NSA's Surveillance Powers Extend Far Beyond Counterterrorism - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/nsas-surveillance-powers-extend-far-beyond-terrorism-despite-governments <comment><USER2> Here's NSA's own statement on their SIGINT mission:

"The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) to our nation's policy-makers and military forces. SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by providing America's leaders with critical information they need to defend our country, save lives, and advance U.S. goals and alliances globally."

[http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/](http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/)

Now, it's not an accident that "policy-makers" comes first in that sentence. The truth is that the vast majority of productized intelligence is used solely to inform policy-makers in a capacity that will never lead to any form of military or clandestine intervention. Yes, operational uses certainly do exist, but they are not the norm.

Unfortunately, you won't find a government spokesman or politician coming out and admitting that in most cases, because it's a complicated and nuanced position. Instead of having that conversation (and risking both ignorant and informed criticism) they take the cynical approach of framing it as something that's hard to argue with. For many decades it was defending against the communists, and since 2001 it's been protection against terrorism.

So, articles like this one are the unavoidable result of avoiding a difficult conversation. That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence.

<comment><USER3> > _Unfortunately, you won 't find a government spokesman or politician coming > out and admitting that in most cases..._

IMO these overstatements of threat are far less benign than that. I believe they know that the _true_ scope and scale of their _secret_ surveillance activities can _only_ be justified using extreme scare tactics, such as the threat of terrorism. I believe this is true even if the American public was in full understanding of whatever nuanced policy benefits _actually_ resulted for the citizenry as a whole.

That is, the problem may well be that the benefits do not accrue to the general populace, but to a much narrower set of vested interests. So, if Americans knew fully and exactly who benefited and to what degree, they may find that said benefits for the general populace do not justify the NSA's "attack" on the general populace.

So, this is not about avoiding a nuanced conversation. It's that the the measures themselves have been turned against the U.S. citizenry such that the benefits of the resulting policy decisions do not outweigh the affront to privacy and Constitutional rights. If these affronts cannot be justified even while they are turning their powers _against_ the very people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries, then we must naturally ask the question "then whose interests are really being served here?"

That is the real conversation that they wish to avoid.

Further evidence of the dissonance is revealed when you consider the NSA SIGINT mission statement you provided. It's a very generic statement that wouldn't cause concern given what we _knew and expected_ of the NSA's actual activities (i.e. prior to the Snowden leaks). It's only when you realize the fuller scale of NSA activity and its targeting of the broader U.S. population that this statement seems woefully inadequate to justify the attendant activities.

<comment><USER4> > It's only when you realize the fuller scale of NSA activity and its > targeting of the broader U.S. population that this statement seems woefully > inadequate to justify the attendant activities.

I've not even seen evidence that NSA is actually _targeting_ the greater American population though. The issue is that NSA has expanded the scope of what they look at, and made it easier for their analysts to get away with assuming someone is not an "USPER". That obviously carries a greater risk of lumping Americans into that net where they wouldn't have before, but no one (not even Snowden, AFAICS) has been able to demonstrate the NSA is actually trying to deliberately target Americans with any of this.

<comment><USER3> Well, I think here the word _targeting_ is a matter of semantics. I mean, if you know that you are engaged in programs that will necessarily sweep in vast amounts of data from the American population, then you are not _not targeting_ them. I think this is what's unsettled those who are unsettled.

So, we can call it the "dissolution of presumed protections" instead of targeting, but for this discussion, I don't believe that it matters. That is, by any name, to the extent that Americans feel that the NSA has transgressed against its own citizens, the NSA's justification has been terrorism.

EDIT: To be clear, I believe there is considerable compelling evidence that Americans are routinely targeted through various programs. I just don't think it's necessary to have that debate in the context of this discussion.

<comment><USER4> I think you're right about it being semantics. In fact I think that would explain a lot of the reaction on all sides.

E.g. when we allow the FBI to wiretap people pursuant to a lawfully-issued warrant, that's in reality done with the understanding that the FBI had the _technical_ capability to execute that wiretap, warrant or not. The warrant isn't technically required anymore, it's only a procedural safeguard. But most people do not necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about how the FBI could be listening to all of their phone calls, since they know that they are not actually being targeted in practice.

So it is on what is truly a global Internet. The IP packets don't go flying around with "I'm an American" bits set, so in the end the only real safeguard if you're going to try to mine data of national interest from the Internet is procedural. At best technical safeguards could be used within the NSA's various data warehouses after collection has occurred, but there's no way to get around the fact that American and non-American data is intermingled everywhere on the Internet.

Is this a satisfactory state of affairs? Nope! If you're a privacy advocate you might say that the response is to simply stop collecting intelligence at all and accept all the consequences that follow from that. If you're kind of in the middle you might want to add more oversight, transparency and other safeguards to retain the ability to gain intelligence (not just for counter- terrorism, but for everything the nation needs it for), while not risking mass abuse of civil liberties by differenting definitions of "targeting".

But the sea change was not the NSA deciding to spy on Americans, it was Americans deciding to join the rest of the world on a global network, a problem the NSA didn't previously have to really sort through. I won't say I agree with all the inventive ways they've found to try to collect intelligence, but nor do I think that there is some directed effort by NSA to violate American civil liberties as a goal in and of itself.

You're right that "terrorism!" has been their go-to reasoning in the public eye, but to be fair that is one of the big things the people are large are concerned with and, to parrot the top comment on this thread, the full truth about diplomatic cloak-and-dagger games is rather nuanced.

<comment><USER3> No. This is not what I meant at all. Your post seems almost comically apologetic. For instance:

> _the sea change was not the NSA deciding to spy on Americans, it was > Americans deciding to join the rest of the world on a global network_

What? That's spit-take worthy. So, it's not that the NSA is doing anything to Americans. It's that the NSA was just minding its business and silly Americans got in the NSA's way?

That's pretty funny on its face. Of course, it's also wrong. America created the Internet. We didn't just join in what the world was doing. But, it wouldn't absolve the NSA of its responsibility in any case.

Look, these programs are designed to sweep in American's info and store it indefinitely. Period. Worse, they do not have the appropriate protective safeguards or oversight. There's no qualifying clause in the Fourth Amendment that reads, "unless it's really, really hard".

> _nor do I think that there is some directed effort by NSA to violate > American civil liberties as a goal in and of itself_

Of course not. Neither is throwing detainees in Gitmo an effort to violate people's civil liberties as a goal in and of itself; and nor is torture for that matter. What earthly difference does it make? I don't even understand that argument. Are you saying that the government can do what it wants as long as it doesn't have an _end goal_ of violating civil liberties?

<comment><USER4> > America created the Internet. We didn't just join in what the world was > doing.

While pedantically true, you should really read 'The Cuckoo's Egg'. And research into this CERN scientist named Tim Berners-Lee. The Internet has had an international development behind it since it was still split into NSFNET/ARPANET/MILNET/etc. But NSA wasn't there, and in fact couldn't have cared less, because the nascent Internet wasn't where their adversaries were at.

> Are you saying that the government can do what it wants as long as it > doesn't have an end goal of violating civil liberties?

The end goal of an action is definitely part and parcel of the morality of that action. It's inseparable. E.g. the government could go around shooting people for being black and that would be unmistakeably horrifying. The government could also give the same weapons to the police for self-protection purposes only and we'd (mostly) consider that acceptable, as long as those weapons were only discharged for self-defense, defense of property (e.g. nuc weapons), etc.

Also, your Gitmo example demonstrates much the opposite point. Prisons aren't inherently evil because they are used for an evil purpose at Gitmo. Call me weird, but I kind of prefer that serial killers are locked away myself.

So yes, intent matters. I mean, I agree with you that neither the safeguards nor oversight needed for NSA programs are currently in place, but what if those safeguards and oversight _were_ put into place? Would you be OK with some of those programs then?

<comment><USER3> > _But NSA wasn 't there, and in fact couldn't have cared less, because the > nascent Internet wasn't where their adversaries were at._

Yeah, so that pretty much completely undermines your previous point. And again, it's laughable to say that the NSA was just minding its business when a bunch of Americans suddenly got in their way.

> _The end goal of an action is definitely part and parcel of the morality of > that action. It 's inseparable._

You're committing a flagrant logical fallacy here and with your subsequent examples. Intent may help to determine the morality of a thing, but the absense of intent does not necessitate that something is morally appropriate. That is, of course they are _completely separable_.

> _Also, your Gitmo example demonstrates much the opposite point._

It really doesn't. See previous comment regarding intent. Also, you completely miss the point and you seem to be confusing yourself. Your previous assertion was that the NSA's not setting out to violate detainee rights as an end goal absolves them (or matters at all) to some extent. If you agree that "prisons are [or even could be] used for an evil purpose at Gitmo", as you say, then you have conceded my point. That is, whether they intended for Gitmo to violate detainee civil rights as the end goal, the evil that now exists is unacceptable and there are people who are responsible for it. No one is talking about the rightness of prison as a concept or whether serial killers should be incarcerated. That's just strange.

