Felony Charges for 6 Reporters at Inauguration Protests - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html? <comment><USER2> This kind of reporting encourages people to form opinions before the facts are in. None of us know what really happened there, but it will probably get sorted out soon. By that time, it's too late because we've already jumped to a conclusion.

<comment><USER3> They were charged for lighting a limo on fire. Not exactly reporting.

<comment><USER4> [citation needed]

<comment><USER5> GP is making it up, so no citation is possible

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So this is what the NY Times know:

        - In a certain area, protest turned into riot
        - Cars were being set on fire
        - The police does a sweep, arresting 230 people
        - 6 of those 230 people were reporters

And they chose to run a headline like this? They make it seem as if the journalists were targeted because of their profession, and that isn't what happened at all.

What is this - Trump lies all the time, so as long as we anti-Trump people lie a little bit less than Trump does, we're good? Fight fire with fire?

I'm slowly losing my faith in both sides of this fight.

<comment><USER7> What's notable is that the reporters are actually being charged after being identified as such. Even if they were caught in a sweep and arrested, the charges should have been dropped when it became clear that they were just covering the protest and not participating. That's how it normally works anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Were they charged under HR 347 (passed in 2012), considering the Secret Service was probably in the vicinity?

Edit: Oops I meant 347, not 374.

Summary: [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary)

Full text: [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text)

ACLU: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal- hr-347-criminalizing-...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal- hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill)

<comment><USER9> [https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house- bill/374](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/374)

> Life at Conception Act - Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the > Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of > fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into > being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman > for the death of her unborn child.

Not sure how that's relevant.

<comment><USER10> He meant to say HR 347.

<comment><USER9> That makes more sense:

> Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - > Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering > restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on > anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without > lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, > cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its > grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a > building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the > Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or > grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

<comment><USER10> > "HR 347, just signed without fanfare or news coverage by Barack Obama makes > it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present. Who is present > everywhere that Barack Obama goes? That's right, the Secret Service. Ergo, > it is illegal to protest Barack Obama."

<comment><USER11> [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary)

This bill made it a federal crime to trespass on the White House grounds, and it made other minor changes to an existing law.

This bill amended a previously existing law, which can be read here, that was also about establishing a crime of being in restricted areas protected by the Secret Service. This bill's only significant change was adding the White House to the list of restricted places.

Some say those existing provisions made protests illegal at political events where the Secret Service is protecting a candidate for office. Our understanding is that this is incorrect. The law applies to "cordoned off" areas or where a restriction is posted and where the general public has been cleared from. Additionally, it is unlikely the courts would uphold a restriction on access based on a political viewpoint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd like more context to what is happening in the cover photo of the article, because as far as I can tell there's nothing happening to warrant pepper spray

<comment><USER13> I saw a few videos on mainstream news from that day and it looked like police were indiscriminately spraying both protesters and bystanders. I'm amazed it wasn't covered more, but I guess there's bigger problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is just the beginning. Our great leader has repeatedly egged on his supporters to attack the media. He constantly criticizes any media agency that dares report facts that are personally embarrassing to him. Or ones that make him look bad or anything that shows that he is not as popular as he claims, or...

Imagine that you are a police officer and find some media people among a crowd (who may or may not have set a car on fire) ... The president's words demonizing the media at every turn are still fresh in your mind. What would you do?

This will get much much worse....

<comment><USER15> He'll be lucky to get the 20% tariff on Mexican imports he currently wants. I'll be surprised if he manages to do anything seriously speech crippling.

<comment><USER16> Is that a typo? Shouldn't he be taxing exports?

Taxes on imports just raise the price for Americans, it's taxes on exports that would bring money _into_ America.

<comment><USER17> It's an import tax he's talking about. Presumably the idea is that US producers will gain from decreased Mexican imports. How that will help pay for the wall I don't know.

Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth it trying to analyze Trump's policy at this point. He seems to have taken a page from the Russian playbook, in that he seems intentionally chaotic and unpredictable, in order to keep the opposition reactive.

<comment><USER17> Ok, having done a bit of morning reading, I'm inclined to think the tax is a red herring. This is about the wall. Trump wants to get started with building it, maybe to be seen keeping his promises, maybe because it'll employ US workers. But it's expensive, so he needs some story for how it's going to be paid for, specifically how Mexico will pay for it. Even if that doesn't pan out, by the time it's clear the cost was paid by the US taxpayer, he'll have moved onto bigger things that will distract from the issue.

Alternatively, I'm wrong, and the wall really is just a huge put-on, used as leverage against e.g. the mexicans, or part of a more obscure campaign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is significant because in order to collect the story, journalists have to stand next to people doing illegal things. Since the journalist wouldn't be there otherwise, and is not a participant, if they are mistakenly charged, then the charges are dropped. Pretty straight application of freedom of the press. This is significant and will impact coverage of many many protests if it carries thru.

<comment><USER19> >Since the journalist wouldn't be there otherwise, and is not a participant

Do we know this is the case? Journalist and riot-participator are not mutually exclusive groups.

<comment><USER18> We know that the term journalist implies that mutual exclusivity. Accredited individual behaving badly will loose their accreditation very very quickly. This concern of blending activists and professional journalists is something the journalism community has been concerned with for years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The cops don't need to be told from the top to make journalists lives hard. They've been at odds since basically forever. After all, the "shoot a black guy, get a vacation" system was working well and the media threw a wrench into it (I'm exaggerating but you get the point). They're just jumping at what looks like a chance to be jerks. They don't need to be told "the president wants you to treat the media badly". It's pretty obvious that their interests align.

I think we'll see more behavior like this as they test the waters to see what they can get away with.

</comment><comment><USER21> The media has a tendency to focus on silly things, or get details wrong, or overlook important stories. But if you want them to work overtime to cover something, simply arrest a journalist.

</comment><comment><USER22> A journalist has no more rights then any other citizen for a lot of obvious reasons. They should be treated with the same due process as any one else for a lot of obvious reasons. It's really time to end authoritarianism in the USA.

<comment><USER18> That is not how the news business is practiced. The assumption is that journalists are not participants and therefore are not prosecuted as such. Similar to a security guard standing near a protest.

<comment><USER22> Please cite the passage in the Constitution for that?

<comment><USER18> You can't be serious.

<comment><USER22> And for the authoritarians that voted my comment down... Please explain why a normal citizen is not entitled to the same rights as a journalist? We either have free speech or we don't. Working for a news paper should not grant you extra privileges on your rights to speak freely for or against your government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The article doesn't say: what government is doing the charging? I thought the arrests were D.C. police, not Feds.

</comment><comment><USER24> The NYT or the charged journalists never claimed that they were actually acting in a journalistic professional role during the riots.

<comment><USER25> "At least six journalists were charged with felony rioting after they were arrested while covering the violent protests that took place just blocks from President Trump's inauguration parade in Washington on Friday, according to police reports and court documents."

Literally the first sentence of the article.

<comment><USER24> You would've thought that the two journalists questioned by the NYT would have defended themselves by saying that they were there working a professional capacity. But they didn't.

I'm not buying just because NYT says they were "covering" the protests.

<comment><USER25> That is the opposite of what reporters would do. You immediately tell them you're a journalist and they give you special treatment. You don't want special treatment, first you want to write a story about what they do to non- special people.

<comment><USER26> Then don't be surprised if these "journalists" get detained like the non- special rioters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> C'mon mods. Time for another moratorium on politics.

<comment><USER28> "Let's not confront greater society, let's just focus on bread and circuses."

<comment><USER27> Yeah, right. We're going to solve problems by using an internet forum. Wake the fuck up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This really does no belong here...hope mods remove it

<comment><USER30> Trump is going to be making news every couple hours. I foresee a lot of over worked and burnt out mods by the end of 4 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I have no sympathy Im afraid. People who cheer to rob certain section of society gets to feel the burn in turn. _Karma is a bitch_ as the saying goes. I just hope lessons have been learnt.

EDIT: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti- statism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism) The people are the ones who gave their blessing and made state powerful because state _promised_ to share the loot with them. If only people have resisted the temptation ...

<comment><USER18> How do you know the journalists were cheering?

<comment><USER32> And even if they were, what does that comment add to the discussion whatsoever?</comment></comment></comment>


"Launching on Product Hunt Seemed Like Ordering from the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld" - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@chris_hawk/how-i-accidentally-launched-on-product-hunt-6dbfb58f1c23

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know how many of you have ever launched a product on Product Hunt, but it definitely was _not_ what I expected.</comment>


Is Google an Evil Corporation? - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/is-google-actually-an-evil-corporation-nv5o3utx <comment><USER2> Can we apply evil/good terminology to corporations at all?

