Korma: Tasty SQL for Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://sqlkorma.com/

<comment><USER2> Previously: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3188609>

<comment><USER3> Do we know how many days need to pass before it's possible to re-post exactly same URL? It seems to me that HN has a ton of undocumented features.

<comment><USER2> I don't know, but I also don't know if it's really worth worrying much about. If something gets posted too many times, people will either flag it, or just won't upvote it.

<comment><USER3> This might cause unintended consequences for the HN button:

<http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/>

For example, I'm using one for my app:

[http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/button.html?width=120&...](http://hnapiwrapper.herokuapp.com/button.html?width=120&url=http://hnpickup.appspot.com/&title=When%20is%20good%20time%20to%20submit%20a%20story%20on%20HN?#)

I wander if it will cause the button to reset after 19 days if someone clicks it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd really like to see a detailed comparison to ClojureQL, which I'm currently using on a couple projects. I've been using ClojureQL in a project and so far have found it pretty satisfactory, but I've been wishing for something like Korma's entities.

I'd also like to see a rationale from the author, much like Clojure itself has. Why write this when ClojureQL exists? If entities are the only reason, why not write them as an addon? To be clear, these are honest questions I'm curious about, not rhetorical arguments against Korma.

<comment><USER5> There are lots of reasons, but I think the most convincing ones are these:

1) ClojureQL is an attempt at a high level abstraction that isn't built on a useable base.

2) ClojureQL generates inefficient (and sometimes nonsensical) SQL

3) It isn't "simple", both in implementation and conception

I'll tackle these in order.

ClojureQL abstracts SQL away as relational algebra, but sometimes what you really need is just SQL. As it stands, you can usually find ways to generate the SQL you want, but to do so, you have to leave the abstraction behind. Such a "leak" indicates to me that what is really needed here is that first level of abstraction - the one that represents SQL directly. As a matter of fact, I believe that ClojureQL should be built _on top_ of Korma. Were that the case, the abstraction would flow cleanly upward and when you needed to interact directly with SQL it would be obvious and very clean to do so. Beyond that, I think ClojureQL presents the wrong general abstraction, but that's more of an opinion than anything.

As a result of trying to hide SQL, ClojureQL has to create queries in a certain way to handle most cases transparently. This often leads to unusual SQL and anyone who has looked at the output knows that ClojureQL uses tons of subselects that are inefficient and simply unnecessary.

SQL is already an abstraction over relational data and people are already comfortable with it. The simplest interface you can present to someone is something that maps directly to SQL - and that's what Korma does. Beyond that, look at the implementation of Korma vs. the implementation of ClojureQL. Korma provides simple and very powerful composability by adhering to the notion that all you're doing is modifying data that ultimately gets fed into a SQL generator. What this allows in the end is infinite reconfigurability. Want a completely different way of generating your queries? Go ahead and build it on top of Korma. As others have suggested, you can think of the library as a sort of Ring for SQL - it provides the base for virtually anything to be built on top of. It also, however, provides some higher-level bits that make working with SQL so much easier. Entities, for example, make it easy for those coming from other languages/frameworks simply due to familiarity.

I built Korma to fill the gap and I believe that ClojureQL and Korma are fundamentally at different levels. In the end, this opens up the potential for _new_ , very lightweight, higher level abstractions... and that's what I'm excited to see :)

<comment><USER6> do you have evidence that subselects are inefficient? (i don't know the answer myself - i would hope that a database can do pretty decent optimisation, but perhaps this is the db equivalent of "given a sufficiently good compiler...").

<comment><USER5> It depends very heavily on which RDBMS you use as to what ends up optimized. It's a relatively well trafficked subject, a simple google search turns up quite a few results, for example:

[http://www.mysqldbahelp.com/2010/03/subselect-vs-join- perfor...](http://www.mysqldbahelp.com/2010/03/subselect-vs-join- performanace.html)

Disclaimer: I didn't validate his results ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It was posted less than a month ago. There's no major new release. Please search before submitting.

<comment><USER4> I hadn't heard of it until today, so I'm glad it was reposted.</comment></comment>


I signed up to write apps for my Amazon Echo, Amazon sent me an NDA - <AUTHOR> I ordered an Amazon Echo as soon as it was announced. Privacy concerns aside, a device like this could be the perfect UI for a smart home. My main interest in the Echo was (and remains) developing for it. Could I ask it about the status of my backups? Turn on lights and air conditioning? Use it to verbally send email while cooking? The possibilities were enticing.
I signed up for the beta API here:
https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/echo
This week I got the below email. It promises access, but only if I agree to an NDA. I was planning to do all of my development on GitHub, permissively licensed (or public domain), and of course I'd want to get feedback and ideas from friends and other developers. It also makes me question how friendly the Echo will be to hackers and open development in the future — do I really want to invest my time in it?
I understand that NDAs have their place, but I don't think this is one. I have experience developing for Apple devices, where any information relating to prerelease OSs is covered by NDA, and it's easy to find questions on Stack Overflow where someone asks an innocent question and is immediately shot down by another developer: "This API is embargoed." I don't want to encourage that spirit in the developer community.
Have any other developers signed up and gotten this email? If you were in this situation, would you fight it?
The email and NDA: https://gist.github.com/Sidnicious/c0483c73653b3c2c619f <comment><USER2> This is typical for a high-importance API that a company starts as private or closed.

Generally these are big B2B partnerships.

They might go public eventually with it, but until then most people will probably experience this.

Source: Have run (and do currently help run) a couple of private API programs for large companies.

EDIT: Part of the reason they are doing it is because their API might be crap right now, or rife with potential security/use case holes. They don't want open apps out there either yet. Basically they are trying to control the experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> Warning, dirty, dirty, quick hack idea ahead... to use it for voice interface alone with all thinking and actions done by some other computer or machine(s). Encode commands for the other computer as sound files which that computer can listen for. Using just a few, easy to bandpass-filter tones in the sound files, one can encode a great many commands that are easy for the actual automation machine(s) to distinguish. (One bit of beauty here to this hack is that, it doesn't even have to be a single automation computer hooked to everything, little embedded systems throughout the house can each listen for just the commands they need to worry about.)

Then one says "Echo, play 'Start my heating'". The Echo plays what it thinks is a short song named 'Start my heating' by that band "My Hacked Home Controls" which you seem to like so much, which goes "beep beep boop whisle click", and the other machine(s) hears that easy to interpret command and does what you want. If you need information back, have the(a) machine put that information into a "Results" sound file and add/overwrite it to the command/music library which the Echo can see and play from, then tell the Echo to play that file for you to hear. You say, "Echo play 'Backups Status'" and it plays the voice you assigned to your backup monitor telling you whatever.

Basically, the Echo becomes a translation droid between you and the computer(s) that you have deeper/more control of. And as a bonus, depending on how you encode the commands into sounds, you might be able to learn some of the more common whistle sequences from your translation droid, and just do them yourself.

<comment><USER2> You just turned it into the Rube Goldberg version of Home Automation. Hahahaha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> On the Echo page: "If you are interested in being part of a limited- participation ___beta ahead of the SDK 's public release_ __, please provide your contact information. "

I don't see any problem here: RIGHT NOW they're not ready to show anything PUBLICLY (and to be bound to an unstable API for example) but when everything will be completly cooked, they'll make it public

The NDA is just a way to ensure that the API wont become a de-facto liability and wont be made public by good souls... ;)

<comment><USER2> The one thing that fellow big companies never get is that people find it anyway (see, Snapchat)

<comment><USER5> I don't think they care so much about people finding it, as they do all of the people who will try to build their own businesses around the API and then try to sue when the API changes.

<comment><USER2> That's also true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think it's worth a fight. Either you are willing to agree to Amazon's terms for access or not. I agree that NDAs are usually dumb, and this one is as well, but I also doubt that access to this developer program is worth the effort it would take to change the practice.

My guess is that Amazon realizes the capabilities of this device are toeing the line of acceptability to most people, and they are taking whatever steps they can to avoid bad press (such as an app developer revealing how much they can eavesdrop, or what security or lack-thereof exists).

</comment><comment><USER7> Disclaimer: I'm an AWS employee

"If you are interested in being part of a limited-participation beta ahead of the SDK's public release"

It says right there that the SDK is going to go public. Can you blame them for wanting to slowly ramp up their API capacity and not have a sea of devs whining every time their early beta API changes? Why must everything be evil?

<comment><USER8> That's a valid concern, but what does a non-disclosure agreement have to do with that? If they don't want people to use their API, can't they just not authorize them to use the API? I don't see how a full NDA is necessary for that.

<comment><USER7> Maybe so the initial impressions of an incomplete API won't make others think that it isn't a platform worth developing for? I really don't know the answer, but I could see it from a "brand image" perspective. You don't want people spouting all over the internet how much v0.0.01-alpha of your API is absolutely terrible and turning other developers off to your platform in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You're an exception. They don't want people hacking around with it making apps for themselves and friends. They want proper shops making apps for a marketplace, with a specific business directive and opportunity for monetization.

