An Appalachian gunsmith's robot army (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/shoot <comment><USER3> "On an LCD display behind Baber, I could see an image of my leg, transmitted by a camera under the robot's gun barrel. The gun then pointed at my stomach. He assured me that it was not loaded."

Pointing a firearm an anyone, even unloaded, even (especially?) robot controlled, is a terrible idea. This bothers me to no end, and it's so strange that someone who works with very powerful weapons can act like this. Perhaps he feels that he's smart enough that no mistakes will happen? Perhaps he has confidence in the robot not to fire any rounds? He's a brilliant man, very good at what he does; certainly he's spent lots of time with these things, and understands them more than I ever will.

That said: mistakes happen, don't point guns at people you don't want holes in.

<comment><USER4> This guy obviously knows the dictum "never point a firearm at anything unless you intend to destroy it."

Apparently writers from the New Yorker fall within that set for him.

<comment><USER5> Or maybe he just likes screwing with their heads, and as a fellow Southron well familiar with the oft-condescending ways of Yankees, I don't suppose I can blame him too strongly for that.

<comment><USER4> Ah, right, I always forget about the "except for people you kinda don't like" clause in the rules of firearms safety.

<comment><USER6> Sadly, that's basically the perspective of the guy in the article:

       "I don't want that on my conscience—something I
       created going out and killing people all over the damn
       place," he said. "I'm not worried about what it does
       over in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's fine."

It was starting to sound like a lot of fun, but that quote sort of brought me back to reality. (Who knows if it's an accurate quote, of course.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military. He donated one to his local county sheriff, but turned everyone else away. "I don't want that on my conscience—something I created going out and killing people all over the damn place," he said. "I'm not worried about what it does over in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's fine."_

This doesn't sound as though he has really thought this through. Either that or he has a rather nasty definition of "people".

<comment><USER5> The reading you've given that quote is rather uncharitable, if perhaps heavily implied by the article's author. It's pretty obvious that Baber means he doesn't want his weapon falling into the hands of criminals, but he has no problem selling it to the military, to be put to whatever use they might find for it.

Granted, the question remains of whether US foreign policy, inasmuch as it deploys our military, is morally or ethically acceptable to you, but that's a point on which reasonable people can differ, and Baber's opinion on that point appears to differ from yours. If, from that difference, you choose to infer that Baber doesn't consider Afghans or Iraqis "people", that is of course entirely your prerogative.

<comment><USER7> I gave two different ways to read it, you chose which one you thought I favoured.

That said, he stated he didn't want to sell it to police departments, not the public, who couldn't legally buy it anyway, so I don't see how you think it is obvious that he means criminals when it says police.

 _" Police departments asked for AA-12s, but Baber decided that the gun was too powerful to sell outside the military."_

<comment><USER5> I submitted a third reading which strikes me as both more charitable, and almost certainly more accurate, than either of yours were.

Nor did he state what you claim he did; it's the article author, not Baber as quoted, who equates civilian police and the military -- if Baber didn't want it in the hands of civilian police, why'd he donate one to the county sheriff?

<comment><USER8> I imagine his motives for giving a virtually unique gun worth $10K to the local sheriff are pretty straightforward. Keeping the local officialdom on his side... probably not sinister just good politics

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > propels the shell out of a gun barrel

What?

> his own weapon: a fully automatic shotgun called the AA-12.

"Auto Assault-12 (AA-12), originally designed and known as the Atchisson Assault Shotgun, is a shotgun developed in 1972 by Maxwell Atchisson." [0]

What?

Can someone please explain to me what's going on here? Is this just my own ignorance or are these factual errors?

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun)

<comment><USER10> "In 1987, Max Atchisson sold the rights of the AA-12 to Jerry Baber of Military Police Systems, Inc., Piney Flats, Tennessee.[3] MPS in turn developed the successor simply known as Auto Assault-12, which was redesigned over a period of 18 years with 188 changes and improvements to the original blueprint, modifications included changing the AA-12 from blowback- to gas- operated with a locked breech." [0]

Looks like there was a bit of exaggeration going on, but not anything terribly out of line.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun)

<comment><USER11> I imagine the recoil would have been ungovernable in the original blowback configuration and the reciprocating mass would have been relatively huge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Armed robots, he believes, could offer crucial assistance in the wars in > Iraq and Afghanistan; they could be employed on a street monitored by > snipers or sent into a building harboring insurgents.

And you hope they don't capture the robot because they then have

> the most deadly close-range weapon ever created.

</comment><comment><USER13> This kind of thing bothers me. I think it makes it easier for the US, or any other government for that matter, to drop a few dozen of these into any kind of local conflict without any debate in Congress or among the public. They are cheap and expendable, no television of troops mobilizing, no flag draped coffins flying home. The operators sit in Lazy Boys at their home bases while the eastern Ukraine (pick your battlefield) is overrun with these things.

</comment><comment><USER14> When the army and police forces get robotic weapons, I can only imagine criminals won't be far behind.

</comment><comment><USER15> See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about.

Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea?

The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible.

Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.

<comment><USER16> > Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and > dissidents--not standing armies.

Which is why I (German) really hate our weapons law. War will come back to Europe, we are on the fringe of a fucking Cold War turning into a Hot War with the Russians in Ukraine. Not to mention the rising inequality in Europe - <USER2> it blows up one day, it will hit hard.

I'd like to be equipped and trained properly instead of being restricted to gas revolvers, stones and arrows. Or knives, which are useless as I'm a terrible close-range fighter.

<comment><USER17> I don't really understand how buying your own gun/rifle/whatever would be of any help in surviving a war. The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers. And while talking about inequality, I am quite uncertain about how a gun/rifle would help you. You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike? I am quite skeptical that a proliferation of this kind of thing would help you much with your "problems".

