Georgia School Reopening Photo Even Worse Than It Appears - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/georgia-school-reopening-photo-paulding-county <comment><USER2> The worst part too is the fact that the students posting those photos have been suspended with potential for expulsion.

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/north-...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/north- paulding-high-school-suspensions-for-hallway-photos)

<comment><USER3> The principal doubled down and said any student found criticizing the school on social media could face disciplinary consequences.

WTAF? So, now students can't criticize the schools!?

<comment><USER4> There's been litigation about this kind of issue all over the country for years (disciplinary action by public schools against students for their off- campus speech about the schools) and the students commonly win, although the legal rules can be complicated in comparison to rules about adults' speech.

There's also a common pattern where school administrations don't seem to know much about earlier court decisions about students' rights. The Supreme Court said back in 1943 that public school students couldn't be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette)

but I remember in 1997 meeting a girl who had been disciplined for not saying it at her public school, and hers was far from the last case.

These students could probably get pro bono legal representation and send a demand letter to the principal over this. [Edit: because of the social media aspect, the students could contact the intake coordinator at EFF, where I used to work, and they could likely get a helpful legal referral.]

Although I hope the students' speech rights will be fully vindicated, I notice that I also have more empathy for school administrations than I used to. Public school administrators have a ton of responsibility, many angry constituents with opposing views, few resources, and lots of complicated legal constraints, and are not necessarily experts on all the issues that will come up unexpectedly.

<comment><USER5> > Although I hope the students' speech rights will be fully vindicated, I > notice that I also have more empathy for school administrations than I used > to. Public school administrators have a ton of responsibility, many angry > constituents with opposing views, few resources, and lots of complicated > legal constraints, and are not necessarily experts on all the issues that > will come up unexpectedly.

I have sympathy for the spot the school administrators are in. Many of their students' families depend on having both parents working in order to survive. Those parents need the kids to be in school. But if they reopen, the schools are almost certainly going to spread an infection that kills people. The administrators have no good options, merely a choice between different kinds of bad.

Suspending the kids who posted the video? No sympathy. That's a total jerk move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Schools enforce dress codes all the time. No mini skirts, no tank tops, no sandals, no hats, etc. There's zero reason why they couldn't make masks mandatory.

<comment><USER7> If masks are perceived as political (which IMO, they shouldn't be, but fortunately I don't rule the world), then the Court may protect the right not to wear a mask:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)

<comment><USER8> Surely threat to safety - real or perhaps even only perceived - would affect this?

<comment><USER9> It's as if you expect logic to matter in American politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The worst part about this is the last sentence that any students found criticizing the school on social media will face disciplinary measures. I'm aghast.

</comment><comment><USER11> I am surprised the districts lawyers and insurers are okay with this. Surly there will be lawsuits over this for years once students and teachers start getting sick.

<comment><USER12> The CDC has recommended schools reopen. I'm not suggesting that's a good recommendation or a bad one. But when the CDC and/or state health board says you can open, you can open. This is the government version of regulatory capture.

<comment><USER13> I have trouble understanding why this prevents anyone from taking legal action. Maybe the action cannot be directed against the schools, but surely in this case you can challenge the CDC guidelines, because there seems to be direct proof of personal injury (i.e. getting ill) as a result of this? How does this work?

<comment><USER12> The Department of Transportation recommends allowing people to drive on the roads, but you don't get to sue them just because there's a car accident. We know, statistically, that some people will die going to school even without COVID. The CDC and other regulators are taking a broad view that includes 2nd and 3rd order effects from their recommendations. They're trying to make decisions for the long term while recognizing that any decision they make in either direction is going to result in deaths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How can you possibly believe this is the right thing to do? I just don't understand

<comment><USER15> It all comes down to who the people making these decisions are trying to please. The elected officials (assuming they're at least sort of doing their job) are acting on what they think will please the most voters. The net difference in the number of constituents hate this option, the next option, and every other feasible option for the school year is likely very small. This is what the tyranny of the majority looks like.

But of course thinking about the incentives and mechanisms that lead to this outcome is uncomfortable and clutching our pearls is comfortable and easy so what we'll do is a forgone conclusion.

Edit: I'm personally no fan of the policy the school chose but asinine or not they didn't choose it for no reason and it's worth exploring what lead to the people making the decisions to choose what they chose.

Edit2: Some of you would do well to read only the words I am writing here and not assume any unwritten meaning or motivation. I am specifically trying to avoid debating whether this particular instance of public policy is good/bad/right/wrong and some of you seem to be very eager to do just that.

<comment><USER16> During a health crisis popular or unpopular does not matter. You do what is necessary wither you like it or not. What these "leaders" are doing is complete incompetence and negligent.

<comment><USER17> The problem is that 'necessary' to the people driving the Georgia decisions seems to be 'necessary to support my beliefs and my fiscal policy', not 'necessary for the best good of all'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Well, I don't want you to go to school, but the school board said you might be suspended or expelled, so I guess you should go to school..."

I don't have kids that go to school, so what really happens if you keep your kids out of school? What can the school really do to you or your kid?

<comment><USER19> Expel you and cause you to miss a grade. They can also place your kids into a remedial program which means they'll go to schools which are designated for problem children when they return. In addition the learning environment being worse, those schools can be pretty far out of the way for parents. Also, if you're expelled, you won't get to take the state/federally mandated tests. I'm not sure of the impact of this, but I think it can be pretty bad.

<comment><USER17> Sue the living hell out of the school district and he returns to school and end of story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't know anything about American term dates - but isn't it the middle of summer? Did they restart early or delay breaking up?

<comment><USER21> A lot of US schools start in early - mid august and go through late May to early June. It varies by locality though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> OK, so to be completely objective here: the crowd in that photo isn't really the problem per se. That's a transient crowd between classes, the kids are walking past each other quickly and then disengaging after a minute or two as they enter their next class. That's not a known high risk situation, existing superspreader events almost exclusively tend to be more static: restaurants, cruise ships, theaters/arenas, that sort of thing: places where people are near an infected person and stay there for a bit.

The thing to worry about with school openings is the classroom, not the hallway. The fact that this hall is so packed tells me that the classes are probably at capacity too. That's worrisome for sure.

