Ask HN: Will there be an ICO bubble? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> Bubble is already here. And it will blow. But some players, that have a substance, will survive or rise from ashes. And they will be very valuable. The tech will also survive and evolve. This happens all the time - <USER2> bubble was the same, but there are more examples: we all know now that alchemy was a total scam, with lot of shady players milking naive people, but eventually from its residues the real chemistry was born. Hopefully we will learn one day how to jump over this kind of inital scams.

</comment><comment><USER4> There should be. Scams aside, so many of these ideas simply don't make any sense, especially for a token. What we will see, what we are doing, is to issue shares instead of tokens (token-shares). We'll payout dividends. But that's because we have a solid business model and will have very large revenues and profits.

<comment><USER5> > But that's because we have a solid business model and will have very large > revenues and profits.

Thanks for making me snort my coffee. Spot on!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is already happening is people realise that there is a high probability that ICO is a scam.

1\. Set up some paper on how your coin works

2\. Launch ICO

3\. Tell you got hacked and silently close your coin

4\. Profit

</comment><comment><USER7> Our company raised more than $12M recently(a few days ago). It only spent 9 minutes.

Another company raised nearly $50M yesterday in 18 minutes.

Unbelievable!

<comment><USER8> what's your company solving?

<comment><USER9> They'll be releasing an e-book on how to raise millions in 9 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are too many Altcoins and Tokens, you actually can create one within minutes using Waves Platform or Forknote

</comment><comment><USER5> This is already happening. Why else would the SEC issue something about it this early into its course?

<comment><USER11> It doesn't have to be a bubble for the SEC to issue something. After all, most of the ICOs seem like attempts to skirt SEC regulation in order to raise money and they see that too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> what does ico mean in this context? [http://www.abbreviations.com/ICO](http://www.abbreviations.com/ICO)

<comment><USER5> Initial coin offering. Basically selling a cryptocurrency instead of shares to skirt around brokerage laws. But it also removes a lot of the investment protections offered by those laws, so it's a lot easier to get scammed.</comment></comment>


Why Stack Exchange (Still) Believes in Private Offices - <AUTHOR> http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2015/01/why-we-still-believe-in-private-offices

<comment><USER2> Already submitted (with a trailing slash): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8899560](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8899560)

<comment><AUTHOR> Honest mistake on my part, thanks for linking it.</comment></comment>


Modeling Potential Income and Welfare – Benefits in Illinois (2014) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://d2dv7hze646xr.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Welfare_Report_finalfinal.pdf <comment><USER3> This is a point I tried to make in conversations I was having back in 1994 or so about the welfare reform that was then being debated. It's a rather technical point, though, so it was hard to get it heard in all the shouting about welfare moms.

 _Step-function subsidies are evil._ (A "step function", in math, is a function whose value changes sharply at a single point, like a stairstep.) They're evil for just the reason being discussed here, that they create a point where a small increase in earnings causes a large decrease in total income.

When it comes to income taxes, our legislators are smart enough to use piecewise linear functions, but somehow this very small amount of mathematical sophistication goes out the window when it comes to subsidies for the poor.

And people's lives are ruined.

<comment><USER4> > Our legislators are smart enough to use piecewise linear function

Yes, but it's also hard to avoid when you are offering non cash welfare. An example for middle income people is affordable housing. You get into the unit (saving you $25k+ over market rate) if income below $X. Otherwise, you don't.

I haven't figured out a way to avoid this cliff that isn't exceedingly complicated or violates the intention of the program.

<comment><USER5> I'm very interested in solutions to this, as a bay area resident - <USER2> separating units into "the poor people houses" and "the rest of the people houses" doesn't quite seem like the right long term solution to anything.

I don't have a solution, hence why I ask.

<comment><USER6> You could give poor families a housing subsidy, which drops off smoothy as a function of income. You can't give a family half a house, but you can easily give them half as big a subsidy, knowing that they can more than make up the difference with their higher income.

This also means that the family receiving the subsidy can live wherever they want. I think some of the smarter housing programs already work this way.

<comment><USER7> That still has the effect of a (probably high) marginal tax and disincentivizes increasing one's income just the same. Why take night classes or work harder at your job if the $100/week raise comes with $80/week less in rent subsidies + taxes? (Example figures; you can change it around but most realistic situations are going to look similar.)

<comment><USER3> It's true that the price of receiving a subsidy at all is that any money you make is going to be effectively taxed at a higher rate than it would have been otherwise. I think people can live with that as long as the effective tax rate doesn't get too high. Not sure what "too high" would be for most people, but I would guess that as long as the total effective incremental tax rate is never over 60% — meaning that after the reduction of the subsidy plus income tax, one would never keep less than $.40 of one's next dollar in earned income — that would probably be good enough. Yes, there will still be people who will find that a barrier, but at least there won't be this point where your next dollar of earned income will be effectively taxed at 50,000%.

The extreme version is UBI, where everyone receives the full subsidy unconditionally, and the effective incremental tax rate is always just the income tax rate. I'm not sure that's a bad idea, but we could get rid of the current cliff much more easily than we could institute a full-blown UBI.

<comment><USER7> >It's true that the price of receiving a subsidy at all is that any money you make is going to be effectively taxed at a higher rate than it would have been otherwise.

I wasn't referring to that; I was referring to the decreasing-subsidy-as- income-goes-up as being effectively a marginal tax. (I think the rest of your comment is recognizing it as one.)

>I would guess that as long as the total effective incremental tax rate is never over 60% — meaning that after the reduction of the subsidy plus income tax, one would never keep less than $.40 of one's next dollar in earned income — that would probably be good enough. Yes, there will still be people who will find that a barrier, but at least there won't be this point where your next dollar of earned income will be effectively taxed at 50,000%.

Even a 60% marginal tax is very strongly disincentivizing and makes it difficult to justify most any feasible long-term plan for increasing one's productivity from a poverty level.

>The extreme version is UBI, where everyone receives the full subsidy unconditionally, and the effective incremental tax rate is always just the income tax rate. I'm not sure that's a bad idea, but we could get rid of the current cliff much more easily than we could institute a full-blown UBI.

Right, that's the major upside of UBI. The downside is that it's really expensive (in terms of tax rate relative to benefits) and can't be concentrated on people who might need more help (temporary or otherwise) than others. And if you combine the two, then it's an even more punishing tax with its own effects.

<comment><USER3> > Even a 60% marginal tax is very strongly disincentivizing and makes it > difficult to justify most any feasible long-term plan for increasing one's > productivity from a poverty level.

Are you aware of any research that bears on this question? Right now we just seem to have dueling intuitions.

Anyway, I already agreed that _some_ people will find it disincentivizing. But again, the disincentive can't be anything like the massive one we currently have with the cliff. Do you really not think that what I'm proposing would be an improvement over the status quo?

