Scott Adams: Tax the Comfortable - <AUTHOR> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/tax_the_comfortable/

<comment><USER2> Hmm. I wanted to post a link to one of the comments (currently the second- newest), but apparently his comment system doesn't have permalinks. So here's a copy-and-paste:

\---

MikeStansky (<http://dilbert.com/users/MikeStansky>)

Dec 27, 2010

I saw an amusing analogy on taxation:

Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a buck too. It's unfair -he got 10 times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy always win!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

\---

The comment id is 75340, if anyone knows how to hack the URLs.

<comment><USER3> Why do arguments against progressive taxation always involve hypotheticals? "Suppose that blah blah blah..."

Why can't they use real people and real numbers?

<comment><USER4> That would be economics. Nobody in American politics listens to experts like economists - they only listen to "real people", who are above all that elite liberal claptrap they teach in schools.

<comment><USER5> "guys drinking beer" is highest amount of complexity that american politicians are willing to use. It's so simple, they're all the same people with the same opportunities, some are just poorer than others... right? There's not barrier to entry, plumbers just don't apply for the CEO positions.

<comment><USER6> There are also barriers to entry to becoming a plumber. And there's no reason a plumber couldn't easily become the CEO of his own plumbing company.

People are largely in charge of their own destiny in America (as well as many other countries). No one is made a CEO by birthright.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Scott Adams writes:

"Before you break out the tiny violins for my hypothetical doctor, allow yourself to imagine that he's got a mountain of college loans, his mortgage is underwater, and he's supporting three grandparents (one on his wife's side) who all need some form of senior care, and the doctor's parents, and his wife's parents, have no spare cash. The doctor's parents might also need help in a few years. Oh, and the doctor has two kids of his own, one of whom needs some sort of special care. That's what the real world looks like for the so- called Sandwich Generation. For this imaginary doctor, any extra tax burden takes money from four generations of his family who needs it and distributes the cash to strangers."

Imagine that instead of a doctor, we are talking about a hard working carpenter who makes about $40,000 a year, and of whom we could say "his mortgage is underwater, and he's supporting three grandparents (one on his wife's side) who all need some form of senior care, and the carpenter's parents, and his wife's parents, have no spare cash. The carpenter's parents might also need help in a few years. Oh, and the carpenter has two kids of his own, one of whom needs some sort of special care."

Why do the woes of the hard-working doctor demand more sympathy than the woes of the hard working carpenter?

<comment><USER8> "Why do the woes of the hard-working doctor demand more sympathy than the woes of the hard working carpenter?"

If that's what you drew from the article; you've missed the point entirely. The point Adams is making is that a doctor making $250,000 per year has a lot more in common with the $40,000 per year carpenter than he does with the truly rich.

This isn't about having sympathy for the doctor OR the carpenter; it's about understanding that both of them will be significantly hurt by higher taxes. Since no one is talking about increasing taxes on the carpenter, it's fair to question whether we've set the bar of "rich" far too low--or if two categories even make sense.

<comment><USER5> No I think you've missed the point. The doctor is making far more over the basic rate required to get by than the carpenter. The doctor's cries at night because he can't afford another Mont-Blanc pen and the carpenter can't send his kids to school. You have to understand that the doctor's needs are satisfied, not his wants.

<comment><USER8> Disregarding, for a moment, that you're completely overestimating the value of this hypothetical $250k per year income...

The answer is to punish the doctor? This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched. Why shouldn't people be able to get _somewhat_ ahead? Why is the mentality that we all have to be exactly equal so long as we can lump your income with this mythical middle class?

<comment><USER7> bcrescimanno, I'm not sure what you are referring to. There was recently an effort made in the USA to allow Bush-era tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year (gross adjusted). Had that gone forward, the doctor making $250,000 and the carpenter making $40,000 would both continue forward without facing an increase in their income tax. Only those people with gross adjusted income in excess of $250,000 who would see an increase in the tax paid on their income in excess of $250,000, although these affluent people would continue to enjoy the Bush era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income they earn.

As it was, pretty much all of the Bush era tax cuts were extended.

As to this:

"This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower- middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched."

According to Wikipedia, only the wealthiest 1.5% make in excess of $250,000:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

The poorest 98.5% of the USA makes less than $250,000 a year. Are you trying to define a portion of that wealthiest 1.5% as part of the upper middle class? If so, which part? Would you go into the top 1% and define that, too, as part of the upper middle class? Definitions matter, and it would be good if you could be precise.

I would add, my politically active friends are pushing for much higher taxes on the rich. Their focus is not on the poorest 99% of Americans, but the wealthiest 1%. And so, they focus on those making in excess of $350,000. I am curious if you regard that as within the range of the middle class?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If the class he's calling "Suckers", in between the Rich and the Majority, includes Scott Adams -- as he says it does -- then I can't help thinking that this is just the old, familiar gambit where rich people try to redefine a term like "middle class" to include themselves, so that they can portray self- interest as looking out for the poor beleaguered middle classes.

<comment><USER10> The interesting question isn't whether it's a "gambit", the question is whether it is _true_. Calling people with large incomes and large unavoidable outflows "rich" isn't necessarily right, and while the stuff Adams said about that guy may mostly not look like unavoidable outflows, we do saddle all our doctors with debt and a lot of small business owners do have a lot of unavoidable outflows like, say, other people's salaries. Just taxing everybody with a high income is not _necessarily_ a good idea for anybody, however good it may feel. He is certainly right that not all _rich_ is created equal and the language here is very impoverished.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of those outflows are avoidable only to the extent that they are picked up by taxpayers, like taking care of his parents or college grants. We don't win if we grab $10,000 more from that guy, he goes bankrupt, and we incur $30,000 more in liabilities picking up what he now can't carry. (And yeah, I think those numbers do work, as the government frequently picks things up inefficiently.)

<comment><USER11> > and a lot of small business owners do have a lot of unavoidable outflows > like, say, other people's salaries

As if that matters. It's not like they are taxed _before_ they pay salaries. Small business people pay taxes on the amount of money they have left over _after_ all business expenses are deducted, i.e. profit, not revenue, so what point exactly are you trying to make here?

> Just taxing everybody with a high income is not necessarily a good idea

Small business people, if near broke after paying all outflows, wouldn't qualify as people with high incomes even if their business was pulling a billion dollars a year in revenue, and wouldn't be paying any additional taxes on the _rich_ because they wouldn't qualify as rich.

The whole _small businesses would be hurt by taxes on the rich_ is a red herring, it's simply not true, and is just rhetoric from the right meant to distract from the real issues. It takes advantage of the fact that most people don't know how taxes work and don't separate gross income from net income. Businesses don't pay taxes on all they money they make, they for the most part, pay taxes on profit, which is by definition, _extra money_ above and beyond operating expenses.

<comment><USER12> There is one coherent argument about large capital expenses for pass-through entities (LLC's, S-Corp, Sole Proprietorships).

Bob the business owner needs a new gizmo for his lawn care operation. It costs $500k. Normally he would need to depreciate this gizmo over some period of time (it depends on what you are buying) spreading the expense out over those years. If he has a net-profit over $250k then whatever he makes over that rate will be taxed at that higher rate reducing his ability to afford the gizmo.

Essentially the issue is that under normal accounting rules he would pay the higher tax rate today, but it would take 5 years for him to fully realize that expense from a tax perspective. That could, at least in theory, make small business owners a bit gun-shy about making large capital purchases as their take-home pay would take a hit even though they bought something for the business instead.

Thankfully the legislation, as crafted by Obama, contains provisions allowing the cap on capital purchase deductions to be raised significantly (I think it would have put it over $1M). Thus you could take the entire expense in the year you bought the thing and avoid this particular tax issue.

<comment><USER11> I agree, as I did say _for the most part_ ; however, in many if not most cases, this could be easily dealt with by borrowing the money for those items instead of laying out the capitol and incurring the tax burden of paying taxes on money you don't actually have. Regardless, this is an exception, but for the most part, businesses do only pay taxes on profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The most interesting part there, to me, was the currently first comment by poke111. I'll reproduce it here:

 _Imagine the government found some way to fund itself without any tax revenue at all. Say, a giant reserve of natural resources were found on federal land, and now tax revenue isn't needed to fund the government. As a libertarian- leaning conservative I personally would be delighted to see all federal income tax go to zero. After all, we've always been told that taxes are needed to fund the government. But somehow I think some people would not be happy that even "rich" people wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore.

