How TokuMX was Born - <AUTHOR> http://www.tokutek.com/2014/02/how-tokumx-was-born/

<comment><USER2> I'm looking forward to when TokuMX is "ready", and especially hope it gives MongoDB the kick they deserve.

I did try TokuMX over a month ago and it was a dismal failure. It used considerably less space (good), imported data quicker (good) but failed at runtime after a few hours claiming issues with locking. Our code doesn't use locking and was running exactly what runs against MongoDB just fine.

<comment><USER3> Roger,

I work at Tokutek (and wrote the post above). I'm sorry you ran into issues trying out TokuMX. I assure you, we are "ready", as we have users running in production.

Nevertheless, you ran into problems and that is unfortunate. If you have details, can you please share them with the tokumx-user google group? We might be able to help. I suspect the transition to using a transactional system like TokuMX where entire statements are transactional is resulting in some "gotchas", but that is just an educated guess.

-Zardosht

<comment><USER2> I mean ready in the sense that pointing code that worked flawlessly against MongoDB to TokuMX then just works flawlessly too.

I uninstalled Toku and went back to MongoDB so I can't provide any further testing. (The mongorestore takes days.)

I can tell you want code was running at the time. It reads events sorted by user id and timestamp, and then discovers session boundaries in that. A new session object (in a different collection) is written out with all the events as a subdocument list. (In rarer cases an existing session object is updated.) This was happening in 8 separate processes all in Python/pymongo. There are no statements running that affect more than one document, nor any need for transactions.

<comment><USER4> If you were using upserts I expect you were having problems due to the optimizer retrying all possible plans (including table scan) periodically. This is reflected in [https://github.com/Tokutek/mongo/issues/796](https://github.com/Tokutek/mongo/issues/796) and is fixed in 1.4.0. If you'd like to try another evaluation, get in touch with us and we can help you track down whatever problems you see.

Not all mongodb code will optimally use tokumx without any changes. Concurrency is hard and mongodb encourages some patterns that are bad for any concurrent database. For example, count() for an entire collection is not, and could never be, as cheap in a concurrent database like tokumx as it is in mongodb.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the offer, but the mongorestore times (against MongoDB) being over a week makes this too risky.

The code making changes was insert (mostly) with a few upserts, but the latter was by _id. My hypothesis as to the cause is that tokumx adds implicit transactions and then there are some arbitrary restrictions around those transactions (eg how many outstanding at once, timeouts in lock acquisition) and after a few hours one of those was hit. The error message was something about being unable to start a transaction.

> Not all mongodb code will optimally use tokumx without any changes

The goal wasn't to be optimal or anything like that. It was initially about space consumption (where you did _really_ well) and verifying the same client code ran correctly. We have two setups so one would run toku and one mongodb and data processing results compared.

<comment><USER4> Ok. Well, you said you were waiting for it to be ready, and I think it is. We'll be here when you get a week free to tinker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very informative! Sounds like great technology!</comment>


Thought Experiments to De-Risk Your Startup - <AUTHOR> https://codingvc.com/how-to-use-thought-experiments-to-de-risk-your-startup/ <comment><USER2> I really resonate for planning with the 'debate from hell' and while its fun to posit a world class debater on the other side, sometimes it helps to imagine a clueless idiot as well.

Founders are clearly founders because they really like their idea, and people "just don't get it" and are spewing irrational arguments at it in an offensive way can easily get under your skin if you haven't already thought about them attacking you. Sometimes you'll just have to walk away and if you really want their support that can be really hard to do.

<comment><USER3> Yes. This is like debating a rational knowledgeable opponent as opposed to debating an irrational unknowledgeable opponent. You really need to be prepared for both. The one is more like vetting. The other is more like selling.

I think investors especially want an answer to the irrational because frankly, the rational knowledgable argument is hard to understand. That gets worse the deeper into a bubble we get.

Did I just say that investors are not rational? Yes, I just said that investors are not rational. I'm not a believer in the Efficient Market Hypothesis:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient- market_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis)

<comment> barry-cotter You misunderstand the EMH. It doesn't say that the average investor is rational. In its weak form it says that it's very, very hard to beat the market.

Imagine you are an average VC. You lose money. You lose money because the market means Sequoia and other top tier firms get first refusal on all the best deals. Also you are overwhelmingly likely to be a fairly useless investor. If you are a great investor you can set up a top tier VC fund based on your own investing history. See Andreesen Horowitz.

Likewise in the stock market, bond market, every market but the process happens faster the more open, transparent and liquid it is. If you can achieve a 30% year on year return people will happily lend you money or invest with you. Most people are just lucky or their advantage disappears at some point. But some people really are just that good and they either reach a size where they can't get above average returns any more because their strategy doesn't work at that scale, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway or they deliberately stay smaller than they could be to keep their money spigot working, Renaissance, Citadel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "during first meetings, most investors are looking for "reasons to say no"

Is that true? There's always a reason to say "no" to a startup. I would think that they are looking for reasons to say "yes", and then getting more skeptical as they get interested.

<comment><AUTHOR> (I'm the author.)

It's not exactly true but it's a decent approximation. Because the investment rate is so low (~1%), and because professional VCs often see 1000+ pitches per year, red flags are a quick way to allocate time more efficiently. If I see 1000 pitches, 100 might be very strong right off the bat, 200 have promise, and 700 have a number of aspects that would make me reluctant to invest. I will pass on the 700 quickly so that I can focus more on the other 300. If my investment rate were higher -- say 15% -- then I might drill into some of those 700, too. But because it's 1% and there are only so many hours in a year for meetings, if I see a red flag or a few yellow flags in a first meeting, I'll use that as justification to give a quick pass. I think most VCs are similar.

<comment><USER5> This is why YC is such a breath of fresh air for entrepreneurs. VCs aren't bad for this behavior, it's completely rational, but if the big winners look like red flag city initially, a higher investment rate of smaller capital allocations can net better outcomes. (Airbnb / Pebble for the up and downsides)

YC's scaling over the last few years w/ sam + pb (and now michael) is a feature that some see as a bug of dilution. 200 companies a year now get extra access to angel money at a minimum, some percentage of which (mine!) likely wouldn't have normal access b/c of red flags.

<comment><USER6> >VCs aren't bad for this behavior, it's completely rational, but if the big winners look like red flag city initially, a higher investment rate of smaller capital allocations can net better outcomes.

And this is one of the reasons why human organizations eventually stagnate and then decline. They get too big so that they have to manage by filtering out those unique opportunities that would have been necessary for their survival.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Execution skills" \- yup, nearly everyone thinks they're above average but do note that in business those supposed "execution skills" very frequently turn out to be trade secrets instead - that is, intellectual property that's confidential and invisible. If anyone uses the phrase "execution skills" (even if just in internal dialogue) and isn't referring to specific trade secrets, they're probably just pumping out hot air, with extra jazz hands.

</comment><comment><USER3> > If you need more capital to keep the company alive but don't have a clear > plan for using that money then you're probably not ready for your next major > round of financing.

That's a polite way of hinting that you really should consider shutting down.

<comment><AUTHOR> (I'm the author.)

Kind of :). But this is also what bridge/extension rounds are for. Perhaps you raised a $1.5m seed round and your goal was to validate 4 key hypotheses with that capital. If you validated all 4, then that's usually a great segue into raising a Series A. If you validated 0-1, that probably means your company isn't viable. If you validated 3 out of 4, or maybe even 2 out of 4, there's evidence that you might be on the right track, and you can often raise another $1m or $2m extension from investors who believe that you will validate the remaining hypotheses if you have a little more runway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> this is great

</comment><comment><USER9> Just in case you got trapped, this is mostly a boilerplate which goal is not to help you but the author to get the appropriate image that would allow him to invest in companies that are doing well.

> How do competitors view you? Think about your 2-3 closest competitors. If > you asked their CEOs to truthfully describe your company's strengths and > vulnerabilities

Well, your 6 months old startup has no "strengths and vulnerabilities". It should also not have direct competitors. Only big companies have this kind of things. You have code, users and growth.