I know that sucks, but if you want something more open, perhaps there is something you can do with a Raspberry Pi w/ some kind of voice module?

<comment><USER10> > I know that sucks, but if you want something more open,

Raspberry Pi isn't all that "open", either, but I suppose at least it doesn't have an NDA. See the Issues section here:

[https://wiki.debian.org/RaspberryPi](https://wiki.debian.org/RaspberryPi)

<comment> TD-Linux This page is rather out of date since the release of the VideoCore IV documentation and open source driver work for it. I would consider it an order of magnitude more open than the Echo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What I think a lot of people don't realize is just how easy speech recognition is these days. By that I mean, to create an application that has as good of voice recognition capability as, say, Google Now, is not that much harder than setting up any other event-driven input system. I'm sure the actual recognition of speech is quite difficult. But there are a fair number of APIs available that make it easy to _use_ in your applications.

Almost every programming language has a canonical API that is extremely simple to set up. In .NET and Google Chrome, it's even first-party, and I only mention those because they happen to be the ones I've used.

And text-to-speech is no different. You can get to "good enough" so easily that I'm somewhat perplexed why more people don't do it.

I just think there is a perception that adding a speech recognition feature to your app is "hard". It's difficult to design a good speech-based user experience (I've found longer phrases work better than single-words, and it's good to try to match on homophones as well), but actually integrating the code is not that tough.

So I would encourage you to ignore Amazon. Seriously, you could make this in a weekend in a Google Chrome browser on an Android device that you plug a nice microphone into.

<comment><USER12> I was thinking about making my own as well! I haven't done any research but you'd need a smartphone dock, a good microphone/speaker (wireless microphones/speakers around the house?!?). Better yet, mount a tablet on the wall somewhere convenient/attractive (living room, next to thermostat, etc.) and wire everything behind it.

Change Android settings to always listen when screen is on, then keep screen always on (dims when not active). Voice-controlled App support galore! Google Now! Develop whatever you need/want!

The Echo is a neat idea put into action, but it can be hacked together in a much better way, very easily.

<comment><USER11> I've thought about doing it, but I don't already have the devices in my home that are capable of being automated and I've got enough money dumped into projects that required bits like this that I never finished as it is.

I would, however, be interested in trying to create a room simulator. I did work on living space automation for a while, a few years ago (specifically for hotels, not homes). One of the most difficult parts of designing good user experiences was the lack of ability to rapidly test, due to the need to setup a ton of devices, associate them together, maybe even flash them with new ROMs. You could get in two, maybe three tests as day, if you were really cooking. I wanted to be able to test as fast as I could compile code, you know, like I had gotten used to in every other software project I had ever worked on. But electrical engineers work with primitive tools and seem to like it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't every single early access or developer agreement from Apple just as restrictive in wording?

I'd say sign it and start developing.

Either the product will reach critical mass and the NDA will be much more loosely enforced, or it will fail and the NDA won't matter. With big companies you'll always have to sign something like this to get into their walled garden. Try not to let it get in your way.

<comment><USER14> As of this last year's WWDC I think Apple is finally backing down on that. None of the presentations carried the usual alert to not share what you have seen in there and they have started (slowly) opening new OS X and iOS betas to the public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd probably think about returning the device, if I were you. Keeping an API closed is their decision, and they can build proper authentication around it if they want to, but keeping all knowledge of the API behind bars is a bit excessive.

<comment><USER2> Not in the short term. They want to limit exposure, and probably collect feedback and make changes before throwing it out to everyone.

There are version guarantee considerations to make.

Also, having told my current company this, people will find the API and expose it anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think this is too bad until the official release. Amazon probably doesn't want public discussions about unfinished products.

</comment><comment><USER17> Unsurprising. Personally, I won't have an Echo in my home, and I wouldn't really feel comfortable around one in someone else's - I wouldn't sign up for the dev program or the NDA for same. :)

</comment><comment><USER18> This NDA has no expiration, neither date nor conditions. You're arguably bound by it after the API is public. Yuck.

<comment><USER19> that's not how NDAs work publicly available information can be talked about. you may be held to any constraints in the NDA associated with disparaging comments -- but about the actual information -- public is public

<comment><USER18> To be fair, the agreement is clear that it only applies to 'confidential information' as opposed to reviews or things you create (and as opposed to feedback "provided to Amazon", which they own).

But 'confidential information' is not defined in the agreement, and without expiration, I'd still be nervous. Perhaps I overworry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Once the SDK is publicly available, putting your code on Github should be fine. I work for the Echo team and we want to engage hackers and open source and create a community around the product. But right now the API is a work in progress and we don't want to build too much hype around it until we are confident that we've got it down right.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wouldn't fight it, but I wouldn't sign it either. I won't develop for a platform with that level of restriction.

</comment><comment><USER22> I can't wait to get my Echo. All I want is for the wake up word to be "computer". Is that so much to ask?

<comment><USER23> That is not too much to ask. I support you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is how they rolled out the Kindle SDK. That app platform was a flop, but I'm sure there were a number of contributing factors.

</comment><comment><USER25> sign the nda and don't disclose your work until the api is made public. this is really not a big deal.</comment>


PirateProxyList – Online Status of Various Pirate Proxy Services - <AUTHOR> https://pirateproxylist.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm really worried that our current trackers are just a few single points of failure and we're at risk of losing (or at least greatly complicating) content discovery in torrent. What do you think about the idea of compiling all of the torrent files currently in circulation and sharing the collection over webtorrent, enabling self-hosted torrent search engines for everyone?

<comment><USER3> But then, how will torrent indexers receive their ad revenue? That's why torrent indexers never release dumps.

Also for future reference, there's a difference between a tracker and an index. Trackers connect a peer to other peers with the same torrent, whereas an index just lists torrents. I'm not saying this to nitpick, but because it can get really confusing if you don't know the difference.

<comment><USER2> You're right, I meant indexers.

As for why they don't do that, I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "legal reasons" or "lack of resources". "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by lack of time"?</comment></comment></comment>


'Reined-In' N.S.A. Still Collected 151M Phone Records in 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/us/politics/nsa-phone-records.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Saying that the NSA is "reined in" is a joke:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14222114](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14222114)

</comment><comment><USER3> There is nothing in the world that would ever make me believe they weren't spying as much as possible on everyone they could.

What humans could resist such enormous power?

<comment><USER4> Morally good ones?

<comment><USER5> "Morally good" is dependent on perspective. I'm sure there are patriotic, moral NSA workers who believe that they are helping make America safe, and that it is morally better to lie to Americans and save their lives, than to tell them the truth and let Americans die.

Of course, I'd disagree with that entirely -- there's no way of knowing how effective the NSA program is at stopping terrorism and no way to know that it's not being used for nefarious purposes... but the idea that there is a moral "good" and a moral "bad" ignores the nuance inherent in making such judgments.

<comment><USER6> > "Morally good" is dependent on perspective.

Yes, and? A computer stuck in a loop also is working perfectly fine "according to its own logic or perspective". That is its perspective, just like the moral judgement of others is their perspective. This does not lessen my own perspective and judgement one iota, and changing adjectives doesn't really help. That is, I wouldn't have said "morally good ones", I would have said people who weren't abused to created an bottomless hole in their mind. But what is abuse? What is a hole? A matter of perspective, and it's not like I can point to any results of my own ideals and actions other than the heat death of the universe... so who's to judge? I am, and you are, and then we simply append "IMO" to everything when someone forgets to explicitly mention it.

Also, yes, sometimes people are thinking they are helping others. Sometimes they are not, and sometimes they revel in that. Are you sure those don't exist? Why do you just mention people who mean well? That's fantasy, not nuance. Where are the lines between those people, and people who hear voices telling them they need to murder babies to avoid some space monster from eating Earth, and from people who know they are hurting and destroying people, but are convinced they deserve it, who have an inner reservoir of fear and pain that, in their mind, dwarves the lives of anybody else who ever existed? And even all that is not even beginning to touch _nuance_.

When someone implies _everybody_ would be tempted by power, that's lacking nuance, too, and even just going "nah, I personally disagree" does restore some of it, any further qualifiers are a bonus. I agree that "this is evil" does not carry very much information, but neither does "some might mean well". Not well enough to stop the ones who don't mean well, so let those take a number. It takes one bad apple, and a lot of good apples who don't have hands or suck at throwing, to spoil the whole damn barrel.

<comment><USER7> I think trendia's point is not that those people are correct, but that people are influenced by their surroundings; that it is the orgsmizstion we must change, not the people in it.

<comment><USER6> Though if you subtract the working people for it from an organization, what remains? Not that I disagree, in the same sense that it's too easy to solely blame soldiers for the wars civilians enable politicians to send them into. Of course the folks at the NSA didn't wake up one morning and just decided to be a bit too creepy on their own.

But at the same time, no person is a completely passive receptacle for the social pressures of elusive active people, to a degree everybody is responsible for what they take part in. Otherwise, anything/anyone you could point to in criticism and for the purpose of changing any organization could in turn say "don't change me, change my environment", in an endless circle. But it's all made up of people in the end, so why not everybody own their own shit right away? Free will might be pretense anyway, so why not go the full mile.

