WhatsApp Hack - <AUTHOR> http://220.127.116.11/ <comment><USER2> Am I missing something? "Give me your number and password, and I'll show you that WhatsApp is insecure". Really?

There is definitely a place to out a company that fails to secure things consistently, but asking for credentials in this way absolutely wrecks your credibility to anyone but the most trusting of people that already knows you. _No one should input anything into this form, even if it's credible._ To do so, is assuming that it is not being stored in any way (unprovable), and that it is following security best practices (on a site that's not even operating on a secure connection). I'm sure you are a standup guy, but I hope we never get complacent with blindly accepting "hack checkers" like the ones that popped up around other notable hacks recently

<comment><AUTHOR> It's so easy to get the password. Anyone with you on the same WIFI can get your WIFI Mac address about passwords: [https://plus.google.com/109599361571767865655/posts/5ijzy29i...](https://plus.google.com/109599361571767865655/posts/5ijzy29iaNn)

<comment><USER3> FTP. AIM. These are equally if not more insecure for the same reasons. Not to mention that if you're on my network a "Whatapp" account is the least of my concerns.

<comment><USER4> No, they're not.

1) Your mac address is available to even passive sniffers without the key to an encrypted network. In some circumstances you don't even need to be connected to a network to grab someone's mac address (iPhones in particular love looking for networks loudly).

2) FTP and AIM passwords can be changed. Yes, a passive sniffer on the same network can still get them, but this is a significantly harder task than getting someone's mac address, and there's no way to change the goal.

3) Brute force attacks become within the realm of possibility. Have someone you know has an iPhone 5 and uses WhatsApp? The first chunk of the mac address is assigned by vendor, so you've already narrowed the search space down drastically by half to needing to guess 6 hex digits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I see what you are trying to do, but I think it would work better if you requested the MAC address instead of the password. The way it's written now, it looks like you're asking for the password.

I support this though, because WhatsApp has known about this for a couple years now and refuse to do anything about it.

The short version is, anyone can steal your messages if they have your mac address. Anyone on the same network as you, or within wifi range -- even if not connected to a wifi network, but with the radio on -- has your mac address. And you can never change it, so once someone snarfs it once, they get your account for life.

Edit: From the README on the GitHub page:

 _Password Overview

        Android: MD5 hash of reversed IMEI (Credit: WhatsAPI Original Authors)
        iOS: MD5 hash of the MAC address repeated twice (Credit: Ezio Amodio)
        Windows Phone: MD5 hash of reversed DeviceUniqueId (Credit: Robe Fernández)*

<comment><USER6> I had the impression that iOS apps that use any API to retrieve the MAC address is banned from the store, similar to the way calls to retrieve the UDID are.

Maybe they are grandfathered in? Would they be banned if they pushed an update? Are Apple afraid of kicking out an iMessage competitor?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is no real way WhatsApp can fix this problem without large consumer backlash from existing customers. The reason WhatsApp took off is because 'it just works' without requiring creating accounts and other nastyness.

You just install it, whack in your phone number, and off it goes. Swap to a new phone? Whack in your phone number, and you're back on your account.

This is why WhatsApp has beaten out the competition (along with good marketing in airports, etc) - and there is A LOT of competition. By fixing this 'flaw', WhatsApp will fail. The best they could do is offer an 'advanced security' option for uses who want more secure communication, but the default insecurity will have to stay.

TLDR: Insecurity is the very bedrock of WhatsApp's popularity. It cannot be 'fixed' at this point.

<comment><USER8> Of course they can! Just force people to add an additional password to their account on the next app update.

<comment><USER7> People will get confused, forget their passwords, and swap to a new insecure system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> OK... I assume it's not a phishing site, which requires your phone number and password...

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't store anything.

<comment><USER10> Hopefully you don't :-) still, it would be pretty unwise for people to input their credentials there.

Instead, just put the code up on github and link to it. The curious but cautious people would be able to verify the hack then

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wrote a bit more in detail about this a while back: [http://samgranger.com/whatsapp-is-using-imei-numbers-as- pass...](http://samgranger.com/whatsapp-is-using-imei-numbers-as-passwords/)

Whatsapp, if you are listening, do the following.. Add an extra column to your database table where user 'credentials' are saved. Lets call it 'password'. Or call it realpassword if you're using password for the md5'ed IMEI/MAC. Now, leave it empty for a moment..

On your next client update, force your users to fill in a password. Don't save it plaintext mmkay, drop a whole pot of salt all over it and save it in the password column. If user has a known password, check if their client sent the correct one.

You can still check IMEI or MAC address too if you want, but only as an extra 'check' to verify user is logging in from their mobile and not some fishy desktop client. Again, the latter isn't secure but is meant as a fallback.

</comment><comment><USER11> Instead of just saying "click here to see all the articles about this security hole" it would go a long way to provide a concise synopsis for those of us who don't use whatsapp but are still interested in understanding your approach

</comment><comment><USER12> WhatsApp was never designed with security as a priority. I remember a couple of years ago after it took off investigating it with a packetsniffer when I noticed the phone number verification text let you in the second you finished typing the PIN. I recall either the server was sending the PIN to the device or the device was telling the server what PIN to send in the text. Ridiculously easy to impersonate anyone at that point. Last I checked they had fixed that hole but I'm not surprised others have popped up.

</comment><comment><USER10> Can you clarify what each input means? When the help text for the "name" field of a form says "the name you'd like to use".. well, it's not very helpful. Thanks :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the note, It's the name that show in Push notifications on iOS and Windows devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am getting "Wrong password" trying with my own phone (iphone 4), using my wifi mac address (all caps, with :)

<comment><USER13> My number is not from the US. Maybe you are creating the JID using the US country code + the phone number field instead of using the full number field?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, simple enter your number without + and the mac address once with the two points, just like XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX

<comment><USER13> Tried again here, not working. Do you know if it is possible to sniff the iphone connection and get the md5? I have generated the hash from the duplicated mac and want to check that it is identical.

<comment><USER13> The password algorithm changed in the lasts versions of Whatsapp, at least in iPhone. You can get a Base64 of the md5 from the application directory, but it doesn't match the imei or mac md5. I am trying to break mine with hashcat to see what kind of pattern it follows.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess you are trying to do the MD5 yourself, while you should simply just enter the mac address with the : . The script will automatically generate the hash for u.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How can I get the MAC address for iPhone? I found one, but it is separated with `-` and not with `:`.

