Facebook Isn't Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/facebook-isnt-sorry-it-just-wants-your-data <comment><USER2> It's very simple: As a consumer, we cannot trust any advertisement company. Their goals are in direct conflict with user privacy. In fact it's not a wishful goal, it _is_ their business model.

Our attention is very expensive and everything is designed around us to grab us by the neck so to speak. Flashing ads, stories and feeds.

I cannot, absolutely cannot, trust Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook, Visa, Amex, MasterCard, etc. These businesses bullshit their way through with "We want to make the world a better place by connecting people." Yes, that's great. So charge us for your service and stop forcing me to view ads, selling off my privacy into a giant bidding war of advertisers. Fuck advertisement.

Apple is an exception and I hope they continue to charge premium for their products. I'm happy to shell out money for privacy. But you never know when a multi billion dollar company all of a sudden decides to take a different route. Tim Cook has great personal ethics but we don't know about the next CEO.

Mark my words: The next big successful companies will be around user privacy. Apple has started to market themselves as such already in their keynotes. Duckduckgo is selling it as their main value proposition.

Edit from comments below: Amazon, Walmart, Sears, Netflix, Visa, Amex, MC.

<comment><USER3> Curious as to how you lump Adobe in with that group. Last I checked they just wanted everyone to buy photoshop, did something change?

EDIT: Damn, F Adobe

<comment><USER4> Adobe has a massive DMP ("Data Management Platform.")

I recommend taking some time to research DMPs and their place ad-tech ecosystem, if you're not aware about them, and be prepared to shit your pants at what they know about you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe there's an opportunity here for someone to do to Facebook what Craigslist did to print newspapers. What people want is a way to keep in touch with their friends. But that's not a big revenue generator. So the "social networks" put in ads, "sponsored tweets", and other crap. Then users get fed up and leave. (Doubling down on ads as the number of users drops is called "pulling a Myspace").

A basic friends-only system isn't that expensive to run. A low-budget operation like Craigslist could do it with a modest staff. A low fee or infrequent ads could bring in enough revenue to keep it running.

<comment><USER6> _> A basic friends-only system isn't that expensive to run. _

The expense depends on what the baseline for "basic" is.

I believe today's average consumer would want _basic_ features to include photos and video sharing. (This consumer expectation having been conditioned by previous $0/month social networks like Facebook.) Needless to say, this requires expensive datacenters with petabytes of harddrives. Rising storage infrastructure costs and was the #1 driver of Facebook costs in 2006. It may still be today. I don't know. I believe storage is still Snapchat's biggest cost component of Google Cloud payments.

So either run a text version of a social network or put storage limits to keep the social network "cheap" to run. My guess is that the _typical_ non-HN type of user would prefer the ads so it's still $0 per month with the ability to share lots of baby photos.

<comment><USER5> Good point.

Now a "Freemium" app might work. Text is free. Pictures up to a limit are free. A few seconds of video with an expiration time is free. More pictures, longer video, and long term storage all cost.

Fortnite is "freemium", and bringing in over $1BN a year without ads.

<comment><USER7> I've been thinking about this myself. Small bits of text is free. The occasional photo is free. Maybe not video.

You could also treat brand pages as what they really are: advertising. Charge them a weekly/yearly fee to have the ability to run such a page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I only largely use Facebook for the events calendar anymore. Big brands and community groups use that part of the site heavily for event promotion. If we want Facebook to become obsolete, we would need to create a comparable event promotion experience elsewhere. So far, though, I've only seen inroads into discovering events already being promoted. The real money is disrupting how events are promoted so the customer doesn't have to do any "discovery" what so ever.

<comment><USER8> My apologies for the accusatory tone but aren't you kind-of proving the point of the article? Keeping your Facebook account because of the events calendar means you place more value in convenience than you do privacy, Facebook knows it, and they're not going to change.

<comment><USER9> Wouldn't facebook already have his data anyways even if he deleted his account? I thought they were even making shadow profiles of people who didn't exist?

So if he's not adding new information the only info he's giving them is by what events he clicks which is still valuable.

And then of course if he browses the web with the facebook cookie that probably gives them a significant amount of browser habits, no? Which i feel like really doesn't get enough attention.

<comment><USER8> I don't think the answer is to just give up. Sure they have shadow accounts. But that data gets stale after you delete your account. And you can hasten that by blocking Facebook domains so that they can't track your movements around the web.

<comment><USER9> I wasn't saying it was, I was saying maybe said person has figured to himself his event clicking patterns are worth giving up in exchange for the service fb provides that they clearly find of value.

If they add nothing to their profile, and don't browse the web with facebook cookies aren't they not really losing much of worth? If they've made the conscientious decision that event data is worth the events calendar?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Facebook is the most consistent company I've ever encountered. They have never really changed and have always hit the same notes over and over.

Remember the beacon fiasco? That was the start of the pattern, the fact that they were so baffled by everyone's reaction was so amazing to me that was the month I deleted my account and never looked back. But they haven't changed one bit since 2007.

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

</comment><comment><USER11> It appears the Facebook Apology Tour continues.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-mark- zuckerber...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-mark-zuckerberg- apology-reporter-interview_us_5ac53e06e4b0aacd15b80dc4)

</comment><comment><USER12> Don't use Facebook, as simple as that. Prefer decentralized social networks if you need them, ones that aren't built around profiting on your profile.

<comment><USER13> > decentralized social networks

I'm sorry but what would the point of this be? A social network is only as useful as it's centralization.

<comment><USER12> Nope, decentralized doesn't mean disconnected. It means it's not owned or controlled by any one entity and runs on many independent but connected nodes.

<comment> dawid-s Some examples?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are many people who will still use all the stuff Facebook releases, even though they will know about the data collection things. The world is becoming a creepy place to live, with zero anonymity

</comment><comment><USER15> But it comes with a camera cover so it doesn't invade your privacy!

</comment><comment><USER16> So what would be next great wave of internet companys, that doesn't profit on your data? Actually just data storage with strong private encryption?

<comment><USER17> What about something like Patreon? There probably needs to be a social and cultural shift (i.e. not just technology) to make micropayment "marketplaces" for creators and content actually viable, but I would actually reasonably bet that this is one probable way forward.

<comment><USER18> I look at Patreon profiles for pretty popular YouTube channels, and rarely do I see them pulling in more than a few hundred bucks a month.

I can only assume they earn most of their money via YT Monetization or with their own ads in video.

<comment><USER19> The few channels I contribute to earn enough to live on. Here's a couple:

[https://www.patreon.com/CaptainDisillusion/overview](https://www.patreon.com/CaptainDisillusion/overview) ($11,471/month)

[https://www.patreon.com/GameMakersToolkit/overview](https://www.patreon.com/GameMakersToolkit/overview) ($9,882/month)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is it your data that it wants or your attention?

<comment><USER16> Data can be used to get attention. So data first, then however they can monetize that.

<comment><USER21> Attention is then, in-turn, used to get data. It's a lucrative feedback loop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I deleted my Instagram and Facebook two weeks ago after being a member since Facebook's .EDU only days.

I urge men and women of good conscious to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER23> $COMPANY Isn't Sorry, it Just wants your Money; whats the difference?

</comment><comment><USER24> While the general conclusion is correct, this angst-ridden blog post posing as a news article wouldn't get past the most generous editor a few decades ago. It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some.

<comment><USER25> > It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some. I > think it's fine to differentiate between their fluff and opinion pieces, and > some genuinely excellent investigative reporting. Why do we need to simplify > to "legitimate" or "not legitimate"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This headline really says it all, there's not much more to add. George Orwell's Big Brother looks quaint in comparison, besides the fact that the populace consists mainly of believers and fans.

If there has ever been a case for the existence of Free Will, FB membership only supports it. Human freedom is not proven by the great and lofty choices we make, but by the truly shitty and questionable ones.</comment>


Zero Tolerance Policies Put Students In The Hands Of Bad Cops - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130722/18401023892/zero-tolerance-policies-put-students-hands-bad-cops.shtml

<comment><USER3> "Zero tolerance" is essentially a legitimate sounding way to reject "Let the punishment fit the crime."

<comment><USER4> Indeed. I live in Northern Ireland; not a place known for its entirely peaceful neighbourhoods. But even here I would be shocked about a police officer arresting a student for starting a waterfight for example, even if it did result in damage to property that was not excessive. I have colleagues who wonder why I wouldn't want to move, along with my family, to the US for work.

<comment><USER5> I'd like to say that most people have common sense, wherever in the world they happen to be, and that these stories are only news-worthy because they're rare.

