Basecamp Breeze officially launched - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3391-launch-basecamp-breeze-the-easiest-way-for-small-groups-to-keep-in-touch-via-email <comment><USER2> I admire the effort, but I don't think the mental effort required to create a Google Group is so high as to pay $10 for this service. Google Groups really aren't that hard; from a college kid's perspective, all students and teachers are already familiar with the ecosystem to the extent that even 60+ year old professors don't need to ask a student to help them after class just to set one up.

Frankly, it takes more effort for me to grab my credit card from my wallet and input the payment information than it does to set up a Google Group.

Still, best of luck to the 37signals team! I love the idea of one-off services like these.

<comment><USER3> I posted a comment on their blog about this, not sure if it went through though (old IE version here at work...)

I think they __WAY __overstate the difficulty of setting up a Google Group. I just did it in 2-3 steps.... All of the "settings", "more settings" and "permissions" they describe all work JUST FINE as defaults.

Not only that, it is free....

They talk about filling out a Captcha as "difficult", but I have a hard time seeing how filling out credit card details is any easier

I personally don't think this would have got any attention if it wasn't out of the 37Signals shop.

As a P.S., did you notice how they display the Google Groups signup with form validation errors? ....

<comment><USER4> "I personally don't think this would have got any attention if it wasn't out of the 37Signals shop"

It likely wouldn't have, and wouldn't be viable for a 'regular' startup without an existing audience of people who've already bought web services and trust the brand.

Yes, there will be some non 37s customers who become customers because of this, but this will succeed financially primarily because of the already built-in audience.

<comment><USER5> It doesn't make this product less worth executing by 37s right? What's wrong about bootstraping your next product by previous one?

<comment><USER3> There is nothing wrong with Bootstrapping subsequent projects using your last one.

I just believe that there is so little value prop in this (if you are even moderately competent using Google) that I have a hard time seeing it succeed at $10 unless the 37s name pushes it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If this sells then I am have to reconsider the complexity of problems I try to solve for people. Is it really that hard to setup a email list?

<comment><USER7> If you work at even a moderate sized company, it probably means you need to make a request to a different department, and 1 or more people may need to sign off on that request. It might take a day or two. Meanwhile you can probably expense $10 with no special authorization and have you email list instantly.

<comment> X-Istence And at the same time break all kinds of rules and possibly violate various contracts and whatnot because email is now leaving the company server, traversing the Internet, being processed and stored by a 3rd party and transmitted back to your servers.

I'm part of a small business that does government contracting ... that'd be one hell of a thing to have to admit to during an audit!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow. When I first saw it, I thought "huh? Isn't this just a mailing list? Is this an actual product?"

Then I did a quick search for "setting up a mailing list" ... and I got Google Groups (not the same), a bunch of address book hacks for Outlook and then GNU Mailman.

They found a really good market with something really obvious.

I don't understand the pricing though.

Why just a one-time fee?

Why a limit of 50 people and no other pricing plans?

Why no custom domains?

<comment><USER9> The answer to all your questions is MVP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Personally, I have no need for this product. They solve a problem I don't have. They list the flaws of email as:

1\. You have to remember each person's email address \-- Gmail has a groups feature, so I just need to make a mailing list once and never worry again. Alternatively, Facebook groups are easy for informal communication.

2\. If someone doesn't "reply-all" when responding to a group email with multiple email addresses, then it all falls apart. \-- Eh, sometimes not every single message needs to be sent to every single person. I like the flexibility of being able to choose reply-all or just reply to one.

Perhaps this would be useful for someone who's not very good with email, but if my mom can't figure out how to send an email to a group then I doubt she's gonna sign up for this product (or even know to look for a tool similar to this)

<comment><USER11> its a single email you need to know that sends to all others on the list.

<comment><USER2> That is also how Google Groups works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This arrived the day before I needed to create an email list for a small group of friends I'm involved with where we email each other once a week or more. $10 for literally 90 seconds work to get us a list was a no-brainer really. We have no need for a web GUI, and google groups piss me off every time I try and login to see anything there anyway. Perfect service for what we wanted!

</comment><comment><USER13> I find it very interesting how so many people commenting here are shouting "This is so stupid! It's so EASY to setup a mailing list, I can do it in 2 seconds! Even a monkey could setup a freakin' Google Groups list!"

Seems to me they don't understand just how technical they really are compared to a large portion of the people in their everyday lives.

I can think of 1 single person in my family who knows what Google Groups is. But I can think of at least half a dozen people who might need to be able to email a group of people without needing to know technical things.

<comment><USER14> Librelist (<http://librelist.com/>) source code is open.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> 2013 must be flying by, it's already April 1st...? ;)

Jokes aside, I don't understand why they are making such a big deal about this? I understand they have an existing large client base already and if they wanted to add this to their product list quietly that would be one thing, but why try to turn it into something bigger than it is...?

Also, I would say (based on what I've seen) that most of the Basecamp clients are somewhat "tech smart", meaning they could easily see there is next to no value in this for a price. There are countless free alternatives that anyone with a basic "tech smart" savvy could figure out. Not to mention a lot of those alternatives would be much more flexible. I'll even go as far to say that the average person (like my parents, family, etc.) knows about even easier alternatives (for free) like Google Groups or Facebook Groups. And both of those would include all of the functionality (plus more) presented by Basecamp Breeze (and again, for free).

I typically associate 37signals products with intuitiveness and creativity/originality, this seems like neither. I'm quite disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER16> I won't get into the usefulness of or need for the product. That's a different debate. But this product does raise a couple of questions for me:

1) Why was the Basecamp brand attached to this product?

2) If Sortfolio was deemed expendable, why did this product pass muster?

EDIT: Also, the basecamp.com homepage is now a lot less focused then before. I'd be curious to see how or if this affects Basecamp conversion rates.

<comment><USER17> >> EDIT: Also, the basecamp.com homepage is now a lot less focused then before. I'd be curious to see how or if this affects Basecamp conversion rates.

i dont think that will be case for lifetime. They will change when needed focusing on what is important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> $10 one time doesn't seem that profitable long term.

This product is either supposed to be a loss leader that brings more customers into the 37Signals fold (to use Basecamp, etc) or there are more features and functionality planned for the Breeze product.

My guess it's the later and its why Breeze wasn't just incorporated into Basecamp.

<comment><USER19> I think it's the former. This feels to me like a marketing strategy and loss leader to grab a new set of customers and eventually migrate them into the full Basecamp product.