<comment><USER12> Settings -> General -> About -> "WiFi Address"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> iPhone Mac address "Wrong Password" explained: <https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues/192>

</comment><comment><USER15> so if someone has my IMEI, can i save my account from him as i can't change my password(IMEI)

<comment><USER8> No, you'd be screwed. The password is technically an inverse of your imei with a md5 encryption on top (Android).</comment></comment>


Is It Worth Being Wise? - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/wisdom.html <comment><USER2> Paul's essays are often deliberate explorations of concepts that he doesn't start off knowing the answer to. This would seem to be an example of that, and is interesting to read as a view into how Paul thinks. That said, I think he drew the wrong distinction here between smartness and wisdom.

The distinction that I would draw is that a smart person is someone who can figure out the right answer, while a wise person is someone who does the right thing. I draw the distinction this way because there are a lot of people who _know_ what they should do, but _don't do it!_ We generally don't think of them as wise. Conversely most of the smart people that I know are good at figuring out things in a number of different contexts, so their ability doesn't tend to be just a one-dimensional spike.

This ties to the common belief that wisdom has something to do with emotions. Because inability to align emotions and actions is a common barrier to doing what you know you should do. Note that I'm careful not to say _control_ your emotions, because a person who keeps emotions under deliberate control is in serious trouble when those emotions slip out anyways. And they will. Instead the people I've known who I call wise are capable of finding ways to align emotions and actions in such a way that they can act in accord with their emotions yet not cause problems for them.

By contrast I tie smartness to problem solving. Someone can be really good at solving set problems yet have no clue how to handle their emotional state. Paul offers many good examples of this in his essay.

<comment><USER3> There are many useful definitions of wisdom and intelligence. Another way of looking at it was if you where able to write a book that would be transported back in time to some historical figure what would be the most powerful things to add to change the course of history? 30 years ago detailed instructions on how to manufacture a modern computer would have dramatically changed things, but 2000 years ago that would be useless. However, a basic primmer on math and collage freshman level science could have dramatically changed history.

IMO, wisdom is the ability to take the core aspects of what humanity has learned and put them into practice. Eat right, exercise, get enough sleep, treat others well etc, those ideas evolve slowly over time. So, what separates them is how quickly the information becomes outdated, 60 years ago knowing how to make a high quality vacuum tube on the cheap would have been useful today it's almost worthless. Knowing how to use a light switch on the other hand seems far more basic. Or for a more complex example how to get a date has changed little in the last 60 years even as how we network with other people has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think my favorite explanation of wisdom versus intelligence came when reading about how D&D players should think of it: Intelligence tells you it's raining inside. Wisdom tells you to open the umbrella.

When we get to the point that we can just download all the information we want directly into our brains, it's going to be those with wisdom that will know what to do with it.

<comment><USER5> I see them differently. Intelligence is an ability which you can use, it is similar to strength, so I like to think of it as brain strength. Wisdom is your knowledge and experience. So being more intelligent gives you potential, but you have to use your intelligence wisely to gain wisdom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The wiser I become, the less money I have.

I never understood why, in my case, they were inversely proportional.

</comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone what that interview is from footnote 8?</comment>


We Know How to Prevent Megafires - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen/ <comment><USER2> It's amazing how many obstacles we put in the way of planned burns, to prevent problems that we've been just have to accept when they happen unexpectedly on their own:

 _Planned burns are human-made events and as such need to follow all environmental compliance rules. That includes the Clean Air Act, which limits the emission of PM 2.5, or fine particulate matter, from human-caused events. In California, those rules are enforced by CARB, the state's mighty air resources board, and its local affiliates. "I've talked to many prescribed fire managers, particularly in the Sierra Nevada over the years, who've told me, 'Yeah, we've spent thousands and thousands of dollars to get all geared up to do a prescribed burn,' and then they get shut down." Maybe there's too much smog that day from agricultural emissions in the Central Valley, or even too many locals complain that they don't like smoke. Reforms after the epic 2017 and 2018 fire seasons led to some loosening of the CARB /prescribed fire rules, but we still have a long way to go._

 _"One thing to keep in mind is that air-quality impacts from prescribed burning are minuscule compared to what you're experiencing right now," said Matthew Hurteau, associate professor of biology at University of New Mexico and director of the Earth Systems Ecology Lab, which looks at how climate change will impact forest systems. With prescribed burns, people can plan ahead: get out of town, install a HEPA filter in their house, make a rational plan to live with smoke._

<comment><USER3> One more odd thing is how fast we forget. There were no articles after-the- fact even indicating the fire was over, or how things were going. I searched major web sites like NY Times. Things were burning like crazy, and then reporting stopped.

Is it over? Is it contained? Are San Francisco, Mountain View, and Stanford just gone? Reading the newspapers, you just don't know.

I'd like to have a retrospective. How much damage was there? What's gone? What's still there? Etc.

<comment><USER4> CalFire updates its page regularly. And anyway Mountain View, San Francisco and Stanford weren't at risk. Fires burn upward because heat rises. Silicon Valley is in a valley and built out. It's not wilderness. There's five minute fire response times throughout.

<comment><USER3> Five minute fire response times presume that there isn't a million acre fire saturating all fire departments. If CZU were rapidly spreading and hit the side of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose all at once, I think we'd have multiday response times. Fortunately, it wasn't.

Was it possible for it to spread like that? I don't know. During COVID19, we had a constant series of claims, repeated by politicians and public health officials, which had no basis in fact. Post-COVID19, I just don't believe claims like these anymore without a citation. Most were wishful thinking.

<comment><USER5> If the CZU fire had jumped jurisdictions (HWY 35?) it would have turned worse because the Evergreen fire had sucked all those resources already.

The governator really needs to return firefighting resources back to normal. There has been a significant drawdown of resources in Cal as other states boost their capabilities but the governator has not countered that and now resources are thin in CA.

<comment><USER6> We also need to pass AB 2147: [https://www.firehouse.com/operations- training/wildland/news/...](https://www.firehouse.com/operations- training/wildland/news/21147461/ca-bill-could-help-inmate-firefighters-find- future-in-fire-service)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's a couple of misleading statements in here. It's true that CDF firefighters make a decent living, but it's also true that every other fire department pays better. They'd all take a position in a city fire department if they were after more money.

The other misleading thing is associating these current fires with bad forest management practices. It's true for Sierra Nevada forests generally, but that's not where these fires are. The Big Basin area near Santa Cruz isn't supposed to regularly burn. Historically it goes through intense fires rarely. "Preventing megafires" isn't what that coastal redwood forest wants. The other big fire in the San Antonio Valley and Del Puerto Canyon is virtually all privately-held land. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for the state to require a prescribed burn through private lands, like you might do in a national forest or BLM holding.

