Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/29/your-iphone-just-got-a-lot-less-secure-and-the-fbi-is-to-blame/ <comment><USER2> The FBI's refusal to detail the flaw will just add to the pile of miscommunications between technologists and the government. That hurts the government's ability to advance their own technological capabilities and understanding. Every day, they're getting better at shooting themselves in the foot and widening that communication gap.

I see nobody out there capable of bridging it. Not Tim Cook, not the EFF, not Obama, and certainly not the DOJ.

Bruce Schneier's previous coverage from 2015-07 [1] is what first got me interested and up to speed in the recent SB case. Even if Apple isn't demanding the FBI's method at this moment, I respect what Bruce has to say here.

[1] [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/07/back_doors_wo...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/07/back_doors_wont.html)

<comment><USER3> I agree with you, and I think this will eventually lead to a world where governments are unable to exert meaningful influence on large corporations. We're already starting to get there; I have a feeling that if the supreme court had forced Apple to write a custom version of iOS that things could have gotten really messy very quickly -- there were rumors that Apple's entire iOS engineering team was ready to resign if the case went the wrong way. It's plausible to see a scenario where Apple says "You know what? Fuck it, we're based in Ireland now."

Ultimately, I don't think governments are designed to deal with corporations that make as much money as a company like Apple does. These companies are the size of governments -- if Apple decided it wanted to hire a bunch of mercenaries and take over a small country, it could probably do so (if it didn't mind getting embargoed by whoever was friendly to the country they took over).

I wouldn't be surprised to see corporate sovereignty become a big international issue in our lifetimes. International law is a huge grey area, and I expect companies to exploit that to their advantage to avoid enforcement actions by individual nations.

<comment><USER4> > Fuck it, we're based in Ireland now

Apple has an enormous investment in their design team in Cupertino. It would be an enormous impact to their product development capability to start over somewhere else.

It's not enough to say "HQ is over here bro," court orders still work in California. Then again this whole All Writs effort to "build me a tool to help my investigation" seems to break new ground. Maybe it wouldn't even be enough to pack up and move all R&D out of the US (e.g. injunction on US sales until the foreign Apple company complies).

<comment><USER2> > Maybe it wouldn't even be enough to pack up and move all R&D out of the US > (e.g. injunction on US sales until the foreign Apple company complies).

There are already state level bills proposing this in CA and NY [1]. Those bills would fine manufacturers $2,500 for every phone sold in those states that isn't capable of providing decrypted data. The language originally comes from a white paper by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance. Feinstein-Burr are working on a similar federal bill which was supposed to be released late last year, then this month [2]. It has obviously been delayed by the public's response to the SB Apple case.

[1] [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160122/06200833403/calif...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160122/06200833403/california- legislator-says-encryption-threatens-our-freedoms-calls-ban-encrypted-cell- phones.shtml)

[2] [http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning- cybersecurity/2016...](http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning- cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after- japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is awful reporting.

For weeks, the experts in security had been saying that FBI does _not_ in fact need Apple's help to get into that phone; that they are just posturing in order to obtain a back door.

This was posted on the ACLU website:

[https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major- claims-...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims- iphone-case-fraudulent)

 _The FBI can simply remove this chip from the circuit board ("desolder" it), connect it to a device capable of reading and writing NAND flash, and copy all of its data. It can then replace the chip, and start testing passcodes. If it turns out that the auto-erase feature is on, and the Effaceable Storage gets erased, they can remove the chip, copy the original information back in, and replace it. If they plan to do this many times, they can attach a "test socket" to the circuit board that makes it easy and fast to do this kind of chip swapping._

Maybe the FBI has a secret new exploit --- or maybe they just did the above method, getting the "third party" help with the desoldering and the attachment of a socket, and hardware for reading NAND.

It's just speculation.

Even if the FBI are exploiting some hole, that is better than them having a back door, which is essentially a security hole put in by design.

The article is speculating, and it's conflating security holes with back doors.

<comment><USER6> I don't know about anyone else, but the iPhones seem to be the focus of all the academics that do security research.

I'm always seeing X done to the iPhone.

Just these past few weeks I remember seeing a key extraction done via EM emitted from the phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Schneier has never had a strong intuition for how software vulnerabilities work. In the 2000s, he wrote articles in his newsletter blaming eEye (a security research firm then the home of Derek Soeder, Barnaby Jack, Ryan Permeh, and the like) for _publishing_ their vulnerability research. He is at turns anti-disclosure, pro-disclosure, and all points in between.

