How the Mad Men Lost the Plot - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cd1722ba-8333-11e5-8e80-1574112844fd.html#axzz3qWkMqSSR <comment><USER2> Both sides in this debate, those in favor of "traditional" ads and those in favor or digital ad have a point but I think where things are going lies somewhere in the middle which will end up irking the zealots on either side.

The big egos of traditional advertising will be upset because not everyone on earth will have seen their latest "big idea." This is due in no small part to overall media fragmentation which digital (or the internet) but also cable have played big parts. When that Coke ad aired in 1971 how many channels were there? Maybe 6? Of course a large portion of the population was going to see your ad.

And on the digital side they'll have to accept that measurement isn't the be- all-end-all. Between crazy amounts of fraudulent data and the simple fact that creativity and "brand awareness" are really, really tough to quantify they'll have to concede that sometimes the traditional thinking around creative work and "big ideas" will need to win out over analytics.

Source: worked for several years in advertising on the creative side and then on the tech side (and part of the problem is that those two departments are, well, departments but that's a story for another time...)

<comment><USER3> Couldn't agree more. You wrote the comment I wanted to write but hadn't got round to starting on. The only thing I'd add is that whether in traditional or digital, an awful lot of guesswork is needed to even know how well something performed, yet alone how something will perform in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reading this article when the author says:

      "the most effective advertisements of all are those with little or no rational content"

I thought of: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Isuzu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Isuzu)

Imagine that, ads I saw 30 years ago just popped into my head.

I have to admit I'm in adTech and when people ask me what the highest impact is to any campaign's success I don't talk about the next machine learning algorithm my data science team is working on. I talk about the creative, it's all about the creative (or message). I can find the perfect time, to show the perfectly matched advertisement to a single person, but if the creative doesn't connect with that person I'm just wasting the advertisers money and the person's time.

<comment><USER5> Sure you remember the ads, but did you buy an Isuzu?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Digital advertising as we know it is just dying and most people know it, or has suspicions. It is slow but it is happening. Certain players are getting better at extracting what they can from it, but the system is moving in such a way that online "advertising" will be considered a really shady business in the long term. It's not just that people hate, and don't click banners; it's because it just doesn't do much for the big brands, and their budget is what moves the needle of what big Advertising companies do.

Apple's move towards blocking ads may help fasten it, but it's not about them. It's something that's bigger and already in motion.

Big brands are starting to understand that what they want is not to force someone into seeing their name, but to create something that people actually want to use. Be it an application, be it a service. And not force "INSTALL OUR APP!" into someone's screen. For a good example, Coke's new app that allows you to customize the drink you can get from their machine. Or Mountain Dew's fidelity program tracking app. Baby steps, but it's actually something _useful_. Regardless of what you think of soda or soda drinkers, those are a actual services that some people would find convenient, and would help tie them to the brand.

Traditional advertising is a one-way, in-your-face kind of deal, and it works for brand awareness, especially for new consumers (kids). But with the technology we have today, it makes little sense to move that online. We have learned to ignore it. Sure, the internet had to do it, and it helped it grow. But now people are tired. We grew used to it. Most brands are now understanding that there's more they can do with the medium, and finding their way out of that death spiral.

I've worked in advertising for ~17 years, nearly my whole career. Finally got out of it and couldn't be happier. Work was fine and my coworkers were great people (there ARE good advertising agencies out there). But it was easy to see it was a dead-end street.

<comment><USER7> Considering the world's greatest talent seems to go to either Finance or Selling Ads, I'm not sure the death of advertising is nigh. Though the nature of advertising is certainly changing.

<comment><USER8> On the other hand, a Ph.D. wouldn't have helped King Canute turn back the tide...

<comment> david-given On the gripping hand, Canute knew full well that he couldn't turn back the tide --- he was demonstrating to his courtiers that even kings had limits; not all orders are obeyable.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Really good article, but what I found myself thinking was: didn't we already know all this?

It's been common advertising wisdom for years that the benefit of brand advertising is simply awareness. Person is in store, person doesn't know which thing to get and doesn't really care that much, brand name pops into their head because the ad had that catchy jingle or adorable cat in it, they pick up that one and go on with their lives.

Perhaps the great delusion was that most people care enough about their purchasing choices of mundane items to "engage" with brands. That's never been true and it's continued to not be true, despite the construction of a vast new internet advertising industry focused around nothing but brand engagement at all costs.

</comment><comment><USER10> "People don't want to engage with brands"

I've said this for years, ever since I started seeing twitter and facebook logos on things like ketchup and cereal. Here's one I just saw: who wants to "engage" with C&H SUGAR of all things? [https://instagram.com/p/9JVo- gpvQw/](https://instagram.com/p/9JVo-gpvQw/)

The only companies that make money from plastering twitter and facebook logos on stuff are ... twitter and facebook.

<comment><USER11> If those social media accounts function as an expedited way to get customer service, then people are indeed interested in engaging with them. That seems to be one of the popular uses of Twitter for brands these days: a way to escalate complaints that aren't getting attention through usual channels.

<comment><USER12> I've also personally run across cases where I was bitching about some aspect of the service at a hotel or whatever. Not trying to get customer support necessarily, but just complaining--e.g. the network went out for 2 hours this afternoon. And I've had people from the main hotel customer service reach out and put some points in my account or whatever.

It's not a huge deal but this sort of thing can move experiences from black marks to something even mildly positive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the article has a point that brand advertising is more about inserting your brand into the culture than convincing people that your product is better.

It misses the fact, however, that there are more media than ever for inserting ideas - not just brands - into the culture. These are all competing for people's low-cognitive-load "buy" responses.

Most of these alternative media are digital, but some are also hybrid digital/word-of-mount campaigns that move through specific class subdivisions of society. As an example, I have never seen a Nespresso ad (I've heard they exist) but we are heavy users of that product.

Edit: more thoughts.

Another issue is that people have learned to be skeptical of traditional TV brand advertising because it is so broadly targeted. Especially for traditional brands that people often find passé.

</comment><comment><USER14> _> Applying a statistical analysis to sales data, he demonstrates that the majority of any successful brand's sales comes from "light buyers": people who buy it relatively infrequently. Coca-Cola's business is not built on a hardcore of Coke lovers who drink it daily, but on the millions of people who buy it once or twice a year. _

Having not read the book referenced, I haven't seen the data. But this seems to go against the Pareto Principle AKA 80/20 Rule which suggests 80% of your sales come from 20% of your (heaviest) customers, and against my own anecdotal experience as a marketer.

<comment><USER15> I think what is meant is that those loyal (20%) Coke drinkers will continue to drink Coke regardless. There is no reason to focus on them. You are also probably not going to be able to convince someone who never drinks Coke to start drinking Coke. There is no reason to focus on them. That means the best area for marginal sales is those people who occasionally drink it. Getting those people to choose Coke slightly more often is probably the most efficient way to increase sales and is the method around which Coke builds its business.

<comment><USER16> That makes sense, but it's not specifically what the quote says. The quote seems to be referencing total sales, and this sounds more like converted sales (for lack of knowing the best term to use).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So is digital marketing/online ads the bubble that SV is currently founded upon, not VC overvaluations? It seems like in the event of a recession, and companies not being able to spend as much as they have on ads, would have a huge resonance cascade on a lot of startup business models.

</comment><comment><USER18> Maybe TV is an ideal medium for brand awareness campaigns, but it simply won't have a large enough audience at some point. It seems like these marketers jumped on digital during the hype phase, and were just ahead of the curve. Now they're in the "trough of disillusionment", but eventually the number of eyeballs on TV will go below the point of cost effectiveness and digital will be what they have to use out of necessity.

<comment><USER19> The article points out that "eyeballs on TV" hasn't dropped nearly as much as people thought it was going to 10 years ago. They're spread out over more channels, but watching as much TV as ever (and skipping ads _less_ than they used to).

<comment><USER18> The article says people who watch TV watch as many hours as they used to. It's not true that as many people watch TV as they used to. I don't think there's a good reason to think TV viewership will go anywhere but down over time

In any case, I'm not saying we're there yet

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The issue isn't so much about which marketing channel works best (i.e. traditional vs digital) but about the psychological levers of persuassion. People don't like "conversing" and "engaging" with brands. That's why social media doesn't work. Social media is supposed to be social and not commercial.

As the article said, it's low cognitive involvement that works best, not brand loyalty. That's why advertisers are using the Low Attention Processing Model.[1] With this particular advertising strategy, brand information is 'acquired' at low and even zero attention levels using implicit learning.[2] Implicit learning cannot analyse or re-interpret anything. The information goes directly to the subconscious mind.

If so, then we are silently influenced by ambient images and messages around us. Advertisers could be affecting our decision making and even outlook on life in ways we can't perceive. This has been the driving inspiration for these posters I designed: [http://subliminalzen.com](http://subliminalzen.com).

Essentially, if anyone is going to advertise to my subconscious mind, it's going to be me. And I'd rather acquire positive habits and character traits than an emotional connection to a product.

[1] [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=364813&fileId=S0021849905050282)

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


Admiral Grace Hopper Explains the Nanosecond - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw <comment><USER2> Great stuff. I'm reminded of the classic "we can't send an email over 500 miles!" which is somewhat related, and equally entertaining: [http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles](http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles)

</comment><comment><USER3> "So they know what they're throwing away when they're throwing away microseconds"

She was a genius. Was a great character.

