Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related <comment><USER2> A lot to learn from this video about explaining things:

\- Know your stuff. It's obvious he's been over all of this hundreds of times.

\- Figure out great analogies and other aids. Part 3: 5:20 he makes an analogy out of multiplying bacteria in a bottle that fill it in an hour to show us at what point of the exponential function you notice your in one. It's got two parts and is very effective. It allows him to say things like "5 minutes before the bottle is full."

\- Introduce your aids gradually and keep using them. Make clever decisions about your aids and make sure they accumulate to a powerful toolset. After that analogy which all the time he introduces the analogy above he has:

      - A trick for calculating doubling time 70/annual growth in %
      - A graph
      - A table
      - An example (Boulder) that he keeps running scenarios on.
      - The bacteria analogy

By the time he's 20-30 minutes into a lecture, this guy has a very powerful vocabulary built up. He can take something like oil consumption and examine it with you very quickly using these tools. The bacteria in a bottle analogy is a great example of this. Once he's explained it (kind of hard) and practised it once or twice, he can say _"What time is it?"_ and immediately have his audience understand something relatively complex. .

</comment><comment><USER3> Before people freak out about exponential growth, please consider John McCarthy's Slogan. (Yes, _that_ John McCarthy; Lisp isn't the only thing he's done.)

      He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

<http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html>

Based on reactions to this video (among other things), I'd add Hartl's Counterpoint:

      Just because you're willing to do arithmetic doesn't
      mean you're not talking nonsense.

In case you're wondering _why_ you shouldn't freak out, I offer you this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function>

<comment><USER4> Huh. This guy is simply making the very basic point that politicians, economists and bankers selling us "growth" as a solution to unemployment, debt, etc are plainly lying. Growth (population, GDP, energy availability, etc) will stop at some point. An economy that relies entirely on growth to merely function is doomed to fail spectacularly at some point in time.

<comment><USER5> I agree that population growth cannot go on forever (although I consider doubling the current number quite likely). However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Things like solar energy in all its variations is also a source we basically aren't using at all. Give us 50-100 years an we'll no doubt come up with some new source of energy we haven't even considered yet.

<comment><USER4> > However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many > many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear > fission, to say nothing about fusion.

Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. Industrial nuclear fusion is decades away, probably a century.

From the 18th century onwards, we went from tapping ever better energy sources (denser, lighter): animal power, coal, oil. There aren't any better energy source than oil available now, or in the foreseeable future. At some point, we'll have to do with /less/.

<comment><USER6> "At some point, we'll have to do with /less/."

This part of the long business cycle always produces a lot of arguments for austerity. So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

"Nuclear fission is currently on decline."

Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance and we appear to be laying the groundwork for the next stage of advances: gas- and metal-cooled reactors, superconductors, mechanical compression systems, reliable mode-locked lasers, dielectric wall and wake field particle accelerators, electronics that can do real-time gigahertz feedback, etc.

When the next long expansion gets into full swing, I predict that the nuclear logjam will break loose.

"There aren't any better energy source than oil available now, or in the foreseeable future."

There's a lot of solar power in space. _A lot_. And literal mountains of metal, richer than the best terrestrial ores and pre-smelted too. At some point technology will tip the profit margin positive on exploiting it.

<comment><USER4> > So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

So far, there weren't 7 billions humans neither.

> Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance

Absolutely not. This is GE and AREVA PR, but doesn't reflect the truth. We aren't building enough nuclear plants now to compensate for the future closing of the old ones. The numbers aren't even ramping up fast enough. As time goes by, there will be less and less active nuclear plants.

Fusion research is blooming, but it didn't make much progress, particularly compared to the huge effort (see ITER).

> There's a lot of solar power in space. A lot. And literal mountains of > metal, richer than the best terrestrial ores and pre-smelted too. At some > point technology will tip the profit margin positive on exploiting it.

This is science-fiction. I'm pretty close to say this is complete BS. "Space ore" simply can't happen unless you find the way to harvest the power from some magic ponies yet to discover.

<comment><USER5> I totally agree that we aren't building enough nuclear power plants, but that is purely for political reasons. The research is still happening and once there is a change in the political climate we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades.

Also if we look back at the past 1000 (or even just 100) years of human history, we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes.

<comment><USER4> > we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades.

Maybe if thorium comes on the radar.

> we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all > shapes and sizes.

Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.

<comment><USER7> The ancient Greeks even had an initial stream engine, but never put it to practical use, relegating it to parlor/temple game.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile>

<comment><USER4> That's what I mean : they had the ability to go to industrial age, they lacked the will, the impulse.

<comment><USER8> Also, they had slavery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Neat math trick from the video:

70 / x = number of years of constant growth required for a quantity to double given that it grows at x percent

The example used in the video: if the price of lift tickets goes up by 7% per year, in 10 years, that price will double.

(and actually, the constant 70 is an approximation, the actual constant is ln (2) * 100)

<comment><USER10> It's also a useful way to tell when your investments will double in value. 5% interest: 70/5 = 14 years to double your money.

<comment><USER11> It also works for inflation or other yearly recurring charges. Those small percentages add up quickly - at 3% inflation and 2% charges the value of your investment in today's dollars/euros will halve in 14 years. Yikes!

<comment><USER12> Yes, but why use it, when you can do a logarithm?

<comment><USER13> Few people can do logarithms in their heads - and those that can, usually do it using similar tricks. I realize that "doing math in your head" is well on the decline, but it is pretty essential for speedy approximations, which are what many decisions tend to be based on.

<comment><USER12> Yes. I was more on the line of suggesting taking out your calculator, if you want to know when your investment doubles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've thought about his point that lowering the death rate makes the problem of population growth worse a lot, especially in the context of Africa and the like.

"Oh they're starving because they get almost no rain, so that land really shouldn't support anywhere near as many people as are there. Let's give them food aid."

10 years elapse, and say they're getting 7% per year growth thanks to food aid keeping them from starving, lack of contraception, etc.

"Oh, there's twice as many of them now, so they're starving despite our current food aid. Double the food aid!"

Repeat until you realize that you can't double the food aid forever.

<comment><USER15> The trick is realizing that the last 3 words of your third sentence are the most important part of your slightly offensive post. That, and education.

Starving a people until they can eat off of the barren land they inhabit is certainly one way of taking care of the problem. Educating them on the merits of contraceptives, and teaching them how to use their land to greater effect is another.

<comment><USER16> Africa is not a barren land, much of Africa is perfect for farming. Much of Africa is not "perfect" for farming, but well good enough. However, if you have external nations bringing you food for free, why the hell would you go through the trouble to grow a crop, it's seriously hard work!

And, if you're in the part of Africa where growing crops is not feasible....move?

<comment><USER17> You realize that this isn't about renting a U-haul, right? It's about traveling, on foot or by public transportation, to somewhere where you don't own any land, don't speak the language, and don't know anyone. In other words, to become a refugee. There are plenty of people like that already, but they tend to move to the cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not usually a fan of long talking-head videos but this was absolutely worthwhile. What's most chilling is the story of the bottle and the bacteria, and the realization that somehow finding a whole new planet would only tide us over for a couple more generations, after which we'd need two more....

<comment><USER19> But it's all considered in a vacuum. Even though the majority of the population don't understand the problem, this is ok. We have an economic system that benefits those who predict impending needs and place themselves in situations to provide for them.

Take a look at the green industry ramping up. In the not too distance future, I think most of us here expect oil replacement to be highly profitable.

I disagree with these doomsday predictions from pure arithmetic. It seems to me that the reverse is true - exponential "problems" provide the core drive for our economy. What drives the entire start-up industry? I'd say it's identifying profitable exponential growth scenarios and providing for them. To me, this explains how primarily capitalist countries tend toward stability, until them become strangled by ever increasing regulation (that's not to say I'm against regulation in general, but I think we need to be as proactive about removing it as we are about adding it [wow, I went off topic there]).

