This Is Your Life, Brought to You by Private Equity - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/02/business/dealbook/this-is-your-life-private-equity.html <comment><USER2> Interesting way to present information. Very poor framing and discussion of the issue that lacks data or statistics of any sort, even top-line numbers to provide any context for how large the PE industry really is.

Utmost importance even for a casual reader to get a sense of the relative size of the industry under discussion and how well PE-managed firms perform on average, not just a few cherry-picked examples that cast the PE industry in a slightly negative light, kind of dancing around the issue without making any argument head on.

50 largest PE firms manage $1.5t in assets. Total global equity market is $48.6t (from Dimensional's 2015 Matrix Book). Total market value of world's financial assets is probably >$200t (including land, commodities, currency, etc.).

Here is some data for those who are interested:

[http://www.pionline.com/article/20150406/PRINT/304069998/big...](http://www.pionline.com/article/20150406/PRINT/304069998/big- private-equity-managers-ruling-the-roost)

<comment><USER3> > Interesting way to present information.

The NYT manages to foul up the Safari browser's Reader View again. This is getting tedious.

<comment><USER4> It's an infographic. It won't look good on a Kindle, either. Reader view isn't meant for every single URL in the world.

<comment><USER5> Since the graphics just provide abstract depictions, with no 'info' in them, it's overly generous to call them 'infographics'.

They seem mainly a way to make the otherwise vague, elementary-school-level writing more visually-interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This piece reads more like it's trying to rekindle hatred towards Wall Street than educating people what private equity is and how it works. If it's supposed to be investigative journalism then it certainly failed. Maybe try starting with improving accuracy of the terms by not using "private equity" and "Wall Street" interchangeably?

<comment><USER7> As soon as I read the article too I wanted to check if the NYT is owned by private equity. According to wikipedia, it's both part publicly traded on the NYSE and privately owned: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Company). I wouldn't know where to find out how much of the company is privately owned and publicly traded, though. But spot on, it's a publicity piece (and you've played your part by clicking). But I think most would see that by the presentation. Was still entertaining though.

<comment><USER8> Being privately owned isn't the same thing as being owned by private equity. And looking at the NYT it has Class A and Class B shares, where only the Class B shares are privately owned. The usual reason for dividing the shares into different classes is to give the owners of one class rights that the other class doesn't have. I'm not sure what, if any, differences there are between the NYT's Class A and Class B shares.

<comment><USER7> I'll admit, I don't know what the specific legal definition of private equity is. According to wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity) "In finance, private equity is an asset class consisting of equity securities and debt in operating companies that are not publicly traded on a stock exchange." There are probably more legal specifics that would further divide private equity from just anything that's not publicly traded. But, you're on the right track, if in fact the private Class B shares override the rights of Class A shares (significantly), then the NYT's could be seen as just another shady entity in our lives that's controlled by private equity, as the link tries to illuminate.

<comment><USER9> The article is using the term "private equity" to refer to private equity firms, so the more relevant wiki article is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity_firm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity_firm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Paris outsourced its water supply to a private company (Suez) a while back, only to witness exactly what the article describes: Rising prices and sinking quality. The city finally decided to take the water supply back into its own hands and did not renew a 20 year lease to Suez, creating its own water supply company instead, "Eau de Paris". Already in the first year of its operation, the city was able to decrease water prices by 8 %.

Here's a short article in English:

[http://www.futurepolicy.org/food-and- water/remunicipalisatio...](http://www.futurepolicy.org/food-and- water/remunicipalisation-of-water-services-paris/)

Wikipedia article about water privatization in France:

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

<comment><USER11> If an industry really is a natural monopoly (water probably is), the best structure is probably a regulated private monopoly. The problem is that if you're privatizing a function because you're incompetent at administration (which is usually the case), you're probably not going to be good at regulating either.

<comment><USER12> I another very good idea is to have multiple private suppliers, along with publicly owned (but potentially privately managed) infrastructure. At least that's how electricity works in the EU.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a counter-point to the idea that private equity buyouts harm consumers, here is a recent paper documenting the impact of PE transactions in the restaurant industry. [0]

Key bits from the abstract:

"Analysis of health inspections conducted for over 50,000 stores in Florida shows that food safety and sanitation improve after private equity takeover, especially in areas related to food handling, kitchen maintenance and consumer advising."

"Restaurants also reduce employee headcount and lower menu prices. This evidence suggests private equity firms are not simply financial engineers but rather active operators that improve management practices in the firm. Moreover, efficiency gains do not come at the expense of product quality."

Unfortunately this does not address the main thrust of the New York Times piece, which focused more on natural monopoly sectors such as water, public transit, and emergency response. It does make intuitive sense that private firms would have less of an incentive to improve operations when buying a monopolistic entity that comes with significant pricing power already baked in. Hopefully good research on these is out there or in the pipeline, as it seems like an in-demand and under-served area of academic inquiry.

Disclosure: I worked briefly as an undergrad for one of the paper's authors, on a distinct but similar project.

0: [http://people.hbs.edu/asheen/BernsteinSheen_Restaurants_June...](http://people.hbs.edu/asheen/BernsteinSheen_Restaurants_June23.pdf)

<comment><USER14> Is there any reason an experience from "restaurants" is meaningful in the context of what the article is about? At the very least I see not even an effort from you, as if it's all the same. It seems to me that those are entirely different categories. For example, the restaurant business is highly competitive, people can easily go elsewhere.

Regarding the article though, I wonder what the purpose of spending 99% of the budget for the article on visuals rather than the actual article was. That's a really lame piece of pseudo-"journalism". It provides a very weak argument (if any), which is unfortunate given the importance of the topic.

<comment><USER15> I thought the restaurants example demonstrating that PE firms could have a positive impact on a business was actually a good counterpoint to specific points where the article was stating or implying that PE was bad (e.g. that 911 results could be slow and you'd be stuck with a bill, paramedic response times got worse under PE)

Your point about restaurant businesses being a different category seems to be engaging only on the point of PE owned businesses are ubiquitous not on sub- text that PE turnarouds could be bad.

<comment><USER14> I don't understand your reply. If the businesses are in a completely different realm, how is it of any use to know that it works fine for _restaurants_? How can that possibly serve as an argument for completely different businesses (when it's not even clear they should be businesses, but no need to argue about that). Where is the argument "something like this works in a completely different context" a valid argument?

<comment><USER16> The article describes how PE works badly in a limited set on industries (monopolies), but uses expansive language and doesn't properly caveat it's argument that PE is bad in general. Parent uses restaurants as an example of a more ordinary competitive business, where academic research exists that shows the benefits of PE.

<comment><USER14> Your reply doesn't address any of the points of _my_ reply. Once more: _Why_ would it be relevant at all that something works for restaurants, a completely different environment? Mentioning restaurants does _not_ work to refute the article's points.

Yes the article is horrible. It's not even an article. But that does not mean you can now go ahead and use _anything_ to refute it. That's illogical. You have to use _good_ logic even when trying to refute something bad.

<comment><USER16> The examples in the article are atypical because they are monopolies. Restaurants are typical because they are not monopolies. Academic research about a typical case is high-quality evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Once you get through the horrible way of presenting information that goes far beyond of [https://xkcd.com/1273/](https://xkcd.com/1273/), there isn't much to the message. Yes, in a country whose citizens distrust the government and firmly believe in the invisible hand, products and services are produced and served by private firms rather than the government. Isn't this what you always wanted?

<comment><USER18> Except it's usually the government selling these projects to private firms, so the tax payer gets the worst of both sides of the coin. There are some things that are fundamentally necessary (e. g. roads and highways, water) that should not be sold to private industry as for public interest vs profit should be priority number 1.

