Amazon may soon provide free video streaming for all - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/report-amazon-is-prepping-a-free-video-streaming-service/

<comment><USER2> free video streaming for all*

*limited to customers of microsoft and apple. Excluding everything that is not windows or mac os. Also, android.</comment>


Sun, Sand and Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.sunsandandstartups.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Calling out entrepreneurs who are in (or willing to go to) Barcelona! This first meetup will not feature any talks - just cocktails and networking, but I am hoping that we will be able to attract some interesting speakers in the future.</comment>


We Need a PBS for Social Media - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/opinion/public-broadcasting-facebook.html <comment><USER2> We don't need another service provider. We need a protocol, a specification for completely decentralised, carry-with-us social networks.

A way that my device can securely communicate with my friends devices and say "Sup?". A way that we can share messages, photos, calendars, contacts, etc without some behemoth (or state) sticking its nose in the middle.

I've had this conversation here before and somebody mentions RSS but it's not enough on its own. It's certainly a basis for content exchange but nowhere near enough for the authentication, and authoring side of things.

<comment><USER3> _> We need a protocol, a specification for completely decentralised, carry- with-us social networks._

I know it seems logical that a "social network protocol" is the answer to replace Facebook but after studying the mechanics of social networks, I've concluded that focusing on technical protocols is incorrect.

My suggestion to programmers seriously thinking of new solutions in the social networking space: don't get sidetracked into thinking about the _protocol_ because if you do, your new social network will end up in the graveyard of previous failed projects like Diaspora. Instead, think about the _database of real names_.

My previous comment on why _protocols_ like ActivityPub & Mastodon are not the answer for a general purpose social network adopted by the masses: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18727230](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18727230)

Also, another previous comment on how focusing on _protocols_ is (inadvertently) analyzing the wrong drivers for success: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960)

And another previous comment about how an open and free-to-use _protocol_ like Signal does not mean Moxie Marlinspike is willing to federate with others' servers: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499)

(If you _still_ believe that designing a new protocol is the correct answer after reading my 3 previous comments, please explain your thinking. I'm open to changing my mind on this.)

<comment><USER4> The problem here is that you're looking at it from an entrepreneur perspective, while the people building it are looking at it from a privacy perspective.

I don't use Facebook _because_ of the reasons it's popular. I don't want my information easily accessible online, and I do want as much control as possible over who sees my information. I believe it should be easy to give and revoke access to my information and content. The European solution here is to legislate our way to that end goal, whereas the "market" way is to make something that's appealing that gets you most of what you liked about the centralized service, but with more control over your data.

And that's why I'm so interested in projects like ActivityPub and Matrix: it's not because I think they'll become popular, but because of what will happen _if_ they become popular. If I was to invest money, I'd go with Facebook's business model every time, but if I'm going to evangelise something, it'll be something like Mastodon or Riot.im.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's been a while since I've found myself disagreeing with something so strongly.

I think that the absolute last thing we need is government-funded social media. If YouTube "spreads propaganda," what do you expect from a platform that a massive government has its hands directly on? I don't understand. It's as dystopian-sounding as any idea I have ever heard.

> In other words, it should be built to prioritize sharing things you love > over getting attention by simply being loud online.

This is an over-trivialization of Twitter. At risk of sounding snarky: if you think Twitter is all about getting attention, you're using the app wrong, and maybe you only follow celebrities.

Also, I think the question "Will people use it, and how many?" is the wrong question ask. _Why_ will people use it? Can I get news updates? Can I find funny/entertaining content? Can I reasonably expect organic engagement, and potential virality? Can I get private life updates from my friends, without the government's eyes peering in? People don't typically go to PBS for most of these things (news is one thing they do), so I can't imagine how a "PBS" for social media would be very different.

Yet another question: "Why would I be on a social media app with my parents?"

I can understand the reasoning behind this, but I don't see it realistically gaining any traction or significant usage, ever.

All this being said, Mr. Mark Coatney is a former director of Tumblr, so obviously there's a big gulf in social media experience between us, and I could be egregiously wrong on some of what I have said above. Who knows?

<comment><USER6> I actually think that the worry about government censorship isn't as strong as you think. The US government unlike a private corporation can't legally engage in viewpoint based censorship.

<comment><USER5> It's not about censorship, so much about it just being that there's nothing appealing about a government social media site. At all. The majority of conversations that happen on sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat would just not happen.

<comment><USER6> Why wouldn't it happen? In democratic countries like the US, UK and Australia there have been a long tradition of independence from the state broadcasters; often hosting forums where guests antithetical to the views of the reining government have taken place.

Can you explain what types of conversations that you think would not happen and why being government run would result in this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >Trolls and abusive behaviors thrive on for-profit social platforms in part because at some level the platforms don't mind this.

They'd thrive even more on a government-funded platform which is legally obligated not to censor their speech.

<comment><USER8> The author isn't suggesting that their proposed social network be run by the government, and there is no legal obligation for private non-profits who accept government funding to refrain from censorship.

Later in the article, the author explicitly suggests that accounts be connected to real world identities in order to prevent fake accounts and discourage trolls.

<comment><USER9> >> Later in the article, the author explicitly suggests that accounts be connected to real world identities in order to prevent fake accounts and discourage trolls.

This solves one problem and introduces about ten other massive issues with underrepresented populations, protected classes, and stalking.

This is not a new idea. It's been tried many times before and shot down regularly for very obvious reasons.

<comment><USER8> > _This solves one problem and introduces about ten other massive issues with > underrepresented populations, protected classes, and stalking._

I think the author already considered this. From the article:

 _" An account on a public media platform would be tied to a real-world, local identity, like a driver's license or library card. Anonymity online has real benefits, and a user name doesn't have to be your real name. The public social media network could keep this information hashed, unscrambled only when action against a user is required, which would make it easier to crack down on fake and troll accounts."_

<comment><USER10> > hashed, unscrambled

Anyone who says this has no technical credibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems pretty doable from a tech standpoint. Is funding really the only reason it's not being done? I think a much thornier question is the moderation policies. With broadcasting, not everyone can get air time and so there's an expectation of curation built-in. But once everyone can technically join in the conversation, keeping certain people or topics out can be a very heated conversation.

<comment><USER12> >This seems pretty doable from a tech standpoint. Is funding really the only reason it's not being done?

It's not being done because this already exists. It's called 4chan (though 8chan is a better fit; I don't recall if source code for it was ever made available).

Of course, 4chan depended on a single individual's pocketbook and liberal moderation policies, which has let it down in the past; having such a service be government-funded and shardable so that if one mod goes bad you still have a place to go would help.

But at its core, you'd still have 4/8chan, because that's what "public access" (and "free speech") means. And while it is very valuable, a lot of people just can't properly digest it.

<comment><USER13> The theoretical site described in the article requires that every account be tied to a real person (e.g. by driver's license or library card). I think having something like this would produce a climate very different from those on the *chans

<comment><USER14> "Real identities" don't work for open discourse. See: Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm getting really burned out by the wanton use of the term 'Propaganda'.

"YouTube spreads propaganda and is toxic to children. Twitter spreads propaganda and is toxic to racial relations. Facebook spreads propaganda and is toxic to democracy itself."

What does the author actually mean by this? Messages posted and shared by government entities? Or, people sharing inflammatory opinions?

<comment><USER16> By 'propaganda', I'm guessing the author means "things I don't agree with".

<comment><USER17> Author is spreading anti-skub propaganda.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I feel like Mastodon has the right idea. Decentralized, open-source and easy to setup.

<comment><USER19> Media organizations (I'm looking directly at you nytimes.com) should be standing up their own Mastodon instances for the benefit of their writers and staff.

ditto for anyone else in the public sphere currently publishing status updates via walled garden platforms (elected officials, agencies, educational institutions, et cetera)

edit: or, more generically, any implementation of ActivityPub will do. or write your own!

[https://github.com/BasixKOR/awesome- activitypub](https://github.com/BasixKOR/awesome-activitypub)

<comment><USER20> > ditto for anyone else in the public sphere currently publishing status > updates via walled garden platforms (elected officials, agencies, > educational institutions, et cetera)

I like this idea. But I think it's unlikely to happen. Universities often don't even run their own email anymore (at least for students; faculty often have a local Exchange setup for them). I would have thought that Universities would want to run their own services for file synchronization and sharing (i.e., internal Dropbox), audio/video conferencing (i.e., internal but interoperable Zoom/Skype, perhaps set up with SIP), etc. This would enable them to better manage IP and sensitive student information (SSN's, etc.), but they don't seem to have enough foresight to offer those kinds of services until the faculty are already using a freemium service. Then, _if_ they roll out something, the University version is clumsy and error-ridden.

Additionally, the network effects of other social networks likely means it would be a tall order to convince the sufficiently senior administrator that they should dump twitter and go to their own Mastodon instance.

20 years ago this might've been a possibility. That was back when individual departments ran their own email/web/whatever servers. So individual departments within universities that had more agility and flexibility might've tried something like that. But now most universities seem to be clawing that functionality and freedom away from departments and putting it into a centralized IT department. So email stays because it's already embedded in the culture, but it makes it hard to add something new like a federated social network (or even video conferencing, it seems).

<comment><USER19> Single example counterpoint: MIT runs a mastodon instance:

[https://mastodon.mit.edu/about](https://mastodon.mit.edu/about)

<comment><USER20> Pleasantly surprising to see. In all the universities I've experienced recently, the trend is strongly in the opposite direction. One of the admins' bio on the MIT instance states that they're at math and comp sci major at MIT, so I wonder how "official" it is? If I'm interpreting the MIT IT page correctly[0], *.mit.edu hostnames can possibly be registered by students? In which case it's not clear if it's run by MIT or by some students who happened to request that particular hostname.

