Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests - <AUTHOR> https://everestpipkin.github.io/image-scrubber/ <comment><USER2> Some tips to maximise user privacy while deploying this tool:

1) The code, for now, runs locally. This is good. To avoid the possibility of the code being tampered with at a later day (for example, it could be modified to send copies of the image to a server), download the webpage and use the saved copy, not the live copy.

2) Do not use the blur functionality. For maximum privacy, this should be removed from the app entirely. There are _a lot_ of forensic methods to reverse blur techniques.

3) Be weary of other things in the photograph that might identify someone: reflections, shadows, so on.

4) Really a subset of 2 and 3, but be aware that blocking out faces is often times not sufficient to anonymise the subject in the photo. Identifying marks like tattoos, or even something as basic as the shoes they are wearing, can be used to identify the target.

<comment><USER3> "There are _a lot_ of forensic methods to reverse blur techniques"

Any examples? You can't reverse it if the data is gone.

<comment><USER4> If you do something really simple like a Gaussian blur (which is a type of convolution), it might be possible to find the inverse convolution (de- convolution) and restore the original image with some accuracy.

One method is the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution [1], which is an iterative algorithm, and here [2] is the best practical example I could find right away. Unfortunately the text is not in English, but the illustrations and formulae might be enough to give some intuition of the process.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%E2%80%93Lucy_deconv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson%E2%80%93Lucy_deconvolution)

[2] [https://habr.com/en/post/136853/](https://habr.com/en/post/136853/)

<comment><USER5> [https://github.com/Y-Vladimir/SmartDeblur](https://github.com/Y-Vladimir/SmartDeblur)

[http://smartdeblur.net/](http://smartdeblur.net/)

<comment><USER4> Yes, that's it, thank you! And here's the English version of the article I linked above: [https://yuzhikov.com/articles/BlurredImagesRestoration1.htm](https://yuzhikov.com/articles/BlurredImagesRestoration1.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recently found myself in a position where I had to blur a ton of faces from multiple pictures (about 100/day).

It's really tedious to do it manually and something like OpenCV shines.

We found a repo [1] with python code that automatically detects and blurs faces. This script was one of many, except it had a very high accuracy. Over 90%.

Removing exif data is a great idea.

[1] github.com/telesoho/faceblur

<comment><USER7> I'm reminded of a reddit thread a while back about the US government paying a large sum to create an "unblur" function for photoshop. Someone in the comments was able to rotate and flip a photo and use the photoshop blur tool to effectively undo a blur for free.

Perhaps it's better to remove the section of photo with a person's face instead? Or draw a shape over their face and flatten the image? It seems to me as long as the pixels are there the identifying data is there for anyone willing to spend the time and effort to find it.

Edit: Apparently it was interpol, not the US government. I can't find the reddit thread but here's a NYT article with the photo: [https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/interpol- untwir...](https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/interpol-untwirls-a- suspected-pedophile/)

<comment><USER8> Blurring isn't that good at destroying information, I think we mostly use it because it's the best looking censoring attempt.

I would pixelate the faces to be just 4x4 giant pixels. It destroys nearly as much information as blacking them out while still not disrupting the image too much

<comment><USER9> I would guess that pixelisation for _videos_ rather than pictures probably reveals more information the longer the video.

<comment><USER10> Yes, you would need to fix the pixels to an initial or average value. I remember Nintendo didn't do this a couple years ago, accidentally leaking the name of a new game mode [1] for Smash Ultimate.

[1] [https://twitter.com/Lattie9001/status/1027204063811850240](https://twitter.com/Lattie9001/status/1027204063811850240)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For meta data, exiftool is handy for removing metadata[0].

$ exiftool -all= foo.jpg

And even better, save image first as .bmp or other format that doesn't support metadata. Then reload and convert to jpeg, and run the exiftool on this image.

[0] [https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity- Sau...](https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity-Sauce/Remove- EXIF-Metadata-from-Photos-with-exiftool)

<comment><USER12> or if you're in a rush just post them to imgur where all exif data is dropped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> While I can't make useful comments on protests or strong anonymity, wrt photo metadata, I _can say_ that I scrub metadata from photos that leave my possession, as a matter of course, using 'exiftool'.

Here is how you read the existing metadata:

      exiftool -a -u -g1 IMG_0708.JPG | more

... and here is how you scrub it:

      exiftool -all= IMG_0708.JPG

(you could read it again, after scrubbing, to demonstrate it is gone ...)

<comment><USER14> I've had this function added to my shell for years:

       stripexif ()
       {
           exiftool -all= "$@"
       }

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The protests were sparked by the lack of accountability of the police resulting in police brutality. The violent people among the protesters are subject to the same incentives. The more they expect to be held accountable, the more likely they will refrain from violence.

Anonymizing photos of the violent ones is therefore likely to support their actions by making accountability less likely. To scrub ethically, limit it to the non-violent protestors. To support non-violence, better to help identify the violent people -- police or civilian -- the opposite of anonymizing them.

<comment><USER16> Many organizers of protests in Furguson, peaceful or otherwise, have since been found murdered in ways that suggest they were literally hunted down and killed for their involvement. Multiple have been found shot through the head in burned out cars to destroy all evidence. If they broke the law it still does not merit being executed in the street. ([https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/puzzling-number-men- tie...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/puzzling-number-men-tied- ferguson-protests-have-died-n984261))

In a situation where police feel justified to kill extra-judicially over a possibly fake 20 dollar bill, what hope do we have that protesters won't be targeted in unfair ways? Or worse, that organizers won't be hunted down like animals and murdered like in Furguson? It would be unethical to not do everything in your power to protect those in this position.

secondly how do you plan to identify violent vs non-violent protesters from a static image? How would you find their identity afterwards? There is overwhelming evidence to suggest these methods are at best ineffective and at worst racist, and in either case will lead to innocent people being charged.

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109887-police-mass- fac...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109887-police-mass-face- recognition-in-the-us-will-net-innocent-people/)

<comment><USER17> For those who do not click through to the article: "Police say that there is no evidence the deaths have anything to do with the protests".

From my time in Portland, working at the courthouse as a court clerk during the Occupy movement, when hundreds of transient "protesters" camped out in the park, it is not surprising that some of those folks would OD or end up dead for reasons entirely not related to protesting but instead related to their unfortunate life circumstances. I do not know if the same is true of Ferguson, but the article does not seem to provide any evidence of calculated retaliation against protesters.

<comment><USER18> Why would the police say otherwise? Nice critical thinking.

<comment><USER19> The article just has these people loosely connected or "active" in the protests. One of them attended the protests, one launched a tear gas canister back at the police, one's mother attended the protests, etc. These aren't the main organizers or leaders dying mysteriously, but rather random attendees dying.

Is this more or less than the number of attendees we would expect to die based on Ferguson homicide rates and approximations of the number of attendees? I couldn't find that in the article.

Also, what's the theory that this isn't a coincidence? The police are murdering random protestors for some reason?

<comment><USER16> All of those mentioned in the article were not just attendees but community organizers. Do some drake equation style math on the back of an envelope:

What percentage of young people will die in a given year?

What percentage of those will happen to be community organizers?

What percentage of those will die by being shot in the head in a car that was then set on fire to annihilate forensic evidence?

Doesn't take too many steps out to get into the realm of zero percent probability that this is random chance

<comment><USER19> Are they organizers? That's not clear to me from the NBC article.

"""

— MarShawn McCarrel of Columbus, Ohio, shot himself in February 2016 outside the front door of the Ohio Statehouse, police said. He had been active in Ferguson.

— Edward Crawford Jr., 27, fatally shot himself in May 2017 after telling acquaintances he had been distraught over personal issues, police said. A photo of Crawford firing a tear gas canister back at police during a Ferguson protest was part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage.

— In October, 24-year-old Danye Jones was found hanging from a tree in the yard of his north St. Louis County home. His mother, Melissa McKinnies, was active in Ferguson and posted on Facebook after her son's death, "They lynched my baby." But the death was ruled a suicide.

— Bassem Masri, a 31-year-old Palestinian American who frequently livestreamed video of Ferguson demonstrations, was found unresponsive on a bus in November and couldn't be revived. Toxicology results released in February showed he died of an overdose of fentanyl.

"""

One was "active", one sent tear gas back at police, one livestreamed parts of the protest, and one's mother was in the protest.

The first two people, who were shot in their cars, I didn't see the extent of their involvement.

How many were involved at this level or higher? Tens of thousands? How many should we expect to die of murder, suicide, and drug overdose, and how many have?

What is the theory explaining this? Do you think there is a group murdering Ferguson protestors after the fact?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Really weird that nobody in the thread is pointing out that this is basically a website that says "give me your photos, specifically from protests, which have details that you want to keep private".

