How BlackBerry blew it: The inside story - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/

<comment><USER2> Discussion is over here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6461960](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6461960)</comment>


Speech Analysis: I Have a Dream - <AUTHOR> http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/2009/01/18/speech-analysis-dream-martin-luther-king/ <comment><USER2> this wasn't the real thing, as opposed to:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., giving his "Beyond Vietnam" speech at Riverside Church in New York on April 4, 1967.

[http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/16/dr_martin_luther_king_...](http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/16/dr_martin_luther_king_jr_1929)</comment>


The Failure: Midwife assisted births outside the hospital more dangerous - <AUTHOR> http://gatehousenews.com/failuretodeliver/# <comment><AUTHOR> Has sound, but not autoplaying and it does warn you.

home birth vs hospital birth has been discussed a bit on HN before. I'm submitting this US report (which contains graphic distressting description of birth) because it taught me a lot about the US context.

In the UK midwives are degree educated, trained, and professionally registered with the NMC.

It's genuinely shocking to me to see the different standards used in the US.</comment>


5 Ways to Add Time To Your Days - <AUTHOR> http://www.dumblittleman.com/2010/03/5-big-ways-to-add-time-to-you-days.html

<comment><USER2> One more way: Limit your time on HN. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Summary: Stop trying to do everything.

Bit lame if you ask me.

<comment><USER4> Well i think lots of people are trying to do too much some times even me. Some times this just does not cross your mind when you are too busy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> These suggestions aren't about how to add time, they are about how to not waste it on things that are less important -- prioritization.

To _add_ time to your day, make yourself more productive with code libraries, more experience, and leverage.</comment>


Type walmart.cm into your browser and amazon.com pops up? - <AUTHOR>

Thought this was interesting.. a little cyber-squatting by Amazon? Are there any other unusual re-directs out there? <comment><USER2> <http://www.chevys.com/> is not the website you'd expect to find.

</comment><comment><USER2> There's the classic <http://www.nissan.com/>.</comment>


Outlier Detection in Time-Series Signals using FFT and Median Filtering - <AUTHOR> http://bugra.github.io/work/notes/2014-03-31/outlier-detection-in-time-series-signals-fft-median-filtering/ <comment><USER2> Nice, simple explanation of this concept. +1000 for using IPython notebook, though the left-right layout of the cells is a little hard to follow. Shamelessly, I prefer my own layout based on pelican-bootstrap: [http://kastnerkyle.github.io/blog/2014/02/15/polyphase- signa...](http://kastnerkyle.github.io/blog/2014/02/15/polyphase-signal- processing/) \- but that moving swarm logo is pretty great!

However, I have to say that a high-pass filter (in this case, basically a brickwall applied using an FFT? might not be a great idea due to "ringing" in the time-domain though it works here...) is typically _NOT_ the right answer for real datasets. Think of detecting outliers on a square wave, or a pinched sine wave, or any "non-pure" tone, really... Non-gaussian noise/interference is also way more common than you would be lead to believe :). Onset detection is a complex problem, but an easy to understand solution is a tunable lag-lead moving average filter.

One small window calculates the moving average, while a larger window also calculates the moving average. For "noise" or typical data, the averages should be similar given that both windows encompass more than a few cycles of the signal. When the small window average is > than the large window average by some margin, an event has just occurred. The two windows should then get to about the same average for the event duration (in this case, there is not really much duration). Once the small window average is < the large window average by some margin, then the signal event is over. There are better approaches from music information retrieval which use phase information as well...

The hard part is tuning the "above and below" thresholds and two window sizes from the signal you wish to catch - this approach is used as a simple alternative to wavelets for earthquake detection.

Great illustration, and if this technique works for your data that is awesome! Unfortunately, I have never found a dataset with such an easy solution for outlier detection...

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a shame that the linked article, which uses the new IPython blog- authoring features, isn't identified as such. It's a nice example of IPython's interactive authoring abilities that mix normal text with technical content and graphics created using the IPython web interface.

[http://blog.fperez.org/2012/09/blogging-with-ipython- noteboo...](http://blog.fperez.org/2012/09/blogging-with-ipython- notebook.html)</comment>


John Nash's Letter to the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://agtb.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/john-nashs-letter-to-the-nsa/ <comment><USER2> National Geographic recently had a "special" on "Inside the NSA: America's Cyber Secrets" where they mentioned and showed this letter. They said the NSA didn't end up doing anything with it but still wanted to classify it for 50+ years so that no one else could use the ideas within.

My favorite parts of the episode were:

\- All of the Windows XP machines everyone was using

\- The flashing red lights on the ceiling in secure areas (familiar for those that have been in similar secure facilities)

\- The obnoxious re-enactments where real employees pretend to gather and discuss on-going developments. It was outright silly.

The episode just aired in January and it looks like it isn't on their site yet, but there are related videos: [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/search/?search=%22Inside+t...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/search/?search=%22Inside+the+NSA%22)

EDIT: The NSA press release mentions it too. They say "featured" but they didn't spend more than 5 minutes out of the hour program.

       The Nash letters were also recently featured on the National Geographic [...]

<comment><USER3> Why the lights on the ceiling?

<comment><USER2> In secure facilities (particularly defense related) where secret information or networks are in use, visitors must be accompanied by an escort and announced before entering. Everyone has to stop any actual sensitive work, shut off their monitors to sensitive systems, and cover up sensitive documents on your desk. Then as long as the visitor is in a certain area of the building, red flashing lights (no siren/noise) must stay on to alert everyone else that an un-cleared visitor is currently in the area. This is why most "actual work" gets done in basements and extra-secure rooms where visitors rarely ever see, because the constant interruptions are devastating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't help but think that the NSA would have taken the letter more seriously if had been typed.

[http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/nash_letters/nash_lett...](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/nash_letters/nash_letters1.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Type math? In 1955? That would have required specialized equipment, possibly a secretary. Nash clearly believed that the contents were of national security interest.

<comment><USER4> He should have invented TeX.

<comment><USER6> I think he did. Unfortunately he also invented fonts that appear to be hand- drawn by a person suffering from schizophrenia. =(

<comment><USER7> Here's a font that appears to be hand-drawn by a person suffering from megalomania: [http://www.fonts101.com/fonts/view/Uncategorized/34398/Dijks...](http://www.fonts101.com/fonts/view/Uncategorized/34398/Dijkstra.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am pretty sure you can see them at the cryptography museum right next to the NSA. I went two weeks ago and Nash letter is right in the front.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder what letters / blog posts / emails are written _now_ that will make us look back in awe in 60 years.

<comment> steve-howard I wonder if such things still happen. In 1955, the world was a lot less interconnected, and there was a much more real sense of global tension such that you would want to keep secrets. Today I'm not sure an academic would be so quick to dash off a letter to someone who would keep their discoveries secret for half a century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tough call---part of me says that they blew it off while the rest of me says they put the information to work (as best as they were able) In any event I doubt they got back to him...

<comment><USER11> The PDF record shows both parties replied to each other a couple times but the NSA thought his method didn't meet their security criteria.

But they also could have shelved it for years until someone had a use for it, the same as Hedy Lamarr's frequency hopping patent. (Granted, they probably modified it slightly so they didn't have to give him any credit)

<comment><USER12> This may be of some use to you: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr></comment></comment></comment>


Cancelled: Tech Conference Called Off Over 'Non-Diverse' Speaker Lineup - <AUTHOR> https://heatst.com/tech/cancelled-tech-conference-electronconf-off-over-non-diverse-speaker-lineup/ <comment><USER2> "which is designed to police developers of harmful thoughts"

anyone remember thoughts being free?</comment>


College Career Network Handshake Secures $10.5M Series A from KPCB - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gklord/handshake-s-new-funding-6d7569553219#.7440zvtnz <comment><USER2> Super cool.

<comment><USER3> Of all the names for sockpuppet accounts, _that 's_ the name you chose?</comment></comment>


9 tools to make creative resumes - <AUTHOR> http://www.policygenius.com/blog/9-tools-make-creative-resume/

<comment><USER2> Are you kidding me? NemCV is by far the most effective resume on the planet. That's why I offer $1000 to anyone who I can't find a job to and have not lost yet! As it works 100% of the time!</comment>


MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award - <AUTHOR> https://www.media.mit.edu/disobedience/ <comment><USER2> As someone that actively engages in disobedience it is disheartening that they'd award $250k to a single winner instead of $50k to five, $10k to twenty- five, etc.

