NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts - <AUTHOR> https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/nba-china-revenue-business-sponsors <comment><USER2> The NBA really needs to grow a spine on this one. They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose. It will just be one more reminder for the populace that their current government restricts them from luxuries the rest of the world gets to experience. And if that doesn't bother them, good riddance I guess, it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league that's going to overtake the NBA, ever.

<comment><USER3> They are taking a stance: [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/media/nba-adam- silver/index.h...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/media/nba-adam- silver/index.html)

<comment><USER4> My I'm just feeling cynical, but this just sounds to me like an easy way to have it both ways:

1\. Placate the US by putting out a public statement saying "We support freedom of speech for our people."

2\. Placate China by using a backchannel to ensure that no one in the NBA actually _uses_ this nominal freedom to say something that hurts China's feelings.

Actually standing up would require supporting a statement that had been said instead of offerring vague support for future statements which may or may not ever occur.

<comment><USER5> You are just theorizing that #2 is happening with no evidence.

<comment><USER6> The evidence is that they didn't support the original tweet that caused all the ruckus, and there hasn't been a flood of tweets or other expressions of support for HK by other NBA people since the NBA made the statement.

<comment><USER7> We should boycott the NBA.

<comment><USER8> We can do better than that. Show up at every Brooklyn Nets game, sitting behind the basket with signs which... aren't China friendly.

<comment><USER5> Apparently people have done that and have gotten kicked out of NBA preseason games in the United States!

[https://www.dailywire.com/news/shameful-fans-with-free- hong-...](https://www.dailywire.com/news/shameful-fans-with-free-hong-kong- sign-kicked-out-of-nba-game/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it just me, or are there a lot of stories now about China throwing its financial weight around to influence speech?

We had the Blizzard/War of Omens thing [1], and the Houston Rockets remark being rescinded [2], and the South Park cancellation [3], and now this, all in the span of about a week.

[1] [https://www.cnet.com/news/blizzard-removes-blitzchung- from-h...](https://www.cnet.com/news/blizzard-removes-blitzchung-from- hearthstone-grand-masters-after-his-public-support-for-hong-kong-protests/)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/houston-rockets-gm-morey- del...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/houston-rockets-gm-morey-deletes- tweet-about-hong-kong.html)

[3] [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dek3kl/south_par...](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dek3kl/south_park_scrubbed_from_chinese_internet_after/)

<comment><USER10> Also the UBS pig incident:

[https://fortune.com/2019/06/17/ubs-china-pig-paul- donovan/](https://fortune.com/2019/06/17/ubs-china-pig-paul-donovan/)

That one wasn't even anything apparently political, just absurd snowflake- scale sensitivity on the part of a whole country:

 _Donovan made the "Chinese pig" comment on Wednesday as he attempted to explain why the country's swine flu outbreak shouldn't concern investors eyeing the international inflation outlook._

 _"Does this matter? It matters if you are a Chinese pig," Donovan said. "It matters if you like eating pork in China. It does not really matter to the rest of the world. China does not export a lot of food. The only global relevance would be if Chinese inflation influenced politics and other policies."_

Somehow the second sentence got interpreted as an insult - or was it just part of a trend of throwing weight around, as you suggest?

 _One of China's biggest state-owned infrastructure companies excluded UBS Group AG from a bond deal after the bank's global chief economist sparked a furor with his use of the phrase "Chinese pig."_

 _The comment was condemned by two Communist Party publications and by trade groups representing Chinese brokerages. Haitong International Securities Group, which competes against UBS for China-related business, said on Friday that it had suspended its activities with the bank._

Honestly, having watched this sort of stuff for years my own business interest in China is dead. Yes, it's a big market. But you can live very comfortably serving the rest of the world. Facebook and Google are banned there, they still mint more money than they can spend. Ignoring that market completely seems like a recipe for a much simpler life.

<comment><USER11> I didn't follow this at the time but I can immediately see that there exactly two ways to interpret the "Chinese pig" comment and one is very insulting. I'm guessing that the person who said the quote did not mean it as an insult

<comment><USER10> No, there's really no sane way to interpret that statement as being insulting. The entire statement was about swine flu, pork production and other very obviously pig-related things. Only a terribly incompetent mistranslation could have yielded an insult out of it, and such a mistranslation would surely have been detected immediately.

There's just no sensible explanation for why anyone would get upset by that statement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A presidential candidates stance on China and its abuse of human rights will be a key issue for me in 2020.

What is happening to the NBA, Blizzard, and seemingly every company that has a presence in China is the tip of the iceberg.

If we as a liberal free society cannot stand against the rise of oppressive totalitarianism then we are doomed to fail.

Incremental profits and potential market share in a closed economy is not worth the values we are sacrificing in the process.

If you are a C-level executive at a company doing business in China these issues need to addressed at the board level. What is the level of influence that the Chinese government is exerting on you and your morals.

Your stance should be clear: You either support the people of HK and their fight for representation in government, or you support the totalitarian regime that is oppressing them and hundreds of millions of other Chinese citizens.

<comment><USER13> > A presidential candidates stance on China and its abuse of human rights will > be a key issue for me in 2020.

Your presidential candidate need to fix human rights issues in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracy installed by the US government gotta have a warranty and customer service.

If the outcome of US installed human rights means tens of thousands of refugees and jihad fighters how can your model of human rights even work in a 1.4B population China?

<comment><USER12> You can't have it both ways, we gave Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity to elect a representative government, it is not our place to complain about the representatives they elected.

How many revolutions and dictatorships did the French have to go through until they settled on a system that works for them?

<comment><USER14> > we gave Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity to elect a representative > government, it is not our place to complain about the representatives they > elected.

The USA insisted on representative government _within those countries' existing borders_. So much of the strife in those countries is ethnic-based. If regions were given options for secession, then some of the new territorial formations that resulted may well have become more politically stable. Just look at how much better off Iraqi Kurdistan is, which is as close as it can get to independence, than the rest of Iraq.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This reminds me of a story a teacher of mine told in a Advertising class, about a retailer that put pressure on a soda maker to lower prices, or they wouldn't give them share of shelf.

Well the soda maker didn't agree, so they pulled the inventory out.

Weeks later the retailer came back to invite them in at the same rates. Apparently the customers weren't happy that their favorite soda wasn't available, and made sure to let the staff know.