> Are you ready for a Series A? > Imagine that instead of being the founder of > your company, you're an investor

You already ask yourself these questions.

> The debate from hell

This one is decent and I'm nice. You already did this with your cofounder most of the time.

> Was your MVP truly minimal?

Who cares, you've survived.

> Stomach-churning churn numbers

You will stress automatically about churn.

> The missing key

Don't hire "key role". Only big companies do that.

> Laughed out of the room

Decent and I'm nice.

> Unexpectedly large market

By the way, only investors say _market_ when talking about startups. While this has sense, it's kinda a concept for big companies again. Your startup has early users and say pool / niche of those.

> Unexpectedly small market

You rarely have an unexpectedly small market. Most of the time you have no market at all: you have built something people don't want.

> How does the trajectory of the world over the next 5-10 years align (or > misalign) with what you're doing?

If you're growing, you're "aligned".

And on and on. The intention is not really to help you here I believe.

<comment><USER10> This sort of dismissal based on platitudes ("Most of the time you have no market at all") is the sort of comment we don't want on Hacker News. Anything can be dismissed this way, and anyone can do it. It feels good, gets upvotes, and generates more of the same—and thus the discourse clogs up up with more and more of this. That's bad. And what does your apparent critique boil down to? "The intention is not really to help you here I believe"—in other words, (a) you read minds and (b) you assume your conclusion.

For higher-quality discussion, we should apply the Principle of Charity: that is, assume the _strongest_ plausible interpretation of an article and respond to that. Poking holes in a weak one may be fun but it is not substantive.

<comment><USER9> I have thought about that 10 more minutes and fortunately I get the same result as you: one can say of everything that "this is bullshit and the intention is bad". You dad got a new car? This is bullshit and the intention is bad. So my post achieve nothing good indeed.

So now, I have a question. I've noticed some people use a clever communication and social trick I call "word dropping". "word dropping" consists of forming sentences only in the intention to say or write a set of words because doing so can have an effect on some people. (Example of word set: de-risk, small market, big market, MVP, hire, key role, business plan, etc.) It is exactly like a text written with random words, it means absolutely nothing, but the trick is to do that with a limit set of words which when put together quasi- randomly provide a feeling of sense. One can see the disastrous consequences such a thing can have if people start believing into it. It's super powerful because word dropping cost nothing to produce and cost a lot to dismiss with proper arguments. This only hurts terribly.

I've found some people use plenty of social intelligence hacks like that, which works, hurts and decrease productivity. How do you protect someone from that? For example, say someone use word dropping to hurt me, what can I do? I guess I should read a book about that...

<comment><USER11> I was reminded of [http://strategy-madlibs.herokuapp.com/](http://strategy- madlibs.herokuapp.com/) that is mentioned in this great talk by Simon Wardley. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYH- vLWHhyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYH-vLWHhyY)

It sounds good, but isn't good. I think the answer in response to it is to have ammo that both sounds good and is useful, and it'll win out to the smart people.

<comment><USER9> Haha the heroku app. Exactly that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Anyone Interested in Turning this Technology into a Web Application? - <AUTHOR> http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/scene-completion/ I think it would be a fun project / business but I'd like some help.  Any takers? <comment><USER2> How about something like "empty planet"? I'm thinking of taking photographs of famous places that are very busy (like Times Square) and digitally removing all the people.

I think seeing pictures of places that are very familiar, but devoid of people would be quite profound.

Maybe it's just a feature and not business, though.

<comment><USER3> I think this would actually be really interesting for Google StreetView.

<comment><USER2> Sure far33d, take all my karma points. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Their demo at the top of the page looks nice, but I'm a little skeptic about the versatility of their algorithm to determine an image as "semantically valid" or not. I can see that being the RHP (really hard problem).

</comment><comment><USER5> I've got the start-up itch and i'm looking to meet some potential co-founders for this or any project. email me at ltibbets [at] gmail [dot] com

</comment><comment><USER5> If you haven't seen it already Microsoft (yes Microsoft)has a similiar scene completion technology and the demo is pretty cool: <http://labs.live.com/photosynth/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw this guy at Siggraph.. very cool. His other paper (Photo Clip Art <http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/photoclipart/>) was also pretty awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> That looks cool too. Maybe do both then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Patent issues... make sure you license it from them!

<comment><AUTHOR> Really? They're patented? I thought it was like academic research?

<comment><USER6> US universities patent almost everything. Look at how Stanford operates... they get HUGE amount of revenue from research. Heck, even Google had to give a piece to Stanford.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well that's sucky. Well I hope my tax dollars didn't fund their research then. Then I'd be mad.

<comment><USER6> I haven't heard of a single university in US/Canada that does not have a technology transfer office. Read more:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=university%20technology%20tra...](http://www.google.com/search?q=university%20technology%20transfer)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How is it fair that companies ask candidates to spend hours on a task? - <AUTHOR>

Almost every job opportunity has a technical task attached to it, many of which require a significant amount of time to complete and some of which are open ended in such a way that they encourage candidates to spend as much time as possible to get an edge over the competition.
Companies say that they enjoy seeing candidates that have open source contributions, but what is the point if they end up being judged solely on their work on the task they are being asked to do for free?
It seems so wrong to me to ask people to spend so much of their time doing this work for what is at best a chance at a job offer.
Why is this acceptable?
To clarify, I am not completely against giving out tasks but asking people to spend 4+ hours is too much. <comment><USER3> I strongly agree. I view it as highly disrespectful, especially since I have more than enough open source work out on GitHub.

I also do not wish to burden candidates with that when I interview them. I believe I am a good judge of character, and also a good judge of ability, so I haven't felt the need to offer a project after a phone screen or in-person. I do not even plan out the questions I ask except for having a loose set of criteria I look for when I interview a candidate. It is much easier if the conversation is fluid, as if between peers. That does not mean I won't ask difficult questions - sometimes I do, but I ask them depending on how the conversation goes and what the developer comes off as to me. My questions are meant to gauge the candidate's skill level, and whether there is a good fit for the company and candidate. I don't need to give the a super hard brainteaser - that only serves to filter for the exceptional, and isn't an efficient use of time. I don't need to give FizzBuzz - if I am that suspicious of a candidate, I will cut the interview short, since within the first 5-10 minutes, I already have a general hypothesis formed that I am testing for.

I like to open up interviews with asking about the candidate to explain his/her background. I will have read the resume beforehand, or read it while the person is giving the overview, to see if the person misrepresented anything on the resume or about his/her background. I ask about details about some recent experiences, and if it is the technology that my company uses, I ask for the candidate's views on the technology, including positives and negatives. I shift over to questions about beliefs on how the candidate approaches certain situations, or shift to the technical questions. I don't require exactness in answers, but if a candidate has an exact correct answer, it's a good sign. Similarly if I ask a trickier question and the candidate figures out how to answer it optimally quickly, it's a huge positive - <USER2> can't fake that sort of cognitive reaction.

Lastly, I save some time for the candidate to ask questions - even this is a part of my evaluation process, because more senior candidates know what type of questions to ask based on what they have seen in the industry.

For me, this has been enough for me to evaluate a candidate properly. Anything like a project is excessive and unnecessary.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you've gotten to know the company somewhat (several interviews that went well), give them a counteroffer:

"I know how important it is to test my skills before hiring me, so I'd like to propose an even more in-depth assessment: I'll work for you as a contractor for two weeks. If your team likes my work, you can hire me as an employee."

I don't know if it would work, but if you really can't spare the time to do assessments, it's worth a shot.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be much happier with that if companies were open to it. The only thing is that this is one of the cases where it might hurt to ask. So it's a risky approach.

<comment><USER5> If asking the company to respect the value of your time is going to cost you the opportunity of working for said company than I wouldn't consider it a big loss. Chances are if they don't respect the value of your time now they won't later either, pushing you to work long hours, weekend hours, guilting you away from taking vacation days, and so on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd suggest that fairness is irrelevant. Businesses will demand as much as they can. If great candidates stop applying to them because of their ridiculous demands, they will either have to reduce their demands or hire only mediocre candidates. If great candidates keep applying, they will continue to be jerks.

