ACA repeal could cost California more than 200,000 jobs - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/8417.html <comment><USER2> This is all kind of a joke, because California would never go back to the way it was before Obamacare. At the very least, we would increase taxes to pay for it within our own state. But I wouldn't be surprised if we went to a single payer health insurance system here. Right now, we're supporting the ACA because it was Obama's signature issue, but if it's gone people will want to switch to something better.

Democrats will have a supermajority in California come January. It will be interesting to see what happens.

<comment><USER3> Thee's no way on earth Cali will go single payer.

Something that gives 'essentially universal coverage' \- sure. But single payer, no way.

'Single payer' often means that Steve Jobs waits 12 months for his knee replacement, in behind a lot of unemployed folks, immigrants, many undocumented migrants etc. which is the objective of socialized medicine.

In Canada, it's illegal to pay a doctor to fix you. Granted, we're the only country where this is the case.

I could be wrong, but a UK friend indicated that if you 'go outside the NHS' then you have to basically stay outside of it.

The 'real challenge' is to try to find the right balance and make it fair, but still allow people to have choice etc..

Probably for 2/3rds of people, 'single payer' is best, but for a not- insignificant-minority it's definitely not.

It's tricky because I'm not sure anyone in the world has the solution.

<comment><USER2> I think I meant single-payer in the way that Medicare works in the U.S. There can be companies who manage it, or supplemental policies, but the primary payer remains the U.S. Government.

So the approach would be to extend Medicare to everyone (or in our case, MediCal). Increase payroll taxes to pay for it; remove the requirement that employers provide health insurance. All other laws remain the same.

<comment><USER3> I agree that a medicare extension to 'everyone' might help.

But that won't work, it will blow up healthcare.

Why?

Because young people just won't buy coverage. They'll all just use Medicare. :)

Most people will = destruction of the industry.

So, yes, 'getting everyone covered somehow by nudging in Medicare' sure ... but it can't just be done by simply extending it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 200k jobs? What kind of jobs? If these are paper shufflers adding overhead to health care, then I'm all for it.

<comment><USER5> The looked research explains:

"The majority (135,000) of these lost jobs would be in the healthcare industry, including at hospitals, doctor offices, labs, outpatient and ambulatory care centers, nursing homes, dentist offices, other healthcare settings, and insurers. But jobs would also be lost in other industries. Suppliers of the healthcare industry, such as food service, janitorial, and accounting firms, would experience reduced demand, leading to job loss. The lost jobs also include those lost due to the "induced effect" of healthcare workers spending less at restaurants, retail stores, and other local businesses."

<comment><USER4> >The majority (135,000) of these lost jobs would be in the healthcare industry, including at hospitals, doctor offices, labs, outpatient and ambulatory care centers, nursing homes, dentist offices, other healthcare settings, and insurers.

Yes, I see we know where they work but not what they do.

<comment><USER5> Any reason not to understand this as "across the board"? High costs and few insured mean fewer people actually going to the doctor. Lower volume would affect everyone from receptionists to specialist doctors, any supporting staff, and management.

Maybe apart from the ER staff. They'll get more people who didn't handle simple problems early. (Or couldn't afford to)

<comment><USER4> >Any reason not to understand this as "across the board"?

Is there any reason to assume it? It's not like people didn't get care before the ACA - they used Medicaid or went to the ER. We were told the ACA would make things more efficient as people would be able to use primary care instead of ERs for non-emergency problems.

And yet somehow we have 200k extra jobs. That's not a sign of efficiency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe they should adjust their state tax base and if the rest of the country is subsidizing CA than that's a problem.

<comment><USER7> California's federal taxes subsidize the rest of the country, not the other way around:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which- st...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are- givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Keeping a bad system just to save jobs that should not exist in the first place is the height of stupidity.

We need 200K jobs in California to run the ACA? I live in a town with a population of about 40,000 people. It takes five towns like mine to run this abomination?

Good riddance. On all fronts.

<comment><USER9> No, it takes 200K jobs to provide healthcare for the millions of previously uninsured people in CA.

<comment><USER8> That's really funny. I guess before Obamacare we were living in the Dark Ages and nobody was able to receive any form of health care in CA.

Please.

<comment><USER9> I never claimed that no one had insurance previously. About 32 million people did. Obamacare added a few million more to that number, hence the new healthcare jobs.

<comment><USER8> You are looking for justification where it does not exist. California did not need another 200K jobs. Please. We have more than enough bandwidth to handle medical care.

The part you might not see is what Obamacare has done and is doing to the medical industry, from providers on up.

Beyond the fact that we have personally gotten royally screwed by Obamacare, my wife is a doctor and I see and hear everything that's going on. Only one way to put it:

Carnage.

Doctors are quitting. Care is horrible or compromised due to forced cost reductions. Some patients are not seen because they are not worth the effort or the doctors are not going to get paid enough, etc.

Having more people who can be claimed to have insurance isn't a good metric at all. You have to look at what they have and how much it is costing.

Most of people who now have insurance thanks to Obamacare have no clue that they've signed a deal with the devil. What I mean by this is that they have, effectively, signed-over their estate to the government. They are LIABLE for every dollar spent in their care from now until eternity.

Yup. Forget about leaving the family home to your kids. If you get sick and need care the government will own your home and your kids might get nothing after you pass.

This is because they've been shoved into Medicaid and that means the government has to, by law, recover all costs and this means they got their hooks into your estate.

They can even file liens on your home to pay for your care.

Bullshit?

OK, how about we get the truth from the horse's mouth:

[https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/estate- recover...](https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/estate- recovery/index.html)

What do you think about Obamacare now? And how about those bullshit 200K workers? Their salaries surely will be added in some form to the money owed by these poor saps who are shoved into Medicaid and now have "insurance".

Obamacare might easily be the largest theft of personal property by a government in the history of humanity. And I don't think I am exaggerating here. I think there are over twenty million people on Medicaid. Every single one of the estates could be in danger of being sold off by the government to pay for medical care.

This is truly revolting. Yet all of these Obama/Obamacare supporters are so ignorant of the facts that they actually think he did a good thing for the country and that Obamacare has helped poor people. Unbelievable.

<comment><USER9> For anyone who dies after January 1, California's Medicaid estate recovery only applies to money spent putting you in a nursing home or similar, not for all health care as you stated.

There are also more people with new private insurance coverage in CA than new Medicaid recipients, so that part of your rant is also false.

<comment><USER8> Oh, and that makes it better? Do you have any idea how many people are in nursing homes? My wife happens to be a doctor and she happens to have a lot of experience with nursing homes.

How about nationwide?

Also, could you provide a link to verify what you are claiming will start on January 1st?

Please don't try to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. The personal estate grab by the government is without precedent.

And, for what? The care people get at the kinds of plans that shove you into Medicaid isn't anything to boast about.

Obamacare is a disaster. Thankfully the new administration seems poised to tackle this head-on. I hope they do a good job while still providing for a reasonable path to healthcare for those who have financial limitations.

It is society's obligation to help them. Yet the way this happens can't take a form that makes it insanely worst for the rest of us and, at the same time, has the government make a grab for people's estates. This is just wrong whether it happens in one state or all of them.

<comment><USER9> I'm all for getting rid of Medicaid estate recovery, but blaming it on Obamacare is just wrong. It has been around since 1993.

Here [http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/27/californias-seizure- of...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/27/californias-seizure-of-medi-cal- patients-assets-is-limited-by-new-law/) is info about the change to California's laws on estate recovery. They now recover the minimum allowed by federal law.

<comment><USER8> You are missing a very important point.

Obamacare is a complete farce on many points.

First, it claims million of people who didn't have insurance are now insured. The truth is they were shoved into Medicaid.

Second, this is NOT health insurance! This is you incurring a debt with the State and one they are obligated by law to collect on by grabbing your estate.

Third, NOBODY is forewarned when they sign on the dotted line that the family home and their entire estate is at risk of being appropriated by the government and that nothing whatsoever might remain for the kids to inherit.

Given healthcare costs it isn't too much of a stretch to conclude that getting sick with anything that requires hospitalization, surgery or extended care will result in a bill so large that most people's estates will be depleted before heirs can see a dime of inheritance.

To me this is sick underhanded government robbery. If a private enterprise swindled people into contracts with such consequences people would end-up in jail. Yet in government you can do this, you can lie, cheat and steal from people and suffer no consequences whatsoever.

This is way past wrong.

<comment><USER9> You are very wrong on the first two points.

First, millions of people who didn't have health insurance now do. Not Medicaid, private insurance. There are also millions of new Medicaid recipients.

Second, most of the Medicaid coverage is not debt. Only coverage of one specific thing is debt; all the other coverage is not taken from the estate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Enough with this job counting nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER11> > ACA repeal could cost California more than 200,000 jobs

My god, 200,000 jobs in CA alone?! It's worst than I thought. That's 200,000 people who are not only costing the economy, but aren't contributing to the economy themselves.

<comment><USER12> Is this missing a sarcasm tag? I don't really get it - but then am tired.</comment></comment>


Reasons Not to Use Apple (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://stallman.org/apple.html <comment><USER2> +1 Richard

Sure, he is cherry picking examples, but there are a lot of examples to choose from.