<comment><USER7> Okay, let me give you the details of intuition then: the typical person in poverty might optimistically hope to go from $30k/year to $60k/year. But the typical such person has a high time preference and is only able to defer earning income under very difficult terms (e.g. high interest rates). But at a 60% effective tax on making that transition and given the long time it takes to bring it about, you need someone with an unusually low time preference and high luck for that to look worthwhile.

(You would be correct that you could have a poverty program that _directly targets_ the high impediments that exist in the short term e.g. getting childcare for when you have the night classes, low-interest loans to cover short term expenses, etc. But those would also be _different policies_ from simply giving stuff at a lower-effective-marginal-rate than the step function does, and it would be adding the kinds of incentive effects that I have been emphasizing as more important.)

If you model everyone as being the go-getter high-potential individual that you are, you'll have a different intuition on it; I don't think that model is accurate on average.

<comment><USER3> Just to be clear, I don't necessarily oppose those other programs, and I never suggested that getting rid of the step function was the only thing that should be done, though I continue to believe that that in itself might be a very substantial improvement. At the very least, any welfare reform bill should clearly include that as a key component.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> TLDR, in many situations in Illinois you make more money (due to benefits) by making less, up to a staggering income level of ~$70000 a year in some cases.

I have seen this first hand. When I was broke in community college I became eligable for $200 month food subsidy which quickly dropped off a cliff if I worked more than 26 hours a week. So I worked just under that. Any more would be a net loss until ~35 hours due to my low wage per hour not making up for benefits lost. I did some more math, and it turned out I would make only ~10% less money if I could find a job with very high hourly pay and very low hours per week.

With the incredibly broken way the system was set up, I ended up finding a website admin job that paid 18 hourly but only 4 hours a week to maximize the benefit. Some would say I "messed with" the system, but I was going to be broke either way and it made zero sense to work more for less money when I was going to school.

I quickly moved out of Illinois from this and a hundred other political happenings that convinced me the government there was just unfixably corrupt and broken.

I'm not surprised this is coming from Illinois, at all. Incredibly high taxes from benefits allocated absurdly. Laughable benefits for students and other blocs that don't "bring in the vote". The state has a shadow governer Madigan who has run the state for two decades no matter who was in charge on paper.

Illinois is teetering on bankrupcy and the only state with a shinking population due to so much out migration. And the average person leaving makes almost $30,000 more a year than the average person moving in. Because anyone that can afford to leave is on the way out due to extremely high taxes. Businesses have been fleeing in droves for over a decade, and it's rated in many small business polls as one of the top 5 worst states to run a business.

The state has turned to raiding the public universities and local governments in recent years. Cutting funding so severely that several large public universities are almost bankrupt. My education grants dropped from 10k a year from my low income to zero in a single semester because of budget cuts, and I have about 20k in student loan debt as a result.

Basically, don't move to Illinois, it has easily the crappiest most corrupt government of any state. The financials are so bad they've narrowly avoided bankrupcy and have a junk credit rating. If you move there be prepared to pay down the previous decade of uncontrollable debt to the state in taxes due to the inability of Madigan and friends to balance a budget while maintaining their staggering level of corruption

<comment><USER9> You could move to Louisiana where you would have been ineligible as an enrolled student for your food subsidy unless you worked at least 20 hours a week or earned $600 a month. Go fish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One commenter on Reddit notes the "programs provide a necessary relief, but they definitely aren't built to help people truly improve their circumstances in sustainable and lasting ways." They're probably not designed at all.

There is no grand plan anywhere. Regulations are a hodgepodge of legislation and executive decisions made by people with conflicting incentives, little to no feedback and expertise, limited resources, and very real abuse/exploitation.

<comment><USER11> I'm not completely in the UBI (Universal Basic Income) camp, however your comment made me realize how much better UBI would work.

There would be no step functions, no mishmash of overlapping agencies, no complicated eligibility tests, no massive bureaucracy to navigate.

<comment><USER12> It's a terrible way to solve the problem. If someone has $20k/yr of benefits from Medicaid what are they going to do on $10k/yr of UBI?

<comment><USER13> > If someone has $20k/yr of benefits from Medicaid what are they going to do > on $10k/yr of UBI?

Buy health insurance, which costs less than $20k/year (because the average person receives less than that amount in benefits).

<comment><USER12> This is dodging the question. For one thing, The price you pay for health insurance is not the same as it's cost. The price of insurance is lower than the price of care because people who are healthy buy insurance.

Moreover, the general point stands: what does UBI do for people who currently receive more $ benefits than what the UBI level would be?

<comment><USER13> > For one thing, The price you pay for health insurance is not the same as > it's cost. The price of insurance is lower than the price of care because > people who are healthy buy insurance.

That's the point. It doesn't cost $20,000/person to provide Medicaid because healthy people are eligible for Medicaid. If you take average amount of money and hand it to the same people as cash, it should be the amount needed to buy the equivalent insurance.

But then people have the option to buy only catastrophic coverage and put the rest of money in their pocket, if that's what they want to do, which should on average save money (and in the catastrophe case you still have the catastrophic coverage).

> Moreover, the general point stands: what does UBI do for people who > currently receive more $ benefits than what the UBI level would be?

Half the point is to get rid of that sort of thing. Someone who makes $35,000 shouldn't ever be receiving more government assistance than someone who makes $15,000, because they have $20,000 more of their own money to spend on whatever it is.

The purpose of a UBI is income redistribution, not insurance against misfortune. If you want insurance you use your money to buy insurance.

<comment><USER12> > The purpose of a UBI is income redistribution, not insurance against > misfortune. If you want insurance you take your money and buy insurance with > it.

While this approach sounds good on paper it wouldn't work in real life. Another example--what if I'm getting the equivalent of $50k/yr in unemployment benefits under Social Security? That becomes $10k/yr under UBI. Or someone getting $60k/yr on Social Security retirement income--again $10k/yr under UBI.

Yes, you can say "Well you should save for retirement." Well, what about all the people who hit 65, and haven't saved for retirement? Or all the people who get laid off and don't have more than 2 weeks of savings? Tough luck?

<comment><USER14> I can imagine there's some sort of grandfathering rule for existing pensioners, but there has to be a cut off somehow. For example, those who are 10 yrs away from retirement will be told when UBI starts, so they can prep ahead of time (assuming 10 yrs is "enough", if not, then make this number higher).

It's not as if the day UBI starts is also going to be the day everything else suddenly stops. The transition period can be made longer or more gradual.

<comment><USER13> You could also just give people a one-way election to have the UBI. $10,000/year starting right now has a higher net present value for anyone not at/near retirement than ~$17,000/year (the average social security benefit) starting at age 65, especially when opting out of social security means you no longer have to pay social security tax.

