Crony capitalism may be cannibalizing productive capitalism in the U.S. - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-21/the-wrong-kind-of-entrepreneurs-flourish-in-america <comment><USER3> I think the great problem of our time is that the challenges get easier to solve every day but we mostly spend our time making rent. And not the kind of rent mentioned in the article - just plain old fashioned too-much-month-not- enough-money kind of rent. When we're desperate, we grovel and do whatever work we need to to survive. This is akin to how researchers spend inordinate amounts of time applying for grants rather than, you know, saving the world and all that. This is because any free capital in the economy gets vacuumed up by a few large players who only divvy it out through "sanctioned" channels that most people no longer have access to.

In the olden days, the main force balancing this was taxation. Even if you look at it as a purely zero-sum game, any money paid by the very wealthy had to go somewhere, and that somewhere was the masses. This didn't sit right with the very wealthy and they rigged the system to such a degree that I've never seen an appreciable tax increase in my lifetime, even in the face of trillion dollar deficits and the loss of the middle class in the US. Mathematically, trickle-down economics has given us just exactly the system it was designed to. I mourn for the millions (billions) of people left out, but for whatever reason a lot of people don't even see them.

Maybe the great problem of our time is ignorance..

<comment><USER4> \- There is plenty of free capital in the economy. More than ever really. To the point that the "capital glut" is a regular topic of discussion in economic news.

\- I don't know how old you are but both Clinton and Obama significantly increased taxes on the rich. Federal tax receipts as a % of GDP are fairly constant going back to WW2.

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S)

<comment><USER5> First that graph shows a huge range of rates. Just 2000 vs 2004 is a 22% drop, but even that's just federal rates. Total government spending is the only meaningful metric when state, local, and federal funds are all taken out of your paycheck.

Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The rate from 1982 was higher than either Clinton or Obama rates. And 1982 was below the rate from 1932 to 1981. Compare US GDP growth and a high top marginal rate seems to promote growth, though there are many ways to slice and dice these numbers.

<comment><USER4> 1) I expect that if we included state and local taxes the story would be much the same, though I don't have a graph handy. You could be right I suppose.

2) I think we mostly agree here. There have definitely been meaningful changes both up and down (on the order of 20%) over the years depending on both economic and political changes. However, when you look over a 50 year timespan (everything post WW2 basically), you don't really see a meaningful longitudinal change. To me this refutes the OPs point about taxation being meaningfully different in the "olden days."

<comment><USER5> 2) He was not talking about total recites. And the top tax rates are a very different story: [https://www.cch.com/WBOT2013/029IncomeTaxRates.asp](https://www.cch.com/WBOT2013/029IncomeTaxRates.asp)

PS: IMO, a ~1 to 2% AMT on all wealth per year would be incredibly beneficial. But, there is currently about zero chances of that ever happening.

<comment><USER4> My understanding is that those top marginal rates didn't matter as much as you might think because they mostly shifted forms of compensation. The data we'd really want to investigate this question is what % of taxes were paid by various income groups (top .1%, 1%, 5%, 10%) over time. See how much that share has changed with various policy changes.

I can't seem to find a relevant graph on fred.stlouisfed.org though. :(

<comment><USER6> ntu.org has some recent data. In general, federal income tax has gotten more progressive since the 50s. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. [http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income- taxes](http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a theory that _all_ above market profits are generated by government granted monopolies.

So, for instance, software is protected by patents, oil and gas is protected by mineral rights, drugs are protected by patent law, entertainment is protected by IP rights, and so on.

In so far as there is competition, it often arises when the rent-seeking motivates people to disrupt the government protection by making it useless.

In software, people have lived with that since the beginning because it moves so fast. But even in slow moving fields like energy, we see new tech rendering the old protections less important.

I am not saying society has not paid a steep price for rent seeking behavior but that it has been part and parcel of all capitalism forever, and not unique to the American experience.

<comment><USER8> That theory falls under the Econ 101 fallacy -- assuming perfect information dispersal, instant job-switching, instant production ramping..

"First, let's assume the cow is a sphere".

<comment><USER9> > "First, let's assume the cow is a sphere".

It is worse than that, because at least physics is validated by experimental data.

Much of (macro in particular) Economics is a set of axioms that are seldom predictive.

<comment><USER10> And yet, people swear by them as though they have the same validity as physics. I never really understood that mentality.

<comment><USER11> Because the monopolies have exerted pressure on public education, including universities, to churn out advocates for the corporations bottom line.

With no basis in reality, we've brainwashed people to believe the bottom lines of the elite are to be protected. That's the outcome sought of our educational system.

It fascinates me how, on the one hand, we complain about how lazy people are. How much inducement the proles need. "Oh they're just lazy. Push em harder."

If we need to push people that hard, perhaps "economy of effort" is built into the species. It's a weird cognitive dissonance.

"They want something for nothing! But I want to maintain my elite status built upon your efforts!"

But that challenges the basis of elite power. If we all quit producing for them, they lose. So we're "induced to produce" under the constraints they define: no food, shelter, healthcare.

<comment><USER10> This is unfortunately too close to the truth. One thing I would like to add though is that despite the fruits of labor accruing disproportionately to the elite, the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? So the system does work, and I wonder what would happen if it was changed to be more egalitarian....

<comment><USER12> > the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right?

By some measures, all of which fail to account for the fact that relative deprivation is a substantial source of experienced disutility.

<comment><USER10> Its true, but I'm not sure whether I would choose to be born in a Cholera ridden mid 1850's London or the Ghettos of Inner-City Houston today. We've solved some problems and now face others of course, but my question is whether the earlier problems were of a different kind...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does it seem to anyone else that the finance industry is increasingly distracted from actually matching up capital to fundamentally productive companies, especially new companies?

Looking at the stock market, there are few IPOs, and after IPO, being public only provides access to limited access vis issuance of new stock...

Some capital flows to VCs, but it seems the more capital flows to large VC funds, the more the criteria becomes look for a sure thing and filter more for large scale opportunities - all while small scale fundamental development receives poor access to the vast amount of capital sloshing around (and settling in places like unused real estate...).

To me it seems that investment in direct development of productive tech and/or process is competing against profitability of short term financial manipulation - and causing a drop in overall delivery of new productivity improvements to the general economy. But even further, the very financial industry isn't really creating or maintaining a channel for money to open opportunities to develop that kind of company - certainly not a large scale needed or possible today.

<comment><USER14> >Does it seem to anyone else that the finance industry is increasingly distracted from actually matching up capital to fundamentally productive companies, especially new companies?

This is somewhat controversial to posit, but I believe the corruption in the financial industry is extraordinarily entrenched because of the Fed. Before you call me a lunatic, smart and good people from Aaron Schwartz to Sanders have said things like this: that it should be eliminated, or that it is nothing more than socialism for the rich while hurting the poor.

The most obvious problem with it is that it creates astronomical moral hazard by protecting and guaranteeing the big banks.

After the Fin Crisis Krugman was talking a lot about making banking boring again, and run like utility companies. You can still have VCs, hedge funds, or whatever you want--but it's not funded by and guaranteed with anything other than the money you put in it, and it's separated from vanilla banking, ie Glass Steagall.

But then we had Dodd Frank and sometime after Krugman never went back to talking about that again.

Unfortunately, the dogma about the Fed is so entrenched in mainstream economics--so much so that speaking against it is immediately written-off.

Nearly 1.5 centuries ago, all the banks were actually betting against Lincoln to lose his war. So he used the constitutionally-granted right to print the nation's own currency, and won the war with it. The point is, there's no reason we can't do this if we really wanted to (and if you care about poor and working class, and eliminating cronyism from the world, you should want to).

<comment><USER15> You're saying we should get rid of the financial industry? What, because we're all so good at managing our own money?

Guaranteeing the big banks can't fail is how we keep the economy going. If a bank fails, everyone that is owed money by that bank fails too. Is that acceptable? Would you be fine with your employer going belly up because the bank they rely on can't pay out money?

<comment><USER16> Guaranteeing the big banks can't fail is a source of moral hazard, removing the cost of being wrong from those taking the risk and transferring it to the general public. Make the banks responsible for the negative consequences of their actions with no potential for bailout, and watch their behavior change.

<comment><USER14> This is exactly right.