<comment><USER18> > _" The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were > fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty > deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers."_

In those wars, was it both parties using airplanes, bombs, and tanks? Or was it one side using those things, and the other side holding out without them for over a decade? The opposing tanks in Iraq were shredded in hours, it was the guys with rifles and improvised weapons that held out.

In Berlin there is a Soviet war memorial that is known by some locals as _" The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist"_. You can imagine why. When you are in a warzone, you cannot depend on anyone but yourself to keep you safe from the soldiers of the conquering army. Having a gun will not put you on equal footing with them, but at least it will give you the _opportunity_ to attempt to defend yourself.

> _" You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing > your bike?"_

Where the hell did those suppositions come from?

<comment><USER16> > > "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing > your bike?" > Where the hell did those suppositions come from?

Actually, he is not far from what I'd do. I'd just keep the bastard at gunpoint until the cops come. Not the first time I had to resort to this with my gas revolver.

Lesson learned (for the two fools): never go to a shooting with a knife (the fact that one had a knife actually yielded him a bigger sentence for the attempted theft; it's called "Diebstahl mit einer Waffe").

<comment><USER18> With a thief that might be reasonable, but I think that'd be a bit overboard with somebody that was just going through your trash. I definitely wouldn't confront a thief with no gun though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> FWIW, I posted this story today because of the New Yorker's announcement of their redesign and temporary disabling of their paywall. I remembering reading the abstract of this article in 2009, and then became a subscriber because I wanted to read the full version...I'm not passionately against or for paywalls, but the New Yorker is probably the only single publication that could pull me like that.

That said, I did a cursory search for the gunmaker...didn't see any big update, I saw a mention that it's in rotation with the Marines...but no contemporary mention of what sounded like an impending revolution of shotgun- wielding-robots.

<comment><USER19> Excellent. More, please!

We added the date.

Edit: Perhaps I should clarify. By "more, please" I mean we want substantive articles on unexpected subjects, archival and historical material welcome. Not necessarily more on this topic.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How To Secure My Open Source Repo - <AUTHOR>

I'm getting ready to make public a few of my private repos.  I have various things from scripts to libraries to routers and website clones.
I'm just wondering what security concerns I need to cover before making these repos public?
-I never directly enter my Amazon AWS credentials -I've removed Heroku credentials of all kinds -I've removed most of my site-specific syntax just in case.. -Removed database credentials
Any other "gotchas" that I should worry about?
Do you have any experiences with people doing malicious things to your open source projects? <comment><USER2> You removed heroku credentials, but, are they still in the git history?

<comment><USER3> Definitely check this. You might find [https://help.github.com/articles/remove-sensitive- data](https://help.github.com/articles/remove-sensitive-data) helpful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Was just looking for this, thanks!

<comment><USER4> Check for database credentials too - you said you removed them, but they're probably still in the history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suggest that you copy the files (after they have been cleaned) over and create a fresh new and empty git repository, then publish that instead. Don't publish the original git repository that contains the history.</comment>


Iceland Tried to Crowdsource a New Constitution. It Didn't Work - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/07/five_lessons_from_iceland_s_failed_crowdsourced_constitution_experiment.html

<comment><USER2> Wrong title. As a work in progress, it was an great success.

</comment><comment><USER3> I prefer the original title.</comment>


Explaining the hacking term titles of Mr. Robot - <AUTHOR> http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/culture/television/216489-mr-robot-episodes-titles-explained

<comment><USER2> a daemon is not a malicious computer program</comment>


Administrators Ate My Tuition - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php

<comment><AUTHOR> While trying to get exact data points I found University of Nebraska publishes their entire personal roaster along with their salaries!

[http://nebraska.edu/docs/budget/personnel- roster-2014-15.pdf](http://nebraska.edu/docs/budget/personnel- roster-2014-15.pdf)

But then there is another view that believes huge tution fees are just for the show: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot/how-the- government-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot/how-the-government- exaggerates-the-cost-of-college.html)</comment>


Ask HN: What is your policy on IE6 development? - <AUTHOR> With the release of IE9 it's becoming clear that without a solid up-front discussion with clients about browser compatibility, they may expect their website to work in four versions of Internet Explorer.  For some sites this is fairly easy, and a couple of star hacks in the CSS will make it usable in IE6, but for clients who want the latest and greatest, sometimes IE6 compatibility isn't really realistic, or else just very tedious and time consuming.
It seems to me there are a few of ways to deal with this problem, but I'm not totally happy with any approach.
1) List IE6 development as a separate line item, with a cost beside it that the client can opt to go for or not.  The problem with this is they could take that estimate to another company who might say "well our websites work in EVERY browser, no extra charge", whether or not that's actually true.
2) Tell clients up front that if they want a website that uses cutting-edge front end technologies, they'll have to live without IE6 support.  Offer to install an upgrade banner/alert for no extra charge.  A lot of clients don't understand that IE6 is turning 9 next year, or they don't understand that using a 9 year old browser is like driving a 25 year old car.
3) Continue along the same path of just making sure everything works in IE6, even though it slows down development, adds to costs, limits the design and programming departments, and contributes to developer alcoholism and severe workplace swearing.
This problem has to be cropping up at every design/development studio that builds websites using the newest technologies.  How do the rest of you deal with it? <comment><USER2> I think that you have to look at the client's visitor profile before you make this decision. If a client's site sees 10%+ IE 6 visitors (and many of mine do), you can't simply say we're not going to support this technology.

Often I tell them that we will review the site in IE 6 and make sure that it's "functional" but we don't guarantee it will be pixel perfect unless they pay for the extra work.

Also I don't like the IE banner / alert option. Maybe you want to try to proselytize the death of IE6, but I don't think it's appropriate to force your paying clients to do the same.