So many people struggle to make a difference, no matter how small, and being honored for their efforts, when it's most likely that it rarely if ever happens in real life, would be inspiring to them to keep up what they're doing.

For those interested in reading about the original post covering in detail the thoughts behind the award, see this blog post:

[https://joi.ito.com/weblog/2016/03/21/on- disobedience.html](https://joi.ito.com/weblog/2016/03/21/on-disobedience.html)

<comment><USER3> We should still nominate still Aaron Swartz.

***Aaron Swartz*** Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

(From archive.org: [https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj...](https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt))

<comment><USER4> From the post :

> Eligibility requirements for the $250,000 prize

> The recipient must be living.

So that rules out Aaron Swartz.

<comment><USER5> But it's a disobedience award, so... disobey the rules.

<comment><USER6> You can disobey as long as you fit the narrative. This is an issue far beyond MIT even countries

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've nominated Alexandra Elbakyan of sci-hub and encourage everyone else to do the same.

I'd also be happy if Aaron Swartz won!

<comment><USER8> The first eligibility requirement: The recipient must be living.

<comment><USER9> The first word in the award: Disobedience.

<comment><USER10> That's just stupid.

The award is clearly for people who are being disobedient for the benefit of society.

Breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules is just anarchy or trolling. You're just inconveniencing people who set out to recognise real contributions to society.

Unless there is an Aaron Schwartz foundation or something, nominate people who are still doing work.

<comment><USER9> This isn't about Aaron. It's about the next person who downloads too much free stuff doing it emboldened by the thought that MIT will have their back when the feds come knocking. If only because not doing so costs MIT 250 thousand dollars.

That would be a much bigger contribution to society than any one person walking away with this award.

<comment><USER11> While we are on this topic, let's not forget the real culprits: cfaa and widespread abuse of discretionary power by prosecution.

We must repeal (and not replace) the cfaa. Of course, we should name and shame MIT at every junction (shame on you, MIT!) However, we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture. CFAA is evil.

<comment><USER12> Joi Ito, Director of the Media Lab, highly praised Aaron during the memorial held at the Media Lab in 2013:

[http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/swartz.html](http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/swartz.html)

Perhaps the rest of MIT deserves shaming, but please don't punish the Media Lab.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> After reading the comments on this page, I am a little disheartened that apparently most people want to give what is basically a work grant to a dead guy. Regardless of what you think of someone like Aaron Swartz, there are plenty of people who are currently doing good work who could greatly benefit from something like this. Giving it to a dead person simply to make a political statement diminishes any impact this award could have.

<comment><USER14> > Giving it to a dead person simply to make a political statement diminishes > any impact this award could have.

Giving it to Aaron Swartz would provide both the title and the money to advance the cause of Aaron's Law or similar reform of the CFAA, enacting which would do more for socially positive disobedience than the equivalent amount of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It doesn't matter if Aaron Swartz is ineligible. We should still nominate him. We should nominate him so many times that granting the award to anyone else makes this award an obviously disingenuous publicity stunt.

<comment><USER16> Unpopular opinion: Aaron Swartz abused the trust which was placed in him by MIT as its guest when engaging in his civil disobedience, and MIT was perfectly justified not to intercede in his case.

A bit like if your friend comes to your house, you tell him, "don't smoke weed outside, the cops around here will arrest you," and your friend says "I support marijuana legalization, so I'll smoke wherever I want." Your friend smokes up on your front steps, you try to get him to stop (it's your house after all), and then the cops show up, rough you up a bit, and arrest him.

There are many more deserving than Aaron Swartz of this award, within and without the MIT community.

<comment><USER17> Exactly

The AS widows are becoming annoying

<comment><USER15> Aaron Swartz being dead is becoming annoying.

<comment><USER18> Aaron Swartz is mostly dead because of untreated mental illness. The things that happened to him were bad, but it's not MIT's fault he was suicidal.

<comment><USER15> That absolutely may have been a factor.

However, what 26 year old computer nerd without a black belt wouldn't give suicide some thought when staring at an unjust sentence in a federal prison of fifty years, AKA five decades, AKA half a century, AKA the majority of their remaining life expectancy, AKA about twice as long as their entire life up to that point and more than twice as long as they can remember?

Who wouldn't at least consider suicide when faced with the realization that even with time off for good behavior, by the time they got out they'd be closer to retirement age than to a reasonable age for restarting a career? That they'd have spent the most productive years of their life rotting away in prison instead of producing?

Weighing your pain avoidance instinct against your self preservation instinct is entirely rational. We don't put all of the blame on mental illnes, even if the person was mentally ill, when someone jumps to their death from a burning building or when a cancer patient opts for euthanasia. It's inappropriate to do so for Aaron Swartz.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I see a lot of support for nominating Aaron Swartz on this page. Why not Chelsea Manning instead?

Consider this: her actions parallel Swartz's actions (she liberated information), except that they could potentially benefit many, many more people the world over; Swartz's disobedience would primarily benefit academics (though of course the benefits would sort of trickle down to the rest of the population, eventually).

Additionally, Chelsea Manning is alive, and would benefit from the award. Nominating Aaron Swartz post-humously seems to me like nothing more than an attempt to rub MIT's nose into its own mess ...except of course that the people involved with the award are not the people responsible for Aaron Swartz's treatment.

<comment><USER20> Manning isn't in a position to do much now, though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How about Alexandra Elbakyan who started sci-hub. Her work is pretty similar to Aaron's. I feel that by defying the rules sci-hub has really helped bring the cause of open-access to everyone's attention and we are all watching it change the system for good.

</comment><comment><USER22> MIT was complicit in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz for seemingly qualifying activities.

<comment><USER23> How was MIT complicit?

When they involved the police, they had no idea who it was that was apparently attacking them. They just knew that an unknown party was causing serious disruptions, and was actively trying to evade their countermeasures, and had moved on to trespassing and equipment tampering.

It was only after Swartz was arrested that his identity became known.

Everything after that was in the hands of prosecutors. MIT did tell prosecutors that MIT did not advocate jail time for Swartz.

<comment><USER24> > "causing serious disruptions"

So disruptive to MIT that they didn't even notice it until JSTOR emailed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz?

<comment><USER26> MIT is not one uniform entity.

<comment><USER27> Then it should have made several conflicting announcements at the time, but I just saw one.

<comment><USER28> Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Similar to how everyone in the US is allowed to use the Whitehouse press secretary to announce things.

<comment><USER27> > _Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases._

Well, if they don't, that's still a SINGLE organization to my eyes.

Just because some people there might disagreed at the time, it doesn't absolve the organization.

<comment><USER28> Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to _people_ , not an organization.

>Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz?

So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.

<comment><USER27> > _Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It > refers to people, not an organization._

Organizations consist of people. There is some more stuff beyond that -- just some legal documents, buildings, and other assets, but the thing that actually has the agency to drive an organization is people.

> _So no, these aren 't the same people. However, it is the same parent > organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's > the strawman you are attacking._

They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.

<comment><USER28> >They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.

So nobody has left or joined MIT since the Aaron Schwartz case?

Even ignoring that detail, I have a lot more respect for people that change an organization from within rather than quit immediately anytime something disagreeable happens. If everyone operated the way you are suggesting, we would essentially have institutions that would never change because nobody with different viewpoints could join.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I appreciate the spirit of the award, however it seems to be coming from an odd place for an odd amount.

I'm not sure what part of the mission of the MIT Media Lab is really involved with rocking the boat. And 250k seems like a heck of a lot of cash to do this. 50k seems like a good amount. I would rather see 5 winners.

<comment><USER30> The MIT Media Lab has always had a long list of corporate sponsors [1]. And some of them are real boat rockers. If by boat you mean yacht, and by rock you mean race.

But I notice that Philip Morris isn't on that list any more, like it was in 2004 [2] and 2005 [3].

Philip Morris makes a lot of money from disobedient kids who won't listen to what their parents tell them about not smoking. And they do pay a lot of disobedient scientists who are willing to dispute the scientific consensus about the dangers of smoking. [4]

[1] [https://www.media.mit.edu/members/member- companies/](https://www.media.mit.edu/members/member-companies/)

[2] [http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres04/07.05.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres04/07.05.pdf)

[3] [http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres05/07.06.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres05/07.06.pdf)

[4] [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low- tar...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar- cigarettes/481116/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I nominated Edward Snowden. I'm sure I wasn't the first.