Btw, today on the HN front page - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465)

"There is no question that Google has a monopoly on online search. Any reasonable person knows this is a fact. The three vital questions I hope to help you answer today are: 1) whether Google has used its overwhelming market power as a monopoly to benefit itself while crushing competition, 2) whether these actions have had negative impacts on the open internet as a public good and 3) whether these actions have created harm for everyday internet consumers. The answer to all three questions is an emphatic YES. "

</comment><comment><USER3> ʸᵉˢ</comment>


Army researchers find the best cyber teams are antisocial cyber teams - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/army-researchers-find-the-best-cyber-teams-are-antisocial-cyber-teams/ <comment><USER2> I'd argue that these are likely very _highly_ socialised teams.

They know one another, they trustbone another, they know their roles, and they communicate most effectively through their technical tools and interfaces.

That's supported by the paper (submission draft in Sci-Hub):

 _[F]ace-to-face interactions detract from and perhaps distract cyber defenders from the focal task of maintaining all ten services and successfully defending the integrity of their network._

Talking isn't bad, per se. It's generally less efficient and tends to indicate problems rather than smooth functioning.</comment>


Hillo: Board Activity Tracking for Trello - <AUTHOR> http://www.gethillo.com/ <comment><USER2> Trying it right now and I love it 0/

<comment><USER3> Thx boss, do you manage different teams through Trello? we initially built Hillo for our own internal use. We have many teams working on different projects, so staying in sync was a bit of an issue for us. We wanted a way to prioritize our interventions. Activity seemed like the first and legit indicator to track.

<comment><USER2> Yes, and this tool is making it dead simple.. One feature I wish was in the app is push notifications. It would be helpful if I can get notified when a board is inactive.. I'd spend money for such thing!</comment></comment></comment>


To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.wral.com/to-find-suspects-police-quietly-turn-to-google/17377435/ <comment><USER2> This is an important story, but a little difficult to summarize. Here's my attempt at an overview:

1\. Google stores location history data for more of its mobile users than you might expect. The precision is greatest when GPS is on, but less precise data from cell towers and WiFi sources is used almost any time a Google app is being used on an Android or non-Android phone. There have been cases in the past where Google has recorded such information even when the user has explicitly turned off all location services, but Google says they have stopped this practice.

2\. On multiple recent occasions, police in North Carolina have quietly been successful in obtaining search warrants that force Google to turn over these records. Rather than "standard" search warrants asking for the location of a particular suspect in a crime, these "reverse" or "area based" warrants ask for time and location data for all users who have entered a geographical area during a time of interest. The records returned are initially anonymous account numbers, and the police then make followup requests for identifying information of the subset of accounts that they think are of interest to the case.

3\. This open-ended "drag net" approach scares some people. Typically, at least in the US, suspects are identified first, and then further information is gathered that confirms or removes the suspicion. The express fear seems to be that innocent people will be falsely accused due to coincidence, but there is also a more general fear that once mechanisms are in place that allow the police to have easy access to location tracking information, this information will end up being abused.

<comment><USER3> Holy shit. So my paranoia about turning off Google location tracking was completely well-founded, and way more quickly than I would have hoped.

GDPR can't come soon enough...

<comment><USER4> You live in Los Angeles (according to Google). How will GDPR help you? Companies such as Google and Facebook aren't going to implement European laws for their American customers!

<comment><USER3> Laws are ideas, and ideas spread.

Hopefully it affects U.S. policy in the next decade or so.

P.S. I'm curious how you found my city. LinkedIn?

<comment><USER5> @Petilon works at google maybe? (Joking of course!)

<comment><USER6> Not really all that funny though...

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/16/silicon-v...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/16/silicon- valley-internal-work-spying-surveillance-leakers)

'"When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In principle and with some caveats, I support this use of tracking information: it's usually quite specific, it has a very positive efect for law enforcement, it's not a breach of fundamental rights of the suspect as confirmation of the physical location at a certain time is not secret and can be obtained by the police from CCTV cameras, eyewitnesses etc.

The privacy of the bystanders is not significantly reduced if and only if the police will use the specific datadump for the purpose of solving the crime for which the warant has been issued - as opposed to building a massive cross- referenced database from multiple such incidents. I am concerned that a few warrants like 'all information on everybody who was at the Superbowl' would quickly download massive amounts of data from Google to the police.

I think regulation should be enacted that balances the social interest with the private interest, for example, Google could be issued a specific warrant of the type "data on all individuals that were in location X1,T1 and also in X2,T2", and Google should answer only when the query is sufficiently specific to return only a handful of results.

<comment><USER3> The idea that they will use such data responsibly seems like handing a bag of candy to a 6 year-old and saying "Make sure to only eat one!"

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine them managing the overwhelming temptations to quietly abuse the data, especially as time goes on.

Edit: I realize this is a crude analogy that glosses over a lot of important details, but it gets at the heart of my intuition on the matter. The lack of restraints found in the child-candy system seems to mirror very well the weakness of restraints found in the dynamics between government apparatuses and fancy tools.

For many tools, this is fine. But I'm worried about the long tail risks and externalities of large-scale privacy destroying tools.

I don't think this is exclusively an issue with government organizations. However, in America they are the only organization with the ability to forcefully restrict the actions of individuals and groups. So extreme vigilance is required to balance out this immense power. If a random company overuses a fancy tool, the potential damages are more limited.

<comment> Digit-Al I can see both sides on this. I do think that such data when used responsibly can really help in solving serious crimes. But, as you say, there is a serious danger of law enforcement abusing the system and gathering far more data than they need. It's not like they haven't been guilty of such abuses in the past. Look at the situation with gathering fingerprints or DNA and then not scrubbing the data of innocents once an investigation has finished.

I am wondering if the solution is to have an independent service. One that would sit as a middleman between police and technology companies such as Google. Their mandate would be to provide the minimum amount of data required for an investigation (the example used in the article is a good one, where anonymous data for a particular location at a particular time-frame is requested and used to narrow down the search and then get more information on a subset of that data). They could be required to keep logs of what is being requested and what is being provided and could be audited at intervals by, say, the EFF. Obviously this is only a rough sketch of the idea, it would need fleshing out more completely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems to me to be a major revelation: police in North Carolina have successfully requested Google account information on all phones near a crime scene. While Google routinely responds to search warrants, this is a much broader type of data request.

<comment><USER9> Arguably, this leaks _everyones_ data. Anyone who was _not_ in the area will be excluded from the list, therefore letting the police know where I wasn't at the time.

I wonder how Google show that on their transparency report? Hopefully "Accounts searched: 1.5 Billion"

<comment><USER10> > Anyone who was not in the area will be excluded from the list, therefore > letting the police know where I wasn't at the time.

No, at best this only shows that your _google linked device_ (presumably a phone) did not have location information for that area at the specific time.

Alternatively it suggests the device could have been switched off/disconnected from the network to hide your presence - making you really a suspect of interest if your name comes into the investigation for some reason.

Dragnet approaches to law enforcement are inherently wrong. They unreasonably cast suspicion on everyone without any good basis and reverse the accepted safeguard that your guilt requires to be proven, and replace it with the idea that you require to prove your innocence.

<comment><USER11> "...Alternatively it suggests the device could have been switched off/disconnected from the network to hide your presence - making you really a suspect of interest if your name comes into the investigation for some reason..."

That's really interesting. If I'm understanding you correctly, people who routinely switch off their location services, could potentially end up as suspects in crimes if they, for instance, live in the apartment across the hall from the victim or something.

So keeping location services on let's the police keep tabs on you, potentially making you a suspect in some crime in the future. Alternatively, turning it off potentially turns you into a suspect of interest in some potential crime in the future.

<comment><USER12> Welcome to police logic!

Sounds like you agree entirely with the poster's final comment :

"They unreasonably cast suspicion on everyone without any good basis and reverse the accepted safeguard that your guilt requires to be proven, and replace it with the idea that you require to prove your innocence."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yet another reason to disable GPS and location history (and any other functionality you use infrequently) when not actively necessary.

<comment><USER14> That does absolutely nothing. If you don't want to be tracked, don't carry a phone. It's the only way.

<comment><USER15> Airplane mode?

<comment><USER16> Now you're just carrying a brick. What's the point?

<comment><USER15> I have many apps I can use offline, plus if I need to use my phone it doesn't take long to turn it off airplane mode and have everything reconnect. It's amazing how fast all the notifications come in once you turn off Airplane mode. I don't do that daily, but when I am conscious about battery usage I do. Maybe I just might try doing it more often. I also do it when charging my phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Stop using Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc if you care about privacy!

<comment><USER18> I noticed you left out Apple - the same company that handed over control of their cloud servers to a Chinese state run company.

<comment><USER19> I notice you left out Amazon. In fact, there are a number of players to list, which is the reason the grandparent wrote 'etc..'

<comment><USER18> Apple is the biggest company in the world, by market cap. I would hardly call Apple a member of the 'etc..' list.

<comment><USER19> Mentioning Apple to bring up the point is different than calling out parent for leaving it off. It was petty.

<comment><USER18> Petty is allowing Chinese state run companies to hand over all of their users data to the Chinese government while proclaiming you respect and protect your users privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://www.google.com/maps/timeline](https://www.google.com/maps/timeline)

</comment><comment><USER21> And Google, now a defense contractor willing to work on weapons of war to make a (bigger) profit, will gladly assist them.

