BACE1 deletion in the adult mouse reverses preformed amyloid deposition - <AUTHOR> http://jem.rupress.org/content/early/2018/02/13/jem.20171831 <comment><USER2> Many drugs work on mouse models of a disease but fail to do anything in human trials. Alzheimer's is especially bad about this. And even more specifically this exact pathway, BACE inhibition has had several drugs make it to Phase 3 to slow down Alzheimer's. And not a single damn one has done anything.

Here's an article by an industrial medicinal chemist, who explains the context of the study. tl;dr; It's useless.

[http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/02/15/mor...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/02/15/more- rough-alzheimers-news)

</comment><comment><USER3> So I'm supposing amyloid deposition is Alzheimer's here.</comment>


Show HN: No More Passwords, Just Email - <AUTHOR> https://nomorepasswordsjustemail.meteor.com/

<comment><USER2> As a power user, it's easier for me to invoke my password manager than it is to open up my mail client and copy/paste in a one-time key.

<comment><USER3> I've been trying a password manager. How do you get around the fact that it requires you to put in your master password all the time? You just set it to not require that, or have a really long timeout? Or have a super easy to type master password?

<comment><USER4> I have a long sentence as my passphrase. 1password will stay unlocked for ~30 minutes (or when I close my computer), so I type it a few times a day. I've gotten very good at typing it, and can crank it out quickly.

It's much much faster than opening my email, and waiting for SMTP & Gmail to get its act together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> related: [https://login.persona.org/](https://login.persona.org/)

I will be a very happy person when / if I see a persona login page on more sites

<comment><USER6> The "How it works" page gives exactly zero information about how it works.

<comment><USER7> This is more informative:

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/Persona/Protocol_Overvie...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/Persona/Protocol_Overview?redirectlocale=en- US&redirectslug=Persona%2FProtocol_Overview)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I applaud any effort to fix the "password problem," but isn't this functionally equivalent to just using the "Forgot my password, email me a reset code" link every time you want to log in?

<comment><USER9> So instead of replying on $WebAppOfTheWeak to lose my password (I'm looking right at you Adobe), I can rely on the two factor auth of my Gmail account for security.

I'm okay with this.

<comment><USER10> > I can rely on the two factor auth of my Gmail account for security.

Does Gmail now support 2FA? The last time I checked, Gmail supported Google's 2-Step Verification. 2SV includes backup codes, which cause 2SV to be 1FA:

Password + Backup Codes = Something You Know + Something You Know = 1FA

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Then a new and huge list of security problems arises when you have to bother the user with getting a new code every time if they have the sense of closing their browser and cleaning their cookies each time they close their browser (which could be as often as whenever they leave their computer); the fact that loosing control of a single email makes you lose control to the account in every site using this system, which beats the idea since that email is most likely password protected anyway; etc, etc.

In a nutshell: "In most cases you won't need to do this often" is a HUGE fallacy. It depends on the security rules you work/live by. Plus, it would make it really annoying to use if on top you're using TOR.

Yes, passwords need to be fixed. They are weak, problematic and a security cheddar cheese. It is why we are now implementing two factor authentication. Changing the "fixed password" strategy to a "random and time limited password" strategy isn't exactly solving more issues than it raises. Again, from a security-wise stand point.

May be if this was implemented with something different than your email. Like, for example, a bank tokens or cell phone verifications... which, again, are part of a two factor authentication because by themselves they would be too easy to break.

Think about the following scenario: You use X site with this email auth system and, for example, Thunderbird. Stand up and go to the bathroom or a meeting or whatever without locking your computer. Presto! I won't even need to guess a password and get access. Of course getting access to X site would be the least of your worries in that example, but it illustrates the point I'm trying to make.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think any security mechanism works if you walk away from your computer and leave the programs running (exception something that relies on a NFC on your wrist). For this reason I don't think your scenarious makes this scheme any less secure than what is use on standard sites. Maybe it's even more secure since even if they get access briefly, they cannot learn your password (since you don't have one), and so they cannot later log back on from a different computer.

<comment><USER11> It was just an example. My point is, by relaying all entrance control to an email, you are giving it master password access. The only thing you are doing is relaying the security issues to wherever that email is hosted; most of the times, a free and third party service over which you have no control. No, it is not more secure to keep your car, home and security box keys together.

You are not increasing security, whatsoever. You are setting all the security in an email service, which we already know are not the most secure services at this moment.

May be, such login can be applied inside a company's network, where you have control over the security of the servers, certificates, network encryption, etc.

Now if you think about it from a social engineering perspective. It is much easier to get access to a single email account than to every account you own. And about persistence of access... There's this thing called email forwarder. If I get access to your email, I would create a forwarder for all the email you receive to one I control; chances are you won't notice it in a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is this any better than a link that logs you in automatically? A link would be easier and more secure. I've actually been thinking of that as a super simple login method lately, but I don't know if people would use it.

As a proof of concept, I couldn't actually get your site to work because by the time I understood the UI flow, it was throwing an alert saying "Error with that email address". Also, this goes to spam for me... just to let you know.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, it's not better than a link that logs you in automatically, just different. I don't think a 5-digit code is hard to remember for a few seconds, so I like this one. Sometimes the auto-links bother me because they might open a different browser than I want, but that's only a minor issue.

I'm thinking of adding a log-in link to the email, in addition to the 5-digit code, for people that prefer that method. That way they'd have both options in the same email.

<comment><USER12> Cool! I think that's a great idea.

Also, I really would try to smooth out the login flow even for a POC. If I accidentally enter an old code (even if it's 5 minutes) it won't let me in. That seems OK. However, what happens next is I copy the correct/latest code, but the UI asks for my email again to send another code. When I paste in the code I have copied, it's invalid yet again.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that can be odd. I made this decision to defeat bots that may be trying to fake their way in. Since it's only a 5-digit code it wouldn't take a bot long to guess the right code. By invaliding the code the first time a wrong one is used I think it makes bots very unlikely to guess correctly. I think. I hope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So now I have to type my email password into my friend's insecure computer every time I want to use your site? I think I'll be using your site a lot less.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting concept - but what happens if you lose control of your email account (as a user)?

Imagine e.g. problems with your DNS (self-hosted and you forgot to renew the domain), outages of your mail provider, or the worst case (for the service provider): your outbound mail server is placed on a blacklist.

This way your entire user management system goes up in smoke without ANY way for you to fix it!

<comment><USER15> "Send forgot password link to email account on file" is fairly common; if the user loses control of their email (e.g. to an attacker that got access to their password and then immediately changed it) then the user is already screwed in many ways. (I don't think this is ideal, but it seems to be the norm.)

Using email login links instead of passwords doesn't seem especially worse wrt. security than "industry standards".

<comment><USER16> Except currently, I know most of my passwords. Losing my email access would suck on so many levels I don't know where to start, but at least I can still log into my bank/credit card sites/etc. to start mitigating the potential damage. If everyone went to a system like this, losing your email means losing access to everything you don't have an active cookie for, instantly and with no ability to recover.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I built and open-sourced something like this a while ago: [http://nopassword.alexsmolen.com](http://nopassword.alexsmolen.com)

HN thread here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4570600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4570600)

It's a great concept, but like any new authentication mechanism there's a usability and security cost due to the lack of familiarity.

Plenty of authentication mechanisms are "better" than passwords, but passwords are well-understood and flexible, which is a huge advantage for almost all sites.

</comment><comment><USER18> For me, a big concern is propagation delay in the email. It sends a token that is valid for only 5 minutes, but with greylisting performed by the spam- filtering machinations in my email provider, there is a good chance I will not get that email within 5 minutes. Trying to send a second one will probably result in some kind of exponential back off penalty also.

For that reason alone I don't see how only using email verification as a low- friction way to log in makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER19> Ooh, no.

I really don't consider email nearly reliable enough for any important logins.

It might work if I have a password in my password manager as a fallback, but then just using the password manager would be the way to go.

Edit: Actually this could work as the fallback for if I for some reason don't have access to the password manager, so I might use it but not for the intended purpose.

</comment><comment><USER20> The big problem with something like this is that it introduces an attack vector that could compromise all of its users accounts at once and thus making it a major target for attackers (and spy angencies). I don't see any solution for this in a world where even companies with extensive security know-how like Google are successfully attacked.

<comment><USER21> What, the email account? If someone has access to your email, it's game over right now anyway.

That said, please use Mozilla Persona instead.

<comment><USER11> Compromising one email account is easier than compromising several credentials.

<comment><USER21> ...I agree? It seems like you're saying that compromising your email account right now won't allow anyone access to all the sites you've signed up with it, which is pretty much incorrect.

<comment><USER11> Yes. But it also, I think, makes it easier to follow certain attack patterns that are already known and commonly used.

