Ask HN: Are there any programmable 'feature' phones? - <AUTHOR> The big attraction for me with smartphones was the ability to write my own programs on them. While this is still true (less true for iOS, but that's my opinion) there are issues with smartphones that I don't want to deal with (privacy, software bloat etc.). Admittedly, the term 'feature phone' is a little vague but I'm referring to a device with minimal internet and multimedia capabilities but not to the to the extent of smartphones - a poor man's smartphone, if you will.<p>Is there a programmable feature phone which has smartphone level programmability (hopefully more) and an open OS to hack on? <comment><USER2> I mean--"programmable feature phone with smartphone level programmability" is a contradiction in terms, but there are tons of Symbian devices and tons more that run J2ME.

If you want more than that, you're looking at a smartphone. Just not one you have to install much on.

<comment><USER3> Err Symbian was/is a smartphone platform...

<comment><USER4> There are loads of phones from before the iPhone that could play music and run j2me apps that nobody considers 'smartphones'. I wrote apps that ran on the Sony Ericcson T610 but that still gets called a 'cameraphone'.

<comment><USER3> I know and it grinds my gears all the time. Hell, when the iphone first shipped it was more featurephone than smartphone. But the MSM decided that because there is a touchscreen, there is a smartphone...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just get a device which is supported by one of the alternative Android distributions, build a stripped-down image for the thing and install it. As Android is built on top of a somewhat idiosyncratic Linux base the environment should be recognisable to anyone used to such. You can leave out any code you don't want to have on the thing, add things you do want (e.g. _iptables_ configured before the network goes up, etc).

Using a "feature phone" with "minimal internet and multimedia capabilities" would give a false sense of privacy as the limited feature set does not negate the possibility of the device leaking all sorts of info to the outside. After all, "minimal internet" is still internet and as such can connect to anything out there. Given that even the most limited IoT-device can leak information to its true masters, a "feature phone" is hog heaven for someone looking to eavesdrop on unsuspecting users.

</comment><comment><USER6> You could build yourself an Arduino Phone.

Here's such a build, but Googling "Arduino Phone" will get you many iterations:

[http://www.instructables.com/id/ArduinoPhone-20-an-Open- Sour...](http://www.instructables.com/id/ArduinoPhone-20-an-Open-Source- Mobile-Phone-Based-/)

<comment><USER7> On a similar wavelength there's the rasberry pi phone: [http://www.davidhunt.ie/piphone-a-raspberry-pi-based- smartph...](http://www.davidhunt.ie/piphone-a-raspberry-pi-based-smartphone/) .

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well there's SailfishOs, which just got officially ported to Xperia X. I own a Jolla phone, which was the first to run this OS. It is open source, and I have to say quite hackable, even though I haven't tried to make any apps. Something that I find pretty cool is the fact that you can ssh into it if you enable developer mode, and you basically have a linux machine. The downsides are that the company is no longer making phones, and that there are not that many native apps for it. The upside is that it supports android 4.1.2 apps, so you are going to be covered for the most part.

<comment><USER9> Those are smartphones by anyone's definition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hunt on ebay for a crappy old Windows CE based phone? I've had several (before Android was a thing) and you can program in many languages on them (providing you can still find the apps - I've still got a local repository somewhere). Also the original version of Visual Studio.NET and VS 2005 both supported Windows CE as a target so you could program apps in c# and copy them over.

Windows CE on phones was marketed as 'Windows Mobile' and the latest version was 6.5:

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=window+mobile+6.5&hl=en&tb...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=window+mobile+6.5&hl=en&tbm=isch)

</comment><comment><USER11> ZeroPhone [0] matches your requirements. It's DYI, but there's a crowdfunded campaign coming soon [1].

[0] [http://wiki.zerophone.org/index.php/Main_Page](http://wiki.zerophone.org/index.php/Main_Page) [1] [https://www.crowdsupply.com/arsenijs/zerophone](https://www.crowdsupply.com/arsenijs/zerophone)

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe get an old smartphone, specifically a Nokia E-series running on the S60 platform. They can run J2ME and C++ apps, as well as Python scripts that can interact with the APIs (networking, camera, accelerometer, etc). And you could install Opera Mobile, which was actually a pretty good browser. Plus a full QWERTY keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER13> If privacy is an issue for you then build your own phone using a raspi [https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/piphone-home-made- raspberry...](https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/piphone-home-made-raspberry-pi- smartphone/)

<comment><USER3> And since that one was made, there is now the RPiZeroW that has wifi and bluetooth built right in.

Surprised there is no phone kit for it already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Try Tizen OS? Open source and the Z2 phone is so cheap! It's really a smart phone with a different OS though...

Not sure if it's still happening but Samsung had some developer bonuses for apps, so could be lucrative (in the short term)

</comment><comment><USER15> Probably Librem 5 would suit, but it is still in development.

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

</comment><comment><USER9> If privacy and software bloat are your concers, have a look at CopperheadOS. It's very slim and offers good privacy. Battery life is incredible!

</comment><comment><USER16> Can you get one of the google phones and flash them with AOSP?

</comment><comment><USER17> Why not Ubuntu Touch/UBPorts?

<comment><USER18> You would need to get a Nexus 5, which is still hard to get below $100 and the price will probably keep high due to UBPorts keeping demand up.</comment></comment>


A DNS hijacking wave is targeting companies at an almost unprecedented scale - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/01/a-dns-hijacking-wave-is-targeting-companies-at-an-almost-unprecedented-scale/ <comment><USER2> The "clever trick" seems to be:

 _previously compromised the login credentials for the administration panel of the target's DNS provider_

or

 _previously compromised domain registrar or ccTLD_

Unless I'm missing something, given either of those things, doesn't take much cleverness...

<comment><USER3> It's some kind of alarmism over letsencrypt ... "letsencrypt will give tricky attackers a valid certificate for a domain!!!" (if they get control over the domain) (... certs have almost always been granted based on control of the domain, though historically it mostly MX records ... so attackers could do pretty much the same thing 15 years ago)

<comment><USER4> I believe this is why letsencrypt certs are only valid for 3 months. Personally, I'd like it monthly.

<comment><USER5> I was under the impression that it was more to get admins to automate the issuance and have it auto renew than manually issue and forget and let the cert expire.

If I have control of a dns or register control panel I can use any of the other free ssl certs out there for an attack.

Comodo Will give you a valid cert for 90 days as a trial, others will give you 30 days. AWS cert manager (ok iirc I can only use those within AWS but the point still stands. And if I'm being naughty it's not gonna be hard to acquire a few stolen CC to bill my AWS usage too) will give you a year. All for free. WooSign / StarCom used to issue free 1 year certs (I think wooSign might still do but they are issued by another CA).

<comment><USER6> This also fixes certificates lasting too long after domains change hands, allows faster deployment of certs with fixes and other new tech. There are many benefits to short expiry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's why I placed this Ask HN a while ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17704828](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17704828)

I pitched that idea at startup school, and got accepted. However, after a while I pivoted to something else, as I decided that the name registry and DNS market is just too crowded. I was afraid that we'd be spending 99% of the time and budget on convincing people they need secure domain/DNS management, instead of building the technology.

<comment><USER8> Security could be an advantage for a variety of online services. When selecting an online service, I'm starting to use U2F 2FA support as a way to narrow the list of services to consider, so making a decision is easier. Few domain name registrars offer U2F from what I can tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Note that these attacks involve _compromised accounts with authority servers_ , so despite being the most visible and impactful DNS attacks of the last few years, DNSSEC would have done little to defend against them; in fact, even in the DNSSEC fantasy-world where DANE replaces X.509 CAs, these attackers would still have accomplished their goals.

<comment><USER10> after reading the headline I immediately thought of "14 DNS Nerds Don't Control the Internet" [0].

[0] [https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2016/10/27/14-dns-nerds-dont- con...](https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2016/10/27/14-dns-nerds-dont-control-the- internet/)

<comment> wav-part Much better than (CA0 || CA1 || ... ). All it takes is one CA out of 10s of independent CAs to misbehave to insecure whole tls.

In DNSSEC/DANE, world only has to watch one entity rather than 10s of entities.

<comment><USER9> No. You have to trust _all the CAs_ , _and_ the governments that control the DNS.

[https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html](https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html)

<comment> wav-part > No. You have to trust all the CAs, and the governments that control the DNS.

Not in DNSSEC. .xxx need only trust dnsroot. yyy.xxx need only trust .yyy and dnsroot.

firefox/chrome/etc with support from important orgs with high value names (google.com/bankofamerica.com/etc) would then make sure that dnsroot/.com/etc do not abuse the trust. They have incentive and methods of punishment. There is no legal authority that clients need to map DNS . to existing root keys. A client can map a.b.c to any key it wants.

The risk of gov overreach is same for both tls and DNSSEC. DNSSEC just trusts fewer entities. The only people who benefit from current system, are CAs who are getting $$$ for nothing.

> > [https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html](https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html)

This is orthogonal. Weak Keys are not required or implied characterstic of DNSSEC.

<comment><USER11> If browsers start mapping cert trust to something besides the DNS roots... it's not DNSSEC, it's something else entirely, it's "our current system, maybe with some slight tweaks"

<comment> wav-part I am not suggesting every client do their own mapping, that is not a naming system at all. There has to be very large consenus for a naming system to be effective. I just pointed that out to show that dns is not under any gov control. Its under a control of an entity that can be punished.

However who gets to have dnsroot is just a value of a config in DNSSEC. The value itself should not be used to criticize DNSSEC cause its changeable.

<comment><USER11> How do you punish .com if they misbehave? Move every site off .com?