It doesn't matter that it theoretically all happen in the browser. You can serve different versions to different IPs etc. Every heuristic in me would be screaming don't use that if I would have a need for such tool.

<comment><USER21> It's a simple static site with no server involved. Everything happens client side. You could turn off your internet while you're using it if you wanted to make sure no data is exposed.

<comment><USER22> True, but it's only safe _if_ you do that. You have to either inspect the code every time you use the site or run it locally. Until subresource integrity [1] becomes widely used & the capability to 'pin' a given script to a specific version, web applications can not be used without at least trusting the owner of the domain.

A better example is Protonmail, a secure email service. It has a nice web client and there is an 3rd party desktop/electron version of the same size called Electronmail. While both essentially run identical code, the electron version is more secure because even Protonmail insert a backdoor for a single or # of users. They would have to at least publish the backdoor in the vanilla code at which point, the maintainers of Electronmail will probably raise the alarm.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity)

<comment> t-writescode Or, you could download the repository, validate it once for yourself and then use it repeatedly. It is open source, after all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's better to black out faces than to blur them. It's feasible to unblur / un-pixelate faces, especially if there's more than one frame.

</comment><comment><USER24> The timing of the release of this tool seems a bit innapropriate, given the state of rioting in a few US cities now. It's going to be incredibly draining on law enforcement in the US for a few years to identify and prosecute criminals involved in riots. Most victims already who have lost their homes, their businesses, and even their loved ones will mostly likely never see the criminals brought to justice given the scale of the violence.

It could be useful to protect people from relatiation under an authoritarian government, such as in Hong Kong. I dislike the idea of a government using mass automatic identification, that could be used again by authoritarians for terrible goals. I also dislike the idea of the opposite and using automatic anonymizing to protect criminals during riots. We're probably going to keep seeing an arms race in this, with good and bad actors on all sides.

<comment><USER25> It would be nice if our law enforcement had legitimacy and credibility, because then we could know that showing someone's face would lead to them being arrested and facing a sentence commensurate with what they had done. But unfortunately this is not the case.

Showing the face of a protestor smashing in a window will not lead to that protestor being brought to court and handed a sentence for community service, a fine, or some light jail time. It will lead to extrajudicial retaliation and possibly death.

Again, it would be nice if that weren't the case and we could trust law enforcement to behave appropriately. But given that they and their supporters are known to hunt down and kill people who protest against them, we cannot in good conscience make it easier for them to do so.

If we are to trust the cops again, they need to show us they are worthy of trust. And they sure aren't doing that right now.

<comment><USER26> > Showing the face of a protestor smashing in a window will not lead to that > protestor being brought to court and handed a sentence for community > service, a fine, or some light jail time. It will lead to extrajudicial > retaliation and possibly death.

What? I'm not sure what country you're talking about. Are you talking about America? Our police find rioters and shoot them dead in the street?

Man, I feel like you live in a different country than me, and I've lived in 9 states in every part of the country, and across nearly every income brackets (save extreme poverty or extreme wealth) and feel like your perspective is so disconnected from reality.

<comment><USER27> [https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-ferguson- acti...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-ferguson-activist- deaths-black-lives-matter-20190317-story.html)

This is the country you live in, if you want ignore that fact its on you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Removing EXIF data is not enough.

> "Like snowflakes, no two smartphones are the same. Each device, regardless > of the manufacturer or make, can be identified through a pattern of > microscopic imaging flaws that are present in every picture they take," says > Kui Ren, lead author of a new study describing the smartphone-identifying > technology. "It's kind of like matching bullets to a gun, only we're > matching photos to a smartphone camera."

[https://www.futurity.org/smartphones-cameras- prnu-1634712-2/](https://www.futurity.org/smartphones-cameras-prnu-1634712-2/)

<comment><USER29> I wonder if there are tools for removing (or repatterning) these as post- processing. In fact, you'd think single pixel defects might get washed out in conversion to a lossee image format.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The protests are being live-streamed on Facebook, twitch, YouTube etc. So while they is interesting, it is ultimately useless. The data is already out there.

<comment><USER31> Not if you hijack the camera directly* :)

[1] [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/creativetech_tensorflowjs- bod...](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/creativetech_tensorflowjs-bodypix- chromeextension-activity-6669414588058091520-GjNb)

<comment><USER32> How do you expect that to work on a phone and still provide viewers with a clear idea of what is going on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> How resilient is blurring against deconvolution?

<comment><USER34> Can deconvolution create new data? I thought it was just a way to upscale images.

<comment><USER35> If a blur filter uses a convolution, then it's invertible through a deconvolution.

<comment> im3w1l-alt There will be some information loss from edge effects and quantization noise. But mostly invertible.

<comment><USER35> You're not wrong but invertible filters, noise or no, are simply not anonymizing and should not be used for that purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Instead of blurring you should add a significant amount of extraneous information (random noise) and then mosaic (downsample).

If you'd like to have a smooth looking censored image you can then blur the mosaic result to have a smooth transition between the censored and original image.

If you simply blur or simply downsample there's a significant ability to recover data or iterate over data to recover likely inputs. Other posts have discussed deconvolution, but think of a downsample as a hash - you can build a rainbow table of inputs, easily for numbers, with more difficulty for faces. If you have a limited pool of "suspects" this technique can work well. Just as with hashing, you should add a salt to the image before downsampling or blurring to make recovery of the original input more difficult. In this case the "salt" is random noise.

</comment><comment><USER37> Timely article, but what about violent criminal activity during protests? Peaceful protests are wonderful and have been very effective throughout history. The protests we've seen for the past few days are not helping anything. Yes, people are angry at the criminal behavior of the police officer/murderer, but manifesting that anger by destroying property, looting, injuring, and threatening others, is only going to justify the use of more police violence.

<comment><USER38> I'll just play the devil's advocate, but when have peaceful protests ever helped the cause? Those are forgotten as soon as they are over.

<comment><USER39> Indian independence? Martin Luther King?

<comment><USER40> Ghandi is the face of that movement but was just the tip of what was a very bloody revolution. It is important that we think the movement was "non- violent" such that we can point to it to dissuade people from challenging the status quo in a material way.

<comment><USER39> Would you say that his protests didn't change anything and were forgotten as soon as they were over?

<comment><USER40> No, the history taught about ghandi carefully selects instances of "non- violence". I don't think ghandi is responsible for how we learn about ghandi in the west.

Just like MLK is regarded as "peaceful" when in fact he and others spoke quite a bit about the fact that there was never any response from white people unless property was attacked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Why does one need to scrub faces from protests images? Does it even matter with the volumn of images being captured?

Is it because people are committing more crime than the original offense?

<comment><USER42> Could it be that sometimes the police, government, etc. will make your life miserable _even if you haven 't commit a crime_ because they don't like something you did?

Nah. They would never do anything like that.

As everyone knows, all police are paragons of moral excellence in every country in the world at all times.

Governments have definitely never, ever gone after innocent protesters.

</sarcasm>

<comment><USER41> How much worse are the police from other profession?

i.e. how skewed are different professions w.r.t. morals?

Do you think lawyers are worse? Politicians? The Media? Where do police fit into this spectrum?

Are all police bad? What percentage?

<perspective> (you can close this tag if you wish)

<comment><USER42> IF they are identical morally there's still a problem, because they are not identical in power.

With power comes a responsibilty to be _better_ than others, and if that's not something you can count on, which it isn't, we need to protect others.

<comment><USER41> Well they aren't equal, nor has humanity never complained about those in power...

Was the police violence worse during the time of the civil rights? Were the protesters ever violent or turn to rioting?

What would Dr King say about the protests?

<comment><USER43> It's not hard to find, because he said these words in 1968 before his assassination:

"…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity." ("The Other America," 1968).

Funny, it sounds just as true of 2020 America as 1968 America. [https://www.history.com/news/for-martin-luther-king-jr- nonvi...](https://www.history.com/news/for-martin-luther-king-jr-nonviolent- protest-never-meant-wait-and-see)

He would understand. He would probably be out there. He might try to be a calming influence—or he might act as a street medic. He might have turned as militant as Malcolm X over the last fifty years since his assassination. His tone was changing even from his 1966 Mike Wallace interview where he said:

"I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard."

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language- of-t...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the- unheard/)

Dr King was heavily involved in protests. He did everything he could to keep his protests non-violent, but he faced extreme violence from the ~slave patrols~ white racist cops of the time. His son is on Twitter…and is being MLKsplained to by white people who consistently misunderstand what MLK said and meant.

[https://twitter.com/OfficialMLK3/status/1266040838628560898](https://twitter.com/OfficialMLK3/status/1266040838628560898) (follow the thread)

MLK's position initially was very much the same as Michele Obama's "When they go low, we go high". But he never said that people should just _give in_ to the violence of the state, and so it's pretty clear that he would not have completely condemned the protests or even the riots.