<comment><USER11> Profit serves an important function: it creates incentives to invest and guides investment into areas where demand exists. Our public services in the US are the subject of dramatic underinvestment and also malinvestment (I.e. why your public bus stop every block instead of every 5, why there are three guys standing around for every one guy doing road work). So clearly getting profit out of the equation hasn't worked well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So private companies with the monopoly of force the government has. Again, the private part isn't the problem. It's the privilege government gives them through exclusive deals to pick the electorate's pockets.

<comment><USER20> I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a lot of these deals come from constrained government budgets rather than corruption. The conservative movement has been very effective at keeping taxes and government revenue low since the 1980s.

<comment><USER21> This is simply not true. The conservative movement has utterly failed at keeping taxes and revenue low.

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1A027NBEA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1A027NBEA)

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B245RC1Q027SBEA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B245RC1Q027SBEA)

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/S210400](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/S210400)

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W070RU1Q027NBEA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W070RU1Q027NBEA)

If budgets are constrained, it's because spending has simply risen faster than tax revenue.

<comment><USER22> tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been stable since WWII - [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue- sha...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What types of public services (and their quality) are bing provided by private firms vs governments and municipalities is a very relevant conversation, and one we should be having.

However, conflating private equity with wall st., and making a distinction between how firms under private equity ownership behave vs. public equity or closely held (no financial sponsor) seems pointless other than to further some other purpose (which i won't speculate about)

<comment><USER24> >However, conflating private equity with wall st., and making a distinction between how firms under private equity ownership behave vs. public equity or closely held (no financial sponsor) seems pointless other than to further some other purpose (which i won't speculate about).

Agreed, and I say this as someone who's generally a fan of the New York Times' journalism. Here they simply seem to be trotting out the "look, it's Wall Street!" trope without offering deeper analysis (at least in this piece). Which is a shame because there are industries where private equity has a laudable record and others where the record is rather checkered.

And this notion, of course, oversimplifies "private equity" into one monolithic actor. As though a competent private equity firm which seeks to maximize value through improving quality wouldn't operate a company differently from one which seeks to extract value solely through levered financial engineering.

The scrolling art is nice though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article presents horrible examples. Transportation and water are two sectors ripe for disruption by the private sector. Governments around the country are polluting rivers and poisoning children with lead because they refuse to raise water rates on grandma to upgrade their infrastructure. And here in DC, the Metro literally keeps catching on fire. We have a multi- trillion infrastructure spending backlog in these sectors because government operation has been such a disaster.

</comment><comment><USER25> Also it is important to realize that a lot of private entities like have money for lobbyists and they use them very well. For example, they might "bribe" an official in charge of budget to cut the budget for schools in a certain area, if the PE happens to own and manage charter schools.

School doesn't have money, is struggling. PE lobby firm issues a few press releases pointing out what a failure public schools are. Then another press release about how there is a way out -- go to their schools, and so on.

Or if they happen to lease land and run an tolled expressway, they might lobby local government against expanding or improving local roads, because it means a but in the profits for them, and so on.

The cheapest and most effective way to profits is to often to do just that -- lobbying and regulatory capture. That is what's scary with privatizing everything.

</comment><comment><USER26> I only see this being a problem if there are no free market forces being allowed. One of the examples was that 'some' of the private equity ambulances and fire trucks arrive late. As long as a better one comes in and replaces them, then what's wrong with that?

I have a lot more faith in a greedy money driven investor and company to delivery on the end product than the government. At least they will do everything possible to maximize profits. If they get contracts and have a complete monopoly with no free market though, then this is an issue.

<comment><USER27> Do you actually have a choice which ambulance and fire truck you get when you dial 911?

Markets only work in the presence of consumer choice, agency, and evaluation. If there are no consequences for bad service, you will continue to get bad service. Similarly, if the consequences for bad service fall on people who do not have a say in which service is chosen, you will still get bad service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So much mis-information... I don't know where to begin.

And why did they have to go on and call out named PE groups...(Fortress). What does that achieve NYT?

What is the goal of this in the first place...? If we want to educate people on what PE really does, let's talk. But this is clearly just targeting the masses with a one sided viewpoint to try and get them to associate 2008 again and raise their pitchforks back up. Accomplishes nothing.

</comment><comment><USER29> This conversation is a little off the rails, in my opinion.

Colors of money, market forces, the political alignment of the NYT... None of these are the most interesting part.

The government(s) exists to serve the people, right? To provide safety, predictability in the environment, in our lives. We exchange a little liberty for those benefits and indeed pay taxes, too.

Corporations exist to make money. And to protect their owners from liability, I guess? I'm no expert on why corporations exist, and I certainly can't tell you why they should exist.

This animated series of tweets from the NYT (it's hardly an article!) tells us that corporations, specifically a subset known as "private equity", now own things that the average person does not expect them to own.

For me, the takeaway is: The number of things NOT owned by corporations is decreasing and traditional resistance (by the governments and individuals) is failing or has failed.

</comment><comment><USER29> Hm. I have seen the phrase "private equity" a lot of times.

I thought it meant "money that belongs to companies".

But after skimming through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity) for ten seconds, I realize that I have no idea what "private equity" is.

This is embarrassing, but experience has taught me that I have to push through these situations, where I suddenly realize that my ignorance on some topic is truly profound...

I thought all companies above a certain size were publicly traded. ...Wait, do I have some incorrect definition of publicly traded?

It means there is stock in the company for sale, right? What percentage (by count) of companies are publicly traded? By volume?

If a large company isn't publicly traded, does that make it a private equity company?

<comment><USER30> > I thought all companies above a certain size were publicly traded. ...Wait, > do I have some incorrect definition of publicly traded?

Size doesn't really matter. I suppose you could say size and public status are correlated. Companies who are publicly traded have gone through an IPO and their shares are available for purchase at stock exchanges.

For instance Uber is large but not publicly traded.

If a large company isn't publicly traded it is a private company. I don't think "private equity company" is a term in wide use, but a private company has private equity that is available for VC and private equity firms to invest in.

As a HN user you may be familiar with how VCs work? VC can be thought of as a subsection of the PE industry.

<comment><USER29> > a private company has private equity

So a VC, an investor... can buy a share of the private company?

And then as the value of the private company grows, so does the value of the VC's share?

If there isn't a public market for such shares, then how does the VC sell the share?

<comment><USER31> Usually in a liquidity event. IPO or sale of the company.

<comment><USER32> Yup. Or more generally known as M&A which could be a buyout (LBO from a PE firm), bigger company acquisition, merger, IPO, or selling shares to another investor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Private Equity was bar none the biggest winner in the financial crisis. They got to buy all sorts of assets super cheap, fund those purchases at interest rates not seen in many years, skirt Reg T[1], and a dodge taxes via the carried interest tax loophole.

What's not to love about them. Oh, and let's forget they often secretly double dip on fees. i.e charge their LP's management fees, and their portfolio companies advisory fees (which are often not disclosed to their LPs).

Despite all this hating, I'd sooner invest in a PE fund then HF or VC.

[1] regular investors can only lever 2:1 in equities, but PE often leverages 10:1 or more.

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't think private equity is really to blame. As the government cannot afford to provide services anymore it outsources them. The tax rate stays the same, of course. Governments are getting ever more inefficient at what they do, leading to ever more austerity measures. how to break this spiral i do not know. making a government more efficient is not something that's usually discussed but it is becoming ever more obvious money is leaking at an accelerating pace.

<comment><USER35> Trying to make a Government efficient is a fools errand.

<comment><USER36> As is trying to make a hedge fund, private equity fund or publicly traded company soicially responsible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> While this is biased towards the NYT narrative (the last third of the article is their opinion on the situation), the key is to look up what the legal definition of Equity[0]. Start your own private equity firm. Or go one step further: incorporate in Delaware, Indiana, or Nevada (or Better yet, Bermuda, Nevis, or Antigua), and start generating some real income in the game.