<comment> wav-part No. You just map .com to another key with an agreement that new .com owner pre signs and map existing .com subs _the right way_. An unaware xxx.com does not need to do anything. As long as its done publically with a bang and enough consensus, disruption should be minimal.

Again this is unavoidable in any system that need trust. Thats why I like PoW DNS.

<comment><USER9> Who is "you"? The people we're afraid of manipulating .COM control the DNS. Google can't "map .com to another key". Their option would be to _leave .COM_ ; that is the gun DNSSEC would give to the USG to hold against Google's head.

<comment> wav-part You is firefox/chrome/etc. Yes you can. The ownership of .com is not as exclusive/protected as .xxx or xxx.com. Thus the firefox/chrome/etc can map it to anyone they feel. Considering so many high value .com subnames, .com can be transferred to neutral party or even dnsroot. USG do not own ".com" string. No one does. Just like ".".

<comment><USER9> Your claim here is that a browser vendor could somehow fork the DNS and use its own .COM? Explain how that could possibly work.

<comment> wav-part Anyone can fork DNS. Its just a (name, key) map. As long as its done with __enough consensus __, it can be done. Mismanagement of .com is serious enough to demand that kind of change.

Lets say .com gets mismanaged. Community is infurious. firefox/chrome/etc demands that . remap .com to new more trustable entity. If . does not. firefox/chrome/etc then remap . to new more trustable entity, because .com must be as trustable as ., because .com is that important. New . give back ownership of all tlds to their previous owners. Except for .com. .com goes to the more trustable entity as intended. New .com then does again similar import of all good xxx.com.

In this whole incident, no one loses the ownership of their names except for .com and possibly . .

Now no gov can touch *.com. Though its different for cctld. Those are owned by their respective govs. Same goes for gtld. But no one gets to mess with . .com .org .net.

<comment><USER11> It sounds like what you're proposing is for browser vendors to, in unison, overthrow IANA and the related organizations and stage a coup where they start running their own DNS root authority. And then claiming that this would happen without impact to end users / owners-of-individual-domains.

<comment> wav-part Browser vendors (specifically all DNS users) have the option. They can do it, if IANA fails at the job of being a dnsroot. Disruption is inversely proportional to consensus. If everyone do it, there is no disruption. Some disruption is unavoidable. Its fair price to pay for stable and solid global naming system.

Ultimately its about deciding who gets to own "x.y.z" string brand globally/contextlessly. World obviously need a single naming system. Either that or expect to have multiple owners to "google.com".

My suggestions are required otherwise why would someone build a global brand if ownership is not safe or guarnteed enough. Future is way more chaotic. Without crypto, a global naming system is not going to survive.

<comment><USER9> OK. I don't think we have to debate this any more. We can just leave it here: you think DNSSEC is a workable solution to our problems as long as the browsers can, if they ever need to, create their own alternate DNS for the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "almost unprecedented" implies that there was an earlier wave of DNS hijacking that was even larger (thus setting some kind of precedent). Was there such a precedent? And if so, I didn't see mention of it in the article.

</comment><comment><USER13> Source link: [https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat- research/2019/01/global-...](https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat- research/2019/01/global-dns-hijacking-campaign-dns-record-manipulation-at- scale.html)

<comment><USER14> > _The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center issued a > statement [1] that encouraged administrators to read the FireEye report._ > [2]

[1] [https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/current- activity/2019/01/10/DNS...](https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/current- activity/2019/01/10/DNS-Infrastructure-Hijacking-Campaign)

[2] [https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat- research/2019/01/global-...](https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat- research/2019/01/global-dns-hijacking-campaign-dns-record-manipulation-at- scale.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Via the article: "(FireEye) advised administrators to take a variety of measures, including:

* ensure they're using multifactor authentication to protect the domain's administration panel

* check that their A and NS records are valid

* search transparency logs for unauthorized TLS certificates covering their domains and

*conduct internal investigations to assess if networks have been compromised"

</comment><comment><USER16> "One DNS hijacking technique involves changing what's known as the DNS A record."

Could be any record, depends on the intentions of the hijacker. Typically we see web traffic being hijacked to another ipv4 host which indeed, is an A record. Another abuse option could be to alter SPF/DKIM to do a more sophisticated phishing campaign.

<comment><USER17> And because there are so many SPF records including SPF records including... you can be pretty undetectable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What ever happened to HPKP? It seems like that would somewhat mitigate these attacks since they rely on using their control over the domain to get a new DV cert. A pinned certificate would at least protect those who have accessed the sites before.

<comment> mh- Deprecated/killed.

[https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5903385005916160](https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5903385005916160)

<comment><USER19> If you're confused as to why, this article was illuminating: [https://scotthelme.co.uk/using-security-features-to-do- bad-t...](https://scotthelme.co.uk/using-security-features-to-do-bad-things/)

<comment><USER9> HPKP was underdesigned; it was a protocol evolution of something Google was already doing semi-manually. There was a competing initiative inside Google --- certificate transparency --- and that won out.

There's validity in the approach and I hope it comes back sometime, maybe with additional mechanism around managing pins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If an attacker can spoof your DNS records (or if they can simply man in the middle the connection between your server and the internet), then they can generate valid Let's Encrypt certificates.

If I had the time or inclination, I'd write a transparent https gateway that used let's encrypt to man-in-the-middle http and https connections to servers behind it.

You could imagine deploying something like that on the edge of AWS for mass surveillance purposes, or maybe a misguided white-hat could use it to "secure" http-only services (it's an improvement in a defeatist sort of way...)

<comment><USER21> For the MTM scenario, how would you convince letsencrypt's CA to issue you a cert for any domain? Don't you need to complete the challenge in order for the CA to issue you a cert?

<comment><USER22> You'd have to somehow redirect / spoof DNS responses to Let's Encrypt to fool them and make it look like you passed the challenge.

Not trivial, but far from impossible for as long as the world maintains that securing the DNS is pointless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is the problem with quickie SSL cert issuance from "Let's Encrypt". If it took 10 days of consistent domain resolution to get an SSL cert, this wouldn't be happening.

<comment><USER22> The attack is based on compromising control of the victim's domain.

What's to stop someone in control of a domain putting records up for 10 days? It'd still happen, just be a delay between compromising the domain and getting the cert is all.

<comment><USER23> Presumably the owner of the domain would notice if their site was diverted for ten days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is clever in that they evaded detection. But I've seen and been the victim of much more sophisticated DNS hijacks that didn't require any credentials.

</comment><comment><USER25> Could this be a big setback for "Let's Encrypt" since it uses DNS resolution for its own authentication instead of being a second factor?

<comment><USER26> All domain-validated certificates use factors you can control if you control the domain, whether email or web or DNS. This has nothing to do with Let's Encrypt.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, but it is a problem with domain-validated certificates in general that kinda defeats the purpose of SSL.

It seems most of the time that a web site is "hacked" (defaced) somebody changed the DNS instead of attacking the actual web server.

SSL signing can potentially be a second line of defense, but only if having control of the DNS (thus web and email) is insufficient to get a cert.

<comment><USER27> What are the alternatives?

About 20 years ago, I remember having to go through tons of hoops to get a certificate. Faxing corporate docs and other bureaucracy. That can all be forged.

<comment><USER28> \- TXT record: pointless if your DNS is hacked

\- CNAME record: pointless if your DNS is hacked

\- Put a file or add a meta-tag to HTML at a specific path: pointless if your DNS is hacked, they can just add/change A/AAAA record and host their own webserver

\- Email to webmaster@.. etc: pointless if your DNS is hacked, add MX record</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Autistic and Searching for a Home - <AUTHOR> http://blog.longreads.com/2014/12/24/autistic-and-searching-for-a-home/

<comment><USER2> At some point, wouldn't you need to cut your losses?

<comment><USER3> Not sure who you're suggesting should cut their losses.

Joy? In spite of the lack of legal status, she's more of a parent than many "parents" I know. It's a pity that she can't fight harder to get conservatorship of Savannah. Once Savannah is part of a family, with a financially responsible "guardian", she would qualify for more assistance, in both Canada and the US.

But, cut her losses? She's a parent, unequivocally devoted to her children. It's an idealized position for some to consider, sure, but there really are people who believe their job as parents -- a job that doesn't require having donated DNA to their child -- is to do everything in their power to make their kids' lives better than their own. That kind of parent doesn't "cut their losses" because their actions in support of their children aren't evaluated as a loss or a gain. It's simply what a parent does.

And on a personal note, it's remarkable how deeply an autistic child can ensnare your ambition, to imprint upon you the unstoppable motivation to help them succeed in a world where "difficult" citizens are just uncomfortably ignored, languishing in a system that won't get emotionally involved in their welfare. I'm lucky in that my son has tremendous capability for language, and is savant-like in his math and science skills. But he also breaks down when the shower curtain in the bathroom he shares with his sister is unexpectedly swapped out for a new one. He runs when someone tells him "happy birthday" on his birthday, desperate to escape, panicked beyond rational understanding. I do a lot for him, and he does a lot for me, and I guarantee that neither of us will ever try to assign loss or gain tallies to our interactions and decisions and celebrations and sacrifices.

Sometimes, there are no losses to cut. Sometimes -- all the time for some of us -- everything we do is somehow in service to our children.

Joy, in the original article linked, is a parent greater than most, and needs to be given conservatorship of Savannah. She could have no better advocate.

<comment><USER2> I'm more speaking of society. In the article, it mentions that it costs 81k a year plus doctors' fees to keep somebody in the institution she's in.

With that money, can't we do something that benefits society more?