In general, you seem to just throw out a bunch of pedantic or semantic arguments as red herrings and strawmen. You are missing the fundamental points that started this thread.

> _Would you be OK with some of those programs then?_

See what I mean? I think my feelings on the matter are pretty clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd say we will know the NSA's data is getting used when some up-and-coming political figures get sent back down due to revelations about weird porno habits, or other internet-related pecadilloes.

Or maybe when we notice an entire generation does not have any representative leaders in national US politics. Only old farts, whose predilections were exercized pre-Intenet, remain. Hmmm.....

<comment><USER6> Already happened, although it wasn't the NSA in particular. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scan...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal) . Gee, I feel safer already.

<comment><USER7> A world without Spitzer is in fact safer...

<comment><USER6> Well, yeah, but still. The ends don't justify the means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Terrorism and paedophilia are the usual scapegoats to justify unacceptable policies.

<comment><USER9> You forgot drugs, witchcraft, etc. Whatever the uneducated masses are irrationally afraid of will be used by those in power to justify their abuses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I could spy on anyone, I'd game the market, subvert the rule of law, and declare all my competitors terrorists. That is the American way.

</comment><comment><USER11> Industrial espionage + attacking political opponents + labeling whistleblower as crazy and commit them to the hospital.

<comment><USER12> Sounds sufficiently Soviet to me.

<comment><USER11> We hate them because they remind us of ourselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Of course it does, Counterterrorism is one of many missions it must undertake. It's not like the NSA was set up during the Cold War when terrorism was barely a policy making blip on anybody's radar or anything.

In other words, Spy Agency does Spying, news at 11.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is a classic strawman that the EFF sets up to easily knock down. No one in their right mind thinks that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. All American interests are to be looked after. The NSA unilaterily disarming would be a dream come true to many, mostly those who would like to see the West decline.

<comment><USER15> From my conversations with friends and family, I think _many_ people think that the NSA's sole purpose is to fight terrorism. That thinking has been reinforced by the NSA and the administration repeatedly claiming that NSA surveillance is justified because it prevents terrorist attacks. If not the "sole" purpose, in the least they think it's the NSA's "main" purpose.

But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case.

<comment><USER4> > But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies > surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that > surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just > counterterrorism, making it a poor case.

Being useful for one major thing doesn't mean that a tool is not also useful for other things. You can in fact point out as many other minor things as you wish, but that doesn't invalidate (by itself) the usefulness for the major task. So I don't see EFF's point here.

In fact that was the point I was about to make before screening the comments: "Of course NSA's powers extend beyond simple counterterrorism, who is claiming otherwise? Did they not read even a synopsis of the relevant law?"</comment></comment></comment>


Hey… You forgot to tell us how to get the most out of this guy - <AUTHOR> http://lispy.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/hey-you-forgot-to-tell-us-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-this-guy/

<comment><AUTHOR> The genius thing. Ok, so this INTP class is capable of tackling intractable problems through wild abstraction. Independent of raw intelligence, when these abstractions come together in a structured and relevant form, solving problems that were previously impossible, or maybe even did not exist - we view it as genius.

But, this same individual is capable of of abstraction in the wrong way too, they are not super-human, just really different than the norm.

Darwin, Newton, Einstein, etc - beautiful ideas, but also ludicrous ideas sprinkled throughout their careers. Would they be considered geniuses if they were living today, in this age of information and knowledge explosion? Maybe.

More important than the label of the individual is knowing that these ideas can manifest. More important than calling someone a genius is realizing that someone may be capable of brilliant ideas. The INTP class, is perhaps more capable of generating these genius ideas just because of the uniqueness in thought. However, they are also more capable of generating ideas that fail miserably.

</comment><comment><USER2> It went from "genius" to "worst team member evz"!

<comment><USER3> It seemed like such a promising train of thought before it finally tanked. Argh.

There's a thesis in here somewhere....

<comment><USER2> I'm not so sure. It seems more like astrology, in that it's vague enough to apply to someone who wants to think of themselves as an absent-minded genius, than thesis material. Apply the context of programming and you've got a sure hit, albeit lacking real content.

<comment><USER4> You could extract a list of traits from these posts and make a survey (agree, strongly agree, etc.), then score it. That would give a clear scale and quantfy the fortune-teller aspect. Psych is harder than math, after all, since the answers are _never_ clear/simple. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Your website has events? Make sure you add an Add-To-Calendar option - <AUTHOR> http://carlsednaoui.github.io/ouical/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, this is a little something I built during my 1st week at Hacker School. Happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER2> awesome stuff carl, will definitely check it out. useful tool for sure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! :)</comment></comment></comment>


A Small Box to Stop Hackers from Turning Your Smart Home Against You - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-small-box-will-stop-hackers-from-turning-your-smart-home-against-you <comment><USER2> "Numa will retail for $349." Sounds pricey.

The article is quite vague about how it works. I guess you can achieve the same with some configuration on FREETZ [http://freetz.org/](http://freetz.org/) with a Fritzbox. [http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7390/](http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7390/)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is definitely possible to arrive at a similar setup if you are technical. Numa is built entirely from free software. Our hope is to make these tools available to people who are not so technical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> In the UK, from my experience at least, providers combine the modem and router into one device. In this case, the Numa wouldn't really cover it and you'd need to buy a switch as well.

<comment><USER4> Comcast and Verizon like to combine them as well in the US. Of course, we have more cable companies and phone companies than those two, but I'm less aware of what they deliver.

<comment><USER5> If you have a Comcast modem then you're paying too much - they charge $10/mo for something that can be bought on Amazon for less than $80

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is this not also a router?

<comment><USER7> It looks like a pcengines Alix board. I am using kne as a router.

<comment><AUTHOR> Close. It's a PC Engine APU. In our testing, quite a bit faster than the Alix.</comment></comment></comment>


Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher - <AUTHOR> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/26-13

<comment><USER2> This is an excellent read, although not initially recognizing his name I was expecting it to be about Anonymous/LulzSec, DDOS, digital sit-ins, etc. It is long, but extremely well constructed. It should also be taken as a lesson in how to respond to governmental oppression. Non-violent, not inflammatory, well reasoned, passionate, and maybe most important of all, not disrespectful of the law itself. By respecting to your opponent, it speaks volumes about your character.

DeChristopher is obviously a well-spoken man and he sounds like an absolute stand-up guy. In his speech he seems to address every pertinent matter of the case, use the evidence available to question their validity, and to any sensible person defend himself completely and utterly. Unfortunately, court does not appear to have been sensible on this day.

If we can see a silver lining, it's that this story will get more press because he's going to jail, and the more people that read this, the more people will be inspired. I think this essay will do exactly what DeChristopher wanted it to.

</comment><comment><USER3> How often does someone get sent to prison for 2 years because they bid at an auction more than they could afford to pay at the moment they made the bid? Is it very common to prosecute this in a criminal trial, or is this completely unheard of?

<comment><USER4> not so, he was able and willing to pay for the land, but the BLM doesnt allow people to buy land w/o drilling for oil. So he was charged with "disrupting a lawful government activity" - even though in fact those BLM auctions are NOT lawful.

<comment><USER5> Using illegal methods to disrupt illegal activities is not legal. You can't shoot a guy to stop him running a red light. There are rules about Citizen's arrests, but they are pretty specific.

On the other hand, making a nuisance bid at an auction (especially when you are forthright about your actions, which he claims he was) doesn't seem like a serious criminal act.

<comment><USER6> He didn't just make himself a nuisance, though.

He did two illegal acts: 1\. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for the drilling rights. 2\. He was unable to pay for the bids he won.

Both of which are pretty cut and dry fraud charges. Those are what he was found guilty for.

If he had just broken into the meeting and annoyed the people present, I would have a different opinion about his punishment, but what he did here was clearly illegal. If he's serious about this being a case of civil disobedience, he should accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to avoid the consequences just defeats the entire purpose.

<comment><USER2> Tsk tsk, you didn't read the article.

> 1\. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for > the drilling rights.

"The entire basis for the false statements charge that I was convicted of was the fact that I wrote my real name and address on a form that included the words "bona fide bidder." When I sat there on the witness stand, Mr Romney asked me if I ever had any intention of being a bona fide bidder. I responded by asking Mr Romney to clarify what "bona fide bidder" meant in this context. Mr Romney then withdrew the question and moved on to the next subject. On that right there is the entire basis for the government's repeated attacks on my integrity."

> 2\. He was unable to pay for the bids he won.