I used mostly Linux at home for about 15 years, then switched to a decade of MacOS. My new laptop is a Linux laptop and I think I will go back to Linux as my main driver.

I am really conflicted about cellphones. I was unhappy with the crap ware preloaded on my Verizon Android phones. I am happier with a Verizon iPhone, as far as not having a lot of junk preinstalled. I am reading Cal Newport's new book Digital Minimalism that is making me realize that I need to be more focused in how I spend any screen time.

I really like the iWatch and if/when it becomes possible to use one independently of an iPhone (now my iWatch with a data plan needs the phone for app installation and configuration) I would like to either ditch the phone or mostly keep it turned off.

Still, I differ from Richards opinions in that I think that Apple and Google do have some good privacy policies in place. I feel fairly OK using a personal G Suite account and Apple has a fairly good track record for privacy.

<comment><USER3> If your Android phone is compatible[0], you might enjoy the result from installing LineageOS on it. If you wish, you can continue to use the Google Play Services package (which is where Google does all the tracking, and is also the only way to get the Play Store). I chose not to and use F-Droid and directly downloaded APKs, which saves me from running any proprietary code that I haven't vetted carefully.

It also solves the planned obsolescence issue, because my Galaxy S4 is screaming-fast on a version of Android from three years after its last manufacturer update.

[0]: [https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/](https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for that comment. I still have a Galaxy 4 and last week I pulled it out of the drawer and charged it. I looked at LieageOS but was concerned about the time spent installing it. Also, my Galaxy 4 no longer has a SIM card; do you know what the LineageOS experience would be like WiFi only?

<comment><USER3> It works fine without cellular. In the hands of someone who can install Linux, it shouldn't take more than an hour (if you have a not-dialup internet connection).

First, apt install adb heimdall-flash. These are the basic tools for interacting with Samsung phones and Android devices in general from a Linux machine.

From there, follow the instructions I linked below, which basically amounts to getting root and unlocking the boot loader using Heimdall, then flashing TWRP, which is a recovery program, then flashing LineageOS from within TWRP. It's not hard, but be sure to follow the right set of instructions, because the files for the Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint phones are not compatible.

Assuming you have the Verizon model: [https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/jfltevzw/install](https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/jfltevzw/install)

<comment><USER2> Thank you for these instructions! I am going to try later this afternoon after some family stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem I have with Stallman is that he's usually right, but he is remarkably horrible at coming across as someone with valid opinions. It is disingenuous to come to the table with clearly cherry-picked evidence, and calling companies and their products with stupid names is just childish. There are a lot of problems with companies, and Stallman is very good at recognizing them, but he's just pretty bad at getting people to not consider him as somewhat crazy :/

<comment><USER5> Stallman is very much on one of the far ends of the technological spectrum, with, say, normal people with Android phones and Gmail and a Windows laptop on the other.

I think most people, given enough explanation, would recognize that Stallman and the FSF are 100% correct in their extremism and zealotry - but most aren't able to live without the convenience they've come to know and love.

It's important to have him on his end, so that him and those like him can balance out the other end, and that most people can reasonably fall more towards the middle. Can't have shadows without bright light.

<comment><USER4> > I think most people, given enough explanation, would recognize that Stallman > and the FSF are 100% correct in their extremism and zealotry - but most > aren't able to live without the convenience they've come to know and love.

Oh, yes, I'm very much of the opinion that they are right; the only reason I'm not joining them is because my Mac works well ;) I have nothing wrong with their "extremism"–the issue I have is that their attacks come across as childish, especially when they give things stupid names, and often they are pieced together by people who aren't actually experts in what they're complaining about and so they end up with evidence like "$NEWS_WEBSITE says this is bad", when the actual issue is something much more fundamental.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _If you carry a cell phone, it tells Big Brother where you are._

It's worth remembering that if one carries a mobile telephone, and it is not fully powered off, _TPC always_ knows where you are, and the powers that be do not need to go to _Apple_ for that information. A mobile telephone broadcasts to let the world know where it is, and the mobile telephony system only works in the first place if the system knows how to route incoming calls and SMS messages to a person's telephone.

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19215636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19215636)

<comment><USER7> > the mobile telephony system only works in the first place if the system > knows how to route incoming calls and SMS messages to a person's telephone

Like every other messaging system. Because you know, in order to send a message you need to know where...

<comment><USER8> Not quite. Ricochet IM[0] is a messaging system based around Tor hidden services. The entire purpose of Tor is the ability to route messages to people without finding out where they are.

[0] [https://ricochet.im/](https://ricochet.im/)

<comment><USER9> Tor is power hungry and can't scale for billions of users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 1\. Apple takes privacy and data safety seriously. It invests a significant amount of engineering effort into keeping user data safe. It doesn't comply with government requests unless forced, after deploying its vast legal means to hold them back.

2\. Other consumer electronics devices aren't built in factories that are any different or better than those of Foxconn. While it doesn't absolve Apple from taking some responsibility, RMS should have called for avoiding mobile devices altogether if he's so worried about personnel abuse.

3\. Fortunately or not, digital platforms aren't exempt from real world rules and laws. If something is prohibited in some territory, we can't seriously expect foreign companies who do business there to ignore local laws and regulations. Would you be so lenient towards a Chinese company which operates in USA disregarding all intellectual property laws? About a Japanese media company operating in Europe that markets material that would constitute underaged pornography?

4\. We need to respect sovereignty and local customs. If there's a lesson to be learnt from the Arab Spring uprisings and their incredibly bloody outcomes is that freedom of information requires a certain societal foundation, and can't be thought of as an absolute universal value. Even the Western world is in a disarray following the information propagation offered by online platforms; to expect a society with much weaker civil institution and foundations to face the same challenges is wrong. Therefore, when Apple is asked to block content in China by the local authorities and complies, it's not any more than respecting the rule of the land.

The alternative to that is that the Chinese would create their own Apple (which they of course do), and that's worse for everyone at the end. It leads to a bisected global economy in the style of the Iron Curtain. I'd much rather have Apple operating in China and constantly pushing against government regulation than see the Chinese setting up their own Apple run by government cronies which would pipe user data right into the agencies of Beijing.

5\. That aside, some of Apple's behavior (as illustrated by Spotify lately) is downright predatory, intended to lock Apple users to inferior alternatives. I don't like that one bit. On the balance though, I support Apple's discretion with my dollars, because I feel they are selling to me rather than selling me, and because their devices are great.

<comment><USER11> 1\. It does, but do you know what's easier? Not collecting that data unnecessarily in the first place.

2\. He does call against mobile devices altogether (see the Cellular Phones section [1]).

3\. A company can choose where to conduct business. RMS's opinion is that companies should not conduct business where the laws impose said company to routinely act in ways that are harmful to society.

4\. "I know better than them (so I choose what to censor)" and "I do it because otherwise someone else will" are poor defenses from a moral standpoint. RMS is all about morality, not pragmatism. His stance is that bit by bit, slight compromises become landslides.

5\. You are free to do as you please, just like RMS is free to disapprove of your support to apple ;)

[1] [https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html](https://stallman.org/rms- lifestyle.html)

<comment><USER12> What evidence is there that Apple collects data unnecessarily?

<comment><USER11> I didn't think this was a controversial assertion. Most big techs have been collecting plenty of information that is non-essential for their functions.

For instance, you must have an apple account (that includes your personal details) just to get MacOS security updates. Why is that necessary if you don't intend to buy any software from the store?

<comment><USER13> It's necessary so if anyone ever feel like buying something from the store they don't need to register. It reduces the chance that they will 'bounce' and not buy. It's that simple.

<comment><USER11> I know that is the reason. I strongly disagree in that qualifying as a __necessary __thing to do.

If that was accepted as __necessary __data collection, GDPR wouldn 't have made any fuss whatsoever: big techs would keep collecting all the data they wanted because "it is necessary to reduce the chance that we won't earn buckets of money".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The #1 reason not to use Apple is their arrogance toward their users. I don't want them to lie to me about my battery, nor make me choose their music over spotify and engage in other customer-hostile policies to make money.

If it were only that simple, sigh. Google is much worse. Apple at least lip sync's privacy, I suspect when it is to their advantage.

I believe Apple just has no clue as to how to create products any more. How much money are they sitting on and and this is the best they can do?

<comment><USER15> >I don't want them to lie to me about my battery

You say that, but you most likely do. Even if you absolutely don't, the vast majority of users still do, even if they don't know it.

The whole point of software is to at least partly obfuscate what the hardware does, to the benefit of users. Making things easier to use and understand and hiding unnecessary complications is not arrogance towards users, it's acting in their interest.

<comment><USER14> I meant the thing about throttling the performance because the battery was old.

<comment><USER16> Throthled performance might midly annoy some of the users, some of the time. Battery lasting less than 8 hours would enrage everyone very quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Found at least one error on the list. This claim:

> Apple's mail service silently censors the mail people send.