<comment><USER4> I enjoyed listening to her, but I don't know if I understand her point here. There was something intuitive about why certain processes require a large number of nano seconds due to physics. But I have a tough time thinking of any process besides financial trading that can't spare a microsecond.

<comment><USER5> Anything that you need to do a lot of, in a second, suffers for wasted microseconds.

If your input processing and font rendering pathways waste microseconds (and they do) it makes a delay in characters you type showing up on the screen, and a corresponding, measurable reduction in your editing throughput.

When our machines were a thousand times slower, characters showed up on the screen in substantially less time than they do today. The difference is mainly a result of cumulative wasted microseconds, in so many places that nobody can afford to gather them up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is funny (to me anyway) that the nanosecond wires she used to give out take rather more than a nanosecond to traverse.

The speed of signal propagation is largely determined by the density of the wire's insulation, because the signal is an electromagnetic wave carried at the skin of the conductor, with its electric field oscillating in the insulation, so propagation is limited by properties of that. The distance covered in a nanosecond is typically between seven and eight inches. In wires with foam insulation (typically co-ax) signals go a little faster. In optical fiber, a nanosecond is under seven inches, because the speed is determined by the same property of the glass, which is denser.

</comment><comment><USER6> Based on this I made downloadable and printable nanoseconds: [https://blog.jgc.org/2012/10/a-downloadable- nanosecond.html](https://blog.jgc.org/2012/10/a-downloadable-nanosecond.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> She brought some nanoseconds to Letterman: [https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35dsz7](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35dsz7)

</comment><comment><USER8> Posted pretty regularly here, it's a great talk. She was a true treasure to the CS world and to the Navy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I wasn't sure how often this pops up, it came up in conversation and I'm not familiar enough with HN to see when the last time it was posted, so I figured i'd just post it and let it go unnoticed if it's been posted too often recently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What year was this filmed in?

<comment><USER10> 1993 it would appear:

[https://youtu.be/Sn0f0vpn8jE?t=7m50s](https://youtu.be/Sn0f0vpn8jE?t=7m50s)

<comment><USER11> She died in 1992, so I highly doubt it was recorded in '93.

<comment><USER12> She's the ghost in the machine.

(Given the quality of the video, I'd be inclined to think 1983 rather than 1993)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GolfScript: a language for solving problems (holes) in minimum keystrokes - <AUTHOR> http://www.golfscript.com/golfscript/index.html <comment><USER2> Hmm.

"Whitespace is not special, it actually behaves the same as any other undefined variable, which is nothing. You can set a space to some value and use it like any other variable. This has the potential to cause hard to track down errors if you accidently set it without knowing."

Is solving a problem in a minimal number of printable characters really worthwhile if you end up having to expend a huge number of actual keystrokes rewriting it and debugging it? It seems like you could solve problems in a smaller amount of actual, elapsed time in a language like Python.

Interesting to see someone focus on the compactness of the code specifically, though. Languages like Brainfuck seem to be compact only because it tends to obfuscate meaning.

<comment><USER3> Brainfuck is obscure, but only because of its restricted character set. 8 operators is not very expressive and requires large, but eventually recognizable, idioms to get most common tasks done. Languages like J [1] keep the terse syntax but have a much more expressive set of operators. J is also very regular, so once one knows the basic vocabulary the programmer is able to infer the meanings of more complicated operators. Compactness itself is not what obfuscates meaning.

[1]: <http://www.jsoftware.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Such terse languages have a long history -- going back all the way to APL. Current environments, like K and J, continue the legacy but their syntax only includes glyphs from the ASCII character set as opposed to APL's specialized keyboard. The FALSE [1] and F [2] languages are similar to GolfScript, the former being a stack-based language, minimalistic compiler, and inspiration for Brainfuck. The latter is a more recent implementation and purely functional implementation in K.

[1]: <http://strlen.com/false-language> [2]: <http://www.nsl.com/k/f/f.htm></comment>


FCC Releases Net Neutrality Regulations - <AUTHOR> http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

<comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191007).</comment>


Hugh Hefner has died - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/obituaries/hugh-hefner-dead.html?_r=0&referer= <comment><USER2> IQ 152 !

"Hefner went to Sayre Elementary School and then to Steinmetz High School, where, reportedly, his IQ was 152 though his academic performance was generally modest." [https://www.biography.com/people/hugh- hefner-9333521](https://www.biography.com/people/hugh-hefner-9333521)

</comment><comment><USER3> This was at #1 and dropped completely off the page. How is that possible?

I think that's a shame, it's the end of an era. Hef was an original disruptor.

<comment><USER4> Morality police strikes again! (edit: what I mean hopefully doesn't offend the mods, what I mean is the general 'hive mind' behaviour that occurred, judging from some of the comments posted & the heavy downvoting that followed)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can you imagine the courage of a young Hugh Hefner? What if there was a new kind of gentleman's lifestyle magazine? With best in class reporting, editorials, interviews, fashion and accessory coverage. And two to three pictorials of totally nude babes. But even those would be of the highest quality, with concern to the art, and the presentation. It wasn't ever smut, it was always ever art, with the level of care and attention to detail at every level of the magazine.

Even today, it's outrageous to suggest I'm going to start a new venture featuring nude pictorials, because you're immediately thrown in to the Internet porn category. Your pictorials can't be shared on Facebook. You're immediately banned from entire countries for syndication because of nipples.

But Hugh had a vision, and he stuck to his guns with his idea. Playboy and the Bunny logo are inseparable parts of popular culture and American history, now. Hopefully, forever.

God bless you, Hugh Hefner, for what you did for art, expression, and freedom of speech. May you rest in peace.

<comment><USER6> Why does art need to be so obsessed with boobs? I can see them being present, but why focus on them so much if it's about art, fashion, and other non-boob things?

<comment><USER7> I love this age of neo-puritianism. We've gone from "if if feels good, do it" to "everything is sexist and you should feel bad because even if you don't consciously doing it, you're still a subconscious sinner. Now pay your penance, heathen."

And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married.

<comment><USER8> Where did you get the idea that GP thinks the depiction of breasts in art is sexist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why was this killed?

192 points in 2 hours and it's on the 3rd page

<comment><USER10> Page position is decided by some combination of points and flags. So it seems more people wanted it off the front page than on the front page.

If I where to take a guess at why I'd say it's probably because the comments quickly derailed into a discussion of morality and Mr. Hefner's moral character rather than anything related to his entrepreneurial ability.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the reply dagw

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I remember as a kid reading an expose on Pine Gap (ECHELON listening post in Australia) in an old Playboy. I think it was from the late 70's?

So I can say for certain, from a fairly young age, that I read it for the articles.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Life is too short to be living somebody else's dream." \- HUGH M. HEFNER

</comment><comment><USER13> He was an icon for a long time. His daughter, Christie Hefner, is 64, and retired from running Playboy Enterprises.

</comment><comment><USER14> No Hugh Hefner, no Shel Silverstein. The dude probably propped up a lot of people's careers.

<comment><USER15> Interesting factoid, but after checking Silverstein's wikipedia page it's evident that he was well published before working for Playboy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> People over look his (and his companies) contribution to photography. even an indirect impact was felt in the world of image processing with the Lenna image, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna) . Playboy pushed how people were photographed to new levels.

He was willing to publish what others were not; see The Crooked Man; hired some of the best writers in the industry, and went on to start careers of writers. His pushing the boundaries of free speech are very important to where we are today. his support of women's and gay rights are often overlooked as well.

he shaped society back in a day before internet and to an extent that may be greater than some internet and tech giants of today

<comment><USER17> Damn, I forgot that the Lena image came from Playboy!

Thanks to Hef, we have HEIF!

I'm here all week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Few admit it, but this guy's taste in women has had a profound impact on the entire entertainment industry. LA as a city of busty blondes ... that's all down to hef. Compare his girls to the rail-thin girls in the fashion houses of NY or europe.

And before we scream about his clubs and the mag degrading women, look up the interviews with girls who worked in such places before playboy. Hef cleaned up an industry that badly needed cleaning. Imho the porn industry today is in need of a new hef, one to clean up the websites that are treating girls like cattle, paying them nothing over dramaticly shorter careers. Sadly he stepped asside and never really participated in the internet scene.

<comment><USER19> Just saw this Feb 2017 op-ed tweeted by the NYTimes: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/how-playboy- expla...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/how-playboy-explains- vietnam.html)

> _Though following in their legacy, the Playmate models differed from the > pinups of World War II. Hefner wanted images of real women their readers > might see in their everyday life — a classmate, secretary or neighbor — > instead of the highly stylized and often famous women of an older > generation. The sexualized, yet familiar, "girl next door" was the perfect > accompaniment for soldiers stationed in Vietnam. This conception of > wholesome, all-American beauty and sexuality acted out by largely unknown > models reminded young soldiers of the women they left behind, and for whom > they were fighting — and could, if they survived, imagine returning to._

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The tribute at playboy.com (SWF as of now) just needs a bit of vaporwave.

Rip HH

<comment><USER21> At one point, they announced, shocking everyone who heard, that they'd no longer be posting nude women on their website. They even made their magazine nude-free. I think they reverted their magazine.

Here is a citation:

[http://ijr.com/2015/11/468636-playboy-ceo-explains-their- rea...](http://ijr.com/2015/11/468636-playboy-ceo-explains-their-reasoning- for-no-more-nudes/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am consistently unable to guess which obituaries will show up on HN.

<comment><USER23> Hugh Hefner embodied the startup spirit that HN loves. He was bold and innovative.