0\. [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equity](http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equity)

<comment><USER24> One doesn't exactly "start [their] own private equity firm." Tens of (more often: hundreds of) millions of dollars must be raised and even then, they must bid (or acquire by other means) on companies.

Anyone with a net worth above $1mm can become a venture capitalist, given that VCs deal with earlier stage companies which, as a result of their youth, are happy to take small checks for minority investments.

Private equity, because it deals with mature companies and (more often than not) involves controlling stakes, requires very, very large checks. And because investors don't like an undiversified portfolio, the PE firm must have the means to write many very, very large checks.

This isn't an undertaking that just anyone can do. Of course, if someone has the means to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, has a nose for investing, is experienced in both buy-side mergers & acquisitions as well as the operations of a company in a given domain, then co-sign your advice.

Though index funds or an advisor would be much less risky for someone with those means.

<comment><USER37> oh come on, Don't pretend it's hard to do; you can start a private equity firm to own your house and car. Sure, it won't have the same muscle as the larger ones, but it isn't impossible. just draft the documents, and agree to underwrite (or get a corporation to underwrite!).

<comment><USER24> An LBO of a home is called "getting a mortgage." And yet, one's car or home isn't exactly a share-issuing company. You can form a company to own it – but that's not private equity.

Are you familiar with what "private equity" is? Note that "private equity" is distinct from "private" "equity."

<comment><USER37> One's car or home isn't _normally_ owned by a share-issuing company. are you saying it can't be owned by one? Pretty sure there's a well-known Mayer Amschel Rothschild quote about owning vs. controlling.

Private equity is an asset class. equity securities and debt (such as, oh, unpaid medical bills, and the right to collect on them) can be purchased as well as corporations/corporate debt.

Are you sure you understand what I'm saying?

<comment><USER38> First off, no bank will underwrite your mortgage for your house if you will own it under a corporate name. It's just too unusual for the bank to think about, and also they lose the ability to place a lien against you personally.

Second, what exactly do you accomplish by doing this, except paying a bunch of money in incorporation fees and drafting documents?

There's a reason why corporate shell games are usually played by people with relatively deep pockets: all the benefits that come from using corporate law require lawyers and accountants, and those are expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> james-watson From Wikipedia:

"Bloomberg Businessweek has called private equity a rebranding of leveraged- buyout firms after the 1980s. Common investment strategies in private equity include: leveraged buyouts, venture capital, growth capital, distressed investments and mezzanine capital."

So this is just a continuation of the Gordon Gekko LBO firms, made possible by the deregulation of Wall St that occurred around that time.

No surprise here. The Wall St genie is out of the bottle, and it will continue to wreak havoc until we have another Great Depression.

</comment><comment><USER39> Isn't this the by-product of the neoliberal mindset we have been promoting in the United States for at least a century now? This isn't a surprise to me and I suspect the article's real intention goes beyond conveying how PE firms actually work - and simply demonizing Wall Street - an industry that comprises a substantial percentage of our workforce.

<comment><USER40> I have no issue with keeping the public up-to-date on what high finance is doing, even if biased towards mistrust. They tanked the economy in 2008 and hurt everyone. I would go as far to say, we should be mistrustful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Does anyone have a few examples of the claims being made here? Like what utilities and services are being owned/managed by PE firms?

<comment><USER42> Probably some of these:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor- owned_utility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-owned_utility)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> not much of an "article", rather "hey look, we can do this stuff with your browser" effort with financial factoids sprinkled all over.

</comment><comment><USER44> A bunch of fear-mongering. Little substance.

</comment><comment><USER45> Another spectacular example of how to put your medium entirely in the way of conveying your message.

Stripped of cruft, and I'm writing as someone sympathetic to the message, there's not much there there:

<q>

This Is Your Life, Brought to You by Private Equity

Since the financial crisis, the private equity industry has become hugely influential. Here's how it plays out in your daily life.

By JENNIFER DANIEL, JOSH WILLIAMS, BEN PROTESS and DANIELLE IVORY |

A few years ago, that glass of water might have come from your local government. Today, it could be courtesy of a private equity firm. It may taste the same, but there's a good chance your bill has gone up.

Private equity firms are essentially savvy bargain hunters. They make money by buying up businesses they consider to be underperforming, looking to maximize profits and eventually sell them off.

These investors have lots of money at their disposal, mainly from rich individuals and pension funds. They also face fewer regulations than banks. Since the 2008 financial crisis, they've expanded their horizons and begun shopping for bargains in new places.

Their reach is probably all around you, from the clock on your wall to the toilet paper in your bathroom. And now, private equity firms are increasingly taking over services usually reserved for the government.

Let's say that, like most Americans, you drive to work.

These roads, bridges and highways are increasingly maintained by Wall Street investors. They either own the road, or manage it on the government's behalf.

When you get to the office, Wall Street firms can also be found in your parking garage, where they collect your cash.

Even if you don't drive to work, private equity can follow you onto trains, too.

Some towns without stops complain that they will get the annoyances of train traffic, including noise and delays, without the economic benefits of having a station. Fortress, for its part, says its project is creating jobs and taking cars off the road.

Private equity also helps oversee public golf courses in several states …

… it builds courthouses …

… it invests in private schools down the street …

… and in the local newspaper. New Media Investment Group, which operates in 31 states, is associated with Fortress, the firm building the train in Florida.

Now that you've made it to work, you might be sitting inside a building controlled by Blackstone, a huge private equity firm and one of the largest landlords in the country.

Private equity can follow you back home when you pay your monthly mortgage. After the 2008 housing crisis, private equity firms expanded dramatically into the mortgage business, as the nation's banks struggled.

So, welcome home. It's dinner time.

You might think that you paid for your fire department with your taxes. But yours happens to be run by a private-equity-owned company, and you'll likely receive a bill for their services ...

… even if they show up late.

The paramedics who treat you for smoke inhalation might show up late, too. Response times for some ambulance companies under private-equity control have worsened.

So, relax, drink a glass of water and go to bed. Sweet dreams, tomorrow will be a new day with private equity.

</q>

</comment><comment><USER46> The New York Times has made great strides with interactive storytelling.

<comment><USER47> Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. I liked it!

It dumbs things down for sure and the graphics are very cartoony. The message hits spot on. I see this in the Bay area and in other places with well-paying jobs. The PE firms jumped to scoop up real-estate after the 2008 crisis. In the cases I saw, they upgraded 1500-2000 a month apartments to 3200-3600 a month fancy apartments (this is an example from Mountain View btw). The economist inside me says PE firms helped stabilize the economy and are bringing efficiency but the lil voice inside me says they are the scum of the earth and the reason I'll NEVER be able to afford a house and always be hand- to-mouth. As a rah-rah believer in capitalism, PE firms have changed my view and made me realize of the dangers of uncontrolled pursuit of wealth and profit.

</end-rant>

<comment><USER46> I doubt they could do what they're doing without a supportive state, there's a lot more than "market dynamics" at play here.

Are you an engineer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> White text is really hard to read.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. I'm surprised they didn't put a darker background behind the text. Otherwise it was an interesting piece.</comment></comment>


A US judge's ruling against the NSA is a big win for Edward Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/545978/a-federal-judges-ruling-against-the-nsa-is-a-big-win-for-edward-snowden/ <comment><USER2> This doesn't add significant new information over [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10536683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10536683), so it counts as a duplicate.

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this a win for Snowden? They can deem the entire program illegal, disband the NSA and put everyone in charge in prison for violating US law and it still won't help Snowden get back into the US without cuffs.