This is simply a result of the way economics works. Voting with your feet is the best way to stop it.

<comment><USER7> I had a phone interview recently, the first stage in the interview process. They explained they used Hacker Rank, so I challenged them and asked them if they found it was a good way to hire candidates, as its not likely to be like the day work. (Didn't change anything).

In the end I couldn't be bothered filling it in.

I would say there was a 50/50% chance I would have done it successfully. Sure I could study up and practice to make sure I passed, but I have been developer for 12 years. I don't need to fart about with algorithm trivia when the stuff I build is at a higher level for a different market.

I'll spend that time on my side project. At least I can use that again when the next company asks to see an example of my work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> To give you a bit of perspective: in other industries, it's quite common that Assessment Center sessions last around 6-8 hours (however, there are breaks and lunch included) and it's not uncommon to see even 2-day assessments.

Is it fair? I'd say yes, if following 2 conditions are met: 1\. The method (AC/task/exercise) is well designed to actually test the candidate's skills and his/her performance is properly observed, measured, analyzed and assessed. It's fair for the candidate, because the hiring decision is adequate. 2\. After all this effort the candidate receives both a "thank you" and short feedback about his/her performance.

Unfortunately these conditions aren't met quite often and that's not fair.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't agree that using other industries as examples is a good defense. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right.

Obviously the more work a person puts into a task, the better you can assess their ability. But when does a task become excessive. It seems that the limit is being stretched thin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a candidate, I tend to ask that one of two conditions be met for these kind of projects:

Either:

1\. It's open-source and I can show it/share it as I see fit in the future

or

2\. They pay me for my time.

I prefer #1 actually, and most companies will be okay with the open-source thing, but will usually ask that you not share it publicly (on a github or anything), so that other candidates can't find it. I like this option because it gives me ammo the next time I'm asked to do a coding challenge ("Okay sure I'll do it, but did I mention I'm already in talks with a few other companies and have already finished their coding challenges? Here take a look! If these don't show you what you need to know, I'll take your test too."

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been on both sides of this and if the task takes any more than 2 hours. I offer an hourly rate that is reasonable and a well defined mini project that would showcase the skills required for the job. This way no matter the outcome hired or not the person does not feel unfairly treated and is always offered feedback. I also ask them what type of work they love to do and note that for a future project/hire that I may need in the future.

</comment><comment><USER11> Guess that will save time later if the candidate doesnt fit the role.

Instead keep a open project expectation, expected time to complete and get that agreed.

</comment><comment><USER12> The best companies use short assessments to make sure that the long one will likely be successful.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'd counter-offer with a wage appropriate for the hour for those "jobs".

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be curious to hear if anyone has ever done this</comment></comment>


Two Cameras in every NYC Citi Bike - <AUTHOR> http://johnjpowers.blogspot.com/2013/07/citi-bike-latest-nyc-surveillance.html

<comment><USER2> No need to get the pitchforks out, this post is satire. The two quotes in the article aren't sourced. A quick Google search shows the last quote only appears in this blog [1].

[1]: [https://www.google.com/search?q=The+vigilance+of+New+York+Ci...](https://www.google.com/search?q=The+vigilance+of+New+York+City+is+unmatched+and+the+technology+that+it+takes+to+bring+criminals+to+justice+has+just+caught+up&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en- US:unofficial&client=firefox-aurora&channel=fflb#client=firefox- aurora&hs=sMY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&channel=fflb&sclient=psy- ab&q=%22The+vigilance+of+New+York+City+is+unmatched+and+the+technology+that+it+takes+to+bring+criminals+to+justice+has+just+caught+up%22&oq=%22The+vigilance+of+New+York+City+is+unmatched+and+the+technology+that+it+takes+to+bring+criminals+to+justice+has+just+caught+up%22&gs_l=serp.3...6131.7573.0.78126.96.36.199.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....4...1c.1.23.psy- ab..184.108.40.206FrmYRC- nzc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49967636,d.cGE&fp=945f60794c60d115&biw=1440&bih=787)

<comment><USER3> The scary thing is, I thought it was legit until you pointed that out. The worlds take on surveillance makes me sad.

<comment><USER4> Anyone else just go out and give one of these bikes a close once-over? That was me at Spring and 6th Ave. pawing the rack of Citibikes just a minute ago. I was going to start carrying around a roll of tape...</comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN:  Facebook email is live - <AUTHOR>

You can now email email@example.com and it will go to the user's primary email address.
[Edit] See below for full message headers, pretty thin

        From: 	firstname.lastname@example.com
   	Subject: 	test
   	Date: 	November 13, 2010 11:12:15 AM PST
   	To: 	email@example.com
   	Return-Path: 	<firstname.lastname@example.com>
   	Received: 	from [192.168.1.104](c-24-6-xx-xx.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.xxx.xx])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q18sm1677850ybk.3.2010.11.13.11.12.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:12:18 -0800 (PST) 	Message-Id: 	<email@example.com>
 <comment><USER2> not working here, maybe rolling out various region at time? Not particularly bothered tbh, cant see any advantage to FB having more of my data. And if they still not using SSL to mitigate firesheep kiddies then what hope does their mail have of being secure. gmail ftw!

</comment><comment><USER3> I received neither an error nor my sent mail. You might be onto something ...

</comment><comment><USER4> Doesn't work for me.

</comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't work.

</comment><comment><USER6> Didn't work for me.</comment>


The fall of the USSR - <AUTHOR> http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-fall-of-the-ussr/ <comment><USER2> _The great problem with most critiques of the USSR is that they do not explain its successes._

Why is it even remotely acceptable to speak of "successes" when the full context is that this nation murdered between 20-60 million human beings? Much of this occurred completely outside of a wartime context:

[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF)

See "How Many Did Stalin Really Murder?" [http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-m...](http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how- many-did-stalin-really-murder/)

<comment><USER3> There will always be apologists for this system based on murder and monumental evil, where each generation lied to the next.

Russia was at the center of this abomination. For some reason the Russian people people never learned anything from 800 years of history. Today they continue to love their tyrants and embrace poverty, lies, murder and evil. We can only hope their moment of enlightenment is near.</comment></comment>


A call to honesty in pandemic modeling - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b <comment><USER2> This has been my concern all along, that flattening the curve and whatnot is misleading without considering what happens at the end of distancing efforts. If you end up with the same exponential growth after inducing widespread costs from mitigation, it seems you're worse off.

On the other hand, at least where I'm at, politicians and policy makers have been explicit in saying the social distancing policies are about buying time: time to improve hospital readiness, time to develop quicker cheaper tests, time to develop antibody tests, and so forth. The benefits of this extra time have to be weighed against the costs ( which turn out to be counterintuitive based on empirical data ), but it's important.

The author acknowledges this and I don't think it's their point, which is to be clear about the effects of mitigation and therefore why you might or might not do it. But I think its also important to keep in mind a non-steady-state- based model time endpoint has justifications too.</comment>


WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1 <comment><USER2> It seems to me that Wikileaks is disruptive to Governments in the way that Napster was disruptive to the Music Industry.

While Wikileaks may not survive in the mid term, I believe what it represents may have far reaching, long term consequences. The internet has democratised information to the point that an unhappy individual with mid level trust in an organisation can expose the organisation's "sensitive" information globally with very little effort and thought.

Before the internet an individual could expose this information, but the barriers were much higher. To be a whistle blower you could only influence people immediately near you socially. To reach higher you had to filter your information through news organisations. While there are cases of this happening, the information was still continually at risk of being censored. Would this cable information have been released if a whistle blower took it directly to the NYT, or even a collection of newspapers?

With our current online structure of Twitter, Blogs and peer file sharing it makes sensitive information immediately accessible to millions with no chance of it being censored. To me Wikileaks represents the start of something hugely disruptive to our way of life. It's not possible to scale an organisation beyond several people while maintaining complete trust in each of them. When every piece of information is at risk of being exposed, what position does this place governments in? Is it possible for the current structure of the us government with its extensive lobby groups, international secrets and security through obscurity to continue?