<comment><USER24> He was also very socially progressive and a voice for civil rights during a time when segregation was still a thing and the US was extremely conservative.

<comment><USER25> Huge free speech advocate too, something I greatly respect him for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> He was a hero in many ways. His personality made the world a brighter place.

</comment><comment><USER27> RIP sweet prince.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am remember watching the documentary about him 6 months ago. It was an Amazon original show. I was really impressed. RIP

I recommend you to watch it if you got prime.

<comment><USER29> I was interested, so I searched and found "American Playboy". Is this correct?

<comment><USER28> Yes. That's the one I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Thanks for the mammaries. Seriously though, how did a man with that lifestyle live to 91? Impressive

<comment><USER21> My understanding is that he didn't do a lot of drugs and seldom drank to excess. I also am going to guess he got a lot of exercise.

<comment><USER30> He was known for smoking a pipe. And that many sex partners has to be dangerous

<comment><USER21> Smoking a pipe isn't healthy but a few daily puffs aren't going to shorten your life all that much. Pipes go out, get relit, and generally aren't dragged on like a cigarette. Many people don't even inhale the smoke.

As for the sex? Given his frequent recommendations about practicing safe sex, I suspect it involved protection and, possibly, testing.

Hugh the public figure wasn't quite the same as Hugh the individual. There are some good documentaries about him and his life.

This isn't directed at you, really. Though it may be? You used the number of sex partners almost as a pejorative? At least that is how I read it.

I noticed quite a few people opining that his sex life was wrong and that his magazine was sleazy, or somehow bad. A magazine that empowered women, a magazine that offered choice, a magazine that promoted healthy sexual relationships is being considered bad.

I haven't seen this much angst over Playboy since the mid-60s. It's like they forgot we had a sexual revolution, and we won. That sexual revolution helped lead to greater equality, understanding, and happier people. It helped the gay people come out of the closet. It helped transfolk become even more accepted. It liberated women from sexual repression where they were no longer expected to be barefoot and pregnant.

Seriously, it's like some of these posters are in a mid-60s Southern Baptist Church.

<comment><USER30> I'm not judging his # of partners, but am suggesting it is a little dangerous. HPV for example, isn't stopped by condoms, and can cause cancer.

<comment><USER21> Ah, alright. It read, to me, as if you were using it as a pejorative. Reading other comments may have biased me, sorry if I read more into it than you wrote.

It can cause cancer, though I believe the odds are low for males. He also may not have contracted it. After a time, especially after the AIDS epidemic, I suspect there was a lot of testing and scrutiny.

Obviously, I'd not suggest his lifestyle was all that healthy, but I don't think it is a miracle that he survived to live as long as he did. He also, surely, had great medical care and was able to afford a less stressful life.

Statistics are like that. You can do all sorts of silly crap and live to be a great grandfather. You can do all the right things and die of cancer before you hit puberty. I had a grandmother who surpassed 100 and she drank whiskey and smoked rough cut tobacco from a corncob pipe.

I'd not suggest you try that, if longevity is your goal. On the other hand, if longevity is not your goal than smoking, drinking, and having lots of sex seems like a pretty good idea. Bonus points if you beat the odds and live long enough to bury your detractors.

<comment><USER31> > On the other hand, if longevity is not your goal than smoking, drinking, and > having lots of sex seems like a pretty good idea. Bonus points if you beat > the odds and live long enough to bury your detractors.

Solid life advice. Welcome to HN, I'm a fan already.

<comment><USER21> Thanks, I've been here for a while but didn't start commenting until fairly recently. I like to lurk before posting. It helps me to better understand the rules, especially the unwritten ones, before posting.

I'm the same KGIII from Slashdot, etc... Yeah, that guy.

But, I don't want to meander too far off topic. I will say that I come here for the comments, I read quite a few articles, but I prefer the comments. Some of you are really intelligent. I don't always agree with some posts, and some common themes, but I can respect a well presented and logically consistent argument.

I do sometimes see the most innocuous comments getting negative moderation. That sometimes confuses me, but I've seen it on other sites so it's not unique to HN.

Besides? What good is karma if you can't spend it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If there was one guy that lived life to it's fullest. This was the guy.

</comment><comment><USER33> Idk why this guy is somewhat admired in the US. He seems like the epitome of sleaziness and bad taste.

<comment><USER34> That's looking at his life through a current day PC culture lens... he was the epitome of class and cool in his day, and definitely did his share of fighting for civil rights. He probably could have aged out more gracefully, but he was a product of his times and rich... meh. Even in his older age, he lived perhaps a bit sleazy, but in a "like you wouldn't do the same thing with that kind of money and status" sort of way, if we're all being entirely honest with ourselves.

<comment><USER35> "PC culture lens"? I wouldn't write off so blithely the clear chauvinism of Playboy. While I'm sure its models exercise more agency than a typical hardcore porn performer, I think it's still fair to say that its whole presentation values women primarily as sexual commodities.

<comment><USER34> I know it's cliche but they really did have decent articles, and model profiles, I agree that they certainly went beyond simply presenting women for womens sake compared to most. I wonder, what would a magazine look like that still celebrated the naked female physical form but would pass this "wholesome" standard many seem to judge the Playboy magazine of failing to meet. Are naked bodies inherently 'wrong' to be admired? Looking at older issues from the heyday, and they are pretty damn classy. Sometimes I dont think mainstream Western culture will ever escape it's puritanical sex negative roots. Jealousy, envy, lust and insecurities seem so mixed up in the presentation of naked bodies, many will consciously or subconsciously find it inherently distasteful for as far as I can see. I personally think it's unfortunate that all of this baggage has to be so uniformly applied creating an impossible standard. Some times naked beautiful woman are just naked and beautiful, and there isn't anything objectifying to admire this particular trait than there is admiring intelligence. If I exclusively admire a woman's intelligence, am I objectifying her as a computational machine in lue of a sex machine or something? Idk

<comment><USER35> It would probably look more like ESPN The Body. Or Annie Leibovitz's photos. There's a lot of nude art that's not exploitative in the same way. I'm not a prude, I'm just saying let's not airbrush what Playboy is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A man who made an empire out of institutionalizing the objectification of women is being glorified with a veneer of civil rights activism. Since when did marketing nudity become a praiseworthy thing? Or asking that is too politically incorrect these days?

<comment><USER37> >Since when did marketing nudity become a praiseworthy thing? Or asking that is too politically incorrect these days?

Since forever.

The nude form is probably the most depicted thing in the history of human art, and artists have been paid to depict it since time immemorial.

Our museums, art galleries, and cinemas are filled to the brim with depicted nudes -- of every shape and size -- celebrating the human achievement of the creation of such art.

Think whatever of Hefner, but please understand that so-called 'marketing of nudity' and 'objectification of women' are entirely different concepts, and there are plenty of examples throughout human history of one without the other.

<comment><USER38> >Since when did marketing nudity become a praiseworthy thing?

That's the beauty of nudity (and of art). You don't have to like it. No one is forcing you.

What you choose to praise regarding nudity and/or art is up to you. Clearly this commenter does not view HH's work and life at all as praiseworthy. That's perfectly fine to think if you want.</comment></comment></comment>


I hate preference panels - <AUTHOR> http://blog.adimofunne.com/i-hate-preference-panels/

<comment><USER2> You may hate preference panels. You are not me.

There is little I find more frustrating than trying to change something that should be trivial to change, only to find that the setting used to be there and was removed in the name of "cleanness".</comment>


Submit your amazing startup and find other great proejcts - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazingstartups.com/submit-a-startup/

<comment><USER2> Businesshackers? who are they?? what the??

</comment><comment><USER3> Umm, right...

</comment><comment><USER4> so basically killerstartups copy?</comment>


Microsoft is permanently closing its retail stores - <AUTHOR> https://angel.co/today/stories/microsoft-is-permanently-closing-its-retail-stores-25073 <comment><AUTHOR> I'm someone who spends far more time on my laptop than I do in my car. I can't remember the last time I took a test drive when buying a car.

But I want to see my laptop, examine and touch it. That's getting harder and harder to do. But if I drove to a couple of store's in the Detroit area I could see all the leading contenders. I've never owned a Microsoft laptop but they were a contender and their stores were nice.

</comment><comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23651672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23651672)</comment>


Sideloading f.lux on iOS with Xcode 7 - <AUTHOR> https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ <comment><USER2> I'm so insanely happy to see this, even with it's minor shortcomings. f.lux has eliminated all eye-stress for me while computering -- it's been one of the only reasons I've considered jailbreaking my iPhone...until now! Serious thanks to the developers.

<comment><USER3> Completely agree! I started limiting myself to apps that had night mode such as, Alien Blue and Tweetbot.

Being able to go from a computer with f.lux to my iPhone with f.lux will play much nicer with my eyes at night. I can literally feel the strain in my eyes when going from f.lux to no f.lux.

<comment><AUTHOR> We can only hope that control of blue light emissions will be natively implemented by all phone and tablet manufacturers, to protect the future health of billions of humans. Here are some articles about the impact of blue light on eyes and sleep.