<comment><USER8> > It's true that CDF firefighters make a decent living, but it's also true > that every other fire department pays better.

Except CDCR, which pays notably worse, but that's not really competing for firefighters.

> There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for the state to require a prescribed > burn through private lands, like you might do in a national forest or BLM > holding.

There's not mechanism for the _state_ to require a prescribed burn on national forest or BLM land, either (both of which are federally managed.)

<comment><USER9> To save some people a search:

CDF = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as "CALFIRE"

CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which in this context supplies convict labor to fight fires.

One issue this year is that the California State Prisons are all horrifically overrun with COVID-19, thereby incapacitating what had previously been a critical firefighting function.

The situation (mass incarceration, crowded conditions, negligent and/or derisive healthcare for inmates, climate change, lack of prescribed burns, and now inadequate resources to fight large fires) is really quite depressing to untangle.

<comment><USER10> Ideally, the state should not require (it is what it is) slave labor to fulfill basic needs of society. Yes I know in theory it is voluntary and everything, but it is wage dumping using forced labor - because without said slave labor the state would have to pay _a lot_ more for a real standing force.

As with most cost cutting measures, eventually the chickens _will_ come home to roost, and there has been quite a horde of chickens that came home over the last months, across the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> My big takeaway from the article is it will require a big culture shift in the general public, two quotes:

> "I've talked to many prescribed fire managers, particularly in the Sierra > Nevada over the years, who've told me, 'Yeah, we've spent thousands and > thousands of dollars to get all geared up to do a prescribed burn,' and then > they get shut down." Maybe there's too much smog that day from agricultural > emissions in the Central Valley, or even too many locals complain that they > don't like smoke. Reforms after the epic 2017 and 2018 fire seasons led to > some loosening of the CARB/prescribed fire rules, but we still have a long > way to go.

> She'd like to get Californians back closer to the fire culture in the > Southeast where, she said, "Your average person goes out back with Grandpa, > and they burn 10 acres on the back 40 you know, on a Sunday." Fire is not > just for professionals, not just for government employees and their > contractors.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand how a private individual would deal with the liability.

<comment><USER12> Here in Ireland farmers regularly burn fields and occasionally the fire gets out of control and destroys an entire mountainside. A couple of years ago one came within 100m of my parents' house - one more change of wind direction and they would have lost everything.

No one ever seems to get criminally or civilly prosecuted for starting the fires. Often everyone knows who did it but there's no irrefutable evidence and the police aren't interested - perhaps as a policy because it's understood that some controlled burns are useful. California's police could equally well be told to "focus on other priorities" instead of investigating fire starters.

<comment><USER13> California law enforcement could choose to look the other way, but it's a statistical certainty that if there's money to be made through civil suits, there will be plenty of litigation. How do you get around that?

<comment><USER12> The police are important in civil suits too. Arguably their main function in a civilised society is that you can call them when you get in a car accident and they'll write up an official report for the insurance company. If they don't spend their time writing detailed reports on the causes of fires, that at least pushes the balance of power away from the plaintiff.

I don't know if this is realistic. But we have a pretty litigious society these days in Ireland too - behind the US, but ahead of almost everywhere else - and I can't find any evidence of a successful civil suit for starting a wildfire. I did find this which says there are practically no criminal cases:

[https://www.thejournal.ie/wildfires-donegal- legislation-4606...](https://www.thejournal.ie/wildfires-donegal- legislation-4606187-Apr2019/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's interesting is when colonists came to North America, they often described forests of trees that felt like great rooms or halls, teaming with wildlife and human-edible plants. But this itself was not a primordial state, but a heavily managed environment, intended to create favorable environment for flora/fauna through slash & burn forest management. Basically, burning out the undergrowth and allowing human selected plants to flourish. Much of the current problem is an excess of undergrowth, so you would think we could somehow recreate this kind of management for everyone's benefit...

<comment><USER15> Yes that would be cool. Unfortunately almost all of the old growth forest in the US was cut down and new trees of the size of old will take hundreds of years to grow. Many of the wilderness areas set aside in the 1970 had old growth forests and some are being managed in this way.

The rest of the west forest service land is managed in an inconsistant way that changes somewhat with each administration. I think it would be really cool if somehow the US Public Forests and BLM lands were spit up into three sections. Some land sold off to allow towns and cities in the west to expand, as many people would like to live there and it is very expensive in many places now. Also sell off the land that we want used for timber production. Then some held public and managed for recreation by humans with roads and vehicles, and finally a large expansion of wilderness areas with the idea of connecting large ecosystems and managing them for high biodiversity.

<comment><USER7> Why would you need to sell federal holdings for timber production? BLM and NFS lands are heavily logged. They used to be much more heavily logged, but the decline is market-based, not policy. The national forests aren't some kind of tree museum. They exist for providing wood to the nation.

<comment><USER15> You don't need to, as you point out that is the current case, but I think that private ownership would do a better job of extracting economic value from land that we want to put to economic use. Motorized recreational forest and timber production could work well together, but I have not seen that. In some places selective cutting is done, but usually the biggest trees are felled. It would be much better, I think, if parts of the public forest were cut to leave the largest trees to become the beautiful and awe inspiring ones people like to be around. I don't have a deep knowledge of how the forest service does timber sales (and I'm sure it varies depending on local political and economic conditions). It would be interesting to read up on how it works in detail.

<comment><USER16> I'm curious, why wouldn't a private owner just clear cut all of the land for maximum value? Private land owners choose short term windfall over long term sustainability all the time. I don't see why private owners would preserve old growth forests if the lumber is more financially profitable when cut down and sold.

<comment><USER15> Yes, private ownership would lead to tree farms which might find that clear cutting is the best way to maximize output. With regulations on soil runoff, I don't see that as a problem.

My proposal was one that might have a chance of being implemented, thus the reason for private sale of part of the public forest land. It would be impossible politically to get a 1/3 transfer of Forest Service land into wilderness designation and steep reduction of lumber sales on the rest. Allowing the sale of some areas to open up space for towns and cities and some for high output tree farms seems like a reasonable compromise to me that might be possible and I think a better situation that the current one.

You would not transfer any old growth to private hands. There is almost none left outside national parks and wilderness areas (Edit: excluding Alaska), in any case.

