A video site from the Pirate Bay guys using HTML5  and Ogg Theora/Vorbis - <AUTHOR> http://thevideobay.org

<comment><USER2> THis is great to see and maybe in 3 to 5 years the video tag maybe become as popular as flash? THough every web browser will need to support it, along with ogg vorbis and other non proprietary codecs. Microsoft ... erggh!

<comment><USER3> It's not so out of hand as all that. Chromium/chrome 3 dev and Firefox 3.5 are all already there or so close as to basically be there. Safari is very close, but the codec story isn't super clear. Microsoft could be closer, but ...they're also working with the html5 team. so it's not totally hopeless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> :( it doesn't work with mobile Safari on the iPhone.

<comment><USER5> The first words on the first page are:

 _The Video Bay - Beta Extreme (Don't expect anything to work at all)_

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> and so began the death of flash

<comment><USER7> Flash might die for many things, but not this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> is there any reason to use that? I mean pretty much all users would have to upgrade their browsers

<comment><USER9> How is that a bad thing?

I'm watching the demo video in Firefox Minefield right now and it works like a charme. Video without flash means for me (on linux) no random crashes or lockups. And if someone is too lazy to upgrade their browser then well, there are a bazillon flash video sites out there for them, no?

<comment><USER8> just a pain in the ass since you need to reboot your computer to do so. I went 2 months w/o a reboot, but ended up doing it when I had to upgrade firefox to see the site

<comment><USER10> Why do you need your computer on so much?

And what os are you running that a reboot was required for firefox?

<comment><USER8> it takes like 2 minutes to turn the computer on, and then you have to launch all the apps. I'm just used to keeping it always on, so that I can get started right away.

OS is vista, but the reboot was required by firefox, not the OS.

<comment><USER11> Firefox only required the reboot due to an OS limitation by the sounds of it though, I didn't have to reboot my linux box or my macbook.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tech's Fiercest Rivalry: Uber vs. Lyft - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/articles/two-tech-upstarts-plot-each-others-demise-1407800744 <comment><USER2> (like caycep said,) from everything I've read, the venom spat back and forth between Microsoft and Apple sounds a lot fiercer than this. This is probably the fiercest rivalry in recent history, and I may be remembering history with more exaggerated brushstrokes, but I don't think this is the fiercest.

I will grant that the "battle lines" seem to be drawn a lot less clearly now than they were back then. Again, that might just be the effect of remembering history after the "fog of war" has settled.

<comment><USER3> Microsoft and Apple have been in bed with each other WAY too many times to qualify as the fiercest rivalry.

<comment><USER4> Some of the worst fights are between those with closest ties. Civil wars, sibling rivalries, divorces, etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if other people feel this way, but I feel like Lyft has created a much more positive brand identity. Lyft seems fun and friendly, where Uber is like a cold, ruthlessly Randian organization.

I've never taken a ride from either car service, but I'm rooting for Lyft.

<comment><USER6> Why would I want my ride in a car to be fun? Safety, cleanliness, professionalism are all much higher concerns.

<comment><USER5> If you value those three things, probably better off going with a real, licensed limo service than a fly-by-night app, anyway.

<comment><USER6> App has nothing to do with it. The licensing of the drivers is the same. The difference is the Medallion system vs. Uber putting as many drivers on the road as they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Too many times, I've seen people call ugly, immoral tactics like this as "growth hacking", which is polluting an otherwise positive culture.

Yes, it may be legal. Yes, it may grow your company. Yes, you may not have to pay any consequences until you're big enough to pay it off as a "tax".

But, no, it's not ethical, and yes, your investors will worry that you'll shamelessly cheat them at the first opportunity.

<comment><USER8> Just because something directly harms the competition doesn't mean it's unethical or immoral. If it doesn't harm the stakeholders, it's fine with me. This isn't pouring waste into a river. This is going in and poaching the opponent's resources.

I also don't think it's inherently dishonest to do things like offer referral bonuses for getting the competition's drivers to join your service.

Were I an investor, where would I get the impression that they would shamelessly cheat me at the first opportunity? All they've done is improve the likelihood that the business I have invested in wins out.

<comment><USER7> Abusing the cancelation policy is the specific immoral act I'm calling out here. Offering employment invitations is fine.

But, often a company has very forgiving cancelation policies to be customer- friendly. By abusing those cancelation policies to do a DDOS-style attack is going to lead to adverse impacts on the ecosystem (less forgiving cancelation policies, drivers & riders wasting time chasing bogus reservations, etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is not a tech rivarly at all. This is a car-service rivalry.

<comment><USER10> Exactly, The tech between Uber and Lyft comes down to crowd-sourcing users/driver and payment system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I caught one Lyft last week where I said "wait, did I get you through Uber or Lyft?" because the driver had an Uber sticker in the window. He kind of smiled and was the quietest Lyft driver I've ever had.

So how many drivers are doing both? How could either service know? Maybe by seeing a drive go unavailable for short periods and become available again from a different location.

I had one driver that just drove in the mornings, between dropping the kids off at school and when it was time to start work. That's an ideal time to have a driver but if you hit him with higher commissions than a full-time driver, he's not going to be happy.

<comment><USER12> That's why there's a Pink Mustache on Lyft cars.

<comment><USER13> I think it's now optional(given the regulatory heat ridesharing gets some places, I don't blame the drivers)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Fiercest? Not Apple vs. IBM? Apple vs. Microsoft? Samsung vs. Apple? Google vs. Oracle?

<comment><USER15> It's the fiercest at the moment! Lyft and Uber are engaged in an epic price war, where each of them is subsidizing the cost of rides while trying to expand as quickly as possible to new cities to best the other.

In about a year, this competition has halved the cost of getting between any two places in San Francisco. It's quite thrilling.

<comment><USER16> According to the infographic, it doesn't look like much of a rivalry. It's a bit embarrassing for Lyft to not be anywhere internationally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Being installed on someone 's iPhone on the home page is a pretty sticky place to be._

This strikes me as pretty disingenuous, considering the fact that the entire value of the Lyft/Uber systems is matchmaking. I can open both apps and check availability/price in seconds. Why would this not continue to be a healthily competitive space? (scummy, sabotage and price-war tactics aside)

<comment><USER18> I think you are a bit naive to believe that both Uber and Lyft with survive long term. In a network effect business its typically winner take all.

<comment><USER19> Which may become relevant if Uber pool or Lyft line work out and this actually becomes a network effect business. But for the now, it is not.

<comment><USER17> Ha! I didn't even realize they were already going this way (car-pool coordination). Thanks for bringing them up!

UberPool and Lyft Line seem like exactly the sort of quick innovations on the matchmaking side that can provide real value for customers, especially if they act as escrow and clearing house to automatically split fares among carpoolers. Looks like Lyft Line is trying to eat the upside by just providing a slightly discounted fare. Can't tell how UberPool is handling it from my quick scan.

<comment><USER19> They're both basically hoping to increase their margins while still providing substantive savings to their passengers. So, for a $20 ride, they basically want to charge each passenger about $12 (thus saving the passenger $8) and thus increase their net take from $20 to $24.

The complicating factor is that they're also trying to provide passengers an incentive to try out the service before it gets good, so they offer some discounts even for rides that they think they will not actually be able to find an additional passenger for.

It's a very cool innovation. I hope it works out. It remains to be seen if passengers want to deal with sharing a car in enough quantity to make the services work out. If it does work out, then rides-for-hire will, in this sub- space at least, become a genuine network effect business, and there will be one hell of a brawl.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ive also had an experience where my lyft driver worked for Uber also. She said the clientele is different for each company. Lyft is more hip and friendly people. Uber seemed to be richer looking and less talkative.

Living in San Diego, Ubers $10 Tijuana trips will be a huge success.