[http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/04/23/7-things-can- righ...](http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/04/23/7-things-can-right-now- protect-vision/), _" Blue light is able to pass through what is called the retinohypothalamic tract, or pathway. This pathway is responsible for regulating our circadian rhythm and a number of other biological and behavioral processes."_

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831986/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831986/), _" Hastings and Sweeney's paper, published in the December 1958 Biological Bulletin, gathered dust for decades. No one thought these findings might hold any relevance for humans, whose circadian rhythms were then widely believed to be relatively insensitive to light. But scientific discoveries in the past two decades have changed all that."_

[https://theconversation.com/a-dark-night-is-good-for-your- he...](https://theconversation.com/a-dark-night-is-good-for-your- health-39161), _" In the last decade or two it has become clear that the genes which control the endogenous circadian rhythm (the "clock genes") also control a large part of our entire genome including genes for metabolism (how we process the food we eat), DNA damage response (how we are protected from toxic chemicals and radiation), and cell cycle regulation and hormone production (how our cells and tissues grow)."_

There is room lighting with low-blue content, e.g. the G.E. Align PM bulb, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PLR3M0M](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PLR3M0M) & [https://gigaom.com/2014/09/01/what-is-the-blue-light-from- ou...](https://gigaom.com/2014/09/01/what-is-the-blue-light-from-our-screens- really-doing-to-our-eyes/), _" It remains unclear whether our screens themselves will soon emit less blue light — Hansler is pessimistic because he says that changing the amount of blue light will be like admitting that the screens are causing health problems, and lawsuits could ensue."_

<comment><USER4> > Hansler is pessimistic because he says that changing the amount of blue > light will be like admitting that the screens are causing health problems, > and lawsuits could ensue.

You don't need to talk of it as a health problem. Just say it makes it kinder on the eyes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised we haven't seen this emergent behavior for iOS yet. As more and more people have Xcode and a dev license, we could have a sufficiently large amount of people to skip the app store for apps that will never be allowed. I wonder how Apple will like that.

I can see it now: the "Sideload App Store"

<comment><USER6> Seems like there's a reasonably good chance that we'll see a tool to automate this process—an "installer for apps".

I guess Apple would likely respond by one or both of (a) putting up more roadblocks to getting developer accounts or (b) further restricting what apps can do at a technical level through more sophisticated sandboxes, making the delta in allowed functionality between an app in the App Store and a sideloaded app smaller and smaller.

<comment><USER7> They must have expected this when they changed the latest xcode to allow free personal provisioning.

There's already some significant annoying limitations, in particular short provisioning expiration limits (must reinstall the app every 90 days), and no access to services like push notifications.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is the app prevented from starting after 90 days?

<comment><USER8> Yes, once a provisioning profile expires, apps built against it fail to launch.

You have to rebuild and reinstall the app (with an updated provisioning profile, but Xcode takes care of all that behind the scenes now) to get an expired app working again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Installed this earlier today, only thing thats worrying me so far is that it seems to wake up my phone (to the point it asks for the passcode) every now and then. Not really a fan of that happening all the time as I can see it draining the battery pretty quick. From what I remember reading through the GammaThingy source code it has something to do with needing to wake up the display to change the gamma ([https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/blob/2b504461c4f1...](https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/blob/2b504461c4f1afad839513384a754398325cc429/GammaTest/mvc/controller/GammaController.m#L238)) but it seems to be doing quite a lot more even once the max temperature has been reached...

Edit: also probably worth mentioning, unlike GammaThingy the implementation of f.lux is hidden inside of a compiled nib.

<comment><USER10> Author of f.lux here --

This build of f.lux prefers to use notifications (you can turn off the Notification Center ones).

The screen settings we're changing only work when the screen is _on_ but we have to be "ready" when you unlock your phone. We're working on a version that does quite a lot fewer wakeups.

In our jailbreak version, we just hook the screen unlock and do work then, but we can't do this in the jail because we never wake up.

In this version the notifications serve as a "wakeup". If we fail to show a notification, we hit the unlock instead.

The battery impact overall is extremely low.

<comment><USER11> Can I turn off the lock screen notification and banners though? So like this: [http://imgur.com/CYWeuHz](http://imgur.com/CYWeuHz).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's awesome. Having used f.lux on all computers, I wish it would just somehow get into iOS (without needing a jailbreak).

On a serious note, have you people talked to Apple directly to get this added either into iOS (possibly the best approach considering how the app store and app policies are structured)?

Also, how did you get this to work on iOS even with side loading (and no jailbreak)? It would be interesting to know.

<comment><AUTHOR> See this thread for discussion and code, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10378914](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10378914)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This _so_ clearly needs to be implemented in the OS or sufficient APIs need to be allowed for 3rd parties to implement it (à la content blocking concessions Apple made available). Thank you f.lux team! I can check the time at night without fully waking up!

</comment><comment><USER14> And it's gone:

      Apple has contacted us to say that the f.lux for iOS download (previously available on this page) is in violation of the Developer Program Agreement, so this method of install is no longer available.

Too bad, I missed out on it. I would have loved to install it on my iOS devices, but the download is no longer available.

<comment><USER15> Wow, what a shame. I installed it before that happened, and it works great. It's now past sundown and my phone is orange at long last.

I guess now I'm stuck on iOS 9 if I want to keep this?

For anyone who wants apple to reconsider, the feedback page is the best place, unless you know someone inside apple: [http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html](http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html)

They actually pay more attention to feedback on that form than to other forms of complaint, rumour is.

 __edit: __it seems that the app will expire in 90 days and need to be rebuilt. I 'll hang onto their installer and hopefully that works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love flux.

For those people who don't have the ability to sideload via Xcode (e.g., your parents or non techie friends), you can teach them the iOS Low Light Filter:

[http://lifehacker.com/toggle-your-iphones-brightness- with-a-...](http://lifehacker.com/toggle-your-iphones-brightness-with-a-home- button-trip-1651329242)

<comment><USER17> Thats what I was using until today! So glad to see flux is possible on iOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Are there any other cool side-load-only apps for iOS? (Apart from those which require a jailbreak.)

</comment><comment><USER15> Thank you! I'm actually now preparing to update to Yosemite merely to be able to use this. It's sooo helpful for ensuring good sleep.

</comment><comment><USER19> With this I can consider switching back to iOS again.

</comment><comment><USER20> Cool! Incase you're on Android you can download [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.urbandroid...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.urbandroid.lux&hl=en) Its basically teh same thing! I love this app! :) Glad more ppl can get flux now on iOS

<comment><USER21> cf.lumen is much closer to the same thing, as it actually adjusts your screen's gamma.

<comment><USER20> oh hmmmmm

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hopefully they can now concentrate on fixing the huge Mac bug that causes my mouse to jump across the screen when your screen is being fluxed: [https://justgetflux.com/forum/topic/77/jumping- mouse/11](https://justgetflux.com/forum/topic/77/jumping-mouse/11)

</comment><comment><USER23> I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest LCDs perform in a comparable manner to the light source in all those studies they cite.

Where are the studies testing F.lux directly? This is _ripe_ for all of the best biases to take over, which makes me immensely skeptical.

<comment><USER24> What are you objecting to specifically? I would think that, if your brain responds to light of a particular color or intensity, it's not going to care that the light source is an LCD.

<comment><USER23> I am going to need more than "I would think that" if I'm going to believe this, and considering how backlight leakage allows extra white light to emit from your screen, I'd consider that an important enough extra variable that needs to be accounted for before we just start equating "pure" blue lights to the complex lightwaves that come out of an LCD monitor.

Besides, the framing of your question is wrong. I don't even need to come up with a specific reason, the burden of proof lies on the makers of F.lux to demonstrate that their specific product does what it says, and simply citing inequivalent studies isn't enough.

<comment><USER25> >I don't even need to come up with a specific reason, the burden of proof lies on the makers of F.lux to demonstrate that their specific product does what it says

Man who the fuck cares. Millions of people use f.lux every day - personally, it's the first thing I install on any PC or Laptop I know I'll be using for a while.

It doesn't matter whether you have proof one way or the other.

Use it, or don't - honestly nobody gives a shit.

<comment><USER23> I give a shit, because if I'm going to use it, I want to know if it's going to do anything. Why suffer through the filtering it does to my monitor if it doesn't matter?

<comment><USER25> Are you honestly so incapable of independent thought that you need someone else to tell you what effect your life choices are having?

If you're interested, try it, see if you like it. If not, don't try it.

<comment><USER23> That's not how science works, friend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Woah, awesome! It'll be interesting to see how Apple responds to this sort of instillation. I image with this publicity on HN we'll see other devs taking advantage of this instillation option to bring third party apps to users who are not jailbroken.

</comment><comment><USER27> Awesome! Been wanting this for so long. F.lux has made a huge positive impact on my health.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this should just be a builtin at this point, and in fact it would have been by now if it weren't for the walled-garden policies of the new gatekeepers of the modern technological world.

</comment><comment><USER29> What API is this using? The download is a binary blob :/

<comment><USER30> Inspected the symbols in the iflux binary. It's using APIs from the private framework IOMobileFramework.framework:

IOMobileFramebufferGetGammaTable IOMobileFramebufferGetMainDisplay IOMobileFramebufferSetColorRemapMode IOMobileFramebufferSetGammaTable

<comment><AUTHOR> See also [https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/blob/2b504461c4f1...](https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/blob/2b504461c4f1afad839513384a754398325cc429/GammaTest/mvc/controller/GammaController.m)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't suppose there's a way to do this from a non-OS X platform, is there?

I'd assume no, but I'm wondering if anyone's found a way.

<comment><USER29> Install OS X in VirtualBox?

<comment><USER32> I've done that and it was a pain in the ass to get working. It worked, albeit slowly. I didn't try to deploy to an iOS device from there, is that possible/relatively easy too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This Xcode project does absolutely nothing. Am I missing something?

