How to Shut Down Reddit's CreepShots: Name Names - <AUTHOR> http://jezebel.com/5949379/naming-names-is-this-the-solution-to-combat-reddits-creepshots

<comment><USER2> This should be upvoted so that it can be discussed on HN, since I think it is a _dangerous_ trend. For some reason the previous story about violentacrez's outing didn't get too much discussion: <http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4647116>

The irony is that the creep hunters, e.g. "Samantha" themselves want to remain anonymous.

But aside for that, although I find CreepShots and the like abhorrent, e.g. a teacher posting photos of his students online, I find what people like "Samantha" are doing almost equally bad. Contacting people's employers and esp. the police on an alleged crime as _the first step_ seems not only cruel and unusual punishment but may in fact may be illegal. What if "Samantha" makes an error in her identification and contacts _my_ employer?

I don't want to comment on the "In my personal opinion, not all speech deserves to be protected..." comment, which has hundreds of years of debate on it. But "Samantha's" assertion that

"But Samantha believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men are dangerous."

is quite indefensible, to me. The idea that porn (not that these pictures are porn) will lead to predatory behavior was the leading cry of old-school feminism, but is not so widely accepted.

<comment><USER3> > The idea that porn (not that these pictures are porn) will lead to predatory > behavior was the leading cry of old-school feminism, but is not so widely > accepted.

True, but I don't think the creepshot situation is comparable. In the porn case, you have material produced with the consent of the participants (ideally). Those arguing against it are using a speculative argument that some viewers might be led to predatory behavior from it.

In the creepshots case, the material is produced without the consent of the subjects, and is arguably obtained by people who are engaging in predatory behavior and rewarding them for that behavior. The link between creepshots and predators is thus not speculative, and it is combined with a gross violation of the privacy of the subjects of the photos.

Furthermore, the acceptance of creepshots harms all of us in the United States. A key aspect of our Constitutional protections against unreasonable intrusion in our private affairs by the government is the notion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

When we, as a society, decide that some particular loss of privacy is acceptable that moves the bar a little on what the government is allowed to do.

See this fantastic article by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on how we are giving up our privacy voluntarily and how that is giving more power to the government: [http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy- paradox/dead...](http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/dead- past)

<comment><USER2> I agree with the gist of your "without consent of subjects" comment, these people should be vilified for posting peoples' photos, with unwanted tags, e.g. "hot teen". This should be the major thrust of the movement against creepshotting. The link to predator-ship is not so clear to me.

In any case, I detest the Hammurabi-like "let me give you a taste of your own medicine" approaches. The correct reaction, for me, should be against Reddit, the company.

<comment><USER4> " The correct reaction, for me, should be against Reddit, the company."

And similarly, against Facebook, G+, or Twitter for the content of their users. Anytime anyone posts something on a commercial site that we don't agree with, we should turn to the infrastructure provider for censorship!

Is Reddit responsible for censoring the user-generated content of their site, provided it is not breaking any laws? I was pretty certain we had a mountain of case law to the contrary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of course Gawker would soy that.</comment>


Ask HN: Looking for a print and delivery service with iOS SDK - <AUTHOR>

We've an iOS app that lets you create arts similar to ASCII art but with fonts and letters (http://fontify.it) and looking for a service (like zazzle or redbubble) that has an iOS library that enables that service inapp.
From a user experience perspective: It would be so much better to buy posters/mugs from the app where it was created than exporting it/putting it on some desktop then go to that website, or first search for it then register, oh no where did I put that file again, ah nevermind.
From a business perspective: Apple doesn't seem to ban apps that sell goods inapp: eBay. (Maybe both, but ) one of the sites mentioned above sells only on their website even though they let sellers create their own website. I guess this is to upsell by cross promotion ("continue shopping" message + similar products after the purchase).
Do you know any quality service that already offers this?
or, if any of you reading can do printing/delivery but needs devs we are more than happy to implement it :)
(should you dislike fontify, think about printing photos =]) <comment><USER2> Hello,

I think we're (<http://www.pwinty.com>) exactly what you're looking for. We're an API for printing photos and posters.

You call our API, we do the printing and shipping. All the billing, invoicing and checkout- you deal with.

Not doing mugs yet, but will do soon.

Get in touch via the website and I can send you a copy of the iOS library (its a bit rough round the edges, but should give you a good headstart).

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks promising.

\- Do you also handle PDF or you prefer rasters?

\- Are you considering handling payments directly from the customers?

Would be so much better w/ payment handling (one lib to integrate). We wouldn't even mind if the package is arriving with your logo.

<comment><USER2> At the moment we only take rasters, not PDFs.

We're not looking at handling the payments directly at the moment, as that could complicate things quite a bit (we have to store custom pricing for each merchant and each order etc).

It might be something we look at long-term, but not for now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Customer handling would be a big help for marchants wannabes like us. Currently we only have the resource to put a lib into our app. We are not sure how well printing would go

Is there a reason you only do rasters? I've believed that vector graphics is superior. The printer has problems with the rendering?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Schadenfreude - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

<comment><USER2> I use this word as a literary "indicator". If I run into it in a novel or while reading a web post I know that this is the moment to stop reading. The couple of times I have pressed on, I have always regretted doing so.

No idea what it means - but it sounds Germanic.</comment>


Is Shanghai Turning Pro or Just Building High? by Nathan Myhrvold - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/is-shanghai-turning-pro-or-just-building-high-a-guest-post/ <comment><USER2> I spent several months in china from last year to this year. I only stayed in Shanghai for a short while, because the city is built to impress, so it's easy to get blinded by the glamour.

But all the same, China is developing, and it's developing in a way that is dangerous to the west. I traveled to some villages where foreigners hardly ever go, and you see that the government is making a lot of money available to the people there to build. It's a form of ultra-capitalist socialism, where the government gives people money to develop, so that they themselves can develop.

But when I say it's dangerous to the west, what I mean is that it's developing, but the gap between the rich people and the poor people is still very clear, at least in the cities I was in. This means that a guy with a factory can afford to hire WAY more people, and has a lot more choice in his employees. There is no attempt to bring the workers then to the same level.

This means that building factories and industries is way cheaper than in the west, and they have a lot more staff for a lot less money. The living standard will not grow as fast, but the wealth in China will grow quickly.

<comment><USER3> And where's the danger you talked about?

<comment><USER4> Presumably because the government is ensuring that Chinese entrepreneurs have access to capital _and_ cheap labor. If businesses developed more organically with a balance between capital and labor, the Chinese middle class would grow and China would achieve wage parity with the West and would compete on similar terms. The arrangement he described would give the advantage to Chinese business owners and the Chinese government, at the expense of western businesses and the Chinese people.

<comment><USER3> Rising productivity of Chinese workers will raise their wages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 'Shanghai looked more like Manhattan on a Sunday'

He was obviously didn't know where to find the jackpot.

To experience the real culture of Shanghai you need to live life closer to the 'locals', not in some hotel in Pudong(east), all you'll find there is tall buildings. Hell I haven't even seen half of the places in those pictures.

If you took a moment to observe the locals that would be culture, the people in Shanghai are distinct to other parts of China, with traits such as quick wit and hard work, indeed they speak their own dialect. If he is trying to find old buildings as evidence of culture, Shanghai is not the best place, although there are quite a few around, including the famous tourist attraction Cheng Huang Miao:

<http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1108224679049820088RZkVRy></comment>


My experience with toxic teams - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/geekgalgroks/my-experience-with-toxic-teams-6fk <comment><USER2> Dancing Sign up button is really off-putting.

<comment> crooked-v Yeah, I saw that and closed the page immediately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What I don't understand is why this is so persistent. Irrational markets, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article was passed around in a FinTech slack channel I frequent. The major response to it was "Well, that sounds just like FinTech."

tl;dr: Toxic teams come from lack of vision from an equally toxic management.

To be precise, toxic teams always develop from an overworked, understaffed workplace, on a vision-less project, thrown together so fast and so haphazardly that it cannot tolerate any degree of failure, with no fallbacks implemented due to cost and time. This profile fits every failed "disruptive" startup or company I've worked at over the past decade, especially in FinTech.

No one uses vacation time or sick leave since no one can fill in for you. Having any sort of redundancy is seen as "bad", in all circumstances. If one employee is going out for a week, and his or her part of the project breaks, that's going to stay broken for a week if that person leaves. Employees are told they can start "living it up" just as soon as sales "hooks the big one", then they'll hire more devs, and it'll all be fixed, surely!

