Join the Battle for Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> https://www.battleforthenet.com/ <comment><USER2> [https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg)

Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan.

Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet provider (Indihome), and the biggest mobile internet provider (Telkomsel), which both are owned by the government, banned Netflix under the guise of "Netflix hasn't rated nor censored their contents based on our country's rules". The truth is that both of them are selling their own movie streaming service. Indihome has partnership with iflix, and Telkomsel with HOOQ.

Now, if you buy new prepaid number from Telkomsel, this is the kind of data fuckery you will get. [https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png](https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png)

<comment><USER3> my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs.

In other words, are these 'walled garden' plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

<comment><USER4> The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP. These will be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit. Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites, personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who visits pays.

In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying. This means more money from the same bandwidth.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190)

<comment><USER3> Do they actually block any of those things? What makes you think they would start blocking HN?

<comment><USER5> My understanding is that it's not that they're "blocked", it's that "you only can access what you pay for", which in this case is only those specific sites for which you pay to access. In other words, they don't "block" HN, they _only_ provide access to Facebook, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> China does not have net neutrality. Almost everything coming into the country from outside is utterly filtered to hell and back. They do have a vibrant tech economy though. So they have their own Google (Baidu). They have their own Twitter (Weibo), WhatsApp(WeChat), Amazon(Tao Bao). So in the future of no net-neutrality, we'll see ISPs being value-added resellers of their own regionally partitioned versions of these services, probably developed by various ISVs. It will be a bit like the BBS days I imagine. It goes along with the Trump political theme of anti-globalization.

<comment><USER7> Comparing China to the US is a false equivalency.

For one, Chinese ISPs are state owned (China Telecom, China Mobile, China Unicom, Great Wall). They do not have much of a profit motive outside the typical corruption of people at the top. Even with these state owned ISPs there are multiple choices for each address as these companies share infrastructure. The sharing of infrastructure in itself is similar to local loop unbundling, which does not exist in the US.

Another thing is that the tech community thrives at the behest of the government. Every time something happens it is generally due to changes in party policy that shift favor between companies.

Partitioning services is also not necessarily good. For example, large American ISPs generally have regional monopolies if not duopolies. They also own TV channels and movie studios. What is to prevent them from offering packages of their own services that are zero rated while charging extra for others (say, Steam or a new streaming service)?

<comment><USER8> Yeah... China's restrictive internet wouldn't be saved by "Net Neutrality". One of the foundational principles of the PRC is regulating _what can be said_. The medium is irrelevant.

I'll note that the FCC also regulates what can be said. Anyone remember when they investigated Stephen Colbert for his remarks on Trump?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.

<comment><USER10> There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality.

Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject.

If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument.

Another faux argument I hear is the classic, "I am libertarian, and therefore must be against regulation of _any_ form, and you can't change my mind." Obviously, that isn't an argument at all, and abusing libertarian ideology to look like an argument like that is seriously disappointing to any serious thoughtful libertarian, such as myself. This problem isn't specific to libertarianism either, but it is very popular in that community.

The core tenet to every _position_ (not argument) I have heard against net neutrality is simply a position against regulation. The problem is that in the United States, we _need_ to regulate ISPs, for several reasons:

1\. There isn't enough competition: There are 6 ISPs in the US that control the majority of the market, and the majority of Americans are left with only one choice for >20mbit internet.

2\. Net Neutrality is necessary to cultivate a free market of businesses that use the internet. Without net neutrality, the already centralized market of ISPs would cultivate centralized markets for each type of business that uses the internet.

 _TL;DR_ It is totally reasonable to be wary of regulation, or of the implementation of regulation. It may even be reasonable to consider net neutrality to be worthless or unnecessary in a truly free market, that has real competition between ISPs, but that isn't today's reality, so we would need to tackle that problem _first_.

<comment><USER11> There are arguments against net neutrality. Check out the NoNetNeutrality subreddit if you're curious [0].

The most convincing argument IMO is that it hurts people's internet access by sniffling innovation. It happened in India when Facebook tried to provide free "basic internet" access to poor rural Indians [1]. It was blocked on the ground of net neutrality since although it would provide access to very useful sites (weather, news, wikipedia, and yes, facebook), it was a sort of walled garden. Considering the alternative of no internet access or limited internet access, I think most people would agree that basic internet could have been a life saver to these people.

The other strong argument against net neutrality is that it's a trojan horse for internet regulation. When you have a legal framework for a regulatory body to tell and ISP you have to provide equal aaccess to "legitimate" content, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider that the natural extension of this is to tell the ISP they must block all "illegitimate" content

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/)

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

<comment><USER12> The counter to free basics is why didn't Facebook just provide free full internet with heavy branding and advertising to encourage Facebook use? Did they have some Indian competitor they were scared of? I have a hard time seeing how it would be that much more expensive.

<comment><USER13> Facebook branding on their internet would be against net neutrality: facebook would then be changing other websites.

<comment><USER10> I think they mean heavy branding in person to customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The site is technically pretty neat, but honestly does anyone think a bunch of low-effort automated calls to a Congressperson's voicemail is really going to change anything? The commoners' opinions about Net Neutrality (or any issue, really) is pretty low on the list of things our so-called representatives are worried about.

<comment><USER15> Calls from real people to Congress do have a real impact. Calls from a site just like this are what killed the SOPA/PIPA legislation.

<comment><USER16> Source?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its advantages to the average citizen seem enormous.

Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws are established?

<comment><USER18> "Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can try to fix multiple things.

The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time. Certainly there's no hope of fixing it by December 14th.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, but after fixing the "smaller" issues, we tend to forget about the bigger issues. Also, we lose leverage, and the problem quickly becomes abstract.

<comment><USER18> I don't see this happening at all. The smaller issues help people understand the importance of the bigger ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net- neutrality...](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/fcc-net-neutrality- blocking-states-183468)

Not only are they removing federal rules, they want to prevent states from making their own rules. That seems an extra special kind of awful. "Big Government is overstepping its bounds with regulation, so we're going to have big government step in and prevent local governments from making their own choices."

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm on the fence regarding this issue. The scaremongering on both sides is absolutely ridiculous. The planned order hasn't even been released! On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC, and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie. And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015.

In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.

<comment><USER21> > The planned order hasn't even been released!

Be that time it'll probably be too late.

> On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs > would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the > FTC instead of the FCC,

The FTC is not the correct body to "police" broadband.

> and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie.

I can. They are already getting paid. They should not be able to go back for seconds.

> And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

That's because network neutrality was the default state before. It's only now that is becoming feasible both from a technical and business perspective to violate network neutrality.

> But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more > innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't > seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in > 2015

Yeah, that's just a load of bullshit. CEOs have gone on record that NN will not affect business or investments.

> In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it > would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access > so small players can compete with the big ones.

Too bad we already had that, minus the FTC part. Fat chance of getting it back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Every two three years we have to do the same fight over and over again? :/

<comment><USER23> Well, not after you lose. I think this time is it.

However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. Or no longer being a democracy by modern standards, if you want to be dramatic.

<comment><USER24> >However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs.

No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent.

Elections have consequences.

The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being completely unqualified to understand issues ranging from technology to healthcare to economics isn't really a fault of the U.S. political system at this point.

Stop giving the people that vote for these reps (and the President) free passes and address the root issue. They have voted this way for decades and will continue to do so and no amount of changing or tweaking the political system is really going to have any noticeable effect on the policies they will support. The U.S. political system is listening to the electorate. Stop pretending it's not.

<comment><USER23> > The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly.

I disagree with you.

In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning strategy.

The US system is how much can you accommodate corporations held up against how little can you listen to the population and still get away with it. In a two party system, that is a lot.

I could write an example-scenario with two frozen pizza companies vs. 8 frozen pizza companies and which choices you'll end up with for dinner, but I think you get point.

It's called fair competition and America seems to have forgotten its benefits for the general population, both in politics and in business.

Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution. Pushing for systems that work, is.

<comment><USER24> >I disagree with you.

Okay. Well, you're going to have to provide practical examples on why decades of testimony and support for various policies (or the reps that push them) is somehow not a product of the electorate's own volition.

You have hypotheticals and a general model for what might alleviate the support (or implicit support for these policies). But you fail to address what I actually stated: the electorate IS voting for this. They have voted for this. They will continue to vote for this. You provided no evidence to negate this historical record. You provided an example of "two options vs many options" which completely and utterly misses the point I'm making.

>Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution.

Your words, not mine. I called them unqualified. However you've brought to mind a favorite quote that I'm going to modify:

"There are idiots in the market" -> "There are idiots in the electorate"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The battle is all but over, and Net Neutrality lost. Republicans control every branch of the government.