Unless it's an executive pardon or a statement from the attorney general exempting Snowden from prosecution this isn't a win for Snowden.

In any case there might be an interesting development as it might turn into a catch 22 for the NSA if they'll claim that it's technically unfeasible for them to filter out their collection based solely on specific individuals/organizations (which is probably technically correct) it can open a whole new can worms for them (since they've claimed that the collection is targeted and ensures that certain parameters are met (other than it's a phone call, email, skype call or 1 or more person(s) talking in range of a microphone they can jack into)). If they'll find a way to comply well they might be flooded by similar law suits, and even FOIA requests from individuals and organizations about if and when any data about them was collected.

On the other side of the coin this might come to bite us in the arse if the NSA makes a case that to comply with this ruling they'll have to perform in- depth analysis of every communication they collect to ensure that no phone call data is being collected which might involve J.J. Little, especially if VOIP communications fall under this jurisdiction and ofc they can later claim that any intelligence gathered from that analysis is lawful and actionable/admissible because it was gathered in the course of achieving compliance with a court order.

Dear Citizens,

In order to comply with Civil Action No. 13-851 Klayman et al. v Obama et al. we now need to transcribe all domestic and international calls conducted from and to the continental united states, the pacific states as well as any incorporated and unincorporated territories and any commercial fleet vessels sailing under the US flag in order to ensure that the call does not contain any information, data or reference to J.J. Little & Associates, P.C. or it's clients.

Sincerely the NSA.

<comment><USER4> > How is this a win for Snowden? They can deem the entire program illegal, > disband the NSA and put everyone in charge in prison for violating US law > and it still won't help Snowden get back into the US without cuffs.

It's good for Snowden because it means he really was a whistle blower. Things can still be good for him even though he's not back at home.

<comment><USER3> The guy is in Russia most likely under quite quite strict supervision, he can't really go any where without looking over his shoulder and jumping at every shadow, and no matter what he is still a wanted criminal by the most powerful nation on the planet.

This isn't a win for him, he might be pleased with the outcome that a judge has sided with a plea for a target specific injunction but it doesn't really bring him any closer to being able to live a normal life.

Even if it comes to the point in which he wont fear being targeted for either an extradition, rendition or an ol' plain hit by one of the alphabet soup agencies of the US considering that in many cases he admitted that he has a cache of documents hidden somewhere as an insurance allot of which were never released the the press or to the public unredacted he isn't just a target for US intelligence and Law Enforcement organizations he is a target of virtually every intelligence organization out there who would love to get their hands on unredacted NSA documents as well as any potentially actionable intelligence Snowden might have in his head.

And heck even if he some how manages to come back to the US under a full pardon or a no prosecution agreement of some sort he won't really be able to live a normal life for the next few decades until every bit of the information he may or may not have is no longer relevant.

<comment><USER5> When he blew the whistle to the press he knew he was in great danger of rotting in a prison for the rest of his life but he did it anyways because he was a patriot and he considered the risk to be worth it to save his country. That the whole thing worked, the NSA's policies have been declared illegal, means that his sacrifice was not in vain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Calling this ruling a "big win" is rather hyperbolic. As the article admits, the scope is extremely narrow and applies to only one law firm, as well as the fact that the program will (supposedly) changed in the coming months. Besides, a federal judge already found the program itself unconstitutional and we can all see how much that changed things.

Laws can change, as can public opinion. In the grand scheme of things, I can't tell how this changes anything at all.

<comment><USER6> In the context of the larger conversation around what the NSA can and cannot do, it is fairly huge because one part of the government is _on the record_ of restraining another part. This is how the Supreme Court tells the NSA that they better clean up their act or the judicial branch will start unilaterally taking away powers they think they have but don't.

It is also another brick in the wall which shows the government defense of its actions and that Snowden was a traitor (as opposed to a whistle blower) no doubt hinge on the assertion that what the NSA was doing (and was disclosed by Snowden) was _legal_. That is the bigger conversation that is going on here and so one which Snowden is quite invested.

If he ever hopes to return to the US, he has to make an iron clad case that he was a "whistle blower" [1] and not just violating his security clearance. To do that, as I understand it, he needs to prove three things. 1) The activity he was reporting was illegal (as opposed to just something he felt was immoral), 2) that reporting it through channels was likely to be unsuccessful in actually revealing the information, and 3) that was not enriched as a result of his actions.

When you try to make that case against the worlds most powerful intelligence agency you cannot do so with simple evidentiary rules. So I see a number of cases and efforts which are putting into the judicial record decisions like this one where the NSA's activity is called out as illegal _before_ Snowden steps foot back on US soil and gets arrested for treason.

[1] Important note, I'm not a lawyer, 99% of the whistleblower information is about securities fraud or OSHA safety issues, not constitutional violators. It's not entirely clear that there is a whistleblower type protection for what Snowden did.

<comment><USER7> I read the whole judgement and it felt very positive to me. It seems like the effect that "separation of powers" should have - namely that the executive now has the choice only to either comply or to enter into a protracted battle with the judiciary, where they're going to piss off every judge all the way up to the Supreme Court. I would hope that if the executive ignored the decision of this judge, for example, the net effect would be to turn the whole judiciary against them on this matter.

Eventually the executive ends up faced with a choice to either drop the pretence of democracy (as democracy is not in line with the actions they claim to need to do) or to change their ways.

One can hope...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What Snowden did was quite bold. it's truly a pity that he can't return to the US. I hope to see more people like him and more judges like this one.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does this mean that any other US citizen could file essentially the same case with their local court? Even if only some of them succeed, it would mean that the NSA is legally required to manage a long list of individual exclusions, and that might help to gum up the works as well as forcing a proper resolution of the issue.

</comment><comment><USER10> I doubt that Snowden will be able to return to the United States and receive fair treatment until after the current administration, and _its successor_ have left power. Possibly not until all the top and secondary positions within the DOJ and intelligence agencies have switched hands a couple of times.

<comment><USER11> It'll require a huge shift in the political landscape. I suspect that if we see him coming back at all, it'll be as a humanitarian gesture when he's dying of some disease in his 70s or 80s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Given the BS Hillary is saying about him, he will not be safe for at least another decade.

I hope no-one ever convinces him it is a good idea to come back here and just go on trial, they will railroad him right to solitary for the rest of his life.

</comment><comment><USER8> What Snowden did was quite bold. it's truly a pity that he can't return to the US.</comment>


StackOverflow down? - <AUTHOR> http://www.isup.me/stackoverflow.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Up already. More from <http://stackoverflow.com>: "Stack Overflow will be read-only briefly around 5PM UTC while we move some servers to a different rack. We _really_ hope this works."

And some comments on another "isup?" site: [http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/stackoverflow.com.html#comme...](http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/stackoverflow.com.html#commentstop)</comment>


Is Intelligence in the Genes? - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-intelligence-in-the-genes/28096

<comment><AUTHOR> _It's rather obvious that articles authors of articles like this still walk on eggshells._

The author is a mainstream author on the subject, and he is sharing conclusions (that the effort to find large-effect genes on IQ has been unsuccessful) that are widely known in the behavioral genetics community. I am in a Facebook private group with most of the leading behavioral genetics researchers, having met quite a few in person at my alma mater, where I regularly attend the weekly behavioral genetics seminar,

<http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall10/psy8935/default.htm>

and their reaction to the new article by Christopher Chabris and his co- authors is that the article simply shares the last several years of well known findings to a broader audience of psychologists. Alas, members of the general public are years behind the professional research, and often turn to blog posts or old popular books to obtain superseded "information" on this subject. A good source for current information is the listing of articles by Eric Turkheimer on this personal website,

<http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/vita1_turkheimer.htm>

which includes several highly readable review articles that summarize the current research results.

