Show HN: Web App Generators for React, Angular, Vue, SQL, MongoDB or Firestore - <AUTHOR> https://scaffoldhub.io <comment><USER2> I hope this works out for the OP. It looks nice.

BUT...

Can anyone recommend other skeleton/generators/demo-apps which include DB & authentication & backend ?

<comment><USER3> Maybe check out JHipster: [https://github.com/jhipster/generator- jhipster](https://github.com/jhipster/generator-jhipster) (it has admin and user roles only [https://www.jhipster.tech/security/](https://www.jhipster.tech/security/) )

<comment><USER2> Oh wonderful. I mean like perfect for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At least let me download a simple generated demo for me to see. Instead of forcing me to signup to have my email, forget about getting money from it. You just owe me my email and i feel very bad about it, i feel cheated)

Seeing is believing.

More than that, i'm having similar functionalities like yours, but with realtime data/views, SSR/static views, fully SPA.

If someone's interested, i could easily bundle for users to generate, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input, but just like any template website like [https://wrapbootstrap.com/](https://wrapbootstrap.com/) I think is fair to ask for money for your work..

Unfortunately I need the email because I need to relate the credits that you buy to your account somehow.

You can see the Live Demos and the youtube videos of the website before you buy or even sign up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Do you plan to write some type of integration with common frameworks (Django, RoR, etc...) in order to be able to skip the entire process of creating entities, relationships, fields, validations and so on (because a team of developers would normally spend quite some time doing exactly that on the backend, it seems like a huge waste of time repeating this work just to scaffold a SPA).

Also, who is this oriented to?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is oriented to javascript developers..

The generator generates the entire app, frontend (React, Vue or Angular) and backend (NodeJS) + SQL w/ Sequelize, MongoDB w/ Mongoose or Firebase Firestore.

Unfortunately it's not prepared yet for incremental development (the generator generates the complete app all at once)

I think that's a great idea and a I plan to develop for other languages and frameworks too.

Thanks for the input

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> After creating a category I still can't select it when creating a product.

<comment><USER7> Did you try searching for it? It's an autocomplete field. Had me confused as well, the cursor looks like it's a dropdown.

<comment><USER6> Yes I tried entered text in the input field

</comment></comment></comment><comment> andre-godasi I already used it in two works, I really liked the tool and recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm using the React version, I liked how the code is organized

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Feel free to email me with any questions: email@example.com. Thanks!

<comment><USER9> This is what's showing up for me now [1]

[1] [https://ibb.co/7NR1Dwm](https://ibb.co/7NR1Dwm)

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a little problem with the server, but it's fixed now, sorry about that

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's down for me

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a little problem with the server, but it's fixed now, sorry about that</comment></comment>


Two New Moms Return to Work – One in Seattle, One in Stockholm - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2020/03/two-new-moms-return-to-work-one-in-seattle-one-in-stockholm <comment><USER2> I'm a dad in Stockholm and currently in the first month of my parental leave which is expected to last at least more 6 months. My girlfriend just went back to work. Our daughter is 11 months old. I worked 75% from the time she was 6 months old until a month ago when I went for a 100% parental. My employer pays me a bonus on top of the state money as a perk.

As far as I am concerned I can't even imagine it being any other way. I understand how fortunate I am to be in Sweden. It truly is an amazing system.

<comment><USER3> I'm Norwegian, and the Norwegian system is similar to the Swedish. I live in the UK, though, and so I've seen how expensive and inflexible UK policy, which is much closer to US is Vs. for my brother in Norway.

I don't understand how people on more normal incomes do it in places like the UK and US.

<comment><USER4> Not sure it is so bad in the UK now that we have shared parental leave: I am a father of a recent newborn and I get to share 12 months off (well, 50 weeks since my wife _must_ take at least the first 2 weeks after birth herself) with my wife for our newborn son.

We're getting approx £600 a month (so I guess 800-900USD depending on exchange rates today) of free money during the first year from the government (maternity allowance), before any payments from employers. Not amazing amounts of free money, but helps pay for some essentials and considering we are both earning fairly huge salaries I was surprised we were entitled to anything at all.

My employer is actually pretty generous and I as a partner I am getting several months off at full pay - most partners will get only 2 weeks off unless they make use of the shared parental leave, but the "major" employers all have similar generous parental leave perks from what I know.

Both my wife and I are legally gauranteed our jobs back when we return as far as I understand it, and from what I know we can request 80% time etc, or some other flexible arrangement and it must be considered fairly and allowed if feasible.

I have been really impressed with the NHS. Obviously everything ante-natal and post-partum was 100% free (including parenting classes in addition to the clinical stuff). What has really impressed me has been the free home visits by the midwives and nurses in the days and weeks after birth - an amazing service to just have midwives turn up 2 days afterwards and check that mother baby (and father!!!!!) are doing ok, then to continue getting home visits in the following weeks. Really impressed. We paid to get some extra private scans done earlier in the pregnancy for peace of mind etc, but otherwise the NHS has been excellent for this (and I don't usually sing it any praise for normal services)

As for childcare I don't know yet - from what I gather childcare is a cluster- fuck in the UK with oversubscription and fairly high costs (e.g. £100/day in London for 8am-8pm) outside of the public nurseries. There are some things available for this I think (childcare vouchers for 30hours a week of free childcare?) but I don't know anything about it.

So tl;Dr: 365 Vs 480 days off, 800USD+100% salary Vs 3700USD, potentially oversubscribed public or expensive private daycare Vs cheap public daycare.

<comment><USER3> What you describe (generous employer payments etc.) is far from the norm in the UK, though. Yes, it's possible to be in a decent situation in the UK too, but usually when you're already in a professional privileged position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a Scandinavian, the US seems like a third world country. I am genuinely sad for you.

<comment><USER6> Americans sometimes joke that we live in a third world country. Many people here are dissatisfied with our family and healthcare policies, but no one seems to know how to actually fix it.

Obamacare wasn't really a good solution. It was just the most politically viable.

So you need more than a good plan for what works better. You also need to somehow get it accepted politically and that ends up being a sticking point.

<comment><USER7> How to fix it? Get involved with your local DSA chapter. Work on putting socialists on your local ballot and getting initiatives passed locally. Educate your friends and neighbors that 'socialist' policies are much broader than what has been demonized in the US since the red scare.

Edit: Also, consider unionizing and bargaining for parental leave, healthcare, living wages, employee board representation, etc.

<comment><USER8> Scandinavian countries are not socialist and using the word "socialist" (as Bernie does) to advocate for social-democratic policies is both inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing.

<comment><USER7> Democratic socialists and social democrats agree on many policies, and both are largely absent from the political stage in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article talks about federal gov not doing things better. Maybe it should,but the way america works is that these sorts of laws are left for individual states. America has a lot of problems like this,states should do better but voters don't really care much about state politics. I can tell you a majority of americans probably don't even know who their governor is(I think I do but not really sure). On top of that,it's not very hard to move a business between states or for people in general to move around so states have to compete with one another on being friendly to economic contributors.

I am sure it is much more complex, but I do think the root cause lies in the american constitution and the role played by federal and state governments. The federal gov should either be a whole lot more capable(or overreaching for some) or a whole lot less significant,forcing popular politics to be centered at the state level.

</comment><comment><USER10> It always amazes me that even poor European countries have better maternity leave provisions than the richest country in the world.

<comment><USER5> The US is the riches country in the world. The US cannot afford basic healthcare for all. One of these sentences most be wrong.

<comment><USER11> No. You have to define how a country can be rich. And what "basic healthcare" is. And what "for all" means.

A country cannot be rich. Its people can be. If you have a definition that differs, we can discuss. I am going to avoid "basic healthcare" for now. We can discuss "for all". Does that mean for people born in the country? Or does it really mean "for all people"?

FredW

<comment><USER7> Wealth per person, healthcare that covers all medical needs (preventative care, illness, injury, end of life care dental, vision) but not all elective needs (some cosmetic surgeries, etc), and for all means all humans within the borders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And did you know there are actually more billionaires-per-capita in Sweden than in the USA [1]? Norway as well. So it's actually possible to have both an amazing welfare system and loads of billionaires at the same time.

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by- billiona...](https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires- in-proportion-to-population-2015-7?r=US&IR=T)

<comment><USER13> Though the background of billionaires tends to be different. Lots of business owner in the US, lots of old money in SE.

I'd say there's less opportunities for social mobility in Sweden than in the US, hard to get beyond the "middle class"

<comment><USER12> Actually, the 5 Nordic countries are identical to the top 5 countries for social mobility in the World Economic Forum's Global Social Mobility Index [1].

[1] [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/these-are- the-10-coun...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/these-are- the-10-countries-with-the-best-social-mobility/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article acknowledges that tax rates are significantly higher in Sweden in order to pay for these benefits.

Has anyone modeled typical take home income (after taxes) over a lifetime vs the costs of procuring similar parental services in each country (daycare for example)?