<comment><USER3> Yes. We could have staff - in agencies and institutions like those in the original article - to ensure that the people they are meant to serve aren't being caught in a loop and ignored.

We could listen to those who are sincere in their desire to help (like Joy) and empower government staff to advocate for these selfless citizens, at least enough to make a sound that rises above the noise floor.

(This one more US-focused) We could stop educating kids in school about abstinence as a primary means of birth control, stop the singular focus on safe sex for those districts that have moved beyond abstinence (though certainly include safe sex curriculum), and spend considerable time helping kids/teens to see what being a parent means. Because they're only getting it from Seth Rogan movies and FaceBook status updates, and both of those are woefully out of touch with reality. Then, we'd have more people truly prepared to be a parent, even when it's hard.

<comment><USER2> You're changing the subject.

When do we give up on a person? All the things that you mentioned are good, and should be prioritized.

At what point does Shannon's drag on society need to be deprioritized to give funding to other social efforts?

Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to spend 91k+ doctors' fees to anybody with disabilities?

Rather, when should public fund no longer be allocated to these situations? If her parents were able to support her, there would be no problems. Why are they crying out for more public assistance?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is X10 not as popular as IoT devices for home automation? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X10_(industry_standard)#Limi...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X10_\(industry_standard\)#Limitations)</comment>


Ask HN: Tech scene in Portland? - <AUTHOR>

I'm considering moving out of SF and I've got my eyes on Portland. I've been a JavaScript engineer for the past 4 years, working on large-scale e-commerce applications, advanced visualization, mapping, etc. I also have a fair amount of experience with Java (J2EE, ATG, Grails, Spring, Hibernate, and others). I can't seem to find find much information on tech jobs up there, which makes me think that there might not be much available outside of a few large companies like Intel. Can anyone shed some insight on what might be available up there? Are the salaries competitive with respect to the cost of living? <comment><USER2> Portland salaries WRT cost of living will probably never be as favorable as some other cities, that said, there are intangibles that make up the difference for many of us. A couple of links that might be useful:

<http://siliconflorist.com/jobs/>

<http://calagator.org/></comment>


#noguessing: tweet density and popularity of hashtags assoc. with 'hackernews' - <AUTHOR> http://ritetag.com/best-hashtags-for/hackernews

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that this interactive Hashtag Scan is free and open to all, but to see the data beyond the "Summary" tab, and to save tagsets so they'll be at hand in Tweet Composer, just register or login (free). You can even create your own Scans in "Alerts" at the top - and set which ones to turn on/off - so they'll let you know when new hashtags are associated with your query. Remember: queries are topic words, hashtags, events, products, brands, schools, anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> Saving tagsets for quick access from the RiteTag browser extensions is so easy and fast, I demonstrate in an animated gif in this post: [https://plus.google.com/100575455878135404735/posts/5JcB6jsd...](https://plus.google.com/100575455878135404735/posts/5JcB6jsduGk)

(Just doing this for those who don't login/register, but want to see the other tabs and one of the things to use them for)</comment></comment>


Grad school is worse for public health than STDs - <AUTHOR> https://www.benkuhn.net/grad <comment><AUTHOR> Also on this theme of the need for graduate school reform:

Jeff Schmidt on the frustration of being ideologically disciplined in grad school to not make waves -- and ways to resist: [http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/](http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/)

David Goodstein on how the PhD system has been a collapsing pyramid scheme since the 1970s (and is taking down peer review with it): [http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html](http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html)

Philip Greenspun on sample bias in thinking academia is a good deal: [http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in- science](http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science)

An example of rampant academic financial exploitation in the humanities PhD system: [https://www.villagevoice.com/2004/04/20/wanted-really- smart-...](https://www.villagevoice.com/2004/04/20/wanted-really-smart- suckers/)

Noam Chomsky on universities as complicit with power and filtering out those who are non-conforming: [https://chomsky.info/199710__/](https://chomsky.info/199710__/)

The Kept University on how corporate money and a quest for proprietary patents and copyrights is distorting academic research: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/the- kep...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/the-kept- university/306629/)

Freeman Dyson on the need for (likely suffering) heretics with or without PhDs: [http://www.exit109.com/~gosta/heretics.sht](http://www.exit109.com/~gosta/heretics.sht)

Richard Nelson Bolles on rethinking the mix of work, education, and leisure in your life: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21098.The_Three_Boxes_of...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21098.The_Three_Boxes_of_Life_and_How_to_Get_Out_of_Them)</comment>


Ask HN: It's Time to Build - <AUTHOR> They are concepts you'd build often with a deep level of thought.
You should publish high fidelity ideas that keep you up at night.
Make a list of "n" things you'd do if qualifications and time and history and salary were no object. <comment><USER2> What are yours? :)</comment>


Submit or vote on questions for PG for the Cambridge/Boston Startup Meetup on Monday - <AUTHOR> http://askpg.slinkset.com/recent

<comment><AUTHOR> We hope to capture the answers and post them here, but we're still working out the details.

The invitation: [http://anyvite.com/events/home/tmokjxuwai/cambridgeboston- st...](http://anyvite.com/events/home/tmokjxuwai/cambridgeboston-startup- meetup)

</comment><comment><USER2> Slinkset seems to be a poor medium for conducting polls since the results degrade over time (like Reddit) and that's not what you want in this case. I would have gone with something else for that purpose.

<comment><AUTHOR> The link above goes the recent page. If you go to "Popular" (<http://askpg.slinkset.com/>) it's sorted by the absolute count and will never degrade.

We can easily set how much (or little) time factors into the ranking, but haven't exposed it in the UI yet. We'd like to get to that soon.

It would be nice if we eventually felt like a natural fit for stuff like this, though I realize it's not totally consistent with our positioning so far. Anything other than the ranking and deceptively named menu items that makes it suboptimal?

<comment><USER2> Nope, that's it. Slinkset seems pretty good for what it's meant for. I didn't realize there was a page where the rankings don't degrade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Damnit, I'm in boston on Sunday...</comment>


Grove, Ellison, Andreessen, etc. speak out on Steve Jobs  - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/technology/0911/gallery.steve_jobs_testimonials.fortune/index.html

<comment><USER2> Larry Ellison, uber-consumerist: _I remember when Steve was my neighbor in Woodside, Calif., and he had no furniture. It struck me that there wasn't furniture good enough for Steve in the world. He'd rather have nothing if he couldn't have perfection._</comment>


Syrian Electronic Army Says It Published Forbes User Info - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/02/15/syrian-electronic-army-says-it-published-forbes-user-info/

<comment><USER2> If they published it, where is it? Did I miss the link in the article?

I love the password analysis that comes out of these kinds of releases.</comment>


Ask HN: Are website analytics services still worth it? - <AUTHOR> It seems like a very high percentage of internet users have some kind of adblocker, and Safari also blocks trackers by default.
So, is data you extract from those services still relevant?
Is it better to build your own tools that don't depend on loading external scripts? If not, how do you solve this issue? <comment><USER2> I use my own self-hosted analytics platform[0], which is not blocked by ad- blockers and can be hosted on the same domain (no external script).

I do have to test more with Safari though, I'm not sure if it sometimes blocks it or not.

[0]: [https://www.usertrack.net/](https://www.usertrack.net/)</comment>


EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable Display Editor (1981) - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html <comment><USER2> I actually found an earlier version of this paper in my teachers room (published 1979). It's AI Memo 519 (the linked paper is 591A) and I can't find a reference to this anywhere. I even emailed Stallman and he couldn't remember when it was first published (he thought that it was published in 1981 first to).

I uploaded it to archive.org: [https://archive.org/details/MITAIMemo519](https://archive.org/details/MITAIMemo519) My teacher suspects he got it from a guy that used to work at MIT at the time (can't remember the name). I have not been able to find it anywhere else, even the AI memo archive doesn't have it ([http://publications.csail.mit.edu/ai/browse/0500browse.shtml](http://publications.csail.mit.edu/ai/browse/0500browse.shtml)). Anyone able to shed some light?

<comment><USER3> Surprised you got a reply via email. I thought he prefers snail mail.

<comment><USER4> Richard Stallman uses Emacs to read and send email: [http://richard.stallman.usesthis.com/](http://richard.stallman.usesthis.com/)

It's possible you're mixing up with Donald Knuth: [http://www-cs- faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html](http://www-cs- faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is nice to see a relatively brief introduction to the essential features.

Steve Yegge wrote: "Go look over Paul Nordstrom's shoulder while he works sometime, if you don't believe me. It's a real eye-opener for someone who's used Visual Blub .NET-like IDEs their whole career."

Does anyone know of any public video of Mr. Nordstrom using emacs, or can someone who knows him request one? [edit: properly attribute the quote]

<comment><USER6> Well, Emacs Rocks: [http://emacsrocks.com/](http://emacsrocks.com/)

<comment><USER7> Not only that, but also: Emacs Loves You. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1sXuHnf_lo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1sXuHnf_lo)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I found this amusing, towards the end:

      Bravo comes from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Its orientation
      is toward text formatting, and it can display multiple fonts, underlining,
      etc. It makes heavy use of a graphical pointing device, the `mouse'
      (see Augment). It is not programmable and offers no special help for
      editing programs as opposed to text. For more information, see your
      local industrial espionage agent.

<comment><USER9> Some trivia: Bravo, the first WYSIWYG word processor, was developed by Butler Lampson and Charles Simonyi at PARC. Simonyi left PARC in 1981 to join Microsoft and led the Word and Excel projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The original IDE, and originally outlawed for 'regular' users because it dragged the the DEC KL10 to its knees in I/O traffic if more than 20 or 30 terminals ran it at the same time.