<comment><USER26> I don't even understand how this became a bi-partisan issue. Everyone I know, republican and democrat, are for NN. The only people that are against NN are convinced it was introduced by Obama in order to "socialize the internet"

<comment><USER27> Do you know many economists? See [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net- neutrality-ii](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii)

<comment><USER28> I'm ripping my hair out wanting to scream about monopolies to all of these people.

<comment><USER27> Someone should probably tell the Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler about monopolies, he could use some education

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can anyone in the US explain why the government/FCC is so eager to abandon net netrality laws?

Was it demanded by the electorate? A promise in a manifesto or something?

I remember the topic of NN coming up a few years ago and was largely defeated after public outcry - has public mood changed since then?

<comment><USER30> TL;DR: US companies stand to benefit from reduced regulation.

This is a case where a few companies really want to be able to change their pricing structures to increase profits, and consumers in general don't want that but also aren't particularly involved. So there isn't a big public outcry (except among HN readers <3) and these companies are lobbying the FCC hard to make "business-friendly" changes. It's called concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is there a list of congressmen by state who are against Net Neutrality? It'd Be helpful to put that up somewhere easily accessible with their twitter handle etc.

Also anyone can shed some light exactly on how much money the telecom companies paid in lobbying? Can we match that or double if it's all just about money? I'd be glad to pay a payment of up to 1/10th of my monthly income if this is going to persuade law makers reject the lobbyists demands.

</comment><comment><USER32> Without net neutrality, the internet will become just another source of TV where you only get to see what the advertising industry and the regulators want you to see. At that point the phone in your pocket will become just a tiny TV set, and cord-cutting will become internet-cutting.

</comment><comment><USER33> If you'd like to make a public comment on the FCC's public forum (domain-link courtesy of John Oliver):

www.gofccyourself.com

</comment><comment><USER34> Playing the devil's advocate here - Don't all big media companies rely on some form of CDN providers who themselves have some form of deals and agreements with ISPs or Internet exchange. Example - Netflix in India:

[https://www.medianama.com/2017/05/223-netflix-begins- directl...](https://www.medianama.com/2017/05/223-netflix-begins-directly- peering-large-internet-exchange-india/)

In which case how does this law change anything? And what effect this might have on CDN providers?

<comment><USER35> No, no, no.

CDN is different than throttling your Internet.

A CDN is like having a local power generator in your neighborhood, throttling your Internet is like charging your house more for electricity, because the electrical company prefers your neighbor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Oakland reporting, Barbara Lee's box is full. Will try again soon.

</comment><comment><USER37> For those who are anti net neutrality or "on the fence," if you are in tech, keep in mind that the removal of nn will likely put downward pressure on your compensation.

<comment><USER38> How?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Nepal also donot have net neutrality law . Ncell and NTC are biggest cellular networks. They sell facebook plan at cheap rate and rest is comparatively more

</comment><comment><USER40> I browse voat because I want to see what conservative/trump supporters think and I came upon this thread here:

[https://voat.co/v/technology/2253983](https://voat.co/v/technology/2253983)

I was wondering if you guys could address these guys concerns. We need everyone on the same side. We all want a free internet. Appreciate the help.

<comment><USER41> good video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI)

 __short answer: __

These rules are 2 years old and did nothing good for the internet. the solution is to dissolve municipal monopolies. they do this all the time - everytime they corruptly assign a monopoly to provide a service like electricity, water, etc.

The problem is too much government and the left just wants to pile on the beaurocracy and centralize the decision making regarding the _global internet_ in washington. Stupid.

Why shouldn't a medical monitoring company negotiate peering and higher guaranteed bandwidth so doctors can remotely with live data to ensure the safety of critical patients? [hint: ALL companies do this, it is physically impossible not to]

Because the government is scaring stupid people with the thought of higher netflix prices to grab more control of the internet that they have been __illegally surveiling __already. Meanwhile, they also scramble to add idiotic things like netflix taxes because they are just too idiotic and greedy. Oh not to mention the government 's backwards attempts to prosecute piracy and weaken/criminalize encryption.

 __technical answer if you 're up for some reading: __

As an engineer, net neutrality is a totally misguided and unattainable. Companies that provide things like realtime communication obviously need to negotiate and guarantee lower latencies. Anyways, just like with labor and healthcare, some people just want to pretend that internet service doesn 't operate under economic laws. They're always looking for some savior/excuse to abolish free enterprise like internet, automation, altruism, etc.

I like how reddit user /u/natermer puts part of it (link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/6mviva/whats_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/6mviva/whats_the_proper_stance_on_net_neutrality/dk670sd/) ):

There are two major types of network traffic you tend to see on the internet. One is a 'elephant' type bulk transfers. These are big files, bittorrent, video streaming and such things. These types of things use a lot of the available bandwidth and can cause transfers that last many minutes to many hours. However they are latency sensitive.... It doesn't matter if it takes 1 or 10 or a 100 seconds for the packets to cross the internet just as long as you can move a LOT of packets at the same time.

The other type of data transfer you see are things that are very latency sensitive. Remote controlling of mechanics, remote monitoring, remote desktop, video conferencing, gaming, VoIP, and other types of latency sensitive protocols. These things use relatively little bandwidth compared to the 'elephants' but are extremely latency sensitive... meaning you want the transfer to go as quick as possible, but don't really need to transfer that much. The modern Internet works based on peering agreements. ISPs have multiple connections with other ISPs. many times these connections are almost ad-hoc as it depends on geography and other variables that makes some connections 'less then ideal'. These connections vary in quality, performance, latency, and cost.

If ISPs can route traffic based on protocol and provider then they can possibly save significant amount of money and improve performance for their customers. They can shuttle latency sensitive protocols over expensive links and allow bulk transfers to use massive amounts of cheap bandwidth to reduce their own and their customer's costs.

If you go 'full network neutrality' and treat each packet the same then you can have your VoIP call stuck in a FIFO buffer queue behind your Xbox's game download.. making it impossible to have phone calls.

For example: TCP/IP protocol is connection oriented and this is used for critical connections and there is a ack/nack response/reply conversation going on where clients validate and confirm packets. This means that every TCP/IP transfer is a two-way street... even if you are downloading you still have to upload some packets to confirm and continue the connection.

Bulk uploads from your home network can interfere with the acknowledgements and cause massive latency spikes and other issues unless you have a router that intellegently manages buffers and gives priority to different types of packets. You have a very fast network connected to a very slow uplink and your TCP/IP acks can get stuck behind a massive queue of bulk transfers.

This happens commonly when people are using bittorrent and they don't understand why they get fast downloads, then it throttles back to almost nothing, and then they get fast downloads again. This will continue in a saw- like fashion where you see fast performance, then massive latency spikes, and then slow performance, and then fast performance again.. repeating. Many people assume that this is caused by ISP throttling when in fact it's their own network equipment suffering from bad buffer/queue management. They will go out and buy new home routers only to see the problem get worse because the routers are as dumb as before, but now have even bigger queues and even more memory to (mis)manage. (there are VERY effective ways to fix this, btw)

I could go on and on.

Also keep in mind that the modern internet works through things called 'Content Delivery Networks' or CDNs for short. Bulk transfer of files from one side of the internet to the other side is expensive and high-latency. Co- located datacenters for webservers and small/medium business installations charge premium amounts for internet access and usage is metered on the server side. So most popular websites depend on CDNs to cache content and distribute it back out to the user in a way that is actually physically close to the user on the internet.

This can dramatically lower costs, increase availability, and improve performance and user experience.

One of the ways CDNs do this is by having private networks running in parrallel to the public internet. Sometimes they are logical networks like VPNs or they are entirely separate physical networks.

Youtube, for example, depends on Google's private Fiber network for content delivery. When you are streaming videos Google uses as little as the public internet as possible. They have connections as local to you as possible that (ideally) connect directly to your ISP's network and streams data to you.

Other CDNs depend on collocated servers in the ISP's datacenter to cache data, stream video, and other things. Thus if you take a very naive approach to network neutrality and try to say 'all packets are treated as equal' you not only possibly increase the costs for yourself and others, but also you destroy the suitability for the internet to be used for low-latency protocols AND you will do NOTHING to help start-ups be competitive with big names like Google.

<comment><USER42> You're seeing this as a technical issue when it is in fact a legal one. In Canada the telecommunications legislation states the principle well:

 _(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage._

You can still manage networks and employ CDN. But you can't arbitrarily block content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." \- Robert F Kennedy

</comment><comment><USER44> While we are on the topic, may I bring up John Oliver's June 1 2014 episode.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU)

tl;dw - For those who want to understand how closely the government is related to those who benefit from NO net-neutrality.