For example, setting an email forwarder to an account an attacker controls in most cases won't even be noticed. I think it opens more attack vectors than the good it could do to have this kind of integration rather than just a password manager.

Giving more control to a single manager (in this case an email account) also means you will have to set greater security standards for it. For example, are you going to type your password (which also controls all your accounts) to your friend's, school's, airport's, etc's computer that could be infected?

Passwords are insecure? Of course they are insecure. That's why we are trying to implement two factor authentication. But having 1 account with 2 factor auth controlling 20 accounts with 1 factor auth isn't exactly helping. At all.

<comment><USER21> > For example, setting an email forwarder to an account an attacker controls > in most cases won't even be noticed.

Setting a forwarder where? You can do that now too. It's exactly as safe as what we have now.

> I think it opens more attack vectors than the good it could do to have this > kind of integration rather than just a password manager.

I disagree. As long as you have password resets sent by email, whoever has access to your email has access to your accounts.

> Giving more control to a single manager (in this case an email account) also > means you will have to set greater security standards for it.

Again, that's _exactly what everyone already does_.

> For example, are you going to type your password (which also controls all > your accounts) to your friend's, school's, airport's, etc's computer that > could be infected?

No, I don't log in to my email from anywhere that's not my device, and it has 2fa enabled.

> having 1 account with 2 factor auth controlling 20 accounts with 1 factor > auth isn't exactly helping. At all.

How is it not helping? Now you have all your accounts requiring two-factor auth to log in, rather than just some of them. You also only have one server to secure, which will presumably be run by people whose sole job is to secure that server.

<comment><USER11> I'm glad you have a portable device which you can use to access your email. Not every user does. But you're right. Please use and implement candy security structures.

<comment><USER21> I feel like you didn't read anything I've written. You haven't even addressed my main point, you just came in here and spewed FUD about this solution without really discussing anything.

<comment><USER11> Well, I think we are talking about two completely different points and, per your past response, that nothing I've said really makes sense to you. Of course I think the solution is useful from a UX perspective, it's awesome. But from a security point of view you are leaving all the security out in a single layer and whenever that layer (single email address) fails, then there's nothing left.

>How is it not helping? Now you have all your accounts requiring two-factor auth to log in, rather than just some of them. You also only have one server to secure, which will presumably be run by people whose sole job is to secure that server.

Yes, you are left with only one server to secure, and yes it is most likely run by people who are good at it. But this is exactly why it's a good example of candy security: As soon as you get past the first wall, there is nothing else stopping you from getting access to everything. And you can't really presume all users will have double auth activated, nor that they will be as cautious with that single set of credentials will be.

<comment><USER21> Is it perfectly secure? No, but nothing is. Is it worse than what we have now? No, it's not.

This is the question I'd like you to address: How is it less secure than what we have now?

<comment><USER11> I think it is less secure because it centralizes all the security in one single layer. AKA the email address you are using to handle the credentials. Once you have access to that email, then you have access to everything. Contrary to what happens now that at least raises more flags when your accounts start getting password changes, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> No offense, but this isn't a new idea. I've built this feature into Flask- Security, a Flask extension I maintain.

<comment><AUTHOR> No offense taken. I wasn't sure it was a new idea, just one that I had trouble finding demonstrated anywhere. I couldn't find any simple web site demonstrating just this one single idea, separated from a lot of other issues, so I made this.

Flask-Security looks like a good solution to every new web site having to roll their own code. BTW, It's not clear from Flask-Security that there is a no- password option given that the user model has a password field required.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For those that are interested, I got the ball rolling with email-based logins by building [http://swiftlogin.com](http://swiftlogin.com). I was glad to see the idea improved by Mozilla later that year and all the growth since then.

<comment><USER3> lol, you got the ball rolling. I built a successful site that did this in 2003. I'm not sharing a link because I don't want to out my identity. But nice work on putting up your source and promoting the idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> He/(she?) had more of a point if the website would have worked without having to enable javascript for the meteor domain, not even reading it now.

<comment><USER25> Meteor is a JS framework, and this page is running on their open hosting for testing the framework, so that wouldn't make much sense.

<comment><USER24> Ah OK I see, I guess you are right. Thanks for pointing that out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This would have been relevant to me a year ago, before I started using <insert password manager with browser plug-in here>.

</comment><comment><USER27> How do you solve first account problem? If this gets used by email hosting, and I am creating my first email ID

</comment><comment><USER28> This just says "Error with that email address" for a gmail address.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was a problem in the meteor hosting sites number of free emails per day, which broke quickly after this went high on HN. I've patched the meteor code to fix that issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Error with that email address. Please try again"

</comment><comment><USER30> But...how do you get to your e-mail?</comment>


MS Research Elliptic Curve Cryptography Library - <AUTHOR> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/nums/

<comment><AUTHOR> Apache licensed, and in C, both huge wins, but maybe a little hard to port to clang.</comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone working on a browser or search engine/search? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> If you mean working on a search engine - duck duck go has been for a number of years - duckduckgo.com</comment>


We Choose The Moon - Apollo 11 mission recreated in realtime - <AUTHOR> http://news.bostonherald.com/entertainment/arts_culture/view/20090712web_site_recreates_apollo_11_mission_in_real_time/srvc=home&position=recent

<comment><USER2> This is really an incredible idea. What a way for the younger generations to see such a great moment in their nation's history. I can't help but wonder what future communication mediums will enable.

<comment><USER3> I'm just sad that it's been 40 years and we have to virtually recreate something that we should now be more than capable of doing.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> There isn't really a hyperlink in that article, so here's the link to the actual website.

<http://wechoosethemoon.org/>

It doesn't have much of an intro, so I thought people here would appreciate the backstory provided in the Herald article.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're having trouble loading the all-Flash site, as I was, the actual Twitter feeds are:

        ap11_capcom
        ap11_spacecraft
        ap11_eagle

</comment><comment><USER5> Would be a very cool exercise to re-create at www.almost.at , though in fairness to prevent modern-day noise (Tweet: _"OMG - Brad got mooned at the Apollo!!!!"_ ) it might need to be faked, which would override the very cool purpose of that very cool site.</comment>


Things the media does to manufacture outrage - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@parkermolloy/5-things-the-media-does-to-manufacture-outrage-ba79125e1262#.z786qmwpa <comment><USER2> This article is far too shallow in its diagnosis.

Yes, the media manufactures outrage for attention. This is not the problem. The media has done the same for as long as it has existed. The problem is that real people are willing to believe and act upon this "outrage", sometimes in an extreme manner, to avoid being on the "wrong side".

The action I care about isn't the media writing a libellous "story" about how "outraged" people are at some action of mine, though they are scum for it. What I care about is when people use it as justification to call my boss/family/friends and go after me personally.

It's not the media that doxxes, makes death threats, and gets people fired. Who does that is a population that increasingly cannot tell the difference between words and violence, a population that sees bad thoughts as assault and disagreement as evil. Even the smallest infraction is justification for ruining lives.

Brendan Eich was ousted from his position at Mozilla for his donation years ago. A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays. The mob retaliations are completely disproportionate to the "crime".

That's why people are afraid of the new outrage. They know one violation of the ever changing set of rules can now cause a mob to go nuclear on everything they hold dear.

<comment><USER3> > Yes, the media manufactures outrage for attention. This is not the problem. > The media has done the same for as long as it has existed. The problem is > that real people are willing to believe and act upon this "outrage", > sometimes in an extreme manner, to avoid being on the "wrong side".

This diagnosis is also too shallow. Just like people's belief and actions in response to "outrage" has varied over time, the media's sensationalism has varied over time, for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

> Even the smallest infraction is justification for ruining lives. [...] > Brendan Eich was ousted from his position at Mozilla for his donation years > ago. A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he > wouldn't serve gays. The mob retaliations are completely disproportionate to > the "crime".

These don't strike me as compelling examples. Brendan Eich (whom, for the record, I did not think should be ousted and said so at the time in HN discussions) was not ousted for minding his own business making a private donation, that is a misrepresentation. He was ousted because of his defense of his donation, and even if that ruined his life, he was in a position to affect a lot of lives, and it's reasonable (even if we disagree with them) for people to think it's unfortunate but necessary.

As for "A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays."\---gays receive threats of death and violence, and actual death and violence, for merely being gay, and while there've been spikes in response to e.g. Obergefell, this has generally been decreasing, fortunately. So, a death threat in response to explicit prejudice doesn't really make the point that the mob is worsening.

<comment><USER4> I dug through Eich's story. He was ousted for his donation. I saw no mention of a defense and only people calling for his head because of the donation. Would you have links for reactions to his defense?

Also, the parent argument is that death threats are a disproportionate response, not that they're new.

<comment><USER3>
        [Eich] was ousted for his donation. I saw no mention of a defense and
        only people calling for his head because of the donation.