<comment><USER8> My understanding is that "disclosure" is a nuanced thing, time-wise: responsible disclosure is to mention the vulnerability to someone who can and is intent to fix it first, give them the time to write, test and send a patch, and then publish it. Publishing it earlier sound very unreasonable, especially before handing the details to the manufacturer.

I am not familiar with what Schneier said 15 years ago, though. He might have chastised someone for doing that; he might have changed his mind. If he hasn't in a decade and a half, I'd be shocked.

I realised this morning that 15 years ago, I was proud of using SAS, "the most powerful analytics software there [was]". I changed.

<comment><USER7> There is no such thing as "responsible disclosure". That's a term invented by vendors to coerce independent researchers into doing free work for them. Semantic drift has somewhat legitimized the term, but I think it's important we remember why it was conjured in the first place.

<comment><USER9> How would you call Google Project Zero's 90 day policy?

<comment><USER7> A decision they had every right to make for themselves, but that they have no right to impose on anyone else. I'm pretty sure Tavis Ormandy agrees with me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find this rather silly. iPhones didn't get less secure because the FBI used a known vulnerability to break into one. iPhones were that insecure all along, and the only thing that changed is that we now know it.

The article further states, "There's no such thing as a vulnerability that affects only one device." Except that I'm pretty sure that whatever attack the FBI used relied on the fact that the phone in question had a short passcode set. I'd bet dollars to donuts that whatever attack they used would _not_ work against my phone with a secure passphrase.

I'm usually a fan of Schneier, but I think he really missed with this one.

<comment><USER11> If phones are no less secure when the existence of a vulnerability is disclosed, why do we prefer security researchers to notify the manufacturer before disclosing the vulnerability?

And perhaps the vulnerability in question wouldn't work against your iPhone, but how many millions of iPhones still use a short passcode? This vulnerability could still affect all of those phones.

<comment><USER10> Disclosing vulnerabilities makes us more secure, that's why we want people to do it. That doesn't imply that failing to disclose them makes us _less_ secure. Not doing anything leaves us where we started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To be clear, the FBI isn't _compelling_ Apple to leave the vulnerability open, are they? My understanding is they simply found/were informed of a vulnerability that existed in this model of the phone, and are not informing Apple of it. If Apple themselves finds the vulnerability and patches it, the FBI can't do anything about it.

<comment><USER13> Correct. And to be fair, the FBI could have received the vulnerability from a foreign state that is also opposed to terrorism but did not want their identity or methods known.

ie they may have reasons for not disclosing the vulnerability, and it's a shame that there's so much mistrust of the government [caused by actions of the government] so that we can't assume the best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Without disclosure of the method used by the FBI, this sounds like nothing more than political posturing and a non-story. Apple is no longer able to fight the All Writs Act, and the FBI is no longer compelled to watch one of their favorite misuse-able laws get taken away.

</comment><comment><USER15> Schneier knows this, and this is a particularly idealistic op-ed, but this is just how the exploit market works and while it would be nice if law enforcement would take the white-hat road, the hazard here is still vastly better than some kind of legal precedent for requiring backdoors.

The good thing about the exploit market is that it is naturally self-limiting: you don't burn a zero-day on a dragnet; you limit its use to high-value (and ideally court-sanctioned) targets.

<comment><USER16> There's a bit of irony to this, too. If Apple had been more cooperative earlier, law enforcement probably would've taken the white hat approach. Apple protected users from the FBI, but is now potentially unable to protect them from organised crime.

<comment><USER17> There is absolutely no proof of that. What they where asking for was keys to every lock in the world. It would have given them unprecedented power to do whatever they wanted. Apple did the right thing. Users should always come first especially when privacy is at stake.

<comment><USER18> They were willing to hand over the phone to Apple and allow all work to take place on Apple premises. How does that affect other phones?

<comment><USER19> So have you not heard that this would set a legal precedent? Apple would get pestered until they finally create an automatic gateway for turn key security breaking, not unlike the wiretap portals setup by telecoms - or the frequently abused youtube DMCA mechanisms.

<comment><USER18> It only sets a precedent that they can give phones to Apple and have them unlock them, as long as it's possible for them to do so. If Apple decides to build a general backdoor and hand it to the government that's entirely their decision.