</comment><comment><USER45> Why are we still making appeals to corrupt politicians? We might not control the cables but we do control the content. Why don't we shut it down until we get what is right? Why not another SOPA blackout and this time it doesn't stop until net neutrality is safe?

<comment><USER46> Swartz is dead. Nobody to rally behind now, no real leaders. Online communities are older and more mainstream and are getting ossified. Much more brutal competition in the web space now, can't afford to voluntarily bleed + content is no longer special if someone doesn't get their fix in 5 minutes now they go somewhere else; ethics and values cost money and lots of people in this field have neither now. Lots of people running around in tech that don't share our views ever since 'tech' went mainstream around 2012/2013\. What would a black out accomplish? The people in power don't give a fuck as far as I can tell regardless of how much public outage can be generated. Maybe we will finally get mesh networking out of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> In the mean time, and in related news (media all quiet) - the "USA Liberty Act of 2017" has passed meaning government is allowed to search our private data without a warrant:

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/3989...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/3989/actions)

Some more details here: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/usa-liberty- act-wont-f...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/usa-liberty-act-wont-fix- whats-most-broken-nsa-internet-surveillance)

</comment><comment><USER48> Why isn't Google fighting this? They have a backup plan?

<comment><USER24> Google doesn't need to care. They can out purchase speed tiers/entire ISP's to make their services extremely favorable/speedy to use or just out right prevent competition in certain areas. They own the biggest ad network in the world. This will be in their favor.

Funny how libertarian mythology doesn't really hold up to even the most basic of game theory applications.

<comment><USER48> Their biggest and most lucrative service is search. What if I click a link in google's search result and my ISP refuses to take me there? Or does it work differently?

<comment><USER24> Not really google's problem. You've done what they wanted you to do. Search! The problem will most likely exist on any other search engine at that point -- if you care to use them in the first place.

<comment><USER48> I don't buy that it isn't be there problem. The UX will be broke. What good is a search engine if I can't get anywhere.

Just because you're sure of your opinion, it doesn't mean it's correct Yet you assert ... :)

<comment><USER24> >Just because you're sure of your opinion

It's not an opinion. Next time have a hard think about what you're actually saying when you have to resort to emoji filled platitudes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> These comments here from people in other countries are clear pictures of what Americans will face if this goes through.

</comment><comment><USER50> I staunchly support net neutrality, and believe stronger federal protections and intervention are necessary to protect the open internet and increase competition - perhaps a federal ISP run through post offices.

</comment><comment><USER51> Pai's proposal will only restore freedom for corporations to charge more for content. There's no restoration of freedom to people.

When we give up our rights to corporations and captured agencies, we lose the individual freedoms that agencies like the FCC were founded to protect.

I think that, even if the FCC passes this proposal, we'll have been on record being massively against it. That will cost any representatives, republican _or_ democrat, who support the current FCC.

America isn't about to forget the sub-par quality of its internet services, and this proposal isn't going to fix that.

</comment><comment><USER52> Hmm... they want name, address and phone number. And they require all the fields before they allow submitting the form. No.

</comment><comment><USER53> This is all very confusing for me. Obviously I understand the NN arguments and I accept the Ajit Pai arguments though I think it's very naive to think that investments in infrastructure would be made without other significant incentives, all which seem unlikely to occur.

My question is about 2015. Did we have NN before 2015? What changed then and how would it differ from before? I was always under the assumption we had NN.

<comment><USER21> Yes, we had NN before 2015. It was the default state and how the Internet was originally built.

We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a technical and business perspective to violate NN.

Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit. Abolishing NN will not increase investments or create competition. CEOs are on record that NN will not impact business or investments.

<comment><USER54> >We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

Calling Dial-Up and DSL "competition" is downplaying how shitty things were even in 2015. They are technically competition, but effectively and practically they aren't because the modern web doesn't even work with dial-up and in the many places stuck with the low-end of DSL it is next to worthless too.

<comment><USER55> I think he meant competition between different dialup providers, and different DSL providers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Could this be the beginning of some kind of alt-Internet being created to bypass any kind of throttling?

</comment><comment><USER57> Stop with the a la carte comparisons. These plans i) show that the mobile market is competitive and ii) are a way for folks to use popular data hungry apps more than they otherwise without with just a regular data plan.

</comment><comment><USER58> Will users outside the US have to pay extra for netflix etc?

<comment><USER59> If it passes in the US, other countries will follow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Either:

There are lots of fellow hacker news readers (with significant karma) that don't know a thing about Net Neutrality.

Or: this thread is full of FUD bots to push against Net Neutrality

<comment><USER60> No, I think there are just a decent amount of people who actually do support less regulation here. I mean, they're naive and entirely wrong about the effects of deregulation in this case, but I don't detect much in the way of intellectually dishonest discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> there is something we can do from Italy?

<comment><USER51> I would keep a lookout for ISPs doing things like zero rating or other roundabout ways of breaking net neutrality. Arguably, net neutrality is already broken in the US since the current administration isn't going to enforce the current policy. As businesses find ways to make more short term profits here, others will probably follow the same tactics elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wish I knew more about wireless/WISP? There has to be a way to provide reliable 1Gbps service to residential areas. If I could find a way to provide such a service, I would certainly look to do it and provide NN myself.

Maybe I could even strike a deal with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc and try to do my own double-play/triple-play sort of thing.

Does anyone have any resources regarding getting 1Gbps bandwidth to the masses?

<comment><USER63> My cousin runs a WISP. I asked him about the feasibility of using wireless to get a 100Mbps connection of 10 miles. He basically laughed at me. He also said that interference is a huge issue; after all, who doesn't have WiFi? And are you going to spend tens of thousands* of dollars to reserve a chunk of spectrum for yourself?

*I have no idea how much this would cost, probably more than I said.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Best argument for NN: Let's freeze things now (and saddle every startup/mom'n'pop ISP with Ma Bell-style regulation) so the oligarchs don't become ever more powerful

Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.

<comment><USER21> Your arguments don't make much sense.

Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching.

Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.

<comment><USER64> The "NN regulations" that the FCC adopted specifically classified Internet services as Title II "telecommunication services", subject to 1930s-style telecom regulations. Yes, these are "Ma Bell" style regulations.

I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never punished, but smaller upstarts are crushed (or not even started) due to the regulatory burden? NN makes this worse.

Pai merely proposes to move things back to the way they were since the beginning of Internet Time to 2015, way back when the Internet was a Title I "information service", subject to much less formal regulation by the FCC. This is met with furious uproar.

<comment><USER51> > Pai merely proposes ... This is met with furious uproar

His proposal would enable ISPs to make access to some content slower, or more expensive, than others.

His proposal does nothing to resolve existing broadband monopolies.

Many people like the way the internet works today and do not want Pai's policies to pass. We don't want more silos or limited access to content. People are making their voices heard because they feel strongly about this issue.

<comment><USER64> Do you not fear that regulatory capture would leave us with the worst of both worlds?

<comment><USER51> We're in a state of regulatory _right now_ and it is a worse world. It's not hypothetical

<comment><USER64> are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again expecting a different result.

<comment><USER51> > are you implying that despite the regulatory capture that has already > occurred, somehow further regulations will not subsequently be captured? > there is a saying about the person who does the same thing again and again > expecting a different result.

Are you implying that even after you solve a problem, there are still other problems, so the best thing to do is to do nothing? There is a word for people who do nothing and criticize those who act.

<comment><USER64> I never implied that there were no problems, please do not put words in my mouth. My point was merely that centralizing control of the Internet is exactly what the oligarchs want, and you are carrying water for them. Why is the EFF against NN while AT&T is for it? Thanks for helping the multi-billion dollar company, I'm sure they appreciate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I am firmly in support of net neutrality, but I am also sick and tired of all the ridiculous misinformation about what it actually is. At least on Reddit, people would have you believe that the Internet is about to become Cable TV.

Net Neutrality is very important to a free and open Internet, but the kind of scaremongering I see going on is absolutely insane.

We won't win this fight with scary lies. Do your part and make sure your peers are educated as to the real consequences of this repeal. None of this "You must pay to view additional posts on this website" or "Imagine if EA were your ISP" nonsense.

<comment><USER66> When SOPA was going on so-and-so years ago, there was a similar bout of over- exaggerated hysteria to get people in action. I was against it back then, but I think the last couple of years have shown that panic and outrage is what actually gets people motivated to do anything, rather than straight, boring facts. Why not harness it for something good then?

<comment><USER67> I'm sorry, what? The lesson of the last couple years is that we should act _more_ like extremists drumming up outrage with misinformation?

