Show HN: Lectio, contextualized comments for lectures - <AUTHOR> http://lect.io/#watch/CBYhVcO4WgI Watch Sam Altman's first lecture for How to Start a Startup, and participate in the discussion here: http://lect.io/#watch/CBYhVcO4WgI <comment><USER2> For anyone else confused: Press play before you try clicking the time markers.

Looks pretty useful apart from that!

</comment><comment><USER3> Design could use some more work, but I like the idea. Consider using social plugins for users. Also I love how you chose to show it off with YC's lecture. I guess you had to wait a while for the video to be online but it was probably worth it. That's thinking out of the box.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We initially made the site for a competition at school but then took it down after we decided we didn't want to continue working on it. We decided to revisit the project a couple days before the YC class and put up the new YC lecture. The design definitely needs some work and there are a lot of crucial features missing, but we'll be adding more stuff soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not aimed at lectures, but similar: [http://videopath.com/](http://videopath.com/)</comment>


A collection of botnet source codes, unorganized, for educational purposes - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/maestron/botnets <comment><USER2> When looking for malware and especially virus source codes for research purposes, you shouldn't miss the (sadly offline) VXHeaven library [0] and any ezines of VX groups [1].

[0]: [http://220.127.116.11/virensimulation.org/src.html](http://184.108.40.206/virensimulation.org/src.html) [1]: [http://spth.virii.lu/ezines.htm](http://spth.virii.lu/ezines.htm)

<comment><USER3> VXHeaven was a great site. Didn't know it was offline. Any idea what happened?

Edit: Apparently raided by police.

[https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/03/28/vx-heavens- virus...](https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/03/28/vx-heavens-virus- writing-website-raided/)

<comment><USER2> The site was back online again for a few years after the raid. The second time it went offline was due to lack of activity I guess.

Would be great to bring it back online even if it was a read only backup...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "For educational purposes only"

Hahahaha...

"Yeah, yeah, I agree to the Terms of Service."

<comment><USER5> I mean, that's the standard cya on various hacking forums since forever :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome. Thanks for sharing.

Can you add Mirai as well?

</comment><comment><USER7> >For educational purposes (x) doubt

</comment><comment><USER8> The word is"code".

</comment><comment><USER9> thanx this is handy to leave laying around somewhere

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm not saying this is illegal to spread, but I'm pretty sure having this kind of technology is at the very least questionable in some jurisdictions.

<comment><USER11> That's a sad state of affair for those jurisdictions.

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately one of these jurisdictions is America. Publishing detailed models for a hundred-year-old firearm can earn you threatening letters from the State Department. Many people in power today have little respect for truth and liberty. I imagine they'd control who has access to physics textbooks if it weren't still facially absurd to the public.</comment></comment></comment>


Reasonable Person Principle - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~weigand/staff/ <comment><USER2> Reasonableness requires self-awareness and an appreciation for the common good. Its staggering how absent those qualities are in many people, and how these attributes evaporate in the face of strong emotion.

Regardless, the "Reasonable Person" is a staple in litigation, used as a benchmark for conduct where the specifics are too complicated or variable to consider individually.

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

<comment><USER3> Yep, in the US at least, I consider this a big flaw in the legal system, since "reasonable" people really don't exist in this country. The recent election is proof of this. We need a legal standard that doesn't rely on something that's fictional.

<comment><USER4> I'd say you just exemplified the problem. While you view the election as proof of unreasonableness of half the voters, I see your outright dismissal as a clear inability to see an opposing view and hence unreasonable.

<comment><USER5> Maybe he didn't dismiss them outright. Maybe he looked at things from their perspective first, analyzed their beliefs and arguments and concluded that they did not make their decision based on facts[1] and rationality.

[1]Unless you count "alternative facts" of course, in which case their viewpoint is just as valid as yours!

<comment><USER6> In the words of Harlan Ellison, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A very clear and cogent overview of a structure. Simple to cite. Pragmatic and practical - I think it's quite a positive to have for an organization.

> _Not all people share the same model of reasonableness, so disagreements > inevitably occur. Under the reasonable person principle, the first thing to > do is work it out privately (perhaps in person, since e-mail is known to > amplify feelings). Indeed, many people would find it unreasonable to bring > in third parties before trying personal discussion._

As true as this is, holistically, I do think the trend in "modern USA" is a bit less personal. Trending more towards the "easier to tattle anonymously" than have personal interactions. This creates more friction down the line as the third party will, inevitably, disappoint at least one faction if not both.

I do think making the statement is important though, and I do not disagree it's in line with what Reasonable People should do in working out differences.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, i've observed both personally and with others that americans tend to get upset when someone tries to move a disagreement into private chat, rather than having a public battle about it; and also tend to follow it up by actions that ensure the disagreement is never resolved.

<comment><USER9> I think it's sometimes interpreted as a kind of shadiness.

One thing that might help is a promise to summarize to the group after the discussion is over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you.

The successful operation of a principle like "reasonableness" requires an intake filter to suss out whether people joining the department roughly agree on what it means. If someone doesn't agree with your definition of reasonableness, it becomes a bludgeon wielded by both sides that can't be affixed to a definitive state of the world and the winner will necessarily be side that can exert more political force.

Element three is more concrete. "[3)] No one is special."This is the classic statement that all are equal before the law regardless of position in the department, which is the only way to grant popular legitimacy to rules.

"[4)] Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I feel this rule is a symptom of the lax definition of reasonableness. The reason people become offended when someone accuses them of being unreasonable, is because the standard is so loosely defined that someone can (reasonably, ha!) believe themselves reasonable when others do not.

I read an interesting article the other day where the author took a moral position and reasoned it through [0], showing how it was legally reasoned through in high profile situations. This kind of cooperative principle is harder to state, but more easily defended on grounds that are still require agreement, but in principle can reference an objective reality (e.g. from the article, elements like "proportionality"). Obviously, the referenced article is not a scholarly work, so there is more that can be done, but

I guess this is the kind of thing political science majors learn about in school that I didn't get exposed to as much except through my own reading.

[0] [https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral- precept-1...](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral- precept-1af7007d6376)

<comment><USER11> > ... it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are > so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that > don't already agree with you.

You are absolutely right on both points, and I think it's important to recognize (as you did) how vague language can be. It can be astounding how much miscommunication and cross expectation can happen even after parties agree on really concretely elaborated terms.

But - in part I wonder if this misses the spirit of the Reasonable Person Principle. My interpretation is not that "reasonable" is (or even should be) a concrete criteria under which to judge people, I think the point of the principle is to default to giving benefit of the doubt. I think it's a suggestion that when one finds a disagreement, one should assume that the opponent has legitimate reasons for their position _before_ one tries to argue with them. In other words, try harder to not argue at all, but instead to understand.

<comment><USER12> If that is what the spirit is meant to be, I think that the principle of charity [0] is a stronger (less ambiguous) approach.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

<comment><USER11> Yes, you're totally right. This is a clearer description of what I had in my head with my above comment. Re-reading the Reasonable Person Principle, there is the specific guidance (emphasized more than once) to seek personal resolution over public resolution of differences. That's not covered by the Principle of Charity, but I would think for most reasonable people in most circumstances, personal resolution of differences would be a byproduct of adopting the Principle of Charity.

In any case, reducing ambiguity is always a good thing, but it does make me smile to think about trying to be crystally unambiguous about the wording of principles whose purpose is to acknowledge the existence of vagueness and ambiguity, and suggest outcomes will be improved by using the most reasonable and most charitable interpretations available.

This has me wondering if there's a meta-level principle or eponymous law around somewhere concerning the ambiguity of language itself, there must be, right? Something like, 'when someone says something you find untrue, first assume you didn't understand what they said, and seek to validate your interpretation before disagreeing'...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Makes sense. Good summary. I've heard it mentioned as "don't be a jerk", "don't first assume when others act like jerks they always meant to". The last part, avoids quick escalations of misunderstandings.

Interestingly just last year I remember someone posted the syllabus to the Advanced Database Systems: [http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/](http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/) (latest version). Really good stuff there.

But one thing I noticed there was plenty of red triangles. Apparently those are trigger warnings. So I opened some of those papers, for example: [http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/papers/04-occ/tu-...](http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/papers/04-occ/tu- sosp2013.pdf) , expecting to see some horrible things, but I couldn't see what would be triggering there. There are transaction ids, commit phases, reads, writes, B+trees ...