</comment><comment><USER34> Stop with "sideloading." It's a silly term. It's just installing software, and making it sound weird with a useless neologism is part of the whole power grab that vendors have tried to ride in with mobile.</comment>


Valley morale continues to sag - <AUTHOR> http://valleywag.com/tech/the-chart/valley-morale-continues-to-sag-299756.php <comment><USER2> Another misleading title. These numbers are for all N Cal businesses, not tech cos.

<comment><AUTHOR> isn't the main hub of N Cal in the valley?

<comment><USER2> It's the Bay Area. Hard to say more precisely than that. But only a small percentage of the businesses in the Bay Area are tech cos. Most are the same businesses you have everywhere else: roofing tile manufacturers, trucking companies, industrial cooking equipment distributors...</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the stupidest startup idea you ever had/heard? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> Crowdsourcing vigilantism (or random violent assault) - whoneedsabeating.com - snap a photo with your phone, location is tagged and timestamped, optional tweet with why the subject needs a beating.

For free subscriber's beat-down requests are published only with city, photo and reason. Paid subscribers get street address published with beat-down request.

<comment><USER4> How would you know who delivered the beating? Was there supposed to be a reward for that person?

On a related note, has anyone actually tried building a cypherpunk-style assassination market?

<comment><USER5> "Happy slap" style video clips with some kind of cryptographic signing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The stupidest idea I have heard was Twitter.

After that, I changed the way I thought.

<comment><USER7> Considering the amount of stupidity on Twitter, I'd say you weren't too far off the mark.

<comment><USER8> What people do with X, has nothing to say about X.

People use knife to cook food, but also use to same to commit murder.

<comment><USER7> [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For awhile, it was Twitter. Then someone came out with the idea of a Twitter you pay for (App.net), and since then it's been at the top of my list. Even when they're both making billions, I'll still believe they're stupid.

</comment><comment><USER10> The Socialist Network. Everyone has the same number of comrades.

<comment><USER11> Would you be explaining the joke if you were to note that no non-trivial solutions exist for n?

<comment><USER4> For any fixed odd number of friends k you could keep the network consistent by only allowing people to join in groups (call them "cells") of m, where m is even and greater than k.

(Explanation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_graph))

<comment><USER11> "Sorry, Gary. Come talk to me when you have 558 friends. Gare? I'm sorry, Gare, those are the rules. Everyone has to be equal. It doesn't matter if you'll never have 558 friends and I only had to find 32. Everyone's equal! Don't you see, Gary! Gary? Gare? What are you doing. Sic semper what? Aughhhh."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My gf wants to make a mobile app that helps homeless/impoverished people share good dumpster eating locations.

<comment><USER13> I actually feel like there could be significant value in something _like_ this.

Imagine a platform where restaurants, bakeries, anyone with excess food that would otherwise go to waste, could get "points" for availing that excess inventory to those in need. It might be similar to the model used by Shelter Partnership ([http://www.shelterpartnership.org/](http://www.shelterpartnership.org/)).

In a nutshell, they solicit donations from major manufacturers (think Johnson & Johnson, et. al.) for totally-usable products that can't be sold on store shelves for whatever reason - i.e. a typo on the packaging. They provide some receipt giving J&J the opportunity to seek some tax benefit for the donation at a discount of the retail-price, and needy people get the products for free.

I don't see a compelling reason why something _like_ this couldn't work in major metro areas. Bakeries could get some off-set for donating bread; grocery stores could get some off-set for donating otherwise-spoiling fruits and veggies, etc.

<comment><USER14> I like the idea, physical distribution will be the problem though. Most stores don't mind donating things to the needy that would go to waste otherwise - <USER2> no one wants to have the homeless congregate around their store chasing away business.

There would be substantial value for this to exist in addition, or in cooperation, with food banks.

<comment><USER13> Definitely would need cooperation with food banks / other charities in order to handle distribution. It's important that i) the homeless folks aren't chasing away business, and ii) that you aren't supplying a population of potential customers turned dumpster-divers (i.e. physical separation from the location).

I could see this being a valuable tool for food banks to build relationships with willing-entities that otherwise wouldn't want to bother with setting up the relationship and keeping track of items donated.

If it were very simple:

\- Bakery downloads App "Free Food"

\- Plug in estimated donation

\- Get matched with a willing food bank

\- Pictures to confirm donation from both parties

\- Some agreed-upon "value" (points) for said donation

\- Food bank takes and re-distributes

Win-Win-Win

Bakery does good and maybe gets some benefit; Food bank gets more food (as long as the collection ROI makes sense); and hungry people eat food that would otherwise end up in the trash.

FYI, I wrote about this idea very briefly way back when: [http://peterkimfrank.com/2013/01/21/doing-well-by-doing- good...](http://peterkimfrank.com/2013/01/21/doing-well-by-doing-good/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Make a web page where all the students of our college can post their pictures and talk to each other!" (proposed to me by a classmate in May of 2000)

</comment><comment> workhere-io Color ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Labs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Labs)). The idea behind the app was flawed (as in "why would anyone need this?"), and they made no attempt to hide the fact that the underlying idea was datamining/advertisement.

<comment><USER16> I don't think Color is a terrible idea. The concept of group photo collaboration, where many people who don't know each other can contribute to the same photo album (i.e. during an event/etc) isn't that bad. Their execution for the ludicrous amount of money they raised was most definitely embarrassing though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> SpinDisp (65)

[http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition](http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition)

I should do another one of these, it's been way too long.

</comment><comment><USER18> [http://dcurt.is/what-a-stupid-idea](http://dcurt.is/what-a-stupid-idea)

</comment><comment><USER19> Fish Tank Analyzer:

1) Train fish to swim towards some chemical/compound whatever you want to detect

2) Put valves at different places in the tank, where you can put in the diluted sample

3) Detect the "swarm opinion" via webcam and computer vision

I never found a good application for this...

</comment><comment><USER20> This thread is reminding me of how many ideas I've had that I never went through on.

Another one: Sponsor a homeless person. Crowd-sourcing getting someones life back on track. You get 100+ people to pitch in $5 a month to one person they "adopted". These 100 people have full transparency to how that person spends the money, can advise and help in other ways . If you see that they withdrew $50 in cash on a friday night, they have to show a receipt for a valid reason for doing so, or you can drop out as a sponsor.

Anyhow, it was a stupid idea because people are generally selfish, on both the giving and receiving end.

</comment><comment><USER20> Mine: Rate your barista

You would be able to snap a picture of your barista, put in where they work and rate them on things like: Skill Speed Attractiveness Friendliness

It all started to feel kind of creepy, because I knew the "attractiveness" would become the most important thing, then you'd have guys using it as an excuse to be creepy. Anyhow, there are barista competitions so it seemed like something worth measuring. Also, a lot of times the quality of the coffee in many places is on an even playing field and the person making it starts to become more important. Never went through with it though.

</comment><comment><USER21> Mine: It's based on a Seinfeld episode where George makes up a fake charity and gives cards to people "A donation has been made in your name to Human Fund".

Say you want to gift someone but you don't know what they want / don't want to buy more stuff / etc. So you buy a card that has a message ("Happy Birthday!" or whatever) and a number of credits associated with it and you give it to someone. The person, then, can use the credits to give things to non-profits, like a shirt for the homeless, or some food for a orphanage.

<comment><USER20> That's not really a terrible idea. Well, except I'm too selfish and would be pissed if I had to give my birthday gift to someone else. I bet corporations would love that though. It LOOKS like they're giving the employee a birthday present but it's actually a tax deductible donation. Win-win.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, except it already exists and it's called cash.

<comment><USER20> What? How is cash relevant to a service that let's you make a donation but have a recipient choose where it goes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've forgotten my 'stupidest' ideas, but my 'worst' idea was basically to do what PRISM is doing now. I realized you can infer a hell of a lot from the bits of information people post publicly and you could aggregate them into a comprehensive profile. There's obviously a market for this as we all now know, but I realized how evil it was and that even if it was highly successful, how shitty would I feel about selling out humanity. ... however, it does still strike me as a fascinating technical challenge.

<comment><USER5> People went ahead with it anyway. See, for example, PHORM in the UK.

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

> _The company 's proposed advertising system, called Webwise, is a behavioral > targeting service (similar to NebuAd) that uses deep packet inspection to > examine traffic. Phorm says the data collected will be anonymous and will > not be used to identify users, and that their service would even include > protection against phishing (fraudulent collection of users' personal > information). Nonetheless, World Wide Web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee and > others have spoken out against Phorm for tracking users' browsing habits, > and the ISP BT Group has been criticised for running secret trials of the > service._

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Apparently mine, based on the number of upvotes my Show HN is getting right now ;)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6374377](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6374377)

<comment><USER18> Agreed.

Edit: Maybe that came off as rude, but I really don't get the idea. You pay somebody for something you want to see done? What?

<comment><USER24> No worries, it's a slightly confusing concept. You can basically crowdfund cash prizes for anything you want to see get done in the world. Teams then apply for the prize with proof that they've accomplished the prize's goals.

You basically can crowdfund your own X-Prizes.

<comment><USER18> Assuming I want, say somebody to build a new kind of genetically altered flower, I can ask all my friends and people around the world who would also like to have this kind of flower to pledge a certain amount of money.

A group of genetic engineers someplace in the world notice that me and my troop have collectively pledged, say $500k, and the genetic engineers actually spend some time and make such a flower. They send us a video, and we trust they've built it. We get flowers, and they get the money.

Am I right?