<comment><USER68> He's not wrong. People are lead by how they feel and not facts. There are responsible ways to make pleas to emotion on a large scale and there are manipulative things that bad actors can do with it as well. You will not win hearts and minds with pure rationality when your opponent doesn't give a shit about that. Emotional lives are just as real as cold hard facts, and as we've seen, can be so real that they manifest the expectation.

I'm not an expert, nor am I an activist, but I have been reading about people studying 4chan's tactics in a post prez45 world. How a culture of open dialog to extreme gave a small group of people a weapon. Erudite "rationals" considered this sort of thing to be stupid nonsense, but it trained an entire culture to be massively effective at steering people's emotions. Their ideas can move faster without the absolute need for sensitivity or maybe because of a pathological need to offend. The current interest is in finding ways to work that radical acceptance into progressive discourse. It's important but I don't think anyone has a playbook yet.

<comment><USER67> >You will not win hearts and minds with pure rationality when your opponent doesn't give a shit about that.

Where are these hardline radical pro-Comcast types?

>There are responsible ways to make pleas to emotion on a large scale and there are manipulative things that bad actors can do with it as well.

Frankly, the net neutrality movement has failed that test miserably in this latest campaign in particular. It's disappointing to see this from the side I support, to the point that I find myself alienated from the viewpoint altogether and have to remind myself that the policy is the only part that is important.

Exhibit A: [https://imgur.com/gallery/CD9H7QU](https://imgur.com/gallery/CD9H7QU)

>I'm not an expert, nor am I an activist, but I have been reading about people studying 4chan's tactics in a post prez45 world. How a culture of open dialog to extreme gave a small group of people a weapon. Erudite "rationals" considered this sort of thing to be stupid nonsense, but it trained an entire culture to be massively effective at steering people's emotions. Their ideas can move faster without the absolute need for sensitivity or maybe because of a pathological need to offend. The current interest is in finding ways to work that radical acceptance into progressive discourse. It's important but I don't think anyone has a playbook yet.

Liberals (in the academic/international sense) used to see these unfortunate behavioral quirks of humanity exploited by fascists & autocrats and vow to be better than appealing to basic instincts and herd mentality. I do not look forward to a world where radicalization and alarmism are viewed as standard tools in a campaigner's belt and reasonable people intentionally spread hyperbole or outright lies to convince the public to go their way.

<comment><USER68> I don't like that future either, but it's not quite what I'm saying. I definitely feel you on the fatigue. My point is that it's a mistake to just say "I'll wait till they come around" and not try to figure out how to make ethical communication based on facts that has as much pull as carpetbagging alarmists. Hardline pro Comcast types would be any Neo-Liberal, Big biz Republican, and some libertarians.

We lost this battle a long time ago[1][2] is the real issue. However, they don't have absolute control over sending electrons around in a box, nor how distributed systems work in absolute. Innovation has stagnated as an entire generation of the greatest minds build an advertising scheme. The internet is fucking broken in a bizare way. As it continues to fragment, it will be a lot like our transition from AOL to an open web.

People not in the know will be given palpable bullshit to keep the fat cats in slow braised bushmeat. People with a pursuit of knowledge and innovation will move to platforms that are harder to access by the masses, fragmenting the utility we have now but giving a lot of power to the people on the inside track.

This is already happening in restrictive places like China as well as basically everywhere else. Hiding information and connections in aggregates of other data. Building out online dark nets as well as physical mesh networks. I see the LimeSDR playing a huge role as the web gets shittier than it is. An open source transceiver on a chip that can do everything from UHF to 5G, you can connect to an existing provider, but at any sort of density removes the need to rely on single points like cell tower networks. Also expanding to use any bandwidth or multiple with a software modification. I just bought their $3000 "Network in a Box"[3] and am building an LTE neighborhood darknet (3 Kilometers!) with my buddy. We are going to get repeaters and DIY phones to anyone in range and grow from there.

The alternatives to the system don't exist yet, but innovation will not stop just because they want to sell more Thor DVDs. I'm pretty tired of it too and it feels bullshit to say "this" is over, but it is. Now we just have to take what we've learned, build something better, and learn how to bring the ignorant on our side to prevent it from happening again.

I know it won't happen, but it is an absolute fact that no one actually needs facebook. Every single one of us could shut down our account at the same time and change the world in a big way.

There isn't a google replacement yet (don't tell me DuckDuckGo), but maybe we can bring webrings back.

[1] [https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/06/09/pirate-bay-founder- weve...](https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/06/09/pirate-bay-founder-weve-lost- the-internet-its-all-about-damage-control-now/) [2] [https://webfoundation.org/2017/04/sir-tim-berners-lee- respon...](https://webfoundation.org/2017/04/sir-tim-berners-lee-responds-to- us-net-neutrality-threat/) [3] [https://www.crowdsupply.com/lime- micro/limenet](https://www.crowdsupply.com/lime-micro/limenet)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> This is simply a disagreement between content publishers and content distributors. When a big satellite TV provider acted unfavorably toward a few major television networks during contract (re)-negotiation, those select few decided not to renew their license with the satellite TV company, causing viewers to ask why they can't get their favorite channel that their neighbor still gets.

The internet works similarly in that an electronic contract is formed when an ISP attempts to access content on web server. The client/ISP "requests" the content, and the publisher agrees and serves it up. But there's nothing stopping a collective "big few" from denying access to the content based on the host name of the ISP requesting it.

Ergo, if Verizon doesn't want to play "fair" with regards to content distribution, Facebook/Google/Twitter/Netflix/Reddit and whomever else could deny access to Verizon subscribers with an ol fashioned HTTP 403 or 401.

Yes, traffic drops, people realize quickly that they can't access any of their favorite sites, things must be broken, and switch companies.

</comment><comment><USER70> The US didn't have Net Neutrality until two years ago, and somehow everything was just fine. There's no need to preemptively impose heavy handed regulation to fix problems that have not yet occurred, and indeed may never occur, in the US.

Bundling seems to be the boogeyman de jour. But consumers in the US are used to universal access to the internet and would probably not respond well to such practices. And if we wanted to preemptively ban any type of internet connection except a universal one, there is no need to apply much broader and constricting Title II regulation to it.

<comment><USER71> The US _did_ have NN up until two years ago, it was the default the internet was designed upon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Internet money is made by the "over-the-top" (Google, Facebook & co.) leaving ISP to pay for the infrastructure. Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net. Ie: do you want a fast Youtube? Someone will have to pay (google or the users). They will be allowed to slow down some websites and speed up others, and that's really bad.

<comment><USER73> Net neutrality _prevents_ your ISP from charging you based on the content you view, not the other way around.

I don't see how Google or Facebook fit in. By paying Comcast, I pay for them to build out their network and connect me to the whole internet. Why does Google's profits matter?</comment></comment>


Show HN: my weekend project - Kriuq.com , question and answer site - <AUTHOR> http://kriuq.com Kriuq is a social networking site where you can ask questions each other and write articles. The purpose of kriuq is as a place for discussion where you can ask questions. In kriuq, You can follow any questions that you think interesting, follow people and you can also participate in the discussion by giving comment, answer and choose your favorite answer. Kriuq features:

    Ask question
    Ask private question
    Answer question
    Vote answer
    Post
    Comment post
    Follow people
    Follow question
 <comment><USER2> Nice and well executed, but as the others pointed out => how is it different / more useful than the other guys ?

Maybe you could differentiate by only asking (or allowing to answer) my direct social graph. Way less interesting for you in terms of growth, maybe way more interesting for the users as the answer will be by someone they know (close or extended network).

One thing is sure : if you built this in one week end, wow, congrats !

<comment><USER2> Selamat malan again : one note, your twitter link doesn't work, you should remove the dot in twitter.com/kriuq.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for ping me :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Facebook Connect "kriuq may post status messages, notes, photos, and videos to my Wall". Why is this necessary?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think It's not necessary, I will remove it , Thank You.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> will there be an option to make questions readable to non logged-in people? Also, I think you should add a way for people who signed up via email to also sign up with Facebook later (don't see it). But: cheers and good job!

<comment><AUTHOR> Actualy the questions and post is readable for non loged in user ex: <http://kriuq.com/first-post-at-kriuq>

"Also, I think you should add a way for people who signed up via email to also sign up with Facebook later (don't see it). But: cheers and good job!"

Yes I was prepared connections 'table' on database that allow us to add our social account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Requires sign in - any plans to offer a tour or more comprehensive description?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is my first solo project, by now I don't have a time to provide comprehensive discription. In the future I hope I can provide that.

<comment><USER6> I like that you kept the design clean.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :d, glad to hear it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why? What's different compared to Quora or StackOverflow?

