Magnitude 8.0 earthquake, 75km SSE of Lagunas, Peru - <AUTHOR> https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us60003sc0/executive <comment><USER2> That region is not densely populated fortunately. Mostly affected are Yurimaguas (population 60k), Tarapoto (population 180k) and Moyobamba (population 80k).

From what I gathered on Twitter, there are some collapsed buildings and some power outages, probably a few people hurt, but nothing as devastating as during the 2007 earthquake in Ica.

This happened in the middle of the night and it's now early morning, so more news will probably come in over the next hours.

<comment><USER3> Not "densely" populated unless you're one of the 240k living there.

<comment><USER2> I lived about 300 km from the epicenter for many years. Large parts of that region are nothing but jungle and rivers, with little villages spread around. The natives build their houses/huts mostly using tree trunks tied together with vines, which are surprisingly resistant to strong earthquakes because the structure is so flexible.

Yurimaguas and Tarapoto do have a sizeable population, but still, from what I heard so far the damage is nothing compared to the 2007 M8 quake that destroyed 85% of Pisco and killed many hundred people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Alarms in the building woke me up at 2:41 AM and the doors were shaking, so we evacuated the apartment buildings and only returned after half an hour.

I live in Bogotá, Colombia, about 1200 kilometers away from the epicentre.

</comment><comment><USER5> 8.0+ earthquakes are quite unique, there's on average only one 8.0+ earthquake per year. [1]

[1] [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/stats.php](https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/stats.php)

<comment><USER6> I can't even comprehend the amount of energy required for an 8.0M earthquake.

From searching it seems an 8.0M earthquake is equivalent to a nuclear explosion of 6,270,000 tons of TNT but a 7.0M is 199,000 tons of TNT.

<comment><USER7> yes, it's log scale

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My girlfriend was in Barranco at the time of the earthquake and had to leave the building because she and her family felt unsafe (in all the years I've known her it's the first time they actually thought it was serious enough to evacuate). Pretty scary I'd say.

</comment><comment><USER9> It would be interesting to see an interactive map with 'live earthquakes' and a timeline to go back in time.

<comment><USER10> No "timeline", which I assume you mean some kind of sliding window, but if you know how to use the search function, this site is the gold standard.

[https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/](https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/)</comment></comment>


Online disinhibition effect - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect <comment><USER2> Meh nah I talk the same way in person as I do online...might explain why I have few friends...hmmmmmm. Meh fuck it.</comment>


Building the Atari ST - <AUTHOR> http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=995

<comment><USER2> I still recall an article in BYTE from long ago (1986ish) which went over the design of the ST. The article was subtitled "The 68000 Unbounded" and had a nice interview with the chief h/w designer Shivji (forget his first name).

BYTE was a great magazine back in the day...</comment>


American Railroads Are Already in Recession with No End in Sight - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-07/american-railroads-are-already-in-recession-with-no-end-in-sight <comment><AUTHOR> Outline: [https://outline.com/zgawAx](https://outline.com/zgawAx)</comment>


US whistleblower dropped from speaking at Melbourne cybersecurity conference - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-08/us-whistleblower-speech-cancelled-at-cybersecurity-conference/11581986 <comment><USER2> so can someone provide an explanation about why this happened? this seems to have nothing to do with australia's "we can force devs to rootkit their software" thing.</comment>


Note to developers: not everyone has home mail delivery - <AUTHOR> http://baus.net/not-everyone-has-mail-delivery/

<comment><USER2> Somewhat confusingly, most companies that ship via UPS or FedEx do not accept my P.O. box as a shipping address, claiming that UPS and FedEx do not deliver to P.O. boxes. Others accept my P.O. box, and UPS or FedEx happily delivers the item to my local post office, which will then deliver it to me via my P.O. box. Go figure.</comment>


An open solution for transit directions in iOS 6 - OpenTripPlanner - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/228865951/transit-app-for-ios-6-and-beyond

<comment><USER2> Portland TriMet just launched their new site using OpenTripPlanner: <http://ride.trimet.org/> Looking forward to seeing this in other cities and on the iPhone!

</comment><comment><USER3> Can you not just create a shortcut to launch google maps in the browser?

<comment><USER4> The mobile web version of Google Maps still doesn't have retina graphics, so it looks very ugly on most iOS devices.</comment></comment>


Harvard professor seeks 'adventurous' woman to give birth to baby Neanderthal - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/palaeolithic-park-harvard-professor-seeks-adventurous-woman-to-give-birth-to-baby-neanderthal-8460273.html

<comment><USER2> [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/george-church- neand...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/george-church-neanderthal- baby-harvard-geneticist_n_2529182.html)</comment>


Jobs in tech paying at least $250K/year - <AUTHOR> http://www.250ksalary.com/

<comment><USER2> Damn, I'm still short (if I go off a 45 week year)</comment>


Apple challenges new Woolworths logo - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/04/apple_challenges_new_woolworths_logo.html

<comment><USER2> Before everyone jumps on the Apple-hate bandwagon, keep in mind that unlike copyright, which is implicitly granted upon authorship, and patent rights, which are guaranteed upon successful filing, holding a trademark demands a vigorous defense. If Apple were not to lodge complaints like this (and the one against PlaNYC), then they run the risk of becoming the next Xerox or Kleenex.

In other words, the goal here is not necessarily to get Woolworths to change their logo, but rather to get it on the record that they were defending their brand.

(see for more: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_trademark...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_trademark_rights))

</comment><comment><USER3> Apple: some of the whiniest bitches on the planet. "No, you can't use our trademarked glossy chat bubbles in your $5 iPhone app! We own rounded rectangles with gradients! The ratio of people to cake is enormous!!"

Seriously, as a longtime user of trendy/overpriced Apple products, these stories piss me off and "erode confidence" in Apple as an honest and aboveboard company. The more successful they become, the less I like how they comport themself in the marketplace. Nothing wrong with defending your legitimate trademarks, but this sort of shot across the bow really makes Apple seem, on the whole, like a gaggle of paranoid hubristic geek bitchmongers.

<comment><USER4> As much as I agree with you that this probably isn't much of an infringement, I do know that the job of the legal department at companies like Apple is to jump on _every single_ instance of a trademark that might even remotely infringe on Apple's own trademarks. As far as I'm aware, sometimes Apple (or [insert big company name here]) may not even think it's very much of an infringement -- they may just make the application to cover their asses. If they _didn't_ pursue every potential trademark infringement, they could find themselves in a world of pain ten years down the road.

I think it's important to make a distinction between Apple, the company that ships those shiny insanely great products, and Apple's legal department, the people whose sole purpose is to protect, above all else (even at the price of looking like d'bags), Apple's ownership of Apple's stuff.

<comment><USER5> This example is too new to determine one way or the other. But the example cited by cunninglinguist above (regarding the chat bubbles) was one that went way beyond the legal department. Chess Wars was rejected by iPhone app approval ([http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/01/chess-wars-app- up...](http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/01/chess-wars-app-update- rejected-over-shiny-chat-bubbles/))

Moreover Apple has a history of aggressively pursuing anything that remotely violates their trademarks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Until I read this I had never even realised that the Woolworths logo was in the shape of an apple, and they are my local supermarket.

<comment><USER7> Yeah I think of that as a cabbage or pumpkin something (which is kind of weird but meh). Certainly not an apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> To speak in Apple's defence here: I'm not sure this is 100% overreaching. Woolworths (and Coles) are producing a whole lot of branded in-house products.

That now includes Mobile Phone SIM cards. (Not handsets that I'm aware of - YET)

It might also include stuff like blank CD's, MP3 Players, and whatever other stuff they have down the stationary aisle. (I'll check tonight and reply later) Certainly that logo would look suspicious on a MP3 player. (And also certainly - apple have no complain against a home-brand muesli)

Apple might have learnt from their past - think Apple Records and the fact that "Apple computer" weren't in the same business as them..

<comment><USER4> Pretty sure they offer mobile phone handsets, though I'm not sure how they're branded.

How I know this: I heard an in-store advertisement last week at Woolworths for a mobile phone (a Nokia, I believe). It boasted "polyphonic ringtones." I laughed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Many wish for copyright reform, but I sometimes think trademark reform (taking out the vigorously defend clause) might be needed more.

</comment><comment><USER5> I await the day when Apple sues Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al. for featuring an Apple with a bite out of it in their origin story which is in clear violation of Apple's established trademarks.

<comment><USER10> I believe that would be covered as "prior art".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As an Apple user, I'm horrified.

The way they question the Woolworths logo looks sort of like a huge monster trying to crush a small fly with their iron-covered feet.

