Malaysia B772 has crashed near Donetsk - <AUTHOR> http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0 <comment> k-mcgrady Some interesting info on the speculation it was shot down:

A defence expert has told the BBC that shooting down a plane at 10,000m (9.7 miles) would have required a long- range surface-to-air missile - <USER2> guided by radar.

That suggests it is unlikely it could have been downed by a portable air defence missile, or Manpad, which has a much shorter range.

The only other possibility is for an aircraft at that height to be downed by a fighter carrying air-to-air missiles.

The US will have access to satellite imagery that should be able to identify ultra-violet plumes if a long-range surface-to-air missile was fired.

Source: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- europe-28354856](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28354856)

Edit:

Amateur video reportedly showing aftermath of the crash (from a distance):

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/malaysia-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/malaysia- airlines-flight-mh17-crashes-ukraine-video)

<comment><USER3> Just curious why the US would play any role in this situation... it's a Malaysian plane, over Ukraine, coming from the EU. Seems like the EU should be tasking their satellite's, or even Russia.

<comment><USER4> You can't task a satelite to monitor for an explosion after the fact...

<comment><USER5> You think those imaging satellites aren't constantly recording everything they see and sending it somewhere? Especially in and around such a hot area as the Ukraine, I'm sure there is near-constant surveillance.

It would be a waste of resources otherwise.

<comment><USER6> Except there probably aren't quite enough satellites to always have one over that area? Plus, yeah, downlink bandwidth probably wouldn't be sufficient anyway.

<comment><USER7> surely Ukraine is a priority right now though, right?

<comment><USER6> And how does that increase the number of satellites in orbit or the available downlink bandwidth?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interfax said it was shot down. Russia - via their ambassador at the United Nations - denied involvement already.

Let's hope this plane won't be the Franz Ferdinand 100 years later.

Edit: I am talking about the US-Russian relationship deteriorating because of the (blamed) intent, not the number of casualties or the strength of the Malaysian army.

Edit 2: Thanks for the links on previous situations like this. Reassuring.

<comment><USER9> It's overwhelmingly likely to have been shot down by "Ukrainian rebels", who are Russian-backed.

It's not going to be the end of the world unless someone very high profile was on board, but it will further worsen relations with Russia. Malaysia isn't exactly a nuclear superpower. A US airliner would be a lot closer to end of the world territory.

Number of civilian casualties is roughly comparable to those in the past few weeks in Gaza.

<comment><USER10> >Number of civilian casualties is roughly comparable to those in the past few weeks in Gaza.

That comparison is interesting. What is it about planes that draws so much attention when something like this happens? It is barely news when a couple hundred civilians die on the ground in a war zone, but put the same civilians in the air and the whole world pays attention.

EDIT: Some people have mentioned that Gaza is all over the news but I would make the argument that the civilian casualties aren't what is making news. What is making news is the eruption of hostilities in the first place. For example, compare the coverage of Gaza to Iraq, Ukraine, etc. There have been several times more civilian casualties in numerous other active war zones this month, but they aren't new conflicts so news agencies aren't focusing on them.

<comment><USER11> A bunch of random people with different life stories together inside a tin can flying thanks to physics' magic exploding fuel at 800km/h. It's something that a lot of people can relate to as millions fly every single day not really expecting to die, specially over a war zone. That's why we pay attention. The massacre in Gaza is pretty important as well, but an entirely different story.

<comment><USER12> Define massacre, please.

Last I checked it was defined like this:

"""massacre/ˈmasəkə/

      noun

        an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people.

      verb

        deliberately and brutally kill (many people).

"""

Tell me how what happens in Gaza is consistent with "indiscriminate" and "deliberately" as long as only launch sites and weapons caches are targeted and warnings are sent out well in advance, something I haven't heard any other army has ever done so consistently before. (And I will happily tell you that I don't think the Israelis are without fault. I just want this sick twisting of referential frames to stay away from hn.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm scheduled to be on that exact same flight in 10 days, so I'm not thinking very clearly about this right now.

Can a cool disconnected mind give me a rational perspective on this?

Does logic dictate I have nothing to worry about? ("Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place" argument.)

Or does logic say I would be smarter to lose some $$, and book a different airline and route? ("Lighting does strike twice in the same place" argument.)

Thoughts?

<comment><USER14> Chances are they won't fly in the same location. Lufthansa has already rerouted flights scheduled to go over around the eastern Ukrainian airspace, I can't imagine Malaysian not following suit. It's not like they have the best track record at the moment.

UPDATE: The FAA just prohibited flying over that airspace. So I would be blown away if your plane continued flying there.

UPDATE: Air France now, too.

UPDATE: Even three Russian airlines are re-routing, which will be difficult for some flights heading west from Moscow. No word from Malaysian... they've probably got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

UPDATE: British Airways and Air Canada, too.

<comment><USER15> How far out does the FAA's jurisdiction go?

<comment><USER16> I believe U.S.-based airplanes fly around in a little bubble of U.S. laws, just like ships at sea under the U.S. flag.

<comment><USER17> They're subject to the jurisdiction of whoever's airspace they're in as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Regardless of what caused this plane to go down, how Malaysia Airlines survives as a company going forward will be study in crisis management for many years.

<comment><USER19> It may be much more damaging to them. As far as anybody knows, MH370 wasn't the fault of Malaysia Airlines.

 _This_ is a whole another level. If they really approved a flight plan to fly over a war zone... I just can't... WTF.

<comment><USER20> Passenger planes fly over Iraq and Afghanistan regularly, without incident. There was not much reason to believe Ukraine or the rebels would be idiotic enough to target civilian passenger planes in this manner.

<comment><USER21> During the hard times of the war no commercial planes flew over Irak or Afghanistan. There is no problem flying through zones with low capability insurgency, it's done all the time. But given the high tension nature ofthe Ukranian conflict it just doesn't make sense to fly over that areas.

I recently flew to Moscow and our route was quite far to the north, but I would have changed it if necessary. It's a pilot's decission, but also a flight planer and Chief pilot hands to modify dangerous routes.

<comment><USER20> Every point of the Iraq and Afghan wars have been "harder times" than the current Ukraine conflict.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Supposed tweet from someone from the Pro Russian rebels: [http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bswg7UGCQAAtv47.jpg](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bswg7UGCQAAtv47.jpg)

Someone on slashdot translated it as:

"Near Torez (city) an An-26 airplane was just shot down, it crashed somewhere beyond "Progress" mine site. We warned beforehand - do not fly over "our zone". Here's another video proof of the next "birdfall". A birdie crashed down beyond terricon (mine excavation site), missed living areas. Population not harmed. We also allegedly have info on another SU-25 shot down".

If that's true, they have mistaken it for a transport plane and shot it down.

</comment><comment><USER23> Reuters quoting Interfax reports that it was brought down by a surface to air missile. [https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/489795394411712513](https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/489795394411712513)

<comment><USER24> I'm wondering, if it is confirmed it is a missile, are there any precedent of civilian plane shot-down like that in modern history (post WWII)?

Edit: Thanks great replies!

<comment><USER25> La Strage di Ustica ("Ustica Massacre"): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870)

After more than 30 years we still don't know for sure what happened...

<comment><USER26> Well, we actually do, really. The French government refused for 30 years to have their pilots interviewed about the issue, relenting only very recently. They even deployed a cover operation to take charge of recovering the relic and mislead investigators. NATO actively impeded investigation at various points, quoting secrecy rules etc etc. The Italian military miraculously "failed" to keep proper records of their radars, and the government actively misled investigators and the public at the time.

It's now widely accepted that the Itavia 870 was downed by a NATO plane, likely French, likely engaged in some sort of anti-Lybic operation.

<comment><USER25> Yes, but I meant, with all the details, and with all the nations involved taking their own responsibilities. Who knows, maybe in 50 years they will unveil the state secrecy and we'll know it for sure..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mkr-hn As with all tragedies, be skeptical of early reports. Especially those that identify a cause.

</comment><comment><USER27> Somebody really really wants this war to proceed and won't take no for an answer.

<comment><USER28> This just sucks. Ukraine used to be very nice and safe country for backpacking. Now it will turn into Somalia.

<comment><USER29> Really? This is what bothers you the most about this war?

I don't think you'll have any trouble finding other poor countries that haven't yet erupted in full-out war.

<comment><USER28> And what I am suppose to write? I have friends there, and it is practically in my backyard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Isn't the Donetsk area a war zone now? Why do commercial flights fly over it?

<comment><USER31> They closed airspace up to FL260 (I believe). The 777 was probably at FL360 or above.

<comment><USER32> Interfax claims it was flying at 10km: [https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/489794112212959232](https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/489794112212959232)

<comment><USER31> 10Km ~ FL330. It is lower than I would expect (the higher you go the less fuel you burn) but still well above FL260.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is not the first case of missiles hitting a plane in Ukraine in recent history:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812)

</comment><comment><USER33> This is so tragic, A second MAS plane involved in an incident in 2014. Thoughts are with the loved ones and families of the people onboard MH17

</comment><comment><USER34> First pictures of the downed plane are already showing up on Twitter. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BswmWPwIIAAAZi1.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BswmWPwIIAAAZi1.jpg:large)

</comment><comment><USER35> Does anyone have any idea what types of terrorist controlled surface-to-air missiles would be able to take out this aircraft?