It is an interesting environment but for what ever reason I ended up back in VIM (at school it was Emacs or FINE, at home 'MicroEMACS' and at Sun it was 'vi') Now vim is my go to editor but I'm not as fast as some folks who have melded well with either EMACS or VIM.

<comment><USER11> Heh, you were lucky. When I were a lad, vi was reserved for the Honours students and post-grads.

Us undergrads had to use `ed`.

<comment><USER12> Ed! You was lucky to 'ave ed! In my day all we 'ad was a magnetized needle and a very steady hand!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I want to point out this quote:

"The traditional attitude towards Lisp holds that it is useful only for esoteric amusements and Artificial Intelligence. The appearance of Multics EMACS as a Honeywell product is the death knell of this view."

I agree!

</comment><comment><USER14> Stallman did not mention Guy L Steele jr. and Dave Moon.

Not so nice...

[http://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html](http://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs- timeline.html)

Dan Weinreb described it this way:

'(TECO-based) Emacs was created and designed by Guy L. Steele Jr. and David Moon. After they had it working, and it had become established as the standard text editor at the AI lab, Stallman took over its maintenance.'

<comment><USER15> Hmm, this other 1979-era history of Emacs also doesn't mention Steele, though it does mention Weinreb and Moon, whom the author seems to have worked with closely: [http://www.multicians.org/mepap.html](http://www.multicians.org/mepap.html).

<comment><USER16> [http://web.archive.org/web/20120217011347/http://danweinreb....](http://web.archive.org/web/20120217011347/http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal- to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Am I reading this right? You used to... not be able to see your code verbatim as you were editing it? My god, that sounds horrible.

<comment><USER18> Have you ever used a 300bps modem to connect to the internet? If you did then you would see how avoiding rendering could make you much much more productive.

<comment><USER19> I had Emacs running "okay-ish" on my 300 baud modem. I wrote a terminal emulator that implemented character and line insert and delete, and region scroll, which made Emacs screen refresh (borderline) tolerable.

Let's just say that it WAS tolerable considering that my alternative was to use punchcards. (Imagine long lines for punchcard machines in the basement of the CS building, which smelled of too many students and way too much fear, and waiting six hours for your program to run. Oh, and everything in uppercase...)

<comment><USER20> If memory serves, one of Emacs innovations was to decouple the display system from the editing system. The display would run asynchronously. If the display lagged due to a slow connection it would always be trying to show the most current state rather than strictly rendering the results of each edit operation, one by one. It also tried to minimize the terminal codes need to bring the display up to date.

I can't say I've ever used it on a 300 baud modem, but I have used it over a transcontinental SSH session on a crowded wifi connection and I've been thankful for it being designed to operate well under adverse conditions like that.

<comment><USER21> Yes, I always assumed that was part of the motivation for "chunky" operations like forward/delete word, paragraph, etc. On a slow connection it made a big difference to be able to jump ahead by words, paragraphs, or "balanced expressions" rather than character-by-character. And VT100 terminals didn't have a mouse so there was no way to do something like click-drag to select a block of text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just had this thought, what if Linus came in or HMS or someone else kinda already famous did a "Show HN: I made a extensible editor called emacs" or "Show HN: I made a posix compatible kernel" Would lead to some interesting discussions I think if they were active in the comments.

<comment><USER23> Pretty sure that Andrew Tanenbaum would comment about Microkernels being superior and how monolithic kernels are doomed to fail and belong in the past!

<comment><USER24> Eponysterical ([http://metachat.org/index.php/2005/11/16/did_we_ever_decide#...](http://metachat.org/index.php/2005/11/16/did_we_ever_decide#c58136))?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> GNU Emacs Manual, 1st ed. — [http://bitsavers.trailing- edge.com/pdf/fsf/GNU_Emacs_Version...](http://bitsavers.trailing- edge.com/pdf/fsf/GNU_Emacs_Version16_Jun85.pdf)

Edit: you can buy the modern version from FSF: [http://shop.fsf.org/product/Emacs_Manual_24/](http://shop.fsf.org/product/Emacs_Manual_24/)

</comment><comment><USER26> What's fascinating is that under "Research Through Development of Installed Tools", the author describes agile software development, some twenty years before it got that name.

</comment><comment><USER27> Here is to another 30 years of Emacs.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'll just leave this here: [http://xkcd.com/378/](http://xkcd.com/378/)

</comment><comment><USER21> _What we decide is not worth while to add, the user can provide for himself. He can just as easily provide his own alternative to a feature if he does not like the way it works in the standard system._

Written before the PC police insisted upon alternating He/She pronouns, awkward constructions such as "He or she", or flatly incorrect usage, i.e. "their" as a singular.

<comment><USER29> Has your quality of life really suffered so much now that you're encouraged to write to a broader audience?</comment></comment>


What's next for the popular programming language R? - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1661487/hadley-wickham-on-the-future-of-r-python-and-the-tidyverse/ <comment><USER2> Not sure I'd classify R as 'wildly popular'...</comment>


Screw Emotional Intelligence–Here's the Key to the Future of Work - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/40522394/screw-emotional-intelligence-heres-the-real-key-to-the-future-of-work? <comment><USER2> Maybe I skimmed the article too quickly, but AQ seems like something the author made up without any sort of scientific backing, with only vague anecdote-likes:

> _I believe AQ works similarly: Some of us are born with more potential to > adapt, but each of us can get better at it over time. We all have that > friend who loathes change and another who thrives on new experiences. We're > already aware that AQ exists and varies from person to person, but we're not > talking about it enough–and don't have a compelling way to test or improve > it._</comment>


Overhead of Go's Generic Sort - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nieksand/sortgenerics <comment><USER2> The problem is that it operates on an abstract interface but it is NOT generic. With any Generics implementation that generates code for the specific type under the hood (e.g. at compile-time like C++ Templates or Rust Traits, or just-in-time), there would be no overhead.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, this is what you get when your language does not support generics.

<comment><USER4> True. But a compiler can also perform inference, and optimize this without type information.

Of course, it becomes less reliable, because you'd have to trust that the compiler does this (and consistently over changes to the code).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> C's qsort() has a similar overhead vs C++ STL's std::sort() for much the same reason - the C version calls a comparator function but the C++ compiler can inline the comparator.

<comment><USER6> And the only way to fix it without generics is with a VM.

<comment><USER5> Or whole-program-optimisation or a compiler that has builtins for qsort() (rather as they all do for malloc/free these days)

<comment><USER6> I shudder at the thought of compilers with builtins for something as complex as qsort. But yeah, it would fit with Go's usual way of doing things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What I take away from this, is that unless you are spending a lot of run-time sorting things, or you are sorting a lot of things, you might as well not bother to micro-optimize.

<comment><USER8> This article is not about micro-optimisations, it's about mesuring the cost of dynamic dispatch and virtual fonction call, which cannot be avoided in Go since there are no generics and the langage relies on interfaces instead.

<comment><USER9> I agree with you, but in the cases where it really matters you can still avoid it! There is community activity around code generation to fill in for the cases where generics would really be the right answer. Basically, you make a template and render it for your type, check that into source control, and use as normal.

This removes the dynamic overhead at the cost of having to run a code generator and maintain a rendered template library in your source. There's actually language support for hooking into these generators at build time.

<comment><USER10> > There's actually language support for hooking into these generators at build > time.

Hmm, are you talking about "go generate" or is there a new feature? Because go generate is not a build time hook, but build time hook would be very useful in some cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can imagine the overhead for ints is large. But how often do you sort pure ints? A more realistic test would be some objects sorted on a field value.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great feedback. I'll try out this specialization on a simple struct (int32/string) combo later today. We can still get rid of the indirections around slice manipulation (Swap and Len) but obviously stay stuck with the Less.

<comment><USER12> Or try sorting points (struct of two float64s) by the x-coordinate, and compare the timing with similar JavaScript code running in V8. You might be surprised...</comment></comment></comment>


Resistance to Being Productive - <AUTHOR> https://listed.standardnotes.org/@mo/408/why-you-re-resistant-to-being-productive <comment><USER2> I was hoping for something more scientific or at least psychological, but alas.

I would say these reasons don't line up with my observances at all.

For instance, one of mine is "this project is so big, I don't know where to start". Once I find a piece that seems like something I can get done quickly and ease me in, things tend to go a lot easier.

Another is "I have so many (different) things to do that I don't want to do any". Presumably this is not so different than the earlier one, and it's hard to get started without an obvious plan of attack that having only one or more tasks ahead of you brings with it.

Lastly, as a lifelong procrastinator, I've noticed that waiting until the last minute to do something you need to do OFTEN results in never having to do it at all. You end up doing only things that _really needed_ to get done.

In the end, I don't really worry about it, or I hunt for tiny tasks to get my momentum going.

As for the article's "I'm not sure how doing that work will take me to the next step" I guess? Maybe? But "I'm not sure what I would do after I finish that work (what the next step is)" I don't believe has every been a factor a single time in my life.

<comment><USER3> > I've noticed that waiting until the last minute to do something you need to > do OFTEN results in never having to do it at all. You end up doing only > things that really needed to get done.

Don't tell my boss this, but I have noticed it too.

<comment><USER4> Protip : Wait even a little bit after it's too late and you might not even have anything to do at all.

<comment><USER5> What if you are being yelled at/under pressure?

<comment><USER6> If I may explain a joke, if you are being yelled at then you are not fired yet, so you must procrastinate a bit more until you can not do anything at all.

