FP for the rest of us - <AUTHOR> http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/fp.html

<comment><USER3> I have read a decent amount of material on functional programming now, and the biggest problem I have is getting into the right mindset. I think in OO style and can't quite think of what to do when I need to keep state for longer than a single function call. In OO programming, this would be accomplished with aptly named objects that maintain a set of data over time. I have great difficulty translating this to a functional style. What do you do if you need to work on one set of data for a long time and intermittently collect the results thus far, for instance? (trivial example: generating permutations of characters for a brute-force password cracker)

I can definitely see the benefit of a functional approach. For you FP masters, are there any good books explaining how you create a decent system (+5000 lines, for instance) while maintaining good source code structure and readability? I really want to learn this.

<comment><USER4> I'll provide a solution for your 'trivial example' in something like Haskell. I hope you see a pattern.

Suppose you have a somehow defined the types State, Permutation and Hash - <USER2> the following functions in terms of them:

      -- A function to extract the current permutation
      extract :: State -> Permutation

      -- A function to step to the next state
      next :: State -> State

      -- Of course you need a way to see if a particular permutation
      -- does actually match the password
      try :: Hash -> Permutation -> Bool
      -- And an initial State - perhaps corresponding to the identity
      -- permutation - to start things
      init :: State

Now you can crack passwords:

      crack :: Hash -> [Permutation]
      crack hash = filter (try hash) perms
        where states = iterate next init
                    perms = map extract states

iterate produces the new states - the results so far are collected with map and filter. Because functional data structures are usually ephemeral you can just predict that intermediate values are actually final.

I hope this was helpful. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Universities should offer something like this when trying to teach Haskell or Scheme alongside Java - especially the explanation of why you'd do it is better than I was taught.

<comment><USER6> +1 - My school (Ga Tech) used Scheme as its intro language when I was there and I could've benefited from being sold on it a little more (too bad there was no Hacker News then). I wasn't alone in being annoyed that I had to mess around with this weird little language before getting into Java and C. I did end up enjoying it though.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yep! I totally agree. The key takeaway is to shed some light on the _motivation_ behind these concepts which hones your sense of judgement as to what to use when..

</comment><comment><USER7> I've already convinced myself that FP is worth my time, but this article is great to help along your friendly neighborhood "Java programmer." I just wish I had read this 5 years ago!</comment>


With the iPhone Sputtering, Apple Bets Its Future on TV and News - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-the-iphone-sputtering-apple-bets-its-future-on-tv-and-news-11553437018 <comment> crooked-v "Sputtering"? Consistent sales of 40 to 70 million units per quarter for several years isn't "sputtering", it's just the result of a market so oversaturated that even young children are getting hand-me-down smartphones now.</comment>


Information Security Interview Questions - <AUTHOR> http://www.danielmiessler.com/study/infosec_interview_questions/

<comment><USER2> Hopefully, this is constructive criticism...

"What port does ping work over?"

Seriously, don't ask trick questions in interviews. You put the candidate in the impossible position of having to correct the interviewer, and the reaction to that tells you absolutely nothing about what the candidate knows or will do in a real-world situation.

"at least access to one, even if it's not at home."

And yet, this candidate will often simply answer "None" because you didn't ask about access to a network, even if the candidate maintains multiple complex networks at family members' homes.

"Are open-source projects more or less secure than proprietary ones?"

Don't ask yes/no questions if what you really want are pros and cons. Ask for pros and cons instead. Interviewing shouldn't involve mindreading. A lot of people will respond to a question like this by stating a thesis and then defending that thesis.

A lot of your questions have that problem. You're asking specific things, hoping that the interviewee will catch on and give you general answers. That seems to be testing interview skills more than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER3> These are not IS questions, they are ITS questions. There is a very serious difference between the two.

ITS without IS governance, policy, and management is worthless. It is chasing _ménaces du jour_ , not actually managing security.

Were I interviewing someone for a serious and senior IS role, I would start with social questions, asking them to describe what organizations they consider to be the most threatening in general and to businesses in my country and field specifically, and why.

I would describe (hypothetically, without saying so) an organization like mine (but different enough to give away little), its flaws and concerns, and ask them how they would address those flaws.

Were I to hire that senior IS person, I would let them build an IS organization, which would include an ITS component.

Without policy, governance, and management, you do not have security, you have techno farce - and your organization will remain perpetually reactive, never really knowing how secure it is, never really being able to assess risk reasonably.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Encoding is designed to protect the integrity of data as it crosses networks and systems"

Your blog entry has encoding problem. Indeed, it protects me from reading it.

</comment><comment><USER5> "How would you implement a secure login field on a high traffic website where performance is a consideration?" .... "wanting to serve the front page in HTTP, while needing to present the login form via HTTPs"

Maybe. There will still be a link on the HTTP page that takes you to a HTTPS page with a login form. Someone with MITM access could alter that link. A better way would be to serve all pages via HTTPS

<comment><USER6> If "performance is a consideration", then don't encrypt everything

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is it really true that you should compress before you encrypt? IT seems to me that the encrypted message should have the same amount of "information entropy" as the original message, so it should compress equally well.

<comment><AUTHOR> I always thought it was good to compress first because you can more easily avoid frequency attacks. In that way I think it's better to compress then encrypt.

EDIT: That and you get to encrypt a shorter data stream. I realize frequency attacks aren't as much of a concern these days but it's just the first thing that came to my mind.

<comment><USER8> Also, some encryption systems integrate compression; like OpenPGP -- it supports ZIP, ZLIB, and BZIP2. So in such case, it may well be just sufficient to encrypt uncompressed data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This stuff is basically at the CISSP CBK level, i.e. essentially worthless except as screening questions. Maybe it's ok as a baseline, but you really want something deeper and more relevant to your specific position.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Encoding is designed to protect the integrity of data as it crosses networks and systems"

What?

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the same thing when I read that. When I was thinking of "integrity" from a security perspective (as you might in an article like this) it didn't make sense. But when I thought of it more from a pure data transfer perspective between say a browser and the application it made more sense. I don't think he's saying that it's safe from mitm attacks. (At least, I hope not....)</comment></comment>


The Wall Street Code (VPRO documentary on HFT) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFQJNeQDDHA

<comment><AUTHOR> fascinating documentary on high frequency trading. If you're interested this one is similarly good:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq1Ln1UCoEU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq1Ln1UCoEU)</comment>


Windows 8 vs 3 year old - <AUTHOR> http://microsoft-news.com/3-year-old-shows-exactly-how-hard-it-is-to-learn-windows-8/

<comment><USER2> You can't argue with the video. We need a blog like this where 3 year olds try to use software, hardware, or websites. That'll be fun.

</comment><comment><USER3> "I read these tech pundits and journalists discussing how hard it's gonna be for the general public to learn the new UI of Windows 8. Nonsense." Duh either he is a genius who is reading pundits and journalists at age of 3 or either they bullshit me!</comment>


Lezer - <AUTHOR> http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/blog/lezer.html <comment><USER2> Very interesting read. I've written a number of syntax highlighters and have experienced nearly all these problems. I like the way codemirror currently does it (I basically am able to define my own parser in code and just pass the info CM needs), but will give Lezer a try. Ive found declarative forms like used by sublime and textmate to get you 80% of what you need in 1/10 the time, and then it takes 20/10 time to get that last 20%. One thing I do hope is that the new codemirror be in typescript, which would make it self documenting. Using the current code base feels a bit outdated, though it is so small and well done relatively that it's still a joy to use.

<comment><USER3> I believe it will be in Typescript and, if you look at his last couple of posts, he mentions building a documentation generator for Typescript code specifically for this project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"In a backtracking system, you never know when you 've definitely parsed a piece of content—later input might require you to backtrack again

[…]

A GLR parser can split its parse stack and run both sides alongside each other for a while until it becomes clear which one works out."_

So, depth-first vs breadth-first, where the former is a bad idea, performance- wise, because the 'better' parses may be found late in the game, so that, early on, very few branches can be cut soon?