They're _themselves_ creating the incentive to do that, just as when they got into the content and content licensing game, they ended up creating the most aggressive content censorship system on the (free) internet, beyond even what the laws require. It's no longer a matter of "choosing to do the right thing". The (bad) incentives are already in place. Now Google just reacts to the incentives it created.

We're also supposed to "just trust them" that their secret AI Ethical Board, which can be replaced at any moment, also in secret, will do the right thing when things will go bad with its AI. They've already created the incentive to _cheat_ by keeping that board secret.

<comment><USER22> > Google, now a defense contractor

They sold their stake in Boston Dynamics

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/google- is...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/google-is-said-to- put-boston-dynamics-robotics-unit-up-for-sale)

<comment><USER23> That's not their only defense contract. E.g. [https://gizmodo.com/google-is- helping-the-pentagon-build-ai-...](https://gizmodo.com/google-is-helping-the- pentagon-build-ai-for-drones-1823464533)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _City and county officials say the practice is a natural evolution of criminal investigative techniques._

Ah yes, very "natural"

And _they 're carefully balancing civil rights with public safety._

and "carefully balancing"

Bureaucrats and their weasel words.

</comment><comment><USER25> Wow that's deeply disturbing but also feels like a similar tactic to the stingrays. Does simply owning a cell phone and being in a geographical area make you open to 4th amendment search and identification?

<comment><USER26> Hasn't it been shown that the 4th doesn't apply to information you give to someone else?

They are requesting this from Google, not you, so your 4th amendment rights don't matter.

I don't necessarily agree with that ruling, but as far as I know that's the current state of things.

<comment><USER27> Well, they did get a warrant. The 3rd party doctrine would say that you don't need a warrant at all.

There's actually a court case at SCOTUS that may more closely define what is and isn't covered by the 3rd party doctrine when it comes to phones.

[http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-will-fourth- amen...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-will-fourth-amendment- protect-21st-century-data-court-confronts-third-party-doctrine/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is probably one of the cons of using VPN. If criminal used VPN service that you happen to use and connect to the same node, expect police to read your emails, courtesy of Google.

I'm still in the process of getting off google mail and switching to Proton. It takes time to go thru all my google emails and clean them up. Yes I know deleting them won't change a thing BUT at least I consent to deleting them on my end, versus merely abandoning my mailbox altogether.

I know Google has capacity to keep all emails forever, but whether they do so or delete them after X amount of years, I don't know.

<comment><USER9> Google guarantees to actually delete your emails 30 days after you delete them from your account.

The GDPR law in europe requires them to do this for european citizens.

<comment><USER29> Does it guarantee to do this for everyone or just Europeans? Genuinely curious here since they might have separate policies in place for different countries- I imagine that China prefers to keep all its citizens' emails indefinitely.

<comment><USER30> Google has been doing this for years, before even making public guarantees. There wasn't a separate policy for China when I left years ago and Gmail is blocked there anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Well I'm sure this seems really neat, but criminals will simply not bring their phones and then be excluded from the search.

</comment><comment><USER32> But why Google? Shouldn't they ask mobile operators in first place?

</comment><comment><USER33> I used to wonder why New York subways were somehow a high crime area. I thought, surely they're such small closed places that if there's a crime, the police can just block the exits and check everyone leaving, or look at the CCTV footage to identify them. But then I found out that they don't do that! Americans are so concerned about privacy, they let themselves get robbed and murdered every day.

It's clear that they don't trust their own police. That's perhaps the real problem. If they could be made trustworthy like in many other countries, people would probably be happy to have murders solved through video footage, cellphone locations, etc. It amazes me that even one person on here thinks this is a bad idea. Real killers would have got away otherwise. This isn't some wild NSA anti-terrorism dragnet, it's just normal police work collecting normal evidence specific to the crime.

<comment><USER34> Why don't people trust cops?

Asset forfeiture, crooked cops, shoot first ask questions later, a strong union which protects their own, and their ability to spy on their personal rivals through NSA/FBI tools makes us a paranoid bunch.

The last part.. NYPD mis-used tools to track former lovers[1] and there was no reprocussion. How can we feel safe?

[1][https://nypost.com/2013/11/08/jealous-cop-admits-to- hacking-...](https://nypost.com/2013/11/08/jealous-cop-admits-to-hacking-nypd- files-to-spy-on-ex/)

<comment><USER35> Also, location data has a history of getting many people convicted innocently: [https://www.economist.com/news/united- states/21615622-junk-s...](https://www.economist.com/news/united- states/21615622-junk-science-putting-innocent-people-jail-two-towers)</comment></comment></comment>


Hey.com is onto something with its tracking-pixel blocker - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gingerlime.com/2020/hey-com-is-onto-something-with-its-tracking-pixel-blocker/ <comment><USER2> Gmail's handling of tracking pixels might be even better, it automatically downloads and caches all images in a email. This has a few benefits: 1) Renders any gmail "open rate" analytics useless 2) Makes the email load faster in your email client since images are coming from Google's fast cache [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/12/gmail...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/12/gmail-blows-up-e-mail-marketing-by-caching-all-images-on- google-servers/)

<comment><USER3> If that happens even outside the web interface that just means now Google has that data instead of the sender.

<comment><USER4> Hey, amazing thing. A Google "customer added value" is actually data-mining in disguise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's a certain irony that Basecamp's own CRM product expounds the benefits of tracking email opens and clicks.

"The simplest system available to send an email to a group of contacts. Track opens and clicks and stay top-of-mind."

[https://highrisehq.com/features/](https://highrisehq.com/features/)

<comment><USER6> From the main website, which I presume you have seen:

> As of August 20, 2018, we're no longer accepting new signups for Highrise

[https://highrisehq.com/](https://highrisehq.com/)

Not sure that's valid grounds for criticism. Basecamp never ends support for products, but this one is otherwise sunset.

<comment><USER5> Yup. But they still support the feature and sold people on that benefit. So whether the product is still accepting new sign ups is neither here nor there. They are part of the "problem" that they are railing against.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whether or not you agree with email tracking, the language feels a bit like propaganda:

"YOU'RE PROTECTED. WE BLOCKED A SPY TRACKER IN THIS THREAD"

"A spy tracker" seems a bit dramatic and it's far from a neutral description. What about just:

"This email contained a tracking image allowing the sender to see if you've opened it, we've blocked that for you."

The main use of this feature is to track open rates so that marketers can improve their marketing efforts. Block them if you disagree, but there's no reason to make it sound so nefarious.

<comment><USER8> It is nefarious if it's ran by an ad-tech or marketing company. They also collect much more information than just the fact that the email has been opened. IP addresses & user-agents are collected as well.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't gmail already kill this tracking? They proxy and cache all tracking images, so you don't get originating ip or geo, I thought.

<comment><USER2> You're right: [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/12/gmail...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/12/gmail-blows-up-e-mail-marketing-by-caching-all-images-on- google-servers/) Though it might be possible for marketers to still track individual email opens? [https://redant.com.au/how-we-do/cache-busting-gmail- new-imag...](https://redant.com.au/how-we-do/cache-busting-gmail-new-image- caching/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Possibly a dumb question, but does blocking remote images not prevent this?

<comment><USER11> Not a dumb question, but not a good answer because it's too abstract (a general concept, but not tied to a particular piece of software/client -- is this a browser, or an email client?)...

The short answer is: Stopping tracking objects requires the request to be stopped before any DNS or HTTP request takes place against that object... and must not be circumvented by other software/addons that then allow it...

For instance, if you block images, but you have another addon/software (e.g. those "website accelerators" that do virtually nothing) that preloads images.. well.. how do the two addons interact? If anything sends that request, you've notified the tracking website.

Why DNS too? If I were an evil company, I'd have both DNS and HTTP checks. If you block images but still for some reason checked the DNS address, I might be able to extract some useful info because you hit uniqueTrackingUUID.example.com, despite not sending the HTTP request.

So, in short, blocking remote images _should_ help, but there's a lot more evil ways to track you... it could even be a url-loaded font (that actually doesn't exist, because it's your UUID for tracking)... or a script... In theory, if you block remote images, your software _hopefully_ blocks other stuff, but that depends on the implementation...

<comment><USER8> I use a good old "boring" email client like Mac Mail and to the best of my knowledge it doesn't attempt DNS resolution either.

Maybe in-browser clients are different but then it's more of a problem with that particular implementation than the concept of blocking remote content itself.

Regarding website accelerators, is that really still a thing? Never heard of those.

<comment><USER11> I don't know Mac mail. As for website acceleration, there's many forms.. there's still software people try to push that basically installs add-ons into browsers... Then there's simply add-ons you can download, which could easily do anything.

For mail clients, it comes down to implementation there as well, but it's less likely a major vendor would add tracking protection checkboxes, then fail on them too badly..... Less likely... And they usually don't have add-ons of the like that would be a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One small issue: email has no delivery notification system. Once upon a time there was one (mdn) but gmail effectively killed it.

