BBC to publish 'right to be forgotten' removals list - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29658085 <comment><USER2> The "right to be forgotten" is a doublespeak - it is really a concept for revoking others' right to free speech. I have no idea how the EU justice system works but I hope they have the means to correct this serious error.

<comment><USER3> _it is really a concept for revoking others ' right to free speech_

Yes, because in Europe free speech isn't an absolute right; sometimes the right of privacy trumps free speech.

<comment><USER4> Anything that trumps free speech, except for the truly extreme cases (shouting fire in a theatre etc.) is a slippery slope that can erode liberty over a period of time.

How long before this moves into "right to not be offended trumps free speech" territory?

<comment><USER5> Shouting fire in a theater isn't an extreme case if you think about it. When was the last time you heard of a stampede in a crowded theater when someone shouted fire and there was none? I've never heard of it. Who would take off running? Would you take off running because someone else is? Honestly. The case this phrase originated from is overpraised.

<comment><USER6> Is it even illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

This isn't 1900. There are accessible, well-lit exit routes in every theater I've been in. Not to mention fire suppression systems, alarms, and the fact that you'd most likely _see_ a fire before it was time to panic.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps this does not happen much in the US. However, there are "discotheque" fires [1] which harm numerous people throughout the world. Typically overcrowded with locked exit doors. It's a sad thing, but it happens.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "They included a link to a blog post by Economics Editor Robert Peston. The request was believed to have been made by a person who had left a comment underneath the article."

Now that's a good example of a feature fighting the product. Disable article commenting: you might miss out on engagement and subsequent pageviews. Enable commenting: you might get the article de-listed from Google. Allow anonymous commenting: you invite trolls (such as jezabel/violent GIF swarm). Require (partially) verified identities: you risk takedown requests.

<comment><USER9> I think you're glossing over the simplest option: allow commenters to remove their comments. This puts the responsibility where it belongs. If you want content removed, actually have it removed, don't involve some third party search engine index.

<comment><USER10> Hence putting the load of managing a identity verification and removal program on the shoulders of hundreds of thousands web developers?

<comment><USER11> And thus putting some political backpressure on the whole affair, calling into question the sanity of the whole idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't really have a huge problem with "right to be forgotten". I think, as a society, we might eventually discover the down side of having everything anyone (including oneself) posts about everyone permanently archived, linked to their real identities, and searchable forever. This will probably start to happen once those who grew up as kids posting to the internet start wanting respectable jobs or running for office. They'll realize the person they were as a kid is completely different from the person they are as a 50 year old, and not want to be judged by some troll post they wrote 35 years ago.

<comment><USER13> The problem in this context is that this right is not being used to allow youthful indiscretions to fade from memory, but to suppress speech that may be in the public interest to protect.

<comment><USER14> Hysteria surrounding the ruling is not completely warranted from what I can see. Google's own page one would use to submit such a request specifically says it isn't going to do that.

[https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=we...](https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch#)

> "When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include > outdated information about you, as well as whether there's a public interest > in the information — for example, we may decline to remove certain > information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal > convictions, or public conduct of government officials."

There is a legitimate problem with Google's search results listing harassing links to persons. Revenge porn would be a terrific example.

If there is something on the internet about you that you don't want there. It isn't possible to remove it, that would be absurd but your public facing name on the internet shouldn't be clouded by unwarranted defamation material.

They do at least promise not to remove professional malpractices and the like. I doubt for instance they would not return reviews about your business on yelp or similar.

A much larger issue that needs to be tackled is DMCA, which is being abused today. We have tried DMCA and it needs some reform. We haven't really tried right to be forgotten yet, and I just don't see that the downsides outweigh the potential benefits.

BBC publishing links that have been deemed by persons who are the subject of the links to be bad; paints a giant bullseye on those links.

<comment><USER15> The promises you list and your guesses about what google is or isn't going to do are just empty words - the original article itself gives a real example where a news story about convictions of IRA members was blocked, so the expected risks are not only possible, but have already happened and happening right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Daily Telegraph is already publishing a similar list, which gives a fascinating insight into what people would rather you did not read about: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegr...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegraph- stories-affected-by-EU-right-to-be-forgotten.html)

<comment><USER17> The last one is great:

        Google has also taken down a link to an online dating profile for user Thom109 on Telegraph Dating.

Raises questions about online services opt-in/out to be publicly listed/searchable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Please note that this is not so much about the basic principle of the 'right to be forgotten', but the way in which Google is deliberately turning it into a bloodbath.

Google is constantly looking to create controversy and undermine any kind of privacy rights enforcement rather than being constructive in finding solutions.

Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order. They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.

<comment><USER19> Because it _is_ censorship, to the definition. It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past.

Besides, at the volume at which the requests have poured in, even Google has limited time and resources to fight each request in court. It's unrealistic to expect them to actually fight any takedown individually when the entire idea is absurd.

Yes, I added my opinion at the end there.

<comment> vertex-four > It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from > public libraries to articles from the past.

Except that before the Internet was a thing, in general, if you did something that got you in the newspaper five years ago, nobody would remember it when you're applying for a job or networking or somehow get in the news again, doubly so if you moved town.

These days, it's likely that if you were in the news once, that baggage is likely to be attached to you forever; it can quite literally ruin your life.

That's quite a massive difference if you ask me.

<comment><USER20> So what's the end game where everyone has that level of "dirt" on them? Doesn't it become a lot less extraordinary (and therefore, a lot less "life ruining") if _everyone 's_ publicly-documented bad behavior is accessible?

FWIW, I see this as blatant censorship.

<comment><USER21> Your comment assumes several things. First, that everyone has a similar level of things to be embarrassed about. Second, that wealthy and powerful people won't simply sue or bribe publishers to withhold or delete the embarrassing material. Third, that living in a panopticon is a good thing.

I'm a little perplexed at how people who find NSA surveillance utterly unacceptable and wish to be able to shield private information from even lawful (warranted) scrutiny nonetheless seem fine with surveillance and publication by private sector, whether that's more-or-less universal publication via search engines or fee-based as in the case of data brokers like Acxiom.

<comment><USER20> None of those assumptions are made, at all.

First, I asked _what the endgame is_ , not what it is right now.

 _First, that everyone has a similar level of things to be embarrassed about._

And yet here we're discussing a law that leaves the amount of damage to be done to freedom of information up to the whims of each individual person who thinks they should be able to censor some piece of data, rather than any kind of objective test. Including the "rich and powerful".

 _Second, that wealthy and powerful people won 't simply sue or bribe publishers to withhold or delete the embarrassing material._

That does not work in the real world. The rich and powerful have been trying to restrict information getting out for years. Snowden and Streisand are living proof of this. The continued explosions in the faces of people who try to do this are further proof.

That old saying about the internet interpreting censorship (and we can quibble about the wheretos and the whyfores all day long, but at the end of the day, this definitely fits the definition of censorship) as damage? That doesn't stop applying just because legislators want it to.

 _Third, that living in a panopticon is a good thing. I 'm a little perplexed at how people who find NSA surveillance utterly unacceptable and wish to be able to shield private information.._

In every case we're talking about here, it's not "private" information. It's information that's always been there, for free, to anyone who cares to look. Arrests are not private information, neither are blog comments, neither is anything else you do in the public eye. I find it repugnant to suggest that removing that information from one or two places makes it as if those things never happened.

<comment><USER21> Your post is so self-contradictory and illogical that I see little point in discussing this further with you.

<comment><USER20> Let me make this simple then, your veiled insults aside:

There is a difference between public and private information, and you don't seem to know what that is.

We're discussing censorship of public information.

Why did you choose to invoke the NSA bogeyman in a discussion about already- public information?

Why do you think the "wealthy and powerful" will be able to censor information when the wealthy and powerful are massive failures at it already?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The worst thing is that this law will be used by politicians and their families to cover up corruption stories.

The law that possibly profits governing bodies the most is a bad law.

Why we cannot know if our new neighbour have paedophile past, corruption or rape incidents? Such mistakes should stay public for ever. But now very specific groups of people are trying to whiten themselves up. Its somehow scary...

<comment><USER11> I think it already has been used to cover up past poor behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder how this will affect the Internet Archive. I understand they're based in the US(and hopefully their servers are too), but will the EU courts take any action if a sufficiently high profile lawsuit occurs over the archive's contents?

<comment><USER24> ISTR that the Internet Archive was fine honoring takedown requests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So now, we would require a new law to have "Right To Forget" for "Right to Forgotten" removal lists?

</comment><comment><USER26> Does anyone publish a list of government censored material?

Or stuff that has been taken down for copyright infringement?

<comment><USER27> Google publishes DMCA takedown requests. Not sure about government censorship, though.