[0] [http://kb.mit.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=15...](http://kb.mit.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=152584629)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So, the solution to big corporations employing asshole tactics to lure you into selling your attention is big government using your tax money to make a heavily censored, totalitarian version of Facebook? Ok.

The whole article is futile attempt to try to embellish that concept.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you took a combination of Facebook, Nextdoor, and PBS, removed all commercial interests, made it publicly owned, and made its mission the betterment of the public good, yes, that would actually be amazing. (As a portal for government information and services)

I would start with just a very stripped-down platform, and then allow integrations, such that every government entity could use the platform to publish information and communicate. Citizens could also communicate among themselves, either in "neighborhood groups", or privately. But personal profiles should be private by default, and require strong authentication guarantees for others to view. Everyone could still comment on public content as they do today, but personal data would remain private.

As government entities integrate into the platform, they could begin publishing data that citizens could subscribe to. Community classes at the local library, parks department announcing a call for volunteers, DMV office closings, IRS filing deadlines, local civic board meeting notes, and of course, PBS content. It could be one source to consume all of the potential open data available to citizens. It could also be a portal to _find_ the right government services, as well as pass information to it: report a crime, pothole, zoning violation, etc much like '311 apps' do today (Philadelphia 311: [https://www.phila.gov/311/form/Pages/default.aspx](https://www.phila.gov/311/form/Pages/default.aspx) Open Maps Philly: [https://openmaps.phila.gov/](https://openmaps.phila.gov/) Open Data Philly: [https://www.opendataphilly.org/](https://www.opendataphilly.org/) Philly Property History: [https://li.phila.gov/](https://li.phila.gov/) Philly Atlas: [https://atlas.phila.gov/](https://atlas.phila.gov/))

Right now Facebook and custom regional solutions serves much of this need, but it's also filled with a huge amount of crap that we shouldn't have to deal with just to find this information. And of course, privacy can come first on such a platform, rather than last.

> Let's build one.

Fuck it, yeah, let's. Where do I sign up?

<comment><USER11> I've only heard nasty things about Nextdoor - probably because it's more sensational. What do you like about it?

<comment><USER22> Granted, Nextdoor is a source of a lot of drama. The features I like are the ability to connect with a specific neighborhood, receive local notifications, and coordinate with neighbors. I think if there were very specific groups for very specific purposes in an area, or only govt employees could start new posts, it could be useful, such as _" the parks department is having a clean- up day this weekend near you, post here to coordinate rides to the park"_, _" there is an amber alert in your neighborhood"_, _" police are asking if you have any tips about a break-in that happened on your block"_, _" school closures tomorrow"_, _" local elections tomorrow at the following locations"_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We have better than 'PBS for Social Media'.

We (still) have IRC.

<comment><USER24> You have to be in a thick bubble separated from all the teens in the universe to think that IRC can do even 10% of what Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok/Facebook are capable of doing.

Facebook in particular is nearly an operating system.

<comment><USER25> The replacement for IRC these days is discord. It's not like we can't do IRC again, it just isn't as visible for people who's only experience with installing a program is through an app store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't disagree, but more people watch Fox News than PBS, so I'm not sure how much it would help.

</comment><comment><USER27> _(Disclaimer: self-promotion)_

This article echoes a lot of the reasons I'm working on Tildes ([https://tildes.net](https://tildes.net)) and specifically founded it as a non-profit. My announcement post from last year discusses how the current approach to community-based sites -- specifically the dependence on venture capital and advertising -- makes companies chase goals that are harmful for the users themselves: [https://blog.tildes.net/announcing- tildes](https://blog.tildes.net/announcing-tildes) (HN discussion at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17103093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17103093))

I believe that a non-profit model is the only way to break out of the current cycle of sites starting out as "too good to be true" (as they burn through their VC), and inevitably devolving into privacy-invading, advertising-heavy sites dominated by lowest-common-denominator content when they need to keep forcing growth and monetize their users.

Tildes has been publicly visible for a while now, but still requires an invite to register an account. If you're interested in registering and participating just send me an email, the address is in the announcement post linked above. It's not intended to be difficult to get invites, I mostly just want to keep the growth rate under control while more features and the early site culture continue building up.

<comment><USER28> Quick thought: this looks like a clone of Reddit, or maybe more loosely HN, Lobsters, or Metafilter. I think the most important aspect of social media to most people is that it allows for people who are friends "in real life" to share text / media with a circle of friends in a semi-private forum.

This is why such an apparently unlikely candidate as Discord has become the medium of choice for a lot of young people. It's basically group chat with a few extra features like history search, different "channels", and easy media sharing. It's also why I think a lot of the current open source attempts are likely doomed to failure for _this_ purpose - they're basically decentralized Twitter.

Do you have plans for Tildes to fill this kind of role? Admittedly, I didn't look all that closely at it, and so what you're getting from me is my surface impression.

<comment><USER5> > I think the most important aspect of social media to most people is that it > allows for people who are friends "in real life" to share text / media with > a circle of friends in a semi-private forum.

I agree with this. In all of the decentralized social media iterations I've seen, the main two things I've always missed were the "personal aspect," and appealing visual design.

It's worth asking, though, how possible it is to achieve that in a truly decentralized fashion, while still providing a good user experience. From a user's perspective, it doesn't make much sense to have separate sites with limited interoperability when you can simply just one (centralized) site. I guess that for the Fediverse to truly take off, there really needs to be a concept that simply _cannot_ be implemented without de-centralization. Until then, it'll be an uphill battle.

<comment><USER28> I agree that that's a problem. If Discord is "good enough" for social media, then Matrix is trying to be an open source, decentralized Discord. It's also (in my personal experience) _unbelievably_ crappy, even if you stick to 1-1 conversations on the "default" matrix.org instance that Riot.im uses.

Some security experts have indicated that it's not up to par with Signal for those who need the strongest confidentiality guarantees. (I wouldn't fully trust Signal either if my adversary was the NSA, but there might also be no better alternative you could get people to use.)

So it's really telling to me that years of work on decentralized "personal" social media hasn't come up with anything that's fully functional, let alone a replacement to existing social media sites.

<comment><USER29> suprising and depressing that riot feels _unbelievably_ crappy; lots of people seem to be able to use it ok. would be helpful to know what bits sucked most if you can face it.

<comment><USER28> Okay, so maybe "unbelievable crappy" was a bit of an exaggeration. After all, I _do_ use it. But I'll try to explain. It starts with the fact that so many of the features still aren't up to par with what e.g. Discord provides. It _feels_ like a knock-off.

The biggest problem I've faced is dealing with the encryption. Every new device in a conversation has to be verified with every other, which means you need n(n-1)/2 pairings for a room with n devices. That's right, if you're trying to set up a chat with 10 people who have an average of three devices, you're going to need to do 435 pairings. The pairings themselves are a huge pain: there are different pairing "methods" to use, and different clients will make guesses about the method the other client supports, and the whole thing falls apart if it guesses wrong (there's no negotiation, as far as I can tell) or if the person with the device doesn't immediately respond. There's no notion of a web of trust or trusting a person instead of a specific device. Even if everything goes right (it usually doesn't) it's going to take about 30 seconds per person to do each pairing, which means your group chat with just 10 people is going to take over 7 hours to set up. You could just ignore the verification stuff, but presumably the reason you wanted to use Matrix (instead of a centralized service) in the first place was because you thought it was more secure / private.

Someone adds a new device, or logs out of a device, or there's some glitch (it's happened to me)? Everyone in the room gets to do another pairing. With every one of their devices.

Another issue has been the unreliability of the service itself. Sometimes it breaks, logging you out. (Hope everyone backed up their keys!) Or they get hacked and the server goes down for days: [https://matrix.org/blog/2019/05/08/post-mortem-and- remediati...](https://matrix.org/blog/2019/05/08/post-mortem-and-remediations- for-apr-11-security-incident)

And then there's just the random client bugs. I _literally_ just opened the tab for Riot to remind myself of other issues and was greeted with this: [https://i.imgur.com/8Rgebfr.png](https://i.imgur.com/8Rgebfr.png) They don't seem to be keeping up with them, either. Riot Web alone has almost 4000 open issues: [https://github.com/vector-im/riot- web/issues](https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues)

Having a searchable history is supposed to be one of the major advantages of a Discord-like interface, but I just did a search for a word _that I 'm looking at in the chat_ and got no results.

So basically, it's a mess right now. I'm using it with one person because they're the only person who wants a Discord-like chat with me and are willing to put up with the amount of nonsense needed to use an alternative that doesn't siphon off your data to a private company.

<comment><USER29> So, firstly - huge thanks for taking the time to list the problems :) I'm the project lead for Matrix & Riot hence my interest.

Totally agreed that the lack of cross-signing for key verification is our single biggest problem. It turns out that this is not an easy problem to solve, but after a few rethinks we finally have a design ([https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix- doc/pull/1756](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1756)) and an implementation ([https://scitech.video/videos/watch/d1ef04a8-397a-4570-a9a9-c...](https://scitech.video/videos/watch/d1ef04a8-397a-4570-a9a9-cef143ea637c)) which works. The only bit that remains is wiring it into the Riot's UI itself, which we started a few weeks ago and is looking promising. The TL;DR is that it optimises the number of verifications to the absolute bare minimum. You verify your new device once when you log into it (a bit like WhatsApp), and then everyone else will transitively trust the new device.

