Who's behind the "reopen" domain surge? - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/04/whos-behind-the-reopen-domain-surge/ <comment><USER2> It's fairly remarkable to see how weaponized misinformation is becoming.

Here's a snippet from Wikipedia[1] detailing the background behind the already-very-dubiously-named Local Government Information Services -- which is in no way a federally (or even regionally) accredited institution:

"Locality Labs published Hinsdale School News, a newspaper that masqueraded as the student publication of a high school in Hinsdale, Illinois by using the logo of Hinsdale Township High School District 86. In March 2019, the publication released a number of articles opposing a Hinsdale referendum that would increase the school district's budget by $140 million.[1] Officials from District 86 sent a cease and desist letter to Franklin Archer, LGIS, and other related companies, claiming that their publication of the Hinsdale School News was deceptive and violated trademark law.[5]"

This is a wake-up call for authenticity.

Regardless of whether foreign influence is involved -- and it can be very challenging to determine whether it is -- U.S. nationals are taking actions that imitate authority without possessing it.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Information_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Information_Services)

<comment><USER3> > very-dubiously-named Local Government Information Services

Not trying to be arch here: Federal Express is an equally hinky name, isn't it? I've always thought it was confusingly, well, federal-sounding.

<comment><USER4> I'm not American and because of the name I've always assumed federal express was government-related.

<comment><USER5> And don't confuse UPS (United Parcel Service) and USPS (United States Postal Service).

<comment><USER6> Then there's the band "The Postal Service" that got a cease and desist from USPS to stop using their trademark.

However it had a happy ending: _the United States Postal Service -- the real one, as in stamps and letters -- signed an agreement with Sub Pop granting a free license to use the name in exchange for working to promote using the mail. Future copies of the album and the group 's follow-up work will have a notice about the trademark, while the federal Postal Service will sell the band's CD's on its Web site, potentially earning a profit. The band may do some television commercials for the post office._

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/arts/music/postal- service...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/arts/music/postal-service-tale- indie-rock-snail-mail-and-trademark-law.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Both the Minnesota and Pennsylvania gun advocacy sites include the same > Google Analytics tracker in their source code

I enjoy the irony of an analytics tool designed to track users instead being used to reveal something the site owner was trying to hide. There's just something poetic about it.

<comment><USER8> Don't get it, can one group of people not represent the same interest in two different states?

How is this scandal?

edit: tons of claims and downvotes, not one hard bit of evidence to show this is not an authentic organization. IDK, maybe it's not, I don't actually care, but I thought bullshit baseless claims weren't supposed to be accepted here?

<comment><USER9> > How is this scandal?

When political organizations with ulterior motives try to disguise their work as a grassroots movement, it's called astroturfing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

Also, it should go without saying that an organization actively organizing people to defy critical Coronavirus-related quarantine procedures is a scandal, regardless of the source. The fact that a political organization is trying to obfuscate the source of the dissent is even more scandalous.

<comment><USER8> Can you source this is not a grassroots organization? Because I see the claim, and the assumption, but again, I don't know how it's scandal that one org can't represent their topic in two states.

edit: apparently not. Everyone wants to believe it's true, so it is

<comment><USER10> This is like the Tea Party: there really is an authentic grassroots movement, AND it is being organized and promoted by a range of elite conservative institutions, including Fox News and the White House.

<comment><USER8> Citation? I believe you of course. I just would like to see the evidence for all of this.

Edit: no, apparently no citation is coming. Wild claims, no sources. Just blame Fox News the one mostly conservative outlet compared to the hundred counterparts like it's still 2008

<comment><USER11> Don't be a sealion. [http://wondermark.com/1k62/](http://wondermark.com/1k62/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure the Russian trail in this article is a red herring.

I looked up "Валентина Сынах" Skype user and, as expected, their full phone number is +7904xxxxxxx (see full number in the article), with Russian prefix +7. Note, WHOIS records have US number +1904xxxxxxx. Not sure why the author only searched for the last 10 digits.

+7 904 code is a very busy area code in Russia shared by several major carriers, covering the majority of Russian regions, so the probability of someone having any particular 7 digits in that area is pretty high. For example there's someone else registered in Skype with number +7904xxxxxx4, just one digit apart. I haven't been able to find an English source, but you can look at the list of carriers and regions in Russian in [1].

Also, US area code +1 904 matches the address in WHOIS records (both Jacksonville, FL), so at least it doesn't look like someone just changed the first digit and used their own Russian number.

[1] [https://www.kody.su/mobile/904](https://www.kody.su/mobile/904)

<comment><USER13> Very interesting. Friendly heads up: seeing full phone numbers posted here feels quite uncomfortable. If you're sure there's no potential for getting it wrong that's cool but it's risky if you're not 100% sure it's harm-free. Maybe redact them?

<comment><USER12> Updated, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >[. . .] the Dorr brothers simply seek "to stir the pot and make as much animosity as they can, and then raise money off that animosity.

I am fascinated by people like this. They have to understand they are doing awful things to the world around them. How do people like that sleep at night, or look themselves in the mirror?

Even if you believe in gun rights to the extreme, being purposefully combative, negative, divisive, and awful just to make money is not a great look. How? Why? Why do people do these things?

<comment><USER15> Troll level one million!

I have a couple of friends that are trolls(they call themselves that). They frequent Facebook and they make silly comments are try to rile people up, because....well i guess they're bored. They take pride in being banned from Facebook so shock humor. They are pretty funny.

Why is this relevant? What I have learned from them is that high-speed internet is conducive to trolling at all levels. Facebook users want comments and reactions, so their post do just that. Large sites want clicks and attention, so their content does just that.

A deep multifaceted conversation is boring and difficult to do. And above all else does not give you the same satisfaction as emotional content. The internet is an emotional medium, not a rational one. I treat it that way. To learn more on this check out neil portman, specifically his book "amusing ourselves to death".

I try to remind myself that things on the internet could very well have been produced by an angry techsavvy teenager, rather than to attribute any authority to it.

<comment><USER16> Something I've noticed, and fallen victim to in recent weeks, is that FB will often display in my feed a post by a news site (for me, they're usually NPR, CNBC or the local TV station), and underneath they'll display exactly _one_ comment. That one comment is almost always something insane (no more serious than the flu, they're counting all dead people not just dead from the virus, you get the picture). But when I open the story to view all comments, there are hundreds of not-insane ones. In fact it is often impossible to find the "featured" comment if I wanted to reply since there are so many others. I get the distinct impression that FB has an algorithm that promotes disinformation comments in order to....well I assume in order to make more money somehow. I've had to train myself to read the news stories (which are useful to me) but brain-skip over the featured comment.

<comment><USER17> I'm not on facebook but it sounds entirely plausible. Facebook conducts psychological experiments[0] to optimise for user engagement so if that anger can make you stay a bit longer and see a few more ads then that's money for them.

Those precious hate dollars have deadly consequences though, especially for Muslims[1][2].

[0]: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook- apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users)

[1]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya- facebook...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook- idUSKCN1GO2PN)

[2]: [https://theintercept.com/2019/12/07/facebook-mark- zuckerberg...](https://theintercept.com/2019/12/07/facebook-mark-zuckerberg- muslims-islamophobia/)

<comment><USER15> Also not on fb. It sounds plausible to me as well.

But even in the best case scenario social media is not a robust system and will amplify controversy.

In addition there is money to be made by fanning the flames. I mean it pretty genius, people get angry they go on fb to rant about it.

Zuckerberg will be a name remembered like Carnegie, but not for making anything. Just for owning feelings and controversy. Second best to owning the color blue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is a fascinating example of real world propaganda that, given the impact of the pandemic, has a high probability of being in history textbooks. Given that, I'm curious, how do does the HN population think we should respond?

Imagine looking back on this in hindsight. What type of picture would we want to paint for future generations to learn from?

<comment><USER19> The problem is that finding truth is so much more time consuming than lying. A couple friends and I looked at creating a Canadian fact-checking website as we don't really have a Politifact up north, especially not for the smaller provinces.

We gave up when we went on Twitter to see just how much nonsense was floating around and realizing that even basic lies took 30 minutes each to refute. Assuming that we had perfect access to people's information feeds and assuming they all believed us anyway (and many wouldn't), we would still need 6x as many people as popular trolls/liars existed to fight back.

