Ask HN: Twitter using facial recognition for image previews? - <AUTHOR>

Checking my twitter feed, a new tweet with an image appears(bottom). It previews the middle of the image. On refresh the image preview is now cut around her face. Is twitter using facial recognition for better image previews?<p>https://www.dropbox.com/s/owxk49rksp6fcsg/twitter-screen.png <comment><USER2> Cropping around the face is simply facial detection, not recognition.

</comment><comment><USER3> This wouldn't surprise me. Cloudinary has offered a service that does this for a while.

[http://cloudinary.com/blog/face_detection_based_cropping](http://cloudinary.com/blog/face_detection_based_cropping)</comment>


Ask HN: What to know about Job markets in 2019? - <AUTHOR> Hello Gents & Ladies,
It seems our company is closing soon and I will be back in the Job market after 10 years.
Last time when I was in the market, Monster.com seemed to be the thing.
What is in now a days ? My plan is to hunt through Glassdoor and Linkedin. Short list the companies and reach out to recruiters. <comment><USER2> Indeed.com throws a lot of IT related job postings my way. Create an account, set your criteria, and prepare for the deluge.</comment>


Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan health care venture launches website and its name - sahin-boydas https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190306005660/en/Amazon-Berkshire-Hathaway-JPMorgan-Chase-Health-Care <comment><AUTHOR> I get a Trojan alert going to the linked page.</comment>


Securing Yourself at DEFCON 26 - <AUTHOR> https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/blog/Securing_Yourself_at_DEF_CON_26 <comment><USER2> I havent been to Defcon, sadly after so many opportunities to go even many years ago.. but if I were to go now - I would go with the express desire to be hacked.

I would go with a fresh machine, a new phone, and anythin else I could think of and just walk around like an open christmas tree waiting to see how many santas came and left presents on my devices. (Clearly I would never have logged into anything from these devices - just band new logins.

Or create accounts for them on Reddit, HN, other sites - logged into these sites once... and see what would happen.</comment>


Don't Outsource - <AUTHOR> http://www.dontoutsource.com

<comment><USER2> DISCLOSURE: I am from India and I run a company with more than half revenues coming from outsourcing model.

The level of threats/attacks from the said man are alarming and completely un ethical, but there are really good companies also who care about their clients. But, I have had the (dis)pleasure of knowing companies/people who are doing activities like putting in kill switches and backdoors for the rainy days.

Outsourcing can work. It is a good model. Here are a few alarm flags that should be kept in mind before choosing outsourcing. I have seen these to work very well over past few years.

Flag 1) No in house tech team:- Hire at least 1 very good developer/engineer in house, who can actually the verify that credentials of the remote team.

Flag 2) "Oh we charge only $5 an hour":- Work force in India is cheaper than but c'mon it's not that cheap. Good(not great) developers won't cost less than $20 - $25. And you can get a really good guys at $35 - $40. The really great developers won't cost you any less than US/Europe here.

Flag 3) "Oh Oh! PHP, .NET, Rails, J2EE, Drupal, Joomla, Wordpress, Blah, Blah, This and That? We got it all!":- Stay away from such companies. Look for small companies/teams with the niche expertize in the field of your requirements. If you require Drupal expertize, look for companies that specialize in Drupal solutions, If you need Ruby on Rails expertize look for a Ruby on Rails company and if you need Django expertize, look for a Django company. Give them a unpaid timed assignment if they do not posses any demonstrable project.

Flag 4) Need more developers on the team:- Never agree and never push to add more developers to a late project. Sometimes vendors push for it because of selfish reasons and some times clients push for it for a false sense of speed. If you absolutely and unavoidably have to add people to the team, add testers not developers.

Flag 5) Oh! We don't have/need testers or developers should do testing:- Never ever agree to working with out professionally experienced tester on the team. It will save you a hell lot of money in the long run. If company does not have a proper tester, don't hire them.

Flag 6) Daily so called "15 min" remote scrum meetings:- This does not work in Out sourcing. I have seen these scrum meetings go on and on for hours. I have personally sat in daily 3 hr long skype conversations. This leaves very less time to work and developers keeps worrying about what to report in tomorrow's meeting than concentrate on work.

Here is what I have seen to work. In a any work week:

* Monday: Specs and week goals meeting - max 2 hrs - whole team participation compulsory.

* Wednesday: Mid Week report - 30 min max - as many team members as practically possible.

* Friday: End of week report - 30 min max - as many team members as practically possible.

Flag 7) Tracker? What's that? Spreadsheets rule:- Use a tracker religiously. 99% of communication should happen trough issue tracker. things tend to get lost over emails. Use trackers for smallest of things. And do not accept any project related request over email(this goes for both clients as well as vendors)

Flag 8) No Time logs:- Ask your vendor to maintain time logs. If necessary, threaten non-payment for the week if time logs are not finalized and locked by Saturday. Review time logs every week to avoid any end of month invoicing disputes. Disputes waste time. Don't use spreadsheets for time logs, modern trackers have a decent time logging capabilities.

Flag 9) Outsourcing just to save money:- This is a bad idea. Outsourcing to a good team/company will probably save 30% money but that should not be the main reason to outsource. One of the biggest benefits of outsourcing is that works getting done while you sleep.

Flag 10) Not paying on time:- Clear invoices as soon as possible. I am not saying this happens always, but sometimes payments get delayed for reasons like confusion over banking details, payment methods etc. Set these things straight at the start of the project. Delayed payment means lost interest. I know great companies/teams here who are exceptional in work but operate on a hair line budget. For them delay payment means delayed salaries for their employees. And I don't have tell you what delayed salaries mean...

Flag 11) I am the project manager, talk to me:- These are the companies that are most likely to take you for a ride. Insist every developer on the project be present in all the meetings. Every developer be present on the project mailing list. Now there are many companies in India that won't allow this. They are scared that developers will steal away the projects if they came in contact with clients and don't trust the developers, but then again you do not want to work with such people.

Finally, always remember, a common India developer(who is employed by an outsourcing company) is shit scared of the client paying in dollars. They will say yes to almost anything. They don't want to offend clients and in turn their bosses. So get to know your developer team. Talk to them during meetings. A small amount casual talk will go a long way toward building the mutual trust and increase comfort level.

These where just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER3> I feel bad that they are being attacked/extorted. But it's somewhat hard to sympathize with them. First, (IMHO) outsourcing is generally a bad idea, and it sounds like they were just trying to keep their costs low. But as with _every single outsourced project I've seen_ , costs ultimately skyrocket, and the client DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.

It's insane to go with outsourcing for the purpose of keeping costs low, but then to not fire the developers when it starts to get ridiculously expensive (as it always does).

 _Over the years, the cost for TPS skyrocketed. NSC was soon paying $20,000 a month for coding!_

"Over the years"? Over the years? It took _years_ for it to become obvious that there was a problem? The criminal acts on the side of the developer are bad - no question. But the stupidity on the side of the client is just too much.

</comment><comment><USER4> This should be changed to "Don't Entrust Your Entire Business to Incompetent Programmers and Criminals."

The about page doesn't even work...what is this "campaign" designed to do?

This is like saying not to drive because sometimes people get hit by drunk drivers.

<comment><USER5> I think the about page is the homepage. Not that that's a good design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have had personal involvement in one outsourcing horror story, the details of which I'm not at liberty to discuss. Suffice it to say that, while what happened at Sapphire is extreme, it's hardly unique.

But let's correctly name the problem here: simple management incompetence. The managers at Sapphire, no doubt feeling bewildered by all this computer-techy stuff, decided to send all their source code _and the entire management of their servers_ to a faraway place. A place where tech problems magically go away on their own. A place where code writes itself, where productivity is doubled for half the cost.

No company, be it in the US, Canada, Europe, China, India, or Madagascar, can afford to think this way any more. Managers can no longer pay someone else to understand technology for them. We are all technical managers now.

