Why aren't big companies implementing best practices to protect user's data? - <AUTHOR> Why aren't the big companies hosting millions of users using the best practices and tools available to protect user's data like passwords, emails, etc?
It seems that modern hashing techniques like bcrypt and salting are not being implemented.
Is it because of the cost or hassle? Is it laziness, ill advice, lack of care for customers safety or poor management decisions? Or is it something else? <comment><USER2> I have consulted at a lot of firms. From small to enterprise, most I have been at lacked adequate security and many violated the simplest of standard security procedures. I would run into policies about how they didn't want a developer having access to a production server, yet passwords were stored in plain text, servers went un-patched and there was little to no intrusion security protection. Hell, I found developers at more then one place, hacking into their own production servers to "fix" critical issues after hours with management being fully aware of it and turning a blind eye. Hey dumb ass, if your own developer can do it so can others.

At one mid-sized firm, they had personal data on millions of consumers, yet every password issued to clients and staff was defaulted to the same one and no user was ever forced to change it. Passwords were stored in plain text as well, and on a number of occasions I saw internal and external people log into the platform as another user to see the data they shouldn't be able to.

The answers I have heard consistently as to why not fix it; it isn't a priority, too many things "might" break, there is no revenue in fixing it, no one cares about us enough to hack us. The last one always makes me laugh, true, at most of these places no one had to care to hack them because hacking would imply that it would require effort.

At least in my experience, most good developers care to implement security, but are many times overruled because of either schedule or cost. I generally don't give a breakout of security procedures or time estimates (about security) simply to avoid bone headed decisions on removing security. However, when someone else is paying the bills and I am being directed to do something, I will raise the issue if I think it is wrong, document my objection and then implement what I am told so I can get paid while I find a new client or place to call home.

</comment><comment><USER3> Big companies often have legacy systems which were architected before password dumps were a regular occurance. You can't just implement strong password hashes on those systems without causing issues or paying a large amount of capital.

<comment><USER2> I agree you can't implement a strong password hash on some legacy systems and that replacing them is capital intensive which may not even be possible in some cases. However, that doesn't stop good security procedures to isolate those systems, add layers in front of them and minimize the attack vectors. Even the act of air gapping certain legacy systems is the right move, it at least minimizes the attack vectors, and can keep costs reasonable.

So if the company cares about security there are ways to layer it in and provide a robust solution (albeit not necessarily ideal), but many times they just don't care enough to make it a priority.</comment></comment>


A Novel Concept: Silent Book Clubs Offer Introverts a Space to Socialize - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/740897970/a-novel-concept-silent-book-clubs-offer-introverts-a-space-to-socialize <comment><USER2> > _I would say that I 'm an introvert who's really good at pretending to be an > extrovert for small amounts of time _

In other words: an introvert. There seems to be a widespread misconception that introversion means being "shy" and not talking to people, when in reality it is more about where you draw energy from. The result is tons of people self-identifying as "extroverted introverts"[1], presumably in an attempt to signal that they are not totally devoid of social skills, when in reality introversion has nothing to do with that.

[1] When I was single I saw this surprisingly often in online dating profiles. Interestingly, for all the many people I've seen identify this way, I've never seen a single person self-identify as the opposite: an "introverted extrovert".

<comment><USER3> It's a very common misconception. One I even held myself until recently. The more I thought about it, I realized that while I am introverted, I do like being around people. I'm perfectly happy to be with and socialize with people - as long as I don't have to be the center of attention or life of the party. Interestingly it was a 3 month stint doing full-time remote work that made me realize this.

Luckily when socializing with other introverts, they're generally OK with silence and gaps in the conversation, it's not awkward. And when socializing with extroverts they're happy to dominate the conversation and I'm happy to let them and just listen.

<comment><USER4> I'd call myself an introvert, but I definitely get a bit awkward with silences in conversation, except when I'm with good friends.

When there's an extrovert dominating and thus no silence at all, I just get tired of listening.

<comment><USER3> Sure, I feel that too sometimes. Sometimes it's because I don't know the other person well so I don't know how they feel about it, so I start to worry that it feels awkward to them and that makes me want to alleviate it for their sake. Often I'm probably just overthinking it.

It can also be tiring when someone dominates a conversation, it really just depends who it is. I have some friends who I could listen to all day, and they'd happily talk all day.

<comment><USER4> >I have some friends who I could listen to all day, and they'd happily talk all day.

I have those friends too, but unfortunately I also have some acquaintances that I can only listen to for a minute, yet they happily talk all day.

Sometimes their extrovert nature can override recognition of the audience's engagement level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People often equate introvert to mean "doesn't prefer to be around people" and extroverts to mean "loves to be around people", but that's essentially a myth.

The best layman explanation I have heard is that extroverts are "recharged" by being around others whereas introverts recharge by being alone. For example, I really like being around people, but the idea of not having time to myself to recharge can be exhausting.

<comment><USER6> > extroverts are "recharged" by being around others whereas introverts > recharge by being alone

Is there any actual support for this theory besides its status as an internet meme?

<comment><USER7> Of course N=1 and all that, but as a meme that describes how my life went from my teenage years to now, 20 years later, it fits very very well. Maybe you don't like the word, but as a recharge-alone-overt, I don't particularly care about the specific label, I just want to spend Sunday afternoon quietly with a book :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Forget the introvert/extrovert trap that so many comments/articles fall into.

I don't join book clubs precisely because I don't want to commit to reading that material on that schedule. The idea of simply meeting up with friends for an hour to silently read whatever we feel, hey, I like that. I can read LotR or HP again, someone else can read sci-fi or mysteries, and we can chat about that or whatever else. It's a great alternative to reading one and only one book.