<comment><USER17> Yes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.

<comment><USER20> That's not a good goal. And besides not being good, it's also impossible if you are trying to avoid mass catastrophe.

Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die.

But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the goal.

<comment><USER17> In the short term, sudden changes in energy consumption are very disruptive. (For example, see gas prices and the auto industry last year.) But a longer- term, gradual shift towards less energy usage need not be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The best illustration of the concept, imo, is that with sustained 1.3%/year world population growth, we'll reach a population density of 1 person per square _meter_ of land in only 780 years.

<comment><USER21> give me some context; how many meters per a person are we at currently? / Then give me some focus; what will it be at in my life span... 50 years?

<comment><USER22> Just for fun, I made a quick calc for you: <http://tinyurl.com/3xl32bx>

In 50 years at 1.3% growth we'll basically double our population, and go from about 8000 m^2 per person to 4000 m^2 per person. After 780 years, the growth starts adding up, you can play with the numbers.

<comment><USER14> Wow, instacalc is pretty awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> People don't understand exponentials very well because human perception is scaled logarithmically. For example, both the apparent magnitude scale for celestial objects and the loudness scale for sounds (measured in decibels) are logarithmic.

<comment><USER24> If our perception is scaled logarithmically, wouldn't that give us an intuitive sense for exponentials?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Part of the problem is that the distant future to humans is never any further out than ~70 years - eg our lifespans.

Exponential resource waste, population growth, etc doesn't become a non- survivable event for a few more generations - at that point we may actually start to see realistic change.

</comment><comment><USER26> Definitely worth watching the entire series, but for those looking to save time: the first video covers the main point and the subsequent videos in the series just reinforce its significance.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think we actually do have a deep implicit understanding of the exponential function, and THAT may be our greatest shortcoming. We don't understand it precisely, and we don't intuitively relate to "4^x".

But we very intuitively get things like "really big changes will come from small things" And we rate highly getting a seemingly small increase in personal ability. This is why videos like this can capture our attention at all. It seems like a basic ability to recognize and reason approximately about exponential growth is required to do agriculture.

I think this is why we like RPG's and katamari damacy, and talking about peak oil.

I think that this mental flag also makes us extremely sensitive of people 'from the wrong tribe' being in our area.

In short, I think that we were surrounded by exponential functions in our ancestral environment, and developed an ability to recognize them and see them as very important, with out really knowing what they are.

</comment><comment><USER28> I haven't gotten back into the habit of watching lectures in a while, but this was one of the best ones I've watched in a long time. Thought it was super cheesy at first, and didn't think I was going to keep watching, but it kept me rapt the entire time.

</comment><comment><USER29> A note on the rest of the series: He spends the remaining time outlining some impending Malthusian catastrophe / peak oil scenario. For a counterpoint, check out anything by Julian Simon.

<comment><USER17> Actually, he doesn't think much of Julian Simon and says why.

<comment><USER29> Which is why I offer Simon as a counterpoint.

Simon believed that there is more than simple arithmetic (as Bartlett calls it) when it comes to growth. You have to throw something like technology into the mix, which is difficult to predict.

The Simon-Erlich bet is a good, real-world illustration of their disagreements.

<comment><USER30> Ehrlich was a jackass who made hysterical predictions. In the 70s, he was predicting an imminent Malthusian disaster - like this - [http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/7/18/the-population- bom...](http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/7/18/the-population-bomb- scenario-3-1970.html)

That's a long way from Bartlett.

Don't take Ehrlich as a spokesman for anybody who believes in limits to growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> In part three he brilliantly draws a distinction between the objective sciences and others and subtly, if I'm understanding correctly, critiques a proponent of uncontrolled population grown by pointing out that the proponents degree from the same university is not a degree in "mathematics, in science, nor in engineering".

Feynman made explicit observations on this topic, quite critical ones, if I remember right.

</comment><comment><USER32> Anyone find any good graphs about population growth? I asked wolframalpha and was pretty dissapointed, google found this article which I found interesting. Second graph in particular. Seems at 1000 and 1400 there were some drastic growth rate shifts.

<http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/18/1387/0641>

<comment><USER33> From another comment:

[http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population- growth...](http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/)

You can play with the data here: [http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly...](http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=1950$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0TAlJeCEzcGQ;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.7454;dataMax=8.6$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=22;dataMax=84$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=;example=59)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've always had this idea in my mind that the 'legendary failure rate of IT projects' is best explained in terms of an exponential increase in points of failure (or even just points of activity) when you deal with computer systems. Are there any famous papers that flesh out this idea? Anyone?

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm curious what the average price of gall bladder surgery is now. In it his students project 25K by 2000, which we are obviously quite a way past. If you're uninsured, this amount sounds about right likely these days.

Great video. I'm on part 2 and I'll finish the rest in the morning.

<comment><USER36> The HealthCare Blue Book tells an interesting story:

* $16,435 for traditional gall bladder removal, somewhat below the estimate [http://healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=75&da...](http://healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=75&dataset=MD)

* $6,934 for the modern minimally invasive equivalent, far below the estimate [http://healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=74&da...](http://healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=74&dataset=MD)

More evidence that projecting trends without considering technical progress is bound to result the sort of overly pessimistic results that Malthus made famous.

For example, Dr. Bartlett's two-column view on population assumes that people will need some certain number of square feet of land. But why wouldn't we build up, ala NYC? Or settle the ocean (<http://seasteading.org/>)? Or colonize the stars? Or perhaps even transfer our consciousness to some more efficient representation?

Yes, exponential growth presents problems, but exponential progress in technology has the power to solve them. That's where we (and others like us) come in.

<comment><USER10> If you watch the video, you'll see why "find more land" isn't a sustainable solution. Ultimately, population growth just needs to stabilize at 0% to solve the running out of space problem (but not the running out of resources problem, which is where technology is more likely to help).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Well one benefit of increasing population is that we increase the chances of geniuses being born, and increase the diversity of the population.

<comment><USER38> There's an old joke that says:

      The intellect of the planet is a constant, the population is increasing.

genius != intelligence, but still :)</comment></comment>


The differrence between 4G AND LTE explained well - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/4g-vs-lte/ <comment><AUTHOR> "the regulating body decided that LTE, the name given to the technology used in pursuit of those standards, could be labeled as 4G if it provided a substantial improvement over the 3G technology. Immediately networks began advertising their connections as 4G LTE, a marketing technique that allowed them to claim next-gen connectivity without having to reach the actual required number first; it would be like the U.S. claiming they had landed on the moon because they got pretty close and the spaceship that got them there was a lot better than the previous ship."

</comment><comment><USER2> haha</comment>


ReCAPTCHA: simultaneously protecting against bots and digitizing books - <AUTHOR> http://recaptcha.net/

<comment><USER2> While I'm not sure this is news (well not anymore) I love ReCAPTCHA.

What I especially like about ReCAPTCHA is the engineering elegance. The second word is hard to break by hackers because it already failed a machine OCR algorithm (obviously that doesn't solve "Turking").

I also like that they have an audio CAPTCHA making their solution accessible by default. This is something a lot of home grown solutions lack. The Web should remain a place for everyone with or without a visual impairment.

<comment><USER3> "The second word is hard to break by hackers because it already failed a machine OCR algorithm"

But, from what I understand, the hackers don't have to get that word correct. The system only checks the answer to the known one, right?

<comment><USER2> I think the known ones were previously decoded by humans not machines. I could be wrong. But that would make it a bit crap as you say.

<comment><USER3> "The user is then asked to read both words. If they solve the one for which the answer is known, the system assumes their answer is correct for the new one."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> WHY IS THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE?

reCAPTCHA has been around for ages. This isn't something new. Everyone knows about it. It's also widely implemented.