<comment><USER7> Oh, I thought it referred to being dead, not fired. Whoops.

<comment><USER6> That would do too. In fact, only the OP can tell the difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is something much deeper happening.

As you become successful in your field (or wherever), and further internalize the habits that are necessary to be successful, it's clear that many of these things are easy to do, it's just that people don't want to do them.

In other words ... it's obvious that many people don't want to be successful, and if they were to introspect deeply, they would see this clearly. In fact what they want is to be somewhere comfortable in the middle of the herd, not having to do too much work.

Most people want to be _comfortable_ , not 'successful' in a way that requires ambition. But many people are brainwashed enough by the rhetoric of success that they don't realize it's not what they want.

There's also something I haven't figured out yet. Every time I give advice, I get a number of responses from people with self-defeating attitudes, explaining how this advice can't possibly apply to them because blah blah blah. These people build up belief structures that are obviously intended to keep them mired in their current situation, smelling of low self-esteem and defeatism. "Obviously" it's better not to be stuck in these belief structures, yet people will defend them vigorously, and in some cases fiercely. I don't yet fully understand why, except maybe that if someone believes there is a solution to their problem, then it must be their fault that they haven't solved it, and/or that there will be a clear failure that is their fault if they attempt to solve it.

<comment><USER9> Just a stab at a potential reason (for the attitude in some of the responses).

Cause it may be obvious: lack of energy both mentally and physically (and by extension, lack of motivation and positivity). This seems to be a systemic problem of modern men (and women too, though at a base level women have more inherent positivity & survival skills IMO).

Put it this way - if you are lost in a cave (maybe a bad relationship, terrible job, difficult financial situation or combination thereof) and starved of nutrients (lack of exercise, bad diet, including maybe addiction to salt/carbs/sugar/caffine) you will have little energy to do what is required to find your way out.

God forbid dark paths, bad judgment, and bad luck has taken you even deeper. You may be approaching the point of no return - hopeless and without any chance of survival.

In this situation, it could be easier to simply curl up into fetal position and die.

I think unfortunately - when starved and depleted like this - that this is the option many will take.

Is it the fault of this starving, depleted individual that they should choose to die ? (is basically what you are pondering)

Some, perhaps many, people are past the point of no return - mentally, that is (most physical conditions easier to solve than mental). Choosing maybe not fetal position and death - but whatever substance or quick fixes they can use to ease the pain while they attempt to coast through the rest of whatever remains of their life with minimal effort or 'comfort' as you describe. This hopeless, self-defeating attitude a defense of their decision to go fetal and maybe protect that little area of the dark cave they choose to live and die now.

If we had to reach a conclusion or solution from this, maybe it too is obvious: eat healthy again, exercise; keep your body sustained and mind stable - for then it will be easier to climb out.

Alternatively - you might just get lucky, and someone may find and help you out of that dark place. Hopefully by allowing you to build the strength you need to get up and walk out on your own two feet. But we shouldn't necessarily reserve judgment on those who can't even get up. Who knows how long they've been down there, how many missteps were taken that got them to that point.

<comment><USER10> This is one of the major flaws of current society. We've pushed adulthood so far out that people don't seriously start thinking about their place in society until 22 or 23 years old. That is a lot of time to wonder deeper into your metaphorical cave.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In the last years, I have noticed that I don't start things because it's much easier to hang out online like on this site. For example, I have told myself to read books. But everytime I have the time to do that, I start hanging out online. There, I still read a lot, but it's much more fragmented and I kinda feel "drained" afterwards. I feel a lot more energized after reading a book, but somehow it's not enough to get me started. Shame

<comment><USER12> I'm in the same boat, and I seriously think it's a form of addiction.

It's falling for the small short-term reward that you will regret later, rather than choosing the delayed but bigger reward that is ultimately more genuinely satisfying.

Sadly I don't have a solution for it yet. I've given up other addictions by quitting completely, but that doesn't look like a good option in this case. Although it also didn't seem like a good option in the other cases at first.

<comment><USER11> So true... Maybe a budget would work? Similar to a blocker app like 1Blocker but that works on budgets, e.g. 30min web surfing per day

<comment><USER13> I'm toying with getting rid of the Internet at home. I have it at work anyway (unfortunately), and coffee shops and libraries are a thing if I _have_ to get online. I'm increasingly convinced that having it's not worth the time I lose to it, and the cost of it. ~$110-120+/month for the Internet portion of my phone plan, plus our home connection, plus Netflix and such... that'd pay for a fair amount of physical media a month. Between purchasing, the library, and borrowing from friends, I could save both time and money and still have plenty of entertainment. Maybe download one of those curated local copies of Wikipedia. Update it once a year at a friend's house, haha.

Benefits: Tons, _tons_ of time saved thanks to more friction to access low- value entertainment (HN, news generally, endless reading about how to do stuff or what to read instead of doing the stuff or the reading), and even too-easy access to practically stress-inducingly large amount of actually good entertainment. So, so much time. And some money saved.

Concerns: my wife needs it for work (teacher, and so much of that's online now, and you can't really be a teacher and _not_ work evenings a fair amount)—that's the trickiest part. All our photos of the kids and such are digital now, and no Internet means no (convenient) offsite backup. I don't love the idea of having a bunch of physical media again, but then again I can just resell a bunch of it any time the clutter starts to annoy me, and be no worse off than when that money was going purely to services (slightly better actually, since even lazily Craigslisting a ton of it in a lot for $20 is at least _some_ money). WhatsApp/Riot/et c. are a hell of a lot better than non- MMS text (mainly because group messaging is broken without MMS, and sometimes even with it) and offer really high value-to-waste ratio since I consider chatting with close friends valuable, even when it's not productive—I'd pay $10/m for a connection that _just_ let me do email and use a decent messaging client like that. If I wanted to keep Steam games working I'd have to connect it from time to time, somehow, but that's probably another distraction I could do without.

Heh, I guess I could go back to dial up, if that's still a thing, so I'd have _inconvenient_ access if I really had to have it, or to pop on to do messaging/email once an evening or so, though then I'd need a phone line and service, so a good chunk of the money-savings would be gone. _Might_ be good enough to let the Google school stuff work for my wife without driving her nuts? And I'd need to buy a modem.

<comment><USER14> If you're interested in it, you should try it! I did it for about a year, and thoroughly enjoyed it.. though it's not without its negatives as you say. For me, the positives outweighed the negatives. Consider getting a mobile hotspot and set yourself a house rule of only using it in emergencies, or on the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hmm, as a life-long high-performer I am thinking maybe slackers are right; meeting or accelerating deadlines never resulted in bonuses/appreciation, always resulted in more and more work; when it came to promotions slackers were fast tracked and work horses were kept where they were. Frankly, empirically it doesn't make any sense to exceed average team velocity unless you work on your own stuff. Being "too good" often brings resentment, fear and super nasty backstabbing from those that underperform, so why bother if rewards are out of place?

<comment><USER16> Not all times are super hard workers doing super smart things. I'm not saying never; just not often. Most smart people do figure out how not to work so hard - automate, delegate,...etc They seem to do all the right things to avoid having to work hard (as in overwork).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In my experience as engineer(personal responsibility), manager(group responsibility) and entrepreneur(company responsibility), the main reason for procrastinating is always fear and anxiety.

Tim ferris simplifies it well: [https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_ferriss_why_you_should_define_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_ferriss_why_you_should_define_your_fears_instead_of_your_goals)

The adventure to master your personal fears, and the fears of your groups, your family, your coworkers never ends.

<comment><USER18> I think this factor is overplayed sometimes. Why can't people simply be lazy and not driven or motivated enough to overcome that laziness? It doesn't help that internet and TV feeds into that laziness and lack of motivation by providing quick escapes from thinking about what needs to be done.

<comment><USER19> Because laziness has never been found and diagnosed in psychology and psychiatry.

It's a moral attribute originally stemming from some religions.

<comment><USER20> Laziness is about doing what you want to do, not what someone who calls you lazy wants you to do.

<comment><USER21> Not always. For a true procrastinator you end up doing stuff you both don't want to do and don't need to do. Think, "least positive possible" Pure self sabotage.

Wait but why has an incredible read on the subject.

[https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/why-procrastinators- procrasti...](https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/why-procrastinators- procrastinate.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> >it usually comes down to three reasons why I don't feel like doing the work I should clearly be doing

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and eventually came to a conclusion: it comes down to one thing. Simply, your brain doesn't feel like doing something because that something can't compete with a source of easily attainable dopamine. Brain candy. It comes in different forms: actual candy (simple carbs), visual candy (facebook, instagram), intellectual candy (HN). Turn off that source or at least make it bland and black and white (eg. you can make your phone's screen B&W) and your brain will find actual work exciting (ie. dopamine-inducing) again.

PS. Reading and watching videos about beating procrastination is a form of candy, too. Stop it.

</comment><comment><USER23> I notice that when I begin to procrastinate, I actually am thinking about the task intensely. So intensely that I believe I overwhelm myself and subconsciously decide to put off working on the task.

When I silence my mind prior to starting work on a task I find I'm more easily able to actually start.

<comment><USER24> I am similar. If I think of something to do now, then I have no hesitation. But if my 'past self' thought of it and 'demanded' that my present self do it, then my rebellious nature takes over. I really think procrastination is mainly just rebelling against your past self, as if he/she was someone else.

If I write something down, then I stop thinking about it. Usually I forget about the list as well, and oftentimes writing things down makes it LESS likely to get done. BUT by no longer thinking about it and nagging myself, I can hopefully discover the task again afresh and get it done that way.