<comment><USER9> Indeed! I have had similar... hesitation? when it comes to getting in a book club. I love reading, I have several friends that love reading, but I couldn't possibly imagine regularly reading something that we all agree upon in order to talk about on a regular basis. We'd all rather read our own stuff.

It's not even about not wanting to read something - I just want to feel engaged with what I'm reading and my friends seem to agree. It's how you can let a book sit on a shelf for 6 months then pick it up and read it in 3 days - sometimes it just 'grabs' you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> An unpopular opinion that I'm sure will garner negative reactions because everyone likes to self diagnose themselves, but I find the introvert/extrovert dichotomy quite weak.

Most people who I meet who proclaim they are "introverted" have just not invested any time into building their social skills.

Most people who I meet who proclaim they are "extroverted" are people who are not comfortable with being alone for whatever reasons.

It is seemingly obvious to me that both social skills and being with one self are both equally important.

Deciding which one you are by taking a shallow survey with surface level questions seems unintelligent.

Choosing one to identify with seems irrationally limiting to who you could be.

<comment> m-watson I think that there is for sure an aspect of underdeveloped skills. That could come from lack of interest, background/culture/environment, or any other number of reasons sure. But I think a bigger aspect is how psychologists often phrase it (sure it is wishy washy) but where do you get your energy. Some people are going to be more comfortable with people around and others feel more relaxed alone. That can and most likely will change over any individuals life but it is important to recognize what environments to go to when you need a recharge. And yes, people love to self-diagnose and take surface level quizzes, but this also does seem to be a real phenomenon different personalities have and understanding your own and others personalities will improve everyone's social interactions. So I agree, we should all work on being with ourselves as well as how to interact with others. But we also need to know, when feeling stressed, if we should retreat to a quiet room or a crowed get together.

And just a last point is that it seems like this silent book club is doing what you suggest, it is an introvert going to a place they feel more comfortable which will in time develop their social skills.

<comment><USER11> Developing a skill should have a payoff. When someone does not perceive as great a reward in social interactions, the motivation to develop their social skills is less.

If social skills were on a tech tree, introverts would put points into the "polite disengagement" branch first, while extroverts are still putting their early points into "bonus friend slot" and "multiple-participant schedule coordination" and such.

Some people might just recruit an extrovert for their sole friend slot, drop a single point on "Irish Exit", let the friend set up all the social events, and just vanish whenever they're _done_. That's a perfectly reasonable social skills build, up until the extrovert reaches their friend cap and drops the introvert into the acquaintance pool, to free up a slot for someone with better synergy bonuses.

And this is the sort of thinking that tends to drive off people who don't view (or don't want to view) the universe as a simulation that could be hackable with a better understanding of the data structures, and who don't want to have nerdy, speculative-fiction conversations about whether "deflect blame for loud fart" is a skill or a perk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember my college library being sort of a refuge and doorway to the world of knowledge without any attached expectation of socialization. I spent my time reading on everything that I found interesting/new (excluding the subjects I was studying for getting my degree). This knowledge didn't directly add to my grades (I think) but really opened my mind to the (pre-internet) world and its past, present and possible future, more so since I never had exposure to this amount of concentrated source of knowledge before.

The difference between that and what we do on internet now is that these were books by authors who spend a good chunk of their lives being authorities on the topics instead of someone dumping their musings on the internet (admittedly not all of which is substandard).

I think this kind of focused consumption (because you have to be physically there) of high quality content in an "aimless" manner is underrated and happening less.

</comment><comment><USER13> I have a vague idea that maybe some people need "framework" for socializing. Making it clearer task like framework for developing applications. I still don't know how that "framework" should look like.

I am a person who can't "just call and talk to him/her aimlessly" or "just ask friends to go out" as some relatives recommended me to do. I can spend hours trying to crack the task of "socializing" as if it is some hard puzzle.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am skeptical that this really gets at the heart of what makes socializing as an introvert different than for an extrovert. Being in a social situation brings some level of anxiety to the table even if everyone is silent and that eventually becomes taxing enough to need to be alone for awhile. Maybe it would take longer to reach that point, but there is nothing wrong with the way interacting with people currently works for an introverted individual.

</comment><comment><USER15> That's a fantastic idea. Just to escape from kids/work and have a good read sounds kind of magical. For some reason it seems more appealing than just going to a park or library and doing it. The socialising would be kind of reliant on reading roughly the same genre I suspect - don't think a romance and sci-fi would lead to a lot of conversation starters, but you never know.

</comment><comment><USER16> The use of the word "novel" in contexts like these is a pet peeve of mine. It seems to be used solely for making an idea sound good regardless of merit. Yes, there is value in signaling originality, but the tone feels self congratulatory. Perhaps this is just a product of my experiences in academia, where the use of the word "novel" seemed like a goal.

<comment><USER17> In this case it's also a pun, because they're talking about a book club.

<comment><USER18> Exactly - novel meaning "new" is perfectly valid usage but it's the dual meaning that's the intention here, the "I am reading a novel" one.

This got me wondering why books are called novels - apparently from the Italian "novella": [https://penandthepad.com/history- novel-6305937.html](https://penandthepad.com/history-novel-6305937.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ah, the Diogenes Club!

<comment><USER20> "If only hunger could be satisfied by such vigorous rubbing!"

<comment><USER21> I for one, appreciate the reference. Thank you for the laugh :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Classic rock is blaring from the speakers, but at this table, silence rings out."

Just what I want: classic rock while I'm trying to read something of moderate complexity.

