Who says America doesn't have castles? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/violence

<comment><USER2> "The South is America's most violent region; both blacks and whites in the South are more violent than those in the northeast. In other words, the murder rate is highest in those states that most disdain the sovereign ("government") and champion self-reliance."

Looks a bit flimsy. By the same token, it's also highest in those states with hottest weather, proximity to Mexico and the Gulf, lower educational attainment, etc.

<comment><USER3> I don't necessarily disagree that it's flimsy, but intolerance is fairly common around my community. Racism is on the decline by the younger generation, but it's by no means invisible or gone.

The presence of prejudices in the South (assuming other states/communities are still largely similar to mine) could support the argument that people still feel the need to protect themselves (because prejudice results in distrust of those one is prejudiced against).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For an article which seemed to jump about so much, I found this unusually readable. I think it's because each paragraph has at least one "nugget". e.g.

      > As late as the mid-1800s, an English gentleman was expected to beat
      > a boorish cabman or bargee for an affront we would now consider trivial.

This is a style of writing which instead of drawing facts and anecdotes to support a thesis rather draws a thesis to sew together facts and anecdotes - in this case the "American castle" theme. This is Malcolm Gladwell done short and sweet.

</comment><comment><USER5> _If someone has merely "reasonable belief" that he will be assaulted, even by an unarmed assailant, in his home, he may use deadly force in response._

This makes sense to me. The worries that this might be abused seem real, but I don't understand the mindset that one should accept being beaten into submission by an assailant who has just broken into your house, armed or not. Is this really the thought, or is the presumption that the abuses of the principle will be a greater problem than the current crimes?

I don't see how it is possible to accurately judge that someone has the intent to physically harm me, but not the intent to kill me. Is the presumption that once I'm incapacitated, they will complete their crime, helpfully calling an ambulance on the way out? I lack that faith, particularly in those who have already shown intent to do me physically harm.

I wonder if the difference is that I personally have a general opposition to violence (as in, I have never violently attacked anyone, don't think much of violent sports, and am bothered by media glorification of violence), and thus don't see many circumstances in which I would attack someone while simultaneously limiting myself to non-lethal options. Are those who are against the 'castle doctrine' doing so as to preserve a perceived right to limited violence?

As regards this case, do those who disapprove of the shooter's actions feel that the 'victim' was in some way entitled escalate from text messages to a violent unarmed assault on the homeowner for having a relationship with his wife? Or do they doubt this was his intent? Would the situation be different if he clearly but merely intended to give him a "good beating" for embarrassing him by usurping his right to exclusive access to his wife?

[Apologies if my phrasing makes my questions seem rhetorical. I would love to understand the opposing view better.]

</comment><comment><USER6> > The word "chivalry" has its roots in the knight's battle mount (cheval), not > his behaviour towards ladies.

This is a bit disingenuous -- or perhaps just uninformed.

Yes, that is the ultimate linguistic origin of the word. However, our modern usage of the word "chivalry" comes from the Code of Chivalry, a set of ideas promulgated first by the church, and later more widespread, and intended to mitigate the worst aspects of warlord-ish behavior the article refers to. The various forms of this code usually included requirements to protect the defenceless and treat women with honor.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting article (if not really Hacker news material, I think). It is made even better by the (currently) last comment (the one with Lamech), make sure you read it, too.

</comment><comment><USER8> The root of the word chivalry is telling. We portray history in fairy tale manner, as if the old days were better, and consequently it is awkward to feel anger. What about the progress we have made in spite of our naturally selected for violence? Evolutionarily, except in niche cases, pacifist gene lines were subjected to negative selection pressure. We unfortunately have some wiring that is not up to code.</comment>


Collaborative list of hackers around you - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/maggy96/hackers

<comment><USER2> Created this in a break today. Would be happy about any comment!</comment>


Ask HN: Last year of B-school, guest speaker requires NDAs. Should I sign? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> That's very hard to say without knowing the NDA. What's covered? How long does it apply? Are there limits on damages should the guest speaker decide to sue you?

Can your university's student legal department review the NDA? In at least some universities, if a student works on corporate projects and has to sign an NDA then the NDA must be reviewed by the university first. See [http://www.utdallas.edu/utdesign/students/ip-and- nda/](http://www.utdallas.edu/utdesign/students/ip-and-nda/) for an example of that requirement.

As a matter of principle, if you decline to sign the NDA, what will happen? Will the inability to attend the lecture affect your grade? Were you informed about the NDA requirement before signing up for the class?

Peronally, it stinks. You paid your money, with the expectation that you would get a full education. Consider that a student might work in the same field as the guest speaker, but in a competitive organization. Signing an NDA may be virtually impossible. While you may not be in that circumstance, your teachers can't make that assumption about everyone.

<comment><USER3> I agree with this response wholeheartedly.

A third option is to propose redlines, a process often expedited when you provide back a signed, edited (and properly initialed) copy for them to countersign. This option demonstrates a willingness to engage. Worst case, you're in the same position as declining to sign the NDA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unless you're an investor, nothing much to lose by doing so if the speaker is actually interesting and you really want to meet them. Alternatively, you could always sign it Mickey Mouse!

</comment><comment><USER5> On general principle, no, and I'd name and shame both the B-school and the speaker (or, you know, be tactful. whatever). My gut reaction is it's complete BS.</comment>


Why you should never use GoDaddy ever again (even for a domain search) - <AUTHOR> http://zensavona.com/2012/why-you-should-never-use-godaddy-ever-again/ <comment><USER2> Network Solutions and (I think) Register.com used to do this (probably still do), and claimed it was a "service" to prevent your domain from being snatched up by someone else before you got a chance to buy it. Of course, the fact that it meant you'd have to buy it _from them_ was obviously just an unfortunate coincidence that they would avoid if they possibly could. I'm sure.

If I recall correctly, what they are actually doing is taking advantage of the grace period that is built in to domain name registration. They buy the domain, and will resell it to you if you want it within those 5 days, but if you don't want it, they will release it (at which point their own fees are refunded). So all you have to do if this happens to you is wait 5 days, and then you can buy it from whoever you like.

But yeah, it's a shitty practice, and you definitely should do your business through a registrar that doesn't do it.

<comment><USER3> This is old news, ICANN ended "domain tasting" via the 5-day grace period in 2009 by charging additional fees for those that engage in the practice:

[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12au...](http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm)

There are 104,419,043 .com domains out there [1] and GoDaddy claims to have registered over 53 million domains (non-.com extensions included) - what are the chances of a new domain being registered with GoDaddy? If GoDaddy were to do domain tasting they would go bankrupt pretty soon.

[1] <http://www.dailychanges.com/>

<comment><USER4> Domain tasting used to be easy money for spammers. Simply "taste" a huge number of domains, such as misspellings of popular sites, and put typically ad-filled domain parked pages on them. Figure out which ones make money and which don't, register the ones that are profitable, let the others lapse, and move on.

<comment><USER5> Or simply let them expire & then start another 5 day period... over & over & over again.

Sadly, this did happen.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, either way it's win/win. The only constraint is the cost of hosting, which can easily be amortized over all of your sites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So what happens if you search for a domain name on domai.nr and, three days later, you find it has been registered through domai.nr and is available on NameLayer which is domai.nr's premium domain selling service? Would you chalk it up to coincidence, especially if it's a decent name? Or will you write another blog post telling people to never use domai.nr ever again?

GoDaddy was one of the first ones to call attention to domain tasting, later referring to it as domain kiting:

<http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf>

[http://www.dailydomainer.com/200775-domain-tasting- monitorin...](http://www.dailydomainer.com/200775-domain-tasting-monitoring- searches.html)

If I, as an anonymous user, search for any of my domains on GoDaddy, I find that they'll offer to let me use their domain buy service to backorder them too, even for domains I've had since the 90's. Without any further evidence, it's impossible to tell whether you actually have a legitimate case (though a sample size of one is hardly statistically significant) or if you simply don't understand how domain registrations work.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd say that it would be quite the coincidence if this obscure and very specific domain was registered within 24hrs by GoDaddy, completely by chance.

<comment><USER7> But there are tens of thousands of people doing this sort of idle search, then later register attempt, all the time.

Even incredibly unlikely coincidences will turn up occasionally (and then trigger blog speculation). Without more evidence, coincidence is still a highly likely explanation here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just because its "Registered Through" doesnt mean that Godaddy owns the domain. Someone could easily just purchased it during that time and could be using Godaddy (they are the worlds largest registrar).

My dad's domain is registered through Godaddy. It says the same thing "You can view the WHOIS listing or use Domain Buy Service to get this name" when you search for it on their website. Also he is using their privacy service and the whois says this:

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (<http://www.godaddy.com>)

       Domain Name: XMYDADSDOMAINX.COM
          Created on: 01-Oct-03
          Expires on: 01-Oct-13
          Last Updated on: 02-Aug-11

       Administrative Contact:
          Private, Registration  email@example.com
          Domains By Proxy, LLC
          DomainsByProxy.com
          14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
          Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
          United States
          (480) 624-2599      Fax -- (480) 624-2598

</comment><comment><USER9> Netsol got busted doing this in 2008[1]; they stopped after receiving a great deal of backlash. It stands to reason GoDaddy would also stop once discovered, but then they've never been a company to back down from controversy.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Solutions#Controversy_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Solutions#Controversy_over_domain_name_front_running)

<comment><USER10> That wikipedia link states that they stopped registering domains that were searched using WhoIs but continued doing it when searching from their home page. So they didn't stop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is known as Domain Name Front Running.