My hypothesis would be that in the US, you'd probably still come out ahead in net income even after paying for these services. Could be wrong of course, but that's my best guess.

<comment><USER12> If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so much more per capita then any other nation on the planet [1]. So your taxes might be lower, but you still need to spend the money via other channels.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita)

<comment><USER14> Sure. How this manifests on an individual level though can be vastly different.

Many employers offer highly subsidized health care as part of compensation. So that + higher salaries my guess is American's still come out ahead.

<comment><USER15> If coming out ahead means having to put a 3 month old in daycare. And worrying about losing your job as you would also lose access to healthcare for the 3 month old.

And coming out ahead means pumping breastmilk, when it's vastly inferior for the mother and much likelier to cause her to lose her milk supply.

Edit: the top 10% do very well in the US. The next 10% are hoping to become part of the top 10%. The bottom 80% don't have a better option.

<comment><USER14> Evidence please.

<comment><USER15> Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There's like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size.

And the vast, vast, majority of people don't work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don't see what the point is talking about them.

You're either part of the group making passive income so you're not worried about losing your income source, or you're not.

<comment><USER14> Claim 1: Parents have to put their 3 month old in daycare.

My response to Claim 1: (Parents have options, one of them is daycare. Another is to have a parent stay at home with the child. Extended families can pitch in. Many range of options here. Those are just examples.

Claim 2: The bottom 80% of Americans don't have better options.

My response to Claim 2: Not sure what better options you're referring to or what evidence you're providing to support that the bottom 80% (by income?) have no better options.

Claim 3 (from your most recent comment): If you're not making passive income, you're worried.

My response to Claim 3: Most families make something work without having passive income. One or both parents may have a normal job or jobs.

<comment><USER16> > have a parent stay at home with the child

Assumes there are two parents in the household. For two-parent households, assumes it can cover its expenses from the labor of only one of them. This option also doesn't address the fact that taking an extended break from working often has a long-term effect on one's income and career; this could change if doing so was more normalized, particularly for men.

> Extended families can pitch in

Assumes parents have extended family, that its members live close enough to do the work of child care, assumes the extended family members (including grandparents) are not also working and therefore unavailable, assumes they are capable and willing to provide free child care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This thread is quite timely in that I just watched a great documentary about the differences between America and Sweden. If you have amazon prime it's free to watch on prime video.

[https://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Lessons-America-Johan- Norberg/...](https://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Lessons-America-Johan- Norberg/dp/B07HNDHL6H)

</comment><comment><USER18> That's the result of having a country with a smaller population. This gives citizens more even access to quality education and more even access to all kinds of opportunities.

<comment><USER19> That is super weird logic, very interesting. How do you think can a smaller population change anything?

<comment><USER18> It's supply and demand. A higher supply of people means that each person has lower value. You get a similar effect if you move to a big city after having lived in a small or medium sized town. People who move to big cities voluntarily turn themselves into commodities; they end up renting tiny apartments which cost a lot and can barely afford to save anything and they can be quickly fired from their jobs due to high competition.

As population size increases, the baseline value of a human being goes down. The baseline value of a human being is the value of the person after the value of their skills and capital have been factored out.</comment></comment></comment>


Boxee wants a buyer - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20130613/boxee-wants-a-big-round-or-a-buyer/

<comment><USER2> After the boxee box fiasco, no wonder sales are going down hill on the new device.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In situations like this, do startup founders leak the word that they want a buyer? It seems like they wanted to put the word out there, but doesn't that kill their leverage in acq discussions?</comment>


Suggest HN: Build a service to automatically setup CName or A-records  - <AUTHOR>

Every service which allows users to point a CName or A-record to their site (Tumblr, Weebly, UserVoice, Wordpress etc. etc.) requires people to go through the hairy process of changing DNS records with GoDaddy or whomever their domain provider is.
Doing this requires a huge amount of support time since the process inevitably fails and people need to email in for help. It's pretty miserable even if you know what you're doing.
It would be great if someone could do all of the wriggling and burrowing at the back using APIs where possible and scraping where not to create a service that does the switchover for you. Think Yodlee for DNS setup.
Make the service available for free via a brandable widget but sell (auto setup) domains through it as well. Offer a decent fraction of the domain sale to the hosting site.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> I don't think this will work, as most registrars do not expose APIs onto their DNS settings. Therefore, you would have to change your name servers to a DNS provider which does provide such access anyway. If you do all this just to insert a couple of A records, you might as well just change those records. It's not that hard and registrars tend to have decent instructions.

See dnsimple.com for such a service. [not affiliated]

</comment><comment><USER3> Relying on a scraper is a nasty way to do business. Registrars change their admin interface all the time - your service will constantly be breaking, often at inconvenient times. Rather bad for you if you've already taken someone's money.

I could see putting a person or two in a call center in Manila, giving them instructions on how to set CNAME records at the major registrars, and then charging people a fixed fee for help with this stuff. To get leads, you could offer the Tumblrs / Weeblys / etc. of the world a kickback to promote your service in your admin interface, through a 'Get low-cost expert help with this' link in their documentation.

After the call center's up and running, you can decide if you want to build scrapers to make your call center even more efficient, although I doubt it'd be worth the hassle.

<comment><AUTHOR> the human option is a smart one - that said, regular tests could flag up a failing service and one could switchover rapidly.

The service would definitely be brittle underneath which is why it would be worth paying for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Commercial plug follows:

I am developing an agile DNS system incorporating some of these ideas right now, although we are so stealthy today all you'll find online is a logo at <http://www.qutonic.com/>

Including early support for cloudy apps like those listed but also Google Apps, AWS, Heroku, Engine Yard and also doing some related things with crypto and mail that IaaS and PaaS subscribers will find very useful.

First availability this month for beta customers. Follow us on twitter, id: qutonic

</comment><comment><USER5> Google Apps does this a little bit... if you sign in with your Godaddy (I know, sorry) account, they'll change your MX records for you.

I would really appreciate a service like this, not because it's hard to do but because I do this very often... essentially when I register a domain name I have a template of A, CNAME and MX records that I set up. It would be a great time saver to do this with one click.

</comment><comment><USER6> The registrar badger.com (fairly new; they offered $8 domains on Hacker News last year although now they cost $10) has a concept called applications where they present a nice UI for 11 sites (including tumblr, heroku, and google docs). It makes DNS changes for you (and shows you what it will do beforehand) and in some cases tells you what you need to do on that particular site.

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://iwantmyname.com/> ?</comment>


Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall - <AUTHOR> https://thehustle.co/why-nobody-ever-wins-the-mall-car-giveaway <comment><USER3> About 30 years ago in Australia There was a competition at the local shopping centre. Spend $20 at any shop in the centre, show your receipt and you get a chance to win the displayed car.

The chance involved folding a paper plane, and then trying to get it into the car through the sunroof. Which was only open a small crack.

A friend of the family tried about 5 times over the day and never got close.

They came back quite drunk at the end of the day to have one last go. Threw the plane and instead of going over the top of the car, it accidentally slammed directly into the front windscreen. It then rebounded straight up in the air and then dropped straight down through the sunroof.

They walked away with the car.

<comment><USER4> There's a furniture salesman here in Houston who makes heavy use of that sort of promotion. His latest if you spend $3,000 on a mattress and the Astros win the "2018 baseball final championship series" you'll be refunded the purchase price.

Not sure why it's worded so formally; must be a legal thing.

<comment><USER5> $3000 on a mattress? WTF? How is that even possible for such a highly commoditized good?

<comment><USER6> Freakonomics podcast did an episode on it: [http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mattress-store- bubble/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mattress-store-bubble/)

That's also exactly why Casper and a half dozen other upstarts have come out with the memory-foam mailed-to-you-in-a-vacuum-tube online mattress sales.

<comment><USER7> The conclusion of the podcast was "If you spend $800 you're probably safe, below that it's hard to know if it's good or awful. Above $1500 is too much."

<comment><USER8> Considering Marriott/Hilton/IHG requires their hotels to use a 10 year warrantied mattress that only costs $250-$300 each, I'd say even $800 is too high. Even though that's wholesale price, doubling should be enough to get a single unit price.

People would be better off investing in some HIIT cardio excercise if they're looking for a good night's sleep. And eating less / more nutritious food.

<comment><USER9> The extra $300 is what you pay for going with a reputable brand, because unlike Marriott, you don't have the time to figure out which off-brand mattresses are crap and which aren't.

<comment><USER8> They're not off brand, they're Temper-Sealy or Simmons.

<comment><USER9> In that case, your assertion that "doubling should be sufficient to get single unit price" was wrong, cause you aren't going to get a queen from either of those companies for $500.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Since this is a California on-site thing, California sweepstakes law applies.[1]

\- "The exact nature and approximate value of the prizes must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously when they are offered."

\- "The law prohibits the company from misrepresenting the odds of receiving any item offered."

\- Prohibited: "Failing to award and distribute all prizes of the value and type represented."

