Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection - <AUTHOR> https://harpers.org/archive/2019/04/more-than-a-data-dump-julian-assange/ <comment><USER2> It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" \-- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded

[https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/](https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/)

<comment><USER3> At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter.

1\. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists.

2\. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange.

3\. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment grounds.

Follow the small group that survives #3 to get a variety of (probably) high- quality perspectives from serious journalists.

Use set from #2 as a casual guide for when to prick your ears up and listen to the news.

<comment><USER4> Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database.

The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense.

In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to leak to the public?

"It's just journalism, you can't arrest me..."

<comment><USER5> I used to consider grand jury indictments to indicate that something was going on. Then someone close to me was indicted. That's when I learned that it takes almost nothing to get an indictment. In the case I know best it was less than nothing. When the case finally made it to a judge and was heard the judge realized how bad it was and through it out.

Those indictments come from a group of people who hear only one side, there is no one there to question the validity of what they are told, and they are basically being asked to let it go to court and so I don't think they see it as so bad if they are wrong, it can work out in trial.

<comment><USER6> This is a sentiment I've seen with the Assange threads. I see something significantly wrong with:

"Well if a grand jury wishes to bring charges, it must be a legitimate charge, or they'd not bring it to them."

It's akin to the idea that if someone has charges for a crime, that because they were charged they must have did it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins?

Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others?

Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?

<comment><USER8> Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

<comment><USER9> The First Amendment probably does not apply to non-Americans with respect to their conduct abroad. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo- Urqui...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez)

> The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable > searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and > seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in > the United States. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the > Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending > that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the > people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary > presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a > sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the > Constitution for protection.[1]

<comment><USER10> American law can not apply to non-Americans abroad.

<comment><USER11> Maybe "should not". "Can not" has been disproved many times.

<comment><USER10> Either cases it is irrelevant if the parent country of that person supports that individual. Like how it happens with a lot of Chinese citizens that US routinely tries to entrap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts.

Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank him for withholding just the proper amount of information for us to make our voting decision? Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that didn't align with the best interests of the American people?

[0] [https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older- republican...](https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican- emails-fbi-director-says/)

<comment><USER2> I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think:

"just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" \-- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know"

By the way, the indictment for the extradition request has nothing to do with the 2016 election, but rather the Iraq war logs from back in 2010. I understand you may not like Assange very much and think he is a bad person, but I would encourage you to consider the bigger picture and that many people are raising the alarm that this is an extremely dangerous attack on the first amendment and the freedom of the press.

<comment><USER12> Trust me, I'm aware of the thin lines that these things ride upon. I don't care that, in particular, the Podesta emails, the DNC emails, the Brazile questions, or anything else about the Clinton campaign were leaked. It was information, and it was illuminating to the nature of American politics.

What I have a problem with is, these sorts of leaks allow American elections to become a target of nation-state attacks. We shouldn't become used to making electoral decisions based on what the Russian state wants us to know about our politicians-- we need to make those discoveries ourselves, with investigative journalists that have skin in the game.

I understand that the request has nothing to do with the election, and likely would have happened without. Still, when inciting American citizens to break the law, I would hope that one would have some stronger backup than a single embassy's forbearance to carry you through to safety. Conspiracy isn't some newly made up charge, Assange didn't have to encourage Manning to do anything other than release what she had legal access to at the time.

<comment><USER13> Maybe we could have political candidates who aren't criminals so then foreign powers couldn't tilt our elections by revealing the truth about them.

<comment><USER14> ...except the Russian state was undermining the non-criminal to aid the known criminal?

Please, point to any "criminal" act that was revealed in the emails (that were stolen and released to Wikileaks by Russian security services).

<comment><USER15> If a game show that gave away real prizes leaked the questions in advance to one contestant but not the other, that would be fraud. I'm not sure if a debate can be held to that standard, however?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I tell you what, I'm moderate, some might say a bit coward, tonight I will sleep as usual, tomorrow I won't protest, never been in a single protest in my life. But I nonetheless think there is something wrong in our current western democracies. Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video, these are the men and women revealing these facts that are hunted down, for years. Meanwhile, these same people don't understand when citizens in desperate attempts to shake the system vote to the fringes failing or not wanting to acknowledge the current situation. It's not going to end well, that much I know.

<comment><USER17> >Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video

what..?

<comment><USER18> The collateral murder video showed how US military killed innocent unarmed civilians from the air and then shot other innocent and unarmed civilians who were trying to give first aid to the victims and get them to a hospital.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Since Assange has already published the leaks in question, he obviously > cannot be stopped from publishing them now; all the government can do is > prosecute him criminally for obtaining or publishing the leaks in the first > place. To date, there never has been a criminal prosecution for this type of > behavior. Obama's Justice Department ultimately concluded that a prosecution > of Assange would damage the First Amendment. Their decision effectively > meant that Assange was entitled to the same constitutional protections given > reporters.

IANAL but this seeming to be the crux of the article brings with it a lot of legal baggage such as constitutional precedent, being charged ex-post facto for releasing info that's now public/republished, and the proverbial "letter of the law vs. the sprit of the law" type argument.

I can understand any motive behind prosecuting Assange for leaking military secrets; these are strategic parts of a nation state's defence and sovereignty. Go figure.

However, and it's not a popular opinion but, I do believe that if you opt to run for and eventually serve in public office your correspondences (both intra and inter governmental) should be totally public. Secrecy in this area I think leads to corruption viz. misuse of power, brokering sweetheart deals with private companies, and facilitating lobbying by special interest groups all of which, inter alia, don't have the public interest at heart. The classified nature of these comms IMO is purposefully designed to be a grayer area and thicker line than it needs to be.

In that light I don't think he should be reprimanded for any charges surrounding political/cable leakages (which exposed some of the issues I just listed) as much as any journalist would be for exposing mal-intent of an elected official or diplomat.

