Rules of Spycraft (2009) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/100102/0a947a77d762061cc87ec541c2d2dcc7/2010-01-02%20Dulles%20on%20Tradecraft%20via%20Srodes.pdf <comment><USER2> For the sake of argument, I'll say, "spies aren't cool."

Interestingly, about half of the "tips," Dulles writes are standard management training these days. The spy business as described is about using others as instruments, and I would argue most flat organizations are just a bunch of bored managers trying to get leverage over one another using similar tactics.

Trouble I have with the whole spy genre is it is the exaltation of deceptive people, which by most standards means objectively terrible.

The people I've met in the past who I pinned as "spies," seemed fun and intelligent, yet predictable and compromised. They were creatures of their institutions and just not free people, and on a basic level, they got off on betraying others. That inner smallness was what I think made them suitable for that job, and the remnants of admirable qualities that made some of them leave.

The WWII and cold war era seems romantic, but now it appears mostly what spies do is manage their domestic political situation as to maintain a status quo of an increasingly unpopular elite, who have more in common with their international counterparts than the citizens they ostensibly protect. Examples of states with advanced espionage operations can also be described as "kakistocracies," where people are promoted to senior roles for their ability to abuse and deceive. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy))

Are spies necessary? Sure, but only for a very narrow military counter intelligence mission, and any creep beyond that should be seen as a social ill.

<comment><USER3> _> exaltation of deceptive people_

The most exalted celebrities on the planet are actors, i.e. professional liars. Spies at least risk their life, and I bet they have to actually improvise more often.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure if it qualifies as lying when both involved parties are aware of it. Escapism isn't the same as deception, as one entails a person willfully relinquishing reality and the other entails a person subversively creating a false reality for another.

<comment><USER5> On screen, both sides realize the lie. But being a modern actor is just as much about life off screen. Celeb culture, starting with stage names, is all about manipulating how people percieve your realworld persona. The people reading the celeb websites really do believe the lies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For reasons I can't quite remember, in the late 90s I once had a drink at an army club in London. I'm not very army at all, so it was not somewhere I'd expect to go as a rule. My overriding memory was an old paratrooper at the bar telling me in a very old-fashioned and serious voice, "never be a spy". I must have not been 20 at the time, and it seemed like very good advice.

<comment><USER7> That makes sense, given that people who would be paratroopers and people who would be spooks are very different types of people (generally).

Doesn't say much about the profession of espionage/intelligence broadly though.

<comment><USER8> > Doesn't say much about the profession of espionage/intelligence broadly > though.

Espionage/intelligence is a very thankless and at times very depressing job, there's not that much glamour into it, I'd say the state of mind of the people involved in such a field are better described by John le Carré's books than by Ian Fleming's books or even by what it's written in the post linked to by the OP.

I'm from a country located on the East side of a Wall and I used to have an uncle (my grandpa's brother) who used to be an "embassy attaché" in East Berlin in the mid '50s (there's where his daughter, my aunt, was born). In other words: he was a spy. He didn't do anything fanciful like you can see in the movies, afaik he didn't wear any disguises nor did he do anything "spy- ish" as described in Dulles's document because he wasn't a Yale graduate (he used to be a boot-maker's apprentice when the communists came to power), the only "spy"-worthy thing that he did was to be a driver for his boss when one day they crossed into West Berlin (the Wall hadn't been built at that time). Down there they both met with a dissident from our country who had escaped when the Soviets had come "to liberate" us just after WW2.

My uncle's boss had first "maimed" said dissident back in Istanbul by promising him a business opportunity which (the boss said) they should have continued talking about in West Berlin. Said dissident was trustful enough, so that he decided to meet with my uncle and my uncle's boss in West Berlin. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances but at some point during said meeting my uncle and his boss immobilized the dissident and "I just pushed him in the car's trunk", as my uncle told my father a couple of decades after the event. After that my uncle drove the car through the checkpoints back into East Berlin, the dissident hidden in the trunk and then sent packing back to our country (he wasn't killed, after a couple of years he even got back his former job as a university professor, but I suppose the first years after his "forced repatriation" weren't the best for him).

So, nothing fancy about it at all, just some minor deceit and then pushing someone into a car's trunk. After this whole affair my uncle got pretty high up in my country's spy ranks, at some point he was the chief of some foreign intelligence Directorate (like I told you, this is more like John le Carré's books than Ian Fleming's), he even received his nomenklatura house, nothing big or shiny, just something that would keep all the people (and their families) on which the system depended physically close to the local dictator. All was relatively well until at some point in the late '70s the big boss of my country's foreign intelligence services decided to defect to the Americans. Not long after that my uncle was found hung-up in his nomenklatura house. Like I said, a very thankless job (at least his wife, my aunt, a salt-of-the-earth type of lady, got to keep the house).

And this story involving my uncle happened when this whole spy thing still had something like an ideological tinge to it, when the East vs West thing was not about money or hidden off-shore accounts but about who was right when it came to the future of the human condition (Marx vs Adam Smith, to use a lousy metaphor). My grandpa's generation (and that includes his brother, my spy uncle) really believed that the communists were right and the capitalists were wrong and were exploiting the normal people. Nowadays (and I think it has been that way since about the late '70s - early '80s, again, John le Carré's books really capture this transition really well) the spy thing is almost all about getting an economic advantage over your "adversary", there's no ideology, there's no perceived right and wrong, it's just a fight over some resources (protecting/stealing IP, some things that need to be dug out from somewhere in Africa etc etc). Which is to say that the spy job has become even more sinister.

<comment><USER9> > All was relatively well until at some point in the late '70s the big boss of > my country's foreign intelligence services decided to defect to the > Americans

Are you Romanian by any chance and is that Pacepa you are talking about? Ever thought about going to CNSAS and try getting any flies they might have had on your uncle? It would be, I think, an interesting bit of family history.

<comment><USER10> The phrase "more John Le Carre than Ian Fleming" can also be found as a quote on this website [https://www.sie.ro/viata-in- sie.html](https://www.sie.ro/viata-in-sie.html) under the first testimony. Don't know if this is a frequently used metaphor.

<comment><USER11> The quote makes sense, but anyone that thinks James Bond is even 1 percent realistic isn't being serious at all.

<comment><USER9> Obviously _some_ people do believe that is what spies do. I would even venture the majority of people believe that. The people that write in these threads on HN are more in the know than most of the public, because they had some interest/curiosity about them. Most of the public lack knowledge about these institutions and have a severely distorted image of what they do.

I would guess, some of the commenters in the thread had some brushes with intelligence agencies. At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, you're answering to a throwaway. What better place to talk with people about your job you can't talk with anybody than an anonymous online medium where smart people congregate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It reminds me of "A most wanted man", a movie I would strongly recommend if the subject interests you (I cannot recommend the book since I have not read it yet).

</comment><comment><USER13> obviously no one can comment here without drawing undue attention to their cover. awkward.

<comment><USER14> It's not an article that lends itself well to bike shedding, so most HNers have little to comment.

<comment><USER15> Never stopped them before.

Life, uh, finds a way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like how a domain can be contained by set of rules. You look at these, and you look around between the lines what they speak to and it's a complicated shape but one you can see. Very cool to read.

</comment><comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles)

</comment><comment><USER18> Ok, what is the origin of this document? It looks like a pdf copy of an article, but it reads like a poor ocr.

Check out #54.

<comment><USER19> As the lead says, it was a rough never-published draft, typed by Dulles. Found in his papers. And later published _verbatim_ in _Intelligencer: Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interesting to see how well most of these have stood the test of time or have even become more forceful because of it (17 for instance).

Wonder how the writer would have written these today, what would be changed, left out or added.

<comment><USER21> Tradecraft hasn't changed much. It has been fairly well tested. Operational security and information security have not changed much... They have become more difficult with cell-phones and small internet connected devices.

I think another big difference and a subject that probably would be included in a redo is understanding how all of the modern data generating systems can reveal covert activity through the analysis of metadata and how to "hide in the noise" of this.

The geospatial correlation of burner phone to actual identity if one does not practice good sanitation as far as locational security when accessing wireless networks as an example.

<comment><USER20> I treat my cellphone as though I have an always-on homing beacon on me that can not be trusted to be off even when it says it is off. And that's not even a smartphone, so I can still remove the battery if I want to. Now throw ANPR, face recognition, cheap DNA synthesis, ubiquitous video surveillance, public transport ID cards and a some more modern goodies into the mix and it takes real work just to move from 'A' to 'B' without leaving a trail a mile wide.

<comment><USER22> I'm going to presume you're not conducting illegal activity such that you're worried about getting caught. Given that presumption, what risks are you trying to mitigate by treating your cell phone as you describe?

<comment><USER20> Knowing what companies are on the market. My cell phone location would pretty much tell you who is being invested in or about to be sold. That could _really_ cause trouble.

<comment><USER23> if a party was going to go to the trouble of getting access to your phone geo data, couldn't they just as easily put a tail on you?

<comment><USER20> I don't think that would be a strategy that would work for very long, and besides that, why make it easy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Dulle's declassified report from the late 1940s on how to fix the CIA is also good reading. The report was referenced in Legacy of Ashes... A book that takes a very dim view on the agency: basically a bunch of ivy Leaguers trying to shape world events with disastrous consequences...