I would like to add however, I _hate_ reCAPTCHA. If you are a web developer who has added reCaptcha to your site, remove it. If you are thinking about adding it in, _don't do it_! reCAPTCHA takes the annoying in a CAPTCHA and multiplies it by two. No longer are the days where you have to solve _one_ illegible CAPTCHA, now you have to do _two_. Plus, one of them is so bad that OCR software couldn't recognize it.

It's not your or your users job to digitize books. You aren't doing the world some great justice or charity by implementing reCAPTCHA on your site. If you want to digitize books, go help develop better OCR software. If you want to stop spam, there are better, less invasive methods.

<comment><USER5> _Plus, one of them is so bad that OCR software couldn't recognize it._

... that's the point?

<comment><USER4> they're not colourful or textured or on a background or anything. If OCR software can't recognize black type (of a familiar typeface) on white, it must be pretty messed up.

I'm just saying it that making the user do this _twice_ is just plain unusable and annoying.

<comment><USER2> Anecdotally I've found ReCAPTCHA's CAPTCHA easier to fill in than other CAPTCHA that do strange distortions to obfuscate perfectly rendered text.

It seems the human brain is much more adept at decoding the black and white noise resolved in a crappy scan than the artificial manipulations applied by a computer algorithm.

It also seems the opposite is true for computers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I fucking despise ReCAPTCHA. The conceited _'digitizing books'_ canard is so deviously yuppie-guilt-tripping. I've never found any publishings as to the results -- have they actually done _anything_ with the returned text?

CAPTCHAs themselves are rarely the best option -- they're only useful for unauthenticated submissions to extremely prominent sites (Google Accounts, Craigslist) and to extremely popular/poorly-written software (Movable Type, Wordpress).

If I'm already authenticated, or if I'm authenticating from a high-value OpenID provider (Google, etc.) I should not be solving any goddamn CAPTCHAs. If I'm anonymous (or effectively so with an unknown OpenID provider) it's ok to CAPTCHA me, but before you implement them think first about whether anyone's actually going to _ATTACK YOU WITH A BOTNET_. Unless you're a high- value target for griefing, the only way that's going to happen is if your site is an identical clone in a decrepit monoculture.

<comment><USER6> Come to think of it I almost never see any that wouldn't be straightforwardly OCRable pre-mutilation...

It'd be hilarious if the whole OCR thing was a gimmick and nothing more!

<comment><USER7> Your two comments don't add a lot of value to the discussion. (If you'd like, I can go into details as to why they don't.) If you care about that kind of thing, then please try to communicate more calmly and clearly in the future.</comment></comment></comment>


Charles H. Moore – PROGRAMMING a PROBLEM-ORIENTED-LANGUAGE [~1970] - <AUTHOR> http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> Just the goal:

 _My goal has been to decrease the effort required and increase the quality produced._

and the Basic Principles:

      * Keep it Simple
      * Do Not Speculate!
      * Do It Yourself!

Are worth a read.

The work of C.Moore around Forth/Stack Machines and overall, doing more with less, as always amazed me!</comment>


Woz and Religion - <AUTHOR> http://danwin.com/2012/09/woz-religion/

<comment><USER2> I don't see how Woz not falling for Scientology's "pay us money and you'll finally be happy" - scheme has anything to do with religion.

Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like the author is trying to read something into this that isn't there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure what you mean...Many adherents of religion do so because it fulfills them, especially in the sense of providing a community. It's not as if all the members of Scientology joined because they, deep down inside, _love_ the idea of paying money to join a group. Maybe in this case, it was the idea of having to pay money that particularly turned Woz off. But I think it's clear he didn't feel that an external group, period, would give him (extra) happiness.

<comment><USER2> _But I think it's clear he didn't feel that an external group, period, would give him (extra) happiness._

I am not really sure that this is very clear from the quote, nor do I see what it has to do with religion. I have not read the book so I might be missing some info, but from this quote alone it's really hard to make those assumptions. For all you know one of the things he already has in his life that makes him happy might actually be a religion of some sorts.

<comment><AUTHOR> You make a good point, and I was being resistant to it because I was actually trying to abstract the concept of Scientology away from its usual (negative) connotations because what Woz describes is a situation common to many forms of modern organized religion, even as Scientology has been particularly scrutinized on this point.

Religion aims to find truth and happiness; the OP title is simply stating, "This is Woz's take on religion". It can be interpreted as, "He does't like organized religion" or "Woz has his own religion of sorts, having found inner peace and happiness in his own unique way". That the evangelist here is a Scientologist (or that there is any evangelist at all) is mostly besides the point.

For more perspective, here is the other large passage in which Woz talks about religion:

> _I had come to learn of Jesus, from my friend Randy Adair in college, that > he always tried to find ways toward peace. Although I'm not a Christian per > se, and don't belong to any religion, what Jesus the historical figure stood > for were things I stood for, and those stories Randy told me about him > struck a chord with me emotionally. I didn't believe in violence or hurting > people. At De Anza, I thought deeply about the war. I considered myself to > be athletic and brave. But would I shoot a bullet at another human being? I > remember sitting alone at the white Formica table in my bedroom, coming to > the conclusion that I could let someone shoot at me, but I couldn't shoot > back. I thought, What if I'm in Vietnam and I'm shooting at some guy? He's > just like me, that guy. He sits down just like I do. He plays cards and he > eats pizza, or the equivalent of it, just like normal people I know. He has > a family. Why would I want to hurt this person? He might have his reasons > for being where he is in the world—and Vietnam had its reason—but none of > these reasons ever touched me in California. From that standpoint, I could > see how this war could be a pretty dangerous one for me. Because I was > morally and truthfully a conscientious objector in every sense. But the > military only counted you as one if you were in a church (which made you > exempt from conflict duties), and I had no church. I had no religion. I just > had my own logic. So I wasn't a conscientious objector, I just objected to > my personally having to kill or hurt anyone._

Wozniak, Steve (2007-10-17). iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon (pp. 73-74). Norton. Kindle Edition.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yahoo CEO tees off on media - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=48146 <comment><USER2> Does anyone care about them anymore? Except for Hadoop and BOSS, there isn't anything worth mention. And 100m USD is insane it just shows how desperate they are to market themselves to people who don't know what a browser is.</comment>


Show HN: EmojiGenie 🧞 – emoji search with 1-click copy written in React - <AUTHOR> https://emojigenie.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote EmojiGenie to teach myself React, and I decided to launch it today on humanity's most important holiday, World Emoji Day. Let me know what you think! The source code is available at [https://github.com/ebelinski/emojigenie- react](https://github.com/ebelinski/emojigenie-react), please open an issue or a pull request if you'd like!

<comment><USER2> This is a beautiful project! Well done :)

 _I wanted to paste an emoji but HN rejects those in comments :(_

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much! :) I didn't know HN restricts emojis in comments, luckily I got away with it on my submission title!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice site, the search box might look a little nicer if you set outline: none, to remove the garish blue border when the input is focused on MacOS.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you have osx, you can add and search emojis with command ctrl+command+space.

It's pretty neat!</comment>


They're (Almost) All Dirty: The State of Cheating in Android Benchmarks - <AUTHOR> http://anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheating-in-android-benchmarks

<comment><USER2> Takeaway: _" With the exception of Apple and Motorola, literally every single OEM we've worked with ships (or has shipped) at least one device that runs this silly CPU optimization"_ and _" [t]he unfortunate reality is this is all going to get a lot worse before it gets better."_

</comment><comment><USER3> Good PC hardware review sites learned over a decade ago that benchmarks are basically useless when comparing apples to oranges.

