Ask HN: A feasible way to collect dollar payment? - <AUTHOR> I run https://extracttable.com for which I charge 0.0145$/credit. The motivation behind is making it easier to extract tabular data from images, AND not needing to pay for what you do not use.
I want my users to buy credits as little as possible AND service usage charged per transaction(1 transaction @ 0.0145$ != 14.5$ of 1000 transactions). Currently, I'm asking my users to buy a minimum of 100 credits (https://extracttable.com/#pricing) costs 1.45$ - after PG(PayPal) processing I receive a mere 62% of what user paid.
Do I have any recommendations from the community on improving the situation matching my with requirements.
TIA <comment><USER2> Depending on your credit card flow look into flat-rate fee credit card processing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well almost all Payment Gateways charge the same in that aspect, and thus I end-up 62%.

A chance of syndicate transaction processing ? Like do not charge until the balance accumulate to 100$ and charge all at once?

OR

Something like Venmo for Business but with no transaction fee (like 0$ Venmo User transfer)</comment></comment>


Oracle contributes OpenOffice.org to the Apache Foundation - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm <comment><USER2> Statement from the document foundation:

[http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement- abou...](http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about- oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/)

As an aside, it's not clear to me whether this move also includes assets outside of code, such as the Openoffice.org trademarks.</comment>


The simple essence of automatic differentiation – Conal Elliott (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00746 <comment><AUTHOR> found from this great comment here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22344474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22344474)</comment>


Facebook takes down Trump ads 'for violating our policy against organized hate' - <AUTHOR> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/facebook-takes-down-trump-ads-for-violating-our-policy-against-organized-hate-1.4990065 <comment><USER2> "Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol," Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, told CNN Business.

The "banned hate group" here is Nazis. This symbol was used in concentration camps. Don't let the corporate speak whitewash that.

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

Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. I'm merely pointing out that the Facebook spokesperson is clearly identifying the violation "a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners." Since the Facebook spokesperson was being vague, I brought context in case anyone was curious, "What banned hate group?" or "which political prisoners?"

<comment><USER3> This comment, as well as the other comment in this thread which points out that this was the nazi symbol for political prisoners, are both currently grey due to downvotes.

I would be interested to hear an explanation of why these comments are being downvoted.

Are the downvoters suggesting the information is inaccurate? That this wasn't the nazi symbol for political prisoners?

<comment><USER4> You're thinking too charitably. HN has its share of actual white supremacists.

<comment><USER5> oh, come on. Frankly, I think demonizing each other is the real damage being done online and in the media lately.

I'm happy to admit I downvoted the above comment because it's jumping to conclusions and charged with hyperbole.

I think what's more concerning is the decisive language and open calls for conflict I've seen on social media. ...and I think we need to really pause for a moment and remember back, maybe 5-6 years ago to see how we got here...

When Obama was President, the ADL reported that there were, maybe 2000, Nazis and KKK members in the US. Tho THOUSAND. That's it. No one talked about the KKK or Nazis. How did we go from _that_ to people accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a Nazi?

At first, I was surprised that certain things became more mainstream on Reddit - like the open disdain for the concept of "compromise", the acceptance that their own news sources are biased, and the downward spiral of political posts to simply posting insults - there isn't even an effort to make an argument anymore.

Initially, I chalked it up to the extremist tendency of the two-party system - but I'm starting to think there is something more sinister going on. There are too many new accounts demanding violence. Too many international posters with no skin in the game voting for the worst responses. Too many threads where people refuse to discuss and talk only about punitive, and often violent, actions. This is conveniently exactly what the FBI reported Russian online teams were doing4 years ago. Maybe they're still at it?

I hope you'll join me in not throwing name calling around. Encouraging more intelligent discourse - at least on HN? ...and try to believe me when I say that I honestly believe(d) some idiot intern just posted an upside-down red triangle.

<comment><USER6> What conclusions does it jump to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whether the symbol is used by Antifa or not doesn't really matter. What matters is _if people in general associate the symbol with antifa_. I almost always think of two flags (a red and black flag) when I think of Antifa, or just the regular anarchist flag.

Look here: [https://www.google.com/search?q=antifa+logo&tbm=isch&ved=2ah...](https://www.google.com/search?q=antifa+logo&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwj1_qbljIzqAhXTATQIHUPqA- AQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=antifa+logo&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAA6BQgAELEDOgUIABCDAVC- EVisHGDMHWgAcAB4AIABeIgB1gOSAQM0LjGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZw&sclient=img&ei=q8DrXrX9IdOD0PEPw9SPgA4&bih=729&biw=1536)

The google image search for "Antifa logo" does not show the inverted triangle, except in a post explaining the ad we're all talking about.

Nobody thinks of an inverted triangle when thinking about Antifa. Some people in the antifa movement may have used the symbol, but it's not associated with them enough for an ad calling them out to use it.

Why run an anti-antifa ad and use a symbol that people don't associate with antifa?

<comment><USER8> Nobody thinks of a nazi concentration camp symbol to label liberals, social democrats, and any party dissenter (this was not the one used to mark jews) either.

<comment><USER9> Which is why it was chosen. It's not obvious. It's just a red triangle.

<comment><USER5> It's not just "not obvious" \- it's not used at all. ...and hasn't been since 1945. ...and even then it wasn't known except to the people in a few camps.

...so what's your hypothesis here? That he told them to use a near-nonexistent symbol as a secret message to the, maybe 5 people in the world that remembered that symbol?

Does that sound like a credible theory to you?

...or isn't it more likely that some stupid intern just fucked up?

<comment><USER10> I have no opinion about what is the most likely scenario, but:

Using really far-fetched nazi symbols in campaigns seems like a smart move if you want maximum attention and for your opponents to call it out, and then most people going: "?? whats nazi about a triange??".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this was absolutely the right move because it was so blatant and disgusting.

I do however fear that this was a bait. The campaign posts something so blatant in order to get it taken down to be able to claim victimhood and enrage the base.

<comment><USER12> Very interesting related twitter thread: [https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1273631800636702721](https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1273631800636702721)

<comment><USER13> And if you check out some of her other tweets on this, such as [https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1273645070709858305](https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1273645070709858305)

And the replies: [https://twitter.com/originalspin/status/1273650404983631875](https://twitter.com/originalspin/status/1273650404983631875)

88 versions of the ad, and the first sentence of the ad contains 14 words. The numbers 14/88 have considerable significance here, especially when paired with the use of a concentration camp symbol..

<comment><USER14> I see how that could be the case but once we start delving into numerology we start to sound like conspiracy theorists.

<comment><USER15> This is why they use it. It's the perfect dog whistle. Google 1488 tattoos to get an idea of just how serious and prevalent it is.

[1]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog- whistle_politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics)

[2]. [https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1488+tattoos&atb=v209-1&iax...](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1488+tattoos&atb=v209-1&iax=images&ia=images)

<comment><USER16> Sure, but with those tattoos, the 14 & 88 are significant and inescapable. There's no ambiguity and their presence is not hidden. But once you're counting the number of words in a tweet, you're talking about things much more hidden. It doesn't work well as a dog whistle if the metaphorical dogs can't hear it, either.

<comment><USER17> [https://imgur.com/Z8AICes](https://imgur.com/Z8AICes)

Plenty of ambiguity there. I think you may need to evaluate what your motivation is to need to keep disbelieving that _racist dogwhistles_ can actually be ambiguous, especially considering they are that way by design.

<comment><USER16> You just linked to a picture of a tattoo of the number 1488... I don't see any ambiguity. Did you intend to link to a different picture?

<comment><USER17> A tattoo of just 1488, without any racist symbology, is ambiguous. There is nothing to make it distinctive from any other number.

Help me understand what you think an ambigous tattoo of 1488 should look like?

<comment><USER16> Well, along the lines of counting the number of words in a tweet, maybe 14 stars? And then chains, where the linked chains look kinda like 8s? Something where the 14 and 88 are present, but not obvious unless you think to look for them.

<comment><USER18> [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border- an...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build- wall-make-america-safe-again) is a good example of plausible deniability.

Fourteen word headline, starting with "We must secure..."

Was it intentional? No one will likely ever know.

<comment><USER19> > On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer > than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.

Why use 88 rather than 100 to illustrate this statistic?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> \- The ad in question: [https://imgur.com/NQuGvDo](https://imgur.com/NQuGvDo)

\- Nazi concentration camp symbols explained: [https://imgur.com/8xo1Bv2](https://imgur.com/8xo1Bv2)

Associating leftist organizations with this fascist political symbol is almost guaranteed to be intentional.

Edit: Some people seem to be trying to defend this by saying it's similar, though not the same, to a symbol used by a small group in Utrecht, Netherlands. Do you think the president's campaign was really trying to mimic (rather than just use) an unknown Netherlands based symbol on a U.S. based ad campaign? Just a day after a National Security Advisor said the president supported the Chinese Muslim concentration camps?

Or the fact that they ran exactly 88 ads with the symbol?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)#In_white_nationali...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_\(number\)#In_white_nationalism_and_supremacism)

<comment><USER20> Why was this downvoted, is it fake or otherwise misleading? I'm not using Facebook or from the USA so I'm out of the loop on the original and wouldn't be able to tell. I'd like to see the ad in question but this makes me wonder what's up with this (helpful seeming) comment.