Online complaint form here.[2]

[1] [http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/index.php/CONTESTS/SWEEP...](http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/index.php/CONTESTS/SWEEPSTAKES/GIFTS/PRIZES) [2] [https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against- busine...](https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or- company)

<comment><USER11> Why haven't they all been shutdown if they are clearly illegal? Also, I've seen these across the country.

<comment><USER12> It is incredibly frustrating that police don't seem to actively enforce the majority of the laws. My local police seem anemic. There sure are a lot of them, though. Patrol cars are always visible. And, (right-wing) politicians seem to always want to be hiring more and upgrading their gear. For instance, recently they asked for a $30M shooting range. But, if the local newspapers are a good record, it seems that all they seem to do is give out speeding tickets, enforce drug laws, and and bust minorities and immigrants (for whatever). I'm not being facetious.

Anyone in the US have tips on how to get involved to help oversee and direct them? I'm pretty naive and don't have much time, but I do have motivation, at least. I have tried calling them in the past to get a better understanding of what they do, but it was difficult to find the right person to talk to. I've considered doing independent research and reporting (via FOIA), but I also fear repercussions.

<comment><USER13> It depends on the structure of the municipality. You may have a civilian oversight board which has some level of control, and this could be an elected or appointed position. The other option being to become mayor, city manager, or whatever chief executive your area has with oversight over the police force.

<comment><USER14> In many counties, Sheriff is an elected position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On the flipside, I worked on promotions game systems in the brand promotions space with instant win and giveaways after the user played a game. If they won we had to contact them to verify and get info to send them the prize.

When someone won the prize we had to get the social security number of the person that won for gift tracking as many were over 15k, their contact info and location to send the prize, you'd be surprised at how many people pass that up or think it is a scam and/or never get back. We had to pick the next person if they passed it up or didn't get back and sometimes it would go through dozens of people before they would accept it. Lots of game systems, trips and even motorcycles were passed up.

I myself would have probably done the same thing, hard to believe you won and if you do win it is hard to not think it is a scam due to systems like mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER16> As an individual authenticating callers is difficult.

I recently had someone claiming to be from the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) call and ask me to identify myself. Not surprising, my tax filing is overdue. I advised them as a security policy I do not give out PII to unauthenticated callers, asked for a reference number and a return phone number. The number I was given is not listed on the ATO website so I did not return the call. Found some forum posts claiming the number is for return callers who have a reference number. Still, if I can't find the number listed on offical media I don't call back.

I'm trying to think of a way the average person could authenticate a caller. I'm not security or technology expert so my knowledge in this area is limited.

Any ideas?

<comment><USER17> I've had my bank call me at work because I forgot to pay my credit card off the day after it was due. No callerid info, just a number. The woman on the phone didn't say who she was, who she was calling from, she just immediately asked me if this was blahblah. My work has been the subject of a bunch of scammers calling about financial services lately so I wasn't too keen on saying who I was. I kept asking her who she was calling from and she just kept asking me who I was. Finally she said she was from my bank. I told her I'd call her back. Called up my bank and had to wait through several people for someone to tell me what was up. Not only does there need to be some etiquette when cold calling someone (like using callerid and stating upfront who you are and who you are calling from!) but callerid need an update so you can't spoof it so we can trust it again.

<comment><USER18> Etiquette from a bank is like water from a stone. Consider moving your accounts to a credit union.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I remember a few years back walking on the beach with my dad and some similar time share scam people asked us if we wanted to enter a competition. We were handed two scratch cards with various prizes; cash, a holiday or the grand prize of a car.

Obviously all the scratch cards were winners for the holiday.

My dad scratched his card and said "Oh great, I won the car!"

The scam guys eyes opened wide and he had a confused look on his face and asked my dad to show him the scratch card. Obviously it was actually for a holiday, but it was great seeing the confusion in the guys face since he knew there was no car.

<comment><USER20> What the scam? "Free flight" if you buy the timeshare or something?

<comment><USER21> Roping the unsuspecting into an incredibly expensive time-share using hard- sell boiler-room tactics without ever being up-front about the true costs.

I sat through one of these once, curious about how it was going to go, and with the intent going in of not ever buying anything anyway. They present the timeshare as if it costs only pennies a day, and never admit to the true cost unless pressed very hard (and even then they never quote a final figure). What they are really selling is a loan package for the purchase of the timeshare (where the timeshare company is themselves loan originator) with an attached interest rate of something like 12 or 13% APR (bank mortgages at the time I sat through the one I sat through were running about 3.5-4% APR). The timeshare, if you can squeeze a dollar figure out of them comes out to be about $40,000 for which they finance it for you at their 12-13% APR (so a gold mine for them, but bad for you).

I ended up getting the double-team effort (two trying to convince me to jump in) to try to sell me on the value of the scam before I had finally had enough and cut off the sales pitch. Meanwhile, all around me (they did the pitch in a large room with small tables where everyone was in view of everyone else) I was watching the gullible filling out their "loan applications" and setting themselves up for $500/month for the next ten to twenty years before they could pay off the 'loan'.

The cost, plus the interest, was setup such that one would be hard put to actually be able to go on enough vacations at the timeshare to actually make the timeshare profitable for the new owner. If one went on the number of vacations that are typical, one was setting oneself up for each vacation ultimately costing $25K+ (for what should have cost only about $2-3K). This, of course, was the intent of the group running the timeshare, hide the true cost enough that the gullible don't realize they are paying $25K for what should have cost them $3K, and pocket the difference as pure profit.

<comment><USER22> The real scam is the ongoing, monthly, maintenance fees on your 'timeshare'. Worldmark wanted $100 per month, per week of ownership, in a presentation I saw in Vegas. Which means that 52 weeks x $100 x 12 months = $62,400 per year in 'maintenance' on each unit. So even if you paid cash, they still get $62K per year in addition. This was Worldmark Vegas, buying a 'week' in a townhouse complex of $150,000 units.

The movie "Queen of Versailles" was fascinating. Timeshare mogul builds USA largest house [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125666/videoplayer/vi191341081...](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125666/videoplayer/vi191341081?ref_=tt_ov_vi)

<comment><USER23> 52 weeks x $100 x 12 months = $62,400 is wrong. The 52 weeks means the 12 months should not be there. 52 weeks x $100 = $52,00

<comment><USER5> If the unit has been chopped up such that all 52 weeks of the share have been sold, then a combination of people will be paying $100 per week of ownership, every month. Your share of the monthly maintenance is allocated by the number of weeks you "own".

You aren't just paying maintenance for the week that belongs to you. Original calculation of $62400 is correct. Part of the scam is obfuscating from you the true costs of the deal.

If the 52 week-owners knew each other, and could all afford the costs of the share in the first place, they could conceivably form their own LLC, cut out the timeshare company middleman, pay $10k each up front for week-length shares in a $520000 property, and cut their maintenance fee in half, to $50 per share per month (assuming 5% upkeep/utilities/taxes per year). They could even rent out any unused weeks on AirBnB to cut the maintenance charges, or even pay out distributions.

The timeshare people are making bank on the fact that getting up to 52 people to spontaneously come together in a common cause is extremely unlikely. You need a prime mover organizing the whole thing, who is ideally positioned to profit from information asymmetry.

<comment><USER24> As much as I hate all the block chain hype, I could see smart contacts facilitating this kind of coordination.

I guess there would still be a discoverability problem, not to mention the very significant risk of putting your money into a scam.

<comment><USER5> I'm not up to speed on the mathematics, but a matchmaking algorithm that keeps preference data secret until all participants in a trade web commit to a deal that satisfies at least one of those preferences could drive a lot of middlemen and scam-like businesses out of the market.

For instance, you might find an algorithmic pickle agent in the network, and tell it that you could eat one big jar of crisp dill cucumber pickles every two weeks if it costs less than 8 money units, delivered to your door, or one per week if it costs less than 3 money units, committing some number of money units greater than 8 to back a promise to buy at those prices. A small-time pickle-making farmer might tell the agent that they can ship at most 500 jars a week, as long as they get at least 2 money units per jar, or as many as 800 if they can get 4 per jar (cost of hiring a dedicated packer, perhaps). The pickle agent consults with a commodity shipping agent, calculates a billion different ways to move pickles from suppliers to consumers, and then starts moving money and pickles around. Everyone who promised to buy at a certain price is guaranteed to get the goods at that or a lower price, and everyone who promised to sell at a certain price is guaranteed to ship the goods at that or a higher price. The shippers get their fee for moving a package from point A to point B. The agents take their cut to pay for their computation, and for insurance against failed shipments or bad pickles. The system would also need to include distributor/importer/resellers, because some trades just aren't possible unless you pack a whole pallet of pickles, or a whole truckload/shipping container, and break that out for individual orders closer to the consumers.

