Financial Software Projects (C++) - NYU Fall 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall11/CSCI-GA.3033-003/

<comment><USER2> As someone who was a trader on a derivatives prop desk I would suggest those interested in finance with solid coding skills skip being a 20-year old's peon and:

(1) Join a quant fund, e.g. Renaissance, Two Sigma, Citadel, etc., or,

(2) Join a finance tech start-up, e.g. Palantir, Addepar, SecondMarket, Wealthfront, etc. who are liable to turn the industry over in the near future

Both options require you be more than a "developer" (in the Wall St sense). Coding is a means by which to express your edge in data analysis and algorithmics. A coder who knows some finance is a "dev". A dev who knows statistical methods is a "quant". A quant who can engineer new trades is a Master of the Universe (and one to put the phone monkeys to shame at that).

 _Note about the course books_ : this explains a lot about our devs. They have you implement VaR and other theoretically sophisticated programmes while giving a ram-jet flyover of finance that would leave you helpless with more the intricate articles in _The Economist_ ; it's the equivalent of learning CS theory with no coding experience or math through memorisation.

 _Note about note_ : I'm not criticising the course _per se_. It does a fine job of preparing a CS student for being a developer on Wall St. I'm targeting this more to the HN community, who I feel would be wasted talent in that role.

<comment><USER3> Make sure to investigate the firm and, in particular, their enforcement of non-competes before you join to ensure you are comfortable with their terms. One of the three in your bullet (1) has a long history of enforcing (and backing up with Full Legal Might) an 18-month non-compete on even somewhat competent developers and traders.

<comment><USER2> Or an effective lifetime non-compete if you're talking about Renaissance. Then again, their flagship fund, which is now only open to employees, regularly beats 50% annualised returns after fees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I took a similar class a few years ago at NYU.

All I can say is classes always look better at paper than they do in real- life. I learned absolutely nothing of substance, and found it a waste of time. But YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER5> Oh man, I wish this was available when I was in school. This field has always interested me, but it seems that the bar of entry is super high (trading account).

<comment><USER6> There are a variety of companies that offer some level of programmatic access for trading.

<comment><USER7> An Interactive Brokers trading account with a minimum 10K USD deposit will get you access to their trading API. If you can deposit 25K, you'll be OK with pattern day-trader status and gain 4x leverage for your account.

They also offer a paper-trading account for testing purposes. They give you $1M in funny money to trade with to test your algos.

<comment><USER8> Can you please provide more information on this? A link would be fantastic. Thanks.

<comment><USER7> <http://www.interactivebrokers.com/ibg/main.php>

[http://individuals.interactivebrokers.com/en/pagemap/pagemap...](http://individuals.interactivebrokers.com/en/pagemap/pagemap_APISolutions.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For everyone lamenting not being able to take _this class_. Taking the class is the least important aspect. Going to college or equivalent and learning and practicing how to think hard are all you need classes for. Anyone who has completed a degree in any hard science /math /engineering can learn this material from the books and websites and forums.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is actually one of the hottest fields in C/C++ software development. Either high frequency trading or machine learning based transactions are in very high demand. I wish I could take this class.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not sure what a developer can learn about software engineering from Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder but it is an awesome book.

I'd recommend people read it for pleasure.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm kinda finance geek, but I know nothing about this field programmatically. This looks amazing. Anyone have any other links worth looking at?

<comment><USER13> You may want to check out the forums at wilmott.com or the forums at nuclearphynance.com

A lot of work in finance is also done in statistical programming languages like R. Some firms have also made big investment in vector processing / APL type languages like q (or k) and time series databases like kdb+.

Event processing / correlation platforms and programming is also gaining a lot of traction in finance. Progress Software's Apama platform, Streambase, and a bunch of other start ups are competing in this space as well.

Technology in finance is huge. It goes from building pricing models for derivatives and bonds (post under discussion), high frequency trading (FPGAs, event correlation,etc), to trade processing (high throughput transaction processing), to web app development (retail trading platforms, ebanking).... I could keep going on and on. It is wide field and if you are interested in working in technology in finance, it is safe to say you could find some nice in which you could use your skills. Obviously pay grades, job quality, etc. vary..

<comment><USER12> I'm only familiar with building pricing models. Thanks for the quick list and links. I kinda want to get into this.

Sans hat tip.</comment></comment></comment>


2-friends authentication - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@julien51/friendly-auth-e7a7b71edff3

<comment><USER2> Although I like the human side of this, it might be impractical especially when I'm sitting at 2am trying to get access to some service I lost my password of.</comment>


Chinese cement prices: Indication of the real economy's health - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-price-of-cement-in-china-macquarie-2015-9 <comment><USER2> That precipitous 2015 drop in concrete prices doesn't look nearly as exciting if you plot it on a properly scaled graph whose bottom is at y=0 rather than y=300.

Also, the slope of the 2015 price line seems to follow those of the 2012 and 2014 lines fairly closely. This suggests that there may be a seasonal pattern in cement demand (e.g., less construction occurs the closer you get to winter).

<comment><USER3> the stagionality is true indeed. A part from that, the Chinese stock were an example by the book of bubble (for instance look at the Shanghai index). If the government wouldn't have stepped in, it would be already finished. On such matter, I can't believe they believed all those stock to be so valuable. Therefore there must be something else that I miss to know. Why supporting the price now? Looks very strange.</comment></comment>


Oculus Quest 2 – Inside the Upgrade [Accidentally Published / Leaked] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b8xf2DpAMk <comment><AUTHOR> If you like that you may also be interested in "Meet Oculus Quest 2 [Accidentally Published / Leaked]": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4EPMxJiJRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4EPMxJiJRQ)</comment>


California, Los Angeles see jump in new cases, Bay Area continues down - <AUTHOR> https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-california-los-angeles-see-huge-jump-in-new-cases/ <comment><USER2> LA has recently made testing available to anyone which is a great move! [https://lacovidprod.service-now.com/rrs](https://lacovidprod.service- now.com/rrs)

<comment><USER3> Free, for everyone... even those without symptoms. It does feel like "number of tests administered" per region during said time period would be an important stat for context. But who am I to let details get in the way.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Two Bay Area stats from the article:

 _There were seven deaths on Wednesday, bringing the region's total to 283. But Wednesday's reported deaths represents a 66% decrease from the 21 deaths recorded on April 22._

 _In fact, Santa Clara County, once the region's epicenter of its COVID-19 crisis, recorded its lowest number of new cases in a single day — just 12 — since the pandemic began._

</comment><comment><USER4> How many tests were taken over this period in the Bay Area versus LA? And what people are being tested in each area?

They still barely even acknowledge that the amount of testing is part of this.

The reporting should be about estimated total infection spread and the ways they are estimating it.

<comment><USER5> The CA Governor Newsom had said on a press conference recently that they had increased testing last week by about 40%, and planned a similar pace in the weeks to come. Don't know about how that relates to LA or how accurate that is.

My go to tracking site [https://covidtracking.com/us- daily/](https://covidtracking.com/us-daily/) doesn't seem to break down historical by state.

<comment><USER6> It's in the next tab over, "State by State" [1]. Click on the state name to see the breakdown. For example, if you click on "Alabama" it will take you to historical data [2]. Cheers!

[1] [https://covidtracking.com/data](https://covidtracking.com/data)

[2] [https://covidtracking.com/data/state/alabama](https://covidtracking.com/data/state/alabama)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The curve has been flattened and I'm past ready for lockdown to end.