Just to address the above poster: vanilla banking could still be guaranteed. By contrast, in essence the Fed is guaranteeing the banks' risky investments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was 20, naively unaware of the ways of the real world, and nearly overnight, I lost everything and everyone I cherished in my life.

Over the next 6 months, it slowly dawned on me that those who survive and thrive are those willing to screw other people over for their own benefit without as much as blinking an eye, as long as it suits them.

"This is the way of the world", I thought to myself.

Over the next decade, I focused, and worked my ass off. On my way up, I encountered countless more rich, successful and morally bankrupt individuals, and the higher I go, the more sophisticated the moral bankruptcy gets.

To be fair, it's not the fault of a lot of these individuals. Some of them genuinely do not comprehend the consequences of their actions - it just doesn't cross their mind. Instead, the fault lies with a system that not only enables but promotes this kind of behavior to the very top, without an effective counter-balancing weight on the other end. And we are the custodians of the system, we are the ones who shape it on a daily basis, by the actions that we take, the investments that we make, and the kind of relationships that we build.

<comment><USER18> I agree, but can we honestly put all the blame on those at the top.

Many of of us in the middle and at the bottom are just as complicit. We go to work for companies we know make the world a worse place, we work under horrible people and hand them part of the value we create every week.

Those in the middle and below do not have as much power as those on the top as an individual, but as a collective we have much more power. We can sit down and choose not to work, we can choose not to contribute to certain companies or to certain individuals.

We can say "NO!" But most do not because money. The same reason those at the top do immoral/awful things are the same reasons those in the middle and below do immoral/awful things (those at the top just have a bigger impact).

And some of those in the middle that just accept the status quo because "I've got a mortgage! I've gotta eat! I made these crappy kids and now I have to do awful things so they can eat!" will go on to be those at the top who continue the same behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many of our regulatory bodies have been utterly captured by biggest companies that they are supposed to regulate, and they are tamping down innovation (which creates jobs), increasing prices, and decreasing quality. Both the Democrats and Republicans have been engaging too heavily in crony capitalism for decades, and this is the result.

How it works: Regulations that are supposed to protect the public end up being a cudgel with which to beat down small companies that can't afford to deal with an onslaught of often unjustified demands for regulatory compliance. When the only companies who can afford to comply are the big ones, it squeezes out new market entrants. This decreases competition. It's bad for all but a handful of people.

How it should work: Generally (not always), there should be a direct relationship between company size and the amount of regulations which apply (i.e. more regulations as you get bigger, fewer if you're small).

We need a heavy injection of honesty into our regulatory agencies. Restoring balance to the system would unleash a wave of economic growth.

When I was shilling for Senator Sanders in 2015 and 2016, I often said that I was equally excited for both his policies and the fact that he would make a lot of good appointments, which would clean a lot of crap out the rent-seeking regulatory system, which would be great for the economy.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait. But I hope this gets on more people's radars as one of the reasons why the middle class has been shrinking and real incomes going down for four straight decades.

<comment><USER20> Regulatory capture, advertently or inadvertently, is one of the elephants in the healthcare room. I'm tired of all the discussion (on both sides) totally ignoring this issue.

<comment><USER21> Healthcare is a vehicle to serve another agenda. That is the problem.

It doesn't matter if insurance is private or public if the costs of healthcare are too high. I don't see why there is no compromise. It's very bad for the future of this country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Good idea. Weak article. The HBR article cited [1] is an obituary for William Baumol. Baumol is associated more with the "cost disease" problem - <USER2> productivity industries shrink over time, as their market saturates. Agriculture and manufacturing in the US have great productivity, and are constantly shrinking employment while increasing output. US manufacturing output is at an all-time high, but is down to 8.1% of the labor force. Agriculture is at 1.4%.[2] So business growth has to be in low-productivity sectors, with low wages. That's cost disease.

If you want to read about rent seeking, read Peter Theil's "Zero to One". It's a manual on rent-seeking. It's all about how to create a monopoly.

Changing Government policy to reduce rent-seeking is very tough politically. Successful rent-seekers are the biggest political contributors. They pay to not have their income stream cut off.

[1] [https://hbr.org/2017/06/is-america-encouraging-the-wrong- kin...](https://hbr.org/2017/06/is-america-encouraging-the-wrong-kind-of- entrepreneurship) [2] [https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm](https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm)

<comment><USER23> But cost disease can, at most, account for growth in prices that follows the growth in salary paid to the most productive professions, no? Because if so the price increase of health care and college (which is the two big expenditures) _cannot_ be explained by cost-disease alone, as they have both grown much higher than salaries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's interesting to me how this article frames crony capitalism as a use or abuse of government by corporations, almost as if the government is a victim. But it's the government that has all of the power in this context. There's something to be said for corporate money influencing elections, but even there it's elected officials who are deciding on policies after getting there, and if they are making decisions based on how to most easily keep their job (ex. take corporate money for reelection campaign), that's their unethical doing, not the corporations.

<comment><USER25> Knowingly providing incentives for people to do something unethical is itself unethical.

The corporations aren't blameless here.

<comment><USER26> Indeed, this is even outlined in the infamous Powell memo: "Business must learn the lesson ... that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business." [1]

[1] [http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to- arms...](http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for- corporations/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From the article:

>"Because it's just a transfer from one person to another, rent doesn't necessarily make an economy less efficient -- it's just often unfair. "

I would argue that "rent" does make the market more inefficient. The more rent these companies can extract from consumers the larger their lobbying budget and the more campaign donations they can make at all level of government.

Political lobbying is the biggest and most effective tool used by crony capitalists.

<comment><USER28> problem is with political system, lobbying and campaign contributions!

<comment><USER29> Although privileges granted by the State to "crony capitalists" excarberates issues, I do not consider it the root of issues, and to me, capitalism would have the same issues even without a government, or with minimal government. I think we're fixing the wrong part of the bottleneck by arguing for a completely free market.

<comment><USER28> we don't have capitalism in US we have corporationism. free market would have been a good thing before automation and AI, but it won't work for the future. but you can't convince people to go toward socialism in this country. but left and right agree that problem is crony capitalism ! let's start from there and do something!!!

<comment><USER27> >"free market would have been a good thing before automation and AI, but it won't work for the future."

Can you elaborate on this? I am curious to hear why those two things - a free market and AI are mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER28> because in a society when most of people don't need to work because there is nothing to do for them. you can't compete by working, you can compete by the amount of your capital. for example if you use robots to produce X, the only way I can compete with you is having more or better robots (there would be still competition on building better robots as long as people making robots and AIs not AIs generating more AIs). in such a word most of people don't contribute to the economy, allocating resources based on amount of work or capital is going to leave most of society without any resources! free market is still going to be helpful in making AI and Robot owners compete, but they shouldn't be the sole benefactor of robot's work!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think that these issues are getting a lot of attention recently. A lot of people feel that their jobs are not meaningful anymore and that they cannot find any meaningful work that pays well.

Most of the jobs that pay well are zero-sum games. Finance, tech, law. Even medicine and pharmaceuticals are becoming zero-sum games (e.g companies boosting drug prices because it's easier than inventing new ones).

People have become cynical and distrustful towards each other and the system. We have lost touch with our old values.

I'm surprised that society can continue to function under these conditions.

In this zero-sum economy, we are all enemies of each other.

<comment><USER31> Thats why we need space colonization. We as a species are programmed to expand. We have become stagnant in the last 100 years.

<comment><USER32> _We have become stagnant in the last 100 years._

Are you serious? Do you know how much mankind has accomplished since 1917?

<comment><USER33> They should go to India, or China, or Vietnam, or Nigeria, and, with a straight face, tell people there that we've become stagnant over the last century.

<comment><USER30> That's actually a very good point. Globalization has been great for developing countries and terrible for developed countries. People from developing countries have a much better life outlook as a result.

As a westerner, I am much worse off than my parents were and so my perception of life is very cynical. The lifestyle that I had in my childhood and the idea of life which my parents projected onto me was so much better than today's reality. It's quite a depressing feeling.

<comment><USER32> _I am much worse off than my parents_

OK, let's assume you're 30 and your parents were ~30 when they had you. That means your parents spent their 15-30's during the 1970's. What were the 1970's like in the US (yes, I'm assuming you're American)?

Absolute crap.