So given that it is coming from same school, shouldn't the same "reasonable- ness" apply. Is it reasonable to sprinkle trigger warnings onto distributed database readings? I understand history, psychology, anthropology, literature, art might have disturbing contexts, but computer science?

<comment><USER14> That _is_ odd. Maybe it's an in-joke alluding to database triggers or something? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_trigger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_trigger)

<comment><USER13> Oh you may be right. I couldn't see the pattern right away though. Is it memory resident databases, and it is a pun on them not really being considered "databases"...?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." \-- George Bernard Shaw

<comment><USER16> It's a clever quote, but I've always thought this turned a bit on an ambiguity in the word "unreasonable" in the first and second half of the sentence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> FYI: The RPP has been the way at CMU-CS since before I was there in the mid-80's.

<comment><USER18> Recent grad here (technically ECE not CS, but obviously lots of overlap)--still very much a thing people take very seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Side point, but am I to understand from this that there is an email list "cs.opinion" which is "no-holds barred and often both agressive and personal"? That seems like a terrible idea in a professional environment.

<comment><USER20> From the name, it is more likely to refer to a local newsgroup. I would assume it is/was also for students, not just staff.

</comment></comment><comment> purple-again What an excellent concise framework for handling interactions in a diverse undivided culture. I'm surprised I've never seen this before.

There WILL be disagreements and conflict because so many things are not objective and there is no rational right answer. Guns, abortion, gender, rights everything has a gambit of perfectly reasonable and acceptable positions along its spectrum. Many of which are contrarian by nature.

We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are gone or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures.

<comment><USER3> >We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are gone or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures.

The first method is the only workable one. The second is impossible: many peoples' morality absolutely requires that they impose their moral values on everyone around them. So "learning to live together" would require living by the moral codes of people you fundamentally disagree with.

Just as an example from your list: abortion. The pro-choice people would be perfectly happy to have legal access to abortions, and for anti-abortion people to simply not get any. That won't work for anti-abortion people, who will insist on legislatively banning all abortions (to varying degrees, to be fair). The only way to live peacefully with anti-abortion people is to simply give up and let them ban abortion. This obviously is unacceptable to pro- choice people. I can make similar arguments about many other moral positions, such as whether women should be allowed to drive or not.

<comment><USER21> There's always the third option of marginalizing the absolutists and ignoring their demands until they die off from old age and no longer form a powerful constituency. I'm not saying it always works or is inherently better, but it certainly has worked in some places.

<comment><USER3> Isn't that still the same as "blood and fire"?

Sure, you can just ignore the moralists you don't like, but what if they don't go quietly? Then you have to use something stronger against them. With the abortion issue for example, it's been a never-ending tug-of-war in politics, with each side constantly working to change the makeup of the SCOTUS to either maintain the status quo or to overturn it. While not an actual, physical battle, it's been a constant political one, for decades now. It's never been settled. And with the latest election, the "let's wait for them to die off" idea obviously isn't working so well: the anti-abortion people are winning politically (at least for now), so I reject the idea that the people with strict religious moral codes are dying out. (Notice that, in the US at least, it's religious people who typically have far more kids than non-religious people.)

<comment><USER21> No. Not everything has to be adversarial all the time. I'm trying to make a general point, not comment on US politics in particular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Its sounds more like the definition of a prosocial person, not reasonable. I think there needs to be something in there about, say, enlightened self- interest as it relates to the community, rather than simply asserting that reasonable people think about the common good.

In the economic sense, a common approach is to model reasonable people as trying to maximize their gain or utility, without much regard to the common good.

<comment><USER23> Sure... And Ayn Rand will therefore tell you let that child drown if it isn't yours, you don't expect a reward, and rescuing it may get your shoes wet.

Which is why "the economic sense" must not be applied _unreasonably_.

There could be a better term maybe. "Average" may actually work, or "well- adjusted". Maybe even "what would Benjamin Franklin Pierce (gen 50+) / Ted Mosby (others) do"

<comment><USER24> Would Ayn Rand really tell you that, or are you just making a caricature of her beliefs?

If you are just making a caricature of her beliefs, is that what a reasonable person would do?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This just feels to me like one of those things that seems great on paper, then in practice requires a lot of things to line up to work as intended (like Communism?).

I also really dislike the fact that the language used would be very hard to a non-native English speaker, which makes me question how useful it is at solving the problems it is obviously addressing (cultural differences, social norms, etc.).

<comment><USER26> I take a slightly different view of it, with mostly the same conclusion. When something seems to require people be able to identify and self-regulate some of the baser elements of human psychology, it's unlikely to to work in practice. I contend that even the most reasonable and rational person will have periods where they enter a state of unreasonableness and/or irrationality that is impossible to identify while within said period.

<comment><USER27> I think it's precisely for those times that they have the fourth bullet-point;

> Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "The Reasonable Person Principle is part of the unwritten culture of CMU computer science"

Hmmmm.

<comment><USER29> How apt. Here is a principle that tries to define sane communication within a community and espouses flexibility and understanding. A hyperliteral reading of a statement that has a very reasonable interpretation (i.e., that it _has been_ implicitly understood up to the point it was put to writing) is precisely why things like this exist.

We are not debuggers and are expected to look beyond words and grasp intent.

<comment><USER28> Hey, I didn't even get into the dissonance between "Everyone will be reasonable" but then "Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable."

<comment><USER29> To be clear, I'm not addressing you specifically since you're clearly posting out of humor. When someone composes a message with errors, we can engage 1) the erroneous message or 2) the message without errors or 3) the meaning behind the message. It's unfortunate how news aggregation boards with short- lived posts - reddit, HN included - tend to reward slams at levels 1 & 2 when the conversation should really start at level 3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think one common reason people are not reasonable is they lack proficiency in the needed social skills. I think books like Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication can be helpful here.

<comment><USER31> Indeed. In my experience, unreasonableness in interpersonal contexts often seems to stem from unmet emotional needs. Having the tools to deescalate the situation and address those needs is critical to getting emotional arguments back on to the rails of civil discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> In Canada, a lot of law is based on the "Reasonable Person Test". See [http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Person_Test](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Person_Test)

</comment><comment><USER33> I find this to be relatively true in my interactions here.

</comment><comment><USER34> So, what do you do if you find someone else unreasonable and private arguments do not resolve the conflict?

<comment><USER35> I try not to keep such people in my life. Not a strict rules. My three year old daughter is often unreasonable. Also, I hope people can forgive me at times.

<comment><USER34> This is about co-workers though, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think a big part of the concept of a reasonable person is recognizing that others have something to offer and giving them respect. Someone I very much disagree with may have good points to be made and I should be open to that. Now that said, I sometimes fail.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm having trouble drawing conclusions of any sort from the statements listed here. Am I alone in finding this indecipherable? Perhaps I'm being unreasonable...

</comment><comment><USER21> 'Reasonable' doesn't mean relaxed or even nice. It means being guided by reason, ie the application of logic to available evidence. Socrates was a reasonable person, and his insistence on being so made him a lot of enemies.

It might be worthwhile to define this up front; this worthy advice seems to rest on an implicit understanding of 'reasonable' as meaning 'considerate' or 'not rocking the boat.'

<comment><USER23> The dictionary I just consulted lists your definition as "archaic". "Reasonable" means (to a reasonable observer) a lot more than the ability to think logically:

\- having sound judgement; fair and sensible: no reasonable person could have objected.

\- based on good sense: it seems a reasonable enough request | the guilt of a person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

\- archaic: able to reason logically: man is by nature reasonable.

2: as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate: a police officer may use reasonable force to gain entry.

Thesaurus: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable, decent; intelligent, wise, level-headed, practical, realistic; based on good sense, sound, judicious, well thought out, well grounded, reasoned, well reasoned, valid, commonsensical, advisable, well advised; tenable, plausible, feasible, credible, acceptable, admissible, believable

<comment><USER21> It's used every day in law courts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This brings to mind the Debian Code of Conduct #2. Assume good faith.

</comment><comment><USER38> Expecting everyone within a group to be reasonable is not reasonable.

<comment><USER39> No, that's the thing, you all have to _expect_ them to be reasonable. They know this, and its social pressure to _actually be reasonable_. That's how the whole thing works. And then of course, you forgive someone who for whatever emotional reason cannot be reasonable for some brief time. Because, all human.

