Interview with an Adware Author (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://philosecurity.org/2009/01/12/interview-with-an-adware-author <comment><USER2> (Possibly) interesting aftermath to this article:

I gave this interview a long time ago to a completely unknown security blogger. (I think her blog had like 10 subscribers at the time). Quite a while later, she published it, and she had gotten at least one more subscriber in the mean time, and that was Bruce Schneier. He reblogged it on his blog, and from there it took off on slashdot, reddit, news.yc, etc..

The article linked to my site, which in turn had my cell phone number on it. I figured that I would get a massive avalanche of death threats, etc., but interestingly, I was only contacted a few times by email, and those were all positive things (offers for consulting gigs that I didn't take, a few conference talks that I did and that ultimately led to me joining twitter a while later, requests for advice).

It was striking to me at the time that the collective reaction of the world was so positive. I had feared that I would be stuck in an adware-developer ghetto forever. We often talk about the fact that Silicon Valley has succeeded in part due to its stance on failure, and I sense an echo of that in how it shook out for me.

Feel free to ask me anything. I figure it's the ongoing part of my penance. :)

<comment><USER3> I didn't catch this when it was first posted, I'm glad it showed up here.

Possibly you didn't get negative responses because you were sincere and introspective. Most people can understand the idea that when in need of money, you slowly make concessions and compromises that you wouldn't otherwise make.

I remember when I was at Red Hat, one of the engineers had found a way to clear a worm off Red Hat servers using our auto-update tool, but we weren't allowed to push it because of the possible unintended consequences.

I'd be really curious to hear about whether you had to face any of those kinds of things, were there any catastrophes (technically) when doing so much low level wrangling? It seems like one false move could drop half your nodes, were there any fail-safes?

Also, unrelated (and apologies for the Quora link), here's a really cool answer from someone who used to spam people: [http://qr.ae/Ga85e](http://qr.ae/Ga85e) It's very different from your experience in that they were non-technical and in a poor region, but still interesting to see global perspectives on similar work.

<comment><USER2> I think you're right. If people talk honestly about why they did things and weren't obviously trying to do ill from the start, it's pretty easy to empathize.

I read that the participants in the Milgram experiments were _way_ disproportionally likely to be conscientious objectors later in life, and that they attributed this to having been in the experiments. I hope that I've been immunized like they were.

We were crazy careful about screwing up people's machines, because anything that we did that made it seem to malfunction would likely result in them reinstalling the OS over us, and while we had some ideas about how to persist across a reinstall, it was a few bridges too far.

I certainly can't say that we avoided all catastrophe, but I'm not aware of us ever causing one. We had pretty good abstractions: the stack-shuffling code was fully encapsulated so that it wasn't just littered about our normal code, etc..

We also tried pretty hard to avoid the really dangerous stuff. It sounds crazy to put arbitrary code in some random process, but if you know that it doesn't leak, and it never interacts with other threads in the process, it's not really _that_ risky, really.

One thing that probably also helped is that we had so much feedback from the individual ad clients. So we would know pretty fast if something started happening.

<comment><USER3> Really interesting. I've watched controlled environments of less than 50 nodes go completely haywire from bad code, so it's quite a feat to push code into 4 million questionable environments while at the same time dodging the virus soup from competitors.

<comment><USER2> I think it's harder to safely do changes to development machines, because the coupling between components is greater. If you want to change, eg., libxml or something like that, lots of processes that you don't know about might be effected, and all hell can break loose.

By contrast, I was generally nuking random userland processes, which no process (or user) would mourn or miss. I think that is a lot safer. There were cases where we would touch something important, like the CreateRemoteThread stuff, but that was a relatively small amount of our code, which rarely changed, and again, it had very little interction with anyone else's code.

It's also possible that we _did_ create a lot of havoc, but I didn't know. I think that's less likely because I think we would have noticed the loss of revenue, but it's possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >I said, "I know enough C that I could kick the virus off the machines," and I did. They said "Wow, that was really cool. Why don't you do that again?" Then I started kicking off other viruses, and they said, "That's pretty cool that you kicked all the viruses off. Why don't you kick the competitors off, too?" >It was funny. It really showed me the power of gradualism. It's hard to get people to do something bad all in one big jump, but if you can cut it up into small enough pieces, you can get people to do almost anything.

This rings incredibly true to me. Especially in my job field.

edit:

>The good news is that I've been on the other side of those automated script things. Their capability is incredibly dangerous, but the actuality tends not to be. >It would have been fairly trivial for me to go spelunking for people's credit card information or whatever. I had four million nodes. I could have done it without anybody at the company even noticing. I was the guy writing Scheme, so I could have just put a text file somewhere and then made it go away, and there wouldn't even have been an executable lying around. >But I didn't. To do that, by definition you have to be willing to become a criminal, and that's a little bit rare. So I'm not too worried about that.

I also think this is a good point. A lot of services out there could potentially ruin your life (or at least make it difficult) if there's a rogue employee who targets you (or targets a lot of people). An ISP employee looking at web logs, a Google employee reading all your emails... The same goes for the NSA, just the power that can be abused is even larger.

I think it's inevitable that human ability to access these kinds of things will never become impossible, so I hope that companies (and the NSA) are instituting controls and checks, including anomaly detection, to find rogue, malicious, or snooping employees.

<comment><USER2> It seems to me that very few organizations ( _) have effective countermeasures against bad behavior, but very little seems to happen anyway.

(_) google had that guy who stalked people ( [http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked- tee...](http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied- on-chats) ) and I've read that intelligence circles have a whole category called LOVINT for people spying on crushes. That said, they have hundreds of thousands of employees between them, and the incidence rate is probably really low.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find an incongruity in these two statements.

>> It would have been fairly trivial for me to go spelunking for people's credit card information or whatever... But I didn't. To do that, by definition you have to be willing to become a criminal, and that's a little bit rare. So I'm not too worried about that.

>> It was funny. It really showed me the power of gradualism. It's hard to get people to do something bad all in one big jump, but if you can cut it up into small enough pieces, you can get people to do almost anything.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I can absolutely see what you mean, but I don't think there is as much incongruity as you think.

Had I been working for the russian mob or whatever, that is, an organization that is comfortable with being explicitly criminal, I don't know and fear what would have happened. However, generally, most organizations are not comfortable with telling employees to break the law, most of the time. In particular, it seems to me to be really rare in the private sector-I don't have any real experience with government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like how he used TinyScheme. s7 is also fun for hacking around with a small footprint scheme interpreter.

<comment><USER2> It seems like s7 is a descendant of tinyscheme, and probably wasn't available at the time. Very cool, though. :)</comment></comment>


NS5, Free Phone From Google - <AUTHOR> http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2014/03/ns5-free-phone-from-google.html <comment><USER2> I still can't believe Google lets other people register google(.*) blogspot subdomains.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an April Fool's joke:

"You'll also hear some relevant audio ads when calling companies or when you play your music."

Juuuust nonsensical enough. Targeting making "Happy Birthday" calls would be a great demographic though.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a depressingly realistic vision of the future of mobile phones...

</comment><comment><USER5> Definitely a joke.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not sure if real or april fool's joke...

<comment><USER7> its April Fools early by one day</comment></comment>


Reddit account compromised: a lesson in passwords - <AUTHOR> One app. That's all it took.
Look, I'm not even sure if my device is rooted properly, or even how to check. What I do know, is that I have narrowed the loss of my password down to an app I got from TPB.
Trying to save $3 resulted in the loss of my Reddit account and gmail of the same name in rapid succession (whoohoo, he let me keep my HN account!). Although im not sure which happened first, it is clear why it went down that way: the paswords differed by one character.
Ugh.
Anyways, they immediately started posting blogspam with my account. When I started messaging them, they made it clear that this would just be the beginning (removing themselves as mod from all of my subreddits), and I scrambled to secure my gmail account. I might have failed in that regard, but I'm trying...
As it stands right now, most of my accounts seem secure, but who knows.
Now that I reflect on it, I'm suprised it hasn't happened already, fools go crazy for that karma. <comment><USER2> If they have key logging on your machine Google 2-factor authentication is the only thing that would save you. This to me is the most important security precaution you can take, the next being auto generated passwords with PasswordSafe or something similar. Good luck=).