That's all technically possible with smart contracts, as far as I know, but it would require a huge amount of programming effort to even get the basics correct. And Wal-Mart already has their supply chain, inventory, and distribution software in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My dad signed up for one of those sweepstakes back in the '90s. They called and said he won a "prize" but he had to come into view a "presentation". Went to the "presentation" where they tried to hustle him to signup for a timeshare. He resisted and they gave him the "prize", which was a knockoff boombox.

That boombox is still alive, my mom uses it in the garage when she's doing gardening. I'm pretty sure the company that gave it to us is long gone. Life finds a way?

<comment><USER26> What's a boombox?

<comment><USER27> For those of a certain age (I guess).... Its a radio player with speakers. Usually battery powered. Usually with a cassette tape or two (for copying). They ended up getting pretty big in the 80s (large in size) with detachable speakers.

We had the small yellow waterproof, sony sport model.[1]

I think one even had a record player.

At some point loud portable stereos migrated into cars.

Now we just transmit audio to portable battery powered bluetooth speakers

images:

Sony sport boombox [https://www.flickr.com/photos/55910525@N07/16532295849](https://www.flickr.com/photos/55910525@N07/16532295849)

google image search [https://www.google.com/search?q=boombox+80s&source=lnms&tbm=...](https://www.google.com/search?q=boombox+80s&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X)

vector stock: [https://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/vintage- cass...](https://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/vintage-cassette- recorder-ghetto-blaster-boombox-vector-1715494)

<comment><USER28> I had one with a tiny b&w TV in addition to the stereo. Mediocre audio and video quality but it lasted for years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Amusingly, the website this article is hosted in pops up a modal asking you to sign up to a mailing list with a low contrast dismiss button and saying "you can always unsubscribe". People in glass houses.

<comment><USER30> Ultimate hypocrisy is that their profit model is probably built around reselling their email list.

<comment><USER31> We do not make money from reselling people's email.

<comment><USER30> Do you use your email list to send third party promotional content?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> >The information from these forms is collected en masse, entered into a large database, and delivered directly to the telemarketing company running the promotion (in this case, Great Destinations).

Praise be GDPR.

</comment><comment><USER33> Another shady "competition" is the "complete this form and get a laptop". Except it's not just this form, it's this form, and this form, and this form, and this form... until the user gives up.

Each of those forms goes to a sales call list. And when you give up, you've already completed half a dozen forms - and you've given all that data for free.

If somebody does ever complete all of the forms, they get told the laptop is now out of stock - but here's a free £50 voucher for Amazon.

<comment><USER34> I know some people who automated those but basically fed them fake generated data, and managed to make quite a bit before they got banned. Probably not legal, but AFAIK the responses to those surveys aren't legally binding either, and the more "poisoned the well", the less profiling and tracking they can do, so I don't have any moral problems with that.

<comment><USER35> Is there a good way to find these free laptop scams?

I'm looking for good use cases to sharpen my selenium skills and like wasting scammer's time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A couple of years ago I had some time to kill in Vegas since i don't gamble. I was approached by this timeshare dude who offered me free tickets to the Shark Reef and a $100 gift card for a fancy restaurant. I attended the meeting (free breakfast!), politely declined all offers from a range of salesmen with ever hardening sales tactics and walked out with my vouchers two hours later.

That was a good day.

<comment><USER37> Similar experience here. They really do try several tricks to get you to bite. The one trick that they tried was that once we were in the restaurant the lady claimed that it was a mistake and that we were not supposed to be there. The free meal was only for members but she would overlook it and continue with the presentation just for us. Pretty laughable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> My mom participated in one of these drawings at a mall in Germany. A few weeks later we received a call: we got randomly selected for the final 10-20 candidates (can't remember the exact number) from which 5 will win a car and should come to the main event.

At the main event, believe or not, 5 people out of the 10-30 finalists actually won a car! My mom included! Of course they said it's not the car that was at the mall because that was only for demo, but she received a brand new never used model roughly a month later after filling out the papers and still drives it today :)

</comment><comment><USER39> I used to know someone who worked for one of the companies behind those "We'll Fix Your Credit Score, Call Us" and "We'll Buy Your House, Call Us" signs on the side of street intersections (among other things), and I asked her to explain to me how those signs could possibly make any money.

The way she explained it was (mostly her words), way less than 1% of people are dumb enough to dial the number, but of the people who do call, 100% of them are people who are dumb enough to call.

In other words, if the signs appeared more credible, they would be much less effective, because they'd end up wasting a lot of time screening the calls of people who are unlikely to accept the terms they offer.

She also said that scaling up (and going up market) would increase their likelihood of litigation.

It seems to me like that's what's happening with these timeshare seminars. The car isn't just there to mislead people about the potential upside of the contest, the car is really there to screen the marketing process for gullible people attracted to large financed purchases.

<comment><USER40> I sometimes wonder if this isn't a fairly common practice in numerous industries. For instance some time back I was watching a show on US cable television. Vikings on the History Channel, in particular. Aside from the completely obnoxious icons and labeling everywhere, about 5 minutes into the show advertisement pops up literally in the middle of the screen consuming about 25% of the screen space. And that was enough for me to immediately move onto other things, as that's worth less than the $0 price of admission. Incidentally the web version is amazing, has more content, is better quality, has no ads, and something I would generally highly recommend - <USER2> series.

While cable TV, and cable news in particular, has been rightfully demonized, it makes me wonder if they're really just happy to target themselves down to a demographic that is willing to tolerate this nonsense. And perhaps this demographic might also respond more favorably to advertising, influencing, and other corporate ends.

The same thing has also happened in the movie industry as well. If you think the vast majority of modern movies suck, it would not necessarily just be because of nostalgia or other effects. The modern movie viewer demographic has changed _radically_ and thus movies are being made for these people. Even more interesting is that movie ticket sales are down hard, but they're somehow convincing the new demographic to pay even more which actually means that gross receipts have been stable and even increasing at times.

\--

Of course there's also a chicken and egg question. In the movie industry for instance, did movies change because the demographic changed, or did the demographic change because movies changed?

<comment><USER41> I wonder how much we undervalue audience segmentation when analyzing social network profitability. Twitter and reddit's perpetual issues making money could be that they index too highly for cynical people who trust no one, while Facebook does gangbusters indexing highly for people desperate to make a connection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Well I would be for penalizing such businesses. Isn't this just bait and switch? Such businesses should have their licenses revoked, as they damage relations for everyone else who wants to use prize incentives. These cheaty businesses also call into question the common person's ability to negotiate with fine print -- it's just too much.

<comment><USER43> In the USA, this is just how it's done. I'm not exaggerating; this is _business as usual_. Penalizing this would be a catastrophe for Americans. I think the sheer volume of the tricks, lies, gimmicks and gotchas cause each one bleed into the next to the point of immersion. The shimmer of the spectacle and _hope_ become one and the same. Because every day is just another swindle at the Big Bazaar Of Life.

<comment><USER44> A decade ago I would have thought your comment was over the top. Then I moved to Germany. And was surprised to find an utter lack of spammy phone calls, no crowd of ubiquitous scammers vying for my attention, no surprise mystery medical bills, nothing. I was with my German girlfriend in a department store once, she tore a little slip off the stockings she was buying, put her name and email on it, and dropped it into a jug by the cash register. I gave her a "were you born yesterday" look and asked if she hadn't yet learned that these things are all scams. She had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. A month later we won an all expenses paid trip to a resort in Turkey, it was on the tacky side but also the height of luxury and relaxation. All the stocking brand wanted from us in return was a few happy selfies to post on their Twitter account.

If more Americans knew that it doesn't have to be this way, maybe things could change.

<comment><USER45> I have more or less the same story moving to Austria. I get spammy calls but they are actually legit surveys (quality of life, political leanings, newspaper preferences, etc) and only because I gave up my phone number at a party many years ago and haven't bothered to have it removed. I get once of these survey calls about every 3-6 months and if I'm not in the mood I just tell them I don't have time and they never call back. On occasion they ask if they could call back at a later date.

Re: winning things - I won 500 Euro from Visa for entering a contest, where the only requirements were to fill out the online form with my name, age and email address, followed by using my Visa card 3 times in one month any of the following 3 months. I should note that Visa the company here doesn't actually function as a credit card like in the U.S., rather it's directly connected to your bank account, where at the end of the month any balance due is automatically deducted. If your account drops below zero, you just pay some interest at the end of the month. From my basic research (looking at my bank statements for the past 2 years), it's extremely low. In fact looking at my last "25% KEST" charges, I was in minus for 3 months last year, and the charge was 0,02 euro cents. I honestly have no idea how that works, but I assume we have some good consumer protections in place.

<comment><USER46> > rather it's directly connected to your bank account,

So a debit card?

<comment><USER45> I thought a debit card was just for withdrawing cash? We have bank cards (Bankomat Karte) for withdrawing cash - in fact, when you pay and want to use the card, many people just say "karte" (literally: card) to mean a bank (debit?) card and not a credit card.