<comment><USER21> It's wrong, there are Antifa groups that use an upside down red triangle:

[https://www.facebook.com/antifautrecht/](https://www.facebook.com/antifautrecht/)

[https://afanl.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/english-3-2-2018-anti...](https://afanl.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/english-3-2-2018-antifa- conference-amsterdam-program/)

Seems like Facebook jumped the gun on this and assumed the worst.

\-- reply @ GP edit --

> Rather than making the association that this leftist group deserves to have > political concentration camp tag?

Yeah I believe your hypothesis is crazy and needs more evidence before jumping to such a wild assumption. That's why you word vomit with events that loosely relate to concentration camps and 88 words to support your already loose conspiracy theory.

Ironic that NOW this symbol will be used against socialists since the WSJ and Facebook just made it mainstream and assumed that connection.

No one would have never thought of this connection if FB wouldn't have flagged it and the WSJ didn't immediately report it. Can you honestly say you had this holocaust knowledge? To assume that on everyone and to go further and assume malicious intent is even more dishonest.

People wanted this to be so true, but you are all conspiracy theorists today.

<comment><USER22> I'm antifa, and I've never seen this symbol used by antifascists, in the US anyway.

Even if they do, it's likely as a way to subvert the symbol used by the Nazis. To use it to attack antifa is to use it like the Nazis did. It's like how black people can use the n-word, but not white people.

<comment><USER21> Thank you for your anecdote, but I've posted two examples, one active FB group.

It seems to be mainly a European usage, but it exists.

I don't see how pointing out a symbol a group uses is attacking them.

I also don't think equating yourself and antifa to the struggle of the holocaust and slavery is going to win any minds over.

<comment><USER19> > I also don't think equating yourself and antifa to the struggle of the > holocaust and slavery is going to win any minds over.

Thousands of anti-fascists were badged with the red triangle and subsequently slaughtered in the holocaust, which is precisely why the ad was removed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> POTUS campaign absolutely knows its history. They intentionally walk right up to the line of outright white supremacy, and go over it to test the boundaries like right now. When the response isn't that strong it emboldens them that they can go further. This is boiling the frog so they can get fascism into the mainstream.

That Facebook policymakers still try to pretend a neutral both-sides-ism exists and that people aren't bad actors (just like reddit with /r/the_donald) makes me think they're either idiots or in league with them.

<comment><USER24> Reddit did eventually clean house, though.

r/the_donald is now a dead subreddit, and has been for quite sometime.

<comment><USER17> Even though it was quarantined, the mods eventually killed it themselves by restricting who can post.

It's likely they're trying to move the userbase to another subreddit.

<comment><USER25> From what I've seen, reddit's policy is to quarantine a subreddit and warn the admin to moderate more heavily "or be banned". My guess is they did this to ensure reddit wouldn't ban the subreddit and wipe out its whole history (at least that's what I'd do if faced with such a situation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Has anybody made any suggestion what else the upside down red triangle could possibly be a reference to? It's uncomfortable how well it fits his message.

<comment><USER27> WH response was that it's a symbol used by antifa.

""The inverted red triangle is a symbol used by Antifa, so it was included in an ad about Antifa. We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same, so it's curious that they would target only this ad. The image is also not included in the Anti- Defamation League's database of symbols of hate. But it is ironic that it took a Trump ad to force the media to implicitly concede that Antifa is a hate group."

<comment><USER28> What's all this about "upside down" and "inverted" triangles? A triangle is a triangle. It doesn't have a top and a bottom.

<comment><USER29> Google image search for triangle and check the most common orientation for a triangle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> How antifacist became a dirty word in the minds of many Americans is baffling to me. Also, the fact that people are taking the antifa stuff seriously and Republicans are just parroting Trump on the matter is ridiculous.

I just skimmed through all the articles here: [https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime/antifa](https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime/antifa) and the only one that is even specific about an alleged instance of organized violence is an incident in Texas[1][2] and is decidedly bereft of actual evidence.

It's pretty clear that people are looking to blame the "other side" for any and all violence.

[1] [https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-investigating-links- between...](https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-investigating-links-between- antifa-and-looting)

[2] [https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Anti...](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Antifa- arrests-protest-george-floyd-cops-3-arrests-15334331.php)

<comment><USER31> > How antifacist became a dirty word in the minds of many Americans is > baffling to me. Also, the fact that people are taking the antifa stuff > seriously and Republicans are just parroting Trump on the matter is > ridiculous.

There seems to be a history of Antifa inciting violence in recent years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Notable...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_\(United_States\)#Notable_actions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Facebook is in a difficult spot right now. They're in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

Granted, Zuckerberg and his team in many ways got themselves into this situation, but at this point it's hard to see how Facebook moves forward without regulators, either on the left or the right, calling for antitrust or privacy laws to be enforced against them.

I'm not sure if you could break up Facebook in the same way that Standard Oil was, but there is certainly appetite for regulatory action against FB on the left and the right.

<comment><USER33> > _Facebook is in a difficult spot right now._

Nonsense. Banning all political advertising is the most impartial option. They just prefer money to even the vaguest approximation of doing the right thing.

<comment><USER34> Wouldn't they have to ban all political posts altogether? Otherwise the ad stuff would just move into regular accounts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Of course trying to declare antifa as a terrorist organization is just about as useful as charging all of anonymous with cybercrime. Creating a common enemy out of a nebulous group of people that share a political leaning... come on people this is fascism 101.

</comment><comment><USER36> It is fascinating to watch. my first reaction was more of a surprise more than anything else. Given this administration track record, I would be willing to explain it by lack of knowledge. Personally, I could not care less what symbols are used and I have a family member I never got to meet as he died in one of the camps.

That said, the more I think about it, the more it seems like a bait. And it seems to have worked.

We all really need to take a step back. The move seems desperate.

<comment><USER37> > Given this administration track record, I would be willing to explain it by > lack of knowledge.

What about the track record of this administration would lead you to be willing to explain it by lack of knowledge? If there's one thing the Trump administration has been extremely knowledgeable about, it's this. Their MO is to be racist through dogwhistles and increasingly bullhorns.

Their track record should lead you to believe strongly that this is all intentional and intended to be racist and hateful.

The Trump administration is one week after the next embroiling itself in unnecessary scandals where they are purveyors of hate speech, racism, and violence against minorities. It is not one week after the next of incompetence or 'lack of knowledge', it is years of building on targeted hate directed towards minorities.

<comment><USER36> Um. Red triangle is not the most complex logo ever created. It is within a realm of possibility that it happened as, um, quality control is somewhat lax in this administration. I honestly think you are doing your cause disservice by presenting it this way.

edit: removed not ; added a clarification

<comment><USER37> You are ignoring the context of the situation. The context matters. When a group of people who espouse hate against minorities on a daily basis use identical symbols as other groups in history who also espoused hate on a daily basis towards the same minority groups, it is not a coincidence.

Analyzing every move by Trump or his administration or campaign individually, without context of the surrounding mood of the nation or recent history, will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

There is a lot more subtle hate in the world than most people were expecting to exist. But it's there, and when you see time after time the same sneaky tricks used to spread hate, they no longer look like coincidences at all. The 'simplicity' of the symbol is irrelevant. It is simple by design, to give the racists who use it a 'cover' for their racism ("see it's just a triangle you're crazy for seeing things"). The pattern fits, it's racism and hate directed at minorities.

This is a pattern, and pretending each action in the pattern is unrelated to each other or likely all coincidences, is effectively disinformation.

These racist and hateful remarks and statements are not all just accidents.

<comment><USER36> Decided to delete my original reponse. It may have been too personal an attack. Sorry for that. I still disagree, but I think I will be stopping here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Something that's always bothered me about articles like this is that they go into great detail to describe the ad, but don't actually show the ad itself.

<comment><USER39> That's intentional, to avoid giving it a yet broader platform.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is it a coincidence that this comes the day after the justice department declared that they intend to push legislation that will diminish section 230 protection? They're coming for Facebook either way so maybe they don't feel the need to feign total neutrality any longer.

</comment><comment><USER41> So why the ads. Is it because he's facist? Why rally for hate at all. What's the end game? More violence?

<comment><USER42> To rally the base and win the election in November. His most rabid and prolifically viral political base lives off of the loaded tweets and ads posted using the platform of the President of the United States. This isn't the first time something like this happened with Trump, nor will it be the last.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Comment section in HN is generally the most valuable part of reading an article for me. I hope those people who put out well thought out comments also bless some of these types of article with their well thought out responses.

As for this article, is the triangle strictly the issue? If the same ad is run with a different symbol, would it be fine? If that is the case, what are the list of symbols that are not to be used in ad campaigns?

As someone else commented, I googled antifa symbol and most of the results seem to be a double flag of some sort. So I am not sure what exactly the motivation is behind a red triangle (I saw the comment about "nazi concentration camp symbols").

Lastly, facebook probably removes ads all the time for all sort of minor reasons. Is there a good reason to believe this was somehow malicious?

<comment><USER44> Happy to help, but all of these questions have already been answered in this comment section.

> If the same ad is run with a different symbol, would it be fine?

They did run it with other symbols, and those were not taken down. [https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1273636769704091654](https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1273636769704091654)

> What are the list of symbols that are not to be used in ad campaigns?