</comment><comment><USER25> It's easier than ever for people to moonlight as a spy and get away with it. You'll probably only get caught if your adversary has the means and motivation to counter.

Most people in civilian/domestic situations are unable to defend themselves. Thus, amateurs get away with spying more easily. They can work alone more easily and have a wider variety of commodity spying tools.

</comment><comment><USER26> Comment was ghosted, comment seems like a valid viewpoint:

"It's easier than ever for people to moonlight as a spy and get away with it. You'll probably only get caught if your adversary has the means and motivation to counter. Most people in civilian/domestic situations are unable to defend themselves".

edit: HN has gone down the toilet progressively for the past 8 years. There's no reason the comment (or my resurrection of it) should be downvoted or ghosted.

The other account was "bbllbves" and it shows "1 point" but a moderator 'saw to it' that the comment disappeared silently. If it were a low-value or troll comment, then maybe that would be justified.

<comment><USER27> We banned you for using multiple accounts to post in the same threads. If you'd please stop doing that, we'd be grateful.</comment></comment>


Putting a GPS Tracker in the mail - <AUTHOR> http://webmonkeyuk.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/putting-a-gps-tracker-in-the-mail/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for submitting this! I previously posted it as [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3512392](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3512392) not sure why it didn't tie this submission back to that

</comment><comment><USER3> No need for actual digital accelerometers, there are tags that can detect excessive acceleration (e.g. when a package was dropped) and burn a switch.

<comment><USER2> Bit confused by the "burn" bit. Do you mean one of the cheapo vibration switches?</comment></comment>


Treating Autoimmune Disease with Lifestyle Change - <AUTHOR> http://www.sowingseedsofgratitude.com/what-is-autoimmune-diseases/ <comment><USER2> The danger with attributing intractable diseases or relief from their symptoms to lifestyle is a tendency to blame the patient. Which rarely helps anyone.

Not saying this is the intention of the blog post at all.</comment>


Show HN: 2048 in 2048 bytes - <AUTHOR> http://js1k.com/2014-dragons/demo/1813 <comment><USER2> There are a few differences with this version:

\- The game allows a new tile to spawn even if you move in a direction in which no tiles move.

\- Only 2 tiles spawn. I don't think I've ever seen a 4 tile spawn.

\- Once you reach 2048, the game continues.

Does anyone know whether these are intentional, or a side effect of the 2048 byte limitation?

<comment><AUTHOR> _> Once you reach 2048, the game continues._

That's a bug, it should pop up a dialog with your score. Rest is intentional.

      newtile = 2 vs. newtile = Math.random() > 0.25 ? 2 : 4

<comment><USER3> Or:

        // in setup, use everywhere you use Math.random
        r=Math.random
        // generating a new tile
        newtile=(r()*2+1)<<1

That's a 50/50 chance and it's still a few more characters, obviously, but not nearly that many. Not spawning fours makes this a lot easier.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using JSCrush ([http://www.iteral.com/jscrush/](http://www.iteral.com/jscrush/)) so it actually pays to write stuff out repeatedly instead of assigning short variables.

      (Math.random()*2+1)<<1
      Math.random()>.25?2:4

But still too much, I only have 2 bytes to spare :)

<comment><USER3> Do you have the uncrushed source somewhere?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I beat it [http://imgur.com/xa0sXjX](http://imgur.com/xa0sXjX) . I think this game is significantly easier than original due to the alterations in logic: \- When you're unable to move (for instance when the top 2 rows are all filled with 8 blocks), you can still spawn a new block. Just lot less challenging than pressing down than up and dealing with 2/4 surrounded by high numbers. \- You only spawn two's no four's this allows for a much easier strategy. I probably used the right and up key about 90% of the game, left 9%, and down <1%.

Great job though! loving all these clones.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice work. There is a small incompatibility when you press a key and no tile moves / collapses. In the original version it doesn't count and a move and nothing happens. In this version a new tile appears.

<comment><USER6> Yes, and it matters. It makes it easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 2048 in exactly 2048 bytes of C, counting blanks and newlines (a bit of a cheat to use indentation to push it up to 2K).

[https://gist.github.com/datatravelandexperiments/9578313](https://gist.github.com/datatravelandexperiments/9578313)

Needs C99 and curses; e.g.

      cc -std=c99 2048.c -lcurses

Note: This is pretty awful code, but I'd rather go to sleep than use up the blanks to make it cleaner. Don't write like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha that's awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I continued playing after 2048, now I have two 2048's next to each other, they refuse to form a 4096, and the game doesn't respond to keystrokes anymore :(

The changed rule that allows spawning blocks at any time makes it easier indeed, but not that much easier, so nice modification.

<comment><USER2> _> The changed rule that allows spawning blocks at any time makes it easier indeed_

Was this change intentional, or a side-effect of the simplified code?

<comment><AUTHOR> Intentional side-effect :) I had to leave it out to keep to the 2048 byte limit.

<comment><USER9> I like the colorscheme in this clone. Is there a reason choose that particular colorscheme.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! No not really, I just picked some colours i liked and tried to keep them easily distinguishable

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Buggy; Got some sort of JS alert error that stopped my game short: "GG 308", "GG -1". I'm guessing you're reporting my score here, but there are still MANY valid moves left on the board. For example, start the game, and hold the down arrow until the alert pops up saying "GG [score]" \-- There's almost guaranteed to be 4-5 possible moves left on the board this way.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you fill up the screen and make a move that does not make a new space for the next tile it is GG!

<comment><USER10> I don't think this is GG: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632568/Screen%20Shot%202...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/632568/Screen%20Shot%202014-03-15%20at%203.32.57%20PM.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Should have pressed down ;)

<comment><USER11> That isn't how 2048 works.

<comment><USER12> That's how it works in 2048 bytes, because that doesn't leave a lot of room for possible move checking logic

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not the same rules. :)

We should not be able to make new card appear when no other one can move.

<comment><USER14> Intentional? It is till not trivial to win, but is (much) easier. I actually had more fun with this version.

Actually not that easy, but much more fun.

<comment><USER15> I found it way harder. I'm struggling to reach even a score of 1000 when I rarely score under 10000 in the original.

<comment><USER14> Agree, I think it is easier if you do a slow approach to it. The original is more mashing and luck imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really like the design of this one more than that of the original.

</comment><comment><USER17> Good job!

I won't point out the bugs/differences that've been mentioned. I dug it, either way.

What really hit me, playing this version, is how much relatively small changes in a really simple game can dramatically alter the strategy and difficulty of the experience

Dug it either way though

</comment><comment><USER18> Something seems wrong with this picture: [http://i.imgur.com/nTL4DZi.png](http://i.imgur.com/nTL4DZi.png)

(Just keep on pressing right to reproduce)

<comment><USER19> And on top of that, when you get to that point, up and down don't do anything. You should be able to combine those tiles vertically.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Updated it to follow the original better. You try the updated version here:

[http://johan-nordberg.com/2048/](http://johan-nordberg.com/2048/)

(or if you're in the future the js1k crew might have updated my submission already, in that case, forget you read this, it was perfect from the start, whoa i need a break, my brain is trying to find ways to write this comment using fewer characters, commas are nice, sleep)

</comment><comment><USER20> Basically, the 'check' to see whether you have any moves left isn't in fact whether there are moves left, it's just a simply 'if no more space for new block = game over'

The addition of the block being added no matter the move is an escape round the original (and obviously more verbose, probably why excluded) method of calculating moves remaining.

All in all, decent effort, but it's not 100% true to it's aim

</comment><comment> Dorian-Marie Maybe there should be some standard rules for 2048, because I tried three games, the original, the Android one and this one, and everytime there are different rules: \- Is it a valid move to not make any tile move? \- What is the order of tiles merging (top-first? left-first?) \- Can we merge multiple tiles in the same row/column in one move? \- ...

</comment><comment><USER21> Can someone please make a 4096 version, or 8192 ?? I love this game, but I ended up with almost empty board with one 2048 tile and 2 x 2.

I want to be able to go on! :)

EDIT: I bet this would be a smash hit in Apple Store (at least I checked and couldnt find exact replica). I bet there are few people working on it right now...

</comment><comment><USER22> Every move causes the whole page to flicker in Chrome on my box which makes it pretty unplayable.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been seeing that as well. Does not happen when outside of the js1k frame ([http://johan-nordberg.com/2048/](http://johan-nordberg.com/2048/)).

I think it is some hisenbug related to that js1k loads all entries by injecting the script in a iframes src attribute.

EDIT: clicking anywhere to focus the iframe makes it stop

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If I press UP and only UP, it will have the 16's in the top row, 8's in the 2nd, 4's in the 3rd, and 2's in the 4th without fail. It then says GG 272 even though I have more moves.

Out of 3 times playing, it has some this 3 times.

</comment><comment><USER23> This should probably be in the thread for the original program, but I didn't do it then, and I feel I'm missing out: my arrow keys do nothing, and NoScript is allowing the whole page. This is FF 27. Am I missing something?

</comment><comment><USER24> Unfortunaly doesn't work on iPad (no swipe support) while the original does

<comment><AUTHOR> Heh, i'll accept a patch for swipe support. You have to keep it below 2 bytes though :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Somehow, I beat this version my first try! Partially because I got a 3x4 deadlock, but a new tile spawned in the empty row and I could keep going.