<comment><USER24> Yes, those are the broad strokes. For that prize amount, you would probably have multiple teams applying for the prize and providing proof of their accomplishments, and the donors would then vote on whose project best accomplishes the prize's goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> App that you use to report empty parking spaces. That earns you karma points. You can then spend the karma points to get reports of nearby parking spots when you need them.

</comment><comment><USER26> Since I advise people that want to make new game companies, I hear A LOT of those, ordered by stupidity level (all of them are fairly common, although seemly the most stupid ideas are more popular too).

First place: Make the next World of Warcraft, with only 3 people and no money.

Second place: Make the next Unreal/Quake/Half-Life with 1 programmer, one artist and no money, for console, in 6 months. (yes, this idea is more common than you think).

Third place: Make iOS game and get rich quick, without no idea of how, and hating games in general actually.

Fourth place: Be the idea guy, and makes games only having the idea, and being so awesome with your ideas that programmers and artists will work to you for free and accept only 2% of equity in the end.

Fifth place: The same as above, but when said that he would be just a useless guy, he proposes to be the writer instead, the guy that make the rules (I still do not understood what being the writer has to do with game design... but it is fairly common! Even when the person want to make a soccer game, that has no writing).

Sixth place: the same as the two above, but knowing people won't work for free, want to sell his idea to Activision for 10 million USD, those are usually paranoid with NDAs too, and insist me to sign their NDAs before asking whatever questions they want to ask me.

<comment><USER20> >Third place: Make iOS game and get rich quick, without no idea of how, and hating games in general actually.

I like this one. I've gotten that before. "Hey man, you write iPhone apps right? Let's make a game!" "Haha, alright, what kind of game do you want to make?" "I don't know, I don't play games on my android. What kinds of games are making a ton of money on iPhone right now?" "..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> 1\. Automatic goose-plucking machine. I was walking out of work one evening around Christmas and had to cross through a flock of Canada geese on the office park lawn. I thought, "I could just snatch one of these guys, wring his neck, and have him for dinner, if only I had a way to pluck him." It would look like a salad spinner, where you add the goose, attach a lid, then turn a crank. Out comes your plucked goose. Also solves goose overpopulation, so it's good for the environment.

2\. Rubber trees. Sell them to commercial real estate developers/contractors. Cheaper than real trees, and less maintenance cost. Just pop them into the ground! We'd also sell accessories, like attachable bird nests or battery- powered hooting owls. Premium customers could buy four "styles" of the same tree, one for each season, and with a support contract we'd swap them out at appropriate times of year.

3\. Renewable energy. What is the largest source of untapped energy in the universe? Little children! We'd sell shoes with an integrated battery that recharges as your kids play. The sole of the shoe contains a standard power outlet so you can plug in your TV and watch your shows after the kids are in bed.

<comment><USER20> 1\. Whizbang - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMGZMoENjcU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMGZMoENjcU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> All ideas that were the seeds for multi-billion dollar companies.

They sounded stupid^W bound to fail at first, especially before seeing the implementation / impact:

Better search engine with no sponsored listings, seamless sync and backups, short status updates blasted to your followers, better social network, animated movies that target adults, online book store (without a book store experience), $4 lattes ...

Some ideas that sounded awesome and turned out to be awesome:

Open source and breakfast bars.

To be fair, many considered open source to be blindingly stupid -- "Anyone can edit the source? That would be madness! And why would anyone just contribute hours and hours of their time? Why do you think Microsoft pays their programmers so much."

But then, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -Carl Sagan"

<comment><USER29> Better Search Engine / Better Social Network - By definition, something that's better than an existing product that's wildly popular isn't stupid. I personally think that social networks are stupid, but by the time Facebook came out, it was obvious that most people didn't.

Seamless Sync and Backups - This is an obviously useful concept, we just needed to wait for the technology to arrive.

Short Status Updates - Agreed.

Animated Movies that Target Adults - Animated movies originally targeted adults. Also, in Japan they have targeted adults for decades. The small group of anime fans in America gradually grew into a billion dollar empire. American companies waited for the business to be lucrative before they started making their own. How is that stupid?

Online Book Store - Might as well say the entire eCommerce industry is stupid. Selling stuff on-line is about as obvious and sensible as it gets.

<comment><USER28> > "By definition, something that's better than an existing product that's > wildly popular isn't stupid", "This is an obviously useful concept, we just > needed to wait for the technology to arrive."

In retrospect, yes, absolutely. But when you first hear it, having seen many other attempts, it seems bound to fail or at least don't seem like a billion dollar idea. Hence the "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

<comment><USER29> It might have been foolish for Facebook if they had started out thinking that they were guaranteed to dethrone Myspace, but that's not how it happened.

The idea of having all of your stuff get automatically backed up and synced with all of your devices seemed like a billion dollar idea the first time someone mentioned it. It just didn't seem feasible until recently. That's not the same as it being a stupid idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Square for homeless people. You can never again say "No, I don't have any change."

<comment><USER20> Somewhat relevant... I had an idea to set up accounts for street performers. If you were near one it would send you a notification, you could easily drop them a tip through the app. They aggregated in an account somewhere until they were able to make it to a computer (hell, anyone can go into a library right?). You can rate people, find where they play, etc. Why not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> 'Lets put qr codes on "welcome to $town" signs than when someone scans them with their phone, its loads a website advertising various things you can do/buy/participate in around town.'

</comment><comment><USER32> Twitter. I'm not joking either. It is the stupidest startup idea I've ever heard and yet...

Seriously I'm probably the worst person to ask. Almost every startup idea sound ridiculous to me.

</comment><comment><USER4> Heard:

<existing social network> for <pet>

<comment><USER33> I'm going to give this a serious response even though I know you're referring to a well-known cliche for startup ideas.

I was talking to a fairly smart VC recently and he made a good point -- while everyone likes to use "Facebook for Cats" as a joke about bad startup ideas, it's not actually a bad idea.

A lot of people REALLY like their pets. And they spend a lot of money on them. And they like to share pictures of them with their pet-owning friends (go see /r/aww if you don't believe me.)

It basically hasn't been done right (yet), but I wouldn't be surprised if something that looks like Facebook for Pets does actually become a thing at some point.

<comment><USER20> [http://packlove.com/optimus-prime](http://packlove.com/optimus-prime)

This website gives customizeable one page profiles for your pets. Seems pretty heavily used, I signed up one time and I get emails every couple of days because another user "loved" my pet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've got a couple of stupid ideas. mine: [http://www.stamplin.com](http://www.stamplin.com) \- extract text from PDF, mine again: [http://signup.mealthy.com](http://signup.mealthy.com) \- eat better

and lot's of other ones.

An idea is always stupid. Few iteration later, it starts to be not that bad.

</comment><comment><USER35> Years and years ago, I wanted to make an auction site like Ebay, but only for "haunted" items. So, yeah.

Also, services where you pay someone to digitize your mail. And Lockitron... I just... these seem like bad ideas waiting to happen.

But then I was sure Twitter was a terrible idea, and I loved the original format of formspring so what do I know?

</comment><comment><USER36> They are numerous. Almost daily I see things funded that make me shake my head. Here is the latest [http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/10/foodiequest/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/10/foodiequest/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Mine: replacing business cards

<comment><USER20> At some point I had the idea for an RFID bracelet. Ideally, it would be targeted to trade shows. I went to one previously the best tech they had was these cards that you had to go and manually scan at each booth.

Anyhow, the idea was that each bracelet would have an RFID card, and an RFID reader. When you shook hands with someone, it would read their ID #. So, you're not only physically meeting someone, but logging them as someone you met. When you got back to your hotel that night, you plug it into your computer and it pulls up everyone's bio (picture, name, company, email address, etc).

<comment><USER37> Hmm, sounds like an iteration of Bump, but for NFC-enabled smart watches...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> That guy on Dragons Den that wanted to save his cucumber ends from drying out... WTF

[http://uktv.co.uk/dave/article/aid/635224](http://uktv.co.uk/dave/article/aid/635224)

</comment><comment><USER39> Read about a startup that recently launched that was claiming to be "Netflix for Books." We already have that. Its called a Library.

Either that one, or the guy selling fart scented candles on Shark Tank.

</comment><comment><USER40> Some guy wanted to save the whole internet on his computer and index it.

<comment><USER41> Not such a bad idea for some: [http://www.widernet.org/egranary/](http://www.widernet.org/egranary/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Coveralls/TravisCI for code reviews w/ self-hosting option. I'm sick of Crucible and expensive alternatives that don't even work that well these days.

</comment><comment><USER43> Looking for some "ideas that seem bad" here? ;) [http://paulgraham.com/swan.html](http://paulgraham.com/swan.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> [http://onstaffhobos.com](http://onstaffhobos.com)

</comment><comment><USER45> One man started a movement to have peace all over the world and wanted to solve problems without bloodshed in the path of Ahimsa.

This was the stupidest! idea in the whole history of mankind.

I think everyone guessed who it is.

Humans don't need aliens or space creatures to get killed. they will kill themselves.

Long live war! Long live humans!

</comment><comment><USER46> When I first saw it at McDonalds, RedBox. Now I use it all the time.

</comment><comment><USER47> Back in the dotcom day, yachts.com

</comment><comment><USER48> Ionic Ear from Shark Tank</comment>


MS15-085 Vulnerability in Mount Manager Could Allow Elevation of Privilege - <AUTHOR> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/MS15-085

<comment><AUTHOR> So, plugging in a malicious USB storage device can not only execute malicious code, but can do it with elevated privileges.

