Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

Not so fast: https://twitter.com/NellieBowles/status/581566725889490944

> The jury was 8/4 on one count, so the judge says he can't accept the verdict right now, has sent them back into deliberations.

reply


Jury came back. Juror #3 swapped their vote on claim 4 so it's 9/3 now, in favor of Kleiner Perkins. Verdict has been accepted.

reply


Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this is a common action by judges, or something out of the ordinary?

reply


California Superior Court requires a 3/4 majority in civil jury trials. All states require a supermajority in civil cases, and federal courts and about half of state courts require unanimous verdicts.

reply


It is currently Kleiner 8, Pao 4. She needs 9 to get a judgment in her favor. One of the jurors that voted for Pao on all counts has to leave the jury on Monday if the trial is extended at which point they will be replaced with an alternate.

Pao has no chance here.

reply


If the jury doesn't understand the rules properly, it's pretty common for the judge to send them back to figure it out.

reply


How difficult is it to understand the rules and what does it say about the jury if they don't?

Edit: I really don't understand HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions. Either provide an answer or move on.

reply


> HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions

"What does it say about the jury?" is not a legitimate question; it's a patently loaded rhetorical question. Or really, an insinuation disguised as a question. "What does it say that X?" is code for "X is a red flag."

If you want to make an accusation, come out and make one.

reply


That's, just like, your perception, guy.

Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution?

If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them?

Edit: Since you edited after my response: I am not making any accusations. Strange that you assume so. I just don't know enough information about the specifics to make any judgments. That's why I asked the question(s) in the first place.

reply


If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules

That's why you got down voted: you assumed something, without knowing, and you were completely wrong. Read a jury's instructions just once, and then let us know how basic it sounds then.

reply


This is why I started with the question, "How difficult is it to understand the rules[?]".

I haven't seen the rules posted anywhere, or any real discussion on the rules or how hard they are to follow. Have you?

Also, I'm not sure what is wrong with the assumption that jury rules should be "basic", as in, understandable to a jury member. Do you assume that jury instruction should be complex, complicated, and not understandable to a jury member?

reply


A quick Google found the actual jury instructions for this trial: http://www.scribd.com/doc/260138329/Jury-Instructions-for-El...

14 pages of fairly dense legalese. How difficult can it be to understand them all?

reply


The way you phrased the question makes it sound rhetorical. "How difficult is it to understand _______?" is almost always a rhetorical question; if you genuinely want to inquire about the difficulty, you kinda have to bend over backwards to make that clear to readers.

reply


A jury of one's peers is, by definition, imperfect.

However, after studying millennia of history, we as a people have decided that this is still the least bad model yet invented.

reply


Legitimate question, does any other country use the "jury of your peers" model? Afaik most european countries don't

reply


> Legitimate question, does any other country use the "jury of your peers" model?

The concept originates in another (European, to boot) country -- it comes from the Magna Carta.

It is, at a minimum, common among the coutnries whose legal system descends from that of England, which are somewhat numerous.

reply


Cheers!

reply


This is completely dodging the (hard?) questions and deflecting to historical actors.

Also, I didn't decide anything (and I doubt you did either). This is the system I was born into and it as been operating without my input.

reply


What questions did you have in mind?

P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.

reply


>What questions did you have in mind?

How about the 4-5 I already posted in the direct ancestors of this thread (e.g. the the one you originally responded to [but did not answer]).

reply


> Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible?

No; I answered that immediately in my first reply.

> Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution?

That's not actually a question, but even if the answer is yes, that's what I mean about juries being only the least-bad solution we've invented so far.

> If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them?

One can't. See previous answer.

reply


I was on a jury once. Many, many people can't follow simple jury instructions, figure out the difference between an argument and a statute (seriously), etc. And most of them had an education level beyond college. It was the most eye opening experience of my life.

reply


The rules may be poorly communicated to the jury. On the one jury that I was on, they were perhaps cryptic, and by the time I figured them out I found an error in the way that we were supposed to address all the counts that we were considering.

Such clerical errors are a part of any sort of human process. It's not the end of the world as long as there are processes in place to correct the errors.

reply


That's what I'm asking. How often does it happen? What makes the rules so difficult to understand? Do most juries understand and this is just a poor jury?

Can we look at the rules in this case? Or do we just have to go off NYT reporting and uninformed HN spectator speculation?