This is like asking for a list of sentences that can't be used. It's obviously impossible. You can't enumerate every bad thing in the world, especially when the whole point of being human is that we can invent brand new things.

It's just not a reasonable thing to ask for. It's like a kid in school getting detention for bullying a classmate and saying "Well this isn't fair, how was I supposed to know? Give me a list of everything I'm not allowed to say!"

> So I am not sure what exactly the motivation is behind a red triangle (I saw > the comment about "nazi concentration camp symbols").

Yes, that was it.

> Lastly, facebook probably removes ads all the time for all sort of minor > reasons. Is there a good reason to believe this was somehow malicious?

Because they said so.

> A Facebook spokesperson told Media Matters in a statement that "We removed > these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate. Our > policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political > prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol."

\- [https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/facebook-let-trump- cam...](https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/facebook-let-trump-campaign-run- ads-inverted-red-triangle-infamous-nazi-symbol)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> [https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1273704510808965...](https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1273704510808965120)

</comment><comment><USER46> Interesting:

\- The symbol itself is not in the ADL hate symbol database (checked)

\- Jacob S. Eder, a historian of modern Germany at the Barenboim–Said Akademie in Berlin on the Post:

"I think it's a highly problematic use of a symbol that the Nazis used to identify their political enemies," he said. "It's hard to imagine it's done on purpose, because I'm not sure if the vast majority of Americans know or understand the sign, but it's very, very careless, to say the least."

Update: this comment also got upvoted and downvoted like crazy. Whatever is the your ideology war, i think you are doomed.

<comment><USER47> ADL isn't comprehensive. But there's plenty of historical evidence of this. Come to think of it, that's probably the badge my grandpa wore in Auschwitz.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I guess that's a good first step for facebook. I hope they are going to ramp up those efforts before the election.

If twitter and facebook are able to contains those ads it may be the first sign of Trump not being reelected.

I can only hope to see reddit also take some steps in the nexts months. I really hope they do.

</comment><comment><USER49> Well I'm not seeing any mention of it here, so let me fill you in on a little secret: this symbol is commonly used in cartography to indicate a confirmed hazard. Anyone with any time in the military or emergency management (and maybe hazmat) should immediately recognize the symbol.

Fact check it yourself: search "NATO landmine symbol". You'll find the symbol in use by the UN and NATO, you'll also find standards that dictate orientation, fill style, and scaling factors.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Nazi concentration camps, and the amount of hyperventilating over secret Nazi symbols is really disturbing. I don't know which is worse, that this may largely be performative outrage, or if it is genuine derangement. Ask yourself: why haven't you been told this already? Why is the media winding people up instead of fact checking? Why is facebook outsourcing this disgusting task to the ADL? Also: I predicted this just yesterday :)

</comment><comment><USER50> Also impressive is the general incompetence shown by the Trump campaign here - some bozo alt-righter on their social media team probably decided to do this and no one in the chain of command noticed or cared. (Or, I suppose it's possible they assented too..)

<comment><USER51> Trump managed to go from guaranteed win, to most likely loosing.

And he doesn't seem to care anymore. I don't mean he doesn't care about these symbols, I mean he doesn't seem to care if he wins anymore.

<comment><USER52> at what point was he "guaranteed [to] win"?

<comment><USER18> When the Dems picked Biden. (and I say this as a Dem)

The pandemic shook everything up, but prior to that...

<comment><USER52> Biden has out polled Trump since at least February. At no point was Trump's victory assured. And his defeat is not assured either (donate to the campaign).

<comment><USER18> > Biden has out polled Trump since at least February.

The same was true for Hillary.

<comment><USER52> are you saying Trump was guaranteed win in 2016? Or are you saying you don't believe polls are indicative? Both positions are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> You have to be very naive to allow free Streisand effect to Trump.

So they would turn a stupid ad that few would see into something that will get huge audience for free.

Played right into their hands.

</comment><comment><USER54> > The Anti-Defamation League said Thursday the triangle "is practically > identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in > concentration camps."

Wow.

</comment><comment><USER55> The red triangle was used by the Nazis to identify political prisoners (eg communists), not Jews or blacks or anything "hateful" like that. It's completely normal for countries at war to have political prisoners and even in peacetime too. America still has it's own political prisoners in prison right now for crimes like spying and leaking classified information. Other western countries are even worse, having people locked up for expressing banned political ideas. Ironically, that includes Nazis themselves in Europe, but it's also illegal to display the ISIS flag in the UK, for instance. People obviously love having political prisoners.

<comment><USER9> You're saying that if a person chooses to use a symbol that Nazis used to identify their political enemies in their prisons, that person can't be expressing anything hateful because other countries also use symbols to categorize prisoners. I almost can't believe that you actually think that.

<comment><USER55> Yes. Just because the Nazis did it, doesn't make it "hateful" (racist, etc.). People are going off the rails worrying about any kind of symbols or hints related to Nazis because they've somehow become a popular bogeyman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Strategically, this allows Trump to get his ad taken down by facebook, which has previously not done so. That means he now can claim some kind of conspiracy against him. If the story does not grow big, that's the end of it, and a small win for Trump.

If the story grows, then it will become less about the symbol (which is at least somewhat obscure) and more about antifa. The more the conversation is about antifa, and the less about unnecessary police violence, the better for Trump.

Honestly, I don't think FB should have taken down the ad. I don't see what it really accomplishes. The fact is that Trump has his own audience. The more media companies fight for control, the more they just make a silo of themselves and prevent any real trust or dialogue between voters in opposite parties.

</comment><comment><USER57> > the red triangle was "a symbol widely used by Antifa."

I am not from US but is this kind of symbols actually used in secret?

I remember prominent democrats( i think maybe even Hilary clinton) and media claiming ok hand and pepe frog were secret symbols of white supremacists.

<comment><USER58> > ok hand and pepe frog were secret symbols of white supremacists.

They are dog whistles, together with "kekistan" and few other hand gestures.

You can find various pictures of known white supremacists groups prominently showing the gestures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For context, here is the symbol used on the Antifa Utrecht homepage on facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/antifautrecht/](https://www.facebook.com/antifautrecht/)

I'm not sure how anyone can claim it's not related to Antifa.

<comment><USER9> This is a good explanation:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23566826#23566911](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23566826#23566911)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> "The Anti-Defamation League said"

This story is entirely made up. They explained and even proved where that symbol came from. MM even claimed that they ran 88 of them - meaning "you know what". Yes that's actually what people are supposed to believe.</comment>


Lisp machines - <AUTHOR> http://collison.ie/blog/2008/04/lisp-machines

<comment><USER2> KLAXON KLAXON KLAXON

Dodgy Genera binaries are one thing - pirate Genera _source_ could be poison. Any future project to implement anything resembling a Lisp Machine* might be vulnerable to accusations that the contributors had taken advantage of it. Reading or downloading or disseminating or advertising it seems like a Really Bad Idea to me. Though the article suggests that "the current legal status of the IP around the Lisp Machines is unclear", it seems that there's at least one institution with (at the very least) a good chance of vindicating proprietary claims to a large part of Genera in court - new Symbolics: <http://www.symbolics.com>

* Quite loosely, perhaps. For example, I don't think that "but my persistent, dynamic runtime doesn't implement Lisp!" is necessarily going to be a sterling defence against claims that it swiped architectural details from Genera.

<comment><USER3> Agreed that there are risks here. I'd be interested to hear from anyone with specific knowledge of the Symbolics situation -- my email address is patrick#collison#ie. I've tried to contact David Schmidt (the listed contact at symbolics.com) a few times, but without success.

Note, though, that Symbolics machines shipped with the source code (I own one, and have been reading and editing bits and pieces for quite a while). Using this emulated version of Genera is pretty much an orthogonal issue: to the extent that reading the Symbolics source causes IP issues, you're just as screwed if you read it legally.

<comment><USER2> (proggit crosspost: <http://reddit.com/info/6hd0k/comments/c03uonk>)

Hm, I think my IANAL reflex didn't trigger strongly enough when I was writing my original comment. But I still believe it's a Good Idea to play safe until broader legal fallout is definitively ruled out one way or another. After all, once the genie escapes the bottle it's not going back in no matter what the consequences turn out to be.

> to the extent that reading the Symbolics source causes IP issues, you're > just as screwed if you read it legally.

Very likely, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Partly because - well, if there is a plausible impression that Project Foo's shiny new VM is based on their study of other people's old code that they gleefully pirated all over the intertubes, then they're practically _begging_ a judge to put together some interpretation of the law under which to hammer them. Ask Corley what being technically in the right guarantees you under those circumstances.

<comment><USER3> _I still believe it's a Good Idea to play safe until broader legal fallout is definitively ruled out one way or another_

Ok, then don't use it.

 _Very likely, but I wouldn't bet my life on it._

Indeed. But do these "I wouldn't bet my life on it" concerns warrant "KLAXON KLAXON" hysteria?

 _then they're practically begging a judge to put together some interpretation of the law under which to hammer them_

There's enough legal issues to worry about in life without inventing new scenarios in which you could fall afoul of hypothetical laws.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Build a Knowledge Base That Works - <AUTHOR> http://devlogic.com.au/simple-guide-to-creating-a-knowledge-base

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey All;

Wife wrote her first eBook on Knowledgebase Management.

