Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351 <comment><USER2> It's not like the Israelis haven't done this before and not paid any consequences for it.

2000: [https://www.wrmea.org/000-june/despite-coverup-israel- caught...](https://www.wrmea.org/000-june/despite-coverup-israel-caught- spying-in-washington-again.html)

2015 caught greasing politicians: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-net- on-israel-snares-co...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-net-on-israel- snares-congress-1451425210)

2011: [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/08spy.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/08spy.html)

2015: [https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying- denial...](https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial- directly-contradicted-secret-nsa-documents/)

2014: [https://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggressive-spying-us- mostly...](https://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggressive-spying-us-mostly- hushed-250278)

1999: [https://nypost.com/1999/03/03/israel-blackmailed-bill- with-m...](https://nypost.com/1999/03/03/israel-blackmailed-bill-with-monica- tapes-spy-hunt-ended-after-mossad-bugged-prez-sex-chats-book-exclusive/)

2019: [https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/trained-in-israeli- intellige...](https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/trained-in-israeli-intelligence- agencies-former-spies-get-involved-in-us-elections-as-private-sector- information-warriors/)

2018: [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-firm- bl...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-firm-black-cube- says-hired-by-business-entity-not-trump-1.6063162)

2018: [https://www.thenation.com/article/how-israel-spies-on-us- cit...](https://www.thenation.com/article/how-israel-spies-on-us-citizens/)

First page of a google search on "Israel spying on US" excluding last few weeks.

This one's my favorite though: Netanyahu and some Hollywood freak were apparently involved in stealing atomb bomb triggers from the US:

[https://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in- nucle...](https://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear- smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel/)

I mean, they're in non compliance with the NPT, so they shouldn't receive any foreign aid, but good luck on that.

<comment><USER3> Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on _their_ side. I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support _for_ Israel.

<comment><USER4> So, their spying is justified because they need to know in advance if US politicians wouldn't fully support a potential WWIII-esque intervention on their behalf, ostensibly so they could throw their own support behind a different US politician?

And this is ... not viewed as insane by normal people?

<comment><USER3> I'm not justifying it. I'm explaining Israel's rationale for doing it.

I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to discriminate against people for where they are born.

IMO, all human beings should be allowed to freely travel and work anywhere on planet earth.

EDIT: Or outer space for that matter...

<comment><USER5> The No Borders belief is very idealistic. How does that work with state benefits like universal healthcare? And taxes? Yes it would be nice to be able to pick up and live/work anywhere but it's not as simple as one might think.

<comment><USER3> Why are nations geographical? Corporations are not bound by borders. You get benefits from your employer. You pay for insurance for the insurance benefits. If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you still get benefits from the govt just because you were born there. There's no need to _earn_ anything.

It's all just random chance and it seems very unfair to me that being citizen of a first world nation affords you a good quality of life, while someone born somewhere else has bombs going off outside and isn't allowed to leave.

Imagine being trapped in a horrible situation with no freedom to escape.

It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best.

<comment><USER6> > _Why are nations geographical?_

The same way family houses are geographical. Because the people in them live on some place, cater for it, historically inherit it, and do as they please inside their own premises.

Nations are groups of people who grew in the same area, had gone through the same historical experiences (e.g. attacks, famines, wars, etc), worked together to make their place better, and built their culture and cultivated their ways of life over centuries, often making heavy sacrifices to free and keep their land...

> _Corporations are not bound by borders_

Corporations also don't belong to their "citizens" (employees) but to the few owners/shareholders, are not bound by democracy (they are despotic kingdoms internally), and only care for profit, and would "exile" (fire) any number of their "citizens" (employees) if the profits said so. So not the best example to base social paradigms on...

> _It 's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best._

According to most scholars, the nation state is a product of enlightenment and modernity.

We had empires before.

And federal like unions, are just nation states minus the political autonomy (sovereignty), so decisions are made by some bureaucrats away from where it matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The U.S. government concluded within the last two years that Israel was most > likely behind

> But unlike most other occasions

I don't know if im spoiled by Wikipedia, or jaded from age, or wisened by age, or rightfully lost trust in the media, or wrongfully lost trust in the media, but i find myself entirely unwilling to accept to accept claims like this.

Citation. Needed.

In order to believe this article, i need to learn about this publication, and then learn about the author, and then learn about this article specifically.

This shit is so much work. We need a new reporting format. Citationless articles are too infotainment-y for me now.

<comment><USER8> Citations in journalism is a really interesting thing. Unlike science, where at least in theory, everything is built from the ground up using first principles or built upon raw data collected, the "raw data" of journalism is just various types of conversations with people the journalist then has to verify, and gauge the reliability of. In other cases it's the journalists first person experience of an event.

Citations, (IMHO) aren't a solution to this because human judgement is inherent in explaining human behavior and events.

I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work.

I agree that it's a lot of work, but I don't see an alternative to critically engaging with reporting on human events.

<comment><USER9> Wikipedia does context amazingly well. If I go to the Wikipedia article on sandals I not only get information on sandals, I get information about why people might want to look at an article on sandals (eg, infectious disease control) and if I care to drill a little deeper a list of all the people who cared enough about sandals to edit the article. And a talk page to cover any controversies although sandals appear to be an uncontroversial subject.

Jumping to this article however I lose 80% of that. This article is light on that data and metadata. I can't tell much about the author (I can see his last 5 articles though) and I certainly can't tell what is primary research or not. Did this journalist see the 'cell-phone surveillance devices'? Is he working off a press release? Are there challenges to this narrative viewpoint? Is this written more out of a sense of entertainment or is there an effort being made not to embellish facts?

I'm going to guess that GP meant 'Citation needed' in a slightly broader sense than just name-the-source. There is a whole culture of open metadata and transparency that has grown up in the last two decades that is simply better than journalism. Wikipedia is trustworthy because the slightest suspicion can be investigated. It is frustrating to think that we are going to rely on journalism for political information when the articles are simply devoid of political context in the sense that is freely available on Wikipedia.

<comment><USER8> Just putting myself in the shoes of someone at Politico, I think they would point out a few things.

Is it reasonable to compare this article to a wikipedia article? The publishing time frame and the number of people involved are way different. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for current events. It isn't journalism.

Maybe more importantly, is Wikpedia really an objective or fair look at an issue? For sandals sure, but look up a controversial event page and I bet things start to seem more questionable. That's a point where the reputation of a newspaper is an advantage over Wikpedia because at wikipedia, each page, each sentence can have a different author with a different viewpoint or agenda.

Is the author as important as the publication itself? The editors are the ones making final decisions on things. For example, The Economist doesn't even use bylines. Journalists see themselves as researchers more than authors. The role of the "Author" if there is one is the editor.

An exhuastively cited and sourced article is difficult to read. The narrative is easily lost, and the source content is skipped over by most readers. And you still need to spend a lot of time combing through the source matter for it to be a meaningful improvement over an unsourced article

Last, journalists rely on an idea of common knowledge. They aren't going to provide sourcing on a commmonly reported facts like "stingray-like devices have been found near the whitehouse". That isn't as true in academia where citations probably would be used for that type of fact.

Overall, I'm not unsimpathetic to what you and OP are saying, I think with the internet news media could link articles and sources together better for easier validation.

However, the idea that this type of stuff can eliminate the need for a high level of engagement with the news, critical thinking skills, I don't agree with.

<comment><USER10> There are many Wikipedia pages on current, ongoing events. The editors even label them as such. So apparently it is intended for that purpose.

<comment><USER8> This? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events)

which led me to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests)

Its sources are the very articles that are being criticized in this thread.

Wikipedia isn't a news gathering organization. It aggregates information collected by others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 2019:

> An Israeli Embassy spokesperson, Elad Strohmayer, denied that Israel placed > the devices and said: "These allegations are absolute nonsense. Israel > doesn't conduct espionage operations in the United States, period."

2014 ([https://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-stop-spying- us-249757](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-stop-spying-us-249757)):

> Aaron Sagui told Newsweek "Israel doesn't conduct espionage operations in > the United States, period. We condemn the fact that such outrageous, false > allegations are being directed against Israel."

I have to say, placing stingrays around D.C. is pretty bold, but not exactly surprising. It's not even an open secret that Israel aggressively spies in the U.S.; it just is what it is, I guess.

<comment><USER12> And how's this different from America spying on Israel, or any of the five eyes nations it claims to not spy against?

Every country spies on everyone else.

<comment><USER11> Every country spies on everyone else, including allies. But the extent and depth of Israeli spying in the U.S. is considered to be particularly extreme for allies. Importantly, there are rarely any repercussions, and Israel never cops to it, which is sort of a slap in the face.

When it was discovered that the U.S. was tapping Angela Merkel's cellphone there was public outrage in Germany, shock in the international community, and substantial consequences in terms of further reduced intelligence cooperation. It's worthwhile to mention that U.S. and German intelligence sharing is much more limited than between the U.S. and Israel, which is _why_ Obama approved the tapping in the first place.

When U.S. espionage efforts in Japan were publicized, Obama ended up _apologizing_ to Shinzo Abe.