Welcome to 2002 mobile sites</comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't "reading comments" the default HN behavior? - <AUTHOR> I don't have stats to confirm this but it seems a common habit for people here to read the comments page of a submission before opening the actual link.<p>If (IF!) that would be the case, why doesn't opening comments is the default behavior of submission links instead of having to click the super tiny "Comments" link to the right? <comment><USER2> Thats certainly my modus operandi - Load HN, hold down control, click on 'comments' links for articles I'm interested in.</comment>


China sees new world order with oil benchmark backed by gold - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Commodities/China-sees-new-world-order-with-oil-benchmark-backed-by-gold <comment><USER2> A gold backed currency, rather than a fiat currency, gives control to a physical resource. The ones who control the physical resource and mining dictate the market. It is a very bad idea but probably good for the biggest gold producers in the world, they happen to be China, Russia and Australia (US is #4) [1].

A non-fiat currency is a single point of failure and since it is locked to a physical resource, it will cause many economic downturns with no lever to adjust. If a gold backed petro currency or oil is backed by gold, crypto currencies will explode exponentially.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> "China's move will allow exporters such as Russia and Iran to circumvent U.S. sanctions by trading in yuan. To further entice trade, China says the yuan will be fully convertible into gold on exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong."

It is not clear if the gold conversion can be into physical gold and shipped out of China. I would tend to doubt it, but would be a big deal if true.

<comment><USER4> Nationally they have > 1,800 tonnes[0] of the stuff as of 2017 – fifth in the world behind the US, Germany, Italy, France. Is that enough? Probably it would be simpler to do the transaction electronically in yuan but I would understand if people wanted something a bit more tangible. So the question is then, are there precedents to this flavo(u)r of trading setup/arrangement?

[0] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/267998/countries-with- th...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/267998/countries-with-the-largest- gold-reserves/)

<comment><USER5> Gold should just be an instrument of accounting. These exchanges are not the central bank and the central bank's holding is not very relevant. This should be meant to alleviate traders' concerns with capital control and RMB convertibility.

While this scheme may facilitate trading in Shanghai as domestic speculators no longer need to deal with forex risk, the countries with large petrol surpluses still need to decide what currencies to ultimately hold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note, the whole purpose is to game sanctions the US has on Russian trade and other hostile regimes. But how profitable will this be?

"...Russia's 2013 nominal GDP was $2.1 trillion, and Italy's was $2.07 trillion, according to the World Bank. ... Italy's 2013 GDP per capita (per person) was $34,619, and Russia's was $14,612.Jul 27, 2014..."

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2014/jul/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2014/jul/27/lindsey-graham/graham-russia-has-economy-size- italy/)

Sounds like China is backing the wrong horse[s]

<comment><USER7> 'game', or sovereign states exercising their sovereignty?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Last one to try to circumvent the petrodollar was Ghadaffi. It seems China now takes the opportunity of the current political climate to try it themselves.

(Petrodollar principle is explained well by Adam Curtis' documentary "Bitter Lake")

<comment> barry-cotter Qaddafi's mistake was in giving up WMDs not trying to price oil in something other than dollars. Saddam is gone, Qaddafi is gone, Kim, Assad and Iran are still there. Never, ever give up WMDs.

<comment><USER9> that is an amazing point. the lesson to future authoritarians is clear, isn't it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The American Empire had a nice run. Continuously rising inequality at home and anti-hegemonic strategies (like this one) abroad signal that the end is nigh. What remains to be seen is how ugly things get during the transition.

<comment><USER10> Meanwhile, back in reality, the US median income is among thh highest on earth, US disposable income is among the highest on earth, US economic productivity is among the highest on earth, US technology advancement is among the best on earth, US unemployment is low, US wages have been typically climbing twice as fast as in the EU, American companies dominate the planet (outside of China), and in the last ten years that Europe has been mostly treading water economically the US added an economy the size of Germany.

<comment><USER4> This is all true. I don't disagree with you.

But. (There's always a but.) I'm not disputing that the US isn't a great economic powerhouse. What I'm getting at is, _at what cost_.

If the middle-class gets gutted and relative and absolute poverty keeps increasing then we're not really creating a just society, are we? In one of the wealthiest, if not _the_ wealthiest nation ever if we still haven't figured out how to protect the most vulnerable among us then we've a bit of a problem. As some have suggested, maybe basic income is a solution? But to others you may as well have suggested that that dude Stalin may have made a nice omelette even though he broke a few eggs.

And outside the US, what the untenable situation where two countries (neither of which are the US) have to trade oil in dollars. For just how long do you think that arrangement will last? It could be, and has been, argued that some part of the might of the US comes from having its currency as _the_ world currency and part of that is dollar-denominated trade. Cease that and the landscape alters. China knows that. Others know that.

<comment><USER11> China also knows that you get bombed/hacked/etc to oblivion for trying it.

<comment><USER12> Iran hasn't been bombed or hacked to oblivion for trying it[1]. Russia hasn't been bombed or hacked for trying to kill it[2]

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

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/worldbusiness/25i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/worldbusiness/25iht- place.4.10379176.html?mcubz=3)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is the reason China and Russia have been hoarding gold and backing cryptocurrencies. They are waging an economic war against US hegemony by attacking their currency.

It is strategically timed too considering the US just spent the last 10 years printing money and expanding the balance sheet by 350%.

<comment><USER14> That doesn't check out. Why would China try to push down the US dollar when the US is their largest export market? That would also damage all the effort they put in trying to devalue the yuan.

<comment><USER13> Good point.

Perhaps the Chinese feel secure their transition into a consumer economy is on good footing. I've noticed my China stocks go up 50% in the last month or two. Confidence is way up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Five banks of the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM) have agreed to establish local currency credit lines and develop cooperation on credit ratings in the run-up to the forthcoming BRICS summit in China.

So the entire East part of the world will trade with China

<comment><USER2> They are building the New Silk Road [1]. This is part of the reason South China Sea is so hot, 2/3rd of world trade goes through there. Also the reason we haphazardly threw together the TPP which was not as generous to trading partners as China's deal which includes tons of investment to partner countries.

We in the US have to get better at remembering how we helped re-build countries after WWII, we need to understand that economics wins all wars again. We need to get the authoritarians out of power that don't believe that. China gets it all too well. Extremism is rooted out when people have comfort from a good economy.

[1] [http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/05/16/528611924/f...](http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/05/16/528611924/for- chinas-new-silk-road-ambitious-goals-and-more-than-a-few-challenges)

<comment><USER15> >We in the US have to get better at remembering how we helped re-build countries after WWII

In the interest of the US

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I read someplace that political power is constant. If you withdraw, then the power doesn't go away - it remains for others to seize. Perhaps it's the law of conservation of political power.

For example, it happened in Iraq when the U.S. eliminated the people holding power, Hussein and the Baathists, and didn't have realistic plans for anyone to seize it. Iran, Shiite religious authorities, and Sunni insurgents all jumped for it. The mess still hasn't been resolved.

It's happening on a much larger, more significant scale globally as the U.S. withdraws. Others aren't sitting still; they are coming in and seizing the power for themselves. It is very hard won and the most valuable thing in the world; who would walk away from it?

<comment><USER17> The US is not withdrawing. The US did have a plan for Iraq and executed it. The plan was to take out the regime and establish a military presence and prevent a strong regime from taking the old one's place. A mess accomplishes that. The US is still surrounding Iran with operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US still operates (indirectly?) in Syria against Russia. When Gaddafi tried to circumvent the petrodollar his country was wiped out. The sanctions against North Korea continue.

The big problem for me is that all of these things have been predicted well in advance and explained in detail by the 'crazy conspiracy theorists'. One of the predictions is that North Korea is a strong candidate for initiating World War III.

The main thing I worry about now is if China really considers North Korea an ally when it comes down to it, if there is some missile launch at Japan, a US retaliation, and then China gets involved. It seems absolutely crazy but so are all of the other wars. News about China circumventing the US dollar is much more frightening for me than hearing about all of the latest North Korea threats. Because this gives China a reason to back North Korea if the US effectively blocks China's oil benchmark plans.

<comment><USER18> I'm just curious: could you give me an example where a 'crazy conspiracy theorists' explain and predict the war against Afghanistan, Iraq etc..? I mean articles which predate the situations.