</comment><comment><USER5> [regret]

<comment><USER6> And (as you know, if you've read the linked article) nondeterministic parsing is not fast.</comment></comment>


What Amazon's private label men shirts might tell us about the company's future - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/12/12/what-amazons-private-label-mens-shirts-might-tell-us-about-the-companys-future/ <comment><USER2> Yes, Amazon is getting private labels to compete with clothing stores that have their own private label like JCPenny, Marcy's, Sears, etc.

Walmart has been trying to force the government to charge Amazon sales a tax, and as a result, Amazon is looking for ways to build a warehouse store near Walmarts and Sam's Clubs to compete with them.

I've known people to go to a Walmart and look at an item, and then scan it into the Amazon app to see the price on Amazon, if it is cheaper on Amazon, they order it online. Customers do this with Best Buy and other stores, just scan in the product and find it on Amazon and compare prices. Now they are after the fashion designers with their own private label that is cheaper than some of the others.</comment>


Lavabit Founder Says He Had 'Obligation' to Shut Service - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/lavabit-founder-says-he-had-obligation-to-shut-service <comment> grey-area There's also an interview with the Lavabit founder Ladar Levison and his lawyer over on democracy now (seems to be on the HN banlist):

[http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/13/exclusive_owner_of_sno...](http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/13/exclusive_owner_of_snowdens_email_service)

<comment><USER2> Whoa, I had never heard of an attorney-client gag before:

> LADAR LEVISON: Well, just to add one thing to Greenwald's comments, I mean, > there's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with > the American public.

<comment><USER3> My understanding was attorney client privilege was basically absolute. So it would be nigh unto impossible to actually prevent you from sharing something with your lawyer. I wonder if the guy is embellishing some of this.

Of course, if you engage in a criminal conspiracy with your lawyer, it's breakable(sorry Walter White). So they could claim espionage. But the catch 22 is proving it it if the only evidence is itself covered by said privilege.

<comment><USER4> It would be a technical violation of the law to reveal to ANYONE including your lawyer that you received an NSL.

<comment><USER5> Just saying, there is no law on god's earth that would stop me talking to my girlfriend. The government simply does not have that right and I would NEVER recognise it.

<comment><USER6> You don't have to recognize that right so long as you're willing to take Snowden's route: flee to a country that is willing to stand up to the US and never return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am more concerned about this:

"Lavabit had complied with 'narrowly tailored' court orders for user information on at least two dozen occasions in the past"

In other words Lavabit is not any better than Hushmail. Lavabit did not base its security on cryptography, it based on it trusting the people who worked for the company. Cryptography was just a side show, just like with Hushmail, because Lavabit could get the plaintexts whenever someone working there wanted (or whenever they were compelled to do so by a government, criminal organization, etc.).

<comment><USER8> Lavabit was hosted webmail, and therefore inherently dependent on the host not being evil. It is not possible to construct a hosted webmail service that is safe against a malicious/compromised host.

The phrase "user information" is vague; it could include timestamps of all requests from a particular IP, for example. Given that he was willing to shut down his sole source of income on principle, I'm willing to believe that he had reasonable crypto in place to protect user data at rest.

      Cryptography was just a side show, just like with
      Hushmail, because Lavabit could get the plaintexts
      whenever someone working there wanted (or whenever they
      were compelled to do so by a government, criminal
      organization, etc.).

Assuming good faith and a reasonable storage implementation, it is possible that Lavabit is not capable of providing plaintext messages on demand. I heard somewhere that messages were stored with a key derived from the user's password; if true, then a warrant for firstname.lastname@example.com might not be fulfillable until after the next successful login from johndoe@.

<comment><USER7> "The phrase "user information" is vague; it could include timestamps of all requests from a particular IP, for example."

Sure, but this warrant makes it pretty clear that the government was seeking message bodies, attachments, etc.:

[http://ia600908.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.2362...](http://ia600908.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.236204/gov.uscourts.mdd.236204.docket.html)

"I heard somewhere that messages were stored with a key derived from the user's password; if true, then a warrant for email@example.com might not be fulfillable until after the next successful login from johndoe@."

...or to try brute forcing the password offline, which has a reasonable probability of working. Either way, it is not any different than the situation with Hushmail, and I would put both squarely in the "snake oil" category.

<comment><USER9> > ...or to try brute forcing the password offline, which has a reasonable > probability of working. Either way, it is not any different than the > situation with Hushmail, and I would put both squarely in the "snake oil" > category.

You have an awfully high standard of what you define as "snake oil" cryptography. If a brute force effort to derive the secret key constitutes snake oil, I have bad news for you regarding the state of crypto.

<comment><USER7> First of all, brute forcing the password is not needed _unless_ the user fails to log in. The system is designed for the user to send the most important secret, on which the rest of the system's security depends, to a third party.

That being said, brute forcing a password is not the same thing as brute forcing a secret key. The distribution of passwords that people can remember is not even remotely uniform, and the distribution of passwords that people actually use is even more heavily biased.

Compare to GnuPG: the attacker needs access to your computer before he can even attempt to brute force your password or try to capture it.

<comment><USER9> Brute forcing an individual user's password can still be made an extremely costly operation with appropriate measures incorporated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _" After his announcement last Thursday, a second company, Silent Circle, based in Maryland, said it would close its secure e-mail service. That company said it had not been served with a government order of any kind. In a pre- emptive bid to protect its customers' data, Silent Circle said it had obliterated everything in its server."_

Uh, what? This could almost be the story satirized by this passage from 1911:

 _" A certain German art expert, who had obtained from the municipality of Bergamo permission to inspect the famous masterpiece, declared it to be a spurious Pincini... The editor of an Italian art journal refuted the contentions of the German expert and undertook to prove that his private life did not conform to any modern standard of decency. The whole of Italy and Germany were drawn into the dispute, and the rest of Europe was soon involved in the quarrel. There were stormy scenes in the Spanish Parliament, and the University of Copenhagen bestowed a gold medal on the German expert (afterwards sending a commission to examine his proofs on the spot), while two Polish schoolboys in Paris committed suicide to show what THEY thought of the matter."_

\-- Saki, "The Background" ([http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/saki/clovis/chapter6.html](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/saki/clovis/chapter6.html))

<comment><USER11> _Uh, what? This could almost be..._

They're nothing alike. Suppose Silent Circle sent an email to all its users announcing that they would destroy the data on the server in 7 days. It's a good bet the government has accounts on most privacy-advocating web services, simply to keep tabs. That gives the government 7 days to try to get a FISA warrant, or if they think they can get away with it, unilaterally issue a NSL.

They would only be able to subpoena a few of the email accounts (or maybe a lot, but certainly not all), but that still breaks the privacy model many people assume given its advertisement as "secure" webmail.

Silent Circle didn't want to take the chance, and your hyperbolic parallel notwithstanding, they had good reason to do what they did.

<comment><USER10> Hmm, I think we're making different assumptions about what happened to Lavabit, so it might be useful to discuss this more.

I was assuming that:

a) Lavabit can't access its users' email, so any subpoenas are ineffective at getting at emails stored in their servers.

b) However, the feds would force them to snoop on decrypted data for specific accounts as it is served back to the user. This would only give access to what the user happens to read after the order goes into effect.

c) They received a new order that was a _lot_ more invasive, perhaps to snoop on all plaintext data as it left their servers.

d) They suspended operations before any such snooping could occur.

If all this is true, any other operation can follow the same steps. If the feds ask for too much, we suspend operations immediately, no 7 days. But they wouldn't need to preemptively suspend before the feds come knocking. Is there something wrong with my reasoning? Were you making different assumptions?

<comment><USER4> Actually they would, with a NSL the Government can (and has been suspected of in the past) force a Service provider to remain operational, or not to do anything that would interfere with the collection of the data they are looking for.