And it's a bad, bad state for this to be happening. GA continues to have one of the worst infection rates in the country, and contra others (AZ and CA) it still seems to be at its second-wave peak and hasn't dropped much yet:

[https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid- visualization/?chart=states...](https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid- visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=Georgia&show=us- states&y=both&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&data- source=jhu&xaxis=right#states-normalized)

<comment><USER23> I would say you are right the classrooms are more worrisome, especially since I doubt the desks are being wiped down between students.

I would say that the hallway is still worrying. It isn't just students walking past each other. I'm sure they are bumping into and brushing up against each other. In my experience it is hard to avoid when you are rushing to your next class in a crowded hallway.

<comment><USER24> > especially since I doubt the desks are being wiped down between students.

Being more pedantic, but as far as I'm aware there's minimal evidence of infection from contaminated surfaces rather than airborne droplets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 1) Teach your child to read (basic phonetics and sight words).

2) Encourage/have them read a lot of different stuff.

3) Have them explain what they're reading.

4) When possible, support them in applying what they learn.

</comment><comment><USER26> None of this is rational or remotely within the realm of objective reality. The people making these decisions should be liable for gross negligence and manslaughter should it come to it. There is no excuse for sending kids to school during a pandemic. Absolutely absurd.

<comment><USER27> But all of those kids were at the same risk for the regular seasonal flu, which is just about as dangerous to their age group, at this same time last year. And will be at this same time next year, even if they cure COVID-19 completely. If your standard for opening a school is "nobody can get sick", you can never open a school.

<comment><USER17> Or a non-sympomantic kid gives it to another, who goes home and gives it to someone immunocompromised, like _me_. If I get this, I have a high chance of hospitalization and all the organ damage and ventilator consequences and etc that the flu has no serious chance of causing.

Your 'not so bad' doesn't cover the real potential costs.

<comment><USER27> But that was all true, of a thousand potential diseases, this same time last year. And it will all be true, of a thousand potential diseases, this same time next year, too.

<comment><USER25> But is it? _Really?_. 'Cause, y'know, I don't recall the last time a disease overwhelmed hospital capacity. Only time I've seen refrigerator trucks full of bodies has been after a huge hurricane. IMO it has been a long while since we had such a serious pandemic. I don't think your claim is at all true. There are, in fact, very few diseases as threatening as this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I wonder if any of the politicians who were part of the decision to re-open schools, from the governor down to the school board members, would be willing to sit in that hallway unmasked for a day. Nope, I bet they made the decisions over Zoom calls, safely tucked away in their homes.

<comment><USER17> Or, since they know some staff are infected, maybe call an all-hands mandatory staff and board meeting to discuss how to handle new cases... make it an all day meeting, in the smallest conference room taht could hold the number of people.

Plenty of water, no kleenex.

That's how it's done, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This reopening is criminal. The DA should charge the superintendent with endangering child welfare and I'm sure they can think of a dozen other types of charges times for a few hundred student victims they could bring on. Well at least now we know that even "think of the children" was always a lie in our culture. The culture does not care if children die unnecessarily.</comment>


Whole Foods Board Bans Execs From Web Postings [2007] - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071106/170439.shtml

<comment><AUTHOR> The ban still survives today. The thing is that the example of Stardock's Brad Wardell existed even back then.</comment>


Show HN: Distributed Scheduler - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.com/andreynech/dsched <comment><AUTHOR> Small tool written in Golang, can be run on different hosts and offers functionality to schedule execution of arbitrary command at particular time or periodically. There are two ways to communicate with application: gRPC and REST. To specify task execution timing, we are using notation adopted by cron. Scheduled tasks are stored in file (serialized protobuf) and loaded automatically during startup. It is similar to cron but could be controlled remotely with provided CLI clients or simply with curl/http.</comment>


Show HN: Online SID-Player with spectrum viewer - s-macke http://simulationcorner.net/Sidplayer/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is awesome.

Ring modulation and samples seem to be missing? I've been humming Hubbard's theme to "Nemesis the Warlock" this past week so I pulled that up and its ominous drones were just... off.

I also decided to try Crowther's theme to "Zig Zag" to see how it would cope with the torture test of a play routine running more than once a frame; that got pretty mutilated too.

But when it works, it's pretty damn awesome!

<comment> s-macke Thanks. Yes, some features are indeed missing. But most of the tunes are working fine. I am thinking to emscript reSID or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> This is lovely. It seems to bug out in Firefox 25 when I switch away from the tab it's on - any debugging info that would be useful?

<comment><USER3> This is probably because Firefox (and Chrome) clamps the setTimeout interval of background tabs to 1 second to improve performance.

<comment><USER2> Huh? Is that new? Can I turn it off?

<comment><USER4> I believe window.requestAnimationFrame is preferred over setInterval, and doesn't get limited as such.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/window.requ...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/window.requestAnimationFrame)

<comment><USER5> Actually requestAnimationFrame is limited more (possibly even entirely paused) as it assumes that if the tab isn't visible, no animation needs to be requested

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Also check out this JavaScript Amiga MOD player by gasman:

[http://jsspeccy.zxdemo.org/jsmodplayer/](http://jsspeccy.zxdemo.org/jsmodplayer/)

<comment> s-macke He should update it to work with Firefox. Since Firefox 25 they have changed to Web Audio.

</comment></comment><comment> tech-no-logical would probably be awesome (love SID tunes), but I get noting in latest firefox beta, nothing in latest chrome, nothing in latest opera, and nothing in internet explorer 11.

my guess there's something wrong.

<comment> s-macke A lot of songs are not working. Try only the button "Slightly Random Choice.sid" They all work.

<comment> tech-no-logical that was it. the rest of the menu gives me nothing, the random button works fine :) great stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like childhood :-)</comment>


Android 4.2 to include SE Linux and other security features - <AUTHOR> http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/10/17/exclusive-android-4-2-alpha-teardown-part-2-selinux-vpn-lockdown-and-premium-sms-confirmation/

<comment><USER3> Russell Coker has had a SELinux enabled box online for many years now where he allows people to log on as root. <http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/>

<comment><USER4> It is somehow immensely amusing to me to see 'permission denied' errors when I'm quite clearly logged on as root.