Can it be done on a locked PC or must a user be actively logged in? I presume the former, as I don't believe the mounting process requires the PC to be unlocked.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use VPN to access US based services when travelling aboard? - <AUTHOR> I am travelling to Asia shortly. I am scared of accessing banks, brokers and other critical apps in unsecured wifi. <comment><USER2> I know a good VPN with an open service called VeePN works well

</comment><comment><USER3> You absolutely should use a VPN. It is ALWAYS a good idea.</comment>


David Carr Dies at 58 - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com/2015/02/13/business/media/david-carr-media-equation-columnist-for-the-times-is-dead-at-58.html <comment><AUTHOR> Earlier today Carr moderated a panel with Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, and Edward Snowden that's worth a watch: [http://timestalks.com/laura-poitras- glenn-greenwald-edward-s...](http://timestalks.com/laura-poitras-glenn- greenwald-edward-snowden.html)

<comment><USER2> Coincidence?

<comment><USER3> Well, unless you can think of a reason why someone would want to kill David Carr for interviewing Snowden, Greenwald, and Poitras, but _not_ be motivated (or not able) to kill Snowden, Greenwald, or Poitras themselves, the answer is probably 'yes.'

<comment><USER4> I don't seriously think that Carr was assassinated, but Andrei Sakharov (Soviet scientist, human rights activist) believed that the KGB killed people near him because he personally was too high-profile to be killed without international outrage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> David Carr was one of the english language's finest cultural critics. His recent (last?) piece on Brian Williams & Jon Stewart was utterly piercing: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/business/media/brian- willi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/business/media/brian-williamss- and-jon-stewarts-common-ground.html?smid=tw-share)

<comment><USER6> I wonder sometimes if the sort of clarity and vinegar with which this man writes, is only borne from the kinds of past struggle and experience he and many artists seem to share.

<comment><USER7> After watching "Page One" where you learn about his past, I noticed he seems to have a very "I don't give a crap what people think" attitude, which is a great quality for a journalist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A long piece; reporting on his past life as a junkie: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20Carr-t.html?pag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20Carr-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER9> His Reddit AMA reads like an insightful glimpse into his personality, wisdom, and sense of humor.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/16k598/iama_columnist_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/16k598/iama_columnist_and_reporter_on_media_and_culture).

<comment><USER10> Does anyone - anyone at all, even at the fringes, even at the international fringes, anyone English, Irish, Scottish or anyone even remotely related to the English Isles - resemble David Carr at all, even in the slightest at all?

To me, Paul Carr, and most other Carrs resemble a striking similarity to him.

Its uncanny, like any ever is. Its spellbinding.

It really is. Ask me how. Please do.

<comment><USER10> Well, that's an unfortunate turn of events. Isn't it?

<comment><USER11> I didn't downvote you, but I have no idea what your comment was supposed to mean. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Visting his Twitter feed is so strange... It gives me the feeling that in a way he's still here. :( [https://twitter.com/carr2n](https://twitter.com/carr2n)

10h ago carr2n retweeted: Watch @citizenfour @TimesTalks w/ @ggreenwald, Laura Poitras, Ed Snowden & @carr2n. Livestream starts in 15 minutes: [http://timestalks.com/laura-poitras-glenn-greenwald- edward-s...](http://timestalks.com/laura-poitras-glenn-greenwald-edward- snowden.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> I first heard of David Carr in the documentary about New York Times called Page One [1]. David Carr is extensively covered in it and you, amongst other things, learn of his troubled past.

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787777/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787777/)

<comment><USER14> I highly recommend that documentary to anyone with any interest in journalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One of the best scenes from Page One: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo)

Carr talks to the Vice guys about their deal with CNN: "Just because you put on a fucking safari helmet and looked at some poop, doesn't give you the right to insult what we do."

</comment><comment><USER16> Such a bummer. I really liked David Carr. He's a great journalist and his personal story is incredible.

</comment><comment><USER17> Tom Levenson posted a very nice tribute to him here: [http://www.balloon- juice.com/2015/02/13/on-david-carr/](http://www.balloon- juice.com/2015/02/13/on-david-carr/)

</comment><comment><USER18> It looks like Hacker News is becoming NY Times proxy.

</comment><comment><USER10> Since there is a feverishly down-voting activity in this particular grade, let us all ask what it is that you fledgling participants who wish to have their opinions heard, have to say.

Please do so. Downvoting isn't going to the swing the pendulum to the other extreme.

Trust me on this. I've been on here long enough.

Please explicate your opinion and I shall make happen it, if I shall. Thank you.

<comment><USER19> Please don't break the HN guidelines by complaining about downvoting.

Please don't post comments like this as off-topic replies to the top comment. That's an abuse of the commenting system. (We've detached this one.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Who was the dude? I would mention in the title. Would save me those wasted few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm sorry but who is he? Could someone update the title to be more informative?

<comment><USER22> Here's the first paragraph of the link:

 _David Carr, a writer who wriggled away from the demon of drug addiction to become an unlikely name-brand media columnist at The New York Times, and the star of a documentary about the newspaper, died on Thursday in Manhattan. He was 58._

If you didn't already know his work, I can't see why you would care to know any more than that. I've responded to your comment, but really, I'm responding to the whole category of comments that say "Why should I care about this.". Moreover, if those comments aren't interested enough to spend a couple minutes looking into it themselves, how interested are they actually going to be in any responses?

<comment><USER23> I believe the obvious point here is that when there are two or more semi- to relatively famous people who share the same name, it's generally better to put which one you're referring to in the title.

If it's not obvious who the other famous David Carr is, consider for a second that to someone who doesn't read the Times, it's the same situation. To me, there is an obvious age difference, which makes the title alright in the end.

<comment><USER22> I don't really know either one. I just can't reconcile the "it's important to me to know this" with the "I didn't read the first paragraph."

<comment><USER23> It really depends on how you consume your headlines. "David Carr dead at 58" is, in my opinion, less informative that "David Carr, acclaimed NY Times journalist, dead at 58."

<comment><USER21> Thanks to maxerickson for expanding on the article that I obviously didn't read.

I would strongly agree with mathgeek here though - it's best to put the relevant details in the title to enable me to see if I should even read the article or the comments, and to edge on the side of safety that not everyone here is in the same country, age bracket or work/social circles as you. I've never read the NY Times. I'm not in America.

I mean Steve Strange died today too - if I just posted a headline stating "Steve Strange has died" I would get a barrage of comments asking - "who is he? why is this relevant to me?".

<comment><USER22> I wasn't arguing against informative headlines.

I was labeling those comments as pointless. They frustrate me a little bit (because of what I said above about reconciling the supposed interest behind the question with the paucity of (misdirected!) effort).

Also, such comments can _always_ be replaced with "I didn't know who David Carr was. He was ...".

<comment><USER21> You're right - I should have read it and stated who this person was in the comment, in order to benefit others.

But mine was more of a protest at the uninformative headline.

<comment><USER22> I wonder if my complaining will head off the 8 comments it would take to get back to zero (so to speak).

I suppose the thing to do is create a culture here of saying "If you are going to complain that the headline is uninformative, please also provide the information you think it is missing."

<comment><USER21> Or a culture of informative headlines!

I have suffered downvotes for asking a question, weirdly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Help out his family by buying his excellent memoir.

[http://www.amazon.com/Night-Gun-reporter-investigates- darkes...](http://www.amazon.com/Night-Gun-reporter-investigates-darkest- ebook/dp/B001DXNZ9Q)

<comment><USER25> Don't get me wrong, I don't mind helping out, but with the risk of downvoting, why does a prominent journalist family in NYC need help?

Honestly, not trying to be snarky, truly wondering.

<comment><USER26> His wife is working as an international operations manager for Shake Shack. I don't think they rely on handouts. I suggest donating to addiction treatment centers.</comment></comment></comment>


An Introduction to Sails.js - <AUTHOR> https://www.sitepoint.com/an-introduction-to-sails-js/ <comment><USER2> The db side limitations seem like a temporary but significant hinderance for adoption. I'd be interested in the author / authoring team's take on why they would really announce this with those parts lacking given that in the context of the framework it seems like a big deal.</comment>


The first open source Unix based OS wasn't Linux. - <AUTHOR> http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/17/386bsd/print.html

<comment><USER2> As much as the BSD developers should blame themselves, AT&T and Linus, I think most of BSD's lack of mindshare stems from the BSD license itself.

The BSD license encourages (or, at the very least, does not prohibit) companies from taking away stuff from the codebase, enhance it and run, never to look back until they need another software infusion. This does not make it easy for companies like Intel, IBM, Red Hat ot SGI to commit resources to the project, knowing that any other company can take what they developed and close it up. "Show me yours and I will show you mine".

GPL-like licenses prohibit such behaviour and are, perhaps, the reason why there is so much more GPL-ed software around than BSD-ed. That's why the same companies I mentioned before can feel comfortable that while others may use their Linux contributions, they will also be able to use everybody else's code forever. For me, using GPL for community-developed software is a no-brainer. It's not debatable it created a vibrant ecosystem around Linux.

The viability of BSD-ish licenses to create such ecosystems is, however, quite debatable. The Apache Foundation has several projects under such licenses that receive regular investment from big industry players.

Although I doubt there will ever be a clear-cut conclusion, it's fun to watch and participate on the debate.

<comment><USER3> I don't think so. As much as free-software advocates like to pat themselves on the back, there are many projects out there that succeeded gaining popularity without a restrictive license like the GPL, and I also think that the GPL is so popular purely by fashion and because its restrictions are irrelevant for web-based applications.