If you insist on taking vacation, they'll expect you to be "on call". In my personal experience, I saw a manager give a sales rep an employee on vacation's cell number with the instructions "if they call in about [component], throw her on the call." There is no escape.

It's always crunch time because planning anything in advance beyond the next fiscal quarter isn't possible, due to, well, crunch time. This one feeds on itself. Startups and FinTech darlings think they can be a 1-year-old vineyard selling 10-year-old wines to 100-year-old clients who see right through this BS.

The priority of the day shifts to whoever is screaming loudest because, as we've discussed before, the project was thrown together so fast and so haphazardly that it cannot tolerate any degree of failure, and something crucial just broke, or in the case of one startup I worked at, "the laws of physics got in the way."

Socializing with other teams is frowned upon because talking with other teams gets people fired. It's a paranoid (but completely justified) mentality that discussion with other teams may reveal someone from one team is better at solving a problem than a person on another team - which can alert managers, who then tell their superiors, who then tell the better employee to move to the other team. And the poor guy he bested? "It's his last day, and now two teams are angry at you because you opened your mouth."

The communication you _do_ have has been reduced to some trendy iteration of IRC with half-baked teleconferencing built-in. Teams cannot see other teams' chats, for reasons unknown. Miscommunication is always dismissed as "Oh, we already discussed that in our team channel." The people who need to be on the chat app, which is pretty much all of management, never use the chat app. E-mail doesn't work, because no one checks their e-mail anymore. E-mail inboxes are where excuses from the CFO for that terrible last quarter go to die. There is only despair and automated messages in the inbox.

Never expect documentation. Ever. If the software is too crucial to let rot on the vine, and too complex to maintain if the maintainers are laid off, you won't find a shred. Writing good documentation means that someone with a certain level of technical competency can follow it, someone who the suits could pay a lot less than they do you.

If a company suddenly requests thorough technical documentation on a product, the poor soul's days are numbered. Many are directed "on a whim" to write exhaustive documentation, only to be laid off the week after said documentation is finished and announced to management. The system is then thrown to a team of contractors elsewhere. Yeah, one could argue that the system must have not been too important, but no one deserves to be treated this way, knowing you're basically writing your job away, one keystroke at a time, for several months.

There is little or no recognition of good work because "the work is never done". Everyone can rest when the project is done, which never happens because either the money runs out, or the project is abruptly cancelled (the money ran out).

Check-ins are constantly skipped. If there is a check-in, it's a cover for the actual intent of the meeting - layoffs, or announcing that people have been laid off. Ergo, no check-ins is a good thing.

Project-stopping roadblocks are ignored because that would implicate to management there was no proper planning ever involved, which everyone knows damn well there was no proper planning ever involved. If the remedy is a third-party service, suddenly there is enough money for said service, especially if the person (if any) responsible for clearing the roadblock is paid more than that third-party service costs.

Insults abound in the workplace, but they are crafted in a way to appear superior to management, who see the pecking order as "structure". Complaints are shrugged off by HR as "banter". If it's any consolation, these same people doing the pecking are being pecked at by someone higher than they are.

It isn't safe to fail because the company never had any money to afford failure in the first place. That doesn't stop them from acquiring other companies in a desperate attempt for growth, though! Yes, there should be safeguards to prevent failure from being catastrophic but that safeguard is to have a product that actually solves a problem, rather than having a product to solve a "problem" created simply for the product's solution to solve. It's the tech equivalent of a Seen-on-TV gadget.

The saddest part about all this is that everyone on the team feels the same way. No one benefits from this, and it's only prolonging the inevitable, when everyone has to pack their stuff in a box and leave the premises by lunch. It's a miracle if you still get severance. Am I jaded? you bet!</comment>


Tesla employees who don't return to work could lose unemployment benefits - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who-dont-return-to-work-could-lose-unemployment-benefits/ <comment><USER2> A thread on this from yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163794](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23163794)

<comment><USER3> Which concluded that the title here is misleading. The statement from Tesla is just a legal-speak that they don't know. ...but the reality is that if the state isn't allowing you to report to work, then you can continue to file and collect unemployment.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the clarification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is going to apply to every employee at every company, regardless of whether they have a celebrity CEO or a clickbait friendly name.

In California, EDD released guidelines today: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Califo...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Californians- can-refuse-some-work-during-15267447.php)

"Even if your employer has complied with the state's requirements for reopening, and any and all government safety regulations, you would have good cause to refuse to return to work if you are at greater personal risk due to higher risk factors as identified by the" California Department of Public Health. These factors include being older than 65, having a weakened immune system or having certain serious chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes."

<comment><USER5> This seems pretty reasonable to me. Ultimately there are many reasons that lockdowns and blanket bans on assembly and commerce can't continue, aside from the collateral damage and the legal questions, anyone who thinks they're even enforceable beyond a few months lives in a fantasy land. Violations are growing by the day.

If we try to just go back to normal, though, a lot of people are going to get sick and die.

The solution has to be policies which seek to protect people from the virus with minimal collateral damage. This is no different from other spheres of public policy - for example we have speed limits on the road, and we have road deaths. We could lower all speed limits to 5mph and prevent all deaths, but the roads would become practically useless and society would grind to a halt. So we've selected limits that we feel are a reasonable compromise between safety and practicality.

The vast majority of COVID-19 fatalities are people who are over 65 and/or have the mentioned chronic conditions. So it makes sense to do everything we can to protect these people.

As an aside, since cars are pretty dangerous, I think we're very lucky that social media and the 24/7 news cycle didn't exist when they were invented. What with the panic these mediums generate, you have to wonder if cars would have gotten off the ground and become commonplace or if they would have just been panic banned.

<comment><USER6> I think you're taking exactly the opposite lesson on cars there. They _are_ incredibly dangerous, killing tens of thousands in the US alone each year, yet we're immune to the carnage because it's always been that way. They should have had that kind of scrutiny on them from the beginning.

<comment><USER7> Agreed, the fact that we ignore so many gruesome vehicle fatalities is doing society no favors. The nation has been designed for cars from the ground up, but if we had been more privy to their risks, perhaps we would have built more pedestrian focused cities instead, and more emphasis on robust mass transit solutions.

<comment><USER8> Designing cities around cars is a great mistake of urban planning imo. Ideally there should be no motorized vehicles above ground within a city's boundary. The improvements to safety, air quality, and quality of life in general would be immense and would make cities infinitely more livable. There are European cities that have been moving in this direction: [https://www.fastcompany.com/90456075/here-are-11-more- neighb...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90456075/here-are-11-more- neighborhoods-that-have-joined-the-car-free-revolution).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember an article[0] from mid-March saying Tesla employees could have up to two weeks paid time off if they didn't feel comfortable coming back after the shelter-in-place order was lifted.

Is paid time off not a big thing in the US? I would have thought Tesla would have good employee benefits, or would it not really cover wanting to be off for preventative reasons if they're not currently sick.

I work for a tech company in the UK and they pay up to a full year of full sick pay, then reduced for up to five years. We're covered under that if we're advised to stay at home due to having pre-existing medical conditions or advised to by a doctor, or if showing any symptoms and thus self-isolating.

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who- dont-r...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/13/tesla-employees-who-dont-return- to-work-could-lose-unemployment-benefits/)

<comment><USER10> In the US you often get 10-20 sick days per year, not more.

Edit: This is what I have experienced and I meant this as a ridiculously low number. I had no idea that people would get even less.

<comment><USER11> The majority of hourly wage workers in the US do not get any paid sick days at all.

<comment><USER12> That's not true in the states I've lived in and a few others I spot checked. I couldn't find a list with every state yet.

<comment><USER13> Only required by law in 12 states + DC

<comment><USER12> For the purposes of my curiosity, do you have a list? I'm wondering if those states actually include a majority of Americans.

<comment><USER13> Arizona, California, Connecticut, DC, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

<comment><USER14> Maine doesn't go into effect until 2021.

Rough population count [1] of those states divided by population of 50 states + DC is 0.3032003614019388.

Edit: most of those are also capped at 40 hours a year, which amount to one week maximum sick leave. [2]

[1] Per [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population)

[2] [https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/paid- sick...](https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/paid-sick- leave.aspx), via [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/12/as- coronavi...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/12/as-coronavirus- spreads-which-u-s-workers-have-paid-sick-leave-and-which-dont/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> From the article:

> "Once you are called back, you will no longer be on furlough so if you > choose not to work, it may impact your unemployment benefits as determined > by your local government agency — and not by Tesla," Workman wrote in the > email. "We completely respect your decision and will support you, without > any penalties from us."