In terms of the unreliability of the matrix.org server: we added encrypted key backup about a year ago to solve the whole "if you get logged out you lose your keys" problem, but agreed it used to be a massive problem. And yes, the matrix.org security breach was a nightmare - apologies.

For the i18n bug: if the request to load the i18n file for your language fails for whatever reason, you get that ugly error - it's similar to getting an ugly page if the CSS didn't load. We can make the i18n req retry, though - i just filed [https://github.com/vector-im/riot- web/issues/10965](https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/10965) for this.

In terms of the number of bugs - yes, we have 3775 open, and 5871 closed. This is because we deliberately try to track each and every possible suggestion & feature request & bug of every severity in the issue tacker; trying to use it as the main knowledge store for the project. I wouldn't judge the quality of a project by the number of bugs - it's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages. It doesn't tell you much beyond how big a book it is.

Search should work, but delegates straight through to postgres's FTS engine. We need to tune it better, for sure.

> So basically, it's a mess right now

Hopefully key verification will fix the biggest issue here. Thanks for persevering with it in the interim.

<comment><USER28> Hey, I didn't know you were the project lead. Thanks for taking the time to reply! By the way, when I said

> If Discord is "good enough" for social media, then Matrix is trying to be an > open source, decentralized Discord. It's also (in my personal experience) > unbelievably crappy

it was sort of a loving complaint. I brought up Matrix in the first place because to me it _is_ one of the few attempts to solve the personal social media problem with decentralized open source software. So I really want to see it succeed, and my quick rant about how the state of it now was in that light. Kind of like complaining about your favorite sports team. You forget sometimes what a range of people are on HN, and so I hope you / others who work on Matrix aren't too disheartened by complaints.

I've been following the cross-signing bug for a while now. I had hoped to see it implemented earlier, but it's good that it's being worked on. I wonder if an encrypted copy of the keys could be stored in the browser's local storage, so that logging out doesn't reset the client. It would also be great to have all my devices store encrypted backups of each other's keys, so that unless all my devices get signed out everything just works without requiring a backup or re-verifying devices. I _think_ Signal works like that, and I thought Matrix was supposed to do this partially, but it didn't work last time I was signed out. From the user's point of view, you want one identity / set of keys / backup for all your devices, even if that's not what's happening at a lower level.

> the i18n bug

Since you already have the pre-translation English text, wouldn't it make sense to fall back to showing that instead of "translation failed" on every line of text? Plus, my locale is en_US so especially in my case failing to fetch the i18n files shouldn't result in such an ugly bug.

> Search should work, but delegates straight through to postgres's FTS engine.

If I'm understanding you, this means the search is always done server-side. Doesn't this mean that search will never work on encrypted chats, since the Matrix server doesn't have the text of my chats to search? If that's expected, some user-facing way of making this obvious would help.

Thanks again for the detailed reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I can't wait for the incessant fund-raisers on sign-on ala wikipedia and terrestrial PBS. It's easy to think this is the best model but that is the price.

</comment><comment><USER31> This technology is clearly harmful to those who participate in it. Why anybody would think the solution is to get the government involved in the farce is beyond me.

<comment><USER32> I think you've misperceived PBS and what this effort would be. The funding would be _ _public_ _ - as in crowdsourced. If the effort were non-profit like PBS it would be eligible for grants and funding from government(s) but it would not act as a government agency.

I think a good question to ask would be to ask how we insure that governmental intelligence agencies do not have their hooks in the effort.

<comment><USER33> Genuine question: can the government legally sponsor a social media network if that network censors legal but abhorrent speech (e.g., anti-black or anti- white hate speech)? Seems like it would either be a cesspool or it would get struck down in the courts.

<comment><USER34> The government has censored public speech in various forms of media since forever, whether funded or not. It wouldn't be an issue.

<comment><USER33> I would be surprised if the courts would uphold an equivalence between broadcast television and a social network. I would expect them to interpret speech on a public social network like speech in a town square.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> We need a PBS for search engines too. A public, government-funded spider that indexes everything on the web that wants to be indexed. And a public API so that anybody can build a search engine on top of it.

</comment><comment><USER36> I would say it needs to be more like BBC with a funding stream that isn't dependent on Government approval.

</comment><comment><USER37> Social media is a blight on human discourse. We need _less_ of it, not more.

</comment><comment><USER38> No, we don't.

<comment><USER39> Alright then

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The "Public Alternative" hinted in this paywalled article can be built on the w3c recommended standard, ActivityPub. Organizations should be adopting this and running implementations under their own organizational control.

</comment><comment><USER40> Posting op-eds should be against the rules.

</comment><comment><USER41> I find it disingenuous to say we need a public, free, and open place to exchange ideas in an article behind a company's paywall.

<comment><USER42> Disingenuous in what way? Do you think the editorial author doesn't actually desire a public space?

<comment><USER41> If the desire is so strong to make discourse open and unencumbered by individual corporate walls, then this one article could have been placed up outside the paywall. To say, "I think we need an open public forum" on a medium as open and public as the WWW and then to restrict it behind az paywall kind of misses the point of the article itself. It is within a walled garden arguing for an alternative to walled gardens when the party publishing it is the one controlling the walls in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> PBS also spreads propaganda. Look at Sesame Street as of recent and basically, they label Trump a shithead. I mean anyone can disagree with the guy and basically does. I'm sad to think that shows like this are basically telling our kids what to think, rather than encouraging independent thought.

<comment><USER44> Reference? Sesame Street is mostly apolitical, unless you consider encouraging tolerance to be political. My experience with PBS is that there's plenty of encouragement of independent thought. Yes, there's maybe too much armchair science and handwaving, but that's a wider cultural issue that every media outlet is participating in.

<comment><USER43> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_r6iojNnYg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_r6iojNnYg)

It's been early on and recent as far as I know - if you watch the whole clip you'll see that, though they only show a second or two of the new clips. I would never teach kids to make fun of others. It's simply bad form.

<comment><USER45> Is your complaint here that the writers of these segments didn't use a time machine in order to determine that the regularly lampooned pop culture celebrity they were parodying would become president several decades later? Or that they _did_ use a time machine and that this particular parody was politically motivated, unlike all their other celebrity parodies?

Because they parody a lot of celebrities and always have.

<comment><USER43> Do they negative parody others? Are any of the other parodies related to trash? Serious question.

<comment><USER45> They have an a long-running Oscar the Grouch CNN parody, [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E893MS_HZlk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E893MS_HZlk)

<comment><USER43> As much as I dislike CNN, that's not exactly tasteful either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> NYT journalists still wouldn't be responsible enough to not say something racist.

<comment><USER47> 1\. Are you referring to something specific that I'm not aware of?

2\. Is this really the primary concern, in the grand scheme of things? In a utilitarian sense, a problematic or offensive choice of words is peanuts compared to (for instance) failing to sufficiently question the WMD narrative in the run-up to the Iraq War.

<comment><USER46> It's been in the news for the last month. Admittedly I'm being a bit snarky here, but the NYT is firing a shot saying we need a platform that's administered responsibly (which we do) when they've proved they can't even use the ones we have responsibly.

Between the linked stories and the whole Sarah Jeong thing, the NYT doesn't have the gravitas to come out and ask for this right now. The Gray Lady is failing its mission (for more reasons than just this).

[https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-tightens-up- on-...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-tightens-up-on-social- media-after-scandals-people-are-locking-down-their-accounts)

[https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/339852/tweets...](https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/339852/tweets- come-back-to-haunt-new-york-times-cnn-jo.html)

[https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/new-york-times-political- edito...](https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/new-york-times-political-editor-in- hot-water-over-insensitive-tweets/)</comment></comment></comment>


Lasers etch a 'perfect' solar energy absorber - <AUTHOR> https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/lasers-etch-a-perfect-solar-energy-absorber-414902/ <comment><USER2> So the interesting thing is

> reduces heat dissipation at other wavelengths

Most of the time we use the "blackbody" approximation; and we're familiar with the idea that black objects radiate and absorb heat well, while white or shiny ones do not. This lets us make something that absorbs like a black object and emits like a white one. In effect its own surface is like a tiny greenhouse effect.

<comment><USER3> Or absorbs at visible light frequencies and reflects at lower thermal infrared frequencies.

Until the object starts to glow red-hot, it will have low radiative losses. Once it gets that hot--maybe 3000K--it will radiate very well, until cooling enough to radiate mostly at the longer reflective wavelengths.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is of course a neat tech demo, but I don't really see the application. Thermal electrical generation seems to be crap compared to photovoltaics and for just heating stuff up, black paint must be orders of magnitude cheaper, even if it might not be a "perfect" absorber of sunlight.

<comment><USER5> I guess concentrating solar collectors might be a useful application?

<comment><USER6> I'd hazard that this would be an obvious "first application" for this technique. If they can improve the absorption efficiency by 130%, that translates to reducing the number of mirrors by something like 25%, so a fairly significant cost saving. Alternately, if you can capture and store that energy without increasing costs too much you end up with a more efficient power plant per unit-area of land. Sounds good to me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To be clear - selective solar absorbers that absorb the solar spectrum well and have low infrared emissivity (so they don't radiate heat well), are a mature concept and can be achieved by multilayer coatings pretty well. This is a nice manufacturing process and could also be a competitive approach compared to conventional thin film deposition. However, I don't think the specific performance is dramatically different from things that are used in commercial solar thermal systems.

</comment><comment><USER8> > This improved the efficiency of thermal electrical generation by 130 percent > compared to untreated tungsten.