Post-Vietnam with everyone wondering whether or not the US was done as a superpower. A humiliating withdrawal from a war that killed 50,000 Americans. Stagflation, with inflation in the teens and unemployment 3x what it is today. Want to buy a house? Sign on the dotted line for a 17% mortgage. Oil embargoes/energy crisis and line ups for gasoline. "General Malaise". Serious crime problems in cities and a decaying inner city. Race riots in recent memory. Watergate scandal and a disgraced President who relinquishes office.

I think it's silly to think our parents had it better.

<comment><USER33> It was followed by the 80s and the 90s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Just to kick off some discussion. Do you guys think that the shift from on- prem to SaaS is indicative of a move towards rent extraction?

<comment><USER35> Not necessarily as overhead operational costs are lowered with the SaaS model and that's not true 'rent'. Licensing fees would be considered 'rent' but obviously necessary as a motivator for production.

<comment><USER36> Isn't that a case of "get everyone hooked then raise the prices"? How much is pricing currently subsidized by VC and early access promotions (like GCP, AWS, Uber) which will go away over the next ~10 years.

<comment><USER10> AWS is currently minting money. Amazon and Google don't offer no subsidies, Amazon at least, invests all its profits back into the business, which is def not a subsidy in any sense of the term.

As the competition heats up and providers become more efficient, I actually expect prices to go down even further.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> "Crony" is so often followed by "capitalism", but it's really just cronyism that's the issue. You can find it in capitalism and you can find it in government. But they go best hand-in-hand. I'd argue that most crony capitalism is made possible only because they can leverage the monopolistic power of their crony allies in government for mutual gain.

<comment><USER38> I hear frequently the argument that crony capitalism is not really capitalism. And how "real capitalism" would work wonderfully.

That always remember me, how, when you argue with a communist, frequently those examples that you bring to the conversation are never "real communism".

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Sometimes the government allows companies to get a certain amount of rent -- > for example, the royalties from patents, which we protect in an attempt to > encourage innovation.

This is the classic, maybe _the_ reason given to justify patents. The implication being that no one would bother innovating if patents didn't grant them rent for a time.

But I wonder if the reality is merely that _different_ people, and different _kinds_ of people, would innovate in a patent-free world.

<comment><USER40> The problem is not the concept, but the current application. And that is not even a construct of the law as written, but the courts application of said law.

Patents started out as a 20 year protection on mechanical mechanisms or chemical processes as long as what was protected was publicly documented in full. Thus once the patent had run out, anyone could replicate it from the patent document.

But then the chemical process side used to argue for a quasi-software patent in court, because the patent described a computer monitored mixing process. And thus the ball got rolling.

Thing is though that 20 years is a very long time when we are talking software. By the time the RSA patent ran out, the algorithm described was largely obsolete.

On top of that we have gotten a mass of patents that are so generic in terminology, that even if they describe something mechanical they can potentially be applied to something done in software.

Not that patents have not been a problem even before computers. Serious refinements of the steam engine for example didn't happen until after the initial patent ran out.

Similarly Smith and Weston sat on their refinements for the Colt revolver until the patent ran out.

<comment><USER41> > Patents started out as a 20 year protection on mechanical mechanisms or > chemical processes as long as what was protected was publicly documented in > full.

1) Patents are not an American invention. England had them before, and the Romans before that.

2) I'll assume you implied U.S. patents. The Founders regarded patents so highly that they wrote them into the U.S. Constitution. It was written generically and not limited or fixed to only "mechanical or chemical" but rather "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

> Thing is though that 20 years is a very long time when we are talking > software. By the time the RSA patent ran out, the algorithm described was > largely obsolete.

RSA patent expired nearly 20 years ago yet RSA is still used today. For example, the public key used to secure [https://news.ycombinator.com](https://news.ycombinator.com) is RSA.

> Not that patents have not been a problem even before computers. Serious > refinements of the steam engine for example didn't happen until after the > initial patent ran out. > > Similarly Smith and Weston sat on their > refinements for the Colt revolver until the patent ran out.

The myth is that patents block innovation. The reality is that blocking someone from doing something incentives them to find another way to do it. Afterall, if all you want to do is copy then how is that "blocking innovation"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> You can't get $10k to start a hot dog stand but you can get billions of dollars with literally no plan for profit if you're already rich or seeking VC. But want to start a normal business? No capital for you! And your taxes will pay for the banks and VCs when they screw up.

<comment><USER43> I get that this is hyperbole, but:

1\. There are plenty of US Government (i.e. tax payer funded) programs to help people get "normal" ideas off the ground. From grants, to loans, the money is there. It's hard to imagine someone destined for success being stopped by not being able to raise $10k. $10k in credit card debt is nothing for the average american.

2\. Success breeds success. If you're rich, you may already have your own skin in the game, or you may have proven yourself capable of using capital effectively.

<comment><USER44> > 1\. There are plenty of US Government (i.e. tax payer funded) programs to > help people get "normal" ideas off the ground. From grants, to loans, the > money is there. It's hard to imagine someone destined for success being > stopped by not being able to raise $10k. $10k in credit card debt is nothing > for the average american.

You've obviously never tried this. It would be a full-time job for a year to even have a shot at these supposed grants. The money is absolutely not there the way you claim.

The younger you are the less credit history you have which makes getting loans almost impossible unless you already have collateral to pledge against the loan.

Oh and $10k is often not nearly enough capital to start a business since you need to pay your own bills while you bootstrap the business. We get away with it in tech often because we have the luxury of working after-hours as a side- project to start with. A customer-facing business can't do that.

<comment><USER43> > It would be a full-time job for a year to even have a shot at these supposed > grants.

How bad do you want to start a business?

How long do you think startup founders work before having something that is worthy for seed funding?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The only way this will end is limits on campaign contributions and other kinds of bribery. The returns on lobbying are astronomical compared to the returns on productivity improvements.

<comment><USER46> I think the linchpin is actually our voting system. It strongly encourages the existence of only two parties that are always trying to split the difference, and that's the scenario which is very friendly to institutional bribery and regulatory capture.

<comment> Paul-ish Countries with a system that allows for many parties still end up forming coalitions though. It isn't clear that the problem goes away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The concept of "crony capitalism" is a misnomer. "Crony" is not a type of capitalism, it's the antithesis of capitalism. It's enabled by giving too much power to government.

For example. When insurance companies jack-up rates or impose customer "unfriendly" terms, they are not acting within the "free market." They are exploiting "crony'esque" rules that limit competition by restricting insurance companies from competing across state-lines.

<comment><USER25> Crony capitalism is not a misnomer, its the endgame of all capitalists. When people have the resources to buy a regulatory advantage, of course they are going to do so; that's just capitalism at its 'finest'.

<comment><USER47> It's not the endgame of all capitalists. Actual capitalists, limited in number as they are, prefer free markets (e.g. no cronyism) because they'll make more money that way over time.

Opportunists are the ones who thrive when things are rigged. They can't survive on their own.

But yes, many capitalists (and non-capitalists alike) "buy" regulatory advantages.

Some leverage their dollars (buying) Some leverage their numbers (voting)

These groups enable eachother. Motives range from "defense" (virtuous) to "offense" (sinister).

You will find no practical solution to this problem other than starving the beast (decentralizing power away from government).

<comment><USER48> > Actual capitalists, limited in number as they are, prefer free markets (e.g. > no cronyism) because they'll make more money that way over time.

Citation needed.

<comment><USER47> You doubt people act in their rational self-interest?

Smart, hard-working people who consistently exercise good judgement, prefer merit-based systems.

They do better in merit-based systems than systems that reward those who are born lucky, who have access, or who cheat and lie.

Is a citation really needed?

<comment><USER12> > You doubt people act in their rational self-interest?

Yes the rational choice model is well-established to be false.

They may act in their _perceived_ self-interest, but _rational_ self-interest involves a lot more than that.

<comment><USER49> > Yes the rational choice model is well-established to be false.

Citation? I hear this a lot, and it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the word "rational" in this context, which I believe is supposed to mean "perceived" \- how else would you objectively define rational?

Is it rational for a thirsting person to prefer gatorade to water (it is for them, if that's the choice they want to make)? Do you have more perfect information to justify your opinion on the matter as more "rational"?