</comment><comment><USER7> I represent TransPacific Software ; Just today we had a look at this thread . First and the foremost this has nothing to do with Outsourcing, Indian Programmer ,US programmers…. It is simply an attempt by The Natural Sapphire Company and its owners to smuggle out our copy righted material through 2 of our employees. When cornered by law enforcement agencies including (Cyber Police Mumbai , Mumbai Police, FBI-Cyber department ) Arnstein and his drug edict smear campaign guy Evan Guttman playing to the Gallery and crying all over the net (Google for Evan Guttman + sidekick and you will instantly know what this guy is into) The real story of the case is completely different. Michael Arnstein and his so called CIO are trying to give it a totally different colour through disinformation sites like dontoutsource Here are the real facts We have been working with Michael Arnstein and his company The Natural Sapphire Company, New York As per the service agreement we are required to make a customized software for them build over our core ERP engine, provide our services in stallation of the software, support it 24x7 . We continued this arrangement since 2006 to Dec. 2010 In December 2010 our system Analyst who is responsible for overall office IT security detected some e-mails send by two of our employees in an unauthorised way and through their person e-mail accounts. On further probing the matter we realised that The Natural sapphire Company and its owner Michael Arnstein in a 3 months long hatched conspiracy has stolen and smuggled out our 8 years of copy-righted work consisting of 1 million lines of code developed in last 5-6 years. Details of The case The code theft was committed through two of our employees namely Dhananjay More and Bhaskar vadlamudi who were highly paid and were with our company for more than 3 years. As the act was blatantly criminal in nature we filed complaints against them and Michael Arnstein owner of The Natural Sapphire Company with Bandra Kurla Police station Bandra East Mumbai and cyber Police station Bandra East as well as order under section 156 IPC was obtained from Bandra Metropolitan Court for Police to investigate the matter. On conducting Preliminary Enquiries police registered cases against all the three accused under IPC and Information Technology Act The matter was Jointly investigated by Bandra Kurla Police and Cyber. The hard-drive of one accuse Dhananjay More confiscated ; further police recovered considerable e-mail/chat communication amongst two accuses, CIO of The Natural sapphire Company Evan Guttman and Michael Arnstein. The e-mails had considerable communication wherein Michael Arnstein has coerced two of our accused employees to acquire false identities namely Dan for Dhananjay and Bob for Bhaskar ; and planned on how to smuggle out the data .( Both these employees were also promised immigration to US and accommodation in New York . Further police obtained details of the banks accounts(State Bank Of India and HDFC bank) of both the accuses wherein large amount of Forex was sent . Phone records of Dhananjay More and Bhaskar Vadlamudi were obtained wherein regular phone communication between Michael Arnstein was traced Over and above Dhananjay More and Bhaskar Vadlamudi were provided funds to obtained cell phones, an internet connection and even usd1500 each as legal money in case of any legal issues show up One of the accused Dhananjay More obtained conditional Anticipatory bail from session court on 29th Novemeber 2011 the other accuse Bhaskar Vadlamudi is absconding and believed to be hiding somewhere in Hyderabad India Court order is available for download on <http://transpacific.in/criminalcase.html> As the process was on Michael Arnstein resorted to all sort of criminal tactics to pressurize us to withdraw he criminal case Michael Arnstein further hired Evan Guttman a known "smear campaign specialist" a drug edict and a pornography dealer (operates an escort website on-line www.evanwasheremodels.com)

Further to it Michael Arnstein has established a web site www.dontoutsource.com which has tones of allegations against my company in particular and Indians in General. The web site contains numerous racial abuses against Indians. Further to it Mr. Arnstein has posted numerous posts on various forums calling me a "terrorist" . This has disturbed me beyond words. Again this was brought to the notice of FBI NY IC3.GOV (wide our complaints Id: I1104190951275432 and complaint Id: I1101221230305631) We received an e-mail from FBI that they cannot act due to jurisdictional issue e-mail copy of the letter attached Arnstein and his CIO off late has resorted to allegations that whatever is written and expressed against the Natural Sapphire Company is posted by us. There are numerous Natural Sapphire Company consumers who have posted negative review on the merchandise which they purchased. Guttaman is posting on all such forums that we are responsible to post such complaints. They are attributing every bad remark , every complaint posted against them on us. In few cases the real genuine buyers who have posted these complaints have responded back expressing anger over this and reaffairmed that they have indeed posted these complaints and not us. As the status stands now investigating agencies are investigating the matter in India. We have approached Director General of Foreign Trade to prevail upon FBI NY to get Michael Arnstein behind bars. Communication from FBI is positive. Any questions feel free to contact us on firstname.lastname@example.com Again I would like to assert that this is a case of criminal offence and has nothing to do with outsourcing or alike.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is pretty common in my experience, which really sucks because it leads to stereotypes. I know some fantastic Chinese and Indian developers, but far more often than not, I've dealt with charlatans. I think it's just much easier for criminals to get an actual business going and get money flowing in when they're (a) not held to the same legal standards and (b) can hide in complete and utter anonymity due to geographic distance.

I don't know if there's a good way to solve that other than to seek out well- reviewed, established firms, but at that point you'd be spending nearly as much for a US developer. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> That is sad that a criminal is attacking him. I don't think that India is the only country where criminals exist though.

<comment><USER5> I think that's not the point of the article. I think he was trying say that if you run into criminals it'll be more cost effective to deal with them locally than overseas.

Frauds and scams exists everywhere, but I guess it's easier to fend them off locally than overseas. So there seems to be bit of a merit to the article's stance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> After paying so much money, they refused to spend a few thousand on bribes to stop the guy? That doesn't make much sense.

<comment><USER11> If they did so, they would be breaking U.S. law—and it's one that is being fairly well enforced (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I believe).

<comment><USER12> Bribing the foreign officials would definitely violate the foreign corrupt practices act. Paying the developer 100k to sever the relationship would not have been a bribe. They may have been outraged by that, but depending on the nature of the relationship that may have been a reasonable fee. It also sounds like it would have been a lot cheaper in the long run.

<comment><USER13> And what's stopping them from asking for another 100k further down the road again? Paying extortion money is ALWAYS a raw deal. Your argument is illogical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article seems more like simply "don't be a fucking idiot".

And judging china, India, etc. is unfair. I once worked with a guy in Toronto, Canada, maybe 4 hours away from my home in New York. He ended up stealing $3,000 from me and there was nothing I could do.

So "don't outsource" isn't necessarily a good message in my opinion. A better one would be "try to avoid working with random people you've never met or heard anything about".

<comment><USER13> How often do you have the privilege of actually knowing (and knowing well enough) who you're working with? I think the biggest lesson for me is don't do business with companies based in a lawless country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sounds more like "Don't Outsource to Criminals" to me.

<comment><USER12> Criminality is related to breaking laws. Doing business internationally is difficult because the laws are not consistent and cross-border enforcement is difficult in the best of cases. When entering into a business relationship you often don't know much about the people you are doing business with. People make similar mistakes in the U.S. by giving full and complete access to their source code to unknown and untrusted agents and then get screwed.

To be fair though, the developer probably has a different viewpoint. I've been screwed out of ridiculous sums of money on different deals through unscrupulous business owners thinking they had me over a barrel. Ultimately I always found it cheaper to walk away rather than trying to resolve it even in the U.S. court system. I have to wonder what would cause this person to react so hostilely for such a sustained period of time. This is personal somehow, there is no profit in this for TSC according to the story (100k wouldn't justify this).

There are always two sides to every story, this is suspiciously one sided and perhaps more disturbing it paints the entire indian culture and economy with the same broad brush.

The lesson here should be that development in general is hard. Outsourcing is even harder. Business disputes often get very messy, cross border disputes even more so. When engaging in any business transaction give serious consideration to what happens if this transaction goes south. Do they have access to your core systems? How bad can they hurt you? These exercises are just as valid with internal developers as they are with any external agent. Once you grow beyond the startup stage, building a sustainable and protectable business should be one of the main focus points of any management team. These guys made mistakes, who doesn't. This developer is acting childishly, it happens. Don't over-generalize from this single example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think a better title would be 'Don't outsource if you don't have any way of overseeing the process locally'. Really it's a valid warning for anybody who outsources whether locally or internationally. I guess doubly so if outsourcing to a country where you don't have trustable local contacts and an easily accessible legal system.

</comment><comment><USER17> This article raises red flags on the author's credibility. This looks less like a truthful account of a story, and more like a frustrated small company who had a partnership go bad, and are trying to defame their partner.

A whole web site, with linkbait headlines, set up to tell one story? Their about page doesn't even say they are trying to start a discussion... it just rehashes the story. With a few other pages to give a token appearance that they will tell more stories later.

I am sure there was fault on both sides, and I am equally sure the other side would have a vastly different story.

But this whole site sure looks like juvenile vengeance.

<comment><USER18> Ya, thousands of dollars (and years of their time) wasted dealing with a scammer seem like "juvenile vengeance" for me too…

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is typical drivel from someone who refuses to learn the lesson: "The problem is unscrupulous developers, hired guns. It could not possibly be me."

I wager the real problem is lack of oversight, lack of understanding of the problem being handed off to someone else, and lack of acceptance of ultimate responsibility for the mess.

So the title should be "Don't outsource if your intention is to not retain ownership in your project (Ownership as in understanding your project, the development process, and accepting responsibility for oversight the project's progress)"

Anyway...

</comment><comment><USER20> This Prashant guy is insane and I don't think this has something to do with outsourcing. Guys like Prashant are everywhere so companies will just have to be careful who they hire or work with.

</comment><comment><USER21> New article: Don't walk down the street!

John Doe was walking down the street, when some thugs mugged him and took his wallet. Don't walk down the street!

(flagged for xenophobism, over-generalisation, and general "omg them terrists in other countries want to kill us" feel - this shit does not belong on HN)

</comment><comment><USER22> This only proves that this particular company failed to handle outsourcing. They should have realized early on that they are getting screwed. Also there are horror stories the other way around too.

</comment><comment><USER18> Outsourcing sucks for MULTIPLE reasons. I wrote an article about a year ago about another side of outsourcing that will hurt your business regardless of where you outsource it to: brand equity -- <http://d.pr/B4dJ>

Sorry to hear this one though… Having worked with multiple people from India and other such countries and having good friends there, one thing I can tell you: it's a cultural paradigm. While there are many good, honest, hard-working people there, the ones that get bigger and more visibility are usually the scammers. It's a sad reality and I'm sorry for those working hard for these types of guys, getting underpaid while their bosses are ripping everyone off.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wouldn't go as far as generalizing all outsourcing efforts as dubious, but I do find it particularly shocking that government bodies deny assistance in a million dollar shamble.

</comment><comment><USER24> Looks like this thread has been flagged and taken down. What a shame that there is someone out there that thinks oursourcing works 90% of the time (vs 10% of the time).

</comment><comment><USER25> I have to believe there were red flags very early on. I'm guessing the price skyrocketed from $2k -> 20k/month and they didn't think that was strange?

