Ask HN: People are panic buying. What to do? - <AUTHOR> I just got a phone call from my brother that a lot of online services have stopped delivering.
I just went to the supermarket and I see people just stocking up on essential items and empty shelves everywhere.
I am very much against it since it's a very illogical thing to do.
What would the sane way to go about it? Is it really possible that we can run out of things like milk and diapers nowadays?
This is the first time I'm seeing this happen in my life :( <comment><USER2> I hate it when people call it panic buying. It's not a panic. People are preparing themselves to have food for 2 weeks. That's what you should do as well.

In fact what everyone should have done is stockpiling gradually over the last couple of weeks. I went grocery shopping today and I only had to buy a few things because I was already prepared when there was still enough in the stores.

Be smart, think about what you need to get by without being able to go to the store for 2 weeks. I see lots of people buying stuff like bread, but you don't wanna eat bread all the time, do you? Also it goes bad pretty quickly. I think most of the bread that has been bought will end up in the dumpster.

<comment><USER3> You can easily freeze bread.

<comment><USER4> This. Take your slices out of the freezer in the evening and you get your good bread for breakfast or later the next day.

<comment><USER5> For bread that isn't sliced thick, I've found that it thaws remarkably fast. 10-15 minutes on a paper towel on the counter is enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You many run out of things temporarily until more deliveries arrive and they stack the shelves. There will be no long term shortages.

It's a good idea to buy and store some durable supplies because you may need to self quarantine for few weeks. It's also a good idea to shop less frequently and buy more at once to avoid getting infection. It's unfortunate that everyone decides to do it at the same time.

'I need to do something to protect my family' is very core need under threat. When there is little you can do, you take little more toilet paper so that you have done something. It's both silly and very human.

<comment><USER7> The "until more deliveries arrive" is at most the next day. The supply chain for grocery stores is very, very good and we are not even close to lacking of anything.

<comment><USER8> Just FYI, I live near Seattle, and the grocery stores around here have been out of many things for a week. I'm sure they've been restocking in the meanwhile, but we haven't been able to get a few things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Since there is no fundamental supply issue (at least for items like groceries and toilet paper) this will follow the same curve as other "panic buying" \- stores will be pretty barren for about a week or so, then everyone will realize it's not Armageddon and go on normally.

The _exact_ same thing happened a couple years ago WRT gas in Texas. There was no _actual_ shortage, but because of the hurricane there was fear buying that there _would_ be a shortage, so people showed up to gas stations literally filling up garbage cans with gas, and then there _was_ an actual shortage.

If possible, though, I would definitely recommend stocking up on essentials when things get back to normal. I'm not worried about doomsday, just irrational humans clearing out the shelves at the slightest hit of a negative event.

<comment><USER10> Funny how your last paragraph makes all of the above sounds irrelevant. That's the exact same rational - emotional chain "panic buyers" went through.

<comment><USER9> Not at all. That's like telling people it's irrational to buy a fire extinguisher. Point is going out a buying all the fire extinguishers when there is a mass panic is dumb. Time to take reasonable precautions is in normal times, and I'm not talking about filling a floor in your house with TP, either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > I am very much against it since it's a very illogical thing to do.

And that's why the shelves are empty now and you have this problem. Panic is good. EARLY "panic" is the best. It leads to preparedness and less panic later when things are tough and it would cause more problems. When I was telling people five weeks ago to start preparing now by building up their supplies because this is the real deal I was laughed at by a few and told to "stop panicking". A few others listened and they're not panicked now. If everyone had listened and done the responsible thing of building up their supplies over those few weeks you wouldn't see this problem.

Now is a better time than never to start preparing up in case you have to spend some time stuck inside.

The supply chains are still working fine for super markets so you'll see the stock on shelves continue to build back up.

</comment><comment><USER12> We are not going to run out of most groceries. The primary advantage of stocking up is to make it possible to stay home.

If you don't have Covid-19, staying home limits your risk of getting it and then passing it on. If you _do_ catch it, having enough supplies to manage a mild case at home also limits the likelihood of passing it on.

As long as community transmission is low in your area, stocking up today in order to be able to stay home for the next couple of weeks seems to make sense.

This is a collective fight. The average person can aid the global effort through the simple effort of avoiding in-person human contact. (Reaching out electronically can help us feel connected, too!)

</comment><comment><USER13> There is panic buying and there is being prepared. We started buying more of the usual stuff we use about 4(?) weeks ago. We agreed, that the situation looked dangerous in january and considered triggers for different actions. So we now can decide to go shopping, still go to the market, but de don't have to go to closed, crowded places. We were able to do this because we followed "real news" and have a background in science and we didn't let our friends tell us "it's not going to be bad!" without having a point. Is is a calm and rational process of risk assessment and mitigation.

If you see people stocking up on water in my area, _that's_ panic buying. Scenarios for extended failure of the grid or water supply is implausible. The risk of running out of food for extended periods of time is low in my area. These people realize that they slacked and now they are still uninformed. The only thing that helps against panic buyng is education and information.

</comment><comment><USER14> Humans are not logical animals. There's a lot of criticism on modelling human making logical decisions in economics. In some other fields humans are modelled as fluids or herds, devoid of individual judgement/decision making.

Some items will be restocked, some others may not due to supply chain disruption. Look online for DIY solutions or alternatives as there are plenty. In some cities Asian supermarkets might be a viable option since many Asians have stocked up like weeks ago and they avoid crowded places now.

<comment><USER15> > In some other fields humans are modelled as fluids or herds, devoid of > individual judgement/decision making

From a game theory perspective, following the herd in this case could be the rational choice on an individual level even if you have decision making. If enough people think there's a shortage coming, and they stock up in preparation for it, then you get an actual shortage as a result. In this scenario, there's very little potential downside to stocking up (at least for non-perishables) from your perspective, since even if you're wrong then you're just saving a few trips to the supermarket in the near future, and you might even get a discount if you buy in bulk (incl. saving gas, time, etc). But there is a potential downside to not stocking up, since you then risk not being able to later find the item when need it again, or having to pay more for it if you do find it. Going further, if you think that other people are going to start panic buying, then it makes sense for you to do so as well. But by doing so you also contribute to causing the shortage, leading to a self fulfilling prophesy.

So I don't think it's necessarily that people aren't being logical, but more that they're acting based on limited information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Its easy to judge other people without knowing their situation.

It depends on where you are, and how far the virus is in your country/state/city/region.

It also depends on if you can order groceries online and have them delivered. Though there might be extra costs attached and there's possibly environmental impact I believe this to be the best method to avoid further infections. If you prepare to have the virus, or to avoid getting it, going less to grocery store and making sure you got a supply makes sense.

We're currently ill (probably not COVID-19) and my daughter of 2 had diarrhea and vomiting. I made sure she got enough pain relievers, because our supply was running out.

There is also a large difference between buying a little bit more supplies, and buying very large amounts...

<comment><USER17> > " _It also depends on if you can order groceries online and have them > delivered._ "

Regarding this, it's worth remembering that an ill packer or delivery driver can contaminate your delivery as well. Hand-washing, etc. after handling delivered groceries (or mail, for that matter) may be warranted for high risk individuals in areas known to have ongoing spread of COVID-19.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Stock up a modest amount yourself. If people are manufacturing a shortage by panic-buying, then you don't need to do the same thing, but you do need to prepare for that manufactured shortage itself. We made sure we've got a week or two's worth of stuff we already use. I bought an extra pack of toilet paper; I didn't shovel the entire shelf into my cart.

</comment><comment><USER19> Tell them you have no capacity problem. You are raising capacity. Rise the price by 30%+, the reason for that would be to cover up additional cost you have and make people think a bit before they panic buy. Rank up production to absolute maximum given the time allowed. That basically means factory running 24/7\. Absolutely flood the market with excess stocks.

Some people have more toilet paper than they need for the rest of their life. Some of them has _hundreds_ rolls of toilet paper. You want SPAM? Great, have _cartons_ of SPAM, lets play the game of Supply and Demand and see if you have more buying power than my capacity. The simple lesson is, idiots and selfish people are everywhere. ( Nothing wrong with keeping two weeks worth of stock, but right now people are buying for the sake of buying )

So what hasn't this happen? The answer is Lead time. Not only in capacity but in decision making. As far as I am aware _NO_ manufacturers to date have risen capacity when they were given prior notice. They only raise when the stock were running dry, and there were _real_ incentives to do so. The decision of that has also taken days if not weeks till action, which is very long in consumer's view perspective.

Look at Hong Kong and Taiwan. Shops now have years wroth of stocks in hand cleaning and washing solutions. They only capacity constraint we have right now is Mask.

</comment><comment><USER20> At some point you may wish to not go to the grocery store for 2-3 weeks, either because you get sick, or because too much of the population may be contagious, which could be right now depending on where you are and whether you are high risk.