GoDaddy have said they don't do it:

 _ICANN has neither accused nor investigated Go Daddy for front running. (Another registrar, Network Solutions, has come under fire for domain name front running.)

The simple truth is Go Daddy deplores this type of activity and has implemented safeguards to ensure Go Daddy customers remain protected._

I wouldn't usually defend GoDaddy, but while it is possible that they did front-run, I suspect a coincidence, or that the blog author did a search somewhere else too.

[1] [http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/you-can-trust-go-daddy- wi...](http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/you-can-trust-go-daddy-with-your- domain-searches/)

</comment><comment><USER12> YUP.

And then, if you hit the domain at all in the next year, they will renew it and add it to their domain auction program, whereby you can bid (* (amount they've spent) 2) to win!

Not that I've, uh, had this happen, of course...

</comment><comment><USER13> I am working an a domain search service that solves this problem.

We make it impossible for our servers to know your domain searches. We also clearly explain how, so you can verify yourself.

Contact me for beta access.

</comment><comment><USER14> GoDaddy explicitly states they do not practice domain name front running: [http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/you-can-trust-go-daddy- wi...](http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/you-can-trust-go-daddy-with-your- domain-searches/)

</comment><comment><USER15> GODADDY sniffed a domain that I was tracking and grabbed it on the day it expired. It is now being offered through BLUERAZOR.COM. ( a proxy company used by Godaddy to hide frontrunning activity)

GRABBING DOMAINS IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW

IS GODADDY USING FAKE REGISTRANT INFORMATION TO REGISTER THESE DOMAINS?

USING A FAKE NAME TO REGISTER A DOMAIN IS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW

CAN GODADDY THEY PROVIDE PROPER REGISTRANT INFORMATION FOR THE COUNTLESS DOMAINS THAT THEY HAVE STOLEN?

</comment><comment><USER16> no one uses the whois unix command?

<comment><USER17> Not everyone is on Unix. Whois doesn't ship with Windows, but it can still be downloaded at [http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/sysinternals/bb897435.asp...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/sysinternals/bb897435.aspx).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> 1) The domain is cheap, should have registered it the first time round. 2) If GoDaddy is domain tasting, then they'd return it in 2 more days and you should be able to register it normally? 3) You shouldn't use GoDaddy because Bob Parsons is an elephant killing douche, not because they do domain tasting.

<comment><USER19> I bet the CEOs of other domain registers are cow killing douches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I had the same problem 2 years ago - <http://cl.ly/ITnW>

</comment><comment><USER21> You never should query a REGISTRAR, always directly query the REGISTRY for domain availability and whois info.

Any coder worth their salt should be easily able to make a query program as a weekend project. All the registry whois addresses are readily available.

</comment><comment><USER22> Do you know if this is standard practice or just GD?

Also, will this kick in if you search using something like <http://bustaname.com> (I'm assuming they query the whoIS database directly, but I'm not sure)

<comment><USER23> Several registrars practice this, sadly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> They once screwed me for a domain in their auction. They hold my money for 45 days to refund after my credit card company sued them. They customer service is also horrible. Never ever I will use their services.

</comment><comment><USER25> If this is true, someone should build a bot that randomly creates garbage domains and searches for them through godaddy repeatedly (so they buy millions and millions of garbage domains).

</comment><comment><USER26> If you liked it you shoulda put a ring on it (aka domains are cheap, buy them and worry about the idea later)

</comment><comment><USER27> What are you implying? If GoDaddy purchased every domain searched through their site, they'd go bankrupt. It's not a very sustainable business model.

Isn't the more likely explanation that someone else also thought of your excellent name and purchased it?

<comment><USER2> Nope. There's a five-day grace period on domain registrations. They snatch the domain to encourage you to buy it from them, and if you don't, they delete the registration and get their money refunded. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting>

<comment><USER28> He doesn't claim that it happening here. He said: I searched for a domain, and 3 days later someone else registered it.

He has no complaint here. He has no right to domains he simply searched for but refused to buy.

<comment><USER2> >He said: I searched for a domain, and 3 days later someone else registered it.

No, he said he searched for a domain, and when he went to register it 3 days later, it was already taken. That is consistent with the hypothesis that GoDaddy is tasting, since 3 days would be within the 5 day grace period.

<comment><USER28> He said it was registered _through_ godaddy. Not that godaddy owns it.

Honestly, if he really believes godaddy is tasting, there's a simple way to end the debate. Post the name of the domain so we can all see the whois.

Of course he won't do that, because his entire post is BS

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Time to start inputting every domain ever into the system.

</comment><comment><USER30> domai.nr is an excellent domain search alternative.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'd say more than 75% of the registrars do this.

</comment><comment><USER28> He checked on a domain name, it wasn't registered. He waited 3 days, and someone else registered it through Godaddy (most popular registrar.. so he's not the only person who uses it). Godaddy offered to help make an offer to the person who purchased it.

He doesn't say Godaddy OWNS it.. someone else registered the domain through Godaddy. BFD.

What is the complaint?

I'm not a fan of Godaddy (I'm moving all my domains to name.com).. but he doesn't have a complaint here.

If you liked the domain you should have bought it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand that i should have bought it at the time (see the preface to my post - "Although this is untimately my fault") I have trouble believing that the domain was purchased by another individual because of it's obscurity, and that is the reason I'm kinda annoyed I can't have it.

<comment><USER28> This has happened to me before. Millions of names being registered, and sometimes more than one person has the same idea.

Which is why now days if I find a domain that I think I _might_ use, but am not entirely sure about it, I waste the $8.

Chalk it up to lesson learned.

<comment><AUTHOR> For whatever reason that I happened to lose this domain, the lesson is obviously now learned... Next time I will most definitely snap it up when the opportunity presents itself.

<comment><USER32> Since the domain isn't available anyways, what is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> People don't do backups when warned. People don't change passwords or use password managers when warned. Interestingly enough, people don't stop using GoDaddy when warned.

</comment><comment><USER34> Old news. I'm pretty paranoid when checking for domains that might be free. I never use my registrars search (only if I'm about to buy in the next 10 seconds).

I have been burnt a few times by godaddy in the good ol' days :)</comment>


Empirical Comparison of DOS Kernels (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://flaterco.com/kb/DOS-kernels.html <comment><USER2> Keep in mind that DOS 7 from W98SE can boot, access and format SATA and USB drives usually natively from BIOS mode, with multiple FAT32 partitions as large as 32GB starting within the first 120GB from the MBR at sector 0, and much deeper when the MBR has been replaced by one from NT6 and up to 2TB HDD's can be often used.

Just like W95b, and W95b can be made to fit and work well within 32mb of drive space, 8mb memory or more but preferring under 1 or 2GB memory, and allowing 2.0GHz or less with the AMD K3 patch, it runs better than the relatively bloated W98SE, whose type of built-in networking can optionally be added to W95b, and LAN drivers are still widely available for DOS/W9x.

With a little more drive space and Office 97, you get Word, Excel, and even Power Point whose primary features are still fully capable of creating for and opening files from any later version of Windows or Open Source Office keeping simple well-defined limitations in mind at both ends.

The drawback is usually graphics drivers for which pleasing high resolution can not easily be obtained.

<comment><USER3> What about security?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well the DOS operating system exposes RING0 to the user and to all programs, privileged mode. DOS isn't secure as such.

You can install some antivirus software which sits resident in memory and enables some protection against malicious viruses interacting with files, memory, MBR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Philosophically, I cannot help but feel like a kernel without memory protection or any multitasking is better called a library than a kernel. It's effectively a series of function calls the applications can call, to my knowledge. I guess we expect a whole lot more of OS's now.

<comment><USER5> It's closer to an RTOS as all it does is load a single program and provides that program an API to access services and hardware. Sure, you can run other programs within programs but you switch execution between programs and whatever is running has full control of the machine. There are no interrupts or scheduling so the running program has to voulinteraillary yield or exit to switch back.

<comment><USER4> > Sure, you can run other programs within programs but you switch execution > between programs and whatever is running has full control of the machine

Are you talking about terminate and stay resident, TSR? Barely qualifies as multitasking IMO because I don't think yield() can even be done.

<comment><USER5> I remember calling them subprograms and TSR's were things like memory managers and drivers. e.g. you could open a shell or other program from within a program like norton commander or dos shell. I can't remember if you could switch between them or the subprogram had to exit before control was returned to the the calling program.

<comment><USER6> There is no multitasking for regular programs in DOS: if a program launches another one, the parent is simply paused until the child exits.