</comment><comment><USER2> Good to see people getting into dangerous (read 'political incorrect') discussions. But we still have a long way to go. It's rather obvious that articles authors of articles like this still walk on eggshells.</comment>


What HoloLens Has That Google Glass Didn't - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2015/01/what-hololens-has-that-google-glass-didnt

<comment><USER2> Microsoft made an unfortunate decision in taking a really promising technology and giving it a deliberately misleading name that's bound to enrage the early adopter market. HoloLens isn't in any sense holography -- it's an augmented reality device that integrates light-angle depth cues.

Augmented reality is important. Glass failed miserably at it, because despite all the sensors, Glass locked down the ability to use them -- and on top of that, Glass locked down most of the FOV, preventing meaningful spacial integration between real and virtual objects. The Oculus Rift will, largely, not be used for augmented reality -- you'd need to add a camera, and there are definite safety concerns if the camera is damaged or disconnected.

Depth cues are also important. VR sickness is not merely related to lag, but also to lack of coordination between depth cues -- something that is hormone- bound (which is why women have a comparatively harder time with head mounted displays -- estrogen levels are linked with the degree to which stereoscopy dominates over color and light angle depth cues). What microsoft has introduced is the first head mounted display that won't make women puke -- which could conceivably double its market over the Rift (since a little over half of all serious video game players are female).

However, when you introduce an exciting piece of consumer electronics -- especially something so novel that a brand new API has to be made for it -- you need to be targeting the technical people who will be using the development kits. Those people are exactly the same people who are likely to refuse to develop on HoloLens because some marketroid who didn't know what a hologram was decided it sounded cool.

Glass also alienated developers, but arguably in a more extreme way -- by limiting them to static web pages, basically. But, Google has good mindshare among techies compared to Microsoft. It may end up being a wash. After all, Glass essentially failed because it was borderline-useless, and it was borderline-useless because the designers pulled a Steve Jobs and heavily handicapped third party developers; Microsoft, on the other hand, may end up pulling an Atari Jaguar on itself -- having too few developers and too few properties because nobody ended up putting down the effort to learn how to integrate with the thing.

The most likely result, however, will be that Microsoft will do what it did with the Surface -- before HoloLens comes to market it will have transformed from a proper AR device to something more like Glass, the same way Surface started out as a computing coffee table with all sorts of interesting features and ended up becoming an uninteresting tablet by the time it was released. Then, some other company will take their idea of using micro-mirror arrays to handle angular depth cues in an AR display, and produce something indistinguishable from the original demo much cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, HBR normally has such good articles. This article's entire argument is based on "some random analyst said that HoloLens will be good, so it must be."

Then starts listing off a bunch of stats which don't really make any sense, like "7.2 million adults in the US have an ideal combination of attributes for HoloLens. If half of them buy it..." Even after they explain these attributes that is still a silly stat that means nothing. There's also no reason to believe that 50% of the potential market will buy the product (and they claim Kindle had twice as large of a market, sold twice as many as they're projecting for the Hololens but was still a huge failure).

> The endgame for enhancing our lives with digital visual tools is not virtual > reality, it's this mixed reality. If the glasses can help you accomplish > tasks that matter to you, ones you already do, then it's not just fun, it's > useful.

Microsoft hasn't, even ballpark, shown that Hololens can be productive. I watched their entire three hour press event, the demos they showed were very unpolished and didn't show anything more productive than can be accomplished on a PC.

It just looks districting. Google Glass's biggest issue was its price, but at least it seemed to be useful for niche things (e.g. turn by turn walking navigation). It is unclear what Hololens' use cases are, gaming maybe comes to mind, but this article is trying to sell it to business people/executives (where the case doesn't exist).

> Because Glass couldn't actually "see" what you are doing, it can't really be > helpful except as a tool for grabbing information when you're out and about.

That sentence contradicts itself. Google Glass contained AR functionality and could overlay information on what was in front of you (producing a very "holo"-like experience). Plus that same sentence that claims glass lacked that functionality also claims it had that functionality, which is it?!

> When Allrecipes.com can point to specific cupboards in your kitchen and tell > you to retrieve the cocoa, and count out as you measure out tablespoons, you > have another game changer.

That's impossible. I'd be seriously creeped out if some random website knew where the spices are, I don't even know where the spices are!

> Consumers are ready for new technology — Apple sold 80 million iPads in its > first two years, compared to 1 million iPods in its first two years.

That made no sense. Nowhere do they explain how they know "consumers are ready for new technology" and the iPad example is bad since the iPad didn't compete with the iPod and the iPad had more mass market appeal than the HoloLens.

Honestly this entire article reads like a paid PR piece for HoloLens. I'd be surprised if it wasn't. Most of the stuff said in it is baseless, contradictory, or non-sensicle.

I have nothing against HoloLens in particular (although I do have some concerns about its software catalogue, or lack of, and we still don't know the retail price). However this article in its own right is extremely low quality and will only mislead the reader if you let it.

I just suggest you really consider the arguments it is making. They lack substance and don't stand up to scrutiny at all.</comment>


Google Chrome stores every password that you use, even in Incognito mode - <AUTHOR>

I'm not sure if this is feature or a bug, but Chrome stores every password that you enter in it. Check your Keychain Access application on OS X to see every password that was synced to it by Google Chrome. Is this an expected behavior? <comment><USER2> Firefox FTW.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/os-x- pas...](http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/os-x-password- manager-keychain-integration)

[https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95606?hl=en- GB](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95606?hl=en-GB)</comment>


Deriving the Reddit Formula - <AUTHOR> http://www.evanmiller.org/deriving-the-reddit-formula.html <comment><USER2> Note: The author of this piece wrote the original analysis ([http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average- rating....](http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html)) that directly led to my advocating for reddit's "best" comment sort, including to xkcd's Randall Munroe, who managed to finally convince the rest of Team Reddit to make the change ([http://www.redditblog.com/2009/10/reddits-new- comment-sortin...](http://www.redditblog.com/2009/10/reddits-new-comment- sorting-system.html)).

So when the author says, "I realize that proposing any change to how Reddit works is one of the Internet's most dangerous games," he should be informed that it's actually a game he's won before.

<comment><USER3> Wow, I didn't know that. I was going to say that a long time ago I randomly read Evan's article about 'how not to sort by average rating'. Good work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do the conclusions change if we assume that the goal is not to optimize for value to the user, but for value to the company? Specifically, it seems that using the vote difference rather than the vote ratio would help controversial stories rank high. Controversial stories in turn are great at driving lots of discussion, which means lots of visits and revisits to the comment section.

(Compare to the apparent HN policy of discouraging controversy, both by the large effect of flagging and through the flamewar detector).

<comment><USER5> Possibly short term, but if you build a site around the kinds of people who like flame wars, your advertisers may notice they're getting very little traction from your site. Page views go up, but uniques go down.

<comment><USER6> Have you met Reddit? They love flamewars.

<comment><USER7> Yishan posted a couple hours ago that Reddit's business model is built upon flamewars. Basically get people heated up and then they gild the comments they agree with.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conten...](https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3ryvn)

...come to think of it, this explains a lot of the Reddit drama. The Reddit Gold was flying left and right during the black-out (despite pleas not to give any money to the site), and then every time an admin, CEO, former CEO, or board member pours gas on the fire, their revenue goes up. It's brilliant! They've figured out how to make money off of hurt feelings and angry people, and now have an incentive to cause as much drama as possible.

<comment><USER8> Ha, this is great, in a not-so-great but kinda-great way!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >This resolves one of the original mysteries — why the current time doesn't appear in Reddit's formula.

The current time did appear in the very early Reddit's formula but they figured it was computationally much faster to inflate the scores for new stories than to have to go through the database reducing the scores for loads of old stories.