<comment><AUTHOR> Stackoverflow cannot post an article,this site similiar like quora, but more simple and not strict. User can vote up answer but cannot down vote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How do you pronounce it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Juts "kriuq" :D

<comment><USER8> as in cree-uck? Nice looking site though, I'll be honest I've never really been into Q and A sites, but I like the clean look of yours.

How many hours in total did it take you build?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I do it on the weekend, maybe about 144 Hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why I can't see anything before signing up?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, You cannot. In the future maybe I will displaying trending "questions" or "post"

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Blatant Quora clone much?

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe yes, this is first Question Answer Site from Indonesia

<comment><USER11> your facebook oauth is still pointing to localhost. you may have to change.

nice job, btw.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, for the info, will fix it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> nice</comment>


Facebook's Memory Networks Demo - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153098860532200 <comment><USER2> More:

[https://research.facebook.com/researchers/1543934539189348](https://research.facebook.com/researchers/1543934539189348)

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05698](http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05698)

[http://www.thespermwhale.com/jaseweston/babi/tasks_1-20_v1-1...](http://www.thespermwhale.com/jaseweston/babi/tasks_1-20_v1-1.tar.gz)

So, anyone have open source code that can perform these tasks?

</comment><comment><USER3> Memory is currently (IMHO) the limiting factor of neural networks at general AI stuff. In order to learn new things, they need to "train" by seeing the new thing many times and updating their parameters slowly. Analogous to how humans learn at a low level. You need to practice throwing a ball or riding a bike or speaking a language, and over time you just learn how to do it naturally.

But you can't ask a neural network a question like "what was the last time you saw X". Nor are they very good at storing facts. You can tell it "Obama is the president", but it needs to hear that fact many times before it forms a connection between "Obama" and "president". Whereas a human would remember hearing that fact before and recall it, and eventually after recalling it enough times, would also form that connection at a low level.

This is sort of a step in that direction. They are storing sentences as memories, and then having the NN iterate through all of them and pick the ones that are relevant.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, another weakness is that multi-layer perceptrons and their deep counterparts are susceptible to "catastrophic forgetting" \-- training away old memories when new training data is presented. This is one reason why it's necessary to repeatedly run through the training data. This is a result of the way learning works in these neural networks. Like you say, humans have the ability to learn associatively in one-shot, a very different learning method.

There are neural networks like Grossberg's Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART) which do not suffer from this flaw.

<comment><USER3> Dropout seems to significantly reduce catastrophic forgetting. So does very sparse activations, supposedly. It's worth noting most NNs are trained with SGD which is an entirely online algorithm.

Not that it's a solved problem but its not _unsolvable_. Mostly it's that researchers don't care much about online learning since its not too difficult to train offline on stored data.

<comment><USER4> Good point about dropout. Do you know of any quantitative studies that address this specifically?

<comment><USER3> [http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6211](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6211)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've only taken one course in AI, but it looks like everyone is assuming this link's AI is using Artificial Neural Networks. To me it would seem more like an inference engine with a knowledge base. Can anyone find a link that describes what is powering this demo?

<comment><USER6> It uses a class of RNN they call a MemNN to do something that looks a lot like inference using phrase embeddings.

It's a pretty revolutionary approach - no one seems to have tried anything very similar since the 1990's. The related work section[1] is worth reading.

Interestingly, the Jeff Dean RNN slide deck mentions using RNNs for doing QA, but doesn't expand on what work Google has done in the field. I don't have a URL to hand for that.

They do experiment with loading the MemNN from a set of statements stored as triples, which looks a lot more like a traditional Knowledge Base.

[1] 4 in [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.3916v8.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.3916v8.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dunno, might be overlooking lots of complex work, but I'd imagine the more complex work would be taking a book like Lord of the Rings and creating the synopsis that they started with! :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Not to be too critical... but Frodo isn't in the Shire. He went to the Gray Havens with Bilbo.

"But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."

</comment><comment><USER9> Now after Google, Facebook want to steal my data with this AI project.. what is the security infrastructure behind this AI is it safe or not? [http://www.bestvpnservice.com/blog/facebooks-terrifying- new-...](http://www.bestvpnservice.com/blog/facebooks-terrifying-new-ai- project/)</comment>


CloudFlare, the Free CDN, Now Powering 2,000 Page Views Per Second - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudflare.com/2000-page-views-per-second

<comment><USER2> Big fan of cloudflare :)</comment>


Follow-Up to "YC deadline brings out stupid decisions"  - <AUTHOR>

This post is a follow-up to the "YC deadline brings out stupid decisions"  (http://myphdblogged.blogspot.com/2007/10/yc-deadline-brings-...) post where a fellow YCombinator Applicant, who we'll call the "Accuser",accused me of engaging in "unethical" behavior by saying I attempted to "poach" one of his hackers, who we'll call "Hacker X".  Normally I wouldn't dignify such an ungrounded accusation with a lengthy response, however it might add some food for thought to this forum.
The Accuser seems to be offended because I solicited one of his partners.  Allow me to provide some context.  I solicited one of his partners by stating that in the event my application was approved and theirs wasn't I would love to have someone like him as a potential partner.  I never pressured Hacker X to drop out of his own Y Combinator application.  I don't even know what his project is about.  Never asked him.  Never even touched on the subject. Again, I only said in the event that his application didn't get approved and my team's application were approved (a lofty assumption, I know) I would love to have him potentially join our team because I felt he was someone that values the Y Comb experience a great deal and he would also be an incredible value add to the team.  Furthermore, I never expected or asked Hacker X to extend me the same option in return; I will be pursuing my project full-time whether or not it is accepted from YC.  (Sounds like a great deal for Hacker X, if you ask me).
As a result of these circumstances, in a post on this forum, the Accuser likens me to the Emperor from Star Wars as he attempts to seduce Anakin Skywalker to the Darkside .
To defend against this negative accusation I have listed below my reasons for soliciting "Hacker X":
1) As mentioned above I was looking for a capable backup co-founder in the event that my original partner(who was on the fence) dropped out of the Y Combinator process even if our application was accepted.
2) Hacker X and I have a mutual friend (not the accuser) who spoke very highly of the "Hacker X" in question.
3) From my recent encounter with him at a local bar, Hacker X seemed like an affable guy and more importantly had a strong entrepreneurial spirit that would have been great for any team.
Now I would like to ask the Accuser, if he would, to enlighten me regarding the following topics:
-How does the fact that I just met Hacker X make the solicitation unethical?
-Why do I need to ask your permission before I solicit Hacker X?
-Is he your property?

-Is there a timelimit as to how long one needs to know another person before one can approach them about a business proposition?
-What happened to free will and letting a person make his own decision?
-If I happen to know someone else on your 500+ facebook"friends" list that I want to solicit for my venture do I need to ask your permission as well?
You know, I could understand the accuser being upset if I were a close friend of his and I had solicited one of his friends without asking him about it first; but the fact of the matter is, the accuser and I aren't even close friends (if you couldn't already tell) he happens to be an acquantance I've known from my college days.  I think we have spoken twice in the last 3.5 years since graduation.
Now, based purely on the above actions, the Accuser wants to smear my reputation and application with the Y Combinator folks in hopes that they will reject my application .  Honestly, it doesn't even surprise me a bit that he would resort to this petty tactic; he was probably the type of kid that ran to mommy whenever he thought the neighborhood kids were excluding him--and mommy probably told the other kids to play nice or else.
In response I encourage the Accuser to go ahead and tell the Y Combinator folks my real name and how I have wronged him, I'm sure doing so will make him look real mature in the eyes of the reviewing board and help out the chances for his own application.
Btw, Mr. Accuser(last question I promise): Could you let me know how how that works for you in the business world someday?
Though I will not apologize for being "unethical", I will apologize to the Accuser for hurting his feelings.  And if he wants to we can even hug it out in person as well.
That's all folks as I have a monstrosity of an application I would like to finish.
p.s.
If there are other hackers who are passionate about creating somethings cool and would be interested in "joining me in the Daaarrrkkk Side..." on a promising venture please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com.  I will need written consent from former collaborators (or else I may get a barrage of accusations about being "unethical").

<comment><USER2> Airing your dispute in a public forum like this makes you both seem like damaged goods.

<comment><USER3> Welcome to to the banned for life club.

<comment><USER4> Sheesh, what could you have possibly said on TechCrunch?

<comment><USER5> Could it also be that he is selling illegal drugs over the internet (and linking to the site from his news.yc profile)?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratom#Legal_Status>

<comment><USER3> No, that has nothing to do with it. If you reread that link, you would find that Kratom is only illegal in Thailand, Australia, Malaysia, and Burma and I don't live in either of those countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It has been rumored that Y-Combinator favors younger teams, but I wasn't aware that hackers as young as 12 are seeking seed capital.

