Ask HN: Help me learn astrology in 2020 - <AUTHOR> One of my to-do in 2020 resolutions is to learn more about astrology and explore it and see if it is a predictive science.
1. I am learning Vedic or Indian Astrology which uses the sidereal and not tropical charts.
2. I have a software that does calculations
3. I have books. So. Many. Books.
I want to be able to study it as a discipline and subject. I am not interested in proving whether it's 'science' or an 'pseudo science'. Maybe it's is ..maybe it's art..maybe it's a game.
The goal is to read the texts and follow the rules of analysis and predict. And then I want to record it, find patterns based on interpretations and see how it turns out. There has to be a pattern and it can't be entirely random even if the predictions don't pan out.
How do I go about this? <comment><USER2> Ah, metaphysics.

I studied metaphysics in a practical way extensively in the late 90's. I was technically homeless but I lived by magic for about four and a half years. It was pretty intense. Anyway...

I speak with authority in this matter:

Astrology is a form of _divination_. All forms of divination work, depending on the operator. All forms of: Astrology, Numerology, Tarot, Dowsing by pendulum or rods, Palmistry, Reading of tea leaves or entrails (yuch!) or cracks in heated turtle shells or thrown reeds or coins, I Ching, omens and signs, etc., _all_ of them, work by the same method. It's the internal potency of the operator that leads to correct knowledge (from "esoteric" sources.) Your own connection to source guides the interpretation. The format of the divination system is a conduit to bring semantics into concrete syntax.

If you simply want reliable truthful information the "applied kinesiology" technique of Dr. Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. [1] is the single simplest and purest methodology. It's so mind-blowing that even I can barely credit it. But I have never found it to fail. It's so spooky that I often "forget" to use it, and just bumble along as best i can. YMMV

However, if you want to study astrology, you can just make up your own system. It will be more powerful than adopting someone else's system. _Unless_ you feel _drawn_ to a certain school or format, in which case that's important information for your personal path and you should likely study that. Spread all your books out, pick one at random, open it to a random page, and read the first passage your eye alight upon. (Bibliomancy, another form of divination, one of my favorites. I have a shelf with the Gita, Bible, Beezlebub's Tales to His Grandson, and others and still practice bibliomancy with them from time to time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliomancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliomancy) )

[1] Although he didn't invent it, his presentation and discussion of it are the only thing I'm talking about here: [https://veritaspub.com/](https://veritaspub.com/) If you go look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology) there's a lot lot there that could be unpacked, but that's NOT what I'm talking about. I mean specifically the "Levels of Consciousness" interpretation of Hawkins.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. But can we codify it in a mathematical language that can be a visual map? I chose Vedic astrology because to a certain extent the astronomy and math part of it is pretty well documented and authored.

How to extract the predictive pattern recognition aspects of it so the 'intuition' part of it can be understood?

<comment><USER2> Cheers!

> But can we codify it in a mathematical language that can be a visual map?

Short answer is yes (but not in the same way as physics.) But there's no "one true" map (somewhat like how there's no "one true" programming language.)

> I chose Vedic astrology because to a certain extent the astronomy and math > part of it is pretty well documented and authored.

Yes, but it's all made up. And all in association with a world that's long gone (or at least changed massively since then.) It's no better or worse than e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Astrology isn't about the actual planets.

Have you looked at Sacred Geometry? (It's just geometry, but studied with a sacred mindset.) [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sacred+Geometry&t=ffab&atb=v60-1&i...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sacred+Geometry&t=ffab&atb=v60-1&iax=images&ia=images)

It sounds to me like you might be wanting to "mind map" psychological archetypes onto a sort of Sacred Geometry? ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map) )

> How to extract the predictive pattern recognition aspects of it so the > 'intuition' part of it can be understood?

There's aren't any "predictive pattern recognition aspects" in the thing itself. As scientists point out, rightly, divination is logically barren. The intuition is something the operator does, the system of astrology (or whatever) is just the markings on the dial.

You can't understand intuition (if you could it would just be "thinking") only experience it. Understanding and intuition are like sight and hearing: two different but complimentary ways to sense/model the Universe.

Does this help?

Really, if you just want to study astrology like an anthropologist would then just read the books you have. If you want to use astrology to model the world you should instead use physics. If you want to use astrology to model the inner world then read e.g. "Golden Bough" and Jung's archetype work and his _Liber Novus_ (aka The Red Book), and maybe "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and "The Perennial Philosophy". And then just make up your own system. It will work just as well for prediction.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28Jung%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28Jung%29)

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

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

(It's a shame this got flagged, eh?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps intuition is just fast thinking? To be able to connect bits and pieces of seemingly disparate information cogently?

I love flipping the pages of The Red Book. I am charmed by Jung's calligraphy and art. Even if I don't understand enough High German. The entire book is a work of art.

<comment><USER2> > Perhaps intuition is just fast thinking? To be able to connect bits and > pieces of seemingly disparate information cogently?

That's intelligence. Intuition is more akin to a sense. It can be practiced and improved like a skill.

I've never actually seen the Red Book. I did an image search though and I see what you mean.

I probably should have asked you this before blathering at you, but what are you going for here? What's your motivation to study astrology? If you don't mind me asking.

<comment><AUTHOR> (Edited multiple times to add more thoughts)

In Jung's Man and his Symbols, he says that the unconsciousness is a new phenomenon...and man had relied heavily on his unconsciousness..that is now repressed. It reveals itself in dreams. And so it lingers...like a secretary taking notes and organizing them. Sometimes it comes back garbled as our dreams and not always decipherable.

Writing dream journals is a good habit.

I also want to write down not just dreams but also moods during eclipses and lunar cycles and match it to astrological transit charts.

What if there is a pattern..on an individual level and for the general collective and the for the larger society. If there are 300 or 500k such journals...would it be possible to figure out patterns and trends.

Can we do this by matching Facebook status updates or twitter or fit bit data etc? We already have so much data. How difficult would it be to match birth dates/horoscopes to available data.

A social media app for tracking moods, life events and zodiac should be interesting.

I hesitated to use social media to describe it but did it anyways for lack of a better term. I don't mean to suggest that this can be a 'product' for generating revenue. Somethings should be beyond exploitation for money.

What if we can have a window of insight into our own unconsciousness? And if there is no true free will, then we are still processing information that we are exposed to and making life decisions based on what we perceive subconsciously.

On the other hand, an acceptance of astrology and code of behaviour can steer a society into predictable patterns of behaviour leading to less conflict.

Think of it like a language. If in a country everyone speaks the same language, the changes for miscommunication would be much lower than in a country where there are multiple languages of communication.