I think its still too hard to see how the bits will fall here, but I do think we're in for an interesting decade :)

<comment><USER3> I don't think so. WikiLeaks is mainly targetting US because their infrastructure and their culture enables the society to uncover this kind of activities.

I am waiting WikiLeaks for the other hundreds of countries around the globe.

<comment><USER4> The front page has articles in various languages from many countries... <http://mirror.wikileaks.info/>

<comment><USER3> Please, count the number of countries targetted by WikiLeaks...

<comment><USER5> Wikileaks has leaked all sorts of interesting documents like scandals related to the economic collapse of Iceland etc. It's just that this current affair is of such a magnitude that it overshadows all other leaks.

It's also a matter of global interest. If these where cables leaked by Belgians written in German they wouldn't have received the same attention because no one really cares about Belgium, and Belgium certainly has little to offer on the matter of global politics that could be of interest and have implications for all other western nations.

<comment><USER3> I am waiting for a good chinese or north korean leak...

<comment><USER3> Seems like the same person methodically downvoted all my comments. It's better to have a reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When you comment that these cables are mundane in nature, you are assuming that you yourself are indicative of the audience as a whole. If you do not believe that millions upon millions of people will read this, you are mistaken. And many, if not the vast majority, of these readers will have previously been in the dark as to the information contained therein. So to them, this is not mundane; it's extraordinary.

Furthermore, all that we are reading right now are redacted and cherry picked summaries and analyses. Please wait for more data to be released before passing a quick, premature, unframed _sigh_ against what is happening here.

We're at the beginning of this, not the end.

<comment><USER7> > _When you comment that these cables are mundane in nature, you are assuming > that you yourself are indicative of the audience as a whole._

I don't think they're mundane -- some are quite amusing, such as the Afghan vice president trousering $52 million.

> _If you do not believe that millions upon millions of people will read this, > you are mistaken._

I'm sure millions will read them.

> _And many, if not the vast majority, of these readers will have previously > been in the dark as to the information contained therein._

It's not so much that they're in the dark about the information, it's that they have an unrealistic view of how world affairs are conducted. This might be because they're naive, or because their nationalist sentiments cause them to believe their own country acts more virtuously on the world stage than countries actually do, or whatever. Or it may just be because most people don't pay much attention to world affairs.

But for whatever reason, if someone's bubble is pricked and they later understand world affairs better, that person is more rational. And improving rationality worldwide is likely to be in the long term interest of the human species.

> _So to them, this is not mundane; it's extraordinary._

Then hopefully it will cause them to update their worldview.

<comment><USER8> I'm curious- how does one actually carry $52mm on your person? In $100 bills I calculated that as roughly 170 feet deep of bills (at .1mm per $100).

<comment><USER9> Using EUR 500 notes would help a bit, though even then you'd have several suitcases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _A global computer hacking effort: China's Politburo directed the intrusion into Google's computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said._

Nothing new per-se for those that followed aurora or watch infosec, but interesting to see it all itemized together in a state cable instead of a bunch of assumptions & rumors. Look forward to seeing the details on that one.

<comment><USER11> There are _so_many_ rumors out there, no matter what was leaked in these cables, someone would have come out saying, "No news here, I knew it all along!"

So in so far as they let me know what rumors to choose to believe, they are useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> With Google referrer, to get around the wall: [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&s...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2F29cables.html&rct=j&q=new%20york%20times%20cables&ei=PKPyTOGqDMG78ga94aWLDA&usg=AFQjCNGP61_ELeSsVsUVVOve4iW8mSW8xw)

And one with single page: [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&v...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2F29cables.html%3Fpagewanted%3Dall&rct=j&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2Fworld%2F29cables.html%3Fpagewanted%3Dall&ei=lKPyTOGoJ8P6lwf8h4CrCg&usg=AFQjCNEr12GQmhcb-4o0przJny_CHndbvw&cad=rja)

<comment><USER13> All pages, one click: [http://viewtext.org/article?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/...](http://viewtext.org/article?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=2)

<comment><USER14> Have we discussed ViewText here? I'm impressed. I think I may start using this instead of readability.

<comment><USER13> I don't think so, other than me posting links on HN threads for articles that need it (such as this NYT article). But thanks! It's mostly based on readability, not 100% though. I ported Readbility (JavaScript) to C#.

<comment><USER15> Is it okay if I link to it from historious for formatting webpages?

<comment><USER13> Yup! That's really the intended use, for others to provide links to articles from within their apps. That's what I did for <http://ihackernews.com> (HN for iPhone/Android).

<comment><USER16> Nice work! Can I integrate this service with my HN Mobile Front Page Reader? [http://www.vcarrer.com/2010/11/hacker-news-mobile-front- page...](http://www.vcarrer.com/2010/11/hacker-news-mobile-front-page- reader.html)

<comment><USER13> Sure! I love to see others using it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals."

This is ironic since one of the biggest contributing factors behind Manning allegedly leaking the documents was probably the fact that the government was kicking him out of the military for being gay. The fact that Obama literally can't even stop lying during his one sentence soundbite condemning the leak is pretty symbolic of why we need WikiLeaks in the first place.

<comment><USER18> _the fact that the government was kicking him out of the military for being gay_

If that is a fact, is there a source?

"An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Eric Bloom, said Manning, who entered the Army as a private in October 2007, was demoted last month for an assault. He said he was not facing early discharge."

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060906170_2.html)

<comment><USER19> [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html?pagewant...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html?pagewanted=all)

> friends said his social life was defined by the need to conceal his > sexuality under "don't ask, don't tell"

<comment><USER18> I'm not disputing that he is gay, I'm asking for a source for the supposed "fact" that he was being discharged for it.

<comment><USER17> Here is the source: <http://boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged- wikileak.html>

We know that the military knew he was LGBT and he was waiting to be discharged, although the timeline and causation isn't entirely clear. That is, it's possible that he already leaked the documents first and then it was Lamo who outed him after the fact. My bad, I should have qualified my original comment further, though flyt's quote shows that it's a complex issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What surprises me most is that Julian Assange has lasted this long. This isn't OBL, where he's living in a cave somewhere -- this guy is known to travel between first world countries. I can understand those countries may not be willing to hand him over, but the US has lots of experience with rendition and I'm surprised some three-letter agency hasn't snatched him up yet.

<comment><USER21> And this actually proves an important point about the various three-letter agencies: they're not really the nefarious organizations that exist in the imaginations of people who have seen too many movies.

Jason Bourne's CIA would has assassinated Julian Assange a long time ago. The real one just grumbles.

<comment><USER22> What good would assassinating him do? He's not the only one who runs Wikileaks or has access to the information.

They'd need to "snatch" everyone who has access to it, which might be a very difficult proposition, not to mention a complete public relations disaster, considering Wikileaks is in the public spotlight right now.

I very much doubt the CIA is holding back out of the goodness of their hearts. No. What we are witnessing is simply cold, calculated realpolitik in action.

<comment><USER23> He is clearly the leader though. While assassinating him will do nothing about the information WikiLeaks already possesses, it may well throw the organization into disarray and thus irrelevance.

Assange is only a viable target if there is no other leader waiting at the wings if he dies. Our impression of WikiLeaks' organization structure is that no such "Assange" exists yet.

<comment><USER24> Or it might cause a political shit-storm and undermine American credibility, while giving a moral imprimatur to future leaks.

Wikileaks is more powerful as an idea than an organization. They've legitimized the idea of web-based distribution of leaks, much like Napster legitimized file-sharing services. That genie isn't going back into the bottle. Shutting down Napster only gave rise to a host of unaccountable, decentralized services. Shutting down Wikileaks would likewise only lead to the creation of new decentralized services that facilitate leaks without any of the human editorial control that Wikileaks currently provides.

