Fighting to Shut Out the Real India - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/world/asia/07iht-letter07.html <comment><USER3> Here is a snapshot of India that is helpful to folks not living here.

The 2011 census just came out. What is the literacy rate? 75% only. That means 25% Indians can't read or write. Thats 300 million Indians that can't read and write. 300 million. Thats a big number. If you focus on that number, you will think that India is in a bad state. Doing pathetic. No hope.

But you need to go back a bit. In the last 10 years alone (from 2001 to 2011), the number of literate people in India has risen from 650 million to 900 million. That is a huge jump. A shift of 250 million people to literacy in 10 years.

That is India. Statistically - when compared to other countries - seems to be in the dumps. But improving at a rate that is crazy to comprehend.

India is like that dorky adolescent kid with warts and pimples popping up all over the face. Give her 20-30 more years.

<comment><USER4> >India is like that dorky adolescent kid with warts and pimples popping up all over the face. Give her 20-30 more years.

Now that's a poorly chosen metaphor! What will the adolescent girl do in 20-30 years, replace pimples with wrinkles?!

<comment><USER5> Look like a dignified adult with some grey hairs & some worthwhile life experiences behind her, given that she is always growing & learning?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Not surprisingly, a recent law that forces private schools to reserve 25 > percent of the seats for financially disadvantaged children has become > controversial

[http://righttoeducation.in/media/no-objection-25-quota- say-p...](http://righttoeducation.in/media/no-objection-25-quota-say-pvt- schools)

<comment><USER7> This is an interesting development. So one of the biggest problems to providing reservations (as they are called) is that the system is so corrupt it is very difficult to ensure that only the needy and deserving get the benefit. There are tons of people who "scam" these schemes by forging documents of income and or caste (which are usually the basis for these reservations). Until the underlying problem is fixed, these schemes, although noble will only be so on paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wonderful article. Its absolutely true.

Its a democracy for the world to see but its really corrupt and like the article says the rich can do absolutely anything and get away with it while the poor are stuck and their lives never get any better. There is really no hope for India because the educated middle-class already earn a very decent living and so is happy. In any country the middle class is the catalyst for change and I don't see that happening in India. They are too happy with where India (their own life) is and so they have a fierce sense of nationalism that everything is good. Just go to /r/india on reddit and see how people blindly attack anyone criticising India as ignorant and a wannabe westerner.

<comment><USER9> It is dummy democracy. 80% Indians are surviving on 20 rupees/day. Do you think these people can vote as per their conscience in elections?

<comment><USER10> Yes, they do and they did. Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bihar(a backward state), was reelected with absolutely majority due to his honest and dedicated efforts during his 1st 5 year tenure. Poor/Rich, people of all castes/religions, voted unanimously for him and his good work.

<comment><USER9> I hope you know India is _not_ a <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy> And people do not elect a Chief Minister in India.

<comment><USER10> Another wrong and irrelevant comment. I live in India. I am from Bihar. I know how my state works and how my Chief Minister is elected every 5 years. Both the main parties are headed by their respective leaders. Nitish Kumar heads the JDU and there has never been any doubt, before or after the elections, whatsoever, that he was going to be the Chief Minister. Yes, the party can elect anyone as the chief minister but thats purely in theory. In practice, every party throws forward their chief candidate for the Chief Minister post and they have always stuck to it - in every state - over last 60 years of Independence.

I suggest you stop trolling HN with your predefined bias against India. Yes, we have problems and we acknowledge it more than anyone else but you should stop trolling.

<comment><USER9> As per Transparency International India, Bihar is the most corrupt state in India. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar#Economy>

Keep your corruption/suggestions to yourself.

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Forward_caste> community has brainwashed Indian voters to believe that _voting in elections = democracy_ and a solution to [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Caste_system_...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Caste_system_in_india) [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corruption_in...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corruption_in_India) [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poverty_in_in...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poverty_in_india)

<comment><USER10> You have no basis but online links that have no relation to the transformation that is underway. Try and search around about the transformation of Bihar over last 5 years since Nitish Kumar came to power and how it is the 2nd fastest growing state in India and how corruption has taken a steep dive. It's okay. You want to hate, do so. I ll pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So basically, just like the U.S.?

<comment><USER12> Yes you are right, India and the U.S. have a lot in common. The big difference here in the U.S. is the larger middle class compared to India. The other two big factors are corruption which is much more widespread and the caste system which won't go away anytime soon.

Despite all that I believe India has moved in the right direction in the last 20 years. I couldn't imagine how it would have been if not for the reforms of the nineties, which I personally believe has benefited all. Yes the rich have gotten richer but the opportunities that didn't exist before do now for the middle class and the poor. People don't have to depend on the government to provide jobs.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, the 90s opening of the market crushed the Indian economy and removed a huge chunk of bad companies.

Its good to remember that what stands today, is what was left after being opened up to the big bad world without any assistance. India has built its entire tech base, and IT ability from scratch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The scale of poverty is huge. With 1.2 billion, the number of poor and destitute will always be high. This is unfortunate but true.

I go to India a lot and do see people locking themselves in from reality. BUT, there are many more who do make an effort to improve the lives of the poor.

Anywho, India is India and will always be India. So if you don't like it, don't go there. If you live there and don't like it, leave. Otherwise, take it all in!

</comment><comment><USER15> The article gives several examples of how things have changed from a few decades ago. Likewise, a few decades from now, things would be different as well.

This too shall pass.

</comment><comment><USER9> For a Western it is quite easy to understand Indians and Indian society. If you meet anybody from India, ask him "What Is Your Caste?"

</comment><comment><USER9> This is one of best writeup on current life in India.

</comment><comment><USER16> A westerner's perspective.

Recent trip from bangalore airport to hotel. Started with a clean, hot dry airport exit escorted to your air-conditioned car by hotel driver. Then briefly open fields. Then 30 minutes of red dirt road, with freeway in view barely in construction. With slums all along the street, with metal shacks aptly named 'hotels', with heaps of trash openly laid out and eaten by cows, with homeless kids/adults in bare feet walking along side of roads, with groups of women on their knees dusting the road with brooms. Then briefly comes tons of cars and people walking in between traffic. Tons of cars and people. Some semblance of city began to form. 2 story buildings. Then you're at your 5 star hotel in a 'nice' neighborhood. Across from slums and heaps of garbage and dirt roads and massive traffic and beggars everywhere. This is with no raining, which is usually 8 months out of the year.

Recent trip from Mumbai to airport hotel. Armed guards at outside the airport entrance. Taxi drivers mobbing you, trying to grab your bags. Your driver drives on local road as he speaks in his broken english how low this fare is, and you seemed to be stuck in traffic for an eternity what should've taken only 20 minutes. Highway barely constructed, with no workers in sight. Loud motor cars everywhere, no semblance of order. Tons of beggars/slums fills the side of the road. Nearby, restaurants, all with heaps of garbage sitting outside the establishments, attracting only the locals. Some fancy houses appear, but the are lost in the sea of ravage. A woman with a malnourished kid comes to your taxi and knocks on your window and begs. A woman with a bloody stump knocks on your taxi window, but your knowlegable friend says that's fake blood, although the missing hand is real. Then after a while, you arrive in a 5 star hotel, in the most posh neighborhood/city in India, not 10 seconds away from slums/garbage/cows/dirt. And this is with no rain.

A 3rd world country, with massive population and corruption and squatter's rights and caste system and religious fervor and terrible weather/land. Same economic progress in 1980s with China, but vastly diverged since.

I don't see a way out for India.

<comment><USER17> At various times westerners who dont understand the various forces at work in india have predicted the fall of india. Churchill said: India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages (source: [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches- of-w...](http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston- churchill/105-our-duty-in-india))

Even we Indian barely understand all the forces and the interplay so I dont hold it too much against ppl who pass such pronouncements.

In the last 30 years or so in every parameter (health/education/life span) India has developed and this has happened to all stratas of sosciety. Please understand that I am not refuting the nytimes article. I am saying that poor people are also getting better.

Estimates for India also indicate a continuing decline in poverty. The revised estimates suggest that the percentage of people living below $1.25 a day in 2005 (which, based on India's PPP rate, works out to Rs 21.6 a day in urban areas and Rs 14.3 in rural areas in 2005 ) decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005. Source: [http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHA...](http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21880725~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295584,00.html)

Yes, the rich are getting richer but the poor are also getting a bit better.

I have hope.

<comment><USER18> Who's predicting the fall of India? I think what's being predicted is the non- rise of India.

