How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room. - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas <comment><USER3> The Chinese leadership strikes me as pragmatic. If they thought the harm from Global Warming would be more costly than carbon emission cuts, they would make them.

But neither China nor India wants to remain poor. Any poor country is likely to benefit much more from development than the harm development will cause through additional carbon emissions (unless it's the Maldives). And neither countries' regimes can benefit from buying the votes of a green constituency with expensive projects of uncertain value. Rather, their legitimacy is strengthened by delivering increased living standards, and that is just what they intend to do.

The author is disingenuous to claim that these countries are acting in the service of of "planetary suicide", the breathless accusations of western green activists to the contrary. The Chinese leadership is well-educated. They can read the IPCC reports. They know what the likely consequences are. Planetary suicide is not among them.

Their leaders also know it's a hell of a lot better to be not-poor than poor. They think they are making a rational decision by frustrating the western green lobby's plans. And I'm pretty sure they are right. It's going to take a hell of a lot bigger bribe than $100 billion to convince them otherwise.

<comment><USER4> The pragmatic and well educated Communist Party leaders have already been responsible for the death of over 15 million Chinese in the 1958 famine, when they muddled with nature to achieve unrealistic growth goals: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine>

No doubt, the Party is pragmatic (so pragmatic it supplied Sudan with weapons during the Darfur genocide, collecting their support in Copenhagen in return). It is well aware that to maintain its control over the nation it has to keep delivering the current high growth rate. This has a lot more to do with the politicians' power than the people's quality of life.

<comment><USER5> Only they were different leaders.

Traditionally PRC had two factions. The Maoists and the rivals, let's call them the pragmatists. The Maoists were bent on communist doctrines and making great leaps. The pragmatists were more into what already works. The heads of the pragmatists were Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping>

The famine as you mentioned was attributed in part to Mao's radical policies, and because so Mao stepped down while Liu Shaoqi took his chair for a few years. While Liu was in power he played with capitalist policies similar to those in place today (this was the early 60s), Mao got paranoid and ousted him and Deng, and cultural revolution was launched in part to undo their popularity. Liu died in house arrest.

After Mao died in the late 70s, Deng took over and finally switched to market economy. The current line of leaders descended from his faction of pragmatists. Maoism is pretty much dead in China, a new split in the party is between the populists and the princelings, much more similiar to the dichotomy of liberals and conservatives in the west.

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

<comment><USER4> They are obviously different leaders (and I suppose the PRC have changed quite a bit since 1958 in any case) but my point is a more general one - "the leaders know best" is never a good assumption.

Assuming most HN readers consider themselves independent minded and skeptic towards authority it's disappointing to see the credit given here to China's leaders, who are chosen and operate mostly behind closed doors, as if they really operate with their people's best interest in mind (or even _know_ what it is).

I wouldn't rely so blindly on any Western leader, certainly not on a leader in a closed, one party system like China's.

<comment><USER5> I don't think the OP ever implied that the leaders know the best. It was meant to be read from the viewpoint that there aren't good or bad politicians, there are only politicians making good or bad decisions.

In fact from what I've read, the current generation of Chinese leaders aren't particularly smart as people have given them credit for. Though they do seem to know that they don't know enough to be visionaries, so they take the stance of non-interference.

I can see the appeal of this kind of mentality has on HN, as I sense a lot of users here hold libertarian views.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would strongly recommend this 4 minute video to everyone on the issue:

"Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion" - the video talks about how environmentalism offers salvation and a complete belief structure for many people, but that the religion/faith aspect of it gets in the way of science. Regardless of your views on the environment, it might be insightful for you:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU>

As for China, I lived in China for a short time a few years back. I wasn't convinced at all that they're the next world power - the government and infrastructure were so far behind the West that I didn't think it'd happen. But watching how China adjusted when the U.S. banking sector fell apart last year has convinced me that they're going to the top.

The American government printed a lot, which should make our U.S. Dollars fall relative to other currencies, including Chinese RMB. China in turn printed about the same amount of money and invested it into Chinese infrastructure and tax breaks for their businesses - driving the cost of Chinese goods even lower.

They're building the same sort of infrastructure and industrialization that the United States did during the Cold War. They're also liberalizing and gradually loosening and eliminating central government while we're currently expanding the role of central government. Considering their population is three times larger, if the United States want to keep military parity with China over the next 30 years, they'll have to change their economic policies or they're going to go bankrupt. There's some difficult choices facing the USA soon - China is definitely on the rise.

They face some hurdles - can they integrate and keep friendly the Cantonese, Xianjianese, Tibetans, Macanese, Taiwanese, and Hong Kongese to some extent into the primarily Mandarin Han government? The effects of the One Child Policy will be interesting to see - the gender imbalance and all. China breaking into Civil War is a very real possibility in the next 30-50 years, but if they don't, they're on the rise globally and will be the next world power.

<comment><USER7> _environmentalism offers salvation and a complete belief structure for many people_

Environmentalism is but one piece, but you're right that we're dealing with a religion here. Moreover, the narrative of sin and redemption is not a coincidence: progressivism (including its environmentalism subset) is not _metaphorically_ a religion; it is a real, living (nontheistic) religion,* the clear intellectual descendant of mainline ecumenical protestant Christianity. A century ago it was the WCTU and the YMCA; today it's NOW and Greenpeace.

*If a nontheistic religion seems like a contradiction in terms, the problem is merely linguistic; English lacks a good word meaning "all religious beliefs minus the supernatural stuff". Whatever you call it, a nontheistic religion can't help but show its roots: a nontheistic sect of Hinduism, for example, would still be identifiably Hindu, despite the absence of gods; it would likely lack a sin-redemption narrative, but would probably include some sort of caste system.

<comment><USER6> > Moreover, the narrative of sin and redemption is not a coincidence: > progressivism (including its environmentalism subset) is not metaphorically > a religion; it is a real, living (nontheistic) religion,* the clear > intellectual descendant of mainline ecumenical protestant Christianity.

I've heard that, but never found a reasonably objective source that references primary sources. I've read a couple pieces: The general gist I got is that North American Christianity split into two basic movements - <USER2> Christianity, which emphasized that the Bible was literal and the ancient rites were necessary to be followed, and Progressive Christianity, which said that the Bible was not literal and was more inclusive and open to discussion. But I've not found any primary or objective secondary sources on how this went - you sound knowledgeable, do you happen to know any?

> If a nontheistic religion seems like a contradiction in terms, the problem > is merely linguistic; English lacks a good word meaning "all religious > beliefs minus the supernatural stuff".

Yes, that I'm very aware of. I've traveled a lot, and you can clearly see that most non-religious people still inherited their basic religious beliefs of their culture. Very few people actively study ethics and come to independent decisions from their peer group - most people inherit their base ethics from their surroundings, and since religions were the way that most people got their ethics for a very long time now, it's mirrored quite well even in non- religious people. People with formerly Confucian surroundings tend to have a very strong family emphasis, which was a fundamental tenet of Confucianism. People with Jewish surroundings tend to get a very strong scholarly emphasis, at least partially descending from the heavy emphasis on Torah studies. Places that had a heavy Christian presence often are more ashamed about sex, pornography, and nudity than places like Africa and Japan which had did not have those same religious views on sex.

The fastest growing religions in the world are nontheistic - this will enter common thought in the next 50-100 years as the power of formal religions continues to decrease and more nontheistic religions gain followers. And that's not a bad thing, but you still absolutely need to insulate public servants and scientists from their religious beliefs, lest they impose their morals on their science and law, thus leading to - well, most people are aware of the impact religion had on law and science throughout the ages. It's a little bit of a dangerous time now, because there's no separation of nontheistic churches and the state.

<comment><USER8> >>But I've not found any primary or objective secondary sources on how this went

It's definitely true. Progressivism is the memetic leftover of north-eastern US Mainline Protestantism. The poster above you makes the mistake of comparing it to actual religions, when progressivism has evolved to drop the religious components, which still makes its followers the cultural descendants of creepy religious maniacs even though they don't believe in a God (also, as a side note, consider that this makes progressives not "anti-American" as right wingers make them about to be, but "ultra-American" in the sense of trying to make the US progress into a more 'pure' and ethical state, as the Puritans wanted it to be. Edit: also consider that this might make the right/left 'culture war' more of a religious war between two protestant-influenced sects). This was mainly done for political power. Think about it, there is supposed to be a disconnect in the US between the state and religion, what better way for a memeplex to adapt to its environment then to drop the supernatural bits, and focus on propagating the values, mores, and aspirations of its believers through political power.

You asked for evidence, here is a number of excellent sources:

The main book you should read is "The Puritan Origins of AMerican Patriotism." That pretty much lays out the argument.

Also check out "The Making of An American Thinking Class: Intellectuals and Intelligentsia in Puritan Massachusetts." It makes the case that Puritans are the forefathers of American radicalism.

I also recommend these:

God's New Israel: Religious Interpretation of American Destiny.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism.