This has got certainly nothing to do with defending a trademark logo, but more to do with extreme intolerance and total isolation from the world.</comment>


Show HN: This Soundcloud track undistorts itself based on the number of listens - <AUTHOR> https://soundcloud.com/rawfare/pipo <comment><USER2> This sounds really good (the idea, not the music) not yet at least. When does it become perfectly clear?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure exactly as I don't remember where I've set it (and it's more fun for me if I don't look it up now!). It's more than a 1000 plays though for sure. I've made 10 distorted versions, and ranked them afterwards based on how insane they felt. Version 7 is about to hit soon :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Non-brain inspired route to Artificial Intelligence? - <AUTHOR> Most likely it's naiveness speaking, but is there a route to Artificial Intelligence that doesn't involve modelling some aspects t of the human brain but some weird exotic mathematical structure (ANNs don't count) that produces equivalent representation of the functions most likely approximated by NN to attempt tasks? <comment><USER2> AI in Westworld TV series is based on Bicameralism, which is a philosophical concept rather than mathematical. And from philosophical point of view there's no need to recreate human mind neuron-by-neuron. If a copy can't be told from the original then the implementation details do not matter.</comment>


Google's Eric Schmidt Grabs The Company Kool Aid, Joins Google+ - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-eric-schmidt-grabs-the-company-kool-aid-joins-google-2011-10

<comment><USER2> ... after the community called out all the Google execs (including Eric) who weren't eating their own dogfood? Sounds like poor planning in terms of product marketing.

[http://mashable.com/2011/10/04/google-needs-to-use-google- pl...](http://mashable.com/2011/10/04/google-needs-to-use-google-plus/)

Still, I wish I had 43 million users on my web product...</comment>


Things I learned at YC - <AUTHOR> http://aelag.com/58-things-i-learned-at-yc <comment><USER2> I like lists like this because they're so quick and easy to read, you only have to learn 1 or 2 new things to get great ROI.

For me, the items fall into 4 categories:

1\. Go without saying, but need to be said anyway:

      - Real businesses have customers
      - It gets harder, not easier
      - Investors are normal people too

2\. Interesting observation:

      - Being committed in the face of contrary evidence can sometimes be a game-maker. Generally though it's just stupid.
      - Even very successful people frequently misunderstand their own success
      - There is no one thing that makes a company work.

3\. Sound important, but really aren't:

      - Everyone is basically scared of everyone else at first
      - Bring a notebook; don't take notes on your phone. People think you are tweeting or something.
      - People without life responsibility (kids, wife, etc) are at a serious advantage in the beginning stages
      - Every guy has thought about starting a dating site

4\. Insightful:

      - If it seems hard but important and you try to outsource it, you'll probably get screwed. Potentially for a long time.
      - The more stability the rest of your life has, the easier it'll be to deal with the massive instability of a startup
      - Small problems between team members will become big problems given time
      - Stop dancing around the thing and say the thing (I love this one.)

Great list! Thanks for sharing, Amir.

<comment><USER3> _\- Even very successful people frequently misunderstand their own success_

Do you think this is related to impostor syndrome[1], or something different? Perhaps not as "harsh" as impostor syndrome?

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

<comment><USER4> I think it's partly to do with the fact that in a complex system it's sometimes pretty difficult to clearly identify lines of cause and effect, but most smart people will think about it until they've satisfied themselves that they have figured it out.

This is why I'm not so sold on advice given by 'one-hit wonders,' people who scored big with a startup and are now seen as gurus because of it. I'm interested to hear what they say, but I'm skeptical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Frequently YC's advice is applicable at the aggregate but not individual level. Like in the grand scheme the biggest number of successful startups would be produced if all of them followed this advice, but you personally would not have your YC Expected Value maximized by following it._

This is the most interesting and counter-intuitive point, I think.

<comment><USER6> Gosh I love this thread.

That's the most important point about how to take advice if you put it in a formula, it's basically the mathematical explanation.

The way it has been phrased on numerous other blog post was to take advice not literally, but to see where the other person is coming from and how the advice is applicable to your startup specifically.

My most favourite way to phrase it is to try to find the 10% of advice out of the 100% that the person gave you, that is valuable for your startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we 'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys."_

<comment><USER8> I would normally agree with you, but the fact that there are 58 of them actually makes this a more meaty article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's a pretty good list, actually. Thanks for posting this, I'm sure that any start-up could do a lot worse than to print this out in big type and staple it to their wall.

</comment><comment><USER10> \- Just shut up and get a .com

This one is so hard, I've spent probably over 100 dollars in the past on those magical domain name thinker upper tools

</comment><comment><USER11> One thing that bothers me with advices like this is the overall negativity. Yes, we all know creating a profitable startup isn't easy, but hearing over and over again "You will fail many times", "Its get harder not easier" and so on is really demotivating. Seriously, are there no entrepreneur stories that had a great idea from the beginning, executed them smoothly without any outside financing and achieved success? And by success I mean satisfying income that allows them to work full-time on their startup and live on a decent level. Not everyone wants to build The Next Great Thing, acquire hundreds of thousands users, generate mutli-million revenue and so on.

<comment><USER12> _Seriously, are there no entrepreneur stories that had a great idea from the beginning, executed them smoothly without any outside financing and achieved success?_

Of course there are, but what use is telling people that they can execute smoothly and be successful (without outside funding) and everything will be great when this isn't how it works for the majority of people. I understand that being told that its hard and you will fail is demotivating, but telling people otherwise isn't going to help them because it _is_ hard and most people _will_ fail many times before they become successful. Maybe it should be seen as a perseverance test - if you can still stay motivated after being told these demotivational things, then its an indicator that you might just have what you need to persevere and make it.

The 90% of startups failing thing is true - I see it all around me, I even experienced it myself. You may think it doesn't apply to you (as I did in my previous startup), but chances are it does. I think its best to prepare people for this reality and help them persevere and learn and become stronger. Even if its demotivating...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can sombody please expand on: _If there is no competition you're probably screwed._ Are there any cases when this is not applicable?

(I recently started a website that nobody else seems to have done before -- web version of a desktop based tool)

<comment><USER14> Actually, in your case you still have competition - You're competing against the desktop-based tool. People coming to your service will be choosing between your tool, and the desktop-based variant.

In regards to the original statement -- if there's no competition there's a possible risk that there's no market. It's not always the case (once in a while you really did create something that nobody knew they needed until you give it to them), but it can be dangerous to delude yourself into thinking you came up with that one product.

More often, no competition means no market and no market means it doesn't matter how good your product is -- nobody wants it.

<comment><USER15> I'd make a distinction between _no market_ and _no existing market_. Generally creating markets is much harder and riskier but often more profitable if you succeed.

Example: BuddyMedia created the social media management tools market; hundreds of startups are now in that market.

<comment><USER14> You're right. After I posted my response I was thinking of making that distinction and actually talk about the idea of first mover disadvantage (HBR covers it well : [http://hbr.org/2001/10/first-mover- disadvantage/ar/1](http://hbr.org/2001/10/first-mover-disadvantage/ar/1))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _\- The most elusive skill seemed to be knowing what to invent and what to steal_

 _\- Everyone's problem is money until it's hiring_

Two I liked, highlighting subtle but critical pain/points.

</comment><comment><USER17> Thanks for sharing this! However, i think there is a bit of a contradiction in following 2 points:

 _\- The more stability the rest of your life has, the easier it'll be to deal with the massive instability of a startup_

 _\- People without life responsibility (kids, wife, etc) are at a serious advantage in the beginning stages_

So what would your conclusion be here? Are people with stable love-life in advantage, or are single people the ones that have better chances?

<comment><USER18> I interpreted that as concerning two different domains with respect to a Start Up (or any immature business, really).

With respect to stability: Persons with lots of frequently changing variables in their lives (e.g. frequent beginnings/endings to relationships, moving around, etc.) have less stability. Adding the instability that comes with a turbulent, chaotic tech start up just compounds the issue and taxes one's resilience even more, because inevitably one will have to pay attention to instabilities other than business related ones.

With respect to responsibility: having kids, a spouse and other similar obligations (can) act as a tether and definitely act as dividers of attention. A spouse and children necessarily require attention that could otherwise be focused on the business. This is really much more of a problem for individuals who aren't already financially secure and depend on some relatively secure, stable income to support their lives.

The common element in both cases is time and attention: living an unstable life increases the probability of something other than the business acting as competition for attention, and living a life with other responsibilities "baked in" guarantees competition for attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "The best companies didn't have political alliances because their product was awesome and they mostly knew it. The second best companies had fantastic political alliances and an okay product / traction."

Political alliances with whom exactly?

"Every guy has thought about starting a dating site."

That one cracked me up.

"If there is no competition you're probably screwed."

Maybe, but if the second best will be close in quality to the best one in your vertical, you won't have a very valuable company. See Peter Thiel's comments in his PandoMonthly interview.