<comment><USER3> I think you are spot on. But maybe you should not look at the visitor profile but at the revenue profile. Maybe the typical IE6 user has a higher probability of clicking on your client's advertising.

After all, if your gain from supporting IE6 is higher than the cost of supporting it, it makes no sense to abandon IE6.

<comment><USER4> _After all, if your gain from supporting IE6 is higher than the cost of supporting it, it makes no sense to abandon IE6._

Although is you abandon full support in IE6 and users want to stay and so use another browser then you've kept their continued custom and saved your extra dev costs. That is, it's not a given that removing full support will impact your profit.

Also, the improved design that could be purchased with the extra dev costs could net you more customers using a browser made less than 8 years ago or indeed convert more of the same.

People can have a non-profit motive too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I simply don't cater for IE6 anymore. Not for contract work or my own sites (IE6 use for my sites hovers around 3% and it wasn't until it hit 10% where I decided to not care for the browser). Hell, even my corporate dayjob is deprecating IE6 development (we're in the health insurance industry).

If I'm doing contract work I usually spit it out early that I won't be catering for IE6. It is up to them to figure out whether the lack of an IE6-friendly frontend would harm them or not (I deal mostly with the same clients I've had for years, so they trust their metrics and me by now).

It hasn't happened yet, but if a client demanded I had to cater a project for IE6, I won't be afraid of firing them.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, #1 and #2 aren't mutually exclusive.

In our experience, IE6 users are simply unwilling -- or more to the point, unable -- to upgrade. The people who come to mind are parents whose kids have moved away, office workers, unfortunate souls in school systems or other non- profits that don't have a decent IT budget, etc.

My shop leans towards #1 and will include IE6 "compatibility" separately. This works well for our clients since IE6 is rarely being used by the people that our clients' sites are built for.

Unless we're explicitly asked not to, we use a banner-style alert as a general practice in order to encourage upgrades. We use IE6Update:

      http://ie6update.com/

On a side note, Microsoft's "Browser for the Better" campaign was actually pretty helpful because we could say that upgrading to IE8 was feeding hungry families:

      http://browserforthebetter.com/

</comment><comment><USER7> The solution is very simple. Pricing.

Give your client two prices: one with IE6 support, the other without. Give honest prices based on the genuine overhead of working with IE 6.

If the client is willing to pay for IE6 support, fine, do the work you are being paid for. Let the cash decide the future of IE6

...but this is another example of developers making decisions that they should be making. For example, a software developer that decides to build a system with full database independance (hibernate for example) COULD be doing the right thing, but could simply be driving up project costs for requirements that never existed.

Developers - DONT make these decisions, price the options and ask the client.

<comment><USER8> The problem with this approach is that it opens up a good angle for your competitors to attack you on compatibility grounds. They can tell your client that they don't charge anything extra for IE6 compatibility, leaving you explaining that either they are charging them but that it's a hidden cost, or that their sites are so crappy and outdated that they work fine in IE6 from the get-go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Guestlist (<http://www.guestlistapp.com>) does not support IE6 even in the slightest (except for the public page where you buy tickets, that works in IE6). We support IE7 and higher, and that will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future.

As for contract work, I do whatever the client asks. I do let them know that IE6 support will probably cost them an additional 20% in my time, and it will not be identical to modern browsers. It will work and that is about it. If they want to spend the money it is up to them. They do know their customer base better than I do.

<comment><USER10> Only 20%?

Wow we charge more like 75-125% more for that browser

<comment><USER9> This would be HTML + CSS only. I don't do Javascript and if I did, then yes, it would be a lot more.

<comment><USER10> Ahh, jQuery helps, but still, IE6 burns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Let your competitors eat the cost of IE6 dev then

Always charge as LEAST as much as is required to make you either not care or actively want the client to buy a feature

So if IE6 makes the site 2x as difficult, charge them for the site using modern browsers, and line item (basic IE6 testing for at least limited functionality) at whatever price makes you not care.

Charge for them to maintain an outdated site, charge a lot. Then you won't care if they want IE6 support or not

</comment><comment><USER11> We're a product company, so it's a slightly different stance. However, we made a conscious decision early on not to support IE6 for the following reasons:

1\. Our app is very interactive, and we didn't want to have to deal with incompatibilities.

2\. Our target market is (primarily) software developers working for small companies. The only people that use IE6 are people who don't know any better or who are forced to do so, and there are few of those in our target market.

We know that we're probably losing some sales due to our lack of IE6 support, but for the reasons stated above, we're going on the assumption that the additional sales wouldn't offset the cost of development and testing.

I think for a consulting company, it depends on the project. If you're writing something for general consumption or enterprisey software shops, it's much more important (unfortunately) to support IE6.

</comment><comment><USER12> For me it just depends upon the type of site I'm working on.

In these competitive times you need to support as close to 100% of the sites user base as possible. If the site drops 10-12% to a rival because it lacks ie6 support thats not going to go down well at all.

I do like the car analogy, but if you have a 25 year old car & you can't get a newer one, it's rather harsh. You can get away with it as long as the percentage is low enough.

On backends (cms/admin areas etc) then this is were you can specify what browser can be used and ignore ie6 as long as you can explain why.

For my work projects ie6 is a must as it still registers around 10% of visitors. Personal projects tend to be more techy with virtually 0% ie6, so no need to support it.

I look forward to when I can ignore ie6 completely!

</comment><comment><USER13> I think I'm in the minority, but I will fully support IE6 until it's less than about 5% of traffic to a website I'm working on. Once you know IE6's quirks, it's not that hard to work around them. I think the benefit of an additional 10% or 15% or web traffic outweighs a few extra hours of development. Again, it sounds like most people disagree, but I developed a somewhat complex ajax app back when there was only Firefox 2 and IE6 and it wasn't that bad. I'm not in charge of a big design studio, but that's my policy for side projects and part-time clients that I work for. They shouldn't have to care about IE6. It should just work for them.