You would basically need to have a legion of volunteers willing to spend 30 minutes undoing 5 minutes of damage.

<comment><USER20> Some experts argue that "fact checking" sites are a waste of resources. Those who believe the misinformation would not accept the "fact check" as plausible and those open to questioning the misinformation generally find the truth on their own.

Relevant lecture from US Army War College: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUpCiA0WZ5k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUpCiA0WZ5k)

<comment><USER21> I think the value sometimes is in having relevant resources to point to when in localized arguments. (If someone is repeating a falsehood, I can direct them to resources that refute it rather than having to do all the searching repeatedly).

<comment><USER22> Such arguments are usually emotional and spouting off facts is unlikely to change the other person's stance and instead make them double down harder.

<comment><USER23> I've attempted to engage with people in ideological echo chambers not by citing any specific facts that contradict their beliefs, but by asking them to state their own beliefs using more specific and concrete language. "What exactly is your definition of communism?", "Has Bernie made any specific statements indicating that he supports that policy? If not, what leads you to infer that he does?", etc.

The results? No engagement at all.

<comment><USER22> People do not want to be challenged in an echo chamber. Either talk to them (without convincing them of anything) outside the chamber, or walk away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Apparently Michael Murphy registered a bunch of domains to try to block people doing this BS, not to support it, and isn't related to the other registrations.

[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen- liberate...](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate- urls/)

<comment><USER25> Great find Isiebert.

>Almost all of the hate was coming from liberals, many of them egged on by presuming posts from amateur Twitter sleuths [...] None of the hate was from conservatives angry at him for keeping them from using the domains themselves.

This is consistent with the GOP astroturfing the registrations. The Left's response is obviously organic, if vitriolic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I find it interesting that many of the protestors, including one holding a sign saying "COVID-19 is a lie", are wearing face masks.

<comment><USER27> I would like to think it's possible to protest lockdowns and their economic destruction while also taking the virus seriously and observing social distancing and wearing masks.

<comment><USER15> I am very concerned about the economic impact this will have and I am also taking this seriously and observing social distancing.

What would be a reason to protest lockdowns?

<comment><USER28> The fact that protesting is illegal is reason enough in the USA to protest. If the government can take away fundamental rights via executive fiat then we never had rights in the first place, we had permissions.

For many it's a matter of principle. For others who are literally having to stand in food lines for the first time ever and are unable to pay rent or write paychecks, it's a matter of survival.

<comment><USER29> Protesting isn't illegal if you follow social distancing guidelines. I can't imagine courts would have an issue with that under a time, manner and place restriction framework.

<comment><USER30> Infamous tweet from Raleigh PD indicates how police feel about it:

[https://twitter.com/raleighpolice/status/1250111779574894594](https://twitter.com/raleighpolice/status/1250111779574894594)

(No qualifications about distancing)

<comment><USER29> And they got ratio'd to death, as they should have. Cops don't have law degrees (and well to be fair, neither do I).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Seems it wasn't some fringe group. Just an old hippie trying to preempt such groups:

[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen- liberate...](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate- urls/)

<comment><USER32> Well, that certainly wasn't the dramatic irony I was expecting!

"I bought these names to try to stop the insanity, basically. And it just turned to insanity," he said. He felt forced to unplug his phone, and his inbox exploded with messages attacking him—and potentially trying to hack him.

Almost all of the hate was coming from liberals, many of them egged on by presuming posts from amateur Twitter sleuths who mistakenly pegged Murphy as a conservative organizing protests in defiance of nationwide stay at home orders. None of the hate was from conservatives angry at him for keeping them from using the domains themselves."

edit: Tomorrow, I wonder if we'll be reading Brian's mea culpa. He did go overboard with the whole Azrael Abyss tone, and was clearly trolled. Poor Guy. On the interwebs, the stories just write themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Link to the reddit thread explaining things here. Alright there is most likely more than one astroturfing actor right now.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/i_simply_c...](https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/i_simply_cannot_believe_that_people_are/fnstpyl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm not hunting to a false moral equivalence and there is no need for a bilateral symmetry here. I just observe as the comments in the Krebs article do: where are the Dems/BlueFlag equivalents? Their absence is interesting.

I actually do take heart from a lack of obscured PAC type industry funded backrooms behind the absent 'stay locked down' protest movement. Is throws the lack of goodwill into sharper focus perhaps.

<comment><USER35> Same type of question: was there ever popular left-wing AM radio? Like a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh? Like highly emotive and monetized liberal (in the American sense) talk radio?

<comment><USER36> Yes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_\(radio_network\))

<comment><USER35> Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. But I don't think it qualifies as "popular". The Wikipedia page says it lost around $10mil a year and then folded after 6 years in a mess of debts.

At around the same time, Rush Limbaugh's salary was $30mil+.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> At this point, I see two problems with Kreb's article.

First, to me only the VA tweet was specific to 2nd Amendment. The others were not. I presume VA was specifically noted because of the recent gun law past there.

Second, this smells more like domain kiting or tasting where it worked. Most seem to jump on the "political" bandwagon on the intention of the domain owner. I disagree. Kreb points to "were created just hours after", "Web site design company", and "promoted nothing but spammy paid surveys for years". That reads to me more like an web marketing opportunist trying to get eyeballs for ad revenue.

</comment><comment><USER38> I am much more worried about censorship under the guise of "fighting misinformation" than about any level of misinformation. A functioning democracy is robust against people saying random things in public. If you feel the need to use some central authority to stop people saying things --- even if you think those things are "astroturf" or whatever --- something is fundamentally broken.

So what if someone wants to launch a bunch of "reopen" websites in some coordinated way? These websites just say something. It's not some kind of attack. It's a bunch of words.

</comment><comment><USER39> These are not "gun rights" groups. These are "gun rights" clickbait scams, targeting the grass-roots conservative types to get them to join various "rights" organizations. There are a bunch of these groups, and they do absolutely no lobbying. I suspect most of them are shell companies for a fewer number of individuals. They claim to be non-profits, but are not tax exempt. They have been around for many years, and they always use the latest hot- button issue to exploit their target audience. I'm amazed no one's gone after them yet.

</comment><comment><USER40> The "reopen" campaigns are simple strategy for recruiting members. The states will reopen, eventually and inevitably, and your raw recruits will claim credit for forcing a change on 'the establishment'.

Making an assumptive sale that they are cohesive group by registering many domains seems like a valid tactic.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER41> I'd bet a lot of the members also end up on some PAC donation mailing lists supporting predominantly one political party.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So I read all of this and to me it sounds like much ado about nothing. Can anyone explain, without loaded language, what is wrong here?

"People I don't like (gun rights, republicans) are organizing in favor of a cause I don't support (reopening)". Is there any more to it than that?

<comment><USER35> The content of the article explores (and to a large extent answers) the question in its headline. It doesn't seem to make any value judgements.

It is interesting to see who is behind this cause and organizing to support it. The track record of the Dorr brothers suggests their involvement is not motivated by genuine interest in the cause.

<comment><USER36> And it was completely wrong: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen- liberate...](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/reopen-liberate- urls/)

The political tunnel vision was strong with this one.

<comment><USER42> I don't think your article invalidates the discussion papeda and I had. He may have had "tunnel vision" and only focused on a small part of the story, but as far as I can tell the Dorr Brother involvement has not been discredited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> There is a fundraiser going on to outbid these gun groups for domains which are being sold by domain resellers: [https://www.gofundme.com/f/stop- anticoronavirus-websites-buy...](https://www.gofundme.com/f/stop- anticoronavirus-websites-buy-domain- names?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1)

</comment><comment><USER44> Krebs updated the article. Basically all those domains were registered by someone snatching them up before someone else could for the purpose of preventing profiteering.

</comment><comment><USER45> Minnesota Public Radio reaches similar conclusions [https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/04/20/behind-calls-to- reo...](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/04/20/behind-calls-to-reopen- economy-a-mn-activist-and-his-family)

</comment><comment><USER46> Why can't it be our regular domain squatters?

No need to see a super consisparency. People are upset for real. And the withdrawal of rights everywhere is indeed concerning.

<comment><USER47> The article shows exactly why they're not regular domain squatters.

<comment><USER46> Where?