</comment><comment><USER26> Bug: GoodGame with:

        2 2 4 2
        32 16 8 4
        64 128 64 16
        1024 512 256 128

<comment><USER14> You must have pressed up or down. It doesn't check for invalid move. That is expected with the 2048 source limit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Woo, Good Job Johan!</comment>


Is Functional Abstraction Too Clever? - <AUTHOR> http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/dahlbyk/archive/2009/10/17/is-functional-abstraction-too-clever.aspx

<comment><USER2> My verdict: The code is just fine. It's the syntax of the extension methods that is causing the audience to panic and flee:

        public static IEnumerable<TResult> Pairwise<TSource, TResult>(
            this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
            Func<TSource, TSource, TResult> resultSelector)

"Too clever" is, if anything, a polite way for a relative beginner to describe this code. I'd go with "fscking illegible" myself.

When, as a language designer, you find yourself designing syntax like this, it's a sign that you have drunk the Kool-Aid too greedily and too deep. In exchange for precious, precious type safety you have traded away the legibility and learnability of your language. The inevitable result is that, five years from now, you will be one of those frustrated people who grumbles on message boards, wondering why everyone prefers to use PHP.

Try a different language. I suspect that in Ruby or Python this code would not be so "clever". In Scheme it would be par for the course.

<comment><USER3> Type safety is vastly overrated.

Dealing with polymorphism in a clever way (say by using duck-typing) is the way to get much the same effect, the only price you pay is that the errors shift from compile time to run time, and that's unacceptable in some situations.

The mess above is a typical example of taking something to an extreme.

I remember there was somewhere a coding standard (I think it was microsoft) that required you to put the initial letter of the type of every parameter in the function names.

People come up with something ('typing' or 'everything is an object') and then try to shoehorn each and every issue they have into that shape, even if it is totally not applicable.

<comment><USER2> The convention you refer to is "Hungarian Notation", and Spolsky's essay on the subject is required reading before you get too vehement about it's stupidity. Basically, it started out as a relatively useful convention, then got misunderstood and misapplied and morphed into a ridiculous version of itself.

I wonder sometimes if the same thing has happened to type safety. I'm not convinced it is a bad idea, actually. I am convinced that it's not well-served by having Java as it's poster child. If my mental picture of a type-safe language is something that reads like this, no wonder I'm inclined to think it's overrated.

<comment><USER4> This isn't Java, this is C#. (In Java this would be more verbose).

<comment><USER2> I'm aware of that. I chose to pick on Java because I assume, perhaps too generously, that the C# designers are constrained by the need to market their language to Java developers, such that when Java heads over a cliff the C# folks are obliged to follow, though perhaps with a more elegant series of aerial stunts on the way down.

The risk is that I unfairly maligned Java, a language which I do not know well anymore, since I abandoned it about when it started to look like this. But according to you I'm being too generous to them as well. :)

<comment><USER5> > C# designers are constrained by the need to market their language to Java > developers

No, because C# had generics before Java.

<comment><USER6> Well, the C# 2.0 specification was written in 2002, but the compiler was only released in 2005, a year after Sun released J2SE 5.0. So from a implementation perspective, Java had generics before C#.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Functional abstraction in general is not too clever. This particular code example, though, absolutely is. As mechanical_fish pointed out, it's pretty much illegible.

DRY is only one of the principles of good code, and not the highest one. The highest one would be that the code must work. The second highest that the code must be clear to the reader.

I warmly recommend this excellent talk by Marcel Molina Jr at RubyConf 2007, about what makes code beautiful:

[http://rubyconf2007.confreaks.com/d1t1p1_what_makes_code_bea...](http://rubyconf2007.confreaks.com/d1t1p1_what_makes_code_beautiful.html)

He gives a good example of a case where using too many abstractions results in unclear, and hence ugly code.

<comment><USER6> Huh? Why is it illegible?

<comment><USER8> Because the reader doesn't know the language it's written in. Note that "illegible" is a property of the reader, in this case, not of the code itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Too clever_ is not determined by some property of the code, but rather the audience who reads it.</comment>


Stupendous intelligence of honey badgers - <AUTHOR> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/stupendous-intelligence-of-honey-badgers/ <comment><USER2> The term "badger" only appears twice in the article:

1\. As a throwaway: "But even here, other animals, insofar as they entered into the philosophical discussion of mind at all, were just that: animals. Not badger or beaver, bee or bull. Not geladas or gerenuk, chevrotain or fossa. But just generically animal."

2\. As a juicy thread that is left completely unexamined. "But there are plenty of less familiar examples: from zebra fish and moray eels to the stupendous intelligence of the honey badger."

This is the quintessential example of clickbait.

Edit: Can anyone fill in the missing thread about the less familiar "stupendous intelligence of the honey badger"? I've seen the well-known clips of them escaping their area in the zoo. I'd love to read any other studies that shed more light on their behavior.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was excited by this title as I've heard about honey badgers in regards to their fearlessness but little about their intelligence. Alas, the article itself has nothing to a totally say on this matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> Honey Badgers are pretty awesome. If I had another life to live I would move to Australia and spend at least 10 years working with honey badgers.

PBS produced a great documentary on them called "Honey Badgers: Masters of Mayhem", which exemplifies their intelligence, curiosity, and persistence. If you are a ferret owner (or just like ferrets in general), you will immediately relate to the honey badger and have an affection for them.

The documentary used to be on NetFlix but was pulled recently (not sure why). However, it is available to watch on the PBS website:

[http://www.pbs.org/video/2365179375/](http://www.pbs.org/video/2365179375/)

Amazon also has it for sale (absolutely worth the $6 they are asking for it), and of course someone posted it on YouTube. It is 53 minutes well worth spending.

<comment><USER5> Honey badgers don't live in Australia, except maybe in zoos. They are native to Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and India.

<comment><USER6> It's gonna be a long 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't know much about honey badgers, I've never seen them in the wild but their very distant cousins (also in the 'dog like' sub-order) the raccoons are incredible. On a property in Canada I found a raccoon family living in the attic above the chicken coop...

It had been a mystery for a long time how the raccoons got in and out of the chicken coop without leaving any traces other than dead or entirely disappearing chickens. They basically set themselves up on top of a fast food restaurant. Hungry? Let's go grab some chicken.

</comment><comment><USER8> I couldn't help but think of the YouTube video about honey badgers: "Honey badger don't care!"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg)

</comment><comment><USER9> This video about a honey badger in captivity is fascinating. The honey badger figures out about 5 different ways to break free of it's cage, even using tools to do so. Well worth the watch.

[https://youtu.be/c36UNSoJenI](https://youtu.be/c36UNSoJenI)

[edit: spelling]

</comment><comment><USER10> TFA isn't about honey badgers or their intelligence, but about the arrogant stance of the common homo sapiens on other species.

End of the day, humans aren't anything special. They're just another part of nature.

<comment><USER11> When it comes to intelligence humans are special, its silly to say we aren't.

By definition been the single most intelligent species on the planet makes us special.

We get excited when other species display intelligence at a level we'd expect to see in a toddler because its fascinating to us, hell the fact that we systematically study other species itself puts us in another category.

<comment><USER10> Think about how dumb the average human is and then realize half of them are dumber than that.

Humans have become the dominant species for two reasons:

1\. Our ability to reason

2\. Our technological superiority

Many animals can rival or exceed the intelligence of the average human, but due to the fact that they're seen as "just animals" and that they can't communicate with us in a matter we understand (nor care about doing it) makes humans think they are superior in every way. Then, whenever scientific progression proves that animals aren't as dumb as they look, humans have to come up with new arguments to separate themselves from other species.

It's the typical arrogant and limited view of the common homo sapiens.

 _Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world. \-- Arthur Schopenhauer_

<comment><USER11> > Many animals can rival or exceed the intelligence of the average human.

That is an absurd assertion, the 'average' human being can use language at a level far beyond what any other species that demonstrates language can, complex tools, create even more complex tools from those already complex tools, write down the things they have learnt and gain knowledge from the things other humans have learnt and written down, create _sophisticated_ predictive models of the world and test them refining the models as they go.

Do animals have intelligence, absolutely, is it in the same realm as the _average_ human, not even close.

The difference in vast, there were other species with intelligence comparable to our own, they went extinct (and it's arguable that we are the reason why) I refer of course to the other species in the Genus Homo, the neanderthal's and others.

We had competition from other species and we eliminated it not intentionally we just out-competed them (and interbred with them but since we where more numerous the end result was the same though their genes are still present).

<comment><USER10> What you are describing is called _education_ and _technological superiority_. Take one of those away and see what happens.

And whether the extinction of neanderthals and other species close to ours is due to intelligence or other influences can't be reliably proven. It's just the way nature evolved and it could have gone any other way as well.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > education

Tempting, but no; we've tried raising primates like human children, and teaching them sign language. Childrearing went fine until age... 3 or 5, I forget, and then they hit a wall and stopped getting smarter. ASL went alright but still falls short of human levels.