If China starts to pull the plug on unique products and services, I believe there's going to be a ripple effect. I'm pretty sure there are millions of people in China that still enjoy the NBA, despite NBA's stance on what ever the subject is.

This will add up. Maybe the fear of instability through Western propaganda should be matched by the instability that the actualization of censorship is alive and well, via the ban of content people like.

Maybe not.

<comment><USER16> I want to point it out it is not only Chinese government, but also Chinese people, the people were enjoying the NBA, are abandoning it. This actually hurts the feeling of the fans.

<comment><USER17> While this definitely exists, I'm not completely convinced the true intensity of the Chinese exactly matches the front that Beijing allows forth. I'm confident that most Chinese are unhappy (maybe very unhappy) with the comments, but an entirely organic nationwide boycott seems a little farfetched to me. Chinese aren't robots; there's significant variance of opinions and eagerness about politics among them just like all other humans.

However, if the government chooses to grease the wheels of fury or even light the flame via astroturfing while simultaneously censoring dissenting opinions, they look mighty unified.

Remember, this tweet was on _Twitter_. Twitter is banned in China, which raises the question of how this became such a mainstream issue there organically. Sure, I suppose it's possible that an expat reshared it on Weibo and the entire country went bananas but that seems a like a bit of a stretch to me.

<comment><USER18> Why are you confident about Chinese? Do you have any evidence directly from mainland Chinese to support your arguments, or only speculations?

<comment><USER19> I am also confident that the Chinese aren't robots. Sadly I have no evidence directly from mainland China, you could say it's simply speculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well give them a handout as the US soybean farmers got for Chinese cutting imports due to trade war ... this is no different.

You either engage with China and turn a blind eye to their internal repression or totally decouple yourself from them ... can't have your cake and eat it.

</comment><comment><USER21> This reminds me of the issues faced by people developing apps that compete with facebook, or apps that offer a nice feature for iOS. There's always the risk that an ecosystem you don't control will turn on you, or change the rules of the game.

Except with China it's 1000x worse. It's not an app, it's not just an extra feature, it's the wholesale export of their authoritarian society to the rest of the world. When the statements of a user of your system (as with Hearthstone) risks your company being banned in China, self-censorship inevitably ensues. How long will it be until China insists that anyone, anywhere be deplatformed for this sort of thing?

</comment><comment><USER22> That's the point. The scale of China's reaction is obviously not because of the tweet itself but because of the trade war.

The message is that the US have a lot to lose if China starts to also effectively blacklist American companies like the US try to do to Chinese companies...

Edit: Someone should explain why now on HN a comment like this one that simply tries to look beyond the obvious and to discuss current issues with a bit more depth is received so negatively as soon as posted.

<comment><USER23> Well, we saw with the USSR that decades of Cold War couldn't be defused politically but Levis and Coca Cola went a long way towards bridging the divide.

Now we have China which is basketball-mad but the problem is we can't use the carrot of the NBA to entice them towards us as long as the NBA is willing to trade their product under China's terms for a big enough paycheque. The NBA's attempt to paint themselves as a non-participant is totally unacceptable. You either stand for something or you stand for nothing; you don't get to quietly profit from the situation while declaring you have no position. That's the "good people on both sides" argument we rightly called out as total BS.

<comment><USER22> The NBA is about basketball, not about something that is quickly turning into McCarthyism. Demanding that they should 'stand for something' is behaving exactly how China and Chinese companies are accused of behaving.

The concept of "enticing China towards the US" is also naive at best. China is not a small country that the US can turn into a satellite. It is a superpower with its own views and interests and however its political regime will evolve it will not be either aligned with or under the leadership of the US. The US government knows that and _that_ is the problem they have with China.

<comment><USER24> Please see comments in this thread or Google about their standing for gender issues in the United States. They've positioned themselves as social conscious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What if this blows up in the other direction ?

How many Chinese will pay attention to "whatever those people are doing in Hong Kong" for the first time because of this ?

Which is to say, what if lots of young Chinese stand up and take notice that they can't watch _world class_ professional basketball anymore ?

I am well aware that there is homegrown professional basketball in China, but the $4B number suggests they want to watch the NBA, which isn't surprising.

It's not obvious to me that, from the position of youth in China, the state holds the winning hand here ...

<comment><USER26> For some reason, a lot of people have convinced themselves that youth around the world all value rebellion and standing up for freedom. It's not true. It's especially not true in China. Young people in China are generally ultra nationalist and they support virtually everything the government does. If China bans something, the overwhelming majority of them will have a dozen reasons why it's an excellent decision ready to go.

Don't count on young people to take the west's side on anything. They enjoy our media and the products our mega corporations make, but they don't need them and they'll switch to Chinese alternatives instantly.

<comment><USER27> > _Young people in China are generally ultra nationalist and they support > virtually everything the government does._

Many Westerners have trouble coming to terms with things like "Not all the Chinese hate the CCP", or "Russians are just regular people like you and me."

<comment><USER28> How many anti-government protests have you seen in China?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The NBA boycotted North Carolina over HB2 (the "bathroom bill"), but doesn't have a problem doing business in China. I hope they go bankrupt.

<comment><USER30> They did one thing right but did another thing wrong. Is that worse than doing two things wrong?

<comment><USER29> No, it only shows that they essentially have no principles at all, or at least none that they're willing to lose money over (which is ultimately the same thing). It's always useful when someone reveals their true moral fiber, as the NBA has done.

<comment><USER30> Why are both the same thing? If it doesn't cost me anything to fight injustice and I don't do it, that is strictly worse than if it doesn't cost me to fight injustice and I do.

Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.

<comment><USER31> It isn't about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it.

If they said "we cozied up to China, but didn't cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one", that would be one thing. But if they said "we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral" while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that's a very different scenario.

At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.

<comment><USER30> You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed.

That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.

<comment><USER32> Their actions also go against deontological ethics as well.

<comment><USER30> Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still _worse_ in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing _better_ .

<comment><USER33> It's more manipulative and does a better job of revealing their true motives. Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.

<comment><USER30> > Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.

In this case, how?