Is based on this article:

[https://www.cultofmac.com/103703/apple-may-be-invisibly- filt...](https://www.cultofmac.com/103703/apple-may-be-invisibly-filtering- your-outgoing-mobileme-email-exclusive/103703/)

Where one user was unable to send one email via the MobileMe web interface because of an outgoing spam filter. The Mail app worked btw, and was not "censored".

From this Stallman extrapolates censorship of all users who use Apple email.

Give me a break.

</comment><comment><USER18> Let's not water down the major issues with a long list of grievances. Apple's anticompetitive practices are hugely problematic, and it's the one area in which Apple refuses to budge. That's where we need to focus, starting with the App Store.

</comment><comment><USER19> Apple doesn't really spy on users imo. Internally, the privacy team is quite powerful and forces lots of safeguards about how exactly data can be used.

<comment><USER20> Same with Google. Google has privacy teams as well which are

> quite powerful and forces lots of safeguards about how exactly data can be > used.

Apple recommends apps based on other apps I've downloaded. So does Google. Apple recommends music based on other music I've played. So does Google. Apple recommends books and movies as well based on similar data. So does Google. Apple keeps track of every placed your Apple devices have been. So does Google. Apple doesn't share this data. Neither does Google.

<comment><USER21> You seem to be simplifying things a bit too much. Apple doesn't keep track of where your device has been. Your iPhone knows but it's not being sent to Apple. Google has been shown to know this data even when you disable as many location services as you can.

<comment><USER20> Apple knows which is how they can display every devices location on icloud.com including "last known location" which means the location was previously sent to Apple.

<comment><USER22> That requires you to opt-in to the "Find My iPhone" or "Find My Friends" feature which are explicitly designed to locate the phone.

If you don't enable those things (which are not automatically enabled) then Apple does not know the location of your phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's highly admirable to see a person who's so strong on his convictions and philosophy. And the entire world is better for it even if most people think he's too radical. Some of the terms he uses (as alternative to the real names) may sound silly, but his heart is in the right place.

The problem that I see is (inputs welcome from others on this) there are no mass produced goods (hardware and software) that are also easy to use and secure and private that conform to his requirements (leave alone cheap or being friendly to the environment, to workers, against censorship, and many other factors). It would take quite a bit of effort (to set things up) even for technical people to live as he does.

</comment><comment><USER24> I could not care less with Apple abiding by national laws of each country (to provide or not provide some app). Wanna do business somewhere, play by their laws, not impose your clout (which for some companies is bigger than some states, hence the "Banana Republic" notion) to have the laws of your preference enforced. (Most Americans are OK with it, because it's usually their companies doing the enforcing. But consider the opposite, you being forced to accept the terms of some other country).

But I dislike their enforced prudery. Unless something is considered illegal (e.g. CP), it should be up to the users to decide. At worse, implement age restrictions when shopping.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't think I'd be where I am today if I lived how Stallman lived. He is once again technically correct but I also think he has immense privilege others do not have.

It's almost like he can't change his principles either, because at this point his livelihood depends on it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Recent examples of why not to use apple:

1\. Their new keyboards are terrible, and are buggy. 2\. Lack of headphone jack on phones. 3\. Vast price increases for relatively little new features. 4\. Constant upgrading of the OS which breaks half of the software you use.

<comment><USER27> And a few good reasons to choose Apple:

My new iPhone XR needs to be charged only once or twice per week.

For development, I get a certified UNIX machine with an excellent user interface, best of both worlds for the vast majority of tasks we need using computers.

Apple makes money off me because I buy their products. I am myself not the product, their hardware is. This has so many natural side effects that benefit users, that it scares me to go in the direction of android.

The iPad is truly a revolutionary best in class device, I've not seen anything else that comes anywhere close to its quality for what it does.

<comment><USER28> > My new iPhone XR needs to be charged only once or twice per week.

It's not the only phone that does that and it's not a new feature. Even with older phones, you can simply get a battery case.

> with an excellent user interface

The user interface is terrible and all the core features are extremely limited with no extensibility whatsoever. Just about every other desktop OS has a better user interface.

> Apple makes money off me because I buy their products. I am myself not the > product, their hardware is.

Actually, their iProducts are not even yours after you buy them. If you want to build an app for your own device you have to give Apple $100 every year just to be able to install it. So that puts them into a malignant category of their own.

> The iPad is truly a revolutionary best in class device...

...but only if you think iOS is any good or you don't value your own freedom.

<comment><USER27> > Actually, their iProducts are not even yours after you buy them. If you want > to build an app for your own device you have to give Apple $100 every year > just to be able to install it. So that puts them into a malignant category > of their own.

FYI this has not been true for years.

<comment><USER29> It is true for all practical purposes. Nobody is going to resign and reinstall their apps weekly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> You can call out a multitude of things to be mad at Apple for. The question is, what alternatives currently available would do any better on the whole, for what you need?

You demand a phone that has all these services and qualities to it. Or websites or apps that you like. What system have you come up with that provides a viable alternative to what exists? All these social media companies thought they could create a self-policing, open, free place for discussion. Surprise, turns out every country/government wants to put restrictions on these capabilities, in a different flavor. Or people want to be paid for things, while others want them for free.

Almost every one of the things on his list is a result of people, users like you and me, doing things that weren't intended to be done. And they had to come up with rules to take care of. Or are what's needed to reach this many people.

Not saying there aren't things on there that couldn't be changed. (and by the way, some of his examples are 10 years irrelevant)

But you're mad at Apple because it reaches more people, and does so while ignoring these (let's face it, minor) concerns that most people don't care -- at all -- about. Ask any of your friends to identify / name even 2 of these issues?

So go invent something different. See how long it is before you come under similar constraints and start having to make rules that someone, somewhere disagrees with.

The actors in a system are servants of the things we want (or can't resist wanting) them to do.

<comment><USER31> > The question is, what alternatives currently available would do any better > on the whole, for what you need?

[https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/](https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/)

(only for preorder, but the devkit already exists and looks fine)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Most of the reasons in that list are ideological, not technical. I mean, I like listening to RMS, but prefer my choice of technology to be governed by technical reasons, not by what a company does in China or in Russia. Incidentally, given a choice between an Apple machine and a well-functioning GNU/Linux machine I would pick the latter.

<comment><USER33> Technology carry its own intrinsic political and ethical weight.

Choosing a tech over another tech for technical reasons and ignoring other aspects is a political choice.

<comment><USER34> I'm seriously kind of tired of this argument.

We've gone from "not choosing is a choice" to "every choice is political".

I'm sorry but the latter doesn't immediatly follow from the first.

You can and are totally free to not use a technology or buy from a particular company for political reasons, but that does not mean that others are making a political choice when doing so.

Similarly you should argue that eating meat is a religious choice, since some religions prohibit meat consumption.

I find this kind of reasoning bogus at best.

<comment><USER33> I understand you don't like it but every choice, every act has a political significance. I believe it doesn't follow that you actively support or promote whatever comes with a choice but the fact remains that choosing a tech only on tech merits or choosing a tech despite who you support by buying it is still a political choice.

That's why I use Firefox and not google chrome even though at some points one is better than the other.

> We've gone from "not choosing is a choice" to "every choice is political".

> I'm sorry but the latter doesn't immediatly follow from the first.

Nobody said or implied that.

> Similarly you should argue that eating meat is a religious choice, since > some religions prohibit meat consumption.

Now that's a bogus reasoning and I don't see why you twist the analogy like that since it loses relevance.

<comment><USER32> > Now that's a bogus reasoning and I don't see why you twist the analogy like > that since it loses relevance.

I am not sure this reasoning is bogus. Let me try to pick up on the analogy and develop it further:

Situation 1: I (hypothetically) am shopping for a laptop. I am used to Unix, dislike Windows, and couldn't get desktop Linux work for me. I am impressed by battery life of the latest Macbook Pro, as well as by its glorious screen, decent sound, and responsive touchpad. After certain deliberation I decide to buy a Macbook Pro. Apple's corporate track record doesn't even enter into the calculation. And yet, I am told that my choice is political.

Situation 2: You (hypothetically) are about to order a burger. You are hungry and like burgers, and the animal suffering involved in the production of that burger does not even cross your mind. Yet you are told that you have made a moral choice. (Alternatively, you are told that you've made a religious choice, because in Jainism meat is not allowed; and obviously you couldn't care less about Jainism.)

What I, as the previous commentator, find so objectionable is that it shouldn't be said of you that you are making a political choice if you are not involved in an act that you recognize as political. I can't imagine that it is reasonable to expect of everyone to be constantly engaged in political activity, or to put political considerations before any other. I think it's quite possible to be vaguely supportive of democracy, freedom, workers' rights or the rule of law (and thus to be politically on one side of the spectrum), and at the same time not care that a corporation complied with undemocratic demands of an authoritarian regime or used legal loopholes to avoid taxes (and thus is on another side of the political spectrum).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I would like to see the same details about google / android and microsoft / windows from the author of this comprehensive list. And his conclusion what to use as an OS considering all.

<comment><USER36> He has more "what's bad about" various companies (and pay toilets). ;)

<comment><USER6> Indeed, there's a whole list of them right at the start of the headlined article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is only one item of a larger list. As someone whose university buys Apple products (and uses quite some services on the Stallman's list): does HN have any advice for advocating for making the switch?