"The other number suggested in the government's memorandum is the $166,000 that was the total price of the three parcels I won which were not invalidated. Strangely, the government wants me to pay for these parcels, but has never offered to actually give them to me. When I offered the BLM the money a couple weeks after the auction, they refused to take it."

> If he's serious about this being a case of civil disobedience, he should > accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to avoid the consequences > just defeats the entire purpose.

"Despite my strong disagreements with the court about the Constitutional basis for the limits on my defense, while I was in this courtroom I respected the authority of the court. [...] disagreement with the law should not be confused with disrespect for the law."

It's really a very good speech, you should read it in its entirety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This just smacks of corruption. Sweet legal corruption.

He was in a position to be able to purchase the _rights_ to drill. He does not have to necessarily have to exercise those rights that he purchased.

Moreover, he is leasing those rights! It is in the governments best interests to have someone pay for the right to take a non-renewable resource and then not decide to use it!!!

Since there is a lot of talk about patents and copyright here, let's do a simple example. If I purchase the rights to 'Happy Birthday', can't I just not enforce the copyright? Will I be prosecuted if I don't sue every child getting sung 'Happy Birthday'?

If I purchase Lodsys' supposed patents and decide to not sue every indy developer out there, will I be persecuted for it?

Sexual orientation? You've got the right either way! If you go princess or bear is the government going to break down your door?

If you lease land for logging and your company decides it's not fiscally feasible to log this year, are you going to be thrown in jail.

No. No. No. No.

It's too bad his defense was hampered by the judge.

His only crime was trying to get in the way of the revolving door system of public property being given away to private interests. That's a big no-no.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a sad, sad commentary on the current state of government affairs. This is the kind of stuff that makes me think groups like Anonymous are more for the people than our own government

</comment><comment><USER8> He was essentially being punished, made an example of for political reasons. I'm not an environmentalist, but thats not right.

<comment><USER9> Why aren't you an environmentalist? I'm not suggesting it's the only philosophy one can legitimately hold, but I'm wondering where your disagreement with the core tenets of environmentalism (sustainable growth and concern for human health and ecological balance) comes from.

<comment><USER3> I can't speak for him either, but I'll speak for those of us who are against destroying the environment but won't use the word environmentalist as it, like the word organic and the word christian, have been co-opted by evil bastards with corporate control agendas. Screw all that. It is impossible to take "environmentalism" seriously as a movement when you have people like Al Gore respected, and the Goldman Sachs controlled Carbon exchanges the purpose of which is obvious and it's not to reduce needless consumption.

<comment><USER9> Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump? Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wrong, is to say you can't believe in animal rights without being a PETA supporter. It's just a terribly flawed argument. Flipping it on it's head, I could say that environmentalism is beyond reproach because it has people like David Suzuki [1] as its champions. Those arguments simply don't hold water.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki>

<comment><USER3> The deal with this is that _I_ am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings. Therefore, it is foolish to apply these labels anymore to the cause or belief or movement or whatever you want to call it.

One can be or be not. Talk is bullcrap. "Environmentalism" is about talk and politics and taking control away from people and their lives, and it's about making money. It's not about reducing consumption and waste. Not at all.

You also bring up PeTA. Let's instead talk about the label "Animal Rights Activist". I am opposed to factory farms and slaughterhouses where animals are abused and tortured for profit. I'd like to see all of these either reformed or shut down. The abuse of animals is so severe that I consider it completely unethical to eat products from these places. As a result, since I am a omnivore and veganism made me sick, I have to raise and hunt my own meat because that I have control over and can do so in as ethical and humane a manner as possible. Yes it involves killing but I do so with respect for the animal and its life. Those I raise have a good life before slaughter. I would much rather just buy humanely raised meat, that would be less trouble, but it's not possible in the US. Few others do this, that is their own business. But am I an "Animal Rights Activist"? Absolutely not. That is a label of cranks who do things like set fire to cars and destroy perfectly good fur coats. PeTA kills 85% of the animals it rescues. ([http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and- eu...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and- euthanasia.html))

Likewise with consumption. Wow it would be nice to drive around and fly and use air conditioning. Does your place of work have air conditioning? Mine does not because I choose not do do so because it is wasteful compared to a fan. Do you drive to work every day? I don't because it is outrageous to think that personal gas combustion vehicles is sustainable, and electric hybrids with their batteries are even worse. Do you raise most of your own food? I do. Screw the environmentalists, driving from meeting to meeting in their gas guzzling leaded gasoline running VW busses, and their private jets, and their olympic sized heated swimming pools, their destruction of the soil with their ethanol gas, their wasteful solar panels, and their refusal to get control over their own waste while they dare to dictate to others. The world would be better off without any of those outrageous hypocrites. The term "Environmentalist" has become an insult thanks to their efforts.

Among these is Suzuki, a major leader of outrageous hypocrites. Rather than address his own wasteful consumption, he buys religious indulgences in the form of carbon credits to "offset" his waste. This is complete nonsense and those who participate in these scams are either deluded followers, or cult leaders trying to confuse their followers by example.

<comment><USER10> I stopped caring about the environment, when I saw that being an environmentalist meant stopping any and all human development.

When environmentalists get together and start building power plants and oil wells, then I'll know they're serious about saving the environment.

<comment><USER11> Wait, what? Why would environmentalists build oil wells? That's precisely the opposite of caring about the environment. Unchecked human development is recklessly irresponsible. But growth and development aren't necessarily evil - far from it. Understanding the ENTIRE impact of ones actions, rather than just the portion that affect you, is (imo) the most important tenet of protecting the world we live in. From that perspective, you can make intelligent decisions and grow, but not at the expense of everyone around you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't agree with everything DeChristopher has to say, but that was a good read.

I find it really scary that lobbyists have the ability to destroy an individual's life if instigated. At least that's the impression I got.

<comment><USER13> Money greases the wheels of justice. Oil money is particularly greasy.

EDIT: spelling

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The decision, the process and the background are an embarrassment.

It's interesting to me that there isn't even the slightest bit of damage control.

What was it Lou Reed said ... Stick a fork in 'em. Turn 'em over. They're done.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm so glad this made HN.

</comment><comment><USER10> I cared, up to paragraph 682 in his article.</comment>


Google Giving Will Provide 15,000 Raspberry Pi's to UK Schools - <AUTHOR> http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/3158 <comment><USER2> Whilst I applaud the effort, I'm cynical.

I have three children at two _good_ but different schools and my wife is a teacher. From observation, they will either be locked in the cupboard because the staff won't know what to do with them or are uninterested or are too lazy to adapt them to the curriculum, or they will be stolen or broken within the week.

This whilst cynical is probably realistic.

The only thing that has ever survived schools is the BBC micro because they weren't cool, were indestructible and you could screw them down.

<comment><USER3> What mystifies me is back in the 80s there was a relatively successful amount of programming at school using mainly Logo but also BBC Basic (which doesn't suck nearly as much as other basics). The real tragedy is Logo fell out of favour so quickly for no particular reason.

<comment><USER4> at high school we got taught CECIL and basic and touched upon a the other languages and there feild of usage. Also taught the history part as well. Had a 380z research machine, BBC micro in the final year and also access to a 2903 ICL mainframe running george over a 300buad acoustic coupler and then would take upto an hour to get a good connection. Sometime later computer studies got turned into a secratary skills on a computer and called ICT.

Logo was great and in some way we still have it at toy level with the various programable toys via mobile phones and let us not forget we still have bigtrax. Though Lego are doing things now we could only dream of as children. Computer back then also came with a programming language interface, nowadays that is a optional extra sadly and is akin to a generation knowing how to drive and how a engine worked so they could identify a fault and fix it to those that can just drive.

<comment><USER2> Nice - I remember the 380z. Had a bus which was a simple IDC ribbon cable, weighed a ton and sort of barely coped with CP/M.

<comment><USER4> Yip they were well built. Apparently if you entered the front panel (ctrl+F iirc you got a hex debugger) you could single step thru the machine code, now if your did that for the graphic panel part you could blow the screen -- luckily this did not get learned from expereience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had the pleasure of meeting Eben when he spoke at HN London last year. His passion is blatant and powerful and he's comfortably one of the most down to earth people you could wish to meet and has a brilliant sense of humour. The fact that he turned up wearing a HAL 9000 t-shirt cemented the fact that he's a true geek who is doing something he absolutely loves every single day.

If you ever get an opportunity to see him speak then I suggest you jump at the chance.

Eben's HN London talk: <http://vimeo.com/43039279>

</comment><comment><USER6> If one were being cynical, one might suggest that this was a way for Google to distract attention from it not paying UK tax (through loopholes): [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/29/google- tax-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/29/google-tax-chairman)

<comment><USER7> A cynical person would note that the UK government isn't upset that the loopholes are being used, since they've made no serious attempts to close them. They're upset that the loopholes are being used by the _wrong companies_.

