How To: Hackintosh a Dell Mini 9 Into the Ultimate OS X Netbook - <AUTHOR> http://i.gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook

<comment><USER2> I really like the Hackintosh movement.

Who ever would have guessed that installing OS X would be harder than installing Linux, and would have less hardware support? It almost makes me want to giggle.

(Oh, I love how you have to boot into the CLI. If this were Linux, everyone would be up in arms about how unintuitive it is. But if you're hacking OS X, ITS SO SUPER COOL. I am amused.)

<comment><USER3> That's not quite a fair comparison. Apple isn't presenting OS X as something that's meant to be easy to install on different computers. So of course anything you have to hack to install is going to be tricky.

<comment><USER2> Sure, I know. You still have to muck around with the command-line, and you don't get full hardware support. People seem perfectly happy to make these compromises to install OS X, but they will whine and whine if it's Linux. What's the difference?

Anyway, all I said was that I find this amusing.

<comment><USER4> OS X is quite clearly different than your average Linux distro.

<comment><USER5> OS X is quite clearly inferior to your average Linux distro.

Fixed that for you.

<comment><USER6> Joe, you've been around longer than I have, but I still feel like it's worth saying: nobody likes these OS dick-waving contests. I'm a Mac user, and I'm in love with my computer, and to me, using it feels like the most magical experience in the world. Like, I just got Quicksilver at long last, and suddenly ever hour I figure something out with it that _blows my mind_. But that's me. I like the things that OS X provides. You like Linux because it gives you some stuff that _you_ really like. Elsewhere, some guy is using Windows because _he_ really likes the stuff that _that_ does for him.

I understand the sniping elsewhere, but on Hacker News it's unnecessary, and I and other users would really like to see people _stop_ saying stupid stuff like this, and that means people on all sides. We're here because we love talking about stuff and having debates, and there's _no_ debate here, because everybody sees their computer in different ways. So can we go back to saying useful, intelligent things rather than provoking the people on both sides? (For the record, I'm one of these people: when people get antiMac I flip out, and that's not a good thing, and I'm trying to stop getting so involved.)

<comment><USER2> Why is it always the Mac users that get upset over "dick waving contests"? When someone tells me "Linux sucks" or whatever, I just kind of laugh at them and move on. But if you say "Macs suck" to a Mac user, you get a long lecture about the _experience_ and how awesome it is to use a computer like it's 1995 and blah blah blah (or something, I usually zone out after the first sentence).

Anyway, Mac users (and people that use Linux "to be cool") tend to behave like members of a religious cult. Instead of providing actual reasons for anything, they make up some emotional bullshit to justify their strong feelings for something not worth feeling strongly about.

 _everybody sees their computer in different ways_

Maybe, but it's possible you have settled on something that's acceptable, rather than "the best". Reminding people of this from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing.

<comment><USER6> _Why is it always the Mac users that get upset over "dick waving contests"?_

I can't answer for "Mac users", because I'm one person (who, incidentally, has seen more than his share of Linux users get upset over similar contests), but here's how it works for me. I take discussion of stuff like this seriously. When somebody says that an OS sucks, I try to legitimately find out _why_ they dislike the OS, because very often it teaches me something about my computer that I didn't know. So I find myself drawn into every fight that goes like this.

Part of it is because I _hate_ the antiMac backlash that pops up just because it happens to have a very firm following. I love debating OS with people. It's a fascinating subject. I love talking with Windows enthusiasts and Ubuntu enthusiasts: I find out new stuff about their respective systems each time. I like talking about people who legitimately have criticisms for the Mac, because oftentimes it makes me go looking for better solutions to problems I've been having, and that makes me enjoy the experience of using my computer. And when somebody insults the Mac without saying anything meaningful, that sets me on edge. It's like somebody who disses Shakespeare or The Wire (two other things I have passionate feelings about). If they give criticism, it becomes a discussion. If they insult it needlessly, then it becomes personal, because this person is dismissing something that to _me_ is a culmination of a long, long process.

 _But if you say "Macs suck" to a Mac user, you get a long lecture about the experience and how awesome it is to use a computer like it's 1995 and blah blah blah (or something, I usually zone out after the first sentence)._

This is exactly the problem: when I use a Mac it _feels_ awesome. Perhaps you feel the same about Linux, but I _never_ hear Linux users talk like this. When I open my Mac, I feel a sheer childlike joy at the computer I'm using. Every time I find out something new, it's this incredible marvel for me. It's this wonder that somebody else anticipated what I would try to do and made it _work_ that way. As a result, I'm not just a fan of my Mac, I'm an _enthusiast_. That's the right word for it. I actively talk about my Mac to people. I find it incredibly exciting. When I meet other people as enthusiastic as me, I talk to them about it and it's the thrill of meeting somebody with a similar taste as me. I'd call it the thrill of discussing art. That's how I see my Mac, both the hardware and the OS and pretty much every aspect of Apple. I view the entire thing as a masterful work of art.

Other people don't see computers like this. I'm aware of that. When I open an OS, the first thing I do is drag the cursor on the desktop to make a selection of material, and look at what the OS does when I drag over the initial point. On Windows the line disappears; on Ubuntu the line becomes 1px; on a Mac, with a 3px width the entire selector box moves over 2px as you drag, so that the line on the one side replaces the line on the other side as the boundary. That's the level of introspection I focus on my computer - and I _talk_ about it, too! I was thrilled when I saw that. To me, there's a visual poetry to that one simple action, to the mindset that decided on that course of action. That's a feature, to me. That's something that I find wanting in other operating systems.

Do you at least comprehend that mindset? I understand why you Linux users like Linux. Some mindsets like picking things apart and tinkering with them. I, on the other hand, look for products of human creation. I look for a powerful controlling mind determining everything. I call that the "artist" mindset because every artist I meet has it. It's the feeling you get when you understand that everything you do ought to be plastered with your personality, ought to work according to your mind, and when you start to appreciate the results of other people's minds. When I use my Mac, I _don't_ see it as a tool. I don't open it with the mindset that this is built just to let me do things. I look at it as an experience to be had. Every small little detail is a part of that experience.

It's why Mac users photograph and document the process of their opening their cases for the first time. Why they gossip about the welcoming video. Why they watch the keynotes. It's why _I_ watched the keynotes when I _wasn't_ a Mac user yet. It's the thrill of exhibition. My Mac is a gallery, not just of my own work but of the incredible work that went into making this computer what it is.

 _Instead of providing actual reasons for anything, they make up some emotional bullshit to justify their strong feelings for something not worth feeling strongly about._

It's because they _feel_ that. It's not bullshit. I could take your need to tinker, to customize your computer, and call that bullshit, and I would be just as wrong. "What sort of dumb motherfucker wants to type shit into a terminal? Who the fuck cares about programming languages if you can do anything with pretty much one if you know the basic commands? What sort of stupid turd would want to use an application library or think about window management?" But I don't say that, because I understand that different people see different things in their computers. The reason I get so pissed off at people who blindly attack the Mac - as you do every time you post anything OS- related, from what I've read - is that you don't seem to have that similar comprehension.

When I talk about stuff I like, I don't talk about technical details. You might call it cultlike, or you might call it simple emotional response. (Last time I checked, emotion was natural.) Say I'm explaining to you why I like Arrested Development. I could say, "There's a running arc of a joke between episodes 1.01 and 1.03, there are several cleverly twisted stereotypical characters, and the concept of an overall narrator allows for certain clever jokes to be made." Or I could say, "You _have_ to see it. It's seriously the funniest show I've ever seen. I can't even explain to you how wonderful it is." And if you were to say, without having seen much of Arrested Development, something along the lines of "Arrested Development sucks, 2 and a half men is better," my initial reaction WOULDN'T be the same as if the position was reversed, because with Arrested Development I've devoted a considerable amount of time to something that I consider is worth an extended intellectual effort on my part. Damn right I'm going to get pissed off, because this represents a valueset that I have, and if you insult this then you're insulting my standards. (Arguing that there are no standards at all, or that standards aren't worth passion, is disgusting.)

 _Maybe, but it's possible you have settled on something that's acceptable, rather than "the best"._

No. Here's the problem with that. I've used everything. I've run varieties of Linux. I've used Windows XP and Windows Vista. I've tried everything I could get my hands on. After that, after years of painstaking research, I settled on the Mac as the clear victor in every way that matters for me. I know my Mac in-and-out. I know all the keyboard shortcuts, the various drag-n-drop effects, the menubars and how they're laid out. In my mind, the design of the Mac is as close to perfection as any computer's had, and it continues to improve. I have nitpicks, absolutely, and I'm vocal about how irritating those small little things are, but that's like nitpicking the first line of Lindsay Bluth on the pilot episode of Arrested Development. Yeah, I'll say I "really dislike" that line, but it only stands out because the rest of the series is so close to perfection. So I might gripe because right now, my Command- Control-D is broken and I don't know what's breaking it, but the fact remains that C-C-D is a command that no other operating system has, and that it does something incredibly elegantly, and that my not having that doesn't make my Mac less than the very best, because it absolutely is.

