German president to boycott Olympics in Russia over human rights - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/08/world/europe/germany-russia-olympics-boycott

<comment><USER2> Does anyone even know who the German president is? (Hint: it's not Angela Merkel.)

I live in Germany and I wouldn't have been able to name him.

<comment><USER3> That's probably because he doesn't have any real power :)

<comment><USER4> which is probably why he can boycott things without upsetting too many people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I personally think it's a bad idea to mix sport and politics. We already had it in 1980 and 1984 - it did not bring any good to anybody. Don't like Russian laws or Putin? There are other ways to say that. Sportsmen should not be involved in this type of stuff.

<comment><USER6> >I personally think it's a bad idea to mix sport and politics.

So... you think the Olympics are a bad idea. no judgment, I'm not a fan of nationalistic dick measuring and governments lighting money on fire either.

Also for that matter, what about the gay athletes how the hell are they supposed to not be involved in this type of stuff?

<comment><USER7> Russia will provide them with nice secure cells to ensure they do not become involved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think it is fair to boycott the Olympics and rob the dreams of the participants who worked so hard to qualify.

If you have something to prove, then prove it at the Olympics. Use it as an opportunity to change people's perceptions.

Could you imagine what was going through Adolf Hitler's mind when he saw Jeese Owens during the 1936 Olympics? Or, back in the US, where racism was commonplace and African-Americans were treated as "inferior".

Interesting fact about Jeese Owens: He was never acknowledged for his achievements until President Dwight Eisenhower.

<comment><USER9> The fact you use Jesse Owen's example is a bit ironic, since he was actually much better treated in Germany than in the United States where racial segregation was still the norm. By his own account: "Hitler didn't snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram."

(Not making a point, just remarking.)

> Could you imagine what was going through Adolf Hitler's mind when he saw > Jeese Owens during the 1936 Olympics?

For the curious, we actually know what Hitler's reaction was. This is how Albert Speer, who was in the box with him at the time, described it:

"He was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner, Jesse Owens. People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future games." [Inside the Third Reich, 1970]

<comment><USER10> He was treated normally (i.e. like hosts are expected to treat any foreign athletes) because Germany didn't want to destroy its image. I mean, Germany _almost_ snubbed Jesse Owens outright by not allowing _any_ Blacks or Jews to participate, but after threats of boycott walked back on that (though did not change its mind, as is obvious from the quote you provided).

The nature of the relationship between Hitler and Jesse Owens is quite different from the relationship between FDR and Jesse Owens.

Points of comparison would either be a hypothetical successful German Black athlete and how Hitler would treat that person (not allow him or her to participate is the answer to that) or a hypothetical successful non-US black athlete and how FDR would treat that person.

As is quite obvious from your quote, Hitler still perceived Jesse Owens (and black people in general) as sub-human and was very outspoken about that. There is racist ideology oozing out of that statement. It's consistent with everything else he has said about race.

FDR was obviously also racist, no question about that, but there is a difference between Hitler's and FDR's racism.

Jesse Owens' own focus was very understandably on his own and others' Blacks troubles they were facing in racist segregated America at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What do they plan on doing for the Dubai World Cup built on the back of actual slaves.

<comment><USER12> It's in Qatar, not Dubai

<comment><USER11> Yes you are right. I'm sorry. Same general policies though. You need an exit Visa to leave. Your employer holds your passport.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would hate to be an athlete who's trained their entire life for this event, only to have it so tainted by russia's appalling actions. As a fan, I'm still looking for an appropriate reaction

</comment><comment><USER14> He does not really "boycott" the Olympics, he simply will not attend them in his function as head of state, which anyway is not strictly demanded by protocol. In addition, in his public statement he does not officially state that he will not attend the games because of human right violations by Russia, although one could certainly interpret it this way. Within the current relationship between Germany and Russia, which is neither particularly friendly nor hostile, this is still the strongest statement he can make without causing an affront. In fact, Gauck never officially visited Russia in his function as head of state since his election.

</comment><comment><USER15> I had a poke around but lack the Google-fu to find the "propaganda" law in question. I would really be curious to see the law as written and what it entails.

The reason I ask is because the linked article [http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/world/europe/russia-gay- ri...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/world/europe/russia-gay-rights- controversy/) about the law has the quote "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations around minors." which sounds reasonable to me.

Please note I don't want to see analysis of the law (as everything I saw while searching seemed biased), I want to see what it actually says. I want to see the other side of the argument before I cast any personal judgement over this.

Please note I am not homophobic, or against non-traditional relationships, I just want to hear the other side of the argument, especially when it would appear based on what I saw that the majority of Russians agreed with it.

<comment><USER16> I found and article [1] that features an English translation of the law.

"Here is what Article 6.21 actually says:

Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.

If you're Russian. Individuals engaging in such propaganda can be fined 4,000 to 5,000 rubles (120-150 USD), public officials are subject to fines of 40,000 to 50,000 rubles (1,200-1,500 USD), and registered organizations can be either fined (800,000-1,000,000 rubles or 24,000-30,000 USD) or sanctioned to stop operations for 90 days. If you engage in the said propaganda in the media or on the internet, the sliding scale of fines shifts: for individuals, 50,000 to 100,000 rubles; for public officials, 100,000 to 200,000 rubles, and for organizations, from one million rubles or a 90-day suspension.

If you're an alien. Foreign citizens or stateless persons engaging in propaganda are subject to a fine of 4,000 to 5,000 rubles, or they can be deported from the Russian Federation and/or serve 15 days in jail. If a foreigner uses the media or the internet to engage in propaganda, the fines increase to 50,000-100,000 rubles or a 15-day detention with subsequent deportation from Russia."

I think that this says that advocating for equality is a crime. Scary.

[1] [http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay- la...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled- out-in-plain-english)

<comment><USER15> I found that too, but it seems to be lifting portions of the text. I want to see the whole thing. Preferably in Russian with a side by side English translation (I will run it through some converters just to check).

I can see how advocating for equality can be listed as a crime based on what's listed there though. Its interesting that the word "propaganda" is used which leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. Point 3 is the sore point it seems, although I can see why its in there as you would not want to equate child-adult relationships which this would prevent. It all hangs on the word "nontraditional"

I find the organisation fine interesting. Could you use this to fine Focus Features for distributing the film "The Kids Are All Right" in Russia?

EDIT - The linked article actually points out that the key words are propaganda and nontraditional. I still want to see the whole law though as those should be defined somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This move may be influenced by Gauck's background: His father spent years in a soviet gulag and he is a prominent anti-communist.

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

</comment><comment><USER18> Boycotts and scandals is what Putin probably actually want from Sochi Olympics to raise tension with the West and lead us to the new Iron Curtain.

</comment><comment><USER19> Olympics-boycotting nations should revive the Friendship Games for maximum irony:

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

</comment><comment><USER4> On one hand, it seems like a good thing to do. But to be consistent, he should boycott other olympics or international sport events. Russia is not the only country where human rights are severely abused.

</comment><comment><USER20> He didn't mind shaking the hand of the president responsible for illegally monitoring the communications of all Germans.

</comment><comment><USER21> Germans have a president? Wth is Angela running the show?

<comment><USER22> In Germany the president is the head of state, but is not involved in running the government. Sort of like an elected king, he's there for ceremonies and signing federal laws.

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

<comment><USER23> Same as the USA then.</comment></comment></comment>


The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention (wikileaks) - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html

<comment><USER2> Inhumane treatment of mere suspects is what we get when we excused "enhanced interrogation" of suspects in the name of The War on Terrorism. Well, along with abrogation of any rights regarding search and seizure.

When we let "terrorism" be the magic word that excuses any excess, we let this happen.

</comment><comment><USER3> Although a later duplicate, this submission has more traction:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2010016></comment>


Japanese Politicians Announce Plan to Build Gundams for Military - <AUTHOR> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118113-Japanese-Politicians-Announce-Plan-to-Build-Gundams

<comment><USER2> Point of fact: Robotech was actually three anime shows, Macross just being one of them. Also the Macross itself was a large scale space fortress that was robot like, so it had nothing to do with being "super magical". Also the mecha design of the VF-1 Valkyrie by Studio Nue was superior the Gundam robots which couldn't transform into a fighter craft.</comment>


How Android can make Fragmentation a Non-Issue - <AUTHOR> http://www.runthereset.com/2012/05/how-android-can-make-fragmentation-non.html

<comment><USER2> Whilst I agree with much of this, there is an issue with the point about the 3 iPhones that Apple are selling currently: as a result of the 3GS running the same version of iOS as the iPhone 4, it performs sluggishly and is nowhere near as slick. However, the Android devices from the same year still run flawlessly because they haven't been upgraded. I'm not saying that you should never upgrade customer's phones after they've bought them but there is definitely two sides to the story.</comment>


Mortality and the Old Masters - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/13/mortality-and-the-old-masters <comment><USER2> This is, even for the New Yorker, quite the pretentious piece. Starting with author writing from his retreat in his "country place", over the disdain for virtual museum tours (complete with scare quotes), to the idea that somehow, this art just carries more heft.

Because - ludicrous explanation abounds - somehow Goya saw more of the "scourges of war". I'd love to see the author's take on "Guernica". Or any of the large number of pieces that were shaped by the trauma of WW1 (modernism), Spanish Flu (e.g. Munch), and so on.

It is the piece of somebody who loves art not for art's sake, but who loves art because knowing it confers status. And so, of course, clings to the idea that there is some kind of "best art" \- and for many of those deeply conservative art observers, that's the Old Masters. Because, of course, old things are good, mastery is good, naturalistic is good (because it doesn't require engaging too deeply with the thought process)

There's no better thing to describe that stuck mindset than the author's "Everything in them will be other than what we remember."

No, it won't. The art will be just the same. How we engage might have changed. But the idea that we as humans change is deeply scary to the author's kind of mindset, and so he'd rather focus on the immutability of the greatness of the old masters.

<comment><USER3> Math has stuck around immutably since the beginning of recorded history. Maybe other areas of human endeavour, like art, has the same access to immutable realities.

<comment><USER4> Sure, many concepts identified 2000 years ago still exist. Adding, subtraction, platonic shapes. But we still add stuff, and some things are even changed.

We don't call odd numbers "male" anymore, and even numbers "female", like Pythagoras did.

Calculus was only invented a couple of hundred years ago, and looks nothing like the creative trig proofs of the Greek.

Our handling of infinity dates from the beginning of the 20th century (Cantor), as is all the meta weirdness like the completeness theory of Gödel.

And that's math, a domain, _the_ domain where knowledge acquired stays valid for all of eternity.

<comment><USER3> Who is rejecting addition and subtraction?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I will always take the excuse to post Auden:

 _About suffering they were never wrong,

The old Masters: how well they understood

Its human position: how it takes place

While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;

How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting

For the miraculous birth, there always must be

Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating

On a pond at the edge of the wood:

They never forgot

That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course

Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot

Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer's horse

Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.

In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away

Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may

Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,

But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone

As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green

Water, and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen

Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,

Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on._</comment>


On bounties and buffins - <AUTHOR> https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/01/14/on-bounties-and-boffins/ <comment><USER2> What's hard to get from this is a sense of quality. For one, professionals have a hard time nailing down what a "quality bug" is - if given a few different bugs and told to rank them, you could probably come up with some ranking of your own, but it would probably be different from your coworkers, bosses, customers, etc. So that sucks. However there are also reported findings that most people could agree are low to no value. How much of those show up in bounty programs vs. internal finds or commissioned audits? Of the people at the top of the distribution, how many of them are reporting many high quality finds, or spray-and-pray with lots of chaff? Are there "diamonds in the rough" near the bottom that only get out one or two a year but they are high quality? Is that an indicator that if those reporters could be given full time jobs doing audits, their productivity would rise?</comment>


Here's what happens when you throw a bottle of water into a vat of molten steel - <AUTHOR> http://gfycat.com/WeeklyEvergreenGrouse <comment><USER2> I tried to find the original video, in e it has more information. The oldest I could find is: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78CBUcGtfOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78CBUcGtfOs)

Do anyone know what EAF Tappi / EAF Pulpi means? Can anyone translate the initial message in Arabic?

<comment><USER3> Electric Arc Furnace Tapping and my guess for "Pulpi" would be "Pulpit" (as in: Control Room Pulpit Operator).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's what you should do when that happens: run your legs off. I worked in a galvanizing plant once and one drop of water in that vat of molten zinc would send eruptions of metal everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RYCXDUt2m8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RYCXDUt2m8)

</comment><comment><USER6> That was a big boom. Anyone know the backstory? Was this intentional to show the dangers, or simply employees having fun? Was anyone injured?

</comment><comment><USER3> For those wondering what happened - water has nowhere to go and explodes.

Same reason you don't put out an oil fire with water:

[https://youtu.be/eaabUEqAhfU?t=131](https://youtu.be/eaabUEqAhfU?t=131)

<comment><USER7> Right, but why they did it anyways?

<comment><USER3> If the Reddit thread is at all reputable, this occurred at a Steel Mill in Kentucky by a disgruntled employee. It's used as a safety instruction video for new employees to show what happens when wet meets steel.

A good reason to properly rotate the steel so that it has time to dry completely. It's also why the floor is usually padded dirt and not concrete, as concrete has pores and voids that make it explode and send concrete shrapnel everywhere.

If discussing the video I linked - it was for demonstration about fire safety.

<comment><USER8> Local metal recycler has an electric arc furnace. Old fencing, bicycles, chunks of cars, whatever goes into the furnace to be melted.

A water heater, still filled with water, stuck to the side of the crucible. When most of the metal was flat-bath (all melted and liquid) the water heater fell loose into the 2000 degree pool.

The resulting explosion blew out the side of the furnace, raining shrapnel and droplets of steel on everything in a 20 foot radius. A man was standing there.

It took half a year for him to return to work, much scarred both physically and mentally. He still can't go back into the furnace room. They found other work for him in the yard and office.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My father in-law worked in a foundry and gave me a tour. Just about everything in there can kill you, from the 'pot' to the gantry crane. About the only safe place was the room with the green sand moulds.</comment>


Go Couch to 5k - <AUTHOR> http://radianttap.com/couchto5k/ <comment><USER3> Hey buddy, the active.com guys have been suing anybody using couch to 5k into the ground for a minute now. You should change your name or expect a not so nice letter.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice app. Pretty and looks useful. As a late-blooming runner, I would have loved to have this in my former futile attempts at getting started.

Could use some help with the site copy, though. It's in English, but it's obviously either written by a non-native English speaker or someone who didn't proofread the copy at all.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm confused by this point: "Real-time visual feedback of your current pace and distance. This feature is based on GPS location services, _thus available on iPhones only._ "

I'm pretty sure my HTC One X has GPS location services, else the free Nike+ Running app wouldn't be able to map my route so accurately. Or was that point intended to convey that the feature was not available on other iOS platforms, such as iPod Touch, or iPad. (Why anyone would carry a tablet while they're running is beyond me, but I've learned that the moment you dismiss an option as too silly to happen, it happens.)

<comment><USER6> iPhones as opposed to iPods Touch. iPod Touch does not have GPS, so the app won't work on it.

It won't work on your Android because it's an iOS app, not an Android app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Damn, when I saw the title I was hoping somebody had implemented the Couchbase API in Go and scaled it to 5000 nodes :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Was looking for something like this last year when I was doing a C-2-5K program. Been on a couch a lot recently, so maybe I'll do it again. Question: why is the free version a separate app, rather than the entire program being an in-app upgrade?

</comment><comment><USER9> Love it! I was just thinking last night (while trying Zombies, Run! - <USER2> I'm not a fan of, to be honest) why no one has made a Couch to 5k app yet. This is gorgeous.

EDIT: My apologies. Looks like this isn't such a unique idea after all.

<comment><USER10> > why no one has made a Couch to 5k app yet

I've been using this, a little buggy but definitely helped me acquire my running habit: <http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ease-into-5k/id301233668?mt=8>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very, very cool looking. It makes me want to start running, just to use the app. Too bad it's not on Android ;)

Also: This is how to make a demo page. I didn't even have to enable javascript.

<comment><USER12> I was confused by this too - but it looks like the free app does have a full unlock via in app purchase for $2.99

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice looking app, any support beyond 5k?

</comment><comment><USER14> When did spam like this become acceptable on HN?

It's great that its motivating people to be healthy, but there are literally _dozens_ of superior, multi-platform options already out there, like Endomondo, MiCoach, RunKeeper, and Nike Fuel. Most of these apps already do everything this app claims to do, and they provide integration with third party software and hardware. Zombies, Run! is also a good option for people looking for a irreverent take on fitness running.

So what makes this app different from all those other apps so as to justify a place on the front page?

</comment><comment><USER15> I can't imagine running with my phone. Fuck that noise.</comment>


Brave New World Narrated by Aldous Huxley (1956) - sjm-yc-acct https://archive.org/details/CBSRadioWorkshop <comment> sjm-yc-acct I first read the book nearly 40 years ago when I was 12. I recently found this radio adaptation narrated by the author himself.</comment>


First recorded usage of "Hacker" from MIT paper in 1963 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/internet-find/first-recorded-usage-of-hacker-from-mit-paper-in-1963/ <comment><USER2> I seem to remember the phrase being used to describe writers "hacking" at their typewriters sometime earlier, too...

<comment><USER3> "Hack" related to writing has been around much longer. IIRC, Byron described himself this way. The article here concerns the tech sense only.

Also, in the case of a writer the noun isn't "hacker" but just "hack".

Edit: can't find the reference in Byron. I am reminded, though, that a "hack" used to refer to an old or low-quality horse that would be let out for hire. Perhaps it got applied to writers from there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Earlier discussions:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=289215>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152565></comment>


When's the last time someone gave you too much change? - <AUTHOR> http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/whens-the-last-time-someone-gave-you-too-much-change-2 <comment><USER2> I once saw someone start making change for a $20 when I had paid with a $10. I advised her as much and she thanked me and adjusted.

I never actually got the change, so my literal answer is "not so far", but my practical answer is "it happens".

</comment><comment><USER3> Though be nice or do them a favour and I'm sure you'll be remembered as a nice person, worker or company in the future.</comment>


Two Seamless members say hackathon misattribution was unintentional - <AUTHOR> http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N54/hackmit.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This article is a follow up to another piece in MIT's newspaper about a "disqualification"[1] related to misrepresentation of work in presentations from MIT's student hackathon. The comments of this article and the original are the kind of local bickering and political wrangling and blame shifting that occurs all the time, but I think the broader question of what happens in hackathon presentations is interesting.

[1] [http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N53/HackMIT.html](http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N53/HackMIT.html) Exactly what happened and if it was a disqualification are subject of much discussion in the comment sections and this follow up article.</comment>


Gkv – Git as a key-value store - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ybur-yug/gkv <comment><USER2> My only shock here is that this wasn't done sooner.

I have kind of seen Git as two tightly coupled systems (and IIRC, other VCS's have modeled their design with a similar separation of concerns): a content addressable store, and a tagging/tracking system for metadata.

I actually kind of expected that someone would eventually try out replacing one of the two with their own "better" system to see how that worked out, but obviously the more interesting opportunity is to see if one or both of the components might be useful for an entirely different purpose.

<comment><AUTHOR> > My only shock here is that this wasn't done sooner.

This was my initial reasoning for making it. However when I began looking into it on Twitter @steveklabnik informed me that Rust's crates.io uses a similar system [0]. I found this especially intriguing, but have not gotten in touch with someone who knows the codebase better to give me some more insight.

[0] [https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/608778665825083392](https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/608778665825083392)

<comment><USER3> OctopusDeploy played with this to store configurations. That was supposed to allow you to have full history with branching possibilities and a straight forward way to backups. [https://github.com/paulstovell/OctoDB](https://github.com/paulstovell/OctoDB)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Would be happy to answer any questions or clarify things. Its very much moreso a 'fun/useful toy' than 'production software' but there are some interesting principles that tie into it.

<comment><USER4> _The type is inferred from when you initially set the value. Note that saving the string '1' will return the integer 1 due to the naive nature of the implementation. Hashes, arrays and booleans behave as expected when saved._

Can you elaborate upon this in the readme? It wasn't clear to me whether git, ruby or the gkv has the naive implementation (or if the conversion only happens with the string '1').

Also is it possible to enumerate the versions of key-values that have been saved?

I'm sure I have several more questions but I'll leave it at that. Thanks for making this!

<comment><AUTHOR> I just saw this now, sorry for being 5 days late if you even end up noticing it.

The typing is governed by YAML standards. This is why symbols are left out. Since it uses `YAML.dump` and `YAML.load` with the set/get, it will automatically assume the string '1' is an integer, '1.0' a float, and so on.

> is it possible to enumerate the versions of key-values that have been saved?

Yes, using the `get_version` method, you could do something like:

        all_items = $ITEMS[key].map { |hash| db.get(hash) }

I should add this as a normal function to the API. Its now on my todo list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just wanted to say thanks for all the input, pull requests, and ideas to develop this further with. :) Really appreciate it HN!

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice! I made a "joke" key value store that uses HFS+ xattr file system attributes [https://github.com/radiofreejohn/xattrkv](https://github.com/radiofreejohn/xattrkv)

In the process I found a bug in one of the Darwin syscalls. Still not fixed :(

<comment><AUTHOR> That's awesome (though frustrating w.r.t the last tidbit). I always find working on 'hacky' or 'pointless' things often yields the most new knowledge and insight. I'm reminded of Jim Weirich's 'Y Not: Adventures in Functional Programming' talk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You should make an npm module and have it conform to this: [https://www.npmjs.com/package/abstract-blob- store](https://www.npmjs.com/package/abstract-blob-store)

<comment><AUTHOR> That would definitely be interesting! My JavaScript is rusty, it would be a good excuse to do a refresher. Bookmarked and added to my todo notes :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I made a Haskell library that uses Git as a JSON store: [https://github.com/myfreeweb/gitson](https://github.com/myfreeweb/gitson)

Used in my website engine: [https://github.com/myfreeweb/sweetroll](https://github.com/myfreeweb/sweetroll)

</comment><comment><USER8> I just took a quick look at the code. This is non-persistent as it relies on the global `$ITEMS`, right? What benefit would this bring over simply storing directly into the variable?

<comment><AUTHOR> > This is non-persistent as it relies on the global `$ITEMS`, right?

In a sense. $ITEMS is a hash ruby-object whose keys are what is set as the key by the input, but its values are the hashes that are stored in the git filesystem. There are about 10,000,000 improvements this could have and by no means would I consider it production quality software. Any ideas on a better means of persistance knowing this? Could back up the dict itself as a string in the git filesystem and have it be restorable on instantiation, possibly...

<comment><USER8> You should take a look at the garbage collector (git gc) of git as well. I'm pretty sure that it'll clean up your KV-store, as the objects are not referenced anywhere. Choose a storage model that'll survive `git gc`. Maybe take a look at the tree objects git itself uses?

<comment><AUTHOR> This would hopefully play well with the potential of use of a more robust git tooling like rubiquity had mentioned in another comment. I had thought about the gc aspect but didn't dive into it too much since its so immature still. Definitely will be considering all this as I plan 0.3. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bobby!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hunna Fresh! I miss you, man. Hope life is good! :)

PS I emailed you the other day.</comment></comment>


The Madness of Crowds and an Internet Delusion - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12tier.html?ref=science

<comment><USER3> I think the huge challenge is in the final sentence:

"The result is a problem a bit like trying to stop a mob of looters. When the majority of people feel entitled to someone's property, who's going to stand in their way?"

How many politicians will dare stand up to protect a small number of creative minds once 7+ billion consumers have grown accustomed to accessing info/media for "free" (in time and simplicity)?

Right now I think they mostly stand up for large corporate 'rights' - <USER2> individual creators/artists.

[Am I too cynical in suspecting that the congressional voices that support copy protection receive substantial campaign contributions from publishing industry giants (as opposed to the 'creative minds' whose intellectual property builds their empires)?]

::edited for clarification::

<comment><USER4> I think people don't feel so bad about stealing from the RIAA, because the artists only would get a tiny fraction of the paid sum anyway...

And stealing from thieves isn't so bad, is it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"The big difference between Web piracy and house burglary, he says, is that the penalties for piracy are tiny and rarely enforced"_

The big difference is copying vs theft.

Also, the penalties for copyright infringement are anything but tiny. "Downloading mom fined $80000 per song", etc.

<comment><USER6> These and other obvious mistakes show the author does not understand the fundamentals of the information age. While old media produces sequel after unoriginal sequel of movies, and clone musicians to push on us, the information age has spawned a new age of creativity. The incumbents can no longer keep down the truly creative because distribution costs have gone down so much. The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old media, and sparked creativity in the new.

<comment><USER7> _The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old media, and sparked creativity in the new._

What are some of your favorite examples of creativity in new media, which in your view were not possible before the information age?

<comment><USER6> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/> <http://www.techcrunch.com/> <http://redvsblue.com/home.php> <http://www.purepwnage.com/> And for music...well maybe this is niche for me, but I like <http://www.jonathancoulton.com/> And things like this are really only possible now: <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "In the 1990s, when I was writing paeans to the dawning spirit of digital collaboration, it didn't occur to me that the Web's 'gift culture,' as anthropologists called it, could turn into a mandatory potlatch for so many professions--including my own."

This is what I find, as a writer of nonfiction writings that take heavy research investment to produce. Twerps half my age think nothing of copying my Web-based writings in their entirety onto websites that bear only their name and not mine, and few readers indeed think of paying me for writing based on the Web, no matter how much value the writings have for the reader. I still need to study more current examples of more different nonfiction writers to see how they get paid for the best of research-based writing, but the trend lines don't look good for people being paid to write that which requires research, analysis, and careful expression. Opinion pieces that appeal to preexisting prejudices seem to have a ready market as blog posts that draw audiences with known demographics to view Web advertisements, but research pieces that might change opinions have an ill-defined payment channel in Web distribution.

<comment><USER8> In general, very few people have ever been compensated for their research in the past. In an era before the internet, you probably wouldn't have been published; if you had been, you probably wouldn't have sold enough copies to make any significant amount of money.

If you're not doing the research for the love, and you're not doing it as your job, and no one is paying you to do new research after being impressed by your old research, and it's not engaging enough to draw a consistent audience, you're completely right. It's hard to get compensated for it.

Blaming the web for that seems backwards; for the first time the average person has a shot at even distributing their original research and thought. It's _better_ than before. We just need to figure out the best structure for compensating people. Since that's already happening in the realm of music and TV online, I'm hopeful we'll find some solution for thoughtful writing as well.

PS: Link to your online writings?

<comment><USER7> My site is going through a technical update with the help of the other HN participant in this household. Then I will be doing content updates, throwing caution to the winds and again posting a lot of content for free. I'll update my HN profile then to provide the link. Thanks for asking and thanks for the detailed, thoughtful reply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "He blames the Web's tradition of 'drive-by anonymity' for fostering vicious pack behavior on blogs, forums and social networks. He acknowledges the examples of generous collaboration, like Wikipedia, but argues that the mantras of 'open culture' and 'information wants to be free' have produced a destructive new social contract."

No, I don't see "vicious pack behavior on blogs". Just as I don't frequent sleazy bars in industrial districts, I don't frequent un-moderated, trashy parts of the Internet. Casting the Internet as something totally new is typical of fear-mongering articles from 15 years ago.

As for the "mantras" he mentions, in plain English, those are a couple of ideas, amongst a vast sea, popular in some areas of the Internet. Yes, people freely express their ideas on-(and off-) line. If he disagrees, good for him, but those ideas aren't new, and if he's seeing a lot of bar-fights, pick a better hang-out.

<comment><USER10> You don't need to frequent the dark corners of the internet to find yourself (or your family members) the inadvertent target of a pack of attack dogs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is the NYT writing about this now? There really isn't any new information here that hasn't been rehashed hundreds of times over. In effect it all comes down to a question of what has value to people.

To take music for an example, a digital copy of a song has very little value when compared to something like a live performance which commands a much higher price. An artist bemoaning the economics of the digital world is like Dell commiserating about the decline in the average selling price of laptops because of the introduction of net books. If an artist, or anyone, is interested in making more money they should concentrate on making things people are willing to pay more for instead of complaining that people aren't willing to pay for what they want to produce.

<comment><USER12> _> Why is the NYT writing about this now?_

The story is that a guy changed sides.

<comment><USER13> And that guy has a new book to promote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "The problem in each case is not that you stole from a specific person but that you undermined the artificial scarcities that allow the economy to function." ARTIFICIAL scarcities... They are necessary evil of free market (is it free when there is monopoly?), but you must be sure to have monopoly first, or someone will race down with price. My 2c, anyway

</comment><comment><USER15> "it is striking how many of the top-grossing acts began in the predigital era, and how much of today's music is a mash-up of the old."

this is what it's all about, the kids and their damn music.

<comment><USER15> why the downvote?? seems like you are just proving jaron right ;)</comment></comment>


Amazon threatens to suspend French deliveries after court order - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-15/amazon-threatens-to-suspend-french-deliveries-after-court-order <comment><USER2> The other side of the story... [https://www.france24.com/en/20200414-french- court-faults-ama...](https://www.france24.com/en/20200414-french-court-faults- amazon-over-virus-safety-limits-deliveries) or [https://www.ft.com/content/1ad863ef- dc39-43a3-b714-e5ef3c4a8...](https://www.ft.com/content/1ad863ef- dc39-43a3-b714-e5ef3c4a8e15)

> Laurent Degousee, of the SUD-Commerce union that was behind the complaint, > acknowledged that Amazon had "not stood idly by" amid the crisis but had > taken a "slew of measures without any evaluation".

> He said that the taking of temperatures had sometimes caused queues and thus > risked possible infection.

So Amazon had the choice of either;

a) taking the court ruling seriously and doubling down on efforts to ensure worker safety and working out what needs to be done to lift the suspension

or

b) raising a middle finger and threatening to suspend all deliveries, thereby adding fuel to the notion that Amazon doesn't take worker safety seriously and creating opposition in France that will now work on strategies for "what to do if Amazon pulls out of our market?"

Which one seems like a smarter response?

<comment><USER3> > _raising a middle finger and threatening to suspend all deliveries_

I don't see this. The court gave a short deadline for meeting an ambiguous target with respect to a complex international logistics network. Amazon's choices are to sloppily comply or halt until they can properly do so. They're choosing the latter.

That keeps warehouse workers safe. And it gives Amazon time to figure out how to only ship that which the court would consider essential. The only loser is the French consumer, and they (will eventually) have other options.

<comment><USER4> Almost all laws and legal orders have some ambiguity to them. Sloppy compliance is the correct choice both here and generally, because a) demonstrates to the court that you broadly agree and will respect the court's authority, and b) allows you to go about your business as much as possible.

Given Amazon's recent behaviors around worker protection, I expect their action here is chosen for maximum drama, an attempt to pressure the French government, and to warn other governments that they will disrupt the delivery of essential supplies if they don't get their way. So I agree with harryh; it's a middle finger.

It's been deeply disappointing to me. I've been on the fence with Amazon for a while about labor issues. But their behavior recently has crossed a line. I canceled my Prime membership yesterday. If they don't rapidly reform, it'll be the end of my 23 years as a customer.

<comment><USER5> If you are running the company, Sloppy compliance is never the correct choice. It will add a unnecessary (from the company point of view) liability for the future. Given the risk to the health of workers in this case, its not even the correct moral choice. Suspension is bad for their revenues but is morally and legally correct way forward.

<comment><USER6> I think it's amusing that Amazon knows exactly what it's doing with this threat. France knows exactly what it's doing with this threat. The only people who don't seem to understand what's happening are the commenters here on HN.

<comment><USER7> > _The only people who don 't seem to understand what's happening are the > commenters here on HN._

Sadly this is true of almost every topic other than software engineering, electronics and rockets.

<comment><USER8> And also software engineering, electronics, and rockets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Doesn't seem like a threat? More of a recognition of the necessary consequences of this particular order. If the court says to stop doing some things, and the wheels are too big to be changed while in flight, then Amazon should shut down for the time it takes to figure out how to comply. That's just obeying the court, right?

<comment><USER10> Of course it's a "threat". Amazon doesn't want to shut down in France, they just want not to be subject to this court order. France doesn't want Amazon to shut down in France, they just want them to honor this court order. The only reason you announce a policy that no one wants is as a negotiating tactic. "Honor my desires or else the outcome will be worse for both of us" is, logically, what "threat" means.

Now, no, Amazon can't possibly do what the order asks in 24 hours. But they certainly could make a good faith attempt.

I made this point yesterday, but I remain amazed at the extent to which Amazon let itself be painted the "bad guy" in all of this, simply by not being willing to negotiate with their workers on an equal basis. A world where Amazon had a healthy relationship with its unions isn't one where everyone comes at them with a knife during a crisis trying to protect their workers.

<comment><USER9> > But they certainly could make a good faith attempt.

In my understanding, court orders are not a polite requests. They are demands, with the force of law standing behind them. You don't make good faith attempts to comply with them. You comply, or risk severe consequences (in this case, 1M euro/day). If Amazon can't comply in the time frame allowed, shutting down is probably the right call both for their business and from a public morals perspective.

<comment><USER10> > You don't make good faith attempts to comply with them.

Uh... "Good faith" is, _literally_ , the term of art used in the legal profession to define the criteria for honoring a contract or order.

Obviously, no, the court could be a total jerk about it and demand ridiculous things. But that's not the way it's supposed to work. The whole point behind the "rule of law" is that we trust each other (Amazon, its unions, the courts) to be reasonable, tell the truth, and honor our agreements in the spirit in which they were made.

People who insist on looking like this as a war with combatants are the ones who are missing the point. I mean, look, the court in France is trying to protect workers. That's a good thing. You agree that's a good thing, right?

<comment><USER9> > "Good faith" is, literally, the term of art used in the legal profession to > define the criteria for honoring a contract or order.

No. Honoring a contract and a good faith attempt to honor a contract are not the same. A good faith attempt does not exempt you from the consequences of failing to perform a contract or comply with a legal order. In some cases it is a mitigating factor, but it is not by any means universal.

If the French court wanted Amazon to make a good faith attempt to do something, that is something they could have ordered. But they ordered compliance, not an attempt at compliance (as is their prerogative).

> Obviously, no, the court could be a total jerk about it and demand > ridiculous things.

You mean like a 24h deadline for compliance with a large set of changes to operations?

> The whole point behind the "rule of law" is that we trust each other > (Amazon, its unions, the courts) to be reasonable, tell the truth, and honor > our agreements in the spirit in which they were made.

Tbh I'm not seeing the connection between rule of law and social trust. You can have high trust societies with less rule of law, and low trust societies with more rule if law. They are separate, loosely connected dimensions.

> People who insist on looking like this as a war with combatants are the ones > who are missing the point.

I am not such a person.

> I mean, look, the court in France is trying to protect workers. That's a > good thing. You agree that's a good thing, right?

I'm not sure I could make any such blanket statement without knowing the state before, the desired state as indicated by the court order, the evidentiary and legal bases of the decision, etc. The impulse to protect the vulnerable is good. The means by which societies choose to implement that impulse can cause harm, and I judge actions by their results, not their causes.

<comment><USER10> You seem to be assuming that the court ordered something it knew was impossible. That's, to borrow a phrase from the HN code of conduct, assuming _bad faith_ on the part of the court. It seems much more likely to me that it just made a mistake and wasn't itself trying to escalate a war. That's not what courts do.

So... assuming the court thought this was a reasonable request, why shouldn't Amazon just try to comply?

<comment><USER9> > You seem to be assuming that the court ordered something it knew was > impossible.

Perhaps it did, or perhaps it didn't. I don't think it's very relevant whether the court knew whether Amazon would be able to comply. It had its priorities, and it ordered Amazon to abide by those priorities. That's something that's perfectly within its rights to do.

But if the court _were_ interested in Amazon's ability to comply, then it could have asked Amazon what it could and couldn't do in what time frame. It did not ask, or at least discarded the response if it did ask, so presumably its orders are not conditioned on Amazon's capabilities.

> That's, to borrow a phrase from the HN code of conduct, assuming bad faith > on the part of the court. It seems much more likely to me that it just made > a mistake and wasn't itself trying to escalate a war.

You seem really eager to assign good and bad faith and assumptions of the same to various parties, including myself. I am not eager to do that. I am also not willing to assume the court was incompetent or made a mistake. It gave an order, and presumably it had an understanding of the possible range of effects of that order. If it didn't, it could have availed itself of Amazon's thoughts on the subject before issuing the order. I assume the court did know the possible results, and it considers Amazon shutting down temporarily to be an acceptable short term outcome, if necessary to protect worker health.

> So... assuming the court thought this was a reasonable request, why > shouldn't Amazon just try to comply?

Because the court said they would be fined if they failed to comply. I'm not making the connection on why Amazon's behavior should be conditioned on what the court's view of the reasonableness of the request is. Surely Amazon's behavior should first be conditioned on Amazon's view of the feasibility of the request, the potential economic and political consequences of failure, etc.?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They don't threaten, they obey the court that asked them to suspend deliveries because employees were not properly cared for. Let's not turn things around.

Don't worry, if Amazon stops selling altogether, small businesses will be more than happy to take back some market share.

<comment><USER12> Except that they won't be able to meet demands, especially for important products such as medical or safety products.

<comment><USER13> Amazon isn't able to meet demand for medical or safety products. Or home workout equipment. The only video game systems are from price gouging third parties. They've only recently caught up on toilet paper.

I'm not sure why you think Amazon is somehow immune.

<comment><USER14> > I'm not sure why you think Amazon is somehow immune.

The GP didn't claim that Amazon could keep up with demand.

Their general point is the whole supply chain is straining, and shutting down Amazon is going to exacerbate the issue. Maybe that's the right thing to do, and maybe it isn't, but the broad consequences are clear.

Between COVID-19 and the US-China trade war, I hope we're all taking a long hard look at supply chain diversity going foreword.

<comment><USER13> > The GP didn't claim that Amazon could keep up with demand.

That's true, but GP seems to think that we need Amazon to solve a problem which Amazon doesn't solve.

> Their general point is the whole supply chain is straining, and shutting > down Amazon is going to exacerbate the issue. Maybe that's the right thing > to do, and maybe it isn't, but the broad consequences are clear.

I don't think it's clear at all that shutting down Amazon will exacerbate the issue, because I don't think "the whole supply chain" is the issue. Specifically with medical supplies, the problem _isn 't_ that online retailers can't get stock to customers quickly enough. The problem is that stock _doesn 't exist_. Unless Amazon decides to pivot into medical manufacturing, Amazon isn't the solution to this problem.

The reason Amazon is restocked on toilet paper is that toilet paper manufacture is fairly simple, so manufacturers have already pivoted to manufacture toilet paper. This is a credit to manufacturers, not Amazon.

> Between COVID-19 and the US-China trade war, I hope we're all taking a long > hard look at supply chain diversity going foreword.

This we can agree on, at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As much as Amazon deserves some bad publicity for how they handle their warehouse and wholefoods workers in the US, in this case I feel like they're being vilified unfairly for the shipping of non-essentials.

Walmart is shipping whatever-the-fuck, I can order nightstands and a bed on wayfair and weed from the SQDC (government)... Let's be clear, marijuana is not an essential for all but a very small percentage of the population using it as medecine...

Yet everyone's roasting Amazon for operating like it's business as usual while the smaller players run wild.

<comment><USER16> Shipping non-essential items is not the problem here. They can ship whatever they want, but while doing so have to protect their workers. Amazon is infamous for creating horrible working conditions in their shipping centers, it's not a surprise that how they react to the virus is observed very closely. Especially in a country like France that already has a critical stance towards big US companies.

<comment><USER17> I'm assuming you didn't read the article? Banning the sale of non-essential goods is mentioned multiple times.

>Amazon.com Inc. threatened to stop activity at its fulfillment centers in France after a court order banned the sale of non-essential goods, concluding the retailer isn't doing enough to protect staff from the Covid-19 pandemic.

And 24 hours to implement improved health procedures? Without being told which ones specifically to implement?

There's basically no limit to improving health procedures. They could go as far as hourly temperature checks, glove changes after every package, no more then 10 people in the entire warehouse, etc etc. And if they don't go far enough (according to the courts, in 2 years when all the appeals are finally figured out), then they could be fined 1.1 million a day since tomorrow.

<comment><USER18> This article is wrong about that; they are free to ship non-essential items as long as they demonstrate that they protect their workers' health.

[https://www.lesechos.fr/economie- france/social/coronavirus-l...](https://www.lesechos.fr/economie- france/social/coronavirus-la-justice-impose-a-amazon-de-reduire-drastiquement- son-activite-1194834)

>But the American e-commerce giant was condemned to "restrict the activities of [its] warehouses to receiving goods, preparing and shipping orders for food, hygiene and medical products", "until the company has carried out, with the participation of employee representatives, an assessment of the occupational risks inherent in the Covid-19 epidemic in all of its distribution centres and the resulting measures".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm glad that this is not happening in my country. Banning Amazon from selling nonessential items seems detrimental to society. The "nonessential items" that Amazon sells are still pretty important for living my life. I'm sure there are some ways that worker health could be protected better, but at this point I wouldn't trust the French government to make intelligent judgments on behalf of public health.

<comment><USER20> As most democratic countries, France has a complete separation between the government and the justice system.

This is a justice decision. The government has nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER21> Not sure where the above poster is from, but some parts of the world use a different definition for "government" than other parts of the world. In the USA, for example, all three separate branches of "government" (Legislature, Executive, and Judicial) are considered "the government".

<comment><USER20> I'm French. In french "gouvernement" (french word for "government") only refers to the executive branch, and our justice system is strongly attached to its independence from the two other branches. So it seems strange to me to conflate all three branches together.

Interestingly, in the French wikipedia page for "gouvernement" [1], there is this paragraph :

 _Différence avec le terme anglais_

 _En anglais, le mot « government » s 'applique non seulement au gouvernement au sens où on l'entend en français, mais aussi aux collectivités territoriales et aux administrations publiques, aussi bien centrales que locales. Le concept le plus proche en français est donc celui de collectivité publique, qui englobe les institutions politiques qui incarnent directement les pouvoirs législatif, exécutif et judiciaire, ainsi que l'ensemble des administrations qui leur sont rattachées._

Which can be loosely translated as :

 _Difference with the english term_

 _In English, the word "government" includes not only the executive governement like in French, but also all local and global public administrations. The closest concept in french is therefore "collectivité publique" which encompasses institutions for all Legislative, Executive, Judiciary powers, as well as all administrations under their authorities._

I learnt something new today.

[1] [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement)

<comment><USER22> Thanks for sharing. I learned something too. What's interesting to me is that, at least in America, we associate the judicial as government because we consider ourselves a "land of law" and the judicial has the responsibility of determining if the laws that "govern" how we can act have been used appropriately or if they violate our constitutional rights. As a French citizen, do you not feel governed by the laws which your courts oversee? Maybe this is purely a difference in language but it's very fascinating to me.

<comment><USER20> I would have trouble talking about the difference between American and French views of the law, or even speaking for all French people for that matter.

What I can say is that personally, I definitely think I live in a country ruled by law. However separation of powers means there is no single entity exercising total control on this law: the executive branch proposes changes to the law, the legislative ratifies these changes (or not), and the judiciary branch is an arbiter of what happens when the existing law meets real life situations. While the limits between the executive and legislative branches can sometimes feel porous (especially when executive and legislative are controlled by a single political party, as is the case in both France and USA at the moment), the judiciary branch always felt more insular to me from the two others, at least in my country.

Another linguistic nuance to think about: in French, we are "ruled by law " but not "governed by law". In French, "gouverner" (to govern) is something that people do, not laws.

This is a bit of a brain dump, sorry. I wish I would have more definitive answers for you.

<comment><USER21> In the US right now, the legislative branch is actually split between the two major parties- the Republicans control the Senate, but the Democrats control the House of Representatives. Any new laws have to be approved by both sides of the legislature.

<comment><USER20> You're right, and actually this is also true in France: the party in power only controls one of the two chambers but not the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a french, I'm ok if amazon suspends deliveries.

We have plenty of other websites to order from: fnac, darty, ruducommerce, cdiscount, etc.

This is going to be good for the french economy, and a good message to american giants that they are not above the law.

<comment><USER24> And all those other websites should have to comply with the exact same restrictions or shut down. The law should not be applied unequally to just one company.

<comment><USER18> But they are already forced to comply to the same law.

The law here doesn't forbid to ship non-essential items, it only forces to protect your workers.

<comment><USER25> The article mentions,

> The $1.1 trillion company was given 24 hours on Tuesday to comply with the > ruling to sell only essential items such as food and hygiene products, and > to upgrade its health-security procedures.

<comment><USER18> French news is pretty clear on that.

[https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice- demand...](https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice-demande-a- amazon-de-limiter-son-activite-1367425)

> stop the delivery of non-essential products until is put in place an > evaluation of the risks and measures necessary to protect the employees > health

[https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/amazon-va- fermer-...](https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/amazon-va-fermer-ses- entrepots-francais-pendant-une-semaine-1367476)

> order the online shop to limit itself to sell "essential products" (food, > hygiene or medical) as long as the sanitary risks of the activity in the > warehouse haven't been evaluated

Edit: better source

[https://www.lesechos.fr/economie- france/social/coronavirus-l...](https://www.lesechos.fr/economie- france/social/coronavirus-la-justice-impose-a-amazon-de-reduire-drastiquement- son-activite-1194834)

>But the American e-commerce giant was condemned to "restrict the activities of [its] warehouses to receiving goods, preparing and shipping orders for food, hygiene and medical products", "until the company has carried out, with the participation of employee representatives, an assessment of the occupational risks inherent in the Covid-19 epidemic in all of its distribution centres and the resulting measures".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's now official, Amazon suspended all delivery services in France for 5 days, starting tonight. (In French: [https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/direct- coronavirus-covid-19-fran...](https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/direct-coronavirus- covid-19-france-confinement-deconfinement-reouverture-ecole-obligatoire- attestation-aide-exceptionnelle-masque- mort/?liveanchor=9850ccf14f8f153787dbaa49f87f93be#9850ccf14f8f153787dbaa49f87f93be))

</comment><comment><USER27> This is weird...

> Amazon "evidently failed to comply with obligations to protect the health of > employees," judges said in their Tuesday ruling.

That results in

> a court order banned the sale of non-essential goods, concluding the > retailer isn't doing enough to protect staff from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I think there's something missing from one reason (not good enough health practices according to the judge) to lead to ban non-essential goods sales.

Can some fill in what's missing (with references) please?

<comment><USER28> Less sales leads to less activity and deliveries

<comment><USER29> Realistically, it's they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If Amazon is not taking precautions and putting the population at risk, they should be shut down.

Amazon is already putting _massive_ delays on non-essential goods (delivery times have moved from 2 days to up to 1 month) in order to prioritize moving essential goods. Not to mention, they've said they're hiring due to the massive influx of orders for essential goods.

So logically speaking, if a large portion of their current activity is already essential goods, what is this besides a way to look like they're standing up to the big bad foreign tech company while getting to keep their deliveries flowing in (all without actually protecting anyone)

<comment><USER30> > So logically speaking, if a large portion of their current activity is > already essential goods

I think the point is many suspect that is not the case.

[https://thegrio.com/2020/04/01/amazon-worker-strike- covid-19...](https://thegrio.com/2020/04/01/amazon-worker-strike- covid-19-dildos/)

<comment><USER29> This is the first week since demand spiked due to COVID that 3rd party sellers are even allowed to sell non-essential goods on Amazon, and they make up over 50% of sales:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-seeks-to-hire- another-75...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-seeks-to-hire- another-75-000-workers-11586789365)

It's true Amazon is still selling non-essential goods, and I understand why the man is frustrated, but it's very clear even with just "essential goods" being sold, Amazon will still require a large part of their current machinery.

When you're talking about an organization as large as Amazon Fulfillment, and a virus as infectious as COVID, these half-measures definitely come across as more for optics than actually stopping the spread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Translations from the Amazon twitter thread, that has more details.

Top twitter comment from Amazon: Following the decision of the court on 14th April, we (Amazon Inc) have to temporarily suspend activity in our distribution centers.

Decision from the court, in a screenshot few comments below: We order Amazon Inc to evaluate work-related risks inherent to the covid-19 pandemic, across all its warehouses and to put in place measures expected by article L4121-1 from labor laws (not sure what's in this article)... we order Amazon, until the above measures are put in place and within 24h of being notified of this decision, to restrict warehouse activity to reception of merchandises, preparation and shipping of food items, hygiene items and medical supplies, otherwise it will be subject to a fine of 1M EUR per day late and per infraction.

[https://twitter.com/AmazonNewsFR/status/1250481148209369088](https://twitter.com/AmazonNewsFR/status/1250481148209369088)

[https://twitter.com/BlaisePere/status/1250522103952158722/ph...](https://twitter.com/BlaisePere/status/1250522103952158722/ph..).

</comment><comment><USER32> Well, what do they "threaten" about? They were ORDERED to stop deliveries :D

<comment><USER33> They were ordered to stop delivering golf clubs and in response are threatening not to deliver personal protective equipment.

<comment><USER34> Did the court order include an "essential" / "not essential" categorization of the ~ 44 million items in Amazon's catalog? They say they'll take 7 days to comply with the court order. That means they have to accurately categorize 6 million catalog items each day.

Even if they had the perfect list the court is requiring, they still need to somehow stop inflows of non-essential items from overfilling their warehouses. The court has ordered them not to clear the warehouse space by simply selling them, as they normally would. Instead, they have to establish some new process (ship the items back?) while deliberately lowering the staffing levels of their warehouses and distribution centers.

They already did a rough first pass of all of these things, and have been incrementally improving.

This court ruling specifically rejected their current course of action. There's no way they'll be able to do significantly better in a 24 hour window.

<comment><USER33> If you view it as them having to make a decision on 44 million items there is no time frame that you can make sound reasonable. Is categorizing 44 million in a day reasonable? I don't know. I personally wouldn't have thought categorizing 6 million was reasonable. But then again the fine is 2cents per item they stock per day, so it sounds pretty reaosnable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I can only see it like this.

Amazon share price and business activity is surging as a direct result of Covid-19. They need to hire 100,000+ workers to meet the demand. However, the same thing they are profiting from (Covid-19) _should_ also increase many of their operating expenses. Things like healthcare, paid sick leave adequate for the situation (so at least 4 weeks for proper quarantine), good PPE, in-depth infection combat strategies, and so on.

The problem is those operating expenses are only obvious if you have ethics/morality/whatever that concludes individual human life is more valuable than money. So if you're a big corporation that has been designed to enrich shareholders and the space company fantasies of your ego-maniacal CEO, you fight as hard as possible against taking on those operating expenses.

<comment><USER35> They do have moral, it might not be the same as yours, they moral could be to make money. Moral is subjective.

<comment><USER36> Businesses are intrinsically amoral. While humans may have different moral goods, companies only have to make money and, as such, need not concern themselves with petty human morality.

<comment><USER35> Business are made of group of people, people have moral. Business morality is based on its people. Making money itself is a moral.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Ultimatums are dangerous. If Amazon follows through with theirs, they are gambling that they are too important to lose. That seems like it would be a poor bet; they may lose their EU market.

<comment><USER38> They were given an order they couldn't achieve compliance for, which fined them 1mil per infraction against rules that were too broad to implement.

I fail to see a response other than - stay operating against the order of the court, or close until they can be in compliance with the court.

<comment><USER37> The unions' complaints date from before when the lawsuit was filed. In March.

" _"While the prime minister last March ordered the closure of non-essential businesses and activities bringing together more than 100 people simultaneously, due to the coronavirus epidemic, Amazon continues its activity as if nothing had happened," a union spokesperson said alongside the lawsuit. "Despite not only the mobilisation of staff and formal notices from unions, inspection and occupational health, but also criticism from the ministers of economy and labour."_ "

The ruling called for Amazon to limit orders to a rather specific group of items; I have not heard that other companies in France have had problems understanding. (Although I understand some stores in my state had to be told that "no, even if what you sell is considered essential in another state, you still have to obey this state's order.") And the ruling has been suspended pending appeal.

" _The ruling, which has already been suspended pending appeal, required the company to only accept orders for groceries, toiletries and medical products as part of the wider lockdown imposed in France....Amazon immediately appealed against the ruling, securing a suspension of the requirements until conclusion of the appeal._ "

Amazon didn't seem to have problems when the limitation was its own idea, at least temporarily.

" _Amazon temporarily, in late March, stopped taking orders for some non- essential products in France and Italy, in a move to implement social distancing guidelines at the company's dispatch centres in those countries. Now the company says it is "prioritising" essential products in those countries, but non-essentials continue to be available._ "

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/amazon- sales-n...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/amazon-sales-non- essentials-french-court-ruling-union)

But all that aside, no country likes to be dictated to by a foreign company, and I rather suspect Amazon has less power in France than, say, the United Fruit Company in 20th century Nicaragua. Amazon is gambling that French consumers value its services enough that they will oppose the likely long-term response from the French government.

I personally wouldn't take that bet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't know why so many people feel the need to attack Amazon. They seem to trigger people to a degree not found in many other companies...

</comment><comment><USER40> France should call this bluff. Amazon is trying to push around a democratically enacted law. They are not above the law.

If Amazon was suspended in France a domestic competitor would rise up in a year or two, and Amazon would never regain the market. They would not dare suspending services, this is just a disgusting stunt

<comment><USER41> France is not geared up for spawning an Amazon competitor.

Aside from one year being waaay too late given the current crisis.

<comment><USER31> There are many online shops that provide the same as Amazon: Cdiscount, rueducommerce, darty, fnac, etc...

That's for non food items. For food, all the major supermarkets have been offering delivery for the major part of the decade, long before amazon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Is this really the time? I feel like whatever errors Amazon have made with regard to protecting its employees have largely been realized in France by now, and I have serious doubts in the efficiency of forcing a closure having a near-to-intermediate term impact. More likely this is just going to put fulfillment further behind and halt progress in order to protect people who would already have gotten the virus by now.

At some point it's just more prudent to recognize that the birds have flown and your opportunity to fix the problems isn't in the next 24 hours but in the next year or years.

<comment><USER43> >I feel like whatever errors Amazon have made with regard to protecting its employees have largely been realized in France by now

I guess I'm going to have to believe the people actually intimately involved in this, like the courts, instead of an armchair analyst on hacker news.

<comment><USER42> Judging by the reaction to Amazon's response, I'm not sure I can connect the dots that make the French government more knowledgeable of Amazon's internal complexities than I am, to be totally honest. That is why I am asserting that giving them a 24-hour deadline to make changes is going to do more harm than good to the citizens of France.

I've spent enough time looking at the data to know that France is well past their peak infection rate (by over a week). The bigger concern in the coming weeks, in my opinion, is timely delivery of goods to those French citizens who need them, and this new mandate goes against that concern.

<comment><USER43> >I'm not sure I can connect the dots that make the French government more knowledgeable of Amazon's internal complexities than I am, to be totally honest

Do you live in France? Are you an Amazon Employee? A French government employee? A workplace safety professional?

<comment><USER42> Amazon employees wouldn't have had any input on a mandate like this. Do any of those other groups necessarily have insight into the organizational complexity at Amazon?

I brought up what I believe is a valid argument that this mandate is harmful to French citizens, and your response has been to attack my credibility with an undertone of disrespect rather than bring a reasoned logic to the discussion. As evidenced by your other comments you obviously have an agenda in this debate, and that is fine. Life has no purpose without some kind of agenda, but please show me the same respect I am showing you.

<comment><USER44> perhaps you could explain what your stance is

are you French?

why do you think it is harmful to French citizens?

What qualifies you to share this opinion

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's time for anti-trust regulation to step up. Companies that can essentially extort a nation state and its independent justice system simply due to their size and market power have grown too big and should be split up.

The behavior that Amazon has shown regarding covid19 in the past few weeks, including firing union activists, should under normal circumstances warrant _jail time_.

</comment><comment><USER46> Amazon has more to lose than France.

<comment><USER47> Unfortunately the French courts don't seem to understand this. The only people meaningfully hurt by this will be French citizens employed by Amazon

<comment><USER48> That's not true. People relying on deliveries from Amazon's French logistics network will also be meaningfully hurt by this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> What else can they do? They either comply with the law or stop delivering to avoid non-compliance and enforcement. Do not get me wrong. It is big news, but if Amazon gives up on EU front, American workers will demand the same treatment. /s We can't have that. /s

</comment><comment><USER39> Deceptive headline...

</comment><comment><USER50> Some possibly relevant context, or just interesting anecdotes of Amazon in Europe:

When Amazon.fr opened back in 1998/1999 in Orleans, there was industrial action on pretty much Day 1.

It kind of fit the French stereotype of industrial action to a T.

When Amazon.de opened a bit before Amazon.fr in Regensberg, there was an issue with Amazon's book database(at the time we were only selling books) where books banned in Germany(such as Hitler's Mein Kampf) were viewable and able to be purchased in Germany which caused a bit of a media stir at the time.

Things were much simpler back then, in every way.

</comment><comment><USER51> Interesting that way more effort is put into repression and regulations than actually working on providing a better healthcare system.

<comment><USER52> That's a very misinformed comment. Healthcare is free in France, and only some edge cases are not covered. Even when not covered you have doctors that offer you the consultation for free (happened to me a few times).

The problem lies in the public hospital system which is underfunded, and on the other hand in the _numerus clausus_ that limits the number of new doctors that can graduate every year.

<comment><USER53> Sorry for being nitpicky, but there is no free healthcare in France or anywhere else. French citizens pay for their healthcare with their taxes. That's cool. No criticism of that choice intended. Just please don't call it free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Not defending Amazon's petty childish antics when they deal with government, but "essential" has a relative meeting. What is essential to you, may not be essential to me, and vice versa. Two small examples:

My friend started a new remote job last week after about 6 months of unemployment...a feat that was amazing considering the fact that most companies are laying off. He was required to buy a laptop, which was to be reimbursed. He had extensive difficulty buying a laptop that met the required specs because most computer stores are considered non-essential, and amazon had delivery times that were too long.

The other was in Target. I saw someone buying a ton of furniture, while crying. I asked if they were okay, and they responded that their house burned down a month ago, and they had been staying in a hotel while insurance was processing everything, but their hotel time limit had passed and they were forced to move into an empty apartment because their furniture company shut down operations due to being non-essential. She had spent the night on a bare hardwood floor with her husband and toddler.

</comment><comment><USER55> Who is to say what's essential?? You've basically locked everyone in their homes, and now you are even trying to deny them delivery of goods they may need. Even things purely for recreation may help ease the tension and stress of lockdown and encourage people to do what the government wants them to do: stay inside.

Name literally anything on the Amazon store, and I can come up with a reasonable senerio where someone could legitimately need it. P

<comment><USER56> > Who is to say what's essential?

In this case the choice is made by the court since amazon failed to ensure safe distancing while operating its warehouses at full capacity[1]

> You've basically locked everyone in their homes, and now you are even trying > to deny them delivery of goods they may need.

People can still buy most non essentials from companies that manage to comply with the current regulations instead of flaunting them.

[1][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- amazon...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-amazon- france/amazon-ordered-to-limit-france-trade-to-essential-goods- within-24-hours-idUSKCN21W1S6?il=0&utm_source=reddit.com)</comment></comment>


NFL Mobile App Vulnerability Poses Threat to Super Bowl Fans' Personal Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmableweb.com/news/nfl-mobile-app-vulnerability-poses-threat-to-super-bowl-fans-personal-data/2015/01/29 <comment><USER2> Is this just that they didn't have an ssl certificate in place on the api url?</comment>


Aptera motors pulls the plug - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/12/aptera-motors-closes/

<comment><USER2> I hope that some of the tech will be sold, opened or some how fall into other peoples hands. They did a lot of neat things with their prototypes and I think there is a chance that it can still help.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a shame that a photo sharing iPhone app can raise more money than an EV company...

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't think it takes millions and federal loans to make an EV. Scratchbuilt or otherwise. Enthusiasts have been converting small ICE cars ("internal combustion engine" cars) into electrics for many years.

Electric cars are simple. For the most part, all they require is:

* batteries,

* a charge controller,

* power controller,

* some gauges, and

* a motor.

Car companies like to make them out to be more technologically advanced so they can charge more and get more government financial assistance. And for that matter preserve their existing ICE-based business. But EV's are fundamentally _way_ simpler than ICE vehicles.

 _Edit_ : Yes, I realize that Aptera's 3-wheeled vehicle is amazing and is not something that a couple of guys could probably put together in their garage. I'd love to see Aptera or a company like them be able to employ engineers to work on those sorts of futuristic spaceships. However, I'm saying that you don't need to go all-out top-end to create an EV. Make a simple "VW Beetle- style" economy EV for cheap instead. It won't require astronomical funding and early adopters will go nuts for them.

<comment><USER5> Remember that there's a big difference between an aftermarket mod and setting up a factory to build purpose built electric cars. You have lots of additional regulatory/cap costs/etc. to bear.

Also keep in mind that they are making entirely (or mostly) new types of vehicles, ie. the tricycle. And design doesn't come cheap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a shame. This was, by far, the most efficient and intelligent electric vehicle ever made with its aerodynamic shape.

<comment><USER7> I seriously doubt the aerodynamics mattered at the slow city speeds the thing runs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Are there prototypes to be sold off? I thought these were neat little vehicles. I still want one.

</comment><comment><USER9> IIRC they were technically motorcycles and required a motorcycle license. Probably didn't help.

<comment><USER4> To offset that though, it probably _helped_ in other ways. For example, if it's a "motorcycle", you don't need big bumpers and crumplezones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tragic. I was hoping this would be my next car.

</comment><comment> buff-a Still waiting for biodiesels.

<comment><USER8> What are you waiting for? You can run almost any modern diesel on biodiesel, and in most west coast cities (at least), B20, B80 and even B100 are available.

<comment> buff-a I'd like a ford F-150 sized truck that is diesel. I'd like a Ford Focus that is diesel. I live in California. What are my options?

<comment><USER11> You have to buy it used out of state with at least 7500 miles.

<comment> buff-a Are you saying they exist in other states?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Using The iPhone's Front-Facing Camera, Cardiio Measures Your Heartrate - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/09/cardiio/ <comment><USER2> I had an application that did this about a year ago. The results were a bit rubbish though. I wonder if it has improved and how it compares to this thing.

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vital-signs-camera- philips/id...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vital-signs-camera- philips/id474433446?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this based on Eulerian Video Magnification? See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4062216></comment>


Talking C++: An Interview with Bjarne Stroustrup - <AUTHOR> https://news.codecademy.com/bjarne-stroustrup-interview/ <comment><USER2> What percentage of developers still learn C++? I did a semester of C in college but have been in VB, C#, Java, and JavaScript since, with a brief foray in Objective C on an iOS project. At the time I asked someone who was o to low level languages if it was better to learn C or C++ these days and I was told "C++ 2017" which might be fine if you never have to use legacy C++... or would learning C++ 2017 allow one to be productive in older Code bases as well? The idea of being able to write in a high level language to get something done quickly and then rewrite the areas in C++ that are the performance bottlenecks is very appealing to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> what a legend</comment>