If I want to be around people all reading their own books in silence, I can catch the Metrobus. (Actually, most days I catch the Metrobus willy-nilly; what with cell phones, the reading isn't as silent as it could be, but the bus gets me to and from work.)

</comment><comment><USER23> There are silent writing meetups too. [https://shutupwrite.com/](https://shutupwrite.com/)

</comment><comment><USER24> Similar to HN in some ways. There is not much small talk happening here. And no obligation for anyone to talk about some preassigned subject.

<comment><USER25> HN is nearly all small talk about the news. We aren't posting and critiquing each other's research papers. And we get a list of preassigning topics every day.

<comment><USER26> As a way for people to talk about unimportant topics, small talk serves a few vital functions:

1\. it allows politeness without deepening the relationship.

2\. it can be a breadth-first search of mutually-stimulating topics for in- depth conversation (which may lead to a deeper relationship if desired).

3\. it can avoid accidentally offending someone with controversial topics or opinions.

4\. is quick to disengage from, unlike a story or debate, so is useful as a conversational holding pattern.

HN doesn't really fit any of those. Sure, some comments will say "my kid does this", but I find they're rare on HN (and usually downvoted); in general, comments are adding new data or engaging in debate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A hacking club could be set up around the same idea: 1 hour of coding in silence and no rules outside of that. Pizza and beer provided!

<comment><USER25> How is it social if it's silent? Do you use instant messaging?

<comment><USER28> In the article, "Once the bell rings, silent reading time commences. After an hour, the bell rings again. [...] [Participants] chat about anything, before and after the designated reading time."

So presumably the 1 hour of coding in silence would be followed by as much time as you liked for pizza and socialising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I call this "sociable vs social." I'm regularly out and doing things in public locations where I _may_ end up interacting with people beyond basic greetings/nods/"tall Pike," but that doesn't mean I'm there to socialize so much as to get some undemanding human contact.

</comment><comment><USER30> Huh, I (and many others) kind of used to do this in undergrad. We'd get a study room, read things from our different classes to ourselves, and schedule breaks every 20 or so minutes to talk, and repeat. It was very effective and enjoyable studying.

</comment><comment><USER31> > The idea began with two friends reading together at a bar in San Francisco, > annoyed by the assigned reading of a demanding book club. Because everything > was invented in San Francisco in the last 20 years.

</comment><comment><USER32> I can't for the life of me figure out how to read around other people (even in silence). Is there something wrong with me? I bet I could learn but I'm not sure how.

<comment><USER11> You just have to try to read around other people, until you can. You can't literally shut off your sensory inputs, but you can learn to hear without listening, and see without observing.

Eventually, you may reach the point where you won't realize that someone is trying to get your attention until they actually poke you with a sharp stick. Or maybe just tap your shoulder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't have much discernible social anxiety when it comes to going somewhere and meeting and talking to strangers.

This idea would make me far more anxious than just talking to people.

</comment><comment><USER34> Reminded of the conversation a couple of days ago about "third places" that are gone... indie coffee shops were great for this.

</comment><comment><USER35> It seems like everybody is an introvert these days, or is it just me that thinks that?

<comment><USER36> Perhaps some environmental changes have caused people to think more about whether or not they're introverts. Open offices seem like a strong candidate to me (but there might well be others).

<comment><USER37> God I hate open offices. So tiring.</comment></comment></comment>


Adventures in Twitter Censorship [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://members.efn.org/~paulmd/OwnWork/AdventuresinCensorship.pdf <comment><USER2> All of you are misinterpreting Twitter's "features" here.

Most likely the root cause of this is an internal feature at Twitter called "per-country takedown."

If someone from Germany asked (and had a valid court order) that the Tweet be taken down for German users, then Twitter has the ability to disable the Tweet for people coming from German IPs.

I don't agree with this, I lobbied heavily against it while I worked there to no avail, but it's a solid explanation for why you wouldn't be able to see a Tweet in different regions.

<comment><USER3> epeus is right; I'm not at Twitter anymore either, but the last time I looked at this, per-country takedowns were clearly labeled as such (ie. you hit the tweet from the blocked country, you get clear "this isn't visible to you" messaging).

My honest guess? Cache coherency is hard, man.

<comment><USER3> Amusing side-conversation we're having right now: apparently my reply above didn't show up immediately for some folks.

Obviously, Hacker News is censoring me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of my main concerns with mainstream social networks is this kind of subtle censorship/filtering. Some people think their Facebook stream is an accurate representation of their friends and surrounding reality, they are ignorant of the algoritms that decide what they will see and what not.

<comment><USER5> This so true and a major concern. The next wave of highly effective propaganda and thought control could very easily manifest itself through this. Today, people know better than to blindly believe the news media. If information is coming from a single entity, it could be pushing an agenda, so take it with a grain of salt. We all know that. But when it appears to come from a community, that's entirely different. It seems completely genuine and trustworthy.

But what happens when Zuckerberg meets with German political leaders to discuss the silencing of anti-refugee posts on Facebook? We know that the technology exists. If you've ever advertised on Facebook, you've seen how easily one piece of content can be given massive priority while others can go quietly ignored. But that's not how it seems to the user. It just seems like all of their friends are thinking one way....so they should too.

There are massive implications to this.

<comment><USER6> Germany does not intend to silence anti-refugee posts. Germany wants to stop illegal incitement of hatred. Such as promoting or even threatening to burn down asylum centers, to hurt or even kill refugees and those that help them.

Those are not just words, asylum centers are being burned to the ground, refugees are attacked, just recently some were killed on the border the EU, just yesterday someone tried and almost suceeded in killing a politician who helped refugees.