If Apple or Google or Starbucks spent as much on UK lobbying as other multinationals, I doubt they'd be receiving any negative press.

<comment><USER8> HMRC change rules all the time to beat tax avoidance. They're hamstrung somewhat by European regulations that prevent them from penalising companies for hiding their profits in other EU countries. But it's a cat and mouse affair and the HMRC can only be reactive unless someone comes up with a perfect tax code.

> _They're upset that the loopholes are being used by the wrong companies._ //

You mean the richest, most successful, most popular, most used by the UK population and most profitable?

> _I doubt they'd be receiving any negative press._ //

So in your opinion the UK press is in the pocket of the government who're only highlighting morally questionable tax avoidance as part of a shake down to boost some sort of protection racket? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

Personally I think the answer lies in some sort of underpin based on gross revenue levied on all companies over the VAT registration threshold but with the option to apply to have the underpin removed if one can prove in good faith that the underpin is onerous.

Amazon could still pretend they're working out of Luxembourg (500 workers) instead of UK (15k workers) but they'd pay on their revenue anyway. That way Amazon can't put UK tax paying firms out of business (simply by undercutting and relying on the extra profit from not paying tax to stay a float) and then off-shore all the taxable profits leaving us with no UK tax paying businesses (but even more consumption).

Just think of all the high wage bills for accountants that could be saved.

<comment><USER7>
      > You mean the richest, most successful, most popular,
      > most used by the UK population and most profitable?

I mean young companies that don't contribute as much to election campaigns as older companies.

      > So in your opinion the UK press is in the pocket of the
      > government who're only highlighting morally
      > questionable tax avoidance as part of a shake down to
      > boost some sort of protection racket? That's what it
      > sounds like you're saying.

I'm not saying that the UK press is an organ of the government. Rather, individual members of the government are complaining only about companies that do not give them (sufficient?) kickbacks. The press merely reports on these complaints, because true investigative journalism is rapidly dying out.

The obvious solution is to close the "pick any EU nation to pay taxes in" loophole so companies are required to allocate taxes based in part on the geographical source of their revenue, but this would affect the companies that paid for those loopholes in the first place, so it will not soon happen.

If the government were actually interested in punishing companies that pay taxes to Ireland for profits in the UK, they would have just done it instead of kick up a flurry of press releases.

<comment><USER8> > _this would affect the companies that paid for those loopholes in the first > place_ //

Go on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a feeling the first question will be "why couldn't they give us an xbox instead?"

It will be interesting to see how these are used in schools though. When I was in school the ethos around IT and computers was very much "don't do anything we haven't asked you to do" which seems to be the opposite of how the pi is intended to be used.

<comment><USER2> It's still like that. Everything is locked down, locked up and entirely filtered. It's like a computing prison. A couple of years ago, my then 8 year old daughter (!!!!) was actually told off for using the Run dialog (to fire up notepad) in Windows XP because they removed it from the start menu and was accused of hacking! I literally fucking exploded like a WWII bomb at the clueless peon who made that accusation.

I'm now a school governor to make sure that these morons don't take over the planet.

The kill pretty much every bit of interest there is straight away for most students.

<comment><USER10> "I literally fucking exploded like a WWII bomb at the clueless peon who made that accusation."

I'd watch the blood pressure there (I've been teaching for 24 years).

As you are now on the management: Is there (safe, filtered) Internet via wifi and BYOD for the older pupils? Cheap android tablets for shiny media but also hackable? Scratch (<http://scratch.mit.edu/>) on the PCs? Basically what policy innovation/leadership have you contributed?

Not challenging here, I'd really be interested to know. Having documented examples to point at _really_ helps in situations where you have to be diplomatic with idiots.

<comment><USER2> I calmed down pretty quickly :)

Changes so far: stopped mass iPad purchase to use as cameras (!?), different acceptable use policy (which stops people being hung without good reason), open systems policy I.e. no single vendor, fired RM PLC, halfed expenditure on consultants, new smartboards which don't fall over every 3 months, got rid of LGFL Fronter, two new IT staff.

All in 9 months.

<comment><USER11> What is your Fronter replacement recommendation? And can you suggest good Schools ISP or filtering solution?

<comment><USER2> Moodle+exchange (still cheaper than fronter which was £40k+. MS will bend over for educational contracts. Exchange supports the staff better as well. Smoothwall guardian filter

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's a good move Google. Just have a look at the kids happy faces. It's a gift they didn't expect.

Let's pause for a moment talking about tax loopholes.

</comment><comment><USER13> 15000 super nintendo emulators!

<comment><USER2> That actually made me laugh because it's exactly what I'd probably do with it (or install RISCOS and play Zarch). At the same time, in the process, I'd have to get over a learning curve so perhaps that's not a bad thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unfortunately this seems like a drop in the ocean to me.

In January 2010 there were 24,605 schools in England alone [1]. Add more for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Then subtract the fairly small number of private schools. My guess is that that about 1 in 3 of UK schools will see even one Pi. And then, since the Pis are being given to pupils not the school, they have to identify the lucky pupil who gets to take it home. I wonder how that will work?

I'm not trying to be cynical, but is this actually meant to achieve _anything_ that is related to _education_?

[1] [http://www.education.gov.uk/popularquestions/schools/buildin...](http://www.education.gov.uk/popularquestions/schools/buildings/a005553/how- many-schools-are-there-in-england)

<comment><USER15> I don't know the full plan, but it makes perfect sense to start with a more reasonable number as an experiment; if it works, it'll be much easier to raise funding for the rest of the country. Even Google can't be expected to donate millions of $ (or £) straight up for something in it's infancy.

Just because it does not single-handedly fix computing education does not mean it is worthless - to make such an inference is a fallacy (I forget which one; there's a particular name. Essentially the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good). Helping 15000 people is better than helping 0.

At the end of the day, even the ocean is still made of nothing but drops.

<comment><USER14> Perfect Solution Fallacy [1]?

I agree that helping 15000 people is better than helping none. My cynicism relates to how the Pis are to be distributed and what can be learned about whether this works in any educationally meaningful sense. If this is an experiment and the [geekiest|nicest|poorest] kid in a school gets a Pi to take home, how do you evaluate the educational outcome?

This announcement also exists within a political context (corporate tax avoidance), and occurred on the same day that Eric Schmidt made public comments about Google not being opposed to a more restrictive corporate tax regime in the UK. If it is a PR move then I don't have much confidence that there will be any follow-through aimed at achieving genuine educational improvements. To do this requires infrastructure and ongoing commitment.

For the record, I have three Pis and I think they are wonderful. My children are going to be using them at home soon and if they had access to them in school too then I would be very pleased.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solutio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy)

[2] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/29/google- tax-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/29/google-tax-chairman)

<comment><USER15> I'm sure that there is a non-zero amount of PR to this, but Eric Schmidt gave a talk[1] in Edinburgh in August of 2011 where he specifically addressed shortcomings in UK IT education, so this has clearly been an issue for him before the current tax-avoidance story hit headlines.

[1]<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14683133>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One per 3 kids who do the ICT GCSE. Or almost 4 per kid who does A-level Computing.

Not too bad I suppose. Hopefully the new Computer Science courses that are coming out will make it a relevant platform to people.

<comment><USER8> I think the idea is to encourage more kids to take up computing (as opposed to ICT). To that end giving them to kids who're already doing A-level computing seems misguided?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great move from google, no doubt the move will birth some future employees! I take it at this point that the model A is effectively dead?

</comment><comment><USER18> This is why it is so hard to buy a raspberry pi. Google has bought them all up.</comment>


3M Knew About the Dangers of PFOA and PFOS Decades Ago, Internal Documents Show - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ <comment><USER2> This headline isn't exactly accurate and the article is misleading. PFOA was used in the process of affixing Teflon to surfaces but is not present in the pan itself. PFOA has built up in the environment as a result of the manufacturing processes that use it.

It would be more accurate to say "3M knew that manufacturing non-stick pans, and a number of other products, was poisoning all of us in the '70s".

You didn't have to have a Teflon pan to be exposed and having a Teflon pan didn't increase your exposure significantly. Microwave popcorn bags and other food wrappers were hundreds of times worse.

Teflon pans remain safe to use. All these other non-stick products are potential problems but it's impractical to try to identify which ones have PFOA or PFOS... so it's a good thing it's being phased out.

<comment><USER3> > _Microwave popcorn bags (...) were hundreds of times worse._

Wait. Is it still true today?