I could see people saying to themselves, "I love this email list thing, but it would be cool if we also had a calendar or could create lists, etc..." which prompts the upgrade to Basecamp.

The $10 one-time fee then becomes a way to separate the customers who are at least willing to take out their credit card for something like this, vs. those who would never do that. It will probably end up being a decent marketing tool that pays for itself over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Folks folks folks. The primary issue with Google Groups is that it's ugly all around, not just the signup process. This is an issue that this community (keen on fixed width fonts and cli) doesn't usually care about. But I promise you that my wife cares about something being not ugly.

<comment><USER21> Talking about not ugly; it seems that they're using a hex encoded unique identifier for the groups (see firstname.lastname@example.com in the comparison page.)

I really don't get why people don't look into encoding designed to work well with your eyes more often. There are some pretty good and easy options out there such as ZBase32 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base32#Alternative_versions>)

<comment><USER22> We're not using the hex encoded UID in the email addresses anymore. They are nice and clean now. email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I could see the monetary value in the email domain grab, but is breeze123.com such a great domain to begin with? I don't think that's worth paying for. Their video and splash page just seems to be showcasing the different emails you can get, at breeze123.com.

"firstname.lastname@example.com"

"email@example.com"

That just sounds like a password. And it's all they're offering. I guess they think Google Groups isn't catching the entire market that would have a use for this.

Another problem I see is they say "pay once, use forever" when I've found that I always lose the need for a certain group email list after a while. A project ends, a team breaks up, a meetup stops happening.

Maybe a better product would be something that makes it easier to set up and throw away these more temporary email domains.

<comment><USER24> The payment looks most like a barrier to spam. Thus anything that made it possible to create more groups and/or larger groups would require an increasingly higher price to break the economics of using this to spam people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I love to share things with small groups of people through email, I use Google Groups, it's free and it works great.

</comment><comment><USER26> What fascinates me about this is that there really is (for me, at least) a 'go to' place for setting up a simple email list. And how the gap is so big, they can charge for it.

I.e. the kind of thing you'd recommend your mother or father to go sign up for and manage themselves. Or in other words, their target audience.

</comment><comment><USER27> If i understand this correctly all this does is creates email groups? Is this seriously a paid feature?

</comment><comment><USER28> Ok, this is beautiful. First of all, Hacker News readers are not the target audience.

Looks like a perfectly implemented simple version of the core of basecamp, communication. Priced to match.

Note: only group members can email the group, so it's private.

</comment><comment><USER29> And I thought email was obsolete. Do this with SMSs and it would be HN-worthy :-)

<comment><USER2> Just as an fyi, this exists (to some extent) already:

<https://groupme.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Pretty genius pricing--if the lifetime cost of your customer really is that low (which I'm sure that is), I bet their signup rates will be much better than something silly like "$2/year".

</comment><comment><USER31> This looks like a great way for someone junior at 37Signals to prove themselves, by developing a small product from start to finish.

I'm not 100% convinced 37Signals hires 'someone junior' though.

</comment><comment><USER32> I could see this being appealing for people who use GroupMe. "I wish I had GroupMe but only on email."

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm curious how/why 37signals decided to make and sell this product.

Is there a way to set this up with a custom domain?

</comment><comment><USER17> at this moment it seems like a very simple solution to simple problem (for some people. reply-all or signup and other services). i think people are concerned about $10? but looking forward to what will be next in breeze?

</comment><comment><USER34> So, it's a mailing list?

</comment><comment><USER35> >> Email is the universal constant of communication.

Hyperbole.

</comment><comment><USER36> Mailing list for dummies.

</comment><comment><USER37> This has to be a joke.....</comment>


The Stanford Prison Experiment was flawed - <AUTHOR> http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-textbooks-dont-tell-you-one-of.html <comment><USER2> Articles about issues like this have been submitted several times to Hacker News, and I'm glad to see that this article is getting some discussion. Right after I saw the submission here, I looked up articles on the replication problem in psychology, and I came back to the PsychFileDrawer.org top 20 list of studies that are nominated as needing more replication.[1] I'd like to see more replication of several of those studies myself.

Another recent commentary that I don't recall seeing submitted to Hacker News is "Psychology's real replication problem: our Methods sections,"[2] which suggests (quite plausibly to me) that many publications in psychology journals describe the methods of the study so inadequately that it is hard to know whether or not the study can be replicated.

A scholar of how scientific research is conducted and of statistical errors that show up in many peer-reviewed scientific publications, Uri Simonsohn, has a whole website about "p-hacking" and how to detect it.[3] Simonsohn is a professor of psychology with a better than average understanding of statistics. He and his colleagues are concerned about making scientific papers more reliable. You can use the p-curve software on that site for your own investigations into p values found in published research. Many of the interesting issues brought up by comments on the article kindly submitted here become much more clear after reading Simonsohn's various articles[4] about p values and what they mean, and other aspects of interpreting published scientific research. And I think Hacker News readers who have thought deeply about statistics will be delighted by the sense of humor while making pointed remarks about experimental methods that you can find in the papers of Simonsohn and his colleagues.

Simonsohn provides an abstract (which links to a full, free download of a funny, thought-provoking paper)[5] with a "twenty-one word solution" to some of the practices most likely to make psychology research papers unreliable. He also has a paper posted on evaluating replication results[6] with more specific tips on that issue.

"Abstract: "When does a replication attempt fail? The most common standard is: when it obtains p > .05. I begin here by evaluating this standard in the context of three published replication attempts, involving investigations of the embodiment of morality, the endowment effect, and weather effects on life satisfaction, concluding the standard has unacceptable problems. I then describe similarly unacceptable problems associated with standards that rely on effect-size comparisons between original and replication results. Finally, I propose a new standard: Replication attempts fail when their results indicate that the effect, if it exists at all, is too small to have been detected by the original study. This new standard (1) circumvents the problems associated with existing standards, (2) arrives at intuitively compelling interpretations of existing replication results, and (3) suggests a simple sample size requirement for replication attempts: 2.5 times the original sample."