Then make the hard cut off something like age 30, even though most people under ~50 would still choose the UBI.

And "what if someone was getting $60K" is not a thing that actually happens. The maximum monthly social security retirement benefit at full retirement age is $2788, less than $33,500/year.

$10,000 is not much less than what many people live on from their full time jobs. In combination with even modest retirement savings, it's plenty to live on in a low cost of living area, and people who desire more can save more or supplement it by teaching at a community college or local high school.

If you want to live your retirement in Manhattan or San Francisco without working then you'll need a lot of retirement savings, no different than it is now.

The existing design of social security is quite ridiculous and _should_ be changed. A safety net shouldn't be giving more to wealthier people than poorer people. If the payment is good enough for the poor then it's good enough for the rich. Anyone who made a lot of money and wants to live a lavish retirement has every opportunity to have saved up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When I first heard of Welfare Cliff I was shocked, coming from Brazilian public schools I realized how much propaganda is spread there.

They teach how the US is imperialist and how they only care about money and some other soviet stories.

To give out some money is one thing, we have that in Brazil, but to give out so much money it is better not to work is shocking.

<comment><USER16> > To give out some money is one thing, we have that in Brazil, but to give out > so much money it is better not to work is shocking.

You miss the point. It's not that welfare is so much, it's that the jobs you get that knock you off welfare don't pay enough to be able to live. America has a lot of very low paying jobs where people need to work 70 hour weeks for multiple employers to get enough to live. In a modern country it is shocking that basic employment standards are not guaranteed and that when you have a job it doesn't cover the minimum needed to live.

<comment><USER17> This is sort of a function of nondocumented immigrantion. Those are the folks working these low wage jobs. If those people leave then the jobs would either have to raise wages generating inflation, improve productivity or go out of business. I think this is why we see a big push for kiosks/tablets in causal restaurants now.

<comment><USER16> It's a function of big industry lobbying to keep wages low and block laws that protect workers plus the systematic weakening of unions. There is plenty of money in large corporations to pay workers more but it goes to the executives and shareholders rather than making employees lives more bearable. Inequity is increasing and migration is a useful scapegoat. Large companies are making absurd profits while paying their employees a pittance. Migration isn't causing this but it useful for rich people with vested interests to make it seem like it is.

<comment><USER13> > There is plenty of money in large corporations to pay workers more but it > goes to the executives and shareholders rather than making employees lives > more bearable.

The money comes from the fact that they have one well-paid manager per thousand employees instead of having one per five employees as a small business does, which makes getting that opportunity for advancement a one in a thousand shot for their employees instead of one in five. What you want isn't for big companies to pay more, it's for small companies to replace them.

If you pass laws like increasing the minimum wage that disproportionately impact smaller businesses "because big companies can afford it" then you make that problem worse.

If you really want better wages, make things tougher for bigger companies. Condition regulatory burdens and taxes on high total revenue. Eliminate regulations at the federal level that are typically highly complex and whose uniformity favors large interstate businesses, in favor of simpler local regulations that benefit local businesses and allow locals to carve out a profitable niche.

<comment><USER14> Large businesses are more efficient because they can hire 1 manager per thousand employees.

If laws were introduced to artificially stop this sort of efficiency, the country's productivity drops. Thus will actually cause more harm than good.

A much more sound way of redistribution is to close tax loop holes and aggressive hunting down of those who evade (piercing the veil and all). Recover lost tax revenue, and use it to improve social welfare or infrastructure.

<comment><USER13> > Large businesses are more efficient because they can hire 1 manager per > thousand employees.

> If laws were introduced to artificially stop this sort of efficiency, the > country's productivity drops. Thus will actually cause more harm than good.

These are basically the talking points of big corporate lobbyists, but they don't bear out. Efficiency doesn't help real people unless it results in better products or lower prices. If the surplus is going to executive salaries, Wall St and foreign investors then it has no value -- or negative value, if those people then use that money to e.g. bid up real estate prices so that real people have to spend more of their income on housing.

And having less of something isn't always more efficient to begin with. The thing may be producing more value than it costs. For example, people love to go to a store and talk to a knowledgeable person about what they need. A few minutes can save hours of research or years of using the wrong product. But what if one store has that and consequently has higher prices, and another store doesn't have it but has lower prices? Customers go to the store that can answer their questions, determine what they need to buy and then compare prices and buy it from Amazon or Walmart. That isn't _more efficient_ , it's just free riding. And when the smaller stores go out of business, "the country's productivity drops."

> A much more sound way of redistribution is to close tax loop holes and > aggressive hunting down of those who evade (piercing the veil and all). > Recover lost tax revenue, and use it to improve social welfare or > infrastructure.

But that's just an example of what I'm talking about. The tax code is highly complex federal regulation that benefits large companies at the expense of small. Replace the complicated income tax with simple no-exceptions VAT and they can't do that anymore. If you sell something in the US, VAT is collected and it doesn't matter where the rest of your operations are. It's basically corporate income tax where the jurisdiction of "profit" is the location of final sale rather than a bunch of complex rules that international corporations can game to pay less tax than local businesses.

But you also have to make sure they don't absorb that revenue on the spending side. As soon as the feds have money to spend, large corporations devise corruption schemes like the one where government-funded research is patented and transferred for pennies on the dollar to big business, so the public is paying for it twice. Which is why spending should be local -- a billion dollars of corruption sticks out much more in a city budget than the federal budget.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Chicagoan here.

I grew up in Northern California (moved here for college and have stayed for 15 years). I have nothing but the utmost respect for the environment, for minority rights, and for helping the less fortunate.

But here in Shitcago, I get shouted down as a traitorous, MAGA-loving nazi because I criticize the very obvious flaws that we have in our welfare programs, pensions and unions. Welfare cliffs like these ones are borderline inhumane, robbing people of their ability to improve themselves as human beings and to have the self-respect of being a great as they would like to be. We arguably hurt people with these programs, and we PAY TO HURT them.

Now this isn't to say that there aren't great programs that we can undertake to help those in need by redistributing wealth in productive ways, but it is not at all clear to me that supporting our current welfare and educational system is at all synonymous with supporting the idea of helping and educating people.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's hard to stomach the commentary on Reddit. I glanced at that thread and could post examples of this; in short you have a lot of speculative, off-the- cuff, freeform-braindump-type advice giving and opinions. I have a lot of trouble with Reddit although HN folks have mentioned certain subreddits have articulate people in them with interesting back and forths.

Yes, though, the spirit of the thread is correct: the health care costs and insurance mechanisms are absurd and hit the lower-middle class the hardest.