Also DOS used various interrupt handlers (not just the synchronous int 21h)

<comment><USER5> > There is no multitasking for regular programs in DOS: if a program launches > another one, the parent is simply paused until the child exits.

Well aware of that fact but my question is could you switch from the subprogram back to the main program without exiting the subprogram? I feel the answer is no but I can't remember.

e.g. I open norton commander and run qbasic. norton commander is paused and qbasic takes control. Is there an interrupt call which allows me to return control to norton commander without exiting qbasic and let qbasic stay paused?

<comment><USER7> >could you switch from the subprogram back to the main program without exiting the subprogram?

There were TSR task-switcher programs to do that, effectively allowing you to turn normal programs into TSRs. I had a single floppy-drive PC with no hard drive, but I had 640K of RAM. So I would run the task switcher from its floppy, allocate task 1 some RAM and load that program from its floppy, then allocate task 2 some RAM and load that from its floppy, then switch to task 3 and use the rest of the RAM for whatever. Whenever needed, I could switch back to task 1 or task 2, without having to switch floppies or exit the current task. I think it was DOS 3.30 when I used that. It was handy to keep small utilities (like a text editor and unarchiver) loaded and ready to look at the contents of any disk.

The list from Ralf Brown's Interrupt List gives an idea of what some of the task switchers were: [http://www.ctyme.com/intr/cat-011.htm](http://www.ctyme.com/intr/cat-011.htm)

[Topview]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_TopView](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_TopView)) appears to have had an interesting story. And of course DESQview followed. I never used either of those.

You could do a lot in DOS with ASM and interrupts, as long as the code was small. But with the hardware limitations, and the way people usually used PCs during DOS's prime years, it didn't really make sense to put too much effort into multitasking. Towards the end we were often rebooting with distinct boot disks, each with a different AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS customized to get the most out of the hardware for each specific program. Multitasking would be pointless in that case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > •With the FreeDOS kernel and FreeCOM, conveniences are gained and the memory > footprint under 1 MB is reduced, but compatibility is sacrificed, both in > the post-DOS-3.3 sense and in terms of known quirks and bugs.

Anyone got some insight what exactly post 3.3 is referring to? I've seen once or twice that retro enthusiasts like to use dos 3.3, so what's happened with versions after that?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure exactly what the author was referring to but [http://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-4-0/](http://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-4-0/) might be of interest.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I focus and be less distracted? - <AUTHOR> I am a master student working on towards graduation this coming summer. I find really hard time focusing on the current tasks in hand my thoughts are always somewhere else. My mind is always distracted, how can I achieve better focus, please share any thoughts, books or ideas you have. Thank you. <comment><USER2> If it's at all possible, try and organise your tasks so you can be offline / away from distractions when you're needing to get things done.

eg turn off your phone, ensure your computer is set for no notifications, etc.

Try to have the absolute minimal amount of device oriented / external things grabbing your attention.

If you're constantly really, really unfocused at present - which it sounds like - this can take a few days to get right.

In the meantime - until you adjust - you'll probably feel really bored without the external stimulus. If you can get through that, you're set. :)</comment>


Peeple app for rating human beings causes uproar - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34415382 <comment><USER2> Fascinating new form of MVP, this. See how much outrage you can create before writing a line of code:

[http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/](http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/)

<comment><USER3> That "Peeple Watching Webisode" was so cringeworthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is alarming, yes. You know what is more alarming? The fact that hardware and websites have conspired together along with brick~mortar retailers, and cell phones, to create an entire profile about everything I do.

Then at some point in the future someone can buy this information. Then some young HR person who has read too many pop psychology books will determine "You're not a good fit" or much, much worse.

</comment><comment><USER5> The PR effort behind this app is amazing. I feel equally intimidated and flummoxed when I try to imagine how they achieved such marketing success. Why did anyone care about this particular app before it started the frenzy, and why does(did?) it continue to grow so much?

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't really say it's PR, it's more like it just went viral. As in, I wouldn't say the Bedroom Intruder guy or Charlie Bit My Finger had great PR. They just did something that touched a nerve and people pounced.

<comment><USER6> > I wouldn't really say it's PR, it's more like it just went viral.

When the seed for something viral is a feature story in the second most important newspaper in the country then that's called PR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find the reaction to this app idea a bit confusing and irritating. Clearly the community this app would attract would be toxic, that should be obvious to everyone at this point.

I would make sense to me if the conversation was around "Why build an app specifically to encourage the behaviour we already mostly wish didn't exist on the internet". The fact that people act this way, even with their real names attached on Facebook, makes a story. That someone is trying to focus that aspect of human behaviour and encourage it with an app makes a story. That it's a widely held opinion that this app would immediately become a toxic hellhole of garbage content and trolling makes a story.

Instead, people are pretending that this app adds something new. Twitter is already used, very frequently, to name and shame people or to rate them negatively in some way. And they don't get to "opt out" either. I can't opt out of some blog or Facebook post or mass email saying nasty things about me. There is literally nowhere on earth were this is the case. The concept of being able to opt out of anyone being allowed to mention you in a medium seems to have been invented for this story.

The same goes for the "how can we be sure a rating is justified or the rater even knows the ratee?" or any of the other concerns. They all boil down to "anything that lets you publish speech online allows you to libel/slander someone online". Everything I read about this insults my intelligence in a fairly novel way.

</comment><comment><USER8> They really aren't doing themselves any favours here:

'Peeple co-founder Julia Cordray told the BBC: "With any new concept there is naturally fear. "When the people found out that the Earth was round instead of flat and that we revolved around the Sun instead of the Sun revolving around us, naturally people were upset and confused and they pushed back with all that they had.'

Somehow I don't think that the heliocentric model is a useful comparison to make to your idea for a website...

<comment><USER9> I understood that to be a joke, and I was amused by it. It's not intended as a literal comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm absolutely wary of any technology that's going to enable/encourage bullying or trolling. I think there's a fine line between censorship and ensuring a safe community (especially in the wake of the Oregon shooting and corresponding reddit thread), but I see this app leading to Bad Things happening.

That said, the thing I'd like to see the discourse focusing on is not necessarily an app that encourages bullying, but bullying itself. I think the intensity of the uproar this is causing is throwing up a huge red flag - people as really scared about bullying. I think we as a community/country/world should absolutely talk about Peeple, but in talking about the symptom, I hope we can also get to talking about the root cause and what we can do to treat it.

<comment><USER11> Bullying is something that people do because it's easy -- picking fights with people who can't fight back. So this maybe be a fine distinction, but I think that anything that enables or makes bullying easier is not just a symptom, but is contributing to the root cause. In any communication tool, certain kinds of interactions are easier than others and are thus encouraged. For instance, the fact that Facebook has like button but not a dislike button is a deliberate choice that affects how easy it is to express different sentiments on Facebook. I believe it's possible to design a communication tool that encourages positive interactions and discourages negative ones.

Other good examples: George Orwell's concept of Newspeak from 1984, a language literally incapable of expressing concepts like freedom or dissent against the government. For another example, consider Journey, a multiplayer video game where the only possible interactions between players are positive or helpful.

<comment><USER12> >Journey where the only possible interactions between players are positive or helpful.

There was a GDC presentation a few years back where the lead designer Jenova Chen talked about how difficult it was to make only positive/helpful interactions possible. In playtesting even the ability to _collide_ with another player was used against them, e.g. to push them off a cliff.

The presentation should still be online for free at [http://gdcvault.com](http://gdcvault.com) very interesting from a game- designing point of view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the Washington Post article:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- intersect/wp/2015/09...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- intersect/wp/2015/09/30/everyone-you-know-will-be-able-to-rate-you-on-the- terrifying-yelp-for-people-whether-you-want-them-to-or-not/)

> Positive ratings post immediately; negative ratings are queued in a private > inbox for 48 hours in case of disputes. If you haven't registered for the > site, and thus can't contest those negative ratings, your profile only shows > positive reviews.

This seems like this would strongly disincentive anyone from registering for the app in the first place.

<comment><USER12> I guess it will take about three seconds before someone realizes you can give a person five stars (making it a "positive review") and then write a horribly negative review about them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Snopes suggests it's vaporware:

Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10319096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10319096)

Snopes page: [http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/](http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/)

And of course, there's the problem of "Peeple the thing" versus "Peeple the app"

Submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10318966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10318966) (no comments)

Article: [http://www.wired.com/2015/10/peeple-the-thing-versus- peeple-...](http://www.wired.com/2015/10/peeple-the-thing-versus-peeple-the- app/)

<comment><USER15> It's not _all_ quite as recent and out-of-the-blue as Snopes suggests:

      Domain Name: forthepeeple.com

      Updated Date: 2015-10-02T15:06:29Z

      Creation Date: 2014-10-30T23:09:22Z

Unfortunately I can't trace back to 2014 to determine if the original registrant was firstname.lastname@example.com

Archive suggests there was something parked there in December 2014

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141217043318/http://forthepeep...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141217043318/http://forthepeeple.com/)

<comment><USER7> Whoisology shows email@example.com as the registrant on 2014-10-31.

And the only older record they have is someone else registering it in December 2012.

