The Biases of Wikipedia and Moderators Today - <AUTHOR> https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ <comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra)

Why is the article so negative here?

They describe it as a "legendary creature". Uh-huh.

Meanwhile, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse) ...no mentions of horses possibly being other things. Why? What are they hiding?

> Sightings in northern Mexico and the southern United States have been > verified as canids afflicted by mange.[2] According to biologists and > wildlife management officials, the chupacabra is an urban legend.[3]

And then you go to the article for horses and...hmmm, no citations referencing articles written by those who argue horses aren't real. Oh, so nobody's ever seen something they thought was a horse but actually wasn't? Why won't Wikipedia present both sides? Why is the existence of horses taken for granted?

It's shameless censorship, and it won't stand.

</comment><comment><USER3> Larry Sanger apparently co-founded Wikipedia but I've somehow never heard of him before. Not sure how that escaped me.

He's apparently famously critical of Wikipedia. The majority of this article seems to complain about giving facts undue prominence over a "balance" of viewpoints.

What's the opposing viewpoint to the truth? Lies?

(And his political bias really shows. The Obama article is too positive. The Trump article is too negative. The article about abortion doesn't say how evil it is. And the global warming and vaccine pages don't report enough on "minority viewpoints". It's amazing how consistent the beliefs of the far- right are.)

From my non-expert perspective, Wikipedia is doing a surprisingly good job. Even this article actually gives me confidence.

<comment><USER4> For what it's worth, I've encountered right-skewed articles many times in the past. They seem to be on less popular topics, but they absolutely exist.

<comment><USER5> They exist on far more than just less popular topics. You just never see them. Anything even slightly right of center tends to get censored for hate speech.

<comment><USER3> This has never been more appropriate:

[Citation Needed]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't know how to put this nicely, but i would not say "a neutral point of view" is synonymous with "the center of the Overton window in the United States".

<comment><USER7> You phrased this much less confrontationally than I did, so kudos to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Any self-moderated online forum will eventually skew to the standards of those invest the most time in that forum. You can't expect otherwise really.

I also take issue with Sangers pointing out that _scholars_ wouldn't phrase something in a certain way, or make a certain claim. There's no claim that Wikipedia has scholarly credentials, quite the opposite in fact.

If you're using Wikipedia for anything but a blurb or jumping-off point on a given topic, then the joke is on you to be honest. It's certainly nothing worth getting wound up about.

</comment><comment><USER9> Speaking of Wikipedia, here's an article highly relevant to this thesis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

</comment><comment><USER10> This article is insane right-wing propaganda, and if it were written by any other person, would not be appropriate for Hacker News. The only reason it makes sense here is that the fact that the author believes this nonsense is noteworthy (and alarming).

"Neutral" does not mean "every opinion is taken seriously." The opinions that this article claims that Wikipedia is "biased" against are obviously and factually false, and in most cases actively dangerous to human lives, Western democracy, and/or the continuation of the human race.

>The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject.

There is no credible scientific presence, even a minority, that believes that anthropogenic climate change is not a real and present threat, or that vaccinations cause any serious harm. Those are crackpot conspiracy theories. It would be non-neutral - and dangerous both to Wikipedia's credibility and to human lives - to treat them otherwise.

>The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention... Benghazi

...but there is a link to "the Benghazi attack" in the infobox

>AP phone records scandal

...but there is a subsection about "Government mass surveillance", which links to a larger article.

>or, of course, the developing "Obamagate" story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump

...because nobody, not even Donald Trump, can explain what "Obamagate" supposedly is. All it appears to mean is "Obama was bad". The idea that it's specifically tied to surveillance of the Trump campaign - which was completely justified by the numerous and court-proven connections between that organization and Russian intelligence - is a a fabrication of this particular article.

>Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump's statements are "false." Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution.

That's not how it works. Trump lies. He lies blatantly, and often. He claims things that are obviously false, and he does so with an unbelievable frequency. A large fraction of the things he says in public are either factually false or total nonsense. To say anything else would be incomprehensibly biased in the other direction.

<comment><USER11> > A large fraction of the things he says in public are either factually false > or total nonsense. To say anything else would be incomprehensibly biased in > the other direction.

The point is that it's not for Wikipedia to say that a person lies. Instead, it needs to point to specific factual instances and quote experts when bringing the idea together.

<comment><USER10> You're right, an article that simply said "Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States, a far-right-wing conspiracy nut, and a habitual liar" would be, while accurate, not particularly useful. But obviously that's not what it actually says. Let's take a look, shall we?

Here are the occurrences of the word "false" in Wikipedia's page on Trump, as of today, excluding where it's clearly quoting a claim by a third party without Wikipedia appearing to support that claim (e.g., "the suit [against Trump University] alleged that the company made false statements and defrauded consumers"). The words "lying" and "lie" do not appear in the body of the article.

> Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and > presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the > media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American > politics.

This is in the intro paragraph. It's not locally cited, but it's a summary of the article to come; there's an exhaustively referenced section later.

>Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in April 2018 that Trump, using a pseudonym "John Barron", called him in 1984 to falsely assert that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business...

Citation for the conversation provided, and the fact in question is trivially checkable.

> Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number > of false statements compared to other candidates.

 _Three_ citation links provided.

> At least four major publications... have pointed out lies or falsehoods in > his campaign statements

Multiple citations provided, with a quote from the LATimes in the page body ("Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has.")

> Throughout his presidency, he has repeatedly and falsely characterized the > economy as the best in American history.

Citation to WaPo fact-checker provided. That the economy in 2016-2018 is not in any way other than SPY highs the best in American history should not be controversial.

> As president, Trump has falsely claimed he saved the coverage of pre- > existing conditions provided by ACA, while his administration declined to > challenge a lawsuit that would eliminate it.

Citation link to Politifact provided. It would also have been an option to cite Trump's own Twitter feed here.

> Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law > [in separating families at the border].

Many citations provided, with a (cited) explanation that Trump explicitly ended a previous policy which "had made exceptions for families with children."

> falsely claiming "Anybody that wants a test can get a test [for COVID-19]," > even though availability of tests was severely limited.

Multiple citations provided for the statement having been made, and for it obviously being a lie.

> False statements

Section header, with a link to a separate (also extensively sourced) article.