Let's take Slack as an example: what strategies are there to convince people to make the switch to an alternative product? From the perspective of users (who may not always care about the things RMS cares about), a switch just involves a lot of time and effort.

Any suggestions or hints how to approach this?

<comment><USER31> > does HN have any advice for advocating for making the switch?

Maybe not precisely that, but [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was going through RMS' site and found the daily notes section. Here[1], on the 14th March entry (Kamala Harris staffing), he links to an article from the onion. Is it intentional? Does he not know onion is a satirical publication?

[1] [https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jan- apr.html#14_March...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jan- apr.html#14_March_2019_\(Kamala_Harris_staffing\))

</comment><comment><USER39> So google then? Haha well let us not forget Apple denied the FBI a backdoor and to unlock an iPhone. Hmm wonder how that would have turned out if it was any other company. Sorry but that spoke massive volumes to me. And when those FBI text leaks came out they were going to harass Tim Apple lmao. But I see a lot of errors & more personal opinions that lacks evidence but ok. But by all mean please if you have more to show please do we all need to know. This Has nothing to do with fanboy either I use both and the comparisons is night & day. Also I'm only interested in censorship in places it shouldn't be. In China that's how it is. Although we disagree that's there way of life and it's just the same as if you were to fly into there country and stay for a few days you'd obey there laws right? Or go in with your country's laws? Pointless to add that imo. So if that is a problem for you. I suggest taking it up with China the ones who call the shots not Apple. Its annoying for that to pushed on someone or something that absolutely has no power over a country. Dumb,Just sayin. I'd prefer that business not to be conducted there. But kinda to late for that when everything says made in China.

How bout that prism 5 privacy phone? Hope it's successful and provides the needs which we all grown accustomed to with all these apps. Over all even tho I dislike there practices and absurd prices. And just putting out there I know my way around the phone then the average because both views are different, I'd rather stick with Apple a hardware company than a software company like google 2 different agendas. And to just be flat out real & honest where can you go? Everything is doing F*ckery everyone decided to wait to damn long to say anything when I know majority of us here knew about it all way back but the sheep heard didn't budge till recently to damn late they grew to powerful and google no longer needs you to have there device or any on you to track you. Plus everyone just welcomes all there products into there home already. If they are gonna farm my data I at least expect it to be handled like it's gold. And they could offer a paid version that we can choose to use that will keep our data off limits since we are paying for it. They still get there money. I personally think if we are paying outta pocket our data is off limits. The isp sells our data so why do we still pay for cable? Sometimes I think a solar flare would be nice and reset everything but I doubt people will learn.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'd be interested to hear valid alternatives or solutions to the listed problems. For the most part they aren't unique to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER41> Well Stallman also hates the internet:

4th line on that page is

What's bad about: Airbnb | Amazon | Amtrak | Ancestry | Apple | Discord | Ebooks | Eventbrite | Evernote | Facebook | Google | Intel | LinkedIn | Lyft | Meetup | Microsoft | Netflix | Patreon | Pay Toilets | Skype | Slack | Spotify | Twitter | Uber | Wendy's |

<comment><USER42> Airbnb, Amazon, Amtrak, Ancestry, Apple, Discord, Ebooks, Eventbrite, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Intel, LinkedIn, Lyft, Meetup, Microsoft, Netflix, Patreon, Pay Toilets, Skype, Slack, Spotify, Twitter, Uber, Wendy's

...is not the Internet

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Surprised Spotify's antitrust claims are not mentioned there

Edit: All right so this website is meant to make a library of opposition against big corporations. I understand now

<comment><USER44> Not necessarily just big corporations.

[https://stallman.org/pay-toilets.html](https://stallman.org/pay-toilets.html)

<comment><USER45> Regarding his argument against paid toilets: can't this be said about any other basic neccesity? I.e. don't pay for food, because some people can't afford it - so food should be free.

<comment><USER46> What's interesting about stallman is that he is zealous about his philosophy, but like all philosophies, his philosophy is inconsistent when you take it to its logical extremes. (See the paradox of closed source microwaves). Stallman's philosophy is a veneer over utilitarianism and assumption that the computer is a unique construct in society -- software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software, even if it's less profitable to the creators, and even this claim is not quite true due to the security benefits of closed platforms and the virtuous cycle of profit motive motivating people to work harder to produce more. It makes sense when you consider that Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations from people who made their money not from free software, or who shared such donations with him. The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw.

<comment><USER20> I know of no security benefits to closed platforms. I know many people believe one platform that happens to be closed, iOS, is more secure than some other platforms but I've seen no evidence that it's more secure because it's closed. In fact, the platform that's generally considered the least secure, Windows, is also closed.

<comment><USER47> There was an entire controversy about how hard Apple made it for law enforcement to access iPhones, which indicates security benefits.

Apple's business model also aligns with user privacy (so far).

It's also worth considering Apple's CEO personally values privacy because he had to keep his sexuality a secret his entire life until he reached such a prominent position he felt safe to speak out.

I agree that the strongest evidence is the source code, compiler code, and electronics schematics. However, there are other forms of evidence.

<comment><USER8> > There was an entire controversy about how hard Apple made it for law > enforcement to access iPhones, which indicates security benefits.

It indicates that Apple software is secure, it doesn't indicate that it is secure _because_ it is closed-source. It might be even more secure if it were open source, because then many more people would be looking for vulnerabilities in it.

<comment><USER47> Good catch. I responded to "no evidence Apple is more secure" and missed the "because it is closed" context.

I think Apple's products would be more secure if they were more open. I appreciate that the core is open (Darwin, WebKit, Swift, LLVM).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think Apple takes privacy more seriously than anyone. They don't need to spy on people to make money, unlike many tech companies.

Content control is different from political censorship. Every company has the right to policy their content and choose their customers. It sucks, but it isn't evil.

Those are pretty old arguments, because Apple does allow Bitcoin related apps now, and has been for many years.

</comment><comment><USER49> Apple treats developers with respect. And respect is everything for a developer.

<comment><USER50> Just yesterday, I decided to contribute to an FOSS project that required the use of Apple Music API. Sadly, Apple requires an yearly $100 to create an Apple Developer account. Privacy is all fine, but this is just pure greed.

<comment><USER49> It's a closed platform. There's nothing wrong with closed platforms, and nothing greedy with comercial products or money making businesses. Unless you live in a communist country, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> As a mobile app developer, does the article mean I have to ditch Macs and iPhones?

Hmmm...

</comment><comment><USER52> The last update to Telegram on iOS was two weeks ago. Is the rest of it worth reading if point #1 is wrong?

edit: This last page update was 2018 according to the copyright. The OP didn't put (2018) in the title.

<comment><USER3> The list is updated continuously. The last element in the censorship section is from December of last year, which is pretty recent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> +1 The truth hurts, but helps.

</comment><comment><USER54> Wow - regardless of whether one agrees with RMS, alone the fact that this submission has been heavily flagged already (and will thus drop from the frontpage soon) tells you a lot about the power of Apple and their fans here.

HN urgently needs to address the flagging problems, this has been the case for many important but controversial topics recently and leads to a degraded quality of frontpage submissions in my view.

<comment><USER27> I have not flagged this article, partly because I'm curious to see the debate here. But I'm sure those who have flagged it did so because this article is not objective, this is a very extremist position with a lot of cherry picked arguments that are obviously from a personal bias he has against Apple.

Many of the points he is specifically isolating for Apple are quite true of most of the big tech firms.

<comment><USER11> RMS _is_ an extremist, openly and unashamedly. He doesn't try to hide it, he tries to argue that his extremist position is the morally correct and long- term best for society though.

> from a personal bias he has against Apple. Many of the points he is > specifically isolating for Apple are quite true of most of the big tech > firms.

He bashes _all_ big techs for most of those points too. See the links at the top where he complains about Airbnb, Amazon, Amtrak, Ancestry, Apple, Discord, Ebooks, Eventbrite, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Intel, LinkedIn, Lyft, Meetup, Microsoft, Netflix, Patreon, Pay Toilets, Skype, Slack, Spotify, Twitter, Uber and Wendy's.

If there are missing companies there it is probably because he didn't have the time, not because he does't want to complain about _something_ regarding that specific company ;)

<comment><USER55> So by this standard, is there a computer that I should use, or is all computing in 2019 unethical?

I see he's using a >10yr old Intel CPU, presumably to avoid the Management Engine, so presumably he thinks it's OK to pay money to these companies in certain circumstances?

<comment><USER11> By RMS's standard, it seems that it is ok to reuse old systems (irrespective of which company built them originally) provided you can use them without binary blobs (irreplaceable built-in no-source firmware is fine though). Quoting his "how I do computing page" [1]:

> I use a Thinkpad T400s computer, which has a free initialization program > (libreboot) and a free operating system (Trisquel GNU/Linux). It was not > sold that way by Lenovo, however; small businesses buy them used, > recondition them, and install the free software. This is one of the > computers endorsed by the FSF.