<comment><USER12> Rational choice theory holds that actual behavior will be that which maximizes utility (in it's simple form), and expected (in the Bayesian probability sense) utility (in the more complex version addressing uncertainty.)

"Rationality" refers specifically to this mathematical optimization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The choice of title is interesting, if a bit misleading, so I'm gonna run with this. It's often suggested that there are two types of capitalism: one productive, competitive and free -- the other gripped with cronyism, protectionism, and exploitation. I don't buy that. There is just one type of capitalism, and while at times it may look more like one or the other of these poles, it always tends toward the latter: monopolistic, state-sanctioned "crony capitalism" that puts allows business owners to prioritize their own profits over the collective good. That's not to say that the sky is always falling: Scandinavian countries enjoy healthy markets and don't have absurd corporate welfare, for instance, it's just that the incentives for "good capitalists" to become cronyists are always present.

The problem with the "two types" thinking is that it is always in a person's a person's best interest to get something for free. Ironically, this rhetoric is often used by capitalists, fearful that leftism might become effective, by claiming their opponents are the ones who want free stuff. There are lots of ways to get things for free. For instance, you can steal your workers time and fail to compensate them (common in fast food), you can coerce a government into cooperation ("We'll move to India if you don't give us the tax breaks") or you can campaign to get your friends into the government.

The fallacy of libertarianism is a belief that capitalists don't want a state mechanism with the power to tax and regulate. That is exactly what capitalists want. They're given state protection via a police or military force, state welfare through tax write-offs and incentives, power and influence in crafting legislation that fits your worldview, and less turbulent markets due to stifling of demand. The alternative is Hobbes' "short, nasty, brutish" life - duking it out eternally trying to achieve efficiency instead of excess, competing endlessly, only to profit in the slightest.

It's often said that "it's in our nature to be competitive" but it's also in our nature to be cooperative, and corporations display this fact amazingly well- they use collective influence and power in numbers to achieve ends that small businesses never could. Until people outside of that system learn to cooperate well enough to bargain for their own interests (e.g. Labor movements), it's going to be smooth sailing for the "crony" capitalists.

</comment><comment><USER43> I read the opening paragraph, them skimmed through the rest of the article looking for concrete examples of "Wrong Kind" of Entrepreneurs.

I have a hard time imagining tech entreprenuers are the "wrong kind."

They may disrupt by circumventing the law, but I don't buy the argument that they're not producing something of value in return.

<comment><USER51> If someone has to violate the law to produce value, then it is likely that they haven't really "produced" any value. More likely they are simply stealing from the commons.

<comment><USER43> > If someone has to violate the law to produce value, then it is likely that > they haven't really "produced" any value.

Imagine you created an app that allowed Gay and Lesbian couples plan their wedding, and you operated in states that haven't legalized same-sex marriage.

Are you stealing from the commons?

Just because a law exists on the books, doesn't mean it's a just law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> > Regulation could be a big drag as well. Eager both to shield workers from > obsolescence and to appease corporate lobbyists, many U.S. states have > enacted laws to protect established industries from new market entrants. > Some states forbid car companies from selling directly to buyers, while > others protect credit-card companies by banning retailers from passing on > swipe fees. Though one study has cast doubt on federal regulation's role in > reduced entrepreneurial dynamism, state regulation could be a much bigger > deal.

I'd contend the opposite seems more likely; we've deregulated a lot of stuff, including, perhaps significantly, getting really lax on antitrust legislation. Consolidation and subsequent rent-seeking is the typical result of unregulated market economies.

<comment><USER53> Which large corporations are involved in rent seeking, and you think would have been broken up under previous regulatory reigmes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Most rent-seekers are at least operating within the boundaries of law and physics, if not ethics.

Compare that to scam-preneurs behind startups like Theranos or uBeam, or vc- hustle-preneurs behind is-this-satire startups like Juicero, June, etc.

<comment> wu-ikkyu Is it ethical to have ~23 empty homes for every homeless person in the US?

[https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22335/are- there...](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22335/are- there-24-empty-houses-available-per-homeless-person-in-the-usa#22336)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> and we keep finding that outside of the labor theory of value (and he may not even have been wrong as much as overstating the importance of labor) ol' Marx was right on the money...

</comment><comment><USER55> The natural choice for anyone is going to be "how do I get the most money with little effort". Corruption needs to be made difficult, but sadly the people who write the laws benefit the most from this corruption and are unwilling to surrender political control. If things are going to change don't count on the 1% to do anything about it. They are comfortable in their nested bubble of kickbacks, slush funds and stock. If the average person wants change, they need to confront the wealthy interests that control almost everything and fight for their place at the table.

I think the biggest mistake of the last 30 years was putting any kind of trust in the ruling class to do anything but enrich their own.

</comment><comment><USER56> This article speaks to a larger problem with the U.S., and really global system of finance. Right now we live in a world where finance dictates production, rather than production dictating finance. Combine that with the massive concentration of wealth on a global scale and we can observe a very real problem that will continue to hinder global progress until it is addressed. So often we as a collective naturalize the institution as if it was not an economic technology that we have created. Over time all technologies need updating, and our economic models are no different.

As Harvard's Roberto Unger often says, "Finance has become a bad master, instead of a good servant."

</comment><comment><USER15> This just read like a bunch of "I think" and "it might" instead of "I know" and "it will." So, stating that crony capitalism is hurting regular capitalism doesn't do anything except make people attack an idea instead of facts.

And focusing on the financial industry might make you feel good because it's easy to say "wall street..." and everyone joins in on the bitch fest. It's a ton of conjecture and hypothesizing as to why business is failing, but to make it sound like one industry is just banking cash while providing nothing, is a disservice to all the people that work in that industry.

</comment><comment><USER57> Not native english speaker here. My comment is probably of very limited value, but mostly for my personal improvement :).

When I read "the wrong kind of entrepreneurs flourish in America" it surprises me to not see: "the wrong kind of entrepreneurs flourishes in America". I understand that "kind" should be the subject of the sentence, not the entrepreneurs. I have seen this construct several times (e.g. "this type of errors are very common", etc) and I'm wondering if it's correct, or simply one of these errors that are so common that they become the de facto rule.

<comment><USER58> You are correct, "kind" is the subject of the sentence and the right conjugation would be "flourishes". You are also correct that it's a very common error that has generally just become acceptable.

<comment><USER59> "The wrong kind of entrepreneur flourishes in America" would probably be the better title. The article describes a single kind of behaviour. "The wrong kinds of entrepreneur flourish in America" would better describe an article where multiple kinds/distinct groups of behaviors were present.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> TL;DR: Parasitic tendencies are growing. It requires some serious reform to fix this, but current level of legalized corruption makes it very hard.

</comment><comment><USER59> Lawsuits aren't always rent seeking sometimes they are necessary economic activities. Economic models can be poor when they (implicitly) define redress for illegal actions as rent-seeking behaviour, and cutting a competitors cables as valid economic activity -- for example the lawsuit against Comcast that alleges driving a competitor out of business with malicious construction.

</comment><comment><USER61> What the article says is true - banking, patents, regulations, corporate subsidies all contribute to rent-seeking behaviour. But one cannot strike a balance between rent-seeking and value-producing behaviour without investigating the motivation behind. Is it greed and laziness working in tandem? Or something else? I honestly have no answer

</comment><comment><USER62> I find the juxtaposition of productive and capitalism odd. The entire point of capitalism is to slush money around. That is the definition of productivity in capitalism but somehow some people got the money part mixed up with "value" and now they need fancy mental gymnastics to explain how the system working as intended is in fact not working.

Basic system theory 101 says if you work with and optimize a proxy instead of the true metric then you will always deviate from your true and intended path. Money is only a proxy for value and some people did not get the memo. You need some second and third order correction terms if you use proxies.

</comment><comment><USER63> Why is this title changed? The correct title is "The Wrong Kind of Entrepreneurs Flourish in America" which was also up in the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER64> It's interesting to me that the word "wrong" is used in the title. This is assigning a moral code to capitalism and I think that is misplaced.

It's fine to have a moral code. It's fine to be a capitalist. Just don't expect capitalism to always fit in a moral code.

I think the article's main unspoken gripe is about bad actors (folks acting in a non-altruistic way) in human society in general.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sounds about right.

Until you remove all money and related influence from politics, it will only continue.