AFAIK, the only other ally in recent U.S. history (past 50 years) that came close to the extent and depth of Israeli espionage is France. But nobody in the U.S. gave them a pass, either.

There are countless ways to distinguish Israeli efforts. Attempts to equivocate here basically amount to whataboutism. Until recently it would be hard to make strong value judgments because Israel is of course a sovereign nation with its own self interests, and their obnoxious spying seemed harmless enough considering they know how to keep a secret and were careful not to obstruct finalized Washington policy. But the problem with spying is that it can injure trust, and allies need to be able to trust each other as much as practicable. Now that Israel doesn't even pretend to be non-partisan wrt American politics, and even aggressively lobbied to kill the signed & sealed Iran nuclear deal, their efforts have arguably crossed a line even given the "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel. (OTOH, I wonder which came first, the stingrays or Trumps public disclosure of secret Israeli intelligence. Perhaps Israel took the risk partly because of their distrust in Trump, either his honesty generally or at least his ability to keep a secret.)

<comment><USER12> Regardless of the attempt here at painting a country's foreign policy as partisan, any given country favors one U.S. party over the other. Right now, China probably favors a Democrat led government, so does Iran. The U.S. probably favors one Israeli party over the other. Your entire issue with this is likely because you perceive Israeli spying to oppose your political party. On those lines, would you classify Chinese/Iranian spying efforts as harmless, just because they currently bat for the Democrats? Or Canada, given that they are allied?

Also, it is being taken as fact that Israel is the originator of the sting rays, when in reality this isn't conclusive.

I believe the U.S. and Israel have proportionate response to each other being caught spying, it makes _zero_ common sense for the U.S. to undermine it's own national security by repeatedly going easy on Israel.

So, citations outstanding on the following open ended claims made:

1\. Extent and depth of Israeli spying in the U.S. is considered to be particularly extreme (and U.S spying in Israel isn't)

2\. US is easy on Israeli spying efforts despite Israel being hard on US spying efforts

3\. Israel is definitely behind the sting rays

4\. Your reaction to this story is partisan

<comment><USER11> Because you managed to get under my skin, I'll give you some freebies:

2004: [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-03-na- spypr...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-03-na- spyprobe3-story.html)

2008: [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-spy- who...](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-spy-who-loves- us/)

Notice the thread: Israel is uniquely aggressive, especially as an ally.

This article is full of innuendo and conjecture (they say this up front), but provides insight into the complex web of business and intelligence relationships that make it easy for Israel to accomplish electronic surveillance in the U.S.: [https://www.wired.com/2012/04/shady-companies- nsa/](https://www.wired.com/2012/04/shady-companies-nsa/)

A specific case of spying intended to undermine U.S. policymaking: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal)

And the same thing 10 years later, except now patently partisan: [https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying- denial...](https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial- directly-contradicted-secret-nsa-documents/)

Another thread: Allies typically spy on each other to understand their motivations and to predict their next moves. But Israel is increasingly doing it to enable them to directly interfere in domestic American politics. Some might excuse it as Israel being justifiably paranoid about Iran; others won't excuse it. But you can't deny that it stands apart.

The reported examples are just the tip of the iceberg. As people readily report, it's widely known/believed that the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes this results in misleading and false accusations, but this is a consequence of consistent, significant, long-term espionage activity, as well as the fact that their intelligence activities run the gambit of methodologies (legal and illegal), much of which doesn't fit the Hollywood definition of espionage.

<comment><USER12> > Because you managed to get under my skin...

I'm not betting on the remainder of your comment being objective. In 2019 if someone can get under your skin by just politely asking for evidence, maybe just maybe, you aren't engaging objectively.

Nonetheless, while there is some evidence pointing to aggressive spying by the Israelis, if you disconnect it from the context of what the U.S. does in Israel, the suggestions of favoritism seem disingenuous.

Most of all, there's no real evidence that 3-letter agencies and career state department employees, who largely handle domestic and international spying, would undermine U.S. interests, regardless of who is in the White House.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Israel doesn't conduct espionage operations in the United States, period.

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

<comment><USER14> In fairness, Israel claims they learned a lesson from that incident and _implemented_ the policy you're quoting as a result.

 _edit:_ Some weird downvotes here. I'm not saying I believe they don't actually spy, but they _have_ made that promise: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/israel- condemn...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/israel-condemns-us- spying-nsa-edward-snowden)

> Since Pollard's conviction, Israel has promised not to spy on the US. > Israeli ministers said on Sunday that Israel does not spy on the US > president or defence secretary. "I think we should expect the same relations > from the US," Steinitz said.

<comment><USER15> > "In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior > NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the > one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but > on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East > problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked > them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa- americans-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans- personal-data-israel-documents)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _In 2010, the secret covers of a Mossad hit team, some of whom had been > posing as tennis players, were blown after almost 30 minutes of surveillance > video was posted online of them going through a luxury Dubai hotel where > they killed a top Hamas terrorist in his room._

For those who have not yet seen the footage in question, here it is: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJujIwtdk8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJujIwtdk8w)

Captivating stuff.

<comment><USER17> Thank you for sharing! It is quite incredible how they were able to piece all that footage together!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not surprising.

It's intriguing to think about how this might intersect with the recently departed Jeffery: [https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad- spy...](https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story- jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/)

<comment><USER19> There are a lot of people in this thread oddly pointing links to this "Mint Press News" site. For anyone curious and reading my comment, don't click. It's a propaganda site and has almost no reputation for trustworthiness or accuracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I still don't understand how the Stingray is a saleable product. There's no way such a device could obtain FCC certification, or for a prospective user to obtain a license to operate one. So notwithstanding the fact that the government wants these things, Harris shouldn't be making or selling these things, and rightfully belongs in jail.

<comment><USER21> Harris can manufacture this under the guise it's never intended for use within the U.S. They can claim it is for counter-insurgency surveillance in certain central Asian countries.

Alternatively, they could seek FCC OET authorization for the product as test equipment, but I doubt it, and my quick searches have yielded nothing.

I suspect this is why Harris, FBI and other LEAs conceal their use [1].

1\. [https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray- mu...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray-murder- evidence-suppressed-20160425-story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tbh...with the kind of politics in the world, I won't be surprised if US is doing the same to Israelis or some other country.

Another example would be Turkey bugging the Saudi Embassy in Khashoggi killing.

But the other thing that irks me is how easily one can get labelled an antisemite for an honest cricism of Israeli politics.

</comment><comment><USER23> With the billions of dollars the US gives to Israel as foreign aid every year, we are arguably funding the spying on ourselves.

</comment><comment><USER24> Israel and the U.S are extremely strong alliance

Also the Mossad is working a lot with the secret service in the U.S

I believe there is a deeper reason behind those actions that won't be revealed to us (it can also explain the lack of actions of the U.S towards this case)

<comment><USER25> Leaks have shown that with the 5 eyes 'one hand washes another' and probably spying on US citizens on behest of the US.

<comment><USER26> Israel isn't part of five eyes.

<comment><USER27> True but I don't think it refutes GP's central point.

The intelligence community has their hands tied when it comes to their own citizens due to strong constitutional protections, so in order to get what they desire, they operate quasi-extrajudicially (i.e. exploit a loophole) where they just get a friendly foreign power to do the spying and then trade intelligence for intelligence on their own citizens. I'm pretty sure this kind of scheme is behind GP's post and such an arrangement is not limited to members of the five eyes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Wondering if this might explain similar spying around the Canadian parliament...

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-csis-cell- surveillance...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-csis-cell- surveillance-1.4701449)

</comment><comment><USER29> As Robert Greene said, "You have more to fear from your friends than your enemies."

</comment><comment><USER30> > The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as "StingRays," mimic > regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and > identity information.

I realize that roaming is a thing, and I don't know how cellular protocols work, but I am curious why at this point phones don't connect to towers anonymously, authenticate towers by default, encrypt identity, etc..? Surely the phone could be made to ask you before attaching to a service of unknown origin without compromising you, especially in higher security scenarios. Is this difficult or impossible to do for some reason? Is it already in the works and just not here yet?

<comment><USER31> Even if it is possible, why would it ever be implemented?

The vast majority of users don't care about this. And even if they did, it's not like there's any real competition in cellular carriers, so there still wouldn't be incentive for carriers to implement this.

On the flip side, there is lots of demand from law enforcement for them _not_ to. Law enforcement uses stingrays and would certainly pressure carriers to not implement something that stops them from continuing.

<comment><USER30> Isn't that a bit like asking why HTTPS would ever be implemented, and saying that the vast majority of users don't care about internet privacy, and law enforcement would very much prefer we don't use encryption? The reason I see it being implemented is to prevent StingRay from being a thing.

<comment><USER32> The barriers to entry for building HTTPS software are a lot lower than building out cellular infrastructure. For HTTPS you have a lot of altruistic people and companies, like letsencrypt and Mozilla willing to give some resources to make HTTPS everywhere possible.

There really isn't a similar entity in the cellular carrier world. Trying to start something new tomorrow that is more secure would take a huge investment and would likely take a very long time to recoup that investment in today's climate, as mentioned it's not enough to get regular users to switch.