> Many of the domains are still dormant, leading to parked pages and > registration records obscured behind privacy protection services.

All of the mentioned domains I check as either parked or a redirection. It can be one guy deciding to surf the wave and waiting for the domains to be bought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> One data point. I attended the local rally in my home town and I've never heard of any of the domains or organizations mentioned in this article.

Blanket condemnation of "astroturfing" and "misinformation" just reinforces the bubble.

<comment><USER49> You attended in support or to watch? Why would you want to me in a crowd of others right now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Let's jump to the conclusion here that Russia is still meddling in American politics, society and culture.

What I cannot believe is how the USA still allows this after all the country has been through with the current administration, investigations, impeachments.

USA's most important characteristics: openness, freedom, independence are just tools and weapons used against us. And we never learn...

<comment><USER51> Assuming this is all true, how do you even tackle something like this while preserving the concept of freedom? If the government goes after groups of people for "meddling in elections" \- well, that's very vague, isn't it?

 _Maybe_ most people don't have a problem with the FBI looking into domain registrations, cross-checking credit card payments, obtaining warrants for Google Analytics / Namecheap / etc...but investigating random web developers for alleged "ties to Russia" sounds eerily similar to McCarthyism.

<comment><USER52> I'm beginning to think a free, international Internet isn't compatible with democracy. The medium is the message and the message of the Internet might end up being autocracy and hyper-effective propaganda and disinformation. I'm not sure it practically can live up to what we hoped it would be—some kind of liberating, enlightening force. It may just not _be_ that, and it may be that no amount of tinkering will fix it.

<comment><USER29> An uneducated populace isn't compatible with democracy. This is just yet another manifestation of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Will this post be flagged just like the others?

<comment><USER54> You can email dang (email@example.com) if you're worried about it.

<comment><USER53> Thanks, just sent an email. Hopefully this post can remain unflagged.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If Americans or American companies want to register a bunch of domains to promote their policy agenda and political opinion, that's totally fine with me. Even if it may be somewhat disingenuously designed to look grass roots. It's freedom of speech and I'm in total support of it. (Regardless of how ignorant and stupid it might be).

If Russia is doing it to sow discord, that's an act of war in my opinion, and should be dealt with in the harshest, most severe way possible.

It won't be, of course, because the President is a Putin lackey (or close enough to one to make no difference), but hopefully come January 20th of next year, we will have a different president who will protect the U.S. like he should.

<comment><USER56> So what exactly would the "harshest, most severe possible" actions be?

Because when I hear someone say that in the context of war, my mind goes to some pretty severe actions.

Would you sanction them? Maybe, but that's hardly the "most severe". This is war, after all. Would you missile strike Russia?

<comment><USER49> Direct action action on one military superpower from another doesn't happen anymore, not since the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any such action would have unthinkable consequences for humanity.

America's weapon of choice is economic devastation via sanctions, it can leverage its position in the world to convince its allies to follow suit for added effect. Russia, on the outside of NATO, is forced to play a more subtle game, sowing discord and long term instability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I live five miles from the New Hampshire border. We've long chuckled that their state slogan should be "Live Free Then Die." It's possible this will come true for some victims of this disinformation campaign. And victims they will be.

In the meantime, Brian Krebs is just the guy to feed the trolls. His site is rigged for handling DDOS.

I wonder? Is it time for Twitter to reevaluate their account-closing policies, to make it easier for them to suspend accounts belonging to persons who spread disinformation about the epidemic?

<comment><USER58> I live a mile north of New Hampshire's southern border. We have no income tax, no sales tax, the median property tax is within $800 per year of the neighboring states, and the median income is only $3,000 per year less than Massachusetts (pretty sure after accounting for taxes, New Hampshire is higher). As far as death rates go, the life expectancy is 79.5 years, which is pretty close to the 80.5 in Massachusetts and 79.7 in Vermont. Contrary to popular belief, we've been practicing social distancing for many years, simply due to the our low population density (/kidding). It's a pretty great place to live.

Life's good here, especially if you're a software developer. Come join the dark side! We have cookies.

<comment><USER59> As someone who was more or less forced to move to southern New England for his career I love northern New England but I have less than high opinion for people who talk it up as though it's the greatest thing ever. People moving to Northern New England for the taxes (after counting government fees and other taxes it's not really that low when it's all said and done) or the low prices or other shallow benefits and don't understand that these are different places with different cultures (though if their only experience is the I95 or I93 corridor I can see how someone might miss that) will be the death of it. I have lived in ME, NH and VT, they all have distinct cultures that are different than the culture you get in MA and CT (haven't lived in RI). I'm not gonna say they're wholesale superior (obviously it comes down to personal values and preference) but I find the things their culture does right very important personally and the things it does wrong very unimportant so naturally I like them all a lot better than MA and CT. If you're gonna move to NH, ME or VT do it for the culture fit, not for the shallow crap like being able to buy beer at Walmart. Also, to anyone from NH, ME or VT reading this, sorry for lumping you all together but I think we can all agree you have more in common with each other than you do with any state to the south.

So yeah, it's a great place to live but please stop broadcasting that or it will stop being that way.

<comment><USER58> I completely agree with you that the culture isn't for everyone. Many towns lack basic government services like trash pickup and public utilities, likely due to the reduced taxes (I haven't done a comparison, so this is just a guess). I was mostly addressing the original poster. If he/she lives five miles from the border, I suspect that the culture doesn't differ much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Where is US counter-intel in this? Isn't this what the FBI is supposed to be handling and partially designed for? It seems crazy that possible foreign entities are causing chaos at home and we seem unable (unwilling?) to stop it.

<comment><USER61> Who's to say counter-intelligence isn't already all over it?

There's only so much they can do besides monitor, analyze, and attribute it, though. They publicly announce things when there's a lot of aggregated evidence collected over time, and high potential impact, like some of the past official announcements about the election interference.

Releasing a statement for every instance of confirmed or suspected disinformation/propaganda just isn't practical and also may just play right into the hands of the intelligence agency they're trying to counter.

It's possible the actors may, on some level, actually want their plausibly deniable actions to be recognized in some cases. It creates yet another wedge in American politics, just like all of the other stuff Russian intelligence has done in recent years. They or others may be trying to construct a double bind: one sort of victory if they remain undetected or at least unexposed; another sort of victory if they do get exposed.

Not to mention the primary practical purpose of keeping it secret so they can continue to monitor further activity. If they blow the lid on it, they'll change tactics and be harder to trace in the future. That's why spy rings are often tracked over years before being busted, like the case involving Anna Chapman. You can't effectively counter intelligence if you immediately announce that the intelligence has been countered. In infosec terms, it's like burning a zero-day.

Also, there isn't any solid evidence this is Russian state-sponsored activity. Certainly a real possibility, but also could just be a random dude trying to make a buck and/or have fun. Either way, there's surely a ton of stuff going on behind the scenes which we're not aware of and may never be aware of. Surely some intelligence or law enforcement people have seen this very thread, or at least the Krebs article.

Finally, there could already be some covert countering occurring, like when Cyber Command targeted Russia's IRA troll farm in 2018 and temporarily disabled their internet access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I don't understand why it matters if the reopen domains or Facebook groups are being created/organized by some individuals or a group. There are dubious claims from Reddit labeling this as 'astroturfing', but astroturfing would require that these actors create fake accounts or pay for posts or hire actors for protesters. But everything seems to point at the protesters being real individuals who are simply aligned on the sentiment of reopening.