</comment><comment><USER66> The crony capitalism you describe is actually 'corporatism'.

</comment><comment><USER67> Hmm, I'm pretty sure this is just how capitalism works. Sorry :(

</comment><comment><USER68> This article is a great argument for a more limited government.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hm, why was the headline changed for my post?

</comment><comment><USER69> > Crony capitalists seek to generate profits without producing anything of > value.

If they are generating profits, then they are doing something valuable. Are they sucking cash out of the government? Maybe, but it's valuable to somebody. You want to fix it? Don't try to fix the entrepreneurs, fix the goddamn government.

Most of these Comcast-type rent-seekers are complete and total assholes, I agree, but I'm not about to hold my breath waiting for them to stop going where the money is.

<comment><USER70> Kind of reminds me of that episode of Always Sunny in Philadelphia where Danny DeVito's character comes out of retirement to save his former company.

"So what do we make here, Frank?"

"What d'you mean? We make money."

"Right, yes, but what do we actually create?"

"We create wealth."

"Okay, but like, what do we produce, what do we manufacture, what do we design?"

"Manufacture? Leave that to the c&$%^s, we produce profit!"

Incidentally, starting to order parts a few hundred at a time from places like Taobao for various projects, I'm noticing that there are a lot of companies who just do that and slap a 500% markup on Amazon. Want a 6-pack of $0.15 mini-breadboards or a few dozen $0.05 jumper wires? Sure, $5.99 with prime shipping. What a steal!

<comment><USER71> Alternatively, I am willing to pay a very small amount in absolute terms for the convenience of not ordering 500 breadboards :).

Bulk ordering has always been an accepted way to pay less in unit costs, but it helps move the risk from the manufacturer/wholesaler to the buyer. If you want to take the inventory risk, then you charge the customers for doing so, and the wholesaler cuts you a deal for reducing their risk in a concomitant way.

<comment><USER70> Me too, but there are services for ordering off of Taobao in Western nations which will collect your orders somewhere on the mainland, send you pictures of each item and allow you to return things that don't match, and then package them into a single shipment. You pay a ~10% commission and a bit more on shipping, but it still comes out to much much less money, if you're okay with waiting a week or two.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Airbnb Claims Its AI Can Predict Whether Guests Are Psychopaths - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/the-byte/airbnb-ai-predict-psychopaths <comment><USER2> Companies making psychological judgemenents and discriminating based on them based on percieved medical issues? Last I heard that is frowned upon, and illegal.</comment>


Open url in new tab in hacker news - <AUTHOR>

It would be better if url's in hacker news are opened in new tab instead of same tab. <comment><USER2> Use your "open in new tab" function your browser already has (usually middle button/scroll wheel click) to open in a new tab.</comment>


Notes on the Four Color Theorem (4CT) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ams.org/notices/199807/thomas.pdf

<comment><USER2> <http://searchyc.com/four+color+theorem></comment>


Humans vs. Machines: When to Hire and When to Automate - <AUTHOR> https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/humans-vs-machines-when-to-hire-and-when-to-automate/ <comment><USER2> The author is talking about "marketing automation". She means sending spam emails and getting cold-call phone number lists.

(The site has a new, painful way to display a text document. The upper half of the screen is locked to a picture of the author.)

<comment><USER3> It's a video + clickable interactive transcript, but if you prefer to read only there's a 'collapse' button to make the video area a bit smaller.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my mind the only viable solutions are a form of automation tax along with universal income. Or some form of democratic and decentralized automation.

<comment><USER5> Before we go taxing machines, we might start with reducing payroll taxes.

<comment><USER6> The long-term (and very successful in many countries) right-leaning policy strategy for decades has been replacing inheritance and capital gains and corporate profit taxes with income taxes, income taxes with (capped) payroll taxes, property taxes with sales taxes, shifting liability from corporations to employees and customers, privatizing public infrastructure and services, breaking down collective bargaining rights, cutting real minimum wages and worker protections, etc., as a way of shifting financial burdens away from capital and the financial services industry and the idle rich and toward workers and citizens. You're going to need a huge political upheaval and significant effort to educate the public to push things back in the other direction.

Instead of taxes on automation I would recommend taxes on wealth and land value taxes, and very steep taxes on large inheritances, along with scrutinizing/outlawing various ways of hiding wealth by shifting it around between complicated webs of anonymous shell companies.

<comment><USER7> You know I don't see the point of working beyond my means (taking on risk) if I can't give that to my kids in some way.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Feasibility of my startup idea - <AUTHOR>

Hi Guys,
I am working on an idea for startup and I would like to know your opinion on that.
Essentially I am developing an ADOBE AIR based application(s) which I want to run without installation on client computer.
As per my understanding, it is not legal to execute adobe air based application without installation. What do you think
the implication of building a business model with such an assumption?
Silent installation is recently allowed for licensed distributors but I really want to run anonymously.
I am at early POC stage of my startup. Am I worried about too much at this early stage?
Should I be working on POC before worrying about legalities?
I know that several startups start with in grey areas of law but what do you think about it? <comment><USER2> Tell us, what are your reasons for doing this? Are they valid? If its just because you want to trick someone into doing something, then yeah, probably not a good enough reason, and a bad idea. If its because you think you'll have greater acceptance (i.e. another way of saying trick someone), then probably also a bad idea. I'm not really sure why you would want to start your business up screaming malware/lack of trust right from the get go.

If its a technical problem you're trying to get around, a better idea might be to post here and say "I'm trying to do X but without doing an installation" and get help finding your way around it. But starting off on the wrong foot just because you feel like it is not good business sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your quick reply. Obviously I don't want to trick some one to run my code. It is just that I want my application to be like "take them where ever you want" just like portableapps.com

<comment><USER2> So the purpose is to run off a usb disk or some other portable device?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. It is. I do have more in mind but that is a start.

<comment><USER2> Then that's an excellent opportunity to check whether anyone here knows of a technical way to achieve your goals. Its a good discussion of the platform, and of your business goals. Do you need to specifically use Adobe AIR, or is is just currently the best solution. What else could you use, or how could you get the user's permission to install first using a technical workaround (ie, such as asking from the main software on the computer, with users knowing it will be installed silently on a USB drive). I'm not too technical a person, so I can't really give great ideas on the subject, but you should ask around.

On the legal side, I'm not sure how much they'll bother you as a small entity, but growing a business on this does seem shaky. The more well known you become, the more you might get noticed

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks. Adobe air is the best available solution to me. I guess I have to work on prototype.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> While I think it is good to be concious of these legal issues, do not let something such as this hinder your progress. Keep working and when you have a tangible product, begin to deal with this as necessary.

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you. That Is encouraging

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not legal in what sense?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not supposed to run app without installation. I want run it without installation.</comment></comment>


Daring Fireball: The Case for Going Metro-Only on ARM - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2011/09/the_case_for_going_metro_only <comment><USER2> After running Windows 8 on my laptop for a while, I'm struck by how poorly- suited Metro is to a traditional (mouse/keyboard) computing experience. My sense is that traditional PCs should boot to the traditional Windows desktop and tablets should only have Metro. It would be seen as a nice benefit that traditional x86 computers can ALSO run Metro apps but I don't think anyone will lament the fact that you can't run Excel on your tablet...

<comment><USER3> "It would be seen as a nice benefit that traditional x86 computers can ALSO run Metro apps but I don't think anyone will lament the fact that you can't run Excel on your tablet..."

Counterpoint: The next IMHO-blindingly-obvious step in computer evolution is that your tablet/cell phone becomes your desktop when plugged into a probably- USB-based dock that adds a keyboard, mouse, and real desktop monitor (or more). Tablets that can't run real OSes days are numbered.

Having a well-delineated tablet UI layer is good. We've got over a decade of proof that just smashing a conventional desktop onto a tablet doesn't work. But I would not want to massively commit to the idea that tablets will never run Excel. They will... just not in their touch-only mode.

It's all about how committed you end up to it, though; in the short term, if only Metro is on the tablet of 2012, that's OK, as long as you can pivot, potentially as soon as early 2013. (Prototypes of this ought to exist somewhere now if MS is going to pull this off.) But if you've written this requirement deep into the tech stack, you're in trouble.