</comment><comment><USER26> What is the other side of the truth?

Common, who would spend 240k/yr on a ecommerce website in today's world? There are so many ready to use open source stuff. And how can someone who has access to your server steal the domain? This is like handing over your email account to the developer that has access to the godaddy account in order to manage the server.</comment>


Wyden Introduces Bill To Ban Government Backdoors Into Cellphones and Computers - <AUTHOR> http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-introduces-bill-to-ban-government-mandated-backdoors-into-americans-cellphones-and-computers <comment><USER4> A lot of people will inevitably comment on the flimsiness of this bill - <USER2> it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because it acknowledges that government backdoors are a bad thing.

I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. This was the start of a lot of progress for LGBT rights. It was a minor victory among lots of major defeats at the time it happened.

Instead of complaining about the weaknesses in the bill, we should view this as a facet of a multi-pronged effort to maintain privacy.

<comment><USER5> Of course that's the point of it, and in that sense it is indeed useful.

It's a bill intended to send a message and establish values, and it does that nicely.

You can tell it's intended to send a message because, well, that's what the Senator says in the press release.

"This bill sends a message to leaders of those agencies to stop recklessly pushing for new ways to vacuum up Americans' private information, and instead put that effort into rebuilding public trust."

<comment><USER6> So, what you're saying is, it's cosmetic.

<comment><USER5> No, that's not what I'm saying.

<comment><USER6> I didn't expect you to agree, but rather hoped you'd spell out why.

<comment><USER7> You're being downvoted above because the second comment in the thread said "Of course that's the point of it,", referring to the comment above, which said:

"it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because it acknowledges that government backdoors are a bad thing. I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. This was the start of a lot of progress for LGBT rights. It was a minor victory among lots of major defeats at the time it happened. Instead of complaining about the weaknesses in the bill, we should view this as a facet of a multi-pronged effort to maintain privacy."

That's the answer to your question of why they claim it's not merely cosmetic. They think it _is_ cosmetic, but may also play a role in shifting language and expectations, which will have a more than cosmetic effect down the line.

Edit: Rather than continue the thread – you might be right. I'll let waterlesscloud answer is I've misinterpreted their opinion.

<comment><USER6> I don't mind the downvotes! I don't think you and 'waterlesscloud agree. I said "so it's cosmetic", and my interpretation of his response is "it's more than cosmetic". If so: how? "Playing a role in shifting language"?

<comment><USER8> Yeah, opening an Overton window:

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

Shifting language is not cosmetic. Has actual consequences beyond the realm of language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Edit: There is the argument that this bill is a step in the right direction. The problem is that too often, steps in the right direction are the last step taken, and then people treat the problem as solved. I think there is something to be said for not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and this doesn't appear to explicitly OPEN any loopholes, so I guess I'm in favor. But we need something stronger to protect civil liberties, and to make people trust US companies can be secure.

The Bill itself is weak as written, at least by my layman's reading. It's two pages, go look: [http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=B8F74B59-0A6E-45C2-...](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=B8F74B59-0A6E-45C2-A259-109978D275EA&download=1)

First, it only covers software, hardware and devices made available to the general public. So any internally developed hardware or software business logic could face such a mandate.

Second, it only covers security functions of such items... It's not clear that specific information, such as a private key, would be a security function.

Third, it has an explicit exemption for the CALEA, Which lets the government mandate how the telephone companies network architecture worked in order to make it easier to wiretap, which the FCC expanded to ISPs and VOIP providers. Now, the FBI and other government entities have been pushing for all internet companies to fall under the CALEA or similar laws, so we can presume that the CALEA is not everything it could be. Still we know that Verizon, which is a broadband ISP, was adding a unique key to HTTP communications.

Fourth, it fails to define surveillance, and it's unclear if a broad capture of information which isn't looked, or of metadata, would be consider surveillance under the law. The law mentions physical search, but that still leaves electronic searches, as well as any form of seizures.

Fifth, it does nothing to prevent attempts to weaken protocols, systems, APIs, encryption standards, etc. While it may prevent specific implementations of them from being forcibly weakened, it wouldn't prevent a forcible or other weakening of the underlying standard, including attempts to manipulate and weaken them.

<comment><USER10> You are worried that this bill will be the last step in the right direction. An increasing number of people are unhappy with US surveilance aggression, and we are all aware that this bill is far from the magic bullet. I do not think there is a risk of this step being the last step in the right direction.

We should support this bill (as it improves our state of affairs), but also call for stronger reform as well. It is a good first step, and hopefully one of many as there will be ongoing pressure for more action to be taken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This bill is flawed but worth your support anyway. It's flawed for at least three reasons:

* It doesn't stop NSA from weakening security standards, bribing crypto vendors, or hacking into systems to insert backdoors. Even if a future law were to address that, a future president could instruct the NSA (part of the U.S. military, after all) to disregard it. We've all seen some recent examples of aggressive presidential action even in the non-military space where executive authority is weaker.

* Wyden's bill doesn't seem to apply to FedGov _spending_. So if a company wants that fat .gov/.mil $10 billion-dollar contract, well, it might feel obliged to discontinue that full-device encryption product. It surely makes sense to focus on other unencrypted product lines to support that $10B contract, right?

* A future Congress could overturn it, for instance by enacting FBI's draft "Going Dark" surveillance legislation. I disclosed some details here about the FBI's proposal to target Internet companies (in retrospect, FBI was carrying water for NSA): [http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites...](http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/)

But despite those caveats, Wyden's bill is worth supporting anyway. It does no harm, it's highly symbolic -- and it would stop future agencies from creatively interpreting their statutory authority to screw over the Internet and companies represented here on HN.

While no agency has clear legal authority in this area, that doesn't always stop them, with the FCC the most likely suspect. Remember this is the same agency that unilaterally extended CALEA backdoor requirements to broadband providers, despite Congress never giving it that authority, and despite the FBI director assuring politicians this would never happen. A federal appeals court judge called the FCC's argument for surveillance mandates "gobbledygook" and "nonsense," but unfortunately ended up dissenting in a 2-1 decision, as I wrote here in 2006: [http://news.cnet.com/Appeals-court-upholds-Net- wiretapping-r...](http://news.cnet.com/Appeals-court-upholds-Net-wiretapping- rules/2100-1028_3-6082085.html)

This is not a case of a bill doing some harm and some good, like the problematic USA Freedom Act, where different groups applied different weights and reached different recommendations. Wyden's bill does only good, even if doesn't go nearly far enough. Fixing a broken system is not a one-step process.

<comment><USER12> > A future Congress could overturn it

Short of a constitutional amendment, any congressional action could be overturned by a future congress.

<comment><USER13> That could also be overturned by a future congress

<comment><USER14> And the overturn that overturned the overturn could in turn, be overturned. ;P

No but a little more serious - once a bill makes it to law, its far more challenging to overturn it (not to mention the negative PR that can/will be run for a "we're making it so the government can subvert your privacy again" campaign).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can any agency demand a backdoor today, outside of CALEA, which this bill exempts? If they can't, then new backdoors would require new statutory authority --- which would simply override Wyden's bill.

Congress can't pass laws preventing Congress from passing other laws, except by amending the Constitution.

<comment><USER15> > Congress can't pass laws preventing Congress from passing other laws

Is that the same as saying that Congress cannot pass two laws which contradict one another?

<comment><USER6> No, it can definitely do that, but more importantly it can simply change its mind, and it can do that in subtler ways than by making direct references to Wyden's bill, "notwithstanding" &c &c.

<comment><USER16> The advantage is value language in new laws rarely trumps specific language in older laws. So, when or if the law is changed it becomes more obvious that agencies can add backdoors.

<comment><USER6> I do not believe that it's the case that there's a "most specific wins" in statutory interpretation. A broad exemption in a later bill overrides all the previous statutes it implicates.

In fact: if that's the case, and I think it is, then bills like this are _deceptive_ : they make people like you believe you can grep the Congressional Record for references to Wyden's bill and tell if there's new statutory authority for backdoors.

One of the HN legals (DannyBee! Rayiner! Tzs! Pdabbadabba!) can probably clear this up.

<comment><USER17> There's a few canons of construction in play in this hypo.

1) Prefer a construction that gives effect to both provisions.

2) If conflict is inevitable: a) repeals by implication are disfavored; b) specific provisions govern general ones, regardless of when enacted.

3) The clear intent of Congress controls.

Say Congress says: agencies can't require backdoors.

Later, it says: NSA can require backdoors. This is both more recent, and more specific, and controls.

Or, later it says: NSA can place requirements on products necessary for security. This is later, but more general, so the earlier act probably controls.

Or, later it says: NSA can place whatever requirements on products it wants, notwithstanding any other law. Here, the clear intent is to give NSA the authority to do whatever it wants regardless of what prior law says, so the intent controls.

Unless you're a devout Scalia-ite, all of this will be subject to second- guessing on the basis of the legislative history or other indicators of Congressional intent. At the end of the day, canons of construction are useful, but it had better not be the only thing you have in your pocket.

<comment><USER6> Thanks. It's the "notwithstanding" that sticks in my head, because that exact construction has come up in discussions --- I think here! --- in the past.

The "notwithstanding" won't necessarily read like "notwithstanding previous bills about backdoors", either.

The override won't need to be obvious to be effective, is the point I'm trying to make.