I feel like this is going to be a common problem as things start to reopen. I hope the state devises a workable solution.

<comment><USER16> I don't know the details of California's regulations, but if feasible, and if Tesla actually respects and supports these decisions, they should find a way to figure out who wants to be called back and who doesnt and only call back people that are willing and wanting to come back. I don't know if asking first violates any labor laws (I don't know why it would since that's a pretty pro- employee thing, but it might impact the budget and lots of states have very strange regulations like prop 56) but if it doesn't then that would be actually supporting workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> THIS is why I don't like the idea of states reopening quickly. It puts people who may have elevated risks in a bind - go to work and risk your health or lose your benefits and risk your health.

</comment><comment><USER18> Remove "Tesla" and the headline is exactly as true. That's just there for clickbait.

<comment><USER19> No one else is being forced to return to work (except essential workers and healthcare workers).

<comment><USER20> Sort of... If you are getting unemployment then your past employer notifies the state that you have been recalled (or something similar) they (the state) will deny your claims

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why isn't unemployment benefits simply conditioned on 'you dont work there anymore and you dont have a new job yet'. Why have the extra complexity?

<comment><USER22> Unemployment benefits are available not only to people who lost their job, but also to furloughed people, i.e. people who are told by their employer "your services are not needed at this time, and by the way, we aren't able to pay you either, but when we'll need you back, we'll give you a call". Well, now these guys got the call. If they decide to stay at home, should the Government keep paying them unemployment benefits, or not? If yes, then it should be yes, if not, not, but this is Government's problem, not Tesla's problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is your fake idol - Elon Musk! The guy who was going to colonize Mars is behaving like an infant using recreational drugs for his teething and throwing tantrums... or more like tweetrums! Elon Musk is not a nice guy! He's never been! He's not hero material, as narcissists are no heroes!

The weird part is he found a way to finally be liked by the far-right by acting like a freetard (a pun of "libtard"). He dethroned Trump among Muricans! He's their new idol now - a rebel against the sense of reason!

Stop buying his cars! Tesla is not the only EV company, and glorifying and buying mostly Teslas, you're not doing the market a favor!

</comment><comment><USER24> This is how jobs and work... work.

Why is this newsworthy? Why is this even a headline? Pretty low, even for TC.</comment>


Edits to Wikipedia Pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo Traced to 1 Police Plaza - <AUTHOR> http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza# <comment><USER2> For context: the NYPD has 51,000 employees. It's likely that most of them have access to some kind of NYPD-operated Internet connection.

</comment><comment><USER3> "history is written by winners" modern media, especially Internet, is changing into "who writes the history wins"

</comment><comment><USER4> Some of the edits are obviously bad, like attempting to delete an article on notability grounds. But many of the others look like they're correcting or tempering bias from the "other side". I don't see those as problematic. In fact, that's exactly what Wikipedia needs to maintain NPOV, a balance from each "side".

</comment><comment><USER5> The question is why anyone relies on Wikipedia. As the first draft of history in many cases, and the only draft for vast portion of the public that relies on it, it's an obvious target for propaganda (both organized and ad hoc).

Anyone who has tried to edit a page that's politically contentious, or that anyone cares about, knows that what's written depends almost completely on who has the most time and patience.

It's an easy, obvious means of manipulation by those who have the resources to do it.

<comment><USER6> I think that's the point though... Wikipedia at least attempts to solve the byzantine general problem by allowing anyone to edit/review articles... I doubt the same could be said for Encyclopedia Britannica (which I suspect had more than just a little pro-British propaganda in it when it was published). At least with Wikipedia there is some transparency into the editorial process.

By the way, get your shit together NYPD. Use a VPN next time you fascist dinosaurs.

<comment><USER5> > Encyclopedia Britannica (which I suspect had more than just a little pro- > British propaganda when it was published).

I don't see any basis in your statement in your post or in reality. AFAIK Britannica has been owned by Americans for over a century. It's propagandists include Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Lord Kelvin, T.E. Lawrence, Douglas McArthur, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, etc.

Would you rather read Einstein's article on Space-Time or the one by random members of the public?

<comment><USER6> My apologies, sometimes I forget we all come from different backgrounds. But if you start by reading Cecil Rhodes' will and think through what that might mean, you might start to understand why I think it doesn't matter if it is an American company or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Underworld: How the Sinaloa Drug Cartel Digs Its Tunnels - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/03/underworld-monte-reel <comment><USER2> Not to plug but here is Vice News coverage of the el chapo escape along with a more detailed view of how they construct the tunnels. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh3RHV5G1Fc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh3RHV5G1Fc)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for that, it was interesting their coverage of the 'hoax' aspect of this escape (not that the escape was a hoax but that the events leading up to it were enabled by support from inside the Mexican government and prisons system.) I also hadn't realized that there hasn't been an independent confirmation of the full length of the tunnel. I would have thought that would be the first thing some news agency would do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To quote an old adage: "...interprets it as damage and routes around it."

This seems to apply more to black market trade than the modern internet. Information can't be stopped permanently, but the usage of various services on the internet can be made less convenient and curtailed, even by 2nd and 3rd rate governments, if only for awhile. Meanwhile, the most powerful state on Earth can't stop the inflow of illicit drugs.

</comment><comment><USER5> The number of tunnels seem excessive, I don't know the drug numbers but let's use people.

A tunnel large enough to walk though could send 10 people a minute without problem. While 24/7 would be near impossible to achieve, it's 600 people an hour, 14,400 people a day, and up to 5,256,000 people per year.

<comment><USER6> You need to build tunnels at least at the rate that they get discovered. Also if there's excessive traffic at one tunnel, it's more likely that it'll get found. A distributed network of tunnels is much better for business.

<comment><USER5> Sure, I am probably also underestimating how many drugs get sent past the border. But, the point still stands you can send a lot of stuff down a tunnel where loading and unloading quickly become the largest issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was hoping for an explanation of how they are able to pinpoint exactly which direction to dig and come up. I mean.. coming up into a 2 foot square from 35 feet underground from a mile away isn't something you guess at. GPS signals don't work underground do they?

<comment><USER8> Laser measurement systems. e.g. [http://ptd.leica-geosystems.com/en/Total- Stations-TPS_4207.h...](http://ptd.leica-geosystems.com/en/Total-Stations- TPS_4207.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sinaloa on the frontpage of HN...

<comment><USER10> As foretold in The Prophecy?</comment></comment>


Why Is New Zealand So Often Left Off World Maps? - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-zealand-left-off-world-map <comment><USER3> As a new zealander this is my favourite map projection anyway [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peirce_quincuncial_projection#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peirce_quincuncial_projection#/media/File:Peirce_quincuncial_projection_SW_20W.JPG)

<comment><USER4> Huh, sure puts a lot of distance between the mainland and west island...

<comment><USER5> I don't get it; the mainland is clearly just above Te Ika a Maui in that map.

<comment><USER6> I think west island means australia

<comment><USER4> He's out in-joke-ing me. West Island is a derogatory reference to Australia, implying it's just a minor territory of NZ (north and south island being 'mainland').

But, 'mainland' is often used by South Island NZers to suggest that the north island (by far the most populous) is nothing more than a secondary 'non-main' island.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I guess this is a domain specific issue? Right here in Australia, I know that Tasmanians are regularly upset at being left off even localised maps of Australia. I am sure other countries have small islands or principalities who get left off due to time/scale/space constraints.

I also recall that when growing up in Malaysia, our school books always had maps of the world with Malaysia itself being at the center of the page, and usually scaled up to be proportionally far bigger that it really is in comparison to its neighbouring countries?

Maybe that is is though - perhaps the Lamberts conformal orthogonic projection will make the very southern latitude New Zealand look almost as big as Australia and other powerful countries? Can't have that for a "mostly harmless" country - one of the few countries in the world with NO Navy or Air Force... ;) (For the record, I have visited, and LOVE NZ).

EDIT: Apologies to NZ HNers about the 'no navy or air force' comment - <USER2> appears I was misinformed by the former NZAF pilot I met at a bar in Auckland on one of my trips there. :)

<comment><USER8> > one of the few countries in the world with NO Navy or Air Force

New Zealand has a navy [1]! Back when I lived in Wellington they ran recruiting commercials non-stop.

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

<comment><USER5> At the movie theater before films. And those commercials—even as an avowed peacenik—always made us chuckle as both my wife and I remembered the over-the- top US military recruitment ads. By comparison the NZ navy's ads felt downright quaint.