If you want to tell me my Mac isn't perfect, ready your list of critiques. I've got several virtual Linux boxes running, and if need be I'll open them up and point out specific things with screenshots to explain what I mean, because this is what I do. I compare operating systems and software with a ridiculously anal eye. I do that to everybody. I fight with people over things that are very, very good, because I think they could be better. And if you want to join in on that debate, then you have to be prepared to do the same, otherwise Mac users _will_ get pissed off. A lot of us spend this incredible effort constantly because it's our passion. People who dismiss the stuff that we love without any sort of thought really, really piss us off. The reason is this: you see your computer as a tool, some efficiency system. But us? The hardcore Mac users? We see it as an essential part of living.

<comment><USER7> Last time I had a debate with you, I forgot to tell you that you were crazy :D That's a good thing. I'm crazy too.

I can understand all that you have said

But still, if we look at macs as pieces of art, and get a 40 years old soviet radio, make it in to a pc box, stuff it with hardware, install OSX on it, that would still kick ass. Is that equal to taking the Mona Lisa, writing a graffiti tag on it, and hanging it upside down in your living room, using duck tape? Probably, but its still awesome! You see, chaos is sometimes also an art, not as good art as perfection, but still its pretty cool.

ps. [http://www.kaldata.com/articles.php?action=show&showarti...](http://www.kaldata.com/articles.php?action=show&showarticle=71) It runs windows, but it's still super awesome.(Bulgarian language)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All whining about how running OSX on non-apple hardware ruins the "Apple Expiience"... Isn't this supposed for "love" of OS X cannibalizing the exact same thing it is evangelizing?

This is based on the assumption that Apple is able to develop a superior operating system because they can support the effort with hardware sales. If everyone would install their copy of OSX on hardware where Apple doesn't make money, how can they continue to improve OSX?

They might start to license the "right" to run OSX o hardware manufacturers but that would get them into the same compatibility hell Microsoft has gotten themselves into. I can very well understand how they don't want to get into that spot.

It's a nice pass-time and I don't think it hurts anyone given the small scale on which this is happening. Plus it may keep the folks in Cupertino on their toes for coming up with better hardware in the future.

Furthermore, as for the Linux comparisons. This clearly shows how Linux' most glaring deficiency is the lack of a consistent UI experience. There is a heavily fragmented mess bolted on top of dear old X11. It works - sort of - and as long as you stay within your chosen camp (Gnome, KDE...) you might not be off too bad. Sooner or later when you need other applications you'll get into toolkit hell.

</comment><comment><USER9> Has anyone here done this? I'm thinking of buying either a Mini 9 or Mini 12 with my tax refund and installing OS X. Curious to know what you think / how speedy it is.

<comment><USER10> Not very well. Its maxed at 1gb ram, and has a GMA 950 (Apple doesn't even sell these anymore, its not a good onboard gfx card)

And an Atom at 1.33GHz won't be well. 1.6GHz barely cuts it with the Air.

<comment><USER11> The Dell is sold with a maximum of 1gb of RAM, but it can be upgraded to 2 gigs for OSes that aren't limited during compilation to only deal with 1gig (hint: OSX). I know this is true, because I spent thirty bucks and upgraded mine today. It works well.

<comment><USER12> > OSes that aren't limited during compilation to only deal with 1gig (hint: > OSX)

What do you mean by this? There is no 1GB memory limit in OS X.

<comment><USER11> Indeed, but the versions of XP and Linux that you get from netbook vendors ARE limited to 1 GB.

<comment><USER13> That's a _licensing_ requirement from Microsoft to avoid the "XP Tax." It's not the case if you get Linux and, anyway, is not a technical requirement.

<comment><USER11> Nobody said it was a technical requirement. Just that they were "limited". The net result is that netbook manufacturers are selling machines that don't live up to the capabilities of the hardware or the OSes. There are ways around them, and recompiling linux kernels and installing Mac OS are just two of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if such an installation would survive any software updates from Apple. Would Apple in general be able to tell you are not running this on genuine Apple hardware?

<comment><USER15> Quote from the article: "and on top of that you'll run into all kinds of problems should you ever want to upgrade your OS or software via Software Update."

<comment><USER14> This is if you DON'T follow the instructions in the article. I'm asking about what happens if you do.

<comment><USER16> it is never completely safe to use software update on a hackintosh. certain files have been hacked to make it work. what if apple sends down a newer version of one of those files, undoing your hacks?

<comment><USER17> If you're smart you'll use the shareware package inspector, Paranoia, to snoop through the packages and tell you what the update's really doing before applying it.

Most software updates (application updates / security updates / Safari+iTunes+QuickTime will work fine. Its the 10.5.X updates that might break something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been looking into getting a simple Hakcintosh environment to fool around with, and this made me check for how well Hackintosh is supported on the EEE.

<http://tigeroneeepc.wikispaces.com/working>

I guess I'm not going to bother.

<comment><USER17> Maybe the EEE isn't the way to go. The MSI Wind Netbook is the de facto hackintosh. So much that people are selling it as a "Macbook Nano" on Ebay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Where are the Apple fanboys whining about the ruining of the Apple "experience"?

<comment><USER20> Reddit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anything mac fans say about this might be true, but irrelevant. OS X is better on macs than on pc's, macs are better computers, they feel better, they look better, this IS illegal, etc. But the problem is with choice. Choice is good. And some of us LIKE Dells, imagine that.

<comment><USER6> Notice the problems that're being stated about hardware failure. You don't get that on Macs because Apple controls exactly what hardware gets used on their computer. That means that their developers can focus on other cool things instead.

In the end, Apple chooses whether or not we have a choice. With _their product_ the best choices are they ones they allow. Outside of that, the choice is between Mac and some other operating system.</comment></comment>


Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ <comment><USER2> > The lesson — other than that criminal justice often has little to do with > actual justice — is this: _for God 's sake shut up_. Law enforcement agents > seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just > clearing this one thing up." _Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to > the cops._ Every time.

This is a very good reminder, and everything he says is both important and true. Unfortunately, it's sadly much easier said than done.

I know my rights. Both nationally, as well as the specific nuances of New York[0] (both city and state). I have even conducted multiple "Know Your Rights" training events educating people (generally students) about the rights that they do and don't have when speaking with LEOs, and how to exercise them. But even then, when push came to shove and I was in this position, I found myself hesitating and second guessing my knowledge, despite all the practice I had and the trainings I'd helped conduct myself.[1]

LEOs - especially Feds - will do everything they can to intimidate you, make you uncomfortable, lower your confidence, etc. It's literally their job to make people like you make mistakes. It sucks, but that's what you're up against.

[0] PSA: Did you know that possession of < 27g ( _not_ a full ounce) of marijuana is only a criminal offence in NY if "burning or open to public view"? Did you also know that this means that you should never, ever turn out your pockets if a cop asks you, because then you've exposed said contraband to "public view"? Wait for him/her to frisk you, and at least then your lawyer will have a slight chance at getting the charge dismissed.

[1] It didn't help that most of my knowledge (as is often the case) centred around local police, whereas the situation regarding border crossings and the TSA is more thorny.

<comment><USER3> >LEOs - especially Feds - will do everything they can to intimidate you, make you uncomfortable, lower your confidence, etc. It's literally their job to make people like you make mistakes. It sucks, but that's what you're up against.

I don't know why we tolerate that. Imagine if doctors used such techniques to get people to participate in medical trials. We'd reject any claim that the subjects gave consent.

Or imagine if any interested party used those techniques to get you to do something that every competent professional would advise against? Again, not good enough to be consent.

But if law enforcement does the same thing? "Just good ol fashioned police work".

<comment><USER4> We don't expect criminals to consent to being prosecuted. Those parallels really don't make a lot of sense.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that everyone is viewed as a perp, particularly if you are black. "Innocent until proven guilty" means something.

<comment><USER6> It means something specific: at trial, the police must prove your guilt by a reasonable doubt, and doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. That's all it means.

This is not to say that law enforcement doesn't need to cut back on the aggressive tactics. But rather that the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with why.

<comment><USER7> You are conveniently ignoring a great number of plea deals when 'justice' is served without a case being heard in court.