So it makes sense to have a few weeks of supplies even if normally you just get what you need as you need it on a much shorter timeframe.

If we want to kill this virus, or flatten the curve, we can do a lot by simply going out less. That means fewer trips to the store, which means bigger purchases each trip.

This is a good idea right now even if there are no confirmed cases in your area yet. Stock up, let grocery stores restock for people who waited, get ready, get the right habits now that let you stay out of public, and reduce the potential spread now.

Buying a gorillion bottles of hand sanitizer is of course not helping and selfish. But stocking up on things you will use and reducing time in public is a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER21> Today, first time in my life, thanks to my wife's blind fury imagination assuming we will starve, I have spent close to $400 on groceries which in any normal day I wouldn't imagine buying. But at the end of the day it is a small price to pay and play to her hand than resisting to go shopping and spend the day fighting. And in my opinion, it is not going to be as bad as people think. We will not go to using leafs as toilet paper. Store supplies will return to normalcy in a week or two. And god know we all have enough pasta and ragu to tide us 2 weeks in any pantry nowadays. If you don't, may be you should, especially considering eating out is rolling the dice a tad riskier than I would like to take. I have shopped at a walmart super center and a supertarget right across the road from that and first time in my life i have seen walmart out of bread and there was a 200+ people line inside the store waiting for a package of toilet paper. It is just widespread panic and I believe it is for nothing. When I lived in Atlanta GA, I used to laugh at the women loading up their carts with 15 gallons of milk and 30 loaves of bread because the weather man said it was going to flurry tonight. In Atlanta, snow falls one or two days tops in whole winter and stays on the ground 4-6 hours and you fight the slush for the next two days, before everything goes back to normal. Today I remembered thise scenes and looked at my shopping cart. Thanks to my wife, I turned to one of those ladies.

</comment><comment><USER22> Actually seems like a pretty rational thing to do. People will stay home more, cook more frequently, and obviously need more toilet paper than usual (especially when the entire family starts staying home more). Most importantly, people probably prefer to go shopping less frequently so you naturally end up buying more each time. As mentioned, it's unfortunate everyone's doing it at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER23> When hikers or travelers are beginners, have you seen how much more (or not enough) they pack? With experience or guidance they tend to pack lighter.

In the current case, some are concerned, some are waiting to survive a doomsday, some watched the Contagion movie, some are hoping to make money.

A sane way: For Covid-19, one has to be prepared with basics(food, water, soap, fever-reducing-medicines) for somewhere between 14-27 days of home quarantine (or curfews). And not just assume by default that administration will crumble - they are usually there when you need the basics, except for countries where it has been proven otherwise. Many things that people are stocking up are non-essentials i.e. replaceable with other less comfy methods.

After this is over, the govt. administration can attempt to advertise/educate some preparations for the next unforeseen times. Over a longer period that becomes a cultural habit.

I do not understand why people take unprescribed medicines, especially antivirals as prevention, when that could clearly disturb human microbiome and open up for infections.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think there is a difference between a famine and a virus pandemic. We don't have a shortage of food (at least not yet in the UK). It may get there over time if more people get ill and food and basic supplies get affected as a result. Gradually buying food and buying a bit of a buffer is possibly okay. But buying an entire trolly of toilet papers (I saw a woman buying 20 large packets of toilet papers today, enough to last 2 people 2 months I'd say) is possibly putting unnecessary strains on supermarkets and the supply chain in general. I spoke to the managers at my local supermarket today and asked them if they can place a threshold on certain essential items (for example if you buy more than 3 packets of toilet papers in one go, you have to pay a premium for the 4th packet) - that way people will really think about whether they truly need everything they are buying and possibly think twice before unnecessarily panic buying. It is important to think about how our actions will impact others as well I think.

<comment><USER25> Care to share the answer you received?

<comment><USER24> Having spoken to the local staff at Waitrose, there is no shortage of supply (as of yet). The shortage comes from them not being able to refill stock from their warehouse fast enough due to the unprecedented demand. They are also constrained by their business model. Supermarket shelf spaces are super competitive and expensive, with many products fighting for exposure. So, they maintain a tight refill schedule, which is difficult to alter in a short time. They also have little capacity to fill all shelf spaces with essentials, as they still have to stock and display certain non-essential items (even if these are not in demand) contractually or otherwise. The general gist of it is that they have enough in the warehouses, and even though they can add 2x more, they are not prepared for every single person stocking up 3 months worth of essentials in one go.

In my local Waitrose, they've already limited the purchase of toilet papers to max 2 packs per person and pasta to 3 packs per person. I believe all supermarkets in the UK have already released a statement requesting people to be more considerate when buying essential items, so maybe that will encourage people to not stock up to the extent they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >What would the sane way to go about it?

Plan for at least a week, if not two ahead. This depends on the number of people in the household.

>Is it really possible that we can run out of things like milk and diapers nowadays?

1\. Someone correct me if I am wrong but cargo transports haven't stopped (ships, planes, trucks, trains). These things will keep coming in and stocking up the necessary stores.

2\. People will stock up at once and then the craze will subside.

3\. Just-In-Time works great when things go well, not so great when things aren't going well. Countries have warehouses stocked with (non-perishable?) food in case things don't go well.

>This is the first time I'm seeing this happen in my life :(

When this whole thing is over, go and volunteer in some third-world backwater shithole of a country and help them out. For many parts of the world, this blip of a "food shortage crisis" is the standard fare, along with a general lack of, well, everything.

Also, a good portion of the western population does not know how to cook, or has a very limited range of cooking, baking and food preparation skills. Something to consider.

<comment><USER27> Calling any country a "shithole" place is a terrible insult for its population.

<comment><USER26> No, not at all. Just pointing out the unsanitary situation that is the norm for these countries.

<comment><USER28> You've just proven you can get the exact same point across without being offensive (and quite frankly, a little bit juvenile).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I would assume that you will have basic utilities without interruption -- water, electricity. Supply chains could, theoretically, have disruptions as the disease runs through the world. I am not saying they will; just that they can. If it happens the affect on you and yours of not having extra is extremely significant. That's enough of a reason to buy what you can.

You cannot go back and time, but after things settle down (they will) look at your budget and what it takes to have a couple of weeks extra of necessary items. It's not super expensive to buy rice and beans if you are on a budget, then rotate your supply when the rice starts to get old. If you have more money you can get something with less monotonous flavor: canned food, dehydrated, freeze dried, whatever. You may need it twice in your life, but when you do, it will be the wisest thing you have every done.

</comment><comment><USER30> So long as there are no major supply disruptions (which we have little reason to believe there will be), you'll see full shelves of fresh produce while the frozen and canned sections are bare. Eat fresh food and buy some cans when you see them. I doubt anyone will go hungry because of this.

</comment><comment><USER31> Preparation and panic are not the same. Do not expect to rely on conveniences like deliveries, they are merely conveniences and can stop.

It is very possible to run out access to necessities. I don't believe food itself will be in any significant shortage, but you might not get to it.

If you fall sick, you'll need to self-isolate and not leave the house for several weeks. So you need to be ready to do so.

Even if you remain healthy, access to supermarkets may have restrictions (see Italy today). While you can get food, you might need to line up for a few hours, increasing your exposure. Best to have a few weeks of food at home for when your area is in this stage.

The alternative to preparation is to wait until you need to panic. Not recommended.

</comment><comment><USER32> Toilet papwr, bananas and carrots were all gona at my local store. I got everything else I'd planned. I'm not panicking about TP. I spent like $45 on a couple more bidet seats for my house and we're all using them. It's more environmentally friendly and I don't have to worry about hoarders.

We've had a bread machine for a while, so we use that a lot. We don't have cow milk in the house anyway. I have pet chickens and if we need to, we can eat the eggs. We have a mostly vegetarian diet and the meat alternatives aren't flying off the shelves.

Just need to find some carrots and bananas...

</comment><comment><USER33> Since this thing isn't going away in the next 2 weeks, seems illogical to buy too much. The advice is to buy 2 weeks of supplies in case you're infected and can't leave the house. People would need 6+ months worth of supplies, and even then would get infected once they came out of hibernation. The smart thing is for people to start thinking longer term for now. As for the solution, try buy slightly more than you usually would, until the panic buying is over. Try smaller shops and chat to owners about when they will have stock?

</comment><comment><USER34> There were similar situations during Y2K, which my friend reminded me was a generation ago now, so many younger folks don't remember.

As others have said, this is a temporary blip, but when things are restocked, you should build up your supply. The ideal thing is to build it up slowly over weeks or month, and always have a rotating supply (make sure you use and replace items before they expire).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for your replies. It does give me clarity and I feel that it wouldn't hurt me to buy 2 weeks supply of super essential things esp baby products.