<comment><USER25> Yes, because I'm sure professionals would find it so very difficult to make it look like an accident, self-inflicted or frame someone

<comment><USER26> Maybe it's in the works. We'll see what the outcome of the rape charges are. Could give him a good reason to "off himself".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's not only NYT releasing info about #cablegate, check out Guardian too: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables>

<comment><USER28> Could we call it something more descriptive than "cablegate?" Its also not a scandal in the same way as Watergate - much more in line with the likes of the "Pentagon Papers". Perhaps a similarly descriptive hashtag, like #wikileakscables or #wikileaksdiplomaticcables if you're not bound by 140 characters.

But please - let's raise the level of discourse from sensationalist "Action News" by refusing to use pidgeonhole phrases and instead call things accurately.

<comment><USER27> True - Watergate maybe is a scandal of a larger scale, and true - a more descriptive tag could've been used, but the tag #cablegate was proposed by Wikileaks via their Twitter profile ( <http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/8942910410072064> ), and everyone followed along.

I think that they did it so everyone would't use the tag #wikileaks when they are referring to the US Embassy cables release but a separate one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The Guardian has posted headers and metadata, but not the message bodies, as a Google Fusion Table:

      http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=317391

Additional data links on the Guardian's site:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data#data

</comment><comment><USER30> Earlier WikiLeaks releases seemed to expose atrocities and human rights abuses by the US military and government, which represents at least a partial justification. What end does this release serve?

<comment><USER31> Exposure of corruption within our allies. I found things like Afghanistan's vice president being caught (and released) in the UAE carrying $52 million in cash to be quite interesting. Also the part about Saudi donors are still the driving force in financing terrorism.

<comment><USER32> the US and Britian have turned a blind eye to the opium trade and the associated corruption in Afghanistan in order to appease the local anti- Taliban population.

I watched footage last week of British soldiers fighting to free large opium fields from Taliban control so that the real owners can get back to farming. All par for the course.

The war on drugs takes a back seat to the war on terrorism

<comment><USER33> As it should. Terrorists are an affront to freedom. Drugs are not.

<comment><USER34> Terrorism cannot be stopped (by definition). The affront to freedom is the response to terrorism.

<comment><USER35> What part of the definition says that it can't be stopped?

<comment><USER34> Definition: Terrorism is the creation of fear in a population intended to achieve a political end.

What does it take to create fear? Certainly not successful terrorist attacks. Failed ones would work perfectly well too, as evidenced by the underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc.

Things as minor as prank phone calls, etc., will still strike fear into the hearts of the target population.

So unless you can tell me that it's possible to stop failed attacks and prank phone calls, you must agree that terrorism cannot ever be stopped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Perhaps off topic, but what is a cable? Is it just an email? Or is it some other form of communication specific to the State Department?

<comment><USER36> I'm assuming it's just the general term for a 'piece of transmitted information', no matter what the medium.

<comment><USER37> They used to actually be cables, i.e. telegraph. (Meaning faster then mail, or diplomatic pouch.)

They kept the name as communications technology moved on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> As someone who grew in the Mideast and spent some time in the US/EU/Aus, I was often amazed how completely detached Westerners are from the way the rest of the world works.

Left wingers or conservatives, so many guns & money have been sheltering the past 2-3 generations from reality that they genuinely believe most people share their values and goals, and that the world operates similarly to their own surroundings.

If these documents will cause people to start questioning the utter bullshit they are fed by Fox News or Reddit, Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart, then Assange is the most important person alive today. I doubt that would happen, though.

<comment><USER39> "how completely disconnected Westerners are from the way the world actually works"

Would you like to explain that, or are you just going to throw a nebulous assertion out there and expect it to mean something?

<comment><USER38> Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory).

A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On the other hand, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars.

Another example: Afghanistan. First we go in. Then we realize Taliban not only has a completely different notion of values, but of _time itself_ \- they are perfectly happy to continue fighting for 20 more years if need be. Now we're thinking, "let's just pull out and forget about it" - as if it's possible to just start off of a clean slate, no consequence.

Another example, Iran in the Middle East. The documents "reveal" what anyone should have known - Arab regimes are horrified of the option of a nuclear Iran. This is because the deepest rivalry in the Middle East, that shed the most blood, is the Sunni-Shiite (and Arab-Farsi) - see the >1m dead in the Iraq-Iran war - rather then the Israeli-Arab obsessively covered by Fox/CNN/Reddit/Beck/Stewart.

Finally, a personal favorite of mine: my wife often tells me how her (expensive Ivy League) university professors bring up various UN treaties nearly all nations but the US have signed. They seem to actually believe the various dictatorships that signed these documents will not ignore them completely the second they become inconvenient.

I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. Just that I think the level of discussion is ridiculous.

<comment><USER40> > On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if > it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme > court, determining the legality of various wars.

The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left opposed the war in Iraq.

How about this: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore there was NO reason to attack them??

<comment><USER41> They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.

<comment><USER21> And don't forget that Saddam wasn't abiding by the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire, which ought to be an immediate justification for resuming fire, since that's how ceasefire agreements work.

Lack of _legalistic_ justification was never lacking for the Iraq war. Whether it was _morally_ the right thing to do, or whether it was a _worthwhile_ thing to do from a US-interests standpoint, are genuine questions. (Which I don't feel like discussing today.)

<comment><USER42> And don't forget that the US' allies were all saying "Just wait a few months until the weapons inspections agenda is complete, then we'll all go in as planned and sanctioned by the UN". No, the US had to accelerate the timetable, replacing "worthless weapons inspections" with Powell's equally worthless poster project showing "structures".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> What is interesting about this is not the damage it does, which will likely be minimal as it's really just embarrassing.

What's interesting is the look into the hidden minds of countries. I didn't know, for instance, that so many Arab countries urged US intervention in Iran, or that Israel has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program so closely--as indicated by their pressing warning that 2010 specifically is a key year.

Of course, everyone here knew or suspected China's dirty hands, but it's nice that this calls them out for it.

And it's funny to know exactly how little most countries seem to think of Europe's importance.

<comment><USER44> >I didn't know, for instance, that so many Arab countries urged US intervention in Iran

This type of information is what's likely to end up being actually damaging. There's a good chance nations that may have offered private support while maintaining public face will be less cooperative in the future.

> or that Israel has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program so closely--as > indicated by their pressing warning that 2010 specifically is a key year.

This part isn't _that_ surprising, to be honest. The Israelis keep very close tabs on their neighbors, ad the Mossad has earned their reputation as being one of the most effective intelligence agencies in the world.

Remember a few years ago when Israeli jets seemingly randomly bombed Syria with almost no public reaction from Syria? In fact, everyone involved was strangely quiet about it, with the Syrians claiming the Israelis had just bombed empty desert. Turns out the Israelis had gotten wind of a clandestine nuclear reactor supplied by North Korea and taken it down.[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard>

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Single page: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&#...</a>

</comment><comment><USER46> Is there a torrent anywhere with the actual text of the cables? Wikileaks itself is being DDOSed, and none of the news sites are reprinting anything but summaries.

<comment><USER47> "Assange made them available to the Guardian and four other newspapers: the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to "dump" the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities."

From The Guardian: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy- cable...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak- diplomacy-crisis)

<comment><USER48> I wish Wikileaks would just dump the contents, and leave the analysis to the rest of the world. By doing selective "analysis" and redaction, they're basically doing exactly what they claim to be fighting.

Either release all the information, or withhold it. Don't play sides.

Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia, China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these other countries are no angels either.

<comment><USER49> _Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia, China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these other countries are no angels either._

Are you offering to leak this information? Remember, they do not break into US systems to get this information. They need someone to leak it to them.

<comment><USER50> Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them.

Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.

<comment><USER51> > It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, > instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them.

This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked on' Islam at one time or another.

PZ Myers: [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_ex...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_exist_and_moham.php) [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php)

Dawkins: [http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy- in-...](http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-islam- carries-the-death-penalty)

Hitchens: [http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher- hitche...](http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitchens- about-islam-in-britain-after-77-12)

The first comment on the Hitchen's link shows some of the issues inherent when you criticize a minority religion (with respect to audience), however. Namely, you get the nasty anti-(legal)-immigrant crowd thinking you support them, or at least provide ammunition for them (conveniently ignoring arguments against their own beliefs).