> As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches > and remarks.

Three citations to NYTimes and LATimes fact-checkers.

> His falsehoods have also become a distinctive part of his political > identity.

Citation is to a New Yorker analysis article, which is a bit odd, but that article is itself well-sourced. In any case, this is not a particularly controversial statement - that the things he says are false is well established in context; that those statements are part of his identity is something he'd probably agree with.

> In September 2016, he acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. and > falsely claimed the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her > 2008 presidential campaign.

Citation to NYTimes provided for the fact that he said it. No citation should be necessary for the fact that Hillary Clinton did not start the birther conspiracy theory (which has its own Wikipedia article).

> Many of the assertions he tweeted have been proven false.

This is in a brief section specifically about his Twitter use, so it's not a non-sequitor. Citations provided to NYTimes, WaPo, Chicago Tribune fact- checkers.

> Cohen said he had made the false statements on behalf of Trump

Citation provided, and this is in respect to statements that Cohen pled under oath to be lies.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment>----

...and that's it. With one potential exception, every time that Wikipedia says in its own voice that Trump (or one of his associate) lies, it is well- sourced, specific, and pertinent. No need for concern trolling.

Wikipedia could of course instead say "Trump said X" without pointing out that X is ludicrously and dangerously false, but that would be a lie by omission, and Wikipedia would be less valuable as a source of information for it.

</comment><comment><USER12> > Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump's > statements are "false." Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is > not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so

Reporting the _fact_ that someone has lied, in this case repeatedly, is neutral. And the author not liking that Wikipedia reports those facts is not evidence of Wikipedia's bias.

There are plenty of faults with the site's moderation but this is not an example of them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps he would perceive [https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page](https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) to have less bias...

</comment><comment><USER13> Wikipedia is a free enterprise, and therefore completely free to do whatever it wants, including being biased.

<comment><USER7> Being _legally_ allowed to do something doesn't make it _morally_ or _ethically_ okay. Wikipedia is not absolved from criticism just because they aren't breaking the law.

I think this article is silly, but I'm responding to you in a more general sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice#Germ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice#German_culture)

 _Die ich rief, die Geister, / Werd' ich nun nicht los_

Also: Genie out of the bottle, Pandora's Box

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why was this post flagged? It's really sad that the common theme in HN is anti-censorship but at the same time most of the base heavily disapproves of content that doesn't fit their ideologies or narratives.

<comment><USER12> Some of what he's suggesting _is_ censorship. For example, that Wikipedia ought to remove content that mentions a politician has lied.

Advocating censorship under the guise of "free speech" is, in my opinion, manipulative and disingenuous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sanger has some really _great_ ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality:

> "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not > asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in > mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with > an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might > be."

Because, yes, we should _definitely_ give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round.

<comment><USER11> > Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the > earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round.

As long as scientific sources are referenced and the criticisms are acknowledged, what's the problem with having a flat earth Wikipedia article?

<comment><USER3> Nothing. And there is one. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why is this flagged?!</comment>


Cable TV Revenue to Drop by $2.7B in Next 10 Years as Broadband Booms - <AUTHOR> https://variety.com/2016/biz/news/cable-tv-revenue-decline-broadband-cord-cutting-1201836417/ <comment><USER2> I'll be interested in how much olympics coverage changes now that we're in a Netflix-style on-demand world.

This year was much the same as last, and there's been a lot of grumbling worldwide.

Will NBC lose their stranglehold? Will athletes be able to compete in more suitable times, rather than when NBC prime-time is?

Although sometimes not quite neutral, Mike Masnick at Techdirt offers a lot of insight on these topics: [https://www.techdirt.com/](https://www.techdirt.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I hate headlines like this, that use absolute numbers to draw clicks.

After all, 2.7B seems like so much!

And then you realize that's a mere 4.7% decline. And it'll be offset by gains in broadband subscription revenues.

The headline should read "Cable TV Revenue to drop a mere 4.7% over the next 10 years".

</comment><comment><USER4> yes, but is that enough?

<comment><USER5> Enough for what?

<comment><USER4> To innovate and provide a service consumers really want</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple realtime two-way sync with SSH, fswatch and rsync - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/francoisp/DuplexRsync <comment><USER2> So I was wondering, how do you do two-way sync with inheritly one-way tool like rsync? And turns out you cannot do it, not reliably.

The way script works, it runs change monitor on both sides; if there is a change on local side, it will do local->remote sync; if there is a change on remote side, it will do remote->local sync.

This can go wrong in many, many ways. Here is the first example that came to my mind: you started a process on remote machine which creates lots of small files -- maybe extracting an archive, or generating images. So the syncer keeps syncing those files in remote->local direction. Meanwhile, you got bored watching the script and decided to edit some code. POOF! Any edits you make are continuously reverted.

Oh, and there is no error checking anywhere. Did your network had a hickup? Tough, we will march on anyway. Let's it was not in lines 101 or 104 -- if these commands have transient failures, then your newly made changes would just get reverted.

If you care about your data, please do not use this. Use anything else -- syncthing, osync, unison were named in this thread, they are all good.

<comment><USER3> Are there any good open source live sync tools? Even one way sync with rsync is slow and two way is as you say a kludge. Seems like there is not much open source stuff out there for this and certainly nothing that can sync like these cloud drive apps.

<comment><USER2> Well, I like "unison" \-- it is a well designed, two way sync app.

I personally run it in "-auto" mode -- every time I run the program, it shows me all actions it wants to do, any conflicts it detected, and asks me if I want to proceed.

If you want to run live mode, you can just run:

        unison -ui text -repeat 5 . ssh://remote-host/dir

it will check for changes every 5 seconds, sync over any changes, and skip all the conflicts. You'll have to re-run it without -repeat option to resolve the conflicts.

<comment><USER3> I tried it but it never seems to work all that well for me. It also has terrible UX with confusing options.

<comment><USER2> Unison's UX has options? I did not know.

I recommend treating unison like you do rsync -- read the manpage, configure it with config files and shell wrappers.

If you run it with "-ui text -auto", then it will print the list of changes, and ask: "do you want to proceed (y/n)", which is not that confusing.

Treat it as mostly text-based syncer with UI as an extra bonus, and it will be much less confusing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool project! Another alternative is to just use unison. Not only is it cross platform for windows, Mac and Linux, but on top of that it "just works".