<comment><USER4> Looks like microwave popcorn bags still contained high levels of PFOA as of 2006, though I wasn't able to find a more recent reliable source. "Consumption of just 10 bags of microwave popcorn a year could contribute about 20% of the average blood PFOA levels, say the scientists interviewed anonymously for this article." PDF: [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es062599u)

<comment><USER5> For some of my friends that sounds like perfectly normal thing to do, so... where does that leave us? :P

<comment><USER6> You can easily cook popcorn on a stove top. Pour some popcorn and oil in a pot, once is starts sizzling shake a bit, once it starts poping shake a lot. Take it off when the pops slow to about once a second and pour into a bowl. Add salt as desired.

<comment><USER7> > Add salt as desired.

Don't just add any salt, add popcorn salt - morton sells it and it's not hard to find.

It's salt that has been much more finely ground. It made a HUGE difference in my popcorn.

<comment> mark-r It's hard to find in my area - the stores only seem to carry the flavored kind, not the pure popcorn salt.

<comment><USER7> It does seem to be available online at inflated prices. I got mine at a restaurant supply store, see if you have one near you.

Also try calling morton and asking who carries it in your area, they should be able to tell you that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sad, but hardly surprising. It sometimes seems like every company in this position did similar things. Tobacco, Oil, CFCs, Leaded gasoline etc... I'm sure I could come up with others if I looked.

This is why I don't understand many of the arguments against federal regulation. I know regulation hurts the economy and makes doing business harder. I understand. But most corporations will not self-regulate even when people's lives are at stake.

<comment><USER9> I don't think it's a given that it hurts the economy. Someone has to research, develop, and manufacture the non-toxic alternatives. How is that money not part of the economy?

Also, it doesn't make business that much harder _unless_ you built your business on being shady. See: the recent GDPR kerfuffle. For some it was just business as usual on May 26th.

<comment><USER10> The more established, bigger, unethical companies will crush the "our products don't poison you!" competitors out of existence before they even get started. They will maintain their poison-happy monopolies. So without regulation protecting anti-poison competition, there will be no money in these alternatives, and the economy will remain unbalanced and literally deadly.

<comment><USER11> For those interested, in the outdoors industry (where fluorinated compounds are pervasive in waterproof coatings), there are a couple companies doing good:

Patagonia has switched to shorter-chain PFCs for many of its coatings (C6 instead of C8). They are also actively investing in research for alternative chemicals with adequate performance.

Nikwax, which sells re-waterproofing products, never uses fluorinated compounds and is a good brand to look for at the store.

<comment><USER12> Are they in the stuff you use to waterproof dress shoes and suede shoes too?

<comment><USER11> Some of those are silicones or waxes. But possibly. Check the label.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> [https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota- pfoa-p...](https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/)

This is a Fast Company post about The Intercept's report. Might we prefer to link to it instead?

<comment><USER14> Yes, please. The Fast Company post is blogspam.

<comment><USER15> I agree as well the Intercept post has way more content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is why its naive to think consumer choice can replace regulations because in most cases consumers are in the dark like in this case, or are not a collective to effect change and that then destroys the commons. The feedback loop is too long.

On the other side anti-regulatory proponents fund hundreds of think tanks and keep on aggressively pushing their agenda in the media and then when the environmental damage or fraud is revealed they make themselves scarce or evade responsibility. This is not a good model to run a society. It puts individual greed over the common good and destroys the commons.

Civilized society has never worked without laws which is what regulations are and and its high time basic tested principles are not allowed to be muddied by self interested parties with PR budgets. Depending on 'goodwill', 'self- regulation' and 'ethics' is a fairy tale version of reality.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Right now it's hard to find a pan that uses Teflon in the old continent."

The French company Tefal sells its frying pans across Europe. It is one of the most popular kitchen product around. As the name suggests, these used Teflon as some point. Is Teflon really not used any more in making these pans, and if not, then what is?

EDIT: I suspect that in the quotation above, the author really meant "PFOA" not Teflon.

<comment><USER18> Yes according to their faq they use PTFE and not PFOA, but not sure since when.

> Tefal/T-fal non-stick coating is a technical coating made from a polymer > name polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). It is PTFE which gives the cookware the > non-stick properties. Public health authorities in Europe and in the USA > demonstrated that PTFE is an inert substance which does not chemically react > with food, water or domestic cleaning products. It is totally harmless in > case of ingestion. These Public health authorities confirmed the > harmlessness of PTFE non-stick coatings in cookware. In fact, PTFE is so > safe that it is frequently used in the medical profession to coat pacemakers > and the tiny tubes made to replace arteries. It is also used for surgical > procedures for the benefit of patients with severe kidney disease, and some > joint prostheses are also partly coated with PTFE.

> PFOA is the standard English abbreviation of perfluorooctanoic acid. PFOA is > used in the manufacturing process of many products such as non-stick > coatings, compatible microwave packaging, some textiles, stain resistant > carpet, pizza boxes which do not absorb fat, etc. On its finished products, > Tefal/T-fal's commitment is to guarantee the absence of PFOA, lead and > cadmium and to guarantee that its products with Tefal/T-fal non-stick > coating are harmless for the environment and the consumer.

<comment><USER11> PTFE is not harmless in the body - the body cannot break it down - and there is no independent study showing it as such.

"PTFE is so safe that it is frequently used in the medical profession to coat pacemakers and the tiny tubes made to replace arteries" was written by a 3M corp comms flunky.

<comment><USER19> And only means that it's much safer than dying from complications of having a medical device embedded in your chest. Which is much safer than dropping dead from a second heart attack.

This is what we like to call "faint praise".

Teflon: much much safer than a second heart attack.

<comment><USER20> Wouldn't it also be used to coat pacemakers etc specifically _because_ the body can't break it down? Having teflon around a pacemaker is a different thing than it accumulating in random places in the body.

<comment><USER11> You're not disagreeing with each other

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A point that I've read in N.N. Taleb's incerto series is that it is a matter of scale. A small artisan who puts their name on their product is less likely to poison you and fuck your life up. Megacorps though operate with a very different risk profile and can take pretty antisocial decisions.

Regulation must keep a watchful eye on the megacorp - a small fishing operation is a net positive for society but a fisheries giant can drive entire species to extinction and threaten food supplies.

</comment><comment><USER22> PFAS are suddenly a HUGE issue here in Michigan. Paper mills and tanneries were using and dumping it wholesale in the 60s. Now it's come back to bite us and PFAS is showing up in pretty much every municipality's water supply:

[http://search.mlive.com/?q=pfos](http://search.mlive.com/?q=pfos)

</comment><comment><USER23> From the article, the EPA sat on this information for quite a long time. While 3M was heavily fined - were any EPA employees held responsible?

MTBE is another example of a colossal screw up on the part of the EPA. EPA required an oxygenate to be added to gas (even though car technology had long since moved on - so no actual benefit). Then, when MTBE was used and became known as problematic, they stalled efforts for several years to stop its use. The result is that MTBE polluted much of our ground water.

Anyone at the EPA get held accountable?

Today, we have gas that is more expensive, less effective, and likely more polluting due to these regulations. We also cannot buy gas cans without those crazy spouts because the ethanol in today's gas evaporates so easily, causing smog, that they had to add more regulations on spouts to try to prevent that. Anyone ever used one of those spouts without spilling gas?

[https://fee.org/articles/government-reformulated-gas-bad- in-...](https://fee.org/articles/government-reformulated-gas-bad-in-more-ways- than-one/)

<comment><USER24> I use the "No Spill" brand: No-Spill 1405 2-1/2-Gallon Poly Gas Can [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W72GBC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ljzz...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W72GBC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ljzzBb4F14594)

It's great for my lawn tractor and snow blower, but it won't fill a car. If you need to fill a car, look for one of the automotive racing gas cans with a very long spout. I don't remember the brand name, but my John Deere dealer sells them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This title is incorrect. This article is about chemicals used to make a non- stick pan.

The pan itself, once made, is not poisoning anyone.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if BAM[1] coatings suffer from any of these ills (or anything else which would prevent them from being used in cookware), seems like they would be a decent way to go if the cost could be improved.

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

</comment><comment><USER26> My cast iron pan is something I will keep until the day I die. Then it will be passed down to my daughter..

<comment><USER27> You have just one? ;-)

High fives for iron. I bought an old cast iron pan from a second hand store that had been machined to a very smooth finish. After cooking eggs in it, I immediately stripped and sanded my modern Lodge cast iron.

The difference is pretty big. It may not be as non-stick as Teflon, but it's pretty darned non-stick. I assume my cast iron is also putting less cancer in my body.

<comment><USER28> I'd like to try that with my Lodge. Did you sand it by hand? How long did it take? I'm not very handy!

<comment><USER27> Strip it with a wire cone brush on a power drill (wear full face shield!). Then start with ~60 grit (EDIT: sandpaper). Once sanded smooth move to 80 then 100 grit.

Once you're done, give it a rinse, wipe dry thoroughly, and then season immediately or it'll rust.