Try to get any information at all about /home/bofh while you're logged in.

<comment><USER3> Yes, most people have no idea of the things that are possible with SELinux. It's really amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I simultaneously welcome and fear this development.

It's a great move for security, as a well-configured SELinux deploy can provide much finer-grained access control than standard Unix permissions (although, given that Android uses the Unix user & permission model a bit abnormally, I don't know if it will bring benefit over that or not).

OTOH, for locked devices, it gives vendors more tools to prevent rooting.

<comment><USER6> What's abnormal about the way Android uses the Unix user and permissions model?

<comment><USER7> Don't they make each application you use run with it's own user?

<comment><USER8> Yes. I guess that's what the grandparent means. I don't find it abnormal, it's a very good practice - create user accounts for public-facing processes and give them as minimal rights as possible. Still, the possibility to somehow break out and gain root exists.

<comment><USER7> It is unusual in that usually applications meant to be consumed locally by the owner of the device are not considered "public-facing". It is something usually done with servers or daemons, not web browsers and text editors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can I disable it? It seems like in most deployments that is exactly what happens to SELinux.

<comment><USER10> I'm using Fedora in enforcing mode, and so are probably most Fedora users. SELinux is usually completely transparent on desktop[1]. Of course it can sometimes cause some issues you might be unprepared for.

The most recent one I can remember was configuring Postfix to perform local delivery to ~/.local-mail/inbox. I had to manually change security context for that directory. Or linking /var/www/foo to ~/foo is an example of something that you might expect to work, but would be blocked by SELinux.

But those are not the kind of things you would do on Android anyway. They use SELinux to strengthen the security framework they already have in place. SELinux is just the last line of defence for implementation bugs and things they might have missed. It would be completely unintrusive.

The NSA presentation is worth watching, they go through various Android exploits that could have been prevented by the policy they developed, without actually targeting those specific exploits.

<https://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/>

[1] It's also because it unfortunately isn't actually used by most desktop applications, with some exceptions, like Chromium.

<comment><USER11> i am embarrassed to say this but rather than configure SELinux to do those little things - like local mail delivery or open a new socket for httpd - <USER2> tend to just disable it. i'll chalk it up to a usability problem on their part and not laziness to learn it on mine.

i'm familiar with it, i've written some policies in it, i remember when it was introduced. that said ... i don't use it.

<comment><USER12> Instead of disabling it, consider putting it into permissive mode. It logs violations but doesn't enforce any rules. It's a good way to get a feel for what it's doing. You can tweak the rules, view the logs, tweak some more, and work up to a tight policy before enabling.

Also, if you disable it, re-enabling requires that you relabel all of your files and reboot the system; the relabel process can take an impressive amount of time.

Switching between eforcing and permissive can be done on the fly with the setenforce command, no reboot required.

I do think that laziness is a virtue in a sysadmin when properly applied, but using selinux is in your best interest.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Can the multiverse explain human history? - <AUTHOR> http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/can-the-multiverse-explain-the-course-of-history/ <comment><USER2> I prefer this version, if only for the spiritual component:

[http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg.html](http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg.html)

<comment><USER3> Always one of my favorite storied to share with people. It always helps people open their mind and perspective on things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No. The anthropic principle/branching universes theory _explains_ nothing, and in fact is so utterly unfalsifiable it's kind of surprising intelligent people take it seriously.

<comment><USER5> I wonder exactly what "it" is here.

Quantum mechanics with the "many worlds" interpretation explains lots of things: it explains all the same things as quantum mechanics with some other interpretation. But QM (many worlds) has all the same observable consequences as, say, QM (Copenhagen), so "many worlds" _as opposed to_ Copenhagen doesn't explain anything[1].

But how does that mean that intelligent people shouldn't take the "many worlds" interpretation seriously?

Consider two "interpretations" of Newtonian mechanics. One says that the world mechanically obeys Newton's laws. Another says that the world is controlled by incorporeal angels who are very fond of Newton's laws and always freely choose to push the universe around in such a way that those laws are obeyed. These two interpretations have the same observable consequences (namely, a universe in which Newton's laws always hold), but that doesn't make it surprising if intelligent people take the "mechanical" version of it seriously.

Nor, actually, does it make it surprising if intelligent people take the "angels" version seriously. What (at least for me) makes that option hard to take seriously is its gratuitous complexity: it has the same observable consequences as the "mechanical" system but, at least in my view, is vastly more complicated -- if you wanted to describe such a universe completely you'd need to do all the same work as for the "mechanical" version and then go on to set down everything about the angels' nature, personalities, etc.

In much the same way, you might choose to prefer "many worlds" or Copenhagen or some other specific interpretation of QM on the grounds of simplicity. "Many worlds is simplest because it avoids notions of 'measurement' and 'collapse' that do no real work, and just says that everything obeys Schroedinger's equation all the time." Or: "Many worlds is horribly complex because it involves all those extra worlds we never observe."

So if you mean: "The many-worlds interpretation of QM explains nothing more than any other interpretation of QM does, and therefore it's surprising that intelligent people take the many-worlds interpretation seriously", I think that's wrong. But perhaps what you're surprised that people take seriously is some other thing like, e.g., some particular application of the anthropic principle that appeals to "many worlds"?

[1] Actually, that's maybe slightly debatable; it depends on fine details of what you understand by "explain". For instance: any theorem in pure mathematics is logically necessary[2] and therefore has _no_ observable consequences that you couldn't derive without it -- but it still seems reasonable to say, e.g., that a proof that even-length palindromes have to be multiples of 11 "explains" why I've never seen a palindromic prime number with 4, 6, 8, ... digits. So the fact that QM (many worlds) has no extra observable consequences beyond "uninterpreted" QM might not be enough to guarantee that it doesn't explain anything.

[2] Given whatever axioms you start with.

<comment><USER6> While there are Occam's razor and complexity arguments concerning the relative merits of the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation, I think this is at best a weak argument. Because, who knows? We could actually be living in a world with very complicated physics.