</comment><comment><USER20> He has First Amendment protections. That doesn't apply to what he's being charged with, which is conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to US military systems.

<comment><USER21> As far as I understood WikiLeaks was purely a publishing platform. Not sure if this is the case back then but they have had claimed anonymity through the submission process (via proxies, and encryption)... to protect both themselves and whistle blowers.

If all they were doing was publishing... that should be protected by first amendment.

If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a lot of issues with Assange, particularly as it pertains to Wikileaks handling of the DNC leaks, and Assange's collaboration with nationalist parties around the world... but despite my distaste for the guy...in this case I don't think he committed a crime.

<comment><USER22> > If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it > doesn't seem to be the case.

That's literally the exactly what he is charged with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> First, I want to say I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault charge. That's a serious change, and it should be addressed via proper legal channels.

That said, having watched (the film) "Untouchables" for the Xth time, it's certainly possible given the powers involved he could be getting the Al Capone treatment.

Put another way, how or why he ends up in jail isn't nearly as important as him ending up in jail. The 1A issue is a non-issue in the sense it's also part of the reason for getting him locked down for some other reason(s).

<comment><USER24> I think we have a lot of growing up to do regarding the Swedish law concerning equality. My suspicion is that Sweden are 50 - 100 years ahead of the UK and the rest of the English speaking world when it comes to treating women with respect as a society and in law.

In our own mis-spent youths we assume some laws don't apply to us, it can be a simple thing like riding a bicycle on a pavement (sidewalk). Then we might flatten an elderly person as they step out their door, putting them in hospital and to no longer have their health. Only then does the penny drop and that the law is not a petty thing. Before that happens we might assume the policeman ticking us off for riding on a pavement is a 'jobsworth' who should be 'out catching murderers'. But no, the law - even this small one does matter.

I am hoping that aside from the Wikileaks circus that something good can come from this regarding how we see women. 'Well, she was asking for it' attitudes should not wash, regardless of how big the ego is. There was no evidence that the original charges were a pretext to nab Assange and send him off to some US courtroom. Assange should have faced the music and apologised for his conduct, then moved on as a free man having paid whatever fines/community service/prison spell the judged deemed appropriate.

If you are in a hole, stop digging. Assange kept digging.

Much has been made of the benefits of the Wikileaks sideshow but I don't see it that way. If someone had some important information to leak they might easily be discouraged to do so given how Wikileaks had monopolised that 'business' (and made it into a monetized business).

It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous. But Wikileaks created a black hole where any secret documents had to go to in order to be perceived by journalists and the public as a legitimate scandal worthy leak.

The idea that Assange has a 'dead man's switch' is also interesting. Imagine that he did have the crown jewels of leaked information stashed away, let's imagine it was something like the identity of the killer in a murder case, withholding that information from the family of the deceased would put him on the same side as the murderer, harbouring them in effect. This would be morally wrong. So we will see what the leverage he has turns out to be.

<comment><USER25> > It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the > idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous.

It seems doing so anonymously might be a bit tricky for folks without technical knowledge. Hell, I'm a programmer and I still would be afraid to publish without the guarantee of anonymity provided by a "trusted" third party.

They also provide protection for people who they deemed to have aligned interests - e.g. Snowden.

I agree though that there shouldn't be a filter on what gets leaked. But it may be necessary given the fact that the US government has the resources and laws that it does.

<comment><USER24> Internet cafe - create throwaway account to HN - post.

Job done.

Wikileaks don't guarantee anonymity, that is something you have to take care of yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Julian explains it himself: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA)

</comment><comment><USER27> While those who commit the war crime is walking the public street freely, those who reported the war crime was tortured. Another ordinary day in US of A.

</comment><comment><USER28> Whistle blowers almost always pay a huge price for uncovering corruption. Let me give a quick example, the two people who uncovered massive international racketeering in an expose now known as guptaleaks [http://www.gupta- leaks.com/](http://www.gupta-leaks.com/) had to flee their homes and country, paid for by "private money", to protect them from government. I have huge sympathy for Assange

</comment><comment><USER29> Dark day to see so many people willingly claim assange deserves punishment.

<comment><USER7> In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign. And that he delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage to Trump, instead of just releasing them when ready.

Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later was asking Trump Jr to ask Trump to recommend himself as the Aussie ambassador to the US as payment for helping Trump win.

<comment><USER29> Showed Hillary was cheating the dnc which she lied to the public about. There's plenty more justification but thats enough for me.

<comment><USER30> There he was just doing oppo research for Trump, corrdinated via Roger Stone. We don't know whether he also conspired with that crime, as he is alleged to have done here, but we do know that if it was about public information we would have seen the RNC and Conway's emails too. Since it was a crime and a possibly-unrelated disclosure both of which were acts of propaganda and information warfare and he has said it was motivated by his personal desire to change the outcome of the election, it is by definition neither motivated by not in service to educating the public.

<comment><USER29> Conway or the rnc had zero impact on people's perception of trump. Trump was the forerunner and eventually became president and it was clear that was the only way a republican would be president by the time the dnc emails were leaked. What would it have accomplished to release those docs, assuming assange had possession of them?

What exactly was the crime you're referring to and saying he's guilty of? If I have information about two candidates I can give it to others however I'd like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The problem is that Assange repeatedly angers and alienates his friends. The journalistic establishment won't support him because they don't like him.

An unliked person is the worst thing for a constitutional test, because almost no one can separate their ideals from their emotions. There were similar likability problems with Larry Flint.

<comment><USER32> Wouldn't that person would be the best to test the constitution? If everybody loves you, you don't need the protection of the law. And if the law only works when everybody likes you, what good is it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everyone deserves First Amendment protection, but what Assange is accused of is not protected.

</comment><comment><USER33> When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.

<comment><USER34> When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people?