<comment><USER17> _Yes, private ownership would lead to tree farms which might find that clear cutting is the best way to maximize output. With regulations on soil runoff, I don 't see that as a problem._

Private ownership _could_ lead to tree farms. It could also just as easily lead to private owners clear-cutting the forest without replacement planting, if the ultimate value of the lumber isn't worth the cost of running a tree farm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In addition to controlled burns, I think it's also worth mentioning that many of the inhabited forested areas of California should probably not be under human habitation due to the systemic fire risk (which is like building a house in a flood plain). Maybe it's possible to make those communities safer by thinning out the forests, I don't know. I do know that it sucks to have many fires be an emergency (requiring lots of spending, making it untenable for them to run their course, costing a lot of money to address) because some people decided to build a community in the middle of a forest that naturally would tend to burn down every few decades

<comment><USER19> The situation would probably be a lot better if the human habitation in those areas was built with resisting forest fire as a primary design criteria. If they were built with fire as a fact of life, fire could be allowed to regularly sweep through & clear the fuel load.

<comment><USER20> Seriously, it's not like CA doesn't already have codes that make stuff quake- ready. I live in a flood plain and huge amounts of stuff is built up off the ground enough for a few feet of water to not be a problem, though sadly this is not actually enshrined in codes AFAIK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I didn't see it mentioned but this came up in an interview with a state head of firefightting in Australia after the most recent bushfires: he said that a big problem is there's less time of the year you can actually do controlled burns because of the warming climate.

So a warming climate is not only making the risk of fires starting higher but it's also shrinking the mitigation window.

</comment><comment><USER22> Certainly in large parts of Australia, the window to do controlled burns is shrinking due to climate change. Threading the needle on {not windy, not damp, not tinder box} is, on average, getting smaller each year. This checker box theory relies on that time window being bigger than it is in practice.

</comment><comment><USER23> Though it may not seem like it at first, the problem is ideological. Somewhere along the line CA's left/progressive ideology picked up a deeply ironic tenet that the world must remain absolutely unchanged by human habitation; that whatever the state of nature was on some arbitrary day in the past, we have a moral duty to keep it that way. The strongest example of overreach is that absolutely no species may go extinct, no matter how ill-suited to survival they may be (I'm looking at you, pandas). Other examples that are probably entirely defensible on rational grounds are that the sea level must not change at all; that carbon must remain distributed in the crust and atmosphere precisely as before.

But, more relevantly, we also see this belief at work _on both sides_ of the fire [non-]debate! On the one hand, whatever faceless NIMBY/political force stands in the way of preventative burns says you're not allowed to change the forest by burning it: that would be destroying nature and thus it would be morally bad. But TFA justifies _its_ position according to this tenet too! It says that in "prehistory" (I guess it means pre-1700 or so) so many acres burned, and therefore it is obviously right that so many acres burn again today.

The problem is that this belief, even when it reaches correct conclusions, is deeply anti-scientific and even anti-rational. There's no rational reason to connect morality and stasis. As long as this is a tool for making choices, it doesn't matter how often it's used for making good choices (preventative burns); all those who use it will still be just as culpable for the damage done on the side of bad choices (no burns).

<comment><USER24> We have a solid idea about about the pre-European history of fire in the US west, including some information about native american practices during parts of that history (they burned, at least in some areas and for some of the time).

We have hard evidence of what the last 100 years of forest management policy has done.

Nobody is proposing "nature can never (be) change(d)". The point is that that we tried to do something different (fire suppression) and it manifestly did not and has not worked.

<comment><USER23> I believe you misunderstood my comment (perhaps I worded it poorly): I intended that it be interpreted as a statement _purely_ within the meta- discussion. I shared a concern about the arguments used to justify _both sides_ of the debate, and did not intend to advance one side or the other.

While you seem to believe I was arguing _against_ preventative burns, the sibling comment seems to believe I was arguing _for_ preventative burns which are (according to that comment) a crazy libertarian idea. This makes me wonder whether any critique of dogma must be reinterpreted as a disagreement about facts as a kind of memetic camouflage self-defense mechanism...

<comment><USER24> I don't believe you were arguing against preventative burns. You were clear arguing against the idea that things must remain the same. My point was the people who understand this stuff are _not_ arguing that things must remain the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm not so sure this applies to much of coastal CA. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and similar biomes can build up sufficient fuel mass in a couple years. Combined with fierce, hot, dry autumn winds(aka 'Santa Ana' winds) you have conditions where 60mph walls of flame can regularly run from the mountains towards the sea. The solution there is to follow CalFire guidelines for fireproofing your home, force local governments to ensure adequate evacuation routes, and discourage living in the wild land interface.

Controlled burns can't reduce fuel because many of those plants can only recover when burned every decade or so. Between frequent burns and non-native plants, we could lose much of our native habitats if we do controlled burns wrong.

[https://www.readyforwildfire.org/wp- content/uploads/Homeowne...](https://www.readyforwildfire.org/wp- content/uploads/Homeowners-Checklist.pdf) [https://www.californiachaparral.org/fire/](https://www.californiachaparral.org/fire/)

</comment><comment><USER4> _Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California._

Even the low end of this is several times what burned this year. I'm drawing a blank on how that level of burning would prevent "mega fires" unless the idea is to replace them with "super mega fires" several times larger.

<comment><USER26> There's a difference between "had flames on it" and "burned to the ground".

There's also a heat point where the soil is sterilized, meaning it can take many times longer for substantial succession to occur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This article is a lot more optimistic about the California/Federal plan:

[https://grist.org/climate/a-california-wildfire-response- pla...](https://grist.org/climate/a-california-wildfire-response-plan- actually-matches-the-scale-of-the-problem/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Controled burns are only a part of the solution, generally substituting for large grazing animals that would keep the forest density and undergrowth at bay. Also, a lot of wetland in Califormia was dried and even rivers were straightened and deprived of the traditional meandering and inundation area. All that makes California dryer, slowly but surely decreasing water stored in the soil and therefore also decreasing secondary rainfall (summer thunderstorms from local evapotransiration) that would keep forests less dry.

</comment><comment><USER29> instead of controlled burns, couldn't the wood be chopped down and transported out? I mean, wood is not free.. it's worth something right? Couldn't it be sold cheaply for building materials and energy (a gasification boiler is super clean compared to "natural" burning).

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm curious how much CO2 is stuck in this backlog that should have been burned relative to other sources...

</comment><comment><USER31> Instead of burning in place, could the plants be chopped down and used as fuel to generate electricity?

</comment><comment><USER32> We also know how to prevent the spread of coronavirus but we can't seem to get that done either

</comment><comment><USER33> Why is harvesting the trees not an option? Is the wood of such a low quality that you can't use it at all? Are the areas not reachable?