<comment><USER4> _The next IMHO-blindingly-obvious step in computer evolution is that your tablet/cell phone becomes your desktop when plugged into a probably-USB-based dock that adds a keyboard, mouse, and real desktop monitor (or more)._

Thanks for publicly mentioning that (seriously): Your mention in itself is now "prior art" for pretty much anyone who might later try to patent the idea. (IIRC, Arthur C. Clarke described something much like that in one of his _Rama_ novels back in the late 1970s or early 1980s.)

<comment><USER5> It's been mentioned many times before, including by ESR in 2008: <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=614>. Not that I expect that to stop the patent office from handing a lawsuit factory to the next Lodsys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I respectfully submit that each and every DF post isn't worth front-page attention on HN.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147>

Edit: The link is a request for PG to blacklist DF. I honestly don't think the submissions add to the overall quality of HN.

<comment><USER7> Note: the link above is dead.

I'm not sure there is much point in debating whether or not DF belongs on the front page.

The voting system and community determine that.

<comment><USER6> I sent it to directly to pg, so he must have killed it. I suppose you're right though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A couple of points:

* People forget that Microsoft is used to selling Windows that runs on multiple architectures. They had(have?) Itanium, DEC Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in the past. Of course those were targeted at professionals, not consumers.

* I don't think MS really cares that much about x86 native apps running on ARM. They care about desktop managed apps running on ARM. Why? LOB apps. LOB apps are managed and they want to support ARM tablet users having access to these.

* Related to the above point, there are actually few native x86 apps that really matter. Look at the Amazon top 20 selling SW list. It's basically: Office, Windows, Intuit, Adobe, and antivirus. Microsoft ships half of the top 20. They'll be shipping antivirus, so effectively shipping 2/3rd of the top 20. The only apps in the top 20 they'd need to get are Intuit (Quickbooks/Quicken/TurboTax) and Adobe Premiere XYZ. MS can probably have at launch 95% of the cycles consumed by native x86 apps on ARM.

With that said, for once, I do think Gruber is generally correct.

<comment><USER9> WRT your first point, Microsoft _used to sell_ Windows on multiple architectures. They abandoned Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in 1999. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms> A big part of the problem was that software vendors did not make non-x86 versions of their software and subsequently users were confused and disappointed that the software that they wanted to run on their (e.g. Alpha) computer either wouldn't run or had to run in an emulator and thus ran slower than on an x86 machine.

Microsoft supports two architectures currently: x86/Itanium and ARM with WinCE/WinMobile/WP7. There is no _real_ synergy between the two currently, e.g. the "Office" apps that run on ARM are totally different beasts than what run on x86. The primary crossover is "mindshare" - i.e. users recognize the names.

<comment><USER10> They still ship Windows CE on multiple architectures.

<comment><USER11> And Xbox runs the Windows kernel and .NET on PowerPC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think I get the whole reasoning but I really disagree with one of Microsoft's decisions on this.

* ARM is Metro only

* x86 is old + Metro

* All Metro apps must be purchased in the App Store

I understand the last one from an ARM perspective. It stops any confusion if the app with run on ARM. If I can see it in the App Store then it will run. I just think it is a bit of overreaction / greedy to require all x86 Metro apps to be in the App Store. It just seems like a really bad way to mess up adoption of Metro on x86.

<comment><USER13> Not trying to be nitpicky, but capitalized App Store is the Apple owned store. It is app store if meant generally or Windows Marketplace if speaking of the Microsoft branded store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This whole "not confusing people" thing seems like a nifty idea, but I think we're talking about a different company.

Is there any reason to believe that Microsoft doesn't want to confuse consumers or that not confusing consumers is in any way a winning strategy for them? Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it seems to me that not confusing customers is Apple's schtick. Microsoft does very well with a different business model that historically has included:

WinCE WinMobile PocketPC etc. even Windows Phone 7 has gone through several name variations.

Windows Vista and 7 both offered a bewildering range of SKUs.

Version naming and numbering schemes that make no sense to anybody. (Although Final Cut Pro X is an admirable attempt by Apple to compete here, Pro having been Apple's traditional replacement for 3.)

And don't forget that Microsoft's hardware partners are all past masters of incomprehensible product lines.

And can anyone figure out which Intel CPU is which without using google today?

</comment><comment><USER15> _I think the easiest way to minimize confusion would be to market ARM-based Windows machines as "Metro only". Intel gets classic Windows and Metro apps, ARM gets Metro._

I don't think this would be that much less confusing for lay users. I would imagine MS will rely on pushing 3rd party software through their App Store, and only exposing compatible software. I imagine this will work better to minimize end-user confusion and to enforce developers doing real ports of their applications instead of just recompiling.

</comment><comment><USER16> By not allowing legacy apps on ARM microsoft would not have any leverage in the tablet space. If I have a choice between iOS and Windows ARM where the former had a ton of apps and latter doesn't have many, then why would ?I choose windows? It's the same Windows Phone story again. No matter how superior it is to the iPhone, it will lose out for the lack of apps.

Microsoft knows this. I won't be surprised if they have more nd more support for legacy API and applications on ARM over time.

<comment><USER17> I believe Microsoft has already stated that only Metro apps will run on ARM (no legacy x86 apps):

[http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will- windows-8-...](http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will- windows-8-run-x86-apps-arm-tablets-or-not-173498)

Steve Sinofsky: "We've been very clear since the very first CES demos and forward that the ARM product won't run any X86 applications. We've done a bunch of work to enable that -- enable a great experience there, particularly around devices and device drivers... [W]hat we announced yesterday for the first time was that when you write a Metro style application, all the tools are there to enable you in any of the languages that we support to automatically support ARM or X86. I think that's the key part of everything that we'll run."

Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad- like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep cropping up?

There will probably be a version of MS Works that is written for the Metro touch interface that will work on ARM, but the performance of an x86 desktop application running in an emulator on ARM would be atrocious and everybody knows it.

<comment><USER18> There are _three_ types of Win8 apps: Metro, Win32/ARM, and Win32/x86. The question is whether Win32/ARM apps will be allowed.

 _Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad- like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep cropping up?_

Because people like Office, MS makes a lot of money from Office, and MS actually showed full-blown desktop Office running on ARM a few months ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For someone who tends to be dismissive of Microsoft, Gruber sure seems to be writing about them a lot lately.

<comment><USER20> I'd say he may be pretty dismissive of Microsoft in general, but I think nearly anyone that has used or seen Windows Phone 7 is thinking it's a great thing.

But that actually comes down to the same thing. The reasons Gruber likes WP7 is because it cut the cord with all previous versions. It's a fresh start. Which Gruber feels was needed. I actually agree with him on this point.

Now, where the problem comes with regard to Windows 8 is simply that there is no cutting the cord with past versions. It still has all that legacy support in it and keeps getting more convuluted. Even more now that there is support for two different processor families.

Windows 8 would be a great chance to slice away some of the old legacy crap.

This is simply an example of where Apple has really excelled when they've been in a similar situation. Not that the x86/ARM thing is exactly the same. Apple's was a transition, while Microsofts is in Addition to. But Apple provided tools to make the user experience seamless while Microsoft is making it more difficult for average users to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Today we are going to have a civilized discussion of a Gruber article on HN.

For those that want to discuss the article, comment elsewhere!

For those that want to attack or defend Gruber, just upvote the appropriate account below.

(If you want to see who is winning, click the appropriate account name. Both accounts started with 1 karma and no other comments or submissions.)</comment>


Ask HN: Will you use an "Evernote for words" I plan to build? - <AUTHOR>

I'm planning on building a dead simple word list app that lets you store difficult words that you stumble upon while surfing (via a browser add-on). This list then gets synced across your devices, much like Evernote.
The app then pulls the corresponding meanings to become your private repository of those tricky words that you tend to look up (and subsequently forget - only, now you won't) when reading articles online.
A few months back, I decided to use Evernote to consciously capture new or challenging words that I encountered while reading books or surfing. (If you read pg's essays fairly regularly, I bet you've stumbled upon at least the odd word you didn't already know). Alarmed at how rapidly this list exploded, I decided I could use an app that automated sorting of the words, fetching of their meanings and most importantly, syncing of the list across devices and browsers.
I'd like to know if there's an app out there that does this well that I don't know about yet. If not, is this an itch that we share? Do you see yourself using this app if I build it? Please give me a shout, it'll spur me on for sure.
[I'm aware that dictionary.com lets you maintain word lists and create flash cards. This, however, doesn't solve my "one universal account that syncs across multiple devices" need which is make-or-break IMO.] <comment><USER2> I think you want honest feedback here: I won't use that, and I don't think the vast majority of "normal people" would either. A lack of place to save difficult words isn't a common problem for most people I don't feel. Also, I think most people don't even look up words they don't know - they just skip over them. That said, if success for you would be a small userbase of people who rely on it, then why not.