<comment><USER33> A company that does a good deed will draw attention and support away from other companies. If the good deed was done for ethical reasons, then that attention and support will feed further good deeds in the future. If it was done for manipulative reasons, then it dilutes the money going to the more ethical companies. The manipulative company is less likely to do good deeds in the future. It's more likely to ignore opportunities, or to do easier and less meaningful good deeds.

In other words, it's not a one-off. There is the same positive effect in the short term, but the long term differs.

All of that logic could easily apply to this scenario.

For a simpler scenario, if a company does a good deed to apologize for a bad deed, and the good deed is smaller but gets them off the hook, then that's a very clear net negative.

<comment><USER30> In what way would the long term effect be worse if they had not done anything in North Carolina? Did their actions in North Carolina keep them alive long enough to apologize to China?

<comment><USER32> "But why male models?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Fun to see the NBA come up on HN.

One topic to bring up is how the NBA is targeting India as it's next country to try to bring basketball to [0]. What should happen to comments people might have about the India-Pakistan boarder conflict? Would the people here commenting about how rich people shouldn't be targeting China for money and growth complain about the NBA looking to grow in other markets? They've grown incredibly large in Europe over the past couple decades. Yes for money, but also popularity is fun to have, and amazing stories of players from those places.

I suppose my current stance on this, and a stance after only a few days and reading comments and posts from so many people which might change later or after responses to my comment here, is that the NBA should wave its hands and say the other countries can do what they want in terms of not even admitting the Rockets exist, or hide games completely, but reiterate that the players, GMs, and even owners, can say what they want, and that the NBA can and should continue to push the NBA to other markets.

[0] [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/asia/nba-india-intl-hnk- scli/...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/asia/nba-india-intl-hnk- scli/index.html))

</comment><comment><USER35> NBA?

How about the US government? I know in another post I made the point that we could not just call out Blizzard or other game companies but instead have to call out ALL companies that do business in China and worse crack down on their own and related who dare say something China does not approve of.

However the real party that has to be taken to task is our own governments. In the US that means both Congress and the Administration. That means all candidates for President need to state their stance NOW.

How it plays out in the EU I have no idea, news of any of their businesses or governments bending to China's will are pretty much absent from US news

edit:recently we have had major issues with privacy concerns, losing freedom of speech is a form of that as well.

<comment><USER36> _> How it plays out in the EU I have no idea, news of any of their businesses or governments bending to China's will are pretty much absent from US news_

EU governments and companies bend over for China way easier than in the US as there's a huge lack on unity in the EU where it's every country for itself like when China protested on Norway's leaders not meeting the Dalai Lama and Norway complied.[1]

[1][https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/world/europe/norways- lead...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/world/europe/norways-leaders-snub- dalai-lama-in-deference-to-china.html)

<comment><USER37> Not quite true.

* Vilnius takes down ads after China promotes unsanctioned commemoration – 'it's a geopolitical provocation' [1]

* Lithuania hands note to China over incident during Hong Kong support rally in Vilnius [2]

[1] [https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/news-in- english/19/1100141/viln...](https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/news-in- english/19/1100141/vilnius-takes-down-ads-after-china-promotes-unsanctioned- commemoration-it-s-a-geopolitical-provocation-says-mp)

[2] [https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/news-in- english/19/1093636/lith...](https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/news-in- english/19/1093636/lithuania-hands-note-to-china-over-incident-during-hong- kong-support-rally-in-vilnius)

Edit: Included titles

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> How about getting your morality and your values from organized religion or your personal spirituality and not from a bunch of multi-millionaires who throw a ball around? Organized religion is not allowed in China either.

You know something is allowed in China if it traces all its authority back to exist back to the party. That's how communism has always operated. The success of the party was the highest goal of highest goals that lead to all the purges and terrors throughout history.

</comment><comment><USER39> China presents a huge opportunity for growth to the NBA, and this is a really crucial period for them as it seems like the NFL's stranglehold might be weakening and extra money to reinvest might help that process. I don't understand how people can act like losing the Chinese market is some sort of trivial decision?!?

I would love for the NBA to stand up to China on this issue, but it IS NOT AN EASY OR OBVIOUS DECISION.

<comment><USER40> Money or surrender to evil. It's pretty simple.

<comment><USER41> Seeing how we live in capitalism - money it is.

Remember when Google, promised it wouldn't kowtow to China? Then kowtowed anyway.

<comment><USER42> Except they didn't. Project Dragonfly was cancelled after Google employees rebelled against it.

A better example would be how Apple quietly shared iCloud user data with the Chinese government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This says it all: [https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in- china](https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-china)

<comment><USER44> This got me to watch some South Park. I was at least few seasons behind. The show is still interesting and has some strong episodes.

Episode "Dead Kids" for example (about school shootings) is amazing, and its ending is absolutely brutal. I know it will stay with me for years.

[https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s22e01-dead- kids](https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s22e01-dead-kids)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Is this a dilemma though?

In fact, the more I think about this, is this even a problem?

I've been on Weibo a bit looking at reactions to all this, and here's the thing, if your average mainlander is upset and no longer wants to have anything to do with you, which, judging from the volume of comments seems to be true, why is that necessarily a problem?

People can say whatever they want. And other people can associate with whoever they want. Again, the more I thought about it, the more it struck me as simple Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association in action.

Fine. Just don't watch NBA anymore. You have the CBA anyway. No worries and no hard feelings. You do your thing in China and we'll do ours in the US.

<comment><USER46> cool

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The 4 Billion Dollar Tweet. That will surely end up as the title on some future youtube video.

</comment><comment><USER48> South Park made the best analysis of this :) cf the last episode

</comment><comment> j-c-hewitt If you want to do business in China, you have to comply with Chinese laws including those on speech. If you do not want to comply with those laws, you cannot do business in China. Both are fine and both are legal, but you cannot have it both ways at the same time.

You cannot flout the laws in China and continue to do business in China. This should also be reciprocal: Chinese companies should not be able to do business in the United States while flouting the laws of the United States.

</comment><comment><USER49> If anyone is curious about what the pro China arguments look like: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/df2mym/blizzard_pulls...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/df2mym/blizzard_pulls_blitzchung_from_hearthstone/)

</comment><comment><USER50> It's not much of a dilemma though, is it? Already-rich folks kowtowing to fascists for a quick buck is beyond pathetic.