Granted, they haven't picked on the Aztecs to my knowledge. They might be afraid of them.

My apologies for going OT.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal.

And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate).

Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs.

<comment><USER51> >But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal.

You have no evidence that's why they post more about Christianity. I have already presented several other explanations. To be explicit it could be because they don't want to feed biases against minority groups, they might want to target something which is a visible problem (evolution denial in the states), they might want to target the beliefs of people who have power to abuse (local officials), they might want to clean up their own house before they figure out how to deal with other countries and religions which they are less familiar with, etc.

Furthermore PZ Myers _has_ received death threats from Christians, so the idea that all Christians are just a bunch of friendly folks who would never hurt a fly, is absurd (though a lot of Christians do commonly make this argument). If you're making yourself a target, you expose yourself to every nutcase in the country.

> Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of > puppy dogs.

What do the Nazi's and Communists have to do with this?

<comment><USER50> This sentence: "The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate)."

Also, Christianity is the least problematic of all major religions, and most in line with the agenda of humanist atheists, per its explicit laws about the best way of living. Those who don't follow the laws are hard pressed to claim the title "Christian." So, it is disingenuous and ineffective to target Christians.

Target ideologies that explicitly make anti-humanitarian claims. That is most in line with the atheists' claim that religion is anti-humanitarian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> It is bizarre that a PFC had access to so much intelligence.

<comment><USER53> It's all secret or noforn. If he was working as an analyst, he'd likely be badged for it. It also depends on his particular job responsibilities. My guess is that he was cleared to access a document archive for his day-to-day operations and started grabbing random stuff when he figured out a way to transport the data. There's no rhyme or reason to what was leaked, it's looks like wholesale whatever could be retrieved so it was likely a fire-sale type data grabbing.

<comment><USER54> Which really begs the question why they don't have some automatic monitoring on who starts accessing _a hundred thousand documents_ not related to their day to day job.

<comment><USER55> According to The Guardian:

"There have been suggestions that an alarm system to detect suspicious use of the network was suspended for US military personnel in Iraq after they complained it was inconvenient."

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet- america-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet-america- stores-secret-cables)

<comment><USER56> It would be rather inconvenient if one full-text search on the name of this old possible insurgent you captured suddenly disabled your computer and led to your arrest by MPs, I agree.

<comment><USER57> Surely such a system could differentiate between a search match and saving the entire document to a hard drive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The excerpts the NYT is reporting in this story are pretty ho-hum. We'll have to wait and see what else is in there but it looks like another Wikileaks hype job to me. No doubt there's going to be some embarrassing sausage making details in here but it just confirms things we already knew. Pakistan is a complex situation, Karzai's government is corrupt, etc. Wikileaks would be better off releasing this material without the hype and grandstanding.

<comment><USER37> The rumors were there, but this is concrete evidence that Arab nations actually want a strike on Iran, but are too scared to say it out loud.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy- cable...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables- saudis-iran) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/arab-states- scor...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/arab-states-scorn- iranian-evil)

By making this public it could significantly change what happens next with Iran.

<comment><USER34> I think it will put in context the silly, local squabbles that are behind all this. Iran is a western-style Democracy that has a radical faction thanks to decades of US meddling.

<comment><USER37> Meddling? Sure.

But western style democracy?? Did you completely ignore what happened during the last "election" there?

<comment><USER34> Ahmadinejad came to power after several years of George W. Bush's anti-Iran rhetoric had galvanized a conservative coalition in Iran.

Look at Orkut and Twitter: Iran is a pluralistic, wonderful country. Things like the US dropping bombs next door will tend to radicalize a country's extremists. Iran had been working to topple Saddam for decades and would have made a natural ally for the US. But the US goal was not to remove Saddam, it was to take power in the region, and so Iran (the natural power in the region) had to be an adversary.

Since then, we've seen more and more power in Iran go to the conservative faction which was on its way out before George W. Bush.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> This may be a silly question, but what is a "cable"? Is this like a telegram or is it just another name for emails?

I see here: <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526#Part_1> that there's some structure to these documents, but what transport are they being sent by?

</comment><comment><USER60> Document on what the classifications mean:

<http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html>

There are apparently no top secret documents in this leak, top secret documents would include such things as detailed plans for war.

</comment><comment><USER61> I find this interesting, but we would also need such leaks from other countries embassies, not just U.S. ones.

This will probably create embarrassment for U.S., but on the other hand, isn't it a job of a diplomat to truthfully describe the situation in the country where he is dispatched? In most cases, they probably just did their job, assuming that the documents will stay secret. I don't think that's immoral.

<comment><USER62> Violating UN conventions by spying on, and attempting to steal credit card #s and biometric info of, UN leaders ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy- cable...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables- spying-un)) and attempting to steal DNA of world leaders ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/202678)) would be considered, by most, to be immoral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm a little confused as to why people think dumping cables from American embassies would show the US in a negative light or contain some sort of revelation that the US is engaged in anything illegal.

These are cables from the American point of view of the rest of the world. If anything, it is going to show foreign leaders/countries far more negatively than the Americans.

</comment><comment><USER63> The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan that it is portrayed by our enemies and domestic extremists. This snapshot of the inner workings of American diplomacy actually make me feel much better about how things are being managed, and should undermine efforts to portray some nasty plot to dominate the world. I don't expect our government to act in international affairs with complete transparency or without ulterior motives, but I do expect that they try to act ultimately for good and that there be minimal self-enrichment. I so far see little evidence of serious breaches here.

<comment><USER64> I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.

<comment><USER63> It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without implications.

<comment><USER64> Being kidnapped, flown to a prison for five months and possibly tortured, possibly sodomized is more than a "mistake."

And merely admitting to having committed a human rights violation is not a substitute for following due process of law. Threatening a country with "implications" for wanting to bring the people to justice who wrongfully detained one of their citizens does not make the United States look good.

Plus there are other examples, like Hilary Clinton ordering diplomats to collect private information on the U.N. Secretary General, which was likely a violation of international law. This does not make the U.S. look good.

<comment><USER63> As helium said, my point is not that there is a perfect record. What is not there - a sinister plot to monopolize the world's oil, destroy Muslim society, or assassinate world leaders - is more important.

That said, a broader point is in order - I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the USA. Despite the weight of the phrase "international law," the actual concept is deeply ambiguous. There is no fully baked world government, so "international law" is not a direct moral parallel to domestic law in a sovereign state. As much as the UN can do for the world, it is not a proper law making body, it's not accountable to it's constituents or fairly representative of the world, and some of its most powerful members don't even represent their own constituents. It's a rough hack at providing a venue for diplomacy and world order - not a supremely powerful entity as many people would wish it to be. The phrase "violation of international law" tastes meaty, but it's just tofu.

<comment><USER65> > I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the > USA.

> The phrase "violation of international law" tastes meaty, but it's just > tofu.

Good and valid points, but mildly tongue-in-cheek my response to your first assertion is "I do!"

I'm not an American, but I deeply appreciate what America has done to move the whole world towards a system that values innate human rights, the rule of law, and representative democracy [1], so when America behaves in a way that contravenes its own publicly stated values I am genuinely disappointed -- even though America owes me nothing. I agree that "international law" can't be easily defined (and therefore can't be adhered to), and it is not always easy to judge the moral value of an act, particularly without the benefit of hindsight (one of the best known examples being the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan), but there are other cases where it is clear. If America clearly acts against its values, it weakens its credibility when it tries to promote them to the rest of the world.

We can of course distinguish between America and Americans -- admitting mistakes and punishing those who commit them is the way that America can deal with them and keep its credibility with respect to its values in tact.

The case of the abduction of the German citizen seems on the surface to be a fairly clear case where America should allow due process in a friendly democracy to take its course. But perhaps there are other considerations that I don't know about... either way I'm grateful to wikileaks.

[1] However imperfect our democracies are, the current alternatives are a lot worse, and I'd prefer to be optimistic that we'll discover even better methods to govern people in future.

<comment><USER66> Christopher Reeve delivering the line "Truth, Justice and the American Way" as Super Man is one of the defining memories of my childhood.

I worry that once Americans become cynical and scared enough to stop aspiring to that line, it will then be a short trip to a fascist or pseudo-fascist state.

Naive? Perhaps, but if you don't have high and lofty ideals, then what is to be the counter weight to doing everything and anything in the name of safety?

<comment><USER67> > I worry that once Americans become cynical and scared enough to stop > aspiring to that line, it will then be a short trip to a fascist or pseudo- > fascist state.

Ah yes, "fascism is falling on America"

> Naive? Perhaps, but if you don't have high and lofty ideals, then what is to > be the counter weight to doing everything and anything in the name of > safety?

but it always seems to land somewhere else (typically Europe).

Fascism lands where it is like what has been before and the US hasn't been govt-authoritarian (yet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> today it was confirmed that the US knows about everything, everywhere, in every corner of the world

<comment><USER5> wrong. If that was true then the cables would have included reports on alien activity and the US connections with the aliens walking amongst us.

Now, where did I put my tin foil hat.</comment></comment>


Launch a full product with AngularJS - <AUTHOR> http://www.angularcourse.com/#/

<comment><USER2> This is a great course on starting out with Angular since it helps you build a real product!

<comment><USER3> Creator of AngularCourse here.

Really glad that you like the product aspect of the course. I spent a lot of time thinking about what to build for the sample app. My goal was to solve a real problem that I have.

The app is not groundbreaking by any means, but I wanted it to give people the sense that they were building something real. Some students have told me that it feels like they're actually building a startup in the course, and quite a few of them have actually asked if they could sell the product to real businesses. Of course I encouraged them to do so.

Development isn't just about programming, it's about building cool things, and I felt that by doing another todo list, blog, or clone of X, I'd be doing people a disservice.</comment></comment>


Ethereum Based Protesting – Reigning Emperor - <AUTHOR> https://www.reigningemperor.com <comment><USER2> Is it popular in China?</comment>


Can a micropayment strategy make money? - <AUTHOR>

So I'm bouncing ideas for business plans around, and one of them involves selling low-cost digital goods. Basically, an online store would sell goods priced at $.99 and the consumer would pay by credit card. I know a place like the iTunes Store makes money doing the same thing, but on a massive scale. They also have an advantage in that many times the actual purchase is higher than $.99, because purchases over time are lumped together and a consumer often makes multiple purchases.<p>But is it viable for a business that would sell small quantities of goods, resulting in a credit card charge of $2 or less? Is there any profit at all in a credit card transaction of $.99? Disregarding the overhead for a merchant account for the time being, what are the transaction costs for a credit card transaction, and what is a good estimate of the available margin left over to spread amongst the interested parties? An example: I sell a digital picture for $.99. How much will I have left over after credit card fees to split with the copyright owner? <comment><USER2> You won't want to go with a traditional merchant account since the fees are typically $.30 per transaction plus 3%.

You'll either want to hit up PayPal's little known micropayment feature which runs $.05 per transaction plus 5% ([https://www.paypal.com/IntegrationCenter/ic_micropayments.ht...](https://www.paypal.com/IntegrationCenter/ic_micropayments.html)), or use Amazon's Flexible Payments Solution which has a similar pricing model and is set up for developer integration.</comment>


Cisco's New Project Squared Collaboration Tool Offers Alternative to WebEx - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/17/ciscos-new-project-squared-collaboration-tool-gives-webex-a-run-for-its-money/

<comment><USER2> I'm from the keynote team - you can download and play with Project Squared here:

[http://www.webex.com/projectsquared/](http://www.webex.com/projectsquared/)

<comment><USER3> That just gives an error on sign up: "We're sorry, but we're only accepting invitations at the moment.Please check back soon!"

<comment><USER4> If you wait a while, you'll receive an email saying "We added you to the early access list and will send you a getting started email once your account is ready".

<comment><USER2> And if either of you send me your email - I'd be happy to send you a message that'll give you an account!

<comment><USER4> Ok, thanks - just emailed you. (I recognised your handle, as I've spoken to you by email in the past).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Squared seems to leave out two of Slack's biggest features: "Integration with other services" and "Search Anything"

<comment><AUTHOR> Both of those features are only a matter of time.

<comment><AUTHOR> And one of the things we should realize is that they do have real integrations with all the videoconferencing stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm watching the keynote.

<comment><USER6> Was the keynote posted online?

<comment><USER2> I'll follow up with a keynote video tomorrow night. There's a couple spots out there, but nothing easy to get to.</comment></comment></comment>


I am afraid to succeed. Help. - <AUTHOR> tl;dr: killer idea, if I take money, wife undeservedly will take 50%, so, I'm not sure if I want to launch the killer idea.
For the last few years I've been involved in a loveless marriage. On the surface, everything looks fine to my family, but, I hear the phone calls all the time:

  "If I had the money, I'd leave him."
 I don't believe she's cheated on me and when approached, she denies it, says things are fine, I know they aren't. I'm a meal ticket, plain and simple. Years ago when I wanted to branch out and diversify into a few non-Internet related things, I was told:

  "Whatever you do, you're on your own."
 Without the support of a significant other in a relationship and the constant reminders that the household needs cash, I'm unable to work on some projects that I know could be successful as she's not willing to endure lean times.
I'm in a lean time now. A client broke a contract, I'm in a rough financial situation that will resolve itself shortly when I can renegotiate one of my supplier contracts at its renewal date.
I'm an idea man that can execute. I've launched a number of projects that have all been somewhat profitable - at least to the point of making sure there was food on the table. Never a home-run type project that brought in tons of extra cash, but, we've lived pretty well - or so I thought.
I've worked hard. I haven't had a vacation or day off in years. I feel that my wife must have been George Michael's ex-wife and was the inspiration for 'Everything She Wants'. My life is wake up, code, sleep. She works at a salon, earning 'her money'. She drives a considerable distance, I pay for gas, tolls, etc and as near as I can tell, she is paid on commission only. But it is social time among the people as there isn't much business. When she's done with her day, she goes to play cards with her other friends. We have dinner together perhaps two nights per week.
I've had an idea for an Android and IPhone app that I've sat on for almost two years. It would change the world. I've got clients that could get it to the right people and the timing is probably getting close. Technology tomorrow will probably solve many of the problems the concept has now.
I've got another idea that I believe will take off that I've been mulling over since the late 80s. Technology has become ubiquitous enough and society has probably come far enough to accept the concept. Since the 80s, I've seen exactly two implementations of the concept - one using nametags back in the early 90s, the other just recently doing it with stored value RF cards.
I've got dozens of others, all in various states - only needing time and effort to complete.
But, none of those are the idea that I've spent the last few weeks refining and tweaking. I have a small group of people I bounce ideas off of and usually the response I get is blahse. This idea has a client calling me all hours of the day and night asking if I've thought of this or that, can it do this, will it do that. Another client is asking for capabilities that I've thought about and documented.