</comment><comment><USER32> I feel like a disobedience award should be met with a little disobedience. I'm not sure what all the chit-chat about rules and eligibility is around here, I've nominated Aaron Swartz -- fuck the rules.

</comment><comment><USER33> Seems like a great way to catch a nasty case of conspiracy to commit a felony. The reason the Nobel committee can give an award to a political prisoner in another country is that they are in another country.

<comment><USER34> To take another comment, suppose the Media Lab awards Snowden the $250K. What possible conspiracy charge could the Media Lab (or the person(s) who nominated Snowden) catch?

<comment><USER35> Has Snowden been charged with anything?

If not, can it still be considered helping a fugitive?

<comment><USER36> > Has Snowden been charged with anything?

Yes, according to the Washington Post.

> Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, > the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of > documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has > asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to > U.S. officials.

> Snowden was charged with theft, "unauthorized communication of national > defense information" and "willful communication of classified communications > intelligence information to an unauthorized person," according to the > complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us- ch...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges- snowden-with- espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wonder how many times Edward Snowden will be nominated? :)

<comment><USER38> "Engaged in" makes it sound like they're more interested in ongoing disobedience, e.g. the folks at sci-hub.

<comment><USER39> Not sure where you are drawing your implied conclusion that Snowdon is not engaged in ongoing disobedience, but I would say Snowdon has remained pretty darn engaged with the issues he brought to light. And his disobedience is certainly ongoing, in that he isn't obeying the call from authorities to turn himself in to a system which is virtually guaranteed to deny him fair treatment.

<comment><USER39> Snowden* sigh, can't edit any longer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Why is this award not named after Aaron Swartz?

<comment><USER41> Because MIT is one of the public institutions that persecuted him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Todays radical act of disobedience for me was disabling JavaScript on this site. Quelle surprise, it promptly broke and was all black, despite being literally a form.

<comment><USER43> It looks like Typeform which depends pretty heavily on interactivity, like for keyboard shortcuts. It's somewhat surprising they wouldn't have a no JS fallback but on the other hand the experience would be markedly worse than those with JS on.

<comment><USER44> The default HTML form experience is still way better than a black page. I don't see the form really needing any more functionality than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> White type on black background made my eyes disobey my wish to have functioning vision for about three minutes after I clicked away.

</comment><comment><USER46> Remember Aaron.

</comment><comment><USER47> > ethical disobedience

Isn't this ironic. Basically saying, Your disobedience must be obedient to our criteria of ethics. Isn't every disobedience unethical to someone?

Typical 'better than you' attitude of elites, we know what the best kind of disobedience is, based on our narrowly defined ideals.

</comment><comment><USER48> Ah good, another page that renders literally nothing without JS. Only this one is black instead of white.

</comment><comment><USER49> Give it to the white helmets. They disobey their basic human survival instincts everyday.

</comment><comment><USER50> I nominate Fiskkit.com A new site which is a BS filter for news/online content and lets there be a discussion of an article or text that favors facts and logic. Kinda cool. Anyone can tag news article for true/false/bias and nine other things...democratizing civic engagement and disobedience by putting BS filter into hands of anyone. I know they are looking for help to try and root out the crap that passes for news and discourse online and get people more engaged.

</comment><comment><USER51> The winner is almost guaranteed to be a conformist, given that the organization selecting the winner is part of the dominant, mainstream power structure.

So expect the winner to be, paradoxically, someone who is completely obedient.

<comment><USER52> Yup. I submitted my application based on the FashionTech wearable I designed, built and wore to protest the lack of inclusion of _any_ local women at a Western tech event here in Shenzhen. [http://i.imgur.com/2D8dESV.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/2D8dESV.jpg)

I ended up stomping around a mainland Chinese tourist attraction half-naked in it, giving speeches to massive Chinese crowds about an inclusion issue. [http://i.imgur.com/9Dz9M9N.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/9Dz9M9N.jpg)

Anyone who knows anything about China will tell you how unbelievably dangerous this is.

But I was protesting the MIT Media Labs best buddy Make Magazine so I'm sure my application has been directly filed in the trash- even though I'd be very surprised if anyone else applying has done anything that dangerous.

<comment><USER53> Hey, I'm going through your Pastebin ([http://pastebin.com/u/SexyCyborg](http://pastebin.com/u/SexyCyborg)) and it's really interesting, informative, and eye-opening. Keep it up, that's some voice!

<comment><USER52> Thanks:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> We're always going to remember Aaron Swartz...

</comment><comment><USER55> It is hard not to be cynical about this, coming from an organisation that called the cops on Aaron Swartz and let the attorneys hound him to his death. It looks like a belated PR exercise to ease their conscience or public image. If they at least named the prize after him, then it might come across as more genuine.

</comment><comment><USER56> Aaron Swartz should be declared the winner.

</comment><comment><USER57> Of course I'm nominating Ross Ulbricht

</comment><comment><USER58> A better name would've been TakeNoBullshit award. Because that is what which rots the world and Aaron tried to fight it to save others from being subjected to the same bullshit.

Like 2muchcoffeeman commented:

>>The award is clearly for people who are being disobedient for the benefit of society. Breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules is just anarchy or trolling. You're just inconveniencing people who set out to recognise real contributions to society.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848430)

</comment><comment><USER59> How ironic that the page won't open because I'm running Privacy Badger on my browser.

<comment><USER60> I'm also running Privacy Badger and had no issues opening the page. What browser are you on?

<comment><USER59> Chrome

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> How can a disobedience award be a thing? Aren't those concepts fundamentally incompatible?

</comment><comment><USER62> I would vote for Julian Assange and Edward Snowden in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER63> Sounds interesting but I disobeyed the [START] button.

</comment><comment><USER64> How are so many people bringing up Aaron Swartz? Media Lab !== MIT and this is probably entirely Joi's idea. And the MIT administration has changed significantly since 2013.

<comment><USER9> If that were indeed the case then this shouldn't have been called an MIT award.

<comment><USER54> Yuup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> If Boaty McBoatface can win a ship naming contest with almost 130,000 votes, certainly Aaron Swarz can be nominated with 2x that number - win or lose.

</comment><comment><USER66> Aaron Swartz

</comment><comment><USER67> Vote for Aaron Swartz

</comment><comment><USER68> Noam Chomsky.

</comment><comment><USER69> I just nominated Donald J Trump. He has disobeyed all political conventions in regard to his election campaign and especially in regard to his relationship with the media. In fact, many people believe he has disobeyed the supreme law of the United States: the Constitution with regards to the emoluments clause and not having a religious test with regards to his immigration ban executive order. He has taken personal risk of failure and being the object of ridicule by tens of millions of people throughout the world.

In regards to what good he has done, he is ostensibly trying to make America great. Less controversially, it is agreed by virtually everybody that he has been the cause for dramatically increased political engagement by the complacent American population and has served to expose multiple vulnerabilities in the American political system especially with regards to Presidential powers, that many people assumed were not a threat to democracy.

<comment><USER70> I think the main thing that should disqualify him would be his lack of intention. But yes, that's the best-case result of his presidency.

<comment><USER71> Trump intentions are absolutely clear if you listen to him. I vote for Trump as well, he is going to make this country truly great.

<comment><USER18> Coal industry is dead, pretending otherwise is not healthy or helpful.

Attacking the media is not healthy or helpful.

His most egregious crime is destabilizing public trust in climate change facts. The world climate is changing because of human actions, and drastic action must be taken by world leaders to prevent catastrophic damage (aka, human extinction events). Leaders like Trump that deny the facts contribute to the damage that may cause these extinction events.

So if you call contributing to effects that could lead to flooding most of our major population centers with rising sea water over the next hundred years "making america great," by all means support the man.

EDIT: Because Trump supporters always say "but Trump didn't _say_ x y z!"

Let's listen to the man: [https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/26589529219124838...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

"Listen to what he says, he's going to make america great." Yea, I'm listening.

<comment><USER72> There is no human organization that should be free from scrutiny. Actions taken by members of the media and academia have significantly contributed to public distrust, long before Trump entered the political arena. He is simply capitalizing quite effectively on those, and other, sentiments.