Hellfire Nation: The politics of sin in America.

Also check out Michael Burleigh's two books on political religions (Earthly Powers and Sacred Causes). This isn't an aberration of history. Religious movements often drop their supernatural components under the guise of 'reason' and 'rationality' so as to adapt to the culture and politics.

And if you are still not convinced, here is a large list by an American urban historian: [http://www.amazon.com/A-History-of-American- Radicalism/lm/R2...](http://www.amazon.com/A-History-of-American- Radicalism/lm/R20ZCIY17VJA5T/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full)

Edit: I also forgot to mention there is a blogger that writes about this topic often. I generally disagree with a lot of what he says, but he comes up with a number of primary and secondary sources for this historical hypothesis.

Here is one post that sums it up: [http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/univers...](http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/universalism-postwar-progressivism-as.html)

And the multi-part Open letter series is also good: [http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-le...](http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded- progressives.html)

<comment><USER9> Great links, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's pretty rational of them (and arguably, morally upright): emissions-per- capita is caused by a high standard of living (barring a few confounding factors), and industrialized nations are asking China to restrict themselves to a much lower emissions-per-capita than we are targeting ourselves.

<comment><USER11> Per capita aside, they've already passed us in emissions-per-GDP.

Just saying.

<comment><USER10> Source, details, explanation? (Genuinely curious.)

<comment><USER12> You might want to have a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_G...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If china would simply put out all it's underground coal mine fires, that alone could remove 360 million tons of CO2 emissions. (As much as all the cars and light trucks in the US.)

Just pure waste from china is alone responsible for a very large chunk of CO2 emissions.

[http://www.post- gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro...](http://www.post- gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp)

<comment><USER14> You know this is the reason I find myself leaning conservative with respect to environmental issues. All of these environmentalists loudly proclaim that China and the US are the profligate polluters in the neighborhood. I have looked up the numbers, and per capita, Australians release five times more carbon into the atmosphere than we do. Yet I have not once seen or heard an environmentalist take Australia to task for their profligate behavior. Do we pollute more than Australia, yes, only because there are more people here. We have to heat 100 million homes in the winter, right now that necessitates some carbon emissions. We are number one in researching alternative energy technologies to attempt to change this state of affairs, but what would you have us do in the meantime? Freeze?

You bring up China, well I checked the numbers there as well, and Australia releases eleven times more carbon per capita than China. Will China release more carbon in the future, yes, because instead of the 300 million people that currently enjoy little luxuries like heat in the winter, that number will swell to well over 900 million. Incidentally, guess who is number two in researching alternative energy technologies in an attempt to proactively address their future energy needs. China. What would you have them do in the interim? Freeze as well?

Yet China and the US are the "problem".

No, the real reason these 'environmentalists' are anti China and US is because it is politically fashionable to be so. It has very little to do with the actual numbers and the reasons behind them.

Sane and safe programs for the reduction of carbon emissions should have some basis in per capita emissions. And the evidence is more than clear that many nations have much further to go than the US and China in this regard.

<comment><USER15> Im not sure how accurate this is, but Wikipedia lists the US carbon emmissions per capita as 18.67, Australia as 18.74 and China has 4.57. This seems to correlate with the world bank data as shown on Google for 2005 - [http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=en_atm_co...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA:AUS&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=45)

Maybe it has changed in the last few years, but it is a lot different than your claim of 5 times the US amount or 11 times the Chinese. Where did you get your numbers from?

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

<comment><USER14> See response to @ryanwaggoner, who, in all fairness, asked first.

<comment><USER14> EDIT:

Just like I mentioned to @ryanwaggoner, I think, given incidents like 'climategate' we should be careful of quoting sources like wikipedia.

For instance, the source data used for the wikipedia article is not carbon emissions per capita, it is data on carbon emissions per capita . . . PER USD1 GDP. That is, per capita per $1 GDP.

The authors of the wikipedia article either mistook the data to be data on per capita emissions, or really didn't understand the difference. At any rate, that is the reason for the confusion I think.

By the way, here is the source data that the wikipedia article uses:

<http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx>

<comment><USER15> One of the rows of data in that link provides the total carbon emissions (the row titled: "Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2"). Dividing this number by the population of the US and Australia provides a very similar result to the Wikipedia article. The per GDP data is another row entirely. Maybe I'm confused, as I don't look at stuff like this much, and I've only given it a cursory glance ... but this data doesn't look to be backing up your original argument either.

<comment><USER14> I am going to copy the same response given to @nkurz, EDIT:END EDIT, as you do seem to have a genuine intellectual curiosity. I hope you don't mind. At any rate if you follow this link:

[http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&...](http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&SeriesId=0)

as @nkurz suggests, then you will come to a page with two 'per capita' data charts on it. Click either, and under the 'Series Detail' section of the resultant page you will see something like the following:

Series Name: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC)

Goal: Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability

Target: Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

\----HERE---->> Indicator: Indicator 7.2 Carbon dioxide emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) <<<\----HERE----

As you can see it is per capita per $1 GDP (PPP). By the way, the (PPP), Purchasing Power Parity, makes this data even less useful. But I didn't want to get into ALL of the things that are wrong with this dataset.

Alternatively, here is a direct link to:

Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC)

<http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=752>

Again, check under 'Series Detail' and you will see the above dataset description.

<comment><USER16> Ah, the infamous "Oxford comma" strikes again!

They appear to be listing the various data elements compiled. As in:

* Total carbon dioxide emissions * Per Capita carbon dioxide emissions * per $1 GDP carbon dioxide emissions

I guessed that this might be the case, but did not pre-conclude it. Instead I downloaded all of their actual data sets and compared the numbers in the charts, and indeed, the numbers for per-capita carbon dioxide emissions, which include no mention of per-GDP calculations, support Wikipedia's numbers to the same effect.

i.e., Australia in 2006 was showing 19 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita to the United States' 19.7, etc.

(And I _swore_ I was never again going to get involved in a climate "discussion" on HN.)

<comment><USER14> So if we assume that your interpretation of the data is correct, Australia is just as big an emitter as the US, and they emit roughly 4 TIMES as much as China does. If my interpretation was correct, they emit 5 TIMES the US and 11 TIMES China.

My point being that the material point stands in either case. That is, even if we were to all agree to your interpretation of the data, nations like China are still not the problem. Why then, is all of the negative attention on China and the US? Clearly there are other emitters just as profligate. In fact, in the case of China, most of the other nations are far more profligate per capita.

I maintain that the negative attention given to China and the US is due to the fact that being anti US and anti China is the height of political fashion. Clearly, the people denigrating China don't take Australia to task for what we have both established as demonstrably far more egregious behavior.

<comment><USER17> No, really not. Australia is not being taken to task for several reasons:

1) Unlike China, Australia was a signatory to Kyoto (actually, I'm not 100% sure if China was a signatory or not, but at any rate they didn't have binding targets).

2) Unlike the US, Australia actually met its Kyoto targets.

3) Everyone knows that most of Australia's economic activity is geared towards exports of primary produce to the rest of the world - as already noted, Australia's own population is small, certainly not big enough to consume even a tenth of what is being produced. As such, at Kyoto it was agreed to not heavily limit Australian emissions, as these emissions would more fairly be placed on the books of the consumer countries.

4) Australia was willing and able to play ball in Copenhagen, unlike the Chinese.

5) Australia does not have very much diplomatic clout, so it is not being held accountable for the failure of diplomacy, as the US is.

6) And, finally, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Australia does per capita, as its population is simply too small to make a difference on a global scale - even if we accept the dodgy figure of Australia emitting 11 times more per capita than the Chinese, that still means that China is emmitting more than 5 times more than Australia. Using more realistic figures, China is emitting about 10 times more than Australia, and the US is emitting nearly 20 times more. And that is why no-one is pointing the finger at Australia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure of this, but all that I have read on the subject seems to indicate that the US wasn't willing to go in for legally binding emission cuts either. If I'm not wrong on that count, then what basis does the US have to go about trying to force other countries, especially developing countries into legally binding accords? Isn't the US the single largest polluting country? Should they not be cleaning up their own act too?

<comment><USER19> > Isn't the US the single largest polluting country?

Actually, no. At least in terms of CO2 emissions, China replaced us as #1 in 2006.

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

<comment><USER10> While this is technically true, we're indirectly responsible for much, much more than the emissions listed in that table. Back-of-the-napkin calculation: if their manufacturing industry accounts for a third of their emissions [1], and they export 25% of their production to the US (wild guess), we're indirectly responsible for another half-billion metric tons of emissions, which pushes us over them, even without considering our indirect emissions effects on other countries.

[1] [http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/industry- CO2-emissi...](http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/industry- CO2-emissions.html)

<comment><USER20> I woulnd't necessarily conclude that "consumers" rather then manufacturers are "responsible." The US exports too.

OTOH, The US has been at it for much longer. They also have fewer people which should "entitle" them to less on an equitable basis.