Of course I'm pretty sure he would also approve buying and using any open hardware product [2] (provided it can run using only free software). There are some initiatives popping up in this space, such as:

\- The siFive HiFive's [3] (Risc-V based), that can get you a fully open, slow system for $3k (1k for the base board + 2k for the PCIe-and-others expansion board).

\- The Talos™ (Power9-based) systems [4], that give you 2019-grade performance at ~2-3x the usual price.

All in all, not a pleasant stance to make, but definitely doable for some folks.

[1] [https://stallman.org/stallman- computing.html](https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open- source_computing_hardware...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open- source_computing_hardware#Fully_open-source_hardware) [3] [https://www.sifive.com/boards](https://www.sifive.com/boards) [4] [https://www.raptorcs.com/content/base/products.html](https://www.raptorcs.com/content/base/products.html)

<comment><USER56> This is the thing that gets me, is that if a piece of hardware has firmware that you can't replace then it is OK to use. But if they add the functionality to replace the firmware, then it all of a sudden is not OK to use that hardware. Or, is it the case that if the firmware is pre-loaded, but replaceable, instead of needing to download the firmware to the board every time you boot, then that would still be acceptable. Not sure where he stands on that last point.

<comment><USER57> It's a point that causes a lot of confusion.

As soon as a piece of software is replaceable, the one who provides you with the software can use its distribution to make you promise to ignore the four software freedoms.

If a piece of software is not replaceable, that point is moot, since the one who provided you with the software has no sway over you regardless. They have no control over you or the device.

<comment><USER58> Better rephrase that to indicate that they have no more control over you or the device than the non-replaceable firmware allows, this is definitely not the same as "no control". Non-replaceable firmware can ping home, it can be used to monitor users, it can download arbitrary code and run it, it can listen for some trigger to start messing with your data or downright destroy said data, it can start randomly rebooting systems or non-randomly restart all affected systems at a specific time - which may cause brown- or blackouts depending on the power draw and -supply, etcetera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I consider it responsible Capitalism to not buy products from Apple, AT&T, BP, etc...

Apple has not been pro consumer or pro developer in my lifetime. They do advertise a lot.

<comment><USER27> It's unclear what you mean by this, or what you are using as the criteria for being a pro consumer.

Their stance on user privacy, especially with iPhone in comparison to android, is certainly a good example of very pro consumer attitudes.

<comment><USER59> >It's unclear what you mean by this,

(did you read the article?)

Proprietary connectors, overpriced hardware, high cost barrier to entry, closed ecosystem.

<comment><USER12> I much prefer lightning to USB, it's cheap and easy to become a Mac or iOS developer, and also greatly prefer the security of a closed ecosystem.

And when you use your computer 2,000 hours a year the extra cost of Macs per hour of work is trivial and the benefits are great.

<comment><USER59> >I much prefer lightning to USB

Cool anecodete

>it's cheap and easy to become a Mac or iOS developer,

Its the most expensive system to develop for. So you literally lied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The case is strong with this one!

</comment><comment><USER61> A lot of these really only make sense if you have bought into the libre software ideology.

</comment><comment><USER62> I tried using linux on the desktop but plugging in monitors to my laptop just failed.

<comment><USER63> Odd, works just fine for me. What laptop and distro?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Sorry, did Stallman started using a live web browser already?

His positions are extremist and I don't know what's gained by divulging them

<comment><USER65> Huh? I do not believe he is incorrect about this, but you do, so what is he incorrect about exactly?

<comment><USER27> A lot of the arguments in this list are very one-sided, and seem to ignore things Apple has done that are directly contrary to the point he's trying to make.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Apple practices tax avoidance using loopholes and lobbying.

He's cherry picking things here that really don't have anything to do specifically with Apple. Amazon paid zero taxes last year and they had more income than nearly any company in the world. Google is also quite famous for the loopholes it finds. I'm not sure it's fair to single out Apple specifically for this.

<comment><USER66> This is called whataboutism. This article is not about Amazon or Google. He likely has a similar opinion about those companies. But this is about Apple and the tax avoidance point is valid. (At least according to [https://itep.org/fact-sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/](https://itep.org/fact- sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/) )

<comment><USER67> I see a lot of people defending the page this way, but to me the problem is that a webpage about 'what's wrong with Apple' implies a list of issues specific to Apple. Most of the issues brought up here belong on a 'what's wrong with modern tech companies' page, since they are issues found throughout the industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I disagree with the bullets about banning/censoring apps.

There are ways to install and run software on iOS without using the AppStore. If developers share source code, people are free to compile and install it using Xcode. It's also possible to run Python programs using Pythonista. Finally, programs can be run as JavaScript in Safari.

Apple definitely controls the AppStore. That makes it less convenient to install programs than on GNU/Linux, but the freedom is still there. And maybe the added steps mean the people who choose to run code via Xcode, Pythonista, or JavaScript are more likely to understand the risks of running that code.

Edit: Posted incomplete comment on the first try. Also wanted to add that I look up to Stallman as a role model and advocate for open source & contributing back to open source.

<comment><USER68> Are you aware of the limitations of the methods you describe? If yes it is very dishonest to not mention them, if not you should get the details right(find out how can you share an iOS native app you made with your friends)

<comment><USER47> Does Apple prohibit sending them the source code so that they can compile and load it through Xcode?

I realize that requires a MacOS computer, which costs money, but the "free" in free software principles is about the freedom to share the code, not the price of the code. Free software is allowed to be sold.

Increasingly, it is also possible to run Swift code on Linux without Xcode or MacOS (recognizing the GUI would need to be rewritten).

<comment><USER68> Are you serious? Does Sony prevent me emailing my friends my game source code? They "JUST" need developer system with expensive proprietary software and developer accounts, certificates and agree to a few EULAs and ToSs but I am not prevented to send them source code.

<comment><USER12> You don't need to do that on iOS. Xcode is free with $99/year dev account, you can TestFlight builds to all of your friends, up to 10,000 of them.

<comment><USER68> Is there a 7 or 30 days limit? I found something about this but I am not sure if I am looking in the right places. So if you know this from your experience can you list all the downsides(don't omit anything that won't affect an app that I would send to someone on Windows,Mac, Android or Linux) ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This list sounds like it was written by someone who wants to use Apple but needs some justifications not to. I only ever needed one reason to not use Apple products unless I was forced to: They're mostly not good products. The parts that are good are completely obstructed by the bad parts.

For instance, macOS is a stable, supported Unix on slick hardware. That's great! But only at the cost of all the core desktop functionality being complete fucking garbage. The global menu is colossally stupid and it sucks, the Window management sucks, the Finder sucks and the Dock sucks. Everybody knows this except for the people who have made their computing hardware and software choices part of their identity.

That last one was also infamous internally for sucking at the time it came out except in one respect: It marketed well. Oh and that slick hardware that you're being forced to buy is probably outdated before it left the store. Also, you were probably steered directly to the most expensive version of that hardware due to the skimpy lineup that you have to choose from and the lack of upgrade-ability.

Same thing with iOS - you get some great stuff like long battery life and stability, but only at the cost of this little thing we call "freedom" to do what the fuck I want without having to ask my Apple parent.

Seriously - Fuck Apple. They've always been a smug bunch of assholes. If you have to use their products (since they have just enough market share to be annoying) - just buy it used from a non-Apple source. Don't give these assholes your money.</comment>


Why Flowdock migrated from Cassandra to MongoDB - <AUTHOR> http://blog.nodeta.fi/2010/07/26/flowdock-migrated-from-cassandra-to-mongodb/

<comment><USER2> Clearly articles like this are designed to promote the service rather have any substantive "hacker" news. That said, the front page looks compelling except for one thing -- NO PRICING. It doesn't matter if it's still in beta. You are asking me to commit to a completely new workflow -- it's not worth my time unless I have some idea how much you are going to hit me for once it comes out of beta. $9/mo? $99/mo? I mean c'mon, give me something...

</comment><comment><USER3> Note that flowdock was on the obsolete Cassandra 0.5; the little they described of their problems suggested that upgrading to the 0.6 series would solve the worst of them.

<comment><USER4> I have noticed a disturbing trend used in the defense of many NoSQL products --> When faced with criticism point out that there is version n+1 now available and they should have used that, it would have fixed everything, etc.

We've seen this, ironically, in reference to many MongoDB horror stories, so it's interesting that in this case it's the case where someone is moving to MongoDB.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, many of these products are in their infancy so yes in general the fix may be in version n+1. I don't think that's a defense of NoSQL products it's a common thing with any young product.

Anyone who chooses an early product would hopefully understand that they will be experiencing issues and will be upgrading the product many times as issues are found and fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In you article, you mentioned 'Dots are not allowed in BSON document keys. Typically it might not be a problem, but we had to work around it in our data migration.'

Do you have more information?

<comment><AUTHOR> In MongoDB this is not possible:

> db.test.insert({"foo.bar": 1}); Mon Jul 26 14:24:39 JS Error: uncaught > exception: can't have . in field names [foo.bar]

After all that's only natural, because the dot notation is supported in queries.

For example, consider storing an e-mail in MongoDB:

{ content: "
HTML mail.
", attachments: { "1234.0": { some details about the attachment } } }

This is not legal, but in this case it's of course easy to work around (have attachments in an array and have the CID as a value instead of a key).