"It gets harder, not easier"

Can you give some examples? Being able to build a team should make things easier on the founders, as they no longer have to be great at everything. I've seen founders get more relaxed as the business matured.

"All the technology heavy startups wanted to try to somehow outsource their marketing or customer acquisition"

I've seen this a lot and guilty of it myself.

</comment><comment><USER20> "\- Never discredit teams in YC if they are still showing up to the events together and seem to be working"

Is it accepted to discredit them/talk crap about them if they're not doing this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Clearly not. It means that a team who is doing the YC activities and working hard always has a chance even if they don't appear to have found a market.

<comment><USER20> Fair point. I think I was making a slightly more nuanced interpretation than the author intended.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think there is an important reason why people keep starting dating sites, and a good one. One of the things you should always have when starting a company is a way to make money (no matter how far in the future, speculative, or whatever, there should be some possibility of making money). What is something that humans have shown a willingness to pay for since the dawn of time?

</comment><comment><USER22> Thanks for this. Very insightful.

I did a Startup Weekend a few months ago and the biggest lesson I learnt there was "Listen, listen, listen!" as well as "Ask for help, you don't have all the answers".

The peopl are there to help and they are either volunteering their time to do so. Take full advantage of that.

</comment><comment><USER23> "The best companies didn't have political alliances because their product was awesome and they mostly knew it"

Even if you have a great product, some industries, like advertising or public sector, are an order of magnitude harder to sell to if you're not _really_ well connected.

<comment><USER24> It seems like this is largely the point of a startup accelerator. In exchange for equity you get cash, advice, and introductions to investors who have connections in the relevant area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Nice list! Some solid bits of advice there. I've been working over a year with a buddy on something we're looking to release before the new year. As the last couple weeks count down, I wish I had that advice e-mail address lol.

</comment><comment><USER26> Old people have got to get over this stigma of taking notes on electronic devices. It's the 21st century, and we have the technology, but everyone wants to be a hipster and it's just stupid.

<comment><USER27> Whether you have someone's attention is obvious regardless of what they're holding, so I don't care about that. If someone is rude enough to give only partial attention while they tweet through a conversation, that's fine and I'll deal with it as appropriate.

That said, I have noticed a high correlation between taking notes on a phone and taking really shitty notes - a few characters instead of a sentence, no connections between related ideas that came up at different times, no drawings, interruptions for futzing with the lackluster select/editing tools on touch devices.

But maybe all that doesn't matter and it's not the tool at all. Maybe it's that the only people who try it don't know how to take notes while being engaged in a conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Let me guess: 1) Add as much items to a list as possible?

</comment><comment><USER29> I read this carefully. Thanks for posting. Applying to YC this time around, with a lot of glee and enthusiasm.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Every guy has thought about starting a dating site

That was good.

<comment><USER21> I laughed at this too, as a few years back at a startup program (hard to describe, not quite hackathon, really idea lab) I spent a weekend working on the exact same idea as Grouper (3 on 3 dates). We didn't keep going as the founder lost interest when some advisors told him online dating was over (in the disruption sense).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> One more would be to never give up even if you may be dead 3 hours later.

</comment><comment><USER32> More advice from a failed YC company (an acquhire is not a success). I understand the desire to salvage something from the experience, but I only take advise from those more successful than I am. There are so many of those.

<comment><USER33> Actually Amir's company is still operating. But even if it weren't, you'd be mistaken. People who fail have some of the most valuable insights. I learned YC's motto "Make something people want" from failing to do it myself.

<comment><USER32> I agree. However, people who fail also have terrible insights; for some, that contributed to their failure. And there's no reason to believe the specific reasons for their failure will be applicable to you. In the NFL, teams which lose tend to keep losing even though they have plenty of opportunity to learn. Teams are salary capped, so there is no intrinsic advantage.

All successful companies are alike. Each failure fails in its own way.

<comment><USER34> I really disagree. I think people learn more from failures. In many cases it seems the successful ones don't really truly know why they were successful.

Of course they did a lot of things right and it's worthwhile to listen to how they accomplished that, but if you were to duplicate exactly what they did you wouldn't necessarily be successful. So clearly there is something more to it.

In any case, there will be bad advice coming from both successes and failures. To eliminate all the "failures" as having "terrible insights" is short- sighted.

PS: I'm NOT a YC alum. And my bootstrapped company is running with revenues.

<comment><USER35> I think people learn more from success than from failure, but they learn more from failure than from doing nothing. Since typically your choice is between trying and not trying and not between succeeding and failing, your dominant strategy should be to try and let the cards fall where they may.

Aside from that, most of the people reading are in the "doing nothing" category (I'm largely in this category myself when it comes to startups, though I have tried and failed before), and so it behooves them to listen to the failures. :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html <comment><USER2> "The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not."

The irony of Putin saying this cannot be understated. This entire editorial is dripping with it.

For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" [1] and a government of thugs who are too busy stealing the wealth generated by Russia's natural resources to pursue the eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States. The Russian state has assassinated journalists [2] and jailed political opponents with impunity while the bureaucracy (now intertwined with organized crime) steals money at an alarming rate [3]. They don't even bother to hide it anymore (Egregious example: Magnitsky [4] and Litvinenko [5]).

I hate the idea of the US getting involved with a civil war on the other side of the world and Putin is right in his logic, but as an immigrant from Russia I can't help but feel I'm reading the same propaganda but with a translator. If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks- cable...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables- russia-mafia-kleptocracy)

[2] There's a whole damn wikipedia article dedicated to this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia)

[3] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of- def...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-defense- b_n_866050.html)

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

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

Edit: To clarify, yes this is emotional and ad hominem. But come on, how many of you thought bombing Syria was a good idea to begin with? How many were entirely unaware of the US government's terrible record of following international law? This article is only on the front page of HN because of its author and it bears remembering how Putin's actions have spoken far louder than his words.

<comment><USER3> While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an _ad hominem_ attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.

<comment><USER4> I would argue that for heads of state, ad hominem attacks are perfectly valid. Even if Putin's logic is correct, it's reasonable to question his motives based on his character and past actions.

<comment><USER5> Sure, it's valid to question his motives. But that doesn't change the fact that he's making a perfectly reasonable argument. And when we're deciding whether or not to go to war, the reasonable and valid argument should win-- regardless of who's making it.

<comment><USER6> I don't think his claims that the rebels are the source of the gas attack are 'perfectly reasonable,' and if you don't sign on to his breezy certitude on this point the rest of his argument falls apart.

<comment><USER7> Why not?

<comment><USER8> * There is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian military has stockpiles of nerve agents and ballistic delivery systems for them. BTW: thanks, Russia.

* The FSA on the other hand is conducting raids to get rifle ammunition.

* There's the obvious issue that the (apparent) sarin attack targeted a neighborhood that was effectively allied with the FSA and that just happened to be a current critical objective for the Syrian military.

* The attack was relatively ambitious, far more than the minimum required to establish chemical weapons signatures or gin up outrage.

* For that matter, sarin is (unlike VX) non-persistent, making an attack at this scale (a) more technically challenging and (b) more deliberately intended to kill; for instance.

* There's the matter of US intelligence that (a) monitored known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA, and (b) Syrian military officials planning the actual attack we're discussing.

The argument that this is a false-flag operation by the FSA is not very credible.

<comment><USER7> In addtion to other replies to your comment: * So does the US and Saudi Arabia. * Terrorists in Syria are supplied by Saudis and Qatar. * If you are conducting a false-flag operation you would attack your own forces or your allies', no? Also there's been rumours ([http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say- sau...](http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis- supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/)) that terrorists simply mishandled the chemicals. As for the place being "current critical objective", it doesn't make sense for Assad to achieve a tactical victory and bring the strategic defeat (because that's what it will be if America intervenes). * It's not the first attack, the previous smaller attacks had only brought UN inspectors. * It's not a problem if you have the outside help (BTW: thanks, Saudi Arabia) and have absolutly no problem with killing (that's who the terrorists are) * The same intelligence that presented the world the reason to attack Iraq? If they have the proof, why haven't it been submitted to the UN?

Having said all that, I must add that there is not enough proof for either point of view and it's exactly the reason why UNSC shouldn't authorize a military operation agains Syria.

As a side note, who benefits the most from the use of chemical weapons and what seemed to be emminent US attack? Looks like it's syrian terrorists, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US.

And here is an interesting thought experiment for you: if tomorrow it turns out that it was the terrorist's false-flag op, will the US intervene and wipe out the terrorists in Syria? Because, you know, they crossed the red line by using chemical weapons that are banned throughout the world?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Putin (or his representatives) knows his audience. This piece eschews the normal alpha bravado that I would expect from Putin in favor of a coherent argument in favor of restraint. I found myself not merely nodding along, but inspired, and I hope that we can at least agree with him on this.