<comment><USER16> Nah, it's a fair point, and one that neatly solves a couple of problems: if the U.S. were to be serious about reducing global CO2 emissions, then we might stop buying so much crap from China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Saner heads in the room prevailed (Chinese heads).

And I'm glad they did, they did us a service.

I don't want my country to be shipping out hundreds of billions a year to despotic regimes in the hope that there is a chance in hell the money would go to the uses it was intended for and not serve as a slush fund for well connected government officials.

I don't want my country to do the worst possible thing it could to its already weak economy by hamstringing it even further compared to rivals who do not have the same costs.

Also, I don't buy the guilt argument, I'm not about to apologize for the past 300 years of progress brought to humanity care of the West.

"Reparations" should not even be on the table in any way shape or form, they should be thanking us.

</comment><comment><USER22> 1.6 Billion people (quarter of the world's population), live without electricity. All of these people live in the developing nations. Without progress, these nations can't bring basic things like a glowing light bulb to large sections of their population.

I don't know if the chinese leadership is pragmatic or not, but it sort of makes sense to help your population today, than to help the planet in 50 years time.

I don't think the choice is

Having lived in India and the UK, I'd say there is already a massive difference between India and UK, in terms of what we used. In India even if you can pay for water/electricity you just don't have access to it, there are regular power cuts in the summers as much as 8 hours a day in most cities. Running Water is available for a few hours a day. Most rich people drill a well and have a pump which pumps water into an overhead tank. For electricity, the rich have diesel generators, to run their homes.

In the UK, I've never experienced a power cut, never had any water shortage, no cut of gas to the house.

There just isn't any infrastructure in poorer nations. If you are poor you are on your own. If you are rich you are still on your own, but you have the resources to fix the problem for yourself.

I think it is important that 1.6 billion of us get electricity some time in the near future.

<comment><USER23> Electricity does not have damage the climate. Take wind power, or nuclear as examples. Or geothermic stuff.

<comment><USER24> but can you build and maintain a wind turbine without using fossil fuels?

Or mine and refine uranium?

Total lifecycle analysis is complicated, and important in these questions.

<comment><USER23> The lifecycle analysis is necessary. I guess the answer to your questions can be Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder, is there or could there be a list of emissions, not by countries, but by companies and industries? For example, wasn't there a news item recently about cargo shipping being the worst offender?

Maybe such a list would be more efficient than certificate trading between countries. Just as for optimizing computer programs, it might make sense to eliminate the worst offenders first. Maybe a lot of bad offenders would be easy to fix. Negotiating emission rates between countries might be akin to premature optimization.

Maybe satellites could be used to spot CO2 emission hot spots? With some additional logic, hot spots could be assigned to industries (ie if it is at sea, it is likely to be a ship. If it is on land, Google Maps probably knows the name of the company). Just wondering how to compile such a list...

<comment><USER26> I agree this is the way to go...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> One of the assumptions here is that economic growth necessarily makes people happier. Studies on happiness indicate that up to a point, more wealth makes people happier. After that, there is no impact.

So forgive me if I'm cynical about the hysteria about the effects of cutting carbon emissions. A lot of people live in abject poverty, but that is a problem of _distribution_ , not total numbers. The gap between the rich and poor has been widening so quickly that despite the growth in GDP, in real terms, the poor have been getting poorer.

Economic growth, as it stands, does little to help most people, and much to further fill the pockets of the rich.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'd like to take a little poll, if I might. The basis:

1) There was a plan in Copenhagen to give $100 billion to poor nations to "help them cope with climate change".

2) Since 1998 the temperature of the earth has fallen about 0.4 F.

3) The actions these nations need to take against global warming are very different than those they need to take against global cooling.

Questions:

1) Is the money they were to be given to be spent to protect against warming, or cooling?

2) Whichever one you picked, why aren't they more specific in their namimg? Why the ambiguity?

</comment><comment><USER29> Hedging my bets, I'm saving up for my space ticket. <http://www.virgingalactic.com/overview/space-tickets/>

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't quite see how the warmongering of guardian managed to get on hacker news

</comment><comment><USER31> From the Guidelines for this forum: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics,..."

Please don't turn this into a place for politics, instant support groups, lolcats, and recycled memes from 4chan. That place is called reddit.

</comment><comment><USER32> As much as I hate the commies (wherever they reside), I think the Chinese saved the world from a scam of unheard proportions. To make far-reaching policy decisions based on doctored data and questionable analysis would be criminal. Until there is an open, solid scientific basis for the AGW hypothesis absolutely nothing should be undertaken along the lines of what these people suggest. There are other serious environmental issues (like contamination) which deserve far more attention; they are understood and well documented. AGW at the moment looks like a scam. It is a good thing the Chinese couldn't be bought off or tricked by the fraudsters.

</comment><comment><USER33> Amazing...it's like reading reddit.com, but with Hacker News as the title.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ahmdz/how_do_i_kn...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ahmdz/how_do_i_know_china_wrecked_the_copenhagen_deal_i/)

<comment><USER34> To be fair, they used the exact title of the article which is the way that hacker news guidelines are set forth.

I think your comment should have been more along the lines of "Amazing... it's crazy that a title on reddit.com did not get editorialized to sensationalize the article."

<comment><USER33> Too true, too true.

<comment><USER31> I think your comment should have been : oh crap here come the 4chan wannabes. Lets urgently start looking for a new aggregator to frequent.

<comment><USER33> That would have been too n00bish, and besides, some people are going through and systematically down-voting every comment I post if you notice (as I'm sure this one will be, jerks).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> There's no need for China to cut emissions. As western economy fails in the next 2 decades, its emissions will drastically fall as well. So why should east cut down emissions if western economy will cut back by itself?

This whole Copenhagen fiasco was to put a lid on developing nations so the west could further delay the transfer of global power to the Asian nations.

USA had no intention of cutting its own emissions but asks China that they should. What kind of deal is that?

<comment><USER20> Copenhagen is really waking the conspiracy theorists.

If the US had agreed to a minor cut, China would have probably agreed to limiting growth and eventually (10-15 years reducing). The argument is how big the gap is. I've mostly heard talk of between a 15% & a 30% delay for developing countries. @ 15% delay, the US cuts by 5% & China gets to grow by 10%. 20 years later the US cuts by 20% & China cuts by 5%. etc.

Any deal that emerges will probably slightly favour the developing world. It is they that will need to pay for most of it because they have the money. "The West" will subsidise "The East's" reductions somewhat. The only qestion is how much.

The US is holding up the show at the moment. Maybe after next US elections they will be ready for 5-10% cuts with China limiting itself to about 10% growth (by 2020 or 2025). Most other developed countries are ready for 20% by 2020 now.

<comment><USER16> > _Maybe after next US elections..._

I doubt it. I expect that the next POTUS will be a conservative Republican.

<comment><USER36> Sarah? :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Although I hate communism, I find myself more in agreement with China than US policymakers with respect to war, trade, economic policy, and regulation. China seems more pro-freedom than the US.

Case in point: by wrecking the Copenhagen deal, China has helped the cause of liberty in the western countries by making it harder for governments in increase taxes and regulations on its citizens.

<comment><USER38> I'm hesitant to start any argument in this thread, but...

While I greatly respect China's economic system ("Socialism with Chinese characteristics"), there are very few definitions of freedom where China is more pro-freedom than the USA.

<comment><USER39> I went to china and the US:

* Nobody questioned me on entry into china like I was a criminal

* Policemen don't walk around with guns like they are ready to gun you down

* When a girl removes her shirt, she she is not jailed in china

* When I drink excessively and start acting the fool, I am treated like an idiot in china, not like a criminal

I visited both countries. In china, people are happy and friendly. In American, people are trapped and unfriendly.

China feels a lot freeer than the United States.

<comment><USER40> I don't know where you visited in the US, but it doesn't sound at all like where I live.

* Most people I encounter are happy and friendly, even the poor and unemployed.

* I'm not accustomed to seeing police carrying anything more than a holstered service pistol.

* Not only can women take off their shirts without being arrested, both men and women can legally be completely naked in public (in this state).

* I've never seen anyone "treated like a criminal" for being drunk, so long as they aren't violent or otherwise harming other people.

* I've never experienced more than cursory questions on entry to the US, with 1 exception: returning to the US on Sept 14, 2001

Personally, I've lived in and visited enough places around the world that I would never reach a judgment on what a place is really like based on a brief visit, especially not a country as large as the US or China.

<comment><USER41> > * I'm not accustomed to seeing police carrying anything more than a > holstered service pistol.

More to the point, you've been trained think that is normal, in countries where guns aren't legal, the very sight of a gun would strike fear into people.

> * Not only can women take off their shirts without being arrested, both men > and women can legally be completely naked in public.

I don't know where you live, but public nudity will get you in trouble just about anywhere in the U.S. You just can't stroll through a mall naked, you will be forcibly removed and you will meet some police.

> I've never seen anyone "treated like a criminal" for being drunk, so long as > they aren't violent or otherwise harming other people.

