China's memory manipulators - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/chinas-memory-manipulators <comment><USER2> In fact changing historical records and emphasizing advantageous parts of history are not communist inventions. In China, this has been a very old tradition. Since Qin dynasty, history books and records were heavily regulated by the government. Almost at every change of the dynasties, the historical records were changed/destroyed to justify the new situation. The communists are just continuing that, in fact, in a rather blatant way. I remember, in high school, we would learn that history is a useful tool for propaganda (which is a good word in China) and that is one of the reason why the history we learned implies that "only communism can save China". I would chuckle whenever I wrote that very sentence in exams (which was the basis of the correct answer to most questions). In the end, people understand conceptually that history and facts are different things. I guess in the west, the distinction between history as passed on in religious texts and traditions and history as archaeological findings is similar (of course, here there are people who confuse the two as well).

In the end, history, being in the past, denies direct access or verification. In some sense it is just what we choose to remember, which is a very fluid thing. I guess culturally the Chinese are just more flexible about it. It is not necessarily bad, as it is a less fanatic ideology.

<comment> saiya-jin Maybe that's my own perspective only, but I prefer my own memories to be exactly as I felt while experiencing them (which is far from easy!). Then, and and only then, true long-term lessons can be learned from one's past (well, that's my attitude, feel free to disagree here).

If we keep painting past as rosy garden with only few carefully selected facts and rest is bent/invented as needed, we will keep repeating same mistakes and not reach our potential, be it on personal or society level.. which is the land of say not-so-clever people. sure we can aim higher than that

<comment><USER3> I agree with you, but if you really practice what you preach, then you know how difficult what you're suggesting can be on the individual level, never mind the group level. It's painful to sit with unvarnished reality and analyze it, analyze yourself, and try to think from new perspectives. Most people probably could do it if they tried for long enough, but it's too difficult and sometimes painful to maintain under times of great stress.

In the national case, you also have to have each subsequent generation share your conviction, and any break in that will taint the record.

<comment> saiya-jin sure, it's a limit we will probably never achieve, but we should at least try to do so, not because it's easy, but because it's right thing to do (damn, now i sound like some sort of preacher)

<comment><USER3> Actually you make a lot of sense, and don't seem preachy at all. Passionate, but not preachy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The humanist intellectuals all over the world (especially in the USA) should do their best to bring out the viciousness of the corrupt ideology called communism and the corrupt/cruel actions carried out by their leaders. e.g. Mao, Stalin, Castro

But we see a chilling silence on the issue of human rights violations carried out by the followers of communism [1],[2] by most of the intellectuals (mostly humanities professors) in USA who are very keen on criticizing USA for whatever perceived/projected censorship and violation of human rights in USA.

We must not forget that the USA has served the world by taking a stance against this vicious ideology called communism and its equally vicious followers. We must raise this issue every time USA and capitalist free and open market based democracy gets criticized in favor of communism/socialism by the communists/socialists or what they call _the useful idiots_ [3].

I do not say USA has not done anything bad. But in comparison to the communists it's much, much better. No doubt, USA can be improved (e.g. wealth inequality) but not by communist/socialist manner. I don't live USA but I thank USA for getting my country off the vicious hooks of the communism and guide us to a more humane path.

[1] [https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record- ha...](https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record-has-been- suppressed/)

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

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

<comment><USER5> I see plenty of criticism of the human rights abuses carried out by China and others. And on the other hand, I don't understand the supposed link between authoritarian regimes like China's, and socialist policies like single-payer health care.

A significant chunk of the US's voter base seems to think that single-payer health care leads to dictators rewriting history. I don't get it.

<comment><USER6> Popular support in the US for single-payer health tends to be in the realm of 70%.

That it isn't implemented is more about insurance & medical industry lobbying.

<comment><USER5> I can't find any support for that:

[http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/r...](http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph- nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/)

At the present, I'd expect essentially all Republican voters to oppose it, and plenty of Democrats and independents do too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I keep thinking about these rapid changes in large countries like China, and how my own part of the world, Europe at some point might become the only place to actually experience history.

I love cities like Amsterdam, where you can look at painting from the 1600s and you recognize whole streets. The city isn't fundamentally different downtown. This sort of experience is becoming a rarity as countries modernize and tear down the downtowns of their old cities in the name of modernity.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's not just China. Every country has there own version of history. For example, I doubt in how much details UK's history books capture the horrific cruelties inflicted by the kingdom for hundreds of years as compared to the history taught in schools of the victim colonies. Moreover, even within the same country, it is not uncommon to see history books rewritten per the ideologies of the incumbent government.

<comment><USER9> > Every country has there own version of history

The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others; we're not all equally accurate or reliable.

Other countries have independent, free press; they can print whatever they want, including whatever history they want. For example, the Chinese government blocks all mention of the Tienanmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in print or on the web. They censure criticism of Communist Party leaders. You wouldn't find censorship anything like that in the UK.

In fact in Western countries, academics are often criticized for being too critical of their nations - 'self-hating'. EDIT: See this comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862391)

> I doubt in how much details UK's history books capture the horrific > cruelties inflicted by the kingdom for hundreds of years as compared to the > history taught in schools of the victim colonies.

Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?

<comment><USER8> > The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like > saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others;

I think you are referring to China making more mistakes then UK in the past. If anything, I think it's the opposite. For example, the whole world made a huge deal(rightfully so) about the tiananmen square protest in China. Have you heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre ? Hundreds of unarmed peaceful men, women and children were murdered. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre)

> Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?

"Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes" [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain- destroyed...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed- records-colonial-crimes?newsfeed=true)

You can see the bullet marks preserved in Jallianwala Bagh. There is a well inside the premises where people jumped to hide from bullets. 120 bodies were recovered later from that well alone. [http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/8-pictures-of- jallianwa...](http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/8-pictures-of-jallianwala- bagh-that-will-leave-you-teary-eyed-231833.html)

EDIT: Here is one more, it isn't hard to find with few online searches

".. Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29 million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.."

"..In the Express we can read the historian Andrew Roberts arguing that for "the vast majority of its half millennium-long history, the British Empire was an exemplary force for good. … the British gave up their Empire largely without bloodshed, after having tried to educate their successor governments in the ways of democracy and representative institutions"(9)(presumably by locking up their future leaders). In the Sunday Telegraph, he insists that "the British empire delivered astonishing growth rates, at least in those places fortunate enough to be coloured pink on the globe."(10) (Compare this to Mike Davis's central finding, that "there was no increase in India's per capita income from 1757 to 1947", or to Prasannan Parthasarathi's demonstration that "South Indian labourers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century and lived lives of greater financial security."(11)) In the Daily Telegraph, John Keegan asserts that "the empire became in its last years highly benevolent and moralistic." The Victorians "set out to bring civilisation and good government to their colonies and to leave when they were no longer welcome. In almost every country, once coloured red on the map, they stuck to their resolve."(12).."

[http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its- hol...](http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/)

<comment><USER9> >> The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others;

> I think you are referring to China making more mistakes then UK in the past.

I wasn't, though I can see how that might be confusing. I just was using that phrase as an example of the near-meaninglessness of a binary perspective that ignores great differences in degree: 'everybody does' or 'everybody doesn't'.

The question was whether censorship in the west is similar to that in China.

> Have you heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre ?

I read about the massacre in western history books. I saw a recreation of it in a western movie, "Gandhi" (IIRC). Two of your three citations are to western news publications.

> it isn't hard to find with few online searches

It's not hard to find stories of western atrocities in the west. But try finding stories of Communist Party atrocities in China.

<comment><USER8> I think you are mixing freedom of press with variation in the stand of a nation on historic events. My OP addressed the later.

<comment><USER9> > I think you are mixing freedom of press with variation in the stand of a > nation on historic events. My OP addressed the later.

I don't understand: Almost all the criticism of the UK you posted came from the UK, and the sources I cited came from the West if not the UK. One quote you posted was one UK publication criticizing another on the matter.

Doesn't that represent "variation in the stand of a nation"? Or do you mean some official stand by the UK government? Do they even have one? I'm pretty sure the U.S. government doesn't, or if it does it's completely unknown and ineffectual.