 _It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."_

<comment><USER10> What are the chances Putin didn't write the article?

<comment><USER11> There are some grammatical and capitalization errors, and numerous comma splices (stringing similar sentence fragments together in an effort to form a coherent statement). There was also usage of very short sentences in repeated succession.

Those are mostly stylistic issues but they're indicative of non-native grasp of the English language.

Furthermore it's clearly written by someone with enough capability to express themselves eloquently and succinctly, but as mentioned it's clearly non- native.

<comment><USER12> That's very interesting. Any resources/research that you know about on how to identify non-native writing?

<comment><USER13> Not the same person, but I've found that learning other languages (and making mistakes in other languages) makes you attuned to what kinds of mistakes happen when speakers of that language learn English.

Just off the top of my head, Russian doesn't have articles. A Russian learning English is more likely to confuse definite and indefinite articles than a speaker of a Romance language.

I've been learning Thai and teaching English in Thailand. Thai has no articles, no tenses (in the way we think about them) and a simpler syntax with many prepositions and other "small words" omitted. When they start learning English, they often omit too many words and don't conjugate anything, so a sentence like "I don't have any pencils." becomes "No have pencil".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great closing paragraph:

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." _It_ _is_ _extremely_ _dangerous_ _to_ _encourage_ _people_ _to_ _see_ _themselves_ _as_ _exceptional_ , _whatever_ _the_ _motivation_. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

And yes, it's hypocritical and carefully crafted.

<comment><USER15> Unfortunately you have to know a bit of Russian to pick up on this, but if you watch/read Russian media for a while it becomes obvious how this paragraph is a comical bit of hypocrisy.

The Russians in general and Putin in particular talk _all the time_ about how the Russian soul is exceptional, how Russia is somehow different from western democracies and has its own unique (and largely mystical) economic and political path, how you can't understand it with intellect and can only believe in it (which is a classic bit of Russian poetry internalized by pretty much everyone), and how the Russians are somehow more "spiritual" than everyone else.

Putin has the knack for coming off as fairly reasonable to the western audience, but to someone who was born and raised in the former Soviet Union this reads like something from the Onion.

EDIT: here is a specific example to illustrate my point. In a recent interview, here is how Putin characterized the difference between the American and Russian "soul". He brought up a quote by the main heroine from Gone with the Wind where she said "I can't imagine what it would be like to be hungry all the time". Putin then pointed out that something like this is a primary concern of an American soul (implying base concerns for physical comforts), while this wouldn't be a concern for the Russian soul, which allegedly is concerned with much more important spiritual matters.

This isn't an isolated example -- this happens _all the time_. Going on NYT and criticizing american exceptionalism seems incredibly hypocritical to me.

EDIT2: I also feel compelled to point out either the sleaziness or sloppy thinking (you decide which one) of taking a single character from a work of fiction and extrapolating it to a conclusion about an entire people (of course in service of "proving" that Americans are far baser people than the Russians).

<comment><USER16> >you can't understand it with intellect and can only believe in it (which is a classic bit of Russian poetry internalized by pretty much everyone)

It's not poetry, it's a self critical fable. It's so obvious too, "you can't understand it" because it's not logical. This is in line with everyone being proud of how Russian roads are the worst in the world. This particular attitude of being exceptional, regardless if it's exceptionally corrupt or drunk, is perpendicular to the concept of exceptionalism by the virtue of being chosen by God as special people. The concept of American self- righteousness does not exist in Russia the way it does in US.

>Putin has the knack for coming off as fairly reasonable to the western audience, but to someone who was born and raised in the former Soviet Union this reads like something from the Onion.

I'm curious, were you born and raised in the former Soviet Union?

<comment><USER15> I was born in the former Soviet Union, and I get what you're saying. But you can't seriously say that Russian exceptionalism isn't used in service of rationalizing the belief that the Russians are better people than the rest of the world. Consider the popularity of Zadornov's humor -- the gist of almost every joke is that foreigners are dumber than the Russians.

Also this might be nitpicking, but Americans don't typically believe that they were chosen by god as special people. They typically believe that they're special people because they themselves made it happen (which IMO is largely true).

<comment><USER17> Russian superiority views are a relic of the empirical past. Every empire- forming nation has that same trait - us versus barbarians.

UK has this trait also and it is well illustrated in "Great Britain".

Russia might have been a great place to live, if it weren't for rampant corruption. It's sad, but on a personal level, I just can't take the risk of raising a family there or trying to do business. In US, entrepreneurship carriers financial and psychological risks, but in Russia it carriers very real physical harm risks, in addition to vastly greater financial risks.

<comment><USER18> It isn't relic. Just like coffeemug I was born and raised in the Soviet Union.

It's not openly taught in schools but most ethnic Russians consider themselves higher race and everyone else is intellectually inferior.

This is even taught by Russian Orthodox Church. I graduated from high school after Soviet Union collapsed. We had this course called Christian Morality. In the class room I learned curious thing. It turned out that Jews drank blood of innocent Christian infants during their religious rituals. I am not kidding you.

Russian exceptionalism is outright nationalism and borderline nazism. My own father is openly hostile Ukrainians and Pols (other Slavic people). Why? Well, because they are Ukrainians and Pols and are not Russian. Therefore, it makes them half-human.

Soviet and Russian empires are long gone. But Putin and many Russians still dream to restore it.

<comment> guard-of-terra "Christian morality" in shools is something introduced very recently which means whatever you actually got before that is unsolicited and random. No need to project that on the whole society. Same regarding your father - you can find people like that everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Putin is a stone cold dictator, but he is very sophisticated about it. And here you see how deftly he manipulates public sentiment and perception. Who wouldn't want peace and cooperation?

Using tomahawk diplomacy against Syria was never a good idea. And "unbelievably small" strikes against Assad's regime was just a stupid threat to make. Chemical weapons are only a tiny part of the many very serious and relevant (even to Americans) geopolitical issues at stake in the Syrian civil war right now. A handful of bombing runs would be unlikely to improve the situation, even in regards to preventing the use of chemical weapons.

But I can guarantee you that Putin cares not the slightest about the citizens of Syria. His interests are with maintaining the Assad regime, as a geopolitical ally, and extracting money from Syria through arms trade. But now he has an opening to rub America's nose in a very public foreign policy failure. The president doesn't want to get involved in Syria but he set a "red line", which has been crossed repeatedly, and now he's forced into an enormously uncomfortable spot. And while the US wriggles out of this snare Putin will take as much geopolitical advantage out of the situation as he possibly can. Which will be a lot. Because he is very skilled at this game and everyone else (the US, France, even the UNSC) has already put their cards out on the table for everyone to see.

<comment><USER20> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "There is every reason to believe [sarin gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists."

Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. He stated that the Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks, that documents show Syrian generals reviewing the results after the attack, and that they planned to continue and expand the attack after the initial wave of gas was used. I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims.

Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened. Syria broke one of the most important international laws that we have, which is the ban of chemical weapons. If they aren't punished, then we are telling the world that it is OK to use chemical weapons.

Putin claims that the United States' position with Iran will be weakened if we intervene. The opposite is clearly true; our prior negotiations with Syria over their acquisition of chemical weapons in many ways mirrors our ongoing negotiations with Iran. We told Syria there was a red line and they crossed it. If we don't intervene in Syria, we are effectively telling Iran that our word is meaningless.

Putin's claims that an intervention will cause an escalation of the conflict and more terrorism are simply not true. The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way.

Our objective would be to prevent the Syrian army from using chemical weapons again, and show the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Intervention would lower the risk of chemical weapons being used in the future, help discourage nuclear proliferation, and prevent the U.S.'s credibility in the region from being destroyed.

<comment><USER22> >I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims.

>Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened.

You've made quite a jump to go from one sentence arguing that Obama is more credible than Putin to (indirectly) calling Putin a liar.

From what I've read, the following claims have been made by the Obama administration [1]:

1) Possess satellite imagery showing rockets firing from a location controlled by the Syrian army.

2) Transcripts of Syrian officials telling forces to ready gas masks.

3) Transcripts of Syrian officials discussing how to handle U.N. investigators inspecting the aftermath.

If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? Maybe this is already in the works, but I've seen no mention of it.

[1][http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusuniteds...](http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusunitedstatessyriafactcheck.html)

<comment><USER13> >If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence?

The thought is that Russia will find a way to veto the proposal no matter what, because they have financial interests in Syria.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This piece hits the right spot for a very wide demographic. He evokes trust through previous collaboration during WW2, mentions cold war, pope and increasing trust between nations and then goes on to evoke empathy from the people using "we are one" kind of deal, and even manages to sneak in a reference to League of Nations tangentially hinting/threatening irrelevance of UN. I am fairly impressed. I wish I could write such an elegant Cover letter. Opening paragraph sets the tone, and finishing one solidifies it. A good piece, nevertheless, wherever individual opinions lie.