<comment><USER8> Unfortunate you're getting downvoted. Flattening the curve was about limiting cases so hospitals don't get overrun. Now they're trying to eradicate the virus which isn't going to happen unless you lock everyone down for over a a year.

<comment><USER7> Yup, it's ok, I have karma to burn, just checking sentiment and zeitgeist as my house begins to mindfully break lockdown. There was a mediocre acoustic act performing on the waterfront at Jack London square an hour ago; we might do some shows there or throw a rave at Brooklyn Basin.

You can't lock down the healthy in America for a year to protect the weak. Those in fear think this is going to end soon but it isn't. Instead, people need to decide how to live their lives in our new, fundamentally unsafe pandemic society.

<comment><USER9> I'm glad that you are sure that you are immune and that everyone that one you care about is also immune. Enjoy that rave

<comment><USER10> Money wise, everyone I know who wasn't doing too well before the pandemic, is now totally broke.

One of my acquaintances, hasn't paid rent last month, and frequents food banks now. The promised relief checks have yet to arrive too.

The job market post pandemic looks like it will be pretty rough, so the longer this goes on without relief the more debt people will incur.

I am personally not against continuing the lockdown, even though it's deeply emotionally draining, but the government needs to consistently provide money for people to live, or else simple desperation is going to become a wide spread problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I mean, the Bay Area can read a graph and understand math. It's the dominant industry here, math and data. I don't think the same can be said of the LA region...

<comment><USER12> It would be nice if the article contained a graph. There's data about reproduction numbers and case numbers for each state at [https://rt.live/](https://rt.live/) but the estimate Rt is at an all time low for California, so that's not useful for understanding this article (since maybe LA and SFO balance out). Are there any sites with good visualizations that help one to see a statement like the claim of this article?

<comment><USER13> LA Times has statewide and by-county graphs here: [https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus- case...](https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases- tracking-outbreak/)

The trends there and in news reports like the OP are going to look different from your R_t site because it's based on the official numbers rather than a model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Presumably this is the Easter bump coming in from people who didn't take it seriously--it's been 3 weeks. Southern California has a lot more Catholics than the Bay Area.

<comment><USER15> I get what you are going for but LA has about 10x more people in general than the Bay Area, and to my knowledge most christians celebrate Easter, not just Catholics.

<comment><USER16> Yeah but a lot of people celebrate Easter with egg hunts and candy. Not everyone celebrates it with mass. Was mass cancelled for Easter?

<comment><USER17> Yes. Bishops in the US closed parishes in March. The Pope granted a dispensation so that Catholics do not have the obligation to attend Mass during Lent and Holy Week.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/hack-a15.html <comment><USER3> That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistleblower- police-hacking-spying-scotland-yard)

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc- investi...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investigates- claims-police-used-hackers-to-read-protesters-emails-jenny-jones)

<comment><USER4> You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws:

 _The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at the Guardian, liable for prosecution—with up to 14 years in jail._

It seems totally futile to stand up to these people.

<comment><USER5> >that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws

Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok?

You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.

<comment><USER6> Why should we not support those who expose _wrongdoing_? That's the core of the issue you're ignoring here, whistleblowing is not just releasing whatever things you want.

If we as a nation want those activities, then we should make them legal and clearly defined. If not, then stopping those activities from taking place hardly sounds like "treason".

<comment><USER7> > then we should make them legal and clearly defined

We did, in 1998, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act_1998)

And we made things a bit better for NHS Whistleblowers with the Freedom to Speak Up Review and and NHS Improvement (was Monitor) Freedom to Speak Up policy which is compulsory for NHS Trusts

[https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up- whi...](https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up- whistleblowing-policy-for-the-nhs/)

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-robert- franci...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-robert-francis- freedom-to-speak-up-review)

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I meant making the activities that people blow the whistle on legal/clearly defined as expected practice, rather than whistleblowing itself. If as a country we're OK with doing X and not with people whistleblowing about the country doing X, then we should make X clearly defined as legal.

I don't think we _should_ make these things legal, personally, but I think they should either be legal so whistleblowing doesn't make sense or illegal and whistleblowing is encouraged.

<comment><USER7> We have made surveillance legal, and provided a framework of protections, under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Before RIPA we had a bunch of different public bodies using surveillance with little control over what they were doing. After RIPA they can still use surveillance if they follow the correct procedures, and some of the abuses were reigned in.

The police especially have strong powers to use surveillance.

<comment><USER6> And so something that falls entirely within both the letter and spirit of those regulations wouldn't be something a person would have protections for 'whistleblowing', right? Since it's not really whistleblowing in those cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not anti police or law but some chilling recent events worry me.

A similar thing happened in Quebec, Canada.

[http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec- journalis...](http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalists- police-spying-1.3833507)

And in Newfoundland a man who made comments on Twitter criticizing the police was tracked down then hauled off to a psychiatric hospital. He was admitted against his will and using suspicious methods.

[http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=new...](http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/court- defends-political-dissent-after-n-l-man-sent-to-psychiatric-hospital-for- criticizing-police-shooting)

</comment><comment><USER9> >The Bindmans LLP law firm, acting on behalf of Jones, contacted six of those listed to verify their passwords (the others could not be traced). In response, five of the six gave passwords that matched those given in the letter, and the sixth was nearly a match.

Well jeez no wonder they were hacked if they're that easy to socially engineer. "Verify my password? That's funny, you're the third one this month..."

<comment><USER10> Blaming the victims? Really?

<comment><USER11> Why this stigma against acknowledging that potential victims can (and would be wise to) take steps to protect themselves.

Yes, dressing a certain way, drinking a lot of alcohol, and attending a party doesn't begin to excuse rape. But that doesn't mean it was a good idea and is something you should do without considering the possible consequences.

If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm if you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying.

<comment><USER12> > If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm > if you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are > probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying.

GP is suggesting that the people involved were clueless rubes who gave out their passwords to people of unknown identity, which I submit is almost certainly untrue.

<comment><USER11> You're possibly right, but that _is_ pretty much what the article says. Perhaps there was more of a trust established between the parties. Perhaps they were shown a list of compromised passwords and asked if any of their passwords appeared on the list. But pointing out that what the article actually says happened makes you an easy target is hardly uncalled for. I'm taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card. Bad security practice is bad security practice and pointing it out doesn't make you Hitler.

<comment><USER12> > I'm taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card.

I also tend to gag slightly at the phrase "victim blaming", because I think it's a shibboleth that identifies your allegiances and shuts down critical thinking. But I don't actually think it's unwarranted here. Yes, the article says the people involved gave Bindmans their passwords. It also says those passwords were defunct, and that Bindmans had them anyway. It _doesn 't_ say that they didn't make reasonable efforts to verify that sharing the passwords was the right thing to do (which, as it turns out, it was). It's _extremely_ ungenerous to respond to that by saying they deserved it for being so crap at security.

> Bad security practice is bad security practice and pointing it out doesn't > make you Hitler.

I am willing to concede that it's unlikely anybody in this thread is Hitler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Its an issue when you self censor opinions which deviate from the mass. It also an issue of freedom of press. The government know who you talk to through metadata collection even if you use encryption.

<comment><USER14> I find myself self-censoring on topics like this, not because of what I (don't) fear is being done by authorities, but because I can't help but to note that we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia, and that seemingly the surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society, but not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for those numbers by my username.

Meanwhile, there _are_ places that are living in a dystopia, and the single most important goal of the powers that be in those places is undermining the rule of law. So I can't help but be skeptical of stories like this.

