Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet - <AUTHOR> https://netblocks.org/reports/iraq-blocks-facebook-twitter-whatsapp-and-instagram-amid-civil-unrest-zA4zGlyR <comment><USER2> Iraqi here (But I live in Turkey), protests were raging yesterday and today, first social media was taken down now the whole internet from mid (Baghdad) to the rest of the south of the country

Here is a local service monitor for all major ISPs in Iraq: [http://akonet.info](http://akonet.info)

This is the usual procedure by the "freedom" government they do this every time, the only issue is this time the protestors are not carrying any flags or any political or religious figures names etc... only the Iraqi flag and burning Iranian flags,

so far it's people(sometimes people and the army) vs government... few people got killed already, there is news the Baghdad airport has fallen into the hands of the protestors, and most of the main roads are blocked and crowded with people

//UPDATE:

All cities are offline except Kurdistan up north

<comment><USER3> So the protests have no religious colouring? Like, it's not Shia vs Sunni vs Kurds vs Commies vs whatever, just a protest against poor government performance?

If so, it's a sign of good progress in Iraqi society and mindset. Such a thing wouldn't be possible just 10 years ago, it was always sort of 'us' vs 'them', these groups being ethnically and/or religiously defined.

<comment><USER2> "So far" yes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I recall reading somewhere that internet shutdowns during protests are usually counterproductive. People who were previously only voicing their frustration online or passing the time with entertainment are suddenly left with a lot of free time on their hands. While a shutdown can prevent coordination on the national scale, it can't stop people from taking to the streets and organizing spontaneously.

EDIT: Found my source: [https://www.iafrikan.com/2019/05/06/shutting-down- social-med...](https://www.iafrikan.com/2019/05/06/shutting-down-social-media- does-not-reduce-violence-but-rather-fuels-it/)

 _" Under a blackout, each successive day of protest had more violence than would typically happen as a protest unfolded with continued internet access. Meanwhile, the effects of shutdowns on peaceful demonstrations, which are usually more likely to rely on careful coordination through digital channels, were ambiguous and inconsistent. In no scenario were blackouts consistently linked to reduced levels of protest over the course of several days. Instead of curtailing protest, they seemed to encourage a tactical shift to strategies that are less orderly, more chaotic and more violent."_

<comment><USER5> Except when Russia does it: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/08/08/russian-s...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/08/08/russian- security-agencies-secretly-shut-moscows-mobile-internet-to-control-protestors- report/)

<comment><USER6> They didn't really shut it down for the whole city though - they only took down cell stations for a couple of blocks around the protest; wired connection and cellular for those in the rest of the city was just fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This explains why I've been seeing #save_the_iraqi_people and related hashtags all over Instagram. For those not in the know:

> demonstrators in Baghdad and elsewhere protest against lack of jobs and poor > services.

[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/baghdad-police- open-f...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/baghdad-police-open-fire- anti-government-protesters-191001143248615.html)

<comment><USER8> Contrast the public and political reaction to these events with the public and political reaction to the protests in Hong Kong.

<comment><USER9> What are you implying?

<comment><USER10> That not one of you is sincere.

When a protestor in hong kong gets shot "the whole world" is on its feet, when SA and USA starve to death 80 000 children in Yemen no one bats an eye.

<comment><USER11> I'm not going to deny the hypocrisy, but I think it's a very human thing really. Do you respond equally to every unjust death in the world?

<comment><USER10> Not sure what you're asking me.

No, I'm not brainwashed enough to think that shooting a violent protestor is the same as intentionally starving to death a whole goddamned country.

We don't even have to talk about how american police act... that's a whole other dimension of hypocrisy, unfathomable to me personally.

<comment><USER8> Ah, he was a violent protestor. Perfectly justified to kill him on the spot, then.

The protestors in Hong Kong were not violent at all, of course. Not a single on harmed a hair on a peace officer's head, or even so much as scratched a pane of glass...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The Iraqi people have been suffering silently for the past years; they are trapped between ISIS, Iranian influence, destruction of the war, and the US- backed corrupt government. People are fed up.

</comment><comment><USER13> There will continue to be unrest in Iraq until an all-Shiite government is in control.

At the time of Gulf War II under W, the population was about 20% Sunni, 20% Kurdish, and 60% Shiite. So if you disarm the minority ruling Sunni establishment and instead pledge to install a democracy, a Shiite government is the logical conclusion.

Since realizing their mistake, the US has attempted to patch together some multi-religious, multi-ethnic government, but these are all destined to failure. The Kurds want to be left to their own devices, the majority Shiites want to rule the south of the country with most of the oil, and they want the Sunnis left out of power in the deserts to the West.

George HW, being smarter than George W, pulled his punches, left Saddam in power, and left him with helicopters to kill enough Shiites to prevent a successful rebellion of the "marsh Arabs", as they were called in news reports back then.

<comment><USER14> This "analysis" is so wrong.. power is already dominated entirely by Shiaa governments, except for Kurdistan region, but that has little to no effect outside Kurdistan. The problem is that much of the current government officials are corrupt and have their loyalties to Iran. They are busy enriching themselves. Let alone the fact that they armed a powerful militia group that's completely beholden to Iran.. Much thanks to the US for destabilizing the country and handing it over to their so called "enemy" Iran. There should be no doubts that the government in Basrah is all Shiite, yet people IN Basrah have been protesting very strongly in the past year. Because simply this government doesn't serve the iraqi people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Starlink can't come soon enough. Imagine internet beyond the grasp of control freak governments

<comment><USER16> > _Imagine internet beyond the grasp of control freak governments_

Radio jammers.

There are very few technological solutions to political problems.

<comment><USER17> Deploying and maintaining radio jamming devices is _way_ more difficult and expensive than telling an ISP to shut down service.

<comment><USER18> Depends on the frequencies and types of antennas used. Doesn't take much to disrupt a radio-based service (people do this by accident, that's why RF regulations exist everywhere). It's not that much of an expense for a government to set up a few antennas and make them put out half a megawatt of noise each.

<comment><USER19> You can also use directional antennas to find and destroy RF jammers

<comment><USER20> Thats why they would be probably based on military bases etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well mission accomplished .. I guess. A great documentary if you haven't seen it is "Iraq: No End in Sight." It's pretty clear that the completely failed (non-existent) reconstruction efforts of the Bush administration would lead eventually to a failed state.

The same thing is happening in Libya after the Obama era bombings. These places weren't democratic paradises before or anything; I'm not saying that. They had corruption and human rights issues -- but they were stable. People who didn't protest against the government and weren't in poverty could usually live in relative peace. You can say the same thing about China to some extent as well.

<comment><USER22> All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles.

It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if I must, and let the warheads rust in peace.

<comment><USER23> I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren't there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?

<comment><USER24> A still-relevant classic analysis of US military-commercial ventures: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket)

<comment><USER25> One of the most distinguished veterans of the Marine Corps, and simultaneously one of the only Marine generals to NEVER feature on the Commandant's Reading List. I love posing that question to junior Marines as introspective food for thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> hey guys, I want to take this opportunity to ask if anyone here was born in the early 70s in Baghdad and went to Baghdad College high school ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_College)) in the early to late 80s. We left in 87 to London, UK then Boston, US after that, just before the end of the war with Iran, and I'd like to reconnect with any classmates/old friends who may also be into tech... I'm sure everyone is all over the world by now, in different places. Thank you, and take care wherever you are.

</comment><comment><USER27> From a pragmatic perspective, what is the West and the US in particular supposed to do about this?

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 in the first place, but we did, so what now?

Our government is going to keep its boot on the neck of Iraq and stay involved over there as long as Iraq still has oil, right? If the problem now is more that we have too little influence, so what? Are we supposed to try regime change again because it worked so well last time?

The current Iraqi regime may not be good, but neither was Saddam. We still should have left Saddam alone, excepting targeted strikes if we ever got good intelligence about WMD programs.

<comment><USER28> If somebody leaves a void (US?) then the next strongest force (Iran?) will try to fill it.

In the case of Iraq (maybe similar for Syria?) I guess that there aren't probably big motivations/interests nor strong cultural similarities for the West to create something similar to a "Marshall Plan" ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) ) to kickstart again the nation and then make it work long-term from both an economic and indirectly social perspective. Therefore, I think that Iraq will just drift more and more towards what will look like the next-best offer(s) (Iran?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Cui bono?

Whom would benefit from a social media organised protest/riot against the government?