</comment><comment><USER5> This episode was an enormous mistake. I think that both of you have a very poor understanding of how business must be conducted.

Whats more, the "accuser" is immature in the most troubling way. I could not imagine working with him, least of all as his "hacker".

</comment><comment><USER7> Drrrrama! Also, tl;dr.

More seriously, one of the few positive things the business world values is clear, concise communication. Get thee to a copy of Strunk and White, post haste.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unless you and your accuser are asserting that Hacker X is a man slave, I don't think he can be owned.

</comment><comment><USER8> "I will need written consent from former collaborators"

Oh no, this won't be met with any blank stares _at all_.

</comment><comment><USER9> This all seems to be remnants of office politics and fossils of typical bureaucratic behavior. Which is what we're trying to escape from, right?

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't wait for the next episode!

</comment><comment><USER11> caveman82, you really need to adjust your moral compass. In the event the other team doesn't get accepted and you do, that's when you should talk to people about joining. Not during the application process. The other guy, who wrote that blog post, is justified to be pissed off. You should have apologized and not posted this nonsense here.

<comment><USER12> There's nothing wrong with his moral compass, and there's nothing wrong with offering a talented hacker work, no matter how you know him. The other guy was pissed because he doesn't seem to have any talent of his own and considers the hacker _his_ , an obviously absurd position.

This isn't high school, it's business, and if you're going to cry every time someone approaches your talent, you don't belong in business. If your hacker leaves you for another position, it's your fault, not the guy who hired him.

Though responding publicly was a bad move.

<comment><USER11> Nothing wrong with trying to destroy other team by stealing their members?!

Oooooooooooooookay.

<comment><USER12> "destroy", "stealing", what world are you living in? You don't steal people, they leave or stay of their own free will. They're not trying to destroy you, they're trying to succeed for themselves, and making an offer to a talented hacker _at any time_ is perfectly legit. To think otherwise is silly, the other team doesn't owe anyone anything. If I offer a hacker from another company 20% more $$ to come work for me and he takes it, that's called business, not "stealing and destroying". Besides, you can always match the offer.

<comment><USER13> It's probably fair game to make an offer to anybody you like, but to expect friendly responses from their colleagues would be asking too much. Think about other men hitting on your girl-friend. It is certainly legal to do so, but you probably wouldn't welcome it too much yourself.

<comment><USER12> No one likes being out competed, that's a given, but no one should cry about it publicly like they were wronged, especially if they actually won by not losing their partner. More to the point, never act like you _own_ another human being and are somehow _wronged_ by someone making them an offer, the same would apply to a girlfriend.

Fair game is exactly the right phrase, in business offering anyone _more_ money or a better opportunity is _always_ fair game, hell, that is the damn game. Want to keep your talent, then make sure you give them a fair deal and don't begrudge them a better deal than you can offer should it come along.

It's unbelievably arrogant to continually refer to someone as _my hacker_ in such a possessive manner, you may as well be saying _my ignorant slave_. That hacker is likely much smarter than you are, give him some respect and stop talking about him like property.

No one is ever _stolen_ in an adult relationship, only children think that, adults _leave_ , there's a world of difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Calling him immature isn't a good way to come off mature. Making fun of him regarding hurt feelings and hugging isn't a good idea either. The comments about his mommy were in bad taste.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. I sympathized with the "poacher" until s/he started taking needless cheap shots like that at the end.</comment></comment>


Show HN: React Easy State 6: Practical Proxy Based React State Management - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/solkimicreb/react-easy-state <comment><AUTHOR> Easy State is a minimalistic transparent Proxy based React stage management library with a stronger focus on practicality than code beauty. V6 added sync render batching for common task sources to improve performance.</comment>


Rabbits may hold key to solving mystery of human female orgasm - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/30/rabbits-may-hold-key-to-solving-mystery-of-human-female-orgasm <comment><USER2> A somewhat related HN post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1744214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1744214)</comment>


US Law Enforcement Traces Bitcoin Transfers to Nab 'Largest' Child Porn Site - <AUTHOR> https://www.coindesk.com/us-law-enforcement-traces-bitcoin-transactions-to-nab-largest-child-porn-site <comment><USER2> Matt Levine, today:

'One of the weirdest things in recent financial/criminal history is that for a while people really believed that Bitcoin, an electronic payments method that creates a permanent, traceable, public record of all transactions and links them to identifiable accounts, was somehow a good way to pay for crime. "It's completely anonymous," people thought, "like digital cash, but you can send it anywhere and no one will be able to trace you." Not really! I suppose it was even true for a little while, but eventually law enforcement agencies figured out how to trace Bitcoin transactions, and then the fact that years' worth of criminal financial transactions were just forever openly available to them on the Bitcoin blockchain was … bad for criminals.'

<comment><USER3> I wonder if the media around BTC being anonymous and untraceable was actually encouraged by the intelligence community and law enforcement. It's certainly been a boon for tracking down a lot of criminals.

<comment><USER4> I seriously doubt it. Remember, "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." Our law enforcement community isn't that bright or long-term thinking. Plus, once criminals get it through their thick skulls that BTC really is traceable after all, they won't use it any more.

<comment><USER5> But if the opponent knows you subscribe to this rule (assume ignorance over malice), couldn't they take advantage of this?

<comment><USER6> Yes, there is no stable state of the system in which ignorance and malice are assessed accurately. If you don't want the rate of malicious action to increase, you need to overdiagnose it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _" Law enforcement was able to trace payments of bitcoin to the Darknet site > by following the flow of funds on the blockchain. Separately, Chainalysis > said it was their Chainalysis Reactor software used to analyze the > blockchain transactions."_

By design, bitcoin uses a public ledger. This sort of investigation being possible shouldn't catch anybody by surprise.

<comment><USER8> Wouldn't it be amazing if years from now, we found out that Satoshi Nakamoto was an intelligence agent, and that there was a massive state-backed social media campaign to convince the dark web to use Bitcoin, for this very reason?

<comment><USER9> It's an already known fact that Satoshi Nakamoto's real name is Steven Nathaniel and is my uncle who works for Nintendo.

<comment><USER8> If that's true, you could consider updating the Wikipedia page [0] for him! In any case, that's what I get for only checking Wikipedia, but I didn't follow that particular drama closely in the first place.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The two things that really jumped out at me was that they were able to rescue a bunch of children being abused (probably at least one in the US since one of the LE officers was charged with producing) and that a huge percentage of the content they found was previously unknown. The impression I've gotten from stories in the past is that there's a lot of child abuse material that has been circulating for years, so taking down producers is a big deal.

<comment><USER11> I feel for the agents who have to spend time on those sites to investigate them. I'd be traumatized having to watch things like that for work

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The thing that gets you when you realise it is that most of the criminals that get discovered/prosecuted are discovered because they were doing something stupid, like using the equivalent of a public ledger to make transactions. You don't hear a lot of stories about smart criminals getting caught.

<comment><USER13> Conventionally, I always figured if one were that smart they would realise crime wasn't a good cost-benefit balance in the first place.

<comment><USER14> Except for white collar crimes. Someone actually did the math on this and it's actually positive for white collar crimes and often those people can have good lawyers and punishment for white collar crimes don't often carry huge sentences. The combination of a high payout plus good lawyers and light punishment makes white collar crimes net positive in terms of risk vs. reward.

<comment><USER15> I hate to say this but I found the same when I studied this issue in my business ethics class in grad school (MBA). I wrote my end of term paper on this exact issue.

What it boils down to is that, on average, white collar criminals can expect to go home to $1 million per year of time actually served behind bars.

It made me wonder what the expected outcome of the class was.

<comment><USER16> How does it generally work? Surely the money you steal / embezzle will be taken from you when you get caught no?

<comment><USER17> Many people don't get caught.

<comment><USER16> But the post specifically compares the payout with number of years served.

<comment><USER18> Another poster mentions that you can transfer/spend it in a way that's difficult to recover:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275859)

But even if that wasn't true, you could still compare expected value. For instance, if you had an 80% chance of successfully embezzling $8 million without getting caught, and a 20% chance of serving 2 years of jail, this would translate to an expected value of $1 million per year served.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There is a dead comment on this thread which is suggesting that Bitcoin is more useful than any other form of money for law enforcement because it is only pseudo-anonymous. I'm not sure why it is dead (perhaps the reference to Stasi/etc) but I think this is a valid point and is why I didn't buy more than a few hundred in Bitcoin many years ago to get a feel for the currency. I gave it all away because I did not believe it is a valid form of money.

<comment><USER20> The poster has negative karma over-all so I think that might have affected it. I vouched for the comment and it looks un-dead now :)

<comment><USER19> You are a saint

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have never understood the appeal of BitCoin as a means of purchasing or selling illegal materials. The entire transaction history is literally encoded in a public ledger!