(In other words, there's multiple MLKs, and most people—especially white people—remember the sanitized "I have a Dream" MLK that is taught to us as history. That MLK is _not_ the MLK that existed at the time of his assassination.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is great for some situations. However, my personal policy is to upload my protest content to Google Photos asap (if appropriate). This makes sure your content is off your device if your phone gets confiscated AND it provides (be it thin) layer of authenticity/validation of the content.

<comment><USER45> Google Photos isn't going to provide you with any authenticity claims, and metadata gets scrambled by both their "high quality" and "original" settings.

If you want to make sure the actual, original image gets stored safely on another device automatically, use SyncThing or Resilio Sync.

<comment><USER46> > metadata gets scrambled by both their "high quality" and "original" > settings.

This is NOT true, at least for the "original" setting. Upload an image, download it again - the checksums are identical.

If you modify the time/date or add comments within Google Photos, that new information is kept in a .json file instead of the exif data, but Google NEVER modifies the original photo if you select "original" quality.

<comment><USER45> That's not my experience with a couple Google Pixels, using original quality.

If you fetch your image via takeout or via the API, the image bytes are the same, but the EXIF headers have been changed.

I've tried in both a standard Gmail account and a custom domain. Same behavior.

Are you saying your file SHA is the same from your device and your takeout?

I wonder if I am seeing US-account-exclusive behavior?

<comment><USER46> Yep, the SHA1/256 checksum of the original on my Android device is the same as the one from both Google Takeout and downloading from the Google Photos Web UI.

Same for the .heic files on my iPhone, too.

<comment><USER45> Interesting, thanks for sharing. I wonder what's different between our accounts and devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> So I might look silly here but what I do is take a snip of the displayed picture and save and use that. Was I doing it wrong?

All I was really concerned about was getting rid of metadata tied to my phone.

</comment><comment><USER48> was thinking about a way to do this for live stream video. I think it is doable but would probably cause too much battery drain on the device.

<comment><USER49> You could stream to your computer at home and then to the world. But it's weird that the live streaming websites don't offer it as feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> A general tool for metadata removal:

[https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2/](https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2/) [https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2-web/](https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2-web/)

</comment><comment><USER51> Assuming this tool was intended for those who want to share photos on social media, Facebook and Instagram already strip metadata out from the photos you share otherwise anybody could scrape the photo and get metadata. I'm not sure for Twitter tho but I think it is the same.

<comment><USER52> Twitter also strips exif data from displayed images. That said, I would assume that all social media platforms permanently store that data (even though it's not in the displayed image), and would be forced to give it up under subpoena.

<comment><USER51> "all social media platforms permanently store that data" exactly but storing metadata has 2 purposes; one for security reasons and second for analyzing the data and creating advertising solutions based on that data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Regarding metadata: Considering windows already lets you strip metadata from images directly from the properties menu, is there anything this tool or other metadata stripping tools do that goes beyond what windows offers? Is it risky to rely on the built-in tool?

</comment><comment><USER54> Nice. The most identifying EXIF data is probably the GPS location. What else have to be scrubbed?

<comment><USER55> The tool blurs faces.

<comment><USER54> Sure. I'm just interested to know what else in EXIF could be identifying.

<comment><USER56> Camera serial numbers. If you ever have your camera stolen, you can put the serial number into Stolen Camera Finder. It will show you the images uploaded to the Internet with your camera's serial number so you can recover it.

[https://www.stolencamerafinder.com](https://www.stolencamerafinder.com)

<comment><USER57> Is this data included in iPhone photos? I don't think so.

<comment><USER45> iPhone metadata includes several fingerprints that can be used to differentiate between different devices, including a serial number, uptime in seconds, and shutter release count (depending on the model of iPhone you have).

(source: me examining as many different iPhone models and instances to build deduping heuristics for PhotoStructure)

<comment><USER57> Interesting! That's more information than I thought. Thanks for informing me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Can someone package this as an iOS and Android app and get it into the app stores?

<comment><USER59> There are quite a few apps for iOS at least that remove metadata [https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/photo-video-metadata- remover/i...](https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/photo-video-metadata- remover/id1079710135)

There are also a few that do face detection and blur on the AppStore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Great concept!

There should be an undo button, though. Especially without a brush size preview.

</comment><comment><USER61> Awesome tool!

Unfortunately it isn't fully functionally via safari mobile.

</comment><comment><USER26> Protests or riots?

</comment><comment><USER62> Now I would hope everyone is wearing a mask

<comment><USER63> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti- mask_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law)

<comment><USER64> Health overrules those mostly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Since the Antifa will be designated as a terrorist organization[0], I don't suggest you guys to trust github pages, google photos, drive, etc. Tomorrow there may be a subpoena for the IP addresses who use this tool. It may not be enough proof but it'll cost you a lot of money and time. I'd be using local tools like exiftool or gimp.

[0]: [https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12671296442282475...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1267129644228247552)

</comment><comment><USER66> This is an ideal tool to be hosted on ipfs, to prevent tampering with the code in the future.

</comment><comment><USER67> It is hosted on github pages. Not sure if it would violate ToS. You may host it elsewhere.

Reference: [https://help.github.com/en/github/working-with-github- pages/...](https://help.github.com/en/github/working-with-github-pages/about- github-pages)

<comment><USER45> What policy do you think this tool violates?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Can face blurring be regulated as a protected form of encryption?

</comment><comment><USER69> Site won't scroll on iOS keeping me from reading the full readme.

</comment><comment><USER70> Need this but for video

</comment><comment><USER71> Simple and effective like a charm

</comment><comment><USER72> As of today, the president is designating antifascist protestors as a terrorist organization.

<comment><USER73> Not following the news for my sanity. Was he referring to antifa or actual anti fascists?

<comment><USER74> Antifa is an umbrella term. From Wikipedia:

> Antifa is not an interconnected or unified organization, but rather a > movement without a hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple > autonomous groups and individuals

<comment><USER75> In his tweet, I do believe POTUS was referring to Antifa in the same way as the question--as a fictional, hierarchical organization.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch <comment><USER2> Blanketing the airwaves with theories about Russia has damaged the MSM's credibility with a lot of people. "There's More Evidence CNN Colluded With Clinton Than Trump With Russia" [1] This seems like a ploy to regain some credibility. Have a handful of people go full force with conspiracy theories that are obviously unfounded. Then the MSM can step in, point out the "fake news," tear them apart, and regain the middle ground.

[1] [http://freebeacon.com/politics/spicer-theres-evidence-cnn- co...](http://freebeacon.com/politics/spicer-theres-evidence-cnn-colluded- clinton-trump-russia/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Bologna.

The assertions center on two obscure websites, palmerreport.com and patribotics.blog. Neither are even remotely comparable to breitbart.com, let alone foxnews.com. (May as well add vox.com into that lineup, I guess.)

Wake me when dailykos.com or slate.com start putting their weight behind conspiracy theories.

</comment><comment><USER4> At the moment their solution to this issue is to brand anyone who points it out as a paid Russian troll. It's really sad to watch this happen.

</comment><comment><USER5> I haven't seen any of these stories let alone fallen for them. Flynn is bad enough.</comment>


Tell HN: Vote. - <AUTHOR> If you can, vote. It is your duty as an American to speak for yourself. We have the power to change things, we have the power to make the world a better place.<p>Just vote. <comment><USER2> Find me one candidate that isn't completely full of s&%t, and maybe I'll cast a vote. Maybe one person that understands English enough to actually answer a question in front of a camera. It's insulting.

90% of the population doesn't have a single clue about how the government runs, anything about the economy, foreign relations, what any of the candidates are even speaking about. It's a population voting blindly based on which TV shows and commercials they happen to watch. We have states that practically automatically turn towards a certain party each time. An electoral college system makes all of the difference. Overfunded campaigns that buy your vote like big companies sell you their garbage. It's a mess..

<comment><USER3> So don't vote for a major party or write someone in. If you don't vote, don't complain.

<comment><USER4> If you vote for someone that fucks you over, THEN you can't complain. After all, you voted for him.

Non-voters have every right to complain.

<comment><USER5> On the contrary - if you vote for someone and then they go back on their word and fuck you over, you have _every_ right to complain - the candidate committed what is essentially fraud, by bait-and-switching you on policy.