I wish they would include comparison to tungsten painted black.

<comment><USER9> Maybe this is for applications where paint would be baked off by the intense concentrated thermal radiation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Various potential applications in biomedical, environmental, and energy fields.[1]

Could improve the efficiency of solar thermal power stations:

 _" Control over the absorption spectral range of surfaces is of major importance for a wide range of applications, such as selective solar absorbers, thermal emitters, structural colouring water condensation and daytime and night-time radiative cooling. In particular, for a solar-thermal energy absorber operating at high temperature, the absorber should be an SSA since the main cooling mechanism is thermal radiation... an ideal solar light absorber has nearly 100% absorbance within the solar spectrum and negligible thermal emittance within the blackbody radiation spectral range at mid-to-high temperatures (100–500 °C), i.e., an SSA. SSAs can thus maximise the temperature of solar absorbers and increase the efficiency of a heat engine driven by solar radiation."_

[1] [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-020-0242-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-020-0242-y) (full text paper)

</comment><comment><USER11> Or maybe they catch use the tech to launch a competitor to the holographic chocolate. [http://www.morphotonix.com/chocolate/](http://www.morphotonix.com/chocolate/)

Edit: Oh sad day, it seems the chocolate may have just been a demo of the etching and molding technology.

<comment><USER12> Maybe not! The mold in the first picture is made by Kaupert, a company specializing in chocolate molds. Of course they might mean that Kaupert made the base mold and Morphotonix added the holograph ...

Either way I see a lot of value in this technology, even if it's just for novelty and a piece of that chocolate would cost 100€, I think there's still a significant market in the luxury segment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Article also talks about hydrophilic and hydrophobic patterns using the same setup. I would be interested in seeing the properties of a channel or via through the tungsten etched with these patterns. It might change the thermal absorption rate of water passing through the hole or some other neat behavior like a change to the capillary effect. This could improve concentrated solar applications even further.

<comment><USER14> Just like the jellycat turbines ?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB5nztzXo24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB5nztzXo24)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This sounds like magic. Very exciting. Is there a diagram or video showing what the geometry looks like?

</comment><comment> mark-r Is there any way to create a paint with the same properties, absorbing visible wavelengths but reflecting infrared?

</comment><comment><USER16> Can we get a title update? Article reads `Lasers etch a 'perfect' solar energy absorber`.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _"...etching a full-color photograph of a family into the refrigerator door; > or proposing with a gold engagement ring that matches the color of your > fiancee's blue eyes."_

Yeah... they should have stopped at car colors.</comment>


Gates, Bezos, and 18 others commit $1B to new cleantech fund - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/11/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-and-18-others-commit-1-billion-to-new-cleantech-fund-breakthrough-energy-ventures/ <comment><USER2> This was posted 12 hours ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13155146](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13155146)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've become intrigued recently by this technology: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification) and its potential applications in the energy/cleantech space. From what I can tell, at least in the US, people equate it to "burning trash" and frown upon it, but it seems like a great technology space we should be investing more into because no matter what we do, we will always have trash to process/deal with.

It would be cool to see some startups attack this space. But maybe it's a high cost of entry space to work in which deters startups?

<comment><USER4> The argument I've heard against "burning trash" isn't that it's unclean or anything but that, to the extent stuff in trash is made from oil, still amounts to burning hydrocarbons. From an energy yield perspective, my impression is that it's more favorable to e.g. compost organic matter and recycle plastics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why not just start building solar plants(or windmills) and energy storage system?

If we spent billions of dollars on this couldn't we make a serious dent in carbon emissions quickly?

<comment><USER6> Because these people understand that there are experts in these fields that can do it better than they can. Usually there is always someone who can do it much better, but is really only limited by money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> that's like 0.2% of their cumulative net worths.

<comment><USER8> And a fraction of what a taxi company raised recently. Oh the irony of the world we live in.

<comment><USER9> Why the glass half empty view? $1 Billion is still $1 Billion.

<comment><USER10> in my opinion people get too absorbed by hearing others that they donated X amount of money and then they make them like they are some kind of God's amongst us for doing so.

My whole life I've been hearing by colleagues etc that Bill Gates is an amazing human being and he has donated all his money and he has done so many things for humanity.

I am sorry but I just don't feel the same way and although I think I shouldn't force my thoughts on others I just feel the need of reminding them that this person still owns a yacht costing half a billion, he is still the richest man in the world, and no matter what he donates in my mind he will still be one of the "humans" that felt the need of having a 400m $ yacht while there are people out there starving to death.

Please and Thank you.

P.S I know am gonna get down-voted to hell and prolly shadow-banned cause of my opinion, but doesn't matter no matter what I say or what happens to me will change the way the world works (there will always be people that see goodness in people and others like my that are seeing the bad side in people).

<comment><USER11> A lot of my friends have the same view but refuse to discuss about it (I have THE EXACT opposite view).

In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything - yet he's donating quiet a bit (clean water, anti-malaria etc.) - Sure he's got luxuries that most of us would probably dream about - yatches, jets etc., but he's also done net positive to the world and that's great.

Usually people who share my view generally counter with "so what have you done?" and imo that's a wrong way to think about it - everyone's level of contribution will be different.

If I were in his position, I too would have spent on luxuries (maybe more so than him) but the end goal is never lost - he's still helping people all over the world.

\---

My political view on the topic: in a way, your comment reminds me of the previous election - moral policing of "oh, Trump's against X" and that's terrible and if you support him for Y, you are still a terrible person because he supports X lead to the result - people who supported him for Y were unable to ever get Y discussed and every time they did, X was always brought up, dismissing Y - so they never bothered discussing/learning etc and instead did the only thing in their power - look after their self interest of Y.

<comment><USER12> > In my opinion, he didn't owe the world anything

Maybe you're familiar with the social contract? The guy has made billions in the business world, he doesn't deserve to be lauded for donating a small fraction of the wealth he'll never need to survive.

It's the equivalent of a grocery store clerk donating $10 to the salvation army. I don't see news articles written about them. Hell, the poor consistently donate a greater portion of their wealth than the rich.

<comment><USER13> But it's not equivalent, because there's this thing about wealth:

Scenario A: Let's say he donates all he's worth today, minus what he needs to live out his days and provide for his family. Call it $80B. Awesome. Potential downsides: giant influx of cash invites corruption/skimming etc, and it also doesn't promote self-sustainability (from the recipients' cash flow perspective).

Scenario B: He leaves the bulk of his money invested, accruing 5% annually. (But since Ray Dalio is mentioned as a partner, it might be closer to 10% or 15%) That's at least $3.5B annually (after 15% capital gains tax). He's 61 years old; call it 25 years of life left. So now we're at 3.5B * 25y = 87.5B. As a very conservative estimate (5%, no compound interest). AND, he's still got his original $80B investment "in the bank."

The choice is obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The wrong billionaire won the election.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hooray, a group of oligarchs will try to save us from another group of oligarchs!

<comment><USER16> This kind of comment does nothing to contribute to the conversation.

<comment><USER15> And this kind of measure only contributes to making the world a livable place up to a certain point. That is a troubling reality of the current political situation, and is a conversation worth having.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Meanwhile, Zuck'N Fuck is trying to figure out how we can click on more ads.

Edit: because at the end of the day, Facebook doesn't make the world a better place.</comment>


Cuil, semantic search by ex-Googlers - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2008/07/28/cuil-search-google/ <comment><USER2> Semantic search? That's the first time I've seen that word used with Cuil.

But then I read the article and it says "semi-semantic approach (Cuil's engine recognizes the relations between certain words on a web site, which helps it rank pages better)".

Semi-Semantic.. different from this misleading title.

And btw, "Hell, they even pulled the energy-saving trick: the front page of Cuil is completely black, in contrast to Google's eye-poking whiteness.".

Hasn't this already been dismistified (i.e. it's only true on old monitors)?</comment>


Obama Issues Another Secret Memo in Fight Against Insiders - <AUTHOR> https://www.novainfosec.com/2012/11/22/obama-issues-another-secret-memo-in-fight-against-insiders/ <comment><USER2> 1) How is this a secret memo, if there's a press release about it? (c.f [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2012/11/21/presid...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2012/11/21/presidential-memorandum-national-insider-threat-policy-and- minimum-stand) )

2) Isn't this a _good_ thing? Everyone complains about governments not being with the times, and not having adequate security measures, and here is a memorandum on precisely those issues.

We can argue about what the utility and importance of disclosure is (and I don't think this is a cut and dry subject), but surely this isn't a nefarious or secretive move.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best prototyping tools? - <AUTHOR>

I want to go from idea to clickable prototypes very quickly. Fidelity doesn't need to be extreme, but having the option to overlay images or styles (or better yet, simply paste in images) would be awesome.
What tools do you use? Why are they great? <comment><USER2> For mobile a good app is [https://popapp.in/](https://popapp.in/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not bad...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You talking about getting a general idea laid out? Like Axure?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes.</comment></comment>


Senate report: Interrogation methods 'far worse' than CIA acknowledged - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0412/Senate-report-Interrogation-methods-far-worse-than-CIA-acknowledged <comment><USER2> Not surprising at all. It seems like when we hear about a misconduct scandal in the military or intelligence apparatus the truth is often worse than initially thought. Abu Ghraib was worse than we thought, all of the dirty stuff the NSA is doing is worse than we thought, and now confirmation that the CIA's interrogation program was worse than initially thought.