You're right, I was oversimplifying, because he was very careful not to actually say anything of substance when he defended his donation. I think my point stands, however: he wasn't ousted in retaliation for the donation. People called for his ousting because of how the donation and more importantly, subsequent non-apology non-defense reflected on his current, at- the-time-of-being-promoted-to-CEO views, and how they'd affect his performance: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460030](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460030) That's not retaliation or outrage, that's relevant and important concern about his ability to do his job as CEO of Mozilla.

        Also, the parent argument is that death threats are a disproportionate response, not that they're new.

Also, I think it's very clear the grandparent was talking about a new/increasing level of disproportionate.

> a population that increasingly cannot tell the difference between words and > violence

> That's why people are afraid of the new outrage.

And, of course, the grandparent was a direct response to the original article where "new"-ness was part of the main point:

Tagline:

> People are so sensitive these days!

Opening sentence:

> Is the world more easily "outraged" than it used to be?

Conclusion:

> So is the world any more "outraged" than it's always been?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hate when articles hide behind an invented "Twitter backlash", and then include 4-5 tweets with a handful of retweets. 6,000 tweets are sent every single _second_. You could build a narrative for anything with that logic.

If your best example is a grammatically challenged tweet that racked up 4 favs and a retweet... you're probably inventing a controversy.

Here's some insane examples from the first page of a Google News search for "Twitter Backlash":

[http://www.prweek.com/article/1372418/apple-faces-twitter- ba...](http://www.prweek.com/article/1372418/apple-faces-twitter-backlash- racism-allegation-australia-store)

[http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ruby-rose- faces-b...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ruby-rose-faces- backlash-twitter-6833436)

[http://www.eonline.com/news/711079/raven-symone-angers- twitt...](http://www.eonline.com/news/711079/raven-symone-angers-twitter-with- her-spring-valley-high-school-assault-comments)

[http://www.her.ie/life/bloomingdales-forced-to-apologise- to-...](http://www.her.ie/life/bloomingdales-forced-to-apologise-to-twitter- backlash-after-including-date-rape-message-in-christmas-catalogue/264317)

<comment><USER6> Ever try searching for trending outrage hashtags on Twitter? Generally it's 99.9% outrage over the outrage, with no real tweets expressing the original supposed outrage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a consequence of writers at Business Insider and other brands being ranked by the number of clicks their pieces generate. Writing for them is more of a social science than journalism, with specific words and phrasing A/B tested and Web page designs optimised to get you to stay on the page just a tiny bit longer (so Google doesn't penalise them for bounce rate). Ever recall how BI articles end with an unrelated, click bait video?

<comment><USER8> I also see it in major newspapers like The Guardian. Particularly around political stories, like Jeremy Corbyn and his new shadow cabinet, they seem predisposed to describe every comment made about them as putting the politicians "under fire" or some other such melodramatic term. And then when you read the actual quotes in the article, they are fairly tame, gentle criticisms.

This happened twice just this week, once with the (constructive, rather softball) comments made by a union leader about Corbyn himself (to which the reaction was something along the lines of "oh no, he's losing the support of his base!"), to the rather mild back-and-forth about John McDonnell's sarcastic crack about Mao in Parliament (which the media basically manufactured into a fake story, all the while implying that McDonnell is a crypto-communist, while he is nothing of the sort).

Anyway, rather than it being about a specific subject, I guess my point is that I am pretty down on journalists in general these days, because chasing the story and filling the news cycle (in any medium) seems to have taken priority over actually substantive reporting of things that matter.

<comment><USER9> Do you feel the same way about software devs who work for food delivery/laundry service startups and the like? Writing clickbait is no better or worse than "changing the world" one delivery at a time. Everyone's just chasing easy money.

<comment><USER10> How is helping people for money equivalent to lying to people?

<comment><USER9> How is a "sharing" economy, or the vast majority of startups, helping anyone but stakeholders? Without citing a particular piece of content it's hard to say anyone's lying, just being way too dramatic for more clicks. Because that is the current incentive structure for web publishing. Bullshit outrage pieces make way more money than long form investigative peices that are significantly harder to make, and exponentially less people read. Just like working on big hard problems takes more time/talent/research. Easy money and complaining for everyone!

<comment><USER11> There's a clear ethical difference between a frothy startup and deliberately provoking negative public behavior.

<comment><USER9> Does secret deliberately provoke negative behavior? How about yik yak? Until the incentive structure changes for writers, they'll keep writing that stuff. Just the way it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What a great writeup! This is an example of an issue 100% created by the media.

To be fair though there _is_ a culture of "outrage" that exists. The media may be implicit in propagating it but they don't always create it.

For example, this recently happened:

[http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at- yale/](http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/)

I think it's important to study the media's role in creating and extending the reach of outrage, but it's equally important not to deny that there is a growing movement of people who are interested in limiting free speech and get _very_ outrageous about it.

<comment><USER13> That's a very uncompelling argument, not to mention patronizing. The criteria he sets up is literally "it's fascist if you want anything done about the things you're mad about," which is ridiculous because it removes any ability to change the status quo. If there were a professor who were openly defending fascism, calling for him to be removed would be fascist.

In fact, if you change "Calling for people to be fired for expressing their beliefs" to "Calling for senators to be voted out of office for expressing their beliefs" then that's fascist. You can play this game for all his examples:

> Calling to defund a newspaper for publishing an editorial you disagree with

Divestment from companies funding apartheid, something student protesters commonly supported in the late 80s

> Tearing down fliers that you disagree with

Removing neo-Nazi propaganda posters

> Calling for students to be expelled for wearing offensive Halloween costumes

Calling for people to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of its owner's anti-gay agendas

<comment><USER14> In the examples you are listing, the activists are using force to change the world into something they want, as opposed to using free speech to try to convince others. A while ago, I read the book Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant by Otto Wagener. It really surprised me. From this book, I get the impression that Hitler was an idealist who really wanted to create a better world (at least for the Germans who he saw as being totally unfairly treated by France etc. after WW1).

It can still be fascism, even if you see yourself as doing good. Actually, I think well-meaning idealists are sometimes some of the worst people out there. They see themselves as good and being correct, and they get really nasty and intolerant towards people who see things differently.

There's the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but I often get the impression that many people don't really grasp this.

<comment><USER15> While many historians do consider them significant, take Wagener's memoir with a pinch of salt, the author was writing the hagiography of a man he was infatuated with:

"Hitler turned his large, unfathomable eyes on me; once again, as they had in Nuremberg, they impressed me with their deep and infinite goodness, as if they constantly wanted to give something without saying anything."

Even Hitler never painted as rose-coloured a view of himself as Wagener does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Where possible I encourage friends and family to approach news as a single recent frame from a long-playing narrative, a blurb tacked onto the end of _history_. Without history you have no context. My agenda is to get them to ignore the 24/7 news cycle and review topics from a historical standpoint - Wikipedia and podcasts make this easier than ever before. They're imperfect sources, but if you want to crawl through dozens of topics for no cost, they're fantastic tools. From there you can purchase books on topics that you'd like to learn more about.

Something about the Middle East? You need at least a hundred years of historical knowledge to understand what is playing out. Ideally more. But it's not that simple; you need to understand the politics of countries that are recent but significant players.

And this is the problem: people believe it's reasonable to form an opinion on complex matters from consuming a few soundbites and massaged footage. How is that at all reasonable? Answer: it isn't.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm always suspicious when news articles embed tweets as "evidence". The one case that sticks out for me was Tim Hunt losing his job because of his joke at a conference. I wonder if UCL also fell for media manufactured outrage in the decision to hastily get rid of him, or whether there really were tens of thousands of twitter keyboard warriors venting their offence all over the situation.

Either way, for my own sanity I now have to avoid twitter and any article that even remotely looks like it might be about someone being offended about something.

</comment><comment><USER18> TL;DR - just watch [4]

The internet has a serious problem with _fame_.

Before the internet, fame was usually something that required an investment in _media access_. Everybody knows about the big Hollywood movie because they paid for a lot of advertising/etc. A low-budget film could potentially be more popular if people knew about it, but the meager (or nonexistent) advertising budget usually guaranteed it would never[1] become _famous_.

This is what the internet changed. It's fundamental power is that anybody can publish because the network doesn't differentiate between "publishing" hosts and "consumer" hosts. All peers are supposed[2] to be equal in capability. The internet _is_ media access. What used to require significant investment of time and/or money now happens to people regularly when they post something casually on the internet: they can become _famous_.

Unfortunately, our social norms are still adapting to this change. As this article shows, trivial posts are incorrectly interpreted and the author ends up wading through flames and insults. This is because what started as a casual post is now _addressing an audience_.