I should add that slamming the entire discipline of psychology as a discipline with sloppy methodology goes a bit too far. I have learned about most of the publications that take psychology most to task from working psychology researchers. There are whole departments of psychology[7] that largely have a scientific orientation and are trying to improve the discipline's methodology. Crap psychology abounds, but it is gradually being displaced by science-based psychology based on sound methodologies. It is of course more methodologically difficult to study the behavior of our fellow human beings than to study clouds or volcanoes or insects, but many scientifically oriented psychologists are working on the problem with good methods and sound statistical analysis. Some thoughtful psychologists have been prompted to stress careful replication by the failed studies that have come before.[8]

[1] [http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/top-20/](http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/top-20/)

[2] [http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/psychologys- re...](http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/psychologys-real- replication-problem.html)

[3] [http://www.p-curve.com/](http://www.p-curve.com/)

[4] [http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~uws/](http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~uws/)

[5] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2160588](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2160588)

[6] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2259879](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2259879)

[7] [http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/pib/](http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/pib/)

[8] [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/o...](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/february-12/psychologys- woes-and-a-partial-cure-the-value-of-replication.html)

<comment><USER3> the replication problem is more general than Psychology, it's a problem across biology. Perhaps more acute in psychology where the statistical methods lag a bit, but there are serious problems with the volume of science produced and the statistics used to analyse the aggregate. I feel like we might have a foundational crisis emerging.

[http://neuroblog.stanford.edu/?p=3451](http://neuroblog.stanford.edu/?p=3451)

<comment><USER4> The neuroscience review cited in this blog post is originally from nature reviews [0]. While I agree with the general notion that neuroscientists need to get better at using statistical methods and tools, I wonder if the author of the blog you linked (Zalocusky) maybe makes the problem out to be somewhat different than as it is described in the original review.

Specifically Zalocusky is trying to link the neuroscience results to an earlier article by Ioannidis [1]. Whereas article [0] makes the conclusion that neuroscience results are unreliable and hard to reproduce, Zalocusky is applying the older methods and results from [1] that this means neuroscience results are not only unreliable but also false, which is a stronger statement. To support this, Zalocusky adds in a couple of back-of-the-napkin calculations.

I think a bit more analysis and caution is necessary before making the leap from Ioannidis' 2013 claim about neuroscience research to Zalocusky's stronger claim about neuroscience research.

Incidentally there was a lot of discussion about Ioannidis' 2005 paper, some which can be seen by Ioannidis' 2007 response to earlier criticism of the paper [2]. When evaluating claims about entire fields of research, it is important to be careful about how we interpret these claims.

edit: We need to be especially careful when using the word false. Does that mean "not true"? Or "insufficient to describe the truth"? Or "directly opposite to the truth"?

[0] [http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/full/nrn3475.html](http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/full/nrn3475.html)

[1] [http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

[2] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1896210/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1896210/)

<comment><USER3> Yeah I agree caution in interpretation is important.

However, given enough scientists all three forms of false are being published in parallel (as well as genuinely true results), which is the key problem. Without bounds on publication bias and publication quantity you can't really rigorously associate a probability of truth from a p-value* in isolation.

(hmm, I suppose meta-studies are a kind of remedy to that so maybe it will all work out anyway)

* or whatever

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, define 'flawed'. It is flawed if you attempt to interpret it as being representative of how people in the general population would behave in a setting without an active experimenter interfering, sure.

It does still reveal the influence that one person can have on a group of people and how much can be changed about behavior. It would be unwise to throw away discussions of the experiment because people can't properly place the data in context or evaluate the strengths/weaknesses of the experimental design and implementation (which is what Psychology courses should be teaching you to do in the first place.)

<comment><USER6> The linked article criticizes text books for not covering experiments criticism. The full title is: "What the textbooks don't tell you - one of psychology's most famous experiments was seriously flawed".

The title on HN have been shortened and information got lost in the process.

<comment><AUTHOR> The title was too long, and it wasn't clear what should or should not be included. I did my best.

<shrug />

<comment><USER7> Note that this is exactly what is wrong with how the experiment is discussed in text books and pop culture!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can someone explain why is SPE not relevant to Abu Ghraib? While you can argue the experiment was flawed, I am not sure its results are.

I am asking myself, if all the outrage about the SPE (and also Milgram) experiments being unethical (or flawed) isn't really about something that we don't want to really know about human nature.

<comment><USER9> You shouldn't put the SPE and Milgram experiments in the same basket. His experiments involved hundreds of participants from different demographics (mostly males though) and the conclusions he drew were backed up by his data. The setup he used is today deemed by most as unethical, but similar studies have reached the same conclusions.

A little known fact is that Milgram found, when the studied persons were free to set the voltage to administer, none of them increased it. His conclusion were that most people are not sadists and do not enjoy hurting others.

Edit: Maybe I spoke to soon, see: [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and- behavior/electric...](http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and- behavior/electric-schlock-65377/) But the experiments where still very different in the number of test subjects and how scientifically they where conducted.

<comment><USER8> I have the book Obedience from Milgram at home, although I just skimmed through it. I think the situation is similar, Zimbardo would probably do more experiments as well weren't the first result so horrific.

What I am a bit worried of is that we are not able to replicate (because of the ethical problems), in one way or another, results of these studies. How can future generations become educated about these problems? Especially if we cast doubt over their results. Are our descendants doomed to figure out these things the hard way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I vaguely recall seeing a similar thing about Milgram's Obedience experiments. The experimenters allegedly broke protocol by prompting the subjects too many times or bullying them, rather than using the prescribed neutral prompts.

However, I can't remember where I heard this.

<comment><USER11> >The experimenters allegedly broke protocol by prompting the subjects too many times or bullying them

and thus showed that "prompting the subjects too many times or bullying them" still makes people to follow the prompts and deliver the shock where "prescribed neutral prompts" weren't enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> In my life, I have found at least 95% of the people I have interacted will commit immoral acts/lie/cheat/ etc; as long as it's legal? They won't Jaywalk, but will commit horrid/spineless acts in order to make a buck, or secure their financial future. It would be hard to reproduce this study because so many people know about it, but I doubt the outcome would be much different. Man is spineless. I guess if you do show conviction and stand up for what is right; you run the risk of Homelessness? To bad! Oh, and just doing the right thing when people are looking, or convenient doesn't count.

<comment><USER13> First of all, have you read the article? When you say "I doubt the outcome would be much different" are you basing that on the same prejudices that Zimbardo had when he ran the experiment the first time?

Also, watch out for sloppy thinking: If people will commit immoral acts as long as it's legal, that makes them heartless, not spineless. Make sure you know what your standard is, because it will be used to judge you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The most surprising thing is that the textbooks haven't been updated. When I was a psych prof this was a commonplace among all my colleagues and even students. It's even common to use this "experiment" as a case study in class to discuss problematic experimental design.