You'd assume a centuries old institution (jury trial) would have worked through what seems like a very basic problem: how do you communicate to the jury (which is the ultimate object of the trial) what exactly they are supposed to do?

How can you judge whether a jury is incompetent (or the judge and/or the lawyer(s))?

reply


(a) one case I sat on in Massachusetts, the statute was written very obtusely and the judge said she was not allowed to give us the statute in writing. The jury literally went back in 3 or 4 times to ask for the instructions and statute to be read again.

There was the statute, which then referred to other places for definitions of 4 or 5 terms, which also had to be read. Keeping a statute and the definitions in your head is not simple. Lawyers don't make their arguments in the absence of being able to reread the written law. Appeals courts can read the law when making judgments. But for some reason, as a jury, we were expected to keep it all in our head.

reply


It is my understanding that juries are empowered to do pretty much anything they please. I'd guess in your case that the judge was operating under a technicality of the language (per usual), he may personally not be able to give you any written thing except for the rules agreed to. However, the jury should be able to request that the actual statutes be delivered to it. If words are not defined in that statute, then the jury can request that the appropriate definitions be delivered to it.

reply


Same thing happened to me on a jury I was on. We found an error in the jury instructions and had to be issued new ones.

reply


It's even more fun when people downvote objective, verifiable facts with which they apparently disagree. I will never stop shaking my head in sadness at seeing that happen.

reply


Having sat on one case: More difficult than one might anticipate.

reply


Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case.

reply


I sat on a California civil jury last year, and we were able to ask witnesses questions. They were heavily filtered and reworded by the judge and attorneys, and asked by the judge. I think it strongly affected the outcome in my case.

reply


> Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case.

AFAIK, jurors asking questions (or, at least, proposing questions which are reviewed by the counsel and actually asked by the judge) is not out of the ordinary anymore in trial courts in California. Certainly the criminal case I served on a jury for included that.

Most of the sources I can find on it are somewhat old (around 2000) and indicate that it was then not legally mandated to be allowed, and that a minority of judges did it but it was growing in popularity (they also indicate that even then, it was mandated in some states that jurors be permitted to submit questions.) It may still not be a majority practice, but I've seen it frequently referenced in news reports of cases, so I don't think its particularly unusual anymore.

reply


> In the first 48 hours of the service going live, Magic co-founder Mike Chen said the service had already seen 17,000 text messages.

If this is the metric being offered as evidence of virality, and was likely given to investors, it's misleading. It implies at face value that 17k unique people tried out Magic, but transactions take many SMS messages, as evidenced by the example conversations given. This is why vanity metrics are a bad thing.

As with Meerkat, I am very skeptical of the short-term-virality-indicates-long-term-success logical fallacy that seems to permeate Silicon Valley nowadays.

I can't wait until every hackathon has endless amounts of poorly-thought-out "Magic for X" clones, as was the case with Yo.

reply


I would assume that the partners at Sequouia are smart and diligent enough to follow-up or ask for clarification if presented with a potentially misleading metric like that.

reply


30TB on Drive is not even close to $5/mo, though, and is clearly for unusual cases.

https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en

reply


Can anyone explain the logic behind Google Drive's pricing?

Google Drive with 30 TB storage is priced at $300 per month. But then you have Google Drive for Work with unlimited storage and is priced at $10 per user per month. Meaning that you can get 30 users with unlimited storage for the same price. Why in hell would anyone pay that?

reply


It's $0.01/GB, the same price as their nearline cloud storage option. On the work side, they are pooling the capacity at the business level.

In an enterprise environment that I'm familiar with that has 100k users on a shared file store solution... Something like 10% of users use less that 1GB, the 99th percentile user uses 1TB, the 90th percentile users is something like 30GB.

reply


Agreed, but the point still stands. 'Unlimited' does not change definition based on price point. Especially if competitors offer paid-for limits above your 'unlimited', wouldn't that literally be false advertising? (Note: I'm not saying Amazon is, just addressing the above interpretation of 'Power user'

reply


This was the exact same business idea as Color.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-soc...

reply


Color has some similar elements, but Viggo is quite different.

With Viggo we are introducing new paradigm where you only see and manage content in the air around you, where air is like an ad hoc shared resource for collaboration. There are no profiles, users and user connections, etc... - only pure content in the air.