<comment><USER17> Yes, often "notwithstanding" is used just as in my last example, with no reference to the overridden law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I see comments on the veracity of this bill, but I decry the idea that passing more laws will fix this. It's mere theatre. There are laws already which ban the things our government is doing and they ignore those laws, what is it to ignore one more law? It grows worse with each passing year even the customary dog and pony show slap on the wrist has been dispensed with. The 24 hour news cycle moves on and the fourth estates co-option is more obvious daily. Arguing the details of bullshit doesn't strike me as a judicious use of our time. I strongly urge you to throw any effort you consider devoting to discussion or even thought in regard to legislative fixes to moving forward with the broad adoption of encryption and infrastructure changes within your own organizations that prevent them from monitoring our communications whether they like it or not. The United States government has proven itself untrustworthy, the best option is to simply remove the choice from their hands.

<comment><USER17> > There are laws already which ban the things our government is doing and they > ignore those laws, what is it to ignore one more law?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. Federal agencies have the authority to regulate what sort of air pollution control features your car has, so what law does it violate for them to regulate security features?

<comment><USER18> [https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying- ameri...](https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-americans- illegal)

We can start with the 4th amendment and move on from there.

<comment><USER17> Its quite debatable whether the 4th amendment prohibits the NSA programs we know about.[1] And I can't think of any support for the position that it prohibits requiring back doors that are used with a warrant, or only used when the user is foreign.

[1] I won't rehash it here, but the 4th amendment has two big loopholes: 3rd party doctrine, and non-applicability to foreigners on foreign soil. The NSA programs seem calculated to fit into those loopholes.

<comment><USER19> They want you to think those loopholes are valid. I would argue that they are not. 4th definitely prohibits many NSA programs.

<comment><USER17> The areas not covered by the 4th amendment are set forth in reasonable judicial interpretations of the text of the amendment, and the NSA is entitled to rely on those interpretations.

1) The understanding that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to anything crossing the border (like data in undersea cables) dates back to the First Congress, which enacted customs laws that allowed warrantless searches at the border. This interpretation is well-supported by the history of the amendment, which arose not in opposition to border searches generally, but in opposition to customers inspectors searching peoples' houses for contraband.

2) The idea that the 4th amendment follows around pieces of information in the hands of third parties is contrary to two basic understandings of law. A) consent (e.g. Google consenting to disclose records in its possession), is always an acceptable alternative to a warrant; B) subpoenas can compel people to produce documents in their possession.

At the end of the day, you have to grapple with one basic, undeniable fact: the 4th amendment does not say people have a right to "privacy" the same way the 1st amendment says people have a right to "free speech." It talks about quite specific conduct, and the things that privacy advocates want the 4th amendment to protect (e.g. call metadata that is not only not in the possession of the individual asserting the 4th amendment right, but not even accessible to the individual!) doesn't fit cleanly into the text of the amendment.

<comment><USER20> I can't speak for anyone else, but I think those "reasonable judicial interpretations" represent a gutting of the 4th amendment.

The writers specified "persons, houses, papers, and effects" as protected - <USER3> other words, everything they could think of in their day. For every one of those things, they said that the government needed probable cause and a warrant.

Today, our persons nearly always carry trackable devices. Our houses are where we search the web and video chat with loved ones. Our papers and effects are files, which we back up over the cloud. Most conversations we have are digital.

It is impossible to function in modern society without giving lots of data to third parties as a side effect. All of this is tracked, recorded, stored and analyzed without cause or warrants.

If it's claimed that the 4th amendment covers the grocery list in my pocket, but none of the my truly sensitive data, then I say it's a fat lot of good.

With interpretations like those, why bother having laws at all?

<comment><USER17> > I can't speak for anyone else, but I think those "reasonable judicial > interpretations" represent a gutting of the 4th amendment.

In 1789:

a) The government could have subpoenaed your banking records without a warrant. 1789 wasn't prehistory--the founders were lawyers and businessmen, and would have had an understanding of sensitive commercial, accounting, and legal records being held by third parties.

b) The First Congress passed a law enabling warrantless customs searches at the border. The founders perceived the government's right to control what crossed the border outweighed anyone's privacy interests.

> With interpretations like those, why bother having laws at all?

To the contrary. Textual interpretations of law protect you. They're predictable and hard to argue with. It's results-oriented interpretations that are dangerous, because there's no guarantee that the decision maker and you are going to have the same understanding of which results are important.

<comment><USER20> Thank you for making an interesting point with concrete examples. This was very informative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This bill won't pass. Some members would object, but mostly it's just not worth passing because it doesn't do anything. Also, it was introduced with just a few days left in this Congress. (All un-passed legislation is wiped out by the change in Congress.)

BUT, it's not intended to pass. It is intended to communicate and memorialize a particular political opinion. In this case, it is intended to stand in opposition to the opinion expressed by some law enforcement leaders that the government, in the face of improving commercial encryption, should have new powers to mandate back doors.

Most--in fact the vast majority of--bills that are introduced into Congress are not intended to pass, they are intended to make a point. This is one of those bills. That doesn't make it bad or good. That really depends on whether you agree with Senator Wyden. (I bet most people here do.)

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't mind if the bill is weak, because real solutions are happening outside of electoral politics.

Curve25519 deployment is now massive, for example. LibreSSL is moving forward. RC4 has been ripped out of a lot of stuff and replaced with ChaCha. Salsa20 is in a ton of software and has many users. SafeCurves are getting discussion, especially ed448 and E-521. More people are deploying TLS. More people are conscientous. More people are protected by default without having to make an effort (TextSecure is a great example).

My only sad point is that people are still talking about DNSSEC, which reduces security significantly if used for anything besides signing DNS records. I don't know why anyone not affiliated with Project Bullrun wants you to use RSA-1024 for security.

<comment><USER6> There is more wrong with DNSSEC than RSA-1024 (PKCS1v15 RSA, no less!). DNSSEC is a PKI run by world governments, most prominently that of the United States. It's hard to understand why anyone working in privacy would ever support it.

Thankfully, it's dying on its own engineering (de)merits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The only true solution here will be to rule cellphones as inadmissible in court; Not under the Fourth, but under the Fifth. More and more, computers are becoming part of our brains; As inextricably linked to us as our limbs. Until we recognize that this is not fantasy, not the near future, but the _now_ , we're all at danger from government overreach.

<comment><USER24> That's hardly effective; most covertly collected evidence is already inadmissible in courts in most free countries and yet here we are.

Governments spying isn't ubiquitous because it's an effective means to uphold the law: it's because like any government budget: you use it or you lose it. And after the "good old days" of the Cold War nobody is ready to relinquish that power. So instead here we are, decades after we stepped back from the nuclear brink, as terrified as ever with a media presenting us with a myriad of dubious villains to justify expansion and over reach.

The true extent of the damage caused by rampant espionage will probably never be understood because secrets breed secrets, breed corruption -- and when a nation's intelligence services can legally spy on the full spectrum of industry: the potential for corruption is _massive_

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's great when politicians show a spine after being unelected. We should unelect them more often.

The attention Wyden gets as being the anti-surveillance guy in Congress says more about Congress than it does about Wyden. This guy sat on the Intelligence Committee for years, and knew exactly what was going on, and although even he probably learned a thing or two from the Snowden leaks, it's a sure bet he learned a hell of a lot less than the rest of us. Yet, before that, he did precisely fuck-all about any of it. He's still done about fuck-all, besides sort of vaguely indicating that he might exploit some Constitutional provisions to reveal a few more secrets on the Senate floor before leaving office. I'm not holding my breath.

</comment><comment><USER26> First, the bill has a major(?) exception. Second, they don't need to mandate it. They can just "ask" for it.

<comment><USER6> A law prohibiting executive branch agencies from _asking_ for backdoors might actually have some utility.

But unless there's a law (other than CALEA, which is indeed a major exception) that currently enables the USG to demand backdoors --- and I don't think there is --- this bill is a no-op. Anything that enabled the USG to make such a demand would have to come from Congress, which would simply override Wyden's bill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Makes me think of "These new laws will fundamentally change how we get around them".

</comment><comment><USER28> Too bad it looks like congress dropped this amendment that passed with an overwhelming majority in a backdoor deal over the past 48 hours: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8703331](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8703331)

</comment><comment><USER29> what is the point of this? there are already laws that forbid it, and there are already laws that ignore those laws in case of national security or other bs.

this new law would just add to the first lot. total waste of time.

the only sane thing to do is to better regulate and try to add consequences to misuses of the second lot.

</comment><comment><USER30> This will probably last about as long as the attempt at NSA reform; i.e. not very :(

</comment><comment><USER31> If the bill even has a shot of passing, it will be quietly amended to include gaping exceptions, to the extent that nothing will actually change other than a brief pulling off the wool over the public eyes.

<comment><USER6> I don't think the bill needs to be changed at all to be deceptive to the public, because Congress doesn't work the way this bill suggests it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> But there are already backdoors in those things. And you can bet that this bill won't pass. You can bet your right thumb on that.</comment>


How my comment on TechCrunch got me a Facebook Cease and Desist - <AUTHOR> http://rickstratton.com/detail.php?c=2787453&t=my-comment-on-techcrunch-got-me-a-facebook-cease-and-desist <comment><USER2> _How do I prove that I have no control over this thing?_

You don't have to prove anything. You've given them the courtesy of letting them know they have the wrong person, that's it. You can't 'cease' or 'desist' from something you're not doing, any more than you are already not doing it.