</comment><comment><USER24> I can't say I disagree with a lot of what he says.

But I doubt he honestly believes in all of this. This rationalization just happens to coincide with his (and Russia's) interests.

I think he'd do better to stay silent and let me come to this conclusion on my own instead of feeling dirty for having him agree with me.

<comment><USER25> >I think he'd do better to stay silent and let me come to this conclusion on my own instead of feeling dirty for having him agree with me.

I'd prefer if he didn't, silence is a cancer. If anything has been blatantly apparent in the last 20 or 30 years it's that the American people as a whole simply cannot form any correct conclusion about anything that actually matters.

Sure, they'll all ring in to vote on American Idol, but it's a tough sell to vote yes on gay marriage.

They'll make sure they hit 'like' on hundreds of Facebook posts in a day, but can't bring themselves to make an educated vote in an election (or even vote at all).

Nationalize healthcare and reform social security to help millions of your own countrymen from dying broke? Busy watching Gangnam Style.

Vote out corrupt congressman and other government officials who take massive payouts from lobbyists? Football's on, get out of the way.

The information age has quickly turned into the distraction age, and it's showing.

<comment><USER6> _Sure, they 'll all ring in to vote on American Idol, but it's a tough sell to vote yes on gay marriage_

And yet that has a fair degree of legal protection at the federal level and is legal in multiple states now, whereas in Russia it is now a crime to promote the view that homosexuality is normal.

The American people have always been politically conservative and reluctant to abandon their residual Calvinism; if you think this is peculiar to the last 20 or 30 years you're dead wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Putin is certainly playing to his audience and is guilty of more than a little hypocrisy in this piece, but I tend to agree with his central argument. If the world has any duty to those inside Syria, it is to safeguard the lives of the innocent. How will rocket attacks accomplish this?

The second U.S.-Iraq war and the subsequent occupation proved that state-of- the-art precision air and rocket strikes are still a very blunt instrument that cause a lot of civilian casualties when used. More innocent people died during the U.S. occupation than under Hussein! A big reason for this was the U.S.'s over-reliance on technology. Instead of using foot-patrols and talking to the locals, who might have been inclined to point out that they'd seen rebels planting IED's, U.S. SOP was to ride over the locals (and anything else) in tanks and hummers and call in air-strikes if they felt threatened. Forces from other nations, such as the UK, proved the effectiveness of foot- patrols, but the U.S. still largely ignores this. Technology has transformed the face of war, but the fundamental fact that boots on the ground are what let you hold territory has not changed one bit. The U.S. ignored this in Vietnam, ignored this in the first Iraq war, ignored it in the second Iraq war, and continues to ignore it in Afghanistan. You can't cower in a fort, blowing things up with rockets and drones and expect to actually provide security!

What the U.S. proposes to do is to keep their soldiers safe in remote locations while raining robotic death down on Syrian government positions that, if they weren't already hardened, probably started preparing for air strikes after the 2006 war with Israel (Note: Israel was attacking Hezbollah, but did far more damage to civilian infrastructure). Will air strikes have much of an impact on Syrian government forces? What security will Syrian civilians gain as a result?

There are ways to provide security for Syrian civilians, but all they require boots on the ground. A force could be sent to get in between the rebels and government forces, but they'd get the holy hell pounded out of them from both sides! Peace-making forces do not exist for a reason. If a cease-fire could be negotiated, perhaps peace-keeping forces could be sent in. This carries a lot of risk if negotiations break down. A third option is to occupy a portion of Syria or territory bordering with Syria, establish refugee camps, and try to provide ways for civilians to relocate safely.

It's great that the U.S. wants to do something to help Syrian civilians, but blowing stuff up like retarded cowboys isn't the answer.

<comment><USER27> It's amazing that you managed not to mention the chemical weapons issue even one time.

<comment><USER26> Okay, I'll bite. Let's say the U.S. actually knows where the chemical weapons are made/stored or just scores a "lucky" hit with a cruise missile. Explosions happen to be great for spreading stuff over large areas. What could happen if a major stockpile of chemical agents gets hit and it happens to be near or directly upwind of a major population center?

<comment><USER28> Do you think that the entire U.S. military has not thought of that idea? While there is the possibility of a mistake, presumably they will avoid strikes on locations which are likely to cause such an event.

<comment><USER29> According to their own claims, U.S. military do accidentally bomb the wrong coordinates:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_emb...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade)

The victims of such bombings are called in U.S. newspeak the "collateral damage." That would be the language if they'd hit the chemical weapons storages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 I hope Putin has taken adequate protections. Now that he is a Russian journalist his life may be in grave danger!

</comment><comment><USER30> One general and universally true law:

To comprehend responsabilities and "who did what" you just have to look at the situation with critic eye, ignore all the politics (and propaganda that comes with it, the US are masters. Just calling it with a different name: PR and Marketing) and just look for the side which is actually gaining anything from ongoing events.

I bet that 99% of the people reading this know absolutely nothing about Syria. And you all probably know nothing about Russia too. Everything you know is from news (which honestly, aren't a good source for understanding a culture) and - maybe - from a bit of literature.

That said, my very pesonal opinion is that Assad is an extremely culturate person with very close western connections. He has a degree in medicine, studied abroad, has chosen a wife which lived almost all her life in England, etc.. Surely he isn't an idiot and knows perfectly that the only thing he needs to do to stay alive and (maybe) win the war is to NOT provoke the UN and Western countries. An outside intervention is the only actual real chance of victory for the rebels, therefore they are very very likely the people behind the gas attack.

One very last thought:

Let's talk about Fallujah, as a general example. Iraq War 2003 [1] where the US Army used White phosphorus on unarmed civilians to "regain" the control of the city after a few tens of insurgents killed 4 US contractors. Bitch please.

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

<comment><USER31> Tl;dr you are all ignorant morons so let me tell you what's going on? Honestly, what did your second paragraph accomplish other than to alienate your audience? I think there's a good chance you're right, but I'm too distracted by the irony of a self-exceptionalist panning a Russian exceptionalist panning American exceptionalism to take you seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How much evidence do we in fact have that the rebels gassed their own people in a false-flag operation? I had heard it was a possibility, Putin seems to think it's all but certain, but I haven't studied the issue in depth.

<comment><USER33> It's a pretty common tactic. IIRC, the Nazis allegedly shelled one of their towns and used it as an excuse to invade Poland. The Soviets were rumored to have done the same with Finland.

<comment><USER34> It may be many things but a common tactic it is not. There might be famous examples in history but their fame is indicative of just how uncommonly it is used.

<comment><USER35> Which American city will the CIA nuke to push us all into war?

<comment><USER36> According to _Jericho_ , there are 24 cities targeted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> People need to understand Putin's motives here.

First and foremost is Putin needs to keep Syria in place to prevent Europe from having access to another natural gas pipeline that he or his allies do not have influence over. Qatar wants to sell natural gas to Europe, they want to build a pile line to do it. Well they need/want to go through Syria to get there.

Second, Syria is home to a Russian naval base, their only one in the region.

Third, Syria buys a lot of weapons from Russia, they buy quite a bit of other materials as well.

Fourth, outside of Syria Russia's only real ally in the area is Iran but they are a bit more off the leash than Syria is.

Top it off with one of the weakest in international affairs US administrations and you give Putin the means to control the worlds opinion. Lets be honest, the amount of dithering on how to act by this Administration is really depressing. It almost seems they were convinced the Middle East would love them and do want they //the Administration // wanted just because they weren't GW Bush. Yet, we have Benghazi, we have the indecision regarding Egypt, Iran is off and running catching drones or faking it all the while mocking the US, and now Syria has shown this Administration is clueless. Its almost as if there are a dozen cooks all trying to do stuff and they either don't make a decision or one does something forcing the others.

TL;DR

Putin's concerns are economic (natural gas), military (base/arms sales), and prestige. With a weak US Presidency he saw an opportunity and took it. Sadly he is/might pull it off

<comment><USER38> The US concerns are exactly the same only in opposition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This article seems a bit naive.

... and I just saw that it's written by Putin. Wow.

Does he think we are stupid?

Nobody could give a rats ass about Syria other than those who are part of the Iran vs just about everyone else game of regional influence.

International law is like the Pirate's code. It's is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. It's convenient to use it to validate kicking some ass. And it's ignored when you need to kick ass regardless of the circumstances.

Yes, Putin, this new turn of events is great for making Russia look like a big power, but the only reason the U.S. is even looking at this is because we really, really don't want to bother with Syria. In fact, we kind of like that Assad is weakened by the civil war but still strong enough to stay in power. That means he is well occupied, but we still know who it is that we are dealing with.