We lived in Devonport for some time, and so were pretty accustomed to seeing at least one or two naval ships whenever we took the ferry into downtown Auckland, which was all the time because jobs, friends, and stuff to do were all in town.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Most world maps use the Mercator projection. This 16th-century projection > leaves New Zealand in the bottom right-hand corner of the world, and places > Europe in the center.

That's not intrinsic to a Mercator projection...

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm a kiwi who has lived in North America for over a decade. It's astounding to me how many people I've met have no idea where New Zealand is or believe it is near Scandinavia or Iceland - I'm not sure that issue is due to NZ missing from a map occasionally though! Likewise with the number of people who believe New Zealand is really part of Australia.

<comment><USER11> I'm a kiwi, who lived in the US from the age of 8 to 13 (1998 - 2003).

I remember getting into a massive argument with an Elementary school teacher who tried to tell me I was wrong when I told her that my country was not in fact part of the country of Australia (not just continent, but she was adamant it was part of the Australian country).

<comment><USER12> Bad news mate, much like we claim anyone famous from NZ, we also claim the entire land mass:

Australian constitution, premable [corrected]:

"The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia [...] and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State."

<comment><USER13> Apparently those words mean NZ is "pre-approved" to join the Commonwealth of Australia and she can unilaterally join at a time of her choosing [1]. If true, it would make for an interesting scenario if acted upon.

[1] [http://www.diskiller.net/nzstatehood/](http://www.diskiller.net/nzstatehood/)

\---

The words are actually in section 6 (definitions) of the preamble, not section 6 in the main body of the constitution.

<comment><USER12> Hah, yeah I wasn't really suggesting it. Just one of those quirks. I am no lawyer but I suspect we couldn't write up some paperwork to claim a country without them agreeing to it anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just Googled "us map" and, of the first 32 results, Hawaii and Alaska are missing from 6 of them.

<comment><USER15> Google "map of France." I see only one in the first 32 that includes French Guiana ("fully" French, use Euro, etc).

<comment><USER16> Well, French Guiana isn't part of Metropolitan France, is it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Please stop calling our country Middle Earth.

<comment><USER18> It's amazing how one, admittedly enormous, place in pop-culture history can define an entire country in the mind's of a majority of the first world's population. I imagine you feel the same way as people from Alabama and/or the Louisiana coast feel about Forrest Gump references.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There is a funny blog dedicated to this topic:

[http://worldmapswithout.nz](http://worldmapswithout.nz)

<comment><USER20> And the subreddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutnewzealand/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutnewzealand/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> [https://www.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutnewzealand/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutnewzealand/)

</comment><comment><USER22> lol it's cos we don't want anyone to know where it is. Why tell everyone about such a nice place? :)

</comment><comment><USER23> Successful advertising campaign? Wasn't expecting it to turn up here!

[https://mashable.com/2018/05/01/get-new-zealand-on-the- map/](https://mashable.com/2018/05/01/get-new-zealand-on-the-map/)</comment>


Show HN: Landscape parallax effect using only CSS - <AUTHOR> http://thewaterbear.com/pure-css-landscape-parallax/

<comment><USER2> the second layer of mountains flickers on and off for me on Firefox38/Mac</comment>


Should you move from GitHub to sr.ht - <AUTHOR> https://drewdevault.com/2018/06/05/Should-you-move-to-sr.ht.html <comment><USER2> Like the business model and the notable lack of candy-colored features. Looks like it basically gives you the tools to run an open source project the way the Linux kernel developers do?

<comment><AUTHOR> It could run the Linux kernel model for sure, but it could also do several others. It's suitable for smaller projects as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm curious how extendable this is. It seems like at least some is written in C?

Is it viable to say, support hg repos or remote built workers not running under kvm, through adapters/plug-ins?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm, this is almost entirely written in Python. Support for those things may be possible in theory (the build tooling is mostly shell scripts and not tightly coupled with KVM).

<comment><USER3> Oh sorry my mistake. The link to the git subdomain from the post, goes to a project called "sway" - I misunderstood that to be the name of the tooling.

Well being python surely can't hurt with HG integration (also python)

I'll definitely look into this more now. I'd seen a reference to it from lobste.rs (maybe your profile, or a what-are-you-working-on?) and thought it looked interesting but never got a chance to dig deeper.

Edit: how could I forget, I saw it from a post about scdoc</comment></comment></comment>


LulzSec supposedly claims its biggest coup yet: The entire UK 2011 Census - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/21/lulzsec-supposedly-claims-its-biggest-coup-yet-the-entire-uk-2011-census/ <comment><USER2> LulzSec The Lulz Boat

 _Oh well, just because we want to waste government and local authority investigation time: we hacked every website in the world. Enjoy!_

11 minutes ago

LulzSec The Lulz Boat

 _I'm not seeing "we hacked the UK census" on our twitter feed or website... why does the media believe we hacked the UK census? #confusion_

13 minutes ago

LulzSec The Lulz Boat

 _Not sure we claimed to hack the UK census or where that rumour started, but we assume it's because people are stupider than you and I._

<comment><USER3> LulzSec The Lulz Boat

 _Just saw the pastebin of the UK census hack. That wasn't us - don't believe fake LulzSec releases unless we put out a tweet first._

<comment><USER4> hi Lulzer, nice to here your voices, :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> According to their Twitter, they haven't hacked the Census. Seems like someone was spreading false information...

See:

<https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/83168314527981568>

<https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/83167715799470080>

EDIT:

Those tweets were deleted. Here's the official word:

"Just saw the pastebin of the UK census hack. That wasn't us - don't believe fake LulzSec releases unless we put out a tweet first."

<https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/83172089711964161>

<comment><USER6> When you post a tweet, how much information does twitter have about you? An IP adress, what platform you use, etc.

I'm just curious, because Lulzsec posts frequently and I wonder if law enforcement could subpoena twitter in attempts to catch these people.

<comment><USER7> During the 'hunt' for Wikileaks the U.S. has subpoenaed Twitter for info about supposed supporters.[1] In the case of Lulzsec this will have very little use though, as they use VPN's to hide their IP [2].

[1] <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/twitter/>

[2] [http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/2011/06/scared- puppies.ht...](http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/2011/06/scared-puppies.html)

<comment><USER8> _they use VPN's to hide their IP_

The FBI routinely uses software exploits to install something called CIPAV on the remote client computer to retrieve forensics data and negate the effect of proxies, vpns, tor, etc.

<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/>

Twitter almost assuredly has the ability to push a custom iframe or similar based on who is logged on to support these kinds of government payloads. In the case the wired article references myspace directly assisted.

Surely being more security paranoid than usual should make it harder for an attack like this to succeed, but if the feds get pissed enough it's not unthinkable that they could get access to a targeted zero day to use.

<comment><USER9> It's pretty much useless if the tunnel is on another machine and/or it's firewalled properly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Given LulzSec seems to post their hacks on twitter, that there's no way of validating who posted the PasteBin item and that the Office of National Statistics hasn't reported the loss, its probably best to wait and see something a little more convincing.

<comment><USER11> I wrote the article and have been trying to trace the authenticity of the release. I am still waiting to hear back from the Office of National Statistics, which at the time were unaware of who LulzSec even were.

I contacted them a little over two hours ago, I haven't received a response, yet.

<comment><USER12> Knowing a little of the internals of ONS...

It may take them a while to figure out what a "computer" is and how it might be "hacked". You could be waiting some time :)

ahem.

<comment><USER11> Just got off the phone to them. Issuing a statement very soon. Will update both the article and on HN.

<comment><USER11> In related news, the "Mastermind" behind LulzSec has been arrested: [http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/21/suspected- lulzsec-...](http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/21/suspected-lulzsec- mastermind-arrested/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This whole escalating security situation has me thinking that IT security is heading down the same path as the War On Drugs. I wonder if ten or twenty years from now we'll see petitions to legalize hacking tools after we see a resurgence in security breaches following the criminalization of "hacking tools"...

</comment><comment><USER14> If this is true then I am suing Lockheed Martin under the Data Protection Act.

<comment><USER15> There's jurisdiction for that?

<comment><USER16> If their servers have been compromised to leak the data, should be. They ran the survey and UK and European data protection law makes data leaks the responsibility of the data holder.

<comment><USER17> They were one of the first companies to admit that the RSA SecurID exploit compromised them over the past months, too.

Link to story: [http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/052611-lockheed- martin...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/052611-lockheed-martin- outage.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm leaning toward "hoax." Lulzsec has been reasonably competent writers so far, and the bizarre placement of "blissfully" makes that either incompetent or some kind of steganography. That, added to the lack of tweet, makes me doubt.