Happy self-hacking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> > 1\. I don't care about the work > If you don't care about the work, it's > going be a long and agonizing journey to completing this task and its > descendant tasks in the future.

I'm sure there are some good life hacks to trick you into liking this or that work that you by default dislike.

I have a corollary problem to this #1. Not that I dislike writing per se but I like coding so much more. I have to really fight away not coding to put more time into writing. This may be because I've been at coding for a long time, so I am good at it, therefore the dopamine comes easier. There's probably some theory here that goes like once you're good at a thing, it's harder to get good at some other thing. When my noviceness/incompetence at writing frustrates me, instead of pushing through it's easy to go feel better about myself doing something (programming) that I have some good capacity for. Thinking out loud...

</comment><comment><USER19> In some modern cultures people expect from themselves to be always productive and happy regardless of the task at hand.

Yet - point one "I could not summon a single fuck to give" is presented honestly.

What if it's actually a sign of health to be disinterested in writing yet another $thing in order to pay rent?

</comment><comment><USER26> I find that I jump ship to new projects too easily. It's tricky to find the discipline to stick with what you already have.

<comment><USER27> Novelty addiction, plus you're probably more of a "big picture" thinker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Some very shallow points, but this article looks like it only applies for the author.

I think its great that everyone knows why they are hesitant to do things, and I see some great comments here.

I've also been collecting my thoughts on why I'm "hesitant" as well.

I've made a site to document my thought processes.

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/hesitating/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/hesitating/)

I've also thought about other keywords such as "start" and "focus"

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/starting/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/starting/)

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/focus/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/focus/)

This process has really helped me better understand myself, and how I operate. I hope it can help others as well.

Just to flip it around, maybe "lazy" would be interesting as well.

[https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/laziness/](https://www.deepthoughtapp.com/en/topics/laziness/)

</comment><comment><USER29> For me, I have a hard time starting mundane tasks that I think are going to run for days or weeks. It's hard enough for me to muster up enough motivation to start today. The prospect of having to do that day after day or month after month is depressing. I've found this is much less an issue it teams that do Kanban or Scrum well.

</comment><comment><USER30> The author is confusing productivity with doing work. If you overcome all these things and work all day, non-stop... you may be still be unproductive because you're doing things inefficiently, or doing unnecessary work.

The key to productivity is achieving the same results with _less_ work, which basically means learning how to avoid unnecessary effort. The unachievable ideal of maximum productivity would finishing everything immediately and with no effort.

([https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/10/04/technical-skills- pro...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/10/04/technical-skills-productive/) has a list of ways you can be unproductive even while being not tired, fully focused, undistracted, and not procrastinating.)

</comment><comment><USER31> Anyone know the answer or have good recommendations for this thought:

As a freelance (marketing but could be anything) consultant, I have 4 hours of client work to do a day, and 4 hours of side project work. The client work has to be done, but is less exciting or long term since I'm working for other people. The side project work requires self-motivation because no one is holding me to it, but has more upside in the long term, and I like working on it.

Is it better to do:

A) Get all client work done from 8am-12pm, then side project from 1pm-5pm -or- B) Side project from 8am-12pm, client work 1pm-5pm. -or- C) Some other method like Monday - Wed client work only, Thurs-Fri side project only

I had started with version A, but then throughout the day I look for an escape from client work so I go on Hacker News and read blog posts.

I'm thinking version B is better so I can pump out the stuff I like first, and get the ball rolling. Then the less brain-intensive client work I'll have a shorter window to finish, so I have to focus and get it done.

Right now, my client work expands to fill the whole day by having fragmented focus, and I can't get to side project work ever.

<comment><USER32> In my experience, work before play is the most productive strategy. Two things that I think might help your situation:

1) Pomodoro technique - I modify this to be 45-60 minutes of work, 10-15 minute breaks. I do six of these throughout the day. When I'm in the work phase, no news/social media/any distractions, focus is important. Do whatever you want in your breaks. And stick to the timers, don't go over on either your work periods or your break periods.

2) If you're doing client work 8am-12pm, stop at 12pm, regardless of whether you've accomplished what you were hoping to. Stopping when you say you'll stop makes it a lot easier to stay mentally focused when you first pick it back up the next day: even if you don't like what you're working on, you know you only have to focus on it until lunchtime, and then you get to work on the fun stuff.

<comment><USER31> Great tips, appreciate it! I've gone off and on pomodoro for years. I think the missing part is strict discipline on ending. Hard when there's no one overseeing!

A work in progress!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> My reasons:

1) I just seriously don't have the energy because of my medical condition. I suspect this broadly applies to many people: They don't have the energy for some reason, then they or others call them _lazy_ or _a procrastinator_ , things I was called my whole life until I finally got the right diagnosis.

2) Trying to accomplish stuff has been so much drama in the past that I want to try to find a path forward that doesn't essentially explode in my face. Having things explode in my face always felt like 2 steps forward, 27 steps back. It wasn't productive. It was counterproductive.

3) Having figured out some of the things I want to do and how to (mostly) avoid terrible explosions, I still have only the most slender concept of how to make that actually fly. I am working on fleshing out those plans. Sorting that out strikes me as the difference between the Wright Brothers launching their first test flight and hurling myself off a cliff willy nilly like a lemming.

</comment><comment><USER34> This fits my own experience exactly!

I personally am sometimes able to push through boring long tasks that I don't care about simply by using some form of timer or pomodoro. I just set a goal to have accomplished before the deadline of the timer. rinse/repeat

</comment><comment><USER35> Interesting list, but as someone who has seriously struggled with productivity at many points in my life due to ADHD, I cannot relate at all.

> 1\. I don't care about the work

This was a problem in school, but not in my career. I built my career around problem domains that interested me, and often times the work I'm struggling to get going with is work that I chose for myself and prioritized accordingly. Also, I have a financial interest in the company I work for, so that's another reason I care about the work.

> 2\. I'm not sure how doing that work will take me to the next step

I guess I'm not a "future-minded being", because this has never crossed my mind. I think about next steps when I'm planning or strategizing, I don't do either of those things when I'm trying to execute.

> 3\. I'm not sure what I would do after I finish that work (what the next > step is)

Same thing as the second one, I'm really not thinking about the future most of the time. In fact, I have the opposite problem. Once I've fully defined the problem domain, designed everything and done the challenging work, the really obvious next steps which will let me get it out (cleaning things up, writing good messaging and docs, tests, deploys) are just tedious noise. I'd always prefer to build a new system to automate boring things than do them, which can be a good or bad thing depending on time constraints.

I read somewhere that for people without ADHD, Importance, Rewards, and Consequences are the big motivators. However, for ADHD folks, the only things that matter when getting stuff done are: Interest, Novelty, Challenge, Urgency.

That's been 100% the case for me. When I'm stuck with tedious things, I NEED solid and close deadlines that I am accountable to (to create urgency). Another thing I do is find novel to-do systems to organize it all and follow. I use Bullet Journals, GTD, Sticky Notes, Pomodoro Timers, etc. I can't actually stick to any of those for more than a few weeks, but jumping between and finding new systems keeps me engaged enough to make progress.

</comment><comment><USER36> A much bigger reason for me is that I don't know if/how I'm going to make any money out of it. The things I personally want are aesthetic or social capital, and for a variety of reasons (which I'd rather not articulate in public) acquiring money capital of any kind if tremendously difficult for me and so 95% of my ideas go unrealized for lack of resources. I'm also terrible at asking people for help, and especially at asking people to donate time or attention because I resent unsolicited demands on mine and don't want to impose them on others.

</comment><comment><USER37> For me personally the third reason isn't really the problem. It's more "I'm overwhelmed by the task" or something similar. I think most people have problems with actual task setting. Like in the means of "how do I tackle this task best? What steps do I take?". Here´s an article about that: [https://blog.zenkit.com/7-mistakes-to-avoid-when-tackling- yo...](https://blog.zenkit.com/7-mistakes-to-avoid-when-tackling-your-to-do- list-acbddbedabf7)

</comment><comment><USER38> Completely unrelated to article content—I very much hope that standardnotes' publishing feature becomes a real medium competitor. They've made a great product so far and I'd love to see it take off.

<comment><USER39> This is the first I'm seeing it and I really dig the design, I just wish the paragraphs were a little more narrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I mean, there are a whole bunch of other reasons that aren't on here. Sick of your workplace. Unhappy with some personal events going on in your life. Haven't slept enough. And so on.

</comment><comment><USER41> My wife read some great advice recently. The five minute rule. If you are inclined to procrastinate just do five minutes of work and then take a break.

I have found getting started to be the hardest part. Once I have a project started my brain starts working on it and it's much easier to go back to it

</comment><comment><USER42> Some tweet gave me this:

[https://journal.thriveglobal.com/heres-the-strategy-elite- at...](https://journal.thriveglobal.com/heres-the-strategy-elite-athletes- follow-to-perform-at-the-highest-level-5300e1519e30)

interesting view too, worth two reads

</comment><comment><USER43> I found [https://bookofhook.blogspot.com/2012/09/productivity-vs- unce...](https://bookofhook.blogspot.com/2012/09/productivity-vs-uncertainty- apathy.html) useful.

</comment><comment><USER44> The author forgot the most obvious one: I'm too tired to do the work. Its hard to get daily tasks done when you are mentally and physically exhausted.