<comment><USER21> My brother once described the difference to me as "Use Lyft if you want to talk to the driver, Uber if you don't". It's not just the clientele that are different, but the drivers act differently too. In my experience, Lyft drivers are more prone to trying to strike up a conversation, whereas Uber drivers rarely try and initiate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > According to an email Uber sent to drivers in May that was reviewed by The > Wall Street Journal, the company offers $250 for referring a new driver to > its service; $500 for referring a Lyft driver; and $1,000 for signing up a > Lyft "mentor," an experienced Lyft contractor who helps train new drivers.

This sounds scarily like MLM to me. Anyone else?

<comment><USER23> Not really. It just sounds like a referral bonus. They're shipping a real service and offering bonuses to get other employees. The main way to make money as an uber driver seems to still be driving, not referring other drivers. I'm a software engineer and I got well over $1,000 for referring a friend to my company, but I don't think that makes us an MLM scheme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why not merge into UberLyft and provide better service?

<comment><USER25> At the moment, both riders and drivers benefit from Uber and Lyft beating each other's brains out with bags of money. It can't last forever but while it does we can benefit. At some point the party will be over and we'll need to pay more.</comment></comment>


Don't Design for Mobile - <AUTHOR> https://mattanddesign.com/dont-design-for-mobile/ <comment><USER2> I'm making a cms that is kind of mobile first, which makes for a very habdy ability to make edits on your mobile when needed.

[https://github.com/cloudy- cms/Cloudy.CMS/blob/master/screens...](https://github.com/cloudy- cms/Cloudy.CMS/blob/master/screenshot.png?raw=true)</comment>


Joi Ito Resigns from M.I.T. Media Lab After Outcry over Jeffrey Epstein Ties - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joichi-ito.html# <comment><USER3> Internal email this afternoon from President Reif:

To the members of the MIT community,

Last night, The New Yorker published an article that contains deeply disturbing allegations about the engagement between individuals at the Media Lab and Jeffrey Epstein.

Because the accusations in the story are extremely serious, they demand an immediate, thorough and independent investigation. This morning, I asked MIT's General Counsel to engage a prominent law firm to design and conduct this process. I expect the firm to conduct this review as swiftly as possible, and to report back to me and to the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation, MIT's governing board.

This afternoon, Joi Ito submitted his resignation as Director of the Media Lab and as a professor and employee of the Institute.

As I described in my previous letter, the acceptance of the Epstein gifts involved a mistake of judgment. We are actively assessing how best to improve our policies, processes and procedures to fully reflect MIT's values and prevent such mistakes in the future. Our internal review process continues, and what we learn from it will inform the path ahead.

Sincerely,

L. Rafael Reif

<comment><USER4> If Xeni Jardin's claim below is true, Joi Ito needs to resign from more than just MIT:

"I told the @nytimes everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside @MIT and @Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths. @joi is on the board of the NYT. THANK GOD FOR @RonanFarrow"

EDIT: NYTimes is now indicating that Ito has resigned from NYT Co board, effective immediately [2].

[1] [https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048)

[2] [https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1170449747041226757](https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1170449747041226757)

<comment><USER5> I read a few more of Xeni's tweets, and wanted to get HN's honest opinion on them. It seems (to me) like a lot of people on Twitter (and HN?) are over- reacting.

For example, Xeni's pinned tweet references this other tweet ([https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1165266579560521728)), which implies that anybody who was ever at a dinner with Epstein should be considered complicit in Epstein's crimes. Take this quote, for example:

> I would like to not be sued or disappeared, but I would also like people to > seriously register the fact that Amazon and Google CEOS/Founders were at the > gathering alluded to in this Twitter thread. Their names are in the screen > grab. Don't sue me please. I have no money.

This seems to imply that anybody at this dinner (that Epstein) was complicit. Other attendees include Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, Marvin Minsky (yes, that Marvin Minsky!). Is it just me, or does that strike anybody as an overreaction?

<comment><USER6> Marvin Minsky was directly named by one of the victims in documents that were published a couple of days before Epatein's convenient death, and those documents were mentioning that Minsky had directly sexually profited from an under-age woman. In other words he was a paedophile.

I submitted an article detailing all this stuff on the day of Epstein's death, it had reached the top links of HN in less than an hour but then it was ominously flagged. I lost a great deal of let's call it respect for the people that keep this website up, apparently letting other people know that a now dead AI luminary was a paedophile is considered tabu.

<comment><USER7> I have also noticed HN mods engaged in blatantly political flagging, probably driven by deference to YC's tech industry pals. My link to the Bloomberg article about all the WeWork CEO's utterly scammy self-dealing shot to #1 on the front page, then was flagged by mods as "dupe" even though another link to the article was nowhere to be found. Totally killed off the discussion.

<comment><USER8> You've noticed no such thing. Users flagging one of your submissions isn't "mods engaged in blatantly political flagging".

The WeWork story has had numerous huge threads—two major ones have been on the front page today alone. With suppression like this, who needs promotion? Ditto for the Epstein story, our only relation to which is nausea and a desire to hold it at the end of a stick, same as everybody else.

Please use the HN search box that appears at the bottom of every HN page and you'll have no trouble finding the major discussions that you're claiming don't exist here.

<comment><USER7> If only Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, and Jeff Bezos had demonstrated a similar desire for remove from Jeffrey Epstein, maybe this forum wouldn't have to grapple with an avalanche of headlines about Epstein's close ties to the tech industry, but alas.

<comment><USER8> There would be an avalanche of Epstein stories anyway. The tech angle just adds to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seemed inevitable after the New Yorker article yesterday detailing how Ito and his team hid Epstein's involvement from the university, which had disqualified Epstein as a donor.

Taking money from a dirty source is one thing; hiding it from the university because they've blacklisted that person in particular is about as unforgivable a crime as you'll find in academia

<comment><USER10> I remember similar stories about people who took money from Harvey Weinstein, for example there was an AIDS nonprofit he gave millions to.

It all highlights the difficult job facing people tasked with taking money from donors in this way. They won't always have 20/20 hindsight. They may learn about sketchiness after they already took the money. They may be so blinded by what they see as generosity and good will that they may be less able to see character flaws. I am not saying any of this happened here, but I would not like to be in a position to make these decisions.

<comment><USER11> What's wrong with a charity accepting donations from someone naughty? It doesn't make them complicit in their offences. Criminals often donate money to charities and victims in an effort to get reduced sentences, at least in my country.

<comment><USER12> Should rich criminal have ability to buy lesser sentence then poor criminal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is gossip, but it's well founded gossip as I am one or two hops away from him. Epstein was very upfront with the people he worked what that he liked "young woman" while giving them money and invited them to his parties etc.

I think it was his way to enmesh them and make them unwitting partners in his systemic abuse. Most people just went along, and were eventually given a massage from a child at his behest to further enmesh them into the conspiracy. No one could play the innocent whistleblower because of their tangential complicity.

The gossip I've heard is confirmed by those who knew him - [https://www.salon.com/2019/07/09/i-was-a-friend-of- jeffrey-e...](https://www.salon.com/2019/07/09/i-was-a-friend-of-jeffrey- epstein-heres-what-i-know/) ;

> In the early '90s, at a Joan Rivers dinner party, my wife and I encountered > Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of disgraced British publishing mogul Robert > Maxwell and Epstein's girlfriend for a brief period in the '90s. She has > been accused of recruiting and grooming girls and women for Epstein; she > denies this. I'd met her several times with Epstein; we were also "friends," > in that transactional Manhattan way. And might now become better friends. > "If you lose 10 pounds, I'll fuck you," she said, with my wife standing next > to me. And she too became dead to me.

> As his legend grew, many others were fascinated or amused or impressed by > Epstein or simply delighted that he wrote checks to their charities. _His > interest in young women was no secret; Donald Trump famously applauded it in > 2002. Vicky Ward, who published a long profile of Epstein in Vanity Fair in > 2003, recently revisited transcripts of her interviews: "What is so amazing > to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely > overlooked it . . . all mentioned the girls, as an aside."_

It's why he was so disgustingly coy about what he did. It's why Ito, who is quite smart, probably knew what was what. And it's why he deserves his fall from grace.