Amazing stuff. Brew, Cygwin and your favorite package managers have it.

<comment><USER5> When I checked a few years ago, unison worked but was (a) relatively slow, and (b) very picky about which versions are at which end.

almost any two rsyncs from the last 20 years speak to each other and do it rather quickly.

<comment><USER2> For picky versions, there is nice `addversionno = true` option, which will let you have multiple unison versions installed simultaneously. It will always pick the right one.

I agree with slowness -- I feel the recent versions are pretty fast on Linux, but it can be faster. Also it's "scan, then transfer" approach means it can take lots of memory if there is a lot of files.

Still, if you can your rsync in your application, use it. For automated backups, you cannot beat it. But unison has two unique advantages:

\- Proper two way sync -- doing it safely with rsync is almost impossible.

\- GUI/TUI which shows what changed and allows conflict resolution.

\- GUI which shows

<comment><USER5> Indeed. But you still _need_ multiple versions installed, which means you have to sidestep package managers (and generally common usage practices); which is really inconvenient if you have multiple systems with different os's and distros.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I highly recommend osync(1). It has been around a while and has had quite a few users report bugs. The maintainer is active and very helpful. I've used it for a few years now with great success.

1: [https://github.com/deajan/osync](https://github.com/deajan/osync)

<comment><AUTHOR> (author here) Interesting, thanks for the link! I had never seen this one. It does look a bit more heavyweight; that might be a good thing for some use cases. I currently use this on many different containerized setups, so simpler and less setup/config is better for me at this point. Cheers!

</comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 Nice system, but I think I'll stick to Syncthing for the time being.

</comment><comment><USER7> These sorts of solutions are always tantalizing, especially when developing on a Mac but deploying on Linux, but the killer feature for such an application would be IDE/ST3/Atom/VSC[/etc...] support. If this sync process could be orchestrated from such a development environment directly, it would avoid many design pitfalls, such as degenerating into rapid fs polling.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey! thanks for your comment! I wrote this yesterday because I wanted the read speed of a local copy, hot-reload of the remote side app, and the ability to edit at both ends. I came across fswatch, I've been quite impressed; it does a pretty good job resource-wise. On linux it uses ionotify; I have not seen it degenerate into rapid fs polling (yet). Cheers!

<comment><USER7> It's not a critique of your design. You solve the problem as you see it pretty spot on.

It's more so that I wish IDEs supported software like this. There's a plethora of such offerings such as CyberDuck, Expandrive, etc that would benefit from reduced read/seek activity if the IDE could just orchestrate when to emit changes to what it thinks is the "disk". As you noted on GitHub, such software gets really laggy when working in directories that aren't trivially small.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I use a few rsync scripts and build shortcuts, but gonna try yours honestly!

</comment><comment><USER9> For one-way sync, I'd also suggest: [https://axkibe.github.io/lsyncd/](https://axkibe.github.io/lsyncd/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Related, any option to sync files that work from iOS/Android (excluding dropbox, just to make things hard)?

<comment><AUTHOR> well if you can get bash, ssh, fswatch, rsync and socat we could get something going... ;-)

For iOS coda is pretty good. I've used Codeanywhere for android; 2-way sync would need to be integrated in the app itself on these platforms, I would think...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do you feel that it is production ready and that the sync won't become corrupt? Any plans for Android?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hum a day old might be early to say, but the sync is handled by rsync and that has been around for ages, corruption due to rsync would be surprising. (although hash and adler32 checksums collisions _are_ theoretically possible.. :-)

<comment><USER11> It's not rsync I'm concerned about. It is fswatch and adding/deleting multiple files (possibly from multiple devices) and having them automatically synced.

<comment><AUTHOR> More than 2 end points would be a bridge too far for this simple script.

With regards to fswatch, from what I gather, it blocks a iotcl call on all the files in your watched folder. This script fires rsync (always from the local end to prevent confusion) as soon as a change is detected on either end, starting with the end where the change has been detected. Pretty simple. I guess if you change files and delete files at the same time on both ends, some deleted files might get recreated. At this point this is the worse I can see, but I could be very wrong... :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a few qualms with this app: 1\. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by using Dropbox.

2\. It doesn't actually replace Dropbox.

3\. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?

(Silly satire.)

<comment><USER13> This can sync any folder and (presumably) can have multiple instances running; Dropbox is limited to a single instance per user syncing ~/Dropbox. This is P2P and works without an internet connection.

It seems to be built for a different use case; Nextcloud (server/client) and Syncthing (P2P) are already excellent Dropbox alternatives.

<comment><USER14> All valid points. However, etaioinshrdlu is making a reference to the time Dropbox was first posted to Hacker News: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863)</comment></comment></comment>


Google to buy 6.6% stake in ADT in home security push - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-adt-stake-idUSKBN24Z1A6 <comment><USER2> Lots of the comments don't trust Google, but I'm not sure I would trust ADT. I was looking to buy a house, which had an ADT system installed. I just called them up, asked about the address, how much monitoring would cost, etc. and they told me what kind of panel, sensors, etc. were installed at the house. No verification at all. Clearly this would help with their sales, but from the perspective of someone who owns the system; I would not want them to give out details of my security system to anyone.

<comment><USER3> These types of home security systems are more a deterrent than they are anything else. In fact, the ONLY reason I think I'd personally invest in would be automated alerts for fire or emergency situations.

If someone wants into your house, they will get into your house. There's giant glass windows in most homes these days and door locks are hardly much more than a speed bump.

All you should look at ADT for is simply making you not the easiest house to get into. But if someone wants into your house, a security system is unlikely to be something that stops them.

Edit: to be more clear, I think the deterrent part is the equivalent of putting an ADT sign in a window or nearby. THAT is the deterrent, not the system itself.

<comment><USER4> It's peace of mind.

I know 100% if someone wants into a house, they will get into the house. I know that when people put 'this property protected by Smith & Wesson' signs on their house, it only informs burglars there are guns to be stolen. I always joked I don't want ADT, just the sign.

But now that I actually have an alarm system, it's great. If I leave for the weekend, I know nobody has broken in. It won't stop them, but I at least know.