If coal is dead, so are millions of humans. It remains a significant source of global energy, especially in developing countries.

We can craft strawmen and knock them down with cherry-picked quotes all day long.

Exhibit A: Hillary's "super predators" comment - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno)

Exhibit B: Bernie's "white people don't know what it's like to be poor" comment - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ)

<comment><USER18> Hillary and Bernie hasn't used a bully-pulpit to attack climate change facts.

If we don't do something about climate change _right now_ , it will kill our species. We were doing something, and those efforts are already being reversed via anti-environmental (and anti-human) EPA appointments.

Your arguments about racism are irrelevant to me considering the context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> The President is the most deserving winner of this award. Please vote for Donald Trump now.

<comment><USER73> Definitely disagree!

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Winner will be a sheep

"You are not being nuanced by calling them sheep, consider these perspectives on power structures"

Winner will be a sheep =]

I bet MIT will be very brave and give Swartz and Snowden prizes after they get permission from trump</comment>


No interest in Poettering's problems, says Torvalds - <AUTHOR> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/65652-no-interest-in-poetterings-problems-says-torvalds

<comment><USER2> Basically a rant about Linus' communication style. But let's consider this:

       Linus Torvalds --- occasionally an asshole
       Theo de Raadt  --- occasionally an asshole
       Bill Gates     --- occasionally an asshole
       Steve Jobs     --- occasionally an asshole
       Larry Ellison  --- usually? an asshole

I'd say that Torvalds is in pretty distinguished company. Many more successful "technology" CEOs kick ass than kiss ass. Too bad for Poettering if he got his feelings hurt. Let's see him switch to OpenBSD so we can see Theo's reaction to systemd!</comment>


Oxidizing Fedora: Try Rust and its applications today - <AUTHOR> https://fedoramagazine.org/oxidizing-fedora-try-rust-applications-today/ <comment><USER2> Are the Rust benchmarks better because of Rust or because the Rust packages are just better written?

<comment><USER3> Surely the latter. Most of Rust's optimization comes from LLVM, so clang and others get the same benefit.

<comment><USER4> It could also be that Rust exposes more information that can be used to optimize the code it generates to LLVM. Its explicitness makes for a very complete depiction of dependencies and side effects.

<comment><USER2> That's interesting and makes sense. I had always thought of LLVM as being lossy when compiling anything more explicit than C++, but that's obviously nonsense since there are front-ends for things like Haskell. Cool!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


China Survey: Prostitutes more trustworthy than government officials - <AUTHOR> http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2009_08_05/Survey:_Prostitutes_more_trustworthy_than_government_officials.html

<comment><USER2> Probably the same the world over, and not China specific.

<comment><USER3> Probably true all over the world and with sex workers there is the additional advantage of you standing a chance of getting your money's worth!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where do uk startups go for advice online ? - <AUTHOR>

While I'm building my own startup one of the things I'm looking at is what makes it harder to startup in the UK versus the US. One of the main problems I'm finding is that it's much harder to find UK specific advice online.
I've attended various meetups (techcrunch uk, the songkick ones) and they're great for making contacts, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent on-line community.
So where do all the UK startups hangout online ? <comment><USER2> I'm Southampton based and find I spend huge amounts of time scouring techcrunchUK, mashable and very few others for UK startup news. The Times online and The Guardian online are both good sources. The most fruitful is probably Twitter though.

Perhaps there is a need for us to band together and start driving more engagement - i.e. really champion a tech startup group?

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, it's not as if the UK has a shortage of startups, but there does seem to be lack of a community ala silicon valley.

I think creating a better community could have a significant positive impact for startups. Especially in terms of things like figuring out which professional service providers (accountants, lawyers, banks) provide the best service for startups.

<comment><USER2> It would also be pretty cool to try and bring in some professional service providers, like accountants; solicitors and bankers, to provide advice and access to services.

BusinessLink has been mentioned, but I have yet to find the quality of service to be matched to the breadth of services offered.

I do like the idea of a real tech startups vs the rest of the world kind of feel. Maybe we could get a meetup arranged somewhere fairly central - Oxford? Anyone up for this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Business Link is good for general business advice but you're obviously better off with people that understand your technology, business model, etc. Again, general business advice is one thing but for UK specific tax and legals you need someone over here to talk to.

Open Coffee (<http://opencoffee.ning.com/>) is a great place to start, there's probably one near you. We've got roughly 3:2 - start-up businesses to lawyers, bankers, accountants, etc at OpenCoffee Bristol.

LinkedIn is OK, but better for finding potential mentors, advisers, etc, rather than general Q&A. I've found it a bit spammy with US 'experts' plugging their websites.

Twitter is rapidly becoming a real time Google and there are plenty of good UK people that will offer advice. Hat tip to <http://twitter.com/z303> for pointing this thread out to me. :)

Another avenue is to get friendly with your local University incubator. Even if you're not a graduate, they'll usually dispense pretty good tech/start up advice and (should) be good hubs for finding additional advice.

As a last resort there's always email! If you talk to someone at a networking event, drop them a note to see if they'll be willing to chat. In this climate most people are willing to put in a little business development good will. Obviously they'll want payment for any heavy lifting but you should be able to work out what you need far more accurately before making that decision.

</comment><comment><USER4> What makes it harder to startup in the UK versus the US? Not much, maybe the higher cost of living/higher legal fees etc. However, I agree that making a successful startup in the UK is a far harder, and it's probably due in part to that lack of an identifiable community.

There just doesn't seem to be the same depth of startup culture that exists in the US; the UK has no Silicon Valley and the online situation just reflects this. I think that's because we don't have a long history of really successful Internet startups.

The European VC scene does seem to be a little bit of a cargo cult version of the US model. The UK YCombinator doesn't exist, because there was no UK Yahoo! to sell the UK Viaweb to. As a consequence of this today's UK startup community is shepherded by individuals and companies with little Internet startup experience of their own.

It's kind of like having parents who were never themselves children.

As others have suggested on here, we could certainly build the software to create a place for UK startups to hangout. To go further and create something that makes starting up as easy in the UK as in Silicon Valley would take far more resources. Although probably not as much as you would think, as Paul Graham himself pointed out; <http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be shocked if there aren't already a thousand startups in london. They're just not connected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Much of the advice that matters (basically how to make something people want and how to let them know it exists) is pretty international. I don't really see the need for UK-specific start-up news.

The world is getting more global, not less. If anything, I'd suggest that someone think about how to reproduce the "start-up meetups" effect without needing to actually meet in person. Now that would be interesting - expand the size of the village, rather than contracting it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Legal, accountancy, merchant accounts, angels, acquisition structuring, location, hiring, student loan implications, insurance, company formation, IP, visas, data protection compliance. These are a small selection of topics (taken from Gabriel's AskYC archive) where local advice is important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not involved in this, but I was considering it: <http://www.the- hub.net/index.html> there's a London-based startup community, there's a massive warehouse near Caledonian Road with cheap rents & a good vibe. I don't know what the other London sites are like, nor how extensive or useful the 'international' element of the organisation is.

<comment> puzzle-out I've been in the hubs at Kings X and Angel - Kings X is new, and has everything you would expect; Angel is at the top of a long flight of stairs, not refurbished to such a high standard but I get the feeling there's more of a community there, although more based in the fashion and media industry sectors. The person who set it up is a good old boy, totally genuine, and the rates are ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not an online community but the UK Government sponsored website is excellent:

<http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/>

They have a great tool which takes you through the process of making a personalised list of starting-up tasks (the business start-up organiser)

Nick

</comment><comment><USER8> If you're in or near Oxfordshire then you should take a look at <http://www.oxin.co.uk/>

Of course, there is also the Europe-wide: <http://www.seedcamp.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> There's a few brits in #startups on freenode. (Myself included)

If you're into advertising revenue, I'd again recommend <http://www.affiliates4u.com/> Tons of good advice there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm on #startups - I'm ttx.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm head geek at a London based UK startup and have the same question.

I just follow Hacker News mostly :)

<comment><USER11> what startup? would kind of infrastructure would we need? ning?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know here in Bristol, a lot of things happen around Open Coffee Bristol, Bathcamp and the Watershed

</comment><comment><USER11> where are you based?

