War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket.shtml <comment><USER3> Must read. Was told to read it by a former Army pilot. Been telling everyone to read it since.

Reading the comments below, I come to understand that many are missing the point of the essay, or speech as it was intended originally.

For modern readers, Butler's words are not to be taken directly but in context. Butler's point is that war is a racket. That is it. Funny right. If you are to ignore all the details about the casualties and who said what and who did what, you are still left with the essence of the speech. War is a racket. Repeat after me :) If you instill the mindset that war is a racket then all the pieces fall into place. It becomes very clear that war has no regard for human life. That it is detached from reality of life and death.

"Eliot A. Cohen, an official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that Mr. Obama's trips to Walter Reed may have been the reason, and that future presidents should avoid such visits.

"A president has to be psychologically prepared to send people into harm's way and to get a good night's sleep," Mr. Cohen said. "And anything they do that might cripple them that way means they're not doing their job."" \-- [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama- walter-r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama-walter-reed- military.html)

"they're not doing their job" \--- their job being what?

Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up. Additionally, presidents should visit hospitals in Syria maybe. Maybe then they will not make the same actions.

<comment><USER4> > "they're not doing their job" \--- their job being what?

At some point, a US president may need to send soldiers into a situation in which they will very likely die, in order to win a war. It has happened before, and it may happen again. If the president allows visits to wounded veterans to weaken his resolve, the consequences could be very bad. That's what Eliot Cohen is alluding to. He is not suggesting that the president should not care -- he is suggesting that the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens.

> Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried > about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up.

Nobody suggested that the president should not worry about the lives of soldiers. Your interpretation is unreasonably uncharitable and is in fact a straw man.

<comment><USER5> > the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens

Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake.

Sometimes, the greatest things a leader / president can do, is to acknowledge that he was (we were) wrong. However, pride prevents that. Once you decided to enter a war, you are entirely focused on winning it.

<comment><USER6> The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight. It's a figure of speech.

The war on terror is so-so.

<comment><USER5> > The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight

Debatable. The police men / DEA involved probably feel like soldiers sometimes. The drug lords and governments in south america certainly have soldiers involved.

<comment><USER7> They're being trained to think of themselves as soldiers. This will inevitably lead to them _being_ soldiers, and that eventually ends in bog-standard straightforward war, indistinguishable from any waged by "real" soldiers.

<comment><USER8> Most soldiers throughout history were not career soldiers or warriors. Most are people brought into the conflict without any intent to be a soldier before whatever brought them in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> this is extraordinary

i say this for several reasons. One, Smedley D Butler is one of perhaps just three former US Marines universally regarded as demi-gods (the other two are Sgt. Dan Daly and Gen. Chesty Puller). Their official photographs are everywhere, and statement alleged to have been made by them are quoted like scripture among active duty marines. Gen Butler aside from attaining the rank of major general, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor--twice. (Sgt. Daly, my personal hero, had two as well _and_ a Navy Cross, the second-highest award in the USMC, equivalent to the Army's DSC; Chesty had no MoH, just five Navy Crosses, which is still pretty good).

So here he is at the end of his superb 33-year career, writing a book in which he declares that war is a Racket. And by "Racket" he is clearly using the term in the precise sense: "[a] service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist."\--in other words, what organized crime does.

> "Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints."

from the OP (a except from the Book, which in turn was based on a speech given by Butler two years prior): "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers."

Needless to say, i never heard about this book while serving in the USMC as a Sergeant.

second, this book was published in 1935--Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II.

<comment><USER10> "this is extraordinary"

I thought this was well understood as well as documented? For example, Chomsky has been speaking about this for decades and his message seems to be fact based.

At least as a non-US citizen, the only war I'm happy about US participated was WW2[0]. This is not to say anything about the mere military _pressure_ US has applied but only of active campaigns. Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.

As a professional soldier, if you can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall street (or domino theorists in Washington) I will gladly do research on them.

[0] (for not allowing Soviet Union to dominate Europe - although, a great portion of their war effort was fought with US supplies so maybe third reich and Soviet Union would have just beaten each other to death).

<comment><USER11> > can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall > street (or domino theorists in Washington)

Let's see...

1) The First and Second Barbary Wars probably qualify, seeing as they predate both. But more to the point, I suspect they benefited lots of people outside of the US in general.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Anti- Piracy_Operati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Anti- Piracy_Operations_of_the_United_States) \-- or does that not count as a war?

3) I assume you're not going to count the US Civil War?

4) Pretty sure the US involvement in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Rus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War) didn't benefit Wall Street, though it's not clear it really benefited anyone else, other than the Czechoslovak Legion, of course. Or would this count as a "UN sanctioned peace action" albeit in pre-UN days, given the number of countries involved?

5) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis) \-- at first glance the US intervention prevented things degenerating into a more serious civil war. Or is this something that you think only benefited domino theorists?

6) I don't know enough about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thaila...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand) to tell whether it would count here, but I do think it benefited at least the Thai government.

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

8) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Lebanon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Lebanon) is a weird one, in that it's not clear that it really _benefited_ anyone in the end, but it was certainly not aiming to benefit domino theorists or Wall Street and as far as I can tell wasn't really UN-sanctioned, but was a peacekeeping mission.

9) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada) \-- or are you going to call this something to benefit domino theorists? The outcome (democratic elections, the day of the invasion being considered a national holiday in Grenada now) suggests that maybe the Grenadans benefited. Note that this one was _condemned_ by the UN.

10) Intervention in Kosovo in 1998/9\. This was not UN-sanctioned. Pretty sure neither Wall Street nor domino theorists (what dominos?) benefited.

> Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.

So just to be clear, specifically not counting the Korean War, the 1990-91 Gulf War, intervention in the Somali Civil War, intervention in Haiti in the mid-90s, Bosnia around the same time, Libya in 2011, right? Anything I missed?

<comment><USER10> Thanks! That's a great list of refences to go through. I actually wanted to have objective references and not just bash the US command. I should have placed more emphasis on the stabilizing US actions and not just sheath them under the "UN mandate" phrase. A few comments:

1) & 2) The anti-piracy operations were a nice example of a stabilizing strategy.

3) Civil wars are generally considered internal matters

4) Businesses operating within the allied sphere had vested commercial interests in Russia, see for example [http://www.branobelhistory.com/themes/the-branobel- company/T...](http://www.branobelhistory.com/themes/the-branobel-company/The- oil-companies-merge/) \- which the Bolshevik faction threatened

5) & 8) - Yeah, post Ottoman Middle East is a major fuck up. No idea who benefitted whom there.

6) I have no familiarity with the matter but supporting anti-communist forces within a country would fall under the "dominoes..." template if I had to be brash about forming a quick opinion

7) That's tiny. Yeah, probably under "stabilizing action" just like 1,2. But, no idea really.

9) That's US security more than anything, they were afraid Cuba and Soviet Union would hold Grenada as a forward base - I have to call "dominoes" on that

Of the uncounted:

Korean war - while I'm sure South Korean prefer the current situation, having an economy boosted by vested US interests - from the point of view of US was about holding Soviet Union at bay. Dominoes.

Gulf war. Oil. Oil. Oil oil oil. Street.

Somali civil war was an attempt at a stabilizing action.

Haiti - [http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/haiti-us- occupation-...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/haiti-us-occupation- hundred-year-anniversary) \- given the history of US involvement in Haiti I'm sure the 90's intervention was among the most benevolent of them

Bosnia- it's the stabilizing action for which I have to commend the US the most (and am stupefied to this day of the European incompetence in military matters).

Libya - yeah, that did not go so well for anyone.

<comment><USER11> What's interesting to me, and shouldn't be surprising, is that there are domino-theory wars like Korea that at least the South Koreans feel benefited them, and then there are domino-theory wars that didn't really benefit people much. And there are UN-sanctioned things that turned out well, and then there are things like Libya. And the hard part is telling up front which situation you're in...

Note that I left off a _long_ list of US military involvement that could not possibly be considered to benefit anything other than maybe US expansion or US business interests. I just listed the ones that might have fit your criteria.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Related is President (and 5 Star General) Eisenhower's speech warning against the military industrial complex in his Farewell Address. [1]

> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of > unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military- > industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power > exists and will persist.

This speech is cited as the first use of the term "military-industrial complex".

[http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html](http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

<comment><USER13> I'll add _" Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", by a less well known author, which is along similar lines._[1]

It's interesting that Eisenhower and Butler blew the whistle essentially after their careers were over rather than in the middle of their careers. I guess one generally does not attain great heights in one's respective career by being the sort that doesn't want to play the game. It still speaks volumes that those who are masters of their games would turn whistleblowers at all, though -- even if at a rather late stage.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man)

<comment><USER14> Widely regarded by experts as best placed in the fiction section

<comment><USER15> Then I'd suggest The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. That book is reference city.

<comment><USER16> Naomi Klein's first book - 'No Logo' was quite good.

The 'Shock Doctrine' was kind of a mess.