All Law Enforcement has ever needed to do is trace back the transactions - something that's almost impossible with conventional currencies. Heck the equitable principle of 'Tracing' exists in Law because it's normally impossible to do that once monies have intermingled.

The sheer practicality of it is demonstrated in the fact that it's only worthwhile or practicable for Law Enforcement to investigate _large-scale_ money-laundering operations. Yet with Bitcoin you can essentially read back the exact history of every single satoshi.

<comment><USER22> >I have never understood the appeal of BitCoin as a means of purchasing or selling illegal materials. The entire transaction history is literally encoded in a public ledger!

Don't most illegal users use tumblers that commingle money from many addresses and then send back (in different quantities and at random times and sometimes from unrelated addresses) bitcoin of roughly the same value? Or is that no longer the case now that transaction costs are higher?

<comment><USER23> It seems like a huge part of criminal investigation is tracing opportunity and motive, and only then proving that the suspect was involved. We conflate filtering with proving all the time. Filtering strategies don't have to hold up in court. They don't have to prove anything, except whether I'm definitely looking at the wrong guy(s). The evidence gathered after I've filtered down to 5 supects is the stuff I'd be using in court. I (proverbial "I", as I'm not in law enforcement) need Due Process for every step after that.

If you can narrow a suspect pool from millions down to hundreds by showing they were at the same 'location' as the perpetrator, that's not great but it's surely a start.

What percentage of people using tumblers aren't up to something sketchy? Even if that's 95% that's still greatly amplifying the signal when you're talking about looking for one individual among a hundred thousand.

<comment><USER24> That's the scary thing. Today, it's using a tumbler that filter you in. Tomorrow it's not having a 24/7 camera/mic in your house connected to the internet with weakened or no encryption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Among the 36 Americans named in the indictment, at least three were federal > law enforcement employees who had been arrested earlier in this long-term > investigation.

<comment><USER26> Seems like an abnormally high proportion. Hopefully it's just because of a small sample size and not indicative of a Catholic church level cover-up in our law enforcement circles.

<comment><USER27> You probably missed all those East Bay cops across several cities serving and protecting in a very specific way that underage prostitute. Statistic wise they seem to have beaten the Church, and the most of those cops are still cops there, in particular because there were "insufficient evidence that they knew that the girl was under 18" as were concluded by the judge in a dismissed case against one of the officers.

<comment><USER28> Can you link to a source? As I understand it, lack of knowledge of age is not a defense against statutory rape.

<comment><USER27> Except for cops as the other commenter noted.

[https://reason.com/2017/10/13/cases-dropped-oakland-cops- dro...](https://reason.com/2017/10/13/cases-dropped-oakland-cops-dropped/)

"Judge Jon Rolefson dismissed charges against former Contra Costa County Sheriff's Deputy Ricardo Perez [...]

Perez was charged with felony unlawful sex with a minor, felony oral copulation with a minor, and two misdemeanor counts of engaging in lewd conduct. But Rolefson decided there was insufficient evidence Perez knew that Guap was under age 18. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> While the owner of the site was indicted in the US today, the taskforce that ran this operation was international and not led by the US - [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHAgtm_XUAALDz7?format=jpg&name=...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHAgtm_XUAALDz7?format=jpg&name=medium)

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think Bitcoin can be anonymous if it goes through an exchange, because you have to create an account with identifying information. I you host the endpoint yourself, it may be possible to completely mask the source, but I'm really not sure.

<comment><USER31> In theory a tumbler could disconnect the identify information even on coins bought initially on an exchange with KYC compliance. Not sure if anyone's figured out how to track transactions through those yet with just public info from the blockchain. (I imagine they'd keep it pretty quiet if they had)

<comment><USER32> This assumes that the operators of the tumblers are to be trusted and aren't state actors themselves. It would be a pretty smart move for the Feds to run one or more of those operations.

<comment><USER33> Coinjoin is an ongoing attempt to remove centralization from tumblers: [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin)

<comment><USER34> It will take a stroke of a pen for the US Government to require that exchanges do not accept any coins that have gone through a known tumbler after <certain date>

Imagine a money laundering operation, where every laundered physical dollar gets a physical stamp of 'THIS CAME THROUGH A MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATION'. That's the current state of BitCoin tumblers.

<comment><USER35> > It will take a stroke of a pen for the US Government to require that > exchanges do not accept any coins that have gone through a known tumbler > after <certain date>

Assuming they can actually identify it as having gone through a tumbler, sure, but it's not like tumblers advertise the addresses they use. Especially not distributed systems like CoinJoin. These are just ordinary transactions that happen to include inputs and outputs from multiple, unrelated sources. Following long-established best practices, any given address will only be used once.

They could ban exchanges from accepting coins that do not come directly from another authorized, compliant exchange, but that would be tantamount to banning cryptocurrencies altogether. It wouldn't _stop_ them of course, just drive them underground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if there will be increased interest in more privacy focused cryptocurrencies like Monero? I don't follow this news closely so I am genuinely curious if anyone has any insights.

<comment><USER37> I've heard that some vendors on drug marketplaces take Monero

<comment><USER38> I thought I saw a chart where it was the second-most-accepted coin, but I couldn't find it, so I may be wrong.

I did find a chart where it is the 4th most accepted after BTC, LTC, and ETH.

I imagine those other coins are more accepted because they have larger network effects. I also imagine that Monero's network will grow even more as it becomes more developed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Holy crap, straight out of Law and Order plots, a former HSI agent was caught in the investigation, if I read this correctly:

HSI computer forensic examiners found more than 1,000 images and 125 videos depicting the sexual victimization of children on Pannell's home-built tower computer. The images and videos depicted pre-pubescent girls, including toddlers, engaged in sexual acts with adults.

Pannell faces five to 20 years in prison, up to a life term of supervised release, and a $250,000.00 fine, as well as registering as a sex offender. U.S. District Judge Greg G. Guidry will sentence him on Dec. 17.

Former HSI agent Richard Nikolai Gratkowski, 40 at the time, was sentenced in May to 70 months in federal prison on child pornography charges. The investigation showed that Gratkowski, in San Antonio, received hundreds of videos of pre-pubescent children engaged in a variety of sexual acts and had also bought access with cryptocurrency.

</comment><comment><USER40> > In cases where that was insufficient, account information combined with open > source intelligence and standard investigative techniques were enough to > identify users.

What is open source intelligence?

<comment><USER41> Intelligence based on public sources as opposed to clandestine ones. Nothing to do with open source software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> The site says users spent millions of dollars, but they only arrested 337 people. Did they only arrest a small percentage, or were these some really rich scumbags?

<comment><USER20> Seems unlikely they'd get everyone, but keep in mind, millions divided by several hundreds is only thousands per person over some months/years.

Edit: and given that they have rescued dozens of abused children, I assume they optimized for active abusers, but were happy to scoop up anyone else who surfaced in their investigation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I've never used bitcoin, but everyone I know closely that does uses it for drugs, and when someone who doesn't do drugs is about it I always have this nagging feeling their investment is just to cover up a child porn thing. It's for sure a prejudice, but i can't shake it

<comment><USER44> this is much more likely the reason: [https://cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/4c43c9a089d2e...](https://cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/4c43c9a089d2e69773a2d208c6e0a647.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is why you should exchange your Bitcoin to Monero.

Transfer the value to another anonymized blockchain and make future transactions nearly impossible to track.

<comment><USER46> we actually track a large list of digital currency, more and more each week and there is a ton of funding more than we'd ever expect being given for getting anything we need done, i dont see it really as an issue.. digital currency has been great for us

<comment><USER47> I'm very skeptical that you're tracing Monero. Unless you've broken ed25519, that is. In which case, you have better things to do than crack minor cryptocurrency transactions...

<comment><USER48> There are a lot of weak links in Monero that have nothing to do with breaking ed25519.

<comment><USER49> Namely?

<comment><USER48> Ring signature size is still a problem. Yes, it masks the originating address of a transaction. But you know its 1 of N (currently 11 I think?). We know that most people buy coins from exchanges and then send them to their destination. An authority can simply subpoena every top exchange for users for whom any one of the addresses in the ring signature belong to. That's 11 addresses. If we assume the user may have made an intermediate transaction, we can go up two levels. That's 11^2 addresses. Three levels, 11^3. Given normal people's typical usage, monero's anonymity falls to broad subpoena power.

<comment><USER45> Once you tumble your coins in the Monero blockchain, it's practically untraceable. Every transaction makes it harder and harder for authorities to track.

At this point in time, consensus is that Monero is safe.