<comment><USER45> >If you've gotten all three of these potential productivity resistors already locked in place, but still find yourself unproductive, you may just simply be tired.</comment></comment>


Crispr baby mutation significantly increases mortality - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190603124709.htm <comment><USER2> Original paper:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0459-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0459-6)

A cautionary tale for those so arrogant they think they now only know better than everyone else but are willing to hurt others to prove it.</comment>


RadioShack Sold Consumer Data to Pay Off Its Debts - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/05/18/ftc_radioshack_consumer_privacy_letter_court_should_protect_people_s_data.html <comment><USER4> I hope the FTC wins its case and establishes precedent that consumer data is non transferable and most importantly not a good to be bought and sold unregulated. I understand there are circumstances when data has to shared, transferred etc. (health networks, but this regulated) But consumer data needs to be well regulated and not treated as a commodity and "asset", that's not a desirable incentive.

Consumer data should be one of those things which most companies consider something toxic but necessary so they handle it with care and use the least amount possible rather than collect as much as possible and worry about things later.

RadioShack may not have the reams of data an ISP has, but still need a precedent for future data handling and ownership resolution. It'd be great to see this kind of data devolve back to the consumer, i.e. destroyed, once its original user is no longer there to use it in support of ongoing business operations and should not be a mainline of business per se.

<comment><USER5> I thought user data was one of the most valuable assets of a business.

When I worked at Company X, one of our competitors was failing and offered us to buy them out. The most expensive part of the buyout was calculated basically by #users*<some price>. And really that's all we wanted, was their userbase, since we already had the product they wanted. We could absorb their users and immediately grow our business.

<comment><USER4> I think there's a difference between we'll sell you all this data we have on our users, some of which is related to conducting business with them, and here are our paying customers who you can acquire and continue to provide goods and services to.

<comment><USER6> The second case is different, and less directly harmful, but still bad for the "free market".

You end up in a situation where you have a few huge companies that have shitty expensive products and huge amounts of money. If anyone ever does better, they use some of the money to acquire _the customers_. No one ends up with something better or more cost effective; the 800lb gorilla just pays a tax to remain the only choice, and that cost is easily passed right back to the customers.

<comment><USER7> "Acquiring the customers" seems to be a business strategy with a high failure rate, else we'd be yahooing instead of googling or facebooking. It's hard to predict what competitors are going to blow up, and as soon as they get traction the price goes high - Facebook may have bought WhatsApp, but apparently SnapChat is holding out for more.

I actually think the "free market" works pretty well at this, even if it's not perfect. Nothing is.

<comment><USER6> That's a good point. I suppose this thing is a natural driver of the recent focus on user-traction over profitability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Of all the things I'm supposed to be outraged about as a consumer of news, this one rises to the _whoopdie fucking so what?_ level. Radio shack was collecting in their best ever year maybe half a dozen data points on me. It's not like they had my DNS requests over the past ten years or my history of cell tower signals or my click history following searches for "painful rectal itch" or how long I typically watch dwarf porn before closing the browser...if I were to do such a thing.

There are big privacy issues and little ones and this is definitely the latter. How revealing the Radio Shack's data is of people's behavior should be measured by the outcome of Radio Shack during the period in which it had exclusive access...and here the context is a bankruptcy proceeding.

<comment><USER9> This case can be used to test how binding a privacy statement can be. If Radio Shack is allowed to sell the data to a third party over AT&T & Apple's objections, basically every privacy policy is worthless. There are always increasing amounts of data collected with increasingly invasive means, but this can make bulk data collection less intrinsically valuable.

<comment><USER10> It's harming other businesses too because people are much more likely to put in false data in order to avoid this situation.

<comment><USER11> Other than violating social norms, would there be any problem with purposefully making the data socially poisonous (not Bobby Tables, more like saying your name is Mao or Stalin and you on 101 Legalize Murder Avenue... and this is a tame example compared to what the internet could come up with)?

<comment><USER12> Since it would be nearly impossible to universally "poison" your footprint the most like scenario would end up being that Lawton Fogle is tied to an alias of Hitler Manson that lives on Sodomy Lane and has a fake social security number with strangle biblical references. Not a good way to stay off somebody's radar.

<comment><USER13> Only if you choose that. Who's to say I'm not Sunshine McBunny who lives on Unicorn Lane in Hobbiton?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Slate puts rather a different spin on this than other articles I've read. Slate:

> The FTC is so displeased that Jessica Rich, its consumer protection > director, has written to the bankruptcy court handling RadioShack's case, > asking that consumers' personal data be protected.

Ars Technica:

> The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent a letter to the bankruptcy court > presiding over RadioShack's supervised asset sell-off suggesting a > compromise that would allow RadioShack to sell its database of information > from 117 million customers.

Previous coverage portrayed Apple as intervening to protect customers (although it seems to have more to do with enforcing their reseller agreement):

[http://www.imore.com/apple-wades-radioshack-sale-protect- cus...](http://www.imore.com/apple-wades-radioshack-sale-protect-customer- data)

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/05/14/apple- radioshack...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/05/14/apple-radioshack- privacy)

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/apple-asks- court-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/apple-asks-court-to- block-the-sale-of-some-radioshack-data/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Wow, this really sucks for whoever has the phone number that I had in 1991.

<comment><USER16> And for whatever numbers they typed in when I refused to even make up one myself.

<comment><USER17> When I visit the hair cutting place, they refuse to serve you without a phone number. So I always give them the standard TV placeholder: xxx-555-1212.

The stylist is often confused why there are 20 people with that phone number.

<comment><USER18> If the other person is young enough, you can almost always get away with 867-5309.

<comment><USER19> I used to use this at the grocery store/kmart/wherever and just tell them to pick the top name off the list of 50 or so that came up per area code, (woohoo key constraints!) but eventually they caught on.

Poor Jenny can't get a rewards card anywhere these days.

<comment><USER20> Jenny's doing just fine at CVS; she's earned a bunch of rewards

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can't say this is a big surprise. My first job was at a chicagoland radioshack so I have followed their news and watched their fall with mixed feelings.

It felt very odd in 2001 to try and sell electricians that would come in the store at opening to buy 10-11 fuses if they wanted a cell phone, and bother people just getting batteries for their first and last name so they could 'return their item'. We got dinged for each person who refused us. So there is potentially a LOT of data this company is getting.

<comment><USER22> The last CEO cancelled that policy as their first act. So for some years, that data was not collected. I wonder what data they had to sell?

Anyway, this is a warning to all of us. No matter what promises that honest startup gives you, the minute they are sold (and most sell in the end) the new owners are free to do whatever they like with your 'private' information. In fact it will be hawked in the marketplace like a chicken.

<comment><USER23> That raises an important question: why aren't those promises legally binding?

<comment><USER24> Where's the consideration (money changing hands). Its not a contract.

From

[http://comingsoon.radioshack.com/privacy- policy/privacy.html](http://comingsoon.radioshack.com/privacy- policy/privacy.html)

"If we decide to change our Privacy Policy, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, and other places we deem appropriate so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If however, we are going to use users' personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time of collection we will notify users by posting a notice on our web site for 30 days."

It appears they've done none of this; then again it amounts to accomplishing nothing other than a PR show, so not much has been lost.

Their policy doesn't seem to have considered in its design, "what if we go bankrupt fire everyone and someone else buys us".

I wonder how far back the records go. Could they give me a copy of my Dad's purchase receipt from 1980 for our TRS-80 model III? For 16K of 4116 dram for about $300 or whatever it was back in '81 or '82? On the other hand, given the decline of the company in recent years, if they only have records going back 5 years I probably don't even show up in them.

<comment><USER23> In the case of Radio Shack, you typically handed over information as part of a purchase, so money definitely changed hands. For startups following the model of "we'll give the product away for free and make it up in volume" it's less clear, but giving info in exchange for access to a service seems like it could be consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Apple and AT&T tried/is trying to stop them:

[http://gizmodo.com/apple-sues-to-prevent-radioshack- selling-...](http://gizmodo.com/apple-sues-to-prevent-radioshack-selling- customer-data-1704644494)

<comment><USER26> Apple "I-want-all-your-data" and AT&T "you-have-to-opt-out-of-tracking". Of all companies. We have to count on our enemies to protect us because we are powerless. Let's just hope they start privacy wars.

<comment><USER27> That's really a lazy mischaracterization of Apple. They've never been especially interested in your personal data. The only service they have where they maintain any sizeable, persistent consumer information seems to be the iTunes store, and as far as I can tell, they've never tried to monetize/share that information with anyone. I'm more curious why you would think of Apple this way - "I-want-all-your-data"? Maybe Apple "you-didn't-really-buy-your- hardware", but "I-want-all-your-data"?

If anything, I would liken Apple to a jealous and abusive boyfriend - they'll beat and abuse their customers with sometimes arbitrary controls over what they can do with their hardware, but God help you if you try to do the same to their customers. Whether you're a third-party developer, an accessory manufacturer, or anyone with a relationship with those customers, Apple will come down on you HARD if they think that you're harming their platform or exploiting their customers. From that point of view, Apple's action here - trying to interfere with RS' sale of Apple customers' personal data - <USER2> typical of Apple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm sure they have no choice but to sell assets with value.

But is the original privacy policy equivalent to a license (that we consumers grant Radio Shack)? If it isn't, maybe this will be a chance to set a precedent for this to be the case.

</comment><comment><USER29> I see this kind of thing all too frequently. Our clients are retailers. From time to time, one goes pop, and goes into administration. The liquidators look at all of their assets - initially, at things like stock and other physical assets - but then look at their other less tangible assets, like user data, as selling it can be the difference between settling with creditors or not.

Typically, when you license your data to a company you accept that they can sell that data as part of the sale of the business, in the event of administration or liquidation, and a variety of other situations in which you don't want to have to ask the permission of your N million users to go ahead with a merger or other essential business activity.