<comment><USER9> India follows the "Sheep Herd" mentality. The whole country's economy is based on people getting into "Profitable" domains mostly following the success of a pioneer in the field. The most recent example of this ideology is the "Business Process Outsourcing" industry. New BPO units are propping up here and there at a dime a dozen leading to a quality deterioration in the final deliverable. This process will continue till a saturation level is reached and then they will wait till another "Killer" domain picks up momentum. Till then India will be in a so called "Calm Period" where nothing great and major takes place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >A luxurious car with an unspeaking driver who works for 12 hours every day at less than $200 a month,

Again. Comparing earnings in terms of USD is meaningless. $200/month in India is vastly different from earning the same amount in the US.

Sad that even some HN'ers are taken in by this. In comments the other day about outsourcing it was about Indian IT workers working for peanuts. Let me tell you, first compare the prices of services and commodities and then compare salaries and you will see the discrepancy.

>Rags-to-riches stories in India are popular but rare.

Rare? Well, I don't know the metric that the author is using for 'riches' but it certainly is not rare.

<comment><USER9> Let me reveal a little secret. 80% Indians are willing to migrate to USA for <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility> at $200/month salary.

<comment><USER20> I don't think so, can you prove your little secret and what social reasons would that be? just curious to know.

<comment><USER9> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility>

<comment><USER20> The only place where 'India' was mentioned for the link you provided is at the last section towards the end of the page. It just talks about technological advances and how people are related to that, but it doesn't say people are migrating countries because of that.

<comment><USER9> You could have seen caste (in 1st para), unless you wanted to willingly suppress it.

<comment><USER20> I really cannot undertand what you are trying to express. I really don't see how 'caste' is linked to the article and your initial comment "80% Indians are willing to migrate to USA...". Please try to understand what the problem is and post comments on how that can be solved, that will make the conversation interesting and live. I am not trying to suppress anything and i see most of the comments here have gone in different directions.

<comment><USER9> I said in plain English that 80% Indians are willing to migrate to USA or Western Nations at $200/month salary due to lack of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility> in India.

I think you need to understand

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility> != <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is quite easy to understand Indians and Indian society. If you meet anybody from India, ask him "what is your caste?"

<comment><USER21> Answer: Probabaly higher than yours because only only low class people ask crass questions.

Here's the book to actually understand India:- "Late victorian holocausts and the making of the third world". [http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian- Holocausts-Famines-Maki...](http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts- Famines-Making/dp/1859843824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302338147&sr=8-1)

As Nehru and others had observed, poverty in India is highly correlated with the length of British rule in that part of India, Bengal being the poorest and Punjab the richest. This is actually true of the world in general - <USER2> Africa with Japan - prosperity is highly correleted with the colonial experience a country had.

Caste is almost irrelevant - the Gini coefficient which measures inequality is much higher in the US than in India.

India which was 25% of the world's economy in 1800 was essentially crushed by the British to make way for their industrialization via a captive market. Internal trade in India was crushed by internal tariffs. Railroads which had a positive network effect in the US, had the opposite (destructive) network effect in India killing its manufacturing base and driving millions to unemployment and dependance on agricultural land which lead to the widespread poverty you see today.

<comment><USER9> One of the most corruption nations in the world <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India>

836 million people live on 20 rupees a day <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India>

Pakistan is a better nation to do business than India & China <http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/>

Indians among most corrupt while doing business abroad [http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/24/indians- among-...](http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/24/indians-among-most- corrupt-while-doing-business-abroad.htm)

Economic mobility != Social mobility

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was once told that if Hell is here then Heaven is also here. The Heaven is hidden from material eyes.300 - 1000 years back it was present even in the material form.But it attracted lot of crusaders. So now the heaven is hidden by poverty and slums.The heaven is in the form of spiritual knowledge which can lead you to self relaization.Only people actively on the spiritual path can relate to this.

</comment><comment><USER23> Typical liberal media crap

</comment><comment><USER24> Which is why I believe that nothing competes with a Zombie Apocalypse as a social equalizer.

<comment><USER24> In all honesty, that was not meant to be mean. Really, do you think Zombies choose between Rich or Poor?

I am an Indian, has lived in US for the past 12 years. Every time I go to India, I am all the more reminded of how the so-called progress has not penetrated in to the lower stratas of the society.

I use public transportation every time I am home, not because I cannot afford to shut out the outside world, but I love watching humanity upclose. To ride in a bus along with 60-70 others, people whose sons I might have gone to school with, finding familiar faces in the crowd, eavesdrop on conversations, and for a moment think of their lives, and their dreams. You cant do that while tucked away in the backseat of a Mercedes.

Class based social racism is a real problem in India. While trying to catch up with their neighbors, we ignore the ones getting pushed deeper and deeper in to the depths of poverty.

Another social equalizer? Education. And the fact that most of its free (regardless of how bad it sometimes can be in India's public schools), I am proud of my country.

<comment><USER25> I see you are a fast learner as to what sort of comments are appreciated here. You two comments are like the before and after photos for a fad diet plan. Thanks for clarifying, and welcome to HN!</comment></comment></comment>


Serverless: 11 Open Source platforms and frameworks - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/serverless-and-open-source-where-do-we-stand-today-dff8aec67026 <comment><USER2> I was thinking about checking out OpenFaaS, but I'm always hitting a wall with how to use it in a way that benefits me. I get it for certain "workload scripts", but not for "proper" applications. What are good use cases you have found for FaaS?</comment>


Ask HN: The IPS LCD revolution, what monitor do you suggest for a startup?  - <AUTHOR> It's been sometime since Atwood posted the IPS LCD revolution [1] and the followup to that [2].<p>How has the scene changed since last July? Have the prices come down? Which is the most value option out there I can buy from taobao, 360buy etc? Are there any major flaws in these LCD's?<p>[1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/the-ips-lcd-revolution.html<p>[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4292450 <comment><USER2> I have one of Monoprice's new-ish line of wqHD monitors[1] and one Crossover 27M[2] (on my own 3way mount). Both these monitors use LG's IPS panels (the same as in the Apple cinema displays). They're cheap because instead of using the 'A+' rated panels these are all from the 'A' rating (some B+). What this means is there can be slight blemishes and backlight bleed. Neither of mine suffer from either, the only issue I have is the frame assembly on my Crossover was bent ever-so-slightly during shipping from Korea

[1][http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=114&c...](http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=114&cp_id=11401&cs_id=1130704&p_id=9579&seq=1&format=2)

[2][http://www.overclock.net/t/1232496/crossover-27q-led- led-p-2...](http://www.overclock.net/t/1232496/crossover-27q-led- led-p-27m-led-2720mdp-gold-led-monitor-club)

</comment><comment><USER3> There should be some 2560x1440 ones for a few hundred dollars on the market.

</comment><comment><USER4> Apple Thunderbolt!</comment>


OkCupid/IAC Employees Donated Thousands to Anti-Gay Marriage Politicians - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE <comment><USER2> The thing I don't get about this whole faux controversy is since when is it professionally acceptable to discriminate against someone for their private political views and esp. those that might be informed by religious beliefs so long as they don't bring them into the workplace? I mean by the time everyone is done investigating who believes what and donated how much to who there won't be anyone left to work anywhere. This whole thing is just really slimy.

<comment><USER3> Many of us view being anti-gay just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro- slavery or denying suffrage to women. It's not simply a "political view" in 2014. It's not an opinion. It's flat out wrong and supporters of that backwards mentality reap what they sow.

<comment><USER4> It would be nice if the world were that black-and-white, but it's not. Plenty of Republicans etc. also believe that abortion, or even contraception provided by your health plan, is "absolutely unacceptable", "flat out wrong" and a "backwards mentality".

But we live in a democracy, where we need to get along. Black-and-white absolutist thinking doesn't really help anyone. You may not think it's "simply a political view" in 2014, but many other people do. Fortunately, we live in a pluralistic society with freedom of expression where we're all allowed to have and share our views, which is the whole basis of democracy.

And this is very different from women's suffrage, because nobody's right to vote, or their participation in the democratic process, is being legally affected here. Other things are being affected, but not people's representation as citizens in a democracy.

<comment><USER5> Segregation, marriage inequality, restrictions on abortion and contraception-- what do each of these have in common? It's that the government is imposing an arbitrary value system on the behavior of private citizens. This is acceptable when said behavior could harm others. In these other cases, it feels pretty off to have this happening in 2014. (Do not respond to me about fetuses.)

<comment><USER6> I love when people end an argument with "Do not respond to me about <the obviously controversial part of my opinion>".

The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.

<comment><USER5> I fully admit that it's controversial, I just don't have the time or the energy to debate it here. (Or anywhere.) The rationale I gave holds up, but good luck debating it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Where are the OkCupid employees on that list?