US companies should stop targeting China for growth. If they don't steal your IP completely, they'll eventually freeze you out like they just did the NBA. It's happened to many companies and will eventually happen to you too. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

<comment><USER51> >Already-rich folks kowtowing to fascists for a quick buck is beyond pathetic.

Most NBA team owners are already billionaires. I believe most of them are self-made and have signed the giving pledge, meaning they will donate much of their wealth to charities at or before their death. If anyone can afford to take a stand, it would seem to be them.

<comment><USER52> The owner of the Nets is an executive at Alibaba. He will follow the party line and has (calling Hong Kong protestors "separatists", etc.)

The jersey sponsor of the LA Lakers is Wish.com, a company doing drop shipping from China.

LeBron James is sponsored by Nike (as are all of the jerseys) and Nike has significant interest in keeping the Chinese market open. LeBron is leading production of Space Jam 2. He won't jeopardize international acclaim and box office revenue for this.

This is the same for every other player. Sponsorship deals with apparel companies are a huge source of income. Few stars are untouchable and the ones who are wont risk other business interests.

<comment><USER53> As Michael Jordan _didn 't_ say... "Republicans buy sneakers too." Billionaires didn't get to be billionaires by leaving money on the table. We need large scale political action against China.

<comment><USER54> Billionaire's shouldn't exist. Name literally one benefit of having a billionaire in our society. Any one thing we wouldn't otherwise have.

<comment><USER55> The benefit of billionaires existing is that they made extraordinarily valuable businesses. Take Steve Jobs or Bill Gates - if they didn't exist then Apple and Microsoft wouldn't either. If Notch didn't exist then neither would Minecraft.

If you create something (a company, a video game, other IP), and people value that thing at a billion dollars, then you're a billionaire. Notch became a billionaire after selling Minecraft because almost 100 million people play it.

What do you expect should happen if someone creates a thing of value worth a billion dollars? Do you not want these things to be created? Do you not want them to be sold? (Ownership has to change hands eventually; people don't live forever). How are you expecting society would work?

Reaping what you sow provides the incentive to work hard in our society. Related: [http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html)

<comment><USER33> > What do you expect should happen if someone creates a thing of value worth a > billion dollars?

Let them have 50 or 100 million, then put the rest in the hands of the other people that worked to make it happen. If all of those people are now rich, then use the excess money to help the impoverished.

> Reaping what you sow provides the incentive to work hard in our society.

It's not binary. People don't get all the money or none of it. You can still have ridiculously large amounts of monetary incentive without it being possible to hit a billion dollars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Sometimes in trade and negotiations the most powerful tool is being able to walk away. Relative to the PRC, it is past time that we start walking away. There are certainly other partners available on the metaphorical dance card who are easier to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER57> Didn't China say they are willing to open their market more.

So, I think this proves that nothing changes. I'd be supprised that any TV- channel could show a Winnie the Pooh figure ever again.

It's like one big kindergarden, but for >1 billion people.

</comment><comment><USER58> > "We believe any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social > stability do not belong to the category of free speech," CCTV Sports said in > a statement.

I wonder what "free" does mean to them, then.

</comment><comment><USER59> Why recent articles on HN related to ICE were flagged and this one not? It's political too, double standards?

</comment><comment><USER60> The moment the money becomes more important than the morality, the morality leaves, never to return.

</comment><comment><USER61> The problem is that the type of moral outrage in this thread is exactly the kind of thing that is necessary to motivate mass killing (otherwise known as war).

War is an appropriate conflict resolution approach for ant colonies, but not for people. I hope people here realize that.

</comment><comment><USER62> If you really want a revolution, take away the people's favorite televised sports.

</comment><comment><USER63> ctrl+f "free speech"

comes back empty

\</comment><comment> \</comment><comment>

The 1st amendment only protects you from the US government, not the Chinese government

this seems like a good example of why we need to rethink "...but not the consequences of that speech!"

</comment><comment><USER64> Its clearly that Morey using his influence that NBA gave to loudly interrupt others business at PUBLIC. By the way I am Chinese and stay at China. I like Basketball sport very much.

</comment><comment><USER65> The NBA should get up and leave China on principle. I don't doubt that this would be more than made up for by fans around the world.

</comment><comment><USER66> They might as well give up that money now. The conditions on keeping it will only become more draconian with time.

</comment><comment><USER67> What if Moray says something to support Palestine freedom and human rights? Would NBA support Moray or Israel?

</comment><comment><USER68> Soon you will get kicked out of an NBA game if you wear a shirt that says "Free Hong Kong".

</comment><comment><USER69> Hey, free speech is also at risk but who cares when there is money involved ?

</comment><comment><USER70> money or free-speech, which one will you pick if it's you?

</comment><comment><USER71> Why there are so many political news on HN?

</comment><comment><USER72> Streisand effect potential for the US?

</comment><comment><USER73> This must be especially painful for Kerr who's known for his unhinged, incessant railing against Trump, and who is now quite willingly licking the boots of Xi Jinping, the real, actual dictator. Ready and willing to be woke, but only as long as it's good for business. When there's money at stake, though, murderous dictatorships are totally fine, and nothing to rail against.

</comment><comment><USER74> "Band in China"

</comment><comment><USER75> NBA also invested in a training camp in Xinjiang.

[https://nbaacademy.nba.com/location/xinjiang/](https://nbaacademy.nba.com/location/xinjiang/)

Meanwhile, millions of Uyghurs are being imprisoned nearby in concentration camps.

</comment><comment><USER76> I find it interesting that there isn't a Boycott / Divest / Sanctions movement for China, despite the human rights abuses they've always committed, in addition to more recently holding people in concentration camps. Surely their offenses are far more egregious than Israel's? Where's the movement for Hong Kong, for the Uighur? Does anyone know of such an effort?

<comment><USER45> Well, what would we do though? I mean, start boycotting China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Rwanda, etc, etc etc.

I mean, I guess I should ask, in your view, where would that stop? Boycott every nation in the world with human rights violations?

<comment><USER77> You could do that, or just boycott the one(s) you feel strongly about. Any action is better than inaction.

<comment><USER45> > _just boycott the one(s) you feel strongly about._

That's the rub.

That's the same thing as saying you don't necessarily mind doing business with human rights abusers, as long as you don't feel too strongly about the people being abused.