Non-voters have every legal right to complain (guaranteed by the First Amendment), but IMHO do not have a moral right to do so. You refused to take part in the process, how can you complain about its results? Even if you tried in vain and failed, at least you cared enough to toss a piece of paper into a box. If you don't like any of the candidates, write someone in, or, cast an objection/blank ballot. Believe it or not, people DO track these stats, and casting a blank ballot gets you counted in the turnout totals, and would be mighty embarrassing if the winner won without even a majority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not just about the presidential election. Perhaps the greatest impact a voter has is on his local community/state. Here in California, our referendums have far-reaching consequences. Too much emphasis is placed on the presidential election.

<comment><USER2> \+ idiots who think their campaign 'promises' we all be passed and implemented by Nov. 5th

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> No more election news after tomorrow, yay!

<comment><USER8> No, that's when the retrospective "This is how [Obama|McCain] won" articles start about who was best organized, who used technology best, etc :)

<comment><USER9> If I ran a newspaper, I'd have both articles already written, so I could hit the press as soon as the result was confirmed...

<comment><USER10> I promise you that everyone who actually does write a newspaper already does. They do that with sports or just about anything that runs late at night but needs to be printed early.

<comment><USER11> And don't forget obituaries. Usually the job of interns is to write obituaries so that they're ready when someone unexpectedly dies.

<comment><USER12> Unless it's Fidel Castro. I work at a newspaper in South Florida. His (incomplete) obituary is very long and has not been written by an intern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In most cases, your vote is meaningless. The common duty and celebration of whatever is kind of BS. You're better off convincing someone who would have voted differently not to vote at all. Instead, the two of you can celebrate your rights with beers, which is way more enjoyable, and has the same effect on policy.

If you live in California, Obama will win this state. It's not even a contest. Why not do something creative with your vote? Have some fun with it. You know, you can write in ANYONE's name for the presidential election.

Hypnotoad 08!

Proposition 8 really is pretty close, and is evil. It's worth going to the polls just to vote no on that. Religious fundies come out in force, and we need to balance their hate.

<comment><USER14> And the more Republicans you convince that it is meaningless to vote, the more certain a Democrat win is - so it's inevitable!

Since a Democrat win is inevitable, no one needs to bother voting. Saves all the hassle of standing in line and such.

<comment><USER15> Obama held a rally two blocks from my home last night. There were over two thousand at the rally all partying and having a good time. I imagine that they all went home so confident that the next day they forgot to vote.

I'm joking of course. This state will swing blue this year. But, it's happened before that over-confidence has lost an election.

I suggest that every man go out and vote his conscience. It's not just about who wins this time. It's about perception, and exercise of your rights. If you don't exercise your rights, they will be taken away. Even if you disagree with both major candidates, a vote of 'other' will do more for your cause than no vote.

<comment><USER14> Seriously, I'm becoming more persuaded that voting for the right person is much more important than some pragmatic, battle winning perspective that says minimize evil and maximize win potential. One election is not that much in the grand scheme of things. The funny thing is that once everyone realizes this, the principled vote becomes the pragmatic vote.

Disclaimer, I didn't do that this time, so don't take this as reverse psychology. If you think it is, go ahead and vote pragmatically. If that confused you even more, then don't vote. Now stop thinking about it before your head explodes.

<comment><USER13> "So, did you vote for Obama?"

"No, I wrote in for the Ron Paul/Hypnotoad ticket."

"WHAT!? But you don't want McCain to win, do you?"

"No, but I live in California. Unless I vote a couple million times, my vote doesn't matter. California's blue by about 20 points."

"I can't believe you!!"

Some people just don't get statistics.

<comment><USER14> Where'd this vote hypnotoad meme come from? I've seen it pop up a couple places today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think the message should be Just vote, but rather get educated on the issues and cast an informed vote.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're completely right.

I probably should have explicitly said that, but I meant people should get educated as well.

<comment><USER17> Too bad all that education gets reduced to essentially one bit..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive. Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know everyone involved in its consequences is a consenting individual. So I respectfully disagree that it is my duty or anyone's duty to participate in a coercive vote. <http://is.gd/3WIh>

<comment><USER19> You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.

<comment><USER20> And expensive, capped, government controlled internet. Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to. And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

<comment><USER19> > And expensive, capped, government controlled internet.

Geographic reasons for the capped and expensive internet. Long undersea cable to the US. Historically we have paid for traffic both to and from the US.

Government controlled? How? At least we can still play poker online or bet on the US elections. What restrictions do you mean?

> Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to.

Yep this would suck but it's not operating yet and can still be stopped.

> And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

Um no. You'd be thinking of the NSA there mate.

> But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

I'd welcome a legitimate comparison of the virtues of the Australian as opposed to the US system of democracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Voting is one of the few things the system asks you do to around here. So get off you arses and vote!

My son is a ardent Democrat. My wife a Republican. Each year, she stops by and picks him up on the way to the polls.

The act of voting should be important on a personal level that transcends statistics or apathy. It's a common duty and celebration of our right of choice.

<comment><USER22> if their votes cancel each other out why bother?

<comment><USER21> Because voting is about a lot more than counting votes.

That's the point. We aren't in some struggle against the evil other guys (republicans, democrats) that are out to ruin our country. That's partisan election-year bullshit. Instead we are intelligent people who have honest differences. We're in this thing together a lot more than we're in this thing to exert our will over other citizens. Voting is being part of the system.

Not only that, but voting is a re-affirmation that we _can_ vote. We can choose. Making good choices is important even if you're in the minority.

It's symbolic, but that's not the nature of my argument. It's _required_. Even if their votes cancel each other out, it's required that they take the time to make the best decisions they can and to exercise their right of choice. Like I said, it's one of the few things that's expected of us lunkheads.

<comment><USER23> To paraphrase Dijkstra: Democracy is a much about voting as astronomy is about telescopes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Don't forget this:

You are picking a President of our Great Nation for the next 4 years.

However, you are also electing a President that will likely choose one or more new Justices for our Supreme Court. That choice could live on for the next 30-40 years.

If a conservative President is elected, the court will likely swing conservative with his choice in one or more Justices. Liberal decisions like Roe V. Wade may be overturned. Pick a liberal President and it will likely be upheld.

It is those kinds of decisions that the court will make that will affect you in a direct way for a very long time.

If that's important to you -- vote.

<comment><USER25> I unfortunately do not believe that is sufficient value in arguing about something that is so personal to people.

A president's first concern should be to the sovereignty of a Nation (economy, education, infrastructure, trade, military), and somehow, whether or not a woman wants to kill her unborn child is of little concern to me on a national level. That is something that should be decided by her religious beliefs or where she chooses to live and raise her family. I meat so many female vegetarians that don't want to kill a cow to eat it, that I can not imagine a woman aborting a baby because its FUN.

Women typically have a reason, and if we want to stop abortions there are so many pieces to the puzzle that making abortions illegal will not stop them.

If the reasons are economic, then we need to give single mothers more help.

If the reason is emotional in the case of rape and inceast, we need to be understanding to let them choose.

If the reason is medical, and life threatening, the moral lines are gray at best anyways.

If it was done as the result of a carefree sexual behavior, stopping abortions are not going to stop pre-martial sex. Heck I bet many of us on this forum are 1st borns and very well might be the result of a opps between two unmarried lovers.

It really pains me that we can become so easily divided on a topic that is so personal and so hard to be black and white on.

I really wish there were more political options than YES or NO.

<comment><USER26> I'm with you here. Besides it being a matter of the majority tyrannizing a tiny minority (same with same-sex marriage), while I can see how people can feel strongly about it, I'm surprised they really feel it is so important that it should trump issues affecting their own daily lives like economy, health care and the environment.

<comment><USER27> You are surprised probably because you either do not understand their position or do not believe they honestly hold that view.

Abortion opponents tend to believe unborn babies are living humans. This implies abortion is the murder of a baby. Hence, legalized abortion is enabling the murder of millions, i.e. genocide.

Is it really surprising that people consider genocide _here in America_ to be a larger issue than the economy?

Note: I'm not going to argue this idea one way or the other, no one will change their mind. Just pointing out that if you understand the logic of abortion opponents, a fanatical opposition to abortion is quite understandable.

<comment><USER25> its surprising that people continually choose arguments that are mono cultural. its a big world out there and societies have existed for millennia in a number of ways. its just hard to fathom that in a country that honors the freedom of religion, that we still do not get poly culturalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Vote if it makes you feel good---whether out of a sense of participation, obligation, or duty. But don't kid yourself that you're "making a difference". The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible. And please don't give people who _don't_ vote a hard time; theirs is arguably the more rational choice, so there's no need to be self-righteous about it. (I am voting, BTW, but mainly to have an answer to the question "Who did you vote for?" I have to admit that feels a little cowardly.)

<comment><USER29> _The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible._

On the contrary: On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side. That's a pretty important role. Without my vote, my side's excess votes would fail to carry the day.