This comes as the Iraqi president Mahdi anounces a potential arms deal with Russia as part of a diverification of strategic allies.

Until now, arms deals were exclusively with US.

Mahdi has campaigned on a theme that US invlovement in Iraq has not been entirely positive.

<comment><USER30> The US (and allies) pushed Saddam into war against Iran. Then there was the Gulf War, then sanctions that reportedly killed hundred of thousands of people (remember Madeleine Albright testifying that it was "worth it"?). Then the unforgivable, unjustifiable war of 2003. Then civil war and unrest, then ISIS. Iraq has been constantly at war and suffering for 39 years and counting _because of the US_.

Isn't imperialism wonderful. It makes me sick and I don't even know a single Iraqi :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just from the past couple of months:

• Kashmir: [https://netblocks.org/reports/pakistan-shuts-down- internet-i...](https://netblocks.org/reports/pakistan-shuts-down-internet-in- kashmir-restricts-access-in-punjab-and-beyond-3Anw7dB2)

• Russia: [https://netblocks.org/reports/evidence-of-internet- disruptio...](https://netblocks.org/reports/evidence-of-internet-disruptions- in-russia-during-moscow-opposition-protests-XADErzBg) • Bangladesh: [https://www.economist.com/news/2019/09/04/bangladesh-bans- mo...](https://www.economist.com/news/2019/09/04/bangladesh-bans-mobile- phones-for-1m-rohingya-refugees)

• Sudan: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/13/end- mass-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/13/end-mass- protests-sudan-has-cut-off-internet-access-nationwide-heres- why/?noredirect=on)

• London: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london- tube-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-tube-wifi- down-internet-not-working-underground-protest-extinction- rebellion-a8873681.html)

"Shutting down digital infrastructure in response to a peaceful protest is deeply authoritarian," said Griff Ferris, legal and policy officer at Big Brother Watch."

I've heard they did not shut down internet in Hong Kong as lots of mainland China is routed via Hong Kong...

</comment><comment><USER32> If anyone in or near Iraq can read this, you can spread messages using person- to-person tools that don't need the internet at all.

For example, using the Scuttlebutt network (SSB), you can deliver messages from your contacts, using Bluetooth or just by being on the same wifi. They can be public messages, or encrypted private messages so only certain recipients can decode them. Manyverse ([https://manyver.se](https://manyver.se)) is a decent Android app for SSB.

There are other tools like Briar, which I don't know much about, but other people here may be able to help...

</comment><comment><USER33> If you were in Iraq, would there have been any reasonable countermeasures, accessible to the average person, that could have preserved access? Or is it limited to something like a sat phone/sat internet?

<comment><USER34> It's not apparent from the article if phone calls are blocked. It's probably not cheap, and it's certainly easy to track, but you can run data over international voice calls. Probably works better on a real landline, but should work a bit over mobile too.

<comment><USER35> You'd have to know a modem pool to call and have an account there, I wouldn't even know where to start. Especially if I was already cut off from the Internet.

<comment><USER34> The question was asking about prep work that could have been done. Now is the time to print out some modem pools and get an account ;)

However, if you know someone technical out of the country, you can call them and ask them to set something up and get you the details. (Or you can't call them, and there you go).

If you're talking with people on things like Signal or WhatsApp, where phone numbers are user ids, you automatically know their phone number to call them in case the chat service is unreachable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> From what I've gathered, disenfranchised citizens in Baghdad are protesting, and the government has responded by shutting down the internet. I understand it's reactionary but what is their logic here?

<comment><USER37> You mean the logic in shutting down the internet? Countries do that these days (see Kashmir) to keep the protests under control by blocking communication and collaboration among the protesters. It increases the barrier to discovery and participation in a protest basically.

<comment><USER36> Thanks. It seemed to me counterintuitive to respond to protests about inadequate services by cutting off another service (fanning the flames)

<comment><USER33> Yes, there's another comment here somewhere that points to a study where showing violence tends to increase post-shutdown compared to leaving communications open. I suppose leaving things open lets people organize more, but they tend to be more peaceful in those gatherings. Just supposition though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> LORA based mesh could help here

[https://nootropicdesign.com/projectlab/2018/10/20/lora- mesh-...](https://nootropicdesign.com/projectlab/2018/10/20/lora-mesh- networking/)

<comment><USER38> Lora is not for general usage / internet. Basic messaging - maybe. But it achieves a few kbps in good conditions.

<comment><USER26> Recall we had a whole interactive/social world in the 80s with BBSs with 300 baud acoustically coupled modems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I really hope the SpaceX satellite internet works.

</comment><comment><USER40> So here is a prime example of a government using the power to censor the internet during a revolution...

</comment><comment><USER41> I guess the freedom box was for such issues :

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

but I guess it needs internet at least...

</comment><comment><USER42> What I took from this: Earthlink still exists?!

</comment><comment><USER43> I see that $1T Iraq war spread freedom and democracy across the Middle East. Great bargain.

</comment><comment><USER44> Is it a pro or anti-Iran protest? I think it's an anti one but not very sure...

<comment><USER45> They are burning Iranian flags.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Considering this country is literally liberated by the US, it is totally hilarious!

</comment><comment><USER47> What about using apps like Bridgefy or Firechat?

</comment><comment><USER48> IP over Avian Carriers does not look so bad idea now

</comment><comment><USER49> Ahh, the smell of freedom!

</comment><comment><USER50> Why are they burning Iranian flags?

<comment><USER2> Because the government is backed by Iran (puppet) and it's fully corrupt?

<comment><USER51> Wait, didn't America wage a war to install a pro-American government in Iraq? Are they somehow pro-American and pro-Iran at the same time, or did they switch alliances while nobody in the west was paying attention?

<comment><USER52> The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like.

When you want a country to be free and democratic, you can't also tell them who to elect. You have to choose one or the other. The United States has often chosen the latter while pretending to want the former, but at least with Iraq they seem to be mostly hands off (in recent years).

<comment><USER53> > The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a > country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people > that you don't like.

I don't the right prior here is "elections = real democracy", for cases like Iraq. The US has long history of installing "democratic" governments that are not actually democratic, but rather military states who violently suppress the people, but support US interests. The list of countries where this has borne out is long, but if you are interested, an easy place to start would be Cold War era South America (Guatemala and El Salvador being two straightforward examples).

<comment><USER54> Ironically whole thing started with CIA staged double coup(first one did not work apparently) in Iran during 1953(declassified recently). It was so successful that they copy-pasted it to LATAM and elsewhere. [1]

Interesting fact: Kermit Roosevelt Jr. a grandson of U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt, played the lead role in the CIA-sponsored overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran, in August 1953. [2]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> And Europe has to pick up the pieces in terms of refugees while the US & Five Eyes sit back, popcorn in hand, and watch the mess they've made from a safe distance.

<comment><USER18> > _And Europe has to pick up the pieces in terms of refugees_

For us (Europe) this is essentially dress rehearsal for upcoming climate- related migrations, and it turns out we're not handling it well.

<comment><USER56> What would handling it "well" mean?

<comment><USER57> Not having populist demagogs reach significant power would be a nice start. Though I'm not sure if the migrant "crisis" is actually the cause or just a symptom for deeper issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Sounds like a utopia. I wish to god the USA would do that.

</comment><comment><USER59> I have the pi-hole in the house set to block the same stuff.

</comment><comment><USER60> Let's try to deconstruct an oxymoron here: So all these protests are happening because Iraq is blocking a multi million dollar company? Right?

I know it is bad, but there are alternatives and we as people living on this planet should not narrow ourselves down to only one channel of communication that is operating on one channel that is internet.*

And let's face it: because it is so easy to use facebook, people are getting lazy and numb, more and more dumb and numb people scrolling through other peoples shit, they don't try to figure out a more complex system where at the end frees the individual from a controlling state.

Just wake up already.

* Not to mention the fact that facebook reads your messages and all your shit so it can feed you some more shit.

<comment><USER61> Stop reading just the headlines. They are protesting against poor government performance, corruption, and all of this stuff. Iraqi government shuts down the internet as they want, in this case, possibly, to stop the protesters from organising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Part of me says "Now this is a mentally healthy thing to do!" with regards to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. I found social media has been becoming emotionally toxic and highly argumentative. it's so refreshing to not go on twitter in 6 months, only look at facebook to check up on remote friends and once in a while check Instagram to see what friends cross the country are actually doing; minus the false "Look at this new fancy thing!" :)

Do you avoid social media these days? I enjoy HNs because its informative around technology; not politics etc. So relaxing.</comment>


Nukes of Hazard (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/nukes-of-hazard <comment><USER3> > In 1960, the computer at... NORAD... warned, with 99.9-per-cent certainty, > that the Soviets had just launched a full-scale missile attack against North > America... They later discovered that the Ballistic Missile Early Warning > System at Thule Airbase, in Greenland, had interpreted the moon rising over > Norway as a missile attack from Siberia.