I used to buy them like this before anyway, but something just felt wrong doing it today when supplies are running so low for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER13> Shower thought: if you can't actually cook and improvise but are used to have access to industrially prepared food, being prepared to stay at home for a few weeks is way more complicated.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's not that irrational. First thing that comes to mind is you might want to minimize times you have to leave the house or prepare yourself for the eventuality of a quarantine.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why is it illogical? Often there is a deeper logic than what appears on the surface.

Nassim Taleb pointed out on twitter recently that when interest rates are zero (in reality negative with inflation), buying tons of non-perishable goods isn't really that bad of an idea. The time value of the money is arguably better sitting in toilet paper than cash.

To answer your question, yes it really is possible that we run out of basic goods. That's why people are "panicking". Personally I don't see it as super likely, but you could reasonably argue that it's probable.

<comment><USER37> There are other investment vehicles than cash and toilet paper. One's that are actually productive.

<comment><USER36> /r/wallstreetbets would love to know what those are right now?

<comment><USER37> wsb is about speculation, not investing. This straw man doesn't diminish my argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> >I am very much against it since it's a very illogical thing to do.

OP I wish you to never experience a natural disaster. This is nothing compared to those.

</comment><comment><USER39> Logic flows from axioms, consider axioms that these other people believe in. It may well be that it's a perfectly logical things to do.

</comment><comment><USER40> I haven't seen any panic buying yet. Pretty sure the shop downstairs even has toilet paper.

I got ~month of Mana powdered meals just in case though.

</comment><comment><USER41> it's not illogical at all

If everyone else is likely to 'stock up' and therefore cause shortages, the only logical thing to do is also 'stock up', before there are shortages and you can't get things you need.

</comment><comment><USER42> It's only "panic buying" for the people that aren't prepared.

</comment><comment><USER43> Anyone who calls you stupid for being vigilant and preparing for the worse, are just as likely to call you stupid for not preparing if disaster does strike. It looks like many people prefer to be stupid and fed, than stupid and hungry.

</comment><comment><USER44> this is a worldwide problem at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER45> These are not ordinary times. Seems that it takes quite a lot of time for a lot of people to grasp the severity of the situation.

My take is that in the near term (1-2 months), there will be a shortage of a lot of produce, especially food. I really hope I'm wrong.

I suggest you stock up everything for 2-4 weeks - it's something I've done. My plan is to go out buying every 2 weeks or so.

<comment> david-gpu > My take is that in the near term (1-2 months), there will be a shortage of a > lot of produce

I say this from a place of kindness and compassion: this is the sort of mindset we should avoid.

It's understandable to have fear of an unknown situation, but look at the available data. Even in places with large outbreaks, grocery stores have continued delivering all essentials to the population.

Ensuring you have some food for the next couple of weeks (not the next couple of months/years) makes sense in case you need to self-isolate. That's about it.

<comment><USER46> We have yet to see most of the impact of supply chain disruption from China. That alone is going to impact most businesses. If in addition to that a lot of people in your own country are going to be sick or quarantined, I don't think we can assume things are going to work out the same as before.

<comment><USER37> How much food is actually imported from China into your country?

<comment><USER46> It's not about food, but about things like parts for machines needed to make that food.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any anarchist/communist/socialist hackers here? - <AUTHOR> Hi, everyone. I'm working on a leftist-oriented blockchain project (https://basisproject.gitlab.io/public/) and wanted to gauge interest in the community. The project is geared towards being a set of tools to democratically operate a profitless economy (based on need/use instead of profit/exchange) with socialized assets (housing and means of production mainly).
The project is built in Rust on top of the Exonum framework. Currently, a rudimentary member system as well as cost-tracking mechanisms are built and working, but I'm at the point in the project where rather than continuing to build in a vacuum, I see if there's any interest in participation.
The project's paper is incomplete and probably less technical than it should be, but a good overview of the goals. There's also an up-to-date roadmap (https://gitlab.com/basisproject/tracker#roadmap) which shows current progress.
Would love feedback, thoughts, contributions! <comment><USER2> I am a leftist whose exact ideology is a work in progress, but I'd generally call myself an anarchist in favor of localized gift economies, food production, and devolved government, so distributism and worker-owned collectives are both things I'm very interested in.

I work mainly in embedded development and I'm not really sold on blockchain or IoT or, really, using TCP/IP for much of anything. My recent paid work involves control systems on small microcontrollers, either using FreeRTOS or that are so small they use no OS. I'm interested in building driver stacks on these chips for writing things like bootloaders and serial interfaces that support remote control commands.

I also have a little bit of PCB design experience, although I'm not trained as an EE. So, I have no idea if my skills might be of use, but I've been thinking of how to apply some of my work to future open-source hardware devices. I keep coming back to how some of this might be useful for fully open voting machines, and I know everyone jumps to thinking about blockchain for that, but I think it is overkill and too heavyweight for what I want to do. I'm thinking more of writing data to redundant EEPROMs and verifying it with something older and simpler like message digests or digital signatures.

I realize that maybe there's not a lot of overlap there but I guess if you need any low-level drivers I might be able to help...

<comment><AUTHOR> > I am a leftist whose exact ideology is a work in progress, but I'd generally > call myself an anarchist in favor of localized gift economies, food > production, and devolved government, so distributism and worker-owned > collectives are both things I'm very interested in.

Sounds like we're fairly aligned here.

> I'm not really sold on blockchain or IoT or, really, using TCP/IP for much > of anything.

I was reluctant of blockchain as well, however once I started planning out how this system might work, the use-case was particularly well suited for blockchain: transparent, verifiable, tamper-resistant. These are all qualities I'd like to see in a political/economic system. I think one of the problems with blockchain is it's associated with greedy people doing land-grab ICOs that provide no value but make big splashes, so when people see "blockchain" they think "ugh, another useless project by scammers." I don't blame them.

> I realize that maybe there's not a lot of overlap there but I guess if you > need any low-level drivers I might be able to help...

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Things like voting machines might be really helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you were such a non-standard hacker in the US, why would you reveal it? None of these particular -isms are considered reputable in the US. It would appear that the US is entering a period of persecuting holders of non-standard political ideologies, too.

<comment><USER4> We are headed twords the most common job [0] in each state being automated in 10-20 years. Then we [USA at least] will have a much larger unemployment problem till deal with, as the truckers are >=90% men[1].

So then we have a bunch of middle age men who formerly had decent jobs seeing those jobs go away. The economy in much of the country will have to adapt, and that is where UBI or some type of socialism will need to take over.

If you think the disenfranchisement that led to the election of Donald Trump was bad, imagine when the remainder of these jobs vanish..

[0] [https://www.thejobnetwork.com/trucking-is-the-most-common- am...](https://www.thejobnetwork.com/trucking-is-the-most-common-american-job- in-each-state/) [1] [https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/06/america- keeps...](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/06/america-keeps-on- trucking.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excellent project! I hope it gains traction.

Can you please clarify on the docs why it uses a blockchain and how it is mined or otherwise generated?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, sorry for the late response, I thought this thread was dead so I stopped checking.

There is no mining. The blockchain is a permissioned system that uses byzantine fault tolerance. So the current working idea is different regions would have their own server that participates in the network and facilitates the transactions.

As for why it uses the blockchain, the idea here is less about currency, and more about making a system that enforces the smart contract layer network- wide. A lot of the costing is based on what would be smart contracts (in ETH for example) so making sure these trnasactions, given the same inputs, will always have the same output no matter who's running them is much more natural on a blockchain than any other system.

The project originally started as a postgres-backed app, but once I started thinking about federation between regions, how to do this transparently, etc...blockchain was just a really natural fit.</comment></comment>


Another Yahoo Loss: Friendster makes Google its ad and search supplier - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2007/03/06/friendster-google/ <comment><USER2> Not a huge surprise, I suppose. Google's ad network is still the market leader. Though, I am very interested to see how much more relevant Yahoo's Search Marketing has gotten with its implementation of Pandora.

So far, AdSense is the most flexible when compared to Yahoo's Publisher Network but there are many more players in this game now.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be honest, I was surprised Google reached out to Friendster. Google struck a similar, but much larger, deal with MySpace, so I imagine that this won't go lightly with NewsCorp. Let's not forget that Google also owns two major MySpace competitors, YouTube and Orkut (see Orkut's astonishing growth: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url;=orkut.com/).

Is Friendster even worth risking a major deal with MySpace?

<comment><USER3> As you pointed out, Google already competes both directly and indirectly with myspace; NewsCorp knew that going in, and went with Google anyway. I doubt that serving ads for yet another social network would be enough to drive NewsCorp away--and I even more seriously doubt that their contract with Google would allow it.