<comment><USER10> Trying to teach them human inventions that are developed by and for humans and then calling them inferior when they don't succeed in using them to the fullest extent is pretty short-sighted. You can't teach every human every invention we ever made either. Some people suck at math, others excel at it. Are the people that suck at it now intellectually inferior to those that excel at math?

I also wrote _taking it away_ , implying humans, not giving it to animals. Educate a dolphin all you want, I don't think you're going to get very far.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jinxed with European work Visa - <AUTHOR> Hello, I am a system engineer with a US  masters degree  and over 10 years experience mostly on Linux  side. From last 6 years i have been trying to find a job in Europe  . I do land interviews and job offers from Finland, Ireland, Sweden and UK . But just could not cross the final hurdle for work visa. In fact, in Finland i did got a visa , only to find that Finland has gone into recession and my sponsor putting me on hold.  Latest i got a job offer from one of top university in UK. They applied for my visa and then Brexit happened. The UK home office has rejected my Certificate of sponsorship and now back to square one.    Not sure what is way forward <comment><USER2> Sorry to hear that! Have you tried other countries like Germany and Swiss? How's the visa situation there? I am on a similar boat to yours but haven't yet decided to move to Europe but I will. All I know now is that getting a work visa is pretty tough!</comment>


Tget – Wget for torrents - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jeffjose/tget <comment><USER2> Am I confused or is OP trying to just copy peerflix's torrent downloading code?

I looked at the personal website of the Github user (Jeffrey Jose) who forked it (4 hours ago) and they already have a listing for "tget" on their website[0]. I understand it is MIT licensed, but that seems shady to me to try to pass off another's work as your own. The first PR was to fix the README title from peerflix to "tget"[1].

[0]: [http://jeffreyjose.com/code](http://jeffreyjose.com/code)

[1]: [https://github.com/jeffjose/tget/pull/1/commits/69477080505f...](https://github.com/jeffjose/tget/pull/1/commits/69477080505ffd9c4775730ba85fd033574ca5a3)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's always nice to have options, but aria2 is a very mature cli file grabber that supports .torrent files among a host of other protocols.

[https://aria2.github.io](https://aria2.github.io)

<comment><USER4> especially when the SLOC is around 80 for the OP.

<comment><USER5> Including dependencies?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks like this project was created an hour ago by cloning peerflix. Not a bad way to start, but as yet nothing to distinguish it from the more mature offerings like peerflix itself, or aria2 as mentioned in a sister comment.

<comment><USER7> That said, the name was valuable itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Alternatively, rtorrent is a nice and mature ncurses based torrent client. It's already in the repository of most distributions.

<comment><USER3> For any other rtorrent users, check out rtorrent-pyroscope for a modified version that provides a number of enhancements (more compact UI, a number of ancillary scripts to manage torrents, make torrents and modify torrent files).

[https://github.com/pyroscope/rtorrent- ps](https://github.com/pyroscope/rtorrent-ps)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> does it seed to a 1:1 ratio?</comment>


Ask HN: Self-employed healthcare options? - wc- I am making the leap back into self-employment, consulting, etc.  This question pertains to USA healthcare, although I welcome others asking the same question for other countries...
What do other self-employed consultants do now for healthcare?  Should I just wait and see what happens with the Obamacare repeal?  When I officially terminate my position at my current company can I sign up for Obamacare for a year?
Thanks everyone! <comment><AUTHOR> I'm a self employed consultant in NH. Things may be different in other states so treat this as a data point. For a 2 person, 50+ year old couple, our bronze policy premium is ~$800/mo I think.

The big difference between an employee health plan and going it on your own is the very high deducible ($6K+, double that for a family). You get a break on prescriptions and a once a year physical is included but for everything else you're paying out of pocket for your health care unless you get very sick.

[https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare- research/infostat/20...](https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare- research/infostat/2017-obamacare-premiums-deductibles)

On a related note, you absolutely need to charge enough to cover the extra cost or you are going to make less than if you worked for a company that pays your health insurance.

</comment><comment><USER2> When life conditions change you can sign up for Obamacare – i.e. you move, loose insurance

[https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualifying-life- event/](https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualifying-life-event/)

Also look into COBRA [https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/cobra- coverage/](https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/cobra-coverage/)

<comment> wc- Thanks, my current plan is to price out those two options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here is what I'd do if I were you. You should look at how much your current premium would cost if you were to switch to COBRA (when you leave your job, your current employer is required by law to maintain your health coverage for up to 18 months). Though, you would have to pay the full premium because your employer would not participate anymore. Right now it's all accounted in your paychecks and it's invisible to you.

So ask your HR how much it would cost per month to maintain your current coverage under COBRA. If you can handle the payment, then I'd suggest to do that for a few months and to not worry too much. You'd maintain your current doctors, insurance card, coverage, etc. Settle down in your new position, look at your monthly spendings, do some research, then eventually switch to a cheaper coverage.

<comment><USER4> I've never seen cobra be worth a damn, always insanely overpriced and now ACA exchange plans are usually better option.

<comment><USER3> It depends what you're looking for. In the tech industry, a lot of employers offer top-notch health benefits. If you want to match that on the market, prices are comparable.

If you're looking for a standard health plan then I'd say yeah... why would you maintain an expensive health plan if you feel like you don't really need it? Cobra is just a term used to maintain your employer's coverage, usually when you lost your job on a short notice it protects you from any health issues. That's why it's always good to request all the details from your HR in order to get the exact premium cost under Cobra. Some people just want to keep a similar coverage, in this case Cobra makes it easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I will suggest you check out these previous discussions of Direct Primary Care:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354383)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354383)

If you are under age 26, you may be able to get on your parents' insurance.

</comment><comment><USER6> I am currently on a really good healthcare plan with my wife's employer (large state university) after we got married last year. I'm based in Texas, so YMMV depending on your state.

Prior to that, I was on an ACA plan since they were first available, and before that on an individual policy. Despite its issues, I am a huge proponent of the ACA—I would not have been able to continue being self-employed and have reasonable access to healthcare without it. I am dreading seeing just how bad the Republicans screw up its core tenets regarding preexisting conditions (my wife is a cancer survivor) and subsidized access for the working class and poor (I made too much to qualify for subsidies, which doesn't bother me, but I've seen how much they help others.)

My silver plan in TX was pretty good—the network was a little smaller than I'd like but I was able to work with it. Last year I paid about 575/mo for that, which covered my son and I, and an additional 35/mo for dental. Deductible was about 1800 per individual, IIRC, with $10/35 copays for PCP and specialists. RX was a tiered plan with copays of $10/30/50/20% depending on the drug—most of mine were either $10 or $30.

My insurer (Aetna) pulled out of TX this year, but I don't buy the market-was- failing argument—it was pure retaliation for a rejected merger between Aetna and Humana.

Having had an individual policy for years before the ACA was available, it really was a night and day difference. Getting individual insurance was 3-6 months worth of tracking down medical records, dealing with hours of phone calls to explain why I didn't provide whole pages worth of details about medical visits I barely remember having (do you remember every doctors visit for flu or minor injury for the last ten years? I sure as hell don't.) I am dreading going back to that after the GOP finishes screwing this up.

If you're considering going off a group plan, I'd consider carefully whether you want to do that until the healthcare law is settled, if you have a choice. My guess is that what's going to happen is that preexisting conditions will still not be grounds for rejection but your rates will skyrocket for them, and the GOP will scrap requirements for minimum coverage, mental health, maternity, and preventative care benefits. The only thing I've seen that I think would be a net benefit is making HSAs available regardless of whether the plan is a HDHP, but I'm betting that all individual plans are going to either be an HMO/ACO or HDHP—PPOs will only be something you can get from a large employer. Your costs for what you do get are going to go way up.

When you leave your employer now, provided you do it before the ACA marketplaces are scrapped, you'll have about 30 days to get a new plan through a marketplace because of a life-change event, so you should do your homework ahead of time and pull the trigger on that as soon as you give notice. (The ACA actually gives you something like 60 days, but I think the Trump administration reduced that window as soon as they could, trying to cripple the marketplace even further.) The plan should be in effect until the end of the year, but all bets are off for 2018.

I'm normally the first one to cheerlead for going on your own, but I'd really consider that move carefully right now.</comment>


Ansible 1.3 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ansibleworks.com/2013/09/13/ansible-1-3-and-awx-1-3-hit-the-streets/

<comment><AUTHOR> Can't wait to try the new cloud provisioning stuff. Did anyone play with it from the dev branch and can share some experiences?</comment>


NSA releases new version of Linux software - <AUTHOR> http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2008/03/24/nsa_releases_new_version_of_linux_software/9918/

<comment><USER2> Beware governments bearing gifts...

Edit: Context of that statement is that this makes me particularly nervous in light of how the NSA pushed an elliptical encryption algorithm through the review process and into common libraries, and it turned out there probably exists a set of "skeleton key" parameters that if someone has them they can decrypt any of the messages.</comment>


Jamie Dimon: Everyone's got to protect themselves from cyber - <AUTHOR> http://www.deliveringalpha.com/video/2017/09/12/jamie-dimon-sales-programs-can-go-awry.html <comment><USER2> As a devoted NoScript user, I find it ironic I had to enable scripts from about 35 websites, including some places that have been known to serve malvertising.