Of course, it could still be some anon who actually does have the census data, and considers himself lulzsec-affiliated.

<comment><USER19> Why can't anyone bother to sign their press releases, it's not like it's the 60s.

<comment><USER20> Plausible deniability? (assuming you meant to cryptographically sign the press releases.)

<comment><USER19> Hmm, good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If true, this will be a _massive_ coup and regardless of how they obtained the records, LulzSec will get all of the significant negative attention they so badly crave.

I submitted my census info via the online form and given the amount of detail I included I would be terrified if that info was leaked.

<comment><USER21> Imagining that the release is true, this will do strange things for pay bargaining. Imagine if you could look up your colleagues before asking for a rise? On the other hand, I don't recall anything really horrific on that form. Enough data to steal my identity and take out a mortgage in my name, yes. Enough to embarrass me? no...

<comment><USER3> There may not be anything in there to embarass me but there is unequivocally enough in there for someone to steal my identity and ruin a credit rating I've been working extremely hard to build over the last three years.

<comment><USER22> What info from the census would enable someone to steal an identity? From the looks of it there's only DoB and address in terms of personal info...

<comment><USER3> Childrens names & DoB, previous addresses, employment status, national insurance number. That info alone is enough for someone experienced to do damage.

<comment><USER23> Isn't that info relatively easy to obtain from most people anyway? Not on such a large scale of course.

<comment><USER24> You can obtain that sort of info, by dumpster diving say, but not in anything like the scale.

Imagine that you can get this info and a pretty good idea of salary and lifestyle by running a db search in a few seconds. You can easily focus your attention on the most lucrative propositions and get info from even those that are careful to not put such info out there. Census completion is a legal requirement, everyone should be on one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So what's the worst possible outcome here in terms of the UK government's reactions? Fast-tracked arcane legislation to make security tools illegal like they are in .de ? Broadening the terms of hacking and increasing the legal penalties? If LulzSec aren't trolling the world and they do indeed have these records I would imagine there is going to be one hell of a shitstorm in the coming weeks.

<comment><USER26> It would be just another excuse to get the Internet ID implemented. MAFIAA has been pushing for Internet ID since years now and a number of politicians are in favour. Must admit that every time I read about the latest Lulsec activity I cannot help but think that MAFIAA is behind all this.

<comment> mike-cardwell I'd say the opposite will happen. The government will not be able to set up anything which requires a massive secure database for quite a few years. Every time they claim they can set up a secure database, the 2011 census leak will be brought up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This was the first census where you could submit details online. I wonder if it was these records? Would be surprised if they had even finished scanning the paper ones yet, but the UK governments security record is not good. They contracted it to Lockheed Martin, who also do the US census, so presumably reused the software?

<comment><USER26> LM was penetrated few days before census day. Maybe the left some back doors? [http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/154078/20110529/lockheed- mar...](http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/154078/20110529/lockheed-martin-cyber- attack.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> With the amount of hacking that is flooding the news recently, I would like to learn about database security. What are some good books/tutorials/videos on how to make databases more secure?

<comment><USER29> I believe that most databases are secure, especially the open source ones.

What you should be careful about is the things surrounding the database: the .php files (or whatever) that read/write the database, and the system it is running on.

Basic security practice for the web: NEVER trust user input: check and recheck all the GET/POST variables, check that numbers are numbers, that strings are correct strings (they have no funny characters, such as " or ; (for databases) or <>"&' (for HTML) or . (for paths)). Check all input into the databases (to prevent SQL injections) and all output for to the user (for XSS).

Basic security practice for sysadmins: Use up-to-date OS and software. Use strong passwords. Almost never run root. Make remote access hard.

This seems easy, and for the most part, it is. It's just so many things that people forget to check for them all.

<comment><USER30> Yes, let's secure our databases against O'Reillys and AT&Ts submitting their funny names! <g>

It's not characters that get you, it's lack of escaping or escaping for the wrong context (e.g. magic_quotes won't work for HTML)

• For SQL use prepared statements _exclusively_ (never let "oh, it's just a number so I don't need to" fool you)

• Escaping doesn't differ between "trusted" and "untrusted" data (and these boundaries are too easy to break eventually).

Just escape _everything_ , _always_. In PHP it means every `echo $var` is a likely vulnerability and `echo htmlspecialchars($var, ENT_QUOTES)` (in HTML except script) or `json_encode($var)` (in script) is a _must_.

Obviously, you should do defense in depth, so input validation is great and some filtering just-in-case may be warranted, but escaping alone (assuming done well) is sufficient for security, while filtering alone is not.

<comment><USER31> > For SQL use prepared statements exclusively (never let "oh, it's just a > number so I don't need to" fool you)

I cannot vote this up enough. Also, depending on what database you are using (eg Oracle) if you don't use prepared statements (aka bind variables) you are guarantee killing your DB performance.

People have argued with me in the past that for things like sorting the data they cannot use bind variables. In that case, use the user input to select which safe string to use, eg:

        if user_select_sort == 'by_account_num'
          return 'order by account_num asc'
        elsif user_select_sort == 'by_transaction_date'
          return 'order by transaction_date'
        else
          return ''
        end if

Then if someone sends in something tricky, it will just order wrong.

<comment><USER29> The way I write software, such values of user_select_sort would never even be possible... It's much slower to compare strings than to compare numbers, and passing long descriptive values that are actually booleans or short enums is just a waste of bandwidth (assuming they are passed as GET/POST variables).

Why not just pass numbers instead?

<comment><USER31> Numbers or strings wasn't the point really. You can do 'order by 1' or 'order by 2' in SQL to order by the first or second selected col etc, but if you used used the number passed directly from the user in the SQL statement, you are open to SQL injection. Feel free to use the number in a case statement to select the order by string to concat into your SQL however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder if they are using the same (undocumented) exploit for each of these attacks.

I am certainly no expert in this field, but I would have thought discovering new exploits and security holes would take time, yet these guys are hitting several major sites a week.

<comment> mike-cardwell From what I understand, their main tool is simple SQL injection.

Most websites seem to have at least one XSS or SQL injection hole. Nearly all have CSRF flaws.

<comment><USER33> Still, census data should _not_ be accessible from a public facing web site. That's just amateur hour. You should really assume that anything with a POST form is vulnerable.

<comment> mike-cardwell Agreed. Any submitted data should have been immediately encrypted with a public key who's companion private key was stored offline. It should have then been immediately transferred to a secondary box which was setup with a single function of accepting and storing the data. Ie a box which you can't query over the network for data.

As soon as the census closed, the relevant boxes should have been taken offline. The data moved to a "secure" location, and the original boxes wiped and destroyed.

Considering the data that was being collected, I don't think this is overkill.

<comment><USER26> For those who are interested, these are the questions: [http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011-census/2011-census- questio...](http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011-census/2011-census- questionnaire-content/2011-census-questions---england.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So, after I was strongarmed into filling out the damn thing, now all my identity data is in the wild. I will be joining in a suit of Lockheed if this is true.

<comment><USER35> There is already a guide on how to take a case under the Data Protection Act:

[http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protecti...](http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_a_case_to_court.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell There'll be some interesting mashups if this is true.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't like where this is going.

<comment><USER36> Whats worrying about the apparent proliferation of security breaches like this is that as the attacks get more sophisticated, so do the prevention methods. This could get to the point whereby the skill level required to protect an application or server goes way higher than the skill level of many developers.

The result being that independent development is impossible as you would need to hire ever more expensive security consultants for anything that stores data.

<comment><USER37> I understand your point (it is potentially true for more than just the security domain of application development) but I think your premise in this case is false. SQLI (XSS, CSRF, ...) attacks are neither sophisticated nor new. SQLI has been known since at least _1998_ (Phrack 54).

SQLI protection at least should be abstracted away from the developer's concerns by use of default parametrized queries. Technical difficulty is not the problem here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Head of the hydra and all that....

<https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/83164092998758400>

</comment><comment><USER39> "Biggest" only for the media coverage this could get, i would not be surprised if they had exploited a common vulnerability. At least when we are discussing about publicly accessible sites, "security-illiterate" is the perfect definition for these government agencies (and the external companies that realize the sites they need).

Will this kind of things make the general public at least a bit more security conscious?

</comment><comment><USER40> What pissed me off was that it is a legal requirement to complete the census ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2011#Oper...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2011#Operation)), so everyones personal details are in the database, which if stollen is a identify thief's dream load.