Would any of these systems have prevented it?

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

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

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

BTW, according to the Guardian article a MANPAD can be purchased for as little as $5,000.

Apparently this was something else such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system)

I know this happened before, but shooting down civilian aircraft cannot be tolerated.

<comment><USER36> Some media reports say (citing official ukrian reports and AP visuals in the region) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system)

<comment><USER35> That's what this article says: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us- ukraine-crash-a...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine- crash-airplane-idUSKBN0FM1TU20140717)

What is a "Pro-Russian militant"? At what point are they considered part of the Russian armed forces?

<comment><USER37> when they are wearing a uniform and holding an official rank

<comment><USER35> Are these types of "terrorists" targeted by Putin or are they ignored because they're not targeting Russians?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> From StratFor:

Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 280 passengers and 15 crew onboard went down over Shakhtyorsk, Ukraine 50 kilometers (20 miles) from the Russo-Ukrainian border on July 17, an aviation industry source said, Interfax reported. The Ukrainian Interior Ministry said that pro-Russia separatists shot it down with a 9K37 Buk surface-to-air missile system, while separatist leader Alexander Borodai accused Kiev's forces of shooting down the plane, Reuters reported. Kiev previously designated the areas of fighting in the east an "anti-terrorist operation" zone, limiting civilian flights to 7,900 meters (23,000 feet) and in compliance the flight was at 10,000 meters (33,000).

</comment><comment><USER39> There was a call for a No Fly Zone over Donetsk on June 2nd[1], but it doesn't appear to have been implemented. Still, that should have been a warning to all airlines to steer clear.

I wouldn't want to blame Malaysia Airlines for this one, but I feel like the route planning tools should include indicators for all known active combat zones with the option to navigate around them.

[1] [http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/zyuganov-calls- for-n...](http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/zyuganov-calls-for-no-fly- zone-over-donbas-luhansk-region-350348.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> As usual, we should wait for the results of official investigation. Right now all versions are equally possible: ground-to-air missile from either side, malfunctioning air-to-air missile on a fighter jet, UFO, ...

As many correctly pointed out, there is a civil war going on in this region. These days the military war also means propaganda war. Thus, there will be all kind of statements by "officials". Unless you want to join the propaganda war yourself, I would suggest that you do not repeat this crap and wait for investigation results.

</comment><comment><USER31> 5th hull-loss and 2nd crash with fatalities for 777.

EDIT: I am not saying that 777 should withstand SAM attack. However these numbers are remarkable and show the reliability of the plane that have been in operations for almost 20 years and flew in all corners of the world.

<comment><USER40> Hard to blame the airframe if it really was a SAM....

<comment><USER31> It just shows how reliable is 777

<comment><USER31> I guess people misunderstand my comment - I am not saying 777 (or any other plane) can withstand the SAM. It's remarkable that in almost 20 years in operations all over the world, only a very small number of planes have been lost.

<comment><USER41> I apologize for the downvotes your comment received then. (Not from me)

I think many people, myself included, wrongly assumed you were insulting the quality of the 777, not complimenting it.

<comment><USER31> Thanks for the note. I guess the numbers are so obvious for me that I didn't expect others to react so differently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> looks like this is the flight

[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/10...](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK)

</comment><comment><USER43> First photos of debris: [http://imgur.com/a/s7AkM](http://imgur.com/a/s7AkM)

From the crash site (WARNING GRAPHIC / NSFL): [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BswpDkqIcAAp6Wp.jpg:orig](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BswpDkqIcAAp6Wp.jpg:orig)

</comment><comment><USER44> Avherald might be slow, copy is at [http://www.aeroinside.com/item/4365/malaysia-b772-near- donet...](http://www.aeroinside.com/item/4365/malaysia-b772-near-donetsk-on- jul-17th-2014-disappeared-from-radar)

</comment><comment><USER45> Who would have thought that the safest route from Europe to Asia would be via Iran? (Wars in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine)

[http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AMS-IST-THR-KUL,+AMS- KUL](http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AMS-IST-THR-KUL,+AMS-KUL)

<comment><USER46> Not too surprising. After all, the only passenger airliner that's been shot down in Iranian history was an Iranian one by the USA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Didn't someone ask a question about flying over warzones on here recently? Seems like everyone told them not to worry, Manpad's can't reach a commercial airliner, so you have nothing to worry about. Ironic.

<comment><USER48> "Rebels" have BUK mobile SAMs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> History always repeats itself: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007)

</comment><comment><USER50> Not sure whether this is true

[https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/statuses/489795402892591104](https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/statuses/489795402892591104)

</comment><comment><USER51> Pictures of wreckage:

[http://t.co/2o0SGVnjbE](http://t.co/2o0SGVnjbE)

[http://t.co/z4byDeovcp](http://t.co/z4byDeovcp)

</comment><comment><USER52> Is it too much to speculate that Malaysia Airlines or Malaysia is being targeted?

Two flights in a year. Bringing a plane down from 33,000 feet is not that easy.

<comment><USER53> Yes, it is too much to speculate that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Last known position right around Ukraine/Russian border.

<comment><USER55> This. All I need to know what happened.

<comment><USER26> I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you -- from the actual track record[1], it looks like _the middle_ of the country, rather than near the border. It's not even over one of the "troubled" eastern regions, nowhere near "rebels" or Russian troops.

[1] [https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/489795658879348737/...](https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/489795658879348737/photo/1)

<comment><USER55> Doneck region isn't troubled Eastern region? Where are you getting your news from? KGB TV aka Russia TV ?

<comment><USER26> Mh, ok, apologies - i trusted the pic rather than the report. The pic shows a position well outside the Donetsk area.

Still, it's weird that the last tracked position shown on that pic is to the West of Donetsk and very much outside the troubled area, but the reported crash site is just to the East of Donetsk, deep into "rebel" territory. Could that be an artifact of the tracking system?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Reports are stating they believe it may have been shot down.

</comment><comment><USER7> How is this on page 3 with 344 points 4 hours in? Which moderator killed this? If this isn't news that people would want to know about I don't know what is.

<comment><USER56> So, Hacker News is not a "pure" news source. It's primarily tech news. Don't look for a conspiracy, as it's completely up to the moderators as to what stays on the front page. Effectively, it's curated. I like the mix here. Not everything has to be covered by a popular "news" site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Crazy world

</comment><comment><USER58> Ukraine has previously closed all airspace over the east of the country to civilian flights.

I know that lynch mobs form very quickly online, especially to attack unpopular people, but in this case, the responsibility of directing a civilian plane into closed airspace over a rebel-held region where a vicious battle with tanks, airplanes, and artillery has raged for months is shared between two parties: the Ukrainian air traffic control (the airplane crossed the length of the country before being shot down) and the pilots.

Now, these rebels may be the worst people in the world since Cain - I am not taking up the politics of this at all - but even if they did shoot this plane down, they acted reasonably given their military situation: they have no aviation of their own and they are bombed frequently by Ukrainian jets, while no civilian traffic has flown anywhere near them since April.

</comment><comment><USER59> Unrelated but relevant: TWA 800 crashed off the coast of NY on July 17, 1996, 18 years ago.

[Why the downvotes? Clearly stated _unrelated_. Just a stupid fact.]

<comment><USER60> It never ceases to surprise me how Americans can turn any international story into one about America or how it somehow links to an American event.

The TWA incident couldn't be less similar to this or have any real similarities at all. They both involve aircraft crashes, granted, but that is as far as it goes.

Oh and before you claim you weren't trying to Americanify this incident let me point out that there have been four commercial airline crashes on July 17th. TWA 800 is not even the most recent.

July 17th 2007 – TAM Airlines Flight 3054, an Airbus A320, crashes at Congonhas-São Paulo Airport, Brazil, killing all 187 people on board and 12 on the ground. Yet you bring up one from 1964, why is that?

<comment><USER61> You're an ass. Nobody is trying to "Americanify" the event. They are simply remembering another event that is linked to the current one by coincidence. The anti-American knee-jerk reaction is 10x worse than any "Americanification".

<comment><USER60> Then why didn't they bring up one of the three other events, including more recent ones? Those also share that same coincidence.

It is clear that the only point in bringing up a plane crash in the 1960s as opposed to any of the others (including more recent ones, see 2007) was to make it more relevant to Americans.

Is it really an "anti-American knee-jerk" for calling people out for clearly trying to take international events and to twist them into a discussion about your own local issues/problems/incidents? It happens all the freaking time on here, and it is often by the same nationality trying to turn everything into a "well how does this apply to America?"

Also petty name calling, really?

<comment><USER61> The TWA 800 plane crash referred to by the OC happened in 1996 (not in the 1960s). So a lot of Americans have memories of that event as well as the aftermath (which dragged on for years).

> twist them into a discussion about your own local issues/problems/incidents

Again, not really sure why this offends you so much. There may not be a lot of value in pointing out this particular coincidence, but it's certainly not intended to pull attention from the tragedy that just occurred. It's just...conversation. Isn't that why we're here on HN?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Malaysia Airlines should be shut down.

They can't keep track of their planes and can't properly investigate crashes.

Now they are sending a plane over an active war zone with air space restrictions (hint: even if its restricted to 10K, flying at 30K is not OK).