<comment><USER14> I thought you were going to mention that comment about Trump saying that Epstein liked "his girls on the younger side".

I think what's interesting is the ethical dilemma here.

You have 1000s of people around you. No one is saying anything. Then they offer you money. Do you take it? Everyone else is? Then the counter to this is that of the 1000s of people that come crashing down why is it just Joi Ito and a few others?

The key detail here is that Joi isn't an isolated "king" like the rest of the people here.

They will all escape justice.

<comment><USER15> The sad reality is that the only folks who actually "suffer" from shame are those that have the capacity to see the world from a perspective other than their own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good. Here's a particularly damning passage from Ronan Farrow's New Yorker article [1]:

 _> According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein "never goes into any room without his two female 'assistants,' " whom he wanted to bring to the meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it was decided that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but would wait outside the meeting room._

 _> On the day of the visit, Swenson's distress deepened at the sight of the young women. "They were models. Eastern European, definitely," she told me. Among the lab's staff, she said, "all of us women made it a point to be super nice to them. We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they're not there by choice, we could maybe help them."_

Ito worked with someone whom his staff suspected of continuing to traffic women — _right there in their own office_.

He also enriched himself from this relationship. From this NYT article:

 _> Mr. Ito acknowledged this past week taking $525,000 of Mr. Epstein's money for the lab, as well as $1.2 million for his personal investment funds._

Truly despicable.

[1] [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite- univer...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university- research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein)

<comment><USER17> Sorry, I don't get it. Somebody having assistants who look like models and are from Eastern Europe is suspicious of trafficking women? How? Why?

I have heard about Epstein, obviously with hindsight all sorts of things he did can be seen in a new light. I just don't understand what is so damning about the passage above.

Would somebody who is trafficking women really take them everywhere he goes? I thought it would be more of a secret affair.

<comment><USER18> That Epstein was problematic --- something that in essentially no doubt at this point after his indictment, imprisonment, and subsequent suicide --- was so well-understood to the Media Lab team _at the time_ that they were considering intervening to help Epstein's escorts, on the off chance that they had been trafficked. That is not a position most people's bosses ever put them in, but it's what Ito did to staff at the Lab.

If your point is "they probably weren't trafficked at least in the lurid sense we mean when we talk about trafficking", sure, but that's not the point. The point is that Ito's collaboration with Epstein was not incidental, but rather deliberate, overt, and actually disruptive to the operations of the Lab.

<comment><USER19> That sort of rests on whether the women were 'trafficked' in any meaningful sense. If they were not then the media lab team were being judgemental and unpleasant even though they did turn out to be right about his character. If they were then everyone involved is potentially at moral fault, irrespective of who was accepting what.

The greater story of this scandal has parts that should never have happened and parts that were fine. Giving money to MIT and visiting with a bevy of attractive women is eccentric - crass even - but not troubling. The scandal isn't Epstein's giving it is that he was running a child prostitution ring.

<comment><USER20> Why are there inevitably people who want to do the mental gymnastics of assuming innocence for a man convicted of sex trafficking?

I understand assuming innocence the first time someone is accused of anything unsavory because mistakes happen. But once you are convicted, serve jail time and are suspiciously behaving in the same manner...

Who are we serving by assuming innocence?

And let me remind you that in society we have different standards than a court of law. A court of law has to assume innocence, in public we might be doing another human being who is a potential victim great good by expressing concern about the nature their relationship with a known felon & abuser.

<comment><USER21> I get part of the impulse. The concept that attractive Eastern European women spending their time with a billionaire means that they were trafficked somewhat strips them of agency. Like "you wouldn't do this of your own accord". Maybe they would.

Of course, in this case, the fellow turned out to be a monster. But Sir Richard Branson is on the level AFAIK and he hangs out with attractive women. Presumably they enjoy the company.

EDIT: I can't answer the threads below because I've been timed out for making this comment. Fair enough, but I should clarify: My point is _precisely that_. It's the child prostitution that's the problem. You can just point at the "solicitation of a minor" thing directly. Making it about the attractive Eastern European women is completely unnecessary and only useful to decry the notion that they may choose otherwise than what the MIT folks would choose.

<comment><USER22> Richard Branson wasn't convicted of child prostitution. At the time of the event quoted by the OP, Epstein had been. For fuck's sake...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> the HN comments on all the recent Epstein stories have been very strange.

I have to assume at least some of the more contrarian views are coming from people who haven't been following the full story in the US news, and so don't quite grasp the nature of the allegations. The case is far from just "some rich guy turned out to be an abuser".

If you can't understand why the reaction is so strong against those who maintained ties with Epstein, it's worth looking into the full story, perhaps starting with the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" story last year.

[https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey- epstein](https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein)

<comment><USER24> I think it's reasonable to agree that Epstein is a despicable person who should be maligned, ostracized, and punished for his misdeeds… while simultaneously believing that it's possible for there to exist a situation in which the good done by "maintaining ties" with this person could outweigh the bad.

Of course, this depends on the nature of those ties: How much good are they doing, versus how much bad? If it's possible to do that cost-benefit analysis, we might as well do it, because why not?

In this particular case, I have no idea how much additional good the Media Lab was doing as a result of this money. Thus, it actually _is_ impossible for me to do the cost-benefit analysis, because I don't know the benefit side of the equation. But I can enumerate some of the costs:

\- It contributed to Epstein being able to feel that he's accepted by society and can shameless appear at meetings and such, in public, with reputable people, despite engaging in despicable behavior. Alternatively, ostracizing him would've sent a strong message and perhaps contributed to a change in his behavior.

\- It signaled to people at large that Epstein is a good guy who donates to charitable causes. (This was somewhat mitigated by keeping the donations anonymous.)

\- It signaled to people at large that it's okay and normal to work with people who do despicable things. (This was also somewhat mitigated by keeping the donations anonymous.)

\- It risked to the Media Lab's reputation if discovered, thus hindering the organization's ability to do more good in the future.

\- Other things I'm leaving out?

So clearly a ton of bad. And I'd guess the bad outweighed whatever good was done, given that many people who were working within the Media Lab were opposed to accepting the donations.

But I don't know if it's as simple as "if the guy is bad then always say no full stop." That seems like an oversimplification, and not necessarily the best way to analyze it.

<comment><USER14> I think this is a good analysis.

Makes me think that in the future these organizations are still going to accept the money but bring in a "fall guy" to accept the blame when the anonymous donor is found out.

I don't think Joi would have done this personally. He's a smart guy.

<comment><USER24> _> I don't think Joi would have done this personally. He's a smart guy._

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying there's a conspiracy to cast Joi as the fall guy and he's going along with it? I highly doubt that's the case.

He may be smart, but that doesn't automatically make him ethical or socially aware. It also appears he gained quite a lot personally by dealing with Epstein.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm not sure if this is self-aware or not, but Ito's fund is called:"Neoteny", meaning "the retention of child-like attributes through adulthood". Apparently, Epstein's funds / projects were named with innuendos. (edited)

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/neoteny#section- over...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/neoteny#section-overview)

<comment><USER26> Ito reminds me of Epstein in that I have no idea how either got their money.

Wikipedia must be skipping over some important details, but it describes him as a two-time college dropout, a nightclub manager in Japan, (EDIT: nevermind, mystery solved! His MIT bio says he was the founder of Japan's Digital Garage and CEO of its first ISP [1]), then he's the president of MIT Media Lab, visiting Harvard Law School professor, on several boards of directors, and runs a VC fund.

I'm not implying he got his money by nefarious means, just that it's interesting to see people who find success (and in this case, downfall) within these institutions despite their unconventional backgrounds.