<comment><USER6> Pleas aren't scrutinized by trial, but they are heard in court: [http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2015/01/fourth-circuit- holds-...](http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2015/01/fourth-circuit-holds-guilty- plea-was-supported-by-an-adequate-factual-basis). At least at the federal level, judges may only accept a guilty plea after conducting a colloquy with the defendant and convincing themselves that the plea is voluntary, the defendant knows his rights and consequences of the plea, and that there is a factual basis for the plea. In federal courts, the factual basis will usually be a detailed document enumerating the facts the prosecution is prepared to prove at trial, which if proven will establish the defendant's guilt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Hence, the government's chickenshit false statement trap works — even though > the government agents set it up from the start.

If you don't read Popehat, this might be the moment you realize it's a good idea to start. Very rarely do you see legal discussion detailed enough to be meaningful, while informal enough to hold your attention.

Other discussions of note is the bizarre sentencing of Petraeus: [https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/03/a-few-comments-on-the- dav...](https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/03/a-few-comments-on-the-david- petraeus-plea-deal-what-money-and-connections-buy-you/) and the way Darren Wilson's potential prosecution was evaluated: [https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/04/darren-wilson-and-the- ben...](https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/04/darren-wilson-and-the-benefit-of- doubt/)

Double standards are a recurring theme, you could rightly deduce. As a largely technical crowd it might bother us as much as it bothers lawyers.

<comment><USER9> Also of note for those new to Pope Hat, Ken White is a former Federal Prosecutor. His perspective from both sides of federal law makes for some interesting posts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not American and I have a question. Everybody in this thread repeats to "never talk to law enforcement without your lawyer present". I don't have a lawyer. I don't know a lawyer. I've hardly ever even talked to a lawyer. If I were in the USA and I'd get picked up for questioning, I wouldn't know who to call.

Does every American "have a lawyer"? Do you know their phone number by heart? Is having a lawyer like having a health insurance, in that you could do without but it'd be pretty stupid? Isn't that a suffocating thought? How do you deal with it?

<comment><USER11> No, I think that most Americans don't have a lawyer on call.

The typical advice I have heard is to do a little research on lawyers in your city, and have a phone number of a reputable lawyer (or a few) in your wallet in case of a potentially severe legal situation. When you call them and establish a relationship where you are paying for their services they become "your lawyer".

(this is not advice, I'm not a lawyer, etc)

<comment><USER10> > _(this is not advice, I 'm not a lawyer, etc)_

Related: will people sue you if you don't include that disclaimer?

<comment><USER12> IANAL, but I believe that in this case the disclaimer is just a courtesy. That is, before one makes a life-altering decision, one should consult a real attorney, not just us morons on HN.

<comment><USER13> If you don't include it when discussing any vaguely law-related matter, Internet Tough Guys will be quick to call you out for "practicing law without a license". [1]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9088475](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9088475)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Actually over the years, I've found that shutting my mouth would be helpful not only when talking to law enforcement. Not always so good at carrying that out though.

Anyways, it reminds of the time I was arrested for smoking the forbidden devil vegetable. We were brought into the city court room to be indicted while we were waiting two suburban white teenagers were in from the bench getting chewed out by the judge, saying that he's sick of seeing these kids from the suburbs coming into the city to buy drugs and encouraging crime in his neighborhood. After he finished his rant, he asked them what they plead and they said not guilty of course. Then one of them felt the urge to speak up and said, "I just want to point out one thing before we go... the police officer wrote down that it was crack cocaine, but it was regular cocaine, not crack." After the judge picked his jaw up off the floor he broke character and told them to shut up until they had a lawyer.

<comment><USER15> I can't help but wonder if those kids would have gotten the same apparently- lenient/gracious treatment from the judge if they'd instead been POC teenagers from the inner city.

<comment><USER14> Actually he seemed genuinely ticked off at those kids, and I wouldn't say he was lenient (I wasn't really trying to make a statement about that with my story, so maybe I gave a false impression by mistake). I'm white and my friend that I was arrested with was black, and we received the same treatment from the judge (not from the cops though, but that is a different story) - and from what I saw those two kids were the only ones who got chewed out, the rest of us were just arraigned and sent on our way for further processing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Also very enlightening, and many probably already have watched this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

> Dont Talk to Cops

> Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense > attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the > police.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, but I'll continue to report crimes and assist canvassers looking for anyone who saw a suspect.

"But he obviously didn't mean _that_!" Then why the extreme repetition of "never"?

<comment><USER17> I would seriously consider reporting anything non-lethal in US, see _" Good Samaritan Backfire or How I Ended Up in Solitary After Calling 911 for Help"_: [https://medium.com/human-parts/good-samaritan- backfire-9f53e...](https://medium.com/human-parts/good-samaritan- backfire-9f53ef6a1c10)

<comment><USER18> There is a corollary to "don't talk to cops" which is "if you do talk to cops, minimize the encounter" closely followed by "always obey direct order from cop to leave" and concluding with "if you are incarcerated, shut up until you're completely out of confinement."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I thought everyone knew this. Never talk to representatives or agents of the US federal government without your lawyer present. Never, ever, ever.

When they make contact, ask them for a phone number your lawyer can call. Ask them what matter the questions will be regarding. Get a card if it's in person. They're going to tell you there's no reason to hire a lawyer and you can clear the whole thing up in five minutes if you talk to them. They're lying, which is something they can do legally, but if you do it you're off to the gray bar hotel.

[http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to- avoi...](http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going- to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html)

<comment><USER20> That is slightly weird. How would I, for instance, arrange a lawyer to be present when I step out of a plane at JFK and talk to the immigration officer, who quite legitimately just wants to see my passport? He'll also be asking questions which I'm obliged to answer. There's no choice, but there's seldom any trouble, either.

<comment><USER21> If you're a US citizen returning to the US, you actually are _not_ obliged to answer their questions. That said, this is a pretty grey area and they certainly don't like it if you don't.

[https://greyenigma.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/i-am-detained- by...](https://greyenigma.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/i-am-detained-by-the-feds- for-not-answering-questions-nomad-lawyer/)

<comment><USER20> Right, that's nice to know. I'm not a US citizen though, so I think I really need to answer those questions - without a lawyer - unless I want to be put back to the next plane heading back where I came from.

<comment><USER22> Basically, yes. It's an ugly situation and lots of people take the stance of never visiting the US because of it.

<comment><USER23> You can be subject to the same kind of questioning when entering any country. The only way to be sure of avoiding it would be never to travel abroad.

<comment><USER20> True. The questions on U.S. border may sometimes be a bit more strange and thorough than in other countries, to the point of obnoxiousness, but there are similarities in the immigration point to many countries. And there are some grounds for why it is like this in the U.S. - after all, U.S. is the top destination for illegal immigration.

The visa and ESTA forms really should get rid of questions about whether I was involved in the crimes of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. Snare me all right, but snare me with something more relevant today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Remember also we need to end civil forfeiture, which lets police take your stuff without charging you with a crime. It is a growing business in the US, police are now regularly trained in the game and rewarded based on their daily take.

more reading: [https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset- forfeit...](https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture) and google suggests the following: [http://fear.org/1/](http://fear.org/1/) [http://endforfeiture.com/](http://endforfeiture.com/)

<comment><USER25> Or if you're more into being educated by comedy, John Oliver did a nice take on it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The only time I ever did this, it was a routine traffic stop and I was with my wife and my parents. The cop was asking me a bunch of questions about why I was driving so fast, and I just played it off like I didn't understand, just trying to say as little as possible. It was a bad tactic - it raised suspicion and I later learned that my mother thought I was actually holding drugs or something because I was being evasive. I still in general agree with the advice, but... it requires some subtlety.

<comment><USER27> This is a good point though. What do you folks suggest for the standard traffic stop, along the lines of,

"Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"

Presumably both "yes" and "no" would be bad. (The former is obvious, and the latter could mean you're not paying sufficient attention, etc.) So, do you just stare at them in silence? Do you say something like, "I'd rather not answer," which while accurate, sure sounds like "yes". (At the very least, there goes your chance of a warning instead of a ticket...)[1]

I agree with serve_yay that many of these situations start off seeming innocuous, and staying silent is easier said than done.

Another example is the cops canvasing the area of a crime, looking for info. Do you just refuse to speak to them without a lawyer, even though you had nothing to do with it? It's certainly possible (albeit unlikely) that they actually have you as a suspect and are trying to trick you into some sort of false statement. (Or a statement that _appears_ to be false because it conflicts with other evidence, even if it's true!) But in the vast majority of cases it'll be exactly what it seems. Or say you actually witnessed a crime. Or were the victim! Still lawyer up before talking to the cops? It appears the safest thing is, yes, always get a lawyer. But at some point on the spectrum, does the cost and inconvenience outweigh the insurance factor of doing so?