If they actually sue you after you've let them know you're not the right person, then you can invest more effort into this... and at that point, they'll be the reckless ones for filing a lawsuit on no evidence.

In the meantime, the most you should do -- milk it for some hits via a blog post -- is all you need to do. You've done it.

Consult with lawyers (off the payment clock, free initial consultations) if you'd like to, but there's no need given that Perkins Coie has just sent you a bit of lawyerly puffery in error.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is no way they can get away with bullying you. Contact the EFF:

<https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance>

Very good chance they will help you with this.

</comment><comment><USER4> I your place I would avoid going the legal route since this is not your strength.

1\. Pay close attention to comments from daegloe

> EDIT: After reading many of the frothy comments on this page, I just wanted > to add that it's generally best to avoid threatening a lawsuit, countersuit > or any kind of legal claim in your response. These giant law firms love to > call people on their bluffs, because they bill by the hour. Avoid boxing > yourself in.

> Best strategy is to avoid litigation at all costs. Because, well, it costs > lots of money whether you win or lose. And if you win, collecting is a bitch > in of itself.

2\. Do you have deadline in the cease and desist letter? If yes, what's the deadline?

3\. Since this is a typical "David vs Goliath" and media loves these types of stories, I would try defeat FB with its own baby - social media.

Specifically, I would

3.1. contact 10-15 major tech blogs, including through Twitter

3.2. contact 5 major newspapers/their journalists

3.3. post your story on FB Twitter, FB Wall, Mark Zuckenbergs Wall

4\. I am sure that this had adverse impact on your health and well being. So I would probably add sharing those to your story.

Play to your strengths and keep us posted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good advice.

<comment><USER4> Racerrick, there is post about your adventure on TC.

Did you follow my advice, or they just spotted your story pre-emptively?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is my extremely unqualified opinion that perhaps you should seek the advice of a legal professional, before, um, doing anything else.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. Thank you. However spending money on a lawyer for this is painful.

<comment><USER6> One option is to ask a lawyer to draft a response in your name in which you clearly state that you have no connection to the offending service. You would then send that response on your personal letterhead. If FB's lawyers continue to pursue their claims, your lawyer would likely take the reins and communicate directly with the opposition on your behalf.

Another option is to remain silent and wait for a follow up from FB's attorneys before pursuing the letter strategy.

Bottom line is: consult a trained professional (lawyer). As someone who has been down a similar road, I can tell you firsthand that it may be painful but it's necessary. Remember, FB's legal budget is far larger than yours. You want to play the poor defenseless Rick card as long as you can before introducing your attorney and any legal letterhead.

Good luck!

EDIT: After reading many of the frothy comments on this page, I just wanted to add that it's generally best to avoid threatening a lawsuit, countersuit or any kind of legal claim in your response. These giant law firms love to call people on their bluffs, because they bill by the hour. Avoid boxing yourself in.

<comment><USER7> Good idea. Before you get him to draft the letter though, you should try to negotiate a flat fee for the service. You don't want some guy that bills $x00/hr spending a few days on the letter.

<comment><USER6> The letter should be an hour discussion plus an hour of drafting, at the most. @vellum is right, always negotiate fees and estimated level of effort up front. In these types of cases it's generally best to deal with each task discretely until, in a worst case, you must consider litigation. This helps avoid locking yourself into a significant retainer when a single letter might do the trick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To those offering advice about getting a lawyer: do you _know_ how much a lawyer costs? A decent lawyer will charge you upwards of $300/hour. For just replying to this letter it'll run you about $100. And then if that other lawyer responds, the cycle will continue. Soon you're talking real money here, for _something he did not do!_

<comment><USER9> It sucks, but it will cost even more if the situation is not handled correctly and ends up in front of a judge.

<comment><USER10> The correct way to handle it is to get it front of a Judge ASAP. Barratry comes to mind. When they can't provide logs of this application accessing their servers from an IP he owns the case is done and you pick up a little pocket money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh noes, you violated their TOS. C&Ds are meaningless I wouldn't even bother responding. Not legal advice.

<comment><USER11> Good advice - don't get drawn in. You have nothing to answer for.

<comment><USER10> It's not advice :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, guilty until proven innocent, is this how things work now ?

What if I go now on facebook, create an account, use the name Rick Stratton and start posting random, "incriminating" stuff all over the internet, what then ?

<comment><USER13> Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal court, civil law is done on the balance of probabilities Les disclaimer: IANALTINLA

<comment><USER14> > TINLA

I had to look this one up. This Is Not Legal Advice.

<comment><USER15> Hey DDVTWAU (dont down vote this was actually useful) You need to allow people with interest outside HN some time to catch up on the hip new acronyms

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This might not be the best legal advice, but I personally would let it play out as much as possible before hiring a lawyer. It is my understanding that a preponderance of evidence burden (over 50% certainty) in practice really means they have to find at least one potential problem with your defense. Since your blog post provides an explanation that is 100% rational, I'm fairly certain that means they have no case against you. It seems ridiculous to have to pay for a lawyer when you're falsely accused of a crime that you weren't even at the scene for, so to speak.

On the other hand, if this is putting too much stress on you, it might be the right call from a health perspective to hire a lawyer. Just my two cents of non-legal tender.

</comment><comment><USER17> My guess (and it's only a guess) would be that they've been tasked with shutting that site down but they have no idea who to lean on to accomplish that. If that hypothesis is true, logic won't work on them, they'll just keep leaning on you because they have no better options.

So I would spend a few hundred dollars or whatever having your lawyer draft them a letter or call them on the phone or whatever to explain that this isn't going to buy them anything legally. And even if you don't want to do that, at least quit talking to them or writing about it lest you get yourself in trouble by saying something innocent that sounds wrong. Lawyers are very good at taking advantage of situations where the other side isn't represented, so don't give them those kinds of opportunities.

In short, I'm saying to get proper legal advice. Merely being innocent isn't always good enough. If anything, the innocent tend to get into more trouble than they should because they tend to avoid legal advice, believing that their innocence is enough. And even though you know you're innocent, how do you prove that you have no control over a particular website?

</comment><comment><USER18> Sit tight, consider getting a lawyer, and let them make the next move. It sounds like they have no case, but on the other hand you haven't suffered any harm as such. IANAL, mind.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is just silly on the lawyers' part. What are the chances the screenshot in the TC article just happened to include a comment, in a random article earlier in the day, by the creator of the thing the article was describing?

Clearly you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and made an ambiguous comment that was misinterpreted by Facebook's lawyers.

How do they expect you to prove you're _not_ involved? (hint: they don't) It sounds like they're just trying to intimidate you.

IANAL, but I'd very clearly explain exactly what happened. If they continue to pursue this I'd be very surprised, and will make sure I never use their law firm...

</comment><comment><USER20> Why are all the answers with legal advice filled with phrases such as "this is not legal advice" and "I am not a lawyer"? Is it illegal for non lawyers to give legal advice in the US?

<comment><USER21> So it's a bit cargocultish, really. But the source, as I understand it, is that actual lawyers who are not _your_ lawyer, has to make it clear that they're not giving you legal advice for liability reasons. If a lawyer who is _actually_ your lawyer gives you bad advise and you lose out because of it, you can sue him (and his insurance). But the insurance only covers actual clients, not strangers on the internet.

It's a little funny how this applies to legal advice, and not, say, medical advise. People on HN will happily report on experiments with Ritalin, mushrooms and sleeping patterns, they will encourage you to quit your job and do a start-up - but "You should write a courteous, factual reply and talk to a lawyer" has to come with a long disclaimer :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This seems extremely strange, what does the letter actually state with regards to them believing it's your creation?

And what activity do they want ceased, anyway? From what I briefly read, it's just a browser extension that doesn't talk to facebook at all, but just maintains a separate thread of conversation anchored against a facebook comment stream. Is this not the case?

Also curious, are you planning to release the C&D or pass it to chillingeffects.org? Thanks for the great browser extension! :p

<comment><AUTHOR> The letter states that I need to stop the service and shut down the site, both of which I have no control over!

<comment><USER23> The site in question seems to be 404'd, so maybe you have nothing to worry about

<comment><USER24> Perfect timing eh?! (j/k)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sounds like they are defaming you.

If it was me, and I truly had nothing to do with this thing they are upset about, I'd greatly welcome their lawsuit, and countersue when it comes. Little guy versus the big mean corporation, let it play out.

Right now they are on a fishing exposition.

<comment><USER26> The cease and desist - albeit invalid - and other legal communication was sent privately to the OP. I don't think that counts as defamation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Geez. I am a lawyer, and there is no need to hire or contact one. You can either ignore the C&D letter or take the first person's advice and write them a terse, polite letter explaining (briefly) that you have nothing whatsoever to do with the site in question. That's it. (and send it certified with receipt.) If they should file suit (in which case you would be served) that asks for some monetary damages (as opposed to an injunction of some sort against the site in question), then, and only then, do you need to consult with an attorney. The chances of them doing that, or anything else for that matter, is almost nil.

</comment><comment> chao- This seems like a freewheeling legal department trying to do its job, however poorly, with less-than-optimal oversight or communication with PR. That said I'm purely taking a stab in the dark without more details from the documents you were sent.

I seem to recall another story crossing HN over the last year with the general plot of "BigCorp is suing us for [ridiculously unrelated reason] when we have nothing to do with it!" before the bad PR hits and BigCorp issues a statement saying "Sorry. It's all cool, we didn't really mean to target you. In fact we even like you." If I can find it I will edit my post with the details.