I hope this wakes people up to gow big of a threat unaccountable intelligence agencies are. Even in the face of clear evidence that these guys deliberately deceived those who oversee them, I doubt anyone is going to be punished over this. If there are no repercussions, there's absolutely nothing to stop even more egregious abuses of power in the future (or potentially happening even now).

Then there's the fact that the CIA penetrated Congressional staffer computers to try to find some of the evidence against them.</comment>


The Irrepressible Lightness of Umberto Eco - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Irrepressible-Lightness-of/235525 <comment><USER2> While his novels are great, to know Eco you need to read his essays, columns and dialogues with e.g. the archbishop of Milan. His warmth and love is unforgettable.

</comment><comment><USER3> _The Name of the Rose_ is the finest novel I have ever read, and that was in translation.

Haters gonna hate on humanities academics. I suggest they go watch some superhero films to cheer up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Weirdly, I just got a text saying,

" _Arriving Today: Your Amazon package with Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition will be delivered by 8pm._ "

Eco wasn't just a novelist.

</comment><comment><USER5> An exceptional well-written article ... about pure intellectualism.

<comment><USER6> Two weeks ago during the announcement of his death I saw a lot of negativity on this site against what you call here _" pure intellectualism"_.

I don't understand that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Lightness? _Foucault's Pendulum_ was possibly the meanest, least constructive book I've read.

<comment><USER8> Why? I was planning on reading it as was recommend to me as one of Eco's better books.

<comment><USER7> It's just an extended strawman of conspiracy theory. None of the major characters is sympathetic. It felt very misanthropic. And it's bloated by Stephenson-esque digressions, but they're somehow much less interesting than Stephenson's - partly because the primary plot is too weak to sustain you through them.

<comment><USER9> The end drags a little, but I thought Belbo was sympathetic. Really, I think it's a book you get a lot more if you're swimming through academia and reading half a dozen jargon laden over interpreting articles a day. It's a very effective pastiche of Dan Brown and Jeffrey Archer, and if there was any justice should have killed their careers.

<comment><USER7> > It's a very effective pastiche of Dan Brown and Jeffrey Archer, and if there > was any justice should have killed their careers.

That's exactly the mean-spiritedness I take the most issue with. Those guys are fun. Why not let people enjoy them? Fundamentally _Foucault 's Pendulum_ fails as a pastiche of them because it doesn't capture their positive side.

<comment><USER10> I personally think it was very clever of Eco to write a pastiche of _The Da Vinci Code_ 15 years or so before it was published.

That aside, _Foucault 's Pendulum_ is undeniably quite hard work, but he really does cover a fascinating breadth of material in there.

<comment><USER4> It's actually a pastiche of Brown's sources, the conspiracy theories that Brown (and others) takes entirely too seriously. That's why I can't take him seriously.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Manage bug and Issues in a project – due.work - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXEfwS58MT0 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I am Robins, co-founder of due.work ([https://www.due.work/](https://www.due.work/)). Due.work helps teams to organise, track and manage their work

Actually, after working together with several companies and managing teams for years we actually never found a single productivity solution with whom we can really love using it.

Problems which we had with existing solutions:

1\. When working with teams even on a very small project after some time tasks always get cluttered even if we are using several labels, priority, etc.

2\. It was very difficult to get to know the list of all overdue tasks that gets missed its deadline. No matter how productive we are there is always a probability of missing a deadline especially when we work in a team. What we wanted was something to aggregate all overdue tasks in a seperate group and display it on top whenever a task gets delayed, so that we can decide what to do with those missed tasks.

3\. There were no good tools that actually let you decide what you really want instead they enforce you to it. What if the product manager prefers a view to writing tasks which will have beautiful Gantt chart to displays all the timelines of the tasks whereas the Business analysts of the team want a board view like in trello where all tasks present is on status wise. whereas other people want just a simple todo list view which only displays those tasks that needs to be done today.

4\. An online feature like (in google docs or sheets) was missing in all the productivity apps. When we are working together in teams we often want to know who else is also online/working right now. It helps to boost confidence among the team. With team showing online we can also, ask anyone at that moment only if we had any issue.

5\. A simplistic tool to be used by all department of people was missing in all productivity platforms. Many good tools like trello or basecamp actually offer a simplistic solution. But they with basic feature only and we are only left to use several integrations to use it as a whole thus we end up paying more and more.

This was some of the main reason, we decided to build an altogether new productivity platform due.work ([https://www.due.work/](https://www.due.work/)).

I would love to know your thoughts on the same.</comment>


GnuPG 2.1.23 released - <AUTHOR> https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2017q3/000412.html <comment><USER2> > _gpg: Options --auto-key-retrieve and --auto-key-locate "local,wkd" are now > used by default._

> _Note: this enables keyserver and Web Key Directory operators to notice when > a signature from a locally non-available key is being verified for the first > time [...]_

I'm not sure if I agree with that decision. Many people intentionally keep their keys off the key servers, and GPG is used by many internal signing applications (internal repos, etc.) where the keys aren't public, and enabling this by default would leak lots of metadata about the internal infrastructure. Last time I checked, the key server protocol was unencrypted, I hope this is no longer the case.

On the other hand, it will improve usability for "normal" usage and you'll still be prompted to verify the fingerprint for unknown keys.

<comment><USER3> As mentioned in the linked announcement, they also added a complementary option to completely prevent gpg from talking to the network. It should address the use case you describe:

* gpg: New option --disable-dirmngr to entirely disable network access for gpg.

<comment><USER4> What pointy haired boss named that option? Just reading that sentence tells us it should not be named "disable-dirmngr".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "gpg: "gpg" is now installed as "gpg" and not anymore as "gpg2". If needed, the new configure option --enable-gpg-is-gpg2 can be used to revert this."

Aha. I was wondering if this would be deemed a mere sequel to GPG 1 forever.

<comment><USER6> I was under the mistaken impression for the longest time that gpg 2 was a fork (maybe a GUI fork?) or otherwise unofficial successor to gpg, and I should continue sticking to gpg 1.x. I figured that gpg2 must have a more complex relationship to gpg than just being the next version of it because otherwise they'd just call it gpg instead of going through the effort to let people keep using gpg 1.x by default.

<comment><USER7> That was my impression also. A couple of years ago I put gpg2 in a script and whatever option I used would spawn a GUI window asking for information. I could not stop that from happening so I have stuck with gpg v1.x since.

Curious if that still happens with gpg2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For those concerned about the auto key retrieval mechanism, add the following to your gpg.conf:

      no-auto-key-retrieve
      auto-key-locate local

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> > Options --auto-key-retrieve and --auto-key-locate "local,wkd" are now used > by default.

Sounds like a security hole to me, especially for systems that automatically verify signatures against a curated keyring.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like that it will automatically try to download missing public keys.

HOWEVER, a very useful feature (which it might have but wasn't mentioned in the upgrade notes; my own local manpage only has --list-public-keys (and shorter versions) and --locate-keys (which has wording that makes me think it'll also check online)) would be to search, local only, for any key (public or private) matching a given fingerprint hex or other field string. The changelog makes me think that to get that behavior I'd presently have to use: gpg --auto-key-locate local --locate-keys "firstname.lastname@example.com"

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if they have any plan to support chacha20/poly1305 for encryption and sha2/keccak/blake for fingerprints.</comment>


Secure yourself, Part 1: Air-gapped computer, GPG and smartcards - <AUTHOR> http://viccuad.me/blog/secure-yourself-part-1-airgapped-computer-and-GPG-smartcards/

<comment><USER3> I would enjoy a "pragmatic security" article about how individuals could adopt enterprise-standard security without too much technical knowledge or additional hardware. This could target freelancers or travelers, but I think that there are a lot of engineers who want to secure their personal laptop in a manner similar to their company laptop.

Some ideas:

* Disk encryption

* Always-on VPNs, like Cloak

* Encrypting DNS

* 1Password and proper secret management

* Privacy screens (e.g. in coffee shops or on airplanes. Sounds stupid - but surprisingly important.)

* Two-step verification, both in software and hardware (Yubikey)

* Good browser extensions - e.g. https everywhere, ad blocking (for security purposes)

* USB condoms on all phone charger cables

etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> author here: that's what I'm intending with this blog post series more or less; after 4 or 5 submissions I should be fairly close to that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've read so many different multi-factor authentication schemes, and they're often brilliant, but I've yet to come across one that would pass the "my grandpa could use it" usability test.

The holy grail for security, to me, will be something (an OS with it elegantly integrated for example) that the user has to try hard _not_ to use, but doesn't feel like they're having an O'Reilly encryption book rammed down their gullet either.

<comment><USER5> I've only recently starting looking at this, but I think the Fido Alliance is doing good work in this direction:

[https://fidoalliance.org/](https://fidoalliance.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "quite possible that this kind of device will be the norm in 10 years"

I want to believe this, but I just can't see people caring, ever. The worst has already happened. Edward Snowdon has exposed that government can, and does, look at you penis and we still don't care.

<comment><USER7> Looking at your penis is hardly the worst that can happen. People will really start to care when the data is used for a violent crackdown of a popular domestic political movement.

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

<comment><USER8> Or you know, maybe they'll care about the violent crackdown part?

What is it about technology where people think the failure was information, not the bunch of dudes cracking you in the head with rifle butts, the legislators who approved the action and the public which votes them into office (including all the people who say they're so outraged with everything they'll just refuse to vote or engage with the political process - <USER2> yeah, that's sure showing them).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When's the Part 2 gonna be published?