And here I think is where the real difference lies: libertarian and conservative type people see taxes as a necessary evil. If the government wouldn't need the money, the ideal situation would be zero taxation. But I think liberals tend to see things in the opposite way: Taxes are a way to acheive fairness, and funding the government is a convenient means to that end, in the absense of which they would find a different means.

Conservatives want to set the level of taxation to match their preferred level of spending (at least in theory), and liberals want to set the level of spending to match their preferred level of taxation. The difference is whether taxation is the means or the end._

Any truth to this technically? It _feels_ right to me but I'm neither an economist or much of a politician.

<comment><USER14> This is a good article by Charles Krauthammer on that topic: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/12...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html)

The gist is that President Obama really cut a fantastic deal for liberals yet many were still livid because it also contained an extension of the tax cuts. Hence they want to punish the rich above or equal to achieving their own goals.

Personally I think the left is a sliding scale that goes from Moderate to Marx. Marx's famous quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in line with the comment you quoted and I think people on the far left believe just that. I think the further you get away from the far left on the sliding scale the less that becomes true.

<comment> DanI-S Punish the rich? I'm sure for most people it's about reducing the deficit.

<comment><USER14> That's not the question though. The question wasn't "why don't liberals agree with a tax cut for the Rich" (the answer to that question is exactly your point). The question is "why would they be so angry that they'd turn on the most liberal President elected since Carter and perhaps FDR". Or "Why would this deal make people talk about challenging him in the Primary"

That anger isn't about reducing the already ballooning deficit. There's something more there (whether that "more" is to punish the rich is debatable)

<comment> DanI-S I'd say the anger comes from the following line of thought:

"The extremely wealthy are receiving tax cuts which will barely affect their personal quality of life, yet cost 'the rest of us' billions of dollars. That money would have a far higher quality of life impact if spent on welfare or tax cuts for middle/lower income Americans. Our quality of life is being held down for the sake of theirs, when theirs is already far higher."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is a huge difference between the "wealthy"/"rich" and high income earners. Many high income earners, like young doctors or entrepreneurs, have negative net worth and are not wealthy at all. The progressive tax system is a scam rigged by the true rich-- who control assets and take income mostly as capital gains-- against the next generation of strivers who have earning power but few assets.

</comment><comment><USER16> Wow, he really had to pile a lot on that doctor to make people feel sorry for him. College loans, mortgage, and 3 grandparents' nursing homes. Plus, his parents and his wife's parents also need support.

It's a good thing normal people never end up in that situation! If he wasn't rich, he couldn't afford it. Wait... I think they do!

He has a good point, but his analogy completely obliterates it. Unfortunately, he acts like we've never heard of the middle class and that he's delivering us news that they exist. They have been part of every tax discussion I've heard in the last few years. It's not news.

<comment><USER17> In the example scenario, wouldn't the doctor be able to get tax deductions for college loan payments as well as dependent care of seniors? The mortgage underwater scenario sucks, but is he losing his home because it's not worth what he paid? I no tax expert, but wouldn't the increased taxes only apply to income that isn't covered by the deductions? If he's still making $250K+ per year beyond the deductions for those expenses, then I don't see that the sob story of the poor doctor just trying to get by with all the uncontrollable expenses is really valid.

<comment><USER11> > If he's still making $250K+ per year beyond the deductions for those > expenses, then I don't see that the sob story of the poor doctor just trying > to get by with all the uncontrollable expenses is really valid.

Exactly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Tax the ones who use the most resources.

In my opinion an income (or wealth-based) tax systems is not really that optimal in a globalized world. Instead I propose a kind of resource-based tax systems: Instead of taxing income tax the amount of scarce resources used. For example, the amount of land owned, the amount of oil used, or even the amount of CO2 emitted.

I think that such a system would have several nice implications:

* Businesses would automatically look for ways to save taxes, and thereby help the environment.

* It better reflects the true cost of a business or person to the society: If someone earns a lot of money this does not reduce my standard of living. However, if someone destroys the environment it does.

* As a country you can avoid loosing many of the Internet businesses to tax havens, as there is a lesser advantage of moving away.

Unfortunately, in many countries it's exactly the other way around. For example, many South American countries endorse usage of scarce resources by subsidize oil. While this works in the short-term, the consequences in the long-term will be fatal.

</comment><comment><USER19> Caring for parents and grandparents, paying off college loans and servicing a mortgage are all tax-deductible activities. I'm not saying it isn't hard to make ends meet with all those obligations, but a tax hike would disproportionately affect his _discretionary_ income, not income that ends up being spent on caring for others or paying off student debt.

<comment><USER20> But current policy direction and talk is often focused around capping or ending deductions...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Am I the only one who thinks "gang rape" is a little extreme here? Granted, I'm on the low end of the "majority" but I find the perspective all sorts of wrong.

My family was left penniless just paying the healthcare bill for our first daughter, and even then I would never compare a broken system to gang rape. I'm not saying we should discount the woes of middle-class America, but I think it's irresponsible to act as though the poor don't have it worse — and even more irresponsible to imply that the poor and the rich are somehow in collusion to "rape" the middle class.

His initial point is a good one, but it strays really far.

</comment><comment><USER14> The solution to the problem he puts forth is actually a simple one: Go entirely to a consumption tax. Then the doctor with all the family to support gets taxed very little despite his income and the rich guy going out to buy a Yacht gets taxed a huge amount. It's as fair as fair could be.

The problem with a consumption tax is getting the Government to agree to a system that doesn't guarantee them a certain income and getting the people to accept huge price spikes (which are emotionally jarring even if your income tax has been eliminated).

<comment><USER22> > It's as fair as fair could be.

The poorer you are, the larger the proportion of your income that gets used for consumption.

Folks making minimum wage currently pay little or no taxes, so they'd see a significant tax increase with consumption-based taxation - an increase they can't afford.

<comment><USER23> "Folks making minimum wage currently pay little or no taxes, so they'd see a significant tax increase with consumption-based taxation - an increase they can't afford."

Maybe they would see what it's like to be taxed..and not vote to get everyone else gouged while their income isn't affected.

<comment><USER22> > Maybe they would see what it's like to be taxed..and not vote to get > everyone else gouged while their income isn't affected.

Should people from well-off families be made to see what it's like to live off a minimum wage income so they can not vote to make life harder for the poor?

If no, why one direction and not the other?

<comment><USER23> "Should people from well-off families be made to see what it's like to live off a minimum wage income so they can not vote to make life harder for the poor?"

seeing as how the the poor vastly out-number the rich, no. I also don't see how the rich are making it difficult for the poor.

They pay more than their fair share of taxes (which in turn pays for many social programs that they don't even use). They also aren't lobbying to take anything away from the poor, except less of their own money.

<comment><USER22> > They pay more than their fair share of taxes...

Warren Buffet disagrees.

> They also aren't lobbying to take anything away from the poor, except less > of their own money.

So no one's lobbying for benefits cuts to the poor? Are you posting from an alternate universe?

<comment><USER24> Giving the poor less free stuff != taking stuff away from them.

<comment><USER22> If someone's getting food stamps and I legislate the program out of existence, their food stamp benefits have quite clearly been taken away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The top American marginal income rates from 1944 to 1963 were 92%.

[http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1794484&cid=336...](http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1794484&cid=33651716)

</comment><comment><USER26> Wow, finally a voice of reason in this argument. Just because you're in the highest tax bracket does not mean you have disposable income like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc do. I'd think that most of the assets of people at the lower end of the highest tax bracket are illiquid.

</comment><comment><USER27> So, what would work? A "Millionaire tax bracket" that was bandied around there for a while? Or increase the tax on capital gains?

I'd love to hear a workable solution to this...

<comment><USER6> What would work is finding a way to tax wealth instead of income. That would shut Warren Buffet up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is there some income level where everyone can agree that nobody is a "sucker", and you're just rich at that point?

I would imagine all but a handful of doctors make less than 2 million dollars (40 times the median household's income), and those that do I'd be fine calling rich. If you create a new tax bracket for the rich at that point, you're losing only 2% of the increased tax income on the 100 millionaires, but not harming the struggling, debt-ridden doctors of the world.

</comment><comment><USER24> Relatedly, we could also tax leisure. This would do a great job at hitting Paris Hilton, while leaving the doctor alone.

Of course, we'd need to create a big exemption for the poor (most of whom choose not to work).