What happens is that these authors become very famous by putting out a good book with an opinion.

Then, like a one-hit-wonder rock band, they are urged to publish more red-meat for their readers, who want to hear about how the world works in a certain way.

Though the 'Shock Doctrine' is not a work of almost fiction as is 'Economic Hitman' \- the premise of the accusations are really, really shaky, in many cases absurd.

She's very unrealistic about most things, and recently indicated that the Canadian Postal Workers should double as nurses and visit people door-to-door (because hey, they already do that). Which is neat for a brainstormed idea but fails in so many ridiculous and obvious ways it's laughably absurd.

Since that book (Shock Doctrine), which by the way makes some reasonable points, but mostly not - she's become a 'book agitator', she can't be taken credibly.

I can understand how people could read the 'Shock Doctrine' and be upset, but it's the absent contextual information that is missing that ultimately makes these books in some ways 'misinformational'. There are a lot of facts - <USER2> they are highly, highly selective. Add to this - some of the actual bad things the USA has done in the past - and you get the allowance for someone to spin great conspiracy theories.

Klein lives in my neighbourhood BTW. I see her around :)

<comment><USER17> Shock doctrine had some great points like about the economic collapse of Russia and South Africa in the early 90's under neoliberalism.

<comment><USER16> I can think of a couple of issues which might underlie the economic issues of South Africa and Russia: namely thee end of one party rule in both states.

There really was no 'collapse' of the South African economy - it's been growing rapidly since the end of apartheid. Just some chaos during the transition. Crime expanded quite a lot and it had nothing to do with 'neoliberalism'.

And both nations would have had to go a heavy and chaotic transitionary period.

To imply that it was part of some cabal of Western Imperialist 'Doctrine' is completely false.

There were a lot of resources up for grabs - and a lot of money ploughing in.

Naomi Klein is part of the reason I dropped supporting SJW/leftist causes by default, I'm pretty skeptical these days, I pick and chose.

<comment><USER17> There was a dramatic downturn in the South African economy after 1994, not a collapse like Russia but our industry took a huge knock, the Rand weaken dramatically, there was vast disinvestment and job losses. Yes there was growth, but like all neoliberal regimes it has gone to the wealthiest 1%. Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it was in 1994.

<comment><USER16> "Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it was in 1994."

And do you blame this on capitalists? Or do you blame this on your utterly, completely and totally corrupt and inefficient political system?

Which one do you think is the source of the problem? :)

Because we have capitalism here in Canada and are doing just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the reasons why I'm optimistic for a Donald Trump presidency is that finally Americas ugly policies have an ugly face to go with them. Every single one of Americas Presidents, from Obama to Reagan, JFK to both Bushes all maintained a veneer of respectability and decency. All of them cultivated a diplomatic and "statemanlike" appearance, all while continuing absolutely barbaric foreign policies designed to maintain American hegemony and appease industrial interests, no matter what the cost. Trump, on the other hand, refuses to play by this charade and indeed "tells it like it is".

American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American actions will now be apparent for all to see.

<comment><USER19> > American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than > it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices > critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in > hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American > actions will now be apparent for all to see.

Critical voices from where? Outside the United States?

<comment><USER20> Anywhere critical thought exists, I would hope? Why draw geographic borders on what is hopefully a universal phenomenon, the ability to be critical?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _" But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill"_

I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. It would seem to me that they are the ones who pay "the biggest part of the bill".

Not that I would deny that the people doing the mass murder can themselves become the victims of war. But I'd personally have more sympathy for civilians who are not trying to murder others but are themselves murdered.

<comment><USER21> Let's not overlook the toll that murder takes on those pressured and conditioned into being willing and able to do so. PTSD rates among recent Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 20% [1]. More veterans commit suicide after coming home than are KIA.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorde...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#cite_ref- VAscreen_26-4)

<comment><USER18> This phenomenon was summed up succinctly by Frankie Boyle

> Not only will America go to your country and kill all your people, but > what's worse I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a > movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

> America making a movie about what Vietnam did to their soldiers is like a > serial killer telling you what stopping suddenly for hitchhikers did to his > clutch.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZwuTI-V8SI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZwuTI-V8SI)

It's not that PTSD doesn't exist or affect many people, but the scale of the tragedies involved.

<comment><USER22> The US found a solution to this problem and has been testing it for quite some time in Pakistan -- drones don't get PTSD.

<comment><USER23> Drone operators do though, in large numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In 1933, someone associated with the Du Pont interests tried to hire Butler to organize a coup to overthrow Roosevelt. It's never been clear how serious a plot this was, but Butler didn't go along and the plot died.[1]

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

<comment><USER25> There was a lot of fascination with Fascism and dictators around this time, a now creepy movie from this time is "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse", which promotes the idea of a Roosevelt-like president becoming dictator: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg)

<comment><USER13> There's also _" It Can't Happen Here"_ by Sinclair Lewis, from 1935. It envisions a totalitarian dictatorship taking over the US.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you pay a visit to DC, there's a hill you can go to that overlooks the Pentagon. It's illuminating how many aerospace and other government contractor logos are on buildings surrounding the space. It's like a giant star shaped trough with animals of all shapes and sizes come to feed.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm reminded of the money Halliburton made in both the Gulf Wars. And then they promptly moved their headquarters to the MiddleEast, to avoid any scrutiny.

<comment><USER28> Where in the middle east do you mean Halliburton has their HQ? I was curious so I did a bit of checking and it seems they're headquartered in Houston, Texas.

<comment><USER29> Halliburton moved their corporate HQ and CEO to Dubai in 2007.

They remain incorporated via the Texas office to bid on US tenders

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our > homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.

The problem is that you can justify almost any conflict as ultimately meeting these criteria. If you let someone else become too powerful isn't that a de facto threat to your home? If you don't defend rights abroad, don't you threaten the extinction of rights at home?

That's why we do rely on the morality of our leaders. Which seems to be ropey at best.

<comment><USER31> No, it isn't and that's typical USA thinking pattern - we have to be the best and control everything, then we're "safe" (oh and we'll earn some might good ol' $ too).

<comment><USER30> I am not advocating, only describing. I think his argument is a problem because it can easily be undermined by specious arguments such as I have outlined. Hence the need to believe in the moral judgement of leaders not to be drawn in by such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Coincidentally, I told my brother to read this last weekend.

Smedley Butler is a brilliant orator. He manages to distill social and political outrage/abuse into a language that the everyman can connect with, and without sounding like a populist communist sympathizer. He achieved the latter by often stressing the importance of individual as well as community action. He used the term "Americanism" do describe this socially engaged entrepreneur attitude.

</comment><comment><USER8> Things like this are why I think we've strayed very far from presidents Truman or Eisenhower, very opposed in their time, but so much closer to what we need today than we've really had since. JFK and Reagan at least inspired the population, and I wouldn't mind seeing another similar president, but I don't think today's political climate could tolerate any of them today.

It's a shame.

</comment><comment><USER33> This General was features in an episode of _Untold History of the United States_. Don't let the fact that Oliver Stone produced this deter you from watching it. I found it a very good, albeit quick, overview of history of the last 100 years. 12 episodes, on Netflix. Weirdly, the last two episodes are really the first two, so start there, the wrap back around to episode 1.

</comment><comment><USER34> "The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted." This is a great quote. Never gonna happen. But what a change that would make. If we instituted a "draft" of the financial and industrial systems, e.g. made them pay for war the way drafted soldiers pay-- without profit-- without choice-- we wouldn't go to war. The powerful and wealthy would never allow their profits to disappear into that kind of a void.

<comment><USER16> "Conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted"

Are you kidding? It's called taxation!

People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and a lot of it goes towards the military. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just that it is.

The General has a right to his opinion, but he cannot seem to grasp action and consequence.

The world is not some simple place wherein you can have easy answers to such questions.

Imagine for a moment if America did not control the high seas, the Panama canal, de-facto the Suez, the Gulf, and patrol the South China sea - and make them open and free for _everyone_ to navigate - even competitors like China, Iran and Russia?

All of those areas - including the routes around S. America and Africa would be controlled by totalitarian/thuggish entities or irregular forces and it'd be too expensive or unsafe to travel.

As just one example.

<comment><USER13> _" People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and"_

This is not even remotely true. The US used to have an income tax that was over 90%. Something like 94%, if memory serves.

<comment><USER16> It's quite true.

Though income tax rates after the war were quite high - it was for a very small group, and actual receipts were not as high.

'The 1%' do not generate a lot of income, they generate capital gains, which is why a 90% 'income tax' rate wouldn't have the effect you might think.

Moreover, in a climate wherein there actually is a 90% income tax rate, every wealthy person that can afford an accountant (i.e. all of them) would find ways around this. They'll simply take almost no income, and use other vehicles instead, i.e. sale of shares, royalties etc..

<comment><USER13> By that reasoning, why tax the rich at all? They'll always find a way around it.