This is why numbers shouldn't be reported with too many significant figures. I doubt the engineers thought the reports could be %99.9 certain, given that they're extrapolated from noisy sensors, networked across huge distances and that the opponent is adversarial (actively trying to avoid detection).

Percentages can cause a false sense of certainty too; as Leonard Mlodinow points out in The Drunkard's Walk about changing wine ratings from out-of-10 to percentages. We might be quite sure that an 8/10 compares favourably to a 7/10 but not to a 9/10; we can't say the same about an %82 with an %83 and an %81.

If you're forced to report percentages, or tenths of a percent, write the estimated error alongside. Raw numbers like "%99.9" have an implied "+/\- %0.05" afterwards.

And _that_ , ladies and gentlement, is why Die Hard 4.0 contains too many many significant figures.

<comment><USER4> Put it that way and it sounds like 99.9999% is just an excessively precise version of 99%. Really it's the difference between .01 and .000001. It's just an expression of the order of magnitude: one in a hundred, a thousand, a million.

<comment><USER5> ...and we did hit that one chance in a million that it was wrong.

<comment><USER6> What are the chances?!

<comment><USER7> "Million-to-one chances," she said, "crop up nine times out of ten." - <USER2> Rites

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article claims that a nine-megaton blast would wipe out "most of the state of Arkansas". Wikipedia claims the lethal radius on a bomb of that size is about 20 miles for thermal effects ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Effects](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Effects) ), which is around 2% of the area of Arkansas; other effects are described as having an even smaller radius.

I suspect, but cannot prove, the wikipedia number is more likely to be correct.

<comment><USER9> Fall-out effects from such a large & dirty H-bomb detonated at ground level would have been pretty bad - you wouldn't want to be downwind of such an event.

[Edit 1]

Actually, if you consider the indirect effects of the use of such a weapon - particularly the large number of refugees fleeing contaminated areas, huge numbers of injured etc. while such a detonation wouldn't destroy an entire state it would probably reduce it to complete chaos.

e.g. The UK government estimated in the 1950s that _three_ H-bombs would be all it would take to destroy the UK as a functioning society - the UK ambassador in Moscow even had a drunken debate with Kruschev on this point - suggesting that the hundreds of weapons the Soviets had pointing at the UK were complete overkill...

[Edit 2]

The UK government was always pretty gloomy/realistic about the likely impact of a nuclear war on the UK - basically even in fairly optimistic scenarios such as the Square Leg exercise used as the basis for Threads were absolutely awful. A real attack would have been far worse that the one shown in Threads, if anyone can conceive of that.

<comment><USER10> >> suggesting that the hundreds of weapons the Soviets had pointing at the UK were complete overkill...

As Schlosser says in his book - because of the lack of coordination between the Air Force, Army, US Navy and Missile Forces, at one point there was something like 400(sorry if I remembered the number wrong,but it was in hundreds) nuclear rockets aimed at Moscow, many of them with multi-megaton payload. If they were launched, Moscow wouldn't be just destroyed - the entire area would be turned into the biggest crater on earth.

<comment><USER11> A point that bears repeating is that this level of overkill was actually _counterproductive_. One way of disabling a high efficiency nuclear device is to blast the thing with neutrons (causing a premature and incomplete fission reaction in the core of the weapon). This was actually how the Sprint ABM system was intended to destroy its targets:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_%28missile%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_%28missile%29)

Now picture the skies over Moscow with ~400 warheads coming in, most of them having been launched in a coordinated wave by Minuteman, Titan, or MX missiles within the space of a few minutes: it turns out that the prompt neutron pulse, blast, EMP, or thermal effects from one incoming warhead can disrupt another if it arrives within 10 seconds of the first. This is termed nuclear fratricide:

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

... And there were enough weapons in play during the Cold War that _this was a thing war planners worried about_.

<comment><USER12> Hey, there's a simulation I'd like to see.

"It appears that two weapons targeted on a silo must arrive at least 10 s apart to avoid fratricidal fireball effects, and less than 1 min or more than 1 h apart to avoid fratricidal nuclear dust cloud effects."

Anyone for _Missile Defense_ with a 50-100Mt Tsar bomba?

<comment><USER13> A primary reason for the generally larger, and in some cases, insanely large throw-weights of Soviet nuclear missiles was their much less accurate targeting and guidance systems.

If you can land a nuke, or even a conventional warhead, directly on whatever it is you're trying to make a was, your required explosive yield falls dramatically.

Blast radius and damage increases with the cube of yield, so if you're half as accurate, you need 8x the blast, generally, for effective damage.

Turns out that with extremely high precision warhead delivery, the US can dispense with nuclear weapons even for tasks such as destroying deeply buried and reinforced bunkers (command and control, or missile launch).

On the one hand this makes nuclear Armageddon that much less likely. On the other it makes use of highly advanced weaponry less objectionable.

Which way the risk needle ultimately swings given that calculus is an interesting question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Mathias Rust had flown a rented Cessna, an airplane about the size of a > Piper Cub, from Helsinki to Moscow and landed it a hundred yards from Red > Square

Are there people that know how big a Cub is, but don't know how big a Cessna is?

<comment><USER15> I had to look up what a Piper Cub was, whereas I believe almost everyone knows what a Cessna looks like. It's only the most common air plane ever built.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I read "Command and Control" on vacation this summer and I highly recommend it. It interweaves jaw-dropping nuclear weapon disasters from the whole nuclear age with a detailed account of one particular incident. It's astonishing how close we've come to accidental nuclear detonation (and then what happens?). That's really the point of the book: it's a matter of when, not if.

<comment><USER17> It makes a great read. The interleaving of the Titan accident and the rest of the story is leads to a disjointed structure though, making it a bit hard to follow.

It seems quite possible that we'll blow ourselves up by accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nuclear bomb security may have be less advanced than we were lead on to believe. For example British nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key: "British nukes were protected by bike locks" \- [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm) .

If one puted that in a movie plot I think few would believe it.

<comment><USER19> _Nuclear bomb security may have be less advanced than we were lead on to believe_

The launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code- for-u...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes- was-00000000-for-20-years/)

<comment><USER20> It's been changed twice since then.

First it was changed to include one capital letter, one numerical digit and an asterisk.

Now it's correcthorsebatterystaple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone who enjoyed this article, or at least the subject of it, should check out the book itself ("Command & Control" by Eric Schlosser). It's a great read.

The book's chapters alternate between two narratives. The first is a real-time account of a bomb-gone-haywire scare in Arkansas, and the people called in to deal with it. The second is a history of nuclear arms, escalation, and near- misses during the Cold War.

I could have done without the first narrative. It is awkwardly written, repetitive, and slow. (No doubt Schlosser does this to draw out the scenario across N chapters. The tactic actually makes things worse, sapping the story of its immediacy and urgency). But the main, historical narrative is fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm surprised the article doesn't mention when in 1966 the US dropped 4 nuclear bombs off the Spanish coast. It was, of course, an accident but I've always felt it was pretty serious:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash)

<comment><USER23> It sees they actually dropped some on Spain rather that off the coast. From Wikipedia: "Of the four Mk28-type hydrogen bombs the B-52G carried, three were found on land near the small fishing village of Palomares"

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I guess the most scary stuff I read in quite some time:

\- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident)

\- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83)

\- [http://rbth.com/defence/2014/04/03/ultimate_deterrent_how_th...](http://rbth.com/defence/2014/04/03/ultimate_deterrent_how_the_russian_perimeter_system_works_35633.html)

\- [http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf...](http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all)

This had so many ways to end in tears and it still does.

</comment><comment><USER19> The UK's leaders wrote "Letters of last resort" to their nuclear submarine commanders, explaining what to do if the government was destroyed:

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

It's terrifying that nuclear war was considered likely enough to do this.

<comment><USER25> My understanding was they still do: I read somewhere (can't find the link now, sorry) that when the system was explained to Tony Blair on his second day in office, he went white.