Will there be a blog post about using gpg-agent as a ssh-agent? :)

BTW, Androids openkeychain supports fully yubikey neo, this is a great addition to using the pass(1) on from mobile with yubikey neo.

[https://github.com/zeapo/Android-Password- Store](https://github.com/zeapo/Android-Password-Store) [http://www.openkeychain.org/](http://www.openkeychain.org/)

<comment><USER10> For a little while, I used a YubiKey NEO-n as an OpenPGP smartcard, with gpg- agent running as an ssh-agent (so that my SSH key was only present on my smartcard).

While great in theory, the authentication time made it totally impractical to connect to multiple servers at once.

I know this doesn't invalidate the general idea of using gpg-agent as ssh- agent -- just an anecdote.

<comment><USER11> Can you elaborate on 'authentication time made it totally impractical' ?

Does this mean it was slow? I'm using gpg-agent on osx with a neo-n to ssh into boxes and it's not noticeably slow.

<comment><USER10> Thinking on this again now, perhaps using a shorter key (I'm sure I would have chosen 4k RSA) would have helped. Regardless, I did find that connecting to 50+ hosts at the same time, most of them would hit my 3 second connect timeout with the neo-n and gpg-agent.

This is a somewhat unusual use-case, I will grant, but I also found a somewhat-noticeable delay in connecting to a single server, on the order of several hundred milliseconds.

I wonder if it would all be fine with a 2k key.

<comment><USER12> I might be mistaken, but I think Yubikeys only support 2k keys? I'm reasonably sure mine does anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The airgapped computer loads propriety Chinese blobs to boot and is pulling it's encryption software over the network via HTTP.

<comment><AUTHOR> author here: No, I'm using no blobs; just the mainline Kernel and U-Boot. All the software stack is leveraged on Debian.

<comment><USER13> My mistake. They've released their u-boot source and you aren't loading the binary video drivers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm a little worried about generating a new "master" RSA key nowadays, since it seems like ECC is right on the horizon of going mainstream. I would generate a new Ed25519 key today with GPG 2.1, but Curve25519 encryption isn't supported yet (only signing is). Does anyone else have the same feeling of apprehension?

<comment><AUTHOR> going full ECC now will isolate you: a lot of people don't use gpg 2.1. Additionally, a lot of people are reluctant to use ECDSA, and would only use EdDSA.

I honestly think RSA is a good decision for now.

You can always add subkeys of any type (your primary key is the core of your certificate and is your cryptographic identity though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A good walk through, and of course a sad reminder that even simple public key cryptography still has crap tooling. There should be some kind of x-prize for making tools that lets anyone communucate securely withiut walking through what looks like a 1999 gentoo install.

<comment><USER16> Collect some friends to pool money and kick off this prize yourself. From the makers of the XPRIZE: [https://herox.com/](https://herox.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's a 2014 paper from Qubes, [http://www.invisiblethingslab.com/resources/2014/Software_co...](http://www.invisiblethingslab.com/resources/2014/Software_compartmentalization_vs_physical_separation.pdf)

 _" Many people believe the Holy Grail of secure isolation is to use two or more physically separate machines. This belief seems so natural, that we often don't give it much thought. After all, what better isolation could we possible get than physical "airgap"?

I would like to discuss two exemplary scenarios involving isolation: one for securing the Tor process and another for securing email operations, and compare the pros and cons of using the physical isolation vs. the software compartmentalization as currently possible on Qubes OS."_

<comment><USER18> There's no contest between physical vs. virtual isolation. Theo de Raadt and @thegrugq are right when they're saying you shouldn't put much trust in virtualisation-as-isolation model. Just look at the recent VENOM bug.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> How easy is it for somebody to get your PGP key off a yubikey if they stole it? In particular since physical devices can be fuzzed, etc, it might be worse than an encrypted keychain on device for some people?

<comment><USER20> I don't know how difficult it would be to obtain the key from the device. However, if you have a strong passphrase on the key itself, then even if an attacker obtained the key, there would not be a lot to worry about. Just revoke it and move on. They'll likely never guess the passphrase.

<comment><USER21> The passphrase you set on a GPG private key only applies to keys stored on- disk in the keychain or exported from the keychain. Once you import one into a Yubikey or other OpenPGPCard device, there is no passphrase anymore, you're relying on the card itself to protect it against side-channel attacks, prevent unauthorized or insecure export of the key (Yubikeys don't allow this at all though), and authorize the use of it via the PIN code.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for that explanation. I've never placed any of my GPG keys on a Yubikey. I just assumed that the key password remained.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Doesn't Allwinner board require blobs to boot?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here: No. I'm just using the mainline Kernel with Simple Framebuffer support, and U-Boot. U-Boot does the booting, yet there is firmware on the Soc for the first stage booting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> 2 rpis with key transfer and cyphertext transmitted over Rx/Tx. Air gapped is the only place you ever have plaintext. Cheap, small, and relatively easy to implement, but if a system like this fits somewhere in how you deal with your threat model, then your opsec is probably already compromised.

</comment><comment><USER24> Good write up. It'd be good to publish md5 hashes of the files you recommend to download.

</comment><comment><USER25> This guide doesn't take into account side-channel attacks.[0]

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side- channel_attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-channel_attack)

<comment><USER26> Let's get a superconducting Faraday cage for this tutorial.

<comment><USER25> That, some mylar[0], and a blanket[1]!

[0][http://i.imgur.com/kdNOe5u.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/kdNOe5u.jpg) (founder of thepiratebay.org)

[1][http://security.stackexchange.com/a/82374](http://security.stackexchange.com/a/82374) (Snowden)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'd like to be notified of subsequent parts but the atom feed is broken: [http://viccuad.me/atom.xml](http://viccuad.me/atom.xml)

Fix please?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here: oh god, nice catch. will fix it :)

edit: fixed

<comment><USER27> Perfect - thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Simpler version is to encrypt root partition and have kernel with boot loader on separate sd card or usb flash drive.

<comment><USER13> I used to run this until I couldn't ignore that it was pointless because it offloads the attack vector to something I can easily lose, have taken or replaced.

Or someone could come in an pop in a drive with their own kernel.

Nevermind the reality that I'd never completely follow through with the security measures needed on a personal machine. I'd just be giving myself an active role in my home's security theater.

I just encrypt my home folder and don't trust machines/networks for important things.

<comment><USER28> The card also contains certificate protected by password.

<comment><USER29> Your initial comment was a bit brief; Now I realize you meant "just use full disk encryption/luks with the bootloader and boot-partion on a removable device -- to lessen the chances that the password prompt has been modified to capture your password (back-door bootloader, backdoor kernel/initrd)".

Still somewhat vulnerable to a replaced BIOS and/or a hardware key logger (I gather the idea is: I can keep my usb key safe easier than my laptop. I'm not sure if that's true in a meaningful way).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Very nice guide, but a couple of things:

1) No mention of full-disk encryption on both machines. This is trivial, and especially with flash-storage I consider it mandatory. There's hardly any reason _not_ to do fde.

This protects data at rest, and makes the system(s) somewhat tamper proof. You're still counting on the BIOS and keyboard to be safe (not booting into a vm, no hardware keylogger) -- but at least it makes it a little harder to compromise the system.

One could use/add the neo passphrase to the boot procedure, but it is easy to copy (just get hold of the neo, plug it in, push button) -- and there's no way to know the key has been compromised.

With a manually entered pass phrase, the input path needs to be compromised (eg: hardware key logger). In many theat scenarios the two are similar -- but there's a difference between someone lifting the yubikey for 10 seconds when you're passed out at a party, and someone breaking-and-entering to your apartment and installing a hw key logger/bios back door etc.

2) I've been running FDE/LUKS on my laptop(s) -- and have been considering to add a passphrase on an usb dongle (I don't have a yubikey neo, and my old yubikey II that I got as a promo seem to have stopped working, the button does nothing -- not sure why). This is a trade-off, as anything else.

The constraint of having to be able to type in a pass phrase blindly (and quickly), does not mix well with having a pass phrase that is at least equivalent to a 128 bit random key. If you just want a random phrase of lower- case letters (easier to touch type, don't have to remember where capital letters go/avoid errors with shift) you need ~28 random characters (with a set of ~67 characters, you get down to ceiling(128/log2(67))=22 -- with more room for errors while typing)).

Another thing, is that any such "unlocked" key needs manual intervention to be removed. So if someone steals your laptop and your yubi/usb-key with a static passphrase/key -- they can be expected to gain access, and you can't do anything about it.

This is of course true if they capture your pass phrase with a keylogger before stealing the laptop as well (I wonder a bit about this account[1] from the DPR case -- if it is misinformation of incompetence -- but I'd assume the smartest thing to do was a sneak-and-peak warrant installing a hw key logger (or just a camera) in order to make sure that they had most of the passwords/pass phrases. Seems strange that they weren't able to obtain probable cause for that).

[1] [http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk- road-2/](http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-2/) (If TL;DR search for library)

</comment><comment><USER30> Fix your RSS so feedly can find your most recent posts.

<comment><AUTHOR> author here: fixed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Obligatory xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/538/](https://xkcd.com/538/)</comment>


The economics of in-flight Wi-Fi - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/flight-wi-fi-travel/?xid=nl_termsheet <comment><USER2> The economics of airplane wifi remind me of the economics of the hotels wifi. Go to a 5-star hotel and you will pay 15 extra dollars for the priviledge of having a lousy internet access. Go to a small hostel and you will get good internet access for free.