[1] [https://www.garage.co.jp/en/company/](https://www.garage.co.jp/en/company/)

<comment><USER27> Beyond the business stuff, he was basically Japan's first Western-style (Wired, Mondo 2000, etc.) New Media personality. Back in the early 90s he also took form as an action sports impresario, techno culture maven, and theorizing gadabout.

<comment><USER28> >Back in the early 90s he also took form as an action sports impresario

Could you elaborate here / further reading? That aspect of Joi's background interests me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In the other thread, people were saying "I'd take Epstein's dirty money and do good with it."

But the problem is that doing so normalizes the behavior. Everybody who has doubts about working with the creep looks around the room, and when they don't see anyone else objecting, ends up thinking "I guess we're all ok with this behavior" and goes along to get along.

<comment><USER30> > Everybody who has doubts about working with the creep looks around the room, > and when they don't see anyone else objecting, ends up thinking "I guess > we're all ok with this behavior" and gets along to go along.

Let's be honest - a lot of people in the tech community and related subcultures (particularly genre fandoms) _are_ either ok with, or are ambivalent towards, this behavior, or have a lack of empathy which leads them to view things in purely game-theoretical terms.

<comment><USER31> It's a trait that I've heard derisively referred to as "engineer autism" in some circles, though I doubt the literal truth of that description. But whatever it's called or ascribed to, there seems to be a genuine underlying trend of some sort. It's a topic I'd like to see defined and addressed; as tech becomes more important to society the pathologies of engineer types become more and more socially relevant as people with those traits acquire more power and status.

<comment><USER32> the probably correlation between technical interests in childhood and adolescence and reduced socialization is an obvious factor imo

<comment><USER31> I suspect that's at least a large component of it. It might also be reversed; kids who have trouble socializing pick up tech hobbies that are more conducive to a low-social lifestyle. It might be one or the other depending on the individual, or it may be that one exacerbates the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why would Bill Gates need Epstein to be the middle man for his $2 mil donation? Why didn't he just donate to the Media Lab directly?

And given his insistence that the donation be made anonymously, it seems like he was well aware the optics would be bad if the public knew there was a connection between the two, and yet he chose to make the donation through Epstein anyway.

<comment><USER34> Even though we won't find out more, this Epstein issue has given us a tiny glimpse to the mechanics of the plutocracy we really do live in.

It's pretty clear that for certain individuals higher up in the social hierarchy than most of us will ever see, Epstein offered a very exclusive service. And was part of a world of that we mostly think of as fiction. Similar to when the Snowden leaks happened we all saw that "yes, the government really does perform mass surveillance on the population", we are now seeing that "yes, the extremely wealth do play by completely different rules and shape our society in complex ways".

But we won't see much more. Joichi Ito is probably the least powerful person caught up in all this, and him and people like him provide the public retribution we all want to see. We'll see the justice has been served, and return the illusion that this was just a strange aberration rather than the status quo.

<comment><USER7> Probably the most astute comment on this entire thread. In particular the willingness of putatively skeptical and inquisitive people to accept the most transparent, dissembling excuses from the likes of Gates has been quite a sight to see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Someone who was asked by Ito to be on the MIT Disobedience Award jury wrote a long tweet thread yesterday calling out Reid Hoffman for his defense of Ito: [https://twitter.com/anandwrites/status/1169952673988300800](https://twitter.com/anandwrites/status/1169952673988300800)

<comment><USER36> I don't think that thread shows that Hoffman defended Ito, despite the author's claims. I'm basically willing to take Hoffman's responses at face value. Clearly there was an ongoing investigation, as demonstrated by Ito's resignation today. When news broke about Ito and Epstein last month, Giriharadas was pretty far down on the list of people who Ito needed to answer to (since he was just part of what I imagine to be a mostly ceremonial award committee.) I see evidence that Hoffman didn't think Giriharadas should be dictating the course of the investigation, but not evidence that Hoffman tried to impede in any way. After all, this same Disobedience award went to #MeToo activists last year...

Ultimately, this thread does feel a lot like the author making a dreadful scandal about himself.

<comment><USER7> This isn't the only dodgy behavior that's been reported about Hoffman in regards to Epstein. It's also been reported that he hosted a well attended party in Silicon Valley where Elon Musk introduced Epstein to Mark Zuckerberg. We will probably not see much more on this thanks to the plutocratic wagon circling that baron_harkonnen talks about, but it's naive to take Hoffman's statements at face value here.

<comment><USER36> Do you have a source for this?

<comment><USER7> [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein- case...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows- more-grotesque)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Adjacent: that's well-written PR spin from the Gates' camp:

> "Epstein was introduced to Bill Gates as someone who was interested in > helping grow philanthropy. Although Epstein pursued Bill Gates aggressively, > any account of a business partnership or personal relationship between the > two is simply not true. And any claim that Epstein directed any programmatic > or personal grant making for Bill Gates is completely false."

Note the part "Although Epstein pursued Bill Gates aggressively" which implies that Gates was a victim or at least an uninterested party in this affair. If that is true, why then cough up $2 million dollars via Epstein? Why does it matter if Epstein was aggressive or not if Gates wrote the check?

Some follow-up questions that Gates should answer to clarify his role:

1\. What correspondence or communications did Gates have with Epstein regarding the $2 million donation to the MIT Media Lab?

2\. What correspondence or communications did Gates have with Epstein since his conviction in 2008? Best option would be to list all of the times Gates (including any representatives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) met with or liaised with Epstein since 2008 - including via any intermediaries or third parties and electronic communications.

3\. What is the definition of business partnership in Gates' above refuttal?

4\. What is the definition of personal relationship in Gates' above refuttal?

PR and disaster management 'gurus' often wordsmith their clients' way out of these affairs.

Gates should at least clarify his role here. Otherwise, his position as a philanthropist also seems tainted.

<comment><USER38> > Why does it matter if Epstein was aggressive or not if Gates wrote the > check?

To respond to concerns that the two were spotted together frequently. This is an answer to a question. Figure out the question and you will understand.

<comment><USER31> Surely Bill Gates hires big burly men who can enforce his personal space. I find it hard to believe that Bill Gates could earnestly be the victim of such hounding for more than a brief moment.

<comment><USER39> Gates is sometimes surprisingly accessible.

Some lawyers I know were in Seattle to take depositions for a big lawsuit they were on. They went to dinner at a restaurant, and then went out to get a cab back to their hotel.

A bunch of other people were leaving at the same time, and people going in the same direction were agreeing to share cabs so people would not have to wait as long.

They were about to get in to the cab with one of the other diners who was going in the same direction and agreed to share, when they realized that other diner was Bill Gates.

Since Microsoft was the defendant in the lawsuit they were taking depositions for, and they were lawyers for the plaintiff, and were in the midst of a fight with Microsoft's lawyers over whether or not they could depose Gates, they realized sharing a cab with Gates was probably not a good idea, so waited for the next cab and let someone else share Gates' cab.

<comment><USER37> Not sure if that illustrates that Gates was accessible or that it further illustrates the point that the super-rich (including their entourage of lawyers) travel in small, connected circles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> My mother works in the non-profit fundraising sector, originally centered on education, but now runs her own consultancy for non-profits of all sizes. She knows pretty much all the rules and laws about donations and propriety within fundraising foundations. I've helped her with her business, both in actual operations and for her IT concerns. I've also worked in other regulated industries, so I have a fair amount of familiarity with what sort of rules and laws are involved and what the consequences of violating those rules tend to be.

We are livid right now. She has to help a lot of orgs navigate it, where the rules can sometimes be tricky and somewhat counter-intuitive, especially if you don't have accounting experience (and let's face it, most people in fundraising foundations are some of the lowest paid people on campus, and you get what you pay for). Stuff that could get you fined or jail time for what lay-people might consider an honest mistake (but definitely should be considered 101-course material for fundraisers, considering the stakes).