Sometimes (important notifications) I need to understand whether the email was delivered to the recipient and it was read.

What am I to do? Yes, marketers do piggyback the feature. But it's still useful.

Give me a voluntary receipt system, THEN kill tracking pixels.

<comment><USER13> Could you include a link in the email requesting confirmation of receipt by clicking on it?

<comment><USER14> This is really the only way to 100% know if your email was received. It needs agreement from the recipient though to click the button. If it's beneficial for them then I think they would.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What I find worse is link tracking, since it can't be as easily bypasses. I have a paid subscription to a newsletter and the publisher said they can't disable link tracking because SendGrid only offers it as an account wide setting - I checked, it is.

This is the kind of stupidity that makes me hate marketing.

<comment><USER16> Can you explain what is worse about link tracking? If you're explicitly making a request to a remote service, how would you expect it to not be tracked?

<comment><USER15> 1\. The link becomes unreadable

2\. The link now goes to a marketing.newsletter.com instead of example.com/original-story, which gives me a better signal of the quality of the citation. Wouldn't you hate it if every wikipedia citation went to bit.ly instead?

3\. My "intent" is to read the information behind the original link, if I can't do that without being tracked by a the sender of the email - I'm less likely to click the link.

4\. Email isn't meant to be tracked! Clicking on a link in an email I got should not notify the sender, in any way whatsover. If this is true for my personal emails, why is it not true for company emails?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you are interested in a newsletter, i'm advising you to not block them.

You are really screwing with readable metrics, not only for marketing. But for people who do A-Z for their newsletter.

<comment><USER18> The vast majority of people will stick using Gmail, so aggregated metrics won't be skewed that much.

However I definitely wants to mess with the fine tracking like Intercom does for example, where they can pull out data about a specific client and see what communication he read or didn't read, how long he stayed on it, etc</comment></comment>


Launched a health reward program for startups today - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/irewardhealth <comment><AUTHOR> We launched our health reward program for startups and small businesses today. I'd appreciate honest feedback on the idea, execution, and what you think about small businesses investing in a culture of health</comment>


Mac OS 9 Hacked Support For The Mac Mini G4 - <AUTHOR> http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,4365.0.html <comment><AUTHOR> Mac OS 9 came out in 1999, and had an official funeral in 2002. The Mac Mini came out in 2004, and the official lowest supported OS is Mac OS X 10.3 Panther which came out in 2003. From my research, there were multiple efforts over the years to back port an OS released 5 years prior to the release of the target hardware. Finally someone did it, and after testing it out it really just works.</comment>


Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/giving-americans-money-to-offset-coronavirus-impact-gains-bipartisan-support-in-congress-11584446801 <comment><USER2> As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus.

There's no _pull yourself up by your bootstraps_ talk right now and there shouldn't be.

I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they're given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savings account until I feel we hit bottom, then invest it.

I'm not the type of person you want to give money like this to. Save it for folks who are really living hand-to-mouth and don't shortchange them.

<comment><USER3> I mostly agree; the only caveat I'd give is that it's tough to say how much longer any of us are going to be yuppies right now; I work for one of the many big megacorporations whose stock is tanking right now. If the stock doesn't pick up soonish, there's a non-zero probability of me being laid off.

While I'm not _that_ worried (I've been able to find work in bad economies in the past), I also do feel a _bit_ of paranoia about this.

<comment><USER4> Why? The price of the stocks does not affect company in any way. If the company sales are going down or clients stop coming this is an issue, stock value is important only for those who hold/speculate using them. You company has already got the money from selling stocks, nobody is going to take them away.

<comment><USER3> Because if the stock price is tanking, there's an incentive to figure out how to either a) increase profits or b) decrease spending.

Since the market is tanking, there's a likelihood that people will be spending less, thus leading to less profits for my company; as a result, the only easy way to keep investors happy is to reduce costs, and the easiest way to do that is to start doing layoffs.

<comment><USER5> That only applies for long-term recession projections where the company is seen as doing a poor job, not now where stock is down because there's a pandemic shutting everything down and market volatility is going batshit. As long as the company has enough cash on hand to ride the pandemic out they'd want to retain everyone so they can ramp up again as fast as possible

<comment><USER3> Well, isn't there fear that this will lead to another full-on recession? I could be wrong but I thought I read that somewhere.

I would very much _like_ to be wrong on this; if I am I don't have to constantly worry about being laid off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such.

However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly.

I'm all for it.

<comment><USER7> The most important aspect of the claim about spending money is the broken window fallacy. Henry Hazlitt wrote a great book on the subject called Economics in One lesson.

The simple example is that we can't go around breaking windows to stimulate the economy. Sure, the window manufacturer and the window replacement companies might benefit, however that money which went towards the window _could_ have gone elsewhere.

Engineering taught me one very important lesson. We can never get something for nothing. There is always a trade off. If the government is handing out money, it has to come from somewhere. Its either taxes, which means that tax money collected can't be spent elsewhere. Or it has to be printed, which is inflation.

Some people say, people aren't spending it, they are saving it! Thats important too. Unless they are keeping it in their mattress, that money is deposited in banks, which loan out the money for capital improvements, etc.

Lastly, my anecdotal experience is that "free money" tends to be squandered more than earned money. Which means poorly allocated funds towards resources less valuable to a strong economy.

<comment><USER8> "money has to come from somewhere" is not a bad thing. Not all the money is reasonably allocated with equivalent side-effects.

For example, it could come from the $748 billion dollars that are allocated for the military budget, which would take away $327 billion and still leave the US as the country spending the most money on the military.

Maybe that means we stop wars that break windows in other countries for a year to focus on healthcare issues, and maybe even, down the line, we find money to improve education for the future generations.

<comment><USER9> We spend more on Social Security and Medicare+Medicaid. Not that we want to use the money from either over Defense, but the notion that we spend more on the military is a myth.

<comment><USER10> Money given to people benefits people. Money given to the military benefits fewer people per dollar spent, and silly percentages of that military money is wasted and lost.

Every dollar you take from SS/Medic* impacts a person. You could cut the military budget by a large chunk before you'd have to actually impact a person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> hey i remember when we did this in 2008. There was a huge economic meltdown, I just lost my job and was living out of my truck, and the Republican party wasnt looking like a real winner in the upcoming election. So it was decided that everyone gets a "stimulus check."

I got $700 from the Republican party...and it basically felt like $700 to keep my mouth shut about how Bush didnt care to find Osama Bin Laden. it was a few hundred and in return i was expected to stop complaining about how TARP bailed out big banks but left me living in a stale coffee scented Dodge Ram. I am a little bitter about the whole gesture but let me tell you what I spent that money on: credit card debt.

Now here we are in 2020 and the Republican party is looking at cutting checks for everyone again and I gotta wonder why. What is this really hoping to achieve? Write me a check and in return I stop complaining about how my health insurance doesnt cover a flu shot? or how the country has more prison beds than hospital beds? That basically everything the president promised he'd do he either ignored or buck-passed to Obama?

I dont want corona cash. I want an economy that doesnt shit the bed like clockwork every ten years and send me out looking for handyman jobs. Id like a healthcare system that doesnt include ambulance rides that are as expensive as a used car.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've heard people say this won't change anything, and that rich people will just use it to buy gold-plated toilets while poor people will use it to buy meth waffles.

I remember the last time everyone got checks from the government.† The $1,200 I got was enough to keep my family from living under a bridge.

There are tens of millions of people living paycheck-to-paycheck, so even if this helps _some_ people, I'm in favor of it.

† [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008)

<comment><USER13> It's funny how much people can be influenced by the media and other people without any actual facts. Who cares what rich people do with the money? And not everyone is poor because they are drug addicts. "If we just give everyone money what incentive is their to work?" That's another one of my favorites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hey, maybe they could stop trying to kill SNAP while they're at it

[https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents- bud...](https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents-budget-would- cut-food-assistance-for-millions-and-radically)

[https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/3/13/21178257/trump- admi...](https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/3/13/21178257/trump- administration-food-stamps-coronavirus-economy)

<comment><USER14> Also the sick leave bill? pretty half assed to start with and they just made it even more half assed. [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1239729011187744773.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1239729011187744773.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hmm. A lot of businesses will get into big trouble over the coming weeks and potentially months. Bars, event organizers, even shopping malls. They're all going to go down to almost zero profit for a while.

The problem is if you just give people money right now, they literally can't spend it on those things because they are or will be closed during that time. Money isn't the reason they're not going, Corona is.

The money would be spent on things that are doing well now anyway (rent, food and netflix/videogames/etc.).

Maybe right now the focus should be on not making people homeless, but then giving people money after the crisis so they can spend it in the industries that are suffering right now.

<comment><USER16> The workers at these establishments, especially those whose income is tied to tips, will certainly need this extra money for rent, food, etc.

<comment><USER15> Some absolutely will. That's not really what I'm trying to argue against, people who would become homeless or starve should absolutely be helped.

However, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this would boost the economy (because the idea is that almost everyone gets money so they can spend it instead of specifically helping with rent or food), which I don't think it will currently, or at least it won't in a meaningful way that helps the businesses who need it.