<comment><USER26> Firing the nukes after the destruction of the government is 50% of the purpose of Trident. It's a second-strike deterrence weapon. It's not as if it could be practically used as a first-strike weapon independently of the US, there aren't enough warheads to obliterate Russia or China on our own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From reading the article, I get the sense that the best thing working in our[1] favor was having a series of relatively steady, not crazy hands on the nuclear football, on both sides. It's still incredibly frightening that the annihilation of the human race was literally placed in the hands of two people at any given time, but a testament to the capability of the Soviet Politburo and the American political system to elect capable human beings.

[1] i.e. the human race

<comment><USER28> Realistically, human civilization would still have survived a full scaled thermonuclear exchange during the height of the Cold War. Things would not have been great, but humanity would still have survived.

<comment><USER29> But you're much more likely to be born into a world where this event didn't happen.

The history of nuclear accidents is not a good indicator for the risk of nuclear war due to survivorship bias.

The fact that we haven't observed a nuclear war in history might have less to do with the likelihood of nuclear war and more with the fact that fewer people would be able to observe that history.

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

<comment><USER28> Ah, interesting, a bit like a quantitative version of the anthropic principle. It presupposes that civilizations that have recovered from doomsday scenarios will never be as large as those that never had such an event occur. Perhaps on the timescale since the Cold War that holds.

<comment><USER6> This seems much sillier than the anthropic principle, however. (And I've had a professor thunder at me that the anthropic principle itself is silly, anyway.) It's not as though we know of _any_ nuclear-capable civilizations besides our own.

<comment><USER29> I'd love to hear an explanation why it seems silly.

<comment><USER6> In deference to my professor, I'll just observe why " _The fact that we haven 't observed a nuclear war in history might have less to do with the likelihood of nuclear war and more with the fact that fewer people would be able to observe that history,_" seems sillier than Carter's (not Tipler's!) anthropic principle. The anthropic principle considers only two classes of universe: one that will at some point host observers of any sort, and the other that will not. Clearly we find ourselves in a universe of the former class. Whereas your statement invokes any number of possible histories and events, and blithely assigns probability distributions to them. I value parsimony.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The weather rocket was launched from the island where I grew up in Norway (Andøya in Vesterålen, just north of Lofoten). After the event a local marketing agency created this t-shirt: [http://baardmichalsen.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tskjorte-0...](http://baardmichalsen.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tskjorte-0002.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER31> >And the missile was armed. Schlosser says that the explosive force of the warhead on a Titan II is nine megatons, which is three times the force of all the bombs dropped in the Second World War, including the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it had detonated, most of the state of Arkansas would have been wiped out.

That is the scariest thing I have read in a while. I always had the impression that there were a lot of active steps in a bomb actually exploding.

<comment><USER32> The largest nuclear detonation set off by the United States was Castle Bravo. It was fifteen megatons. It had serious fallout issues, but it did not cause the kind of damage that is claimed for this weapon.

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

<comment><USER33> >but it did not cause the kind of damage that is claimed for this weapon

I don't know, what you are referring to here, but to my opinion, given the distances of a relatively wide area with very limited population, the results where grave enough. Generations of the inhabitants where contaminated and had babies with many defects or deaths born. I guess the descendants of these poor people still struggle with the effects of this bomb.

Given such an event in or near a city of the US, I guess not only one city might get wiped out but the effects would be very real and destructive in a very big part of the US.

<comment><USER34> "Horrible effects" and "wiped out" mean very, very different things and can't be used interchangeably, especially if you're writing an article that pretends to be serious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The movie plug is in the article but most of us are only skimming so let me plug it again: [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dr_strangelove/](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dr_strangelove/)

I didn't like 2001, maybe because in 2014 its harder to appreciate, and it has a very slow pace. Dr. Strangelove a much easier watch.

<comment><USER36> "Fail Safe" [1] is also an excellent movie. I believe it was based on the same book as Strangelove, but is a drama and not a dark comedy. Excellent movie and cast.

<comment><USER35> Which one ? [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/failsafe/](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/failsafe/) vs [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1175374-fail_safe/](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1175374-fail_safe/)

<comment><USER36> Sorry, forgot the link:

[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/failsafe/](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/failsafe/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is my problem with the American and Russian government - actually any government - they play games. Stupid, myopic and arrogant idiots who see life other than their own on this planet as a thing to be toyed with. Intellectually they're little better than teenagers.

Machiavelli's blueprint smothers the benevolence of the Ghandis, the Tutus and the Mandelas. A populace too absorbed in day-to-day survival is in no position to change the status quo. Depressing.

<comment><USER9> Both "Better red than dead" and "better dead than red" were slogans thrown around in my youth here in the UK in the 70s and 80s.

Utter craziness - all of it.

<comment><USER38> This attitude is part of 'better to be dead than a slave'. I think many people saw what the Nazis did in the occupied territories and their thinking was influenced by that (extending it to, what would happen if the Soviets invaded our lands).

<comment><USER39> By the 70s and 80s, people knew (or had the option to know - many chose not to know) what the Soviets did to people at home, so it wasn't totally out of whack to assume what would happen if they invaded.

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

<comment><USER40> People often forget how awful the west treated the bottom of its society at the time. For a black in the South, the soviet union (or more likely Cuba/communist latin country) probably looked pretty good.

That's not to excuse or downplay these country's mistakes. Let's just not forget our own.

<comment><USER41> Criticism of the US for segregation was a common tactic used in Soviet propaganda.

<comment><USER40> Roughly to the same extent that criticism of the soviets was a common tactic used in western propaganda.

<comment><USER41> It was used as a form of misdirection, a way to change the subject when someone brought up stalin's genocide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> tl;dr: Modern nuclear warheads should not go off by accident, even in (almost) any conceivable accident.

Modern warhead design has the idea of the "strong link" and "weak link". The strong link is a critical part of the detonation path, and is not ordinarily in place. It can only be put in place by arming the warhead, or by a severe accident. But any accident severe enough to put the strong link in place should be more than enough to destroy the weak link, which is _also_ a critical part of the detonation path.

A warhead accident could still leave an awful lot of radioactive contamination, of course...

</comment><comment><USER43> There was a really nice documentary on similar subject: Countdown to Zero [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572769/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572769/)

</comment><comment><USER42> I seem to recall hearing that, back in the 1960s, the US at least offered to the USSR that we would teach them how to improve their nuclear command and control. The thinking was that, yes, in event of war this would improve their ability to fight, but it was more important to reduce the possibility of accidentally starting such a war.

</comment><comment><USER44> How hard is it to report facts.

"The plane split in two, the base was evacuated, and the fire burned for two and a half hours. But the explosives in the warhead didn't detonate; that would have set off a chain reaction."

This statement seems to imply the bomb would have went off, which is just not true. The physics just do not work that way.

<comment><USER45> Depending on the design, isn't there some chance that the heat could detonate the conventional explosive used to force the nuclear material together? as far as I understand it, there is definitely a risk of detonation, though it's hopefully very low. Physics is not directly the reason for it being so low either, but more safeguards put in place to ensure detonation only happens when it's supposed to and is prevented otherwise.

<comment><USER46> Most high explosives will not detonate when burnt. They need to have a shock wave running through them for the detonation to occur. The initial shock wave is usually created using a detonator, which uses a very small amount of a much more risky explosive.

You can get a lump of C-4, and use it as fuel for a fire to cook over without any danger, and in fact soldiers certainly used to do this. You can also hit it with a hammer - the shock wave caused by this isn't strong enough to cause a detonation.

In terms of a nuke, you need to detonate a set of independent lumps of explosive with very precise timing, in order to get a compression lens that will squash the fissile core sufficiently to get a nuclear explosion. Heat is unlikely to cause this to happen with a sensibly-designed bomb.

<comment><USER47> It's still very dangerous if the high explosives go if in an uncoordinated way. And then you have kilograms of enriched radioactive material spread all over. Not as bad as a supercritical reaction, but enough to worry about.

<comment><USER46> Uranium isn't really that radioactive. U-235 has a half life on the order of 10^9 years. It is only when uranium is brought together into supercritical lumps that it becomes a problem from a radiation point of view. However, it is also a toxic heavy metal, like lead, and that is a problem. That hasn't stopped militaries firing lumps of it around warzones the world over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "...the American public was regularly frightened by warnings about the dangers of a nuclear attack that was always made to appear imminent"

Not much has changed.

<comment><USER49> Did you even read the article? Such fears may have been totally rational.