<comment><USER16> I believe it was Cheney and possibly Rumsfeld whose organization, in the late 1990s, published a paper advocating invasion of Iraq.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So far, between 1971 and now, any country attempting to get past the petro dollar has been stopped by revolution, war, etc.

What pressure or leverage can the USA put on China? My view is: more pressure is wanted , than is available...

<comment><USER17> The only pressure unfortunately that I know of is the most massive, deadly, and technologically advanced military the world has ever seen. I worry that since supposedly North Korea is nominally an ally of China, all of these North Korea nuclear/atomic weapon headlines are aimed towards an eventual trigger for World War III. They will say its about an evil dictator and a bomb or something, but really it will be about the petro dollar and global power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> China's shifting to domestic consumption and strong Yuan is better than weak Yuan. Strong currency will also reduce capital flight from the country and increase its financial powers to buy world resources such as mining rights and companies abroad.

They understand how the dollar status as reserve currency helps strengthen American power. Many Chinese leaders understand the power of finance. They have used it to develop export-oriented economy and they are now using it to expand their power abroad.

China is now confident it is strong enough and has resources and relationships to counter US pressure.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is a non-story. There won't be any physical gold actually backing the Yuan or any fixed gold exchange rate. The same limitation applies to the oil contacts. The only change they're making is to allow gold trading denominated in Yuan in a couple of Chinese exchanges. You can already freely trade gold in every other major fiat currency so nothing new here. And if you buy a large quantity of gold with Yuan, good luck on taking delivery of physical metal and getting it out of the country.

</comment><comment><USER22> Won't cryptocurrency allow them to circumvent the dollar ?

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't understand why US-embargoed countries can't simply get paid in gold. Transporting a billion dollars worth of gold costs nothing compared to transporting a billion dollars worth of oil. And no third country can intervene in transaction between two governments, which is exactly what the two governments should want.

<comment><USER21> The embargoed countries are mostly poor and don't have much gold reserves. And the US might be able to seize or destroy gold shipments in transit. Moving physical gold is far more risky than a wire transfer.

<comment><USER23> But China is rich and has tons of gold reserves to pay Iran with.

Moving gold is risky for individuals, but manageable for governments, certainly big powerful ones like China or India. The question is not whether it's more risky than a wire transfer but whether, when a wire transfer isn't possible, gold is workable.

I don't think the US would try to sieze shipments being made by another country, say by shooting down a Chinese or Indian air force plane. That will have major consequences, and be treated an act of war.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why would this be a bad thing?

</comment><comment><USER25> Meanwhile Wall Street is building its own block chain.

Should be an interesting transition off Brenton Woods.

<comment><USER26> Bretton Woods was over in 1971...</comment></comment>


End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/end-the-nsa-dragnet-now.html?hp&rref=opinion <comment><USER2> Surveillance.

It always starts with a desire to be safe. And that comes from fear. It seems Americans today are afraid of more things than ever: pedophiles, guns, terrorists, lawsuits. Some news reports are ridiculous by foreign standards: teachers not being allowed to shake hands with students out of fear of sexual harassment allegations, boys suspended from school for drawing guns, bystanders not administering first-aid to accident victims out of fear of lawsuits, and of course the terrorism hysteria for which I have no words. I'm fortunate enough to have visited the US and have met mostly great people, but going by news reports the entire society seems paralyzed by fear.

I always thought of freedom as inversely proportional to safety. If you want to be perfectly safe, you'll never leave your house in case you catch a germ, get in a car accident or even slip on a banana peel. You'll never eat store bought food without first running it through a spectrometer. You'll want everything controlled, predictable, seen ahead of time so that nothing unexpected gets thrown your way.

I guess this is what surveillance is trying to do. Rather than accepting a level of risk as the price for being free and handling disasters when they do occur, we seem to be increasingly trying to _avoid_ danger at all costs. And the cost seems to be freedom.

It's almost as if the author of the US national anthem knew this when he ended it with "land of the free and the home of the brave" (correct me if I got that wrong). Maybe he knew you couldn't have one without the other. I guess the brave isn't home anymore...

/disjointed philosophical rant

<comment><USER3> The Ben Franklin quote is apropos here: "Those who would give up _essential_ Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither."

While it's wildly misquoted on the interblags, you can't read out the word "essential." The point of the quote isn't that no trade-offs between freedom and safety are appropriate, but rather that we shouldn't trade away those freedoms that are "essential." It is debatable whether monitoring of the internet, a technology that didn't even exist for most of American history, is a trading off "essential" liberty, or whether its an "inessential" liberty.

Ben Franklin, like the other framers, realized that freedom versus security was a trade-off. Remember, the Constitution itself was a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, which created a government that turned out to be too weak to protect peoples' safety, both from external threats (Indians, European powers) and internal threats (domestic insurgents). The Constitution draw the safety versus freedom line a little closer to "safety" by creating a more powerful, more centralized federal government.

This balancing is also why the 4th amendment uses the wiggle word "unreasonable." Searches and seizures are okay, just not "unreasonable" ones. Well how do you decide what is "reasonable" versus "unreasonable?" You figure out how to appropriately trade-off freedom versus security! If the founding fathers didn't intend for us to engage in such balancing, they would've left out the word "unreasonable." No searches and seizures, even if necessary to solve a murder or kidnapping. After all, that would maximize freedom at some cost to security.

<comment><USER4> Internet privacy becomes essential in the moment that people put their entire lives on the Internet. All mail is email, all financial transactions are electronic, medical records are in computers, credit scores are in data centers--- you name anything important to your privacy/freedom, and it's in the cloud these days. No tradeoff is possible anymore.

<comment><USER5> I keep saying it, the US Constitution needs amending to create an explicit right to privacy. government surveillance is a problem, but so is the unilateral exploitation of personal data for commercial purposes. I'm Irish and living in the States, I really miss the EU Data Protection Act.

<comment><USER3> I think a new FISA would be a good start. As flawed as the current state of affairs is, its a big improvement over what existed prior to FISA. That law was a constraint on the NSA, probably the most restrictive that was possible during the cold war.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court could invent a right,of privacy out of thin air. That might very well happen in time, but the tech community is undermining attempts to lay the groundwork for that. There must be a consensus that privacy is the rule online, rather than the exception. No such consensus will emerge if the tech community continues to condition people to accept invasions of their privacy in the name of advertising. Ordinary people do not have a particular distrust of government. To get to "its not okay for the government to read my email" you have to get rid of the notion that "its okay for Google to read my email."

<comment><USER5> _Alternatively, the Supreme Court could invent a right,of privacy out of thin air._

Between the originalists and the existing problems with rights that have been found in the penumbrae of other rights, I cant see that happening. But then a consittutional amendment likely isn't on the cards any time soon either.

(I'm tied up for the rest of the day and most of the week with family stuff, but have wanted to chat with you about this for a while, would you mind shooting me an email so we can pick it up later?)

<comment><USER3> Sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism._

It's like a feller can't even write a serious editorial in support of American liberty without kowtowing to irrational fear-mongering anymore.

The battle to keep us jumping at shadows has been won so conclusively that no one even bothers to stand up and say anything like:

You are safe. Your family is safe. You are safer now than you would have been at nearly any other time in American history. Your children will probably view these years of The Terrorist Menace in much the same way we view McCarthyism and the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover - a humiliating betrayal of everything that was supposed to make America different from the rest of the world.

There is nothing patriotic about being afraid all the time.

But that won't sell, and the Senators who wrote this know it. I don't fault their judgement, but it makes me really sad.

<comment><USER7> That was wonderfully said. May I share that with friends/family?

<comment><USER6> Thank you and please share with whomever you like!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Senators have to go to the press to try to stop the government from doing what clearly breaks the law -- the Constitution, no less -- using up billions of taxpayer funds and undermines American business for no clear benefit.