I like to initially season by heating to a very hot temp, and then using flax seed oil on a paper towel held by tongs, and brush thin layers of oil on that will smoke and turn amber colored immediately. I don't like the oven method that people write about on the internet, because the seasoning doesn't last, it takes forever to do, and it takes way more energy to hear and cool. The "wipe oil on to hot skillet" approach works better and only takes a few minutes.

<comment><USER28> Cheers. I'd realised it was quicker to heat the pan on the stove than in the oven but it hadn't occurred to me to apply more oil while it was hot. I'll give the sanding a go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is merely an example of many of living in a poorly regulated market where profits are constantly put ahead of people's lives and profits. If el chapo or Pablo Escobar sold nonstick pans or the chemicals to make them you think they would have continued this study and ruined their profits? No? Then why get mad at 3M? This is the system we as Americans have agreed to put in place. Most people would do the same thing in their position. Profit and ignore the negative consequences while lobbying to keep regulators away. After all, it's not their lives being put at risk...

</comment><comment><USER30> Without knowing too much about PFOA specifically, I would hazard a guess that the chemical itself is not necessarily dangerous - it's the delivery via aeresol that would worry me. Namely, spraying down pans to apply Teflon and spraying it as Scotchguard. There are plenty of chemicals that are perfectly fine inert, but when you push them into the air haphazardly they get into really bad places and create negative environmental effects.

<comment><USER31> Knowing a lot about PFOA (Wolverine World Wide operated a tannery in my home town and dumped Scotchguard-treated leather scraps in the swamp, now I have 100 ppt PFOA in my well water), it is incredibly dangerous. They were incredibly careful to wear the full gamut of protective gear when handling it, but assumed the infinite sink of nature would dilute it to safety. A few decades later, it's still not diluted to safe levels.

The article is newsworthy because WWW are claiming 3M assured them it was safe until 2003 when they stopped using it because the FDA told them to. And 3M is claiming that there wasn't sufficient evidence to say it could be bad until they finally did. And rational people are looking at the whole thing knowing that everyone knew it was bad but they kept using it because it made them money.

To be fair, I and thousands of my neighbors now have a whole-house carbon filter that costs thousands in my home - bought, installed, and maintained on WWW's dime - that takes that 100 ppt down to nondetectable levels. That keeps my toddler safe. But I have been drinking it for 30 years...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Assuming the article is valid and the facts check out, this is pretty astonishing and incredibly troubling. How can profit at any cost be justified?

<comment><USER33> Either you are incredibly naive or you were born yesterday!

<comment><USER32> well, thank you for that grown-up comment. Many organizations will have questionable implications of the products they sell but in most cases, this comes down to things that are less obvious than selling something that has a substance that has been proven to contribute to cancer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wonder what articles in 2050's are going to say about such things in the 2010's.

<comment><USER35> "Food and drink companies knew all along that sugar was making you obese and diabetic."

<comment><USER36> Fat (edit: typically) causes type 2 diabetes, not sugar.

<comment><USER37> Is this what your meant to write?

I've worked on diabetes medical devices for about 8 years, did some research on diabetes to augment my ability to work on said diabetes medical devices, and personally know several people with type 1 diabetes and as well type 2 diabetes.

Did you mean instead to write: Sugar causes type 2 diabetes, not fat?

<comment><USER36> [https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of- ty...](https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/17/fat-is-the-cause-of- type-2-diabetes/)

I suppose high sugar consumption could cause it, but it doesn't look like that is the typical mechanism.

<comment><USER38> Michael Greger, the author of that post, owns the website nutritionfacts.org. He appears to be taking the celebrity doctor career route, since his bio boasts about the lectures he gives and appearing on the Dr. Oz show.

Shows us something peer reviewed.

Edit: I haven't found anything to definitively say Greger is a quack, but given that searching his name brings up mainly alternative medicine type sites, I remain suspicious.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Study: number of Monarch butterflies in California falls 86% in a single year - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattlepi.com/science/article/monarch-butterflies-california-extinct-decline-13507308.php <comment><USER2> Interesting. I feel like I have seen a lot more Monarch this year here in Houston. Maybe they're taking the long route?

<comment><USER3> You could be right. An estimated 180 million flew through Texas this year, twice as many as last year due to good weather up north. There were some efforts to make Austin a rest stop by planting milk weed in parklands. Anecdotally, saw big migrating swarms when driving on 290 on my way towards Junction.</comment></comment>


How a Wind-Up Music Box Works [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COty6_oDEkk <comment><USER2> I upvoted this for the quality of writing and production, not core content (which isn't newsworthy). It's beautifully done (with the accurate animations of gearing) and finds tons of interesting things to talk about and demonstrate.

<comment><USER3> In theory, I knew how it works. In practice a music box is really a black box that only seems unsophisticated due to marketing and mass production as toys since my childhood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Every one of The Engineer Guy's videos are a spectacular insight into the immense complexity of everything around us, and a beautiful demonstration in how to make that complexity both fascinating and understandable. It's often quite a while between updates, but I highly recommend you subscribe to his channel.</comment>


Notre-Dame came closer to collapsing than people knew - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/16/world/europe/notre-dame.html <comment><USER2> > "You have a system that is known for its ability to detect very small > quantities of smoke," Mr. Corbett said. "Yet the whole outcome of it is this > clumsy human response. You can spend a lot to detect a fire, but it all goes > down the drain when you don't move on it."

It seems to me that the biggest issue with the fire system was the lack of a graphical display of the alarm... with all the security cameras and screens likely to already be in place, why not add one with maps of the cathedral, showing up in red when an alarm triggers? The need to understand shortcodes it waiting for disaster...

<comment><USER3> These all seem obvious now in hindsight, but that's always the way of things. People, even educated, intelligent, and earnest people are very bad at user interface design. Good UI design comes from experience, not foresight.

For example, the aviation industry has standard terms for things. "Takeoff Power" means full power. Can you guess what happened? A pilot needed to abort a landing, and yelled "takeoff power" to the copilot, who promptly chopped the power, an accident ensued. This phrase was then changed to (I think) "Full Power".

The Air Force didn't learn from that civil aviation incident until it happened to them, too, then they fixed it.

It seems obvious, doesn't it? Everybody missed it.

<comment><USER4> It all boils down to one of the simplest and most ignored truths:

Most people aren't great at their jobs, they're average or worse than average.

<comment><USER5> It's not possible for most people to be worse than average.

<comment><USER6> Depends on what's meant by 'average'.

True for median, (by definition) but false for mean and mode.

<comment><USER7> Colloquially, average only ever means mean.

<comment><USER6> I'm inclined to agree that's what most people mean, (particularly non-STEM people) but it seems that's not what the poster I replied to above meant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article understates the risk the team that went to the north tower undertook. It mentions that they might not have an escape path, but that really doesn't communicate how exposed they were.

It's not uncommon for a fire crew to advance into an exposed position to make an attack or search for victims. As was the case here, there is usually a hoseline or two set up in a defensive position, covering their escape path. The difference is, this is usually done in a comparatively small space (i.e. a crew holding the staircase of a house while a second crew searches the upstairs). If the defensive position starts to look at risk, the exposed crew can make it back within a minute or two.

The crew in the northern tower of Notre-Dame would have taken far longer than that to make it back through, and it's very likely that if the defensive position had been lost, it wouldn't have been recognized until it was too late, trapping the crew in the tower.

<comment><USER9> The operations commander purposely chose personnel with no children or spouse to go on the northern tower

The call was made knowing that there may be casualties among them

<comment><USER10> Damn hard call to make, cudos to the people, personnel that went upt as well as command crew on the ground, conducting that kind of ops.

<comment><USER11> Note that the Paris Fire Brigade is a branch of the Army [0] (and in this case, it shows).

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

<comment><USER9> The only other military fire brigade is Marseilles "Marins pompiers"[0] that are a branch of the french Navy but I believe it to be standard practice in all fire brigades in France of which almost of all them are civilian.

Morals aside, it kind of make sense from an economical standpoint: a single guy dies, that's sad. A father of four dies, that's sad and the community has to support four orphans...

Controversial opinion: making that call to save living creatures is fine in my personal moral compass. Make that call for a building, be it symbolic and of rich cultural significance, not so much. As long as nobody is in danger, do everything to save it but if it burns to the ground, it can be rebuilt. A lost life and its consequences cannot.

I was, honestly, furious, when I heard the commander chose to send his men into the northern tower simply to save a pile of rocks....

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

<comment><USER12> Historical context and original artifacts cannot be simply rebuilt. This is not an office complex or a scientific lab or some other property that has material value but consists of fungible parts. Original historical artifacts of this type are literally irreplaceable.

If they are destroyed, they are lost to every future human being from now until the end of the universe. Even with time discounting, that's a great cultural loss. Should we risk lives to preserve historical & cultural heritage? Yes, absolutely.