My startup is in Cambridge, and I'd love to meet you and chat startups.</comment>


Gamecrafter: design and publish your own boardgame - <AUTHOR> http://www.thegamecrafter.com

<comment><USER2> dupe: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=708528></comment>


Twitch link vandalism on Nepal's Wikipedia page? - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal
Someone added a position:fixed linked to a Twitch stream.
Is that happening to you? <comment><USER2> Article is now down, so can't confirm

<comment><AUTHOR> Still happening here. Looks like they changed mediawiki somehow, as the link is not in the latest version of the mediawiki source for that page. Also not happening on other pages.

Tested both on Firefox and Chrome on my machine and on a friend's machine, so no malwares here apparently.</comment></comment>


CEO Says Launching Satellites Without FCC Permission Was a 'Mistake' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/09/spacebees-swarm-unauthorized-satellite-launch/569395/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> > _It's not clear whether the inquiry will result in disciplinary action > against Swarm, and it's even less clear what the nature of that would be_

Replicate SEC civil penalties. Swarm gets fined, the company that brokered the launch gets fined, and the person who submitted the FCC application (hopefully the CEO) gets fined. In addition, the person who submitted the application and the company are barred from registering new satellites for N years.

If the CEO represented, to the broker or the Indian government, that she had the necessary approvals I'd also hand the case to the DoJ for criminal prosecution under anti-fraud statute.

I'm a huge believer in the commercialization of space. Going renegade in LEO is like flying around without registering a flight path (EDIT: bad analogy, more like drilling in a city without a permit). Eventually you'll have a horrible disaster, and it will have been because you were impatient with a straightforward process.

<comment><USER3> While everyone jumped in to condemn irresponsible actions, it's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign satellite launches. It definitely seems like case of overreaching: it was India's business to approve or deny the launch in this case.

Swarm can easily re-incorporate in the less regulated country, re-open developer office in the California, and launch all they like without fed's oversight.

<comment><USER2> > _it 's quite unclear why everyone assumes fed's authority over foreign > satellite launches_

If Swarm's satellite smashed into a French satellite and Swarm was unable to pay, the American government would have been liable (together with the Indian government) for the damages. This is how ITU rules work. Same for radio interference.

> _Swarm can easily re-incorporate in the less regulated country_

Most countries are ITU members. Certainly every one with spacefaring capabilities. Furthermore, the CEO may have trouble doing her work in another country under American anti-arms trafficking rules ( _e.g._ ITAR and EAR).

I've done a good amount of work in the small and micro-satellite spaces. Regulatory overreach is a problem, and the ITU is more bureaucratic than it needs to be. But the paperwork piles up with the FAA and Air Force (and is invoiced in the form of launch fees), not the FCC. Had the CEO consulted with a lawyer and radio engineer, she would have had no problems. Instead she took a shortcut.

<comment><USER3> Notice that I'm not saying that there should be no approval for launches, I'm saying that launcher should bear this responsibility (and follow ITU rules). Otherwise it creates strange situation: feds can't prohibit real Indian, Chinese or Russian satellites, but still can meddle with some of the payload only because it was created by an American company. If this will continue, then this technology will be developed by non-American company and sold back to US.

<comment><USER4> I guess whether people agree with you will largely be based on whether US regulations apply to US companies/persons or just US controlled jurisdictions. I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be able to get around US laws while retaining access to the market, to financial services, to infrastructure and so on.

There is precedent for this sort of thing, for example it's illegal for Americans to go overseas for the purpose of having sex with minors.[0]

0 - [https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial- sexua...](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual- exploitation-children)

<comment><USER5> And the satellite laws are based on a stronger government interest than those sex laws. The sex laws are solely for the interest of the foreign victims whereas the satellite laws are protecting domestic participants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I still fear the Silicon Valley ethos of "move fast and break things" is infecting areas where this is outright dangerous: healthcare, self-driving cars, satellite launches.

It's one thing if your social networking app goes down for a bit or someone's favorite feature is broken, it's quite another to do something that can have severe negative consequences (in this case, for humanity at large) if something goes wrong.

<comment><USER7> How, exactly, did this ignoring an overreach of FCC authority endanger humanity? Not generalizations, but this specific case.

When you look at the details of this case, it really doesn't paint a picture in the way you're interpreting it.

Edit: Explaining for the down-votes. The orbit these things are in are easily managed and outside of major space traffic zones. The size of the satellites means they will all burn up on re-entry. Also, see my comment here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953257)

<comment><USER2> > _an overreach of FCC authority endanger humanity?_

One, it isn't overreach. Certifying and registering satellites is the FCC's legal duty. The threat comes from untracked satellites becoming untracked orbital debris. This is the same reason we register flight paths.

> _something that FCC doesn 't do and doesn't have any insight into assessing_

The international organization that deals with orbital registration and regulation is the ITU [1]. The FCC is charge with managing our interactions with the ITU because, historically, all satellites were communications satellites. The FAA clears launches (not satellites). (Air Force supervises launches. USSPACECOM hasn't really existed since it was merged into USSTRATCOM in 2002.)

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

<comment><USER7> Of geosynchronous satellites. The distinction is very important.

<comment><USER2> > _Of geosynchronous satellites_

What is limited to geosynchronous satellites? ITU jurisdiction covers low- earth orbits because the risk from orbital debris and radio interference is not limited to GEO. Partly as a result, FCC jurisdiction is not limited to GEO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know this deals with a US company and the FCC, but suppose a small country which doesn't belong to any international agreements decides to launch a satellite into orbit for whatever reason. Who is to stop them? Does anyone have the right to stop them?

<comment><USER2> > _a small country which doesn 't belong to any international agreements_

Look at the map of ITU member states [1] and tell me where you'll find this spacefaring nation.

[1] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Member_s...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Member_states_of_the_International_Telecommunication_Union.png)

<comment><USER9> Taking your map, let's imagine I create a company in Western Sahara and launch a satellite from there. What would happen?

<comment><AUTHOR> A polite conversation with host country leadership?

<comment><USER10> I'm fair certain the "authorities" in that area of the world would not be "polite" under the circumstances that hadrien01 postulates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Vaguely related point: I noticed a decade ago or so that my renter's insurance explicitly does not cover damage from a falling satellite. The reason for that might be: [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/09/does_my_insurance_cover_falling_satellites.html)

<comment><USER12> I'm curious about the economics of that decision. Was it mentioned specifically or as an "act of god"?

It seems to me (obviously a layman) that the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of paying out in the incredibly unlikely circumstance it happened?

Of course, the cost of bad PR is also pretty immaterial since it's so unlikely to happen so I can't imagine it was given much thought.

<comment><USER11> It was quite explicit - one of 6 explicit omissions, IIRC (it was a ~decade ago) in addition to the more general "Act of God" category. I don't recall all of the other explicit ones, but I believe a nuclear reactor accident was another of them. I was reading to look for flooding, which WAS covered. FWIW, this was renter's insurance and not homeowners.

> the cost of bad PR that would come out of that would outweigh the cost of > paying out

I think you overestimate the impact of bad PR, but if the appropriate foreign govt is paying, they could likely dodge any problem. Also, they can always choose TO pay if the PR is bad enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some missing context:

Only bitcoin eclipses the amount of regulatory uncertainty that surrounds satellites in the US. There are clear international law reasons that the US government approval is required for launch, but there is absolutely no statute that gives the FCC authority to deny the launch on the grounds that they did -- it's a regulatory power grab on that agency's part, trying to assert regulatory authority they were never granted. The FCC rejected the launch on the basis of tracking ability, which is something that FCC doesn't do and doesn't have any insight into assessing. If it was spectrum or comms, my assessment would have been different. However right now the satellite regulations are really in flux due to the rise of commercial space and uncertainty about space force reorganizations, etc.

FCC asserting authority over orbital trajectories (vs. say, the FAA or US Space Command who HAVE been the point of contact on those issues for decades of military and NASA space launches) is an inter-agency regulatory power grab. FCC has handled domestic issues regarding geosynchronous satellites, because those are nearly all communications related. Now they're trying to unilaterally extend that to ALL Earth-orbital trajectories.

What do you do when your local Parks & Rec department sends you a letter rejecting your claim of special tax status on your import/export business? That's basically what happened here.

<comment><USER13> The FAA has never cared about what a payload or spacecraft does once it is in orbit. They care about licensing the launches themselves and clearing the airspace, but once your vehicle is in space they don't care what you do with it (they also license reentries, but only for things that aren't meant to burn up in the atmosphere).