<comment><USER40> And this expectation actually have to be _emotional_. Because, paradoxically, human behavior is guided by emotions, not reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> How is 'reasonable' different from 'rational'? And don't both these terms beg the question of ultimate ends and/or values?

<comment><USER42> I don't know, does rational give way to pragmatic?

<comment><USER43> Not necessarily depending on your priors

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Reads like a blanket statement

</comment><comment><USER45> I can't tell if this is satire.

<comment><USER46> the fact that you can't is itself an indicator as to what has happened in American culture, in general.

<comment><USER47> I can't tell if you are commenting on him being part of a clueless American culture, in general, or that his quandary is because the aforementioned culture problem.

<comment><USER46> yes

<comment><USER48> That statement adds literally nothing to the conversation. Very much like your parent statement.

If you're going to comment, can you at least try to inform or challenge me/others?

<comment><USER46> comment I responded to asked a question in the form of "A or B". I evaluated their question logically.

what do you think I owe you in terms of "informing or challenging" you? at some point you'll have to actually interpret my comments yourself and figure out what I meant. how explicit do I need to be?

we're talking about indicators that point to what has happened to American culture and society. A comment expressing confusion as to whether or not "behave like reasonable adults" is a satirical statement is quite revealing, don't you think?

<comment><USER49> An answer of "yes" to an A or B question is non-sensical and unproductive.

<comment><USER46> so what? a little non-sense is fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> CMU had me arrested and held in jail for a week though I had paid my bail because I complained too much about not being able to find an job opportunities with a CS degree. Everyone just says to go to the career center. Career center says they have nothing for me. Couldn't find anyone in the entire University who would act reasonably to anything that didn't benefit them directly.

<comment><USER51> I feel like you must be leaving part of the story out - you don't get arrested for complaining...

<comment><USER50> They frequently have students and alumni arrested. The message is clear: keep your mouth shut.

<comment><USER51> No offense, but I don't believe you. Do you have some evidence?

<comment><USER50> Try Google. You want to see my arrest record? How can I prove to you the absence of evidence?

Telling someone what happened to them instead of listening to them because you don't want to believe them isn't very reasonable. You have the same reaction as most people at CMU: you don't believe what happened, so something must be wrong with me.

I'm sorry for getting a Computer Science degree at Carnegie Mellon University just because I wanted to become a programmer. Before I went to college people suggested to me that is what I should do if I wanted to get a job. People said professors would help you if you need help with schoolwork or getting a job, nobody suggested they would be rich and not care about any of the students. You can go down to CMU and ask if there's anyone to talk to or to help get a job but no professors of faculty will help you. They don't tell us what resources are available. I here about people at other schools who can get their school to help them. But when I ask at CMU everyone says they'll help me and then they ignore me. They tell me help should be available, but when I ask for it, everyone just gets angry at me.

So, yes, you are being offensive. Try figuring things out for yourself instead of insulting people with your unreasonableness.

<comment><USER51> What's unreasonable and offensive here is baselessly claiming that an institution is arresting its students and alumni to keep them quiet.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Aldous Huxley was right, not George Orwell - <AUTHOR> http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html <comment><USER3> This is a false dichotomy. It's quite possible - and indeed, probably much more likely - that aspects of both are becoming bigger parts of our lives at the same time. These two aspects of human culture - authoritarianism and dissipation have always been with us, this isn't new; 'dictatorship' & 'bread and circuses' would both be familiar concepts to citizens of ancient Rome.

<comment><USER4> So are there any novels that portray such a "hybrid" dystopia?

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't any novel set in contemporary times be portraying the hybrid dystopia that we all currently inhabit?

<comment><USER6> I think the movie Network (made in 1976!) was really close to exactly this hybrid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> People seem to assume it's a choice between Huxley, Orwell, or the combination of the two. They miss a very big option, which is that humanity is in fact better off than it used to be. Marx was dead wrong about the future(remember, he thought that global communist revolution was _inevitable_ ) but he was dead right about the time that he lived in. Up until the 1950s or 60s or so, a good half of the population wasn't able to hold any but a rare few jobs. During the early days of the Industrial Revolution up until about the decade of the 1900s, you would be considered lucky if you were paid in money rather than company scrip that would be useless outside of the company town you lived in, meaning that if you wanted to change jobs you pretty much lost all your money. In the Middle Ages, ...if I have to explain to you why the Middle Ages sucked compared to today, you're already a lost cause. I could go on.

Want a real dystopia? Read a history book.

<comment><USER8> You're absolutely right -- things are much better now than any time in history, for a majority of the world's population.

But "better" really means "more choices are available." We should try to make sure that we make the best choices, and that's what posts like these are trying to help us do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Orwell was specifically warning about the dangers of a communist totalitarian state. He was one of the few left-leaning writers that spoke out against Stalinism. North Korea has become, in every sense, a '1984' state. China and the former Soviet Union seem to be in transition from '1984' to 'Brave New World'.

<comment><USER10> Funny, I was just reading about this.

"A young man Demick interviewed read 1984 after he escaped to [South Korea]. He was startled to learn that George Orwell, back in the 1940s, had perfectly understood the thinking of modern North Koreans."

[http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/24/robert- fulfor...](http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/24/robert-fulford- north-korea-an-antique-nightmare/)

<comment><USER11> Orwell was just predicting what the future would be like if Stalinism took over the world in 1984. He had plenty of experience with it while fighting in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the anarchists POUM and often in conflict with the Stalinist backed factions.

The government of North Korea was founded by Kim Il Sung who was hand picked by Stalin to run the country, so it's only natural that they would try to implement the model Orwell was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Blog spam, the original is here: [http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing- Ourse...](http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to- Death.html)

And the original discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=627476>

Edit: (article link was changed by moderator)

</comment><comment><USER13> Yap, Brave New World is much more interesting to those who want to understand what might be our future than 1984. I believe that's common sense to those who read both novels.

Also interesting is Brave New World Revisited, a book written 30 years after he's other book where he compares it with 1984 by Orwell. He also makes some guesses about the future[1].

I love dystopias and Brave New World is the best.

 _spoiler_

[1] _The most important one being about soma and how it's so similar to lsd._

<comment><USER14> No one ever mentions We <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)>

<comment><USER15> We is great, and remarkably similar to Brave New World. I like the mini- controversy surrounding it, here it is as summarized on Wikipedia:

"...in a 1962 letter to Christopher Collins, Huxley says that he wrote Brave New World as a reaction to H.G. Wells' utopias long before he had heard of We. According to We translator Natasha Randall, Orwell believed that Huxley was lying. Kurt Vonnegut said that in writing Player Piano (1952) he "cheerfully ripped off the plot of Brave New World, whose plot had been cheerfully ripped off from Yevgeny Zamyatin's We.""[1]

If Huxley hadn't read We he was def. channeling Zamyatin's aura somehow or another.

Vonnegut is too hard on himself saying Player Piano was a rip off of Brave New World. It is great in it's own right.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This comic rings mostly true for me, but I disagree a bit with the claim that information in 1984 was restricted; Good information was hard to find, but if I recall correctly, bad information was abundant.

For example, even when Winston begins to realize that he's being fed B.S. information by the government, the book he reads for "real" information is also (probably) filled with lies. I find this point to be especially poignant today as some niche alternative news outlets (such as conspiracy theory web sites) are as inaccurate as the outlets they seek to criticize.

</comment><comment><USER17> Francis Fukayama made this very same assertion years ago in an essay in The Times Literary Supplement or The New York Review of Books. I remember reading this maybe six, seven years ago and his assertion was that the Huxlean(?) view of the future and not the Orwellian view of the future was coming to pass. I thought that it gelled with his capitalistic view of the world in general. It's a futile debate because clearly our present world exhibits traits from both of Huxley's and Orwell's imaginings. Arguably Orwell was by far the superior craftsman and wordsmith which is why I think his images carry more weight and are more current. Their visions are both culturally very important and this kind of "who's better?" malarky is ... um, malarky! Like I said before Eric Blair to Tony Blair in < 50 years ftw!

<comment><USER18> I am not disagreeing with anything you wrote or trying to be argumentative, but I wanted to mention that Amusing Ourselves to Death is 25 years old.

<comment><USER17> I'll check it out

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The cartoon notes that the comparison was taken from Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

Postman wrote this 25 years ago. If anything, his observation is even more true today.