Conventional wisdom says the Cold War was between the doctrines of Capitalism and Communism and that the doctrine of Capitalism won.

It doesn't look like that view was right.

The doctrine of the KGB and Stasi is winning over both of them.

<comment><USER9> No. Capitalism clearly won. But Capitalism is not Freedom, not democracy and is not the rule of the law. Capitalism is a way to conduct business by letting people posess the means of production, and the capital to produce as well.

It was not only rhetoric that in the fight between USA and UDSSR, there was a fight between freedom and authority. But mainly, it was a fight between different ways to regulate the means of production. Capitalism won, but that does not mean that freedom, democracy and the rule of the law will survive that victory.

China shows that you can have a capitalst economy in a (not a real one, but wanting to be) communist country.

<comment><USER10> Nope. Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion. We have a highly mixed economy now, not capitalism.

If you consider large government bureaus (public, or "private" via regulation, like, say, Verizon) to define "capitalism" just because there are large amounts of money involved ("capital"), you are defining the term by non- essentials. There were also large amounts of money in the USSR.

Capitalism lost because of European intellectual influences in America; the existing defense of the ideas of the founding fathers was insufficient to stem the tide.

<comment><USER11> >>Capitalism == free markets == non-coersion

Wrong. Capitalism is synonymous with _free enterprise_ , not free markets. And free enterprise simply means that enterprises (rather than states) own the means of production.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. We can definitly have unrestricted free markets with community owned syndicates and still be able to create tailored products and respond to demans.

IMO, we need to start talking about workplace democracy if we're going to continue to entertain the idea of corporate controlled society, so that the common person can at least get their vote back (indirectly, by choosing who leads the company which bribes officials...).

<comment><USER10> IMO, we need to stop having people control one another. There is no self- interested reason to do it, from anyone's point of view.

<comment><USER12> I definitely agree with you. I subscribe to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

That said, many, many, people believe that most people are not competent, and need to be taken care of/controlled/limited.

Arguments I usually have to fight against are: What to do about crime. What to do about "evil" people. What to do about property rights. What to do about control in decisions.

<comment><USER10> I think "libertarian socialism" is a worse than worthless contradiction.

There is a simple solution to all the problems you mention, which is to have a government that uses retaliatory force, but not initiatory force.

America had one for about a century, and now there is the intellectual machinery needed to go back to that system and to define and defend it much more vigorously. Unfortunately, a majority of "advocates for freedom" are mucking around with things like "libertarian socialism" and "anarcho- capitalism" which are contradictions in terms and won't work.

<comment><USER12> > I think "libertarian socialism" is a worse than worthless contradiction.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c)

<comment><USER10> Well, most libertarians are subjectivists. There is no possibility of objective knowledge of reality. You're showing your true colors.

Unfortunately for you (until or unless you stop fighting the truth), objective knowledge is possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism." There's the problem. Even by those protesting sweeping NSA collection, we're obsessed with this.

When the axis powers threatened to plunge the world into 1000 years of darkness, the only thing we had to fear is fear itself, now - that's not good enough - we must fear the unending threat of terrorism. Letting the NSA run wild is a logical result from this mentality.

<comment><USER14> That line stood out to me as well.

I'm wondering whether it was stated as the first priority of the Intelligence Committee rather than the first priority of the Senate. I realize members of the Intelligence Committee are expected to bridge those two roles - but it also wouldn't strike me as unusual for the Intelligence Committee to prioritize things differently than the rest of the Senate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _" Our first priority is to keep Americans safe [...]_

And herein lies the problem. Their job is _not_ to keep us safe, it's to keep us _free_.

(I'm aware others in the thread have pointed this out, but less directly).

<comment><USER16> I also came here to post this. Our priorities of late have been flipped. While providing for the common defense is one of many responsibilities, our primary responsibility and the oath taken by those in government is to the Constitution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism."

Uh, no. The first job of a good, decent government is protect the rights of its citizens. It now seems that the first job of a citizen is protect him/herself from the government.

<comment><USER18> > "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism."

 _bzzt!_ , oh, sorry, that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is set out in the oath that all US Senators take upon being sworn into office[1] which reads:

>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So no, sorry, the first priority is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and _domestic_ , which includes the NSA. Their oath says nothing about terrorism.

>"If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person's phone records."

Are you done supplicating yourself fully before the police state? My copy of the Constitution (which does not contain the root password "thinkofthekids" or "terrorism") says you need not just suspicion, but probable cause for a warrant.

>"When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans' papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity."

 _bzzt!_ , again, so close! Let's look at what it really says[2], shall we (emphasis mine):

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and _no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_.

Not only do you need suspicion, but you need probable cause for a warrant or the search needs to be reasonable some other way (border crossing, subject gave consent, search subject to arrest, etc).

>Our bill would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless "backdoor searches" of Americans' communications — including emails, text messages and Internet use — under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Again, so close! Read the fourth amendment again. Nowhere does it say "The right of US Citizens". It says "The right of the people". That means all people - citizens and non-citizens, and that distinction is important. The protections afforded under this amendment apply to everyone in the country and extend to those parties being contacted by someone from this country, otherwise the wording would be different.

[1] [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/...](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm)

[2] [http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

<comment><USER19> I can only hope their constituents will remind them of this!

<comment><USER18> Most constituents are too ignorant to know this. That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution[1].

The House of Representatives is apportioned by population, and its job is to represent the interests of the people. A more populous state has more representatives so that (theoretically) each representative represents an equal portion of the American population. This is also why spending bills must originate in the House as the money spent is derived from the people.

Each state receives an equal number of Senators. The Senate is responsible for representing the interests of the states. That is why Senators were originally appointed by the state legislature [2] instead of directly elected. A federal republic, such as the United States, is built upon each state have its interests represented equally, and that is why each state receives an equal number of Senators.

I believe that the direct election of Senators undermines the original intent of the Senate and that the 17th Amendment should be repealed.

[1] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii) [2] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section3](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section3)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What this editorial gets right is that the oversight regime for domestic surveillance is inadequate. What it misses, however, is that big piles of data are inevitable with the current trajectory of technology. It will not be possible to have the piles of data not collected. As others have written, the government surveillance agencies essentially saw what private industry was doing and said "I want a copy of that."

I think we need to rethink some things:

1\. In the short term, one of the biggest changes that has to be addressed is the current court doctrine that privacy has not been violated if no people are actually looking at the data. Given that much of the surveillance is directed by automation, we need to recast that doctrine to include some of the automated analysis of the data. It's a thorny question, and one that will take some time and effort to get right, but there's no time like now to start.

2\. We need more forceful and more transparent oversight of surveillance. There is a risk that the surveilled might change their tactics based on lessons from oversight reporting, but it seems clear at this point that the trade off is necessary. To quote the editorial: "The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security." Trade- offs are only worth making if you get something. Time to revisit the trade- off.

3\. We need to address both the big piles of data in the government's hands and those in private hands. This is going to require rethinking ownership of the data, and probably moving the US more towards an EU-style privacy directive. Again, a longer process, but one that needs to start now.

4\. As a country, we need to start toward a more rational view of terrorism risk. Plenty has been written about how disproportional our response has been. Time to rebalance the scales.

In the end, we're going to continue to have big piles of surveillance data as long as we continue our technology trajectory. We need to start figuring out how to work with it, rather than try to stop it.

</comment><comment><USER21> > "Severing ties with the NSA" started off with a NSA penalty but was so > hugely popular it still got the #1 spot. However, it was quickly given an > even bigger penalty, forcing it down the page. [1]

Supposedly, "N.S.A." will not trigger HN's keyword penalty :)

[1] [http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking- really...](http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really- works.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> _Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, all Democrats, are United States senators._

== Why isn't this adressed to Dianne Feinstein?

<comment><USER23> I think the bit about the single vote was about her? Does it mean they had just one vote in the committee or a single person quashed the bill?