<comment><USER6> But these extremes have recalibrated people's expectations of what's acceptable. Is it okay to have police in schools if they're not zip-tieing children?

I think it's baffling to have police officers stationed in schools.

<comment><USER7> Here's the thing: I don't think Europeans can appreciate how totally and prevasively dysfunctional our inner cities are.[1] Inner city schools are rife with gang activity. Teenagers shoot each other up all the time (usually not directly in the school though, but the fights that lead to shooting often start there). Just last month in Chicago, a woman was shot in the chest while holding a child because a gun fight broke out on an alley by an elementary school.[2] Posting police might not be the best response, but its not baffling. Who the hell would want to teach at some south side Chicago schools without an armed police officer nearby?

And when the suburbanites hear about kids accidentally getting shot in gang hits in parks,[3] they want police in their schools too, never mind that the dangers are far less there.

[1] Chicago is the deadliest major (1m+) city in the U.S., with ~18-20 murders per 100k people per year. But it pales in comparison to small/mid-sized U.S. cities like Wilmington, DE (38 per 100k), New Orleans (53 per 100k), or Flint (65 per 100k). In comparison, London is 1.4 per 100k, Berlin 1.0 per 100k, Toronto 1.7 per 100k, and Paris is a hell-hole at 4.4 per 100k. In the neighborhoods where getting shot is a real threat, the murder rate is far higher than the above numbers per capita.

The list of top 50 world cities by murder rate has U.S. cities like St. Louis hanging among company that is almost entirely cities in Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Iraq, and South Africa, or Honduras: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate). Compounding the average rates is the highly segregated nature of violence in American cities. As an aside, this is apparently mostly just a list of battlefields for the drug war. Except Detroit and Mosul, which I think are not so much on major drug trade routes like say Baltimore, but rather are simply parts of failed states...

[2] Last year, 319 Chicago Public School students were shot, 24 fatally so: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26/news/ct-met- cp...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26/news/ct-met-cps-student- violence-0625-20120626_1_cps-students-students-shot-safe-haven-program).

[3] [http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/chicago-girl-who- performed...](http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/chicago-girl-who-performed-at- obamas-inauguration-killed-in-shooting).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how much the massive adoption of zero tolerance policies has to do with the name "zero tolerance" itself. It sounds indisputable. Why should we tolerate things like weapons or drugs in schools? Those things are bad. If you're against "zero tolerance" of them, it sounds like you're in favor of tolerating them.

The truth is that there are many ways of not tolerating those things, and "zero tolerance" is an extreme one that causes harm. If it were named more accurately—"extreme enforcement", say—this would be easier to see.

<comment><AUTHOR> Until 1947, the United States had a Secretary of War. Now we have a Secretary of Defense. A lot can be hidden in a name.

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

<comment><USER9> The renaming of the Secretary of War to "Secretary of Defense" has an interesting history that is not at all to do with manipulation of the language, but rather the fact that the War Department and the Navy were separate bureaucracies prior to WWII.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I cannot think of a single occasion where zero tolerance is not the drum beat of the fool.

<comment><USER11> How about zero tolerance for police misconduct? How about zero tolerance for appointed government servant's lying to Congress?

After all, these individuals should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us if they want to impose their will upon us without our explicit approval.

<comment><USER12> > _police misconduct_

How about an officer who has to break the law/procedure to expose corruption or save someone's life?

Life is rarely so black-and-white; zero tolerance strips us of our ability to use reason and discretion based on the arrogant assumption that our rules and procedures are perfect and infallible, which is just silly.

<comment><USER13> If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario. As for exposing corruption or being a whistleblower, there are many who want to modify laws to make it easier(Infact, Obama's stance on it during his elections is a prominent example.), but by definition, whistleblowers are fighting against the more powerful and/or the rich which has made it a losing battle.

<comment><USER12> > _If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault._

Yes, this is precisely the point. Zero-tolerance assumes that the law cannot be at fault, when we know full well that it can be. Ergo, until the law is perfect and unerring, zero tolerance is flawed.

<comment><USER14> Doesn't the notion that [any system less complex than the cosmos] is never wrong violate one of the incompleteness theorems anyway?

<comment><USER15> No, it just means that there are things that are true but cannot be proven given the axioms of the system if the system is powerful enough to express Peano arithmetic. It has very little to do with laws, as they don't really prove anything (that is for the jury/judge to do).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This comment sums it up nicely:

"Conditioning the next generation into docile, subservient servants by using fear as a tool."

Yep. At least some students and parents are not being bullied and file lawsuits, which is really the only reason why we even know about these incidents.

<comment><USER17> Police has been using fear for quite some time now. Those who terrorize others in order to obtain their goal are called terrorists by definition. Many police officers are terrorists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Zero tolerance policies are intellectual cowardice in specific, and overall cowardice in general.

There are far too many spineless dolts in charge these days.

</comment><comment><USER14> I probably would not have finished school if this stuff existed in my country at the time. Then again, I remember the school's attempt to put me on Ritalin very vividly -- it ended when my mom flat out decked the school nurse after coming over to discuss it. Do not mess with seemingly gracile Italian moms.

<comment><USER19> That's not great is it? Imagine if your mother was the one 'decked'.

<comment><USER14> It'd have come down to who had the bigger / more militant family, I suspect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Officers appear to have forgotten that they need the support of the population to police, and that without the support of the population they cannot do their job.

Having armed officers in schools feels _bizarre_ , especially taking into account the reduction in violent crime.

> Combined, these two factors have resulted in criminalization of acts that > were once nothing more than violations of school policies, something usually > handled by school administrators.

Even without the severe examples listed in the article this criminalisation of normal teenage behaviour is terrible. Teenagers don't have fully formed brains and haven't learnt how to behave in society. That's why we restrict their abilities to do things (they can't vote, buy alcohol, have sex, join the army, etc etc).

<comment><USER20> Anecdata from one story: "Of the remaining 80 still in the running for a spot in the next police academy, about 60 percent have military experience, Gish said."

The military don't train for the expectation of support of the population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Recommended viewing on this: [http://www.thewaronkids.com/](http://www.thewaronkids.com/)

<comment><USER22> That looks very interesting. Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Zero tolerance means zero thought, zero reason, zero understanding and zero compassion. Why anybody who subscribes to such values would be let anywhere near a school? I'd ban anybody who institutes a "zero tolerance" policy - instead of exercising one's own adult judgement on a case by case basis - <USER2> ever working in education. And of course any such policy should be immediate ground for termination of administrator instituting it - as they're essentially turning themselves into non-thinking robots. Who needs non- thinking robots in charge of schools?

<comment><USER24> > Who needs non-thinking robots in charge of schools?

Somebody does, apparently. At least that's the feeling I get when I see the proliferation of this kind of idiotic policy showing no sign of slowing down. The non-thinking robots in positions of authority and instruction are more likely to churn out non-thinking robots as a result. That may very well be the goal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Makes me wonder how people could be so heartless as to put their children in state indoctrination(slaughter?) camps.

Then again, with the prevalence of physical abuse against young humans, it comes as no surprise that practically nobody cares, and when they do, they rarely take steps to create assurances against it.

What about their parents giving "officers of the law" and politicians unlimited exclusive license to use abusive force against humans, rape children around the world, destroy the power of free economies to mitigate poverty, and improve the health of humans?.

</comment><comment><USER26> Schools are the extreme of wanting to be seen to enforce the rules equally on everybody. Reasons include:

1\. They're government or other not-for-profit organizations.

2\. Unlike others, with which people interact only occasionally, they're experienced for 1000s of hours each by many, many individuals (and vicariously by those individuals' parents). Unequal treatment will be noticed.

3\. Schools think it's part of their MISSION to teach adherence to rules.

The result is inanity.

My favorite dumb example is the girl who wanted her prom date to be her 21-year-old soldier brother, who wasn't allowed because 21-year-olds couldn't be prom dates in general (too old). The whole thing should have been settled with one phone call to his commanding officer, making sure he was under orders not to behave inappropriately. (Why that approach? Because the whole argument for letting him in was that he was a soldier, we should support our troops, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER27> When the history of our time is written, a major theme should be the recursive multiplication of finer and finer rules to regulate what should be handled by common sense and good will.

I do know a kid who got a misdemeanor charge for a hallway scuffle at a public high school. It was settled with probation before judgment and the requirement to attend an anger management course; but it should have been handled by a detention and forgotten. He is now a teacher at the same school, and if he ever goes into administration might bring some needed perspective.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's like they're trying hard to showcase to the future generation that they're living in a police state..

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this is also a side-effect of the private prison system, which constantly needs more and more prisons to have "growth" as a business.