<comment><USER26> It does not publish actual URLs

<comment><USER27> Yes they do. They provide a link to the specific notice on Chilling Effects when search results would have returned a URL that they received a takedown request for. The notice contains exact URLs.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


DARPA red balloon viral sharing technique finds new uses for startup - <AUTHOR> http://talkto.com/win/1/?u1=e07M3ua

<comment><USER2> Here's the challenge by DARPA Network Challenge (Red Balloon Challenge) from 2009.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge>

The challenge was to find 10 red weather balloons located somewhere in the US.

Dr. Crane and a team from the MIT Media Lab won it by using viral spreading through social networks.</comment>


Nomic – A Game of Self-Amendment (1982) - <AUTHOR> https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm <comment><USER2> I played it once. It was fun for a while. After a few hours (including a time when all new rules had to be in a specific verse for - heptameter, perhaps?) we called it quits.

I've not had an urge to play it since.</comment>


Breaching the Secure Area in Airports - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/breaching_the_s.html <comment><USER2> Airports are very interesting places lately... Schneier mentions the different layout that involves screening at the gates - I've seen that one and I'm not a fan. If you want to leave to the toilet, you have to be screened again, which is a bit annoying, since you usually realise you need to go, after you sit down for a moment ;) Also it seems the planes are delayed more often, because people will stay outside of the gate area for as long as possible (there is nothing to do once you go inside).

OTOH screening rules can give you some nice bonuses if you know the airport well enough. I use a trick to get through my usual airport faster - print the ticket myself with the barcode in low quality, so that it cannot be read by the scanner (150dpi gives it a nice blur). Then I get sent to reprint it at any desk and go back into the priority queue to the security - saves me ~15min of waiting every time. All airports I've seen will put you back into priority queues if there was anything wrong "on their side".

Maybe some people find themselves in wrong places by trying to game the system in a similar way?</comment>


Show HN: Respond Flow – The Mailchimp of SMS - <AUTHOR> https://www.respondflow.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

We're working to create a Text Message Marketing Software that:

Is accessible -A no-code solution that even our parents could use (literally ).

-Designed to make it easy to manage service requests over text (think intercom but with SMS).

-Comes with a mobile app that allows users to respond on the go.

Designed to help local businesses grow -Personalize every mass text wave with your customers' information to make it feel like you hand-typed each text.

-Curate lists of contacts based on customers on and offline behavior. Retarget them later with text waves that truly resonate with them.

-Automate your follow-up with flows that let you guide your customers through text campaigns as unique as they are.

Centralize marketing meets localize service -Allow users to claim one or many local 10-digit numbers so that every storefront, sales rep, or employee can have their own designated number.

-Group your numbers and send text waves through them to your local customers. Allow your local teams to handle the inbound service texts.

Enhanced by artificial intelligence (NLP) -ai that helps businesses understand the emotional impact of their text messages and to connect with their customers.

We're inching closer to achieving some of these goals more than others, but we are excited that what we have made to date has helped countless businesses increase their sales, re-connect with their customers, and has made a difference for a few during COVID.

If you have any questions you can text us at (918) 248-6020

[https://www.producthunt.com/posts/respond- flow](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/respond-flow)</comment>


How a '50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail - <AUTHOR> https://www.villagevoice.com/2014/10/07/how-a-50s-era-new-york-knife-law-has-landed-thousands-in-jail/ <comment><USER2> My brother got charged as a result this law as the police wanted information about one of his friends. It is enforced very selectively too. If you can swing it down very hard and it opens, it is a gravity knife and thus criminal possession of a weapon. It is a bad law, and according to their definition nearly every pocket knife is a gravity knife.

There was an effort to repeal it, but for some reason governor Cuomo decided to veto it. [https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/new-york- gravity-...](https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/new-york-gravity- knife-reform-bills-filed-again/)

<comment><USER3> Most weapon bans are pretty silly and arbitrary. Look at the old AWB... Flash hider? Banned.. Muzzle Break? ok... Bayonet Lug? Banned... Grenade launcher oh sorry I mean "flaregun attachment" is ok as long as you can't fix a bayonet on it...

<comment><USER4> "Flash hider? Banned.. Muzzle Break? ok"

In all fairness, muzzle breaks have practical civilian use as a way to reduce recoil for target shooting, while flash hiders just make it difficult for authorities to spot the location of a shooter. Muzzle breaks actually increase the noise level of a firearm, making more detectable than a stock barrel.

<comment><USER5> Might want to ask yourself where you learned that, then discount that source as a valid source of information in the future.

<comment><USER6> Video games is where I "learned" it. Outfit a gun in, say, Call of Duty or Rainbow Six. Highlight whatever the particular game calls a "flash suppressor". I'll bet it says something like "hides your location from other players when fired", or something like that.

Which of course is not what a flash suppressor does at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" She still feels sick about the conviction she was compelled to hand out, to a man who was initially stopped by police for being in a city park after nightfall. Although the law was, in her view, deeply flawed, she felt she had no choice but to vote with the majority. Glaser herself carries a Swiss Army knife on her keychain.

"It just seemed like a trumped-up charge," she says. "And it certainly doesn't seem like it's enforced equally across the board."_

This reads like a textbook example discussing the case for jury nullification.

<comment><USER8> Or you know, just hold out and force a mistrial. This really speaks to the colossal susceptibility of jurors to blind groupthink.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a single symptom of a larger issue, namely an excess of laws to the point that any law can be arbitrarily used to prosecute you if you are of an unwanted class, race, etc. Add on top the police quota system and you have a recipe of this type of injustice that runs the gamut, from antiquidated knife laws to the drug war.

To me, this is largely a result of lawyers fucking ruining everything they touch, and then not giving a shit about the lives they ruin by extension (for example, congress and k-street). It's the lawyers that are out of control here. They are the ones who got the bad law passed, they are the ones who keep allowing prosecutions to happen, they are the ones who keep the law from being challenged, etc. It's like lawyers want to be the gatekeepers to the world, but only if you pay them hefty fees. Hell, I even had someone try to tell me I shouldn't talk about GPL licensing because only lawyers understand licensing! I know lawyers are a needed entity, but they seem to have far too much power of the daily lives of people in this sense. You know what really grinds my gears though, is that these lawyers who are often at the heart of almost every injustice (even if by silent acquiescence) always pretend to be such awesome pillars of the community. I think we should start throwing lawyers in jail for such bullshit laws until you hit one powerful enough and watch the bullshit law suddenly disappear.

For anyone who wants to see video of what a real gravity knife is:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjXuiC8t1E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjXuiC8t1E)

or a modern version

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5IhZWyV0QI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5IhZWyV0QI)

<comment><USER10> It's absolutely absurd that "arrest quotas" are even a thing in America. The job of the police in most first world countries is to protect the people, not make arrests for ludicrous laws. I don't want my tax dollars funding police officers camping out on highways to hand out speeding tickets or arresting random people for having pocket knives on them. No wonder Americans have such an adversarial relationship with the police.

<comment><USER11> "Arrest quotas" is a bit like voter fraud. It's talked about a lot, there's heavy speculation, but there's little evidence showing it exists in any systemic form.

It's also worth noting in many areas arrest quotas are outright illegal.

What departments do typically do is look at distributions. Say on a Friday evening shift, over the past 12 month period, a typical officer typically has 16-18 speeding stops.

However, during the same Friday evening shift, an offer typically writes 1-2 for the past months. Why? Maybe it's something explainable. Maybe it's the officer isn't doing a good job.

But that's the intent of looking at distribution. It's not to say the officer has to write 16-18, but if it turned out they were slacking off, they may easily see it that way.

<comment><USER12> From the article:

""It's an easy way to make an arrest. And they're under pressure to make arrests." A poster on Officer.com, a verified online message board for law enforcement officers, put it bluntly in 2013 when he advised a rookie to be on the lookout for "GKs": "make sure they have a prior conviction so you can bump it up to that felony!!!"

So, there may not be quotas, but it's pretty clear that there is pressure to deliver arrest numbers, especially felony arrests. A different mechanism that drives the same behavior.

<comment><USER13> But they have to put pressure on cops to make arrests, because if they don't, cops will only make an arrest when someone pisses them off or does something so bad and so public it's going to make the papers.

Speeding tickets are a perfect example. The sergeant has a life outside work - he gets days off, he runs errands, he drives to and from work. And all the while he sees people doing stupid stuff just like the rest of us. So it's hard for him to imagine his officers can drive around for an entire shift and never see someone speeding, running a red light, or making an illegal u-turn.

What do you think your boss would do if you sat at your desk and did nothing all day?

<comment><USER14> > And all the while he sees people doing stupid stuff just like the rest of > us. So it's hard for him to imagine his officers can drive around for an > entire shift and never see someone speeding, running a red light, or making > an illegal u-turn.

Then they should stop and cite those violations. No one said that the police should not write tickets for minor misdemeanors. The complaint is the practice of using those misdemeanors as a way to pad their productivity, and by extension their department's budget.