In fact, the rich are not all powerful and don't get carte blanche when it comes to hiding their money.

Do you remember all of those secret Swiss bank accounts which were widely used to hide money? Well, in recent decades, the US has managed to force the legendarily secret Swiss banking system to become much more transparent, precisely in order to go after tax evaders. Tax evasion has also become a really serious issue in Europe. Governments are in fact going after the rich to get their due.

That doesn't mean there aren't loopholes, or that the rich can't manage to hide some of their money (at least temporarily, while the law catches up with them). But that doesn't mean they can hide it all or that there'll be no consequences for at least some of them. It certainly does not mean that we shouldn't try to tax them more.

<comment><USER16> I'm not reasoning anything.

I'm just saying that during the era of 90% 'income tax' for high earners, they would simply declare their income as capital gains. It's just what they did. And what people do.

<comment><USER13> There's no reason why capital gains couldn't be taxed at the same rates as income.

<comment><USER16> "There's no reason why capital gains couldn't be taxed at the same rates as income."

Sure there is -> risk.

It's why everywhere in the world cap gains are taxed lower than income.

Cap gains + income tax at 90% and economy would collapse instantly as risk premium goes up, most equities and probably most bonds would drop quite a lot and people moved into real-estate, cash, commodities, gold. etc..

But maybe there could be some improvement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Also "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" will churn the stomach almost as much as the stories of the rise of the Ottoman Empire by (sssh redacted religion) piles of heads or the accounts of the Armenian Genocide.

</comment><comment><USER10> There is a graphic novel about this topic called "Addicted to war" which was pretty good: [http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html](http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> What people often don't often realise that in the 20's 30's racket was a slang term for any job / profession it had yet to take on its illegal connotations

<comment><USER37> Not sure where you got this idea, but reading Butler's speech should make it clear the kind of connotations the word racket had in the 30's.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

<comment><USER36> If you read histories quoting original sources its also used in literature at the time Pg Woodhouse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Makes me really sad to read that old piece with so many things I thought myself. When will we commit to these ideas ? defense-only, profit-less, transparency ?

</comment><comment><USER39> In 3rd world countries leaders exploit their people. In developed countries leaders exploit 3rd world countries because it's not possible to exploit your own people... Too many damn rules and ways of controlling people. War in that sense is corruption. And corruption should be stopped. It's a completely unfair way of enriching yourself and your friends. Bush and Cheney being great examples. But it happens in many other cases as well. Industries that depend on war push for war. Countries like Saudi Arabia that benefit from war push for war and so on.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is one of the best essays on war I've ever read, and I'm glad to see it posted here.

It should be required reading in schools.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm sure USA armies have killed more people than Hitler's armies.

<comment><USER42> You obviously have no idea how bloody the fighting between Germany and Russia was.

While US made critical contribution in WW2, it was Russian blood that sucked German army white.

<comment><USER43> > ... it was Russian blood that sucked German army white.

Interestingly, the Russian invasion of Manchuria (i.e. their entry into the Pacific theater) also played a much more significant role in Japan's surrender than most of us were taught in history class. The US had been firebombing Japanese cities for months, so the atom bombs, while devastating, were not an order of magnitude escalation, whereas the Russian invasion certainly was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Curious how he described protection of overseas investments and business interests as a "racket", but at the same time enjoyed living in one of the most advanced economics of the world, fuelled by strong business and trade.

<comment><USER45> This is a lame criticism, because it implies that anyone who disagrees with their home country's policies should just move somewjere else, because they are dirty commie hippies.

He certainly "earned" the rights to his creature comforts, if participation in war is the measure of his dedivation the U.S.A.

I think it's more curious that rich people from all nations benefit from advanced economies, without sending their family members, or themselves in harm's way.

Which is more unfair?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you normally leave a job with another lined up or - <AUTHOR> Do you normally leave a job with another lined up or do you just quit and spend one/two months looking for work? <comment><USER2> as some have said, job hunting while unemployed can be very stressful, increasingly so as time passes. Also, as time passes, potential employers start seeing long unemployment periods suspiciously, unless you have valid reasons for it (family care, education, time-off...), compounding the difficulty of finding a job. If you are in a hot sector and have hot skills, it may not be a problem, but the reality for the majority of roles and industries is the opposite. My opinion is that potential employers do prefer people who have a job (it provides an indirect validation of your skills). The ability to start immediately is most of the time a plus but not a game changer, given that the base assumption is that candidate will need a notice period. having a job also helps in being more relaxed during interviews and more daring in contract negotiations). Yes, it is easier to find the time to go to interviews, but today many of the initial rounds happen over the phone and skype. For senior positions it is not rare to be interviewed over dinner. Personally I would always prefer to keep my job until I have a signed contract from a new employer (unless, i guess, I hated my current job so much to be a mental health issue or I was completely burned-out)

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, I just left one, and was expecting a few weeks of hunting, but as a contractor sometimes things turn up on literally the last day in the job. I said yes. I guess either would have worked.

A couple of notes

\- a job hunt is a full time beast and waaay easier to manage when not having a full time job

\- lots of people I respect say they never do the agency / CV / resume thing, they use their "network" \- i clearly do this wrong as it never works for me

\- I am going to start doing the network thing (actually keeping in touch with people) - my only idea so far apart from phoning people which seems rude, is [http://hackermews.org](http://hackermews.org)

\- Networking seems to be two different things - having a marketing presence, blogs, talks at conferences, self promotion etc. This is something many / most people who have successful networks seem to do

\- but they also seem to have a lot of repeat business - so I suspect they are you know actually good at the job. which is a problem as far as i am concerned :/)

So the only way i find work is the traditional job through agents / ads approach. I want to expand my presence and keep in touch with people in case that works, but let's be honest - an ad on a job site is a qualified lead. A guy you worked with three years ago is just "brand awareness" (or being friendly. but who has that many friends)

</comment><comment><USER4> Disagree with both of the other commenters here, job hunting is super stressful when you don't have a day job to fall back on. I would not normally leave a job without having another already lined up.

<comment><USER5> There was the entire idea of fuck you money back a few years ago on HN. Basically, you save up enough money so you can say, "Fuck you", to your current job and leave.

If you have FU money, then it doesn't matter so much.

<comment><USER4> Sure, FU money is great, but almost no one ever has FU money, even when they have a shit tonne of money, because the hedonic treadmill is real, and at some point you end up with people depending on your financial support.

Also, this is not necessarily advocating for staying in a shitty situation, but rather if the situation is fine not quitting before starting a job search.

<comment><USER6> Depends on your definition of "FU money". The common one is pretty close to "never have to work again", which very few people have.

On the other hand, I suspect the GP was referring to something more like a double-size rainy-day fund (enough to live on for a few months while job hunting, without worrying about depleting your emergency fund).

That isn't all that difficult to accumulate on a software developer's salary and is probably a good thing to do before taking on additional obligations like a kid or a mortgage. (I agree that it would be nearly impossible for most people to do working fast food.)

<comment><USER4> Accumulating savings for a few months of expenses is easy enough, and is definitely a good move, but it's still super stressful to watch that amount get smaller every month, and it gets smaller much quicker than it gets bigger. It's a buffer between you and moving back in with your parents, but it's not FU money in any meaningful way.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I agree it doesn't fit into the standard definition of "FU money". And how much you'd need certainly depends on the job market for your specialty and location.

But what I'm describing shouldn't be the "Lose your home" buffer. This is on top of that rainy-day fund, and saved up specifically so that you have that flexibility to be between jobs for a bit without having to snap up the first mediocre opportunity that comes your way - whether it's because you left voluntarily, you got fired/downsized, or the company you worked for just plain went under.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah it's usually easier to get a full time job if you can focus full time on job hunting. Being able to start 'immediately' also gives you an edge over other applicants.</comment>


Insider Attack Resistance - <AUTHOR> https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/05/insider-attack-resistance.html <comment><USER3> This is the sort of development that makes me want a Pixel 2.

I've been leaning toward an iPhone, for the first time, on security grounds, so this is a welcome piece of news.

Thanks, Google. Please keep it up.

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure everything mentioned here has been a feature on iPhones for quite some time.

<comment><USER5> No. If Apple develops a new, signed, version of the security module, it can bypass the password by updating the firmware in the security module without the user's password.

At least that was the case during the San Bernardino dispute. Apple never claimed it couldn't do, only that it refused to do for the FBI.

In this case (Pixel 2), Google claims that it is impossible to do that.

<comment><USER6> The San Bernardino case involved an older device though, the 5C (which came out in 2013), which did not have the dedicated security module (Secure Enclave) at all.

As far as I know, there is no confirmation on whether Apple (or anyone) could flash new firmware to the Secure Enclave, without the user passcode, without wiping data on the phone. This info is strangely missing from the official iOS Security Guide document. If anyone has more info on this please share.