<comment><USER6> I'm afraid it's generally far worse than a freewheeling legal department. But rather a bloated law firm retained to indiscriminately "defend" the FB brand, and whose daily mission it is to continuously justify monthly billables that would dwarf most annual software developer salaries (and then some).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Originally posted on your blog.

A sworn affidavit should work in a courtroom. (Not a lawyer!)

So at this point I would send a nicely worded certified letter telling them to stop harassing you.

At that point they have limited options (in my opinion). 1) Sue you because they can prove you own it in court. (At which point a simple affidavit should end your part in said suit). 2) File a John Doe suit and actually find out who runs it.

Best option would of course be to obtain a lawyer and head it off sooner than later. Also once you have yourself a lawyer you won't have to deal with their lawyers at all as they should be bared from contacting anyone but your lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER29> what does a cease and decist letter actually mean? it's not coming from a court, how does it carry any weight at all?

<comment><USER10> It doesn't mean anything, it's just a scary sounding letter.

Lawyers are skilled negotiators, part of negotiation is making it seem like they have a case especially when they don't. If Facebook had a case he'd be served and/or the police would be at his door.

A TOS violation? What are they doing to do? Turn off his Facebook account?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The only question that come to mind is this. How did they know your address?

<comment><USER31> Well they are Facebook... And he is on Facebook...

<comment><USER32> hang on! are you suggesting that FaceBook employees have access to a users data even if his privacy settings prohibit it?

<comment><USER31> Maybe one of those facebook lawyers friended him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> More unqualified, unsolicited advice ... I'd let them pester you long enough to accumulate enough evidence for a harassment counter suit.

</comment><comment><USER34> Isn't the onus on them to prove that he is guilty? IANAL but it sounds like there isn't a thing he can do.

<comment><USER35> In court yeah. A judge or jury thinking you sound guilty is one thing, a lawyer saying it means absolutely nothing.

Excuse the language but I would tell these people to go fuck themselves. Unless there's a lot of missing info here, I can't imagine a single judge that would allow that to go to trial.

Unfortunately (for his wallet) he probably should get a lawyer. Their actions might be idiotic but I would suspect they're very good at getting their way.

[Edit] What I mean is they don't seem to have a case _unless_ he slips up somehow . That's why he should get a lawyer.

<comment><USER36> Seeking the advice of an attorney is never a bad idea.

But as far as telling them to take a flying leap, even though he is well within his rights to do so, it may cost him considerably less time and money to try to find someone to talk to on their end who is willing to listen to reason.

Someone with a lot of lawyers and deep pockets could easily bankrupt a private individual over something like this. If it were me, I would consult a lawyer and get any relevant advice. Then I would contact them, either personally or through my attorney, and try to do everything I could to cooperate with them to convince them I know nothing about the program in question.

An actual fight is the worst case scenario, and a Pyrrhic victory is likely the best outcome that could be hoped for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This has turned into a "How my comment on <insert places> on my comment on techcrunch brought down my server" case. Does anyone have a cached copy? I can't find one except for an interesting looking picture... Do want to see more.

</comment><comment><USER38> Facebook comments on Techcrunch was a bad idea from the beginning. It's the main reason why I started visiting Techcrunch a lot less at the time (and then other reasons added up,and I quit it for good).

<comment><USER3> The idea is that people will troll less, but by default it allows hotmail and yahoo mail login, which is like firing a flare to attract trolls.

<comment><USER13> I C & D thee for defamation!

How dare you comment so freely..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Looks like Facebook pulled the trigger a little early on hiring their gaggle of corporate lawyers - reel 'em back in for just a couple more months

</comment><comment><USER40> quite apart from anything else, defaceable sounds like a brilliant service. do facebook have any real legal leg to stand on if they do go after it?

</comment><comment><USER41> hey @racerrick, my mom's a retired lawyer. (for context.) lawyers issue threats the way other people say hello. if this person says to you on the phone that you have to prove that you don't own the site, guess what? you can't prove she said it, since it isn't in writing, and it's not against the law to lie about that in the first place.

you need a sharp lawyer who won't rip you off. hire one. free advice is worth every penny you pay for it. however, IN MY OPINION, if you had a sharp lawyer who wouldn't rip you off, such a lawyer would tell you how to translate "fuck off, this has nothing to do with me" into lawyer-speak.

the translation would (IN MY OPINION) be brief, clear, and non-argumentative. whatever you do, DON'T be upset by anything they say to you. provoking rash reactions is just a tactic they employ.

if I were a lawyer, AND I AM NOT, I would tell you to write a letter that looked more or less like this:

"Dear Whoever,

I read your letter with interest, and noted your request that I shut down XYZ Site. However, I am unable to cease operating XYZ, because I do not operate it, and have never operated it at any time. In fact, I have absolutely no connection to XYZ, have never had any connection to it, and am unable to help you. Good luck, and have a nice day."

Again I AM NOT A LAWYER, but that's really all you need to say. You put that in the mail, certified of course, with receipt, so you can prove they got it, and you forget this ever happened. Any aggressive, offensive noises they make other than "here is your court date" are just NOISES. Ignore them.

In the unlikely event they get you in front of a judge, the judge will hear your simple defense - "nothing to do with me" - and ask them if they have any proof of it being anything to do with you. Since they don't, it's a short conversation, and you go home.

If you find yourself saying anything further than what I just described -- "not me, got your letter, nothing I can do" -- STOP IMMEDIATELY and either hire a lawyer or shut the fuck up.

speaking of hiring lawyers, again, disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, grain of salt, your mileage may vary. seriously just hire a fucking lawyer because panicking, freaking out, and/or writing 10,000 words about this is just completely wasted energy.

<comment><USER42> Is it even necessary to reply at all? I find it quite outrageous that random strangers could tap into my time like that. Or if a reply is necessary, could I charge for it? (I am not the original poster, just hypothetically speaking if something like that happened to me).

<comment><USER43> So long as your reply is short, balanced and factual then a reply is better than not replying. If nothing else it's extending the courtesy that we'd all want extended to us if we were making a complaint (saying, sorry, no, you've made a mistake), but also you're kidding yourself if you think these things go away when you ignore them. Reality is that it's more likely that they'll escalate.

In terms of could you charge for it, no of course not, sadly that's not how any of this works. You can throw out this sort of threat with little or no comeback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> its not for you to prove your innocence , they must first prove your guilt. reply no case to answer

</comment><comment><USER45> Ask a lawyer if you can counter sue Facebook not just for lawyer fees but for damages for maliciously and falsely accusing you in public, an act that is certain to sully your reputation.

Ask a lawyer what's the best way to game this situation to increase Facebook's liability to a maximum while minimzing your risk and exposure.

<comment><USER46> I don't think they accused him in public at all

<comment><USER47> Just send a postcard:

"Have no idea what you talking about. Nothing to do. Very depressed. Doctor said to avoid this kind of thing."

Thanx,

xxx

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Oh, come the fuck on. Somebody, somewhere, made a mistake. If you really have nothing to do with this, then nothing will come of it.

Reply to them and tell them it isn't even you, and that you have nothing to do with this. They're not going to destroy you or even force you to rack up thousands of dollars in legal fees. They're not evil.

This is just as bad as the mainstream media -- anything that anybody does that can possibly be perceived in a way that gets attention is what makes it to the frontpage now?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly what I thought, too. And that's when I got the "you sound guilty" from their lawyer.

<comment><USER48> so what?</comment></comment></comment>


Timeline of the far future - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future <comment><USER2> Even more "mind shivering" than this one was a linked article about Boltzman brains (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain>) which I had never heard of before.

<comment><USER3> What's more likely: nearly infinite sentient universes complete with false memories of human experiences emerging from entropic chaos, or that we don't quite understand the nature of entropy?

The Boltzmann theory is one of those thought experiments that should draw into question it's assumptions out of the pure absurdity of its logical conclusions rather than be taken seriously itself.

<comment><USER4> Isn't this just a simple matter of probability? Given an event, however unprobable it is, it _can_ happen given infinite time? From a purely mathematical standpoint, this is correct.

<comment><USER3> If your assumption is infinite time and complete entropy, yes it's correct. It's also why some level of common sense (e.g. Occam's razor) should be applied before such silliness is seriously proposed. I don't think Boltzmann assumes infinite time and entropy, just enough for the completely random emergence of sentient life that thinks (perhaps falsely) that it lives in a universe populated by similar beings who created iPads from dirt and water.

Does it seem more reasonable that there is infinite time and every possible state of matter and history exists at some point, or that we simply haven't figured out the balancing forces of entropy and order?

Infinity is an interesting thought experiment, but it so thoroughly ridiculous that it should cause us to question our assumptions, not believe in absurdity conclusions based on faith in mathematics and unproven postulates that got us there.

We might as well believe the Bible is true. Not only is it less absurd, but given the infinite theory, there must exist a universe where it is true, and this could be it (unless it is truly contradictory and impossible even with infinite states of the universe, which we have no reason to believe.)

<comment><USER5> The absurdity heuristic is not a good way to decide what is true. People once thought that the idea of humans being descended from monkeys was absurd. Or that the earth going round the sun, rather than vice versa, was absurd.