Now I dont know if the NSA attempted that with Lavabit, or if Lavabit willfully ignored that demand, etc but the government does have that legal power.

<comment><USER12> Sounds remarkably familiar...

"In the name of the general welfare, to protect the people's security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that:

...

Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

..." [1]

[1] [http://conservapedia.com/Directive_10-289](http://conservapedia.com/Directive_10-289)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "I've always sort of believed it's important for Americans to have private conversations with other Americans," Mr. Levison said in a telephone interview Monday, "and not fear that their conversations were being monitored by the government."

The problem with that is you know your service is going to be used by criminals, child pornography, organized crime, terrorists etc. So if you start this service you know you're going to have to comply with government requests for that data. It seems disingenuous to complain about their requests as though you didn't expect them and that they wouldn't e reasonable. And I think he's saying that in his own way when you get into the details: "Yep, I supported the narrowly defined ones but the broadly defined ones are the straw that broke the camels back"

<comment><USER14> I have some issues with your statement.

> The problem with that is you know your service is going to be used by > criminals, child pornography, organized crime, terrorists etc.

Thats a huge stretch and abuse of logic IMHO. Don't build roads because criminals and terrorists will drive on them. There will be also UPS/FedEx couriers delivering printed child pornography driving those roads. So better, setup checkpoint and unmanned vehicle x-ray type scanners and set them up every where on highways.

More insane: don't open a barber shop, because if you have hairy guy robbing bank next door, he can get a haircut at your place and cops will have hard time recognizing him.

I don't think every one and each of Lavabit 1,500 paid customers were terrorist. I understand and respect people willingness to have a safe and secure email, as Constitution says you should feel save and secure in your own skin.

> So if you start this service you know you're going to have to comply with > government requests for that data.

We don't know what really happened. Knowing how feds work just a little bit, I wouldn't be suprised if owners were intimidated via FBI/CIA/DEA/IRS and plenty other Government Organisations. I wouldn't be suprised if owners, their families and their friends would fall under heavy scrutiny and deep IRS audits. There is really soo many things Feds can do not to break the law, technically, and still harass $hit out of you and your family.

If they fall on each gov request, next we will have that barber share his info, just because feds want to. You know, terrorists are humans; they do get haircut sometimes too.

<comment><USER15> _> Thats a huge stretch and abuse of logic IMHO. Don't build roads because criminals and terrorists will drive on them._

Just thought those two sentences were funny being right next to each other.

Let's be honest here, though: The percentage of people using his email service for illegal reasons is much higher than the percentage of people using roads for the same illegal reasons. It's the same problem that Pastebin faces,[0] and it's the reason paste.pocoo.org shut down.[1] Services that advertise complete privacy and anonymity get swamped with people who want to hide illegal activity.

[0]: [http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/62490-pastebin- to-p...](http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/62490-pastebin-to-police- itself-for-illegal-content)

[1]: [http://paste.pocoo.org/about/](http://paste.pocoo.org/about/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The problem with centralized privacy-as-a-service is the Fed raid problem. In order to be "fed proof," a service must be sufficiently distributed.

PS: I'll say what has been said again, Lavabit was so close to being wildly successful, it's a shame that an insecure govt leadership decided to squash a thriving venture. Though it was a likely conclusion because of centralized ownership.

<comment><USER7> The problem is not limited to any specific government; the problem is that you are doing something inherently insecure when you allow a service provider to generate, store, and utilize your private keys. Exploits by law enforcement are not the only problem -- spies, criminals, etc. can also exploit the weakness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm no lawyer but I think Mr. Levinson should lay low and avoid talking to the media. I think he is already in deep trouble, if he keeps talking, he is pretty much challenging federal prosecutors to have him "Swartz'd"

<comment><USER18> Defy the system. Abusive governments win when everyone shuts up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> An idea for fixing this is having an email provider broken up between several countries that are not expected to cooperate (like U.S., Russia, Equador and Iran) and coded in a way that renders information worthless unless pieces from all parts are used. Then no court order can help.

<comment><USER19> Correction: better having some redundancy because otherwise a single country can shut down the system (while not steal data).</comment></comment>


Ted Seides Concedes Bet with Warren Buffett - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-03/why-i-lost-my-bet-with-warren-buffett <comment><USER2> > "Comparing hedge funds and the S&P 500 is a little bit like asking which > team is better, the Chicago Bulls or the Chicago Bears. Like the Bulls and > the Bears in the Windy City, hedge funds and the S&P 500 play different > sports."

That, to me, is a CRAZY statement to make. Both ETFs and hedge fund are financial funds that a person considers putting their money in with the intention of maximizing their return. To say that they "play different sports" is at best stretching the truth, at worst a lie.

> "The unexpected strength of the S&P 500 was a key contributor to Warren's > victory. Despite trading for a high multiple of earnings and facing an > elevated level of risk, the S&P 500 performed in-line with historical > averages."

So the "unexpected strength" came from performing "in-line with historical averages"?

<comment><USER3> >Both ETFs and hedge fund are financial funds that a person considers putting their money in with the intention of maximizing their return. To say that they "play different sports" is at best stretching the truth, at worst a lie.

They're playing different strategies. If you're a defense-driven team you play to win primarily be keeping the other team (call them the black swans) from scoring. To bring it out of metaphor, it's about _risk-adjusted_ maximum return.

If you're an offense-driven team you're trying to put more points on the board. The S&P 500 is a decidedly long bet on 100%, large cap, primarily western corporate equities.

>So the "unexpected strength" came from performing "in-line with historical averages"?

Hedge fund guys are usually bears and as such they've successfully predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions. They're perpetually prepared for or waiting for history to be proven wrong. It is within that context that they are seeking a maximum return (and justification for high fees).

<comment><USER4> But as an investor, _I 'm_ not playing different sports. I'm looking to maximize returns while minimizing losses. A defensive team and an offensive team may have different strategies but their goal is the same: win the game.

Are you saying that "risk-adjusted maximum return" is essentially (rate of return, std. deviation), and that hedge funds are offering a lower rate of return in exchange for a lower std. deviation? Like how Treasury bonds offer (1%, 0)? I'm no hedge fund expert, but I've always assumed hedge fund claim to get higher rate of return than the S&P 500 through the brilliance of their active management (for which you pay them gobs of money). And in this experiment, over 10 years, the deviation of the S&P 500 compared to its expected average was about 0, and their returns (net fees) was about 25% the S&P 500. So even if the S&P 500 had less than average returns it would have still trounced the hedge funds.

<comment><USER5> Maximizing returns while minimizing losses is, ultimately, a meaningess phrase.

What you mean is maximizing returns under some specific risk acceptance. That risk acceptance is different between hedge funds and other funds. You choose the fund that matches the game YOU are playing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "My guess is that doubling down on a bet with Warren Buffett for the next 10 > years would hold greater-than-even odds of victory."

Great Ted, so instead of complaining about why you lost, just make the same bet again at even higher stakes.

<comment><USER7> a martingale betting system is spotted in the wild!

as long as he can persist to infinity, he will make money.

i don't know if ted can, but i suspect warren is an immortal lizard person of celestial intellect (and wealth).

<comment><USER8> Personally, I really hope so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe I'm too biased (in Buffett's favor) but this reads like Seides saying: Sure I lost but Buffett only won because he was lucky.

>> "My guess is that doubling down on a bet with Warren Buffett for the next 10 years would hold greater-than-even odds of victory." <\--- Reeks of the Gambler's fallacy.

<comment><USER10> Gambler's fallacy has to do with independent uncorrelated events. The stock market is no such beast. I have no love for seides, but this is atrocious timing for him. To a certain degree your yield on the s&p depends on _timing_. I know many people who were hired when the s&p is high and fired when it crashed. For the hoi polloi, i.e. "not Warren Buffett", the s&p is often _life-procyclical_ and they get screwed.