This language can be linguistic or mathematical or anything else. Why can't it be astronomical or astrological?

<comment><USER2> But we _do_ have that language, it's science. Specifically physics. The laws of physics are precisely the shareable, universal language.

As for a common language of the subjective world, what I call the "semantic layer" of reality as distinct from the physical "real" world, I don't think you can find one, mostly because if you did you would be the Messiah. :-) There are lots of such "languages", and new ones are popping up all the time.

> I want to understand why and how predictions work with astrology.

Well again, _divination_ works by the operator not the system or tea leaves or whatever. The basic formula is "As above, so below." You can use any system, as long as you practice with sincerity and persistence you'll get better at intuition, which isn't _quite_ like prediction: you get a nudge to go one way rather than another, but you don't know why, maybe you find out later and maybe you don't... It's experiential rather than analytical. (In other words, part of the job of the Tarot cards or Numerology or Astrology system is to _distract_ your analytical mind.)

Gurdjieff claims that there _is_ influence of the planets on humans, and that astrology used to be based on that but all concrete knowledge of it has now been lost. Certainly modern forms of astrology are, shall we say, astronomically naive, and do not (indeed cannot) work according to their own theory because they don't actually take account of the true state of celestial objects.

The most effective and impressive astrologer I ever met had her horoscope software _misconfigured!_ It didn't affect her efficacy.

It sounds like you are interested in the old, lost 'science', eh?

I've wondered too if "big data" would reveal correlations between human behaviour and the state of the solar system, and I think the high-frequency traders would be the first to find out. They have the data, the compute power, the motivation, and a willingness to overlook the "woo-woo" factor if doing so leads to profit.

It will sound strange, but in some ways I pity the NSA. They are the only one with _all_ the data and they must be privy to some strange _strange_ things.

<comment><AUTHOR> If a human being can practice divination, then surely an AI can too, yes?

I don't understand why you say it's physics..and not mathematics.

Let me give you an example from my low tech job/life. I have a farm and I want to automate it. I have been at it for five years now. To replace humans with machines, you need data. You need data sets to train the intelligence behind the machine. That data is expressed as numbers and in the language of mathematics.

Example: when I want to mow my cover crop field in spring, I simply do if I get a feel for it. I know it's not going to rain..I know it's before they have flowered, I know how the soil 'feels' before I can disc it. I just know. I pick up a handful of soil and then at the sky, in a split second I can make a decision.

But for a machine to make that decision, mathematically..it needs weather data, soil moisture data, leaf analysis, vision system data..put it all together to say 'yes, I will prep the field today'. The language is mathematics.

In a way, I forecasted and predicted intuitively from previous years springs to determine when I can prep the field. I could be wrong. A farm machine AI however ..with math can make a decision based on narrow parameters but will almost never be wrong because it only has to be right within those narrow parameters.

Why can't this be done with Astrology?

How can planets have an impact on humans..lets rephrase that..how can planets not have an impact on humans? The sun does. The moon does. That's because we know heat and light are forms of energy. We acknowledge gravitational force and tidal waves and electro magnetic forces. Does this mean that there is nothing else? Perhaps there are forces we haven't even met yet and don't know how it works.

How can we ever figure it out if we dismiss it off hand because it feels 'woo'. Nature isn't 'woo'. Nature doesn't care how we label it.

We can only see if we want to look. We can't look if we are afraid of being judged/mocked/downvoted/flagged. Know what I mean?

<comment><USER2> > If a human being can practice divination, then surely an AI can too, yes?

Very interesting question that. Would an AI be a person? Or just a sculpture of a mind?

Divination is essentially a communion between the self and the Self (God, Source, Universe, I don't want to presume upon your beliefs) so if we succeeded in making a person somehow, then yes, I believe it would have a relationship with God beyond that of its constituent matter.

If not, if we can only mimic our own minds without kindling the spark of life, then no, it would just be an elaborate dowsing rod, eh?

I think it might be possible to make a tulpa and associate it with a mechanical form (physical or virtual) and there are corners on the internet where people experiment with that. The resulting entity would be somewhat like a golem. FWIW, I would advise against all that kind of thing.

> I don't understand why you say it's physics..and not mathematics.

Just that physics is the part of mathematics that maps to real world phenomenon.

> Example: when I want to mow my cover crop field in spring, I simply do if I > get a feel for it. I know it's not going to rain..I know it's before they > have flowered, I know how the soil 'feels' before I can disc it. I just > know. I pick up a handful of soil and then at the sky, in a split second I > can make a decision.

That is the kind of thing where intelligence and intuition blend. If you keep going you'll reach the place where you could be sitting deep in a cave and still know.

FWIW, Tom Brown hints at this in some of his books on tracking. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brown_Jr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brown_Jr).

> But for a machine to make that decision, mathematically..it needs weather > data, soil moisture data, leaf analysis, vision system data..put it all > together to say 'yes, I will prep the field today'. The language is > mathematics.

> In a way, I forecasted and predicted intuitively from previous years springs > to determine when I can prep the field. I could be wrong. A farm machine AI > however ..with math can make a decision based on narrow parameters but will > almost never be wrong because it only has to be right within those narrow > parameters.

I'm not convinced that machine could be built, I think the variables (including astrological influences) are too involved. On the other hand, your physical body including your brain could be considered to be that machine already. And that seems to bring up again the question of whether or not you could make an artificial person with enough fidelity to the real thing to develop intuition/divination, eh?

I think it would be much easier to make a machine that allowed the plants and soil itself to communicate the optimal times for events.

Do you have a copy of "The Secret Life of Plants"? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants)

> Why can't this be done with Astrology?

If you mean letting astronomical data be part of the inputs to your Bayesian AI then by all means I think that might help. But modern astrology is pretty much barren for the kind of thing you're talking about.

> How can planets have an impact on humans..lets rephrase that..how can > planets not have an impact on humans? The sun does. The moon does. That's > because we know heat and light are forms of energy. We acknowledge > gravitational force and tidal waves and electro magnetic forces. Does this > mean that there is nothing else? Perhaps there are forces we haven't even > met yet and don't know how it works.

I believe there are such "subtle forces" and that our periodic chart of the elements is like a single octave of a much larger plenum of matter/energy/frequency. I'm following Gurdjieff here more-or-less. But I know almost nothing about them. There's no modern source of reliable information on such things.

The problem is that we can only make machines out of the matter we can touch. You can't make an instrument that responds to these "subtle energies". Unless of course that's exactly what these various divination machines (Tarot, Astrology, Numerology, Dowsing, etc.) are somehow doing. (But personally I don't think they are.) And again, your physical body inducing your brain is already an instrument that responds to these "subtle energies" (if they exist.)