Domain History has these records: [http://www.domainhistory.net/forthepeeple.com](http://www.domainhistory.net/forthepeeple.com)

If anyone has a domaintools account they could get a better report (apparently 31 records going back 7 years with 18 significant changes) but I don't have one anymore.

Seems safe to say it was registered by these people Oct 31 last year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This just sounds like a bad idea overall. Even if they resolve issue with negative reviews and bullying, why would we want to rate people? This is not rating their skill at something, or even their appearance, it is rating them as a person. That goes against everything that most people stand for.

Most of the time, we strive to live in a world where every person has value. Everyone is their own unique person, and we respect who they are. Although society often fails to live up to that ideal, I cannot fathom why someone would write an app to explicitly avoid it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Throwaway for obvious reasons.

This idea already existed. [http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Gossipreport.com](http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Gossipreport.com)

The date is wrong, though. It was more like 2007/08\. They had strong PR going, from sheer outrage alone. There was a segment on Dr. Phil, where he proceeded (to his credit) to tear them a new one.

They were aiming to become the TMZ, for regular people. The site was real, it existed. I never found anyone I knew on there, but apparently they had real people (in addition to the number of obviously fake profiles to get people to stay and join). Not sure why it was shut down. They were running with a skeleton crew, so I doubt it was lack of funding. Most likely it was the backlash and the realization that it would cost a fortune in legal fees (defamation of character, anyone?)

</comment><comment><USER6> 1) Anonymous reviews of real people are unworkable, they descend instantly into the familiar internet culture hell of trolling and awfulness.

2) Nobody wants to write negative reviews of other people using their own real name.

3) Nobody needs a new destination to find faux-positive fluffy reviews of people by other people. To the extent there's demand for that, existing social media does it pretty well already.

Therefore, this will fail quickly and decisively if it launches at all, joining other similar efforts such as Secret and Ello that attempted to solve problems that didn't really exist in the first place with not very well thought out solutions.

</comment><comment><USER18> Their PR team deserves every cent they're paid. International media coverage for a startup long before it has launched is really impressive.

They managed to upset thousands of people without even writing a tiny bit of code.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm gonna place my bet that the _entire_ app thing is a hoax. Perhaps, it's going to end up as some type of documentary about privacy?

</comment><comment><USER20> IANAL, but curious - would this actually be legal?

With anonymous unsubstantiated claims, would such a service not disintegrate in a big class action ball of libel?

<comment><USER21> Seems unlikely. From a legal perspective it seems a lot like Yelp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The advantages this app will be bringing will be very less compared to the creepy features. I don't want to sound like a cliche, but there are no second chances once you are on there. People improve and change over time. But, once you have a history of everything for everyone to see, bad stuff comes back to haunt you.

</comment><comment><USER23> Considering credit companies and advertisers have been sprinting along this path of rating human beings for a while now, maybe Peeple (if executed well) can provide a necessary counterweight?

</comment><comment><USER24> The icon for this app should be an image of human excrements. Because that's what people will be throwing towards each other when using this app.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sigh. As if online bullying was not a severe enough problem already. How many suicides will this contribute to?

</comment><comment><USER25> Useless site advertising campaign fed up my news feed.</comment>


Inside Tesla's factory, a medical clinic designed to ignore injured workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.revealnews.org/article/inside-teslas-factory-a-medical-clinic-designed-to-ignore-injured-workers/ <comment><USER2> Statement from Basil Besh mentioned in article:

"I spent nearly one hour with Reveal detailing Tesla's decision earlier this year to bring me and my medical team on site at Fremont, providing its employees with state-of-the-art occupational and musculoskeletal health care. I detailed our vision for exemplary patient care and I gave specific examples of protocol improvements and subsequent successes in outcomes in only four short months, including accurate diagnoses and reducing needless delays for advanced testing and treatment. I patiently educated Will Evans on how Tesla allowed me to give the same care to Tesla employees that I do to my private patients including ones who are professional athletes, with the ability to get necessary testing and treatment in a timely manner without being hindered by an often cumbersome California Worker's Compensation System that sometimes negatively effects injured workers.

I counseled Will on the difference between subjective complaints of pain, which cannot be proven and are often magnified, and objective signs found only on careful clinical examination by an experienced physician. I even mailed Will a copy of a relevant chapter from the American Medical Association Return to Work Guidelines and offered to make myself available for additional questions. Research and evidence-based medicine indicate that deconditioning injuries involving sore muscles should not be treated with inactivity as this only exacerbates the problem, but should instead be treated by proactive conditioning, ergonomic modifications and supportive care. Not all patients in pain should be off work, at home and on opioids. In fact, it is most often in these patients' best interest to have supportive care that enhances their activity, their function, and their well-being.

As a physician, my foremost obligation is to perform a careful history and physical examination, order additional tests when clinically indicated, make an accurate diagnosis, and deliver the absolute best care possible. If patients are injured and continued work presents safety issues for the patient, myself and my fellow physicians prescribe the appropriate work restrictions. Any suggestion that myself or any of my medical team at AOC allow external factors to influence our medical care in any way is false and inaccurate.

I advised Will on why ambulances should be reserved for life or limb threatening injuries and that every ambulance that is thoughtlessly called for a non-life-threatening injury is one less ambulance that is available to actually save a life rather than be used as a convenience. Most importantly, all members of my team are empowered to call 911 for any limb or life- threatening condition.

Rather than deliver an informative and balanced piece of journalism, Reveal has instead chosen to hitch its wagon to Ms. Anna Watson, a provider with whom we severed ties after less than two weeks at our clinic and about whom I cannot provide any additional comment as she is currently the subject of an investigation by the California Medical Board. Instead of highlighting the tremendous progress being made in both patient safety and patient care at Tesla, this report uses poor sourcing to tell a story consistent with a predetermined agenda."

<comment><USER3> "I advised Will on why ambulances should be reserved for life or limb threatening injuries and that every ambulance that is thoughtlessly called for a non-life-threatening injury is one less ambulance that is available to actually save a life rather than be used as a convenience."

What a load of absolute garbage. Shame. There are plenty, PLENTY of ambulances to go around. This isn't some wartime situation where medical care should only go to those about to die.

A few years back my wife had a back injury that prevented her from walking. We called an ambulance, and it was the best decision both according to her (who couldn't move) the ambulance paramedics, and the doctors at the hospital. Her injuries WERE NOT LIFE THREATENING, but she still required an ambulance to transport her without further injuring her back and potentially causing paralysis. Again, not life threatening, just paralysis - no big deal right?

Basil Besh should step down from whatever position they hold.

<comment><USER4> You're talking about a situation that justifies calling an ambulance. You're probably not qualified to assess the injury, your wife could not move and had an acute injury. The article is describing medical professionals in a clinical environment making medical judgement calls.

Most workplace injuries are not emergencies. Even the example given of a broken hand is _not_ an injury that is helped by an ambulance ride, if anything you are delaying treatment by calling 911 and waiting for an ambulance to be dispatched for a very low priority injury. Most companies have a policy of calling 911 only to avoid liability -- they care more able getting sued for the result of a car accident on the way to the hospital than the employee. In this case Tesla has medical personnel on site who can make subjective judgements and do so with their license at risk.

The other thing being missed is once you're admitted to the hospital for a workplace injury, you're stuck in the Worker's Compensation system and end up in a kafka circle of bureaucracy where as an employee you end up wasting alot of time and potentially alot of money as the insurance companies, independent doctors, etc all fight over pennies.

As far as "there are _PLENTY_ of ambulances to go around" that often is not true, especially when you're talking about a big workplace like a factory where getting in and out will take a long time. My brother is a fireman paramedic who gets bullshit ALS calls all of the time. It's really frustrating when September comes and people in car accidents or serious injuries are left waiting because some panicked coed calls 911 for a passed out drunk friend who is "dying, I don't think she's breathing" every Friday.

I'm no Tesla fanboy, if you look at my comments I'm often harshly critical of them. But IMO this is an article on a boring topic that nobody understands that is ginned up and novel because we're talking about Tesla.

<comment><USER5> "Even the example given of a broken hand is not an injury that is helped by an ambulance ride, if anything you are delaying treatment by calling 911 and waiting for an ambulance to be dispatched for a very low priority injury"

The thought processes of some of you genuinely scares me. What happens if the person goes into shock from the pain and loses consciousness in the taxi? How the f do they even put the seatbelt on, if their hand is broken? What kind of small talk will the Lyft driver make with them? "Is that a piece of bone I see peeking there you naughty naughty boy!"

<comment><USER6> Most people have two hands, and in a pinch can buckle themselves with either. Anyway, the driver or a coworker/onsite medical staff can buckle them in as well.

If the person loses conciousness on the way to the hospital, the driver can either call 911 on the way and arrange a transfer to the ambulance or just pull up to the emergency room and yell / honk / go in to get help getting the person out. Hopefully the onsite clinic would call ahead so that the ER / urgent care knows what to expect.

If the patient is in fairly stable condition, and it's quicker to get them to the hospital with a taxi than an ambulance (because of ambulance priorities), it seems prudent to take a taxi.