Our Visa cards can also withdraw using a pin, but I don't know anyone who does (anecdotally speaking - but I do pay attention to shoppers ahead of me in line, seems like a rare occurrence). I personally use it to (very rarely) purchase products for which I don't have enough cash on hand, and because banks generally set the withdraw limit to 400€/day. On top of that, most places (IMO) still don't accept credit cards or will charge 3-5% fee (such as the official Apple dealer McShark). Visa transactions are also hindered in comparison, there tends to be less information available about the purchase and seller names are truncated to ~20 characters. Also the booking is often delayed (online) until the statement is sent per e/mail, unlike bank transactions which appear online within 24 hours.

<comment><USER46> > I thought a debit card was just for withdrawing cash?

In many countries you can use the debit card to withdraw cash and make online and EFTPOS transactions. EFTPOS machines can process debit and credit cards. With debit cards the money is deducted from your account immediately or in your case at the end of the month. (but then it should be called credit not debit)

<comment><USER45> So to answer your question using your selected terminology, they are zero- interest credit cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> ...And there is still people considering the GDPR a bad thing...

</comment><comment><USER48> When I was a kid -- I'm in Australia -- we'd regularly get computer line- printed Readers Digest Sweepstakes out of the blue -- we lived in a farm in a rural area and this was the 1960s.

The sweepstakes often made claims that "we have invested $1.34 in your name..." It was many years before I realised that they really meant "we have spent $1.34 buying your name and address..."

</comment><comment><USER49> A few years ago my wife got a call about a free cruise but the catch was sitting through the timeshare sales pitch. We had no intention of buying in, especially since we couldn't afford it at the time, but we wanted the free cruise (well my wife did, I didn't want to go). Well we sat through the horrible sales pitch and then they put us in a room to get the cruise. We sat in the room for maybe 25 minutes before we gave up. Nobody came in to help us in that time. The reason we left wasn't because of the wait, I was determined to get that free cruise despite not wanting to be there. The reason was the restrictions behind the cruise. There were tons of blackout dates and you couldn't pick the exact date of travel. You picked 3 dates and they would let you know which one. I also believe there was a very short window of when they would notify you that you had the tickets to the cruise. I was starting my career at the time so I didn't have the flexibility of just taking a week off at the last minute.

<comment><USER27> My friend won a "dive trip" after entering a contest at a dive show.

just sit through a timeshare pitch.

I went with him, because my dad spent some times in car sales and I'm good at not buying things. Plus as his dive certified friend I could go too.

We went to a rented conference room in a hotel for the pitch. It was agony.. High pressure sales (If they have to pressure you to buy, you probably don't want it)

He got the trip voucher, but it ended up being worthless. It was cheaper to book another trip normally because of added fees and such on the free trip. He never took his "free" trip.

<comment><USER49> > It was agony.. High pressure sales (If they have to pressure you to buy, you > probably don't want it)

It wasn't as bad for me. I spent most of the time in my own head pointing out all the flaws in their logic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Back in the 90s there was a hilarious trend of winning the car in the mall by being the person to be in the car the longest. This was when SUVs were becoming a really big thing.

People were sleeping in the car with 5 other strangers to see who could outlast the others, with only short bathroom breaks allowed.

I'm not really sure what the advertisers/dealers won in that exchange.

<comment><USER51> Probably a bit of free publicity in a local newspaper, people coming by to watch for a while (while a salesperson approaches them), etc. It's good fun, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I saw that very car at that very mall, and the screens were all surrounded by people eagerly entering their info. Don't people get enough spam calls and emails to realize why?

<comment><USER53> They just blame it on their phone company and the like. I know a few people that knowingly hand out info at conventions yet will blame everything but. Might have to do with the marketing companies waiting long enough and people quickly forgetting about them entering their info. So when the spam calls hit they just think of whatever company they know for sure has it.

Side note: it's almost impossible to book anything in Orlando without getting spamming with timeshare calls months later. I'm amazed it's even legal.

<comment><USER51> This is why the GDPR and similar things are good; you can sign up, but they have to delete your data if you ask them for it. It makes schemes like this a lot less er, 'final', so to speak.

<comment><USER54> However, this only works if GDPR ends up being enforced, which doesn't look too great so far considering how many sites violate the regulation with non- compliant forced consent screens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Reminds me a bit of a process I've been wrestling with to redeem a "rebate" (gift card to a chosen retailer from a list) on an online textbook, negotiated between the professor and the textbook company after the semester start. The stakes are a little lower ($15 rather than a car) but the hoops they make you jump through, and the personal information they want, for what is ostensibly your money definitely make it feel just as scammy.

<comment><USER15> Nathan For You did a really funny take on this for a gas 'rebate' in S1E4. Basically jumping through hoops until everyone would give up.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2777064/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2777064/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> When I was in middle school, I remember doing a raffle at our local mall for an iPod Mini. My Mom told me to ruffle up the paper before dropping it in because the raffle drawer would feel the rough edges and select that one.

We got a call a few weeks later that I won the iPod mini. I still remember my mom driving me to the mall and them handing me the new iPod Mini. That was my peek. I've never won a raffle since.

</comment><comment><USER57> In India, at the entrance of almost every mall, you will find a few people handing you cards to fill-up your name, phone number and email, with the promise of lucky draw gifts.

It's a way to harvest personal information for mobile phone and email spamming.

Yet, so many fall for it. Even modern urban types.

</comment><comment><USER58> Once, there was a telemarketer calling me and trying to persuade me to buy a home alarm system. All he wanted is to get my credit card #. I asked him to repeat himself 2-3 times for almost all of his sentences (not all, because that would make him hang up). After about 20 mins, he knew my game and said that I was wasting his time and I was not a good citizen of the U.S. I was sad because somebody said that but the whole conversation was fun :-)

<comment><USER59> Have to smile, reading this. It reminds me of the time I received a very scammy call telling me I'd won a week's holiday in Florida (US accented person; I am not in the US). Now in my world view, if first prize is a week in Florida, second prize would be two weeks in Florida. Losers get to spend the rest of eternity at Maralago (sp?). But all that's a horse of a different colour...

I asked the caller to hold a moment...

Went out into my veggie garden and spent almost an hour doing some digging and weeding and generally having a grand ol' time in the sunshine. It raised quite a laugh when I returned around sunset and the caller was still holding, waiting for me to return. Quite unbelievable! Led me to wonder how these people are incentivised.

I put the phone down without waiting to find out anything more about their scam/offer/whatever.

<comment><USER60> I know a lot of telemarketers can not hang up a phone themselves or require a manager to do it for them. Not hanging up is a great method if you want to annoy them

<comment><USER59> I considered it a service to society -- the longer they're (supposedly) on the phone to me, the less time they have to annoy other victims.

Also: I just wondered how they would treat the situation. Clearly with more patience than I would!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Why is it always timeshares? What makes them so ideal to sucker people with? I've seen these scams all over the world.

<comment><USER45> I know a couple people who have timeshares in some prime vacation spots (island, ski/hiking areas in the mountains) and they are quite practical when you don't/can't buy/rent a property permanently, instead sharing it with 10+ other people, divvying up the weeks lottery-style and enjoying a few weekends a year. It's also a motivation to plan for taking weekends off to just relax, since you only get 1-2 windows of opportunity once or twice per year.

<comment><USER62> You can rent people's timeshares usually for the maintenance fee. If you really want to own a timeshare, buy it on the secondary market for a fraction of the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I once worked as a freelance graphic designer for a company that wanted to give away a car as the first prize in a raffle. All promo material needed to have huge amounts of fineprint, including that the winner - in order to get the car - would have to sign a contract, forcing him to leave the company's logo stickers on the car for two years, or pay a penalty of about 20% of the car's value.

</comment><comment><USER64> Even worse, i followed a lottery for a car to raise money for alzheimers.

On the draw date given on the ticket in the newspaper the notice said the draw was delayed to a later date.

Dutifully i waited for that date and surprise surprise it was delayed again to another new date.

Finally there was simply no notice of the draw being completed in rhe newspaper on the last date specified..

</comment><comment><USER65> The gift tax section seems out of place. It has nothing to do with the rest of the article.

<comment><USER66> I think it's trying to drive home the point that even if you win some amount of money, it can be misleading - $1000 is less than $1000 after taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Yeah... When I was in my early 20s I was gullible so I entered into those "contests" a lot - and all that I got was telemarketers and junk mails.

</comment><comment><USER68> > In simple terms: when you enter one of these contests, you're allowing > telemarketers to not only use your data to make robocalls in perpetuity, but > sell it and share it with any "subsidiaries" it chooses.

They don't check if it is _you_ who's entering the information. What could go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER69> The TV giveaways are also a con. You know the deal, you watch the whole show because the competition details will be given at the end. Then the questions are multiple choice and rather easy. For example, where is the final stage of the Tour de France? Option a) Peterborough, option b) Potters Bar, option c) Paris.

In this semi-fictional example if you get the answer right then you could get to win a bicycle shaped object that looks like one of the bicycles ridden by one of the top teams.

