Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | AmericanOP's comments login

This economist disagrees: http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2014/093014.pdf


Surprised ctrl+f 'mobile' returns only one result..

gifv is broken for mobile. I have to click play, and it runs as a video. That is not gif UX.


I've been hunting for a dev to connect Google spreadsheets with our company's CRM.

If someone is interested in a project, email is in my profile. I've gotten very lucky meeting smart people through HN before, so why not try again!


You probably don't need a dev. Try Zapier.com


I've done a number of things with Apps Script exactly because I couldn't do them with Zapier (or IFTTT, for that matter).


There is no "they." There was no targeting as described. Fox news fantasy.

http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-republican-irs-staffer-ta... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/why-irs-abru... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/treasury-rep... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-part...


IRS scandal wasn't a scandal. The only evidence the WH was involved are partial transcript (cherry-picked) vague quotes from junior staffers (literally: "told by a supervisor that "Washington, D.C., wanted some cases."), while the true source of the audits has been identified as decidedly not-Obama: http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-republican-irs-staffer-ta.... All of this is completely ignoring the completely legitimate reasons for auditing these clearly political groups in the wake of Citizens United.

Just like how Fast & Furious was in no way a scandal, but a symptom of Arizona's lack of gun laws. Law enforcement was unable to arrest or even restrict people linked to cartels as they purchased weapons- the best they could do was keep track of serial numbers. There was no gun running, but that didn't stop Republicans from fabricating another 'scandal:' http://www.thenation.com/blog/168673/facts-get-way-gops-fast...

Even this article should clue you in to Issa's obvious political theater for his base.

Obama sucks at fighting misinformation, but he is certainly not a dictator.


But don't you see that this "oh, it was some low level employee - how could he know" strategy is getting abused over and over again. Sure, it gives those who want to see innocence the ability to believe in some hypothetical "plausible deniability".

If you go down this line of argument with Obama you need to do it equally with Bush: than there was nothing wrong of invading Iraq, because some low level CIA employee foreign intelligence services/some nutty informants were confirming the WMDs.

If your intention is to let somebody at the top look good and they are smart enough to have others keep them out of the loop of controversial issues, you can always attach the wrongdoings to some low level figure.

But it is in the end like saying the Walmart CEO has absolutely no responsibility of having bad numbers this year, because well, he is not the guy is selling the milk bottles in all the stores.


No, it's not the same. If the old narrative is that the administration itself was involved in the bad actions, but facts emerge that the administration wasn't involved at all- then yes, the executive should look better. It has been one of the conservative talking points that if obama didn't know, then he is an incompetent leader. This is also false and bad faith argument- the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out. This is so far removed from the white house they don't deserve to be in the same sentence. Plausible deniability still connotes a connection when there isn't one- the IRS's involvement in campaign financing has always been awkward and needs reform.

Hopefully, these facts should inspire you to question the anti-obama narrative rather than come up with your own. In changing the subject and making an argument like above without addressing the new information, it looks like you're figuring out how you can protect your beliefs from criticism without actually having to address those criticisms.

Please understand this is meta and isn't a criticism of you personally- but it's important for a working democracy that conservatives learn to "understand a complex topic, weigh competing values and considerations against one another, and eventually get behind" the facts. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/06/in-which-i-feel-sorry-...

I sometimes get accused by my Fox news addicted family of being "arrogant" when I go meta. But it's frustrating when "obviously fraudulent arguments get made; get knocked down; and soon pop up again, as if the original discussion never happened. This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible.

If someone says the sky is green, you prove that it’s actually blue, and the next day he comes back once again insisting that the sky is green, and this happens repeatedly, you eventually have to acknowledge that mannerly debate about the color of the sky just isn’t enough; you have to go meta, and talk about the fact that this guy and his friends just aren’t in the business of honest discussion.

Inevitably, there are some people trying to turn the conversation meta in a different direction, and make it all about civility. But bad-faith arguments don’t deserve a civil response, and if the attempt to be civil gets in the way of exposing the bad faith, civility itself becomes part of the problem." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-ci...