Same as above, stroll though a mall falling over drunk and you'll meet some police very quickly. Public drunkenness will get you in trouble in most public places that aren't a bar.

<comment><USER40> > More to the point, you've been trained think that is normal, in countries > where guns aren't legal, the very sight of a gun would strike fear into > people.

I suppose that might be true in some places, but I've lived in Europe and spent a fair amount of time in Mexico, and my observations in both were that the police carried much more serious weaponry under normal circumstances than you see in the US.

> I don't know where you live, but public nudity will get you in trouble just > about anywhere in the U.S.

I live in Oregon, where we have a constitutional right to be naked in public.

> You just can't stroll through a mall naked, you will be forcibly removed and > you will meet some police.

Malls are private property, not public property. The owners of the mall have every bit as much right to exclude someone being naked on their property as I do on my property.

> Same as above, stroll though a mall falling over drunk and you'll meet some > police very quickly. Public drunkenness will get you in trouble in most > public places that aren't a bar.

Again, malls are private property. And, I suppose I can't argue with whatever your experiences were, but I see lots of drunk people wandering about on a typical Friday or Saturday and the only ones who have problems with the police are the ones who try to start fights, or who won't leave private property when asked.

<comment><USER42> _I suppose that might be true in some places, but I've lived in Europe and spent a fair amount of time in Mexico, and my observations in both were that the police carried much more serious weaponry under normal circumstances than you see in the US_

Indeed. Get off the Eurostar at GdN and you will see soldiers patrolling the place with assault rifles. Same around the Tour Eiffel. And this is _in France_. No-one bats an eyelid. I've never seen routine patrols in any US city carrying M16s.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What to do about competitors on my mailing list? - <AUTHOR>

I'm posting this under a ghost account because I don't want to draw the attention to my startup. I'm currently in the "landing page phase." As such I have a newsletter signup form on the page to keep people updated. I haven't sent the first newsletter out yet, and I'm not sure if I want all my competitors keeping track of my progress. I've confirmed at least 3 direct competitors who have joined the list as well as another in a similar space (possibly looking to move into my territory). Today I'm preparing the initial newsletter to send out.<p>What would you do? <comment><USER2> The bottom line is - they know you exist. If you are a real threat to them then they will find out anyway - how hard is it to ask a mate to sign up on your behalf and forward the email or use a disposable account.

They aren't doing their job properly if they aren't watching you like a hawk. (and, by the same token, you of course you clearly are doing yours properly because you know who your competitors are and and paying attention - which is a good)

You need to measure everything you say in public as if it is lowering barriers to entry/ giving a competitive advantage to someone else. If you are in a really competitive space then its going to be like this from here on in.

However its good to remember - its the execution that counts and not the ideas.

Good luck

<comment><USER3> I agree completely, I'm working on a startup that is in 'stealth' right now not by choice but just because we haven't launched yet :) We've held off from posting screenshots until we have something that people can click on, but at that point our jackets will be completely open and all secrets revealed.

It's scary, but honestly... it will take people 2x as long to implement anything and once they do, you need the confidence that you can do it better.

There are alot of great articles on 'first mover' advantage and that being the 'first' to do something isn't important. It's doing it right!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would write them off as a competitive threat if they're paying attention to startups in the landing page phase for good ideas to steal.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is probably the answer I wanted to hear from someone. Confirmation that they indeed have no good intentioned reason for joining my mailing list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Send them a different email than the one that everyone else gets to send them in the wrong direction.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I would enjoy that quite a bit actually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> All this time and effort you're spending on worrying about potential competitors doing trivial stuff is time not spent on making your startup successful.

While I'm sure there are exceptions, all the startups that I'm familiar with that were paranoid about competitors failed, due to being in stealth mode, a lack of focus, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> If your competitors are really watching then I'm sure they'll find out regardless of an email from you.

... but you are completely within your rights to remove them. I don't see an ethical issue with that (I mean I do see the ethical issue, but after thinking about it I do not believe removing them is unethical).

By removing you might by a little (or no) time before they find out.

Is it worth it?

Is what you have to say going to be a huge tip off?

At the end of the day, this is your startup, your job, your company and livelihood and completely your call to make.

my2c

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, they could just as easily use a throwaway email address to get to my newsletter. In that case I'll have no choice but to send it to them. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You want to keep your startup a secret but you have a newsletter sign up? Are you stealth or not?

<comment><AUTHOR> My startup is actually not a secret at all, I simply didn't want this thread's outcome to reflect on it. I'm not stealth as I have a landing page and am actively advertising it online to get people to sign up. I just don't want my competitors knowing what I'm telling my potential customers just before launch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Delete them off the list if it makes you feel better. It won't make a bit of difference in the long run though.</comment>


The Martian author Andy Weir on his new novel Artemis and why he avoids politics - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/14/16648816/andy-weir-artemis-interview-building-moon-science-fiction-the-martian <comment><USER2> It's interesting to me that he avoids politics, but then compares this new setting to Discworld.

I have always experienced Terry Pratchett's writing as deeply political, from the books with overt political messages (Jingo, Equal Rites) to the more subtle (Everything else).</comment>


Public asked to report receipt of any unsolicited packages of seeds - <AUTHOR> http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov//press-releases-200724-seeds.shtml <comment><USER2> It's called brushing and basically a Chinese seller sends something cheap (like seeds, or trinkets) and then creates a review from "someone in the US".

The shipping portion is necessary because they need the tracking info for the sale to be counted.

edit:oops, accidentally mixed up churning with brushing. churning is something else

<comment><USER3> But seeds cast a whole other dimension onto this problem... It is not a problem if they send you a cheap plastic bracelet but seeds can have unforseen consequences

<comment><USER4> Not really. Apparently folks can order these seeds already? So its happening, notice or no notice. It seems inevitable that seeds of every plant will be in gardens of every conceivable corner of the earth.

Starting in the 1700's with botanists traveling the world to collect and disseminate them. Which gave us modern corn, wheat, flowering plants, grasses, succulents and nearly everything we grow, harvest and appreciate today. May be a little late to start being concerned about this.

<comment><USER5> _It seems inevitable that seeds of every plant will be in gardens of every conceivable corner of the earth._

Not inevitable at all. Try arriving in Australia with a piece of fruit in your hand luggage, or try arriving in New Zealand with mud on your walking boots, and see what happens.

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

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

<comment><USER6> I ordered some seeds off Amazon from what I _thought_ was a local seller for a regional plant.

The seeds arrived months later, well after planting season, from Kazakhstan. The customs declaration called them plastic beads, but they were definitely seeds. I destroyed them, because I couldn't know for sure they really were what they said they were - seems unlikely a niche regional American plant would be available in Kazakhstan.

Would Australia really be able to stop these cases where they lie on the customs form?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I wanted to clandestinely introduce invasive species, I would of course not send seeds from whatever suspicious country to random people. A package marked as e.g. folk art piece would be used, containing seeds, maybe covered with fertilizer, as a filler of an actual e.g. animal figure, or something. The package would arrive to a package consolidation service and packaged, along with some other goods, with a US originating address.

That package would be taken by an agent who would rip it and throw it away onto some strip of farming land along a busy road, while driving there at night, reasonably far away from home. The agent would not understand that this action is the "payload" of the mission, and would never associate the incident with the seeds' country of origin.

If I can come up with this trivial plan in 5 mins, a secret service would, too.

So no, this certainly is not a clandestine operation by a serious nefarious actor, it's a silly e-commerce shtick by a small-time seed seller.

<comment><USER8> FSB tactics, on the other hand, involve doing almost everything they can to signal that they were the perpetrators while at the same time denying responsibility.

It's a weird way to flex, братан, but the diplomatic and psychological impact of the attack is far more effective than the attack itself.

Example: _Russian poisoning suspects say they were only visiting cathedral_

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/russian- tele...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/russian-television- channel-rt-says-it-is-to-air-interview-with-skripal-salisbury-attack-suspects)

<comment><USER9> > братан

I'm always curious about new slang or jargon but can't place this sense of 'Bratan' in the context of espionage/geopolitics. Flexing brotherhood? Flexing manliness?

<comment><USER8> It's the the "bro" in _"weird flex, bro"_ , which is US English slang meaning "that's an impressive display of strength which I also find to be bizarrely convoluted".

<comment><USER10> "Flex" in that slang term isn't precisely a "display of strength" but rather "a display of one-upmanship[1]" in any form. A _weird_ flex is specifically one-upmanship in a form where nobody else was really competing over it in the first place. It's "weird" because you're trying so hard to out-compete others in a category where nobody else is trying to compete at all, and where, therefore, a category where it's very easy to "win."

Most Guinness World Records are weird flexes: not hard-fought limits of discovered human ability, but rather something one person decided to prove they could do that nobody else has really even cared to challenge them about since.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One- upmanship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I live in California, and received a suspicious bag of seeds in the mail after ordering something from Amazon. Happened about one month ago. The seeds were sent in their own small package, with Chinese characters on it.