<comment><USER3> If it's online I'll check Merriam-Webster. If I notice I keep mis-spelling a word, I'll dedicate my mistake to memory.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used to do that myself. Until I discovered I'd looked up "proselytize" on 6 different occasions and it just wouldn't stick. So I began building a personal list of to-revise words until it became bloated and unwieldy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This could be useful for people learning a new language. There are already plugins for getting translations of words/phrases, but if this service also stores the words I've looked up, I can go back and repeat.

Maybe I can even be quizzed on my stored words?

With device syncing, I can read and add words during the day, and then I can get quizzed on my Android phone first thing in the morning before leaving bed.

As I like learning new languages myself, I'm thinking this could be quite useful. I realize this is probably drifting a bit from your idea though.. Just thinking out aloud.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, the service at its very core is a list of words you've looked up so that you can go back and repeat.

Quizzing sounds like a good way to make repeating fun, so I'll put that on my to-do list.

I conceived the idea with the vocabulary-mastery use case in mind, but as you've pointed out, it seems to fit the get-proficient-at-new-language use case quite well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This needs to be more than just a service. You need to think about about the psychology of it all. I come across words all the time that I don't know, but I don't look them up. I have plenty of excuses why not, but those don't matter. Just like loosing weight.

The point is that to 'win' you need to address the psychology of looking words up. How is this going to be easier than looking them up my self. This service would be useful for many people, if it just e-mailed you the next day all the words you didn't know and definitions, and then sent you an e-mail at the end of each week.

If you really wanted to market it well, I'd do this and then do research on word exposure frequency like being exposed to it every day for 2 days, then every 3 days for 6 days, then every week for 6 weeks, then once a month 5 months or something like that. And this strategy increases word retention by 65%. These numbers are all made up, but that's the gist of it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would certainly look into it. I regularly stumble upon words I don't know (or don't know the exact meaning of) either in my native tongue (Dutch) or in English even though my vocabulary in both languages is extensive. Sometimes I write them down or store them somewhere but mostly I do not because it's not worth the effort. If it's easy to store words into this service, through an extension or a bookmarklet, it might work for me. A problem I come across with Dutch words is that there is no proper Dutch dictionary on the internet and I have to VPN into the university library to look up the definition, which is a bit of a hassle.

Aggregated data of the users might also provide valuable information as to which words are generally considered difficult.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, the first HNer whose frustration resonates with mine!

I must admit, internationalization didn't cross my mind. It shouldn't be too hard though, all we'll need is a decent API / site that we can scrape.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Personally, I agree with some other folks here - your market is students and people learning languages.

Add really good pronunciation help - something you can hear. Make sure you integrate SRS - see Piotr Wozniak's work on the forgetting curve. (Also see Mnemosyne, Anki, etc.)

Check out lingt.com - they're the leader (feature-wise) in the language learning market for Chinese... at least from what I've seen. I recommend it to friends here at college that are trying to learn Chinese.

Personally, I learn English words /really fast/. I can see them once and get a definition and I'll be good for two years. This doesn't work for any other sort of information... only English words. Why? I have no clue. Anyway, my point is that no, I wouldn't see myself using it. Sorry.

</comment><comment><USER8> This could be an interesting browser plugin, but I have a hard time seeing a business model. FWIW, I wouldn't use it, simply because I tend to remember looking the word up, and if I can't remember what it means, I get frustrated and look it up again.

That said, I might be inclined to replace my lookup plugin if it works like this: Use the same functionality as any other define plugin (ie, right click -> define word), but with the extra feature that the next N times you see that word in your browser, the plugin highlights the word and then displays the definition if and only if you mouse over it.

Naturally, you'd add two items to the right-click menu. 1) define, 2) see recent definitions.

Not sure how much this helps, but good luck.

</comment><comment><USER9> While reading online books, I generally have another browser open to look up those difficult words. The tabs tend to expand quite quickly after hours of reading. If the interface were dead simple, then I would find this very useful. I've been looking for ways to expand my vocabulary. Being able to access a listing of these words that I lookup would be quite interesting and may actually help me out quite a bit. Keeping it universal is a great idea. Whenever I find myself with downtime, I'm generally looking on my phone for something to read. It would be great to access this listing on the go. I'm excited to try this out!

<comment><AUTHOR> We're on the same wavelength - this is the exact flow I have in mind! Now to get back to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Market it to students ... many teachers and parents would be thrilled if their kids/students actually increased their vocabulary from using the computer. If it automatically finds definitions, could quiz you, and maybe include some game-style incentives to get kids to actually really memorize the words and correct spellings, you could find a real market IMO. Make it simple and cheap ... well less than the price of a Flickr Pro subscription ... and I think it could do good.

Then, though, you'd have to publish lists of how often kids used it to look up internet slang and abbreviations. Share that part with HN =D

</comment><comment><USER11> On the Mac at least, I use Spotlight to look up a word (hit Apple-Spacebar and type "stupendous"). In Cocoa apps, I right-click on a word.

This is my repo and it's already populated.

I prefer to see at least a prototype, instead of a "would uou use?" scenario, but I can't see using something like this.

But it might be a good programming exercise, and YOU'D use it, so why not go for it, come up with new ideas and find new pivots along the way, and post a link when you have a prototype ready?

</comment><comment><USER12> I might use it if you would include spaced repetition learning as a service. For example, I would like to get a text message or even an email at some user defined interval (every 6 hours, once a week, etc.) with words in the list selected by a spaced repetition algorithm so I can really learn what they mean.

If I just added it to a list, I doubt I'd ever really learn them and the service would be useless to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> I would use this immediately. Scattered across my apartment are notebooks with hand-written definitions (words & phrases) I have recorded with the intent of incorporating them into my vocabulary. The problem is I cannot regularly recall the words because I cannot regularly access the list.

The app would be great if it provided incentives for legitimately storing the words into one's semantic memory.

</comment><comment><USER14> I read a lot on my Kindle and use the kindle notes/highlights feature to mark & collect interesting words (generally words I had to look up in the dictionary). So it's certainly a feature that is useful, in the right context. Although for me I guess it's still only a nice to have, rather than something I would seek out. How would you monetise it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree that it's nice to have. I wouldn't die without it myself. Which is why I don't really have plans to monetize it. It'll be a fun project to work on made even better by the knowledge that it's solving a problem for a niche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm using catch.com for text snippets I need to have both on my computer and on my Android phone. So I wouldn't have a use for your app I think.

Suggestion: I could imagine to use an app that gives me a few new words to learn in a foreign language every day. Perhaps with a feature that tests previous days words when I log on to check what is new.

<comment><AUTHOR> catch.com seems to be similar to Evernote or SimpleNote. My app intends to be a dictionary-integrated word list for words that you discover and want to remember, not a note syncing app. So you might eventually find it useful.

That said, "words of the day" is an interesting feature (although it isn't on my roadmap for v0.1).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you pivot this into a language-learning tool, you'll probably be more successful because the market is much, much larger.

</comment><comment><USER17> I look up odd 'words' all the time. However the vast majority are not verbs, adjectives, or simple nouns, but proper nouns, and in effect 'proper verbs' (scientific/technical, actual code). How are you going to beat selecting in Chrome, and right-click google?

</comment><comment><USER18> You should design it to work for people learning foreign languages (as well as your initial goal), and also take into consideration the successes of supermemo.

</comment><comment><USER19> It seems like a utility app and could be very useful in a long run.</comment>


Die analysis of the 8087 math coprocessor's fast bit shifter - <AUTHOR> http://www.righto.com/2020/05/die-analysis-of-8087-math-coprocessors.html <comment><USER2> > So far, the bit and byte shifters only shift bits in one direction. However, > bits need to be shifted in both directions. One of the key innovations of > the 8087's shifter is its bidirectional design: data can be passed through > the shifter in reverse to shift bits the opposite direction. This is > possible because the shifter is constructed with pass transistors, not logic > gates.