I'm not sure why textbooks haven't been updated, but I doubt the hypotheses mentioned in the article (ignorance, that the authors believe the study, and pressure to keep textbooks short).

</comment><comment><USER15> This blog article doesn't tell me that MPE was flawed, either. All of those words criticizing other sources, but nothing summarizing the factual basis for those criticisms other than links to papers that .001% of the people reading this blog entry will complete.

My guess at why textbooks ignore the criticism is because it is not convincing.

</comment><comment><USER16> SPE is an absolute mess as an experiment, and shouldn't really be regarded as science.

However, you really don't even have to go far so far into the technical details to find it to be flawed. The whole premise seems absurd to me.

You get some students, tell some of them to act like prison guards and the rest to act like prisoners, and then it's supposed to be surprising that they follow through on this?

"Well, we didn't expect them to be so sadistic!"

There's nothing I read that was more sadistic than a fairly typical hazing ritual. All participants knew this was ultimately voluntary and could quit at any time.

</comment><comment><USER17> It might be convenient if the Stanford Prison Experiment continued to be discredited, often and harshly. Who would want to be in charge if all the peons were constantly mumbling about how being in charge turned leaders into petty tyrants?

It'd just be awkward and uncomfortable.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not flawed per se, if we see Zimbardo like Milgram as the guy in the white coat. If anything it's a case study in what "encouragement" means in the social context, like Abu Gharib or the Holocaust. No study is perfect, it can't be. By trying to control for variables, new ones are introduced and objectivity is lost and gained. No surprise there.

</comment><comment><USER19> Zach Weinersmith of SMBC put this very well in one frame and a caption: [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025](http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025)

<comment><USER20> This issue is true with much of social science. It would be great to see more replication (or non-replication) experiments to confirm what we think we do or don't know.

<comment><USER21> The linked comic is true - there are many problems with social science studies.

But, since you specifically mention replication and non-replication -- how well is this covered in the rest of science? How well is the null-hypothesis covered?

(I should say that I'm not trying to suggest that physics is as sloppy as psychology sometimes appears to be.)

(EDIT: spelling)

<comment><USER20> It's a problem everywhere. I think Physics is somewhat spared because the gap between observation and math is less. (String theory perhaps being an exception) I think biochemistry runs into these issues more because it is harder to "prove" things with math. In general the less you can rely on supporting math or theory, the more you need to be careful about replicating experiments to come up with the truth.

<comment><USER4> I think this is misunderstanding the role of math in science. Math is not used to "prove" scientific results, per se. Math is used to construct models, and prove that certain results would be expected from a given model. That doesn't mean the models work in the real world; all sciences use experiments to test models to see if they describe actual observations.

In this sense, you always need to be careful about replication, regardless of field. If you can't show replication, then there is no guarantee that the model will always match observations, no matter how much math went into the construction of that model.

In Physics the main problem is isolating variables, and setting up appropriate conditions. The good thing about Physics is that once the environment is set up and the experiment is well designed, it is easy to re-run the experiment for more trials. With chemistry and biology, this is usually the case as long as you have clean reagents in a clean lab, but you are introducing more factors of what you have to control as the complexity of your system scales up.

It is hardest to replicate results involving humans, because with humans you have a lot of complexity, so you know you can never control all influencing factors. Usually in the social sciences, it is easier to hope these factors cancel out with a large, non-homogenous sample size. The problem as these experiments like SPE demonstrate is that it is hard to build an ideal sample and, if the ethics or practicality of your methods are questioned, rerun the experiment to replicate results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The half-life of knowledge in psychology is thought to be one year, so by now most of the famous experiments (and their findings) in the field are considered flawed.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half- life_of_knowledge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge)

<comment><USER23> The very link from Wikipedia you used says that half-life of knowledge in psychology is five years. Still, that's not very long either.

<comment><USER22> Mistype. The point is don't take academic psychology seriously.

<comment><USER24> Sadly this extends past psychology to other scientific disciplines. There are many foods for example that have been shown to both dramatically increase and decrease you risk of cancer in well respected scientific journals. There is a strong incentive to find extreme results and too few peers actually reproduce results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Who cares? Isn't this an experiment validating a known conclusion anyway? Evil exists in the hearts of many. Give these bad people unlimited power and they will take out their frustrations on their fellow man. We see this all around us, if one is paying attention. The disgruntled Russian doorman, the lady who runs the local Home Owner's Association and likes to boss people around to sooth her psuedo-ego, the cop who shoots the non-aggressive dog or chokes out a cuffed arrestee because he can. And let's not forget the biggest experiment of all -- Nazi Germany where millions died. Now there is an experiment that went on way too long and should have been aborted. I just hope we learn the right lessons.

NB: I am not saying everyone is evil.

<comment><USER26> I think the reason why the experiment, if true, is so fascinating is because it's about normal people put into an abnormal situation rather than inherently bad people being given power.

What I take away from the experiment is that given the right situation and pressures, most people would do things they thought they would never otherwise do. More importantly, I think it's probably a mistake to think that you're the exception and are morally incorruptible.

<comment><USER25> This is exactly the conclusion they want you to reach. Who are you to judge? Who are you to condemn anyone since you are evil too? This is the charter of liberty for evil and all evil needs to survive, even prosper. This "experiment" is the biblical tenet of Original Sin masquerading as science and I reject it. If your moral principles cannot be practiced consistently by all men then something is wrong with your principles, not human nature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Are there any similar critiques of the Milgram experiment?

edit: Also, what the hell happened to HN comments sections lately?

<comment><USER28> Well, there are interesting follow-ups at least: [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12104/abstra...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12104/abstract) (summarised at [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-green- mind/201406/ar...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-green- mind/201406/are-polite-people-more-violent-and-destructive) )

Some nice quotes from the discussion (citations removed here for readability):

 _As expected, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness predicted the intensity of electric shocks administered to the victim. Second, we showed that disobedience was influenced by political orientation, with left-wing political ideology being associated with decreased obedience. Third, we showed that women who were willing to participate in rebellious political activities such as going on strike or occupying a factory administered lower shocks._

 _All these results suggest that situational context, even though a powerful determinate of behavior, does not necessarily overwhelm individual-level behavioral determinants. It is interesting to note that personality traits such as Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, which are widely related to positive outcomes such as better mental health, longevity, academic performance, parenting, reduced aggression, and prosocial behavior, may also have darker sides in that they can lead to destructive and immoral obedience._

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> anecdotally, the people I know who pursue psychology vocationally are not the most rigorous thinkers. more than half have a serious belief in astrology, for instance.

which is to say, I don't know what people expect, but I'm never surprised when I find out that any given psychology experiment is a fanciful construct of lies and half-truths.