Even if someone is gaining in some way from the effort of registering domains, creating Facebook groups, and writing descriptions, I don't think it removes the legitimacy of the underlying sentiment or protesters. I don't think it makes it "less grassroots". After all, literally every other act of protest or campaigning or other activism involves _organizing_. Unless we're about to claim that anyone performing organizing is astroturfing, it is nonsensical to apply the label here.</comment>


Ask HN: Interested in news?  Network bureau chief just described a service he wants... - <AUTHOR>

I recently had lunch with a bureau chief at a major network who wanted to pick my brain about "what's new in online news." We had a great conversation and at one point he described a specific problem he's dealing with and the sort of solution he'd be interested in.
I made a fairly crude but functional demo using open source stuff (took about a day) to show the guy and he liked what he saw.  I showed it to some independent publishers and prominent bloggers here in Chicago and they caught me off guard by immediately asking what it would cost to subscribe.
I'd like to move forward with this, but not by myself.  Though I meet PG's "animal" criteria, I'm a designer/frontend guy whose background is in journalism (hence my connections).
I think the way forward would be to get 1-2 more cofounders with technical backgrounds and to dedicate a few months to seeing what we can put together, perhaps apply for funding,  figure out a pricing model and start selling subscriptions.  If it's got legs, great! If not, OK, we gave it a try.
Anyone interested in talking about this?  Anyone know any devs who might be interested?  I've read all the previous posts where people ask for co-founders and get ridiculed for "doing it wrong."  I'm looking for honest to goodness co-founders who'd get an appropriate share of the credit and equity.  I've found a bit of an opportunity but am unable to exploit it by myself. <comment><USER2> I love your very candid and honest way of explaining where you are and what you need.

Good luck with finding partners - hope you succeed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yeah, I don't know what else to do other than to lay out the situation and see what people make of it. I'm currently working away on another news- related start-up by myself...and the "by myself" part is proving just as troublesome as everyone says. An opportunity of some kind is there, I'd like to find a few people who want to take a crack at it with me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> why not just throw the idea out to the public instead of going through an email sharing process?

</comment><comment><USER4> This sounds really intriguing to me and I would love to get involved. Would you mind contacting me to talk more? My e-mail is drew -DOT- blas [AT] gmail

<comment><AUTHOR> just wrote you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i'd be potentially interested in talking/helping.

most people get ridiculed when asking for co-founders because the tone of their requests are "hi, this is my startup and i need a developer to flesh it out for me". an actual co-founder is not simply a code money sitting down and banging out someone else's idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just wrote you. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How about $1600 a month + 5% for 6 months instead? Sounds like that would be a better deal for both parties.

<comment><AUTHOR> max. If that's the way forward, then I'm open to an arrangement like that. My first concern with that though, is that it sounds like an employee, not a co- founder. I've been working on a project as a solo founder for about 5 months now, and not having anyone else to turn to when I'm out of gas is just brutal. My worry would be that an arrangment like this would create a hired gun mentality. I'm not looking for an employee to supervise. I'm looking for someone with skills that compliment my own to lean on as we explore an opportunity.

<comment><USER6> The problem you are facing is that if you find anyone, this person is not motivated by a burning passion for your idea, whatever it is, but for financial gain. You are partnering with someone who is motivated by money, but who does not have any ideas of his own. In my opinion, this is an inherently risky co-founder. What if a better opportunity comes along? What happens when times get tough?

You can only found a company with someone who either completely believes in the idea and who will stick with the idea when times get tough, or someone who is secure and will do the work, and hopes for a payout in the end, but for whom the payout is not important.

The middle-road - cofounding with someone who just cares about the financial aspect of it, is a very risky thing. You'll lose the person quickly.

In any case, you have an idea, and you have a concept. When you co-found with someone, who makes the final decision? What happens when there is a disagreement and the other guy decides to fork your project?

It's not that easy to co-found.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is very helpful, useful stuff. As I said, I'm open to discussing arrangements like this, whatever will make the most sense. Ideally I'd find someone who's also passionate about the project and not just potential payout, of course, but we'll see where things lead. Let me know if you're interested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So what is the idea?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah. If you're interested, I'd be happy to explain via e-mail.

<comment><USER8> I'm intrigued. Could you email me? Email in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see a URL only. Is there an e-mail on the page it leads to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please send inquiries directly to me. My e-mail is in my profile. Thanks for all your interest. It sounds like it might even be possible to pull a few minds together to bash this out pretty quickly and see if it'll fly or not.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd certainly like to hear more about it - can you contact me? Email address is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see it in there.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, I must have removed it - it's there now.

<comment><AUTHOR> e-mail = sent!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a former journalist I'd like to hear more. Please email me (profile).

<comment><AUTHOR> it's not in your profile.

<comment><USER10> Apologies. gnikides (-at-) yahoo DOT com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Curious to hear about it - email in profile. Cheers

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't see an e-mail there or on your blog. Feedvolley looks interesting!

<comment><USER11> Thanks, and sorry for the confusion - niryariv at gmail.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Im interested, losdosplebitos -at- gmail , thanks.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious. Could you email me? Email in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> E-mailed you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd like to hear about it. Email is in my profile.

<comment><USER15> I am interested as well. My email is haidut (-at-) gmail DOT com

thx

<comment><AUTHOR> just wrote you. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Curious, as always. My email is in my profile :)

<comment><AUTHOR> done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Please email me, address in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> done.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Cmd line parameters, env variables or config files? - <AUTHOR> What do you prefer and why? <comment><USER2> I think that this is a false opposition thing: they're all good, and you should have all of them.

Command-line parameters, especially single character ones, are a quick and easy way to request ad hoc changes of program behavior. They're also common across many utilities, so you can expect that -d to display debugging output, and -h to be a hostname, -p to be a port number, -n to do a dry-run, etc.

Configuration files are good for persistent, per-program settings. If you always want altered behavior, a configuration file is easier than constantly adding command-line options. Note that this implies that command-line options should override configuration file options, and that a --no-foo variant can be useful.

Environment variables are good for long-term, multi-program configurations: EDITOR, DISPLAY, LANG, PAGER, TERM, etc. It can be good to have these available as command-line options (eg. -display, for Xt-based apps), but generally it's ok to override them with env FOO=bar program. Also of note: container orchestration systems are generally able to set environment variables, but might not be able to create (and later remove) a configuration file.

So ... it's often not the case that _every_ program option should have all three means of control, but most programs should use all three mechanisms, depending on what type of optional behavior is being controlled.

<comment><USER3> > Environment variables are good for long-term, multi-program configurations

Not just that. They're also useful for when a program is called by another program and you want to control something about its invocation without having to modify the source code of that other program each time.

For example, I might use a different value for LESS when calling man than when calling git.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In order of preference:

1) Command line parameters, particularly when an application is using getopt() or getopt_long(). Among other things, they make it easier to test and debug an application. For example, daemonization and sandboxing should be controllable from the command-line, assuming the application has such logic. That said, use of nonstandard option syntax in the Go community, for example, is maddening.

2) Environment variables. Personally I usually support environment variables which mirror command lines option. For example, FOO_B or FOO_BAR might be equivalent to specifying a -b or --bar command line option.

3) Configuration file. But please don't make it necessary if at all possible.

If I'm writing an application supporting all 3, then the above ordering is also the precedence ordering. A command line option overrides an environment variable which overrides a configuration file setting.

Command line options are constraining because of the flat namespace and because they become unwieldy in large numbers. But that's a good thing. They force you to think critically about semantics and default behaviors, and to make meaningful choices.

Simple key-value configuration files, like JSON or YAML, are IMO the worst choice of all. They just become dumping grounds. If you're going to support a configuration file format, use an expressive, declarative syntax. An HN poster the other day said that systemd's ini file format was declarative. No, it's not! The abstract configuration of systemd is declarative, but systemd's configuration _syntax_ is anything but. Devising an expressive syntax and structure is difficult, but that's the point. It's a way to examine and reexamine your application behavior without ever writing a single line of code. As far as parsing the configuration file, most high-level languages have good PEG libraries which make it easy to write parsers for ad hoc grammars. For C if you're not comfortable using the classic yacc framework then maybe that's a strong hint to avoid a configuration file altogether.

</comment><comment><USER5> For functions or secrets? For secrets, ephemeral cache files in a ram disk that set variables with proper posix permissions that only allow root and the application to read. The file should be removed when no longer required.

Why? Avoid leaving secrets on a hard drive. Cache them in case our secret store is not reachable. Avoid logging secrets in auditd by keeping them out of arguments.

</comment><comment><USER6> All three, check out the Viper/Cobra packages for Golang</comment>


Attractive women who attach photos to resumes are less likely to get interviews - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/04/04/girl-on-girl-crime-too-pretty-costs-you-the-job/ <comment><USER2> There's a complication with this study, which is that it seems really weird in the first place to attach a photo to a resume. (Maybe this is different in Israel -- anyone?) A photo is out of the ordinary and prompts people to think up an explanation for it. One possible explanation HR staff and potential interviewers might come up with is that the person relies on their looks as a career asset. That assumption is easier made about women than about men because it better fits gender stereotypes, which could account for the discrepancy without bringing the gender of the HR workers into the explanation.