[edit: citation for my assertion that the poor choose not to work: <http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008.pdf> ]

<comment><USER22> Most of the poor in this country are working poor.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/national/main45225...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/national/main4522599.shtml)

> The number of jobs with pay below the poverty threshold increased to 29.4 > million, or 22 percent of all jobs, in 2006 from 24.7 million, or 19 percent > of all jobs, in 2002.

<comment><USER24> This is simply false. In 2008, 78% of the poor chose not to work (or even seek work) more than 26 weeks/year. See the link I provided in my edit.

If you bothered to read your link as far as the third paragraph, you would realize they redefine poverty to be $41k/year. By that definition, more than half of France lives in poverty, oh noes!

[http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_i...](http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=natsos04202)

<comment><USER22> > If you bothered to read your link as far as the third paragraph, you would > realize they redefine poverty to be $41k/year.

Considering I quoted the _fourth_ paragraph...

$41k is a pretty small sum for a family of four. My family of four's health insurance premiums would eat up 1/4 of that. Our copays would eat up another 1/4. Not much money left for rent, insurance, food, transport to work, education, etc., let alone longer term stuff like college and retirement savings.

<comment><USER24> I was being charitable and assuming you didn't actually realize that "poverty threshold" was really code for "2x poverty threshold". It turns out you knew this but were attempting to mislead people.

My mistake.

<comment><USER22> No, I just know the definition of poverty. One can be poor without being impoverished.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why not just another higher tax bracket where income is greater than $1 million or something?

</comment><comment><USER30> There's already a word for the "suckers": HENRY - High Earner, Not Rich Yet

[http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/tully_henr...](http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/tully_henrys.fortune/index.htm)

<comment><USER2> Yeah. Um. Is there a third option?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting how state-funded health care would prevent his doctor example completely. True, we might need more taxes, but the cost would be evenly divided among the 'suckers' who have ill family members and the 'suckers' who don't.</comment>


Spotify is now selling your information to advertisers - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/21/spotify-is-now-selling-your-information-to-advertisers/ <comment><USER2> Seems that only applies to users that don't have a paid plan.

Now they are paying with their data. What did they expect?</comment>


You Can't Keep Your Money Because It Belongs To The Government - <AUTHOR> http://www.professorhollybell.com/2012/12/03/you-cant-keep-your-money-because-it-belongs-to-the-government/

<comment><USER2> I think the author has a funny perception of what a government is. The government is not a truly separate entity. We the people are the government.

Then we have decided to create money to help bartering.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same problem though. Other people deciding how much money an individual gets to keep.

<comment><USER3> It's only a problem if you have this absurd, artificial, ahistoric notion of private property that seems to be popular lately.

<comment><USER4> You're right, when private property included people, nobody questioned the right of the owner to take 90+ percent of what his serfs produced.

I'm being sarcastic of course, I know what you meant. But after you've crossed over the 50% threshold, it feels more like your arrangement with the government is to be milked for tax rather than consensual mutual agreement to protect my rights. I'm working for the government instead of it working for me.

<comment><USER5> Pretty much nobody has an effective tax rate of 50%.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's an article that shows that in several states the total income tax rate will meet or exceed 50% [http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/12/06/study_50_...](http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/12/06/study_50_tax_rates_coming_for_california_and_new_york)

<comment><USER5> That's not income tax. That's income tax added to payroll taxes added to capital gains taxes added to dividend taxes.

If you're making enough money from dividends and capital gains that you have to pay taxes on them, great! Pay your fucking taxes and don't complain, because most of us don't have investments at all outside our retirement accounts. Ha, that's if we're even fortunate enough to _have_ proper retirement accounts!

And payroll taxes are more or less flat, or even regressive, yeah.

I say all this as someone who already looked at his paychecks once and found that after all the income and payroll taxes came out I was only getting 2/3 my nominal salary in take-home pay. You know what that taught me? Negotiate for _net_ salaries.

You know what it didn't teach me? To complain about how a fortunate person like me has to pay into society to get the public sector out of debt and enable it to afford to help society again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is such a piece of trivial dreck that I would downvote it if I could. There's barely even enough of a real idea for the few paragraphs actually written.</comment>


US DOT Looks to Disable Cell Phones in Cars - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/131845-dot-looks-to-disable-cell-phones-in-cars

<comment><USER2> Slippery slope... What's next? Testing your alcohol level before driving? oh wait..

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be an interesting fight between the FCC and the DOT.</comment>


IOTA Swarm Behavior Controller and Economic Clustering - <AUTHOR> https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/iota-controlled-agent-swarm-intelligence-and-swarm-nodes-in-economic-clustering <comment><AUTHOR> is that what a parallel machine economy in the context of IoT implies? i recall an year ago or so a looooong thread of IOTA bashing circle jerk here:) which did make sense at the time, of course & was packed with valuable information and references.

but an year has gone by since. and a lot of other things have come to light... would love to hear any non-plebbit "bitcoin maximalist" (or even "cryptocurrency") input/commentary (which is why i thought of sharing this here, i guess).</comment>


Forthcoming book seeks to visualise, locate and expose many numbers stations - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/8x858k/the-mysterious-radio-stations-broadcasting-secret-messages <comment><USER2> > If you listen to the same station again and again you start to see a > pattern. That's what the numbers monitors and enthusiasts are very good at > doing. Usually when that pattern starts to emerge it fits the profile of the > kind of cypher called a one-time pad

What did I just read? A true one time pad by definition is truly random without any patterns.

<comment><USER3> The encrypted data, yeah, but as a practical matter they would need to have some metadata telling the recipient which pad to use. As long as the sender avoids the german tank numbering problem, and never repeats a pad or message, the metadata should be useless to an attacker.

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

Also, I was initially thinking why bother in the age of Pastebin and Twitter, and even Craigslist: the receiving equipment is available way more easily than a shortwave radio. I think the answer is, you can absolutely guarantee nobody knows if a message was received. Those internet methods could be watched.

<comment><USER4> Radio is also one to many, inherently.

And you can do social engineering head games with counter intel officers. Send 37 distinct repeated messages one day... that would seem to strongly imply 37 individual agents, but in reality you could have anything from 0 to 1000. OTP message #24256 might be heard by field agents 351 938 and 271 and it means "check your dead drop signal". One agent sees a chalk mark on the street and gets a real message at his dead drop, the other two see nothing and chill. OTP message 91053 could mean "unrestricted warfare begins tomorrow at noon" for all 1000 agents, perhaps. Or maybe OTP message 91053 means nothing, nothing at all and its all head games for counter intel.

There are also chain strategies such as I own a "suspicious" shortwave radio and listen to it (which in some parts of the world that are not USA, is not unusual or suspicious) and when I get OTP message I am to offer my collectible Dale Earnhardt mint condition collectors plate for $1599 on ebay. The agent who's actually doing something interesting is a well known 90s nascar fan and when he sees my collectors plate offered for $1599 on ebay when the going rate is $5, that's when he steals the secrets or pushes the button or whatever. I listen to shortwave which means I could be a spy but all I ever do is try to sell junk on ebay, whereas the "real" agent is an indistinguishable nascar fan.

There are protocols using OTP where the metadata could quite easily give away an agent even if the data is never cracked even with the rubber hose technology. For example imagine a really bad protocol of page number, word number. Won't take long to figure this out when the first number increases at a predictable rate never exceeding 351 pages and the second number never exceeds the number of words on a page. All you need to do is have customs record the number of pages in each book travelers import, and when you figure out the pad rotates at 351 pages you find the guy who entered the country with a 351 page book, and do absolutely nothing other than alert customs to record the exact name and edition of every book he has ever or will ever import, at which point you now have a copy of his one time pad. That's a horrible protocol that uses OTPs, but its hardly the only crackable one that exists.

Personally, given how incredibly cheap it is to transmit numbers over the radio, and how incredibly expensive it is for counterintel to try to figure it out and track it, even if it were obsolete 20 years ago, I'd still keep doing it as a pure economic attack. That counterintel agent listening to numbers is one agent who's not inspecting the contents of suspicious looking icmp packets or multiplayer video game conversations or funny chalk marks in front of libraries or whatever.

<comment><USER5> > _... inspecting the contents of ... multiplayer video game conversations > ..._

I've had this theory that chat in multiplayer games is probably one of the most reliable methods to bypass dragnet surveillance that exists.

Figure that most popular chat protocols are reverse engineered and actively captured. Moreover, any crypto usage beyond https will simply flag you.