You have to be insane to support this as free speech unless you support these nazis.

<comment><USER7> " _The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all._ "

— Widely attributed to H. L. Mencken

<comment><USER8> Would HN be better if personal insults and death threats were allowed, would it improve the exchange of ideas and the expression of opinions?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Your idea of a personal insult is my idea of spirited debate. I've been warned twice in the past few weeks by HN moderators because I've used similes that they've found offensive. Honestly? I find that offensive. They'd better censor their censorship.

<comment><USER6> I think you will find many people disagreeing with you on that. In Germany it's even illegal to insult people because in Germany dignity is considered to be a human right just as much as freedom of speech is.

<comment><USER9> Clearly, Germany has failed - If people had any dignity, they wouldn't need a government to protect it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Im more concerned with social censorship and the mob mentality that seems to be determining justice. If you say something that is not politically correct or against the current narrative, you will get fired/bullied/harrassed/silenced/all three.

Without honesty, there will be no progress. I shouldnt be afraid of posting my opinions and expressing my freedom of speech because i might lose my livelihood. But its the sad reality.

<comment><USER11> You are in essence saying there shouldn't be social consequences for speech.

<comment><USER12> The internet has created a weird environment where repercussions for socially unacceptable speech (even if taken completely out of context) can be dramatically more severe than any harm that was caused by the original speaker. In general, a distasteful tweet or Facebook post shouldn't cost someone their job, make them a target for anonymous threats or make them fear interacting with society at large any more than it would have if the message had just been spoken. There was a good piece on NPR recently that explored a number of examples:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...](http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=440286008)

<comment><USER13> There has always been repercussions for socially unacceptable speech. What the internet has affected is who can hear or read your speech.

If I go into a supermarket and shout, "I hate black people and they shouldn't even be in America!" I am going to suffer the consequences, but probably only from the people who heard me. Everyone else will have heard it second-hand and may due to social circle pressure decide to sever ties with me. The only way I'll actually suffer long-term (other than being beat up by a mob) is if I was famous since people like it when famous people do things.

The problem is, people continue to think that "The Internet" is just some kind of throwaway void where they can spout whatever they want. Justine Sacco probably isn't a racist, and was probably making a joke about "white privilege" or "white bubble". But she showed poor judgement in assuming that writing that in a public space would be benign. Even with her lack of followers. Text is not a good way to facilitate a joke that requires context. Her joke about AIDS and Africa and white people not being affected is based on some context no one but herself had.

If _I_ am at the supermarket and I hear some old cranky dude yell that out. It's a story I'll probably tell my friends about. They in turn may decide to use that as an inside joke/catchphrase of our circle of friends. But there is no way I'll repeat that to someone else outside of the group of friends that know what the context is. I definitely won't post it on Twitter, not without at least having posted the story about the crazy old man in the supermarket.

So I kinda laugh when people say they can't say anything that's not "PC" anymore. That to me just means they want to really spout some really offensive opinions to a public audience without paying the consequences of doing so. Then of course when there is kickback, they blame it on people being too "PC"

<comment><USER5> Part of the problem that I see, is that in modern America, everyone is a victim. Anything can be considered offensive. And when that happens, we find it acceptable to utterly destroy people's lives over 140 characters...in the name of "social justice". It's ok to call Justine Sacco a fucking bitch and wish brutal rape upon her, so long as you do so in defense of social justice, right? It's ok to shame her, cause her to lose her job and go into hiding, so long as you're part of the "progressive" and "forward thinking" mob, right? In fact, one may even consider it comedic, right?

That is what you call justice?

We have effectively returned to the days of witch hunting and public hangings, but this time our medium isn't the town square. It's the Internet.

Justine Sacco's tweet was a joke. And she even subscribed to the very "liberal" thought that was shaming her. Her joke was tongue-in-cheek. But her shamers weren't liberals. They didn't care about actual reason and discourse and open-mindedness. They weren't the liberals that we think of today; the ones that were always on the right side of history. The ones that marched alongside MLK. The ones that stood up for women's rights. No, they were "progressives". Pseudo-liberals that fight for the oppressed by oppressing others. The open-minded, forward thinking, altruistic group that wants everyone to be heard...until they disagree with their views. Then they must return to the mob-mentality of the stone ages, in the name of "progress".

These people don't care about progress. They don't care about social justice. They care about the entertainment of destroying someone's life, the feeling of dehumanizing another human being, and the gratifying thought that in doing so, they were being a model human...an enlightened individual...better than the rest. But they aren't. They are the most simple, selfish, uncompassionate, and closed-minded beings of our generation.

And we support them. We encourage them.

We have no idea how stressful and oppressive of a world we are creating for ourselves. And all in the name of pseudo "anti-oppression". We must remember the importance of true freedom of speech. The importance of unpopular thoughts and discussions. The importance of open discourse without the threat of condemnation. Where everyone can be heard and we can build a better world together. Where the enlightened truly care about helping the unenlightened to see things differently. Where true progress is bred.

<comment><USER13> I agree there is a lot of mob mentality going on. But I feel like you are only viewing this when you perceive it to be started by the "left". Mob mentality is not a left or right problem. "Progressives" are not the one's doing this. Mob mentality is a human thing.

Is your reasoning that only people attacking Justine Sacco were "progressives" and "liberals?" Does that mean everybody, to put for a lack of a better term, "on the right" understood the context of Justine Sacco's tweet and did not join in and pile on?