</comment><comment><USER41> It appears that LulzSec isn't directly responsible for this. Although, since they called for the hacking of every government agency in the world with their "anti-sec" call to arms it's a bit disengeneous for them to rock back on their heels in shock and confusion.

</comment><comment><USER42> Scotland Yard press release: They have confirmed his arrest.

[http://content.met.police.uk/News/eCrime-unit-arrest- man/126...](http://content.met.police.uk/News/eCrime-unit-arrest- man/1260269113895/1257246745756)

</comment><comment><USER43> LulzSec just confirmed this being rumor on their twitter account <http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/83167715799470080>

</comment><comment><USER44> They're going to piss a lot of people off if they do this. Like every single UK citizen.

Exposing security flaws and embarrassing govt is one thing, but to put un- redacted personal data online is quite another.

<comment><USER45> _If_ this is true (and it seems it's probably not) then the people to get angry with are the UK government and their contractors Lockheed-Martin. WTF are we using a US-based company for anyway?

<comment><USER15> Presumably they put it out for tender and got the best package that they could.

Isn't that what we'd expect a Government to do? Tender jobs out to the private sector and choose the provider that offers the best value for money?

It's not as if Lockheed Martin are a particularly insecure or untrustworthy company to hold private data.

<comment><USER46> LM have a terrible reputation. Google around.

<comment><USER47> Is there any Government IT contractor that doesn't have a terrible reputation?

Government contracts are a pain to do. Most of the work is in jumping through hoops rather than actually doing the work. Most (all?) competent companies avoid Government work for this reason, making it very difficult to get any Government IT work done well.

<comment><USER46> That is a fair point.

I've always thought that the government should have their own IT agency. The NHS would do well to fire all the paid up consultants and commercial software and start a Google-style technology cooperative and share their results to other agencies. The NHS has the biggest IT problem of all and with the right minds on the job we'd have massive progress in the organisation and some serious advances in computer science to boot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Apparently it's fake:

<http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/83168314527981568> reply

</comment><comment><USER49> of interest [edit, arrest link below]:

<http://twitter.com/#!/channel4news/status/83129762142363649>

 _19-year-old suspected of being mastermind behind computer hacking group LulzSec arrested in Wickford, Essex. #c4news_

<comment><USER50> It's on the Met Police site - [http://content.met.police.uk/News/eCrime-unit- arrest-man/126...](http://content.met.police.uk/News/eCrime-unit-arrest- man/1260269113895/1257246745756)

<comment><USER51> _"The PCeU was assisted by officers from Essex Police and have been working in co-operation with the FBI."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Anyone can _claim_ to have the census data; I won't believe this until they release it.

</comment><comment><USER53> Such a shame.

Anonymous had a lot of support for their attacks on Mastercard et. al. People, not just the programmers demographic, were seeing them as civil disobedience through the internet and hailing them for taking a right cause, namely against dirty, probably unconstitutional, certainly unethical attacks on wikileaks by numerous powerful groups.

What's more, anonymous was seen as more powerful than such groups on the internet arena. It was felt that such powerful groups would thus think twice and know that they are against probably smarter people, perhaps even their own employees. Alas, like actual physical protests, they did not manage to change much. Wikileaks has almost been forgotten now. Julian has gone quite. The organisation itself seems to have become divided and disorganised. They possibly are buying time. But the power that be has shown us that they have the resources, are willing to play, publicly, dirty tricks, and can even withstand a public opinion quite strongly against them.

Julian has been given some outstanding honour in journalism. He might even win the Peace prize for what some say was the effect of wikileaks on bringing about the Arab Spring. That may show that there are many powerful avenues to resist and/or push back the power that be.

All of that is being undermined for no apparent reason whatever. Although Lulzec might be trying to send a signal to the power that be. We are stronger. We are smarter. You need to know that before thinking again about doing dirty tricks. They don't seem to be able or willing to choose their targets well to send such a message. Showing that you can for example steal the census data in order to increase the security of organisations which deal with our data is like a man showing that he can steal a car by so breaking into the car and stealing it.

We can all commit crimes. We choose not to for very good reasons. Some things can not be fortified and turned into castles. And even castles can be brought down.

So the ultimate effect is that anonymous is painted with the same brush. As petty criminals bringing havoc into the streets of the neighbourhood by breaking car windows to show us that they can so break car windows.

For now, anonymous still has the upper moral ground. That is for now. By for now I mean for the next few days or weeks. The report for example that a member of lulzsec has been arrested who has connections with anonymous helps tremendously in blurring the lines between anonymous and lulsec.

The blurring means nothing more nor less than the excuse and the swaying of the public opinion that the power that be needs to go after anonymous and send a clear signal. You may be smarter but we have more resources and more avenues and the consequences you face are much greater.

The biggest signal that the power that be may send however is that they are able to control the public opinion by playing tricks. I think we all remember how last year we were talking about how the power that be is going to deal with wikileaks. The conversations that were had here on hackernews are probably still accessible through searching. Killing him seemed to be the most mentioned option, but quickly refuted by others. Now, it may be a strong statement to make seeing as I have no evidence whatever, but the information that did come out in regards to the two women, the fact that Assange is still here in Britain almost a year after, that he is actually free, suggests that tainting him with rape accusations was their choice. As we are seeing, it seems to have worked.

Equally, I do not know who lulzecs is. They have no motive, no reason, to do what they are doing. They are intelligent. Thus I doubt they would risk years in prison to just show that they can break a car. People do not tend to do things for no reason, especially if there are great consequences.

There is no laughter to be had of say having access to a lot of information of sonny users. Nor is there any lulz in having say the information of the census.

I therefore think that there is a probability that Matercard, Visa, Bank of America et al got quite pissed off from anonymous' attacks, but unable to do anything because of the strong public support that anonymous had, thought creatively and went for the blurring of the lines between common thief's and civil disobedience.

That is one possibility. Probably the more likely possibility. Sophos for example seems to be salivating every time lulzsecs does something.

The other option, that they are kids, being stupid, like most teenagers at time, confused, rebellious, is a possibility but unlikely. They probably know full well, that gaining such a high profile while not having any public support or even having the public against them means that they will crash down painfully to the bottom and remain there for years and years.

I'll finally finish this quite long comment by stating that if lulzsec is anything else than affiliated or corrupted, then they should know that they are tainting ideals with petty crimes.

<comment><USER54> Give me a break. There are no ideals, and it's not a conspiracy. It's just a bunch of trolls on summer vacation. They are doing it because they don't really care to consider consequences when they choose to do something. Mystery solved by Occam's Razor.

If you didn't know that lots of people like to do mean, pointless things all day for no reason, then welcome to 4chan, you may or may not enjoy your stay.

<comment><USER55> _There are no ideals, and it's not a conspiracy._

That's the impression I have of a lot of contemporary political and business interests: "There are no ideals, and it's not a conspiracy. It's just business." Some do it for the lulz. Some do it for the bottom line.

LulzSec's tactics may be callous or juvenile, but they also somehow see a fitting expression for some of the inchoate disenchantment that I feel. When I pause to consider that I'm doing pretty well, all things considered, I can imagine the deeper chord they strike with others.

<comment><USER8> _but they also somehow see a fitting expression for some of the inchoate disenchantment that I feel._

I've been curious about this feeling as it certainly seems to me that you're not alone. What is it that they've done that makes them hit a chord with you? What I see when I look at lulzsec is mostly behvior that hurts a random collection of common people - like dropping emails, hashes, personal info of people who just happened to be unlucky enough to make an account with one of their many targets. Or DDOS on small indie software developers to prevent their customers from playing their games for a bit. Are you disenchanted with gamers and people who sign up for a book forum and such?

I totally understand the appeal of the Anonymous DDOS's and HB Gary hack for example, so the whole thing isn't lost on me. But I just find lulzsec idiotic and grating.

<comment><USER55> _What is it that they've done that makes them hit a chord with you?_

As an American, I have a demoralizing sense that the country has given up on doing great things and, more specifically, turned its back on underdogs. I could make a more detailed case, starting with my view of human nature and extending to the latest Supreme Court decisions and the drivel I see nosing around Twitter and Facebook, but that would be sort of beside the point here.

Why gamers and book forum readers? I don't have anything against them personally and I agree there are probably more suitable targets. At the same time, obsessive game-players and score-keeping book-readers offer an obvious illustration for the kind of obliviousness and escapism that I can find symptomatic of larger social problems.

I suspect Lulzsec owes part of its style to The Joker from the last Batman movie. Remember that scene when the Joker lights the pile of money on fire? I agree Anonymous is a more constructive example of civil disobedience. But Lulzsec, in its aimlessness, may be the more potent symbol. I see it as a form of satire as much as anything.