<comment><USER20> RIP Neil Postman. His keen intellect and warm humanity are missed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A cute cartoon, but seeing as I just ([imo]unfortunately) read "Brave New World" in a very in depth literature class (apologize for the fallacy call to authority) , I don't find the Cartoon to be accurate at all.

For example, books _were_ banned in "Brave New World" -remember all that Shakespeare drama? Huxley was saying people are going to be controlled by the government because in the Brave New World, the government breeds humans for different purposes, and all those humans know are pleasures which are completely dependent on the government, like daily rations of _soma_ , a drug which prevents aging and sadness.

<comment><USER22> But there's a difference between the banning in Brave New World and what we consider the term to mean today (or what it meant in 1984). Most World State citizens couldn't read at all so banning books was done so they wouldn't be tempted to learn. The government wasn't taking something away as much as they were simply not giving the population access to it.

Books were essentially like illegal drugs in our society. The Government had decided they were harmful to the citizenry and attempted to restrict them from coming in. But it's clearly a fairly minor thing (again equivalent to our drug policy where most personal use offenders get drug treatment rather than punishment).

For example, John the Savage is allowed both to quote Shakespeare and to interact with those who come to the reservation. Yet there's no Government repression and it's certainly not like in 1984 where you get a lobotomy. So the banning of books really reinforces the cartoon's point because what the government has done is to convince the population that books are bad for them and then offered the ban as a way to keep the population from being harmed by them.

<comment><USER21> imho, you have a very misleading point where the government is just _not_ providing access akin to drugs; however, books contain knowledge, and drugs do not. The government in the Brave New World isn't just "not providing a service," it's actively attempting to make a dumb citizen through not only the means of censorship, but injecting fetuses with alcohol to lower the intelligence of the individual. Our government has a ban on drugs to protect us citizens(theoretically), whereas the Brave New World has a ban on books to protect itself.

I'd also like to note:

Most personal offenders in our government get treatment instead of punishment (drugs). Most personal offenders in the Brave New World get banished (reading).

<comment><USER23> Plenty of people have claimed enlightenment while taking drugs, which might well lead to knowledge and understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> [Note that there's a _ton_ of Brave New World that's not in the comic, as pointed out by dbz. I'm reacting to the comic's version.]

Note that, unlike Orwell's dystopia, Huxley's doesn't require squashing every voice of dissent - as long as the majority of people don't care, there is little danger in allowing some dissidents.

Some would say that this, in fact, has already happened - Berlusconi controls a sufficiently large part of the population via the media that he's effectively untouchable. In the American situation, there's Fox News and its competitors.

</comment><comment><USER25> Orwell predicted the 20th Century, Huxley predicts the 21st

</comment><comment><USER26> The reason is that Aldous Huxley's vision was far easier to implement. It didn't require a massive conspiracy, which is extremely difficult. Anyone who has ever been a checkout supervisor at Wal-Mart will tell you how hard it is to coordinate a large number of people with individual personalities, desires, etc. even if the end goal is something as simple as everyone taking a 15 minute break without having too few cashiers at once.

Huxley's vision just required a bunch of people independently trying to make money and becoming good at it, which is pretty much what people do best.

<comment><USER27> It doesn't take conspiracy to implement 1984. All it takes is bureaucrats doing their jobs and letting bureaucrats to tweak their job description.

<comment><USER26> I don't think that's true. Bureaucrats are mostly well-intentioned. They're not working toward 1984, they're working toward what they see as a well-run government. When it comes to government people easily fail to see the forest for the trees, and view it as a living, breathing, single organism hell-bent on power. It's not though, it's a collection of people who are for the most part competent and well-meaning and who are simply facing a monumental task.

The entire first world routinely asks our politicians to provide us more services and more securities for less money, and then gets upset when they fail to deliver the impossible. They're not working toward 1984, they're just trying to stay in office and leave their offices a little better than when they found it.

<comment><USER28> Well have you ever heard that road to hell is paved with good intentions? I have seen more than fair shair of this saying being true in practice.

Bureaucrat may be well-intentioned, but they are mostly more prone to "do their job" than to question the correctness and impact of their deeds.

And that is without considering office politics or politics in broader sense. I'm working with government and I wouldn't rely on bureaucrat to do the "right thing".

They say that bureacracy is organization whrere group of people that think all "A" agree on compromise "B".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Huxley, of course, wasn't all doom and gloom. His last, wonderful, novel 'Island' describes a very sensible, somewhat libertarian utopia, the antidote to BNW.

His utopia is based on a very open education and a love and understanding for the natural world. It reminds me of Iain Bank's 'Culture', sans the technology.

It's relatively overlooked as a work. My guess is the same factors that make doom and gloom sell newspapers make BNW the more popular novel.

I'd recommend it as a read to anyone.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel)>

</comment><comment><USER30> Original Source (2009): [http://www.recombinantrecords.net/2009/05/24/amusing- ourselv...](http://www.recombinantrecords.net/2009/05/24/amusing-ourselves-to- death/)

</comment><comment><USER31> It seems that they both are right in a sense. Overindulgence of the self (Huxley) leads to destruction while overindulgence of Others (Orwell) does the same. Indulging in the personal pleasures leads people to forget about everything else while trying to take care of others too much leads to trying to run their lives when they don't listen to you even though you think you are right.

<comment><AUTHOR> Orwell wrote about overindulgence of others? How so?

<comment><USER4> The only example I can think of is the way the Party controls the Proles - <USER2> making sure they have plenty gin, beer, porn, trashy novels and gambling. Which was presumably based on the observations of working class life he did for "The Road to Wigan Pier".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Beyond just that the cartoonist misses (or outright distorts) the points of _Brave New World_ , ey makes the truly bizarre (and yet oddly common) assumption that at some golden age in the past, "the people" were less distracted by their own lives and what entertained them and were more civic and more aware.

They weren't. Before they were playing video games, they were playing ping pong, board games, cards, or catch. Before they were watching YouTube, they were watching TV or listening to radio shows. Despite the journalistic myth- making about their own industry, the news has always been cluttered with trivialities and partisanship in every medium.

And there have always been people complaining how everyone but they has descended into terrible trogolodytes who only care about their own lives and interests - and not what smart people like themselves find important.

<comment><USER5> A bit pedantic, but: the cartoonist didn't really write anything, he just illustrated text Neil Postman wrote in "Amusing Ourselves to Death."

<comment><USER32> Yes, that's pedantic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Let us not forget about the great skill our minds have at making connections between things which many not actually be true.

Just as startuprules points out that while many in the US are thinking that they have big brother looking over them, when they are compared to China they realize that it is mostly just their imagination.

What I find most interesting is how many of us would say we are part of the problem? So if it affects everybody, but we're not a part of it, does it really affect everybody.

Also, lets not forget about the drop in things like tv ratings, where a big show in the 80's was 10s of millions of people, and a big show today has a much smaller viewership.

We still think everybody is watching American Idol (or whatever) because it's everwhere, but in reality, it seems very few are actually watching or even taking an interest.

</comment><comment><USER34> I am not convinced. Somehow the 1984s still seem to be just around the corner all the time. Any kind of incident, and politicians try to make a case for 1984 laws and censorship.

At least if my neighbors amuse themselves to death, I am not forced to participate. I also don't think average people of all ages (as in centuries, eons) were usually preoccupied with highly intellectual endeavors. So the lament of us all becoming more stupid is probably also an old one.

<comment><USER35> And of course intelligence has been rising as measured by IQ.

I think the books are a warning and contain some truth. I have not read BNW, but 1984 can be used as Machiavelli's Prince, as a prescription, rather than description, of how it could be.

So the book is a warning.

Also, I wanted to say, although it might have been written to describe communism, I think unless you take it literally, much of it resonates with democratic societies also. For example, how the three states keep being at war one day and friends another and how everyone forgets this and how they always are at war. That is quite a good description of the west in some ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The world in Brave New World was portrayed in a very negative light, but I found it to be a utopia where everyone is happy. I don't see why a future where people have everything they may want and are happy all the time without fear is a bad world to be in...

<comment><USER37> Well, I would rather live in a world that is making technological progress than a world where everyone was happy all the time. I think people need to be at least a little unhappy to drive progress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Neil Postman made the same observation already in 1984: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death>

EDIT: Just read aardvark's comment. So never mind.