<comment><USER29> Private prisons are a really small part of this as far as I can tell. They e.g. don't touch at all upon the size of police forces and judicial systems, in most places those would have significantly downsized if they'd followed the sharp decrease in crime over the last couple of decades or so.

You might want to check out _Arrest Proof Yourself_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop- Reveals-A...](http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals- Arrested/dp/1556526377/)): it presents a thesis that what I've taken to calling the police-judicial complex needs a steady diet of the "clueless" to keep all those people employed. What this topic discusses would just seem to be extending that.</comment></comment>


I'm looking for a roommate/hacker (bay area) - <AUTHOR> Hey HN,<p>I'm a graduating CS student at a top 3 university taking a year off after graduation (in a couple months) to build a product from start to finish. I have a long list of ideas, and I'm looking for a fellow hacker who's crazy enough to take a risk and join me on this journey. I'm currently living on my own in the bay area in a small space. It's not super comfortable, but I think it's good enough and rent is cheap. If you're interested, shoot me an email with a little about yourself. email -> ahacker1729 at gmail com<p>_ahacker_ <comment><USER2> Why do it in pricey SF. Why not Laos you could spend years there for the same money.

</comment><comment><USER3> Darn, sounds like a cool opportunity but I'm down in LA right now. Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Awesome, I'm doing the same thing this summer, Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER5> What is the product about ?</comment>


I've Just Seen a (DNA-Generated) Face - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/science/dna-generated-faces.html <comment><USER2> Quite interesting however the portraits really have almost no resemblance to the subjects.

Yeah they look kinda "similar" but virtually every facial feature other than base racial feature is incorrect. All of the renderings attempt to pretty much render a racially correct "grey face" which can pretty much fit almost anyone.

Everything else from the shape and position of the eyes, nose bridge, cheekbones, lips etc. doesn't match the real photographs.

I really hope that this doesn't reach law enforcement because those sketches will fit every "average" person in their respective racial group, and it even seem to get the ethnic group wrong in at least 1 out of the 3 renderings...

<comment><USER3> Agreed. It seems like nutrition, illness/disease, and random developmental quirks would all drastically affect the actual shape of a human's face between birth and adulthood. You might be able to predict a range of faces to account for these differences, I guess, but then you have a broad range of faces that might match a broad range of people...

<comment><USER4> WHAT? No! Have you forgotten the fact that identical twins actually look...well, identical? Face features clearly have a very very very very high heritability.

<comment> excuse-me-sir Twins share the same environment in the 1st 9 months, when their faces are formed.

<comment><USER4> Usually yes but that doesn't change the fact that face features are highly hereditary. I find it very hard to believe that someone could try to deny this. It's basic biology really.

What are you suggesting here exactly? What exactly is the environmental trigger in the womb that forms the faces if not genes?

May I kindly remind you about the concept of dizygotic twins, that is, twins that share the womb but do not share an identical genome. Please explain why they don't look identical.

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying faces aren't determined by hereditary factors, only that there are also other factors. Almost all of the 'identical' twins I've seen had subtle differences.

<comment><USER4> Yet those differences are, as you said, subtle, that is, very small. That means that, in the context of this article, there is no huge range of faces we can determine from genes, but the genes (when we know them) actually determine the face very very precisely as proved by identical-twin-resemblance. The predicted faces in the article are fuzzy not because environment has a great impact but because our knowledge of the genes that form our faces is still very limited.

<comment><USER3> The differences between twins who grew up together and were exposed to the same environmental effects were subtle, not necessarily so for the difference between a person and a prediction based on their genome. The comparisons of predictions to real faces from the article showed that (so far) predicted faces miss tons of little details that make people recognizable. Genes do not work in a vacuum, different environmental factors can trigger the use of different genes, and many genes are expressed to varying degrees depending on chance. Say one twin grows up in a nutrient-rich environment while another grows up in a nutrient-poor environment. The nutrient-poor twin will most likely have more developmental issues than the nutrient-rich twin, which can have a wide variety of effects. Perhaps a model trained on more data would be more accurate, but I'll believe it when I see it.

<comment><USER4> Clearly you're unable to calibrate your stubborn beliefs with the fact that two identical genomes produce identical looking people. That is VERY strong evidence that a person's face is almost 100% determined by genes. Stop hand- waving and study more developmental biology.

<comment><USER3> I'm certainly stubborn, but I'm not the only stubborn one here. Unless you're a biologist I probably know at least as much about genetics as you, so we're working from the same level of knowledge. Look up epigenetics. The real world is not as perfect as textbooks and experiments like to pretend. Additionally, I happen to think a lot about adaptive systems (obsessive levels of thought sometimes) so the idea that systems develop differently when exposed to different stimuli or environments is a given to me. Check this out: [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/one-twin- exercises-...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/one-twin-exercises- the-other-doesnt/?_r=0) They took identical twins who had already grown to adulthood together and analyzed differences between the sibling who exercised a lot and the one who didn't. Guess what: they found differences that a genetic analysis would not predict! It's trivial in my mind that two identical twins who grew up in very different environments would look noticeably different due to developmental differences. I don't even know what you're arguing over, I never said faces are not genetically determined, only that other things also affect it. That would be the reason for that "almost" part of your assertion. I'm saying that difference is not negligible, some people look very similar by chance.

A quick search led me to this: [http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/12/26/144282436/th...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/12/26/144282436/the- photographic-fascination-with-twins) Close, but not identical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This happened to me, an artist took the DNA from my github and created my face back in 2013. Cool stuff.

[https://github.com/orta/dna](https://github.com/orta/dna)

<comment><USER6> Do you have a photo of your face in roughly the same pose for comparison? Also, why does the nose look so faceted?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Imagine people with stunted growth or disfigurement as a result of non-genetic circumstance, using a more accurate form of this technology to see what they would have looked like otherwise.

Profoundly sad to think about.

On the other hand, one possible use for such renderings could be to guide reconstructive medical procedures.

</comment><comment><USER8> Environment plays a large role in facial appearance. Weight, diet, habitual emotional expressions, facial hair, to say nothing of acne, injuries, facial exercises (for the muscles in the face) or reconstructive surgery.

Maybe they could divine how close the eyes are or how big the nose is... but even that doesn't seem terribly accurate from these picture. I suppose the technique will get better soon enough, but I doubt anything approaching publicly recognizable accuracy will be achieved by this method alone.

<comment><USER9> The inaccuracy can't be solely attributed to environment. Many identical twins who share identical DNA that are separated at birth still share remarkably similar facial features. If two faces generated by identical strands of DNA in the real world remain identical, despite being grown in different environments then an accurate simulation of DNA should reproduce an accurate face regardless of environment.

The inaccuracy arrives from the black box statistical process they use to generate the face. They don't know the full story behind how billions of strands of DNA can scaffold a physical face made out of billions of cells, nerves and blood vessels.

Instead they just measure a bunch of faces relate it back to certain known attributes in the DNA and then generate a face. This process will always be inaccurate. In short they treat the system like a black box and build a simulation of the black box by only establishing correlations between input and output.

Imagine if some alien race used this type of process in attempt to analyze the linux operating system running on a computer. They measure the electrical output of each pixel in the monitor and they find statistical correlations between pixel configurations in the monitor and the arrangement of bits in the cpu register. Using this process the Aliens can only gain a very flawed understanding of what's actually happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Silly me, I thought everybody's face was DNA-generated...

</comment><comment><USER11> Those are the results with a training set of 7000, I imagine it would get spookily accurate with a 50K training set.

<comment><USER12> Where'd you get that number?

<comment><USER11> Just a guess. The faces were pretty close but for a few angles here and there.

<comment><USER12> I couldn't figure out what a training set of any size would even mean. Taking X number of DNA sequences paired with real photographs, and then extrapolating to DNA sequences without a photograph? That might do something interesting if someone tried it, but I don't think it's that kind of technique at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's another story about the technology's accuracy and its application in law enforcement, here:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/science/building-face- and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/science/building-face-and-a-case- on-dna.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been waiting to see something like this, it's very neat (if somewhat unrefined).

Now apply OldBooth and we'll be able to see what our babies will look like. Brave New World here we come!

<comment><USER15> I think it will need another 5 years of development before we can get even near that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wanted to do something similar last year, but I figured that I'd need a lot of input data to classify on facial features. Where do people get the input data?

<comment><USER17> The article notes that they used data from 23andme, a commercial DNA profiling service that is $100.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My gut reaction to this was so what we've all seen DNA generated faces our whole lives... and nobody finds that in any way remarkable...