Unfortunately, Obama screwed up with that red line thing. He didn't have to say that. He could have made his case regardless if he really wanted to. But chemical weapons are certainly a problem. We don't want those things coming back at us. And even if the Assad regime were to go down, we would probably need boots on the ground to secure those stocks. So, giving the chemical weapons over to international control is a slice of pie handed to us on a silver platter.

We doubt that you can really pull this off, Putin, but we thank you for trying. At best, this would help ease one of our biggest worries, and at worst it allows us to kick the can down the road a bit farther.

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER40> There are many comments here about Putin's character and policies.

That shouldn't be relevant to judging the quality of Putin's argument. I think it's a very reasonable one.

<comment><USER20> I also thought that "Industrial Society and Its Future" made some good points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> A lot of this is rhetoric that we expect from Realpolitik, but overall, I think Putin burnishes his and Russia's reputation with this sort of dialog.

I also wonder how common place it is for major heads of state to write essays in the Times.

<comment><USER20> I believe you mean, "how commonplace it is for major heads of state to commission PR firms to advance their interests in US media."

<comment><USER42> WTF,

\- If they express view point it's, "advance their interest"

\- If they don't, they are arrogant or indecisive

What you are saying is,

\- If your view is not same as my opinion, I will find an excuse to insult you.

<comment><USER43> This double standard is what makes America an exceptional nation. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If there's "every reason to believe" it's the opposition forces and not the Syrian government in control of and using chemical weapons, what good does it do for the Syrian government to "place its chemical arsenal under international control"? How can these two statements be reconciled?

Putin says:

 _No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists._

Then later:

 _A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction._

<comment><USER45> Maybe to satisfy the stupid Americans? I am not sure what you are getting at, offering up your chemical weapons when some country that can crush you is about to attack you because they suspect that you used them even if they don't provide any proof is not admitting guilt.

Its almost like you think people who plea guilty in court are actually always truly guilty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I agree with what he says here but I wonder what his true motivation is. You can see that he wants a strong and stable power in Syria. Easier to deal with and less risk than all these rebels, who in all likelihood will turn out to be either pro-US or fundamentalists, neither of which is good for Russia.

<comment><USER20> He also happens to have a naval base there.

<comment><USER47> It's also their only naval base in the Middle East: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> As a Russian person currently living in Europe and sympathizing with the Russian opposition, this was my first reaction to the article:

Wow, if Putin communicated with Russian voters in the same manner, he would totally have me as a voter!

</comment><comment><USER49> Very, very circular argument Mr Putin. He strongly defends the UN security council as being the custodian of international law. Yet, he seems to say that he is using his veto to disallow action - because action without full consent would be in contravention of that law.

On the other hand - I do agree with many of his other views expressed here. It certainly is a tough situation, and I have no idea how I would react if I had the power to do so.

</comment><comment><USER50> Article without paywall:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for- cau...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from- russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER51> That's an extremely well written piece. Clearly Putin has good speechwriters, and the Russian literary tradition is famous! Do you think a US speechwriter could produce such a thing _in a foreign language_? I doubt it.

<comment><USER52> Putin is badass enough not to need speechwriters.

<comment><USER51> Oh yeah? So you're saying Putin is like Kim Jong Il: he doesn't give speeches very often, but when he does, it's always to a standing ovation.

<comment><USER53> Why would you doubt that Putin is intelligent and articulate? He is Russian so me must be a some crude vodka drinking bear hunter?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I am not really a fan of Putin but I agree to the point that the USA are more and more seen as warmongers in the public. Our politicians may never admit/say this, but a lot of people only see the aggression which the US govt is bringing towards their so called enemies. Even a lot of people like the USA and their way of life but almost everyone doesn't like their government.

</comment><comment><USER55> The block in the UN is Russia. If Putin wanted action in Syria to carry the UN imprimatur, he could make that happen tomorrow.

<comment><USER30> China. You are forgetting about China.

<comment><USER6> China has no dog in this fight, and getting them onside just involves reminding them how they feel about the Japanese use of chemical weapons in the battle of Changde.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Here's a good read regarding the Syria conflict and how Russia and other world powers are involved:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...](http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts)

<comment><USER57> what all of them want are just two things: power and money

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." ... unless you are a rogue regime that wants to use chemical weapons?

<comment><USER20> Or if we work for the KGB, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> The CIA certainly should learn a thing or two about caution:

They're starting another proxy war right now:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia- be...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins- weapons-delivery-to-syrian- rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Well, the biggest surprise in the article for me is Putin invoking God. Never figured him for a religious man.

<comment><USER59> Only he and perhaps a few close family members can know if he _actually_ is, but his claimed religion is Russian Orthodox. I don't really see much reason to doubt it.

<comment><USER17> His is a former KGB officer, an organization hardly known for religious tolerance. Most Russians claim Orthodoxy, including me, but Putin is the last person I would associate with any sort of piety.

<comment><USER59> I'm aware of those things, and obviously he knows that everyone else knows that too. If he says he is religious, I don't think mere conjecture is enough to assume that he isn't.

The _actual reality_ of what he thinks can be known only to himself, the best we can go on (for him, and indeed anybody else. Hell, even the pope...) is what he claims.

<comment><USER17> That is your opinion, I have mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The prism by which this editorial should be viewed is the age old question: what does Putin stand to gain here? And Obama?

<comment><USER11> Obama and Putin are two figures standing at the front of a _very_ long list of other players pushing behind them.

* Qatar wants to establish a pipeline between them and Turkey for natural gas, but Syria is between them.

* Turkey would partner with Qatar for transiting natural gas to Europe.

* Russia has a strangle-hold on the natural gas market in Europe, so Syria would prefer Qatar not send natural gas to Europe.

* Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria.

I won't go into the complex incestuous intertwining of geopolitical relationships, but the above points are pretty much what broke the camels back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Why get involved?

Let them kill each other in the Middle East and show the world what "the religion of peace" is all about.

</comment><comment><USER62> We are all equal... Except for the gay.

<comment><USER52> Russia's stance on gays does not invalidate the argument. Syria is an unrelated topic.

<comment><USER63> It's not Russian's stance. I'm russian and I hate all this homofobia in our government. It's shame for us to have that law and it's why I'm anti-patriot of my wild wild country. Please don't treat "Putin" or "russian government" as "whole Russia". More than half of russians hates their president and government. Not dislike, but literally hate. Our government is our shame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Pretend Putin wasn't the author. Do you disagree with any of this?

</comment><comment><USER65> This is actually a great piece of propaganda that serves Russia's strategic interests. Judging by the comments here and on the NYT, it seems to be working.

Putin says war should only happen by consensus from the UN, I wonder why he didn't abide by this principle when Russia intervened against Georgia in South Ossetia in 2008.

<comment><USER66> > _Putin says war should only happen by consensus from the UN, I wonder why he > didn 't abide by this principle when Russia intervened against Georgia in > South Ossetia in 2008._

Actually, Putin stated that the UN Charter allows military action either _in self-defense, or_ by a decision of the Security Council. Which is accurate.

The Georgians attacked the South Ossetian capital, killing a number of Russian peacekeepers stationed there. Big mistake, because it supplied the "self- defense" component that Russia needed to justify their intervention.

The EU commission later found that the Russian response to Georgian provocations was a legitimate use of force. However, they also noted that Russia should have stopped at the border.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> _And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation._

This will go over just as well as the malaise speech. It's a nice attempt at trying to make a great nation humble, but that's not going to happen. :(

</comment><comment><USER67> My take on the whole situation. It was a mess and Obama made it worse by playing with Putin. While the back patting in Washington punditry is in full swing how the US threats have worked the reality is Obama is making things worse.

He called a vote and a debate for the Congress and now called it off. So on top of the whole mess now there are hurt feelings and egos. What comes now are talks. Which take time and can you know - fail. So in 3 months when Bashar tells Yuck Fou with the silent support of China and Russia, Obama will stand all alone, the chemical attack faded from the memory, the president not dared to respond to the red line and with no friends whatsoever.

If going to Congress was a gambit this is Russian roulette. With semi- automatic pistol.

</comment><comment><USER68> This a very well laid out essay; kudos to whoever actually wrote it.

</comment><comment><USER69> How is this relevant to HN?