<comment><USER76> I don't think that's true. It's saying that you're going to make as many changes as you reasonably can in your life. Perfect is the enemy of good. (And only a sith deals in absolutes!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Can we relax with the self-made, altruistic view of billionaires? Self-made is a myth, and an NBA owner just released a book titled "Shut Up and Listen." Money talks, and it seems pretty clear that all of the moves previously made were actually for profits, not social causes.

<comment><USER79> How is self-made a myth? Not saying all billionaires should be envied, praised, etc. I'm sure many are huge manipulative asshole. But many also came from very modest to virtually no means, how is that a myth?

<comment><USER80> "Self-made" is almost always a misnomer because there's a point _very_ early in the process of accruing wealth where you use it to bootstrap its own operations, i.e., you start paying other people for their output to collect a net profit. At that point, "self-made" no longer applies because now other people are involved. At what point that transition happens determines how "self-made" they are, but no one is ever 100% that, and if we go by "percentage of current wealth needed to bootstrap" it's certainly well below 1%.

The global nature of today's economy, the complexity of navigating commerce and industry, and the sheer magnitude of output required to be profitable, makes it hard to do anything all by yourself. If we consider each person their own island with cash in- and outflow, then everyone is self-made. If we consider the global network of money changing hands, no one is self-made.

<comment><USER81> Self made means that you didn't inherit your money, win it in lottery or somebody just gave it you. Self-made doesn't stop applying when other people are involved, that is just absurd.

<comment><USER82> English isn't my first language but self-made seems to me to be about the self as in opposition to others.

And I have always understood the word to be used in that sense.

See the Collins definition (emphasis mine):

Self-made is used to describe people who have become successful and rich through their own efforts, _especially if they started life without money, education, or high social status_.

[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/self- ma...](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/self-made)

<comment><USER81> Giving orders to others are your actions/efforts/decisions so it entirely suits the definition.

<comment><USER82> "I ask my mom and dad to connect me to their old money friends to get some low rate loans to bootstrap my business. I am self made because _I_ asked my mom and dad for the connection. And I also ask them to co-sign the lease for my office."

HN Argumentum_ad_dictionarium at its finest. It's getting tiring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Not all costs are monetary. The long term ramifications of our businesses cow- towing to mass-murdering authoritarians is far greater than potential profits.

<comment><USER84> Appropriately enough, the term you're looking for is kowtowing (not towing cows), a Chinese term for a deep bow of respect.

<comment><USER85> > a Chinese term for a deep bow of respect

Not so much a "deep bow" as "prostration on the ground".

<comment><USER86> Literally, hitting (叩/kòu) one's head (头/tóu).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> No one giving Trump a little credit for pro actively working on putting an end to Chinese theft?

</comment><comment><USER88> I can't believe the way that Trump's anti-China rhetoric is so eagerly supported by so many people. China is just being China, what has changed is that the Trump administration is trying to raise the stakes on its trade war.

</comment><comment><USER89> Just realize that you are most likely using Phones/Computers made in China to call out the NBA.

</comment><comment><USER90> Deryl Morey has learned the power Chinese Communist Interests have over his human rights. China has instilled fear in the NBA that they must kowtow or suffer monetarily. None of them are allowed to question the crimes against humanity the CPC commits on its own people.

The NBA has a choice between human rights and money. Of course they chose money. US culture has been designed around money and greed so long it has forgotten principals it was supposedly founded on. Sure we fought a civil war over human rights vs greed, but that was a long time ago. After right-wing interests outsourced all the production and jobs for money in the past few decades, Steve Jobs was right: Those jobs aren't coming back.

</comment><comment><USER91> I know what "4 billion at risk" _means_ , but I still can't _help_ but be reminded of this:

> _This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the > people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions > were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned > with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on > the whole it wasn 't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy._

\-- Douglas Adams

</comment><comment><USER92> For all you kids, do you know what happens in Hongkong? Don't just use "protest", check some video from the other side. Look for Molotov cocktails, punching innocent people, burning stores, ruining public services, threaten policeman's families, does any of these seem OK for you all? If you don't see those stuff, the most easy one is searching for police shooting, how did that shoot happen? What happened right after the shoot? Yes, Molotov cocktail! Those riots are ruining other peoples life.

free speech, but don't build it another people's feelings, think about the Clipper's, if NBA don't do it, someone will do it. There's more on basketball than NBA.

<comment><USER93> Well I have to give it to that old stopped clock Barry Goldwater who in one of his two correct moments said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

Oh except for that punching innocent people thing, which is bad. I like how you snuck that one in there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> Good, there shouldn't be money in sports.

<comment><USER95> Why would anybody play sports then?

<comment><USER96> Not that I agree with the original, but that's a bit like asking why would anybody play music or make art (activities that rarely involve money)? Because they enjoy it.

<comment> munk-a Though the parent is accurate that in our western society doing a thing because you enjoy it is punished, both monetarily and socially, because you're not efficiently using your time to make someone else some money.

<comment><USER97> That couldn't be further from the truth</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Neil degrasse Tyson: Alien vs. Human Intelligence. - <AUTHOR> http://www.wimp.com/alienhuman/

<comment><USER2> So, we are 1% dna-different from chimpanzees (as said in the first half) or 1% smarter (second half)? Or both? Because I think he unintentionally messed terms there.

<comment><USER3> 1% dna different. The point he makes is that 1% dna difference produces a vast difference (by our measures) in intelligence, so that any Alien life (which we'd expect to be vastly different in dna) is likely to be either vastly superior or inferior to us in intelligence, meaning either way someone is going to look awfully stupid.</comment></comment>


OwnCloud: An open-source cloud to call your own - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/owncloud-an-open-source-cloud-to-call-your-own/10011

<comment><USER2> I have been wondering how to advertise private servers, yet take advantage of the Cloud buzzword in my advertising. _jealous_

</comment><comment><USER3> Private networks are now clouds too, how cute.

<comment><USER4> any cloud that never flies away from my backyard is called private cloud

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wait, wasn't one of the main benefits of cloud hosting that we don't have to manage it ourselves? Isn't this just hosting your own server?

</comment><comment><USER6> Linux-based program?

It's written in PHP. Yes, most people will run it on Linux, but it's not really Linux-based.

</comment><comment><USER7> This will be pretty neat for the paranoid enterprises that don't want data going out.