US STRATCOM does space situational awareness work now (US Space Command was dismantled in 2002 as part of post-9/11 reorganizations, and most of its responsibilities were handed off to STRATCOM). STRATCOM _is_ currently legally mandated to interface and share data with commercial entities for traffic management purposes. However I don't believe they have or ever had any regulatory or licensing powers. STRATCOM also seems eager to pass their situational awareness responsibilities off to either the FAA or DOC.

The FCC has been making the argument since the 90s that their charter to regulate in the "public interest" lets them take orbital debris mitigation into account when licensing satellites communications, and it's been codified into their administrative law. If congress or the president considered this a power grab, they've had more than a decade to do something about it. Trump is trying to make the DOC a "one stop shop" for commercial space licensing. However, I believe his executive orders still leave the FAA, FCC, and NOAA's current regulatory roles intact.

edit: initially had 2012 instead of 2002 for the year that US Space Command was shut down

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > When I asked Spangelo why she didn't stop the launch when the FCC denied > Swarm's application, she said, "Others have been granted applications after > launching their satellites, so we were still hopeful at that point."

Is this true?

<comment><USER15> Yes, it's true.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953025](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17953025)

<comment><USER14> That definitely takes away some of the 'stunning-ness' of their actions... As the comment you linked points out, I wonder why companies are even allowed to launch in the first place if they have _no_ approval (regardless of whether there was an initial rejection or not)..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So incorporate outside America and focus on the trying to monetize your services abroad.

This type of mesh network wouldn't really be useful in America anyway.

<comment><USER17> > So incorporate outside America and focus on the trying to monetize your > services abroad.

Still, as evidenced by the statement of the supporters who put these on the Indian rocket, there are still many cross-nation gentlemen agreements about satellite placement. This should be viewed as a good thing (even though many nation states themselves can usurp the rules they set for their private sectors), but one assumes a more formal body will have to be introduced as the satellite count triples soon.

> This type of mesh network wouldn't really be useful in America anyway.

Disagree unless I misunderstand the purpose of Swarm's tech specifically. But in general, satellite provided internet is currently the only high speed option for a significant rural population, many of which are paying over urban rates for much less. Or even as IoT sensors, again, rural settings benefit, something the US has a lot of. Where it that type of mesh would be less useful is in places with better terrestrial coverage. Also wise to approach the profitable markets first.

<comment><USER2> > _a more formal body will have to be introduced as the satellite count > triples soon_

This is the ITU [1]. Its rules say countries are responsible for satellites (a) built by their companies and, to a more limited degree, citizens and (b) launched by their rockets.

India was supposed to check the satellite's clearance with the American government. If this satellite had caused any damage, the company, the U.S. government and the Indian government would have been jointly liable.

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

<comment><USER18> To complicate matters, the satellite was inside a cluster launcher from NanoRacks and not a direct payload.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice!! pirate satellites anyone?

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

</comment><comment><USER20> Seems like a total dick move to launch anyway and hope that approval is obtained later. What was the plan if approval was not obtained after launch - did they have the facilities to bring down the satellites?

This story reads like Silicon Valley hubris - break rules anyway because we know better. Why even have the FCC when random startups can create their own rules?

<comment><USER21> It is a bit more complicated than that. The launch was done outside the US, by a foreign launch company.

It is a bit weird to me that the US would have jurisdiction over what a foreign rocket company outside the US, launches into space

<comment><USER22> If they are using frequencies over the US, the FCC probably has jurisdiction.

<comment><USER15> Just to not spread additional false information: No, the FCC does not have jurisdiction over foreign-launched satellites transmitting over the US. The FCC does have jurisdiction over groundstations physically in the US and the frequencies and power ranges they operate at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The reason quoted by the article for FCC dismissal was that they are too small to be tracked, and thus avoided. Is this a legitimate concern? Even with a thousand up there, is there real concern for collisions with the amount of space involved?

I know the "technically correct" answer must be yes, as there's some increase in chance, but what realistically is that chance?

<comment><USER24> If you can put a satellite into orbit that's definitely NOT "too small to be tracked"

<comment><USER25> These sattelites are tiny; presumably the concern was not _totally_ unwarranted.

However, as stated in TFA, the satellites turned out to be quite trackable.

Live tracking: [https://platform.leolabs.space/catalog/L19943](https://platform.leolabs.space/catalog/L19943)

<comment><USER15> Keep in mind that this is live tracking by a commercial company, where the US Government is more interested in whether it can be tracked by US Government systems. JSpOC has a variety of detection hardware, but much if it is quite dated at this point. It's quite likely that the object is too small to be tracked by JSpOC who coordinates Space Situational Awareness, and so it still may have posed problems.

<comment><USER25> Well, the article says:

> the SpaceBees have shown themselves to be easily trackable by the Space > Surveillance Network, as well as by LeoLabs, a California-based company that > provides orbital data to commercial-satellite operators and others in an > effort to prevent collisions.

I'm not sure if "Space Surveillance Network" is the same thing as "Space Situational Awareness", but it does sound like the US Government is capable of tracking these things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Kapton tape might not work if this collides with International Space Station.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've heard that quite a bit of venture money is flowing into "satellite IoT" to support things like precision agriculture, monitoring oil pipelines for leaks, etc. It seems that global regulatory, safety, and security planning are still at the early stages.

</comment><comment><USER28> Is anyone familiar with space law? What are the specific rules? If they had used a ground station abroad would they still need FCC approval?

EDIT: Thanks walrus01/mirashii for the EAR/ITAR points, very helpful

<comment><USER29> According to the article, the FCC "regulates all satellite launches by American companies, whether they occur on U.S. soil or elsewhere."

<comment><USER30> Is it the launch of the satellite or the operation afterwards in regards to communication back to earth that the FCC regulates?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is typical today, sadly. Move fast and break things. Do whatever you wish and simply apologize later. It's a scary world we've created for ourselves

<comment><USER32> Yes, things are definitely much better under the careful gaze of bureaucrats. /s

<comment><USER33> Bureaucracy is a very real problem in many fields, but when we are talking about launching potentially untrackable satellite in space, having some form of oversight is probably good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> There was nothing mistaken about what this CEO did. She knew exactly what she was doing.

<comment><USER35> She's quoted as relying on some understanding that others received permission retroactively. Not mentioned in the article is whether others have in fact received retroactive permission, whether it was post-denial, and whether the launcher ignored the FCC's reasonable concern, launched anyway, and still received permission.

<comment><USER34> And? She was told by the FCC that they were very concerned about the hazardous nature of the satellites. I'm sorry, but it costs an enormous amount to launch a satellite, you have to be somewhat worried if this organization couldn't even address the issues raised by the FCC _before_ they launched!

<comment><USER35> And nothing. She shouldn't have launched without resolving the issue raised by the commission. You're either misreading my comment or my comment was unclear. I'm assuming the problem was my lack of clarity.

<comment><USER34> I apologise, I think I must have misinterpreted what you were saying :-) the fault is on my end, not yours!

<comment><USER35> My bad for leaving any ambiguity at all - especially because I agree completely with your position but failed to make it clear. I apologize. You're gracious for following up and I appreciate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "HN user 'fipple' says punching Mike Tyson in the face was a 'mistake'"

<comment><USER36> HN user 'feadog' wonders if your username is a trad reference or an early music reference.

<comment><USER5> Mary Bergin ftw</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: VideoCents, YouTube Keyword Tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.videocents.com

<comment><USER2> An interesting thing about this app is currently it's the only source of keyword search volume for Youtube...

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, we designed the keyword tool to fill the void of practical tools.</comment></comment>


Stratechery 4.0 - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2018/stratechery-4-0/ <comment><USER2> In short, the "new" Stratechery provides three ways to consume its 308 articles:

1) Concepts

2) Companies

3) Topics

There's search, a new logo, a new email template.

<comment><USER3> This should have been the tl;dr on the page itself :) upvoted!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm really excited about the Concepts page. Business school is often denigrated within tech, but past the startup stage, B-school strategies become increasingly important. Ben does a great job taking these concepts (eg aggregation theory), and applying them to tech industry, in a way that is interesting for folks who are more interested in understanding Apple than theories in abstract.

Excited to read through these Concepts!

<comment><USER5> Genuine question: when does startup stage end?