There are some (unsubstantiated IMO) claims by people online (e.g. [https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply- wit...](https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi- court-order/)), and a series of Tweets with an ex-Apple security engineer ([https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520](https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520)), but nothing official. SEP firmware definitely can be upgraded without a key wipe (as confirmed by the Tweets as well as regular usage of iOS), but it's unsure if can be done without the user passcode. iOS does prompt the user for passcode when performing OS updates (which is also the delivery mechanism for Secure Enclave firmware upgrades). I don't know whether this is a UX-level security check only or actually hardware level required step.

<comment><USER7> This isn't proof, but food for speculation: Given that you have to disable the iCloud "Find My Device" feature on an iPhone as part of the steps Apple requires to be willing to take a device for recycling, I would assume that that setting being on prevents them from doing any automatic wiping/updating of your phone without your passcode, even in DFU mode. (For, surely, if they had the capability, they'd simply use it at the recycling centre, and thereby streamline the recycling workflow.)

<comment><USER8> I highly doubt they would put those methods in the hands of people working at recycling centers. I feel like if, and that's a big if, they have that kind of capabilities it would be reserved for special case uses. I mean really special case uses.

<comment><USER7> Keep in mind that "recycling centre" here refers to an intake channel at their own factories; and that the _firmware_ side of the recycling process isn't done by a technician themselves, but by a specialized "sanitizer" unit that the tech plugs the phone into. (Picture a disk degausser, but with a slot for a phone rather than a hard disk. Something heavy enough that you can't simply walk away with one!)

Is it hard to believe that, if iOS devices had a mode "deeper than DFU" that enabled control over the SEP firmware, that such machines would be implemented in terms of that mode?

And I mean, it's not like I'm making this idea up. This sort of "secret hardware-level handshake between recycling/repair machines and production devices, to put said devices back into a lowest-level firmware flashing mode that bypasses all user protections" was discovered to exist on the Nintendo 3DS, and was turned into a permanent jailbreak method for those. It might be an industry-wide practice. (It's hard to tell, because even on a rooted device, you can't just "dump" the ASICs and scan them for a backdoor handshake.)

<comment><USER9> A device that can launder stolen phones regardless of security settings is still something to keep in limited circulation, even if you can't pick it up and walk away with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The beauty of this can be seen by how those securities are leverage and enhanced on CopperheadOS.

I criticise Google a lot for how much information they store on us, but this work they do both on Android (open-source) and the Pixel phones hardware should receive more praise.

</comment><comment><USER11> "To prevent attackers from replacing our firmware with a malicious version, we apply digital signatures."

How about putting a read/write switch on the device that prevents writing to the firmware if the switch is in the off position.

<comment><USER12> What problem would it solve?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > We recommend that all mobile device makers do the same.

Kind of insencere when the biggest competitor has been doing this since 2013 (the feature is marketed as "secure enclave" by Apple)

<comment><USER14> The Apple Secure Enclave cannot defend against someone who has the signing keys to the password software (or at least couldn't as of 2016)- that's why the FBI wanted Apple's "help" over the San Bernardino shooter. Apple said no, but could have done it- it was a policy choice of theirs to fight the FBI. Google has created a situation with the Pixel2 where they can't do that sort of thing even if they wanted to. And justified it without ever referencing "Search Warrants" or "Nation-state threat actors" even though that is the obvious driving force here.

<comment><USER15> > ...or at least couldn't as of 2016...

The iPhone 5c came out in 2013 (and was a budget device based on the hardware design from 2012; the iPhone 5s--which I believe, though would happily be proved wrong, had _already_ fixed this issue--actually came out at the same time as the iPhone 5c). I have no love for Apple (clearly), and I think they (and, sadly, the EFF) were being disincenuous at the time about the definition of "back door", but you are just spreading misinformation here: "as of 2016" would imply the iPhone 7 was vulnerable, which is a _much_ newer device than the one from the infamous San Bernadino scenario :/.

<comment><USER16> >I have no love for Apple (clearly)

For those who are unaware, Saurik created Cydia, the package manager for jailbroken iOS devices, as well as a whole bunch of jailbroken iOS-related software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What if the attack is in the form of a court order?

<comment><USER18> This constraint forces an attacker to focus on the user that actually has the password. From a security perspective, this forces the attacker to shift focus on forcing the user to reveal the secret as opposed to the company responsible for creating the firmware, in this case Google.

My guess is in the U.S. the 4th and 5th amendment would prevent the government from forcing you to reveal the secret, so long as you do not rely on biometric security, which has been in some cases ruled as exempt from the same rights as say a password. IANAL though, so I really can't elaborate on an explanation of why. I think if anything you're likely to be held on obstruction charges or have your assets frozen in an attempt to apply pressure on someone unwilling to cooperate. In other, perhaps less forgiving locales like North Korea, China, or Russia, I imagine one may end up being the subject of persuasion of a more physical nature.

<comment><USER19> I've noticed that my Pixel asks me for my PIN for "additional security" every few days. Apparently it asks you for your PIN if you try to unlock your device without having entered your PIN for 3 days [0]. I never realized this was the reason, but it seems like a fairly decent deterrent to law enforcement - <USER2> wonder if there's a way to reduce this frequency to a day or so.

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/nexus5x/comments/3us0f6/pin_require...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nexus5x/comments/3us0f6/pin_required_for_additional_security_why/)

<comment><USER20> A competent law enforcement agency attaches a digital forensics device all the phone's content as soon as they get their hands on it. They're probably not going to wait three days.

<comment><USER19> But that requires them to unlock the device. Using your fingerprint to unlock it likely requires a court order, which takes some time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Have there been notable cases of a malicious actor installing a compromised OS on a target's phone for spying purposes?

</comment><comment><USER22> Impressive, but given the prevalence of apps that demand full access to all USB contents and then arming the user with only the ability to accept or decline all-or-nothing, this seems like an electronic Maginot Line.

But to be fair, they've got to start somewhere and there is always hope they'll extend the permissions options to be more powerful.

</comment><comment><USER23> One attack this wouldn't guard against is a malicious actor pushing a buggy version of the Secure Enclave code that couldn't be updated without destroying all data on the phone.

</comment><comment><USER24> Does the firmware signature preclude flasshing the devices with an alternate OS? (Considered independenttly of data stored.)

<comment><USER25> The locked bootloader would prevent flashing anything that was not signed by Google.

<comment><USER24> :-(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > There is a way to "force" an upgrade, for example when a returned device is > refurbished for resale, but forcing it wipes the secrets used to decrypt the > user's data, effectively destroying it.

It's interesting.

Why "[wipe] the secrets used to decrypt the user's data, effectively destroying it" instead of wiping the data itself too?

Is this to potentially allow a third-party with enough power (i.e. a government entity) to eventually decrypt the data?

<comment><USER27> this is the standard "remote wipe" technique and a standard cryptographic application

<comment><USER26> I know nothing about the "standard remote wipe technique", but neophyte me believes that wiping security keys isn't exactly protecting you against your data being eventually retrieved and decrypted.

<comment><USER28> The data could be stored on an SD card, or emmc flash, or the cloud. Erasing is not reliable there. The more data you have to protect with secure hardware, the easier a time the attacker has.

Destroying encryption keys stored in a small, secure processor is the most reliable and secure method.

The encrypted data can and should be wiped too, but it's a lot more reliable to have your security model not rely on that.

We have no reason to believe AES-256 will ever be broken within the lifetime of the universe. Maybe in 100 years I will be proven wrong, but I am willing to bet the security of my phone on it.

I suspect we will have human beings living in another solar system before AES-128 is broken.

<comment><USER26> My point is about doing both, if possible, instead of just getting rid of the keys.

<comment><USER29> Because, as parent noted, making it possible makes your secure enclave more complex (which is the same as less secure).

Furthermore, as parent also noted, if your encryption is solid, wiping the keys is identical to wiping the data.

<comment><USER26> Indeed, my bad, I totally read his answer too fast and missed "The encrypted data can and should be wiped too, but it's a lot more reliable to have your security model not rely on that."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


IPLANG – an optimization-based language - <AUTHOR> http://iaindunning.com/2014/iplang.html

<comment> dj-wonk This is crazy; perhaps that's what makes it intriguing.

In any case, I'm scratching my head. For example:

> We can thus, for any Brainfuck program, create an integer optimization > problem with 3n decision variables where the optimal solution is that > program.

Got it.

Integer optimization is designed to solve numerical problems. Is there any reason or inspiration to suggest that use this technique is a productive way to write programs that satisfy certain constraints?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly an exercise in using a tool for something not intended - art?

You can definitely express any Brainfuck program as a integer program, and you can add constraints that will constrain what the program does/must do, but it isn't clear to me how to add useful constraints/objective that are still linear. It'd be an interesting exercise though, and something I'll be thinking about.

Integer optimization does have some practical uses related to programming though - its use has been explored in compilers. E.g. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898122197...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898122197001843)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> For those looking for examples of actually used languages designed specifically for optimization problems, there are several out there.