<comment><AUTHOR> I did, however because I deleted and then recovered it, it is now locked. I get a "temporary error 500 numeric code 59" when I try to log in. I still have access to all other google services though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freddit.com](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freddit.com)

Report your account hijacked to the admins ASAP.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did. I even limped into google+ with the compromised account and posted them there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dont install software from untrusted sources at least, especially when you are too stupid to keep your passwords safe enough.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not sure how this is "a lesson in passwords"... Seems to me like a lesson in TPB.

</comment><comment><USER6> A lesson in passwords or a lesson in downloading/pirating apps from dubious sources.

Official app stores have a hard enough time keeping their inventory clean from fake apps and malware, what makes you think TPB is somehow not full of fakes and malware?

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't think the attacker tried variations of your password to get into your gmail, their malware most likely got it some other way (keylogger or extracted from saved passwords in browser).

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I dont know. Maybe the reddit accoint was the most valuable thing I had, but my primary email seems unaffected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Was it an android app?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Im almost positive it was Super Hexagon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ping them on Quora as well..</comment>


Understanding L1 Terminal Fault aka Foreshadow: What You Need to Know - <AUTHOR> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/understanding-l1-terminal-fault-aka-foreshadow-what-you-need-know <comment><USER2> This is _bananas_.

\- Unlike previous speculative execution attacks against SGX, this extracts memory "in parallel" to SGX, instead of attacking the code running in SGX directly. It always works: it doesn't require the SGX code to run and it doesn't require it to have any particular speculative execuction vulnerability. This also means existing mitigations like retpolines don't work.

\- It lets you extract the sealing key and remote attestation. That's about as bad as it gets. Because SGX is primarily about encrypting RAM, anything that pops L1 cache is game over and this is a stark reminder of that fact.

\- The second attack that fell out of this allows you to read arbitrary L1 cache memory, across kernel-userspace or even VM lines.

The good news here is that the mitigation is somewhat straightforward. It's a pure L1d attack: flush L1d (or prevent things from accessing the same L1d via e.g. core pinning) and you're fine.

If there was any doubt left that speculative execution bugs were an entire new class and not just a one-off gimmick...

<comment><USER3> >> \- It lets you extract the sealing key and remote attestation. That's about as bad as it gets.

It could have definitely been worse, with the leak of the fused secrets or a breach to integrity of the microcode (the two things that together constitute the TCB, which put simply is the only piece of the system you assume will never be broken).

All in all, assuming a microcode update can counter the attack as Intel claims, sealing and attestation secrets will be rekeyed via the KDF rooted in the fused keys, so that you can start afresh.

Of course, operationally speaking, that is a total pain but it is frankly remarkable to see this kind of deep recovery strategy finally built into consumer devices (and yes, I know DRM is unfortunately the main driver, but there are still some very legitimate use cases).

>> flush L1d (or prevent things from accessing the same L1d via e.g. core pinning) and you're fine

No, you are not fine. As the paper explains, an adversary (which is by definition more privileged than you are) can operate between the moment you use secrets in L1 and the moment you flush them out. Only the CPU (silicon or microcode) can assist you in the flushing of L1 when you exit enclave mode.

<comment><USER4> Agreed.

> Only the CPU (silicon or microcode) can assist you in the flushing of L1 > when you exit enclave mode.

This seems correct, upon double-checking. The interrupt process within SGX is called Asynchronous Enclave Exit (AEX) and does not give the enclave an opportunity to run any code upon interrupt, though it is possible to run code upon every enclave entry (via code placed at the Asynchronous Entry Pointer). I'm not sure that would help with any speculation-based exploits, however.

<comment><USER2> There's more going on than just the SGX attack. What I'm not saying is "add this 1 instruction and everything is copacetic" \-- what I am saying is that the patches for at least some of the vulnerabilities are somewhat straightforward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If helpful a few Cloud Providers Responses:

Google Cloud

\- Google Cloud's protections against this new vulnerability: \- [https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/protecting- agains...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/protecting-against-the- new-l1tf-speculative-vulnerabilities))

\- GCE Related information: \- [https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/security- bulletins](https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/security-bulletins)

\- GKE Related information: \- [https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes- engine/docs/security-bul...](https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes- engine/docs/security-bulletins)

Oracle Cloud

\- [https://blogs.oracle.com/oraclesecurity/intel-l1tf](https://blogs.oracle.com/oraclesecurity/intel-l1tf)

Azure

\- [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/virtualization/2018/08/1...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/virtualization/2018/08/14/hyper- v-hyperclear/)

<comment><USER6> Google writes that 'Google Compute Engine employs host isolation features which ensure that an individual core is never concurrently shared between distinct virtual machines'.

However, GCE does offer shared core machine types (f1-micro and g1-small) with 0.2 and 0.5 vCPUs respectively. This seems to contradict their statement (unless the cores are not shared after all, but that doesn't make sense from an economical standpoint).

Also, they offer machines with one vCPU, but since a vCPU is only a single hyper-thread and not a full core, this still allows for the core to be shared over multiple VMs. If this means that Google will stop using hyperthreading and instead give everyone a full CPU core per vCPU, that will likely give noticeable performance benefits (but cost more for them).

<comment><USER7> I think the key word is 'concurrently'. My guess is that micro and small instances indeed share CPUs, just never 'at the same time' and L1 is flushed before transition from one VM to another.

I work for Google Cloud, but not related to security or OS development, so am not aware how it is actually being done.

<comment><USER8> seems slow. Having to flush on every swap, I mean. I wonder if there wont be a move away from offering these kinds of offers: if offering 0.2 of a core means putting in 0.3 effort, that's a 20-30% drop in how many you can run per core.

<comment><USER9> 512 entries, 12 cycles to refill each entry from L2, at 3GHz that's only 2 microseconds worst case to refill the L1 cache. And that's if you keep the _same_ task in it. If you're switching tasks most of it is going to get evicted anyway.

GCE uses KVM, which defaults to the linux scheduler with time slices from 0.75ms to 6ms, so the extra impact should be negligible. It's possible they tuned it weirdly, but I can't think of any reason to do so.

Flushes that occur from hypervisor calls could possibly have an impact, but those will happen whether you share a CPU or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If hyper-threading should be disabled for maximum security, this is good for AMD CPUs which maximize cores per socket.

2 months ago thread on OpenBSD and hyper-threading: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17350278](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17350278)

<comment><USER11> Or just keep using AMD CPUs, because yet again they are unaffected [https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/security- updates](https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/security-updates)

<comment><USER12> Never mind that AMD sockets used to last longer (less frequent incompatible socket changes), which meant you could do longer with your motherboard. Not sure if that still is the case though.

<comment><USER13> We all miss Socket 7. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_7](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_7)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We're at a stage where to be safe on x86 we need to have multiple microcode and kernel layers to be safe.

At which point do we agree the performance increases over the last 20 years have been built on sand and move elsewhere?

<comment><USER15> It's probably time for a new architecture that isn't so convoluted with decades of optimizations and iterative improvements.

It's also time for a computer system with one and only one general purpose processor (no tiny CPUs in storage or "system management" or every other device)

Probably something like a programming language/OS/computer system written new with a CPU based on current GPU designs.

<comment><USER16> You won't make any CPU of reasonable performance without speculative execution and all the rest. Your limited by data dependencies and the only way to break them is to "cheat".

Unless your willing to run on the equivalent of a Cortex-M0 then you have to live with it.

<comment><USER17> I hear delay slots aren't so bad, and compiler optimizations have gotten really good since the itanium days when they last (half-hearted) tried vliw

<comment><USER16> Delay slots are merely the pipeline of the uarch peeking through, its bad practice because you'll probably want to change the pipeline depth at some point. Other uarchs have them but they hide them from the public API.

VLIW only removes the logic to detect data dependency - it doesn't workaround the actual need to wait for data to be ready.

None of this has much to do with speculative execution which is guessing which way a branch will go. You simply can't have what would be considered a modern computer without it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Getting the SGX attestation key would permanently break SGX-based blockchain (Hyperledger Sawtooth?) mining, if I understand correctly. It's amazing that (if this is correct) this vulnerability has permanently broken a large software project.

<comment><USER4> SGX Remote Attestation was built specifically to deal with events like this. Intel starts to reject attesting to vulnerable microcode revisions after some period following disclosure. In this case, they even postponed disclosure until patched microcode revisions were available and those revisions already required for successful attesation.

If said SGX application wasn't built around this model then it's probably not a valid use case of SGX..

