup everything then to hide what it does"

Is this implemented via a CDN-delivered script? Why would Chromium-based browsers be more susceptible?

<comment><USER19> This actually made me try switching to Firefox again. There's some minor things missing, but for the most part all the features I want are there.

<comment><USER20> Firefox is maybe 80% of the way there. Just like in the IE Anitrust days, firefox suffers from sites that do not design with it in mind.

Still better than Google Creep. Change to a search engine that protects privacy too.

<comment><USER21> Can you recommend a search engine? I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good.

<comment><USER22> > I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good.

It took me a while of using DDG before I realized how much I had equated "good" with "looks like Google".

What finally hit me, hard, was that I switched the DDG theme to a color scheme designed to look like Google search results, and all of a sudden the results "felt better". _Markedly_ better.

So, I started regularly comparing results, every time I found something that I felt I didn't get the results I expected for. I would search, and then search again with !g. And almost every time I ran into something that I didn't like the DDG results for, the Google results weren't actually any better. (The rare times they were, I reported that, and often it got fixed.)

<comment><USER23> !sp will give you the google results without the google tracking as it's a proxy of google results.

<comment><USER24> I use "!s" in DDG to get to Startpage [1] search results. One letter shorter to access the same - no need to type "!sp" when one can just type "!s" instead. :)

This does not work for replacing "!spi" (image search on Startpage) though. Using "!si" does a search on a non-existent subdomain sportsillustrated.cnn.com.

[1]: [https://www.startpage.com](https://www.startpage.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> To add to the list:

* You can run the uBlock Origin on Firefox for Android: [https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-US/android/addon/ublock-origin...](https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-US/android/addon/ublock-origin/)

Afaik there's no ad-blocking extension for Chrome for Android which I find pretty telling. I'm using Firefox on Android and the ad-blocking (less traffic, less blink-blink animations and less CPU consumption) make mobile browsing a night-day difference

<comment><USER25> There's no extensions on Android Chrome, and the reason is simple: if they enable extensions, people will mostly install ad blockers and that's bad for business at Google

<comment><USER26> Google is in the process of allowing some adblocking in Android Chrome.

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/04/report-google- will-a...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/04/report-google-will-add-an- ad-blocker-to-all-versions-of-chrome-web-browser/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Huh. These actually sound like good arguments to switch to Firefox, arguments I've never heard before until now.

<comment><USER28> One thing I learned several years ago when I decided to jump on the bandwagon and try Chrome was that Chrome was unable to safely block javascript the way NoScript does because the plugin framework doesn't allow a plugin to block Javascript before it's loaded.

So all the noscript equivalent for Chrome could offer was to block Javascript after it had loaded. Which seemed unreal and pointless.

So I stayed on Firefox. Because I've been convinced for many years now that Javascript plays a major role in malware delivery through the browser.

And along with email the browser is the major delivery platform for malware.

<comment><USER29> I found uMatrix to be an adequate substitute once figured out ([http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix- desperatel...](http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix-desperately- needed-guide/))

<comment><USER30> It's important to know that NoScript does far more than block JavaScript; just look up its ABE component, for example.

For technical users, uMatrix' interface is an amazing achievement in, effectively, managing application firewall rules. It's breathtakingly efficient in both communicating active settings to the user and in configuring new rules. I wish my actual firewalls used that interface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Slightly OT: is that what a 'Discourse' page looks like? It's pretty awful: it will automatically update the URL as you scroll past each post in any direction, while breaking the Back button, so good luck getting back to the original post, since neither clicking on Back nor reloading the page will get you there. Basic UX failure.

<comment><USER32> What browser are you using? Because when I scroll on that page and the URL changes, it doesn't affect my Back stack (this is in Safari).

<comment><USER31> Using Firefox for Android.

I can't not notice the irony that this is happening with FF on the mozilla.org Web site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Keep in mind that it's not within Google's incentives to facilitate ad- blocking and prevention of tracking. After all, that's where the lion's share of their revenue comes from. However, Mozilla is free to actively support such efforts.