The only way to have one's vote fail to "make a difference" is by finding someone who votes exactly opposite to you on every issue and making a pact with them not to vote. But you have to make sure they don't sneak off and vote when you're not looking. All in all, it's a lot easier to just cast a ballot.

<comment><USER30> Sure, if you are a member of the two parties that make up the US political system.

If you are not a member of those two parties, your vote holds no worth within the political system. The two major parties normally dismiss or deride issues made by the green or libertarian parties. In some cases, it is possible that my vote outside the two party system can cause the person I least prefer to be elected. Yay!

Until the US abolishes the electoral college and institutes a more representative election system such as an approval or preferential system (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting>), I will continue to be dissatisfied with voting for the president.

<comment><USER31> Preferential voting probably won't work. I think the two-party system is a bit of a result of culture: we feel the need to shoehorn every political issue into an "us" vs. "them" debate.

Don't forget, however, that there have been third parties in the past that have been popular enough to carry states. Unfortunately, they are generally one-trick ponies that are only present in a single election.

Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_194...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1948) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_191...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912)

<comment><USER17> Why do you think it won't work? And what about approval voting?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> patrickg-zill If you are an idiot, please do not vote.

<comment><USER32> Or at least vote for my candidate of choice!

<comment><USER33> I think idiot's voting for your candidate is corrosive to that political party. Take republicans and farm subsidies they are directly in opposition to most of the "core" principles of personal accountability, free trade, less government etc but try and find a republican in Idaho that does not support them.

<comment><USER34> That's not a product of idiots voting. It's a product of compromise.

The US system, favours a binary choice. You vote A or B. Australia (where I live) is even more this way. It's a stable sort of a system. Governments are fairly powerful. There is less need for the shaky post election coalitions of different systems. But it comes at a cost: Compromise.

Republicans (from what we hear down here) get votes from social/moral conservatives, religious conservatives, social libertarians, nationalists, militarists, & lots of other subgroups. Then you get these smelted into traditional voter groups. So an rural area in some part of the US with a certain religious, moral, social & historic heritage might be generally sympathetic towards a militarist, nationalist, socially conservative & religious party. In the US of 2008, this is the Republicans.

Along comes a decade where the region stands to gain from certain policies. For technical reasons, these policies are at odds with the part of a political theory at the centre of their parties history. This is the part of the political theory that supports less government intervention in their lives, a lot of freedom over their property, personal lives, & a lot of other stuff that they like. But the link between economic policy & individual liberty is very academic. They just want the damned price of canola to stay put.

Under a different political system (say Italy's), this issue could cause a party split. Lets say, the ICP (Idaho Conservatives Party) is formed. They put a bit more emphasis on this & a bit less on that but stay close to the former party line. The difference is they support the subsidies which benefit their voters. They join the coalition that the Republicans now need to form government because three of four of these parties split. This allows the ICP to focus mostly on subsidies & a few other issues that are important to their electorate.

The ICP is free to say they mostly leave issues other then sex education, subsidies & genetic patenting to the Republicans. The Republicans are free to admit that they don't like subsidy A, but it's a small price to pay to form Government. Otherwise they would have to get a different party on board with different compromises or reform the government. Theoretically, this allows parties to stay loyal to core principals.

Deals get done either way. The US's system is more stable. But you could argue it's less Democratic. Minority opinions are under represented. Voters make bigger compromises & get a less granular control over what their vote means. This is probably felt more now that there are several divisive issues on the agenda.

<comment><USER35> Just FYI, there are (at least in the US) multiple meanings of "social libertarian". Most people I know that would use that label for themselves are closer to being a classical anarchist or socialist, and do not vote Republican.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's my first time voting in a major election. Ever since I was a young lad I dreamed of voting. Every election I vote, city council, state, federal, whatever I vote. I take the 20mins to Google and find out what I need and make a decision.

If you say "Who cares anyways one vote isn't going to matter" think of it this way.One rain drop doesn't create or fill a river, but a million together do. Every time you exercise your rights to vote you add a small drop.

</comment><comment><USER37> And to all the non-Americans on HN -- myself among them -- please don't forget to post a reminder to your fellow countrymen/women on HN to vote if your country is having an election. I'm sure all the people who upvoted this post will be super-pumped to see that at the top of the homepage! Some other TellHN topics that I'd like to see in the future:

\- Just say no to drungs \- Don't drink and drive \- Have your pets spayed and neutered

I'm Canadian, and I'm just giving you guys a hard time ;-)

Actually, I think most Canadians are a bit jealous because we just had an election that was a huge waste of money and didn't mean a damn thing. I have to admin, yours is way more interesting.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think Hacker News is now officially looking down and seeing a shark pass below.

<comment><USER38> I am not too concerned if singular special events end up on HN. There are not enough events of that scope to pose a threat (I presume).

<comment><USER10> It's just the clicheness of it that bothers me. Nobody in the country needs a reminder. It's the same with all the various holiday messages.

<comment><USER38> At least we also had the "don't vote" counterpoint by freakonomics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't really like blind calls to vote. If you don't have an educated opinion, or even an inkling based on a gut reaction of character, don't vote.

</comment><comment><USER40> I thought this was going to be a plea about how to keep crappy stories off the front page.

</comment><comment><USER4> Your vote will make no difference. Statistically, you have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery than making a difference with your vote.

Voting is not "speaking for yourself". You are allowed to speak one of two things, neither of which may be what you want to say.

You do have the power to change things and make the world a better place, but not through the political process.

If you stay home from the polls and use that time to read to a child or help an old lady carry groceries, you will have done more good for the world than if you spent the morning voting.

Most of the good things in this world, our vast cultural heritage and our technological richness, have not been generated through the voting booth. If you want to contribute to the material and spiritual wealth of our species, you will find your efforts best spent elsewhere.

If you buy into the hype and feel compelled to vote for the entertainment aspect of it, don't pretend that you are better than those who did not. You aren't.

When the officials you vote for harm other people through their actions in office, those people have the right to complain, even if they did not vote. Morality is not overridden by democracy.

<comment><USER41> I presume you will be staying home and reading to a child instead of voting today? You're a much better person than everyone else on the internet. If only the whole world was like you, we'd have completely eliminated everything wrong with society by now.

<comment><USER4> I will be voting, but I acknowledge that it is purely for entertainment value and that I am not changing the world and that I am not morally better than those that do not vote. In fact, many of them are probably morally better than I.

<comment><USER42> Of course, if everyone except for you didn't vote, then your one vote would mean a lot more. If everyone except for you and me didn't vote, then our votes would still have significant value. If everyone except for you and me and ten others didn't vote, then...

...well, somewhere along the line, do our votes really stop mattering? A vote for X amid thousands of votes for Y doesn't mean much, but if all of the Y voters figured their votes didn't matter and stayed home, then the one vote for X would be pretty important.

That said, I fully expect that my one vote won't make any difference in how things turn out, but I still feel compelled to cast it. For the democracy to function as intended, we ought have as many valid votes as possible; for me to expect votes from others but not vote myself simply because my one vote doesn't matter would be absurd.

<comment><USER4> Most of the ways that people rationalize their voting behavior can also be modified to rationalize the purchase of lottery tickets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Throwing this out there: [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?page...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?pagewanted=print)

<comment><USER44> Fascinating it is, but there's already been a post on it today. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=352540>

<comment><USER43> Yea, I couldn't find the link fast enough. Thanks.

Anyway, I think it belongs in the flow of this discussion as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> But also realize one of the great things about living in a free country, even with all of America's faults, is the ability to exercise your right _not_ to vote.

<comment><USER46> In Australia we have compulsory voting. Everybody has to get off their arse and do it (or at least go to a polling place, take a ballot sheet and stick it in a box, you can leave it blank or draw a penis on it if you want).

Personally I see both upside and downsides to it. On one hand it's a violation of my right not to vote, but on the other hand that's one of the more minor violations which the government by necessity commits anyway. The upside is that it leads to more moderate politics -- there's no need for the parties to appease the "base", so they always wind up fighting in the centre.

<comment><USER47> Because it is compulsory, it is also very easy to vote in Australia.

Most people can walk to their local school, community hall etc. There are places to vote absolutely everywhere.

There are no queues to vote. You just walk in and vote. This year, I queued for the first time ever. there were four people in front of me, I had to wait maybe twenty seconds.

Voting is always held on Saturday

<comment><USER46> I'm guessing that the no-queueing is also due to the nice low-tech pencil-and- paper voting solution we have. I have no idea how many voting machines are at a typical US polling place, but I'm sure they can't serve nearly as many people in parallel as the Australian style little cardboard booths, where any decent-size polling place will have dozens of people voting in parallel. The bottleneck is at the place where they look up your name in a giant book (never a computer!) but I've never had to wait more than a few minutes there either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Isn't 1 vote per person just mob rule though? You end up with the lowest common denominator...