[1] I've only been in that situation a couple times, but I've tried my best to answer politely without saying anything material. One way to do that is to answer questions with questions. "Do you know how fast you were going?" "How fast was I going, Sir?"

<comment><USER28> > "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"

The proper answer is - "No, because I know exactly where I am"

<comment><USER29> That's going to get you instantly arrested in Albuquerque, NM.

<comment><USER28> They outlaw science there?

<comment><USER30> Perhaps the opposite: Maybe he was referencing the physics research there?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The question that I have every time I read about something similar to this is not about the law itself, but about the human who's applying the law: how/ why/ what is the line of thought that would lead them to (supposedly) knowingly do something like this? I realize that processes, bureaucracy and generally abstraction can allow people to do less than desirable behaviours, but I can't quite figure out which abstraction that would encourage people to do things like that (note: with the term "abstraction", I meant that by using incentives or measuring the wrong intermediate metrics, we've created a wrong set of objectives, which might be completely misaligned with the actual goal we're trying to achieve).

Laws are complex set of statements, which naturally will have more accidentally complexity as they're developed, a phenomenon that hackers are extremely familiar with. That's something to be expected. On the other hand, human, abusing the accidental complexity of law, is not ideal - as anything else, there should be place and time for trickery, but not the SOP.

That said, what's the rationale for the behaviour of law enforcement officer in pursuing various type of trap-y actions?

\- Do LEO routinely believes that everyone they investigate to be committing the crime. Do we have a good priori of P(criminal | under investigation) that would support this?

\- Did we actually manage to create a powerful enough abstractions that let actors within the system to, well, behave psychopathically (ie. this button should be pushed because I'm supposed to do that, I don't really know what happen behind it)?

\- Trickery are generally being reported out of proportion, and should not be a general concern for the the majority of us.

\- Malicious intention -- I will assume this percentage to be not higher than those from a general population.

<comment><USER32> I would say "all of the above."

LEO do routinely believe that people they investigate must be guilty. They don't investigate at random, but rather are prompted by some evidence of criminal behavior. That certainly doesn't mean that you must be guilty if they investigate you, but it sets _them_ up to _believe_ you are.

The system is set up with compartments so nobody sees the full consequences of anything and this sort of misbehavior is encouraged. If you send somebody to jail, they disappear from your life the moment the verdict is reached and you have no reason to dwell on the harm you've caused them. (And if you do, you probably think it's a good thing, because you think they're a criminal!) And you probably get a commendation for putting a bad guy away.

Bad behavior does get reported disproportionately. Most cops are good cops. For everyone like this, there are ten cops who find a lost cellphone and personally deliver it back to the owner, as happened to a neighbor of mine a few months ago. That doesn't make the news. Although that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern for the majority of us. Even a small risk of being falsely imprisoned is important, and there's no harm in taking the "SHUT UP" route with a good cop.

Finally, I would be wary of assuming that malicious intent is no higher than among the general population. Bad people tend to seek power over others, and what better way to wield such power than to do so _legally_ as a member of the police? No doubt, the legitimate "protect and serve" folks still greatly outnumber the bad guys, but I would bet they're more concentrated.

<comment><USER33> It's dangerous to bandy around statements like "most cops are good cops" for which you don't have evidence. Instead, you might say "Some cops are good cops".

<comment><USER32> How is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.

<comment><USER33> Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?

<comment><USER34> You asserted that it was "dangerous" for him to bandy around such statements.

Care to back up that assertion?

"Unnecessary" and "dangerous" are quite different.

<comment><USER35> The word "dangerous" is not exclusively used to indicate the likelihood of physical injury. It is also widely used to describe the likelihood of any undesirable consequences. The undesirable consequence in this case is a weakening of the argument being presented.

<comment><USER36> How does it weaken the argument? No one has put forth the idea that it is ok to talk to good cops. Don't talk to cops good, bad, or indifferent in nature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> For anyone else that site no longer loads there is a mirror @ [https://archive.today/daFxI](https://archive.today/daFxI)

</comment><comment><USER38> This is precisely why in Poland (and likely more european jurisdictions) lying as an accused is not a crime (even if you muddle stuff completely), only as a witness. It's a bit shocking this is not the case in America

<comment><USER39> In Germany, not even prison escape is a crime per se (unless you hurt someone or damage property, of course - so it's mostly the "door-left-open"-scenario), because we recognize the elementary human desire to be free. And you do not have to accuse yourself, and that includes lying, if necessary. I'd say it works pretty well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I want to clarify the scope of this advice. If I've actually committed a crime and a cop is interrogating me about it, I should shut up and talk to my lawyer. (e.g. I robbed someone's house) In the other extreme, if someone's committed a crime against me, I should actively call the police to talk to them (e.g. someone robbed my house).

The majority of interactions with police fall somewhere between these two examples in terms of susceptibility. What determines when I should be talking to the cops and when I shouldn't?

<comment><USER41> _> If I've actually committed a crime_

The article (and other such presentations on the subject) indicate very clearly that innocence is not a factor. It doesn't seem to matter if you've committed a crime or not - and whether your assessment your own innocence itself actually holds true or not is yet another uncertain factor.

 _> if someone's committed a crime against me_

Then your lawyer will facilitate all the necessary measures, and he/she'll do it better and more efficiently than you ever could.

 _> What determines when I should be talking to the cops and when I shouldn't?_

Beyond basic cooperation at, say, a traffic stop or during an emergency, most experts seem to agree that you should never, _under any circumstances_ talk directly to any law enforcement personnel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Read [http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target- Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target- Innocent/dp/1594035229) even if it's exaggerating, even if it's twisting the truth as some claim there are some frightening amount of felonies you can commit and because of that you can't ever presume you are innocent. But even if you are, as the wonderful video linked by lgierth shows you can be in trouble. Just don't talk to the police.

</comment><comment><USER43> The general case here is: don't lie to federal agents. The easiest way to do that is to stay silent and demand a lawyer.

But understand: if you're on the periphery of an investigation, you're running a chance of raising a red flag. It's well within your rights, and ultimately you can't incriminate yourself by being silent. But you could substantially add delay, frustration, and lawyer costs to the whole experience.

Another way to not lie is to speak the truth. In the specific example from the blog post, there's no reason to lie--taking that call was not illegal, so there's no reason to lie.

My question is: how often to federal prosecutions go to trial based _only_ on a false statement trap? I have no doubt that agents use it as a "cherry on top" of other charges, but I'm assuming most folks here are worried about surprise or "gotcha" prosecutions--not actually worried that their criminal ways will be exposed.

So how often do federal agents clear someone of any substantive wrongdoing, but still prosecute them based solely on a false statement trap? I would be surprised if it ever happens.

Edit: Downvotes but no answers are a bummer; I'm asking a question here.

<comment><USER44> "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." — Cardinal Richelieu

<comment><USER45> This quote is often misattributed. Actually by Laubardemont.

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Martin_de_Laubardemont](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Martin_de_Laubardemont) (no English wikipedia page). He's well known for the Loudun withcraft trials ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudun_possessions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudun_possessions))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> IIRC, this was what got Martha Stewart her jail time. Not insider trading, but lying to a federal investigator.

</comment><comment><USER47> One thing that is very important to know about this behavior, is that while it works in the US in your favor, it will not in other states of the world. A good example is Austria where refusing a statement generally works heavily against you.

</comment><comment><USER48> "My name is (name), what is yours? Nice to meet you. Am I free to go?"

"Please, I do not wish to talk to you."

"Please, if you want to talk to me further, I will want my lawyer present."

"Please, I do not wish to participate in a fight with you."

"Please, let us leave each other alone, or I will destroy you and your organization via technology beyond your understanding." (Be sure you can back this one up before using it).

Be polite, be professional, speak little unless there's profit in speaking much. Works with most everyone that is outside your monkeysphere, this includes cops.

</comment><comment><USER24> So my question is what can we, the hacker community, do to change this? Would pervasive sousveillance help?

Thinking deeper: we need to change the culture of LE in the US. What needs to change such that LEOs become part of the wider community, so they are held accountable etc..

Silly idea: a "trip-advisor" or "4-square" for police encounters. Any encounter with a LEO, you upload the location, their badge number, and give them a ranking. Did they show compassion/understanding? 5 stars.

<comment><USER49> I've considered an app that would, once initiated, aggressively record audio/video/location/movement/etc, no stop button (!), resisting app termination, strong encrypting the content, and (key point) immediately uploading to a deep-storage service like Amazon Glacier. Usage would be free, retrieval of content would require service-support costs and proof of ownership or warrant/subpoena.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Dont talk to police [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

</comment><comment><USER51> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

</comment><comment><USER52> Remaining silent can hurt you though.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court- silen...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court- silence_n_3453968.html)

You need to simply say something along the lines of "I need legal counsel present while talking to you." After that then shut up.