Occam's razor is more sensible than the absurdity heuristic, but it applies to the fundamental building blocks of a theory, not to the outputs it predicts. So it would cut against a hypothetical unknown set of "balancing forces of entropy and order", since that's an entity not required by our current best known theories.

<comment><USER3> If a theory implies an absurd outcome, I think it is a reasonable heuristic to question the theory and it's assumptions. I am not saying absurd implications indicate the theory is flawed, only that they should cause one to suspect so and perhaps find a theory that explains reality with less broadly absurd implications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "10^{10^{26}} is 1 followed by 10^26 (100 septillion) zeroes. Although listed in years for convenience, the numbers beyond this point are so vast that they would be the same in whichever conventional units one could list them in, be they nanoseconds or star lifespans."

All you people who've been saving your OMGs for something a bit more ridiculous than an inane celebrity reaction, now could be the time to use one...

<comment><USER7> If you want to go for big numbers, check out the Ackermann function. It quickly makes 10^10^26 hard to distinguish from nothing =)

<comment><USER8> I'll see your Ackermann function, and raise you TREE(3).

Plus one.

<comment><USER9> Graham's number anyone?

<comment><USER10> Meh.

Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number. Call the symbol count N. Then my counterpoint is the Nth busy beaver number. That's a big number.

<comment><USER11> You might as well say 'One plus the biggest whole number nameable with 1,000 characters of English text', if that sort of thing is allowed.

<comment><USER12> Are you alluding to Scott Aaronson's essay on Who Can Name the Bigger Number? [1]

[1] <http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html>

<comment><USER11> Yep!! The point is, if you say 'Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number', that's not well-defined and is fundamentally ambiguous due to the nature of language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder what this list would have looked like if put together 10, 20, 50, 100 or a 1000 years ago. I also wonder what people a 1000 years from now would think of this one.

<comment><USER14> Probably something like "Based on the antiquity models of Physics, the ancients thought the following" and then the school children will all have a good laugh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's estimated that by 500,000 years from now on the Earth will have likely been impacted by a meteorite of roughly 1 km in diameter.

<http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/impacts.htm>

Here are the results of current attempts to track the objects that can potentially impact the Earth:

<http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/>

<comment><USER16> >by 500,000 years from now on the Earth will have likely been impacted by a meteorite of roughly 1 km in diameter

Nah. Let's be optimistic. Within a few decades we will have developed the ability to deflect all dangerous asteroids.

Also, the idea in the article that we will allow the historically priceless Californian coast to disappear 100,000 centuries from now is preposterous. Our ability to alter geography has increased by orders of magnitude _in the last century alone_ thanks to the development of earth moving machinery.

Ditto permitting the Sun to destroy the solar system, etc.

<comment><USER17> > permitting the Sun to destroy the solar system, etc.

Ha, as if it needs our permission.

<comment><USER16> What will prevent us from removing sufficient matter from the sun to make it safe?

Remember that we have 100s of millions of years in which to develop the required technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "At 15:30:08 UTC on Sun, 04 December 292,277,026,596 AD, the Unix time stamp will exceed the largest value that can be held in a signed 64-bit integer.[84]"

<comment><USER19> We better start preparing for Y2KKK92.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I find it interesting how several of the events limit what anyone living then can observe about the past. It's almost as if the past itself is vanishing.

<comment><USER21> I always wonder what obvious truth about the universe we fail to see because of just such an event in our past.

<comment><USER20> Probably a lot of information about the state of the universe just after the Big Bang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You might also be interested in this (with much more): <http://www.futuretimeline.net/>

<comment><USER23> It's a nice concept, although I'd more interested if it were written by someone who knew what they were talking (enough not to be proposing things like which blatantly violate conversation of energy, i.e. "antimatter power plants"), and who didn't structure their predictions in the form of a narrative exposition of Malthusianism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > _600 million : As weathering of Earth's surfaces increases with the Sun's > luminosity, carbon dioxide levels in its atmosphere decrease. By this time, > they will fall to the point at which C3 photosynthesis is no longer > possible. All plants which utilize C3 photosynthesis (~99 percent of > species) will die._

Interesting. We should save up our fossil fuels and burn them all at once in 600 million years to save the trees!

But in all likelihood, a lot of new fossil fuels will have formed by then.

</comment><comment><USER25> That timeline made me feel very, very small

</comment><comment><USER26> Well, after reading that article, I now have 20+ tabs open in my browser. Goodbye, day.

<comment><USER27> Huh bye3

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> aint that funny how we paint future in such a dark colors (since sun will die in 5 billion years) and assume we all gonna die with it at the end, but yet we don't put humans evolution taken into consideration. "in 600 million years plants will die" -- seriously now? look when we have been 1,000 or even 100 years ago. think when we will be in next 1,000, given nuclear war will not push us back to the stone age. otherwise, in 600 million years we as humans will be able to scan entire universe and find perfect new home and teleport ourselves all plants and everything out there. think this is sci-fi? go back in time to 1900 and tell someone in 100 years you will have a palm size device of grapefruit weight that can gather information literally from air, play sounds, show motion picture, and you can interact with it by touching its colorful screen.

<comment><USER29> We've done things that seem like magic to some hunter-gatherer; that doesn't imply everything that seems like magic to us will come true. (does anyone have a catchy name for this fallacy?)

The boundary between things we know to be possible and impossible is in fact stronger now, because (for most of the events in this timeline) we're now basing this knowledge on the laws of physics.

Sidebar: future events that derive solely from thermodynamics don't really have a get-out-of-jail card; deflecting some of the others would require us to meaningfully harness much larger amounts of energy at the scholar system scale, bootstrapping that sort of thing would require multiple jumps of a few orders of magnitude which might be solvable as an engineering problem, but is economically dicey when we're already squandering the fossil fuel dividend on our current, unsustainable needs. That is to say, please solve politics or economics before dreaming of magitech.

<comment><USER30> Based on what we believe the laws of physics to be, which isn't yet a fully settled question.

<comment><USER29> Sure. Quite possibly we'll just see refinements at the edges of what we have access to (because at most scales, physics is already very accurate) rather than outright revolutions.

<comment><USER31> We still know almost nothing about 80% of the matter in the visible universe. Ordinary matter is less than 5%. Physics has some explaining to do.

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

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is not a list of future events. It's Roland Emmerich's list of ideas for his next project.

</comment><comment><USER33> Clearly everybody missed this little gem which will no doubt be removed:

 _"7 May 2012 at 16:45 - Andy Murdoch creates a post on twitter referencing this page. Universe invites celebration by all."_

<comment><USER34> Looks like that change was live for a total of 3 minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If I learned anything at college, it is highly likely that things will unravel in a completely different way than it is anticipated by anyone and predicted by any system.

</comment><comment><USER36> Also: the galaxy song

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk>

</comment><comment><USER18> Betelgeuse red giant supernova explosion, can it hurt the life on the earth?

<comment><USER37> I would really want to be around when it blows up. Stasis pods please!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why are the events at the far end of the scale dated to pi^foo-power years?

<comment><USER39> The pi symbol is an icon denoting that the event was determined by mathematical principles. It's not part of the "years from now" value. See the legend above the TOC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Amazing. I'd like to see a similar one going backward in time.

</comment><comment><USER41> Our entire perspective on existence is based on where we popped up on the cosmological timeline. If we'd come along earlier, we may not have been able to perceive the expansion of the universe, and the apparent disconnect between the hard limit of the speed of light, and the size of the universe. If we'd come along later, we may have figured that we were completely alone in a static sphere, with no observable matter outside our galaxy.

I also find it fascinating that if we had come along a few thousand years earlier or later, our entire history would have been completely different. How effective would we have been as travelers if the north start didn't exist for us as guidepost in the northern hemisphere? So much of our existence is based on lucky chance.

<comment><USER42> "You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

[http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/04/probability- evolution.ht...](http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/04/probability- evolution.html)

<comment><USER43> The quote is great, but I wish you had linked to some other article. That sums up as:

      You cannot predict the results of a shuffled deck of cards.
      Similarly, our current universe is impossibly improbable.
      Therefore, God did it.

It's a _massive_ lack of understanding, whether it's right in the end or not.</comment></comment></comment>


Stack Overflow Chat Now Live - <AUTHOR> http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/10/stack-overflow-chat-now-live/

<comment><USER2> Went live 15th October...</comment>


The Largest Vocabulary in Hip Hop (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://pudding.cool/2017/02/vocabulary/ <comment><USER2> DMX would have scored a little higher had barking sounds been counted as words.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would like to see a similar analysis that instead looks at the number of syllables, specifically vocabulary that has greater than 2 syllables.

In addition to being of personal interest (I think it's much more difficult and impressive to create rhymes with 3+ syllables due to the natural constraint of a smaller basket of words), it would also, presumably, avoid the issue that the author highlights:

> I used a research methodology called token analysis to determine each > artist's vocabulary. Each word is counted once, so pimps, pimp, pimping, and > pimpin are four unique words. To avoid issues with apostrophes (e.g., > pimpin' vs. pimpin), they're removed from the dataset. It still isn't > perfect. Hip hop is full of slang that is hard to transcribe (e.g., shorty > vs. shawty), compound words (e.g., king shit)

<comment><USER4> You might like this read [https://genius.com/posts/1921-Rapper-s-flow- encyclopedia-ear...](https://genius.com/posts/1921-Rapper-s-flow-encyclopedia- earl-sweatshirt)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link... enjoyable and educational :)

Wonder where Immortal Technique would fit within that chart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am legitimately intrigued by this analysis. I've always wondered why I found certain rap so much better than others. I stopped liking the kind of rap that was becoming popular around the time of Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Tupac, etc. Looking at this data, it pretty obvious to me that the stuff on the right I tend to like a lot more than the stuff on the left. Sure enough, I just listened to Aesop Rock for the first time and it is exactly the kind of rap I enjoy.