For a _very_ good explanation of this type of change-in-relationship, I suggest watching "This is Phil Fish"[4]. As this is HN, many of you probably know the drama involving Phil Fish and his game "Fez", but tht doesn't matter because this video is about everybody who is _not_ Phil Fish: the audience that supplies the projection, tokenism, and hatred that fuels the media when they want cheap hits/impressions.

\--

[1] I am ignoring the phenomena of some movies gaining a cult following a long time after their initial release for simplicity and questionable relevance (time).

[2] NAT has destroyed a lot of this equality, creating a situation where you have to get the permission of a 3rd party (port forwarding at the router, some centralized server, etc). If we allow this digital imprimatur[3] to continue to exist, then the internet has truly reverted back to "TV".

[3] [https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital- imprimatur/](https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/)

[4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW- owa2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w)

<comment><USER19> Thanks for that link, definitely puts a lot of what I have felt for a long time into a well thought out analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The Starbucks fiasco was fascinating and frightening to me. Timeline:

\- Nov 5: Breitbart reports "Starbucks faces criticism from politicians and campaign groups today after it decided to remove all references to the festive season from its Christmas red cups'

\- Nov 8: Huffington Post picks up the Breitbart story and reports "Some Christians Are Extremely Unhappy About Starbucks' New Holiday Cups"

Note the difference in headlines. This started as a Tory MP and a professional Christian shit-stirring group in the U.K. criticizing the move. It is rapidly generalized to "Christians".

In an age of people consuming news in 140 characters or less, news outlets really have a responsibility to apply the same journalistic integrity to their headline as to the rest of the article. They are there to report the news, not cause the news.

<comment><USER21> > news outlets really have a responsibility to apply the same journalistic > integrity to their headline as to the rest of the article. They are there to > report the news, not cause the news.

And those without integrity, who manufacture news, will earn more.

<comment><USER22> "Once one agent learns how to become more competitive by sacrificing a common value, all its competitors must also sacrifice that value or be outcompeted and replaced by the less scrupulous. Therefore, the system is likely to end up with everyone once again equally competitive, but the sacrificed value is gone forever. From a god's-eye-view, the competitors know they will all be worse off if they defect, but from within the system, given insufficient coordination it's impossible to avoid."

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on- moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can't be the only person who sees the irony in that this great post is written by someone who works for Upworthy, an outlet who more than any other spawned the science of using superlatives in clickbait headlines to increase Facebook engagement.

<comment><USER24> "Irony" aside it's still an educational article for those of us that haven't seen this spelled out so clearly before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Another angle to this is that there are agencies, who manipulate media and stir up controversies like these just to get attention for their clients' brands and products.[1]

This whole story (including this post) may just as well be part of a smart promotion stunt for Sephora lipstick. Some agency might be getting paid for generating all this attention, stirring up controversy around the brand, with the media and bloggers masterfully manipulated into cooperation. There's no way to know...

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Me,_I%27m_Lying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Me,_I%27m_Lying)

</comment><comment><USER26> Your best bet is just to get rid of all social media. I honestly think that the drama that social media encourages is unhealthy and subtly ruining people's lives.

It gives the impression that certain political groups are more influential than they are. It encourages outrage culture and the censorship that follows that movement. It's a lazy tool for certain types of journalists.

There's so many more constructive things to do than use social media. Delete your accounts, wait a month for any addictive urges to pass and enjoy life again.

<comment><USER27> ... Do you not consider hn social media, and if not, why not?

<comment><USER28> For me, "social media" implies that I can use the platform to wish you a happy birthday. It should also allow me to show the world what I care about (people I know, topics I like, etc) just by visiting my profile.

HN allows neither, so I wouldn't count it as so. I'd probably classify it as "news site with comments", but not "social media".

<comment><USER27> So reddit wouldn't qualify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> great write up. i've always felt that people on tv and writers on the net should really only talk about their own opinions- if there is something "people are outraged about", then have them on to discuss it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Okay, now what? The media outlets and authors responsible for this will continue doing it - and probably got (and will get) high praise for the traffic numbers.

She gets some more attention for calling attention to this, and increases our collective cynicism a little more (and rightly so).

It's tempting to call this a victimless crime, but it's really not. The victims are those who are actually outraged, often by actually outrageous things, like US police taking people's money, beating them up, and killing them. Or by regulatory capture in energy and banking. Or by US foreign policy hypocrisy. Or any number of other things.

Honestly, if there was some way for me to _fine_ media outlets in general and specific authors in particular for this behavior, I would do it. It is _wrong_ to shovel shit into people's minds especially if you have an official "press" designation. You've violated trust, and if the media doesn't police itself, then the media itself is going to be replaced with something that does.

</comment><comment><USER4> I hear more people complain about outrage than actual outrage. It's especially hilarious when I go to sensitivity training and a bunch of privileged co- workers complain about being afraid to have fun.

<comment><USER12> Do you not see that by finding your co-worker's discomfort "hilarious" and labeling them "privileged" that you are doing your part to perpetuate and create outrage?

<comment><USER4> Their discomfort comes from people telling them to stop checking sex jokes into the code base, posting comments about women's panties, making dick jokes, etc.

Stopping inappropriate behavior is not outrage.

<comment><USER31> I bet their outrage is actually from things like:

\- Being told the term "you guys" is a micro-aggression that disenfranchises marginalized peoples.

\- Being scolded for using the term "man hours."

\- Being around people who think that a red hand at a crosswalk is emblematic of systemic racism.

\- Working with people who look down at spending Thanksgiving with family, and instead rant about how you're celebrating the murder of the native peoples.

... and any other similar non-issue that psychos left and right today are touting as the biggest issues facing people today.

<comment><USER13> The whole point of the article is that all of those usually go

"Hey, we should refer to our db nodes as the primary and secondaries, cause master & slave has some historical baggage"

"Yeah, K, not really a big deal"

Not

"OMG YOU CALLED THE DB NODE SLAVE YOU'RE RACIST ARRHRHRGRGRGGRGR"

<comment><USER31> Then I disagree with the premise of the article, and the dozen or so friends on my Facebook feed that attended Mt Holyoke are proof that this sort of outrage is a real thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Oh the drama.

Close down Twitter, the 140 characters are exactly enough why those things get blown out of proportion. Also why ADD "journalists" adore Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER33> I was thinking earlier today that I felt like I was now understanding why my parents made me believe in Santa Claus. It's because you need to learn only on that you can't trust people like that. Maybe they should make a law or something that 1 out of every 100 news must be fake, so that people would be more compelled to check out facts.

Also journalism = marketing now. Headlines, scoops, shocking videos...

<comment><USER34> > Maybe they should make a law or something that 1 out of every 100 news must > be fake

In the world I live in, the proportion is far higher. Especially if you are talking about the mainstream media. Hell, easily one of 100 _peer-reviewed scientific papers_ is fake.

<comment><USER35> >Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (11 June 1807).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The saddest part is that the best public communication channel; Twitter; has been hijacked to become an attention seeking blow horn.

<comment><USER37> I'm baffled that you would think Twitter had the ability to be anything else. The site basically mandates that you compress all your messages into trivialize-able sound bites.

<comment><USER38> Not true. Twitter allows you to makes a brief introduction to a linked article. I use twitter almost exclusively to follow individuals I respect, so I can be aware of new things they have written (or that they recommend).

<comment><USER37> You're not disagreeing with me. You're just saying that Twitter's propensity to allow people to advertise themselves to you happened to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't read the mainstream media. I don't use Facebook, Twitter, etc. I don't really notice any of this.

</comment><comment><USER40> You should see Turkish news on web sites. "Scientists are in shock! Shock shock shock! Evry european talks about this! Here is what everybody should give attention!"

</comment><comment><USER41> From the article:

"Is the world more easily "outraged" than it used to be? I don't think so, but then again, there's no real way to tell."

Presumably one could go build google N-gram timeseries plots for various n-grams associated with what the article calls "outrage culture" and then look for big bumps in the curve.

I'm not close enough to the phenomenon to guess the correct buzzwords. Maybe "problematic" or "offensive"?

</comment><comment><USER42> I like how she exempts herself from "the evil media", while being _in_ the media to start with.

</comment><comment><USER43> "World outrage" isn't a constant.

The internet means information travels faster than ever before, but also inadvertently causes "interesting things" to outpace "the truth".

Properties like Upworthy/Buzzfeed/ect. exacerbate this. Von D is right not to capitulate.

<comment><USER44> It seems like you are missing the point. Von D didn't "not capitulate". Von D took part in the free advertisement campaign!