We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this, and where criminals can be kept out of the public sphere, and these are good things. There. And hey, tonight at least, for once, I won't go to a throwaway to say so.

<comment><USER15> >We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this

If anything, cases like this demonstrate how quickly that can change when you soften surveillance and free speech laws. Look at Turkey. Turning a democracy into a dictatorship took only a few years.

The German government, too, is working on establishing a massive censorship complex. How can you tell it's censorship? They don't bother going after the people who make supposedly illegal statements. Instead, they pressure social networks directly to make the statements disappear without any legal process.

Right now, many people are cheering, because it works in their favor, but they're too shortsighted to realize that it'll eventually be used against them, too.

Note that I'm not even saying that certain statements shouldn't be punishable, but in a democracy, there must be a legal process for each and every case. When opinions or money decide what should be censored, it stops being a democratic process.

<comment><USER16> Sure the German justice goes after people making unlawful postings and entire specialized police units are being established. Charges and successful verdicts regarding internet posts are nothing new at all. However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time. Much to long compared to the speed postings get shared.

<comment><USER15> It's not the German justice going after it, that's the point. Why would they? They're not looking to punish anyone, but simply make unwanted statements disappear.

Right now, they've appointed a private organization (Arvato) that belongs to the Bertelsmann group, which has a strong lobbying branch and is very close to the government.

So basically, a private corporation is allowed to run its own show on all ends and it'll only get worse when they turn this into a law.

German sources:

[https://netzpolitik.org/2016/sz-recherche-so-arbeitet-das- fa...](https://netzpolitik.org/2016/sz-recherche-so-arbeitet-das-facebook- loeschteam-in-berlin/)

[https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig- Bertelsma...](https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig- Bertelsmann-3572721.html)

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

>However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time.

That doesn't justify censorship in any way. You sound like a government shill.

<comment><USER16> How do you explain the countless penalty orders and verdicts over internet posts that were issued in the last thirty years then? People were punished for internet posts that are against the law and will continue to be punished for internet posts.

Arvato was contracted by Facebook to enforce their own terms of service and comply with the law. They are free to contract any company they like to operate on their platform. It's not the government that chose Arvato.

If you think that law is the result of lobbying alone you haven't followed to large public debate that happened over this topic the last year at all.

And please refrain from name-calling. This doesn't make your arguments look any better.

<comment><USER15> The Arvato team was appointed by Facebook after the German government complained and pressured them into deleting hate speech, without further explanation what exactly that is. They now want to turn that pressure on social networks into law.

Like I said:

>Right now, many people are cheering, because it works in their favor, but they're too shortsighted to realize that it'll eventually be used against them, too.

The problem is that hate speech is the most generic term ever and can be used (and already has been used) to censor anything.

>People were punished for internet posts

Yes, I mentioned that, but they didn't start an investigation against all authors of deleted posts. Millions of posts and pages with millions of followers were deleted without any legal repercussions. If the post is not enough concern to start an official legal investigation, there's no legal ground to delete it.

You are defending censorship. Saying you sound like a government shill is putting it very nicely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> V for Vendetta was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual or goalpost. Britain really has gone to shit. Probably one of the last countries I'd want to move to.

<comment><USER18> Agreed, I am British and got out just before the full power of the Conservatives was realised.

I would not plan on going back any time soon, I'm sure I'm not a minority in thinking this.

<comment><USER19> I'm British and I'm scared I'm going to be worse off staying in Britain - <USER2> did you come to be able to leave?

<comment><USER18> Ironically because we are in the EU I was able to find a job very easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a new chapter to:

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CNVPERS/ref=dp-kindle- redirec...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CNVPERS/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

"'Undercover lays bare the deceit, betrayal and cold-blooded violation practised again and again by undercover police officers - troubling, timely and brilliantly executed.' Henry Porter

The gripping stories of a group of police spies - written by the award-winning investigative journalists who exposed the Mark Kennedy scandal - and the uncovering of forty years of state espionage.

This was an undercover operation so secret that some of our most senior police officers had no idea it existed. The job of the clandestine unit was to monitor British 'subversives' \- environmental activists, anti-racist groups, animal rights campaigners.

Police stole the identities of dead people to create fake passports, driving licences and bank accounts. They then went deep undercover for years, inventing whole new lives so that they could live incognito among the people they were spying on.

They used sex, intimate relationships and drugs to build their credibility. They betrayed friends, deceived lovers, even fathered children. And their operations continue today.

Undercover reveals the truth about secret police operations - the emotional turmoil, the psychological challenges and the human cost of a lifetime of deception - and asks whether such tactics can ever be justified."

\- this book I read in three days, it was that thrilling!

</comment><comment><USER21> So the Met asked the indian police, who in turn reached out to groups (!) of local hackers to carry out the work, who then presumably passed the data back through the chain to the Met.

Hard to believe someone found out with such a watertight process...

</comment><comment><USER22> This is utterly unacceptable. Time for the electorate to put their foot down and set an example by disbanding the entire force and replace it with a new one.

But guess what the electorate will say? "They only came for the Socialists. I'm not a Socialist". Sad times.

<comment><USER23> The intelligence services have been doing this forever in most countries. If you don't know about it you're not paying attention.

Here is PJ O'Rourke writing about this in the 1960s in the US.

[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&...](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&ots=cq0fdzd2DY&dq=pj%20orourke%20undercover%20police&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q=pj%20orourke%20undercover%20police&f=false)

People don't just don't care that much.

It is worth worrying about though. With the NSA and computer surviellance we've created a 'turn-key tyranny'. And people have been worrying about that since at least the 1970s: [http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential- senator-w...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential-senator- warned-in-1975-the-national-security-agencys-capability-at-any-time-could-be- turned-around-on-the-american-people-and-no-american-would-have-any-privacy- left.html)

<comment><USER24> What about Intelligence services? This is a local police force!

<comment><USER7> Police have their own intelligence services in the form of "special branch". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch)

<comment><USER25> There has always been a tension between the Met and the security service with the Met trying to get more powers in that area - even the Official Mi5 history comments on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > police hacking of journalists and protestors

Because they are the real terrorists. I seriously think they had dissidents in mind when pushing for all those "anti-terror" surveillance laws.

<comment><USER14> If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of what's allowed by said anti-terror laws.

This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy.

Frankly we should wait to see what the IPCC says. This could easily be entirely fabricated, the only corroboration was information that would be accessible to cybercriminals, not anything that implicates law enforcement specifically.

<comment><USER26> > The UK is hardly an autocracy.

Not only autocracies do this kind of evil. Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists mainly of capitalist, you can see that the police targeting dissidents fits a clear motive.

<comment><USER27> > Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists ...

Sorry I don't think you should state conspiracy theories as fact without someone calling you on it. There are reasons for police to spy on activists (even illegally) without needing to assert the existence of a "deep state"

EDIT: to clarify, above where I say "reasons" I mean just that, not "reasons that I necessarily agree with"

<comment><USER28> And those reasons would be... what?

These are people with political views the government disapproves of. They are not bomb-throwing anarchists or people with a history of violence. They are not organising or threatening acts of public violence.

This is entirely a free speech issue.

<comment><USER7> Environmental groups had plans to shut down nuclear reactors by blocking water cooling pipes in the sea.

Animal rights protestors have firebombed[1] several UK department stores (for selling fur), and abattoirs and milk distribution depots; dug up a corpse from a grave and held the body hostage; rescued animals from labs and caused damage to the labs;

Far right groups have rallies that attract considerable violence; an English politician was murdered by a far right extremist.