However, there's a different flaw that I believe completely torpedoes the Copenhagen Interpretation: the Copenhagen Interpretation is not a fully specified theory because it never actually gets around to defining when a measurement is performed. What algorithm can an experimenter run to tell when a measurement takes place? There is none. When a system is considered to be "measured" is always determined with the help of human judgement ex post facto, and alway in such a way as to fit the experimental outcome. If proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation ever proffered such algorithm to determine when a measurement takes place, then at least we'd have something testable, even if the test were outlandish. But as it is now, the lack of such concrete specification makes the Copenhagen Interpretation unfalsifiable with respect to the Many Worlds interpretation.

Besides that, there are a couple other weaker reasons to be very suspicious of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It doesn't seem to address in any way the fact that experimenters and detectors are a part of physics themselves. If you believe that consciousness arises from physical processes happening inside of the universe, it's very hard to imagine how the Copenhagen Interpretation would compute and explain (even in theory) the physics of what's happening inside of the brain. [1] And if waveform collapse _actually_ occurred, it would be the only known law of physics that's non-local, inherently random, has a preferred reference frame (breaking relativity), destroys information, and violates CPT symmetry. This rule is not like the other rules.

[1] - There actually is a serious school of thought that conscious beings brings the universe into existence, rather than the other way around. I don't know of any experimental evidence for or against this theory, but I'm personally not a big fan of it because the Kolmogorov complexity required to fully specify the theory is fantastically large, because it would need to fully specify how consciousness operates. Without a corresponding amount of evidence in its favor, there's no reason to elevate this hypothesis among all the others with the same or less complexity.

<comment><USER7> > While there are Occam's razor and complexity arguments concerning the > relative merits of the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Copenhagen > Interpretation.

Exactly, we don't know anything, but Occam's razor is all we have, and I believe many smart people take many-worlds seriously because it is simpler.

<comment><USER6> I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I _think_ Many Worlds is the simplest known hypothesis that explains the available evidence.

<comment><USER8> the simplest is statistical aggregate interpretation.

An interpretation of QM experiments depends on your interpretation of QM :) When one sees the world through Copenhagen interpretation (i.e. superposition of states, simultaneously dead/alive cat) one sees miracles like entanglement, and starts wondering about many worlds, etc... On the other side one can look at Hitachi's electron double-slit experiment :

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc)

It doesn't refute superposition, it just allows to interpret/explain things without it. Of course with superposition gone, quantum computers are gone, and no miracles like entanglement, and many worlds while still may exist lose a potent argument in their favor :)

(note: the experiment clearly shows 2 separate things:

1\. the main point of QM that, for example, position of a particle is described by wave-function/quantized

2\. superposition of many positions is visible as a characteristic of the whole set of particles

Bringing in additional superposition at the level of one particle doesn't add anything for explanation, it only brings "miracles" that Copenhagen interpretation is filled with )

<comment><USER6> While, you're right, it is minimalistic, Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in. And if you try to patch the theory by saying there's some deeper element of reality that we just haven't found yet that's deciding the outcome of experiments, then the violation of the Bell Inequalities renders that whole line of thinking moot. If, instead, you try to patch it the other way and say that everything in the ensemble _is_ real, then you've just reinvented Many Worlds by a different name.

I'm unclear why you're bringing up Hitach's experiment and what you think it shows. Maybe you could elaborate? My understanding is that the raison d'être of the experiment is to show that multiple particles are not necessary for quantum interference to occur, and that a single particle is perfectly capable of destructively interfering with itself. This is pretty direct evidence for superposition, because you're getting measurable effects from the superposition. And if anything, it's evidence against the Ensemble Interpretation.

Also, quantum computers are real and here today. Any successful theory of physics must explain how 15 was factored using Shor's Algorithm. ([http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112176](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant- ph/0112176))

<comment><USER8> >Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in.

not sure that we're talking about the same. My understanding here is that one calculates probabilities the same way. It is the interpretation different. In Copenhagen the particle is supposed to carry all probabilities which magically "collapse" on the measurement, while in statistical a given particle is in "collapsed" state to start with (there is a distribution of the states over the ensemble), and the probabilistic model describes the evolution of these states and distribution of final states - there is no collapse on measurement, we just measure specific state.

>I'm unclear why you're bringing up Hitach's experiment and what you think it shows. Maybe you could elaborate? My understanding is that the raison d'être of the experiment is to show that multiple particles are not necessary for quantum interference to occur, and that a single particle is perfectly capable of destructively interfering with itself.

in Hitachi experiment it is shown explicitly clear that quantum interference is emerging only for multiple particles. It is basically a visualization of underlying probability distribution, like it happens in any statistical experiment when enough samples are taken. During the Hitachi experiment nothing happened that looks like or requires an explanation by a single particle supposedly interferencing with itself.

If you don't see this in Hitachi experiment, lets run the following experiment. Imagine 2 doors in a wall, and imagine another, parallel, wall at several meters distance from the doors. Imagine that frogs jump out, one at a time, from either door pretty randomly. The frogs jump in general direction of the wall opposite the doors. The precise direction of each frog is varying a bit. It takes a frog several jumps to reach the wall. The probability density of the places where the frog's legs touch the ground is square of cos(pi*x/A) (correctly scaled to be a probability density) where x is the distance from the door the frog jumped out, and A is the avg. frog jump length. A frog only exist (i.e. can interact with anything else) when it touches the ground, and doesn't exist when it is flying during the jump. Whenever a frog lands near the wall, say not farther than a body distance from the wall, it touches the wall and leaves a wet spot.

It is easy to see that after a big enough bunch of frogs, there would be an "interference pattern" of dry and really wet areas on the wall - i.e. some places have low probability of a frog landing near it while some have high, and that probability distribution looks like an "interference pattern". No superposition, no destructive interference of a frog with itself is necessary to observe the effect. This is what Hitachi experiment shows.

>This is pretty direct evidence for superposition,

yes, an interference of a particle with itself would be such evidence. I'm yet to learn about an experiment which can only be explained by such interference.