I understand burning it might be faster, but it has the obvious problems that are apparently stopping them from doing it today. But why not just allow trees to be harvested?

<comment><USER34> I didn't really get a perfect answer except that if the logging operation is done incorrectly it makes the fires worse. The environmentalist view is that the trees should be burnt but not removed to return the nutrients to the ecosystem. Basically the experts are saying logging won't get us out of this.

See [https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/why-we-cant- log-o...](https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/why-we-cant-log-our-way- out-of-wildfires)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Heads up that propublica doesn't mind intentionally deceiving readers; I don't trust them anymore.

Just a few months ago I read this: [https://www.propublica.org/article/taxpayers-paid- millions-t...](https://www.propublica.org/article/taxpayers-paid-millions-to- design-a-low-cost-ventilator-for-a-pandemic-instead-the-company-is-selling- versions-of-it-overseas-) \- and my initial reaction was "bad, big company!" A little digging later; turns out the piece is deceptive to the point that I don't buy it's an accident.

So hey; maybe they're telling the truth this time. But liar, liar, pants on fire: I'm not believing a word they say without solid external sources anymore.

Edit: here, I found a comment by somebody (not me) that sums up the problems with this reporting here: [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump- administration-an...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump- administration-announces-489-million-ventilator-contract-with- gm/?comments=1&post=38793881)

I get that this isn't terribly on topic for wildfires - but by linking to sources like this we also give them a position of authority, and they don't deserve it. Note that the ventilator article has not been retracted nor updated; they're not willing to admit - let alone correct! - their mistakes either, apparently.

<comment><USER17> There is nothing wrong with the propublica article.

It simply claims that the company received public money years ago to design a low-cost ventilator that it never sold, and instead used that money to also design higher-cost ventilators that it actually started selling...without any inventory issues.

The company claims that the US tried to order the cheapo ventilators for COVID use too late, and they may be true, but that wasn't the point of the article.

<comment><USER35> The article clearly implies that some or several of involved parties are ripping off taxpayers when instead the actual costs per ventilator are quite low, and not only that, the deal they're referring to wasn't even due now. That's deceptive. Even your summary is deceptive when you say stuff like _" instead used that money to also design higher-cost ventilators that it actually started selling"_ \- there seems to be 0 evidence of that occurring at least in any unreasonable sense.

Put it this way: what's there actually to report here? That a lowest-possible- cost contract for a few ventilators before 2022 didn't deliver many more before 2020? That the contract looks reasonable, and so far honestly fulfilled?

The insinuations aren't harmless. Not only because it might lead people to support more oversight and interventions where none are warranted, but also because they distract from real issues - and there are _more_ than enough of those.

Did you look at the slightly more in-depth review of the article in this comment? [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration- an...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration- announces-489-million-ventilator-contract-with-gm/?comments=1&post=38793881)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Control burns look to me just like blood letting - a thing from the past when we didn't know better.

how to prevent megafires? How about extinguishing them while they are just fires? A fleet of 100 tanker planes is just a few $B investment with couple hundred $M/year maintenance. Several round trips of those 100 tanker planes in the first day when these fires have just started would have solved the issue. They would have solved the similar issues back in 2018 and 2019 too as well as the coming issues in 2021 and so on. Thus they would be paying for themselves each year over and over again.

Not surprisingly, the situation is similar to covid - an initial investment (orders of magnitude lower than the losses otherwise) and a bit of rational thinking would have prevented the covid "megafire", yet here we're... The current human race inability for even minimally rational system scale action is astounding.

<comment><USER37> I think what you might be missing in your analysis is that preventative approaches that only "stop" the spread of fires only contribute to reducing the occurrence rate of catastrophic events, but also contribute to increasing the severity of them as well (through build up of fuel).

Robust solutions should ideally both manage occurrence and severity of catastrophic events, and be able to scale through multiple magnitudes of risk. With the limitations we have, we're typically stuck with really only managing one of those levers - but we should absolutely hesitate from solutions that increase severity.

We should be spending money scaling our ability to actively fight fires once they start, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also spend money and resources to try to reduce the scope and scale of fires that we do need to fight.

<comment><USER26> I see a big overlap with Antifragility concepts here. Stopping all the fires at all costs makes the system fragile.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to get experience deploying large scale services - <AUTHOR>

I have 5+ years of .net development experience. All of it is for small to medium sized businesses (~ 100 users per min). I see a lot of senior dev postings requiring "experience deploying large scale services." I'd like to be qualified for such jobs within a couple of years. How do I acquire this kind of experience on the side? <comment><USER2> "Large scale services" is a subjective number. If every request is 'heavy' at the backend the N of N req/s is lower. Lighter static content serving backends have a much higher N. Therefore, the engineering that goes behind optimizing these is different. IMHO, the N is _not everything_ there is to a devOps engineer. In practical experience- a backend service i worked with had just 30 req/s at the front layer servers but generated 60M logs per day. As the logging guy i got to brag about larger Ns, while the front-layer work was more challenging.

1\. Your 100 users/min may also be put across as 300 req/min.

2\. Try startups that are going from 10 req/s to 100 req/s rather than directly approaching large, massively distributed backends.

3\. To seriously qualify for these _you also need the skill sets_. Experience with centralized logging, multi area-zone data-centers, deploying at scale, configuration management, advanced version control workflows, deeper understanding of protocols, caching, awareness of security pitfalls, knowledge of GNU/Linux internals etc will certainly help.

4\. Even in the absence of much production experience, you can significantly lower their concerns by demonstrating working knowlege in multiple of these above mentioned skill sets.

Also, take a look at [https://github.com/cjbarber/ToolsOfTheTrade](https://github.com/cjbarber/ToolsOfTheTrade).

</comment><comment><USER3> With some slightly questionable math you can turn 100 users/min into 7.2 million monthly visits. I guarantee you that's "large scale" enough. If you've actually got experience with deploying at your current job you should be fine, just apply. The only real way to learn is on the job.

</comment><comment><USER4> Find a company doing it at scale, join them and learn about how its done. If you can go to a Google or a Facebook then it's a great way to learn from a decade or more of their experience. Jet.com is a .Net shop looking for engineers. Might be worth checking out. Early days but I know they'll be doing something at scale.</comment>


Steve Jobs Responds to iOS Location-Tracking Controversy - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/04/25/steve-jobs-iphone-location-tracking/ <comment><USER2> _Allegedly_ responds. This supposed response came from an anonymous MacRumors.com reader:

[http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/steve-jobs-on-ios- locati...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/steve-jobs-on-ios-location- issue-we-dont-track-anyone/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Correct me if I am wrong. Jobs is technically correct. Apple does not track anyone's location. Your iphone does. And in their infinite wisdom, Apple decided to store these footprints in the phone, rather unsecurely. Stupid? Yes.