</comment><comment><USER14> For my in-the-works site, I'm going with displaying a notification to IE6 users notifying them that the site may not work as intended on their browser and asking them to upgrade to Firefox/Chrome/Safari/IE8.

</comment><comment><USER15> We're down to 37% IE these days. Only 8% are IE6, for a total of under 5% IE6 usage.

I don't really know what the difference is between our site and the sites that say they have 65% IE still... it's not at all oriented towards techy type people. We have 45% FF and 15% Safari.

It's a significant enough number of people to test new features with IE6, but not enough to go wild trying to make it perfect. If I was developing sites for clients, I'd go for option #1.

</comment><comment><USER16> NN 4.x stayed around forever BECAUSE we supported it, and IE6 will do the same. We have met the enemy, and they are us.

</comment><comment><USER17> Maybe another way of looking at the problem: I think a bigger challenge would be supporting mobile devices.

Whatever your site does, you might need to also do it in a stripped down no- frills way that will render well on a tiny screen.

If you can manage that, IE6 support should be no problem. Worst case, push IE6 users to your mobile site. :)

</comment><comment><USER18> If your website will have a tilt to "Enterprise Customers" (worker bees in Fortune 500s) in any way then you must support IE 6. You have no option.

Otherwise forget it for now. "Early adopters" are on the cutting edge (browser wise) anyway. You can always accommodate IE 6 bugs later on if the site "makes it".

</comment><comment><USER19> The most professional option, in my opinion, is to make sure your designs are at least basically functional in IE6, but put making IE6 a design priority as a separate line item with it's own cost. Doing extra work deserves extra billing, and you owe it to your clients to give them a choice.

</comment><comment><USER20> I will create a site that is designed for newer browsers. I am not going to forbid IE6 usage like I have seen other sites do. "Your browser is not welcome here, please upgrade." Instead, if IE6 works, it works. If not, I am not going to worry about it.

</comment><comment><USER21> I agree that without a very frank up-front discussion about IE6 limitations, you'll find yourself redoing PNGs as GIFs and writing some conditional CSS hacks the night of launch when the client's sister boots up her Compaq to check out the cool new site.

</comment><comment><USER22> I operate an English language learning site, and we have one demographic that has a staggering amount of IE6 usage: 66% of our Chinese user base is using IE6. Needless to say, we continue to support IE6.

</comment><comment><USER23> I generally just make sure that the website is functional in IE6. If an element is bumped/ aligned or distorted in some way (and is still usable) it doesn't get fixed.

</comment><comment><USER24> I am deprecating it quite aggressively now.

</comment><comment><USER25> every advertiser i've worked with requires IE6 compatibility. so, theres that to keep in mind.

</comment><comment><USER26> Not supported.

</comment><comment><USER27> My policy for IE6 is: don't.

</comment><comment><USER28> DO NOT WANT!</comment>


An explosion in Tianjin, China [video] - <AUTHOR> http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:f2df4e43a94dc5caa90960ecf2b89c44 <comment><USER2> Watching the videos on the CCTV America link reminded me of some basic (but apparently necessary) safety advice. If you're ever in a situation like this, don't stand by a window filming it! You only have seconds until the blast breaks yours windows (depending on your distance from the epicenter and the explosion strength). From what I understand, the biggest immediate danger is lacerations from flying glass.

Get away from the windows and duck behind something solid.

<comment><USER3> The shockwave took about seven seconds to arrive, so they were about 1.5 miles away from the blast. It's not intuitive that the explosion can harm you at a distance like that -- as evidenced in more than one amateur video that came out of Iraq of EOD work.

<comment><USER2> I agree, which is why it's especially necessary advice. Your gut instinct upon seeing that blindingly bright flash should be to duck and cover, whether you're outdoors or indoors.

I wish this didn't have to be so important, since it feels like a Cold War relic, but that's just how things seem to be these days.

<comment><USER4> During the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor kaboom, one 4th grade teacher remembered her Russian "Duck and Cover" lessons and her 44 charges avoided injury: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/world/europe/russians- seek...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/world/europe/russians-seek-clues- and-count-blessings-after-meteor-blast.html?_r=1&)

By no means a "Cold War relic".

<comment><USER5> "Duck and cover" is a popular target for ridicule, which is weird because it's always been excellent advice, even for global thermonuclear war. The fact that it's good for more conventional explosions lends further emphasis to that fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know it can be pointless to compare circumstances. You can always find someone worse in your situation.

I just read the (currently highest ranked) article about the failed Woolfe game, and reflected on how bad it must suck to put your heart, soul, and life into something only for it to fail. This sucks.

But, then I came across this post, and it again makes me reevaluate what truly does, suck. Failing sucks, it really does, and it might feel like death, but ultimately, it's not, and real, physical tragedies always remind us that there are truly reasons to keep living each day with passion, even with the eyes of failure glaring at us.

I hope everyone is ok.

<comment><USER7> I really appreciated this comment. It puts (personal/startup) tragedies in perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have no information beyond what's in the links here, and general safety- consciousness. From the cctv-america.com link:

> People standing outside of their buildings. Some have reported chemical gas > leaks.

To anyone who lives in the area, I would suggest putting as many miles between yourself and the site of the explosion as you can, and also trying to stay upwind. Breathe through a particulate filter if you have one, and until there's more information, assume that any unidentified chemical smell is very bad for you. If you aren't actively moving and aren't an emergency responder, you definitely shouldn't be standing outside; stay indoors with windows shut, preferably in an upper floor. If you can, avoid the local tap water for a few days.