<comment><USER20> >certain subreddits have articulate people in them with interesting back and forths

Very, very few. Even on some of the "deep" subreddits, they went off the rails years ago and are now echo chambers where the most insightful comments are just re-statements of the article's main point. The closest thing you get is the heavily moderated subreddits like askscience or history or space, etc. But even then, good luck navigating any discussion, because 9 out of 10 comments will be "this comment was deleted by a moderator", with a few now-contextless comments thrown in here and there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> We've updated the link from [https://www.reddit.com/r/povertyfinance/comments/87or18/the_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/povertyfinance/comments/87or18/the_welfare_cliff/).

</comment><comment><USER22> I haven't had income in a few years because I've been working on a personal project that has yet to materialize. I am on Obamacare and it's really good. It's free, better than anything on the market you can buy with money. $1 rx copay, no copay for visits, no referrals to specialists, and the network seems to have all the highly rated specialists in the area. When you see a doctor there are no unexpected, unintelligible bills months later that you have to argue endlessly.

It keeps me from taking side jobs because I'd immediately have too much money and would have to buy inferior insurance. I know this is very different from the much more difficult and real circumstance in the OP but having heard of welfare entrapment for a long time it was odd for me to realize that it had sort of happened to me too. Welfare, man.

<comment><USER9> You mean Medicaid, not Obamacare (a policy purchased on the exchange)

<comment><USER22> Correct. In Maryland and probably other states it's Medicaid that pays MCOs. "Obamacare" seems to be a colloquialism for all programs that resulted from the ACA. I believe MCOs paid by Medicaid are from the ACA. Certainly the ACA mandated I had to enroll, buy a plan or pay the penalty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just in case people don't know, the Illinois Policy Institute is an antitax lobbying group.

</comment><comment><USER24> Too bad there isn't money to be made "disrupting" poverty.

<comment><USER25> Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses of all time. What would "disrupting" poverty be, if not enabling the poor to afford things they couldn't before?

<comment><USER26> > Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses of all time.

Why? I'll offer a reason; unlike many of their competitors they've deftly avoided unionization. I offer no proof that this is the reason, and you offer no reason at all. Only "they're successful so they're right." What do you hope to achieve with this simple minded assertion?

> What would "disrupting" poverty be, if not enabling the poor to afford > things they couldn't before?

Walmart isn't magical; equivalent goods are not an order of magnitude lower in price then elsewhere, and the benefit of the small difference in cost applies only to consumer goods Walmart sells; not housing, utilities, vehicles, taxes, healthcare, etc. These represent a vastly greater burden than the marginal savings obtained shopping at Walmart. At best Walmart is minor mitigation.

This sophistry appears in every discussion of poverty, welfare, etc.

<comment><USER27> > Only "they're successful so they're right."

You have some good points, but please don't use quotes to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not. That's an internet trope that makes it hard to continue serious conversation. Attributing it to them explicitly as a "simple minded assertion" is even worse, and also breaks the site rule which asks you to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


AI can predict the future criminals based on facial features - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/troubling-study-says-artificial-intelligence-can-predict-who-will-be-criminals-based-on-facial-features/ <comment><USER2> I can also look at the 6 pictures and accurately guess who the bad guys are. The 3 who are frowning like they're being photographed against their will for a mug shot are bad. The 3 guys earnestly smiling and wearing suits are good.

I dunno if the sample from that page is representative of their test set, but if so, it's pretty weak.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't get distracted with the whole pseudoscience/phrenology angle.

The police state doesn't really care if people are criminals or not. It just wants to know who is more likely to give them trouble: A common thug who scares your voters is a problem. A white-collar criminal who makes regular campaign contributions is not.

Since that could probably be gleaned from facial characteristics (expression, grooming, style, oppressed-ethnicity-traits, etc.), I'm sure this scratches an itch.

They'll be running this on us in the US and Britain before you know it.

<comment><USER4> In US it is already working as intended - it is called "crime of doing X while black" \- no need for subtle facial characteristics, recognition is easy and fool-proof.

Do you see now why it is stupid?

<comment><USER3> In the US, duh. In other countries, where the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed is more subtle, this provides "value" (like different castes of Indians, or upperclass/lowerclass/Irish/Scottish/English/Welsh in Britain).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This post by Yonatan Zunger (Head of Infrastructure for the Google Assistant, and a great thinker) on Google+ is insightful: [https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/J8qrWvmhwNF?sfc...](https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/J8qrWvmhwNF?sfc=true)

The conclusion says it best:

"Contrary to the Intercept article, this paper isn't a failure of ML ethics; it's a failure of ordinary academic ethics, dressed up as machine learning. The paper is bullshit, plain and simple."

</comment><comment><USER6> I find it interesting how hard the author focuses on disparaging the authors of this paper for daring to investigate this question, rather than trying to argue with the empirical results of their research.

<comment><USER4> If you paid attention on history lessons you'd know why going this path is very dangerous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you read the article, these aren't even convicted criminals -- they're just suspects from some Chinese database. This is a truly horrible piece of "research".

</comment><comment><USER8> Things like this can only be endorsed by malicious or very stupid people (if you are getting excited about this and have Minority report pop into your head -- you're of the latter).

</comment><comment><USER9> This is total bullshit, the best crooks all look like bank managers for a good reason

</comment><comment><USER10> Recent discussion of this study: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12983827](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12983827)

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not sure we want computers perfecting human biases. I will say that Hollywood (and probably other movie cultures as well) is not above using mean- looking people to represent heavies in film.

Which, despite its unfairness, does give us gems such as this -- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8hjFmPCSjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8hjFmPCSjg)

</comment><comment><USER12> There is no independent data set used to validate the model(s). We have no idea how the models will generalize beyond this data set.

</comment><comment><USER13> The big questions which need further research:

0\. Beyond socio/psychopathy, are there genetic markers for criminal tendencies?

1\. Do unconscious biases of other people motivate certain looking people to engage in crime?

</comment><comment><USER14> Who chose the 1,856 source images?

</comment><comment><USER15> Yet another example of shitty science.

</comment><comment><USER16> Are we bringing back frenology now?

</comment><comment><USER17> Eugenics.</comment>


The psychology of loyalty programs - <AUTHOR> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201010/the-psychology-loyalty-programs

<comment><USER2> Loyalty programs used with jackpot rewards (one of the most powerful ways to positively condition behavior) are very powerful.

As the article points out, loyalty programs matter more to consumers the more rewards they build up. A way to potentially supercharge the program is to give an unexpected somewhat large (jackpot) reward somewhere between the early stage that consumers care little and the later stage where they care a lot.

