Upgrade to Windows 8.1 Pro and save over $120 - <AUTHOR> http://www.windowsobserver.com/2013/10/02/upgrade-to-windows-8-1-pro-and-save-over-120/

<comment><USER2> :P

"Note: That Amazon link to Windows 8 Pro is an affiliate link so I do earn a percentage of all sales through it. Using that link does not increase your purchase costs though and your support of WindowsObserver.com by using it is appreciated."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks NKCSS - I wanted to share this with a lot of folks but also be clear on that link.

This is a great way to get to Windows 8.1 and save quite a few $$$ that I stumbled upon this morning completely by accident.

</comment><comment><USER3> Upgrade to Linux and save $199.99</comment>


Ask HN: A smartwatch that does not send your data God knows where? - <AUTHOR> I do medical research involving wearables / smartwatches and I don't want patients to have to use an app that sends their data to some random, probably foreign, company's server. This is especially problematic within Europe and GDPR because fitness data can be seen as health-related information [1], especially in a medical context.
I am interested in the typical stuff: step counts, (24h) heart rate and possibly sleep detection. Nothing exotic. To conduct my research, I would need to access the data, either because the user sends it to me, or (better) I can build myself an app that retrieve the data via Bluetooth or a local file or a database of some sort (e.g. HealthKit).
So I am looking for a wearable that either a) has its own app, but keeps the data locally (and makes it accessible) or b) has a known Bluetooth protocol I can access with my app or c) is programmable. The device must be compatible with both Android and iOS, because we want to use patients' phones.
I am really struggling to find one.
[1] https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/15-05-21_mhealth_en_0.pdf <comment><USER2> Apple Watch. Leverage HealthKit/ResearchKit. [https://www.apple.com/researchkit/](https://www.apple.com/researchkit/)

High quality sensors. Data is encrypted e2e

<comment><AUTHOR> I need compatibility with Android, so the Apple watch is a no go

<comment><USER3> You can check here some great watch perfectly compatibility with Android [https://www.smartwatchpicks.com/best-standalone- smartwatch/](https://www.smartwatchpicks.com/best-standalone-smartwatch/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you considered the Bangle.js from Espruino ([https://www.espruino.com/Bangle.js](https://www.espruino.com/Bangle.js))?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, I have pre-ordered one in fact. I hope it will be of enough quality for my research!

<comment><USER4> I did encounter another but as I understand it, it is intended for developers only [1].

[1] [https://www.pine64.org/pinetime/](https://www.pine64.org/pinetime/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You should check the project gadgetbridge[1]. Its aim is close to what you want to achieve : an opensource app to retrieve data and monitor without sending it god know where. I have used it for 2 years now with an amazfit bip, which was never sync with the official app, not even once. The project is really active, with roughtly a new release every month.

[1][https://gadgetbridge.org/](https://gadgetbridge.org/)

<comment> m-p-3 I considered to Amazfit Bip and while shopping I saw the Amazfit Bip Lite. One thing I've read is that Amazfit/Huami/Xiaomi started putting a server-side activation on their newer devices, so I'm not sure I want to passively reward that kind of behaviour by buying their hardware..

[https://codeberg.org/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge/wiki/Huami-...](https://codeberg.org/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge/wiki/Huami- Server-Pairing)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A Garmin running watch with non-default settings should be able to meet your requirements.</comment>


Ask HN: Apple webserver hardware - <AUTHOR>

I am trying to decide what type of hardware to buy to use as a personal webserver.  I am an Apple guy, so my initial thought was to go with a Mac mini.  Is there value in going with a laptop instead?  Yes it is more expensive, but it also seems like a more compartmentalized solution as well.  Regarding the mini, is it worth it to spend an extra $400 for the server version that comes with OS X Server? <comment><USER2> I don't have the mini, but I'm running os x 1.4 server on an old G4 xserve. Coming from a graphic design/mac background, the initial server setup was dead simple. The workgroup and server admin tools are excellent and allow you to administer every function of the server remotely. It ships with Apache, tomcat and jboss and mysql, etc. and provides nice interfaces to administer all services. When I bought the xserve it was running server 10.2, I considered updating it to a regular 10.4 or linux install, but found the tools and other utilities (and stability) convenient enough to purchase a copy of 10.4 server. Hope that helps.

All said, I love my mac server :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm using a mini for a server in the home office. Basically, it's just a file server but I do have Tomcat and MySQL on there as well. Like the other poster said, it's dead simple to set up and work with.</comment>


Ioke programming language - <AUTHOR> https://ioke.org/

<comment><USER2> Be aware that the project is untouched for 3 years and in no way production- ready.

That said, I've seen Ola speak about Ioke at a conference and found many aspects of it very intriguing. Every programming language nerd should at least read the very extensive guide: [https://ioke.org/wiki/index.php/Guide](https://ioke.org/wiki/index.php/Guide)

<comment><USER3> Damn, I thought it getting posted here meant it was active again.

That said, at least Io, which Ioke is partly based off of, is somewhat active: [https://github.com/stevedekorte/io](https://github.com/stevedekorte/io)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The homepage is also mirrored on GitHub (in case the original link is down): [http://olabini.github.io/ioke/](http://olabini.github.io/ioke/)

The GitHub repository: [https://github.com/olabini/ioke](https://github.com/olabini/ioke)

GitHub group: [https://github.com/Ioke](https://github.com/Ioke)

Game of life example: [https://github.com/maryrosecook/gameoflife](https://github.com/maryrosecook/gameoflife)

</comment><comment><USER4> He also announced another language, Seph, which was supposed to be a more production friendly version of Ioke. It looks like it might also be defunct. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seph_(programming_language)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seph_\(programming_language\))

<comment><USER2> Well... "Seph is a language experiment for the slightly crazy lunatic" (README)

I respect his way of openly experimenting with such things. They are a great read, if only just for inspiration.

<comment><USER5> Ola's a super-smart dude and the language is well worth exploring––I learned a lot from playing with Ioke. One of the coolest parts of it is his experiments with translations––in a language with zero keywords and a very small core, creating user translations into (say) Hindi becomes extremely straightforward. There's a rarely-explored opportunity there to bring programming to non- English speakers around the world.

<comment><USER6> for what is worth, VBA has had keyword translations for decades, and I've actually seen people use SE..FINE SE.

Interestingly enough, ALGOL68 already supported localized keywords.

The problem is you need to translate all the core language, not only keywords, e.g. list map(root) fold(plus) -> elenco mappa(radice) ripiega(più).

Supporting localized keywords in a parser would be relatively straightforward and a much smaller job than translating the whole standard library in something intelligible, I believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like his idea of something he calls "folding language":

> Ioke is a folding language. This means it folds in on itself. You can create > new abstractions covering any of the existing abstractions in the language. > You can abstract over these, over and over again, until you have a language > that lets you express what you want to express in a succinct and readable > way. Ioke allows you to fold your code.

But I'd love to see more: language that could eventually unfold into other language source code. It would allow coding in high level languages where just using other compiler is rather not possible.

For example OpenCL - adding good abstractions would make GPU programming much easier. Or generating Java code - so one could write code in something more concise, without having whole team to do the same or even adding other language runtime JRE.

There could even be common abstractions for many target programming language, allowing to write algorithm once and then just translate it (browser + server data validation anyone? there are attempts to use translations to JavaScript from various languages, but why try emulating existing languages complex behaviour in JS instead of creating language specifically designed for translation?).

Related term is probably Concept Programming [1], with interesting presentation slides [2] in external links.

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

[2] [http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept%20Programming%20Presentat...](http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept%20Programming%20Presentation.pdf)</comment>


Conservation of Intent: why A/B tests aren't as effective as they look - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/conservation-of-intent/ <comment><USER3> A/B tests tell you about short term gains, but don't tell you about long term issues you may be accumulating due to things like dark patterns, clickbait headlines, shoddy article topics and more. A/B tests don't take into account the loss of prestige or reputation that the options give.

I've seen this repeatedly with ArsTechnica, which has devolved into so much political and clickbait material that I don't even really visit anymore. Yes, I'm guity myself of clicking on those articles when I do visit, but at a certain point I've found that Ars doesn't have the news I'm after, so I turn elsewhere and now Ars has one less viewer.

<comment><USER4> What's the alternative to A/B testing? Everywhere I've worked, design teams hate A/B testing, but suggest "trust us we know what we're doing" as the alternative.

A/B/n testing let's you explore a search space. There are issues that can come up from that, but IMO it's a better option than this Dilbert comic[0].

[0] [http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-10-27](http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-10-27)

<comment><USER5> A/B testing is a great tool for incrementally improving upon a product design given the correct business strategy. Just don't let the limitations of A/B testing drive how you choose your business strategy. The strategy is ultimately about maximizing total profit, and not necessarily short term profit per user.