<comment><USER17> Not yet but businesses are closed. So employees can't work and owners can't make money. Employees still have other bills to pay.

When the businesses open people could be so indebt they aren't able to start spending again quickly. The 1000 dollars won't boost the economy right now but will help recover faster when things start going back to normal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Last global pandemic of most compare - the Spanish Flu, we had a society that was savings conscious.

Past few decades have seen a turn towards interest rates so low that borrowing over saving has prevailed.

So whilst this may help a little and more so for some, it will do nothing for many who are debt rolling from one payday until another. That without intervention upon loans and debt repayments over this period will cause more chaos and impact.

Though most will need fuel, food and essentials in this time, might be better if you had those delivered to those who are stuck and in direct need.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be supprised if ration books become norm for a period soon. Certainly for toilet roll.

<comment><USER19> Savings rates have been going up over the last decade. Some data is available here: [https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/03/can- personal-...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/03/can-personal- savings-rescue-us-from-an-upcoming-recession/)

<comment><USER18> WOW, how the interest rate can be higher than the base rate is somewhat interesting. Meanwhile in the UK and many other places the saving interest rate is way closer to the base rate and usually less than that.

It's almost as if you could borrow cheap and get interest higher than the interest on the loan, alas an avenue that for many is not as easily accessible, but if you have money, you can make money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The case for unconditional basic income has never been stronger.

Especially with disease precluding work.

<comment><USER21> I'm curious, in current proposals, would a UBI be limited to citizens only? I'm guessing not, given the "universal" nature of it. If that's the case, I can't say I see support for a UBI gaining wide-spread support, or economic viability, in the US without first securing our boarders. It seems mutually exclusive, given that it would result in an unprecedented flood of economic migrants.

I may be misunderstanding the scope of "universal" in this context. If that's the case, I'm curious what the typical requirements for access are.

<comment><USER13> > I'm curious, would a UBI be limited to citizens only? I'm guessing not, > given the "universal" nature of it

That's the conclusion you came to because of the word "universal"? Have you watched fear mongering entertainment news lately? You assume that everyone who happens to be in the country gets money? So this will cause the others to invade our perfect utopia that we can't defend without a magical wall. Do tourists who happen to be in the country get money too? I'm curious if illegal immigration has affected you personally in some way.

<comment><USER22> Everyone who comes to CA for example, citizen or not, can get a drivers license and access to a variety of social programs and they are protected by the state against federal prosecution. It's a legitimate concern.

<comment><USER23> > It's a legitimate concern.

We're in the midst of a pandemic and you still think giving undocumented/illegal immigrants access to social programs is a bad idea? Not doing so would seed clusters of infection that will cross over to citizens without asking to see their papers first. I suspect even the most nativist person in the country would agree that ICE arresting people in the ER would be a terrible idea, based on self-preservation alone.

While you may not agree with it, the idea of discouraging people from lurking in the shadows comes from a place of pragmatism, not kumbaya hippiness. Even red states apply this principle to combat opiate addiction.

<comment><USER22> We should never have been in a position in the first place where we have to care for illegal immigrants at the expense of our own population. Countries with the most successful response to this situation locked their borders down hard and fast. Now you're talking about illegal immigrants taking up beds in the ER, that's going to be a priceless commodity soon that many American citizens will probably be forced to go without.

The pragmatic thing to do would've been to protect our borders in the first place, both in terms of illegal immigration and restricting travel when the pandemic first began. Now that the situation is completely untenable and there's a massive underclass of millions of untraceable illegal immigrants, the 'pragmatic' thing to do is spend precious resources caring for them (both in terms of healthcare and financially) at the expense of the native population? 'Pragmatic' doesn't seem like the right word considering that line of thought is what caused the problem in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Instead of giving money, why not suspend debt payments and interest growth?

<comment><USER25> In my opinion, it feels more like damaged image management to me.

Direct cash flow to citizens gives immediate association to the source of the cash and helps restore faith in the current US economic system and government, or at least makes people a little less cranky to soften the blow.

People want change and these issues are further highlighting massive systemic problems in the US to the population at large who are already looking for significant change.

To most, a onetime $1000 (the idea that was floating, this could be different) may pay one months rent or part of it to some, but it's not going to help when it comes to layoffs and downsizing businesses are sure to follow up with. To me, the elephant in the room will be medical expenses many are sure to incur and their associated fallout that's going to be very hard to make people forget.

<comment><USER26> The point is that that one month's rent may buy enough time for the economy to stabilize.

Make no mistake, unless everything picks back up nearly instantly (aka "when pigs fly") people will lose jobs and miss payments and be evicted and all sorts of other bad things just like in every other downturn. The point of the $1k (or whatever amount) is to buy a month for the COVID19 situation to stabilize thereby minimizing the downturn, or at least that's how it works in theory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Why can't we collectively say, no Americans have to pay mortgages/rent for x months. No small/medium sized businesses have to pay business loans for x months. Everyone focus on social distancing and making sure everyone has food and shelter. Weather this out, and start back up after peak infections/hospitalizations has been dealt with.

<comment><USER28> > Why can't we collectively say, no Americans have to pay mortgages/rent for x > months.

Who would say this? The Federal government? I'm no lawyer, but essentially, they would be voiding hundreds of millions of contracts (?)

The Government can't just wave a wand and take an action like this. Even if they could, I don't think you would feel very good about this 'eat the rich' approach for long.

Think about it: Why would I as a landlord keep paying utility bills, taxes, insurance when my tenants don't pay me rent? Why would I pay my mortgage? I wouldn't. I would simply walk away. How long after you stop paying rent before your apartment doesn't have running water?

The real estate market would be decimated. Banks would fail. Trillions and trillions in value and investments destroyed. Unemployment would skyrocket. Goodbye recession, hello depression.

A back door approach to this is a moratorium on evictions, which some states have done. Good luck trying this approach if you're a tenant tho. If this crises is shorter than expected, you'll shortly be evicted and carry that on your record.

I think you're operating on the misconception that landlords and businesses are making outsized margins and 'hoarding' wealth. To think that they somehow would have the ability to continue providing you with services and incurring all expenses without any income is naive.

Direct cash payments to all taxpayers is the easiest, fastest, and probably cheapest way to achieve your goals of bailing out those at risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just curious: will this help the economy recover, when for large parts of it (entertainment, dining, travel, etc) the reason it's closed is due to the virus and not due to lack of money?

</comment><comment><USER30> [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/suspend- mortgage-p...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/suspend-mortgage- payments-and-interest-until-coronavirus-pandemic-has-passed)

3 signatures so far. If the housing market, core to our economy, can be insulated from a crash rebuilding will be significantly easier.

<comment><USER31> I think housing market in USA seriously needs a healthy correction to make housing available to masses again

<comment><USER32> If only the problem weren't self-reinforcing where existing homeowners have the majority of their net worth tied to their home and thus double down on fighting any policy that would reduce home values.

<comment><USER33> Is this actually a problem? Why would people want more of their net worth tied up in their home? Wouldn't cheaper homes make the properly ladder game more accessible? Are people leveraging their current home value enough to need it to be higher?

<comment><USER34> You have to account for the "I got mine so screw the next guy down on the ladder" mentality. One of the _real_ cross-party political issues is just how selfish and anti-community most Americans have become.

<comment><USER35> Another real cross-party issue is how quick people are to label other people doing their best to make it in complex systems as selfish and immoral.

If you have a $400k mortgage on a $500k asset, and I'm proposing systemic changes to make it worth $250k, you'll end up owing $150k more than it's worth. If something happens and you lose your job, you're screwed. You can sell and refinance and you'll still owe nearly as much every month as the person who bought your newly cheaper house, but now you don't have a house.

It's not about "I got mine, fuck you" so much as "this is my life's savings you're talking about making dramatically smaller" and "I'm super leveraged on this asset."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Corporations are owned by people. "84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households."[0] Bailing our corporations bails out the wealthy.

Send money to everyone equally. It's fast. It's fair. And it will quickly increase the velocity of money. [1]

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-e...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks- economy.html)

[1] [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp)

</comment><comment><USER37> I feel we need to do something along these lines for the immediate, but at the same time wonder if it's practically possible to give enough money to actually matter.

To me it seems this crisis is exposing several fallacies underlying our civilization. 1) The idea that infinite debt based economic growth is workable long term. 2) The notion that somehow we can beat natural evolution and selection long term with science.

Both of these ideas work very well in the narrow slice of human history we have lived in, but longer term maybe are just fallacies.

</comment><comment><USER38> Should also include suspension of residential rent payments. Otherwise renters are accumulating debt during the crisis (at best) which will also drag the economy and housing market down.

</comment><comment><USER39> Sitting at home reading a book may not feel like a real job, but it is a job! In this unique situation, the government is asking/requiring people to stay home and alter behaviors. It is not a free handout for doing nothing. People giving up jobs and staying home and doing nothing is serving a purpose of not spreading the virus. People should be compensated for that service.