In the context of farm automation I would try making simple machines that let the farm life communicate to them to activate various programs, based on some of the stuff in "The Secret Life of Plants".

Cheers! Happy New Year.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many thanks for engaging! It is much appreciated. I will update here on HN perhaps ..if I make any breakthrough. Happy New Year. Cheers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mitasu-hachi Astrology is about trying to find what your target/subject wants and creating predictions around them. You should keep predictions vague, never "predict" specifics.

It's basically the Mediumship-esque parlor trick, the difference being that you're observing stars and planets instead of communing with the dead, you have to probe and search to see what they really want. Ask leading questions, make educated assumptions, refine over time as you learn about them.

<comment><USER3> That's what it is now, but Medieval and earlier, and in the same era Islamic and Indian astrology were well respected fields of study and scholars studied it seriously. Granted they had some very wrong headed ideas on many things, not just stellar influences -- every disease was a judgement of god, doctors checking horoscopes to decide treatment, treatments that were sometimes worse than the condition, etc. Though in those times Islamic and Indian treatments were far more based in fact than those in Europe -- who mainly wouldn't consider them as they were non-christian. :)

Would be interesting to try and find a real pattern in any of it (by which I specifically _don 't_ mean the type you mention, or the 3 sentences of dross once found in daily newspapers)...

[https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/bodies/astrology/astrologyho...](https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/bodies/astrology/astrologyhome.html)

<comment><USER4> Astrology hasn't fundamentally changed. Our understanding of the world has.

<comment><USER3> Which is not the point of OP's question.

<comment><USER4> Well, you brought it up...

Anyway, I believe it is related to OP's question (and so are my other comments). If (s)he wants to see if astrology is a 'predictive science', make predictions, and analyse them to find and interpret any patterns (s)he has to give serious thoughts about what sort of predictions can be made and how (which I think is key since 'predictions' really are whatever the astrologer 'interprets'...), how to analyse the results and what significance any patterns might have.

As such (s)he cannot simply brush anything deemed 'inconvenient' under the carpet.

<comment><USER3> But astrology has changed dramatically though, which I was trying to avoid getting into an argument about. I haven't studied or read up on it, but have read a lot of history, particularly of Medieval times and earlier. For hundreds of years it was inseparable from astronomy. Astronomers making predictions, astrologers identifying events in the year or night sky, diligently recording eclipses and comets. The terms were interchangeable. For centuries they were the same thing, thus there probably is valid science potentially in some of those writings, much as chemist and alchemist were at one time the same thing. Alchemists figured out many chemical reactions, or purified real drugs long before we separated them out into chemistry and mystical hogwash. Just as religion were once connected with scholarship and education (and astrology) too.

So I _suspect_ if there is any grain of predictive basis it would be astronomical or meteorological in nature rather than the vanishingly unlikely finding a life partner third week of next month or next Tuesday being particularly lucky.

 _shrug_

<comment><AUTHOR> Forget about whether you'd find a partner because of your sun sign..what about predicting eclipses or comets or drought or famine or war. That's astrology too, yes?

<comment><USER3> Well in old enough texts they might all be considered and described so. From our perspective,

eclipses or comets -- astronomy, drought or famine -- meteorology or climatology, war -- fun one that could come into several, e.g. a climate change or drought could trigger a war with neighbours, perhaps to try and migrate. War is only one of those I think does fall under modern view of astrology as, like earthquakes, they can't be reliably predicted until inevitable. Comets like Halley's or solar eclipses can be predicted, with decent precision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't listen to the haters ranting against astrology. They are computer science types for the most part and are jealous, seeing that computer science itself sits somewhere between astrology and numerology, without the popularity of the former or the formality of the latter.

</comment><comment><USER6> Contact someone experienced who will be willing to give you guidance.

If you are in positive spirit to adventure / travel you can find many traditional communities (off-path) and you can truly learn a lot.

The books approach can be difficult to swallow as the learning outcome is limited by your own interpretation.

Seeing is believing!

Have fun

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately I am not able to commit fully due to time constraints but want to set aside at least 5 hours/week.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is wrong with folders? - <AUTHOR>

Google among others keeps claiming that Folder concept is outdated and not a good way for humans to organize things online.
Do you see tags/labels/younameit non-nested stickers as a replacement or rather an addition to folders?
I don't buy the replacement idea and would love to understand it better as I find tags/labels often more broken than nested folders.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Google is wrong insofar as folders apply to individual humans.

Folders work for an individual because of the vast amount of spatial processing power in the human brain. We are hardwired to put, get and find things. The spatial metaphor is useful because manipulation fits so easily into it. Even the notion of search itself is spatial.

On the other hand, classifying, categorizing and labeling things does not come as naturally. Imagine how odd it would be for a person to actually label their toothbrush, washcloth, and showercap "bathroom equipment" rather than simply placing them in the bathroom.

Although computers allow us to have the same thing in more than one place - e.g. a single file can be accessed via verbally different but logically identical references; this does not detract from the spatial metaphor, we still are able to apply the spatial metaphor of "the file is located here."

I would go further to suggest that Google's continuous SEO woes shows the problem with accessing information via tags rather than by placement whenever bad places with good tags rise to the top of results.

</comment><comment><USER3> My theory is that the logic behind such claims is that you can effectively map all groups of folders' entries using tags derived from every file's original folder hierarchy, but representing all the possible groups of tagged files in a hierarchical folder system requires an incredibly fragile and complex system of symbolic links. Ignoring certain issues with converting folder names to tags (such as two identically-named folders nested in the same path and collisions between tag combinations whose paths are a different order of the same set of folder names), an ideal tagging system is as expressive as any hierarchical organization and it is capable of numerous additional ways to slice the data.

In practice, tagging systems seem to be limited by relatively immature interaction models relative to the far better explored nested structures. For example: for a given folder in the hierarchy there are often few enough children to allow easy recognition of a forgotten name whereas tags for non- empty subsets of a given set of files are hard to suggest meaningfully; nested folders demand more care beginning with the earliest placement of files but tagging makes wholly unsustainable conventions perfectly reasonable early on; sections of nested structures are easy to relocate to a new parent but changing the related set of tagged files to uniformly substitute comparable target labels for precisely those obsolete labels is difficult or impossible.

In short, there's a theoretical basis for replacing folders with tags, but the real-world adoption is severely hampered by grossly incomplete UIs for many needs previously met by nested folders.

<comment><AUTHOR> From this I start thinking that folders will be eventually just replaced with labels but labels should become nested. Leaving terminology aside nested label becomes just a folder that can be assigned to multiple nodes. Which in Linux filesystems is called hard linking folders.