AMPL is one such language [1]

[1] [http://www.ampl.com/EXAMPLES/](http://www.ampl.com/EXAMPLES/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The language I used, JuMP [1], is quite similar to AMPL. In fact in [2] we do performance comparisons with it. Check it out if you have a chance.

[1] [https://github.com/JuliaOpt/JuMP.jl](https://github.com/JuliaOpt/JuMP.jl)

[2] [http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1431](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1431)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What happens when there are multiple best solutions?

<comment><AUTHOR> Could be a challenge: write an IPLANG program with multiple "interesting" solutions

<comment><USER4> Should the IPLANG "compiler" try to detect multiple solutions?

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose it could, and would be fairly easy to do!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can this be used as a BF supercompiler?

<comment><AUTHOR> It might be possible. Consider adding new auxiliary variables that represent the state of memory after each operation. You may be then able to add (linear) constraints to those auxiliary variables that are meaningful. Including user input could be tricky though.</comment></comment>


Nigeria Shuts Off Internet & Mobile For Inauguration - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/nigeria_shuts_off_internet_mobile_after_election.php?sms_ss=hackernews&at_xt=4ded08bbaaf9e4c5%2C0 <comment><USER2> How many revolutions does it take for Governments to realize that shutting down the Internet will backfire badly?</comment>


Ask HN: How should I go about getting a terms & privacy policy?  - <AUTHOR>

what should I expect to pay in attorney fees? <comment><USER2> Unless you're doing something truly outrageous, there are boilerplates for these available online.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, Hopefully it's not truly outrageous :) I'm concerned that some of what I'm doing could be out of scope with what's covered in the templates online.

Part of my website includes functionality that allows the user to play mp3s that have been posted by popular music blogs ( and collected/categorized on my end ). I know there are similar applications like 'hype machine' and 'we are hunted' that offer a similar service and appear to be operating w/o much risk; I'm just unclear of whether or not I can get by with tastefully re-using some of the relevant elements listed within their legal forms, or if I should just pay an attorney.

<comment><USER3> Take a look at the terms/privacy by wordpress.com... it is under a Creative Commons Sharealike license, save those legal fees for raining days. I find it quite easy to adopt for most businesses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Take a look at OpenDNS' terms of use. It's also under a Creative Commons license.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the suggestions everyone</comment>


Norway Scientist Claims Report Proves Coronavirus Was Lab-Made - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/norway-scientist-claims-report-proves-coronavirus-was-lab-made/ <comment><AUTHOR> Forbes probably withdrawn it because the paper is withdrawn and soon (<1week) to published again as two papers.

[https://www.ibtimes.sg/british-norwegian-study-claims- corona...](https://www.ibtimes.sg/british-norwegian-study-claims-coronavirus- was-lab-made-former-mi6-chief-agrees-46528)

</comment><comment><USER2> Edit: It looks like I have confused Birger Sørensen with Ralph S. Baric, who is the real expert.

This is unfortunate news.

For context, Birger Sørensen is one of two global experts in genetically engineered Corona viruses and the other is Shi Zhengli, based out of Wuhan.

For the last 20 years, the two have been in competition to humanize coronaviruses and test how contagious they are in mice and primates.

<comment><USER3> "Unfortunate" how?

Unfortunate because it's professional jealousy, likely to hold back the field? Or unfortunate because it's likely true?

By the way, I love your HN name.

<comment><USER2> Unfortunate because it lends a tremendous amount of credibility to the lab- made hypothesis, which can only increase tensions with China and lead to geopolictial consequenses which will leave us all worse off.

Glad you like the name!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://archive.is/voHST](http://archive.is/voHST)

</comment><comment><USER5> > contains sequences that _appear to be_ artificially inserted.

When did 'appear to be' constitute proof?

</comment><comment><USER6> The link says the page is no longer active.

</comment><comment><USER7> where is the proof, none of the researches that are mentioned are publicly available on the internet.</comment>


Announcing Rust 1.15.1 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/02/09/Rust-1.15.1.html <comment><AUTHOR> A Rustacean with a wry sense of humor suggested that now would be a good time to pitch the Underhanded Rust Contest [https://underhanded.rs/blog/2016/12/15/underhanded- rust.en-U...](https://underhanded.rs/blog/2016/12/15/underhanded-rust.en- US.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> Glad that the soundness bug was caught so quickly, and that the new version has been put out so quickly. Thanks Rust team!

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm new to rust. Can someone explain what is the issue with following code?

        pub fn as_mut_slice(&self) -> &mut [T] {
            unsafe {
                slice::from_raw_parts_mut(self.ptr as *mut T, self.len())
            }
        }

<comment><AUTHOR> The post goes on to explain it, was there something specific about that that's confusing?

<comment><USER3> My confusion was why the compiler didn't catch this, it is suppose to spot this sort of thing right?

Now that I think about it, maybe it has to do with `unsafe` block so the compiler doesn't check it.

My next question would be why does it need `unsafe`?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah yes, it's because of the `unsafe`.

> why does it need `unsafe`?

slice::from_raw_parts_mut is an unsafe function because it lets you conjure a slice from thin air; there's no checking of it at all.

This function is used because it's the most straightforward way of accomplishing the task.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quick and responsible, good job.</comment>


Are you thinking of submitting your company to TechCrunch20 conference? Think again! - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch20.com/blog/2007/05/16/marissa-mayer-and-brad-garlinghouse-join-techcrunch20-expert-panel/#comment-36 <comment><USER2> This seems a bit overblown. Do you really think that you've come up with an idea that one of the thousands of minds at Google hasn't already thought of and dismissed (or back burnered)?

This is a great opportunity. The likeliest responses by Google when evaluating applicants are (in order):

1) That's a really stupid idea. 2) That's not a terrible idea. 3) That's a pretty interesting idea. We should keep an eye on these guys. 4) That's a really interesting idea. We should talk to these guys and maybe hire/buy them. 5) That's a REALLY interesting idea, but a lousy implementation. We should clobber these guys. 6) That's a fabulous idea, and they seem to be doing it right. Let's buy 'em.

Check out the app here: <http://techcrunch20.com/wp- content/Submission_Form_TC20.doc>

(Word doc?!)

They ask for no information you shouldn't be happy to discuss with just about anyone IMHO. And they have a disclosure limitation section.

<comment><USER3> I think it's fair to imagine that Google or Yahoo might put more effort into an area if they see some promising startup working on it. If for no other reason than to hedge their bet. I wouldn't be especially paranoid about it, but it's worth taking into account.

 _"They ask for no information you shouldn't be happy to discuss with just about anyone IMHO."_

The big one is funding. That's not something I'd share with anyone just for the sake of it. Why do they even want to know? It seems likely to skew their perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was thinking it was Markus Frind from PlentyOfFish, but the writing doesn't seem to match his usual style. Anyone know who that is?

I think it's a pretty big risk giving those guys lots of details anyway. Jason Calacanis is on the team and as much as I really like that guy (unlike many others) he does like to talk about the secrets he knows. We can't be sure some bad guy won't get access to one of the reviewers email accounts either.

</comment><comment><USER4> You can't keep everything secret and still hope for investment/acquisition/partnerships.

That said, it seems like they'll have too much info for too long.

</comment><comment><USER5> Did they change the application deadline? I could have sworn the deadline to submit the startup was end of May, now it's July 6?

</comment><comment><USER6> arrington's response:

<http://www.techcrunch20.com/blog/2007/05/18/answers-to-a-few-frequently- asked-questions/#comment-45></comment>


What Is Called Nuclear Waste Is Mostly Fuel for Molten Salt and Fast Reactors - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/06/what-is-called-nuclear-waste-is-mostly-unused-fuel-for-molten-salt-and-fast-reactors.html <comment><USER2> This is true only if you ignore costs. It falls apart as soon as you include market pricing or any other reasonable resource allocation mechanism.

It's like pretending that the _liabilities_ represented by a huge coal ash pond are actually an _asset_ , because if all the aluminum and silicon in the ash were purified and sold it would be worth a lot at present prices. The problem is that the cost of turning the waste into a salable product is higher than the market price. So it is still in fact a liability.

Under present and foreseeable economic and technical conditions, the asset- value of spent nuclear fuel does not exceed its liabilities.

<comment><USER3> But the "spent" fuel is already a liability that no one has figured out how to get rid of.

<comment><USER2> Trying to permanently get rid of spent nuclear fuel under present and foreseeable conditions costs more than monitored dry cask storage for the indefinite future. A determination to permanently get rid of it despite the lower cost of once-through fuel cycles is a determination to take a modest liability and make it worse.

<comment><USER4> ...unless you count the risks of something bad happening.

That's always the unspoken actual debate when it comes to nuclear energy: what's the probability of the worst case, and how does it affect the amortized cost?

We're terrible at doing this calculation in other areas (e.g. terrorism vs. the cost of security theater), so it's not especially informative to talk about the status quo. Clearly, we believe it's cheaper to just store the stuff, or we wouldn't be doing it. With nuclear energy, the exceptions matter a lot.