If I hadn't been looking for the irony of a large Financial Corporation trying to external the costs of cybersecurity on the customers, I probably wouldn't have enabled any JavaScript from any of those sites. Jamie Dimon is not that compelling of a speaker, nor does he have new imaginative things to say.

He's just spouting truisms and platitudes. He's clearly looking to externalize infosec costs, maybe on customers, maybe on other corporations. What a load of baloney.</comment>


You Don't Need VC Money to Build a Great Product - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamcraig/2014/11/21/you-dont-need-vc-money-to-build-a-great-product/?utm_content=bufferc3823&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

<comment><USER2> _And even if you're successful, your new partners will be heavily involved in just about every decision that concerns strategy and direction._

This sounds like the best reason of all to avoid VC. I don't know about you, but I don't need some wannabe who think he/she is a brilliant strategist, but who knows nothing about our business, our market(s), our technology, our mission, our values, or anything else, coming in and trying to dictate our strategy. As far as I'm concerned, all I would really want from a VC would be money, and - if they _actually_ have useful connections - some introductions / emails / phone calls to help us get in the door with prospective customers. But strategy? Thanks, but no thanks. That's the founding team's job, IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you're very accurate on your perception about it</comment></comment>


The Story of the Apollo Guidance Computer, Part 1 - <AUTHOR> https://www.universetoday.com/142897/the-story-of-the-apollo-guidance-computer-part-1/ <comment><AUTHOR> Part 2 at [1], Part 3 at [2]

[1] [https://www.universetoday.com/143102/the-story-of-the- apollo...](https://www.universetoday.com/143102/the-story-of-the-apollo- guidance-computer-part-2/)

[2] [https://www.universetoday.com/143113/the-story-of-the- apollo...](https://www.universetoday.com/143113/the-story-of-the-apollo- guidance-computer-part-3/)</comment>


Amazon will run a multi-season Lord of the Rings prequel TV series - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/amazon-will-run-a-multi-season-lord-of-the-rings-prequel-tv-series/ <comment><USER2> "Prequel" would seem to imply that this is not ancient history -- the Silmarillon, Beren and Luthien, the fall of Numenor -- but rather the events in between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. The fight against the Necromancer? Aragorn and the Rangers of the North? Balin's attempted return to Moria? There's not a lot linking these stories together. Christopher Tolkein is going to have to "discover" a lot more of his late father's material to make a show with a story arc.</comment>


Tim Cook says DACA is the 'biggest issue of our time' - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/20/16338626/tim-cook-bloomberg-forum-dreamers-immigration <comment><USER2> Really Tim? Really? Trump just threatened to completely destroy North Korea. I'd think that's a slightly bigger issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's just the biggest issue he can virtue-signal on at the moment.</comment>


Kip lets you build and personalize searchable worlds - <AUTHOR> https://kipapp.co/welcome

<comment><USER2> I hate splash sign ups but this looks cool. I've never seen world building like this before

<comment><AUTHOR> anyone can pin multi-floor plans on maps [https://kipapp.co/w/grand_central_terminal](https://kipapp.co/w/grand_central_terminal) | [https://kipapp.co/w/eiffel_tower](https://kipapp.co/w/eiffel_tower) | [https://kipapp.co/w/meetup_218915938](https://kipapp.co/w/meetup_218915938) | [https://kipapp.co/w/mega](https://kipapp.co/w/mega)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are social networks inherently shitty? - <AUTHOR> Given the way Sean Parker nowadays describes them as "social validation feedback loops", do you think a worthwhile social network can exist? <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I was the lead sysadmin at an ivy school's residential housing dept and cofounder of a VIP email startup.

Yes (star star)

For contact information, scheduling/coordinating, interest/news and friend-of- friend romance/friend/activity partner discovery, a social network of sufficient connectedness has obvious value.

If pictures (except a standardized headshot), bragging, cyberdisinbitionism, sharing, ads, bots, fake users, state hacks, commercial spammers, influence/sentiment peddling/consent manufacturing, extremely risky selfies, undesirable radical inclusion and gossip can be eliminated/minimized, then it seems feasible to have a solid, useful social network that isn't working against you or your friends.

I think a social network like a light version of ASW for cool mortals but limited in terms of messaging, videos/pics and public/group sharing would be good... everyone whom wants to join has to be invited/vouched, pay a $499 USD one-time fee, pass a real background check and create a sufficiently complete and interesting profile in order to be reviewed for final acceptance.

This way, the quality and signal of the network remains high and the worry is less... such high barriers are so that safety, comfort, value and preselection remain high and undiluted by commercial or popular pressures. Furthermore, customer funding eliminates the need for ad-support, privacy invasions and other questionable monetization schemes.

Such an app would need to grow in private alpha much as FB did by first launching at large, prestigious universities where social networks are clearly valuable and worth guarding.

Be somewhat open.. but not too open and not too closed.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think at a certain point they became a failed social experiment and that we may not have something like it long term. Humans need outgroups, hierarchies and privacy. If you try to change or remove that you really just end up with a different form of it.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's an essay in the book _The Best Software Writing I_ (edited by Joel Spolsky) that talks about how social networking represents an inherently poor model of real human social networks. Here's an online link: [http://www.danah.org/papers/Supernova2004.html](http://www.danah.org/papers/Supernova2004.html)

It's from 2004, so it lacks the perspective of having seen how virtually all of the history of social networking unfolded. And it flogs on negative stereotypes around both programmers and people with autism in a way that really grates. So I can't recommend the essay generally. But it does have some interesting observations.

One is the jarring crudeness of simplifying the infinitely complex and nuanced texture of real webs of social connections down to a simple 1-bit flag: "Are you my friend? Yes or no." Facebook has subsequently made the graph bitartite, so now you can "friend" people and "follow" companies, but that's barely an improvement.

I'm no longer a Facebook user, but their recent "X is not your friends" ad campaign got me thinking about that fact again. The campaign seems to be trying to imply that they really do understand my social life, and they are going to get in line with it. But the jarring simplicity of the message just reminded me how much they don't. My social network is not just a list of people I happen to associate with. It's the guy I talk philosophy with, it's the people I went to college with, with whom I still get together to catch up while our kids (all about the same age) run feral in the backyard. It's grad school classmates with whom I can share the gory details of my successes, failures and frustrations with data engineering and fitting machine learning models, and whom I can call on for help when I'm having trouble, and who call on me for help for the same. And it's people who really don't want me to ever mention words like "conjugate transpose" in their presence, but do want to hear about the everyday joys and challenges of simultaneously going to graduate school and raising their grandchildren.

Facebook doesn't - can't - understand any of that subtlety. Consequently, it doesn't - can't - provide a satisfying experience for facilitating my real social life.

As a medium for creating and then feeding a minor addiction to clicks of the "like" button in response to photos of my kids, in exchange for "a non- exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use" them, on the other hand, it seems to be amazingly well-optimized.

<comment><USER5> > As a medium for creating and then feeding a minor addiction to clicks of the > "like" button in response to photos of my kids, in exchange for "a non- > exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to > use" them, on the other hand, it seems to be amazingly well-optimized.

Their model appears to be largely based around perpetuating the high-school clic mentality for the purpose of shoving advertising at the clic members in order to profit.

The addiction (just as in the high-school clic) is to be a member of the "in" crowd (for whatever definition of "in" applies). Which is probably why there is only "friend" (which clearly fails, as you detail, to capture the nuances of real social interaction). With only a single linking level, each new clic member feels just as important as another, feeding the addiction just a little bit (the "I'm important, because X is friends with me" mindset).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> No, I don't think they were ever justifiable in the first place.</comment>


A "Post-Verbal" World: Neuralink, Language, and the Future - <AUTHOR> https://jjbeshara.com/2017/12/09/a-post-verbal-world <comment><USER2> This is an excellent article to begin a discussion.

I have been thinking of communication as "Tiers of Compression".

Tier 1 Compression. Languages structured in a way that you can create new words that offer an efficient, easily comprehended compression of information (e.g., German, Japanese, Chinese). The problem with these words is that they need to be disseminated to the general public.

Tier 2 Compression. Mythologies and stories as a more complex compression of information (general truths communicated implicitly vs explicitly laid out for the reader/listener). The problem with stories is storage and recall: They need to be stored (in the brain or in a book) and recalled (through root memorization or through search/discovery). There is also the problem with intended vs unintended interpretations, and multiple versions of the same story.

Tier 3 Compression. Within stories, symbols are a hyper-complex compression of information. The problem with symbols is that you have to learn (through culture or tribe) what the symbols mean before you can decode the meaning.</comment>


Scribd Expands Its Subscription E-Book Service with 30K Audiobooks - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/06/scribd-audiobooks/

<comment><USER2> Scribd keeps plugging along. Is it still considered the "Youtube for documents/PDFs"? Has it stumbled onto a viable business?</comment>


Samsung is loading McAfee antivirus software on smart TVs - <AUTHOR> https://www.techspot.com/news/78967-samsung-loading-mcafee-antivirus-software-smart-tvs.html <comment><USER2> Right, because we don't spend enough time watching the thing upgrade its software.</comment>


When the Pieces Put Themselves Together - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/when-the-pieces-put-themselves-together/?ref=technology

<comment><AUTHOR> the video associated with this article is very interesting <http://vimeo.com/38562041></comment>


Youtube's Desperation  - <AUTHOR> http://blogmaverick.com/2008/12/05/youtubes-desperation/ <comment><USER2> It must be noted that Cuban has been writing highly speculative, badly spelled rants about Youtube since well before they got acquired. Most of his claims, including the one that Google would get "sued to oblivion" if they bought Youtube, never panned out. He clearly has an agenda on this, and has been wrong all along; there's no reason to listen to him now.