<comment><USER70> This is of global importance on the order of war being declared between two mid-tier countries. It's probably not worthy of 50 articles about this article on HN, but a single direct link to the primary source seems more than warranted.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Have you ever been accused of stealing code? - <AUTHOR> A couple of years ago I was accused of stealing someone's code and claiming it as my own. Accusations were made on prominent reddits, in pull requests and issues submitted to my Github repository, here on HN and in takedown requests emailed directly to me. Needless to say that the work is completely and utterly my own and the accusations are baseless.<p>Has this ever happened to you? What (if anything) did you do about it? <comment><USER2> Never happened yet, but this kind of nightmare is also one of the reasons I'm very reluctant to publish any open source code.</comment>


Kattis Problem Archive - <AUTHOR> https://open.kattis.com/ <comment><USER2> This is kind of creepy, I registered this morning and started practicing with the trivial exercises, I didn't fill anything special in the registration form besides the username, and now — around six hours later — my profile has been automatically updated with an association to my university and country _(which I also didn 't select when I signed up)_. I am not surprised by the country selection, they can easily get that information with a good GeoIP database, but I wonder who did they get the name of my university, maybe from LinkedIn since it is the only place that I am aware of contains that information. Kattis seems like a fun project nonetheless, but these two things scared me out a little bit.

<comment><USER3> It's not scary in and of itself, they just gave you an awareness of the open source intelligence available on you.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Nice to see this getting attention :)

So here's something rather unusual (or not?): While HN says I submitted this story _6 hours ago_ , actually I submitted it _2 days ago_.

A HN Algolia search confirms

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=kattis](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=kattis) or [http://imgur.com/a/O0pws](http://imgur.com/a/O0pws)

At the time, I was a little surprised to see it not get upvoted more. OTOH it was kind of a slow period (Sunday evening IIRC). The original submission stayed for a few hours, then dropped off the frontpage with only a vote or two.

Which does make one curious, in what way could this occur? Had I bungled a planned HN launch? (and then maybe a mod helped out to resubmit). Or is there some other mechanism at work.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a good time to bring up the fact that Advent of Code[1] will be returning this December. I had a blast working through it last year and can't wait for more.

1\. [http://adventofcode.com/](http://adventofcode.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I really like all the different rank lists that are available.

      https://open.kattis.com/countries/MEX
      https://open.kattis.com/universities/unam.mx
      https://open.kattis.com/ranklist/universities

Nicely done!

</comment><comment><USER6> On the help section it says I can write my solution on any language. How do I submit my solution in a language not supported by kattis?

<comment><USER6> I feel stupid for misinterpreting the statement on the help section. Sorry.

<comment><USER7> Don't... you're definitely not the first to do that :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Never heard of this. How does it compare to euler or topcoder practice rooms?

<comment><USER9> Im pretty sure that this is a public version of the platform that has been running at KTH (royal institute of technology) for years. It was used as a test suite as well as performance test for assignments there for the CS school.

<comment><USER10> That is correct, it went popular when it was used at ACM ICPC world finals some years ago.

<comment><USER11> And still is. Also, more and more ICPC regional contests have started using Kattis.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ukraine faces world's first blackout caused by hackers - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/eu/2016/01/05/ukraine-faces-worlds-first-blackout-caused-by-hackers/ <comment><USER2> Retaliation for the blackout in Crimea?</comment>


Announcing Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 16215 - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2017/06/08/announcing-windows-10-insider-preview-build-16215-pc-build-15222-mobile/#jAJP34kpe7ABOZWh.97 <comment><AUTHOR> I've wanted a single web browser to implement this in particular for ages: [https://winblogs.azureedge.net/win/2017/06/8d81223d002ae5ec5...](https://winblogs.azureedge.net/win/2017/06/8d81223d002ae5ec5a7d443806b0c243.png)

Eg, I want all my apps:

\- SourceTree (native)

\- ConEmu (native)

\- CircliCI (web)

\- gmail (web)

\- Sublime (native)

in the taskbar, regardless of how they're implemented.

Seriously considering Fast Ring just for this.</comment>


An analysis of clap distribution on Medium - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/tomyum/how-are-readers-ing-on-medium-7a2196b9675f <comment><USER2> Frankly my dear, I don't give a clap

<comment><AUTHOR> That's cool too. Enjoy the rest of your day :)

<comment><USER2> It was a pun on the clap system and "Gone With the Wind".</comment></comment></comment>


Are 'Google etc.' really paying $500k per year now? - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/sama/status/628712398086496256 <comment><USER2> to a very small number of engineers, maybe. to most of us, no.

<comment><USER3> Isn't there a spreadsheet with this data floating around?

[http://qz.com/458615/theres-reportedly-a-big-secret- spreadsh...](http://qz.com/458615/theres-reportedly-a-big-secret-spreadsheet- where-google-employees-share-their-salaries/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Small companies don't always have problems that require $500k engineers. If they do, they shouldn't play in the same tiny pond as Google -- hire remotely or move to a city other than SF or NYC.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've found his writing about money to be distorted. For another example, see [http://blog.samaltman.com/uber-vs-car- ownership](http://blog.samaltman.com/uber-vs-car-ownership) . Not exactly wrong, but always off by significant factors. (Imagine having a concrete pricing conversation!) Maybe a consequence of living on funny money since a ~teen? The advice rings right, just... distorted.

<comment><USER6> Personal attacks. which this comment crosses the line into, are not allowed on Hacker News. If you have some reason to say that a specific number is wrong, that's fine, but provide the reason.</comment></comment>


San Francisco's Sinking Millennium Tower Riles Residents - <AUTHOR> http://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/11835-san-franciscos-sinking-millennium-tower-riles-residents <comment><AUTHOR> "He points out that the Salesforce and 181 Fremont towers—also adjacent to the Transit Center—are supported on piles drilled to bedrock. "Millennium Partners' poor design decision is the cause of the tilt and excessive vertical settlement of the Millennium Tower," Boule says.</comment>


A girl who codes: Why that matters - <AUTHOR> https://www.ckl.io/blog/girl-codes-matters?utm=google <comment><USER2> I'm very happy to see more women gaining interest in coding. With anything, there are always contributions to be made in the programming world that men cannot "see" or "know" including web apps that don't yet exist, but that women would find useful.

How would a man know what a woman finds useful unless he talks to his wife or girlfriend who introduces the idea to him? And might develop it through her ideas, which could work out, but coming directly from the source: A woman could know how to design and develop for other women.

Unfortunately, when it comes to all major social media networks, a look at all the CEOs and creators reveals: they were all created by men. Products loved by men and women, but there are still plenty of things to create for women by women because men simply have no understanding of how to do it or reason to do it. Finding those niches leaves plenty of opportunity for women.

Women coders also inspire young girls to break the cliche: Knowing about computers, knowing about programming, knowing about _how things work_ does not make any girl a nerd or a geek. Her curiosity will lead her to so much opportunity! It makes her intelligent and instills a sense of passion and creativity in her! Even if she is a nerd, she should own the title!</comment>


New theory explains how Earth's inner core remains solid despite extreme heat - <AUTHOR> https://www.kth.se/en/forskning/artiklar/new-theory-explains-how-earth-s-inner-core-remains-solid-despite-extreme-heat-1.705398 <comment><USER2> Something I've been wondering. Does the earth's core have negative heat capacity?[1]

I've read that it is usually modeled as a self-gravitating system[2], and that such systems can end up in states with negative heat capacity [3].

[1] > "If the system loses energy, for example by radiating energy away into space, the average kinetic energy actually increases." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Negative_heat_ca...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Negative_heat_capacity_.28stars.29)

[2] > "The Earth's outer core is a rotating ellipsoidal shell of compressible, stratified and self-gravitating fluid." [https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/handle/10133/3672](https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/handle/10133/3672)

[3] > "Negative heat capacities can only occur in isolated or nearly isolated systems. They are impossible in truly extensive systems in canonical ensembles or for that matter in grand canonical ensembles. However, far from being a strange phenomenon only found in the thermodynamics of black holes they occur widely on a macroscopic scale in astrophysics and with less precision on a microscopic scale throughout physics and chemistry. They are the origin of the large fluctuations that occur at phase transitions and we speculate that they cause those transitions." [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977MNRAS.181..405L](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977MNRAS.181..405L)

Edit: Also, the link to the paper leads to a 404 page... Stabilization of body-centred cubic iron under inner core conditions, Nature Geosciences, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/ngeo2892

<comment><USER3> If you look at the Wikipedia article in more detail, you will see that the negative heat capacity of a self-gravitating, isolated system arises from the virial theorem. Heuristically, as a self-gravitating system radiates energy away into space, it becomes more tightly bound; that means it contracts. But as it contracts, the "orbital speeds" of its constituents increase (because decreasing orbital radius means increasing orbital speed), meaning its average kinetic energy increases, meaning it heats up.

Technically, the virial theorem argument only applies to systems whose constituents are in free-fall orbits. But I believe you can do a similar analysis for an isolated self-gravitating system that is in hydrostatic equilibrium--basically, as it radiates energy away into space, the hydrostatic equilibrium changes to one in which the radius is smaller and pressure and temperature are higher. Unfortunately I don't have a handy link to such an analysis right now, though.