And a one line response from Steve does not maketh the problem go away. This adds more fuel to the fire, if you ask me.

But I am hoping that with more awareness being brought on by these screw ups (intentional or otherwise) may finally be the reason for the frog to leap out of the tepid water. I don't believe we will give up the benefits of sharing our location completely for the sake of privacy.

The least desirable route in my opinion would be the regulatory route, where "Prescient" Uncle Sam dictates the rules. Which is why today's technology companies must collaborate in protecting the privacy of their customers, and build that in today. For them, an empty boiling pot or a dead frog, both are compelling reasons to change their ways today.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure a glib one sentence reply, basically saying "does not!" qualifies as an effective response. I'm reminded of antennagate.

"Steve, my phone loses signal."

"Does not."

"Yes. It does. I have video."

"Well then don't hold it that way."

"What?!?!?!!"

"Well, since ALL phones do this, I guess we'll fix it. Sort of."

<comment><USER5> It worked for Antennagate. The issue basically went away as people starting using the phones and noticed that they in fact worked fine.

edit: how the heck does a simple statement of fact get downvoted? iPhone 4 is prevalent enough that even if the near complete lack of ongoing complaints in the press and blogosphere doesn't convince you, you should be able to actually ask a bunch of iPhone 4 owners. You will find that in fact the "problem" is largely a non-issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That your cell phone reports on your location is old news -- you do have to connect to a geographically dispersed network of cell towers, after all.

Assuming Apple (and other vendors) aren't using the data for evil (if at all), might it be possible that they could use that info for QA purposes? i.e. to correlate complaints and return rates to signal-related "problem areas" that they could use as leverage with the phone companies.

Are we sure location info is all that is stored?

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't know what Apple has but people and the media are making out of _everything_ a big thing when it has something to do with Apple.

Stop it.

</comment><comment><USER8> That apple collects "non-personal" location data isn't a secret. Look at their privacy policy:

<http://www.apple.com/privacy/>

Some details as to what and why they collect data was provided by Apple to Congress last year:

<http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf>

[http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and- SOA/Apple-T...](http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/Apple- Tells-Congressmen-it-Batches-Encrypts-Location-Data-411968/)

Some additional information as to what's going on is at:

[http://alexlevinson.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/3-new- thoughts-...](http://alexlevinson.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/3-new-thoughts-on- mobile-location/)

Note the emphasis in all of this on "non-personal". As somebody else pointed out, Steve Jobs is technically correct in the statement he (supposedly) made.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you're using Android then you're logged into your Google account all the time. Whenever you make a Google search your location is logged as part of the search data (I'm in Tuscaloosa, AL; I Google "Birmingham" and it points me to "Birmingham, AL" not "Birmingham, UK"). Google routinely logs all search query data. Google loves data.

So [alleged] Jobs is right about Google and Android. As for the other stuff, who knows.

Now it's important to know that if you're going to commit a crime or something that your iPhone may retain information to trip up your alibi, but that's very different from being routinely tracked by the vendor of your phone's OS. (But we all use Google and it tracks all of us, so learn to love it.)

<comment><USER10> _If you're using Android then you're logged into your Google account all the time._

False. Google's homepage on my Android device has a "Sign In" link at the bottom.

 _Whenever you make a Google search your location is logged as part of the search data_

False. Just did it on my Android phone. It sent me to [http://www.google.com/m?hl=en&gl=us&client=ms- androi...](http://www.google.com/m?hl=en&gl=us&client=ms-android-tmobile- us&source=android-browser-goto&q=birmingham). Oh crap, Google knows I'm in the US.

 _(I'm in Tuscaloosa, AL; I Google "Birmingham" and it points me to "Birmingham, AL" not "Birmingham, UK")._

…because you're querying from a US IP? …because your language is set to American English instead of British English? …because Google sends your country location but nothing else?

 _Google routinely logs all search query data._

Irrelevant: since your first point is false, the logged data is anonymous.

<comment><USER11> >>If you're using Android then you're logged into your Google account all the time. >False. Google's homepage on my Android device has a "Sign In" link at the bottom.

The phone's account services, however, are indeed logged in to your Google Account at all times, assuming you associated one with your phone when you set it up. The fact that the browser app isn't logged in using the same credentials isn't relevant.

I agree with your other points, though. But if Google wanted to, they could surely track your location and associate it with your Google Account. Not sure how easily they could hide that from people if that were the case, though. (I've been a happy Nexus One owner for over a year now, and I kinda just don't care either way, to be honest.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I could understand the usefulness of this data to improve their designs, it's justified. But I just don't get why would they keep this data indefinitely?

I don't believe they couldn't foresee that this could be a marketing disaster, people is already paranoid enough.</comment>


Show HN: Qirc – Recommend things you love (Android and iOS) - <AUTHOR> http://myqirc.com

<comment><AUTHOR> OP Here: This was my first mobile app. The idea is for people to recommend the things they love to other folks. At the moment the app doesn't have any "Social network" aspect to it. Recommendations are shared among friends via text/email.

We have support for "handlers" on the Android app but not on iOS (because of Apple review). "Handlers" can be associated with a single category and provide results in an one place. Example: Handler "Yelp" for category "Restaurants" would find all restaurants around the area matching the keyword..or handler "Amazon" for category "Books" would find all books matching the keyword.

Apple didn't allow this feature because they wanted us to use in-app purchase. I unsuccessfully tried to make them understand that the items aren't used in the app.

For what its worth the iOS app is built with RubyMotion.</comment>


Elliot Dallen, who inspired many with articles about his cancer, dies aged 31 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/09/elliot-dallen-family-thank-readers-for-huge-response-to-his-articles <comment><AUTHOR> Featured on HN earlier this week : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24397651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24397651)</comment>


Erik Naggum, RIP (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2009/06/24/erik_naggum_rip <comment><USER2> Oh that's nice. I sat with Kent and Eric at the very same Lisp conference in Berkeley at the very same dinner table, Eric was just elected as some sort of community spokesman, which was odd but nice, and he was the nicest person. He was never arrogant.

We always respected him, because he was mostly right in his endless and beautiful posts to comp.lang.lisp. He used the emacs news reader with block aligned paragraphs. But it was also a bit threatening to newbies, because he easily lost his control with them. I rarely dared to ask something. Similar to other famous figures in SW mailinglists. I know of 2 others, who I also highly respect. Just because they were always right and their code was beautiful.