Feels like they are running a amateur shit show over there with little to no regulations.

I can picture bunch of ex-cab drivers who are no in charge of plane routing green lighting this flight in between their 100th smoke break.

<comment><USER63> Malaysia Airlines is a respected, professional airline. We have no idea what happened to either flight, and it's rather unfair to suggest Malaysia Airlines should be "shut down."

<comment><USER64> I think that's the point - nobody has any idea what happened to these two Malaysia Airlines flights and /that's/ why they should be shut down.

EDIT: to clarify, I don't believe Malaysia Airlines should be shut down, just trying to clarify OPs comment.

<comment><USER63> You believe that Malaysia Airlines should know within about 90 minutes whether one of their planes was shot down by a surface-to-air missile?

Do you believe United Airlines would know such a thing?

Air France did not know what happened to AF447 for several years until the wreckage was found.

No airlines are in a position to investigate the cause of their crashes. These tasks fall to national agencies, such as the NTSB in the United States.

Airlines neither manufacture their jets, nor have access to all the territory they fly over. They merely operate them.

Unless you can point to some exceptional flaw in the management of Malaysia Airlines, it's absurd to suggest a well-respected airline should be shut down.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


600,000 Macs Worldwide Infected by Flashback Trojan - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/05/600000-macs-worldwide-reportedly-infected-by-flashback-trojan/ <comment><USER2> Seriously? This headline is last week's news. Today's news is a third subsequent update to Java/OS X.</comment>


What does 'that = this' in JavaScript mean? - <AUTHOR> https://dbwriteups.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/what-does-that-this-in-javascript-mean/ <comment><USER2> I prefer using `self` rather than `that`, for caching `this`.

Must be because I have a strong python background, but generally I find "self" makes more sense than a wild "that"!

<comment><USER3> By using `self` you shadow a global variable which is a reference to the current context (window object) in which the code is executed.

<comment><USER4> Which should be accessed by window.self anyway so it doesn't really matter? There are so many poorly named global variables (top etc) that worrying about shadowing them seems meaningless.

<comment><USER5> It matters when you are running in workers in which case the window object does not exists

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Note: Arrow functions cannot help us when the function is defined on the object literal as it will resolve to the enclosing lexical scope, which in this case is the global scope._

This is not true. With an arrow function, the example prints "Object Name". MDN says: "An arrow function does not create its own _this_ context, so _this_ has its original meaning from the enclosing context." [1]

(The "enclosing context" in this case refers to the context in which the arrow function was created, not the context in which the function in which the arrow function was created was created.)

[1]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/Arrow_functions#No_binding_of_this)

<comment><AUTHOR>
        var name = "Global Name";
        var obj = {
            name : 'Object Name',
            printName : function() {
                setTimeout(() => {
                    console.log(this.name);
                }, 2000);
            }
        };
        obj.printName();    //prints "Object Name"
        var printNameReference = obj.printName;
        printNameReference(); //prints "Global Name"

You will see that "Global Name" will still be printed out. The reason is because arrow functions take the enclosing lexical scope, and _the arrow function to setTimeout in the example is created each time the printName function is invoked_. The printNameReference() invocation sets the scope of the printName function to global because of the way it is invoked and hence the arrow functions to setTimeout will also take this scope.

Changing the printName function itself as arrow function does not help either.

        var obj = {
            name : 'Object Name',
            printName : () => {
                setTimeout(() => {
                    console.log(this.name);
                }, 2000);
            }
        };

The above code will again set the printName function to the enclosing global scope, because that is where obj is declared.

<comment><USER7> If you add "var that = this;" to printName function the printNameReference still doesn't work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For my company, `that = this` means that your code review gets marked as "Revision required".

<comment><USER9> Same here. Bind your functions properly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Since nobody has mentioned it yet, my first introduction to that = this; was JavaScript: The Good Parts, Unearthing the Excellence in JavaScript by Douglas Crockford

Well worth a read for understanding the differences and relative powers of a prototypical language and how to get it to behave almost like a classical one. I think the one big thing it missed was immediately envoked function expressions.

[http://shop.oreilly.com/product/mobile/9780596517748.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/mobile/9780596517748.do)

</comment><comment><USER11> Title should be "var that = this".

Without "var", you're assigning to a global variable which you don't want in most cases.

<comment><USER12> I'm not a JavaScript expert so I may be wrong, but I don't think that's right is it?

If you are in a function scope (which you would be in the context of this article as we're talking about what the receiver is at different points) then variables assigned without any modifier are defined as locals, in the scope of that function. They are hoisted to the function scope, out of any block scope, unless you use 'var', but they're still locals aren't they?

<comment><USER13> No, GP is correct. If you omit the `var` (or `let`/`const` in es6) then you are implicitly assigning a property on the global object (`window` in the browser), in essence setting a global variable. Never omit `var`.

If you are in a function scope, `var` declarations are hoisted to the top of the function scope, outside of any block scope, as you described. `let` and `const` declarations from es6 are block scoped. Personally I highly recommend never using `var` and simply adopting es6 and using `let` and `const`, preferring `const`, everywhere as they have significantly simpler and more intuitive semantics.

<comment><USER14> I agree with the way you've responded. But there can be a case where omitting var on a variable definition will _not_ assign it on the global object. That is, if you hit a variable by the same name as you go up the scope stack, you will just overwrite that variable's value. Example:

      function f1(){
        var v = 'val';
        var f2 = function(){
          v = 'inner'; // will not hit global scope
        }
        f2();
        console.log(v);
      }

      f1();
      console.log(v);

output:

      val
      Uncaught ReferenceError: v is not defined

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This an ugly convention. By always using `that` you lose an opportunity to create a meaningful variable name which would be more descriptive. Why not use?

        var widget = this

Besides using more functional approach and arrow functions you can free up your code from lining methods via this keyword.

<comment><USER15> That's way more confusing. At least with `that`, you know it is pointing at the current instance. If you see `anyOtherVariableName` you have to know what it was assigned.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This a follow up post on how to replace 'that = this' assignments with arrow functions: [https://dbwriteups.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/replacing- that-t...](https://dbwriteups.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/replacing-that-this- assignments-in-javascript-with-arrow-functions/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Is it a poor pattern to use #bind a lot instead of this or that? I tend to put most of the code in procedures like functions and bind it to whatever context I need, if not the regular _this_.

<comment><USER17> If you're using React and you're not using arrow functions, then it's very common to see bind() references.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I stopped using this altogether and it makes my code better

<comment><USER19> It's absolutely useless anyway unless you're trying to slightly optimize cpu and memory usage for at least hundreds of instance creations. Typically this scenario would be found in libs, not in application code.

I completely ignore this, prototypes, classes, Function.prototype.bind, etc. Code is much cleaner and easy to follow for devs of all skill level.

Also, even if you like these features, var that = this is unneeded if you use a transpiler and have access to the more modern JS constructs like arrow functions.

<comment><USER20> How do you factor out "this" in cases where methods and instance data logically belong together?

<comment><USER19> 1) Either use a functional style like beaconstudios said where it's perfectly normal to separate the data and the processing.

2) Or if you want to keep an OO style, use the module pattern with private functions closing over the data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you have closures, you can simulate objects. In many different ways, most of them bad. If you have an interpreter with decent variable semantics, you get closures. That's how LISP did objects in the 1980s, before people knew better. Javascript somehow got it from there.

Why do we have to keep reviving the bad ideas?

<comment><USER22> > you get closures. That's how LISP did objects in the 1980s, before people > knew better

That one can use closures for objects was demonstrated with Scheme in the 70s. See for example: Scheme: An Interpreter for Extended Lambda Calculus". MIT AI Lab. AI Lab Memo AIM-349. December 1975.

[http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html](http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html)

It's also a typical topic in education to show how to use closures to implement a primitive object system, similar how one learns to 'implement' numbers in pure lambda calculus.

But actual object systems in Lisp from the 70s/80s mostly did not use closures as objects. None of LOOPS, Flavors, CLOS, KRL, KEE, FRL, ... uses closures for their implementation. Even in 'Object Lisp', which is relatively close to Javascript's objects, they don't use closures:

[http://www.unlambda.com/lispm/lmi- source/extract/dj_full/l/o...](http://www.unlambda.com/lispm/lmi- source/extract/dj_full/l/objectlisp/)

In

[http://www.unlambda.com/lispm/lmi- source/extract/dj_full/l/o...](http://www.unlambda.com/lispm/lmi- source/extract/dj_full/l/objectlisp/obj.lisp.155)

you can see that objects in Object Lisp were implemented by using structures (aka records), not closures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Despite writing ES6 with arrow functions, I find that I prefer writing `const self = this` than relying arrow-function lexical scoping. Maybe it will change over time, but for now that way seems to make he intent far clearer and less likely to mess up in a future refactoring.

<comment><USER24> To make it more clear, you can use names. For example:

      function Car() {
        const car = this;
        function foo() {
           car.engine = "v8"; // vs self.engine
        }
      }

<comment><USER25> Not much clearer, if not less.

var self = this; and var that = this; are the standard way and the intent is understood right away.

<comment><USER26> That's like, your opinion, man.

<comment><USER25> Yup. All the stuff I say is definitely my opinion.

I'm not the one who invented JavaScript or anything like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I try to omit this convention by promises or bind() when possible, but sometimes when using 3rd party libraries it's a necessary evil.

</comment><comment><USER28> Is there a single instance in real JS code where it's this binding is actually useful?

<comment><USER29> Yes - if you want to use this inside a callback within your function.

<comment><USER28> Oh, I wasnt being clear. I meant the default binding behaviour, not using .bind().

<comment><USER29> One common example would be to refer to instance properties of an object from a method that is attached to the object's prototype.

Actually I think using bind() would be a very unusual thing, but that could just be my style of writing code (I don't think I've ever used it in any code I have written over the years).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> _this_ should never be _that_ complicated.

</comment><comment><USER31> I use var _this = this

</comment><comment><USER32> Nicely done!

Thank you for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER33> It means JavaScript was a poorly designed language.

<comment><USER34> Not sure I'd go that far but it definitely has its warts, like all languages, and developers need to understand what they are.

<comment><USER33> Don't get me wrong: I love JavaScript, I write piles of it all the time, and I said "was" not "is" because it's been vastly improved since it was originally badly designed, but I still get screwed by accidentally using "this" in the wrong context.

It's such an easy accident to make, and it's so hard to see, because when you're looking at code you wrote, you see what you meant to write, instead of what's actually there. Programming languages are user interfaces, and "this" is a user interface dark pattern, an unforced design mistake that doesn't make the language any more powerful, but lays a deadly trap for beginners that also bites pros.

It's tricky to understand and hard to explain (this is actually a dynamically bound keyword, not a lexically bound variable), so it's fodder for the thousands of blog posting explaining it like the one we're discussing.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:Any site where tech startups share tech problems they faced? - <AUTHOR>

Just a random idea. I'm sure most technology startups faces some kind of technology challenges at various stages. Is there any place where they share these problems and how they solved it so that if someone faces similar problems he can use that knowledge and save time? <comment><USER2> StackOverflow is sort of that site <http://stackoverflow.com/> the guys there even post their own technical issues and most problems get a useful response</comment>


Mixergy's Interview With The Founder of SlideShare - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/rashmi-sinha-slideshare-interview/ <comment><USER2> These interviews are getting really really good. I listened to the one with Jon Staenberg the other day and found it really interesting and inspiring. Andrew really does his homework too. Jon at one point asked him if he was James Lipton.

I also think the production quality is really good on the podcasts and that's my preferred method of consumption these days.

(<http://mixergy.com/jon-staenberg-interview>)

(<http://feeds.feedburner.com/Mixergy-main-podcast>)

<comment><USER3> Thanks Andy.

The research is getting insane. The hard research is figuring out who's full of it.

I'm starting to get a lot of requests for interviews from people who pad their bios with BS. I sometimes have to hunt online for 30+ minutes to see if a potential guest is even worth inviting on.

Rashmi, of course, isn't one of those people. She has a great reputation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That was fast, glad you interviewed my "proposal". Amazing how much you can learn from a woman regarding management, they think in such way that no man can do.</comment>


How to steal from Heroku - <AUTHOR>

I love Heroku. I especially love their sign-up process (give them your email address, click a verification link and you're ready to go). No captcha. No SMS verification.
What stops someone from buying 1,000 email addresses, and hiring someone to create a 1,000 Heroku accounts? You get up to 100 MB of slug space to run code and host static content.
Does Heroku not care about this sort of malicious behavior? If so, why do they not care? <comment><USER2> Huh? You can run as many apps there for free (the app automatically shuts down when inactive. It's not stealing, it's part of their business model.

</comment><comment><USER3> Buying 1000 email addresses?? What are you in, the 90s?

Get a domain name and forward *@domain.name to yourself. Boom, infinite addresses.

Heroku doesn't care about this kind of behavior because the effects of it would be a tiny drop in their cloud.

</comment><comment><USER4> That sounds pretty inconvenient.</comment>


Blist Launches at Demo (video demo of "database for the rest of us") - <AUTHOR> http://blog.blist.com/index.php/2008/01/30/blist-demo-08-launch-video/

<comment><USER2> I was just recently casting around wondering where the heck something-like- Access was on the web and couldn't believe there was so little available. Looks neat, looking forward to trying it out.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Of course, "us" here refers to non-hackers.... Still, would be interested to hear what people think about it. I was impressed. Makes me fondly remember HyperCard.

</comment><comment><USER3> i'm very impressed with the ui,

i can't really think of a use for it in my life, but I'm not 'us', but then again even though I can use mysql, its not like I go around setting up and using databases in my personal life on the daily.

</comment><comment><USER4> dabbledb?</comment>


Ask HN: Should or shouldn't Amazon.com create a publishing company? - <AUTHOR>

In light of recent events, I can't see why they don't begin publishing. Would this make sense for Amazon? If not, what issues make it a bad move? <comment><USER2> I'm sceptical. What does Amazon know about publishing?

With the Kindle, they were already skilled at retailing and designing user interfaces.

With their cloud services, they were selling a service they had to provide for themselves anyway.

Why would an author sign to Amazon instead of an established publisher? What could Amazon do better than them?

</comment><comment><USER3> They do publish, or rather let you self publish through them. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary- page.html...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary- page.html?ie=UTF8&ld=AZFooterSelfPublish&topic=200260520)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's a long term strategy, and very much dependent on kindle market share.

It's not a move that will help the kindle in the near/mid-term future. And that's where they're focusing now.

But in the long term if the kindle becomes popular , it might be a good move.</comment>


Intel Committee Releases Declassified Snowden Report - <AUTHOR> http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=743 <comment><AUTHOR> There's no bombshell here. The section on "foreign influence" is still heavily redacted -- leaving literally just one and half sentences to read, in a sea of black. And both of the assertions it makes in those 1.5 sentences are quite vague:

 _" Snowden has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services"_ (with no specifics). Yes, there are probably plants among the various Russian nationals he deals with. So what? (They make it sound like he's holding regular briefings with these people in a mahogany-paneled room somewhere).

 _" And in June 2016, [a Russian PM] asserted that 'Snowden did share intelligence' with his government."_ (That's _not_ what the Russian PM, Frantz Klintsevich said -- and it's dishonest of the IC to assert otherwise). Also, this non-revelation was already made when the initial version of this problematic report was first published over the summer.

The overall weakness of these statements suggest that even now -- 3+ years after being stranded in Moscow, as a more or less direct result of the Obama administration's yanking his passport -- they still don't have anything to nail the guy with.

<comment><USER4> There is no chance that the Russians let him in without debriefing him.

If and what information was handed over to them is another thing.

Likely that they got the same package that the reporters got plus maybe some documents related specifically to Russia that weren't released.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can speculate about what went on after his arrival in Moscow, all you want.

The point is that the Committee's report (in its current version) provides precisely zero information about what happened.

<comment><USER5> exactly. if something had actually happend, as in they had hard evidence of a specific incident, they would broadcast that all over to prove that he is a criminal.

as far as i know, this has not happend yet.

<comment><USER6> Nor it will ever happen because he arrived in Russia without possession of any documents. They had had already been taken by Laura Poitres and Glenn Greenwald.

As many of the commentators have already stated, they should either exonerate him(not likely) or figure out a way to brand him a peadofile.

My guess is; if they were to label him outright then everybody would call the government out and they maybe put in a awkward position of vindicating him. Will be interesting to see what 2017 brings.

<comment><USER7> Not sure where you're getting that from. certainly not an official source.

[http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/ar...](http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1568673.ece)

->RUSSIA and China have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.

<comment><USER7> and for those to young to remember.

Rewson, SAFE, Waihopai, INFOSEC, ASPIC, MI6, Information Security, SAI, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Privacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, The Artful Dodger, NAIA, SAPM, ASU, ASTS, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, SAO, Reno, Compsec, JICS, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, RSP, ISS, JDF, Ermes, Passwords, NAAP, DefCon V, RSO, Hackers, Encryption, ASWS, CUN, CISU, CUSI, M.A.R.E., MARE, UFO, IFO, Pacini, Angela, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, SALDV, PEM, resta, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, SAMU, COSMOS, DATTA, Furbys, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, ram, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC,

etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If there was any reasonable evidence proving the position of the USG it would be front and center in size 50 font, underlined and bolded. This only further proves that Mr. Snowden is truly one of the great selfless heroes of the modern era. Not that they'll be reasonable and let him come home, but at least those who care enough to pay attention and think critically will know a little more of the truth. Snowden links to this well done takedown of some of the many blatant lies in this report: [https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house- intelligence-commit...](https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence- committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/)

</comment><comment><USER9> If America's adversaries benefit from Snowden's leaks that would be unfortunate, but far less of a problem than the existence of the excesses Snowden revealed.

Until the government starts to take seriously the idea that it has seriously broken trust with the American people, it's hard to take seriously any talk of the damage alleged to have happened due to Snowden's leaks.

<comment><USER10> _Until the government starts to take seriously the idea that it has seriously broken trust with the American people, it 's hard to take seriously any talk of the damage alleged to have happened due to Snowden's leaks._

Exactly this. Our government has to own up to the wrongs it has committed and take responsibility for fixing the problems that allowed those things to happen, and quit looking to make Snowden a scapegoat. Trying to handwave around the real issue and make this about Snowden is just doubling down on the same mindset that caused this trouble in the first place.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately that's not how the state thinks.

Washington knows that it has a lot of levers that it can pull to influence public opinion and narrative (just look at the poor quality and compromised character of international reporting in the US).

Snowden as a concept is a threat to Washington's legitimacy. Not only because he exposed massive illegality and wrongdoing on their part, but because if he's considered a hero then:

1\. they are the villian. That's bad for state power.

2\. it could inspire more leaks of more illegal and ethically questionable behavior. Which could start a spiral.

From a purely game theoretical point of view, Wasthington has to insist that it's the good guy in this situation and it was Snowden who was behaving irresponsibly.

Given the collective approach that the US government is known to take (e.g. it gets to write the history books that children are educated with) and the opposition to this narrative track among informed and disillusioned Americans are not collectively organized over the long arc of history probably Washington can have its way.

<comment><USER9> This is a very insightful comment, not sure why anyone would vote it down.

Indeed the wrongdoing revealed has compromised the legitimacy of the state significantly in my mind. When you combine deliberate PR/propaganda with a surveillance state the result is pretty scary.

The worst part is that our president has not even addressed the issue head on and acknowledged blatant excesses and offered reassurance that something (even in secret) is being done.

I'm sure that if I worked at the NSA I'd take it for granted at some level that the work I was doing was inherently good, and thus I'd read critiques like this thread as horribly misguided.

But there is such a thing as consent in a democracy, and while we don't have a direct democracy there are certain rights which the government is not supposed to violate under any circumstances.

<comment><USER12> Maybe it was downvoted for being "tinfoil"?

I know there are some ridiculous conspiracy theories out there, but is it too tinfoil to assume powerful actors had a hand in stigmatizing the concept of conspiracy and abuse of power in the U.S. government?

<comment><USER11> I take comments like this very seriously, having been accused of "tinfoil" when pointing to evidence of global surveillance programs (e.g. Office of Strategic Influence, Total Information Awareness, etc) before journalists broke the Snowden story.

Luckily, I think most people on Hacker News are realistic people not easy to excite into witch hunts and victim-blaming like you suggest. I think most people on Hacker News believe that the governments of Russia, France, Turkey, Germany, China, and others including the United States, manage their appearance to the publics they represent, making appeals for and finding evidence to build the case for their own legitimacy. That's not an extraordinary claim, you can find media reporting that suggests a wide range of policies and rhetoric from around the world are motivated by public appearance and appeals to legitimacy. Much of the censorship that people experience in the world is similarly motivated.

The character attacks against Snowden have evolved over time: "he didn't understand the programs / he was just a low level employee", "his girlfriend was a stripper", "he's a Russian spy", "he didn't go through the proper channels", "he just wants to be in the news", "he was a disgruntled employee".

These slanderous rumors, spread by anonymous officials and PR contracts, belie the fact that there is no desire to discuss the abuse disclosed by the whistleblowing. What anonymous officials, press offices and paid PR coverage want to talk about are rumors and opinions about Snowden's intentions - <USER2> that not only distract from the documents (which are conclusive evidence of highly illegal and unethical behavior) with inconclusive speculation but topics that have a specific effect on the public attitude and narrative understanding of the events that unfolded.

Those who think that there has to be some wide ranging conspiracy for officials to react in a self-defensive manner are unrealistic. Those who think the human nature of American officials deeply differs from Chinese officials, French officials, or Turkish officials (etc) are unrealistic and unconvincing.

So to the first question you posed: no. I have a higher opinion of Hacker News commentators than that. I don't think they are dumb or immature or unrealistic. At least, not to that extreme degree.

<comment><USER12> I didn't mean to accuse you of being "tinfoil", I'm sorry if it came across that way.

HN may be very reasonable compared to the average when it comes to Snowden and dragnet surveillance, but the existance of that surveillance has been plausible and even likely for a long time before Snowden came, and before Snowden it was considered tinfoil by most (I heard) that knew of the possibility at all.

It is now "in" or "socially acceptable" to acknowledge this possibilty now, though once you start thinking about it and try to find ways of living that reflect this knowledge (e.g. refusing to use smartphones, social media or the internet in general) you again tend to enter "considered tinfoil territory". What I'm trying to say is, I think "tinfoil" is mostly a label used to stigmatize and supress a concept or person, based on social convention or "perceived consensus" (which is manipulated by media, which are manipulated by all entities with enough power and the incentive to do so). I perceived GGP to be at risk of that and wanted to indicate that in my comment.

Kind of like how saying the Intel ME is a backdoor is viewed now (while it is literally an autonomous remote management module, that is included in almost every consumer PC and which cannot be removed or inspected).

That's why I don't trust other people's opinion on what is "tinfoil", and can be a little cynical about it.

<comment><USER11> I am 100% with you and thank you very much for your well thought out comments. I did not reply earlier because of end-of-year vacationing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Edward Snowden responds to the HPSCI report on his disclosures

[https://twitter.com/i/moments/812014048866877440](https://twitter.com/i/moments/812014048866877440)

<comment><USER14> But who will people listen to, Tupshin?

<comment><USER15> They'll listen to the "real" news, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Title may be more readable with the word "Intelligence" first, not Intel, just to avoid confusion with the company (Intel), not e.g. The Company (CIA)

<comment><USER17> Thought exactly the same!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem I have with this entire situation rests in the following timeline of events.

June 2012 at NSA Hawaii: Snowden receives a quick rebuke for roping in a deputy head of NSA's technical services directorate on an email conversation regarding a workplace spat over issues updating a few servers. Snowden does not deny that this incident occurred, and the NSA has quoted directly from the resulting reprimand showing Snowden's apologetic attitude in regard to his actions after the fact.

June or July 2012 (a few weeks later) at NSA Hawaii: "Snowden began the unauthorized, mass downloading of information from NSA networks."

December 2012 at NSA Hawaii: "Snowden attempted to contact journalist Glenn Greenwald."

January 2013 at NSA Hawaii: "[Snowden] contacted filmmaker Laura Poitras."

March 2013, James Clapper's Congressional Testimony: Snowden deems this his "breaking point" in regard to the question as to "Why he did it?" Although, as the report states, he began his mass download nearly a year prior to this event, as well as contacting both a journalist and filmmaker before even taking another NSA position as a contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton.

Nowhere has Snowden particularly refuted this timeline. He, and those journalists who support him, have only cherry picked falsehoods from the overall report alluding to the rest as merely fruit of the poisonous tree. Yet, this timeline seem quite factual and troubling.

</comment><comment><USER5> >It will take a long time to mitigate the damage he caused

I am assuming he means a long time to fix the trust btwn the US govt and people? Because I am not aware of any concrete evidence that shows damages specifically caused by the disclousres.

Pretty sure most terrosits already knew that they had to be careful with their comm. as it was most likley monitored. And the bombings in europe where not coordinated by advanced encryption, but normal social media accounts as i understand.

<comment><USER19> Due to the nature of this type of damage you likely won't hear any evidence for many years.

<comment><USER20> If they can't produce proof of damage I'm going to go ahead and assume it doesn't exist.

<comment><USER19> That's fine, you should be skeptical.

But do you really expect a nation state to say "hey, this is exactly how were are damaged. Please exploit us." That's just the nature of the intelligence business, it's hard to provide proof of damage without causing further harm.

<comment><USER21> > do you really expect a nation state to say "hey, this is exactly how were > are damaged ...

Yes, if they want any rebuttal to Snowden's accusations. Snowden brought proof. If the state wants anybody to believe an alternative explanation, they need to provide at least _some_ evidence. "Just trust us!" is not a useful defense.

> it's hard to provide proof of damage without causing further harm.

That isn't always true, but potential future harm hasn't stopped the government in the past. If revealing sensitive information is politically useful, the perceived realpolitik benefit can outweigh theoretical future harm. This is especially true in today's hypernormal "narrative based" political climate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> ""Snowden infringed the privacy of at least [redacted] NSA personnel by searching their network drives without their permission"

Wait... the NSA is complaining _their_ privacy was infringed upon because documents were searched without proper approval?

Wat?

<comment><USER23> Right! He was an NSA employee as well, so authorized to violate basic privacy. It came with the job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> These claims are extremely weak. Even taking them all at face value you get a straightforward account of a whistleblower. The only statement of harm speculates that documents that were not released got into the hands of Chinese or Russian intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER25> One of the things I'm seeing there that strikes me is the lack of criticism of using contractors in this kind of work. I'm curious as to how many off the cuff conversations about the programs weren't brought up in hearings because he was a contractor, and thus not afforded as many of the rights under whistleblower statutes that employees are afforded. His chain of command is so meandering and circuitous that it would discourage damn near anyone from reporting if the toilet was backed up, let alone real problems.

</comment><comment><USER26> Read the headline and thought "What the hell does Intel have to do with declassifying some reports!?"

</comment><comment><USER27> Snowden has done important work, but only by making an example of him will the state ensure anyone who entertains similar thoughts knows the cost of exposing wrong doing.

You essentially have to give up your life like Snowden has and for those with kids and family this might be a price too high.