<comment><USER6> Never :(

<comment><USER5> So B-school strategies never become important? ;)

<comment><USER6> Aren't all B-schools permanent start ups too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stratechery is one of those blogs I've stumbled over from time to time and I have the nagging feeling it should be at least mildly interesting, but I can't attune myself.

I think it's mostly the personal style of people and I'm much more inclined to read the same people for years even if they totally switch topics, over reading things about a certain topic.

<comment><USER8> Maybe not the reason, but I see his level of abstraction as at an order of magnitude higher than just about any other mainstream tech writer. Making his long posts both unique and somewhat less practical.

I just haven't found anyone else digging in as deep with regard to the fundamental economic differences between Google/Facebook/Amazon and past giants of industry. His recent points on the privacy scandal at FB were very insightful in that he explains how Zuckerburg's problems originated in being in denial that FB is an ad company first and platform second. (If they'd realized that sooner, they never would have given away data like they did, goes his theory. They would have still hoovered up data, but would have avoided recent scandals.)

But can definitely see how it may not speak to everyone the same.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, see, so I've given up on the details of such grand-scheme meddling of geopolitical results of companies - for these kind of in-detail things you mentioned I'll gladly accept the Guardian/NYT/WaPo level or I'm going to Schneier or Krebs :)

I've no aspirations to start a company ever again, I'm nowhere near Silicon Valley and I'm happily hacking away at small and interesting problems. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like the effort to categorize previous writings. I primarily listen to the podcast and think Ben has some really great insights and theories that he's clearly put a lot of thought into (the perennial favorite: aggregation theory), but are sufficiently complicated that they can't be re-explained every time they are mentioned. Making it easier to look back into the archives seems like a good way to address this problem.

New logo looks really nice, too!

</comment><comment><USER10> I love the new way Ben's organized his content. Since it's WordPress, I've always wondered why his categories and tags weren't publicly available. This is a fantastic way to surface up old content.

Not everyone may agree with this, but since I love his podcast as well, I would love to see that content integrated with the rest of his site. I realize it's a different vehicle and he co-hosts it with someone else, but since they often summarize Ben's weekly updates, there's a lot of synergy between both services.

<comment><USER11> +1 to his podcast, here's a link since it is goes by another name: [http://exponent.fm/](http://exponent.fm/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is the single newsletter I pay to subscribe to. I don't always agree with his stance on stuff, but am a fan of the thorough analysis he tends to give. Kudos to him for building a sustainable solo-publishing company.

</comment><comment><USER13> "Stratechery." When I first read it, it sounded like a break-down on startup founders' stretching of their "trajectory" as a sure thing. This includes their "strategy," i.e their well-typeset pitch deck that says they'll be making $400B in revenues next year. Then you mash those two with "treachery" for a play on words.

"Stratechery: How founders false-advertise, legally." It's almost like Amazon's Cadabra | "Cadaver."

Don't even know what the company is, but will read now.

</comment><comment><USER14> I like the blog and the redesign, but I'm not so sure about the logo. I use fountain pens all the time, and it still wasn't apparent at first what it was supposed to be.

<comment><USER15> To each his own of course, I love the new logo. A PCB etched writing instrument, it's unique, fits beautifully with the content, and not over the top

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love the new logo!!! I read most of the free articles whenever they come out, and like some of the insights that Ben has pointed out (the one about Apple's organizational crossroads is a personal favorite). It happens to be one of the few sites that makes a very good amount of money from subscriptions alone (I do not subscribe because it's way too expensive for me and my currency).

</comment><comment><USER17> If you are in silicon valley you should check out

[https://www.strategytmt.com/](https://www.strategytmt.com/)

The classes are great if you are a PM or an entrepreneur or simply if your company pays for these kinds of classes.

<comment><USER18> Is there a relevance to the story that I've missed? The announcement doesn't mention this organisation and I can't find any relationship going by its About page or Ben's.

<comment><USER17> No. It has no connection with Stratechry, but I think folks who like Stratechry might like these classes as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> tl;dr? Could someone please explain what this website is in 50 words or less?

<comment><USER20> a blog that thoroughly explains why a tl;dr approach to business strategy and reporting is problematic using novel approaches to business strategy and market theory. (25 words)</comment></comment>


What's Inside SC Johnson Products - <AUTHOR> https://www.whatsinsidescjohnson.com <comment><USER2> C is hiring.

We're having problems finding qualified new graduates because it's all about those fancy web stuff these days...</comment>


Why Is Giving Birth So Hard? Revisiting the 'Obstetrical Dilemma' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/why-is-giving-birth-so-hard/547340/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Somewhat related, I thought Atul Gawande's take on why C. Sections are so common now was fascinating. It's all in his book "Better: A Surgeon's notes on performance" but I've linked to a summary of the obstetrics section below.

Relevant passage:

"In the 1960s fewer than 5 percent of deliveries were Cesareans and more than 40 percent involved forceps. And those numbers are related. Gawande makes a strong case that in the hands of experts, forceps are safe (according to some research, safer for mothers than Cesareans). But forceps are hard to learn to use properly – a process that can take two years. And if forceps are used by inexpert doctors, the results can be disastrous. Cesareans are easier to master. And this has led hospitals to phase out forceps and, in many cases, do C-sections instead. To discourage the inexpert from using forceps, Gawande says, "obstetrics had to discourage everyone from using them." This change has come at a cost. Gawande notes that, as straightforward as Cesarean deliveries can be, they can go wrong. The baby can be lacerated. If the head doesn't come free quickly, the child can asphyxiate."

[https://oneminutebookreviews.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/atul-g...](https://oneminutebookreviews.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/atul- gawande-tells-what-you-can-really-expect-when-you%E2%80%99re-expecting/)

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/213233.Better](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/213233.Better)

<comment><USER3> Even more relevant passage from the article:

"Childbirth is difficult for many reasons, she writes—among them the 19th- century switch from birthing in the upright position, which allows the pelvic girdle to expand in response to contractions, to the supine position (still common among women in the West) which often requires the use of forceps."

There are correct times and places for all tools. But comparing two interventions that both bring risk is an odd way to approach the topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is not a reason for everything.

The spotted hyena is one of the most successful carnivores in Africa; yet females hyenas lack an external vaginal opening and therefore _give birth through their narrow clitoris (...). During parturition, the clitoris ruptures in order to facilitate the passage of the young, and may take weeks to heal._

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

One can only imagine the extreme pain and difficulty involved in this; yet it's unlikely there's an evolutionary justification to be found. It's most probably an accident -- a quite unfortunate one for the female hyena.

<comment><USER5> One possible justification is that this genital configurations prevents forcible rape, as the wiki article points out. This allows females to have more control over the genetic traits of their offspring.

<comment><USER6> the term "forcible rape" is rife with difficult implications.

"Many experts now believe that rape is best understood as an act of unwanted bodily invasion that need not involve force."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/definition-of-rape- is-s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/definition-of-rape-is-shifting- rapidly.html)

<comment><USER7> Since hyaenas are not going to promise to marry you or claim to be an Albanian prince to get sex forcible rape is pretty accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Dr. Karp, who is quoted at the beginning of the article, wrote an excellent book and released an excellent DVD. If you are a new parent, I highly, _highly_ recommend you at least watch the DVD about the "5 S's" \- it will make an incredibly positive difference in how well your first few months with a new baby will go.

<comment><USER9> Couldn't agree more. The book they cite (Happiest Baby on the Block) goes through the 5 S's and it's a life saver. His "4th Trimester" theory is just about the most sensible description of newborn behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Warrener and her colleagues found that wider hips do not increase the cost > of locomotion. Indeed, both women and men are equally efficient at walking > and running

> I have a number of papers that show that women are great walkers, and in > some particular tasks women are better—they don't use as much energy, they > don't build as much heat, they can carry heavier loads with less of an > energetic burden.

I am not a biologist, but those parts just don't click for me; how/why would evolution have jump through all the costly hoops to differentiate the pelvis of males and females so significantly if the result was to give a locomotion system that was overall worse to the individuals who needed it the most for their survival, without any benefit in return ?

<comment><USER11> Why is sexual differentiation necessarily costly in every case? There are many sex differences that give an advantage for one gender that would have been an advantage, or no cost, for the other gender, but weren't as strongly required and so don't exist. Sexual differentiation may be less _likely_ for any given trait, but traits tend to pop up on random chromosomes, or the side effects of sex hormones be farther-reaching than necessary and evolution just "didn't bother to correct," and so I'd expect that some traits that don't necessarily need to be dimorphic (but are needed by one gender or the other) might become dimorphic just by chance.