I just noticed that gmail has moved from simple Labels to nested Labels! Now you can create sublabels with seemingly unlimited depth.

Nesting structural aspects/sublabeling has become inevitable for gmail so hopefully UX aspects of working with nested labels becomes more standard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Folders die immediately when you need one more way to classify your files. E.g. you have photos grouped by date, but want to add genre or group by people on the photo. The same with books - you can have them in one big list, because very often you can't really select the primary system for categorization, since one book may cover many different topics, so you may want to have tags for every major topic, and then also by year and by author. Plus some tag to mark books you've already read or planning to read.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's outdated only if you want to really push good search. At some point you will have so many tags, that you'd like to tag tags.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I guess it also somewhat resembles with GMail not having tree threads.

</comment><comment><USER6> The folder concept was already outdated when it was conceived. First, unlike the physical world, we don't have to have one place for things (e.g. a sock drawer). We can have separate ways to access the same thing. If you think about it, tags/labels are just folders, but so that you can place the same thing in multiple folders.

But more, the future is to have a fast expanse of metadata, most of it computer generated, and access content based on queries of that.</comment>


Dept. of Homeland Security freezes accounts between Dwolla and Mt. Gox - <AUTHOR> http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/14/dept-of-homeland-security-freezes-accounts-between-dwolla-and-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox/

<comment><AUTHOR> Link to source (an email to Chris Coyne): <https://twitter.com/malgorithms/status/334395559366520832></comment>


How far we have come in ten years. - <AUTHOR>

I was recently reading BillG's Business at the speed of though, and came through these lines. (Page 111)<p>"dell solved the problem .... Using load balancing technology, Dell feeds incoming web request  through one of its many front web servers so that transaction load can be distributed. .. Dell can add a new server in about an hour ..."<p>10 years ago adding an server in one hour was such a feat for a company like Dell that it gets mentioned, today the most cash strapped startup can do so if they so desire. Just something to think about how the rules of business have changed and startups have a level playing field. <comment><USER2> Level playing field?

Startups can now do some of the things that large companies could do ten years ago; there's still quite a few things that large companies can do now that startups won't be able to do easily for another ten years.

Et cetera.</comment>


On vagueness, or, when is a heap of sand not a heap of sand? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/on-vagueness-when-is-a-heap-of-sand-not-a-heap-of-sand <comment><USER2> I like to consider the difference between 'one','a couple','a few','several','many'. e.g 1,2,3-6,5-12,10+ respectively.

>Vagueness isn't a problem about logic; it's a problem about knowledge.

I think it's more to do with _context_. The transition from 'a grain' to 'a pile' to 'a heap' where those terms are actually _useful_ is normally clear in the context of whatever problem we're trying to solve.

The confusion arises from the fact that 'a grain' is considered to be well- defined without context and that language refers to it directly. Thus we lament that we can't adequately define 'heap'. Whereas in fact all language is metaphorical and indirect, and definitions can't rescue us from this. So even the label 'a grain' is fuzzy if you look deeply and scientifically enough.

<comment><USER3> >The transition from 'a grain' to 'a pile' to 'a heap' where those terms are actually useful is normally clear in the context of whatever problem we're trying to solve.

That's the position of pragmatist philosophers, the existential- phenomenologists and the analytic philosophers influenced by the later Wittgenstein.

In Western philosophy, there are two competing ideas about the metaphysical status of basic concepts. According to one, as in Platonism, dualism, and materialism, concepts concerning the real world are perfect, like mathematical ideas. In the other view, concepts are the products of the great complexities of human living, and so are inherently vague, complex, and contextual. In the last century or so, I would say the later idea has been winning out, though many philosphers still hold the former one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few months ago I bookmarked a 1923 talk/essay by Bertrand Russell that is actually entitled Vagueness. I thought it was extremely interesting to read the perspective of a cleary-brilliant thinker prior to the computer age.

[http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings...](http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/vagueness.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> I appreciate the author's dispensation with fuzzy logic as a suitable answer to the problem of the heap, but I'm not sure that his answer (a lack of knowledge) is any more persuasive.

As evidenced by his formulation of the sorites paradox, we all seem to have an intuitive notion of when a heap transitions to a less-than-heap (for lack a better word) or individual. One possible description (which I don't claim is final) that aligns with this intuition is that the whole stands out more than its parts. A heap, then, is when an object exists more on its own than as _of_ other objects. The same might be said for crowds, flocks of birds, &c.

Just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER6> Alternatively you could consider a functional definition. If you need to consider a group of grains collectively, and they are stacked touching each other, they are a heap.

Likewise, is it a boat if you make it and never plan to put it in the water, but use it as a table? Is it a boat if you lie on a block of foam and paddle?

If you think things have some sort of platonic essence, these concepts are hard. If you think the definition of a thing is the role it fills, this particular problem is easier.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand the author's point about the two heaps. Clearly there are two separate propositions at play -- the "heapness" of either pile, and whether or not the two heap-like entities are identical. The first requires fuzzy logic because the definition of "heap" is vague. The second does not because the rules (take a grain off one for each grain removed from the other) are precisely defined. There is no inherent contradiction just because two different systems are in use at once.

</comment><comment><USER8> How do you discuss this issue without bringing up the problems with essentialism?

A "heap" is an under-defined term and if you treat it like it isn't you confuse yourself. More interestingly, so is "alive". Fuzzy logic doesn't apply.

It's pretty fantastic that we can use vagueness and metaphor to communicate so richly, unfortunate that we get so used to it we often confuse ourselves.</comment>


How to save a sinking canoe - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH6SMocBwN0#t=11

<comment><USER2> Tricks of the trade...</comment>


Brooklyn Judge: Feds Can't Use All Writs Act to Force Apple's Hand [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2016/02/applebrooklyn-2.29.16order.pdf <comment><USER2> This seems to be the core point here — the US Code is a whitelist, not a blacklist:

"The government's position also produces a wholly different kind of absurdity: the idea that the First Congress might so thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution that many of its members had personally just helped to write or to ratify. Its preferred reading of the law – which allows a court to confer on the executive branch any investigative authority Congress has decided to withhold, so long as it has not affirmatively outlawed it – would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress's superior ability to prohibit or preempt. I conclude that the constitutionality of such an interpretation is so doubtful as to render it impermissible as a matter of statutory construction."

<comment><USER3> I could do without the originalism. His argument that The FBI's "preferred reading of the law ... would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filling statute ... into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers" is more than strong enough without trying to divine the ideas of the long-dead creators of the law.

What's important is the letter of the law, the relevant preceding decisions, and the judge's reason and conscience (which is checked by appeals). The context the law was originally written in is just fluff.