P.S. So too, are we.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Worth posting Scott's civil and thoughtful take on this subject:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of- rage/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/)

\--

And now for my less civil and less thoughtful rant:

 _This_ is why I think journalism and media is one of the biggest thing that's turning the world to shit. The key observation from the article:

> _3\. The narrative told by the media in step 2 is considered reality._

Every time they lie - and they lie often, regardless whether you want to call it "bias" or "agenda", it's done on purpose; you can't not notice that level of intellectual dishonesty - every time they lie, people believe them. And no, lying in headline and "correcting" it in the middle of the article doesn't cut it, almost nobody reads the damn article. People go on believing what they read, and then they demand changes accordingly, and then they vote accordingly, and stupid policies get instituted and people get hurt.

As the good old LW quote goes[0], "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don't do it to anyone unless you'd also slash their tires." Except in case of media it's _really_ sabotage. It can take your job, your career or your home at a whim. It changes national and international policies.

Take Europe and the immigration crisis. You know what's actually the problem there? It's not just immigrants, and it's not just xenophobia. It's media feeding off each other, causing outrage after outrage, overblowing the issue to the point of turning half of otherwise sane people into aggressive xenophobes, and the other half into high-horse riding apologists.

I tend to get strange looks when I say there's a problem with media, because Free Media is obviously a Key Element to the Democratic Process (and Democratic = Good). But you know what also is free to do whatever the fuck it wants? Cancer. And it doesn't end well for the host organism. So maybe we need to reevaluate what do we really gain from having this feedback loop running unchecked.

I'm not saying, get rid of media. I ask only one thing, I ask it from editors and from journalists: _have some fucking integrity_. Don't publish blatant lies.

And yes, I know that's in a way not your fault, Moloch - "the abstracted spirit of discoordination and flailing response to incentives" \- publishes whatever he wants. But if you want to stand up to him, I'm willing to join. I'd be happy to _pay_ for a news source whose primary goal would be to present facts and just facts, the way they are. No spin, no lies, no reporting scientific papers as if they proved the opposite of what they actually do - just the raw truth.

\--

Another thing. It used to be that the best way to filter out lies and propaganda was to run articles through Reddit and/or Hacker News - lots of people with random biases, combined with quite a good chance of there being a person directly involved with the thing described, was usually enough to sanitize the news story. But I'm worried this is slowly stopping to work too. Outrage is exactly what's eating us. I've seen too many times HN jumping to conclusions. Hell, I've personally been guilty of this myself far more than I'm willing to admit. And don't even get me started on Reddit.

[0] - [http://lesswrong.com/lw/uy/dark_side_epistemology/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/uy/dark_side_epistemology/)

</comment><comment><USER45> I don't understand ... The article references the author's tweet, notes it got little traction and then decides it was the source of the stories and speaks for the rest of the people that likely (and more 'successfully') tweeted about it.

Some fairly weak logic.

</comment><comment><USER46> Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is very similar and an insightful read.

</comment><comment><USER47> I think it is utterly disgusting what the media do to manufacture outrage. They ought to apologise unreservedly. But what can we do about it? A lot! We, as consumers with power, ought to boycott any of them that don't get the message.

<comment><USER22> Let's get angry! Let's have an outrage about media manufacturing outrage!

Oh wait...

<comment><USER47> Quite.

Ultimately lots of disagreements have this cyclic structure. Like people accusing those who call for tolerance of being intolerant of intolerance. Or those who oppose science by accusing scientists of not doing science right. Or those telling people to think for themselves, and find out the truth (from the sources they deem to be correct). Or people who claim that those campaigning against racism are the real racists for making everything about race. There's probably some deep point, but I can't be bothered to think about it. It's easier to just be enraged at how stupid people are. Those stupid f __*ers who can 't even have a civil discussion!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Business insider average titles: this is huge, this is big, this could be a big problem, this is insane, this is awesome, this is awful.. BI is technically...utter garbage...And kind of worrying

</comment><comment><USER49> 1) Reverse engineer how/why news sites search the twitter stream

2) Craft tweets that are likely to be picked up

3) Sit back and enjoy (for extra credit, mail predictions about the news to someone in a sealed envelope)

</comment><comment><USER50>
        We are the angry mob
        We read the papers everyday
        We like who we like, we hate who we hate
        But we're also easily swayed

\- Kaiser Chiefs, The angry mob

</comment><comment><USER51> Good article, but the name underage red must have been named just to provoke a response.

Also, if you get offended by "underage red", maybe your mind is dirty is a bit weird defense. What is the name meant to imply?

And finally, if we should be outraged by anything isn't underage red better than war on christmas?

</comment><comment><USER52> So it appears that media manufacture outrage for cheap clicks, therefore outrage is not a real problem.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. Let's say the same media often create a fake sexism/ _ism scandal out of something innocent or unrelated. Can we conclude that sexism /_ism is not a problem anymore?

Aren't safe-spaces real? Is this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA) staged? I don't remember things like that from my university years.</comment>


SpaceX ABS/EUTELSAT-1 Launch Webcast [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

<comment><USER2> Two and a half weeks between launches. Pretty good.

<comment><USER3> And three weeks until the next one.

<comment><USER4> Not including the Dragon 2's pad-abort test, which is ostensibly next week. That may slip, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice, that was like clockwork!

</comment><comment><USER6> What did they show starting around T+00:09:17? Blue, stargate-like view...

<comment><USER7> Fuel tank.

<comment><USER8> Oxidizer technically. Propellant is a good word that can be used for either fuel or oxidizer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I found this webcast pretty boring, in the best possible way. It started, they showed a promo video, completely nominal countdown, launch, go, everything on time and as it's supposed to be. Pretty cool.

</comment><comment><USER10> interesting, this satellite company was using Ariane before. I guess the mood in Toulouse must be a bit strange.

<comment><USER11> I cannot find what is the link with the city of Toulouse. As I'm currently living there, could you provide more details?

<comment><USER10> basically, the Ariane rockets partially built there and are controlled from there, and the satellites are built and controlled there.

I guess the meet each other pretty often, and now, the satellite guys are going out with another rocket company.

<comment><USER12> > and now, the satellite guys are going out with another rocket company.

Looking quickly at a random handful of currently operating Eutelsat satellites, two launched by Ariane, one by Zenit (Russian/American/Norwegian/Ukranian), one by Proton (Russian), one by Atlas V (American). I think Eutelsat is already pretty familiar with the multi-vendor approach.

<comment><USER10> oops, Ok. I couldn't find the info actually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a distant follower of SpaceX it's not obvious to me if the Falcon 9 will attempt a landing this time?

<comment><USER14> According to /r/spacex, they will not be attempting to land because they are launching into geosynchronous orbit[1].

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2x81fc/rspacex_eutel...](http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2x81fc/rspacex_eutelsat_115w_b_abs3a_official_launch/)</comment></comment>


Callaloo Radio System: Part 2 – Building a Homebrew USB Device - <AUTHOR> http://spin.atomicobject.com/2014/05/17/building-usb-device/?utm_source=twitter-ao&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=building-usb-device

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure if attiny+ftdi really makes sense anymore these days. Checking digikey for prices (single units), that attiny84 costs $1.7 and the ftdi chip is $2, combined $3.7. Meanwhile you can get USB equipped PICs for $1.5 and ARM chips from Freescale and NXP starting from $3.

Of course there is the complexity argument that goes both ways; with attiny+ftdi you need to fiddle with soft-uart and need to design with two chips (with supporting circuitry) instead of one. With ARM you are dealing with more complex MCU and USB is not abstracted away in some blackbox ftdi chip.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello, author here. As I said, mostly stressed in the first post, I'm doing things the hard way as a learning exercise, building a bunch of infrastructure myself. I would use a better radio transceiver and a chip with actual USB and UARTs, etc. if it wasn't a self-study project. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Funny thing about the UART not being able to do manchester coding— since he's defining the protocol, it totally could! He'd just have to define each data byte as two wire bytes, and then translate on each end.

On the whole though, it seems weird to eschew software USB but then go ahead with software serial. I would definitely have just done this as FTDI -> SPI. Or thrown away the AVR, and gone with a some dirty-cheap 32-bit ARM chip that has the needed peripherals built right in. Maybe an STM32F04, which is $3.64 at quantity 1:

[http://www.digikey.ca/product- detail/en/STM32F042K6T6/497-14...](http://www.digikey.ca/product- detail/en/STM32F042K6T6/497-14647-ND/4815294)

That's a 32-pin LQFP package, which is straightforward to hand-solder for an intermediate.

<comment><AUTHOR> I decided against software USB because the receiver is already spending much of its time trying to meet the real-time limits from the radio decoding, and the USB would be its own big undertaking.