Many things are also gradual processes, and often kind of a feedback loop. In this case I think it's safe to assume anyone who mentions during the interview they'd proudly blow the whistle on any seriously evil stuff they happen to come across, if the official path through superiors gets blocked, would not get hired. Can this be fixed iteratively, or would it make more sense to make a whole new set of organizations, attracting people from wholly different buckets of the population, and once those are up to speed turn the old ones off? Not super realistic, but maybe still more realistic than waiting for people who are entrenched and off the deep end, with a full support network and lots of bucks on the line.. they seem to get worse, not better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Again, please understand that the NSA uses a non-English definition of the word "collect".

The NSA calls getting data and copying data to its datacenters "interception".

It calls having a human NSA employee read that data, "collection". 99.999% of the data it copies to its datacenters is not "collected".

The NSA copies all your phone calls and emails and web browsing and so on. ALL. It only reads some of them. Each of these articles is always written about one particular narrow NSA program, ignoring other very-similar programs, in order to minimize the apparent spying going on. For this article, the 151M records being talked about are one tiny program to query telephone call records generated by US phone companies. This is like 0.01% of what the NSA pays attention to. The NSA is already intercepting the full call anyway! But that's a different program...

<comment><USER9> The distinction does make sense though. If an intercept is taken, never looked at, and eventually deleted, then from a 'privacy violation' point of view it may as well not have been collected at all.

But these still need to be intercepted in the first place, because you don't know in advance which of the 0.01% of records are of interest.

<comment><USER10> From a privacy standpoint, the fact that they make a copy of your data is alarming, as this multiplies the attack surface for your data.

Also, all the data is "looked at". Sure, not by a human, but if the algorithmn can flag you as a terrorist and then humans look through the data, what's the difference.

You also seem to be under the impression that they delete the data once they're done. But why would they ever delete that copy of your data unless they need the space for something else? They never will, and that's why they're building a huge datacenter in Utah, to store EVERYTHING INDEFINITELY.

As to your last point, I'll flip the table: if only 0.01% of the records are interesting and only 0.01% of those records lead to any meaningful insight into terrorist activities, why should we continue these programs knowing that they are, on average, 99.999% ineffective?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "The N.S.A. took in the 151 million records despite obtaining court orders to use the system on only 42 terrorism suspects in 2016, along with a few left over from late 2015, the report said."

Needle meet haystack. I wonder.how.many were actually brought up on charges?

<comment><USER12> Not to defend the NSA on ethical grounds, but at least on practical grounds, I would personally find that many records to be a decent trade-off for 42 arrested and convicted suspects _who were likely to commit violent acts at some point_. As for whether that's the case, who knows.

<comment><USER13> "Those who would trade their freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."

"Likely to commit crimes" is not just grounds, _especially under the US constitution_ , to remove a citizen's constitutional rights.

'What signify a few lives lost in a century? The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'

Just so you are aware, clever tyrants always have taken liberties from their subjects in the name of moral righteousness.

The people who established the concept of unalienable constitutional rights here in America were accustomed to the idea that a few lives lost lost in the process of was unavoidable.

<comment><USER12> I don't want the NSA accessing data like this without a warrant, but their job needs to get done somehow and by someone. Ideally with a lot more oversight, but calls to outright disband the organization are shortsighted.

I'm also thinking long-long term. Terrorism isn't a seriously considerable risk to an individual American, but what about in 50 or 100 years? What if in the distant future, terrorist groups or weird death cults like Aum Shinrikyo are able to more easily develop or obtain biological or chemical weapons that can dissipate into a large urban area quickly? What if multiple attacks like that start to occur? We need to have some kind of counter to that.

In terms of pure risk vs. reward trade-off, the current state of affairs isn't really worth it, but it's not hard to envision a future world where terrorism is truly a constant and valid fear in a first world country. That future hypothetical doesn't justify anything NSA does right now, no, but I think it (along with various threats from competing superpowers) does justify the need for some implementation of a security agency and intelligence community in every modern country.

Also, you're kind of mixing up different quotes that aren't really related to the specific issue.

<comment><USER14> In terms of risk, you have a greater chance of being killed by lightning, drowning in the tub, being buried alive, [1] killed by cows, hot tap water, falling down the stairs, dogs, vending machines, bees, texing and driving, swing sets, wind, football, roller coasters, lawn mowers, your bed, [2] being crushed by furniture, or being shot by a toddler.

But by all means, let's spend trillions of dollars (not being hyperbolic here), and take away everyone's constitutional rights.

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely- die-c...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking- be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141) [2] [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us- news/you-re-more-likely-die-c...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re- more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141)

<comment><USER15> The NBC article gets its data from a CATO institute report.[1] In it, they touch upon the problem with extrapolating from previous data: they note that 9/11 accounted for 98% of all foreign terrorist fatalities in the past 40 years. Terror attacks obey a power law where extremely rare events account for most of the deaths. Considering the weaponry that exists today, it's fortunate we haven't had anything worse than 9/11.

Moreover, you're not accounting for the US response to terror attacks. I think we can both agree that the reaction to 9/11 was far more harmful than the attack itself. So if you want to reduce total harm, reducing the likelihood of terror attacks seems like a good idea. If that means collecting 0.1% of phone records and (under judicial oversight) occasionally checking if foreign terrorists are in those call logs... well I'm willing to make that trade-off.

1\. [https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_...](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_1_1.pdf)

<comment><USER13> Thought crime (goes against the wishes of those in power) to say it but its true: reign in the military and CIA, stop bombing and meddling in other countries, close the borders and use the budget to fund a mission to Proxima Centauri.

Anyways did you know 3 buildingd in NYC fells on 9/11? Look into that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't Facebook still doing this? You have to explicitly restrict FB access to your microphone or they will use convos to inform advertising ... or conspiracy theory?

<comment><USER17> They do listen. I believe this is openly on their help pages. They dont store 'raw audio' so must turn this into text or meta data. FB use the information to help identify what you are watching/listening to to help improve your posts... so yeah pretty much going o be used for advertising.

I wonder how many people would remove FB if they knew this. I'm one of the people less bothered by internet advertising (I commented to this about 3 days ago re ad-blocking and cookies) and to me it seems amazing people accept this level of intrusion.

<comment><USER18> Source or it didn't happen

<comment><USER17> "Facebook says explicitly on its help pages that it doesn't record conversations, but that it does use the audio to identify what is happening around the phone. The site promotes the feature as an easy way of identifying what you are listening to or watching, to make it easier and quicker to post about whatever's going on."

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/facebook-using-people-s-phones-to-listen-in-on-what-they-re-saying- claims-professor-a7057526.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >> 151 million records

Does anyone hear seriously believe they only "took in" 151 million of anything? That's a single flashdrive. NSA operates datacenters. The things they collect are measured by numbers well into billions.

<comment><USER20> > The Utah Data Center, also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive > National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center,[1] is a data storage facility > for the United States Intelligence Community that is designed to store data > estimated to be on the order of exabytes or larger.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How many "phone records" (for a similar definition of "phone record") did we produce in 2016? Does anyone know?

<comment><USER22> William Binney (former NSA employee turned critic/whistleblower) in 2013 said there were 3 billion phone calls per day in the US[1]. In 2010 Pew[2] said 82% of adults made an average of 5 phone calls per day (~800 million calls), so 3 billion seems reasonable considering business calls, telemarketers, etc.

151 million in a year out of 365 * 3 billion is pretty small.

1\. [http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/what-do-they-know-about- yo...](http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/what-do-they-know-about-you-an- interview-with-nsa-analyst-william-binney/)

2\. [http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/09/02/cell-phones-and- americ...](http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/09/02/cell-phones-and-american- adults/#uses-of-the-phone-calling-and-texting)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> My opinion regarding the NSA has changed over time. During the Snowden revelations (Snowden is still a hero of mine), I was greatly opposed to foreign spying, e.g. on Petrobras and Angela Merkel.

Over the years I've realized how powerful and important such information is for peaceful diplomacy, and that the United States has a post-WWII responsibility to maintain that peace.

However, the recent debacle regarding potential political spying has vindicated my earliest fears - that this can be used to subvert the domestic democratic process. Doesn't matter whether the spying did or did not occur (probably both sides are stretching the truth). We're living in an age where it is at least conceivable by a large portion of the country that the NSA's tools were improperly used against US citizens. It's time for a vigorous debate on clear guidelines regarding these powers.

</comment><comment><USER24> Hmm...

My first thought was that 151M call records is not a significant amount considering that we're talking about the population of the United States.

Rough calculations based on some very round numbers is that this would account for between .019 and .033 percent of the adult US population. (~150M call records/year ~= 50-80,000 people, US Adult Population ~ 242,470,800)

Extrapolated, that number is a little concerning. By my estimate, that means between 2 and 3 of every 10K people is under some sort of surveillance.

But then again... apply that to say... San Francisco - population ~900K and you get between 180 and 270 people. Or NYC with 1.7M people and you get between 340 and 510 people.