<comment><USER30> Psychology is a modern religion masquerading as a science. Its as much a means of social control as anything else, and is promoted by governments because it gives them a way of subverting the general will of the people, that they not have religions dogma enforced upon them by the state. Psychology is little more than cultural dogma categorized in a way that it allows application for political purposes, and anyone who disagrees with that Psychology is a true science, is of course .. "crazy" ..

Just count the number of times you hear someone say "that guy is certifiably insane, he should be committed to an asylum" any time someone comes up with a non-popular point of view .. this is the government religion at work.

<comment><USER31> Read some neuroscience textbooks, for example, and then come back to me about how it's a "religion".

This has to be one of the worst comments I've seen in ages. My god.

<comment><USER30> Such as what do you recommend I read?

Neuroscience is just an attempt by the psychiatric movement to evade its religious/government roots. Neuroscience will also, eventually, be recognized as a belief system of enforcement, merely a tool for those who wish to social engineer the next generation of society for .. whatever .. means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Title of the article is seriously flawed. Every textbook and every respectable course spends more time criticising Stanford Prison Experiment more than discussing its results.

<comment><USER33> The text of the article contains evidence which supports the title's assertion and contradicts your assertion that "every textbook" criticizes the experiment. Do you have evidence to support your assertion?

> So, have the important criticisms and reinterpretations of the SPE been > documented by key introductory psychology textbooks? Greggs analysed the > content of 13 leading US introductory psychology textbooks, all of which > have been revised in recent years, including: Discovering Psychology > (Cacioppo and Freberg, 2012); Psychological Science (Gazzaniga et al, 2012); > and Psychology (Schacter et al, 2011).

> Of the 13 analysed texts, 11 dealt with the Stanford Prison Experiment, > providing between one to seven paragraphs of coverage. Nine included > photographic support for the coverage. Five provided no criticism of the SPE > at all. The other six provided only cursory criticism, mostly focused on the > questionable ethics of the study. Only two texts mentioned the BBC Prison > Study. Only one text provided a formal scholarly reference to a critique of > the SPE.</comment></comment>


Python, Machine Learning, and Language Wars (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://sebastianraschka.com/blog/2015/why-python.html <comment><USER2> I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Anaconda, which is Python with all the things he lists pre-installed for you. I've been a fan for some time now: [https://www.continuum.io/why-anaconda](https://www.continuum.io/why-anaconda)

<comment><USER3> I also think that Anaconda is great. However, I hope that in the future we could install numpy, matplotlib, jupyter, etc. just using pip.

<comment><USER4> I did that earlier today:

pip install jupyter

pip install numpy

pip install scipy

pip install scikit-learn

pip install matplotlib

The only problem I had was with OpenCV, which requires manual make installation if you want the contrib package. The other problem was when trying to install scikit-learn, it requires manual pip installation of scipy.

<comment><USER5> I would always be worried with installing numpy/scipy via pip that I wouldn't be linking to BLAS/LAPACK correctly.

<comment><USER6> What do you mean? I have always installed via pip with zero errors on all three platforms.

<comment><USER7> The worry is not that it will throw an error, it's that it will silently link against lower-performance math libraries and make your code inexplicably slow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Buddha about Language Wars:

Then the Buddha gave advice of extreme importance to the group of Brahmins: 'It is not proper for a wise man who maintains (lit. protects) truth to come to the conclusion: "This alone is Truth, and everything else is false'.' Asked by the young Brahmin to explain the idea of maintaining or protecting truth, the Buddha said: ' A man has a faith. If he says, "This is my faith", so far he maintains truth. But by 9 that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: "This alone is Truth, and everything else is false". In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say 'I believe this'. So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.

(from "What the Buddha taught, a really great book!)

<comment><USER9> > 'I believe this'. So far he respects truth

What if he believes is objectively wrong?

<comment><USER8> He only talks about wise men who protect truth, so the truth being true is a given I'd say.

EDIT: Of course he's talking to people who swear by the truth they protect. Instead of telling them they're wrong, telling them others might be right is far more likely to get them to consider his point of view -- that other "truths" are just as equal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I too am a Python-preferring machine learning engineer, but my reasons are almost precisely the opposite of the post's.

1\. No matter how much you ever think, as a scientist, that you "only do an analysis one time" it is false 99.99999% of the time. You will always want to run it multiple times. Other people will want help modifying and running variations of it. Employers will need you, the scientist, to "productionize" it and make it suitable for automated deployment, probably cross-platform.

2\. Your analysis will have to adapt to changing data inputs, which means you invariably have to create a (well-designed, unit-tested, and best-practices compliant) tool kit for custom data cleaning, pre-processing, database I/O, file system I/O, and visualization.

3\. You will inevitably need to be concerned with raw-metal performance, but generally in isolated pockets of your code, so you'll need a language like Python that supports targeted performance optimization with tools like Cython.

4\. Code is read (especially by newbies who need your help) much more than it is written, so you need a language that is easy to explain and reason about, with very few syntactical tricks and complicated conceptual nuances.

Overall, Python suits this niche very well. It is a full-service object- oriented language with a huge and well-maintained standard library. The third party tools for machine learning and general numeric computing are by far the best in the open source world (apart from a handful of boutique R libraries, which can use via rpy2 anyway), and Python is a simple language that is easy to teach and explain but also supports lots of targeted optimization in the CPython layer.

From the very first line of code you write, when you still naively believe "I will only run this once and I just need to crank it out," you need to be obsessed with writing well-designed, extensible, unit-tested code that is only a short distance from already being "production ready" \-- and Python is a great language choice for this.

</comment><comment><USER11> As someone who's switched from Ruby to Python (for now, because the latter is far easier to teach, IMO) and also put significant time into learning R, because of how strong ggplot2 is...I was really surprised at the lack of Google results for "switching from python to r" \-- or similarly phrased queries to find guides on how to go from Python to R...in fact, that particular query will bring up more results for R -> Python than the other way around (e.g. "Python Displacing R as The Programming Language For Data")...Talk of R is so ubiquitous in academia (and in the wild, ggplot2 tends to wow nearly on the same level as D3) that I had just assumed there was a fair number of developers who have tried jumping into R...but there aren't...I think minimaxir's guides are the most and only comprehensive how- to-do-R-as-written-by-an-outsider things I've seen on the web [1]. But by and far the common scenario is that of the author's: "Well, I guess it's no big secret that I was an R person once"

That said, one of the things I've appreciated about R is how it "just works"...I usually go through Homebrew, but RStudio works just as well. I can see why that's a huge appeal for both beginners and people who want to do computation but not necessarily become developers.