</comment><comment><USER9> [http://us.sinaimg.cn/000wGOwWjx06UAlFMAzd01040100tS4x0k01.mp...](http://us.sinaimg.cn/000wGOwWjx06UAlFMAzd01040100tS4x0k01.mp4)

ISO Media, MP4 Base Media v1 [IS0 14496-12:2003]

<comment><USER10> I came here to mention the URL too.

I have a downloaded copy as well if anyone needs it.

The file sha256 is b74a269131bd54a4b1ada41e28e3e14ace80e770693fa3c328b26073ea9a6e06. (I would never have thought to mention the video type, kudos.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Close footage with replay [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbPTKlHrX3w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbPTKlHrX3w)

<comment><USER12> Seeing as the footage made its way onto youtube I'm going to assume the videographer is ok. Fingers crossed.

<comment><USER13> What I've heard, no. That video was (probably) from a live stream.

<comment><USER14> Which is also probably why the video stops before the debris reaches the operator. The footage being buffered was lost when the shock wave hit. That was a massive explosion and tonight we'll see the true extent of the damage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> More info: [http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/08/12/explosion-reported- in...](http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/08/12/explosion-reported-in-tianjin- china)

</comment><comment><USER16> This is why you stay away from doors and windows during a possible explosion:

[https://twitter.com/OrRavid/status/631538952747380736](https://twitter.com/OrRavid/status/631538952747380736)

<comment><USER17> How do you know when an explosion is possible?

<comment><USER5> I don't know that it really applies to this video, but there are other videos out there of people recording video while looking at the window at the explosion, where they're far enough away to have a few seconds' warning before the shock wave hits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18>
      Chinese city of Tianjin reported an explosion at
      the dock at the Tianjin Binhai New Development
      Zone around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday local time.

Man, what the hell was on that boat? Seems like maybe it a B.L.E.V.E. (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion).

<comment><USER19> My dad was the first mate on deep-sea freighters operating between Oakland and SE Asia. Once they transported munitions from the Concord Naval Weapons Station, located at the mouth of the Sacremento River, to a US ally in Asia. Their route through San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Strait all the way out to blue waters was cleared of all ships an hour prior to their departure. Transporting munitions is a very dangerous activity.

<comment><USER20> Did they clear the Golden Gate Bridge?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Suggestion for title in case English is not the submitter's first language: "A terrible explosion just _happened_ in Tainjin, China."

EDIT: Oh gee, I am so sorry I non-forcefully suggested a grammar fix in the title so that people would not harp on it. The proper response for my constructive criticism is more downvoting.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, I also think correctly conjugating the verb is what really matters. :-|

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Here's a few details: [http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/08/12/explosion- reported-in...](http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/08/12/explosion-reported-in- tianjin-china)

</comment><comment><USER22> A photo of an apartment close to the explosion:

[https://twitter.com/thelastnext/status/631514796450430976](https://twitter.com/thelastnext/status/631514796450430976)

<comment><USER24> And the click-bait media vultures are already hacking into it, despicable. [http://i.imgur.com/MROUpJ6.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/MROUpJ6.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Does this in any way compare to the halifax explosion? Maybe a new record for accidental explosions?

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

<comment><USER26> I certainly hope not. There were 2000 fatalities in Halifax.

<comment><USER27> The Halifax Explosion was during working hours and near one of the most populated parts of Halifax which contributed to the large number of deaths.

The Mont Blanc carried 3121 tons of picric acid, 200 tons of trinitrotoluene, 35 tons of benzol and 10 tons of gun cotton.

12 ophthalmologists treated 592 people with eye injuries and performed 249 enucleations.

British Journal of Ophthalmology had a journal article about the medical treatments that were needed at the Halifax Explosion:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955605/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955605/)

<comment><USER25> I wonder if the different types of glass we use today would reduce that number.

My new word for the day is "enucleation". For the love dogs do not look that one up on youtube.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It is a bad idea to stay near glass windows during an explosion. Don't do it kids.

</comment><comment><USER29> This reminds me very much of watching FOB Falcon burn for six hours one night in Iraq. Lucky mortar strike hit the ammo dump. It was like this video all night.

</comment><comment><USER30> Well apparently it was captured by an IR weather sat...

[https://twitter.com/RussellDengel/status/631523783874998272/...](https://twitter.com/RussellDengel/status/631523783874998272/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

[http://realearth.ssec.wisc.edu/?products=HIMAWARI-B07.72&cen...](http://realearth.ssec.wisc.edu/?products=HIMAWARI-B07.72&center=39.02396086622223,-242.2094096210937&zoom=9&width=973&height=652&timerange=2015-08-12%2016:40:00,2015-08-12%2016:40:00&timestep=900s)

</comment><comment><USER31> via reddit: It was picked up on the Japanese Himawari 8 weather satellite

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgS3C7PblA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgS3C7PblA)

</comment><comment><USER32> More pic/videos from live search from weibo.com : [http://weibo.com/p/1008087bef7c8c2cd3e28667d7cbf6ed9a7c4b](http://weibo.com/p/1008087bef7c8c2cd3e28667d7cbf6ed9a7c4b)

[http://s.weibo.com/weibo/%20%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E5%A1%98%E6%B...](http://s.weibo.com/weibo/%20%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E5%A1%98%E6%B2%BD%E5%A4%A7%E7%88%86%E7%82%B8)

People injured and hospitals around are full of patients...

<comment><USER10> The first link currently redirects to a login page, FYI. The second one is okay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Someone else said there's a LPG terminal in the area. Just a guess but it looks like:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor_explosion) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI0qU4EZbS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI0qU4EZbS8)

</comment><comment><USER34> Looks like there was an initial fire followed by a much larger explosion. My guess is that there was an accident at a major power/refinery plant.