As I stressed in the preceding post ([http://spin.atomicobject.com/2014/05/16/radio-system-from- sc...](http://spin.atomicobject.com/2014/05/16/radio-system-from-scratch/)), I'm _intentionally_ doing these things the hard way, so I can learn how more of these things work at a deeper level than "use built-in functionality, configure to run at this baud rate, done". Otherwise, yeah, I'd use a 32-bit ARM chip and a better SMD transceiver. :)</comment></comment>


One-Ring Phone Scam on the Rise - <AUTHOR> http://concord.bbb.org/article/one-ring-phone-scam-on-the-rise-45629 <comment><USER2> You should Google unknown phone numbers before calling them, because there are a lot of shady people out there. This isn't guaranteed protection, but a lot of times if they're a habitual scammer, their number will show up on Mr. Number, Dirtyphonebook, 800notes, or other similar sites with some info about them.

You'll be amazed at how spammers operate and how often they succeed. I tried to warn my father about answering unknown numbers, but he was one of the ones stupid enough to fall for the "Microsoft called me to fix my computer" scam. (the only reason it didn't work is that he couldn't figure out their instructions to give them his credit card, but he was trying to) :(

<comment><USER3> My aunt did this, too. Not a stupid person, either. A doctor.

She believed that the indian on the phone was from Microsoft and somehow detected that her computer (and every other computer in the house, including the 27" iMac I bought my mom for mother's day) were infected. They pinched her for $250 bucks per machine ($750 total). Gave them her credit card number. Let them install shit on the machines. Everything.

Even after I called her and explained to her what just happened, she took a ton of persuading to cancel her credit card (I don't even know if she ever did that), because she was STILL worried that despite what I (a software engineer of two decades) told her, it "might still be legitimate".

Also, who calls back numbers they don't recognize? If you're a number I don't recognize and you don't leave a voicemail, then fuck you!

<comment><USER4> I've gotten two of these calls. I tell them I don't have any Windows computers, only Macs. They stutter for a minute and then hang up on me.

<comment><USER5> I dragged one along for 15 minutes trying to "follow" his instructions, before confessing it was an Ubuntu laptop. He told me "go f __* yourself, and your mother is a whore! " and hung up on me. Made me giggle :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> BBB's mobile website strategy is hopelessly broken, I'm on my iPhone & can see the post for a second before it redirects me to this minimalist web UI home page... Just leaving the standard site as is would've been a better UX strategy

<comment><USER7> This is pathetic. I can't read the article at all on mobile.

<comment><USER8> Concord, NH (January 30, 2014) - Consumers around the country report an increasing number of what is known as the "One-Ring Phone Scam." Perpetrators of this scam program their computers to blast out thousands of calls to random cell phone numbers, ring once, and then disconnect.

This scam relies on consumers calling back missed calls, which then connect them to a paid international adult entertainment service, 'chat' line, or other premium service located outside the country.

Victims who return the call are billed a $19.95 international call fee, along with per minute charges for the unwanted "premium service," which can be $9 per minute or more. In some cases, the scammers may only put through a small charge of several dollars, so it won't arouse suspicion.

Calls typically originate from outside the United States. One woman told BBB her caller ID indicated the call originated in Antigua or Barbuda (area code 268). Other consumers across the country report calls from the Dominican Republic (809), Jamaica (876), British Virgin Islands (284) and Grenada (473).

The practice of third parties placing unauthorized charges on wireless accounts is called "cramming." The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have reviewed thousands of complaints about the practice, and expect the problem to grow.

Better Business Bureau recommends if you don't recognize an out-of-state telephone number on your caller ID, ignore it and if you do answer, do not call back. Also you should check your cell phone bills carefully and inform your carrier if you spot any unauthorized charges. The earlier you document the fraud, the better your chances of having some or all of the charges removed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For Android phones, there are caller ID applications (built-in in Google KitKat, or third-party apps like Contactive or Truecaller) that recognize telemarketers and scam callers with reasonable accuracy.

Sure, this has its fair share of privacy concerns.

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting. I just got a call from 268-762-0013 today. I did what I usually do with numbers I don't recognize -- ignore it and look up the area code -- and figured it was some kind of scam when I saw it was from Barbados. But it's nice to know why they hung up after one ring.

<comment><USER11> Same here. Was very surprised to happen upon this article explaining it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't there any way to tell the telephone provider you never want to connect to a pay for service so they just wont let the call go through?

<comment><USER13> Features that have made me hate my phone:

• Excessively high monthly fees.

• NSA / PRISM and other forms of surveillance.

• Lack of a "capped service cost" plan (mitigated somewhat by monthly pre-paid service).

• Contracts.

• Lack of built-in call screening. I'd like to be able to 1) classify contacts by group, and 2) specify what group(s) can ring through, at what time(s) and/or locations.

• Visual voicemail by default. Without invoking another data surveillance provider.

• Lack of / painfulness of disabling add-on / additional fee services. My phone is not a marketplace and never fucking will be.

Honestly? I've all but given up on the idea of telephony at all. Give me email (with all its warts) or postal mail. At least the people who want to reach me have to put some effort (and cost) into it. VOIP over computer or tablet should fully replace telco phone service in fairly short order.

<comment><USER14> " Lack of built-in call screening. I'd like to be able to 1) classify contacts by group, and 2) specify what group(s) can ring through, at what time(s) and/or locations."

This is possible with Google Voice just fyi.

<comment><USER13> Violates the next condition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If I don't recognize the number and they didn't leave a message, I won't call them back. It's probably just a telemarketer or someone else I don't want to talk to.

<comment><USER16> More than that, if I get unknown numbers that don't leave message then they go onto right onto my blocklist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I blame the phone company. Absurd that you can be secretly billed just for calling a number back.

</comment><comment><USER18> Article is redirected on mobile to generic home page...

<comment><USER19> That website is horrible. Completely unusable from mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Awesome. Now, if we could only get the BBB to put out a scam warning on itself.

<comment><USER21> Can you explain?

<comment><USER22> A lot of people consider the BBB a protection racket. Businesses pay the BBB to ensure that they have a good "rating", no matter their actual business practices.

<comment><USER20> Yes, this. How can they objectively rate businesses that are paying them?

But, they go even further. That is, they will collect complaints, etc. and give the business a bad rating if the business does not respond using the BBB's system. So, even if the business is legit and has worked earnestly to resolve customer issues, they must add value to the BBB scheme (and thus also reinforce the BBB's perceived "legitimacy"), otherwise risk their own reputation.

In fact, we received our first complaint after several years in business and they opened a "file" on us. We then received threatening letters from the BBB indicating that we had a window in which to respond, else receive a negative rating. Worse, even before we had a chance to respond, they'd already given us a C-minus; citing as the reason that they did not have enough info on our company. Why not a more neutral C? Better still, why not a "no-rating", indicating the actual truth that they'd acknowledged: they didn't yet have enough info to rate us? Why, instead use their qualitative scale to misrepresent us as somehow subpar? Again, they want you to submit more information and respond on _their_ terms, thereby increasing value for them. It's the perfect racket.

Worse, most people think the BBB are the good guys and many actually believe they are government-affiliated. So, they effectively use their own reputation against companies (many of which are lesser known small businesses) to force them to add value to the BBB's own scheme or outright pay them. It really is a racket and should be illegal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Calls typically originate from outside the United States

It surprises me why someone would ever call back a long-distance number they didn't recognise. Sure, the Internet has made long-distance communication seem like it doesn't cost any more than local, but that doesn't mean the same rules apply to more traditional phones.

<comment><USER24> I have no concept of "long distance" anymore. Neither my cell phone nor my "land line" (actually a VoIP box) care where in the country the destination number is, it all costs the same (minutes for the cell phone, nothing for the land line).

The trick here is that these are numbers that appear to be American but are actually international. That's a whole different level beyond "long distance" and people would generally not call those without checking, but it's not well known that there are certain area codes that are mapped to other countries entirely.

<comment><USER25> The numbers _are_ American. North American. From the NANP :P

<comment><USER26> They're not American in the same way that Canadian numbers are international and not American.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Normally when I receive scam-sounding calls especially from foreign country unknown number, I'll just tell them I'm a casket shop and ask them how many coffins he/she wants to order. And then hear their screaming/scolding at the other end.

</comment><comment><USER28> I live in one of the countries mentioned in the article and people living here normally get these calls from European or African numbers. We also report these calls to our version of BBB and telecom providers. You get a call, answer it, the line cuts off, you call back the number, your credit finishes. Normally its just elderly folks who get caught by these calls

Don't call back strange numbers

</comment><comment><USER29> This scam is particarily annoying on the iPhone. They call and hang up so it shows as a missed call on the lock screen. If you are not careful when you unlock the phone and you swipe where the phone number is, it immediately dials back. I absolutely hate that functionality of iOS 7.

<comment><USER16> I love that functionality myself, but I have the opposite problem—too often I'm trying to swipe a text or phone call and instead it just unlocks. Maybe we should trade phones. Or fingers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was wondering what these phone calls were on my landline, it seemed like a buggy robo-caller. Amazing that just dialing a number can cost $20.