Police departments should be a sunk cost. There shouldn't be pressure to make arrests, as an arrest can only be made when someone breaks the law and is caught. Look at the whole Arpaio mess. Sure, Illegal Immigrants are here illegally, but it's a national problem, not a local problem. We've sat complaining (at least we were as of last year before shit got fucked) that the feds are going after medical marijuana dispensaries in CA despite the fact that locally, those dispensaries are by-and-large complying with local laws. An illegal immigrant in Arizona isn't all that different. They may be breaking a federal law, but they're a productive member of their community. They aren't breaking any local laws, and it's been ruled countless times that local police departments should not be enforcing those laws much like a local patrolman can't really arrest and cite someone for treason. It's above their pay grade. When you do have departments focusing on one kind of violation, like treason or illegal immigration, as Arpaio ended up doing, the department pulls resources from other violations, like rape and statutory rape, that are mostly violent crime with victims that want justice for the pain and suffering they endured by their neighbors. Those are the people that should be arrested, and the fortunate (or unfortunate) reality is that a lawful community will have officers that are not "productive".

<comment><USER13> >The complaint is the practice of using those misdemeanors as a way to pad their productivity, and by extension their department's budget.

The evidence for that is spotty at best, and you're missing the point, which is cops won't write tickets (or make arrests) at all unless they're pushed to do so.

Let me add another example. Where I live there's a massage parlor every other block or so. Everybody knows these places are giving happy endings. If there are a hundred brothels (let's call them what they are) in the city, it's not unreasonable for the police chief to say to the vice squad "You have the manpower to shut down at least three of these places every month, so if that doesn't happen I'll want to know why." That's perfectly legitimate management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Needs a (2014) on it. Looks like not much has changed in the mean time and the bill to sort this out was vetoed at the beginning of this year. [https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/officials- advocates...](https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/officials-advocates- react-veto-gravity-knife-bill)

</comment><comment><USER16> I used to carry a pocket knife in in NYC. Nothing huge, just a 3 inch folding knife clipped to the inside of my front pocket. On some random day near Times Square a cop asked me about it. I noted that he checked the hinge to see if the blade would fall under its own weight. I didn't realize how close to a criminal charge I was. In the end he cited me for $50 because the clip of the knife was visible.

The cop was nice and I was polite and respectful but it should also be noted if I was black I think the outcome would be completely different

<comment><USER17> > The cop was nice

The man was looking to imprison you over a ridiculous perversion of a law that no reasonable person would ever conclude they were violating. I don't care about the B.S. legalese justification for it, if a law is that morally repugnant then the man enforcing it bears some of the responsibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not American, but I don't understand, how did this man get those 6 years added in a tribunal? Did he go to court? I mean what kind of legal people put this guy in jail for that? I mean did anybody blink on it?

Sure the law is a problem, but I don't see what motivations the justice system can have to apply the law like that, can somebody explain it to me?

<comment><USER19> It's difficult to tell from the article. Unfortunately in the USA the poor don't have the same ability to defend themselves as the rich, and it often skews along racial lines. We also have repeat offender laws that can catch up reformed criminals as well as repeat ones.

<comment><USER20> I would say most of the middle class doesn't have the ability to legally defend themselves either. They might be able to, but it's financially catastrophic. You can pay a lawyer to plea for you, but if it goes to trial, it could be in the 10s of thousands. It all depends on how long the prosecutor can draw out the trial. Also keep in mind while this is going on, you've probably been fired, so you don't have any income to pay for it, so it depends on how much you have saved. (You probably won't get a loan with no job).

[https://www.thumbtack.com/p/criminal-defense-attorney- cost](https://www.thumbtack.com/p/criminal-defense-attorney-cost)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Meanwhile, in the Free State of Texas... swords! woo!

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation- now/2017/08/30/en...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation- now/2017/08/30/en-garde-texas-open-carry-sword-law-takes-effect- friday/619064001/)

<comment><USER22> Meanwhile Florida Man follows the way of the Samurai: [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/27/florida-man-wields- samu...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/27/florida-man-wields-samurai- sword-during-road-rage-incident-police-say.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, we have a combination of lawyer politicians pushing total nonsense laws and posturing before the public, some cops looking to make arrests as sadists to attack innocent people, and a lot of lawyers -- judges and prosecutors -- out to be with the sadistic cops to throw as many innocent citizens in jail as possible.

So, with this situation: (1) Stay the heck out of NYC. (2) Try to stay the hack out of NYS. (3) Stay the heck away from cops. (4) Look the part of the powerful, upstanding, responsible, politically influential citizen. E.g., don't drive an old car. Etc.

Ah, a lot like what a lot of wild animals in the jungle have to do -- stay out of areas with potential attackers, stay away from potential attackers and generally out of sight and to any potential attacker look strong.

So, right, NYC is a jungle with vicious wild animals; cops, lawyers, and lawyer politicians are among the most dangerous wild animals in that jungle.

</comment><comment><USER24> Can some lawyer on here explain how this law is not plainly in conflict with the Second Ammendment? How can a city just decide they don't like knives? In part of the article, someone describes these knives as "dangerous weapons" \-- well, yea, that's the idea ...

<comment><USER25> The courts haven't yet decided whether or not the "bear arms" part of the second amendment means you have a right to carry arms outside your home.

Wrenn v. DC recently ruled in favor of that interpretation, and DC is now deciding if they want to try to take it to the supreme court. The 9th circuit found otherwise in Peruta v San Diego, so there's a good chance SCOTUS takes it if appealed.

<comment><USER24> > The courts haven't yet decided whether or not the "bear arms" part of the > second amendment means you have a right to carry arms outside your home.

Absurd

<comment><USER26> It wasn't decided that there was a right to bear arms outside of a well- regulated militia until the Heller decision, which is quite recent and the court chose to make a narrow determination based on the circumstances of the case (which is common).

<comment><USER27> As I understand it, the dispute is over the meaning of 'militia'. At the time, the 'militia' was considered to be any able-bodied male under the age of 40, and under the law's current definition of the militia, any able-bodied person between 17 and 40 is considered to informally be part of the militia (as opposed to the national guard, who are formally part of it)[1]. The question is whether 'militia' means just the national guard or includes the 'irregulars' who would've been expected to fight despite not formally being part of the military.

[1] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think it's useful to view these laws as a way to get around the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The actual societal problem -- the one that's been illegal forever -- is robbery. But it's hard to catch robbers. If they aren't caught in the first few minutes, there's a good chance they get away for good.

When the police stop somebody and find a knife on them, they might think "this person is probably using this to stick people up." The legislature can't pass a law that says "conviction for robbery requires now requires only probable cause", but they can try to achieve the same effect by making it illegal to carry a knife.

</comment><comment><USER28> This makes me so mad. Posession of a pocket knife used for work ruins 6 years of a mans wife...and I tell you. We know this was used on the poor or the brown.

</comment><comment><USER29> The guy in the story received the "maximum sentence" of 6 years just for carrying a knife? I think there is more to this story than stated in the article. That being said, vague laws can be abused by the state to criminalize anything or anyone the don't like.

<comment><USER30> They explain in the article. Because of his prior convictions, his charge was "bumped up" to the next level.

They also say in the article that police officers are told to look for prior convictions (presumably over the radio when they check identity) so that they can "bump up" the charge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> IANAL, but in such an absurd knife case, on the jury, why not just vote to acquit, for innocent?

As I understand the situation, a juror can vote whatever based on whatever, for any reason or no reason, and never give their reason.

So, for a nonsense knife case as in the OP, really just a way for a lot of lawyer politicians to posture before the public and a lot of other lawyers to throw innocent citizens in jail just for the jollies, why not just vote innocent?

<comment><USER24> A lot of people don't know about this or jury nullification. In particular, one juror from TFA says they felt compelled to vote guilty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Massachusetts General Law (Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10) includes a long paragraph that describes a variety of knives as dangerous weapons.

I was on a grand jury that considered a spring-assisted knife charged under this statute. Our legal guidance was to have the ADA read this dense paragraph out loud. A majority voted to indict.

</comment><comment><USER32> tl;dr: racial profiling and quotas. It's just an exploitable law (if using a dubiously-stretched interpretation) which is a handy pretext for arbitrarily arresting people.

The title is essentially wrong, in that it's not the law itself that has landed people in jail, it's the police wilfully mis-enforcing it.

<comment><USER33> The law itself still needs fixing though, as it's open to such willful misinterpretations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Save a life, bin that knife.

Only criminals need knives.

/british-persona

That said, shouldn't the retailers be prosecuted for being in legal possession of the item prior to sale? They legally own all of the products in their inventory

<comment><USER35> > Only criminals need knives.

And cooks, hunters, electricians, plumbers, casual restaurant goers etc. Try slicing your steak with a fork or a spoon next time.

<comment><USER34> Wow, okay did you just assume my food preferences?

Try not murdering innocent life for your next meal.

(I jest)

<comment><USER35> Raw carrots and celery then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Oops, I have a Luftwaffe paratrooper's knife.[0] Yes, an actual gravity knife. But I doubt that I'd ever carry it on the street. It's worth too much, for one thing.