<comment><USER4> How do you create a discipline around making good decisions for business strategy? I've seen "highest paid person" win, I've seen "Most vocal" win, I've seen "5 versus 1" win.

The testing advocates I've worked with have an attitude of "I don't know what will work - that's why we're testing". I have not seem much of that attitude from most other individuals/teams involved in decision making -- they have preferred to say "this will work", and get angry when I say, "compared to what? how do you know?"

edit - fwiw, I totally agree with understanding the limitations of testing. You have to know what it can be good for. My argument is that it's actually better for long term strategy than most other decision making processes I have experienced, which usually boils down to "gut based".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I could not disagree with this more. I remember vividly having this "low- intent" vs "high-intent" debate at Thumbtack, when we rolled out changes that A/B tests showed increased conversion (by a lot), but some people in the company thought the changes were ugly and "off-brand" and argued they brought in the wrong type of customers. So we ran the test again that we knew raised conversion by a lot, and then followed the 2 cohorts of customers and watched their behavior. The control group vs the 10% more from whatever the test was that increased conversion. They behaved exactly the same. They came back again at the same rates. They made the same amount of profit (per customer). Their response rates to emails were the same. They closed jobs at the same rates. As far as we could tell they were identical.

I have to admit I was a little surprised too, but for our business it didn't seem this "high-intent" vs "low-intent" distinction existed. And with that out of the way we continued to optimize conversion rates, and our revenue continued to go up.

Every company is different so I don't want to generalize too much, but if somebody tells me they ran an A/B test that said some key flow went up 10%, but then afterwards the traffic/revenue/whatever didn't go up 10%, I think the most likely candidate is bad test design. Humans are really good at rigging A/B tests to produce wrong results in their favor. I guarantee every single company who isn't maniacal about A/B testing does at least one of the following:

\- Uses a tool to grade A/B tests that isn't statistically sound

\- Let's people check tests too often and allows them to stop the test when it hits a good result

\- Running a test with a lot of similar variations and cherry picking the best one

\- Doesn't plan for enough traffic to detect the percentage of change their test is likely to produce

All of these create the potential for the perceived gains of the A/B test not matching up with real world result.

I'm not saying the distinction between "low-intent" and "high-intent" customers doesn't exist, but it is fairly easy to test for. Do that test for your business and see if that distinction exists. But don't use it as some magical explanation for why your A/B tests aren't producing the results you want as this article suggests.

<comment><USER7> > Let's people check test too often and allows them to stop the test when it > hits a good result

I admit to attempting to be guilty of this in the past and being stopped by our analytics team (in the sense that they took the time to patiently explain to me why what I was doing was statistically unsound). It's not obvious, IMO.

<comment><USER8> Meh.

There is statistics for the purpose of uncovering Truth, and statistics for the purpose of making a business decision. The difference is that when we talk about Truth, a small error is still an error. When we make business decisions, it is fine to make a decision that is probably right, and we know isn't far wrong.

Here is a perfectly valid test procedure that illustrates the difference. Decide the most time you would be willing to spend to get a test result. Multiply that by current conversion rates to get N, the number of conversions that you expect to see by the end of the test.

Start running the test with two variations. Stop at any point if one variation is at least sqrt(N) conversions ahead of the other. Stop at N if there is no clear winner and go with whoever is ahead, even by a hair.

Here are features of this test procedure.

o You always make a decision.

o Running a test has a known fixed cost. You know how long it takes. And a bad idea will cost you no more than sqrt(N) conversions to test.

o The results are very simple and easy to understand.

o Your answers are usually right.

o Your bad decisions are not very bad. If the true conversion rate for one version is better by 1/sqrt(N), you've got a 95% chance of making the right choice. You will probably never make a mistake as big as 2/sqrt(N).

The result is a test procedure that is a horrible approach for doing science, but an excellent tool for improving a business. You'll never find it in a statistics class. And I'm sure it would horrify your analytics team.

<comment><USER9> I mean I think the only reason it would horrify your analytics team is that if you want to do something that sophisticated, you may as well just use a better multi-armed bandit function like Thompson Sampling or UCB-1 (which is very, very similar to what you've described, although more formalized).

So I think its wrong to say that you'd never find it in a stats class.

<comment><USER10> Bandits and A/B are meant for solving very different problem.

In bandit there is a clear explore/exploit trade off. There is no such trade off in the A/B formulation, although it does get used in scenarios that have such trade offs.

If I can pull the lever a finite and small number of times there is a strong incentive for using a bandit. In this case I don't want to pull the wrong lever as few times as possible. On the other hand if I am given an unlimited number of pulls, I can afford to pull the wrong one many times more (still finite) for the sake of 'knowledge' knowing well that I would have infinitely many opportunities to exploit that knowledge.

<comment><USER9> And for a business there always is. In an a/b test that is to improve customer conversion, in a perfect world, you use the superior method on everyone, converting the maximum number of customers. That saves you money.

In other words, the opportunity cost of putting someone in the wrong group creates such a trade-off. You can pull the lever as many times as you want, but each one potentially costs you money. It's textbook bandits.

<comment><USER10> To a large extent I agree with you.

Differences creep in when there is ambiguity and judgement involved on what is that metric that the org wants to optimize. This is fairly common. Typically, in these situations its the PMs who make the final call. There the goal of the experiment protocol is glean as much knowledge as possible, and present it to the PM. The thinking there is -- if that comes at the cost of exposing some customers to bad choices, so be it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The title is misleading relative to the article's content. Surely, as the author points out, sometimes A/B tests can be misleading especially if you ignore longer term cohort analysis, etc.

But often times, if you fix an obviously broken part of your funnel, particularly in the early acquisition stages, you're fixing things that are universally lifting the amount of people who ultimately are able to engage with your brand and product to the point where they can even form intent. The reality is most people are only willing to give you a tiny bit of their time during their first one or two engagements with your brand, so at that stage you're trying to sell them on your product, and build intent. A/B testing helps reduce the friction needed to get them through the core of your sales pitch.

It's easy to come up with a thought experiment that shows A/B testing can sometimes be as simple as you'd imagine: just break the site. Your conversion drops to 0%, now split test the fix. Like magic, your control stays at 0% and your variant returns to normal. Nothing about "intent" in this scenario, this is pure friction resolution. Just a thought experiment, but shows that surely there are plenty of places where pure A/B testing and removing friction is a net positive without any fretting over this "conservation of intent" issue.

</comment><comment><USER12> Slightly relevant but useful: use meditation modeling ([https://eng.uber.com/mediation-modeling/](https://eng.uber.com/mediation- modeling/))

<comment><USER13> This is a nice read. BTW, in case folks get confused, moderators are different from mediators. [http://psych.wisc.edu/henriques/mediator.html](http://psych.wisc.edu/henriques/mediator.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What the article largely discusses seems to be a problem with the metrics one chooses as a proxy.

Let's say you're actually trying to optimize total transaction value on the site or total number of transactions or something like the overall fraction of users with at least one transaction within a certain window of time. Then - <USER2> the article rightly observes - getting users not to bounce on a particular page is a TERRIBLE proxy to what you're optimizing for. If that's not clear to you, you have no business running A/B tests without supervision.

Source: co-designed one iteration of the experimentation framework for Booking.com many years ago. Indirectly managed the team of much more qualified people that took it a world further.

</comment><comment><USER15> One of my coworkers is a trained particle physicist and he informs me he almost never sees properly designed experiments used by our A/B testers. The result is that the testers almost always find what they are looking to find.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think the idea of "high intent" is the same fallacy as the notion of "affordable." We say something is "affordable" because we have "enough" money to buy it, but that's not how people make decisions in aggregate.

The reason economists talk about opportunity cost is because people are constantly optimizing decisions based on new information. (Humans may not deal with prices and numbers very well, but they're pretty well evolved to break time into chunks and work out plans to solve problems.)

If you talk to an individual, they might say "I can't afford it," or you may talk to someone who didn't click through and they might say, "I was just browsing." The fallacy behind both is you're creating archetypes and assuming they represent the modes of the population.

And even if you talk to the individuals you based those archetypes on, there is a whole history behind how they arrived at "I can't afford it." Those changing circumstances are why the aggregate behavior doesn't show some arbitrary level of "affordability," and instead you see a smooth curve of consumer demand.

And the opportunity cost of continuing to view a web page will not have neatly quantized levels of intent, but rather individuals have a broad array of competing interests.

</comment><comment><USER17> > You ship an experiment that's +10% in your conversion funnel. Then your > revenue/installs/whatever goes up by +10% right? Wrong :( Turns out usually > it goes up a little bit, or maybe not at all.

Never mind "The difference between high- and low-intent users", this could be explained in terms of regression-toward-the-mean, a phenomenon mention in neither the article, nor the discussion here.