His posts were so famous, someone even made a searchable archive out of it: [http://xach.com/naggum/articles/](http://xach.com/naggum/articles/)

#<Erik>

\-- sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from irony

<comment><USER3> I went through the articles with an open mind. I know this is going to be an unpopular sentiment here... but, to be honest they don't give a good impression of him in my mind.

I think it's just really a bad idea to have a large part of your legacy defined in usenet posts.

Here's his xml rant people pointed me to: [http://www.schnada.de/grapt/eriknaggum- xmlrant.html](http://www.schnada.de/grapt/eriknaggum-xmlrant.html)

XML is great but it's not exactly the deep end of the pool. I honestly don't understand why someone with his intelligence would bother with something like that if it generated such negativity.

Finally, at the end of the day, I think XML defined Erik Naggum more than the other way around.

<comment><USER2> The SGML/XML rant is a classic topic of his, and he ranted about it constantly. And lisp was the perfect forum for this. Everybody was with him on this.

But you need to know some context: Before the simple WWW there was the better web, with consistent client editing tools (Amadeus), where all your links and pages were in (HTP Hyper Text Protocol) database. The server part had builtin search, was stateful (sessions), and was overall just better.

The markup language to create those new rich formats (i.e. with links and media) was lisp based (DSSSL), and formatted down to the stupid formats we know now. Everybody thought who can you be so stupid to reinvent the wheel in such an insane way. But insanity prevailed, as usual.

The machines and SW environment were rich and good, he had a Sparc, and not so simple as the typical Windows 3 environment,

That's the world which was destroyed by the web (stateless simple servers without any features, stupid clients, stupid inconsistent "loose" markup) and its new language XML. The technical SGML and XML groups were considered the problem of the whole IT industry to Eric. LISP expressions were not only superior, condense, readable, we also had all the tools already to work with them. XML was a huge throwback. It was a political battle we lost. That's why he loved to go on and on like this on every occasion, when ever he found someone who seemed to be fond of the web, html, xml or those likes. Those stupid people destroyed our better LISP world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I miss Erik. comp.lang.lisp was the last newsgroup I followed when USENET went into its tailspin, and I gave up on it when he left. He was an incredible teacher for those who listened.

</comment><comment><USER5> Previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=672582](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=672582)

</comment><comment><USER6> It is quite rare to die from ulcerative colitis. I am curious as to what the fatal complications were.

<comment><USER2> A very special high school friend of mine also died of this. He was super intelligent, a very depressive computer hacker, very insecure with other people, almost never left his room after high school and that's how he died eventually. Alone in his room. He wouldn't go to visit a doctor or call someone or tell anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since this is posted here is it a sign that HN is going to get some edge? It's probably too much to hope for... I'm sure we'll continue to be subject to the same wimpy upvoters/downvoters we've always been subject to...

This place could use some open criticism and degradation. Any criticism of ridiculous start-ups or bad science is criticized for not being open-minded, for ridiculing someone's life's work. Well, sometimes it's deserved.

<comment><USER8> There's criticism and then there's "criticism." I see plenty of criticism of ridiculous startups and bad science and bad articles here so I don't know what you're getting at. See for example the recent Bengali unicode thread. But usually if a thing has _obvious_ criticisms then there's no point in people stomping on that, it's just dumb and obvious and nobody cares to read the unneedful.

<comment><USER9> yes, HN is truly exemplary in its rigorous self-examination</comment></comment></comment>


A NoSQL database in a Lua script - <AUTHOR> http://tarantool.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> It looks like a nice building block to have in your toolchain. Written by the guys from mail.ru, it's not the same author but nginx comes from them as well.

<comment><USER2> >nginx comes from them as well

Nope. It was Rambler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The title is a bit misleading, it's written in C/C++ and extended with Lua.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm developing this database, what tagline do you think would describe us better?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Collect wedding photos? - <AUTHOR>

I'm getting married in a couple of months and we want to collect our guests' photos of the wedding.
I'd envisaged embedding a 3rd party service in the website, which collected guest name, email address and let them drag and drop their photos in to upload - but can't find one.
I haven't the time to build this, and don't want to resort to guests emailing (attachments too large) or burning CD's (no one will do). Do you know of such a service? Is there another way I've overlooked?
[Our older guests won't manage this - they can't even complete a simple RSVP form online - but hopefully the rest will!] <comment><USER2> If you want to go the app route, there are indeed quite a few apps made for this purpose. I've come across several but can't outright recommend one. A search for "wedding photo app" will give you several results. Downside: getting everyone to download the app, learning curve of a new app.

You could also go the "hashtag route", where they can share the photo in the method that they're already accustomed to, and include the hashtag you choose. From there you can use a photo aggregator to search for the photos. Downside: not as private as an app, possibly not as thorough as an app

Shameless plug: the web app in my profile is an aggregator, finds photos by hashtag, collects them into one gallery.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks @flexxaeon, we definitely don't want to go the app route because... most guests won't have any phone capable of running an app. The hashtag route is a good idea, but 50% of the guests don't share photos any way at present (save attaching the occasional one or two to email).

I'll keep thinking!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a pretty low-tech (and more expensive) solution, but at our wedding reception, we put a disposable camera on each table and encouraged people to just grab them and snap pictures. Afterwards we got them developed, and all of them came with a CD of the pics.

This obviously doesn't capture shots taken with other cameras/phones, but is a start.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm tempted to suggest Dropbox. Depending on the number of guests, you might need to be careful about the volume of photos at any point (of course, bonus storage for you for inviting a lot of new guests).

It's not ideal because I don't think you can control read / write access but 'it just works' which is an advantage.

<comment><AUTHOR> The trouble is, it requires Dropbox to be installed on their computer (unless I'm mistaken?), the shared folder joined, etc? I hate to say it but this will be too complicated for most - I've had to set up Dropbox for my parents as they couldn't, and they're more computer savvy than half the guests.

Wish I could though, as it would be a nice easy approach!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a very lazyweb kind of question. There are any number of old school photo apps you could use (e.g. Flickr with private groups) and any number of new photo apps on the scene with this value proposition (e.g. Tracks).

A detailed look comparing them for this purpose would be an interesting discussion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Greg, it wasn't that kind of question because I hadn't done my research! Flickr would be good, but it requires people to create an account and get to grips with using the site; I wasn't aware of Tracks but from what the site shows it's geared towards people with smartphones?