<comment><USER16> In fact, it also only sets precedent if they have to legally force Apple to do it. Apple could've used their discretion to comply in this particular case, avoiding courts, and avoiding legal precedents being set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> NPR was playing this story up as if it's a blow for Apple - is it really? Isn't the vulnerability the fact that the phone has no secure enclave, and so the timeout/wipe can be worked around by external access to the flash?

Isn't that the whole reason the newer phones were upgraded?

Older device fails, newer device with improved security doesn't. That's not a blow to Apple, that's the way the world works.

<comment><USER10> As far as I've been able to figure out, the Secure Enclave does not have its own storage. The proposed attack of cloning the phone's flash memory would work just as well on a new iPhone 6s. A lot of people are assuming that the Secure Enclave would prevent this attack, but I've not yet been able to find any basis for that assumption.

The main security advantage of newer phones in this context is that Touch ID makes it practical to set a more complex passphrase. The flash cloning attack only works if you have a short passcode set, because it relies on brute force. If your passphrase is complex enough that it can't be brute forced even when the software controls are removed, then you're still safe.

I'd wager that when the iPhone 7 ships this fall, it will have an upgraded Secure Enclave with internal storage that can prevent this attack entirely.

<comment><USER20> That's absolutely correct, come to find out. For some reason I thought the SE was responsible for holding some of the keys and the wipe counter, but instead it's a section of the NAND flash called "Effaceable Storage".

Their own whitepaper defines it:

 _A dedicated area of NAND storage, used to store cryptographic keys, that can be addressed directly and wiped securely. While >>it doesn't provide protection if an attacker has physical possession of a device<<, keys held in Effaceable Storage can be used as part of a key hierarchy to facilitate fast wipe and forward security_

(emphasis mine)

However, it appears that the FBI attack only worked because the people in question used the 4 digit pin. A strong passcode is the way to go and protects you from these kinds of brute force attacks.

<comment><USER10> I initially assumed the same as you, because it would just make so much sense.

And yes, it looks like all of this came down to the short PIN. It's likely a six-digit PIN would still fall, but a proper passcode would have made this whole affair moot. It looks like even the older phones are still totally secure in that case, although the lack of Touch ID can make it somewhat impractical.

This is a major problem I have with the "iPhones got less secure" idea. Apple has gone through heroics to make short passcodes somewhat secure, but there's only so much you can reasonably expect there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is this just FUD? Simply confirming the vulnerability seems likely to lead to it being plugged, whether or not the FBI reveals their methods, in effect doing the opposite of what the title suggests.

<comment><USER22> How can it be plugged, if Apple doesn't know what it is?

<comment><USER23> Because Apple being the OEM of the hardware and software involved, things tend to get back to them, even if in rumor form.

And them knowing their software so well gives them intimate knowledge when tracking down vulnerabilities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> We'll find out based on how many of the similar cases are withdrawn.

If the answer is zero, they're probably lying.

</comment><comment><USER25> I find myself divided on this article, as a person who values security very strongly.

1\. If the vulnerability the FBI used worked because the device was an iPhone without a secure enclave, Apple probably knows how they did it, but they can't really fix devices that have already shipped without the security features. While this obviously hurts users of those phones, every phone going forward won't have this issue, and this won't be replicable on a mass scale.

2\. Because this was a vulnerability that was found, not intentionally created, there is a high likelihood that the bug will be found again by security researchers, or at the very least paid for handsomely by Apple. This isn't necessarily true (Heartbleed existed for 2 years without being noticed), but it means that the vulnerability has a timetable that rapidly closes. This is far different from an _introduced_ backdoor/vulnerability, where Apple knows exactly what can be used to get into a device, but has their hands tied by the government, which would _unilaterally_ make our phones less secure. I don't like buying a door lock if I know there's a master key that can open any of the doors of that brand.

3\. The author I feel is misleading when he says things like "A vulnerability in Windows 10, for example, affects all of us who use Windows 10". Even if a piece of software has a vulnerability, that vulnerability could perhaps only be exploitable under certain conditions, like software running on certain hardware (eg: without a secure enclave), or under certain conditions (passcodes of less than 4 digits). It also can be highly theoretical or impractical to do on any sort of scale -- if the vulnerability involves reading data off a hard drive using an electron microscope to check for magnetic signatures, I'm not going to be too worried that it will be abused, as the man hours to have it work for a single case would be astronomical and only feasible in the most extreme circumstances.