Doesn't it sort of irritate the hell out of you if you're informed, voting for the best interests of the country and future, while someone next to you is voting because the candidate has a nice smile or has the same first name as them.

Maybe you get a vote when you can answer a few simple questions to prove you actually have a clue what you are voting for etc.

You wouldn't run a company by giving an apprentice the same voting rights in decisions as the CEO.

Personally I think there's a lot to be said for having a monarchy.

I know these views are probably completely counter to most people, but that's life... Thought I'd give my 2c.

</comment><comment><USER49> Also, if you can, try to vote in the middle of the day to both alleviate and avoid long lines. They say 9am-3pm is the least-busy time.

</comment><comment><USER50> We live in interesting times.

(1/2 of the possible results of an ancient Chinese curse. I think.)

We all know that voting is statistically meaningless--in fact, even if the vote comes down 50.0 million to 50.0 million, the actual result will be decided by whoever has the better lawyer in the inevitable supreme court spectacle.

So really, the only value is in the psychological effect voting has on yourself. Libertarians sometimes say "Don't vote" for this very reason, because voting makes you a participant in a corrupt system. (It's a standard brainwashing tactic to get people to _say_ things they don't believe. Even if they know they don't believe, the honorable sense of "keeping one's word" overwhelms reason.)

Therefore, 3rd party votes are completely legitimate, since elections are pyschologically valid and mathematically pointless.

<comment><USER51> Voting is not statistically meaningless. Voting gives us a good way to judge where the majority of the nation wants to go. Just because your vote doesn't decide the election does not mean that your vote is meaningless. It carries the same weight as mine, McCain's, or Obama's. This is a good thing.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, it is. Math is funny that way. In fact, it is _probably_ a net-negative activity to drive across town to purchase a lottery ticket for 0 (zero) dollars that has a 100 million dollar payoff at 1:100,000,000 odds. Why? Because the time/energy expenditure of driving across town itself is a cost in excess of the likely returns. Voting is the same way, except you get somewhat less than 100M if you win.

And, if there's confusion, I'm talking about individuals voting, not groups. This is why sending large checks to favored candidates is _not_ meaningless. It can sway many people, ultimately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Dear Texas, THANKS FOR NOT SENDING MY ABSENTEE BALLOT! I don't know how many forms I filled out, but you never sent me a ballot. I have my voter registration card here and everything. Short of an 800 mile roadtrip or standby flight home, looks like I'll be sitting this one out. :-/

</comment><comment><USER53> The best reason to vote is not that your vote will change the election, its that the process of voting will change you.

It causes you to consider the problems in your society and be aware of proposed solutions. Sounding your voice is just as important as being heard.

<comment><USER35> Lots of people vote without considering anything at all, or without being aware of proposed solutions.

Hell, I'd guess that the majority of voters yesterday were not very well informed about any of the proposed solutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I find it amusing that a popularity contest (and one not really different from a high school one in any significant way) is used to decide who will take charge of a country.

I am also impressed to see otherwise intelligent people defending this scheme, and honestly believing it to be a great one or even claiming there is not better alternative.

</comment><comment><USER55> Yes please just show up and fill in a bubble for either of the candidates likely to win. You too can help legitimize both the appointment of a president who only has support from 35% of the population, and the process of using machines which will change your vote when it actually matters!

<comment><USER56> I think you're lost. It sounds like you're looking for www.reddit.com

<comment><USER55> What's the difference between reddit and HN with blatant political topics such as this one? Normally I avoid feeding political comments on HN, but with this _submission_ it seems any decency has gone out the window.

I'm going to the polls tomorrow due to tradition and ease of conversation. But if one's default action is to stay home, they'll get more done by sticking with that. Hackers change the world by writing code, not by checking a box and hoping that somehow _this_ time will be different.

<comment><USER56> You're right, and I think this whole submission and thread of comments illustrates exactly why political topics are typically avoided on Hacker News. It quickly devolves into sarcastic comments, and more sarcastic comments poking fun at the original sarcastic comments.

Your comment was just very similar to the things I'm used to seeing on Reddit, but not Hacker News.

Anyway, I'm looking forward the elections being over and Hacker News hopefully going back to it's good old self of mostly technology and entrepreneurial related posts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Haven't we already voted in a poll from PG <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=349421> asking "Allow stories about the election?", with 49 yes and 218 no when I last checked?

</comment><comment><USER58> Wish I could vote, I've suffered though the campaigns just as much as any American, and lets face it — what ever the US does, the rest of the world follows.

But if I could...it'd be for Obama.

</comment><comment><USER59> I hope the UK pays half as much interest in the next General Election as there has been over the US election.

Unfortunately I don't believe we have any candidates half as compelling at Obama.

</comment><comment><USER60> If I were an american I'd vote. You guys need a change.

</comment><comment><USER61> Go vote! If you guys can stand in lines for a xbox 360 and iphone you can stand in line to vote.

</comment><comment><USER62> Just voted, and it felt great!

<comment><USER63> Agree, Me too:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I wonder what the headlines will be tommorow. If I were an editor, I'd go for one of these tabloid headlines in 24pt font, depending on who wins:

Bradley Baloney!

Obama in Power!

McCain upsets Again!

Blowout!

Guess who's coming to the White House?

</comment><comment><USER65> Not voting.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." \-- H. L. Mencken

</comment><comment><USER31> Too late! I already early voted. Do all states have early voting or just some?

</comment><comment><USER15> Done.

</comment><comment><USER66> Although I intend on voting tomorrow, I don't agree that it's a "duty" to vote. In fact, I usually don't vote in local elections if I don't have substantial knowledge about the candidates, and given that I've moved about 10 times in the last 6 years, that's often. (The top few Google hits do not amount to "substantial knowledge".) The purpose of voting is value discovery (analogous to "price discovery" in financial markets) but if I'm not able to evaluate the candidates, I'm not really assisting in that process; I'm just adding noise. I think that a major reason the two-party system exists is that a significant number of people vote based on party "brand name" without evaluating the individual candidates.

</comment><comment><USER67> (I have to give you a really bad notice: Obama is _not_ Christ. So _please_ don't expect too much from politics.)

</comment><comment><USER68> Not just vote -- vote for Obama!!!

</comment><comment><USER69> Don't just vote; vote Obama.

<comment><USER70> I really don't understand the Obama-ness of HN. I'm certainly not busting my ass working on my business just to see Obama "spread my wealth around".

I understand the realities of having a progressive tax system, but Obama crosses a line with me when he is going to tax the rich just to hand it straight over to everyone else in $1000 cash increments. At least in the past the Democrats wanted to buy the poor $1000 in fishing equipment instead of handing out $1000 worth of fish. His plan is the very definition of Marxism.

<comment><USER69> The upper class can go without a few luxuries so that the lower class can actually afford necessities. Don't be such a selfish pussy.

<comment><USER21> Aside from your language, which violates board terms, can I point out that captialism, the thing that drives startups, is dependent on people acting in their best interests.

"Selfish" is a loaded, emotional, subjective term. Not something to base a policy on (and I don't think Obama or McCain is doing that)

<comment><USER69> You contradict yourself. You're saying that politics has a place in my self- interest yet my self-interest doesn't have a place in politics.

Capitalism is based almost ENTIRELY on acting selfishly. However, as we can clearly see, people suffer greatly from the near literal implementation of capitalism. Therefore, there needs to be a system in place to help those people who have become victims of it.

<comment><USER71> Near-literal implementation of capitalism? Where?

<comment><USER69> Depends on your version of capitalism.

<comment><USER72> Just going ahead and nailing Godwin's law down here buried a little deep in a thread.

...hitler, etc. therefore such as.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> [http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/09/mitra-economy-mess-tech- ent...](http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/09/mitra-economy-mess-tech-enter- cx_sm_1010economy.html)

Time for us to buckle down and admit that Obama's going to win and that angel investment is going to suffer a bit, and sole proprietorships with taxes rising from 35%->50% are going to have to bite the bullet.

</comment><comment><USER74> OBAMA STRAIGHT UP LIED!!!! He said he had nothing to do with the CFR(Council on Foreign Relations) Then why is his wifes name on the list? Oops? So i guess your wife is in it but you have nothing to do with it!? OK! If you're voting for Obama or McCain, they are members of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, and the NEW WORLD ORDER. Clinton, too. They are for globalization and one world government. Their plans are to build the NAFTA superhighway, starting in eastern Texas, heading north. They will be stealing Americans land by emminent domain. Then the opening of the Canadian and Mexican borders will be next. We will then be called the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, followed by the new currency, the AMERO. The USA will be dissolved.