<comment><USER17> The old way took tens of years and a couple hundred thousands of dollars in food and board. Plus there is no way in nature to take a DNA sample left at a crime scene and turn that into a rendering of a face.

Now it can be done with $100 worth of DNA analysis and a few minutes of compute time.</comment></comment>


The Media Attacks On Facebook And Mark Zuckerberg Are Getting Out Of Hand - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/13/the-media-attacks-on-facebook-and-mark-zuckerberg-are-getting-out-of-han

<comment><USER2> This was published one day before _"Your public facebook status updates? Now publicly searchable outside Facebook"_ :

[http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/05/14/your-public-facebook- sta...](http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/05/14/your-public-facebook-status- updates-now-publicly-searchable-outside-facebook/)

Pot, meet kettle.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm 19 and I know better than to make such foolish cavalier statements. Why shouldn't I take his inappropriate approach to personal Harvard information and assume that he is willing to do similar things at Facebook.

God knows from past stories that they lack the internal controls to prevent abuse of private information and as I've ranted recently on HN, the blantant abuse of user trust in regard to privacy is enough to warrant any and all scrutiny of both Facebook and Zuckerberg himself.

I can't believe that TechCrunch is arguing that Facebook respecting free speech (via the Holocaust Deniers) is bad, but is defending the fact that my privacy settings were laxxed at someone's command other than my own, and that I was opted into Instant Personalization (which over the course of 2 days added half a dozen apps with access to my personal information to my account). I really don't appreciate Queerty being linked to my account or my account being accessible to Queerty, for a vast variety of reasons.</comment>


Looking back at 2011: 'The year of the tablet' falls flat - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/26/looking-back-at-2011-the-year-of-the-tablet-falls-flat/

<comment><USER2> I think the tablet market will either be completely turned upside down when Windows 8 comes out, or iOS will just keep dominating. I hate to say it, but right now it looks like Android is only successful on phones, and it doesn't look like that is changing anytime soon. Come CES 2012 though, I may have to eat my own words.</comment>


The growing evidence on Vitamin D and Covid - <AUTHOR> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-growing-evidence-on-vitamin-d-and-covid <comment><USER2> We weren't really designed to avoid the sun. I had a friend studying to become a nurse many years ago. He told me people get sick more in the winter time because of less exposure to the sun. Either being covered up more to stay warm, being indoor all day during the winter, all of these factors contribute to a lower vitamin D intake.

If people exposed themselves to sunlight more in the winter months, they may be lower risk of things like colds or the flu.

<comment> skookum-skuad Anecdotal, unscientific nonsense. UV is no bueno.

</comment></comment><comment> skookum-skuad Daily: Ca 1200 mg + Mg 80 mg + vitamin d3 6000 IU (150 mcg) + k2-7 100 mcg.

No kidney stones and minimizes osteoarthritis/porosis.</comment>


The Birth of Pong - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/the_invention_of_pong_how_nolan_bushnell_launched_the_video_game_industry.single.html

<comment><USER2> An absolutely great book on Atari from formation to breakup is "Atari inc. Business is fun" which includes scans of old advertisements and even contracts from the time period.

</comment><comment><USER3> First thing I read when I hit the article is "One of Pong's most ingenious features was its simplicity."

I am pretty sure that was more to do with the technology of the era, and not some amazing design decisions.</comment>


Why Bitcoin Matters for Africa - <AUTHOR> http://www.ariannasimpson.com/bitcoin-matters-africa/ <comment><USER2> This article was well written and thought provoking, but the title should be changed to "Why Bitcoin Matters for Zimbabwe."

The current title makes the article sound like a generalization about all the economies in a continent.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. And hyperinflation is terrible when it happens, but quite rare in modern economies. Double-digit declines in bitcoin values are, however, quite common. It would be profoundly irresponsible to encourage the poor of Africa to make the switch at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hard to take this article seriously when the first few paragraphs are talking about the hyperinflation of the currency of Zimbabwe, then trying to rectify that with bitcoin, which can fluctuate hundreds of USD in the span of a couple of hours.

It specifically mentions M-Pesa, which is already used by the majority of the continent, but trying to improve and go all-in on something established and accepted like that wouldn't be web 2.0 enough.

<comment><USER5> She lost me when she said Yugoslavia was a continent, also Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore.

<comment><USER6> Yugoslavia did exist at the point in time when they had hyperinflation, which is what I was referencing. For the record, I certainly do not think Yugoslavia, Angola OR Peru or are continents. I just rephrased to make that more clear. Thanks for your input!

<comment><USER7> You list five countries, only two of which are in Africa, and yet you generalize your prescription to one continent. You do know there are some 52 other countries/economies in Africa?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bitcoin matters for Africa, and all other continents... and this article contains a lot of nonsense. Yes, Zimbabwe's hyperinflation was caused in part by printing money - but it seems a grossly unfair simplification to present that as the root cause of Zimbabwe's economic woes. To quote:

 _Gideon Gono, governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, increased the supply of money enormously against the advice of economists, but with full support from President (read: dictator) Robert Mugabe. As any basic textbook of economics posits, the Zimbabwean dollar fell in value and hyperinflation followed_

Also:

 _in many cases this was caused by impulsive, foolish "human error" in the form of printing money without thought for the consequences_

It sound's like we're blaiming the whole thing on stupid Zimbabweans (too stupid to read a basic textbook!) who ignored the advice of their western advisors.

Let's not forget that until 1980, Zimbabwe was ruled by a white minority apartheid government. The country that Mugabe's ZANU party inherited was one where a few thousand white farmers owned the majority of all the fertile land in the country. Mugabe's land reform policies were badly implemented and caused the collapse of the country's food production, which seems to have to led to the collapse of the banking sector. On top of that their economy had to deal with sanctions from the US and EU. By the time Zimbabweans were printing money, their economy was already in a dire situation.

Anyway, the gist of this article is that stupid economic policy can lead to hyperinflation. Ok. So why the generalization about Africa? Does the author think that stupid economic policy is something common to African countries? Does the author know that the IMF is predicting that four of the world's six fastest-growing economies will be in sub-Saharan Africa this year? [1]

Incidently the article doesn't mention the one area in which I think Bitcoin will be very useful for large parts of Africa: remittances [2].

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/21588896-some-worlds- fastest-g...](http://www.economist.com/news/21588896-some-worlds-fastest- growing-economies-2014-will-be-africa-digging-deeper)

[2] [http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/hello-bitcoin-goodbye- weste...](http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/hello-bitcoin-goodbye-western- union-future-remittance-could-be-digital)

<comment><USER3> I've become skeptical about bitcoin for remittances. The biggest cost in remittance architecture isn't the electronic transfer, but distributing cash. Western Union, e.g., maintains a network of over 1 million agents - banks, post offices, dry goods stores, mobile top-up kiosks, etc. - so that recipients, often in rural areas, can collect their cash. Bitcoin does nothing to reduce these costs.

(Unless you're assuming recipients in Africa et al. will keep their money in bitcoin, which is ridiculous at this point, and will be for many, many years.)

<comment><USER8> I think the solution to the distribution challenge is already here: mobile money. It's huge in Kenya and on the rise here in Rwanda and other neighbouring countries. Bitcoin would serve only to get the remittance to an in-country distributor, at which point it would be converted to local currency and delivered via mobile money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Since bitcoin is a decentralized currency that is controlled by algorithms rather than one or a small handful of individuals, there is no option to simply "print more money". This precludes governments from instituting reckless monetary policies and subverting entire economies on little more than a whim._

Countries will just have fiscal rather than monetary disasters in such situations. Look at Greece. Really, hyperinflation is a pretty rare occurrence - obviously it's bad, but bitcoin boosters and gold bugs seem to think it's practically the norm or that all fiat currencies eventually fall victim to it. This is simply not the case.

<comment><USER10> What's more, governments usually don't wake up one morning and decide to start hyperinflation out of the blue. Instead, hyperinflation is usually the result of economic disasters that came before.

In fact, I would "fix" what you wrote, because the fiscal disasters are typically a required precondition for the monetary disasters. When using Bitcoin, the countries might be limited to fiscal disasters, but - as the example of Greece shows - those are the real problem anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please tell me more about how Bitcoin (an _electronic_ currency) matters for a country with very poor internet connectivity and constant power outages.

Furthermore the country has abandoned its native currency and is using USD/GBP/ZAR in any case.

Economic freedom is irrelevant when there is a gun being held to your head [in a very literal sense].

Disclaimer: I lived there for 14 years of my life, and visit my family there often.