<comment><USER10> Confirmed, but the time dependent model didn't ask for long. I seem to recall switching to the current model (with slightly different constants) during the switch to python in late '05.

That said, one of the early "mistakes" we made was not noticing the obvious step of taking the log of on the exponential form formula, which ended up meaning we had only a couple hundred days before we started to run afoul of the max float size in postgresql. I also seem to recall coming up with that obvious trick with only a few days to spare.

<comment><USER11> I'm really glad you're here, because I was about to comment that you're the only person I know who understands this stuff.

(for those that don't know keysersosa was the guy who wrote the current hot algorithm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool. But why is an outside researcher writing about this? Where is the research from within Reddit? They have as unique a dataset as Facebook, google or yahoo. They should do something cool with it and share it, like this guy

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't forget the group of users who can move stories around adding or removing votes from them at will. I'm sure there's been a _lot_ of "Put this on the front page please" favors done for friends.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this type of formula assumes a uniform list of links? Whereas I'd expect a discontinuity at the end of the front page. I wonder what it would look like if it took that into account, maybe the q term could incorporate the page number somehow.

</comment><comment><USER15> The biggest problem is that reddit's voting system is still pretty easy to game

</comment><comment><USER16> What algo does HN use?

<comment><USER9> 2013 version:

[http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking- really...](http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really- works.html)</comment></comment>


Searching for the Sundays - <AUTHOR> https://longreads.com/2019/07/30/searching-for-the-sundays/ <comment><USER2> I used to listen to much heavier, weirder music, but when I stumbled on The Sundays I was totally smitten and was a big change for me. I still have the CD I bought 30? years ago.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, I went to school at a remote college and I was the only black student pretty much. A friend of mine put me onto them and i played Static & Silence for about 2 years straight. The way they dropped off of music was tough to take, but A few bands that filled the void were the SuperJesus, check out "I'm Stained" and other tracks on their album titled "Sumo"... and Bon Iver is just amazing. Period.

I read long ago that Harriet just simply lost interest in touring after having a child, and I respected that and gave up waiting for more... Her voice was truly great though, and David and the rest of the band created such a great acoustic chemistry. It's been so long now, I don't think they'd be able to recapture the vibes in any good way.</comment>


Introducing Parse Server and the Database Migration Tool - <AUTHOR> http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-server-and-the-database-migration-tool/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting how they try to make database migration sound like a good thing.

"By migrating your database, you will be able to backup your entire database periodically and on demand" \- woohoo, finally I can spend time doing backups instead of using a cloud service doing it for me!</comment>


Russia Moves To Ban Online Services That Don't Store Personal Data In Russia - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/02/russia-moves-to-ban-online-services-that-dont-store-personal-data-in-russia/ <comment><USER3> It sounds evil but balkanisation of the Internet is a natural result of the erosion of trust in corporations and other stewards of this medium. The NSA/GCHQ scandal only pushed it a little further. We all know that any great medium starts out as a bastion of understanding, sharing and common good until a bunch of trolls show up to ruin it all (ahem, reddit, ycombinator, digg, etc). Until that moment we enjoy all the freedoms that such a medium offers and we assume it is something of and unto itself, never to be destroyed. In the Internet's case the trolls were capital coming to understand how to modify the Internet to extract wealth and governments looking for a competitive edge over others using the Internets structural flaws to obtain that edge.

The erosion in this case is more harmful to many people than trolls showing up to reddit. So I think it's natural that people recede slightly from the idea a globalised common communal identity created by the Internet and look toward their national structures to protect them. As Snowden said in some QA "Our founding fathers did not say that all [US persons] were created equal". Until the irony of that statement is not cleared up internationally and human rights are absolutely universal balkanisation of the Internet will come. Russia, despite being an odd democracy, is only jumping onto a boat that already sailed in Brazil and other locations.

<comment><USER4> _balkanisation of the Internet is a natural result of the erosion of trust in corporations and other stewards of this medium_

Not even close. This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along. They don't trust their own citizens, not "corporations and other stewards of this medium." You're buying a flimsy excuse for cracking down on free speech.

Their problem has never been that some company cooperates with the US. It has always been that multinationals couldn't be easily strong-armed into cooperating with the local authorities. And no, it wouldn't matter if the US had the same problems.

<comment><USER5> > _This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has > been doing all along._

No government can act without the acceptance of a majority of the citizens. China's firewall can only exist because the Chinese people are accepting it in the name of protecting children or other such bullshit - brits should watch out, as their personal liberties have been eroded in the name of safety for too long. And if you live in the US, I suppose you're familiar with the Patriot Act ;-)

No, governments don't do this unless a majority approves - that they approve for the wrong reasons, that's another story entirely. But as I kept saying ever since Snowden's leaks happened - the US government fucked things up, they won't even admit to how badly they fucked up and this will have deep repercussions internationally regarding the future of the Internet. A lot of international (mostly US) companies will get hurt by this, because (1) they didn't have a saying in the matter, yet the public views them as being guilty nonetheless and (2) because of balkanization.

And the US can't point fingers and say "look who's talking", as that won't achieve anything. Say that to the Russian public who approves this. The US, as the stewart of the Internet, should have been careful to not fuck things up so badly in the first place. And after Snowden's leaks I would have liked to see some apologies, some heads falling - but ALAS, no, nothing of the sort - <USER2> a direct confirmation that they don't care about the rights of foreign individuals and as a non-US citizen, how do you think that makes me feel?

<comment><USER6> > No government can act without the acceptance of a majority of the citizens.

This is not a contradiction to the original statement. Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.

<comment><USER7> > Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things > to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.

Let me follow your definition, say, in the case of Ancient Rome. There is a minority of masters and a majority of slaves. Minority of masters has a dissent (from the slave's point of view, of course) that slaves should stay slaves. So, according to you, it is wrong for them to fight for their freedom, right?

<comment><USER6> No, I should have worded it more carefully: Majority opinion isn't _necessarily_ ethical, though it can be. They're independent concepts.

<comment><USER7> This statement makes sense for some specific ethic systems.

For instance, in almost all modern states there are ideas, which are shared by some majorities and considered unethical in Christian ethic system.

But bad_user seems to imply ethic system which is based on the aggregate citizens vision. With such ethic system opinions of majorities are ethical by tautology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Brilliant move: Protect the Russian citizens from foreign government spying by making sure that all their data stays in their own country under the protection of their democratic government. Oh wait...

<comment><USER9> Granted they could have done it before as well, it is just that the shining example of "open" and "free" has been revealed to suck up and spy on everything and everyone so now they can easily do it because there NSA did the PR bit for them. "Oh look the evil NSA is taking out citizens' data". You see, it actually is so and no matter how sarcastic you want to get it is still true.

Same with terrorism. When we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq with the War Of Terror. That opportunity didn't escape the Russians, they quickly issues a letters of support of American people blah blah and then proceeded to switch to running their own War of Terror in Chechnya. This was very nice as they just let the US Dept Of State do all the PR for them.

> of their democratic government.

Well presumably our democratic government is terrific. We have great income inequality, we torture people in some hidden loophole prison on a island, we invaded multiple countries with some WMD fake pretest. We are blasting away even our own citizens with drones in countries we are not even at war with. So one can argue democracy is not really that nice, it obviously doesn't work very well or out people are just mean and evil. Which, then, maybe they don't deserve democracy.

<comment><USER8> Just to clarify: In my comment I was not actually suggesting that I consider Russia to be a democratic country, quite the contrary in fact. Sorry if that didn't become clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the problem with privacy violation is twofold.