<comment><USER8> "The government of India, believing the gem was rightfully theirs, first demanded the return of the Koh-i-Noor as soon as independence was granted in 1947. A second request followed in 1953, the year of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Each time, the British government rejected the claims, saying that ownership was non-negotiable."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh- i-Noor)

Also, I would be curious to see accounts where Brits punished any of their officials for the crimes in colonies. Mr. Dyer was merely removed from his post after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

EDIT: one more:

"British maintain 379 were killed - lower than the 1000 stated by India"

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283438/David- Camero...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283438/David-Cameron- right-apologise--monstrous-massacre-Amritsar-SAVED-thousands-lives-says- Britains-historians.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> States have done this in one or another throughout history. Newly installed Roman emperors would suddenly discover a close relationship to Julius Caesar, for example. China seems to have taken it to a frighteningly efficient art form, though.

<comment><USER11> It's about 2500 years of refinement that brings this art to the extreme. The texts on the bamboo shows some extreme ideas, and apparently those pointy edges got smoothed out over the years of imperial ruling.

History, and the culture, is written and shaped by the winner after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> In Myanmar they call Orwell a prophet. Perhaps that will spread.

</comment><comment><USER13> Almost sounds like the plot to Twilight Zone episode.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's not even a chinese invention. It's a human invention.

We do it in the US. And so do the brits, europeans, etc.

After "historians" were paid to write histories extolling someone and denigrate someone else.

From columbus to everything before and after, "history" depended on who was in charge and who paid to do the writing. History is propaganda.

> In some sense it is just what we choose to remember

No. It's like the thousand swords of aegon. It's a lie we agree to tell each other over and over again until we forget it is a lie.

History is propaganda. It is interpretration. There is no truth to it. Just perspective.

<comment><USER15> While it is true that complete unbiased understanding of past events is impossible, that does not therefore make it unimportant to try for.

The point of history is not agreed upon lies. That's an unethical concession. The point of history is to tell _what happened._

Not including other perspectives is exactly what it sounds like, a failure to properly retell history. Propagandized history _is_ immoral. Even if your inner pragmatic, reductionist, contrarian instincts lead you to believe you should accept it just because that is what has happened in the past. There is no ethical reasoning behind it.

<comment><USER14> > While it is true that complete unbiased understanding of past events is > impossible, that does not therefore make it unimportant to try for.

Agreed. But as long as you understand that history is ultimately propaganda. There isn't an objective truth buttressing it. Just arbitrary biased interpretation.

> The point of history is not agreed upon lies.

It's an agreed upon "interpretation" by a small group of people who get a larger group of people to accept it. Different nations have different histories of the same event. The vietnamese history of the vietnam war is markedly different than the US history of the vietnam war. Same event, different "interpretation/propaganda".

> That's an unethical concession.

It's an honest observation. National histories are biased propaganda. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself. Perhaps some take the propaganda/history to extreme degrees, but nevertheless, all history is propaganda.

> The point of history is to tell what happened.

No. That would be just a list of events. History is INTERPRETATION. Saying that the Civil War began in 1861 is just a fact. Interpreting that as a war over slavery or a war to save the union or the war for state rights or whatever is HISTORY/PROPAGANDA.

> Propagandized history is immoral.

Then all history should be banned and replaced with a list of events.

Think of it this way, history of the US from a white man's perspective is far different than history of the US from a native american's perspective. History of the holocaust would be much different had the germans won ww2 than what it is today. Same event, different history/interpretation.

It's quite amazing that I'm getting downvoted for stating that history is biased and all history is propaganda. But then again, most people are brainwashed. Ultimately, we may laugh at the north koreans or the chinese or the russians or whomever, but we are really deep down, no different.

<comment><USER16> Something that is unusual about modern West is we make it possible to publish all the different perspectives, and we have an ethic in academia to study them objectively and try to figure out which is correct. I think that is a very good idea, and often it is possible to arrive at the truth, at least to some significant degree. So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea that the Jews needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was simply wrong.

<comment><USER14> > Something that is unusual about modern West is we make it possible to > publish all the different perspectives

I think we have to stop patting ourselves on the back. Yes, we claim to allow it, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We aren't as open to questioning or "heresy" as you'd like to think. If you've ever worked in academia, you would know this.

> and we have an ethic in academia to study them objectively and try to figure > out which is correct.

This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like race, sex, religion, etc.

> So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea that the Jews > needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was simply wrong.

Not if the germans had WON THE WAR. That's the point. Look at how differently "history/propaganda" works when it relates to US:natives and Germany:Jews.

Our history cast the natives as savage demons that needed to be wiped out for the advance of civilization and the creation of the US. We make allowances for the genocide of the natives by excusing it with "disease killed many of them" or that it allowed for the creation of the US. But for jews, we do not make such allowances.

If you think we are open to different perspectives, try to get a book published that questions many of the claims of the holocaust. If jared diamond had written about the holocaust ( excusing the deaths of the jews due to the disease and starvation as a result of germany's poor performance in the eastern front ), do you really think the NYTimes/media and academia would have supported it?

All history is propaganda. If the germans had won ww2, the holocaust would have been viewed differently. Hell the word "holocaust" wouldn't even exist. Holocaust was a term israeli jews invented in 1953 to "brand" the genocide. We don't have a branding for the native "holocaust". Or the armenian "holocaust". Or the rwandan "holocaust".

Pick anything in history. Look at the "history" of the israeli/palestine issue. Look at the history of russia/ukraine. Look at the history of US civil war. Different sides have different histories/propaganda. There is no truth, just subjective and selfish propaganda.

Or if you feel more generous, you can say that there are many truths and each side picks their own truths. But regardless, it's propaganda.

I find it laughable how people are so resistent to the simple truth that history is propaganda. But then I realize that it's because they are victims of propaganda.

<comment><USER16> >This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like race, sex, religion, etc.

What in heavens name are you talking about? There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and gays. On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in gay rights.

And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults, is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian regimes such as China.

Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re- writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better? And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia? But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.

<comment><USER14> > What in heavens name are you talking about?

I was fairly explicit and straightforward.

> There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out > of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and > gays.

Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.

> On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in > gay rights.

You mean the relentless hollywood/academic propaganda campaign helped in the revolution? Yes I know.

> And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults, > is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian > regimes such as China.

We have "freedom of speech" when the elite support the agenda. The elite supported gay marriage/etc. Hence why the media, academia, etc pushed for it while the population resisted. As I said, you couldn't publish anything that negatively portray gays.

> Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re- > writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better?

No. I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone interprets it for their own political agenda. That's all I'm saying. For example, we view george washington as a great founder of the nation. Others view him as a genocidal maniac who went around exterminating natives and skinning them and making leggings out of them. Every nation has propaganda/history. That's what it is created for. History is fiction that unites us all. It is created by the people in power for a purpose.

> And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia?

They have their own history/propaganda as well.

> But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.

"Vastly"? No. Superficially, maybe. Some "history/propaganda" are more sophisticated and clever. Other's, like north korea's history, are silly and immature. Either way, it's all propaganda.

Be angry at china if you want. All I'm saying is that everyone pushes history/propaganda. The fact that you think your "history/propanda" is better just shows that you support that "history/propaganda". Has nothing to do with whether that history is accurate/truthful/etc.

You think your history is better because of your bias, self-interest, agenda, etc. You think your history is better because you grew up with it.

<comment><USER16> >Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.

Lots gets published negative about those groups. Take the best-selling book <The Bell Curve> which argues that blacks have lower iq's. You say the elites push an agenda, but often that is because non-elites persuaded them to change their views. For instance, gays were pariah's until recently.

>I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone interprets it for their own political agenda.

That's simply not true. Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments. Lots of people are willing to change their political philosophy if they are presented with reasons. I know I have changed my views on a number of important issues over the years. It is a slow process, but it happens a lot in this country. Look at how the conservative movement rose from nothing over the course of decades, fighting the elites all the way. Just because you are not objective and open to persuasion doesn't mean everyone else in the world is like you.

You know, in some countries of the world the government is so oppressive that is impossible to work to make things better, but in other countries it is possible, at least some of the time, but to do that generally requires an accurate understanding of the past. What you are saying is it is impossible to get this, and the implication is that it is impossible to make the world better. Is that what you believe? Note when I say make the world better, I mean according to a set of universal values, not ones that favor your group or country over all others. Apparently you believe such values don't exist, have I got you right on that?

I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to look at history objectively. I can think of three possible reasons. One is that you just have a cynical personality. The second is you are just selfish and don't care. The third is that you are being paid by an authoritarian government like Russia or China to spread cynicism so people will give up trying to get at the truth and make the world better.

<comment><USER14> > Lots gets published negative about those groups.

Lots? And you name one book that was marginalized more than 20 years ago.

> Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments.

No they are not. Especially on matters like "history/propaganda/etc" that are INTERPRETATION rather than factual.

> I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to > look at history objectively.

Because it is propaganda. Because there is no "objectivity" in history/interpretation/etc.

Try this. Was the civil war about freeing the slaves or states' rights? Was the vietnam war about stopping communism ( vietnam war ) or neo-colonialism ( war of american aggression )? Was the holocaust about the jews? If so, why were most people killed in the holocaust non-jews/gentiles? If most of the people who died were non-jews, why has modern history/culture associated it with jews?

You think you know the answer and you think you are objective/right/etc because your answers fit your agenda/worldview/propaganda. History has always been about propaganda ( emperors/kings/etc would hire writers to write "histories" extolling their virtue and the virtue of their families/etc ). Now, rather than being propaganda for the king/monarchs/etc, history is the official propaganda of the state/nation.

Now, I'm not saying history/propaganda is unnecessary. I think it is needed to maintain the state/nation/society. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking history is the truth. It is not. Not here, not in China, not in Russia, not anywhere.

> One is that you just have a cynical personality.

Or I'm educated and intelligent and understand what history actually is. You are making the same ad hominem attacks religious or cult members make when they are confronted with someone who doesn't "believe". You can lash out at me and call me cynical, but the real cynic is you.

Anyways, I can see that there is no reasoning with you ( not that I'm surprised ) so this will be my last reply to you as you've resorted to ad hominems. I won't read your replies if you write them so please don't bother. Good day.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Birdseed – A silly way to get random numbers by hashing tweets - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ryanmcdermott/birdseed <comment><USER2> i know most people talk about the technical aspect of things, but i got to hand it to you, that's an amazing name

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! It was better than my second choice which was "Bird of Pair-a-Dice"

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I always love seeing clever ways to be random. Hadn't considered this one but it's a pretty good idea, and I'm sure there are even better ways to run with the basic concept (maybe analyzing color values of recent pinterest or instagram photos).

If you can find a private source of community-driven-randomness that'd be even better.

<comment><USER4> I wonder whether pictures would be a good source. I could see strong leanings towards blue (sky, water) and green (vegetation), and maybe also grey (concrete, asphalt). Would be interesting to do a collective histogram over a wide array of images and see if colors tend to average out or if there's clear peaks.

<comment><USER5> There's still plenty of room for enough entropy to power most use cases. Even two people _trying_ to take identical pictures should have enormous differences when analyzed at the pixel level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is great! I did an experiment a long time ago, before Twitter closed their JSONP API, to make brownian motion visualizations with a similar concept.

[http://binarymax.com/brownian_2.gif](http://binarymax.com/brownian_2.gif)

I'll have to find some time to recode it to use this service :)

</comment><comment><USER7> i wrote a paper about leveraging public random streams like this one. it can be downloaded here [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9IkyvYlZZe7TldTRGlSMnpQX0U...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9IkyvYlZZe7TldTRGlSMnpQX0U/view?usp=docslist_api)

<comment><USER8> Stock market data does seem like a better source of entropy than Twitter queries.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would tend to agree with you, though my tune might be different if I were an investment advisor!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love it! Quick idea -- though I'm not sure if this would further the goal of having fun, even as a PR -- there's a documented way to make Birdseed subclass random.Random ([https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/2.7/Lib/random.py#l72](https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/2.7/Lib/random.py#l72)) and inherit the familiar interface and fancy methods.

</comment><comment><USER10> To reiterate: "This is for fun. It's not secure. Don't use it in production :)"

</comment><comment><USER11> I know that this has a disclaimer that isn't to be used in production. But, just know that hash functions are not there to provide randomness. There is no guarantee that a hash will be statistically indistinguishable from random noise.

<comment><USER12> There is no guarantee that any PRNG will be indistinguishable from random noise but a properly designed hash function will be as close as any.

<comment><USER11> Sorry - guarantee was probably too strong. I meant it in the mathematical sense (no more than a negligible chance of distinguishing from random noise) [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseud...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator)</comment></comment></comment>


Virgin Galactic crash: Slowing device 'deployed early' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154

<comment><USER2> This is pretty sad to hear both from the perspective of the lost life of the test pilot who was willing to take on the risk of pioneering space flight, as well as from the perspective of science and technological advancement. I don't think this is a major set-back but it will certainly require more effort into getting space flight to a level of safety where it can become commercial.</comment>


How does alert() impact browser event loop? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6269008/js-understanding-how-alert-impacts-browser-event-loop

<comment><USER2> window.alert is a poorly designed API. User interface code should not block the event loop. If this is an issue, simply avoid window.alert (and other functions in the family)</comment>


A Hit Song on YouTube, Unnameable on the Radio - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/business/media/30link.html?_r=1&src=twr <comment><USER2> I still don't understand the words "fuck" and "shit" still being censored. Their shock value is long gone, isn't it?

The song, and the video are great by the way, and the distribution a perfect example of why the internet works so well. It's also great to sing along to. Loudly.

Edit. This song has had some fun 'remixes' too, check out Dirty Dancing: <http://vimeo.com/14363611>

<comment><USER3> Ignoring what one considers appropriate for children, I personally just find them to be incredibly ugly sounding words, and I generally don't enjoy being around people who can't speak without using them. So regardless of what the FCC will choose to censor, I for one just wouldn't listen to a radio station that made a habit of broadcasting it.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but it's not like censoring radio and television will keep children from hearing and/or using them. In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role. Back when I was a little kid, swearwords came from older children, and were often far worse than the ones mentioned here.

I'm with you on not finding people who can't speak without using swearwords to be intolerable, but when used to express emotion (such as in this song), I don't mind it at all.

<comment><USER4> > In fact, I'd wager to say they don't even play a role.

As someone wearing black tight skinny jeans, I'd go one step further and say that it plays a very important role: by being 'taboo,' curse words enable adolescent rebellion, and cause kids to use them _more_.

See also smoking, drinking, and drugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In a wonderful illustration of the article's thesis, the song is also unnameable in the New York Times -- even as a matter of record. Fortunately Wikipedia has no such inhibition, so historians won't need to guess at the song title. :)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity>

<comment><USER6> To the point where the article becomes semi-uninteligible. And the writer seems oblivious to the irony.

<comment><USER7> I took it as extremely dry wit. The writer can't not see it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Youtube Song Link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAV0XrbEwNc&has_verified=1)

<comment><USER9> Not a great track IMHO. If it wasn't called "fuck you" I don't expect many people would care about it.

And really why is this on HN?

<comment><USER10> I agree that it's very middle of the road, but people like that.

As to why this is on HN? If you don't think it should be here, click "flag" just below the headline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is going to happen more and more as media moves online.

Are the FTC going to try and prevent Youtube from hosting this kind of content? Or have we broken the stranglehold of government censorship?

<comment><AUTHOR> I would not think the FTC would try to do such a thing. Its more a reflection on how held back our radio and TV content really is.

<comment><USER12> The one isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the other: media has been held back, but that won't necessarily stop the FTC (or some other part of the government) from getting involved in other media.

I hope you're right that the FTC won't, but I don't believe it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Have a listen to <http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/> (Live feed: <http://abc.net.au/streaming/triplej/triplej.m3u> )

An Australian government funded (no advertising at all) radio station with no limits on content or language.

</comment><comment><USER14> Back in college, I used to help out with a friend's radio show. It was a late night heavy metal show, once a week. One of the songs we liked to play was by a thrash band called "Overkill", a song entitled "Fuck You" [1].

The funny thing was that while we were allowed to play the song itself, we were not allowed to announce its name.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkaN3-v01A>

</comment><comment><USER15> Whatever. I really like this song. And not 'cos it's named "Fuck you" (i am not native and can't hear this easily), but 'cos of nice music and funny voice =)

</comment><comment><USER16> I always love reading these types of stories. The NYT has taken the art of dancing around obvious vulgarity to another level.

</comment><comment><USER17> IMO, this is another nail in the coffin for FM radio, this song is very playable on Sirius/XM.

<comment><USER18> Some of Sirius' content is still censored. Hits 1 (their Top 40 channeL) definitely is, and I'm guessing some of their other contemporary channels are as well. The R&B / Hip Hop channels are not.