<comment><USER2> Both present once-through fuel cycles and "burner" reactor concepts produce fission products in proportion to energy generated. The short and medium lived fission products are the most intensely radioactive and dangerous byproduct of nuclear fission for the first few centuries of waste storage. The advantage of a burner reactor from a waste perspective is that it can consume longer lived actinide waste products like neptunium, plutonium, and americium. A burner reactor converts these actinide wastes into more intensely radioactive but less-long-lived fission products. (Additionally, some much longer lived and less intensely radioactive fission products like technetium 99 are also formed in burners and conventional reactors.)

This is to say that even if you place a high premium on avoiding environmental releases of radioactive materials, there is no appreciable benefit from burner reactors on a human time scale. The overall radiotoxicity inventory that needs ongoing management is nearly the same for both burners and once-through reactors for 200+ years after the fuel is done with. Further, fuel reprocessing facilities are themselves more likely to leak fission products into the environment than dry cask storage is.

<comment><USER5> > Further, fuel reprocessing facilities are themselves more likely to leak > fission products into the environment than dry cask storage is.

But these fuel reprocessing already exist and the waste are currently already reprocessed to make MOX fuel, at least in some countries (France, UK, India, Russia and Japan).

<comment><USER2> Yes, and those plants release more becquerels of radioactive material into the environment when they reprocess fuel than would be released if the fuel elements were left intact in dry storage. I'm not saying that reprocessing plants release a _dangerous_ amount of radioactive material. I'm saying that reprocessing makes things worse if your top priority is to prevent releases of radioactive materials into the environment. It also makes things worse if your top priority is to make nuclear-generated electricity affordable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nuclear waste is also mostly fuel for hybrid fusion-fission reactors. From Wikipedia[1]:

> _Hybrid nuclear fusion–fission (hybrid nuclear power) is a proposed means of > generating power by use of a combination of nuclear fusion and fission > processes. The basic idea is to use high-energy fast neutrons from a fusion > reactor to trigger fission in otherwise nonfissile fuels like U-238 or > Th-232. Each neutron can trigger several fission events, multiplying the > energy released by each fusion reaction hundreds of times. This would not > only make fusion designs more economical in power terms, but also be able to > burn fuels that were not suitable for use in conventional fission plants, > even their nuclear waste._

As an extra advantage, such a reactor would be _subcritical_ (similar to a _Accelerator-driven subcritical reactor_ [2]) so it would never be at risk of a melt-down.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that such a reactor would still be a proliferation risk like fission breeder reactors.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator- driven_subcritical...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator- driven_subcritical_reactor)

<comment><USER7> > _so it would never be at risk of a melt-down_

This is a misunderstanding of what a melt-down is. In every case we know of involving commercial reactors, fuel melt-down happened _when the reactor was non-critical, completely devoid of fission_.

Meltdown happens when the heat generated by decay of products produced when the reactor was critical cannot be removed fast enough, such as when a cooling system fails or coolant does not cover the fuel modules.

Any reactor with solid fuel and a high enough energy density will have a meltdown possibility, unless it is somehow using a reaction chain that precludes the production of high-activity fission products.

<comment><USER8> Regardless of precisely what a "melt down" is or whether this was the appropriate term here, the Chernobyl explosion was caused by an excessive amount of fission output in a super-critical reactor. As I understand it, in a fission- or accelerator-driven reactor, if you turn it off, fission stops rapidly. Decay heat will remain, but that's a smaller amount of output power and is presumably a good deal less dangerous.

<comment><USER5> That's way enough to cause an accident though, see Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Mostly"? It's not like spent fuel is the only kind of nuclear waste...there's also tons of radioactive building materials, contaminated water and whatnot. Probably not as dangerous as (spent) fuel, but radioctive and voluminous enough to be a problem.

<comment><USER10> > _there 's also tons of radioactive building materials_

It's a rare case where this is an accurate statement, because a typical nuclear power plant produces a dozen or two tons of waste _per year_. Take a look at this observation until it sinks in just _how little waste_ that is.

<comment><USER9> How heavy are the buildings housing the reactor? How much of that material is radioactive/unsafe after a couple of years of operation?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article is misrepresenting the truth. Maybe the majority of the waste mass is really uranium (i doubt it, but i'm no expert), but from what i heard from an EPR engineer, the volume of this waste is in fact tools, clothing, used part that have been replaced and stuff like that. Not hard to take care of, and waste that contain very low level of radioactivity, but this should be the majority of nuclear waste, and this is not "mostly fuel" in any case.

Please be precise.

<comment><USER12> A more precise version of the title would refer to "high-level nuclear waste":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- level_waste](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_waste)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Which is why the UK was importing nuclear waste for a while. Whether it is economic is another thing. Is hard to tell from the UK experience, since that collapsed due to faking data for fuel pellets that were being sold to Tepco.

</comment><comment><USER14> What is the relation of cladding vs. content in a fuel rod? AFAIU any used fuel rod needs to be disassembled to be freed from its cladding, and only then can be reprocessed by whichever means to make new fuel rods with new cladding, which leaves the old cladding as irradiated trash. Am i popping a bubble there? Or is there a way to somehow melt that stuff into new cladding. Anybody thought about that? I mean, just look at the pictures in

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Fuel+Rod&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=imag...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Fuel+Rod&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images)

or

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

Anybody thougt about _that_?

Edit: I mean even IF used in molten salt reactors where there are no rods and therefore no cladding, what happens with the old cladding? That's not just some tinfoil where you could make hats out of it!

<comment><USER15> Well the cladding is radioactive but to a far lesser degree then the fuel itself. Its waste but lower level waste as it doesn't contain the most long lived elements. I mean, they will be their anyway, so your not creating more waste buy having the old rods.

Also, most molten salt reactors wouldn't use fuel rod. And the ones that do would be different compared to those in PWR so reuse is unlikely.

Edit: See here [https://youtu.be/TvXcoSdXYlk?t=1828](https://youtu.be/TvXcoSdXYlk?t=1828)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Its fuel for any kind of reactor. The process is a bit easier if you make salt fuel.

Its makes sense if you also get money to consume the waste otherwise its cheaper to go with freshly mined uranium. Or if you are interested in a fuel mix that is easier to obtain in spent fuel.

Edit: For those interested, one of the company engaged in the Canadian regulator process is proposing this:

[https://youtu.be/TvXcoSdXYlk?t=1828](https://youtu.be/TvXcoSdXYlk?t=1828)

MSR Reprocessing - Sylvie Delpech: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBEjys1SKCQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBEjys1SKCQ)

This is a talk by the company that is furthest along the timeline of bringing molten salt to the market and he talks a little about their fuel as well (they don't do reprocessing): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QVxYrQRxA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QVxYrQRxA)

</comment><comment><USER16> How much waste do the molten salt and fast reactors create?

<comment><USER15> It depends. There are a variety of differences.

In terms of volume its far less then with a PWR as there you have lots of other stuff in there as well. For the same amount of power, the waste from a MSR will much less and would have a better waste profile.

However beyond that, it all depends. There are many different designs, different inputs, different burn rates and so on and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> And monkeys might come flying out of my butt except in our post enlightenment world we need facts, observations, and reasoned evidence to support claims. Molten salt reactors have so far proven extremely difficult to build and operate and tend to leak molten salt. Fast reactors are mostly not a thing at this point. Making complex technologies work means not only overcoming technical challenges but doing so in a way that constrains both costs and risks which so far has proven to be extremely difficult.

<comment><USER15> > proven extremely difficult to build and operate and tend to leak molten salt

The only are 2 molten salt reactor ever built and neither one had a leaking problem. In fact, they would even be self sealing as the salt will cool down rapidly and seal the hole. If you have a rupture in the whole core, the spilled out salt would be captured in a pool and harden, it would be contained in the nuclear site boundary. This is the advantage of high temperature and salt. The temperature differential to the environment that the cooldown is very rapid.

Compared to PWR, the danger of a a molten salt reactor is incredibly small. There is no high pressure and steam, thus no explosion that can transport stuff like zirconium outside of the nuclear boundary.

Its also false that they have been extremely difficult to build. The Molten Salt Reactor experiment was operated and built by small time at a tiny fraction of the budget that were spent on many of the other nuclear reactors built at that time. They are far easier to build then a PWR in terms of complexity of and scale involved. The Molten Salt reactor experiment (the first ever molten salt reactor) was one of the fastest nuclear reactor was ever built.

The reason we don't have them has more to do with the history of nuclear technology. The Navy focused on PWR for ships (as makes sense=, those were commercialized with big investment of government and industry and were the most mature by far. Molten Salt reactors were in development by the Navy and were discontinued when rocket technology made nuclear bombers unneeded. After that the inventor of molten salt reactors only got a tiny amount of money to continue his research for a civilian reactor.