<comment><USER4> Read much about legal cases and you'll quickly realize how little "the letter" of a law (or any other collection of words) really, unambiguously conveys. Context is a necessary fallback in the interpretation of law just as it is in day-to-day conversation.

I haven't read this document in detail, but from what's quoted here it seems pretty obvious that the judge's argument _isn 't_ strong enough without reference to the law's creators. Its entirely plausible to imagine serious lawmakers making an AWA that _was_ a "mechanism for upending the separation of powers". Only knowing the involvement of these same lawmakers (in part) in the law's creation is this interpretation ruled out- "orginalism" certainly, but here justifiable.

<comment><USER5> This is the one thing I really took away from (way too much) recent reading about Scalia and textual originalism - in my opinion, it's almost downright foolish to obey 'the letter' of the original law, and it's completely right of anyone asked to _judge_ based on the law to do just that. I think it'd be kind of stupid in this case in particular and in all cases in general to ignore the context surrounding the law, both at the time it was written and in the present day.

<comment><USER6> Textual originalism is a euphemistic smokescreen, invoked to justify a position as "true" to the original intent even when the justice in question hands down opinions with no Constitutional basis. Scalia was a master at this deception, vehemently excoriating "activist" judges while simultaneously making logical leaps like "corporations are people" and "money is speech".

Textual originalism is largely a fraudulent mechanism for justifying a right- wing position.

<comment><USER7> Although agree, ...with your position, I disagree in your reasoning. Corporations are persons because they are an organized group of people established to carry out the intentions and express the views, i.e. speech, of their members. Citizens United didn't screw campaign finance laws, it affirmed a breakdown of the intention of campaign finance laws. If a company can say, "we make our parts from recycled materials, that's why we are better than our opponents," does that not constitute political speech? Should a company not be able to say that? Should a company not be able to contribute to organizations that support actions, through speech, to the benefit of the company or inline to the intentions of the people involved in the company? The decision was legally correct. The fallout is in our hands...

I personally am anoyed that, now, every purchase I make is a political statement. Or being lowered into thinking that, now, is different. Buy American!

<comment><USER8> >Although agree, ...with your position, I disagree in your reasoning. Corporations are persons because they are an organized group of people established to carry out the intentions and express the views, i.e. speech, of their members.

Is that why you invest in a company? So it can express your views for you? I do it because I would like to be able to retire some day, not because I support their polital efforts.

<comment><USER9> > Is that why you invest in a company?

Maybe, and maybe not, but remember that not all corporations are publicly traded on the stock market. Some organizations are incorporated under structures and tax rules like, say... the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a 501(c)(3) charity, or the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, a 501(c)(5) labor union, or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a 501(c)(6) business league, or Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, a 527 organization, or Universal Life Church, a 508(c)(1)(a) religious organization. _All of these have engaged in free speech activities, often overtly political ones._

Some corporations are privately held and across the pond, the Crown itself is "a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance" in the King or Queen of England (not relevant to US free speech so much but potentially interesting as a corporate structure).

Personally, I'd hope that a _publicly traded for-profit corporation_ that I (partially) own would spend/invest its money wisely, to increase the value not only of my shares, but my interests in life in general. However, the value of my shares is one particularly compelling and immediate interest, and also much easier to measure results on than the others, and political spending may or may not be in my overall interest, so I agree that skepticism on such spending is warranted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note that this is not the San Bernardino shooter case but just the drug case in NY.

Still, Judge Orenstein gave some extremely important arguments regarding the All Writs Act (AWA) that the government tries to use:

"The plain text of the statute thus confers on all federal courts the authority to issue orders where three requirements are satisfied: 1\. issuance of the writ must be "in aid of" the issuing court's jurisdiction; 2\. the type of writ requested must be "necessary or appropriate" to provide such aid to the issuing court's jurisdiction; and 3\. the issuance of the writ must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law.""

"As set forth below, I conclude that in the circumstances of this case, the government's application does not fully satisfy the statute's threshold requirements: although the government easily satisfies the statute's first two elements, the extraordinary relief it seeks cannot be considered "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." In arguing to the contrary, _the government posits a reading of the latter phrase so expansive – and in particular, in such tension with the doctrine of separation of powers – as to cast doubt on the AWA 's constitutionality if adopted._"

In short, he recognized that "All Writs Act" can't mean "we can order anything we want to" to allow (in this case) DEA not following the laws that already exist (which specifically don't prescribe what DEA demands from Apple).

<comment><USER11> And this is the way it should be. Otherwise, we are all deputized slaves to the government.

<comment><USER10> Judge actually wrote that accepting the use of AWA that way

"is a reading that thoroughly undermines" "the more general _protection against tyranny_ that the Founders believed required the careful separation of governmental powers.""

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not especially shocking. The Gov'ts proposed theory of the All Writs Act as the legal equivalent of "sudo do whatever I want" was pretty damn tenuous.

<comment><USER13> It seems easy to rule out the "do whatever I want interpretation". If this were true, the Constitution becomes unnecessary. This is a contradiction. QED

<comment><USER14> The government's actual interpretation wasn't quite broad enough to allow that dismissal: the proposed interpretation was essentially that AWA allows courts to order anything _so long as neither the Constitution nor laws passed by Congress explicitly forbid it_.

<comment><USER10> > AWA allows courts to order anything so long as neither the Constitution nor > laws passed by Congress explicitly forbid it.

And that interpretation the judge considers absurd:

"the government's construction of the AWA produces absurd results in application. If, for example the President sent to Congress a bill explicitly authorizing a court to issue the kind of order the government seeks here, and if every single member of the House and Senate were to vote against the enactment of such a law citing the kinds of data security and personal privacy concerns that Apple now embraces, the government would nevertheless describe the order sought here as permissible because Congress had merely rejected the bill – however emphatically, and however clear its reasons for doing so – rather than affirmatively passing legislation to prohibit the executive branch's proposal. Yet in such circumstances, it would be absurd to posit that the authority the government sought was anything other than obnoxious to the law."

And there's the related law in which Congress explicitly didn't oblige the companies: CALEA.

<comment><USER15> Wouldn't the same argument apply to any time congress delegates authority? I.E. They allow some agency to decree certain things with the force of a law. Whatever that agency decides within the bounds of the constitution is law, even if congress debated that point and didn't expressly permit it.

<comment><USER16> You're talking about e.g. EPA deciding to regulate a dangerous-but-previously- unregulated chemical. In that case it's reasonable for EPA to declare that it will regulate the chemical. FBI doesn't get to make such declarations with respect to its own investigatory powers.