Thought it might me of interest to some of you.</comment>


Exfiltrating files with BusyBox - <AUTHOR> https://bitquark.co.uk/blog/2016/10/03/exfiltrating_files_with_busybox <comment><USER2> That was a let down. Is it really "exfiltration" when you use a protocol designed for mass data transfer and you use it in the exact manner it was intended to be used? The less linkbaity title is "Transferring files with BusyBox's ftp"

<comment><USER3> The point of the post was to show how easy it is, as people seem to miss these commands or may not be aware of how easy it is to set up a listening service. It's exfiltration by definition, but you are of course free to mangle the data any way you want or use DNS techniques if you really care about hiding what you're doing, but that's a different post.

<comment><USER2> What is your definition of exfiltration? Or more importantly how do you distinguish between exfil and normal transfer by an authorized user?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I very much prefer using "tar" and "nc".

Example:

Host1: "tar -cf - /file1 /file2 | nc -l -p 54321"

Host2: "nc host1 54321 | tar -xf -"

<comment><USER5> If you have bash, you can even partially get by without netcat as well. Bash has the wonderful "fake" devicenodes, /dev/tcp/host/port and /dev/udp/host/port.

<comment><USER6> If your system is running busybox you usually won't have full fat bash.

One thing that annoys me is how people will crack a quad core 1.6Ghz smartphone with 64Gb of storage and then install busybox to save those 50Mb over a regular shell environment that won't embarrass itself on every shell script or configure script.

<comment><USER7> It's easier to cross-compile busybox (or toybox) than Bash. Cross compiling for Linux is annoying, cross compiling for Android is even more annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The ftpput and ftpget commands might not be available even as arguments to the busybox command, depending on how it was configured at build time.

        # type ftpput
        -sh: type: ftpput: not found
        # busybox ftpput
        busybox: applet not found
        #

Likewise for "nc".

<comment><USER7> I've used similar things to get a dump of router/modem firmware.

Busybox can be built with as many or as few applets as you want. If the busybox you have access to doesn't have what you need, you could always try putting another busybox in /tmp - [https://busybox.net/downloads/binaries/](https://busybox.net/downloads/binaries/) should have a static binary that works on whatever device you have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Don't forget that these stupid little devices nearly ALWAYS have a webserver running //somewhere// on them.

If you really need to get some data off, look at how much memory you have and just window the copied data in to files you can DL.

Many of the less expensive and crappier ones ship with very little memory, very little flash, and a VERY restrictive busybox build.

Still, somewhere between that and the kernel are going to be the tools you need to get chunks of data out.

</comment><comment><USER10> We ($work) have some embedded devices running BusyBox and I typically just use TFTP. It's simple, it works, and we already have an internal TFTP server.

</comment><comment><USER11> I had to get some files off/on a hacked device over a serial port (networking was broken). Luckily the BusyBox included uuencode/decode so I didn't have to get too extreme.

"Exfiltrating" implies a covert action... Using ftp is kinda obvious!

</comment><comment><USER12> busybox also has wget and a httpd</comment>


Mustafa's Space Drive: An Egyptian Student's Quantum Physics Invention - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1837966/mustafas-space-drive-an-egyptian-students-quantum-physics-invention

<comment><USER2> This appears to be another reactionless drive [1] that sci-fi authors and crackpots come up with every few years. There are many variants of these designs [2] and a drive based on the Casimir effect is just one of them. However, they all tend to violate a critical law of physics or depend on a custom theory of physics [3]

BTW, the original article at [http://www.onislam.net/english/health-and- science/science/45...](http://www.onislam.net/english/health-and- science/science/457096-egyptian-student-invents-a-new-propulsion-method.html) goes into slightly more detail about her invention and mentions that it's related to a differential sail.

[1] <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReactionlessDrive> [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program#Differential_sail) [3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertialess_drive>

<comment><USER3> There's also some variants that do work, or at least could work in theory, which turn out to simply be highly inefficient photon drives. For instance, one recurring one that seems to get reinvented every few years is one where you put two electromagnets some distance from each other, and use the speed of light delay and some moderately clever polarity flipping to make it so the magnets always attract or repel each other in one direction, providing thrust. There's no reason why this won't work... except that also shoots huge amounts of defocused radio waves out the back, which is where the equal & opposite momentum is "coming from", and it's wildly less efficient in every conceivable way than simply shooting a conventional laser in the opposite of the direction you want to thrust. (And there's some other caveats too when you really get down to the engineering task of trying to flip the polarity of really powerful magnets at the necessary rate of speed. But it is conceivable that using real physics, you might be able to build something with this principle that could generate vanishing fractions of a Newton without necessarily blowing up....)

Based on the link you provide, and guessing what the QM equivalent of the differential sail (this thing, I think: [1]) would be, it seems to me this could fall into either class, something that simply won't work or something that will turn out to be another variant of inefficient electromagnetic radiation drive, once the full set of interactions is taken into account. (It's pretty easy to miss some of the more subtle ways of creating electromagnetic waves.)

[1]: [http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/differential_sai...](http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/differential_sail.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Conservation of momentum has been one of the most unshakeable laws of physics. Reactionless drives violate conservation of momentum. The likelihood that this is flawed is infinitely greater than the likelihood that conservation of momentum has been overturned. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone remember the EmDrive debacle? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive>

<comment><USER5> I don't think conservation of momentum is under fire here - the vacuum fluctuations (due to second quantization, quantization of electron, quark, etc. fields) might pick up the difference... although I don't really know enough QFT to be definite. Not that I believe any of this though, haha, seems like complete bullshit. The original article, especially. None of the physics seems to make any sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone find the reporting horrible? It's like reading a press release with all the buzz words and jargon thrown in. "Dynamic Casimir effect" that produces a net force? Yeah, the net force is the opposing forces squeezing the two plates together from outside. It produces zero directional net force. I don't see how it can move an object in space.

<comment><USER7> As far as I am aware, dynamic casmir is achieved by moving a virtual mirror at relativistic speeds to create photons, so I am assuming that if the photons are preferentially directed, there would be a small net force in the opposite direction.

<comment><USER8> And what is a virtual mirror, I ask?

<comment><USER7> In the report I read they were using SQUIDs to make the effect of a mirror that operated in the microwave range.

[edit] you could also use a real mirror, is just very hard to move it that fast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sounds a lot like some of the ideas in this NASA-produced survey of possible drives- <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/1997-J_AIAA_SpaceDr.pdf>

NASA does have some research folks working on pretty esoteric space drive concepts. [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ideachev.h...](http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ideachev.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> I predict with very high confidence that this does not work.

<comment><USER6> It is a patent. Who say a patent has to work? It just describes some methods dreamed up by someone. The hardwork of finding out and getting it to work is left to the engineers. And payment is due to the idea guy if it ever works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Lisa, in this house, we _obey the laws of thermodynamics_!"

\--Homer Simpson

Plus, "space drives" violate the conservation of momentum.

</comment><comment><USER12> Still waiting for the very excited paper on zero point energy that explains it in non-leagalise. If she figured this out, why not use it to run a generator? They again, who wants to get power off the heat death of the universe -tanstaafl -3rd law of thermodynamics

</comment><comment><USER13> The only space drive that actually can work is the transmission of information, not of mass. But you'll need a receiver that is capable of acting on that information. Hopefully, such receivers can be made very small and then "seeded" through the galaxy.

</comment><comment><USER14> TLDR: It's like a solar sail, but instead of being pushed by energy from a star, it manipulates local quantum particles to create a small force that propels the vessel.

Eg, not warp or hyperdrive, but still very clever.

<comment><USER15> It's not like a solar sail. You don't need energy to use the sail, you need energy here. This idea is not going to change space propulsion.

<comment><USER16> Huh? It's "only" a >reaction-less< drive. That's only a science-fiction conceit to allow compact little spacecraft to zip all over a solar system with mass fractions that are actually sane.

If the guy has invented a science fiction conceit in real life, I think he deserves some praise.

<comment><USER17> You need energy to move the mirror that is used to create the photons.

In the report, it isn't clear if the photons are released or not. If they are release it is not a reaction-less drive, it only throws a photon jet instead of an atomic jet. If the photons remain inside the cavity, the device violates the physics laws, and after building it they will find that they forget to include some little detail that makes the device not useful.

It is important to remember that quantum mechanics is strange and the Casimir effect is very strange, but none of them violates the conservation of momentum law. The problem with the conservation of momentum law is that to prove it, you only have to suppose that the space is invariant under translations (if you "move" the universe 1 foot to the "right", the physical laws don't change), so any sensible physical theory comply with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is the Quantum Ram Jet in Artur C. Clarks "Songs of a Distant Earth" from 1985 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Songs_of_Distant_Earth>. It is based on the Dynamical Casimir Effect which is thought to have been observed, <http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26813/>

</comment><comment><USER19> One thing I like about Fast Company's article is that it's not revealed (name aside, for those familiar with it) that the student in question is female until the last paragraph or so.

You can just imagine a TV reporter, breathlessly:

"It's a new space invention, from a _student_. And a _female_ as well!"