You might not be telemarketed to death in this instance but the text you send will be to one of those premium rate numbers, to cost you £3 or so.

This money then goes to pay for the show, if you get 10000 people to text in then that is real money, enough to pay for the interns and rent the camera gear.

But it was not always like this. There was a time when the answers were difficult. There was also a time when nobody knew what a search engine was because they had not been invented yet. There was also a time when knowledge might only exist in people's heads rather than only online. Questions for TV shows could be difficult and the only way to enter might have been on a postcard where you might also have to enter a 'tie breaker', e.g. 'bicycles are best because...' (complete in less than ten words).

The tie breaker might not be there to just pick a winner from those that got the question right, the show might honestly be looking for a slogan and crowdsourcing it was a good way to pick more brains than just the production crew.

Furthermore, the result or answer was something of interest to the viewers. You could learn something. General knowledge was a thing back then, not denigrated to 'trivia' or something you could get by using your favourite search engine. General knowledge had value beyond the pub quiz.

In these former times, before 'Who wants to be a millionaire', it would have been an insult to the audience to ask a noddy multiple choice question for a competition.

Answering would not have been totally beyond the realms of possibility, you might have to go to the local library, dig out Encyclopaedia Britannica and get the answer from there. Or, if you knew your subject, then it might be something you knew. So winning also meant that you did get 'respect' from your peers and 'the world at large' for being clever enough to know the answer. Winning might have been more valuable than the prize itself just for the kudos. It wasn't as if some computer just selected your name at random in some lottery of other mugs willing to gamble.

The funny thing though is how these things go full circle. The TV shows that made the competition into something patronising and lame no longer get viewers, or even interns. That intern can make more success for themselves being a Youtube influencer and doing it all themselves. Rather than make the tea and do the errands for the big fat producer they can do their own script, presentation, camera-work and sound. they can also do their own competitions. And, in their competitions they can give away some respectable loot and get some genuine feedback from their fans. They can also avoid having to fleece their fans of an SMS premium rate call, a like/subscribe/thumbs-up and comment will be needed though. Even the question can be non-Google-able, fans might know from watching the show what breed of dog their co-presenter owns, so that could be a good quiz question. There need not be any bait-and-switch and the car given away really can be an actual car that actually gets given away.

<comment><USER70> > the text you send will be to one of those premium rate numbers

One of the curious laws in Northern Ireland requires postal entry to be an option for all submission competitions hosted here.

So QRadio station advertises its 'win free money' competition, entry by a text message costing £1.50, but also has to state that postal entry is possible. I really should write a letter.

NI law also prohibits requiring purchase of an item as a condition for entering competitions.

<comment><USER71> Not sure whether what you're describing is different; I understand UK law is that you have to have free* entry as an option otherwise it's gambling, and the company has different regulations plus a bunch more tax to pay. Most companies therefore include a free option so they can avoid being classed as gambling. Many actually have it online since that's cheaper to run than reading post! Of course, the URL is not easy to find...

*or at least, something where the competetion runner doesn't make money from the entrant, so postal is fine even though you have to pay postage

<comment><USER72> _> I understand UK law is that you have to have free_* _entry as an option otherwise it 's gambling_

The 2005 Gambling Act allowed a much wider range of promotional prize competitions and draws. If the question is a genuine test of skill, you don't need a free entry option (except in NI). If you do include a free entry option then you don't need to bother with the trivial multiple-choice quiz, but the free entry route needs to be publicised with equal prominence to the paid entry route.

[http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Prize- competitions-...](http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Prize-competitions- and-free-draws-the-requirements-of-the-gambling-act-2005.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I worked in one of these call centers just after high-school. Not even a molecule of ethics existed in the entire company. My job involved getting yelled at by people who were sick of getting calls from dozens of different companies, and occasionally talking with someone gullible enough to come in for a sales meeting, who would then yell at everyone involved once they discovered they had been duped.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I eventually got fired because I started to deviate from the script. Sometimes being honest with people, and sometimes trolling angry people. It was a horrible job.

</comment><comment><USER74> The really disappointing part here is that many, many more things are like this. E.g. raises and promotions. Nowadays a lot of companies can't afford these any more. But still on paper they offer these opportunities and even really give promotions to 1-2 people of multiple dozens or hundreds, so that you feel shitty about not getting one. Or dating websites that give unattractive people hope that they can find a (-n attractive) partner if they fill out 2 hours worth of forms and let the inputs run through an algorithm.

The best selling product is unrealistic hope.

</comment><comment><USER75> This sort of thing and the sorts of things Facebook and other companies do really gives CRM and marketing a poor name. My team and I work in technical CRM and we do what we can to give our customers actual relevant advertisements. We also willingly collect only relevant data, don't store it indefinitely, and never purchase data. The social team gets cranky with us but we have a core set of values that we don't compromise even when upper management gets pushy.

</comment><comment><USER76> Is this article a very clever Facebook submarine marketing ad? It ends with a false statement about Facebook providing instructions to delete data. I live in USA and can't find any way to delete my browsing history that Facebook collected via the Like button.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

</comment><comment><USER77> My grandfather won a Cadillac, it was the 60's in San Francisco, and Regal gas stations ran a contest, grand prize a shiny new Cadillac. The details are lost, but as far as my dad knows it was a plain enter-to-win raffle, and his dad won! Comin up slammin Cadillac doors, but they "weren't really a Cadillac family" so they sold it.

</comment><comment><USER78> It really bothers me that people completely lack any sort of moral fortitude they think overtly lying and deceiving people is "ok". The fact is, everyone from the dealership to the call center employee knows whats going on and is a willing participant in this scam.

</comment><comment><USER79> pff, there was some movie long ago, some technician was installing a few 1-armed-bandits in some pub, and asked the owner - should they give 1 win per 100, or 1 per 1000 ? And the owner answered: What? 1 per 1000? We're not a charity here, there must be zero wins!

<comment><USER80> Having worked in casinos and actually owning a real, unrestricted gambling machine (for laughs, tbh): that's bullshit. Gambling works because there is always, always some machine that is paying out money. This one machine is sufficient to get all other patrons to throw more and more money at them.

Sometimes all hell breaks loose and multiple or all machines pay out. The joke is that most gamblers won't cash out and go home - they will "reinvest" their entire win in hope to win more... and the really desperate ones throw even more "fresh" money at them.

<comment><USER81> You mentioned owning an 'unrestricted' gambling machine - I've always wondered, do such machines have a setting to actually be fair (or I guess, totally random?) Or is it always a matter of payout percentages?

<comment><USER80> "Unrestricted" in that most second-hand gambling machines are switched to a "demo mode" which delivers unrealistic winning chances.

The situation with the modes is more complex in Germany:

\- "real", licensed casinos can carry the big ass slot machines. These have very high limits, both in wins and losses, and can be centrally controlled by the casino.

\- bars, "machine casinos" and other unlicensed venues carry the machines of the kind which I have. On these you can lose (aka pay in) no more than 80€/h, and win (aka pay out) no more than 500€/h. Which means: if you win e.g. 1000€, you'll have to hang around for 2 hours to withdraw your win. Machines based on the new rules (TR5) actually have even lower limits (80/400 loss/win). These are mandated to only collect a certain amount of money - only 33€/hour used should go as profits to the operator, the rest of the money paid in must be distributed to the gamblers over time ("long term").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> The article mentions about GDPR, but I thought GDPR was mostly for online businesses? How would GDPR affect an offline telemarketing company like this one where almost all of your info are collected and processed to the fullest possible unethical extent?

<comment><USER83> GDPR affects any organisation (not just businesses) that collects and processes the personal data of people who reside in the EU. So yes, the same rules would apply here, assuming the business deals with EU residents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I've got a friend who actually won the car in the mall once. Not US though.

<comment><USER85> In the 90s my brother almost won a car. It was legit because he was part of the 10 finalists and the news media was there. They all drew keys out of a bag and tried to start the car until one of them started it. The key he drew didn't work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> And what happens after I read...

>What happens when your personal information gets sucked into an endless marketing vortex?

... i'm prompted with a popup to enter my email address for a marketing newsletter..

</comment><comment><USER87> Reminds me of the "Toy Yoda" lawsuit back in 2002 when a lady thought she won a Toyota but instead got a yoda toy.

</comment><comment><USER88> I always thought there was a winner but assumed the winner was someone related (family/friend) to the prize giver.

</comment><comment><USER89> I heard a commercial advertising lawyers specializing in getting people out of timeshares. Now I know why.

</comment><comment><USER90> Arguably this is an allegory for so many things in the world

</comment><comment><USER91> Hey, it works for Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER92> The boiler room tactics seem similar to Trump University. I believe that was primarily targeted at retired people though.

 _edit_ in this case they had opportunity to meet Trump, which apparently never happened

</comment><comment><USER93> > In the course of an hour on a Wednesday afternoon, 22 hopefuls fill out the > digital form.

Lets take this hour to be an average hour. Over 12 hours in a day that the mall is presumably open, that's 22*12 = 264 leads.