</comment><comment><USER4> last time i checked it's pretty limited in functions</comment>


Sobering Covid-19 study prompted Britain to toughen its approach - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-britain-research/sobering-covid-19-study-prompted-britain-to-toughen-its-approach-idUSL8N2BA2L9 <comment><USER2> Here's the paper by Ferguson [1] referred to in the article.

[1] [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial- college/medicine/s...](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial- college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI- modelling-16-03-2020.pdf)</comment>


DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems - <AUTHOR> https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=20515 <comment><USER2> Glad to see these new regulations... the Section 333 exemption process is/was a huge pain, and these rules also seem much more reasonable (mainly, you don't need to get a "real" pilot's license, just a remote pilot certificate, which will presumably be much more relevant for UAV operators). I think it's interesting that you have to report any incident with more than $500 of damage. Is the FAA going to investigate every time someone flies a Phantom into a tree?

Quick edit: I'll leave my last two sentences there for posterity, but turns out you only need to report if there's $500 of damage, _excluding damage to the UAS_

<comment><USER3> Trees are expensive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting enough, you should be able to see tree details in GIS: [http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html](http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html) [https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforest...](https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforestry/treeinventory) and technically the city own those planted trees, so you could be doing damage to city property.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> These rules remind me of the red flag laws[1] in the early days of cars. They're needlessly restrictive, and they block billions of dollars in economic productivity.

More importantly, these rules are going to cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain.

Today, we use ground vehicles to transport stuff. When people click "buy now" on Amazon, it results in multi-ton metal boxes speeding through neighborhoods. When vehicles and pedestrians exist in close proximity, people get hurt. Every day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being hit by cars. Around a dozen die.[2] Even if drones are every bit as dangerous as fearmongers say, they're not _that_ bad. The more that drones substitute for ground vehicles, the safer we'll be.

Unfortunately, the FAA is optimizing for "minimum number of people harmed by drones" and not "minimum number of people harmed".

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws)

2\. 2013 CDS statistics: [https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/)

<comment><USER5> > Every day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being > hit by cars. Around a dozen die.

How many of those are killed by package delivery vehicles?

<comment><USER4> I tried to find those stats when I was writing my comment, but I had to settle for overall info. Unless delivery vehicles are incredibly safe compared to vehicles overall, my point stands. To cause comparable harm, drones would have to be deadlier than the most pessimistic projections.

Also, drones can substitute for more than just delivery vehicles. They could replace most car trips involving moving things (as opposed to moving people). Instead of driving to the Apple store, a drone could pick up your broken laptop and return it when it's fixed. A drone could pick up and return your dry cleaning. Drones could deliver groceries. Etc. The end result is fewer car trips and fewer people maimed or killed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95."

Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;"

So these are rules for people doing chimerical work like "property assessment" or outdoor photography. Not your hobby flyer / AMA member.

<comment><USER7> Where does "with a couple seconds of highlights posted on a monetized YouTube channel" fall in that? No longer a hobby?

<comment><USER8> The FAA has in the past sent demand letters and attempted to subpoena documents related to payments from youtube videos.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built- gun...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun-drone- flamethrower-drone-argues-faa-cant-regulate-him/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The context of the request was to figure out if the stunt of firing a gun that was attached to an UAS was done with the purpose of gaining notoriety and money, and if it was in the public's interest, as it could cause harm to the public. The FAA won, drones are aircraft, and the FAA regulates all aircraft. But broadly, this was a case about public safety, not about revenue from YouTube hits: "On the broader question of the legality of arming a drone, the law prohibits recklessly endangering the public when flying an aircraft."

<comment><USER8> not gun or flamethrower related: [http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa- dont-post-drone-vi...](http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-dont-post- drone-videos-on-youtube/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is quite reasonable. The Academy of Model Aeronautics won their battle to have recreational use regulated under existing model aircraft regulations. The FAA rules apply to commercial use.

A key item is "Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission." (Here's the US airspace classification.[1])

Most US airspace near the ground is class G. So, as a practical matter, almost all farmers and ranchers will be able to use drones with few restrictions.

Classes B, C, and D are around airports and go all the way down to the ground. They're controlled by FAA control towers with radar. To do anything in the air in B, C, and D airspace, you have to be visible to ATC and in communication with them. This now applies to drones, too. There are now ADS-B transponders for drones; the smallest weighs 20 grams.[2] This makes your drone visible and identifiable to air traffic control. If you're taking real estate photos or shooting a movie in a big city, you need to be visible to ATC and talking to them. ATC towers have published phone numbers.

The hardest place to operate is New York City. City policy can be summed up as "No way". NYC assumes that anything unauthorized flying over the city is a terrorist attack, and ATC will not grant permission. Some bozo crashed a small drone into the Empire State Building early this year.[3] He was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_\(United_States\)) [2] [http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/](http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/) [3] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of- video...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-videos- script-an-arrest-for-flying-a-drone.html)

<comment><USER10> Most FAA "guidance" books suggest staying 50-100ft away from buildings. This is difficult to maintain in Manhattan. Though the police are jerks about people flying for personal photography in the middle of central park as well :(.

Hopefully, as the technology evolves, so will people's comfort level in allowing for flight near buildings. Collision avoidance systems are slowly getting baked into drones

<comment><USER11> Isn't all of Manhattan too close to an airport anyway? I haven't had a chance to look at the updated regulations yet.

<comment><USER9> Suprisingly, no. Parts of lower Manhattan are just far enough from LGA and JFK to be outside their class B airspace at ground level. The Freedom Tower is outside class B. There are lots of other special restrictions near NYC, though. Right now, there are two temporary flight restriction areas due to baseball games. There's a restriction on flying over the East River. There are special traffic rules for flying around the Statue of Liberty. There are special rules for helicopters. It's one of the world's busiest airspaces; you have to expect traffic control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Training to get my sport pilot license and just got out of a flight lesson on a Light Sport Aircraft (Cessna 162 Skycatcher). My instructor was telling me about drone pilots in the Augusta, GA area training on the aircraft to meet FAA requirements. Getting an SPL is easier than a PPL so a lot of drone pilots are going this route. Looks like they might not have to now anymore though

</comment><comment><USER13> As someone with only cursory knowledge of the area, it seems like the requirement to keep the drone within line of sight would be pretty crippling. Is this just me? I guess this makes drone based camerawork feasible for film/sporting events, but it seems like it kills any sort of delivery or remote sensing applications.