</comment><comment><USER20> Well, this is awkward

It's apparently relying on the 'dynamic Casmir effect' but what exactly is doing is not clear

I assume photons created by accelerating a plate have zero angular momentum (the sum of all them) unless maybe if you have a plate near it then it isn't? (and by 'near' I mean 'Casmir near')</comment>


Google Analytics Intelligence - <AUTHOR> http://analytics.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-feature-spotlight-analytics.html

<comment><USER2> Is this in private beta or available to everyone? I don't see intelligence in "My customizations"...

<comment><USER3> It's been slowly rolled out over the last couple of weeks. I'm guessing everyone will have it by the end of the month or so.</comment></comment>


Ecuador offers U.S. rights aid, waives trade benefits - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-usa-security-ecuador-idUSBRE95Q0L820130627 <comment><USER3> Nice! That's a classy move right there.

Edit: further context:

>Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, promised Wednesday that he would block renewal of the pact should Snowden be granted asylum.

>"Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior," he said in a statement, following other lawmakers who have spent years saying that the pact should be allowed to lapse, partly down to the country's links with Iran. [1]

If my tentative understanding of events is correct, this economic act of aggression (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) was the main form of likely retaliation the US would have pulled in response to Snowden being granted asylum. Preempting this move by giving up the preferential treatment is, IMO, a very astute move by the Ecuadorian government, and puts America in a position of not having that leg to stand on.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-security- sn...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-security-snowden- congress-idUSBRE95P1DR20130626)

<comment><USER4> Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door.

> (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that > anymore?)

There are _two_ sides to that particular story bub, and only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians.

So what you're basically saying is that Ecuador has decided to harm their own innocent civilians in order to head toward granting asylum to a U.S. citizen to poke their thumb in Uncle Sam's face (again).

<comment><USER5> They are standing up against the bully that is the US. That is a service to their own citizens and those of various other countries around the world.

<comment><USER6> In what sense? If a member of the Ecuadorian opposition party infiltrated their government and stole classified information, then fled to the United States, wouldn't they demand to get him back?

<comment><USER7> The US didn't demand him back (and he isn't even there yet). They are threatening to remove some economic benefit that is completely unrelated to the issue at hand to coerce the Ecuadorean government to fall in line. That's pretty obviously bullying, and the Ecuadorean government has simply called uncle sam's bluff.

<comment><USER4> "Economic benefits" are generally not free. Why should the U.S. reward a country that has shown a willingness to embarrass them on the world stage (twice, now) when there are a hundred other countries that would be just as deserving (not to mention the millions of Americans here at home who could benefit from a bit of largesse)?

<comment><USER8> your best friends are the ones that are allowed to tell you what you are like. the people who don't do that, they are not your best friends.

<comment><USER4> If I believed for a second that Ecuador's government had genuine friendship- based concern for the U.S. and its actions I think I'd agree with you. But that's not what this is.

<comment><USER9> That doesn't change the fact that the more any entity relies on threats, the less it can have have real friends. This is like the physics of relationships and just how it is. Wether or not it applies here doesn't even matter for it being generally true, and the US seems to threaten friend and foe alike, if in doubt. Why, it even treats its own citizens like subjects quite often.

<comment><USER4> I agree that threats are not how friendly countries carry on friendly business. What I do not agree on is that Ecuador is acting at all as a "friend" to the U.S. in this matter, for the reasons I stated above.

<comment><USER8> The best friends are those that don't allow you to make mistakes. The ones that aren't really your friends are the ones that pander to you, for fear of embarrassing you. They are doing you a disservice.

Which is of greater embarrassment, the alleged behaviour of the NSA, or an offer of asylum to a whistle blower destined for death or Guantanamo?

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006:

"So was I right not just in supporting the war, but in actively prosecuting it? I've been asked a million times since the invasion whether, knowing then what I know now, I would have made the same decision. And no, I wouldn't. How could we have agreed to invade Iraq if we had known that there were no WMD there?"[1]

Earlier in the same article:

"As I spelt out the seriousness of the situation and my conviction that we now had to confront Saddam Hussein militarily, my wife Alice and children Will and Charlotte were up in the gallery listening.

None of them shared my view. Each of them would have been among the million or so demonstrators on the recent protest march through London against the war if it had not been for their loyalty to me and their wish not to embarrass me."

Jack Straw, Blair and Straw's family would have been better friends had they caused embarrassment.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Relationship_with_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Relationship_with_the_United_States)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208155/Jack- Straw-I...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208155/Jack-Straw-I- stopped-going-war-Iraq-This-I-didnt.html) [1]

<comment><USER4> > Which is of greater embarrassment, the alleged behaviour of the NSA, or an > offer of asylum to a whistle blower destined for death or Guantanamo?

Given that Snowden is not destined for either death or Guantanamo I'm not sure how to take your question. The NSA's alleged behavior is at least consistent with what we've known and thought it able to do since the Cold War. The worst I can say about it is that they are pushing right up on the edge of the law and court precedent... but is that _worse_ than flat-out breaking the law or doing things like actually focusing specific IRS attention on specific political-interest groups? Or passing laws to disenfranchise minority voters?

I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I don't think it's "Yes", given what I know of what our law enforcement and national security teams have already had the fully-legal ability to do.

\---

As for the friendship question, for me that goes back to who is really the 'friend' here. A 'friend' would certainly not castigate another about 'human rights abuses' (as if Snowden were _clearly innocent_ ) while at the same time having an asylum process that itself violates basic human rights as claimed by Human Rights Watch [1].

A "friend" would at least take the stick out of their eye before pointing to others' flaws. And this is why I say that the government of Ecuador has no legitimate friendly intent here. Even if I agreed with Snowden 100%, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and neither is the friend of my friend.

[1] [http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect- ref...](http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect-refugee- rights)

<comment><USER8> Well none of us can predict the future, all we can do is guess. So that's your opinion. I doubt you hold your own opinion on the matter in higher regard than William Binney's. [1]

Q: He'll be prosecuted?

Binney: First tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed. [2]

We certainly haven't known what the NSA capabilities are. We may have thought or suspected. Even now we don't really know, note Nadler's turnaround and the language used:

"Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that." "

then: "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, _as I have always believed_, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."

Did he not believe what he said in the first statement?

You're saying that because this fresh new, now known abuse, is no worse than other existing abuses, it's not an embarrassment. That seems like fallacious reasoning to me.

See Clapper's lying on camera to the senate here, and his subsequent claim that lying was the 'least untruthful' option. An embarrassment. [5]

The allegation that all calls are recorded for playback is startling, that would also be very embarrassing if it were proven.

Asylum has nothing to do with innocence, rather: evading persecution, i.e. the law in one place being an ass.

America is no slouch in the human rights hypocrisy department either.[4] Having a clean slate in that department is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing. Ecuador would be doing the right thing to grant asylum, and it would be an act of mercy and friendship, and truer friendship than simple pandering.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28U.S._intelli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28U.S._intelligence_official%29)

[2] [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden- whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/)

[3] [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying- fla...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends- to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/)

[4] [http://www.amnestyusa.org/our- work/countries/americas/usa](http://www.amnestyusa.org/our- work/countries/americas/usa)

[5] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TPKC8F-Zz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TPKC8F-Zz0)

<comment><USER4> Regarding [2], I suggest you lookup the treatment meted out to actual spies like Hanssen and John Walker. The last spies to be executed were the Rosenbergs, and even that did not go off without a fight by a certain Supreme Court justice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Would have it just been easier to pardon Snowden, bring him back home, never allow him to work with a security clearance again or do we just have to be that hardline that we just caused lots of anguish? Has the non- pardoning/hardline caused more damage here? If he truly has more damning information, as the state department, wouldn't you want to contain that by bringing him back without fear of being detained?

Unless in some parallel Snowden is still in the CIA and we wanted to check HK, Russia and now Ecuador regime with a spy that would be excused due to the leaks (might also learn more about WikiLeaks).

In the end, our enemies knowing we track everything hasn't really hurt them, it just let them know the long arm is longer than they expected or they knew it already. The only people it hurt were innocent Americans that now have assurance everything is being tracked, US cloud business trust and now poor farmers in Ecuador.

Seems it could have been handled better.

<comment><USER11> The US Government's concern is that if Snowden gets off light _other_ whistleblowers will step forward. That's the root logic behind the 'war on whistleblowers'. Which strongly suggests "we ain't seen nothin yet."

That's a big part of why Manning was treated so horribly and without any sense of proportion to what he did. It simply wasn't (all) about _him_. It was about the people who might be thinking of following in his footsteps.

<comment><USER12> why is everything a "war" \- war on drugs, war on this, war on that ...

<comment><USER13> I was shocked when I worked in America at a kids summer camp, and every activity/game was "war this" and "war that".

Kids in America are quite literally taught to go to war at every possible juncture, like it's a valid way to solve some conflict.

<comment><USER14> As a visitor to the US I noticed a version of this in small ways - <USER2> selling things cheap to servicemen/woman, statements praising the military on buildings, headlines about military gains in papers, people in uniform all over the place etc. If I didn't know better I'd have assumed America was defending itself against a perilous onslaught.

<comment><USER4> Well, even the members of the U.S. military tend to find that over-the-top, it's not just you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If western countries had enough balls to stand up against the US demands, maybe it would not turn into such a bully. It's our indifference that led us to wars, drones, surveillance, etc. Not a single country would be allowed to act this way.