> Any successful theory of physics must explain how 15 was factored using > Shor's Algorithm.

agree. While 15 seems too small a number to exclusively lock a superposition explanation, i don't have another ready. I'd like to have quantum computers and other quantum miracles too :) I just want them to be a bona fide miracles, not figments of our interpretation :)

<comment><USER6> The way you're describing the theory sure seems like the Ensemble Interpretation to me, but to be honest, I have never heard of the "Statistical Aggregate Interpretation". Just to be sure I know what we're discussing, could you provide a reference to the Statistical Aggregate Interpretation? What you're suggesting -- that the information is there, but we just don't know which one -- sounds a lot like a hidden variables theory. Unfortunately, all theories with local realism (which includes hidden variables theories) are ruled out experimentally by Bell's theorem. [1]

I like your classical frog example because it's a thought experiment that illustrates how classical particles behave, and we can compare the distribution of the classical frogs to the distribution of whatever we're measuring (like electrons), and if the distributions we get are different, then we'll learn that whatever we're measuring is behaving non-classically. However, the probability density you gave for the frogs in the classical case, cos^2(pi*X/A), is incorrect. The probability distribution for the classical case the way you set it up will, in fact, be almost Gaussian (but not precisely for reasons that aren't relevant or worth discussing here)[2]. The combined probability distributions for frogs coming from the two doors will be the sum of two individual Gaussians, so it will be a "two-humped" distribution. As a point of fact, if you run your frog experiment, there will be two wet spots. It will not look like an interference pattern precisely because there is no superposition and no destructive interference. The fact that electrons in Hitachi's experiment display a "many-humped" distribution is good evidence that the electrons are not following the same rules as the frogs, and hence that the electrons are behaving non-classically.

> in Hitachi experiment it is shown explicitly clear that quantum interference > is emerging only for multiple particles.

This is the exact opposite of what the Hitachi experiment shows. The experiment is interesting and surprising precisely because particles are sent one at a time but still show an interference pattern. The experiment shows a single particle interfering with itself.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)

[2] It's easy enough to show the general idea with a Monte-Carlo simulation.

<comment><USER8> >The way you're describing the theory sure seems like the Ensemble Interpretation to me, but to be honest, I have never heard of the "Statistical Aggregate Interpretation".

yes, my mistype, it is basically Ensemble Interpretation.

> However, the probability density you gave for the frogs in the classical > case, cos^2(pi*X/A), is incorrect.

it isn't resulting probability distribution on the wall. It is probability distribution of the frog legs touching the ground on a radial line from door to the wall, i.e. peaks at 0, A, 2A, 3A,.... It is about the same as position operator for electron would produce on a radial line from slit to the screen. Also note that the frog doesn't interact with the wall if the frog is "airborne" (i.e. one can imagine that it just goes through the wall without leaving a wet spot or even better - the wall is too low, say 0.1m , so airborne, mid-flight, frogs would fly over it).

If you look at this image

[http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubles...](http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/doubleslitjavafigure1.jpg)

the red concentric lines is where a frog most probably touches the ground and the greenish-yellow - where a frog is most probably mid-jump airborne (flying at the height enough to fly over the wall). Where 2 yellow-greenish lines intersect right near the wall - it is the place with minimal probability of a frog landing near the wall, ie. dry place. While intersection of 2 reds - correspondingly a very wet place.

>The fact that electrons in Hitachi's experiment display a "many-humped" distribution is good evidence that the electrons are not following the same rules as the frogs, and hence that the electrons are behaving non-classically.

this non-classical behavior is the quantization of position, ie. position probability density looks like concentric waves starting at a slit. I.e. cut along the radial line, the profile of that density is a correctly scaled cos(x), with x - distance from the slit. The superposition isn't necessary for the observed effect.

>> in Hitachi experiment it is shown explicitly clear that quantum interference is emerging only for multiple particles.

>This is the exact opposite of what the Hitachi experiment shows. The experiment is interesting and surprising precisely because particles are sent one at a time but still show an interference pattern. The experiment shows a single particle interfering with itself.

i'm trying to understand where do you see the interference of a particle with itself. Lets say the experiment was run only until there is only 1 (i.e. 2 sec into the clip), or say 3 particles hit the screen (4 seconds into the clip). What would be an indication of the interference in such a case?

<comment><USER6> Ah, I see. Yes, I did misunderstand the mechanics of your frog thought experiment. However the math for the classical case still doesn't work out the way you need it to. Setting up the mechanics the way you did, you will not get the probability distribution you mentioned on the frog's radial distance from the wall. Nor will you get many alternating wet and dry spots on the wall, even allowing for frogs to jump through the wall. I encourage you to try the math yourself or to set up a Monte-Carlo simulation to estimate the classical consequences of your jumping rules.

If you're not convinced yet, consider the following:

What happens if Hitachi's experimental setup had only one path for the electron to follow rather than two? You're claiming that the frogs are a good model for Hitachi's setup, so it should be the same result that you claim for the frog model with one door. You're claiming that the frog model with one door produces a pattern of alternating wet and dry. What happens in the lab when you try it with electrons? Electrons following a single path _don 't_ produce an alternating pattern; they produce a pattern very close to a Gaussian.

Moreover, here's the really wild part of the experiment. If you let electrons go through either just one path or just the other path, you'll get nice smooth Gaussians from both (translated a bit from each other). But open both paths up, you'll see the distribution dim at places. That's very unexpected! Somehow letting more electrons through has decreased the electrons hitting certain parts of the screen. And if you carefully observe your experiment, you'll see that some other areas of the wall _more_ than double in intensity when you open up both paths. It's pretty clear that you'll never be able to invent mechanical rules for classical frogs that can mirror these experimental results.

> i'm trying to understand where do you see the interference of a particle > with itself.

This is a slightly subtly distinction, and it's easy to miss what's going on. You "see" the effect of a particle destructively interfering with itself when there's only a single electron on the screen. You "see" the effect in the probability distribution for where that electron appears, but you can't say with high confidence that this is a real effect until you've seen a statistically significant number of particles. But the effect had to have been there the whole time because destructive interference happens independently and individually on each electron. If you still think there's some effect being transmitted between different electrons, then realize that the fact that all the electrons are showing up on the same screen is just a convenience for the experimenter. You would get exactly the same effects by setting up a statistically significant number of screens all spatially separated from each other and running the experiments without signals being able to be communicated between screens and then overlaying the resultant observed positions.