Perhaps you should change the title to IAC Employees... It's fine to point out that employees at their parent company made donations to these politicians, but I don't see any work done here to link the data with OkCupid employees.

The dates of many of those contributions are way before IAC bought OkCupid.

<comment><USER8> Yeah looking over it I don't see a single OkC employee, former or current on there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The implication here is that OKCupid is being hypocritical. But there's clearly a difference between donating money to a candidate who has positions on a wide variety of issues -- some of which you may not agree with -- and donating money to a very specific cause.

But really, you need to treat what OkCupid is doing as some pretty clever marketing that's gotten it lots of free advertising, and not some kind of moral statement.

<comment><USER10> Yea, I don't really see an issue here. I'm sure you could pull up something like this and point fingers about a specific issue for anyone who has ever donated to any candidate. Plus, these individuals opinions are not representative of their company.

I'm more curious about what the purpose of attempting to smear IAC and OkC is.

<comment><USER11> Nobody's personal beliefs should be representative of the company. If the guy was a Catholic, would you say that Mozilla is a Catholic organization, or that he's going to make Catholic decisions?

You may not remember that President Kennedy was accused of being "controlled" by the Vatican when he was elected because he was the first (and remains the only) Roman-Catholic president, and people were freaked out he'd take orders from the Pope. Turned out not to be the case.

      To address fears that his being Catholic would impact his decision-making,
      he famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on
      September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am
      the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be
      a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and
      the Church does not speak for me."[46] Kennedy questioned rhetorically
      whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class
      citizenship just because they were Catholic, and once stated that,
      "No one asked me my religion [serving the Navy] in the South Pacific."[47]

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If there's any indication that Eich acted unlawfully in his role as CEO that's an issue. If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different.

What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? This is just mob rule.

* I'm making no statement as to whether I agree with either side.

<comment><USER13> _What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar?_

No, because noone see those causes as being founded in fear and hate.

EDIT: changed wording for clarity

Also, to the downvoters Do you really think we would have heard about all this as much if it were related to other issues?

<comment><USER14> Well, the NRA is at least partially responsible for perpetuating an unhealthy gun culture in the USA that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. There's plenty to fear and hate about that.

<comment><USER15> I'll take the bait. The NRA is reacting to any mention of gun control from the left the same way the left reacts to any mention of abortion restrictions from the right - don't believe anything they say, because they are trying for victory by inches. And considering some of the rhetoric flying around, they probably should (both sides).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am all for gay marriage and I have a deep dislike of homophobia. But I am concerned about some of the reactions to Mozilla because of Brendan Eich's position. I totally disagree with him but surely he is entitled to have his view and to donate accordingly. He was donating as a private person not as a representative of Mozilla. Furthermore, there is nothing about Mozilla as an organization that particularly 'stands for' gay rights. It is not as if he is working for a gay rights group and then donating to oppose the group he is working for. This smacks of the thought police to me.

<comment><USER17> How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are considering the situation outside of the context of OKCupid, then I do not understand the relevance of the comment. And outside of the context of OKCupid, again, no authority is 'policing' Eich's thoughts. He donated money and this is information which is known publicly; there is no reason that he should be immune from critique. Given that he has offered several thousand dollars in support of legislative measures which would seek to actively discriminate against citizens, his employees among them, I believe that any and all scrutiny is necessary.

<comment><USER18> The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.

<comment><USER19> > The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government > connotation.

Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.

<comment><USER20> I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.

<comment><USER17> And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.

<comment><USER20> I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one person or one organization.

<comment><USER17> From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police":

> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government > connotation."

If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party.

It is an inherent double standard.

Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?

If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.

<comment><USER20> Eich is being critiqued right now by more than just one private party. That's why I was confused with your post.

Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing everything possible to take his job away.

And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice (hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder. People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable, and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports such legislature.

<comment><USER17> Why does the quantity of private parties matter? He publicly donated money. I don't understand why you believe he is immune to criticism.

Do you understand that he is CEO of a large company? Do you understand that LGBT individuals and their allies work for this company? Including its board of directors. Do you understand that they have already publicly spoken about the real consequences his appointment to CEO has on them?

Would I like it if people petitioned for me to quit? No. I can't imagine Eich is too pleased with this backlash. But that doesn't make LGBT individuals wrong in speaking out against promoting bigoted legislation. If you think "hurt feelings" is a good defense for Eich, how do you think his LGBT constituency feels? He materially invested in anti-gay legislation. These people spoke out against it.

I am just so floored by this type of reasoning you promote.

And "trying to sabotage someone's career" is like Dan Brown getting a bad book review. Like Brown, Eich has already made a successful career out of technology; nothing they say is going to limit his success in the field. It is an absolute fact that there are those of his constituency who feel specifically discriminated against. How is it not within their right (or other peoples' rights) to speak out publicly about this?

How is this even close to thought crime? It is a matter of private citizens/organizations; he contributed materially to anti-gay legislation (not simple thoughts); there is no governing body capable of actually punishing him.

Again, I am floored by the reasoning being promoted here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> While I believe _OkCupid_ 's intentions are true, the parent company _IAC_ tries to cover all bases.

Looking at their "Personals" portfolio[1] only, already gives a list of the following companies and brands:

      match.com
      chemistry.com
      meetic
      twoo
      tinder
      peoplemedia[2] including
        OurTime.com
        LDSplanet.com
        catholicpeoplemeet.com
        republicanpeoplemeet.com
        marriagemindedpeoplemeet.com

I mean, I would wonder more if actually committed staff/management of some of those _peoplemedia_ sites wouldn't donate to prop 8, Mitt Romney (R/LDS) and the like.

That's capitalism at work. Much like _Axe_ / _Lynx_ and _Dove_ seem to sell different agendas yet still both add to _Unilever_ 's revenue.

[1] [http://iac.com/brands?field_category__tid=22](http://iac.com/brands?field_category__tid=22)

[2] [http://iac.com/brand/peoplemedia](http://iac.com/brand/peoplemedia)

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord My main disagreement with the Mozilla boycott is that I believe it is wholly unfair to disregard so many years of hard work by countless contributors that have all been pivotal in the advancement of web technologies, just because of the actions of one person (even if it is their de facto figurehead), whose intentions, by the way, are still not clear.

Even more, considering Mozilla's a free software non-profit foundation. But if you're going to do it, why half-ass it? After all, Eich is the man. Go on and boycott JavaScript. A dedicated activist like Stallman would not persist merely because of convenience.

</comment><comment><USER22> So? Unless these employees were doing so on behalf of their employer, I don't see why it matters in the slightest.

The _only_ reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla. But that worry is only justified when talking about the CEO (or I suppose the Director of Human Resources, or whatever the equivalent at Mozilla is).

And even that I think might be an overreaction. From everything Brendan Eich has said publicly, it appears that he wants to keep his personal beliefs private, and that he's committed to everything Mozilla stands for in his public role as CEO. So I'm not worried that he's going to turn Mozilla into a bad work environment for gay employees. My only real worry is that he will not be proactive about _improving_ conditions or about supporting relevant community initiatives, but the same could be said of a CEO that has no opinion whatsoever on gay marriage.

In any case, OKCupid has taken public actions (e.g. their message to Firefox users) that indicate that, as a company, they come down in favor of gay marriage. The individual beliefs and actions of their rank & file employees should not matter in the slightest.

<comment><USER23> > The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is > because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal > beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla.

What proof do we have that his personal beliefs will affect Mozilla? Guilty until proven innocent I see.

<comment><USER24> Mixing "people are afraid" and "proof" doesn't exactly work. This isn't a criminal court; there's no need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even a civil court, so there's no need for a preponderance of evidence.

This person donated money to a campaign to remove from them one of the basic civil rights of man, and they're understandably worried about what might happen because of that. Additionally, they're unhappy with having a person who has done so in such an important and visible position of something they love.

<comment><USER25> And, in response, they're conducting a campaign to remove from Eich one of the basic civil rights of man - free speech (including political speech). You don't lose that right just because you become a CEO.

<comment><USER24> No government is restricting Mr. Eich's freedom of speech. In fact, no one is, at all. People are using their free speech to counter his. This is the system working as intended.

(Also, people desiring or acting to remove him from a position as CEO is not an issue of freedom of speech. There is no right to being a CEO.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm not going to defend Brendan Eich, what he did was deplorable and the Prop. 8 victory dealt a demoralizing blow to the LGBT community. However, as a gay developer, I can't stomach the witch-hunt mentality, even if it happens to be in support of a just cause. Mozilla has done incredible things over the years which have changed the internet for the better. I'd rather not live in a world where imposed political correctness shields me from knowing people for who they really are.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't believe in publically crucifying people whose political beliefs I don't agree with.