The big nuclear players didn't really care about building new reactor types as they had lots and lots of orders of the production designs they already had. There were only a very small number of people who were educated about what a molten salt reactor or how it worked. It required a somewhat different skill set (the inventor was a chemist) and neither government nor industry had a taste for commercialization at that moment. It didn't help that the inventor basically made himself unpopular with the regulatory agency when he claimed PWR were unsuited for civilian use.

When regulation changed because of TMI and Chernoyl the nuclear companies had their hands full with rebuilding all the plants according to new regulation to keeping the existing fleet ruining (and finishing project that were being built) and by that time the regulation had changed so that it was basically impossible for any new type of reactor to be licensed. In the US the technology was hard coded in to the regulation and made it impossible to deploy a new type of reactor in a commercial way. Since then hardly any new reactor type has been built or tested as you can not get fuel for anything beyond a tiny research scale reactor without passing full commercial regulation.

Development of pretty much all serious molten salt fuel has now moved to Canada as the regulators there have not hard coded specific technologies and the regulator investing its own resources to get threw regulation of such a reactor. In the US, you would have to pay the regulator to evaluate your design with no timeline or guarantee that would even allow it at all. Meaning you would have to design a full commercial reactor before the regulators even tell what you would need to do to convince them about the reactor. Meaning you potentially spend 10s of millions on paying the regulator before the actual regulatory process could even start, as you would have to finance the development of a regulatory framework for molten salt reactors.

Thankfully the DoE has realized this now and they are working hard at chaining their approach and congress is for once actually engaging in a bipartisan effort to improve the situation. See this talk for more information about government efforts: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lkDRX2huM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lkDRX2huM)

<comment><USER18> You can't wave away the remaining challenges of a molten salt reactor. It is a legitimately difficult materials science problem to operate a liquid salt pump loop operating at ~1000K and under high neutron flux.

It's also not a super-great explanation that a major accident will just cause the salt to flow into the holding tank. What if the holding tank is full of water? Why would it be full of water? I don't know but the planet is absolutely filthy with water and "the basement is unexpectedly full of water" has happened to almost every building humans have ever built. These are supposed to be installed _entirely_ underground, enhancing the danger of water intrusion.

Finally there is still the challenge of continuous processing of the liquid fuel, to remove ash, add fissile materials, and separate gases. Nobody knows how to do this. Nobody has explained what to do with all the radioactive krypton etc.

<comment><USER19> _It is a legitimately difficult materials science problem to operate a liquid salt pump loop operating at ~1000K and under high neutron flux._

And so it's containing the fusion plasma, yet billions are poured into material research. And hastelloy N is already invented.

<comment><USER15> Hastelloy N will not be used by any of the companies building commercial reactor. Hastelloy N would have to go threw a whole lot of regulation to allowed to use in modern reactor.

The data gathered on its properties would not be sufficient for a modern regulator, and such a qualification would take way to long. Also, there is not really a supplier for commercial Hastelloy N.

Their focus is on using 'regular' nuclear grade materials that have already been approved. This is THE single most important focus of those reactor design. In the choice of containment, reactor type, salt solution and so on, they all picked sub-optimal things in order to make it threw the regulator and have a existing supply chain.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Junior dev racks up $60K AWS Bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/g1ve18/i_am_charged_60k_on_aws_without_using_anything/ <comment><USER2> I'd suggest this: [https://github.com/banzaicloud/aws-billing- alarm](https://github.com/banzaicloud/aws-billing-alarm)

Setting up billing alarms should be part of any AWS account setup checklist. Don't wait for the bill.

</comment><comment><USER3> Digging through that thread the poor OP was grossly negligent in more than a few ways:

\- Set up this company task under his own AWS account, with his _OWN_ credit card.

\- Saw the first bill at ~9000 USD had failed to process and deleted the email from amazon...

\</comment><comment>

It seems AWS is letting him off the hook though, as probably no real resources were consumed, and he was able to show it was not intentional.

But "Junior" is phrasing it lightly.

</comment><comment><USER4> Other than behaviour, are they self identified as a junior dev, or is the title just kinda being a jerk?

<comment><AUTHOR> self identified in the reddit comments

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You'd be surprised how easily this happens.

Cost controls are scarce sadly.</comment>


Genetic test to pick your diet: $149 - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100303/sc_nm/us_diet_genes <comment><USER2> This is kind of interesting, but it's probably not worth it for very many people at this point. In a few years, there will almost definitely be much better and much cheaper tests.

<comment><USER3> If you have enough patience, you can probably measure this by trying out different diets.

The important thing is to acknowledge that low-fat and low-carb seem to be equally good approaches and they depend on your genetic code, not some preference or public opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This test is a PR gimmick; don't bother.

<comment><USER5> What? This type of test is commonplace in many other species, especially livestock. Are you saying that our genes have nothing to do with how we absorb and process food?

<comment><USER6> Of course genes matter. But very few humans live and eat like animals. The sheer complexity of food processing byproducts and additives humans are offering their digestive tract makes the problem intractable.

<comment><USER5> If it's intractable why do the field of nutrigenomics and personalized drugs see such large experimental effects, when the studies treatments usually only manipulate a single SNP target?

BTW: Of course...but is not a logical argument.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bad Skype Calls Suck and How We Make Sure They Don't Happen - <AUTHOR> http://learnedbyme.tumblr.com/post/65342964983/bad-skype-calls-suck-and-how-we-make-sure-they-dont

<comment><USER2> Why submit a post that contains zero information?

<comment><AUTHOR> ha. that is pretty fair. So at a high level, the way that we actually assure tutor's Skype reliability is tests around speed and reliability (stuff like speedtest and ping test) with reliability being more important. Then we also do a number of test full length lessons using students from different parts of the U.S. / the world at different times of day.

For us because online tutoring is so dependent on a connection, we also try to make sure there are solid contingencies in place in case something extreme like a power outage happens which is rare but more frequent in certain parts of the developing world than in the U.S..</comment></comment>


The RuboCop Name Drama Redux - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091 <comment><USER2> A few months ago someone created an issue to make a change to a readme file in a repo for some code of mine. Wasn't anything big, was just a personal project. They wanted me to change "the good developer comments his code" to "her code".

I said "sure, I don't maintain this code anymore but feel free to pull and submit a MR and I'll pull it in". They never did. I eventually forgot about the request entirely-because again: I hadn't maintained the code in quite some time and honestly I only kept it around as a portfolio item.

Months later a second person came and asked the same thing, along with other various additional changes. I invited them too to pull the code, make the change, and submit a MR.

Neither party ever did. I went into the readme and did a find and replace. Merely feeling charitable. Soon I began getting requests to change it back from "her" to "his" and I just made the repo private. No one had ever forked the code, I never even had any issues opened for anything else since the repo was a single-page website template for a local football club I was hosting on GH pages and easily blends into the sea of other code repos. The only interaction the code ever saw was from people wanting me to change a readme file and otherwise probably didn't give a damn about the code or the template I had "released".

I've started calling these actors "development provocateurs".

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't RuboCop a Robocop reference? Robocop is partially a critique of the militarization and depersonalization of authoritarian law enforcement.

</comment><comment><USER4> I truly hate this kind of divisive nonsense about normal language.

</comment><comment><USER5> I really like the author's response after he closed the request and people kept commenting on it.

> Disclaimer: I'm starting to write this at 7 am in my morning, so my thoughts > are a bit incoherent.

> I wonder how all of you would feel if suddenly a ton of people who haven't > done anything for the project appeared here, told you're a horrible person > and started bullying you into doing what they want...

> For almost a decade I've been doing pro-bono work on the style guides, > RuboCop and many related projects, but all of this gets easily forgotten. > You come out of nowhere, you vilify me over this, you fork the project > without even discussing this idea with our team... Whatever. The US has many > issues, but so does the open-source community. If even I wanted to rename > the project we're talking about 300+ extensions, usages in tens of thousands > of projects, messing up with search results that have been building up for > years, etc, and an insane amount of work associated with this. I've made > nothing out of RuboCop and now you're adding a huge pile of disappointment > and frustration on top of this nothing.

> This feels like a great opportunity to double down on the Ruby community > ethos and get a ton of positive publicity by rebranding. At the same time, > let's recognise that the request implies a bunch of time and even some > material expense for @bbatsov (registered domain names, doc sites etc. > beyond "just" renaming in code), and some help scoping that out would > probably be appreciated if the request is to seem actionable.

> @purcell It's nice to see you around! You might remember how the rename of > nrepl.el to CIDER went down - this meant so much additional work and so many > confused people for years, that I'd really don't want to walk this path > again. And the funny thing is I'll get a lot of hate either way... A couple > of years ago I had to undergo the painful process of renaming a widely used > project again (tools.nrepl -> nrepl) and there are still people confused > today about why there are two of them, why some deps don't work in some > cases and so on.

> Everyone, I understand your frustration very much. I've had my share of > political activism, I truly support the cause of the people protesting in > the US these days, but I think you've got no idea what you're really asking > for. If you hate the name you're obviously free to do whatever you wish. I > will only ask you to acknowledge the work our team has been doing for such a > long time and be a bit more respectful of our time and efforts. I don't even > do much Ruby myself these days, but I'm still dedicating a lot of time to > RuboCop, because I love the Ruby community. Seems the feeling is not mutual.