However, the Mach–Zehnder Interferometer is, I believe, an better physical model to witness a single photon interfering with itself. Young's double-slit experiment was invented first, so for really that reason alone, it's taught first, but because of its continuous nature, it's easier to get bogged down in certain irrelevancies. The Mach–Zehnder Interferometer is really much more plainly impossible in a classical universe, or an ensemble interpretation universe for that matter.

<comment><USER8> > Nor will you get many alternating wet and dry spots on the wall, even > allowing for frogs to jump through the wall.

...

>What happens if Hitachi's experimental setup had only one path for the electron to follow rather than two? You're claiming that the frogs are a good model for Hitachi's setup, so it should be the same result that you claim for the frog model with one door. You're claiming that the frog model with one door produces a pattern of alternating wet and dry. What happens in the lab when you try it with electrons? Electrons following a single path don't produce an alternating pattern; they produce a pattern very close to a Gaussian.

The electrons, photons, and frogs (jumping over the wall when probability below some threshold) would produce an alternating pattern like this one:

[http://www.a-levelphysicstutor.com/images/waves/ys-1s-2s-gra...](http://www.a-levelphysicstutor.com/images/waves/ys-1s-2s-graphs.jpg)

Because it is result of the same geometry as on the image that i posted before : where 2 greens touch the wall simultaneously - deep trough, zero intensity, and where 2 reds - peak. The meaning of the green/red isn't important - be it probability of a frog's legs touching ground or the probability density of position of electron - the resulting pattern is the same. The image can be interpreted as either while it is just an image of concentric circles originating from 2 points. Gaussian outline comes to play only because it describes the normal deviation of a frog/electron from the preferred direction they jump/fired along.

> If you let electrons go through either just one path or just the other path, > you'll get nice smooth Gaussians from both (translated a bit from each > other).

this is true only in classical mechanics where position of electron or a bullet isn't quantized - you'll get a smooth Gaussian. In QM, i.e. real electrons, photons (or jumping frogs having the property of going through/over the wall where ground touch probability is close to 0) single slit produces dim/light pattern like on the image above. Like the double-slit pattern, this single-slit pattern is also result of position quantization.

> But open both paths up, you'll see the distribution dim at places. That's > very unexpected! Somehow letting more electrons through has decreased the > electrons hitting certain parts of the screen.

This - double slit is more frequent than single-slit or dimming at some places - happens only for stream of photons as photons interfere with one another and the photon's wavelength is the same as its position quantization period (note - for electron DeBroglie and positional quantization are different wavelengths), so the photon_A-photon_B interference is visible on the scale of the pattern produced as a result of positional quantization. In case of Hitachi, we have single electrons, so no electron_A-to-electron_B interference, so the double-slit pattern is less frequent than single-slit, ie. where was light on single slit - there will continue to be the same or brighter light on double-slit, it is just some (not all) troughs/dims will disappear.

> You "see" the effect in the probability distribution for where that electron > appears

The quantized position probability distribution already explains the pattern. I don't see how adding the interference or superposition changes it.

>If you still think there's some effect being transmitted between different electrons

no, the many particles, i.e. many samples is just results in better visualization of underlying probability distribution. I think here we agree.

> You would get exactly the same effects by setting up a statistically > significant number of screens all spatially separated from each other and > running the experiments without signals being able to be communicated > between screens and then overlaying the resultant observed positions.

the same here. We agree about independent events and their cumulative statistics. Let frogs jump in separate setups, and mark their results on a separate screen - the pattern will emerge as if they all jumped in the same yard.

>However, the Mach–Zehnder Interferometer is, I believe, an better physical model to witness a single photon interfering with itself.

Will definitely spend a time on it.

> Young's double-slit experiment was invented first, so for really that reason > alone, it's taught first, but because of its continuous nature, it's easier > to get bogged down in certain irrelevancies.

it only looks somewhat "continuous" with light. That is the beauty of the Hitachi experiment as it took away a lot of "continuity" effect as well as "photon A interfering with photon B" effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Even if multiverse exists, I doubt it would ever influence your day-to-day life, much less history.

It's too low level. It's all about quantum states, and we're like ten levels above them.

Low level processes tend to either go unnoticed by high level ones (think radio waves) or be harmful to them (think radiation) by messing with their high-level organization.

So please forget about hiding a knife in a parallel universe.

<comment><USER9> You do realise that this high-level / low-level distinction is all in our minds, right? It's just an intellectual tool we use to understand nature. If Quantum Mechanics is correct, _everything_ is made of quantum states, not just radio waves and radiation. Also, Chaos Theory.

<comment><USER10> True, but under our current understanding of QM, it is literally impossible for you to interact with parallel worlds. Someone 'outside' the universe may observe[0] that we are in a superposition, but it is theoraticly impossible for our state to be influenced by any of the other states.

[0] Under a loose definition of observe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I still don't really know how it would explain human history but I enjoyed the scroll through ideas.

</comment><comment><USER12> As a side comment, a story inspired by many-words: [http://physicsnapkins.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/all-paths- to-...](http://physicsnapkins.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/all-paths-to- happiness/)</comment>


Anti-Abuse Ad Uses Lenticular Printing to Show Alternate Photo to Kids - <AUTHOR> http://petapixel.com/2013/05/04/abuse-ad-uses-a-lenticular-photography-to-secretly-show-help-number-to-kids/

<comment><USER2> Extensive discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5659719></comment>


China warns India of 'reverse sanctions' if Huawei is blocked - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-india-exclusive/exclusive-china-warns-india-of-reverse-sanctions-if-huawei-is-blocked-sources-idUSKCN1UW1FF <comment><USER2> Buying 5G technology from a benign country like Finland or Sweden seems like a good strategy. Both these countries have no aspiration for world domination and have track records of honest business dealings. I don't think either Ericson or Nokia has ever been accused or guilty of spying or stealing technology.

<comment><USER3> They also have cooperated with GCHQ and the NSA.