<comment><USER5> All ADT does is call the police. During the most recent civil unrest incidents the police were not responding to 911 calls like this, making it pretty useless when you actually need it.

<comment><USER6> Police don't really respond to alarm calls anyways. The high degree of false alarms generally puts responding to these at the bottom of the list of things to respond to.

<comment><USER7> In a city. In a wealthy suburban community the police are usually happy to have something more exciting than off-leash pets and minor traffic violations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> (Googler, opinions are my own)

I wonder what this says for the Google/Nest Security product future. The existing Nest Secure[0] is a well designed product, but also rather limiting (only one base unit, which is frustrating for houses with multiple entrances, or large houses). The Nest Secure was released ~3 years ago, and there have been some minor feature improvements, but no hardware additions or changes.

[0] [https://store.google.com/us/product/nest_secure_alarm_system](https://store.google.com/us/product/nest_secure_alarm_system)

<comment><USER9> Nest Secure owner here. I like the system a lot, ya'll need to invest a bigger team in maintenance. _not_ a new product or a rewrite.

Some buggieness.

The single base unit worked well enough for me when I had a 3-entrance house.

<comment><USER8> Sorry, I should have clarified my point a bit on multiple entrances. I have my keypad near one door, but the other doors are on the opposite side of the house. So my kids may open another door and start the alarm countdown going, won't get there in-time to turn it off all the time. I'd like to be able to have 2 keypads.

As well, there is the siren problem. The siren is not loud enough to be heard in all corners of my house well. I'd like to be able to have a siren in my bedroom so if it does go off in the middle of the night, it would be very clear to me.

<comment><USER9> yeah, that's fair. the system really needs investing in by big G.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like a bad idea to me. But I'm someone who would never use or recommend ADT in the first place. People don't seem to realize... You can run your own serious alarm system (DSC is a great brand) and then self-monitor with devices like the Envisalink. This integrates with Home Assistant too. All the awesome functionality for $0/mo.

<comment><USER11> >All the awesome functionality for $0/mo.

Except the time it took you to research, install, validate it's running, and do general upkeep. Also doesn't help you if you're on vacation with limited internet service.

<comment><USER12> And most importantly, the fact that _you_ have to respond even with your own monitoring. That's most of what you pay ADT for. If they get a ping, they call you. If they can't get in touch with you, they dispatch the relevant people.

Yes you can set this up yourself (and spend a lot more on the hardware, which they generally give to you pretty cheaply or even "free" because you're signing a contract) but when you go hiking in the mountains and someone uses your Facebook posts as a cue that you're out of town, you're SOL.

Don't get me wrong I love looking at all the home security stuff you can do, and it does indeed sound like a neat project. But you're really paying these companies for monitoring and automatic (human) response, not the security systems themselves.

<comment><USER11> > And most importantly, the fact that you have to respond even with your own > monitoring.

So true, my dad has a monitoring system he built and he constantly looks at his phone as a deer or bear or something triggers it. I'd imagine the lost productivity for people who depend on the flow for work would be immense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> ADT's pricing and go-to-market approach is draconian in 2020. Long term contracts, expensive equipment, and high pressure sales tactics couldn't be any different than my experience with a Nest home security system. Will be interesting to see if and how ADT evolves because of the ownership stake.

<comment><USER14> I agree. They want a two year commitment and $55 a month, plus $1000 for the installation. That is absurd for what their monitoring service entails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am fascinated at the anti-Google attitude here.

Why exactly do you think some other home security company would not also use your data? Except they will secure it poorly with a default password.

<comment><USER16> Fundamentally, the reason I'd rather anyone _but_ Google have my private data is Google's ability to use it effectively. Many companies can vacuum up data, few are prepared to do anything intelligent with it. Not only does Google have far more data, it's able to _use it_. That makes them way scarier than ADT.

<comment><USER17> Really? because there are many examples of smaller less sophisticated companies getting owned by hackers. ADT might not do anything with your data, but hackers have lots of uses for it.

So in your world, Google being able to sell target ads is more dangerous to you, then hackers getting access to your security cams or baby monitors, or stealing your personal dox and reselling them on darknet markets for bitcoin?

There are millions of people who have been harmed by identity theft from databases going around of people's personal info that have been hacked from less secure companies.

There was have been cheap IP cams that have had backdoors that were exploited, unbelievably, to build a search engine for readily available for pedophiles ([https://ipvm.com/reports/the-search-engine-for-hacking-ip- ca...](https://ipvm.com/reports/the-search-engine-for-hacking-ip-cameras))

You have millions of people scammed by Indian call center scammers by taking advantage of terrible Windows security.

You have tons of scammers buying people's personal financial information from existing databases that are traded.

These are all real, palpable harm, where people have gone bankrupt, spent years cleaning up identity theft, had their children's room monitored by pedophiles and pranksters, etc

<comment><USER16> > You have millions of people scammed by Indian call center scammers by taking > advantage of terrible Windows security.

You know where all of those scams come from? _Targeted Google Ads_... So yeah, Google being able to sell and target ads is extremely dangerous, especially when they enable ads to be targeted at vulnerable populations like senior citizens.

Funny story, the attack chain here starts with Google Ads, usually to push a Google Chrome extension in the Chrome Web Store, and _then_ people end up letting a scammer onto their PC. And yet "terrible Windows security" is what you are worried about?

I have been asking Google and Googlers alike to address these concerns for years, and Google's movement on it is far too slow, because the systems they use are far too profitable to change.

<comment><USER17> > You know where all of those scams come from? Targeted Google Ads

No, quite a number of them are done via SMS and VoiceMail spam, e.g. Robocalls. What, you've never gotten a text or voicemail threatening you with a federal bench warrant unless you call up and pay money?

<comment><USER16> I've actually spent a very large portion of time over the past decade helping seniors deal with scams, and figuring out where they came from. I trace back every scam call I deal with to how they got to it. Google is the top offender. And malicious, scammy ads that push malware have actually been _reinstated by Google_ only hours after I've gotten a Googler to take it down.

Here are screenshots of malware showing on the top search I see seniors search for, tested just now: [https://imgur.com/a/rIAMjpM](https://imgur.com/a/rIAMjpM)

Google sells scammers the ability to squat the trademark of a competitor, MapQuest (very likely illegal in it's own right, no ads are served on a search for "google maps"), which is commonly searched by senior citizens. The ad is barely perceptible from a real, organic result, and claims to be MapQuest. And the result is a page that only functions when you install a malicious web browser on your PC.