</comment><comment><USER25> 151 million records sounds like a very, very low number of phone records for US. Suspiciously low, in fact. I would expect that amount to come out from the records of the domestic surveillance organisations of Luxembourg.

<comment><USER26> Almost definitely because that's the number of records inspected directly by a human, not the number that are stored, or the number that are inspected by algorithms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Just to try and think through the situation:

I don't use the phone particularly a lot, and I probably make 1 call per day on average. So I make 365 calls a year. Let's say 350 to round.

There are about 200,000,000 US adults.

So if everyone makes as many calls as me, that's 70,000,000,000 calls a year. Each call should generate two book-keeping entries at the carriers -- so ~150 billion records a year. (Note: pure supposition this is what they mean by 'record', but phone carriers giving them a metadata firehose _seems_ consistent with what we know.)

So, we're talking 0.1% (and quite possibly less) of the phone calls?

Ya know, I'm probably okay with that level of snooping on metadata from a spy agency (especially if they're not sharing the data with domestic agencies for domestic cases).

Ed:

I'm likely off by being at least an order of magnitude too low -- divide all my estimates of people targeted by 10 or so.

<comment><USER28> It's not a random sample of 0.1% of calls, though. Rather, they're collecting _all_ the call metadata of a small fraction of _subscribers_ ; the number of people targeted may be relatively small (though not small in absolute terms), but each person targeted has their privacy significantly invaded, as the NSA learns quite a lot about their life. And to be targeted, you only have to have once talked to someone for whom the NSA has a "reasonable suspicion" they might be involved in terrorism. No need to do anything suspicious yourself.

<comment><USER27> Yes, I'm aware.

But we're talking... one in a thousand people, likely targeting mostly those involved heavily with international relationships.

Even if you confine it to the Arab population, they're still not tapping everyone (closer to 1 in 6, if it were all Arab targets, which is unlikely). If you confine it to immigrants, it's 1 in 200. This suggests that they're using some actual basis for their selection (as you seem to be aware).

It's unfortunate, but _if_ they're collecting metadata for network analysis and _if_ their selection criteria is that it's foreign related (and preferably tracing back to known networks), then it doesn't really strike me as a problem.

Also, your last line isn't true -- talking to someone who is strongly suspected of being a terrorist _is_ suspicious until analysis reveals the nature of the relationship, particularly if you go on to contact others.

I suspect that people who only ping once (or even very intermittently) are quickly pruned as not being useful to observe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Vatican Shadow is an artist that makes music about the War on Terror. I would recommend "Remeber Your Black Day" or "Death Is Unity With God".

It's a spiritual continuation of the work of the deceased UK artist Muslimgauze who's released 90+ releases so far, and who has dedicated over half his short life to making music to protest the Israel-Palestine conflict. There are still quarterly+ releases of his work 18 years after his death because he left a huge back catalog of unreleased work. At his peak he was making an album a day, and if you gave him something to listen to he'd return you an "improved version" the next day.

Muzlimgauze's intent was to call attention to, and make people read about the Israel-Palestine conflict; I think Vatican Shadow has a similar intention.

</comment><comment><USER30> What is a call record, and who gets to define what it is?

When data changes my gut reaction is "better or worse reporting until shown otherwise", and "what are they counting?"

</comment><comment><USER31> Yeah yeah the NSA data mines everyone and their dog. Welcome to 2013. Now why doesn't the NYT investigate what other illegal skullduggery the NSA and its 16 sister agencies are involved in? Wasn't there a massive leak of intel agency info to Wikileaks a few months ago? Oh yeah I forgot...the NYT, along with the rest of the mainstream media, act as neoliberalism's propaganda department and are about as interested in truth and honesty as, say, Donald Trump.

<comment><USER2> > _Yeah yeah the NSA data mines everyone and their dog. Welcome to 2013. Now > why doesn 't the NYT investigate ..._

2005.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us- spy-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on- callers-without-courts.html)

<comment><USER26> 1988...

[http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/newstatesman/n...](http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/newstatesman/newstatesman-1988/They've%20got%20it%20taped.pdf)</comment></comment></comment>


Dolphins have been observed chattering while cooperating to solve a puzzle - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084557-dolphins-have-a-language-that-helps-them-solve-problems-together/ <comment> david-given I don't see any indication that the chatter contains information related to solving the puzzle rather than, say, simply expressing their emotional state. There are plenty of animals which mutter to themselves while thinking --- humans included!

The obvious experiment here is to have two groups of dolphins positioned so that they can hear each other but not see each other; give one the puzzle, and then, later, give the other the same puzzle. If the second group solves it consistently faster than the first one then probably information is being transferred. (Although it could just be that the second group is more motivated after hearing the first group get excited about something.)

Actually arranging an ethical but meaningful experiment with bottlenose dolphins, which are quite big and are highly opinionated, is left as an exercise for the reader...

<comment><USER2> The evidence that they are using a complex "language" is definitely weak. For example, how does it prove that they aren't simply saying, "Hey, hey!" to each other like the Far Side cartoon[0]? I would have preferred more interpretation of the different noises the dolphins make over the fact that they are making them in the first place.

[0] [https://pupster.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/dog- translator.j...](https://pupster.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/dog- translator.jpg)

<comment><USER3> They same way we are almost certain that the Voynich manuscript contains an undeciphered written language, by applying a combination of information theory, computational linguistics, and statistics.

<comment><USER4> It's probably more informative than "Hey! Hey!", but it's not clear that it rises to the level of language, as opposed to communication.

To be precise: not all communication is language, language involves grammar, which hasn't (yet) been conclusively demonstrated in any other species.

Source: was a neuroscientist who TAed for a guy who tried to teach a chimp language in the 70's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> TL;DR:

      - They gave a puzzle to 24 couples of dolphins.
      - In order to solve it they had to cooperate.
      - Out of those 24 dolphins only 1 couple made it.
      - This couple was making more noises than the rest.

Conclusion: Dolphins were brainstorming on how to solve the puzzle.

My impression: WTF new scientist, WTF...

<comment><USER6> > \- They gave a puzzle to 24 couples of dolphins.

> \- Out of those 24 dolphins only 1 couple made it.

No, they gave the puzzle 24 times to 6 pairs of dolphins. One pair got it each time, although 4 times a single dolphin from the pair managed to get it own its own.

I would really like to read the paper. Did they get better in time? Did the one dolphin figured it out on its own before or after he figured it out with his pal? Why was he even able to pull it off on its own anyway?

<comment><USER5> LOL It's not even that :) I reread it again and it is so confusing! It looks like they repeated the puzzle 24 times in a swimming pool with 6 dolphins, only 2 dolphins ever managed to solve it once

"The team conducted 24 canister trials, during which all six dolphins were present. Only two of the dolphins ever managed to crack the puzzle and get to the food."

<comment><USER7> Clearly this was a pod of dolphin managers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> awinter-py I think we'd learn more about dolphin communication by generating tasks that require a human and dolphin to collaborate in the water; the task should be novel for both subjects.

As things are we seldom let the dolphin 'lead' the task; but these animals are highly adapted to the water. With a human-dolphin pair, the dolphin would be in the position of using its superior knowledge of the environment (sonar) to direct the human's superior ability to manipulate objects (hands). For example, how would a human-dolphin pair collaborate in a pitch-black cave?

Dogs are very good at manipulating human behavior; the party line is that wolves have better problem solving in general but dogs are better when there's a human in the room. Dolphins don't have the benefit of coevolution that dogs do, but they're smart and social; I bet they could figure us out.

</comment><comment><USER8> They say it's conclusive evidence of useful communication. I say it's just compelling evidence.

Still cool and exciting though!

</comment><comment><USER9> I remember seeing a video about chimpanzees collaborating to untie ropes. What surprised me wasn't the team problem solving, it's the speed and impliciteness. Each just poked at one side of the problem, got stuck, the got closer, somehow agreed on something then synchronized their actions so the rope would open the food gate.

<comment><USER10> Interesting. Some, including the developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello[0], who's written extensively on first language acquisition, would say that the ability to share attention is central to human language.

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

<comment><USER9> Very interesting name. Have been trying to find similar research. Thanks a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When those human skin bags give us these puzzles, they seem to make unintelligible noises, albeit slowly.. Perhaps we can figure out how to talk to them if we can stop doing simple puzzles only to show that we have working minds and languages. /dolphin (to other dolphin)

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder how dolphins and other animals would react to a VR headset and virtual hands? With an interface tailored to actions we could gauge their language capabilities without the need to understand the sounds. I wonder what dolphin VR CoD would look like.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't know anything about animal (verbal) language. But I'm curious if there are any animals whose apparent language is advanced enough that zoologists may believe that the animals have a conceptual language similar to ours.

If so, I wonder if ML algorithms have ever been applied to decode the languages? I suppose collecting the data may be hard, but it feels like ML may better suited to predict/decode the language than qualitative observations by humans? e.g. what if communication happened more via power than frequency?