</comment><comment><USER53> If you have a competent lawyer, not even a high powered one, a jury of your peers will be convinced that is indeed bullshit. The problem, of course, is all the other shit you've done, which HN types think is ok, like running a drug site on the dark web, which is the actual problem ...

</comment><comment><USER54> > Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends.

oh dear. this is a very sad statement all on its own, without any of what came before it.

law enforcement should be our friends.

</comment><comment><USER55> Anyone have any similar advise for Brits?

<comment><USER56> IANAL, but I would imagine it's a bit trickier, as our right not to incriminate ourselves is more restricted than that of our American cousins (at least in England & Wales -- Scotland and Northern Ireland may be different): the warning given by police is, "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

<comment><USER57> I think the advice isn't "say nothing", it is "say nothing until your lawyer is there".

So, for someone arrested (or questioned) in England or Wales the advice is to politely say something like "I'm happy to answer your questions officer, but I am waiting for my lawyer to get here".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I thought this post was going to be about the "Restart or Details" update dialogue on Macs

</comment><comment><USER59> How do they prevent the two investigators from lying about what I said?

</comment><comment><USER60> Are we talking about their cool HTTP 503/522 error page?

<comment><USER61> Doesn't include italicising or links or title, but:

There's really no excuse for the fact that we don't have a "SHUT UP!" tag; I shall have to remedy that. After all, "SHUT UP!" is one of our most venerable and consistent themes.

There's a reason for this. The reason lies at the heart of law enforcement methodology in general and federal law enforcement abuse of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 in particular.

Imagine this scenario, based on an actual situation:

A business associate calls you and says, "my dear business associate, the shit has hit the fan; Federal Agency X is investigating Project Y we did together. Two Agency X agents are interviewing people."

"Oh coitus," says you, or words to that effect, and terminate the conversation.

Later that day, two well-dressed and polite agents of Agency X visit you. Because you despise me and want me to weep and gnash my teeth, you consent to be interviewed. At some point, they ask you "have you talked about this investigation with anyone?"

"No," you say.

They smile.

At the end of the interview, it occurs to you to ask, "Hey, am I in trouble? Do I need a lawyer?"

The agents smirk. "No," they say. "I mean, unless you lied about talking to anyone about this investigation."

See, you've fallen into a false statement trap, which I've talked about before. The feds know that you've talked to somebody about their investigation. They were probably standing next to your friend when he made that call this morning. And now you've talked your way into a felony.

Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001. To be a crime under Section 1001, a statement must be material — but the federal courts have generally supported the government's position that the question is not whether a false statement actually did influence the government, but whether it was the sort of false statement that could have influenced the government.

Hence, the government's chickenshit false statement trap works — even though the government agents set it up from the start. Now, however weak or strong their evidence is of the issue they are investigating, they've got you on a Section 1001 charge — a federal felony. In effect, they are manufacturing felonies in the course of investigations.

You think this is an improbable scenario? You think I'm talking about rare and extreme cases to color the entirety of federal law enforcement? To the contrary, as a federal defense attorney, I'm encountering this more and more often. Not to sound like an old fart, but we never indulged in such bullshit when I was a federal prosecutor (cue the scoffing from many defense attorneys). But in the last 12 years, I've seen it in a dozen cases, and heard about it from colleagues across the country. It's now routine for federal agents to close out an investigation with a false-statement-trap interview of a target in an effort to add a Section 1001 cherry to the top of the cake.

The lesson — other than that criminal justice often has little to do with actual justice — is this: for God's sake shut up. Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just clearing this one thing up." Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops. Every time.

SHUT UP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62>
      But in the last 12 years, I've seen it in a dozen cases...

Once a year, throughout the country? How many thousands of investigations are performed per year? Doesn't seem very likely to happen.

<comment><USER32> How many thousands of investigations is he personally involved in per year? I'd guess something on the order of 0.05.

<comment><USER63> Not to mention, I imagine they only play that card when it seems like they need to for one reason or another.

<comment><USER64> More likely they do something similar relatively often and only spring the trap if they feel it necessary.

<comment><USER63> Yeah I didn't mean they don't trap you often, rather they don't have to use it that often--certainly not prosecute it often--and therefore the guy doesn't see it that often.

I should have made my opinion more clear, judging by the downvotes.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: 400 ASCII Cows in Docker, the Hard Way - <AUTHOR> http://blog.alexellis.io/cows-on-docker/ <comment><AUTHOR> "My colleague turned to me and said:

'There is a whole npm module that just shows cow ASCIIs...'

At that point we knew there was only one way forward.. "</comment>


Chrome 51 Arrives on Android, Officially Kills Off "Merge Tabs and Apps" - <AUTHOR> http://www.droid-life.com/2016/06/08/chrome-51-arrives-officially-kills-off-merge-tabs-apps/ <comment><USER2> I was among the folks who at first didn't care for the feature, but it quickly grew on me. Things I noticed (perhaps useful for UX folks)

* In a default one-handed grip, it was easier to switch between tabs because the multitasking button on Android is near where one's thumb usually is. Now to switch tabs, you have to reach diagonally across the screen on top near the address bar (which is aggravated by unnaturally big phones, but that's another story)

* I am not on the dev channels, and was not particularly "in the know" about the upcoming change. So I was extremely frustrated to find one day that not only suddenly a fundamental behaviour changed, but there was no option to set it back!! Really disrespectful to the user. If I was dead-set on changing it I would put a highlight near the setting that it was going to be deprecated soon.

I then resolve to switch to Firefox on Android, and I can't believe I didn't do it earlier. While I've made peace with the fact that "merge apps and tabs" are gone, I found out that Firefox had a vastly superior feature set, the most delightful of which is the "Tab Queue" feature. (E.g. when browsing in the Twitter app, and you click on links it doesn't switch to the browser, it queues the link in Firefox. Once you're done with Twitter, you can now switch to Firefox and all the links are retrieved then)

<comment><USER3> and firefox supports add ons, so i can browse the web with an ad-blocker

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good riddance. Maybe others found this useful, I don't know, but all it did for me was conflate two disparate concepts (really; tabs are not apps) and cause clutter in what was a useful UI. It was the first thing I disabled after switching back to Android from iOS.

<comment><USER5> I liked it. It felt quite natural to look for the pages in my app list, instead of getting to the browser and then switch tabs. I guess I tend to use more websites than native apps.

Also the new (old?) behaviour keeps the last tab open when I close the browser, which is annoying and a step backwards in usability. It doesn't seem to be possible to change this.

In my opinion it would have been better to leave the functionality and just turn it off by default.

<comment><USER4> My issue is that I tend to have a lot of tabs (> 5) open at once. Because apps and tabs were combined, switching between apps became a chore as I had to swipe through so many tabs. I like keeping them separate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was very disappointed as a first saw that change pop up in Chrome Dev for Android, but thought it was maybe a change of defaults and the option would get put in again before the release.

Now it's not in and I think thats very sad. It just degrades the open web in relation to native apps even more and the context switch between browser tabs and native apps is as big as it was years ago. Why don't keep the option?

I know progressive web apps that are added to the homescreen still have that functionality but the main idea of PWAs was that the move from a website becoming an app should be as seamless as possible...

<comment><USER2> A "homescreened" PWA will still appear as a separate app though ..

<comment><USER6> > I know progressive web apps that are added to the homescreen still have that > functionality but the main idea of PWAs was that the move from a website > becoming an app should be as seamless as possible...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love this feature. Did not care for it at first, but I quickly learned to enjoy it.

I never update software that works, so hopefully I will enjoy this functionality until my next phone.

<comment><USER8> > _I never update software that works_

This is such a terrible mistake for a browser. You're missing vital security patches. Never browse with an out-of-date browser!

<comment><USER9> Yeah, gee. Thank god for the security update treadmill. Prefect excuse to force other people to accept unwanted changes.

This is the way bills in congress work, so let's apply the same social engineering to software.

Someone else gets to ruin my system by bundling a non-essential change with an "essential" change. Never waste a good disaster.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the other hand it costs time and money to backport fixes to older versions. We add feature X and remove feature Y, refactoring a bunch of code. Now we fix a security bug. Applying that patch to the old version won't build. Someone needs to fix that, right?

Microsoft supported XP for a long time, but that was paid. At some point it becomes unfeasible to maintain older versions.

<comment><USER10> Smartphones are paid too. To me, this should be covered under the EU's warranty laws, since it's clearly a defect of manufacturing (even if it's _software_ manufacturing), so it should be guaranteed for a minimum of two years.