Illegal surveillance is obviously, unambiguously, wrong. The people who did it need to face both disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.

<comment><USER26> I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism (or otherwise a danger to the public). Potential property damage is not something that I consider a reason for surveillance. We can wait till the damage happens and the go look for the perpetrators.

There's real "people harming" evil all over our societies. Evil towards rather innocent people that destroys lives and kills, often benefiting the perpetrators (financially, or by pushing their agenda). These, to me, are the only crimes that need tough surveillance.

<comment><USER27> > _I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism..._

So under your definition of terrorism someone needs to be injured? You're diverging from the dictionary a little there.

<comment><USER29> I don't find it useful to use the term beyond attacks aimed at actually terrorizing people. Stuff like suicide bombs in crowded public squares or metros, sarin gas releases, etc. A particular attack doesn't have to actually have any victims to qualify (it could be unsuccessful, or the outcome could be lucky), but it at least has to have that goal, or else how is it in any way "terror"?

Some kinds of animal-rights attacks on shops or universities could qualify, especially ones using indiscriminate methods like car bombs. But I don't see how it makes sense, apart from wanting to use pejorative hyperbole, to use "terrorism" to describe sabotage that damages equipment on a lab or farm, things like throwing paint or glue on things, short-circuiting electronics, etc. We already have the perfectly good words "sabotage" and "saboteur" to describe those acts and the people who carry them out. If these all start being grouped under "terrorism", then we end up with absurdities like describing the Boston Tea Party as an 18th-century terrorist attack, which I've actually seen people do, but I don't think is useful.

<comment><USER7> For clarity: the examples I gave were of organisations using fire to destroy property in order to persuade those businesses to stop trading, or to make it economically impossible for them to keep going.

I mentioned a group that stole a corpse from a grave.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.top...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.topstories3)

> The militants, including a vicar's son and a psychiatric nurse, led what > they called a "holocaust" against a farm which bred guinea pigs for medical > research. Jon Ablewhite, John Smith and Kerry Whitburn pursued a six-year > hate campaign against Darley Oaks farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire. > Whitburn's girlfriend, Josephine Mayo, was sentenced to four years for a > lesser part in the campaign.

> Almost 100 people connected to the farm were targeted. Explosive devices > were sent to some, mail threatening to kill and maim to others. There were > attacks on homes, cars and businesses. The relentless campaign culminated in > the theft of the body of Gladys Hammond, a close relative of the Hall family > who ran the farm, from her grave in October 2004.

> For months, activists taunted the Halls, telling them the body would be > returned if they closed the farm. The body was found only last week in > woodland after Smith told the authorities where it was.

This is a campaign of violence, against people, for political reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Almost makes you think we only have terrorism just so the countermeasures can be exploited to keep the masses under total control. ;)

<comment><USER31> I don't know if I believe that, however the spectre of terrorism is WAY overblown (more people die slipping and falling in the shower). So I do find it really unreasonable that it's used as an excuse to monitor our communication...

<comment><USER32> That's a super interesting stat. Do you have a source for it that I can use if I want to steal your quote?

<comment><USER31> I'm glad somebody asked for this. I'm going by this: [http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/why-we-should-fear- bathtub...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/why-we-should-fear-bathtubs- more-than-te)

I'm sure somebody out there will argue over the exact numbers, but the general point that terrorism isn't in the top 100 causes of death is unassailable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> >> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo. [...] it is not simply the case that the police and security services are just being used by the government. In fact, the police and security services are becoming emboldened to take a more independent role as direct agencies of the ruling elite, overriding other bodies.

No comments needed.

<comment><USER34> > No comments needed

Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is likely to be!!

<comment><USER26> Impartial or not: let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter; or only report late (because it would otherwise become weird if they wouldn't).

I did not see this yet in any of the MSM sites I sometimes poll on these matters. Nothing yet! If this news if true, which I believe at this point, then it is a BIG story (proven total failure of democracy, high up officials in charge have to step down because of protests). Here on HN we seem to generally agree that it is a big story as it is on the front page for quite some hours.

<comment><USER35> > let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter

It originated in the Guardian. That _is_ a MSM outlet. That said, it originated in an _opinion_ piece. What you have is something that the Guardian didn't have enough facts for to make a real story yet, and you are expecting other MSM sources to report on it, which means they would be reporting on a Guardian opinion piece, since that's all the evidence they have.

I find it _much_ more likely that multiple investigative divisions are looking into this and trying to find something factual to report. In the end, that is still one of the major differences between MSM outlets and random small news sites - one of them is actually expected to be accountable for what they report.

<comment><USER26> > [MSM outlets are] actually expected to be accountable for what they report.

Dunno man. I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional threshold for me. Guardian seems to be one to better big outlets.

But I have to give to credit for pointing out a very valid reason for other MSMs not reporting on it.

<comment><USER35> > I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional > threshold for me.

It's not perfect, but it exists. That's why you see retractions at major agencies[1]. That said, they don't generally feel compelled to retract conjecture, unless egregious, and conjecture is often misinterpreted as fact (likely sometimes because of purposefully vague presentation).

I still view an organization willing to make retractions as a level above one that isn't, even if the line between conjecture and fact is sometimes obscured (because they _all_ do that, MSM or not).

1: [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom- corr...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-corrections- clarifications/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Outrageous. I worry we in the USA are going this direction too.

<comment><USER14> My siblings in this thread need to learn about the reforms that were done post-Watergate. The rule of law governs everyone, especially law enforcement, in the USA. If you don't believe that, why do you think lawmakers bother with getting laws passed to allow surveillance in the first place?

You can't have it both ways. Either LEO follow the letter of the law and we're not in some 1984 scenario (because there _are_ , in fact, substantial protections for privacy under the law), or they do not, and we're left with this mystery of why things like the USA PATRIOT Act exist, which now needs to be explained.

<comment><USER37> Rule of law guarantees law will be applied, not that people rights and freedom will be upheld.

<comment><USER11> And it's not even much of a guarantee of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Yet another good reason to have 2FA enabled

</comment><comment><USER39> Anti-Establishment == Terrorist.

(If you're a member of the Establishment, that is..)

</comment><comment><USER40> When secure passwords are outlawed, only radical activists will have secure passwords. No, wait ....

</comment><comment><USER41> It is so unfortunate this has been happening and that I am not at all surprised by it, Thanks

</comment><comment><USER42> UK Police subcontract Hackers in India to do something illegal. You do realize this is stupid fake news??

If you do something colossally illegal, you'd usually try to hide it rather than subcontract to people you've never met...

</comment><comment><USER43> London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

<comment><USER44> London doesn't have "blocks".

Surveillance vans are a myth.

Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.

<comment><USER45> > London doesn't have "blocks".

I don't think they meant "block" in the usual American sense, but in the general sense, that is: "an area".

> Surveillance vans are a myth.

Simply Wrong.

Surveillance vans are not a myth, honestly. Maybe not in the what the police would call the "plebian" areas, but in the centre and Canary Wharf, you can see them every now and then, they even have their own WiFi you can try and connect to, which has like 3 password fields (I've tried when I was passing one in Canary Wharf).

> Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated

No evidence for this, and I think the parent comment meant "street-level" CCTV, not in buildings, and i'de be pushed to say it's more weighted towards public CCTV (govt.) rather than private.