This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible.

Exactly! Just look at your argument:

the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out

You are trying to frame the harassment of hundreds of groups, and this over years, as the acts of some rogue low level employee. And something that was fixed as soon as the supervisor noticed it.

If someone is trying to spin a story here it is you my friend - independent of how "meta" and "inspiring" you feel your arguments are. I'll leave the rest as it is. It seems pointless to argue the case when you consider everything This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible.

Exactly! Just look at your argument:

the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out

You are trying to frame the harassment of hundreds of groups, and this over years, as the acts of some rogue low level employee. And something that was fixed as soon as the supervisor noticed it.

If someone is trying to spin a story here it is you my friend - independent of how "meta" and "inspiring" you feel your arguments are.

I'll leave the rest as it is because implying a "bad faith" argument can be claimed for any irresponsible actions of a public official - except for, maybe Nixon. For any other high level action there is always a chain of minions involved whom you can ultimately frame as "gone rogue". Ideally, as you did in the case, trying to make it a failue of the "system" therefore even avoiding any personal responsibility what so ever.


The only evidence the WH was involved

High level officials stonewalling and taking the fifth don't give me a lot of confidence that we've discovered from where the effort was directed. A Special Prosecutor is really needed.

Obama sucks at fighting misinformation, but he is certainly not a dictator

Yes, the countless times that he told us that "if Congress doesn't act, I will." The number of issues like immigration where DHS is extra-counting at-the-border stops as deportations and then explicitly not enforcing the immigration laws. The NSA and AP issues stepping all over basic rights.

Good thing he doesn't have the complete power of a dictator.


Lois Lerner taking the 5th is another conservative bad-faith argument. She submitted written responses to inquiry prior to her taking the 5th, proclaimed her innocence in no uncertain terms, and then even after invoking the privilege against self-incrimination nonetheless gave testimony as to her previous answers that were part of the hearing record and which covered the very issues the committee was considering. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live...

Her innocence has never been questioned. But conservative media play the clip on loop, acting like she didn't testify to presumably hide information (and she still testified!)

"If Congress doesn't act, I will" is another bad faith argument. I implore you to watch the clip from where that quote originated: http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-th...

Just read the quote and tell me how it can be construed as executive overreach: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."


Please understand why rational people don't respond to conservative talking points: http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/


I implore you to watch the clip

What do you mean "the clip"? He's said it over and over and over while playing a game of "catch me if you can" where he goes beyond the authority that he is supposed to have. He is supposed to enforce DOMA. He is supposed to enforce on-the-books immigration laws. He was not supposed to unilaterally declare congress out of session to make recess appointments. He does this crap every opportunity he gets and the media just navel gazes.


You really ought to update your understanding of (and support for) the 5th and help yourself cherish it greatly. It has very few parallels in human history.

When someone invokes the 5th, it is as a pleasant reminder that you still are subject to a judicial system that places the burden of proof on the government to prove an innocent defendant guilty. That is how the framers intended it to be--a decisive and enduring departure from bygone days where you were at danger of being forced to incriminate yourself by variously questionable (and sometimes horrific) means.

Citizens invoking the 5th has become in recent decades a vilified action, and this is very dangerous. The reasoning behind a person's invocation of their right against self-incrimination does not matter, and ought not be up to anyone else to judge the merits of. We even instituted Miranda rights to further cement this protection in legal proceedings and the public mind.

I despise the grandstanding and partisanship of American politics. However, when an public official (high-ranking or not; it doesn't matter) invokes the 5th, I take this to mean that the specific question and the implications of answering it, in the particular setting/context in which it is asked causes a person to have reasonable cause and/or justification to "apprehend danger from a direct answer" (Hoffman v. United States). In Grunewald v. United States, the Court held that "one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

In a justice system that holds every person is innocent until proven guilty, that means every person--be they high-ranking official, lowly clerical assistant, or anyone in between.

Universe forbid you ever find yourself accused of a crime, but you will likely find yourself very appreciative of having a constitutional right that affords you the privilege of refusing to testify against yourself in moments you fear direct answers may place you in a dangerous legal position.