If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.

<comment><USER35> more speedy automatic declassification without exceptions would be nice.

Retrospective control is better than nothing.

Although if you commit benign computer sabotage and happen to acquire information about war crimes, that should be a freebee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Woodward and Bernstein would never have been able to do what they did in 2019. They would have vanished into the secret court system, put in solitary for life, and we never would hear what happened to them.

</comment><comment><USER30> The problem is that not only did he do something politically unpopular, he also allegedly conspired to commit a crime. If you know the cops are after you, don't ride dirty kids.

</comment><comment><USER11> Likely why he was specifically charged with the narrow accusation of a hacking conspiracy. That's easier to separate from the 1st amendment.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm trying to understand the various ways lines can be drawn.

One line is passive versus active gathering of classified information. It's clear that the article doesn't think the line should be drawn here.

But where then? The article says: "If he explicitly agreed to act as a Russian agent, he should lose his First Amendment protection," but I don't understand what line is being drawn.

</comment><comment><USER38> issue here is someone is getting arrested for exposing war criminals.

</comment><comment><USER39> "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."

</comment><comment><USER40> I dunno how to handle this situation for those who are unlucky to live under US war-criminal regime. For others, I would like to propose to consider the following:

\- convert your USD savings into other assets (e.g. EUR)

\- sell US-related stocks

\- boycott US-produced goods and services if there are replacements

</comment><comment><USER41> Is there anymore information about the jabber conversation being exposed between Manning and Assange? I assume they has some sort of OpSec in place, I am curious how this was picked up.

</comment><comment><USER42> Julian Assange would not need the first amendment rights if - with according to international laws - he would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty.

<comment><USER43> He is not being extradited under charges that could lead to the death penalty. If he were, British law is very clear that he could not be extradited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> > _Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his > current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK > attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden > dropped the charges._

This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought.

Presumably he will be indicted in the US momentarily.

As yet, not a single country has charged him with a crime.

Edit: yes, the US has now indicted him on a conspiracy charge—his first.

<comment><USER45> He was charged and convicted of skipping on his bail in 2012.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Assange is being brought back to provide testimony to US Senate investigations into Ukrainian interference in elections.

</comment><comment><USER47> I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still a crime. We all count, or no one counts.

<comment><USER48> I would like to know what the Mueller report and US intelligence has on him and his involvement with Russian interference is US elections. Assange was pretty active during the 2016 election and I'd like to see what his involvement was.

<comment><USER49> I am going to guess that he was an unwitting stooge of the Russians. Assange has been in over his head for a long time -- the "insurance file" fiasco should have been your first clue:

[https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at- wikileaks...](https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks- accidental-release-of-us-cables-endangers-sources-a-783084.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> When WikiLeaks published their big "collateral murder" and this while shitstorm started, I happened to be in Melbourne. I came across a "free assange" petition manned by student activist types... and I assume WikiLeaks people. It think it's near their offices.

My take was that WikiLeaks is just doing what journalists do. Sourcing newsworthy information and publishing it. All the major papers, channels and such were republishing, in my mind proving the point. Meanwhile, assange was/is an Australian citizen and the efforts against him are clearly two faced. The charges against him weren't the reason for the charges against him.

Anyway... I walked over and read the petition, intending to sign it. Free Afghanistan! US out of Saudi Arabia. Down with the patriarchy! Capitalism must go! Fuck the zionist-imperialist deep state Etc^... it also had some stuff about assange.

My (long winded) point is that this is a microcosm of the wider affair.

WikiLeaks, assange and the leaks that got him in trouble are journalistic. I don't think _he_ sees it that way though. I think he sees it in more political-activism terms. The journalism defense is mostly made by other people, for him.

I still think he should go free though.

^Made up specifics. I don't remember what all the stuff was. Just that it was typical left-radical student politics of the time and place. Iircc, voluntary student unionism was the (sort of parochial-australian-student issue of the day).

</comment><comment><USER51> One part of the indictment is very troubling: #5 Assange, Who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, Was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.

</comment><comment><USER52> Is anybody arguing he shouldn't?

To my knowledge that's never been seriously questioned.

What is he being charged again?

<comment><USER53> He already has first amendment protection. You have an article above that explains the charges... you don't even have to google and you're lazy

<comment><USER52> My questions are rhetorical read between the lines.

<comment><USER53> Rhetorical questions don't work online. Read a book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Why would a Australian be provided the rights of an US citizen?

<comment><USER55> Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.

<comment><USER7> Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.

<comment><USER56> Green card holders may own and purchase guns, and non-permanent residents may also own and purchase guns (but it's complicated).

This isn't really relevant to the point you're making in this thread, but figured I'd point it out anyways

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction. Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.

<comment><USER58> > Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy on Thursday by the > ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737)

<comment><USER57> The U.K. Police are civilians in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was assaulted and illegally deported to U.K. Territory. That is an illegal arrest at best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I was a huge fan os Assange back when wikileaks was an equal-opportunity expose of government secrets. Unfortunately it didn't stay that way, and over time seemed to largely function at the behest of the Russian government.

</comment><comment><USER60> When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under.

Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1].

[1][https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first- amendmen...](https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendment- espionage-case/)

<comment><USER22> > When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not > protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects > national security

You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.

<comment><USER61> Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though - consult a licensed attorney in your state.)

They key phrase here is "prior restraint." That's not the issue here; the information has been published already. So the holding in the Pentagon Papers case (aka _New York Times_) doesn't apply to this set of circumstances.

Moreover, the Pentagon Papers case made no law. The opinion itself only reversed an appellate court decision and affirmed the judgment of a district court.

Read it yourself: [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab- opi...](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab- opinion-1949387)

First Amendment law respecting the dissemination of classified information -- by "journalists" (whatever they may be), or otherwise -- is not as settled as people think, and it's my personal view that unless the Supreme Court concludes otherwise, Mr. Assange could find himself in very hot water, as Chelsea Manning did.