0) [http://www.germaniainternational.com/images2/unknown/Paratro...](http://www.germaniainternational.com/images2/unknown/Paratrooper_Wood_Handle_knife/MVC-010S_lg.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER37> Article is from 2014.

Reform of the law passed in 2016, basically to make knives with a spring that holds them closed legal.

[https://www.villagevoice.com/2016/06/15/gravity-knife- reform...](https://www.villagevoice.com/2016/06/15/gravity-knife-reform- passes-legislature-over-objections-from-de-blasio/)

</comment><comment><USER38> Good reason to carry a fixed-blade knife (legal blade length and style of course).

</comment><comment><USER39> What's crazy is any folding knife that can be opened with the flick of the wrist is considered a gravity knife. I don't understand how all manner of firearms are legal, but even the most simple knifes are illegal.

<comment><USER40> > _I don 't understand how all manner of firearms are legal, but even the most > simple knifes are illegal._

All manner of firearms are explicitly _illegal_ in New York City, unless you have a difficult-to-get exemption.

<comment><USER39> That might be true, but gravity knife bans extend far outside of NYC. Many U.S. states and cities have similar laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wonder what those six years cost the taxpayer.

</comment><comment><USER42> Ok, I'm about halfway through this "novella", and while I find the story itself very pertinent, I still haven't seen it define what a gravity knife actually is -- what differentiates it from other classes of knives. Admittedly, I've taken to half skimming, as I didn't intend to make a significant time investment in learning this.

Here are some pertinent -- essential -- details, from mid-way through the article. First, I guess I should add that the article talks earlier about the problem of knives being perhaps deliberately mis-classified as gravity knives (without actually defining this).

 _Gravity-knife arrests may be popular for another reason. Most, like Neal's, result from simple observation of a "pocket clip," often readily visible. All officers need to do is keep their eyes peeled, and they can add another misdemeanor to their tally — or, if they're lucky, a felony.

Matt Galluzzo, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, now a defense attorney in private practice, says that for many officers, a gravity- knife arrest is simply a hard collar to pass up. "You don't have to fight the guy, you don't have to chase him," Galluzzo says. "It's an easy way to make an arrest. And they're under pressure to make arrests." A poster on Officer.com, a verified online message board for law enforcement officers, put it bluntly in 2013 when he advised a rookie to be on the lookout for "GKs": "make sure they have a prior conviction so you can bump it up to that felony!!!"

Most of the D.A.s in the state "have never prosecuted a gravity-knife case, or haven't prosecuted one in 30 years," according to a spokesperson for the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York. Even just beyond the city limits, gravity-knife prosecutions are exceedingly rare. While the population of the Bronx is roughly equal to that of Suffolk County on Long Island, the Bronx prosecuted more than 10 times as many likely cases in 2013 as its counterpart across the water.

Even worse, critics charge, is that officials have prosecuted knife users aggressively while doing little to address the source of those same knives, which are sold openly at reputable retailers all over the city. New York State assemblyman Dan Quart, a Democrat from Manhattan, says there's an obvious contradiction at play: "You can walk in and purchase one of these knives over the counter," he says, "and then walk out and get arrested."...

The racial breakdown of stops is also striking. Of the thousands of arrests that resulted from stop-and-frisk encounters, 86 percent of the total involved black or Hispanic suspects. And a Voice analysis also shows that white suspects are significantly more likely to be let go, even when they're caught carrying knives. Only 35 percent of white suspects found with knives — virtually any of which might meet the NYPD's ecumenical definition — are arrested, while 56 percent of black and Hispanic suspects are ultimately booked._

Ah, and finally, a definition of what a gravity knife is:

 _The original gravity knife — the type legislators targeted when they banned them half a century ago — bears no resemblance to the kind that landed Richard Neal and thousands of others in jail over the last decade. Developed by the German military for use by paratroopers during World War II, the idea behind a gravity knife was simple: An unlucky parachutist who found himself in a tight spot — tangled in a tree, for example — would be able to access the knife even with injuries or limited mobility. Simply press a button and the blade would literally fall out of the handle and lock in place...

The legislature didn't target gravity knives at the time — they were still rarely seen in the U.S. But after switchblade bans went into effect, the knife industry saw an opportunity. Even though they were nearly identical in design, gravity knives lacked a spring, a key characteristic of the newly illegal switchblades. So manufacturers stuck with warehouses full of worthless knives simply removed the springs and went on selling, calling the new products "gravity knives."_

</comment><comment><USER43> Cops get a bad rap, but the DAs haven't come under fire. They knowingly ruin many many more innocent lives than cops. And unlike cops who may shoot in a poor split second decision, DAs knowingly and willingly destroy the lives of the innocent for their own personal gain. It's time we put blame where it is due.

<comment><USER44> DAs are rewarded for convictions, the heavier the charge the better. Police are rewarded for arrests.

Only one of those two drops the blight of a criminal record onto someone's future.

What we as citizens can do is demand that elected officials hold DAs accountable for their wrongful convictions.

<comment><USER45> > What we as citizens can do is demand that elected officials hold DAs > accountable for their wrongful convictions

Way to pass the buck. In 47 states, district attorney is an elected office, not an appointment. If we want better behavior from district attorneys, we need citizens to be better at monitoring that behavior and holding them accountable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> New York (State and City) has an obsession with blaming weapons (and potential weapons) for crime, they have a web of arcane and nonsensical laws which tend to penalize common people who want to believe that the laws are reasonable, and are surprised to find out just how unreasonable they are. The officials of course love these laws. They've made the public so wary of "weapons" that it's valuable for them to invent as many "weapons offenses" as possible.

I wonder if New York's approach to weapons laws has roots in their switch from slave state to free state (which was late for the region) like so many laws in other states. Texas took until the '90s to manage to annul their prohibitions on the concealed carry of handguns (they were no-issue up until 1995) which were clearly initially intended to be enforced selectively against the emancipated.

</comment><comment><USER47> Screw all gun and knife laws. Wholly unconstitutional.

In my state, I can carry a concealed gun and switchblade, no license necessary. That's the way it should be nationally.

<comment><USER48> At least until we repeal the 2nd Amendment.

<comment><USER49> Good luck with that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Why isn't this enough to get all the cases thrown out under the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law?

Black and hispanic people are prosecuted while white ones were not? Owners of corporate persons were personally liable under criminal charges while chains only had to pay a fine?

</comment><comment><USER51> It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.

<comment><USER52> Switchblade that opens one handed by gravity or flick of wrist instead of a spring.

<comment><USER53> I believe that any knife that can be opened one handed would qualify, no?

This would be a "gravity knife": [https://www.amazon.com/Victorinox-Swiss- Trekker-Pocket-Knife...](https://www.amazon.com/Victorinox-Swiss-Trekker- Pocket- Knife/dp/B001DZT0M0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506777869&sr=8-1&keywords=swiss+army+one+handed+trekker)

For context, I carried one of these throughout college for random boxes, cutting wires, etc.

<comment><USER54> Wait a minute, I have one of those and they're hard enough to open two-handed, your arm would break the sound barrier before you could flick this thing with enough speed to open it one-handed. Is this really considered a gravity knife?

<comment><USER55> Flicks aren't required. The thumbhole on the blade is there specifically to enable a one-handed opening, and would likely therefore qualify as a "gravity knife", whatever we might think of such a classification.

<comment><USER56> According to the article, flicks are the requirement. It's a long article and they don't get into it until quite a ways down.

One handed would be okay, so long as it can't be flicked open by officers who practice flicking knives open on a regular basis and have pretty much perfected the art.

But, yes, the flicking is a requirement - according to the article.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple has proven me wrong about HomeKit - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/3/16083996/internet-of-shit-wrong-about-homekit <comment><USER2> I've been contracting with a major iot company for a couple years and their new product for the past year has been working on becoming homekit compatible. I can't say so far that I've been impressed with how things work on the Apple side. The concept of device vs service has been creating confusion for both our custom app as well as how devices are displayed in the Home app.

The review process is very cumbersome as well, the company I work for wants users using the Home app, but apple requires we create a homekit compliant app to certify the hardware. I don't understand why Apple can't certify the products with their own Home app.

Lastly there is no way to make our hub present itself for remote connections in Homekit, despite Apple requiring us to use chips certified to their standard. The user has to have an ipad or apple tv in the house to act as a gateway. This is a confusing concept to explain to users if they've been using our protocol for the last 2 years and now want to migrate to Homekit.

<comment><USER3> This! I made my entire house HomeKit, only to rip it all out and replace it with SmartThings. An expensive mistake but HomeKit is terrible; slow, expensive, limited functionality and compatibility and a massive lack of devices that connect to it.

<comment><USER4> I never tried HomeKit (not really in Apple's ecosystem), but I do like SmartThings. I won't say I "love" SmartThings, there are many things I can complain about it, but the bottom line is SmartThings provided a very powerful platform, you can write Groovy code to achieve most of the goals you have, even though the process of writing such code might be painful (for example, their web IDE is, let's just say, not the best). You can even add incompatible devices into SmartThings (for example I added my MyQ garage door control into SmartThings with customized device handler).