As far as whether any of the above would apply to the Earth's core, I don't think it would since the Earth's core is not isolated; but it might apply to the Earth as a whole, to the extent that the Earth can be viewed as being in hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e., pressure balancing gravity everywhere). AFAIK it is common in astronomy to treat stars this way.

<comment><USER2> Interesting, thanks. I still am not sure what the technical meaning of "isolated" is here. But wouldn't such an object continue heating up "infinitely" (maybe stopping at some phase-transition temperature) without constant input of energy?

<comment><USER3> _> I still am not sure what the technical meaning of "isolated" is here._

Technically, it means an object of finite spatial extent surrounded by vacuum, and nothing else in the entire universe. Obviously that's an idealization. :-) But it makes the mathematical model tractable.

 _> wouldn't such an object continue heating up "infinitely"_

Not necessarily; it might reach a stable state where it can't radiate any more energy. Cold white dwarfs, cold neutron stars, and cold planets are possible examples of such states. ("Cold" here basically means "at absolute zero", i.e., in the ground state for its configuration of particles.)

<comment><USER4> "Cold" in astrophysical settings tends to mean T << µ (the chemical potential) which usually justifies a low temperature expansion in T/µ, although thermal effects can be qualitatively important.

<comment><USER3> _> "Cold" in astrophysical settings tends to mean T << µ (the chemical potential)_

Yes, I know, but this in itself does not preclude energy being emitted by radiation. To preclude that, the object needs to be in a genuine ground state --no internal transitions possible that can reduce its total energy. That's a considerably stronger condition than T << µ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This headline seems a bit overzealous, as if this new theory is the final answer.

This new theory, noted as contradicting one from 2014 and 30 years of previous conventional scientific wisdom, came after researchers "looked into larger computational samples of iron than studied previously". What will be the headline and tone in several more years, when someone comes along and studies an even higher number of samples and coming to an entirely different conclusion?

Doesn't it seem more appropriate and useful for the scientific community and publishers of these studies to be careful not to state their findings as conclusive and act as if their most recent study does much more than to estimate what might be happening?

<comment><USER6> I expect the article itself is more carefully worded than the press release.

I don't think people in the scientific community in general really care much about the press releases. The publicity is more something that the funding organizations and universities have started to require in recent years --- you may even get some quantified "career points" of some sort from them depending on the grant. The press releases are at best an afterthought for the researchers. As they are also often edited by the PR staff of the university, there may be some standardized level of hype injected.

<comment><USER7> There are many researchers who are eager to have their work publicized, both for reasons of pride and grant-writing. They often are far from diligent in working with the journalist to make sure the article is written with sufficient modesty. Yes, universities and funders have began directly soliciting hype journalism, but the researchers themselves still benefit, and follow incentives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The ultimate goal of Earth Sciences is to understand the past, present and > future...

That is the ultimate goal of all science.

<comment><USER9> You are right, science is not bound to Earth and also even "the past, present and future" seem too narrow to me. Science is about understanding anything which we are curious about, and that may include alternative timelines which do not lay neither in the "the past, present nor the future" and also the time itself.

<comment><USER10> Without a way to access those alternate timelines, no science can be done there, because no hypothesis will be falsifiable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How do they know that it is solid?)

<comment><USER12> To the first order it is the fact that a liquid only propagates pressure waves while a solid can propagate shear and pressure waves (which propagate a different speeds).

<comment><USER13> That's true, but can shear waves be transmitted to the earth's solid core through the liquid iron surrounding it?

<comment><USER14> Pressure waves go through the liquid part, hit the solid part, some of their energy is converted into shear waves which go through the solid core, convert back to pressure waves on the other side, and eventually hit the surface again. By measuring propagation time, direction, etc, the full picture is only compatible with the pressure / shear / pressure double conversion.

TLDR: It's complicated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Funniest ad placement seen in a while:

"Spinning within Earth's molten core is a crystal ball"

... with the Canadian Foreverspin.com ad just above this. I want one, and please, keep on spinning.

<comment><USER16> If you ever want to f' with TSA in a completely legal way: carry lead crystal in your carry-on luggage. I've done it a number of times carrying Christmas gifts to/from family. My favorite was when my parents gifted me a set of lead crystal tumblers from Waterford. The cut on the crystal sorta makes them look like a pineapple grenade. Thing is, they're opaque on TSA scanners, so they make you pull them out (and they're really cautious at this point), then they pull the items out, and they're completely transparent. Their minds: blown. If you're lucky, you get one you can explain it to, if you're unlucky, you get a doofus that has to call for backup.

<comment><USER15> Haha. :) Thing is, I'd probably have to show my HN credentials and whatever an^T^T digital probing they do to let you in, so they'd know it was all premeditated and then I'd be in real trouble. (I'm in Straya).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Blogspam of:

[https://www.kth.se/en/forskning/artiklar/new-theory- explains...](https://www.kth.se/en/forskning/artiklar/new-theory-explains-how- earth-s-inner-core-remains-solid-despite-extreme-heat-1.705398)

<comment><USER18> Ok, we changed to that from [http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/10367.html](http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/10367.html).

I'm pretty sure most of these are press releases intended to be republished, which isn't exactly the same as blogspam (where one site rips off another). Still, original URLs are preferable.

<comment><USER17> I never comment against actual press releases, because, hey, that's what they're meant for.

"Blogspam" is appropriate for literally ripped content without specific attribution; to then proceed to _edit out_ a byline or other author credit is simple _plagiarism._

Press Releases always have either an embargo date/time or "For Immediate Release" and a press contact for the originator, in my experience.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure that's right. We see countless articles, usually originating on university websites, that are PR pieces about research studies. These get reprinted across a wide range of science-content farm sites, which tend to be pretty low quality, but I'm not sure they're copying without permission. It seems more that the system is designed to work this way.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Solving CAPTCHAs using Probabilistic Programming - <AUTHOR> http://naviablog.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/solving-captchas-using-probabilistic-programming/

<comment><USER2> Interesting article! I had a similar idea in one of my earlier captcha cracking approaches. For me, it had several problems:

1) it was very hard to get the captcha generation exactly right, so that it is close enough to the algorithm of the original site

2) comparing two generated images containing text meaningfully (in a noise tolarant way) is hard

Eventually I went with more regular computer vision techniques.

It's nice to see that the approach is feasible with the right techniques :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool. Now hurry up and release it.</comment>


Adtech industry operating illegally, rules UK regulator - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/0620c0e4-9351-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271 <comment><USER2> Paywalled, actual article from UK regulator here: [https://ico.org.uk/about- the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-bl...](https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news- and-events/news-and-blogs/2019/06/blog-ico-adtech-update-report-published- following-industry-engagement/)</comment>


Forking with the Edit Button - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/844-forking-with-the-edit-button

<comment><USER2> Github is really doing an excellent job of presenting the power of git via a web interface. So now they've condensed the process of fork, change, recommit (and possibly pull request?) to one Edit button. Imagine a new workflow for wikis, where github's patchset approval and merge process is used to allow other people to fix a page in a controlled manner, and you don't need git to do this--just a github account and a web browser.

<comment><USER3> >and possibly pull request?

you would know this if you had read the page

>When you are done with your edit, we will write your change into your new fork automatically and send you to the pull request page so you can tell the owner of the repository.

<comment><USER2> Yes, I did see that, and it wasn't clear to me whether that will be an intuitive step to non-git users or not. I haven't used the feature yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this will be huge for things like READMEs, where I'll often spot lots of typos or examples that could be improved.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is okay, but it would be even better if it popped up the file in a at least moderately useable programming text editor (like bespin or something).

Maybe the solution here in the mean time is to use this with the bespin bookmarklet(<https://bespin.mozillalabs.com/bookmarklet/>) or something.

<comment><USER6> You could also use the Cloud9IDE at <http://cloud9ide.org> . (It's based on the Ace editor, which Bespin/SkyWriter merged with. [1]) Log in with your Github user/pass, see your repos, and commit.

It's not as seamless as if it was on Github, but impressively powerful.

[1] [http://mozillalabs.com/skywriter/2011/01/18/mozilla- skywrite...](http://mozillalabs.com/skywriter/2011/01/18/mozilla-skywriter- has-been-merged-into-ace/)

<comment><USER7> Now if Cloud9 had an android app I'd buy it or at least try their service. Thats going to be the make or break for any of these fancy cloud services for me. Basic utility increase.

<comment><USER8> Do you really want to write code on your phone? If you do, wouldn't you rather just shell into your server and use vim? It would probably be better UI and more responsive than using a graphical web-based editor on the tiny screen, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This looks neat and all but I'm still waiting for Github Issues 2.0 API.</comment>