</comment><comment><USER39> The elitism in this comic has rubbed me the wrong way every time I've read it, as has the historical tone deafness. You have to basically assume the premise to Idiocracy for it to be valid.

</comment><comment><USER40> I would propose that there currently exist a third reality: a combination of the two scenarios described in the comics. An authoritarian state which restricts materials that are hazardous to the state's health, but also encourages huge debt taking/mindless consumption that zombifies the majority of the population.

Case in point: US. It restricts information that would undermine its authority as the world's dominant power, such as BP spill, bankruptcy of its banks/cities/states, ineffectiveness at resolution in afghanistan, etc. The government offers discounts/low rates for large home mortgages, expensive cars, and big student loans that would shackle the majority of the population in debt chains. It also condones mindless consumption such as reality TV, sports, celebrity news, and facebook games by not taxing them as addictive hazards.

Case in point: China. It restricts, well, pretty much anything it doesn't want the people to know with the great internet firewall and state news programs. It also encourages huge risk taking in mortgages, which recently has seen home prices go up to 30X average income. It encourages its citizens to forget about the abysmal living condition by allowing internet game cafes to spread like wildfire and trapping the players in pointless alternative realities. So they don't realize they are doing slave labor at $1/day to make ipads.

I further propose that this will continue as long as these governments worldwide can keep feeding its citizens at a minimum (food stamps, unemployment benefits, carb/sugar loaded cheap food), while offering cheap, mind-numbing entertainments to keep people at home, so they don't go out and riot on the streets. They can then keep on taxing/raising the retirement age on the productive workers

Until oil is at $150/middle class is wiped out/Iran is attacked/North Korea attacks/US defaults on SS and medicare/Japan defaults on its bonds/food prices double/Israel is attacked/automation renders most of population useless, anyways.

<comment><USER11> The important stuff in the U.S is controlled by creating false dichotomies between different alternatives that both assume a uniform underlying reality and are different in practically meaningless ways. Anything that's different from these false alternatives is assumed to be one of the false alternatives, will be viewed as kook material or will take several hours to explain. There is also plenty of genuine kook material mixed in to all of this that makes it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The only thing that can really knock the average American out of this is long term exposure to alternatives that exist in other cultures. Ever notice how people who are well traveled often have a more nuanced understanding of most contemporary topics?

<comment><USER41> true; anything I see from the US is seen as one point or exactly the contrary, never as the way more complex reality it really is...</comment></comment></comment>


Are you aware of the recent Git ransomware incident? - <AUTHOR> https://github.blog/2019-05-14-git-ransom-campaign-incident-report/ <comment><USER2> Please use the original title.</comment>


Benioff – Every VC in Silicon Valley Turned Us Down - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/09/benioff-every-vc-in-silicon-valley-turned-us-down/ <comment><USER2> "He suggested there were a lot of reasons for that including competitors who would call after his meetings and deliberately sabotage him"

It is depressing that this is (still) an everyday occurrence.</comment>


Typeracer – Improve/test typing speed via online typing races - <AUTHOR> http://play.typeracer.com/

<comment><USER3> I ranked top 30 on typeracer at least once[1]. Here's one of the tricks: there's usually a countdown before each race starts, and anyone who cares about gaming the "words per minute" measurement will just paste the first word when the race begins.

Naturally, the other trick is to type really, really fast. This comes in handy when taking transcripts at events or meetings[2], but not often for anything else.

[1] [http://www.seanwrona.com/typeracer/leaders.php](http://www.seanwrona.com/typeracer/leaders.php)

[2] [http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/](http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Easter egg for hackers: [http://play.typeracer.com/?universe=code](http://play.typeracer.com/?universe=code) (I'm the founder/developer of this site) Glad to see fellow HNers enjoying my creation!

<comment><USER5> Woah, typing code at speed is incredibly difficult. I don't know if it picks languages randomly but it gave me Lisp just now, and... ack!

Unrelated, TypeRacer is amazing. We had a bunch of contests at my last job and they ended up making a trophy because I was the King of Speed. It was pretty fun. So, thank you!

<comment><USER4> You're welcome, and congrats on winning a trophy - that's pretty cool! Thanks for your comment!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really enjoy typing fast (at least, faster than average) :) [http://imgur.com/AUovDJq](http://imgur.com/AUovDJq)

I was fresh out of high school, and already doing small freelance web contracts for friends and family's businesses ... my first semi-technical job (other than the aforementioned contracts) was as a phone support person and I knew I was going to have to do a lot of typing; but I'd never been very good at touch typing. So I popped up notepad, and resolved to type everything that our trainer said for the week (or however long the training period was, I forget).

Best investment ever, considering this line of work :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Oh hey, I got bored one day and decided to write a console script to achieve any WPM you want, a gist can be found here: [https://gist.github.com/emgeee/9dfa0ac113f933afda0b](https://gist.github.com/emgeee/9dfa0ac113f933afda0b)

As others have mentioned, if you get above 100 WPM they make you do a captcha test to form your AREN'T scripting it, which I can't beat but it was a fun exercise none the less.

</comment><comment><USER8> unshameful plug : for local console, use gnu typist [http://www.gnu.org/s/gtypist](http://www.gnu.org/s/gtypist) (had good results with it)

<comment><USER9> Seconded, got me from shit to good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think it will necessarily improve typing speed, but it is definitely a good test. I suggest you supplement Typeracer with a touch typing tutor app. My favorite is klavaro ([http://klavaro.sourceforge.net/en/](http://klavaro.sourceforge.net/en/)).

<comment><USER11> For what it's worth, I used type racer to learn to touchtype. Took me from about 25 wpm to about 65 wpm. I seem to have plateaued there though - <USER2> actually type at around 90, but with mistakes. The game doesn't seem like a good tool for shaking out the mistakes.

Another problem is that it doesn't teach you all the weird punctuation we use as programmers - I still look at my keyboard when typing code, which I don't have to do fit normal text...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hm, I was able to get 104 and 111wpm, but I find the new UI to typeracer incredibly distracting. I have clocked in multiple times on multiple tests at 137wpm.

It's just very visually distracting for the words to disapper as I type them, and when I scored over 100wpm on a race, I had to take a 'test' to prove that I could do it, and on the test the UI was not all crazy, and I got 111wpm with some mistakes, including having to hit tab and enter to end the test.

<comment><USER12> Seriously, it's my ceiling:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/7nhtggwgr47g1r7/Screenshot%202014-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/7nhtggwgr47g1r7/Screenshot%202014-06-20%2013.18.00.png)

This was a typing test, where I again scored higher than in the race (I got 123), since the UI is wierd and I can't focus the text field before typing, it's hard to know how not to mess up.

I guess if you type 60wpm those details don't impact you as much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Pretty fun game!

I had one issue though. I managed to type 129wpm in one round (I normally type around 105-110, this particular paragraph was easy). It told me to be allowed to use this score I had to prove I could type 117wpm on an obfuscated (think captcha) document. I was not able to do that. It's a good idea, in theory. Maybe if I'd tried a few more times I could have gotten it up there.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if everyone has to, but my captcha document was from Alice in Wonderland or something, which already had some strange punctuation and capitalization, but the random black lines covered up some of the punctuation and I took too much time trying to figure out what they were rather than just skipping them and taking the accuracy hit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> BTW, do you know that average typing speed for adults is just 41 words per minute. Source - [http://www.ratatype.com/learn/average-typing- speed/](http://www.ratatype.com/learn/average-typing-speed/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm stuck bouncing between 55~70 words a minute. My fingers keep tripping over themselves!

<comment><USER17> You might find it surprising how much of a difference the keyboard can make, on my mechanical keyboards I'm consistently around 90 on my Ergonomic keyboards nearer 70.

I'll take the hit not to have the wrist pain though!.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Like the idea but the page and line layout is problematic. I think at a minimum the text areas should be larger and it should eat a whole line at a time instead of a single word. Somehow I completely lose my place every time I make a mistake.

</comment><comment><USER19> It probably helps having a premium mechanical keyboard. Fun stuff.

</comment><comment><USER20> Gah. My wife got 120wpm her first try. WTH super woman.

</comment><comment><USER21> 67 wpm :)

</comment><comment><USER22> 148! ;)

</comment><comment><USER23> Reckful rank 1</comment>


Spare Batteries - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/10/spare-batteries.html

<comment><USER2> Not everyone is like him. Carrying spare batteries is probably the exception, not the rule. I literally can't think of anybody I know in real life who even owns a spare battery for their mobile phone.