1) Protecting Citizen's data from snooping attempts of foreign intelligence agencies. Which is state's responsibility imo, which in this case it's carrying out. In this regard, this is good news,

2) Protecting Citizen's data from the state itself. This is a particularly tricky one, since there's no government agency which acts as counterweight to the intelligence agencies. In this regard, I am not so sure if its good news. What if this law was only passed to _enable_ Russian intelligence agencies to gain easy access to all the citizen's data? Which seems plausible and predatory (nobody spies on our Citizens but us).

It will probably take a combination of Technological and Legal changes to really ensure privacy of the people. I can see how it could possibly come about. There's a small set of people (read Big Government) who want to maintain control over Citizens by compromising their privacy. There's a big set of people who stand to get harmed by privacy violations. But there is a third set of people who has influence on first set (read wealthy class in all its forms), but who also stands to lose from privacy violations, and who also has means to fight it legally and legislatively. The third class would probably be the drivers of privacy reforms we'll see in coming years/decades.

<comment><USER11> Russian intelligence agencies had access to everything all along. Every big telecom in Russia is obliged to implement the necessary procedures.

<comment><USER12> Even not that big telcos have to install SORM h/w. At their own expense of course...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's sad that it's spiraling down to this but it is _in practice_ no different than what the US is doing. There's no free speech without privacy so this looks like a "choose your dictator" kind of thing.

<comment><USER14> The difference here is that America does not care whether you store your data on services in Europe or Russia, but Russia does. Clearly in practice this is very different to what the US is doing.

<comment><USER15> Of course it doesn't because most, if not all, international internet services are actually based in the US, and there are laws/courts saying that US companies should give over data even if it's stored abroad. No other country has this kind of power, so it's reasonable that they try other ways of protecting their access to information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While at 143 million people Russia has the largest population, this is rapidly shrinking, Russian internet (runet as they call it) was already mostly balkanised mainly due to language.

I find it amusing that they are doing this in "the name of combating piracy" when right now a certain russian site is hosting 1.2 million (mostly western) pirated ebooks and 28 million pirated scientific articles

<comment><USER17> Except birth rate in Russia has been rapidly increasing in the last 14 years.

They are making steps to legalize content, such as vkontakte legalizing 70% of their media material.

<comment><USER18> Yay teen pregnancy!

<comment> guard-of-terra Nope, it isn't. First birth age is growing like everywhere in post-transit countries.

(This also leads to statistics under-predicting birth rate)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm wondering if this is a direct attack on Livejournal, which is still incredibly popular in Russia, used for political dissent, and hosted in the US...

</comment><comment><USER20> Aside from the politics, this causes me to have 2 questions:

1) Are there any cloud file storage systems along the Drive/DB lines in Russia that apps providers can integrate with?

2) Not that anyone here knows the answer, but will the cloud storage providers implement data routing that complies with these rules (I guess yes, if the money is worth it)?

If anyone here is interested in country specific SaaS integrations (Germany, Brazil and Russia, for example), my email in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) Yes, there is. For example Selectel: [http://selectel.com/services/cloud- storage/](http://selectel.com/services/cloud-storage/) based on OpenStack API, very easy to integrate.

>Data storage ~0.088$ for 1GB per month or ~0.131$ for 1 TB per hour

>Network (outgoing traffic) ~0.023$ per 1GB

>Network (incoming traffic) free-of-charge

They also recently announced CDN option with Akamai partnership at no additional cost

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This does make sense from a purely logical point of view. If personal data is to be exploited and plundered, at least make sure it's done by your own villains under the control of your own laws. Why volunteer anything to the competing spy agencies?

</comment><comment><USER22> >it would take effect in September 2016

Great, so now I have a deadline to get out of here. Anyone hiring?

</comment><comment><USER23> It's a post-Snowden world, so I can't say I'm surprised nor that I think it's ridiculous. I also strongly suspect that EU will follow the suit shortly.

<comment><USER14> The motivations Russia has for doing this are not currently present in the EU so I highly doubt that.

<comment><USER23> Pray tell what these motivations are.

Just talk through them and then ask yourself if they are in fact "not present" outside of Russia given all the NSA and GCHQ shenanigans that have surfaced.

<comment><USER14> This is all about their ability to censor and has nothing to do with the stated reasons (combating piracy / protecting the privacy of Russian citizens and other fig leafs).

If you want to know the real motivations for this then it helps to remember Putin's origins and articles like this:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-telecoms- watchdog...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-telecoms-watchdog- warns-of-possible-twitter- ban/2014/05/16/a8c8bf98-77db-4bbb-8efe-d25a75de84ad_story.html)

The rest of Europe does not (for now) share any of those motivations with the Russian rulers.

<comment><USER23> Is UK included in "the rest of Europe" by any chance?

Besides if the censorship were _the_ goal, then it's perfectly doable as of now and regardless of the physical location of the servers. Just ask Saudi's. To understand the motivation you have to stop reading Washington Times and looking at Putin's origins and instead consider what he has accomplished in recent years - he essentially resurrected the national pride. In this context, it's only logical that they now view their dependency on (mostly) US companies as unbecoming, _especially_ in the light of Snowden revelations, hence the move in question. You may also recall the hocus-pocus Visa did not long ago by showing a middle finger to some Russian bank as per directive of the US department. Now, swap the US and Russia and consider what the US reaction would've been.

If you are thinking it's all about censorship, you are missing a much larger picture.

<comment><USER14> The UK is in many ways more of an extension of the US than a part of Europe and behaves accordingly.

What the US's reaction would be if the situation was reversed is moot because that's not the world we currently live in. The fact is that Putin and his band of boyscouts are rapidly reverting to type and getting the communications between Russian citizens under their control is just another step in that play.

If you think Putin has restored national pride then you are falling hook, line and sinker for the propaganda, that's just cheap talk for the consumption by the gullible. Pride you achieve by having something to be proud of, this is just warmed over nationalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Russia as a country sees storage of internet data as a tactical disadvantage against US.

They are only moving ahead to level the playing field as much as they can.

<comment><USER25> Yup, politicians are starting to realize that digital data in all its forms is now a competitive advantage and they are looking to control it like any other national resource.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What would one expect from "Bydlostan". Russia has been destroyed in 1917, USSR in 1991.)

Pelevin (the best modern Russian writer) came up with another more appropriate name - "Patsaneriya".

This "protection" of personal data is the same as "protection" of Russian- speaking in Crymea - just an excuse for a grab.

</comment><comment><USER27> >The Russian government has moved one step closer towards a "China-like" approach towards Internet services. Bad news for Russian. In China sometimes you want to use google to search something is deny. We use some software to cross the "Great Fire Wall" to see the whole world.

</comment><comment><USER28> May be i am missing something, but having servers in one country's border doesn't mean that data is not available to those whom you don't trust. How does this fit in a proactive strategy to identity theft or similar things.

</comment><comment><USER29> Europe has similar law (personal data should not leave Europe), but it is not as widely enforced.

Edit: since I am getting down voted let me explain.

> The EU Data Protection Directive requires that personal data a company > collects can not be moved somewhere where the consumer will have weaker > protections than in the EU.

Practically it means that data can not be moved outside of EU, since they would be under different jurisdiction. For example court in EU must approve all data disclosures. If data are in US the disclosure could bypass courts in EU, there could be even gag order.

Simply put, the EU can not enforce its law in foreign countries. Safe Harbor and similar are nice in theory, but it still does not put them under EU jurisdiction.

BTW: Irish Google got sued already for sharing data with american mother-ship.

<comment><USER30> Not quite. The EU Data Protection Directive requires that personal data a company collects can not be moved somewhere where the consumer will have weaker protections than in the EU.

This has required some workarounds, such as "safe harbour" provisions that US companies need to accept in order to receive personal data from EU _companies_ that have collected them from users, which basically boils down to that the US company need to agree to comply with the same basic rules as if the data had stayed in the EU.