<comment><USER48> You should try to address my points rather than just repeat the party line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It honestly breaks my heart to know that there is such massive demand for these videos, where thousands of people will pay millions. It means children will always be exploited since there's tons of money to be made.

<comment><USER51> I have struggled to understand how this proclivity can be evolutionarily possible and the only thing I can come up with is this unfortunate combination of elements:

1) the necessary sexual dimorphism that makes sexual reproduction possible, actually took an unfortunate shortcut: childlike features are retained in females ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny)), which ostensibly requires "less" DNA encoding, while males actually "develop" into more "adult" forms (body hair, musculature, height, deeper voice, etc.)

2) the reproductive window of women is far smaller than men, causing men of all ages to be drawn mainly to this small subselection of all women

3) consequently, men who were more likely to choose women in this younger reproductive window might have been selected for;

4) some portion of these men (due to natural variation), in being drawn to the paedomorphic features of women, actually are "steered too low" in preferential age genetically and are thus born having to deal with this unfortunate proclivity.

Ethical question: If no children were harmed and 100% of the videos and images produced were synthetic, would simply consumption of the media still be a problem?

<comment><USER52> > 4) some portion of these men (due to natural variation), in being drawn to > the paedomorphic features of women, actually are "steered too low" in > preferential age genetically and are thus born having to deal with this > unfortunate proclivity.

You're suggesting someone is born a pedophile?

<comment><USER53> In the same way someone is "born" any other orientation in that you can't choose what you're attracted to.

<comment><USER54> Yes but no one is attracted to anyone when they're born. That happens later, and how and why exactly some people are attracted to some sexes, or traits, or fetishes is still up in the air. It's likely some combination of genetic and developmental, and what the exact contributions are to pedophilia are unknown.

<comment><USER51> Identical twins raised separately have a >75% concordance in orientation, as opposed to no concordance as would be expected if there was no genetic input.

So there is definitely a genetic input, and it is definitely large, although it's not the whole story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Does lack of anonymity affect BitCoin fungibility? If you are using coin known to be used for illegal means, does it taint the coin?

<comment><USER56> It has some effect. If you deposit bitcoin into an exchange and it's coming from an address that's associated with a hack or other criminal activity, it's more likely to get flagged. It's hard to say for sure, though. Different exchanges probably use different mechanisms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I must be missing something, I buy Bitcoin with a USD bank account, I send to another address and then this address sends to a known drug dealer. How do they establish the second address's identity?

<comment><USER58> I guess the investigators found out somehow, for example by looking at transactions on a computer already seized for realayed investigations. Also by sending bitcoin to the service themselves, the investigators could trace the flow of coins into addresses used by the dealers to spend their bitcoins. Then backwards from there to other users payments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This is so disheartening. 6-20 yrs is not enough prison time. This isn't acceptable. Law makers around the globe need to rewrite the punishments for these crimes. Child abuse seems to be much higher than older days.

As much as I love tech community, it's sad to see how most comments here are discussing the technical details of the case and not enough outraged by it?

> I have never understood the appeal of BitCoin as a means of purchasing or > selling illegal materials.

> I don't think Bitcoin can be anonymous if it goes through an exchange.

> This is why you should exchange your Bitcoin to Monero.

> How do they establish the second address's identity?

> good, they could never trace dollars

<comment><USER48> >6-20 yrs is not enough prison time.

It's plenty of time. This idea that just increasing sentences indefinitely will improve things is wrong. The endless ratcheting of sentencing is wrong. 20 years seems low only because we've become so desensitized to absurdly long sentences that _comparatively_ this seems low. Americans need to change their relationship with justice and punishment.

<comment><USER59> Don't know if you're talking only in terms of US prison system; US has a whole different problem there.

Leaving such corrupted/psychopathic people out in public is hopelessly dangerous. ANYONE who has violated a child's life in this way doesn't deserve a second chance. They have spoilt several lives already till now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> And we have VCs chiming Bitcoin as the hero coin and create new crap coins.

Unregulated markets and freeflowing VC money: what could go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER61> Why do constantly hear things like this and see so few actual people come down, and when they do they are immediately epsteined.

</comment><comment><USER62> good, they could never trace dollars

</comment><comment><USER63> Doesn't it mean bitcoin HELPs to catch criminals instead of helping them ?

If bitcoin was more widely used - wouldn't it be a dream come true for every wannabe Stasi/Gestapo organization ?

<comment><USER64> Perhaps on a technical level it's easier to access the Bitcoin ledger than bank records but LE has far more experience with the later.

Also, if you solely receive and send bitcoin outside of an exchange, you can easily remain pseudo-anonymous in that anyone can see that wallet X has received Y bitcoins and send W bitcoins but without a person attached to the wallet, it's useless information.

This is way crypto currencies are regulated at the edges, if fiet to crypto is watched just like any other bank/exchange, then criminal activity has a hard time getting money out. At the end of the day, it's difficult to buy 'real' things; food, clothing, housing with bitcoin.

<comment><USER34> > Also, if you solely receive and send bitcoin outside of an exchange, you can > easily remain pseudo-anonymous in that anyone can see that wallet X has > received Y bitcoins and send W bitcoins but without a person attached to the > wallet, it's useless information.

If this thing were a big enough problem, the government could easily require you to provide a ledger of all the parties you've transacted with (Your wallet is doing book-keeping, how hard would it be for a legitimate user to enter a small memo for every transaction, anyways?)

Failure to provide a ledger, or for your ledger to fail to cross-correlate with that of your counterparty would, of course, imply that you're a criminal.

Unlike cash, bitcoin leaves a very obvious breadcrumb trail, that can, with a bit of legislature, be turned into an incredibly useful tool for LE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> so the anonymity is pseudo, whereas the pedophilia is real?

<comment><USER66> Nobody has seriously claimed that Bitcoin is anonymous.

<comment><USER67> I'm pretty sure by now somebody has seriously claimed that Bitcoin cures cancer, speaks Romanian and cure male pattern baldness.

Anonymity and protection from the Big Bad Government were definitely talking points used by many cryptocurrency enthusiasts. "It can't be banned and can't be seized", rings a bell? Except of course if the Big Bad Government comes knocking at your door and tells you to hand your wallet over "or else".

<comment><USER66> > Can't be banned

This part is sort of true. A government can ban fiat <-> BTC conversion but there isn't really a way to stop people from providing services in exchange for BTC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Seems like a good way to frame someone?

</comment><comment><USER69> It's somewhat surprising this hasn't happened earlier. They've been tracking these things for years, surely not everyone has been careful enough to keep it hidden.

<comment><USER70> Maybe they needed to delay it to keep the show going and take down the whale doing this aka "playing the long game."

<comment><USER69> Nah, they've taken down many others using different methods. Besides there's several competing organizations trying to take stuff down from different countries.</comment></comment></comment>


'The Odyssey' and 'The Iliad' are giving up new secrets about the ancient world - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/09/28/hidden_histories/?page=full <comment><USER2> So, what does this say about China's current shortage of women?

<comment><USER3> Isn't it the common wisdom that China will become more belligerent as that shortage intensifies?

<comment><USER4> I thought the common wisdom was that Women will need to come from elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> this is pretty cool</comment>


Getting more out of psql (The PostgreSQL CLI) - <AUTHOR> http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2013/02/21/more-out-of-psql/ More key Postgres insights. From Big ideas to small, invaluable tips...<p>\h alter table! Who Knew? <comment><USER2> This is an excellent article about how to better use psql.</comment>


OpenBSD sucks least – AsiaBSDCon 2015 - <AUTHOR> http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2015/asiabsdcon/mgp00001.html <comment><USER2> I do hope for some movement on filesystem. I have had to start using FreeBSD because of ZFS for file servers and although I have nothing against FreeBSD and it is a fine operating system, I would rather use OpenBSD.

HAMMER and OpenZFS are different animals. I expect HAMMER2 will be done shortly, and that comparison will be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER3> For those with experienced with the JVM and OpenBSD, is the compatibility and performance the same as in linux? (the presentation contains heavy images :/

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please note that this is the actual title of the talk given at AsiaBSDCon. I am not personally saying "OpenBSD sucks", or editorializing in any way.

<comment><USER2> The talk title goes on to the next slide with "...least."

Don't worry, gotcha titles are the norm these days.

<comment><USER4> > gotcha titles are the norm these days

Not on HN they aren't. From the guidelines: "please use the original title, _unless it is misleading or linkbait_ ". This, obviously, was both.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER2> true, but it really is a pain to search on all articles on a talk when some sites change the name of the talk - it is an imperfect world.

You could add the second slides "...least." to the title as shown.</comment></comment></comment></comment>