I guess if it bothers people so much why don't they just fork it move forward? Do I still have the right to be a jerk if I want to? Is anyone forcing anyone to use rubocop? I am just very confused at this point.

EDIT: Rubocop author posted his thoughts on the whole situation here [https://metaredux.com/posts/2020/06/08/the-rubocop-name- dram...](https://metaredux.com/posts/2020/06/08/the-rubocop-name-drama- redux.html)</comment>


Show HN: SteadyCam. Real-time video stabilization on the iPhone 4 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.midnox.com/post/3819899770/introducing-steadycam

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh man, I had this "brilliant" idea to make SteadyCam free to try, by inserting a watermark in the demo mode and limiting recording time to 15 seconds. The full version can be unlocked via in-app purchase.

That was the theory, anyway. In practice this has created a lot of confusion as to whether the app is free or not (spoiler: it's not). I'm trying to fix that by making it more clear on startup that you're in _demo_ mode.

If you guys have better suggestions, I'd love to hear them :)

</comment><comment><USER2> I would expect a trademark complaint from Tiffen the second this gets published in the app store.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadicam>

Other than that, great work!

</comment><comment><USER3> Why does it need location permission to display the camera roll? I don't want to give it location permission...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's how Apple's SDK works. Existing photos in the camera roll might be annotated with location information. So for security reasons 3rd party apps need location permission to access the camera roll.

SteadyCam does not collect any location information. We respect your privacy, the HAL 9000 icon notwithstanding ;)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the clarification!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's really impressive! The video is a great demonstration and a real eye- opener.

</comment><comment><USER5> Really cool. I guess it works by using the motion sensors?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup :)</comment></comment>


I Trashed the Economy When I Was Head of the Fed - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-26/how-i-trashed-the-economy-when-i-was-head-of-the-fed <comment><AUTHOR> The game is based on the horrendous and fatally flawed Phillips Curve that posits a inverse relationship between employment and inflation (i.e., a tight labor market means high inflation and high inflation can tighten the labor market - that is the Fed can inject money into the economy to spur job growth).

The Curve was dead in the 1970s and through the 1990s:

[https://mises.org/library/phillips-curve](https://mises.org/library/phillips- curve)

And still dead:

[http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/05/12/what- ever-h...](http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/05/12/what-ever- happened-to-the-phillips-curve-interpreting-a-half-century-of-inflation-and- unemployment/)

I just wish it would die completely.

<comment><USER2> I was under the impression that Austrian economics was mostly considered fringe, much like (human-caused) climate change deniers. I have no formal training in economics other than a "101" class in univ, just wondering what your background is and if you could fill me in more on it. Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Austrian can be considered a branch of classical economics. Calling it entirely fringe is gross over-generalization. Like I don't agree on their view on monetary policy, but I would never label the entire branch as fringe. They have some areas they depart, but they also have some areas where they agree with literally hundreds of years of political economics, including contemporaries. The world doesn't revolve around Keynesians.

I went to UC Berkeley and went though almost an entire minor in econ but now work in financial technology and developing trading systems and strategies, everything from statistical arbitrage to macro- and micro-economic news events to options.

I buy the story on the Phillips curve (not only attacks by the Austrials, but pretty much everybody except Keynsians) because the data against it is just really good. When I was in school I bought into the theory, but since then I've been convinced pretty heavily that the correlation only exists because of policy actions and the causation definitely doesn't exist. I used to have some correspondence with a former Reagan adviser (a Democrat) that was really quite persuasive.</comment></comment></comment>


NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I Can't Say I'm Safe' in Russia – HuffPost - <AUTHOR> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whistleblower-edward-snowden-uncertain-of-his-safety-in-russia_us_5bcd0fa2e4b055bc9481fb79 <comment><USER2> Of course he isn't safe in Russia. Going to Russia made a lot of sense at first, but it also turned him into Putin's asset. What would happen if a US president agreed to remove anti-missile batteries from countries surrounding Russia, and as part of the deal Snowden had to be handed over? I have no doubt that if this happened Snowden would be handed over to the US in the blink of an eye.

<comment><USER3> Another thing to keep in mind is that, at the time Snowden left, it was not clear how long protection would be nessasary. He might of thought that he would only need to wait out an election cycle or two, and public perception would have shifted enough for him to come back (I think it is still in the realm of reason that the winner of the 2020 presidential election will pardon; but the odds seem more remote now than at the time of the leek)

The other thing he has going is that I suspect a US president may not want him back as much as you may think. Neither side will be angry at the President for not getting him back (absent something blatant, like turning down a no strings attached offer from Putin); but prosecuting him would piss of a sizable chunk of voters.

<comment><AUTHOR> Chelsea Manning was granted clemency when it was right time (end of presidency of Obama). It is possible for Snowden as well if right time will come. He has nice team of advisors and I think they will play that game to the end. However I am afraid he has to wait long time for this.

<comment><USER3> I definently think the end of a presidency is the most likely time it will happen. But, I do not see our current president doing it, which means waiting until at least 2024, and probably 2028 (assuming Trump is 1 term and his successor is 2). We don't know who the next president is yet, so the odds of this are still a toss up

It looks like neither party is gearing up to make civil liberties or defence corruption a political issue this cycle, so it really will be up to the whims of the next president.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


New paper points to soil pore structure as key to carbon storage - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-07-paper-soil-pore-key-carbon.html <comment><AUTHOR> "Of the five cropping systems, only the two with high plant diversity resulted in higher levels of soil carbon."

<comment><USER2> "What we have found is that in order to be protected, the carbon has to move; it cannot be protected in the same place where it enters."

This is interesting. When I've read about how mineral ore bodies are formed, there is a source, a transport, and a trap. Need all three to form an ore body. The above would say that carbon sequestering by plants follows the same basic process.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fascinating! I wonder if anyone has looked into a way to create an artificial transport and trap mechanism for mineral ores... would be really convenient just to have a specific mineral accumulate.

Also, here's an article about using mushrooms to recover up to 80% gold from e-waste: [https://explorebiotech.com/researchers-turn-e-waste-gold- usi...](https://explorebiotech.com/researchers-turn-e-waste-gold-using- mushroom/) I guess that might be related.

<comment><USER2> Somewhat unrelated I saw a paper talking about using bacteria to partially reduce iron oxide.

And also people have been attempting bio-remediation of uranium/plutonium and other metal contaminated soils.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made an interactive hex calculator in ncurses - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mellowcandle/bitwise <comment><USER2> > Windows

> No, wait. really ???

Dev should check out [https://www.kylheku.com/cygnal](https://www.kylheku.com/cygnal)

If you can compile this for Cygwin, you can deploy it as a native Windows application with Cygnal's fork of _cygwin1.dll_ (plus other needed DLL's from Cygwin).

Console support is fine; even programs that use _termios_ and ANSI codes directly work in a Windows console (like out of cmd.exe).

That was one of the primary motivations for Cygnal; I wanted a decent quality Windows port of a programming language with a well-developed REPL: something someone could just install from a regular installer, and then run out of _cmd.exe_ with the same interactive experience as on Unixes.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's this!? No Javascript runtime, no NPM package dependencies. Can software really be built without it?

I jest of course. This is really cool and nice to see something like this, make the front page of HN for once!

<comment><USER4> Well, the downside is that now I can't be arsed to download/install it (not that it works on my platform). And the repository comes with a lot of build cruft instead of just some src files.

Trade offs, as usual.

<comment><USER5> It's one command to download and install the snap. How is that more onerous than pulling in hundreds of packages from npm?

And having "build cruft" is a feature for most non web devs. It would be trivial to set up a separate repo with all the build tools and configuration, but we want it nearby.

There's no tradeoffs here, IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome! It will be really helpful to me while reversing or doing CTFs. Previously I'd hack shit together in python to do this stuff one-off.

<comment><USER7> Same. This is so much better.

The number of times I redo the same thing in a repl or with weird scripts saved in /tmp or ~/ is kind of nuts....but generalizing them into something like this takes tons of work. Kudos!

<comment><USER8> _"generalizing them into something like this takes tons of work"_

It sure does. I was really impressed when I saw the level of polish in the README. Mad props!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Finally, a modern application without Electron + big-js-framework bloat... Amazing job! Gets my star :)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is really cool + extra points for the vi/vim keybindings

</comment><comment><USER11> This might just replace the radare2 "?" command for me!

</comment><comment><USER12> Nice!

</comment><comment><USER13> > hex calculator in ncurses

Okay, you're pretty much asking for the wrath of God here. Bonus points if you can compile it down to 666 KB.

<comment><USER14> No, it obviously should be 1638 KB.

<comment><USER15> I don't understand, what's this in reference to?

<comment><USER16> [https://annimon.github.io/16384/](https://annimon.github.io/16384/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>