Also, I used to hate how `<-` was used for assignment...but now, that's one of the things I miss most about using R...I've grown up with single-equals-sign assignment in every other language I've learned, but after having to teach some programming...the difference between `==` and `=` is a common and often hugely stumping error for beginners. Not only that, they have trouble remembering how assignment even works, even for basic variable assignment...I've come to realize that I've programmed so long that I immediately recognize the pattern, but that can't possibly be the case for novices, who if they've taken general math classes, have never seen the equals sign that way. The `<-` operator makes a lot more sense...though I would've never thought that if hadn't read Hadley Wickham's style guide [2]

[1] [http://minimaxir.com/2015/02/ggplot- tutorial/](http://minimaxir.com/2015/02/ggplot-tutorial/)

[2] [http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Style.html](http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Style.html)

<comment><USER12> You know, I remember when I was trying my first language other than BASIC (VB6, perhaps? or maybe 1995 era JS?) and it bugged me that "x = y" wasn't the same as "y = x". Remembering it as "LET x = y" was helpful.

<comment><USER13> People have been upset about that since at least the 1950s. A lot of people who make programming languages use the := for the assignment operator instead.

<comment><USER14> Helps when you prounounce the assignment operator as "becomes" rather than "equals", too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There are lot of options when it comes to machine learning frameworks open source and commercial as well. Also many of these frameworks are designed to solve a specific problem. Some of the machine learning frameworks are optimized to run on certain types of hardware. In my opinion selecting a machine learning framework depends on the technology stack of your company because it makes lot of sense to leverage existing system rather then developing everything on an entirely new infrastructure and language.

</comment><comment><USER16> Previous submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10113413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10113413)

</comment><comment><USER17> why pick just one language? with the polyglot Beaker Notebook, you can work with many languages, even in the same notebook, and your data is automatically translated between them.

each of these languages has its strong point. there is always some library you want to use in some other language. or you want to collaborate with someone. or next year you change your mind and Julia is finally good enough.

[http://BeakerNotebook.com](http://BeakerNotebook.com)

<comment><USER18> Knowing other languages is great, but there is very real overhead in learning them. Python is mature enough that you have mature libraries available for pretty much everything.

<comment><USER17> believe it or not, there are some people who know R and face overhead to learn Python. and they love ggplot2.

and frankly, Python has no libraries for interactive visualization in your browser because only JavaScript runs there.

etc.

<comment><USER19> [http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/](http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/)

"Bokeh is a Python interactive visualization library that targets modern web browsers for presentation."

(Of course, it works by generating JavaScript)

<comment><USER17> right, and in order to really customize what bokeh does you need to write JS in strings in your python code, so this just proves my point.

[http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/interactio...](http://bokeh.pydata.org/en/latest/docs/user_guide/interaction.html#userguide- interaction) see the CustomJS function.

<comment><USER20> No you don't. It now does python to JS compilation. And that's if you want client side callbacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21>
       I know what you want to ask next: "Okay, what about turning my model into a nice and shiny web application? I bet this is something that you can't do in R!" Sorry, but you lose this bet; have a look at Shiny by RStudio A web application framework for R.

True, but it is a dumpster fire.

</comment><comment><USER22> Can we get "(2015)" on the title?</comment>


Terence Tao on the relationship between classical and Bayesian reasoning - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/buzz/114134834346472219368/G5DnA8EL7D3/In-classical-logic-one-can-represent-ones

<comment><USER2> This strikes a nice balance between pop-level postmodernism ("there is no truth, only interpretation") and authority-based philosophies ("such-and-such holds the key to absolute truth and cannot be questioned"). I've seen the same reasoning given other names, but for someone versed in formal logic and probability theory, this is a very nice presentation of the concepts.

Key points:

\- in Bayesian reasoning, beliefs are not held as absolutes, but as probabilities.

\- observations / measurements change those probabilities (using Bayes' formula). As a special case, certain measurements may set certain probabilities to zero; viewing only the "zero/nonzero" dichotomy is equivalent to classical logic.

\- as a counterpoint to Holmes' "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth", beware that you may have treated something as impossible which is merely highly improbable. There is a significant difference between actually zero and merely very close to zero.

\- A implies B does not mean B implies A. But A makes B more likely does mean B makes A more likely; this is a consequence of Bayes' formula. (This does not imply causation. It's just a recognition of correlation -- if two factors are correlated, the presence of one increases the likelihood of the presence of the other.)

<comment><USER3> "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains is often more improbable than your having made a mistake in one of your impossibility proofs." - The Black Belt Bayesian

<comment><USER2> A few years back, a new proof came out regarding an algorithm to find large primes. There was a slow, perfect variant and a faster, statistical variant with a small chance of error (like 1 in 10^20.)

"Of course, this means to be really sure you have to use the slower algorithm or go through a rigorous proof. On the other hand, the probability that you'd mess up a proof is much higher than that."

It was a fantastic illustration of the principle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also: Probability, The Logic Of Science, by E.T. Jaynes.

[http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Logic-Science- Vol/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Logic-Science- Vol/dp/0521592712)

Available here: <http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf>

The introduction/first chapter has a nice example about a policeman concluding a crime is being committed that's very relevant here.

<comment><USER5> That PDF is only the first three chapters.

<comment><USER3> <http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/prob.html> <\-- the rest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is one of the main reasons I like Tao. The guy is a terrific and prolific mathematician but he always strives to reach the larger public with his writing.

</comment><comment><USER7> In other words, "correlation rises the chance of a causation"?

<comment><USER4> Yes, modulo some semantics.

"Chance" is a very frequentist word. It's Better to say "correlation makes us more willing to believe there is causation."</comment></comment>


NSA Response to XKEYSCORE allegations - <AUTHOR> http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.shtml <comment><USER2> Remember also that the NSA has several programs split up to hide and deny what they do:

Bruce Schneier: "The agency has been playing all sorts of games with names, dividing their efforts up and using many different code names in an attempt to disguise what they're doing. It allows them to deny that a specific program is doing something, while conveniently omitting the fact that another program is doing the thing and the two programs are talking to each other."