</comment><comment><USER35> Seems like a powerful blast . Is thee any oil refinery or power plant nearby ?

</comment><comment><USER36> The explosion video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89GrcvbMEo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89GrcvbMEo)

Hope everything will be ok.

</comment><comment><USER37> YouTube video: [https://youtu.be/zEberOX33_Y](https://youtu.be/zEberOX33_Y)

</comment><comment><USER31> Jesus, that is massive. I hope people are safe.

</comment><comment><USER38> Probably a chemical warehouse?

<comment><USER39> a chinese news says it was a gas station...

<comment><USER9> I saw video of one go up in Brazil, gas stations don't go kaboom to that extent at all. That is early reporting that is full of errors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Begun, the Currency War has.

</comment><comment><USER41> That's some Michael Bay shit right there. Transformers 8 shooting nearby?</comment>


German patients get drugs for just $11. Can such a model work in the U.S.? - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-lower-drug-prices-germany-20190619-story.html <comment> chupa-chups German patients pay around 700€/month (depending on income), every month, even if they are not patients. You can get down to 300-400€/month using private insurance companies.</comment>


What makes a system hard to work with? - <AUTHOR> http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller/archive/2009/03/12/what-makes-a-system-hard-to-work-with.aspx

<comment><USER2> I wanted to read this, but my eyes kept darting over to the various wobbling, gyrating, moving ads on the right. Finally it just wasn't worth it.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a native video chat tool that doesn't use the browser/WebRTC? - <AUTHOR> I often have to present online lectures with screen sharing. My Laptop slows down to a crawl, with CPU usage at full blast. <comment><USER2> Hello, You can use hhtps://antmedia.io. Their features would be good for you.

</comment><comment><USER2> Hello, You can use [https://antmedia.io](https://antmedia.io). Their features would be good for you.</comment>


Ask HN: Co-founder dating site traffic looking for a good home. Suggestions? - <AUTHOR>

I built startuplinkup.com over a few days as an exercise on Semantic Mediawiki. It became a bit more than just an exercise, but it also became obvious that is not the best model to solve the co-founder dating problem. So I am looking for a good co-founder dating site to redirect my traffic.
What site would you suggest? What are your experiences, if any, with "co-founder dating" sites? Here are a few that I also contacted directly, and received some warm responses: http://www.techcofounder.com/ http://fairsoftware.net/home http://www.partnerup.com/ http://startupsquare.com/ http://cofoundr.com/ http://www.cofoundergoogledocs.com/ http://amb.itio.us/
After a spike in January, startuplinkup.com traffic settled at around 1000 unique visitors per month and an Alexa ranking of 360,000 - whatever that means. Interestingly enough, USA and India were the top , everything else was a distant second.
No reasonable offer refused. And anything between a million bucks and "I'll buy you a beer" is reasonable. But more than maximizing the number of beers I receive, I am interested in giving it away to the site that is likely to emerge as the leader, and ideally begin the process of consolidating this "business". It's not large market, and too much segmentation is detrimental to innovation. A single, good place to find your co-founder would be great.
Adrian <comment><USER2> Hey Adrian: I started and run Founderdating.com - a little bit of a different model but we've been very effective. Email me and let's chat email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER3> how did you initially find some traffic , or get users to use your site ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I started with the data from the initial version of the <http://www.cofoundergoogledocs.com/>

Inital traffic was from HN users, I guess. see my the initial post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1058824></comment></comment>


PulseAudio Under the Hood (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://gavv.github.io/articles/pulseaudio-under-the-hood/ <comment><USER2> Is there a GUI tool that lets you really get at the guts of PulseAudio configuration? This has come up fairly recently for me as I was looking to get 7.1 surround virtualization on headphones working on Ubuntu (I did succeed at this).

The two tools I found - 'pavucontrol' seems like just a mixer, 'paprefs' doesn't show you anything about modules. I want something that shows me what PulseAudio modules are available to build a signal chain with, possibly also handling configuring LADSPA plugins in the chain. I was really surprised that there seemed to be no way to 'list all modules available for loading on the system' (there seems to be only 'list all modules already loaded' which means I needed to Google to find out what the possible modules are).

Is there something like this already? If not, I would actually be tempted to build something like this myself - I need a good excuse to learn Qt :)

<comment><USER3> > 'pavucontrol' seems like just a mixer

It's not a pro-level tool and probably doesn't have the flexibility you are looking for, but pavucontrol is much more than just a mixer. For example I can use it to control which input devices individual recording applications are reading from, and which output devices individual applications are playing to. You can also manage (but not create?) virtual devices that can be used as both inputs and outputs, and use a monitor of any output device as an input, etc etc.

If you do build something that gives complete access to pulseaudio devices and their mappings, I'd love to see the results. I would definitely use such an application.

> I was really surprised that there seemed to be no way to 'list all modules > available for loading on the system'

Does `pactl list` give you what you're looking for?

<comment><USER2> Not quite; 'pactl list modules' will give me a list of all currently loaded modules, but it doesn't tell you what modules are available on the system to be loaded. So you can't use it as a way to discover PulseAudio functionality.

For example, in the 7.1 surround example I mentioned, you load the module 'module-virtual-surround-sink' (I followed this guide: [https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/2ot5ov/enable...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/2ot5ov/enable_system_wide_hrtf_with_pulseaudio/)). I didn't know this functionality existed and none of the tools gave me a way to discover it. It was only through that linked guide and then later the 'PulseAudio Under the Hood' page discussed here that I found out about it.

(as an aside - module-virtual-surround-sink is extremely cool; you can load your own custom spatialization HRIR into it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few years back I ditched Pulseaudio for regular Alsa and it's been a godsend. No more crackling audio on bluetooth devices, alsamixer which can set all the volume levels and every program just works out of the box.