<comment><USER11> Atrocious timing? It seems to me that he got supremely lucky. Within the first 14 months of the bet he had the largest bear market in nearly a century. Isn't this where the "risk management" advantage of hedge funds comes in? And he still lost.

Oh, and his piece is littered with false comparisons (picking benchmarks post facto despite knowing he'd be compared to the S&P500 index total return) and falsehoods (international stocks, see VTIAX, have provided a positive return over the period he describes); hard to take him seriously at all.

<comment><USER12> Exactly this. Seides and Buffet are saying Buffet will win "unless they get a market crash" (the second in the 10-year period).

Yes, hedge funds seek to hedge their bets against bear markets, but if you require two major crashes in 10 years to break even with passive investing, the smart money should go elsewhere.

<comment><USER13> The average time between stock market crashes is roughly 8 years... so 2 in 10 isn't outrageous.

<comment><USER14> Yeah but not a sensible bet to take even odds on. It would be about a 20% chance assuming a Poisson distribution (probably entirely false, but you get the point).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Strange that he doesn't even mention let alone discuss that the primary reason he lost may just be the reason Buffett originally cited which was the high fees of hedge funds/active management. That in most if not all market conditions, high fees preclude a better average return than index funds.

The only reason Seides provided which I found somewhat persuasive was that hedge funds tend to do better in downturns -- this is probably a traditional hedge fund that's actually hedged. I wonder if adding such hedging to an index fund in an automated way would improve performance or not?! Not sure if it's been tested.

<comment><USER16> Yea, it's actually likely that many investment managers have skills that can beat the market. But it's been proven that the vast majority cannot, after fees. Those that have "skill" have an edge that is so thin that 2% a year evaporates it (mutual funds). With Hedge Funds charging 2% + profit share, it's an even heavier burden.

Guys like Buffett that beat the market by 7-10% a year over decades are nearly unicorns in rareness.

<comment><USER17> The secret is that Buffett _isn 't_ beating the market by 7-10% a year over decades. He's not a hedge fund prodigy, he's a management prodigy.

His companies beat the market because he is the antithesis of the quarterly- numbers-driven model of Wall Street. He focuses on fundamentals, long-term value, and having leadership that's on the same page. He makes sure his businesses aren't underspending on fundamentals or overspending on inessentials, and then he gets out of the way.

Saying that Buffett "beats the market" is like saying that a sports coach is really good at picking winning teams. His companies outperform the market because Buffett enables them to outperform the market.

(on top of that, yes, he's a savvy investor and he's made some ballsy calls - but absent his management I doubt you would see him doing better than the 2% that other actively-managed funds can earn above the market return)

<comment><USER18> Your information is incorrect.

As an investor - not as a manager - Buffett stomped the market for decades prior to the modern concept of Berkshire Hathaway becoming the business model.

Numerous other Graham disciples likewise stomped the market over long periods of time.

[https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/columbia- business/sup...](https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/columbia- business/superinvestors)

Going further, other well-known value investors applying similar approaches (by their own admission), stomped the market as well. Those include the likes of Phil Fisher and Seth Klarman. The out-performance isn't subtle, it's dramatic, and it takes place over long periods of time.

<comment><USER19> I think beating the market was way easier in earlier times because the markets were less efficient. These days everyone have data and watch metrics.

<comment><USER16> Metrics are useless without philosophical and psychological commitment to the process. Many mediocre value investors can do valuations all day, understand moats, and then allow tons of biases to cloud their thinking and panic at the worst times. Then there's the guys who do valuations, then look at the charts to pick entry/exit point s, as if they can predict price action. With so many people doing it wrong, is there any reason to doubt the market is still inefficient?

Buffett has never used computers. He reads financial reports. He doesn't want to know the market price until he's estimated a valuation, so he doesn't bias his decision. He's not staring at the tape or CNN so he doesn't get wound up to make knee jerk decisions. He sits around and reads and learns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ex fund manager here. Some things about this bet that need to be mentioned:

\- It should be risk adjusted. No idea how the numbers come out, but what's the sense in comparing the return without the accompanying variance? For example if the S&P has 15% vol over the period but the hedge fund 30%, that factor of two needs to be taken into account somehow.

\- Management fees of 2% are clearly too high for this day and age. They came about historically when hedge funds were collections of small amounts of money, happy to take large risks. If you're willing to have volatility of 36%, paying 2% a year is going to be different from paying 2% for 12% vol. Part of the reason vol is lower is institutional investors are not HNWs. I used to run a fund that ran 36% vol as a target, and the IIs came to us and said they couldn't present it to their superiors. The explanation that you could just put less capital in didn't seem to resonate with the box checkers. Must be something that Kahnemann and Tversky could illuminate.

\- I'm not sure the thing about the S&P being unnaturally strong is a valid excuse. If you're a hedge fund, you are free to just do a leveraged play on the S&P, thus beating it if you think it's going up. Same goes for what will inevitably come up, the extraordinarily loose monetary policy following the crisis. Whatever caused the S&P to go up, you could have bet on it.

\- The bets are against funds-of-funds, which compound fees. You might be paying 2/20 to the underlying funds and 1/10 to the manager of this portfolio. That's a pretty big chunk. Normally what the FoF says to its customers is they have access to funds that others don't, through good relationships gained over years. Though looking at the summary in Buffett's letter it looks like even if you added ~30% for the 10 years of fees to each group, you still wouldn't beat the S&P. But that's just my late night eyeballing, perhaps with the performance fee it would be in the ballpark.

\- Buffett stipulated it had to be multiple funds-of-funds, probably because this would mean you'd get S&P with costs. What else are a bunch of mainly American hedge funds going to invest in, given you have hundreds of underlying funds? You might get the odd emerging markets fund, but they'll be swamped out by the hundreds of generic funds that just punt some US stocks. Restricting it to funds-of-funds is actually pretty smart, because FoFs are going to tend to be conservative and take a selection from the buffet (yeah I said that). Allowing individual hedge funds might have given a very different result.

<comment><USER21> Yeah this bet was not a smart one for Ted given the terms. I'd gladly take it with a few slight revisions though:

1) The hedge funds don't have to be "funds-of-funds", and

2) I can choose the hedge funds.

But I suspect Buffett wouldn't take that bet. He strikes me as someone who doesn't take bets without knowing pretty well in advance that he'll win.

It also sort of alters the claim from "hedge funds as an industry will beat the S&P 500 overall" to "elite hedge funds can consistently beat the S&P 500." But given that he is a fund manager, I have no idea what Seides was thinking trying to claim the former.

<comment><USER22> It was Seides's idea to make it funds of funds and he could choose them -

[http://archive.fortune.com/2008/06/04/news/newsmakers/buffet...](http://archive.fortune.com/2008/06/04/news/newsmakers/buffett_bet.fortune/index.htm)

5 hedge funds I'm not sure would make a lot of sense, too small a number to diversify, funds wind down.

The hedge funds were winning for the first few years with the crisis. A straight up stock market is not great for the hedge fund side.

Also worth noting that Buffett is an active manager and claims he could beat the S&P by a large margin if he was managing a smaller portfolio. And he's said the efficient market theory is dumb and makes his job easier. He tells people to put their money into index funds and then does the opposite. From his perspective he's talking his own book, if there is another Warren Buffett level talent out there, no need to tell everyone to find the best competition and back him, might as well tell people they're wasting their time, just buy the index.

<comment><USER21> There are comparable talents to Warren Buffett, and Seides could have chosen them. If Jim Simons wasn't retired, I'd happily give up the legal right to invest in the S&P 500 ever again just to invest with him if that was somehow a requirement.

Instead, Seides did...whatever this silly attempt was. I get that the "fund of hedge funds" clause was his idea, but it was stupid.