I mean in the context of just those tweets, what she said was pretty racist and offensive. So the implication that only liberals attacked her means that either conservatives didn't attack her because they already understood what she meant by those tweets (hard to imagine anyone could in that moment since one of the biggest things about it was that she was on a plane and couldn't defend herself) or they didn't believe those tweets were racist (which they were when taken without context).

Dividing people by framing this as a left/right issue is not the way to go if you really want to stop the internet mob.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "You can say what you like but no one will hear you. And also, you'll think no one cared, so you'll give up trying."

Isn't this what JTRIG's "Online Covert Operations" is all about? [https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig- manipulation/](https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)

</comment><comment><USER15> This is not at all surprising in that censorship is one of the few viable business models for a 'free-to-play' social network.

Defusing and diffusing social movements before they get traction is something many organizations with money are going to find appealing whether or not it works...

Facebook understands this quite well and is the canonical example of the model; but if you don't think that "Steering the conversation" is a core value proposition for privately operated social networks ( including Hacker News ) that are free to the general public; you are naive.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yet another situation to highlight [http://indiewebcamp.com/webmention](http://indiewebcamp.com/webmention)

Circumventing that would be near impossible.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm seeing this Retweet from the US. What's going on?

<comment><USER18> The writer seemed to be suggesting the censorship could be temporary, and lifted after no longer fresh and less likely to be retweeted. Also, though probably not true in your case, it sounds like actively following the account means these rules don't apply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It seems like Twitter is experimenting with hell-banning. This is hardly a new evil.</comment>


'Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice revealed - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed <comment><AUTHOR> Previous article at thinning in the Antarctic:

'Extraordinary thinning' of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/16/thinning...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/16/thinning- of-antarctic-ice-sheets-spreading-inland-rapidly-study)

</comment><comment><USER2> This is a sensationalist headline. If you look at the graph it's a precipitous fall from the sea ice extent at a cherry picked point when it happened to be at its greatest extent in the last 40 years. Comparing it to the average, it's still the lowest of the last 40 years, but actually not that far from the mean. It could even maybe be explained by normal variance. Now that's not to say anything about man-made climate change, which I believe is a real threat, but this data is not nearly as dramatic as it is made to seem.

Edit: Perhaps the actual study would be more significant, but the article itself is very nearly vapid. With no talk about the variance, how am I supposed to know how to interpret this specific deviation from the mean? Just visually it looks like it could easily fit within the normal variation.

<comment><USER3> The word 'precipitous' is a direct quote from the author, and is also in the PNAS article abstract.

Whatever your problems with the original paper (if you've read it), you can hardly fault The Graun quoting their source verbatim.

<comment><USER2> Yes, that would justify the headline, but not the uncritical reporting. Any idiot looking at the graph can see the problem with choosing the last four years as the time frame. It's cherry picking to make it seem like a bigger deal than it is. Both scientists and journalists know better.</comment></comment></comment>


Copyright wars heat up: US wins extradition of college kid from England - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/copyright-wars-heat-up-us-wins-extradition-of-college-kid-from-england.ars <comment><USER2> The current political and legal sell-out to the US makes me, and I believe many fellow-Europeans, increasingly angry in a way that is fundamentally different from any anti-American feelings for instance during the Bush-years.

Disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, but being on the receiving end of US meddling through political and legal corruption in a way that undermines our civil rights cuts way deeper.

<comment><USER3> It makes many Americans increasingly angry as well.

<comment><USER4> USA acts like they own the world, and they must be stopped.

See also: USA prison industrial complex figures out how to break into the international market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The trouble with this is that if the US has a legitimate claim on him, then so does every other country in the world, since they're all on the Internet too. And it isn't reasonable for me to be on the Internet and be expected to comply with the laws of all the countries in the world all at once.

Or is there something specific apart from being on the Internet that gives the US some kind of special claim on him?

<comment><USER6> Only that US has this kind of extradition treaty with UK. But I assume US has it with many other countries, too.

Extradition should only happen for the most vicious of the crimes or for war crimes in my opinion, and it should go both ways. But extradition for copyright infringement? That's pretty ridiculous, especially when they have to extradite that country's own citizen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are guilty until proven innocent.

It is disgusting to see domain seizures with no concrete basis of doing so. This kid is being extradited to the US because his website provided links to TV shows?

"Copyright infringers" are treated with less dignity and respect than mass murderers and rapists.

<comment><USER8> >This is completely out of hand now. The US is now a country where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Am I missing something? Has he been found guilty? Why is an extradition the same thing as being "guilty until proven innocent"? By definition, extradition is before a trial has occurred. After he has been extradited is when the trial will occur.

<comment><USER9> When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty. Otherwise, they would not bother spending so much time and effort trying to apprehend him. Juries are invariably biased against foreigners, so the chances of an acquittal are basically zero.

<comment><USER8> >When the extradition process is started, it is because the relevant authorities have already decided the individual is guilty.

So, what is the right approach? Start the extradition process when you don't believe the individual is guilty? I would hope not. Taking action to bring someone to trial because you believe they are guilty is entirely different from the claim that in the US you are now "guilty until proven innocent".

Presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in the trial. It does not mean that the prosecution is required to not believe themselves that the individual is guilty.

<comment><USER7> >Back in June 2010, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seized O'Dwyer's tvshack.net domain name after a closed, one-sided hearing before a judge.

That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial. It was a _linking_ site, he wasn't hosting anything. Google aids in copyright infringement as people use their service every day to find download links to things. But they are fine? The legislation in place across the globe is not equipped to handle these types of cases. Combine that with ignorant octogenarian judges, equals one messed up "justice" system.