</comment><comment><USER28> Curious. They left off everyone who contributed to Obama in 2008.

Obama was on record openly opposing gay marriage, explicitly stating "I am not in favor of gay marriage."[1]

As we all know, he's since changed his mind (which is good thing), but would the same logic apply to the Republicans on this list? If they changed their position, does it mean it's okay to have contributed to them why they opposed gay marriage?

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on- mtv-i/](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/)

</comment><comment><USER29> So they're homophobes because they donated to Republican candidates? Are we seriously doing this now? Just because you donate to a political candidate doesn't mean you agree with his/her positions on everything. I doubt many of these candidates even feel that strongly about gay marriage and are not just pandering to the Republican base.

</comment><comment><USER30> A more accurate title should be "donated to Republicans". But I can see what they're trying to do

</comment><comment><USER31> Funny, I don't see any of these people on the list donating explicitly to Prop 8 PACs or the like. While I would find that pretty hypocritical, I can't fault them simply for donating to politicians who had many policy stances, one of which was an opposition to same sex marriage.

Is the complaint here simply that these people failed to be single-issue voters?

</comment><comment><USER32> I think it's the fact that he is in a position of some power within our industry that makes his personal and political viewpoints relevant to the rest of us. What kind of message does it send to your employees when you support a view that is rejected by (what I'm guessing is) a vast majority of the people in your industry?

The fact is, we can pull our support from people who we think are shitty if we want to in order to push progress forward to the kind of society we want to live it, specifically one where all Americans are treated equally under the law.

If it were up to me, I would completely eradicate the idea of marriage as a government institution, it doesn't belong in their hands in the first place. But I'm very much in the minority on that one.

<comment><USER32> Something else that is interesting is that the big companies have already figured out that it's simply better business to support LGBT rights. I have absolutely no reason to believe that guys like Blankfein actually give two shits about the gays, but they will be the ones to push us forward. If only to make more money.

Case in point: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd- blankfei...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfein- same-sex-marriage-support-a-business-issue/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Among the quiz questions that OkCupid asks its users, do any of them deal with this issue (given the extensive set of questions they ask on very diverse subjects, I might guess yes?). Are the users who don't support gay marriage then told that they "are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure"? Given their stance, they ought to do that, yes?

</comment><comment><USER34> So did anyone actually look at the linked list before commenting?

It's a list of every OKCupid employee who donated to any Republican. Zero of them are donations to the Proposition 8 campaign.

Remember:

* Donating to take existing rights away from gay people = _freedom of speech_.

* Objecting to someone donating to take away existing rights from gay people = _fascism_.

</comment><comment><USER35> An entirely predictable next step in the saga. :-/

</comment><comment><USER36> How much did OkCupid/IAC employees donate to pro-Gay Marriage politicians? This list is useless without seeing a comparison, and until then, I think this is just a poor attempt at trolling.

<comment><USER37> Just you can't just look at how many people someone have killed, you also have to look at how many children they have had? It is a zero sum game, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I suspect the did much more damage developing javascript.

</comment><comment><USER38> I found this to be the most interesting page:

[http://iac.com/about/leadership](http://iac.com/about/leadership)

One group. One dream. To own a bunch of random websites, together.

edit: With the help of Chelsea Clinton and Michael Eisner!

</comment><comment><USER39> Is that an april fools joke or is this site becoming LGBT Hacker News?</comment>


Ask HN: I have the domain hackerbrain - what would you like to see on it? - <AUTHOR>

Recently I purchased hackerbrain.com and hackerbra.in.
I want to develop it, but would like to adapt it to the community's desires.
What do you want to see on it?
Hackers for hire?
Hackers for dates?
Some type of jobs or freelance board?
Brain exercises? <comment><USER2> I'd love to see a complete network of all modern web programming languages,and their advantages and disadvantages clearly compared.

Might as well do the same for operating systems, and hardware.

<comment><USER3> That is a pretty decent idea. Maybe it could be expanded to include everything in the hacker's toolbox - development environments, editors, servers, platforms, whatever.

The trick will be figuring out what to measure, and how to measure it in an unbiased fashion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now, my mind is at doing a submission voting site for hacks, like what dfranke did to Hacker News: highest karma score ever for this site (784): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639976>

Anyone interested? Happy to do both.</comment></comment></comment>


JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship in memoir (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2012/02/05/teen-mistress-addresses-relationship-pols-cold-war-fears-in-memoir/ <comment><USER2> Many posts here critical of JFK so far, including one agreeing with link calling him a monster. Somebody posted here "Its not sexual abuse when you're either the President or in Hollywood," as if his position or location was relevant. The relevant point is everyone was adult and participated voluntarily.

We are all free to share our opinions, but different people have different values. 19-year-old women and 45-year-old men are adults free to decide to do what they want. If they choose to do something you disagree with, others disagree with what you do.

Name-calling and criticizing adults for doing what everyone involved consented to is opinion and they go both ways.

<comment><USER3> >19-year-old women and 45-year-old men are adults free to decide to do what they want. If they choose to do something you disagree with, others disagree with what you do.

The president was actively betraying the trust of his wife and family, so in fact it wasn't as libertarian as you make it seem.

Beyond that, the memoir clearly shows massively inappropriate behavior for a sitting president or anyone with such a power disparity, to include significant instances of coercion and actions which denigrate the position and shame the relationship he had with his wife.

Shame on you for equivocating.

<comment><USER4> Shame is toxic as it silences opposing views with emotional arguments. Please refrain from using shame as strategy to win discussions.

<comment><USER5> Emotional arguments are the only way to sway many people, everyone doesn't respond to logic.

<comment><USER6> That may be so, but the problem with that avenue is that often people think they've made a logical argument when it is full of value judgements. In this case the comment in question was full of value judgements and assumptions based on incomplete information (they may be true, but they may also not be), and the final appeal to emotion was nothing more than a strong emotional restatement of an argument that did not rest on logic to begin with.

<comment><USER5> If an argument doesn't resonate with you it's easy to simply say I respond to reason rather than emotion, or vise versa. Or point out the problems as you just did, perfectly fine approach, but you can't ban emotional arguments because sadly, most people are emotional, and those arguments tend to work better. It'd be nice if everyone only responded to non fallacious logical arguments, but it just isn't so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was born after JFK and never really "got" the mystique with the Kennedy family. Whenever a Kennedy family special show used to broadcast (pre-cable) I'd always just switch the channel to something more interesting or just turn it off. On the few occasions my Grandmother or Parents insisted I always found the obsessive fawning very tiresome.

The brief bits I learned over the years seem to point to a pretty seedy family history full of unprosecuted white-collar crime and general hustling before anybody caught on and criminalized it. Then turned the family wealth into political connections (as organized criminals are wont to do) and was put in charge of "campaign contributions" and the rest is history. "America's Royal Family" is a shameful appellation. I never thought they were terribly photogenic or glamorous or really all that interesting.

Using that as a background framework, none of the "scandalous" things I've ever heard about JFK or the family ever really surprised me. This is just yet another thing to add to the list. So...meh?

</comment><comment><USER8> I hate to say it, but quite a few US presidents have a psychological profile that closely, if not entirely, fits that of a socio/psychopath -- in fact, these traits are invaluable when you are running for president (having this condition, as pop culture likes to hint, does not make you a murderer necessarily). A sociopath is risk-adverse, does not take responsibility or feel guilty, and often is outwardly charming. These days more than ever, a president is required to "look the other way" or remain "blissfully ignorant" when the biggest lobbyists secure major contracts, enact laws that benefit them, or sidestep laws that don't. As a side note, both of my parents are psychiatrists who have dealt with every variety (including the criminally insane) - this does not in the least make me an expert, but they did teach me a lot (for my own safety) about spotting these types of disorders.

<comment><USER9> Those characteristics apply to narcissists. All sociopath are narcissists but not all narcissists are sociopaths. Sociopaths cannot feel empathy or guilt. Those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder feel guilt and are driven by a deep sense of insecurity.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disord...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder)

<comment><USER8> Yep - that is entirely true. But wouldn't you feel guilty if you humiliated a girl like JFK did at the pool with Powers? It seemed that JFK had no remorse about any of his actions -- but again, this is just working off the material I am reading here (which matches some other accounts of his behavior).

<comment><USER10> Actually, the article mentions that JFK apologized to both of them afterwards.