I use the word "stupid" unironically, fully self-aware of potential Dunning- Kruger, and I reiterate - there was nothing sensible about his taking the bet at those terms. It was never a defensible position that hedge funds as an aggregate industry outperform the market - maybe before the turn of the century, but not after the market became saturated with every Tom Dick and Larry with a shingle outside their doors.

Even if it fundamentally changes the goal of the bet, Seides should have had different terms if he really wanted to win.

<comment><USER23> I'm interested: with Jim Simons, is it some acumen you believe in, some method he employs, or some connections/stature that leads good deals to his door?

For instance, with Buffett, it seemed his stature, historical perspective, and _means_ allowed him to invest $5B in Goldman Sachs at the near height of panic, under terms that very few were able to get.

(Caveat: I don't know anything about Simons, but I'm very curious about the basis for your claim/offer, knowing that in the HN crowd, you have a lot of industry experience.)

<comment><USER21> I'm aware of what you're saying about Buffett (he is essentially an excellent and influential business magnate, not just an excellent investor), but it doesn't apply to Simons. He's a mathematician (Chern-Simons theorem), and his investing methodology is utterly different from Buffett's.

Simons' firm, Renaissance Technologies, doesn't do value investing. They were one of the first hedge funds to do quantitative financial modeling. I suspect a lot of what they do is market making instead of purely directional trading, but it's hard to know since the fund is incredibly secretive. Simons' business connections or acumen in the traditional sense have nothing to do with the fund's success; it's entirely about the strategy they employ.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the clarification and explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Warren and I have written during the past two years that he will win the bet > _absent a market crash_. Hedge funds tend to significantly outperform in > bear markets, as demonstrated in 2008 and 2000-2002.

This bet started in January 1st, 2008 shortly _before_ the market crash of 2008. What could Ted Seides mean by bringing this up? It seems to just reinforce Buffet's win.

<comment><USER13> I think he is pointing out that if you look at the 2008-2009 timeframe, the hedge funds had a loss of roughly 5-15%, while the S&P500 had a loss of roughly 20%. The hedge funds did better in bear markets... they just don't do well enough in bull markets to make up the difference over a 10 year period with only a single crash.

In a theoretical world where modern hedge funds were in business between 2000 and 2009, we might have come to a different conclusion: there were a number of down markets during that time and hedge funds might have been able to do much better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well, this almost 10 year period didn't teach anything to this guy, or, more probable, he's just trying to defend a rigged industry.

Basically, he's saying that Warren won by luck, while in truth it wasn't even close. It's worth to state this clearly - the passive index did a 85.4% return up to date, while the five funds did 2.9%, 7.5%, 8.7%, 28.3%, 62.8%. You do the math.

If there is one guy in this world that understand how economy and markets work, it's Warren. And he has a ~60 years track record to back this up.

<comment><USER26> His point about the biases of the S&P 500 are valid but his conclusions are not. There's a point where even he acknowledges that hedge funds saw comparable performance to a separate passive fund (MSCI All World I think?).

Even if his thesis around the S&P 500's value is correct (which I agree with) it doesn't mean that passive investments as a whole will be outperformed by equivalent hedge funds. I'd be curious to see what the performance of hedge funds that were effectively "US-only" was, my suspicion is that they weren't in line with the S&P further invalidating his conclusions.

<comment><USER11> Comparing to an incorrect benchmark (MSCI All-World) post-facto isn't exactly a get out of jail free card for trailing the benchmark that was known at the time of the bet. It just shows you're pretty desparate for excuses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I clicked on the link expecting to read an elaborate version of "I lost the bet because I was wrong," perhaps followed by a detailed inquiry into the facts and reasons that motivated Buffett -- a man with a long history of NOT losing bets -- to take the other side of the bet. That's what one is supposed to do when things go wrong, right?

Instead, Mr. Seides lays out in this article six reasons why, despite losing the bet, he's still right.

Which begs the question:

Why did he agree to the bet in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER28> I love this part: >"But the S&P 500 defied the odds and rewarded investors with a historically normal 7.1 percent nine-year annualized return."

He must know that 7% is something of a magic number, it's what Jeremy Siegel argued is the steady, annual inflation-adjusted gains for equites for the past 200 years in his seminal book "Stocks for the Long Run," which was written in 1994 and is _the_ foundational argument for passive equity investing ("Irrational Exuberance" and others argue directly against it).

The fact that the S&P 500 did 7.1% over 9 years is only "lucky" if you ignore the precise argument that Buffet, Siegel and many others make.

<comment><USER29> Not quite. Seides' claim is that, at the start of the period, the S&P 500 was valued at the high end of its historical range. It is somewhat reasonable to expect that it would come down from that high instead of going higher.

<comment><USER30> Translation: Even experts can get fooled into thinking they can time the market...

<comment><USER19> He did time the market correctly, and still lost.

<comment><USER29> ... and still claimed that most of the time, he would win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If anyone was curious about how Berkshire Hathaway did over a similar period:

3 May 2007-3 May 2017

S&P 500: +60% Berkshire Hathaway A (BRK.A): +129%

Dude is good.

<comment><USER11> Berkshire Hathaway didn't distribute any dividends during this period; many companies in the S&P 500 index did, so this is not a good comparison.

The S&P 500 index _total return_ still lost to S&P500 but by a more modest ~29%.

<comment><USER32> While we're on the topic, can anyone explain to me the purpose of paying dividends? When I try to look this up, all I get is the definition of a dividend. Wouldn't that money be better going back into the company, increasing its value to the investors the same amount, but now with more capital for innovation/survival? Why do companies incentivize investors to hold their stock?

<comment><USER33> Some companies are good at one thing and don't want to expand. They think investors have better opportunities outside.

<comment><USER21> Elegantly stated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm heading to Omaha tomorrow for my first $BRK shareholder meeting this weeekend. Super excited to hear Warren and Charlie speak and answer questions. Warren just has incredible discipline (way above most people). He does not let emotions get the best of him. All of his decisions and investments are calculated and thoroughly researched.

"People who mix their politics up with their investment activity.... I don't think that makes sense." \-- Warren Buffett

<comment><USER23> The timing of conceding this bet is auspicious.

\--Signed, another $BRK meeting attendee

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For bet details: [http://longbets.org/362/](http://longbets.org/362/) [edit: grammar]

<comment><USER35> > _STAKES $1,000,000 will go to Girls Incorporated of Omaha if Buffett wins, > or Friends of Absolute Return for Kids, Inc if Protege Partners, LLC wins._

That's one hell of a charity name.

 _Edit:_ It seems it must be parsed as (Friends of (Absolute Return for Kids)), and good on them that they've renamed it since: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_(charity)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_\(charity\))

<comment><USER36> Also: _We Think Girls Are The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread... we serve hundreds of girls every day._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> "I have learned nothing." \- Ted Seides

</comment><comment><USER38> >"No. 2: Risk matters, eventually"

Isn't this exactly backwards??

</comment><comment><USER39> >No. 6. Long-term returns only matter if we invest for the long term

>Studies of human behavior repeatedly point to the inability of investors to stay the course through tough times.

I'd like to see some studies of this with, for example, 401k accounts. Do people actually pull out of indices and into bonds when their the index is really far down?

I could see a marked difference in behavior between retirement accounts and taxable accounts; those with taxable accounts are probably going to feel much more like they need to _do_ something, since they had to do something to make the buys in the first place.

<comment><USER40> To answer your question: Yes, investment flows tend to be trend following, people put money in when the market has been doing well and pull it out when it's been doing poorly. There are macroeconomic reasons for this, since people tend to be cash poor in downturns and cash rich in booms, but there also seems to be psychological 'returns chasing' behavior which hurts the median investor's returns. Here's a source using mutual fund flows, which shouldn't be fundamentally different than ETF fund flows:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/blackrock-sp-500-vs-equity- fu...](http://www.businessinsider.com/blackrock-sp-500-vs-equity-fund- flow-2013-4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> There are two main reasons why index funds outperform active funds.