<comment><USER34> If that was that clear cut, they would ship tracking protection enabled by default, not just in Private Browsing mode.

The default configuration of Safari is actually protecting you better than Firefox's and most users don't have an ad blocker installed.

<comment><USER33> Good point. Mozilla made most of their money from Google, and other advertisers, iirc. "More free" might've been prudent.

You make a good observation about Safari too. Apple doesn't make much money from advertising--they still sell hardware. They can provide privacy to users at little expense to their core business.

<comment><USER35> > Mozilla made most of their money from Google, and other advertisers, iirc.

The much bigger problem is webpage owners which lose almost all incentive to support Firefox, if it blocks their ads. You'd have broken webpages all over the place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Firefox is coming back, finally- I think their market share is at the bottom and we'll see a big uptake over the next couple of years.

<comment><USER37> Here's hoping! We need a privacy oriented browser that's kickass for dev work as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> uBlock Origin on Firefox would be more powerful than uBlock Origin on Chrome, but does it mean that uBlock Origin webextension on Firefox will be as powerful as uBlock Origin "legacy" Firefox extension ?

This is a post of gorhill from the last months Firefox - Google Analytics fiasco:

> Legacy uBlock Origin can block the network request to GA.

> However webext-hybrid uBO as per Network pane in dev tools does not block > it. Same for pure webext Ghostery, the network request to GA was not > blocked, again as per Network pane in dev tools.

> What is concerning is that both uBO webext-hybrid and Ghostery report the > network request to GA as being blocked, while it is really not as per > Network pane in dev tools. It's as if the order to block/redirect the > network request was silently ignored by the webRequest API, and this causes > webext-based blockers to incorrectly and misleadingly report to users what > is really happening internally, GA was not really blocked on about:addons, > but there is no way for the webext blockers to know this and report properly > to users.

[https://github.com/mozilla/addons- frontend/issues/2785#issue...](https://github.com/mozilla/addons- frontend/issues/2785#issuecomment-314807534)

<comment><USER39> The issue you linked is specific to the `about:` pseudo-protocol. uBO's WebExtensions version works as intended on the web.

<comment><USER38> I know that, thanks. I posted it as a real life example of where webextensions are still not as powerful as the so called legacy extensions and wonder if that specific case still applies, is it fixed, planning to be fixed, or are there other specific examples where webextensions fall short.

<comment><USER39> Yeah, that specific case wasn't fixed; it appears that Mozilla doesn't intend to let addons run on `about:`. However, they did make `about:` respect DNT by disabling GA.

WebExtensions currently fall short when it comes to any addon that modifies the UI significantly (tree-style tabs etc), though it's been mentioned in some other comments here that they're talking to addon devs to extend the API where possible.

<comment><USER40> > However, they did make `about:` respect DNT by disabling GA.

The irony is that since most people have DNT disabled having it enabled would make it easier for you to be tracked.

> it appears that Mozilla doesn't intend to let addons run on `about:`.

Why is that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Couldn't the devtools listener shenanigans be solved merely by putting a "pause" button in the browser chrome (possibly through an extension)? Browsers are already throttling CPU usage when the tab isn't visible, so it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to just throttle to 0 with a toggle.

Even better-- have the pause button _in_ devtools window, "pause" by default when you open devtools, and then unpause once something gets mutated/re- layout'd.

I guess you'd still need to protect the devtools shortcut key so that any DOM shenanigans are guaranteed to get invoked _after_ the devtools listener. But browsers already have all kinds of crazy edge-cases in the name of security (e.g., no manual triggering of <select> menu). Keeping polymorphic worms from corrupting the devtools state seems rather important by comparison.

</comment><comment><USER42> > It baffles me that some people thinks Firefox is becoming a "Chrome clone", > it's just not the case, it's just plain silly to make such statement.

If you use a much narrower definition of "clone" than is typically used in this context, then sure. If, however, you use "clone" a bit more flexibly, and note the word "becoming", then it's a different story. That's not to say that Firefox won't be better than Chrome, and it's certainly not to say that it won't have _any_ advantages over Chrome, but it is giving up some of its major current advantages.