So unless the government mandates it which I think we all agree is not in their best interest or some very rich person comes along and offers carriers a compelling reason to switch I just don't see it happening.

And I totally agree with you that it should be done. I just don't see how given where we are today.

<comment><USER30> > The barriers to entry for building HTTPS software are a lot lower than > building out cellular infrastructure.

Why assume extra cell security would be a hardware build-out? Surely all towers in existence can get remote firmware upgrades, the same way all of todays routers can?

> For HTTPS you have a lot of altruistic people and companies, like > letsencrypt and Mozilla willing to give some resources to make HTTPS > everywhere possible.

That seems true in retrospect, but there was lots resistance to, and futility thinking about HTTPS before it happened, I remember it, I was there. It only seems like there are altruistic people helping now that it basically is everywhere and now that it's easy & cheap to do, and everyone knows it's a good idea.

> So unless the government mandates it

Agreed that's unlikely to happen, but it doesn't seem like a real barrier to me. Maybe GDPR or Europe will take the lead on this one too. But very little of the security & privacy we have in the US has ever come from a government mandate, yet we do have some. HTTPS wasn't a government mandate. They didn't oppose it either, possibly because they have keys and/or cooperative ISPs, but they sure didn't do anything to push it forward.

> I just don't see how given where we are today.

Public awareness about the issue for one. Rather than saying it's futile and will probably never happen, talking to your friends and family about it will help. Though we have a super long way to go, improvements in privacy do tend to happen once the public truly understands how they're being spied on. Privacy pushes by Apple and Google could make it happen. Even Apple alone might be able to make it happen, and they're currently on the side of privacy. It might also unfortunately take more widely reported cases of StingRay before people perk up to this issue.

<comment><USER32> True, firmware updates are a possible upgrade path, I don't know much about cellular hardware so I can't speak to what capabilities can be added that way.

I agree about public awareness but if I'm pessimistic it's because I do talk to my friends and family about it and they all think I'm just paranoid. :-)

They just can't understand why I don't have a FB account, don't use iCloud or Google Docs. Everyone uses it, they say, how could it be bad if everyone is using it? Granted having phone calls spied on might get their attention a bit more but I still get an attitude from people like "I'm not doing anything wrong, why would they ever listen to or track me?".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I know that NSO group, based in Israel, has advanced cell phone hacking skills. 60 minutes did an article on it a while back: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interview-with-ceo-of-nso- group...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interview-with-ceo-of-nso-group- israeli-spyware-maker-on-fighting-terror-khashoggi-murder-and-saudi- arabia-60-minutes/)

</comment><comment><USER34> That's what countries do! Right? Everybody spies on others. Pretty sure the US and the UK are spying on each other too despite both being five eyes members.

</comment><comment><USER35> Sort of related: if you're ever in DC on the Hill, a trip to the Spy Museum is a worth it if you're into that kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER36> Israel spies on the US and the US spies on Israel (and everyone else)...what are the news?

</comment><comment><USER37> Feels like there is quite a bit of an attempt to sway the conversation in the comments

<comment><USER38> In what way?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wait until they find out about all the fleshy spy devices that Israel planted in the Congress.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's common knowledge that Trump regularly uses a personal, non-secured iPhone to communicate with friends and advisers.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18020746/president- donal...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18020746/president-donald-trump- iphone-personal-calls-china-russia-spies-eavesdropping)

It'd be malpractice by a major intelligence agency _not_ to attempt this, and I'd suspect there are a bunch of these things from various countries (including allies) within range of the White House.

<comment><USER40> > _It 'd be malpractice by a major intelligence agency not to attempt this_

And the countermeasure is so simple that even the most simple of simpletons can understand it.

"Hey, this room is bugged. Don't talk there if you want a private conversation."

<comment><USER14> "Don't talk about classified stuff around the President because his phone is probably compromised" is easy to understand, but a difficult instruction to follow.

<comment><USER40> I was kinda assuming that the president would be the simpleton to figure out that the phone was bugged and take care of the issue. But perhaps I overestimate simpletons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What does the US get out of the special relationship with Israel? Anti-Israel sources mostly talk about the strong Jewish lobbies, while pro-Israel sources mostly cite being the only democracy in the region.

Both seem misleading at best. What's the US's argument from self-interest for tolerating this kind of thing?

<comment><USER42> Israel and Saudi Arabia are America's eyes and ears into the Middle East. It could have been any nation (indeed, America tried to get Iran as well, but was... less than successful).

These kinds of relationships require a fair bit of quid pro quo, and of course for a country like Israel whose very national security depends upon a cozy relationship with America, it's perfectly understandable that they'd be spying on American influencers wherever and whenever possible. In fact, it's unofficially tolerated in the intelligence service as a cost of doing business. Same goes for the foibles of the crown prince in Saudi Arabia (which have by now been conveniently forgotten by the press and everyone else).

Once you've made friends who are useful to your grander plans, it's best to ignore the annoying things they do.

<comment><USER43> It's unfortunate we would rely on either of these countries to be our eyes and ears. Both are corrupt. Saudi appears worst to us in the west because their daily way of life isn't so compatible with western values, especially with respect to religion in government (or freedom of, rather) and general human rights and women's rights.

Israel appears to be democratic but discriminates heavily and are also driven to a great extent by extremist hardliners and outright corruption (ie Netanyahu's numbers are down, so he wants to annex more of the West Bank). Also, you're not supposed to criticize anything they do out of fear of being labeled an anti Semite.

<comment><USER44> Accepting your premise, is there a non-corrupt alternative in the region?

<comment><USER45> This is key. If your filter is to never partner with countries who have done unethical things, you're never going to partner with anyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> "On the other hand, guess what we do in Tel Aviv?"

</comment><comment><USER47> No...not our "best" ally! I don't believe it!

</comment><comment><USER48> Why the antiemetism?

</comment><comment><USER49> No proof, no citations, no names. A lot of third person language. Anonymous "former officials". Great journalism right there!

<comment><USER50> On this kind of topic, those who know won't say if it's on the record. You're lucky for them to say when it's _not_ on the record.

<comment><USER49> > "On this kind of topic, those who know won't say if it's on the record. > You're lucky for them to say when it's not on the record."

Honest question:

Would WikiLeaks "work" if all we had was anonymous "former officials" making broad/general statements, providing no proof whatsoever?

What about Snowden's leaks? Imagine a really long article on Politico listing every single thing exposed in the Snowden docs, but without the names/documents/specifics. In a style very similar to what we have here in this Politico piece. Without us even knowing it was leaked by Snowden, but by some random "former NSA official".

Look, I'm not saying this Politico piece is right or wrong. All I'm saying is - this piece is making very big statements, backed by absolutely no proof whatsoever. And yet people are taking out the pitchforks... this isn't journalism, it's just spreading unsubstantiated FUD. And we should be discouraging this, not defending it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> If this is true can you blame the Israeli government? The US has an incredibly volatile, unpredictable president. Israel is a country surrounded by states that are openly hostile and the continued survival of Israel depends, in part, on the behavior of the US.

I would be disappointed if Israel wasn't doing something like this.

And I'm willing to bet the US government does this sort of stuff all over the world, including Israel.

<comment><USER52> You don't have to bet.

Wikileaks publicized that very fact that US (NSA) spies (monitors) it's allies back in 2013.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What Internal Knowledge Management tools are used in your company? - <AUTHOR>

My company uses:
 - Local Newsgroups (nntp)
 - E-Mail
 - <USER2>
 - Chat (Jabber) <comment><USER3> I have pushed dokuwiki in my department and now it is being adopted by several others. On a company level we have email and blogs (only by sen. mgmt)

<comment><USER4> We too use dokuwiki

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dropbox folders.</comment>


I'm a developer, but it's not my passion - <AUTHOR> http://antjanus.com/blog/thoughts-and-opinions/im-a-developer-but-its-not-my-passion/

<comment><USER2> I can relate to this. While I do software development, it is certainly not my passion.</comment>


Australia's filter-mad communications minister says the Internet "isn't special" - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internets-not-special-says-communications-minister-20100401-rg7h.html?autostart=1

<comment><USER2> "the internet is not "special" and should be censored like books, films and newspapers."

Yeah, as little as possible, thanks. Can this man really see no difference between Google - a private company - setting rules for their own site and the government blocking websites?

</comment><comment><USER3> He keeps saying "we", who is we? Himself and Fred Nile?

<comment><USER4> Don't forget Steve Fielding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> April 1st. Good one.

/sw

</comment><comment><USER6> So wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to un-censor the cinemas and bookshops ?</comment>


Raspberry Pi 2 Cluster Assembly Tutorial - <AUTHOR> https://pocketcluster.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/free-schematic-raspberry-pi-2-cluster-assembly-tutorial/ <comment><USER2> In terms of performance per cost, the cluster can't compete in terms of raw speed of a x86 system. If its for educational purposes (looking into how algorithms work across distributed systems) why not just use a parallella? It costs $99.

<comment><USER3> I haven't looked very closely at the Parallella, but I don't think it's a direct comparison to this cluster. Parallella contains multiple cores on a single board, which seem to share common resources.