(A picture of an unattractive person would not provoke suspicion that the person expects to get by on their sex appeal instead of their performance, so "plain" women and men would not be stigmatized for attaching a picture.)

Because attaching a picture prompts the recipient to wonder why, and possibly to make different assumptions about the applicant based on the explanation they come up with, I think the situation is too complicated for it to be possible to draw conclusions from the results. I don't disagree with the researchers' explanation, though. Even when we try to be fair, the idea of an attractive person getting by on their looks is more viscerally offensive, and threatening, when the person is of the same sex. Men might think it's lame and shitty if a woman relies on her looks, but if a man is rising in the office by charming and chatting up female managers, it goes beyond "lame" and becomes a personal threat. Ditto for women. Both sexes "appreciate" sex appeal as part of a charming personality when it appeals to us and stigmatize it as dangerous when it competes with us.

<comment><USER3> The cited Economist article (which this article all but photocopies) says the study took place where it's supposedly the norm.

<http://www.economist.com/node/21551535> "...when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia."

That it's still the norm in Europe is news to me! Certainly not in the UK.

Of course, limiting geography means you're just as likely to be studying culture differences as the underlying topic.

<comment><USER2> Wow... I can't think of any reason for the practice except to facilitate discrimination on the basis of looks. Assuming it has been attacked on that basis, I wonder what the justification for continuing it is.

P.S. Apparently I trust HN too much to give me the best article about the topic. The article in The Economist would have been a much better submission.

<comment> why-el I know that in Morocco for instance, a potential employer would wanna know if a woman puts the veil (not niqab, veil only covers the hair) or not, eventually preferring women who don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of a friend from college. She's now an astrophysicist. It seemed to me she had some trouble being taken seriously, because she was drop-dead gorgeous. Demure girl next door looks with a body that was swimsuit model material. (Even sans airbrushing)

I think some people saw her, learned what her major was, then concluded it was too good to be true. Also, it was hard for a lot of guys to think with 100% efficiency in her presence.

<comment><USER5> > ... Also, it was hard for a lot of guys to think with 100% efficiency in her > presence.

I wish people thought more highly of men. I think that this kind of sentiment is inexcusable in the workplace. We're (mostly) all adults here. People are perfectly capable of working around attractive people.

<comment><USER6> Actually, there are studies[1] showing the opposite: it's difficult for men to think straight when around attractive women.

[1] for example: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109001164)

<comment><USER7> That's equivalent to citing studies showing that women are indeed weaker when it comes to math or computer programming.

The counter argument then is that it is _because_ of society that they are weaker. The same could be argued here: it is _because_ of society's conditioning of men that they can't think straight when around attractive women.

<comment><USER8> There are differences between males and females in pretty much every species on earth, I don't think you can ascribe "society" to every gender. As a man, natural instincts to flirt with the attractive women can get you a sexual harassment charge - when women do it to attractive men it's fine with everyone. Some part of the man's brain is going towards stopping his natural instincts which can lower work performance.

<comment><USER9> I think you are mistaken to think that being a man, in itself, is what causes flirting behavior to be hit with a sexual harassment complaint. The greater factor is that the man in the equation is likely to be the one in power, and thus the woman has a reason to feel threatened if she rebuffs him.

<comment><USER4> To be fair, that's quite subtle. Power relationships are often invisible and masquerading as something "light." It's easier to understand if you've been on the short end of the stick a bunch of times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The researchers' unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old- > fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates.

I could believe that women tend to discriminate subconsciously against unattractive women; though I don't think the reverse finding would have surprised me either. But did the study actually show that men don't discriminate against attractive women?

edit: the paper is here, it seems to be open access: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705244>

From skimming through, it looks like they don't compare whether the hirer is male or female. But

* Employment agencies prefer no-photos, but don't discriminate between attractive and plain women.

* Companies hiring for themselves don't discriminate between no-photos and plain women, but discriminate against attractive women.

Which is evidence in favour of jealousy: the people who won't work with them don't feel threatened. The paper is considerably more thorough than this though.

<comment><USER11> Alternative theory:

I don't know many people who attach a photo to a resume. So if I see a photo on your resume, and you are attractive, I'm probably going to feel like you _know_ you are attractive and are trying to win points with your attractiveness, which will _cost_ you points in my book.

<comment><USER10> Apparently both with-photo and without-photo are common in Israel, where the study was conducted.

If that theory was true, I would expect attractive males and attractive females both to be discriminated against.

<comment><USER11> Possibly, although most guys don't seem to be particularly in tune with which other guys are attractive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here is a link to the actual article: <http://www.economist.com/node/21551535>

</comment><comment><USER13> Please submit the original Economist article.

Forbes has this habit of taking other people's articles and slapping ads on them. They're robbing original authors of eye balls.

<http://www.economist.com/node/21551535>

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm guessing that it's the same for men (when viewed by other men).

I've recently started applying around using both my linkedin account and also a text version of my resume. Since linkedin is nice enough to show me who has looked at my profile recently, I often see which companies and which person has looked. Because I'm a programmer, often it's a guy reviewing my profile.

I don't have enough data points to be conclusive, but it's looking like I get better results from my text resume (that is, the companies that don't show up as having viewed my linkedin). I was starting to wonder if the photo on my linkedin was turning people away, since the content was generally the same.

</comment><comment><USER15> Attach photos to a resume? Is this a common thing to do in the US?

<comment><USER16> It's never done in the United States.

It's rather common apparently in Europe though, even expected in some countries, like Germany.

On the subject of "crazy things about job-hunting in Europe," I recently learned that in France, it's expected that you hand-write your cover letter, and HR departments employ people who supposedly can figure out a person's personality and work ethic based on their handwriting.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it necessary to be a CS major be successful in the tech sector? - <AUTHOR> Tell me HN, what are your thoughts on this? Do you believe it's absolutely necessary to be a CS major to be competitive in the technology world?<p>Can the same result happen for someone who isn't a CS major but goes through all the hoops to teach themselves? <comment><USER2> I am not saying that a CS degree is necessary or necessarily better, but I believe it is a categorical mistake to treat the experience gained obtaining a formal CS education with the experience gained teaching oneself...if only for no other reason than that a student, by definition is less able to distinguish among the hoops and accurately separate them into useless, useful, important and critical.

The features of a formal education include guaranteed access to experts [for some definition of 'expert'] and a proven set of priorities [for some definition of 'proven']. The downside is less potential breadth since standardized systems are standardized.

The real question is what does 'make it' mean? For some people the piece of paper matters. It's a goal with social and personal significance and there is nothing wrong with that. If 'make it' is tied to wealth...well it's easier if you were smart enough to pick rich parents.

In the end it depends on what you want. And in any event, while a CS degree won't necessarily make anyone good [for some definition of 'good'] it may open opportunities and if they are good a CS degree will probably make them better, and almost certainly not make them worse.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your input. Adding to what you've said, I've read and heard on some occasions (from professionals in my sector) that taking some CS classes as electives was beneficial and wasn't too overwhelming.

<comment><USER2> You're welcome. Many years ago, I "just got the piece of paper to hang on the wall," Amost as many years ago, I got another piece of paper that hangs on the wall as a credential - not in CS and in a field where credentials have legal standing in the pursuit of other non-academic pieces of paper to hang on the wall. Which is a way of getting to the core decision that you face. What is the value to you personally of the piece of paper that you can hang on your wall?

It doesn't really matter much how much I value a diploma, unless I a hiring manager and you are a candidate and that's the typical case. Diplomas are meaningful culturally. If you already have a piece of paper to hang on the wall your calculus may be different than if you don't. That's ok either way.

If you have a diploma, then Coursera's MOOC's are a middle option. There is the formality, at least in some offerings, of a fixed course schedule and consequently a peer cohort and clear instructor student relationships. And it offers some excellent courses by excellent CS teachers. But it's not going to get you academic credit if you might really want a degree at some point.

I've taken a bunch of them and gotten a lot out of it [I've also dropped a lot of courses when I haven't]. But my situation is my situation - that's why I described it - and not your situation. Or YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am a self taught programmer, and I am now director of engineering at a tech startup. I think CS has its place, but just like music, some of the best musicians and producers have not studied music theory formally. There is not a day that goes by that I am not learning something new about programming or technology (which should also be true of CS majors), so keep that in mind, learning doesn't end at graduation.