Feinstein lives in an ivory tower, completely isolated from the needs of ordinary citizens in California. She gets six years in office with every election, and was just recently re-elected. She's totally safe, like those tea-party republicans in gerrymandered districts. California is too big of a state for a grassroots organization to challenge her in a primary and she placates enough of various groups with the funds to start an astroturf war and so they leave her alone. She's pretty much untouchable. She often starts on the wrong side of many issues, a notable exception being LGBT rights (good for her and us), and only with intense pressure from public opinion does she bow for appearances only. For example she was for SOPA, against meaningful health reform, and she's been a staunch defender of the NSA.

Senator Feinstein is a defender of the status quo. She's a conservative. Not a social conservative or neo-conservative, but someone who fights progress. Her office is in an actual giant tower right outside of the Montgomery Street Bart station and she wouldn't even come down to visit protestors and talk to them when we were there on behalf of OFA and there quite a few of us. It might as well have been built in ivory. That was the only protest I have ever taken part in. It wasn't even really a protest, just a show of support for Obama's health care plan.

Politicians like Feinstein make me cynical about politics. I feel helpless to be able to contribute change, so I just don't want to care anymore. Whatever, she's the boss. Great. Could be worse I guess.

<comment><USER24> If she runs again in 2018, the best plan might be convince enough Democrats and Republicans to vote for an alternative Democrat in the primaries to make the general election Dem v. Dem. Then you'd get people actually considering the individuals... Of course, she's 80, so she might well not be running again anyway.

<comment><USER23> > If she runs again in 2012

2012 was last year.

<comment><USER24> Right, forgot to add 6. It's early... Fixed.

<comment><USER23> In five years she will have done so much more damage it's hardly fun to think about it.

<comment><USER24> Plausibly. She doesn't individually have much power without cooperation from others, who could potentially stop cooperating, though. That is likely a better use of resources than railing against her individually.

<comment><USER22> _That is likely a better use of resources than railing against her individually._

As the face of hypocrisy, its (perhaps) actually worth rallying against her individually. Does she _really represent_ you (or by extension CA, SF, SV...etc?). Human nature has very strong instinctual aversion to public demonstrations of hypocrisy of one's own activity. This is true because political power is power rested in delegated authority. That is rooted in trust. And duplicity and hypocrisy mark such an agent as untrustworththy. This reduces their eventual political tenebility. Its one of those experiments, ironically derived from cognitve science about why people don't <change their mind> on a publicly revealed preference or bet. In this case, it (perhaps) makes sense to use the result in a constructive way.

<comment><USER23> She's not a hypocrite. She is very open and public about her positions. I do not think she is dishonest I just think she fights against progress.

<comment><USER22> There's something about (consevative, Liberal) that itches akward, although you may be right in a narrow sense.

<comment><USER24> That itch is your problem, not hers. Everyone operating in the public sphere should be honestly trying to pursue the policies they think will lead to the best results (for everyone, for their constituencies, and to some degree for themselves). They should not be trying to live up to labels whose definitions are different at different times, which are useful only when speaking in pretty broad terms, and which largely refer to coalitions with varied individuals of varied personal philosophy.

A ton of the "most Conservative" politicians in American politics aren't anything like "conservative" \- changing a slew of things to the way they were 200 years ago, with no eye to the things that have changed technologically, demographically, &c, _may_ still be the right thing to do, but it's not "conservative". I would even argue that opposition to abortion is ceasing to be a "conservative" position - it has been legal for longer than most of the population has been alive. That doesn't mean that people who oppose it on whatever grounds, and consider themselves conservative overall, are necessarily wrong or "hypocritical" to do so.

<comment><USER22> Its more a problem for the people that she was elected to represent. The fact that once that power is accrued, the game is to keep it, is not a partisan one. But that creates more cognitive dissonance for some ideologies that it does for others.

<comment><USER24> _As you had phrased it_ it is not a problem for them. It's a problem if she's misrepresenting herself, but she has an awfully long voting record at this point, and when she talks what she says is _not_ radically different than what she does.

Many of her particular positions I consider a problem, but that has nothing to do with any discrepancy implied by "(conservative, Liberal)".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I disagree with this quote, "There is no question that our nation's intelligence professionals are dedicated, patriotic men and women who make real sacrifices to help keep our country safe and free."

I argue that the weight of evidence says the opposite. First the "there is no question" bit is wrong, because clearly there _is_ a huge question. Further, people that want power tend to be attracted to positions that give it to them. We see this in things like police, lawyers, and politicians.

Note that I do no mention the military, because in the US the military is largely about subservience and not about control.

There is also little evidence suggesting that the men and women working for the NSA are patriotic. I argue that they are not. Patriotism involves holding up the rights of citizens as defined by the Constitution, especially against those who would change or remove these rights. Further, patriotism involves defining new law, as needed, explicitly _in the spirit_ of the Constitution. Under this definition, it is very unclear that the people working at the NSA have been remotely patriotic. Quite the opposite, in my view.

Last, I believe we are fundamentally less free and less safe now than we were 13 years ago. The erosion of freedom and safety is often a very gradual process. When I say we, I do not refer to We as in The United States. I refer to all the people living under it, both citizens and non-citizens alike.

I have to be more cautious of what I say at 33 than I did at 21. I seriously consider alternatives to flying during the holidays because "safety" has become a physical impediment to travel. I have to think twice about what I should pack in my luggage, for the certainty that someone will _search my belongings_.

When I see police, I do not feel safe. I get more nervous and afraid. These are people walking around with weapons who can hurt, imprison, and murder people almost at will and we as citizens have almost no recourse to defend ourselves without being further harassed and harangued.

That is not how someone should view their police departments. Yet I do, because in my short life I hear more about police brutality than stories of police helping people. My own experiences were particularly forged by being arrested at a peaceful protest (FTAA) and trying to watch the inauguration parade in DC in 2005. I stopped respecting police officers a long time ago, though I view them as a necessary evil.

So to wrap. We are less free and less safe now than before, the people working for the NSA are working towards their own ends or the ends of people wanting power, and there is nothing patriotic going on. We are in pot being slowly boiled.

<comment><USER26> The senators are pushing a surveillance reform bill. It does them no good to question the motives of the intelligence community, the majority of which are employees like most of us. On the other hand, accusing them would just make them enemies instead of allies. Hence the paragraph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ending the NSA Dragnet is not the solution. The solution is to assume that there will always be a rogue agency wanting to spy and to come up with solutions that make it hard or impossible.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think the quote from William Pitt is appropriate:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

</comment><comment><USER29> I think one of the complications is we have become used to historically unusual levels of security. Far fewer babies die in childbirth these days. Cars have airbags. Medical care is fast and reliable.

Not unreasonably, people expect their governments to provide the same level of predictability. And, not unreasonably, the majority of those politicians who want to preserve their jobs go along with it.

So what can be done about it? If this was a flawless AI keeping us all safe like in Iain Bank's culture universe, I think we'd be all happy. The problem comes when it's not clear if those charged with curating this information have other agendas.

I think this is a historically unique time, when we have the chance to put in safeguards and oversight while we can still see the cameras and the window of debate is still available.

But in order to do that, I think the debate has to be reframed not as security vs liberty but as structured oversight vs tyranny.

</comment><comment><USER30> Unfortunately, for this opinion to make it into the mainstream conscious, it needs to be broadcast with the same gravity on Fox News and CNN where the large majority of uninformed Americans are spoon-fed their beliefs and opinions.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm glad these guys are here for us. I honestly can't believe some of the comments on the times site.

My main issue is that this has not become a debate, it's still an order. And it's an order that violates our fourth amendment right. This right was part of handshake for a new system, and it cannot be violated save for some rare situation we could all agree is reasonable.