<comment><USER8> Apologizing is different from feeling guilt (or doing it in the first place) - that said this is still very much the realm of hypothesis for me so I would gladly be wrong. Sociopaths are able to blend in fairly well exactly because of things like this - they can even put on the mask of caring or feeling guilty without being either. I used to work with a sociopath (99 percent certain of this) - he would do completely reckless things with company money, then when I would call him out on it he would apologize. Later he would repeat the same offenses. Similarly, I don't think this was Kennedy's last questionable action.

<comment><USER11> _then when I would call him out on it he would apologize. Later he would repeat the same offenses._

Yes, that fits the profile of a sociopath - he manipulated you in order to get you off his back. The question wrt JFK is whether apologizing to her and his staffer was done out of a sense of guilt or was it just manipulation for his own gain. Unfortunately the article does not give us enough details to decide one way or the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Noah's take on this story seems about right:

[http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk- mons...](http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster)

<comment><USER13> Its not sexual abuse when you're either the President or in Hollywood.

<comment><USER14> Just out of curiosity, is it _ever_ possible for two people at different levels in the same workplace's hierarchy to engage in sexual relations without it being sexual abuse?

<comment><USER15> Yes, of course. But only they would ever know that. It's impossible is for that to happen in a way such that outside observers can be sure it's not sexual abuse.

<comment><USER16> Schrödinger's pussy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the terrible things about Nixon's presidency was that when he got caught in Watergate, presidents stopped taping all their Oval Office conversations.

We are losing a generation of precious history. Nowadays, if you're anywhere national public office, you don't leave a paper trail and there are no smoking guns. Teams of lawyers followed Bill Clinton around getting affidavits from anybody that might have a chance of releasing anything salacious.

That's a shame, because presidents are all too human -- warts and all. In my mind JFK was a sexual predator and junkie, but it's better for history that we know the truth. Instead I fear that all we're going to get from 1975 onward is a plastic version of the people who occupied the office.

ADD: One point of interest about this particular U.S. President: Mimi Alford's story is nowhere near being unique. If anything, hers is a tame version of JFK's lifestyle. Dont' forget that Marilyn Monroe was a mistress, as were many other people. I've seen estimates of his sexual conquests that number in the hundreds. Then there's the drug use, including IV drugs administered in the White House by "Dr. Feelgood".

If anything, JFK's story reinforces for me the great amount of latitude we can have in a president without fearing that the world is going to blow up.

<comment><USER18> > If anything, JFK's story reinforces for me the great amount of latitude we > can have in a president without fearing that the world is going to blow up.

For me, it underlines a stronger message, since JFK is widely considered to be one of our better presidents, and I personally rank him as one of the two or three best. It seems that how good of a person someone is, is not a good indicator of how good of a president that person will be.

<comment><USER17> Apologies for the directness, but JFK was ranked as some kind of awesome president because he was killed in office, not because of some magic power he had. Most people who weren't infatuated with the man at the time felt like he'd barely be remembered if it weren't for his tragic demise.

He was a terribly broken man. I doubt he would have been competent running a gas station at night, much less the country. His saving grace was that his family connections gave him a machine to govern with. There were tons of "special" insiders that helped facilitate both the philandering junkie and the presidency. It's those folks that carried the weight during his term. Those are the ones that did the awesome job.

Still, worked out very well. A good lesson in how regular humans can still be president, warts and all. As terribly flawed as the man was, he was nowhere near being the worst U.S. President. And _that_ says something very interesting about the job.

Yes, he has a very high popularity ranking, and that's all it takes to be president: being popular.

<comment><USER19> >Apologies for the directness, but JFK was ranked as some kind of awesome president because he was killed in office, not because of some magic power he had.

Really? You're holding the secret microphone that allows you to speak for everyone else?

I can think of loads of reasons JFK stood out as an exceptional President, you sir are confused.

<comment><USER20> You can think of loads of reasons, but you haven't given any. Being assassinated young is probably the only thing most people know about JFK. It isn't rocket science to figure out that most people would see him as a sort of martyr because of it.

<comment><USER19> Thank you for that deep level of insight into other peoples thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This may seem like mere gossip but actually it's an interesting data point, not just about JFK but about how things were in the US in the 1960s.

<comment><USER22> > how things were in the US in the 1960s.

Less different from the 1990s (or 1890s, or 1490s in Europe) then one may have previously guessed.

<comment><USER23> It seems Time Dilation occurs much more rapidly as you travel vertically to power hierarchy than in physics!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."

\--Shit My Dad Says

<comment><USER14> There's a huge misrepresentation in there that a President thinks they or has any particular knowledge of what's best. Honestly, that's more like the legislative branch. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I always remember a psychologist commenting on someone asking why Bill Clinton, most powerful man in the world would risk it all, and their reason was pretty simple.

The point is the wrong way round, it's why you become the most powerful man in the world. Power, money, these are all just proxies, even if the people who have and want them don't know it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Just being curious here: Is there anything "illegal" in that story? Sure, questionable morals of cause. But it looks a lot like a sexual relationship between two consenting adults.

<comment><USER27> > _Is there anything "illegal" in that story?_

There would be if sexual harassment laws had existed at the time. But at the time, no, making your employees have sex with you was not illegal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I love how most of the general public (especially those who lived through it) think Camelot was so classy... like ya know that time the President asked his manipulated teenage mistress to blow his best friend in the pool.

</comment><comment><USER29> > On one excursion, she met Vice President Lyndon Johnson. When she told the > president about the introduction, he lost his composure.

> "Stay away from him," he commanded, likely worried that Johnson could use > knowledge of the affair against him.

This probably wasn't the only reason. For all of JFK's misbehavior, he was nothing next to LBJ. When one of his secretaries was staying at his ranch, Johnson confronted her in the middle of the night in her bed, saying "Move over. This is your president." He was also fond of urinating in public and once urinated on one of his secret service agents. In another incident, he got frustrated at some reporters asking why he sent troops to Vietnam, pulled out his (reportedly large) penis, and said "this is why".

</comment><comment><USER30> This story is almost two years old, how about putting a (2012) in the title?

</comment><comment><USER31> Don't know why this in on HN, but I enjoyed reading it. Hot stuff! This discussion about it looks pretty lame - arguing over whether or not Kennedy was abusing his power or sexually abusing this woman is ridiculous as it robs this woman of both her agency as an 18 year old and now. At 18, like it or not, she was an adult. There is not any "raping" described, and she acknowledges having thought deeply about why she agreed to do this or that. She used her own adult (teen, yes, but also adult) mind to decide what to do. Sure there is a power differential, and in this case an extreme one, but so what... THERE ALWAYS IS! All relationships, especially sexual relationships, involve a power differential / dynamic. This is what makes it fun. Each person is trying to achieve a certain level of "control" over the other, even if that is done counterintuitively by ceding that sense of control to the other. If one brutally and forcibly wrests control over the other, then it is rape. But, if both people are adults making their own decision, then it's simply a typical human sexual relationship!

</comment><comment><USER32> This story is from February 2012.

</comment><comment><USER33> "He taught her how to scramble eggs." Can somebody tell me what exactly is that? Urban dictionary didn't help much. [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrambled%20e...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrambled%20egg)

</comment><comment><USER34> Two words: Character Assassination.

These seemingly mild form of abuse are precursors to physical violence. You really have to understand how clandestine operations work to fully grasp the concept.

I suggest you guys watch/listen to his final speech on youtube and really pay attention and listen to what he was saying before he got assassinated. Quite a few of the elite didn't like JFK.

You don't just get rid of someone arbitrarily. Especially if they have a public following and great influence. You have to destroy their credibility first and demonize them to prevent the public from inquiring and asking to many questions.

JFK and Michael Jackson are the prime examples of this. Listen to MJ's songs and the message he was trying to convey. Does it really align to what he was accused of? and ohh by the way the F.B.I. realized a statement after his death saying that none of the accusations were true and that he was innocent.

Never take anything at face value, do the research yourself.

</comment><comment><USER35> Sorry I am not american.

Is it a fact that this really happened? Or just her word?

Did she work there?

have other people confirmed anything related to it?

Thanks

</comment><comment><USER36> remind me what this has to do with hackernews? Maybe someone understood jacker news? Even so, this is not really new...

<comment><USER37> Thank you for saying that! Hacker News use to be an amazing resource — now it's a tabloid magazine that you'd find in a supermarket

<comment><USER38> Perhaps the people voting up this article think that it qualifies for the "intellectually gratifying" in the guidelines. In that case, one can only wonder where in their bodies their "intellects" are located.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Still a better love story than Twilight.