There are two different forms of parallel processing, one for multi-core on a single node (i.e. shared RAM/peripherals), and one for multi-node (i.e. networked servers), where it can be highly impractical to share data due to the interconnections (usually Ethernet/Infiniband).

In most modern clusters, you have to use both approaches. RPi 2 is nice since you have multiple cores, and the cluster shown here allows you to play with the other side of the equation, multi-node parallelism.

EDIT: I looked into the parallella a bit. Still can't tell how well it represents multi-node parallelism, but it claims to have "a fast on chip network within a distributed shared memory architecture". So theoretically, this can simulate the interconnection of a large scale cluster, but I have no real knowledge of this board.

<comment><USER4> The other problem with the parallela is its weird architecture. Its master processor is a dual-core ARM, but the 16x "epiphany" cores only have a C++ compiler. It would not be possible to program the epiphany cores with Erlang, for instance.

<comment><USER2> no, but you can send processes to each of the cores. [https://www.parallella.org/2015/03/20/erlang-otp-and-the- par...](https://www.parallella.org/2015/03/20/erlang-otp-and-the-parallella- board/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What sort of cost to performance do these give? Is it actually more cost effective to purchase and run 6 RPis compared to commodity x86 hardware? How about compared to the cost of computing your job on one of the numerous cloud based offerings? I've never really been faced with a compute job that takes long enough to be worth investigating parallelisation, so I'm fairly ignorant in that regard.

This is certainly a neat project (and perhaps provides a nice talking point), but is it more than that?

<comment><USER6> A cluster of six Raspberry Pi 2s running Drupal (a PHP CMS) is about 20% slower than a single i7 laptop with an SSD for general usage, and can be _much_ slower if your usage requires lots of disk or network I/O.

The 4-core ARMv7 chip in the Pi 2 is way faster than the chip in previous Pis, but it's not a speed demon by any means. And the network I/O (and all I/O) being tied down to a slowish USB 2.0 bus means you're limited to ~90 Mbps through LAN, or ~200 Mbps if you use a USB 3.0 network adapter.

Even trying a fast SSD plugged into one of the USB ports (rather than a comparatively slow 'Extreme Pro' microSD card), you won't get a huge performance boost because of limited I/O bandwidth.

See many, many more benchmarks on this wiki: [https://github.com/geerlingguy/raspberry-pi- dramble/wiki](https://github.com/geerlingguy/raspberry-pi-dramble/wiki)

P.S. I have a cluster of six Pi 2s running [http://www.pidramble.com/](http://www.pidramble.com/), and I'm actually considering moving more of my hobby/very-low-traffic sites over to it, since it's a sunk cost of $400 whereas many of these small sites are currently on $5 or $10/month servers.

<comment><USER7> What's this about using a USB 3 ethernet adapter? Does the RPI have usb 3 ports? If so I've been missing out...

<comment><USER6> No, but you can only buy USB 3.0 adapters with gigabit ratings (all the USB 2.0 adapters max out at 10/100).

See: [http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/getting- gig...](http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/getting-gigabit- networking)

<comment><USER8> There are several USB 2.0 gigabit ethernet dongles out there. They'll obviously only reach a max of 480mbit/sec, but so will the 3.0s on a 2.0 bus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Neat. Anyone else at HN did something like this? Mine is at [https://github.com/rcarmo/raspi-cluster](https://github.com/rcarmo/raspi- cluster) (configs and some utilities included)

<comment><USER6> I have an educational site running on my cluster of 6 Pi 2s in my basement: [http://www.pidramble.com/](http://www.pidramble.com/)

Code, tutorial, parts list, etc. here: [https://github.com/geerlingguy/raspberry-pi- dramble](https://github.com/geerlingguy/raspberry-pi-dramble)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think this would be a cool project for someone who wants to fiddle with a desktop "super"-computer with multiple nodes. I've been interested in getting started or exploring with this kind of distributed computation, and I'm assuming that starting off I wouldn't be totally concerned with what it's capable of in comparison to a regular full-scale desktop but rather _if_ I can get it to work. Beyond that, I would extend my sights to getting a couple desktops and trying it on a large system.

</comment><comment><USER11> I am slouching my way towards getting one of these sorts of things set up as a "DevOps" system - cluster management tooling and so forth.

<comment><USER12> _Why_? Simulate it in software. Save yourself a lot of time and shelf space. There is nothing additional this hardware teaches you other than plugging and unplugging ethernet cables.

<comment><USER11> Simulation is not reality.

A better way is to develop a multi-continent cluster, which will more adequately stress things like race conditions and jitter. But that's some $60/mo to have enough hosted VM nodes worldwide, and RPis win on cheapness pretty quick there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Would this be called a bakery?</comment>


Ask HN: How did you learn marketing? - <AUTHOR>

Specifically:
1. Which books on the subject would you recommend?
2. How did you determine the effectiveness of a particular marketing technique? <comment><USER2> To answer #1, three books I would consider must-reads are:

Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore He discusses the Technology Adoption Lifecycle and hi-tech marketing. [http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm- Geoffrey-Moore/dp/00605...](http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-Geoffrey- Moore/dp/0060517123/)

The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen This Harvard business professor discusses what makes a disruptive innovation. [http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary- Busin...](http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Business- Essentials/dp/0060521996/)

Guerrilla Marketing by Jay Levinson He discusses some scrappy techniques for promoting your businesses. Not all are applicable to web or hi-tech companies, but it can still spark some great ideas. [http://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla- Marketing-4th-Inexpensive-St...](http://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla- Marketing-4th-Inexpensive-Strategies/dp/0618785914/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I highly recommend:

[http://www.amazon.com/CA-HVERTISING-Ad-Agency-Psychology- Any...](http://www.amazon.com/CA-HVERTISING-Ad-Agency-Psychology- Anything/dp/1601630328/ref)

</comment><comment><USER4> Must read : Geoffrey Moore crossing the chasm <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm></comment>


The X hole - <AUTHOR> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=154050351216908&w=2 <comment><USER2> OpenBSD doesn't keep secrets. The X.org team had to keep this secret, so they couldn't tell OpenBSD.

If OpenBSD starts participating in embargoes, they'll get advance notice of vulnerabilities. It's as simple as that.

<comment><USER3> I see this comment on every discussion regarding OpenBSD and security vulnerability embargoes. Have they stated they won't stick to embargoes or agreed to one and then broke it in the past?

<comment><USER4> Facts don't matter in the narrative zone.

<comment><USER5> Without actually answering the question asked or clarifying what you're referring to, your comment is not a good contribution.

<comment><USER6> tedu is one of the more prolific OpenBSD contributors and has had a front-row seat to the goings-on for a long time. If his experience is that "facts don't matter", literally how can he provide you any kind of contribution that would satisfy you that also doesn't contradict himself?

It's an important opinion, without any unnecessary words added.

<comment><USER5> Well, _saying_ that he's one of the more prolific OpenBSD contributors and has had a front row seat would obviously be a good start...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Responsible disclosure is a scam that puts vulnerability researchers, downstream project maintainers and users in the position of being malicious actors all while absolving those responsible from their responsibility.

Immediate and public disclosure is the only responsible disclosure there is and I commend (and monetarily contribute to) the OpenBSD Project for their soft stance against embargoes.

Operating in opposition to that, a large portion of the security industry plays along for reasons varying from personal pride (appealing to authority makes you feel like one of the good guys) to the extremely lucrative payouts for selling 0day to nation states. It's no surprise that the higher your profile in the industry and on twitter, the easier time you have getting paid out on bug bounties. All of this hurts users.

I develop and maintain software and software infrastructure for a living. If you find a vulnerability in work I am responsible for, please rake me over the coals as publicly and loudly as you can. That motivates the PTB who fund my work to resolve the issue better than anything else.

<comment><USER7> I'm not convinced.

Google's policy seems about right to me. When they discover a security flaw in someone else's software, they give them 90 days before making it public [0]. The choice of 90 days is to strike a balance between applying strong pressure to the company to get it fixed fast, and giving them a reasonable amount of time to get it done and rolled-out. My understanding is that this approach generally works fairly well.

You'd rather that they adjust that notice period all the way down to zero, and hand vulnerabilities over to the bad guys for free right out of the gate?

[0] [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2015/02/googl...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2015/02/google-updates-disclosure-policy-after-windows-os-x-zero- day-controversy/)

<comment><USER8> You are assuming that the white hat security researcher was the first to discover the flaw. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and your position is perfectly reasonable given that assumption.

GP was assuming that the white hat security researcher was not the first to discover the flaw, and that the flaw is actively being used to attack users. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and GP's position is perfectly reasonable given that assumption.

<comment><USER7> That's still not enough. Even if bad guys are already using the exploit in the wild, it _still_ isn't responsible to immediately make it public. If the exploit isn't already public, that means the bad guys are treating it as something to be traded in secret. (And of course, the only reason we're discussing this is that the exploit is not already public.)

Instantly publishing the details of the exploit may well broaden its use by bad actors, by reducing its market price to zero.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For some of us who aren't OS enthusiasts: can anyone provide an ELI5 or deeper context links?