<comment><USER22> > They key phrase here is "prior restraint."

Right, I'm not saying Pentagon Papers is applicable precedent in the Assange case, just that it stands against the notion that national security magically waves away the First Amendment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This wasn't mentioned specifically in the article, but this reminds me how we have some legal protections for whistle-blowers in the United States (not nearly enough, IMHO) but none of those protections extend to government employees. It's as if the government thinks they're incapable of breaking their own laws.

If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it to the government, it's treason.

<comment><USER62> This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.

<comment><USER34> Unfortunately too late for Chelsea Manning.

<comment><USER62> Chelsea Manning's release would still be a crime and not afforded whistleblower protection under current law. There were and are specific processes to be followed to qualify for whistleblower protection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Uhm what? Non US citizens aren't covered by the Constitution.

Its why you never ever do anything illegal when you are in the US. I would try to smuggle a bag of heroine into Singapore before ignoring a red light in New York.

<comment><USER15> Please don't give travel advice (or legal advice I guess?) to anyone.</comment></comment>


OnLive shuts down streaming games service, sells patents to Sony - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/onlive-shuts-down-streaming-games-service-sells-patents-to-sony-embargoed-7pm-eastern/ <comment><USER2> "The service and a $100 microconsole launched in late 2010, but suffered from noticeable latency and image quality issues in our initial tests."

Did anyone expect differently?

Heck, I expect this would present significant challenges even running on a LAN

It's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of physical impossibility.

I can ping google with 5ms latency. That's for the usual ping size packet, allows for 200 round-trips per second.

Do you really expect to push inputs and get streamed video back (and encode and decode said video, which also takes time) with any kind of reasonable response time?

<comment><USER3> I've actually tried OnLive, and in less than ideal circumstances. I was amazed by how good it actually was, even with RTT for 120ms. Some games, like rally games didn't suffer that badly from the added latency.

For things like first person shooters it didn't work that well, the latency and input lag was very noticeable. But get that down to a RTT of 20-30ms then I'm sure most casual gamers will hardly notice.

The encoding and decoding is done in hardware and is negligible at best. Also something to keep in mind is that kids today are used to input lag. Both PS4 and Xbox One uses wireless controllers.

<comment><USER4> > _Also something to keep in mind is that kids today are used to input lag. > Both PS4 and Xbox One uses wireless controllers._

The input "lag" with wireless controllers is not in any way comparable to the lag introduced by streaming your game over the internet. For example, tests have shown that my current wireless mouse — the Logitech G602 — has no more latency than a wired mouse. (The range is crap, but that's another issue.) Nor have I had any latency issues using my Logitech F710 gamepad, even with high octane games like Super Meat Boy.

<comment><USER3> Could you link to some of those tests? I'm finding it a little hard to believe, just with the amount of noise that is on the frequencies used.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, it's hard for me to find now since I bought the mouse years ago. But it has a dedicated receiver and a 500hz polling rate with a reported 2ms latency. Having to be no more than a few feet away from the receiver probably helps. (In my experience, it just sporadically stops working once the mouse gets too far away instead of introducing lag.) And again, with the previous generation of Logitech's wireless gamepad, I was able to complete Super Meat Boy 100% with no issues at all. Good luck doing that with any degree of latency!

(I've noticed that Bluetooth tends to be significantly more laggy, but that might just be confirmation bias.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Latency is low enough that nobody cares about making it faster. I was at a awesome ISP 10 years ago playing quake with < 10ms ping (through clever routing to certain servers). This is still unmatched, I would say that latency and connection quality actually decreased. Fluent "live" interaction over the internet is still decades away.

<comment><USER6> I mean, it's not decades away...

If you want < 10ms ping, you need to:

1) Be within 10ms of target datacenter (1,860 miles roughly)

2) rip out the TCP/IP handlers in all of the hardware along the route and replace with highly optimized, workload specific IP handlers (you'll want to do this in the kernel, OR in an ASIC if you're really serious about speed).

3) own all of the fiber along the route.

Basically, if you can eliminate all of the finger pointing and just own the network end to end, you could probably implement this today, it's just that no one is at that scale except for _maybe_ Google (note: I have no idea how Google runs their internal network, but if I had to guess, this is probably what they're doing).

Edit: You can get this now, it's just hard and not worth the cost or effort to do (since no one will bear the cost of building a network like this for gaming, or really for any application I can think of... there just isn't a need for this kind of network performance).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks like Sony making a sidebet on the death of traditional consoles to me. If PC's effectively take over the console space then Microsoft is fine since they have the pre-eminent pc gaming OS. Sony on the otherhand doesn't, so I'm guessing they're investigating game streaming as an alternative and buying up IP to do it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Damn. I've got two games I rather wanted to finish playing.

Leaving my lack of ability to finish games to one side - I wonder how dangerous the patents are? I imagine Sony's strategy is to limit game streaming to owners of their hardware. If they are aggressive with their IP that could leave the rest of us shut out of an entire delivery channel.

<comment><USER9>
      Players who took part in that hybrid plan will still be able to play their
      purchased games through Steam, but streaming games purchased through
      Cloudlift or the older Playpass subscriptions will no longer be usable
      after the end of the month.

You may still be able to finish them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Previous Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313866](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313866)</comment>


Zipcall.io – Free browser-based video calling - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ianramzy/decentralized-video-chat <comment><USER2> Hey, If it's using WebRTC built into the browser like every other web-based video calling app – how is it "unmatched" exactly?

<comment><USER3> Many/most WebRTC apps don't do p2p, but rely on a bunch of stuff happening in server side. There are also a lot of ways to set up webrtc in the browser affecting quality.

<comment><USER4> Where the citation on that? From what I've seen, P2P is more common than SFUs, if for no other reason than they are way simpler to implement architecturally for small amount of participants.