You'll need to refine results by test and tie it to getting consumer recommendations to others. Ideally, you would use this with consumers pre- identified as influencers.</comment>


Turkish lira plunges 20% - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/10/turkish-lira-loss-deepens-as-pm-erdogan-calls-for-citizens-to-convert-.html <comment><USER2> So, this is what a Black Swan looks like in real-time ;)

I can recall not even five years ago when $USDTRY was historically stable just below 2.00. It's possible it will go to 8.00 very shortly.

After winning re-election in June, US-Turkey relations became strained over Erdogan's consolidation of power. Including the appointment of his son-in-law as Finance Minister. High inflation and deficits should have triggered a raise in interest rates. Policy experts conjectured a looming threat of sanctions would compel action.

But instead the Central Bank, under authoritarian control of the popular regime, wanted to implement its own brand of capital controls. The result is an historic devaluation. And risk of contagion spreading with highly levered European bank exposure.

Looking at the raw economic numbers. Turkey's GDB is under $1T annually. And outstanding foreign denominated debt approx $500B. The scale is minuscule compared to China and the West. As global debt approaches $50T and rate of growth slows below the the rate at which interest on that debt accumulates. It is not out of the realm of possibility that what is happening in Turkey right now serves as a microcosm for what could happen around the globe. Populist backed government seizure of private capital on an unprecedented scale.

There is no other way to interpret this than as a cautionary tale of the necessity of fiscal policy insulation from political winds of change.

</comment><comment><USER3> From the article:

"The sharp drop in Turkish assets came after a delegation returned from Washington with no apparent progress on the detention of U.S. pastor Andrew Brunson, who is charged with supporting a group blamed for an attempted coup in 2016."

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

"Andrew C. Brunson (born January 3, 1968) is an American pastor in Turkey, arrested in October 2016 in the purges occurring after the aftermath of the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, imprisoning tens of thousands of Turkish military personnel, civil servants, educators, academics, dissidents, and journalists.[3][4] Brunson is an evangelical pastor of the Izmir Resurrection Church, a small Protestant church with about 25 congregants."

First time I am hearing about this guy. P.S. the "coup" seemed pretty staged even when it was happening. It was pretty incompetent.

The "reason" for these sanctions is also pretty convoluted.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is the imprisoned pastor the reason or the excuse for the US sanctions? I have a feeling US/Turkey have other more important reasons to have issues with their relationship now like Turkey's sudden friendship with Russia.</comment>


Help  Should I trade my secure job at a bank for a startup? - <AUTHOR>

Ok, so I'm a Sr Developer at the bank where I have been working for two and a half years, and I'm getting really sick of the corporate culture and how long it takes to get anything done.  My team is great, my manager is great, the product is alright, and I am paid alright considering that it's a conservative bank (and region).  I just wish I were doing more hacking and less meetings/requirements proofreading/blah blah blah.
So I got a job offer from a local startup that has a product out there and some paying customers (although they aren't breaking even yet).  This startup has made me an offer for only a little more then I am currently making, and the location change will add about 30 or 40 minutes to my daily commute.
On the plus side, I would be the second developer to join the team, so I'm getting in pretty early, and they have plans for a strong bonus program, once they break even (which probably won't be this year).  I would have a lot of freedom, and a lot of input into the direction of the product and the development process.
My brother works for another smaller company who's founder is also one of the partners on this startup, and he has strongly suggested that I take the job.  From what he's seen at his company (with a common founder) has been great and he really enjoys the culture and effectiveness of the organization.  I am really excited about the opportunity but because it's not a very large salary jump (money being one of the main factors in my job search) I am having a difficult time convincing myself and my wife that this is a good move for us.  We lose the known security and face the unknown.
I feel like I can get in there and help them get more of their product up to speed and get things really rocking that I could really see a possibility for some big returns, both monetarily and in my career, but it's scary to leave the security of a bank for a startup.
I've put together a list of pros and cons, but can you guys give me any additional insight, for or against?
Pros: Quarterly Bonuses (possible) Work from home more Startup culture and opportunities Ground floor, one of the first employees Launching board for my own ideas
Cons Only a little more money then I am making now Small/unstable What if they don't pan out? 30 to 40 more minutes to the daily commute
Thoughts?  Other pros/cons?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> It sounds like a no-brainer: already has paying customers, has enough cash to be offering a Real Salary, and the founders have prior successes.

But the family one is a huge issue. You're probably looking at longer hours, with more uncertainty, and possibly a drop in quality of the health care plan/general benefits. If the home front can't buy into that for the potential upside of a happier + possible bonus-enhanced you, then it's going to be a very stressful situation.

Also, be sure it's a product / technology you like to work on. Every hiring manager I know will tell you you're going to have a lot of "freedom, input into the direction of the product, and the process" - even the several I know at IBM & Microsoft. The caveat to that is, "within the bounds of what we feel are appropriate." If you're making this change just for the freedom, look for something where you're a founder and the technical lead. If you're doing this for a change of pace from the bank and the potential upside/startup experience, then I'd say consider it strongly :-)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wow, my pros and cons lists didn't format well at all! Sorry about that, and sorry for the long post, but I appreciate the comments so far and any other thoughts anyone has.

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER3> You didn't mention any equity, which adds a lot to the possible upside. I was always under the impression that equity was important for early-stage startup employees.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't get any equity in this venture, although there is a certain amount of employee ownership via the company goals and bonus structure. On the other hand, I have some exciting startup ideas of my own and this may be an opportunity to be a launchpad for them, in which case I would retain an appropriate amount of ownership/equity in those circumstances, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I mostly skimmed your long post.

Take the job, or do not take the job. The answer lies in your sense of adventure, not in the details.</comment>


China's Internet Boom Starts to Fade - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-22/as-nasdaq-soars-china-s-alibaba-led-dot-com-boom-starts-to-fade <comment><USER2> "The Shanghai Composite rose 0.7 percent to 3,641.83 at 9:48 a.m. local time, heading for a ninth day of gains, the longest winning streak since 2007."

I like the use of the term "winning streak". No need to pretend it's more than gambling*

I hate articles that perpetuate the notion that share price is the ultimate raison d'etre.

*this is not supposed to be an absolute statement. it is to be taken with a pinch of salt!

<comment><USER3> Supposedly, they are finally cracking down on inside trading and the market will become more of a reliable place to make money without guangxi. So it is more like gambling with fair odds vs. having the cards all stacked against you.

<comment><USER4> >Cracking down on insider trading, no longer needing guangxi

Wumaos are on HN now?

<comment><USER5> Calling a contribution astroturfing is a fairly serious accusation, and signing up a new account to do it shows that I doubt you believe that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wechat is literally used by everyone in remotely major Chinese cities (say all cities with a population of 3+ million) these days. People that meet ask "Do you have wechat?" instead of "What's your phone number?". Sure, it might not generate any money, but suggesting they are fading is absolutely patently false in my experience: they have virtually achieved _total market dominance_.