<comment><USER10> There's a serious bug that impacts a number of operating systems, including OpenBSD. In order to coordinate a release, some vendors were made aware of the bug before it was publically disclosed, but OpenBSD was not one of them, probably because OpenBSD has a reputation (fairly or not) as being very anti- secrecy, not being cooperative in situations like this, and not providing other vendors advance notice of issues they find.

OpenBSD is, understandably, upset that they ended up shipping a bug when they could easily have delayed the release had they been made aware of it. Whether that's a legitimate complaint, or simply their just deserts given their past behaviour, or somewhere in between is something I'm not remotely qualified to answer.

In any case, if people won't trust you to follow embargoes, you'll end up shipping bugs, and angrily complaining on public mailing lists that people don't trust you won't make people start trusting you. (For one thing, notably absent from the linked post was a "we would have course adhered to the embargo if we'd been asked", which leaves the question open of whether not trusting them, in this specific case, may not have been correct. In any case, this will be resolved, if it's resolved, in private between concerned individuals.)

<comment><USER11> To add a wrinkle that may be missed from a quick read of Theo's post: OpenBSD's X maintainer is on the X.org security team - that's the Matthieu referenced.

So it's possible that an entirely human set of mistakes occurred that lead to this happening; it's also possible that embargoed bugs came in to play.

<comment><USER10> Yes. Simple oversight is possible.

Alternatively, if it _is_ a trust issue, the fact that it's not just "the X.org security team doesn't trust the OpenBSD maintainer team" but "the OpenBSD X maintainer doesn't trust the rest of the OpenBSD maintainer team" adds several extra levels of politics to this, which I suspect is what Theo was alluding to with his "abdication of the duty of care" comment.

I assume Matthieu acted (if that is indeed what he did) in his role as a member of the X security team, but I imagine Theo would say that in doing so he failed to act appropriately in his role as a member of the OpenBSD maintenance team. It all makes me quite interested to know what his reasoning was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Excerpt from the "Official Dangerous Virus Notice" Distributed at the X-Windows Conference:

>This is what happens when software with good intentions goes bad. It victimizes innocent users by distorting their perception of what is and what is not good software. This malignant window system must be destroyed.

>Ultimately DEC and MIT must be held accountable for this heinous _software crime_ , brought to justice, and made to pay for a _software cleanup_. Until DEC and MIT answer to these charges, they both should be assumed to be protecting dangerous software criminals.

>Don't be fooled! Just say no to X.

>X-Windows: …A mistake carried out to perfection. X-Windows: …Dissatisfaction guaranteed. X-Windows: …Don't get frustrated without it. X-Windows: …Even your dog won't like it. X-Windows: …Flaky and built to stay that way. X-Windows: …Complex non-solutions to simple non-problems. X-Windows: …Flawed beyond belief. X-Windows: …Form follows malfunction. X-Windows: …Garbage at your fingertips. X-Windows: …Ignorance is our most important resource. X-Windows: …It could be worse, but it'll take time. X-Windows: …It could happen to you. X-Windows: …Japan's secret weapon. X-Windows: …Let it get in _your_ way. X-Windows: …Live the nightmare. X-Windows: …More than enough rope. X-Windows: …Never had it, never will. X-Windows: …No hardware is safe. X-Windows: …Power tools for power fools. X-Windows: …Putting new limits on productivity. X-Windows: …Simplicity made complex. X-Windows: …The cutting edge of obsolescence. X-Windows: …The art of incompetence. X-Windows: …The defacto substandard. X-Windows: …The first fully modular software disaster. X-Windows: …The joke that kills. X-Windows: …The problem for your problem. X-Windows: …There's got to be a better way. X-Windows: …Warn your friends about it. X-Windows: …You'd better sit down. X-Windows: …You'll envy the dead.

[https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows- disaster-128d39...](https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows- disaster-128d398ebd47)

</comment><comment><USER13> Which CVE is this referencing?

<comment><USER14> This I assume:

[https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg- announce/2018-October/0029...](https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg- announce/2018-October/002927.html)

<comment><USER15> This is much more interesting than all of this soap opera about Theo.

What we see in this commit, regression, and vuln is that the X server is an enormous setuid program with tons of code and zero tests. The "fix" also does not contain any tests that could have detected the problem, so it's just a continuation of what is now a quarter-century of bad software engineering practices.

<comment><USER16> X was built on false assumptions of what the future would look like (dumb terminals). The whole thing is a massive hack around its server/client architecture - which does not work well with modern graphics hardware.

It's no small part of why Linux has failed on the desktop.

In short, lack of tests are the least of its problems.

<comment><USER15> The design defects of X11 do not necessitate the implementation defects of Xorg.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well, it looks like they have a patch [syspatch64-001_xserver] not sure which fix they chose.

[edit] a tweet for @OpenBSD said: _We 're currently preparing errata and a security advisory for today's Xorg issue that allows arbitrary overwriting of files as a non-root user. You can run "chmod u-s /usr/X11R6/bin/Xorg" as a temporary workaround until the fixes are out._

</comment><comment><USER18> TIL OpenBSD still installs Xorg setuid root, yikes.

<comment><USER19> IKR? OpenBSD should really use systemd-logind and Wayland, the way modern desktops do.

<comment><USER18> Or just get a drm equivalent implementation that doesn't require root privileges for the modesetting Xorg driver to function.

<comment><USER20> OpenBSD has that, but X was still kept setuid so the non-modesetting drivers would still work. Well, since yesterday obviously: [https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- cvs&m=154050453117246&w=2](https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- cvs&m=154050453117246&w=2)

<comment><USER18> Unnecessarily installing binaries as setuid... for how long now? So much for secure by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> From the RH bug report ([https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2018-14665](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2018-14665)), this is described as "an incorrect permission check for -modulepath and -logfile options when starting X.Org,". Would wayland be immune to these kinds of things, or is it not relevant here ? And is OpenBSD planning to switch to wayland ?

<comment><USER19> This vulnerability can be mitigated if you don't run X as root. Use the modesetting driver and ensure permissions to the video device with Unix groups or a mechanism like systemd-logind.

Since Wayland compositors are almost never setuid root, it isn't a problem for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is it common that this type of disputes are commonly discussed in the public?

I guess that by doing the type of discussion in the public, the level of accountability is a lot higher for all concern.

</comment><comment><USER23> [https://lobste.rs/s/ebmcvk/x_hole](https://lobste.rs/s/ebmcvk/x_hole)

</comment><comment><USER24> Given OpenBSD's pre-embargo leak of KRACK, I'm not sure why they feel entitled early access...

<comment><USER25> Except they didn't. This has already been debunked: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16440826](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16440826)

<comment><USER26> The only reason the researcher gave permission was because the OpenBSD devs said that they were going to release on the original embargo date instead of extending out to 90 days like everyone else agreed to. They even say on their mailing list that they probably announced too much with their errata when they "silently" patched it. They techincally didn't break the embargo, but only because they refused to go along with what the rest of the community was doing.

<comment><USER20> > The only reason the researcher gave permission was because the OpenBSD devs > said that they were going to release on the original embargo date instead of > extending out to 90 days like everyone else agreed to.

"Said that they were going to"? More "expressed a desire to." And that was a reasonable desire—so reasonable that the researcher willingly agreed, if reluctantly. [https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- tech&m=152909822107104&w=2](https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- tech&m=152909822107104&w=2)

Do you think it unreasonable for one project to strongly push back against a 180 day embargo? How about a year embargo? Two years? Is there any point where a project can say, "We believe extending the embargo beyond what we've agreed to is going to keep our users unpatched, and won't succeed at keeping the bug secret, so we'd like your permission to release according to the schedule we agreed to," or is that verboten since it's not "going along with the rest of the community"?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can software engineers help with the Covid-19 pandemic? - <AUTHOR> I'm a software engineer that just left my job. We were working on a startup but helping with COVID-19 seems FAR more urgent.<p>Looking for ideas about how other software engineers are contributing! Happy to do something software or non-software related. <comment><USER2> "Covid-19 projects looking for volunteers" [https://helpwithcovid.com/](https://helpwithcovid.com/) (yesterday's HN discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22615453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22615453))</comment>


Apple ARM-Based Macs May Arrive Soon. Developers Need to Prepare - <AUTHOR> https://insights.dice.com/2020/06/10/apple-arm-based-macs-may-arrive-soon-developers-prepare/ <comment><USER2> I didn't have to read past the title because I'm doing web front-ends.</comment>


2016 H1B Visa Reports: Top 100 H1B Visa Sponsors - <AUTHOR> http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2016-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx <comment><USER2>
         1	Infosys	                        33,289	$79,201
         2	Tata Consultancy Services	16,553	$69,648

If this is really a lottery, how the hell do they end up with this many?

Is the lottery random per applicant and they just submit 100s of 1000s of applications?

<comment><USER3> It would be so much fairer if they had a limit on the number of applications a company can file. They have such a limit on the number of greencards each country gets. Let the lottery happen at the company level and not in the common pool.

<comment><USER4> You know, this is like a game. If you limit applications by a company, they will apply through a subsidiary managed by a private holding company whose owners are not known.

More paperwork, but they will get around the system...