<comment><USER17> Correct, but they do this to create "family friendly" stations. Other stations play the same songs uncensored. This is different than being forced to censor/edit songs because of FCC rules.</comment></comment></comment>


Mac Pro Colocation - <AUTHOR> http://macprocolo.net/

<comment><USER2> I'd be curious to see how they're dealing with rack mounting these. I have a vision that looks like a wine rack.....

<comment><USER3> Not to mention rack mounting in a way that protects the enclosure from scratches from both rack vibration and when working on or adding/removing neighbouring units.

<comment><USER4> Scratches? Seriously? It's in a data center. Who cares?

Besides, the enclosure is there to take scuffs in place of the computer's internals. That's protection enough for people who use these services.

As for vibration, SSDs and the lack of CDROM drives mean that these things have no moving parts to be disturbed.

<comment><USER3> > Scratches? Seriously? It's in a data center. Who cares?

Seriously.

You're talking about people who are specifically buying Mac Pros. You're talking about a product heavily marketed based on aesthetic. If you don't care about the Mac Pro and are buying purely based on performance, why limit yourself to the Mac Pro when you can purchase a rack mountable unit customized to your preferences without paying a huge premium for the hardware?

Just because the unit is in a data centre doesn't mean that the owner doesn't want it treated with care, nor does it mean that they won't want it back in their personal possession -- scratch free.

<comment><USER5> Because it runs OS X, and you can't run OS X on a rack mountable unit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never understood the point of such services (i know there is somehing similar for raspi as well) - why is this better than using any Iaas / Paas provider ?

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm wondering about the merits though. Does the Mac pro really pack so much more power per m^3 so as to justify not to use regular pizza boxes?

I guess there must be a certain market of clients asking for powerful 24/7 mac's...thinking buildhosts or something like that.

<comment><USER8> Doubtful, you can only only fit 3 across in 5U of rackspace - I don't think even the most heavily spec'ed Mac Pro(s) would compete on a "CPU per m^3" basis - you could put a PowerEdge R910 in with 4 Xeon E7-4870s and 2TB of RAM.

Like you said, specialized build machines are really the only feasible hosting option I can think of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it standard practice to ask for credit card info on a regular http site? I thought that sort of thing was usually done on an https page.

<comment><USER10> yes. form is submitted via HTTPS:

        <form method="post" action="https://www.formstack.com/forms/index.php" ...>

standard, yes. best? probably not, as most users aren't aware that it's submitted over HTTPS until after submission.</comment></comment>


Two Convicted Murderers Escape Jail With Forged Documents - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQoGYHXteIQ

<comment><AUTHOR> What we need:

1\. all documents must be verified and published electronically.

2\. all release documents must be published publicly for search.

3\. a local press must be made prior to release on both the state/local court and state/local attorney website.

With these three, while we cannot protect people from hacking into the website / buying a clerk putting up a fake document, it is enough to prevent most forgery. The court and the attorney office must hire someone to review these announcement everyday.</comment>


We need a better way to get to space - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/its-not-rocket-science-we-need-a-better-way-to-get-to-space-45751 <comment><USER2> Much as I love to cheer for British engineering, I don't understand the logic here. A rocket would require an expensive inspection before reuse but a spaceplane wouldn't? Why?

Also not one SABRE engine has even been built yet, whereas SpaceX has got very close to landing their rockets.

<comment><USER3> SpaceX _have_ landed their rockets.

Just not ... in one piece.

<comment><USER4> They've landed their rockets in one piece, which proceeded to tip over and explode. An important distinction.

<comment><USER3> A most excellent and nuanced distinction, sir! Capital!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash I'm no rocket scientist but I could imagine rockets having a place in regular space travel. Lets assume that we can harness solar power efficiently and safely store the extra energy in hydrogen and oxygen gas. Then let's say that we could construct sturdy and modular components that can be disassembled and re-assembled at some kind of orbital station, so that the boosters that take people into orbit for whatever reason could be rebuilt in orbit to carry a load of asteroid-mined metals back to the surface.

Again, I don't know any of the mechanics or physics, but if energy was abundant and parts could be reused, would rockets really be all that bad?

<comment><USER5> Sea Dragon [1] is slightly similar to that.

Fuel is a small part of the cost of a rocket, most of the cost is in the engines and structures. Cheap production of hydrogen or oxygen is unlikely to make things much cheaper.

Also, any mass left over at engine cut-off requires a large quantity of fuel at lift-off and possibly necessitating a larger more expensive rocket. This would make re-purposing of boosters in orbit less likely.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_\(rocket\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was hoping the article would talk about space elevators, and not space planes. I'm eagerly awaiting materials science and geo-politics to mature enough to allow the construction of space elevators.

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

<comment><USER7> I don't really see the benefits of space elevators, to be honest. At an altitude of 100km the gravity is still virtually the same. And you still need a huge amount of fuel in order to put your rocket/plane into orbit. Unless you build an elevator with a height of 42'164km (geostationary orbit) - but that seems unrealistic to me.

<comment><USER8> > "I don't really see the benefits of space elevators, to be honest. At an > altitude of 100km the gravity is still virtually the same."

You would have made the first 100km of the journey more fuel efficient, is that not a good enough reason?

<comment><USER7> I think it's just prohibitively expensive at the moment. 100km (I think it would have to be a lot more anyway) is not much in terms of space exploration. And even then you will always use the majority of your fuel for acceleration towards and deceleration at your destination (however fuel needs for deceleration might be much lower if you can do some sort of atmospheric braking).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This thread [1] gives a good explanation of why Skylon should be treated with scepticism.

[1] [https://m.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/2wstn6/i_am_very...](https://m.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/2wstn6/i_am_very_interested_in_reaction_engines_and/)

</comment><comment><USER9> It's a slick looking video, but what about reentry? It's not that hard to get a ship up there (the X-15 was flying to the edge of space 50 years ago), and launching like a jet plane obviously has many advantages over rockets, but when it comes back down it's going to hit the atmosphere at a pretty high velocity, unless it's carrying enough fuel to gradually lower itself back into airspace where the jets can kick in. The craft in the video does not appear to have VTOL capability.

But, if they can solve such problems, great. I'm thinking that eventually we'll have some kind of electrical or hybrid mass driver (catapult) system for getting non-human cargo into low orbit[1], much cheaper (and quieter) and obviously could accomplish many launches a day for one-way missions.

You could get a large space station or interplanetary craft up there rather affordably using this approach. Specialized reentry vehicles as well. Launch the parts cheaply, robots assemble the parts in orbit, then launch the humans expensively.

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

</comment><comment><USER10> Space planes should absolutely be part of our strategy, but their effectiveness diminishes once you get past LEO. An effective program would have different vehicles for different purposes, using the right tool for each job.

<comment><USER11> Taking mass to low earth orbit (LEO) is the gating item to increased space travel and exploration; Skylon, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Orbital Sciences are all focused on reducing this cost. It is quite well understood that outside of plans like Mars Direct and Semi-direct, interplanetary and interstellar travel will require other technologies such as novel electric and nuclear drives, but we are simply not at a point where that is an issue yet.[1][2]

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

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 20 years ago, I remember dreaming up a train pulling a cable with a glider at the far end. I'm sure there are many technical issues with this approach, possibly including the cable needing to be incredibly strong, light and flexible. Please tell me it would work, though, as I still enjoy the mental image.

<comment><USER11> Reaching orbit is mostly an issue of velocity, not altitude. This is why balloons can get very high, above of almost all earth's atmosphere, while being far from orbit. Rockets spend most of their ascent traveling nearly horizontal to the ground (they only go straight up at the beginning to get out of the densest part of the atmosphere).

<comment><USER13> What about geostationary orbit wrt balloons? Do the balloons slow down horizontally a lot during the ascent? If not, what if we floated a rocket up most of the way and let the rocket do the rest?

<comment> david-given You've just described a ballocket. You launch a rocket from a very high altitude balloon.

You gain nothing from the height, because you still need to spend ~10km/s getting up to orbital velocity, but you don't have to push your way through the thick lower atmosphere any more. Rockets don't work very well in atmosphere, so you do get fuel savings due to more efficient engines.

I don't know if this has ever been tried for real.

<comment> T-A Rockoon? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon) I particularly like the steampunk vibe of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Airship_to_Orbit_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Airship_to_Orbit_project)

<comment> david-given Er. * cough * Yes, rockoon, not ballocket.

In my defence I (a) am coming down with a horrible cold, and (b) read The Register...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So is infertility in astronauts still a problem? I could be totally wrong, but I was under the impression we haven't solved the problem of increased radiation negatively affecting fertility in both male and female astronauts.