It's concievable that NSA/GCHQ have had people dedicated to reversing videogame chat protocols for some time now, but given the veritable Cambrian explosion of games we've seen in recent years thanks to Steam, I have serious doubts that even major SIGINT agencies can keep up.

Their best hope is that the game uses IRC, a cloud service, or some other standardized chat protocol as a backing for its in-game chat. If it's some obscure game with a custom-but-unencrypted chat protocol, I highly doubt it's automatically interpreted. At best the raw data itself is probably captured and stored for a short period of time. It is possible however that they're applying automated methods to anomalous traffic that are able to pull out unencrypted text streams.

Of course, why use in-game chat when you could just pick a game that has a way to write out a message in the game itself. Minecraft clones and certain multiplayer paint apps become more or less perfect steganography in that case.

<comment><USER6> Faulty assumption. I don't need to pay attention to the tubes if I can look in on your terminal.

<comment><USER5> That's why I qualified the statement with _dragnet surveillance_.

Obviously if someone's already targeted it's simple for any self-respecting SIGINT agency to just install implants and get whatever they want. I was describing measures that would likely foil automated bulk analysis.

Now if you're implying there's some sort of bulk, indiscriminate implantation program, that would be news to pretty much every private sector security expert on the planet. May as well just tap fiber for appearances at that point.

<comment><USER6> > _Now if you 're implying there's some sort of bulk, indiscriminate > implantation program, that would be news to pretty much every private sector > security expert on the planet._

Are you sure? I thought it was widely accepted that you couldn't trust chinese hardware or most american firmware.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I'm sure. Backdoors are not implants, they are vulnerabilities.

Implants are the payloads that persistently infect target systems, surveil or modify the envrionment, and exfiltrate data.

So unless you want to suggest the majority of consumer systems are actively compromised to the point of exfiltrating screen caps on a regular basis, my original point still stands. Even then, good luck conducting successful automated analysis on hidden messages made out of blocks in Minecraft. Reconstructing game state as it went across the wire would be easier than making sense of screenshots in that scenario.

<comment><USER6> Does ECHELON ring a bell to you?

I don't believe every computing device ever is exfilling the amount of data you describe, but I'd be very very surprised if it weren't an option for nation level actors at the flick of a switch.

Screw minecraft, all I need is access to your USB/ethernet controllers and that's not remotely difficult.

I believe your threat model is flawed if you don't assume any existing known vulnerability isn't being at least passively used to surveil remote systems.

<comment><USER5> From one of my previous replies:

 _" I was describing measures that would likely foil automated bulk analysis."_

Nothing you just said is relevant in that context. Yes, obviously anything can be easily compromised if it's targeted. I said as much in the very same post.

Automated bulk analysis exists to find targets in the first place.

<comment><USER6> I think you're vastly overestimating how complicated it is to do what I'm talking about at scale, but whatever.

<comment><USER5> From a technical perspective it might not be that hard given the depth of existing capabilities, but from a risk standpoint it would probably be a terrible idea.

Recall Stuxnet and some of its successors were partially reverse engineered, and just recently Intel's Management Engine is being torn apart.

<comment><USER6> I agree about the risk. But we're drifting in a direction where that risk is becoming lesser and lesser.

Most users simply couldn't give a crap and we're gonna pay for the loss of accountability at some point

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> " _Tyson 's Corner Communications Tower, United States of America. Built in 1952 as part of a program to harden US government systems against nuclear attack, some more fanciful numbers monitors suggested the tower was a transmitter for numbers broadcasts._"

My understanding was that it was easy to triangulate the location of a transmitter (if you're close enough to it and not receiving reflections). Shouldn't a transmitter in the middle of Virginia be trivial to verify?

<comment><USER8> Tyson's Corner being "in the middle of Virginia" is the perfect Northern Virginian equivalent of the New Yorker's "View of the World from 9th Ave"

<comment><USER7> Well, ok, but my point was that it isn't exactly Johnston Atoll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're interested in number stations, drop by #priyom on Freenode. There is some automation and a small dedicated community around tracking and recording these transmissions.

<comment><USER10> Clever channel name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I fear the book may not have as insightful an analysis of numbers stations that radio enthusiasts may hope for. I hope I am wrong and please correct me if so, but the book preview [1] looks like a coffee table book of photographs and spectrograms with little to no text.

[1]. [http://www.lewisbush.com/shadow-of-the-state- book/](http://www.lewisbush.com/shadow-of-the-state-book/)

<comment> King-Aaron Not just _any_ photographs, _google street view photographs_ thank you very much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The easy way to find out who owns them is to break them, then watch who comes to fix them.

<comment><USER13> Do you think if they come wearing Verizon hats that means they're Verizon?

<comment><USER14> I don't know, but this reminds me of something I always wanted to do:

Buy a small, white, Chevrolet van, plaster AT&T logos on the sides, put a flashing yellow light on top, and mount a holder for some orange road cones on the rear bumper. I figure with a vehicle like that, you can park just about anywhere, wander around, poke at stuff, and do all sort of shit, without anybody batting an eye. Especially wearing coveralls and a safety vest and hardhat, and carrying a clipboard.

<comment><USER15> Have a look at Telstar logistics

[http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2006/09...](http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2006/09/what_is_telstar.html)

<comment><USER14> That is the coolest thing I've ever read in my life... :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad I saw this post.

One of my fun projects I have planned is to script a "number station" in python based on the general patterns these number stations have.

<comment><USER17> Heh, broadcast random numbers at a slow, steady rate, set a bot to watch for news headlines including certain military keywords, have number station start broadcasting furiously.

<comment><USER6> ...Get a visit from the "renovation team" next time you're out of the house.</comment></comment></comment>


https://github.com/viclm/numeric-keyboard - <AUTHOR> A numeric keyboard works in mobile browsers. It contains a pluggable keyboard component and a input box in replace of native input element. <comment><AUTHOR> demo: [https://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/f40gilnlxp](https://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/f40gilnlxp)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> github: [https://github.com/viclm/numeric- keyboard](https://github.com/viclm/numeric-keyboard)</comment>


Salman Rushdie claims victory in Facebook name battle - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15733026 <comment><USER2> In my part of the world, first name is not 'given name'. We denote this on written forms by underlining the given name we want to be called by.</comment>


Adobe Not Worried About the Future of Flash - <AUTHOR> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/165220/Adobe-Not-Worried-About-the-Future-of-Flash

<comment><USER2> Do these blog posts rally the Flash troops? 'Cos they really piss me off, and you'd hope it would balance out in their favour when they publish them so often.

Honestly, it's disingenious BS like this, constantly talking down HTML and the web that made me uninstall Flash. The many security, performance, platform- support problems (etc. etc.) played their part, but when monopolists start getting smug it's just unpleasant to continue supporting them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not link to the original article?

<comment><AUTHOR> A fair question. All things being equal primary source is far better. I felt more comfortable linking to something that was already accumulating discussion, versus linking directly to a company blog (which is more of a walled garden).</comment></comment>


A Kenyan Engineer Who Created Gloves That Turn Sign Language into Speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.becauseofthemwecan.com/blogs/culture/meet-the-kenyan-engineer-who-created-gloves-that-turn-sign-language-into-audible-speech <comment><USER2> [https://mimugloves.com/](https://mimugloves.com/)

I worked with these folks for a while. I also work with the deaf community.

Sign Language gloves are an interesting idea, but they don't work. Sign language relies heavily on facial expressions and body language beyond the hands.

This was also tried here before: [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navid- azodi-and-thomas-...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navid-azodi-and- thomas-pryor-signaloud-gloves-translate-american-sign-language-into-speech- text_us_571fb38ae4b0f309baeee06d?guccounter=1)

But deaf people aren't actually that keen on these solutions, as I found out when I proposed this to some of them myself.

<comment><USER3> You are absolutely correct that while the solutions don't work that is only part of the problem - the fact that engineers think they can come in and "fix" communication for the deaf community is a bigger issue. Directly involving your users (as you did) is so important when designing for someone with different needs and preferences. I hope other well meaning talented engineers read your comment and will take it to heart.

<comment><USER4> By reading your comment and making that very clear, I did!

Taken to <3

I think more people should take it to heart. If you want to influence cultures for the better, you need to interact with them. It's obvious when you know it, less obvious when you don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like a fun hardware hack, but if he wants his niece to be able to communicate effectively he should probably just learn frickin sign language. It's unlikely that these can read a vocabulary, just the alphabet, which is incredibly limiting.

So, cool, looks like fun to hack on, almost certainly not newsworthy.