<comment><AUTHOR> They give you updates. They don't give you updates to old versions that only fix bugs.

Also Android/Chrome is free, so just because phones are paid doesn't mean such laws would apply.

Phone security updates are sometimes provided for some time, actually. I know Samsung at least went back and made new releases for abandoned phones after stagefright.

<comment><USER10> _They give you updates. They don 't give you updates to old versions that only fix bugs._

True, and that would mostly likely fulfill their obligation, though personally I don't think I should have to accept what is essentially a new product to get a manufacturing flaw repaired.

 _Also Android /Chrome is free, so just because phones are paid doesn't mean such laws would apply._

Ah, with that I wholly disagree, and I expect the law to do as well. Android (and Chrome nowadays) is clearly part of the package that I buy with the phone, and advertised as such. That the phone OEM got it for free from Google is irrelevant to me as the consumer; I paid for the whole thing.

<comment><USER8> Android is now supported the same way as Windows: security patches are backported to old versions to benefit users who aren't able to upgrade.

Chrome is free and also optional. If you don't like the new features that come with the security updates, you can easily use a different browser.

<comment><USER10> If Chrome comes bundled, as AFAIK it currently does, it should be considered part of the product being bought and subject to the same rules, as shown in the ads and as the consumer clearly does.

I disagree with the EU's decision to force MS to have that browser selection dialog, but that doesn't mean bundling should be consider a "gift" by the manufacturer. A browser is an expected part of a current smartphone OS, and as such they should be responsible for the one they include.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> And I thought that I had accidentally turned that feature off and have been searching for a while to get it back. Really disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER12> I didn't like it or use it but it feels like a pretty major functionality to remove.

Anyone know what is the reason behind it? Was it unpopular? A security risk? Hard to maintain?

<comment><USER13> previously 50 recent apps were available in future version of Android 7 most recent only so this would make all the recents chrome tabs mostly so they removed it

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good.

The recent apps since Lollipop was so convoluted already, since they allowed up to 50 items in it, which kills the convenience of having a recent app list in the first place. If you open the recent list and the app you want isn't in the first 7+-2 items, it'll take longer then going to the shortcut/app drawer.

That's why they got to their senses in N and limited that list to 7. [1]

Sadly we'll get that sometime next year (my phone just got offered M). But that's another bag of dicks.

[1] [http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/05/18/android-n- includes-t...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/05/18/android-n-includes- tweak-of-recent-apps-ui-with-clear-all-button-at-top-only-7-apps-included-in- switcher-and-quick-switch-shortcut/)

</comment><comment><USER15> I never used it, mainly because it removed the simple UI to close all tabs in the browser

</comment><comment><USER16> Now if we can just get rid of different search entries appearing in task switcher. I want to switch apps not see the complete nonsense of my search history. I get it, you want me to use search more, but get it out of my way.

While we're at it, stop shoehorning Chrome views into the Search app and everything else, too. The only reason for it to be there is to make it harder for folks that use a different default browser to be able to launch it. And to ensure that ads are shown since Chrome and Chrome views don't support ad blocking.

</comment><comment><USER17> I really liked the feature. Is there a performance reason because of which it was removed or is it only related to ux ?</comment>


All your Moves data on one screen - <AUTHOR> https://move-o-scope.halftone.co

<comment><USER2> I love moves. It's useful in so many ways. Just some of the ways I've used Moves that are outside of what I ever intended it for:

\- Can I make this bus? How long did it take me to walk from the doctors office last time? \- I dropped my keys while walking the dog. I sent my wife a screenshot of my route and she walked it and found it. \- Where did we park the car? \- Do we have time to brunch? Looks like over the last few weeks we spend about 30-40 mins at that restaurant each time.

Plus, moves has definitely contributed to my exercise routine by forcing me to reckon exactly with what I accomplished. Now, I consider myself a very fit, very active person. If I was actually trying to lose weight and had specific fitness goals I would _love_ the unbiased data this gives me.

My wife and I both use it. There are 2 big things I wish I could change:

1\. SHOW ME TOTAL CALORIES GODDAMNIT. I'm so sick of adding up the bubbles. I usually hit 4-5k calories a week. The fact that I know that indicates how many times I've added up bubbles in my head.

2\. For all the non-tracked activities, please let me enter a calorie count and not just a duration. If I spend 45 mins on the elliptical at high resistance, the computer will tell me I burned maybe 700 calories. If I enter 45 mins of elliptical into Moves it defaults to like 250 or whatever. This IS based on my body weight, height, etc, but it's an imperfect measure. So I have to lie and tell moves I did 120 mins or whatever to get as close as I can to the actual calories as measured by the machine.

Also, may I add one final comment: I wish all of the privacy-wonk types would just avert their gaze from Moves. We get it. You don't like Facebook. You don't like being tracked. You think I'm a fool for loving it. But THIS IS A TRACKER. That's what it does. If you're very concerned about this stuff, Moves is _obviously_ not for you.

<comment><USER3> Interesting stuff, I created an App for Moves called CleverGeo ([https://clevergeo.com](https://clevergeo.com)), I'd love to hear any more thoughts on things that you find interesting from the Moves data. My email is firstname.lastname@example.com if you want to help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a sucker for this. I know I am a sucker, but I can't help myself. I've loved Move's visualizations since it was a random free app I downloaded and forgot about, and I've already spent far too long zooming in and out on this webmap.

Here's what it looks like with a year or so of use if anyone's wondering (you'll have to adjust the time slider at the top and check the transportation box to see it all): [https://move-o- scope.halftone.co/vis/user/f74ec38e53e658a1cf...](https://move-o- scope.halftone.co/vis/user/f74ec38e53e658a1cfc776fcd012b1d5)

<comment><USER5> Note that there is a 'transport' checkbox that we can all enable to see where you've gone over the past year.

<comment><USER4> I know. There are named places too, although not many.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All Moves data is not only on this screen.

"We may share information, including personally identifying information, with our Affiliates (companies that are part of our corporate groups of companies, including but not limited to Facebook)" [https://www.moves- app.com/privacy](https://www.moves-app.com/privacy)

</comment><comment><USER7> Just makes me more depressed about the facebook acquisition.

</comment><comment><USER8> This confirms what I already know: live in Seattle, and walk to one particular coffee shop a hell of a lot. Kinda makes me want to change things up a bit.

Also amusingly I haven't opened up Moves since before the Facebook acquisition; when I did, it put up a completely black screen with the word "Proceed" at the bottom. I _assume_ this was supposed to be showing me the new terms and conditions but who knows?

</comment><comment><USER5> I have knowingly tracked my location with Moves for the past year, but it is still very spooky to see all of that information on one map.

Well done though. Now we just need some kind of free/OSS clone of Moves so this is a little less unnerving.

</comment><comment><USER9> "We weren't able to get your data. You might want to check that you're not behind a firewall." is all I get after connecting the app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you guys were slamming our servers. Feel free to try again, and if you run into the same problem, hit us up!

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately it doesn't work at all now, but I'll definitely keep trying :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> i know there is google's location history but I want to do it storing the data locally on my android phone, and recommendations. I have it half assed right now with tasker

</comment><comment><USER11> I deleted my moves account last weekend and exported all my data, i dont trust facebook with all this data.. but then i logged in into google and saw this: [https://maps.google.com/locationhistory](https://maps.google.com/locationhistory)

Man man, what was i naive.

<comment><USER12> You know that's opt-in, right? And you can just click the gear or go here [https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0/settings](https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0/settings) and click "Disable" and then "Save".

<comment><USER10> i think you need it on to take advantage of many of google now's features

<comment><USER12> That's because the features require location data. If you don't want the downsides of location data, you can't get the advantages either.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: BugPlug – Ridiculously Simple User Feedback Widget - <AUTHOR> https://bugplug.omatum.com <comment><USER2> I watched Greg work on this product on the company Twitch channel [1].

The attention to detail and care he put into this product was really inspiring. Seeing this rise from the ground into a finished product was great.

Personally, I love that this does one thing really well and integrates into your Trello board (if you want). It really helps with collecting feedback from your customers.

[1]: twitch.tv/omatum_greg

<comment><USER3> Doing this whole thing on Twitch has been one of the best decisions we've made this year. Thanks so much for your feedback Avi.

<comment><USER4> Yea, good call on the Twitch stream. There are very few people that could actually pull this off and bring something this high quality to market in this short of time-frame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really like the documentation page. Very helpful.

</comment><comment><USER6> How many are on the BugPlug/Omatum team?

<comment><USER3> Two of us, I do design / development - been working on Omatum for a few years - BugPlug was around a 45 day build out. Josh, the second guy just started full time on Monday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Best bug tracker I've seen.