<comment><USER4> Personally I think "the devil you know" mentality is better when considering that any Telecom tech could be compromised. Yeah everybody is probably spying, so you should get your gear from your strongest allies.

Would you rather have a friend or an enemy spying on you? That appears to be the only options now that technology has thoroughly penetrated every day life.

Another point not mentioned enough is that societies with free press are far more likely to find and report exploits/backdoors. In a country like the US you see this a lot. There's many cases of security researchers reporting possible government funded exploits against their own government. In a place like China reporting something like that would probably mean you disappear

<comment><USER5> > Would you rather have a friend or an enemy spying on you?

A better decision rationale would be; which of the two is more likely to use their spy-data against you?

And the answer to that is without doubt; your own local spy agency, not the one operating in another country.

<comment><USER6> In the long term, I'd not want my country's national security compromised by a morally bankrupt govt not subject to democracy.

<comment><USER7> Fundamentally much of what you think in this way is the direct product of propaganda from your own state. It would behoove you to investigate your own preconceptions and realise where you first got them.

<comment><USER6> It would behoove you to not guess at how I arrived at my beliefs and where I live and then claim _I 've_ got preconceptions.

I can see the facts of the Chinese government's authoritarianism, their persecution of their minority populations, and their international behavior just fine. In fact, they're so economically influential, that I find criticism of them is muted, and tolerance of their crap is high.

<comment><USER8> Tolerance of US crap is high from bombing civilians with drones using CIA black sites. Putting people on no fly lists for arbiratory reasons. Incarcerating minorities are some of the things that the US government does. So when US agencies say they don't like or trust Chinese tech I understand as they probably have backdoors in a lot of the western tech and when Chinese tech is used they lose the back doors. For most countries using Chinese tech vs Western tech is choosing the spying of 1 or the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are very few Indian companies operating in China anyway.

India should block Huawei now even more. Just like in the case with US, China has more to lose that India.

Edit: in case there was any confusion, when I said "US" above I was referring to US-China not US-India.

<comment><USER10> India has $60 billion trade surplus with US it is not same relationship when with China, India has $60 billion deficit.

India is not that important for US, it is useful, Yes. Strategically important? Absolutely NOT!

Edit: To Provide Context, there is low scale tit-for-tat going between US and India regarding trade. [https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/15/economy/india-tariffs- us-trum...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/15/economy/india-tariffs-us- trump/index.html)

<comment><USER11> For 2018 the India goods trade surplus with the US was $21 billion ($33.5b in US exports to India; $54.3b in India exports to the US).

US exports to India climbed from $21b to $33b over the prior two years (2017 & 2018). That's a nice increase of $12b or 57%; their exports to the US increased by $8b over that same time frame.

To put that into context, US exports to India will match US exports to France this year approximately, so it's already a serious export market for the US (and 50%+ larger than US exports to Italy, which is the 8th largest economy). Importantly, India has serious economic growth and a likely high long-term growth trajectory, whereas most of the top 20 economies have had very little or zero growth the past decade plus. If you're the US and you're seeking export growth, India is one of the best options.

The primary benefit to maintaining a good, equitable economic relationship with India, is that they're likely to have a very large economy in the near future. Even though they will remain poor per capita for a long time, they're almost guaranteed to become the world's third largest economy behind the US and China in the next few decades.

In terms of economic output they passed France this year and will soon pass the UK (within 6-12 months if they haven't already). That puts them #5 behind Germany, which they'll plausibly pass in six or seven years. 20 years from now when they have a $8 or $10 trillion economy, as an American, I'd prefer that the US have a reasonable economic relationship with India that benefits both sides. In the future they will probably be a very important market for the US, so you should try to take care of the relationship today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tit-for-tat. From my scarce knowledge of game-theory and world-politics it is generally accepted as the default move in these types of situations.

But well, if India sees Huawei as security threat, shouldn't they have a quite good justification for blocking them? It's not that they are outright punishing Huawei for just existing, but that there is, in their opinion, a real cause for them to fear Huawei of spying their networks behalf of Chinese government?

Although the real reason would be a lot more nuanced as usual with politics. But to me it seems a bit unfair. Russia and China (and others, sure) have effectively blocked many foreign companies in different sectors in their respective countries because of security reasons, so why India isn't allowed to do the same thing?

<comment><USER13> Works well on games.

Only problem is trade isn't a game.

Or, to put it another way, you have no idea when your opponent will stop playing this game and start playing another one.

<comment><USER14> Game theory is about decision making. If you reject game theory, you reject rational decision making being possible. Note that game theory is still useful in the context of making good decisions against irrational decision makers. Your "put another way" is merely pointing out that often in real world scenarios the game's rules are often part of the unknown information

Everything involving decisions is a game. Trade is a game

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If the technology is great, every country will use it without questioning its source, but Chinese tech has never been so innovative, always copying and pasting with a bit of modifications. If you are forcing a country to use your technology, then there's something wrong.

<comment><USER16> I believe this is incorrect in this case. Huawei is ahead of competitors in the 5G space.

<comment><USER17> Considering the sheer volume of mobile devices in asia, and China in particular, this wouldn't surprise me. However, I was under the impression that "5g" doesn't _actually_ mean anything. As in there is no technical definition or standard that Huawei could be ahead of. Are we just talking about general mobile technologies or have things changed wrt 5G?

<comment><USER18> > However, I was under the impression that "5g" doesn't actually mean > anything. As in there is no technical definition or standard that Huawei > could be ahead of. Are we just talking about general mobile technologies or > have things changed wrt 5G?

I believe most people mean 5G NR ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR)) when they talk about 5G, the same way 4G usually means LTE.

<comment><USER17> Ah, I didn't know this was a thing. Thanks mate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So basically, the big companies own the government in their county.

<comment><USER20> There has long been suspicion that Huawei is actually owned and controlled by the PLA. Not that it really makes much difference even if that were true (China would protect it even if it were a completely private enterprise).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> As an Indian I personally root for Huawei. If not for any other reason that Ericsson (70% just a decade ago) and co have had a monopoly for far too long.

The only jobs that Ericsson brings to India are low end back office jobs and at the most billing software. Even though it could have been one of their largest growth markets.