<comment><USER40> Yep that is part of Yang's policy. Human value vs economic value. Right now our economy doesn't value human life. A stay at home parent who looks after the kids is judged as 0 economic value but raising productive children provides great value to society.

For today... as a human you are very valuable if you stay the hell home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The assume that form that this would actually take would likely be promised 2020 or 2021 tax credits -- anything else would be logistically too slow.

This form is only useful to people who already have cash or ready credit available.

Not obvious to me that this would help the many millions who need cash to spend right now.

</comment><comment><USER42> It really needn't be about money. Neither how much, nor how distributed. A pandemic is mostly about human behaviour, which is social.

No need to keep imagining that there is a strong causal link with money in the short term. At least not so much as it might matter.

</comment><comment><USER43> Means testing would take too long. Don't be concerned that rich people get it too. 1\. There are far fewer rich people 2\. Rich people just took a 20+ percent haircut, they did and are paying for it in decreased economic activity

</comment><comment><USER44> This is a great idea, I just wish the government didn't make it necessary in the first place. Or perhaps that they at least tried it before the insane measures the Fed is taking to prop up the stock market.

</comment><comment><USER45> How does direct cash help the underlying problem? People can't go outside and do stuff. We need loans for businesses and relief for companies to weather a pause (so layoffs and closings are mitigated).

<comment><USER46> It is not meant to fix the underlying problem. It is meant to help those in need buy essential items like food and medicine, and possibly even pay their rent, but it probably won't be enough for even that when your family needs to eat first.

I think direct cash to individuals is only one small part of the bigger picture though. And to your point, businesses are going to need help too. It's not a matter of choosing only one or the other path, but finding a balance employing multiple strategies simultaneously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Chasing our own tails.

If this virus does very little to zero damage in the US, I'm afraid it will become the worst "cry wolf" situation in the history of humanity.... when the truly dangerous bug arrives.

<comment><USER48> If it does very little damage, then mission accomplished.

<comment><USER47> Yes, I am 100% on board with this. Nothing happens is exactly what we want, and WHY we are doing what we are doing.

But there are too many people in this world that are painfully illogical and will think it's a "hoax" or "fake" if nothing actually happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think this AND the payroll tax elimination for a period of time is a one-two punch combo. The first directly helps the people, the second keeps them employed.

</comment><comment><USER50> Honest question, not an economist. How would giving everyone money impact inflation? Is giving money the same thing as "printing money?"

<comment><USER51> Giving money != printing money. If I give you $20 that doesn't mean I fabricated the bill myself. The money could come from any numbers of places in the vast Federal budget.

<comment><USER52> The budget already has a huge deficit. They'd have to cut funding to something, in order not to increase it further. Or they could add it to the deficit (which means borrowing the money), and that translates to higher inflation, pretty much, as banks create the borrowed money. Recent lowering of the interest rates by the FED also plays into this.

I think any kind of stimulus will almost certainly translate to higher inflation.

It's not necessarily bad. It's a bit of an equalizer. You give money to everyone, money loses value somewhat, but only the people who have the most money at the moment, will suffer from the inflation in absolute terms (money received vs value of savings lost).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Can we please get it for legal immigrants too? We pay taxes (lots!), are in the same need and also can stimulate the economy.

</comment><comment><USER54> [https://archive.md/DwZIK](https://archive.md/DwZIK)

</comment><comment><USER55> Do we have the infrastructure to pay every American some amount of money?

<comment><USER9> Yes, we've done it before, near the end of Bush's second term. Although I believe that mainly went to adults, it would still work that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I am sorry but how is this a reasonable idea, instead of you know making paternal/maternal leave state, health care system and salary insurance program government funded?

Temporary economic injections will not transform peoples lifes nor save them from an unsustainable lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER57> Based on inventory levels at my area supermarkets, is MORE consumption really needed right now? I could see a mortgage/rent holiday for a month or two. Just don't want folks going out buying a thousand dollars worth of toilet paper.

</comment><comment><USER58> i'm gainfully employed and I would surely spend it

</comment><comment><USER59> I sincerely hope they do this as debt-free greenbacks.

</comment><comment><USER60> /r/titlegore

</comment><comment><USER61> The media/political response is a giant hoax.

Read the source paper from the CDC our corporate and political leaders are using to justify the panic: [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm) and appendix 5 [https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44314](https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44314)

From the evidence section of appendix 5:

"Mandatory quarantine delayed the peak of the pandemic, but when cost was taken into account, mandatory quarantine was not an economically effective intervention against the 2009 H1N1 pandemic"

Isolations only delay the peak, they don't prevent it, and the wreak havoc on the economy. Plus all the curve flattening talk are just poorly written computer simulations. Zero evidence it will happen.

From the paper here are the key objectives of isolation, none of which apply to covid-19 in the USA (unless hospitals are adding tens of thousands of new beds, respirators, and nurses in the next few weeks).

"Objective 1: To gain time for an initial assessment of transmissibility and clinical severity of the pandemic virus in the very early stage of its circulation in humans (closures for up to 2 weeks)

Objective 2: To slow down the spread of the pandemic virus in areas that are beginning to experience local outbreaks and thereby allow time for the local health care system to prepare additional resources for responding to increased demand for health care services (closures up to 6 weeks)

Objective 3: To allow time for pandemic vaccine production and distribution (closures up to 6 months)"

<comment><USER62> Of course you're some newly created sock-puppet account too afraid to post under your real handle.

COVID-19 will absolutely cause the death of millions in the US alone if proper steps aren't taken to reduce R0. If not from the disease itself, then from hospitals being completely overloaded.

Edit: Let's be real: lockdown/isolation is going to have to persist for at least a month or more to have a real chance of preventing the spread to most of the population in the US. 2 weeks is not going to cut it.

<comment><USER61> Not a sock-puppet.

Where's the evidence isolations will flatten the curve and not just cause another spike of cases after isolation ends?

Covid-19 isn't going to die out after a few weeks or months.

Deaths are coming from ages 70+ with severe pre-existing conditions during non-peak hospital conditions. This is normal and nothing to panic about.

Also, do R0 values of a virus change dramatically? I thought they were set based the number of non-vaccinated people who get infected...

<comment><USER62> "R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen as it is also affected by other factors such as environmental conditions and the behaviour of the infected population." [0]

If we hold R0 down long enough through change of behavior then we can absolutely flatten the curve.

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

<comment><USER61> Thanks for the info on R0!

From wiki "What these thresholds will do is determine whether a disease will die out (if R0 < 1) or whether it may become epidemic (if R0 > 1), but they generally can not compare different diseases."

If seasonal flu (type-B?) has an R0 of ~1.3 can we reasonably call seasonal flu an epidemic?

H1N1 (spanish and swine flu) is ~1.8 and had major outbreaks in 1918 and 2009.

Is it realistic to expect we can sufficiently influence covid-19 using NPIs to achieve R0 < 1?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Actions have consequences. Your income and your future pension are going to pay for this in one way or another.

<comment><USER64> I think this is one of these situations in which doing nothing has a higher cost than doing something, even if that something(give people money for free) is generally bad in most circumstances.

<comment><USER63> The goal is to make the economy to recover quickly. Fail fast, learn the lesson, make things cheap and keep unemployment low. Or do something against centuries of experience and see what happens.

Avoiding short-term pain by trading it for a much worse problem later is what made us so vulnerable to a not-so-deadly virus. Zombie too big to fail banks and corporations and a real estate market out of control. Same happened everywhere, not just US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> We have this already. It's called unemployment. We don't need stimulus for people with existing paychecks.

We need conditions and durations on unemployment temporarily lifted, some for of access for self-employed or under-the-table workers, and some form of block grants for companies that would otherwise face bankruptcies (which would cascade) and and obviously enormous increases in funding that would be required by this.

edit: why am I downvoted? The problem is not giving extra money to those with jobs, the problem is giving money to those without jobs.

<comment><USER66> I don't know why you're downvoted, but unemployment is a state-level program. This is a national problem and merits a federal response.

<comment><USER65> Yes, and this begs the question of what will happen with state budgets, many of which have balanced budget amendments and have no legal flexibility to deal with this. The answer is federal block grants to backstop national unemployment changes. Removing waiting periods and extending benefits indefinitely is essentially temporary UBI, which is what we need.

So yes, this form of changes to unemployment would _require_ a federal response. And we require far more federal response than that, far far more. But payroll tax holidays and $1000/adult responses are not serious policy and waste invaluable time.</comment></comment></comment>


Great CEOs Must Be Either Technical or Financial (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/03/09/great-ceos-must-be-either-technical-or-financial/

<comment><USER2> This is a less interesting statement than it sounds at first. Corporate finance is simple enough that a highly intelligent person can learn what they need to know fairly easily.

A more accurate statement would be: "CEOs must be highly intelligent, and they must understand what their company is doing" \-- which might involve technology, finance, or both, depending on the industry.

<comment><USER3> > corporate finance is simple enough ...