<comment><USER19> Isn't this pretty much a no-go for any large public software project, given that microcode updates often depend on the OEMs, which are notoriously bad about supporting devices older than about a year?

<comment><USER3> I think that is mostly the case for BIOS and platform firmware. CPU microcode can be loaded by the OS (if the OS allows you to, as Linux does - [https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/install-update-intel- microcode...](https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/install-update-intel-microcode- firmware-linux/)).

<comment><USER4> BIOS updates are required for most SGX-related microcode updates, as the microcode has to be up-to-date before enabling the SGX feature via a MSR (which is usually done by the BIOS). This is so you can't start an enclave with old microcode, exploit it, upgrade microcode, and still pass remote attestation.

Also, the more major spectre-related microcode updates have to be applied very early (in the BIOS) probably for technical reasons. For this latest microcode update, for example, Intel didn't even include it in their downloadable microcode package as you linked to. On my v6 Xeons, I was able to get to revision 0x84 with the latest OS microcode package, but 0x8e with a BIOS upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm tempted to just buy the cheapest 8th gen intel cpu and play with that to extract widevine keys from sgx

<comment><USER19> Since pirates have most likely broken widevine (to the best of my knowledge - I don't have direct confirmation of this), this was also my first thought. I wonder if they've used something like this. As far as I know, it would constitute a complete break of the Widevine DRM model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What is the net performance impact of all these Meltdown, Spectre, now Foreshadow mitigations?

-10%? -20%? -30%?

Have we gone back 3 CPU generations?

<comment><USER21> This is something I'd really like answered.

I'm still running an i7-3770k on my desktop at home. I was considering upgrading when the 9th gen comes out in October, but if the Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow fixes have a significant performance impact, it won't be worth spending the money. As it is, I'll already need a new motherboard and RAM, since I'm still on DDR3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What secrets do typical VM hosts (like cloud service providers) have that must be protected from guests?

<comment><USER23> Private keys for HTTPS certificates. API keys or different credentials for other systems.

<comment><USER22> Huh, interesting. VM _hosts_ serve HTTPS sites and hold API keys? Those aren't done by other servers?

<comment><USER24> I think the idea is that a given VM client can more easily trust that their keys and such will not be captured by other VM clients if they know that SGX is working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Can anyone "explain like I'm 5" this issue?

<comment><USER26> Modern processors execute instructions speculatively, that is without knowing if the instructions should actually run. If it turns out they weren't supposed to be executed then the processor undoes effects of the instructions. However, not everything is undone. If the speculatively executed instructions access RAM, then they can move data in and out of the cache. By measuring how long it takes to read memory, you can tell what memory the speculatively instructions accessed.

Speculative execution is what allows Meltdown to work. You make the processor speculatively execute an access to kernel memory, then access a memory address based on the value of the data read from kernel memory. Intel processors preform the speculative execution without first checking if the memory access in allowed while AMD processors check before the speculative execution. This is why AMD processors aren't vulnerable to Meltdown.

SGX was thought not be vulnerable to a speculative execution attack because attempts to access SGX memory, without having the necessary access, just yield -1 for reads and writes are ignored, as opposed to causing an exception as with access to kernel memory. However, if the SGX memory is marked as not- present, then attempts to read the memory will trigger a page fault exception. The page fault circumvents the normal SGX protection and allows the memory to be read by speculatively executed instructions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Interestingly, the upcoming CPUs with built-in resistance to Meltdown (new MSR bit RDCL_NO set to 1) will also be immune to L1TF already.

</comment><comment><USER27> [https://foreshadowattack.eu/](https://foreshadowattack.eu/)

via [https://lobste.rs/recent](https://lobste.rs/recent)

<comment><USER27> [https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/97a6ty/foreshadow_e...](https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/97a6ty/foreshadow_extracting_the_keys_to_the_intel_sgx/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> AWS bulletin: [https://aws.amazon.com/security/security- bulletins/AWS-2018-...](https://aws.amazon.com/security/security- bulletins/AWS-2018-..).

Amazon Linux bulletin: [https://alas.aws.amazon.com/ALAS-2018-1058.html](https://alas.aws.amazon.com/ALAS-2018-1058.html)

RHEL patches are out. CentOS after delay, presumably. Nothing yet for Debian/Ubuntu.

TL;DR: AWS is patched. Go update your kernel (especially if you run other people's code).

<comment><USER28> Ubuntu: [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/KnowledgeBase/L1TF](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/KnowledgeBase/L1TF)

<comment><USER29> On Ubuntu 14.04 (Trusty), be warned that there is a showstopper bug in the latest kernel update to 3.13.0-155 [1].

[1] [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1787127](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1787127)</comment></comment></comment>


Ulix – a Literate Unix - <AUTHOR> http://ulixos.org/ <comment><USER2> Looking at the code on GitHub[1] I don't understand how this qualifies as "literate" programming. I'm also not quite sure why you'd version binaries as well as /etc/passwd... There's also an awful lot of "// old line comment removed". Maybe I'm confused but this does not "read like a book".

EDIT: I found what I was looking for [2].

[1]: [https://github.com/hgesser/ulix](https://github.com/hgesser/ulix)

[2]: [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hgesser/ulix/master/ulix-b...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hgesser/ulix/master/ulix- book-0.13.nw)

<comment><USER3> Look at the ulix-book-0.13.nw file. It is the literate document. It contains all the code for the kernel.

<comment><USER2> Ah, you replied to me just as I found it. I think the README should hint that the code is in the book ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, wow! This looks great! I generally like the GPL (including 3) - but wonder if MIT/BSD moght not have been an even better choice for a text book, where someone might want to build on example code and use it in a different system.

At any rate the PDF version looks (and more importantly _reads_ ) great.

</comment><comment><USER5> I volunteered at the Free Software Foundation for about 2 years when I was a student at MIT.

GPL is almost always a bad choice for open source projects. I could write for days on the subject - but I'll try to be brief.

(Note: I am not a lawyer and not speaking on behalf of the FSF, just on my own capacity.)

This was during the years Linux was the rebel, Microsoft was the suits, and you could plop the GPL on anything and people would embrace it as the worlds. Code was open - but untouchable by the corporations.

To my surprise, after joining them rank and file of the private sector people chided me for my enthusiasm in the GPL.

I realize in retrospect the youthful folly of it. It turns out the "poison pill" that is the derivative work clause of the license affects _everybody_. That is, hardware vendors, game makers, medium sized companies, small companies, individuals, even more permissively licensed open source projects can't touch GPL.

What took me years to realize is when corporate brought us into a meeting with the lawyers, LGPL and GPL w/ exceptions are in the same boat! These exceptions are weak compared to the 9 pages of restrictions biased toward the virility of it.

What made me really popular in open source, made me an outcast at work. It got me, fresh out of MIT, fired, and for a time on welfare (only for the period of 2 weeks).

GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. It's restrictive and, while done in good faith, completely burns bridges and appeal to people who'd otherwise be happy contributing upstream to some projects.

Reminder, I am not a lawyer and was only a volunteer at FSF. I still accept GPL for some projects, but my opinion has since changed since entering the workforce.

<comment><USER6> > GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way.

You appear to be using the term "Marxist" as a snarl term.

This is strong evidence you're trolling.

Please leave. We don't especially want trolls here.

<comment><USER7> >We don't especially want trolls here.

And judging from the responses in this thread, it appears that he is successful.

Or do you enjoy feeding trolls?

<comment><USER6> Feeding trolls isn't what makes them stay. Lax moderation makes them stay.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Judge Unexpectedly Imprisons Goldman Programmer - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/judge-unexpectedly-imprisons-goldman-programmer/?src=twr <comment><USER2> Funny how this guy's up for 8-10 years for stealing GS's high-frequency trading algorithms while the people partially responsible in the derivatives, mortgage, and insurance industries and the credit markets for the biggest financial crisis ever are enjoying their bonuses and bailouts.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Federal prosecutors acknowledged that in the ten weeks since the guilty verdict, Mr. Aleynikov had not violated his bail conditions, which included home detention with electronic monitoring."

Preposterous bullying. They are just trying to send a message to their best buddies/cohorts at Goldman Sachs that they are willing to do whatever it takes to appease them. We have seen this type of posturing time and time again.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Prosecutors depicted Mr. Aleynikov, a Russian-born immigrant, as a brazen thief..."

Pot calling the kettle black.