  "This idea is going to change social photo sharing."
 I have three scenarios in mind:
1) launches, doesn't get much uptake but becomes somewhat popular. 2) launches, gets wildly popular, becomes a talent acquisition. 3) launches, gets wildly popular, is bought by 'BigCo' and incorporated into their product.
Two of those three have an outcome that scares me. I've always said, if I won the lottery I would give my wife half immediately. If she stayed with me, I would know she loved me. If given that choice today, she will take her 50% and leave.
That's my money. She hasn't contributed a dime to the household in almost fourteen years. She pays the bills from my payroll check every month, but, our fridge sees nothing but Coke cans. Our two shared meals a week are takeout from the Chinese restaurant or Subway - and I really hate Chinese food.
I have a few investors practically harassing me to take their money on several ideas I've pitched in casual conversation. I've always avoided their direct questions or asked them, "Why me? Why my idea?" and that is usually enough to styme them until the next time we meet.
I have a $25m idea by conservative estimates. Two clients claim the idea should get a much higher valuation based on so many things that have gotten funding that don't have a business model figured out. I can't afford to build something without knowing there is cash coming in quickly, so my ideas are usually fairly safe.
The dilemma:
I have a prototype. I have the Android app almost working. I have most of the issues on the frontend figured out. I have the IPhone app working in the emulator. I have a public beta scheduled for later this month with a few people and I've been told to make sure I'm ready for 'a heap of people' to start using it. I know the few investors are going to become quite aggressive.
I'm ambivalent about the marriage. I married a rich girl, I came from a poor family. I didn't listen to my family, she didn't listen to hers. Her family cut her off from her trust fund when she married me - it isn't enough for her to live on. I've never wanted her money and I've worked my butt off for everything I've had. I still see her rich girl tendencies - intentionally breaking things so she can have a reason to buy a replacement, etc. But, I know the minute I get a large cash infusion and start growing this thing, it'll be noticed and the time will be right. I suspect the company would get significant investments in 6-8 months which would allow her to cash out with her golden parachute.
Yes, I could take steps to protect the money, move it offshore, keep it in the business, hide and shuffle it, but, that isn't ethical. Even though she's going to be out for everything she wants, I know the number is 50%. The house, the cars, the boat, the furniture, etc are all meaningless to me.
I'm almost not willing to launch this because I know 50% of whatever I make off this project is going to get thrown away to someone that doesn't deserve it.
Help. <comment><USER2> Take some time to think about this:

> I've worked hard. I haven't had a vacation or day off in years. (...) My > life is wake up, code, sleep.

> When she's done with her day, she goes to play cards with her other friends.

In order of importance, I feel that that you would benefit the most from speaking to your wife, a psychiatrist, a marriage counselor and possibly a lawyer.

Not knowing you personally it is difficult to ascertain your mental state but if your writeup is any indication, you really, really need some time off; not a new startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I've decided to take some of your advice. I've decided to plow ahead with the startup and just take the hit. She made a long bet on me that will probably pay off pretty well and I've got plenty of ideas that I can execute after this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Find a trusted friend and give him the idea for 10% of the profit per year and a large payout in ten years.

Your happy and haven't been unethical and she is entitled to her half, but will most likely want to wait.

<comment><AUTHOR> Keeping her as a financial hostage is not quite my intention.</comment></comment>


We bet you $10K that we will outperform your pricing strategy - <AUTHOR> https://modernpricing.com/blog/posts/how-to-become-your-companys-growth-hero <comment><USER2> Looks like they use a JS library, so users will be able to detect the usage of this service in most cases.

Few will do so, but those that realize it will be your most vocal detractors. Consumers _despise_ dynamic pricing.

<comment><USER3> Dynamic pricing means the company is trying as hard as possible to give you the worst deal possible, and people resent it because it's insulting.

Basically, instead of "thank you", it's "fuck you".

<comment><USER4> It could work the other way. How many times have you seen a product or service found it interesting and saw the price and was immediately turned off? Or if you're shopping for a product and you could convey that information to the retailer, they might lower their price. This is the same idea as searching for coupon codes to put in during checkout.

<comment><USER5> I'd like to second this comment. The only reason you can fly economy for so cheap is because first class is so expensive.

<comment><USER2> First class and economy are different experiences. Airlines don't change your price for economy based on your personal information.

Would you like to have to pay more because you live in an affluent zip code, even if you aren't affluent yourself? Because of your age, relationship status, income, wealth, education, friends, and more?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > We process the IP address and user agent for each new visitor to your > website, then we predict the maximum price level where each visitor is > willing to buy.

Whoa. I think if my customers found out about this I would have a real problem on my hands.

And since my customers are all IT admins, it seems like they might figure it out.

<comment><USER7> Customers are much more tolerant of there being a fixed high price, and some customers being offered a voucher code for 'loyalty' or whatever.

People are fine with being given a discount, but don't like to be charged a premium.

Industries like car insurance have done differential pricing for decades, and consumers have come to accept it.

<comment><USER8> In my opinion they accept it because they are forced to. I live in an area where the public transit is not built out and my economic opportunities would be drastically limited by not having a car so once a month I unhappily pay more than my peers because of some teenage mistakes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like it's pretty unethical. I'm not a fan. Surge pricing only really (sort of) makes sense to me for resources that can be temporarily at capacity, as a means of prioritization of customers.

Even that is kind of scummy.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here is the wikipedia article on the theoretical basis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination)

Many forms of price discrimination, like menu pricing or 2-part tariffs, as well as group pricing, are used every day. This, however, is an attempt at first-order price discrimination enabled by near-perfect tracking of users. It is then unclear to what degree this may or not be illegal, or will be in the future.

Important to keep in mind is that it "hurts" the consumers in the sense they can no longer get a theoretical surplus. Therefore consumers would have to change their mindset about purchasing things. Goods would have to be bought more with a mindset of filling "necessities", because on average we, the consumers, would lose surplus compared to firms.

So naturally, this has the potential to piss off consumers, either if they have the intuition, or understand what price discrimination does.

Edit: As for the legality, I can give the following advice. First, be very careful about how you classify consumers, because many group-based discriminations (such as gender) that are implicitly used by ML algorithms, are definitly illegal.

Second, price discrimination in the "normal world" often points to having monopoly power. Currently, there is no good eqivalent for the internet world, because many monopoly tests fail by default (for example, entry). That is why I believe the EU or the US will eventually legislate against this form of personalized pricing to protect consumers.

It is a grey zone now because, for example, the EU legislates that illegality necessitates a) a monopolistic position and b) using it to hurt consumer surplus or block competition. For internet companies, with some big platforms being the exception, the test for a) fails by default.

This differs from country to country, but because the algorithms can only infer purchasing power based on characteristica, I believe that they will be made illegal (in the EU) based on the respective constitutional laws that make discrimination based on these properties illegal, and I do not think monopolistic postitions will be necessary.

That means even a small internet start-up should be careful.

<comment><USER11> "Second, price discrimination in the "normal world" often points to having monopoly power"

Something I think is underappreciated, or at least I don't notice people mentioning explicitly, is that the state of being a monopoly intensifies the shorter the time horizon for making a deal. If you want something within the next 100 years, nothing is a monopoly. If you have an online shopping basket that you're about to order, even the most abundant commodity has a privileged position relative to the competition.

Companies are increasingly realizing they can utilize discriminatory pricing in proportion to the amount of commitment demonstrated by a customer. For instance, if you are in a store, you will likely pay a significant premium rather than go to another store, even if they were on equal footing when you were at home. If you are checking out, you will likely pay a premium rather than start all over. If you have a membership... and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would like to see a system able to give me the derivative of price tolerance vs various factors.

For example, browser type, advert viewed, various on-site AB tests, etc.

It could collect all this data via two prices (eg. $12.99 and $13.99) and looking at the conversion rate for each.

I could totally collect this data myself, but I would like someone else to build a system to measure it, and present it in graphs with confidence intervals.

Pretty much this service, but in 'advise only' mode.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can anyone shed some light on whether using a service like this may be a legal concern? I recently read that at least in the EU dynamic/personalized pricing can be illegal if it discriminates groups based on certain criteria.

<comment><USER10> Yes, this is what economists simply call price discrimination and for any normal business it is definitly illegal.

This is a grey zone now, but it will be decided that either it is illegal now, or it will be made illegal eventually.

So I'd be careful with this kind of stuff.

<comment><USER11> It's pervasive, and nobody's made an effective case that it's illegal outside of basing it on protected classes of people.

For instance, you can detect whether someone browsing your website on their phone is in your physical store and if so, show them the same higher prices that are in the store. But if someone is not in your store, you can show them lower prices to compete online. I've noticed retailers doing this. At least sometimes, they try to defuse it by matching the lower price _if_ a customer notices the game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Discriminatory pricing. What could possibly go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER14> Criteria for selection includes but is not limited to:

Traffic: > 100K uniques/month

Test period: 6 months minimum

Existing pricing strategy: static</comment>