<comment><USER16> Apparently we are sharing data with Australia and Britain so likely many others too. They don't need to spy on their populations when we will do it for them and give them the data.

<comment><USER17> Apparently this has been common since at least the cold war.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great!

Many countries have bowed to US demands in the last years due to threat of losing trade benefits.

After the Australian Prime Minister agreed to (illegally) send troops into Iraq with Dubya, 16 US Trade Negotiators came to Australia within a week and negotiated previously unseen trade deals to benefit Australia. When questioned directly about this, the Australian Prime Minister shrugged and said "What was I going to do?"

After living in South America for a year, I'm very excited to see those countries develop more and more, and reject US rule and meddling more and more.

<comment><USER18> "...and reject US rule and meddling more and more."

As an American, I have to agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The best part:

"In a cheeky jab at the U.S. spying program that Snowden unveiled through leaks to the media, the South American nation offered $23 million per year to finance human rights training."

</comment><comment><USER20> Ecuador will have no problem finding buyers for oil, its main export. But flower and fruit merchants will suffer consequences.

<comment><USER21> Correct. More sales to Canada.

<comment><USER22> I don't know about you, but I'm calling flower merchants and buying Fair-Trade Ecuadorian flowers.

Facebook needs some "Made in Ecuador" stickers methinks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Right, screw over thousands of merchants and workers in your country so a few at the top can make names for themselves as "rebels" ... does that sound like leftism or being "for the people?" What exactly does giving up all this to house Snowden do for the average Ecuadorian? It increases the profile of the leadership, but that's about it.

<comment><USER7> You seem to be assuming that if the US doesn't buy those flowers then no one will and they'll just rot. That seems unlikely. Given that they've also offered $23m for Human Right's training It seems likely they can afford to lose the $23m since they're effectively doubling that 'loss'.

Is it grandstanding? sure, but if you agree with human rights it is exactly the right kind of grandstanding.

Also, I have no problem with people considering themselves _humans_ before they consider themselves members of a nation-state, even government officials of a nation-state.

<comment><USER24> > You seem to be assuming that if the US doesn't buy those flowers then no one > will and they'll just rot. That seems unlikely.

At the margin, it seems incredibly likely. You don't cut yourself off from the largest wealthiest market in the hemisphere and continue to sell exactly as many flowers as before at exactly as high a price...

<comment><USER7> Obviously we don't know the details of the agreement so we can't actually know much of anything. Presumably the government itself isn't buying the flowers so I'd assume its more of free trade kind of deal so no tariffs or lesser tariffs are imposed on Ecuadorean imports.

The removal of the agreement wouldn't then be embargo/sanctions, it would mean normally trade that other countries conduct with the US. So the price for US importers would increase and so at the margin as you rightly point out there would be _some_ loss of profit and _some_ loss of sales. We don't know how much though, and we don't know if those could be replaced by other purchasers and if so at at what price reduction.

In any event it wouldn't be a loss of $23m a realistic estimate might be closer to 10% of that so around $2-3m. For a country with $5bn in oil exports that's chump change and given that its a leftist government any local workers that suffer will probably be have a decent social safety net in place until they get back on their feet.

<comment><USER24> > In any event it wouldn't be a loss of $23m a realistic estimate might be > closer to 10% of that so around $2-3m.

? Where are you getting this $23m from? The article says that they export to the USA "$166 million of cut flowers". 10% of that would be $16.6 million, not $2 million...

<comment><USER7> I'm getting it from the article...

 _In a cheeky jab at the U.S. spying program that Snowden unveiled through leaks to the media, the South American nation offered $23 million per year to finance human rights training.

The funding would be destined to help "avoid violations of privacy, torture and other actions that are denigrating to humanity," Alvarado said. He said the amount was the equivalent of what Ecuador gained each year from the trade benefits._

<comment><USER24> Then you have no reason to be adjusting the official figures by 10x: $23m is a perfectly plausible estimate of gains on an existing $166m industry.

<comment><USER7> Correct, on re-reading the article the $23m is the value offered for HR training, which is apparently somehow equivalent to the value of the economic benefit Ecuador gains from the agreement - so presumably they already did the relevant math to get to that number.

I'm not sure the $23m applies only to the flower industry - it reads like it applies to the value of the total agreement to Ecuador. - I do mention upthread that without actually knowing the details of the agreement we're all just speculating.

But you asked where I got $23m from... and the answer was the article.

and my larger point still stands anyway... Ecuador apparently sell $5 billion in oil to the US... BILLION not million. A loss of $23million is still chump change. A loss of $230m probably wouldn't affect much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I just tried going to Amazon.com and searching for "Ecuador crafts". I have several birthday presents to buy over the next few months, and I am thinking that craft items from Ecuador might be things people will enjoy.

I consider myself a patriotic USA citizen, but our government's cracking down on whistle blowers in the last 4 or 5 years has really gone too far. Our laws + punishments for whistle blowers is way out of whack with the rest of the world (I think the crimes Snowden is accused of carry a maximum sentence of 2 years in the UK, and less in most other European countries).

</comment><comment><USER26> Just browsing wikipedia, it seems that the man riding in on his white horse has sent journalists to prison for writing unflattering editorials about him.

<comment><USER27> that's why he said "mercantile interests" and not "political interests". It is such an odd choice for the president, while the US does engage in blatant and unethical mercantile coercion around the world, the snowden case is one where the US' sins are almost purely political, and its actions are coming at a cost to its economic position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Where is this offer for human rights training? Googling only shows me references to the Reuters link.

Has anyone seen an Ecuadorian press release?

</comment><comment><USER29> This plus this [0] point towards the US having given up trying to get Snowden. Maybe Wikileaks has won this one.

[0] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/obama-edward- sno...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/obama-edward-snowden- wheeling-dealing)

</comment><comment><USER30> Bold and classy of them not to cave in to American terror.

</comment><comment><USER31> As a citizen and long-time resident of US, I hereby accept Ecuador's offer for human rights aid.

<comment><USER32> A personal check would be appreciated, but I can use with bags of them as well. :)

<comment><USER31> If only justice could be bought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Forget the Ecuadorean response, WTF with the US response to the Ecuadorean response? Trade is _mutually_ beneficial, idiots.

</comment><comment><USER34> great. now the us is going to find a way to fuck up another south american country.

</comment><comment><USER35> I kind of love Ecuador for that move.

</comment><comment><USER36> <Grumpy Cat Meme> Good! </Grumpy Cat Meme></comment>


Trying to Make Ubuntu 18.10 Run as Fast as Intel's Clear Linux - <AUTHOR> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu1810-fast-clear&num=1 <comment><USER2> [https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu18...](https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu1810-fast- clear&num=1)</comment>


Building a Better Submission Form - <AUTHOR> http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/building-a-better-submission-form/

<comment><USER2> Besides the scalability of non-relational data stores, would the increased flexibility in object creation and modification be enough of a reason to make the switch? Would object-relational mapping be a comparable solution?

<comment><USER3> It depends :)

If your data doesn't lend itself to an RDB schema, go with a NoSql/key value store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is a great example of a form mapping more cleanly to a key value store than a relational DB. Submissions to forms like this are documents in the sense that they need to be recorded as-is. If the user moves or changes their name down the line its actually a feature and not a bug that these records won't be updated.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nifty, but I could see this causing aggravation on the backend (i.e. using the data from one generation of your form to another). Still, very flexible.

</comment><comment><USER6> Entirely typical for the industry, they waste untold developer hours dicking around with a single feature when the could have just installed an open source CMS and gotten the feature (and all kinds of other stuff) as part of the package. Grade: D

<comment><USER7> Yea, cause the New York Times could totally run off a simple Drupal install...

Grade: F

<comment><USER8> I have no idea why you're getting so many upvotes. I have yet to see anything about NYTimes.com that would preclude it running on Drupal. It seems to be working for whitehouse.gov, fastcompany.com, thenation.com, economist.com, and quite a few other high traffic sites.

EDIT: And I also have done Drupal development for several high-traffic magazine and newspaper sites that get millions of monthly visitors.

<comment><USER9> I spent some time at the NYT. I've also spent some time working with Drupal.

Scaling Drupal is somewhat proven, and it seems to work for those sites. But, according to compete.com, the traffic figures (uniques) for March 2010 are:

        nytimes.com: 14,008,884
        whitehouse.gov: 1,878,251
        fastcompany.com: 1,537,072
        thenation.com: 491,232
        economist.com: 400,613

That is, nytimes.com gets almost 7.5 times the traffic as whitehouse.gov, and almost 35 times the traffic of economist.com. Oh, also, don't forget about.com, which, at 40,511,000 uniques in March 2010, has almost 2.9 times the traffic of nytimes.com.

So, there's that. Then, the NYT has some ... unique requirements. Drupal just doesn't cut it for various the reasons, the clearest of which is the need to support all the non-tech-savvy journos and editors who actually create the gargantuan amount of content published by nytimes.com. There is a reason a custom CMS was written.

<comment><USER8> Color me skeptical. Please explain how the technology for scaling to several million visitors won't cut it for several tens of millions? And do you really think that the other sites have editors and journalists that are any more tech savvy than NYT's are? Drupal is completely flexible and configurable, on both the public side and the CMS side.

I'm not arguing that Drupal is the best choice for NYTimes.com, but it's very doable, and hardly the ridiculous option that the OP made it out to be.