<comment><USER3> No citation but IME Zoom and Teams do this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On the site it says "Breakthrough peer to peer WebRTC technology" and the title claims "no latency".

Could you elaborate what makes this different from normal P2P WebRTC without a SFU? Do you feel that the claim of "no latency" is even possible/reasonable regardless of the tech involved?

<comment><USER6> I do not enjoy being blunt, but the author seem to have borrowed a page from a "that" conferencing company's marketing playbook by making very questionable claims.

It's a nice project, but:

> Zipcall is built radically different. We left behind slow bulky servers, > opting for decentralized peer to peer calling. We engineered a platform with > maximum video quality and low latency.

Translation: it uses WebRTC or we didn't invent anything — it uses technology built into your browser.

> State of the art VP9 video compression combined with our scaling > optimization makes your calls crystal clear.

Same as above (assuming you're browser supports VP9).

> Breakthrough peer to peer WebRTC technology means your video goes directly > to the other person without a server. No middleman. No extra stops.

Same as above.

> End to end state of the art encryption means your calls are exactly that. > Your calls.

How exactly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey how is this better than the Janus webrtc server? It's been developed for a decade, and could flip a page like this in an hour or so. I'm genuinely curious how you could surpass it in stealth, like minus the marketing fluff.

[https://janus.conf.meetecho.com/videoroomtest.html](https://janus.conf.meetecho.com/videoroomtest.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> We changed the title from "Show HN: Zipcall.io – Peer to peer browser video calling with no latency". Show HN is for sharing something that you've personally created (please see the rules: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)). And "no latency" sounds more baity than reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER9> So is p2p really bad when dealing with lots of users? Because now instead of you sending your video to a central server, you are now having to send your video to every single person while still receiving the video of everyone. So your upload usage must go through the roof.

<comment><USER2> Yes, absolutely. Not only bandwidth but CPU usage as you must encrypt and decrypt the video for every participant separately

<comment><USER10> Hopefully proxy re-encryption will solve this soon.

(disclaimer: this is what I work on)

<comment><USER11> Sounds interesting! Do you have a link for this in regards to research done on p2p streaming?

<comment><USER10> You know, strangely, we've never published anything about (nor done any research specifically on) the prospects for private p2p streaming, even though it's something we discuss frequently on our discord.

Once we get this thing launched, we'll right that wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To achieve "no latency", you have to remain completely still.

</comment><comment><USER13> I am excited for more open-source video-calling tools, but I am also confused by how this "provides video quality and latency simply not available with traditional technology."

A quick glance at the readme suggests that this negotiates peer-to-peer connections using Twilio. But it's not just that it's p2p, right? Since there are a ton of p2p video-calling tools out there, most memorably to me the original Skype before Microsoft bought it.

</comment><comment><USER14> I tried this with friends, and from my phone to their laptop (and another's desktop), it didn't work.

In comparison, Jitsi sort-of worked on the same devices (but screen share was limited to 5 FPS).

</comment><comment><USER15> Tried it out with a friend, both of us living close by, on ethernet, both on the same gigabit fiber ISP.

It was the same bad WebRTC quality, perhaps even worse as my video preview was really laggy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Does this work smartphones or tablets via specific browsers?

</comment><comment><USER17> There are many comments with P2P and serverless together. How can this work when the users are not on the same network?

<comment><USER5> WebRTC uses UDP holepunching via STUN, it's built into almost all browsers and there are free STUN servers online. If you have some types of more tricky networks (usually symmetric NAT or more tricky firewalls) you need TURN which basically proxies the encrypted stream over TCP via the TURN server, but most home and smaller networks can do holepunching.

You still need signaling of the SDP offer, but that can be done via email/sms/whatever if you really don't want to have a server at all.

This service is just run-of-the-mill WebRTC, nothing special about it though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice, only missing one essential feature (unless I can't find it): the ability to set the device I/O.

</comment><comment><USER18> [https://jitsi.org/](https://jitsi.org/) diff?

<comment><USER19> I like how Jitsi mirrors my Webcam image. Much more intuitive

<comment><USER19> I don't like how jitsi ignores my volume settings in iOS

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Every tom, dick & harry now with WebRTC & TURN servers is here.

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice work, some really nice touches in the UX. Keep working on it!

</comment><comment><USER22> Great marketing page. Gotta love the fluff!

</comment><comment><USER23> There's another post on Show HN right now with this same link.

</comment><comment><USER24> I tried it out with my friend and not gonna lie the video quality was really good. And screen sharing is a nice feature. +1 for open source

<comment><USER25> You created an account just to say that?</comment></comment>


Delta partners with on-demand helicopter startup so VIPs can avoid the airport - techpulse-co http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15429224/delta-blade-uber-for-helicopters-partnership-nyc-jfk?ref=techpulse.co <comment><AUTHOR> Air Canada, for a short period of time in 1986, operated a helicopter shuttle from a helipad near downtown Toronto out to the tarmac at Toronto International Airport. [http://gofar.aircanada.com/en/popular/legends-of- flight/](http://gofar.aircanada.com/en/popular/legends-of-flight/) (fifth image down).</comment>


New Car Hacking Research: 2017, Remote Attack Tesla Motors Again - <AUTHOR> http://keenlab.tencent.com/en/2017/07/27/New-Car-Hacking-Research-2017-Remote-Attack-Tesla-Motors-Again/ <comment><USER2> > The video below demonstrates ...