<comment><USER46> Most of the "street level" cameras are council owned and operated, outside of a few areas where the police operate them. City certainly has a _lot_ of police operated surveillance. But venture outside the most central areas and there's not much street-level CCTV. As I've mentioned elsewhere, where I live in London it's about a 20 minute walk in any direction to see one. There are many parts of London where that is true once you venture outside of zone 1. In zone 1, yes, you'll be on camera a lot unless you sneak around back streets and on purpose try to avoid them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Poor man's PRISM

</comment><comment><USER48> Doesn't seem like a reputable source.

<comment><USER49> Still an interesting suggestion to look into, init?

You might not believe it is fact, but I for one think it's reasonable to give The Guardian the benefit of the doubt here and have a long hard look at these programs, if only because it has a non-zero chance of being true and only costs time to look into.

<comment><USER50> Definitely, but I think most of us would rather read it directly from The Gaurdian.

<comment><USER49> Fair enough. Perhaps it'd make sense to have a primary link and a list of alternative sources built into HN.

(By which I mean, posters provide an ordered list of links, and perhaps users could add additional links which are moderated.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm really shocked, not. How else do you control society lol

</comment><comment><USER42> You do realize this is stupid fake news??

If you do something colossally illegal, why let the world know by subcontracting it to people you've never met?</comment>


Incoming Harvard Freshman Deported After Visa Revoked - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/8/27/incoming-freshman-deported/ <comment><USER2> > "After the 5 hours ended, she called me into a room, and she started > screaming at me. She said that she found people posting political points of > view that oppose the US on my friend[s] list."

> "I responded that I have no business with such posts and that I didn't like, > [s]hare or comment on them and told her that I shouldn't be held responsible > for what others post," he wrote. "I have no single post on my timeline > discussing politics."

> The officer then canceled Ajjawi's visa, informed him he would be deported, > and allowed him a phone call to his parents.

I guess there's a new tip if you plan to travel to the US: delete all social media for at least a few months, or else fill it with fake accounts praising the United States.

Huh. Now there's a fun business idea. For $k, we make you a new social media account that clones your existing ones (including friends), but removes all posts by your friends that machine learning determines are anti-American, and adds new posts that praises America.

<comment><USER3> That's a case of an official abusing her power; not something that changing immigration laws will prevent.

<comment><USER4> So a set of laws creating a separate body to review and punish these abuses wouldn't change anything?

<comment><USER3> Disallowing "outsourcing" such tasks to private contractors would be something I'm definitely in favor of.

A fast track for appeals in cases of suspected power abuse would probably also be worthy of consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given that Tyre is in the South of Lebanon, it is likely that his friends were making anti-Israel posts. It would be very interesting to see what the posts were, if they were really subversive or just promoting BDS - Boycott, Divest, Sanction.

Given that Ajjawi identified as Palestinian, this is more likely, and it would be a legitimate grievance considering that Israel has illegally expropriated much of Palestine.

</comment><comment><USER6> USCIS discussion:

Agent A. This guy is a terrorist. Look at that crap he's part of it.

Agent B: Yeah but I don't see his name anywhere.

Agent : Well, he might have scrubbed his posting first.

BOTTOM LINE: your visa depends on the agents at the gate.

</comment><comment><USER7> Without knowing the details and just going by what was said in the article, it's impossible to make a decision whether it was right or wrong to bar him from entering the USA.

If this student was keeping company with people who openly supported ISIS or wanted to hurt Americans, would it still be ok to let him attend Harvard even though he never made any Social Media posts about politics?

<comment><USER8> It should have been dealt at a different level.

His student visa should have been accepted anyway, and open an investigation on him as a US resident if you think he could be a terrorist threat. He passed several layers of heavy screening already, it shouldn't all be canceled on a single agent's presumption based on social media posts.

<comment><USER9> It's worse than you think.

1\. One's standing on a temporary visa (whether a B-visa as a tourist or an F/J-visa as a student) is always subject to such arbitrary fates by both DHS and DoS personnel. This includes the arbitrary and - more painfully, non- appealable and non-reviewable control a single CBP (part of DHS) officer on whether you get to enter the US each time you attempt to do so. That's the problem this kid ran into. But it starts even earlier: visas are denied in a similarly non-reviewable and non-appealable way by a single FS (part of DoS) consular officer. A staggering percentage of those [1] are denied in the above-mentioned categories. There's plenty of folks here on HN that can tell you this has happened to them or to someone they know and could vouch for personally.

[1] [https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non- Im...](https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant- Statistics/NIVWorkload/FY2018NIVWorkloadbyVisaCategory.pdf)

2\. A US permanent resident (informally known as a green card holder) is subject to the same scrutiny by CBP at each entry as someone on a temporary visa. So you can still get deported on your 100th return to the US after 30 years of living here. But you do have legal recourse to have such a decision of inadmissibility reviewed by an immigration court. Great, you might think. But your chances of winning anything in immigration court are largely determined by who you draw as an ICE (part of DHS) prosecutor and an immigration (judges are under EOIR, part of DoJ) judge. The prosecutor has the (limited) ability to decide to fight such an appeal. (This is how Dreamers, for example, aren't all being deported: they are low-priority ICE prosecution targets, even now under Trump. DACA, under Obama, was a liberal presidential whim: it was an executive order telling ICE prosecutors to indefinitely postpone Dreamer prosecutions.) And how liberally an immigration judge interprets ruling law is very geographically correlated [2].

[2] [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa- immi...](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-immigration- asylum/) [https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/depo...](https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/deport_outcome_charge.php)

3\. The judge isn't the only arbitrary actor under DoJ. EOIR has no independence from the executive branch, so immigration court judges are subject to a president's policy whims. Judges' decisions are reviewed by an appellate body (BIA) but that's also part of EOIR and thus DoJ. And the AG (head of DoJ) can arbitrarily take any pending immigration decision out of the hands of an immigration judge or BIA panel and then decide it on their own. (Former Trump AG Sessions accelerated the usage of this.) Current Trump AG Barr has recently delegated this power down to the head of EOIR, thus adding yet another individual with the power to make arbitrary decisions [3].

[3] [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/20...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/23/william- barr-ag-announces-changes-immigration-cour/)

4\. Both AILA (the association of immigration attorneys) and NAIJ (the judges union) wants to end the arbitrariness and establish a pattern of decision making based on legal jurisprudence and precedent. They want to accomplish this by moving EOIR under the judicial branch instead of the executive. AG Barr's response has been to attempt to decertify the union [4].

[4] [https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/750656176/trump- administratio...](https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/750656176/trump- administration-seeks-decertification-of-immigration-judges-union)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> At the risk of a massive surge of downvotes, in what universe is this ok?

If someone has managed to get into Harvard, isn't that someone that we _want_ in the US? It baffles me the level of cognitive dissonance that must be happening in the brains of the people that support the Trump administration and how much they have to repeat to themselves that this nationalistic moron is somehow not a racist.

While I understand that HN doesn't like people engaging in political discussions, I have to think that inaction from educated people is _not_ a neutral position. Shouldn't hackers (and wannabe intellectuals like me) be the force that is actively discussing these dangerous positions?

<comment><USER11> I personally believe this (and many cases like it) are just a symptom of the systems we have created to live in.

Our laws and systems are so complex and convoluted that nobody can reasonably keep track of, or apply them all in any logical or reasonable fashion. Rules exist for the purpose of being enforced, and so someone has gone about enforcing rules here. The fact there is more information is completely irrelevant to the enforcement of one particular rule.

My family used to joke that we need the "Reasonable Police" who would be above literally everything, and intelligent people could sit there and see if something makes sense as a whole or not before a decision is made about anything.

EDIT: Yes, of course I know the "Reasonable Police" is fraught with danger. That's why we would joke about it.