I see further in the thread that an ambulance was denied for a back injury, which seems less prudent.

<comment><USER7> Driver is likely not to notice the passenger is unconscious. I completed well over a thousand rides and many of them were with passengers who did not interact with me. Once they are in the rear seats, I do not observe them. Looking at traffic keeps me busy enough.

Driver has no duty to alert ER staff or arrange supplemental transport.

Lyft and Uber could offer medical transport service at an appropriate rate where the driver would get trained and tasked with additional duties.

Navigating into Tesla factory from the freeway takes time. Most drivers will get pinged from the freeway. Unless the driver has been to that facility many times, finding the right pickup point on any large corporate campus is a challenge.

I have transported several people to ER. Those were demanding rides due to elevated risk of passenger causing damage to my car.

Ambulance priority - patient stability Rideshare priority - no damage to the vehicle

As you can see, they are not aligned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Funny how this thread is debating whether a crushed hand or severed fingers justifies an ambulance or ride share.

It is illegal for "ride shares" to provide medical transport. The fact that an on-site physician would not call medical transport and put patients with crush hands/severed fingers in a ride share is per se illegal.

Next we will hear the "SV disruption cult" begin making their claim that those regulations only exist because the EMT lobby industry is spending billions for legislation to protect the market incumbent. Well don't forget your extra $150 Uber cleaning fee for bleeding all over your drivers car.

<comment><USER9> From a European point of view, this whole thread is surreal. Your hand is crushed or your fingers are severed, you are sent to the ER in an Ambulance.

This is impressive how far the US has normalised the concept that health is primarily a financial decision. Especially in the HN bubble that consists mostly of wealthy individuals.

<comment><USER10> This is what libertarian and 'eliminate regulation' types want.

Human life isn't worth anything if the people can't use legal means to protect themselves.

For these US citizens (SV elite), healthcare is akin to a status symbol or a luxury that only rich people or people bestowed by the rich (think: employment) should be able to attain.

And then look at how much hatred there was when Obama tried to implement the Heritage Foundations plan, which was done by Mitt Romney in Massuchusetts. Republican, btw.

These people really don't care about the "rest of us". That's why Trump was elected. He showed he had the similar hatred and focused it. Don't get me wrong- he's done horrible for the US... But that's why.

EDIT: I would love to hear a description why I'm wrong. I've lived through the creation of Obamacare, my diabetes T2 diagnosis under it, and now the structured destruction of it, along with trying to eliminate 'preexisting conditions' exception. In short, if they get their way, I'll be dead sooner. Like 10 years sooner. Lack of health care + diabetes = death sentence.

But in the end, having us "dead weights" dying isn't a bad thing when you boil us down to $$$.

<comment><USER11> > This is what libertarian and 'eliminate regulation' types want.

False. Healthcare is not a human right, but the insane inflation of healthcare costs would be avoided by removing a large portion of the regulation surrounding it. If hospitals actually had to compete to get patients, based on affordability, among other factors, healthcare would be far cheaper, and private charity/need-sharing would take the place of insurance.

<comment><USER12> Hot dog, there's a cheaper ER 30 minutes from here!

<comment><USER13> Communism would have all ERs equally shitty and expensive [to the taxpayer]. Is that all that better?

I mean, your argument holds true for everything. And yet, look around us and compare to any instance of communism on various extents. Capitalism is always better.

<comment><USER10> You can stay off our communist roads then.

Enjoy bartering and purchasing your way across private property to something distant. (Yeah, fat chance you actually hold to your criticisms.)

<comment><USER14> Bartering? You dont need to State to exchange money :S

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am a big Tesla fan but if this is true and does not improve shortly, then screw this company.

I've dreamt of buying a Tesla but I could not ethically rationalize that to myself if this article is true.

It also shows the problem of measuring companies by specific metrics. It sounds like good old "juking the stats" (the wire).

It gives the impression that things actually end up worse because of how injuries are measured.

<comment><USER16> I was a big Tesla fan until-

>A Tesla recruiter called me, high pressure tried to get me to move to California, ending in- "So you don't want to do anything important with your life?"

>Elon's marketing team spam reddit and manip upvotes. This was my first wakeup call that we were being tricked

>That Tesla =/= getting to Mars in 2023.

>The Chevy Bolt was car of the year. Tesla's will be unreliable for ~10 years until they work out design related issues. (This is unavoidable for every new car company)

>The horrid conditions of employees, seems like we are taking a step back in employee conditions in favor of 'progress'.

>Manipulation of news, numbers, etc... make the company seem unethical.

I still have Elon as my wallpaper, with a motivation phrase telling me to "Get to work". But I've sobered up, he was a cult of personality.

<comment><USER17> I'd hope that "So you don't want to do anything important with your life?" wasn't in a script, and was an individual recruiter being a manipulative asshole - and once this was found out about by management (and hopefully they investigated and could find out who said it) the recruiter was then told to not say such thing again - and fired if they did.

I can't really reply to anything else you posted, there's reasonable counter- points to all of it. You shouldn't blindly trust any one source of course, and excitement/emotion for someone or an organization doing something good can prevent use from critical thinking. At the same time, it's important to understand what it means for a company to be the most shorted stock in history - and the amount of effort, and financial gain, that will come to people purposely trying to put down Tesla et al.

Good can come from this process if everyone involved is being reasonable. Is it good that someone who asked for an ambulance to go to the hospital, instead after an assessment by an onsite doctor, were said to take a Lyft? It clearly wasn't life threatening in that doctor's eyes to require the life-stabilizing ability/necessity of an ambulance - I suppose that person sharing their story might not be talking to us then today. Likewise, is the issue that Tesla is purposefully trying to avoid "an ambulance being called" to avoid a log in OSHA records? I doubt it, however this does highlight that the processes and requirements for OSHA likely need to be updated: so that if there are on-site doctors who do an assessment, then that also gets into the log. I imagine it's more likely an incomplete/inadequate process of reporting because how many work places have on-site doctors 24/7? Not very many I'm guessing.

<comment><USER18> In my opinion they're the most shorted stock in history because their fundamentals don't justify their huge valuation. Elon Musk's cult of personality has encouraged investors to over-value the company in spite of some severe problems.

<comment><USER17> I remember you recently commenting trying to argue that Elon Musk has the same values as Donald Trump when it comes to the truth, so I'm going not going to trust your judgement here.

The biggest short in history aligns well with many people not having the critical thinking ability to understand all of the facets to what Elon is doing and has already done - if you look at the whole ecosystem, which I won't write out to argue for here - though I have in the past in comments. Many people invest on short-term trends and don't have the ability to actually understand from founding principles; e.g. it's why they're building a Gigafactory for batteries, to knock the cost of battery production down by 50% - and unless competitors all start trying to do the same, they're going to have higher battery costs - and so can't compete as strongly on price as Tesla can, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you are stable and not in immediate danger, you should absolutely take a Lyft to the hospital instead of an ambulance. Ambulances are very expensive and should be reserved for people who actually need them. What if there's a car accident and someone is bleeding out and the ambulance is delayed because it was busy transporting some guy who wanted an ambulance ride for his stable back injury?

<comment><USER20> The US will always amaze me. If you don't have enough ambulances to cover the interventions then just buy more ambulances. And what kind of ambulances should be used should be up to medical professionals, not yourself. It is fairly common in many countries for hospitals to use regular taxis instead of usual ambulances when they know it will be fine, but it should not be your call as a patient.

I guess in the US the incentive of the hospital is just to bill you as much as possible so it makes things different. In many places the incentives of the hospital are just to keep you in good health and do not overspend their budget ...

<comment> saiya-jin In Switzerland the system is actually pretty good - ambulances are private companies, it cost +-500$ to get transport to hospital.

Horrible cost on the first glance, but if you actually talk to doctors (my fiancee is one), you realize most of the system is under constant overload. If they have emergency call, it can be (and often is) something trivial, when taking a cab for 5% of the costs would be more appropriate. But you have tons of crazy people (not crazy enough to be in asylum, but enough to wreak havoc on everything and everybody around them) and hypochondriacs. Polytoxicomans that effectively can't be helped.

We're not talking about a drive by a specific vehicle, but locking of 2 highly trained professionals that can't be used for any other emergency, with vehicle full of life-saving equipment. Which can easily mean another ambulance has to come from afar if needed, which can be fatal/debilitating in number of cases.

So its not about US as much, its about making system effective, because resources (people, equipment, ambulances) are scarce and you need to prioritize, or people will die. These things can and should be improved, but until they are, doctors and everybody else need to work with what they have.

<comment><USER21> Much of US ambulance staffing is done by EMTs that start with less than 200 hours of training.

[https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/data/maps](https://www.nremt.org/rwd/public/data/maps)

(the circle thing that should be a table)

<comment><USER22> EMTs spend most of their time picking old ladies up off the floor and feeding blood thinners to people who are having heart attacks. You don't need a combat medic to do that job.