<comment><USER14> Launch it from the top of a skyscraper!

<comment><AUTHOR> The regulations do stipulate that you get 400 feet from the launch point as well, so if you launch from 1000ft building, you get to go to 1400ft

<comment><USER15> Technically, it's 400' from the tallest surrounding object.

So, yes; you can technically fly to 1400ft near a 1000ft building.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting that most of the requirements listed can be waived, including presumably the line of sight requirement (ie: for drone delivery): • Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.

<comment><AUTHOR> They also do not explain or reference what it would take to get such a certificate of waiver. It's very likely that someone like myself cannot ever get one, but perhaps Amazon could? What if I'm a small startup, can I get the same treatment that Amazon could?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What is the status of autonomous flight? Is it allowed, as long as the aircraft is within line of sight of an operator who could take over?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are no rules around that, the only rules that apply are line of sight and the ability to control it the entire time. Technically, even parking by drone assist technology, where the drone itself can go back to the launch spot and start lowering itself to the ground requires you to be in control and able to abort. I was in a situation where even though I specified a return altitude of 50ft, the drone went straight instead when parking, which would have caused it to crash in a tree. In other words, the pilot needs to be able to control it at all times, but does not explicitly have to actively control it at all times. Who knows how long specific language around passive/active assist requirements are baked in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > _The new rule, which takes effect in late August, offers safety regulations > for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are > conducting non-hobbyist operations._

This makes sense to me - the FAA being concerned with, well, basically commerically-oriented UAV flights and using their authority to establish parameters. Hopefully this is a helpful step to start integrating more flights and more interest in the field with trying to minimize ignorance that could be somewhat dangerous.

> _The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other > operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on > the ground who aren't directly participating in the UAS operation._

Sounds like this could get a waiver if the group is established and has the right safety record / resources. That's pretty neat. As a concert / festival / event attendee the last thing I'd want as a souvenir is a mangled noggin or appendage from an improperly or irresponsibly piloted UAV with a camera on it coming down on me.

Also, while the licensing parameters might seem a bit overbearing to some, I kind of think they rather reflect just how utterly terrible the testing and credentialing process is for automobile drivers in the US.

> _Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least > 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or > be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a > remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial > aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or > have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under > the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the > previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by > the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote > pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate._

To me it's not that the UAV license is too much, but that consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines.

<comment><USER19> American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.

<comment><USER18> Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.

<comment><USER19> > I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if > used improperly - to justify regulatory burden

I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A good step in the right direction. I wonder who/what it would take to get a waver from these regulations. As a drone pilot myself, it's good to see training requirements and background checks, and hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have.

The one part that I found very interesting is 'First-person view camera cannot satisfy "see-and-avoid" requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways,' opening the door for some wiggle room on how the line of sight and see-and-avoid rules get applied.

<comment><USER20> >hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have.

I suspect that the FAA would not see that as part of their mandate. They're primarily concerned with aviation safety in this context.

<comment><AUTHOR> "The FAA also will educate all commercial drone pilots on privacy during their pilot certification process; and will issue new guidance to local and state governments on drone privacy issues." So it looks like the local laws may be part of the actual test itself and issue guidance to local and state governments, although it's very vaguely written.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely populated area" seems to suggest that I could do that for personal usage, but not for commercial usage: "Transportation of property for compensation or hire allowed provided that [...] the flight is conducted within visual line of sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft"

</comment><comment><USER21> As an aside:

I'm really hoping as drones become mainstream people will be made aware of their right to privacy and where they have it. I spend a fair amount of time watching clips of ignorant people attacking cameramen and drone operators in public.

This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.

<comment><USER22> > This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in > it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.

Just because something is _legal_ doesn't mean it is socially _acceptable_.

Drones are normally really loud and annoying. In addition, the sound tends to radiate because it's above the things that would absorb the sound. If I'm out to enjoy some quiet on a trail, and I've got a gaggle of "Drunk Go-Pro Drone Bros", I'm going to be upset, and I'm going to have words with them (been there, done that).

The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.

<comment><USER23> >The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.

Charming. Let's all try to solve problems by being kindergarten bullies.

This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the WWF for role models.

<comment><USER22> > This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but > the WWF for role models.

And the reason why we have regressed to needing to threaten someone physically is because an entire generation has been raised to believe that they are "special little flowers" who don't have to pay attention to the fact that what they do has an impact on other people.

While, yes, it is technically illegal to shoot a drone out of the sky over your own property, there is a reason why nobody has been willing to push the point in court.

<comment><USER21> Are you one of those 'special little flowers' ignoring the impact you might have on others? - the physical impact that follows threatening violence?

Seriously wtf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Small tangent here. I'm getting a project started in the UAV space -- a new form of transportation. I'm putting a team together. Ping me if you're interested in learning more (username at gmail).</comment>


Show HN: Sarafan– AI-based product search tool which recognises items in videos - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/all-about-sarafan-ai/how-we-launched-the-search-for-products-through-videos-63264853ce1e <comment><USER2> OMG, it is worthy of the highest praise, OMG is the technology of the Gods

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, jenyasmithov !

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Well done! Looking forward to getting more news about Sarafan!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, kshirokova!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, this is awesome! Good job, Sarafan team :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, MilenaMilena!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Any feedback is very welcome!

</comment><comment><USER5> Great job, guys!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, golovin!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, its so cool

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, Golovin!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good idea

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Way to go!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, Malyutin!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well done!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, Golovin!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow

<comment><AUTHOR> :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can you recommend a radiometer to measure phone radiation? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I believe that what you're looking for is called a "spectrum analyzer". You'll need a calibrated antenna, too.

I'm guessing that SAR (specific absorption rate) is usually measured with a block of soggy flesh-imitating goo that's set up as a calorimeter, though. You could look up how the FCC defines SAR, perhaps.

<comment><USER3> The consensus standard for this sort of test is IEEE 1528, and you are absolutely correct. The test uses a gel phantom (the standard provides a few formulations for different frequencies but most are a mixture of water, salt, sugar, and a thickener) and it is poked at with a sensitive probe to measure local temperature rise.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks to both of you for the specific info

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> (or RF radiation in general, wether related to wifi, gsm or other sources)

</comment><comment><USER4> Like this? [http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/GeigerCounters.html](http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/GeigerCounters.html)

<comment><USER5> Wrong sort of radiation. A mobile phone emits radio waves not ionizing atomic particles. No ionizing radiation of any kind in fact.