<comment><USER10> I should also point out that the Times CMS has needs beyond just publishing a web site.

A short list of points to consider are a sprawling detailed and curated taxonomy, aggressive editorial publishing schedules, community integration, feed generation for partners, topics, venues, articles, various multimedia types (slideshow, interactive, audio, video, audio slideshows...)

I could (but won't) go on. No CMS on the market or from the open-source community meet the very unique set of needs (as well as the ones you can't predict).

I moved elsewhere in the company from the CMS group as this was playing out. Previously we'd used a highly customized version of FatWire's CMS which wasn't sufficient for current and future needs.

Hope that helps clarify things.

(Hi bkudria, sorry I missed you at GoogleIO)

<comment><USER6> I can't resist the temptation.

"Detailed and curated taxonomy" - supported in Drupal core "Aggressive editorial publishing schedules" - Workflow module "Community integration" - OpenID, Facebook Connect, Organic Groups... "feed generation" - Views module "topics, venues, articles, various multimedia types" - CCK for the data entry and storage, Views + custom templating for the display.

<comment><USER10> All fair points... but not sufficient as I said :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DRM enabled Google to have an open source browser still under its control - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2019/05/29/hoarding-software-freedom.html <comment><USER3> A majority of websites doesn't use the EME DRM. It's Netflix and some other streaming portals. Any Chrome fork would work with almost all web sites beyond those few.

And with the new edge, there even will be a Chrome fork that supports EME DRM as well, and most likely it will support higher resolutions than Chrome itself as it's using OS built in DRM mechanisms that the studios love.

DRM is not the source of Google's control over Chrome. They use a different mechanism: manpower. They have an insane amount of developers working on Chrome, constantly changing it. Any smaller project forking Chrome and changing some major part won't be able to keep up with the changes unless they upstream. And ultimately, Google employees have control over what gets upstreamed and which contribution gets rejected.

<comment><USER4> Are you aware of Widevine being Alphabet/Google property?

<comment><USER3> Yes, Google owns Widevine. But if they really wanted to hurt browsers that don't have EME, they'd deploy DRM to all youtube videos, including the free ones and maybe even offer other DRM types like DRM'd text and DRM'd photographs and use them in their web services.

<comment><USER5> >But if they really wanted to hurt browsers that don't have EME, they'd deploy DRM to all youtube videos,

Can they just add DRM to content they do not own? They could likely work something out, but the problems may outweigh the benefit they would gain.

<comment><USER6> Google certainly owns the right to transmit Youtube videos to users however they see fit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the blame needs to be directed at the video streaming companies, not at Google. Can you go to Netflix and just download a .mp4 of their latest show? Nope. That's on them, not Google. If Netflix cared about a cross-browser experience or open standards, the tools are available to them.

With that in mind, they should really hire someone that has access to Usenet or a private Bittorrent tracker. All of Netflix's shows are available for free in 4k there. Google sold them DRM that doesn't actually work. Netflix paid their employees millions of dollars to have meetings and develop code to work with the idea in mind that Google's magic beans would save their content from piracy. It didn't work, though.

You should be mad at Netflix. Netflix should be mad at Google. But everyone just carries on like everything is great. It's weird.

<comment><USER8> This is wrong on so many levels. First off, everyone at Netflix knew that DRM wouldn't stop piracy. They knew what Bittorrent was after all. Google didn't sell Netflix anything. Netflix _does_ care about cross browser experience. But you know who doesn't?

The content owners. They wouldn't sign contracts without DRM, because for some reason _they_ think DRM works. Or at least it stops the causal pirates. The ones who would just do a Save As...

And before anyone goes down the "well why isn't Netflix's originals DRM free?" road, for one, Netflix doesn't make those, other studios make them and then sell it to Netflix exclusively, so once again, it's up to the movie studios as to what goes into their contracts. And secondly, even for the stuff Netflix makes itself, the entire streaming infrastructure is set up for DRM. It would actually be really complicated to offer just a couple of items DRM free, with lots of if/then code branches.

Disclaimer: I worked at Netflix but this is all my own opinion, not the company's.

<comment><USER9> "They wouldn't sign contracts without DRM, because for some reason they think DRM works"

DRM absolutely works, just like the 'war on drugs' actually works.

If Netflix allowed mp4's of content to be downloaded, and there were 'no DRM' in the world, there'd be an explosion of 'piracy' (or pick a nicer word). 'Not paying for anything' would be absolutely normative. Netflix would not have a business model, neither would the creators who make stuff for Netflix. Just as if opioids were freely available, your mother who just had jaw surgery and took '3 pills' might want a few more, and a few more, and a few more ... and most of your little cousins at Uni would experiment, and probably one of them would become addicted to the 'Heroin Cola' or 'Heroin Cigarettes' or 'Heroin Vape' or 'Heroin Cookies' that are available every corner store and advertised heavily. Everyone, at some time in their lives would be victim to opioids, it'd cause problems. So they are illegal, and controlled, and you need a prescription in some cases, and the availability is very narrow for most people, they don't have ready access, the legal consequences are rough, and so 'most people' never bother.

The game of 'DRM' (and hard drugs) is not to 'stop all' so-called piracy, it's to keep a limit on it.

This is a game of Supply and Demand, not a game of absolutes.

As it stands, in 2019 - if you want to watch films, you pretty much have to pay HBO, Netflix, Cable, iTunes for most high quality stuff.

'Bit Torrent' for example, is a fairly ugly experiential barrier for consumers, and it helps prove that DRM works - not the other way around. 'Bit Torrent' is way beyond most people's material capability, moreover, you kind of have to really look for stuff, know where to find it, possibly wait forever for stuff to download, you expose yourself to all sorts of creepy stuff and spyware - it's a 'bad experience'.

The state of DRM today is that it's not exactly easy or convenient for regular people to get a copy of the latest Avengers in decent quality - the evidence for this is easy: because they are paying for it (otherwise they would not).

Of course, the economic realities of that system can't be ignored either: if there is no money, there is very little content.

Podcasts and a lot of decent music would survive, but anything that required production wouldn't.

As for Google, Netflix et. al. - they are 'all in on it'. We can't point the finger at one point in the value chain.

Google does things because entities like Netflix will need it.

Netflix does it because content producers need it.

Content creators need it because they have to pay writers, directors, actors, set designers, and of course take a big risk every time as most content that's made flubs.

I understand ideals such as 'freedom of information' etc., this is fine, we should always be talking about DRM, but the level of cognitive dissonance on this issue is painful.

It's very expensive, and very risky to make such content, and frankly, there are very few making huge money from it. If we want that stuff, we have to pay for it. There's no way around that.

Edit: I worked with the music industry in developing a content delivery system (it didn't work out). Yes, it was shocking the level naivte and lack of understanding going on there, which is partly why we dropped the project. There were (and continue to be) some really difficult things about that industry that made it ready for destruction (among other things). Specifically how the unions have worked out their 'rev-share' agreements with respect to minimum revenue per song, etc.. Instead of % rev-share, they have hard minimums like 15-25 cents for certain entities (i.e. writers/composers - <USER2> was 10 years ago I fail to remember the group). This poses some ugly realities on price points, but also 'bundling' of music. I suggest that the 'real market value' of most songs, even in a 'fully DRM'd world' is much less than $1. Because of those 'ancient' pacts written by the Moses's of Music Industry, which nobody seems to have enough leverage to influence - it's nary impossible to sell or distribute music cheaply back in the day. If the labels, writers, composers, performers had of 'adapted their model' it's possible they may not have been wiped out, granted, as I noted below, music is different than video.

We have to look at Google's decision in the context of the entire value chain: points of consumption, distributors, producers, and the various creators etc..

<comment><USER9> .responding to jedberg

1) "Look at Portugal"

Ahh, yes, the Portugal example.

I'm sorry but _selling drugs is illegal_ in Portugal.

Do you think that you can import a ton of heroin willy nilly and 'it's call cool'?

The 'example of Portugal' continues to prove my point!

Portugal has taken some nice steps towards how to handle addicts etc, but fundamentally - Portugal continues it's 'war on drugs' with a slightly different tool set.

By the way: weed is still illegal in Portugal.

2) Music.

The music industry as we know it almost vanished, and it's taken on a completely different form.

The same has not happened in video content production.

Madonna (and others) abandoned trying to make money from sales, and they moved to 'touring' instead - because of privacy.

Do you see Brad Pitt at your local theatre 'because he can't make money in film or TV'?

No.

So 'DRM' is working in video, the industry is alive - the obvious reasons have to do with the nature of how we consume music, vs. how we consume video.

And it's not a happy story for content-creators in music. 'Making a living' in music is really hard, and they've been pushed into all sorts of commercial activities.

Thankfully - music production is not hugely expensive. A 'great album' can theoretically be made very cheaply - so we'll continue to get great music.

'Avengers' will cost $300M to make there is no way around it.

The level of cognitive dissonance on this issue is stupefying.

Again - I understand that there's elements of issues of freedom, and there are also many studio execs who are deluded, some are greedy - but there are real factors at play here that cannot be denied.