I had heard about these types of shipping scams, but had never experienced it personally until this. I was so intrigued that I immediately planted the seeds for fun (I think they're cucumbers).

I now realize that I was extremely ignorant. I wasn't aware of the danger of invasive species.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I decided to rip up the plants and throw them away.

<comment><USER12> > danger of invasive species

For a good counter to all the "invasive biology" craze see:

[https://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Biology-Pseudoscience- David-...](https://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Biology-Pseudoscience-David- Theodoropoulos/dp/0970850417)

He raises many good points. Much damage to the eocology has been done in removing "invasive" species.

Now, diseses, those can really devestate. I'd love to still have our (US) chestnut forests.

<comment><USER13> I research about sources (both publications and authors) to see what credence I should lend them. The little I could find out about this book was a review at [0] that concludes with "I would not recommend this book to those beginning a study of Invasion Biology. It is a polemic presumably aimed at the practitioners of what the author holds is a pseudoscience, and perhaps also at policy‐makers."

Make of that what you will.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242384/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242384/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, weird.

Also I can't imagine getting a box of seeds in the mail (unsolicited) and thinking to myself, "I should plant these and see what comes up!"

Edit, found more about this here: [https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/virginia/vir...](https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/virginia/virginia- department-of-agriculture-warns-residents-of-seeds-from- china/65-2e195255-f7e9-46bf-8bea-f711415af3c3)

Along with a story of a Chinese National attempting to transport birds into Virginia which are known to be transmitters of Avian flu.

<comment><USER15> >Also I can't imagine getting a box of seeds in the mail (unsolicited) and thinking to myself, "I should plant these and see what comes up!"

different strokes for different folks i guess, but that is _absolutely_ something i would do. or would have done if they'd arrived in may, planting in august is kinda pointless where i live.

<comment><USER16> Same. I can't believe the FUD that's going on. What's the worst that can happen with a seed?? It will not open a portal to another dimension! A plant will just grow out of it.

You keep it inside and take a picture and you will know if you will get nice flowers, or vegetables, or...nothing. Just leaves.

As a kid I loved to plant seeds in plastic cups and see what grew out of it, and trying additives to see if they could help the plant grow. Once I grew a little tomato, and ate it. I didn't drop dead from tomato consumption.

It's innocent and safe. The government should have no business regulating what people do with seeds.

<comment><USER17> The worst that could happen is something like (kudzu)[[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu)]. See the Invasive Species section.

Your passion for experimentation and cultivation is awesome. I get that you don't want the government telling you what you can and can't do. So, instead, what if you look at it as a fellow citizen asking you to please not plant random seeds from China in the ground outside, unattended.

<comment><USER16> Hence the 'keeping it inside' part. I would not plan outside a vine or something that may interfere with my other plants, until I know what it is.

Still, I fail to see the harm of growing the seed inside to identify the plant. People here have reported receiving cucumbers and strawberries. No one has reported receiving vines or anything else.

I am very surprised by the level of fear and paranoia regarding everything and especially China: we are looking at horse gift in the mouth, then saying it is a bioterrorism plot. Unbelievable!! When I was a kid, that would have been the best mail-order present ever!

Also, regarding kudzu and the like, I fail to see the harm. The environment changes. We may not like that, but that's how life is. Instead of trying to undo changes, maybe we should adapt to them.

Kudzu seems good for livestock, rich in protein and isoflavones. Trying to burn it seems to be due to a distinct lack of imagination and profit motive. It's a free input!!! Find new ways to chop it down to feed it to livestock. Make it into a food supplement.

Anything looks better than just destruction and nostalgia for the time it wasn't here. It's here now. Adapt!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I know this one. They make such phantom sales to increase their standing on the platform (ebay, Aliexpress). The platforms do not know it, they put people to make those fake sales so randoms in US and Europe.

In most cases they send hairpins and such stuff, but in this case it happened to be seeds.

If the government response is so heavy handed on this stupid issue (sellers trying to trick the platform), imagine how silly other investigations could be.

<comment><USER19> Considering that receiving "unsolicited" seeds from just about anywhere else has exactly the same risk and is entirely legal, this seems to me to be little more than anti-China fearmongering. I've been asking my local state reps to stop the sale of Callery Pear trees (which are invasive and damaging) but they have ignored me for years because the nursereys make a lot of money from them and lobby to keep them legal. Perhaps if I started pointing out that the trees are Chinese/Vietnamese in origin I might get somewhere now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Washington State Department of Agriculture is also warning people about it: [https://www.facebook.com/WAStateDeptAg/?__cft__[0]=AZVWz_jA-...](https://www.facebook.com/WAStateDeptAg/?__cft__\[0\]=AZVWz_jA- UdNpf- LzsvTtBmT8nBvluS2Oadn4btVgMpqoxdvGraFekj77yEsakXYaCPxascMjb1qDvQQoQqIeTiQCon95Wr4w9bJTIECyyPQSRgc9lKN- Aj2InL6HMXKPsYLMDrZmeYZ4dL5vho52lwVeINuEH8hNVRwXstsAxsKYydsrKcc-W7XqF_ahKpOmXg&__tn__=-UC%2CP- y-R)

Friends in the UK are reporting it happening there, and are being advised to either burn or boil seeds for several minutes.

Anyone know what this is about, what the actual purpose is?

<comment><USER21> Here's a link to the actual post [https://www.facebook.com/WAStateDeptAg/photos/a.101510256200...](https://www.facebook.com/WAStateDeptAg/photos/a.10151025620032906/10158364331247906/)

<comment><USER20> Argh. Thanks. Didn't notice how bad a link I'd managed to get there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I guess you don't have to be there if you mail them out, but man if you were for some reason wanting to spread an invasive species.... you could just plant the seeds yourself....

You would also be able to target what you might want to happen and where.

Random individuals would seem sort of silly to target unless it spread dramatically or was something else.

Just doesn't make a lot of sense as a sort of intentional invasive species thing.

<comment><USER23> The receiver will just throw the seeds in the garbage, and depending on the hardiness of the seeds, that is as good as planting them in the garbage dump.

<comment><USER24> When I visited my local garbage dump with school I was impressed with the number of pumpkin plants growing out of the piles of garbage. I wonder why pumpkins grow so well there.

<comment><USER25> Pumpkins grow well anywhere!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> My 8 year old asked "what if they find out about instructions to burn and mix something that produced dangerous gas upon burning?".

I hope she doesn't join a radical militant outfit when she grows up.

<comment><USER27> Sounds like she is already too smart for most government anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The pictures from the VA story look like morning glories; the WA pictures from facebook look like citrus or a melon. I'd think any sort of "bio attack" would use a consistent medium.

Seeds are a bitch, too. It's usually hard to hide anything in them, isn't it? That's one of the reasons plants make them, they're less vulnerable to infections etc.

"Invasive!" is a boogey man, here. So many things are invasive, especially now. Ask, instead, "could i buy this seed somewhere else grow it legally?" I expect the answer might well be "yes".

[VA] [https://www.wdbj7.com/2020/07/24/got-seeds-you-didnt-ask- for...](https://www.wdbj7.com/2020/07/24/got-seeds-you-didnt-ask-for-dont- plant-them-report-them/)

[WA] [https://www.facebook.com/WAStateDeptAg/photos/a.101510256200...](https://www.facebook.com/WAStateDeptAg/photos/a.10151025620032906/10158364331247906/)

</comment><comment><USER29> There are tons of random reports of this too on Reddit and 4Chan, it's interesting to read and see the screenshots. You have random people saying the Government is lying and they'll plant it anyway to people saying it's typical Chinese Amazon scams to harvest reviews.

<comment><USER30> > harvest

Indeed.

This seems the obvious Occam razor Earring seller orders/sends fake earring packages and posts fake reviews.

With the trade war and espionage stuff heating up the cold war with China, one wonders if the Chinese Communist Party crack down on this to try to defend China's reputation and conserve their political capital for more substantial attacks on US, or encourage it to antagonize US into war?

What happens if US Customs cracks down on Chinese import fraud and drives up the cost of importing product? I always thought that cracking down on illegal- in-US behaviors like pollution and worker mistreatment would be a more morally defensible and socio-economically beneficial trade battle than arbitrary and capricious tariffs.

<comment><USER31> More like Amazon should crack down on this to defend its reputation. Amazon is one of the primary beneficiaries of fake reviews on its own platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Didn't the last guy who planted seeds from China end up with a golden harp and marrying a princess?

"The government of Virginia wishes to clarify there is no such thing as magic beans..."

<comment><USER33> > "The government of Virginia wishes to clarify there is no such thing as > magic beans..."

I wish they'd went with a Glomar Response[0]. "The government of Virginia can neither confirm nor deny the existence of magic beans."