<comment><USER3> I don't think a company like Infosys will do that. They are a big company and it will be equally painful for them with all the paperwork. Smaller companies may do that, but they are not the ones taking up a chunk of the visas anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The salary is the average salary of all proffered salary on LCA or Form 9035. Sometimes the visa sponsors(employers) does not enter a specific salary, but a salary range. Our algorithm uses the middle point of the range to calculate the average salary."

Yeah, I'm not quite buying that as a good methodology.

<comment><USER6> I agree, especially since there is no guarantee that the employees are being paid more than the lower bound.

<comment><USER5> If I read it correctly, you could have 50 H1Bs at $50K and pay one at $200K, put a salary range down with it being truthful, and this survey would put the salary at $125K. I wonder if a FOIA request is possible?

Says quite a lot when 8 of the top 10 are body shops (with many debates about IBM being possible these days).

<comment><USER7> Get your math right, 50 H1B's at 50K and 1 H1B at 200K would avg out close to 53K and not 125K.

<comment><USER5> Read the disclaimer which says "Sometimes the visa sponsors(employers) does not enter a specific salary, but a salary range. Our algorithm uses the middle point of the range to calculate the average salary"

In my example, the form has 50K as the bottom of the range and 200K at the top. Using this site's methodology they take the "middle point of the range" which is 125K.

What your calculating is the example's actual average, not what the site would be reporting. That was the point of my post to show that the methodology likely does not match the truth and likely overestimates the salary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 33K for a single company ?

We want to benefit from ideas from talented architects, doctors, scientists or engineers that contribute a diverse set of approaches to solve our problems.

As it is now, we are only bringing IT professionals from a handful of countries. It is just a source of cheap skilled labor with little synergic value.

<comment><USER9> As someone who got "rejected" in the H1B random lottery - yes, the system needs an overhaul. Perhaps an auction system would be appropriate, where companies bid on visas, then top N bidders get visas from the pool, paying the lowest winning price. This would also work well with the idea that companies should first seek talent within the United States. The auction final quote would be a clear, publicly available portion of the costs of getting employees abroad. The only caveat I see is potential employment contract clauses forcing employees to stay in the company for a certain number of years. Currently there are no restrictions for switching jobs on an H1B.

<comment><USER10> Where N becomes a political football that us raised and lowered at the whim of lobbyists ultimately allowing wages to fall below market rates.

There is no labor shortage in a nation of 300 million with the best university system in the history of humanity.

If we need any sort of system, the appropriate one would be to reward companies that train citizens in skills the employer needs in order to fill any sort of skills gap.

<comment><USER9> While in principle I agree with you, in practice N was most of the time equal to 65k, with the exception of the dot-com bubble (years 1999-2003, so 80% of the time; program was added in 1990). And there probably should be something like H1B in any immigration system. Anyhow, the current political climate in the US does not give many hopes for an upgrade. In the meantime, I've discovered Switzerland, and quite honestly - I'm not looking back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the > operation or the server is not responding.

With full stack trace, file name and a few lines of source code.

Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.m...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.myvisajobs.com%2FReports%2F2016-H1B-Visa- Sponsor.aspx&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

</comment><comment><USER12> If people are concerned with imported labor undecutting or putting downward pressure on salaries, I'd suggest taxing imported labor so as to make it no cheaper than the locally produced labor pool. Then we'd get companies hiring imported labor when they actually could not find a local candidate.

Tax it at the median recorded for the locale where the sponsoree is hired. Tax so that there is no cost advantage in seeking labor cost arbitrage.

You could simply tax the difference. If the median is 150, and someone is hired for 100, tax is 50. If they are hired at 130, tax is 20, etc.

</comment><comment><USER13> "System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding."

Looks like someone didn't cache it's data!

<comment><USER14> Or didn't turn off development sorry page, exposing the stack trace

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> >Infosys & Tata Consultancy

....Yeah right, they're coming in with unique skills. Whatever those skills are, it's a mystery to me. Unless you count bumbling projects and adding technical debt at an astronomical rate.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting to see University of Michigan in there. wonder what's the impetus there.

<comment><USER10> University employed H-1Bs are exempt from the cap. It is a loop hole that is becoming more common where private companies set up partnerships with universities to employ H-1Bs on their behalf in order to skirt the cap.

The company sponsors a position at the university, the employee does work for the company, the university takes a percentage.

<comment><USER16> oh my. That's interesting. The jobs I see are:

Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists(274); Biochemists and Biophysicists(187); Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary(100); Biological Technicians(60); Molecular And Cellular Biologists(59);

<comment><USER10> Yup, the thing that is even MORE interesting is that these positions can be classified as more relating to research which has much lower wage requirements. So the employee may be writing software for your business but she is paid like an academic researcher.

Some of them are doing it out in the open[0]

[0] [http://www.diyatvusa.com/2016/07/07/us-universities- use-h1b-...](http://www.diyatvusa.com/2016/07/07/us-universities- use-h1b-loophole-to-retain-talented-students-who-turn-into-entrepreneurs/)

<comment><USER17> Some companies use Universities to hire foreign Software engineer with the title of "Research Associate", lower wage, same job. Then claiming that they are recruiting the best in the world while providing a very low wage (research associate prevailing wage instead of SE). It can get worse, I have a friend that has been under a J1 for years, while he is not a student anymore. The company pays a student salary (2k/month) instead of a H1B prevailing wage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Instead of being randomly selected, why not allocate H1-B visas to the highest paying positions first? (If there's a tie at the end then the selection can be random.)

<comment><USER19> So no startup, or company in a lowcost area, can higher people from other countries anymore? Don't see how that's a good solution either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If the objective is to pay 70kYr for a person might just as well open an office outside of the US, unless they're located in a medium or small city

(ah yes, the site just blew up on me as well, probably done by an underpaid H1B from one of the abusers of the systems)

Edit: I'm not against the people that want a chance to work in the US, I'm against the companies that abuse the system

</comment><comment><USER21> Ideally we could set get this on a % of company employees</comment>


The Lancet: Most comprehensive study to date to prevent spread of Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://sciencecodex.com/lancet-most-comprehensive-study-date-provides-evidence-optimal-physical-distancing-face-masks-and <comment><AUTHOR> Link to the actual study (PDF): [https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820...](https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931142-9)</comment>


Former Google exec Andy Rubin had inappropriate relationship with a coworker - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/andy-rubin-google-allegations-report-2513502876.html <comment><USER2> I'm shocked. Call out the rear guard.</comment>


Second OnePlus Factory App Discovered. This One Dumps Photos, WiFi and GPS Logs - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/second-oneplus-factory-app-discovered-this-one-dumps-photos-wifi-and-gps-logs/ <comment><USER2> Yesterday it was reported that "Some OnePlus devices, if not all, come preinstalled with an application named EngineerMode that can be used to root the device and may be converted into a fully-fledged backdoor by clever attackers."

[https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/oneplus- phone...](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/oneplus-phones-come- preinstalled-with-a-factory-app-that-can-root-devices/)</comment>


Neo-nazi group moves to 'dark web' after domain registration revoked - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-daily-stormer-idUSKCN1AV1HY?il=0 <comment><USER2> I really don't like standing up for Nazis.

I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.

I really don't like Nazis, but if I can't stand up for the reprehensible then how can I stand for the good people? Surely, there must be a more reasonable solution than allowing it to be done by a private company, without representation, without process, and without appeal?

Yes, their speech is horrible. Yes, they suck. I mean, they are Nazis. That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights, I believe they deserve due process.

I'm not okay with this. However, I'm willing to consider alternative views. Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things. Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process,

To be clear, I'm okay with the registrars saying go find another registrar. Revoking it seems like a huge step beyond the line. Doesn't ICANN have a process for this? Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this?

Damn it... I really don't like defending Nazis but I have no reason to believe it will stop there.

Edit: It looks like they can get their domain name back, in 60 days. So, it may not be permanent, but I'm still not okay with this. I can't be okay with it, without due process and a process for appeal.

<comment><USER3> The first registrar (GoDaddy) gave them 24 hours to GTFO. They could have moved to any other registrar, but their next try also told them to GTFO. So what happened is exactly what you're calling OK.

<comment><USER2> I hope so, but revoked appears to mean taken away. That's different than not allowing to register, I think?

I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.

<comment><USER3> I have no idea where you got a mistaken impression of what's going on, but if you google [godaddy daily stormer] you'll find a ton of news stories explaining that godaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar. While written by non-technical reporters for a non-technical audience, it's pretty clear what's going on.

<comment><USER2> What does the word revoke mean? I've read a dozen articles that simply say revoked. When I see the rules for registration, I see revoke along with terms like suspend and terminate.

Can they register it again, if they find a company willing to service them? If not, I'm not okay with this. I'm not seeing any answers out there. Maybe they use the word revoke differently?

<comment><USER3> Given that you appear to be reading non-technical articles aimed at non- technical readers -- you haven't said what article you're reading, so I'm just guessing -- the word revoked doesn't mean anything technical at all. I see tons of articles getting it right that yes, they can move the domain to any registrar for .com that is willing to do business with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While this group is heinous, I can see this happening to a legit organization one day. This will be interesting to watch what happens when the web becomes closed.

<comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) Most western countries have law censoring hatespeech, although the web is very much open in those countries.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, we're watching that play out in real time already with UK and Germany in particular. Nothing could every go wrong with allowing the definition of hate- speech to be extended.

[https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe- censorship](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship)

Not to mention similar and completely vague "hate-speech" laws currently in process in South Africa:

[https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop- hate-s...](https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-speech- bill/)

Have a look at this:

> _The document defines hate speech as "an intentional communication > (including speech) that advocates hatred or is threatening, abusive or > insulting towards any other person or group of persons; and demonstrates a > clear intention to incite others to harm or stir up violence against, or > bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons defined by > 17 different characteristics, ranging from race and gender to social origin, > trade and occupation." This broad definition of hate speech could empower > government officials to punish people who express opinions that are critical > of its actions or those divergent from its political position._

<comment><USER5> Of course if you do not trust in the judiciary system to do the right thing with it any law can be seen as potentially dangerous to your freedom. As of now, the US can't do anything about it whether it be just or unjust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pretty much censoring themselves due to the higher technical barriers for accessing.

I suspect they'll get some new (normal) domains and be operating like normal within a week as the media fervor dies down.

<comment><USER8> They could likely just publish a Tor2Web URL and have people use that. [https://tor2web.org/](https://tor2web.org/).

I don't think this is a positive trend. Forcing your enemies underground simply means you have less insight into their operations, imo.

<comment><USER9> It's not like they're moving to a completely closed invite only community so LE can still pretty easily monitor activity on the site if need be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From a layman's point of view, I have always wondered why hackers rather create tools to hack normal citizen rather than go for those guys. I understand it is often about the money involved... But maybe they do and we don't hear about it ? Anonymous is a weird group, sometimes you think they are acting for the good of humanity hunting down criminals, sometimes you hear them push a political agenda that is frankly debatable and arbitrary. Going after neo-nazis and promoters of hate is on the other hand an indisputably good cause...

<comment><USER10> Old neo nazi's were involved in a lot of crime and drug activities which made them alot scarier.

New neo nazi's seem alot more normal looking and young (based on charlotteville), which is probably more worrying for a different reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I know i should know this, but i dont really.

"Dark web" \- can somebody give me a compare & contrast example, say with a house (rooms, driveway, address???) as the example.

In the "regular house i ...." in the "dark house i...."

<comment> wu-ikkyu There are 3 levels:

1\. Surface web: public facing websites that can be found on google. Think public parks that are accessible to anyone.

2\. Deep web: websites that require log ins because they have private content. Think of your home which requires a key to get in, or your office which requires you to scan an ID badge to get in.

3\. Dark web: websites that are only accessible using special tools like Tor and the Onion Browser. Like Batman's secret layer, the Bat Cave.

[https://brightplanet.com/2014/03/clearing-confusion-deep- web...](https://brightplanet.com/2014/03/clearing-confusion-deep-web-vs-dark- web/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd be more worried about the content becoming even more extreme.

<comment> grey-area The content is already beyond the pale of civilisation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good, back to the fringe where they belong. At least for now.

<comment><USER14> I'd prefer them to interact with the rest of society, you'd hope that the need to engage with normal people would provide some moderation.

Either let them be or put them out of operation with the force of the law, but covering a problem issue with a blanket and pretending the problem is gone never worked.

<comment><USER13> I sincerely doubt much of "the rest of society" has accounts on the daily stormer, it's the online equivalent of going to a Klan meeting. Sure you can do it, but most normal people have better things to do with their time.

Edit: No one's covering up the problem, people are just refusing to listen to or help them. This is the other side of free speech at work.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >No one's covering up the problem, people are just refusing to listen

Refusing to listen would mean not visiting their website. Covering them up would mean driving them to the dark web.

<comment><USER13> Refusing to help means not giving them a platform. They've been reduced to the 21st century equivalent of an underground newspaper produced out of someone's basement. I fail to see the problem.

If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is the right of every individual.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is the right of every individual.

That sort of thinking is what validated racial segregation of neighborhoods in the US.

>I fail to see the problem.

Failing to see the problem is the problem.

>We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

-Dr. King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail

<comment><USER13> Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things.

In any case, what are you suggesting? That owning a web domain is a right? That people should be forced by law to listen to and debate all available opinions regardless of how inane or evil? Please be specific, because right now your only argument is that people shouldn't be free to choose who they associate with on the grounds that the right was once abused regarding racial segregation. Then you make an out-of-context appeal to authority that doesn't really support anything beyond exposing injustice.

Refusing the daily stormer a web registration isn't covering up injustice, it's refusing to support it.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things.

How can it be exposed if all the public platforms are withheld? The context is clear if you've studied Dr. King's tactics. The media (TV/newspapers, and now the internet) ignored racial injustice, and so Dr. King made a point of creating public agitation that forced the media to give it attention so that everyone could be made aware of its existence and decide how to deal with it.

>Please be specific

If your goal is to defeat your enemies, forcing them out of public view and into the shadows obscures your reconnaissance capabilities and decreases your strategic advantage.

>>Failing to see the problem is the problem.

<comment><USER13> I think they were allowed to expose themselves quite effectively the other day. Neo-nazis also found ways to expose themselves well before the invention of the internet. They still have their free speech, but they are not entitled to aid in expressing it from private entities.

You can't "defeat" neo-nazis on a message board any more than you can "defeat" a racist grandparent at the dinner table. The goal is to prevent evil ideas from infiltrating mainstream society, they will always be around in some form or other. Judging by the reaction to the recent events in Charlottesville, including the revocation of the daily stormer's registration, it looks like mainstream society is soundly rejecting evil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I had to look up what it looked like:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170812024002/https://www.daily...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170812024002/https://www.dailystormer.com/)

Their disclaimer is interesting:

 _We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable.

Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently._

<comment><USER3> Yeah, if you look at what the alt-right says when confronted, often it's "I was being sarcastic/satirical" or "That Nazi armband that I was wearing is just an experiment" or "I'm not the angry racist they see in that photo".

All of it is just deflection.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to create an anonymous and resilient website or web API? - <AUTHOR> In 2015, what solutions do we have to create anonymous and resilient web services?
Same question for a static website.
Problems to solve: - Domain name - Hosting - Content (text analysis, etc) - Other? <comment><USER2> Maybe this could be something: "Privacy protected web solutions with Bitcoin payment by default": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10446387](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10446387)

You also have whoisguard to hide the domain registration information: [http://www.whoisguard.com/](http://www.whoisguard.com/)

Another option would be to host it on Tor.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you host something like an API on Tor? How can you consume the API from an application?</comment></comment>


Show HN: 5000 Free Form Templates - <AUTHOR> http://www.jotform.com/form-templates/

<comment><AUTHOR> Our user contributed form templates gallery now has over 5000 templates. Just wanted to share it with the HN community.</comment>


Dart 1.24: Faster edit-refresh cycle on the web and new function type syntax - <AUTHOR> http://news.dartlang.org/2017/06/dart-124-faster-edit-refresh-cycle-on.html <comment><USER2> This is awesome - kudos to the Dart team! Dart was a pleasure to work with since the very beginning, and it is getting better with each new release. I absolutely love the recent focus on strong mode support. DDC is an important addition to the platform, hope hot reloading will follow. Also, can't wait to see what Dart 2.0 brings us!

<comment><USER3> > can't wait to see what Dart 2.0 brings us

What makes you think there will even be a 2.0? I ask because a couple of years ago there was talk of 2.0, but sadly, that has tapered off to silence.

<comment><USER4> There will be a 2.0.

We've been quieter publicly than I'd prefer, but we've been no less busy for it. Stuff that's going on:

1\. We have a giant corpus of internal code at Google that we support and migrating all of that to strong mode while also iterating on strong mode itself is a ton of work. (Very few languages significantly change their type system after launch!)

2\. The new dev compiler that generates cleaner modular JS is maturing and getting an increasing number of internal users. There's a lot of features to add, bugs to iron out, etc.

3\. We are consolidating our tools onto a shared front end (lexer, parser, static analyzer). Up until now, we've had independently written and maintained front ends for the VM (in C++), dart2js (in Dart), and the analyzer for IDE support (also in Dart, but a separate codebase). Merging those into a single shared front end is a monumental amount of work since each of those targets has very different needs and hard performance requirements.

Hopefully soon we can start saying more about what's coming.

<comment><USER5> Now that the browser isn't the primary target for dart, is there work going on to make threading possible?

<comment><USER6> There are no plans to add multithreading to the platform.

Currently, we are not spending resources on parallel execution (with isolates), either. There are other easier features that have more impact.

Eventually, we will revisit this topic, and see if we can make things easier. Multithreading itself is extremely unlikely, but there are other ways we can make parallel execution better; for example with easier data sharing between isolates.

<comment><USER3> > There are other easier features that have more impact

Which features?

<comment><USER6> For example:

\- better type promotion (`if (x is! A) throw "not A"; useAsA(x);`.

\- Optional new/const.

\- Allowing named arguments at any position at the call site.