It would certainly be an interesting discussion and if I get round to it I'll let you know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> <https://theflockapp.com/weddings> Looks to be what you are looking for. Created by Bump (YC S09).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - in 10 years time it would be ideal, but here in the UK and with half the guests aged 50+ there's a distinct lack of smartphones!</comment></comment>


WHO says cut in funding by the U.S. will affect Africa greatly - <AUTHOR> https://africafeeds.com/2020/04/17/who-says-cut-in-funding-by-the-u-s-will-affect-africa-greatly/ <comment><USER2> Big opportunity for other nations to step in and exploit the continent further, just like China with its "influence, military bases and resources in return for jobs and infrastructure" projects.

Maybe some European projects? But I guess we will keep sending Tshirts and cheaper milk instead to further undermine African local economies.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, and obviously the WHO is highly motivated to say something dire will happen at the withdrawal of large amounts of money.

AID to Africa has largely has been an unintended yet sad disaster. The best example of this is when the British were leaving East Africa in the 1960's they, reasonably, decided to administer the polio vaccine widely. Likely this massively furthered the spread of AIDS, which is thought to have crossed from monkeys to humans sometime in the early 1950s.

[1] - [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v25/n07/edward- hooper/aids-a...](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v25/n07/edward-hooper/aids- and-the-polio-vaccine)

<comment><USER4> This is considered a conspiracy theory, and scientific consensus is that it has been disproven:

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

You can still find articles seeming to espouse the hypothesis on several sites, but from what I've seen they are all quite old and poorly sourced, with no follow up.

<comment><USER5> While the polio vaccine pathway has been completely debunked medical interventions in colonial Africa have likely been a co-factor in the emergence of HIV due to unsanitary injections of antibiotics and some vaccines.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS)

For the most part the consensus agrees that the colonial period in Africa likely induced conditions that caused SIV to develop into HIV, and likely more than once.

Humans can get infected with SIV albeit they don't develop AIDS from it and their viral load drops quite rapidly which makes purely sexual transmission unlikely. SIV has been known to be quite effective at jumping species through serial transmission during the acute phases with as little as 3 hosts needed until it can effectively infect other species however direct SIV to HIV evolution has never been observed.

So for the most part while HIV has likely emerged in the late 19th century the colonial era which introduced urbanization, increase in trade, slave labor conditions, GUD causing STIs and mass injection campaigns is what pushed HIV's pandemic emergence.

That said it's not clear what would've have happened if these conditions weren't present or simply delayed HIV might still have emerged through globalization and the general conditions set by the latter half of the 20th century.

Ironically the emergence of HIV and AIDS in the west has been instrumental in pushing viral epidemiology research and the development of antiviral treatments and protocols to the front stage and between the late 80's and early 2000's huge progress and advancements have been made.

I personally believe that without a viral disease that can and does infect the rich and the powerful which causes them to slowly die over decades while drastically effecting their quality of life, life style and mental health we might have been 2 decades behind on viral research compared to today if not more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone actually think that the US will cut funding to the WHO entirely? This strikes me as a clear negotiation tactic: remove the people in charge that have concealed information and acted according to the CCP's whims, and then funding will be restored.

<comment><USER7> The WH message appears to be that the funding will be cut until WHO is investigated. I suppose this helps prevents a half-assed investigation on the WHO side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a good example of how much good the USA does in the world.

The reason why the funding cut has happened is obvious.

But this "Just-world hypothesis" by everyone else is just annoying.

WHO did pretty good considering. They are simply not going to be fast moving with unknowns.

We all had the info, we didn't need them to hold our hand and call it a pandemic. We didn't need them to tell us to wear masks. If we wanted to complain about WHO and Taiwan we should have done it last year, now is not the time.

We failed ourselves. And we still are failing ourselves. Simple things we should be doing are still not happening.

<comment><USER7> > we didn't need them to.. fast moving with unknowns..

They weren't just slow, WHO helped spread false and misleading information, and one of their main reasons for existence is to combat this. If WHO can't be trusted as a source of information, what _are_ they good for?

> If we wanted to complain about WHO and Taiwan

I only just found out about this, now the spotlight is on them. Now is _exactly_ the time, as the main complaint is that the WHO has political motivations that interfere with its main objectives, and this is evidence of that - doubly relevant because if Taiwan weren't being ignored, other countries might handled it as well as they did.

<comment><USER9> Please provide links to back up your allegations with facts then.

<comment><USER10> Bruce Aylward, assistant director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), has disappeared among the list of leaders on the organization's website a day after awkwardly refusing to answer a question about Taiwan's exclusion from the UN agency.

During a video interview with Radio Television Hong Kong journalist Yvonne Tong (唐若韞) on Saturday (March 28), Aylward claimed not to have heard her question about whether the WHO would consider Taiwan's membership. When the journalist tried to repeat the question, the WHO official asked her to "move on to another one."

After Tong insisted on getting Aylward's comment on the Taiwan issue, the advisor appears to have ended the call without notice.

[https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3906962](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3906962)

<comment><USER11> Welcome to politics, where the WHO would rather estrange a disputed island nation than one if the biggest world powers.

If we get the governments of the world to acknowledge Taiwan then yes, the WHO should follow suit. However, barely any countries acknowledge Taiwan as a nation and the WHO is part of the UN.

The person being interviewed handled the situation very badly, but it's stupid to expect Taiwan to be part of the WHO until at least the United States, the EU and Russia officially acknowledge it as well.

<comment><USER10> ^ This is the correct answer. Too difficult for the WHO to come up with apparently, their rep thought the smart move was to hang up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> But it will benefit the US. What's the point of this article?

<comment><USER13> No it won't. It makes no geopolitical sense for the US to sacrifice its influence in an A-list international organization for sake of a few measly million bucks.

<comment><USER12> There will be $400M or so more in the US budget.

<comment><USER14> > There will be $400M or so more in the US budget.

Just for context, I've been on conversations in a state healthcare agency in a US state that where adapting to an incentive provision in federal law was dismissed on the basis that doing so would delay achieving more immediate state priorities for only on the order of a couple hundred million of federal funding.

Annual federal (not total, or even national public just federal government) spending on health is over $1 trillion; $400 million seems like a lot of money on an individual basis but it's not, in that context, even a meaningful amount.

<comment><USER12> Eh budget comparisons can be used to justify everything. Fact is $400M annually is a fuckton of money and the vast amount of tax payers would agree. Also it's not like the US is seeing any kind of benefit from it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How not to pitch a venture capitalist (Ali G) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azRzqI3BJ2A&e <comment><USER2> ice cream glove is better, but still classic</comment>