</comment><comment> lloyd-christmas The tech sector is a big place. There are countless people who haven't programmed anything in their life and are successful. Assuming you mean in a programming role... I wasn't a CS major and am successful. Continuing education is a necessity, and I'm always going back and learning things I may have missed not having been a CS major. That being said, "CS" aren't magical letters that open doors to the golden kingdom. I know plenty of dumb-as-rocks CS majors. Most success tends to boil down to the human element.

</comment><comment><USER4> > goes through all the hoops to teach themselves

The average course is 50 hours a week in class, plus 150 hours a week studying, meaning 200 hours total. So to repeat what I did, you would have to spend 200 hours studying graph theory, then 200 hours studying data structures such as trees and graphs, then 200 hours studying algorithms that operate on data structures as well as big O notation, then 400 hours studying calculus, then 200 hours studying discrete math, then 200 hours studying theory of computation, then 200 hours studying logic gates, ALUs and assembly language, then 200 hours studying mutual exclusion and critical sections, then 200 hours studying floating point numbers and data representation, and so on.

In my experience, it is quite rare to find a self-taught person who can explain what deterministic pushdown automata are, or what the elements of mu- recursive functions are, or how to find a function maxima with Lagrange multipliers, or how you can prove a problem is NP-complete through reductions. They might even have problems explaining exactly what the relation in a relational database is.

Usually self-taught people go straight to trying to learn Ruby or PHP or something. Their knowledge of CS is not very deep. There are exceptions, John Carmack has a better knowledge of C++, programming techniques, computer graphics and other areas then the average BSCS graduate. But he is very honest and open about what he knows and does not know, and what topics he is getting around to now.

One time I had lists of numbers (like "1 7 3 0 2 4 6" or "8 3 5 2 0 1") and had to make a hash of them. I suddenly thought, why not just turn the lists into Goedel numbers? I then did a Google search and saw other people had used Goedel numbers for hashes in similar situations. How many of those people were self-taught? Probably very few.

<comment><USER5> Is there a point to this other than telling us how amazing you are because you know some facts? As a self taught programmer there's probably just as many things that I can do that you can't. And how would you rectify your lack of knowledge in those areas? That's right, go and find out for yourself. The amount of hours you list are meaningless also (there are only 168 hours in a week by the way); self taught programmers have spent more time on the areas they're interested in. Not everyone who's self taught started by bashing out web-apps in Ruby and you do us all a disservice by tarring.

At the end of the day you learned some facts in a structured setting. It is entirely possible in a non-structured setting. The beauty of self-tuition is you take it as you need it, and you dig deeper when you find an interest. It is true that self-tuition as part of your job doesn't always allow one to delve as deep into a subject as one would like, however the best self-taught programmers are self-taught in their own time.

To answer the original question: No, you don't need a CS credential to be successful in the tech sector. I'm a CTO of a successful medical software house, I've developed my own databases, distributed systems, languages, frameworks etc. I'm a polyglot, knowing high and low level languages (as well as many assembly languages). Before that I worked in the games industry where I developed high-performance 3D graphics engines, animation systems and physics engines. And yes, I can read The Art of Computer Programming[1] and understand it. All without a math or CS degree. I have never had a problem finding work, and often when I have looked for work in the past I've been inundated with offers.

As a CTO when I receive CVs the education section is almost irrelevant to me. It's a useful guide, but it has very little bearing on whether I bring someone in for an interview.

I have worked with many graduates over the years, and they're mostly useless when they join the world of work (unless they'd spent their childhood self- tutoring). There's clearly benefits to the academic knowledge, but mostly you won't even need it. It's only when you start to dig a bit more that missing knowledge pops up. Then you just go and learn it.

However, if you've not learned how to learn then a formal education may be the best choice. When I had the opportunity to go to university I turned it down because I was sick of the stifling educational environment up until that point, but by that point I'd already been teaching myself to code and everything about computers from the age of 10.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> You make some interesting points and I appreciate that you weigh out different aspects. The things that you mention are very inspiring to me. Everything that you've accomplished makes me want to work harder than ever. Is there a way I could reach out to you privately to ask you some questions if you don't mind?

<comment><USER5> Yes, i'd be happy to help as I can. Although take my advice with as big a pinch of salt as any opinion on here. No-one really knows the right way to do this properly. We're all shaped by our experience in this, still young, industry.

Feel free to drop me an email: plouth at gmail.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It depends on what you want to do. The "technology world" is a big place. If you're going into biotech, for example, you can do just as well with a BS in Biology or Genetics and taking a few programming courses to give you an edge when it comes to areas that are using computers heavily (like Bioinformatics). The same goes for Physical Sciences, or Mathematics/Econ or even Geography.

Most CS Degrees cover:

1\. Basic and Advanced Programming 2\. Design of Computer Systems (both hardware and software) 3\. Design of Operating Systems 4\. Theory of Computing (so Algorithms and Data Structures) 5\. Other special topics like Networking, AI, Expert Systems, Bioinformatics, etc.

These topics are important for some jobs, and people who excel in some of the advanced areas (and often go on for an MS) can make mega bucks. However, a programmer designing a corporate website or other CRUD system probably won't need/use half of the stuff they learned in their degree, and would likely earn less than someone who excelled in another engineering/science degree that also picked up some programming knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Absolutely necessary"? No, of course not.

I would say that, for most people, the best approach includes a degree. Probably a CS degree; mathematics or other engineering disciplines may work as well. That will change somewhat the kind of exploration you need to be doing outside of class. Any which way, you need to be doing quite a bit of exploration outside of class.

</comment><comment><USER8> I personally have and greatly appreciate my CS degree. I don't know if anyone else on my team has a CS degree and I largely don't care. It is not a requirement to do the job of software developer and lots of great software developers do not have CS degrees.

That said, most of the really good software developers I know who do not have a CS degree, at some point in there career wished they did. Whether those wishes are worth the investment is hard to say.

My biggest question is why not get a CS degree? If it is a question of resource allocation, then I completely understand. If it is a question of lack of interest, that would be a red flag to me, either of the institution you are studying at or of your own motivations. But that could just be my bias because I found CS fascinating.

<comment><USER9> I agree with your "Why not?" point. If you are already in college and plan to do 4 years, you might as well get a cs degree. For me it was too late to switch majors when I found out how much I loved programming. And it really wasn't worth it to do a 5th year. But I did take as many courses as I could before I graduated.

<comment> lloyd-christmas "why not" comes down to time. There are things I enjoy more than programming. Most of these things I know I wouldn't be successful enough at in a professional sense. I might as well spend that magical time in college where nothing actually matters to pursue some other passions.

<comment><USER8> Nothing wrong with that reasoning at all. That said, studying both should be an option.

And you might consider those other things as a profession anyway. The magical time after college lasts a lot longer and being stuck doing something you don't like sounds terrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You don't need a CS degree to be successful but it'll be a lot easier to get in the door.

Most top-tier tech companies (google, fb, twitter, etc.) won't even interview a non-cs candidate for an engineering or product role unless they have incredible (like, you built instagram) evidence of their talent.

It's also a lot harder to skip the degree and still learn what you need. I did, and it's taken me 10+ years of constant curiosity (and tons of nights and weekends) to be on par with my peers who have degrees.

That all said. You gain other skills with a liberal arts or science degree that CS majors don't get. I'm a much better communicator and manager than many of my engineering colleagues, and that has allowed me to outpace them in terms of career growth.

</comment><comment><USER11> I studied math & physics - never took a CS class. I have made my way to a lead frontend engineer position in under 2 1/2 years, and I am courted by many companies. For me, the ability to solve problems quickly without oversight has proven to be valuable. It took a lot of hard work to get to that point, but I am absolutely of the opinion that a CS degree is not necessary. In fact, I once roomed with one who apparently couldn't find a job coding for a living & was not particularly intelligent.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just another data point, but you've already gotten your answer i think.

Some of the best guys I've seen have majors in fields similar to x's - physics, ee, maths. I've hired and worked with people from majors in law, sociology and psychology, to name but a few. Some of the best (and most interesting) guys I've worked with.