Would my attitude would change if, say, they deleted my gmail account? Probably. But then maybe there would be something constructive in that, too.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I was thinking of saying something along the lines of I'd be surprised if they view their own actions so introspectively. Perhaps comparing it to the classic english teacher interpreting meaning behind a work for he class that the author never intended.

But I suppose it really doesn't matter - if people get something from a work it really makes no difference if the intent was there with the creation.

<comment><USER55> I agree. I expect their actions are not introspective but reactionary. Nevertheless, I think there's a logic behind them consistent with the sort explored by behavioral economists.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The great Twitter Ruby vs Scala (war) debate - <AUTHOR> http://topsecretproject.finitestatemachine.com/2009/04/the-great-twitter-ruby-vs-scala-war-debate/

<comment><USER2> There's no war here, and not much of a debate. Different companies with different problems use different languages and platforms.

I use both. It's nice.</comment>


The Dark Core of Personality - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-dark-core-of-personality/ <comment><USER2> I don't really want to call this pseudoscience, but what it's missing is the connection to psychiatry and neuroscience and to me falls into the nasty tendency of bucket thinking. Just because traits are observable and nameable doesn't mean they're actually valid. You're just handing amateurs dumb "diagnostic" tools that are just going to harm interpersonal relationships rather than make them better.

If I observe you as having narcissistic traits, and you observe yourself as having narcissistic traits, and you form an identity around being a narcissist, nothing meaningful has been done. You still have no useful tools with which to make your life better.

The psychological world needs a lot less of this, because handing people convenient identities without a corresponding plan of action for improving yourself that actually _works_ , is contributing to rather than alleviating the problem.

I don't think half of the people who think they're on the autism spectrum are anywhere close to it. I don't think half of the people described as narcissistic or psychopathic deserve the term. I do think that most people have emotional difficulties, and quantifying and providing resources for improving emotional health and depth should be the primary focus of psychology at the moment.

I like the focus on loneliness, I hate the focus on disorders.

<comment><USER3> > The psychological world needs a lot less of this, because handing people > convenient identities without a corresponding plan of action for improving > yourself that actually works, is contributing to rather than alleviating the > problem.

Why? Psychology is not medicine. Psychology is the study of the mind. (Maybe you're thinking of psychiatry?)

We—psychologists—study the mind because we want to know how it works. It's basic research, like physicists studying particle collisions, or astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background. We're doing it in order to understand. We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, using more of a social-sciences toolset.

This research, in particular, is interesting because it unifies several previous, more limited hypotheses about how and why the human brain ends up in a particular persistent state. It provides a rubric that allows _researchers_ (not doctors; not laymen) to craft tools that find this state, and to make predictions based off of the presence of this state.

Researchers in possession of those tools can then use them to do other things. Like, say, medicine. But the basic research comes first.

<comment><USER4> The concept of a measure implies a way exists to bin people. So after measurement we may safely confine a person to a bin and never reconsider their lot in life again. Our culture is full of that mindset, and it's unethical when applied to autonomous beings. People are ends in themselves - only to be defined by that person.

More simply, I personally believe I need a reason to do something mean, but I don't need a reason to do something nice. Is binning people mean or nice? It's definitely mean. I suggest corrections but also the possibility of redemption for offenders.

<comment><USER3> Is "epileptic" a bin?

Separately: is life better or worse for epileptics since the creation of the concept of epilepsy-as-neurological-disorder?

Consider what reifing this concept has allowed medical science to do, that it was not so empowered to do under previous explanations for the same behavioural phenomena.

When you cleave concept-space the right way, you create a node in your schema that corresponds to something you can actually affect, through e.g. therapeutic or pharmacological interventions.

A "bin" that stays such—just something to label people with, is a wrong cut. It is a concept that does not expose something "raw" and concrete enough to actually touch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The general idea of a Dark Score is not a bad concept; you can think of psychopathy as a spectrum from "a bit of an asshole" to "serial killer". But as someone who takes psychology seriously, and who grew up in a family environment rife with psychopathic behavior, I have some problems with this article.

First, echoing dboreham's comment below, the problem with a self-reported Dark Score is that no real psychopath is going to rate themselves accurately. You just don't get very far on the spectrum if you have the ability to truly introspect and self-reflect. In my experience dealing with psychopathic individuals (I'm talking behavior leading to lawsuits, major crimes, and death), I can trace this lack of self-awareness to severe childhood trauma/abuse causing a sort of split or divided self. The true psychopath is a stranger to themselves.

Second, I think that creating a simple online self-report quiz trivializes some very real and very dangerous aspects of personality. I think it does a disservice to the field of serious forensic psychology. It is possible to study the type of minds of that cause tremendous suffering for others in a rigorous scientific way. But fun online quizzes aren't the way.

</comment><comment><USER6> So, as I understand it, they're saying that someone who is (for example) a psychopath, is a lot more likely (than most people) to be narcissistic, someone who is sadistic is a lot more likely to be self-interested, and so on. This is perhaps a good thing to go out and check, but mostly this does not seem surprising to me; it would have been news if it turned out not to work like that.

<comment><USER7> > but mostly this does not seem surprising to me

I know what you're tying to say but I'd just like to put it out there that conclusions from scientific studies do not have to be surprising. Scientific exploration is to find out the truth - sometimes it is "common sense" and sometimes it is surprising.

<comment><USER6> Absolutely. And the underlying paper is entirely justified. The Scientific American article about the paper, is I believe trying to turn this into big news. But I agree with your point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> #9 is really interesting, and apparently the most correlated with all forms of malevolence. Are we just kidding ourselves when we do things like take political action, or even punish criminals? Is it really just feeding our need for hate and malevolence? Is hatred necessary? If it's all based on self- justification, how do we know when it is appropriate?

I think this is the metaphor with lady justice. She is blind but very exact. She does not interpret, she executes. She has no empathy nor malevolence. Because we know that those are the seeds of our delusion.

</comment><comment><USER9> Noob here, and only read the article. It sounds strange since afaik some of the mentioned manifestations are full-blown disorders in the physiology, or at least work like that―namely psychopathy. Now, there would be no surprise if the conclusion was "you need to have less empathy if you gonna be evil," but apparently the scores don't depend on any single one of the manifestations.

Also weird for a research paper like this one to have its own site that looks like a startup landing page.

<comment><USER10> Not sure what you mean by "research paper", but scientifamerican is "just" a magazine.

"""Scientific American, the longest continuously published magazine in the U.S., has been bringing its readers unique insights about developments in science and technology f or more than 170 years.""" \- from the about page [https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/about-scientific- ame...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/about-scientific-american/)

<comment><USER9> There's a separate site linked in the article: [http://www.darkfactor.org/](http://www.darkfactor.org/)

<comment><USER10> ah ok, wow you're right that does look like a startup landing page. Instantly makes me lose trust in it tbh

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> People have been reflecting on their own natures, and the natures of others, for thousands of years. Some of those reflections grew into systematic traditions leading to real understanding.

Apart from their scientific-ness, finding one of these traditions can be helpful in sorting out self. E.g. in Jung's psychology, we all have a shadow ('dark core'). But beyond that is a greater Self. E.g. in Buddhism, we learn that desire is a primary cause of suffering ... But we can grow, through self- mastery, beyond our suffering. And share. There are more examples.

Yes, these old systems pre-date science, but several are firmly grounded in centuries (or more) of shared human experience. Finding one of these traditions that 'talks to you' (while avoiding schemes) can be very helpful - in a pragmatic sense. All are part of what Huxley called the 'Perennial Philosophy'.

</comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of the Parallax View, the 1974 Warren Beatty movie, in which the evil Parallax Corporation recruited psychopaths it identified with a standardized test, then put them to work doing evil things. The story proposed that those tests were hard to fool, because the questions were intricately cross referenced (so Beatty didn't even try, he just had a real psychopath fill in the answers) and that the traits sought by Parallax were not ordinary, but were complex and rare. Contrast that with tests to identify the D-Factor. They'd be easy to fool, if one knows they're looking for self exaltation. And D-Factor traits are not complex or rare, they're present in everyone to a degree.

I just don't see why the notion of a D-Factor would surprise anyone, or why this study is regarded as "big news."

</comment><comment><USER13> I really want to know, to what extent the D score can change, and what factors can change it.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's more or less pointless to worry about physical or neurological mechanisms in this context. Psychology isn't really a science, but done rigorously it is a legitimate phenomenology. For practical purposes it doesn't matter what causes g or d to have the value that it does, only that various correlated behavior patterns are observable.