Apple probably figured that this was a feature worth ditching because hardly anybody needs it, maybe also because there are (clunky) workarounds (with all those external batteries). The iPods and later the iPhone have an active accessory ecosystem so Apple can do stuff like that.

</comment><comment><USER3> I always carry an external battery in my bag with enough juice to repower an iPhone 3 times over (and enough cell phone tips that I can recharge others' phones in a pinch). Most of the battery+case combos work pretty well, too. I'd prefer the internal battery was accessible, beautiful design be damned, but it's not like it's a difficult problem to work around.

(In practice, the iPhone 4's battery actually lasts for 1.5-2 days of heavy usage, so it's seldom an issue, but of course that won't be true a year from now.)

</comment><comment><USER4> There's more than one way to skin a cat. The only time I get in charge trouble with my iPhone is on transoceanic travel days, and for those there is this: <http://www.ladyada.net/make/mintyboost/>

<comment><USER5> I have a Duracell AA/AAA charger that can also use the charged batteries to power a USB port for other devices. That and a couple sets of AA rechargables and I can use my phone all day without an outlet.

Unfortunately it looks like they discontinued it: [http://www.amazon.com/Duracell-Charger-Rechargeable- Batterie...](http://www.amazon.com/Duracell-Charger-Rechargeable-Batteries- CEF23DX4N/dp/B000XSA5WW/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bottom line: a smartphone has to last for a full day of heavy use on a single battery. Not 16 continuous hours of high-drain usage, but a mix of phone calls, web browsing, audio or video recording, still photograpy, listening and watching.

</comment><comment><USER7> Mophie, Kensington, and Griffin all sell battery extenders that are external.

It's a design tradeoff. Not requiring the user to open the iPhone means that Apple doesn't have to design a latch and they can pack components tighter.

</comment><comment><USER8> $10 got me 2 spare batteries for my Droid. They're great insurance and I don't know why it took me so long to go this route.

<comment><USER9> How do you charge them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The thing with spare batteries is, they're only useful if you also have a standalone charger, and most people neglect that. If you have to use the phone itself to recharge them, then any time you've used up several spare batteries, getting them all charged up again is a huge pain.

I have a standalone charger that plugs into the wall, and half a dozen spare batteries. Rather than plug my phone in to charge, I swap its battery with the fully charged one in the charger. This means I never worry about discovering my phone is almost dead when I'm about to leave the house; recharging to full is instantaneous, rather than tying my phone (and by association, me) to a single spot for hours. Doing things that drain the battery quickly are no longer a big deal. And if I'm going to be traveling for awhile without the ability to plug in, I can take as many batteries as I'll need.

</comment><comment><USER11> Nowadays, most people could probably bolt the hood on their car shut without any consequences (but there would be outcry from the car guys).

But a lot of cars nowadays basically do this. There's an engine cover underneath the hood hiding all the engine parts, with only a place to add fluids visible.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've never run out of battery on my droid x in the same day which I unplugged it from the charger. I wish that I could say the battery life problem was going away but 4g, dual core android phones will be here soon and battery life will get worse. [http://androidandme.com/2010/09/news/t-mobile-mytouch-hd- fir...](http://androidandme.com/2010/09/news/t-mobile-mytouch-hd-first-dual- core-android-phone-on-4g/)

</comment><comment><USER13> A few observations, I've never used my iPhone enough in one day to run down the battery. If you are the kind of person who does then they sell external batteries. You could also take along the charger or in car charger and top your phone off during lunch or while driving around.

</comment><comment><USER14> I had an issue getting through a day at trade shows and then got one of these:

<http://amzn.to/cx8u6p>

I spent about $30 on it and now its only $20 money well spent.

</comment><comment><USER15> When you travel a lot, or are not near a computer often the spare battery pain becomes mightily obvious. The typical I'm at home/work pattern has plenty of chances to charge.</comment>


Twitter suspends 'alt-right' accounts - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/11/twitter-suspends-alt-right-accounts-231479 <comment><USER2> This pretty much sums it up: [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)

<comment><USER3> And a more nuanced counterargument: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the- centrali...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized- web/)

TLDR:

> We don't trust the free market to necessarily preserve racial equality – > that's what anti-discrimination laws are for. We don't trust the free market > to necessarily preserve worker safety – that's what OSHA and related > regulations are for. [...] Whenever we think something is important, we > regulate the hell out of it, rights-of-private-companies to-set-their-own- > policies be damned. But free speech? If you don't trust the free market to > sort it out, the only possible explanation is that you just don't understand > the literal text of the First Amendment.

<comment><USER4> I think its worth asking here:

Why do we value free speech?

Is it because we would like a variety of ideas to be heard, even if some of them are unsavory in the current social landscape? That we do better when we are open to a more diverse range of influences? If this is the case, I think we can't simply think of free speech in an active sense. I think the case could be made that the language of these accounts is designed to devalue the voices of particular people, thereby limiting their speech.

I don't really have a solution here. I'm made extremely uncomfortable by this, but my current line of thought is that if an actor initiates the limitation on another's right to expression, then they are the one whose speech should be limited. Think of it sort of like free speech self-defense.

Kind of tangential, but this Mark Ames piece on censorship is really good: [https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship- and-...](https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/)

[edit] just took a closer look and I'm not really familiar with those accts aside from RV, so I can't really speak on harassment here

<comment><USER5> > _Why do we value free speech?_

Because free (i.e. unrestricted) speech is anti-fragile.

When speech is restricted to just the conventional wisdom (or really: what those in power are okay with), arguments no longer win the day and our ideas and beliefs about the world become fragile, vulnerable to catastrophic disruption by those who see reality more clearly.

History has shown that _any_ restriction on speech ("book burning") is a slippery slope, so if we want the anti-fragile properties—and we really, really do—that means accepting some speech that is plainly wrong or offensive.

<comment><USER4> I think the idea that speech is anti-fragile works to a point, but is ultimately a bit naive about the way that power structures and language works. Its entirely possible to limit someone else's ability to communicate simply by communicating. Speaking isn't the same thing as being heard. I'm not talking about speech that is merely offensive here. I'm talking about speech that is specifically designed to dehumanize and devalue others. Obviously the line is murky here, and I'm not saying I have a perfect system worked out by any means, but I think the investigation is worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> the only reason twitter is still around is because of momentum and because their failure to find a good business model prevents others from coming on to the scene.

they have a false monopoly and I will be glad when they finally go broke and/or are replaced by a better service.

<comment><USER7> Geniunely curious, what competitors exist? (Caveat: really exist, not could- be-awesome-if-everybody-compiled-their-own-blockchain theoretical exist)

<comment><USER8> Is Twitter much more than a MMS discovery service?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yes because selective enforcement of rules really worked for them before.

The new right doesnt even seem worried, they seem keen to build their own platforms and shut out badthink too.

</comment><comment><USER10> It seems like they are a couple of weeks late.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why do we keep being encouraged to believe that the hate speech of neo-nazis is worth preserving?

<comment><USER12> Anything can be labelled as hate speech from the perspective of someone who doesn't agree. Today it's them getting suspended, tomorrow it might be you.

The social justice movement in the U.S. for example is so successful, because they exploit this. They're failures at life that label everything that makes others more successful than them hateful to get it changed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Impressive amount of cognitive bias you managed to pack into such a small space there.</comment></comment></comment>


It's a good day to display the black bar - <AUTHOR> Dang, pg or whomever tweaks the CSS on days like this, while today's events weren't specific to our community they affect us all. Flags are being flown at half mast, let's pay our respects. <comment><USER2> I think HN hasn't done this in the past for attacks, e.g. there was no black bar for the Paris terrorist attacks, or the Ukrainian airliner shootdown. Mostly has just been a way of marking obituaries of specific individuals.

</comment><comment><USER3> If we had to put up the black bar every time there was a mass shooting or murder in the US, it would never come down.</comment>


Compiling a subset of Python syntax to x86-64 assembly for fun and zero profit - <AUTHOR> http://benhoyt.com/writings/pyast64/ <comment><USER2> There was a whole course (notes for which are here [1]) dedicated to this topic, by prof. Jeremy Siek.