<comment><USER12> Nah this is just Trump's social media policy. Clearly it extends to friends and perhaps friends of friends. It should be pressed in the courts and maybe Congress should get involved. I mean we do recognize freedom of speech in this country and freedom of association. Since this kid had a valid Visa so the vetting should have been done and the bar to invalidate that visa should be high. That being said, it seems wise for people to purge their social media before visiting the US. It also seems wise not to have US social media accounts.

<comment><USER13> CBP were checking social media accounts under Obama for sure. Not sure if they did it for Visa applications under Obama or not but Trump made it a requirement.

<comment><USER12> Yes they did. I am not saying they didn't check social media before Trump. I am saying that this is Trump's specific policy at play here. Also this guy obtained a valid visa!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nook's Specs Are Exaggerated, Again - <AUTHOR> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/nooks-specs-are-exaggerated-again

<comment><USER2> As I read the article, all I could think was, "Really?". The specs clearly state 1024x600. The marketing material says it supports HD _content_. That means if you have a video that's encoded in 720p or 1080p that you can play it on the table without converting it.

On a 7" screen, I bet you could barely, if at all, tell the difference between 1280x720 and 1024x600 playing a 720p video, so I don't think that's really a good argument against the device.

However, you CAN tell the difference between a 720p video playing at 600p versus a 480p video being upscaled to 600p. You retain much more quality when downconverting than upconverting. I do a lot of video conversion (re-encoding my BluRay and DVDs for XBMC) and believe me, a BluRay downconverted to 720p looks _immensely_ better than a 480p DVD upconverted.

So, I say "Fantastic!" Now I don't have to re-encode all my x264 encoded 720p BluRay files to watch them on my Nook (well, it probably doesn't support MKV or AC3, but that's another topic).

</comment><comment><USER3> Note that they never say you can watch videos _in HD_. They always say you can watch HD videos or HD content or HD entertainment. You're just watching that HD stuff on a non-HD screen.

I should be a marketer!

<comment><USER4> NYT article is link bait. Things that can _play/receive_ in HD don't always necessarily _display_ in HD. Nook is not the first or last manufacturer to do this. If only "true" HD devices were allowed to decode HD video, that would eliminate virtually all mobile video devices, including the iPhone 4S which _records_ in 1080, but only has a 960 display.

<comment><USER5> While technically true, it is extremely misleading to your average potential purchaser. At the very least a difference like that should be spelled out clearly in terms the target audiance would understand.

<comment><USER4> IMHO, that sounds ever more confusing to consumers... Compare the confusing packaging at Best Buy with grids of tech specs to the simple and easy to understand packaging at the Apple Store. I'm turning boxes at Best Buy upside- down and inside-out just to figure out what the asterisk is referring to! Consumers don't need more asterisks.

The fact that a famous tech blogger for the NYT can't even understand that distinction doesn't give me hope for the general public. Tech-savvy consumers will go to the website and clearly see that the tech specs for the Nook tablet lists a resolution of 1024x600.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think that manufacturers that try to overly massage the specs in their favor should be raked over the coals. The specifications are there for a reason.

In the end though it rarely matters. Mom and dad will most likely buy whatever looks nicer (as well as what the neighbor has).

</comment><comment><USER7> _"(I'm not sure what you'd use the memory card for, considering that Barnes & Noble doesn't even have a downloadable-movie store. But whatever.)"_

There's possibly a thrifty caveman or two who rips his own DVDs. Let us ignore those poor little people who don't re-buy their movies as needed.

(They may have also bought "HD ready" 1366x768 screens, the poor dears. Haha.)

I don't like being lied to, but I enjoy snob snark even less.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, that was a weird editorial. Especially considering that B&N has said that you can only store 1GB of non-B&N-purchased content on the device itself. Anyone ripping their own content or purchasing unprotected content elsewhere will likely make heavy use of that SD card.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like a case of non-tech PR/marketing selling a tech product without sufficient understanding of the industry terms they're throwing around.

<comment><USER10> It's not like these are even particularly technical terms, though. Anyone who has shopped for a TV in the last five years should know what "1080" and "720" are, even if they don't quite grok the "i" and the "p". Not _everybody_ understands what HDTV is, but... I'd say a majority of the working age male population does.

I gotta admit that they fooled me; I saw this new Nook advertised at B&N the other day, and was impressed to note that it was capable of full HD video. It didn't occur to me that that might be a total lie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Basically all smartphone and tablet manufacturers are guilty of this exact same thing. (Except the Galaxy Nexus and Rezound)</comment>


Ukraine places forces on combat alert and threatens war - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/crimea-crisis-deepens-as-russia-and-ukraine-ready-forces-live-updates <comment><USER2> One interesting point is the agreement with Ukraine in favor of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. To sum it up roughly, Ukraine ended up with a lot of nuclear devices after the split of USSR. Since nuclear powers wanted to avoid the spread of the deadly weapon, they convinced Ukraine into getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. In exchange, US, Russia, UK and France agreed to respect and help defend Ukraine's borders.

So, it would seem that Russia did violate this agreement but there remains to see what other countries will do. One thing to underline is that they would have to respond to a call for help from Ukraine and, with the ousting of the Ukrainian government, it is still unclear who is to make the call.

The strategy of Russia might just have been to play on this period of uncertainty to claim some of Ukraine's territory. Because the US-Russia relation is still similar to the one from during the Cold War, they might really want to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Until the situation in Ukraine is settled, Russia can move its troops without having to face the US. Once it's settled, the US will probably not want to engage a fight and will not push them back out of Ukraine.

tl;dr: Russia might be on a conquer-and-hold over Crimea

Edit: the agreement is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [2]

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)

<comment><USER3> The Crimea, presently, is threatening to secede from Kiev. That this appears to largely be the work of Russian special forces is a moot point.

Russia is interpreting its obligation to protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity as compelling it to prevent the Crimea from seceding. In its eyes, the regime in Kiev is illegal and antagonising ethnic Russians in the Crimea. The simplest solution, to Moscow, is fighting the illegal" regime.

This follows a similar script to Georgia - provoking the new regime into aggression and then intervening to keep the peace (with such an intervention not necessarily restricted to the initial separatist areas, e.g. South Ossetia or Crimea). In Russia's defence, it is a strategy the United States has used to great success as well.

<comment> barry-cotter [Actually open to correction, I swear] Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia shortly after vague noises about it being able to join NATO one day? I understand that under modern international law South Ossetia is part of Georgia but it's never been actually ruled by post-Soviet Georgia. They were invading.

On a separate note, why would any country treat the UK's guarantee as worth anything after Cyprus?

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

In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict.[42] Turkey issued a list of demands to Greece via a US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots.[47] These demands were rejected as they would have given Turkey an unacceptable amount of power on the island. _Turkey, led by Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, then applied to Britain as a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. Britain declined this offer, and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part of the operation._

<comment><USER4> Yes, Georgia invaded South Ossetia. It's incredible how often this incident is twisted to portray the Russians as aggressors.

<comment><USER5> Yes, because Russia has _never_ displayed any aggression in the Caucasus.

<comment><USER6> Not that others are without fault here. We commentate the day here in New Zealand that a load of our troops went into the Caucuses. The deaths of New Zealand troops was somehow nation forming. There are those that see glory in killing nearly 3,000 young men and wounding nearly 5,000 on some grotty strip of coast that is about as far from home as its possible to get.

<comment><USER5> Just a point of fact: Gallipoli is far from the Caucasus (indeed, Greece is just as close to the Caucasus).