<comment><USER6> This is such a negative attitude. A person tried something new in the accessibility space, so what if you think it's trivial.

<comment><USER7> There's a long history of folks trying "something new" in the accessibility space and discovering that if they'd have talked to the people with impairments they're trying to help that there are significant problems with the approach.

As you can imagine, this external savior thing can be pretty frustrating to the people who actually live their lives with a particular impairment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really want to play around with sensors and create projects similar to this. I am fascinated with sensors.

Is this something that is possible with arduino or raspberry pi? Or is there something else I should look into?

<comment><USER9> You should be able to do it with a camera, and tensorflow and traing on images with gestures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So you have sensors all over the fingers, use that information to get the current gesture vector, then find the basis vector that makes up the majority of the current gesture, look up the word in a Map(gesture -> word), then pass the word to a TTS engine. That'd be a toy model. What they actually do is probably more nuanced and precise.

</comment><comment><USER11> Even though this isn't going to be useful for interacting with deaf community, if you can turn gestures into words easily, I feel military might be interested. Also possibly divers, and other people working in conditions where they can't or shouldn't speak.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can someone do it the other way? UC Berkeley was forced to take down countless hours of recorded lectures because they were violating federal law by not having a provision for blind or deaf people to listen to them.

<comment><USER13> UC Berkeley was the subject of a Justice Department investigation which stated they weren't in compliance with the law, but never actually sued or subject to a court order to take down anything. They made a unilateral decision.

They decided not to pay for captioning, image enhancement or audio descriptions for their lectures for old content, even though the justice department letter said:

"UC Berkeley is not, however, required to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its service, program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens".

They could arguably have fulfilled their requirements by working to update material based on actual demand, and having a process to request updating such material. Court ordered consent degrees are negotiated and approved by a judge, and they could have attempted to negotiate something to address the complaint.

UC Berkeley is a public institution, with expenses paid for in large part by federal and state funds, and those funds come with requirements not to discriminate on the basis of disability, and instead of actually addressing that discrimination in a meaningful way for their content, they chose to simply stop providing the service. You can have your opinion on if that's the right decision, but they weren't forced to make one decision or another.

And per UC Berkeley, it wasn't just the Justice department letter, but also online "limited use" and to better protect instructor intellectual property from 'pirates'". [https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/03/01/course- capture/](https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/03/01/course-capture/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I may have written too much. TLDR: This is typing english letters with hand gestures for each letter, not sign language translation which is HARD.

There have been devices like this since the 80s, because it basically does hand shapes, not signs (which have movement, grammar, spatial references, body placement references and other aspects that a hand and wrist device won't capture).

This looks suitable for fingerspelling only (Think, instead of words, spelling out everything you want to say using the letters of the alphabet, and you'll get why this isn't a full solution, though you should understand that sign languages are discrete languages with their own grammar and syntax not just english words as signs, so... I guess imagine spelling out what you want to say but it's transliterated french and using latin declensions or something).

Better then nothing, sure, but hardly translating sign language.

Can you do it with a camera and machine learning? I very much doubt it. I am not sure current gesture segmentation methods could pick out discrete signs or even hand shapes in different orientations, given that there isn't a neutral state one returns between "words".

Then you need to do gesture classification, differentiating based on handshapes (which can transform during a sign, with the nature of the transition, as well as it's speed, the size of the over all gesture, incorporated facial language etc is meaningful, and can be modified by previous or future signs, spatial designations etc), and THEN you need to do stateful real time machine language translation from the decoded signs into English (or Swahili possibly), because a nations sign language isn't english (or whatever your local language is) with the words signed, it's it's own thing, and there may not be a one to one correspondence between words.

In ASL (and I can't speak to other sign languages), you often put the subject of the sentence first (IE instead of saying, "who's the new guy in the purple tie?" the grammar is more like "GUY THERE, WEARING TIE PURPLE, NEW, WHO?") And that's something simple, where gender is included explicitly, no past or future tenses etc. Of course there's also code switching, and formalized systems for conveying English like Signing Exact English.

Oh, did I mention that no sign language has a written form? Linguists and others can create code designations based on what they see as sign word correspondences, but the same sign can be modified, such that the sign you use for a pretty face can be modified to indicate degree of beauty, so the sign for gorgeous and the sign for pretty need to be differentiated, by software.

Oh and if you got it working for one country... you got it working for one country. British sign language and american sign language are radically different, and basically every country has it's own sign language, though they may have some shared roots. Even in the US, because of segregated schools for the deaf, there's a black ASL dialect.

Anyway, we might have the technology at this point to do sign language translation, but probably not, but even if we did, the funding to get it from working on set sign language phrases in an MIT or Carnegie Melon Lab to something that can actually translate sign language isn't there.

If someone wanted to start camera classification for gestures, I'd start with recognizing flipping the bird fast enough to blur it in a live video feed, because people might actually pay for that.</comment>


Gödel, Escher, Bach OCW lectures - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jFhq3Rj6DI&feature=channel_page

<comment><USER2> That poor guy, he's got the weight of the world bearing down on him. So nervous. Everyone's looking at him. But what he is talking about is so completely fascinating. I want to thank him for talking about it. I want to thank MIT for making brilliant stuff like this available to all of us for free.

</comment><comment><USER3> All of the lectures are absolutely fascinating. There is a student named Lativ or something, who asks tough questions which are interesting too. I recommend this to all fellow hackers.

</comment><comment><USER4> On a side note, I am currently reading "Metamagical Themas" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamagical_Themas>), written by Douglas Hofstadter, who also wrote the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid".

"Metamagical Themas" is a very good read about a ton of different subjects, from self-referential sentences to Lisp.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is great. I found audio files of this in the past, but without being able to see what was going up on the board, it wasn't really useful.</comment>


Free tool for task management and project collaboration - <AUTHOR> https://www.infolio.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Fast results and easy teamwork.</comment>


Ask HN: There are service that gives feedback about your startup idea? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> <http://www.feedbackarmy.com/> , sorta.</comment>


Apple is having its Microsoft moment - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/05/technology/apple-bugs/index.html <comment><USER2> I remember a time when i didn't even have the time to patch a freshly reinstalled windows 98 machine before a virus coming from my internet provider network would scan and infect my computer. I had to find and install a patched version of the OS right from the start.

Mac OS fortunately never had problems of this scale.

</comment><comment><USER3> Remarkable to see this level of detail on CNN, rather than a tech-community site.

</comment><comment><USER4> Articles like that are needed to give Apple its wake-up call.

<comment><USER5> You mean pathologically dishonest?

Apple bashing has been going on for 30 years, and they aren't changing-- this could have been written in the 1990s, and if you did the research you can find dozens like it written then.

<comment><USER6> From the Time Inc. (former CNN Time Warner) domains alone:

1\. October 2006 - Hackers look to crack Mac [1]

"Apple computers have long been prized for being virus-free. But as more people use Apple products, experts say the company is increasingly becoming a target for cyber pranksters ..."

2\. April 2009 - Experts: Malicious program targets Macs [2]

"Mac computers are known for their near-immunity to malicious computer programs that plague PCs. But that may be changing somewhat, according to computer security researchers (...)"

3\. May 2011 - Is Mac under a virus attack? [3]

"Is Mac under a virus attack? No. But there's some bad news rising on the Apple malware front (...)"

4\. September 2012 - Malware attacks on the rise [4]

"Apple (AAPL) got a wake-up call in the second quarter. The company had advertised that Macs didn't get viruses, but a virus called "Flashback" changed all that (...)"

You will notice something in common in all those reports:

1\. "Oliver Friedrichs, director of security response at * Symantec, a leading anti-virus software vendor _, said 72 vulnerabilities were discovered in the Mac 's OS X operating system in 2006, up from 19 in 2004."

2\. "But blogs are buzzing this week about what _ two Symantec researchers * have called the first harmful computer program to strike specifically at Mac."

3\. "According to a memo released Monday by the * computer security site Intego * (...) (maker of Mac Internet Security, Antivirus for Mac)

4\. "Attacks that we've traditionally seen on PCs are now making their way to other devices," said Vincent Weafer, * head of McAfee Labs * . "This report highlights the need for protection on all devices that may be used to access the Internet. (...)"