This could be a good opportunity to get them/Huawei to setup more cutting edge R&D (especially PHY layer), co-development and manufacturing. India should hand out some Chinese medicine to the Chinese.

High tech is a chicken and egg problem, India has all the ingredients, but apparently free market doesn't work when monopolies are involved.

</comment><comment><USER22> China has a good relationship with Pakistan.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations)

I wonder how that plays into it, given the recent events in Kashimir: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/india-revokes- kashmir...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/india-revokes-kashmir- special-status-latest-updates-190806134011673.html)

If I had to guess these sanctions and warnings are never purely technological and are mostly political.

<comment><USER23> I don't know anything about this, but it seems quite surprising, given China's record of 'disappearing' millions of Muslims (and other citizens) right next door to Pakistan

<comment><USER24> People from the outside has a tendency to over estimate the unity of other groups. For a long time, the first world nations thought all the Communist countries were buddies but China had border wars with both the USSR and Vietnam. In the Islamic world, Muslim nations fought each other all the time as they still do today. In the Christian realms, the Crusades started with Western Christians sacking Constantinople and the wars of religion between the Catholics and Protestants were pretty brutal. France was at one point allied with the Turks during the period of the "Italian Wars".

It tends to be that people think first of their own welfare and then maybe of their allegiance to the groups they belong to.

<comment><USER25> A great essay on the topic: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can- tolerate-anythin...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate- anything-except-the-outgroup/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I believe the default action for Huawei for such block would actually be purposefully enact the ban on itself:

Stop all sales including spare parts, revoke signing keys, block IPs of cell towers and cloud control panels from that country, stop tech support, and look how soon they will change their musik

</comment><comment><USER27> So India just needs to pre-ask for "reverse-reverse-sanctions" from the US: Hey Mr States, we'll not use Huawei like you asked us, if you'll give us extra XXXX access to your country.

<comment><USER28> More like: "Hey India, if you don't avoid Huawei with us, you'll have even bigger sanctions than if you follow Chinese advice. And won't get spied upon by the Chinese."

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> on a serious note. what are the chances of this whole debacle thing causing a full scale warfare ? given the animosity between the 2 neighboring countries India and China. then you factor in US backing India. Then add Russia + china in the mix. This whole sanction and tariff thing can't continue without one side completely asserting dominance over the other. & US will not leave it's position willingly.

<comment><USER30> We are already very close to "full scale warfare", just of the economic kind. There is likely not going to be the war you are referring to between two superpowers in today's environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> China has a history of pegging its currency to the US dollar. Is there precedent for pegging tariffs to the yuan?

<comment><USER32> Well the US government labelled China a "Currency Manipulator" a couple of days back. Doesnt mean much, but it will add to the trade war between the two

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> > warning there could be consequences for Indian firms operating in China

What Indian firms even operate in China? What firms from _any_ country other than China have a meaningful presence there?

I guess the threat is meaningful if you include firms doing any business in China, but by restricting exports or imposing tariffs they are shooting themselves in the foot as well.

<comment><USER26> I see people already noticing the timing.

In other news: [https://www.dawn.com/news/1498428/china-says-india-move- on-k...](https://www.dawn.com/news/1498428/china-says-india-move-on-kashmir- violates-its-territorial-sovereignty)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In an ideal world one should not be spied on by anyone else, but in this particular case I think India would be more ok (so to speak) of being spied on by the US than by China, the reason being that India has an ongoing and still open border dispute with China, while its relations with the US are a little more benign. Granted, I'm not from India and I've never visited the country, maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER34> You'd need to have been living on a different planet to think that the US is benign. Relatively benign to their own citizens but far and away the most globally antagonistic country over the last 50 years. The list of wars and interventions, arms dealing, extradition etc would be far beyond anything China has done.

No government is beyond over stepping it's boundaries but unfortunately non US citizens do not have a constitution to protect them from the US government.

China is threatening the US global trade dominance and the US is reacting in exactly the same way incumbents usually do and unfortunately trade wars between major powers have been historical quite bloody.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Isn't that just predatory pricing?

</comment><comment><USER36> Hmm, what a great way to inspire confidence Huawei isn't working with the Chinese government to add spyware to everything...

<comment><USER37> "Use Huawei's products, which are not controlled by the Chinese government, or the Chinese government will sanction you".

The Chinese government is about as subtle as an atom bomb.

<comment><USER38> That's pretty much the policy for any country in the world that sees a domestic company being -in their view- unfairly blocked from doing business in another country. They tell them "if you discriminate against us, we will do the same to you".

<comment><USER39> Really? What retaliatory action did the US take on behalf of its tech companies following their blocking in China?

<comment><USER40> Which companies were blocked by China from operating?

<comment><USER41> Google, Facebook, Twitter jump out as examples. These are completely banned from operating due to censorship. Baidu, WeChat, and Weibo are the domestic equivalents, arguably dominant only because of this protectionism. WeChat has outgrown facebook though I think and FB could not win in China now. Corps which sell products in China (as opposed to those who buy manufactured goods that are exported from China) operate only crippled subsidiaries with 51% Chinese ownership for Chinese domestic sales due to their laws.

<comment><USER38> That's not really correct, is it? Google decided not to comply with censorship laws (which I think is a good call), they weren't outright banned. There's a difference between "you must not operate in our country" and "you must not operate in our country without adhering to local laws".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > Huawei has carried out operations in India for a long time, and has made > contributions to the development of Indian society and the economy that is > clear to all,

And how is this relevant to backdoors? Just wow.

</comment><comment><USER43> 华为 'hua-wei' means 'Serve China'

<comment><USER44> "It's a cookbook, it's a cookbook!"</comment></comment>


Fixed Mindset or Growth Mindset? - <AUTHOR> http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/images/features/dweck/dweck_mindset.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> See the video and Guy Kawasaki's take on it at:

<http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/04/more_on_carol_d.html>

</comment><comment><USER2> Its good to be on the right side of this chart. (Nice abstraction and graphic representation)

<comment><USER3> Believing yourself to be on the right side of this chart is a left-side mentality.

Believing yourself to be moving from left-to-right is a right-side mentality.</comment></comment>