The problem I have with Pulseaudio is that it's fixing a problem that doesn't exist. It's great you can mix and match any channel you want with Pulseaudio but that's mostly a theoretical advantage. For desktop users Alsa with dmix offers everything you need, I can play audio, record and mix all at the same time. The few programs which absolutely require Pulse (I'm looking at you Firefox) can be fixed with apulse, which emulates Pulseaudio through Alsa.

<comment><USER5> Me too. I was trying to get kodi working on an ubuntu machine with surround sound going over hdmi to my AVR. Basically I just wanted to create a working HTPC.

Pulseaudio could not achieve this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15310465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15310465)

</comment><comment><USER7> garbage?

..sorry just my gut reaction after all that pulseaudio has done to me. i know this stuff is hard :P

<comment><USER8> I think reactions like this one, and the tons of crap gnome and systemd devs get are very damaging to the linux desktop community. Criticism is fine, but people are trying to make modern systems with little support. This is hard even for a Microsoft or an Apple, let alone a few paid developers and a a bunch of enthusiast volunteers.

<comment><USER9> Constantly breaking things that already work is helping the community? Trying to use Linux audio in the 2000s was a shitshow because of this. Were you a user during the time period? PulseAudio was rolled out way before it was ready.

<comment><USER8> Yes I was a user in the 2000s, I don't remember it being that bad although there certainly were issues.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden pushed the wrong voting button - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2019/03/26/jfc-fml-jfc.html <comment><USER2> I can't believe that people who have problems with operating a 3-button remote decide how the whole internet should work.

Same stories with polish voters; mistake during voting. They have only one job: push the right button.

Easiest explanation for this is that some people took money for the vote, they did push the button they've wanted to, and they just told the public it was a mistake. Because I can't imagine how it should be hard to confuse YES with NO.

\- Do you want ice cream? No. Sorry I meant yes!

\- Do you want to go see the movie? Yes. Sorry I've made a mistake, I meant to say no.

Such stories suggest we're dealing with unstable individuals.

\- Do you want half of the world to act accordingly to our new set of rules? Yes. Sorry, no. I meant yes! No sorry, what I wanted to say is NO. Sorry it was a mistake!

The people that made a mistake are unstable and should be treated as unstable.

<comment><USER3> _The people that made a mistake are unstable and should be treated as unstable._

It's not like there is only one thing to vote on on a given day. There are often dozens of votes covering a huge spectrum of issues often with very obtuse names and wording. So many people bring 'cheat sheets' so that they can remember what they're planning on voting on each issue. The problem in this case was that the order that issues where being voted on changed at the last minute and not everybody got the news and updated their notes. So it wasn't that they pressed the YES when they meant to press NO, its that they thought they where answering YES to question 36 when they where infact answering YES to question 37.

<comment><USER2> Why should I accept the excuse that MEPs are using bad cheat sheets? I've heard excuses like this in my 1-st grade in elementary school. Why did you not do your homework? I did, but the dog ate it.

MEPs that voted wrong are not fit to vote.

If they can't figure out and insure themselves against a rogue action like changing vote order in the last minute, I don't think they belong to EP, since they're too easy to manipulate.

I mean, the decisions they're making affect everyone in EU, and more. I can't imagine how one shouldn't take a vote like this dead serious.

<comment><USER4> You should watch this video about how bad the voting procedures actually are: [https://youtu.be/lzigiPUXNzI](https://youtu.be/lzigiPUXNzI)

<comment><USER5> That's absolutely insane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes).

Before that, there was a vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated by 5 votes.

One individual amendment offered to delete article 13. It's possible that if that amendment had come to a vote it would have succeeded, but it's not certain -- and given the majority the directive enjoyed, it's quite unlikely.

This directive is still an absolute catastrophe, the effects of which will be felt for a very long time. But articles like these don't quite help the fight.

<comment><USER7> Yes, you right, this article is trying to mislead the reader in several sentences, but the title here on hacker news is actually totally wrong, I would categorize it as "fake news", first the wording "got legalized" is weird, but most importantly the part "Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden pushed the wrong button" is just wrong as there were two votes, sweden did a mistake while voting for the second vote, which was about "if amendments should get discussed"

I'm totally against so called article 13, I think it will be super bad for European startups, they will suffer the most, but trying to spread fake news just makes it worse because people you try to explain this don't take you serious anymore

we need a report fake news button on hacker news

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here, while we're at it, there should be a possibility to retract an article after posting. I've fact checked this and it looks like you're right, however I have no possibility to kill the article at the current moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is why you need some redundancy built into the voting mechanism, otherwise you're always going to get such mistakes.

In the British Parliament you have to physically walk into a separate Aye or No lobby to register your vote. Some might think this an anachronism, but you don't tend to mill around in a crowded room with a load of people you disagree with without realising.

<comment><USER9> It's nearly happened:

      A minister inadvertently found himself in the wrong lobby in a Commons
      vote after a mix-up with a glass of water.

      Lib Dem MP Andrew Stunell was filling up a glass from a washroom inside
      one of the Commons lobbies where MPs cast their votes, when the doors
      closed.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- politics-16746389](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389)

<comment><USER10> Well, the Lib Dems have always struggled with which side of the House they're on, so in this particular case it's not that surprising!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad

13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used to affect the outcome.

Edit: checking Techdirt's math:

Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained

MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain):

Name Voted Intended Gerolf Annemans for Johannes Cornelis van Baalen against for Dita Charanzová for Martina Dlabajová for Antanas Guoga against for Eva Joly for Jo Leinen ? for Peter Lundgren against for Michèle Rivasi for Kristina Winberg against for Marek Plura for against Marita Ulvskog for against Daniel Buda against After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20 abstained

So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were used.