<comment><USER14> Google the prairie dogs language observations.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, Dr. Slobodchikoff, while indeed having a PhD, is not actually a linguist, and most of his papers are in other fields. Here's a pretty good assessment of his prairie dog claims: [https://badlinguistics.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/hold-the- fro...](https://badlinguistics.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/hold-the-front-page- prairie-dogs-still-dont-h/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if this could be used to decode dolphin language. Have the dolphins separate and make the puzzle require communicating about images on a screen or something. The other dolphin would have to push the correct button to get the prize. Recording all of these interactions could be used for machine translation maybe.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Scientific American wants permission to send you notifications". Came on a bit strong there guys, at least let me browse a couple of pages and tell me what the notifications might be...

</comment><comment><USER17> It's suggestive, given what we already suspect about dolphins, but it's "EVIDENCE" of precisely bupkis.

</comment><comment><USER18> "We find animals doing things that we, in our arrogance, used to think was 'just human'." - Jane Goodall

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe they're deciding how many humans they should spare in the upcoming war.

I imagine the puzzles garner little sympathy.</comment>


The Dimensional Ladder - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/hda/dimensional_ladder.html

<comment><USER2> The original link looks like a scratchpad/notes page to me.

For insight into John Baez's ideas around this time, try the slides from this colloquium: [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/quantum_spacetime/](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/quantum_spacetime/)

([http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/quantum_spacetime/qs.pdf](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/quantum_spacetime/qs.pdf))

Urs Schreiber currently is at the forefront of where this line of mathematics ties in with fundamental physics. Here is a series he has started recently:

[https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/20-years-ago- today-m-...](https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/20-years-ago-today-m- theory-conjecture/)

Baez's higher dimensional algebra program formed a large part of the heritage to these ideas.

</comment><comment><USER3> These are particularly terse lecture/review notes. Is there an expanded version?</comment>


The Next Big Thing - <AUTHOR> http://wcarss.blogspot.com/2010/08/next-big-thing.html

<comment><USER2> "Persistence" - you know, while I find the other comments here pretty funny (ley lines, haha!), I sat up and said "yeah" when I got to persistence. That's a good insight - right now, our lives and data are all balkanized between devices, between services, and so forth. Something to tie things together is an obvious next step.

</comment><comment><USER3> I found this article to be completely unintelligible. It was about as reasonable as a horoscope.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've re-read my article several times now, because your comment (particularly its score) has made it clear that I must improve. For that, though, I need more feedback. Do you mean that the logic isn't good, that the language isn't good, or both?

The heart of the article is the expectation that whoever can bring a complete, seamless experience to the mobile platform will be the big winner through the next few years, and that they will probably be a large incumbent.

All the rest is meant to be framing for the conversation. Not tools for prediction, but for explanation.

Please, if you can express what I need to fix to make this article better than "gibberish" or "unintelligible", let me know, because I want to be capable of expressing my thoughts. I want to improve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I'm reading this correctly, the implication is that social and mobile applications have been (or will soon be) exhausted. I disagree, I think there's a lot of space left for innovation, though it will be hard to displace entrenched companies at this point.

As far as the 'next big thing' goes, do you think that there is any space for a small hardware company anymore? You suggest that the next trend is new form- factors/hardware, and at this point, the companies that would do well at that are those with deep pockets for R&D.

</comment><comment><USER5> Definitely agree about the fact that seamless integration between devices/having a centralized global profile will be the next big thing. It's something that can increase the usefulness of other products and that if well executed have a huge market imo. Every time i think about this i always remember this old Intel video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrzeiUvDZog>

</comment><comment><USER6> _a "pattern" of 2 big, 2 little seems to have emerged_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line></comment>


"Real" Online Bookstore - Start-up with amazing javascript - <AUTHOR> http://zoomii.com/ <comment><USER2> Hi, I'm the creator of Zoomii. I've been (mostly) lurking on Hacker News for some time now.

Thanks for the feedback. It is very slow on FF3 right now, due I think to its slow scaled-image rendering and tossing of uncompressed image data whenever leaving the tab. But it looks like using a CANVAS will actually make FF3 the fastest browser for Zoomii. Working on it. Hope to deploy that today.

<comment><USER2> I'm happy to say the problem is Fixed. FF3 is nice and fast now. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> While a really nice idea, it's inefficient and won't work. Time has proven over and over that technology requires a different perspective, and what we're used to doesn't always work. From the first attempts at flight by creating artificial wings and flapping them up and down to sowing machines that attempted to thread a needle through one side of a cloth and out the other, science has shown that what we're used just doesn't always translate to success in the machine world.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's unbelievably pleasant to browse the bookshelves with zoomii! We'll see more star interaction designers like these guys in the future.

</comment><comment><USER5> I suggest making the individual book targets inaccessible when you zoom out. At some levels I can't even read them yet clicking on them brings up a detailed box that covers everything else. You could just do a human readable thumbnail in a corner. Alternatively, you could make a click in certain level zoom into that genre of books.

It would also be nice to have a drop down list of categories that could get me to the correct area quickly. This would me like those signs that some stores have posted on the ceiling in the various sections (i.e. Reference, Fiction, Bestsellers...).

The zoom out/in method is not generally how I browse my local Borders. It makes me think about going to look at one book and then running up the stairs and staring down to find the next book I want to check out :).

<comment><USER2> Yes, the zoomed-out behaviour isn't quite right yet. I'm thinking of doing overlays which show you the category areas when more zoomed-out.

There is a category navigation panel, actually. The link to it is at the top- left.

And you can get from shelf to shelf very smoothly by clicking on the arrows just below the individual shelf titles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a very cool concept but as noted on the website itself: painfully (unusable) slow in ff3. I would seriously "peruse" a virtual bookshelf of rare programming books for hours.. well minutes. but still that is a LOT of time in 2008.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure the premise makes sense. Why try to mimic the thing that bookstores are already good at (physical presence, browsing books)?

It's a neat demo, but I'm not sure why I'd use this over Amazon, even if it was really smooth.

<comment><USER8> >Why try to mimic the thing that bookstores are already good at (physical presence, browsing books)?

I think you just answered your own question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really like it :)

I read the other comments before looking at your site and initially agreed with comatose_kid. I still think if I were looking for a specific item, or buying lots of items than I would prefer to use amazon's interface directly. However for "I think I'll buy a book to read over the weekend but don't know what" browsing I quite like it.

Suggestion: The navigation/search/shopping basket box on the top left takes up space and interrupts browsing (imho). Have you considered putting it in a bar going across the whole page, or alternatively adding a minimize/maximize button to it?

<comment><USER2> I like your suggestion of making the nav box minimizable. That could reduce the actions to just icons, taking up very little space. A bar across the top would be nice too, but I have other plans for that space... :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What about a Netflix-style pop-up for the books, instead of that big window? You can really fit all the info you need in one of those, and it would interrupt the browsing experience less.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is awesome. Well done. Really cool idea.

</comment><comment><USER10> Good concept. Navigation is slow though. You have to keep going back up to the corner and down to books. Having automatic side scrolling would make it incredibly easier.

<comment><USER2> Actually, there is just that. :) Arrows below the titles on the individual shelves will take you to the next and previous shelves.

It seems they're not quite obvious enough yet, though. Maybe it's time to make them uglier.

<comment><USER10> I was thinking get rid of them and make it automatic. As your mouse gets over near the side of the screen, the bookcase start scrolling sideways, like you've started walking down the aisle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can actually see a viable business from this (in my head of course, the business plan is different). Great job.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nice job on the write-up in RWW.

</comment><comment><USER12> Too slow to be useful IMHO</comment>


An Independent Assessment of the Human Rights Impact of Facebook in Myanmar - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ <comment><USER2> Unfortunately the report itself uses diplomatic language which can be hard to parse. For example:

 _BSR also notes that the recent action to remove senior military officials from Facebook has a material impact on Facebook's ability to implement some of BSR's recommendations, especially those that relate to activities undertaken inside Myanmar._

I take this to mean, "Facebook's attempt to punish Myanmar's military leaders has infuriated the government and its supporters, and this blowback has made it harder for Facebook to protect the rights of the Rohingya minority."

<comment><USER3> _Unfortunately the report itself uses diplomatic language which can be hard to parse._

Which is, of course, central to the very purpose of the report.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A (possibly dumb) question which might not have an exact answer:

Facebook is always asked to stop the divisive nature and curb the misuse of the platform. As a techie, we all know how hard it is. A problem made even more complex by different places, regions, cultures, languages, norms, customs and so on. Facebook has been accepting of its mistakes and defensive. A real drawback is that they are using the same language of curbing/stopping as the ones used by the media outlets.

Question is: What if someone flips the algorithm to show positive news only or show feed not based on interest (to drive engagement) but based on what relaxes a person. Especially in sensitive regions like these? Facebook would end up losing more users, by the very nature of humans who would find another medium to do what they are currently doing. So, this will not be a permanent solution, but would make the separatist people find other ways.

I get this does not curb fake news. But what this can do is stop taking people on the roller coaster of emotions, especially in sensitive areas. When people are emotional, they do not care about the opposite viewpoint, or even how radical their actions could be.

If this is dumb, please tell me. If not, why are people not talking about it?