Joichi Ito's actions go way, way beyond that. Who knows just how far the harm he has caused will actually spread. He's harmed the reputation of his institution, his program, and anyone associated with the program. He's lied and cheated for personal gain. It's a no-brainer that he needs to go to jail. Whatever investigation will follow should be focused on finding all the people who knowingly helped him to lock them up alongside him.

<comment><USER41> Jail for what? Accepting donations from a pedo is not a crime.

<comment><USER42> He hid the donations from MIT. Since Epstein was on the blacklist, MIT might have a civil case against him. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that would be, for example, "fraud".

<comment><USER40> Also, using your professional relationship as a foundation employee to solicit funds for your personal, private ventures is suuuuuper illegal.

<comment><USER42> Indeed, but I have not seen that he solicited them. Of course the fact that they were made stinks to high heaven.

<comment><USER40> It doesn't matter if he literally asked or not. Anti-corruption laws are much more concerned with the appearance of impropriety than they are with the actual turn off events. That is to say, they err on the side of caution. Anything that could have come about through abuse of the professional relationship is verboten, even if it was "happenstance".

Simply put, disregarding all of the other issues, given the prior relationship between Ito and Epstein for the MIT Media Lab donations, there was no legitimate path for Epstein to invest in any private venture of Ito's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "reminder to self: don't invest with or take money from assholes" -Joi Ito, Mar 12, 2008

<comment><USER44> Not an asshole if your world views align I guess.

<comment><USER45> I'm just glad we appear to be mostly past the 'well so what if he gave money they did good with it herp derp' stage. If it had been NRA money heads would have rolled immediately. No spiked stories. No game theory debates about what wonders might be achieved with such donations despite the source.

Yes, it is about world views. Everything is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Not too long ago someone posted this: [https://www.wired.com/story/joi-ito-ai- and-bus-routes/](https://www.wired.com/story/joi-ito-ai-and-bus-routes/) Basically, Mr. Ito describes his role in torpedoing a change to bus routes that would have had significant benefits for most students in a school district. He wrote a shitty op ed about it and got the plan cancelled without ever interviewing the people who had designed it. He had thought they hadn't engaged the community, but in fact there was a lengthy community engagement process that led up to the plan. The parents who were mad were wealthy parents who would have had slightly less convenient bus schedules.

Anyway, in this retrospective he never apologizes for his blunder. I'm not really sad to see him go. He seems like a bad character.

</comment><comment><USER47> >Mr. Ito has been a board member of The New York Times Company since 2012. The company did not immediately comment on Mr. Ito's decision to leave M.I.T.

This is the 7th paragraph in the story. Shouldn't it be higher up?

<comment><USER48> What about that paragraph leads you to believe it should be higher or lower in the story, relative to its current position?

<comment><USER49> The connection between the subject of the story and the publisher of the story really ought to have been higher.

However, news is currently breaking that Ito has since resigned from The NY Times Co. board as well.

<comment><USER50> Probably this as well is worth noting: [https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048](https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1170352857952002048)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> It is now apparent that Joi Ito was an opportunistic scumbag who elevated personal gain above ethics. Good riddance to him. And good riddance to the reputation of Nicolas Negroponte as well.

<comment><USER52> Personal gain? He didn't pocket the money as far I know.

Ethics is also a touchy subject, people can't fully agree on whether taking a criminal's money to do good with it is ethical or not. So it's not as cut and dried.

He did however violate MIT policy so that's a valid reason for his resignation or even firing in my opinion.

<comment><USER9> Epstein also invested in Ito's private investment fund, which financially benefits Ito directly.

Personally I suspect Ito was more incredibly naive than scumbag, but being naive is also not a good trait for the leader of a prominent group like the Media Lab.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Jesus. Who lets a guy get away with that for so freaking long?

<comment><USER54> Most people would if it's normalized. Not long ago Saudi Arabian money and PRC money was just fine. It's hard not to take it when it's about survival.

<comment><USER55> > Not long ago Saudi Arabian money and PRC money was just fine

Wait, did something change this morning? AFAIK it's still fine and dandy to take Saudi money (esp. if you're the US government) and Chinese too.

<comment><USER56> If you work in tech you have to launder the Saudi money through Softbank but otherwise it's fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> "Ronan Farrow is here", has got to send chills down the spine of powerful people the way "Mike Wallace is here", used to in the days of yesteryear.

</comment><comment><USER58> Just a heads up, this thread is now full of accounts defending Epstein and his pedophilia full force. No idea who's behind it, but it's... Interesting.

</comment><comment><USER59> The social network / ostracism obligation aspects of this are fascinating and personal for me.

Within the last couple of years I became aware of an extended family member who was intermittently violently abusing his wife. This is someone I see at most once a year, usually at funerals.

I spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I found myself in a social situation with this person. The best I could come up with was personal ostracism.

I decided that I would not call him out, due to fear of unintended consequences, but that I would treat him as a pariah. At a recent family reunion, I was set to avoid him, but all of a sudden he was next to me, asking after me, and jutting out his hand for a shake. I reflexively shook his hand (I fucking hated myself at that moment), but managed to turn away and put my back to him as he was talking.

I feel like I eventually held up to my principles, but was a disgusted by how the people around me just ignored the elephant in the room. And yet ... difficult situation to be in. I mean this as a bystander, not someone with something to gain from associating with him.

EDIT> The time of "open secrets" needs to be over. I dislike gag orders and secret settlements because they deprive the public of crucial information. How many people are victimized by someone who is anecdotally known to be dangerous, but still socially tolerated? Epstein was radioactive since 2008-2011, and we should be very critical of anyone who treated him normally after that period.

EDIT2> My family member had already been reported to the police and his wife went back to him. So, he's on record as being an abuser. I am not covering for him in that sense.

</comment><comment><USER60> The Media Lab was near the top of the heap of university-industrial consortia in terms of both glamour and income. There really wasnt a need for all this back-channel stuff.

<comment><USER61> This is what surprises me. MIT is very well endowed, has an extra-ordinarily wealthy alumni network and overall Media Lab is perhaps better positioned financially than any other lab. In emails, the lab director is begging for $100K from a billionaire doner so he can extend one contract. I don't understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm curious about Media Lab. They setup a branch in Dublin way back and it was such obvious and painful BS. But overall have they produced interesting work? At all?

<comment><USER63> > But overall have they produced interesting work? At all?

Yes, quite a lot. (In the American sense of 'quite', not the British...)

Just look at what has come out of the Life-Long Kindergarden lab, and see how many things you recognize. Historically the Media Lab has done a lot of very creative things. A person could spend a happy lifetime doing nothing but following up on ideas that started there.

This is a bad episode for the Media Lab, for sure. But don't paint all of the researches within with a scarlet letter because of it.

\-- Edit: Translate English to English

<comment><USER64> But I don't actually know anyone who has used Scratch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> >'In an email in October 2014 — six years after Mr. Epstein had pleaded guilty to a sex charge involving a minor in Florida — Mr. Ito wrote that a $2 million gift from Mr. Gates was "directed by Jeffrey Epstein." Peter Cohen, then a development official at the lab, wrote in a subsequent email, "For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey's name as the impetus for this gift."

Mr. Cohen, now the director of development for computer and data science initiatives at Brown University, did not respond to messages seeking comment on Saturday.'

While Ito is rightfully being held to account I think it's important to consider all the other enablers who condoned and accepted these arrangements as well.

<comment><USER66> More heads will roll. Be patient.

<comment><USER67> More names will come out. But only smaller, if any, heads will roll.

The world has given me far more reasons to be pessimistic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Two things stand out from this fiasco. 1: Even very powerful and successful people are dazzled by money. 2: The ability of an individual or a family to accumulate massive private wealth inevitably leads to a lot of messed up behaviour.

<comment><USER69> you don't need wealth to be messed up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> "Resigning to spend more time with my guild."