For a laugh, see [http://blogmaverick.com/2006/09/17/the-coming-dramatic- decli...](http://blogmaverick.com/2006/09/17/the-coming-dramatic-decline-of- youtube/) and [http://blogmaverick.com/2006/12/27/ripping-on-gootube- again2...](http://blogmaverick.com/2006/12/27/ripping-on-gootube-again2/)

<comment><USER3> Agreed when it comes to online streaming video, Mark Cuban is belligerent, and just plain wrong. Maybe this touches a cord, having founded the massively overvalued Broadcast.com ( where is that now? yahoo video? ).

But on any subject other than online video, I love Cuban, his blog, and his excellent basketball team.

<comment><USER2> Oh, I don't dispute that he's usually thought-provoking and often right on other topics. When I said "most of his claims haven't panned out," I meant most of his claims about Youtube.</comment></comment></comment>


ACLU: Border Agents Violate Constitution When They Search Electronic Devices - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/05/02/719337356/aclu-border-agents-violate-constitution-when-they-search-electronic-devices <comment><USER2> Alright so I'm actually pretty confused here- I was under the impression that the constitutional protections of all citizens have been suspended 100 miles from all borders including airports in the united states. Therefore violating constitutional rights is in fact perfectly legal. Is this incorrect? (I might have just been exposed to so many ways my rights have been suspended that I no longer know what rights I can even legally defend anymore.)

<comment><USER3> You're under that impression because the ACLU did some very dishonest reporting about that subject. (I'm an ACLU member, it's a fantastic organization. But it's marketing people have a questionable commitment to educating the public truthfully.)

The "100 mile" regulation involves the scope of CBP patrol authority: [https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution- free...](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution-free-zone- really-exist-in-america).

The law, 8 USC 1357, says that CBP agents have the power to patrol and search "a reasonable distance from the border" to prevent entry of illegal aliens.

First, calling that a "Constitution-free zone" is rhetoric, not fact. 8 USC 1357 only refers to the CBP's power to patrol and search, not other Constitutional protections. And while there can be reasonable disagreement about where the line should be, clearly there must be some distance within the US where the CBP must be able to patrol and search without a warrant. The border is an infinitely thin line. CBP can't patrol foreign territory. It necessarily must patrol US territory some distance inward from the actual border.

The "100 mile" regulation was an _upper limit_ on what "reasonable distance" could be. The actual regulation requires the CBP to define "reasonable distance" based on geography, where border crossings are, etc. The idea is that checkpoints must be at the "functional equivalent of the border." In the middle of the desert or the Alaska tundra, the checkpoint might reasonably not be exactly at the geographic border. But in no event can it be more than 100 miles from the geographic border.

So all those graphics of how many people live within 100 miles of the border were very misleading. New York City is not within the extended border, even though it's within 100 miles of the border, and CBP has never claimed otherwise.

<comment><USER4> > clearly there must be some distance within the US where the CBP must be able > to patrol and search.

An alternative is to not have a CBP that is part of the Homeland Security apparatus and which does not patrol at all, and only conducts searches at specified border crossings and only based on suspicion of smuggling.

This was the configuration of things from 1789 until 2003.

<comment><USER3> Any border crossing checkpoint is necessarily not at the actual border (which is mathematically impossible). And it's absolutely incorrect to claim that historically we only patrolled the border to prevent smuggling. The border patrol was established in 1924. Federal immigration officers have been around since 1891. Exercise of the authority of the US to expel aliens for national security purposes dates to the founding era.

<comment><USER4> > Any border crossing checkpoint is necessarily not at the actual border > (which is mathematically impossible).

Sure. To the degree that we still want borders (and I think it's a decreasing degree as time moves forward), this will remain true.

> And it's absolutely incorrect to claim that historically we only patrolled > the border to prevent smuggling.

Yeah? My understanding of the history of the US Customs Service is that it was a revenue generating agency and not a law enforcement arm.

Did it conduct widespread police-style patrols like those we have today? I feel reasonably confident that the answer is "no", but this is not my primary area of historical study.

> The border patrol was established in 1924.

But again, compare it to CBP today. It was what, a few hundred men on horseback in the desert? At least that's my understanding. Around WW2 it ramped up to a couple thousand, but it still wasn't an established, militarized police force comparable to today's CBP.

> Exercise of the authority of the US to expel aliens for national security > purposes dates to the founding era.

But the Alien and Sedition Act (for example) is nearly universally regarded as a shameful period in the early history of the country. It's certainly not something to point to as a precedent of this being done well.

<comment><USER3> > Sure. To the degree that we still want borders (and I think it's a > decreasing degree as time moves forward), this will remain true.

I suspect you and I disagree quite strongly on that point. Borders are really important (and the U.S. would probably be better with more borders and internal political separation, not less).

> But the Alien and Sedition Act (for example) is nearly universally regarded > as a shameful period in the early history of the country. It's certainly not > something to point to as a precedent of this being done well.

Maybe, but they give a pretty good idea of what the founders thought about the constitutional scope of the federal government's power over the borders.

<comment><USER5> > (and the U.S. would probably be better with more borders and internal > political separation, not less)

Could you expand on this?

<comment><USER3> Concrete example. I am a Marylander. We recently decided to raise the minimum wage to $15. Over the river in Virginia, it's just $7.25. Even if Marylanders are willing to shoulder higher prices in order to get a higher minimum wage, we can't make that decision in isolation. We have to worry about businesses crossing the border into Virginia and--because the Constitution prohibits internal tariffs--still being able to freely sell to Maryland customers.

Or, consider guns. Most Marylanders support gun control. But Virginians love guns. We have no border so whatever gun laws we make are easily circumvented.

Likewise, we signed up for ACA expansion (extending Medicaid to poor adults) when it was first offered. Virginia didn't get around to doing it until many years later, and even then put in various additional requirements. If we were a country and controlled our own politics (and we could be--we're bigger than Norway, Denmark, or Finland) we'd have universal healthcare. Instead, we have to accept whatever we can get after compromising with Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

Borders enable self determination. When you're a political unit and you control your borders, you can have your own laws and own institutions. When you tear down borders, you eliminate the ability of smaller political units to control the flow of goods, capital, and people. But those things must be regulated. So there is pressure to push power up to higher level political units to regulate those things. And in the process that pushes politics and political accountability further away from the people. And because it expands the polity, it forces compromises among people with different values and priorities.

A concrete example is guns. Idaho has lots of guns (57% of people own a gun). It also has low homicide rates (lower than Belgium). But because of the lack of internal borders, there is little ability to have different gun laws in different places. So there is a huge push to regulate guns at the federal level. So people in Idaho have to fight federal legislation that is proposed because people in Chicago are shooting each other with guns streaming over the border from Indiana.

You're seeing that happen in Europe right now. The EU started by tearing down trade borders. But once you do that, you needed EU-wide rules for regulating the economy. That pushed more power to the EU, and now you've got bureaucrats in Brussels who can override popular law in Sweden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have heard of security researchers setting up their laptops such that the default boot option will take you to a pretty vanilla-looking Ubuntu install with office apps and the like but when they reboot to do real work they log into a hardened Debian (or equivalent) install on an encrypted volume that even tech savvy CBP agents would have a hard time recognizing existed. This is great for a laptop... I wish there were cell phones that had an option like this. Perhaps the Librem 5 could support this at some point?

<comment><USER7> Problem is, if this catches on, CBP will just start asking whether you've got any encrypted volumes. If you say no, you're guilty of lying to a federal law enforcement officer. If you refuse to answer they'll take that to mean _yes_ , and they'll look a lot harder.

<comment><USER8> The legally correct answer to that question is "I do not consent to searches or seizures, and do not answer questions without my legal counsel present". But the practically correct answer is "I don't understand your question." or, more succinctly: "What?"

No matter how much it catches on, there will still be people who have no idea what it is, and even if they have it, someone else may have set it up for them so they wouldn't need to know. Even if someone can prove you did understand the literal meaning of the question, you can always plausibly argue that you didn't understand why it was being asked in relation to the questioner's official investigative authority.

<comment><USER7> Of course, you have plenty of defenses, including "I forgot about it". But the existence of a defense doesn't mean you want to have to argue it in court, and _intentionally dissembling and /or obfuscating to a border agent_ is way, way down on my to-do list.

> you can always plausibly argue that you didn't understand why it was being > asked in relation to the questioner's official investigative authority.

I don't think this is a defense. If it is a defense, they'll just preface the question with, "In order to safeguard national security, I need to know if you have any hidden accounts on here that aren't readily visible. Are there any?" Federal agents don't have to warn people that they might be prosecuted for lying. Also, if you lie to a border agent and you are anything other than a US citizen, that can be grounds to revoke your visa and ban you from the country.

> Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it > in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to > the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is > "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. For example, if you lie to > your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, > he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal > government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

[https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going- to-...](https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going-to-Jail- under-18-U-S-C-Section-1001-for-Lying-to-Government-Agents.shtml)

<comment><USER8> All this points to putting a stop to all this bullshit politically.

Border agents are overstepping their granted authority when inspecting the data contents of an information-storage device, so I'd argue that if you lie to them as they are doing it, they are no longer acting in their capacity as a federal agent. Probably not an argument that a federal judge would agree with, but I can have my own non-lawyerly opinions on it. As it is also my opinion that if you keep a law on the books making it illegal to lie to federal agents, you must also have a law on the books saying that it is illegal for any federal agent to retaliate against or administratively punish any person for failing to answer questions. So, as an ancestor post mentioned, when the likely effect of a non-answer is to draw additional attention, that's clearly unfair to the traveler and their right against self-incrimination.

All that is beyond the ken of the people actually interacting at the borders, so the only solution is to order their boss's boss's boss to write a memo, to pass down the chain of command, saying, "Stop doing this. It is not allowed."

As it is now, the executive will continue to do as it pleases, without regard to folks rationally debating legality on the internet, and neither the judiciary nor the legislature is likely to bother to check it. So the only reliable short-term solution is to not carry such devices across the border at all. When the cops are stupid and cruel, following the law is not a defense. Appeasing them is not a defense. Fighting them is not a defense. There is no defense wherever they can still operate under the guise of legitimate authority. As a traveler, you are completely powerless. And that is unfair, and not something I am willing to tolerate from the US feds. But they don't exactly pay much attention to me with respect to such things--it's okay to step on nobodies; only the people with money matter to them now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm reminded of the wikileaks associate who arrived at JFK and was detained. The police were screaming mad about him not unlocking his electronic devices. Problem: he didn't bring any electronic devices. If you have to cross into the US, encrypt everything using something like Truecrypt and stash it online. Read a book on the plane.

<comment><USER4> Is there a problem with dm_crypt?

I can't afford to lose work time every time I fly internationally.

<comment> maze-le No, but when you refuse to unlock it, it could mean that the device is confiscated indefinitely. Where an encrypted container, delivered over a cloud-storage provider is not immediately tied to you at the border.

<comment><USER4> > but when you refuse to unlock it, it could mean that the device is > confiscated indefinitely

Has that actually happened in the case of a device belonging to a person legally authorized to enter the USA? That's rough.

In any case, I typically travel with a wiped (but backed up) phone and an encrypted (but backed up) laptop.

One thing I haven't fully figured out is how to manage travel photography - it's not easy to back up tens of gigs remotely, so I usually just end up traveling with it encrypted on my laptop hard drive but not otherwise backed up.

<comment><USER10> On the photography side, you could either upload each day from hotel/coffeeshop wifi or put it on an SD card (which could be searched and confiscated).

<comment><USER11> A good practice for safe guarding pictures taken over holidays in case of any number of events is to mail yourself sd cards with a copy of the pictures. You would still want a copy to carry with you in case of the mail failing but you would also be somewhat protected from physical damage or theft while on your trip.

<comment><USER4> How easy is it to mail an SD card internationally to the USA?

<comment><USER11> Not any more difficult than mailing postcards or any document. Use a rigid envelope. Mail is usually reliable enough and this would be an "off-site backup", so to speak. If the likelihood of losing the copy on your person is .01 and the likelihood of losing the mailed copy is .01 then the likelihood of losing your photos is .0001.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Linear Algebra Behind Google (2006) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~bryan/googleFinalVersionFixed.pdf

<comment><USER2> This looks like a fun paper to read but the HN title should have "(2006)" in it.

The author provides a Maple Notebook and a Mathmatica Notebok for this paper here:

[http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~bryan/google.html](http://www.rose- hulman.edu/~bryan/google.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Does google even use this still?

I was under the impression that people started to "game" this system (SEO) so much that the Markov-chain approach essentially got useless.

Also, how does user-specific ranking get into the mix? Google is storing our data for a reason, right?

<comment><USER4> It's surely still in there but there are by now on the order of hundreds of additions, tweaks and heuristics that have accumulated over the years. See for example this Google blog entry: [http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2008/05/introduction-to- google...](http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2008/05/introduction-to-google- search-quality.html?m=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "We have designed Google to be scalable in the near term to a goal of 100 million web pages. We have just received disk and machines to handle roughly that amount."

[http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html#a](http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html#a)

</comment><comment><USER6> >Indeed, due to Google's prominence as a search engine, its ranking system has had a deep influence on the development and structure of the internet, and on what kinds of information and services get accessed most frequently.

Did anyone else feel uncomfortable after reading this sentence?

<comment><USER7> Sure, but it seems inevitable that some major player from the late 90's/ early 00's would have a significant influence on the state of the internet in 2015. I'm happier with where Google has brought us than if, say, Yahoo or AOL had been the leader during this time period.

That said, Google has helped bring us where we are today. It's still a fairly young internet, I imagine. Where should we take it? Google will remain an influential shaper of the internet for a while yet, but Google still doesn't control it.

How would you like to see the internet develop over the next ~25 years?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the references there's a link to the original Google description written by Sergey Brin and Larry Page:

[http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html](http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html)

<comment><USER9> See appendix A.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >googleFinalVersionFixed.pdf</comment>


Congress Flirts with Disaster on Bank Leverage Ratios - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-flirts-with-disaster-on-bank-leverage-ratios-1518479068 <comment><AUTHOR> What could possibly go wrong here:

"Because their judgments about risk had been so wrong, regulators after the financial crisis have made greater use of capital standards that don't rely on government risk assumptions. For big banks, the most important of these is the "supplemental leverage ratio," which requires big banks to fund themselves with at least 5% common equity, effectively limiting their reliance on debt to 95%.Section 402 would weaken this modest constraint on leverage by excluding central-bank deposits from this debt-to-equity ratio."</comment>


Uber is testing out a new 1-800 number for people who don't use apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/21136090/uber-1800-phone-number-no-apps-smartphone <comment><USER2> I had an issue that when I was visiting America I downloaded Uber. They required that they verified my phone number but I didn't have a US phone number so I couldn't use their app. I ended up downloading Lyft and everything ended up fine.

I'm surprised that they went through so much effort to get my phone number but will now allow people to call them from presumably any phone.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, but no mention of a big problem with such apps, lack of privacy. If this allowed some anonymity I'd be interested.

<comment><USER4> That's probably not going to happen. What are they going to do, let you call without giving a name and then pay in cash? How would they get their cut? Might as well just take a cab if you're going to do that.

<comment><USER5> > What are they going to do, let you call without giving a name and then pay > in cash?

I mean, this is how it works when you call a plumber, electrician or whomever when they're a part of a bigger org.

Even taxis pay a monthly "radio fee" to get fares that are sent from people that call in. They could also not pay and just pickup street fares.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It could be great if we'd start seeing major apps starting to support also alternative channels to interface with them. It can really help the transition to fewer smartphone users and the Digital Detox movement. I do not own a smartphone and such endeavors can really make my (and others) life easier.

</comment><comment><USER7> Like how people used to arrange a taxi \ cab to chauffeur them somewhere? Seems regressive.

<comment><USER8> It was a simple (to implement) system that worked for decades. Not everyone wants to run uber spyware on their phones.</comment></comment>


Key yield curve inverts to worst level since 2007 - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/27/us-treasurys-investors-monitor-trade-developments.html <comment><USER2> So in order to drive the yield curve negative, wouldn't that mean a massive increase in the amount of money going into bonds? So that they no longer have to incentivize people to buy bonds, but can actually make them _pay_ to take them? And if there is such a massive increase in bond volume, where is that money coming from?

<comment><USER3> The fed had for years engaged in massive bond buying (QE). That has reduced supply of government paper and therefore reduced yields on the bonds.

<comment><USER2> So not a massive increase in demand, but a massive drop in supply?</comment></comment></comment>


Huawei's CEO going off-script to rage at US carriers was the best speech of CES - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16871538/huawei-ces-2018-event-ceo-richard-yu-keynote-speech <comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but this strikes me as ridiculously ironic. A Chinese company complaining that they're having a hard time reaching consumers in the US market? Is that not EXACTLY the same situation that countless American companies (esp. "Big Tech") face when trying to enter the Chinese market? To pass this off as "US is hurting its consumers by eliminating choice" is laughable vs the INSANE concessions US companies need to make to operate in China — which create hugely unfair advantages for domestic Chinese companies.

Is privacy the big reason? The article cites privacy as one of the pressures that caused AT&T to abort the deal — US companies don't want to let the government eavesdrop on their products, and Chinese government doesn't want US products and services that _prevent_ the Chinese government from eavesdropping.

<comment><USER3> It's really hard for me to feel bad for them at all. China loves to:

\- Spy, eavesdrop wherever they can. Forcing vendors to turn over server controls to them.

\- Constantly duplicate, steal other companies work.

\- Create unfair advantages of China companies vs US companies.

\- Can't forget the Great China Firewall!