<comment><USER5> Michael Moore discussed TV news in Bowling for Columbine: scary news glues eyeballs to TV sets, and glued eyeballs are better for ads. So probably by accident Facebook ended up with the same system. Not just scary, I'd wager emotional stuff drives up engagement (imagine a political argument of people screaming "YOU'RE WRONG!") , and Mark and Jack could probably hear the kaching of those ad views.

Also how screwed up is the media landscape in the USA. Political news, and then ads for political candidates. In 2008 the media kept blaring about the "tight race" between Obama and Clinton, and then later on between Obama and McCain. Hmm, were they being honest or did they want to keep eyeballs glued to sell ads? Also political ads?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _As part of that commitment, we commissioned an independent human rights impact assessment on the role of our services in Myanmar and today we are publishing the findings._

An entity paid by FB to investigate its misconduct is, by definition, not "independent".

<comment><USER6> Who exactly should fund the investigation?

<comment><USER3> Crowd funding, contributions from news organizations, etc.

The ICIJ is probably a good model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reads like what has become the standard Facebook PR response: they claim to be committed to improvement, but will ultimately do nothing actually effective. On the one hand, because it is excruciatingly difficult in what is relevant, and on the other hand, because they won't ever come close to harm their business in what is actually feasible.

</comment><comment><USER8> "...we commissioned an independent human rights impact assessment ..."

Once commissioned I would say they are no longer independent?

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow. I did a Ctrl+F, and not once the words 'Rohingya' or 'genocide' or even 'murder' is mentioned. Amazing.

<comment><USER10> When a document or its derivatives are intended to be read and accepted by all sides of a conflict, neutral language is a necessity. It's ugly, but without neutral wording representatives of the Myanmar government likely won't even read past the first paragraph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Beyond blocking misuse of the platform... is there some news feed algorithm that would maximize the spread of human rights?

Should fb actively promote stories about real humanitarian crises? Should they promote stories of integration in ares with mounting tensions?

<comment><USER11> I'll take that as a no?

I don't have a strong position, just that it would at least an interesting engineering challenge.

AB testing human flourishing...

Would be a bit like the Foundation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> When we look at China: banning Western social media platforms and promoting their own... Maybe their are good reasons for doing so. In this case, better policing of the platform...

<comment><USER13> This is somewhat a reason that although a lot of educated Chinese people might not totally agree with the policy of the government , they understand the reason behind the strict media control. However their different altitude from average westerners are misinterpreted as: 1.They are brainwashed by government propaganda, or 2.They don't understand the value of free speech , or 3.They are too nationalistic (That's partially true. Eastern Asian are generally more nationalistic than other nationals except average Americans).

There are other countries adopt similar policies which also lead to success: Singapore, Rwanda. Unfortunately few people want to debate the dark side of free speech because of political correctness. Nowadays there are already some brave voices debating about intelligence vs ethnicity. Hopefully the debate can extend to other topic such as different nations/cultures/populations have different levels of rationality and immune to fake news quite differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Facebook will always present itself as your 'friend', even if you are a victim of genocide.

</comment><comment><USER15> So, the answer is more censorship on Facebook?

<comment><USER16> Just so we're clear -- you're arguing _against_ Facebook taking actions and removing posts that the government used to foment ethnic hatred and to carry out an actual genocide?

The bizarre devotion to 'free speech' on a social media site over people literally being murdered is incredible to me.

Facebook had an opportunity to stop the Myanmar equivalent to the Rwandan RTLM and failed miserably, which cost thousands of people their lives and tens of thousands of people their homes. _Why didn 't the Tutsis just start their own radio station?!_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Télévision_Libre_des_Mil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Télévision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines)</comment></comment>


Félix de Azara: Drawn from Life - <AUTHOR> https://jhiblog.org/2016/06/29/felix-de-azara-drawn-from-life/ <comment><USER2> That bird drawing is the most beautiful thing I've seen today.

[https://blogjhi.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/3-azaras- bird.pn...](https://blogjhi.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/3-azaras-bird.png)

<comment><USER3> Glad to share it with you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Charged by the Spanish army with the task of drawing maps of the Spanish and Portuguese territories in the Río de la Plata region of what is now Paraguay and Brazil"

Río de la Plata was never what is now Paraguay or Brazil, but what is now Argentina and Uruguay. I suspect the river in question must be the Paraná, not the Río de la Plata.

<comment><USER5> I think the OP is correct; the Portuguese crown had designs on the Rio de la Plata region in the late 17th century. For instance, they founded this city in present day Uruguay, opposite Buenos Aires:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_del_Sacramento#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_del_Sacramento#History)

Edit: seems that you might be right in that potentially the post mixes up Paraguay with Uruguay, though. I guess it depends on what we mean by "Rio de la Plata region." In 18th century geography, those kinds of boundaries are a lot hazier.

<comment><USER3> I agree that international boundaries were blurrier then - to solidify them was the purpose of Azara's whole mission - and I should have been more specific about the modern locations to which I was referring. I think the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata)) might have made that particular name apply to a broader region then than it does now. As for Azara, he started his stay in South America mostly in Buenos Aires, but then spent the bulk of his time in Asunción, traveling from there to the Brazilian border that he was supposed to demarcate only to be met with lack of cooperation from the Portuguese. For a more comprehensive biography, this is the best I've found online: [http://www.fundacionazara.org.ar/ingles/felix- azara.html](http://www.fundacionazara.org.ar/ingles/felix-azara.html). Many thanks to you both for taking the time to read and comment!</comment></comment></comment>


An open-source alternative to QT for embedded devices - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/WebPlatformForEmbedded <comment><USER2> Qt lets me bind the interface to the actual hardware. How would Webkit/WPE let me do that?

<comment><USER3> What does that mean exactly?

<comment><USER2> How do I talk to a serial port, CANbus driver, or GPIO registers on the target hardware? Can I read values directly from the SoC ports? Do I have filesystem access?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What does it do? Is there a documentation link?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's webkit port for embbedded devices. You can find more information on this site [https://webkit.org/wpe/](https://webkit.org/wpe/).

<comment><USER2> I'm curious how they define 'low-end device' here if it needs a javascript interpreter to run.

Watching the presentation at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27o_f_b1U3Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27o_f_b1U3Q), it looks more like they're focused on making things like media players and settop boxes than, say, an IoT thermostat. And you'll need a Cortex-A class device or greater running Linux.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which startups will expand internationally in the next 1-2 years? - <AUTHOR> And of those, which regions do you think they will try to tackle first? <comment><USER2> I guess [https://deepart.io/](https://deepart.io/) has a chance , considering how populer ios app prisma is becoming.

They launched earlier than prisma , but didn't have mobile app, thus didn't get viral even if they are more advanced than prisma.

</comment><comment><USER3> ViriCiti just announced expansion plans in the US & EU > [https://startupjuncture.com/2016/07/14/viriciti-funding- eur7...](https://startupjuncture.com/2016/07/14/viriciti-funding-eur700k/)

</comment><comment><USER4> My educated guess states teletext.io it's just to good not to become big.</comment>


How we nearly lost our domain, and how to prevent this - <AUTHOR> http://www.jitbit.com/news/198-how-we-nearly-lost-our-domain-and-how-you-can-prevent-this/ <comment><USER2> Another experience with NameCheap. It was April 2014. I got a domain expiry notification mail from them. I just saw that subject. The date mentioned was 4/6/2014\. I am lazy and procrastinate a lot. So I saw the subject and decided that I'll renew later as I have two more months. On 6th April I got the message that my domain expired. Then I realized it was not Jun 4th as I originally thought. Not only the domain was expired, all the config details were lost. Luckily it was only entries pointing to Linode. So I quickly renewed the domain and added the entries. Still there was a considerable downtime and panic. I think companies which operate internationally should use unambiguous date formats. (Even if I had opened the email, I wouldn't have interpreted the date in any other way. It was the same format everywhere. I did give a feedback to them. Not sure whether they changed it or not).

<comment><USER3> US date format deserves a special place in hell under any circumstances.

<comment><USER4> Seriously. It's the best here in Canada where there is no consistent convention between Euro-style or US-style dates. Officially Canada uses Euro- style dates, but we're so intertwined with the USA that it's basically random.

yyyy-MM-dd or die.

<comment><USER5> It's definitely random.

I remember having to fill a Canadian form (govt.) that had three date formats(in the same form), i.e.:

dd-mm-yy

mm-dd-yy

yy-mm-dd

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Remember when ICANN used to not care about these things and we'd ask for better enforcement of? Look, now they have.

If you've registered a domain name you should get an email every year like clockwork saying to verify the information or you may lose the domain. It takes 10 seconds to do a whois query. If you have more than a few dozen domains then it is a business, treat it like one. The IRS or HMRC doesn't care you didn't receive their notice. They'll fine you the same as if you ignored it intentionally. ICANN is in the DNS version of them. Ignore them at your own peril.

And $DEITY help you if you are using a DNS anonymizer. You are begging to get your name highjacked.

<comment><USER7> 'DNS anonymizer' \- is that the same thing as a whois privacy service?