Joi Ito: What World of Warcraft taught me about being a better leader (chronicle.com) - 32 points by yarapavan on Apr 28, 2011

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2493209](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2493209)

[https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-director- of-...](https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-director-of-mit-media- lab-talks-of-encouraging-openness/31112)

</comment><comment><USER70> Folks should remember that Rafael Reif was the provost under Susan Hockfield who orchestrated the whitewashing of research misconduct allegations that MIT Professor Ted Postol launched against MIT Lincoln Laboratory for using fabricated data to report results of a critical ballistic missile defense test to the Pentagon. MIT was found "guiltless" by Provost Reif after an "internal investigation" was conducted over the course of almost a decade. Steve Weiner (a highly respected former director of ballistic defense research at Lincoln for almost 20 years) has since accused MIT of engaging in a "kickback scheme" whereby Lincoln would tell the MDA whatever it needed to hear about the viability of a Starwars-inspired missile defense shield in order for executives at Raytheon to receive multi-billion dollar contracts to build it. The phony missile defense tests that Postol challenged intensely for almost a decade were one small but critical piece of the massive fraud that MIT has perpetrated against the United States taxpayer here. President Reif needs to be incarcerated, not just fired!

</comment><comment><USER71> The network associated with Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell (daughter of Mossad Agent Robert Maxwell) runs deep in the tech industry. Also note that Aaron Swartz was involved with the MIT Media Labs.

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

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

</comment><comment><USER72> This is just one of sooo many.. the others truly need to be held responsible as well.

</comment><comment><USER73> Where did Epstein's money come from? He claimed to be a hedge fund manager for select clients, however in the aftermath of his rearrest after the Miami Herald series there were comments from Wall Street people that there was little evidence of how he actually made so much money. Pure speculation, but the original source of Epstein's donations might also prove a problem.

</comment><comment><USER74> It was tactically smart to initially refuse to resign... it shifted the Overton window so that now he's seen as defeated simply by stopping being the Media Lab director, instead of needing to make any attempt at restitution for the damage he has caused to Epstein's victims and to MIT.

</comment><comment><USER75> There needs to be an investigation as some time into what is under the Ark Academy in Brent, London, sponsored by Arki Busson, who gets a mention in Epstein's Little Black Book.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48589712471/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48589712471/) [https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/487685.html](https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/487685.html)

</comment><comment><USER76> New internal email from President Reif:

To the members of the MIT community,

After recent events centered on the Media Lab, I know there is a tremendous sense of pain, sadness and disappointment across campus and throughout our global community. We all want answers.

For now, I write to share two important updates. Last Saturday, we retained the law firm Goodwin Procter to perform a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's interactions with MIT. This work has already begun. We have asked the firm to explore all donations received by MIT, both those that came directly from Jeffrey Epstein and his associated foundations, and any donations that may have been received at the direction of Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, the investigation will cover who at MIT may have been aware of the donations. We have instructed Goodwin Procter to follow the evidence where it leads, and we are counting on this independent investigation to ascertain the facts. As I noted on Saturday, the firm will report back to me and to the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation, MIT's governing board.

If you have information relevant to the investigation that you would like to share with the law firm, please email REDACTED.

To be thorough, such an investigation will take time, on the order of a month. Although media reports will continue to focus on the issues during this time, I am hopeful that the MIT community will avoid forming a final judgment before the process is complete and will respect the privacy of members of our community who may have become involved in this matter in the course of doing their jobs for MIT.

Once we have the results, and once our separate internal review of our current processes on gift acceptance is complete, we will be able to understand what happened and what needs to change. Supporting the members of the Media Lab must now be at the center of our attention. The Provost has asked the Dean of the School of Architecture and Planning to work with the Media Lab community on interim leadership for the lab and a search for the next director. The interim plan will be finalized shortly, and we will share the news as soon as possible, along with other plans to support the lab community. I know this is a difficult and disorienting moment. But I have profound faith in the MIT community to learn from these events and find a constructive way forward.

Sincerely,

L. Rafael Reif

</comment><comment><USER77> I feel bad for the students, professors, and other people affiliated with the MIT Media Lab who will likely actually pay the price for all of this.

Ito will be fine.

</comment><comment><USER78> I don't understand the outrage.

He was convicted of a crime, and he served his time. In hindsight, the sentence was too light, but as regular people are we really supposed to understand all the details? If I met someone who went to jail, should she be exiled forever after serving her sentence? I just don't understand. And people get lenient sentences all the time, am I as a non-lawyer supposed to understand this and then give my own sentence on top of that? Or should some people who commit crimes should never, ever be allowed to interact with other humans again?

As far as I can tell, from the perspective of those around him in 2014, Epstein was convicted of a crime, and served his time. By 2014, he had committed no further crimes from what people knew at the time, so why exactly is this an outrage. Obviously in 2019, we know that he committed further crimes and he rightly went to jail, and it's sad that he won't face justice. But in 2014, did anyone know this and should they be treated so harshly if they didn't?

The only real problem was covering up the donation, which Ito definitely should have been fired for, but I don't understand why Epstein at that time should have been considered a persona non grata.

The biggest question is: should criminals never ever be forgiven for their crimes? And should anyone who decides to forgive them and associate with them also be considered despicable as well? Or is it just _some_ criminals depending on their crime? Who judges which crimes should never be forgiven and which should?

<comment><USER79> He raped and trafficked underage girls. He video taped them and flaunted them around powerful people. You really want to defend a monster like that?

<comment><USER80> The poster is not defending Epstein (is anyone?) but is instead defending (in the abstract) people who may have met him, heard that he had been convicted and served time for sociliting underage women, and, given no other information about him, decided that given he had served his time with no further convictions that he had been rehabilitated and should not be alienated.

For every Epstein, there are others who have been convicted of similar (or worse) crimes who, ten years later, have served their time, are reformed, and are no longer a threat to society. This doesn't mean you don't have the right to choose to avoid interacting with them (I personally wouldn't when it comes to underage solicitation as was Epstein's conviction), but I'm inclined to agree with the poster that I wouldn't morally judge those who do because they on good faith, and with no contrary evidence, assume the person has faced justice and has been rehabilitated. I think it's important that as a society we don't have a general rule that it's OK to discriminate against convicted felons -- it seems wise and just to, in general, try to forgive and be fair to those who have been convicted of a crime in the past and who have no other evidence to disprove the claim they have changed and are rehabilitated.

To me this has no bearing on the details of this specific case here, because based upon peoples' behavior it seems likely that everyone involved actually knew this guy was still an abuser after his conviction. It sounds like Epstein made a point of telling people about his behavior as a means of controlling them, so in general anyone who took money from this guy I think is guilty of at the very least a moral failure.

<comment><USER78> Thank you, this is exactly the point I'm making.

And in this specific case, it sounds like the MIT director attempted to conceal donations from someone he knew was banned, so his resignation is just.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> >"He told the crowd that he had "screwed up" by accepting the money, but that he had done so after a review by the university and consultation with his advisers."

Interesting his choices made it unimpeded through his own conscience though.

</comment><comment><USER81> More and more problems seem to be linked to provenance of money. Money Laundering of dirty cash is one major obvious example (see impact on everything from London house prices to international banking) and yet just being able to trace / label money coming out of Epstein and into MIT lab would have raised this issue a decade ago

Imagine somehow being able to tag bitcoin address / transactions with "this money came from a man convicted of sex trafficking"

Then having that tag appear on the accounts sheet at NIT

Would that help?

<comment><USER82> That's such a bizarre concept. Morality isn't something that can be inherited by accepting research contributions, in my book.

Why taint the money, when it can help us learn, build, heal, and grow? Epstein, not the money he donated, is responsible for bad things he did.

As an alum, I'm not surprised at the Institute's cowardice, but I'd like to see MIT stand up for someone, ANYONE in its community when under fire publicly, just once.

<comment><USER83> So what happens when Epstein wants special access? His entire trade was influence peddling (usually by means of inducing people to commit sex crimes), the dude is going to want access to people.