</comment><comment><USER40> It's good to be the president!</comment>


Warrant Canary - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary <comment><USER2> While commenters are mentioning that this particular method has not been tested in court, is there any reason to believe that it wouldn't work? Similar situations have happened before when a group loudly says "no comment" and this is interpreted as a confirmation. E.g. in the case of the leaks last week, Google, Facebook, MS, etc explicitly denied that they were involved in blanket government surveillance, but Verizon only said "no comment"[1] in an internal email about the phone metadata news story. If the government could actually force them to lie, then they would have issued an explicit denial like the other companies.

Outside of spy fiction and conspiracy theories, I haven't seen any evidence that the government can legally force someone to lie (vs just a no comment) in order to cover up an NSL or FISA order.

Is there any evidence that they would able to force a company using a warrant canary to issue a fake one or respond with anything other than "no comment" to direct questions from the media?

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattlynley/verizons-internal-memo- to...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattlynley/verizons-internal-memo-to-employees- on-the-nsa-surveillance)

<comment><USER3> If you say "No comment" and it leaves open more than 1 possibility then it would be unfair to ascribe any particular positive statement to that.

On the other hand, if you're _pre-arranged_ that you will simply fail to communicate something after a certain event then there is no doubt what statement has been made. A judge will see right through this if it's tried and probably impose contempt of court. If one were to try something like this it would be essential to broaden the scope enough that it couldn't be used to reference a specific gag order.

<comment><USER4> Agree with the second half of this statement - this idea is too cute by half for the courts. Acts and omissions both have significance under the law, as does the context of acts and omissions. If the warrant canary convention was considered by the court as context for a statement, it is very likely the court would rule that a statement had been made. The only way around this would be to have an evidentiary mechanism by which a company can prove that it has no control over the canary. This gives rise to the old conundrum: it's logically impossible to prove a negative (although you might be able to under various burdens of proof like "balance of probabilities" or some such).

Edit: Ultimately, legality turns on the statutory language of the provision in the Patriot Act that obligates businesses not to disclose (anyone know what it is?). The approach as originally proposed by by Steven Schear ([http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cypherpunks-lne- archive/m...](http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cypherpunks-lne- archive/message/5869)) was for the ISP to simply not answer a direct inquiry by a customer about whether or not a warrant has been served. The advantage of this approach is that it is far harder to provide evidence to the effect that not responding to the question in that context is a statement. The disadvantage is that a non-response might not provide certainty to the person who asked the question. Effectively, the more that a clear convention is formed around the "canary mechanism", the higher the risk that a court would hold conduct in association with the convention in breach of the statutory obligation not to disclose.

<comment><USER5> Do you have a reference for "it's logically impossible to prove a negative"?

<comment><USER6> In Intuitionistic Logic, you cannot rely on ad absurdum proofs (no law of excluded middle). However, people usually believe in classical logic where proving that something is false is easy: we just need to prove it is not true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sadly, this probably would not hold up in court, if the government ever tried to challenge it (why would they, though? The last thing they want is a ruling against them; better to just threaten ISPs with more regulation). On the other hand, a company might get away with a plausibly inadvertent side channel e.g. something like this:

[http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcoms-gaming-lag-hints- spying-...](http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcoms-gaming-lag-hints- spying-121004/)

"Your honor, we went above and beyond the law, creating a special system for handling lawful surveillance requests by the FBI and NSA. Unfortunately, the expanding volume of surveillance requests has overwhelmed this system, resulting in unintentional increases in latency experienced by surveillance targets. Our technical support staff is developing a solution..."

</comment><comment><USER8> Anti Money Laundering legislation normally lists an offence known as 'tipping off'. If during a transaction a bank or regulated financial agent becomes suspicious of a client or a transaction then they are not only obligated to report it to the authorities but they are explicitly prevented from communicating their suspicions in any way to the client.

If the client is asking why the transaction or payment is delayed while the authorities investigate then the regulated company cannot mention the real reason and have to try and make up a lie or explain that some other entity is responsible for the delay and they don't know the real reason.

This is true in the UK at least and I assume you can see how it relates to the Warrant Canary concept. I will add that the tipping off offence is backed up with the threat of jail time for staff and directors in a company.

</comment><comment><USER9> What a difference submission time makes.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5419177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5419177)

<comment><USER10> The relevance of the article has changed, hence the upvotes. The point of the system is to deliver articles, that at any given time, are most relevant to the audience reading them (which is why I would imagine I have not seen many articles about Fortran frameworks or the Princess Diana death on the front page as of late). It's also the reason that articles have a karma decay formula based on time.

<comment><USER11> His point exactly

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Unfortunately, the disclosure of information via negation will almost certainly not hold up in a court of law.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps they could be sued either way. If a company states on their website that "We do not do X", and then starts doing X they are left with two choices, leaving a false message up or taking it down.

If they leave it up, and the truth eventually comes out, could they be sued for misleading their shareholders?

If they take it down does that open them up to being sued by the government?

<comment><USER13> National Security Letters grant the recipient immunity from civil lawsuits if you comply in good faith. They think of everything!

<comment><USER14> Really? I'd like to learn more about this, do you have a source?

(aside: Sorry for the downvote, my finger slipped up :/)

<comment><USER13> IANAL, but it appears to depend under which legal authority the letter is issued (Verizon's was 50 U.S.C. 436). See the chart on page 15: [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33320.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33320.pdf)

<comment><USER15> The chart of page 15 of the document you linked says a 50 USC 436 covers "all financial information relating to consenting, identified employee" but wasn't it used to obtain customer information from Verizon? What am I missing here? Is what the document is describing just one possible use case?

Edit: typo

<comment><USER13> You're right; I misread it. It's 50 U.S.C. 1861. Sorry, I'm out of my depth.

<comment><USER15> Lol so am I that's why I wanted to clarify. Thanks for clearing that up

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Too bad the law is interpreted by people and not computers. These kinds of hijinks are frowned upon in courts. "Here look, I'll illuminate the pixels that aren't part of the message and leave the other pixels dark!"

<comment><USER17> This is a very important distinction to remember when you hear people trying to find little technicalities around the law. This solution may subvert the letter of the law but it does not give you immunity from the spirit of the law (which is considered in courts).

Also, if you are going to try to make a play against the letter of the law you need to be excellent at maneuvering the details, which this solution is not. The definition of "disclose the existence of" is not confined to explicit verbal or written behavior and this could by every definition be disclosing the existence of something.

Something that would have a better chance of holding in court would be to encrypt the NSA Requests for information in a file, host them publicly but "lose" the keys. It would be hard to prove that it was more than negligence.

<comment><USER18> Wouldn't publicly hosting the files (even encrypted) be considered "disclosing"?

Then there's the "loss" of the keys - another act that is highly suspicious depending on how well it's orchestrated.

Finally, any documentation or meetings where you are outlining these moves would be highly interesting in such a case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So I'm going to send you a continuous stream of 1's saying currently my blueray play is not outputting a 1 from the movie 'The Godfather'

Wink wink.

<comment><USER20> [http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23)

<comment><USER21> The whole 4'33" thing kind of broke down for me; I thought the point for Cage was to capture the ambient sound of the area where the performance was taking place? He wasn't making a statement about different types of absolute silence, he was commenting on the different types of imperfect silence in an analog environment.

<comment><USER22> I think you're right. Cage's point was that silence doesn't exist. Much of his work was about denying the distinction between "music" as a predefined composition and "noise" as the other sounds going on. I remember an interview where he talked about how much he enjoyed listening to the traffic outside his apartment. It was clear that for him this was no different than listening to a musical performance; the thing that made it beautiful was the conscious attitude of the listener.

<comment><USER23> Indeed;

> I remember an interview where he talked about how much he enjoyed listening > to the traffic outside his apartment.

I recall that video - here it is:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcHnL7aS64Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcHnL7aS64Y)

<comment><USER22> Yes! That's it. At first I wasn't sure—I must have heard a shorter excerpt or something before—but then I recognized it. The whole thing is exquisite. He is so lovely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24>
        "The legality of this has not been tested in any court.[citation needed]"

I would imagine the kind of court that would test this concept would not be held under the eye of the public.

<comment><USER25> I like the "citation needed" there. Quite ironic in the context of orwelian policies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Or we can use the same logic that the Clapper and Alexander use. Instead of the canary, just publish a database containing a list of the NSLs. Distribute a client that syncs the database, and disallows logins if your user is affected. Politely ask that your users not attempt to view the information in the database that has been sent to them periodically.

Since no human actually read the contents, they didn't "collect" your communication, so you haven't broken the law.

Remember, they themselves set the legal standard so that you can have all of the data you want, but it doesn't count as you officially having it until you actually look at it!

</comment><comment><USER27> What if a company told all its customers this:

"We only have the capability to record your activity on server X. Currently you are using server Y. Click here to be re-assigned servers."