[1] [http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/10/20/apple.virus/ind...](http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/10/20/apple.virus/index.html)

[2] [http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/22/first.mac.botnet/inde...](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/22/first.mac.botnet/index.html)

[3] [http://fortune.com/2011/05/04/is-mac-under-a-virus- attack/](http://fortune.com/2011/05/04/is-mac-under-a-virus-attack/)

[4] [http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/04/technology/malware-cyber- att...](http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/04/technology/malware-cyber-attacks/)

And, of course, on the linked article:

"So much for the argument 'Apple computers are safer and bug-free.' It's not true. We're accustomed to annoying glitches in PCs. But the past few years have shown that Macs, iPads and iPhones have them too. "

and

"They don't appear to have a regular patch schedule like Microsoft, nor do they appear to patch continuously like Google does with Chrome," said Tod Beardsley, a research manager at cybersecurity firm Rapid7.. "

of course with the link neatly placed on Rapid7.

<comment><USER5> I think the part about patch schedules is hilarious. Apple is the one who, before chrome existed and microsoft was anywhere close to doing it, set up updates to happen automatically. Like years ahead. I think even before linux got it. And yeah, they don't push security patches out on tuesday because they don't have vulnerabilities every week.

It is a straight up lie to say they don't patch "continuously". They do this both for the OS and for the Apps in the AppStore-- one of the advantages of the AppStore is that if a vulnerability is found in one of your apps, the developers can push out an update and it can get patched without you having to even know it needs to be updated.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


RFIDler – An Open Source Software Defined RFID Reader/Writer/Emulator (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://adamsblog.aperturelabs.com/2013/08/rfidler-open-source-software-defined.html?m=0 <comment><USER2> For those interested in this space, there are a few alternatives as well. In the LF space (125-134KHz, mainly HID / EM4XX and T55 chipsets) the proxmark is a very useful device. It was also used in the recent cloning of Tesla fobs and VingCard hotel badges.

In the HF space, the proxmark performs well - the HydraNFC is a very powerful device alternative, allowing real time sniffing - but is more hands on than the proxmark. The Chameleon Mini is also a great complementary device for easy emulation of HF tags.

Just a head's up - the proxmark clones, and specifically the proxmark easy clones are notoriously poor clones of a system that is already quite temperamental.

If you're in the market, check out [https://proxmark.com](https://proxmark.com) for licensed distributors of current stock.

To date, the latest version is the Proxmark 3 RDV4, which is incredibly compact. If you combine the Proxmark with Walrus.app, you have a very capable and portable LF sniffing system.

Adam's system (the device in the article) is a great system, and he's a very smart and affable person if you have the chance to meet him.

Full disclosure: I am associated with [https://lab401.com](https://lab401.com), an official distributor of the Proxmark 3.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not HTTPS-Everywhere friendly and from 2013. Can we get a title-update?

Also, seems you can't buy them and the kickstarter ended[0] back in Sep 2013. Last update on the firmware was Jan 2018[1].

Seems pretty cool and I'd want one but seems to have died, now. :(

[0] - [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1708444109/rfidler-a- so...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1708444109/rfidler-a-software- defined-rfid-reader-writer-emul/description)

[1] - [https://github.com/ApertureLabsLtd/RFIDler](https://github.com/ApertureLabsLtd/RFIDler)

<comment><USER4> YOu can buy it from their site, 80 pounds Stirling + VAT and Shipping: [http://aperturelabs.com/tools.html](http://aperturelabs.com/tools.html)

<comment><USER5> Pretty expensive, just checked Alibaba and there's some Proxmark clones for 62USD: [https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Update- PM3-Proxmark-3...](https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Update- PM3-Proxmark-3-Easy-3_60675809567.html)

edit: Aliexpress is even cheaper ($42) and is not in bulk (also, the hardware Proxmark design is open source): [https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Newest- version-proxmark3-dev...](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Newest-version- proxmark3-develop-suit-3-Kits-proxmark-nfc-RFID-reader-copier-changeable-card- mfoc-card/32951879188.html)

[https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3](https://github.com/Proxmark/proxmark3)

<comment><USER6> However the support for those things that are on alibaba, ebay etc. (Proxmark3 v3 Easy) is supposedly going away.

I've just tried to find a page with the reasons about why they're no longer supporting it, but I've failed to find it.

I seem to remember it's something to do with wanting to support the more fancy versions that cos 5-10x more :/

However I can't find the page, so maybe I'm not remembering something correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very nice. Though isn't the Proxmark III capable of doing LF (12x-13x kHz) and HF (MHz-range) tags?</comment>


The New Distribution of the 3-Tiered Architecture Changes Everything - <AUTHOR> http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2010/07/08/new-three-tiered-architecture-changes-everything.aspx

<comment><USER2> Orly? [http://berislav.lopac.net/post/615858128/the-future-of- web-b...](http://berislav.lopac.net/post/615858128/the-future-of-web-browser) :)

<comment><USER3> Raise: [http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/07/08/the-browser-isnt- going...](http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/07/08/the-browser-isnt-going- anywhere/)

Post content here for convenience. See link above for hyperlinks.

Berislav Lopac thinks that the browser is going away, and native applications connected to web-server backends are the future. I feel the opposite. I think native applications are headed the way of the cli. The browser is the great equalizer. Think about it like this: what barriers prevent you changing operating systems today? What barriers prevented you from changing operating systems 10 years ago? Our daily computing lives are dominated more and more by web-based applications. We can use these applications anywhere. It's one of the primary reasons mobile and tablet devices have finally gained traction.

Not too long ago, our mobility between operating systems didn't matter much. No one really cared if they could easily switch from Windows to Linux, because switching didn't achieve a specific goal that they were interested in. That is, the tasks they could accomplish were too similar. The introduction of mobile and tablet devices has created a new incentive for operating system mobility. Users want to be untied from their desks, and they want to bring their experience with them.

The browser is already an application platform. It is its own execution environment. Ironically, Microsoft's early vision of the web browser was that it would be a platform to which native-like applications could be pushed over the wire. ActiveX and proprietary browser features were an attempt to leverage existing developer toolsets in a browser environment. This failed (for a large number of reasons), but the persistence of IE6 in corporate environments is a testament to just how close they were to succeeding. As browser standards advance, we'll see a surge in the development of fully in-browser frameworks that use design patterns like MVC. I don't mean V and C in the browser and model on the server. I mean M, V, and C within a browser, where the model reaches out (sometimes) to a server for data-sync or specific execution. Apple's guidelines for iPhone web apps are a great example. Their entire framework is built atop an open-source browser, which is seeing widespread adoption in the mobile and tablet space.

The balance between client and server based processing runs like the tides. Not every application will become a web application, but the number and broad importance of native applications will diminish. Web standards will continue to advance, supporting more native-like applications in the web browser. Projects like Fluid will allow users and developers to package browser-based apps in launchable containers on the desktop, while mobile devices will continue with the existing trend of abstracting away the difference between mobile and native apps (see iOS and Android handling of web app shortcuts on homescreens). Browser application frameworks like Sproutcore will put new tools in the hands of developers that advance the way we think and build "web apps".

The future of the web browser is bright.</comment></comment>


Video of Airplane Laser Hitting Truck - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/10/06/video-of-airplane-laser-hitting-truck/

<comment><USER2> It obviously can't do very much to a truck, but I wonder what it would do to a human. Nothing very good, obviously, but how long would you need to keep it focused on someone before they dropped down, brain cooked? (I can't help but notice that the beam is approximately head-sized).

I wonder if a reflective helmet would be a decent countermeasure (or, dare I say it, a tinfoil hat?)

<comment><USER3> You could, but then you'd be prancing around the battlefield in a very visible shiny thing. They wear camo for a reason.

<comment><USER4> It could be a second layer under an ablative layer of camo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone else think of the final scene in Real Genius when watching this video?

<comment><USER6> Yes, I was disappointed that the truck wasn't full of popcorn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like I'm missing something about laser weaponry - couldn't you just paint your vehicles and such chrome?

<comment><USER8> I would imagine reflective paint is kind of expensive. And does it reflect infrared as well?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are some useful apps for living in San Francisco? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Tentsegritty sends alerts when free tents are being distributed

StepWriteUp provides Waze-like pedestrian alerts for where there's human waste on your route

Chopp.ly offers real-time competitive bids on used bike parts

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few

<comment><USER3> Free tents?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Zillow is nice so you can see how many millions of dollars that crack house on the corner with no plumbing is worth this week.

<comment><USER5> A corollary to this... the How-to-GTFO-of-SanFrancisco app, because there's no earthly reason housing should be THAT expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The 311 app ([https://sf311.org/mobile](https://sf311.org/mobile)) is really useful to report hazardous things (e.g: needles).