He donates 2 million dollars, threatens to pull the funding when you don't let him visit.

What happens? If you think its anything besides "welcome with full access" I don't what to tell you, because that's whats going to happen in 999/1000 cases.

He was already on the MIT donation blacklist for this very reason.

This is way beyond "the dude is evil, but his money isn't"

<comment><USER82> If Donald Trump can invite the Taliban to Camp David, I think MIT can have meetings with a donor who is a felon. As long as MIT doesn't engage in illegal activity, I don't see the problem. Public opinion of Epstein is the public's business, not MIT's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Why do people make such a hypocritically huge fuzz out of some pimp, like Epstein? Look at poor neighborhoods - there are literally millions pimps prostituting millions of women in the world. I doubt any of you want to pay for their education, so they could stop prostituting and do useful jobs, and I doubt any of these prostitutes want to work at a sweatshop or a factory, or even in office, doing heavy and unhealthy work in disciplined environment.

<comment><USER85> If they're in the US, I am paying for their education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> MacArthur Foundation @macfound

The MacArthur Foundation today accepted the resignation of Joi Ito as a member of our board and our affiliate @LeverforChange , effective immediately. We thank Ito for his service.

[https://twitter.com/macfound/status/1170443088055144448](https://twitter.com/macfound/status/1170443088055144448)

Good god, did they really have to thank Joi Ito for his service?

</comment><comment><USER86> Can someone explain if knowing someone nowadays can mean a ruin career by modern day social witch hunt or is there a darker reason behind Joi Ito resigning?

</comment><comment><USER87> Total hipocrisy

</comment><comment><USER88>
        > I don't get it.

This is one of those things where somebody noticed that things just didn't seem right and the proper response to that is to raise concern and ask questions.

Sorry, but a 60-something "finance" guy with an entourage of teen models doesn't add up. Sure some of these people have trophy wives half their age, and it raises eyebrows, but this is far beyond that and totally unacceptable once somebody looks into this guy's history.

At a minimum Ito should have used better judgement after being altered to this stuff.

<comment><USER89> "teen" is a big range. If they were 14 - then that is a problem. If they're 19 then I don't really see why I or anyone else should care. In fact, it seems like one would be attempting to remove autonomy from these women if you tried to prevent an adult from serving as an assistant "for their own good" because you're creeped out by the employer.

<comment><USER90> Human trafficking is illegal regardless of age. That's why people would or should care. No one is talking about firing assistants besides you.

<comment><USER91> Clearly it is - I don't know why you would think I implied otherwise. My point is that maybe you have a hunch they are trafficked, but it is a logical leap to simply state it as a fact that they are trafficked.

<comment><USER31> I'm confused. Are you and oh_sigh the same person?

<comment><USER91> Yes - sorry. I had one logged in on my laptop and one on my phone which I switched to. I initially created this secondary account to talk to some other poster about hiring advice at my company without linking it to other autobiographic details I've possibly posted on my other account in the past, but have since unfortunately muddled the two in a big OPSEC fail(don't worry - I'm not in cybersecurity).

<comment><USER92> Your not behind ryanlol too, are you?

Strange arguments from people with weak hamming distances to my first name.

<comment><USER91> No - I only have two accounts that I post under, basically one with an autosaved password on my computer, and one on my phone. And I don't see what is so strange about my arguments. I'm not arguing that Epstein was a good guy or that his assistants necessarily weren't trafficked. I'm saying no one knows - and so far, not one of them has come forward, so regardless there is no real way to know. I would be saying the same thing if people were arguing that all the children who went to a church were raped by a pedophile priest who clearly raped, say, at least 10 children. I don't see my points as logically too difficult - merely that the subject is a clear baddie, and that means if someone says he has 19 fingers and another person responds that he probably has 10, that person will be accused of defending the baddie.

And really, this isn't a point I particularly care about. But message boards let you focus on parts of a conversation and address them independently of the rest. This isn't something I'd try to defend to the death, or would even feel the need to rebut in actual conversation. But as long as threaded messages exist, I don't see a problem with talking about these details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> > This is well-known now.

Please avoid this.

Let me preface this by saying that I have no idea who Epstein is except that he's some rich, white guy that got caught up in some kind of sex scandal, was arrested and is now dead. I'm not belittling his acts nor ignoring his accusers, I'm saying that I _did not know_. Now let me explain why.

Over the past couple of years, there have been non-stop stories of one powerful white man after another being revealed doing heinous sexual things to women. The reports are non-stop and it has come to the point that I have tuned them out. A good number of us here are in the tech industry, we're busy enough as it is. Whatever free time we have is focused on things that are more immediate. A large number of people in my immediate bubble have no idea who Epstein is. I'm not even sure if his first name is Jeff or James, except that it starts with J.

I'm likely not the only one.

So according to the HN guidelines, please assume good faith when people ask why.

<comment><USER94> How can we expect the republic to survive if some of the most capable people try so actively to not pay attention to what's going on outside their bubble?

<comment><USER6> Because they're too busy counting their money. We're the lackeys of the mighty and powerful and when the "common people" sometime try to react to the visible power imbalances some of us feel the need to obey and defend our masters. Source: me, a desilusioned programmer approaching my 40s

<comment><USER95> > too busy counting their money.

Or lack of money. The current economy, even for those in the professional class (given the absurd costs of living in tech cities), is designed to maximize precarity and force people into such a hustle mentality that they can barely pay attention to the world around them. It is truly the billionaire class vs the rest of us. We're all in this together.

<comment><USER6> You would think so from the outside but given the current level of technological development today's billionaires would be nothing without us, IT people (I include here everything from devops, to programmers to QA etc etc), without some lawyers and some medical professionals. Even the billionaires' goons are almost nothing without the technological-heavy guns they employ to potentially carry out their goon-related stuff, and said technology depends, like I said, on us, IT people.

<comment><USER96> What makes you think anyone with billionaire status thinks about anyone of lesser status as anything but cogs in their personal machine? So their existence depends on others, in reality... when did they last have any contact with reality in any meaningful way?

If you can be bought and sold, you are a pawn, not a player.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> There are definitely participants in these discussions with a very specific agenda. Some accounts, like nf8nnfufuu, are going really far out of their way to defend Epstein. Just search for how many responses they've written throughout this thread to see what I mean.

<comment><USER23> that account in particular eventually admits to not having read much about the case.

i honestly am pretty sure the vast majority of the contrarians really are just not familiar with the whole Epstein story, and may only be hearing about it as it intersects with the tech world.

<comment><USER97> Yeah, because writing a dozen replies defending Epstein was definitely much less effort than a quick google search of the guy...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> [https://twitter.com/Joi/status/770625716](https://twitter.com/Joi/status/770625716)

<comment><USER48> Text of linked tweet:

> _reminder to self: don 't invest with or take money from assholes_

@ 4:20 PM · Mar 12, 2008

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Edit: Removing my comment after reading the detailed New Yorker article linked from The NY Times.

<comment><USER100> > Joi shouldn't be hung for giving someone the benefit of doubt.

Epstein had already been convicted and banned from MIT donations.

In a position of leadership you are responsible to keep a healthy and safe workplace. That's part of the job of running a lab. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you should not be in a leadership role.

<comment><USER99> Ok maybe I'm missing something. Joi allowed him to visit the lab after he was banned?

<comment><USER101> And took donations after Epstein was disqualified as a funder (after his 2008 conviction), and deliberately manipulated things to make them anonymous. It's blatant, done with full understanding, and (stupidly) with an email trail of evidence.

'In September, 2014, Ito wrote to Epstein soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher, asking, "Could you re-up/top-off with another $100K so we can extend his contract another year?" Epstein replied, "yes." Forwarding the response to a member of his staff, Ito wrote, "Make sure this gets accounted for as anonymous." Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Lab's Director of Development and Strategy at the time, reiterated, "Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous. Thanks."' <USER2>
' But the e-mails show that Ito consulted closely with Epstein and actively sought the various donations. At one point, Cohen reached out to Ito for advice about a donor, writing, "you or Jeffrey would know best."'

and so on, and so forth. The article is worth a read.