A project's success can only be attributed to the people working on it, and to sheer luck.

Of course, it is kind of an incentive for companies to contribute back and for the community to have some legal protection, that's why I understand the need for LGPL or MPL. But GPL itself should not be considered open-source ... all the software you or I wrote is and will always be a derivate of public domain, and the usage of a library should not dictate the distribution rights of the final product, but only the distribution rights of the library in question. It's kind of ironic that proprietary platforms like dotNET are more open in this regard.

Also, I don't think Apple did more harm to open-source than Red Hat did. At least they don't pretend to be some kind of saviors of humanity.

<comment><USER4> > _But GPL itself should not be considered open-source_

The term "open source" has a clear, accepted, and well-understood definition -- <http://opensource.org/docs/osd> \-- and the GPL clearly meets this definition. If you don't like the GPL, fine. But don't say that it isn't open source, because that's just not true.

If you choose to give your own private meanings to words, you risk being misunderstood. You also risk being seen as dishonest.

<comment><USER3> I know the term has rules for being used, but those rules are too permissive if GPL is accepted (not to mention GPL 3 which now includes hardware restrictions).

If I want to run away with a library and do my own thing, I don't see a problem with that if I'm giving back the changes to the library itself. Otherwise it cannot be viewed as a public good, as some might suggest. You can't compare a public good, such as a road to GPL software, because you aren't required to transport your merchandise for free on that road ... I know, stupid analogy, but you get my point.

Proprietary software shouldn't be considered a virus that we should get rid of, that's not an open mindset in my book.

<comment><USER2> "GPL 3 which now includes hardware restrictions"?!

WTF?! GPL3 _FORBIDS_ hardware restrictions! It protects _YOUR_ right to use _YOUR STUFF_ the way _YOU_ want.

How that could possibly be construed as a restriction?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "When you haven't been involved, you don't know that Bill Joy threw something in late one night, or Dennis Ritchie wrote something up as an expedient. "

What are some examples of such things?

<comment><USER6> Heh, you expect to get details like that from a Salon journalist?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a pretty good example of why software should be released early and often. They managed to destroy all their momentum with an 18 month long development cycle.

<comment><USER7> You have to wonder what their primary goal was. Perhaps they pursued their primary goal (a modern Unix with elegant internals) very intelligently and diligently and hoped that their secondary goals (users, developers, and influence) would materialize as a result. Or perhaps their primary goal was to win acceptance for their idea that Unix internals are crufty and deserve rethinking -- and perhaps they achieved that goal.

If winning users and developers was their primary goal and not just a secondary hope, then they got spanked and sent home, but I don't get that impression from the interview.</comment></comment>


When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers - <AUTHOR> https://masslawblog.com/trials-2/when-the-judge-distrusts-your-lawyers-waymo-v-uber/ <comment><USER2> > Uber has a team dedicated to collecting trade secrets from competing > companies. Allegedly, the people involved use disappearing-message apps, > anonymous servers, and secret computers and phones to communicate without > leaving a trail.

If true, then this is absolutely unreal.

Add it to the growing list of dodgy Uber tactics:

Ride-hailing company (Uber) hit by revelations it used custom-built tool to deceive law enforcement, while latest departure of senior staffer deepens troubles [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber- secr...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-secret- program-greyball-resignation-ed-baker)

Uber employees have ordered and canceled more than 5,000 rides from rival Lyft since last October, according to new data provided by Lyft. [http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride- re...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests- lyft/index.html)

CNNMoney spoke to three Uber drivers who said they received a text message that said they were "forbidden" from driving with another company. [http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber- lyft/?iid=EL](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/?iid=EL)

Uber admitted on Tuesday that it underpaid its New York City-based drivers by millions of dollars over the past two and a half years [https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15681422/uber- underpaid-n...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15681422/uber-underpaid- nyc-drivers-accounting-commission-error)

Uber will stop its controversial practice of tracking users for up to five minutes after a trip has ended, as it attempts to turn around its mired public image. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/uber-u- tu...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/uber-u-turn- tracking-users-after-trip-ended-app-user-privacy-new-ceo)

Uber's Hell program used fake passenger accounts to track the location and status of Lyft drivers. [http://www.newsweek.com/uber-used-hell-program-track- lyft-dr...](http://www.newsweek.com/uber-used-hell-program-track-lyft- drivers-583430)

<comment><USER3> When I hear stories like this I think of the developers who likely thought of and implemented the systems behind these criminal acts and I'm once more reminded that software developers, in aggregate, are on a similar level to '90s finance "tricksters" etc. We'll do whatever if the money is there.

<comment><USER4> One unfortunate side of progress and technological advancement is that it can be unethical, in the hands of people with less ethics.

Think of it this way: 1. Anybody in robotics/ai/ml is helping uav technology used for military purpose. 2. Anybody in financial lending could help fuel financial crisis. 3. Anybody in software could be enabling surveillance technology without even realizing.

<comment><USER5> It's worse. They realize it, but don't care. Or rather, this is a cool project where we get to transcribe voice in real time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed?

<comment><USER7> It's technically a type of intellectual property, like a patent. If no agreements are in place, it's still infringement.

<comment><USER8> Does that mean someone can't independently come up with the formula for Coke (Pepsi or any knock off) because it's their intellectual property? [Or KFC's 13 spices]

Or is Pepsi (and other knock offs) sufficiently different? Or something else working here.

<comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure the fundamental difference between trade secrets and a patent is that if someone else comes up with it independently, or if you tell someone what it is, a patent protects you and a trade secret doesn't.

<comment><USER8> OP [lmkg] says it would still be infringement, if there is no agreement [x-licensing]. Not sure if that is true or not though.

<comment><USER9> They are probably assuming that you were given the information with the knowledge it was a trade secret even if you didn't sign anything specific about keeping it secret, not that you invented it separately.

<comment><USER8> That was the missing piece. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Option 4.

File a motion asking Judge Alsup to recuse himself (withdraw from the case). A recusal motion may be based on evidence that a judge is biased or lacks impartiality.

Yeh.. the judge has busted us, so he is not impartial because he knows we are guilty...

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's another case where attorneys from the DoJ made misrepresentations to a judge:

[https://cis.org/Feere/Federal-Judge-Issues-Stinging-Order- Ob...](https://cis.org/Feere/Federal-Judge-Issues-Stinging-Order-Obama- Administrations-Conduct-DACA-Litigation)

They were ordered to take ethics courses and barred from appearing in court in the judicial district.

</comment><comment><USER12> > Once a judge catches a lawyer in a lie the judge will question everything > the lawyer says.

Not a lawyer, but isn't is taken for granted that lawyers (along with everybody else) are lying in courts and that it's the jurors and judge's job to find out who is lying?

<comment><USER13> No. Lawyers are officers of the court. Especially in civil cases which are just about the balance of evidence, their role is to put their side of the truth in the best light. Not to just make up whatever bullshit they think might win.

<comment><USER14> Even in criminal cases:

> the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating > that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did > do.

[source: [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing- client-...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom- the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html)]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just don't get why engineers want to work for Uber.

They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulators by making them wait for rides that never come), rival companies poorly (eg. ordering and cancelling rides from Lyft) and their investors poorly for not disclosing any of this shit.

Really, why do you work for them? Are you laughing your asses off when you hear another engineer leaving a company that does bad things because you're going to make more money and that's what matters? Or is the problems you're solving really that interesting you couldn't care less if someone is using what ypu built to mess with people's lives in likely illegal ways? Our profession is about solving problems that makes people's lives better, how can you just be ok with what they're using what you built for? Don't you feel any responsibility making the tools they need to do these things? And, if they haven't done anything illegal and unethical with your system yet, how can you be sure they won't given their track record?

Where's your professional integrity is what I'm asking. If think our profession needs a license like stock brokers, realtors, accountants, physicians, attorneys or cab drivers have. Implementinh any of the systems that enabled any those shenanigans Uber has pulled off should be grounds for revoking it because I fear that's what we need to do to make engineers stop and think "yeah, they're giving me boat loads of money and I get a good resume if I would want to work for Google or Facebook but what if I get caught?" because apparently otherwise they would gladly give Uber the tools to screw people over and sleep well at night.

<comment><USER16> Integrity is a rare coin these days, but to be fair, it won't buy you much.

I still think it's worthwhile because...you know, be nice to people. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can be a sucker like that without serious consequences. I know that having integrity in the current market hurts me a bit, but I can afford it.

Maybe not everyone has that sort of option - maybe Uber's extra $20k keeps their mortgage above water or something. But I dunno, maybe that's also just being charitable. I'm getting pretty disillusioned these days.

<comment><USER17> Integrity is always an option, but it's definitely not always an easy option. I'm glad you're in a place where you don't have to test it and hope that I also won't find myself in a difficult place where it will have to be tested, but I do know that it's the only coin that is really worth anything.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, exactly. It's also much easier when you have a hierarchy that communicates and responds reasonably to criticism or questions.

Not everyone does, though. I feel like insurance companies should really start demanding independent 'inspector general' sort of offices to be retained by companies above a certain value. At some point, there just gets to be too much money at stake to trust people to act properly.

Some companies actually are starting to invest in that sort of thing, mostly because of all of the sexual harassment news flying around. I think it's a promising idea, to give employees a point of contact outside the company's usual chain of command, and it could help with all sorts of toxic power imbalances. I can also see how it could maybe cause issues, but I'm all for trying new things to see how they work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>