Where is the video below in the blog? I can't seem to find it...</comment>


HP Enterprise let Russia scrutinize cyberdefense system used by Pentagon - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia-hpe-specialreport/special-report-hp-enterprise-let-russia-scrutinize-cyberdefense-system-used-by-pentagon-idUSKCN1C716M?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social <comment><USER2> Absent a deep COCOM-like exports ban things like these are bound to happen. It's naïve to expect the shareholder-value maximizing enterprises to keep national security interests at heart.</comment>


Questions that changed my life (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://tim.blog/2016/12/07/testing-the-impossible-17-questions-that-changed-my-life <comment><USER2> Tim Ferriss changed my life about 6 years ago. This is an embarrassing revelation for me because it was a bunch of somewhat trite and unrealistic advice from the book, 4 hour work week. The reason it changed my life is because at his core, Ferriss challenges people to stop doing things because of inertia and because it's how it's always been done, then seek a better way. I was ready and capable of this, I think I just needed someone's permission and example that this way of thinking would work out in the end.

For my own story, my work, location and daily activities were not aligned with the life I wanted to live and weren't ever going to get me closer to what I wanted. I'd spent my 20's figuring out how to fit in, be likable, be a good employee. But the American dream is quite dead for most people and it was dead for me. Following the crowd was never going to even get me a white picket fence in my city, even if I'd wanted one.

The result has been the 6 most fantastically awesome years of my life. It's taken me to a new career, new locations, and new ways of doing everything. If you've read 4 hour work week, you'll know that Ferriss had years of adventures that most will never experience. It's been like that, but better.

If this is speaking to you. DO IT.

<comment><USER3> Congratz on finding the life you want!

For me the revelation after trying some of those things has been really odd. Turns out that deep down I love the grind. Any time I go on an extended optimize-for-life-lived journey (1 month +), I come back and think _"Well shit, that was an entire month I got nothing done towards everything I want to achieve in life"_

That is to say, it's important to try these things but don't get too hung up on not having them. Maybe deep down you just don't wanna.

But you gotta try to find out. That part is true.

<comment><USER2> Cool! And it sounds like you've learned something really valuable as well. I think that's the exact value of running lifestyle experiments. I also realized I wanted more than sightseeing tours and umbrella drinks, though for me it's probably 40% work and 60% life. And I got a lot clearer on my goals in both areas in the process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tim Ferriss is an unapologetic self-promoter who often comes across as greasy and his major product is the Tim Ferriss id, but he's also right so much of the time. He offers very good advice from someone I would never want to be, and that's OK. I highly recommend reading beyond the slick SEO-optimizing presentation; there is a lot of good, actionable stuff in there.

<comment><USER5> I've found the best way to learn from Tim Ferriss is to ignore what he says an watch what he does.

I've never found much value in his books, but he is an amazing marketer and promoter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really like question 12:

> What might I put in place to allow me to go off the grid for 4 to 8 weeks, > with no phone or email?

This echoes a sentiment I recently read in _Turn the Ship Around_ : managers are frequently recognised and praised for things that happen while they are actively leading a team.

This sounds obvious, but it skews their leadership toward shorttermism. We should be better at recognising great leaders by how smoothly things run _when they aren 't present_.

It's definitely worth keeping in mind for individual contributors without direct reports too. Would something grind to a halt or progress very slowly if you unexpectedly go offline? At least for me, probably more than I'd like.

<comment><USER7> This is similar to the idea of praising the people who are always putting out fires because their actions are visible, vs the people more in the background who design systems that don't catch fire and just hum along without complaint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really like a lot of Tim Ferris' ideas, but a common theme through that general "lifestyle optimization" genre is single people without a family to support.

But I guess maybe there is still value to the idea that often the "show stoppers" that keep you from breaking out of your familiar ruts are really just fears that you haven't actually examined yet.

<comment><USER8> This is also what came to my mind when reading this article. Not everyone is capable of pivoting their life because of dependents and other inflexible obligations.

I've dubbed articles and advice like this as "manic pixey tech guy" syndrome.

<comment><USER7> Care to elaborate on the "manic pixey" part? I've never heard that phrase before.

<comment><USER9> It's a play on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Under the somewhat clickbait-y title, the post is both insightful and also encourages further thinking and exploration.

<comment><USER4> He is a marketer at heart, so his material often comes across like this, but there is good content in there if the presentation doesn't turn you away too soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice questions. Good food for thoughts.

I still hate how spammy Tim's website is. You click an "X" to remove a sidebar ad, and instead it pops up another bigger ad in front of your face.

I thought the whole thing was to be happy with enough money (TMI, as he calls it). In an alternative universe, Tim Ferriss blogs for free, from a nice affordable location in the Caribbean, and "works" only 4 hours per week, instead of perhaps 50 or 60.

<comment><USER12> Capitalism and Marketing at works.. He makes good content but sells thhe shit out of it

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wow this smells so much like bullshit. Looks like one of these guys making money on food supplements, but actually making money on guys thinking they can make money the way he does. The internet is full with these get rich quick guys.

</comment><comment><USER14> I listened to the first 10 minutes of the audio, half of it is promotion to his other giggs, 40% is just fluff and only one or two sentences are actually useful. I stopped listening after that and skimmed through the questions, but didn't see any "wow" question that I never asked myself before.</comment>


Mafia becomes "Italy's largest bank" in aftermath of financial crisis - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-italy-mafia-idUSTRE8091YX20120110 <comment><USER2> This is one of the greatest hypocrisies the European Union is committing. The EU (Germany and France) are putting the Italian government under a lot of pressure to stabilize the economy but no one ever (including the new Italian PM) mentions the plague of criminal organizations running the show in Italy.

Even if Italy manages to get out of the current economical turmoil, there will always be half of the country (some say the whole country) literally in the hands of criminal organizations with huge power and virtually unlimited funds.

How can the new PM (Monti) dare to talk about "development" where the moment you open a shop or a business you will be forced to pay a "premium" to some thug. Banks in Italy have been historically very cautious about lending money to businesses and the result is that business-owners have to use the "other bank" to survive a bit longer. And again, nothing has been done to facilitate access to line of credits for businesses. The only thing that has increased is taxation (a business in Italy now pays over 50% in taxes).