</comment><comment><USER7> Who is the UX designer??? WOW!

<comment><USER3> That's me, I feel like the best decision we made on the homepage was the bernie sanders photo. Really ties the whole flow together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great feedback tool!</comment>


Python setuptools v50 breaks pip installation on Debian/Ubuntu - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2350 <comment><USER2> If there is ever a Python 4, the number one goal of the project should be to make Python completely hermetic, repeatable, and redistributable. And there should only be one way to do it.

pip, requirements.txt, and venv are madness. Look at how much suffering they cause! I was dealing with (different) pip issues today myself, and it's not an infrequent occurrence.

Rust's Cargo is a good reference point.

<comment><USER3> In the replies we have many many solutions to this problem:

\- Conda \- Pipenv \- Pip itself \- Poetry

Which is quite symptomatic.

<comment> ur-whale and none of which work reliably

<comment><USER4> In fairness, many of these are open source and at least in the case of pip, for many years there was literally only two maintainers although now there a couple more. This is what I learned at one of the python conferences.

It's odd how open source packages that big companies use can be reliant on so few people.

Edit: although checking the pip github, there more people committing so maybe I got something wrong, but there is far more activity starting around 2019.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For context, the root cause to this is actually in Debian, not setuptools (or pip). Debian vendor-patches the stdlib distutils, which setuptools used to depend on, but lost in v50 since it does not depend on the stdlib distutils anymore.

This issue was known for quite a while, and IIRC more recent Debian (and thus Ubuntu) versions contain a fix. But the change was not backported for other reasons I am not personally familar with.

<comment><USER6> While we are at it, can we finally get rid of python 2? And find some sane way to not need python3.6 python3.7 and python3.8 laying around and installing each their own libs versions?

<comment><USER7> I have done this on my laptop running debian nextstable, so it is happening and will be the default soon.

<comment><USER6> Finally a good news!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pip is already seriously broken, it's just that the breakage has hit one of the main targets for the project.

Part of my day job is maintaining Python for an embedded OS. For self-evident reasons, software for the embedded OS needs to be cross compiled, and Python makes it impossible to cross-compile pip. Explicitly. Upstream's reaction is "you can't cross compile pip, you're on your own." To make matters worse, pip doesn't support non-native Python once it is built.

Of course, this is just the tip of the Python portability nightmare. Python is great and completely portable as long as your target is Linux running on x86_64 or aarch64. It has second-class support for Mac OS and Windows and there are private port projects for a few other system but they generally require heavy patching. For example, the Python code violates POSIX standards in favour of assuming that everything is Linux (hey guys, time_t is not a signed integer that can be used for arbitrary arithmetic!). Executing a whole lot of system code between fork() and exec() is always broken, although it appears to mostly work on Linux as long as you disable certain kernel features, and guess which code base relies on that?

Yeah. Pip is broken and now it's showing up on Debian too. Maybe it'll just get better by itself?

<comment><USER9> Pip is a pure python library, you don't compile it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It broke docker-compose today which messed up some robot deployment stuff for an hour.

Lesson learned by that team: find a way to hard freeze the entire dependency tree or don't use a tool.

<comment><USER11> Immutable Infrastructure as Code. Docker containers are the modern gold standard. You can get fairly far on a stock OS with a combination of vendored binaries/libraries and virtualenv/pip, but containers are much simpler.

<comment><USER10> I dunno if your plan is containers all the way down but for us it was literally docker-compose that was broken.

More important than immutable containers is repeatable builds. I need to be able to go back to a version in 12 months and build the exact same output avec a few changes. Containers don't help with that.

<comment><USER12> I am quite fed up with people thinking: "Oh, I'll use docker compose, it'll ve simpler." adding another layerof abstraction on top of something that does not need another layer and the having issues, but not documenting their precise docker run commmands, so that I need to reverse engineer them from the docker compose yaml files.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I remember there was time when pip3 used to break apt... or was it the other way around? Or maybe it was pipenv? Whatever that was, it was pretty baffling to see python's stacktrace of an ImportError when you tried to run "apt whatever".

<comment><USER14> And then there was pip2, and now "pip" on my system actually runs pip3. It's a mess.

<comment><USER15> While I'll be first in line to criticize the overall Python packaging-story, you also have to consider how Python itself is being used to implement the underlying platform which the OS's package-manager depends on.

If you allow the pip to make changes to things already present on your system, it make break expectations other parts of your OS may have.

And especially given Python's messy package-management story, combined with the less-than-ideal Python2 to 3 compatibility-story, transitioning a full OS and platform from Python 2 to Python 3 without breaking stuff is no small task.

I'm amazed it even works, and that's before you allow users to mess around with packages using pip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the maintainers thought this is only Debian/Ubuntu problem, but in reality, it affects a lot of other systems. Fedora, Conda distributions seem to have been affected too.

</comment><comment><USER17> The first thing I do (or rather, ansible does) on any new PC or server is install Miniconda to a location inside my home folder, and set it as the first item in my PATH.

I've been down most of the python installation and packaging rabbit holes, and this practice has served me well.

<comment> ur-whale The fact that anaconda actually has to hack your path variables and your bashrc doesn't strike you as a recipe for disaster?

<comment><USER18> Yeah it always did squick me out that it needed to do that, while also having a special binary manage all the commands. Explicitly, why is 'conda' in my path, but then I need to run 'conda init $shell' to make it really work. It should be handling that internally all by itself, without any help...

<comment><USER17> I don't use this method. I set the path myself, and it works without anything else.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, you can do that, but it rubs me the wrong way that that's not recommended and the tool will complain more often than not (even if it works)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> IMO, either use system python and system python packages (`apt install python- opencv`), or if you need pip packages that aren't debian packaged, use pyenv python which takes care of all the pip prefixes. Mixing the two has never gone well for me.

<comment><USER20> That's not always possible. If you install a package from the system repository that depends on a bunch of python packages, the dependency manager will only be satisfied if they're installed via the repository, since it can't see your pip packages.

So _you_ might need the latest python-opencv from pypi for work, and some desktop camera app needs the one from apt to not have broken dependencies.

<comment><USER21> You're not going to run into this issue though. Apt-installed python packages will see each other and pip-installed venv packages will live in a separate area. They don't conflict.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> From the github issue:

> In short, packaged Debian/ubuntu Python installs things into dist-packages. > site-packages is left alone in-case you like to build your own upstream > python and install it. Debuntu overrides the distutils it ships to redirect > installs to dist-packages. It gets blurry when you install pip from > upstream. But it would call setuptools, which would use the patched > distutils so things worked.

>

> Now setuptools vendors distutils this and always installs things into site- > packages, which isn't on the packaged python interpreter path, so it can't > find modules.

Now, who thinks that vendoring distutils is a good idea? And installing into the base system?

</comment><comment><USER23> There are things I can't uninstall or install because some needs python2 and others python3 and uninstall python2 or python3 removes one or the other (notably calibre, and I just read the author won't move to py3 and that he can maintain py2 anyway).

For instance I can't install mycli without removing calibre.

Of course it's most likely possible to get around that with virtualenv or whatever is used at the moment but that's a huge cognitive load just to run some apps.

</comment><comment><USER24> This update seems to have broken things all over. Our CI conda-based builds all broke overnight as Conda-forge deployed, and then undeployed v50.

</comment><comment><USER25> And this is why I vendor every single dependency manually and build them all from source.

</comment><comment><USER26> How Python dependency management can be improved at this point? Should we hold our breath for Python 4 to solve it?

<comment><USER27> Just don't use pip, use apt. What isn't packaged isn't worth it anyways. Non- distro package managers, a dozen per language are a disease.

<comment><USER28> apt is completely inappropriate unless you're using 3 year old dependencies. Ubuntu 20.04 (released in April) doesn't have Python 3.8, which was released in October 2019.

<comment><USER29> This is patently false; the default python3 on Ubuntu 20.04[1] is 3.8.2. A separate package python3.8 is also available in built-in repositories for all supported versions of Ubuntu going back all the way to 18.04[2].

1: [https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/python3](https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/python3)

2: [https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=python3.8](https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=python3.8)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Well, shit.</comment>


The Unicode Blog: Announcing the Unicode Standard, Version 13.0 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.unicode.org/2020/03/announcing-unicode-standard-version-130.html <comment><AUTHOR> "214 graphic characters that provide compatibility with various home computers from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s and with early teletext broadcasting standards"</comment>


Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.longnow.org/views/essays/articles/ArtFeynman.php <comment><USER2> It amazes me that a guy with a nobel prize was willing to be told to go run to the store to pick up office supplies because a 20-something told him to. Or be willing to learn a whole new field (EE/CS) on a whim.