That's really cool. I've never really looked at ASIC design so that wasn't something I had considered before. I have a left-shift unit design that uses 74F logic, and to get it to do right shifts I would have to reverse the input and output, which is the typical trick to use when you have to use logic gates.

[http://www.pnnk.org/img/lshift_schematic.pdf](http://www.pnnk.org/img/lshift_schematic.pdf)

[http://www.pnnk.org/img/lshift_board.png](http://www.pnnk.org/img/lshift_board.png)

<comment><USER3> I have always been fascinated by a paper on barrel shifters myself. I think you would enjoy this as well: [https://www.princeton.edu/~rblee/ELE572Papers/Fall04Readings...](https://www.princeton.edu/~rblee/ELE572Papers/Fall04Readings/Shifter_Schulte.pdf) In particular, logarithmic barrel shifters are amazingly simple to implement better than a massive multiplexer for each shift step.

Edit: oops, after further investigation it looks like you may be doing this in your design?

<comment><USER2> Oh, nice paper! I had been looking at this one, also by Matthew Pillmeier: [https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714...](https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714&context=etd)

I have a verilog module that implements the "Mux-Based Data Reversal" design with overflow output. Yosys/nextpnr synthesize it with a 102MHz timing estimate on the lattice ice40hx8k.

As for the 74F design, yeah, it uses the logarithmic approach. It still has massive multiplexers, but there's only 5 stages for a full 32 bit shift, plus the extra gates to handle the carry bit.

<comment><USER4> For what it's worth, you might want to consider other logic families than F. It's no longer the fastest and can be less well-behaved and more power-hungry than others. As well as getting harder and harder to find and more and more expensive.

In terms of speed, you'll find that LVC at 3.3V is likely to outperform F at 5V, and AUC at 3.3V will definitely outperform everything short of ECL -- the catch there is that AUC is technically not specified for 3.3V operation. To stay at 5V, LVC is a good choice if available in the functions you need (LVC is maddeningly inconsistent in that some parts run at 3.6V max and others at 5V max), or look around at the various high-speed families otherwise. The big bus drivers in ABT are great if they're available.

<comment><USER2> > LVC is a good choice if available in the functions you need

LVC is awesome, but that's the problem I've run into. Even with 74F there are a lot of functions missing, but the options are better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting article! One thing I'm curious about: I can see what the bit shifter was for, but the article also mentions a separate byte shifter. What was that for?

<comment><USER6> It's for shifting by more than 7 bits. The shift is split mod 8 bits into a bit and byte portion to reduce the geometric complexity of the circuit (and perhaps help it meet timing).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you leave your company just because you've been there for a while? - <AUTHOR> I'm currently on track for my fourth year at my current company. It's been my first job out of college. I've been having good growth, good raises and was promoted recently.
I've been thinking about changing companies, not because I'm currently bored or have problems with my current position. Merely because I think I've been with this company a long time.
Thoughts? <comment><USER4> If you like the people you're working with, enjoy the work you are doing, feel like you're learning and exploring new interesting/challenging problems and feel like you're being compensated fairly, I don't see a reason to switch companies. Remember there is always a risk that you won't like your next job as much as your current one (and the opposite is also true).

I'd look to change companies if any of the following, among other things, apply: you're working in a toxic environment, you don't get along with your co-workers, you aren't being challenged at your job, you aren't learning/expanding your knowledge, you aren't being compensated fairly, or you feel there aren't personal growth opportunities left at your current company.

Full disclosure, I am a recent grad so maybe I'm just being naive.

</comment><comment><USER5> The only thing I can think of, that you don't get by staying at a business for a long amount of time (that does treat you well.. raises.. career progression.. etc.) is lack of exposure to how other businesses operate.

Some businesses operate in a bubble, and it's common for them to only explore what they need to. And by doing this, they're in danger of limiting their possibilities. I'm talking in terms of things as rudimentary as how one business manages their recruitment process vs another to the tools used in a development department vs another and why.

So if you are happy where you are, and plan to stay they for the indefinite future (and there's nothing wrong with that), I would just advise you to explore avenues outside of work that gives you exposure to the wider industry.

If you're an engineer that might be meetups.. talks.. perhaps courses.. If you're in an operational role, then maybe similar activities, but perhaps also ask your employer to allow you to explore other businesses with the intention of learning.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you're happy, and you're doing well, getting paid decent, like your coworkers, and are still learning, there's not a whole lot of reason to move, I would say. The grass isn't always greener.

If you feel like you've gotten in a rut or plateaued, that might be a reason to think about it. I suppose it depends on your local job market; some places expect a lot more churn than others.

Personally, I'm kind of adverse to change for change's sake; I'm going on six years with the same company, and, except on my worst days, not really thinking about moving.

</comment><comment><USER7> [http://randsinrepose.com/archives/bored-people- quit/](http://randsinrepose.com/archives/bored-people-quit/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems like you are just curious. You should explore other options. Either you will gravitate more firmly or you will find more reasons to stick with your current job.

</comment><comment><USER9> Every company I've ever worked out, I've identified a 'limit', where I know I won't go beyond, unless I actively do something about it (i.e. talk about a new position, new business activity etc).

There is a definite stigma around leaving companies early (as a perm) - <USER2> that, contracting is the go. I have no loyalty beyond a pay cheque - <USER3> company I've ever worked at, has had my best interests at heart. So act accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you have no reason to leave, stay put and keep up to date with the best practices from the other industries you care, for personal growth and just in case. Change for the sake of change is advisable if there is an inner desire (to challenge yourself, to see the world from different angles, to relocate often, etc.) or a brute money goal (whenever someone offers you more, you jump ship). Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER11> It really depends on what you value in your job and how much of that value are you getting. Do you value time flexibility, working with friendly people, more money, title, the tech/product you are working on, commute?

However, I would recommend interviewing maybe few times a year or so, to see where you are and how things are changing around you.</comment>


Function Currying in Scala - <AUTHOR> http://www.codecommit.com/blog/scala/function-currying-in-scala

<comment><USER2> Is anyone here using Scala in a production environment? We've had to start using Java (ick) on some projects and I would love to be able to target the JVM and use Java libraries without actually having to code in Java. Just like a few hundred thousand other developers ;-)

I really like the looks of both Clojure and Scala, but I haven't had the chance to experiment with either yet. Scala is obviously further along in development...but I'm not sure if we could risk either on our project. The Schemes on the JVM aren't production ready yet IMO, unfortunately, and Jython/ JRuby/ Groovy will also not work for us for various reasons (execution speed, bugs, etc.)

Any words of wisdom from Scala trailblazers?</comment>


Former Aetna director denied care without looking at patient records - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2018/02/11/former-aetna-medical-director-admits-to-never-reviewing-medical-records-before-denying-care/ <comment><USER2> [2018], Forbes article rehash of CNN report at [https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/health/aetna-california- inves...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/health/aetna-california- investigation/index.html)</comment>


Why Give a Fuck about Colonizing Mars? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-simulacrum/why-give-a-f-k-to-colonize-mars-c8243880532c#.urwa86jxl <comment><USER2> It seems like it would be more important to fund self-sufficient cities here on Earth first. Otherwise it's all too likely that Marsport, to re-use a classic name, will be a repeat of the Biosphere 2 experiments, but without the chance of opening the doors for fresh oxygen should there be a collapse.

Just think of all the spinoffs from being able to make an arcology that can support 1M people with almost no environmental impact. I suspect it would be more than the spinoffs of a rocket that could take 100 people to Mars.

Argentina and Chile have colonies on Antarctica, which are heavily subsidized. Wouldn't they like a city of 100K which doesn't require additional support and which doesn't contaminate that continent?

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree. I believe these need not be necessarily be in a series though (like first we do this and then next another). There is and should be a large portion of investment that should go to Earth for Earthly problems. The point I was teasing out is that, compared to such substantially large budgets that are already being invested into Earth on a continual basis, it is OK to consider % of budgets for space exploration and colonization as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> One small problem with all this inhabiting other planets nonesense - oxygen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hence they are called closed-loop biosphere :) and there are consideration and techniques to actually instill atmosphere at a planetary scale.</comment></comment>