1\. Fees. Active funds start as underdogs because of their fees.

2\. The distribution of returns in the stock market is very uneven. Just handful of well performing stocks at any moment account make significant gains in market. Index funds pick these winners every time. Active funds start as underdogs even in the stock picking game.

Why Indexing Works, Heaton , Polson and Witte, 2015. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2673262](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2673262)

> The risk of substantial index underperformance always dominates the chance > of substantial index outperformance, with the difference being greater the > smaller the size of the selected sub-portfolios. It is far more likely that > a randomly selected (small) subset of the 500 stocks will underperform than > overperform, because average index performance depends on the inclusion of > the extreme winners that often are missed in sub-portfolios.

</comment><comment><USER42> > defied the odds and rewarded investors with a historically normal 7.1 > percent nine-year annualized return

I know, past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes, but when talking _odds_ , surely decades worth of data showing historical returns in a similar range, the odds in this case would be skewed towards preferring a continuation of that trend.

</comment><comment><USER43> What if (hypothetically) a large majority of investors started investing into index funds? For example, an enormous amount of retail investors are won over by this bet and believe passive investment in index funds will always lead to higher returns. Are there any ramifications of this situation that may cause inefficiencies where investing in hedge funds may lead to better returns over a period of decades? Should we all just dump our money into SPY and VTI now that Warren Buffett has won this bet? Or maybe Ted was just unlucky to take this bet during successive rounds of QE that pushed interest rates to historic lows and perhaps artificially turned more risky assets into the only vehicles for returns?

<comment><USER8> I have no strong evidence to back this up, but I believe that odds exactly why the price of the S&P500 in terms of price to earnings is so high right now.

<comment><USER23> If you look at where the money is moving, this is exactly right and it has already happened. Passive management is crushing the inflow numbers.

Perhaps this creates opportunities, but maybe not opportunities at scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> OP made a sucker's bet for two reasons: 1\. Fees, which he doesn't mention this write up 2\. Hedging, which drags performance in up market years. Markets tend to move up over time, so the longer the outlook, the more likely he is to lose.

</comment><comment><USER45> > "Although a market crash is highly unlikely in the near future..."

Statements like this are just harbingers of doom to me.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think it's important to note that Ted's bet was in fund of funds, which require additional fees that would negatively effect his investment return regardless of its performance.

</comment><comment><USER47> This bet remains the worst possible framing of a question "can hedge funds provide value?".

Some do, more don't. Active investing is negative sum so unless you've got some pretty good reasons to believe that the specific active manager [fund] has a market beating methodology then you should not be touching them.

Investing in a basically un-curated basket of hedge funds is a bad idea full stop and it was crazy to take the other side.

</comment><comment><USER48> There are two separate issues.

1 The expected returns from the two investments. 2 The likley returns at the time the bet was made.

</comment><comment><USER49> Someone is a sore loser.</comment>


Trump Demands Microsoft Pay Off the U.S. Treasury to Secure TikTok Deal - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/trump-demands-microsoft-pay-off-the-u-s-treasury-to-se-1844597734 <comment><AUTHOR> > _It's probably easier to buy the whole thing than to buy 30% of it. 'Cause I > say how do you do 30%? Who's going to get the name? The name is hot, the > brand is hot. And who's going to get the name? How do you do that if it's > owned by two different companies? So, my personal opinion was, you are > probably better off buying the whole thing rather than buying 30% of it. I > think buying 30% is complicated.

... I did say that if you buy it, whatever the price is, that goes to whoever owns it, because I guess it's China, essentially, but more than anything else, I said a very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States. Because we're making it possible for this deal to happen. Right now they don't have any rights, unless we give it to 'em. So if we're going to give them the rights, then it has to come into, it has to come into this country.

It's a little bit like the landlord-tenant [relationship]. Uh, without a lease, the tenant has nothing. So they pay what is called "key money" or they pay something. But the United States should be reimbursed, or should be paid a substantial amount of money because without the United States they don't have anything, at least having to do with the 30%._

This could also be interpreted as something akin to extortion.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is akin to the CCP's modus operandi, also known as mafia tactics. I really don't like fighting fire with fire, it sets a terrible precedent.

</comment><comment><USER3> "The art of the deal". This is getting better and better...</comment>


A 'Star Trek' Future Might Be Closer Than We Think - <AUTHOR> http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/a-star-trek-future-might-be-closer-than-we-think/

<comment><USER2> People who use Star Trek as a template for a post-scarcity, post-capitalist economy need to realize that universe was built out of plywood, cell-tape and bullshit. It doesn't actually work because it's window dressing. Magic boxes make all the stuff and people are nice and smart and just _better_ because future reasons, and so humans can always be presented as morally better than the aliens, even the aliens who are far, far advanced in every other conceivable way.

I'm a Star Trek fan, but there is nothing to be learned about a post-scarcity economy, whether it could even exist, or how it might actually affect society from a show which presents Wesley Crusher as the archetype of human evolution.

You might as well ask what the elves in the Lord of the Rings can teach us about the science of longevity. Star Trek has a lot to offer in terms of science fiction and speculation, and was ahead of its time in terms of how seriously television took the genre, and has inspired a lot of technological innovation. But it never took human character study or its own utopian premise seriously. If you actually care about these things, look elsewhere for insight. Star Trek has nothing for you but noble savages, thinly veiled racist caricatures masquerading as aliens, technobabble and nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER3> No it isn't. Star Trek, at least the version with replicators, is made possible by limitless available energy and matter<->energy conversion.

<comment><USER4> _But, said Mr. Saadia, a post-scarcity economy is actually far more within reach than the technological advances for which "Star Trek" is better known. Warp drive isn't coming any time soon, if ever, he explained, but wealthy retirees today already live an essentially post-money existence, "traveling and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy."_

They acknowledge that the technology won't be there, but a post-scarcity economy might. I don't see how that could be possible without some of the technology in Star Trek, though. At a bare minimum, we would need to switch completely away from fossil fuels to an abundant/renewable, clean energy source, find a sustainable way to provide food, clean water, and shelter to everyone, and have universal healthcare at no cost to any individual. To accomplish any one of those without the level of technology seen in Star Trek seems like a stretch.</comment></comment>


A great story of humanity - Two religions, one family, and a court - <AUTHOR> http://rottenview.blogspot.in/2012/02/hindu-man-raising-muslim-child-in.html

<comment><USER2> There is no explanation of the 'abandonment' of the boy? Was he lost? Abducted? How did the parents find him? Had they been searching for all the intervening years? And so on...

<comment><AUTHOR> Boy does not remember how he reached in park. Parents found him when they watched this story on TV show after 5 years. They had been searching him but surprisingly did not lodge a missing complaint with the police. More details on that here: <http://www.facebook.com/humanity05/info>

or you can Google: "hindu man raising a muslim child"</comment></comment>


IKEA's Space-Themed Micro Living Furniture (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.hipsthetic.com/ikea-creates-space-themed-micro-living-furniture/ <comment><USER2> I really won't trust in IKEA products at space</comment>


The 20 most-watched TED Talks - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ted.com/2012/08/21/the-20-most-watched-ted-talks-to-date/

<comment><USER2> Pretty good choices, users. Except for Arthur Benjamin.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sir Ken Robinson FTW!</comment>


Computational Zoom: A Framework for Post-Capture Image Composition - <AUTHOR> http://cvc.ucsb.edu/graphics/Papers/SIGGRAPH2017_ComputationalZoom/ <comment><USER2> Unless I missed it, this seems to skip over an important key step: how is the "foreground" vs "background" identified? There are mask layers, but where do they come from?