[1] ecee.colorado.edu/ecen4553/fall09/notes.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that looks really good -- thanks for sharing the link. Yeah, it's definitely similar to what I'm doing but in a more formal and non-toyish way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> also worth mentioning here llvmlite & numba, peachpy:

[http://llvmlite.pydata.org/en/latest](http://llvmlite.pydata.org/en/latest)

[http://numba.pydata.org](http://numba.pydata.org)

[https://github.com/Maratyszcza/PeachPy](https://github.com/Maratyszcza/PeachPy)

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks cool. But why asm? Generating C or C++ code and letting the GCC optimizer do the heavy lifting for you could probably get you a massive perf boost.

<comment><USER5> Because the people who talk down python for not being c/c++ "would win".

<comment><USER4> Why? Both C/C++ and Python are just tools and they have different strong/weak sides. I can't see much harm in combining the strong sides of 2 worlds.

That said, isn't PyPy ([https://pypy.org/](https://pypy.org/)) already doing the same thing?

<comment><USER5> I wasnt being serious - in line with the headline "for fun and no profit".

Optimizing python with calls out to optimized c/c++ code has always been a thing. I think a large part of the interest here is novelty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting topic. We did something similar in the past using the bytecode instead of the AST tree to accelerate genetic algorithm evolution:

[http://multigrad.blogspot.com/2014/07/low-level- frenzy.html](http://multigrad.blogspot.com/2014/07/low-level-frenzy.html) [http://multigrad.blogspot.com/2014/06/fun-with-python- byteco...](http://multigrad.blogspot.com/2014/06/fun-with-python- bytecode.html)

I'm curious, what was the original use case for pyast64? Feels like we could apply it to genetic programming fairly straightforwardly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I didn't have a use case -- I did it purely for fun. However, I got the idea when I was trying to optimize some Python bytecode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was a very fun read. Makes me want to get back into assembly, figure out 64 bit assembly and make this more than a toy... almost.

</comment><comment><USER8> > pyast64 with peephole 0.24 29.7

> C version (gcc -O0) 0.22 31.8

Modern x86_64 processors are really good at ruing "bad" asm pretty efficiently.

<comment><USER9> Absolutely. The amount of tricks used to achieve that is amazing, including things register renaming, branch prediction, virtual registers, instruction reordering etc.

That is not really what demonstrated here though, as gcc was run with optimizations turned off, since otherwise the program would have been optimized to printing a constant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Using the same technique, would it be possible to generate WebAssembly ?

</comment><comment><USER11> Informative article as always from you. Thanks!</comment>


FoxIt (from PDF fame) readies ebook reader. $100 less than an Amazon Kindle. - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8442724020.html

<comment><USER2> I love Foxit, but I think that comparing this reader to the Kindle isn't a fair matchup.

Specifically, the Kindle includes an EV-DO wireless transmitter. Basically, anywhere will Sprint cell coverage you can connect to online resources (as well as buying books that way) with no monthly charges. From the specs listed for the eSlick, it doesn't even have WiFi. The eSlick seems to use a USB sync.

I'm not saying it's a bad device. Just that EV-DO transmitters are expensive and that paying for free EV-DO usage in perpetuity (even if it's not that much data) costs money too. Wireless companies charge in the $10-30/mo range for data access. Even if Amazon got a sweetheart deal for a tiny fraction of that, it's going to cost money.

All that said, I still think I'd rather a more open device as this one seems to be.

<comment><USER3> Amazon _did_ release the Kindle's source code awhile ago - They had to since its Linux-based and has to comply to the GPL. That seems pretty open to me, even if its not by choice (Though you could argue they chose to use Linux knowing what GPL entails)

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200203720)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is an interesting device in a category where I'm interested in seeing devices bloom. However, the phrase

 _ships with an MP3 player_

worries me. The gratuitous MP3 player is the designer's badge of failure. I never, ever use it -- I have iPods and iPhones for that! -- and it just clutters up the interface and the documentation and dilutes the designers' focus on the task at hand. (Note, for example, that this thing is going to ship without Linux or Mac support for creating PDFs. What's up with that? Perhaps Foxit could have cut the MP3 feature and used its budget to hire a Unix person?)

<comment><USER5> All ebook readers have mp3 players including the kindle.

<comment><USER4> Hm, I had forgotten that. I guess it's just a matter of time before every pair of socks ships with an MP3 player.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can I purchase and download books from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or any other source with a 1M+ library of books? If the answer is no, then it's just a toy for hackers.

<comment><USER7> I for one am not so interested in buying DRMed PDFs anyway. But I guess I am a hacker in that sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      Format support is limited to PDF and TXT files, but the
      device ships with Foxit's PC-based PDF Creator software,
      which is said to convert any printable document with formats
      including TXT, PPT, DOC, XLS, and HTML to PDF document format.

Not really useful. It doesn't support Kindle books and I buy all my books at Amazon.

Also found this:

[http://thekindle.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/free-books-for- the...](http://thekindle.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/free-books-for-the-amazon- kindle/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd like a device with an e-ink display which I can put on my refrigerator to display my Google calendar. It could check the web for updates a few times a day. I'd want the batteries to last a year.

<comment><USER7> You know you can get refrigerators with integrated MP3 players, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Foxit has been my choice of PDF reader when I am working on Windows. It is fast and does the job. I am pretty sure they can pull of good reading experience but the questions is how will the documents get there in the first place?

<comment><USER11> The strength of the kindle partly comes from the tight integration into Amazon.

This is interesting if you've got alot of documents on your pc but I don't see it being much more useful after the fact.</comment></comment>


Amazon Provides DIY Echo Plans for Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/amzn/alexa-avs-raspberry-pi <comment><USER2> I have had reservations about the Echo line because of the whole "always listening" thing, regardless of what anyone's said about how it's not recording, how I can unplug it, etc. The whole "always listening" thing isn't what interests me about playing with Alexa.

As someone who's spent a fair amount of time with hardware, I think this is what will make me tinker with the Alexa service - I am interested to see what it can do and I like keeping up with Amazon's hardware projects. I've got all the parts lying around to throw this together without spending anything, so it's a neat way for them to grab some interest from a different user demographic. This also should be fairly easy to get running on a BeagleBone too, which I tend to lean towards (more I/O, PRU can be useful)

<comment><USER3> Looking at what Amazon's posted, it looks like what they've released doesn't even give you the "always listening" option.

You have to click on the "start listening" button and then the "stop listening" button.

<comment><USER4> Now all you need is a remote microphone in the shape of a star trek communicator for your shirt pocket. Tap, "Alexa, three to beam aboard." :-)

<comment><USER5> Just needs a vocera badge integration and a connection to Coding Insight from Talix to allow for NLP voice access to patient records...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This may bring me one step closer to my personal "holy grail" of home automation: every room in the house[1] working with seamless voice-activated home automation. This is what I'm ultimately after:

\- A cheap device (DIY if possible) in the form factor of a small plug-in unit. Ideally the device itself should be practically "invisible" in each room, and won't require any special home wiring. This is definitely in the realm of possibility for a Raspberry Pi (or similar).

\- A microphone for the device that works at least as well as the Echo's far- field mic. I have _not_ been able to find any good options for this, apart from some obscure parts that are too expensive for me to test, let alone buy for every room.

\- Software that allows for voice-activated operation. There's probably a suitable workaround for doing this with the Alexa Voice Service now, though it may require more CPU power than is available on the Raspberry Pi.

\- Ideally, I could host the voice service myself and wouldn't have to worry about the privacy implications of going through someone like Amazon. I know there are several existing software packages that claim to do this, but none that I've found can match the quality of Echo/Alexa for everyday interaction.

\- Audio feedback does not need to be high quality, but at least audible. A small speaker within the device is probably enough. For other areas of the house, it would be nice for the output to be connected to a bluetooth speaker in the room or a home audio system (if available).

The Echo Dot appears to be a pretty close match for this (though I haven't tried it) - at least in terms of functionality, but the form factor still seems a bit off. I'd rather have a self-contained plug-in unit than something that sits on a desk or table.

[1] Or _most_ of the house anyway

<comment><USER7> > is may bring me one step closer to my personal "holy grail" of home > automation: every room in the house[1] working with seamless voice-activated > home automation.

But why? What do you want to automate?

That's the part I never understood about this stuff. What is there to automate in the first place?