Justice requires evidence, not a measurement of your confidence. Let us support uncovering the necessary evidence to understand what has occurred in any given situation, and refrain from prognosticating guilt before then. If we don't, or if we continue to allow the public support of the 5th Amendment to erode further, we may not like the kind of justice we have decades from now.


The IRS scandal is a scandal. The only question is whether or not the White House is involved or just the IRS.


Hopefully we'll find out for sure now.


Pretty cool. I wonder what the startup pantheon will achieve as it matures.


"I came to realize that there was a real need to present business wisdom in a format that is more accessible to the younger generation."

Pretty cool actually. If anything YC & HN inspire young people to dream and get engaged in business press & conventions. There's a real lack of this knowledge and worldview by the uninitiated, even amongst peers dabbling in amateur entrepreneurship for whom business inspiration are motivational meme pictures.


He also hinted at a radical new product, some social Groupon 2.0 platform that never came to fruition. I'm more curious about that in retrospect and what happened. The real story at that moment in time was the flowering of hundreds of Groupon clones.

"This guy" ...Get off it. Ideas > events > people. Leave it to HN, tearing down the mainstream success stories of our clan in ever decreasingly creative ways.

BTW, he wasn't a happy guy. He described very clearly at that event he forgot what being happy felt like while building GRPN. Sorry to bust your editorial bubble, but when you make a bold + false assertion, your detractors will use it to debase your entire narrative.

I'm learning that for a certain segment of humans the presence of rich people bring out claws and fangs, like a full moon.


Your sanctimony would be a bit more compelling if Mason had consistently happy campers creating his riches. That's not how it happened.

Groupon made a lot of money on the backs of small business owners too unsophisticated to understand the nature of the deals they were making. Whatever lack of happiness Mason sustained, it was mirrored in spades by the folks who were burned by Groupon's rapacious sales force and very casual approach to delivering checks on time.

This is a sketchy-ass company we're talking about and this guy made a lot of money off that sketch. Let's be real.


You think he was fired by the street for being too rapacious? WSJ: 'GRPN up 5%, Expected to be Less Aggressive on Earnings.' And how many of those miserable campers spending $1.5 billion a year for half-price chocolate-covered strawberries do you speak for? Any data on the number of SMBs who got bent over, or just memories of a PR kerfluffle you read last year? You should warn Uber and other companies you respect who use Groupon routinely that their checks won't be arriving on time.

My sarcasm isn't directed at you personally, but all broad strokes who delight in black ink when focusing on the aesthetic of someone's career. Schadenfreude fruit hang low.


Let's be real. It's the job of the small business owner to <i> run his damn business </i>, and if GRPN found a way to convince them to sign the checks, then all the power to them. Welcome to capitalism, read what you buy before you buy it.


Ah, but customers talk to each other, especially in this day and age. A company like GRPN doesn't really have an infrastructure advantage or technical advantage over other companies. It relies almost entirely on its network of small business customers. Turn off those customers and the sharks pick the bones of the company clean.

Edit: clarity


Must've been their suite of merchant products they've built by acquiring smaller companies and opening a Palo Alto office. https://merchants.groupon.com/demo#/dashboard


Tinder is blowing up right now, and they cornered the coveted attractive 18-29 year old female demographic.

Why are these girls using it? Because other attractive girls are using it. IMO, they used the growth model for social networks (the same that Facebook used:

Get sorority girls as users. In the case of Tinder, some top-tier sororities had rushees use the app and the number & quality of guys who 'liked' you influenced if you got in. Once sorority girls use it, then other high-status girls will use it. Then the guys start using it because the girls are there. Then it's a chain reaction until it circles back to the tech crowd who aren't a part of that culture, at which point tech journalists try and pinpoint why the app was successful and get it wrong because the original users are bored & gone by then.

Rather interesting to me that IAC acquired Tinder.


We're trying to make that whole experience better. Thanks for the link.

Drop me a line if you want to chat danny (@) outlook.com.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact