Technology Is Magic, Just Ask the Washington Post - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/25/technology-is-magic-just-ask-the-washington-post/ <comment><USER2> Full Disclosure, I'm a co-author on the MIT paper that this article cites.

The posted article is talking about the following two op-eds by WaPo[1,2]. What's interesting here is that in [2] they call for a national academies study on the issue, the logic being that the state of encryption has changed. The academies have studied exceptional access in the past, and generally thought it was a terrible idea [3].

I'm personally not opposed to a new study, but the point of the paper we wrote was to argue that it's an even _worse_ idea than the last time exceptional access was considered. I'd be shocked if the academies changed their minds.

[1][https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/putting-the- digital-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/putting-the-digital-keys- to-unlock-data-out-of-reach-of- authorities/2015/07/18/d6aa7970-2beb-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html) [2][https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-needed- on...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-needed-on- smartphone- encryption/2014/10/03/96680bf8-4a77-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html) [3][http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5131/cryptographys-role-in- securi...](http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5131/cryptographys-role-in-securing-the- information-society)

</comment><comment><USER3> > If you don't understand how technology works — especially a technical > subgenre as complex and dense as encryption and information security — then > don't write about it.

This is certainly one message to draw from the situation. But it's not the most constructive message -- it puts the burden on non-technical people, telling them what not to do. Even if non-technical people realize that there are scientific limits to technologies, that won't stop them from thinking about and writing on technology incorrectly.

I think the burden should fall on us techies -- I think there is something constructive we can do. I think we should strive to educate others on the roles and limits of technology. Even if we can't teach everyone the math, physics, electrical engineering, programming, and software engineering they would need to truly understand technology, we can explain the limitations of something like encryption with our blog posts, social media, and every day conversations.

<comment><USER4> Also, his message easily generalizes to:

"If you don't understand how something works — especially a complex and dense thing — then don't write about it"

which of course is a totally ridiculous thing for a columnist to write (especially considering his implied standard for "understanding"). Of course this requirement is nothing he follows himself, writhing columns about broad sociological changes crammed into phrases like "sharing economy" and "we are all entrepreneurs".

The column doesn't even build any case for the accusation in its title!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been watching season 1 of "The Blacklist" in the background while working over the weekend. Aside from being yet more terror porn, one of the interesting subplots had a rogue unit surveilling the FBI. The implication was clear: these bad guys are so cool and awesome that they can run their own surveillance! Against us!

But really, not so much. If you really wanted to gather a whole bunch of secret data on what the government was doing? You wouldn't need to set up cameras and monitor everything. You wouldn't need some super-cool intercept site located in Virginia. _The government has already done that for you_. All you need to do is break in and scoop up data like every other subscriber is doing -- just like what happened with the recent breech at OPM. (Which, being the biggest heist in American intelligence history, is amazingly under- reported)

As this article points out, people seem to lose sight of the fact that by putting all of our eggs in one basket, we just make it easier for somebody to rob us of all of our eggs. Backdoors are a horrible idea. I agree with the author here that the reasoning displayed on these editorial pages is "breaktakingly stupid"

Aside from the fact that the security state is destroying the republic, there are some seriously ignorant people making broad decisions about a lot of things they should just stay away from.

<comment><USER6> Well...its always going to be easy to say the leadership is stupid and backdoors are a horrible idea.

What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. No good answers to that, which is why we see all kinds of partial solutions, with all their well known consequences getting deployed.

<comment><USER7> > What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber.

Not only how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber—that's relatively simple. What's hard is stopping the next Boston marathon bomber _without doing more damage to our country than the next Boston marathon bomber would do_. And that's hard, because despite the loss of life, the Boston Marathon bomber didn't actually do much damage to our country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> (My wife was in the DC press corp for years covering Congress, serving in the White House Press Pool, and the Pentagon at various times.)

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the press has little understanding and even less background in the topics they cover. The article they write on Wednesday, they may have learned about on Tuesday, after being assigned it on Monday. This is why so many groups can get away with handling them something that is just slightly less promotional than a press release and get away with it. Combine that with tight publication schedules and the sheer amount that they have to publish (though mostly bloggers, less general journalists) and it's a recipe for disaster.

While my wife was still active in that space, I briefed her colleagues on technical matters regularly. I felt like I was helping educate at scale but at some point I realized that too many just didn't care. They wanted the "10 second sound bite" and move onto the next topic.

Note: If the reporter has a strong background in a subject - technology, medicine, etc - they become the exception rather than the rule as most of them can make more money as consultants than beat reporters. They are often subtly promoting their own books and lectures too.

<comment><USER6> There is a Matt Taibbi talk somewhere, where he says he was on the presidential campaign trail with more or less the top reporters in the country when Bear Sterns collapsed, and his shock at realizing that none of them knew what that meant or what even the story was about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there a term for the phenomenon where whenever the press covers a subject you are knowledgeable on, you can see clearly their reporting is terrible -- so inductively they are always reporting terribly?

<comment><USER10> [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the- gel...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann- amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> TechCrunch is one to talk. Their writing might be more knowledgeable but is still characterized by magical thinking on tech when it comes to Big Names and Buzzwords.

The WaPo editorial board has taken a stance which large businesses that specialize in high tech products have already publicly opposed. In this particular disagreement, the technologists' position supports that of Valley firms, so TC can namecheck Diffie, Rivest and Schneier to argue their case.

Wake me up when TechCrunch starts echoing Schneier about the surveillance economy fueling the internet.

<comment><USER12> Er. [http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/29/mo-data-mo- problems/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/29/mo-data-mo-problems/) [http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/13/get-ready-to-pay-for- your-p...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/13/get-ready-to-pay-for-your- privacy/) [http://techcrunch.com/tag/panopticon/](http://techcrunch.com/tag/panopticon/)

(OP here)

<comment><USER12> (and that's just me: here's eg Natasha Lomas -- [http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/the-online-privacy-lie- is-u...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/the-online-privacy-lie-is- unraveling/))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can sympathize with the Washington Post.

There are two common uses for the word "impossible" that are relevant here. Solving the halting problem is impossible in the absolute sense. We have a proof.

But think about the (mind-blowing) discovery of asymmetric encryption. Before that, many things would have reasonably described using the word "impossible" in the sense of "nobody has any idea how to do that."

Do we have a proof that "golden key" thing is impossible in an absolute sense? If so, then it needs to be explained to non-technical people in a way that conveys that. If it's just that nobody knows how, then it's not actually impossible.

I think maybe people are interpreting the article as saying "if Google and Apple wanted to, they could do it this year" and of course that's incorrect. But I read it as them just lamenting that nobody even seems to be trying.

And I think their read on the lack of motivation is accurate. The people saying it's a bad idea from a technological perspective probably also think it's bad policy -- they wouldn't trust the government with a golden key even if it were possible.

So all the Washington Post can do is try and convince people that it's good policy. And it's fine to disagree with that, but it's unfair to call them stupid for thinking that there could possibly be a solution to the problem.

<comment><USER14> In an absolute sense, a golden key is already possible, and we have the cryptography necessary to do it. In a practical sense, a security system that has a golden key is necessarily more complicated than one without it, and have yet to demonstrate an ability to reliably construct a secure system even without a golden key. On another practical sense, we would need to construct an entire key management infrastructure so that it is possible for government agents with legitimate access to use the golden key, and this infrastructure itself would be a high value target.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> That's pretty high quality writing for tc, maybe I should start paying attention to them again

</comment><comment><USER16> Doesn't Jeff Bezos own the Washington Post?

<comment><USER17> Yes but he is more concerned with ransacking its employee pensions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What is this in response to? I couldn't find it listed anywhere in the article.

<comment><USER19> Seems to be in response to an op-ed from October 2014 - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-needed- on...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-needed-on- smartphone- encryption/2014/10/03/96680bf8-4a77-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html)

EDIT: In a similar vein, WaPo also published this, though not from their Editorial Board [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/apple-and-google- thr...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/apple-and-google-threaten- public-safety-with-default-smartphone- encryption/2014/09/25/43af9bf0-44ab-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> How can any sane person advocate a "solution" like this after the OPM debacle?

</comment><comment><USER21> You don't really have to have a deep understanding of the technology to understand that there can't be such a thing as a technology that can only be used by law enforcement personnel performing their legitimate function.

</comment><comment><USER22> And people are surprised that traditional Publishers have the same sort of level of understanding tech as Jen does in the IT Crowd?

</comment><comment><USER23> Perhaps it would be a better tack to explain to the Washington Post that, yes, technology is magic. However the kind of magic that has been used here is to wedge open Pandora's Box and pipe the output into the global economy, so unfortunately it doesn't respond reliably to demands.</comment>


Why I don't support Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> http://think-liberty.com/2017/11/26/dont-support-net-neutrality/ <comment><USER3> > _On top of that, there are articles going around like > these:[https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality- > vio...](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations- > brief-history) …listing situations that have taken place where it's claimed > that net neutrality was violated.

I wanted to take a moment to discuss these arguments honestly_

And then the author doesn't address AT&T blocking Skype, Comcast blocking P2P, Telecoms blocking Google Wallet, and on and on.

This is basically an article of whataboutisms. "ISP's aren't the problem with Freedom of Speech, companies are". Ya but if a private company (Facebook, Google, etc) blocks dissenting opinions, we can simply chose to read/visit another site. That's the point. If your ISP blocks a site, you don't have the choice to get another ISP.

<comment><USER4> > you don't have the choice to get another ISP

Patently false.

Of the several million developed US census blocks, 100% have multiple ISPs offering 10Mbps+. [1]

In fact, I daresay it is _easier_ to switch your ISP than to switch your social network. The hooplah around NN is an effective distraction; ISPs aren't even close to being the monopoly to worry about.

[1] [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.pdf)

<comment><USER5> They should have put "you don't have a REAL choice to get another ISP".

10Mbps would not be enough for me nor most of my (even non-technical) family members.

Beyond that, the ones that do offer faster speeds have a cap that I would go past pretty much every month. I even live in a fairly sizeable city. If I had another realistic option than cable, I would've already taken it.

The issue comes from the fact that a lot of ISPs are, for reasons above, basically monopolies. This is, by itself, a really bad thing™. Lack of NN just lets them blackmail everybody from both sides on top of having practically 0 competition.

EDIT: your link actually shows you're wrong. The graph on page 6 (which I assume you're referring to) shows that 100% have multiple choices of 3+ Mbps, not 10+. 10+ only has 97%. Sure, it's only 3%, but that's still not 100% and not "patently false".

In that document, they don't mention prices, anywhere.

Also, on that same page, they mention:

> A provider that reports offering service in a particular census block may > not offer service, or service at that speed, to all locations in the census > block. Accordingly, the number of providers shown in Figure 4 does not > necessarily reflect the number of choices available to a particular > household and does not purport to measure competition.

<comment><USER4> > 10Mbps would not be enough for me nor most of my (even non-technical) family > members.

!!!

I won't say that is impossible to use that much.

But Netflix -- who, if anything, is pressured to overestimate -- advises only _half_ that speed for streaming high-definition video. [1]

Twenty dial-up modems is more than enough to make for a workable internet, outside of 3+ HD video streams, downloading disk images, etc.

[1] [https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306)

<comment><USER5> I know of several homes where more than one Netflix stream is common, then throw in a Twitch/YouTube stream on top of that. Realistically, you don't always see speeds at what you pay for (especially during peak hours). At least I don't. So, I think it makes sense to pad your max speeds a bit.

As far as 20 dial-up modems: I don't see where you get 20 from or even why that comparison matters. We aren't just using geocities and AIM anymore.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, 20 was a typo. I meant 200 modems, which is the equivalent of 10mbps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was enthusiastic when I saw the title, I'd love to read an impassioned plea by someone against net neutrality.

I don't think this article is it.

Net Neutrality would guarantee ISPs that blocked access to union websites would be fined[1].

Yes Net Neutrality would stop cheap plans like those offered in Portugal. But it would mean that a new messaging app would have a chance of finding traction, since it wouldn't need to convince every prospective user to start paying more for their Internet first.

Net Neutrality would not solve the problem of consumers having 0-2 choices when it comes to ISPs. Solving that would require laying millions of miles of new copper/fiber or somehow relieving those ISPs of their buried assets and making them communal property. Most problems can't be easily solved, so we settle for managing the symptoms.

[1] - [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber- access-t...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to- pro-union-website-1.531166)

<comment><USER7> More realistically, it would make it impossible to start a new video streaming service or VoIP provider. Especially when the large ISPs own the or have partnerships with the entrenched competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hilariously, without Net Neutrality, this particular article might never been seen...

<comment><USER9> The net-neutrality rules are put in place in 2014 by Obama administration. I am pretty sure, without so called "net-neutrality" regulation this site existed and been read.

<comment><USER10> No, net neutrality rules have been around since 2004. Before that there wasn't much need because dial-up was regulated as a telephone service which have had their own neutrality regulatioins since forever.

Those early rules were largely voluntary but the FCC did take companies to court to enforce them with varying levels of success. It was this variability and a judicial erosion of what was considered permissible along with some fairly egregious shenanigans by internet service providers that pushed the Obama administration to formally reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service to put back in place net neutrality rules that stood before in the days of dial-up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most libertarians I know are good people that I'm proud to know. At the same time, it's like they just skipped over the entire history of the late 19th / early 20th century.

We had immensely powerful private entities short-circuiting the avenues of democratic self-government (just like we do now!), and it took TR--a Republican, not a commie--to point the finger and _do something_ about it. Of course, bring any of that up with them and they'll just quote one of their Austrian school bone-readers back at you as though they have just refuted you with pure logic. And even worse, Democrats and Republicans clearly worship at the same altar, just in a quieter way.

It's like people have more faith in questionable econometrics than in any innate sense of justice. Until something shakes the mainstream faith in money- money-money, the situation is going to get much worse before it gets any better.

<comment><USER12> I'm quite libertarian but also against monopolies and pro trust-busting.

Some people think these two positions are at odds with each other. I happen to think it's the exact opposite. A large monopoly with complete control is not too different than the absolute control of an overbearing government -- something libertarians are quite against.

<comment><USER11> It's probably time for new ideas. Clinton administration to present has shown that regulatory agencies are very easy to capture. "Hands off" hasn't worked that well either. The senior citizens who rule us are just going to keep squabbling over the same busted ideas that were popular back when they were still sexually relevant. It is going to be a long ride...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I also find myself to be skeptical of Net Neutrality. But I should be clear that I want the same end result as those who are pro-net neutrality - <USER2> transparent, fair, and working Intenet.

I just simply don't trust the government to be the arbiter of that, and I don't trust a regulatory agency to be making wholesale decisions regarding the enforcement of Net Neutrality or regulating speech on the Internet.

That doesn't mean that the government has no responsibility to enforce fair trade and transparent advertising. And it doesn't mean that ISPs are angels with customer interests in mind.

I want purchasing options with a transparent understanding of what I'm purchasing and clear expectations on what's being delivered. And I want elected officials making laws that determine any regulation of the web, not an agency that allows elected officials to hide behind it's regulatory fiat.

While you may not like the idea of the market correcting bad behavior, I find the government is even worse (and slower) at correcting bad behavior (and it is almost always overcorrects).

<comment><USER14> I see this kind of sentiment a lot, and while I can kind of get where it is coming from can you cite some specific examples to back up your skepticism about the government as a regulator? Can you cite any examples where the government was doing a bad job of regulating and got out of the way and it improved? I'm honestly not sure what other options there are in many cases. Who else is going to do it? Just because government isn't working (I imagine it is working in a lot that we don't have to think about exactly because it _is_ doing what it is supposed to do), doesn't mean that it can't work or it isn't the best tool we have.

Its nice to think "let the market handle it", and maybe in some cases that is true but there are pretty clear examples where that isn't true (like power generation and distribution). I could easily blame the government for the issues this causes in my state where the power company is far too powerful and lobbies to effectively, giving them too much sway over the government. Is that "the governments" fault or is it the fault of the people for not holding the government accountable for not looking out for the interest of the people enough?

I feel like those of us with cynical feelings about the government have a tendency to sit back and gripe but then not actually do anything to make it work better. I think that if we aren't actively trying to make the government better and work for us, we really don't have much room to complain (and I include myself in this because that has been me for quite a while, aside from voting and giving the bare minimum of thought to it I haven't really done anything useful).

If we sit back and let whoever wants to run things run things we can't be surprised when we don't like what we get. At the end of the day the government is what we want it to be and how badly we want it to be that. Garbage in garbage out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "ISPs are not too big to compete with because Google can do it" is not a valid argument.

<comment><USER16> I think you missed the point there wrt Google.

> The most expensive part? Litigating the ability to share real estate on > telephone poles with companies like AT&T and Comcast. This privilege granted > to the ISP's is granted by local government regulations. Thanks to these > regulations, Google Fiber was only able to upgrade 33 of 88,000 telephone > poles in Nashville.

He/she is making the point that net neutrality addresses the symptom, not the cause. The cause is government regulation in the first place, so net neutrality is regulation to fix a problem created by regulation (not necessarily my position, but that's what I get from the author).

<comment><USER15> If you had a large choice of ISPs, then Net Neutrality wouldn't be required. It would come by default as the client could move from a restrictive ISP to a less restrictive one.

Since there is virtually no competition in large parts of the world, it is very important to force the single monopoly to behave in the interest of the consumer with laws.

The regulations the author is talking about are not the same regulations that enforce net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with sharing telephone poles.

<comment><USER16> I agree with you up until the last sentence. You are right that:

> The regulations the author is talking about are not the same regulations > that enforce net neutrality.

But net neutrality _does_ have to with sharing telephone poles, because if there were actually choice in ISP then net neutrality would not even be necessary since a different ISP could come around offering a better more free package. So in other words, he/she's advocating treating the cause rather than the symptom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Isn't he missing one of the main arguments that not having Net Neutrality will significantly hurt smaller businesses from competing with larger companies?

<comment><USER18> We didn't have Net Neutrality up to 2015. No evidence has been presented it significantly hurt small businesses. On the contrary, there's evidence it is not so: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the- end-o...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net- neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world) [http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040](http://www.nber.org/papers/w22040)

<comment><USER19> In the 2000s, the major providers voluntarily acted as if NN was in force: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history)

<comment><USER20> Additionally, cable companies didn't consider streaming services a major threat in the 2000s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hey everyone. I wrote the article, stumbled across this post. Thanks a lot for your feedback, I appreciate it.

I just wanted to take a moment to address some of the things that were written here.

Whataboutisms: The point isn't to divert, the point is to say that this is a problem that exists WITH net neutrality in place. The point is, the argument of free speech is being made a lot, and most of the arguments are overdramatic hypotheticals, all while freedom of speech is being shut down under Net Neutrality.

Our Instagram account: I know, it's shit-posty, but that's how you get people to like your IG account. I don't make the rules, people love shitty memes.

Anyhow, this article is just why _I_ don't support net neutrality. I guess it can seem like hand-waving, but that's not at all what my intention was. I did as much research as I could on the matter, and I just didn't see enough that convinced me keeping broadband under title 2 was a necessity. I had been hearing a lot of arguments that didn't seem totally logical to me, so I addressed some of them as best I could.

Thanks again for the feedback!

</comment><comment><USER22> The way some arguments are exposed is... weird.

Argument 1 ("Free speech will suffer without net neutrality") boils down to "People say X will happen without net neutrality, X is happening, so we may as well let NN pass" [where X is "interruption of free speech"], while ignoring that free speech is not a binary and that circumventing net neutrality can be one way to deny free speech. Internet censorship is the most basic example of such a situation.

Argument 2 relies on the concept that not only should users pay for their bandwidth and services for theirs, but large services ought to pay once more for their bandwidth w.r.t. "interconnection fees" \- but then again, the sentence being discussed ("These ISPs are monopolies, and they need to be regulated") isn't relevant to NN.

Finally, when talking about Portugal he claims that "Portugal does have net neutrality", when the screenshot above is in direct violation of NN as defined in the link ("End-users should have the right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services without discrimination, via their internet access service.", Recital 6 of the "BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality"). At best, he is relying on a weird interpretation of this sentence, where "have the right to access" means "there is at least one plan which does that". Besides, the existence of a European regulation doesn't mean NN is enforced: the same regulation applies to Italy, but I can buy a plan boasting "free social&chat" and 10 GB towards select music services, through Telecom Italia no less ([https://www.tim.it/ricarica- automatica](https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica)).

</comment><comment><USER23> The responses here are a mix of whataboutism and hand-waving dismissals. But let's say they're all 100% valid and well-argued. The conclusion of this still wouldn't validate not supporting net neutrality. I will assume based on the site's name the overarching reason is libertarianism. In which case why bother with the dismissals? Isn't then the argument self-evident?

<comment><USER24> I understand _libertarianism_. But I can't see an argument for or against net neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the political liberties of state created corporate persons. From the Libertarian Party platform:

 _As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others._

 _We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized._

[https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://www.lp.org/platform/)

Yeah, they do mention corporations:

 _Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association._

But corporations are created and recognized by the state, particularly for reasons of non-liability of their owners. That is a decidedly non-libertarian bargain. It isn't a libertarian space to argue in.

Really, someone has to explain how to argue for+against net neutrality from a libertarian POV, from first principles.

<comment><USER25> > Really, someone has to explain how to argue for or against net neutrality > from a libertarianism point of view, from first principles.

Others can probably do it better, but I'll try.

The (small-ell) libertarian argument from first principles against this legislation would be the same as the libertarian argument from first principles against _any_ legislation; it is wrong for any person or entity to use violence or the threat thereof to coerce any other person or entity to do or not do something against their will, and legislation is basically a declaration of a government's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior.

I do not abide by my government legislating internet access any more than I do anything else, even if it is "for my own good." So I do not mind it if net neutrality dies. (Though, truth be told, there is a hell of a lot of other legislation I'd like to be repealed first, if it can't be done all at once.)

<comment><USER24> _legislation is basically a declaration of a government 's intent to use its monopoly on violence against people doing or not doing certain behavior_

But you're talking about corporations which are already state created entities. You've already bargained with the state to create this entity, the purpose of which is to avoid personal liability for losses incurred by the corporation. You got something in that bargain. You gave something up, too.

So you are applying liberatarianism with respect to something which is inherently unlibertarian, the corporation. An example:

If Joe sells BigCorp $1M of widgets and BigCorp fails to pay and goes out of business, Joe is without recourse against BigCorp's owners because it is a corporation. There's a law ( _any legislation_ ) which prevents him from getting his money.

You can't pick and choose. You're either a libertarian or you're not. Libertarianism doesn't apply to corporations.

<comment><USER25> > But you're talking about corporations which are already state created > entities.

I wasn't specifically, but that's besides the point. From a fundamental principle, libertarians don't want a government to designate and classify collections of people and determine their legality, no. But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its behavior any more than that of an individual.

<comment><USER26> > _But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we > colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell > libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its > behavior any more than that of an individual._

You're actually reversing the directionality and stating the contrapositive - being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. For example, government bodies themselves can be considered (and often are even legally constituted as) corporations, and obviously libertarianism has much to say about constraining those!

This is not simply an academic distinction - this entire debate hinges on whether individuals actually have a choice between ISPs, or whether the local ISP basically constitutes a de facto government. Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access.

<comment><USER25> > being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be > shielded from government interference.

 _Everything_ should be shielded from government interference. That's the point.

> Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and > privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market > for Internet access.

Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax breaks, or monopoly privileges to ISPs or any other service providers.

<comment><USER26> > _Everything should be shielded from government interference. That 's the > point._

Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an IRS that is unfettered by Congress.

> _Agreed. Governments (if they must exist) should not grant funds, tax > breaks, monopoly privileges to ISPs._

The problem is that these things _have already been granted_ , and these _government-founded_ corporations are basically wriggling out of their charters (/contractual obligations) more and more.

<comment><USER25> > Except, implicitly, government itself. A "libertarian IRS" does not mean an > IRS that is unfettered by Congress.

"Libertarian IRS" has as much meaning as "vegan foie gras." I have no idea how to parse this statement.

<comment><USER24> Actually, the Romans put taxation up for bid, tax farming. Isn't that a libertarian IRS? The winning bidder bid the highest rate and then was granted the right to extract it from the province.

Cicero made his legal bones prosecuting Verres who had plundered Sicily. Yes, it was a province but Sicilians were also Roman citizens and it was a Roman province. Verres actually crucified Sicilians at the beach facing Rome. Not a nice guy.

<comment><USER25> I'm so confused. Are you saying that a libertarian society would permit people to arbitrarily tax others? Because they gained the right to do so somehow?

Do you actually understand anything about libertarianism at all?

<comment><USER24> I understand plenty about libertarianism. The Rome example was a digression about taxation. In Rome, the taxman was not the state but rather a sole proprietor more akin to a corporation. Did that make his over reach any better? No.

I have no idea what a libertarian society would do since it is a theoretical construct. You could have a libertarian city or even state but somehow practice falls well short of theory. Y'all prefer to live here rather than there. I too prefer to live here. Must be a reason for that.

You can't imagine a libertarian IRS. Yeah, well it does sound kinda funny. But then I can't imagine a libertarian corporation either and again, I understand plenty about libertarianism. I only understand Delaware C corporations in each of the 50 states.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Some things can't compete in open markets. Like roads, you're always going to have a monopoly on the roads you want to use. This is similar with the local loop there are massive problems with only one ISP operating in given areas, meaning competition will not regulate the market. So I think the net may be one of the few things you can't leave to the markets to produce the best outcome for consumers.

</comment><comment><USER28> you lost me at not opening our platform to hate speech. Even for an open minded person there must be limits. I keep remembering that quote: "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out". They can build their hate internet if they want. With blackjack, and hookers!

</comment><comment><USER29> ISPs should be regulated under Title II, as they are common carriers, not information services. I don't pay Comcast for information, I pay them for access. It's like a phone line, but in modern times. Imagine if phone carriers could do what ISPs are planning, where certain companies can pay for better, faster phone connections, and everyone else gets the crappy maybe it works, maybe it doesn't level of service. No one thinks that's ok. The internet isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. Any limits on my ability to use it in any legal manner I see fit is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER30> > "Free speech will suffer without net neutrality" I'm not entirely sure what > those who argue this point think ISPs will do that will limit the freedoms > of speech, as I've not heard any anticipated methods mentioned, ...

That's an easy one. ISPs may artificially degrade the quality of service to or block some sites and not others depending on whether the ISP agrees with the content on that site, whether the owners of the site give the ISP a kickback, or a host of other non-technical reasons.

It seems like the author of the article hasn't made a reasonable effort to understand the opposing viewpoint.

<comment><USER21> No, I understand, but this is also an overdramatic hypothetical. My point in the article was that this is actually happening under Net Neutrality, from private companies doing it. I do not believe it's wise to support the government control of broadband internet not being repealed, as an attempt to try and solve a problem that is clearly already not being solved while the government has control of broadband internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> 1st point: Private companies can already ban hate speech so net neutrality won't change anything.

2nd point: An ISP failed to invest in the infrastructure it needed to provide the service it promised but something something net neutrality.

3rd point: Companies should be regulated, but not by the government. They should be sued, by the people.

Honestly.. this kind of drivel is so tiring. Can libertarians please go away, or at least stop using resources and infrastructure that only exists because of public funding and government intervention.

<comment><USER32> A lot of it also exists because of capitalism, it's a symbiotic relationship. Capitalism produces more wealth which a government can tax to provide more infrastructure for capitalism to occur which produces more wealth.

Although this is one area where the interstate commerce clause seems to genuinely apply it would be interesting to see what would happen with some areas following NN and some areas not and what results...

I think the real key here is that gov't regulation is not a good substitute for genuinely competitive markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It seems like far too many of their counter arguments seem to boil down to, "This isn't already happening here, so we don't have to worry about it." If we don't want to worry about it, and we don't want those things to happen, then we should just keep the regulations in place. If you support repealing the regulations, then you support the idea of these things becoming reality, and surely expect it.

</comment><comment><USER34> That Portugal example... you realize it's the same in several countries, including the UK?

The difference being that Net Neutrality exists in EU, and instead of an "unlimited" package being much more expensive, it is the lesser packages that are cheaper. Subtle, I guess, but big difference.

Most consumers don't give a fuck though, which is really bad.

<comment><USER21> Right, but nothing is being restricted. They have a plan that will give you everything, just like we have now. But then, they ALSO have plans, that cost substantially less, that only give you a smaller portion. It is a way to anticipate user behavior and offer solutions at affordable rates based on bandwidth use. There is no one forcing anything here, they're simply offering different plans based on use, while still offering the traditional plans, and that's exactly why it's not a net neutrality violation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> In the absence of both competition and regulation, corporations will never act benevolently toward their customers. One or the other is necessary to keep capitalism ethical.

</comment><comment><USER33> Also, Google fiber coming into existence only benefited those in the markets where Google was threatening to enter. Everywhere else, the incumbent ISPs were content to rest on their laurels.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, that seems accurate to me. In my area when google announced they were going to build out here all the sudden my bandwidth got doubled for no charge and AT&T started pushing their fiber expansion hard. They probably had planned to do these things _at some point_ but I got the distinct feeling they were trying to consolidate their power before google fiber came and ate their lunch. They ended up scaling back their offerings geographically so I was never able to get it but I have no doubt it pushed my bandwidth up faster than it would have been otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This reads like blogspam. Just a couple of very vapid points without anything new to say.</comment>


Why do Americans view zero road deaths as an impossible goal? - <AUTHOR> https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/6/why-do-americans-view-zero-road-deaths-as-an-impossible-goal <comment><USER2> The story was discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21933868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21933868)

</comment><comment><USER3> Because there are always tradeoffs, and tradeoffs that may actually increase total deaths. That increase would be "acceptable" because they aren't road deaths. Such goals replace reason and judgement with slogans.

For example, consider "zero tolerance" laws. They result in convicting kids who carry a one inch Lego toy gun to school, because "my hands are tied" by the legislation.

Or the "3 Strikes" laws which send people to jail for life for stealing a handbag.

BTW, I support removal of cars from high density pedestrian areas. I wish Seattle would do that.

<comment><USER4> How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? Do you think this is happening in Oslo?

<comment><USER5> > How exactly would this particular trade-off increase total deaths? Do you > think this is happening in Oslo?

What if I am having a heart attack and the ambulance is on the way? If it gets there within 5 minutes, I can be saved, if not I die. Oh well, no going over 20 mph, I'm dead.

I would hope Oslo has a carve out for emergency response, but I don't see one in the article.

Much, much, more abstractly, as the article points out, suburbs are much denser in American than in Olso. "If I could work on my lifesaving cancer cure 8hr/day I would cure it in 10 years, but at 7hr/day I only cure it in 12 years. I can only spend so much time at work and commuting. Oh well, no going over 20mph, it takes me years longer." Lots of productivity losses (some of which are undoubtedly going to result in loss of life) if a(not atypical) American 20 mile commute now takes an hour instead of 20 minutes.

It would take restructuring of roadways on a massive scale in America to have this policy not result in staggering productivity/time losses. The article admits this ("it's going to require both institutional and far-reaching cultural changes", "It will take decades"). Without massive changes, adopting this policy would, as the article states, "incite riots in no time." I'd welcome taking steps towards transit restructuring.

However, there seems to be little political will for even basic incremental steps. That's why zero deaths seems impossible - getting even basic, functioning, public transit is hard in America.

<comment><USER6> Emergency vehicles are exempt from many laws and granted priority exactly for this reason - so that they reach you in 5 min, quite an impossible task given the congestion. I'm not sure about Norway, but definitely in Poland.

Suburbs too dense sounds like a virtual problem. Concentrate like Singapore or Seoul, more density yet less traffic. Even more ecological if public transportation works properly.

US population density is kept artificially low because everyone wants to own land. That is a "dream" sold by realtors, with obvious lack of focus on the costs of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work on the West Side of Los Angeles. People honk at me when I cross the streets and they are in a hurry.

In Beverly Hills rich man-children with sports cars speed around with bumper stickers showing they donate to the Beverly Hill PD.

Just citing some high-level observations that show some issues.

<comment><USER8> Overall, I feel pretty ambiguous about public transit or bikes vs. cars. I see the hypothetical appeal of public transit and bikes, but I think their respective proponents ignore a lot of the convenience of a personal automobile.

That said, West LA is a fucking hellscape and the cars are mostly to blame for that.

<comment><USER9> The problem isn't transit as much as layout. Build your cities relatively sanely instead of doing whatever the fuck LA does, and most transportation options end up reasonable. Build it as a sprawling, poorly-utilized asphalt stain on the landscape, and your hands are pretty tied.

SF is a pretty mismanaged city in general, but it's telling that complaints about transport are (IME) far less strident than complaints about everything else. There's a floor on how bad your transport experience can be based on the layout of the city: if there as gridlock on every street in San Francisco and all the subways were flooded, I could still easily walk to the equivalent of many, many square miles of a place like LA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cars represent freedom. I can get in my car and go where I want, when I want -- especially helpful with 3 school-age children. Mass transit is important in cities, but lots of Americans, probably most, live where cars are needed to get around. They rightly view anti-car advocates are people trying to take away their freedom and herd them onto mass transit.

<comment><USER11> It's funny how opposite we are in this. To me, me cars represent a frustrating burden, whereas walkable spaces, bike lanes, and subway accessibility represent freedom of movement.

<comment><USER12> Some people have larger distances to cover. I can't walk to Carrizo Plains on a weekend. Can't bike there either. No busses, and definitely no trains. If I want to go where I want to go, I need a car to get there.

<comment><USER13> And for those people, absolutely keep the car. Maybe a moped would do, but the car is fine for low density areas like you describe.

But for the millions stuck in rush hour traffic in every major city across the country, maybe there could be a better way to make that one commute to work. NYC has a lot of subways and 60% of the population uses transit, but they are just about all built for moving people to and from their 9-5 job in Manhattan, not traveling laterally across the outer boroughs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's like "zero crime" \--- you end up with authoritarian dystopia. IMNSHO extremism in all forms is not a good thing, no matter what the cause. There's plenty of sci-fi on that topic.

I find it ironic that HN seems to be both very pro-freedom/privacy/right-to- repair, yet also very anti-car. Perhaps two separate demographics.

<comment><USER9> Do you feel the same way about zero polio deaths?

The transportation issue is fairly complicated, and there does exist a tendency to oversimplify the costs of moving away from the status quo. But many of the reactions on this thread (this one included) are even more free of nuance or an attempt at understanding the situation. There's no question for anyone who's bothered to inform themselves that the US status quo around transportation is far from ideal for most sets of preferences[1]. Vision Zero is a bit of a blunt instrument for calling attention to how bad the status quo is, but it's a lot better than the arguments I'm seeing here.

[1] Obviously you can construct a set of preferences that is optimal for a given state, but I'm using reasonable priors here.

<comment><USER15> Zero polio is a cut/dried thing. We know how much the polio vaccine costs to manufacture, we know the risk of adverse side effect (very low) and we can administer the vaccines alongside your normal check-ups. You're not increasing the risk of death due to something else by decreasing the risk of polio.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It sticks out to me how much more homogenous streets and roads are in the US compared to Europe. All streets have at least two lanes and the speed limits in practice fall within a fairly narrow range. Even in residential neighborhoods the speed limit is usually 25 or 35. On the other hand it doesn't go up much till you are on a freeway. Even streets with a lot of business will still have lots of through traffic. The suburb I live in has its historic downtown cut up by multiple high traffic roads (strongtowns calls them "stroads"). It sucks for cars and it sucks for pedestrians.

As the article calls out, many European cities do a better job at separating humans and cars. This only works because there is more diversity in roads and streets. My commute in Germany included an area that literally had a speed limit of "walking speed" a main road that had 70km/h and of course the Autobahn worth 160km/h. These streets and roads were much more clearly differentiated and made a clear trade off between prioritizing pedestrians, playing children and cars.

I think some European cities got this inadvertantly, since streets and roads suited for cars had to be fitted on Street the fact. US cities with their grid layout inherently treat the city and its traffic more like a homogenous blob.

</comment><comment><USER17> This article seems to have tunnel vision on _speed_ as the primary cause -- "Speed is what kills", it claims, and links to another page on their same blog that says:

> Speeding — defined as traveling too fast for conditions or in excess of the > posted speed limits — contributes to nearly one-third of all roadway > fatalities. This proportion has remained largely unchanged for decades.

They neglect to mention that, in America, alcohol contributes to about one- third of all roadway fatalities, too. In Norway, it's much rarer, due to stricter limits (.02 BAC!) and harsher penalties.

Big complex problems often have multiple contributing factors. Personally, I'd go after alcohol first. IME, nearly everyone on the road speeds, and apparently nearly everyone can do it safely. It's hard to argue that drunk driving can ever be done safely. The best "traffic calming" street designs in the world won't keep your city center safe from drunks.

<comment><USER18> Harsher penalties? Driving drunk here is going to cost you 4-5k in fees and fines in certain parts of the USA. It's approaching mandatory minimum sentence status here.

The people who are the most down and out in our society don't care about the cost of their driving drunk. It doesn't occur to them until after they've been caught.

What needs to change is the attitude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Truly zero deaths won't be achievable without giving up all forms of transport. Public transport kills pedestrians and bicycle riders, and there are even pedestrians killed by bikes. You can certainly reduce the numbers, but you won't get even close to zero.

I wasn't able to find general statistics, only for Cologne/Germany, a city of about 1 million with relatively good public transport. In 2016, 18 people were killed on the roads of Cologne. 6 of them have been killed by a tram. In 2017, 19 were killed, 4 by tram. There are no statistics for pedestrians killed by bikes, but last year there was at least one such case in Cologne.

</comment><comment><USER20> Because about 100 years ago, the auto industry responded to a surge in murder by the new automobiles by forming auto associations and using those to change local laws to outlaw behaviors leading the victims to die. Like the newly- minted term "jay walking." And over several generations that became such a firm part of the status quo that we can't even imagine it some other way.

Compare with electricity, a danger that Edison terrified everyone into enshrouding in standard safety features to protect the public.

Both were set in place by a popular sentiment driven by industry manipulation. That's why. Next question.

</comment><comment><USER21> Vending machines kill an average of four Americans per year.

Forgive me for thinking we can't make barreling down the highway safer than buying a soda. With 300+ million people, it's not a realistic target until something supercedes driving entirely.

</comment><comment><USER22> I am statistically more likely to die driving to work than I was serving in Afghanistan during the surge.

</comment><comment><USER23> If you can afford them, cars are just better than public transportation. They are faster and it's much easier to handle children, luggage, or groceries in a car. Uber also solves the parking problem. It would be nice to have zero road deaths, but getting there by renouncing cars is going backwards. Instead, we should have safer cars through better technology.

<comment><USER24> Better technology can't patch human issues unless you're able to remove the human. Self driving cars are still not here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> for the past 15 years, they were averaging about 5 deaths / year for population of 650k. Down from 40 deaths in 1970s.

If they were as populous as the U.S., it would be 250 deaths per year.

There were over 6,000 pedestrian fatalities last year in the U.S. Yes... we could do a lot better.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why do Americans [anything]? Because in short they are ignorant.

Americans lack perspective on virtually all topics. They don't read enough, they don't travel enough, their educations are overwhelmingly technical and occupational at the expense of philosophy and ethics, and their domestic brainwashing apparatus has left them collectively unable to think.

Transportation is just like any other topic American's are unqualified to comment upon, like healthcare. They've been indoctrinated by propaganda campaigns to believe and repeat a series of false statements: their cities are too spread out (they aren't); their cities are exceptionally far apart (they aren't); their weather is somehow unprecedented (it isn't); you can't take groceries/children/lumber home on the bike/bus/tram/train (you obviously can).

So the answer to the headline's question is the obvious one, the one with the most hard evidence and the one with the broadest explanatory powers. The reason Americans believe these things is because of ignorance.

<comment><USER27> Europeans plundered and enslaved the world for centuries and now act incredulous that anyone does not have the wealth at their disposal to dole out to their unproductive citizens.

<comment><USER28> Are you seriously implying the reason America doesn't have public transport or the other public amenities Europe does is because they don't have the money?</comment></comment></comment>


Poland's coronavirus app offers playbook for other governments - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-coronavirus-app-offers-playbook-for-other-governments/ <comment><USER2> The app is government made and plain awful. In theory you get a text message and should reply with selfie within 20 minutes or risk a visit by police patrol.

In practice text messages are delayed and app crashes.

The app is a good idea as person in quarantine is visited twice daily by police at random and police resources are stretched at the moment. But the execution is lame.

Few days ago app have been made mandatory for quarantine.</comment>


Tesla Accused Of Operating Illegal Showrooms In Four States - <AUTHOR> http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1079679_tesla-accused-of-operating-illegal-showrooms-in-4-states

<comment><USER2> "Illegal showroom"? What kind of nonsense is this?

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there a rational reason for this law to exist besides being created to keep the dealerships in business?</comment>


Feedback for site redesign? - <AUTHOR>

I work for a startup out here in SV and would love any feedback, ideas, or questions on our new site redesign! https://www.redclaydesign.com/ <comment><USER2> You're refering to a lot of fonts (eg: "Avenir"), but not including any fonts yourself (eg: using something like google fonts). The fallback (sans), can look pretty ugly.

I'd manually include fonts, rather than expect users to have they ones you want pre-installed (you'll probably never reproduce this since you most likely have them installed).

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great feedback! Thanks so much hobarrera.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Set the view port width to 900px (give or take 50px), and the title and logo overlap.

Hit ctrl+shift+m (firefox, IIRC, chromium uses the same hotkey) and play around with the mobile view to test different resolutions.</comment>


An Ethical License for Open Source Projects - <AUTHOR> https://firstdonoharm.dev/ <comment><USER2> > Consider the GPS software that tells you how to get to a restaurant; it's > also used to direct military drones to their targets.

> You can't build systems that can be weaponized against marginalized people > and take no responsibility for them.

Perhaps they should use a different example. GPS was developed for the military, then made available to the public sector. Sounds like this license is meant for folks who don't want their open-source used by the icky governments.

Whether a militant regime will give a damn about your licensing is another matter.

Regardless, this is an interesting question: how far does culpability go? If you murder someone you're culpable, if you assist that murderer you're culpable, if you assist the person who assisted the murder... how far removed do we go? The getaway car salesman? The man who does his taxes?

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a legal nightmare. Whether you agree with the goals or not, this is just about the worst-written license I've ever seen.

In legal terms, you want to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise, you have litigation (which the party with the deepest pockets wins). This license has incredible ambiguity.

A (non-legally binding) declaration is fine with ambiguity -- it's even desired. It's a starting point for a conversation and interpretation. That's not true for a license or a contract.

Lawyers often do leave ambiguity, but that's usually when the ambiguity is removed otherwise (e.g. by law). This is just an incompetent mess.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is not an open source license and completely incompatible with many licenses and projects.

Any existing project attempting to transition to such would get forked. New projects using it will get ignored.

This license is worse than WTFPL or the Json license (note the legal hassles that IBM had to go trough to use it). If that's what the author wants... um... ok. But I can't use any software using that license in personal or work projects for compatibility or fear of litigation.

</comment><comment><USER5> With all due respect, this seems nice in theory but useless in practice.

Would you expect an entity (government, corporation, doesn't matter) who does not mind exploiting or torturing people (only as two examples) to worry about using software outside of what its license allows?. I can't be the only one who thinks this is naive. If you write open source software, you should assume anybody will use it for whatever needs they have that your software suits, regardless of the license.

I think there's enough Activism Lite on the world these days. If you don't like some of the awful things that are going on in the world, a license (or a twitter protest, etc) is not the way to go. It's not like The Internet suddenly made it impossible for people to do things like vote, or go protest. You know, real-life things that may have real-life impact on some of the awfulness in the world.

</comment><comment><USER6> Mh. I doubt this could work.

First, it is unclear if the Declaration is "the way to go", i.e. if its violation is the only way of violating the license (how do I interpret the commas, the verbs, the and/or in the 2nd bulleted point)?

Second, the scope is too broad. Any software (or business!) will harm somebody or some group. Are you creating a new software for making underdeveloped countries better? You're threatening the well-being of employers relying on cheap labor!

We shouldn't bind our software to ethics more than what we do with other things. We don't stop selling food because criminals could eat it; should we?

</comment><comment><USER7> Ethical proprietary license is an oxymoron. This is nothing more than a waiver of responsibility to make a product not only worth using but to encourage its use. This crippling license can only serve to rig the market competition. Imagine if the FSF could suddenly ban all routers from running GPL software, to promote its own line of approved LAN and WiFi cards.

Speaking of FSF, how uncanny is it this license released so quickly after Dr. Richard Stallman's resignation? If nothing more, to catapult the walls when the gate is already lowered.

Let's cut to the chase: How will you prove an allegedly amoral actor is utilising your code when you have no access to the codebase? So banning top secret government projects is an unrealistic pursuit, which leaves only one part of the 'open source' community to destabilise another part, or to make crooked the already fading concept of software freedom.

When can we expect Coraline to nominate xirself(/herself/himself) as the new ethical leader of 'open source' software, and in term the FSF?

</comment><comment><USER8> There was what I thought an insightful twitter thread on this license at [https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1175896685505056769?...](https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1175896685505056769?s=20).

</comment><comment><USER9> See also Crockford's "no evil" license: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=764024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=764024)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is going to get rammed through a bunch of projects that are either sympathetic or apathetic, the same way all this code of conduct business infiltrated through everything.

</comment><comment><USER11> Can I use the software to kill Hitler?

Can an anti-vaccer developer sue a vaccine production company? What about use in vaccine research?

What about a hospital with a clear pro-fife/pro-choice policy? Can the other half of the developer sue them?

Can I use the software to run a 5G network? [I think they are safe.]

In a Juul factory? [There are some interesting cases reports.]

Can I use it in a coal mine? A nuclear plant? A solar panel installation company?

</comment><comment><USER12> Who are going to judge on ethicity?

</comment><comment><USER13> Why this and not something like WTFPL that is more honest about the nature of code as mere data?</comment>


Ask HN: Critique my landing page - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys, I would like to get a honest critique of the http://buzzloud.com/ landing page. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! <comment><USER2> Being brutally honest ...

Instant reaction - it looks like a gazillion other sites.

Second reaction - too many words to start with - I'm not instantly engaged.

      > Social sharing done right

I don't know what that means, and I find it hard to care.

      > We are solving your problem of managing different
      > social media presence and reach.  Let us cut out
      > your wasted time, allowing you to spend more time
      > creating cool stuff and engaging with followers.

You're not telling me what you are actually doing. How about:

        Save time!  We ...

Well, at this point I don't actually know what you actually do.

Reading further ...

      > Manage your posts and schedules and let us
      > do the rest while you do other important
      > things for your business.

Is this primarily what you do? How about:

        Write when you like, let us handle
        scheduling for maximum effect.

        Track the effects!  We can help you
        see the results.

Or something.

It's completely unclear that one should click on "Enter your e-mail". It's not even completely obvious that "Register" is a button. Then when I cluck on it, then I get errors, because I hadn't entered my email in the place I should've cluck first, but which wasn't obviously a place to click.

If you see what I mean.

I'll stop now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply! I implemented some of the suggested changes. As for the input and button, I thought it was obvious that the green bar is the input field, I added some java script that focuses field with blinking cursor if you click register without entering email.

<comment><USER2> Problem there is that click register and some text disappears and leaves me with a blinking cursor. If I don't remember what was there before, then I don't know what to do.

Better might be to open another field, clearly marked with "enter your email here for your free trial!" or something. As it stands, it's still not clear what to do - you're taking a lot for granted. When you design something you then assume various things are obvious - that's unavoidable.

And I still don't really understand what you do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice overall layout. The only thing I would change is the email address text box. I could not find where to fill in my email until I clicked around and discovered that the email address name tag itself is the input box. Maybe append a blinking cursor to it so users know where to input the address.

<comment><USER4> Same, I didn't see the form at first.

<comment><AUTHOR> Were you on mobile or desktop browser? On my android phone submit button just goes into another row below input, maybe some other phone renders it differently. Maybe I need to change the form completely on phones.

<comment><USER4> on the desktop

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I won't give a subjective view, just concrete points.

1\. The CTA is to enter an email but then the user is invited to click a register button. Which is it?

I would recommend simply having an input box (not a button). You knock one up for free with Mailchimp and embed it.

EDIT : Just seen that a box exists to enter a text string but it a) Serves no purpose and b) has nothing to identify it such as a cursor or colour

2\. Free Trial/Reach More People is H6.

This needs to be H1 or H2 at the least and ideally boxed with text/colour differentiation.

3\. Light grey copy text is not ideal.

Increase the weight/darkness of the text to increase legibility

4\. Main value prop is long-winded

The text underneath Social Sharing should be bullet-pointed and immediately clear. I read to the fold and it was still no clear exactly what you offer. Do you manage accounts? Do you provide content? Engage with users on my behalf?

5\. Slogan is poorly written

"Be above others". << Are you telling me that right now I am below others? As an encapsulation I don't love it - it is opaque and appears poorly written.

Edit: Just thought of "Elevate your Engagement". Just an example of a slogan using alliteration and a clear prop.

6\. Sharing is inverted

You have a grossly disproportionate size of sharing buttons compared to the impact statement. Boxes are tiny but the statement is massive.

I hope this helps. Typed for brevity so please excuse if it sounds harsh.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks for the time! For the first point, is it not clear that you first have to enter email and then click register button? (btw, it is currently connected to the mailchimp, I just did not used their form builder) 2.Tried different H levels but H1-H2 seemed too big for the layout, maybe layout or placing is the problem. 3.Yap, that was mine concern too, looked good to me but seems like dark text would look more legible. 4.Will think about making it one clear sentence. 5.Mabe will remove it after thinking about 4. 6.This was intentional, did not want to be rude with sharing buttons, but wanted to get the message across.

<comment><USER5> Those sharing boxes are classic unbounce. Is UB your platform?

<comment><AUTHOR> What is UB?

<comment><USER5> Unbounce. Sorry, I had typed Unbounce a few words before I used UB; I thought it was clear.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I made it myself with bootstrap and some theme that I customised a little. Hosted it on digital ocean and implemented one A/B test with Google Analytics Experiments. (1 variant is without that "Made with love for sharing" line). Domain and mail address is at namecheap. Love to have more control over my stuff.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Learning multiple programming languages - <AUTHOR> I have been coding primarily in one language (C) and from time to time attempted to learn other languages too (C++, perl, python, PHP). However, even if I learn the syntax or niche offered by a specific language, I find it difficult to imbibe the spirit of language and still try to think from C perspective. How do people who claim to have mastered multiple languages, do so? What am I lacking here? <comment><USER2> Write code in it. Lots of code. And not all your own code.

Find books that give clear 'type it yourself' examples that you can follow along with, or books that test your ability to think in the language by giving you problems that need idiomatic code to be solved (perhaps the best example of a book like this that I've seen is The Little Schemer).

If there are 'koans' or 'katas' or similar interactive exercises for the language, find them and do them. All of them. I learned so much about basic style of a language from these. Try sites like Project Euler and Codewars.

Find tutorials like 'how to build an X in Y' and follow the whole thing from start to finish. It doesn't even necessarily matter, IME, whether the code is particularly good or idiomatic: once you've made a project of any considerable size you'll start to see the strengths and weaknesses of the code and the advantages of the native idioms.

Finally, find yourself at least two non-trivial personal projects to write in your new language, and just write. Write big code, that needs proper maintenance and bug-checking and testing. Don't worry so much about idioms yourself though, just write: when you go back over your code again, you'll see where you've gone wrong, and do better next time. Your first big project in a new language will be terrible. But you'll know exactly why it's terrible by the time it's done, and you'll do better next time.

This is what's helped me, anyhow; obv. everyone is different, I am not an expert, etc. etc. The important take away is that ultimately: "idioms" are just ways that people have found work best in the language; the best way to drill on the style of the language is just to use the language a lot and read the language a lot. Idiomatic code comes from practice, more than anything.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is a book out there designed specifically to move C programmers outside their comfort zone: _J for C Programmers_.

[http://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/contents.htm](http://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/contents.htm)

That's not to say that it will redirect your career from C programming to J programming (my impression is that there are not a huge number of all day every day J programming jobs). But rather, J is one of those languages that requires people to change the way they think about programming languages. It's pretty amazing in my opinion, but I've been drinking the Kool-Aid ever since coming across the book.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Will read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should learn from examples. Instead of writing codes in languages you learned, read good examples of codes in languages you learned, and try to copy their style.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but then only one language appears to be dominant in my mind at a time and I try to use it's features in others. For e.g. after spending time with python, when I switch to C, I digress thinking about how this could be done with maps or zip or something which I'll have to implement in C and probably would end up being non-efficient solution. Similarly, when switching back to python, I digress thinking about how this feature must have been implemented in Cpython and eventually end up thinking even more about C and way solution would be approached in C.

<comment><USER5> I agree with what nostrademons said in his reply. However, I also find it useful to try your hand at coding stuff that the language is good or well suited for.

For example, when doing python, don't write cli tools (although you can very well do that with python). Write a web app or learn Django and try and build something using the framework. Focus on the spaces where people claim the language is best suited for. When switching back to C, do systems level programming.

Also, set your goals (ie: what you'd like to build using the language) according to the strengths of the language. Off the top of my head, here's something I would suggest:

Ruby -- Build a webapp -- possibly a complex enough app. Aim big -- like gitorious perhaps. Focus on learning rather than completion.

Python -- Build a game

C -- Contribute to the linux kernel :)

...you get the drift, I guess

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! all great, practical tips. edit: BTW I do contribute to kernel (occasionally) and have written games and done moderately sized projects in python (out of interest). But I think main thing is probably to contribute often so that I switch back and forth often too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can only learn idiomatic code by working with idiomatic code. Pick a popular project on GitHub in that language (popular ones are more likely to be led by language connoisseurs) and contribute to it in some small way, or just play around with your local fork.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the mundane work you faced in your company? What did you do? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> We have work that revolves around a CMS. For releases, we usually have changes to make in content, and the process is painfully slow. These changes are rendered as PDF documents, and so in order to test your changes you have to run the whole application to see your change. Each "run" takes about a minute, but you can imagine how quickly it adds up.

I got assigned this work and I was immediately aghast that I would have to do such work, and I took it upon myself to improve the system [in my free time] so that this process is efficient and doesn't make me want to hate myself.

So, in your case, you take the initiative and ask if you can change what's mundane work. If they say no, ask if they would consider if you did the work for free. They might consider it then, but if they don't - look to passing off the work to someone else, or if all else fails, look to find another job. Nothing is worse than working for a company who does things because "that's the way we always do it." These companies are going to have hard times adjusting to new technology and frankly aren't going to help you advance your career either.</comment>


The status of the Self language - <AUTHOR> http://blog.selflanguage.org/2010/12/01/first-introspection-2010-12/ <comment><USER2> In every argument about dynamic language performance for the last 15 years, Self has been the final word: "If Self can reach 1/4 to 1/2 the speed of native C code, why can't JavaScript? Why can't Ruby?" Well, JavaScript and Lua are slowly getting there, and Ruby might in a few more years. Even if Self could only reach that level of performance occasionally, it has been an inspiration to many others.

It's great to hear that an old and storied project has been released as open source. The best of luck to them, and I look forward to reading their compiler source code some day!

<comment><USER3> I'm actually surprised JS has made it this far. I'm not convinced it will go much further, though.

Can someone convince me, please? :)

<comment><USER4> I'll try.

At some point in the past, you predicted (possibly implicitly, given that we're dealing with "surprise") that JS wouldn't reach the performance it has today. But it evidently did. So you're not very good at predicting the development JavaScript's performance profile. Currently you believe it can't go much further. Hence, given the historical precedent that we have, it probably will.

There you go.

<comment><USER5> What makes you think he was talking about Javascript's performance?

<comment><USER4> Context? Besides, my argument doesn't really depend on whether you put "performance" or "popularity." Also, I was joking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To get a feeling for the Self language and what was (is) possible, you should (if you can, of course) take the time to watch the video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ka4KY7TMTU>

It contains a few gems, and is really worthwhile watching. (Disclaimer, I think Dave Ungar has done tremendous things for PLDI; interested people should definitely check out his UC-Berkeley PhD thesis of 1986, easily one of the best I have ever seen...)

<comment><USER7> That video is very good, but don't forget the research papers from the Self project either (<http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/index.html>)

Particularly good:

"An Efficient Implementation of Self" ([http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/implementati...](http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/implementation.html))

"Making Pure Object-Oriented Languages Practical" ([http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/practical.ht...](http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/practical.html))

"Organizing Programs Without Classes" ([http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/organizing-p...](http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/organizing- programs.html))

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I know--it seems to be a recent pattern of mine to forget some links and add-on pointers...

The papers are very good, in addition to these, I find the following to be particularly important (and very well written, too):

\- the classic PICs (polymorphic inline caching) paper (<http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/pics.html>)

\- Urs Hoelzle's PhD thesis ([http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/urs- thesis.h...](http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/urs-thesis.html))

<comment><USER7> Definitely, the PIC paper.

Somehow I missed Urs Hoelzle's thesis. Nice! It has some papers on dynamically compiling APL in the biblio I haven't seen, too. :)

<comment><USER6> I found the APL papers interesting, too. Unfortunately, without the corresponding source code available, it is--at least for me--increasingly difficult to make sense of the APL papers and I am not sure/convinced this has anything to do with changed nomenclature. (For example, AFAIR, I don't really see inline caching in the description of "A Software High Performance Interpreter" by Saal and Weiss 1974.)

<comment><USER7> The APL literature seems to be pretty insular, including terminology.

I've been investigating it as a fascinated outsider. Tim Budd's _An APL Compiler_ (<http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~budd/Books/aplc/>) covers some issues, but goes into much less depth than I hoped. That page has the source accompanying the book, though.

This guy's site (<http://home.earthlink.net/~swsirlin/apl.html>) has some further thoughts loosely based on that book and its compiler.

<comment><USER6> _The APL literature seems to be pretty insular, including terminology._

I could not agree more, honestly! I think my route towards understanding some of the optimizations based on the current implementation of J and/or NARS2k (<http://www.nars2000.org/>), probably this is the route to enlightenment. Before embarking on that journey, I will read up on your hints, thank you very much!

<comment><USER7> If you want to continue this discussion, my contact info is in my profile. Take care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is fantastic news. I'm really happy to see Self get picked up again. It was a breeding ground for a lot of great performance improvements we enjoy today. It will also be good to do some proper exploration of proper prototype based development.

</comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only one who thinks they're not exactly helping their cause with pretentious marketspeak like "an integrated intellectual and experiential computing narrative for supporting collective and individual creativity"?

<comment><USER7> Normally, I'd agree, but in the context of Self, Smalltalk, Xerox PARC, and everything that have come out of them, it's justified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article mentions the lingering fear of Smalltalk images but virtual machine images offering hope for the future. I experienced this with Smalltalk (Gemstone) apps quite some time ago and that feeling remained with Java on the desktop. What would it take to get non-native environments to integrate better and so gain better acceptance with end-users? Is the browser a better vector since end-users are more accepting of different web site styles rather than desktop app look and feels?

<comment><USER11> He is not talking about non-native look and feel, but about image-based development. That is: you directly modify running state of VM and then save all of this state into giant file. Source code is often contained only in this giant binary file, or produced by some specialized tool later. This breaks many common development workflows, for example it is hard to integrate with common (file-based) version control systems.

<comment><USER12> That's true. The problem is that source code is only a fraction of the knowledge contained in the system. In most source-code-based systems, you would write code for building a lookup table, or for reading one from storage. This code would be executed at application startup. In Smalltalk or image- based lisp, you simply make the table and save the image. Unfortunately, the source code now doesn't fully describe the system. Systems like ENVY are intended to provide a process for putting the data in the source.</comment></comment></comment>


Making every (leap) second count with our new public NTP servers - <AUTHOR> https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/making-every-leap-second-count-with-our-new-public-NTP-servers.html <comment><USER2> "Leap Smearing must not be used for public-facing NTP servers" - [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp- bcp-02](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-02)

<comment><USER3> Wow, that's a really boneheaded thing to put in a standard. I think we can all agree that it's important to make leap smearing available for those who want to use it, especially considering the bugs in leap second handling for common NTP clients.

<comment><USER4> I disagree. The point of NTP, and of time services in general, is that everyone agrees about the time. If an organisation wants to use non-standard time it can, but public-facing NTP servers should all agree and all provide the standard time. Google, for whatever reasons, is making its NTP servers deliberately wrong, and there is no mechanism in NTP for a server to say "I'm using time-smearing". So they shouldn't be doing this on public-facing NTP.

<comment><USER3> Then NTP has already failed. Most systems are already incapable of agreeing on whether it is 23:59:59 or 23:59:60 on days with leap seconds. There is simply not an API that will let you distinguish the two.

It is better to be deliberately wrong in a controlled fashion than to be accidentally wrong because you never expected your clock to be non-monotonic. You seem to be arguing for the status quo, are you aware of just how deeply broken the status quo is?

<comment><USER5> What is your definition of "most systems"? Because we had very few (if somewhat high-profile) leap second bugs since its introduction in 1972.

<comment><USER3> Unix, for example. That's a pretty big example. Look at gettimeofday. Completely incapable of handling leap seconds in any reasonable way, except if you use smoothing.

Windows, for example. That's another pretty big example. Just ignores the leap second bit and goes backwards at the next synchronization.

I'm not even talking about bugs here—these are straight up design flaws.

<comment><USER6> There are actually two reasonable ways of handling leap seconds with gettimeofday(). The first, which is in actual use by a range of people, is to define that the kernel time is actually a TAI-10 count not a UTC count. Arthur David Olson's "right" timezone system does this. The second is to allow the microseconds count to go up to 2,000,000.

* [http://www.madore.org/~david/computers/unix-leap-seconds.htm...](http://www.madore.org/~david/computers/unix-leap-seconds.html#tai-minus-10)

<comment><USER3> I wonder how many clients handle that correctly. How many log files will have timestamps at "23:59:59.1500" instead of "23:59:60.500"? If you are going to break APIs you might as well make a new one instead.

And if you replace a simple API with one that requires distributing leap- second tables…

<comment><USER5> > And if you replace a simple API with one that requires distributing leap- > second tables…

Not much worse than the distributed time zone tables we already need to update thrice a year. At least leap seconds aren't decided on by politicians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Instead of adding a single extra second to the end of the day, we'll run the > clocks 0.0014% slower across the ten hours before and ten hours after the > leap second, and "smear" the extra second across these twenty hours.

Holy leaping second, batman! Unilaterally being off by up to a half second from the rest of the world's clocks is a pretty aggressive step. I think I would have preferred to see a resolution made by an independent body on something this drastic.

<comment><USER8> Smearing leap seconds does make sense, but it's an odd step to take unilaterally, rather than coordinating with other NTP servers and with Linux timekeeping (which currently handles leap seconds via a 61-second minute instead).

<comment><USER9> >Linux timekeeping (which currently handles leap seconds via a 61-second minute instead)

Google doesn't think so: "No commonly used operating system is able to handle a minute with 61 seconds"

<comment><USER10> One of the big problems is application support. How many will break by seeing 60 as current second as opposed to 59 twice?

<comment><USER11> I am sure tons of applications that use gettimeofday() to keep track of time can break in subtle ways when seeing 59 twice. Of course, they're broken considering that there is clock_gettime(), however this is a POSIX interface that is not really monotonic too by default, and the monotonic versions of it are Linux-only implementations.

<comment><USER8> > I am sure tons of applications that use gettimeofday() to keep track of time > can break in subtle ways when seeing 59 twice.

gettimeofday doesn't return hour/minute/second divisions; it just returns seconds/microseconds since the epoch. Functions like strftime and gmtime handle the components of time. And leap seconds don't make applications see 59 twice; they make them see 60 once (58, 59, 60, 0, 1, ...).

Quoting the manpages for gmtime and strftime:

> tm_sec The number of seconds after the minute, normally in the range 0 to > 59, but can be up to 60 to allow for leap seconds.

> %S The second as a decimal number (range 00 to 60). (The range is up to 60 > to allow for occasional leap seconds.) (Calculated from tm_sec.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I predicted this for leap smear a while back-- we have time sync because having systems with different times is a source of problems... logical fix: get them onto the same time.

Smear is a workaround for those who care about phase alignment but don't care about frequency error. ... and who don't need to exchange times with anyone else. This last point reduces the set to no one, since it can't extend to everyone (some parties care a lot more about frequency error than phase error!).

This circus is enhanced by NTP's inability to tell you what timebase it's using (or, god forbid, offsets between what its giving you and other timebases...)

It's going be especially awesome when NTP daemons with both smear and non- smear peers get both the smear frequency error AND get a leap second.

I for one welcome this great opportunity for an enhanced trash fire to help convince the world that we need to stop issuing leap seconds. (It's absurd-- causes tens of millions in disruption easily, -- and it would take 4000 years to even drift an hour off solar time, at which point timezones could be rotated if anyone really cared).

<comment><USER13> > _Smear is a workaround for those who care about phase alignment but don 't > care about frequency error. ... and who don't need to exchange times with > anyone else. This last point reduces the set to no one, since it can't > extend to everyone (some parties care a lot more about frequency error than > phase error!)._

I don't quite understand that point. E.g. the typical web server doesn't have much of a need to exchange precise time with others. HTTP, TLS, ... require timestamps, timestamps are shown to users occasionally, but as long as they are roughly right that is enough. As long as all internal systems work off the same standard it is fine. Which seems to be the reasoning under which Google choose to use it, even though one might argue that with their cloud offerings they are not as insular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A lot of interesting geophysics in the unpredictable need for leap seconds. I mention Google's "smearing" approach here:

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/the-leap-second- becau...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/the-leap-second-because-our- clocks-are-more-accurate-than-the-earth/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Why the hell aren't time servers and clients sync to TAI instead? Dealing with leap seconds should be a client side problem.

<comment><USER16> Yup, it seems awesome, but software needs to be written to handle it properly. I think it'd work no problem with software already written against monotonic clocks, but everything else would probably need some fixing.

<comment><USER4> The problem is that time_t (seconds since 1970) implicitly assumes 86400 seconds per day. You would have to redefine time_t and rewrite every piece of code that uses it.

<comment><USER17> Leap seconds is what allows that assumption to work.

Leap seconds exist only in real time, not in historic recorded time.

There are in fact 86400 "calendar seconds" in a day, exactly.

Essentially, when a day is done, we _call_ it 84600, even though it's actually 86400.epsilon.

Only special applications need to know the exact physical number of seconds between two calendar times, rather than the calendar seconds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For people talking about Google unilaterally doing this, it has been common to smear the leap second for the last couple years. Usually companies do it internally by having their NTP servers skew time, either with Chrony or `ntpd -x`. Standards bodies have not been able to react quickly enough to the need to smear the leap second in a consistent way. I'm thankful that Google has decided to run public NTP servers with consistently smeared leap seconds.

Here are two Red Hat articles on how to deal with the leap second, from 2016 and 2015:

[https://access.redhat.com/articles/15145](https://access.redhat.com/articles/15145)

[http://developers.redhat.com/blog/2015/06/01/five- different-...](http://developers.redhat.com/blog/2015/06/01/five-different- ways-handle-leap-seconds-ntp/)

<comment><USER6> I hope that there are people on standards bodies who remember or learned what it was like before UTC when civil time seconds _were not_ one SI second long, and in effect "smearing" happened all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone know if Google has open sourced the time smearing algorithm?

<comment><USER13> They discuss various ways of smearing here, but I haven't seen their actual implementation code: [https://developers.google.com/time/smear](https://developers.google.com/time/smear)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Treeverse, a Chrome extension for visualizing Twitter conversations - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/paulgb/Treeverse/blob/master/README.md#readme <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to the Chrome app: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/treeverse/aahmjdad...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/treeverse/aahmjdadniahaicebomlagekkcnlcila)

</comment><comment><USER2> Nice work. I wish twitter implemented something like this that helped track convos better. One of the reasons I stopped using it was navigation issues.</comment>