<comment><USER5> How is a government lawyer a "brazen thief"?

<comment><USER6> I think he means Goldman, since the gov't is essentially prosecuting on Goldman's behalf here.

<comment><USER5> Fair enough:) It sounded like he was assuming the prosecutor was from Goldman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "[federal prosecutors] explained that they were unable to put Mr. Aleynikov on the "no-fly" list..."

I wonder why...? Seems like many manage to get on the NFL by accident, and the feds can't manage put a "flight risk" on it? Who can they put on it?

</comment><comment><USER8> "To buttress its argument, the government said that Mr. Aleynikov is going through a divorce and "has an increasingly distant relationship with his older daughter," visiting "his children only on alternate weekends.""

Why am I not surprised...</comment>


CheckThis 'Instagram for Publishing' Raises $910K - <AUTHOR> http://betabeat.com/2012/06/49698/

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of this time when I was younger and my grandfather told us he had a time machine in his workshop.

Nobody in the family believed him and he locked the workshop so we couldn't look to see. He kept telling us it was in there, though.

This went on for weeks until finally he did an unveiling. We all stood outside the workshop and waited for him to open the door. He was about to open the door but then my aunt left the room to take a bundt cake out of the oven.

Finally she came back and we had cake. We almost forgot about things until my grandfather opened the door and walked out holding a small digital clock.

"This is my time machine," he said. So it was a time machine, but not a time travel machine. There's a difference.

The bundt cake was terrific.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://checkthis.com/885l>

I liked it until I read "fuck it" in the options when publishing.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, "fuck it" is an option where?

<comment><USER3> When you click publish and you are not signed in: <http://i.imgur.com/n7ETQ.png>

<http://checkthis.com/sboa>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I made the instagram+twitter+facebook+groupon+referly+craiglist that allows you to post to your social networks.

The real question: is there a market for this "in-between" market as the founder describes?

</comment><comment><USER6> The site is painfully slow if you're not on ridiculously fast internet connection. One simple page took more than a minute to load.

</comment><comment><USER2> I made one: <http://checkthis.com/29pr>

</comment><comment><USER7> ... and, another 'X for Y' me-too startup gets me-too money!

</comment><comment><USER8> Wahwah. Is there really room in the market for this?

</comment><comment><USER9> The idea is exciting, but the execution is awful.</comment>


How's the page looking? - <AUTHOR> http://poincare.github.com/Hydroxide/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not a designer by a long shot, but, its an open source project, and I don't want it to look atrocious. Feedback would be awesome :)

</comment><comment><USER2> very nice, but where's the demo? :)</comment>


Passion is Profit - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/salt-of-the-earth/passion-is-profit-24ac39e22bdb <comment><USER2> Fascinating! I'm not into trucks but this was super entertaining. I highly recommend.

</comment><comment><USER3> The trucking podcast is superb. Everyone should listen to it. Listen and learn.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Applicable and Relevant</comment>


Boris Artzybasheff's Maps - <AUTHOR> https://makingmaps.net/2019/01/17/boris-artzybasheffs-maps/ <comment><USER2> Noting that hand, it looks like he went on to work as an illustrator in Apple's patent design office.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh wow! I consider myself a fan of his but had not seen most of these. Great finds!

</comment><comment><USER4> First typography, and now maps. Then what ? Postage stamps ?</comment>


Matador: MVC for Node - <AUTHOR> http://obvious.github.com/matador/

<comment><USER2> @dustindiaz I'm curious about the usecase for Matador. Its mentioned in the docs that it uses Express. I use Express pretty heavily and it seems that most of the things made available via Matador is already available in Express. Why should I consider stacking Matador on top of a framework that already works pretty well?

<comment><USER3> TJ's goal (in my view) is to make a really unopinionated way for node to interact with the web in a modern way, standardizing things like routes, sessions, etc. Matador would provide some opinion on top of Express to standardize file locations, or do a Rails-like inference of inflection perhaps. (I haven't looked deeply).

I wrote my own version of this last year, and found that it was a really good learning experience, but I didn't think it was worth publishing publicly. However, there is definitely room for a scaffolded MVC prototyping framework on top of Express, imo.

<comment><USER4> yup that's certainly correct. Express is still intentionally much lower level so myself and everyone can just craft what they want without fighting some larger framework

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe it's just me, but I honestly have trouble taking anyone who uses mustache templates seriously because I automatically assume they've never worked on a large website.

<comment><USER6> I'm the co-author of Matador. I worked on Twitter.com - which is a relatively sized website - and we used Mustache... so there's that.

<comment><USER5> Twitter has about 5 "pages" on their whole website. From a template perspective it's the MOST simple kind of website you can build. So, there's that.

<comment><USER6> I was only counting the one page after logging in, which does everything. It's how web apps work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Coup attempt underway in Turkey - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/turkey-government/491579/?single_page=true <comment><USER3> Reporting from Ankara, capital. Ongoing sonic booms followed by bombings. Scary as hell. My niece is 8mo, in each jet and helicopter pass we take cover on her and we baricated home with tables. No one knows what is going on, and media claims control is in place.

<comment><USER4> it is 5:12 AM right now in Turkey. Have you been up all night or did you just wake up?

<comment><USER5> We're all up here in Turkey, I haven't seen any houses with no lights. Kinda hard to sleep when there's a coup going on in your country...

<comment><USER5> Somehow I'm not able to edit, but I wanted to add: the situation seems be under control, coupists mostly arrested, soon it'll all be cool I guess (based in Istanbul).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Current status as reported by government of Turkey:

\- Coup attempt claimed to be unsuccessful.

\- About 1500 members of military arrested so far. Two senior generals will be tried for treason.

\- About 90 dead reported so far.

\- Heavy damage at parliament building and presidential palace.

\- Airports supposedly reopening soon. (Airport departure list shows "Delayed" for everything except one flight to Odessa.) [1]

\- If Erdoğan hadn't been able to make a speech via FaceTime, which was relayed by a TV station, the coup might have succeeded. He also sent a text to his entire contacts list. The amusing thing is that Erdoğan is against social media.

[1] [http://www.ataturkairport.com/en- EN/flightinfo/Pages/Departu...](http://www.ataturkairport.com/en- EN/flightinfo/Pages/Departure.aspx)

<comment><USER6> I found it very strange the coup makers did not attempt to round Erdogan up at his holiday home in Marmaris (or wherever he was).

<comment><USER7> They BOMBED the place, just after he left.

<comment><USER8> They bombed the presidential palace, not his "holiday home" in Marmaris, which is where he was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's same like Reichstag fire. Now Erdogan is more powerful to change constitution with presidential system.

ps: I'm turkish

<comment><USER10> Completely agree.

For context: wince the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, there have been periodic military coups, notably in 1960, 1980, and 1997. The army's stated purpose has always been to 'preserve the constitution and democracy', as it is this time. While I'm not in favor of the use of violent force to unseat a democratically elected government, the current government in Turkey is anything but. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014 and President since, has taken many pages out of the Putin playbook, turning the liberal, cosmopolitan Turkey (my former home) into an oppressive, corrupt dictatorship. He has jailed opponents, waged war on minorities, funneled money and arms to extremist groups in Iraq and Syria, built himself a palace worthy of a Sultan, changed the constitution, and vowed to keep himself in power until at least 2023 if not longer.

His party, the AKP, lost its majority in the democratic elections of June 2015, which were largely seen as a referendum on Erdogan's constitutional changes, designed to create an 'executive presidency' that would consolidate Erdogan's power (the Presidency had largely been a ceremonial role, as it is in most parliamentary democracies). The natural outcome of such an election should have been a coalition government and no executive presidency - <USER2> Erdogan refused to let his party compromise with any other, and instead called snap elections for November. He spent the ensuing months destabilizing the country by attacking the Kurdish minority in the southeast and stirring up trouble in Syria, provoking retaliatory attacks in Ankara and Istanbul. The elections in November delivered the AKP their majority again, in results that were widely considered suspicious if not outright rigged. In May of this year, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu refused to rubber stamp Erdogan's increasingly dictatorial demands and was forced to resign. His replacement is an Erdogan lackey.

It's too soon to tell who is behind the coup, and how likely it is to succeed. If it doesn't, I fear for the country as it will be mean further curtailment of freedoms, more violence, and economic destabilization. Like with the Reichstag fire, I doubt there will be enough proof to show it's a false flag operation for Erdogan to consolidate power, but I certainly wouldn't put it past him.