These are all easier to specify and implement, and reach more users.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What would you tell yourself three months ago if you could? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> 2-19-20 sell: SPY buy: SPXU

2-28-20 sell: SPXU buy: SPXL

3-4-20 sell: SPXL buy: SPXU

3-24-20 sell: SPXU buy: SPXL

<comment><USER3> I told y'all that in r/wsb

<comment><AUTHOR> ha!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Order that Bidet toilet seat asap direct from the manufacturer and with next day shipping.

And, of course, all the other financially intelligent things to transmit.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's all about "time in the market" and "don't pick stocks buy a vanguard"

</comment><comment><USER5> Grocery delivery in Madrid comes 15-20 days after ordering.

</comment><comment><USER6> \- Your plan so far has worked well (Y)

</comment><comment><USER7> Last week's Lotto numbers!

</comment><comment><USER8> Ask for a raise, now</comment>


Show HN: Relaud.io – Search videos by captions - <AUTHOR> http://relaud.io <comment><USER2> perfect for searching lectures thanks bub</comment>


Vim Plugin to highlight Words to Avoid in Tech Writing - <AUTHOR> http://usevim.com/2014/01/17/words-to-avoid/ <comment><USER2> People write technical documents in vim?</comment>


Lenovo $99 tablet getting 5 stars on Amazon - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F2ENYPC/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=produc05-20

<comment><USER2> I always find it silly, when sorting Amazon search results by avg. customer review, that the top results are the ones with just 1-2 reviews and 5 stars. It's pretty unhelpful.

<comment><USER3> Agree. They should implement some sort of algorithm that takes the star count into account.

On another note: isn't it amazing that there even is such a thing.. A $99 tablet? This was unheard of five years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> But with only two reviews.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see your point but I am just amazed at the rate technology is going that I can buy a fairly decent tablet for under $100. There are other ones that are even less but they seem to be generic brands and have lower ratings.

<comment><USER4> My point was simply that there's no statistical meaning in two reviews ... but I'm thinking about buying one!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'll wait for the anandtech review

<comment><USER6> No Anandtech reviews, but here's a few:

[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422923,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422923,00.asp)

[http://www.androidguys.com/2013/08/30/lenovo- ideatab-a1000-t...](http://www.androidguys.com/2013/08/30/lenovo- ideatab-a1000-tablet-review/)

I think the average conclusion is that the device is OK, but if it cheap enough then it may be worth it.</comment></comment>


Why Silicon Valley is Rethinking Cubicles - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119240097861658633.html <comment><USER2> Sigh! Why can't more people listen to Joel, read Peopleware[1] and design offices similar to fogcreek[2]? If Joel can do it at NYC rents, I am sure others should not find it that difficult.

[1]<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/navLinks/fog0000000262.html> \-- some other great book recommendations in there

[2]<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BionicOffice.html>

<comment><USER3> Yep. This article is painful to read: they propose to eliminate cubes by switching to... open plans and shared tables! Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

My home office has a Kinesis keyboard and three monitors placed at the proper height. Now they propose to "improve" my office arrangement by forcing me to use a laptop all day? I'll stick with telecommuting, thanks.

If I'm going to work at the equivalent of a table in Starbucks, why wouldn't I just work at Starbucks? There's natural light, and the coffee tastes better.

And check out this line from the article:

"Cubicles can prompt odd behavior... It is hard to see if colleagues are busy, so some cube-dwellers will send emails to a neighbor about a simple question that could have been answered more easily in a conversation."

Yes, the real problem with cubicles is that they make it too difficult to break people's concentration!

"Where people in jobs such as marketing tend to want open offices... employees in product groups favor cubes." No kidding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cubicles don't provide the right collaboration environment (depends on the layout) and don't provide much in terms of limiting noise or providing privacy. I'm glad that larger companies are starting to realize that cost savings are bad if they lead to lost productivity.

I think an ideal office layout should have plenty of collaboration spaces where employees can work together in small groups and quiet areas to focus individually.

</comment><comment><USER5> People need private space (i.e. personal territory) at least some of the time, and the biggest problem with the cubicle is that there is never any real privacy.

It's telling that before he died, the guy who invented cubicles went on record to say that his vision was being terribly misused.

[http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/magazines/fortune/cubicle_ho...](http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/magazines/fortune/cubicle_howiwork_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes)

<comment><USER6> Oh, how happy I am NOT to be known as the inventor of the cubicle.

<comment><USER7> At least Alfred Nobel had the decency to right the misuse of his god forsaken invention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Open spaces are great for ad hock conversation, but it is annoying having your computer's monitor exposed to anyone behind you. Things like writing emails or checking bank accounts are especially uncomfortable.

</comment><comment><USER9> Intel cube farms are horrendous. The only motivation for employees to stick around is the high salary they pay, but even then I'm sure most spend theirs on Paxil and Prozac.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPmD2h7mG-I>

</comment><comment><USER10> It's pretty sad that thousands, maybe millions, of people may be wasting away in cubicles partially due to silly regulations regarding depreciation schedules for cubicles vs. permanent walls.

It's also telling that Microsoft seems almost alone in bucking the trend amongst large computer industry companies. If their competitors had spent their money in ways that enabled their engineers to be productive, instead of on lawyers, lobbyists and pr firms blaming MS for 'monopolistic' practices, maybe they could on occasion produce something people would pay for, too.</comment>


What we learnt from our mistakes in 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/info/developer-blog/2016/dec/18/what-we-learnt-from-our-mistakes-in-2016 <comment><USER2> The worst thing which is STILL wrong is the freaking comments system. When a comment has too many sub comments, they cut off these sub comments at some point and show a "click here for the rest of the comments" button. If you click on it, you are shown the rest of the sub comments, but from then on you live in some ground hog day scenario, where if you continue to read other comments of the same article, you will encounter the same comments again and again. Beats me why such a huge bug remains unfixed for years.

</comment><comment><USER3> I worked remotely (by 1000 miles) on the Times Square billboards for a major news network and learned the hard way that when you work for the news and make a mistake, you become the news. Nobody from the company saw the error, until it was reported on a Media blog. In media, especially event-based programming by the time you figure out all the test scenarios and potential issues, the code is often already obsolete. Decisions are driven by the teams that make money.</comment>


Ask HN: Share an Idea? - <AUTHOR>
 If you're like me, you often have a lot of ideas that you don't have the time or resources to execute on. If so, why not write it down for your fellow hackers' enjoyment?<p>Topics can be anything: product ideas, service ideas, blog post topics, stand up comedy skits, research initiatives you wish could get funded, etc. <comment><USER2> I've always wanted to write a tool that used voice recognition in order to sync subtitles to the sounds.</comment>


Ask HN: Legality of hosting encrypted files? - <AUTHOR>

Lately I've been thinking about the legal ramifications of hosting encrypted copyrighted data.
If person X encrypts a copyrighted file with some algorithm/key, posts this encrypted file on hosting site A, and then shares the algorithm/key what would be the legal ramifications to hosting site A?
The hosting site could claim ignorance and saying that they are not hosting copyrighted data. In response the owner of the copyrighted data could show that through a series of transformations the data is the copyrighted data. That being said, can't any data be "transformed" to be that same copyrighted file?
Thanks for reading and looking forward to some feedback! <comment><USER2> Research the way Me.ga is getting around the liability issue. I think it may be something similar to what you proposed.

<http://mashable.com/category/kim-dotcom/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I would imagine that in the USA, you just follow the DMCA. It doesn't matter if the file is encrypted or not encrypted, compressed or not compressed.

<comment><AUTHOR> But how would it be proven that the file being hosted is the Copyrighted file? For example, say there are 100 files on a hosting site, and when they are XORed together they create a copyrighted file. Is this illegal? What about if there are only 99/100 files? Would it be considered illegal based on intent?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you spark curiosity in your young ones? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Make sure they have lots of age appropriate books lying around for them to pick up. Don't try to give them books ahead of their current level.

Notice their natural interests and try to apply your adult brain to getting them access to more resources to explore and practice those interests.

Aim without hoping to get there, at zero screen time.

Actively personally participate in their interests with them.

Search out and try new hobbies and activities for them to get exposure to.

Make most things optional, but make adult decisions about things that they must continue to do even if they don't much like it.

Turn off that TV.

</comment><comment><USER3> kids are curious. Answer their questions as honestly and best you can. I don't know is a good answer, but be prepared to explain why you don't know!

Demonstrate curiosity. Kids are interested in things things their parents are interested in. I don't watch sports - my kids are not interested either: we signed them up for soccer, but they are just running around with no clue why it is important to kick the ball into the right net.</comment>


Gitifying I2P: How to make Git clone resumable - <AUTHOR> https://0xcc.re/gitifying-i2p-how-to-make-git-clone-resumable/ <comment><USER2> I've never put much thought into how git clones aren't resumable.

The author's workaround before their solution is quite clever. "

Gitifying I2P: How to make git clone resumable Have you ever cloned a git repository on a bad internet connection? I have, it don't work. When I lived in the Philippines for a year and a half, I had to clone repositories to a server of mine in Norway, for then sharing the repo via torrent so I could download it to my laptop in the Philippines. "

<comment><USER3> In cases like that, I find it far simpler to download an archive of the remote repo. A competent download manager supports resuming, and if you sha1sum the archive you can verify integrity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a job for git bundle.

[https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bundle](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bundle)</comment>