Which is why mobile phones are completely harmless (from a radiation perspective anyway).

Careful not to go out in the sunshine though.</comment></comment>


A Glimpse into the Heart of a Quasar - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07538-z <comment><USER2> It's a great article. But it's odd that it didn't mention work on our local (fortunately quiet) quasar, Sagittarius A*. Although there's too much dust for visible observations, it's just so damn close. And there's been some great imaging work at gamma, x-ray and radio wavelengths. Although I don't believe that there's a substantial accretion disk, we can actually observe stuff that's orbiting the black hole.

<comment><USER3> Sag A* is not a quasar. If it were, it would be the brightest thing in the sky by several orders or magnitude.

<comment><USER2> It's a potential quasar. It's just that there's not much accretion happening right "now". And it does occasionally flare.[0] Also, I don't believe that we have the data to exclude the possibility that something big is heading inward. We only see stuff that's close enough to get hot enough.

But of course, given that we're near the galactic plane, neither jet points at us. And although, as I recall, the jets are somewhat off-axis, they're not off in our direction.

0) [https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09896](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09896)

<comment><USER4> It might become a full-blown quasar when the Andromeda Galaxy collides with the Milky Way ~4.5 billion years from now. We'd better take that into consideration when we start planning for the death of our Sun ;)

<comment><USER2> Based on what we've observed, one could likely estimate the amount of accretion needed to make Sag A* visible from Earth. Or bright enough to fry us. It'd be a huge stretch for me to do that. But I bet that it's a _lot_ less than Andromeda. I mean, there could be a substantial black hole, maybe 50-100 years out, and I doubt that we could detect it now :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just today I read some comment about "Science is slowing down", but honestly, there is so much astonishing progress (like this one) purely motivated by curiosity - it's truly motivating and inspiring!

<comment><USER6> I'm personally convinced that the "science is slowing down" perception is a consequence of actual progress speeding _up_ while the time taken for new discoveries to percolate into the common consciousness is increasing. You look back on discoveries that have had time to percolate, and you see a rapid ramp up. Then you look at the past few years, and you see less going on because it's all still in labs and obscure research papers and the like.

Also, it's hard to know which discoveries are hugely important when they're still drowned out in dross. It's like the way '70s music is "the best music", because we've forgotten the tons and tons of crud '70s music.

<comment><USER7> There is an effect where the progress of science can stay the same, but the progress is in expanding details.

So instead of Einstein reshaping our understanding of spacetime, we gain a more detailed understanding of the consequences of that discovery. The average cosmologist these days probably has a superior understanding of relativity than even Einstein did.

Consider the map of human knowledge to be an ever expanding tree. If you have growth happening at the same rate, it can seem slower, because it's hard to grasp the full breadth of the growth now. I don't know if I'm explaining it that well.

Our understanding of the universe is extremely detailed compared to even 50 years ago, and we continue to advance rapidly. It's just that advancement is spread out much more, and is much, much more detailed and nuanced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Awesome article!</comment>


Microsoft Releases Guidelines for Developers of Conversational AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/responsible-bots/ <comment><USER2> Guidelines PDF: [https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2018/1...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2018/11/Bot_Guidelines_Nov_2018.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> This appears to be an excerpt from The future computed [https://news.microsoft.com/futurecomputed/](https://news.microsoft.com/futurecomputed/)</comment>


Wrong About Apple Silicon Based Macs - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk <comment><USER2> Clickbait title</comment>


Microsoft Brings Native HEIF Support to Windows 10 - <AUTHOR> https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/154398/microsoft-brings-native-heif-support-windows-10 <comment><USER2> If you're considering using HEIF, beware. It was developed by the MPEG group and it really just a container around H.265 still image(s). Thus, like everything from MPEG, it is patent encumbered to hell. Want to make a product that comprehends HEIF files? Pay the piper!

This isn't much different from why GIF needed to be abandoned or why people are trying to use alternate video formats: MPEG patent licensing fees are hobbling effect and a determent to open source work.

So now MPEG-LA wants a tax on what used to be free JPEG images? I'm not impressed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Even though Microsoft is backing VP9 and would probably rather see that win out, I suspect their hand was probably forced by the iPhone now saving images in HEIF by default. I've already had to tech support for several family members who could not understand why they suddently couldn't open pictures they took on their iPhones on their PC.

<comment><USER4> Google also announced HEIF support, likely for the same reason ([https://www.cnet.com/news/android-p-heic-photo- compression-f...](https://www.cnet.com/news/android-p-heic-photo-compression- feature-wont-work-on-lower-end-phones/))</comment></comment>


Ruby in 2010: A Retrospective of a Great Year for Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://www.rubyinside.com/ruby-in-2010-a-retrospective-4059.html <comment><USER2> Ruby really has had a great year. All us fanboys can now say "I told you so".

Ruby 1.9.2 and Rails 3.0 were great milestones.

Also the community has flourished. We lost _why ( _sniff_ ) and Zed (don't let the door hit you...) but some great folk really came out of the woodwork to make Rails 3.0 awesome:

Aaron Patterson

Jose Valim

some Carlhuda guy

And a hundred others. I used to enjoy watching the Rails/Merb catfights, but this strong community is so much better to have.

<comment><USER3> "some Carlhuda guy"

:)) funnieast thing ever! "Carlhuda" actually its a name under witch Carl Lerche and Yehuda Katz commit their work when they do pair programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another thing that I associate with this year is the spreading awareness of ORM and framework agnosticism. With the popularity of Sinatra and MongoDB, along with other Rack frameworks and non-AR DB libraries, there seems to be a big shift toward web-related libraries that are Rack-centric rather than Rails-centric.

Regarding Padrino: when it was released earlier this year I initially didn't think much of it, but after playing with it recently I believe it definitely has the potential to be another great Ruby web framework. It's already very usable and extremely pleasant to work with.

<comment><USER5> Almost all the people I know (Including myself) who use Sinatra were more willing to use Padrino than Rails.</comment></comment>