In other words, if such a company got an warrant regarding a user, they would always handle that user on server X. Therefore, that user would be able to tell they were being monitored (to some % certainty) by refreshing their server assignment several times. If they were always assigned to server X, they could conclude that the company was probably trying to record their activity. A user couldn't be 100% certain because it would be possible that they were randomly assigned to X every time.

</comment><comment><USER28> If the software is automatically set to report that the provider has not received a warrant, then when it receives an order, it must undertake an action to tell the software _not_ to post that it hasn't received an order. A judge would likely rule that this action is a violation of any confidentiality provisions, since the intent of the system is clearly laid out in advance. It's no different than working out a specific hand signal in advance to notify someone of trouble - flashing that signal is a violation.

<comment><USER29> just going wild here, but what if say, i create a license agreement with a third-party such that anytime data is retrieved from my backend system, it trips a wire, and this third party will receive the notification that this wire is tripped.

When the NSL comes, this system will disclose information, violating the NSL. So you are compelled by law to remove the trip wire. The third party periodically requests data from me, and notices the wire didn't trip.

What law was broken by the above scenario?

<comment><USER28> Well, that actually may fly (arguably). The difference between that and the "warrant canary" is that you are not specifically taking an action in response to the NSL that is designed to notify another person in violation of the order/letter. What you are talking about is more of an intrusion detection system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Simple solution: A startup firm that warrant canaries FOR you. Every week your company receives a phone call. The pre-arranged contact is asked "Were any federal subpeonas issued for you to disclose customer data in a blanket fashion?"

The normal reply would (hopefully) no. Otherwise it might be "no comment."

I believe this would absolve the contact in question from perjuring themselves under the fifth amendment and would be no different than those "our website is hackproof" badges that get sold.

If someone wants to run with the idea, I'm game.

<comment><USER10> This is essentially the same system, but with a middle man. It may obfuscate some of the players involved, but it doesn't solve the issue that you are still disclosing information due to the pre-agreed context of the conversation.

<comment><USER31> I wonder about the situation where you didn't pre-arrange it. You just start cold-calling companies and asking them on a regular basis. Assuming you found a company that started out giving you a straight answer, then later moved to "no comment" due to receiving such a thing, which one of you would be liable?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> rsync.net has done this for quite some time, although I have no idea if it's ever been challenged:

[http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt](http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt)

<comment><USER10> As is pointed out in the wikipedia article, Warrant Canaries have not been tested in a court of law.

<comment><USER33> It is logically possible that they _have_ been tested, and struck down, in a secret court.

<comment><USER34> Or there might be a secret law making them secretly illegal

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> A number of people have pointed out that this method probably wouldn't hold up in courts because you are, in effect, communicating the existence of a NSL by ceasing to update the canary. And when courts consider the legal rights of a government body charged with fighting terrorism against the ill defined rights of a server owner to control the content of their server, the rights of the former are likely to trump those of the latter.

But since the purpose of this method is to effect civil disobedience, maybe the same end could be realized via different means. Hypothetically speaking, if a service provider kept a database of all NSLs received, but failed to strongly secure the database, leading to its access by an outside third party, this shouldn't constitute "communication". The database could perhaps be made accessible via a URL ("to enable remote workers to view and process NSLs" or some plausible justification) but protected by a weak password. An employee of that service provider could then secretly leak the password to a third party. Bad network security is not a crime, and unless the third party revealed that the password had been leaked, there would be no way to prove that it wasn't guessed or brute forced.

</comment><comment><USER36> See also: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_deadly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_deadly)

Fail deadly mechanisms go off unless they are explicitly told not to. During the cold war, Russia implemented fail deadly policies in an attempt to assure a retaliatory nuclear strike would go off even if most in power were taken out by a first strike.

<comment><USER37> I always thought that the doomsday machine in "Dr. Strangelove" was an invention of Kubrick's. I had no idea that this was a real thing.

<comment><USER38> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertvaya_Ruka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertvaya_Ruka)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wasn't there a recent story where Gmail asks the user to renew their agreement to the Gmail ToS as a hint to their email being accessed?

</comment><comment><USER40> Has any hacky workaround like this ever held up in a court?

<comment><USER41> > Have any technicalities every held up in court?

(fixed that for you)

of course they have. For example, having corporate "document retention" policies that are actually destruction policies is usual to avoid risks associated with legal discovery.

And _actus reus_ is a fairly critical technical element of the law. If a company has a policy of issuing (true) warrant canaries, the non-act of not issuing a (false) canary would be a significant technical hurdle to prosecution. And the 1st amendment would be a significant hurdle to coercing a person to issue (false) canaries.

<comment><USER42> Part of the risk that "document retention" policies mitigate is the risk of a staggeringly expensive legal discovery phase--not just the removal of potentially damaging correspondence per se. Imagine that your company kept 100,000 volumes of dense text on file, and frequently had to pay a legal team to pore over those volumes and think about which parts might be germane to routine legal disputes. Good for the lawyers' billing, but ruinous for the business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I was wondering about something similar yesterday; the feasibility of a provider truthfully indicating receipt whilst staying within the confines of the law.

For a 'regular' warrant, a provider can "confirm" or "deny" being served. Presumably they can "deny" being served a secret warrant if one hasn't been served, because the terms of a secret warrant presumably only require them to decline acknowledgement if they've been served, in which case they could "neither confirm nor deny", couldn't they?

<comment><USER44> You can't reveal that you've been served. What you actually tell people is your problem, not the courts.

<comment><USER29> its not as simple as that imho.

What if you had a security vulnerability on a server which contains a record of NSL's/subpoenas (for administration purposes), which is conveniently exposed on the internet. A customer could "hack" your server, and obtain the information, thus it isn't the ISP's fault - in fact, the isp claims no knowledge of this vulnerability at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This concept strikes me as really _weak_. It acts under the pretense that a gag order is valid. The whole concept of a gag order needs to be confronted, not skittered away from.

<comment><USER10> Within the construct of the US government, these type of gag orders are legally valid at this point in time. Whether they should be is another matter all together, but given precedent, the assumption that they are valid is rational.

<comment><USER45> Weren't they ruled unconstitutional? [http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/fbis-national- sec...](http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/fbis-national-security- letter-gag-orders-violate-1st-amendment-ruled-unconstitutional)

<comment><USER10> Some gag orders have been. Other types have not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Instead of a news headline, they could use an entry in the Bitcoin ledger to prove that the canary is current ([http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2013/05/bitcoin-is-public- ledg...](http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2013/05/bitcoin-is-public-ledger.html))

EDIT: Actually, they could simply include the hash of a recent block in the blockchain.

</comment><comment><USER47> This could have been invented by Raymond Smullyan

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Smullyan#Logic_problems](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Smullyan#Logic_problems)

</comment><comment><USER48> Asking whether this will hold up in court is asking the wrong question. National Security Letters _themselves_ are highly unlikely to hold up in court.

The whole premise rests on people being intimidated into not fighting it.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is fucking hilarious.

</comment><comment><USER50> There is a lot of confusion around this topic so let's get something out of the way: none of the companies mentioned in the leak were served ANY search warrants.

The participating companies were active participants in the spying scheme using the Patriot Act and FISA requests, not search warrants.</comment>


Ask HN: lighttpd and Rhino - Need some hacker help - <AUTHOR>

Yeah, not a news story. But I'm trying to hack, need some help, and can't find an answer anywhere.
I'm trying to get Mozilla Rhino(server-side javascript interpreter) working alongside lighttpd. Basically I'm trying to experiment with making my own little setup to see how well server side javascript as a scripting language can work. Has anyone know what's necessary to get web requests to lighttpd to be interpreted by Rhino, then returned to the user?
Gratsi! <comment><USER2> Rhino being Java based it's a lot easier to get it running under Tomcat.</comment>


This is why I don't like "NULL" - <AUTHOR> http://olabini.com/blog/2009/03/bottom-types-in-dynamic-languages/

<comment><USER2> Definitely has some insightful commentary, but I feel like he hasn't gotten into the heart of the subject matter.

Haskell has something like NULL, it's called "undefined". At first, it feels like it's an ugly hack, something provided by the language designers as an afterthought. But it's theoretically sound, and pretty easy to construct manually. Just open up your Haskell REPL and type...

let x = x

This is an infinite loop. Another way to look at it is "let x = (let f x = f x in f ())". You will see x :: t, a single type variable, the most general polymorphic type. (This is also known as bottom type). In other words, it can be used anywhere, just like "NULL".