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Some years ago I decided to buy monkey orchid seeds( it's worth Googling how it looks). Went on Ebay and a few clicks later I made a purchase from some Chinese seller.The seeds arrived eventually and I sent them to my mum. The next time I visited my parents,my mum walked me to the 'orchid', which was a tall grass like plant that every abandoned field has millions of. It turns out you can't buy monkey orchid seeds,as it's almost impossible to grow the plant outside it's natural environment. By the time you could see the results of what's grown, the seller has already spent the money. I lost like $2 in total but I can bet someone's having a nice life in China from this seed business:)

</comment><comment><USER8> This feels extremely creepy. Part of it is the idea that there's not an enormous amount of authentication with the mail. Any actor could send be sending these — there's no reason to believe it's the PLA.

My favorite form of this tactic was from _The Three Body Problem_ , where alien invaders make use of remote sabotage to pit nations against one another, in an attempt to weaken human society.

If you ever want to invade Mars, first go to amazon.mars and order a bunch of seeds from one country/mons to be delivered to another. You'll start a diplomatic incident — a war, hopefully — and crush the ecological system at the same time, leaving you a nice weak planet to invade and terraform at your leisure.

<comment><USER35> > My favorite form of this tactic was from The Three Body Problem, where alien > invaders make use of remote sabotage to pit nations against one another, in > an attempt to weaken human society.

It's neither original or unusual. Two recent examples are Putin pitting Americans against each other to weaken the US, or supporting Brexit to weaken the EU.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I have an alternate theory here, based on a Planet Money episode a while back: CCP does a lot of espionage on seed companies / Monsanto / etc where they use human carriers to smuggle... Obviously can't do that now with Covid. So what do you do if you need 1 really important package if seeds to get through? Send a million other ones at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER37> I've seen two people on facebook talking about receiving these seeds unsolicited. Mail was addressed specifically to them, at their address.

Weird.

<comment><USER38> Well the Chinese Communist Party has the personal information of at least 44% of all Americans thanks to their hack of Equifax so it probably wasn't too hard for them to do a mail merge.

[https://www.npr.org/2020/02/10/804501991/chinese-hackers- cha...](https://www.npr.org/2020/02/10/804501991/chinese-hackers-charged-in- alleged-cyber-theft-of-145-million-americans-data)

<comment><USER39> they might also be able to get their hands on a copy of the white pages

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> [https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/08/chinas-military- pur...](https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/08/chinas-military-pursuing- biotech/159167/)

Some possibly biased but interesting references on Chinese government efforts in this area.

</comment><comment><USER41> I had this too, but from Ukraine. I didn't get the seeds, just a letter from customs that they had destroyed some seeds that I'd never ordered. Really peculiar.

</comment><comment><USER42> It sounds very alarmist, but on a close reading, it makes two observations:

1\. We have no idea what kind of seeds they are, and they could be invasive.

2\. The packages originate from China.

The juxtapoisition of the fact that they could be invasive and that the packages originate from China make it sound like a Chinese plot.

They never actually connect those dots, though.

<comment><USER43> I find it kind of hard to believe the United States government hasn't identified the seeds. I bet I could get a reasonably close ID with a photo of the seeds and Google. Surely there's at least one government lab and several dozen government scientists capable of figuring it out.

<comment><USER39> There might not be. The USDA is a ghost town. Trump's Ag Secretary abruptly (and possibly illegally) moved all of the research to Kansas City and a huge number of scientists didn't make the move.

[https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759053717/critics-of- relocati...](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759053717/critics-of-relocating- usda-research-agencies-point-to-brain-drain)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is delightfully mysterious. Is this a biological disruption attack? An unlucky shipping glitch? The real answer is probably more boring but I'd like to believe it's something nefarious!

<comment><USER45> If it is an attack and we stop it, I suppose the next step is embedding seeds directly into biodegradable cardboard packaging. No one will think twice about tossing that without cooking to neutralise it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Is this how Attack of the Killer Tomatoes began?

<comment><USER47> I was thinking Little Shop of Horrors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Reminded me of the agroterrorist theory of the CA medfly

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_California_medfly_attac...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_California_medfly_attack)

</comment><comment><USER49> All we need now is the day of the triffids .

</comment><comment><USER50> I got a letter from my representative "thanks for allowing me to represent you...". Along with the letter came a package of seeds.

</comment><comment><USER51> This is also happening in Utah.

[https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-department- of-...](https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-department-of- agriculture-investigates-mysterious-seeds-sent-from-china-to-tooele)

</comment><comment><USER52> We got an unsolicited package of seeds in the mail from China like 2 weeks ago! It was super weird. We'd assumed they shipped it to the wrong address or something.

I'm not sure what my wife did with them but we certainly didn't plant them.

</comment><comment><USER53> That is super weird. I imagine it wont be long till the seeds are identified, but whatever the story is behind these, its bound to be at least mildly interesting.

</comment><comment><USER54> I've heard about this on plant and gardening groups on facebook only yesterday. Glad to see it reach the top. I can't figure out why..

</comment><comment><USER55> What kind of seeds are they?

<comment><USER56> We don't know for sure, and that's part of what makes this so concerning.

<comment><USER55> 4chan is saying its morning glory or hawaiian rosewood. morning glory is aggressive weed. hawaiian rosewood is aggressive vine. perennial wine

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Sounds like a seedy operation

</comment><comment><USER58> Who orders seeds via amazon? It doesn't strike me as likely to lead to success.

</comment><comment> kalium-xyz I wonder if this is an attack by a single or a small group of individuals against countries they dislike. This sounds like something you'd do if you wanted to make a dent that way as a regular person.

<comment><USER39> It isn't really even clear that it is an attack...

<comment> kalium-xyz I never stated this to be an attack.

<comment><USER59> > "I wonder if this is an attack"

<comment><USER60> That's not a contradiction.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Quantum wave-particle superposition in a delayed-choice experiment - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04159 <comment><AUTHOR> Recently appeared in Nature Photonics: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0509-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0509-0)</comment>


20 VPS providers gave only 2 days notice before shutting down - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/20-vps-providers-to-shut-down-on-monday-giving-customers-two-days-to-save-their-data/ <comment><USER2> I've never heard of any of these providers.</comment>


CERN scientists will begin attempting to cross the beams at LHC tomorrow morning - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFngOTfNSw21ce_26N1EzfTAXwRQD9EOES1G0

<comment><USER2> Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.

Dr. Peter Venkman: What?

Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?

Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.

Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?

Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

</comment><comment><USER3> So it started @ 3am EST time. First 2 tries failed to get the beam up. They expect to try again after resetting the machine @ 5am EST or about 1.5 hours from now.

You can also follow them via twitter @CERN <http://twitter.com/cern>

Also a working link to the camera is <http://webcast.cern.ch/lhcfirstphysics/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I was amused to find this bit of awkwardly worded text in the article:

"...the Higgs boson, a hypothetical particle that scientists theorize gives mass to other particles and thus to other objects and creatures in the universe."

</comment><comment><USER5> I believe that would be 8:30AM CEST which is 11:30PM PST TONIGHT, or in just a few hours from now.

It looks like it will be Webcast here: <http://webcast.cern.ch/lhcfirstphysics/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Live webcam: <http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc4.swf>

</comment><comment><USER7> Collapse of the beams. Particles starting to collide. Now the final stage of the experiment beginning.

Exiting!

<comment><USER8> CERN is also testing if, given enough exclamation marks, Twitter will collapse onto itself and become a black hole: <http://twitter.com/cern> :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> from <http://twitter.com/cern>

"Experiments are collecting their first physics data - historic moment here! Watch the webcast, look at the photos - all live!"

</comment><comment><USER10> Possibly the second coolest thing that CERN has ever done.

</comment><comment><USER11> Collision is now set for 13:15 CET.

<comment><USER12> CET or CEST? Us central Europeans transitioned to DST Last Sunday.

<comment><USER11> We Central Europeans: I'm 250km away from you, in Prague! :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's been nice knowing you all.

<comment><USER14> Well obviously it hasn't worked yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks like the world might have not exploded, HORAY! I was almost nervous about that.

</comment><comment><USER16> I know I'm going to get voted down, but I hope the results aren't like this.

<http://bornandbreded.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/crossed.jpg>

<comment><USER17> I know I'm going to get voted down, but ...

Saying "I know I'm going to get voted down" and not being a complete troll: best way to ensure that you don't get voted down?

<comment><USER16> Possibly, or it could be an attempt to soften the negative reaction one might have by viewing the following statements.

It's kind of like a disclaimer for stupidity.

<comment><USER18> "Disclaimer for Stupidity?" I think you might have something there! What about a registry for provable journalistic incompetence (so limited to factual errors of misunderstanding of science) disguised as a sympathetic organization of mercy?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Advanced Research Projects from DARPA's Pentagon Demo Day - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/advanced-research-projects-from-darpas-pentagon-demo-day#.VzUqVYyXA8Y.hackernews <comment><USER2> 20X less power consumption for the Photonic Computing device. Photonic ICs could be on the cusp of explosive growth...</comment>


How to Avoid Loneliness When You Work Entirely from Home - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2018/08/how-to-avoid-loneliness-when-you-work-entirely-from-home <comment><USER2> As someone who feels incredibly lonely the majority of the time, I was excited to read this article and see what they suggest for lessening the feeling.