<comment><USER8> And if it is - any recommendations for protecting your privacy whilst also securely owning your domain?

<comment><USER9> 1\. If possible, use a whois privacy service that keeps your full name exposed and only hides your contact info. This removes much uncertainty about your actual ownership of the domain. Gandi.net does this. Internet.bs also has an option to do this, although I'm still not sure if I want to trust them at all. NameCheap and GoDaddy hide everything, as do most of the other similar services.

2\. When you sign up with a whois privacy service, thoroughly test the email address that they put in the whois on your behalf. It should reliably forward all non-spam to your real email address, including ICANN notices and any email that you might need to check if you ever decide to transfer away.

Many registrars/webhosts are abysmal at managing their mail servers, so any mail that transits through them might go straight into your Spam folder or even disappear into thin air. Both Gandi.net and NameCheap are OK in this regard, though sometimes the emails are delayed by a few minutes. Avoid any company that puts more emphasis on webhosting than on domain registration.

3\. Some registries hide your contact info by default, so there is no need for whois privacy. If you're okay with unusual TLDs, try finding out what their policies are and whether you meet their requirements.

For example, as a citizen of South Korea, I am able to register .kr domains without exposing my mailing address or phone number, but I can't hide my name and email address. Corporations, on the other hand, aren't allowed to hide their whois. Similar policies apply to .eu and a bunch of other European ccTLDs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> ICANN doesn't block your domain. That landing page/DNS hijack is a Namecheap- specific "feature".

<comment><USER11> That makes sense. I was wondering why didn't I hear about it earlier?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It should not be too hard to search the whois registry data for all instances of firstname.lastname@example.com that are not for a namecheap.com owned domain but simply registered through them.

That would turn up the companies that are at risk of having the same happen to them.

<comment><USER13> Or, even better: I bet namecheap could do that search pretty easily themselves and let their customers know.

<comment><USER14> Good idea! They could email the domain's contact person! Oh wait..

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, they do have the email of the user-account the domain belongs to...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Rule #1 I've tried to tell people since the 90's: _if the contact email on your domain is not yours, it 's not your domain_.

It may be legally yours, but that's pretty f-ing useless if you go out of business whilst trying to gain actual control over it.

In a practical sense, nothing else matters more on your domain registration than controlling the email-address on the admin-contact, and actually reading the damn email. (Which also means, no spam filtering that you don't control and by which important notifications may be filtered out as false positives.)

Legal ownership of the registration comes a distant second.

If you can't handle that, outsource your domain management to a trusted party, and don't bitch about "but registrar X is soooo much cheaper". You don't pay them for registering your domain, you pay them for making sure your domain remains yours 24/7.

Managing your domain registrations is a way too important to neglect, but most organizations are ridiculously careless about them, even though one day of being unreachable may lose them a shitload of money.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've just checked, and I have this for one of my .com namecheap domains but not the other.

I suspect that this is a side effect of Namecheap's "WhoisGuard" feature. This hides your Whois details, and I think there was a free trial of it when I moved my domain across.

As I understand it, for WhoisGuard domains you'll get the annual checkup email from Namecheap rather than ICANN[1]. Potentially in this case Jitbit missed the email because it didn't look important, or perhaps the way that Namecheap and ICANN are interacting has changed and has some loopholes?

[1] [https://www.namecheap.com/support/knowledgebase/article.aspx...](https://www.namecheap.com/support/knowledgebase/article.aspx/9305/34/new- icann-whois-validation-process)

</comment><comment><USER17> That's a very useful tip that I will bear in mind. Are there any other common sense rules that we should remember when owning / transferring domains? I only own one so it's not something I deal with a lot.

<comment><USER18> Number one rule would be when letting someone register a domain on your behalf that you have access to retrieve the authcode/domain password and preferably can change name servers. I've lost count of how many time I've had to argue with web designers who register a domain for a client and keep it in their own account (a violation of some TLDs T&Cs).

Another situation is the "promotional domain" where you prepay hosting and receive a complimentary domain but not full access to modify it or you have to pay to have it unlocked.

Also be careful with which registrar you check for availability as if you don't buy immediately you may find the domain on their premium list the next day at an inflated price.

<comment><USER19> > Also be careful with which registrar you check for availability as if you > don't buy immediately you may find the domain on their premium list the next > day at an inflated price.

I have always been scared of that kind of thing, though in the end it never happened to me. So it is a thing then?

<comment><USER20> _> So it is a thing then?_

I've not heard of it happening to anyone in recent years, but Network Solutions were definitely accused of it in 2009, using the 5-day "tasting" period. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting#Anti- Domain_Tast...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting#Anti- Domain_Tasting_Measures) for a mention. I would very be surprised to find that it doesn't go on in various places to this day, so for paranoia's sake only search for names you want using known reputable providers.

Way back in is mists of time (~1999/2000, while at University) I had it done to me. We were going to register a name for our student house (and a few other people) and searched for two options both of which were available at the time. A week later when we came back both were registered by the same individual (not directly linked to the company from what we could gather) with a "buy this domain! (for several times the usual cost)" page present. This could have been a coincidence of course, so we looked up a collection of other convincingly real names (from various locations so it wasn't a block of lookups from the same address). A short while later they were all registered the same way, and not on the "5 day" thing either because they all still were a while later. We could have been cruel and search a great many more (had we actually cared about the name(s) we "lost" we might have done) to waste their money but didn't as we had far more important and/or fun things to be getting on with at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My local (Czech Republic) registrar accidentally deleted mandatory e-mail contact on one of my .cz ccTLD domains this month. I could not receive zone operator's communication and was not able to change anything, especially NS I needed (that's how I found out). The domain could've been lost, as it could not technically be registered without valid e-mail address.

Set up checks for your whois records, just in case your otherwise legit registrar messes up. Also, know your TLD's rules. As "bowlofpetunias" already mentioned, nothing is more important than owner's e-mail contact.

It took my registrar's support sloths one week to manually type in the e-mail. They did so without verifying my identity or contacting the owner (me, but they could not know that). E-mail address is all it takes to change the owner of .cz. The owner can't be possibly changed without zone registrar's verification code or notarized letter.

"Hi, I'm so and so and I need you to change the owner of this domain name. Don't bother contacting the owner [even though you are required to do so by zone operator]. Just type in whatever I tell you, okay? Thanks, bye!"

It's shocking how easy it is to steal a domain name registered there. Their technician contacted me (or the former owner) only once the owner has been changed.

They did not even apologize and certainly did not realize their severe misconducts. They also shrug off a bug I reported last year without fixing it. (I should probably warn other customers thinking about it, as they are the second biggest registrar in the country now, soon to be first.)

</comment><comment><USER22> Couple of tips for domain owners:

1\. Don't turn off the reminder emails from your registrar. I know they can be annoying and you probably get too many of them, but turning them off means that you won't know when your credit card expires and your domain isn't going to renew automatically (for example).

2\. Use a valid, real email address for your owner contact. Use WHOIS Privacy if you are concerned about spammers harvesting WHOIS for emails. Don't use support@ or webmaster@ unless you check those emails regularly. ICANN now requires your registrar to verify your email address and a single bounced email to the owner contact triggers that process. If you don't see it, you'll be offline in 15 days.

3\. Treat your domains as the valuable assets they are. Yes, $15/year...not expensive in the grand scheme of things. But the value of that domain is likely much, much higher to you and your company.

ps. More on the new ICAAN registrant verification process which started on January 1, 2014 can be found here: [https://help.hover.com/entries/25406514-Registrant- verificat...](https://help.hover.com/entries/25406514-Registrant-verification)

<comment><USER23> I argue that your email address for registrars should be secret[1], and every time an email goes to it an alarm bell should ring until someone reads it.

[1] So don't use "firstname.lastname@example.com", use "domain- firstname.lastname@example.com". Recognize that this is purely an obfuscation layer, not meant to provide security in and of itself, but to cut down on the noise so that you always examine every mail to it very closely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm not impressed with Namecheap over this. Suspending people's businesses over a missed email is outrageous.

What other business requires users to validate their identity so frequently? Not my car dealer, not my dentist, not my web host, not Google, not Facebook.... nobody.

I have received two of these emails from Namecheap, but none from Godaddy or enom. May be time to move back to GoDaddy.

</comment><comment><USER25> Might I recommend Gandi.net. Their slogan is why I pay the extra bucks.

<comment><USER8> How many extra bucks are we talking? I register quite a lot of domains...

<comment><USER25> 15-17 for .com, .net, .org. 15 percent discounts on 3 year or more registrations. Bulk discounts too I believe.

If you're a mega buyer/seller, gandi is probably not for you, although it can be if you can take advantage of the included services. If you have a handful of important domains that run thriving websites than Gandi is for you.

With domains you get free dns, free access to dns api, free email, free website builder (I use those for gag sites, eg, bitcoinsexchange.itmustbetrue.com). A few other included services, but most importantly, no bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I and a bunch of others have checked all our domains that are with or have been with namecheap and found the contact details to be as we expect them, so this certainly doesn't seem to be a universal issue.

I wonder what the cause/catalyst is for those domains/accounts that _are_ affected?