<comment><USER6> Thanks, this is interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Quick question: is the service meant to work in the latest DEV release of Chrome? I just get a blank screen: <http://cl.ly/92a3f95975927920868b>

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, latest development version of Chrome doesn't work. We found and fixed the bug earlier today, the fix will be deployed later this week.</comment></comment>


NSA Spy Cam Blocker - <AUTHOR> https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/nsa-spy-cam-blocker.html <comment><USER2> A better idea would have been a "Rand-aid". A sticker in the shape of a band- aid that covers the webcam so you can still close your laptop.

<comment><USER3> You could even just use band-aids. The cotton section would protect the lens from the adhesive. You could probably even commission a run of them with some sort of branding printed on the back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Stole the idea from the EFF, which sells it for a lot less money:

[https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover- set](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set)

<comment><USER5> Not really apples-to-apples, though. The Rand Paul cover is a sliding bit of plastic, vs just an adhesive strip.

<comment><USER6> The Rand Paul cover is a _campaign contribution_.

 _edit:_ Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The price difference is unlikely to have much to do with the physical costs involved. Political campaign stores typically have inflated prices as they're fundraising efforts.

<comment><USER7> Do not interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring. Do not question or comment about your own downvotes.

<comment><USER6> It's more an attempt to clarify the point (which appears to have worked).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If anyone is exploiting my system, microphone would be my top priority. Getting image doesn't really tell as much as listening to what, how and when you talk.

<comment><USER9> You can also extrapolate a fairly decent image from the microphone, sort of like a make-shift SONAR.

<comment><USER10> From multiple microphones, perhaps, but from a single microphone? Seems unlikely.

<comment><USER9> You have an array of microphones in your phone alone, not to mention the speakers, which are just low-fi mics. But in any case, you can do it with one microphone.

E.g. [http://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/862.13/students/brandon/index...](http://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/862.13/students/brandon/index.html)

[http://www.extremetech.com/computing/128735-microsoft- create...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/128735-microsoft-creates- kinect-like-system-using-your-laptops-built-in-speaker-microphone)

<comment><USER11> That first technique A) is very audibly noticeable B) requires you to put the laptop on a chair and wheel it around the room to make up for the fact that you only have a single microphone.

The second technique basically only understands gestures.

I wouldn't be at all worried about this in the wild...

<comment><USER9> Someone actually did it to China's PLA Unit 61398 using a technique similar to this: [http://www.gizmag.com/microphone-room-mapping- epfl/27985/](http://www.gizmag.com/microphone-room-mapping-epfl/27985/), so I'd say it's worth worrying about in the wild.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The website is also using Google Analytics without disclosing this in their privacy policy, which violates Google Analytics' TOS[0] and is a pet peeve of mine. Hard to take the site too seriously but I like that privacy is a campaign issue, so it isn't all bad news.

 _" You must post a Privacy Policy and that Privacy Policy must provide notice of Your use of cookies that are used to collect data. You must disclose the use of Google Analytics, and how it collects and processes data."_

[0][http://www.google.com/analytics/terms/us.html](http://www.google.com/analytics/terms/us.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> A great way to both raise campaign financing and instill fear

<comment><USER14> I'm OK with a bit of fear mongering if it means that warrantless spying actually becomes an election issue. These tactics have been used to go to war and substantially reduce individual rights; at least this is a cause I can somewhat get behind.

<comment><USER15> "I'm okay with the ends justifying the means when the ends are something I like."

<comment><USER16> Worst case scenario for this "fear mongering": People put sticky tape over / unplug their cameras.

Or are you against all instances of causing people to be afraid of something on principle?

<comment><USER15> Fear mongering has the connotation of making people irrationally afraid for your own benefit, which, yes, I am against in all instances on principle.

<comment><USER14> If that's the definition you're working off of, so be it. I mostly agree with you. I wasn't qualifying the fear as being "irrational".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Nope [0] laptop cover (featured in kickstarter) uses magnets and prevents from scratching the camera lens.

[0] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1893116150/nope-live- fr...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1893116150/nope-live-free)

<comment><USER18> Also looks like it would prevent the laptop from closing all the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Brought to you by the guy who:

\- Used to claim the Civil Rights Act went too far before he started thinking maybe he wanted to be president.

\- Says he will sell off a bunch of our national parks to the highest bidder.

\- Invented his own bogus Ophthalmologist certificate and certified himself.

Come on HN, you're better than this.

</comment><comment> Stefan-H I am a big fan of the Nope that had a kickstarted a little while ago. It is small and still allows your macbook to close: [http://erlibird.com/go/nope](http://erlibird.com/go/nope)

</comment><comment><USER20> When I was in a grad school I remember a professor who bought an SGI machine without enough RAM so he couldn't do work with it but he left it plugged into the wall outlet and ethernet for 5 years or so and didn't even know the root password when it got hacked.

Those machines came with a camera that had a little door you could slide to cover it, so at least he had that protection.

<comment><USER21> _Those machines came with a camera that had a little door you could slide to cover it, so at least he had that protection._

Yes. Here's one in the closed position.[1] That feature seems to have disappeared.

There was a time when people were bothered about phones where the switchhook didn't physically disconnect the microphone. All the Western Electric phones had a hard disconnect when the phones were hung up. Many digital office phones don't have that, and can be used for eavesdropping.

[1] [http://www.tamayatech.com/ProductImages/S/SGI-0138737XXX.jpe...](http://www.tamayatech.com/ProductImages/S/SGI-0138737XXX.jpeg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm surprised some laptops don't have something similar built in.. though a small piece of electrical tape works as well.

<comment><USER23> I'm not surprised at all, it's like these embedded battery on mobile phones .. so anyone cannot easily remove them

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Nice idea but I wish more manufacturers had something like this built into their laptops. An old ASUS of mine came with a sliding piece of plastic that you could use to cover the webcam[1] when not in use.

[1]:[http://imgur.com/90X6PHF](http://imgur.com/90X6PHF)

</comment><comment><USER25> Would this not just stop you from closing your laptop lid? I have a piece of tape over my laptop's webcam and that doesn't impinge on much (and actually has a useful purpose since I've been able to avoid the dreaded video interview when applying for jobs).

</comment><comment><USER26> To be fair that piece of plastic will be a much more effective NSA blocker than Rand Paul ever will.

</comment><comment><USER27> Relevant GCHQ/NSA Program for looking at your webcam dick pics..

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_%28GCHQ%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_%28GCHQ%29)

<comment> SG- While I'm sure there are other projects at NSA and GCHQ that actually break into targets and records without user knowledge, the Optic Nerve project was meant to simply grab unencrypted video stream data from Yahoo Messenger from people willfully recording themselves while "tapping" parts of the Internet.

Yahoo only decided to provide the option to enable encryption sometime in 2014 after they found about it and it's pretty shameful on their part.

There's mention of MS too with Kinect but I'm not sure if it was sending out encrypted video or simply using weak encryption.

</comment></comment><comment> tek-cyb-org Believe it or not.... This is actually a GREAT business idea. Just him being a politician, and having access to that ultra targeted customer base. Not that this product is actually useful or anything.

</comment><comment><USER28> Printable cam blocker: [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:195405](http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:195405)

</comment><comment><USER29> Without having looked at any wiring schematics for the iSight module... does anyone know if it's even possible to apply power to the iSight hardware module, without the LED becoming illuminated?

I would presume the LED is wired directly to the module's power. Then, it would be physically impossible to turn on the camera, without the LED becoming illuminated. (And, in my opinion, obviate much of the need for these silly stickers.)

It would also be an odd design for Apple to make the camera's LED indicator an independently controllable component.

<comment><USER9> Yes, you can activate the camera without activating the LED. The LED is not directly wired to the power supply.[0]

[0][http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/12/18...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/12/18/research-shows-how-macbook-webcams-can-spy-on-their- users-without-warning/)

Edit in Reply: Not necessarily. It's probably still possible on modern Apple hardware, albeit with a lot of firmware hacking, according to the authors of the paper: [http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/117937/how-to- use-i...](http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/117937/how-to-use-isight- webcam-without-activating-the-green-light)

<comment><USER30> Well, not exactly. At one point you were able to, but the flaw has been fixed for over 5 years now. It affected cameras on some Macs sold between 2006 and 2009 I believe.

Here's the paper describing the flaw: [https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2...](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/36569/camera.pdf?sequence=1)

<comment><USER9> Not necessarily. It's probably still possible on modern Apple hardware, albeit with a lot of firmware hacking, according to the authors of the paper: [http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/117937/how-to- use-i...](http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/117937/how-to-use-i..).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I find that a sticky note works well, particularly in strip form. Much cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is a testament to how helpless the average person is when it comes to using, much less understanding, modern computer technology. It is the equivalent of "duct tape and WD-40" to repair a broken down vehicle.

As a software developer I'm regularly ashamed by the inaccessibility of computer technology. The non-technical individual's inability to control what happens to them and around them in regards to electronics and software is rapidly outstripping their capacity to act in their own self interest.

It's kind of depressing.