<comment><USER5> > you can write Groovy code to achieve most of the goals you have, even though > the process of writing such code might be painful

Perhaps SmartThings needs to provide another scripting language besides Apache Groovy, one that's pleasurable to write, not painful. Gradle 3.0 added Kotlin, which works seamlessly with the IntelliJ IDE -- SmartThings could do the same!

<comment><USER4> It's not the problem with Groovy language itself. I think Groovy is good enough (and simple enough) for SmartThings' use case. It's just that you have to do things in SmartThings' web IDE (of course you can use some local IDE/editor and then copy paste to the web IDE in the end), and also work with SmartThings' APIs. The web IDE and the API documents are kind of hit or miss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm confused. Despite this line in the article:

 _At WWDC in May, Apple quietly announced that it planned to relax some of those restrictions. The biggest change was the introduction of software-based authentication. In other words, you won't have to replace your stuff to make it Apple-compatible going forward, and you'll get HomeKit's lauded security thrown in for free — provided the device maker actually goes in and implements it._

The linked HomeKit FAQ says that software authentication is only for non- commercial devices, and that commercial/shipping products are still required to use the hardware authentication chip. So Apple's own docs clearly refute the notion that non-HomeKit hardware can receive a software update to become HomeKit compatible.

Ikea Tradfri is an exception here. They plan to add HomeKit support via a software update, but they do in fact already ship their hardware with an MFI HomeKit authentication chip.

It is possible to add a software authenticated device to a HomeKit network, though you get warned when doing so. This is not new (though official support for it is). But it still sounds like commercial products can't just add HomeKit compatibility via software without breaking Apple's terms.

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure they just haven't updated the FAQ because all this stuff is coming with fall updates and is not live yet.

<comment><USER6> I don't think there was ever a mention of non-hardware authentication in the FAQ in the past (or even an FAQ at all). There was also never a public PDF of HAP until this year's WWDC, and the link to that PDF also explicitly states that it is for non-commercial products:

[https://developer.apple.com/homekit/specification/](https://developer.apple.com/homekit/specification/)

Edit: also confirmed this in the WWDC video at 28:20 [https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/705/?time=1...](https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/705/?time=1694)

 _And let 's say you come up with a really cool prototype? And now, you want to develop a HomeKit accessory for commercial sale. You need to join the Apple MFi Program. You need to join the Apple MFi Program and go through self- certification before you can begin your manufacturing or sale of your accessories. And this is really exciting._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> works well if you're living the iLife in Apple's walled garden. and here i am hoping for [https://www.openhab.org/](https://www.openhab.org/) to become bigger and better. i want automation without vendor lock-in (hardware or software), and without relying on closed-source and third-party services for the pleasure.

i was doing some research recently about having wifi-connected smoke alarm/CO listening device that can recognize [1] off-the-shelf alarm beeps (which are standardized) and send me an SMS & email. this turned out to be surprisingly difficult to achieve. ideally, i could hook up a microphone to a BeagleBoard of Raspberry Pi, run some daemon that monitors audio, does beep recognition and lets me hook into notifications.

instead, there are proprietary listening devices (ok, fine) that all work by sending notifications via third-party service (not fine) to some android or iphone app (not fine).

[1] [https://github.com/benjaminchodroff/alarmBeepDetect](https://github.com/benjaminchodroff/alarmBeepDetect)

<comment><USER9> I was originally considering openhab, but then I discovered Home-Assistant ([https://home-assistant.io/](https://home-assistant.io/)) and I've been hooked since. It ticks off a bunch of check-boxes that made it a great home OSS solution:

Pro's

\- No internet required, can run entirely on a Rasberry Pi

\- Integrates with most everything thanks to the huge component library ([https://home-assistant.io/components/](https://home- assistant.io/components/))

\- Easy to write your own Python component to integrate with new stuff

\- Can use existing SmartThings/etc hubs or Z-wave usb stick to talk to most anything

\- Fairly easy to write automations

\- Well written Python 3 code-base that's fairly easy to read and see what's going on yourself

Con's

\- Definitely more for the DIY tinkerer

\- Need to write YAML for the automations, though a new GUI makes this easier for many cases

Setting up an SMS to me when a motion sensor tripped was pretty easy, my automation was:

        - alias: Alerting on bedroom motion
               initial_state: False
               trigger:
                 platform: numeric_state
                 entity_id: sensor.bedroom_burglar
                 above: 0
               action:
                 - service: notify.aws_sns
                   data:
                     message: "Bedroom alarm sensor has been tripped!"
                     target: HassAlert

I've had it running for over a year now, and it's been quite nice.

<comment><USER10> Home-assistant also has a great homebridge plugin ([https://github.com/home- assistant/homebridge-homeassistant](https://github.com/home- assistant/homebridge-homeassistant)) to easily bridge devices to HomeKit. I got home-assistant talking to zwave and zigbee with a Linear HUSBZB-1 stick (new version does both) and finally threw my wink hub in the garbage. Even through Home app -> homebridge -> home-assistant, everything is super fast and 100% local, unlike most of the commercial hubs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> HomeKit has been great for us at home. It was a saving grace for Hue because even their revamped software is god awful. Personally I'll take security over openness any day. Not saying you can't have both, just not today with current offerings by anyone.

</comment><comment><USER11> FWIW, I'm working on an Arduino/Particle port [1] of the HAP protocol, trying to emulate the Home client using 32-bit C/C++ crypto libraries from the OSS WolfSSL [2]. The folks from Apple Home have been supportive, although their spec needs some help [3]...

[1] [https://github.com/moflo/homekit-accessory- emulator](https://github.com/moflo/homekit-accessory-emulator) [2] [https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl](https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl) [3] [https://developer.apple.com/homekit/](https://developer.apple.com/homekit/)

</comment><comment><USER12> HomeKit is _amazing_ with Hue lights, with easy control, dimming, and color changing from the Control Center. With Siri, changing the lights works very reliably, which was not the case with the original non-HomeKit Hue lights.

Disclosure: Ex-Apple employee, but had no interaction with HomeKit.

</comment><comment><USER13> Thanks to HomeKit, my dumb window AC units are now smart. Based on several HomeKit temperatures and humidity sensors in my home, they now turn on and off as desired.

<comment><USER14> I've been wanting to do the same thing! Mind sharing which sensors/devices you used to accomplish this?

<comment><USER13> I have two HomeKit temperature sensors, and a humidity sensor from the Ecobee thermostat I have (we have central heater, but not central AC).

But you can just pick up a standalone sensor like: [https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HL232LL/A/ihome- control-i...](https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HL232LL/A/ihome-control- iss50-5-in-1-smart-monitor)

For the two dumb window AC units, I plugged them into a HomeKit smart plug like: [https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKEH2VC/A/elgato-eve- ener...](https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKEH2VC/A/elgato-eve-energy) With that plug you also get actual energy use and cost in real-time/historical as well.

Since they are all HomeKit all that sensor and state data is shared with all other HomeKit devices. So I created a HomeKit Automation that triggers the start of the window A/C units when temp triggers a certain threshold and during a certain time of day. Similar trigger to turn the AC off.

I found this HomeKit app to offer much more fine grained automation rules: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/home-smart-home- automation/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/home-smart-home- automation/id995994352)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can I implement the HomeKit protocol for my own Raspberry Pi gadget?

<comment><USER16> Yes. Check out Homebridge - it's already been done for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Apple got the fundamentals correct from the beginning and I've always been mystified by the hot takes claiming it was a failure.

It's designed with security in mind, so your HomeKit fridge isn't going to take part in a DDOS attack [1], and it doesn't require an internet connection. Some people viewed this as the same ol' Apple focused on devices while the world moves on to cloud services, but it turns out that's a big advantage too [2].

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2016/10/doubl...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2016/10/double-dip-internet-of-things-botnet-attack-felt-across- the-internet/)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/nest-thermostats-go- down-2016...](http://www.businessinsider.com/nest-thermostats-go-down-2016-7)

<comment><USER18> I'm not really convinced they got the fundamentals correct in the beginning, though. From a designer's perspective, the hardware requirement alone is a fatal error - it's a totally unacceptable level of initial lock-in and expense. Fixing that actually looks like a major change to the merits of the device.

<comment><USER19> A lot of IoT stuff is complete junk, though. People make complaints about Apple products being overpriced but the expectation is reverse of reality. This is what it costs for a quality product. Sure you can make things cheaper, but you have to cut somewhere. Is having your living room lights being part of a botnet worth saving 10% off the purchase price?

Just because item 1 is cheaper than item 2 doesn't mean item 2 is overpriced.