Men have deeper voices than women. What would be the disadvantage for baritone women? You could argue that a deeper voice makes you less easily heard by prey... but then what's the advantage for women to have a higher pitched voice? Why didn't we all continue this trend to speak at the registry of blue whales? I suspect it's one of those things that "just sort of happened" and then it became a positive feedback loop spurred on by sexual attraction as a result of this initial differentiation, and now we're just at a pretty good state spurred on by a combination of random chance, survival advantage, and a little reproductive enforcement.

Increased sexual dimorphism (and a genetic/hormonal configuration that lowers the cost and increases the odds of sexual dimorphism happening for any given feature) is actually a positive thing for some animals depending on their social and reproductive strategies. When sexual dimorphism is high, you tend to see more random differences that pop up between the sexes but that may or may not provide any evolutionary advantage beyond "well, the other sex is just attracted to it now so let's keep this party going." When dimorphism is low, differences generally have to provide a stronger survival advantage.

Evolution isn't always straightforward or "carefully thought out." The hoops it jumps through aren't always costly and don't always have a rhyme or reason. It's often chaotic and and takes weird turns and it's not like humans are at a "final state" anyway. We're evolving.

I'm not _necessarily_ disagreeing with you (although it's probably ultimately easier to look at the physics, not biology, to prove or disprove your point) but I'm just saying that I think the situation is vastly more complicated than "sexual differences are costly." I don't think they're necessarily costly, simply less likely. A subtle, but important difference.

<comment><USER10> > but then what's the advantage for women to have a higher pitched voice?

Living in a neighborhood with a lot of teenagers, I will dare a guess; this loud, high pitched scream was probably a very efficient call for help.

But I see your point, and I agree that the answer could be just as simple as randomness of genetics. It just feels rather unsatisfactory for a change who must have taken far more than one single mutation to be that common. Feels like someone winning the lottery a dozen times in a row.

<comment><USER12> Known genes associated with hip bone size in women (but not men) are found on chromosome 2 ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2522269/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2522269/)). But the expression of those genes is likely controlled by estrogen ([http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/woman-s-pelvis- narrow...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/woman-s-pelvis-narrows-she- ages))

Individuals who have androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY chromosomes, but that don't respond to testosterone and are, for most intents and purposes, sterile females) will have large hips/pelvic bones.

So, yes, hip size takes a few modified base pairs (although probably all within one gene, or pretty close together on the same chromosome), but evolution only needs to "decide" (heavy emphasis on the quotes there) that this physiological change is hormonally triggered. Many skeletal changes are hormonally triggered, so this may have even been the easiest/most likely path.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > ...and in hunter-gatherer societies, women walk, on average, 5.5 miles per > day, often while carrying and feeding infants as well.

Quoting a one-sided statistic like this is something the editor should have caught. The 5.5 miles figure doesn't support anything if the figure for men is ten; it's great support if that figure is four; but without either figure what does it mean?

</comment><comment><USER14> None of my three children were born in the supine position and the eldest is now almost thirty so I am a little surprised to read that it is still common. And while my wife found it painful to some extent it is quite clear that she also enjoyed the process to a fairly large degree. But this was in a maternity unit that had essentially no rules beyond do what makes mother and baby happy, and have the capability to deal with a crisis if it should occur. My wife felt free to arrange herself in whatever position was most effective and to make as much noise as she liked when it got tough.

I think that many women end up going into labour in a fearful frame of mind because of the constant reminders that it will be painful and this coupled with midwives intent on following timetables and doing things their way results in a stressful time for all.

As everyone else mentions, I am aware that my sample is not large and that there are many who have had a different experience.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This article was originally published in Undark Magazine:

[https://undark.org/article/obstetrical-dilemma-hips-risk- chi...](https://undark.org/article/obstetrical-dilemma-hips-risk-childbirth/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Not only how difficult labor is, but how helpless a child is for _so long_. Years before they can walk, for example. Compare that to a fawn, which stands up and follows its mom after just a few minutes into the world.

<comment><USER16> Babies start crawling at about 6 months, and walking somewhere between 9 months and a year. I have a two year old, and she is far from helpless.

<comment><USER15> That's just a personal anecdote. Some babies never crawl at all and some toddlers don't start walking until much later than 12 months. And your 2yo toddler is still nothing compared to the mobility and world-awareness of a two-month-old fawn, which has already learned to recognize and outrun predators at this age.

The fact that there's such a spread for these otherwise extremely important life stages in humans shows a lack of maturity in their development compared to other mammals, not the inverse. Something is a little different about us.

<comment><USER17> If we were to compares ourselves to actual animals. Personal anecdotes wouldn't matter as fatality rates would increase without modern comforts not afford to animals. The child doesn't crawl or start walking for another year, child would die as the parents wouldn't care for weak off-spring.

It sounds harsh when discussing humans but the differences in development occur because our death rate is low compared to wild animals. Thus allowing weak genes to be passed e.g., not being able to crawl or walk for 3 years double or triple the normal would not be tolerated in the animal kingdom.

<comment><USER18> Not necessarily. It depends on why the offspring couldn't crawl or walk for longer. If it's associated with something that increases survival in mature members of the species, it might be tolerated, even selected for.

For example, if the child is delayed in walking because more metabolic resources are being channeled to larger brain development, that could be a survival benefit. I use that example, because that's essentially the theory of what happened in humans, in comparison to chimpanzees. (Obviously not 1 child randomly taking 2x or 3x to develop, but a slow evolutionary process.)

Chimps are relatively helpless when they are born too, relative to most species. They nurse for years, stay with parents for years, are totally reliant on them for survival, etc. But they are not so helpless as humans. It's estimated human gestation would have to be about 18 months for newborns to be at a comparable stage of cognitive development as newborn chimps.

So, from this perspective, we do take 2x the time in comparison to chimps, and yet it was tolerated. I guess my overall point is that evolution is more complicated than how quickly an offspring can crawl or walk or be independent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Follow the money?

On one side, I believe Doctors get paid more by performing a C-section. [1]

On the other, it may involve less risk, which reduces the likelihood of malpractice lawsuits? [2]

1 - [https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/dalexand/f...](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/dalexand/files/procedure_choice_6_15.pdf)

2 - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096673/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096673/)

<comment><USER20> This is true, at least in my country there is a high amount of C-sections and studies show that most of them are done for the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting article. But it doesnt really explain some key questions.i have always wondered why are humans so ineffective at giving births. Cangaroo, for example, gives birth to their baby at a much earlier stage, when it's only 1 inch big and then keeps it in the pouch. No pain, no extreme labor.

<comment><USER22> We _are_ very effective at breeding, especially with the help of science and technology. The inefficiency of birth, if true, hardly matters.

<comment><USER23> >We are very effective at breeding, especially with the help of science and technology.

In what sense? Our production rate is substantially lower than most other animals; mothers-to-be are made weaker than other animals during the process; the threat of death in childbirth for both child/mother is hardly the lowest of other animals

We have a relatively high population now, but its hard to imagine that its due to an efficient breeding process; rather our survival rate post-birth, lifespan and our phenomenal ability to edit the environment to increase resource production to support higher populations are likely better explanations

Put a pair of rabbits in a room and a pair of humans, with all needs met. We're not even competitive

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Who said it is? Billions manage to do it just fine, with 1/100 the preparation.

<comment><USER25> I don't who these billions are that you're talking about, but historically giving birth has been a very deadly affair for women.

<comment><USER26> I dug up some numbers which support what you're saying:

[https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223](https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/figure/...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/figure/fig1/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/)

It looks like about 1% of pregnancies ended in death historically, and that matches what's happening in the places with the worst healthcare today.

With good healthcare, the risk nearly vanishes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> No mentions of Genesis 3:16b yet: _I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children._

<comment><USER28> Talk about a shitty god.

<comment><USER29> "Birth is hard because we ate of the tree of knowledge" seems like a metaphor for "birth is hard because we evolved big heads".

<comment><USER30> If anyone finds this sort of thing interesting you might enjoy Jordan Peterson's lectures on the Old Testament. (podcast or youtube)</comment></comment></comment></comment>