One point about Orkut: while its growth is phenomenal, most of that growth is in non-US markets, so it does not pose any direct threat to either Friendster or myspace.</comment></comment></comment>


Which programming languages have the happiest (and angriest) commenters? - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/which-programming-languages-have-the-happiest-and-angriest-commenters-ebe91b3852ed#.qfqks0d79 <comment><USER2> This is a very cool idea, but the search terms were too simplistic. For example the word "wrong" in "If the commit was to the wrong branch..." should probably not be interpreted as an angry comment.</comment>


Etherpad includes banned (on Google code) software JSMin - <AUTHOR> http://wonko.com/post/etherpad-source-includes-jsmin

<comment><USER2> Crockford talks about this problem here: [http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockford...](http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockford- json)

 _They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that?_

 _Of course. So I wrote back – this happened literally two weeks ago – "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."_

Pretty funny, if you ask me.

<comment><USER3> The RPGer in me finds it amusing that they did not ask for you to extent that to "neutral" acts.

<comment><USER4> Neutral in this license appears to be in a gray area. The initial phrase "for Good, not Evil" presents a dichotomy. Now, this addendum allows Evil as well. So the license has never explicitly addressed this issue, it seems like it would depend on what else the license says.

Assuming that the license this is added to is a generally permissive license, I would assume that neutral acts are implicitly allowed and were probably not enjoined by "for Good, not Evil" as that clause would simply not have applied.

But I am not a lawyer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> JSMin's license is simply MIT + this added clause:

      The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Google Code takes a hard stance against license proliferation, and only allows the ones on their minimized list, period.

I think Hipp took a better approach with Sqlite -- the code is in the public domain, and instead of a license the code comes with headers containing this simple admonition/blessing:

      May you do good and not evil
      May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
      May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

<comment><USER6> Richard Hipp actually said that he wished he _hadn't_ released SQLite into the public domain. Apparently it becomes a headache when the code is used in countries that don't have the same implementation of the public domain as the US (around 16 minutes in: <http://www.viddler.com/explore/rentzsch/videos/25/> ).

I think that if you want to appease legal departments, your best bet is a well known licence, written by lawyers (eg Apache 2.0).

<comment><USER5> Yes, Moral Rights are even more of a pain in the ass than the AGPL could ever hope to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is not unique to Google. I've got a friend at MetaCarta who really wanted to use JSMin, but the legal department squashed it immediately because the phrase "This software shall be used for Good, not for Evil" could mean _anything_ in a court of law.

Basically any corporate entity with a legal department worth its salt will say the same thing.

It's a shame, really, because JSMin and JSLint are nice pieces of software and the intent behind it is admirable, but the way our legal system works, that clause has prevented much good that could otherwise have been accomplished.

<comment><USER8> Just because a legal department says something doesn't make it true. This is not tested in a court of law, and law departments have varying standards and interpretations. Some even have guts. Some prefer themselves not to do evil.

But if you're Raytheon, Haliburton, the U.S. Military, or one of the mercenary step-children of Blackwater then yeah, maybe your legal department is wise to balk.

<comment><USER9> Legal departments get paid to keep you out of trouble, which means vague and untested wording is seen as a risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Stuff like this is why we slap MIT_LICENSE on everything we release so we never hear about licensing again.

It's just a silly situation that arises from a silly change to the license.

<comment><USER8> Some people actually don't want their code to be used for evil. Glad MIT works for you though.

<comment><USER11> Good and Evil are one in the same it just depends which side you are on. Sure there are some clear cut things like clubbing babies, obviously evil. but what if I run a internet scam site that uses all it's profits to run free medical clinics in the third world and saves hundreds of lives? Point being it's subjective, hence only you can decide what is good and evil for yourself and putting a clause like that in your license is meaningless.

<comment><USER12> Is your assessment about the subjectivity of good and evil objective?

"There is no such thing as right or wrong." [ ] Right [ ] Wrong

<comment><USER13> You're conflating the rather abstract and arguably subjective moral concepts of "right" and "wrong" with "true" and "false."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This headline is misleading taken out of context, and is not the headline of the linked blog post (I'm the author). JSMin isn't "banned software", it's just not allowed on Google Code.

<comment><AUTHOR> Modified headline to reflect that it is "banned" on Google code and not in general. JSMin is indeed very good.

<comment><USER15> Saying that JSMin is banned still implies JSmin itself ws explicitly banned, which is not correct.

It would be better to say 'non Open Source' as that's the reason why JSmin, Microsoft Windows and other apps for which you can get source code but aren't OSS aren't allowed on Google Code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not sure that Good and Evil have legal definitions. Also people doing evil often seem to believe they're doing good, so could claim full compliance.

</comment><comment><USER17> _Last week, Google banned my PHP port of JSMin from Google Code due to a quibble over a line in the license stating that "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil", which they believe makes the license non-free._

It probably does make the software non-free (e.g. according to the DSFG); more importantly, such a clause is utterly idiotic. Rather than bitching about Google Code, the JSMin author would be better served to get rid of the arbitrary, subjective and probably unenforceable clause from the license. The original JSMin is only 200 lines of C, so the simple solution would just be a from-scratch rewrite.

</comment><comment><USER18> Why can't JSMin simply remove that from their license and save a lot of people a lotta headache?

<comment><USER8> Maybe he prefers that JSMin code not show up in Hellfire missiles?

<comment><USER19> But who defines 'evil'? A hellfire missile kills, and maybe your stance is that killing is evil full stop (this is purely hypothetical - I have no idea what your views actually are) but maybe someone else thinks that firing missiles at an invasive force to their country is 'Good' and the killing is in this case justified.

<comment><USER20> There's an interview with Gen. Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the AK-47, where he's asked, is he ashamed of creating something that killed so many people? He replies, he created it to defend his country and his people from Fascists and he was proud of having done so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't see anything wrong with this. The license terms are very ambiguous. Honestly, what is "evil", and if you can define it, you deserve a phd in philosophy.

Point being, if you release something under a license that is is too obscure and free, you will run into these problems, as Google has. I mean, they operate in China, after all. (not that I have anything against China. The citizens of the United States of America could learn from China).

<comment><USER14> The point isn't whether it's right or wrong. It's that Google made a rule (no JSMin/JSLint on Google Code), then (unintentionally) broke it themselves with Etherpad and a few other projects, and must now deal with the consequences.

To their credit, they _are_ actually dealing with the consequences and not setting a double standard, which I find admirable. But I still think the situation is worth highlighting and worth discussing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If some creators want to be whimsical in their license text, of course that's their prerogative.

But it does create a bit of a mess for people who take certain principles in their work as seriously as these programmers care about their craft and personal expression.

License text is code, of a sort, and overall it's a _good thing_ that large organizations care about the precise meaning of the legal agreements they enter into.

Similarly, it's a _good thing_ that the 'Open Source Definition' says licenses can't discriminate against fields of endeavor (including those some would label 'evil') and still be considered 'open source'.

So this little license flourish throws a couple of monkeywrenches into the gears for well-meaning folks just trying to get good stuff done.

Perhaps it succeeds as a thought-provoking bit of performance art, but it's lousy as a license term for enabling sharing and building.

<comment><USER23> It's a pretty stupid line to put in a license. What the hell does it even mean? Without defining "evil" in the context of the license, it could mean anything -- who gets to decide what constitutes "evil"? The original author? In that case, it's like making the license immediately revocable for any reason at any point in the future.

It's understandable that Google, or just about anyone else, would reject a license with that sort of vague language in it.

There's a time and place for whimsy, but a software license isn't it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> How childish of him. Attorneys will quibble over anything, he needs to either remove the offending text from the license, and use the FREE Google Code, or host it himself and quit complaining about Google's legal policies. He is going to either lose lots of software where his code is used, or make it a lot harder on the community.

<comment><USER25> It's not his call. He forked a derivative of Douglas Crawford's JSmin project, and that was a requirement in Crawford's license.

<comment><USER17> The whole thing is silly, because JSmin is ~200 lines of code. It would be trivial to rewrite from scratch and avoid the braindamaged license.

<comment><USER26> I think the right way to deal with this is to find a way to use our closure tool to replace jsmin's functionality in a dfsg/osi approved way.

Not before the new year though (I was the dude who said no way to jsmin on google code)

<comment><USER14> That takes care of JSMin, but what about JSLint?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> github ftw</comment>


Boycott Amazon? Not doing it. - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/06/boycottAmazonNotDoingIt.html <comment><USER2> Dave's argument against even a partial boycott:

1) he probably would have done the same thing as Amazon 2) Amazon's got competition so it's not that big a deal if they don't stand up for free speech 3) he depends on Amazon a lot 4) last time he boycotted Amazon (over one- click), some other open tech advocats didn't so he felt his stand was pointless

Given all that, he suggests that now isn't the right time to take "a principled stand" by boycotting

<comment><AUTHOR> Nasty!