It's probably very frustrating on Apple's part that the FBI found a vulnerability that they (likely) don't know about, and in an ideal world, governments would disclose those vulnerabilities to make us more secure. But as long as the software and hardware continue to get more secure and not intentionally crippled, any benefit they derived feels short lived at best.

<comment><USER26> I am sure Apple knows exactly what they did, it's their system and their own hacking team likely finds stuff like this. The key is if anyone else in the US is able to purchase this hack to unlock a phone: if they do and try to reference evidence based on that a judge will require the process be disclosed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It always was insecure, know we just know for sure.

<comment><USER28> We do not know for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this just feeds off the myth that the iPhone was invulnerable to exploit. The average washington post reader isnt going to know the intricacies of mobile security. NPR and to some extent this article makes it seem like the iPhone was previously secure, and now less so. There is no data supporting either hypothesis, but its likely that this was not a new exploit found that the FBI used.

I am curious, however, as to whether this affects only the 5c or if it affects the newer 6/6+/s/s+

<comment><USER30> I have a CS degree and I don't know the intricacies either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Given how much corruption is revealed in wikileaks maybe less privacy is not a bad trade off.

What amaze me is the tendency for our society to call for more privacy that favors the more powerful, hence the more likely to be corrupted.

If we want make it easy for our leaders to be corrupted I definitively would call for more cryptography.

Me except the normal "shameful" stuff from the common people I want privacy to. Like anyone I have stuff I want to hide. But, it is okay if I get _caught_. I will not say everything I did is okay, because, I still have hurt indirectly people. There are stuff I want to hide to protect myself from the intolerant crowd.

But guess what, I have as much as I could went to present my excuses, and took responsibility for my own shitty actions. And for the stuff I should not be ashamed of, I don't see the need to hide it, in a democracy we have the freedom to fight for our opinions.

None of my stupid stuff requiring privacy have been leading to blood being shed, exploitation, or making the market noncompetitive.

With greater power/wealth should come greater transparency. And iPhone are definitively more expensive than most phones.

So let's remember that is often the look from the others that makes us more virtuous, and let us all accept to live in an house made of glass (except for the bathroom, and the bedrooms).

In a fair competitive market access to information is symmetrical. In a real democracy government are expected to be openly enforcing the choices of the voters.

In a world tending towards virtue, there is no need for more privacy.

</comment><comment><USER32> The "vulnerabilities equities process", adopted in 2010, requires the FBI disclose the exploit details to Apple on request.

More info can be found in am EFF case: [https://www.eff.org/files/2014/07/01/eff_v_nsa_odni_- _foia.p...](https://www.eff.org/files/2014/07/01/eff_v_nsa_odni_-_foia.pdf)

<comment><USER33> Maybe I misread the redacted doc [0] but from what I see, it is sent to the Entities Review Board (ERB) that then determines whether they should disseminate. I was unable to find the requirement to disclose. Can you point to it?

0 - [https://www.eff.org/document/vulnerabilities-equities- proces...](https://www.eff.org/document/vulnerabilities-equities-process- january-2016)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> There are reasons to doubt the FBI is being honest about this matter: Firstly, they must have known they could desolder and copy the chip containing the PIN- protected key, replacing it if it were erased. This method was put forward by multiple security experts. So the FBI started from a dishonest position regarding Apple being the only source of assistance.

Now they claim that a mystery exploit emerged and was put to use between Sunday night and Tuesday. That's not enough time to crack the phone using a pile of chips and brute-forcing the PIN.

Since the FBI started from a dishonest position, and hasn't spent enough time to plausibly have used the know approach, _and_ they have carefully avoided saying they actually got keys and/or encrypted data out of the phone - or that they did anything at all with the phone, there is a more than small chance that the FBI has simply moved their own vague goalposts and declared that they have everything they need.

Not honest or ethical.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's a typo in the URL for the "process" link in "They even have a process for deciding what to do when a vulnerability is discovered."

Should be [https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/28/heartbleed- unders...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/28/heartbleed- understanding-when-we-disclose-cyber-vulnerabilities)

It's interesting that the government (at least this part: " Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator") recognizes the pros/cons:

> Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to collect > crucial intelligence ... Building up a huge stockpile of undisclosed > vulnerabilities while leaving the Internet vulnerable and the American > people unprotected would not be in our national security interest.

</comment><comment><USER35> Ideally (for the FBI), the FBI would order Apple to build a backdoor into their system. This is functionally the same as ordering Apple not to patch a known vulnerability. In turn, this is functionally the same (in the short term) as not disclosing a known vulnerability to Apple.