[http://blog.ted.com/2013/07/17/security-experts-on-the- nsas-...](http://blog.ted.com/2013/07/17/security-experts-on-the-nsas-real- problems/)

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/more_nsa_coden...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/more_nsa_codena.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it fascinating that they are essentially corroborating everything Greenwald and Snowden have said, except just being nitpicky on tone and scope. Especially this:

"One feature is the system's ability to limit what an analyst can do with a tool, based on the source of the collection and each analyst's defined responsibilities. Not every analyst can perform every function, and no analyst can operate freely."

I seem to remember almost those exact words coming from the first Snowden interview:

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail."

<comment><USER4> I'm going to file these paragraphs away, so the next time I need to bullshit someone, I'll have some great examples. Not only do they hire the best mathematicians and scientists, but I'm sure there's an English major or two.

<comment><USER5> "no analyst can operate freely" would contradict Snowden's assertion that he personally could target anyone

<comment><USER6> As a system administrator Snowden presumably had lower-level access to the systems than analysts.

<comment><USER7> Incorrect (former NSA system administrator here). We're "read on" to special compartments beyond the scope of our need to know due to the nature of our work. It would be quite difficult for me to correct an issue if I was unable to see and/or duplicate that issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't give a shit how much training these people get, the very fact that a gigantic database of potentially all Internet traffic exists is itself a threat to freedom, open society, and the rule of law.

<comment><USER9> The point at the beginning of the press release is that gigantic database doesn't exist. According to the government, they only collect data that has been authorized by a court, which includes large scale metadata collection like call logs or email headers passing through international cable landing sites in the US (collection that stopped in 2011 according to the leaked documents) together with full data with realtime monitoring from certain US- based internet companies for specific users under a surveillance court order.

Access to that data is severely restricted and audited according to this document.

<comment><USER8> I've got a bridge to sell you. Interested?

<comment><USER9> You're making yet another extraordinary claim without any proof.

<comment><USER10> I would say that specific statements by multiple whistleblowers constitutes evidence, if not proof.

<comment><USER11> It doesn't matter anyway, the burden is not on citizens to prove that the government is spying on them, the burden is on the government to prove to the citizens that it's no longer lying to the society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Forgive us for not trusting you when a few weeks ago you denied under oath that this capability even existed. We may have a short memory as a country, but not that short!

<comment><USER13> I think you'll find that most people in the USA still do not have any real concern about the NSA/Snowden/XKEYSCORE/etc. situation, other than perhaps amusement that a "traitor" who leaked classified information and is agitating for more freedom is now holed up in _Moscow_ of all places.

Perhaps some parts of the NSA's programs will eventually be forbidden by the courts, but even then the vast majority of Americans won't care one way or the other. They want cat videos. They don't care if the NSA is monitoring their facebook chats. They think they're innocent of anything and everything. They don't understand the potential consequences, under this government or under some future government that gets to enforce even more laws even more aggressively.

<comment><USER14> I'm an American, and I am greatly concerned that our government has overstepped its mandate as well as abrogated the public trust by perpetrating this travesty.

I never considered Snowden to be a "traitor," I consider him to have made a great sacrifice in order to bring this situation to light, especially since the past revelations flew right under the radar, so to speak, regarding the AT&T revelations years ago.

Sure I like cat videos, and other inane content, but I also am abhorred by dragnet surveillance.

I completely understand the possible consequences of such surveillance, and am dismayed when people cite "Godwin's Law" whenever I draw parallels between the current spy atrocities and those of the Stasi.

I fully realize that our next president could have even fewer reservations than Obama about furthering this draconian system as well as ramping up the encroaching police state we see here today.

Thus I refuse to cease talking about this issue, as I want people to be aware of just how slippery this slope actually is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Fine, great, terrific, sounds good, like we can trust the NSA.

Reading this about all the protections, now that we know at least some of what Snowden did, we're talking high comedy.

While all those internal checks, balances, controls, ethics, assurances, etc. sound good, they are all too easily just self serving BS.

We need to keep our eyes on the point, the main point, the crucial point which is: If they grab data on US citizens without a proper warrant, then lots of US citizens will conclude that the NSA is in violation of the Fourth Amendment, with all the NSA assurances irrelevant. Stop. Period. Guilty. Done.

I as one US citizen greatly prefer the Fourth Amendment to any contributions to my safety that might be provided by the NSA and however proper the NSA makes their activities sound. Did I mention I like the Fourth Amendment?

</comment><comment><USER16> The problem with every explanation from any intelligence agency ever is that they are extremely motivated to keep everyone else uninformed. To that end, they have demonstrated their willingness to disinform everyone, including congress. Once faced with damning evidence that they lied, they conveniently redefined a universally understood verb, and said that they _had_ to mislead us. They also want us to know that they thought this whole incident was "cute".

If you can lie to congress, and suffer no meaningful consequences, how can any reasonable person have any meaningful level of confidence in the accuracy of any statement that you have ever made or will ever make?

</comment><comment><USER17> > _all of our analytic tools are aimed at information we collect pursuant to > lawful authority_

The use of the word "lawful" is slick and misleading. They "own" a rubber stamp court that never says no and re-interprets laws to their liking.

So, virtually whatever they want to do is "lawful" by definition.

<comment><USER18> Can't upvote this enough. They reprogram their language at their whim. #define lawful ..

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > This training not only covers the mechanics of the tool but also each > analyst's ethical and legal obligations.

Which means, of course, that analysts can operate outside of their ethical and legal obligations. And to me, that is the foundation of the issue. Who pays what analyst in DC to dig up dirt?

And to the statement that access is audited... how many analysts were fired for overstepping their ethical obligations? Is that information collected or released?

<comment><USER20> An audit is meaningless when conducted by the very organization being audited.

<comment><USER21> Who should do this kind of audit? The GAO is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch, but presumably they wouldn't have enough "clearance".

<comment><USER20> That's the problem, and that's why these programs should be terminated. An un- auditable spy agency answerable only to the President is manifestly unconstitutional, dangerous, and wrong.

<comment><USER22> >An un-auditable spy agency answerable only to the President

i somehow think that its answerability to the President is overrated. Presidents come and go, the machine continues humming :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Under the NSA's definition of 'foreign', a 51% likeliness of foreignness (a coin flip plus 1%), they only target foreigners. Use tor, there is the 1%. Speak a language other than English, gosh that must be worth 10%.