<comment><USER13> Or, perhaps cynically, being one of the most visited monument in the world, it has a non-negligible economic value for Paris and France. Is that worth a few lives?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting that during the fire, the world was piling on the fire fighting efforts as being insufficient. As the true picture started coming out over the next few days and now with this article, it's clear that the fire fighters had a plan and executed it well, likely saving the structure.

<comment><USER15> The world? IIRC it was pretty much just one person...

<comment><USER16> A lot of people on online boards (including HN) were critical of the firefighting efforts.

<comment><USER8> It's definitely interesting to go back and look at the conversation that day.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19666991)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The part interesting for us:

"The fire warning system at Notre-Dame took dozens of experts six years to put together, and in the end involved thousands of pages of diagrams, maps, spreadsheets and contracts, according to archival documents found in a suburban Paris library by The Times.

The result was a system so arcane that _when it was called upon to do the one thing that mattered — warn "fire!" and say where — it produced instead a nearly indecipherable message._ "

The message (assembled):

"Attic Nave Sacristy." "ZDA-110-3-15-1" "aspirating framework"

<comment><USER18> That's really a textbook example of software projects going horribly wrong. It's often a good idea to take a step back and analyze whether you're overcomplicating things. Often when working on a concept, you're too deep in to see the simple solutions anymore.

<comment><USER19> Beer testing has never looked saner than when faced with monstruosities like that.

Been using it since I learned of it on HN and it's impressive the number of times it makes you take a step back and realize you were getting lost between you and yourself.

<comment><USER20> "Beer testing" \- usability testing after consumption of quantities of beer??

<comment> GuB-42 Apparently, it is a different thing.

What I thought of was:

\- State the problem

\- Get drunk

\- Find an answer

\- Sober up

\- Study the problem again

\- If you came to the same conclusion as when you were drunk, you are OK.

<comment><USER21> Basically how the Persians used to debate: "In Herodutus' discussion of the Persians, he wrote (Book I, chapter 133) that they decide upon important issues by first getting drunk. Once drunk, they start the debate and then come up with a decision. The next day when they are all sober, they decide whether they want to go through with the decision made. If yes, they go through with it. If they decide against it, they drop it and go back to square one which starts by getting drunk again."

[1] [https://historydaily.org/drunks-debates-ancient- persia](https://historydaily.org/drunks-debates-ancient-persia)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ok so the UI or procedures sucked but what's really aggravating as a tax payer, at least to me, is the lack of foresight and proper funding where it matters. Though to be honest it's not different from most work environments...

Fire is not something new for historical monuments.

I heard on the radio right after the collapse an architect saying at least half of fires starting on historical monuments happen during renovations. And quickly searching shows an insurance company saying it could be close to 3/4 of them ([https://www.cahiers-techniques-batiment.fr/article/notre- dam...](https://www.cahiers-techniques-batiment.fr/article/notre-dame-les- travaux-de-renovation-sont-la-cause-de-trois-quart-des-incendies-des- batiments-historiques-claude-delahaye-directeur-de-la-construction-chez- verspieren.40370)).

Sure that wouldn't have fixed everything but now instead of adding a couple of dozens or hundred millions to fund the fire warning system, we're now most likely looking at a cost of multiple billions...

<comment><USER3> > Fire is not something new for historical monuments.

I worry about the great libraries being consumed by fire. I do not understand why there isn't a larger effort to digitize them.

<comment><USER23> Isn't part of the problem here copyright, so Congress would need to make it legal? I thought that's what killed the Google Books effort anyways.

That said, I thought the Internet Archive is still engaged in an ambitious project to scan many books ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_scanning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_scanning)).

<comment><USER3> Things like the Vatican Library, which are full of old manuscripts that are centuries out of copyright and nobody even really knows what's all there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Amazing read, goes to show that fighting fire is not just about pointing a hose to the fire. There's a lot of strategic decision that has to be made. When you have multiple fire, which one do you point the hose at, where you position yourself, in what order do you fight them? You can't just look at the fire, but everything around it. Timing matters, I suppose SRE's can relate. But I believe developers can also learn from this by doing a lot of introspection.

<comment><USER8> Relatedly... I have a foot in both worlds (part-time firefighter/paramedic, full-time dev/ops/SRE/etc). For the better part of a year now I've been kicking around the idea of a conference talk about the transferable lessons between the two.

<comment><USER25> Fantastic idea. When firefighters screw up, people die. So we have a large set of very practical guidelines and most of them exist because somebody died.

I'd love to see outages (for example) managed with the Incident Command (IC) system. Maybe some companies do this already, IDK. But IC works very well in any "WTF is happening?" emergency situation.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, topics like that have already been covered fairly well. I'm more interested in "tactical" level discussions. Avoiding (or accounting for) tunnel vision, having muscle-memory level familiarity with your tools, the importance of pre-planning, etc. Specific things that can be meaningful to an individual or small team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Have they figured out how the fire started?

<comment><USER27> According to TFA, no, but they are nearly certain it was accidental. Top candidates include faulty electrical wiring and cigarette butts.

<comment><USER28> Given the prevalence of construction-initiated fires and the risk of fire in that space, I'm really surprised they even allowed smoking there.

<comment><USER29> Sometimes people break rules.

<comment><USER30> Almost invariably they break rules, that's why sane systems have redundancies and contingencies for "what do we do when meatsack A fails to follow the rules?".

Sometimes the answer is nothing (the result of the rule break may be minor) other times not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This will be an example to for future fire systems that will be updated in many historical sites

</comment><comment><USER32> I saw a TV report today and they still don't allow people under the part of the roof that collapsed.

Currently they are clearing the rubbles there using remote-controlled robots.

</comment><comment><USER33> I didn't see any mention of basic testing happening.

I'd hope that they were doing constant readiness drills.

Every couple of weeks they should have sent someone up to trigger a sensor and see how long it takes for someone to show up.

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't know what they meant by closer than people knew. I heard the news, saw the pictures, and went to bed assuming it would be completely gone by the morning.

</comment><comment><USER35> Can I just take a moment to praise the article's presentation?

This comes up every time a NYTimes interactive comes out but _wow_ , the narrative flow on this one really is incredible. The animations smoothly transitioning to full text, the collage of socal media posts... It feels much more like watching a documentary than reading an article.

I hope this catches on, it's what I've been promised with this whole hypermedia shebang!

<comment><USER36> "Snow Fall" was, I think, the NYT's first serious effort at a multimedia article:

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

Similar comment at the time:

> The NYT just kinda blew my mind. A newspaper article just blew my mind. This > is, by far, the best multimedia storytelling I think I've ever seen. Kudos > to the team involved in putting this together, you've shown me the future of > media and the internet.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4951041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4951041)

I don't really understand how the same paper does these incredible articles and then totally whiffs on other attempts such as:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/07/arts/dance- da...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/07/arts/dance-dance- revolution.html)

<comment><USER37> This has nothing to do with the quality of that NYT avalanche reporting, or the technology -- but I was more than a little surprised how they dedicated that much staff time, resources, and production to that story.

After all, this was a story about how people engaging in a purely _voluntary_ (and mind you, luxury) sport were causing and encountering avalanches. Hardly the most exposé-of-power, human-nature-revealing, check-on-society pieces of journalism. Just stop hiking off trail to go snowboarding on unstable mountains! Sheesh.

<comment><USER38> Imagine piloting that format on a _serious_ story, and the ensuing backlash if the format was ill-received.

Doing this work on a "low-stakes" story means that you have more room to experiment.

<comment><USER37> Well, that's a good point. And I'm sure the journalist writing the story had tons of material he/she was eager to see "in print". Let a writer fill up 10,000 words and he will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> >Paris has endured so much in recent years, from terrorist attacks to the recent violent demonstrations by Yellow Vest protesters.

Seriously? Putting the terrorist attacks in the same context as the Yellow Vest protests? One is an attack on civilians by extremist foreign groups, the other is those citizens protesting against a government decision that hurts them, which is a constitutional right in both France and the US... And this right to protest is what arguably made France a republic in the first place and led many other countries to follow on its steps. And labeling the protest as violent is dishonest at best, the police were violent and started throwing tear gas grenades at people, which made many protesters lose a hand or an eye (only the ones I saw, I'm sure there are many others who weren't recorded and put on Youtube).

<comment><USER40> >Seriously? Putting the terrorist attacks in the same context as the Yellow Vest protests?

Um, yes? People died in protests, and many terrorists were from France or Belgium.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> My birthplace is roughly 9439km or 5865 miles from Paris, yet I hold back tears while reading and remembering the tragedy.