</comment><comment><USER43> I am considering going back to FF, but it seems FIDO U2F still isn't done completely and the U2F Extension for FF is not working anymore since the WebExtension switch.

Please correct me if missed something, but i think i have to hold off for a little bit longer.

<comment> coffee-- Just today someone posted that they're about to get U2F in the main browser:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1245527](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1245527)

<comment> coffee-- Actually, here's the U2F patch [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1388843](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1388843)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I've been really disappointed with the direction Firefox has been moving since they decided to make changes that would permanently break some of their most powerful and useful extensions, like Pentadactyl.

</comment><comment><USER45> As someone who uses WebRTC to deliver real value (I'm an engineer @ Peer5 YC W17) - this abuse of WebRTC is awful.

I think WebRTC related tooling should get a lot better - and extensions should be able to hook into WebRTC calls just as easily as they do to regular functions.

Websites can just grab a fresh copy of RTCPeerConnection from a different realm anyway (an iFrame in this case) - it looks like uBlock is mostly stuck (unless it prevents sites from opening said realms).

</comment><comment><USER46> I still think Chrome has some advantages. For example you can disable a lot of things like location services in the settings. In Firefox you can decline access to location once a site asks for it but I would rather disable it once and for all if I am setting up a machine for a less tech-savvy person.

Also, firefox comes with tons of built in features you cannot disable. In past they have caused security issues (e.g. the pdf.js exploit).

<comment><USER47> > the pdf.js exploit

Overall having pdf.js is a benefit to internet browsing. Should we not innovate and try to improve our tools just to preserve security?

<comment><USER40> > Overall having pdf.js is a benefit to internet browsing

I would doubt it. The experience that pdf.js provides is inferior to dedicated programs like xpdf.

> Should we not innovate and try to improve our tools just to preserve > security?

We should, but we should not make such things like pdf.js unable to be disabled by the user.

<comment><USER47> > I would doubt it. The experience that pdf.js provides is inferior to > dedicated programs like xpdf.

That's not the point, I open dozens of PDF daily and I don't want to have to switch programs all the time. An integrated light PDF viewer is one of the best new feature of modern browsers.

PS: You can set the pdfjs.disabled pref to true on the about:config page to disable the build-in PDF viewer

PS2: Not sure this still works.

<comment><USER40> I will admit that I just took pawadu's word for it. I personally had no idea if it is possible to disable pdfjs or not.

That being said, I will also agree that it is convenient sometimes but it is much slower and much less compatible than native viewers, making it useless for me about half the time. Still, I see no reason why it needs to be integrated into firefox instead of being just an addon (even if it is installed by default).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > I am not aware of any anti-fingerprinting initiative taken up with Chromium

Brave is Chromium-based and has anti-fingerprinting tech (which it was the first to include IIRC): [https://github.com/brave/browser- laptop/wiki/Fingerprinting-...](https://github.com/brave/browser- laptop/wiki/Fingerprinting-Protection-Mode)

It also works on Brave for Android.

<comment><USER49> The Tor Browser has some kind of antifingerprinting stuff in it. I don't know how it compares to what Brave does.

<comment><USER50> Many of the Tor project's anti-fingerprinting measures are gradually being merged into mainline Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I would love to use Firefox for it's privacy credibility, the Awesome Bar and to prevent monopolization of the Web.

Unfortunately 2017 is the year of the CPU usage apocalypse on the Web. Go to this insane Guardian page, scroll down a page, and observe what happens for a minute or two perhaps scrolling down some more: [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/10/adele-vocal- cor...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/10/adele-vocal-cord-surgery- why-stars-keep-losing-their-voices)

The numbers keep jumping around a lot, but very roughly what I'm seeing is this:

      Safari: 2% - 8%
      Chrome 50% - 150%
      Firefox 150% - 250%

(100% is one CPU core. I'm not using any ad-blockers)

Obviously, these numbers are non-deterministic and depend on the individual ads that are being displayed. But the numbers are roughly representative of what I've been seeing over the last couple of months.