This goes on word after word. The NSA statements are blatantly false. They can only even pretend it is true by twisting words so far they no longer resemble their actual meaning.

</comment><comment><USER14>
         Allegations of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are simply not true. Access to XKEYSCORE, as well as all of NSA's analytic tools, is limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks. Those personnel must complete appropriate training prior to being granted such access -training which must be repeated on a regular basis.

I call bullshit!

If what the professional liar's agency says is true, how do they explain an admitted low level analyst, working for a non governmental 3rd party corporation, gaining access to the alleged trove of NSA secrets claimed by Snowden?

</comment><comment><USER24> Presumably statements about what is and isn't being "collected" are based on a twisted and non-intuitive definition of the word.

</comment><comment><USER25> The NSA keeps saying that no one is abusing this program. That's completely beside the point--the point is that this program shouldn't exist at all.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, the program it's self is the abuse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I like how the slogan at the bottom of the page looks like one of those "How useful did you find this article?" questionnaires on Microsoft's site:

[http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_images/slogan.jpg](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_images/slogan.jpg)

"Four stars! Would trust again!"

</comment><comment><USER28> My favorite slide from Greenwald's article was the justification field from the Search Email Addresses Query [1].

It's a one line field. With an addition one line field for "Additional Justification".

This press release is actually expansive by comparison to their typical justifications.

[1] - [https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hipchat.com/17859/77014/djo...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hipchat.com/17859/77014/djowrd2zqz1nkzx/upload.png)

</comment><comment><USER29> > Not every analyst can perform every function, and no analyst can operate > freely. Every search by an NSA analyst is fully auditable, to ensure that > they are proper and within the law.

Didn't Snowden specifically deny that this is true?

<comment><USER30> No, Snowden even mentioned that the audit rate was rather low. 2% or 8% or something like that, and elsewhere in this thread someone pasted a direct quote of his that analysts are indeed not given full permissions to do anything.

But the NSA is saying that all analysts don't have full powers; that doesn't mean that the permissions they _do_ have are not still overly broad, or that programs like these don't need much more transparency.

You can't so much as send a nuclear ship to sea without their engineering department being audited (almost literally) up the ass to verify they won't break the reactor, so there's surely more that Congress and DoD can do to ensure proper oversight of the NSA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Lies, lies and lies... The sad thing is everything they have already done CAN be and could have been done by respecting laws. Its just easier to break them when you are nearly untouchable.

</comment><comment><USER32> What caught my attention was the use of "analytic tools" as a euphemism for "surveillance tools." One could dismiss it as corporate-speak or techie-speak, but it rings in my head more like newspeak, and you know the purpose of that.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)

</comment><comment><USER33> Over 300 terrorists!

<comment><USER34> As of 2008: "For example, as of 2008, there were over 300 terrorists captured using intelligence generated from XKEYSCORE."

Anyone have an idea why they'd give a 5-year-old figure? One would hope that the figure as of 2013 should be more impressive?

<comment><USER13> "...captured using intelligence generated from..." is another of those trick phrases.

It doesn't clearly imply that without the program they wouldn't have captured those terrorists.

It doesn't clearly imply that any reduction in scope of xkeyscore would have let some of those 300 terrorists escape capture.

All it means for sure is that data from xkeyscore is part of the picture they looked at of those 300 terrorists leading up to their captures.

I wonder how many bona fide terrorists the government captured from 2001-2008.

<comment><USER35> > "...captured using intelligence generated from..." is another of those trick > phrases. > It doesn't clearly imply that without the program they wouldn't > have captured those terrorists.

Those are excellent points, and I wish they were raised more often. I'd like to add one more: How many of those captured were terrorists only thanks to your own government setting them up for the task first? In other words, how much of this was the result of "manufactured terrorism", ála FBI? (ref: [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/terror- factory-f...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/terror-factory-fbi- trevor-aaronson-book) and the earlier article linked from the story.)

After all, the actors in those programs still needed to communicate. Judging by the two articles the subjects weren't particularly bright either, so they probably would not have known how to protect their communications. Thus they were bound to generate material that would be scooped up the NSA programs. The fact that the plots were not only known in advance, but planned by your own government officials simply ensured that they would know with perfect accuracy where to look and what to look for.

A naked figure of "300 terrorists captured" is therefore meaningless, just like you said. Without a futher breakdown, the figure just feels like marketing.

As an odd side note - this makes manufactured terrorism look a bit like astroturfing. A scary thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> OH WELL THEN. Everything's fine. Carry on!

 _eyeroll_

<comment><USER37> Seriously, I thought there was like mass surveillance and all that stuff going on. But it's all clear now. This is about national security. And oh, thing about the kids!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Vimium shortcut: "HA". I'm amused, yet terrified, at their response.

</comment><comment><USER38> NSA, short for:

Nope, not Saying Anything.

<comment><USER39> That's the NNSA. They're in the important business of nuclear stockpile management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> "Moxie Marlinspike @moxie 8h

Gen Alexander says that we shouldn't worry about NSA collection because analysts have taken a pledge. Also, they took a class."

<comment><USER41> Pledge, oath, bullshit. I believe Clapper was under oath when he lied to Wyden about this stuff in the first place.</comment></comment>


Mercury(II) thiocyanate - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury%28II%29_thiocyanate <comment><AUTHOR> I just discovered that this substance does this amazing things when it burns. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3o2KgQstA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC3o2KgQstA) for more explanation and examples (awesome one starts at 9 minutes in the video).</comment>


Most Forked GitHub Repositories - Infographic - <AUTHOR> http://www.moretechtips.net/2012/08/most-forked-github-repositories.html <comment><USER2> This isn't an infographic, this is GitHub's Popular Forked[0] page in non-text format.

[0] <https://github.com/popular/forked></comment>


When agile gets dangerous - <AUTHOR> https://www.darraghoriordan.com/2017/09/14/agile-gets-dangerous/ <comment><USER2> Gray letters on a lighter gray background, almost impossible to read.</comment>


What Web Workers Want (And Feel They're Not Getting Now) - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/collaboration/what-web-workers-want-and-feel-theyre-not-getting-now/

<comment><USER2> I was expecting an article on the status of Javascript Web Workers, and was quite disappointed.

<comment><USER3> Me too. I was thinking about poor little neglected HTML5 webworkers not getting the proper API privileges necessary to make useful web apps. Poor little webworkers.

But instead it's about real people. Pffft.</comment></comment>