What's incredible here, is that you'll blame Microsoft for your company's ad platform, make MapQuest look bad (because you served a fake MapQuest site to people looking for it), and promote Google Maps and Chromebooks as an alternative... all while raking in the cash from the scam ads. Google is a business that operates on the revenue from scams. Every supposedly good thing Google does, and every paycheck it issues, is coming from ripped off individuals. The entire product cycle and marketing direction reinforces this.

This search term has seen nothing but malware and scams since at least 2013. If Google had any interest in protecting consumers (or not violating antitrust and, honestly, trademark laws), Google would not serve ads on this search term, ever. Feel free to investigate this internally, I am confident nothing will change.

<comment><USER17> > Google is a business that operates on the revenue from scams

I highly doubt these scams make up a significant fraction of Google's revenue. It is much more likely these are simply the failures of false negatives in automation falling through the cracks.

Besides the ad target scams, the Web itself is full of these scam malware sites. If you search for things to download, organic search results often send you links which eventually terminate in malware, especially true of searches for porn, software/music/movies.

I will raise this MapsQuest scam internally, so thanks for the report (note, I have nothing to do with ads, I work in research thats not ads related)

<comment><USER18> Probably nobody cares, and there's nobody in particular I would like to tell this to, but I recently experienced a Google service that made me feel more positive about them, even though I have eaten up the negativity recently to a certain extent.

That service is the call screening. Where you can (I'm not sure if it's standard on all Android phones, but I have a Pixel 3) have your virtual assistant talk to an unknown caller and transcribe whatever they say (but they always hang up).

It just made me momentarily feel so much better about Google, the sense that this one little thing actually improves my life by leveraging the dystopian tech infrastructure. I don't hate the bots _that_ much, I hate them not working for _me_.

I just thought I'd share this because you must be bombarded with anti-Google stuff these days.

<comment><USER16> > the sense that this one little thing actually improves my life by leveraging > the dystopian tech infrastructure. I don't hate the bots that much, I hate > them not working for me.

The problem is, you have become part of the problem. Because the bot working for you is now annoying _other_ people. Surely, you realize the companies that employ annoying bots all hate dealing with them themselves, but it improves _their_ lives to subject you to them.

<comment><USER18> >you have become part of the problem

I don't think so, because to me the annoyance experienced by people who make unsolicited calls to me isn't important. It's not part of "the problem" from my perspective.

They are presumably being compensated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow. Crazy. Google is starting to leverage their position. They now selling 12.8x this buy in corporate bonds. I think this is the beginning of many plays by Google/Alphabet.

[1] - [https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1290338641919856640](https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1290338641919856640)

<comment><USER20> What does this mean?

I clicked on your link. I'm also not sure what "SELL $5.75 BILLION OF ESG BONDS IN CORPORATE RECORD" means?

<comment><USER21> Alphabet is selling some record amount of corporate bonds, which OP states they're using to finance this purchase (and that they raised 12.8 times this amount so there's plenty left to make more acquisitions).

More detail on Alphabet's bond sale: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small- business/al...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small- business/alphabet-borrowing-575-billion-in-largest-corporate-esg- bond/2020/08/03/f483a1de-d595-11ea-a788-2ce86ce81129_story.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There was an article where they interviewed a bunch of burglars and asked them the best way to secure your house. First they listed off all the things that don't work, like alarms and cameras. Then they said:

\- Number one, have a TV on. If they see a TV on they assume people are home and watching.

\- Get a big dog. If they have to choose between a house with a dog and one without, they'll chose the one without.

\- Get motion activated security lights. Always-on lights just provide extra light for breaking in, the motion sensors draw attention (although most robberies happen during the day so it's sort of a moot point).

<comment><USER23> Playing devil's advocate but assuming they're being truthful what's in it for them to expose the very strategies they use?

<comment><USER6> I would assume so. Pride and bragging about how easy something is would lead a lot of folks to just straight up tell you how they've outsmarted security gear.

Humans will always be humans, and humans LOVE to tell you how they've beat the system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I haven't seen anyone posting, but on the ADT investors relations website there is a presentation [1] and [2] webcast outlying the M&A rationale.

Briefly speaking, it is to be expected product integration (starting with Google Cloud for ADT video) and in the future some 'automation' and newer products.

By the way, can there be any 'synergies' between ADT and Fitbit?

[1] [https://s22.q4cdn.com/631128414/files/doc_presentations/2020...](https://s22.q4cdn.com/631128414/files/doc_presentations/2020/08/ADT- Google-Partnership-08.03.2020-Final.pdf)

[2] [https://investor.adt.com/events-and-presentations/events- cal...](https://investor.adt.com/events-and-presentations/events- calendar/event-details/2020/ADT-Partnership-Announcement-Conference- Call/default.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER25> I get it, it makes business sense - that's a huge install base to push smart home products to.

At the same time, I would have a hard time naming a company that I'd trust _less_ to integrate into my home security than Google.

Privacy, (lack of) customer service, service continuity...I know these aren't issues that would worry most consumers but they would all be on my mind.

<comment><USER26> I'm trying to think of any company I would trust for a camera in my house and am drawing a blank. Google is pure evil for sure, but which company is better?

It it even possible to roll your own LAN solution any more? The tech giants have become so hostile to anyone who dares to try to control their own data that I never even hear it discussed any more.

<comment><USER16> Most IP cameras support standard methods of accessing their video feeds. A program like iSpy will work fine, you just want to also have a firewall that will block your cameras' attempts to call home and not set up any cloud access.

<comment><USER27> Is that still true? I wanted to buy an IP camera to monitor our puppy's crate a few months back and I was shocked to find that pretty much all the cheapish IP cameras that used to support this a few years back have all moved to a cloud-only offering where you have to access your video via their app which streams your video to their cloud service (hard no).

I was amazed that not a single product in the sub $100 range on Amazon seemed to support direct LAN access. I ended up going with the Wyze cam, which still has that issue, but I'd trust a bit more over the no-name Chinese brands still running 10 year old Linux kernels on their cameras.