</comment><comment><USER7> Caltrain droid - have Caltrain map and schedule on you always without privacy sucks.

</comment><comment><USER8> There's an app called SF Climates that shows microclimate data for SF. Quite useful as there can be a 30 degree difference between neighborhoods! (I have screenshots to confirm.)

Other than that, generally staying abreast of the latest startups that are offering promotions with VC money is a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you have kids, Galore is awesome for finding activities: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/galore-kids-activities- camps...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/galore-kids-activities- camps/id1002740010?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER10> eBook reader apps with a San Francisco Library Card - you will have free access to thousands of eBooks and magazines.

[http://sfpl.org/?pg=2000005001](http://sfpl.org/?pg=2000005001)

</comment><comment><USER11> Lyft, Amazon Prime Now, TaskRabbit, Maps

</comment><comment><USER12> BartRunner if you commute with Bart.

<comment><USER13> Is that for iPhone? I wasn't able to find it in the App Store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Riding a bicycle, so an offline OSM bike route app.

</comment><comment><USER15> Bloomberg or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich)</comment>


Attackers exploit 0day vulnerability that gives full control of Android phones - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/attackers-exploit-0day-vulnerability-that-gives-full-control-of-android-phones <comment><USER2> > The bug is a local privilege escalation vulnerability

not as bad as it could have been...

> The use-after-free vulnerability originally appeared in the Linux kernel and > was patched in early 2018 in version 4.14,

this happened because Google for some reason uses their own Frankenstein kernel. And this is not the first time it had lead to security issues</comment>


Diversity, Inclusion and Culture: Steps for Building Great Teams - <AUTHOR> https://open.nytimes.com/diversity-inclusion-and-culture-steps-for-building-great-teams-ca157bd98c07 <comment><USER2> The fundamental contradiction of the Diversity Religion:

\- There are no differences between different races and sexes.

\- It is good for business to recruit more minorities because they bring different perspectives (they think differently).

Three of the four links that "make the business case for diversity" are based on the same McKinsey study that explicitly states that "correlation does not imply causation". Could it simply be that only profitable companies can afford to worry about the skin color make-up of its workforce?

The author also admits that she joined an all-male team with a great culture, but that doesn't seem to have made her pause in her quest to impose her own aesthetical preferences as manager.

<comment><USER3> Can you please explain the term "Diversity Religion"?

<comment><USER2> I find it reminiscent of a religion in that adherents subscribe to certain ideals that can not be argued about ("it's the right thing to do" as the author says). My amateur psychologist analysis is that people need a higher cause, and in the absence of traditional religions they instead join political movements such as this one.

<comment><USER4> I too believe our brains are hardwired to be receptive to certain power structures/belief systems. Science can be a religion-- you be a zealot about anything if you try.

Global warming, true or not has all of the hallmarks of a religion-- which is why I think generally, religious folks aren't as receptive to the idea-- that need of theirs is already filled.

<comment><USER3> Didn't the pope talk about global warming?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


F.lux - <AUTHOR> http://justgetflux.com/ <comment><USER2> I, and I'm sure the rest of HN, loves F.lux...but is there a reason why this needs to be posted every month or two? There hasn't even been an update (and the promised OSX update is no where to be seen)

<comment><USER3> Honestly, for most things I would agree... but F.lux has made such a difference in my own sleep, at least, and therefore overall life quality, that I feel like it's one of the very few thing that deserves to be posted every month or two (in fact, I can't really think of anything else).

It's funny how, even after years, it's such an amazing tiny piece of software... that still almost nobody knows about, outside of mostly just the hacker community.

I mean, it's almost a crime it isn't already a native part of OSX and, especially, iOS.

<comment><USER4> Yes- I always point to f.lux as an example of little feature that every single graphical operating system could benefit from having, and yet that no OS creator includes as a feature. More than that- I want an entire OS that has dark on light windows/text/widgets/etc. during the day, and light on dark at night - this would be configurable, but by default automagically determined by your geographical location. On OSX, one can hack such a setup using an app like Nocturne, but it's clunky.

At every new Windows, OSX, iOS, Android release we get new features (some debatably useful - i.e. notification center in OSX, or integration with the new social network of the day) - but some key stuff that would make human- computer interaction noticeably better is just missing.

A few other things that I can't believe are still not standard in a 2014 OS: better copy and paste (the damn thing has been clunky for 30 years, see Ted Nelson's rant), better window management, better support for interacting across multiple nearby computers (Airdrop is a tiny step in that direction), ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most important. Desktop. Utility. Ever.

I'm surprised of how few people even in our industry know about it. There hasn't been a single case where I show it to someone and he/she wasn't impressed. I'm so accustomed to using it that if for some reason it stopped working I believe my productivity would suffer at least 40%. Especially for those long winter hours it's a life saving app.

Where's the damn donate button?

<comment><USER6> Sorry to maybe sound silly but why? I've used it, it didn't feel good (my eyes kind of hurt) so I removed it. I see you're enthusiastic about it, what other benefits does it have if you don't mind me asking?

<comment><USER5> You have to adjust the settings. I'm using 5900K for day and 4600K for evening. I like it because it makes the screen more bearable especially during late evening hours.

<comment><USER6> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> F.lux (or something similar) is one of those things that should come pre- configured with each operating system. I find it indispensable for coding at night (and I use Photoshop quite a bit, too.) Shame there isn't a way to do this on iOS without jailbreaking.

<comment><USER8> I tried it and the color change was ubearable. I'm happy people for whom this works have the option to install it but I do not want my OS changing my screen colors for me.

<comment><USER9> You did NOT really try it. The color change is adjustable to your preferences. You just had it set too strong if it was unbearable. You seriously didn't give it a chance and don't have a clue. I would be skeptical to accept any other recommendations from you knowing how much you're willing to judge things by very first impressions and even comment to others about your judgment as though it is valid.

<comment><USER8> Wow. You know so much about me based on one comment.

That's amusing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Open source/linux version: [http://jonls.dk/redshift/](http://jonls.dk/redshift/)

(apt-get install redshift)

<comment><USER11> Works flawlessly, and the configuration file is a single file, which makes it easy to keep synced between computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love the confidence of F.lux's domain name. "JustGetFlux.com" \-- it's like: "why is this even a question?" Judging from most of these comments, I'd say we're all in agreement.

I definitely make a habit of telling everyone I know, especially when I happen to be looking at their screen at night.

</comment><comment><USER13> My major pain with f.lux is the inability to manually specify when it should start shifting colours. I work in a brightly lit office until way after the sunset (esp. in winter), and it makes no sense for my screen to start colour shifting at 5PM.

My current 'solution' is simply manually starting f.lux when I get home, and killing it when I go to the office. Tedious!

<comment><USER14> Lie!

Tell F.lux it you live on the equator in the settings. If it's triggering too early, move your fake location west.

<comment><USER13> That's one way to do it in winter, if exactly 12 hour days suffice, and don't move too much. Manually adjusting the longitude every time I fly to the US would be a pain though.

What I'd really like is to tell it 'turn yourself off at sunrise, turn yourself on at sunset or 2100, whichever's later'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have some questions / issues before I blindly use this software:

1) It's not open source, or is it? I don't see anything about getting the source. In today's world, utilities like this are open source, or have an open source alternative. This is something that runs in the background of my computer all day, every day, so I would like to know what's going on.

2) How does this affect graphic design? Does it make it impossible to get colors just right?

3) Why does this matter? My lights are on in my office. It's ALWAYS the same brightness in my office, all the time. Daytime. Nighttime. I don't really understand what my monitor is adjusting to. Is it JUST that my eyes are probably more sensitive when I'm tired? If so, that makes sense I suppose, but how does it know that I'm tired just based on the time that I'm using my computer?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be negative, these are just the questions I have and the reasons why I haven't jumped on the bandwagon yet.

<comment><USER3> 2) Everybody says not to use it for graphic design... but I haven't found any problems. I think my brain judges colors relative to whatever the "white point" is, and there is always enough white/gray in my OS interface to judge photos or artwork alongside. Remember, color perception is fundamentally relative. When I look at my work the next day, it looks just like I remembered it. But other people have found the opposite, though -- it may be a personal thing.