Also, Viggo is not just about "videos and photos", we see a greater opportunity in redefining how content is shared in real world interactions. You can share documents, contacts, links, you can create collections ("folders in the air")...

reply


Dropbox's business strategies (Carousel) and acquisitions ("Dropbox for Music", "Dropbox for Documents") make it seem like Dropbox is opting for diversity instead of opting for efficiency, that could be passed down to the end-user with lower prices.

reply


And that's probably wise -- it's not like the markup on S3 is so huge that it's an obvious big win to move off it once you consider the size of the up-front investment to build up a similarly featured, distributed and redundant cloud storage system of their own. Diversification is a good idea for them, I just think it's a very low probability of success.

reply


Unless they have substantial discounts over the public S3 prices (which is certainly possible - even likely), you can cut 50% or more off the S3 costs very easily. The AWS markups are crazy high.

You can even save substantial money over "pure" S3 just by proxying and caching requests for the most heavily trafficked objects somewhere with lower bandwidth costs.

reply


We don't know the rate they're getting, except that it's likely that it's lower than the public rate. They DO know what the rate is, and they're still using S3.

reply


The app wasn't shut down, but one feature (auto-follow) was cut off. Periscope does not use this feature either.

All the other spammy app practices remain.

reply


> How can you not fall in love with that product/company?

For several reasons, mostly for destroying my Twitter feed in the name of "growth hacking."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9208429

reply


Can you blame them? One way or the other, it was probably one of the only strategies available and ended up being successful.

Unlike larger companies, they had to solve the chicken-and-egg problem to distribute the product.

reply


I'm of a mixed mind on this, but I will add clarity here: you are definitely condoning spam in the name of 'doing whatever it takes'.

reply


Not really. There's a clear difference between Meerkat and Viagra spam: it had a lot of unproven value. Once people starts to use it, it's usually not a waste of time.

reply


That's true, Viagra is actually proven to work, whereas Meerkat isn't.

There isn't a difference. Spam is spam.

reply


I robbed a bank. Can you blame me? I got a big stacks of cash!

reply


Reckless comparison. You can do better.

reply


Fine, I'll remove the hyperbole:

I did something wrong. Can you blame me? It worked! (That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. And spamming is wrong.)

reply


Yes, I can blame them. My inbox despite Google's spam filtering is full of Indian offshore developers who believe that hustle trumps all. And that's including my right to have people respect my contact page's clear indication that I don't want to outsource web/SEO work.

When that hustle steps on my turf, yes, I blame them.

reply


Twitter bought Periscope after Meerkat got press, although it may not have been a cause-and-effect relationship. (M&As take time.)

EDIT: See joeblau's comment below.

reply


I think Twitter bought Periscope (In January Sometime) before Meerkat launched (Early March), but Twitter didn't disclose the acquisition until after Meerkat launched (Mid March).

http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/09/twitter-reportedly-buys-st...

reply


> Not saying that's never true, but in this specific case there's just no way Twitter went from zero to release with this app since meerkat launched. A company the size of Twitter doesn't do weekend hackathons for important launches like this. Not that I know of, at least.

Periscope had been in a closed beta for months before they were purchased. I'm surprised no media has ever tried the angle of Meerkat being a Periscope clone.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/26/abre-los-ojos/

reply


No, you can't just do a "Magic for X" and get away with it.

Skilled labor is not something you want done "Insta."

reply


Hey Max, founder here. While we don’t deny that we believe a no interface interface is a delightful way to receive services, we do believe that certain people have use for a immediate technical assistance for everything from SSL installation and word-press tweaks to writing a query for a large data set or quick app debugging

reply


And what happens if there's a server wipe while installing SSL? How can you accurately recommend improvements to query data in a data set if you don't know the schema/scale?

Magic is fine for a no interface interface since no human interaction is necessary. If a random faceless person on the Internet was touching my technical property, there had better be sufficient assurance of liability in play because there is no element of trust.

reply


> there had better be sufficient assurance of liability in play because there is no element of trust

This is the most powerful counter-point against such a service. The reason why Magic works so well is because your take-out or flowers order being 20 mins late is not the same as losing business data.

That said, I'm not completely against the idea if the outsourcing method is made more transparent and it turns out there are both high levels of quality and liability assurance.

reply


All fair points, at the moment it’s geared towards empowering the usually the non tech savvy who right now have to beg their friends or break the bank for small things. We’re definitely working on ways to mitigate the risk for the recipient of the assistance. We vet all of the coders, make sure they know what they're doing, and only assign them jobs within their ability.

reply

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: