Iran plans to unplug the Internet, launch its own "clean" alternative - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/iran-plans-to-unplug-the-internet-launch-its-own-clean-alternative.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29 <comment><USER3> There is a bitter irony in how the technology that was supposed to bring us to a Friedmanite border-less world is also propelling us towards an Orwellian one where the power brokers can achieve omnipotence and force projection without, eventually, requiring the buy-in of a single human being.

The problem is that techno-authoritarian systems, e.g. what N Korea is approaching, are very stable once properly assembled. The "human" regimes, i.e. liberal democracies, have to constantly fight against slipping into that horror. We need to find a way to change this equation because it asymptotically solves for a very dark future. From a systems theory perspective, the solution is ironically a random and sufficiently destructive agent - a joker.

<comment><USER4> > There is a bitter irony in how the technology that was supposed to bring us > to a Friedmanite border-less world is also propelling us towards an > Orwellian one where the power brokers can achieve omnipotence and force > projection without, eventually, requiring the buy-in of a single human > being.

I disagree with this. You are still free not to use technology even in an "Orwellian regime". The Internet hasn't made things worse. Would you rather live in a country with no Internet at all or a country with their own Internet?

<comment><USER3> The same network technology that makes the internet and applications on it possible enable mass surveillance, the intelligent processing of that data, and efficient execution on it as well. It isn't an either or question but an and one.

Thus, it isn't that one can choose not to use technology and thus avoid its Orwellian repercussions as much as the existence of the choice in the first place implies both use cases (promoting freedom/connectivity and facilitating surveillance/oppression) exist. Your decision to participate or abstain has little bearing on an ambitious dictator's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. This is kind of like "The Truman Show" in a way. Imagine, being born there now, and your whole life you "access the Internet", without even realizing it's not actually the Internet.

Truly warped.

<comment><USER6> How do I know if _I'm_ using the Real Internet even now??

<comment><USER7> What government would let a social news website through?

<comment><USER8> Oh that's easy. Every social news site has a groupthink--if it doesn't have one naturally, crowdsourced moderation, i.e. upvotes and downvotes, will end up creating it. You just set things up so the groupthink either agrees with The Agenda or gets angry at issues that don't impact the ruling party's agenda. Then you have the illusion of free speech and democracy without any actual risk to the power structure.

For instance, people on HN seem to get really worked up about the TSA, sexism in the tech industry, the war on drugs, and the privacy implications of Facebook and Google. If you were trying to protect a totalitarian state, do you really think any of those would be part of the agenda? Things like the TSA and war on drugs could be deliberately bad policy designed to distract the easily outraged. As for Facebook and Google, the worst thing they're going to do with your personal information is target advertisements at you. A totalitarian state would probably just build a system like Echelon.

<comment><USER9> _As for Facebook and Google, the worst thing they're going to do with your personal information is target advertisements at you._

Sure, I bet _that_ is what everyone is complaining about. It certainly can't be about the possibility of your private information ending up in hands that could do you harm with it, right? I mean, who in their right mind would be afraid of how a bank or an employer or a court or a government agency might use some innocuous bit of information they thought was private? After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of...

<comment><USER10> Facebook and google are opt-in. You can stop using them anytime you want (use ddg instead of google). You can't decide which country you born in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh God, and what're they gonna do next, build their own microprocessors? Let's be real, they're going to become the next North Korea if this and their other isolationism plans succeed...

<comment><USER12> No, next they'll build nukes and ballistic missiles. Not just for isolationism but for attacking their neighbors and manipulating world's oil supply.

It is hard to see how a war with Iran can be avoided.

EDIT: Anyone who is downvoting, please post an actual _reasoned_ response on what exactly you disagree with.

<comment><USER13> For one thing, the regime has been a fairly rational actor that does what's necessary to stay in power. You need to look at what they _do_ , rather than what they _say_ , which often has more to do with domestic politics.

There's no doubt that actually launching a nuclear first strike would be the end of the regime, and they know it. But they still quite rationally want a nuclear deterrent so they can achieve a balance of power with Israel and insurance against an American invasion.

So war is not a foregone conclusion, even _if_ they really manage to build a nuclear weapon, and _if_ they could credibly threaten to deliver it, which is much harder and not at all certain.

Consider that a nation like China values stability and plays for the long term, and yet they've been willing to continue backing Iran. Clearly China has evaluated the Iranian regime and decided it's stable enough to rely on. My money is on China knowing what they're doing.

The push for war has everything to do with the US and Israel wanting to maintain overwhelming military dominance. Iran is not a realistic threat to the existence of Israel or US security. But it's a threat to American regional hegemony.

<comment><USER8> > But they still quite rationally want a nuclear deterrent so they can achieve > a balance of power with Israel and insurance against an American invasion.

Israel is no threat to Iran. The worst they could do is make limited air raids, and the only interest they'd have in _that_ would be to destroy their nuclear program. So the Iranian nuclear program only increases the risk of Israeli action.

As for the US, there's no rational risk of US action if they don't develop nuclear weapons. Iraq is no precedent, if only because Iraq was already in an untenable situation with the economic and military sanctions, and the last thing you do if you want to become Iraq is give the rest of the world a reason to impose sanctions. Developing nuclear weapons and violating human rights are both fantastic ways to get sanctions imposed.

Of course, these arguments are a bit wounding to the national pride, but you're saying Iran is acting _rationally_ , not pridefully.

> Consider that a nation like China values stability and plays for the long > term, and yet they've been willing to continue backing Iran. Clearly China > has evaluated the Iranian regime and decided it's stable enough to rely on. > My money is on China knowing what they're doing.

By that logic, North Korea is a stable and reliable regime. There's something more going on here. Charitably speaking, maybe China thinks they can keep some control over Iran, the same way they have some control over North Korea, by fostering dependence.

<comment><USER14> It's a power play between east and west. China uses Iran and N.Korea as a leverage against the west. Russia does something similar with Syria.

It's got nothing to do with Iran, N.Korea or even Israel ultimately. It's certainly got nothing to do with human rights (if so, why hasn't NATO invaded Darfur?) I'm going to stop now because this is becoming too political.

<comment><USER8> I didn't say human rights were a sincere motivation, just that they're a useful pretext, one of the cards on the table that one could play. Largely I think you're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The title here slants the discussion somewhat. Reporters without borders presented it this way in their 2012 report;

"Several times in 2011, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, true to his nationalist policies, announced the creation of a national Web, a "clean" version of the Internet with its own search engine and messaging service. This may mean two different types of access, one for the authorities and another for the rest of the population"

To me that implies stricter use of firewalls and launching national services for search and email. That's somewhat different to re-inventing the Internet, which I feel the title here implies.

<comment><USER10> (I live in Iran an know quite a lot about this "national" Internet thing. Also check out this other submission: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3432816>)

I haven't read this article yet, but believe me, they _want_ to shut down Internet badly. They've been planning (and building the infrastructure and testing it) for the past three years.

But you're quite right, they can't shut down the Internet completely, it will be there. But, the "national" Internet will be faster, and all official websites (news agencies, banks, etc.) will be forced to support it. I'm sure you won't believe it, but right now there's a cap for Internet access speed in Iran (128 Kbps: 128 Kilobits per second, or 16 KiloBytes per second). If you're a student or you can make a _reasonable_ argument, you can go as high as 1 MBps (and an unmetered 1Mbps access costs about 130 dollars per month, so for most people it doesn't worth it). Now, imagine a cheap, 7 Mbps "national" Internet for everyone. _The Internet_ can't compete with this new intranet...

[Edit] fix typo

<comment> mike-cardwell "128 KiloBytes" per second is a 1Mbit connection... That's more than enough for most people unless you're a heavy video user. I think mine is about 8Mbit, but I doubt I'd notice if it dropped to 1Mbit.

I'm not arguing for the cap. I'm just confused that you think a 1Mbit connection is somehow comically slow?

<comment><USER10> Sorry. I don't know how I made that mistake... I meant 128 Kilobits per second (16 KiloBytes per second). The best you can get is 1 Megabits per second (128 KiloBytes per second).

I have a 256 Kbps connection. It's really, really slow. It took me 2 days to download OS X Lion from Mac App Store (about 3.5 GB).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very unlikely they would cut themselves off entirely. No email to or from Iran seems self defeating. I suppose they won't outsource censoring to the West. ;)

</comment><comment><USER17> 'The organization says that the system "consists of an Intranet designed ultimately to replace the international Internet and to discriminate between ordinary citizens and the 'elite' (banks, ministries and big companies), which will continue to have access to the international Internet."'

As long as those with power are not willing to give up their own access to the internet, hackers will find a way to break the system.

<comment><USER18> If only hackers can break the system, they won. See my other comment here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3821517>

This is not about how easy is for hackers to circumvent the system, this is about how effective is the system in stopping information flow for the masses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Watch out for western governments/corporations that may want to "borrow" those kind of ideas.

</comment><comment><USER20> Good luck with that: the great firewall of China doesn't works, you don't need to be a hacker to punch a hole through that POS system and the Iranians don't even have the manpower to make a firewall like that so whatever they do will be even lamer and full of holes.

Besides there's the social factor: the Chinese are cool with their government for now because despite all the crap you hear they are still much better off than 20 or 30 years ago. Iran on the other hand is doing like shit, the embargo has destroyed their economy and the people has already revolted before, and the ayatollahs are scared shitless about the Arab Spring.

This might be the last straw...

<comment><USER18> But the great firewall of China works so well. Yes, it's trivially circumvented by anyone who knows how things works, but the vast majority of Chinese people don't fall in that category.

The purpose of these systems is to keep the general population in the dark, it's not targeted at knowledgeable intellectuals. You can't keep them in the dark anyway and they already know. It's only point is to stop knowledge dissipating to the masses.

<comment><USER21> I have a Chinese friend who is an average computer user, and knows about proxies that can bypass the firewall. I'd argue that the majority, especially young people, know how to bypass it whether they are hackers or your average computer user.

<comment><USER22> If a chinese has a foreign friend and is able to communicate with you in English, then he/she is no where near average. He/she is probably an average among the middle or upper middle class, but definitely not an average among all chinese. However the bigger problem in China is not that they don't know how to bypass the firewall but that most people simply don't have the motivation to do so even if they know. The chinese version (copycat) like Baidu(google), Weibo(twitter) or youku (youtube) etc is simply good enough or better for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> such a wonderful country and great people, but government of crackpot thieving crooked perverts

<comment><USER24> clearly the U.S. centric propaganda has gotten to you. which 1st world government isn't filled with crackpot thieving crooked perverts?

<comment><USER25> Most of them.

Power may be corrupting some of those who manage to get to the top, and some of those who get a majority of votes may not be the brightest, but most 1st world gov'ts are pretty honest. Not only because we have free media that is watching every step these people do and will make them resign at the smallest mistake.

But, if you think that "they" are that bad, then you can just become one of "them" and do it better. I would recommend your local Pirate Party to start.

<comment><USER26> > _most 1st world gov'ts are pretty honest_

This is true, in the same way that I'd be honest if you were to ask me a simple yes/no question, and I responded with a page-long expression that took a day to evaluate to the actual answer. Which is why ...

> _you can just become one of "them" and do it better_

... is doomed to fail. The problem isn't morals, it's unbounded complexity. People are just the substrate that the bureaucracy runs on. Feeding it ever- more people and resources (exponential technological growth) only compounds the fundamental problem - when something is not understandable, it's completely unaccountable.

<comment><USER25> Read this and you'll stop being pessimistic :)

[http://falkvinge.net/2012/04/09/we-are-winning-how-pirate- pa...](http://falkvinge.net/2012/04/09/we-are-winning-how-pirate-parties-are- changing-the-world/)

It's only 5 years since the Pirate Parties started (first in Sweden), and it looks pretty good (in Germany they have now double diggits in the polls). Another 5 years and Pirates will be part of the gov't of several EU countries, I would guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For the love of IETF please just call it Intranet.

<comment><USER28> Iranet, or the Intehranet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Good. Let them blackhole themselves.

This will obviously just motivate brilliant hackers to find brilliant ways around brilliantly moronic "policy."

<comment><USER30> If they're physically removing access to the Internet, the only way around it would be to physically restore access, which isn't exactly a matter of breaking through some firewalls or firing up Tor.

The only realistic way I could see this working on a large scale is a very wealthy, motivated, and low-profile hacker somehow managing to string in fiber across the border from neighbouring countries, set up multiple wireless access points, and get a mesh network going across the country.

On a small scale (say, for a hacker and his buddies or an underground resistance force), I suppose you'd only need to get a decent wireless-N access point near the border (in Turkey, perhaps?) broadcasting a WPA-encrypted hidden network, then have specific people in strategic locations running cheap wireless-N routers configured with Tomato or DD-WRT to act as repeaters. Obviously this isn't foolproof (hidden networks are easy to find if you're looking for them), it would be easy to cut off if it were discovered, and it would be slow as balls, but if you could manage to get a large enough chain going everywhere it needed to be, and its use were coordinated well enough to ensure that it would only be used in urgent situations (and only through Tor), then it could prove to be an invaluable resource.

But yeah, Iran's people need another revolution, fast.

<comment><USER3> » _The only realistic way I could see this working is....stringing fibre across the border_

Or satellite Internet.

<comment><USER31> Dialup, unless voice lines are dead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If it succeeds, governments everywhere will be lining up to license the technology.

</comment><comment><USER7> If they were to go through with this, it would mean the end of economic growth, trade, and commerce with the rest of the world. It would be very hard if not impossible to transfer any large sum of money for trade purposes, unless they intend on giving merchants the ability to use the internet exclusively for payments.

In reality though, a modern business is dead on arrival if they can't outside of the country for customers.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's April's fool (Doroogh-e Sizdah in Iran).

</comment><comment><USER34> The Internet, as it currently is, needs to die. Just put a bullet in it's head an move on. It was a great starting point, but it's all monkey patches and quick 'fixes'; ala https, dns, et al.

I auctually wanted SOPA to pass. Maybe it will get people thinking.

</comment><comment><USER35> Same thing North Korea's done. They have a nationwide intranet where some organisations such as universities can request content from the Internet to be downloaded onto it.

</comment><comment><USER36> It seems weird to me that the Iran-linked Hezbollah organization is renowned for its technological savvy, yet their allged paymasters are Iran.

<comment><USER37> Just because they cut off the general public, doesn't mean their governments and/or covert ops units won't have access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> A terrible blow for freedom in an already oppressive regime.

Does this mean their public IPs go back into circulation?

</comment><comment><USER39> What if we had lots of such parallel "internets" that are all accessible from around the world. That lets the user choose which "internet" to connect to.

Something that can reduce the ICANN and the US control over the current network. After all, competition is always good.

We now have such underground networks that is piggybacking on the existing internet.

<comment><USER11> But you're pretty much describing the Internet as it is now :-)... Each country having their own Internet separate from the rest of the world is counter-productive - I remember Russia wanted to introduce their own domain names in cyrillic and create some sort of Russian-only net a decade ago - <USER2> idea wasn't very popular with the people...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Will not happen. It would just make more people in Iran to become active in the oposition.

<comment><USER10> You have a rational mind, but my country isn't run by rational people...

<comment><USER25> What they say publicly may not sound rational, but its pretty rare that somebody just ends up in the driving seat by chance.

<comment><USER10> Hundreds of billions of Oil dollars helps too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> another North Korea?

</comment><comment><USER41> "launch its own "clean" alternative"

If I lived in Iran I don't think I would be renewing my ISP plan any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER42> errr did anyone forget that our perfect western world is doing the exact same thing? sigh

why do all the dumb nerds on here think they can comment on things they have absolutely no idea about either. regardless of how little wisdom most of you have, you don't even know the facts.

also leave iran alone you monsters

<comment><USER21> Very constructive argument that told both sides and explained points very well, really got me thinking, thank you. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Now how could Iranian play Diablo III?

<comment><USER44> I'm quite sure this won't be their greatest concern.</comment></comment>


Sliding right into disaster: Left-to-right sliding windows leak [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/627.pdf <comment><USER2> So 1024 bit RSA is cracked, good things most standards moved to 2k bit awhile back. SSH no longer allows 1kbit DSA keys in most distros. Pretty sure 1k bit certificates are deprecated these days.

</comment><comment><USER3> Regarding crypto. I was expecting time series data analysis. Didn't even finish the abstract.</comment>


Strong beliefs, loosely held - <AUTHOR> https://lisacharlotterost.github.io/2017/05/07/why-do-we-not-believe-in-facts/ <comment><USER2> This doesn't address the problem of how to deal with someone who doesn't _WANT_ to correct their worldview.

That's the real problem.

I start off too many conversations with: "Look, if you want to talk about <position>, fine. However, you have to tell me _up front_ what evidence you will accept that your position is wrong. If you can't do that, then this is a harangue and not a debate or discussion."

<comment><USER3> Oh sure, no doubt others are so _wrong_ and the struggle is so real.

It is easy to see the flaw in others' arguments, but the true challenge is to identify your own biases and irrational worldviews.

<comment><USER2> > Oh sure, no doubt others are so wrong and the struggle is so real.

And sometimes you _ARE_ objectively right. Truth _DOES_ exist.

This false equivalence that social validation is equivalent to being correct is what got us to this point.

And _that 's_ the trick to finding your own biases. Which of your beliefs are based on "social validation" rather than any notion of evidence? Which of your beliefs requires you to dismiss actual facts to the contrary?

<comment><USER4> And what if you wouldn't be able to interpret evidence (either way) correctly because you don't have the skill for that ?

Because that's the case in 99.99% of topics, at least for me.

Additionally, what if one's education would, if honestly evaluated, conflict with widely held political views ? What if it is perceived that they may lead to policy changes ?

For instance, taking two points that are sure to be controversial here:

Among psychologists there was a long drawn-out fight about whether being shown violence (tv, video games) causes people to be more violent. That fight is over (there are extremely thorough and long duration studies available). The answer is yes, being shown violence, especially as a child, makes you more violent. Participating in violence does the same, but more so (ie. video games, and keep in mind these are decade long studies. We're talking about things like duke nukem (NON-3d version), and other ancient games, including believe it or not tetris. Not that one game was studied in isolation) (It also seems rather unclear how someone could honestly believe at this point that games like DOOM aren't worse). Participating, or being victimized, in real violence (ie. living in a bad neighbourhood) even more. Exposure to criminal acts makes people more criminal. And yes, that includes the victims.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sometimes I think bridging the gap is important. People rarely get offended when you talk about Humans causing an increase in carbon dioxide. It's not something they need to get offended about and the cause > result is obvious.

Them talk about effects of CO2. Does it help plants grow or hurt athletic performance.

<comment><USER6> People mostly get offended when you start demonizing them by comparing them to holocaust deniers. The problem I see is that people are more interested in convincing people that climate change will have apocalyptic consequences than they are in discussing solutions to the problem.

<comment><USER5> I don't nessisarily think we need to do anything. It's like NYC gets flooded, well ok sucks for them, but not exactly a life or death issue for 100's of millions. Perhaps the will build a dike, perhaps they will move, or perhaps someone is going to dredge the oceans making artificial mountains to side step that problem whatever not going to affect me much.

People get really wound up in these ideas, but the existence or non existence of the moon landing has no real impact on me. It's like sure people are dumb, at what point did you assume people where intelegent and rational because that's clearly not the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting, the author uses the 97% of scientists agree the human activity has caused climate change statistic. I do think we have but that stat is terrible and misleading. The paper it comes from is dubious at best. Referring to that in an article like this is a little ironic.

<comment><USER8> I just skimmed through this paper that supports the 97% consensus and nothing jumped out at me to suspect the paper is "dubious". It seemed like a strong conclusion to me. [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta;jsessionid=E5246116C465592C9FE0F33CC2A1129D.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org)

What issues are there with that paper?

<comment><USER9> In addressing the question of 97% consensus of blah (where blah varies)..., and not the paper specifically, this article provides a good summary of the quality of this figure: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate- change-...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no- its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle)

The "97 percent" statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master's student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes" — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the "97 percent" statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had "published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a "significant contributing factor."

<comment><USER8> I see, but there have now been several more papers on this question with increasingly better methodology. The meta review paper that I linked above seems conclusive on the question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article doesn't address what I believe to be the actual problem: why should you "believe" in facts to begin with? Despite popular belief, there's no inherent reason to believe in facts. You could argue that factual information can make you money, however that's not necessary true. One can become quite rich by spreading lies, actually.

So... why believe in facts at all? The answer to this will generally include some intellectual elitism, driving away the group I describe in the first paragraph even further. People might use words such as _correct_ and _right_ , but those words already impose a value judgement to begin with, only further begging the question.

<comment><USER11> The value in having (true) beliefs comes in being able to predict the future more accurately and therefore make better decisions.

<comment><USER12> When irrational actors are the ones making decisions, knowing facts won't necessarily help you and may end up coming back to bite you. As they say, the world around you can stay irrational longer than you can stay sane.

<comment><USER11> I was referring to you, the individual as being the decision maker. If you are irrational there's nothing I can do to help you. The reason we should want to believe true beliefs is the same reason we should want to not be irrational.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm afraid this is too abstract for the intended audience.

<comment><USER14> Who is the intended audience?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> [https://xkcd.com/1273/](https://xkcd.com/1273/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I liked the content, but I didn't like the conclusion. If you have a strong belief I feel like you should be able to strongly hold (i.e. defend) it. The philosophy "strong beliefs, loosely held" will just breed rabid dogs that obey whomever has the most convincing evidence (note that convincing evidence is not necessarily strong evidence).

For example, watch this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag4HN_jeYV4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag4HN_jeYV4)

Purple is obviously the villain here, right? Grab your pitchforks!

Now read this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/69xqxh/reviewer_ask...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/69xqxh/reviewer_asks_question_about_product_safety_and/dhavgpv/)

Now it seems clear that the video creator was hiding something and that Purple is justified in their actions. Lynch the youtuber!

Now read the youtuber's response to that and be prepared to grab your pitchforks again...

I'm of the opinion that weak beliefs should be weakly held and strong beliefs should be strongly held. Something that you haven't studied yourself should be a weak belief, weakly held. Something that's only been on the news for a few days with very few actual facts should be a weak belief, weakly held (i.e. Ahmed Mohammed, Michael Brown, etc). Something you've studied or experienced over an extensive period should be a strong belief, strongly held since you are an expert.

<comment><USER5> None of that is enough to get to a strong belief. Weak beliefs weakly held is a common and perfectly reasonable stance. The important part of weak beliefs is to not make major changes based on them.

Now some things like gravity are very strong beliefs. But, you should be open to the possibility that something else is going on even with gravity. That does not mean you should stop believing in gravity based on a slick YouTube video, but rather accept that with solid evedince something else might be going on.

<comment><USER6> I can still change my mind with a strong belief, strongly held, it's just much more difficult.

For example, one strongly held strong belief that I have is that the speed of light is the maximum speed of matter. So when CERN publishes a report that they discovered superluminal particles, I don't instantly switch beliefs - that would be weakly held. Instead I stand my ground and wait to see if it's reproducible, etc.

<comment><USER5> The cern thing was not presented as solid evidence just we don't understand what's going on. The question is how much evidence it would take you to change that belief vs someone to change their stance on global warming. Supose, the consensus in 3 years was they where going faster than the speed of light would you have updated your beliefs then? Because that's not even close to enough evedence for say global worming opponents.

Further many people disagreed with QM even with a lot of evedence backing it because it was so different from what they where used to. They essentially had not threshold to update their beliefs.

<comment><USER6> > Suppose, the consensus in 3 years was they where going faster than the speed > of light would you have updated your beliefs then?

Yes I would have updated my beliefs, but my new beliefs would be both weak and weakly held. If in 20 years the consensus was still solid they would become both strong and strongly held.

> Because that's not even close to enough evidence for say global worming > opponents.

For them the evidence they need to see is perceptibly rising temperatures or sea levels. A lot of people view climate change as highly politicized/hyped science (which it is) and are therefore skeptical if not of climate science of the apocalyptic predictions (which are not universally agreed upon by climate scientists). They will change their minds if they see that it hasn't snowed in 10 years or if their beach front properties are getting swallowed by the ocean.

<comment><USER5> We have _perceptibly rising temperatures_ that's not enough for these people, because it's not rising everywhere evenly and people don't really have great memories.

<comment><USER6> Well, demonizing them doesn't help. Most people are willing to talk solutions, not a lot of people like being insulted. For example, I've had lots of discussions with climate skeptics about nuclear power and I can usually get them on board by the end of the conversation.

<comment><USER5> I don't mean to demonize just be realistic.

Changes that are obvious and massive to the CEO of a company which owns ski resorts around the world may seem meaningless to people living at those same locations. I like most people don't recall the date of each snowfall over the last 50 years, because it has little real impact on me, but keeping accurate track of those same storms can be of vital importance for some people who see these trends as both obvious and critical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've seen people mention this concept before. But how strong is a belief really, if you're not sure whether it's worth holding on to?

</comment><comment><USER17> I mean come on, is an article with pictures such as:

[https://lisacharlotterost.github.io/pic/170509_Republica_Tal...](https://lisacharlotterost.github.io/pic/170509_Republica_Talk84.png)

worth discussing? What's next, the right-wing field sharing articles of IQ across racial groups?

<comment><USER18> What do you think that picture is meant to say? To me, it is meant to convey that regardless of political affiliation, more "intelligence" makes you believe in your convictions more strongly, whereas - regardless of political affiliation - being more curious barely affects your beliefs, except to make you less skeptical of global warming.

So I didn't see that image as bigoted.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Drive around in a forrest of Cellular Automata generated trees - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/liamilan/forest-generation-cellular-automata/src/master/ <comment><USER2> That's a really cool idea. And great project.

I also made a JavaScript forest of trees once, but it was of the more standard recursive style. See here: [https://www.blocklike.org/example/12-advanced/recursion_tree...](https://www.blocklike.org/example/12-advanced/recursion_tree.html)</comment>


Facebook to Integrate WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47001460 <comment><USER2> I would have faith in the survival of facebook if whatsapp and Instagram stay with their own brands, but this move seems suicidal in sullying them with the Facebook name.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know about others, but I would rather Instagram stay separate to facebook. I know it's only messaging, but it's a step in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of when AIM/ICQ merged. Now they're both gone, right?

<comment><USER5> AOL sold off ICQ about a decade ago. To mail.ru. I think they're still going. Fairly sure AIM is as dead as MSN.

<comment><USER6> When I first started going to Chine, after marrying my wife in 2002, everyone there that had a computer used MSN Messenger.</comment></comment></comment>


Namecheap launches free public DNS - <AUTHOR> https://www.namecheap.com/dns/free-public-dns <comment><USER2> And it's down [https://www.namecheap.com/status- updates/archives/45293](https://www.namecheap.com/status- updates/archives/45293)

</comment><comment><USER3> Namecheap has great intro prices on domains and ssl but it goes up a lot when you get to the 2ND and 3ed year. 1at year was about 4$ now 2ND year is 26$

Just FYI

<comment><USER4> As a counterpoint I have all my domains on namecheap. I don't use their SSL option because I prefer using let's encrypt.

They charge around $13 for a renewal but include whois anonymization and have awesome customer service, a great web dashboard, and nice security options. Can't ask for more myself, and it will take a lot to make me switch.

<comment><USER5> > a great web dashboard

That has not been my experience. I've been a Namecheap customer since 2005 (though now only for TLDs that aren't supported by my preferred registrars), and each time I visit their website it seems slower than the last. The interface is better than GoDaddy or 1and1 were the last time I used them, but that's a very low bar. I wouldn't call it good.

At one point they overhauled the frontend to add some loading animation to make it feel faster, but the backend has only gotten worse. Saving any changes is _way_ slower than any other service I use with regularity.

I was going to take some measurements to back up this post, but...

> Namecheap is under maintenance and will be back soon

> Our site namecheap.com is currently undergoing an emergency maintenance to > upgrade our systems in order to better serve you.

I won't be using this new service.

<comment><USER4> I actually went to register a new domain a few moments later and saw this. I have noticed it getting a little slower but overall I stand by my statements about the support.

That said, this announcement and emergency maintenance combo is not a good sign to me. Sigh.

Curious what you're using now?

<comment><USER6> I moved my domains (50) from namecheap to porkbun and cloudflare for these reasons:

* the price of a domain would change after placing it in my cart or purchasing it (the purchase would be refunded, but it was still frustrating.)

* WhoisGaurd renewal messages and "warnings"; I needed a registrar that provides whois privacy - without a fuss.

* namecheap's dashboard only shows 5 domains on the first page, and they are not sorted by soonest to expire.

* slowness experienced when using their website

* their competitors are cheaper

[https://tld-list.com/](https://tld-list.com/) is pretty nice for comparing pricing.

<comment><USER4> Just a simple thanks for this, signed up my new domain with them and will be transferring my others soon. I was out of touch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't trust namecheap. I've been directly lied to from customer support all the way to literally the CEO.

They are super slow to move when something goes wrong and are generally untruthful. Should've realized they're not to be used for important things when their name has the word "cheap"

Edit: wanted to mention that they were the best registrar bar none early 2000s. No one could even compete. Now they are horrible.

</comment><comment><USER8> You're better off using Firefox with (CloudFlare) DNS-over-HTTPS. Go to about:config and set network.trr.mode = 2

[] [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver)

</comment><comment><USER9> Hasn't been working for the last 6-7 hrs.

</comment><comment><USER10> Title makes it seem like they are providing free domains when they are just running public resolvers.

<comment><USER11> How does this make it sound like they are providing free domains? I wasn't confused by the title at all.</comment></comment>


The man who posted himself to Australia - <AUTHOR> http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31700049

<comment><USER2> He went on to become a drug smuggler [1]. Given his talent, I suppose it was an obvious career choice.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Some other ways to get around for cheap: [http://www.vergemagazine.com/travel- intelligence/budget-trav...](http://www.vergemagazine.com/travel- intelligence/budget-travel/76-15-ways-to-travel-for-free-or-at-least- cheap.html)

I looked into hitching a ride on a C-130... not nearly as free or fun as you might think. You can if you are a journalist (or blogger!) and want to write a positive piece about the military.

In light of this story I will no longer bitch about coach. But travel does suck, and I can't wait for quantum transport to be a thing.

<comment><USER4> >I looked into hitching a ride on a C-130... not nearly as free or fun as you might think.

Can you elaborate on that at all? The link you posted doesn't mention military hitchhiking, which sounds interesting to say the least.

<comment><USER5> Before you pursue this further, ask someone who's spent hours sitting in one of the nylon seats on a C-130. Decidedly uncomfortable. Go for a C-5 or C-17 instead.

<comment><USER6> C-5 will just end up broken down on the runway for days. Take the C-17.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder where the box was stored during flight.

I have read many articles that stowaways face a delicate balance of hypothermia and their body shutting down the need much breathing, thus able to deal with the thin (unpressurized) air. Sometimes it works out in their favor, sometimes not. If they survive they wake up dazed and confused.

This story doesn't sound like that. Why?

Here is a kid in a wheel well: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609270/BREAKING- NEW...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609270/BREAKING-NEWS-16-year- old-boy-survives-UNHARMED-flying-California-Hawaii-wheel-well.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wheel- well_stowaway_fli...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wheel- well_stowaway_flights)

Perhaps the boxes are stored in a place where people and animals can easily survive?

<comment> david-given The wheel well's on the outside of the pressure hull, while the cargo hold's on the inside, so is pressurised. Or at least so I gather. It may not be heated very well, mind.

Some random searching on the internet shows that the temperature of a cargo hold is about 10°C, and on at least one model of plane is (partially) heated by waste air from the cabins. Allegedly there's a flight deck switch which redirects the waste air overboard, which causes the temperature in the hold to plummet. This is known as the 'puppy snuffer' switch...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great story. Sad little addendum at the end though.

<comment><USER9> That was a long time ago though - he's been out of jail for 20+ years.

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

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure if that Wikipedia article helps make things any less sad:

> In 2011, Spiers's daughter Jane was convicted on counts of manufacturing a > controlled drug, and one count of doing so for sale

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That box could have been quite a macabre birthday present for his daughter...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI- YiaWDgB4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI-YiaWDgB4) (The Velvet Underground - The Gift)

</comment><comment><USER12> This strikes me as a nice little hack of the system, and I'm glad that it seems like in this case the attitude was "no harm, no foul". It's not a particularly elegant hack, but that's one thing that epitomizes hackers to me: use what you know and have at hand to make it work.

</comment><comment><USER13> Not only did he acquire drug convictions but his daughter went on to get one too.

I wonder if she was the same daughter who's birthday it was that he was trying to get back for.

</comment><comment><USER14> The biggest problem nowadays would be the X-ray check, which could turn out quite unhealthy. And then perhaps air pressure and temperature.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's amazing that they could have the following sentence: "Built to Spiers's specifications, the crate allowed him to sit up straight-legged, or lie on his back with his knees bent." and then have that graphic where his torso takes up nearly the whole 5ft length of the box. That ridiculous graphic seems unnecessary given that that sentence explains just how he fit into the crate.</comment>


Sprig restructures and suspends operations in Chicago - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sprig.com/blog/2016/7/28/sprigs-customer-promise-and-changes-ahead <comment><AUTHOR> I used Sprig in San Fran a bunch when I lived there. I moved back to Chicago about the same time Sprig expanded there, which I thought was convenient. But the quality here was never the same as it was in SF. It left a ton to be desired, all while local companies were getting different versions right. It became disappointing to eat sprig vs other options, and eventually we stopped, even though I really wanted to keep liking them. Uber eats and Eat purely dominate different versions of this space for me, in Chicago. I'm excited to see how they change and improve and try them again.</comment>


How to make the simplest electric motor - <AUTHOR> http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/HomopolarMotor <comment><USER2> Really interesting. Electromagnetism is one of the most amazing things in the universe.</comment>


The Real Pandemic Danger Is Social Collapse - <AUTHOR> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-03-19/real-pandemic-danger-social-collapse <comment><USER2> yes</comment>


PG: is this going down this year? - <AUTHOR> http://startupschool.org/?

<comment><USER2> pg answered yes to this two weeks ago : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4382922></comment>


We Only Have Hours Left to Stop the NSA Expansion Bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/urgent-we-only-have-hours-left-stop-nsa-expansion-bill <comment><USER2> Is anyone else fatigued? The effort required, ontop of just having a normal functioning life, to parse and make decisions around potential future law is incredible.

Isn't this what elected officials are ment to do on our behalf?

<comment><USER3> Yes, we are all fatigued, and that is how they win. Can't get your Bill through? Rename it and submit again. Still won't work? Tack it onto a Medicaid / NASA funding bill. Still won't get through? Change the wording so that it becomes more vague and open to interpretation _in your favour_ and start again.

Bonus points if you give it a name involving patriotism, freedom, economic or personal health, or a backromym that spells out the same.

<comment><USER4> How can we fight against these patterns? Amendments? Force bills to be broken up? Only allow a bill to be submitted once a decade?

Our system is definitely broken, but I have no idea what type of changes might prevent these abuses

<comment> FLUX-YOU >How can we fight against these patterns?

Elect enough people willing to self-regulate and pass those bills. The current climate with lobbying money won't ever pass something like that.

<comment><USER5> What do lobbyists have to do with the NSA?

<comment> FLUX-YOU It wasn't a comment about lobbying for NSA expansion specifically, but I imagine there's plenty of companies who would benefit from NSA expansion that provide services to the US government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there plan to bombard the american public on so many fronts that they accept mass surveillance? What the actual fuck is wrong with this country.

<comment><USER7> And FISA reauthorization always happens a few days before Christmas.

Californians, remember to vote Feinstein out in the _Democratic primary_. She's been one of the main champions of this bill and type of mass surveillance (as well as the anti-encryption bills, which she's not giving up).

It's probably one of the reasons why she decided to go back on her promise not to run again, so she can pass it once more in a few years. Her husband also makes big bucks from the defense industry and from government contracts - probably not a coincidence at all. She's one of the richest Congress people - again, likely not a coincidence.

<comment><USER8> > Californians, remember to vote Feinstein out in the Democratic primary. > She's been one of the main champions of this bill and type of mass > surveillance (as well as the anti-encryption bills, which she's not giving > up).

Senate Minority Leader Schumer has been the other main proponent. Unfortunately, New York is not really a democracy, so there is no way for us to get rid of him.

<comment><USER9> Schumer is awful on a lot of levels, but I don't seem him losing his office unless he goes the way Sheldon Silver did.

<comment><USER8> > Schumer is awful on a lot of levels, but I don't seem him losing his office > unless he goes the way Sheldon Silver did.

Agreed. New York politicians can get away with attempted murder caught on videotape (literally) and there's still no chance that they'll lose re- election, thanks to the array of arcane election laws that, in practice, collectively disenfranchise New York voters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "We only have hours"? What are we supposed to do in those hours? Make phone calls that won't get through? Tweet? Forget it. Senators and congressmen don't fear their constituents so they're not going to listen to their constituents.

<comment><USER10> Let me clarify. By "fear", I mean fear of losing their seats, not their heads. Clearly, they don't fear either but I'm only implying that government would work better if elected positions were easier to lose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > It would also give FBI agents the power to decide whether or not to seek a > warrant to read American communications collected under Section 702

Hoover would be so proud. This bill basically legitimizes the relentless surveillance apparatus of his era by allowing the FBI to use the NSA's haystack resources without a warrant.

Considering the way the FBI has acted in the last 100yr (big organizations can only change their operational culture so far so fast and government is particularly slow because the incentives discourage turnover), their mission and their jurisdiction I think this is very bad. There's no way this power can not be abused. Warrants are so trivially easy to get that the only reason to not get them for stuff like this is to do things that you can't justify asking for a warrant for.

</comment><comment><USER12> I find it very interesting that this bill is being pushed by Devin Nunes. In case anyone here is unaware, he is involved in an ongoing surveillance-related controversy - he is one of the leaders alleging a scandal that HRC 2016 campaign paid Fusion GPS to produce the Steele Dossier as evidence for the FBI to wiretap Trump Tower using an Obama-appointed FISA court judge. [0]

I find the idea of him expanding the FISA court powers contradictory to his stated purpose of seeking justice in the matter of his supposed 2016 election scandal. Note that this idea is the EFF's interpretation of the bill & not my own view.

If that were the case, then perhaps his intent is to leverage the expanded NSA powers to spy on the FBI, which he seems to believe is working against the current administration. This would not be the first time different parts of the US government were spying on each other. [1]

I don't believe that is the intent of this bill. After reviewing, it seems more likely that the intent of the bill covers two goals: 1\. To require added accountability to the FISA application process such that abuses of the FISA court are easier to identify. There are a number of sections in the bill which require disclosures by the FBI which were not necessary before. 2\. To remove bureaucratic barriers limiting the Attorney General, who in the case of this political situation, will be relied upon to investigate the government itself.

So I can see where the EFF is coming from with their take on this bill, and certainly there is a political divide over whether or not this bill is a good thing.

Personally I am hoping it will pass.[2]

[0] [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/head-house- ethics...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/head-house-ethics-panel- finds-evidence-abuse-in-us-government-surveillance.html)

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2014/03/12...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2014/03/12/feinstein-doesnt-like-the-cia-spying-on-her-committee- but-shes-fine-with-nsa-bulk-data-collection/)

[2] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/4478...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/4478?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22fisa%22%5D%7D&r=1)

</comment><comment><USER13> Is there anything states can do about this?

And, if this passes, is there any way to protect myself? Obviously if the NSA is hoarding zero-days there isn't much you can do, but what are some practical steps?

1) avoid airports and security cameras

2) use an offshore VPN at all times

3) don't use the phone, use E2E encrypted calling like Signal

4) use cash as often as possible, or cryptocurrency

Or does none of that matter?

<comment><USER14> What's your threat model? Unless you name what you're afraid of and what you're trying to hide, you're just feeding paranoia and it's unhealthy. And I'm not trying to say you should do nothing - the steps you suggest would at the very least increase the cost for NSA to collect data, potentially making it scale less or even make you fly under the radar. Still, if you want those rather uncomfortable actions to become habits, you'll need to have some motivation and for that you probably need to name your worries first.

<comment><USER13> I have a deep moral opposition to this kind of spying, and making it more difficult is an end in and of itself. I also don't consider them terribly uncomfortable, but that is my opinion and no one else's.

I also personally would prefer not to be spied on. I do not want my day-to-day activities monitored by anyone but myself. In the event that the government starts curtailing freedoms or particular kinds of behavior and thought, I do not want to be left susceptible. So I guess my threat model is "generalized spying". I assume I would be powerless to stop anything specifically targeted at me, so I would like to avoid becoming a target in the first place.

If and when I start buying oxidizing chemicals, drug precursors, or ammunition, then you are more than welcome to start tracking my purchases and usage of those products.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >So I guess my threat model is "generalized spying"

In this case, you should be proactive not only against NSA, but GOOG, FB, your ISP etc.

You should look into Tails OS if you haven't already.

<comment><USER13> Good point, and in fact I am.

My Instagram account is long gone, my Facebook account will be gone before the end of the month (I use it once a week at most anyway), and I've long since stopped using any Google account for anything. I run multiple browser extensions that help me delete cookies, block Javascript, etc. The VPN should hopefully take care of my ISP. It try to avoid even sending emails to Gmail accounts.

I haven't tried Tails, but I will look into it when I get some time free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone have a source? I can't find the story anywhere.

Edit: [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/365718-house- set...](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/365718-house-set-to-vote- on-controversial-surveillance-bill)

<comment><USER12> [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/4478...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/4478?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22fisa%22%5D%7D&r=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't want to be discouraging to anyone. Please, do anything you think will be helpful.

But the NSA's equipment is still in hundreds of network equipment rooms, and the data is being split off recorded and rifled at will. They'll tell you they're "not collecting" your data, but they are. They're just using some strange NSA version of English where siphoning your data and storing it on hard drives is not "collecting" it.

I advocate the peaceful destruction of their facility in Utah and any other similar facility.

<comment><USER17> > I advocate the peaceful destruction of their facility in Utah...

How? Either voting doesn't work or we as a people are too collective stupid to vote for anyone different. How many like Reid, Fienstien and Hatch just keep getting elected despite their actions? Maybe we need some real people to run? Maybe we need to be smart enough to vote them in (and out when their time is up - I'm looking at you, Hatch).

A there letter agency doesn't just disappear because we complain to each other. It is going to take years to undo what is being done.

<comment><USER18> Shut the water off. There won't be enough cooling for the servers.

Maybe shoot a hole in the bottom of a big, oil-filled transformer at the nearest power substation.

<comment><USER19> This is at least the second post on this topic in which logfromblammo has suggested that people perform criminal acts. (S)he earlier suggested keying cars and cutting tires.

Those are simply wrong and criminal.

<comment><USER20> I'm curious at what point civility breaks down in a failing state, at what level does his course of action make sense? I like to establish these limits before emotion can cloud judgement. He may be brash but he's not wrong yet.

<comment><USER18> I don't think there ever is a discontinuity. It just slowly ramps up, such that the only ones who notice are the ones who just woke up from comas. Every line in the sand is crossed slowly, with shuffling feet, so the line is wiped out as it is approached. Watershed events that are a clear trigger or threshold are rare. Mostly, it just gets worse slowly enough that no one ever hits their limit and breaks.

That's how we got to 2017 from 1967, after all--one hour after another, without pause, for 50 years. And then one day, you think "WTF just happened? How did everything get so incredibly awesome and yet also completely awful at the same time?"

If you think, "Gee, I should have done Y way back when X happened," then you should probably be doing Y now, even long after X happened.

I think about how it must feel for ordinary people when important history is happening around them, and if they would have even noticed at the time. It probably feels a lot like a fish feels after biting down on the bait. Everything is fine and normal, then _boom_ , something grabbed me and is pulling me and now the water is gone and some blobby hairy thing has its appendages stuck into my gills and I flop and squirm and flop some more and the water is still _gone_ and everything's going dim and my mouth hurts and the blobby thing is cutting my belly open with its shiny claw and now I can't feel my body and a gull just ate my eye and is tugging at my guts and I can't even flop any more. And I... And it was all so fast... I want to go back...

At what point is it acceptable for the fish to start fighting? It has to start while it is still in the water, while it still _can_ fight. But it doesn't yet know that it _should_. What do you do if the event that makes it perfectly clear that you should have been doing something all along is also the event that makes it impossible for you to do it? What if the event that would have retroactively justified your behavior never happens?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I live in Oregon, where I am pretty sure my representatives will oppose this bill (as they have a history of doing so). What I really want to do is voice my opinion to my old state of Pennsylvania, where I am less confident.

As more people move to where the jobs are at, the country will become more blue/red divided.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wow I thought the only "bad" law that was passing was a big tax cut. Shame on me for paying attention to the news media. Good timing for NSA, though! Suspiciously good...

</comment><comment><USER23> Bad tax reform that benefits mostly corporations and the 1% reported by foreign news outlets get flagged here, but talk about a spy group or internet regulation and suddenly politics is fair game.

I'm sick of the echo chamber and the pathetic rules of civility strangling human communication, the invisible voting down of opinions people don't like, the moderation filters that carve out a single world view catered to an angel investor's whims.

I guess I'll just read the New York Times. It's annoying and devoid of useful commentary but at least I'll get a complete news feed and not have to watch a sad oppressive ecosystem strangle intelligent debate.

<comment> murph-almighty Your last sentence kinda struck home for me.

3 years ago I was able to get news from reddit that was faster and sometimes more reliable than, say, CNN. It now takes hours for a relevant story to siphon to the top because of certain vested interests downvoting it.

It's made me miss CNN and NYT. I've started drifting back to conventional news outlets because bad actors destroyed the ones I loved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Non US citizens have been subject to warrantless surveillance by NSA etc for some time now. That was fine, apparently?

</comment><comment><USER25> One might hope that the Trump administration is wary of widening the federal government's ability to spy on its citizens. I do.

</comment><comment><USER26> I knew there was a reason the media decided to make a big deal about a military video from 2004 yesterday. Pure distraction.

</comment><comment><USER27> And you will do nothing... as usually. You will just dream about having any influence on the world going on.

I'm not a US citizen, so my voice doesn't count. But does your voice count if you are a US citizen? Nope. The corporations and politicians decide, we can just be allowed to have nice sits in the front row and watch how the corporations world grow.

Happy watching. Tickets are expensive, and mandatory. Nice dreaming.

<comment><USER28> Is that why women and black people can vote, because what citizens think and their voices don't matter?

Is that why gay people can get married in the US (but not in 160 other countries), because what US citizens think doesn't count? (the majority in the US support gay marriage)

Is that why the house and US Senate recently voted almost perfectly in step, overwhelmingly in favor, of rolling back civil asset forfeiture abuses? Congress has nothing to fear from it, they do however know their voters are angry about it.

Is that why the Obama Admin put net neutrality into place, because votes & voices don't matter? It was in fact overwhelmingly demanded by Obama's voters. Votes, of course, matter in a big way as it turns out: had Hillary bothered to fight for the blue wall state voters, we'd still have net neutrality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> EFF has proven to be an ineffectual organization. They bungled NN(infuriating me to no end), and proven partisan at every turn, which would not be a problem if they were successful.

But its clear we need a nonpartisan group who can successfully rally most of America on the left and the right.

<comment><USER30> > But its clear we need a nonpartisan group who can successfully rally most of > America on the left and the right.

Why? Keep the Nazis and their friends where they belong: on the dustbin of history. There is no need to further legitimize Bannon and the rest of the alt-right bunch by rallying with them. They need to be fought relentlessly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Seems like this only works with Twitter unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER32> You can't hold a tide back with a broom</comment>


Show HN: Income/savings calculator for moving to Canada - <AUTHOR> https://boomstick.games/northward/index.html <comment><USER2> Your federal and provincial income taxes are way too low. If you click on the link below, you'll see BC has an average tax rate of 25.8% on 100K.

[https://neuvoo.ca/tax- calculator/Ontario-100000#:~:text=%245...](https://neuvoo.ca/tax- calculator/Ontario-100000#:~:text=%2451.25%20an%20hour%20is%20how,marginal%20tax%20rate%20is%2043.41%25).

Taxes are killer in the Great White North.

<comment><USER3> > Taxes are killer in the Great White North.

Fortunately this pays for an extensive social security network including health care (though sadly not dental!)

<comment><USER4> I'd be interested in total take-home pay when comparing Canadian taxes to US taxes + employer-sponsored healthcare coverage.

<comment><USER5> I think the difference in taxes are a very minor factor compared to the difference in pre-tax compensation in the US vs Canada.

<comment><USER2> It's a triple whammy. Compensation is lower, taxes are higher, food is more expensive. Only healthcare is cheaper. It's mostly paid for, prescriptions included, if you work for a company with a decent health plan. Cars are also more expensive overall (ownership + insurance).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You've got EI contributions in there but not Canada Pension Plan - that's another ~$2,900 is source deductions per year

It also looks like your accomodation is just randomly costed - there is huge varation in type/location and this is probably the single biggest expense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, CPP! Thanks! I forgot about that. I'll add that in.

I tried to comment on the rent cost. Its roughly the cost of a 2bdr place in the Vancouver area. I would like to expand it to show more cities, and it seems others would like that as well. I can look at adding specific expense data for a few cities (probably Vancouver, TO, and maybe Montreal)

<comment><AUTHOR> Added CPP. Thanks for pointing that out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Handy.

The thing it's missing, that was the big issue when I looked into relocating, is that my and my wife's jobs _don 't reimburse the same_ in Ca.

That's the biggest impact, above and beyond everything else.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not to underestimate OP's effort but this calculator is much better and has more options

[https://simpletax.ca/calculator](https://simpletax.ca/calculator)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya, I looked at that as well, but it doesn't include common expenses, which is why I built this one, to make it a little easier to get the overall picture

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Need to add CPP (Canada Pension Plan) contributions to the taxes. That's another $2898 deducted in 2020.

Also, I threw $100k into the EY online tax calculator - [https://www.eytaxcalculators.com/en/2020-personal-tax- calcul...](https://www.eytaxcalculators.com/en/2020-personal-tax- calculator.html) \- and it claims you'd have $77,410 left after federal and provincial taxes in BC (getting into RRSP contributions etc just makes things complicated).

<comment><AUTHOR> I just compared my numbers to [https://simpletax.ca/calculator](https://simpletax.ca/calculator) and they look pretty close. I checked the site you mentioned, and you're right, they are vastly different. I can't explain that with certainty, but perhaps its not deducting things like RRSP contributions which lowers the tax?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For first year, you can not take rrsp contributions. And starting the second year, rrsp contribution room is 18% of your previous year salary. for 100 000 salary, you can only contribute 18 000 (maximum is about 22000 something). Want to know if you have source code, I can help to contribute the calculations. I've accounting background studying react and python right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, nice, thanks! Its in a private repo right now, but I can probably make it public since there isnt anything I need to protect in there.

I'm guessing most users going into tech would likely make at least $150k/yr, so they would be eligible to make the max contribution for the year. Good point about the 100k default base salary though. I didnt realize it was min(18% prev yrs salary, $27230.00), thats good to know, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're maxing your RRSP, you might as well also max your tax free savings account (TFSA) which is another $6000.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! I'll add that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice if there were explainers beside the figures. Immediately upon looking at the default page we see a base salary of $100,000 gives taxable income of $69,015.64. How?

<comment><AUTHOR> base salary - nontaxable expenses

non taxable expenses = RRSP + CPP + EI (plus anything else you add to the list)

I'll look at revising the instructions to make it more clear that the tables below directly impact the calculation. Would that help?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I can lay out the summary fields a bit differently to reflect how the calculation is being made, so its more obvious to the user whats going on. I'll see if I can do that later today. Thanks for the input.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I know the UI is horrible. Don't worry, I have no intention of quitting my > day job.

Actually, this is a nice clean layout and workflow. Nothing to be ashamed of at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's more important for everyone who's are going to plan to move to Canada Without saving and income calculator it is very difficult

</comment><comment><USER15> This doesn't seem very useful to me. It looks like it only estimates taxes for you and doesn't do any legwork on cost of living.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now it only provides some very basic cost of living, and things like RRSP contributions. I can probably enhance it by adding the COL data per region, but I would have to focus on a small selection of cities otherwise it would be too much work.

<comment><USER16> In addition to RRSP, you can reduce tax by contributing to TFSA.

Just focus on Ontario and BC, these will be sufficient for most tech immigrants.

<comment><USER17> That's not accurate. TFSA contributions are only made with post tax income, the real benefit comes when you take the money out since any gains made with the invested money will be tax free when withdrawn.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good to know. I'll add TFSA in the taxable expenses column.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not a UI expert, but a dropdown beside the grey boxes that expands to show the actual calculations would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nearly $5,000 /yr for medical, vision, dental seems quite high. Where is that default coming from?

<comment><AUTHOR> it was a guess based on numbers I polled from someone I know, then I just multiplied it by 3, for a "family of 3" as indicated in the comments. If you are willing to provide a more accurate number, I'll include that.

<comment><USER12> If you're going by individual anecdotes, I can add mine. ~$200 for glasses in the last 5 years. Everything else covered by either basic government coverage or group employee insurance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is this missing federal taxes? It's way off for higher income brackets (almost 100% off).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yikes. No, I have added the federal taxes to it, and it appears to be deducting it from the total income. Could you provide a little more data so I can track down the issue you are seeing?

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a bug where was was deducting taxes from the total income, not the taxable income, which lead to numbers being off. This is now corrected, hopefully this is the issue you were seeing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> would you be able to retire on RRSP alone?

<comment><AUTHOR> you would retire on RRSP + CPP (very small) + whatever you currently have in your 401k + whatever you have in retirement savings from any other country(ies) you have lived in.

That said, depending on your age, with a max RRSP contribution of 27k, if you can contribute the max for 20yrs, you should have enough to retire on RRSP alone, assuming reasonable retirement living.

Assuming you contribute $27230/yr for 20yrs, and manage to get 5% growth on that account each year, you would end up with about $1m in the RRSP. It all depends on how much time you have to grow the account I guess.

<comment><USER20> One thing to keep in mind is RRSP is a tax shelter at time of contribution. You avoid paying income tax now, but you still need to pay income tax on withdrawals during retirement. For pretty much everyone their "salary" will be lower in retirement since things like houses are paid off and expenses are just lower, so you'll pay a lower marginal rate overall (plus you get the income tax back so you have more capital to build from)

Another thread pointed out it's a max contribution of 18% of last year's income (which is then limited to 27k), so you need to make around $150k CDN to make the max contribution.

TFSA works the other way. It's a tax shelter for growth. You've already paid income tax on the capital, but don't pay any tax on gains you manage to make when you withdraw. If you withdraw below the contribution limit you can top it back off as well, so a TFSA is a good place to save things like house and car down payments (though it's even better if you have enough money to just leave it alone).</comment></comment></comment>


"Unable to find a readme for sgml 0.2.0-beta" – npmjs broken or is it just me? - <AUTHOR> https://www.npmjs.com/package/sgml <comment><AUTHOR> It seems npmjs.com is having trouble updating package index pages from readme files. This morning, I published a new version (that contains exactly the same files as all previous versions), but npmjs.com doesn't render readme info (as shallow as mine is). Trying to re-publish doesn't seem to have an effect (or maybe npmjs.com won't re-publish package version submitted shortly after one another, idk). Is npmjs.com in the progress of re-generating all pages or something?</comment>


Show HN: Unito – A sync engine for GitHub/JIRA/Wrike/Asana/+ - <AUTHOR> https://unito.io/home <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, we just launched with support for synchronizing GitHub/JIRA/Wrike/Asana, basically so devs and business can collaborate directly form their favourite apps.

At this point, really curious to hear what other apps you folks would like to see synced? See if they match what we're working on ;)

<comment><USER2> Can you tell me how Unito works differently from Zapier?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, short story: Zapier is 1-way automation, Unito is 2-way sync.

So once a task/issue is synced, any change from either app, including comments, assignees, tag, etc will sync in the other app.

Zapier is great to automate operations (hey, we use them too), but not so great for collaboration.

Does that clear things up @ericbrow

<comment><USER2> Yes, thanks for the response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is strange that this kind of thing is getting so little attention here. I thought it would be awesome of awesomeness and everybody would be delighted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I'm delighted by your comment ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is great.

See also [http://gitlo.co/](http://gitlo.co/) for GitHub-Trello sync.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, didn't know about these guys, tks! Our Trello support should be out this month, so this should add Trello two-way sync with JIRA, Asana and Wrike too.</comment></comment>


New connection between stacked solar cells can handle energy of 70,000 suns - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2013-09-stacked-solar-cells-energy-suns.html <comment><USER2> How far does battery tech have to go until it's feasible for lower-middle income families have a solar panel on their roof in LA/San Fransisco?

10%? 50%?

<comment><USER3> It's not feasible for lower-middle income families until it is as cheap or cheaper than the alternatives.

But there are many factors complicating this kind of cost comparison. For one, pv solar pays off over years, while others are paid per as pennies per kWh used. Another complicating factor is the environmental impact of oil and coal. Do you include that? If you do, how do you quantify it?

This looks like a decent article [http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost- of-solar-energy/...](http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar- energy/energy_economics.html)

In short, solar has a long way to go. Twenty or thirty times more expensive than the traditional sources of energy. It looks like a huge breakthrough and alternative method is needed rather than incremental improvements in current methods.