3) It's not about brightness, it's about color temperature. If you have fluorescent lights in your office that are on at 10pm, you're right, it's not going to help. It really only makes sense to use F.lux under non-super-bright warm-ish nighttime lighting, or in a dark room.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm conflicted... my eyes give me a ton of issues and this is tempting, but I also do a lot of front end work and visual design. I don't want everything I design at night to turn out blue because my screen was orange when I made it. I think for now I'll stick with my computer glasses, they've helped a ton.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone have a solution for using F.lux + Shades?

[http://www.charcoaldesign.co.uk/shades](http://www.charcoaldesign.co.uk/shades)

If I run them simultaneously my monitor flashes yellow-and-normal.

</comment><comment><USER18> Don't install this, it's a trap. Spent 30min to reset the lightness/contrast/gamma of my 2 desktop screens using these painful OSD buttons.

</comment><comment><USER19> I used to use it but had to disable it because I find myself regularly working at 2 or 3am and being tired would be a terrible idea...

<comment><USER20> I find that the reduced color temperature doesn't make me tired so much as it seems to interfere less with my ability to get to sleep. Although judging from previous times this has been posted, there are a few people like you and react a bit more dramatically to the color shift.

For anyone who's never used it, it's certainly worth trying. This is particularly true if you have mild insomnia that's likely caused or exasperated by staring at a screen before bed. It's not a panacea, but used with other habit changes, it can certainly help!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I once doubted the usefulness of this application. Now it's one of my must- have apps. My eyes will sore without it for a while.

</comment><comment><USER22> Just out of interest, what is your temperature setting for night? I'm at 3600K, decreasing it every few weeks.

</comment><comment><USER23> I was hoping this was the new version being released on OSX, but alas, it wasn't.

Oh well. Soon I hope!

</comment><comment><USER9> Nobody should EVER use any computer without this. And, Apple is evil… because their proprietary walled-garden iOS censors out F.lux (among other things).

For those using GNU/Linux, use Redshift instead: [http://jonls.dk/redshift/](http://jonls.dk/redshift/)</comment>


Your test suite is trying to tell you something - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2013/07/your-test-suite-is-trying-to-tell-you.html <comment><USER2> The real problem is `duration * time.Millisecond` makes no sense. The time api seems a bit obtuse. Why not `duration.milliseconds`?

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree. Part of the problem here is that the Go time.Duration is just an int64 so you can do arithmetic on them. It would be better if there was something like NewDurationMilliseconds(). Thus the type here allowed me to shoot myself in the foot.

Having said that it doesn't change the fact that looking into the 'flaky' test was the right thing to do. Even if the type system were different I'm sure I would have shot myself in the foot in some other way.

<comment><USER3> Seems it would rather be better if there was a .net TimeSpan / JodaTime Duration type, or better yet, a type system that understood units.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "By me." \- I've been there many times!

I hate that SCM systems commonly describe who made changes as "blame" (couldn't it be "praise" for when you want to find out who wrote exceptional code?) and yet it's wonderful to be able to look back into history and see "who" was responsible for a block of code. It can be a real learning experience!

<comment><USER5> 'svn praise' is an alias for 'svn blame' (or the other way round). The more neutral wording is usually 'annotate'. To be honest, I have rarely used these commands to check who had written such a beautiful code...

<comment><USER6> Someone once said that the only real measure of code quality was the number of WTFs/minute emitted while reading it:

[http://www.osnews.com/story/19266/WTFs_m](http://www.osnews.com/story/19266/WTFs_m)

<comment><USER7> Might be from Joel Spolsky/Bill Gates:

"...a person who came along from my team whose whole job during the meeting was to keep an accurate count of how many times Bill said the F word. The lower the f __*-count, the better. "

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Without knowing more about the source, it's hard to say for sure, but would an explicit test for a failure to connect to memcached have uncovered this? That is, if there is common code to connect to memcached, and a test to purposely generate a timeout, it seems like it would have jumped out as taking far too long.

If there's no common code to connect, and every user of it has its own implementation, there might be more bugs like this lurking. Every user of memcache in this particular code base would need to have its own "what if memcached is slow or down?" type test. It seems such a test did not already exist.

Following the events in this post, is there now a test to explicitly make sure the delays are reasonable, or was the extra multiplication just removed?

<comment><AUTHOR> The big change was to write a mock memcached server where I could control everything. The extra multiplication was removed and a bunch of new tests written using the mock server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ah, this reminds me to go use the new std::chrono classes to strongly type my time unit variables.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you listen to the pain or failings of your test suite, you will likely end up with better code. The problem is most developers when testing gets hard don't look at their code and go "why does my code make this so difficult?" they wil say "testing sucks" and delete their tests.

It's amazing what you will learn if you pay attention to the pain.

<comment><USER11> I agree. This example is a perfect candidate to further abstract the source to remove ambiguities and better test the expectations of the source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Great anecdote. I've never really agreed with having massive system-level automated tests, because more often than not the random failures like this _do_ just get ignored.

I guess it depends on the culture within your team, how much you all care about your test suites.

</comment><comment><USER13> It amazes how often I see otherwise competent engineers ignore spurious failures – they don't even open a bug report!

Software doesn't fail spuriously – there's _always_ a cause.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting analysis, but yup, that's what tests are for! If you've got a sporadically failing test somewhere, that's probably sign of a bug.

<comment><USER15> The question is what's the cost/benefit on fixing such things? Not everyone is in a position to stop working on features for two days to track down something like this.

This particular bug is also a strong argument for using more advanced type systems, even if you have good test coverage.

<comment><AUTHOR> _This particular bug is also a strong argument for using more advanced type systems, even if you have good test coverage._

Yes, it's a great pity that the compiler didn't say "You're multiplying a time.Duration by a time.Duration and expecting it to be a time.Duration".

<comment><USER16> I'm not sure whether you're serious or not (and I see a few different jokes you could be getting at otherwise), but multiplying time by time should give you time squared, not time again. Unfortunately, even Haskell doesn't catch errors of _that_ type if you want to use the ordinary mathematical operators, because (*) :: Num a => a -> a -> a.

In this case, that's not what's going on, though. It's multiplying time by unitless scaling factor, which doesn't present the same problem. However, there's a few ways you can get at the issue with the help of the language, you just have to distinguish between the different units you might be using to represent time - this doesn't really take an advanced type system: the example of having a .milliseconds method is along these lines.

<comment><USER17> Have you seen the dimensional library? It's a slightly abusive use of the type system, but will check units at compile time. See e.g. [http://code.google.com/p/dimensional/wiki/GMExample](http://code.google.com/p/dimensional/wiki/GMExample)

<comment><USER16> I think so; I've seen similar things, for sure. Obviously Haskell does have the _ability_ to make this distinction; just (unfortunately) it's somewhat incompatible with the standard prelude, and thus common practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Makes me want to go zap a long standing ocassional test fail I got.

It seems that sometimes a netty hashwheeltimer is executing a timeout you add immediately, instead of after 2 seconds. And its the simplest code, and the 2 seconds we are trying to set are literals, so it ready surprises me. Find it hard to imagine a bug in netty and it always affects the same test, despite all our requests setting an aggressive 2 second timeout...

</comment><comment><USER19> Why do they call it a "memcached" server rather than a "memcache" server? I realize that the daemon process for a server application is usually the normal name followed by a 'd', but that is not usually how we refer to the server or application. For instance, we say "mysql" server, not the "mysqld" server, even though that is the name of the long running process.

<comment><USER20> Because that's how memcached brands itself.

[http://memcached.org/](http://memcached.org/) \-- the URL has a d (unlike mysql)

"What is Memcached?" \-- it's how they talk about themselves.

It's even in the logo...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think this is a really good example of where languages should have built in support for units. I was just having a look around and found the units module for python ([https://pypi.python.org/pypi/units/](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/units/)). I really like the example at the end where they have modified pypy for a native unit syntax.

<comment><USER22> I think built is support for units is a bit to specific. Support for cheap type alias'es would work, and be far more general. What I mean is something like:

type Inch = int type Centimeter = int

And then have the compiler enforce these as different types (as opposed to alias'es), so if you want to use an Inch, where the function decalares it expects a Centimeter, you would be force to cast it (or have the compiler auto cast using your conversion function).

This doesn't get you support for multidimensional units (IE, define a function that goes from arbitary unit u to u^2), which would require a much more complicated addition to the type system.

<comment><USER23> > I think built is support for units is a bit to specific. Support for cheap > type alias'es would work, and be far more general

Go has support for cheap type aliases for which names typed with the same underlying type are distinct types which are not mutually assignable, and, in fact, Duration is such a type with int64 as the underlying type.</comment></comment></comment>