<comment><USER41> I like the Council on Foreign Relations. They do rule the world, but they aren't as extreme as they are made out to be. It is more like, no one ever questions them, because they are always right. If the NY Times has a bias, it is in favor of the Council on Foreign Relations's world view. When you get down to it, it is really bizarre how much influence these think tanks can have, the most profound example being the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

Globalization is not so bad. Either way, it's inevitable. The CFR may rule the world with their quiet influence, but the rest is conspiracy theory. If the world eventually unites in world government, it will be the UN running things, not your mysterious new world order.

Obama is not a member of the CFR, but he gave a speech to them, as required of all serious presidential candidates.</comment></comment>


Conscious consumerism is a lie - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/920561/conscious-consumerism-is-a-lie-heres-a-better-way-to-help-save-the-world/ <comment><USER2> _> Making series of small, ethical purchasing decisions while ignoring the structural incentives for companies' unsustainable business models won't change the world as quickly as we want. It just makes us feel better about ourselves._

Exactly. And that's the whole idea, along with signalling one's virtue to the rest of the world.</comment>


Personally identifiable information in Go binary - <AUTHOR>

I scanned a hello world binary for any personal information and found that my userid had been stored in the compiled binary, which seems related to storing full path information. <comment><USER2> Not news. That's debugging info.

Try 'strip'ping the binary and try again?</comment>


Alan Kay's Reading List - <AUTHOR> http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp#cat570 <comment><USER2> Previously and previously:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=alan%20kay%20reading%20list&so...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=alan%20kay%20reading%20list&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11803165](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11803165) has some comments by Alan Kay.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is the same submission from the previous year:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11803165](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11803165)

Alan left a lot of comments there.

</comment><comment><USER4> He was just on Quora last week answering the question, 'What did Alan Kay mean by, "Lisp is the greatest single programming language ever designed"?'

[https://www.quora.com/What-did-Alan-Kay-mean-by-Lisp-is- the-...](https://www.quora.com/What-did-Alan-Kay-mean-by-Lisp-is-the-greatest- single-programming-language-ever-designed/answer/Alan-Kay-11?share=1)

<comment><USER5> Currently discussed here on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15558861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15558861)

<comment><USER4> I see that now, thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some of the links appear to be broken; i.e. they take you to books different than the titles listed. Clicking on "The Psychology of Art by Lev Vygotsky" takes you to the Amazon page for "Economics: analysis, issues, and policies by Louis Dow". I'm sure Louis's book is fascinating, but not what I was looking for.</comment>


The Totes Amazesh Way Millennials Are Changing the English Language - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/the-totes-amazesh-way-millennials-are-changing-the-english-language/ <comment><USER2> I was talking design with a friend yesterday, and she said something interesting: "The reason all these companies have cute logos is to remind you that they're easy to use. Rounded corners and scratchy infographics conveys that this is simple software, even if it's doing a lot behind the scenes."

As the article points out, 140 characters is not what's driving this. If you're using standard English everywhere, your Facebook posts sound like your cover letters, and that's weird. For a generation who's been dubbed "amiable" as one of the highest virtues, this isn't OK. Figuring out ways to invent slang so it cleanly translates to written text is pretty hard. This is a pretty clever solution to that: anybody who's a native speaker can do it, if you read it out loud, it serializes / deserializes pretty well, and it's novel.

FWIW, I'm 30, and I do know people who talk / tweet like this. It's mostly done sarcastically, though when you do it all the time, is it really sarcastic?

<comment><USER3> > It's mostly done sarcastically, though when you do it all the time, is it > really sarcastic?

Anecdotally, it seems that this is how a lot of new phrasing is spread. It starts off funny, then ironically as an inside joke, then it's just wrote.

My little sister started tapping her index and middle fingers together to make a hash symbol while saying "hashtag [whatever]". Started out as a joke, making a bit of fun of some tv show or something and at the same time pointing out that she "got" the reference... and before she knew it it was second nature.

<comment><USER4> Good observation. I remember 'lol' becoming popular and it was mainly used ironically. Now it's normal and I only vaguely notice when people much older than myself use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dude, that's so hip. All those people grooving to the new vibe.

I think it's worth noting that different socioeconomic classes have developed their own vernacular, and thus, it's slightly foggy of the Post to not comment on the population surveyed.

For the more academically minded among us who have time in their day to watch, here's the academic talk given on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cJoiGQ7yj0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cJoiGQ7yj0) \- I don't have time to watch it now, but _totes_ will later.

<comment><USER6> See also: [http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/the-morphophonology-of- to...](http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/the-morphophonology-of-totes/)

The presentation is really good: [http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/files/2016/01/Totes- LSA-S...](http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/files/2016/01/Totes-LSA-Spradlin- Jones-2016-pdf.pdf)

This is really interesting too, from the same author: [http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/class/](http://opencuny.org/laurenspradlin/class/) It's basically a phonology version of the card game Set.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a 40 y/o proud GenX'er (best generation ever!) who has a 21 y/o daughter AND just went back to university to finish my degree–so I'm knee-deep in Millennials.

In my experience, Millennials _don 't_ talk like this _in-person_. I do see a little bit of it in SnapChat, YikYak and Instagram. In fact, my wife says "totes" more than any 20-something I've witnessed. Other "words" I've seen used a lot during app communication are "bruh", "fam", and "af".

But when I observe 2 Millennials talking in person, the only way they butcher the English language is by using the word "LIKE" 4 times per sentence. Makes me cringe every time!

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but it's not like this is new behavior or like anything, like, unprecedented or something like that....

<comment><USER9> Gag me with a spoon!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _There's a way that young people talk these days, and it's totes hilars. You > see it on Twitter a lot._

Makes a lot of sense. Speaking to other humans in real life maps perfectly to ideation, generating that into text, and then uploading it to a website that has a 160char limit. Speaking requires a lot of effort because not only do you think of what you want to say, but then you have to _verbalize it_.

Online, people obviously have to do the first part, but it is so much _easier_ to then find all of the keys associated with an individual word and input them on the per sentence basis, plus you get to include proper punctuation and additional characters which makes this way easier.

This article is super interesting. Language hasn't evolved or changed (even slightly) in the preceding hundred years. It's really weird to think we have been using the same language that came out of Egypt in 2690 b.c. In fact, we still use the same hieroglyphs that adorned the walls of the great pyramid of Giza.

It is pretty amazing if you think about it. From cave paintings, to papyrus scrolls and eventually to Gutenberg's PP, shit even with the digital communications and texting in the 80's and 90's, language has stayed the same.

If this language was good enough for Shakespeare, millenials, the people who often pick up the physical Washington Times everyday, should think twice before foraging on with these nonsensical changes.

Also, the world is more closed now than ever, so ideas often spread slower. Which makes this even more astounding!

</comment><comment><USER11> As a millennial, I'm pretty sure this isn't my generation but the next one down. Don't know if they have a name yet.

<comment><USER12> As a millennial who talks with the next generation relatively often (younger cousins and the like), I don't think they talk like what was described in the article.

BTW: I've heard the term "Generation Net", as in the generation that grew up after the explosion of AOL / Internet. Generation Net is younger than AOL and never knew a world without the internet.

In my experience, "Generation Net" types with more proper english... pretend to be older, so that they can be taken more seriously online. Without pictures or face-to-face contact, "Generation Net" plays on equal grounds among us on the internet / online forums.

From an online perspective, "Generation Net" is growing up faster than us. They have to deal with griefers in their Minecraft and swatters on their streams on a regular basis. Their face-to-face social skills seem a bit stunted, but that could be only because they're awkward teenagers right now.

<comment><USER9> What year ranges are we talking about? Millennials are themselves sometimes called the "Net Generation".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I suppose I'm a millennial, but I'm really struggling to find a single person that actually talks like this.

<comment><USER14> It's not millenials. I think it's post-millenials which doesn't have a name yet.

<comment><USER9> Is it? [https://twitter.com/search?q=totes+emosh](https://twitter.com/search?q=totes+emosh)

<comment><USER13> All of these people look at least 30

<comment><USER9> Right, not post-millennials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This type of rhetoric about how "the kids" talks comes up every 20 years. Remember "radical"?

<comment><USER16> Totally shredded that. Ripped it up phat!

<comment><USER17> Tubular, dudes!

<comment><USER14> That was sick, bro!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It'd be surprising if the Internet revolution didn't drastically alter languages. The printing press did the same, standardizing them and eliminating many font eccentricities that did not translate well into movable type.