<comment><USER20> This is exactly what I hate about all the internet arguments about Apple in general. When an anti-fanboi screams that they can get the exact same computer for $1000 cheaper because of the "Apple tax", I abandon the conversation completely because they've clearly either never used an Apple device or they're completely ignoring the fact that their $1000 cheaper device has cut corners somewhere whether that's in build materials, features (like the keyboard backlight or display), or just general quality of experience. Things aren't just more expensive because Apple wants them to be more expensive. They'd be forced to shut down shop by all the competitors that could undercut them. Instead, they're one of the most valuable companies in the world because people that actually do spend the extra money agree that it's not just an "Apple tax" but a higher-quality product.

<comment><USER21> I agree with your general sentiment, but please let's not be naive about Apple's business practices - last time I checked (2 years ago?) Apple's company wide profit margin was about 30 - 40%. So yes, Apple's products are superior and you definitely get something in return for the higher price, but the Apple Tax itself is definitely real.

<comment><USER22> While that's true, I've also read years and years of stories about how virtually every PC maker _other_ than Apple is dancing on a razor's edge due to paper-thin margins. Dozens of manufacturers in the last two decades have gone under, been bought out or left the market; PC laptops used to be (and may still be, in some cases) crapped up with bloatware and festooned with stickers because each sticker you have to peel off and each bit of software you don't want is necessary extra revenue; the survivors like HP and Dell seem to bring in more profit through enterprise-level service contracts than hardware. And in the smartphone business, there have been quarters where Apple and Samsung together are making _more than 100% of the profits_ because everyone else lost money.

...so, it at least seems _plausible_ to me that Apple may be setting the prices for their PCs and "post-PC" products more correctly than most of their competitors. Even if that's true, the Apple Tax could still be a thing -- but the premium may be magnified by the "lose money on every unit and make it up in volume" tactic so many PC makers seem to have had through the 2000s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If the article is accurate in stating that homekit devices do not require an internet connection to work, that's big. That's what iot should be, IMO. There should be zero dependence on any hardware out of my house, except electricity of course.

</comment><comment><USER24> All your house are belong to us. - Apple.

Being tied to a cloud service is unacceptable. Cloud services only have lives of a few years before they disappear or change incompatibly. Houses need 20 to 50 years of support.

<comment><USER25> It's like everyone forgot [http://uk.businessinsider.com/googles-nest-closing- smart-hom...](http://uk.businessinsider.com/googles-nest-closing-smart-home- company-revolv-bricking-devices-2016-4?op=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't understand why IoT and home automation has to be so complicated. Why don't we just make devices consume/expose some semantic description of the state of the world, and call it a day?

Below is an example using RDF, SPARQL, and some made-up ontologies.

Here's my kitchen light.

        @prefix rdf:       <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
        @prefix lightBulb: <http://example.org/models/lightbulb/> .

        <http://example.org/people/9876543210> _:me
        <http://example.org/things/0123456789> _:kitchen-light

        _:kitchen-light rdf:type <http://example.org/models/lightbulb>
        _:kitchen-light lightBulb:hasOwner _:me .
        _:kitchen-light lightBulb:hasName "Kitchen light" .

Let's turn it on.

        _:kitchen-light lightBulb:isOn true .

Which of my lights are turned on?

        SELECT ?light ?name
        {
            ?light rdf:type <http://example.org/models/lightbulb> .
            ?light lightBulb:hasOwner _:me .
            ?light lightBulb:isOn ?isOn .
            ?light lightBulb:hasName ?name
        }

<comment><USER27> Now make it work remotely in NATed environments.

And make it work for low power/battery driven electronics which don't have the power budget for WiFi.

Oh and they don't have a whole lot of RAM and CPU cycles to spare, so pulling in an XML library isn't really the option of choice.

And how should authentication work, including initial setup?

It's a lot more complicated when you drill into the details. You might be willing to accept a bunch of trade-offs, but that will limit this to a niche product.

<comment><USER28> > You might be willing to accept a bunch of trade-offs, but that will limit > this to a niche product

Several years ago I was helping a guy that had a home automation product with a scriptable interface. This was when X10 was prevalent.

He was very proud of it and described all the behaviors he'd coded in loving detail. But one stuck out in my mind: "When I get into bed, the lights go out!" "But", I said, "what if you wanted to read in bed?" He glared at me: "The Bed is for SLEEPING."

These systems need to work for us, and not require us to bend to what they're capable of.

<comment><USER29> This is why I ended up writing my home automation software. I want it to do what I want, what makes my life easier. Not what makes a better product.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Modern art was CIA 'weapon' (1995) - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

<comment><USER2> The CIA also covertly funded an "Anglo-American left-of-centre" literary journal named "Encounter".

More details here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_(magazine)>

And here: [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of- intellig...](https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of- intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no1/article08.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a fascinating article, from beginning to end. Really mind boggling.

<comment><USER4> I'm still having a little trouble believing it. FYI, the article is from 1995.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the opposite of love? Is it apathy or hate? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> What kind of love do you mean? Then 'opposite' isn't always uniquely defined. e.g. the opposite of 3, is it -3 or 1/3 or 9 (on a clock) or something else?... It depends what kind of 'opposite'. What's the opposite of green?

<comment><USER3> Exactly.

In the RGB additive color wheel (light) the opposite of green is Purple.

In the RBY subtractive color wheel (paint)the opposite of green is Red.

In the CMYK print color space (on paper) the opposite of green is a magenty- purple.

Then it all depends on what kind of green, it's saturation and brightness.

Color science is a thing in several industries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Define love, then define hate and apathy. I use apathy as lack of caring. Kinda like 0 on the number line. I think hate and love should be used sparingly and appropriately. I don't like my kids saying they hate something. I ask that they qualify it as dislike.

I define love (and many will disagree) as self sacrifice for the benefit of another. I define hate as self sacrifice to the detriment of another (again, others will disagree). As others will point out, these are very limited and might not capture the love of a child for a parent, and I'm ok with that. I think we use these terms too loosely in general: "I love my phone" or "I hate my new haircut." I prefer to use "like" or "dislike" in these contexts. I would not self-scrifice to harm my new haircut. However, if I love my home, I will sacrifice my time and effort to make it better.

</comment><comment><USER5> Theory: Love isn't an emotional state as such. It's best thought of as a mental function that transforms how you frame situations from negative or indifferent reactions into more positive ones. It converts Apathy -> Engagement, Anger -> Forgiveness, Disgust -> Compassion, Fear -> Optimism.

For example, I love my children so I want to be engaged in their lives, I forgive them easily when they make mistakes, I do not think twice about helping them if they vomit or can't make it to the toilet in time, and I am excited and optimistic for their future. For other people, I might not naturally have the same kinds of reactions.

If you buy this definition of love then the opposite would be cynicism, which would produce both apathy and hate depending on the situation.

</comment><comment><USER6> Apathy.</comment>


Ask HN: What is a fair hourly rate split btw consultant and consulting company? - <AUTHOR>

Hi Folks, Looking at a consulting gig and right now I am being presented with a 70/30 split.  I've heard of much higher splits from others, but the consulting company is crying no mas.  Am I getting a fair shake here?  Its only my 2nd time consulting, and I definately got jobbed the last go-round.  Was hoping people on here were in the know and could share what they believe constitutes an accurate and fair rate split.<p>Thx. <comment><USER2> Which way is the split going? You're a little unclear here.

A 60/40 split, with the consultant taking 40% is standard fare in many markets, but I have heard it's often less favorable in NYC, Boston, DC and the Silicon Valley. I have never consulted for a firm in any of these locations, so I can't provide an answer.

If you're talking about a 70/30 split with you taking 30%, I would say it mostly depends on whether or not the 30% is adequate for you personally.

If you're talking about a 70/30 split with you taking 70%, you would be _very_ hard-pressed to find a more favorable split.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the info - I am taking 70% of the split, thought before I take the gig I was thinking of trying to extend it to 85%. I am also a little surprised that consulting companies get 60% of the hourly rate a consultant is billed at - that is mind boggling to me.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is a link on the subject: <http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t19707.html></comment>


Ask HN: Paying international employees in USD - <AUTHOR>

(I am a HN regular using a temp username so as not to reveal employee info.)
My US (tech) company has a South American employee who is suffering from a weakening of their local currency. We pay this person in their currency using an exchange rate from approximately a year ago. S/he asked me (the manager) if there is anything we can do to help with the diminished purchasing power that has resulted.
We could adjust to exchange rate changes, but there are problems with this, not least that the exchange rate will continue to change, and changes might or might not be in the employee's favor in the future. We don't want currency markets to change their compensation all the time.
An alternative would be to pay them in USD. My question for HN is: what are the best mechanisms for this, and what are the legalities?
Pointers and personal experiences are welcome. I will not interpret answers as legal advice. Thanks. <comment><USER2> I am a remote employee based in Brazil and I receive payments in USD. In South America, inflation is usually significant and payments in local currency are increased regularly to stay at the same actual value. I think that paying the employee in dollars is fair because it is a fixed expense for the company and preserves the buying power i.e. real value for the employee. It is usually as simple as a SWIFT transfer. The local receiving bank will do the conversion according to the current exchange rates and following regulations. Of course the particulars vary according to the country. It's true that there may be fluctuations but in the long run exchange rates will reflect the actual value in the local currency and keeping the rate frozen for a year will be like paying an ever diminishing compensation.</comment>


Where to get an SPI flasher for Thinkpad - <AUTHOR> hello,
which SPI flasher can i use to flash BIOS of thinkpad X series?
Thanks <comment><AUTHOR> bump</comment>


Theranos: How to destroy $9B in valuation in 6 Months - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theranos-blow-9-billion-6-123500740.html <comment><USER2> I feel like the Theranos fiasco has been discussed on HN ad nauseam, so I'll comment on an interesting quote by Holmes:

> "The minute you have a back-up plan, you've admitted you're not going to > succeed."