<comment><USER8> Not the OP but here's some of the stuff I have/want:

Have:

Adding things to my shopping list (via Alexa - currently in the kitchen and bathroom - two most frequent rooms where I'm like "hey I need more XXXX")

Changing the temperature (Nest via phone app and command line tool I wrote, and now Alexa just did a native integration)

Finding out my schedule for the day.

Finding out the weather forecast for the day.

Playing music (via Sonos or Alexa)

Locking front door when I'm going to bed.

Getting notified of movement or sound in the house while I away (Nest Cam and Smart Things)

......

Like the OP I'd love to have the voice control available in any room of the house. I'd love to have better security features (i.e. if I drive up my driveway at 3 AM turn on the outside lights, if a stranger drives up my driveway at 3 AM WAKE ME UP WITH AN ALARM). I'd love better voice controlled Sonos music selection. Composing emails, having handsfree phone or video calls, warming up the oven at a certain time, etc...

<comment><USER9> It's not low cost yet, but check out [http://josh.ai](http://josh.ai). Starting high end but price will drop significantly.

<comment><USER8> I will, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> tl;dr:

It's literally a tutorial on configuring Alexa Voice Services + their sample code on Debian.

The way you interact with it is by clicking on a button in a Java app. No trigger phrase like Echo.

<comment><USER11> But presumably you could have the Pi listen for a trigger word or whistle or whatever using software running locally, and when triggered, kick over to the Alexa API?

<comment><USER12> Yes, but it won't work as well as the Echo, especially in a noisy environment.

<comment><USER12> To expand a little on this: The Echo has a 7-microphone array which is crucial to speech recognition accuracy. This gives it the best far-field recognition ability of any consumer product I've seen, with the ability to stay accurate even if you're across the room, with music playing. That's just the hardware, and replicating it's abilities will not be easy.

On the software side, supposedly they're using Nuance for recognition. Nuance isn't cutting edge: In the tests I've done, Nuance has a Word Error Rate (WER) that's 10%-20% higher than Google's, but it's still much better than something like Pocketsphinx or any other open source recognizer.

There are a lot of factors that go into making a speech interface a good experience for users: Good recognition accuracy even with background noise, good voice activity detection (even with background noise), very accurate word spotting, low latency. It's hard to hit all these things well enough to make the interface usable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is awesome. I am strongly considering getting setting this up as I just purchased a fresh raspberry pi.

The only limitation appears to be you have to click a "start listening" button to get it to start recording audio. You can't simply say "Alexa" to get the raspberry pi + alexa web service to listen for your query.

Anyone have any ideas for a work around/ solution to this?

<comment><USER14> On a related note, check this project out. [http://jasperproject.github.io/](http://jasperproject.github.io/)

You can perhaps trigger alexa to start listening through it by wiring the voice recognition to click the "start listening" button.

<comment><USER15> Jasper is outdated and incredibly difficult to install on any recent model (2, 3 or 0).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Privacy concerns aside, this is pretty damn cool.

I've been looking for an excuse to tinker with a raspberry pi for a while - this seems like something I could have some fun with then give away to someone less paranoid/concerned with the privacy issues.

<comment><USER17> Well, isn't the point here that you can verify that it isn't listening except when you want it to?

<comment><USER18> You do have more control, sure, but its still cloud dependent

<comment><USER17> But you can hard-interrupt the microphone. I mean it's a completely different dynamic as far as security.

<comment><USER18> Sure, But you still have to send your data through their API

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice to see them walking through pretty much everything from getting your RPi running to making it work with AVS. That said, Sam Machin's Python CHIP / RPi client was there first, and has a smaller footprint: [https://github.com/sammachin/AlexaCHIP](https://github.com/sammachin/AlexaCHIP)

</comment><comment><USER20> Props to Amazon for putting this up. There are hundreds of steps and a lot of it is manual drudgery. 10/10 would hack again.

</comment><comment><USER21> Out of curiosity, does anyone know what amazon's incentive is to do this?

<comment><USER22> The value is in Amazon's voice services and speech recognition platform, not in the Echo device itself. As machine learning improves, voice and speech may play a bigger part in user interaction, and Amazon wants to be out in front of that.

The Echo hardware was just a way to get the ball rolling with this platform.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What I think you guys are really looking for is something like this: [http://www.microsemi.com/products/audio-processing/home- auto...](http://www.microsemi.com/products/audio-processing/home- automation/zl38062). Ambarella uses those in their IP Cameras designs, so it should be straight forward to integrate...

</comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone know a way to use the Android Alexa app without buying an Echo device or Fire TV first?

<comment><USER25> I'm able to use it on an account with only a device generated via the Alexa Voice Service. I made a device profile on the developer site, then authenticated to it via the OAuth flow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Has anyone done hardware tinkering with the Echo? Does it run Linux? what does the mic array look like? Possible to use just the mic array and pipe the audio elsewhere?

</comment><comment><USER27> Has anyone found a decent solution to hooking more than one mic input into an RPi? Something that would allow doing some simple DSP across, say, a 4-input array?

</comment><comment><USER28> We have 100% totally pivoted on this one. Every proposal we put out, now has Echo front and center. As we say "screens", you mean like your father/mother used to use? How old school. A screen? Oh boy ... :-)

As Woz says, "bigger than the iPhone." That sounds like a hell of a prediction to me. Woz knows all. :-)

</comment><comment><USER29> Would there be a way to dodge the privacy issues with this, by spoofing the service somehow?

<comment><USER24> I suppose, if you feel like implementing all the API calls yourself on your own server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Self-signed cert?

Miss opportunity for Amazon to push Let's Encrypt...

<comment><USER31> For what reason? Amazon offers their own free certs [0] and I doubt you can get an LE cert for a local IP address.

[0]: [https://aws.amazon.com/de/blogs/aws/new-aws-certificate- mana...](https://aws.amazon.com/de/blogs/aws/new-aws-certificate-manager- deploy-ssltls-based-apps-on-aws/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Anyone know how to buy one if based outside the US</comment>


Tripling an Engineering Team in Six Months – Part Four: Hiring (finally) - <AUTHOR> https://www.zacsky.com/blog/2017/8/tripling-an-engineering-team-in-six-months-part-four-hiring-finally <comment><AUTHOR> The "Define maximum cycle times" paragraph is absolute gold. I wish more companies would do that.

<comment><USER2> That is a gr8 article. It's clear he takes Kanban (minimize Work-in-progress) seriously.</comment></comment>


Hyperboria(secure internet alternative) not so secure or even safe?  - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/gWzFwBiw Lately Hyperboria which is based on cjdns has been mentioned on Hacker news headlines. It got me starting to research about meshnets and since Hyperboria seems to be getting hyped up as the next secure internet it got me thinking if that is really true or if there are better alternatives.
Apparently cjdns uses labels in the messages sent through routers to be be tracked back and forth, which to my understanding is not so secure or anonymous. Even if the message is encrypted along the way.
I can see how the message with encryption could be breached at nodes and then backtracked to original source, or who knows how. But the fact is the chatlog I found does have some valid points as regard to cjdns being faulty advertised as secured anonymous decentralized network. Apparently I2P network is more true to that and which uses a direct tunnel between two parties instead of using routes and labels traveling a long road. A lot could happen on that road... <comment><USER2> This is not very interesing, it's just someone who mixed up the concept of meshnet and darknet and tried to compare I2P with CJDNS, which makes no sense.</comment>


Deuce: lightweight structured editing in Sketch-n-Sketch - <AUTHOR> http://ravichugh.github.io/sketch-n-sketch/blog/05-deuce.html <comment><USER2> Just some feedback. I just watched the video and it wasn't clear to me how the name suggestions are made. I presume that this is done by inspecting the code and looking at the function that is being called and figuring out which parameter is being passed and then basing the name off the name of the parameter?

If so, then why are there multiple suggestions?

<comment><USER3> Correct: if adding a variable for a literal used as a parameter for a function call, the argument name in the function definition is used (provided we can figure out which function was called!).

There are multiple name suggestions when:

(1) Multiple items are being replaced and each replaced item had a different name.

(2) There would be a name collision. To resolve the collision, either one or the other variable can be renamed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, the sketch n sketch logo is almost identical to that of the software company TechSmith, makers of Camtasia and Snagit.

<comment><USER2> And to elm-lang's [http://elm-lang.org/](http://elm-lang.org/) And to prague pride's [https://www.praguepride.cz/](https://www.praguepride.cz/)</comment></comment>