<comment><USER52> I tried this:

      1. With uBlock Origin running, I don't go above 11% CPU

      2. I turned uBlock Origin off: reloading immediately sent my CPU to 80%, and it *stabilised* at a constant 30%.

<comment><USER51> As I said, it's non-deterministic, so I'm not surprised if you're seeing something different.

I have made it a habit to try resource hungry pages in all my browsers. The variance is huge but the pattern is pretty clear when it comes to CPU usage, especially between Safari and everyone else (excluding Edge and IE as I don't use Windows).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> > _Chromium-based browsers do not support user styles_

Does anyone know what gorhill means by this? Stylish for Chrome seems to work fine: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stylish-custom- the...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stylish-custom-themes- for/fjnbnpbmkenffdnngjfgmeleoegfcffe)

Am I missing something? (Probably, but what?)

<comment><USER54> IIRC, stylish for chrome converts userstyles into javascript, and runs the scripts to add inline styles to elements on the page. stylish for firefox changes the page's stylesheet.

<comment><USER55> Last time I checked stylish seemed to insert a link tag in the head linking to the css file.

Edit: on Chrome Stylish inserts a <style> tag at the end with the css, it seems stylish insert the css via javascript in Firefox though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Related: Can we have Tree Style Tabs implemented by default in Firefox?

<comment><USER56> Currently, there aren't even the APIs needed by Tree Style Tabs in WebExtensions. That's likely to change, but not until after Firefox 57.

<comment><USER47> That's why I wish they would implement it as a default function of Firefox, not as an extension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I heard somewhere that Firefox's security showing was pretty dismal before they introduces e10s with seccomp-bpf sandboxing. The anecdote I heard was that in "hacking competitions" a Chrome vulnerability was worth a serious hunk of cash, Firefox was worth almost nothing because it was too easy. After sandboxing, Firefox RCEs are worth money again. Does anyone know whether this claim is accurate or misleading? I know I've switched back to Firefox because of it.

<comment><USER58> The claim is correct. The security of IE9+, Edge and Chrome is far superior than Firefox. As Geohot said, writing an exploit for Firefox is similar to a harder CTF challenge (done in an day or two). While IE or Chrome Exploits cost a lot. I can back it up with references, but [https://www.zerodium.com/program.html](https://www.zerodium.com/program.html) shows a pretty clear picture (Scroll down to Payout Ranges). It will take FF like 3-5 years until they have a sandbox as good as the other Browsers, sadly.

<comment><USER57> I was viewing [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox) and it appears that Firefox on Linux now has some kind of sandboxing. I presume it's not as good as Chrome but I'm sure it's raised the security level significantly. Realistically, how much danger am I in by using Firefox?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Web/browser Extensions is a terrible standard is it EXTREMELY limiting for power users.

While that my not impact a ad blocker, there are countless extensions that can not work with Web Extensions and will make Chrome err sorry Firefox far less appealing to people.

For me, more than a few of the extensions I use regularly are not compatible with Web Extensions, and a few of them that are critical to my productivity are in limbo still

That is the Source of the "Chrome Clone". The switch to Web Extensions is hated by many many firefox power users.

Sadly they feel the users that have stuck around all of these years, that did not abandoned them for Chrome are worthless, and have chosen to attempt to attract those users that did abandon FF for Chrome back. They are doing this by making a browser that is unappealing to me (and many others actual FF users, not Chrome Users who are the most vocal proponents of Firefox's current direction), a user that has been a FF loyalist since FF version 1.

I am not 100% sure I will switch to another browser, the options are very thin these days but it will be a sad day for me when FF57 is all that is left

<comment><USER60> Do you have one example of such extension that won't work with web extensions?

<comment><USER59> TreeStyleTabs

<comment><USER23> [https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224](https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224)

Seems they have all the APIs needed for it at the very least approved. It's not like Mozilla just said screw everyone... Let's become chrome. They are putting in the effort to make web extensions viable for even the more advanced uses.