And I'm not sure I understand how the unfortunate slaughter of the ANZAC corps in WWI plays any role in the bloody ethnic conflicts that flare up regularly in the Caucasus, fueled by Russia's imperial ambitions.

<comment><USER6> It was the key part of the campaign to exert pressure on the Caucasus as there wasn't really any other way. But your right, it isn't a great example, it was the local connection (NZ) that got me there (we had Britain rather than the US as the master back then). However my point was that it isn't just the Russians who have had imperial ambitions there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Meanwhile Aleksei A. Navalny, Russia's leading opposition figure, was placed under house arrest on Friday and ordered not to use the Internet or telephone for two months, thus removing President Vladimir V. Putin's fiercest critic from public life.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei- naval...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei- navalny.html?ref=world)

<comment><USER2> Noticed this in the flood of topics related to the Crimean invasion on /r/worldnews. I do not think is has a lot to do with the incoming war though. The NYT does not suggest it either.

<comment><USER5> Only to the extent that the "incoming war" has provided some great cover.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _The Russian President underlined that there are real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir Putin stressed that if violence spread further in the eastern regions of Ukraine and in Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and those of Russian speakers living there._

So if there are some English speakers or tourists from foreign countries in Russia subject to threats to their life or health, maybe gay people, then...the United States, Great Britain, Australia...the home countries of the tourists...have some kind of legitimation to invade Russia? Seriously?

<comment><USER9> Reagan's justification for invading Grenada was that he was protecting the hundreds of American medical students studying in Grenada.

The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. It had, and still has, a massive Russian military base there. In 1992 Ukraine officially recognized the Crimea as largely autonomous. So in that light, Russia has much more standing to go into the Crimea then Reagan had to go into Grenada.

<comment><USER8> This is completely irrelevant - a big mistake does not justify a different - and completely unrelated - "smaller" mistake in any way.

<comment><USER10> It's not irrelevant, it just shows how governments "think". This is more or less accepted practice in foreign affairs.

<comment><USER8> I did not want to imply that the comment is irrelevant, it shows, as you say, an interesting parallel in the way of thinking. I wanted to say that it is completely irrelevant as a justification for the current actions of Russia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Half the country wants to be part of Russia's Economic market and the other half want to be part of the EU economic market.

Are either markets in a position to take on Ukraine in the state it is in, who knows fully.

Russia also have a vested interest in parts of the Ukraine and the EU has none, beyond growing the members list realestate wise. The part of the country Russia has a vested interest is also the part that wants to be apart of the Russian market, so whilst democracy does play a part it does get down to a yes or no type approach in choice. Which is perhaps the real issue in how it is applied and for Ukraine I can see the country splitting into two, appeaseing both mindsets with regards to economic market.

I just hope Ukraine has a say and allows the logicle approach that appeases the people in a way that could appease both and place the country into a unique position which would enable it to gain from the Russian and the EU market. But sadly other contries will want to show face, even if not effected and this may cause esculation and force Ukraine into a position that blinds it from looking at all options and what might be the best choice and a slice of each cake. But it would be nice if that chocie was enabled. We have Russia standing by the Russian market embracing and the EU and USA in effect behind the rest.

Either way, if the pissfest by the World leaders progresses then Ukraine will be sadly left out of debating what happens in its own country, nomatter what the people want and when it is near a 50/50 split then maybe that would be better way on many levels and keep all happy. But if done wrongly then it will be East/West Germany and a step back in progress in diplomacy for many years.

Still, however you feel, it is one news item that will rollon for a while. Heck if Scotland can vote for independance the maybe part of Ukrain needs to be allowed the same and save many milatary operations. Though not seen any World leader suggest that avenue of progress as some seem stuck in the cold war mentality or at least there advisers are.

<comment><USER12> >Half the country wants to be part of Russia's Economic market and the other half want to be part of the EU economic market.

Everything I have read indicates that its more of a 80/20 split. Where is this 50/50 number from?

<comment> barry-cotter Yanukovych was elected, not imposed. Remember, the current government is the product of a victory of a mob, not an election. The US and EU money men had a "powersharing" agreement set up and then some very, very brave young men won a pitched battle against riot police backed up by heavy weaponry.

But probably the real reason the protestors/rioters won was that many of the police went over. And that probably happened because an Interior Ministry armory in Lviv was captured by the rebels.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/world/europe/as-his- fortun...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/world/europe/as-his-fortunes- fell-in-ukraine-a-president-clung-to-illusions.html)

Just remember, Yanukovych was elected, _after_ the Orange Revolution. 80/20 is a large enough difference that they would have just gone for the EU. Obvious propaganda.

<comment><USER13> This.

Also the split is geographic. The protests are mostly in Kiev, which is in the pro-EU area.

A split in the country is a real possibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of my coworkers is from the Ukraine and he predicted exactly this while the situation at Maidan was slowly escalating a few weeks before the Olympic Games began - once the Olympic Games are over, Russia will send tanks, he said.

</comment><comment><USER14> There are protests organized in London, Paris, Berlin, Helsinki, The Hague, Rome, SF, Riga, Krakow etc. If you wish to join one of them, please check out here:

[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=a.220820914768385.1073741828.220542374796239&type=1)

<comment><USER2> I don't want to sound like a downer, but what could these protests could actually achieve? It is very unlikely that even an important mobilization of citizens would change the decisions that each country will take, considering the incentives driven by the diplomatic context. And that's a genuine question, I would be interested in reading an answer.

<comment><USER10> This sort of "protests" can be useful in granting political capital to this or that politician to come out in favour of (or refrain from adopting) this or that position, eventually snowballing into official government policy.

<comment><USER2> Yes, that's the purpose of a demonstration (it's a way to _demonstrate_ the political power lent by the people to an opinion). However, I just don't see how this would change anything in the current situation since the incentives of avoiding a war already seems the predominant objective.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't be so sure. Drawing the Russian military in a lengthy and expensive campaign to pacify a huge country is actually a _very_ compelling scenario from a certain point of view. Yes, Europe would be short on gas for a while, but quoting one Ms. Nuland, "F*ck the EU", right?

There are a lot of incentives on all sides, at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been following these developments closely. One question that I was hoping someone here could comment on; what are the international law ramifications of the Russian soldiers not wearing insignia? I was under the impression that the lack of displayed insignia during a conflict strips them of many rights to protection if captured etc.

<comment><USER16> This. Except, there is no armed conflict currently, they are not getting captured, and Putin likely does not give two shits about what happens to them.

Speaking as a Ukrainian-American, the US and the rest of the world are responding way too slowly to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I guess Putin really does want the old days back, including the Cold War. I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians, and a number of scenarios where a lot of innocent people die. Going to be one of those 'turning points in history' either way.

<comment><USER18> > I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians

I'm not so sure there will be immediate repercussions. Something similar happened with Georgia, and although this has further tarnished Putin's reputation internationally, the Russian government seems to have shrugged off the diplomatic difficulties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Take a look at the annexation of Crimea to Ukraine in 1950s , that was a ridiculous and at this point an illegal move. Time to bring it back. i definitely would not want to see a war of any kind and there is no reason to take what's not Russias.

</comment><comment><USER20> Seriously, why the hell does Ukraine want to join the EU? They don't meet the criteria to be even allowed to join the EU afaik and why would the EU allow a country in inflation to join? Except to suck up all of their Oil reservoirs for _free_ , that means giving them a huge credit (which of course won't help them). Just like the German credit didn't help Greece.