Chess is simple enough for a kid to learn. But the level of mastery varies greatly among people. Worse, inexperienced players are unable to recognize their own weaknesses or to recognize skill in others.</comment></comment>


How to Memorize the Largest Known Prime - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/how-to-memorize-the-largest-known-prime/ <comment><USER2> If you find memory tricks like this fun, you should check out the book moonwalking with einstein which explores the world of memory world champions. If you use the method of loci[1] combined with a memorized list of words (optional) [3] that are in the major system[2] you'll be able to remember quite a bit of stuff with ease.

I have the memory of a goldfish, yet after training lightly for a month I am now able to remember numbers the length of phone numbers and credit card numbers as I read them out.

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

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

[3] [http://www.rememberg.com/Peg-list-1000/](http://www.rememberg.com/Peg- list-1000/)

<comment><USER3> Like it's not enough that I remember my first ICQ number while having no use for it.

<comment><USER4> Haha, ditto. I remember so many random numbers like that, but sadly forgot what many of those numbers were too.

<comment><USER5> For me it's my Windows 98 CD key (25 digits alphanumeric). I had to wipe and reinstall so many times that it saved a lot of trouble to commit it to memory. And now here I am 20 years later...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I guess I must have missed the article "Why to Memorize the Largest Known Prime".

Memorizing lists of numbers in sequence seems like such a huge waste of time. We already have computers, and in a pinch, paper and pencils which serve the purpose of reliably recording large streams of numbers much better. I understand that there is some appeal in understanding ways to improve memory, but if you're going to spend that much time training your memorization, why not at least get pick a subject where you might get something useful out of it? Learn to memorize a new language with a different character system, or memorize how to play difficult musical compositions . At least those would also improve your ability to communicate in some form or provide value to other people around you.

I know I shouldn't be this irritated by what people choose for their hobbies, it doesn't really matter and this is probably still better than watching cable news all day. But this topic in particular frustrates me because it seems to serve no purpose other than to allow nerds to show off to each other and pat themselves on their backs for "achieving" something that is totally without value.

<comment><USER7> I'm with you on this. There needs to be a term for achieving something that serves absolutely no purpose in any situation imaginable.

And when I mean "no purpose", I _really_ mean it. This prime can't even be used for encryption because it's so absurdly large, and now that it's a well- known prime, it's a cinch to check for it.

<comment><USER8> You mean like playing any other kind of sports or game? Or entertainment in general? And in this case, it does not even appear that the author really expects you to memorize anything. It's just a few neat properties and tricks. This is not a serious article.

<comment><USER7> Sports and games have strong cultural connections. Primes, not so much.

(And yes, I'm very much aware that this isn't serious.)

<comment><USER9> I personally would rather connect with the small subculture that connects with large primes than with the much larger (but in my opinion, less interesting) subculture that connects with sports.

I mean, I'm not saying that one is any more objectively valuable than the other, just that it's a preference, and neither one is more valid than the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're going to cheat, go all the way and recite it in base 2^882,589,933-1.

Learning that also will help you cover larger primes, once they get found.

<comment><USER11> I've already memorized it in binary though.

<comment><USER12> How about memorizing the python script that prints out the binary?

<comment><USER13> Or how about memorizing a useful enough set of mathematical heuristics such that you can eventually rederive truths such as this one?

If you're going compress it to an algorithm that, given enough time, allows you to construct the number, don't just stop there!

Shout-out to Truly Part of You: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fg9fXrHpeaDD6pEPL/truly- part...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fg9fXrHpeaDD6pEPL/truly-part-of-you)

<comment><USER12> Just have a tiny device that sparks a vacuum catastrophe, resulting in a wave of annihilation expanding outward at the speed of light, creating an empty void which will spontaneously produce another Big Bang, resulting in a universe in which some sentient being somewhere will rediscover that particular prime number? Keep it small and lightweight, and it will be super convenient!

<comment><USER14> That would go against the intention of the problem because we are looking for a mental technique, not a device.

<comment><USER12> So it would be perfect if I had a mental technique for sparking vacuum decay? What would be truly perfect if the mental technique could be packaged as a joke.

<comment><USER14> Jokes? You must be mistaken, we don't have those here.

<comment><USER12> I see. So HN's subculture is really about universal salvation. I guess I'll just continue working on my paperclip optimizing AI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of this guy: [https://youtu.be/_FX6rml2Yjs](https://youtu.be/_FX6rml2Yjs)

It takes him 17 hours to say a 3-syllable phrase 100k times. Expanding, it would take 468 hours, or 19.5 days to recite this prime.

<comment><USER16> There are actually mnemonists who have been able to recite pi up to 70,000 digits over a span of 17 hours: [http://pi-world-ranking- list.com/index.php?page=lists&catego...](http://pi-world-ranking- list.com/index.php?page=lists&category=pi)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Go straight to the classic on this topic: The Art of Memory by British historian Frances A. Yates.

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

</comment><comment><USER18> The poem is too complicated. Simply sing the 1 in different notes to signify how far through you are. I leave it as a exercise to the reader to come up with a suitable scheme.

You can also say one, uno, eine, wahad etc. Maybe that's bending the rules.

Or just do 10000 a day and keep an eye on the calendar.

</comment><comment><USER19> I will just memorize there is an article on memorizing the largest prime.

<comment><USER20> By sheer coicidence I'm sure, that's how I solved the problem of how to derive the first trillion digits of Pi.

Which is fine, in principal, especially if -actual value- results from the computer being used as a space-heater.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The author is not using the base 2 representation, instead just coming up with a fancy way to express "500 x 165179 + 433", reciting the number in base 1, or tally marks.

I don't understand the reason for the diversion to binary.

<comment><USER22> No, we're reciting the number "2^(500 x 165179 + 433) - 1" which, in binary, uses only the digit 1 repeatedly. Reciting the prime in unary (base 1) would take quite a lot longer.

<comment><USER23> Reciting a number in unary vs binary is the difference between O(N) and O(log N)!</comment></comment></comment>


Moving PhoneGap to the Apache Software Foundation - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/phonegap-dev/vFy8GCcHiY4/discussion

<comment><USER2> I think the Apache move is positive. But the name choice is just horrible.

What's wrong with Apache Mobile?

<comment><USER3> "Apache Mobile" sounds like a mobile web server, IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This link doesn't work on the iPad - you just get forwarded to the iPad version of Google Groups at <https://groups.google.com/forum/m/>. You can view the proper post at [https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/phonegap- dev/vFy8G...](https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/phonegap- dev/vFy8GCcHiY4)

</comment><comment><USER5> Pardon my ignorance: why would a project want to be moved to the Apache Software Foundation?

<comment><USER6> Open source projects vary in 'openness', especially with the recent popularity of companies releasing open source products but strictly controlling them, which makes them less attractive for 3rd parties to depend on.

The Apache Foundation goes to a lot of work to make sure that open source project operate in a certain spirit, they encourage to have a diverse set of committers (so they arent all from one company), they also provide some insurance on the legal side of things

<comment><USER7> It sounds like the legal insurance may be one of the bigger drivers in this instance. I find it rather maddening that a clothing chain has problems with the PhoneGap name - there's absolutely no chance of consumer confusion here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this will be generally great for the PhoneGap community, but I can't say I like the name Apache Device Bridge. There has got to be something better than that. Off the top of my head, how about "Apache Web Bridge"?

<comment><USER9> The post suggests the name DeviceReady, not DeviceBridge.

Though as a commenter pointed out, the deviceready.com domain is already taken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That's a great news, and it will be very beneficial for both PhoneGap open source framework and ASF Foundation. Clear governance rules in ASF foundation will definitely be stimulative for other developers to participate.</comment>


Anatomy of a Growth Hack: Post-Mortem of Our Open Letter to Tony Hsieh - <AUTHOR> http://www.hipmob.com/messagefortonypostmortem.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Got some pretty interesting results we're still parsing through: the short version is we our click-through rate on the page was 5x what it's been otherwise, and Tony Hsieh responded through an assistant. Sharing the results to pay it forward.

<comment><USER2> Could this post mortem be considered a meta growth hack? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Only if it actually generates growth. Ask me in a day :) In all seriousness - just sharing what we learned. We learned a lot from HN and we definitely want to contribute also.</comment></comment></comment>


Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 is out... - <AUTHOR> http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/04/27/firefox-35-beta-4-now-available-for-download/

<comment><USER2> Until Firebug catches up with the Betas I'll be sticking with the public releases.</comment>


Selenium with Headless Chrome on Travis CI - <AUTHOR> http://www.amihaiemil.com/2017/07/14/selenium-headless-chrome-travis.html <comment><USER2> Headless Java notes from yesterday:

[https://www.blazemeter.com/blog/headless-execution- selenium-...](https://www.blazemeter.com/blog/headless-execution-selenium- tests-jenkins)

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/494442/fake-x11-display](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/494442/fake-x11-display)

[http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/headless-1...](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/headless-136834.html)

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32862344/what-is-the- dif...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32862344/what-is-the-difference- between-openjdk-7-jre-headless-and-openjdk-7-jrejdk)

[https://github.com/nimmis/docker- java/tree/master/openjdk-8-...](https://github.com/nimmis/docker- java/tree/master/openjdk-8-jre-headless)

</comment><comment><USER3> In some contexts it might be easier to use my project [https://github.com/machinepublishers/jbrowserdriver](https://github.com/machinepublishers/jbrowserdriver) which requires Java/JavaFX (no external browser bin). Chrome Headless is a godsend though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting project :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For my project, I just drove headless chrome w/ the debug API (remote debugging protocol) directly from Python--it was very straightforward.