<comment><USER59> They are making to where a version of TreeTabs are possible, this new API will enable functionality like in Chrome (see my other comment) but it will not be the same.

if I wanted Chrome style Vertical tabs I would have moved to chrome years ago

<comment><USER23> Seeing as how there is an api in place to have a built in sidebar in firefox, plenty of tab and window API methods available, a way to hide the horizontal tabs at the top of the screen and the developer of treeStyleTabs saying that they will be able to move to webextensions fine... I fail to see how this will be inferior to an XUL extension. Can you elaborate on how the old tree style tabs is different other than using XUL?

Unrelated, but the fact that the developer doesn't get the extension AMO approved and uses eval() all over the place should give some pause as well.

<comment><USER47> He uses eval in safe ways, according to the developer. So I think your argument is mout unless you can point the unsafe uses.

Now, the real question is: "why isn't Firefox developing a default Tree Style Tab?"

I think at this point enough people are using it, and it has proven to be a better way to browse.

<comment><USER23> He may well be using it "safely" but it still is a string that is being evaluated so it has many inherent drawbacks.

> Now, the real question is: "why isn't Firefox developing a default Tree > Style Tab?" > > I think at this point enough people are using it, and it has > proven to be a better way to browse.

Not sure there are enough users to justify taking actual mozilla engineers off core problems that are everyone's problems. There is a maintenance burden and associated cost for every feature that mozilla adds to their core product. I think they would rather make the browser extension backend robust enough to allow for those types of extensions without sacrificing stability, performance, and security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Tab Center Redux that is WebExtensions compatible:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-center- re...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-center-redux/)

</comment><comment><USER62> I was really impressed that ublock origin worked on mobile firefox on android.

I recently switched to an iphone, but sadly, the ios version of Firefox does not support the extensions.

</comment><comment><USER63> I tried switching to FF a while back but it didn't take.

Right now I'm using Vivaldi.

</comment><comment><USER64> I use Edge and looks like is blocking everything w/o problems.

</comment><comment><USER65> Doesn't PrivacyBadger^1 solve the fingerprinting problem?

[1] [https://www.eff.org/privacybadger](https://www.eff.org/privacybadger)

</comment><comment><USER66> An interesting quote from Hill, from the article linked to:

> It baffles me that some people thinks Firefox is becoming a "Chrome clone", > it's just not the case, it's just plain silly to make such statement.

He lists several ways in which FF is better, from a security standpoint.</comment>


Opening up search is an ethical imperative - <AUTHOR> https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2020/01/23/opening-up-search-is-an-ethical-imperative/ <comment><USER2> All platforms after a certain size need to be regulated as utilities.

When thousands or hundreds of thousands of companies live and die by your platform, its economic suicide to leave it in the hands of one single private entity.

A few things need to happen in order to guarantee fair play:

\- Transparency: Your process can no longer be secret. People need to see whats going on to ensure no foul play is going on.

\- The owners of the platform can't participate economically in it. Amazon is the obvious example. You don't want to be kicked out of your own platform? Don't open it to others. Its a simple matter of conflict of interest.

\- DUE PROCESS: You can't have some minimum wage employee following a flowchart in call center making life of death decisions for companies living in your platform. There needs to be a proper and accessible appeals process with independent arbitrage if necessary. And above all, innocent till proven guilty. You can't fucking shut down my company and THEN I can go through the lengthy appeal. No company can survive that.

Too expensive? Tough shit, go wipe your tears with your trillion dollar market cap.

I'm sure there's a ton more that needs to happen. These are just the ones I can think about.

<comment><USER3> The world economy runs on Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon. Imagine if any one of them were to fail, it would be catastrophic.

That said I'm not sure I trust the current American political climate to step in and regulate, and I'm not sure they have a right to... The influence of these businesses extends far outside the borders of the United States.

<comment><USER4> Adtech is a pretty big bubble. Failure would be disruptive. But from a long- term perspective I'm not convinced adtech is desirable or needed. Let's go to Luna and the icy moons instead.

<comment><USER5> As long as people who have next to nothing (a large portion of the world) can access valuable resources for free in exchange for looking at advertising, it is quite necessary. Even those who do have disposable income in first world countries are not interested in paying for a subscription to resources they rely on a daily basis. Ads are a necessary evil.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps. But I contend that they are ineffective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Lucene is the best search technology, in my humble opinion, and is amazingly fast. MongoDB has it built in (full-text search, based on Lucene) and I'm using it in the project I'm working on.