</comment><comment><USER12> The 'no central bank' concept in bitcoin is interesting academically to economists and people with strong opinions on the matter. IMO, it's not the most important part of bitcoin for countries like Zimbabwe or other developing economies.

(1)Bitcoin is a long way from being a steady, safe currency that solves currency instability problems. (2) I don't think it's all that different from simply using foreign currency, which is what people in countries with a failing currency do.

IMO what _is_ interesting about bitcoin and bitcoin in developing countries in particular are its basic advantages: digital, transaction cost free cash. This may open up the door to all kinds of activities held back by the non access to financial services. Remittances, long distance commerce, saving, etc. Remember the splash microlending made? A lot of later studies (after the initial noble prizes and mass interest) found that micro-loans acted as (poor) substitutes for other basic financial services like savings or insurance. It's hard to save when everyone in your tight knit extended family is broke and owed favors. You just can't keep your penny jar tucked away. But, paying back your loan is not optional so microloans are the only way of doing big ticket purchases, even if interest rates are very high.

Financial infrastructure is important. If bitcoin (or similar) can be used to build low cost financial services available everywhere it will have made a big difference. The hyperinflation stuff is very theoretical for the near future and uncertain in the farther off future.

Links on this page are a good reference for the academic thoughts on microfinance and financial services as development tools during the recent 3-4 surge in interest on the topic: [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/munger_on_micro.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/munger_on_micro.html)

*Even though there doesn't tend to be a lot of talk about savings as a way out of poverty, I think that thinking back on many of the old anecdotes from now developed economies, those people credited savings as a way of making progress on their family's financial situation.

</comment><comment><USER13> The GPU's burden. Infrastructure intense script kiddie toy currency to enlighten technically deprived cultures of Africa. Funny how Africa's problems will enrich the hoarding kiddies.

</comment><comment><USER14> An article about digital currency and Africa and not a single mention of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?

[http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global- Development...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global- Development/Financial-Services-for-the-Poor)

Also this: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1xj56q/hello_reddit_im...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1xj56q/hello_reddit_im_bill_gates_cochair_of_the_bill/cfbsaof)

</comment><comment><USER15> yes, bitcoin's slow-inflation-soon-to-become-deflation is preferable to hyperinflation. no, slow-inflation-soon-to-become-deflation is not preferable to a well-managed economy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Bitcoin for Africe would require a lite-client implemented in J2ME. Afaik not available so far.

[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103290.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103290.0)

Edit: Also, p2p in general sucks, if you have no reliable internet, power outages, and low connectivity.

</comment><comment><USER17> A fundamental flaw in many people's understanding of bitcoin's "advantages" is this notion of "not printing money" being a uniquely good idea.

Yes, extremely bad monetary policy is worse than having no monetary policy (as in the bitcoin economy). But the case of no monetary policy being better than even a moderately bad monetary policy is much harder to make.

I also don't see why so many people believe that there won't ever be an increase in the money supply from bitcoins. With a growing market capitalization and growing number of businesses dependend on Bitcoin, financial services and products around btc are becoming more common. Virtually no contracts, even in the bitcoin world, are instantaneous, thus investment banking will evolve and distort the idea of a new gold standard.

</comment><comment><USER18> So now the country with the worse case of hyperinflation of may be the last 30 years is somehow representative of a continent of 50 countries ?

Anyway.

Capital flight (especially unearned capital) has been a more common issue for much longer. I'm not sure how making that problem worse would help.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Zimbabwe suffered from the second worst hyperinflation on record; it reached an absurd 231,000,000% in the summer of 2008. That means that the price of goods doubled every 25 hours."

Unless the hyperinflation lasted only about 3 weeks, then that statement is obviously wrong. 2^21 * 100 = 209,715,200

<comment><USER20> Yep, should be every 35 hours.

I think they got a bit confused - in Aug 2008 the inflation was up to 471,000,000,000%, which _is_ roughly doubling every 25 hours

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Enabling peer-to-peer transactions - whether via bitcoin in its current form or a successor - opens up economies for untold millions without stable, trustworthy or conventional banking. Most people, even in the third world, have access to cell phones.

<comment><USER22> This is why I am impressed with Ripple. They are not interested in creating an alternative currency. They are solely about facilitating peer-to-peer transactions. And it doesn't require mining or proof-of-work. They compare it to SMTP for payments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> BS...</comment>


Nazar: Analyzing malware that was uncovered in leaked NSA files - <AUTHOR> https://research.checkpoint.com/2020/nazar-spirits-of-the-past/ <comment><USER2> I believe the use of open source tools to accomplish their tasks is interesting. Using "living off the land" open source tools also hinders researchers when trying to attribute an attack to a certain country.

I found malware that was installed remotely on to millions of Android users under the government "Life Line" program that also used readily available open-source code found on GitHub.

The malware used an open sourced virtualization shared object library (.so) named "VirtulApp" and also an open source software development kit called "TalkingData"

Both code sources were found on GitHub.

The malware in question hides its icon from the users screen but can be found under Settings/Apps but shows an icon for a well-known "Antivirus/Cleaner" app that has been removed from the Google Play store many times. The malware also shares much of the cleaner app's SDK's and excessive permissions.

The malicious app also contains several encrypted files in its assests directory that are decrypted into executable java .jar files to expand it's functionality.

Kaspersky Labs names this particular malware variant "Necro"

5a5ab39960d3b96be2b8bbea99477e6f

<comment><USER3> > I believe the use of open source tools to accomplish their tasks is > interesting. Using "living off the land" open source tools also hinders > researchers when trying to attribute an attack to a certain country.

That is one conclusion. But, given that there seems to be a significant amount of code that's custom (the filesystem module), I'm not sure what that would accomplish. If that too was opensource and there was a tiny amount of glue code, then it would make some sense. Leave the most suspicious hooks(like all input device monitoring) to well known tools.

Based on the report, it is more likely that whoever group created it didn't have much knowledge. Using the Shutdown Alarm and pissing all over the system just to accomplish such a tiny task is difficult to justify, and that's what drew undue attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The cultural significance of the name is pretty ironic: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazar_(amulet)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazar_\(amulet\))

<comment><USER5> Researchers usually pick a name when they have started looking at a collection of samples, and don't really have knowledge of what is going on or who the threat actor is yet.

The authors call it خضر, a guardian angel type from the Quran that shares secret knowledge.

<comment><USER6> It is also the Arabic for the adjective green (plural) and the name comes from Arabic as well, and a prophet some i even heard some suggest is Buddha, in addition to other more obvious Wikipedia suggestions.

That aside, this is what drives me nuts about threat Intel: we use enough googlable Persian words and give enough hints we know Persian in our code and opsec and people have a full dossier that confirms we're Iranians? I assume there is more depth to their claims but you have to work for the reporting company to know it which makes the whole subset of the industry dubious if you ask me (but we know no one is, lol).

<comment><USER7> you forgot the most common meaning : vegetables :) you know hackers can be silly sometimes

<comment><USER8> That explains why it's being used for the root directory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Territorial Dispute

      def path_normalize(path):
          try:
              path = re.sub('%(.+)%', (lambda m: ('%{0}%'.format(m.group(1)) if (m.group(1) not in datastore.ENV_VARS) else datastore.ENV_VARS[m.group(1)])), path)
          except:
              tedilog.error(...)
          return path

What a terrible way to write

      return re.sub(r'%(.+)%', lambda m: datastore.ENV_VARS.get(m.group(1), m.group(0)), path)

<comment><USER10> Does yours catch the exception?

<comment><USER9> Apparently I didn't include the parts that don't need to be changed. (Actually, with the correct input type, this piece of code shouldn't raise any exception period other than BaseExcept like KeyboardInterrupt, which usually shouldn't be caught like this either. So I would omit the try...except myself.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So if I want the USA out of my system, all I have to do is create some dummy exes, dlls and regkeys on my system?

<comment><USER12> W-what if you use Linux? :B

<comment><USER13> use Wine.

<comment><USER14> I'm sure the Linux kernel would never be compromised by state actors, even if a retired US Army general was on the board of directors[1] of the most popular Linux distro, or that the US' most infosec oriented intel agency didn't come up with the main method for RBAC with it[2]. Or that hardware and the numerous bits of firmware that control it would ever get back-doored by any state actor!

"OpenBSD co-founder Theo de Raadt, cited as a top el8 target, angrily refused to discuss the compromise in late July of a file server maintained by the open-source, Unix-based operating-system project. On Aug. 1, a dangerous Trojan horse program was discovered amid the code for OpenBSD, which is used by thousands of organizations and renowned for its security.