Albeit I believe I might be terribly wrong on some of this, I think that I better have a picture, than none. My own answers are like this:

The USA avoids a direct conflict with the Russians, by subverting the country to join the EU, which then will allow US troops to be placed near Russia. I would think that this could give the USA a win at first-strike chance in a possible WW3 scenario. They don't even need to ship an atom bomb over from the USA, but can use the ones already placed in the Ukraine. Germany and Ukraine seem to be critical to the US's WW3 strategic scenerio superiority. It could also just be the massive amounts of Oil in the Ukraine, which the US or the EU (which currently means Germany) could tap on. I wish I could know the truth about all this. Yes it's surely just about power and money again, but such an oversimplification removes a lot colors and nuances from the grand picture.

<comment><USER21> No, there can be no win in a WW3, for anybody.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One thing that I have found, is the limit of English language media to address Russian language events.

You really have to be careful to cross-check things as much as possible.

I chalk it up simply to there not being enough Eng/Rus bilingual speakers in the media to reach a critical mass.

I am not criticizing this particular article, just making a general observation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Ukraine has Mickey Mouse Army. 24 planes, of which only 4 can fly. Everything shootable was sold to Africa long time ago. Artillery is very obsolete, but there ae mo troop capable to operate it. I kid you not.

And most of the 'army' are ethnic Russians. Guess, shall they shoot east or west?

</comment><comment><USER24> It's not a great win for Russia to annex the Ukraine. If they do, they're stuck with an expensive mess.

</comment><comment><USER25> doesn't look good does it. hope it doesn't escalate

<comment><USER26> Russia invading Ukraine was the escalation you are worried about

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I for one feel better that we didn't let Ukraine into NATO.

<comment><USER28> Russia wouldn't send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO. And then Ukraine wouldn't be threatening war over it.

<comment><USER10> Russia would have sent troops to Ukraine a minute before they officially joined NATO. "Claiming" Crimea for NATO is something that Russia will never allow, like the US will never allow Panama to fall in Russian or Chinese hands.

<comment><USER29> Indeed. According to wikipedia (source was written in ukrainian, so can't checĸ), Putin said in 2008 that Russia would attempt to annex Crimea and East Ukraine if they were to join NATO.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Russian_resistance_to_Ukrainian_NATO_membership)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Into the Breach's interface was a nightmare to make and the key to its greatness - <AUTHOR> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/05/into-the-breach-interface-design/ <comment><USER2> I think there's a big difference between what the headline is implying (some kind of hugely complex, hard-to-create UI), and what the article itself is saying. From what I can gather, the devs wanted to distill the entire game experience into something that is displayable in a simple manner, and as a core driver, this affected nearly every part of the game.

I'm also watching Into the Breach with some curiosity; the game seems to be a lot of fun, and has an amazing soundtrack. I wonder if it will be as big a success as FTL, and if so, whether it will be on its own merit, or the mass following they have due to FTL.

<comment><USER3> > headline is implying (some kind of hugely complex, hard-to-create UI)

Making anything simple is HUGELY complex. It took them years to get what they wanted and it shows. I think complex UI is actually lazy work. Space 4X games have notorious UI. Endless Space 2's interface might be much simpler than others but I guarantee you they put more time into refining their interface.

Being able to explain or create something "simple" is perhaps the hardest part of creating, and is much harder than naming things in programming and that actually is perhaps is the hardest part.

<comment><USER4> I made a game that has this design principle. The UI is all point-click and a few icons. But it presents things like: what you can do to the object in front of you, with the item in your hand. What you can do with items you have _on hand_. What you could do if you had an item that you know about. Hints about what you could do if you knew something you don't know yet. This is all distilled to a single icon with decorations, but computing it all correctly is quite involved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've really been enjoying 'Into the Breach.'

I wonder how much of the interface choices were driven by portability to iPad and especially mobile.

FTL (which is superb) is too complicated visually to port to a phone. It works well on an iPad, but having played on both the iPad and desktop I can see that they needed to make UI tweaks for the iPad to make it work.

This new game is an 8x8 grid though, so it's easier to imagine it as a mobile game.

<comment><USER6> It begs to be a mobile game.

It's ability to be played, satisfactorily, in tiny bite size chunks - of maybe only a few minutes at a time - demands it makes its way to mobile.

I want it on my phone for my commute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Into the Breach is a fantastic, complex game that at the same time feels very approachable and simple in scope, so good work on the interface.

It often feels like a very complex variation of chess. The maps are small and there are very few categories of objects in them, which makes the game easy to play but hard to master.

</comment><comment><USER8> I really like that the game is digestible in one night or two.

It really shines on replayability with new types of units that dramatically change the way you strategize.

</comment><comment><USER9> Really great game. It had me hooked from the get go.

</comment><comment><USER10> The look-and-feel of the UI reminds me a lot of the original X-COM but it does a much better job at being easy to learn. The animated tooltips for weapon effects really are cool and a pattern that could probably be used elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER11> Into the breach is really a very elaborate Sokkoban

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone know if a Linux port is on the horizon?

<comment><USER13> If you don't want to wait, people have gotten it working with Wine. I installed it on my Mac the other day.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IntoTheBreach/comments/80nt36/i_hav...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntoTheBreach/comments/80nt36/i_have_successfully_installed_into_the_breach_on/)

<comment><USER14> I want to buy the Linux version just to make sure my sale is counted as a Linux sale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _We work hard to ensure our ads aren 't a pain and they're how we're able to > offer this splendid site for free. For Horace's sake, could you whitelist > us?_

And I work pretty hard to make sure my machine doesn't get hijacked by a Belorussian botnet or a Chinese cryptominer. I guess Horace better explain to me that your ads are entirely self-hosted without any JS tracking.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sadly, no Mac release despite FTL working wonderfully.

For gaming, OS X is suffering.

<comment><USER17> No mobile either.

They're just a small company (it's just two devs) and they cannot work on things in parallel. I bet it'll come eventually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Another overrated as hell indie game with bad pixel graphics. Between this and Celeste its getting annoying.

<comment><USER19> Celeste looks great. Thanks for the recommendation.

<comment><USER20> It's really an amazing game.

I think OP just can't get past the pixel graphics because he just picked two of the highest acclaimed titles of the year, highly recommend both of them.

<comment><USER21> In the same way you just picked two you liked and decided to call them amazing, despite being pixel rehashes. Rude.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Disposable, a Chrome extension to generate Reddit throwaway accounts - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disposable/fpmgaihkdaipakaoammnokgjihdfpleo

<comment><AUTHOR> In it's current form, it's a super simple hack that may or may not be useful to anyone.

Theoretically, something along these lines could be used along with Tor to be able to have unlinkable posts on social websites. A bunch of work could be done client-side (aggregating content / conversations from different accounts, etc), but each individual request to the web service could be made from a different IP with a freshly generated account every time, so from the point of view of the operator of the web service or any other user on the web service, it's not possible to tell who posted what, and content is unlinkable.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If anyone is interested in the source code: [https://github.com/anishathalye/disposable](https://github.com/anishathalye/disposable)

(it's quite simple, but maybe someone might find it useful)

</comment><comment><USER2> While I applaud your effort in creating such an extension, I find it trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The registration process on reddit is so simple it really doesn't take anytime to setup a throwaway account

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, I agree. It was basically a 1-hour hack to make something that's already pretty easy marginally easier.

It would be cool to make something like this work on a bunch of websites... and perhaps make it completely transparent to the user, automatically creating a new account every time something is submitted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> very useful, thank you.</comment>