If the cancer of Mafia is not eradicated once for all, Italy will never become a modern country.

<comment><USER3> Literally? They must have impossibly large hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Come on... Camorra, 'Ndrangheta and Mafia are not the same thing. Neither every one that borrows money at too high interest comes from Mafia. There is not such thing as a huge, bank, single, Mafia organization in Italy.

And in this article there are not even comparison of this crime (extortionate lending) in Italy with other countries.

<comment><USER5> "And in this article there are not even comparison of this crime (extortionate lending) in Italy with other countries."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're insinuating that it happens across Europe, then that's not true. The "extortionate lending market' so to say (of the extra-legal kind) is very, very small (to the point of non- existent) in Western European countries, whereas (according to this article and some others I've read) it's a sizable portion of Italy's GDP. That's an unacceptable situation.

<comment><USER6> > "And in this article there are not even comparison of this crime > (extortionate lending) in Italy with other countries."

> I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're insinuating that it > happens across Europe, then that's not true.

Italian-based organized crime does its business everywhere in Europe with success.

The only difference is that in Italy this dirty business is not hidden at all because criminals also run "consumer branches", while in the rest of EU they hide themselves behind commercial banks or companies.

Take for example waste management and disposal. Most of EU and international waste goes through the hand of organised crime [1] that offer lower prices and more efficient services to municipalities and states. This always happens through proxy companies with crystal-clear records.

Germany thought it was free of organised crime. Then the Duisburg killing happened [2] and they opened their eyes.

[1] [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=83BVyffqnJEC&pg=PA117...](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=83BVyffqnJEC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=european+waste++mafia&source=bl&ots=_ojxOM3aTs&sig=bVpwsNzIYOSQRWF1-LbEolobuQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WZwNT_3HPMT5sgaxw73CBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=european%20waste%20%20mafia&f=false) [2] <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafiamorde_von_Duisburg>

<comment><USER7> Isn't their "higher efficiency" of waste disposal due to the fact they just dump it into the ocean rather than doing it properly?

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

The link also mentions the possibility that this is what pissed off Somalis and spurred the takeoff of piracy. (Not trying to justify it, please flame me for the right reason.)

<comment><USER6> > Isn't their "higher efficiency" of waste disposal due to the fact they just > dump it into the ocean rather than doing it properly?

That is the "lower prices" part. The higher efficiency is due to the fact that the other legally-run companies are often hindered in their daily tasks by these organisations. In the last few years Italy has seen: fake strikes organised by bribed union leaders, waste treatment plants accidentally burned, key managers being forced to resign over "personal matters"…

You do not need to be that more efficient if you can make the others much less efficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> FWIW, the Mafia in the US became a more institutional, more professional organization with the formation of "The Commission" in 1931 -- i.e., during the Great Depression:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commission_%28mafia%29>

The New York Times calls 1931 the "birth of the American Mafia:" <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23raab.html>

I wonder if prolonged economic downturns are somehow correlated with, or maybe even lead to, the rise of more powerful, more professional crime organizations...?

<comment><USER8> The US Italian mafia has been effectively been neutered since Gotti. Most of the modern powerful people got busted by RICO. In the US today, the most powerful are the Italians, Russians and the Mexican 'mafias'. The most influential may be from Mexico because the wars have spilled over across the border and they are the largest supplier of marijuana.

The truth is, at least with the Italian mafia, that the greatest success of the Italian mafia occurred during WWII. The CIA depended on them to provide them with information regarding Italy because Mussolini worked against mafia interests and Allies. It wasn't until the Kennedys took office that they heavily went after the mafia.

During wars it is known, at least in the US at that time and probably today, that it creates a healthy economy.

The reason why you see the economic downturns of today is because most Congressmen pass laws with loopholes. There was a time when a CEO didn't live in a lavish mansion over his employees. They managed their selfishness better back then. Today, most live in secluded areas so they don't have to deal with that harsh reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the article, the only thing I noted from it was that the mafia was late to the game. These predatory lending practices is what led to the financial crisis and that companies, corporations and governments were more efficient at being gangsters.

<comment><USER9> This is such an important point: there is no difference between "too big to fail" and "an offer you can't refuse". It's protection racketeering in a five thousand dollar suit.

"Nice economy you have here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it."

<comment><USER10> Mafia uses violence. That's different.

<comment><USER11> So do governments ...

<comment><USER10> Sure. Governments like North Korea or China's is similar to the mafia.

But 1st world developed democracies are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is the sort of sensationalistic stuff that happens when HN veers "off- topic".

If you want to look at the Mafia as one big organization, then in the same light, Italy's largest, and legitimate, lender is of course "The Family".

</comment><comment><USER13> Another example of the remarkable prescience of Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you are unfamiliar with the Camorra I recommend this film: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/>

Or, read Roberto Saviano's book.

</comment><comment><USER15> I guess it's time to invest in Mafia?

</comment><comment><USER16> Credit crunch is going to make an already terrible situation worse. The biggest problem is that every kind of "external" help (like, for example, EU lending money to italian banks at a low interest rate) is only going to help Mafia because they're deelpy entangled inside the italian government and banking system. The only viable strategy would be for EU to lend money directly to small businesses... but that's not going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER17> Despite the fact that I will end up auto-dead for saying so, there is no difference between a government and an "organized crime" ring.

<comment><USER18> Assuming a government is democratic , not corrupt (or a close approximation of) and government by law a government has limits to where it can apply violence and must follow some due process that is deemed to be fair by a majority of democratically elected members. For that process to be changed said members must vote on changes and these must be published. This means that in theory rules should be made that are reasonable to the majority of the population, they might not be able to vote on all laws but if a representative votes for too many laws that are unfavorable he will be unelected.