<comment><USER24> Now that I think about it, given that it's 2014 and smartphones are ubiquitous and free calls are the norm and so forth, it's amazing that there isn't a standard screen that pops up before making any paid call asking to confirm the cost. "Calling this number will cost $3/minute. Do you wish to proceed?"

Of course, such a thing could only cost carriers revenue, so why would they ever do it....

<comment><USER31> In the mobile domain (under the 3GPP standard), there is something called "Advice of Charge" that would give such functionality but most carriers do not deploy it unless local regulations demand it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What a coincidence, just received a one-ring call from a Grenada number (473 area code) a few minutes ago.

</comment><comment><USER33> Who calls _back_ on an unrecognized number with no message left? That's bizarre.

<comment><USER34> I recently did a job interview and I'm waiting for a call. So, honestly, I might call back if this happened to me.

<comment><USER35> Yea, this is probably when [otherwise cautious] people are most susceptible to falling for these scams.

When applying for jobs, there is nothing more irritating than seeing a missed call, getting excited/anxious, and calling back...a #%*@^ telemarketer. On the flip side, I briefly forget that I am unemployed, since all I think about for the next 5 minutes is inflicting the most sadistic forms of torture on every telemarketer that has ever lived.

Seriously though, googling unknown numbers does help.</comment></comment></comment>


Coder looking for an artist (generalist) as a cofounder - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I'm a technical person (coder) and I'm looking for a potential co-founder who is an artist (no real focus, more of a generalist.. who has experience with web design but hopefully also with after effects and things like Vue and RealFlow, Maya/Max etc). It would also be nice if you are familiar with writing/SEO/marketing (or are willing to learn). I'm not great at Photoshop but I can get stuff done.. it would however be nice to have someone who is really strong in this area.
If you are interested in "human computer interaction", fitness, and music  (perhaps video games too).. then maybe we can work together so email me at  thedaywillcome2010[]gmail[]com if you want to learn more.
Notes: Commitment right now can be part time for about a year.. after that I think it should be realistic we should consider this more of a full time thing. And as a full disclaimer I do not have funding and frankly I hope to be able to do without it for as long as possible (maybe we will make it all the way without it :P). I'm located in the Bay Area but you don't have to be.
Thanks guys. <comment><AUTHOR> Sorry guys, gmail is giving me a 500 error on this given account so please use thedaywillcome2010[]ymail[]com

PS: I have actually started working on this project already... been doing some tests to make sure what I have in mind is possible. Lots to be done though.

Thanks again.</comment>


A quarter trillion dollars is at risk when Bitcoin crashes - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/a-quarter-trillion-dollars-is-at-risk-when-bitcoin-crashes-2516481233.html <comment><USER2> The title has nothing to do with the actual content. Why do publishers do this?</comment>


Show HN: PackageBot posts pending apt package upgrades to Slack - <AUTHOR> https://www.packagebot.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Creator here... I built this because I wanted to keep track of the apt packages that needed updating on my servers, and forwarding apticron emails to Slack just didn't do it for me.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you find out about alt-coins that are about to release? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I guess we're at peak sucker. Just don't. You're liable to lose all your money.

If you really like gambling, go to a casino: the odds are stacked against you, but at least it's government regulated.

<comment><USER3> Really? I prefer not to gamble, but given a choice between (a) & (b), I would choose (b) every time.

a. Odds against you, govt regulated.

b. Uncertain odds (dependent on choices made, changing over time, etc.), unregulated.

Under (a), you're guaranteed to lose eventually. Under (b), you could potentially become good at reading sentiment around the newest types of coins. It's certainly still gambling, though.

<comment><USER4> You don't have to keep your wealth in fiat currency -- sensible people invest it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Apparently [https://www.altcoincalendar.info/calendar](https://www.altcoincalendar.info/calendar) has info.

MicroMoney (AMM) and Licensium (LCX) launch tomorrow.

"click here to add your coin"

Not sure I'd recommend investing...

<comment><USER2> s/investing/gambling/

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I get all of my news and advice from /biz/ \- always remember the golden rule: buy high, sell low!

<comment><USER7> This guy gets it

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've participated in 5 ICOs. I don't recommend buying unless a) the company looks great (like filecoin or similar) and b) you get in at a substantial discount.

What I'm seeing now is even good companies that trade below ICO prices after they hit some of the exchanges. Example is [https://www.saltlending.com/](https://www.saltlending.com/)

Actually that is probably a better strategy: buying good companies that are down since their ICO.

</comment><comment><USER9> We're still a few days away from launching, but if you follow @coinmercenary on Instagram (or twitter!), we will be posting a single ICO review each day.

The idea is to be your trusted source for ICO reviews. Using a 6 point scoring system, with one review each day, we'll cut through the noise with you.

<comment><USER2> A mercenary is someone who commits violence for pay. I guess you'll be committing violence against your readers?

<comment><USER9> Not quite.

[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mercenary](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mercenary) [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mercenary](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/mercenary)

"one that serves merely for wages; especially :a soldier hired into foreign service"

:)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://coindash.co/s/icos/](https://coindash.co/s/icos/)

</comment><comment><USER11> [http://icodrops.com](http://icodrops.com)

</comment><comment><USER7> 4chan

</comment><comment><USER12> bitcointalk.org</comment>


Customizing Sublime Text 2's Multi Pane Workflow - <AUTHOR> http://tomschlick.com/2012/10/31/customizing-sublime-text-2s-multi-pane-workflow/

<comment><USER2> I was pretty impressed by Sublime Text 2 but cannot use it for 1 very simple reason, it has no ability to prevent auto updating of loaded files. Unlike for example Notepad++ which has the ability to prompt before updating a loaded file with any changes made outside the editor.

For my specific work, this is a deal breaker and I hope a toggle gets added at some point.

<comment><USER3> Oddly it looks like there _was_ a 'autoReloadChanged' option but it's in the ST1 documentation, just tried it and it doesn't seem to work now. Might be worth giving them a gentle prod and ask them to reenable it.

<comment><USER2> Yes, I noticed that too and tried it, along with a few other things as well. Nothing worked. I also found a few postings on the Sublime Text forums, asking about the same thing and the consensus seems to be it is not possible in ST2, not even as an add-on because the API does not expose the functionality needed.

<comment><USER3> Hopefully they'll pick that up and bring it back in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I saw this exact same "trick" in an awesome video tutorial about ST2 yesterday - You should check it out for more great tips: [https://tutsplus.com/course/improve-workflow-in-sublime- text...](https://tutsplus.com/course/improve-workflow-in-sublime-text-2/)

</comment><comment><USER5> <https://github.com/SublimeText/Origami>

<comment><USER6> From the description:

"Origami is a new way of thinking about panes in Sublime Text: you tell Sublime Text where you want a new pane, and it makes one for you.

Ordinarily one uses the commands under View>Layout, or if one is quite intrepid a custom keyboard shortcut can be made to give a specific layout, but both of these solutions were unsatisfactory to me. Perhaps they were to you too! That's what this plugin is for."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have similar experiences with the multi-pane layout - powerful, but cumbersome to micromanage (mainly because the target area for a mouse re-size is so small). For some reason I find the Ctrl+Shift+{#} keyboard shortcut awkward to use as well, but it might just be the way I rest my hand on the keyboard.

Anyway, one thing I've though would help would be something like; a middle- click on the scrollbar invokes the resize function between the adjacent panes (as if left-clicking on the resize target area).

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting point, but I personally use multipanes differently. If I'm in a rails app I'll up have for instance, a model or some other file that's my primary focus in pane 1 and a secondary related file in pane 2 (gem file, routes, or the related views or controller)

</comment><comment><USER9> Page doesn't load.</comment>


Learn How to use Algolint - <AUTHOR> http://www.algolint.com/how-to-use

<comment><USER2> Why I can't pick my username on signup? Why assume my email ID is what I want as my username?! This is a pretty bad anti-pattern!

<comment><AUTHOR> We will take it, we thought why to bother all users, at the time of signup, User who want to use it forward will take his username, that's why we made it optional. But we will work on it and make it better, any other suggestion?

<comment><USER2> I changed my username, but the URL changed, but it kept showing the old one and is giving some errors like "cannot load files", etc.</comment></comment></comment>


HP CEO: We Have to Ultimately Offer a Smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasdaq.com/article/h-p-ceo-we-have-to-ultimately-offer-a-smartphone--fox-business-20120913-01297

<comment><USER2> Suggestion: They have to come up with a plan _and stick to it_. Through thick and thin. They have to be like Apple with the AppleTV. Don't make lofty pronouncements, call it a hobby, anything, but just keep plugging away incrementally improving it.

I don't care if it's a smartphone, a thin PC, or a mid-sized tablet with VoIP. Pick one and try to build it slowly, absorb punishment and learn from mistakes, but just keep plugging away instead of trying to hit one out of the park.