I've seen this as a common refrain in SV. In my experience, though, what actually happens if you insist on no backup plan, and you've been fortunate enough to have smart people around you, is _they_ secretly make backup plans. Then, when things inevitably don't go exactly according to plan, they step up ready to keep moving without missing a beat.

What this means as a founder is that the plan you end up implementing had nothing to do with you. It doesn't stop them from taking all the credit, though. If you are unlucky in terms of your top team then well, you just die.

Flipping it around, the smartest (and usually most successful) founders' plan is that things will not go according to plan, and to a) hire smart people who can handle that and plan for it, and b) maintain maximum flexibility as long as you can (e.g., don't sign a massive corporate giant as your first customer).

Maybe if Holmes had some experienced, skin-in-the-game investors on the board she would know this?

<comment><USER3> Sounds as though Holmes really did put all her eggs in one basket: government relations. Score government contracts; use regulatory capture to create moats against competition; profit.

If that was indeed her calculus, then in retrospect, the Walgreens partnership was strategically off target -- at least for Phase 1 of the company's plans. So was that part of Plan A, or was it someone's Plan B, or was it simply a biz dev opportunity that came their way and which they decided to pounce on? Interesting to consider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It might have been smoke and mirrors that got you to that 9 billion dollar valuation so did you really destroy that valuation or was it ever there?

</comment><comment><USER5> possibly ironic that the link is to yahoo</comment>


Is stack-overflow a block-chain concept? - <AUTHOR>
 I think that stack-overfow is conceptually  a bitcoin for prestige.  It should be easy to use a real block-chain to reflect the use of SO using prestige points as units of transactions.  I believe that many of you are thinking of using block-chain as a way to achieve better interactions with your would be clients. And surely   time is ripe for creating a chain-block abstraction whose main objective is to convert or introduce  publically known value into  money or other block-chain value so that  recursively it finally achieves liquity and  moneritation.<p>In SO you can see the complete history of how someone gained prestige.   SO  a ledged book for prestige points , that book is a web page trusted internationally as of real value for programmers and open to knew transations openly with little censorship. <comment><USER2> Why do I care how somebody has earned their prestige? I want my questions answered, and nobody should care (much) about anything else. It's already elitist and hostile to newcomers, the last thing we need is that it be enshrined in the implicit underlying data-structure that 'prestige' is the whole point of the enterprise. Keep in mind that karma points or whatever are first and foremost an instrument for classifying replies from users, and only as a side-effect became a badge of honour. If anything that tendency should be suppressed to avoid concentration and the old-boys-club effect, not the opposite.

<comment><AUTHOR> For a simple user of SO you could only care about de quality of answers, but for someone hiring it can be a very useful information. I agree with you that special care should be taken to avoid SO take a bag stance about new users to keep power.

<comment><USER2> People strutting their stuff to appeal to recruiters, and recruiters going for those who strut their stuff, probably summarises a lot of that which is rotten in the tech world (and one of the big reasons I stated well clear of it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> a forum as a public ledger doesn't make sense due to the processing requirements. a public ledger just doesn't make sense for most things.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have updated the post. In SO I think such a scheme could be implemented for sharing prestige in case people care enough.</comment></comment>


Explorations in Adapting Redux to C# - <AUTHOR> https://spin.atomicobject.com/2017/03/13/adapting-redux-c-sharp-xamarin/#.WMabQCffIz8.hackernews <comment><USER3> I would ask whether Facebook's patent rights in Redux would create a problem. I don't think we know yet exactly what Facebook has patented, but if you're using Redux patterns without using Redux itself you don't have the benefit of the Redux patent grant.

Sure would be nice to know what exactly is patented about React/Redux. Have those patent applications been published yet?

<comment><USER4> Uh... absolutely _nothing_ about Redux is patented. Dan Abramov wrote Redux before he joined the React team, and it has _nothing_ to do with Facebook.

You're probably thinking of the React PATENTS file. Facebook wrote an FAQ to clarify the intent of that file - <USER2> [https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556](https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556) . I also have links to some other discussions on the topic at [https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux- links/blob/master...](https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux- links/blob/master/pros-cons-discussion.md#reacts-patents-license) .

<comment><USER3> Yep, I was. My mistake. On the React stuff, yeah that's been debated to a virtual stalemate. At least until the actual patents are issued. Whatever's in there is stuff you won't be able to do in software without the license from Facebook. Even if you're not actually using React. I'm not actually worried about using React, I'm worried about using the concepts that React teaches in other contexts. I'm worried that an open source library gets very popular before we know which pieces are locked down for the next 20 years.

Let's just see what the patents cover.</comment></comment></comment>


OOP = FP? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/4525315474/oop-fp

<comment><USER2> Per Guy L. Steele:

The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures."

Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.

On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened.

From:

[http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/m...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/msg03277.html)

<comment><USER3> This has nothing to do with the linked article, though; that's about immutability.

The parallels between objects and closures are neither here nor there.

<comment><USER4> Immutability is obviously not the same thing as encapsulation and polymorphism, which are what the Qc Na koan is about, but I don't think it "has nothing to do with" encapsulation and polymorphism either. They are both useful techniques for increasing the expressivity of the runtime state of your program, and I think they complement each other nicely. For example, immutability almost absolutely requires garbage collection or other automatic memory management, since deallocating an object is at least conceptually a mutation of its state, and there's a similar but weaker synergy between encapsulation and GC.

<comment><USER3> I was talking about the content of the actual article linked, though. It bugs me when the highest rated comment in a discussion is a copy-and-pasted blurb from something that is only tangentially relevant.

As long as we're veering off topic, I think it's interesting to consider Erlang in light of Alan Kay's ideas about OOP: While people coming from a C++/Java-ish background likely wouldn't recognize it as any kind of OOP, it's arguably MORE so than those: It's more directly based on encapsulation (via processes) and message-passing, without all of the "x IS-A y" conceptual baggage that comes from their mix of static types and OOP. It also has pervasive immutability.

<comment><USER5> Why do you think that Smalltalk-style OOP is better than other styles?

<comment><USER3> "OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things." -Alan Kay

Personal taste has nothing to do with it, I'm just pointing out that it's a closer fit.

<comment><USER5> Actually, your personal staste has a lot to do with it, since you've picked Alan Kay's/Smalltalk as the de facto definition of oop.

While you may prefer Alan Kay's definition, it is only a subjective one. It was not the first one and it is not the only one, so dismissin Java as less oop than Erlang is premature.

<comment><USER6> _It was not the first one_

I'm pretty sure Alan Kay invented the term "object-oriented programming", which gives his definition some precedence over any other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Alan Kay's vision of object oriented programming was very different than that embodied in today's popular OO languages such as Java and C++_

That's because Java and C++ embody Barbara Liskov's vision of object oriented programming, primarily. The abstract data vision.

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems to me this post is based on a misunderstanding of the Alan Kay quote. Kay wanted to minimize the role of _assignment_, not mutability. So instead of saying things like a=f(a), you say a.f(), where the method f simply mutates a in place. At least, that's how it sounds to me.

<comment> loup-vaillant I think _you_ misunderstood the quote. Specifically, _"even if presented figuratively"_ , and _"Many programs are loaded with "assignment-style" operations now done by more expensive attached procedures"_.

Setters are assignment-style operations, and a.f() is an attached procedure.

Also, in <http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKayOnMessaging> you can see _"[I realized] that assignments are a metalevel change from functions, and therefore should not be dealt with at the same level - this was one of the motivations to encapsulate these kinds of state changes, and not let them be done willy nilly"_

Alan Kay really is for segregating mutable state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> FP ~ Math/Formal Logics. OOP is a grab bag of theories, ideas and their applications to programming. Unfortunately I don't think that there's a generally accepted formal notion of what OOP actually is. On the other hand, functional languages, while there's some variance, all borrow from the same core principles. Moreover, feature parity in functional languages is a lot more clear in FP than in OOP. Terms such as "pureness" have a well defined meaning.