The mafia works on the basis of fear since they will play by their own rule book that is likely decided upon in secret and not applied consistently. All rules will be made in favour of the rule makers themselves.

Imagine for a moment that we let private corporations hire goons with sticks and imagine that when you miss a payment instead of a polite but firm letter you came face to face with one of these goons at your doorstep and they have paid off the police to take no notice of what they do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ohhh really?</comment>


Why I'm having -negative karma? - <AUTHOR> Hello,
Can anyone tell me, why I'm having negative karma on my HN account?
Thanks <comment><USER2> Because of these types of comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9163474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9163474)

"Well that is bad" does not add anything to the conversation.

Think about a discussion in real life between 4 people. 3 of them are making factual statements, providing their opinion, and asking intellectual questions. Another person is saying stuff like "wow" or "gee, that's not good." That person is seen as not really adding to the conversation.

<comment><USER3> But, he didn't offended anyone. Negative karma seems too harsh for a newbie and discourages them from participation. In real life, we don't do that to a person, if we think he is not adding value to the conversation.

<comment><USER2> No, but over time if the person keeps doing it they do gain a reputation which is what is happening here.

No one at HN shunned this individual or even told him to leave, but until he learns the deal.

I actually had negative 20-30 karma when I first came for doing the same, I took it as a challenge :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't worry about it. When you make substantive of specific comments that add information, it will be voted back up. Be sure to read the Guidelines - there's a link at the bottom of the page. Welcome.

</comment><comment><USER5> Your comments are probably getting voted down for not adding much to the conversation and I think people probably felt like your one submission was spammy and off topic since a lot of the US based folks on here are probably wondering why it's significant and you did not provide much context.

</comment><comment><USER6> Read the guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Too many downvotes. You have 2 comments and they're both greyed out, so, downvoted.</comment>


The World Is a Functional Program - <AUTHOR> http://baweaver.com/blog/2015/02/20/the-world-is-a-functional-program/

<comment><USER2> I started another comment, but it looks like it may have been lost. So I apologize if this is a duplicate.

I'm currently working through SICP, so I appreciate your concept. For about a decade, I've been considering a tree structure to represent the Universe, but data/code, perhaps my view isn't so different.

Regarding free will however, I think you are making assumptions that are not definitely established. Why must what we perceive as free will rely on callbacks? It seems just as likely that there is hidden state within the closure that determines the output of that function.

While the complexity of decisions, choices, and actions seem to be free will, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it isn't actually predetermined. Given the shear number of possibilities, why can't free will just represent a traversal of some massive tree?

Quantum Mechanics imposes an interesting twist on this view point. If the wave function doesn't collapse until the lazy evaluation of the quantum state, it too could be a contributing factor to determining free will. I'm unaware of any finding that suggests there is a definite relationship between quantum state and the macroscopic, but I haven't given up on that possibility.

Even if there was concrete evidence to support that theory, it could just be that the model we use is just a very good approximation of the system and it doesn't reveal the implementation -- after all, George implemented it and we have abstracted that implementation away.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> OP Here. Had a bit of fun playing around with world theory, decided to share for kicks and giggles. More of a 'what if?' scenario than anything.</comment>


Contemplating the death of Lyndon LaRouche and the future of his movement - <AUTHOR> https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/02/15/essay-death-lyndon-larouche-and-future-his-movement <comment><USER2> I grew up in a rural area for a time and there it seemed to me that Lyndon LaRouche had a surprising number of supporters who I wouldn't have expected to be interested in conspiracy theories.

I didn't think much of that for many years until the last 10 years or so, reminded by more recent events.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know exactly when you were living there, but back in the 2004-2007 time window LaRouche managed to pick up a bunch of new supporters by coming out strong against the Iraq war, at a time when pretty much every establishment voice on both sides of the aisle was still shell-shocked by 9/11 and terrified of saying anything that might make them look soft on terrorism. So when young people who opposed the war went looking for a leader to follow, LaRouche was one of the few out there who appeared to be talking sense.

He wasn't, of course, Lyndon LaRouche was totally Looney Tunes, but if you were desperate to find someone willing to be against the war and too young to be familiar with LaRouche's crackpottery in the '60s and '70s, it's easy to understand how you could get sucked in.

(One of these unfortunate kids, a young man from Britain named Jeremiah Duggan, ended up dead under somewhat mysterious circumstances -- see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan) .)

<comment><USER2> The time I was thinking of was more the late 80s.

It was strange as at the time I thought of the local farmers who really believed in that stuff as mostly conservative and reasonable folks... support for Lyndon didn't make much sense.

Recent history of course makes the explanations that conspiracies provide at the very least seem attractive in some ways (even if bonkers)...</comment></comment></comment>


No more $4 coffee shop work permits -- remember libraries? - <AUTHOR> http://dthink.ashaelizabethgupta.com/post/18502686217/dear-mayor-bloomberg-please-turn-all-libraries-into

<comment><USER2> I get the sentiment, but this is entirely wrong-headed. The author is aiming for a land-grab of libraries?

It sounds like the author wants to displace a good (but admittedly underutilized) public service because the coffee shops in the East Village are too busy!

Maybe your library in the East Village is empty, but not every neighborhood shares the same demographics. 200th street off Dykman has a library that remains busy throughout the day.

There is another in Brooklyn (Cortelyou Rd) with a large Russian section, also frequented through the day.

Secondly, allowing people to bring in food and drink is a recipe for disaster. You create a problem with pests, rodents, and the smell. Oh, the SMELL!

Do yourself a favor -- if you are actually making money from your remote lap- topping then go find a co-working space. $300 a month (or so) is a good deal, and it is great for networking.

</comment><comment><USER3> I agree with what you say, but this

> _[. . .] while aisles of dust-collecting books are taking up precious public > space nearby?_

is unlikely to be helpful, and is likely to be harmful, for your message.</comment>