What I see in these is (1) shortening of things to make them easier to type on phones, and (2) the use of a lot of whimsical spellings to convey emotion. People are communicating so much right now via just text that they're going to strain to emote through the medium.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The main reason I posted this is to consider the NLP implication of it.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think this particular pattern is a fad. It's interesting linguistically because the rules are relatively simple, and it's easy enough to analyze it in the context of changing social dynamics, but most people writing like this are doing so to declare membership in some particular social group and as it becomes more popular it will no longer be a status symbol and fall out of favor. The linguisitic construction might survive to serve a different purpose later though. Even now I see people mimicking it to convey a certain type of sarcasm (and I suspect almost everyone who uses it is at least somewhat sarcastic about it).

But the point that trjordan brings up in their top-level comment, "Figuring out ways to invent slang so it cleanly translates to written text is pretty hard," gets closer to the core observation, which is that the new phenomenon of informal written communication transmitted in small chunks (IM and tweets, mostly) will have, and already has had, a profound impact on language.

Another observation: I spoken communication I try to avoid phrases like "to be honest," "if I recall correctly," etc. because they should be implied: "to be honest" only indicates that previously you may have been lying, and "if I recall correctly" insults your correspondant's ability listen to you critcically — of course "if you recall correctly," everything is "if you recall correctly." But in IM, dropping an extra "tbh" or "iirc" or "idk" into your message changes the inflection of the message, and in a medium so devoid of inflection, that small change can significantly impact meaning. Such phrases are the part of the "body language" of textual communication.

And I notice these communication spilling over into spoken communication. When I speak with somebody now, especially if I usually communicate with them over text, "to be honests" abound!

I predict that in 50 years we'll see that instant messaging has transformed human communication more than the telephone or printing press ever did. The shift will be second only to the rise of mass-literacy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sweet Meteor of Death, I welcome your fiery embrace.

</comment><comment><USER20> Some of these patterns are useful, especially to the careful listener. For example, the tech world has many helpful people who flag sentences that can be safely ignored by the listener by starting them with "So, ... ".

</comment><comment><USER21> This is something I talk about with my friend who is doing a PhD in linguistics. I noticed as well that the internet is changing the English language. The rampant globalization that came with the internet combined with English being the defacto language of the internet has allowed it to change. It would be interested to mine Twitter and a few other sources and try to observe how English is changing.

I suspect if you mined Twitter, you would see a 'dumbing down' of English due to the constraints of Twitter. How one would quantify 'dumbing down' is a challenge (if it hasn't been solved already). However, I am more interested in how this 'Twitter effect' cascades to other areas of English.

There are other implications of the internet too I'd love to study but these questions are relevant to this article.

<comment><USER22> > English being the defacto language of the internet

That's quite a statement. There is a huge volume of Spanish content that you'd never realize was there until you typed in a Spanish query into a search engine. The various language webs are for the most part islands. English is a little bit over-represented on the web but this is mostly because of the fact that in the early days the English web moved quite rapid and other countries slowly caught up as they came online.

Over the long haul this will normalize to representation roughly proportional on the world population. For our profession English will always give you a head-start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Men loven of propre kynde newefangelnesse [...] And loven novelries.

-Chaucer ( _Squire 's Tale_)

</comment><comment><USER20> I will happily support all of these changes to the written English language if the millennials would please try to rein in the vocal fry that's made NPR unlistenable.

<comment><USER24> I believe what's made NPR unlistenable is that you've decided a particular vocal affectation is objectively bad and annoying, so you notice it more and let the concept bother you. Personally, I can't help but smirk any time a talking head on cable news uses their `important newsperson voice`, but not everyone feels that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I would be curious to see if someone has studied how twitter has changed english language and grammer rules due to its 150 char limit

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm technically a Millennial (born 1984), but everything about Millennial culture just makes me cringe.

Same with this obsession with "artisanal" stuff, walkable neighborhoods, and the like.

<comment><USER27> What's wrong with wanting a walkable neighborhood and things produced by craftsmen instead of Chinese mass laborers?

<comment><USER28> Chinese mass laborers make In-N-Out burgers?

Walkable neighborhoods aren't particularly a problem, it's that the people that advocate for it pretty aggressively attack suburban living's support system to do so (cars, freeways, etc).

<comment><USER29> Cars and freeways are both examples of extreme largesse and horrible community planning. Freeways are some of the world's most dangerous public territories. Why would you discourage individuals from criticizing and judging these outdated, expensive, pollution death traps?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Awesome!

Also groovy.

And formidable.

</comment><comment><USER31> As usual, the trick while reading these is to replace 'millennial' with 'people younger and more attractive than I am'. Also applies to people who begin sentences with 'I am technically a millennial but..'.

Wasn't it plato or Socrates who complained about those damn young people who are good for nothing, complain about everything, and can't even speak proper Greek?

To their credit though, the Greek civilization DID fall soon-ish, so maybe the YOUNGs are _really_ screwy idiots who are NOT on fleek.

EDIT: Apparently I'd misunderstood the meaning of 'on fleek' for a long time.

<comment><USER20> > replace 'millennial' with 'people younger and more attractive than I am'.

... which in my case could then just be shortened to "human".

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > it's following all the rules of English.

Doesn't English require proper spelling of English words?

</comment><comment><USER32> 140 char lims are tuff k?</comment>


Show HN: An awesome C library for Windows - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/apakian/AshodsLib/blob/master/summary.txt
Hi there,
It looks like there are not that many available options for a do-it-all
C library, that is easily configured, used and compiled.
I'm releasing my personal toolkit, which I use to develop windows based programs in pure C without any dependency on DLL's or external libraries.
There is only 2 files, aa.c and aa.h , simply use this to have full access to everything from data structures. a massive list of networking functions,
database connectivity ( direct - without drivers required ) , a full 32 bit surface engine, video capture, audio input/output, etc etc.
Have a look at the summary file for a basic idea of what it comes with.
I'm just starting to put together examples and documentation, so I'd like to get a feel , for how well this might be received.
Would love feedback
ash <comment><USER2> It looks interesting, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what the library does. I am curious as to how it improves or differs from other tools and libraries and what benefits it provides.</comment>


Why I Built an AngularJS Training Site on Rails - <AUTHOR> http://joelhooks.com/blog/2013/09/15/why-i-built-an-angularjs-training-site-on-rails/#

<comment><USER2> This isn't a full-blown example, but AngularJS works phenomenally as an interaction layer on top of a REST API. Creating such an API with Rails is almost trivial. Postgres + Rails + AngularJS (via Bower) has become my go-to stack and is an absolute blast to develop with.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the approach I'm taking for the Admin, actually. Haven't started yet, but __really __looking forward to it.

<comment><USER2> Nice. If you're not already familiar with Restangular, be sure to check it out: [https://github.com/mgonto/restangular](https://github.com/mgonto/restangular)

I tried rolling my own Angular API service, and it was a great learning experience, but Restangular trumps any vanilla service I could roll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Congrats on relaunch! You mentioned, you had no real experience with Rails outside of tutorials. What kind of problems did you run into while creating your first production quality app? I'd love a post about how it was working with Rails.

<comment><AUTHOR> The biggest hurdle was using Rails 4 and Bootstrap 3 because the gems I was trying to use weren't quite there yet.

I'd argue that it is production quality ;)

There are no tests, which makes me feel bad about myself, and in the future I'd prefer to TDD the whole thing, but in terms of cognitive load up front it was too much to take in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I browsed egghead.io (it looks great, btw!) and I'm trying to figure out what parts are Angular and what are simply Rails server-generated views.

The signin/signup look to be using standard Rails, but what parts are using Angular?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are no AngularJS pieces to the site (outside of the videos themselves, which are almost strictly geared towards Angular)

<comment><USER4> heh. I get the title now, and explains my confusion with the article content. It led me to believe that you build an AngularJS-and-Rails-powered website.

Thanks for the clarification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has anybody figured out how to add headless tests to this stack (Rails 4, AngularJS)? I've tried using Karma and Teaspoon and they both ran into problems. Karma would cause PhantomJS to crash on launch and Teaspoon could never load the asset pipeline properly, so Angular was never being included. Example links would be greatly appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER6> The first few videos wouldn't load for me on the website itself thoug [latter ones do] - on Macbook Pro/Chrome

Watching them on Youtube - very useful!

</comment><comment><USER7> Where did you get your Privacy Policy copy from?

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.bennadel.com/coldfusion/privacy-policy- generator....](http://www.bennadel.com/coldfusion/privacy-policy- generator.htm) is a generator</comment></comment>


Xbox : Xbox One :: Atari 800 : Atari 800 XL - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeffwofford.com/?p=1281

<comment><USER2> What? The original Xbox and the Xbox 360 came in black (not to mention the PS2 and PS3). The One kind of looks like a cross between them, actually.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the slims came out in 2010 - the basic xbox 360 has been black and silver ever since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's completely unfair. The XL line of 8-bit computers had some decent graphics and sound comparable to and often better than much more expensive 16-bit (or even 8-bit) machines.</comment>