</comment><comment><USER7> What would be an interesting project would be to create an automated framework to compare search engines.

Have dataset/s and see where the different technologies, win, fail and IDK.

Solr's Phonetic Matching I always thought needed improvement, it would be interesting to get a report on those for instance.

<comment><USER8> > compare search engines

What metrics would you use? I would be fascinated to know.

<comment><USER9> User retention? ;)

Color me interested! There's so many layers to measure: from natural language understanding to pagerank-style relevance ordering, filtering duplicates to presenting the different permanences of content (breaking news vs books on the same topic).

<comment><USER7> > filtering duplicates

Yep. It's interesting. How do you deal with versioning. The same document 10 times on a CMS might overpower the search results. Does uniqueness rank higher? There you need a human judge at which search engine / search engine defaults is better.

> natural language understanding

I'd like to know if any search engines do this. I feel like it's out of scope. If they use the words "natural language understanding" I think they are running a scam and mean statistics.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CPython GitHub migration scheduled for Friday - <AUTHOR> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-February/147341.html <comment><USER2> I do wish they would have considered GitLab, which is open source just like Python.

<comment><AUTHOR> They did. [1][2] According to Brett Cannon who made the decision it came down to three things: GitHub has a built in social network, GitLab has no killer feature over GitHub, and Guido the beloved BDFL prefers GitHub.

[1] [https://snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move- py...](https://snarky.ca/the-history-behind-the-decision-to-move-python-to- github/) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13611387](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13611387)</comment></comment>


Scheme: The Swine before Perl - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Talks/SwineBeforePerl/

<comment><AUTHOR> Funny thing is: I've tried to successfully learn macros (or a part of it) from a number of different sources, but those slides were the most enlightening source to me.

<comment><USER2> I'm guessing you found it now, but there's a very readable paper that talks in more detail about the examples: [http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/sk...](http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/sk- automata-macros/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! No, I've never come across this... I gave it a read. They're slightly more informative than the slides (regarding to macros). Thank you very much!</comment></comment></comment>


No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis - <AUTHOR> https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2 <comment><AUTHOR> > As an Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, I have handled 180 manuscripts > since early 2017 and have made 41 editorial decisions categorized as "Revise > before review," requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, > among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, > indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the > manuscripts. I rejected 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts because of > insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not > present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, > suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, > at least in some portions of these cases.</comment>


New Bedford, Massachusetts: The city that once lit the world - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180719-the-city-that-lit-the-world <comment><USER2> As I have pointed out many times: the (crude) oil industry saved the whales!

<comment><USER3> Oddly enough, sperm whaling peaked in the 1960s, following increased demand for heat-stable oils for automatic transmissions. It only stopped when the International Whaling Commission _voluntarily_ enacted a moratorium in 1985.

<comment><USER4> The later whaling industry is depressing to read about. It was more grizzly than the Moby Dick era, with explosive tipped harpoons and faster boats capable of corralling whales into bays where they could be killed en masse.

By the way, as a New Bedford resident, my favorite travel writing about NB came from the New York Times' "36 hours in..." series. The biggest challenge was what to do with the other 24 hours.

It's all a little dismal.

<comment><USER5> It's grisly not grizzly but TBH I love your version too.

<comment><USER4> That's bearly a typo

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"the town was granted a city charter with the Latin motto, 'Lucem Diffundo'. 'We light the world'."_

That's quite a loose translation. I would translate it as "I spread light".

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting to read the line "Then, the final blow broke in 1879. Thomas Edison had invented the electric lightbulb." in a BBC article. Normally, UK sources side with Edison's rival, the English physicist and inventor Joseph Swan as the inventor of the lightbulb.

</comment><comment><USER8> Actually I wrote an article for Nantucket news expressedly with this exact premise, only about Nantucket, a decade ago. Love to go back and compare numbers.</comment>