<comment><USER15> I'd have thought sperm/egg freezing would do the trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> For all that effort to reduce oxidiser mass by using atmospheric oxygen, it's still 80% propellant by mass. Saturn V was 85%.

Still impressive if they can make it work, since of course Saturn V wasn't reusable.

<comment><USER17> So, with Saturn-5 only 15% was dry mass - and with Skylon 20%? That's 33% increase. Moreover, Saturn-5 was staged - and Skylon is single-stage, and have single stage to orbit with 20% dry mass looks somewhat like a miracle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> www.et3.com gradually leading up to the top of everest, jettisoning the capsule (6,500 km/h (4,000 mph)) to break out of the atmosphere.

I have not done the math, physics, etc on this, but it's an interesting idea worth exploring.

But that said, do we really belong in space when we cannot care for our own? Wouldn't that be akin to giving sugar to ants? only multiplying suffering and cruelty exponentially in space? Perhaps a refactoring of our culture and our methods of using/allocating/expending resources should be our first priority.

<comment><USER19> Interesting, let's say it should be our first priority, how does that translate into action? Please remember that mobilizing large amounts of people towards a goal is hard problem, specially when the goal involves copious amounts of research and experiment.

<comment><USER18> I personally believe people do not deserve to go to space yet.

They haven't mastered the ability to house, clothe, and feed the human family yet, despite having the technical ability to do so. As a result of this, you see the derivatives that exist today. Walk among Miami at night and you see homeless crackheads muttering to themselves while sipping on beer. The conditions that cause a person to do this would be probabilistically lower with a society that cares about one another more [designed-in] instead of fighting amongst each-other for paper slips.

If we absolutely need to go to space, we require research to determine the amount of materials needed to build this track length, and the renewability of those materials in reference to the earth. If this request for the materials meets a certain threshold, it will be dispensed, otherwise, the remaining materials can be reserved for further research to create synthetic alternatives. It helps to have a global database of known resources and their reserves, in fact, it might be a crucial requirement.

Imagine culling redis for this information, it sends a request to the global cybernetic hub, and it permits or denies the request, along with the terminal node you requested it to be sent to...

example: I request 13 Ounces of Gold (AU) at terminal #324-214-495-2341 to perform an experiment. (Since gold is currently in enough abundance for my request it is sent to my terminal as soon as technically possible, and any of the resource I do not use or can scrap back to the global hub, is done so)

<comment><USER19> So all resources are to be distributed from a central organization. Pray, who will be decide this? How will disputes will be solved when, inevitably, an armed group decides to use resources some other way?

Also, the whole point of leaving earth is leaving scarcity. There are meteorites with gold, we can and we should mine them as we see fit.

<comment><USER18> By creating abundance, it lessens the need and purpose for armies to take resources from others. There are no armies I am aware of that invade and conquer for Oranges, but they do for Oil.

To complete your second statement, why do you believe we should mine them for gold when we cannot efficiently manage them here on Earth to begin with?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Giant railguns. That is all.

<comment><USER21> Light-gas guns may be a good contender while railguns are sorted out. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light- gas_gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun)

<comment><USER22> Surprisingly, I actually did a fair bit of research into this field.

Both rail guns and light gas guns cap out at around 6km/s, and you really want 8km/s (more actually, for hypersonic drag loss) for this to be economical. Otherwise you need to launch a large enough rocket to make up the 2km/s difference, and you stuck solving the rocket equation again. Except you've subjected your rocket to 1000g, and the odds of it being reusable are really small.

For rail guns, the plasma discharge on the rails limits your speed. Around 6km/s.

For light gas guns, the working temperature of the gas cannot exceed the melting point of the barrel (or get close), otherwise tungsten/steel will get into the working gas and slow down the speed of sound. With hydrogen+tungsten, also around 6km/s.

There is a better solution, though :).

<comment><USER23> > and you stuck solving the rocket equation again

Yes, but only for 2km/s, so there's that. Also this system can be used on other bodies such as Mars and the Moon.

But yeah, I'm more worried about the 1000g than anything.

<comment><USER22> 2km/s means you are limited to about 20% payload. 20% is 10x better than a normal rocket, but there are actually easier ways to get 20%.

The beamed power method gets about 20%, and works for humans (no g load). Escape Dynamics is trying it: [http://escapedynamics.com/edispacelaunch/](http://escapedynamics.com/edispacelaunch/).

The difficulty here is more technical/scientific than engineering. Synchronizing microwave beams is hard, and if you don't you get destructive interference. I don't know if they have solved that problem yet (there have been a few proposed solutions, we'll see if any work).

Edit: Yes, rail would work great on the moon/mars. Actually there was a movie (Moon, with Sam Rockwell) where fuel is harvested on the moon and shot into orbit. Fun, crazy movie.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How To Deliberately Hide Bugs In Code (for use in a Novel I'm writing) - a-sagen http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/61164/how-to-deliberately-hide-bugs-in-code-for-use-in-a-novel-im-writing

<comment><AUTHOR> You might check out: [http://goelsan.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/a-catalogue-of- softw...](http://goelsan.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/a-catalogue-of-software- bugs-i-bugs-grounded-in-common-misconceptions-about-programming/)</comment>


Ask HN: Any new technologies, except mobile/pc, can collect individual's data? - <AUTHOR> except these mobiles/pc/tablet/watch, is there any mature technology/tools can collect massive personal data easily? <comment><USER2> Unsure of what you are looking for, exactly, or in what context/availability: public, premium or cloistered data. "New" is often old tech evolved. A few off the top of my head:

Nielsen boxes have been collecting for decades. Then came adapters: TiVo, cable/sat receivers, connected game consoles, streamers(roku). Now, the TVs themselves.

Black boxes on planes have long been a thing. OnStar has been collecting on vehicles since 1996. Insurance companies offer their own black boxes for a few years now.

Dedicated GPS devices uploaded data when updating maps online. new units most likely evolved to real-time broadcasting via wireless, but that is an assumption.

Retail/vendor membership cards, registration and extended warranties were seemingly created for analogue data collection.

Other sources: CCTV systems, RFID tags, Dept Transportation cameras: intersections, plate readers, speed cameras, freeway cameras, pneumatic road strips/tubes.</comment>


Black diamonds of pessimism: the letters of Samuel Beckett - <AUTHOR> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/beckett-letter-volume-four/ <comment><USER2> One thing to notice about Beckett (and the article kind of makes this clear) is how much glee he took in his pessimism. He wasn't depressed, he was articulating something.

There are a lot of fun things in there. I like the letter whose text was "No."

<comment><USER3> Agree. I think a big part of his work and letters try to show/remind how the menu of human emotions and feelings is far more vast and complicated than many people internalize. And seemingly incompatible emotions can be happening at the same time. Becket did appear to take some pleasure in nudging people back towards the uncomfortable reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Only tangentially related to the article, but: if you haven't read any Beckett, you owe it to yourself to check out at least _Waiting for Godot_ and _Endgame_ , two relatively short plays that alternate nicely between black comedy and surreal despair.

<comment><USER5> And if you can't tell what it's all about or make sense of what's said, then wait until you feel such despair yourself (after a loss, because of depression, betrayal, existentual anxiety, loss of faith, etc., and try again).

<comment><USER6> In college, when I had finished reading _Murphy_ I could hardly get out of my chair and leave the apartment to go to class to discuss it.

<comment><USER7> Muscle atrophy? ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The older I get the more I realize that the absurd theater is depressingly real, and the other stuff is what's absurd. Beckett et al were telling the truth, putting before our eyes all the absurdity that we learn to overlook.</comment>


Hack the Box – Pentesting Labs for Free - <AUTHOR> https://www.hackthebox.eu <comment><USER2> Asking the Hive Mind who might play with HTB, vulnhub and other labs (OSCP paid one):

1\. Aside from: linux cmds, nmap, metasploit, sqlmap, mimikatz, kali's well known tools - what other tools are often used by pen testers ?

2\. How is MFA beaten in today's enterprises ?

3\. Do most engagements assume one is already in the network ? If not, how does one scan (basic OSINT towards their externally facing website, but let's assume that is very secure)

4\. How well do pen testers know the defense side and amalgamation of so many defensive tools - how do they learn what to beat ? Is it really as simple as try to fingerprint and then look for known vulnerabilities on msf ? Or do pen testers not care if xyz enterprise is using this version of Palo Alto or a carbon black EDR etc.

e.g. Alphabet soup of products in a large enterprise for defensive solutions - NGAV, EDR, SIEM, honeypots etc. etc.