The difficulty will be the "first job", but if you're skilled then you'll be fine. Teaching oneself is no meagre feat however!

</comment><comment><USER9> Honestly it comes down to motivation. Whether or not you get a cs degree you have to super motivated and hard working to achieve greatness.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. What you've said can be applied to anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I self taught myself before college and then used a CS degree to force me to study things I never would have. It tended to round me out better in areas where a self taught might avoid. For example, optimization, refactoring, underlying OS implementation, architectures, etc. No way on earth would I have diligently taught myself those for months on end.

<comment><USER5> I think this just shows how 'fluffy' the advice here is. As a self taught programmer starting with a computer that had a clock speed of 2MHz and 32k of RAM, I learned very early how to optimise, how to refactor and how OSs worked under the hood (as well as the underlying hardware). When I look at Big O notation, I always see the efficiency description of any algorithm as 'well, durr', because I just have a strong sense of whether something is going to run in fixed, linear, or exponential time.

So I feel the exact opposite of you: I would only have learned "optimization, refactoring, underlying OS implementation, architectures, etc." if I had the 'infinite' personal self-tuition time. I couldn't imagine learning any of that stuff in a class-room.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you're not. But clearly there's cognitive biases on both sides, which might not be very helpful to the OP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Eugene, I'm going to pass along advice that was given to me years ago. Do the hard thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been hearing hints of this for some time now. Doing the hard things in life can open new doors as an individual, or steer you into the right direction for something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The majority of people I know who have successful careers in technology couldn't write fizzbuzz. (That's why they pay people like me).

When did "technology" stop meaning machines, electronics, chemicals etc. and start meaning websites?

</comment><comment><USER16> No; you can learn anything on your own online, but it's easier through the structure from school. If you're paying for school yourself, however, you'll be in a much better financial position learning cs on your own.

</comment><comment><USER17> It helps, but not necessary. Most of the awesome coders I know, didn't study CS - they learnt by themselves.

</comment><comment><USER18> no, but it makes starting easier. you have no track record to prove yourself (unless, of course, you do) so having a good education is sort of your entry ticket.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you don't get a CS degree you'll be at a disadvantage when you're lined up adjacent to other potential hires that do have CS degrees.

</comment><comment><USER20> Nope.

Source: theatre major, masters in education

</comment><comment><USER21> Disclaimer: I am "self-taught". I have a degree in logic and rational reasoning (a philosophy at most universities) and I went to (and drop out of) law school. A bit of background for you.

Is it necessary to be a CS major to be successful? Simply, no. Does it help? Yes. You see many people ask this question because they want to know if they can start working right now and make money and skip all of the hassle, time, and expense of going to a school and majoring in CS. In order to be competitive and get the positions you want and make the money you'd like, you are going to have to learn CS. One of the better ways to start (more on the start in a moment) is to go to a University with a good CS program and learn. You'll also get a number of other soft skills that will stick with you for the rest of your life.

If you aren't going to get a CS degree you will still have to study all of those aspects to CS in order to be competitive at an advanced level. I have met other "self-taught engineers" who can handle CRUD operations pretty well and who can make a pretty front end with a little bit of framework help, but when it comes to things like traversing a simple binary tree structure or explaining memory management techniques or even just explaining a simple FILO stack, they can't handle it let alone make one work for a specific scenario. You're going to have to learn those eventually, a CS program will give you a lot of that knowledge and it is useful!

Early I mentioned it's a good start. I have been working professionally since the mid-90's as an engineer. A lot has changed in 20 years. Now, a number of the concepts that I mention before have not (FILO stack's are FILO stack's, after all). But CS and engineering is a constant learning experience. New techniques and technologies come out every single day. I would argue that a CS degree teaches you how to learn as well. And you are going to be learning for a long time to keep up and keep your competitive advantage.

Final thoughts: College is fun! Sure it is stressful at times and somewhat expensive. But it's a good time! You can keep those relationships for a lifetime and they will also give you a competitive advantage.

A CS degree is not enough! Work on real projects while you are learning. Get internships or junior spots and work. Those are fun too! They will help you. Enjoy this time in life.

If you like the idea of going to school but you aren't sure about CS, think about what you really want to do and do that! I thought I wanted to be a lawyer (in hind sight, this was an absolutely horrible thought, but I digress). I still had fun in school. I took a long, winding road to get to my successful development career, and I don't regret it at all. But don't believe CS is the only way. But you do have to pick a way. There are no short cuts to success.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing your great advice! I truly appreciate it. I'm currently in an intern position with a software company. Working here opened this whole topic for me.

I was contemplating whether or not I was making the right choices for my education. Sure, everyone's different when it comes to learning and choosing their paths. I just want to make sure I won't regret my decisions. Again, that being said, there are pros and cons for these types of situations, but that's besides the point.

I originally plan on majoring in the businesses field, while minoring in something to do with computers(CS, Eng, etc.) Ultimately, I want to create tools for people to use, make them pleasant to look at, all while contributing to something I could be proud of. Luckily, I have a little bit of time ahead of me to really think about my options to send me into my future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's the path of least resistance.

</comment><comment><USER23> No

</comment><comment><USER24> er</comment>


Ask HN: Is it possible to work remotely (outside US) for a startup in SF? - <AUTHOR>

Background.
I am a compsci student from germany and i would like to work remotely for a silicon valley based company.
Is it even possible ? How would i get the job ? <comment><USER2> Have you seen the "who's hiring" threads that are automatically created here on the first of each month? Some of the jobs posted there are remote.

For freelancers:

 _Ask HN: Freelancer? Seeking freelancer? (July 2015)_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9812246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9812246)

For permanent positions:

 _Ask HN: Who is hiring? (July 2015)_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9812245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9812245)

 _Ask HN: Who wants to be hired? (July 2015)_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9812247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9812247)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes. Such jobs exists but are harder to get.

First reason they are harder to get is that only a small portion of companies allows remote work.

Second reason is that out of those that allow remote work, even less allow remote work from other countries due to more complicated tax reporting and other employment issues.

How to get such job? The best (but not easy) way is to be exceptional enough that companies will want to hire you despite additional complexities.

Other than that, start with [https://www.google.com/search?q=remote+jobs](https://www.google.com/search?q=remote+jobs)

Find companies that are known to allow remote work and target them by learning the skills that they value.

Many such companies have open-source projects so you can make yourself known by doing meaningful contributions - I'm sure that would help a lot when applying for a job.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there, thanks for your answer, but this doesn't help me at all. 0 Company names. 0 practical tipps. I didn't gain any new insight from your post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/telecommute/](http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/telecommute/)

I will post more soon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. That was very helpfull !</comment></comment>


A Modern Alternative to Visual Basic - <AUTHOR> http://blog.xojo.com/2013/06/19/a_great_alternative_to_visual_basic/ <comment><AUTHOR> The iOS QuickStart has a good overview with screenshots. [http://developer.xojo.com/ios-quickstart](http://developer.xojo.com/ios- quickstart)

</comment><comment><USER2> Adding screenshots would help see what xojo can do without the mental and physical effort of creating an account.</comment>


Elon Musk: AI potentially more dangerous than nukes - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/495759307346952192 <comment><USER2> Nick Bostrom has talked about some of the issues around attempting to control super intelligent AIs, and the closely related issue of how to determine if we are AIs inside a virtual environment (closely related because containment is one approach to controlling AIs that we don't understand)

[http://www.techthefuture.com/technology/can-we-control- super...](http://www.techthefuture.com/technology/can-we-control-superior- artificial-intelligence/)

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

</comment><comment><USER3> We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run. Elon Musk is surely right in saying that AI could be more dangerous than nukes. With the advancement in Machine Learning techniques we are moving to that point.

</comment><comment><USER4> Elon Musk is over rated. He's just repeating what we already know.</comment>


How to Use Varnish Cache as Secured AWS S3 Gateway - <AUTHOR> http://info.varnish-software.com/blog/using-varnish-cache-secured-aws-s3-gateway <comment><USER2> I don't really buy this article. They claim you get "caching, more efficient bandwidth utilization, centralized access with logging and security." S3 gives you caching already. I fail to see how your bandwidth utilization improves, if anything you've introduced another hop (depending where you're hosting Varnish). Centralized access? I guess, if you're already using Varnish for other things, but if you're at the point that you need Varnish, you probably are aggregating multiple log sources already. Security? You're just adding another possible exploitation layer. And on top of that you've just added another box to maintain.