<comment><USER11> Shame really. I guess we now have president for life Erdogan for two or three decades.

<comment><USER11> Some more from Zero Hedge - The Counter-Coup Begins: Erdogan Purges 2,745 Judges, Prosecutors; Arrests Hundreds

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-16/erdogans-counter- co...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-16/erdogans-counter-coup-begins- turkey-purges-2745-judges-prosecutors-arrests-hundreds)

Also some arguing it was a false flag operation [https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/4t2pso/this_coup_re...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/4t2pso/this_coup_reeks_false_flag/)

Dunno but something seems a bit off to me. How did they have a list of 2,745 judges to purge and 140 appeals court members to arrest the next morning? You'd think it'd take some time to figure that stuff if they hadn't been planning it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anyone have a take on how successful this is likely to be?

Both sides are claiming victory and that they've beaten the other side, naturally. Propaganda is everywhere.

The only thing I figure is that since Erdogan is calling for a mass uprising in the streets, the status quo has him losing. He needs to radically change the dynamics of the situation to stay in power, and mass protests and displays of martyrdom in the streets of Istanbul is the way to do it. Otherwise, if everything were under his control, he'd be encouraging people to stay inside while his forces stabilized the situation.

Is that a fair read of the situation?

<comment><AUTHOR> No. Erdogan called for people to take to the streets, and within an hour, the airport and bridge were filled with thousands of people waving flags. (From pictures, all male.) That's popular support. The military is not attacking the crowds. The military presence was apparently not that big, concentrating on a few key spots.

A coup has to succeed within the first few hours. Control must be established before opposition mobilizes. If the coup drags on, it fails. Failure is either a loss or a civil war.

Suggested reading: "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook"[1]

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674737261](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674737261)

<comment><USER13> What should they have done (additionally)?

E.g. take out/over all civil communication infrastructure, such as ISPs, cellular networks, phone landlines? Then enforce the curfew with actual deadly force (since they are not a police force with riot gear...)?

<comment><USER14> Here is a chart that describes the practical steps: [https://embed.gyazo.com/4324b66e1a3045ad63349061a76f4756.png](https://embed.gyazo.com/4324b66e1a3045ad63349061a76f4756.png)

According to that illustration, the coup plotters missed the crucial step of breaching the president's residence and capturing him. They completely mistimed the coup when the president was on vacation outside the country. Now he has been able to rally support against the coup and his supporters are on the streets protesting against the army

<comment><USER13> He was reportedly on holiday in Turkey in Marmaris, so maybe they did not know where he was or did not have the man power to capture him.

I wonder how it would have played out if they had captured him. I can even imagine that more people would have protested.

<comment><USER15> Its funny how Putin and Erdogan were meeting a couple of days ago. Maybe Erdogan was warned and took "a vacation"?

<comment><USER16> It was widely noted in the media that France closed its Turkish embassy (on "security fears") two days prior to this. It certainly makes you wonder if the word didn't get out.

<comment><USER17> It's important to remember that those "security fears" were in reference to Bastille Day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Weird. This coup of July 16 failed in exactly the same way as the coup against Hitler of July 20 failed - a small group of military sub-leadership, a failed bomb attack against the leader, a half-hearted attempt to secure the capital, all breaking down with the leader re-connecting with the non-cooperating rest of government and military. And now most likely horrible revenge against all involved.

I always thought people from the military would at least consider the historic scenarios.

<comment><USER19> One possibility is that this was not a real coup but a power grab where an army faction was unwittingly manipulated by the government.

<comment><USER10> This is a really well put analysis from a friend of a friend, Alp Eren Topal, a researcher at one of Turkey's most prestigious universities:

'For the last couple of weeks there were rumors to the effect that a large group of ranked officers in Turkish Armed Forces would be forced to retire by the end of summer. My guess is that last night's move was an organized attempt by this group of officers. The quite obvious lack of organization and inefficiency observed in the attempted coup can also be explained without resorting to conspiracy theories or theatricality of a staged ploy: The junta prepares for, or at least entertains the idea of a coup but somehow the news of the attempt is leaked and rumor gets around. Government learns about this. The disappearance of Erdoğan for the last week and the excitement of several foreign embassies in the last few days can also be attributed to these rumors. It is also quite possible that the government, with the comfort of being forewarned and realizing the limits of the junta, may have planned to turn this into an advantage and instrumentalize a potential coup for its own benefit. They may have also planned to catch all the junta in the act thus making it a more open and shut case.

Obviously the junta would know that its cover had been blown and in return they may have acted prematurely as a last resort, to save their asses and made the last night's gamble. I think, this is the most logical explanation of why the coup seemed like a farce.

As to the the aftermath, I think Erdoğan is most right when he frames this as a providence from God. This coup attempt could not have come at a better time. The u-turn in foreign policy, the admittance of failure in Syria, the great purge within the party, the issue of Syrian refugees all had brought the party esprit-de-corps to an all time low and alienated Erdoğan to his base. And as such, it provided Erdoğan a decisive victory in domestic politics. Now he is a victorious leader once again, a veteran. The people flooding the streets were also united in their leader's defense and this turned into an opportunity to overcome the alienation. Erdoğan will once again acquire the status of rightly-guided leader who is led and provided by by God. And of course there is no doubt that he will use this credit to utmost limits.

Kind of like the Auspicious Affair (Vaka-yı Hayriye) of 1826 whereby the Janissary corps were abolished once and for-all, this failed coup has a facet of auspiciousness. Yet, imagining the aftermath we can also predict that it will have several facets which will prove quite oppressive and burdensome for Turkish citizens.'

<comment><USER20> >Kind of like the Auspicious Affair (Vaka-yı Hayriye) of 1826 whereby the Janissary corps were abolished once

I abhor taking a contrarian position just for its own sake, but in this case, I simply must. I disagree that the Auspicious Affair was the death kneel of the Janissaries. The downfall of this corp class was self-inflicted: what started out as an effective military (and in some cases para-military) institution degenerated into a mafia of sorts where the Janissaries would "shake down" every new administration for an extra buck. Furthermore, the fact that the corp ventured into commerce and other non-military activities disengaged this warrior class from combat duties: these guys just sat around, scheming on how to get their way, and "wet their beaks" in every possible way imaginable (brothels, unsanctioned annexation of Serbia, et al). It is unimaginable that the Janissary corps could have been so 'easily' disbanded in 1826 if they had not lost their legitimacy, battle readiness, and integrity (integrity in this case is only in relation to my earlier point about their corruption). Their downfall was their own undoing.

>there were rumors

It is unimaginable that Turkish intelligence services knew nothing about this. While organizing a university students' strike is difficult, picture the logistical effort expended on a military coup, to say nothing of the heated arguments and active wooing that undoubtedly went on in various places in and outside Turkey itself. Military coups do not develop organic leadership; there needs to be a solid command and control structure deliberately and forcefully communicated to coup participants. Rules of engagement must be determined to avoid unnecessary confrontation and thresholds must also be established so that the leadership knows when goals have been accomplished and when the game is up. A case must be made to the rank and file and these soldiers allowed to make a conscious decision, the risk of dissenting soldiers informing the authorities notwithstanding. A battalion of men and the equipment and support necessary for them to function must be made available for independent and effective operations: weapons, armor, transportation, fuel, air support, flight control, encrypted communication gear, carriers/tanks, etc. This stuff takes more than a day or two to make ready and neither does it stroll out of barracks all on its own. Furthermore, elaborate plans must be made to severe connection: analogue, digital, and Internet broadcasts. Your guys need to have the complete attention of the entire country. Interventions must, therefore, be made at the ISP/broadcaster level. It is feasible that the political administration of this Erdoğan fellow allowed the situation to escalate as it so violently did.

>This coup attempt could not have come at a better time.