</comment><comment><USER26> FYI, here's a Namecheap page that should show domains pending verification: [https://manage.www.namecheap.com/myaccount/WhoisContactsVeri...](https://manage.www.namecheap.com/myaccount/WhoisContactsVerification.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER27> Don't use Namecheap.

I bought a domain from them once. Later during that same day, I forgot my password so I typed it incorrectly like 3 times. This automatically puts my domain BACK IN THE OPEN MARKET. I was appalled. When I emailed their support, they said I had to verify my identification by sending them personal documents -- I believe it was two pieces of ID. Total BS.

I simply bought the same domain through Gandi and never looked back.

What could have happened: I could have bought a domain and someone else could have typed my password incorrectly, losing my domain. That person could then steal my domain by registering it else where. Crazy.

<comment><USER27> For those who are downvoting - I have a Namecheap Order Summary email so I technically bought the domain. Maybe in their system it wasn't acquired yet, but I still had the right to it at that time.

<comment><USER28> The "technically" in your comment is jumping out and glaring at me; what do you mean you "technically" bought the domain?

<comment><USER27> It means I put in my credit card and the payment went through and I got a confirmation email of my order.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Had the same happen to me, but since I'm a cynical sob, I check all my data on transfers, so I noticed and changed it immediately.

Other info that gets damaged during NameCheap transfers may include company name, phone and fax.

I reported it to them. More than a year ago. We've spoken about this. Look how much of a fuck they've given.

</comment><comment><USER30> Namecheap swapped my contact info with theirs too (I just checked).

Seems to me Namecheap have been sketchy lately. Time to move to Gandi.

<comment><USER31> Not related to the article posted here, but yes, move to Gandi.

Gandi is expensive but Gandi is the best registrar you will ever find (if you do not have to deal with DNS records every day but only seldomly).

Gandi support is great. And they did never advertise: <[http://www.gandibar.net/post/2014/03/26/Why-Gandi-doesn-t- ad...](http://www.gandibar.net/post/2014/03/26/Why-Gandi-doesn-t-advertise>).

<comment><USER32> There is a typo in the url and it turns out to be funny _:

Document not found

The document you are looking for does not exist.

[http://www.gandibar.net/post/2014/03/26/Why-Gandi-doesn-t- ad...](http://www.gandibar.net/post/2014/03/26/Why-Gandi-doesn-t-advertise)

_ Sigh... I wouldn't dare to use the word 'ironic' on the internet ever again.

<comment><USER31> > There is a typo in the url

Argh, that HN parsing bug again.

The HN parser has problems with angle brackets: if you write < URL > (without spaces), HN will leave the opening angle bracket untouched (good) and attach the closing angle bracket to the URL (very bad), so the URL written in the @href attribute will be wrong.

Using < URL > (without spaces) is the way URLs are meant to be written in the middle of a sentence. It is sad that HN has problems with that syntax.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1708896/wiki-bee-leaks-epa-document-reveals-agency-knowingly-allowed-use-of-bee-toxic-pesticide <comment><USER4> There is corporate "ethos" and "greed is good" etc... But what I find disturbing is that these wankers (corporate and government) are stupid/greedy enough to fuck over honeybees.

The same honeybees that are providing us with 1 in 3 meals every single friggin day! Maybe big-pharma is confident that it can feed the humanity - <USER2> I see it as an incredibly shortsighted strategy that WILL cause us our lives - before global warming or nukes - since we're apparently trying extremely hard to exterminate the little critters.

<comment><USER5> _"The same honeybees that are providing us with 1 in 3 meals every single friggin day!"_

 _citation needed_

<comment><USER4> Citation: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1702377/figure/f...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1702377/figure/fig2/)

In old days every farmer in our village had a beehive - the honey and pollination services were both much appreciated. My father has always taught me that killing a bee is a horrible crime.

<comment><USER5> This describes the important of pollinators, but honey bees are not the only pollinators. I don't see enough evidence supporting the case that honey bees exclusively are responsible for pollinating 1/3 of all food, nor that the absence of honey bees would reduce food production by the same amount (which seem to be the positions you have put forth).

Can you support those claims?

<comment><USER4> Can you support a contra position? That bees are not significant pollinators? Please do not forget other Apidae family members - they probably don't benefit from pesticides either.

Oh... Another reference: <http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16812.full> \- you can check references [6,7] yourself.

Edit: I apologize - since I did limit my rant to honeybees initially.

<comment><USER6> Honeybees are not native to the US. It would be odd to rely on a non-native species for our food supply.

<comment><USER7> Why would it be odd? When Europeans arrived they imported European agriculture and cuisine, most of which is non-native.

For instance I had pancakes for breakfast this morning. The eggs were from non-native chickens, the milk from non-native cows, the flour from non-native wheat, the canola oil I cooked it in from non-native rapeseed, and the butter I put on it from non-native cows. However all is not lost, I used maple syrup from native maple trees, and put blackberries in it that might have been native. (The baking powder and salt are chemicals that to the best of my knowledge do not come from animals or plants, native or otherwise.)

 _Edit:_ When I looked up blackberries I found out that there are several hundred species, and some of the popular ones for cultivation are not native. So I don't know whether that was a native berry.

<comment><USER8> I think what he means to say is there was food here before honey bees, there can be food here after honey bees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Considering the EPA's past lies about the air quality at ground zero, the mercury levels in fresh water fish, etc., let's just say that if you believe anything they say then I've got a boat load of perfectly safe shrimp from the gulf to sell you.

<comment><USER10> Not to mention their stance on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing> .

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> FYI the ORIGINAL Grist article much better and full of detail:

[http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked- document...](http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-documents- show-epa-allowed-bee-toxic-pesticide-)

</comment><comment><USER12> Is there any reason these beekeepers can't sue Bayer and the EPA for the side effects of the pesticides? Couldn't such a suit call for an injunction preventing its use pending the results of the lawsuit?

<comment><USER13> They did sue Bayer in 2003, though for a different drug. The suit was thrown out by a judge in 2008. Info in this article:

[http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.for...](http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm)

Bayer gets sued all the time and they are probably pretty good at working the legal system.

<comment><USER14> This article has additional history:

<http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=598>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.

<comment><USER16> (I know this is naive, but) Corporations are made of people. All that money belongs to someone. So if those people decide to give that money to politicians, why does that make problems?

<comment><USER15> In general, publicly traded corporations are run by people aiming to get bonuses by maximizing shareholder value. Those shareholders could be very indirect, in particular for pension funds.

With this level of abstraction, the final shareholders usually are not (or don't want to be) aware of things done in their name. The situation makes it very easy to look the other way.

IMHO, Adam Smith would be disgusted about this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Related?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1774592>

The timing seems incredible.

</comment><comment><USER18> That's ok, we'll just replace honey with high-fructose corn syrup - <USER3> solved!</comment>


Show HN: An NSFW Tumblr Search - <AUTHOR> http://pornblur.com <comment><USER2> How does it work? Does it just pull from the tumblr API using a list of blogs? Can it spider out and find new adult tumblrs now that they are de-listed?

</comment><comment><USER3> Semi-related, a simple porn site that pulls gifs from tumblr:

[http://theworstdrug.com/](http://theworstdrug.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Sorry, just a minor nitpick. Should be "A NSFW Tumblr Search".

<comment><USER5> Depends how you pronounce it. An comes before vowel sounds, like the E in "en", while A comes before consonant sounds, like the N in "no".

I'm curious, then, how you pronounce NSFW -- "nnnsfwa?"

<comment><USER4> I read it as "Not safe for work". For other acronyms, I read them like they spell eg C-I-A or F-B-I. I always lose this fight because people can point to "official English usage" documentation. Its just that to my ears (and internal voice) saying "an N..." vs "a N..." sounds wrong. You're adding an extra "n" sound, so that when its spoken you say something like "aaaahhhnnnnnnnnn" with no break there's a loss of distinction in what's being said. Saying "A NSFW tag" where the letters are pronounced individually forces the distinction audibly.

<comment><USER6> Would you say "an NSA agent", or "a NSA agent"?

The point of using "an" is to avoid a glottal stop, because glottal stops are awkward and scary.

<comment><USER4> See, you have a good example of where I'm wrong. I most definitely say "an NSA" in this case, because that sounds right. I think its just a few particular words that sound funny that way, while pretty much every other time the actual rules make sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to make a Windows Time Capsule - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/89992-how-to-make-a-windows-time-capsule

<comment><USER2> I used to backup to a 1TB drive connected and shared by a TonidoPlug using Time Machine. It was a bit of a pain to set up under Leopard, but it worked well enough over the network. A big advantage here is that Time Machine creates a Sparseimage file to back up to, which means it is trivial to "backup your backup"-- all you have to do is mirror that file somewhere else.

I stopped doing this because it was easier and faster in the long run just to plug in a FireWire800 drive and stop messing around with a somewhat hacky solution that occasionally failed and was pretty slow.

</comment><comment><USER3> You lost me at Zealot.

<comment><USER4> Zealots tend to get lost easily.</comment></comment>