5\. How do you keep up ? aside from Reddit

6\. any advice to future job seekers working their way into learning more infosec ?

<comment><USER3> 1\. Dozens (if not hundreds) of tools are used. It's all about personal preference, and what you're used to. Personally, I don't often use most of the tools you mentioned except Mimikatz; I use a commercial framework paired with many open source or private PowerShell scripts and .NET tools.

2\. Something like evilginx2 can provide man in the middle functionality for stealing MFA tokens, or I try to find endpoints that have misconfigured or absent MFA.

3\. It depends on the engagement. We like assumed breach scenarios because they're more effective for the time and money involved, but clients want entirely black-box engagements fairly often as well. Otherwise, I'll focus on using OSINT to develop a phishing target list, assuming I do basic scans against the organization's external network footprint and don't find anything egregious.

4\. It's all about experience. You have to come up against the tools, and then see what works. It's really a lot of trial and error, though a lot of common bypass techniques will work against multiple products. There's no one-size- fits-all bypass.

5\. Twitter, public Slack channels, and research performed by myself and my coworkers.

6\. Learn soft skills. It's easy to teach someone how to do the technical part of the job, but you have to be able to communicate it to stakeholders. Technically, you should focus on the areas that interest you, but ensure that it's something used by the types of clients you're doing work for. It doesn't help to know the latest and greatest Linux attacks if none of your clients even know what Linux is. It doesn't help to be a badass web application pentester if you're expected to be able to move through a large Active Directory environment. Personally, I focus on Windows and Active Directory environments.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the detailed response!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> JFYI: There's a rule on HN that "Show HN's" can't just be sign-up pages or require invite codes; people have to be able to actually interact with whatever you're "Showing".

<comment><USER5> I mean you're kinda supposed to hack your way into getting an invite code...

<comment><USER6> True. The invite code is a first hacking test. There is this message in the web: "Feel free to hack your way in :)".

No invitation needed, it's just the first puzzle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For those that have been using the service and have actual pentesting experience, how applicable are the challenges to the real world?

Similar challenges I took in the past seemed like fun games, but still games.

<comment><USER8> YMMV, but, in my experience the biggest difference between these platforms and "real world" is the amount of data available (generally). At big companies, if you were to run a red team exercise or pen test, most of the probing and data gathering you do is on confluence, open git repos, and other places of documentation. Not running nmap or sitting in the middle of two services and inspecting packets. That's not to say that more advanced testers don't employ those methods, but the reality is, the most effective way is to expose yourself to the data available in front of you.

Disclosure: I run Vulnerability Management and Assessments globally for one of the largest companies in the world

<comment><USER2> I've been trying to learn infosec for a few years now with the eventual goal of either an offense/defense role. Plan to work on my OSCP next.

I have a few basic questions please:

1\. Aside from: linux cmds, nmap, metasploit, sqlmap, mimikatz, kali's well known tools - what other tools are often used by pen testers ?

2\. How is MFA beaten in today's enterprises ?

3\. Do most engagements assume one is already in the network ? If not, how does one scan (basic OSINT towards their externally facing website, but let's assume that is very secure)

4\. How well do pen testers know the defense side and amalgamation of so many defensive tools - how do they learn what to beat ? Is it really as simple as try to fingerprint and then look for known vulnerabilities on msf ? Or do pen testers not care if xyz enterprise is using this version of Palo Alto or a carbon black EDR etc.

e.g. Alphabet soup of products in a large enterprise for defensive solutions - NGAV, EDR, SIEM, honeypots etc. etc.

5\. How do you keep up ? aside from Reddit

6\. any advice to future job seekers working their way into learning more infosec ?

<comment><USER8> I've replied to your thread level comment, but please do feel free to reach out to me if you want any advice or discussion: firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER9> Foremost, I'd also like to say thank you for providing such a detailed reply to the top level comment

But I also wanted to extend my admiration of that very crafty email address. I'm sorry I didn't think of it first

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been on HTB for 4 months. If you want to get into pentesting this is a very good resource. If you reach the "Pro Hacker" level you should be able to pass OSCP first try.

<comment><USER11> What is OsCp about? What's the salary range for this type of job?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice!

Also reccomended are pentestit.ru, pentester academy and boxes hosted on vulnhub. Apart from offensive security labs ofcourse.

<comment><USER13> 100% agreed

I love Pentester Academy. I've had a subscription to it for the last year or so.

And OffSec is nice, too. I've got OSWP, OSCP, OSCE, and I'm in the Black Hat training this year for OSEE. So we'll see how that goes. I haven't tried their On-Prem labs though, but I think they'd be pretty fun.

<comment><USER14> I've browsed a few times the assembler courses on Pentester Academy. I'm not sure I'm up for being a pentester but I do like the particulars of assembler and CPUs.

Would you recommend those courses in particular (looking as amd64 and arm ones)?

<comment><USER13> Yep, they're great courses. Make sure you actually do it.

Vivek is an excellent instructor, and he goes from nothing to getting you up to speed pretty quickly.

The first parts might be a bit dry, because it's a lot of architecture and theoretical stuff. But after you get through that, and start doing things, you'll find that it's awesome.

Also, if you don't want to be a pentester, you might find a particular affinity for exploit development. And that's a niche field that pays well. That's where I'm going with my training, research, job. Not easy, at all, but it's deep, and fun.

<comment><USER12> Absolutely agree! Vivek's ASM tuts are amazing. Additionally, Nikhil's red team lab is highly recommended.

<comment><USER14> Will check that one out. I only have a rough idea of what a red team is (abstract, some books, etc), but no practical experience with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I dont get it. Why not put a pc on your lan and try to hack that? What is the benefit to me here? How do i know that the 'labs' i am participating in are safe? Are they honeypots? or perhaps i am just being used in a covert plan to crowdsource an attack on a vic?

<comment><USER16> Yeah you dont get it. Have you even read the website? Like...why are you jumping onto the fear bandwagon before understanding what hackthebox is about. When you turn on you fill your car with gas do you worry about an oil tanker spill?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This first challenge seems to be able to generate an invite code

<comment><USER18> Yea I was hoping to sign up to, to try it out!

<comment><USER19> The clue is on the page... "Feel free to hack your way in :)" Should take you a moment or two if that's your mind set, a little longer if you need to brush up on your JavaScript, or a little quicker if you Google a walkthrough :-)

<comment><USER20> I tried to do a SQL injection on the invite code form and they blocked my IP for 15 min. I guess some technique's aren't allowed.

EDIT: Switched my target to the front-end and was able to get in pretty easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's so much fun. With the exception of losing hard earned points when a box is retired.

</comment><comment><USER22> I need an invite code. Please help :)

<comment><USER23> As the anoother comment said, go around with/in javascript.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What does VIP cost?

<comment><USER13> I had it last year, I think it was $150 USD when I paid for it.</comment></comment>


Can Europe Lead on Privacy? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/opinion/europe-privacy-protections.html <comment><USER2> "But as well intentioned as that step may be, it addresses only a symptom of _the problem of the extensive surveillance of Americans_ , not the root of the problem."

\- Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC from 2013 to 2017, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School</comment>


The "free speech debate" isn't about free speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/22/21325942/free-speech-harpers-letter-bari-weiss-andrew-sullivan <comment><USER2> The author really just brushes over the David Shor situation, because his absolutely indefensible firing more or less obviates this entire essay. You can write it off as just random noise, but it progressed exactly how critics of cancel culture have identified as the way cancel culture exercises power to deleterious social effect.

Note that the biggest proponents of cancel culture have seen no need to think about that event, which highlights the core issue with granting some people inherent epistemic privilege over others: it attracts the hucksters and con artists who can claim that power like a moth to flame, and the culture immediately rejects any antibodies against them as racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever.

<comment><USER3> I have to disagree with you that the piece brushes over the firing.

The author makes it a point to say that Shor's firing is pretty universally thought of as unjust. They also bring up an open letter written by proponents of cancel culture that says as much.

Both you and the pro-cancel culture folks already agree here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think what gets mixed up often in this debate is what the government can or cannot prevent us from saying (free speech) vs what we "can" or "can't" say on an online medium like twitter or a publication, etc.

We (the public at large) need to have a discussion about when a private entity like facebook, twitter, etc, become so big that they essentially -are- public discourse. A lot of people treat these private entities like they're public. But they are not. As long as they follow US law, twitter can do whatever it wants. Yet people are shocked when twitter starts hiding tweets, or when facebook chooses to do nothing at all.