Not to rag on Varnish, I love it, I just don't really see this use case. Personally, I would never route plain S3 data through Varnish.

<comment><USER3> So I wrote that blog post, was intended to be a quick little guide for S3 integration. As for your point regarding caching and bandwidth utilization, this actually comes up a bit, so its a fairly valid point. A lot of times software (and people) are accessing the same S3 asset, multiple times, all on the same network. So by going thru a local cache, you bypass having to reach all the way back to S3.

<comment><USER4> Lame of you not to link my post from yesterday about putting nginx in front of s3. This post seems clearly to be in response to mine.

[http://charlesleifer.com/blog/nginx-a-caching- thumbnailing-r...](http://charlesleifer.com/blog/nginx-a-caching-thumbnailing- reverse-proxying-image-server-/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We had a similar desire: secure, performant egress from S3. We ended up using CloudFront. You can configure cloudfront with signed URLs, that will access private buckets with a special S3 user ([http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Developer...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/PrivateContent.html)). Any app that holds the private key can sign URLs to download from CloudFront.

It works great, but it really bugs me that we had to do that. The default download speeds from our buckets on S3 are atrocious. We store big datafiles in S3, and our development flow involves downloading them lot. If Amazon had an upgrade to S3 so downloads by chosen users weren't throttled or slow, we'd pay for it in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER6> That's really neat that you can do the authentication/authorization headers within Varnish.

I'd still use CloudFront instead, which gives you these features plus the advantage of having global edge servers, and support for TLS/SSL (not sure about the http/2 part).

Although the one advantage this has is the cache can stop you from having to leave your external network to return a file (vs going to CloudFront or S3). That can be useful.

Another commenter pointed out that Varnish won't support TLS either, which is correct. The funny part about that is while they have long had the "why not SSL?" FAQ page espousing the terribleness of OpenSSL, they DO offer that feature on their paid product Varnish Plus. That not being a basic feature is a tad crazy.

[1] Why no ssl? [https://www.varnish- cache.org/docs/4.1/phk/ssl.html](https://www.varnish- cache.org/docs/4.1/phk/ssl.html)

[2] [http://info.varnish-software.com/blog/how-implement- ssltls-v...](http://info.varnish-software.com/blog/how-implement-ssltls- varnish-plus)

</comment><comment><USER7> I wrote something similar for FB API access while I was at my last job, but with zero caching.

This combined Varnish+Stunnel so that the varnish would redo keep-alives & stunnel could put it back over SSL.

So there was a web-app (PHP) -> varnish:8081 (cheap-alive) -> stunnel:8080 (reverse ssl) -> api.fb:443.

VCL makes Varnish much more of a programming language than a configuration system - but in total, skipping SSL negotiation in the PHP web-app and holding onto sessions via stunnel got APIs down from the 800ms -> 240ms range.

</comment><comment><USER8> No TLS and their stubborn refusal to even _acknowledge_ HTTP2 makes this of very limited usefulness.

<comment><USER2> If anything, you're just adding a layer that removes features that S3 gives you....cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Per the comment below using Cloudfront for "secure, performant egress from S3", are there any other solutions that immediately come to mind? Working in Shanghai and AWS Beijing doesn't have Cloudfront as a service; separately, everything has to be kept in-country due to regulatory reasons. Ultimately I am looking for non-expiring links to password protected private folders (low volume) to serve to clients which I believe don't exist. A little out of my element SysOps wise; using the excellent SteveLTN https-portal docker image found on GH wrapped around JWilder's Nginx-proxy with some Flask, Mongodb, Redis thrown in the mix (hopefully someday soon). TIA.

</comment><comment><USER10> This thing that's really challenging about Varnish and AWS is that AWS typically uses CNAMEs and not IPs, whereas Varnish binds domain names on startup. This means you'll have trouble trying to setup a Varnish cache in front of an LB.

<comment><USER3> Starting with Varnish Cache 4.1, backends are dynamic and configurable from VMODs. This means proper DNS support for backends. There is already a DNS backend implementation here [0].

[0] [https://github.com/Dridi/libvmod-named](https://github.com/Dridi/libvmod- named)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this is mostly a solution without a problem. Just to hit a few points --S3 might (and I'm not sure I agree) be expensive. However, it gives you HA and multiple copies of your files on the backend for safety. If you're serving a lot of images, owning that hardware can be very costly. Also, when cloudfront was tested the results were pretty good. Easy to implement, not much more expensive than S3 alone. Our EC2 costs dwarf S3, and our site is very image heavy.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can you extend the post a bit more with information about cache size, eviction policy, purging assets?

</comment><comment><USER13> Is it possible to do the back end connection to S3 securely instead of over insecure HTTP?

</comment><comment><USER14> This is an unfortunate title for this post. AWS released API Gateway sometime last year, and this makes it sound like a caching layer behind API Gateway, to access S3 files.</comment>


Online legal publishers squabble over the right to copyright the law - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/online-legal-publishers-squabble-over-the-right-to-copyright-the-law/ <comment><USER2> I'd like to see the law in a git repository or equivalent. Then people/lawmakers could vote to apply a patch (bill) to the law.

<comment><USER3> I've seen something like this suggested before, something like github for the law - lawhub but with a nice user friendly UI, be interesting to see the stuff evolve over and time and who was making the edits ;).

[https://draftin.com/](https://draftin.com/) has a lovely UI I like a great deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anyone else find it ironic that access to the law is so difficult yet every adult citizen is expected to know every single law that applies at any time in any location in the US and all possible interpretations, case law history, precedents, rulings, etc in history. And that's just to stay out of jail?

<comment><USER5> _" Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age of beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one 'makes' them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."_

\--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

For a modern improvement on this, look up anarcho-tyranny.

<comment><USER6> I always loved that part of the book. I think it's a perfect explanation/application for another quote.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus

<comment><USER5> Not surprisingly not a recent thing.

I consider myself to be very lucky to have taken Latin in high school and then and after studying Roman history (and much more nowadays), today's events don't surprise me hardly as much as they might.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Taking a step back, and putting aside copyright, which is a no brainier, providing access to the law is not free, most courts charge to access copies, directly, or indirectly. Best solution would likely be to have three non- profits take compete to provide access; otherwise you end up with situations like this were the states outsource access it an attempt to reduce costs and make money too.

<comment><USER8> > Taking a step back, and putting aside copyright, which is a no brainier, > providing access to the law is not free

Neither are lots of the essential functions of organized society. OTOH, universal access to a complete and accurate account of the law is arguably is an essential element of government of, by, and for the people.

> Best solution would likely be to have three non-profits take compete to > provide access; otherwise you end up with situations like this were the > states outsource access it an attempt to reduce costs and make money too.

I don't know that that's the "best solution"; a national rule that no government act has the force of law until and unless published in an official, universally and freely accessible, public domain, repository of the law meeting defined standards that include provisions relating to functionality and exportabilitym would not prevent states from outsourcing the work of providing the online repository, but would prevent it from being put behind a copyright wall preventing free use, and would prevent technical barriers from being erected to effective use in order to advance commercial interests, and would prevent it from being a way to make money rather than a way to provide free and equal access to the most fundamental information about government -- what their official, binding decrees are.

<comment><USER7> Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but simple putting something online is not providing access nor for that matter is it free, since taxes pay for it. Beyond that, huge, and often the most meaningful legal information is not pulled from the written laws, but case law that's resulted from past cases. More to the point, legal system as it is now has no responsibility to provided legal advice and clearly looks down on those who represent themselves. Beyond that, most law is not in Plain English, and as a result, not accessible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In the US at least, laws are created by government employees and their work is paid for with taxpayer dollard.

Therefore, their work is paet of the public domain and can't be copyrighted or licensed. Period.

It's the law...

If somebody is claiming copyright to public works and/or limiting access for money, they should be publicly shamed out of existence.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just put this country out of its misery. Why do we have to live with all this rent seeking bullshit?

</comment><comment><USER11> Wasn't there a court case over patenting a tax-loophole, where it was rejected because it prevented people from equal protection under the law?</comment>