This is by no means a dogging of OOP. I personally think OOP seems to be better suited for practical business computing. Also FP, tends to have a higher learning curve (ex. monads) such that people of the street and in many academic programs gravitate towards the OOP paradigm. I think this could say something about how natural it is to use OOP, or maybe it just says something about how everybody is taught that programming "should be" (imperative vs functional).

<comment><USER10> There are some attempts to formalize OOP. See Cardelli's "A Theory of Objects" (<http://lucacardelli.name/TheoryOfObjects.html>) for one example.

<comment><USER9> I've read some of this and it's good stuff. I guess where I was coming from was that OOP is already so scatter shot and widely used as such that even if somebody did formalize something based on OOP, it wouldn't be generally accepted as "the OOP standard". So many people have an idea of what OOP is based on the language they've used, and I doubt that if somebody formalized OOP tomorrow that everybody would rush to make their languages compliant to the model.

That being said, I suppose that a solid new language with formalized OOP models that was very useful could become the next Java/C++. Time (and marketing) will tell. I would be very excited about such a language >_>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For similar thinking see:

On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited by William R. Cook

Discussed at:

<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3668>

From the paper:

"Object interfaces are essentially higher-order types, in the same sense that passing functions as values is higher-order. Any time an object is passed as a value, or returned as a value, the object-oriented program is passing functions as values and returning functions as values. The fact that the functions are collected into records and called methods is irrelevant. As a result, the typical object-oriented program makes far more use of higher-order values than many functional programs."

</comment><comment><USER12> Everytime I read Alan Kay's comments on OOP, I end up more confused than before... Is SmallTalk the way it was 'supposed' to be?

<comment><USER13> People always half quote Kay on C++. He says "I came up with the term object- oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind", but if you listen to the actual talk this comes up in, he immediately follows with (slight paraphrasing here) "Of course I'm not sure I had smalltalk in mind either"

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> For an in-depth treatment of modularity, state, and side-effects, see "The Art of the Interpreter" by Guy Steele and Gerald Sussman: [http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai-lab- pubs/AIM-...](http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai-lab- pubs/AIM-453.pdf) (and the rest of the original Lambda papers: <http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html>).

</comment><comment><USER15> "Object-oriented programming" seems to have a "blind man and the elephant" problem. People differ radically in their opinions of it based on what they think "OOP" is. The problem with OO as commonly practiced is that it encourages the promiscuous, distributed proliferation of mutable state. Sometimes this is the right model, especially when involving processes that might be on separate machines, but not usually.

For example, you can write a Die class with a sides field (integer), a topFace field (integer) and a roll method that sets the value of topFace to a random integer between 1 and sides, inclusive. To use the Die, call roll and getTopFace. Want to roll 5 d10s? Then create Die(10) five times, then call .roll and .getTopFace on each of them. By the way, you now have five pieces of mutable state in your program and, if you ever forget to call .roll and only call .getTopFace on your dice (maybe you've been tempted to keep the Die objects around for "efficiency") you get erroneous results.

Clearly, that's the wrong way to solve the problem. It's better to just call (rand 10) five times: in general, you only care about the results of the rolls, not the "dice". (This approach still isn't "purely functional" as written, because it still uses a randomizer, e.g. state, but it's close enough for most purposes. Passing around a PRNG state is pretty heavyweight.)

Sometimes you need the full power of pi-calculus (communication, message passing) but usually you want to stick with lambda-calculus (referentially transparent computation) as far as you can take it. Mutable state is almost always necessary at some point, but you want to segregate it as much as you can.

</comment><comment><USER16> The CS department at the Ohio State University built their own language on top of C++ called RESOLVE/C++. A lot of students absolutely hated it, but it introduced a pretty awesome paradigm for working with objects: swapping.

If a function needs to operate on an object, rather than messing with pointers or copying the object, the function instead "swaps" the object with an initialized object. The function's "contract" specifies that it "consumes" the object that is passed in, so in code that calls that function, it is apparent that it better copy the object if it needs to access it again.

I think this provides a nice paradigm for allowing for immutability without excessive copying. The only functions that actually modify objects are the object methods themselves.

The RESOLVE/C++ language has been around for well over a decade, but it hasn't garnered much interest outside of academia. It's a shame, because it's a reasonably high level language that allows for mathematical proofs of correctness while still compiling down to machine code.

<comment><USER17> An ex-girlfriend of mine was in the CS program at OSU and I helped her out occasionally with her homework and as such spent many nights pulling my hair out and cursing the name of whomever created RESOLVE/C++. The algebraic proof side of things was so poorly documented and designed that it was effectively impossible to use for its intended purpose, and the macros for things like simple comparisons were just excruciating. I've dealt with many languages, but RESOLVE/C++ is in the elite group which I found absolutely no upside to. I really don't understand why it's still in use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think mutability was unavoidable because in the early days memory an CPU cycles were too expensive to waste them for copying data.

<comment><USER19> Doesn't mutability force you to actually copy data? Immutability enables sharing, which needs less copying.

(Of course what it really comes down to, is whether you use multiple different copies of your data structures. If you only ever use one, even functional languages can update them in place. See Clean's linear types as an example, or Haskell's ST monad.)

<comment><USER20> Mutable objects are there so that you don't have to create new instances whenever a field changes. The danger of shared mutable objects is that the ground can change beneath your feet.

Immutable objects enable safe sharing, however, if you have an immutable object and want to change it, you have to copy it and make the change during construction of the new object.

I guess the 'copy penalty' in either case depends on the size of your objects.

<comment><USER19> If your compiler is smart enough (i.e. you are programming in clean, or use Haskell's GHC) the `copy penalty' can be zero for objects that only have "one future", i.e. you only ever keep one copy of your structure. (And that's still cleaner and safer than mutable structures.)

The `copy penalty' for multiple uses of your objects, say a = update1 (x), b = update2 (x), does not depend so much on the size of your object as one the amount of sharing you can do. Immutable objects allow sharing. For mutable ones you have to work much harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Quite a superficial post. The Alan Kay quote is well-known, and it only touches upon mutable vs immutable data. Purity alone does not define functional programming, since there are plenty of counter-examples (Erlang, Lisp, OCaml).

<comment><USER15> The purpose of functional programming isn't to eradicate mutable state as if it were criminal. Mutable state is _necessary_. It's to _control_ mutable state so that it's easy to determine where state is and how it is expected to behave. The problem with state is that if the architecture is sloppy and it's all over the place, it can lead to impossible-to-reason-about program behavior, especially when the rules that govern the state have been written emergently by several parties over years. Mutable state is a flower in the right part of the garden and a weed in the wrong part of it.

Haskell takes the most extreme approach of the mainstream languages, which is to segregate mutable state entirely into monads (e.g. IO, STM). Ocaml does this in a more practical way: some types (e.g. arrays, hashtables, records with mutable fields, ref cells) are mutable while others (e.g. linked lists, tree-based associative maps) are constitutionally immutable. Common Lisp really isn't "purely functional" at all; it provides the tools necessary to write functional code, but it also has methods like NCONC and RPLACA which allow in-place modification of cons cells, put into the language for historical reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _The last thing you wanted any programmer to do is mess with internal state even if presented figuratively_

This is an argument against publicly accessible internal state, not stateful programming.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wouldn't it be "OOP == FP" ;)

/pedantic

<comment><USER24> Not sure how serious this is, but plenty of languages, particularly functional ones, use = for equality.

<comment><USER23> Not remotely serious.

To be quite candid I forgot that there are languages that use the equal sign as both equality and assignment depending upon context. VB I think does that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think Java and C++ et. al. get it wrong by overloading the . operator. On one hand it means "gimme this field of that object", and on the other hand it's "find this function in the method table of the _class_ ". These are completely different things. And it all goes downhill from this mistake.

<comment><USER26> Javascript avoids this by not having a method table separate from the fields of the object. Is that better?</comment></comment>


List of defunct retailers of the United States - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_retailers_of_the_United_States <comment><AUTHOR> Growing up in the 80's in S. Florida, Service Merchandise and Best were a staple for me, and many fond memories...</comment>


10-year Apple Store employee describes the changes in that time - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/5tbs0h/i_am_a_former_apple_retail_employee_ama/ddlvni8/ <comment><USER2> About 3 years ago, I went to the old Palo Alto store with a defective (internally-shorted/overheated) MagSafe 65W charger still under warranty from original MBP purchase and a group of blueshirts tried to browbeat yours truly into purchasing a new one.. I asked for the manager whom only continued the nonsensical tirade of "take it or leave it." I went to the Stanford store, got it replaced (as they should) and reported the incident to corporate a couple days later.

Backstory: It released magic smoke and left a small scorch mark on the wood table on which it was sitting, right at the 90-degree MagSafe strain-relief which melted-burned the sheath to a brown/yellow yuck and exposed wires.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazing comment by the employee. Shows clearly the cost of spreadsheet management; everyone in business could learn from reading this. Saved for my own future use.

</comment><comment><USER4> can someone repost it with paragraphs? it hurts my eyes, impossible to read</comment>