<comment><USER3> The second video on the page explains they use multiple source photographs taken from different positions with the same camera and lens to produce an approximate depth map of the scene. These multiple views allow for image segmentation based on distance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Zoom and enhance!</comment>


Ask HN: What is the possibility of disrupting 'colleges' like 'Full Sail' - <AUTHOR>

I worked at a digital art college called Ex'pression for a number of years and to make a long story short its tuition has ballooned to $100,000 and is business has been contracting. Most of it's business is held together by students enrolled in the sound program and a good majority of what they teach could be done online. I'm curious if anyone thinks this might be a niche area for disruption, or if the real disruption is just the swath of education resources already online irrespective of if its sound/audio specific. <comment><USER2> Simply making an art degree affordable would be a good start. The problem with art/design/fashion/music degrees is that tuition tends to be higher than more "boring" degrees.

What makes it even worse is that the market is already too large. Creative people tend to keep working until they die, so you don't see the same levels of attrition that you do in other fields, you simply end up competing with people that have refined their skills over 20-50 years. After one finishes paying 120k+ for tuition alone, that person will have about a 50-60% chance of finding employment, and that includes employment that's not even remotely related to the field. If you do find a creative gig, the average income is around 28-32K.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree ( obviously) but as a side point it's my experience that these ( audio ) schools don't teach 'art'. They teach basic technical application. If individual students then want to apply what they learn to their (or someone else's) art that's their business. It's too subjective to do it any other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not sure if this is "disruption," but I bet the trend in entertainment-focused degree programs is toward deals with for-profit entertainment companies. For example, take a look at the WWE's partnerships with Full Sail. Right now, Full Sail students are producing and designing programs for the WWE's development and training center.

[http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2012/2012_05_14.jsp](http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2012/2012_05_14.jsp)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing this out. It's useful. I know that some of these code bootcamps basically have deals with larger companies and get paid to serve as a filter mechanism for them. Not sure if that would work with the entertainment aspect of the audio world as a reliable hook toward an education business. I say that because the level of indifference culturally in the industry (in my experience) is too great. The WWE/Full Sail example is within a broader context of full AV setup work, and of course Full Sail has a lot of resources to play with as well as partnerships already in place etc.</comment></comment>


Facebook expands its hate-fighting counterspeech initiative in Europe - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/23/facebook-expands-its-hate-fighting-counterspeech-initiative-in-europe <comment><USER2> Of course all the anti-hate counter-speech will be clearly labelled as funded by these initiatives, and any censored posts will show up as "Post censored/demoted due to <reason>", right? After all, transparency is good.</comment>


Fire Your Relatives. Scare Your Employees. And Stop Whining.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/business/smallbusiness/11sbiz.html

<comment><USER2> Sounds to me like this guy has created a fantastically shitty place to work, and an equally shitty company to do business with. You can't get away with abusive behavior towards employees and vendors and expect to keep the good ones around - anyone that's worth the money has far too many options to put up with cheapskate asshats like this. If you treat everyone like shit, don't act surprised when only shitty people continue to work with you.

When a client starts dicking around with payments for work already provided and doesn't have a really good reason (yes, occasionally things happen and it's okay to be a little flexible if you're convinced it's on the level), my rate for future work doubles, and if that means that projects go elsewhere, so be it. Fighting over payments is possibly the most unpleasant aspect of providing services to companies, and I'd generally rather pass up the work than get into those fights.

Don't follow this guy's example - you're not important enough to afford to be this abusive, and frankly, neither is he.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like this guy's model is very similar to my first employer on my career path, which I shall not name. This company's specialty was retaining "B" grade talent and motivating them with fear. Oh, and screwing vendors too. The company made the founder a household name and fabulously wealthy.

<comment><USER4> Oracle?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article almost reads like a list of stuff NOT to do, in my opinion.

Of course, I am more of the "build something lasting, and of quality, and get on with your life" school than the "money over everything I'm going to die here at work" type.

I would not want to work for, with, against, near, or around this guy. He advocates CHEATING his vendors, to force them to basically give you money. Well, I suppose it would only be fair to not pay his company, right?

Anyone else have any feelings other than general disgust at the idea of working with this guy?

<comment><USER6> He's not only an asshole, but he wrote a _book_ about why everyone else should be one. I don't even know if there's a name for someone who takes it to that level.

<comment><USER7> "Management Consultant".

<comment><USER8> Agreed!

Some of the biggest douche I have met in my life are Management Consultants. Makes me wonder if being a douche is a prerequisite to Management Consultant position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> About half way through, I was thinking I'd like to read a debate between him and Tim Ferriss. Then:

"Q. What do you think of "The 4-Hour Workweek" [a best-selling book by Timothy Ferriss]?

A. Oh, forget it. I haven't even read it yet. I don't want to die of laughter."

Of course, this is also a man who:

"I semi-retired for about five years and that was probably something I won't do again. They're going to carry me out of here in my shoes."

Meanwhile, Tim Ferriss is traveling the world, not thinking much about money, learning languages, winning dance and fighting competitions, etc. If I were a small business owner, Ferriss' end results would appeal to me much more.

This was also a classic exchange:

"Q. You say, "Love your business more than your family." What does your wife think of that?

...

Q. How many times have you been married?

A. This is my third marriage."

No comment necessary.

<comment><USER10> Why didn't he just end the interview right there?...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> First, I have to acknowledge the points I agree with. You do have to love your business, and you do have to have systems for tracking the correct financial measurements (backwards and forwards).

But I have to wonder if, at some point before he drops dead in his office, George will realise the connection between treating your vendors as interest- free loans and staff as unlikeable, and _his_ experience that "Getting good people is 100 times more difficult than conventional wisdom says".

<comment><USER12> IMO you've got to find the proper amount of indifference and micromanaging. If you act the way the guy in the article says to act you will have a hard time finding good people, and actually keeping good people will be impossible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I once worked for a guy who sounded like this. I can say he was absolutely brilliant and I learned a tremendous amount from him.

And at the first opportunity to come along that was marginally better, I jumped ship and took it.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised how negative most of the comments here are. The guy's views are a bit extreme, but in my experience there is a lot of truth to what he's saying. In a perfect world you'll have brilliant, self-driven employees; you can give them great conditions and direction, collect status reports once a week, and everything will get done. In a real world this is nearly impossible - most smart people are _not_ self-driven, if you give them good conditions they'll sit around and browse the web all day. Think how much this applies to most of us! Unless there is uncertainty and a reasonable degree of pressure, most people won't perform well. Employees that are smart _and_ self-driven are one in million, there aren't nearly enough of them for thousands of businesses in America.

<comment><USER15> I concur.

I think _not_ wanting to implement this type of workplace for my small service based company is exactly what's been keeping us from taking things to the next level. For us, it's been worth it to have a relaxed work environment with happy employees, but I'd be lying to myself if I didn't think it came at the cost of some decreased profits. I also find myself questioning our motivations for doing such -- is it just easier on us, as owners, to have a less stressed workplace? Are we afraid of being disliked by employees? Are these good reasons?

Anyways, the article does sound like a nightmare for any technical person, where creative liberty and freedom to innovate aren't fostered while under micromanagement. However most US businesses, despite HN's demographic, don't fall into this category.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is insidious: whether intentionally or not, this guy is spouting stuff that validates and reinforces the unfounded beliefs of many (going back many centuries) that people who meet with success deserve it and people who are dealt failure must have done something wrong. Anyone who wants to believe that that's the case will latch onto this guy and say, "see? SEE?"

Unhelpful. Inevitable, probably, but unhelpful.

</comment><comment><USER17> > One guy that worked for me for 10 years wrote, "If I fell dead at my desk, > George wouldn't notice for two days."

This isn't good management. This is neglect. As manager, you should be on top of everything.

<comment><USER18> At the same time though he says that he is obsessively monitoring every aspect of the business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> His tough guy stance moved from being somewhat intriguing to laughable once I got to his comments about family and the subsequent admission of being married three times. The guy is not without his points, but he's definitely overstepped himself I think.

</comment><comment><USER20> His rules for supplier credit fail the basic rule of reciprocity, unless he also extends 45 days credit to his customers, which I doubt.