<comment><USER16> I referred to iSpy both because it's a great free/open product, but it also has an excellent camera database with all of the video feed URLs for different model cameras. Check it out: [https://www.ispyconnect.com/sources.aspx](https://www.ispyconnect.com/sources.aspx)

From my experience, many cameras won't publicize/document this information, but it's still available/possible for almost every one.

<comment><USER27> Ah I see. Thanks for replying. It unfortunately looks like iSpy doesn't have a mobile client? Many years ago I used to use Robert Chou's "IP Cam Viewer" which was a no-nonsense app to connect to different IP cameras, but unfortunately that doesn't work with a lot of the changes that camera makers have made on their end to prevent direct IP connections.

<comment><USER16> In my case, I'd strongly want to avoid direct IP connections to my cameras from a smartphone. That'd suggest very easy outside access to devices that have questionable security.

<comment><USER27> Ah, yeah for my use case it was purely for use within my LAN and camera firewalled externally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like Google. The search engine is amazing. BigQuery is awesome — it's really something only a Google could pull off — but, but, I think this might be DOA for the same reasons that make Google search and ads so good: the data. I don't want Google in my home like this with a view of everything coming in and going out (yes yes they can already see the amazon orders in my gmail account, but still) or who is coming or going.

</comment><comment><USER29> One thing missing in this area is a low cost combined alarm and home automation. Some have nice home automation (Smart Things, for example), others have a nice alarm system (Ring). But nobody has a good combination of both together. At least part of the problem is that the alarm system does not want to trust third party devices for triggering the alarm. This means that they are treated as second class citizens.

So an example of this is that I have water monitors and a water main shutoff valve that works with Smart Things. But Smart Things doesn't have an alarm, and Ring doesn't support the water monitor and shutoff valve..

Not sure I'm happy with ADT, since they are expensive (per month monitoring). But they do have name brand recognition.

<comment><USER30> Check out Home Assistant, it can pull off the automations you describe. You can run it on a Raspberry Pi 4 [https://www.home- assistant.io/](https://www.home-assistant.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I had bought a new Nest thermostat and was going to install it at about the time that Google went from having different things Nest-integrated to having them be Google-integrated. I chose to sell my thermostat to somebody and buy an Ecobee specifically because Ecobee wasn't owned by Google or Amazon.

So far Amazon seems like its treating its acquisitions better as far as customers are concerned. Ecobee does make a model with Alexa built-in but I got an older one that doesn't have that.

I am really tempted to buy some Eufy 2K cameras, which I hear are decent quality and integrate with Homekit. Apple has tougher security requirements than Google or Amazon and the products that meet it seem better, even if more expensive.

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting. 6.6% seems like a pretty insignificant investment. Does anybody have any idea what 6.6% could really get them?

<comment><USER33> Private information about the operation of the company which they can use themselves to compete with them. I'd certainly be very worried.

<comment><USER34> Then shutdown their competing offering in 2-3 years once it's mature and have a user base

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Remember: Google doesn't think they're invading your privacy when _they_ are making money on it. It's only a violation of privacy if _their competition_ is making money on your privacy.

</comment><comment><USER36> ADT and other American security is broken. They are missing the hard part of an active security system: response.

In Japan there is a company called Secom. This company has a near monopoly on security systems. They have this monopoly because instead of just calling the cops they have staff on patrol who respond to alarms. You can imagine the install base moat required to have active personal patroling constantly.

The end result is alarms get checked. Every time we mis-unlocked our office a Secom person would stop by soon after to check. No idle phone calls from a phone center, the staff checked the premise themselves.

Of course similar services must exist in the states for businesses, but without the install base they cannot be priced reasonable for home use. Secom is used everywhere, from uppper class homes to museums.

<comment><USER37> A ton of companies in the US offer this, including ADT. [https://www.adt.com/patrol](https://www.adt.com/patrol)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Google's blog post _A partnership with ADT for smarter home security_ [1]

[1] [https://blog.google/products/google-nest/partnership-adt- sma...](https://blog.google/products/google-nest/partnership-adt-smarter-home- security/)

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm on a "low Google diet" myself as I'm not at all a fan of how my data gets scooped up and resold.

That being said, while I disagree with their business practices, I think their information security is one of the best. For contrast, imagine Equifax running your home security... :)

<comment><USER40> Its not an infosec problem, but a privacy problem

<comment><USER41> In what way? What privacy breach are you worried about?

For example are you worried that a real human at your home security company will be invading your privacy? When they do are you worried that real human will take personal action against you? Or are you worried about automated systems building knowledge about your life based on home security data? Or are you worried about your home security data used in aggregate? Maybe you are worried about attackers getting access?

Internal infosec and privacy controls/policies are required to protect you from some of these. Some of these threats may be more likely from Google, but I'd say some of them are more likely from other home security providers (keep in mind that a lot of home security products are actually intended to have another human monitoring your home).

<comment><USER42> I would say these are the obvious ones for Google:

> Or are you worried about automated systems building knowledge about your > life based on home security data? Or are you worried about your home > security data used in aggregate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> For those "loving" the ADT home security commercials, check out the story of "Blue (Da Ba Dee)" by Eiffel 65 [https://youtu.be/epnsRRPtoeU](https://youtu.be/epnsRRPtoeU)

</comment><comment><USER44> Google is an awful service provider. Ever had a Gmail account get hijacked? Good luck getting it back. Google doesn't give a crap about helping its "customers" because its products are free so they have this awful take it or leave it attitude. You can't rely on that. They did the same thing to Nest. They'd change your thermostat and shut things down, potentially at your home's risk. Just a really careless and inconsiderate company who I avoid doing business with.

</comment><comment><USER45> Get a fumigation sign. The skull and crossbones and threat of death by toxic asphyxiation will keep all but the most determined burglar away.Few burglars go out on a job with respirators. Add a bit about asbestos being found "on site." An ADT sign is nothing but an "all clear." The police won't help, they're too busy selling drugs, forfeiting automobiles and investigating possible misdemeanor counterfeit bill passing cases.

</comment><comment><USER46> Huh, looks like Google used to offer a cellular-based backup option, but cut it off a few months ago. Some folks were upset that the only way to get that now is to pay Brinks ($29/mo or $20/mo with 3-yr contract).