<comment><USER15> If Congress debates whether they should ban the chemical and decides not to pass anything, does the EPA still have that right? If yes, what's the difference?

<comment><USER17> When establishing the EPA, Congress wrote a law saying "All dangerous chemicals will be banned. The EPA will define what 'dangerous chemicals' means." (Actually, the first iteration of the EPA just gave grants to local organizations to clean up pollution, but I'm ignoring that for the moment.)

'Is this chemical dangerous?' is a specific question with a specific scientific and medical answer. 'Is this a dangerous use of federal power?' is an inherently subjective question. So, that would be one reason why your example doesn't raise the same constitutional concerns as the FBI's request.

Second, being able to ban chemicals is a power that is much more limited than the power to make arbitrary companies do arbitrary things.

<comment><USER15> Where in the Writs act or Constitution is an exception made for "dangerous uses"?

<comment><USER17> Nowhere. However, the Writs act does require that the writ be, "agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

Orenstien's point is spot on. There's no act of Congress that prevents the government from seeking a writ to provide execution drugs.

If we accept the government's argument that Congress must explicitly deny the request, and the argument that burden must be calculated purely based on financial cost, the only factor that would weigh against a writ for execution drugs is the discretionary factor of closeness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've written up the piece for InfoQ here:

[http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/02/all-writs- denied](http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/02/all-writs-denied)

Basically, the motions in the piece indicate that the relationship with the All Writs Act that was successfully used before are not relevant; because in the prior case, the business property was being used to commit the crime, but in this case, the property was the owner of the accused, not Apple.

The Judge also highlighted "in other cases in the country" and had an explicit callback to the founding fathers and the constitution, suggesting that if the All Writs Act allowed the government to compel any American company to do anything it wanted that wasn't explicitly illegal, and therefore any American citizen, could be compelled to do almost anything.

Reuters are now reporting this directly, rather than just a link to the court order:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-deny- idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-deny- idUSKCN0W22Q0)

<comment><USER19> Well written.

I know we hear a lot of doom and gloom, but I think it's a fantastic time we live in.

Not only do we have the transparency of the courts (which is good, but I don't understand it), we have an article summarising it. We then have the author available for comment.

I don't have any questions or feedback, but if I did, I feel confident you would respond appropriately.

I know we are far from perfect world but the one we have is pretty dam awesome!

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the kind words :-) I'm happy to answer things as I understand them, but I am not a lawyer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Isn't the All Writs Act just a red herring in this whole debate? What's preventing the Federal Government from issuing Apple a National Security Letter and forcing them to comply in secrecy?

I don't understand how all of a sudden the government is publicly and calmly asking permission to do something digitally when they have been so forceful and demanding in the recent past.

<comment><USER21> A NSL is a subpoena, meaning an order to produce information. In these cases Apple does not have the information being sought because it is encrypted on the phones and they don't have the key.

The government is trying to use a dubious legal tactic to force Apple to create a hacking tool that does not exist. It's not an order to produce information, it's an order to do forced work.

<comment><USER22> >meaning an order to produce information.

But couldn't they write a modified iOS software themselves (obviously not easy as cake, but for the sake of the argument) and use a NSL to get Apple's key to sign the update?

It seems like having the update _signed_ is the issue, not _writing_ the update.

Edit: When looking at the scope of the NSL, it seems like only metadata can be requested, not arbitrary stuff. IANAL, but it seems like using an NSL makes no sense.

<comment><USER14> They could try. Apple would no doubt challenge both the NSL _and_ the associated nondisclosure order (if one were issued with the NSL) in the courts, though. NSLs aren't magic.

<comment><USER23> They are pretty close to magic. I've only ever heard of one case where an NSL was challenged in court.

From what I remember, the NSL comes with a gag order which prevents even the council of the recipient from knowing about the issue.

<comment><USER24> > the NSL comes with a gag order which prevents even the council of the > recipient from knowing about the issue.

That was changed with the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act of 2005.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> From the first page, (and the same sentiment is found throughout the whole document)

> the relief the government seeks is unavailable because Congress has > considered legislation that would achieve the same result but has not > adopted it.

Bingo!

I've said it on HN since the beginning of this case [1,2,3], and I'll continue to say it. This case is about making backdoor legislation palatable. Don't get caught up in the precedent set by this case, it's more or less inapplicable when Apple (etc.) can't flash the device without effectively wiping it, which is where things are headed. [4]

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11139515](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11139515)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11139497](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11139497)

[3]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11164617](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11164617)

[4]: [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/apple-is-said-to-be- working-o...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on- an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html)

<comment><USER26> Except that if the ruling had gone the other way you could say that this is a way of pursuing <nebulous government intrusion> _without_ going through Congress.

The reality is that the people who want to be able to decrypt at will are just pursuing every option available to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "As explained below, after reviewing the facts in the record and the parties' arguments,I conclude that none of those factors justifies imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government's investigation against its will. I therefore deny the motion."

</comment><comment><USER28> It is also worth reading Apple's motion in this case: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-00451-SP- USA-v-Black-Lexus-IS300.html)

Actually I just noticed something about the title of the case: USA vs Black Lexus IS300. Is this actually a criminal forfeiture case?

<comment><USER12> That's a motion from a case in California. This ruling is from one in New York.

It's confusing because the Goverment has advanced this All Writs theory in 9 different currently ongoing cases to try to get it to stick.

<comment><USER29> > It's confusing because the Goverment has advanced this All Writs theory in 9 > different currently ongoing cases to try to get it to stick.

The only one I've heard about is the San Bernardino shooter's phone. What are the other eight cases?

<comment><USER12> The New York case this ruling came out of is one of them.

This list has all of the ones Apple listed in a filling in this New York case: [http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/23/in-new-court- filin...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/23/in-new-court-filing-apple- cites-9-other-cases-in-which-fbi-asserted-the-all-writs-act)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why would this stop at smartphones? If the FBI's arguments would be upheld, couldn't the FBI require home manufacturers to build in literal back doors for use only by the government

<comment><USER31> No, if it's upheld and home manufacturers _already_ have a literal backdoor for use only by themselves, a court can force the home manufacturers to allow the FBI to use them as well for specific investigations. The AWA power to compel an action only works when the party being compelled has some special ability to help on a specific case with probable cause (not future cases), as Apple does with its system update backdoor for the San Bernardino and Brooklyn cases.

<comment><USER32> It's a shame that you're being downvoted. This is exactly what the situation is.

<comment> grey-area It's not exactly the situation as I understand it. Apple, with their current software, do not have a way to access this phone. They'd have to build a special neutered version, update the phone with it, then allow access.