<comment><USER21> Right. My point is that when assessing the level of resources the US devotes to ambulances, there's room to argue about whether the responders are highly trained or not. Paramedics certainly are, I'm not sure about (especially newly licensed) EMTs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> And how am I supposed to figure out who to trust?

Reporters say Tesla is shitty. But reporters often lie and even more often exaggerate.

Musk says he cares about safety and all accusations are wrong. But CEOs often lie and even more often are uninformed or delusional.

If anyone has advice about how I can develop some trust in one side or the other, please let me know.

<comment><USER24> Can you name an example where this news organization (Center for Investigative Reporting) has lied? If not, the fact that it has won a number of widely recognized rewards and has received a MacArthur grant should give you confidence that the reporters have been careful in their investigation and reporting.

<comment><USER25> That Tesla under reported injuries, which a 4 month OSHA investigation proved wasn't true. Is that enough of a lie to mistrust Reveal?

<comment><USER26> I doubt that they lied, Reveal and the people behind them seem honest. On the other hand, Tesla and Elon are not known for honesty.

<comment><USER27> Are OSHA investigators known for letting companies get away with that sort of thing? My impression was the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The workers in this story said one reason they were told they couldn't take an ambulance was because Tesla couldn't afford to pay for the rides. That same quarter, Elon Musk paid himself $65mm and his cousin Lyndon Rive $17.5mm on a Solar City promissory note, which they had the option of rolling out to a later maturity.

</comment><comment><USER28> @PlainSite on Twitter has been going through injury reports from the Tesla clinic, and it seems Tesla may have even had fake MDs signing documents.

[https://twitter.com/PlainSite/status/1059875691263483904](https://twitter.com/PlainSite/status/1059875691263483904)

According to the tender it used to get the Tesla engagement, one of Access Omnicare's explicit objectives was to reduce OSHA recordability:

[https://twitter.com/Trumpery45/status/1059902463510142976](https://twitter.com/Trumpery45/status/1059902463510142976)

</comment><comment><USER25> Yeah, no.

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/one-year-in-tesla- update](https://www.tesla.com/blog/one-year-in-tesla-update)

You don't pass a 4 month long safety inspection by California OSHA by making injured workers continue working.

"News organization" writes article about a company in California under reporting and hiding injuries, leading to a 4 month OSHA investigation that completely clears company of the accusation. Do they retract the accusation, write an article on why they made the previous accusations given we now know they were wrong?

No, they write a new article making new accusations about the company.

<comment><USER29> Kind of sad that this is the highest voted comment right now, and that almost all of the responses pointed out the investigation is addressed in the piece. Also "news organization" is weak, this is a site thats won a Peabody(among other awards), as other commenters have also pointed out.

<comment><USER30> Not to mention the parent commenter has contributed nothing to the site except breathless defences of Musk and Tesla.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> They need a union. Bad.

<comment><USER15> Definitely. That is the best way to deal with stuff like this. Without a union individual employees have a too weak position to complain.

Although I hope the US adopts a more Nordic/German style union system which is less adversarial. I think the US system has sadly given unions a bad reputation.

<comment><USER32> > I think the US system has sadly given unions a bad reputation.

You mean big corporations have spent millions of dollars and hours lobbying against unions and crushing any whiff of unionization by immediate termination of employment? All hail to your corporate overlords ...

It's a double-edged sword really, explotation of low cost labor allows you to innovate and be the technologically advanced society you are, but it also hurts those at the bottom who have no other choices/options.

<comment><USER33> Much better to have all of this stuff happen in China where we don't need to think about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> After reading this, I no longer want a Tesla.

<comment><USER17> Here's a response horseRad posted an hour after your comment here that comes from Tesla's side - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18389796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18389796) \- and that is from [https://electrek.co/2018/11/06/tesla-fremont-factory- clinic-...](https://electrek.co/2018/11/06/tesla-fremont-factory-clinic- reveal-worrying-report-doctor-denies/)

<comment><USER35> I find it somewhat amusing that you're trying to discredit a report by one of the premiere institutions of investigative journalism using a blog post on a site ran by a self-admitted Tesla fanboy. That's even setting aside the monetary conflicts of interest created by the fact that Tesla pays Lambert for shilling their cars.

<comment> Tuna-Fish > report by one of the premiere institutions of investigative journalism

We are talking about the same place that claimed that Tesla factory did not have yellow safety tape because "Elon hates the color yellow". The factory did have the yellow-black safety tape around all dangerous machinery, and still does today. This is an organization that publishes literal fake news.

<comment><USER36> There's a huge difference between getting something wrong in an article and "fake news". Could we please at least try to have nuanced discussions around this topic or news in general?

<comment> Tuna-Fish They didn't get a small detail wrong, they published an entire article based on a completely fabricated news story. What would you call that?

<comment><USER36> Well here we go. That's not even remotely true. And even if they did, what you somehow think the did, why didn't Tesla sue for libel? You know that there's a huge legal risk for Reveal, which means that an army of lawyer is waterproofing every single sentence of such reports? Reveal has literally nothing to win by fabricating a report of this magnitude. They're one of the most prestigious investigativ non-profits in the US. So no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This might be true or not but sadly is nothing unheard of, it will be keep like that until a seriously injured worker is sent back to work only to have his condition worsened and a skillful lawyer pulls a chunk of money from mr Musk then suddenly he will start liking yellow stripes and beeping forklifts.

</comment><comment><USER38> > Recommending stretches to treat an injured back

Tesla obviously sucks at everything when it comes to workers. But recommending stretches can make things worse if it's not clear what kind of back problem it is. In any case I think it's all about liability and costs.

<comment><USER39> It seems pretty obvious that they need a physical therapist or a rehab physician (probably both) on staff. Ortho surgeons are great if you need immediate surgical intervention... and that's about it. Leave the rehabilitation to the people who specialize in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is OT, but do editors exist any more? Second sentence in and there is a glaring mistake: "... _including one who severed the top a finger_...". I notice this across the web AND in print publications. I'm an engineer, not a journalist or English major, and I'm constantly picking up typos, grammatical errors (less vs. fewer _really_ grinds my gears), and other mistakes which should never make it to publication. Is it a "first to press" or cost-cutting measure? Or is it that the editor has transitioned from editing the manuscript for mistakes to editing it for the "proper" voice/slant/bias?

<comment><USER41> Who's going to pay for the editor with noone wanting to pay for journalism anymore?

<comment><USER42> Many people want to pay for journalism, e.g. have an Economist subscription.

Not many people want to pay for badly informed opinions dressed up as journalism with cut & paste from other sites and Reuters.

Take the Economist vs. most other publications. An usual Economist article has 20 facts about the issue (e.g. elections in South Sudan) and at the end sometimes an opinion (notwithstanding the general thinking of the Economist). Opinion pieces are easily spotted ("Charlemagne"). Others take 20 facts and write 20 articles and add 10 opinions to each of them to get out more content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> >an investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found

Never heard of it. Strike 1.

<comment><USER44> They've won a Macarthur, an Emmy, and a Peabody for their investigative journalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Investigative_Repor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Investigative_Reporting#Awards_and_recognition)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is pretty clearly a hit piece.

</comment><comment><USER46> All I see is evidence of why NUMMI closed to begin with. Manufacturing cars is hard, maybe manufacturing them in California is impossible?

</comment><comment><USER47> " _CEO Elon Musk's distaste for the color yellow and beeping forklifts eroded factory safety, former safety team members said._ "

Ok.

How different is this from the policies of most auto factories? They are all incentivised to minimize the number of reported injuries.

<comment><USER48> This statement has been proven false many times already. Yellow tapes and beeping forklifts are pretty common in Tesla's factories. \- [https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/UpGmsQSu9rvSUrD1nMw__A--~A...](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/UpGmsQSu9rvSUrD1nMw__A--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en- US/homerun/motleyfool.com/ed8cfa267d41c41df2a684deffbc2077) \- [https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Azdk_dANbjn20fMkF_yYVg--~A...](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Azdk_dANbjn20fMkF_yYVg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en- US/homerun/motleyfool.com/18ba1356e0cc8c627a80bd5656a0a006)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> These are serious allegations and look like terrible injuries. This publication I'd never heard of does have some journalism awards. I looked at their other stories and they seem like a reasonable publication but the stories seem a tinge sensationalistic.

But since osha found tesla was doing a good enough job after months of investigation, it's hard to trust this report. I searched google news for osha penalties and found issues about nail gun injuries, plumbing, a death of a worker at a winery, metal working, foundry, etc. So I don't see them as just letting tesla get a free ride.

Could it be that tesla meets the legal requirements but some injuries aren't well treated? I like tesla generally but I want to see them treat their workers well. I'd like to see a more mainstream media investigation further, like the ny times maybe.

With tesla there was also an incredible negative fud campaign about them, leading to many sensible financial journalists mystified that they didn't go out of business. So I am struggling to be neutral about this story.