Speaking for myself only, these three tips are not very effective at combating loneliness.

I already participate in online communities of like-minded people (hi, HN). Although the research is still young, it seems like the predominant opinion is that participating in online forums/social media is not effective at combating loneliness and in some cases can exacerbate the issue.

Video conferencing, although effective for working efficiently with a team, I fail to see how this helps with loneliness. I'm in the office most days, and even face to face contact does not curb loneliness - _because loneliness is not the same as being alone._

The third tip may have some merit. Making a concerted effort to communicate with more people (especially about non-work things) seems to have helped me a little bit. I recently read another article on loneliness that suggests trying to talk with a few strangers a day - and it seems to be helping me a bit.

<comment><USER3> I agree with you. I don't think these combat loneliness. I can't speak for you, but here's what's worked for me: taking various community college classes, volunteering, buying a dog (dog park, puppy classes, etc), and going a random club or two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I never realized how much people depend on their vocation as their primary social connection until reading these blog posts about loneliness that have sprung up lately. Can an office job really give you all the deep personal stimulation you need in life? I like my coworkers and feel they are my true friends and still I would feel lonely knowing they go home to families and following a personal purpose if I went home watching Netflix every night. Life is easier having a purpose, so if you're struggling with loneliness that you attribute to working away from a water cooler, then you might benefit from some deeper soul searching. Source: I've been working mostly remotely for 10yrs.

<comment><USER3> I think you're spot on. I also think, for most people, the struggle is /finding/ a purpose. Since that's not easy, they default to what is: Netflix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Try coworking. Many places have flexible memberships. Even one day a week or once a month can make a difference.</comment>


Lenovo's ThinkPad X1 Extreme: Hex-Core, GTX 1050 Ti, 64GB RAM, Under 4 Pounds - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/lenovos-thinkpad-x1-extreme-hex-core-gtx-1050-ti-64gb-ram-under-4-pounds?src=hn <comment><USER2> To quote the venerable Philip J Fry "Shut up and take my money!"

yesterday morning i had finally decided to go with an XPS15 to replace my ailing gen 1 X1 carbon, then they go and announce this, im awfully glad i hadnt pushed the button on the XPS yet, now i just have to wait for them to release it in the UK (then wince at the fact that itll likely cost me upwards of £2000 here in the UK, it may actually be cheaper to fly to the US to get one as they work out at about £1500)

</comment><comment><USER3> dup [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17881103](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17881103)

</comment><comment><USER4> Or we could just write better applications such that I don't need a 64gb RAM laptop in the future to browse the web and play an FPS

<comment><USER5> It's not aimed at people browsing the web and playing FSPses though, is it?

<comment><USER4> Give it time, my 2008 lenovo was originally marketed as a "photoshop- workstation". Now it chugs to even boot any Windows operating system that takes updates.

<comment><USER6> I would recommend cleaning the contact points on the CPU and heat sink. The thermal compound disintegrates over time, the fan and any intake/exhaust ports should be cleared. My 2011 XPS 17 was struggling to boot and running full fan on idle, after I took it apart and cleaned it, it improved significantly.

Edit: struggling to run efficiently and satisfactorily fast.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Designing Zachtronics' TIS-100 (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/244969/Things_we_create_tell_people_who_we_are_Designing_Zachtronics_TIS100.php?print=1 <comment><USER2> I recently lost more of my life than I care to admit to Zachtronics' more graphically pleasing follow-up Shenzhen I/O [1] that I think I first heard about from HN [2].

The backstory that unfolds through your fake inbox actually gives the devilishly tricky game some direction, and the post-solution histograms showing just how many people solved the same puzzle cheaper, with fewer instructions and with lower power consumption than you tug at your ego and keep you obsessing over the same puzzle long after you've solved it. There's even a fun Solitaire variation buried in there for good measure, which was evidently so popular they also released it as a standalone game [3].

1: [http://www.zachtronics.com/shenzhen- io/](http://www.zachtronics.com/shenzhen-io/)

2: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12660253](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12660253)

3: [http://store.steampowered.com/app/570490/SHENZHEN_SOLITAIRE/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/570490/SHENZHEN_SOLITAIRE/)

<comment><USER3> The mechanic of graphing metrics for solutions is common to at least TIS, Shenzhen, and my favorite, Infinifactory. It's perfect for competitive tinkering.

<comment><USER4> SpaceChem does it too. It's also great if you have people on your friends list that play the games, since then you can see their exact scores and turn it into a direct competition.

<comment><USER5> Yep, I've spent days tweaking and optimising the starting few worlds of SpaceChem to get solutions which are most optimal. The only disappointing thing is that you can only save one solution to each challenge, so it means you need to pick a solution that is either the fastest or the one with the fewest elements. Luckily they have fixed it with Infinifactory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The first time I heard about this game someone mentioned another assembly language game called Human Resource Machine. I was so captivated by the design of HRM (I'm a fan of the publisher, Tomorrow Corporation, thanks to Little Inferno), I forgot all about TIS-100. I'm happy to be reminded.

Seems that the Internet likes to compare these two games. Here they are compared on Slant.io: [https://www.slant.co/versus/6230/6231/~tis-100_vs_human- reso...](https://www.slant.co/versus/6230/6231/~tis-100_vs_human-resource- machine)

<comment><USER7> Does anyone remember a similar thing that's not a game but an emulator-ish for a very simple cpu + color screen that people made small games / demos on? I wish I remembered more details or that I'd bookmarked it when I saw it...

<comment><USER6> This is a stretch, but could you be thinking of PICO-8? It's a "fantasy console" that you can write 32k game cartridges for using a subset of Lua: [https://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php](https://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php)

<comment><USER7> OH MY GOD you got it on the first try ... months of frustration ended. Thank you so much.

<comment><USER8> I think about the CHIP-8 VM, then the CHIP SBC, and its PocketCHIP variant, which comes with Pico-8. They're all kind of intertwined in my mind, and thinking of any one tends to lead to all the others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I had a blast with TIS-100 and Shenzhen I/O when they came out, but for some reason I never picked up Infinifactory until yesterday. I'm so glad I did.

Zachtronics games give me that feeling of zen that is increasingly harder to find in games nowadays - the "Oh dang it is 2am already, I thought it was like 9pm!".

I'd recommend checking out the aforementioned titles, as well as some of the 'other games' on the website[1], like Ruckingenur-II.

[1]: [http://www.zachtronics.com/ruckingenur- ii/](http://www.zachtronics.com/ruckingenur-ii/)

<comment><USER10> Don't forget SpaceChem! It's less-obviously-programming compared to some of the others but it has very similarly-compelling puzzles. It might be my favorite from Zachtronics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem I have with TIS-100 is that everytime I play it, I begin to think how cool it would be to have actual physical TIS-100 machine and end up distracted by thinking about the HW design

<comment><USER12> Similarly with Shenzhen I/O; I constantly think if I could make those microcontrollers as e.g. WiFi-enabled devices with small screens (e.g. via NodeMCU). You'd program and wire them with your computer or a smartphone, but the point would be that each such device executes its own piece of code, displaying the code and the state of registers on its small screen (and signal routing would go through the network for simplicity).

<comment><USER13> Someone needs to make physical Shenzhen I/O components, maybe powered by arduino. Then we can have fun putting them together like Legos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This game is wonderful and I lost much time to it.

Then I lost even more time reimplementing the game in JavaScript and trying to solve the puzzles with genetic programming. I did not get very far. [https://github.com/melograph85/tis100](https://github.com/melograph85/tis100)

</comment><comment><USER15> I love this guy. Funnily enough I was just reflecting a couple days ago on my admiration of his stance on the whole Infiniminer/Minecraft thing.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14945713](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14945713)

</comment><comment><USER16> I spent some time playing this. Loved the manual and the old school aspect. Suddenly, I thought that every hour I spent in this I could be learning real assembler or another language that I could use IRL - solve real git-hub bugs for fun, etc.

<comment><USER17> That is a deep well to dive down. It's similar to the feeling I get when I am procrastinating on the weekends - I want to be 'productive' which in that case means spending some time playing one of the games I have going.

The feeling of "I could be using my time better".

The main difference here, specifically, is that the game has a well defined set of constraints. It is a limited environment with a known correct solution; it has an achievable goal.

There are well defined and measurable metrics, and you quickly learn systematic methods to improve your results with respect to those metrics.

Furthermore, the ability to achieve the goals and improve your stats is entirely within your own control.

Unfortunately, the real world is a mess of subtle complexity. Sometimes not so subtle!

Constraints are poorly defined if at all. Often there is no 'known correct' solution, because most of the time there isn't a well defined problem. Bug reports are a good counterexample to this, however.

Often the metrics aren't defined at all, or different people measure them in different ways. Most of the metrics people care about won't be measured automatically, and you have a limited ability to directly incrementally improve them.