Perhaps this is why the political administration needed this to go through (somewhat). However, we must all be cognizant of the fact that there is a parallel society that operates within Turkey (forgetting for a moment that there is a strong secular movement, particularly in the west) led largely by Gülen. This section of society will not melt away. I think that the coup came at the worst of times for the incumbent. The fact that it was unsuccessful means that Erdoğan, in appeasing his supporters and demonstrating resolve, must 'act tough.' However, as in almost all other coup cases in the country and thanks to Turkey's long and storied history with its military, compromises will have to be made. There will be a purge (I speculate), but not one that catastrophically degrades the ability of this new Janissary corps to stage an outright or 'palace' coup in the future. Secondly, the secular movement will be emboldened by the revelation that a section of the Armed Forces (perhaps the movement's strongest and most consistent ally) is fed up with the Islamization of the society at the expense of the society. The Gülen camp, on the other hand, will be emboldened by the fact that Erdoğan is not the tsar that he makes himself out to be (not that they did not know that, but now they have real, demonstrable, and irrefutable proof: Look, coup! Weak!) and will propose that the camp's exiled leader is the panacea to the unification struggle that is sure to follow. Domestic politics is not cast in stone and whatever the incumbent does over the course of the next months will not discount the divisive tragedy of modern-day Turkey. Turkey has just begun (again) the search for its soul. This time, however, there is little chance that the king will have his way at the expense of all other interests- there will be no decisive victory or vindication. This country is just too big to contain anymore. From yours truly, Arm-chair general

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Dear Turkish friends,

This is arguably not the best place and time for what I am about to say, but I am going to do it anyway.

Please know that if things continue the way they are, you are all welcome to Bulgaria. There is some scare mongering by local right-wing parties on the verge of the political spectrum, but we have about half a million ethnic Turks and over 98% of the population are positive towards them since they have been the most unproblematic and hard-working minority that is loyal to the Republic for our last century of independence. We are not paradise on Earth either, but at the very least you should be able to integrate well into our society and have a relatively hassle-free life in no time.

Of course, I don't wish you to be forced to leave your homeland and no normal person is interested in having an unstable and/or unreliable Turkey, but unfortunately things haven't been exactly improving with your current leadership… :(

Be safe!

</comment><comment><USER15> It is bad that a (mostly) democratic elected government is (tried to be) removed this way. This will make it really difficult to work with whoever is in power, internationally.

But Erdogan forced this on the military. They were told to stand down against ISIS and to fight a new impossible-to-win fight against the kurdish minority.

I really hope the situation will somehow calm down. Otherwise we could have a new civil war at our hands, forcing more people to cross (those stupid) national borders to find safety.

<comment><USER5> The elections however were a great mess. On the first election on 7th june 15 AKP was 40%, but opposition failed to form coalition and Erdogan abused power as head of state to fill up 45 days w/o a new govt so that elections would be repeated. So happened, elections were to be repeated on 10th november the same year, and in the meantime the war on PKK started, major attacks by ISIS happened, and people feared unstability and voted for AKP. The two of the parties that could have formed a coalition are MHP, the turkish extremist- nationalists, and HDP, kurdish socialist-nationalists, so not all that compatible. Also, the legality of those last elections are doubted. Since the beginnings of this decade, we're an extremely polarised society, with more than two poles, and any issue is extremely complex. This last madness will augment all these problems, and if it fails, it won't be like in the past the same. "A stick with two shitty ends," we say.

<comment><USER15> I agree. The election was a shit show. In addition, Erdogan's apparatus attacked liberal institutions and people with investigations and law suits. But Erdogan would not be able to do so, if he had not have the support of a majority. So in a way, its a somewhat weird, imperfect democratic process.

My hope is with the young turkish people, to influence the situation in a good way. Maybe this will trigger a much stronger democratic process. Anyhow, Erdogan should step down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Reddit live thread: [https://www.reddit.com/live/x9gf3donjlkq](https://www.reddit.com/live/x9gf3donjlkq)

</comment><comment><USER23> Check out the Facebook Live Map, video streams from all over Turkey: [https://www.facebook.com/live](https://www.facebook.com/live)

<comment> tuna-piano Wow, amazing. Any idea if all these demonstrations are pro / anti the coup?

<comment><USER11> mostly anti coup

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Two days ago: _France closes missions in Turkey over security fears_ [1]

[1] [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/france-closes- missions...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/france-closes-missions- turkey-security-fears-160713131750838.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The crowds appear to have ejected the military from the TRT TV station, which is now back on the air. The studio is full of people.[1] So full that they can't get a clear shot of the presenter.

This is history happening. Some general is being interviewed live in the middle of the crowd that's invaded the TV studio. It's all in Turkish, but a translation should be available later.

[1] [http://www.trt.net.tr/Anasayfa/canli.aspx?y=tv&k=trt1](http://www.trt.net.tr/Anasayfa/canli.aspx?y=tv&k=trt1)

<comment><USER25> The revolution _will_ be televised.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaoXAwl9kw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaoXAwl9kw)

<comment><USER26> Sure, when you have an army backing you up.

Do you think a revolution would be televised in Russia or China without the army's support?

Even in the U.S., it would probably be covered as "terrorists trying to take over the White House" or whatever.

<comment><USER25> And is it actually revolution if those with power are simply exercising their power? Can the powerless even stage a successful revolution?

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure. Many so called revolutions actually had outside help (usually from the U.S.).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update:

\- The Turkish military said in a statement that it had "taken control"

\- Gunshots were heard in the capital Ankara as military jets and helicopters were seen flying overheard

\- Footage from Turkey shows tanks and soldiers in the streets

\- Hostages have reportedly been taken at the country's military HQ

\- Istanbul's Bosphorus Bridge and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge were both closed

[1] [http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-07-15/live-updates- milita...](http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-07-15/live-updates-military- coup-taking-place-in-turkey/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Let me give you guys some more inside details:

From the start it was clear that something was weird: they weren't enough soldiers to make a real coup, only a few hundred soldiers a few helicopters, tanks, etc... And it seems that they knew it and did it despite that. By the way they even bombed the house where the President was supposed to be...

The coup attempt was made by members of a religious group named "Nurcu" leaded by Fetullah Güllen, who is in exile in the U.S.A. ...

It was known that members of this group had infiltrated every possible area of the government (possible, legal branch, army,etc...)

Yes this group was the biggest ally of Erdogan during more than 10 years and it is mainly because of Erdogan that these people infiltrated so well every aspect of the government. They together imprisoned falsely reporters, policemen and soldiers claiming they were attempting to make a coup. They even imprisoned the former Chief of Staff. And those idiots in the AKP government and people who supported Erdogan were cheering them because they were getting rid of "secular" forces in the army. Now irony is these same people are doing exactly what they were supposedly trying to prevent: Make a Coup.

The Turkish army was always saying that the biggest danger for the country was religious backwardness(irtica) and unfortunately it has proven right again.

Although they were shots fired to civilians and to cops, the civilian crowds didn't hurt the few soldiers on the streets they grab them and handed them to the police. The situation is getting better, the Chief of Staff was saved (he was hostage by these people) the commanding officers are calling these soldiers back to their base to be arrested. Most of them are coming back. They even shot a helicopter("rebel") with an F-16.

I think the situation will settle in maximum 24H.

Unfortunately I think this will give Erdogan more power and leverage on the long run and drive the country deeper in insanity. Turkey is on its way to become the "Pakistan" to Syria/Irak, the Afghanistan of the middle-east.

For the better or the worse the only thing keeping Turkey from being another middle-eastern country was(unfortunately) the army.

<comment><USER28> So this has already been a coup of the post-kemalist turkish army formed by Erdogan and his (former) allies? I was hoping that claims of the coupists being Gülen followers were just attempts to put a kemalist attempt into a bad light ("islamic terrorsist"), but then maybe I and, I guess, many other casual outside observers have been underestimating the amount of change that has already happened since the last time the army has acted as a weird but reliable consitutional safeguard.

<comment><USER27> Yes, and the unfortunate thing is that it is Erdogan and his government that made this possible but the people will likely not remember how these people where best buddies and how their undermined every possible institution in Turkey in order to suppress the seculars in the army. But they never thought while they were throwing hundreds of officers into prison, Gulen's movement were pushing their people into the right places. In Summary these "genius" in the government never saw what was really happening, it took them 12 years(!) to understand what's going on, and now they have to figure out how to weed out all these sleeping cells.

It is true that the situation is much more complicated then what it seems, and the irony is that Erdogan will likely seek the help of his old enemies, the seculars in the army to clean this mess up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> For about a year, some openly suspected Erdogan frustrated the US enough for them to foment a coup. The US gov't loudly signaled its displeasure: _" Early on, Obama saw Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey, as the sort of moderate Muslim leader who would bridge the divide between East and West—but Obama now considers him a failure and an authoritarian, one who refuses to use his enormous army to bring stability to Syria."_ ([http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the- obam...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama- doctrine/471525/))

(I haven't yet seen any evidence regarding the US's role is in this coup, if any. I just mention this as a prominent example of how much he frustrates even his allies, so it's natural for many to go to the trouble of replacing him, despite all the risks.)