<comment><USER10> > That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial

if "they" refers to the prosecution: well, i sure hope that the prosecution believes he is guilty before a trial starts. i think the alternative is that the prosecution prosecutes people at random?

if "they" refers to the judge: definitely not. seizures like this are because they have evidence against him and have what the judge believes to be a reasonable case; this does not mean the judge believes the defendant to be guilty. maybe you don't think the case is reasonable, and maybe its not, but its a far cry from "guilty until proven innocent"

<comment><USER7> A "one-sided" hearing where the offending party has zero chance of defending themselves.

Totally legit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That ARS writeup is pretty one-sided.

I love how they paint him up as a poor student, and don't mention the $250,000+ he made off the site. This was absolutely not just piracy, but PROFITING from piracy.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student-R...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013803/Student- Richard-ODwyer-can-be-extradited-over-TV-website.html)

<comment><USER12> How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement.

In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go out and ask Americans to his site). Thing is, if his site was in French I would be there would be no case for extradition.

<comment><USER11> Yes, ads.

It's a difference of attitude.

I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ:

" Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time. "

Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of the show exactly as it is on imdb".

As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.

<comment><USER12> "As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing." I get that this probably falls into the guilty mind(Mens rea) concept but I still don't find it correct that the act of linking to copyrighted material or not(well to be accurate, it's all copyrighted anyway) can be illegal based on context and the attitude of the person who created that <a>

<comment><USER11> What if you put it in more physical terms.

If someone went around passing out a list of people in your community who leave their back door unlocked, would you have a problem with that? After all, they're only "linking" to potential robbery victims, not actually robbing them.

Edit: From their About page: "TV Shack™ was launched December 2007 by a handful of Swedish university students as a place to watch movies & television online by way of linking to video hosting sites across the web. ... 2009 is set to be a massive sea of change in online video viewing. TV Shack™ has set itself a target of being in the top 1,000 visited websites globally by the end of the year 2009, this will leave it perfectly placed to become an essential stop for the ever growing online video user base."

Under the English interpretation of mens rea, this would seem to fall under the strictest level:

"Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence"

<comment><USER13> I would not have a problem with that (or don't think it should be illegal at least). Get rid of the source, not the messenger. In my opinion something such as that should fall under free speech.

<comment><USER11> Lots of things that are free speech are not legal. The very concept of Free Speech only refers to government infringement of your rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apart from the general ridiculousness of the US extraditing copyright infringers but not pedophiles:

Do the Brits really not have any outrage over this? If the PRC successfully extradited an American for some real or imagined digital crime (say, building and hosting the website of a designated terrorist organization), we'd be in an uproar.

At least, I hope we would...

<comment><USER15> Brits have been complaining about this ever since the treaty was signed. I think generally we're currently more concerned about changes to our health system.

Plus the USA is hardly the PRC.

<comment><USER16> Actually, given the harshness of the penal system in every aspect including their plea-bargaining facet, the US may as well be the PRC compared to the EU. Also, like the PRC, the US has the death penalty.

Separately, there should be a public interest requirement on extraditions, whether by treaty or otherwise, just like there is on all other parts of the UK justice system.

This is a travesty to the individuals involved in this and many other UK-to-US extraditions and yet another embarrassment to the UK.

<comment><USER17> Ironically, if he did face the death penalty then he wouldn't be extradited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How about we recommend Denmark to start extraditing people to Iran and Saudi Arabia for Muhammad cartoons? I'm sure it's possible to find a nexus there, if that's all it takes.

</comment><comment><USER19> Further proof, as if we needed any more, that the current extradition treaty is a total mess. There's been some publicity recently around it, which might mean that one day this gets fixed so this doesn't get inflicted on more people in the future, but that's cold comfort to this poor bloke.

The concept of extraditing someone to face trial in another country with a possibility of jail for 10 years simply for running a website that links to copyrighted content is just sick. I would have to think pretty hard to come up with a crime less damaging than copyright infringement, and destroying a young person's life over that is a terrible thing.

</comment><comment><USER20> At what point will non-US websites just start blocking US-based traffic all together? I suppose one day in the future the US will be like an island on the internet - disconnected from other country's websites due to situations like this.

<comment><USER21> There is too much money involved it that.

<comment><USER2> I doubt that. The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic. And I'm not talking minor sites either.

<comment> mike-cardwell "The vast majority of non-US websites has very little to lose from blocking US traffic."

Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from blocking US traffic

<comment><USER22> > Also: The vast majority of non-US websites have very little to gain from > blocking US traffic

That's not true at all. Non-US websites will gain the ability to not have to follow US law, and not risk being extradited for doing so.

<comment> mike-cardwell Wrong. The vast majority of websites don't break US law. Not because they went out of their way to avoid it, but because they simply don't. These sites don't have anything to gain by blocking the US. Ergo, _quite clearly_ , the vast majority of non-US websites have nothing to gain from blocking US traffic. Nothing at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not sure I understand the "nexus" part. Does it means the judge ruled that he specifically targeted the USA with his website instead of it being just a consequence of them being just another country in the internet? The quote from judge seem to imply the later. What exactly does this mean?

<comment><USER21> It means that the judge is an idiot. The guy didn't have any nexus -- but my guess is that it was primarily american tv shows that were shared.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The kid made $230,000 by helping users view copyrighted material they did not pay for. That sounds pretty jail worthy to me. It is however strange that he's being extradited and I generally oppose individuals "being made an example of". I'd much prefer he go through the UK system than the US.

<comment> dav-id If I recall correctly he didnt break any laws in the UK.

<comment><USER10> that's not what the judge thought. from the article in the telegraph:

> The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr > O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law

> However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument

<comment><USER22> I read that to mean the judge is not saying he broke British laws, just that not breaking British laws is not a valid argument.