While de Raadt wouldn't comment on whether there were any suspects in the case, the lead article in the latest el8 newsletter, published in early July, contains an obvious smoking gun. The article begins with several lines of screen-display from what appears to be an OpenBSD.org system. The "w-command" output suggests that attackers had access to one of de Raadt's accounts."[3]

[1][https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press- releases/shelton](https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/shelton)

[2][https://www.nsa.gov/what-we- do/research/selinux/documentatio...](https://www.nsa.gov/what-we- do/research/selinux/documentation/)

[3][https://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/acmnews/msg00221.html](https://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/acmnews/msg00221.html)

<comment><USER15> And there's the time someone did try to sneak something into an open source kernel [1].

The cool thing is, anyone can audit the kernels any time, and even if Theo's or Linus's accounts get compromised, the backdoor will be observable by everyone.

Try that with Windows: we have no idea what's in there, we never will, and MS has zero incentive to tell us.

1\. [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux- backdoor-...](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor- attempt-of-2003/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Biblical OS made by a mentally ill person - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS <comment><USER2> This is pretty interesting. People can do amazing things. I remember hearing about his death on here but didn't realize what he built was so unique.</comment>


Amazon Order Search is BROKEN - Tech Wog - <AUTHOR> http://techwog.tumblr.com/post/17775190554/amazon-order-search-is-broken <comment><USER2> Why on Earth would someone use dark gray text on a darker gray background.</comment>


Ask HN: Project Management site I can submit tasks via email? - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone have suggestions for a project management software site/suite that allows me to submit tasks via email/SMS? The problem with the current models that I've tried (Zoho, Basecamp) is that I have to stop my thought process, wait for the pages to load, login, and then I can enter my info. I just want to fire an email off and have it be added to a project.<p>I did a search in google and found this: Wrike (http://www.wrike.com/benefits-for-executives.jsp). They actually have what a want - they call it "Wrike's Intelligent Email Engine (tm)" (Whew - glad you trademarked that!). They seem reasonable - has anyone used? <comment><USER2> I'm not a very big fan of Remember of Milk (I think their UI is super over- complex) but someone very nontechnical was just mentioning to me that they support email. This is notable, because nontechnical people almost never talk to others about cool technology -- so it must work well enough to be notable.

[http://www.rememberthemilk.com/help/answers/sending/emailinb...](http://www.rememberthemilk.com/help/answers/sending/emailinbox.rtm)

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://lighthouseapp.com> has an excellent email to task/bug feature. This is what I currently use.

<http://www.acunote.com> also supports the creation of tasks via email, which is good if you're doing agile type stuff, but it's accepted format is a bit clunky.

</comment><comment><USER4> Depending on what you consider to be "Project Management Software", Joel Spolsky's FogBugz (<http://www.fogcreek.com/FogBUGZ/>) will let you submit tasks via email.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, all :) Going to check them all out now</comment>


Ask HN: Is YC AI track still active? - <AUTHOR> I just learned about YC AI track.
I never seen any link for it before though.<p>Is it still active?
our startup is chatbot AI for Arabic. <comment><USER2> Probably sunsetted like their bio track.</comment>


Don't look now, but Valve just humiliated your "corporate culture" - <AUTHOR> https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/dont-look-now-but-valve-just-humiliated-your-corporate-culture/

<comment><USER2> RE: letting people go wherever they want, whenever they want

How does one keep this from looking like a bunch of 3rd graders playing soccer? ie, mobbing ?

That coaching challenge seems to be the crux of the matter.

edit: phrasing

<comment><USER3> Valve doesn't hire children to play soccer, they hire adults to build games.

<comment><USER2> _Anyone_ can take an undifferentiated group of people [Adults!] in any industry and "let them do what they want". In fact, if _everyone_ did this and there had to be a winner, this would be _the_ "winning strategy"! [Congratulations!].

Good luck with your next iteration.</comment></comment></comment>


BlueKeep exploit to be shared publicly after 100 stars on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueKeep/comments/bu47lm/bluekeep_exploit_to_be_shared_publicly_after_100/ <comment><AUTHOR> AKA - A lesson in social engineering.

Last week they were asking for 50 stars, and it's at 90 now.</comment>


Mindfulness and meditation can worsen depression and anxiety - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251840-mindfulness-and-meditation-can-worsen-depression-and-anxiety/ <comment><USER2> Future research can examine what can be done to make mindfulness beneficial to the few individuals who do not benefit from standard programs. Is it possible that they need to attain a particular ground level of mindfulness before engaging in formal practices? Could engaging in yoga or tai chi (or even exercise) before engaging in formal mindfulness classes help them? Can we do something about better training teachers? These are questions to ask in future research – just like we ask how to we can engage people to exercise (without getting injured as a result of falls, etc.)</comment>


Largest US radio company iHeartMedia files for bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/iheartmedia-files-for-bankruptcy.html <comment><USER2> Really happy to hear this. These guys have such a massive hold on US radio stations, we might finally get some more variety in music selection and programming now that they're out of the picture.

<comment><USER3> Isn't the most likely scenario here that another large media conglomerate (i.e. Sinclair Media, CBS, etc) buys their assets and makes the media landscape even more consolidated? I hope not, but don't have much faith here.</comment></comment>


Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/09/swallow-the-lot-and-swallow-it-now-britain-is-and-was-deluded-about-its-negotiating-power-with-the-eu/ <comment><USER2> Delusions are hard to get rid of. Leave campaigned on lies, voters swallowed them, and the government is now bound to try and live by those lies.

Like all delusions, this will continue to entrench itself against reason. When the negotiators fail to reach their delusional goal, the deluded will formulate a conspiracy narrative to protect their delusion.

<comment><USER3> > and the government is now bound to try and live by those lies.

This is a false assessment. The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16[0] specifically states:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre- legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

[0] [http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...](http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 It's truly ironic (and unfortunate) that the UK's tribulations to leave the EU have such close parallels to its difficulties joining its predecessor. In many ways, it demonstrates the weakness (both now and then) of the British economy and (peaceful) political force projection when pit against a united continental core -- led then by France and Germany, nowadays by Germany and France.

The UK has much more military leverage than economic leverage. The question of the common market is an economic matter, but the free movement of peoples can go either way. There are factions in all states that would rather treat the latter issue as a matter of civil defence, but that would require the UK engaging in force projection so close to home, which it has for almost half a century closely avoided.

<comment><USER4> The UK may be one of the only European countries to take military spending seriously, but attempting to leverage that advantage in any kind of "direct" manner would probably backfire. Aside from lacking the political will to actually press the issue, they're not really _that_ superior to their neighbors :

[https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison- detail....](https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison- detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=france&Submit=COMPARE)

Note that France's GFP rank is technically higher than the UK's. This obviously ignores certain intangibles, and I _personally_ would put higher stock in the British armed services than in any continental military - but the fact remains that they're not head and shoulders above the rest. They're not the US with its unquestionable military superiority, and they're not even China who enjoy massive military (and economic) asymmetry vis a vis their neighbors.

I do tend to think that UK military capabilities could be a valuable negotiating tool, particularly in uncertain times and in the face of (or fear of) potential Russian aggression - but I honestly don't see how they could successfully bully their way to a favorable resolution.

<comment> temp-dude-87844 The classic way to engage in peaceful force projection is to do something drastic but oriented inward, with international implications, and implicitly challenge the world to do something about it. One way would be to institute unilateral border restrictions not unlike the ones just passed in the US.

Other states would balk at such a move, and talks of sanctions would likely follow, but the UK will have proven that they can throw their weight around, framing the narrative to ostensibly take their national interest over a supranational body. Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way.

<comment><USER4> > Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic > punishment, they will get their way.

I don't follow. Isn't the objective to _avoid_ economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort.

Also, the US comparison is mislead IMO. The US doesn't depend on Yemen the way the UK depends on the EU. Moreover, note the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia from the travel ban : even the world's hegemon can't completely ignore economic realities.

<comment> temp-dude-87844 The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their efforts to avoid economic disruption, they will compromise on some of the more nationalistic goals, but this will gain little goodwill domestically. More likely than not, they will end up with a weak outcome, with little to show for it.

A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach.

An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.

<comment><USER4> > A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term > disruption for long-term gain.

What long term gain, exactly? I still fail to see how this isn't a slower and more painful way to arrive at (most likely) the same deal they'd get in the first place. What new long-term concession do you envision them getting from a bit of chest thumping?

> An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only > survive, but thrive on its own

Except it can't? I scarcely think any country actually _can_ in the modern age, without making significant and dramatic sacrifices that even the most ardent Brexit supporter is most likely not ready to accept.