<comment><USER33> I think the low-tech solution is the correct one in this case. If one wants to be sure their camera is not recording them they can a) audit the entire source code of their OS and relevant applications (including the complete chain of compilers that have ever been used to compile compilers for their device all the way back to the very first one), device firmware, and inspect the circuit layout of all integrated circuit devices in their computer to look for backdoors or b) they can put something in front of the lens.

I agree that this is a pretty regrettable state of affairs that we basically can't trust anything with a turing-complete processor in it somewhere.

<comment><USER32> For this specific case I'd argue that a switch which severs the power from both the camera and the mic simultaneously is the right solution. A physical sheath could also cover the camera for peace of mind. As others have pointed out the mic is probably the more dangerous of the two.</comment></comment></comment>


Stepping into math: Open-sourcing our step-by-step solver - <AUTHOR> https://blog.socratic.org/stepping-into-math-open-sourcing-our-step-by-step-solver-9b5da066ae36 <comment><USER2> This seems interesting because it addresses the issue of "show your work." Many years ago, I spent a semester teaching the freshman algebra course at the nearby Big 10 university. This is the course that you take if you don't get into calculus. My students were bright kids -- they were all admitted to the state flagship school -- but not mathematicians.

There was huge variation in the preparation that kids brought with them from high school. In particular, very few of them understood what "show your work" means. They were told "show your work," but nobody told them what it really entails. Is it just to provide evidence that you did some work, to deter cheating, or is it something else? Many of my students were taught "test taking skills" such as the guess-and-try method. So on one exam, a question was:

x^3 = 27

One student's work:

1^3 = 1

2^3 = 8

3^3 = 27

Answer = 3

I asked the professors to tell me what "show your work" means. None of them had a good answer! These were the top mathematicians in the world. I wanted to talk with my students about it, but I'm not even sure that my own answer was very good.

But if we did well in math, then we just know what it means. It's not just evidence that you did the work. It doesn't mean "turn in all of your chicken scratch along with the answers." It means something along the lines of supplying a step-by-step argument, identifying the premises and connecting them with the conclusion, in a language that is "accepted," i.e., that mimics the language of the textbook / teacher. In fact, the reason to read the textbook and attend lectures, is to learn that language. (It's not so different in the humanities courses).

At least, that's my take on it, as just one teacher with one semester's worth of experience.

In my view, a problem solving tool that actually addresses the process of building the _argument_ and not just determining the answer, would be beneficial to students.

<comment><USER3> Show your work means that the process for doing the problem works in a sufficiently generic situation. The student's methodology would not work for solving the equation:

x^3 = 7

Hence I would mark the student's answer wrong. At least at the level of a college algebra course. Guess and try is fine for getting an intuition for a problem but it is not fine as a solution.

EDIT: I don't care about down votes but I'm interested why there is disagreement with what I wrote. I've been teaching mathematics at the college level for 20 years and I believe my answer above fits with what most college level teachers think about the topic.

So, why do you disagree with what I wrote?

<comment><USER4> I HATED "show your work". You want a proof, ask me for a proof. It's not my fault I can solve your problem in my head. _Especially_ horrifying is if you want me to solve the problem a particular way. There is no better way of turning the fun and freedom of math into drudgework. You are licensed to ask me to arrive at the correct answer, or to prove a theorem from premises; telling me how to do it is mathematical abuse.

<comment><USER3> The answer is not important. What is important is that one knows a process for solving the general situation. Knowing how to get the answer in a problem with easy numbers is not the point. Demonstrating how to find it no matter what numbers I used is the point.

There is also the fact that I'm not just teaching the student so they can pass this class. I'm teaching them so that they can pass the next class too. In beginning algebra, our lowest level course, we start with basic problems.

For instance, you drive for 3 hours and travel 150 miles. What's your average speed. Almost every person gets this right. But many can't do this problem. You drive a car for 4/3 an hour and travel 100/6 miles. What is your average speed? Now many can't do this problem. They ask, which way does the division occur?

Our goal is that they know and understand a general process. We are setting them up to solve more advanced problems. Problems that can't be done in their head. If you can't write the steps out in the simple case you'll never understand the harder problems. Problems that involve quadratic functions or trig functions.

Mathematics is a human activity and communication is part of it. Knowing how to communicate what is in your brain to another person in a way that they can understand is very valuable. I give the students nice numbers and in exchange they are expected to tell me a general way of solving that type of problem. Instead of feeding them for a day I want to teach them how to fish.

I strongly disagree with your belief that this mathematical abuse.

<comment><USER5> _> Knowing how to get the answer in a problem with easy numbers is not the point. _

So, don't use _easy_ numbers?

 _> I give the students nice numbers and in exchange they are expected to tell me a general way of solving that type of problem._

If this quid-pro-quo is explicit, that seems fair. But I still don't see why "nice numbers" are necessary.

<comment><USER3> In this case nice numbers are not necessary. In other types of problems they are. One does not want to burden students with needlessly complicated calculations when the main point is a simple one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Has anyone done a study to see if this kind of aided solving actually helps students learn? I'm worried that "Eh, I'll just write this solution down today, I'm sure I'll learn it tomorrow" is what's happens.

Awesome software though.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, seems like it's going to be used for cheating on homework. (ie: "Show your work")

<comment><USER8> It should be used to replace homework!

A system that can break a problem out into steps should be able to assess the students understanding of the steps and even give them appropriate practice problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some years ago I tried to do something a bit more complex: [http://telauges.appspot.com/mathsolver/](http://telauges.appspot.com/mathsolver/)

My idea was to use planning and A* search to solve any type of math problem, even create probes for things like the quadratic equation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation) . I gave up after learnt the search space was so big for it that it was impossible to solve. If I had to do it today I will explore deep learning as heuristic, but I think it probably wont work.

I always like to see this type of projects, I hope they succeed where I failed.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps that was an over-ambitious project given that Automated Theorem Proving is an entire field of research.

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

<comment><USER9> It was during my first months in my PhD when it wasn't clear what I will do. My idea was to define the theorems as operators of planning algorithms and then to use the planning techniques to create new theorems or probes. But planning is not good for long plans as theorem proving, so we moved to something simpler: linear equations and A* algorithm. Then we found the math equations have different representations for the same thing and the branch factor is quite big. Moreover the heuristic of trying to minimize the equations doesn't give good results some times. That is why the prototype works for the example, but for other examples the a* gets lost in the search because of branch factor and equation representation.

The problem with the equation representation is that if you don't find a good one, then you cannot make searches in hash tables efficiently. You end up with a lot of equations duplicated with different representations. And the representation, I used trees for it, was important for the operators.

Planning was a very nice idea because the algorithms already deal with the heuristics. But algorithms as FF [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sheila/2542/s14/A1/hoffmannebel-F...](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sheila/2542/s14/A1/hoffmannebel- FF-jair01.pdf) wouldn't work due to the branch factor and the relaxation of the problem it performs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's a nice program and I can see it being both helpful and harmful. From my perspective, as a teacher of mathematics at a community college, students are unwilling to engage in thought about a problem. If they can't see the solution in a few minutes then they want to look at a complete solution. Mostly they are not willing to struggle through a problem.

I vacillate on whether, with the advent of computer algebra systems, it is necessary for students to master algebraic manipulations. I started to think that conceptual questions are better.

For instance, give me an example of an equation with no solution. Explain how a baseball player can have the highest batting average the first half of a season and in the second half of a season but not have the highest overall average. Draw the graph of a function defined on [0, 1] but has not maximum or minimum.

Students can't do those types of problems either. They are very frustrating problems for students because it requires you to really think about what the words mean and to think of extreme situations. So I've reverted back to the traditional style of teaching math. Manipulation of symbols.

<comment><USER11> When I was in year 12, 15 years ago, my math teacher introduced our class to a website called "Wolfram's Integrator" which could simplify complicated integrals automatically for you.

I just googled it and it still exists: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/calculators/integral- calculator/...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/calculators/integral- calculator/?redirected=true)

At the time I thought it was pretty cool in a passing trivia kind of way but didn't make much use of it.

A year after that I was a first year university student all of our linear algebra tutorials were taught in the labs using a computer program called "Maple". I really struggled to wrap my head around it. I didn't do well in the class until I started writing out the problems myself and solving them on paper.

I found at least for me personally that inputting problems into a computer and having it spit the answer out wasn't teaching me anything (besides which functions to call), in other words I was learning the programming language and not the underlying concepts.

Nowadays I work with FEA and LP solvers and I rely on computer assistance all the time to do my job. I'd like to think having a firm grasp of the underlying math is advantageous and makes me a better engineer but I know there are people around that get by just by "plugging things into Ansys".

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Worked on something like this as a hobby project a while ago, but to avoid the complexities associated with solving arbitrary exercises, instead I had it set up as an algebra exercise generator: you start with the solution, which you then (algorithmically) obfuscate by splitting terms and recombining things for a couple of rounds. Never got around to finishing it, but the neat thing is that you've already generated one possible way to solve the problem, it's just how you generated the exercise in reverse.