<comment><USER3> I was thinking of something similar. The cynic in me has this conversation at the board:

       MW: "We have to develop a smartphone."
       Board: "Uh, can we sell ink for that?"
       MW: "What? NO you bonehead, its a phone you know you make
            calls on it?"
       Board: "Uh, but without ink how do you make any money?"
       MW: "People buy them as fashion accessories doofus!"
       Board: "Fashion accessories? I don't think we have
               anyone here that knows anything about fashion.
               Is there any other way to make money with phones?"
       MW: "Oh sure, you make one and then sue everyone for patent
            infringment."
       Board: "Oh that we can do! We've got lots and lots of
               patents. We'll get right on that."

But less cynically, I can't imagine how they could get into the smartphone space without first buying a company that had done the investment to know how to be in the smartphone space (and I'm not sure Palm counts, but maybe they were in tighter with Rim than we knew). Of course they could buy RIM ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am greatly depressed by this. I actually used a HP Veer for a short while and really loved the hardware and the concept of the OS. I prefer small phones, so the Veer hit a sweet spot for me.

But the quality control... there was a software bug around every corner which finally meant that I picked other options. If they had just spent a few more month polishing and then made their mobile push, the Veer or the Palm 3 would have been my phone to go.

And now they want to start it all again? No, thank you.

</comment><comment><USER5> They already have few smart phones and had a great tablet device. They screwed up themselves. Remember $99 and $149 tablet device sale? At one point they were shutting down their own PC business. They just need a great visionary CEO.

<comment><USER6> And a board that is not full of backstabbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey HP, you used to have a smartphone, a good one by the way. Does the name "Pre" ring any bell ?

<comment><USER8> That noise you hear is all the ex-Palm employees simultaneously face-palming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think HP rebounding from the Palm "incident" and somehow still managing to release a hit smartphone would be more miraculous then Apple rising from the Ashes.

I look forward to seeing what happens, but I'm very skeptical that a company such as HP has any chance at this.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think Meg Whitman just recommended I start shorting HP stock.. It seems HP has lost all direction and purpose..

At least Leo had a vision for a services company.

<comment><USER11> I'm imagining a scenario where Meg Whitman is driving in circles in a parking lot, while Leo Apotheker drives the wrong way down the interstate, and you chime in to say, "At least Leo is driving somewhere." Doesn't make a lot of sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Offering Windows Phone 8 devices is an obvious play for a hardware vendor that's aligned with Microsoft.

With WP8, HP does what it's comfortable doing - hardware - and Microsoft does the software stack.

Whether HP (and Microsoft, for that matter) can gain traction against Android and iOS remains to be determined.

</comment><comment><USER13> So basically, they are a computing company and need to offer a smartphone because in developing countries that's the only computer people will buy/need.

How will they ever compete to the likes of Apple/Aindroid partners who just dump yesterday's models for very low prices in those countries?

</comment><comment><USER14> It's interesting that Whitman (HP's President) seems to suggest their "in" would be targeting smartphones specifically at consumers in developing countries. That's an interesting angle. It does suggest a lack of an overarching strategy, though. It looks as though they're simply scanning for any possible gap in the market without considering how such a move could fit within the company as a whole. (Not that the Nasdaq piece gives much to go on, of course).

<comment><USER15> Worse, it's a losing strategy. People in developing countries might not afford fashionable smartphones _today_ , but they are well aware of them, and once prices drop after 12 to 18 months (which they inevitably do), they rush to "finally" snap them up. For proof of this, look at how quickly Nokia's profits fell once iPhone and Android devices became affordable.

<comment><USER14> Exactly. It's sad that HP appears to operate by sniffing out _extremely_ short-term opportunities instead of laying the groundwork for anything vaguely long-term. Or, rather, they lay the groundwork then rip it up, lay the groundwork then rip it up.

This reeks of desperation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why exactly do they need to enter an over-competitive market where their prospect are poor ?

<comment><USER17> (Explanation using financial theory)

If they don't get in now, it will be harder to do so later when profits in that market increase.

If they do get in now, but the market's profits do not increase, they can choose to back off.

The value of the option to stay in the market later may exceed the cost of entering the market now.

<comment><USER18> how exactly will profits increase in a commodity market like the smartphone one? apple and samsung make profits - who else? which margins?

tablets I would understand, no mobile carriers to worry about, lots of room in enterprise to push into. apple is making great inroads right now - but no one else. android in the enterprise is DOA, ms surface not there yet.

<comment><USER17> I wasn't the one doing the market research, but they could have been thinking as developing countries grow economically their people are more likely to buy higher end phones. More people buying smart phones = more money in the market.

Platforms like iOS have network effects (i.e. App Store). Also people with a $500 iTunes library is less likely to buy another phone. These factors could be ways that make it harder to enter the smart phone market later on as other market players become more entrenched.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I really hope they pick WebOS back up. It is an awesome product, by far beats Android in overall quality and ease of use and development, it would be a much, much better competitor to iOS.

<comment><USER20> WebOS was retired but it now lives on as Open WebOS and the Community Edition WebOS - two distinct and separate projects.

Would love to see Open WebOS on future hardware, however I believe there are requirements that the drivers must also be open.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Palm might have had a chance with different leadership and no Leo... =(

Just thinking about it bums me out how a single bad person at the helm can so royally mess things up.

</comment><comment><USER22> If they move to the smartphone market they also have to reconfigure their distribution channels. PCs and Printers utilise different sales channels. In the western world, carriers hold the key to sales through subsidies, they can kill products by not offering them (Kin, original Nexus). In developing world countries, they need to get deals with the mobile retailer channel. Making a great product is only 1 part of the equation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why not fire up the 3D printing market?

<comment> simba-hiiipower i really like that idea; both because i think we'll eventually get to the point where 3D Printers become mass-market consumer and enterprise products (like traditional printers today) so it could be great business for them, but also because i see little room elsewhere where hp could dominate a market like they once did with PCs and traditional printers..

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What Leo Apotheker did to HP in his short tenure is borderline criminal. If I owned HP stock or were an employee I would be livid - but it's not totally his fault - it is also the Board's fault for bringing in a dinosaur with a complete lack of vision of the marketplace. I knew from the moment they hired him it was going to be a trainwreck. I'm sure many of the astute industry participants/observers here felt the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm quite likely the features The Verge website has to offer. If anyone wants to have a quick overview of how this sick story evolved check this out: [http://www.theverge.com/2011/10/31/2528253/hp-turmoil- apothe...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/10/31/2528253/hp-turmoil-apotheker- whitman-webos-pc-division)

</comment><comment><USER26> Me too!</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone have experience working with the Google Calendar API? - <AUTHOR>

I'd love to ask you a couple questions about it. There's a product that we are looking to build, I poured through the API last night and couldn't get my question answered.
Basically trying to figure out if I as a user can look at other calendar (coworker's calendars) through a 3rd party product and make changes on their calendar.  Booking an event, editing the event I created, and/or deleting the event I created.
Let me know if we can get in touch offline! <comment><USER2> I have a little experience working with Google Calendar. You should be able to add events to other calendars if you authenticate with an account that has appropriate permissions (just like you would in the Google Apps interface). You'll need to use the CalendarId of the coworker's calendar in your requests, which you can retrieve using the calendar.calendarList.list function.

<comment><AUTHOR> "if you authenticate with an account that has appropriate permissions (just like you would in the Google Apps interface)"

Do you mean that each user will have to add this app to their Google account? Mind if I send you an email?

<comment><USER2> Yes, you can reach me at bruce.hart AT gmail DOT com .</comment></comment></comment>


To apply or not to apply - <AUTHOR>

Should I apply for a UI/UX Designer job at a startup that I'm interested in although I'm more of a back end developer. I'm a student who has worked as a back end developer for most projects I'm involved in but I'm interested in switching to UI/UX designing.
Is it better to gather the required skills before applying for an opening or do you think I can mention my lack of experience and willingness to learn in a cover letter.
 or not bother applying at all ? <comment><USER2> I think the question might become, do you have any front-end portfolio at all? Have you taken any courses, do you know what the job is, and do you know the tools?

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a company pick up a UI/UX designer who has no professional experience, but who they like, is really keen, and has an understanding of programming is probably a huge plus.

But, it is probably more difficult to get the same position if you can't show them any other work you've already done or that you have an understanding of the lay of the land.

Think if the tables were turned. If you were a UI/UX designer and wanted to be a programmer, do you think you'd be able to get a job as a programmer just because you're keen? I doubt it, the hiring company would want to see at least some proof that you're able to do a tiny bit of programming.

They may be very keen to train you, but I wouldn't go in completely green.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've done a bit of work in the field and I'm an above average programmer. Thanks for your inputs. They were helpful.</comment></comment>