I assume the Brinks deal will be phased out and ADT will replace it? Given what people are saying about ADT's pricing, hopefully their offer will be no more expensive than Brinks'.

</comment><comment><USER47> One of my biggest worries with this is that it will shut ADT off to all future integrations outside of the Google ecosystem.

I believe that if ADT wants to stay competitive, they would hugely benefit from a swath of integrations with different vendors doing different things to allow for a modular home security experience.

I'm not sure that partnering with Google really accomplishes that... at least not on its own.

</comment><comment><USER48> Be a hell of a thing to discover they shut the division down two years later just as someone comes through the window.

</comment><comment><USER49> Unfortunately ADT is the worst security company out there or in the US for that matter. Garbage.

<comment><USER50> I'm in Europe. Interested in your comment. Got a source, or any further info?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> "Home" security? ADT has cameras, door sensors, medical alerting "pendandts" etc. installed in many more places than private homes. This deal seems more about sensors and new streams of incoming data for Google.

</comment><comment><USER52> Neutral news. I just hope this results in new products launching quickly. The nest Yale partnership is disappointing to say the least. Despite the naysayers, this can be a successful step in the right direction for nest as an ecosystem

</comment><comment><USER53> Well great, if the thief carries a android phone for the first time in history of mankind google would be able to run machine learning algos to predict where the crime is going to be committed. /s

personally I would be more worried about ADT getting google data. plus ADT has tie-ins with many police depts. this could go south really fast from here. Also, google already has fitbit data so google is slowly spreading its tentacles into our life in real world much more so than FB.

honestly I feel like I need to minimize my google usage right-bloody-now. a slightly better web search is not worth all that shit it comes with.

</comment><comment><USER54> ADT came pre-installed in my house. I deactivated it, and want to remove it fully, but I haven't gotten around it.

</comment><comment><USER55> If Google pursued github and tiktok like msft I'll be more optimistic. ADT? Not sure what they wanted here...

</comment><comment><USER56> Pushing spy tools into more places, yuck.

</comment><comment><USER57> Telus in Canada bought ADT Canada to add to their line of home security and home health monitoring.

</comment><comment><USER58> ADT is a near scam home security company who force you into signing aggressive 3 yr contracts

</comment><comment><USER59> Home Security Systems are largely marketing gimmicks.

I wonder if any of Google's large "diversification" pushes have yielded success?

</comment><comment><USER60> If you're planning on doing away with public police, private home security is going to be BIG business.

</comment><comment><USER61> This makes me uncomfortable

</comment><comment><USER62> Ring ring. Seriously, who doesn't think this is because of the popularity of the Ring ecosystem?

</comment><comment><USER63> Well there goes me buying any ADT security products

<comment><USER64> I was literally going to call them today to monitor my house's pre-existing ADT (DSC I think?) system out of practicality. Now, I'm not so sure.

 _Edit_ I wonder what modern solutions exist in this space for takeover of old systems. It feels like every alarm system installed is designed to extract your money for components for 3 years or so and then immediately become "discontinued." Most of the companies I see want me to buy a new system and lock into 3 years of monitoring. It wouldn't be so bad if the components weren't so damned expensive. $1k to fit out a small house, no smarthome nonsense even.

<comment><USER65> We just bought an old house that had been nicely taken cared for. There's an existing wired alarm system which must have taken a lot of work to install. I just installed my first server rack in the basement for network-attached storage and to run services locally, including Home Assistant [1]. I'm looking at Konnected [2], which makes an aftermarket alarm panel interface. I'd love to hear what else folks have done.

\- [1] [https://www.home-assistant.io/](https://www.home-assistant.io/) \- [2] [https://konnected.io/](https://konnected.io/)

<comment><USER64> konnected.io looks fascinating. It seems to focus on wired systems, but I believe the system I own is just an "old" wireless system. I'll look for something similar for wireless systems. At least what I want seems possible!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> one of Google's best idea.

</comment><comment><USER67> Potentially a questionable investment with the police being abolished?

</comment><comment><USER68> Will they tank this like Nest and the prior home HW vendors.

Google is a data mining company. Nothing more, noting less. We are the product. You are stupid to allow them into your home.</comment>


Ask HN: CS degree equivalent from MIT or Harvard with online classes, for free? - <AUTHOR> Both universities (and many others) have made thousands of courses available online. Is it possible to obtain the equivalent to a CS degree without ever attending a class on campus?
Has anyone tried? How long would it take? How marketable would such education be? Could we argue that if you are the a self-starter kind of person you may get a "better" education this way?
Of course no diploma would be given at the end, and perhaps there are nominal fees. <comment><USER2> The education itself would not be very marketable since there is no validation, accreditation, etc. The vast majority of places require an accredited degree to be hired. If you want to work for other people, especially at larger companies, then what you want to do would not be very helpful.

If you want to work for yourself, this could be a good option. If you gain a good reputation working on open source projects, then maybe you can get into smaller companies or startups that aren't as stringent in their policies.

<comment><USER2> Why is this downvoted?

Nobody else has addressed the marketability concerns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think that if you are extremely disciplined and self-motivated you can learn a lot these days from freely available resources on the internet. I think you miss out on two really big things.

The first is that most people can learn much more and more quickly when interacting with others and with good mentors. Depending on your personality, you might need this less or be able to get some of that from communities online (e.g. forums and open source projects).

The second part is basically the value of signaling and credentials. Part of the value of a Harvard/MIT degree is that it tells potential employers that you _were able to get into Harvard or MIT._ Since they're very selective that is a useful piece of information for them. A capable seeking person who comes across well in interviews but is self-taught might rationally lose out to an equally smart seeking person who also has a fancy degree.

You could consider Georgia Tech's OMSCS program. It's not free but it's pretty cheap and you get a degree from a well respected school. FWIW I'm an alum of that program.

</comment><comment><USER4> They are excellent resources and the people who have the self drive to do MOOCs often perform better than people with a degree. I'm not sure how many really complete a MOOC though. The ones from elite universities have been very tough in my experience, but worth the effort.

Online _certifications_ seem to be a negative though. Doing a MOOC in itself signals you have the passion, whereas getting a certification implies you neither qualify to actually go to MIT or Harvard, nor do you have the passion to finish without being motivated by e-paper. While they are hard to get, I doubt the pain level it takes to finish is anywhere near that of a MIT degree.