Another thing that's quite easy to do is to check intermediate steps in a solution for equivalence. You don't even really need CAS, just brute force the problem by probing the equations: set all variables to randomly chosen values, n times and if the sets of results are the same for both equations, you're good.

Anyhow, Socratic looks great and a great deal more advanced and useful than what I came up with, so kudos!

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm jealous of kids these days... homework would've been so much easier with this.

You could always use a calculator but the whole 'show your own working' catch meant you had to do it all manually. Not any more!

<comment><USER8> Hopefully the kids of tomorrow end up getting less homework because of things like this.

Consider a system that combines practice and assessment. It could individualize both, reducing the need to force students that have mastered a concept to do repetitive practice.

It might be a big challenge to get such a thing to work well, but let's not look back at our schooling as an anchor for what students today must do.

<comment><USER14> I once designed myself a system for teaching math online. In addition to using an engine like what they're showing here, my plan was to start from more-or- less the beginning, but also track and categorize the errors a given student makes over time. Errors are not generally made randomly, there's a pattern to them.

Then, we could allow the student to "solve" an equation the way they really should, by skipping over two or three steps at a time, but when we see them do something wrong, we can use our table of "errors the student is most likely to make" to explore the space of possible errors between step 4 and step 5, and give focused feedback about what they did wrong. Using that table there's really only a couple hundred possibilities; if that fails we can always ask the student themselves to break it down more tightly. Presumably if someone were making a business out of this, there would be someone on the lookout for errors the computer can't figure out to add what rules they can to the system. (Though there will always be an irreducible residue of incomprehensible error.)

Teaching a student math would then be about reducing each of these errors to zero over time. You'd have the computer custom create problems that hold a constant probability of the student making an error at some point during solving it; say 20% or so. Then as the student demonstrates mastery, you naturally make the problems more complex as you have to put in more steps to make the probability of error go that high.

Instead of a klunky, chunky "ok now we learn this and you blindly practice it, now you learn this and you blindly practice it, and we hope at the end you've learned everything we taught", you would in theory get a naturally progressive, customized difficulty curve that keeps the student continuously engaged with being about 80% correct, but always progressing forward. This approach also naturally ensures that just because we're covering the quadratic equation this week does not mean you get to forget fractions; once you've seen the simple stuff with integers, we're naturally going to fold fractions back in to the problems, for instance.

There's some elaborations on the theme after that, such as pre-examining the generated problems to ensure that the most likely mistakes are all distinguishable by producing different error output.

But I don't have time to do this. I'm at least reasonably confident it would work, though.

<comment><USER15> Diagknowstics is working on this in Ann Arbor. Not sure how far along they are, but it's a very bright team.

<comment><USER14> Interesting. I'm literally 15 minutes' walk from them right now. I wish them well; I'd love to have something like this for my own kids in the 3-4 years it'll take for it to be useful for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone know if there is a good open source library for making equations (Latex, MathML) out of pictures like in their demo?

<comment><USER17> Hi! This is Evy (I wrote the post)

I know this doesn't answer your question, but at Socratic we use an API that we pay the creator of [http://mathpix.com/](http://mathpix.com/) for. It would definitely be super cool to see an open source library for this :)

<comment><USER16> Thanks anyway. Getting equations into the laptop (editor) or smartphone is not easy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My academic math journey stopped at pre-calc, and I had been a C student for quite a long time. HS Algebra II would never have happened for me if I hadn't discovered XMaxima, an emacs-based CAS. Fortunately I took a Discrete Math course before dropping out of college, and it gave me a new admiration for math.

In spite of my weak math background, this has been the most enjoyable comments section on HN I've read so far.

</comment><comment><USER19> People here keep saying this will change learning and be good for the students, but the only real difference is it's open-source. You can already get step-by-step solutions for more types of problems from Wolfram Alpha, and you can already get API access if you're a 3rd-party developer who needs it:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*y+-+x+%3D+(8+*+x+%2B+...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*y+-+x+%3D+\(8+*+x+%2B+2\))

I don't think it will have any real effect.

<comment><USER20> I think you need the paid Wolfram Alpha to get step-by-step solutions

Source: Paid for it for that feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Very interesting work, and well-explained in the post.

Like many others here, I suppose that in it's basic form this would mostly be used for cheating on homework; although it would certainly be useful for those (few?) students who are truly motivated to self-learn the material, rather than just pass the tests.

One thing which springs to mind is "Benny's Conception of Rules and Answers in IPI Mathematics" ( [https://msu.edu/course/cep/953/readings/erlwanger.pdf](https://msu.edu/course/cep/953/readings/erlwanger.pdf) ), which shows the problem of only focusing on answers, and on "general purpose" problem sets. Namely that incorrect rules or concepts might be learned, if they're reenforced by occasionally giving the right answer.

I think it would be interesting to have a system capable of some back-and- forth interactivity: the default mode would be the usual, going through some examples, have the student attempt some simple problems, then trickier ones, and so on.

At the same time, the system would be trying to guess what rules/strategies the student is following: looking for patterns, e.g. via something like inductive logic programming. We would treat the student as a "black box", which we can learn about by posing carefully crafted questions.

Each question can be treated as an experiment, where we want to learn the most information about the student's thinking: if strategies A and B could both lead to the answers given by the student, we construct a question which leads to different answers depending on whether A or B were used to solve it; that gives us information about which strategy is more likely to be used by the student, or maybe the answer we get is poorly explained by A and B, and we have to guess some other strategies they might be using.

Rather than viewing marking as a comparison between answer and a key, we can instead infer a model of the domain from those answers and compare _that_ to an accurate model of the domain.

We can also use this approach the other way around, treating the _domain_ as a black box (which it is, from the student's perspective) and choosing examples which give the student most information about it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Now... the only thing remaining is to translate this to common core :).

I say that in jest, but doing so would make common core much easier for parents AND teachers to grasp. There's an enormous divide between those who get it and those who hate it, and providing parents/teachers with something that would help them understand the benefits of common core concepts would be a gigantic win.

<comment><USER23> What's common core in this context?

<comment><USER24> It's a math and English curriculum used in the US up to the 12th grade.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> That's so cool.

Reminds me of how different the learning experience is now. When we were at school (80s/90s), there was nowhere to turn if you didn't have the answer. My parents had an Encyclopedia Britannica set, so at least there was a paragraph to go on. It's amazing how good you became at fleshing out that paragraph into an essay :-)

</comment><comment><USER26> Now that this exists I think it's worth creating an opensource version of the TI-Nspire for engineers & mathamaticians. Something based on cheap hardware, runs linux, and can implement this + a theorum prover to basically make the most handy lab calculator.

<comment><USER27> Could base it off of a raspberry pi with a touch LCD. It would make a good teaching project for a highschool class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> that feels like a nice application of AI in a way. we often use a computer that can help in making a plan (e.g. a kind of map or "steps" as here). this might be nice to help understand problem solving in general. also, nice to see the project is in javascript, that means quite a few non-professional programmers could learn from it.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is such an inspiring software.

</comment><comment><USER30> It looks like Sheldon came through.</comment>


BLE and ePaper display and Coin cell battery - <AUTHOR> https://docs.electronut.in/papyr/ <comment><USER2> >Ensure correct coin cell polarity before inserting it. Papyr does not have reverse polarity protection, and will get damaged if battery is inserted reversed.

Seriously? They couldn't manage to add one diode?</comment>


Target website crashes due to huge demand for Missoni products - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/targets-unexpected-missoni-website-crash-2011-09-13

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's at least somewhat likely that this was staged to get even more publicity for the product.

The reason I say this is static web content is easy to scale; there should be no reason for all of target.com to go down.

<comment><USER2> I don't think you know how large ecommerce websites work. Pricing, availability, listing pages are all generated dynamically. "Static web content" doesn't even get close to describing how an ecom page gets served with that many variables. You can't simply create a version for every permutation of visitor and cache it.</comment></comment>


Computer Programmers Get New Tech Ethics Code - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/computer-programmers-get-new-tech-ethics-code/ <comment><USER3> "That's why the world's largest organization of computer scientists and engineers, the Association for Computing Machinery, of which I am president, has issued a new code of ethics for computing professionals. And it's why ACM is taking other steps to help technologists engage with ethical questions."

I.e. "I wanted to be the president of some association, so I decided to bring political correctness to programming."

Hopefully this never catches on.

<comment><USER4> If a person is unable to differentiate Ethics from political correctness - <USER2> seems like they could really benefit from what this org is providing.</comment></comment>


Tool Assisted Speedrun uses bug in Pokemon Yellow to execute arbitrary code - <AUTHOR> http://tasvideos.org/2341M.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The authors comments give a good overview of what was done

<http://tasvideos.org/3894S.html>

He has a forum post that goes into the technical details here:

<http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=342003#342003></comment>


Researchers use CRISPR to eliminate HIV in mice, DNA and all - <AUTHOR> https://massivesci.com/articles/crispr-phage-therapy-hiv-microbes-cas9-editing-dna/ <comment><USER2> "Although this approach is incredibly promising, an important caveat is that the editing worked in less than half the mice."

i don't know what i was hoping '...,DNA and all' would mean. i suppose all 50% of these mice.</comment>