The media, commentators and assorted vested interests are old hands at dismissing concerns that do not fit an agenda as 'conspiracy theories' so the importance and rarity of 'the smoking gun' that Snowden produced cannot be underestimated. And as a side effect he exposed the galling hypocrisy and pretension of Europe as the enlightened refuge for dissentors and the 'orchestration' of the global media with it.

The only way to address the fallout is 'normalization'. And it seems the narrative is the world is such a dangerous place that total surveillance is essential, never mind our security forces and foreign policy is directly involved in propping up terorrist funders and groups.

And this narrative is being expaned daily. We should realise the state is supposed to represent our interests and the only endame for such unaccountable and powerful security services is eventually our supression.

</comment><comment><USER28> The report seems to be a PDF.. that was then printed, badly scanned, and saved as a PDF again. Didn't know it was still 1995!

<comment><USER29> It's understandable as a reasonable process for redaction. If you flatten it to a pure black and white image you get something you can print (the government loves that), but not something you can easily search (good for whoever's doing the publishing), and the security step is the flattening of the mask over the data with complete overlap and uniformity.

Edit: Of course actually printing it at any point in that process IS insane/beyond paranoid.

<comment><USER30> Printing, despite being old-fashioned, is friendly with air-gapped networks. It is also very low cost compared with the cost of those investigations.

So, not so insane in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Given that we are now "friends" with Russia and Putin (according to some) I wonder what will happen to Snowden.

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting read, and sheds some more light on Snowden's motivations and attitude. I thought it quite ironic that while he complains about supposed privacy violations of Americans, he was doing the exact same thing - on a smaller scale - to his co-workers. Of most concern is the huge excess of documents exfiltrated that had nothing to do with mass surveillance.

Also interesting is how well the accounts of his work behaviour match up with these posts from an HN user earlier this year, who claimed insider knowledge: [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=buttcoin](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=buttcoin)

<comment><USER11> His actions were perfectly consistent with his attitude toward global mass surveillance.

In particular since there wasn't an individual document that stated "we are surveilling the American homeland in addition to the remainder of the innocent world", Snowden choose - I think history vindicated him in this regard - <USER3> grab many documents and let journalists choose what to publish.

I think the journalists who disclosed the documents did a wonderful job selecting what to publish directly, what to report on, and what to black hole. They chose to report on what was in the public interest.

The public interest included revelations about mass surveillance of allied nations, espionage to help American business prospects, memoranda for allies to spy on one another's citizens, backdooring and infiltrating American products and standards so that they could be military weapons overseas and a great many other things.

Another wonderful outcome of Snowden having provided a large collection of documents to journalists is that in reading them as a wholistic collection gave journalists the context to understand the motivations and methods of mass global surveillance - indeed it allowed journalists to effectively question American official denials about its behavior. America had been guessing what was taken and so it wasn't sure about what it could get away with lying about. Journalists were able to publish documents that contradicted the official narrative coming out of the White House when it tried to downplay the massive illegal and unethical apparatus.

In any case, it's wrong to abuse Snowden in this case. Journalists made the decision about what to publish. I don't remember anyone's privacy inside the agency getting ruined, but if that did happen the blame rests with the media.

<comment><USER32> I'm suspicious of his primary motivation being a distaste of global mass surveillance. This passage is especially damning:

> _Snowden would later publicly claim that his "breaking point" \- the final > impetus for his unauthorised downloads and disclosures of troves of > classified material - was March 2013 congressional testimony by Director of > National Intelligence James Clapper._

> _But only a few weeks after his conflict with NSA managers, on July 12, 2012 > - eight months before Director Clapper 's testimony - Snowden began the > unauthorized, mass downloading of information from NSA networks._

Given that Snowden claimed his motivation was seeing Clapper "lie on oath", there's some irony in seeing Snowden caught in a lie about this claim, as at that point not only had he already downloaded and exfiltrated much of what he later leaked, but had already been in contact with Greenwald and Poitras for two to three months.

<comment><USER33> I could see that in a similar manner of wanting to quit your job. You make moves so that it can happen quickly, you save up some cash, you make some calls, but you don't pull the trigger so to speak until you just can't take it anymore; something pushes you over the edge.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? I mean we now know we're being spied on either directly, or indirectly (wink wink). Data collection is spying. Metadata collection is spying. It's happening; both parties vigorously support it; and it's most likely unconstitutional. That's what matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The tone and ambiguous thought process of the press release is alarming. He was justified and has allowed for us to have a clearer conversation in regards to security. The consequence is sifting though the noise for credentials and concreteness. Glad to see that many, but not the majority, have the ability to look at all of this critically and logically.

</comment><comment><USER35> I can't help but stand this next to the Challenger Space Shuttle O-ring thread, without feeling a profound sense of resonance between these 2 scenarios.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238346](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238346)

Compare this passage:

      (U) Third, two weeks before Snowden began mass
          downloads of classified documents, he was
          reprimanded after engaging in a workplace
          spat with NSA managers. Snowden was repeatedly
          counseled by his managers regarding his behavior
          at work. For example, in June 2012, Snowden became
          involved in a fiery email argument with a
          supervisor about how computer updates should be
          managed. Snowden added an NSA senior executive
          several levels above the supervisor to the email
          thread, an action that earned him a swift
          reprimand from his contracting officer for failing
          to follow the proper protocol for raising
          grievances through the chain of command. Two weeks
          later, Snowden began his mass downloads of
          classified information from NSA networks.

Compare to:

      2) The engineers actually knew the risk (~1% chance
         of loss per launch, not specific to the o-rings,
         compared with two actual losses of the shuttle
         over ~130 missions). Management used entirely
         invented numbers for the risk which were not
         justified.

It's like, hey, Snowden _tried_ to tell them to apply their updates. He _tried_ to tell them the o-rings might blow. He _warned_ them that there was a one-in-one-hundred probability of failure.

If he didn't blow the gasket on the launchpad himself, before launch, how disasterously awful might this have _really_ been, if he had behaved like a good little cubicle drone, followed protocol, drank the Kool-Ade, and permitted this so-called "counseling" to brainwash him?

<comment><USER36> Except he didn't blow the gasket on the launchpad. He just dumped fuel everywhere and threw a match as maintenance crews and innocent civilians were standing around.

He didn't have to release all the documents in the manner he did. He could have leaked them to Krebs on Security or something else. Krebs is very trustworthy at protecting sources and data itself. Instead he just dumped it all to the world with disregard for the damage it would cause and the innocent lives it would impact.

There's a difference between drinking coolaid and realizing there's drugs in the coolaid so you blow up the entire party coolaid is served at damn the consequences to the innocent waiters and waitresses tending the party.

<comment><USER37> > Instead he just dumped it all to the world

Sure you're not thinking about someone else? Snowden gave his files to journalists, not WikiLeaks.

<comment><USER38> I see this misconception all the time -- a teacher of mine (who is generally reputable) was absolutely convinced Snowden had given the documents to Anonymous. I wonder what's caused that.

<comment><USER39> Old people aren't quite as tuned-in to the technical realities of the internet and its in-groups and out-groups.

The premise that "there is no anonymous" escapes 4 out of 5 people I talk to. It takes very careful explaining, to bring people to the understanding that their are hacking teams with names, that get away with things, and the things that those named sub-groups manage pull off are perpetrated by " _some unknown, anonymous group of people_ " until evidence demonstrates who done it.

Because of this, The Proles (people who aren't paying close attention) often confuse the premise being a simple anonymous tipster with being affiliated with the fictious premise of an organized, regimented imaginary hacking group that possesses a rightful claim to the mantle of "Anonymous" as if it were Batman.

Then media outlets exploit this cluelessness, to sell advertising, by drumming up exciting click-bait that perpetuates the false narrative that there is a movement called Anonymous, rather than the prank call it really is.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Borrow money instantly - <AUTHOR> https://www.lendup.com/

<comment><USER2> The site looks good but is this a scam? I don't know so I'm asking. How would you show that this site is serious vs the hundreds of other payday loan sites that look very scammy and fishy? Can you elaborate on the decision engine at work behind the scenes? I'd be curious to know. BTW the site looks great!

<comment><AUTHOR> I did not build this site. I came across it and I thought it was a novel idea. There are many blog sites covering this startup so I think that adds some legitimacy to it.</comment></comment>


All Your Database Are Belong to Us - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2338507

<comment><USER2> I hate to argue against someone I admire as much as Erik, but I disagree. His argument makes sense only for 'mandatory' context and rules, and that's a minority subset.

If I'm querying for the length of something, is that 18mm or 18au? Units are mandatory context for something quantitative. But the moment the context or rules become situational (which ends up being a large amount of the time), the problem of using objects in this space means forcing context and rules which don't apply. And then you have something either useless or less effective.

The future, instead, is to model the context and rules as you do the data. Users can then simply query how much they want/need of the former.</comment>


Put Down the Phone and Step Away - <AUTHOR> http://benbobsworld.blogspot.com/2016/06/put-down-phone-and-step-away.html <comment><USER2> I'm guilty of this. I was in a 1.5 hour meeting that started out relevant, but then the conversation devolved into tons of specifics on how the reports were gathered and created, and I went straight to the phone.

It seems the greatest burden on the organizer is the same as a presenter: how do you present the information in an impactful, terse way with the least "noise" so that attendees are inclined not to seek distractions?