<comment><USER3> Marriott are throwing in wifi these days, but you have to pay for premium access if you want to stream some Netflix

<comment><USER4> > _Marriott are throwing in wifi these days, but you have to pay for premium > access if you want to stream some Netflix_

Note that this is _after_ Marriott's best efforts to block all wifi hotspots to force guests to use hotel wifi:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking- pe...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal- hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-600000/)

edit: a story from after Marriott unsuccessfully asked the FCC if hotel operators could block wifi hotspots on their properties from all their guests: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking- wi-f...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-fi-in- hotels-is-prohibited/)

<comment><USER5> No, that was one single Marriott and it was the conference center -- they were trying to force exhibitors to pay outrageous internet fees, not hotel guests.

<comment><USER4> The _fine_ was for disrupting wifi hotspots in the convention space at a single Marriott, but Marriott then petitioned the FCC to allow them to do the same for any guest on their property, including properties without convention spaces[1]. The FCC turned them down.

(I've amended my original post to include a link from the conclusion of the whole affair)

[1] [http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why JetBlue won best customer service in 2014 and it doesn't seem like they really have serious competition; they actually make an attempt to make customers happy.

I book JetBlue every single time I can (even when it's more) because I can actually use WiFi without spending more than my (already expensive) ticket cost, and I get more than a single miniature water bottle.

<comment><USER7> You'll pay extra for Jet Blue, to avoid paying $10 for WiFi??

<comment><USER8> The $10 for wifi nets you something akin to 28.8K modem speeds. So yes, I'd gladly pay more for a ticket that provided something approaching usable speeds. When google.com takes 45 seconds to load, the connection is basically useless.

<comment><USER9> Paid for inflight wifi on United earlier this year (FRA to SFO) streamed one way video all hands just fine.

Gogo wifi on Alaska between SJC and SEA, service is quite variable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From an earlier HN post, apparently when Gogo invented their tech, basically every airline signed long term contracts at ridiculous rates. Even if they want to compete, their locked into a cost structure using outdated technology.

I bet in a couple years the contract cycle will churn and all of a sudden, we'll get a EDGE/3G level performance at reasonable prices.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone really expect anything of airline flights anymore? At least those of us in commercial/economy class?

Years ago great customer service was defined as giving someone the can and some free peanuts. Now it's touch screen "entertainment in-flight systems." Not like any of those things have made the flying experience any better. So I just pick the cheapest flights available. Sure, Wi-Fi is a plus, but the environment in economy isn't exactly ideal for work.

I've primed myself to fall asleep as soon as I get into my seat before takeoff, regardless of time of flight.

<comment><USER12> _Now it 's touch screen "entertainment in-flight systems"..._

Enjoy that while it lasts. United is moving to a BYOD system where you use your _own_ phone or tablet to watch in-flight entertainment. The new cabins have removed all screens and armrest audio systems (oh yeah, and headphones too)

[http://www.united.com/web/en- US/content/travel/inflight/ente...](http://www.united.com/web/en- US/content/travel/inflight/entertainment/personal-device-entertainment.aspx)

<comment><USER13> Honestly, I prefer that anyway. I've got no shortage of devices with plenty of my own media, and now I don't have to be stuck 12" from a screen I can't reliably turn off, that will be shining advertisements and redundant safety lessons in my face when I'm trying to sleep.

<comment><USER7> Yeah the screens suck, but BYOD with no in-Seat USB charger sucks.

<comment><USER14> Just buy a 10-20Ah portable battery and you're set for mobile devices. I can weather a 10-12h flight with one of those and my iPad/iPhone. If you have a recent laptop, you should be able to weather 5-8hr for work; I seriously doubt you could get better on even an international flight.

<comment><USER13> Extra bonus is having the battery available the rest of the time. My phone's battery life isn't quite what I'd desire, so I just keep a spare ~10Ah battery in my purse. It gets used maybe once a week at most, but it's worth it for those occasions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> GoGo is quite aggressive about variable pricing. An all-day pass is $16 if you buy it ahead of time, but if you buy it on the plane it can cost up to $50. They also do split testing of their prices and discriminate based on the user agent.

<comment><USER16> Also, if you have an AMEX Platinum you get 10 GoGo passes (per year, I think)

<comment><USER17> That's only the corporate card, not the consumer one.

<comment><USER18> The consumer one does have Boingo access, though, which can come in handy.

<comment><USER7> Is Gogo vs Boingo basically business vs consumer? Or..?

I just realized I never realized they were different, since the name is so similar.

<comment><USER19> I believe so. Boingo is also used on the Washington state ferries. Its horrible - looking at $16 for internet for a (up to) 30 minute ferry ride.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> All of this seems predicated on the assumption that no work or fun happens without continuous internet service. Why not download and queue up your work/entertainment ahead of the flight? I look forward to digging deeply into something for a few hours without the notification hail and temptation to browse the web aimlessly.

Also, it bears repeating that Gogo issues fake SSL certificates to intercept their users' encrypted traffic.

[http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/gogo-inflight- internet...](http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/gogo-inflight-internet- intentionally-issuing-fake-ssl-certificates)

<comment><USER7> Because our Android devices and web apps are really bad at proper offline sync.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I find the $20-35 well worth it. I look forward to the day when wifi becomes standard on all flights. In the meantime, as a quick protip, you receive complimentary Gogo (at least on AA) with a business Amex Platinum. See [http://ir.gogoair.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251827&p=irol- newsArti...](http://ir.gogoair.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251827&p=irol- newsArticle&id=1999486)

<comment><USER22> Sounds like you're the article's model customer -- the person who doesn't mind paying exorbitant prices because they own a business credit card.

<comment><USER23> Well, it's always been the case that people who are seen to be wealthy/"big spenders" actually don't have to spend so much because they get things comped. Higher-tier credit cards have a history of these kinds of perks, with airline- partner deals on those cards covering everything from lounge membership to in- flight wifi to refunding the application fees for trusted-traveller programs like Global Entry.

And if you're getting that stuff comped, why _would_ you complain about how much it costs someone who doesn't get it free?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> bjelkeman-again Here is what seems a recent list of airline which provide inflight wifi.

[http://blog.edreams.com/in-flight-wifi/](http://blog.edreams.com/in-flight- wifi/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I was hoping for an explanation of how airlines globally price customer internet access out from a business perspective; instead I got a hodge-podge of quick reviews from a customer perspective of airlines in the US _only_. Typical... a better title might be 'In-flight wifi by carrier (US only)'

</comment><comment><USER25> Paying for wifi: So airlines in America is giving not giving great customer service. What else is new?

Meanwhile in Europe low-cost carriers like Norwegian offers free wifi on most flights.

<comment><USER26> Meanwhile in Europe low-cost carries like Ryanair charge fees for not checking in online or not printing your boarding pass at home.

I really don't think this is a Europe-vs-America issue.

<comment><USER25> 1) I don't think anyone else than Ryanair does that. I do agree they suck though.

2) It is an American issue. Have you been on any airline from Europe, Middle East or Asia? If you generalise the offerings and compare the level of service then you will find that American airlines offers much lower service. Most European airlines are quite good, and most big carriers from Asia and Middle East are much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If you pay up for a given amount of megabytes of transfer, what is the risk that someone else can wireshark up your MAC, clone it and overrun your quota?

</comment><comment><USER28> It seems claer that the main customers are businesses (or employees). Even if I am footing the bill myself because I am a contractor, rather than expensing it, it still makes economic sense. By having Internet on the plane and working, I am making productive use of dead time. And exchanging even $40 when I can bill 3x that or more is a no brainer.

Don't get me started on the benefits of the internet on flights when travelling with kids.

</comment><comment><USER29> JetBlue's WiFi is still free? When is that supposed to change?

I read about their Ka band transition, but thought the free connections were for a limited time.

</comment><comment><USER30> Although I don't work remotely, I can get most of my work done from my laptop even with very low bandwidth wifi. So even $35 for a 6 hour flight is a good deal for the company considering I'm getting hundreds of dollars worth of work done. I even pay out of my own pocket when I'm not traveling for work, since if I'm not doing anything else I might as well do work.

</comment><comment><USER17> I know of two cost-saving measures for Gogo:

1.) Buy your pass on the ground first and it can be half the price.

2.) Some Delta flights offer free video streaming to devices via a Gogo app. Simply click the link that says "I need to download the app" and the internet switches on so it can redirect you to the AppStore. Switch back to a browser and it still works....

</comment><comment><USER31> Never pay for wifi. This isn't primarily a budget concern, it's just that it's almost always _far_ worse quality than free wifi. And hotel wifi is _always_ worse than hostel wifi</comment>


Ask HN: Would you read a blog that detailed the rise and fall of a startup? - <AUTHOR>

http://lookingbackaretrospective.posterous.com/
Backstory: When the company I worked for years to help succeed suddenly and abruptly crumbled beneath me, I wrote a memoir of the event as a sort of catharsis. I was encouraged to publish it online by some former colleagues, and so we find ourselves here today.
I'm looking to get as much as honest feedback about it as I can, mainly to see if people find the story to be interesting, and if they enjoy the writing style or not.
All Questions, Comments, and Criticisms are welcomed and encouraged <comment><USER2> Nice blog. I read first two posts and I must say I've been through same experience and I can relate with some of these characters.

 _It was also around this time I had become something of an "important" figure around my office. For anyone who has been "that guy" in a small team, the guy who gets three emergencies thrown at him from 3 different people in the course of a single minute, the guy who gets assigned the bugs noone else can figure out or reproduce, the guy, who when noone else has an answer, is turned to for help, you'll know what I mean when i say "important"._ \- My project manager(non-technical) promised client to deliver the complete project in three days. He didn't consulted us about the expected development time and it was a month work to be true. We two developers worked non stop for 58 hours to develop an untested ugly version and hoped for best. Fortunately, it worked well. Never looked back at that code and it is still being used since last 4 years. Even I don't know how.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, I can relate to that, for sure.