To start with your #1, what I actually said (and meant) was: "I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did"

And the rest of your list is just as bad.

So if you need to mis-state what someone says to "prove" them wrong, then you don't really believe in what you believe in.

Which is, btw, what?

Are you boycotting Amazon?

If so, what are you giving up?

<comment><USER3> "I'm not sure I wouldn't have done exactly what they did"

Maybe I'm having trouble parsing the double negative, but doesn't that mean what OP said it means? If not, what does it mean instead?

<comment><USER4> It means he _possibly_ would have done what they did, not _probably_.

<comment><USER3> If so, that strikes me as difference without distinction.

"I might have done the same thing" and "I'd probably have done the same thing", in practical conversation, end up being sliced at the difference between 49% probability and 51%, right?

<comment><USER4> I read it as about 1% in this case.

<comment><USER3> Well, that would be stated as "I probably _would not_ ," wouldn't it? You can say, at that point, with certitude, that most of the money is on not doing as Amazon did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "They aren't the guarantors of anyone's rights, that's the government's job"

But what you do when your government refuses to do its job? Sit and wait until it decides to protect free speech?

I think the US government officials are taking this too personally. That's what they wrote, right? Shouldn't they stand behind their own words?

I agree this whole cablegate thing is annoying and I would be annoyed in their place, but I seriously doubt this will impact significantly US diplomacy. It's news to me and you, but it certainly isn't news to whoever they wrote about.

<comment><USER6> > It's news to me and you, but it certainly isn't news to whoever they wrote > about.

Simple knowledge can have drastically different effects than public knowledge, as can be quickly illustrated in a simplified form[1].

[1] <http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> People always expect someone else to stand against the government, they won't do it themselves since there are negative consequences for that behavior, but its easy to pontificate with self righteous indignation.

<comment><USER8> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how is boycotting Amazon taking a stand against the government? It seems to be more about punishing someone else for _not_ taking a stand against the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It doesn't violate someone's right to free speech or any other right for a company to fail to provide a service to them. A company having to provide service to some particular entity only violates one set of rights - those of the company.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure what your point is here? You're saying that you can define freedom of speech in a narrow way so that Amazon is off the hook. Great.

But that doesn't change what they've done - it just makes you look like a lawyer making excuses for the inexcusable.

<comment><USER8> It sounds more like this: "If Amazon is wrong for refusing service to someone that is hosting potentially-controversial content, then that implies that no hosting company can refuse service to such a person. I.e. that person is 'untouchable.'"

This seems to cross lines with the 'Affirmative Action'-type arguments: that in an effort to 'make up' for past wrong against black people we are making it impossible to refuse X (where X could be employment, etc) to a black person, even if the reason isn't because of their skin color.

{update} I was only attempting to clarify what I thought that the parent poster (gp to this post) was getting at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From a business perspective, if Wikileaks is charged with federal crimes, and Amazon is still hosting it, that would roll amazon into the investigation and open them up to whatever charges the US govn't might throw at them. Is it good business for Amazon to potentially get sucked into federal investigations or congressional hearings? Not to mention all the bad mainstream press they began getting. And I wouldn't be surprised if the federal govn't is an AWS customer.

Whether its right or wrong thats just a mess nobody needs. While I support Wikileaks first amendment rights I don't think you can blame Amazon for not wanting to get embroiled in the battle

</comment><comment><USER12> I can't say I was surprised by Amazons actions, but somewhat by their motivation behind those actions.

I think this should serve as a wake up call for founders who maybe to easily trust a third party with essential parts of their business. As the real question should be what happens when a special interest group pressures Amazon to take down your startup? Do you have external backup?, is your codebase adapted to Amazon? etc.

I think it's in the interest of all service providers to be seen as just only a service provider. There was quite a big discussion about this in Sweden several years ago which made Bahnhof start the "integrity" initiative[1]. This is, among other things, why Wikileaks have been hosted in Sweden for a long time.

[1] [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://integrity.st/)

</comment><comment><USER13> The only difference between Amazon and most other hosting companies is tha the others don't let you start if your site will violate their TOS or AUP. Amazon has automatic activation, so violating sites get a few days service before being rejected.

</comment><comment><USER14> They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

..

It's OK to ignore abuse when by doing so you are enabled to maintain your financial status.</comment>


HP's Huge Salary Cuts Forcing Out Old EDS Employees - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/HPs-Huge-Salary-Cuts-Forcing-Out-Old-EDS-Employees-52485672.html

<comment><USER2> This is an ideal time for me to post my recent blog post...

"The Grad from HP"

I remember, in my first year at University, I went to a talk in the business school, where a guy, a graduate from this University who was giving a talk to us, told us he had got a job (management I think) with HP after graduating. All well and good, until...

He pointed to a chart, and said HP has profits of 60 billion dollars.

Profits? Shouldn't that be revenues? Is this guy barely competent?

It was then that I realised why the world of technology is so fucked up - it's suit guys like this guy, who don't know a damn thing!

</comment><comment><USER3> Gotta wonder what HP's thinking here. Laying people off is one thing, but you can do it cleanly. Put together a decent severance package, ask for volunteers, it's all over and you can draw a line under it (until next time, anyway, but even so: if people know they'll be looked after, the organization copes). I don't see EDS recovering from this.

</comment><comment><USER4> The execs at HP think that you should run a technology company like you would a WalMart.

They'll get some short term profits with their cost cutting but the revenue is dropping with it.

<comment><USER3> It's worth remembering that the part of HP that everyone respected was spun off and is now called Agilent. The new HP wants to be an IT services company. Which makes this all the more bizarre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, these EDS old-timers can always look elsewhere for more pay. They're not slaves, you know?

My guess is that they're lucky to have their jobs at all, given current economic circumstances.

<comment><USER6> After working there for 12-20 years they may have more invested in the company than just punching a time clock each day. 20 years is actually a pretty full career. So, are EDS employees being treated as second class citizens due to being outsiders who were later acquired, or are the cuts equal across the board or proportional to performance?

</comment></comment><comment> daniel-cussen It makes more sense to slash salaries than to lay people off. Sure it blows, but if you can't find a job anywhere else, it's because the economy thinks you are no longer worth what you were paid.

<comment><USER7> See Netflix Culture: <http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664>

It's about doing the right thing. But this article is not about slashing salaries instead of laying people off. It's about the bush league moves of forcing people out through salary reductions than lay offs.

Another reason is a more technical one, mass lay offs are accounted for differently than slashing salaries. You can book the severance and associated costs with mass terminations as "restructuring" which hits your P&L as a below the (profit) line cost.

<comment><USER8> So the type of people who will jump ship first are the really good ones who can easily get jobs elsewhere leaving behind those who couldn't find replacement jobs. Sounds like a sure fire win plan.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Scrape and backup your website to the wayback machine - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/simonfrey/save_to_web.archive.org <comment><USER2> What does this do differently than whatever archive.org is doing already? I've never submitted my site to them but it does appear in their caches.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your website only appears in the archive if someone else has requested it via their search. So most of the time only your main page is included and most of the subpages are not. (Had that issue with my blog)

The tool scrapes your whole site for all of it's pages and than submits them individual to the archive. So in the end your whole page is saved.

BR</comment></comment>


Peter Thiel Sours on Donald Trump - <AUTHOR> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/peter-thiel-sours-on-donald-trump <comment><USER2> And now we reach the point where opportunistic douchebags who used Trump/alt- right crowds for their own benefit and those who felt that it gave them license to say and post things that they previously would have kept to themselves or to 4chan start to see the writing on the wall and begin looking for the exits. Unfortunately for them, the internet never forgets and the stink of this will cling to them for the rest of their days. I never had a high opinion of Peter Thiel, but for the past year or so my policy has been to avoid any company or organization that took money from him starting in 2016. This policy is not going to change. Ever.

<comment><USER3> Where can I get that list of companies?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" But the disruption that Trump has brought to Washington doesn't appear to be the kind that Thiel was betting on."_ Whoops? The thing about chaos is that it doesn't have a discernible vector. When you throw chaos into a situation to shake things up, all directions it could go are equally probable. And no matter how bad you think things are currently, there is a large surface area of possible directions that makes things worse.

<comment><AUTHOR> The whole "shake things up" meme was among the dumbest. It made me think of:

"Honey, the toilet isn't working again! Those dammed plumbers don't know WTF they're doing. I'm calling an electrician to shake the f'n toilette! We'll just see how that works!"

Seriously, this is kakistocracy levels of thinking, but that's what happens when people are a.) legitimately frustrated and b.) have no idea how to vent it. So they basically just role the dice and go with the stink bomb approach. All I can think of is we're just going to have to collectively suffer, and hopefully learn from the mistake but at this point the pain level isn't high enough for a proper feedback loop to kick in. Everyone is still really attached to the idea their tribe is just inherently obviously vastly superior and the others are either stupid or traitors.