<comment><USER50> We're afraid because they have nukes because they're afraid because we have nukes because we're afraid because they have nukes because they're afraid because we have nukes because...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> A very fascinating article.

</comment><comment><USER48> I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11\. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. Build their bombs. Spend that sweet tax-payer money. Feel important. Lie to the government. The past seemed so legit and so ancient when I was growing up. After 9/11 I had no idea history was repeating itself. Now we have the ever present(statistically ridiculous) threat of "terrorism". The NSA needs more powers, more money; to protect us of course. They WOULD say that because that's how they get more money, more employees, more power. Still lying to the government of course(weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?). Now we have an ex- NSA head launching a venture charging companies 1 million a month to protect them! Of course they'll contract back to government. And the NSA will tell use all about how we don't need to worry about what they are doing, we just need to pay up.

 _sigh_

<comment><USER52> > The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build > their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities.

I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it.

I fully accept a lot of mistakes were made during the cold war, and I also deplore the expensive, ineffective and unnecessary overreach by western intelligence agencies, but the threats they were and are purporting to defend us from are very real. Some of our responses to those threats have been mistaken and unnecessary, but it certainly does not follow that those threats don't exist and don't need to be responded to.

<comment><USER53> > Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical > ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that > died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it.

 _Seriously?_

There ought to be something analogously to Godwin's law to declare discussions lost after this class of arguments.

To answer in kind: "I'd like to ask how you would explain the proportionality of the respond to the families of the tens to hundreds of thousand civilian casualties[1] in the Irak war." OR "[…] explain the justice and civility of the 'war against terror' to the hundreds (?) of innocent prisoners in Guantanamo bay." OR even "[…] explain the trillion dollar [2] that were spent on the military instead on fighting aids, cancer, malaria, diabetes,… to those suffering or those who have lost friends or family."

Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater effects to society and the relative danger of the threat.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Costs)

<comment><USER54> > Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater > effects to society and the relative danger of the threat.

No, but numerical arguments quickly become ridiculous when you ignore the fact that the emotional reaction of the nation to 3,000 Americans killed in a terrorist act is itself a physically cognizable phenomenon that must be given due weight in the analysis.

<comment><USER55> It should be factored in. But at the same time, screaming about the badness _makes that worse_. Refuse to be terrorized.

<comment><USER54> Telling people how they should feel about other peoples' deaths is generally not going to get you anywhere. People feel what they feel.

<comment><USER42> OK, but making irrational policy based on how people feel leads to bad policy. Let people feel what they feel. But don't make long-term policy based on peoples' emotional reactions to events.

<comment><USER55> I actually disagree, perhaps subtly. Emotional reactions are still reactions, are still a thing that exists in reality, and should be appropriately weighted. But emotional reaction should be weighted in terms of considering it as a consequence, and emotions should be consulted in determining which consequences we (collectively) care about. This is _distinct_ from responding in the short term to a demand for vengeance simply because that's how people feel now (but _not_ distinct from reacting with vengeance if the population will long-term approve of having done so, balancing emotional _consequences_ with others).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Jesus Christ...what a thing to read if you needed to not fall asleep for awhile. I think this is a perfect real-life example of Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"...the whole world has nearly been annihilated, several times over, due to most inexplicably benign human errors...and that's not even counting the errors of bureaucracy (such as the misreporting of Russian nuke capability, which let military officials press the need for an absurd number of excess warheads).

Also, this is the first time I can remember that I've ever seen a correction in a New Yorker article.

</comment><comment><USER57> nah... we'll collapse our civilization slowly by turning into one big always connected ant colony hidden in concrete from the overheated unfriendly environment

</comment><comment><USER58> All we need is a solar frame, pandemic, or string of larger earthquakes in some parts of the globe. That would cause some nuclear plants to meltdown. Life on Earth would become impossible. No need to worry about some accidental nuclear war. Damn, we're dumb.

<comment><USER59> Can you back that up with some numbers, or a source perhaps? Because that just sounds like fearmongering. We've already had two nuclear plant meltdowns, and life on earth is doing just fine.

<comment><USER58> Fear mongering? Let's see:

First of all, Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 mile^2. [3] Life is not doing just fine there. And the effect of Fukushima meltdown are not going to be known for the next few years, but there are indications that it may not be as harmless as we are led to believe.[4]

There are currently 62 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 31 states in the United States. [1]

A recent study led by European researchers found Fukushima is not alone, as 22 other plants around the world may be similarly susceptible to destructive tsunami waves, with most of them in east and southeast regions of Asia. [2]

The World Nuclear Association estimates that 20 percent of nuclear reactors worldwide operate in areas vulnerable to earthquakes.[5]

[1] [http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3) [2] [http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/nuclear-plants-at- tsu...](http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/nuclear-plants-at-tsunami- risk-120924.htm) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone) [4][http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/07/nuclear-expert- fukushima-...](http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/07/nuclear-expert-fukushima- plant-now-like-swamp-radioactive-material-due-contaminated-water/) [5][http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/how-many-us- nucle...](http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/how-many-us-nuclear- plants-are-located-near-earthquake-faults)

<comment><USER4> Actually life is doing better in the Chernobyl zone than it was when there were humans there. Humans stay away because they don't like slight increases in cancer probability, not because life is impossible.

<comment><USER58> one more point

"Some claim that the populations of traditional Polesian animals (such as wolves, badger, wild boar, roe deer, white-tailed eagle, black stork, Western marsh harrier, short-eared owl, red deer, moose, great egret, whooper swan, least weasel, common kestrel and beaver) have multiplied enormously and begun expanding outside the zone. These claims, however, are not substantiated by any systematic census of any animal taxon."[41] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone#Radioactive_contamination) [41] Møller, A P; T A Mousseau; F de Lope; N Saino (2008). "Anecdotes and empirical research in Chernobyl". Biology Letters 4 (1): 65–66. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0528. ISSN 1744-957X. PMC 2412943. Retrieved 2012-02-07.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An apparent macroscopic violation of the second law of thermodynamics - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-09-apparent-macroscopic-violation-law-thermodynamics.html <comment><USER2> It looks like an interesting phenomenon, but about the title the relevant paragraph is:

> _However, when the remainder of the edges and the interior of the material > are taken into account, the second law is restored. This "partial" violation > is an effect of this type of exotic quantum system that does not fit within > the framework of classical physics_</comment>


Reported difficulties getting help on Equifax's phone lines - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/09/13/i-called-equifax-with-a-simple-question-this-is-what-happened/?utm_term=.8efe961a4475 <comment><USER2> TL;DR: Equifax phone lines unhelpful for anything.

Suggestion, from [https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6yv4gb/off...](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6yv4gb/official_mega_thread_recent_equifax_security/dmqdld2/)

If you do nothing else, place an initial 90 day fraud alert on your file. This is free and will require lenders to contact you if someone (including yourself) tries to apply for credit. Government info. _You only have to do this with one bureau in order for the alert to be placed on all three_ , and it should take less than 5 minutes:

Equifax [https://www.alerts.equifax.com/AutoFraud_Online/jsp/fraudAle...](https://www.alerts.equifax.com/AutoFraud_Online/jsp/fraudAlert.jsp)

Experian [https://www.experian.com/fraud/center.html](https://www.experian.com/fraud/center.html)

Transunion [https://www.transunion.com/fraud-victim-resource/place- fraud...](https://www.transunion.com/fraud-victim-resource/place-fraud-alert)

<comment><USER3> Just 90 days? I'd rather freeze my credit. I already bought a house and a car. I'm done with needing credit for the foreseeable future. Freezing all 4 accounts (including Innovis, which actually seems like the most competent of the bunch) is the ticket for me.

[https://www.experian.com/ncaconline/freeze](https://www.experian.com/ncaconline/freeze)

[https://www.freeze.equifax.com/Freeze/jsp/SFF_PersonalIDInfo...](https://www.freeze.equifax.com/Freeze/jsp/SFF_PersonalIDInfo.jsp)

[https://freeze.transunion.com/sf/securityFreeze/landingPage....](https://freeze.transunion.com/sf/securityFreeze/landingPage.jsp)

[https://www.innovis.com/securityFreeze/index](https://www.innovis.com/securityFreeze/index)

<comment><USER4> This is great advice and appears to be a good thing to do, but I just feel weird giving equifax money to protect me from fallout of their data breach. It feels like I'm rewarding them for losing my data.

I bet millions of Americans, who are suddenly aware of their vulnerability to credit fraud and learning about these options, are paying for requests and freezes.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it bugs me too. What about letting "natural consequences" befall Equifax (or rather its customers)?

I take no action now. Scammer gets a $10k loan from BigBank using my info. I get the bill and report it as fraud. Write a few letters to clear it up ([http://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit- re...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-reports/)). BigBank will be out $10k and is now motivated to figure out a better way to make loans.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe that big bank should decide not to get credit reports from Equifax and not to send them data. It would be a way to show that self-regulation works before the government forces their hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have spent a very large amount of time over the past few years attempting to correct Equifax's record of my information (all to the now-apparent end of reducing noise in the hacker's data). They somehow had my SSN associated with someone else, leading to a few rejected credit applications.

Equifax customer service reps are very poorly trained. The singular goal of all Equifax employees with whom I interacted was to make me Someone Else's Problem. To that end, they deployed several tactics:

* Telling me I'm calling the wrong Equifax customer service phone number

* Telling me I'm calling the wrong _new_ Equifax customer service phone number

* Telling me to mail in _just one more_ piece of identification

* Telling me they never received snail-mailed documents

* Telling me received snail-mailed documents "were not yet in the system" (over a week after receipt)

* Telling me to fax documents, not mail them

* Telling me the fax number I have is old, wrong, and no longer used

* Telling me the _new_ fax number I have is old, wrong, and no longer used

* Telling me to call the bank providing my credit card, and get them to send my info to Equifax

* Mysteriously hanging up

* Again telling me the identification documents provided were insufficient

Finally I just sat on the phone for several hours with a customer service agent who had not yet discovered the complete lack of consequences for hanging up, asking what additional information would be provided by whatever additional piece of ID they were requesting. It escalated up the supervisor chain a few times, went on hold for half an hour, then I was just suddenly told the problem was taken care of and disconnected.

The problem wasn't taken care of, and the perpetual complimentary credit monitoring service subscription I have from some past data breach other another continued to fail its Equifax enrollment. Finally, a year, later, the problem fixed itself.

This company is trash.

<comment><USER7> That's what most large call centers are like. When I worked in one the factors in your evaluation were: 1) "handle time" (i.e., time on the phone per customer) 2) callbacks within a set time period 3) customer surveys 4) spot checks of recordings for adherence to company policy. So naturally, if you have a difficult case the most logical thing to do is find some within-the- rules way to transfer the customer to someone else (you couldn't just do this capriciously; the circumstances under which it was allowed were enumerated), where they won't be able to answer a survey for you and they're someone else's problem, or else to put them through a process where they aren't supposed to get an answer for weeks. One popular technique at the place I worked was deliberately needling customers so they'd get upset and ask to cancel or speak to a "supervisor" \-- both valid reasons to transfer a call to another department and wash your hands of it. Since your failure to do well on the metrics was tied to a big chunk of your pay you were highly incentivized to game the metrics in this and similar ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is just not always true.

I sometimes have a bad time with a call center but often I call a call center and get prompt and efficient service. If you tar them all with one brush, you are giving the bad ones a pass.

<comment><USER7> For a very large call center I'd say you're getting prompt and efficient service if your problem is a supported scenario. Something novel and your odds aren't that good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Because I hate these clickbait titles: the author plays phone-go-round, calls four numbers, waits on hold a bunch, gets disconnected, and eventually gets transferred to an "agent" that ends up being a busy tone.

All that was accomplished was that he placed an automated fraud alert, even though his original question was whether or not he was affected by the Equifax breach.

<comment><USER9> Not click bait at all. The article gives all the phone numbers including the "magical" phone number at the end to get the 90 fraud alert ( 1-800-525-6285 ) including the advise to not make any noise on this call.

<comment><USER10> The article is fine, the headline is clickbait: "Click to see what the hell this article is about!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am tempted to say I am appalled by the utter disregard these credit reporting agencies have for consumers, but I am not really surprised. Coming from a country with a tradition of public institutions, it is amazing to see private credit reporting agencies in US, because this should be a public service from the Government.

<comment><USER12> The reason they have such contempt for you is that you're NOT THEIR CUSTOMER. Their customers are lenders looking for dirt on you.

The only reason they talk to you, with overt disdain and reluctance, is the government says they have to.

<comment><USER13> We aren't their customer, but we are their golden goose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This lines up with my experience with TransUnion.

Called the day after the news broke, and successfully setup a fraud alert on my account using a automated phone system in 3 minutes and 44 seconds.

So thrilled with this easy process, I call my Mom/Dad and instructed them to do the same.

About a day later I call again to do the same process for my wife. Got almost to the end (after giving them her SS#), but then something changed ... TransUnion started listing extensive documentation I had to snail mail to them - it took several minutes for this message to play out, after which I received no confirmation that the fraud alert was successfully activated. It seemed as though I was "kicked over" to the identify theft reporting line, because the documents they asked for seemed like something you would send to them, if your identify had already been stolen.

Called Experian immediately after, hoping their system might be working better. Their automated system failed to even start the process - I gave up.

Now my wife is convinced I gave her SS# to some random stranger. FML

TL;DR: TransUnion telephone fraud alert worked on Monday, but now is fucked.

<comment><USER15> As soon as I heard about this hack (last friday?), the first thing I did was sign up for LifeLock and set up my accounts. LifeLock was being hammered at the time, but I got thru.

When I got home, I then put freezes thru "the big three", then after reading a couple of articles, on Sunday I put freezes in with Innovis and ChexSystems. I also ran my credit report using TransUnion (leaving me with two more runs from the other two during the year).

That's basically all you can do. You can also do this, I suppose:

[https://www.zanderins.com/idtheft2](https://www.zanderins.com/idtheft2)

I've read anecdotes saying that it's legit and good insurance (but LifeLock already offers a similar thing on the level I signed up for).

I guess part of what I am saying is that the story broke, and there was a small rush, but I got in - then when Monday rolled around and the story grew legs - well, we're now seeing DDOS-like failures...

<comment><USER16> With responses like this, it's almost like the breach is generating enough business to have been _worth_ it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > I could set up a 90-day fraud alert that would force creditors to call me — > at a number of my choosing — before agreeing to open any new accounts in my > name.

This should be the default, for everyone, for free. If banks don't want to do the bare minimum to verify your identity, the liability for identity theft should be on them and not you.

<comment><USER18> I'm professionally involved with this, so at this point I'm obligated to say that the following is my personal opinion and in no way representative of my employer.

Banks use a lot of information to correlate and verify customer identity. The process is called KYC, Know Your Customer [0]. The problem is that this process _relies_ on exactly the information present in a database like Equifax's. If they did perform verification calls, they would be using the same information to verify your identity over the phone, meaning that anyone with that same information could still impersonate you.

The problem, as often pointed out, is that much of this information is much more akin to a username than a password, but is often used as the latter. I mean, someone with my _drivers license_ has my name, address and date of birth, which is often enough to verify with most systems that don't keep SSNs.

From a technical perspective, modern cryptography would seem to give us some opportunity here. The downside here is that its usage becomes absolute -- you either have the key or you don't, regardless of the reality of your identity. The reality is that identity is a _very hard_ problem, with many confounding issues.

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

<comment><USER15> I personally think a 3-factor system could work, but you'd never get the changeover to happen.

1\. The government would have to invalidate all SSN numbers and re-issue them.

2\. To re-issue, you have to go down to a govt office to pick up a smart-card like device (let's call it a "multi-pass" for s&g's) that would have built into it a keypad and a fingerprint scanner.

3\. This person would validate you as you (perhaps you present your driver's license/id/passport/birth certificate), and issue you one of these cards and a reader device (for home).

4\. The card device itself would have a unique value embedded in it, but otherwise be "blank". Perhaps the government might also have a copy of this value matched to your other info, for tax purposes (so, it would act like your SSN for tax purposes and such).

5\. This value would come from a one-time programming, where in front of the official, you would scan your fingerprint, and enter your pin. The card would hash everything together, and burn the hashed value into the card's read-only memory.

6\. So now - to verify your identity, you would need: The card (something you have), the pin (something you know), and your fingerprint (something you are). If one of these isn't present, you can't identify yourself.

7\. To do a transaction, you'd need to slot the card in to your reader (if at home doing something online), or into a vendor's or bank's reader - then put in your pin and scan your fingerprint. It'll hash the values again, and compare with what is on the card, and output (the only output, mind you) "yes" or "no" for the question of "identification".

The downside to all of this is that if you lose your card, or your fingerprint changes, or you forget your pin (or some combo), getting a new card will be tough. But really all it should take would be another in-person visit to the same govt office - more or less.

I also admit that there are very likely other glaring flaws with this idea (beyond the fact that it won't ever be implemented because of the costs to switch over, and other issues). But I think it comes close to a potential solution.

As long as you have to be physically present and always use a reader of some sort, if you don't have any one of the pieces of info, you can't verify your identity:

1) You need the card, if you don't have that - no dice of course.

2) You need the fingerprint that was originally used - that's only going to belong to the person who originally picked and configured the card at the govt office.

3) You need the pin number - presumably only known by the proper owner of the card.

So if the card is stolen, that doesn't matter. If they chop off your hand or finger, that won't help. They'd basically have to beat the pin code out of your, chop off your finger, and steal the card. I'm not saying there aren't criminals who would do that, but they'd have to be in the minority. Plus, such criminals are not likely id thieves anyhow.

<comment><USER18> I don't think it's as far as a stretch as you believe. The DOD already issues CAC cards which includes:

* A private cryptography key. (Something you have)

* Which is PIN protected. (Something you know)

* With a photo on the front. (Something you are)

Of course, photo identification can't be easily replicated remotely. So remote use maybe only gives you two of the three.

Upside is that there's already existent card readers, along with all the infrastructure required to manage the cards and keys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> @patio11 has a great writeup on dealing with Credit Reporting Agencies: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit- re...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-reports/)

</comment><comment><USER20> What is the best way for the American public to start to "escalate" this to the government? It's clearly not even worth getting frustrated trying to deal with Equifax directly, they obviously aren't required to have any accountability to anyone.

<comment><USER21> One of my senators wrote a respectful note to the FTC asking for an investigation, so I'd assume we are all set ([https://www.peters.senate.gov/newsroom/press- releases/peters...](https://www.peters.senate.gov/newsroom/press- releases/peters-urges-the-federal-trade-commission-to-investigate-equifaxs- breach-by-hackers) ).

Less sarcastically, we need a political reformation focused on effective, pro citizen government, instead of politics focused on holding or reversing the status quo on divisive issues. So good luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I really really really wish we would do away with the SSN as the default ID for people. It's just such a really bad system.

It was never designed to be an ID Number and now that's how it is used. We should really go to a different system. I am not a security expert, but I think voting, paying taxes and credit scores would all be much easier than they are now.

</comment><comment><USER23> Honestly, not sure why people are surprised by this. The company is incompetent and not consumer or customer focused by any means.

Their entire operation is optimized to sell products and services to creditors, with no regard for actual consumers. They are a B2B company. They treat their employees poor, and their call center operations are outsourced to third party firms on a cost-basis whom are poorly trained and purely exist to field consumer contacts as required by law, but not actually resolve any issues.

I truly believe credit reporting agencies need to be heavily regulated and operated as a non-profit consumer institution, similar to the BBB.

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure the BBB is the best example. You'll find a lot of folks online who don't hold them in very high regard.

While they might be a non-profit, that doesn't mean they aren't still looking for money.

In particular, it's well known that businesses who pay money to the BBB tend to receive a better overall rating score. And conversely, businesses who refuse to pay the BBB tend to have their scores go down.

See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Business_Bureau#Critici...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Business_Bureau#Criticism)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Experian's freeze doesn't even work at the moment due to their JavaScript compiled asset getting cut off (unexpected end of input error): [https://i.imgur.com/bOGE2Sh.png](https://i.imgur.com/bOGE2Sh.png)

<comment><USER26> I was just looking at that -- then I headed over to Equifax, entered all my info and then: [https://i.imgur.com/NmrRg1V.png](https://i.imgur.com/NmrRg1V.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Please change the title to something along the lines of "Equifax customer service is ineffective"

<comment><USER28> Sure thing, we've updated the title to a representative phrase from the article.

<comment><USER29> I thought there was a pretty hard rule of using the name of the article only, Even when it makes no sense in context. What are the exceptions to that rule?

<comment><USER30> You're right that there's a strong preference to use the original article title. That said, the guidelines go into more detail under "In Submissions":

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

In this case I suspect the mods agreed with 'XR0CSWV3h3kZWg that the given title wasn't very good (and not obscure in the intriguing sense, maybe whimsical sense). Personally I find the "I did x. This is what happened"-type quite click-baity. As an aside, I wonder how far one could go using only "this" as a filter for click-bait titles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> With experian, I have done the following:

\- Call membership number -> makes some noise and then hangs up

\- Use their website that they promote in their automated messages -> when trying to set up an alert, it takes you to a loading page that does nothing (looking at the requests being made in the network tab, it fails to load bootstrap and then just sits there, I am able to download the script it fails to download)

\- Call automated fraud number -> nothing happens after being transferred to their automated alert system, so I hung up -> called again and waited for a few minutes after being transferred to their automated alert system, finally a voice starts talking asking for info (a dark pattern if I've ever seen one). After going through the process, apparently my info wasn't correct, so they asked me to 'leave a voicemail' with my SSN and DOB, after providing that info, it said they couldn't save my info and to try again, then promptly hung up.

so haven't been able to set up a fraud alert yet

</comment><comment><USER32> I called Transunion to freeze my account and they hung up on me. 4 times. I gave up.

</comment><comment><USER33> If we "as the product" actually want to do something about Equifax we should call our banks and demand that they cancel any contracts they have with Equifax.

If enough people do that to make it a national issue, Equifax will at a minimum notice, and possibly go out of business (because no bank will work with them) sending a very strong message to everyone who deals with private data.

Anyone know how to start Viral Activism?

<comment><USER21> Are you actually prepared to leave your bank if they don't give in to your demands?

That's what it would take for that to have any impact.

<comment><USER33> That's when you get some shareholder activists. Even a single stock can give you the right to make some noise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Let me save you a click:

Different agents on different hotlines bounced him around.

After 30+ minutes, an automated system took his SSN and signed him for a trial. Sort of.

Because they kept getting disconnected from the system, they aren't sure if it actually worked.

Seems Equifax is using the "plug fingers in ears and scream la la la la la" method.

<comment><USER35> Thank you!

Not sure why you're getting downvoted here.

<comment><USER34> Hey, thank you too!!

I have no idea either. Luckily it wasn't much, but maybe my tone was off.

It couldn't possibly be my assessment of the story- everyone else commented the same thing!

Maybe the site wants those sweet sweet clicks and time on page metrics :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> From the article:

"We finally got to a point where the system asked for our information in order to set up a 90-day alert. I provided my Social Security number, two phone numbers where I can be reached for verification, and a "please hold while we process your request" message."

What if someone who got a hold of another person's SSN call the number, and gave them a bogus number to contact? Any lender then tries to call the bogus number and they get a "YES, I ALLOW THAT TRANSACTION TO HAPPEN" brings more problems then.

Equifax could have made a system that performs this option and then it would be the person whose SSN has been exposed to provide the authentic number which they can be reached at to alert them of any transaction happening with their SSN number being used.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think if there was any justice in the USA, a court would declare that the Equifax breach was significant enough that the damage caused is greater than the value of the Equifax company, and the company itself would be taken from existing stockholders and shares distributed among the american public affected by the breach. The company could then continue trading with all proceeds going to the people harmed in the breach, and the employees could then go on to work for the people that they harmed.

<comment><USER38> I'm not sure there's a legal mechanism to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Honestly, I would have expected it to take hours. 42 minutes is actually not too bad, I've been on hold with my ISP for longer than that.

To be fair, he didn't get the answer he was looking for, so this could have dragged on much longer if he persisted in the phone-only route. I actually would have preferred that instead.

<comment><USER40> > I've been on hold with my ISP for longer than that

Sounds like it's time for a new ISP. I get impatient with XS4ALL after more than a minute or two, but then they've been spoiling me with sub-minute answering times for years. They scored extremely well in ratings, I figured they went "well we can do a little less well and save some money". Still great service -- but to come back to your situation, 42 minutes is ridiculous. Snail mail is faster at that point.

<comment><USER39> This was years ago with Time Warner. I've since moved and found much better service, thankfully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The Washington Post wrote a click title. You won't believe what happened next!

... I didn't click the link on principle.

</comment><comment><USER42> Haha, Equifax!

Our system is currently unavailable We are currently unable to add initial 90 day fraud alert or active duty alert to credit file online. Please try again later or click here to print a request form. If you need to install Adobe Acrobat click here

</comment><comment><USER43> If Equifax takes your Social Security Number and a Phone Number to require you to setup any new credit, couldn't the hackers call Equifax and give a stolen Social Security Number of a high profile peerson and hold their credit ransom?

</comment><comment><USER44> [https://democracy.io](https://democracy.io)

Email your congressperson and complain. This works. It takes time and it takes a critical mass of complaints. Tweet your Congresspeople too.

</comment><comment><USER45> Why is this hard? Using Twilio, I can make a better voice prompt system in like 20 minutes than a multibillion dollar company has. I don't understand the point of having so many phone numbers.

</comment><comment><USER46> Propose changing the headline from the current clickbait to "Results of calling four different Equifax customer service numbers" or similar.</comment>


Amtrak train derails from bridge onto Interstate 5 near Olympia, WA - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/train-derails-from-bridge-onto-interstate-5-near-olympia/ <comment><USER2> Accident site: just west of the Mounts Rd, Old Nisqually exit on southbound I-5 [1] and streetview [2].

Some additional facts, without speculating about cause: the derailment occurred in a left-hand curve -- running timetable southbound, map westbound -- with the latter portion of the curve situated on a bridge above the southbound lanes of I-5. The curve is at the end of a nearly 9-mile stretch of (freshly upgraded) track with long straightaways and gentle curves. The upgraded section of track ends just around 150 yards from this curve.

In the aerial footage of the scene, you can see the lead car and the carriages following it flew off, tangent to the curve. The middle of the train bunched up on the bridge, and the rear half of the train fell inward into the curve.

[1] [https://www.google.com/maps/place/47%C2%B004'55.2%22N+122%C2...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.6779387,786m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d47.082!4d-122.67575) [2] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.6750448,3a,60y,2...](https://email@example.com,-122.6750448,3a,60y,285.05h,89.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3NdbsERlezWk- yDx7gsBgQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

<comment><USER3> Thanks! Seattle Times now reports rumors of a collision with something on the track. Since this train was the first with passenger service, that seems plausible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, major disaster. This was the first day they were running a new route, slightly higher speed Amtrak between Seattle to Portland. You just don't see accidents like this very often, multiple train cars left the track, fell onto the freeway - US I5, with multiple fatalities.

</comment><comment><USER5> government owned, no responsibility. Shocking. Why can't inspiration be taken from Europe with all its implementations for transit efficiencies and learnings about doing intercity connections well.</comment>


Spy malware infecting Iranian networks is engineering marvel to behold - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/05/spy-malware-infecting-iranian-networks-is-engineering-marvel-to-behold/ <comment><USER2> Isn't Sudan about half that size now?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan></comment>


Day 1-: jmp-starting your workflow - <AUTHOR> https://wordpress.com/stats/post/7284/perl6advent.wordpress.com <comment><USER2> I get a login page only. URL is likely [https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/day-10-jmp- star...](https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/day-10-jmp-starting- your-work-flow/)</comment>


Choosing a JavaScript MVC Framework - <AUTHOR> http://www.funnyant.com/choosing-javascript-mvc-framework/

<comment><USER2> This was just what I was looking for. We are researching various MVC frameworks and discussing single page applications. This will give us some good insight on weather we use Angular, Backbone, or other frameworks. Great job!

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for the comparison.

</comment><comment><USER4> Fantastically in-depth analysis. Nice work!

As a developer, deciding on a [framework|library|language] is one of my least favorite things to do. Naturally I want to make the right long-term decision based on my idiosyncratic needs, which results in countless hours of research, so I really appreciate posts like these. Huge time saver.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the kind words you summarize my thoughts on why I chose to work on a book about the subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is very nice. I had to pick an MVC framework for a project early this year, and was compelled to spend untold amounts of time to do the same research this author just posted.

Another good resource for choosing a framework is TodoMVC ([http://todomvc.com/](http://todomvc.com/)). It doesn't give you the philosophy and history behind each framework, but it does show you an end-to- end example (however constrained) of what it's like to use the framework in day-to-day work.

<comment><USER6> Even though todos are simple examples, those simple examples are usually enough to make decisions off of syntax and "flow".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was quite helpful in outlining the differences between the options as well as the key differences in specific features. I also like the philosophy approach.

As an aside, some have argued (see previous Angular / Ember deck posted to HN) that Angular is something for building frameworks rather than a framework itself. I would also say that the documentation for Angular is comprehensive but not good (as a newbie). With the version change to 1.2 a number of issues crop up that invalidate old solutions like $sce content escaping and other bindings, and often times the documentation on the AngularJS site goes a bit beyond comprehension that have yet to pass the appropriate "abstracto-cline" of understanding.

Thanks again for the analysis - well done.

<comment><USER8> Link to the deck mentioned: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1e0z1pT9JuEh8G5DOtib6...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1e0z1pT9JuEh8G5DOtib6XFDHK0GUFtrZrU3IfxJynaA/preview)

And the talk itself (recommended): [http://youtu.be/7ecsYtRiD5Q?t=56m36s](http://youtu.be/7ecsYtRiD5Q?t=56m36s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of people I hear say they don't choose backbone because of the amount of stuff you have to write to get started, but they never mention backbone+marionette, which imo fixes a lot of the boilerplate code you have to write.

<comment><USER10> We've been using Backbone+Marionette at my company, and in general I like it, and it's much cleaner than just vanilla Backbone, but I still feel like it falls short for medium-to-large sized apps, and requires you to write a substantial amount of additional code, or include additional Backbone plugins. This might include things like "nested/deep" model support, two-way data- binding, etc. The main problem with the lightweight plugin model is that a lot of the plugins aren't necessarily compatible with others, or are not up-to- date on the latest Backbone changes, not to mention the varying degree in quality and maintenance of plugins, and the problem of choosing which data binding plugin you want, out of the 10+ available.

I think maybe we have just crossed the line from small, focused UI/interactions to large-scale single-page apps, and we would be better off with a more substantial/fully-featured framework like AngularJS or Ember.js.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insights. Hit me up on twitter @cmckeachie if you would be willing to help me out by doing an interview on your experiences.</comment></comment></comment>


ES6 tips and tricks to make your code cleaner, shorter, and easier to read - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/make-your-code-cleaner-shorter-and-easier-to-read-es6-tips-and-tricks-afd4ce25977c <comment><USER2> dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308438) ? or vice versa?</comment>


Ask HN: How can I get into Augmented/Virtual Reality as developer? - <AUTHOR>

I am an average developer who is very excited about Virtual Reality. There multiple player in this domain like Oculus, Magic Leap etc. Don't want sit on the side and watch it happen in our time. How can I get some hands on experience of this technology as a developer? <comment><USER2> Get (or make) a headset and download a game engine and make something:

[http://www.unity3d.com](http://www.unity3d.com)

[https://developers.google.com/cardboard/unity/](https://developers.google.com/cardboard/unity/)

[http://www.unrealengine.com](http://www.unrealengine.com)

[https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Platforms/VR/index....](https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Platforms/VR/index.html)</comment>


We Would Never Be Able to Blow Up an Asteroid to Save the Planet - <AUTHOR> https://www.livescience.com/64910-exploding-asteroids-not-easy.html <comment><USER2> Title is misleading. Turning an asteroid into a cloud of debris with an intact core would not be enough to save the earth because the debris would reform around the core of the asteroid.

That's not the same as being unable to blow up an asteroid to save the planet - you just need a more energy to also destroy the core, or followup to scatter debris and overcome gravity, etc.

At the energy levels required it's probably easier to just move the asteroid off of a collision course, so even an advanced enough civilization to blow up an asteroid probably wouldn't. They shift its course, or trap it and mine it, etc. But that isn't the same thing as never being able to do it. There's nothing special about asteroids that make them impervious to explosions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Simple more energy... If you hit it with enough energy the particles should reach the escape velocity of the Asteroid's own gravity.

Now can we deliver that much energy? I don't know or would have to crunch the numbers to know.

</comment><comment><USER4> Serious question: Would a reformed asteroid be more vulnerable once it enters the atmosphere? I imagine it would scater much more easily, breaking up into millions of smaller parts that would burn independently</comment>


Stowaway – Multi-hop Proxy Tool for pentesters - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ph4ntonn/Stowaway <comment><AUTHOR> Stowaway is Multi-hop proxy tool for security researchers and pentesters

Users can easily proxy their network traffic to intranet nodes (multi- layer),break the restrction and manipulate all the nodes that under your control XD</comment>