Keep reading, there's a part you'll definitely relate to, near the end of "The New Office". We had a guy who constantly oversold and overpromised, causing us endless pains...

Thanks for reading! Be sure to pass it along if you've enjoyed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The problem is blogs are in reverse chronological order, but I want to read it chapter-by-chapter like a story.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, I wish i could enforce chronological order on it... Maybe if I add a sidebar widget, it might help, to let people quickly jump to old posts?

Thanks for reading!

Edit: I can reverse the chronological order of things, but I'm not in love with the way they do the side links, rolled up by Year... I'm going to play around with it, and see what I like

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Overall, it's enjoyable. Sometimes your wording can be a little awkward. Keep it up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Point well taken - That's really just my style, I suppose. I wrote it to reflect how I would tell the story if I were directly talking to someone.

I'll try to be on the lookout for anything that looks too over-done in the future.

Thanks for reading!</comment></comment>


New Kid on the Web: A Study on the Prevalence of WebAssembly in the Wild [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/Medien-DB/ias/pubs/2019-dimva.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> "1 out of 600 sites execute wasm code"

"50% of all sites using WebAssembly apply it for malicious deeds"</comment>


MA Bans Vaping Product for Four Months –Including for Medical Use - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2019/09/24/governor-baker-make-vaping-announcement-amid-spate-lung-illnesses/o8sO6mf3GOmX4mOpLLtcEL/story.html <comment><USER2> Banning electronic nicotine devices right now, because of their link to contaminated THC vaping illnesses, is like banning vaccines delivered by hypodermic needles because needles are linked to Hepatitis infections by IV drug users.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was surprised to see them ban medical marijuana based vaping products. They have been part of the MA medical program for maybe five years now with no reports of any illnesses.

<comment><USER2> The THC products are the actual culprit in the illnesses, and based on a review of all the evidence banning those alone would be more responsible. Really, the feds need to legalize cannabis and let the FDA regulate it instead of the current approach, which is "people using cannabis are all criminals and deserve to die."

edit - obviously not all THC vapes are causing illnesses, but the lack of regulation is making things very murky. There really needs to be a grown-up approach to them involving responsible regulation of the supply chain.</comment></comment></comment>


Venture capital firms to include "diversity riders" in term sheets - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/venture-capital-firms-diversity-riders-cap-tables-f196b011-0559-4f00-a026-3b2618c6268c.html <comment><USER2> Huh. Looking at the headline, I had thought that this would mean, "we'll fund your startup, if you agree to meet these diversity hiring targets." But if I'm reading the article correctly, it actually means, "we, the VCs, will try to have more diversity among the people writing the checks."

<comment><USER3> Of the handful of comments currently posted, yours is the only one that shows evidence of actually having read the article.

Personally, I think it's a good thing that VC funds are trying to include people from underrepresented groups into their club. At least, I hope that's what they're doing, because all this "best effort" language basically means they're not _really_ obligated to do anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love how everyone uses throwaways in these comments because they know any deviation from the progressive-left line will get them cancelled!

I'll say it under my name - I'm completely old fashioned and probably racist / sexist / *-phobic whatever because I still agree with Martin Luther King that it is morally correct to judge someone by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I'm so totally backwards! I meet someone new and have a blank slate no matter what color they are or what they look like! I do this intensely regressive thing where I listen to what they have to say and judge them by their words and actions. I know, very evil and wrong of me, but I can't help it - I still like Martin Luther King!

<comment><USER5> We all carry biases, including towards/against groups we wouldn't expect to be biased towards/against. We probably all start with blank slates, but, unless you've had zero interactions with the outside world, you'd have to work actively to retain that blank-slate outlook.

In aggregate, we run the risk of collectively creating various forms of systemic bias. We can test for these systemic biases (we have) and prove the existence/non-existence of said biases (we have).

<comment><USER6> > We can test for these systemic biases (we have)

How do you propose testing this? Typically, a difference in outcomes is taken as evidence of systemic bias, but it isn't the same thing. For example, if one cohort commits more crimes, they are going to have more police interactions, more arrests, and so forth. But that's not a systemic bias. Unfortunately the recent "anti-racist" authors like Ibram Kendi have been pushing a false and expansive definition, where they term any difference in outcomes (or as they put it, any racial inequity), as "racist". That's not what most people would call "racist".

> prove the existence/non-existence of said biases (we have)

As for the existence of biases, I assume you are referring to the 'implicit association test', which is commonly used as a tool to identify unconscious biases. The IAP methodology has been challenged and debunked many times. Studies have also found that measures of implicit bias do not predict how people act in real life. See [https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/flaws-white- fragility-theo...](https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/flaws-white-fragility- theory-primer/) for more.

<comment><USER7> There are many ways to conduct studies on bias. As a simple example, they can do things like send out identical resumes with different genders/races and see who gets called back. You can find a ton of these; here is a meta-analysis which looks at many such studies: [https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm all for this (meaning bringing diverse co-investors into rounds). I'd add that as entrepreneurs we should add LP riders when doing rounds (where's your money from?!).

Can't say I know all these funds super well - they're not big names outside of a couple - but helping diverse co-investors build track records is a good idea on a bunch of levels. It's all friends and family anyway.

I will say that Greycroft is one of the few funds who I respect deeply in how they operate and don't treat "diversity" as an add-on. They're just a really smart group of people, that I've enjoyed every interaction with, that actually have a diverse set of experiences and interesting points of view And investment theses that scale across diverse sociopoltifla outcomes. Novel I know!

I see a few misguided comments here not worth responding too about "merit" and what not. I'll deal with your anguish if you make a point of it, but please bring some original thought, non-anecdotal or not-bad research cause I feel like I'm reading a bad /r/* thread in the below.

<comment><USER9> We have recent proof that educational institutions actually discriminate against white and asian pupils.

Your wording suggests animosity, so why would you believe you are less biased than anyone else?

Perhaps you are biased because you spend time on reddit, I wouldn't hold it against anyone, but original thought doesn't make an appearance in this discussion.

<comment><USER8> I believe that discrimination narrative is largely based on test scores. Which are, and it took me decades to come around to this, fairly biased. Outcomes have been shown to be pretty equal regardless of relative experience (and comparable ability) pre-college.

And I'm less biased cause I've seen more and made pretty much every mistake a high test-score, arrogant white or Asian guy can make :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We need to stop introducing artificial racist/sexist affirmative action policies and instead stick to including people based on merit. The injection of this ideology everywhere is pernicious, unnecessary, and discriminatory.

<comment><USER7> Although hopefully becoming weaker over time, people still hold biases against different groups. Until these biases don't exist it makes sense to be aware of them and try to correct

<comment><USER10> what is racism? To me giving someone a benefit due to their skin color is racist.

Affirmative action is racist in nature.

A good test is to replace the race with "white European". And if the statement offends it's racist.

<comment><USER11> Do we agree that current VC, mostly because of unconscious bias, are racist and sexist ?

Then what do you suggest to change this situation ?

I am not super comfortable with counsious positive discrimination as a momentary tool to correct a discriminatory situation (with negative impact on the whole society), but it is hard to imagine solutions without using this tool.

<comment><USER10> My belief comes from personal experience. That social mobility is alive and well but can take multiple generations.

There's Plenty of VCs who came from poverty, who's parents came from poverty, or who's grandparents came from poverty.

When looking at that Kind of timescale from 1920s till now, I don't believe the system has had enough time. Civil rights, racial rights, and gender rights are relatively new concepts.

My belief is over the next 30-50 years the forces of market capitalism will address the issue.

<comment><USER11> So to you this is not a problem that VC and investors discriminate negatively people based on their gender of race ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Aside from arbitrary virtue signaling and moral grand standing, what's the point?

$1 is $1 no matter which pocket it comes from. Also, this would be introducing discrimination based on immutable traits - two steps backwards there guys...

<comment><USER13> > $1 is $1 no matter which pocket it comes from.

For all the uproar about Chinese ownership of tiktok, zoom, etc etc, I suspect that your assessment is a minority opinion here.

<comment><USER14> If you drop all context sure. I'm sure no one here would take investment money from a resurrected Hitler, Narcos, or the Mob, but, since the discussion is about race, it's kind of an orthoginal point.

<comment><USER13> It's not. Folks have ethics about who they take their money from. I agree, it's not the same, but a dollar isn't just a dollar. Who it's coming from, and what their ethics are, do actually matter.

In this case, I see that minorities are underrepresented in startups. Insomuch as it's all about who you know, there's strong reinforcement of systemic trends of enriching primarily white men. Diversity at the top unlocks hidden talent in their networks and overlooked markets, so picking folks to maximize cultural competency is kind of a no-brainer.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sexually transmitted case of Zika in Texas - k-mcgrady http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35478778 <comment><AUTHOR> This article is missing much in the way of evidence. While sexual transmission seems a possibility (even likely, within my vastly limited understandings), nothing says why a mosquito couldn't have done this transmission, other than "it hasn't happened in the US".</comment>


Airless Car tire improves gas milleage, shock absortion - <AUTHOR> http://autos.yahoo.com/news/hankook-is-latest-to-roll-out-airless-tire-concept-220547506.html

<comment><USER2> It's the small innovations in efficiency like this that really make an impact.</comment>