</comment><comment><USER5> See teachyourselfcs [0] and OSSU [1]

[0] [https://teachyourselfcs.com/](https://teachyourselfcs.com/)

[1] [https://github.com/ossu/computer- science](https://github.com/ossu/computer-science)

</comment><comment><USER6> This sounds familiar, eg [https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/myprojects/mit- challenge-2/](https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/myprojects/mit-challenge-2/)

</comment><comment><USER7> You can learn what you need to build something that helps you escape a world in which your degree matters.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do it just for algorithms theory and practice! This is 90% of the value of a modern CS education.</comment>


How do you handle good people leaving your company? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Remain positive about their decision because good and talented people will move on to better opportunities. Stay in touch, especially because good and talented people tend to attract the same crowd. You never know if they will send someone your way.

</comment><comment><USER3> I update my resume.

</comment><comment><USER4> As the founder? Create a positive and attractive vision for the business and you will attract more and better candidates.

</comment><comment><USER5> Find out why they're leaving and fix those issues. That way you can try and prevent further personal losses.</comment>


Why does clean code matter? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mdnbar.com/why-does-clean-code-matter <comment><USER2> Well here's your problem:

"Now let's look into the credit_card_expired method:

def credit_card_invalid(user)"

The method being called has a different name than the method being defined. Sure, clean code matters. Proofreading matters too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks sir, fixed that</comment></comment>


Thoughts On Google+: Great Features, Lack Of Publicly Shared Vision - <AUTHOR> http://blog.300.mg/thoughts-about-google

<comment><USER2> The "unlimited Twitter" thought resonates with me, because that's basically how I use G+ -- short-form blogging with hash tags. I generally hop over to G+ whenever I want to talk about something that's a little more complex than the sort of thing I'd post as a Facebook status or a Twitter post.</comment>


Show HN: Design your own t-shirt using JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.codeyourowntshirt.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I made this website because I had a fun time making a code-generated t-shirt design, and I wanted to make it easier for other people to do it themselves. Give it a try! I'm keen to see what other people come up with.</comment>


It's Time for Robot Pilots - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/its-time-for-robot-pilots-germanwings-crash?utm_content=buffer26f83&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

<comment><USER2> There's an outstanding bet between Craig Mundie and Eric Schmidt on this very topic:

"By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless planes." \- [http://longbets.org/4/](http://longbets.org/4/)</comment>


Offline attack shows Wi-Fi routers still vulnerable - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/08/offline-attack-shows-wi-fi-routers-still-vulnerable/

<comment><USER2> I am pretty sure this list is relevant [1]. I tested a few routers with reaver and the avg time to crack pin took me about 6 hours . Be sure to disable WPS. :)

List of routers vulnerable to WPS attack: [1] [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ags- JmeLMFP2dFp2...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ags- JmeLMFP2dFp2dkhJZGIxTTFkdFpEUDNSSHZEN3c)

<comment><USER3> creator of the document here, thanks for the reminder. I am going to clean it up asap.

<comment><USER2> oh snap! Thank you for this good sir!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is the default state for most routers that you need to push the little WPS button first, or is that different?

<comment><USER5> From my experience you're required to push the WPS button which remains active for 3-5 minutes before turning back off in most cases. It was only a few of the early "WPS-compatible" routers that default allow for PIN entry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A simple lock down after several failed attempts would have fixed the normal brute force problem (11,000 guesses), yet not this new one (1 guess). Why don't manufacturers implement this, and why isn't it mandated by the specification?</comment>


Show HN: A/B testing flash ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.flashvariations.com

<comment><USER2> Looks interesting, I've signed up, but it would be nice to have ANY way of getting in touch with you! I haven't found your contact info anywhere...

<comment><AUTHOR> You're absolutely right. It's on the TODO list ;). I've sent you an email.</comment></comment>


Being flown out for technical interview. Advice? - <AUTHOR>

This startup that I applied to (well, they contacted me through AngelList) for an internship has decided to fly me out for a technical interview after two phone interviews (one with recruiter, and one with the person that would be my boss). This is my first time ever being flown out for an interview, and I'm a little scared. I feel a lot of pressure to do well with them fronting the cost of the flight and accommodations. Any advice related to this sort of thing? <comment><USER2> They obviously have some interest to fly you out, so relax and do the interview and be courteous and all that. But don't worry an iota about their expense: it's part of their budget.

<comment><USER3> +1. They budget for these things and usually it's one of, if not the last, steps in the hiring process. Almost every time I've flown out for an interview, the offer came soon thereafter. They wouldn't be spending money on you if they didn't think there was a good shot at a fit, so as others have said, RELAX. Be at ease - they obviously are serious enough to spend maybe $1k on getting you out and back (hotel, flight, time with personnel in the office, etc.) so while you may not have it totally in the bag, I'd say if you don't fuck it up, you're almost there :) Just come prepared, know your shit, and you'll do fine!

Premature though it is, CONGRATS ON THE NEW JOB! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Personally I've been on many trips for interviews. I wouldn't ever think about what it's costing them to get you to the interview. If it's not you, then it's someone else that they will be bringing into the interview and you're better, right?

The bottom line is: you're interested in the position, and they are potentially interested in you.

</comment><comment><USER5> Relax and be yourself. Don't even consider the cost of the flight. They're going to decide whether or not to pay you many tens of thousands of dollars per year, the $1000 to fly you out is insignificant.

Be proud of yourself, they want you, and barring any screw up during the final interviews, they'll make you an offer. Don't screw up.

</comment><comment><USER6> When you fly in negotiations you need to be aware of time. It may be that they sit down and talk about everything except compensation. By leaving it until the end they are putting pressure on you to accept. I suggest you relax and let them play out the negotiations as they see fit. Don't pay attention to time.

</comment><comment><USER7> Consider it a short vacation. Maybe bring a couple bucks to tip if you are getting some free service like bellhop or limo.

</comment><comment><USER8> A startup that has the money to deal with recruiters and fly candidates out for interviews? That's pretty interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, they call themselves a startup. I guess it depends on what you consider a "startup."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Make sure you're rested for the interview - beware jetlag. Good luck!</comment>