<comment><USER3> > they have virtually achieved total market dominance.

Of the PRC market.

[http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/enterprises/article...](http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/enterprises/article/1741792/tencent- scraps-wechat-global-expansion-plans)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article is mostly about stock market numbers. Ok, its from Bloomberg.

I don't think its useful to use words like boom and fade when your writing about companies that have been doing well for 10+ years: Alibaba, Sina/Weibo, Tencent, Baidu, Tudou.

Hard to say what kind of future Sina/Weibo and video streaming companies Youku Tudou could have...I guess similar to Twitter and Youtube. Alibaba and Tencent could have a good shot at being world leading banks over the next 10 years among the things they already do well. The stock market may not see its fair shake on these deals, but users in and out of China are getting benefits.

China's Internet companies are growing fine from my perspective as a consumer of online services and as a person building companies here. Software development and management gets better year over year. In the IT space, there seems to be organic evolution of treating employees better. More people are practicing taking risk in creating companies.

<comment><USER3> Bloomberg is blocked in China, so it has to be credible (otherwise, why would the Chinese government block it?).

Most of these internet properties are practically restricted to operating in the sheltered mainland China market, so they'll have a different future from the more international Twitter and Youtube. The Chinese market is cut throat, and all the clones that operate here have super small margins as a result. WeChat announced just this week that they were giving up on international expansion.

The question is: can these services exist in China alone, without the more stable revenue streams that come with a more diverse international market?

> China's Internet companies are growing fine from my perspective as a > consumer of online services and as a person building companies here. > Software development and management gets better year over year. In the IT > space, there seems to be organic evolution of treating employees better. > More people are practicing taking risk in creating companies.

I agree. Gone are the days of making your software developers clock in with time cards and mandatory Saturday work days...well, at least at most companies.

<comment><USER8> > why would the Chinese government block it

So far as I remember, Bloomberg reported some taboos about corruption scandal of The First Family of China.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-china- censorshi...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-china-censorship- bloomberg-idUSBRE86306820120704)

<comment><USER9> That's not completely true. They actually also pulled a very big story to not endanger their financial data business in the country:

\- [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/03/bloomberg- editor...](http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/03/bloomberg-editor-quits- over-china-story-185626.html)

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d121fd70-49f2-11e3-9a21-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d121fd70-49f2-11e3-9a21-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2wtsffALG)

They lost a lot of credibility when covering on Chinese matters due to this incident.

<comment><USER3> Well, to be fair, only CNN isn't blocked now. Everyone else just aren't harmonious enough.

<comment><USER10> Harmony has been replaced by Dream of China already. lol

<comment><USER8> And the New Norm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't think so.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think there is another boom that is fading, a potentially more serious one that is China's housing market. It is flooded with supply. Capital flight to the West, with property developers defaulting on debt, li kai shing (richest HK dude) dumping all his assets in China a while ago. The fading or faltering of the tech sector could be related but who knows, this is a government that likes to keep a blanket over everything.</comment>


Getting started with the IPython Notebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.udemy.com/get-started-with-the-ipython-notebook

<comment><USER2> This is not a link to an article about Python, it is an advertisement for an absurdly expensive commercial course, one that costs US$10 per page, and offers no clue about the quality of the material itself until the customer has paid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absurdly expensive? That's a bit too harsh, don't you think? I'd love to get your thoughts on this one. One thing - $10 per page? Not quite sure I follow you there?

<comment><USER2> > Absurdly expensive? That's a bit too harsh, don't you think?

Compared to what? Compared to this?:

[http://ipython.org/documentation.html](http://ipython.org/documentation.html)

How can my comment be regarded as harsh, when someone is relying on public ignorance of freely available, open-source documentation, written by people in the public interest, to sell a substitute without any chance to preview the materials?

> One thing - $10 per page? Not quite sure I follow you there?

Fair enough:

[http://i.imgur.com/CT8nu5e.png](http://i.imgur.com/CT8nu5e.png)

Which word didn't you understand?

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay. 1) I don't believe I'm relying on public ignorance. I think I'm relying on the fact that a lot of people feel a video-based lecture works better for them, than static documentation.

2) It's not $10 per video. You pay once, and you get the whole course. That's a UX problem with Udemy.

<comment><USER2> > I don't believe I'm relying on public ignorance.

What you believe isn't really compelling, but public ignorance is true force of nature.

> I think I'm relying on the fact that a lot of people feel a video-based > lecture works better for them, than static documentation.

People who sign up for a video course about computer programming very clearly do not understand computer programming. Imagine one of the students applying for a job as an IPython expert and saying, "I took a video course!"

This is not how people learn these kinds of things, in more than a superficial way. But it is a way for businesses to make a lot of money from ignorant people.

> It's not $10 per video. You pay once, and you get the whole course.

False. Each section is $10. Each course heading has a title, a duration, and a requirement for $10. Did you bother to look at the graphic I posted?

> That's a UX problem with Udemy.

I'm sure that a dissatisfied customer will prevail in court, saying, "even though each section was priced separately, I was given to understand that $10 covered everything."

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm pretty sure it's not $10 per section. It's $10 per course. Yes, the fact remains that it's not clear. And yes, I did bother to see the image you posted.

What you say about video course consumers not understanding computer programming - well, you sure have a point. But then again, a _lot_ of good coders take up Coursera courses. You're saying they don't understand programming?

<comment><USER2> > But then again, a lot of good coders take up Coursera courses. You're saying > they don't understand programming?

It speaks to their level of seriousness and dedication. Also, since computer programming isn't conducted by means of video, its teaching can't reasonably be expected to be in that form either. It would be like learning about marriage by watching videos, and then expecting to succeed at the real thing on that basis. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's quote true - but one could also look at the videos as a means to an end, right? Taking the marriage analogy, it's like getting into a live-in, to see how marriage works. But then again, I'm the last guy to talk of relationships!

IMHO, a video course needs more than just videos to get coders to get their hands dirty. Practice problems, or just open-ended assignments. That's something I am working on.

At any rate, thanks, mate. This was a pretty intense and interesting discussion :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


MongoDB rocks my world - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pythonisito.com/2011/10/mongodb-rocks-my-world.html

<comment><USER2> We have been using MongoDB in a production environment for almost a year and half now. It's great but there are some serious issues that you should know about.

1\. writing locks the database. By database I mean the ENTIRE mongodb instance. 2\. a query can only use 1 index at a time. You can create multi key indexes though. 3\. replication is more complicated than it seems. We still have issues with the replication not working correctly when an instance fails. 4\. A limited number of indexes per collection. I think the current limit is 64.