Politics by emotion. And embrace of denialism.

<comment><USER5> In what way is it dumb if the alternatives looked even worse?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you follow the metaphor, the idea of shaking a toilette to fix it is stupid as is hiring an electrician. Rationally, you'd find another plumber, maybe choosing a different selection metric.

Extending the metaphor, the electrician has a long record of saying demonstrably untrue things about both water, electricity, and plumbing.

And the idea that alternatives look worse is just more stupid denialism, the idea that literally all alternatives are worse than someone who poops on all the furniture is just non-credible nonsense and begs for ridicule because it is that ridiculous. It's not rational.

<comment><USER5> Regardless of what you think about Trump, he distinguished himself enough from the rest of the field that he became the only viable choice for enough people at the right stages to push him through. Apparently your lofty rationality isn't developed enough to see that. What does rationality even mean in this context? I'd love to know where you draw the line between a rational choice and an irrational one when it comes to voting.

<comment><USER6> > ... he distinguished himself enough from the rest of the field ...

...by not being a plumber?

<comment><USER5> The idea that only professional politicians should be admitted to office would've incensed the left 10 years ago. These days, because Trump made it in instead of say, Jon Stewart, the left is suddenly very pious about political office.

<comment><USER6> Of course people without professional political career can be presidents, even great presidents sometimes.

However, if the _main differentiating factor_ of your favorite candidate is that he had zero experience in politics, it's hard to take that argument seriously.

People considered Bernie Sanders an outsider, and he's been a senator since 2007. Trump isn't an "outsider": he's simply unqualified.

<comment><USER5> It depends. If you consider political experience (especially extensive political experience) to be a marker of corruption and ingrained hypocrisy, political inexperience can look good by comparison. There seem to be enough people sufficiently cynical these days to see it that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He saw opportunistic possibility to get ahead and it backfired.

The problem with Trump government is that dysfunction shadows opportunistic cynicism by wide margin. Nobody can question his authoritarian tendencies. He just lacks the executive skills.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not quite so forgiving of "opportunistic possibility" that just isn't working out to Thiel's advantage.

First a person had to cross the birtherism rubicon, it wasn't something you could just skip over claiming you didn't know about it. Either you went with "YES! MORE GIVE ME MORE OF _THAT_!" or "Yeah that's pretty derp, but I'm going to overlook it as irrelevant to a proper assessment of one's character: someone who's making a personal and racist attack, attacking the office of the presidency, and also really attacking everyone who is willing to believe such an obvious lie - yeah that's who I still want as a president, someone who thinks I'm a moron." And just tick that box.

And then there are the Stern interviews. The bankruptcies. The widespread pooping on all the furniture approach to business.

And the 1999 Russert interview where he said we must preemptively bomb North Korea, we have to do it. And last year out loud asked why we hadn't used nukes yet.

The data points for a kakistocracy are all there plain to see. But there was and still is a deep attachment to tribalism and denialism that resulted in where we're at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "sources say" ... sometimes I trust sources like this, sometimes not. Really hard to get much out of this article. However, it does push all the buttons for those of us on the left, and hence, it exists. If it's true, it's hard to imagine that people like Peter Thiel honestly thought Trump would be any different than he is right now.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Reed Hastings" (Netflix ceo) was spot on when he said he will lose points on evaluation. Frankly, he should be fired from the FaceBook board.

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, I don't put much faith these days in what Left- leaning publications report on personal dealings within the Trump administration. Particularly when it is sourced to multiple anonymous sources.

<comment><USER3> This is probably planted in the media by Thiel himself.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Our 1st startup video. Any thoughts? - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/54126768

<comment><USER2> Great voice over, sound effects, and animation, but still doesn't show me why this will make me better.

What happens when the product is released? What's the pain that you're taking away from me in the future so that I want to use your product now?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a fair question Kevin. The reason we embarked on this project was because there is no single place on the Internet right now where you can see what is coming out in the future. There may be information, but it is scattered across various sites and blogs. We provide that one place.

More importantly, it provides the answer to the question: how one can find or look for something when that person does not know its existence?

Hypejar is still in its infancy and we're continuously working to make it better and more informative.

Thanks for your feedback! Much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is really well done.</comment>


Western individualism may come from the medieval church's obsession with incest - <AUTHOR> https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=777276474 <comment><USER2> > "How do you still get these repercussions, when the institution itself is > taking more of a backseat?"

I wonder sometime about those brilliant scientist who just drop such pedestrian question</comment>


A Billion Dollars Isn't Cool: 74 Asteroids Worth Over $10 Trillion - <AUTHOR> http://www.asterank.com/

<comment><USER2> Very cool!

But what does "accessibility" mean? The tool tip isn't helpful. What's the scale? Is it linear, exponential, or logarithmic? What are the end points? I.e., does a bigger number here mean it's more accessible or less accessible than a smaller number?

Also, could you please explain how you're calculating the cost of extraction and transportation?

Thank you for putting this together!</comment>


Tesla can sell vehicles in Michigan under legal settlement - <AUTHOR> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2020/01/21/tesla-reaches-settlement-michigan-ban-blocking-sales/41038913/ <comment><AUTHOR> A little background on why this was necessary. Being the automotive state the lobbyists for the auto dealers are one of the most powerful. These auto dealers thought Tesla selling cars direct in the state was an affront to their entire industry.

So they arranged for a bill to quietly be introduced in both houses of the state legislature and voted on at 2 am in the morning that banned Tesla from selling, repairing or delivering vehicles in the state of Michigan. This was greeted with a firestorm of opposition once Michigan's citizens found out.

At the time it wasn't likely that they'd sell many cars in the state but people were mad at the attempt to stifle competition and the feeling that it wasn't playing fair the way this was passed without public debate.

So if you want to buy a Tesla in Michigan you have to buy and pick up your car from Cleveland. If it's serviced you have to arrange to have it towed to Cleveland. As a result you don't see many Tesla's in the state and until recently few charging stations.

<comment><USER2> A little background on why this was necessary is that the law already existed for decades to stop GM/Ford/Chrysler from doing the same thing, which was a very real threat to their industry. The bill simply changes a word to keep Tesla from using the loophole of not having a franchise to begin with.

From the article, it sounds like Tesla simply decided to become a used car dealer in Michigan as another workaround. It's not a settlement because nothing else has changed. The law didn't apply to selling used cars.</comment></comment>


Sen. Scott Brown: Creating A Nation of Venture Capitalists Through Crowdfunding - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/11/scott-brown-next-steve-jobs/ <comment><USER2> I am not a lawyer and have not reviewed the text of this legislation so I can't speak to the precise details, but I have agented venture capital and private equity transactions and thought I'd add a few considerations that others haven't mentioned.

One of the major problems with raising money from individuals, rather than institutional venture capital funds, relates not to these peoples' ability to make smart financial decisions, but relates to information asymmetries. When a Company is publicly-traded, a significant amount of financial information is disseminated to the public markets. Since public company businesses are relatively more stable, this historical financial information and guidance is sufficient to come to a reasonable valuation of the company (reasonable in the sense of being accurate to a factor of 2, rather than an order of magnitude like a VC deal).

When venture capitalists make an investment, they have face-to-face meetings with the entrepreneurs, and, critically, the ability to request follow on due diligence materials to their own satisfaction. If members of the general public are going to make venture capital investments, is it really reasonable for them to be able to meet the entrepreneurs face to face? ALL VCs will tell you this is of critical importance, although skeptical minds may disagree. Is it likely that companies will satisfy follow-on due diligence requests from a large number of individual investors? No, highly unlikely. Without these two critical factors, it will be difficult for individuals to realistically assess the risks and rewards of a particular company.

A second critical factor in a venture capital transaction is the negotiation between the VCs and the company. If the result of this legislation is that transactions are consummated without protections, such as liquidation preference, information rights, control provisions, that will not be a positive for the investing public. These terms are required if you are to have any hope of having good risk/reward tradeoffs.

In light of these concerns, I would think that the easiest way of protecting the public would be requiring that any particular investment round include at least a certain percentage coming from a qualified venture capital or private equity firm who would negotiate price and terms on behalf of the investors. Critically, the investing public and this person would have to get exactly the same economic deal, otherwise the whole thing breaks down. If they instead put this program in the casino and don't provide proper structure and incentives, it will be a wealth transfer just like the other casino games.

I would like to point out that I am all in favor of individuals having the opportunity to invest in these companies, in general, I just think that careful consideration needs to be given to how the market works "on the ground" in opening up any such market.

<comment><USER3> I agree their needs to be a way for a mass of small investors to "negotiate" a valuation and terms but setting up "qualified venture capital" firms as a proxy is not the way to go. Who qualifies the venture capital companies?