That they _can_ do this since they control updates doesn't mean that they have already done it for their own purposes or wish to do it, or should be compelled to build a back door for the government.

<comment><USER31> That they _can_ do it means they have a backdoor. It doesn't matter if it takes a day to write the code and flash a build to use it — that it is significantly easier for them to access data on the device than it is for anybody else means they have a backdoor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is not the end. The San Bernardino case will be appealed, and somewhere in the midst of that we're going to see new bills from the legislature.

One bill, set for release in March, could require encrypted devices to be able to give un-encrypted data to law enforcement. Feinstein says the bill is "coming along ... some people are making it a lot harder than we think it needs to be". An alternate proposal is also on the table from McCaul and Warner,

[http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning- cybersecurity/2016...](http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning- cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after- japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865)

</comment><comment><USER34> The conclusion is pretty clear.

        Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter,
        and in others like it across the country, is not whether
        the government should be able to force Apple to help it
        unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All
        Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet
        to come. For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that
        it does not. The government's motion is denied.

It doesn't answer the question that was on my mind ("Can the FBI force Apple to write and cryptographically sign a less-secure version of their operating system?"), but it's nice to know that the AWA doesn't grant them that capability.

<comment><USER35> This is one of those times I really wish we had a functioning legislative branch. They could write and pass a law describing companies' obligations and law enforcement's powers when dealing with strong encryption on smartphones. Then people who disagreed could take it to the courts, and a Supreme Court with an odd number of justices could decide whether said law was constitutional.

Unfortunately we do not live in that world, so we get to creatively interpret centuries-old laws written by people who could not have imagined encrypted smartphones. And that interpretation may end up at an evenly-divided Supreme Court.

<comment><USER36> An even number of justices does not necessarily mean a deadlocked Supreme Court. Most cases are not decided 5-4 (though it may be true that the most controversial cases are more likely to be decided that way).

<comment><USER35> I agree, especially in this case. Since it isn't a straightforward Democrats vs. Republicans issue, Kennedy or Roberts might go either way. Still, with our useless Congress, there won't be any new law, and even if there were, it could be struck down by a Circuit Court decision "approved" by a deadlocked Supreme Court. Ugh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'd actually _love_ to see this one make it to the supreme court, where I have pretty much no doubt, they would reach the exact same conclusion.

<comment><USER38> Or, the SCOTUS (currently down to 8 Justices) would deadlock and the ruling would fall back to the lesser court's decision in favor of the government. Forever.

<comment><USER14> > Or, the SCOTUS (currently down to 8 Justices) would deadlock and the ruling > would fall back to the lesser court's decision in favor of the government. > Forever.

No, a Supreme Court deadlock has essentially the same effect as if the case had not been appealed to the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeals decision stands, but no binding precedent (other than the local precedent already created by the Court of Appeals decision) is created. So, its not "forever", even in the limited sense that a Supreme Court decision is "forever".

<comment><USER37> ^ This is the correct answer

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think the technicality in the current case will hinge on the definition of "necessary" and "appropriate" if this Judge's opinion of that drug case is correct. Both from the AWA and then CALEA Id. § 1002(b)(2). "...and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication." To my understanding the way in which the government wants Apple to hinder the security on the iphone is not by breaking the decryption, but by eliminating the limit on entering the code, so that they can then brute force it. This in my opinion falls outside of the strictest sense interpretation of the second statute's definition of necessary. Therefore it also falls outside of the "appropriate" in the AWA. I feel that an issue this large falling under a distinction so small is a bit scary.

</comment><comment><USER40> So if this interpretation sticks, seems like there's a risky but effective new anti-surveillance method in town:

1) Draft law expanding surveillance for criminal cases 2) bring the law for a congressional vote 3) _make sure the vote fails_

-> now you've shut the FBI and others off from access through judiciary writs

<comment><USER41> What happens if you aren't successful at #3 and the vote passes?

<comment><USER40> risky!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It seems likely to me that this case would be referenced in the upcoming San Bernardino decision, but I am not a lawyer.

Does anyone know? Does this prop up the chances of that judge ruling in favor of Apple?

Could the DOJ try to bring the Brooklyn case in front of the supreme court? What are the next steps we're likely to see?

<comment><USER42> Generally, current litigation doesn't reference other current litigation (mostly because current litigation has not established enough of a "fact" to be referenced), but you can read this statement and see that Orenstein allowed Apple to submit a brief while this case seemed to be going stale in-between the guilty plea of the defendant and his sentencing, precisely because it was being held up in 9 other cases of the "government" (whether that be the FBI in the San Bernardino case, or the DEA in this case, to the plain Chicago PD in another) leveraging the AWA to compel Apple to open this and other phones by some means.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I can see how this helps Apple in fighting the AWA used to compel them to unlock or decrypt phones seized as evidence in part of some crime where Apple was not alleged as a perpetrator or coconspirator of the crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This case does not bode well for the CA case.

The general consensus amongst lawyers is that this situation, the unlocking scenario, will require either congress or the supreme court to weigh in. Congress is out to lunch for the next year or so. But to get a ruling from the supreme court one needs a controversy. Ideally, that would be two identical cases with different interpretations by different appellate courts. This judge has taken the first step. I suspect the CA judge will go the opposite way, starting the progress up the system towards the supremes.

</comment><comment><USER44> While Apple should assist with the unlocking of iPhones to assist in prosecution of suspected criminals, the idea that the Feds want Apple to make a backdoor program to every single iPhone is terrifying, even if they are required to gain a warrant before using the program. The entire notion of one government agency holding so much data and power is absurd and coercing a company to make the program shouldn't be allowed.

</comment><comment> jim-greer Best quote from the ruling:

"As far as I can discern from the record, Feng did not at any time 'rent, lend, lease, sell, redistribute or sublicense' Apple's software; what he did 'sell' or 'redistribute' was methamphetamine - a course of conduct in which Apple was not involved."

<comment><USER45> Interesting... I thought that was the worst bit, at least in terms of substance. The government had raised the point that Apple [claims to?] own the software on the iPhone, and that they had to take the ill effects of that ownership along with the beneficial. I'm not so sure about that legal argument, but Orenstein decided to ignore it completely and offer humor instead. It was a blemish on an otherwise-excellent analysis, although I can't help but feel that he's put rather a lot of his personal views into this order.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Very nice, and one for the "good guys". Lets hope we can continue in this vein.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's times like this that my waning faith in our system is somewhat restored

</comment><comment><USER47> It's times like this that my waning confidence in our system is reinforced.

</comment><comment><USER48> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

</comment><comment><USER49> What happens next -- US DOJ appeals?