No one should think this is reasonable... security is lax, control of the data is lax ("corporate store"? Are you kidding me?). The situation is flipped here. Without leaks, we would actually be suffering more. Security clearance is not protecting us, it's using and abusing us. It's being used to hide things that would harm us more if they were never leaked. And FISA courts are used to give us some illusion that rules will be followed while having it waved in our face that we're lucky to have them. This is crazy.

Try to accommodate any warrantless surveillance in the fourth amendment's text without creating either a comical contradiction that violates its entire spirit or removes it entirely. We know that being ok with these citizen data programs amounts to being ok with not having this right, but we're still talking about it. I want to keep my right. And since the amendment was added in response to writs of assistance, unchecked delegation of authority so scarily similar to this reasonable articulable suspicion thing we are seeing today in both this and Stop and Frisk, i think we'd all be better suited to start with our right and add any exceptions as-needed, not have them added for us. I'm assigned a threat score even before i'm suspicious? To find out whether i'm suspicious? To then act on me because of this suspicion? All while making money off of me based on my actions? You want to buy my actions? Ok, name a price, i'll consider it.

I don't want to start this privacy war this gang wants me to. I'd rather we follow the law and consider those who don't criminal. Privacy is a buffer against abuse, not a place to hide dirty secrets. We can't predict or even see or notice all of the horrible loss of self control that might come about because of this collection. The chorus of "Nothing to Hide" in response rings eery in my ears.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is a Murphy's Law matter. The disaster cannot be prevented until it is technically impossible for it to continue.

If legislation were to declare that the names and numbers used to identify a computer on a network could not be legally used to identify either the physical location of the computer or the human that might have been using it, I think it likely that the number of VPN access points and Tor exit nodes would increase wildly overnight.

End-to-end encryption of all electronic traffic, everywhere, is the only reasonable solution.

</comment><comment><USER33> So, no dragnet, but our first priority is terrorists.

</comment><comment><USER34> Over? Well, okay, I trust you this time.

</comment><comment><USER35> And what about the remaining 7 billion law-abiding souls on the planet? I resonate with the intent of this article but how come protecting only an Americans' privacy be of concern to this voice on NYT? I believe this approach is not only insular (apart from being stupid) but also destined to fail.

If I were to run dragnet, I'd accept protecting the interest and privacy of all Americans back home, but strike a deal with GCHQ or some other Government agency and provide them with all the tools and tech to snoop on my fellow citizens. No legal hassles, no constitutional violation. Cost? Well that could be worked out given the advantage the data gives me to remain in power.

<comment><USER36> The government of the United States is responsible, however imperfectly, to the people of the United States, not to those of the planet entire.

<comment><USER37> Neither the government, nor the people of the United States, are alone on this planet.

<comment><USER36> Non sequitur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The thing about the NSA dragnet is that if the NSA wasn't doing it, then corporations would (are) doing it. You can't stop technology from moving forward. Someone is going to be sniffing your packets now until the end of time.

<comment><USER39> Not very worried about Google arresting me at some point in the future with their jackboot thugs for something I did or said in the past (when X wasn't illegal).

This applies to Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Snapchat, and so on. When these guys start trying to acquire their own domestic armies, then I'll get really concerned.

There seems to be a common gloss-over regarding the fact that it's the United States Military that is doing the domestic spying. They were tapping Obama's phones when he was a Senator; most likely they own everybody at this point. This isn't some fluffcake brigade; it's the US freakin' military. Slip, and you're knee deep in a military dictatorship very quickly.

<comment><USER40> You should be concerned now, because the government can compel those companies to hand over their dossier on you, including your cell's tower or GPS records, your extremist views (surely something you've written is extremely different from someone in power, now or in the future), your advocacy of treason (you must have expressed displeasure about a President or member of Congress at some time), your support of terrorists (ever say anything negative about a declared or undeclared war?), and anything else you've ever said as a dirty, stinkin' agitator.

You've also been in a conversation with me, and that makes you a person of interest in some very plausible future scenario. ... "So, we notice that you spent a lot of time on this _Hacker_ News site. Tell us about that."

<comment><USER41> I think everyone here would agree about that, but you are ignoring that avoiding an intrusive commercial product, or obfuscating your private information from a commercial product is easier than avoiding state-actor pervasive surveillance. It would be a step in the right direction to reduce the state-actor threat.

<comment><USER40> Not ignoring, just talking about one among many related problems. I agree completely it would be good to reduce the state-actor threat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Surveillance is a tool for oligarchs to control their citizens. The terrorist threat is theatric misdirection.</comment>


Why ReCAPTCHA must die - <AUTHOR> http://blog.senthil.me/why-recaptcha-must-die

<comment><USER2> ReCaptchas are generated by failed attempts with OCR, which means the computer has no idea what the word actually is, and consequently can't know how it should be oriented. ReCaptachas are actually digitizing unknown text, so they serve a pretty meaningful purpose in contrast to competitors. <http://www.google.com/recaptcha/learnmore>

</comment><comment><USER3> Nobody at google designed this. By the way if you get inverted text then simply type it in correctly.

It's the integrals that are hard to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> recapcha started for a noble cause and thats why it got so much traction.

Instead of fighting bot menace, current captcha's are making life difficult, if with my intelligence I end up failing 1 in 10 times, how can my dad or my 7 year old daughter use it.</comment></comment>


What's in my iOS Toolbox? Part 2 - <AUTHOR> http://edsancha.com/blog/2014/02/03/whats-in-my-iOS-toolbox-2.html

<comment><USER2> My own plug which I apologize for, but there's a good collection of interviews with iOS developers and the tools they use here: [http://www.objectivesee.com/](http://www.objectivesee.com/) that I genuinely think anyone reading these comments would find interesting.

</comment><comment><USER3> My personal recommendation on Automated Testing is to use Subliminal [https://github.com/inkling/Subliminal](https://github.com/inkling/Subliminal)

Subliminal allows you to write tests in Objective-C that interface directly with your app. This makes your tests be more powerful (can test things not visible to the user, and can simulate activity that UIAutomation can't (like a credit card swipe, which is why KIF was invented)).

More amazing is that you get the benefits of static typing. Instead of stringly-typed accessibility identifiers, you can use string constants (NSString * const kIdentifier = @"blah").

It runs by bridging UIAutomation and Objective-C, so its more reliable than KIF, which has to use private API to simulate touches. This doesn't work correctly for gesture recognizers and is very fragile.

<comment><USER4> I've been using UIAutomation to automate screenshot generation and make it easier to keep support documents up-to-date. Do you know if this works for that? Straight UIAutomation times out a lot doing that and often requires multiple runs to get everything.

<comment><USER3> Yes. You can send Javascript to be evaluated by UIAutomation so it has all the capabilities of that UIAutomation does. There's a PR that adds this natively [https://github.com/inkling/Subliminal/pull/118](https://github.com/inkling/Subliminal/pull/118), but you can also just implement it yourself quite easily:

        - (void)captureScreenshotWithFilename:(NSString *)filename
        {
            [[SLTerminal sharedTerminal] evalWithFormat:@"UIATarget.localTarget().captureScreenWithName(\"%@\")",
                                                    [filename slStringByEscapingForJavaScriptLiteral]];
        }

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This series of posts appears to be a somewhat poor copy of another blog (although it is linked).

[http://benscheirman.com/2013/08/the-ios-developers- toolbelt/](http://benscheirman.com/2013/08/the-ios-developers-toolbelt/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Another suggestion (now that this post has been extended) is Mattt's new collection of CLI tools called Nomad [http://nomad-cli.com/](http://nomad- cli.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Might want to change the title to "Part 2"

Parte Segundo or second part sounds a bit unusual.

Good content is always king though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Again that is a very interesting article. Mixed feelings about Cora Data -.-</comment>


Show HN: High Quality Available Domain Names For Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.domaingroovy.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a side project I had launched under a different name a long time ago. Recently I spent some time fixing it up and relaunched it on the home page of DomainGroovy.

Would love some feedback on what it would take to get to 10/10.</comment>