<comment><USER10> i don't think your reading is correct. one of the basic principles of extradition agreements is that the law broken has to apply in both countries

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Absolutely disgusting, shame on the US

<comment><USER26> No, shame on the UK. All they had to do is say "No". (Well, shame on the US as well).

<comment> mike-cardwell As a Brit, I'm ashamed of the UK government and once again disgusted by the US government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The main dispute of the US-UK extradition agreement derives from the fact the US has to show 'reasonable suspicion' however the UK has to show 'probable cause'.

However some argue there is no difference namely Sir Scott Baker who's reports stated: "In our opinion there is no significant difference between the probably cause test and the reasonable suspicion test"

However, critics of the treaty say it is much easier to extradite people from the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a British court.

Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen.

The other argument is the agreement was post 9-11 for the speedy extradition of terrorists but between 2003 and 2009 only one of 63 extraditions were terrorists.

To be honest I don't really know whether the extradition agreement is one sided, I feel it might have something to do with the respective cases being so high profile.

Perhaps the UK's punishment of crime in comparison to the US is also an issue, sentence lengths in the UK generally tend to be a lot less.

<comment> mike-cardwell From: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16024278>

"between January 2004 and July 2011 there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US."

"the US had never denied a UK extradition request"

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> And this was all because the guy put a few links on his site...The power of these trolls is getting scary, they can bribe anyone it seems.

</comment><comment><USER29> What bothers me is the way British governments, regardless of which party is in power, never ever back the British people. They almost cant wait to sling them off to who ever wants us. Our governments never back the people at all. What ever the trouble, you are one your own, they dont want to know.

In contrast, while I dislike the way the US seems to expect to pluck any world citizen it likes to gamble in its disturbing who can afford the best lawyer lottery legal process, it's government will fight tooth and nail for its citizens.

<comment><USER30> It bothers me too (especially this case), but i think it's relevant to note that the US has never refused an extradition to the UK, but the UK has refused several to the US.

OTOH, the US has made more requests, and capital punishment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> For those that think USA only tackles people profiting from copyright infringement, there's this person extradited from Australia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths>

It's likely you'll deal with USA due to American copyrighted content (Hew Grifftiths), Americans visiting the website (Gambling precedent), profit or altruism, they can come after you depending on extradition treaties and the local government's support of USA.

Join the Pirate Party in your area to outlaw domain seizures among other issues. To protect your current/future business as well other entrepreneurs. No other political party is doing this to my knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER32> This could be very serious for UK programmers.

Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?

<comment> mike-cardwell "Are you sure that no code you've written infringes on US patents? Or is used on a website that encourages the wrong type of copyright infringement?"

You seem to be implying that if a UK programmer writes some code, and then somebody goes and uses that code for copyright or patent infringement, they are at risk of being extradited to the US... Nothing like that has ever happened and it bares no resemblance to the article under discussion.

<comment><USER32> I'm implying both that, or that I distribute some software that infringes a US patent. How do we know that the overreaching arm of US corporations won't try to sue some little guy in the UK over this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> LOL, the UK is a US colony now.

I can hear History rolling on the floor with laughter.

<comment> mike-cardwell Only if you're ignorant of the facts.

<http://london.usembassy.gov/gb140.html>

"The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is not disproportionate."

<comment><USER33> The numbers are no excuse in case of a person that did not break UK law.

How about your country signs an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia and you get extradited and have your head chopped off for having a beer, since alcohol is illegal in SA? (Yes, an absurd stretch, but you get the point.)

<comment><USER10> > a person that did not break UK law

the judge believes he broke UK law. from the telegraph article:

> The defence believed its strongest argument against extradition was that Mr > O'Dwyer had not committed an offence under British law, because TVShack did > not itself host copyright material. European law says no crime is committed > if a website acts as a "mere conduit".

> However, Judge Purdy rejected the argument from Mr O'Dwyer's barrister, Ben > Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, because of the control the student had > over what links were posted on TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.

<comment><USER34> So that's it? If a judge _believes_ it, then it must be true! He's not even a proper judge!

<comment><USER10> > So that's it?

not really. he gets to appeal.

> If a judge believes it, then it must be true!

who else do you expect to enforce laws? the better question is, do _you_ know anything about british law? why do you think your interpretation of british copyright law is better than the judge's?

> He's not even a proper judge!

i'm not sure what you mean by this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This kid may well have listened to PG to his peril.

Normally there is no advice he gives that is bad, but his "KILL HOLLYWOOD" and convoluted stance on copyright might make you think that reality is on your side. It is not.

This fantasy that all movies should be free on the internet is beyond retarded, it is actually hazardous to your freedom, if you try to profit from it.

Did he really think he was going to make a quarter million with no consequences?

Time to put away childish things.</comment>


How to fix our schools: A manifesto by education leaders - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html

<comment><AUTHOR> It's amazing to see all the action that is taking place all of a sudden, largely sparked by a sensationalist documentary and a Department of Education contest (Race to the Top).

I'm very curious to see what will come out of it. A lot of harm can be done in periods like this. What I'm afraid of is that the teacher role will be turned into an even more mechanistic role and will kill teacher care and passion even more than it already has with even more endless teaching-for-tests motives. It may increase student learning, but probably only a minuscule amount to what is possible.

Here's one teacher evaluation guide that is being implemented in DC: [http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/10/ok_and_it...](http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/10/ok_and_its_one.html)

<comment><USER2> Honestly, the main reason for the action that has taken place over the past 5 years or so is due primarily to the authors of this list. More specifically, it is due to their getting into positions where they have unusually wide breadths of power.