<comment><USER6> Similarly, I was happy to see Blackalicious and MF Doom place fairly high in the list too. Aesop Rock is a legend and I have a couple old favorites by him ("Daylight", and that same song's antithesis "Night Light"), but I also find him to be mentally over-taxing at times.

Since you enjoyed your first listen of Aesop Rock so much, for something newer I highly recommend Milo's 2018 album "budding ornithologists are weary of tired analogies". Enjoy :)

<comment><USER7> Don't miss out on Hail Mary Mallon, which is Aesop Rock and Rob Sonic. I would highly recommend their album Bestiary if you like Aesop's solo stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The bars at the end of the article are some of my favorite in hip hop. Jay Z is tackling the claims that the most skilled rappers don't sell head on...

He's taking our assumption that good art isn't the most popular art, or that pop isn't skill, and deconstructing it while making a platinum record, his best selling of the decade.

Chapelle talks about listening to that line on the Black Album with Common, Kanye, and Talib Kweli: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SYIfhzMmU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SYIfhzMmU)

Maybe it happened that way and maybe not, funny story though.

</comment><comment><USER9> For reference, the TV vocabulary is about 3,000 words.

The average high school vocabulary is 10,000 words.

The average college graduate vocabulary is 30,000 words.

The English language has about 1,000,000 words.

The good news is that one needs to learn only about 3,000 words to become conversant in English.

<comment><USER10> I'd like to see a source on this info. But it's definitely wrong.

4 years in college isn't enough to triple your vocabulary. And the average fluent speaker uses far more than 10000 words. In my second language, I'm slightly over 10,000 words (I keep track of everything I encounter in Anki) and I'm still nowhere near as fluent as a typical high schooler. I encounter several new words daily.

<comment><USER11> I'm also skeptical, but note that "average college graduate = 3x average high schooler" doesn't mean "college triples your vocabulary" because there are two things potentially going on here: the effect of 4 years at college, and the difference between people who graduate college and and people who don't.

<comment><USER9> Sure. Someone who reads a lot is more likely to go to college, and reading a lot expands vocabulary a lot. (I often mispronounce words because I've never heard them spoken, and had long ago invented my own sound for them.)

Newspaper vocabulary is dumbed down, and TV even more so, because that's their market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Definitely curious about some of the 90s Oakland rap like del, heiroglyphics, alt-hip-hop like binary star, and maybe some old school like young mc.

<comment><USER13> Del is pretty well represented (#7) in the print version ([https://popchart.co/products/the-hip-hop-flow- chart](https://popchart.co/products/the-hip-hop-flow-chart))

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> At first glance, I thought higher on the Y-axis (even though there isn't one) was more words. I was frantically hovering looking for Aesop Rock until I realized how the grid worked. Sure enough.

That's what I put on when I want to listen. It's like watching a movie, I don't want to work or exercise to it, it demands all my attention. On the other hand, nothing hypes me up like a DMX track.

<comment><USER15> I knew it would be Aesop Rock before I even clicked through. Definitely not the kind of thing you listen to at work to block out the noise. It's interesting but I guess not surprising that people in the same circle, like El-P, have similarly huge vocabularies. But now El-P is practically the biggest name in hip hop. Maybe wordiness is catching on.

<comment><USER16> El-P is not nearly the biggest name in hip hop. Maybe in the online world him and RTJ are big, but amongst the general population of hip hop listeners I don't think he's very big.

<comment><USER15> Their last album was the #1 best-selling album on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop chart and they sold out every venue on their tour. I think they're reasonably well-known.

<comment><USER16> It may have been best selling when initially released, but that relies on a lot of factors (other albums released at the time being a major one).

According to [https://www.billboard.com/music/run-the- jewels](https://www.billboard.com/music/run-the-jewels), RTJ 3 peaked at #13 on Billboard 200. That's good, but it isn't being 'practically the biggest name in hip hop' good. Plus, most people probably wouldn't recognize Killer Mike or El-P (although more people may recognize Mike over El-P from his time supporting Sanders).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think track time matters more than word count. You could have two songs that are the same length and have the same lyrics _except_ one song has the N-word at the end of every line, and this analysis would prefer the censored version as having more vocabulary.

<comment><USER18> Count of unique words tend to be a function of the length of a document or corpus. So the comparison won't make sense either, if you take every artists complete works and did a unique count.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Suprised that Company Flow, Lootpack, Souls of Mischief and rappers from these collectives don't appear in that list. or somebody like Ras Kass.

<comment><USER20> The measure is meaningless, because more doesn't equal better.

Music works well with repetition. Just look at graffiti for comparison, little one word poems repeated over and over.

The measure also doesn't account for ambiguity used to good effect--who makes the most sense?

I'm not sure why you put Lootpack in there, anyhow. Madlib for example talks a ton about weed, known to inhibit speech production. And the sound is blunted, too, literally. I just wonder how they can be as productive as they are, at all. I still like it, sure.

Nice Nick by the way.

<comment><USER19> >The measure is meaningless, because more doesn't equal better.

Absolutely.

>Music works well with repetition. Just look at graffiti for comparison, little one word poems repeated over and over.

Yeah but it's a bit like writing texts, where you might substitute words in longer ones that you have used a sentenced before.

In Graffiti you have tags and throwups, muscle memory that is usually repeated, but also more complicated pieces where freshness and coming up with new stuff has more value.

>I'm not sure why you put Lootpack in there

A shameful confusion of Lootpack with Swollen Members (Wildchild != Madchild).

> Nice Nick by the way.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if when they count in Kool Keith they also factor in Dr. Octogon, Black Elvis, Dr. Dooom, etc, etc. If they did I bet he'd be a lot higher.

<comment><USER22> Just his rhymes in Ultramagnetic MC's alone would push him way up I think. Looks like the creator tried to collect only solo stuff.

Kool Keith gives the best interviews too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtfeszBgAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtfeszBgAc)

<comment><USER23> decorating his refrigerator :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The creator of the site said they're working on updating it. Should be up in a couple weeks.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/a4urje/rap...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/a4urje/rappers_sorted_by_the_size_of_their_vocabulary/ebhybox/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Question to the OP of this link - were you listening to 6 Music yesterday (UK digital/online BBC Radio station) - purely mention this because there was a running thread on Radcliffe/Maconie about unique words in songs, and someone had mentioned a rapper's vocabulary being much greater than most others.

</comment><comment><USER26> Amazing how many wu-tang solo members are up there, along with the group as a whole.

<comment><USER27> I remember seeing this a number of years ago and the sentiment then was that it's an effect of them all coming together, and because they got to bounce rhymes off of each other they started to learn each other's words and incorporate them into their own material.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Seems to go at least as far back as 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7704183](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7704183)

<comment><USER29> The data only goes to 2012 sadly.

Drake would likely rise since he's been prolific since then. Logic and Kendrick would also probably see some gains.

It's tough to think of new entrants that might debut high on the chart, at least in pop/modern rap. If anything "mumble rap" is the standard these days and it would be pretty funny to see how the kodak/purp/yachty cohort compares to some of the other eras.

And _nobody_ is unseating Aesop Rock. The man is one of a kind.

<comment><USER30> "and nobody is unseating Aesop Rock"

I was going to say that. Several years ago I saw either this list or a similar one on Reddit and a lot of comments wanted to know why Aesop Rock was missing. I grew interested and people gave "none shall pass" as a good first song to listen to if you want to get familiar with his work. My only problem with his stuff is that I have zero idea what he is talking about. It's basically just a lot of words jumbled together except for that song about the dog saving a little girl from drowning. I've heard it 50x now and still tear up.

<comment><USER31> I think his music has gotten much more accessible and less obscure over time. I think The Impossible Kid (his most recent album) is a much better point of reference for what's interesting about his work, and it deals with topics in ways that are easier to understand and relate to, but equally as interesting and well considered (See: Lotta Years -> reflections on getting older, Blood Sandwich -> Looking back on some family moments, Kirby -> Heartfelt and hilarious ode to his cat)

<comment><USER32> Check out the album he did with Kimya Dawson (The Uncluded - Hokey Fright). Kimya is pretty matter-of-fact in a lot of the songs and seems to reign Aes in (or at least offer a point of reference for when he starts getting out-there). Its one of my favorite albums. "Earthquake" is beautiful

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> No wonder the second one on the left named "Too Short".

</comment><comment><USER34> I'd be interested to see where Akala would fit on this list. His vocabulary is pretty impressive to listen to at least. But it seems they only included US artists.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's not how many words you know, it's how you use them.

<comment><USER14> I'd put Aesop Rock at the top of that axis too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wonder if Nicki Minaj gets credit for her made-up wordsounds

</comment><comment><USER37> KRS-1 barely leading Lil Kim huh

<comment><USER20> KRS is _the teacher_ , not _the distinguished professor of fine arts and lexicography_.

</comment></comment><comment> time-domain0 I would expect Eric B. & Rakim to be on the list for _Microphone Fiend_ and _Don 't Sweat the Technique._ Seems like this list should include more artists rather than just a random selection of popular artists.</comment>