<comment><USER30> While I'm sure the US isn't losing sleep over Edrogan going away there's no reason for the US to have any role in this besides the standard assurances to the coup plotters that the US won't move against them.

Recently, even that hasn't been necessary, which has really damaged the "puppet strings" theory that was so popular a decade or more ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> [https://fr24.com/THY8456/a5a3952](https://fr24.com/THY8456/a5a3952)

That looks like Erdogan's jet. Was in a holding pattern for the last hour. Now heading to Istanbul. Seems like the coup has failed?

<comment><USER32> How could a coup fail so quickly?

<comment><USER33> How would a coup succeed slowly?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Amateur hour. They didn't capture or eliminate Erdogan in the first place. Then they failed to cut off internet and television within the country, so Erdogan was able to rally his supporters to the streets, and the soldiers were obviously (and rightfully) not willing to mow down mobs of civilians.

If you ever hoped to see Erdogan removed from power, this is the worst possible outcome. He will now use this as a pretext to solidify his strangehold on civil society, carry out a purge of disloyal elements of the army, and do whatever else he must to solidify his place as dictator for life.

</comment><comment><USER35> Current coup summary:

250 people dead (according to The Guardian), 1440+ injured.

According to Turkey's Chief of Staff, the coup was against President Erdogan's government, launched by troops from the Turkish Air Force and Gendarmerie.

Erdogan asserts the coup is over, but some reports suggest the calm in Ankara indicates the coup succeeded there, and that there is presently a stalemate between government and anti-government forces.

The Turkish government just ordered the dismissal of 2745 judges from their seats. According to Reuters, there were 7604 judges in Turkey total, so ~36% were removed from duty.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Live TV coverage on Sky seems to be the most current.[1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg)

</comment><comment> tuna-piano Does anyone have an explanation, or a link to an explanation for all the happenings in Turkey? I'm an occasional follower of this kind of stuff, but it would be great to understand the full situation in Turkey in an easily digestible way.

1\. The current coup

2\. The president's history

3\. The different terrorist groups operating within the country and their beliefs and goals

4\. Turkey's legal system and freedoms allowed

5\. Information on past coups

6\. The general beliefs and sentiments among Turkish people

Edit: And a simple question that I'm sure is a complex answer: is this attempted coup bad or good for a peaceful free turkish people?

<comment><USER36> The army is secular. Every 20 years they remove some dictator or zealot that the system seems to throw up regularly. I'm not sure if there's been a split in the armed forces before, but the police always cop a hammering.

<comment><USER37> More like ten: 1960, 1970, 1981, 1993, 1997, 2007 — threat of the coup. I hope I got years right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Guardin live ticker:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey- co...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-coup-attempt- military-gunfire-ankara?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet)

</comment><comment><USER39> News flash: Those in power and relying on laws, rules and democracy think it's a good idea it remains.

Well it's completely obvious they would have this stance. I don't think they've really anything to add. Hopefully things stabilise one way or another over there, innocent people getting shot helps nobody.

What's interesting though is whether this instability will affect Turkey's chances for a seat in the EU. I would really like to see a Muslim Country in the EU but at this rate their chances seem to be lessening.

<comment><USER40> Why would you like to see a Muslim country in the EU? Even without Turkey, we are trending in this direction.

<comment><USER39> Good question. Currently it's an echo chamber of similar minded Countries. I think in order for the EU to grow, it needs to entertain other trains of thought.

<comment><USER40> The EU is comprised of over 500 million people from a variety of backgrounds, many of which are indeed Muslim. Hardly an echo chamber. I fail to see what additional growth could be fostered through adding a Muslim majority country. Would you care to elaborate?

<comment><USER39> @gkya has done a good job of elaborating part of the reason being the Westernisation of Islam.

The EU is a highly Christian dominated place with a "them vs us" mentality. The EU tries to fix the world's problems without ever engaging the world's cultures. It's not about growth, it's about the future of civilisation. It's at a time where we need to be taking down barriers, not putting more up. We may not financially benefit from having Turkey, but it's certainly a step towards empowering the secular Muslims and moving forwards together.

<comment><USER41> Highly christian? I don't know a single christian and I've lived here for 30 years. We have the least religious countries _in the world_! Otherwise it sounds good but I hope you are not all talk and are yourself giving money to other religious entities.

<comment><USER39> Christianity is 72% in the EU according to Wikipedia [1], it's really high. Even if the figures are wrong or have changes, I'm willing to bet it's above 60% regardless. Makes me wonder about where you live?

What do you mean by "I hope you are not all talk and are yourself giving money to other religious entities."? I don't agree with religion in general, but I think the way forwards is to embrace it and it's cultures in order to move forwards.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Unclear to me what's happening in Turkey, but Facebook, Twitter & Youtube have all just become inaccessible there."

pic.twitter.com/LIzGAi2HuH

— Julia Carmel (@JuliaCarmel__) July 15, 2016

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Prime minister makes threats against coup plotters. Coup plotters claim they've taken over.[1]

[1] [http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-07-15/section-of- military...](http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-07-15/section-of-military- attempting-coup-in-turkey/)

</comment><comment><USER42> Live reddit feed [https://www.reddit.com/live/x9gf3donjlkq](https://www.reddit.com/live/x9gf3donjlkq)

Sky News live stream [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> New York Times reports.[1]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/military- atte...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/military-attempts- coup-in-turkey-prime-minister-says.html)

</comment><comment><USER43> live coverage on al jazeera [http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/](http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/)

</comment><comment><USER44> A video of low flying jets: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low- flying...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/turkey-low-flying-jets- and-gunfire-heard-in-ankara1/)

</comment><comment><USER45> The coup is over.

[https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/754108743412047872?ref_sr...](https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/754108743412047872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

The US announced support for the government where before they were hedging their bets.

<comment><USER46> No, it's not over. That was likely propaganda.

This update from The Guardian at 2016-07-16 03:15 UTC (i.e. 2 hours after your comment here):

However, Reuters reports that bomb attacks on the parliament are continuing, with a senior Turkish official saying rebel soldiers have been warned they will be shot down if they attempt to use more military aircraft.[0]

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey- co...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-coup-attempt- military-gunfire- ankara?page=with:block-5789a650e4b073c22786c8bc#block-5789a650e4b073c22786c8bc)

<comment><USER45> Over in the sense that the outcome is now a fait accompli, even if some rebels do not understand this yet in the fog of war.

A few mortar shells being lobbed at parliament doth not a change in government make.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> > EU source says Turkey coup bid looks substantial, 'not just a few colonels'

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-eu- idUSKCN...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-eu- idUSKCN0ZV2NE)

</comment><comment><USER48> Article about CIA clairvoyance about coups a day before a coup.

[http://theweek.com/articles/635515/cia-team- clairvoyants](http://theweek.com/articles/635515/cia-team-clairvoyants)

<comment><USER49> That's funny (but they don't mention Turkey). For some actual predictions, they link to the blog of one of the people being interviewed:

[https://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/coup- fore...](https://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/coup-forecasts- for-2014/)

I'm surprised to see Germany predicted at higher risk than the rest of Europe, and this was before signficant numbers of refugees entered Europe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I am following this now since 3 hours live from local people through Youtube, Twitter and Periscope. Amazing what technology can enable. I respect those Platforms now a lot.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Crowds in central square, bridges, and airport waving Turkish flags. News services unclear what this means. Some shooting, but military not acting to crush crowds.

</comment><comment><USER51> Maybe this is the moment in history turkey is becoming coup-proof (a.k.a. next-level maturity).

(if even opposition groups speak out against the coup and the people are taking over the streets peacefully - in favor of the government / against the coup, according to the news I get)

</comment><comment><USER52> I see flights into and out of Istanbul, but nothing near Ankara:

[https://www.flightradar24.com/40.33,31.52/7](https://www.flightradar24.com/40.33,31.52/7)

</comment><comment><USER53> Just saw a guy get pancaked by a tank trying to pull a tiananmen. You don't stand in the way of the military mid coup.

</comment><comment><USER54> How easily could communication systems be neutralized today with internet and GSM phone networks ?