<comment><USER50> Reveal is the digital side (and public radio program) of the Center for Investigative Reporting, which has been around for a few decades. Its About page touts its recent awards (including a Peabody and a George Polk Award, plus finalists for the Pulitzers) but CIR is pretty well-known in journalism. Its founder is Lowell Bergman, who is probably most well-known for being played by Al Pacino in "The Insider", a dramatization of his investigation into the tobacco industry.</comment></comment>


The Peculiar Ascent of Bill Murray to Secular Saint - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/fashion/mens-style/the-peculiar-ascent-of-bill-murray-to-secular-saint.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0 <comment><USER2> _The actor has little or nothing to do with these products and seems not to have brought legal action. People are strangely moved to make this stuff and others to purchase it._

Every actor/celebrity (indeed, every person in theory) has a right to control what others do with his name, image, and likeness - this is what the law calls the "right of publicity."

So you can't just paste a photo or drawing of a famous person onto mugs, etc. and sell them for profit.

That is, apparently, unless that person is Bill Murray. He certainly could act to stop this but he hasn't.

I guess this fits with his eccentric-oddball persona. Very odd, legally speaking, but a nice way to relate to the people. Don't know the first thing about the man personally but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to know someone who can be so engagingly goofy.

<comment><USER3> It's a smart business move, regardless of his reasons. If he were to sue, there wouldn't be a Bill Murray trend to write about in the Times.

The analogy to Che Guevara seems right. The image has taken on a life of its own, independent of the man. Che's image in the U.S. seems to represent a blank slate revolutionary.

A counter-analogy is MLK. Why are there so many Che shirts but no MLK shirts? In part because the King family will sue you for any use of his image or words without a subsequent payday. This has prevented MLK from being the omnipresent cultural presence he should be.

<comment><USER4> The MLK thing is amazing to me. We celebrate this person every year as a national event but unlike are presidents his speeches are under enforced copyright so nobody hears his famous thoughts or words. Even on his day people reference the I have a dream speech but nobody hears it or even references portions of it. It's a weird shadow of remembrance.

<comment><USER5> In a pinch, you can use a copyright-free version of the MLK speech. Sample:

        > "I Have An Idea"
        >
        > I'm super happy to join with you today in what
        > will go down as a noteworthy demonstration for
        > freedom in the history of our nation.  One hundred
        > years ago, a great president --his statue is behind
        > me-- signed the Emancipation Proclamation.  Good
        > stuff, that.
        >
        > I have an idea that one day we'll will rise up
        > and live out: "We hold these truths to be
        > self-evident, that all men are created equal."
        >
        > I have an idea today!
        >
        > Free finally!  Free finally!
        > Thank the Maker, we're free finally!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's interesting is how to cast Bill Murray for a movie. He doesn't have an agent, lawyer, personal phone number, or email address. Only a mythical anonymous 1-800 number where you leave a voicemail describing your script and hope he calls back. He's known to check his voicemail only once in a while.. He's also a nomad, so if he's interested, the script is sent through snail mail to his variable current location.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/09/05/casting...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/09/05/casting- bill-murray-st-vincent-toronto-film-festival/15148287/)

<comment><USER7> he usually works with the same people, I bet by now the ones he's interested in working with have his personal email / number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think part of the fame is that he says things like "no one will ever believe you" to people whose events he shows up to, and doesn't self-publicize. People then go on to talk about it, and incredulity is sometimes met with proof in the form of photos of Murray holding a tequila bottle or whatnot. These little bits of truth make all the other legends (true or not) seem true, giving life to the legend.

<comment><USER9> I've loved BM since Meatballs, but I thought this was an interesting point, "lost in the funny retellings is the melancholy reality of an older, divorced dad partying with 20-somethings." It made me wonder how I'd view my own father if he was doing things like this on a regular basis. Probably not too favorably.

<comment><USER10> Maybe let your father live his own life as he wants it and don't judge him?

(Ironically, that's a common advice people give to parents regarding their kids).

Besides do you know what's REAL melancholy for an "older, divorced dad"?

NOT partying at all, and not having people to love/care for them. Second worse, would be only having boring older people conversations and pass-times. If they can be that relevant that even 20th year olds are OK to hang around with them, more power to them.

What would be indeed be lame would be to TRY/WANT to party with younger people, and them rejecting you. Or partying with younger people but not being able to connect with another person out of "party" scenarios. Which I'd guess is not the case here.

<comment><USER11> That sort of reinforces his point. His dad, or most people's dad, would likely be that lame person trying to party with younger people, but failing because they aren't famous.

<comment><USER10> > _but failing because they aren 't famous._

Well, in that case he should still let him live his life.

But besides that, it's not just "fame" that does it. If the person is interesting, that can be enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've always loved Bill Murray's comedy. He's funny in a timeless way.

But my favorite story about him is how he calls Kelly Lynch's husband every time Roadhouse is on TV to tell him that she's having sex with Patrick Swayze. Apparently this has gone on for years.

I love that he'd do that to begin with, but that he'd do it for so long without any expectation that it would become public knowledge is awesome.

<comment><USER13> I'm not so sure his comedy is timeless. There are many, many comedians from earlier eras that one might have thought were timeless, but watching them today, they don't seem funny at all. WC Fields, for example.

<comment><USER14> Bill Murray Singing Jaws @ 12 minutes

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25gLcBgduHk#t=12m](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25gLcBgduHk#t=12m)

This bit was written like 40 years ago.

<comment><USER15> I like lots of things that Bill Murray's done, but that isn't really funny at all. I doubt it would have been funny 40 years ago either.

Humor is subjective, so my opinion really doesn't matter.

I think there are definitely comedic styles/routine/jokes/whatever that might end up being timeless, but there are a lot of things that will become less humorous over time. Half of the sitcoms I grew up watching in the 80's and early 90's don't seem funny at all anymore.

<comment><USER16> Seinfeld and how I Met your mother will be timeless

<comment><USER17> Never managed to get on the HIMYM bandwagon so I can't comment on that until I get around to finally watching it.

As far as Seinfeld, I've noticed that people my age who grew up with the show in school and college consider it timeless but a lot of younger people don't see the big deal. Not so much that it's not funny (it is) or that it's dated (cultural references and cordless home phones are just window dressing), but that so many subsequent shows have been influenced by Seinfeld that it doesn't seem very new or original to a 17-year-old who just saw a few reruns for the first time.

It's sort of like how people will talk about The Beatles being overrated because people still refer to their relevance when they were still putting out albums, not how their work relates to current rock music. When the Beatles got huge it was relevant as much for the time and place as it was the actual music. But if you're a young listener today and you hear the Beatles at the same time as you hear later artists who were influenced by the Beatles, they don't seem like a big deal.

That's the problem with "timelessness" and something like pop culture that's always changing and building upon itself (not to mention how it favors novelty). It seems like there will always be cultural "enthusiasts" in any medium who appreciate the influence a given artist has on the popular culture but just the same, I find that same general "popular" audience loses sight of what made something big. And since the nature of pop culture is to mirror and cater to "the masses", on some level, that's who really determines relevance.

<comment><USER18> I'd agree on the music part. Timeless is something that stays unique, that will never be replicated. The Beatles have been successfully copied and mass- marketed, and are no longer really timeless. "Smells Like Teen Spirit", I would argue, is timeless, in that none of the imitators ever really pinned it down. Kids still hear it and it resonates with them. I would pin Queen as timeless as well, nobody has managed to really get that formula right again, but it still appeals today. Comedy can rarely be 'timeless', because its SO easy to steal a routine or a persona that made a previous comedian beloved, and thus dilute it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, Bill Murray personifies detachment and irony -- and those two things have been almost holy in the last 2 decades.

</comment><comment><USER5> How does this article fail to mention "no one will ever believe you"? That line from his random appearances was the key to his online ascent.

</comment><comment><USER19> I too have a framed print of murray as a solider hung on my wall. I think it's this one:

[https://society6.com/product/bill-murray- replaceface_framed-...](https://society6.com/product/bill-murray- replaceface_framed-print)

I dunno. I just like it. I grew up with his movies and he's simply genius.

</comment><comment><USER20> I had no idea this was a phenomenon, but I definitely plan on getting one of those shirts and coffee cups.

<comment><USER21> Me neither. As I was reading the article I at first assumed the story was a spoof. The St. Murray candle picture is hilarious in its own right. There is something about his exasperated resignation that is akin to the suffering of catholic saints.

As I read more I came to understand that the public, including BM himself, have appropriated his persona and are doing mash-ups with it. Very nice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJU3lzU7OU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJU3lzU7OU)

</comment><comment><USER23> Personality cults involving stuff like T-shirts and ironic prayer candles seem much more usual for musicians -- I wonder why though.

<comment><USER24> In much modern Western popular music, authenticity is a huge component: we expect musicians to write and perform their own music and to have the lyrics be honest and at least somewhat autobiographical.

This makes listeners feel they have a connection to who the musician actually is.

Actors, by the very core of their occupation, don't have that level of immediate authenticity.

<comment><USER20> Even if you aren't that authentic, if you fit a persona well enough, a cult ensues. Witness Samuel L. Jackson as badass, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Whats most interesting about this is that his history of domestic abuse has yet to tarnish his history.