<comment><USER3> Writing does lock the database (or at least the shard), but if the page is in RAM, that means you're locked for the duration of a write to memory, which is inconsequential. The problem comes when you try to write to a page that's not resident. In that case, you can end up (worst case) having to write a dirty page to disk to free up a slot, load the page you _want_ to write, and then write it.

This can be really time-consuming, so one "fix" is to retrieve a document before writing it (thus guaranteeing it will be resident in RAM). More recent versions of MongoDB (2.0 on IIRC) also try to yield the write lock before faulting on write to avoid this problem (though it doesn't work 100% of the time).

Oh, and one other thing to be aware of is that anything that uses the Javascript engine in MongoDB is going to use the spidermonkey global interpreter lock, so you probably want to avoid those things if performance is a concern ($where, .group(), .mapreduce(), etc.)

<comment><USER4> In your best _and_ worst case scenarios for the lock you forgot that MongoDB will also need to write a journal entry by default (1.9.2+).

<comment><USER5> Writing to the journal is actually done outside of the write lock most of the time. It does hold a readlock, however as of 2.0 most commits will release the lock before doing any disk I/O.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been using MongoDB with a custom ad server I built over the summer that is hitting 10,000 impressions per second at peak ties. This is all on one box and it hasn't broken a sweat yet. Because of that positive experience, we have decided to use MongoDB for all future projects instead of MySQL (we make multiplayer games).

<comment><USER7> Nice data point. What is the rest of the stack?

<comment><USER6> Linux, Nginx, PHP

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been using MongoDB for about 5 months now and can say that it is an excellent tool. I've been tinkering with building a very fast search engine for my latest app by combining MongoDB with ElasticSearch and it's been a wonderfully pain-free experience. While I certainly believe in picking the right tool for the job, I don't see myself going back to SQL anytime soon.

<comment><USER8> It's really straight-forward for simple usage. There's no official river for mongoDB, so for now, since I've got very small documents, I just save in MongoDB, and then index an even smaller searchable document in ElasticSearch. My front-end talks to ElasticSearch through a simple node/expressjs route, which was made far simpler by this NPM module -->

<https://github.com/rgrove/node-elastical>

I apologize for using the term "combining" as it's slightly misleading. I actually use ElasticSearch for search functionality only. I use MongoDB for the standard DB stuff (read, update, etc...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> When 10gen finally push out the lock per collection changes, it will improve mongodb significantly. We have a couple of collections that are heavy write, and a couple of others that are heavy read, and we can't run them on the same instance due to lock contention - we have to run two separate mongod processes, because the global lock kills performance.

As long as you understand that issue, you can work around it, and there are future changes coming that will address it so that will be fantastic

</comment><comment><USER10> I REALLY want to try mongo for a side project I am building, however the single server durability is an issue. My data could easily fit in mysql/postgres however I am storing data that fits better in a document store. I am inclined to just use postgres for now because it's sort of silly to set up/pay for multiple servers for such a small project.

UPDATE: Apparently my information is out of date. Hopefully my confusion (and the answers below) helps someone else. Thanks.

<comment><USER3> MongoDB has single server durability since 1.8 with the journal. If you put the journal on an SSD, you can even get it almost for free performance-wise.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I guess I should make the point that if you _don't_ put the journal on SSD (and you only need a few gigs of SSD to journal terabytes of spinning disk storage), you _will_ see significant slowdown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Only thing I don't like with MongoDB/Node is that it requires a VPS and can't be deployed on a shared hosting environment. Or is there a company that can host MongoDB/Node combination at an affordable price today?

<comment><USER12> dotCloud runs a fully replicated MongoDB _along with your entire application_ \- no need for a separate add-on provider.

<http://docs.dotcloud.com/services/mongodb/></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many of you upvote before reading? - <AUTHOR>

Just curious, do many of you upvote HN links before actually opening and reading them? If yes, is it based on the author, domain or just the headline? Do you sometimes feel sorry you upvoted after readingthe link? <comment><USER2> Yes, I upvote links that I would like to see the community talk about, even if I haven't yet read the article, and in rare cases if I don't even plan on reading it. Of course this differs case-by-case, but I use my vote to stimulate conversation.

Like teej said, often the comments are more valuable than the link.

</comment><comment><USER3> An upvote/upmod is also called a "save." If you look in your profile, you can see all of the submissions you have upmodded under "saved stories." There have been a couple times where I glance at a story, know it's interesting and something I want to read later, and upmod it to save it for later.

<comment><USER4> Instapaper is your best friend. It'll avoid upvoting links unnecessarily and allow you to read stuff later perfectly fine.

<comment><USER5> Once you read the story in Instapaper it can be a pain to find it again on HN and upvote it though.

<comment><USER4> I save the HN post itself, not the endlink. It's better in case you want to comment rather than go straight to the article. And since you saved the HN link, you can always easily navigate to the article later. I don't read in instapaper itself, I go direct to link. Instapaper is just a really efficient bookmarking tool for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is anyone going to admit to this?

I have done it before, rarely, but only on new submissions if the article sounds interesting enough to deserve some traction.

<comment><USER7> I'll openly admit to it. The comments on Hacker News are more valuable than the link itself. I will upvote a link with a good discussion often without ever reading the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I try and give any genuine "Show HN"/Need Feedback links an upvote. I also always check them out but I'm sure I've upvoted first only to find out it was "Show HN Spam" if there is such a thing.

</comment><comment><USER9> Never, but I only upvote 2 or 3 stories a day. Comments, I'll admit I occasionally upvote them before finishing them if they make a very good point in the first half. Occasionally I've wanted to take it back because they made a completely unnecessary snarky remark at the end of it, but not often.

However, that does lead me to point out that I think the upvote/downvote arrows and the user's name should be at the bottom of a comment instead of the top.

</comment><comment><USER10> _Almost_ never. I don't care who the HN member is, so that doesn't play into it. The only time I'll upvote something without clicking on it is if I read the article from another source previously. Usually the headline matches or is close to the original piece, a quick glance at the domain, and a hover over the headline to verify the url will do it. At most, I think I do this maybe 3x a week at most.

</comment><comment><USER11> I sometimes upvote an article before I finished reading it and then I want to take it back when I realize it wasn't up to HN standard.

<comment><USER12> You mean when it wasn't up to _your_ standard?

The total number of upvotes on an article determines what the wider HN community thinks of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a rare condition when I upvote before reading.. but I do it from a time to another.. if I find something exciting.

</comment><comment><USER14> I sometimes upvote comments halfway through reading, but I don't do that with articles.

(I confess I upvote only a _very_ few articles)</comment>


On the Internet, a university without a campus - <AUTHOR> http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/25/technology/university.4-415520.php

<comment><AUTHOR> This is very similar to the (eventual) grand vision I had for ezLearnz, a project I worked on for a while. What is interesting is the revenue model: $15-$50 for enrollment to a given course, and $10 to $100 for the exams. (I assume this is on a per-course basis.) With my project, we were considering a $9.99/month tuition, regardless of the number of courses one takes or how long it takes to finish a given course.