I agree with you that reform movements like what is currently building in education can have disastrous effects. However, in this instance, most of the reforms being proposed are a product of observing what has worked in charter schools, rather than a product of running in the opposite direction of what doesn't work.

I see the current reform movement as an overwhelmingly positive force in education. As long as they stick to the ideal of spreading successful charter school practices to the broader public school community I'll be happy.

PS: All you genius hackers with backgrounds in machine learning, AI, social networking, (god knows what else might be applicable). Don't like the way teacher performance is being quantified? There's a multi-billion dollar industry that could use some disruption.

<comment><USER3> > All you genius hackers with backgrounds in machine learning, AI, social > networking, (god knows what else might be applicable). Don't like the way > teacher performance is being quantified?

You don't understand. The measurement problem is relatively minor compared to the problem of getting measurements used.

Teacher's advocates (lobbyists and the like) will say that teachers support evaluation in the abstract but they oppose any actual implementation. When asked to provide one that is acceptable to them, they duck and start namecalling.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that there are ways around this.

In the ideal world, such a focus on teacher evaluation wouldn't be necessary. One example: In Finland, from the beginning teachers receive maximum education themselves and so administrators trust their judgments. I realize we aren't there, but there may be other ways of getting there.

Firstly, what if all teachers were more motivated? What if all teachers had clear proof that their methods suck? What if clear evidence of superior methods that have clearly better results existed?

What if there was a piece of technology that was so attractive, showed such promise and proved better learning occurred, that teachers themselves took it up out of interest and started using it and improving on themselves and their learning through this new methodology. The lobbyists and the like would probably be against it, but with enough backing and proof of its benefits, they would lose.

Creating a product like this is the kind of technology and innovation we need, and I firmly believe it's possible.

<comment><USER3> You're assuming that the purpose of the public education system in the US is student education. The observed behavior suggests otherwise.

I said lobbyists and teachers organizations, but teachers support them.... And, when evaluation comes up for a vote, teachers vote against it overwhelmingly. They strike to get rid of it, and so on.

There are no technical solutions to social problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem with our schools is that there's no way for us ordinary people to fix the problem at large. Government administrators--local, federal, and state --don't let anyone get near it. School boards hardly get anything done.

As programmers, it seems logical to us that if there's something wrong, we can fork the code and submit patches to the repo. Unfortunately, the barriers to entry to running your own school are high; credibility requires accreditation, proper teaching talent, financing.

Most of the time, I don't have a problem with the school. I have a problem with the teacher, for either being unqualified, or just being a bad teacher. I can't submit a pull request like I can in Github to rectify the issue with my own fork. In other words, we're stuck with each other. Even if a teacher is very qualified, the teaching style may be incompatible with a particular student. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with the student or teacher, it's just that neither work together effectively. And it's difficult to move a student to another teacher's class if spaces/funds/instructors are scarce.

School administrators aren't educators today. They're bureaucrats. It's no longer about the education, but how they can optimize business processes. Teachers, as frontline personnel, are fully aware of the problems with education. Talking to a language teacher trying to bring Chinese into a district made me realize that it's very political; teachers teaching German feel threatened, others who have been affected by cuts, such as the music department, feel insulted.

School is a highly subjective issue. Some students weren't cut out to be students. Students ahead of the curve are impeded by the traditional curriculum. No Child Left Behind under the guise of making a "difference" forces schools to play games with its students. Instead, schools don't teach anymore, but teach students to prepare for the metrics that will give them funding (attendance/grade fixing/"standardized" testing).

I'd like to fix the problem when I see it. But unlike software, having forks or different tags and branches are impossible in the teaching world due to the many reasons above.

</comment><comment><USER5> For many incompetent teachers, the most efficient way to remove them from the system would be to turn them into competent teachers. _Teaching is a teachable skill_.

</comment><comment><USER6> How to fix our schools: Let's ask the people who've already shown they have no idea

<comment><USER7> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is market rate salary? - <AUTHOR>

I am a senior developer. I work with Mule, java, web-services, objective-C, javascript, HTML, jQuery, javascript MVC, SQL, blah, blah, blah. Needless to say, I am a generalist who works in many different technologies.  The company I work for is trying to learn how to hire good talent.  We are based in Arkansas so cost of living is low, but it is also harder to get talent to come here.  My main question is around salary.  What is market rate salary? Every job listing on here says they pay market rate? I am just wondering what that is, to find out if I am being compensated correctly. Also, at the company I work for, there are no project bonuses or equity allocations. My salary is all that I get.  I will appreciate any useful comments or advice. <comment><USER2> To be frank, market rate is however little your employer thinks they can get away with paying you, or someone comparable to you.

Look at indeed.com and salary.com and aim for 75th percentile and higher. Unfortunately the only way to really know is to put yourself out there and see what offers you get.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know how accurate or relevant it is, but Indeed.com's salary comparison tool can sometimes be helpful. Here's an example:

[http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=senior+java+developer&l1...](http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=senior+java+developer&l1=san+francisco%2C+ca&q2=senior+java+developer&l2=kansas+city%2C+mo&q3=senior+java+developer&l3=new+york+city%2C+ny&q4=senior+java+developer&l4=little+rock%2C+ak)

<comment><AUTHOR> This tool is very nice but it is still hard to gauge since salary is my only form of compensation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Market rate" literally means "average salary". So you can use the salary sites and take the 50th percentile, and compare that against cost of living values.

</comment><comment><USER5> woah cant believe little rock is more than DOUBLE what we get in ohio, must be a bigger town than i knew!</comment>