And this really amazes me: "Since the only computer language Richard was really familiar with was Basic, he made up a parallel version of Basic in which he wrote the program and then simulated it by hand to estimate how fast it would run on the Connection Machine."

With no CS background he wrote a version of Basic that scaled up to 16,000 CPUs ... most CS PHd's would find that non-trivial. And he did it in a few weeks.

I guess that's what makes Feynman Feynman.

Oh, this is pretty funny too: [http://www.fleen.com/uploads/2007/11/what- would-richard-feyn...](http://www.fleen.com/uploads/2007/11/what-would- richard-feynman-do.png)

<comment><USER3> > It amazes me that a guy with a nobel prize was willing to be told to go run > to the store to pick up office supplies because a 20-something told him to.

Another is (apparently) Fermi, from WP: "Walking into the lab one day, Smyth saw the distinguished scientist helping a graduate student move a table, under another student's directions." He seems to be among the awesomest people to ever walk the earth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Nothing made [Feynman] angrier than making something simple sound complicated."

"Because even when Richard didn't understand, he always seemed to understand better than the rest of us. And whatever he understood, he could make others understand as well. Richard made people feel like a child does, when a grown- up first treats him as an adult. He was never afraid of telling the truth, and however foolish your question was, he never made you feel like a fool."

Great article. I didn't know Danny Hillis was such a talented writer. I love reading Feynman's books and about him because it gives me a glimpse of what the world looks like to a creative genius (which is closer to a child than an adult) and how intelligence can be applied to _any_ problem.

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill Just a side note - during the days of the Manhattan Project Feynman found himself limited by the "computers" which were people that operated mechanical calculators - they needed to compute by hand certain long equations to determine the amount of certain materials they were going to need.

Back then, even, Feynman determined how to split up the work among several people, in effect, he paralellized the computation.

</comment><comment><USER5> An excellent essay indeed! Enjoyed reading it very much.

Danny Hillis is indeed a good writer. Even his Ph. D dissertation where he describes Connection Machine is quite interesting to read (as far as Ph D dissertations go!).

Bit of trivia - the CMs were programmed in Lisp. Why Lisp?

As per Danny Hillis: "Lisp was chosen... for a combination of technical and social reasons. On the technical side, Lisp is extensible, has dynamic storage allocation, and is generally good for symbol manipulation. In addition, excellent Lisp programming environments already exist. On the sociological side, most members of the AI community, for whom the Connection Machine was originally designed, are already familiar with Lisp".

</comment><comment><USER6> I liked this part:

"In retrospect I realize that in almost everything that we worked on together, we were both amateurs. In digital physics, neural networks, even parallel computing, we never really knew what we were doing. But the things that we studied were so new that no one else knew exactly what they were doing either. It was amateurs who made the progress."

</comment><comment><USER7> Does anybody know if there are more details out there for Feynman's buffer analysis using PDEs? Is this an example of probabilistic analysis like bin analysis, birthday paradox, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> wow. This is an amazing story, and possibly one of the coolest things I've read on the internet in quite some time.

Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER9> I love this man.

<comment><USER10> I agree 100%. I've enjoyed reading about Feynman for about as far back as I can remember. One of the true geniuses of all time, yet so damned human that you can't help but love him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> the end brought tears to my eyes.

</comment><comment><USER12> wasn't this same company featured on tdwtf? Interesting to look at if you want a differing viewpoint.

<comment><USER13> this is actually a repost of a popular comment from the thread about that daily wtf article.</comment></comment>


Luxury phone-maker Vertu collapses - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40593936 <comment><USER2> I worked there as a contract tech-writer a few years back. The people were great company and very talented. But the bling and the actual value proposition - who knows? I guess the market has decided.

Interesting factoids:

1\. They have/had airport-style security scanners that shake you down on your way out. The idea is to prevent theft of their expensive phones and their expensive components and decorations (think diamonds). To get out, you press a button, and if the machine beeps, you get searched and your stuff gets scanned. Not sure how effective it was - if you had access to the valuable stuff (I didn't) I can imagine that swallowing a few bits and pieces might defeat the security measures.

2\. When I started, they were owned by Nokia who had just been bought by Microsoft. So I spent months developing a user manual based on Windows Phone. On my last day, having handed everything over, they shyly told me that they'd also been developing an Android model in secret, just in case the market turned against them. Sure enough - they were snapped up by a private equity firm and their next model was an Android.</comment>


How teenagers handle the web's instant fame - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/fashion/how-teenagers-handle-the-webs-instant-fame.html?pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> "...but youngsters with no special talent, like Ms. Cinkle..."

Not so sure that's fair: I see this a lot with young 'stars' being 'talentless', in this case, being smart enough (both to use it for a good cause and to be able to use it in this way) to capitalize on her 'fame' "to generate money and attention for earthquake relief for Japan" or raise money "for Cystic Fibrosis Walk" is pretty impressive, and remember, she is 14 years old; I don't think most in her situation wouldn't be capable of doing that.

EDIT: I just felt like adding this because I see this sort of thing a lot, sure, she may not have demonstrated talent in the video but what she's done afterwards has definitely demonstrated that she's a smart kid, and, 'sly bashing' like that is so unnecessary (and prevalent).

<comment><USER3> Along these same lines, I'd like to quote another fan of Cinkle's from Metafilter:

"The thing about this that fascinates me is there is no pose here, no ego and none of those horrendous qualities that you see in a lot of the young people who seek out attention on the Internet. She was never supposed to be famous. Cinkle was just a friend of Black's who was invited to be in the video, and given practically no direction. When all of this unearned and decidedly negative attention crashed down on her, she turned it into something entirely positive -- most of her FB and Tumblr followers are people who started out making fun of her (myself included). How many people could manage to do that at any age?

I was won over when someone asked her 'Why are you so awkward??' and she responded:'Um, because I'm 13 (:'"

posted by hermitosis at 3:34 PM on June 25 [http://www.metafilter.com/104932/The-REAL-Queen-of-the- Inter...](http://www.metafilter.com/104932/The-REAL-Queen-of-the- Internet#3779398)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> « _In the future everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes._ »

Andy Warhol was right, and here we are.

Indeed, capitalising on those 15 minutes, and making money out of it while you can is a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> The phenomenon of kids becoming famous very young isn't new. If anything, kids are older now when they become famous. Michael Jackson's career started at _five_ \-- this didn't have a very good outcome for his psyche later in life, but the point stands.

<comment><USER6> Maybe not, but the phenomenon of kids managing their own image, brand, and marketing is pretty unusual. Michael Jackson et al never did that.</comment></comment>


Kittens on the blockchain are now 7% of transactions on the Ethereum network - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/12/02/kittens-on-the-blockchain-is-the-future-nobody-asked-for/ <comment><USER2> I can't see the claim of 7% in the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://ethgasstation.info/gasguzzlers.php](https://ethgasstation.info/gasguzzlers.php)</comment></comment>


Open multiple links at once just with a single click - <AUTHOR> http://www.linksopen.com <comment><AUTHOR> It's convenient for people who have to open multiple links/URLs at work every day</comment>


The Internet Archive website lawsuit isn't as dire as you may have heard - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/2020/6/23/21293875/internet-archive-website-lawsuit-open-library-wayback-machine-controversy-copyright <comment><USER2> Vox, as a publisher, is hardly an unbiased source.

> But in fact, the lawsuit seeks financial damages only for the sharing of 127 > books under copyright, including titles like Gone Girl, A Dance with > Dragons, and The Catcher in the Rye. If the court awards the plaintiffs the > maximum amount provided under the law, the most the Internet Archive would > have to pay would be $19 million — essentially equivalent to one year of > operating revenue, according to IA tax documents. That's a huge setback, but > for the IA, a tech nonprofit that relies heavily on grants and public > donations, it's not the major death blow it might seem to be.

Okay, but two things:

1\. This opens up the door to other publishers to do the same thing.

2\. $150,000 per book is clearly excessive.</comment>


Tell HN: Facebook is quietly reducing API rate limits drastically - <AUTHOR> There have been hundreds of developers complaining in an issue filed a month ago about drastically reduced rate limits: https://developers.facebook.com/support/bugs/169774397034403/<p>So far, Facebook has not done anything to resolve it or reassure people they are looking at it. <comment><AUTHOR> This is the link to the issue posted on facebook earlier this month: [https://developers.facebook.com/support/bugs/169774397034403...](https://developers.facebook.com/support/bugs/169774397034403/)

Over 100 developers are facing this issue so its not a standalone issue

</comment><comment><USER2> This is really causing developers to be unable to use the graph API.

</comment><comment><USER3> +1</comment>