</comment><comment><USER50> Nobody can force Apple to do what FBI want to. Period.

</comment><comment><USER50> They can not force Apple to do anything. Period.

<comment><USER50> They can not force Apple if it implies invading the privacy Of Apple customers.

<comment><USER50> If they allow it, will be opening a can of worms. The FBI can do as they want. Apple is protecting the pravacy of all its customers. Its a violation of privacy do what FBI is asking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> What if the government and Apple (and/or other tech companies) have colluded on this issue, and ARE providing the FBI with the information they need, but publicly fighting what appears to be a winning battle, all so that criminals and terrorists will believe their iPhones are secure while plotting evil?

<comment><USER52> Sorry, but nothing of any interest would follow from that harebrained speculation being true.</comment></comment>


When CRM Meets Pebble Watch - <AUTHOR> http://scn.sap.com/blogs/ethan/2013/10/07/when-crm-meets-wearable-technology

<comment><USER2> >The truth is most CRM systems available today are more useful to the sales managers and executives because they use the CRM systems to gain insight on overall and individual sales performance. The CRM systems doesn't necessarily help sales professional to increase sales, though.

This part is flat-out wrong. Modern CRM systems are very useful for sales professionals. They provide analytics, pipeline analysis, and other powerful features.

I think wearable tech will eventually end up playing a minor role in an outside sales professional's daily routine. I could definitely see some of my reps using it for accessing their calendar and locating information on the client for their next meeting when they're out and about. However, it will never completely replace the computer and mobile versions.

<comment><USER3> Very good insight and I agreed with you with modern day CRM. But analytic, pipeline analysis will only be accurate when the sales rep did spent the time updating all the data in CRM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Problem with today´s CRM system is that they are based around information about the customers. Data around customers don´t lead to more sales, actives does. Most CRM system is focused on what HAS happend not what was is GOING to happen.

I believe the reason for this is that we started out with papers, just like email started with mail, an inbox and an outbox. Email today is much smarter with conversation history but for a long time and stil today we have in and outboxes. Todays CRM is just a enlargement of the paper based system but with the disadvantage that you have to do the entire structure on how information is stored once you want to change the workflow. That leads to much longer iterations and changing is hard.

If you work in sales ask your self this: * Does my CRM system answer what I am going to do? Not just your self written todo list, I mean some intelligence like what is the most optimal action for you to do in any given moment. * How long does it take to change your CRM system to adopt it to your organisation * Do you still have fields for fax number in your CRM? * How is knowledge transferred from your top performing sales people to others. Does your CRM system help with that.

CRM system should give more then it takes. It should answer thous questions.</comment>


Scorched - a lightweight framework for Ruby 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://scorchedrb.com/ Just ran across this Sinatra inspired framework that "barely" sits on top of rack. It uses controllers as classes which is interesting. <comment><USER2> Looks really nice but I can't see myself using it. I use Sinatra when I want to throw together a quick "scetch" of an app and Rails when I want to make something that involves a database, controllers, multiple views, etc. I've never felt the need for a middle ground between the two.

What are the main advantages over Sinatra?</comment>


We Have The Grammar Police. Why Not The Math Police? - <AUTHOR> http://www.creativitypost.com/education/we_have_the_grammar_police._why_not_the_math_police

<comment><USER2> The reason we have the grammar police but not the math police is that grammar is somehow encoded in our brains at a more fundamental level than math. I don't remember all the details but guys like Stephen Pinker argue that there's a fundamental language logic we are born with and it's expressed in grammar.

I don't think such a fundamental encoding exists for math, it's more of an abstraction we learn long after we've learned to speak grammatically correctly (or is that "correct"?).

Having said that - yes we absolutely need the Math Police! Especially because math is easier to agree on than what's correct grammar. "I didn't say nothin' to nobody" to mean "I didn't say anything to anybody" might seem incorrect when to some but still follows a fundamental grammar logic of its own so I think the Math Police's arrest to conviction ratio would be much better.

</comment><comment><USER3> When people become versed in math and statistics the politicians will have harder time lying and deceiving. Also carries, bank, big businesses and advertisers. So it is in no one's interest.</comment>


Bitcoin: peer-to-peer network based anonymous digital currency - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoin.sourceforge.net/ <comment><USER2> Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.

</comment><comment><USER3> brilliant, this could finally end the recession!

people working and living digital must use digital money and help others via donations instead of mandatory offline taxes.

(offline) citizenship is in the same way fake like the original sin.

</comment><comment><USER4> i'm having trouble wrapping my head around the logistics of this...</comment>


The gospel of Elon Musk, according to his flock - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/26/17505744/elon-musk-fans-tesla-spacex-fandom <comment><USER2> Elon Musk is one of our "holy programmers" ([http://dailyprog.org/holy/#musk](http://dailyprog.org/holy/#musk)) because he did a nice game when he was 12 ([https://blastar-1984.appspot.com/](https://blastar-1984.appspot.com/)).

Sadly I didn't read the article because of that [https://u.sicp.me/gFzaG.png](https://u.sicp.me/gFzaG.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> I like Elon less and less the more time goes on, but it has little to do with much of the complaints raised in this article and similar pieces. Elon can't help it that crazy, rude, or sexist people gravitate towards him. He's a flashy tech billionaire, of course he has a cult of personality. We should focus more on the technology and the massive taxpayer bills involved. To all the people who raged at him for not 'reigning in' his 'fans': do you really expect him to be so kind as to go out of his way to make himself look bad and berate his customers at the same time? Let me reiterate: _he 's a tech billionaire_.

I would also like to point out how the article goes out of it's way to mention that Elon Musk's crowd (I refuse to call them 'Musketeers', what vapid click bait nonsense) is full of "cis white liberals," in a clearly accusatory tone. What the hell is that supposed to mean? That they're all ignorant and hateful? Is the fact that there are shitty people on the internet somehow the fault of the white race, or is it just exclusively Musk's fault?

This kind of shit is what people talk about when they complain about 'social justice warriors' \- authors publishing what amounts to rehashed complaints from Twitter and plaigarism with an underlying theme of "but think of the minorities!" Life sucks. Twitter sucks. Sometimes rich people suck. I wish it was better but this is not how to do it.</comment>


Roon Labs - <AUTHOR> https://roonlabs.com

<comment><USER2> Founder here... we just launched.

History of the HiFi product this was built up from here: [http://blog.roonlabs.com/what-a-journey/](http://blog.roonlabs.com/what-a- journey/)

I always wanted to post our product on [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7629177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7629177) "My Quest to Build the Ultimate Music Player" We solve almost every concern posted, especially about music metadata organization.

Any questions? We want to hear your issues with music software.</comment>