One thing I know for sure, sitting on a single slide for 5 full minutes _feels_ like a slog.</comment>


3DBin App Now Live on iTunes - <AUTHOR>

You can now create an interactive photo of any item using 3DBinApp. The app facilitates 360 degree photography from iOS devices. Check it out: http://bit.ly/1yf9BmH <comment><USER2> Awesome! We can do 3D selfless now!</comment>


Former opioids users swear by natural drug Kratom as alternative for pain - <AUTHOR> https://fox17.com/news/addicted/some-former-opioids-users-swear-by-natural-drug-kratom-as-alternative-for-pain-treatment <comment><USER2> Surely any substance that is a substitute for opioids and reduces the anguish of opiod addiction, is itself an opioid, and addictive?</comment>


EASA Insists on Testing Boeing 737 Max Itself Before Lifting Ban - <AUTHOR> https://simpleflying.com/easa-737-max-test/ <comment> cadence- Americans have been dismantling and weakening their regulatory bodies for quite a while now. The idea is that this will unshackle big corporations and allow them to innovate faster. This sounds like a great idea, until you realize that this "innovation" is most often about increasing profits. And the quality of the product is often sacrificed to increase profits. Just look at what is happening to telecommunication services, with big corporations growing their profits while Americans get stuck with slow and expensive service that becomes relatively worse comparing to other western countries.

Lack of proper regulation (or enforcement) might lead to short-term gains in some economic indicators, but in the long term will lead to worse quality, relative decline of America comparing to other countries, and sometimes -like in this case- avoidable deaths of hundreds of innocent people.

<comment><USER2> This is a common misunderstanding I see repeated a lot. The idea isn't unshackling big corporations, it's about unshackling small to medium sized businesses and entrepreneurs. Big corps actually love regulations for the barriers to entry they create, and most of them already have a whole host of regulatory compliance teams armed and ready to dissect the next big regulation that comes.

> Americans get stuck with slow and expensive service that becomes relatively > worse comparing to other western countries.

Internet speeds in most suburban, and urban locations in the US have dramatically increased as of late due to increased threat of competition (namely Google Fiber, which prompted AT&T to start heavily developing Fiber, which prompted the Spectrums of the world to increase speeds) and could be further accelerated by deregulation. Regulations are actually the primary reason that keeps cable companies in their monopolistic/oligarlistic positions.

As far as I am aware, the only western countries that have surpassed the US in internet speeds and stability for the majority of its populace are actually east, in countries like S.Korea and Japan.

Interestingly enough, Japan is mostly voluntarily self regulated.

<comment><USER3> So, on the high end, the US is fine, and thus is does fairly well on mean speeds (top 10 on some metrics). However, if your internet in the US is bad, it's often really, _really_ bad. In areas without competition, providers still sometimes use ADSL1! (Max 8 down, <1 up, if you're lucky).

In general, the tendency in most European countries has been to force wholesaling and/or LLU, and set minimum standards for both; this has generally at least wiped out ADSL1. The FCC is somewhat lighter touch.

<comment><USER4> well is ADSL1 that bad? in most cases (non video on demand) bandwidth is never the problem. no matter how good your bandwidth is as soon as the latency is bad, it won't get better.

<comment><USER5> There are times when my mobile speeds degrade to around 1-2Mbps (typical ADSL1 sync speeds), with variable latency depending on how much throughput is being used (typical ADSL1 experience). Webpages (being the insanely bloated things that they are today) stop loading at that point, and I have to wait for my phone to sync to a different tower. This often happens during my commute when I hit congested towers. It's annoying that the experience on a 56k dialup connection in 1999 was better than it is on a 4G mobile phone in 2019.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's important to understand that the main threat to both agency from this issue is very different.

The threat to the FAA is external, they risk losing their worldwide stamp "if we validate it then the rest of the world do". That means the long term damage they risk is much bigger, but the short term and political one is non existent, they just need to convince everyone that nothing happened and they're back at their game. For the FAA either nothing change or they lose some standing and power, there is no path where they come out better than before.

The EASA complaints are internal, each country and the remnants of their own agency blaming them for accepting the plane validation from the FAA when it's clear they shouldn't have. Short term they look stupid, but either they go back to the old position like nothing happened, or they make themselves more powerful and independent compared to the FAA on such issue, possibly getting other countries outside EU/USA to listen to them as much if not more than to the FAA.

Up until now the word of the FAA may as well have been the word of god in that field, they risk losing it, and the EASA is in a good place to get a good piece of it.

So the FAA needs to downplay it as much as possible, and the EASA needs to instead make it into as much of a big deal as possible. Of course the EASA is very much helped by the fact that it was indeed a totally avoidable yet complete failure and disaster that, from a regulatory perspective, can be entirely pinned down on the FAA.

All they need to do is point at the fact unaltered, and say "the only way we can stop that from happening again is if you agree to give us authority to check all the plane ourselves without automatically accepting the FAA approval".

I just hope it will give us better oversight, Boeing, Airbus, newcomers from China etc ... We can't afford so many death for such stupid reasons. The max fiasco is really an insult to the entire industry, and I'm sure many "older" people in Boeing feel ashamed of how far their company has fallen.

<comment><USER7> Trump attempted to nominate his personal pilot to run FAA. When it did not go trough, FAA was run by acting director until this July.

Trump government seems to sell influence in government organizations to companies they are supposed to oversee, so I don't know if Stephen Dickson is step for better or worse.

<comment><USER6> When the FAA asked for a software fix after they decided there was an issue after the first crash they came to an agreement with Boeing for a January deadline. Boeing didn't deliver, the FAA didn't do anything. In March the second crash happened. This alone is horrible to think about.

<comment><USER8> Or the fact that Boeing determined that the lack of a functioning AOA Disagree (by mistake, it was only operational for customers that have the AOA indicator) did not constitute a safety issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think this isn't just a test of Boeing, it's a test of the FAA. If the EASA finds issues that the FAA didn't (either because they were missed, or not brought up), that'll hurt the FAA's reputation even more.

<comment><USER6> If the EASA finds real major issue that the FAA didn't find then the FAA being the world validation office for Boeing planes is over.

But I don't think this will happen, the FAA seem to have realized how angry the rest of the world agencies are. 350 dead because they screwed up, and their first reaction was to say it was the dead pilots fault...

<comment><USER10> The era of American exceptionalism is coming to an end and Americans are screeching from the pain. As technology leader and economic powerhouse, the US has left its cultural, political and financial footprint in Europe in the past decades but the extent of that influence is now downgraded. And the reason is inner decay.

When the wall came down in Eastern Germany, we tuned into Knight Rider and MacGyver. The A-Team and the Power Rangers were on and life seemed to change for the better as the German East experienced American liberalism after decades of authoritarianist socialism.

I glorified America growing up and as a 11 year old. In 2000, I was more excited to see the Statue of Liberty the first time than for any Christmas before. Nothing came close to seeing the city of my childhood heroes (the Ghostbusters) and seeing WTC/Empire State when driving in from JFK.

But 9/11 happened and somehow America sold its soul. Not that Gulf War or Vietnam didn't happen, but it changed everything about the tiny bits of the _amazing_ USA that I had always imagined. Post-9/11 I ended up living for nearly 6 years in the US and all the problems became apparent to me as a growing teenager. America was not nearly as great as propaganda made it out to be.

Back home in Europe, I never once worried about health. Going to the doc was normal and expected. Emergency procedures were performed without a second thought to cost. In the US, I was billed $800 for 3 stitches when I cut my thumb (deeply) and I got lucky because university ambulance transported me.

In Europe, in my hometown of around 1 million people, I got into problems with bullies and ran into thieves/thugs and it definitely sucked.

But in the US, I experienced muggings at gun point, one mass shooting (~13 dead), one fatal stabbing on campus, one robbery in my SO's home, arson in the house across my street and one meth lab explosion... it felt absolutely surreal (happened all in Binghamton, NY - not really a prime example of a blossoming economy, I know).

In classes, people were overtly concerned with political correctness and yelled at Middle Eastern history professors for using specific "offending" terms. Also, excluding God from the evolutions lecture was a highlight. Every single international student felt cringe and embarrassment when that Midwestern girl yelled at 300 people that evolution is just a theory and intelligent design ought to be taught with as much dedication and she feels offended.

Personally, America often felt like it was run by corrupt cronies who torpedoed education where ever possible. College is a for-profit business rather than an investment into the next generation of citizens. It felt so weird and I think the social cracks that were apparent 15 years ago are now leading to structural failure in society.

There are many smart and capable people in the US. Whether they did amazing stuff for their local hospital, took part in the Apollo program or engineered comms for Lockheed Martin. I met so many amazing folks. I hope that their rational influence can be stronger again.

Now I will go back and concern myself with Europe's own massive problems. I carry the US in my heart, as I lived there for half a decade. I hope that the country is in a local minimum right now and that the path out is already in view.

<comment><USER11> > In the US, I was billed $800 for 3 stitches when I cut my thumb (deeply) and > I got lucky because university ambulance transported me.

I was billed about that much, also in "Europe", when an ambulance was called, no treatment was performed on me, and I wasn't even transported by the ambulance. This was in Switzerland despite having health insurance. There's no general European health insurance system.