For example the NFL and US military both successfully use tests of g to select more capable recruits.

Unfortunately I don't believe any test of d will be useful, except maybe in very low g high d individuals. This is because there is usually no incentive to score low on a g test, but there is on a d test.

<comment><USER7> > Psychology isn't really a science

Why not?

<comment><USER15> Reproducibility crisis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've tackled this issue from a bunch of different angles, and have never come to any comfortable conclusion. But one can assume that, there is a semi-random distribution of these traits based on genes and inheritance. So these people are going to keep cropping up, and maybe even more of them. Given that there's no way to stop people with certain personality traits from being born, what to do with them? Unless we're making exceptions, these people also have human rights as well.

<comment><USER4> Once you know someone will hurt you to get ahead - avoid them and avoid being the throat they need to step on. Sometimes you can't help it. The best you can do then is not leave openings and have some solid backup plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Coming to a Facebook quiz near you! Discover your D-factor! Are you darker than your (also discoverable) celebrity alter - ego?

</comment><comment><USER18> This is obvious, most personality traits are normally distributed and biologically driven

<comment><USER19> "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER8> Just want to call myself out on this one. Thanks for the reminder to be better.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the HN apps you use in android? - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone,<p>What are the HN apps you use in android? And What features you like in that app? <comment><USER2> I've been trying to find one that allows me to login and post and comment AND support the Android Share API so I can send shit directly from other apps.

All the apps I've seen that claim they can post, none of them seem to work well.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use "HN -- Hacker News Reader" by Manuel Maly

It's clean and has all the features that I need. But if you like google material design check out "Hacker News" by DWAK.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm asking because I'm building an app myself. So other than login, posting, voting and commenting any other features you like?

my app : [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kasungamla...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kasungamlath.hackernews)

<comment><USER4> What I miss on every HN app I tried is a focus on search. Maybe I'm using HN differently than most people, but I usually look for discussions on topics I'm interested in, instead of reading the top posts on all topics.

For example: I'm an Android developer, so I often browse hacker news by searching for "Android" in topics and comments, to see if there are any interesting discussions.

A great app for my usecase would allow me to search and quickly repeat previous searches right from the startpage.

You could add widgets that jump directly into saved searches.

<comment><USER5> I also use hackernews in this way. My solution: bookmark this url: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=android&sort=byDate&prefix=fal...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=android&sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=last24h&type=all)

and when you open it in Chrome-Android use the 'save to homescreen' option so that Chrome adds an icon on your homescreen, which opens the specific page

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Firefox browser.</comment>


"Micro Breaks" with Stretching Enhance Surgeon Physical Function and Focus - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26863399 <comment><USER2> I credit micro breaks and stretching as the main reason I got over my severe RSI [1]. Never really heard that surgeons had similar problems though, but I guess it is the same mechanism - too much fine motor action for too long without a break.

[1] [https://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/18/how-i-beat- rsi/](https://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/18/how-i-beat-rsi/)

<comment><USER3> This was an unexpected benefit of the Pomodoro technique for me. I ended up walking around during the forced breaks and it definitely reduced the physical stresses imposed by coding days.

<comment><USER4> Pomodoro technique definitely transformed my work experience. A few wrist stretches and brief walk definitely improved focus, and relieved the wrist strain most coders are familiar with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since the outcome metrics (pain) are self-reported, this study was essentially unblinded, right? That may simply be an inherent limitation that can't be avoided in this sort of study, but worth noting it opens up the door for a placebo effect.

<comment><USER6> To some extent, isn't the placebo effect good enough?

If my goal is to feel more focused, that's an inherently subjective thing. If I feel like I'm more focused, I am more focused. So the placebo effect and a more objectively observed result are essentially the same here.

<comment><USER5> > If I feel like I'm more focused, I am more focused.

But the _end_ goal is almost never to feel more focused, the end goal is to (say) accomplish a task faster or more accurately. And there are definitely placebo interventions that make people feel like they are doing things better without actually doing anything better.

Likewise, in this case, the end goal is for the surgeons to have a longer career. It's easy to imagine a placebo intervention that makes one feel better, but doesn't actually reduce wear-and-tear on joints, and hence doesn't prolong one's career.

Also, like the other commenter said: placebo effects are often less reliable or generalizable outside the specific context of the study. They may be motivated by, e.g., a subconscious desire to please the experimenter which goes away in real-life circumstances. Actual physiological interventions are much less likely to do this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Workrave is a great program for Linux and windows that creates a break timer, and shows exercises. Has certainly prevented a lot of pain for me

</comment><comment><USER8> What do these 1.5-2m standardized targeted stretching micro breaks (TSMB's) entail exactly? What kind of stretching exercises?

<comment><USER9> They give quite a lot of detail in the article, including links to photographs of surgeons stretching.

[http://www.aahs.org/medstaff/wp- content/uploads/aparkAnnSurg...](http://www.aahs.org/medstaff/wp- content/uploads/aparkAnnSurg2017.pdf)

<comment><USER10> In case "hunt the link in a PDF" isn't your favourite game, here are the images:

[http://download.lww.com/wolterskluwer_vitalstream_com/PermaL...](http://download.lww.com/wolterskluwer_vitalstream_com/PermaLink/SLA/A/SLA_2016_01_18_PARK_ANNSURG-D-15-01821_SDC1.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Micro breaks.. micro dosing.. micro.. kernels. What will the next micro implementation?

<comment><USER12> microboners

<comment><USER11> XD

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wish the abstract provided more details on the kinds of stretching and the nature of the breaks.

</comment><comment><USER14> Related to RSI in computer workers?

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm intrigued by these sorts of studies - not coming from a statistical background I'm amazed by how few samples they need to draw conclusions. If you told me you only had 341 events in your A/B test I'd be suspicious of the results you were claiming. (Note: I don't do A/B tests professionally so I may not know what I'm talking about...)

They do mention " Random coefficient mixed models accounted for surgeon variability" in the summary so maybe that's sufficient.</comment>


Twitter and Loneliness - <AUTHOR> http://blog.semilshah.com/2013/01/01/twitter-and-loneliness/

<comment><USER2> This is why I like Twitter better than Facebook. In Twitter, people who follow you are really interested on what you want to say while in FB you're forced to listen to your friends (by default).

Then when you feel lonely you would just send an update to these people to listen to your feelings. Which are the people who wanted to listen to you to begin with.

Some of them might be your friends or acquaintances or just complete strangers. But the best part is they followed you and they want to hear from you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Please explain twitter to me. I don't get it. I searched #puerh to find interesting links and comments. I found 2 comments per day, 10 in total. What should I do with this? It is not nearly enough. If I go to teachat.com there is a 1700 posts long thread started in 2008, with complex discussions and pictures.

I tried other interests, every time I come out empty handed. Is there a trick to searching content on twitter? Is twitter only for gadgets and social stuff? What about obscure hobbies?

<comment><USER4> Twitter isn't ideal for people who prefer to abstractly snipe into a discussion(which is the overwhelming tendency of hobbyist forums) because it's too personal. You have to follow a whole person, and take in their whole set of interests, and reply to them specifically if their remarks interest you. So for obscure hobbies, starting the conversation becomes much more difficult than on a dedicated site - plus take into account the relative size of the whole Web vs. Twitter.

In exchange for this weakness, Twitter gains vast influence in topics that have some critical mass of interest. Creative fields are an obvious pick - art, music, writing, programming, journalism, video games, among many others - all share a special space on Twitter. The professionals in the field have an easy time networking on Twitter since it's very informal and has "degrees" of friendship built in (comment, follow, follow-back). Plus if they're independent(which is the case for a lot of these creative fields) they have no corporate masters to hold back their thoughts; so subsequently, industry news and rumors flow through very readily - retweeting and hashtagging act to spread a single discussion across many otherwise removed individuals. This is where things get interesting, because it makes radically different perspectives collide with alarming frequency - it can't happen like that on a single forum because the "minority" or "unprivileged" perspective gets suppressed at some point.

Lifestyle and subculture topics are similarly hot on Twitter because they involve the whole person and how they choose to define themselves...often people on Twitter will converge into groups of friendship by transitioning from the "interest topic" to the people involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> biggest factor for this: when you are lonely, you have little or no words to say, twitter encourages you with just the 140 letter limit, to put your feelings forwards.

small target seems achievable, and you talk it out, and you feel better. Happy new year mate!</comment>