<comment><USER2> That is an interesting business model. Because my oldest son is in the Stanford University EPGY Online High School

<http://epgy.stanford.edu/ohs/>

at the moment, I'm curious about the social model of the online college even more than I am about the economic model. The article refers to

<http://www.cramster.com/>

as an example of a successful online community. I get the impression that any online education provider will be successful or not largely to the degree that it builds a student community (and, for minor learners subject to compulsory instruction laws, a parent community too).

<comment><AUTHOR> > I get the impression that any online education provider will be successful > or not largely to the degree that it builds a student community (and, for > minor learners subject to compulsory instruction laws, a parent community > too).

Very much agree. One feature we thought up was (partially) refunding tuition fees for those students who create content to help fellow students (or those a class/chapter/unit behind them).

<comment><USER2> _One feature we thought up was (partially) refunding tuition fees for those students who create content to help fellow students (or those a class/chapter/unit behind them)._

That's a very interesting idea. I've been looking for learning environments that encourage learners to be collaborative rather than cut-throat competitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why is it a good idea to charge the 2B+ people around the world earning $2 a day the equivalent of a week's wages to enroll in a class and the equivalent of a month's wages to take a test?

<comment><USER4> A relatively equivalent question to ask is why does my University costs are equal to nearly 1.5x the Avg US yearly salary?

It's an investment, like property, that can't easily be foreclosed on.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From another article, this is the website of the venture: <http://www.UoPeople.org>

</comment><comment><USER5> Does it have to be a non-profit?</comment>


Charles Carreon finally quits fighting, calls Oatmeal battle "a dumb thing" - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/charles-carreon-withdraws-final-appeal-says-entire-affair-was-a-dumb-thing/

<comment><USER2> "he suggested that his Buddhist religion can help him forgive those who have wronged him."

Hmm, anyone care to count how many points he fails to get on the Eightfold Noble Path[0] scale during this incident?

He goes on to complain that potential clients Google him and they don't get to see what a great guy he is. I would argue that the current Google search results give potential clients all of the information they require to make an informed decision when considering him as legal representation.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Noble_Path](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Noble_Path)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't believe this guy. His original filing was ridiculous, and now he thinks he is a victim? He talks about all the books he has written and how smart he is, and yet all the evidence I see in this whole situation doesn't really speak to that intelligence.

I am glad he has finally dropped everything. Some charities even got some funds from the situation so I guess it wasn't all bad.

</comment><comment><USER4> "I'm always learning."

Is it just me, or does he seem to have taken every situation and learnt the wrong lesson? Perhaps it's not everybody else that's the problem...

"If somebody is making me do stuff by suing me, sure, it's taking a bite out of my time."

Looks like he failed to learn what irony is, too.</comment>


Why I'm sick to death of being a woman in tech - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nikkidurkin99/why-im-sick-to-death-of-being-a-woman-in-tech-5a38e8b77e59?source=tw-552efa9e6b51-1411336687260

<comment><USER2> I think there are two additional elements other than her being a woman for all she described, that probably contribute as much: she's young, and attractive. The former alone is enough for most of her examples to work equally with male recipients. In fact, I've seen some of them (or similar situations) happen to males.

Not that I want to downsize the problem women in tech face, but this not, actually, _only_ a gender problem. And, let's face it, it's not only a tech problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a good perspective -- pointing out e.g. how when the media even tries to report on how casual sexism affect the industry, it usually mangles the real issues beyond recognition. The title doesn't really do the article justice.</comment>


Apple and Google - Tale of 2 photos from Tim Cook  - <AUTHOR> http://abhijitdhakne.blogspot.com/2012/03/apple-and-google-tale-of-2-photos-from.html

<comment><USER2> I may be missing the point of this article, but shouldn't we be comparing the SAME APP on two platforms, rather than two different apps?</comment>


Ask HN: What makes a good job description? - <AUTHOR>

Doing some research for my next project. What I am looking for are opinions from both sides of the desk. Please feel free to add things not listed, to rank things, and to just comment freely.
If you are looking for a job, what do you find to be the most important part of a job description?
If you are a hiring manager, what do you find to be the key elements of what you are trying to communicate to a prospective employee? And what do you find to be the most effective way of triggering a good response?
Some things that seem to go in most postings
    Specific skills needed
    Location
    Salary
    Company personality
    Environment
    Benefits
    Posted by recruiter or actual company
    Etc...
Thanks! <comment><USER2> This article on HN this morning (and the comments on HN and the post itself) gives a lot of great indirect insight into this topic: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3404437></comment>


How the Oxford Comma Saved Overtime Pay - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@CyberStockroom/how-the-oxford-comma-saved-overtime-pay-18efc46955ef <comment><USER2> It's not as clear as one might think. Here is an extensive discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13893870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13893870) (238 comments)

A few extra comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13886467](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13886467) (6 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13879156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13879156) (1 comment)

And many submissions with no discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13897279](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13897279)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13893537](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13893537)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891064](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891064)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13889363](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13889363)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13886530](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13886530)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13884709](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13884709)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh wow I didn't realize there were this many conversations! I wrote this article based almost exclusively on the Judge's ruling so I hope that it's pretty accurate despite the sensationalist headline :)</comment></comment>


How to Tell if Your Teen is Browsing Adult Sites - <AUTHOR> http://www.lockergnome.com/net/2012/05/01/how-to-tell-your-teen-is-browsing-adult-sites/

<comment><USER2> The internet _is_ for porn. Why do you care?</comment>


EU committee approves new rules that could 'destroy the internet as we know it' - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html <comment><USER2> This submission is a violation of this law.

Flagged for piracy.</comment>


Lithium battery explosion mid-flight prompts passenger warning - <AUTHOR> https://news.aviation-safety.net/2017/03/14/lithium-battery-explosion-mid-flight-prompts-passenger-warning/ <comment><USER2> HN Guidelines say "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter" [1].

This is the original source: [http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news- items/2017/battery-expl...](http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news- items/2017/battery-explosion-mid-flight/)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I recently saw a youtube video of a lithium battery in a laptop catching fire randomly in a home and I started to think about all the laptops that get brought on planes. This article is about batteries in a pair of headphones catching fire, but it's the same idea. It seems like statistically all these batteries getting brought on planes is bound to eventually cause incidents like the one in this article. It's a little worrying...

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that they don't mention the airline. I'd like to know which airline uses a bucket of water to handle a battery fire instead of something like [http://www.allhandsfire.com/Fire-Containment- Bag](http://www.allhandsfire.com/Fire-Containment-Bag)</comment>