"Cancel culture" has nothing to do with the government, nor free speech. Free Speech does not protect you from criticisms or ridicule by other citizens, regardless if you think that's correct or not.

I don't know what the solution here is to cancel culture, other than speaking with your wallet. I fully blame twitter for conditioning people to only digest things in 140 characters or less, which makes discussing contentious topics very difficult or straight up impossible. I blame controversy-averse businesses that have no spine, and dismiss employees over some people angrily tweeting, who will move onto something else in a few weeks anyway.

I also blame people who specifically look for these things in order to "destroy" someone, as if someone can never change their opinion. I think cancel culture has absolutely nothing to do with ending sexism, etc, because all it does is train people to be private with their thoughts. If you view someone being sexist, etc, as "being sick", then the "doctors" are telling them to go die alone, instead of tending to them. How does that achieve equality?

I specifically limit a lot of what I potentially talk about online because it's not worth someone digging through it looking for 1 or 2 out of context sentences and making a stink about it.

<comment><USER5> > " _what the government can or cannot prevent us from saying (free speech)_ "

To my fellow Americans, please stop repeating this; it just makes us look uneducated. The First Amendment of the Constitution != freedom of speech; it's an subset of freedom of speech that happens to bind the United States government.

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

" _Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used._"

<comment><USER6> When Americans stop referring to things like social media banning, deplatforming and "cancel culture" as violations of their First Amendment rights, as does often happen, other Americans will stop needing to correct them.

<comment><USER7> A few people actually saying a thing does not prevent that thing from being a strawman. And invoking a sample as representative of a group escalates arguments instead of converging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Despite its headline, I gave this article the benefit of the doubt. It had a lengthy intro, which I thought was gearing up to make a novel point. But then its core:

> _Abstract appeals to "free speech" and "liberal values" obscure the fact > that what's being debated is not anyone's right to speech, but rather their > right to air that speech in specific platforms like the New York Times > without fear of social backlash_

So it's making the same old "but private platforms" argument, while ignoring that many of these "private" platforms have more power than most governments.

The argument probably does make sense for the NYT, which has always editorialized. If the trend stopped at publishers, there would be little concern - mass media has always sucked in various ways. (Remember when the NYT marketed the needless war against Iraq? The proper response is to stop giving it a stature of importance and stop calling it a "paper of record", but I digress)

But it's fallacious to extrapolate judgement at the small-independent scale to the overall societal trend. "Cancel culture" is a critique of the effects on wider society, especially now that everyone is basically at the mercy of commercial businesses beholden to outrage mobs. Arguing that it's just free association and social mores progressing sidesteps the critique by ignoring how those mores have become more constrained, and the resulting increasing polarization.

<comment><USER8> I honestly don't see why it matters, those platforms will become echo-chambers of people that don't want to nor are going to listen to your voice anyways. It is the equivalent of shouting in the dark, everyone thinks everyone else is listening to them, when the reality is everyone is just talking past each other thinking they are getting their point across. That is the problem, in the current environment no one wants to understand, they want to make their point. If those systems alienate a reasonably sized voice they will platform on another system and become an echo-chamber for the other side and that's the real problem is everyone thinks they are the majority opinion because they live in their echo-chamber.

<comment><USER7> You said "I honestly don't see why it matters", and then went on to describe why it matters... The resulting echo chambers are dominated by extreme views. If you want to belong, then you accept the orthodoxy or at least don't speak up when you do disagree - there is no room for nuance. This is a recipe for increasing polarization, inability to engage with reasonable points by the "other side", and a lack of worthwhile discussion of how to actually approach societal problems.

<comment><USER8> My point was why does it matter what platforms do, no one is listening to each other anyways, those alienated will platform somewhere else where there are receptive ears that like the echo. Even if we force the platforms to accept free speech in the same way the US Government is bound to it, no one is listening anyways so why does it matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd argue it is. From the article:

>Canada criminalizes hate speech, Germany bans Holocaust denial, and the United States permits both — yet no one seriously believes that America is a free society while the other two have somehow collapsed into illiberalism.

Freedom isn't a boolean true/false. In my view America is more free than those countries when it comes to speech due to our more liberal definition of what constitutes free speech. I don't think that banning those forms of speech will trigger a collapse into illiberalism, but I would see banning that speech as an erosion of our rights.

<comment><USER10> My ideological priors:

1) I believe the US constitution should be amended to ban racist speech and membership of explicitly racist political parties. There should be a lengthy and precise amendment stipulating that the US government considers human beings to belong to only one race, Homo sapiens sapiens, and that any racialist understanding of human diversity (claiming whites and blacks are separate races, for example) is pseuedoscience, although not necessarily criminal. While racialism is not criminalized, anyone using racialist "science" to falsely claim intellectual or behavioral differences between different ethnic groups has committed a serious crime. Blacks, Native Americans, and Jews should be explicitly protected. This would mean that Charles Murray and Andrew Sullivan would go to jail. Likewise, anyone who uses provably false assertions about history to deny the occurrence of racist violence or genocide has committed a serious crime. This would mean David Irving would go to jail if he set foot in the US. Note that my amendment is specifically about _race_ and not _ethnicity._

2) I respect that most anti-racists disagree with me and I acknowledge that the "thoughtcrime" problem with my proposed amendment is very real. I am aware that the amendment in point 1 could very easily criminalize legitimate anthropological research, and so on. But our laws against human subject research risks criminalizing legitimate research in medicine (and certainly creates heavy barriers for researchers). So in my view I think the risk pales in comparison to the danger posed by Holocaust/slavery/etc denial.

But I think your view of "freedom" is a bit shallow - specifically conflating "freedom" and "rights" is a problem. For instance: people used to have the "freedom" to resolve disputes with a duel to the death. The government constrained this freedom but it is difficult to believe that anyone's rights were violated. Likewise, only true zealots seriously believe that "a right to bear arms" is "a right to bear whatever weapon you want." The government constrains your freedom to own missiles and automatic weaponry but this is not a constraint of your rights.

Similarly, I just plain disagree that people have the right to express racist views or endorse Nazism. Given that racist conduct and expression can be defined fairly precisely, even given that bigoted or ethnically prejudiced conduct cannot, I think such an exception to free speech rights is legally workable. More philosophically, racism is so uniquely dangerous, and so indefensible intellectually, and so useless for anything other than spreading hatred and violence, that it should be an explicit exception to our understanding of free speech laws and our natural rights around self- expression. Again, I am not accusing people who disagree with me of indifference to racism.

<comment><USER8> I have a seriouse question on this, I would like to understand your logic, you say:

> While racialism is not criminalized, anyone using racialist "science" to > falsely claim intellectual or behavioral differences between different > ethnic groups has committed a serious crime.

Would you apply this standard to Farrakhan and his teaching that the white man was created from a evil witch-doctor and thus are inherently evil and have no souls?

Second you state.

> I just plain disagree that people have the right to express racist views or > endorse Nazism.

What if I said, I hate the fact that the Nazis committed genocide, but we have to admit that they where very good at executing a national vision that pulled their nation out of a depression and turned them into an industrial powerhouse in just a few short years?

I would like to get your thought on it, as the above statement is a factually true statement, but it is an endorsement that they where effective economically and politically. Would you say that I don't have the right to state an established fact due to the fact that it may have racial or ethnic implications.

What about other facts based on numerical data like the rate of absentee fathers in the black community or the statistically high prevalence of high SAT scores by Asians. Would facts be limited in your view.

I am not trying to counter, correct or mock your position, I honestly don't understand it, I don't understand the desire to limit speech due to the follow on implications and I would like to know how you mentally walk thru those questions and come to the conclusion that we as a society would be better if we just could not say some things.

<comment><USER10> > Would you apply this standard to Farrakhan and his teaching that the white > man was created from a evil witch-doctor and thus are inherently evil and > have no souls?

Yes, as the law would clearly state: any expression of belief of _racial_ behavioral/cognitive differences between ethnic groups is a crime.

> What if I said, I hate the fact that the Nazis committed genocide, but we > have to admit that they where very good at executing a national vision that > pulled their nation out of a depression and turned them into an industrial > powerhouse in just a few short years?

No that would not be illegal because that is not an endorsement of Nazism or Holocaust denial. I will grant that it's an unnecessarily trollish and downright misleading way of describing the economy in Nazi Germany but it would not be a crime.