<comment><USER12> Switzerland is not part of the EU, so different rules apply. As far as I know, a EU health insurance would have covered you (retroactively; as in: pay $800 and send the invoice + proof of payment to your insurance and you'd get reimbursed), but when traveling outside the EU it is always a good Idea to carry a travel health insurance with you that covers these.

<comment><USER11> I think you may have misunderstood. I'm talking about having Swiss health insurance in Switzerland. The standards for health insurance and cost for treatment in "Europe" are not always lower than in the US as the parent commenter implied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is excellent news. The FAA has lots its credibility by rubber-stamping whatever Boeing said in recent years. This will both mean an independent review (and re-certification of what is a effectively different airplane) and additional pressure on the FAA to actually do its job.

<comment><USER14> Not recent years. Decades. FAA has been under regulatory capture by Boeing for decades.

The world ignoring anything the FAA has to say about anything is a stance that's long overdue.

<comment><USER11> > FAA has been under regulatory capture by Boeing for decades.

> The world ignoring anything the FAA has to say about anything is a stance > that's long overdue.

I don't see how the second part follows from the first. Can you elaborate on how regulatory capture by Boeing affects FAA regulations on everything they do?

<comment><USER15> If, due to regulatory capture, the FAA has been wrongly approving Boeing designs, the rest of the world is wise not to blindly accept FAA approval.

Of course, outside of the specific domain of approving Boeing designs, if the FAA says something _isn 't_ safe, or produces a report on a crash or suchlike, the world may want to pay heed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good. The FAA should have realized their insistence that the 737 Max was safe to fly despite evidence otherwise was likely to shake both confidence and respect for them as a regulatory body. It shouldn't have taken the intervention of the President for them to do their job.

Time for them to reap what they've sown.

<comment><USER17> > It shouldn't have taken the intervention of the President for them to do > their job.

That's your takeaway of what happened?

My takeaway is that the president 'intervened' only after it was clear that the combined Boeing/FAA/US position became untenable after _other_ regions local air authorities and airlines declared the plane unfit to fly.

Trump threw the FAA under the bus to make himself look good, but the weeks before he was pressuring them to keep the planes flying on behalf of Boeing.

[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/surprise-trump- kept-...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/surprise-trump-kept-737-max- jets-flying-after-personal-call-from-boeing-ceo)

<comment><USER6> Agreed, they didn't do it when the risk became clear, they didn't do it after several big European countries banned it, they only changed their position once the ban was moved at the entire EU level. By that point they were getting their thunder stolen by the EASA and it felt protecting themselves was a much bigger motivation than protecting the passengers for who they actually work for.

<comment><USER18> I wonder how much pressure airline companies put on FAA to ground the plane as I remember people getting very concerned about flying on that plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The EASA says there is "still no appropriate response to Angle of Attack integrity issues."

I can't believe they haven't got a plan yet!

<comment><USER20> I wish we had a graph of their attrition rate since the incidents occurred

<comment><USER21> Whose attrition rate? The EASA? Boeing?

<comment><USER22> Boeing I guess, maybe FAA. Why would ESA loose people from this?

<comment><USER23> EASA rubber stamping the FAA's rubber stamping of Boeing is still EASA making a mistake just as much as it's the FAA's mistake. This has become a major public issue, bet the problems started when the aircraft entered service.

<comment><USER24> It's nowhere near as big of a mistake on the EASA's part. You don't understand how international regulatory and standards bodies interact with each other.

There are explicit agreements between the EASA and FAA in order to reduce duplicated work ([https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965](https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965))

This is extremely bad. It it will be bad for any US regulated product used in EU markets like food, medical devices and equipment, pharmaceuticals, among others.

<comment><USER23> These agreements don't require EASA to accept everything FAA does.

From your link: _each entity performs a "validation" of certification activities._

<comment><USER24> Do you know what validation means in that context? Not to be glib, but "validation" and "verification" and "certification" are not common language in those contexts and have fairly precise meanings. It does not mean they will perform the test again, and in practice probably means they will review the activities in the certification with the assumption that "qualified persons" planned and conducted it. Essentially, an agreement that the FAA was competent and trustworthy with minimal checks to ensure that was the case. That has actually been historically very reasonable and sensible, and this is a rebuke to the FAA from the EASA. It will raise costs and time for US airframes to get to EU markets, which essentially means globally.

edit: not precisely my area of expertise, so corrections welcomed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is the long term cost of the defunding of the FAA and delegation of certifying a company's aircraft to that company. As we move forward fewer and fewer other countries will feel that deferring to US agencies is the wrong call and will move to (in this case) EASA.

I wouldn't be surprised if more and more other countries start looking into approvals from US agencies, and investigating how independent those agencies actually are :-/

<comment><USER17> It is more that this was the cost of failing to operate the FAA as an independent entity, but to get it to rubberstamp Boeing's airworthyness on behalf of Trump after it was clear that there were issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how much Boeing's strategy to reduce regulatory oversight as much as possible is going to cost Boeing shareholders going forward.

Share price may have benefited for a few decades, but Boeing's image will be tarred with this for quite a few decades with far higher certification costs _worldwide_ in numerous jurisdictions. There are many potential jurisdictions [1] looking out for their own interests, and may choose to defensively force a certification on Boeing instead of trusting the FAA.

That will cost Boeing a lot of money. If the 737 line is continued at all, every single 737 variant that comes out after this will have a really steep hill of sales objections to climb, and they'll be handing out steeper discounts and lower profits to counter those objections. It may turn out that accepting an adversarial relationship with the FAA instead of lobbying to co- opt it was the optimal profit strategy in the long-term.

If it pans out this way, then the optimal profit strategy is to encourage the most stringent regulatory regime in the corporation's home country that all others hold up as the gold standard and follow without question. This avoids the multiple costs individual certification efforts rack up because no one can trust each others' certification results because they all recognize they're too weakened by industrial lobbying efforts.

A strong, quasi-centralized regulatory body then acts as the company's buffer to buy the benefit of the doubt, an insurance policy against a prolonged period when the company's culture is called into question.

[1] [http://www.dgca.nic.in/Global_Links.pdf](http://www.dgca.nic.in/Global_Links.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER27> Frankly, this is good IMO. It should also go in reverse. The FAA should have to independently certify Airbus/Embraer too.

<comment><USER28> You got downvoted heavily, I suspect, because you left out the _reasoning_ behind your statement.

Do you think it should be the other way around in tit-for-tat political reasons? Or because "Many eyes makes all bugs shallow" or some other reason?

<comment><USER27> Good point. Completely for many eyes reasons. Nearly everything in a plane has a backup. Why not do 2 independent analyses of the systems?

The timeline for a new plane is already measured in years. Another 6 months can't be that bad, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why wouldn't they? The FAA has lost its credibility and can now be considered a subsidiary of Boeing.

<comment><USER30> This is unfortunately accurate.

And has been for more or less 20 years.

<comment><USER29> Yes, the upside of the terrible MAX crashes is that it was a good alert that the FAA is not trustworthy. Without them, we might have been relying on a smoke detector with a dead battery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> People may not realise that Boeing was depending on a October return to service for the 737. If that doesn't happen it has to shut down it's production line and that's going to be expensive. They had put a lot of pressure on the FAA to quickly approve their latest changes.

</comment><comment><USER32> Having to satisfy EASA as well as the FAA is big enough a threat that it might actually be the stick to get Boeing to back off on its regulation-busting behavior.

On the other hand, can we expect US trade sanctions against the EU in response to this move?

</comment><comment><USER33> As a matter of interest, does the FAA accept EASA's certification of Airbus planes? I foresee a possible tit for tat.

<comment><USER18> I think this should not matter. The primary objective is safety.

<comment><USER33> It should. I could see an embarrassed FAA opting to drop reciprocity to try and avoid looking (so) bad.

<comment><USER34> That would make the FAA look bitter and petty in addition to incompetent, it would trumpet their embarrassment and make them look worse than they already do, not avoid it or hide it. But in the long term, agency politics aside, it would be better for all of us if these agencies did independent reviews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Makes sense given FAA recent history

</comment><comment><USER36> EASA budget for 2018 was only 161 million Euros:

[https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/the- agency](https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/the-agency)

OP offers no hint just how such great additional effort is to be paid for.

<comment><USER37> The FAA and EASA have very different operating models, so budgets are not comparable. FAA certification efforts are tax-payer funded, whereas EASA's efforts are funded by industry in a pay-for-service model.

<comment><USER38> Regulators paid by the industry they regulate is the most obvious of perverted incentives that I can think of.

Air transport safety supervision and regulation should be paid for by those using it, ie by taxes on the end user.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How are you using React server-side rendering? - <AUTHOR> My app (http://www.escherpad.com) is using angular, and I have decided that I'm going to rewrite it in angular2 after research both react and angular2. The reason I want server-side rendering is for SEO, because I want to serve these collaboratively editable documents as blog posts. My friend at a large startup mentioned that they are using react for quite a few projects so I want to ask here:<p>"are you using react in a project with server-side rendering? and how are you using it?"<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> Yes. Using it on several sites to serve a whole page instead of an empty frame. It's a big help for search engine crawlers, page caching, and javascript-adverse users. For highly interactive uses (as I assume a collaborative document editor would be) it is still useful as React can bootstrap its initial state on top of this pre-rendered HTML.</comment>