Headless chrome makes much of these existing frameworks redundant, IMHO. Unless you have a suite of existing test cases in some framework, I'd consider just driving Chrome directly and skipping the overhead and external dependencies.

<comment><USER5> Isn't the goal of Selenium/WebDriver to allow for some level of standardization in interacting with different headless browsers?

If you're only interested in ever testing in Chrome, great. But headless Firefox is in the release pipeline (I think it's being tested in Nightly?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It workds pretty well, except for the download functionality.</comment>


Should you Walk or Bus? - <AUTHOR> http://visualmotive.com/walk-or-bus/

<comment><USER2> Of course, you also have to take into account the cost of the bus, whether you have a bus pass/travelcard, proximity of stops at either end to required start point and destination, and whether or not you can stop on the way (if you're walking) and get a Starbucks.

For all these reasons, plus the usual carbon footprint and travelcard, I don't take the bus anywhere unless it's more than an hour's walk. (Before I moved to Edinburgh I hated, hated hated hated, walking. Selling one's car does fantastic things to the mindset.)

Still. It's a pretty graph!

<comment><USER3> Wow, an hour walk!

I bike or take the bus or train for anything more than a mile. Walking is very boring. (I have never owned a car either.)

BTW, Chicagoans are lucky to have estimated arrival times for every bus stop in the city (<http://ctabustracker.com/>). It is very accurate and makes deciding between walking and waiting for the bus an easy decision. (Usually I commit to taking the bus and just sit in my apartment until a few minutes before it is scheduled to arrive. It's wonderful.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Several cities seem to have services like the CTA Bus Tracker. Very useful. San Francisco has NextMUNI (<http://nextmuni.com>), Minneapolis has NexTrip (<http://nextrip.metc.state.mn.us/NextripFull.aspx>).

<comment><USER3> Very nice. Services like this should be considered a basic human right :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. Also just remembered that Google Maps has public transit route-finding in major cities. I'm not sure if this is based on scheduled times or actual times (as reported by services like NextMUNI), but it's a fantastic service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's no way a city bus travels an average speed of 30mph. I would be lucky to travel at an average of 30mph driving a car in most cities, and I don't stop every 3 blocks for 30 seconds to pick people up.

</comment><comment><USER5> Buses rarely travel at 30 mph in Manhattan.

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't spent much time there. How fast do they travel?

<comment><USER6> They travel at 30mph often, but not over very long distances. Imagine your stereotypical cab driver, with excessive acceleration and lane changes, and insert a stop every two blocks to add/drop passengers.

Actual average speed depends a lot on the number of passengers. At rush hours, if you're walking at a fast pace you can outrace a bus. Only so much the driver can do when 20-30 people get on the bus at a stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like I keep a fairly brisk pace when I walk the mile and a half to work, and it takes me 45 minutes. I feel like I'd have to jog to break that pace.

It takes me 20-30 minutes to make the same trip on the subway, 20-25 minutes by bike, and less than ten minutes if my wife drops me off via car.

<comment><USER8> Do you live in the Alps?

Assuming reasonably flat ground, it's not hard to walk a mile in well under 20 minutes. Bicycling around 15 mph ain't too hard, either -- which would get you 1.5 miles in 10 minutes.

<comment><USER9> Maybe he has to stop at a lot of intersections

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> why walk when you could use wheels to go fast! i bike or blade everywhere! (and i mean literally use wheels as in exertion. it's so much more fun than sitting on a machine.)

buses suck. they are biker killers. i always thought this was a shame since public transportation and self transportation are on the same environmental team. i've had buses seriously try to run me over (turn right even though i'm sitting in the bus lane making eye contat with the bus driver who is yelling at me, honking and not slowing the turn). to say nothing of the accidents that have put my friends in the hospital (bus smoosh).

<comment><USER11> > buses suck. they are biker killers. i always thought this was a shame since > public transportation and self transportation are on the same environmental > team.

That's not how humans work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This table should be connected to live bus data.</comment>


Ask HN: where does Chat Sports get it's data from? - <AUTHOR>

In case you haven't heard of it, Chat Sports (http://chatsports.com) is a service that combines articles from a few mainstream news sources into a personal feed.<p>I'm curious: are they scraping those websites for content or do they have revenue sharing deals? It would be funny that their own ToS "does not permit use of any data mining, robots, scraping or similar data gathering or extraction methods" if that's what they're doing. <comment><USER2> It looks like they use RSS feeds from the sites, and just show summaries. When you click on the article, they open the site in an iframe.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are you thinking of doing something similar in BR?</comment>


Using Rails & Devise with Ember.js - <AUTHOR> http://say26.com/using-rails-devise-with-ember-js

<comment><USER2> Great tutorial - really enjoyed it.</comment>


Coding Together at Scale: GitHub as a Collaborative Social Network - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.2535v1

<comment><AUTHOR> Github as a social network is a nice idea. While it's not a big stretch, I normally wouldn't think of Github and Facebook or Twitter in the same context. But now that I am, I realize that my "social interactions" on Github are the most satisfying and rewarding of all on both a personal and technical level.</comment>


'Mr. Robot' creator on the evils of Facebook and hackers in Hollywood - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/30/mr-robot-creator-interview/ <comment><USER2> I really wanted to like it, but the directing and writing is just so sloppy and relies heavily on bashing you over the head with the message, it's hard to enjoy.

I mean, they literally had the "bad guy" go beat up a homeless man a few episodes in (it had nothing to do with the plot -- they just wanted to throw that in there) when his character became too sympathetic. For all the hours of this show that I watched, it still feels like the characters are very two dimensional, even the main character.

I did like some of the things they put in -- a recurring character revealing himself to be a hallucination of the main character when his reflection does not appear in a subway window, for instance. But it's just been difficult to slog through lately. Side plots that I normally wouldn't mind now feel like they're just thrown in to lengthen the series.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "USA did a survey when our show premiered, targeting millennials, and asked if they could go back in time and start over, would they join Facebook. And I think, overwhelmingly, most people said no, which is great."

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm quite fond of this tv series so far. Definitely the most accurate portrayal of "hacker" technology that I've seen on screen, that I can think of anyway.

</comment><comment><USER4> Good tv show, but IP addresses still fake :-) "The IP-address Elliot is instructed to leave in the .dat-file is 184.108.40.2063. The highest number in an IPv4-address is 255." Source: [http://www.tvrage.com/mr- robot/episodes/1065781052](http://www.tvrage.com/mr-robot/episodes/1065781052)

0:50sec; "Oh hi... Elliot, just a tech!" LOL

Article Mirror @ [https://archive.is/nCIZH](https://archive.is/nCIZH)

<comment><USER5> I believe those are intentionally fake.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9630909](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9630909)

<comment><USER6> Oh well, 198.51.100/24 would work just fine, without compromising the realism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ok the ip, but someone notice the ATSU shell command? It provides a fake output looks like a linux shell output -.-'</comment>


Facebook warns about Apple iOS 13 privacy improvement - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/facebook-warns-about-apple-ios-13-privacy-improvement.html <comment><USER2> That feature should have been included with the very first versions of iOS and Android, same with a system that allows users to freely turn on and off individual permissions. It's unacceptable how so many years after launch users are still forced to either accept all ridiculous permission requirements of apps, or not use the majority of them.

But I'm glad Apple (hopefully) takes this step now to stop helping Facebook etc. hide their spy activities.

</comment><comment><USER3> FB does not want people to know how invasive they really are with their app and its tracking capabilities. People will be able to disable FB functions for better privacy. Win win for the consumer.</comment>


Show HN: The webworkers driven UI framework has officially ended the Beta phase - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/neomjs/neo/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> This is something new and modern in the world of JavaScript frameworks after a long time.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To be clear on this one:

The new architecture which enables you to to optionally use SharedWorkers (to create Apps running inside multiple Browser Widnows) is in place now.

The main readme got updated including the multi window covid app.

There are still more guides & tutorials missing.

There is still work left on the Component side of things.

Your help is appreciated!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> this release includes:

Expanding Single Page Apps into multiple Browser Windows

Friends link: [https://medium.com/swlh/expanding-single-page-apps-into- mult...](https://medium.com/swlh/expanding-single-page-apps-into-multiple- browser- windows-e6d9bd155d59?source=friends_link&sk=bbfe1dada95c5674669e463f93360822)

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't wait to use it in real life projects. Will try to give a hand as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> Amazing new webworkers driven UI framework! Check it out!</comment>