</comment><comment><USER42> Shame on me for thinking they were talking about the college's football team at first. I was like "It hasn't already?". Roll tide.</comment>


We're all marks now - <AUTHOR> http://www.ducis.net/mssupport.html <comment><USER2> Hotmail (and, by proxy, all Outlook and Live email addresses) are notoriously difficult to get emails sent to.

I've come to the point where I'm wondering if they blocked all of Digital Ocean's IPs. I spent two weeks on the problem before finally giving up and just proxying the emails through gmail. It was the only way that Hotmail users could get our messages (including password reset requests, etc.).</comment>


The Balance Center – reduce back pain, improve ability, comfortable posture - <AUTHOR> http://www.balancecenter.com/overview.htm <comment><AUTHOR> This group (near Stanford with other locations) has some effective methods to help clients reduce pain or discomfort and improve physical ability.

The Balance Center - [http://www.balancecenter.com/overview.htm](http://www.balancecenter.com/overview.htm)

I am not afilliated, but have known several people to go through their program with life changing results.

As I understand it:

They have traveled around the world studying populations of people which have a low incident of back pain and old-age disability [1]. They observed those groups to have posture and movement habits that are subtly different from populations having a high incident of such problems. Their effective training program improves clients comfort and ability by teaching them the habits observed in the low-pain low-disability groups.

\---

[1] area's similar to a Blue Zone - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone) \- but apparently chosen for prevelence of comfort and ability instead of simply highest age.</comment>


Having children makes you happier only once they are grown up - <AUTHOR> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218704 <comment><USER2> Marriage and children are so complicated. Incredible joys and unbelievable frustration. A deep source of meaning amid the irritatingly mundane. They seem like a distraction from life's purpose while providing clear and definite aims. I'll let you know when I've got it figured out.

All I know is that the great philosophers and gurus seemed to be terribly wise about many things, but couldn't seem to figure it out in the context of marriage with children. Buddha, for instance, ditched his kid the day he was born. I like the guy, but really -- not a high point. Further, is it really so hard to find enlightenment while living with a bunch of bros on top of a mountain? Try finding enlightenment with an overbearing partner and three kids. That's where mankind needs it most!</comment>


Calibrating your fear of big bad optimizing compilers - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/799218/54a30b2467e46e16/ <comment><USER2> I presume that the title is a reference to DJB's talk "The death of optimizing compilers".

[http://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.04.16/audio.ogg](http://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.04.16/audio.ogg)

[https://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.04.16/slides- djb-20150416-a4.pdf](https://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.04.16/slides- djb-20150416-a4.pdf)

<comment><USER3> It's a reference to a previous LWN article, "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?":

[https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/](https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/)</comment></comment>


Passwords are Dead, Part II - 'My voice is my passport, verify me" - <AUTHOR> http://pcidss.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/passwords-are-dead-part-ii-2nd-false-premise-a-collaborative-research-effort-being-presented-at-rsa-2013/ Second Premise of my speech at RSA 2013 Conference.  Seeking collaboration and challenge.  This premise focuses on mobility, data, and smart devices - iphones, ipads, etc... <comment><AUTHOR> This is part II of a III series being presented in SFO the last week of February. A research effort meant to be tested in the full winds of peer collaboration.</comment>


Ethernet MDIO / MMD Design for FPGA Open Source Network Processor - <AUTHOR> https://mindchasers.com/dev/hw-mdio <comment><AUTHOR> If you're a college student and interested in FPGA design & network security, please take a look at the education link at the top of page for this article. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER2> Thank you for writing this article and for the great project.Do you have any plans for opensource wireless chips 802.11?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Wouldn't that run into regulatory issues?

<comment><USER3> If you wanted to sell them for general use you'd need to get the government stamp of approval on interference testing.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Tools/Workflows for programming with little screen estate - <AUTHOR> Hi,
this might be somewhat of an odd question, but anyway:
I might soon move into a small studio apartment with just enough space for either a desk or a small dining table. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter (I'd like to be able to invite friends over every now and then, and also enjoy the idea of having a space to come home to that doesn't look like another improvised office). The implication would be to downsize from my current setup (27 inch monitor, keyboard, mouse) to essentially a 13 inch rMBP.
This made me wonder: How would you go about being effective with such a setup? Can you recommend any tools/workflows/vim plugins for coding on a 13 inch screen only?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I'm using a 12-inch MacBook as my workstation for over a year. Doing backend development in Python. I don't feel I need any special tools, just configure your editor/IDE to hide any unnecessary items (toolbars, etc) to gain as much screen space as possible.

</comment><comment><USER3> Vi and your favorite compiler will work just fine on a small text screen. That's been my work environment for many years and even today unless I work on some Python notebook that's how I'll code.</comment>


Prediction Market Sidechain May Be the Most Important Invention Since Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20971/roger-ver-backing-prediction-market-sidechain-may-important-invention-since-bitcoin/

<comment><USER2> See also Augur:

[http://www.augur.net/](http://www.augur.net/)

[http://www.augur.net/blog/the-augur-alpha-is-now- available-t...](http://www.augur.net/blog/the-augur-alpha-is-now-available-to- download)</comment>


"We can never make enough money..." - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/sunday-review/fighting-back-against-wretched-wages.html?hp

<comment><USER2> Why is it that the article subscribes to the idea that working at a McDonald's for ten years means you should be paid more? Is the worker better or more efficient or more resourceful than somebody who has worked at McDonald's for 2 years?

<comment><USER3> Perhaps now, but having stable employees certainly saves a company the money required to hire and train new employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"...often too little to support themselves and their families."_

[http://www.livingwage.org.uk/](http://www.livingwage.org.uk/)

Just why do the rest of us have to subsidise employers who pay less than a living wage through taxes? Never understood that.

<comment><USER5> Employers are not subsidized, people are.

If anything employers are obligated to pay a higher cost for labor since they need to compete with government programs that pay people not to work. Even programs which pay people regardless of employment status create disincentives for employment (thereby requiring employers to pay more), due to diminishing marginal utility.

The most recent empirical study on this that I've seen: [http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/matthew.notowidigdo/research...](http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/matthew.notowidigdo/research/ggn_tenncare_july2013.pdf)

<comment> UK-AL Government subsidies allow a persons surviving wage to be lower. And with low skilled workers, their wage tends to be pushed down to a wage they can just about survive on, or your workers die. Thus government subsidies are indirectly founding companies, by allowing them to lower wages beyond what would normally be possible.

<comment><USER5> Employees will not die if their wages are reduced to $4-8/hour.

As proof that this is not the case, consider that most nations of the world have lots of people not dying on an unsubsidized $8/hour. Mexico is a fairly wealthy nation, and the GDP/capita is equivalent to a full time job at $8.33/hour (adjusted for PPP).

Literally billions of people avoid death on far less than $8/hour.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita)

<comment> UK-AL 1 dollar means different things in different countries. In some countries 1 dollar could buy you decent food, for a few days.

There's differences in rent. Living in a slum is illegal in developed countries.

<comment><USER5> The numbers I give are adjusted for purchasing power. Workers will not engage in a massive die off on $8/hour or even $1/hour.

<comment> UK-AL Well I'm just repeating Adam Smith on how low skilled jobs are priced.

They go as low as they can go, without something bad happening to the employee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting how one word is not mentioned in the article that has a huge impact on the issue of wages for the lower classes.

<comment><USER7> Please, don't make us languish, and do tell.

<comment><USER6> immigration

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When a company lowers wages on its rank and file its executives should not enjoy increases.

</comment><comment><USER9> I really want to have nothing to do with this article, but I think a little context is needed for readers living outside the U.S. Otherwise the subject matter and tone seems a bit odd.

Our president has decided to start concentrating on wage disparity, considering inequality to be immoral. (Cynics argue that with the NSA scandal and many others, anything to change the subject is a good move) The NYT here is picking up the ball and running with it. You'll note that the entirety of sources quoted are from one side of the American political spectrum.

So if the comments here seem bitter and contentious, and the commentary itself not helpful in covering both sides of the discussion, it's because it fits into a larger national political discussion (of which you may be unaware).

As for the subject itself, we've kicked this around a hundred times on HN. I selected this as flaggable, simply because I don't expect it to generate any new insights and simply cause a lot of useless and pointless nerd bickering.</comment>


Ask HN: Blogs about engineering team management and technical leadership? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I've found Will Larson's blog ([https://lethain.com/](https://lethain.com/)) to be a great source on engineering management and technical leadership.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am anegineering Manager myself and don't follow specific blogs. I can recommend the weekly email from Software Lead: [http://softwareleadweekly.com](http://softwareleadweekly.com)

This is a good mix of various articles from different authors every week.

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14163905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14163905)

</comment><comment><USER5> While it is a podcast and not a blog, I think Developer Tea is excellent on the topic of technical leadership and professionalism

</comment><comment><USER6> www.increment.com by Stripe.</comment>