> the mall isn't behind these giveaways; they merely rent out the advertising > space (for around $1.5k per day).

This would imply that these leads need to be worth at least $1500/264 = $5.68 per lead. Does this look like too much to anyone else? I would have guessed that independently of what they're selling, the conversion rate has to be attrocious, as people signed-up not because of their interest for the thing being sold but because they wanted a free car.

Maybe the reason why this works is that people who are stupid enough to give out their names on a mall promotion, are probably also easy to push shit on.

EDIT: I forgot to add at least two other costs: they need to lease the car, and they need to pay employees to keep an eye on everything. So that figure is more of a lower bound.

<comment><USER94> Don't forget to consider the revenue side of the equation. I imagine these promotions wouldn't exist if they didn't make money, for at least a few, business entities in the chain.

If they have:

0.3% conversion;

$25,000 average price;

20% margins

Which aren't unrealistic numbers for timeshares. They break even at $15 cost per lead when ignoring call center costs and other overhead. It's pretty easy to find people to work at an outbound call center for a campaign like this for $9-$12 an hour. (that's without looking offshore) There's also the possibility for additional revenue on customer financing and data resale.

When I was a very _very_ broke college student, I worked on cold calling campaigns trying to set appointments to sell security systems. Now I do analytics for a a business that is happy with doing outbound dials on $20 CPL for largely semi-qualified leads. It ain't the most fulfilling work. But it does pay well and the owners have never, and will never take outside investment.

<comment><USER93> > I imagine these promotions wouldn't exist if they didn't make money

That was my point.

<comment><USER94> Ah, I misunderstood. You mentioned a $6 CPL as seeming like 'too much' and in my experience it wouldn't be. I've seen targeted data request campaigns hit that with generic survey data gathered from completely unrelated businesses/industries.(Partially qualified warm transfers usually costing at least 4-5 times that) Especially when factoring in the ease of, and revenue gained from financing deals. After accounting for, what has to be, one of the lowest costs for re-possession out of any industry; I wouldn't be surprised if they made more money from loans that defaulted/sold to collections than anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> It also reminds me of loyalty programs at department stores. I get so tired of the disgusted look on the face of the cashier when they ask me if I want to sign up for some clothing store loyalty card today to save 40% or something. They can't believe that the 40% discount on $50 isn't enticing to yoke myself to their stream of ads and even more intense data sharing than whatever they are already getting from plain transactions.

</comment><comment><USER96> I wonder how this can be legal. I've seen the "free vacation" scams inside malls and it's really disturbing to see their practices

</comment><comment><USER97> Same goes for the fishbowl of business cards at restaurants.

</comment><comment><USER98> TANSTAAFL.</comment>


Gene Cernan has died - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasa.gov/astronautprofiles/cernan <comment><USER3> Of the 12 men who walked on the moon, six are still alive, the youngest, Charlie Duke is 81. Aldrin, the oldest, is 86. Its becoming less and less likely we'll have someone back on the moon before these men are gone. That is a goddamn tragedy.

<comment><USER4> On the scale of tragedies that are currently occurring or for which there is a significant threat of occurring in the near future, the possibility that there might be a period of time with no living humans who have walked on the moon is so trivial as to trivialize the entire concept of "tragedy" by using that term to describe it.

<comment><USER5> > On the scale of tragedies that are currently occurring or for which there is > a significant threat of occurring in the near future, the possibility that > there might be a period of time with no living humans who have walked on the > moon is so trivial

No. There is an argument to be made that in the absence of drama occurring up there (space, theistic mythology, etc), people will invent and create drama down here (Earth), except with more dire consequences. Considering alternative timelines, therefore, there is a decent chance that there is a real, though indirect, human cost associated with choosing not to explore. What is the human cost, for example, of boys and girls not being inspired by daring feats accomplished at the edge of possible? Nobody is quantifying it, no research grants are given to study it, but I have almost no doubt that it exists.

<comment><USER6> Isn't that idea also in Asimov's The End of Eternity? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity)

In this book humans have at some point invented time travel. Subsequently an organization ('Eternity') is born out of it to regulate and protect humans accross centuries. But, because of it, Humanity never left Earth. The main protagonist stops time travel from being invented and kickstarts the nuclear age, this is supposed to start robots and later Foundation.

At least that's what I remember, I tried to summarize without reading Wikipedia for a change.

The key of the story is that either humans invent space travel and have a chance to thrive, or stay on Earth and are guaranteed to become extinct.

<comment><USER5> That's one of my favorite sci-fi novels and it's eerily ahead of its time IMO. Among many difficult questions, it also deals with

"is it good for humankind to be ruled by an invisible technocratic elite?"

"are we unknowingly increasing long-term existential risk by concerning ourselves first with short-term safety?"

<comment><USER6> And then what's "good" in relation to "what's good for humankind", what's "humankind". Same process for the second sentence.

I think in some defintion I could argue either side of the Eternity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The guts these folks had to fly such tiny primitive compared-to-today spaceships is still amazing to me. Sadly back then I always thought I'd be able to walk on the moon in my lifetime but clearly that will not happen. I still think watching a Saturn V launch was more impressive than the Space Shuttle was.

<comment><USER8> I've read enough about space technology to have a bit of disbelief in your statement.

The technology to launch someone skyward is basically identical, the technology in the craft, while benefited by more modern computing (as well as enhanced material science), also largely identical.

<comment><USER9> > _The technology to launch someone skyward is basically identical, the > technology in the craft, while benefited by more modern computing (as well > as enhanced material science), also largely identical._

I really don't get your statement. The Saturn V is the most powerful machine humans have ever made. No rocket has since come anywhere close to it, despite the benefits of modern computing and material science. The Space Shuttle program killed 14 astronauts, in spite of the more modern technology and the huge steps that were taken in the decades prior.

The Saturn V sent 24 men to the moon, and launched America's first space station with technology built by people using slide rules. 13 successful launches without casualties - indeed it handled situations like lightning strikes and violent POGO oscillations. It's the only machine that has ever taken humans past LEO.

<comment><USER10> True enough, and new info to me!

Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status, and holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg (310,000 lb).

To date, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle to launch missions to carry humans beyond low Earth orbit. A total of 15 flight-capable vehicles were built, but only 13 were flown. An additional three vehicles were built for ground testing purposes. [0]

So why _aren 't_ we just building more of these damn things and iterating on the (proven!) design? While we're at it let's un-mothball the SR-71 and those wicked Buick start carts! [1]

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V) [1]: [http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/startercart.php](http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/startercart.php)

<comment><USER8> I'd have to dig around to find the source - but honestly, its because we dont have good drawings, or even partially complete understanding on how to build the pieces. The Saturn V was not mass produced, and was built on something less then an assembly line - it was semi-bespoke basically.

<comment><USER11> On a related note, ars technica has an absolutely fantastic article on reverse engineering and re-building the Saturn V.

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought- the-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the- monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Gene was a boss.

He used to walk into my sister-in-law's restaurant when I was a kid. Great person and welcoming smile. Sad to see the pioneer disapear.

When we walked out, my father told me "that was greatness, don't forget it." I didn't understand it till years later.

I think there's something surreal about the astronauts, not an ounce of negativity out of them toward other humans. Wish I had talked to him then.

</comment><comment><USER13> Just two days ago I watched "The Last Man on the Moon" with my son (on Netflix). Good documentary, but sad to see him pass. Those Apollo astronauts were truly remarkable people.

<comment><USER14> I highly and frequently recommend "For All Mankind" as another great documentary if you haven't already seen it.

<comment><USER15> I second your recommendation - a great film. The Saturn V launch sequence is always extremely impressive.

I'd also recommend "In the Shadow of the Moon" [1], which focuses on the more recent recollections of the Apollo astronauts, including Gene Cernan.

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0925248/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0925248/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In case the headline in the article confuses anyone, there still are living people who walked on the moon (for instance Buzz Aldrin), but Gene Cernan was the _most recent_ person to do so, having been on the final Apollo mission. Nobody has walked on the moon since

<comment><USER17> Also Apollos 15-17 were much more awesome missions than the earlier ones. If you had the choice of being the first man to walk on the moon for just over an hour, or the last man to walk on the moon _for three days and nights with a car and a real life geologist to explain the sights_ , I'd take the latter.

<comment><USER16> wow _three days!_ I did not know that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Gene Cernan flew on Apollo 10, the "dress rehearsal" for Apollo 11 (the first mission to land on the moon).

The command module for Apollo 10 was named "Charlie Brown" [0] who continuously had the football yanked before he could kick it[1]. A little joke from NASA, I think.

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10#Mission_parameters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10#Mission_parameters)

1: [https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+brown+football+yank](https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+brown+football+yank)

</comment><comment><USER19> I never got the chance to meet Gene Cernan, but I spent some time chatting with Gen Tom Stafford, and part of that covered Gemini IX which they flew together. Stafford was the consummate gentleman and never said anything negative about anyone, but it was clear that he had tremendous respect and no little affection for Cernan.