<comment><USER102> > And took donations after Epstein was disqualified as a funder (after his > 2008 conviction)

Can you point me to where it's described exactly when Epstein was blacklisted by MIT and why? If it's in the newyorker article, I'm missing it.

It points out that Epstein's donations were anonymous and that he was blacklisted but doesn't appear to order the events. It looks like Epstein was anonymously donating back around 2002 also, so was he also blacklisted then? Why?

<comment><USER99> It's in the New Yorker article linked from the nytimes article. But correct there is no timeline. But the references to emails that show leadership trying to hide the source of donations sounds bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> To any Asian Americans reading this, I'm sorry for how the media discriminates against your identity. Out of all the affiliations with Epstein, why do they focus on this one?

</comment><comment><USER104> that is why Satoshi Nakamoto the inventor of BitCoin is Craig S Wright!

makes sense now

</comment><comment><USER105> "The trouble with tainted money is t'aint enough of it." - William Booth.

Playing devil's advocate here: Accepting tainted money as charity is not the problem. Promoting the donors, giving them prestige, contacts, access or some other benefits as a result of donations is the problem.

<comment><USER106> It is absolutely, very much a problem to take money from an unrepentant abuser and predator who is still publicly flaunting his abusive and predatory ways. You could argue that, perhaps, such institutions should also not cater to the merely wealthy and vain. But you can enable vanity without enabling sex trafficking.

<comment><USER107> What if the money could be accepted in a way that could not possibly convey any status or glory back to the donor - something permanently anonymous - <USER2> also did not allow the donor any guidance over the use of the money? I'm asking as a philosophical question, not suggesting that Ito's actions might be justified.

<comment><USER106> It's certainly a complex and worthy philosophical question but what does it have to do with a child rapist contributing to MIT? My take is 'nothing'. Like, you shouldn't have child rapists contributing to your institution. It seems morally and philosophically trivial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> This article is filled with strangely matter-of-fact language regarding matters which are still unsolved:

For example:

> Mr. Epstein — who killed himself in jail last month while facing federal sex > trafficking charges

<comment><USER109> Unfortunately the cameras spontaneously failed so we'll never discover how someone can break their own neck

<comment><USER110> Of course if they had an 'active' indicator, them failing could have been the impetus for him knowing he had a window of opportunity. Rather than 'pure coincidence'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> Good. These were in no way innocent ties. He knew who Epstein was and misled people. Ito could be on the hook for civil fraud. The elements of fraud are:

      a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact
      with knowledge that it is false
      to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation
      who suffers actual loss as a result.

<comment><USER112> That's reaching, a whole lot. Ito knew who Epstein was, as did everyone else - Epstein's conviction wasn't a secret. That harms Ito through his poor decision making, but other people were just as capable of knowing who Epstein was.

Who suffered an actual loss as a result of these donations? Civil fraud is grasping, some.

<comment><USER111>
      (1) a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact
      (2) with knowledge that it is false
      (3) to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation
      (4) who suffers actual loss as a result.

(1) If I lie to you (2) knowingly, and (3) you are convinced by my lies (4) to part ways with your money, then I have defrauded you. That you nobly donated to MIT doesn't matter.

<comment><USER113> With regards to (3) and (4), who are you describing? Epstein gave the money to the Media Lab, or brokered the delivery of the money to the Media Lab from people who knew who he was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> Contrarian view: as long as the person in question was not compromised by e.g. flights to the pedo island (like Bubba Clinton, who took dozens of flights, dismissing USSS on a number of them for some reason, hmm), and as long as the integrity of the lab was not affected by Epstein's involvement, I see nothing wrong with taking his money. He's despicable, sure, but if he's not buying influence, I'm OK with him supporting science rather than blowing that money on satisfying wealthy pedophiles.

<comment><USER115> "The departure of Mr. Ito from the media lab came after he spent days trying to make amends. At Wednesday's meeting, which was organized by professors at the program, he reiterated his apology. He described for the first time the amount of money he had received from Mr. Epstein, and said he had twice traveled to Mr. Epstein's island home in the Caribbean to seek donations."

<comment><USER114> Well, he deserves what he got then. No sympathy. I was not familiar with the details of his involvement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> Those in glass houses...

"They were models. Eastern European, definitely," she told me. Among the lab's staff, she said, "all of us women made it a point to be super nice to them. We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they're not there by choice, we could maybe help them."

And what did these people go home and start doing for Eastern European models since then? I find this pretty condescending. I know a few Eastern European models who are incredibly smart, and perhaps dated some folks who they wouldn't have dated if they were born in the U.S., but used those relationships to get themselves out of possible hellish, abusive, misogynistic situations back home (this is somewhat speculation, but our current First Lady seems to fall in this category). They were young but had been through hard times _like the disintegration of the Soviet Union and starvation_ , and aren't so naive. They were honest about things, and weren't living in delusion. Some of the toughest and smartest people _I 've ever met_ in fact. There just seems to be a lot of phony moral outrage here.

<comment><USER31> > _" I know a few Eastern European models"_

Do you?

<comment><USER55> HN users are a varied bunch. There is no reason to not believe him.

<comment><USER31> That particular user is someone I distrust, based on past interactions (a habit of speaking with the "royal we" for instance.)

<comment><USER116> I'm sorry you distrust me, but I do my best to speak the truth as I see it. My name is Breck Yunits, I've been on this site for 12 years. You can find more about me at breckyunits.com. You can see over a decade of commits in just one of my GitHub accounts at github.com/breck7. You can find me on LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. You are free to post your opinions and criticisms of me, I really am grateful for it and often learn a lot from criticism.

> a habit of speaking with the "royal we" for instance.

This is a fair point. I'll explain. My Tree Notation ideas are simple, bold, and have very big implications if I'm right. I have gotten tremendous help from hundreds of people, and have had thousands of conversations about it. My initial paper had initials of many people who read the initial drafts and helped me publish it. I got a lot of negative comments when I posted it, with the most common that it was nothing original and/or that I was some crazy nut detached from reality. Instead of subject my friends and collaborators to that, I've just decided to be the shield that takes the heat, while everyone else does the hard job of pushing these ideas forward. I think it's now pretty close to the point where people see that we were right after all, and Tree Notation may indeed eat the software world, and you will set a lot of new names, and mine will fade out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Qt 5.3 Released - <AUTHOR> http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/05/20/qt-5-3-released/

<comment><USER2> Nice to see Qt advancing steadily. Hoping that QML perf was particularly increased. The new WinRT and WP8 integration is nice to see. QQuickWidget is also a good idea, will allow for gradual migration of legacy QWidget apps to the new QML based world.

The new QML-to-C++ compiler also sounds interesting. I guess it is compiling to a mixture of plain C++ where possible (eg: simple arithmetic where deducible) and calls to some internal interpreter API for other parts. Looks like the compiler is not yet open-source?

<comment><USER3> I imagine it does a similar approach to XAML compiler in Windows, that generates an optimized binary representation of the code.

Yep, it seems to be only available to enterprise customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is great!

C++ is currently my to go language, for my cross platform mobile hobby projects.</comment>


Tulsa University Bans Student from Campus for Someone Else's Facebook Posts - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150217/08181830054/tulsa-university-bans-student-campus-someone-elses-facebook-posts.shtml

<comment><USER2> I like that in the findings, they find his asserting his lack of responsibility "self-serving."

Nothing like punishing someone for standing up for themselves, eh? Of course it's self-serving; nobody else was going to.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's Tulsa University, what about the article is a surprise? If you have had _any_ dealings with them you would be shaking your head "un-huh, that's the way they roll"

</comment><comment><USER4> "making his prior investment in his theater degree wasted money" !!!!!!!!!</comment>