Huawei is untrustworthy anyway, good riddance. [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Espionage_and_security_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Espionage_and_security_concerns_in_the_West)

<comment><USER4> Is ATT really better? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) Does the US not do any of those things? e.g. [https://gizmodo.com/the-nsa- actually-intercepted-packages-to...](https://gizmodo.com/the-nsa-actually- intercepted-packages-to-put-backdoors-1491169592)

Dude called out the US for generally lacking on the mobile front, and I don't think he's wrong. Our mobile broadband speeds are terrible for a developed country largely because of the mobile carrier (and wired broadband) oligopoly.

If the CEO of Nokia said the same thing, would it be any more or less valid just because of the policies of the country that they're based in?

edit: typo

<comment><USER5> > Is ATT really better?

Yes. This is _Communist China_ we're talking about here. They take eavesdropping to the next level.

> Dude called out the US for generally lacking on the mobile front, and I > don't think he's wrong. Our mobile broadband speeds are terrible for a > developed country largely because of the mobile carrier (and wired > broadband) oligopoly.

You don't know what you're talking about. China's mobile network is a frigging state-owned oligopoly that, the favored carrier of which uses a weird and inferior TD-SCDMA protocol _purely for political reasons_. We've got it good compared to them. Source: [https://www.samizdata.net/2012/06/here-is-the- rac/](https://www.samizdata.net/2012/06/here-is-the-rac/)

<comment><USER6> > You don't know what you're talking about.

Whoa there. That escalated quickly.

You're absolutely right about the protocol, but protocol does not a complete wireless ecosystem make. You could have a shitty protocol and happy customers, or a great protocol and upset customers.

Also, just because two industries are dominated by oligopolies doesn't mean that consumers in both are suffering the same. One can put the customers' interest slightly ahead of another. It's like having the assumption that authoritarianism automatically means people are suffering. It's just unhealthy and unstable. Every once in a while you can still get benevolent dictators doing something nice ;)

Just from personal experience, I know the cell phone fees in China are a lower % of people's incomes than here. The speeds aren't amazing (but that's probably because I rarely browse any domestic sites while in China). But I've also never had a dropped call or lack of signal until I got waaaaaaaay out in the mountains / rural parts of China, where as here I will still occasionally get my calls dropped or have spotty reception near a well-populated suburb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Shoe doesn't feel as nice on the other foot I guess.

In all honestly from the few products I see that come across the various tech review outlets I follow, Huawei seems to do some decent work. But the whole economic situation with China is complicated...mostly due to their own heavy handed protectionist policies.

From a cursory following, it certainly seems like the Chinese market in particular is biased at regulatory levels against foreign companies.

<comment><USER8> Protectionist is a good way of describing it. The general strategy in China is to handicap foreign corporations sufficiently so that domestic competitors can establish a foothold in the market before the network effects of foreign companies become stifling to new entrants.

This is especially true of tech companies. Chinese Internet censors degrade the quality of major US corporations so much that their products are nearly unusable, thus opening opportunities for domestic competitors. We've seen this play out with Google/Baidu, Facebook/Weibo, Uber/Didi, Amazon/Alibaba, etc.

Most people see the Great Firewall (GFW) as a tool for suppression of political dissent. However it also serves as an effective tool for economic control, protectionism and favoritism. In college I took a class called "The Next China," where I argued in my final paper that the GFW serves primarily as a tool for economic control, and only secondarily as a political tool. Realistically, there are arguments to be made that maintaining the GFW is in the best interest of the Chinese state, its economy and its people. It has certainly benefited them so far, as China now has a thriving domestic economy that is becoming more vertically integrated and service-driven every day.

Before anyone gets too upset about this, consider that the US often does the same, albeit on more of a regulatory level than a political one. Some examples are import taxes, financial compliance requirements, and upcoming data regulation. These all serve as tools that implicitly favor domestic companies over foreign ones.

<comment><USER5> > Protectionist is a good way of describing it. The general strategy in China > is to handicap foreign corporations sufficiently so that domestic > competitors can establish a foothold in the market before the network > effects of foreign companies become stifling to new entrants.

They also dangle the carrot of access to their market in front of Western companies in order to encourage up-front technology and skill transfer. In the end, it's only to benefit their domestic companies as the western ones are eventually hobbled and shut out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 2012 US House Intel Committee report on Huawei (and ZTE) that led to them being labeled a national security threat (this was a year long investigation into Huawei): [https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/...](https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/huawei- zte%20investigative%20report%20\(final\).pdf)

Skip to page 7 for the investigation.. or bottom of page 12 where it starts talking about Huawei.

Some of it could be political cover.. but some of it sounds quite solid. Like the part about their business in Iran, which they admit having and refused to discontinue, possibly violating US sanctions.

<comment><USER10> That report was just NSA being mad for not being able to intercept Huawei routers just like they intercepted and hacked Cisco routers. [1]

And let's not forget NSA's Juniper router NSA backdoor hack [2].

So the NSA banned Huawei since they wouldn't play ball with them and decided to spread FUD about Huawei instead... so that companies buy hacked/backdoored routers instead.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an- nsa...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade- factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/)

[2] [https://www.wired.com/2015/12/juniper-networks-hidden- backdo...](https://www.wired.com/2015/12/juniper-networks-hidden-backdoors- show-the-risk-of-government-backdoors/)

<comment><USER11> Who says they don't have exploits for their tech? Just as I would expect the PLA to have multiple exploits for us tech. Step out of the bubble you live in, espionage is real and so far there's enough compelling evidence to question their motives. Just as there were constant rublings with Kaspersky, look where that went. Not only did their reaction turn out to be an attempt st saving face, researches showed that simply putting specific classification markings on blank files triggered the av to submit copies of the files.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Read on the WSJ a few days ago how Huawei got started was straight stealing the exact same patented technology as an American firm and then could produce more cheaply thanks to government help.

America has to act now to prevent this kind of stuff, not just place a bandaid. Huawei is now cheaper and better than competitors but their model has been something Chinese and let's be honest most other countries have tried to implement. Props to them though

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#History)

It's not really a secret. The history section of their wikipedia article explains they were founded as a way to reverse engineer foreign technology and are state sponsored. I guess many people don't know this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Their Nexus 6P wasn't great... and they didn't honor their warranty for my brother. [https://www.xda-developers.com/nexus-6p-bootloop- fix/](https://www.xda-developers.com/nexus-6p-bootloop-fix/) These guys aren't ready for a US roll out.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've never understood why people buy phones from the carriers rather than from a retail store or online and insert the SIM (for GSM carriers).

<comment><USER16> Because the carrier's don't/didn't offer any discount for bringing your own device. If they're effectively offering you a 0% loan over two years to pay off a phone it's not the craziest thing to take them up on that offer. Plus, if it breaks you can just take it to your nearest store. A lot more convenient than mailing it somewhere.

<comment><USER17> I haven't seen a "free phone" in a _long_ time (two years or so).

Now it's "pay X dollars a month 24 months".

<comment><USER16> Right. Which, if it adds up correctly, is basically a 0% loan for the price of the phone.

<comment><USER18> Unless you pick up a $100/$200/$300 rebate for buying through your carrier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a Canadian, I'm sure I know a large number of former Nortel employees who would just _love_ to get their hands on a Huawei phone. Nortel did the R&D, and Huawei released identical devices, all the while _someone_ in China was hacking into their systems and downloading their designs.[0]

But sure, it's Huawei who are the victims in all of this.

[0] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns- aga...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns-against- working-with-huawei-1.1137006)

</comment><comment><USER20> Maybe it would be better for China to be allowed to spy on our phones.

China is halfway around the world and many of us will never go there.

On the other hand using phones provided by US carriers means the government _here_ is probably spying on you.

China, however will probably never send people to knock your door down based on intel they gather from your phone.

</comment><comment><USER21> Makes me wonder if China's threat to halt treasury purchases was in response to this:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/china- off...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/china-officials- are-said-to-view-treasuries-as-less-attractive)

Seems to me that the US should use more of it's leverage ($400b annual trade deficit) to ensure better market access to China.

</comment><comment><USER22> "...was the best speech of CES" is a bit subjective for a headline.

<comment><USER23> ...It's an editorial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> They are the same company with a fatal boot loop design flaw on my $500 Nexus N6. That thing failed right after the 1 year warranty expired and they tell me there is no way to fix it as there are no replacement parts available. If it failed after 2 years I could have lived with it but 1 year is too short for outright failure. Right now I'm trying to get a claim through my credit card extended warranty to get my money reimbursed.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll start to feel sorry for Huawei after they apologize for repeatedly stealing IP from other companies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Intellectual_property_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Intellectual_property_rights)

</comment><comment><USER26> American telecom market is a joke. Only very few Americans buy their own phone. So you have to make deals with the big carriers if you want to reach beyond the technophile crowd. Those carriers are shit.</comment>


Ask HN: Good place to find budding designers? - <AUTHOR>

I've had good luck hiring college students and recent grads for past projects.  You take more of a risk than you do when you hire somebody with more experience, but that also means their rates are lower.
I'd like to give one of my sites a facelift and am looking specifically for a designer -- I can do all the coding myself, but want someone to take care of the visuals.
Looking for recommendations on where I can find budding designers.  Would prefer not to slog through some of the bigger sites that also have more experienced designers.  Are there any sites that are focused on just budding designers? <comment><USER2> <http://www.dribbble.com> \- best site for this hands down.</comment>