Shouldn't there be no values of bottom type in a statically typed language? How could this happen? Laziness. Try to force x, and you will find out that it never terminates. Because of laziness, any argument to any function could be a suspended infinite loop, or a suspended thrown exception. You just don't find out until you need the actual value bound to that name.

So, how is Haskell's undefined different from the NULL of so many languages? In one very key way... with NULL, one can check for NULLness. You can say "if (x == NULL)". With undefined, there's no way to express that. Any kind of expression that forces the value of undefined should itself be undefined.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Ola Bini has some really amazingly insightful comments sometimes...this is definitely one of those times.

Understanding Bottom Types from a functional perspective really helps to understand the danger with NULL in other languages. Also, this is one of those times where I can see "pure" CS informing "practical" CS.</comment>


Your CV in LaTeX - part four - <AUTHOR> http://stefano.italians.nl/archives/50

<comment><USER2> (Really sorry if this post sounds like a job search, I have a good job and am not looking for one). 10 months ago someone posted a story on programming.reddit on how to write your CV using LaTeX; I put a link to mine and released the source. I got praise for it, so I'd like to share it here as well.

This is the "neat LATEX Résumé" on [http://linux.dsplabs.com.au/resume- writing-example-latex-tem...](http://linux.dsplabs.com.au/resume-writing- example-latex-template-linux-curriculum-vitae-professional-cv-layout-format- text-p54/)

Direct link to the PDF (French résumé): <http://n.favrefelix.free.fr/cv.pdf>

<comment><USER3> Thanks! This is Neat. I can actually read your .cls file without getting a TeX headache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As much as I like LaTeX, It's not something I would typeset my resumé in. Then again, I was a graphic designer in another life and I think that resumés that stand out, stand a chance.

I can tell you that when I'm looking through a pile of resumés, the ones that are actually interesting/eye catching are probably the ones of the people who I want working with me.

</comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't everyone make their CV in Latex?

<comment><USER6> Before I went self-employed, I was involved in hiring for the company I worked for. 99% of CVs were MS Word documents. Also, most of them were pretty bad, especially the ones coming in through agencies. (no clear structure, terrible formatting, butchered English)

Personally, I've always maintained mine in (very plain) HTML and LaTeX versions.</comment></comment>


"Just Ban the Nazis," and the Exasperation of Sociotechnical Platform Politics - <AUTHOR> http://eegilbert.org/posts/just-ban-the-nazis/ <comment><USER2> It's easy to determine that Nazis are bad. It's far harder to agree on who the present-day Nazis are.

<comment><USER3> >It's far harder to agree on who the present-day Nazis are.

No it isn't.

Do you believe Jews, homosexuals and non-white races are inferior to straight whites? Do you believe the white race is the sole creator and rightful inheritor of civilization, and that multiculturalism and race mixing is a threat to that civilization? Do you identify as a Nazi, Neo-Nazi, white supremacist or white separatist? Do you believe the Holocaust either never happened or else that the Jews had it coming?

Then you're a Nazi.

Do you believe any of the above while supporting the use of violence to further those ends?

Then you're _definitely_ a Nazi.

Do you identify as "alt-right?"

Then you may not be a Nazi, but you seem comfortable having them as allies, which isn't much better.

Do you use Nazi imagery and rhetoric ironically?

Then you're an idiot who wants to be mistaken for a Nazi as a laugh, so enjoy being mistaken for a Nazi. No one is laughing, though.

<comment><USER2> Perhaps I should have said "Nazis", i.e., fascists, totalitarians, etc. The kind of people described in this brilliant essay: [https://quillette.com/2019/02/21/what-my-days-as-a- marxist-t...](https://quillette.com/2019/02/21/what-my-days-as-a-marxist- taught-me-about-modern-political-cults/)

An important part of this is agreeing on who is _not_ a Nazi. Someone isn't a Nazi just by dint of disagreeing with me. Certainly they're not a Nazi for having voted for President Trump, or favoring well-ordered and lawful immigration policies.

The real deal is amazingly rare. In my long life, I've never met an actual Nazi (by your tests), nor even been in the presence of anyone I imagined might be one.</comment></comment></comment>


Landmark math proof clears hurdle in top Erdős conjecture - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark-math-proof-clears-hurdle-in-top-erdos-conjecture-20200803/ <comment><USER2> The conjecture by Erdős is the following: if A ⊂ ℕ is such that Σ_{n ∈ A} 1/n diverges, then A contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. Bloom and Sisask now proved that A contains infinitely many length-3 arithmetic progressions, following from their main result which is an improved upper bound for Roth's theorem.

[https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03528](https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03528)

<comment><USER3> > The conjecture by Erdős is the following: if A ⊂ ℕ is such that Σ_{n ∈ A} > 1/n diverges, then A contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions

This is quite hard to understand for people who don't already know what it means (including me). I started trying to translate it but there were a few parts I didn't understand, starting with:

1.) Is ℕ integers >0 or >=0? Wikipedia says it can be either. Maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe it must be >0 otherwise 1/n makes no sense?

2.) When you ask whether the sum of 1/n for all n in A diverges, how do you know what order to sum them in? Does it diverge regardless of the order? Since A only contains positive integers doesn't sum of 1/n for all n in A always tend towards infinity?

EDIT: I see now that sum of positive integers doesn't always tend towards infinity, thanks to ColinWright's comment about powers of 2 (for which the sum of 1/n tends towards 1).

Also, since the numbers are all positive, it doesn't matter what order you sum them in, you're basically just asking whether the sum of 1/n for all the numbers in A is finite or not.

<comment><USER4> Dense math can often be complex to decipher. Sometimes it feels like reading an esoteric codebase to me!

1) Yes in this case 0 is not included in N. I've seen N defined both ways depending on the context, so it can be confusing when it's not given explicitly.

2) By definition, a series sum is based on the limit of partial prefix sums. E.g 1/a_1, 1/a_1+1/a_2, ... It is an interesting question mathematically, if the sum stays the same when you arbitrarily rearrange the terms of the series. In general the answer is no (see Riemann rearrangement theorem), but as this series is only made up of positive reals, it can be rearranged arbitrarily without change in how it converges (or doesn't).

To the second part of your question, take any geometric series, i.e. A = {1, r, r^2, ...}, then it will converge. There are other classes of series that will converge in this case, and the conjecture is basically asking to characterize sets with diverging series as needing to be "large and dense" in a certain sense.

<comment><USER2> Note that a geometric series can also be a multiple, e.g. (a, a r, a r^2, ...). It converges if and only if |r| < 1.

<comment><USER4> Good point, I was not being fully general there!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For people interested in arithmetic progression type theorems, one of my favorite theorems along those lines (though technically not actually about arithmetic progressions, but extremely closesly related), and a very under- appreciated gem, is Hindman's Theorem.

Hindman's Theorem says that if you color the natural numbers with finitely many colors, there must be some infinite subset D of the natural numbers such that every finite sum of elements of D has the same color.

The proof, asontonishingly, is an application of free ultrafilters, and is actually simple enough that someone with an advanced undergrad background in pure math can understand it with just a few hours of reading (e.g. see [1])

[1] [https://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/lg5/Hindman.pdf](https://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/lg5/Hindman.pdf)

</comment><comment> P-NP Very promising, although the jury is still out: "The new paper is 77 pages long, and it will take time for mathematicians to check it carefully. But many feel optimistic that it is correct. "It really looks the way a proof of this result should look," said Katz, whose earlier work laid much of the groundwork for this new result."

</comment><comment> dmch-1 I find the existence of number theoretic problems quite puzzling. I wonder what are the implications about the world we can make from them.

<comment><USER6> Aha, it's an ontological question. Most mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, etc don't exist in the world we live in, but exist in a special world called "Platonic world". That's what Platonism in philosophy of mathematics is about.

<comment> dmch-1 I agree that numbers don't exist in the real world. However, we humans have an ability to perceive the world through numbers. The question then is about our perception of the world if you wish.

<comment><USER6> There is a subtle issue lurking behind. And that can be framed as a question: can one access things(say, numbers) that do not exist? If the answer is "Yes", then we don't need the Platonic world. Otherwise, we need to postulate the existence of numbers and sets in another world (Platonic world). You can also see people who are looking for Platonic love.

In other words, it is an issue between access and existence. Does access need existence? For instance, when X says 'John is charismatic', is 'charisma' like 'neurosis'? Definitely not, and X sees John's charisma. And this charisma doesn't play the causal role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Worth noting that the Green-Tao Theorem is a very special case of this conjecture, using the (comparatively easier to prove) fact that Σ 1/p diverges.

</comment><comment><USER8> Does it get us closer tot he twin prime conjecture?

<comment><USER9> No</comment></comment>