Further to this, we've also seen client service agencies who are processors of data seizing user data as an asset if a client goes into administration and leaves their service providers as unsecured creditors (i.e. "you're up the creek, we'll pay you £0.000001 for every £ we owe, your £80,000 is now £0.80"), as they also have a responsibility to mitigate their own losses, and again, contracts usually allow for the seizing of assets in the case of default.

So, long story short, this is not even slightly abnormal, and something consumers should consider before providing their data to _anyone_.

<comment><USER10> The "we will never sell your data to anyone" in a Privacy Policy effectively means nothing at all.

Why are there not consumer protection laws in place to prevent this? In my opinion, in order to sell customer data you should have to go to court and have a judge look over the data to determine what can be sold.

<comment><USER29> I've little faith that any judge would do anything other than "ah. This is something... computer. don't know. Yes?". It's the same "shutters coming down with a bang!" phenomenon as one sees with most non-technical folks the moment they _think_ something technical might be coming their way.

Either way, this is a very grey area, as if you tie up corporate affairs with every single one of your customers, it would make your business unsaleable, and make liquidation impossible, so while consumer protection is desirable, there also have to be measures that allow businesses to operate without the explicit consent of each and every one of their customers for any action.

<comment><USER10> I see your point about businesses being unsellable.

What's the difference in Facebook acquiring WhatsApp's customer database via purchasing the entire company and it being sold numerous times during a hypothetical WhatsApp liquidation sale? None really, and whatever WhatsApp's (and all other companies) Privacy Policy said about protecting user data is somewhat meaningless.

<comment><USER29> Yup, nail on head.

Increasingly the value in a business _is_ the customer base, and therefore their data - this will only continue as the service economy grows and brand continues to be king.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Luckily, I've ditched my landline since I bought stuff at Radio Shack. So any calls to my old landline phone number won't get through.

Is there any indication that what you bought there, along with your contact info was sold? Or just your contact info?

<comment><USER31> Those calls may not get through to you, but they'll get through to a bloke like me, who happened to get your old number, hates marketing calls and will play games with the callers (Billy speaking, Yes your ridiculous offer is relevant to my interests, I'll take it) and extracting data from them bit by bit (My address? I still live in Pratville and haven't moved. OK, Fine, I'll confirm the details you read to me.)

If I had fewer scruples I'd actually use the data for criminal acts, but I simply amuse myself by seeing how far I can get with callers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is why Google's "Don't be evil" mantra freaks me out. Yeah they're not evil now, but who knows in 15 years? That mantra is gonna be like a slap in the face.

<comment><USER33> > Yeah they're not evil now

Oh come on, I was drinking coffee when I read that :(

<comment><USER34> They can always redefine evil...

Merriam-Webster defines evil[1] as:

        : morally bad
        : causing harm or injury to someone
        : marked by bad luck or bad events

Google defines evil[2] as:

        profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Surely Google isn't _profoundly_ immoral and when they happen to be I'm sure they can add a few hyperbolic adjectives to their definition.

[1] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/evil) [2] [http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=evil](http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=evil)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's pretty hilarious this is being 'reported' on a site that won't let you read the article unless you give them your personal information.

</comment><comment><USER36> It is standard in bankruptcies to dissolve existing contracts (after all, the point of bankruptcy is that you can't fulfil all of your existing contractual obligations). So it's not surprising on face that privacy policies would be included in this.

(This is distinct from "selling / buying the company" which usually means assuming all obligations).

For a class of contractual obligation to be "special" in the context of bankruptcy you typically need some kind of legislative protection (some states have rules about "outstanding payroll gets paid first", student loans are nondischargable, etc). Or some kind of bankruptcy cour ruling that liquidating the assets in this way would be somehow inefficient or against the public interest, which looks like how the FTC is approaching it. But in a circumstance where a huge portion of the business's assets were "private information", I could see a bankruptcy court ruling the other way - <USER3> doesn't necessarily establish binding precedent.

</comment><comment><USER37> Maciej Cegłowski "The Internet With a Human Face"

[http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm](http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm)

 _As a wise man once said, if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place._

 _But there are also dangerous scenarios that don 't involve government at all, and that we don't talk enough about._

 _I 'll use Facebook as my example. To make the argument stronger, let's assume that everyone currently at Facebook is committed to user privacy and doing their utmost to protect the data they've collected._

 _What happens if Facebook goes out of business, like so many of the social networks that came before it? Or if Facebook gets acquired by a credit agency? How about if it gets acquired by Rupert Murdoch, or taken private by a hedge fund?_

 _What happens to all that data?_

</comment><comment><USER38> The question comes down to is the private equity group a successor organization.

If Best Buy had swooped in and bought Radio Shack, maintaining it as an ongoing concern I don't think anyone would have objected to them getting the data and honoring Radio Shack's original agreement. That is, they are not a third party, they are the successor to the party of the first part, viz Radio Shack.

Also had a private equity group come in and bought Radio Shack and taken them private, few would have objected to the now private Radio Shack under new management, maintaining the data and the agreements they held.

But by dragging Radio Shack through bankruptcy, they begin to lose the appearance of a successor organization, and begin to look more like a third party.

</comment><comment><USER39> In Australia, we have a set of clear privacy principles outlined in law. These are called the Australian Privacy Principles, and there are 13 of them.

The first principle is "Australian Privacy Principle 1 — open and transparent management of personal information", and it states that every organisation must publish a privacy policy and it _must_ state "the purposes for which the entity collects, holds, uses and discloses personal information".

That's legally binding. If the company violates it, there are massive fines and the Privacy Commisdioner can investigate.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is exactly why you should never give your data to someone unless it's absolutely necessary. If someone asks for your contact info just so you can buy batteries just say no.

<comment><USER11> Maybe with new AR devices coming out soon, maybe you can quickly do a picture to social media lookup, and then use that to see if the employee has their address/phone number online. The look on their face as you give them their own personal info would be priceless.

The investigation for stalking, not so much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I don't know the case's specifics, but doesn't typically the bankruptcy court decide what assets are to be sold? The former management and staff (what we are thinking of when slate.com writes "RadioShack Sold...") has no influence over this and should not be blamed. The bankruptcy court is the new management, they can do what they want and must according to law to satisfy creditors, blame them.

<comment><USER42> They collected and stored data unnecessarily, so former management absolutely shares blame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I have worked a company where this has happened, and it wasn't even the company themselves really.

They went into administration, and the administrators came in and wanted to see if they had anything of value.

Data is of value, so they sold it to a rival company. Not a lot you can do about it really, apart from not store the data in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER44> well, "your" data in perhaps some rhetorical sense. "data about you" would be more intellectually honest, but slate is nothing is not manipulative. it's okay, they know they're promoting correct opinions so little tiny manipulations in service of that is okay.

<comment><USER45> > well, "your" data in perhaps some rhetorical sense.

In this context, "your data" is 100% of the time used to indicate data you've provided to someone else about you. Have you ever seen an article saying "Facebook to target ads based on their photos" or "Google using their data to make money"?

<comment><USER44> Well yes, as I indicated, the author is using a phrase in a rhetorical sense to frame the narrative emotionally. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that I understand what the technique is accomplishing. I am merely pointing out the essential dishonesty in its use.

<comment><USER45> But if _everyone_ uses the phrase that way, then it's not dishonest for this person to do it too. That's how language works. If I tell my student, "the early bird gets the worm", it's idiotic to call me stupid because I confused a human with a bird. I _didn 't_ in fact do that. I used a common idiom in the language that we all understand. The fact that you can recognize there's a literal meaning that wasn't accurate is pointless. I'm not dishonest or a liar either. I used language in a non-literal way, just like all of us do hundreds of times every day.

When someone says "company X is using your data", there's a common understanding in play. We all know what they mean. They mean "data they've collected about you". If you want to call everyone names because, taken literally, it's incorrect, then go ahead, but you're beating a dead horse here. And I'm not actually accusing you of pummeling the carcass of an equine. I'm saying you're spending your energy on a pointless task, but doing so in a way that relies on you understanding that the meaning of a sentence isn't strictly determined by the meaning and order of the individual words in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> And people wonder why I am less exercised about government snooping than most, when it arguably has much less impact on most people's lives. (This is not the same as saying that it's OK; I just don't think it's the #1 tech-social problem).

</comment><comment><USER47> It is one thing for private corporation to sell their sales data.

Some people don't have a problem with that, though I think they should.

You might be outraged however to discover that your state DMV will happily sell your license/cartag data to corporations.

</comment><comment><USER48> Did they sell the data or the company? I'd be curious to know if the new owner is still obligated to follow the same privacy statement? In either case, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.

</comment><comment><USER49> The answer is: Do not have a privacy policy.

If you have a privacy policy and you violate it, the FTC comes after you. No policy? No harassment from FTC.

Aside that fact, it's not like they really matter. Right?

<comment><USER50> The laws of many jurisdictions require you to have a privacy policy if you are going to collect personally identifiable information from residents of that jurisdiction. See, for example, the California Online Privacy Protection Act.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Never gave them a fucking scrap of data, in fact I actively gave them bad but valid enough looking information so they (and now whoever they sold it to) will waste time and money.

</comment><comment><USER52> Battery Card Club, you've turned against me.

</comment><comment><USER53> SO that's why I just got a random call from Michigan selling me a security system.

</comment><comment><USER54> Just makes you wonder, what if Google, Apple or Facebook go broke tomorrow?

</comment><comment><USER55> Oh fuck. Someone knows I bought some RJ45 connectors!?!

</comment><comment><USER56> Isn't everyone doing this in some form?</comment>