How about the terms are posted and a dutch auction takes place to fill the round. In a dutch auction every potential investor who bids over the price required to fill the round gets in at the lowest price.

<comment><USER2> A dutch auction can't work for some of the other reasons I mentioned. The terms in a venture capital transaction are as critical in making fund returns as the valuation, and a formal auction can only optimize one variable at a time. The terms are too complex for the average $1000 investor, really. You'd end up with investors getting burned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone with libertarian leanings I find puff pieces like this pretty frustrating. I generally sympathize with the idea of opening up private equity markets to more participation, but I also recognize that there are reasons for these restrictions.

The Senator's article doesn't bother acknowledging why those restrictions were put there in the first place. This sort of thinking give free-market policies a bad name and leads to bad results (like the financial crisis).

Let's take this quote as an example:

"Americans are allowed to gamble unlimited amounts at casinos, and can send donations to charities halfway around the world with one tap of a trackpad. Yet, we are legally prevented from making even modest investments in job- creating small businesses."

This is a bad comparison: Casino's and charities aren't marketed as investments, so people shouldn't have the illusion they're going to get their money back.

The article would be much better if instead drawing a false analogy the Senator would have explained just how the legislation plans to vet the crowdsourcing firms to ensure they're not scams.

Personally, I support the general direction of this legislation, but I object to the pseudo-populist slant of the article. It really weakens the case for freeing up capital markets.

<comment><USER5> I like the idea, but I'm unwilling to trust it. Why were those restrictions put there in the first place?

<comment><USER6> To limit the ability of scam artists setting up sham companies and fleecing inexperienced investors. Presumably, if your net worth is pretty high, than you probably have enough financial savvy to spot these scams (although plenty of wealthy individuals manage to get fleeced).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _> Have you ever wished that you had somehow invested in Facebook, Twitter, or Google before those companies became billion-dollar brands, back when they were first getting started?_

Replace those company names with Color, Pets.com, and Webvan.

Do you really think the public is capable of properly assessing the risk of such investments? The qualified investor regulations were put in place for a good reason. I believe there are also loopholes for domain experts who do not meet the financial qualifications, so most HN users are not actually barred from investing in startups.

So really, it's just a matter whether _unqualified_ investors should be allowed to risk a substantial portion of their net worth on a startup. Keeping in mind that a large number of people still fall victim to Nigerian 419 email scams, I am not so sure this capability is really a benefit to society.

<comment><USER8> What I'm reading in your sentiment is that you believe that such regulation prevents the "hard sales" approach of getting people to invest wonderfully demonstrated by the junk bonds and Boiler Room movie. And I agree with you - such crap tactics are what ruins it for the rest of us.

But I also don't believe that simply barring access is the right way to go. In an environment where barriers to entry are falling everywhere, the funding aspect still remains the most difficult. A talented small group of engineers can put together solutions that rivals the best of fortune 100 companies, but those same engineers are usually not capable of marshaling the resources they need to execute, often more efficiently than their big company counterparts.

Start-ups are super risky. If people understand that, and have means to diversify, than we have a good model. To me, Kickstarter is an awesome way to crowdfund for a product or a finite project. By promising something in return, you essentially get a head start on sales revenue, and use it to fund the development.

<comment><USER3> Do these boiler room operations hurt any more people than what is going on at big banks? Bank of America tellers are only too happy to suggest that a retiree who happens to have a few thousand in the their checking account speak to the nice Merrill Lynch representative.

<comment><USER9> To be fair to big banks (this doesn't sound like me...), the boiler room operator steals all of your money and the bank doesn't. You might not get the return you're expecting but at least they won't straight up steal from you. It is different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Crowdfunding could spark a culture shift. Right now much of society is uninspired and doesn't think about building things or making things better because they know they have little chance of getting the funding needed to make their ideas happen.

Making crowdfunding available to the masses could inspire a culture of possibilities that leads to more ideas and hard work from people whom would normally be watching TV or playing video games.

And this cultural shift could reach beyond entrepreneurship. Joseph de Maistre said, "In a Democracy, people get the government they deserve".

Right now many of us are frustrated with the political spectacle. But the media is simply giving the public what it wants -- entertaining candidates, not the best and the brightest ([http://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-so- fond-of-presidenti...](http://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-so-fond-of- presidential-candidates-who-are-crazy-uneducated-and-have-performed-poorly-in- other-jobs)).

In a 1996 Wired Magazine interview, Steve Jobs said:

"When you're young, you look at television and think, there's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."

Inspiring a widespread culture of ideas could lead to a mindset where people care more about truth and the purity of ideas than entertainment. Crowdfunding could change our culture, change our values, and change the world.

</comment><comment><USER11> Full disclosure up front: I work for IndieGoGo. I can't speak for other crowdfunding platforms, but I assume that they're similar on this topic.

A lot of people bring up the possibility of fraud with these crowdfunding sites (IndieGoGo, Kickstarter, Rockethub, etc.). While fraud is definitely a concern with crowdfunding, it turns out to be a much smaller problem than you would think.

First of all, the very nature of crowdfunding seems to act as a natural brake on fraudulent behavior. While it's easy to fool one person, most campaigns have dozens or hundreds of contributors. It's trivially easy for any of those contributors to sound the alarm (to the crowdfunding platform and other contributors) if there's anything fishy.

To reinforce this point, it's also been shown that "outside contributions" (contributions from people not personally connected to the campaign or campaign owner) generally don't happen until a campaign's received around 30% of their target amount. Social proof is really important, and it's hard to get if you're a scammer.

Secondly, we (IndieGoGo) take fraud _very_ seriously and invest a lot of resources into preventing it. We've got several layers of automated fraud detection, as well as a couple sets of human eyes on every campaign. While we can't guarantee fraud won't happen, we make every effort to make it vanishingly small.

In a nutshell, we're working pretty damn hard to make crowdfunding a safe and trustworthy marketplace. So far, the results seem pretty positive.

As for the specifics of this legislation: No comment, other than "We're looking at it."

</comment><comment><USER6> It will be interesting to see who ends up using this type of funding. For things like "buy a second delivery truck", i fell like getting a bank or auto loan would probably be the best method. For patent applications, I am not sure if it makes sense to announce your patent idea on a public crowdfunding website, before you have filed, in order to raise money. That seems risky. Same for startups, a lot of them are in 'stealth mode' in their early days, and I am not sure how they could convince a ton of people to give them money without disclosing sensitive information.

Seems to me, the best solution is to have a higher cap, say $10,000. That way you wouldn't need to raise money from a ton of people on a public website, but rather could tap into a group of trusted friends or acquaintances, and NDA's are probably more feasible at the level as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> I love this trend of decentralizing everything, even VC funding.

</comment><comment><USER13> "Should it be allowed?" is the wrong question.

A better one is "Will it work?" I'm betting the fraud on such a system would be both rampant and painfully opaque to the victims.

Wait until the lawyers get a hold of that.

Good companies would steer clear, defeating the entire effort. Send this back to the drawing board. Hint: The internet is not a requirement to ease the funding burden.

</comment><comment><USER14> Unfortunately this bad article does not fix the problem.

One of the major aspects of the problem is the decoupling of the investors from the firm receiving the investment..Let me explain...

You see once upon a time years ago, when you invested money if it was large enough you would demand a board seat. In my town if you were a big farmer you invested in the local bank and get a board seat to help over-see that investment.

With the passage of certain laws allowing pooling of funds we get to the point where those rights are no-longer awarded thus learning how to over-see an investment for long term gains never gets passed on to someone..

In other words we a investment knowledge transmission problem not a investment problem.

Big difference!

</comment><comment><USER15> Yikes.

The SEC certainly has its flaws, but if SEC regulations are stopping anyone from becoming more wealthy it's certainly not the small guy.

<comment><USER3> "The SEC certainly has its flaws"

Can you name any successes? Most recently the settlement they proposed with Citibank was so laughably one sided a judge threw it out.

Most people know about the Madoff case being handed to them on a silver platter and they did nothing.

Why not disband the SEC?

<comment><USER15> Interesting.

So you think that with no SEC the public will be safer from people like Madoff?

Do you think that investors would be able to make sound investment decisions without companies having any reporting requirements? Not every country in the world has such requirements and I think the SEC in that regard alone (call it a "success" if you will) is something to be commended.

It's one thing to say people at the SEC are not doing their jobs. But it's another thing to question the rationale and purpose behind the regulations. Are you doing both? Or just one?

If I'm not mistaken the senator is only doing the later.

<comment><USER3> Yes - the public would be better off with no SEC.