Have 1000 students do an IQ test. Pick the top 20 students. Have them do another IQ test next week. Their mean score second time round will almost certainly be lower than their mean score first time round. The reason they made the top 20 the first time round was a combination of having a high true IQ, and being lucky on the day. Second time round, they aren't 'defined to be lucky', as it were.

It's the reason movie sequels tend to be worse than the original. The reason the sequel was made was that the original movie was far more successful than the average movie, on account of both unusually skillful creators, and unusually good luck. Second time round, you can't count on the luck component again.

</comment><comment><USER18> Totally true, I list count of people coming from the web/startupey scene A/B testing their companies/business units into insolvency

</comment><comment> a-dub Frustration is not linear. Film at 11.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wait, so you're telling me the laziest form of scientific analysis, the A/B test, doesn't produce accurate results? Colour me shocked.

A/B tests routinely leave out important observations, have way too small a scope, uncontrolled populations, I could go on... they run the gamut of anti- patterns.

<comment><USER20> ....and criticising statistics is the laziest kind of scientific criticism....

A/B tests are fine. They work. They allow inference of causality. They are easy to understand, and can be fun to run. They get you 90% of wherever you want to go, and such over-the-top criticism just seems like badly executed pretentiousness.

<comment><USER19> You're partly right - a scientific endeavor to figure out the color of a button would be over-the-top, because it's not _that_ important.

But to the article's point, if you're running banking software or something, your users don't give a shit what the button colours are; they will slog through whatever you develop because they _need_ to get stuff done.

A/B tests are a small tool that sometimes get taken too far or used in the wrong context.

<comment><USER21> 'Taken too far or used in the wrong context' \- sure.

In the language of this article, banking app users are mostly all 'high intent'. But that doesn't mean you can't evaluate criteria other than users who completed the workflow to determine what is a design improvement. You can still measure time to completion, how long it took the user from entering the workflow to completing a given task as a measure, and play with the design. Optimize the things users are doing the most, that sort of thing. A/B testing can help you there. It's not the be all end all; you still need sound UX design to figure out what designs to test out, but it can give you measurable data as to what works, rather than just UX gut feeling, or purely lab based results which don't reflect reality.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


First official HTML5 tests topped by...Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/w3c_html5_conformance_tests/

<comment><USER2>
        The tests do not yet cover web workers, the file API,
        local storage, or other aspects of the spec.

So IE9 is the leader of the pack in a test that doesn't test the features it's missing?

The fact that I'm _still_ surprised that IE leads even in this horrible "test" shows how little faith I have in Microsoft's browser-making skills.

Here's a fairer comparison: <http://findmebyip.com/litmus/>

<comment><AUTHOR> I have no idea who findmebyip is. While the w3c tests aren't complete, I wouldn't say they're not fair. It's not like MS owns them, or even remotely controls them to the degree that Apple or Google do.

The problem with some arbitrary org is you don't know what their agenda is. For example ACID3 was a test largely cherry-picked to hit items that IE wasn't doing well in. Not a general test suite.

So is findmebyip a good test suite? I don't know. But until then I'm fine looking at the w3c.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What does "No Result" mean? It doesn't seem to be explained on any of the linked pages, and makes no intuitive sense to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question. The only thing I could think is if a test requires some other test to complete, but since the other didn't pass, it blocked this test from being run...

A complete guess on my part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sadly we will all still be held back in using HTML5 by Microsoft's previous attempts at a browser.</comment>


What's the best way to spend $20K to help the common good? - <AUTHOR> https://80000hours.org/2015/06/whats-the-best-way-to-spend-20000-to-help-the-common-good/ <comment><USER4> Another important aspect might be to consider how the $20k was obtained in the first place. What resources were consumed to generate that wealth? What pollution was generated? Which parts of society benefited, and which did not?

Here is a contrived example:

Suppose you obtained $20k by applying your skills as a consultant where you helped some business make an additional $200k profit by more effectively advertising their products.

Suppose that business has a profit of 20% for each item they sell, so you've actually lifted their revenue by $1m.

Now, suppose these products are essentially useless consumer products that will go out of fashion within 1 year.

I claim without evidence that the environmental impact of producing, advertising, distributing and disposing of $1m of useless products may, in many cases, be well in excess of how much of that impact you could attempt to reverse with a $20k budget.

So, another option is to consider is that the world may be better off if you didn't earn that $20k in the first place. It very much depends on the direct and indirect effects of how you did it.

edit: I am curious if I am copping the odd down-vote because this argument is complete nonsense (in which case please help me modify my beliefs!) or simply because I mention something that is perhaps uncomfortable to reflect upon. I claim no moral high ground here.

<comment><USER5> When people try to make these judgements you end up repeating the mistakes of communism, where (e.g.) very good research into genetics and psychology was abandoned because people thought it wouldn't be useful, and resources were wasted producing old manufactured goods (inefficient machines and the like) that no-one wanted.

Even if in this one example the $20k was obtained through a net negative action, overall it seems like the invisible hand is better at allocating resources than well-intentioned human judgement. So the best strategy for the world, as counterintuitive as it seems, is to blindly do whatever makes you the most money.

<comment><USER6> You should read about negative externalities. If everyone did whatever would make them the most money, the net effect would be to exploit as many resources and turn them into waste at an ever increasing speed, since the goal is simply to increase the money velocity. The result would be a population explosion and crash.

Looking at the graph of the human population, are you so sure the efficiency of capitalism is sustainable?

<comment><USER5> Sure; there are specific cases where capitalism doesn't work well and other approaches are better. I see what I wrote goes further than I intended. What I meant to say was that in the general, overall average case capitalism works best. But "blindly" was overstating it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I did a stint in a rural bangladeshi hospital while a medical student.

I went on an outreach camp with an opthalmologist. In one village we saw dozens of elderly people partially or fully blind from cataracts. None of them could afford the surgery. I asked the opthalmologist how much the operation was and he said "$40 each", so I said "ok choose the 20 people who need this operation the most and ill give you the $800". They put 20 of them in minivans and took them to the hospital the next day and all 20 got their operations. Had a whole ward of really delighted people.

<comment> J-dawg I've seen fundraising campaigns from the big charities (Oxfam, Unicef etc) where they put a price on different interventions. E.g. £5 buys a dose of medicine, £10 vaccinates a child, £50 buys a goat for a family, etc.

I've often found this sort of fundraising slightly off-putting because it implies that there is literally a line of people waiting to be vaccinated, and they're just waiting for your money before they can move on to the next child. I find this scenario hard to believe, and I think the over-simplification is patronising.

However you've described a situation where there literally was a line of people waiting for cataract operations, and your donation had an incredible impact on 20 people's lives.

It would be great if there were easier ways to donate money directly to people like you did. Donating money via huge organisations that employ hundreds of people in developed countries seems like an incredibly inefficient way of doing it.

To put it another way, I'm sure most people would rather pay for 20 cataract surgeries for 20 real people than 20 notional goats

<comment> saiya-jin street wisdom (or they...) says that roughly 95% of charity/help donations go to management and delivery of those donations, and only 5% is spent on actual goods (be it medicine, blanket, food etc.) that help people. it seems a bit over-the top statement, but then you realize how massive organizations (or corporations?) like UN are, employing thousands and thousands of people in most expensive parts of the world (New York, Geneva... seriously WTF?).

Here in Geneva, there are gazillions of non-profit orgs, then there are various organizations grouping those non profits and so on. Still talking about one of most expensive cities in the world. Yes, those people probably don't have private bank-levels of salary, but I know a people or two who are curently buying high-priced properties over the border in France, so they are more than OK.

Friend in quite high position in Red cross hates UN with passion, stating they are useless in real crysis scenarios, just bureaucrats etc. Not sure if that's an objective statement, but there is probably at least some truth there.

What I decided to do, at least for now - Amnesty International. Rather than putting bandage where bleeding, it might lead to improvement of system. And I pay directly organization of lawyers who actually try to do good stuff, not bureaucrats who travel all around the world and check some spreadsheets and do presentations.

But what one poster says here is probably one of best things - directly invest into treating people, no useless middlemen who, like it or not, also need to be payed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You could always find someone you like and give it to them ;) [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569](http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569)

In seriousness, GiveWell ranks charities by their effectiveness. You could give to one of their top charities: [http://www.givewell.org/charities/top- charities](http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities) "These are evidence-backed, thoroughly vetted, underfunded organizations."

Edit: (in reference to z3ugma's comment) further down that page is actually a charity whose mission is to aid salt iodization programmes in developing countries. I honestly had no idea this was even an issue until now.

<comment><AUTHOR> GiveWell is great, and I seriously considered making "give to GiveWell recommended charities" the recommendation of the article. However, I think it's even better to give to the Open Philanthropy Project (a collaboration between GiveWell and Good Ventures) or to give to GiveWell itself, rather than their recommended charities (which has the effect of increasing OpenPhil's funds). It depends on the extent to which you share GiveWell's values though.

<comment><USER9> It's only 20 grand. As I tried to mention below, aim higher. You've got the nerds running around in the weeds here on HN.

This other story on HN is not gaining any traction but it's interesting because a 33 year old Malayasian billionaire is financing using Watson to assist with cancer treatment.

"[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons- next-feat-taking-on-cancer/)

"Jho Low, the 33-year-old billionaire who is bankrolling the $50 million MD Anderson project with Watson, said the effort grew out of his grandfather's treatment for leukemia in Malaysia. Low said that he felt fortunate to be able to connect his grandfather's doctors remotely with MD Anderson specialists to devise the best treatment plan. He believes everyone, rich or poor, should have the same access to that kind of expertise."

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're a young personal at the start of your career, then I agree it could easily make more sense to invest it in yourself (e.g. education, trying out a startup, graduate school).

<comment><USER10> Whole-heartedly agreed. Until you have more money than you know what to do with, the expected social returns from just about everywhere you put your money would be far dwarfed by the returns you'd get from investing in yourself and giving back once you've got enough piled up to where it doesn't matter one whit whether you have it or not.

<comment><USER11> That doesn't make sense to me. If you give money to poorer people, it allows them to invest in themselves at a higher rate of return than you can achieve.

<comment><USER12> No; ten people accruing compound interest (for example) on $100 is not nearly as good as one person accruing compound interest on $1000, and then distributing the dividends. Why? Because fixed costs eat away the interest gains of the ten much more than the one.

Every system has friction. You have to concentrate power to overcome friction and get things done. We'd be knocking off the world's problems a lot faster if we could "focus fire" on them. Ten diseases that might each take a decade to cure with 1/10th the donation could be solved half the time or less if each disease got a year of _all_ the donations. But charity is more about signalling your clever pet cause than global optimization of future world- states, so nobody will let go of their second-best (or, realistically, 897th- best) charity.

<comment><USER11> If it is indeed socially optimal to concentrate wealth, then we should advocate a regressive tax policy and encourage the poor to donate to the upper middle class.

Do you know of published research that supports this conclusion? I'm honestly curious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's probably shipping $20,000 of iodized salt to the developing world:

Iodine deficiency is a leading cause of preventable mental impairment, as iodine is a micronutrient crucial to brain development. An estimated 2 billion people-- almost a third of the earth's population--have low iodine intake and are at risk for suffering from the complications of iodine deficiency.

Eradication of iodine deficiency is highly cost-effective— worldwide, the cost of salt iodization per year is estimated at $0.02-0.05 per child covered, and the cost per child's death averted is $1000 and per disability-adjusted life year gained is $34-36.

<comment><USER14> What about delivery? Without a delivery mechanism to those who need it this would be a well meaning but not very useful.

<comment><USER15> haha, well I think that was implied. It's not as if you can literally write "the developing world" on a shipping label and just pour in a ton of morton's.

I agree that the advice given is overly vague. GP should list an _actionable_ way to to give iodized salt.

<comment><USER16> How about just sending the iodine and let them iodize their existing salt supplies?

<comment><USER15> flaws:

1\. same 'who do I write on the shipping label' concern

2\. assumes a sufficient existing salt supply (perhaps these people already needed salt, so this aid healed two birds with one bandaid)

3\. assumes knowledge about proper iodization (ratios, sanitation, etc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Use it to lobby people of influence to release even more funds for your hobby- horse charity. More abstract; use it to fund the creation of a site that's a merger of Getup.org and Kickstarter so that we can crowd-source lobbying. That way the common person can compete with the petrochemical and military industrial companies by dropping a dollar or ten on their chosen hobby-horse issue. Small donations multiplied by many participants will result in considerable funds.

Politicians are an interface to policy and money is the API.

<comment><USER18> There's a rule of thumb called the Tullock Paradox that suggests the ROI from lobbying is stupidly large, though no one is really sure why.

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

On the other hand, and this is something I've always felt about Bill Gates, I'd need to see a full economic accounting of all the loss to global society from their monopolostic rent-seeking behaviour, before I'd believe that their giving the profits away to charity would counterbalance that behaviour.

<comment><USER19> So you believe the whole of Microsoft's contribution to the world has been a net negative?

It seems to me they've made possible for countless businesses to do their day- to-day work more efficiently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I always liked the idea of Benjamin Franklin's two century trust.

In 1790 when he died, he left £1,000 each to the cities of Boston and Philly, to be kept in trust for 100 years. There was supposed to be £130,000 by 1890, of which £100,000 would be spent, and another £30,000 left to compound for another 100 years. [1]

Even after a significant distribution in 1890, the funds distributed about $7 million to the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in 1990. The original investment was about $80,000 (for both cities) in today's dollars. [2]

[1] - [http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_ph...](http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/what_miracle_of_compound_interest)

[2] - [http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.ht...](http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.htm)

</comment><comment><USER21> Instead of getting a more efficient car, how about spending it on moving somewhere where you don't need a car? That $20k could go towards a more expensive home that is closer to downtown or public transport links.

As a European who has lived in cities with pretty decent public transport for the last 10+ years (I lived in the countryside before that), it's mind boggling to me that most American cities are so car-centric.

<comment><USER22> Something to think about with cars and trucks is Americans love to spend thousands to save tens.

So the best way to spend $20K on vehicles is probably $20K of delivery services / delivery truck drivers in order to obtain some economy of scale effects. Hauling 800 pounds of dirt in a small hybrid is bad, spending $25K extra to buy a truck to avoid the home depot $19 rental truck is worse, but best of all is spending $100 to have the giant home depot truck deliver it next time it swings by, repeated 200 times.

Also $20K of purchasing in bulk to eliminate extra trips. The best way to drive to walmart to buy a 4-pack of toilet paper that you just ran out of, is not a 8 mpg truck or a 10 mpg SUV or even an electric car, but to spend a little more $$$ up front to buy the giant pack of toilet paper to avoid running out and eliminate making an extra trip in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I had the opportunity to speak with some Bangladeshi labor organizers who help workers organize unions in the textile factories there. It sounds like they are doing some great work[0][1]. Organizers' salaries are apparently well under five hundred USD per month, and they are on the front lines of a struggle against the global wage race to the bottom and unsafe working conditions. There are some organizations I've worked with in the US that have connections with some of them, and I am strongly considering to these groups in Bangladesh.

The main question is whether or not this will simply lead to these jobs being pushed to even poorer countries with even lower wages -- though that would probably help those poorer countries.

0: [http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/](http://www.ranaplaza- arrangement.org/) Compensation to victims of the Rana Plaza factory disaster.

1: [http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh- garme...](http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garment- industry/2744414.html) "Since 2010, the number of active garment industry unions grew from seven to 200. They represent some 150,000 workers."

</comment><comment><USER24> Charged at $200/hr, $20k = 100 hours.

Keep the money for yourself, and spend 100 hours of your time talking to a poor person. Help them find a better job, or make a better financial plan, or eat healthier, or just listen to what they have to say and tell them they can call you if they need someone.

This is by far the biggest impact a person like Paul Buchheit could make on the world. Even if his $20k could go 100% to a better water bottle in Africa, or a more efficient hybrid, or whatever, it will pale in comparison to how he could personally change someone's life if he walked up to them and took the time to try.

So go blow $20k at the club or on a cool car, after you've earned it by hitting the streets and solving your neighbor's problems for 100 hours. Someday your neighbors might do the same ;)

<comment><USER25> I'm sorry, if you're serious, this is the most entitled and egotistical suggestion I've ever read in my life, it's kind of shocking. The best way to spend $20K charitably is to bill oneself $200/hr and spend 100 hours sharing one's massive brain with homeless people by giving them... a talking? (While, again, billing $200/hour for it.)

Then spend that well-earned money on hookers and blow? You've made a difference?

Honestly... words fail me.

<comment><USER24> You miss the point :)

I don't think it's helpful to others to go clubbing, in fact it's not an activity I'd do myself if I had that much money (nor would I waste money on a car).

My point is that the $20k can't help someone as much as you can personally.

<comment><USER26> So someone who is homeless and forced to beg or commit petty theft in order to eat would appreciate a chat more than $20k? You should try that and mention you're paying yourself $200 an hour because you think that's better for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I would make STEM kits for $20 each (common lab compounds, electronic components, microcontroller, lenses, list of online resources, etc.) I would give them to high school kids rather than the younger kids they're usually geared towards. Make it a little bit edgy - high schoolers love fire we all know this - not like a bit of rocket candy is more dangerous that whatever else they have access to. If they want the next kit they pay $20, but they also have to give the previous kit to a noob first. The second kit would how them how to get all the components/compounds they need generally free or cheap.

</comment><comment><USER28> One thing this article didn't mention is giving money towards research. There's no lack of underfunded labs filled with scientists researching rarer diseases or unique approaches to humanitarian issues. 20K could go a long way in helping these smaller labs. It would take some searching and talking on the giver's end to find the right cause and scientists he or she trusts, but it wouldn't be too hard with the powers of the internet.

<comment><USER15> I have a lab that's trying to find a way to use beer consumption to prevent cancer.

But seriously, make sure to find an objective measurement of a research topic's plausibility before you give the money. There's no lack of research projects where a donation is statistically identical to setting the money on fire.

<comment><USER28> > There's no lack of research projects where a donation is statistically > identical to setting the money on fire.

Very very true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you want to be utilitarian about it, maximizing common good derived from a modest donation, then pick (a) the venture that will produce the greatest gain in common good if implemented, and (b) an organization with a low administrative overhead that is in your opinion doing a good job of making progress towards (a). That is the 80/20 calculation. You'll never know if you got it right, but it has the best chance of doing something rather than nothing.

For my money, (a) is ending degenerative aging by periodic repair of that damage that causes it, and (b) is the SENS Research Foundation. There is no other single cause of death and suffering as large as the biological wear and tear that causes degeneration and death in aging. There is no other organization I know of that will definitely put all donations to research, advocacy, and scientific organization relating to this task. There are other single-disease or single-field patient advocate and research organizations out there that do a little work relevant to age-related damage, but you've got no way to ensure a donation as small as a few thousand dollars will actually go to the aging-relevant 1% of what they do. Even cancer and stem cell fields are doing a large amount of work that has no bearing on the best path forward.

In fact I'm personally donating $25K to the SENS Research Foundation this year, and running a matching campaign in search of others willing to do the same.

There are other options for using modest amounts of money that are more of a lottery; use your money to persuade other people to give money, try to grow your money to give later, etc, etc. But these are much more unreliable, or for a few thousand dollars just not even worth trying versus outright donation to a cause.

<comment><USER30> Planning to give later is a VERY effective use of money for early career professionals (who will be able to make stable investments over long periods of time and then give larger payouts when their own situations are more stable as well) or people who do not as strongly believe in a given cause as you do (who can wait until the causes they believe in are more stable or until they have researched more sufficiently).

I have a retirement portfolio and a wealth building portfolio. The latter is currently funded by my credit cards cash back policy, aggressively seeks market gains, and forms the basis of my personal philanthropic efforts. My giving currently focuses on arts organizations and local community development, as that's a personal passion. My long term giving is hunger focused, where a $50 donation is less meaningful and it makes sense for me to grow my money first.

<comment><USER31> > My long term giving is hunger focused, where a $50 donation is less > meaningful and it makes sense for me to grow my money first.

Why is it less meaningful?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Invest in a startup. This is better than investing in the S&P500. The > expected return is higher.

Is that actually true, or is the author using some meaning of the phrase "expected return" that isn't common?

<comment><USER33> My understanding is that it isn't even true for professional startup investors, and they have preferential access to dealflow that your $20,000 doesn't.

<comment><USER34> The median return is certainly lower, but the _expected_ return at least should be higher. So most startup investments, and probably most startup investors will fail, but some will succeed spectacularly. The point is, if everyone who is interested in investing to eventually donate did so by investing in startups, their aggregate returns _should_ be higher than if they invested in the S&P or whatever instead - so it's superior even if most of them end up with a negative return. (As opposed to when you're investing to fund your own retirement, in which case you don't so much care how others' investments go.)

<comment><USER33> My understanding is that the median _fund_ underperforms the S&P, and that investment managers at pension funds and endowments put money into VC funds because their strategies require them to put a slice of money into that asset class.

And, again: that's the outcome for investors that have preferred access to dealflow.

<comment><USER34> I don't have evidence to back up my assertion - only the theory that in an efficient market riskier assets should be priced appropriately. So I don't know for a fact that the expected return is higher. That said, the fact that the median fund underperforms the S&P doesn't necessarily prove that the expected return on an individual startup investment will do so. For one thing, funds will have overhead - probably significant overhead in startup investing. (Of course, they provide valuable diversification, but as mentioned above, that shouldn't be the priority in this particular case.) Also, even if the median fund underforms before costs, the average might still outperform, if the winners are relatively concentrated.

<comment><USER35> The application of the EMH to a market as overhyped, information-poor and illiquid a market as startup investment is questionable. And another consequence of competitive markets is that funds with board seats, insider information and ability to negotiate preferential terms based on expected follow-on investment take on less risk than you when investing, but they shape the market prices for the asset.

$20k is friends & family or crowdfunding money, and I suspect that whilst there will be some winners, the median return on those asset classes will be -100%

<comment><USER34> All good points. And I agree that the median return will likely be -100%. Honestly I think you're probably right that even the average return will probably be underwhelming, even if theoretically it shouldn't be. I am curious though. I certainly wouldn't invest my money in startups on the theory that on average I would end up with more to donate, even if I intended to donate 100% of the proceeds regardless...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What's really interesting is that if you are (far) less intelligent than the average person you should almost certainly destroy it (assuming you can't just give it to someone smarter than you.)

This assures you don't do something stupid and guarantees everyone else is at least a tiny bit better off (because their money is now worth more).

<comment><USER31> `Burning' the cash is actually an interesting idea. Especially if you think inflation is a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to directly (rather than indirectly) improve the environment, you don't get what your are doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's true it's another effect, but I doubt it means hybrid cars win e.g. it seems you could have a greater impact by speeding up the development of hybrid cars just by giving the $20,000 in cash directly to Toyota.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> If I had the money, I think I'd give half to my local primary school. They could do with some books and PCs.

The other half I spend in Uganda, I'd just do random acts of kindness. Buy medicine for someone, school books for a kid. Shoes or clothed for someone else. Would be a really fun way to spend the money.

Rich people seem so clinical about their money. Get yer hands dirty, talk to some people in need.

<comment><USER39> These rich people are trying to do something impactful and sustainable, not just personally entertaining "poverty porn"

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The article states "Indeed, you may be able to offset a ton of CO2 for as little as $1" and also: "... If we were to use the mean rather than the median estimate, we would get a social cost of carbon of $48 per metric ton of CO2." So for every $1 spent, you can save society a cost of $48? A 4,800% social return on your money seems pretty good!

</comment><comment><USER41> How about spending financial wealth on an educational program that redefines wealth? I've started studying what Arthur Brock is doing and am trying to implement it into my alternative economics startup as much as possible. You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars...It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate.

[http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning- ne...](http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-new-economy)

<comment><USER31> > It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma > can be extracted and selling it at market rate.

That certainly puts a floor under the value of a human being.

> You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars

Why not?

<comment><USER41> The point is that this is the value obtained through extraction. There are other values that are non-financial that are not being calculated into the equation.

Trees are ecosystems. Human beings are ecosystems. They interact in incredibly complex ways with their external ecosystems.

To answer more simply, you can't break down the Co2 into dollar-value because it isn't the only value that a tree has. It has an incredible amount of all kinds of values. It helps create shade for other types of plants to grow, so we need to factor that in. It creates a habitat for certain insects that help with pollination. Those insects help keep away another type of insect that are bad for reasons X, Y, Z. The relationship is so vast and complicated, that to simply say, a tree is worth $40,000 is judging it by the wrong qualities.

It's like judging Einstein's Theory of Relativity based on the amount of words, but not on the ideas that are created when someone reads it and is inspired to create something new. Or judging a healthy diet simply by the amount of calories. It just doesn't work like that in the real world. The financial extraction of value is based on limited qualifiers that do not take into account the complexity of true-to-life value.

<comment><USER31> Putting a label of a certain monetary value on things doesn't deny that there's other value judgements to be made.

How do you decide which tree to cut down? Or whether to cut down a tree or break a stone?

<comment><USER41> Well, by taking into account all of the potential value judgments, then utilizing the ones most relevant to your decision, acknowledging the short- comings of your decision and making good on them.

Acknowledge - 100 values that Tree A brings. 85 values that Tree B brings. Judge - 12 values from Tree A are relevant to our decision. 8 values from Tree B are relevant to our decision. Cons - 3 values are really important that we should rectify for Tree A. 5 values for Tree B. Make Good - 1 value of Tree A cannot be replicated. All values of Tree B can be replicated. Conclusion - <USER2> down Tree B. Benefit from it. Make good on 5 values that are important.

I literally made up this decision-making on the spot, but if I put more than 30 seconds into it, I think I can refine it and make it applicable to a lot of spots. Yes, they would require qualitative thinking and are more complicated than a simple monetary equation, but it considers all of the externalities of our decisions beyond financial gain/loss and that was my initial point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> You could always check that box on your tax form that says you wish to make an additional contribution. That is, assuming taxes benefit the common good.

I'm sure the money will be spent wisely.

<comment><USER43> 501(c)3 non-profits are tax deductible.

I'd recommend [http://machineproject.com/](http://machineproject.com/) for the HN crowd

Also funding for workshops/education through makerspace type groups.

Also funding for clean water infrastructure in 3rd world regions.

<comment><USER44> I've been struggling with this a little bit - my income / spending currently results in me taking the standard deductible, so I'm not able to take advantage of this tax deduction. Therefore, it makes the most sense for me to hold off on donating, and save the money until I'm not taking the standard deduction, and then donate it all at once.

I've been shuffling money off into a separate savings account every month to get into the habit, and then I plan to use the balance of this account once I am in a situation where I am able to take advantage of this tax deduction. I do still donate money out of this account, just not a substantial account.

edit: I went back and read the article now :) - this chart [0] was helpful. If you're at the beginning of your career, this makes the argument for holding off on significant donation even stronger.

[0] [https://3d4k2r1b9zry49ki142owdm5-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://3d4k2r1b9zry49ki142owdm5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/Now-vs-Later-flowchart4.png)

<comment><USER30> I do a similar thing, but I have a fairly aggressive portfolio on Betterment that I store my eventual philanthropy in. I fund it out of my credit card's cash back, and unexpected extra income. It's very frustrating to not be able to take advantage of tax deductible gifts seemingly just because I don't own a home!

<comment><USER44> If you donate the investment directly to a non-profit, you will be able to deduct the full value of the investment, and won't have to pay capital gains on it.

Keeping the money in an investment account is a fairly good idea - I should have enough by the end of the year to make this worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Sounds very high minded. I'd research and find a need in your local community. Find some group doing good work already and allow them to expand.

Maybe it's a bigger kitchen for a group feeding the poor. Or a bigger office for college kids that are tutoring kids in math. If you take some time you will find something that has personal meaning for you.

<comment><USER30> As a sibling commenter somewhat flippantly notes, orgs like GiveWell, 80,000 hours (publisher of the post), Centre for Effective Altruism, and Giving What We Can are all focused on highly effective non-personal philanthropy. They are targeted toward "logical givers" and "impact investors" who do not need the sort of donor centric language and personal touches that many NPOs rely on for their fund development strategies.

This can be seen by orgs like OpenPhil that won't even take unsolicited minor donations.

These are orgs that are supporting "truly altruistic" giving, and trying to remove the personal connection from giving. These organization tend to use lines of thinking that remind me personally (though may or may not be inspired by) Mylan Engel and "Taking Hunger Seriously" ([http://www.niu.edu/engel/_pdf/TakingHungerSeriously.pdf](http://www.niu.edu/engel/_pdf/TakingHungerSeriously.pdf))

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> There's a crisis-pregnancy center a block from where I live (in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA). I do volunteer work there, and one of my friends is their director of child-care:

[https://www.ourladysinn.org/](https://www.ourladysinn.org/)

They do great work helping poor women in Saint Louis and their already-born children through difficult times. In addition to food, shelter and other basics, they provide professional counseling (many of their clients struggle with drug addiction) and try to help their clients get a solid footing with respect to employment and a safe place to live after they finish the program (about six weeks to several months after their child is born). Great attention is given to making sure the clients' children get to school on time, do their homework and are being given proper care.

I know the organization to be extremely thrifty – nothing goes to waste and they are very careful regarding how they spend money donated to the center. The organization also owns and runs a couple of resale shops in the same neighborhood, where many of the clients take their first steps (or first steps in awhile) carrying out job responsibilities, working under a manager. All proceeds from those shops flow back into the crisis-pregnancy center.

</comment><comment><USER47> If I were to donate it, it would go to Khan Academy. Education is the most important thing too invest in, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER48> Give it to Charity:Water or Water.org. Save lives, prevent disease, 4x economic multiple return on investment.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/charity- wate...](http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/charity-water)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think "effective altruism" is a big part of the reason why tech workers can't be moved to give a shit about solving the extreme social problems in their own backyards, that they have in many cases exacerbated, because solving them would be "inefficient".

</comment><comment><USER50> I do not have a quote under hand, but preserving our history is important to make us better. Most of the recent history would already be lost if archive.org was not there. I do not see how giving to this cause could turn wrong.

</comment><comment><USER51> $20,000 is possibly not enough but some sort of import export business to funnel money from a rich nation to a poor nation.

$1 stores do more to help the poor than a lot of charities (But not all charities)

</comment><comment><USER52> Give it to the Greek Government - just kidding

</comment><comment><USER53> Two months of rent in SF

</comment><comment><USER54> This seems like helping people is something to be kept at arm's length. Even the list of options seem predicated on hyper-capitalism. Where's the compassion?

<comment><USER31> Compassion makes you a nice person to hang out with. It doesn't make you an effective person.

<comment><USER54> No, compassion does not make you a nice person to hang out with:

"Compassion is the response to the suffering of others that motivates a desire to help. Compassion is really the act of going out of your way to help physical, spiritual, or emotional hurts or pains of another."

Giving your money to the Gates Foundation concentrates it on areas that are already receiving disproportionate help (e.g. from the Gates Foundation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> despite the many ways you could interpret "common good", i'd bet that feeding a couple of kids healthy food for several years would rank up there with just about anything.

</comment><comment><USER56> Burn it and decrease inflation.

</comment><comment><USER57> Burn it.

</comment><comment><USER58> Pop some bottles at a club.

</comment><comment><USER59> I would generalize the finding to: spend the money on something that rewards success and not failure.

Giving money to failing schools rewards failing schools.

Giving money to the poor and unemployed rewards being poor and unemployed.

Giving money to the homeless rewards being homeless.

Use the money to create opportunity, not to reward failure.

<comment><USER60> Your reply rubbed me the wrong way, as it implies that being poor, unemployed, or homeless are by definition failures. Perhaps you didn't intend that (or perhaps you do believe it). Not looking for a philosophical argument - <USER3> stating my opinion contrary to what yours comes across as.

<comment><USER61> How is being homeless not a failure on multiple levels? You can be poor by choice and happy with it, I agree. But is any sane person homeless by choice? Not traveling, hermit, not able to function in society, or many other cases. Just wanting to live somewhere and able to do work, but not having a home. To me that seems like a failure on multiple levels: country - global situation that allows people to be homeless, local - no community support or path to employment or investment into people, self - well... unless we give some income to everyone, and you can't claim benefits for not being able to work, you're expected to work for a place to live.

Unemployed is an artifact of the economy. I'd like to be successful enough to be unemployed, but rich and not homeless.

<comment><USER62> Empathy failure. I hope if you ever screw up really badly there is someone else to give you a hand.

<comment><USER61> This is exactly what I wrote. Not having a community-level support for cases of "you screwed up badly" is a failure. Same for no benefits when "life screws you up badly". Not sure where you see the empathy failure.

<comment><USER62> Sorry - replied to wrong comment - should have been the top-level comment by ams6110. Absolutely not aimed at you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to better the environment, you don't get what your are doing.

<comment><USER34> You make a decent point, but I think you're being downvoted due to a mix of poor grammar and the unsupported (and rather blunt) statement, "He's wrong." Yes there is a greater benefit to buying a hybrid than the direct CO2 offset; however, I strongly suspect that no, that doesn't make it superior to the other options, so his main point stands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> If I had access to that kind of money i will be providing clean water to millions of people around the world

</comment><comment><USER64> Another option is a local Church that support missions such as building schools for impoverished nations. I support a church that does this along with a missionary that runs an after school sports program in very poor area of Elkhart, Indiana. This helps gets kids off of streets, gives them food, shelter and a develops the community. Benefit of this is that I get to actually see the faces of the youth this impacts both in my backyard as well as in other nations.

Say what you will about religion but there are a lot of people out there who have a heart that yearns to help others, I don't care if they do it in the name of a god or not, the fact of the matter is they are going out there every day and touching peoples lives.

<comment><USER16> This brings up an interesting question. What exactly comprises "the common good"?

<comment><USER65> It's not a particularly interesting question. It's almost the definition of a wrong question.

Most smaller church / religious outreach organizations that focus on poverty _within their local community_ end up being very efficient. But a soup kitchen is already a huge asterisk on the word common. You can't reliably feed humans with a global strategy: successful charity only happens locally.

This blog post looks like a reasonable assessment of the allocation of US$20,000 of capital in isolation. But it's clear that such a small amount of money can't possibly have an impact on the global population of humans, taken in isolation. By definition, any assessment of the common good depends on all common actions:

If you want to know what the common good _is_ , it always depends on what everyone else _does_.

<comment><USER16> <quote>It's not a particularly interesting question. It's almost the definition of a wrong question.</quote>

Is it possible you are thinking superficially and not considering the longer term ramifications of actions?

<quote>By definition, any assessment of the common good depends on all common actions</quote>

That isn't a definition. That's a sales speak type obfuscated platitude. What exactly is "the common good"?

<comment><USER65> > Is it possible you are thinking superficially and not considering the longer > term ramifications of actions?

No.

> That isn't a definition. That's a sales speak type platitude. What exactly > is "the common good"?

Seems like you're misunderstanding my connection of "common" to "every single human" here. There is no way to meaningfully divide twenty grand amongst eight billion people. When we discuss "human rights" we are usually conflating positive government action and negative government action. Providing a minimum set of non-controversial services from the government (like "food" for example) is never the right answer in these debates.

To wit: If you have $20,000 sitting around, and you don't know what to do with it? Fuck you. As a general analysis of the impact any given $20k has in isolation, this post is interesting.

<comment><USER16> "> Is it possible you are thinking superficially and not considering the longer term ramifications of actions?

No."

Manifestly a wrong answer. Examples of correct answers would be "I don't believe so", "I doubt it", "It doesn't appear likely from my perspective".

"Impact" and "Fuck You" and "Post is Interesting" aside, I still ask... what comprises the common good? If you really think about this you may find the answer is not as easy or as certain as you appear to believe.

<comment><USER65> This is how I know you're sea-lioning me:

You don't understand that "common good" is impossible to define. This is one of the most basic discoveries of utilitarian ethical theories. It is sensible to ask what someone means if they use the term "common good" within the context of a proposal, but there is no _general_ meaning of common good. There absolutely can't be.

<comment><USER16> "You don't understand that "common good" is impossible to define"

Maybe I do understand that. I'm not "sea-lioning" you at all. I'm just responding to a derisive and dismissive remark you made to a (IMOP) valid point. I don't necessarily believe in the validity of "discoveries" of utilitarian ethics. But I do believe "good" has, as you say, no general meaning. Which is why it is an interesting question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Americans gave $358 billion last year. $20k is a drop in the bucket.

[https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving- usa-2015](https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015)

If you really want to make a big difference, start a company, create jobs, make millions then donate a larger sum of money.

<comment><USER66> I worked briefly for a philanthropic organization that had high visibility among super wealthy people. They accepted whatever donations, but didn't really pay attention unless you had at least $100K. The vast majority of their endowment came in multimillion dollar gifts from people who wanted hospitals named after themselves.

<comment><USER9> It's unfortunate that HN readers would rather run through the weeds trying to add zero to infinity, rather than try to actually make a real difference. If we could make medical research donations more efficient, for example, we could make a big difference. Say, for instance, we identified the best medical research charities, and have people donate to those.

<comment><USER39> Givewell.org. basically does what you propose.

<comment><USER9> I don't see any medical research charities:

[http://www.givewell.org/charities/top- charities](http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ash HN: new flag policy? - <AUTHOR> Is there a new flag policy on HN?  I notice a lot of stories that, I believe, where common currency in the past, now being systematically flagged and deleted.<p>A lot of politics, or posts about society trends, or various surveys are now quickly removed. <comment><USER2> Politics has always been a against the Guidelines as off-topic, with the recent political news testing that rule to its limits.

<comment><USER3> Indeed.

And if you see something getting flagged off the site, it's generally because _users_ don't want it here, not because it's getting removed from on high by the mods.</comment></comment>


Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary - <AUTHOR> http://uk.businessinsider.com/home-secretary-amber-rudd-real-people-dont-need-end-to-end-encryption-terrorists-2017-8 <comment><USER2> Basically she's saying chat apps in the UK shouldn't be allowed end-to-end encryption.

So the terrorists will setup a chat system that look like payments.

In the mean-time, the UK government will use our chat to identify harmless political dissidents, groom them online and then fail to incite them to violence. Given previous performance, they will meet some of their targets, get a few pregnant and then get sued 20 years later when someone reports on how idiotic the police and spies really can be while everyone sane scratches their heads about the targeted pro-solar-power "terrorists", who happened to piss off Lord McOil who had a quiet chat with his Eton buddy in GCHQ which got them classified as dangerous.

After 5 years, Boris, our new PM, will decide to give government departments access to find benefit cheats and illegal immigrants. The system they'll build will cost more than they recoup and will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they could have recovered if they had spent 1/10th of that money chasing rich tax dodgers.

A couple of years later, they will give councils access to the whole country's chat to try and catch some fly-tippers.

In this time, the civil servants will actually use the system to stalk ex- girlfriends, random crushes and celebrities or spy on wives and husbands.

Eventually, some civil servant will accidentally leave a hyper-storage-cube on the bus containing the last 5 years of everyone's chat and it'll turn up on 4chan.

The resulting misery and damage will be justified by the government because they once caught a "terrorist" who was standing in the street screaming "Allah is great" and stabbed a policeman. In reality he was a normal guy who had suffered from Bipolar Disorder but the NHS couldn't afford to treat him and classified him low risk, so ended up having a breakdown.

<comment><USER3> Say a smartphone app ran both an https client and server. For users to send each other messages, they connect to each others servers. That's end to end encryption, right? And looks identical to the type of encryption they'd still allow right? What have I missed?

<comment><USER3> I guess once it gets popular, they just force Apple and Google to remove it from the apps store. So it has to be a web site with all the http server running in javascript/web assembly. I guess you still need a central server to let clients find each other in the first place. They could block that at the DNS level.

<comment> grey-area I'd use bank accounts, PayPal or money transfer with small transactions and a one time pad to signal. They'll never ban bank accounts and it'd be hard to find signals amongst the noise. Or you could just use pgp and paste it into whatever app you want. Pandora's box has been opened, its remarkably naive to try to ban secrets at the same time as hoarding an unprecedented number of signals.

Obviously you can't intercept signals from someone using outlawed encryption, a one time pad or no direct messages. I'm not sure the stated goal (stop evil terrorists) is the real goal though - reading almost all communications and selective leaks is just such a useful tool for things like subverting democracy, throwing elections and controlling politicians.

<comment><USER4> > reading almost all communications and selective leaks is just such a useful > tool for things like subverting democracy, throwing elections and > controlling politicians.

Maybe someone out there needs to air her dirty laundry secrets that she's projecting on the rest of the population?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.

<comment><USER6> As an anecdote related to this, there is a law that came into force in the UK in 2009 which made illegal drawings showing fictional characters who appear to be under 18 engaging in sex, or in the presence of sex. A similar law came into force in the United States (the PROTECT act), and it was stricken down by SCOTUS because a clause making illegal drawn pornography turns out (unsurprisingly) to violate the constitutional to free speech. Currently there are about 20 prosecutions per annum (and it is rising) under this law in the UK. I don't think this truly hideous law will be stricken down by a court (even the ECHR, which is May's sworn enemy) nor will it be repealed by parliament, because _nobody cares about disgusting speech_.

<comment><USER7> > As an anecdote related to this, there is a law that came into force in the > UK in 2009 which made illegal drawings showing fictional characters who > appear to be under 18 engaging in sex

So you're saying that watching most hentai is borderline illegal in the UK? That's crazy.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't say _most_ , but a good proportion is, even possession of it. The catch is that the character has to give the "predominant impression" of being a child, so they can have non-child like features (such as slightly larger breasts, antennae (as was mentioned during the debate) etc.) and still be counted under the law. And you think you can encrypt to get away from it? No chance! If you refuse to hand over your keys to an encrypted volume you can face a maximum of 4 years in prison.

<comment><USER8> > If you refuse to hand over your keys to an encrypted volume you can face a > maximum of 4 years in prison.

The requirements for getting you to hand over your keys are a bit stricter than "they ask for them". The long and complex law is here: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents)

The RIPA sentences for failure to handover passwords is either 2 years or 5 years. It's 5 years for child indecency cases, but the relevant laws are listed in subsection 7, and it doesn't include The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009. (And that only applied to England, Wales, and NI. It doesn't apply to Scotland.)

It's not clear that most hentai is made illegal by the C&JA2009. See below.

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III)

      (7)Those provisions are—
      (a)section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (showing or taking etc an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
      (b)Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland);
      (c)section 52 or 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (showing or taking etc or possessing an indecent photograph of a child: Scotland);
      (d)section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possessing an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
      (e)Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland).]

I don't think RIPA mentions the Coroners and Justice Act, so I don't think they can force you to reveal passwords for those images. But maybe I'm missing some changes?

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2)

       (2)A prohibited image is an image which—
         (a)is pornographic,
         (b)falls within subsection (6), and
         (c)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

I'd suggest it could be argued lots of hentai fails (c).

       (5)"Child", subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
       (6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
         (a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
         (b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for your clarification as to the law on key disclosure. I was sloppy when I said "UK" and I did not exclude Scotland. NI also has a separate law of their own for this, too.

> I'd suggest it could be argued lots of hentai fails (c).

I'm not so sure. Perhaps images that don't display any act of sex taking place, and just nudity or even swimsuit (e.g ecchi) would qualify, but most hentai does display acts of sex taking place. Either way, might the subject, being a "child" hold sway on whether it is considered "disgusting" or not? I'd think it would.

>the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

Yes, this is the part that I was talking about when I talked about breast size and antennae.

Either way I am wholly opposed to such a law, and I think the arguments used to support it are weak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability', > and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.

Amber Rudd's "experts" couldn't prevent a simple brute force attack on her own parliament that would have easily been mitigated with 2FA ([https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/26/parliament_email_ha...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/26/parliament_email_hack/))

</comment><comment><USER10> _> Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so called "back doors". Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user- friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and "usability", and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie._

lol what a terrible argument.

> suggesting that E2E encryption hinders usability

> points to the massive number of WhatsApp as proof

<comment><USER11> Actually I think it's a pretty devious argument. This is effectively saying that most people value convenience over security & privacy. Given the track record of corporate surveillance and ad supported content this is absolutely correct. After all WhatsApp users are already OK with Facebook collecting their metadata for advertising purposes.

<comment><USER12> >After all WhatsApp users are already OK with Facebook collecting their metadata for advertising purposes

They aren't either OK or not OK. The overwhelming majority of WhatsApp users simply don't know. They don't even think about it. In fact, the average user doesn't even know that WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, or even that it used to be a paid subscription

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "So, there are options. But they rely on mature conversations between the tech companies and the Government - and they must be confidential"

i.e. backdoors. Trust us, we are the government!

<comment><USER14> That's such bullshit. If anything only government conversations conducted by public servants should be made public and private conversations should be, well, private.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Dear UK secretary: your department lost credibility to talk about "real people" needs when the UK police helped Murdoch's "News of the World" to hack into "real people" phones.

But I don't expect you to understand your own responsibilities so let's just wait until Vladimir Putin hacks into any server containing your private information. Then UK politicians will understand.

<comment><USER16> Nah, she's an "important" politician, so she's not "real people", she's allowed to use encryption. Phone hacking? Well celebs are not real people either, they should be able to apply to use encryption, in her mind.

<comment><USER17> Not just celebs:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler#Voicema...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler#Voicemail_tampering_investigation)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> real people don't need UK Home Secretary.

</comment><comment><USER19> Banning encryption won't hurt the bad guys since they can always use codes. I believe the Sept 2001 terrorists used terms like "birthday. Are", "candles" (for the WTC) etc.

It will simply destroy the privacy of ordinary people who set up a dinner or buy a birthday present for their kids

</comment><comment><USER20> "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity" \- Zuckerberg

<comment><USER21> Zuckerberg lecturing anybody on integrity is really weird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think her statement actually says "real people don't need end-to-end encryption". I'm not sure what she _is_ saying though. Not banning end-to-end encryption, not asking for back doors, but having "mature conversations" that have something to do with trade-offs between usability and security. What?

<comment><USER23> These conversations are about being able to decrypt the conversations without using the term backdoor. The government will see them as mature if it is given access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> And I thought the BBC article was bad enough. This is just appalling.

"Real people" just use ROT13...

</comment><comment><USER25> Real people keep their heads down, don't question authority, and don't cause trouble.

<comment><USER24> [http://www.indiewire.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/1984.jpg](http://www.indiewire.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/1984.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> As demonstrated in this camera footage, terrorists do not use WhatsApp to plan attacks. They meet in person - without their phones:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london- attack...](http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london-attack-cctv- video-terrorists-ilford-gym-before-borough-market-stabbing-ummah-fitness- centre-a7778666.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> What politicians do not understand: \- if we are forced to chat unencrypted, terrorists will communicate in "code": "the eagle will fly today" means "attack now!" \- terrorists did successful attacks before the internet and before smartphones and do not need encryption \- terrorists do harm because they are harmed. Stop harming them and they will leave you alone.

<comment><USER28> > terrorists do harm because they are harmed. Stop harming them and they will > leave you alone.

That is a huge oversimplification.

Terrorists do harm because they see a political value in harming others. For proof, look no further than the domestic terrorists who have bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors who worked there, or who have threatened to do same. All while being backed by religious organizations, who are just as culpable for the results.

Sure, these people might not be called terrorists, because the FBI has to abide by laws of free speech, etc., but they are just as much a terrorist as any person looking to wage jihad.

\----

See this article for the FBI's explanation of not calling a terrorist a terrorist: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-terrorism- label_us_5...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-terrorism- label_us_594ae80ce4b0a3a837bcce51)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It'll be interesting in 10-15 years when the US is one of the few countries left that allow unfettered access to encryption, VPNs, secure messaging, etc.

How does the saying go? "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe"

<comment><USER30> its only a matter of time before the USA outlaws these also. I know the agencies are itching for it. Even though it would be unworkable.

<comment><USER31> Keep dreaming.

Forced to choose between the agencies and big business who do you think the legislators will choose? Sure they can side with the agencies but if business isn't on-board with that checks will get written and there will be new legislators.

I hope the agencies force the choice. It gives the legislators a chance to do all the things they should have done after Hoover left.

<comment><USER30> I really do hope you are right.

I do remember Big Business complained about HTTPS use, coz it blocked them "hoovering"/vacuuming up customer info. (excuse the pun)

Also, the Govt has liaison people with some of the Big Corps. Not to mention big corps give big checks to both sides, as routine, there is no financial hurt on the Pol Parties ever sadly. ATT for instance gets paid millions to give up the data.

Update: I just read Amber Rudd (UK Pol goon) created the "Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc.) and asked them to remove end-to-end encryption from their products "

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hilarious! Let's criminalize privacy and ask pointed questions to those who seek it.

Staggering double speak from Orwell's own land. Who would have thought.

Question: Is a terrorist more a threat to civilization or these closet totalitarians crawling out of the woodwork?

<comment><USER24> Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning. Not an instruction manual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> History shows real people don't think they need things like end-to-end encryption until after their government starts taking it from them.

</comment><comment><USER34> I realize the article was about the UK, but this entire encryption/spying issue certainly applies to the US as well. My comments are regarding the US because I don't know enough about the UK's laws and general situation to speak on it.

The cat is out of the bag. End to end encryption that is very easy for the average user to use exists. There's no going back. These terrorists that they are so worried about are going to use it (if they have any common sense), even if it is outlawed somehow. Making it illegal or extremely difficult to use is the same as gun control - the criminals are still going to break the law because their end goal is a crime far worse and if they are willing to commit that crime then they are surely willing to commit the lesser crime of not getting a license for a weapon or possibly using end-to-end encryption.

In the US we supposedly have the 4th amendment to protect against this NSA spying criminality. The 4th amendment protects against both search _and_ seizure. The giant dragnet they use to sweep up all communications over _private_ channels is supposed to be a crime without a warrant. And when done in bulk it should be easily considered a mass, rank violation of the 4th amendment. For example, in the case of your cell phone, you agree to allow a private business to forward your data and communications. They theoretically can access it all, including your GPS because of the cell tower triangulation. That should be understood as necessary to providing the base service. But your agreement is only with the telecom provider, _not_ the government. The government just decided to stick it's head in and declare itself to have a national security interest in the data of not just you, but everyone in the entire nation, and demanded access to it all.

What's worse is that these programs have not been proven to actually stop terrorists: [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance- ha...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no- record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/) [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no- ter...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror- attacks-says-white-house-panel-f2D11783588)

In fact, based on my memory, every instance of a thwarted attack has been the FBI actually communicating directly with alleged terrorists using undercover agents. This is how actual investigative work has historically been done. They followed up on tips, evidence, etc. and followed the leads and performed a real investigation and followed the proper warrant protocols. And doing it "the hard way" has yielded them more terrorists in handcuffs than the NSA.

The results are so abysmal for the PRISM program and it's siblings, that it begs the question whether or not stopping terrorists is even the real purpose. Personally, I have never thought it was the main goal. Sure, they might catch some, but I think the real purpose is to make sure no one poses a political threat. If anyone starts to get out of line or cause too many problems, they can just rifle through all their data they have on you and find something to use against you. How many people are clean enough to escape that? Ever, even once, downloaded an illegal mp3? Ever watch a movie on an illegal, streaming tube site or use torrents? Ever cheated, even a little on your taxes? Ever cheated on your spouse? Have a porn fetish that others may find unsavory? In the closet? Are you fully in compliance with every housing regulation? Have permits for every little thing that legally requires a permit? Have any secrets that aren't illegal but may be embarrassing? Done anything that isn't illegal but people would look upon with disdain? It might just be used against you.

<comment><USER35> E2E is only easily accessible to regular users because because you can install Signal straight from the appstore. It can be made much less easy by a sufficiently determined government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Did she really use a "No True Scotsman" argument to say the Scots don't need privacy and security?

</comment><comment><USER37> We the people will let you know what we need, servant.</comment>


Show HN: 100 Best Video Games - <AUTHOR> http://gamewise.co/games/top-rated

<comment><USER2> Though I probably wont ever play the number one game on this list, the list itself is great!

very cool, but why do I need an account to read the stufF?</comment>