Brexit in and of itself was obviously over-optimistic. Doubling down on those delusions doesn't seem like a recipe for anything but unnecessary hardship - mostly for the Brits themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why can't the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms?

I realize this may sound naive, but I'm just curious.

<comment><USER6> The European Union wants to maintain centralized power. A Country like the UK leaving weakens their authority. Meanwhile the uk wants to remain sovereign, but doesn't want to lose the benefits of the EU. Its essentially a power play. Freedom is the better choice imo

<comment><USER7> This is a pure opinion based comment with no fact and a naive conclusion. This extremely complex topic deserves better, especially on HN.

<comment><USER8> and how does your jab advance that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well argued POV. However, the article overlooks the role of the Profumo Affair in ending the MacMillan govt. Another relevant precedent is the EZ negotiations with the Greek Govt over the sovereign debt crisis.

<comment><USER10> > "Another relevant precedent is the EZ negotiations with the Greek Govt over > the sovereign debt crisis."

How is that relevant here? The Greek government wanted to declare bankrupcy, but after some initial resistance their own ministers bottled it. They had the power to walk away if they wished.

<comment><USER9> The Greek Govt wanted to negotiate a restructuring of the debt. That outcome would have yielded economic growth, and real servicing of the restructured debt. But that rational and realistic outcome was ruled out by the political requirement for EZ unity, the need to make good FR & DE banks holding GGBs, and the will to impose Schauble & Djisselbloen's economic views. The parallel is the misguided hope of the weaker negotiating partner hoped that pragmatic realism would prevail over the stronger partners politico-economic agenda.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is undoing brexit (fully or partially) still an option? If not, is it because the UK government is still committed to brexit or is it because what has been done so far is irreversible?

<comment><USER12> I recall statements from EU that they'd accept "take-backsies" of the Article 50, so from that perspective it would be an option; however it seems politically implausible for any UK government to do so after the referendum, at least without some serious mandate from the population i.e. a landslide election victory on a Remain platform paving the way for a repeat referendum, but scenarios like that are more similar to fiction than reasonable speculation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> the EU is rapidly turning in to a union with few willing and satisfied participants

the EU would be much better off letting disgruntled states go, even if it diminishes the size and prestige of the remaining union, unless the bureaucrats relish spending the next fifty years in endless, pointless debate and hand-wringing

the UK isn't alone. I doubt the EU will see 2030 in its current form.

</comment><comment><USER13> Or, the EU is deluded about its worth in the modern world.

<comment><USER14> But not about its worth to the UK. The EU is by far the UK's largest market and still has a lot of growth potential (especially in the southern and eastern member states).

<comment><USER13> They're some assumption here that because of Brexit UK will not be able to export to the EU?

They'll sort it out just fine, just like the EU is trading partner with China and all kinds of countries that are not in the EU.

In fact, the UK not being in the EU could give it extra leverage (on labor laws, taxes, etc) to attract businesses in the ways the EU could not. Like Ireland that got in trouble with EU for its tax breaks.

<comment><USER14> No, they will be able to export under WTO rules just fine, with all the tariffs that entails which would favor importing from another EU member rather than the UK. That will hurt the UK a lot, especially the financial services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Note that this article was published on Nov 9th. That's old on the timescale relevant to this topic.

</comment><comment><USER16> Brexit is bad for the UK. We can all agree on that?

But it's also a TRAGEDY for the EU. They've lost one of their principal contributors, as well as prestige and status. This is generally not talked about.

The EU are negotiating HARD. Why? Because they are in a position of weakness. If they were in a position of strength then they would let the UK go easily.

Everyone knows this.

The complications are that the UK political establishment and business community don't actually want to leave the EU. Hence the desperate attempt by UK negotiators to keep as much of the old system as possible, to the anger of the proletariat.

<comment><USER17> This is not true. Brexit is good for the UK and the EU. Now finally clowns like Farage will be exposed for their 'rebel for good' fake ideals. The British public will either accept it's own sentence following decades of 'the bad bureaucrats in Brussels' fake news or come to realize that cooperation at both economical and political on large scale is the way to move forward.

<comment><USER16> Brexit isn't about Farage. As you say, he is a clown, a distraction, and a totem for the anger of middle-class metropolitans.

Brexit was about the working-class of the UK who voted to leave the EU, and their reasons for doing that.

<comment><USER17> Again, not true. Voting percentage was - 1. Majority leave in poor areas 2. Majority leave in the older population. 3. London voted remain. Reasons? We all know the reasons, and I'm not even going to go into the superiority complex that these people have.

<comment><USER10> > "We all know the reasons"

Do we? Are you getting your information from the mainstream media? Are you aware of how much they distort the facts to suit their own narratives? Why do you think Brexit would be any different?

<comment><USER17> Does it matter? Britain wants to leave the EU. I know what the EU represents and what it doesn't. That's enough.

<comment><USER12> You're saying this as if there's an unified consensus within Britain. A bit more than half of Britain wanted to leave, and a bit less than half of Britain wanted to remain. They'll still honor the democratic process and do what the general population chose to do, but it's an overstatement to say that Britain _wants_ to leave when it's rather that Britain was highly undecided and has(had?) a _mild preference_ towards leaving.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Pair Programming Really Works - <AUTHOR> http://www.computer.org/cms/Computer.org/ComputingNow/homepage/2010/0110/W_SW_PairProgramming.pdf

<comment><USER2> From the Site Guidelines:

 _Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important._

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

EDIT: That said, good read.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mea culpa. No harm intended, just had never read the guidelines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> +1 - A fact-based discussion of the reasons I am of one those programmers that love pair programming.

Regarding the Expert Programmer Theory: I find it rare that my pair and I get 'stuck'. Rather, discussion at the early stages of implementing a plan head off any decisions that will end up with us being stuck.

That said, the times I usually find my pair and I getting stuck is in the naming of concepts within the domain. At this time, polling those developers around us helps out enormously.

Regarding 'change blindness': This is where I find some of the most value from pairing. I find that I get (and give) a lot of value in the catching of minor logic errors, changed method or variable names, and simple typos.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm certainly no opponent of pair programming, but its proponents often seem not to address the 0th order argument against it: the parallel/series problem. To complete tasks _A_ and _B_ , Alice and Bob can finish them in parallel if they work alone, but can finish them only in series if they work together. This means that, for equal-sized tasks, solo programming is _a priori_ twice as productive as pair programming. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the benefits of pairing can overcome this factor (and more), but that's a strong claim and requires strong evidence.

<comment><USER5> In my experience (24 years in a large company doing a lot of large projects), the coupling of different pieces of the program is _severely_ underestimated. The result is that The Plan lays out the schedule with Alice and Bob working in parallel, but in reality they end up requiring a lot of interaction before the project is done.

Typically in a large project, Alice and Bob work independently but make different assumptions and have to rework a significant amount of their code when they finally get together to integrate their two parts.

In my experience, large teams can shrink calendar schedule time by brute forcing the dependency failures. The trade-off to achieve schedule compression is substantial inefficiencies and often a loss of quality and maintainability. I am convinced that a lot of schedule slippage in large projects is due to incorrect assumptions with respect to the independence of the pieces. While it is possible to compress the schedule this way, all schedule compression that exceeds the true parallelism in the project requires exponentially increasing effort to overcome the inefficiencies due to the coupling.

This is behind Brook's Law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookss_law> "2. Communication overheads increase as the number of people increases." Communication overhead is the indication of coupling of the pieces. If Alice and Bob's pieces were truly independent, they would not need to communicate and Brook's Law would not apply.

The physical analogy to the effort required to shrink calendar time is the "hull speed" of boats. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_making_resistance>. While it is possible to "escape your bow and stern waves" (i.e plane), it takes an exponential amount of power to do so. (The first wikipedia page links to another nice explanation: <http://www.antrimdesign.com/articles/hullspeed.html.>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A former co-worker of mine went to work at Pivotal Labs, where full time pairing is the mandate. After just a month, he quit "the best company he'd ever worked for," and wrote up a lengthy blog post on why pairing didn't work for him: [http://mwilden.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-i-dont-like-pair- pro...](http://mwilden.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-i-dont-like-pair-programming- and.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Reading this article reminds me of a small company in Ann Arbor, MI called Menlo Innovations (<http://www.menloinnovations.com/>), which pair programs exclusively. Their founder has spoken at our university a number of times about the effectiveness their methods. In my eyes this article quantifies to some extent what he's said.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's really nice to see a formal review of something I've learnt organically. Good read and really interesting reflections on the practice.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The most spot-on description of the benefits I've ever read. Balanced and scientific treatment of the subject.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't do it formally, but it often happens that I'm sitting at a co-worker's machine and asking to have the mouse or keyboard. We do spot each others' typos, but I drive her nuts with my preference for the caps lock key.