<comment><USER10> Thankyou for making these arguments. Anti-DRM groupthink in geek communities has always been one of the more grating aspects of the software world. Video game producers have detailed data on how DRM protects their sales - they can literally see their sales curve tank the moment a crack comes out, and they can see the sales return to normal when the cracks are patched. Movie studios have similar data. They also know that protections will be broken and then repaired, but it's a simple financial calculation - is the impact on sales greater than the cost of developing and repairing the DRM? Yes? Then they do it. And who can blame them, they're just being rational economic actors.

<comment><USER9> It becomes apparent the moment one is on the 'other side of the equation'.

You make an app, stuff gets stolen, you feel very legitimately aggrieved, and then the logic starts to add up more clearly.

I think the true 'market clearing price' for a lot of content is much less than what Hollywood thinks. Especially films in the theatre, but by enlarge, everyone making such content is taking a big risk. I think many directors and producers should earn more than baseball players who earn _ridiculous_ amounts of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Google's massive browser market share has opened the door to some ugly things. I can't help but shake my head whenever I come across a "Chrome only" SaaS startup.

</comment><comment><USER12> I may have the minority opinion here, but I don't even think DRM should be in web browsers, rather, use vendor provided apps to consume Netflix, Google Play Movies, Hulu, etc.

On mobile, I prefer using web versions of services and not using apps. I make an exception when consuming content that I pay for.

The web should be free and unencumbered.

</comment><comment><USER13> Always surprised how few people realize this. Yes, on a random OS with no binary builds by Google I can have the Chromium browser. It does not have the ability to watch Netflix, though. To get that you need to run a Linux binary chrome in a Linux API translator.

</comment><comment><USER13> The other large binary blob in the non-opensource builds, apart from DRM, is the wifi network detection module.

It will look at what wifi networks are close to you, and Google finds out your physical location that way without your computer having a GPS chip or a cellphone network chip (Google has the full database of the center of gravity for every wifi network from the streetview cars, so the information of which network is how strong for your computer allows location by something like +- 10 meters).

<comment><USER14> This is concerning; do you have any reference or sources?

<comment><USER13> Using wifi networks around a device is Google's standard, low-power way to determine a device's location. In a cellphone it is used so that you don't have to fire up the power-hungry GPS chip.

Since they built the entire infrastructure and database of wifi access points and locations (by scanning from the streetview vehicles and syncing with GPS) they also use it for the desktop browsers.

Which if you legitimately need the location of a "desktop" (which here includes Laptops) would be a nice way to go. It's just a bit of an unclear situation with regards to consent, especially informed consent.

(this is not to be confused with Chrome's private API chrome.networkingPrivate, which is used by the device owner to be able to pick and configure wifi networks without leaving Chrome)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Although it's limited, there is still a chance of competition. This prevents pure open source browsers, but it doesn't prevent a large software company from forking Chromium and adding DRM themselves (as Microsoft is doing).</comment>


Apple follows Dells Customize and Ship model. New MBPs start at $1999 - <AUTHOR> http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC372LL/A?mco=MTc0Njg1ODg <comment><USER2> Huh? I didn't see anything that hasn't been done in the Apple store for the last 5+ years.

</comment><comment><USER3> I mean...$1999? Wtf...</comment>


Scientists say free will probably doesn't exist, but urge: Don't stop believing  - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/ <comment><USER2> I usually side with the scientists when they go up against philosophy; but in this case Daniel Dennett's compatibilist position has already taken the scientific evidence into account and come up with a coherent definition and prescriptive advice.

For the free-will-related question of blame, I think this essay is a far more sophisticated and useful examination of it: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/)</comment>


Noise Pollution Is Making the Oceans Unbearable for Underwater Life - <AUTHOR> https://howwegettonext.com/noise-pollution-is-making-the-oceans-unbearable-for-underwater-life-13c4529e5a <comment><USER2> Part of me hopes that the continued drive to reduce fuel costs on shipping eventually results in a resurgence of sailing vessels to ship things across the ocean without noise or greenhouse gas emissions.

<comment><USER3> Here you go. Sails for modern shipping. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/14/spinning- sail-reboot-cut-fuel-make-ocean-tankers-greener)

<comment><USER4> amp-free link: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/14/spinning...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/14/spinning- sail-reboot-cut-fuel-make-ocean-tankers-greener)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like the Open Office noise pollution problem...</comment>


IMAP connections from Microsoft IP addresses when using Outlook - <AUTHOR> https://serverfault.com/questions/949420/imap-connections-from-microsoft-ip-addresses-when-using-outlook <comment></comment>


"Project Eternity" Gas Powered Games' next-gen cloud Modding Tool & Web platform - <AUTHOR>

Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games (Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, Dungeon Siege) introduces their upcoming Web platform & cloud based Mod Tool - "Project Eternity" (http://youtu.be/kuGdQqUhKD4)<p>They're currently running a kickstarter for a game (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaspoweredgames/wildman-an-evolutionary-action-rpg) that integrates this tool. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickables:

"Project Eternity" video: <http://youtu.be/kuGdQqUhKD4>

Gas Powered Games' Kickstarter: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaspoweredgames/wildman...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaspoweredgames/wildman- an-evolutionary-action-rpg)

<comment><USER2> Reminded me of this: <http://vimeo.com/36579366></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you in the path of Hurricane Irma? What are you doing to prepare? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Irma devastated St Thomas, my home while I was off island. My residence was lucky but many are without homes, the roads are covered in debre including live power lines. The hospital has been ruined. Streets flooded. The BVI is just as bad. The island still has very little communication. It took 50+ hours to hear from the people who bunkered at my house which happened to have a concrete roof. The grid is down and it sounds like it will take months to get it back up. Those who do have generators will most likely run out of fuel soon. I've heard of only one operational gas station.

If anyone has any contacts that could help send supplies we have a few jets leaving from NYC Monday. Solar generators, power walls, anything like that.</comment>


Assembly is a way for people around the world to collectively build startups - <AUTHOR> https://assembly.com/ <comment><USER2> Assembly is a very ambitious name for a startup about coding. It's like naming a startup Java or Ruby.

<comment><USER3> Or it could be: the action of gathering together as a group for a common purpose.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good alternatives to Rapportive? - <AUTHOR>

Rapportive was one of those must have tools that went out of service. I've tried a bunch and gave up. Some chrome extensions are buggy and for others the UX is a mess.<p>What's a good alternative? <comment><USER2> fullcontact.com has some accuracy in there searches. They are not free, and it is not a consumer facing company though.</comment>


A guaranteed income for every American would eliminate poverty - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5925041/guaranteed-income-basic-poverty-gobry-labor-supply

<comment><USER2> What are the thoughts of current mainstream economists on "basic income" proposals?</comment>


30 Billion More For AIG - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/business/02aigweb.html

<comment><USER2> Funny that AIG has been advertising for years about their reliability. "AIG: It's in our nature to help things grow."

[http://open.salon.com/blog/designanator/2008/11/13/old_aig_a...](http://open.salon.com/blog/designanator/2008/11/13/old_aig_ads_seen_with_new_irony_today)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why don't they just hold pull out whips and make us slave for them? It would make this a lot less embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hurray for change in Washington!</comment>


'Free solo' climber conquers Yosemite's El Capitan without rope, safety gear - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/03/free-solo-climber-conquers-yosemites-el-capitan-without-rope-safety-gear/102461868/ <comment><USER2> What a wonderful, wonderful headline.

As opposed to the usual clickbait: "This happened today on Yosemite's El Capitan".

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree. I was expecting something like "Free form climber cheats death on Yosemite's El Capitan".</comment></comment>


Social Lunch: a new way of networking for Japan's tech-workers - <AUTHOR> http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia-pacific/2012/05/20125121028975216.html

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

The Facebook app 'Social Lunch' uses the social networking site to pair people with common interests in the same location for lunch with one another in hopes of expanding their business networks.

In the six months since its initial launch, Social Lunch has gained over 35,000 members and organised 2,500 social lunches throughout Japan.</comment>


A Racket Perspective on Research, Education, and Production - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN0qG-i1iT0 <comment><USER2> I really enjoyed this talk, and not just because I like Racket. Academics rarely talk about how they manage to build the infrastructure they need to support their research and teaching and how they reconcile that with the other demands they face. This goes beyond computer science as well.</comment>


Blockchain Wiki: The Many Colorful Faces of Blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://blockgeeks.com/guides/blockchain-wiki/ <comment><USER2> How about Boscoin's Modified Federated Byzantine Agreement? Does anyone know how it relates to POS? I was not able to understand it.

<comment><USER3> Federated consensus decouples trust from resource ownership and requires no assumptions about the rational behavior of attackers. Boscoin's consensus protocol is "modified" from Stellar's in that nodes form clusters and validate with their close peers first; it's faster but there's still the problem that there's only one central blockchain - all validations have to propagate eventually to all nodes.</comment></comment>


Maxko87's auto-submitter for ExtremeTech stories - <AUTHOR> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wMnxadUXbcIJ:https://github.com/maxko87/hn-submit+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

<comment><USER2> Gaming the system, well done. The reason this works is that there is no punishment for stories that no one cares about.

You could literally submit the internet as it was created to HN and all you get are points.

<comment><USER3> You also get banned.

<comment><USER2> Is it right to assume that you are a mod based on the fact that you have no down arrow?

edit: Ah, thanks benologist :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You can't downvote direct replies to yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=maxko87></comment>