What this article is about is reducing cost by using a type of solar cell that can handle incredibly dense concentrations of sunlight. So you can use a cheap lens to take say 30 square feet of sunshine and focus it on one square foot of solar cell. Once square foot of solar cell is much cheaper than 5 square metres of solar cell. But the article doesn't go into detail about how much these high capacity solar cells would actually cost at mass consumption levels.

<comment><USER4> > This looks like a decent article

Their stats don't line up with the final cost to the consumer. Going by average LA energy costs

[http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.htm](http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.htm)

'Los Angeles area households paid an average of 20.3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity in July 2013, up from 19.3 cents per kWh in July 2012.'

Whereas, according to the linked article,

> 1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH | 1 barrel of oil costs $70 = $0.05 > per KWH | 1 cubic foot of gas $0.008 = $0.03 per KWH

Which may well be true, to the people with the powerplants, - but consumers can take advantage of the price of solar much more directly.

Assuming that we buy into their stats about the price of solar, (which I'm now a bit reluctant to do,) things look a bit happier; more like 1.7 times the price rather than twenty or thirty times.

<comment><USER3> Awesome, if true. At 1.7 times the price it should be pretty easy to convince some early adopters. If I were building a house in the right area I would love to do a solar/wind combination for power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious what this will mean for ROHS compliance. Gallium Arsenide isn't a terribly friendly substance and, depending on the concentrations, it could pose a safety issue during installation and/or recycling. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide)

<comment><USER6> If you concentrate the sun to "4000 suns", you also need _far_ fewer panels, so I think this fear might be overdone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not sure about this as is inorganic, but I am afraid all the Organic Photovoltaic business will be only another speculative bubble. It's been >10years now, millions have been spent, Konarka has failed, and investments are still raising when the scientific community only aims to an extra .1% to publish.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if there are constructions that also utilize the absorbed heat, i.e. energy that isn't caught by the solar cells. You could at least heat up the household water with that energy, or possibly use it to generate additional electricity on a parallel track or in combination with the solar cells.</comment>


The Hindu Temple as a Model of Fractal Cosmology (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.dataisnature.com/?p=2138 <comment><USER2> Mathematician Felix Klein (famous for Klein bottle) used Hindu concept of Indra's Net as a inspiration for developing algebra for infinite reflections. It produces nice fractals.

[https://www.amazon.com/Indras-Pearls-Vision-Felix- Klein/dp/1...](https://www.amazon.com/Indras-Pearls-Vision-Felix- Klein/dp/1107564743)

</comment><comment><USER3> Incredible, Hindu temples are not churches or mosques, they were made with incredible thought about positioning, with size and geometry taken into consideration. All optimised using numerics, we've lost a chapter in human history as to how Vedic structures were created with such elegance.

[https://www.facebook.com/238044912896496/videos/163973293272...](https://www.facebook.com/238044912896496/videos/1639732932727680/)

<comment><USER4> > we've lost a chapter in human history as to how Vedic structures were > created with such elegance.

Just to be clear, this knowledge wasn't lost accidentally. It's part of what was contained in the books and manuscripts destroyed intentionally by colonizers.

<comment><USER3> Yes I agree with you, Muslim (Mughal) invaders burnt a lot of scriptures.

<comment><USER4> > Muslim (Mughal) invaders burnt a lot of scriptures.

Actually the particular books I'm referring to were burned by the Portuguese, but lots of invaders destroyed Indian books - Portuguese, British, French, Dutch, and yes, Mughal as well.

<comment><USER5> One interesting historical narrative which helps put this into perspective was how the Spanish conquest of Aztec and Mayan regions resulted in a lot of burning of "heretical" books by the Christians missionaries, "which they (the Maya) regretted to an amazing degree" [1]. But further research showed that most of the books burned were already heavily biased historically by the Aztecs - as the Aztecs had already burnt all of the Mayans books when they conquered them before the Spanish arrived.

So it really is a (shameful) repeating pattern of many conquering human civilizations throughout history rather than one of a particular culture which happens to be dominate.

This is another piece of history which doesn't fit neatly into the colonizer narrative, which is popular today, from which people try to hold modern cultures responsible for past generational cultural events, somewhat like an 'original sin' which needs to be attuned. One could go further and try to point to religion itself as the main driver - but even then that is merely another abstraction over standard human tribalism. Which is somewhat ironic as the colonizer narrative is typically used today as a tool for pushing other forms of tribalism (political, cultural, etc).

[1] [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Book_burning](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Book_burning)

<comment><USER3> I'm sure many colonialists burn books, doesn't distract from the fact we have lost knowledge and replaced with Christian and Islamist propoganda, they couldn't have people thinking we lived for more tHan a few thousand years as it contradicts the Bible and Qur'an!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article seems to assume that the universe is fractal, but Wikipedia can't seem to make up its mind whether fractal cosmologies are fringe ideas or not. It's certainly far outside the consensus.

<comment><USER7> How about a fractal of fractals?

Your circulatory system is a fractal for similar reasons that trees are fractals for similar reasons that watersheds are fractals.

Fractal structures are probably the rule rather than the exception for basic reasons of space and energy efficiency.

Here's another interesting fractal thought, where is the universe? In your head, or outside of it, or both?

So the neuronal structure representing the universe in your head is at least in some ways similar to the objective outside universe, if there is such a thing, and if there is such a thing then that neuronal structure in your head is also _in_ (and _of_ ) that objective universe while also being similar to it.

A good term for fractals is self-similar.

Self-similarity all the way down.

 _I am a strange loop._ \- Douglas Hofstadter

 _It 's in you, and you're in it._ \- Alan Watts

<comment><USER8> I've been fascinated with occult/esoteric stuff lately, so I want to add one more quote there.

That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below. - The Emerald Tablet

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet#Newton.27s_tran...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet#Newton.27s_translation)

<comment><USER9> It seems fascination with the occult is a growing trend among the educated for some reason. In the past year I've met physicists, engineers, mathematicians, and more who have all gotten in to the field recently. I have too, so I suspect some confirmation bias, but it seems to me more than I was expecting.

<comment><USER8> I don't know many STEM type people apart from me who are into such things honestly, so your claim is very interesting to me. Do you know someone with an online presence (blog for instance) who would fit into the category?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is another good read on it, Hindu temples are built to reflect the human body.

[http://www.surya-world.org/hindu-temple-and-the-structure- of...](http://www.surya-world.org/hindu-temple-and-the-structure-of-human- body-comparison/)

</comment><comment><USER11> When something is referred to as fractal, does it always imply a degree of self-similarity? As I understand it, Mandelbrot developed fractal geometry as a tool to examine the "roughness" of reality as opposed to the smoothness of calculus and fractal dimension is a measure of complexity at every scale, with a self-similar pattern being an easy example to follow.

If that is so, that the universe has a high degree of complexity at every scale, is that really controversial?

Here is an excellent 20 min introduction to fractals: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB9n2gHsHN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB9n2gHsHN4)

</comment><comment><USER12> This reminded me of mandelbulb[1] and on a somewhat unrelated note the original demo video of Euclideon[2].

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsuYZg8k-Zc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsuYZg8k-Zc) [2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4)

</comment><comment><USER13> Cf. Christopher Alexander's "Fifteen Properties" [http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/fifteen.htm](http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/fifteen.htm)

</comment><comment><USER14> This sort of thing doesn't just happen in Hinduism. Behold, the Sagrada Família: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família)

<comment><USER15> I think the cool thing about this from what I gather is that the instructions to the masons were basically a recursive procedure and they got to decide on the recursive depth.

<comment><USER7> That is cool, a compressed blueprint. Also cool is that it is still under construction, maybe someone reading right now is involved and can tell us more.

<comment><USER16> I'm not involved, but I've met the researcher at a couple of computational architecture conferences: Mark Burry - [https://www.rmit.edu.au/media- objects/multimedia/video/proje...](https://www.rmit.edu.au/media- objects/multimedia/video/projects/sagrada-familia-and-rmit-university)

The other interesting thing about the Sagrada Familia is that Gaudi based the primary structure on catenary structures.

Off the top of my head, I believe he first made weighted string assemblies of the vaults, such that the string structure is held in perfect tension from the gravitational force of its own weight.

Then by casting the resulting shape in concrete, and flipping the shape over, the resulting structure is optimized for compression. The tensile structure reflects the force of gravity on the string assembly - it is "optimized" for its own weight, so when flipping it over, and swapping the tension members for compression members, we know this new structure is perfectly shaped to distribute internal and self-weight for compression.</comment></comment></comment></comment>