Another loss.

</comment><comment><USER20> I see nobody has mentioned my favorite fact about him: while the rovers were designed to have a top speed of 8mph, Gene Cernan pushed his to 11.2 mph, more than a 40% increase of the maximum speed.

If 11.2 mph sounds slow to you, he also set another speed record: highest speed attained by any manned vehicle, 24,791 mph or almost 40,000 kilometers per hour, on Apollo 10's return to Earth.

Also, prior missions didn't go more than 3 miles from the LM, but Cernan pushed his to go five miles away. This meant that if the rover failed - remember, this thing had driven on the moon exactly twice at this point - <USER2> would have had to walk five miles to the LM in a bulky, heavy spacesuit, in unforgiving conditions on the surface of the Moon.

</comment><comment><USER21> Honest question: what is the incentive/motive to go back to the moon now? Part of the motive for the Apollo missions was initial exploration. What is the motive now? We've already proven that we can do it.

Does a moon base help? And if it's mining for minerals, is it economically a viable plan?

<comment> david-given Science, exploration, and personal satisfaction. Don't underestimate that last; frontier exploration is a massive part of many of our cultures, but the painful truth is that there aren't any left on Earth. Everything's owned by somebody. Moving into space could have an almost religious impact down here.

The science is mostly geology and astronomy --- the moon is a great place for observatories --- but mainly it's engineering and life sciences; the moon makes a great place to learn about how to solve the kinds of problems that you have to solve when living somewhere like the moon. Which sounds tautological, but it's all stuff that we have no idea about and the moon, being on Earth's doorstep, as a good place to start.

Much further down the line, mineral exploitation. Trying to establish a proper presence in space by hauling everything out of Earth's gravity well is ludicrous, and the moon's the obvious place to go for resources. But that's _much_ further down the line; we need to have people living on a regular basis on the moon first. Even learning how to do simple things like refining metal there is going to be hard. (See above, under 'engineering'.)

<comment><USER22> The sea is still a frontier. There is a lot about the oceans that we still do not understand.

<comment><USER23> I don't see how the existence of one frontier of exploration precludes pursuing other frontiers of exploration. Has there ever been a period in which humanity chose to dedicate itself to one particular field of endeavor at the exclusion of others? If that's not what you're suggesting, what exactly is this comment supposed to mean?

<comment><USER22> I was responding to the idea that there are no more frontiers on earth left to explore. "frontier exploration is a massive part of many of our cultures, but the painful truth is that there aren't any left on Earth."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Godspeed Gene. I hope another generation soon has the fortitude to put forth the effort you and everyone else did to make Apollo happen.

It's a shame to see the mantle of the last man on the moon not be passed on before he passed on himself.

</comment><comment><USER25> His words as he left the moon for the last time:

 _" We leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return with peace and hope for all mankind."_

Amen. Some day.

</comment><comment><USER26> What really gets me is how modern and futuristic the gear in the two photos of Cernan looks--although unfortunately we haven't had any contemporary lunar history to make anything from Apollo look old-fashioned (except for maybe the computers).

<comment><USER27> "It's almost as if JFK reached out into the twenty-first century where we are today, grabbed hold of a decade of time, slipped it neatly into the (nineteen) sixties and seventies (and) called it Apollo." \- Cernan

That quote stood out to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Godspeed, Mr. Cernan.

During a recent winter storm, we started re-watching 'From The Earth To The Moon', the HBO mini-series on the Apollo program. Highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER29> A week ago I found [http://apollo17.org/](http://apollo17.org/) which has an amazing presentation of the photos, videos, and audio that came out of the Apollo 17 mission.

Gene seemed like a really fun guy to go to the moon with.

<comment><USER30> There's also some really great material at the JSC Oral History project:

[https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/oral_histori...](https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/oral_histories.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > The mission included a descent to within eight nautical miles of the moon's > surface.

Nautical miles are used in navigation to account for the extra distance created by the earth's curvature. Why would it be used for distance measurements in space?

<comment><USER32> Huh? Nautical miles are a fixed unit of measurement equivalent to 1852 meters today but originally defined as a minute of latitude. They are still commonly used for distances, e.g., range of a Boeing 777 as reported in Wikipedia. [1, 2] They are a logical unit to use for flight to the moon.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> 50 years ago we went to the moon. Incredible to contemplate!

</comment><comment><USER34> R.I.P. The XKCD (893) truly nailed it.

And, NASA made a typo.

       > He went into private business and served as television
       > commentator for early fights of the space shuttle.

<comment><USER35> I noticed the typo too, emailed the author and he has fixed it now.</comment></comment>


How a handful of geeks defied the USSR (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://owni.fr/2011/03/13/how-a-handful-of-geeks-defied-the-ussr/ <comment><USER2> Relevant—here are IRC logs from the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt: [http://web.archive.org/web/20090628013626/http://www.ibiblio...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090628013626/http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/communications/logs/report- ussr-gorbatchev)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for this link!

I was reading this USENET group non-stop for two days back then, retelling the posts to all my friends.

Just read this: "PLEASE STOP FLOODING THE ONLY NARROW CHANNEL WITH BOGUS MESSAGES. WITH SILLY QUESTIONS. NOTE THAT IT'S NEITHER A TOY NOR A MEAN TO. REACH TO YOUR RELATIVES OR FRIENDS. WE NEED THE BANDWIDTH TO HELP. TO ORGANIZE THE RESISTANCE, PLEASE, DO NOT (EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY). HELP THESE FASCISTS! BEFORE SENDING SOMETHING TO SOVIET UNION PLEASE. THINK TWICE (OR BETTER THRICE). THANK YOU"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" Thus the first cyber-activists were able to use this decentralized architecture and Usenet (developed in the USSR in 1982) to circumvent traditional censorship."_

That should read, _" re-inveneted in USSR"_.

Tom Truscott [0] and Jim Ellis [1] are the creators of Usenet. Bnews was indeed released in '82, using UUCP to exchange between machines. [2] This was before NNTP. In '95, Truscott and Ellis received the Flame award at USENIX.[3] Guess what for?

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

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ellis_%28computing%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ellis_%28computing%29)

[2] [http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag/node256.html](http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag/node256.html)

[3] 1995: _" the third Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Tom Truscott, Steve Bellovin, and Jim Ellis for their work in creating USENET."_ ~ [https://www.usenix.org/about/flame](https://www.usenix.org/about/flame)

</comment><comment><USER3> Relcom and USENET indeed played a role in helping the people of Moscow and Leningrad to defeat that coup d'état: the mere fact, that it continued to operate was an indication of a weakened grip of the KGB.

</comment><comment><USER5> "All channels were blacked-out except for one; Usenet, which is the grandfather of chat-rooms and is capable or [sic] surviving without the Internet."

Do they mean Usenet doesn't require IP to work? And did that matter here? Would actually be fascinating if some alternative federated server comms played a pivotal role, but more likely this is careless writing.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, Usenet _doesn 't_ require IP to work. See UUCP[0].

Some gray beard can probably speak more intelligently than me about this, but I think people would basically specify a series of hops. Each hop would store- and-forward the message to the next hop. Nowadays people talk about delay and disruption tolerant networks, which use similar techniques.

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

<comment><USER7> If you wanted to do "retail" level transactions like sending an email, you needed to know the path, like systemA!systemB!destinationsystem!user

Usenet systems had established neighbors communicating with UUCP and used a flooding algorithm to get messages to the entire network of systems. All built on top of these point-to-point links, could be done over the Internet (NNTP) but it wasn't required. This was a big enough thing that specialized modems for UUCP were popular: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telebit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telebit)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a good account of the coup attempt in _The Dead Hand_ [0] in the last 1/3 of the book. According to it, Gorbachev and family were isolated in his dacha, and his "Nuclear Football" \-- the _Cheget_ , that controlled their ICBM launch codes was taken from him.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-Legacy- eboo...](http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-Legacy- ebook/dp/B002PXFYPQ)

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I guess pretty much anybody had defied the USSR at that point.

The coup attempt was an act of desperation.

<comment><USER9> Not within Russia proper much of the infrastructure and many of the establishments were still either in the hands of hardliners or sitting on the fence. This actually continued as isolated events till the mid 90's with so often a random general deciding to become the next great patriotic hero. In 1991 Russia could've went to a civil war and worse cause a nuclear incident which some generals were promoting, while people do not know this and today some even dismiss it that period had us closer to ww3 than probably most of the Cold War, any spark could've ignited that powder cake and if a war would break out no one in Russia would've been in a position to stop it.

<comment> guard-of-terra Not sure about "random generals", but the red belt did exist.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Belt_%28Russia%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Belt_%28Russia%29)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Usenet probably did play some small part in taking power away from the government and Gosplan, and handing it to the people of the USSR.

This is one of the main reasons the US government and the corporations which monopolize the last mile of communications effectively killed off Usenet in 2009.</comment>