> What about other facts based on numerical data like the rate of absentee > fathers in the black community or the statistically high prevalence of high > SAT scores by Asians. Would facts be limited in your view.

No because these data can be understood in terms of ethnic groups without resorting to the pseudoscience of racialism.

<comment><USER8> Thank you for responding, I am genuinely curious how other people see the world.

<comment><USER10> If you want to read a bit about how I got here - as of about 10 years ago I was nowhere near this radical - I would strongly recommend "Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life" by Barbara E. Fields and Karen J. Fields, which deeply analyzes the historical and socio-anthropological development of racialist ideology. The blurb from the link[1]:

"Most people assume that racism grows from a perception of human difference: the fact of race gives rise to the practice of racism. Sociologist Karen E. Fields and historian Barbara J. Fields argue otherwise: the practice of racism produces the illusion of race, through what they call 'racecraft.' And this phenomenon is intimately entwined with other forms of inequality in American life. So pervasive are the devices of racecraft in American history, economic doctrine, politics, and everyday thinking that the presence of racecraft itself goes unnoticed.

"That the promised post-racial age has not dawned, the authors argue, reflects the failure of Americans to develop a legitimate language for thinking about and discussing inequality. That failure should worry everyone who cares about democratic institutions."

[1][https://www.versobooks.com/books/1645-racecraft](https://www.versobooks.com/books/1645-racecraft) Kate Mann's "Down Girl" takes a conceptually similar view and analysis of misogyny and sexism: [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/down- girl-9780190604...](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/down- girl-9780190604981?cc=us&lang=en&)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the end of article

> Such incidents do not, however, mean that the very idea of free expression > is under assault. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we'll be able to > start taking on the actually important questions — about whether improving > our society requires real revision to our speech norms, beyond the non- > controversial exclusions of neo-Nazis and overt racists from elite > intellectual life into new territory by more fully incorporating new ideas > about race and gender into public life.

Translation: "free speech" is OK because what I do not approve is not speech. Also, I plan to keep changing the rules on what it's allowed.

<comment><USER12> The fact that you were downvoted shows that social media companies and big tech nerds and brogrammers aren't fit to ruminate on intellectual matters.</comment></comment>


Palindromic Place Names - <AUTHOR> http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2015-07-20/the-only-reason-to-visit-this-remote-australian-spot-is-its-name-palindrome

<comment><USER2> This is the exact thing I would expect Ken Jennings to write about.</comment>


Occupy leader now works for Google, wants to crowdfund private militia - <AUTHOR> http://pando.com/2014/02/07/occupy-wall-street-leader-now-works-for-google-wants-to-crowdfund-a-private-militia/

<comment><USER2> I stopped reading the post because it was extremely opinionated and the author seemed to have a personal axe to grind against his or her subject, making me question the integrity of the information.

</comment><comment><USER3> Link bait. Way down in the article you finally learn that this occupy leader is suggesting a non-violent militia, or really, protesters.

<comment><USER4> Well, she did use the language "fodder for the NYPD." She might not be planning to arm the paid protesters, but she does seem to expect them to at last be on the receiving end of violence.

<comment><USER5> The word she's looking for is: union.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> More interesting than the bit about the militia is where she is described as arguing ""poverty was not a political problem but "an engineering problem" and told politicians to "get out of the way.""

Edit: My interest here is in the reference to hacking social issues, even one as monolithic as poverty.

<comment><USER7> The government should get out of the way so Google and others can happily collude on keeping salaries down and work merrily on other shenanigans (privacy?, lol).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh, another Yasha Levine "article" about how evil is Google. Shocking.

<comment><USER9> Wrong, the article is not about Google, it's about a specific employee.

<comment><USER10> The word Google is in almost every paragraph, and in the title. And the article links to the author's previous article which is about Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My biggest problem is that on her twitter account she suggested forming a "non-violent militia" which is an oxymoron. Also, pando seems to consistently write articles that's main purpose is to stir shit. read: linkbait.

</comment><comment><USER12> Quoting a writer I definitely like: Power is like a violin, you grab it with the left hand but play it with the right one.

</comment><comment><USER13> The sad reality about invoking "Google" for click-bait puposes is that it works. Ad hominem attacks and using an imaginary feud to promote your previous posts is a new low.</comment>


Extra cash for work - US Earned Income Tax Credit - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/03/15/174358638/a-surprisingly-uncontroversial-program-that-gives-money-to-poor-people

<comment><AUTHOR> Contrast with <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5768570>. This US $60 billion program with wide bipartisan support gives poorer folks extra cash after making at least some income ... many use the extra capital to support or establish their own business.</comment>


Labelauty jQuery Plugin - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fntneves/jquery-labelauty

<comment><USER2> Frustrating to see that aesthetics have trumped usability here. By default radio buttons and check boxes are visually distinct, round and square, respectively. With this plugin there's no such distinction.</comment>


Dave Chappelle signs with Yondr for cell-phone control at Chicago shows - <AUTHOR> http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/6784771/how-dave-chappelle-is-creating-a-no-phone-zone-for-his-chicago-shows <comment><USER2> dave who again?</comment>


PAPAC-00, a Do-It-Yourself Paper Computer (1958) - <AUTHOR> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=5222588 <comment><USER2> There's also the CARDIAC CARDboard Illustrative Aid to Computation, which simulates the control logic of a simple computer, giving the operator step-by- step instructions for how to proceed.

In these modern times, it's more fun to program a virtual machine. The Dietel and Dietel "Java: How to program, 5th ed" had a project for the Simpletron computer simulator, which young me enjoyed. The projects around Simpletron included an assembler and later a compiler for a BASIC-like language.

</comment><comment><USER3> And now I know what I'll do with my 3d printer once I get my home computer operating again. Anyone know of other similar [EDIT: mechanical] computer designs? The only other one I can recall immediately is a marble adding machine [0].

[0] [http://woodgears.ca/marbleadd/](http://woodgears.ca/marbleadd/)

EDIT: My google search results improved when I stopped searching for physical computer and instead searched for mechanical computer.

<comment><USER4> A hand-cranked computer that uses punch cards (also mostly 3D-printed): [http://www.chrisfenton.com/the-turbo- entabulator/](http://www.chrisfenton.com/the-turbo-entabulator/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [1958]

<comment><USER6> well one could say [anytime] since paper has been there and still is. :)

<comment><USER7> Publish date of the document.

<comment><USER6> I'm not that stupid you know.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Does UV light kill the new coronavirus? - <AUTHOR> https://www.livescience.com/uv-light-kill-coronavirus.html <comment><USER2> spoiler:

> The short answer is yes. But it takes the right kind of UV in the right > dosage, a complex operation that is best administered by trained > professionals.</comment>


Anvl.co – Design and 3D print your tabletop gaming miniatures from the browser - <AUTHOR> https://anvl.co <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone!

Noah here from Anvl Custom Miniatures. We've created an easy to use app that lets you design your dream custom tabletop figurines using over 2 trillion combinations of races, items, outfits and accessories!

We just launched on Product Hunt [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/anvl- custom-miniatures](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/anvl-custom-miniatures) and would love to answer any questions you have about our product.

Have a great day</comment>


Blog For Humans - <AUTHOR> http://andrewhyde.net/blog-for-humans/ <comment><USER2> Anthropologist Timothy Ingold said once that humans have an amazing ability to write themselves out of their own history. This post kinda shows that.</comment>


Be life savvy: my new non-programming blog - <AUTHOR> http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/07/20/be-life-savvy-my-new-non-programming-blog/ <comment><USER2> It's about time someone created a blog like this. I've been saying for a long time that mastering some aspect of technology has the secondary value of making valuable insights of one's opinions on everyday life. I've been wondering what the Top 12 Myths About Sleeping were, and I've been needing 8 Great Ideas To Get You Inspired, and I hope you'll be able to address these and other topics you as you proceed.

<comment><AUTHOR> You broke my sarcasm meter. :) But I plan to take a different approach. You can read my first post here: [http://belifesavvy.com/2008/07/21/the-credit- card-minimum-pa...](http://belifesavvy.com/2008/07/21/the-credit-card-minimum- payment-trap/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where to Find Jobs? - <AUTHOR> I am just learning Python for web dev. I am from non-technical background.
I know basic HTML and CSS so far. I can hack and build simple sites.
How can I find jobs? <comment><USER2> Is there any particular reason why you don't have contact details in your profile?</comment>