The agency has undergone "Regulatory Capture" and therefore does nothing to stop insiders like Madoff and hassles law abiding companies. The fact that they exist gives people a false sense of security that anything you can buy from a stock broker is not an outright fraud. Without them people would do the due diligence on their own. Any outright frauds could be handled by local police or FBI if it crosses state lines. Again, the whistle blower in the Madoff case thought he was done by sending info to the SEC; he might have gotten farther with a local DA or the FBI

<comment><USER15> So where does the investor obtain the information to perform due diligence? Are companies required to file reports? If so, with whom do they file them?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Muscular strength as a strong predictor of mortality - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620515001089 <comment><USER2> Or (less misleadingly), lack of muscular strength is a strong predictor of mortality.</comment>


Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen (2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension <comment><USER2> Did this compare pdfs formatted for 8.5x11? Ironically, I cannot effectively read this on my phone because the formatting requires constant horizontal scrolling, though I find the same issue with reading documents like this (that don't wrap/reflow) on a regular computer screen.

I guess I'm wondering does this study compare the medium (paper vs screen) or whether it's easier to read when formatting matches the medium (a document formatted for paper read on paper vs screen)?

<comment><USER3> I didn't read the whole thing, but scrolling was definitely one of the problems they identified. Text on paper is fixed in position and that seems to help comprehension compared to text that scrolls electronically.

It seems like if they had compared equivalently sized e-ink screen and paper, many of the differences would have gone away.

<comment><USER2> When I read on a computer, my ideal width seems to be around 1/3 of a 1080p monitor. I usually have my browser window sized at about 2/3 of the screen width.

On phone, most sites that have even a remotely responsive design are easy enough to read.

I've also read at least a dozen Epub format books on my phone in the past few months, and frankly the convenience has got me back into reading in a way I haven't in years. My reader renders text as orange(ish)-on-black, and the big thing is I can read in bed at night without disturbing my partner (whereas even a small book light was disruptive). I've read mostly fiction but nothing like scientific papers, so I'm not sure how that translates, but definitely I find it's a good reading experience. It's also easy on the eyes on a way black-on-white PDFs cannot be.

The key though with all of this is that the text is formatted appropriately for the medium. White backgrounds on backlight screens are just as hard to read as if you had white text on black paper. I don't doubt it's hard to isolate the effects of format and medium, but they're tied in a way that you can't ignore one and study the other, imho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Direct link to proper PDF from sci-hub: [https://sci- hub.tw/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002](https://sci- hub.tw/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002)

My personal experience is very much aligned with the findings of this paper. I lose A LOT of IQ points when I'm reading on screen. It's the general medium difference, but also ability to concentrate, the context where I'll be reading, and general attitude.

As others have mentioned eInk partially mitigates some of these differences, but not all. Paper has still a big role to play if we want effective learning.

</comment><comment><USER5> Related book I found very interesting [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shallows_(book)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shallows_\(book\)). I always felt this way but after reading this book I doubled down on reading on paper.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was always printing out texts larger than a few pages. I felt like it's easier. Now I know it's not my personal trait.

</comment><comment><USER7> Also worth reading (though in Japanese) - Effect of Reading a Book on a Tablet Computer on Cerebral Blood Flow in the Prefrontal Cortex (2018) - [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjh/73/1/73_39/_pdf/-ch...](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjh/73/1/73_39/_pdf/-char/en)

Showed increased brain activity (increase in regional cerebral blood flow) was observed following reading a novel on a tablet computer compared with that after reading a printed book.

<comment><USER4> Specifically for pixels-disturbing-sleep problem there is this very useful app: [https://justgetflux.com/](https://justgetflux.com/)

But can we conclude from this that pixels disturb brain in general? Maybe the increased brain blood flow is good during waking hours?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> what about on an eInk display.

</comment><comment><USER9> What was the effect size?</comment>


The Right Tools to Leave Your Mark on Pinterest - <AUTHOR> http://blog.viraliti.com/the-right-tools-to-leave-your-mark-on-pinterest/

<comment><USER2> Does Pinterest allow third party advertisement?

<comment><USER3> No it doesnot yet. But did you try out the gifts feature on Pinterest? It could evolve into something like sponsored tweets soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Didn't Pinpuff get acquired ?</comment>


An interview with Professor Richard Thaler, godfather of behavioural economics - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/id-have-said-lets-not-do-this-what-osborne-never-asked-his-nudge-guru/ <comment><AUTHOR> Original title is "'I'd have said let's not do this': What Osborne never asked his nudge guru" which isn't misleading or clickbait, but is meaningless to most people. (George Osborne is UK Chancellor of Exchequer).</comment>


Ask HN: Quora always fails to unsubscribe unwanted emails! - <AUTHOR> I have started getting unwanted emails from Quora . On trying to unsubscribe - it always results in HTTP error 400!!
https://imgur.com/a/1DLLqp2
This has happened multiple times this week.
Such an annoying thing. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link : [https://imgur.com/a/1DLLqp2](https://imgur.com/a/1DLLqp2)</comment>


Ask HN: Examples of good writing in computer science? - <AUTHOR>

Hey fellow HNers
I'm about to go off for a holiday and I'd have many hours to kill on the plane and I'd like to spend some time reading. I've started work on writing a book on virtual machines and ECMAScript, and I would like some examples of good writing for computer science for inspiration.
An example I liked is K&R C. It's clear, and to the point. It is however, also a little dry. TAoCP is also very dry and it takes a lot of work to read it. PRML is a good read but can be intimidating at certain points. I also found On Lisp to be a good read if a little meandering.
What are your favourite compsci books that are well written; easy to understand and follow;  and caters to multiple reading levels, from newbies to advanced readers?
What to you, makes good writing? <comment><USER2> Not strictly computer science - but the one textbook that I really liked from my computer engineering degree was "Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface" ([http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Organization- Design-Fourth-Ed...](http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Organization-Design- Fourth-Edition/dp/0123747503)). It was surprisingly readable and easy to follow. It covers the design of a MIPS processor from the ground up (ALU, caches, memory, pipelining, etc) and also is self-aware enough to not pretend that x86/ARM don't exist.

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose it depends on your approach - my two cents - is your book . . .

a. geared toward programming / learning a language? I've been surprised, given the sparsity, the efficacy of a "showing-by-example" style of writing seen in the Apache Thrift documentation. K&R (to me) is decent for language acquisition, but even more useful as a quick "how did they do that again" refresher. I've found "Linux Kernel Development" (Love) as a very nice book blending concepts with programmatic examples. So the above is maybe a spectrum within this style of writing that I've found helpful.

b. a more "textbook" / algorithmic approach? I remember thinking "Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach" (Kurose, Ross) was one of the lighter texts that didn't necessarily feel "textbook." "Introduction to Information Retrieval" (Manning, Raghavan, Schutze) also comes to mind, but more academic.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think I am ever qualified to write text book material. Bits of the book I suspect will be "How I got to this point in the code".

There will be a lot of show-by-example. I've written half a chapter so far and it does really feel like I'm just annotating my code, which isn't a good thing.

<comment><USER3> I hear that - skim through Love's Linux Kernel Development and see what you think. It sounds like you're going for something much lighter, so maybe something along the lines of the "Little Book on Coffeescript?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Didn't even have to think about this one: _Eloquent Javascript_ , by Marijn Haverbeke. He's an amazing writer and a brilliant all-around guy. Technically it's geared toward new programmers, but it's worth a read at pretty much any level.

You can find it free online here: [https://eloquentjavascript.net/](https://eloquentjavascript.net/) or buy a print version here: [http://nostarch.com/ejs](http://nostarch.com/ejs).

(Full disclosure: I'm listed as the editor on the print version, though in this case my job basically consisted of nodding as chapters came in and saying, "Yup, that's a damn good book.")

</comment><comment><USER5> Programming Pearls: [http://netlib.bell- labs.com/cm/cs/pearls/](http://netlib.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/pearls/)

Best Software Writing: [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BestSoftwareWriting.h...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BestSoftwareWriting.html)

Last resort: Bring a sleeping pill and sleep through the flight.</comment>


AWS: Several connectivity issues in Eu-West-1 - <AUTHOR> http://status.aws.amazon.com/#EU_block

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazon currently describing these as "issues affecting a small number of instances". Anyone else had a server down for over an hour now?</comment>


HN opinion: NetKernel - <AUTHOR> http://www.1060research.com/netkernel/

<comment><AUTHOR> Was recently asked to provide an opinion on it. I don't have one yet, but am leaning towards "perfect for the architectural astronaut in need of further layers of abstraction, which is, of course, the obvious solution to every problem"

Was curious if HNers had any exposure to this architecture?</comment>


Instagram tests replacing Search with Reels to push its TikTok clone - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/14/instagram-test-replaces-search-with-reels-to-push-its-tiktok-clone/ <comment><USER2> Instagram is slowly becoming a family of apps. I just wonder how many apps they would fit</comment>