</comment><comment><USER10> Very solid write up.</comment>


Ask HN: New product idea - <AUTHOR>

I am a Java developer for my day job. We have a bunch of servers running Linux on the Amazon cloud. I have created a Windows application in C++ that acts like a remote desktop to the Linux servers. When I run it it connects over ssh to a server and displays a window that simulates the desktop of the server even though there is no GUI running on it. Inside that window I can view the file system like in Windows. I can drag files from my local machine to the server or vice versa. I can double click on a text file and it opens within a subwindow as a text editor. It effectively combines Notepad++ for editing text files, putty for opening comand lines and WinSCP for uploading/moving/deleting files. I am also working on a MySQL module so I can manipulate the local db too. Is this something any of you would find useful? Could I make a product out of this? Is there something like this already available? <comment><USER2> I would be extremely interested in buying/using this. Do you have the source uploaded anywhere? Github, perhaps?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet. It is rough right now as I only use it myself. I would need to clean it up a bit if it were to see the light of day. If I get enough interest I would be willing to do that.</comment></comment>


Trump backs proposed TikTok deal with Oracle, Walmart - <AUTHOR> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2020/09/19/trump-backs-proposed-tiktok-deal-oracle-walmart/114088998/ <comment><AUTHOR> Walmart being part of the deal is news to me. The move to Texas with 25,000 people, did anyone realize that TikTok was that big?</comment>


Amazon opens "Underground" for free Android apps - <AUTHOR> http://9to5google.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-app/

<comment><AUTHOR> As many others may be discovering today, the Free App of the Day is gone and all free apps are moved to "Amazon Underground". According to Amazon, these are special editions of apps that don't even include in-app purchases. Their statement says they worked out an arrangement with developers to pay them per- minute the app is used and Amazon picks up that charge.This is a separate section on Amazon.com and requires a separate Android app.

link: [http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=nav_shopall_adr_banjo?ie=UTF8&no...](http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=nav_shopall_adr_banjo?ie=UTF8&node=11350978011)

More information on how they made the apps free: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1003016...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1003016361&ref_=mas_surl_undrgrnd&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised- search-1&pf_rd_r=0NXJGMHW0DNZYPVJE0YW&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=2176566302&pf_rd_i=11350978011)

Edit: to add more information as discovered.</comment>


One tweet pushed charity goal over the top - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/savethemhood/status/445007386323853312 <comment><AUTHOR> This is the donation site:

[http://doge4water.org](http://doge4water.org)</comment>


Buzz Aldrin calls for humans to colonise Mars - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22974301

<comment><USER2> You know what's terrifying to me about colonization? The chance of failure. It just seems...more probable. In the Americas there were numerous failed colonies. The Virginia company's Jamestown had half the colonist die in the first year, and 400 replacements came but by 1610 there were only 65 or so left alive. On Mars, there isn't a blade of grass, a gasp of air, and perhaps not many drinks of water waiting for us.

It'd be agonizing to read or watch daily reports (if we're allowed to see them) about colonists dying of starvation, thirst or asphyxiation (or something else!), one by one until the transmissions simply stopped. I know these are the risks but that doesn't lessen the dread when it happens.

One thing that reminds me is The Lady Be Good, a WW2 plane crashed in the Libyan desert. A few of the crew members wandered off. The co-pilot's last diary entry is kind of chilling ([http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm](http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm)): " No help yet, very (unreadable) cold nite."

<comment><USER3> Do you agonize over the fact that 90 people died today in car accidents in the US? About a 1/3 are related to drunk driving.

[http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired- drv_factsheet.html)

Someday when 90 people die on Mars, people will say we should never have gone. The incredible loss of life...

There are 7 billion people on the planet and we're all going to be dead in about 100 years. Stop being afraid.

<comment><USER4> There's a lot of americans that have bad blood with the space program; deaths in a colonization program would just fuel them.

I'm pretty sure the number of deaths doesn't matter either. Only a few people died in the boston bombings and that didn't stop the entire country from turning upside down over it for a few weeks.

<comment> stargazer-3 That's why I think that China, given time, might be in a better position for Mars colonization. Democracy is afraid of bold moves in space, while the Chinese regime will see it as a long-term chance to bolster it's position in the eyes of common people.

<comment><USER5> But democracy is just government. Americans might still take the initiative to colonize Mars with or without the United States helping them along.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The colonisation of Mercury makes more sense, as discussed previously on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333)

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

<comment><USER7> It would be very hard to terraform Mercury which makes it a bad candidate for the long run. It would be very hard, but Mars would be the best planet to terraform: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars)

<comment><USER8> I don't think terraforming is necessarily the best way to prioritize initial colonization. Access to food, energy, and other resources are what should be initially prioritized. This still means that Mars is an excellent candidate for colonization, because of proximity to the asteroids.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The cycler station is an interesting idea. Seems to me you'd still have to accelerate the crew and supplies to an Earth-Mars orbit every time, but the habitat would only have to be accelerated to that orbit once.

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

</comment><comment><USER10> When we can pay for it in rainy day cash and aren't borrowing $20 a day for every taxpayer like we are now, dooming the kids, then I'll gladly support it.

<comment><USER11> The budget for NASA is a tiny sliver of what the US spends on defense.

<comment><USER12> Indeed, but unless they're cutting the defense budget to fund the Mars expedition, I don't see how that is relevant.

<comment><USER11> That's exactly my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Mr Aldrin is selling a book, so of course he has to say something ostentatious to draw attention to it.

<comment><USER14> If it was about anyone else on any other subject I'd agree.

Yet the select few that were lucky enough to get up there — and not even as far as Aldrin — really have ulterior motives[0] quite different than selling a few printed pages.

[0]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect)

<comment><USER15> Is it really fair to call those motives ulterior? Pro-colonization people seem to be very up-front about the importance of having a "backup planet" (to ensure the human race continues if something were to happen to our own "fragile ball of life").

<comment><USER16> According to google, "ulterior" basically just means "hidden"[0], so I think we can just say "ulterior motives, but in a good way".

[0] [https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ulterior](https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ulterior)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Buzz testified against Elon Musk and SpaceX. I don't think he can have it both ways.

For something this challenging, it has to be your primary goal. You can't be picky about secondary issues.

<comment><USER18> You're thinking Neil Armstrong. Buzz is pro-private spaceflight.

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1267759...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126775979)

[https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/14816351159848960](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/14816351159848960)

<comment><USER19> And I believe Musk was truly saddened by Armstrongs attitude.

...

"I was very sad to see that," Musk tells "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley. "Those guys are heroes of mine, so it's really tough … I wish they would come and visit … see the hard work that we're doing here and I think that it would change their mind."

[http://www.space.com/14936-spacex-ceo-elon- musk-60-minutes-i...](http://www.space.com/14936-spacex-ceo-elon- musk-60-minutes-interview.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> You know what I wouldn't mind seeing first? An unmanned base on the moon to work through the kinks of in-situ fabrication and resource extraction in an extraterrestrial environment. It wouldn't have to be too big and it could even be semi-tele-operated (given a lag time of seconds, rather than minutes or hours) by researchers and technicians on Earth.

If we're talking about sending people to Mars to live for long periods of time, and worrying about whether in doing so we're consigning them to miserable deaths, it seems like spending the money to work out the bugs in a non life-and-death situation might be a prudent idea. We've sent people to orbit the moon, we've landed people on the moon and robots on Mars, but we've never had people spending time on another world without relying entirely upon supplies they brought with them.

</comment><comment><USER21> He's been calling for Mars colonization for, what, 40 years?

</comment><comment><USER22> I disagree. I can't think of a single place that was ever improved due to the presence of humans.

<comment><USER23> Improved relative to what, and according to whom?

<comment><USER22> Human are destructive and lay waste to every area they inhabit; like a blight on a tree.</comment></comment></comment>


Does Anyone Have a Spare EC2 Account? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello,

I'm a game developer, and I've been designing some test code around the EC2 platform. I've been waiting patiently for months, but I've been unable to get an EC2 account. If anyone has a spare, I'd really appreciate it - I can be contacted at email@example.com. I'd be happy to give whatever you'd like in exchange for one.

Thanks a lot friends, I really appreciate it. Shawn</comment>


Bret Victor - Inventing on Principle - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/38272912

<comment><USER2> This has been posted a few times (I think) but is still great watching for those who haven't seen it. Everyone should.</comment>