<comment><USER26> It's almost as if allowing people to be flawed in their personal life is at least as reasonable as turning everything celebrity-related into the segment of the jerry springer show where audience members moralize for applause.

<comment><USER25> Oh sure, I agree.

I'm more just curious how hes managed to come out unscathed. A lot of famous people usually take a big hit when accused of domestic violence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is another stupid thing that the popularity of the internet has allowed to happen, on par with the selfie and the hashtag.</comment>


Starling Capture – Generate digital proof for media assets - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/numbersprotocol/starling-capture <comment><AUTHOR> In order to create a traceable record at the beginning of the content lifecycle so that images and videos can be authenticated at source, we created Starling Capture, an app to capture and preserve the Data Integrity.</comment>


Hacker Releases More Democratic Party Documents - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/democratic-party-documents-hack.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Is Wikileaks announcement that the recently murdered DNC staff member was the source of the leaks, not Russian hackers, credible? I don't know, and in anycase I consider the source of the leaks to be much less important than the contents of the leaks.

When we watch a good magician, they entertain us by using misdirection. Unfortunately, when the deep state and the media they control use misdirection it is not fun or entertaining, it is about getting the population to go along with policies against the public's interests, against the interests of peace and prosperity, etc.

<comment><USER3> If you listen to Assange's interview, he says nothing of substance, just insinuates the connection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the interesting part:

>American intelligence officials said they are virtually certain that Russian intelligence officials were behind the attack.

... but there there isn't anything in the article to back it up. Why do these unnamed officials think this?

<comment><USER5> I'm guessing they have intelligence, likely captured via their global surveillance infrastructure, that points to them as the culprits... but they can't publicly admit to that, of course, due to "national security concerns".

We're just supposed to _trust_ them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe now Diane Feinstein will see the value of end to end encryption?

Doubt it. She'll probably advocate that only for herself and her Senate colleagues.

<comment><USER7> Nobody disputes the value of end to end encryption. That's not the issue.

The problem of encryption is that it changes the relationship between government and individual in a way that has never been seen before. If a person is suspected of committing a crime the police have always had the ability to intercept mail, record calls, search property etc and obtain evidence. They can't do that now.

You can argue the pros/cons of this new world order. What you can't argue against is the natural inclination of many people to simply maintain the status quo.

<comment><USER8> They can intercept my encrypted emails just like they've always been able to intercept encrypted hand written letters.

<comment><USER9> This precisely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Muh Russia...

I to my girlfriend- how dare you cheat on me. You are texting Sam since a year.

My gf to me: How dare you breach my trust by looking at my phone? This doesn't count.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, let's talk about foreign intervention, Assange and his vendetta, how some private information was not censored, possible geopolitical implications, or how Trump may be implicated. Did I forget any other diversion tactic? The efficacy of such methods is worrisome; even smart people are unable to look behind these curtains.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut:

"It's hard for me to imagine how just having a bunch of numbers, cellphones and emails would in any way affect the election," he said. "It wasn't totally unexpected."

"Someone could cause a lot of damage if they were able to send emails out from a member's account, but I'm not hearing that that's a risk at this point."

Me: I have yet to see a cryptographically signed e-mail from a politician, and without that, spoofing such a message would be almost trivial. Do they keep their cybersecurity well hidden from the public?

<comment><USER12> Securing a politician's computer is 30% infosec and 99.9% conditioning: deliver a painful shock when the politician tries to open Facebook from the same computer they do their emails, when they download an attachment from an unsigned email, etc...

<comment><USER13> Or we could just replace out politicians with urandom

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another incremental release to keep it in the news cycle.

Do they have _anything_ career ending or prosecutable, or do "the Russians" just enjoy watching Hillary dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge?

</comment><comment><USER15> I was surprised to see how WikiLeaks is not mentioned until late, as a passing mention in the context for the leaks. I'm not sure what having leakers _not_ going through WikiLeaks means: do we have to trust them on leaking everything? Is Assange personality getting in the way of the leaks? Are people who think they are savvy enough to hide their trace trying to go direct? Why would they take that risk?

</comment><comment><USER16> So it looks like Trump might have solid ties with Russia, and through some connections might be triggering all the Russian hacking of _only_ the democratic party. Doesn't bode well for American democracy when Russian dictator can sneak in a candidate for president.

\- Trump's manager, Paul Manafort, has done multimillion-dollar business deals with pro-Russian oligarchs and was a longtime adviser to the Russia-aligned Ukrainian president whose 2014 ouster triggered Russia's intervention in Ukraine, a major source of tension between Russia and the United States as well as its NATO allies.

\- On the campaign trail, Trump has called for a new partnership with Moscow, overhauling NATO, the allied military force seen as the chief protector of pro-Western nations near Russia

\- Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps- financ...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial- ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir- putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html)

<comment><USER7> I doubt that Trump or his campaign would be actively lobbying the Russian government.

There is plenty of motivation elsewhere to do so. Russia would be a major loser given that Hillary would far more decisive and bold with her foreign policy decisions. Assange benefits because a Trump government would be more amenable to immunity negotiations. And Wikileaks benefits from all the publicity.

<comment><USER16> Trump publically called on Russia to hack on Hillary

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald- trump-r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia- clinton-emails.html)

<comment><USER17> I'm going to be honest here, I'm non-partisan and I agree with some of his comments here and so does this lawyer who specializes[0] in cases like this. If I had that data in my possession it would already be on wikileaks, the American people deserve to know what their leaders say when they don't think they are listening.

Edit: People will down vote but not reply because they don't have a leg to stand on. It's not like Hillary is a privacy hawk[1], turnabout is fair play where I'm from.

[0][https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer- speciali...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-specializing- in-security-clearance-cases-hillary-clinton-got-off- easy/2016/07/07/38b10f3c-4480-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?utm_term=.7cdc66cf5ee5)

[1][http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary- clinton-w...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton- wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why does the actual source:

[https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hack...](https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hacked- dccc/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977)

get flag-killed immediately where as this somewhat colored article gets on the frontpage?

<comment><USER19> ... was wondering too. The screenshots in the NYT article look like "teaser- advertisements", while the actual sources are a big taboo.

Keep in mind that Guccifer2 isn't a lone hacker as initially portrayed. Guccifer2 is a cover for APT-28/APT-29 (GRU). So if anything then this leak has to be considered for what it was: A foreign nation meddling in the elections of another. Current Russian meddling fits seamlessly into Russia's bigger doctrine on Cyber Defense Strategies [0][1][2][3][4]

[0] [https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion- democ...](https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic- national-committee/)

[1] [https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers- Cy...](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-Cyber-War-In- Perspective-Analysis-From-The-Crisis-In-Ukraine-wp.pdf)

[2] [https://blog.valbonne- consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess...](https://blog.valbonne- consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess-cyber-security-role-and-ethical- challenges/)

[3] [http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-...](http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-2014.ashx)

[4] [http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation- pap...](http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-papers/cross- domain-coercion-current-russian-art-strategy)

PS: there is now also guccifer 3.0 :-) and I'm hitting reload like crazy [https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/](https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/)

EDIT: anyone interested in this subject also look for 'Gerasimov Doctrine' for a thrilling read.

<comment><USER20> Do you really think that the Russians would interfere so blatantly ? They're not stupid, these hacks deserve them.

The only one that has to gain from this hacks is Hillary : she looks like the poor victim of the evil Russians and their agent Trump.

<comment><USER21> Are you suggesting that Hillary realesed the emails to get an anti-Russian sympathy vote?

<comment><USER17> If I was a member of her campaign I would have released the documents. The democratic process and corruption matter no matter how much you dislike the other guy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This should read: "A hacker votes for Donald Trump"

</comment><comment><USER23> I posted the leak on here yesterday and yeah, it was flagged immediately. Hate to have to say it but when it comes to information critical of a certain candidate this place is an echo chamber, looks like 13 people have now submitted the site and it is no longer flagged. Still concerning about the overall censorship in regards to a topic this site should find interesting no matter your political views [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977)

<comment><USER10> It's okay to discuss absolutely anything but not politics. But if you are discussing politics, you better discuss pro queen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I already commented but Ill say it again- Trump is a wild card who will likely do little for the country but little to the country and the world. Hillay will do a bit more for the country but much worse _to_ it. See my past comments for proof about literal oligarchy. She is already attacking the very backbone of internet- free speech by spending 6m per quarter hiring trolls

<comment><USER24> Not saying I agree or disagree, but this really isn't the place for that type of discussion.</comment></comment>


Ask PG: Can't flag or downvote anymore - <AUTHOR>

Just realized I am unable to downvote a comment or flag a post anymore. Is there a change in threshold/policy for that? <comment><USER2> I'm not PG but I remember reading that it was a sliding scale based on the average karma... so if your karma grows slower than the total karma, you might have lost the ability.

I can't find the interesting link with the analysis I read it from (it was from around the time PG removed the points), but there's some confirmation here:

[http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#cantdownvot...](http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#cantdownvote)

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the thresholds are constantly creeping upward. I don't know what they are now, but I'm pretty sure they're somewhere above 600.</comment></comment>