</comment><comment><USER55> Neither a coup, nor Erdogan resemble democracy! Until Erdogan is in power, Turkey will suffer.

</comment><comment><USER56> Looks like the Olympic committee made the right call regarding 2020.

</comment><comment><USER57> "Hacker news"

</comment><comment><USER58> From the latest news it seems that the coup failed.

</comment><comment><USER59> _" Modern Turkey was founded by Mustafa Kemal, a general in the Turkish Army who was later formally granted the surname "Ataturk," or father of the Turks. Ataturk set about an aggressive program of modernizing and "Westernizing" the country, pushing religion to the margins, banning certain apparel like headscarves and fezes, and converting Turkish from Arabic to Latin script. But that secularism has always remained tenuous. Many Turks, especially rural ones, are religious, and not all of the reforms have remained popular.

The military has long seen its role as safeguarding Ataturk's secularist agenda, and when it worries the government is shifting too far away, it has tended to take action.

Turkey has thus occupied a strange position in world politics: Although it is prone to coups d'etat, Western governments have often cheered the coups on, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, because they are in the service of a secular agenda. Periodic deposition of democratically leaders has, somewhat paradoxically, been treated as a small price to pay for ensuring liberalism."_

That's actually a very interesting system of government. A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles". Such a model would arguably have served Iraq better than the pure democracy that was attempted and failed.

<comment><USER60> _A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles"_

Exactly (part of) why I'm in support of the monarchy in the UK. If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, not the government (I'm from an army family and know this is taken seriously).

We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.

<comment><USER61> >If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch,

I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs that the army in a 'democracy' swears allegiance to a hereditary monarch, and that its good, if as you say, people in the army take that seriously.

What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In some sense that meant 'push was coming to shove'?

The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family, who some time in the past probably did some game-of-thrones nasty things to come out on top. No one seriously believes they have a divine right to rule any more, so why should their interests be privileged over the interests of the population at large?

Whatever about an elected head of state with symbolic power, the people can at least remove, really, the hereditary monarch argument just seems like an argument from the 18th century.

I'm from the Republic of Ireland, which is culturally very similar to the UK, but wow, what a difference in perspective on this issue!

<comment><USER62> > _The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just > happened to be born into a particular family_

Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need _administrative_ skill...

It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties.

Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".

<comment><USER61> Sure, yeah, I see that the monarch doesn't exercise much power; from the outside, the monarchy doesn't look like a practical problem.

Until I read [commenter from military family on HN] talking about sworn allegiances when "push comes to shove". That's when I go 'woah'.

>The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics

And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign.

I'd rather take the cohort of random citizens who work their way up through a [very imperfect] selection process which selects a leader/representative.

<comment><USER62> > _And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they > 'll still reign._

Well, the monarch has a _lot_ of duties-of-state. An endless procession of people to meet and ceremony to conduct. It's not like the UK monarch gets to laze it up in the sun on yacht in the azure coast week in, week out. And the nearby royal family do have to engage in some 'good works', or they will lose their social position to people asking 'wtf!?'. All the name-brand royals are heavily involved in charities and causes in this modern era, because if they start ignoring 'social duty', they'll lose their privilege. The days of the monarch just doing as he or she pleases are long gone, in the UK at least.

While "it's good to be the king", it's also not a lazy life. You also have to play the part and behave somewhat beyond reproach - the military aren't going to take their vows to the monarch so seriously if she started dressing and behaving like Johnnie Rotten.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin?

Some people aren't very concerned with democratic principles; some people like the policy agenda and are willing to sacrifice democratic principles in order to get the policies they want; some people are gullible and believe scapegoat arguments; some people, particularly in times of insecurity, seek out a "strong man".

<comment><USER64> I support Trump. I have no problem with Putin. I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or intentionally inflammatory.

Even given this, I do not, however, intend to quit using tarsnap!

<comment><USER65> > I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or > intentionally inflammatory.

>> Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin?

This structure doesn't imply that the men are equivalent. It implies that the three questions share one answer. If I tell you that the reason we fine people for speeding is the same reason that mothers in Jonestown fed poison to their babies, I hope you won't think I'm equating the _acts_.

<comment><USER65> I'd really like to understand why this is receiving so many downvotes. What I've said amounts to pointing out that the same phenomenon can drive different outcomes, some of which may be very bad, some of which may be of limited scope, and some of which may be good. Is somebody going to disagree?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Mods: Why do you delete news posts like this one? I understand you're trying to keep Hacker News tech/business/science focused, maybe, but don't you think major world events that are getting tons of interest should be allowed to float up to the front page on their own merit? If the users are interested in it, why is it being deleted?

I feel like major events like yesterday's massacre in Nice or today coup d'état merit the attention.

<comment><USER67> It's almost always users who flag these posts, and they're doing so in accordance with the HN guidelines. Most political stories are off topic.

Occasionally we override the flags (like we've done here) because a political story has unusual intellectual interest or historical significance, or because it's so major that there's no keeping it off HN anyhow.

<comment><USER66> I appreciate being able to get responses like this from you so easily. So different from reddit's long history of the community feeling disconnected from the admins and unable to reach them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> How do you define liberal? France's idea of "liberalism" is "follow our culture exactly or face heavy fines/punishment".

They've basically turned their culture into a new religion

<comment><USER69> You mean secularism? It only rejects religion as part of the state or education. You can do whatever you want in private environments.

For a multi-religious country, it seems to be a decent approach to religious freedom.

How would you define liberalism and is there a country that has it (or had it in the past)?

<comment><USER70> > You mean secularism? It only rejects religion as part of the state or > education. You can do whatever you want in private environments

I'm a fan of secularism, and am an Atheist. And I also strongly disapprove of how some Islamic groups treat women.

However, from here in the UK, France seems strangely, even oddly intolerant. Muslim religious dress is banned in public.: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering)

Now; I disapprove of forcing women to wear that sort of dress on religious grounds. In fact, I find it obnoxious (although, aside, Western society seems to expect women to wear makeup and look "good" at all times... so are we any better?).

However, I'm not sure banning the dress is a good solution - akin to punishing the victim...

<comment><USER71> Absolutely, I was talking about this with my wife yesterday.

It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man), so how is a women covering her breasts any different than a woman covering her head? I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant, and then in order to receive an education you are forced to break with a core tenet of your religious and cultural beliefs, and as a poster below pointed out, feel naked in your new school.

<comment><USER72> > It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man)

Is it? there are tons of topless women on French beaches. I don't know about specific laws but nobody goes topless or naked while walking in a city (in France or elsewhere). I don't see this as a great restriction on my freedom. Actually, more worrying IMHO is that if a woman were to go topless in the street, she'd get more trouble from some (religious and macho) guys than the police.

> I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or > immgrant

Sorry, but I don't find it scandalous to ask refugee or immigrants to make minor adjustments to their lifestyle. Every society has some common value that it wants to preserve, and as a French, I want as little intrusion of religion in public life. In particular, religion has no place in public school in my opinion, and i really hope it stays this way.

<comment><USER71> I'm actually having trouble finding any exact law, so in the interest of accuracy, I'll admit I could be wrong about French law here. This Wikipedia article says

"Chest and private parts must be covered except near bathing zones. Burqa banned."

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

Another article I read mentioned that a particular city recently explicitly banned male toplessness, which seems to imply that the above statement about covering the chest only applies to women.

Another Wikipedia article here states that the activist group Topfreedom has protested in France, also implying that the covering the chest only applies to women.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom#France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom#France)

Can anyone point to the specific law? The Wikipedia article on clothing laws doesn't have a source. I was going off what I've been told by French friends, but I'd like to know conclusively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Turkey had its chance. Ersogan proves that islamhas a much longer road to go still.

<comment><USER5> I've gone through too much tonight to bother say anything about your ignorance. But sitting and waiting won't earn anything to anybody. Turkey as a member would be useful to EU. However if we had a popular vote now on whether to bother continue the negotiations, it'd certainly come out no, because the demeaning, hubristic, and unstable approach of the EU in our regards.

<comment><USER39> People hate change and anything that challenges their current perceptions. Don't take it too personally.

I completely agree with what you've said regardless of whether I want it to be false. The EU certainly requires some changing as yet.

<comment><USER5> Thanks. I couldn't not respond because that was really arrogant of him and I do know many think similarly. Ultimately I am an atheist, so not directly affected by his words, but that stance causes many problems unfortunately.</comment></comment></comment></comment>