<comment><USER2> Here's an article that covers this info:

[https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up- th...](https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-their-chance- to-1833595723)

Although I'm not sure if I'm not against the law here, linking a copyrighted material like a criminal

<comment><USER12> You didn't include any of the copyrighted article.

You summarised the contents in your own words.

You hyperlinked to the article just like the WWW is meant to work.

Now wasn't that easy, remaining compliant with Article 11? So what's all the fuss about?

The fuss arises from news aggregators who hate outbound links because they take eyeballs away from their own site of scraped content.

<comment><USER2> Actually the link itself includes a part of the article, and it's possible to tell what's the content of the article by looking at the link itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My first thought reading the headline was 'great, yet another "The Onion" article'.

Anyway, it seems that some German delegates pushed the wrong button too:

[https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877](https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877)

Evil to him who evil thinks.

<comment><USER7> Haha same here, I also thought it was an "The Onion" article

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, from what I read, it seems that rather large number of MPs pushed the wrong button.

I guess that more and more MPs would confess that "wrong button" was pressed since European Parliament election is just around the corner (end of May). Although voters memory is rather short, MPs are afraid that it might actually persist for next 2 months.

<comment><USER15> I am definitely going to vote by which button was pushed, not by which button was intended to push. A person who can't push the right button has no business being member of the EP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> According to Finland's national public broadcasting company, one Finnish MEP also pushed the wrong button.

[https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635](https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635): "However, Pietikäinen later said she voted wrong accidentally. Her intention was to support the directive."

"Pietikäinen tosin kertoi myöhemmin äänestäneensä vahingossa väärin. Hänen tarkoituksensa oli ollut kannattaa esitystä."

It seems that it is very easy to press wrong buttons.

<comment><USER17> The Swedish reps who pushed wrong said there were some changes last minute to the agenda, confusing them and in effect probably caused the wrong button press. Though I haven't been able to find for certain if this was the case.

I am glad most Swedish reps voted against but will definitely use my vote next election to try and remove the ones that voted for (yes there were some that voted for and not by mistake) and people incompetent enough to not know what button to press when it comes down to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but > the vote is binding.

Amazing rules, what a club to be in!

<comment><USER19> I don't think any parliament will allow a new vote because a member claims (s)he made a mistake. That would create too many problems.

<comment><USER20> I'm sure there are technicalities to it, but the Australian parliament allowed a new vote just this year.[0]

In short, the governing party voted in favour of a motion that "It's okay to be white". The vote failed to pass, but the next day (amid condemnation) it was claimed that the vote was due to an administrative error. A new vote was held and the motion was defeated again, unanimously.

I say there may be technicalities as apparently the vote was a "recommittal"[1], but on the face of it the parliament allowed a new vote because the members claimed to have made a mistake.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australian_parliament_motion)

[1]: [https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practi...](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief08#detailed)

<comment><USER21> 4chan really has a lot answer for when something that ridiculous gets voted upon in Parliament.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It can be tricky with yes and no logic and how the issues are presented. I've read several proposals that were voted in my local city council, and without having excellent reading skills into the council jargon it would be really easy to vote wrong. To further negate the relations, there might be a vote for an opposing proposal, so if you want to support the original you vote no. I usually understand what I read relatively easily, including articles on complex algorithms, but had I had a seat in the city council these would've stunned me several times.

For things with big impact like state parliament and EU votes there should be a clear announcement before the vote to clarify which "side" the voting works out to be.

</comment><comment><USER23> People having problems with choosing correct button are responsible for setting law about internet for millions. Just great.

<comment><USER7> No, the article title here on hacker news is "fake news"! there were several votes, the main vote about the law itself would have passed anyway, the "yes" won with a significant margin, even if sweden would have voted differently ... sweden just did a mistake when voting about the questions if amendments should be discussed

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It would be a good way to vote the direction YOU wanted, and try to avoid the repercussions of it.

Who can tell why they pressed that button?

<comment><USER25> And such a coincidence that we're made aware of this "PEBKAC happens" when the law is a controversial one.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of > 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes). Before that, there was a > vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting > on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated > by 5 votes.

OP here, you're right about that after doing some fact checking. I just retracted the article by hiding. My bad.

</comment><comment><USER26> Too bad that some of our representatives seem to lack the mental capabilities to handle the 3-button voting system.

On the other hand, who says that the reverse hasn't happened as well? I could imagine that there also were some 'yes' voters who accidentally pressed the wrong button.

<comment><USER27> Indeed that is the case. I read that 13 people wanted to vote 'yes' but pressed 'no' and 2 people wanted to vote 'no' but pressed 'yes'. So it does not even out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This summarizes the utter incompetence on both sides of the political spectrum in Sweden. Not a proud day to be a Swede.

</comment><comment><USER29> So, now, if someone gets murdered in the city square (public domain), are city officials charged with murder?

</comment><comment> VvR-Ox Another decision against humanity - nice!

This happens when everyone just exists to gain more money and power.

</comment><comment><USER30> You had ONE JOB.

</comment><comment><USER31> "wrong"

</comment><comment><USER32> You had one job...

<comment><USER32> I'd like to know why this is being downvoted.

<comment><USER33> One of the unofficial rules of HN is:

* No oneliners. Specialy memelike oneliners.

For example, if someone says "moon" and you reply "That's no moon...it's a space station." you will get downvoted.

One clear symptom is that someone else wrote the same comment (with allcaps, that breaks another rule). I'm not sure why that comment was _not_ downvoted. (Note: I didn't downvote your comments or the comment of the other user.)

You can write oneliners in special occasions, but it's much safer to write a longer comment and give more details.

Another rule is:

* Don't complain about downvotes.

Luckily, your second comment didn't get downvote.</comment></comment></comment>