<comment><USER21> It's also a zero-sum game, where the most interest-free credit accrues to those in the best negotiating position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think most small-business owners are really like this, fortunately. It'd be a pretty sad world if it were really true that "profits aren't everything, they're the only thing".

</comment><comment><USER23> Sounds like a dick who thinks being hard means he'll succeed.

</comment><comment><USER24> "You have to work on stretching your payables because every dollar you get in extended payables is an interest-free loan"

Wouldn't it be better to simply ask for more money up front, rather than creating a shitty relationship by trying to stealthily extract more money through interest? I think trust between business partners is worth a lot, and not paying bills on time is not good for building trust.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love how this <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1116881> is also on the front page just a few entries up.

I imagine that these two men are so diametrically opposed that if they ever came into direct contact with each other, they'd instantaneously cease to exist!

</comment><comment><USER26> If this is the American Management Services I remember from years ago, they were a standard DC-area government contractor. Having once worked for one such, I have to think that running AMS is not quite the same thing as running a company that produces something other than billable hours.

</comment><comment><USER27> This advice probably works just fine for a chain of fast food restaurants, or discount clothing stores, but not a business where good people are required. Judging by his website, he's already scared away good graphic design help.

</comment><comment><USER28> He's just trying to drum up sales for his book. Most people are smart enough to know better than to take his advice to heart.

<comment><USER29> Didn't happen with Tim Ferriss. People will get caught each time :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I hear this guy is in the short list for the Ebenezer Scrooge award.

<comment><USER31> And the ghosts of beloved wives, children and colleagues DON'T come to visit and warn him. No one loves him and no one ever will. He loves only his money, with which he will be buried. He thinks Scrooge was just weak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> In war it's called a _scorched earth_ policy.

</comment><comment><USER33> This guy is totally sad and horrible.

The first half of the article is mostly OK advice out of the guy -- it was the reporter who made the outrageous summaries like "cheat your vendors", and the "micromanagement" part didn't seem micromanagey as much as it seemed to mean "stay informed" -- but the end is just terrible. Loving work more than family is seriously one of the worst ideas ever.

Man has no children, third wife, is old and will work until he dies. What kind of life is that? This article is very sad, and I hope everyone immediately recognizes its cruelty and myopy and disregards it.

</comment><comment><USER34> Kudos to interviewer Kermit Pattison for letting this penny ante Gordon Gekko speak so clearly in his own words.

This is actually a good lesson in marketing. Everything he says recasts the situation in terms of a problem that management consulting can fix with simple solutions.

 _It's not the recession, it's poor salesmanship._ A problem that can be solved by a consultant. A massive pan-industry collapse in sales, inventory, credit, and utilization could not be fixed by three ring binders and training classes.

 _Lack of vendor financing._ A problem that can be solved by a consultant tightening the screws, backed up by a long list of companies that were helped. This is survivor bias. The successes are selected for companies whose vendors are idiotic enough to finance their customers AND lucky enough to survive the folly. It also relies on the presence of other parties who are willing to buy mis-rated bonds and do factoring (loaning against small business receivables). Both of these are being choked off, and may well come to an apocalyptic end as the financial collapse continues. Whereupon all his "saved" clients will blow up.

 _"Getting good people is 100 times more difficult than conventional wisdom says. The fact is, you're going to deal with a lot of mediocre people, no matter how hard you try."_ In other words, your employees are sabotaging your company, because all employees do this. The only solution is new management policies.

 _Fear is the best motivator._ Soliders have a word for leaders like this. Fragged.

<comment><USER35> Wow - thank you. Before your post, I had never seen the term 'fragged' outside of the context of video games. Its original meaning that you've alluded to is far more interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Stop whining? When this guy stops posturing.</comment>


Learning about Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> http://pindancing.blogspot.com/2010/01/learning-about-machine-learniing.html

<comment><USER2> These are all overlapping fields, but now I'd like to see a list for data mining! (OLAP + Clustering + frequent pattern ... etc)

</comment><comment><USER3> A nice list of important reads for machine learning info. It's relatively single-track, but certainly a good starting point for anyone seriously interested in the subject, and a lot of the suggestions really are good books.</comment>


Why Switching to RackSpace Mail is Worth the $2 - <AUTHOR> http://thelivingpearl.com/2013/05/23/why-switching-to-rackspace-mail-is-worth-the-2/

<comment><USER2> It's an excellent service but sadly just like Gmail is nestled snug in Patriot Act-landia.

<comment><USER3> Well, since you've breached the subject of the PA...

Which service providers can you recommend that are protected from such issues?

<comment><AUTHOR> In all truth, if the government wants your emails, they will get them. Emails can be subpoenaed by court. You can run your own secure mail server and all, but the communication can always be intercepted by a middle man. If you have the need for a truly secure email, encrypt the message, it doesn't really matter what service you use.</comment></comment></comment>


A radical plan to destroy time zones - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/12/the-radical-plan-to-destroy-time-zones-2/ <comment><USER2> An appropriately academic look at the problem. Ignore all the reasons its done the way it is and scream "We should this because physics!"

<comment><USER3> While fixing everything about times and dates seems great in the abstract, these guys sound approximately like the French revolutionaries proposing their new calendar.

And at least the French came up with new names when they were doing things differently. The headaches that come from relabeling the calendar -- to one that looks confusingly the same, except that "January 1" has a different meaning than it used to -- would probably cause a century of bugs and confusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Obligatory links to relevant posts:

"You advocate a ________ approach to calendar reform" [http://qntm.org/calendar](http://qntm.org/calendar)

"So you want to abolish time zones" [http://qntm.org/abolish](http://qntm.org/abolish)

</comment><comment><USER5> In the Vernor vinge novels they use unixtime and units of kilo and mega seconds as handling time issues across space would be nightmarishly complex.

Its surprising how quickly you get a grasp of the units, made me realise all our time stuff is just arbitrary convention.

See also Swatch internet time :)

<comment><USER6> I'm surprised that something like Swatch internet time hasn't made a comeback with the popularity of Minecraft.

Online gaming is a good use for it.

MS should buy it off Swatch and put it in minecraft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not gonna happen. You can't kill the daily convenience for the edge case of travel.

<comment><USER8> Or the convenience of programmers.

<comment><USER9> Or remote communication.

<comment><USER10> Or trading on the stock market.

<comment><USER7> You guys have a limited imagination! In the near future, timezone conversion will be frictionless. Thanks to AI voice communication can automatically convert time and text-based communication can do this earlier. Don't forget Skype can now translate voice in real time!

<comment><USER9> Why would we have to wait for the future to solve an issue we invented ourselves?

Calendars, timezones, unit measures, currencies are self inflicted pain.

<comment><USER7> Because we need to know approximately the time left till dawn or dusk without having to calculate it every time in every timezone we currently are in. In fact, the date is a problem we invented - time of the day is natural, the location of the sun in the day.

<comment><USER9> Good point!

But I think you underestimate how adaptable humans are. You would get used to midday being 18:00h very fast.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Medium is no longer offering new custom domains as a feature - <AUTHOR> https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003053487-Custom-Domain-FAQ <comment><USER2> Given their business model, I'm surprised they ever did.

<comment><USER3> It was an important part of their business model for a while, but clearly their search for something that actually pays the bills enough has led them elsewhere now.</comment></comment>


Top 5 Free WordPress Plugins You Actually Need - <AUTHOR> http://www.paradoxland.com/top-5-free-wordpress-plugins-you-actually-need/ <comment><USER2> A list of 5 plugins you definitely don't need would include the same 5 mentioned here. And Yoast, oh boy??</comment>


The Case for Lean Commerce - <AUTHOR> http://katherinehague.com/post/30888595632/the-case-for-lean-commerce

<comment><USER2> Interesting piece and makes sense. It pretty much embodies what lean is all about but in a way that works for people who might now know what lean is but understand what lean attempts to do</comment>