End users can pass their data to whomever, whether or not they comply with these rules.

<comment><USER29> But US companies are target to NSA survailence and data disclosure, so they can not comply with EU regulations by definition.

<comment><USER30> Some have made that argument, but EU companies are also subject to disclosure laws. E.g. Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA) in the UK. So it is unclear whether this would affect anything.

That said, one of the objections that caused the Data Retention Directive to fall in the EU courts was privacy considerations, so who knows. To find out we'll need a lawsuit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Makes sense. Data at this point is as much of a economic competitive advantage as anything else and managing it like any other national resources makes a lot of sense.

</comment><comment><USER31> Beyond all the bad sides, this could be good for the local economy/providers.

</comment><comment><USER32> such laws can create good employment opportunities for local people and can effect economy in a positive way too!

</comment><comment><USER33> Any hosting companies in Kaliningrad? :-)

<comment><USER34> There are plenty of hosting companies operating in Russia for Russian market. It's not rocket science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> And so it begins...

</comment><comment><USER36> china & russia already have its own facebook, twitter, google clone, will India and Brazil join the party, thats the question to ask

</comment><comment><USER37> This will be enforced only against companies big enough to be on Russia government's radar.

Big companies already have content distribution networks and server farms all over the world. And since Russia is hardly the first country to pass such a law, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and many others have already had algorithms in place to ensure user data stays local for certain countries.

Now they'll just add Russia to the list.</comment>


Ask HN: A C compiler in a microkernel in a 406 line js CPU emulator.  What next? - <AUTHOR>

I made up a 14 instruction CPU specification:  http://recc.robertelder.org/op-cpu.txt I wrote a C compiler for a very large subset (not all) of C89 for this CPU:  https://github.com/RobertElderSoftware/recc I wrote emulators for the CPU in 4 different languages: https://github.com/RobertElderSoftware/recc/tree/master/emulators I wrote bare bones microkernel:  https://github.com/RobertElderSoftware/recc/tree/master/kernel I can cross-compile the preprocessor, lexer, parser and code generator and run them inside a kernel task, which runs inside the CPU emulators for javascript, python, java, and C (but it is currently super slow): http://recc.robertelder.org/compile-demo/
I'm looking for feedback on what direction to go in next.  What would you like to see most?
Directions I can go in:
-  Fully client side C compiler and IDE
   - Full access to parse tree, static analysis with rich html annotations for errors
      -  For example, if a function call has arguments that don't match the prototype, show a detailed graphic demonstrating that the arguments don't fit into the function
-  Write a proper shell for the kernel
-  CPU Emulators for more languages -  Make the compiler produce faster code (it is currently anti-optimized for code simplicity) -  Implement currently unsupported C features (float, double, union, goto, K&R C style functions, ...) -  Work toward having better static analysis (warnings) than GCC or CLANG (but only for C89) -  Write blog posts (about what?) -  Work toward compiling the Linux Kernel -  Create learning tools to help visualize the OS and program stack as the program executes (In addition to showing stack values, provide type annotations via background colours/graphics eg. (0x10000 <= unsigned int)) -  Static analysis for MISRA C
-  A web based visual tool/animation that shows you every step of how the C preprocessor works -  Other ideas
Project Home: http://recc.robertelder.org/ <comment><USER2> Wow! Quite an achievement over a wide range of CS fields. :-)

The direction to go from here really depends on what you want to achieve for yourself.

Do you want to maximize the breadth of your knowledge? Then how about an RTL implementation of a CPU that implements your spec? Going for static analysis or developing an IDE would also have that benefit.

Do you want your tools to be useful beyond being a toy / learning experience? Then I would go for feature completeness in the C compiler. Also, a debugger would be needed.

I quite like the minimalism of your approach. How about a single-page spec for a CPU with an MMU? :-)

(Then you could actually tackle a real Linux port instead of being limited to uClinux. But I'd refrain from trying to port any Linux kernel right now because you'd have to extend your compiler and tool chain quite a bit; Linux is written in GCC, not C.)

How about running your compiler as a JIT compiler?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you convince a client who doesn't want to change their mind? - <AUTHOR> Hi
Iam sure that this is a common problem, but for those who have experience with dealing with this.We are working on a project that is taking almost over 2 years, with few user testing and real world production exposure. One of the reason is that our clients demands alot of absurt features with no or few validation backed up and we try to talk him out of it and reduce the number of features to the min. needed.
Recently we had this problem with the landing page which was in its 2 remake and we communicated with him about the changes and listened to his feedback. He agreed with the layout, colors and text content so we finallized that spend an amountible time on it. In the end he send us an email about his imagination of how it could look like AND it was totally of from what we agreed on. We even got some feeback from users about the landing page, which was fine.
So my question is how would you deal with it? What could we done better? For example find a person who can talk over better the client ? <comment><USER2> This is really partially process and payment related question.

This is why you make design and deliverable requirements and have the client sign off on them during the RFP phase.

Payment terms structure and estimate padding for the project cost should account for risk of client changing requirements and/or completely backing off.

Example payment structure:

15% due at start of project 20% split in between in 4 payments as time goes by 5% due at final deliverable

Payment terms are generally flexible and vary depending on your ability to estimate work and risk. As well as what the client is comfortable with.

Once you make the client aware that they have to sign off on requirements and make payments at specific time intervals during the project, they will be more involved in making sure what they want is conveyed and there's no miscommunication.

<comment><USER3> It is also an expectation problem. Not the client, but the contractor/consultant. Design is iterative. Engineering design is like engineering: it's reasonably objective. Most other design is not because better color/animation/layout/texture/etc. is not reasonably objective because the criterion is "what is the client happy paying for."

The tenor of the question suggests the degree to which expectations are off base. You can't convince a client that they like a different color scheme; three columns over a sidebar; tabs more than endless scroll. That's just how it goes.

I completely agree that it is process and payment related, too. The process and payments are a result of expectations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> After a certain point, you stop trying to convince them. You start charging them for every change regardless of how silly the change is. Make it clear to them that every change is chargeable/billable and they will stop.

"He agreed with the layout, colors and text content"

How did he agree ? Was it in writing ? Were exact designs done or was it more of a verbal discussion ? With clients like these, you need to be as detailed as possible.

The moment they add a new change, you say "This is a change request and here is the estimate for it: $x and timeline n additional days. Once you confirm, we will proceed"

If you start charging them, they will either keep giving you money or they will stop asking to change things.

</comment><comment><USER5> As a freelancer myself, you're paid to build the product and make sure the client is happy. It is their job to design the product and to find product market fit.

I have watched so many people shoot themselves in the face over things that I thought were dumb, but did it for them anyways because they asked.

Yes, I know it sucks to have a portfolio of bad clients. Really the only thing you can do is fire the client and find someone that is easier to work with that has better potential for a successful project.

2 years seems like a long time to work with someone. I'd just look for a new client.

</comment><comment> blaser-waffle "Do unto others what gets you paid."

Come up with something concrete -- numbers / stats, or documented vulnerabilities, or well known failures, etc. -- and costs related to those. No one cares about issue [X] until you explain it to them that it'll cost [Y] to fix it later.

Then document their answers, make it clear you advised them for/against something, and then do whatever they're paying you for. If they tell you to put a toilet in the kitchen, and they're adamant about it, they can have their kitchen-toilet.

</comment><comment><USER6> One layout for landing pages doesn't sound like the right solution for something which has 2 years of dev time invested. Split testing and multivariate testing is essential for landing pages.

Why argue about the merits of a lander when you can use metrics?

</comment><comment><USER7> You make it more expensive for him. If that is still what he wants, both are happy now.</comment>