Lastly, your ability to make any impact at all is almost always dependent on other people working with you to that end.

There have been lots of attempts to 'gameify' real-world code development; I wish the world weren't so complex. Sometimes I wish I didn't have that nagging in the back of my head that I could be spending my time better, but to be fair it's probably the one thing that keeps me from getting bored!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Decent podcast episode with Zach as a guest: [https://theamphour.com/332-an- interview-with-zach-barth-of-z...](https://theamphour.com/332-an-interview- with-zach-barth-of-zachtronics/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I met Zach a few years ago when he spoke at a community college in my hometown. Super nice guy and it was interesting to hear him talk about his games. I was quite literally the only one that played his games in the room though.

</comment><comment><USER20> He wrote Infiniminer, which was an inspiration for Minecraft

</comment><comment><USER21> Honestly TIS-100 feels like it would be an extremely comfortable 16 bit machine to program for IRL. I've wasted 40 hours of my life on it so far and I'm ashamed to say it's been funner than most 'real' games I've been playing.

I wish there was an environment that could simulate 100s of TIS-100 "cores" but I guess I'd need to write it myself.

<comment><USER22> [http://www.greenarraychips.com](http://www.greenarraychips.com)

They make real world chips that are much like the architectural concept in TIS-100.

<comment><USER21> Whoa that's sick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This game had me seeing TIS-100 assembly in my sleep. Perfect difficulty level for me. Challenging but not impossible.

</comment><comment><USER24> Funny, I just started playing this again this week. I remember spending some time 1.5 years ago but since then, I did much more programming on the job. It's good to see I learned how to think in another way. :-)

</comment><comment><USER25> More than puzzle games, Zachtronics create true problem solving games that suck you in like nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yep, agree. My record so far is creating a bunch of crap.</comment>


A non-responsive approach to building cross-device webapps - <AUTHOR> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/mobile/cross-device/

<comment><USER2> I tend to do general freelance web-design as well as working with a couple of startups on a part-time basis. About a year ago I started to encourage my clients to provide a mobile option.

Since then I've worked with a number of responsive frameworks (bootstrap, foundation, less framework) and found them pretty decent for rapidly providing a responsive site. However I've come to the conclusion that for a fair amount of client work the non-responsive but device specific may be a better option.

Don't get me wrong I've secured work by demonstrating how a responsive website behaves by resizing the browser. It instantly conveys the flexibility and use case for clients. And for some of the simpler client work it works perfectly.

However I've also seen that usage behavior and expectations change from mobile to desktop. Increasingly I'm finding that what content is delivered to what device is far more important that whether the layout pops into a single column.

This article is exactly the starter pack of development techniques that I'd like to have to move from responsive frameworks to a more considered mobile and device specific approach.</comment>


Clean Coders Screencasts - <AUTHOR> http://www.cleancoders.com/

<comment><USER2> There seems to be a trend of coding screencasts popping up online and I think its great. You learn coding best by doing and watching a screencast, actually seeing how the experts create and craft software is way more engaging and informative than reading it off a book. You can actually hear them talk about design choices and tradeoffs, see how they use IDE's/text editors and pick up a lot of best practices in general.

I think its a great alternative (as opposed to long/messy consulting gigs) for startups with solid technical talent to generate a stream of revenue and bootstrap to success.

</comment><comment><USER3> I paid a dollar for the first video and didn't even finish it. I own Clean Code and think it's one of the best programming books ever. This video series however (based on the first video) looks like it's been made back in 1994 and the presentation is too jumpy and jarring with a lot of short edits to be taken seriously.

</comment><comment><USER4> Suggestion: make the first video first instead of having people pay $1 to try your screencasts. Just throwing it out there.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. I don't mind the cost of the others if I get a sneak peek. I'm not whipping out my credit card for something I'm not sure of.</comment></comment>


China Telecom's BGP Hijacking [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=mca <comment><USER2> > While one may argue such attacks can always be explained by 'normal' BGP > behavior, these in particular suggest malicious intent, precisely because of > their unusual transit characteristics – namely the lengthened routes and the > abnormal durations.

The investigation is pretty damning—it's clear from the visuals that the traffic followed unusual routes. (Canada to South Korea via China, seriously?)

Could there possibly be an innocent explanation where the channel through PRC somehow happens to be less saturated or otherwise faster?

Could it be related to the recent objection by DoJ to the US—HK undersea link? I imagine such a link could enable even wilder hijacking scenarios.

The article is from 2018, but it seems like it was an ongoing thing at the time of publication—is it still happening with no repercussions?

I did get some laughs from the unsuccessful attempt at diverting US—Italy traffic, but overall it paints a bleak picture.

<comment><USER3> >Could there possibly be an innocent explanation where the channel through PRC somehow happens to be less saturated or otherwise faster?

BGP prioritizes routes via the number of hops in the AS path. A prefix announcement could be described like this:

        subnet: 169.254.0.0/16
        origin-as: 65419
        as-path: 65419 -> 65420 -> 65416

This announcement is twice removed from the origin AS (autonomous system), and would have a lower priority than a direct announcement from the origin as or another path.

A BGP speaker can lie about the AS path and claim they have a shorter path than they really do. Then their peers either reject the route advertisement, if RPKI is configured (it is not), or accept it and forward traffic through it.

<comment><USER4> From a US West POV: I don't believe I've ever seen that kind of path through PRC to be faster. Their peering ports are insanely oversubscribed and lossy at peak in LA/SJ, and half-decent traffic via CT's Next Generation is absurdly expensive.

<comment><USER5> China Unicom / China Telecom / China Mobile suck as transit, not sure what the above poster is getting at.

[https://jpgamboa.com/peering-chinese-internet/](https://jpgamboa.com/peering- chinese-internet/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > China Telecom (CT) entered North American networks at the beginning of the > 2000s, and has since grown to have 10 PoPs, eight in the US and two in > Canada, spanning both coasts and all the major exchange points in the US. > Few other non-American ISPs has such a wide-spread presence on US soil.

So can't the US government just shut them down?

I mean, do US firms operate ten PoPs in China?

<comment><USER7> this is probably a bad precedent to set

<comment><USER8> It's not like US infrastructure does very well in China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there a benign explanation for the recurring, seemingly very precisely targeted hijacks mentioned in this paper?

<comment><USER10> Doesn't seem to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sure it's a naive question, but isn't this what route filters and community policy rules are meant to prevent? These are universally in use in the Tier 1s to automate route management permissions at a large scale.

I understand that Tier 1 backbone peers trust other Tier 1s' announcements implicitly. But couldn't US Tier 1s simply block announcements by China Telecom of non-transit prefixes that don't belong to Chinese ASNs? Or would that be a monumentally unmanageable undertaking? Aren't RIR address block delegations broadly regionalised, to the degree that one could obtain a list of all address ranges delegated by APNIC to the PRC, fairly straightforwardly?

<comment><USER12> No, IRR assignments are only regional in terms of the company requesting them. A European company can use their RIPE resources anywhere in the world without "delegating" them.

Yes, filter lists generated by recursively resolving IRR AS-SETs and RPKI can prevent incidents like this, if they were universally applied. Note that origin validation on its own (i.e. what RPKI does) does not prevent malicious attacks, which can just spoof the right origin.

Some Tier 1's - most notably NTT - also use a mechanism called "Peer Lock", where an ASN can specify that it will only ever use a given set of transit providers (i.e. "NTT should never receive a Google prefix from a China Telecom peer"), which would have prevented this.

[https://archive.nanog.org/sites/default/files/Snijders_Every...](https://archive.nanog.org/sites/default/files/Snijders_Everyday_Practical_Bgp.pdf)

[https://blogs.akamai.com/Minimizing%20BGP%20Hijacking%20Risk...](https://blogs.akamai.com/Minimizing%20BGP%20Hijacking%20Risk_2018-10-29.pdf)</comment></comment>


In France, cyber critics burned a fablab to protest the digital culture (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/hackernoon/in-france-cyber-criticism-turns-violent-as-activists-burn-a-fablab-to-protest-the-diffusion-of-4ad378251c5b <comment><USER2> And today, in the same area (Grenoble, France), people are burning antennas used for mobile phone networks.

[https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne-rhone- alpes...](https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne-rhone- alpes/isere/grenoble/grenoble-deux-antennes-relais-incendiees-problemes- reception-constates-metropole-1830246.html)</comment>


How a real Apollo astronaut helped "First Man" shoot the moon - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90246288/how-real-apollo-astronaut-got-first-man-ready-for-launch-al-worden <comment><USER2> I met Al Worden a few years ago. He was an engaging speaker, and an intriguing conversationalist. This article is completely consistent with the man I met, I wish I'd had more time with him.

Rather worrying, though, is the inconsistent spelling of Neil Armstrong's name. It jars badly when an author _and_ their editor can't be bothered to get names right. Dale Carnegie hit the nail on the head when he said getting people's names right really matters.</comment>