While the article's title is misleading, the FBI might as well be taking an active role in making the iPhone less secure. In communicating to the non- technical public, insisting on elaborating the difference is being pedantic.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why did the FBI drop the lawsuit against Apple in the first place? They both made it sound like the stake was much higher than unlocking the one device.

Or, the FBI managed to unlock this phone and so they can unlock any other devices too, now-and-forever? They don't need a backdoor any more?

Wouldn't the logical next step from Apple's side be to protect their users in their future devices? Wouldn't then the FBI have to sue them again?

Feels like we are missing key facts here, and I wonder why Apple is not talking now.

<comment><USER37> It's a writ. It is legally only valid if there is necessity and the court must be informed if that changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Hilarious. Apple wouldn't give the FBI access but now the FBI should give Apple access to their information?

This conversation has jumped the shark.

</comment><comment><USER39> > We don't know what the method is, or which iPhone models it applies to.

Where is the proof? there is no proof.

<comment><USER40> How do you prove something you don't know?

<comment><USER39> Well the burden of the proof lies with the person that states something as a fact. What is the title of that blog post again ? Right. now let the author show you the proof. If he doesn't know then he shouldn't talk about something like it is a fact. The only fact in this whole debacle is that the FBI has been caught lying again,again and again. So they were lying then and people should believe them now ?

<comment><USER40> > Well the burden of the proof lies with the person that states something as a > fact.

Sure, but they aren't really stating a fact. They are saying they don't know if it's fact or not.

I agree the title of the post is terrible and inaccurate, but the formatting of your comment is focused on the quote, not the title.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Can we file a Freedom of Information Act request to have the method the FBI used disclosed?

</comment><comment><USER42> TBH there have been so many security holes in the iOS software... this software did not "get less secure", it has been there all along. If you're an iPhone user, you notice the CONSTANT iOS security updates... most of them are because someone found a hole and patched it up! I just hope that the FBI lets Apple know of this hole once the case is over (but I doubt that will happen), or Apple figures out how they did it. If Apple can't find out, it won't be very easy for others to get into iPhones either... but it's still possible.

</comment><comment><USER43> Changelog: iOS 9.4 1st April 2016 \- Fix FBI backdoor

</comment><comment><USER44> Bruce singles out the FBI for blame in this case, but if that's right, then whatever third party helped the FBI also deserves blame.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is the company the FBI supposedly contracted ([http://www.cellebrite.com/Pages/cellebrite-solution-for- lock...](http://www.cellebrite.com/Pages/cellebrite-solution-for-locked-apple- devices-running-ios-8x)), if that's the case it's just older devices that don't have the secure enclave which is not surprising.

</comment><comment><USER46> Did anyone else get the ad from Huawei? "Focus Perservere Breakthrough" ..delicious..

</comment><comment><USER47> I don't know why I still haven't seen this here, but there are plenty of videos on youtube on how to bypass the 10 wrong pass code limit. I don't understand, it looks so easy and still people are talking about encryption modules etc ... Am I missing something ?

</comment><comment><USER48> Blame the FBI?

How is it the FBI's fault that this particular iPhone was not secure?

It's mystifying to me how far Apple advocates will go to not blame their favorite company.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is bad reporting.

The iPhone did not get less secure. It has always had this security hole. I, like many others here on HN, believe the vulnerability to be related to the lack of a secure hardware biometric / encryption module. If this is the case, then your iPhone probably did not get less secure -- such exploits would only work on iPhones prior to the 5S (I think? The 6 series phones are covered for sure). Basically, if your phone supports Apple Pay, you're good.

And if it's the case, it was a design decision rather than a bug. The secure hardware wasn't ready for consumer use when those devices were designed (and even then, the first generation of iPhone fingerprint readers was pretty bad). Apple knew a desoldering attack could be successful, but such attacks are very expensive, require long-term physical possession of the phone, and are impossible to pull off covertly. There may be another way to pull off a direct hardware access attack without actually needing to desolder the flash memory, but that would still only be effective in the absence of a hardware security module. The only defense against this type of attack is a secure hardware encryption module like the one Apple included to support Apple Pay (because the banks likely insisted on this level of security).

<comment><USER13> Funny to call it reporting when it's more of an editorial by the renowned security researcher Bruce Schneier.

However, I'll defend his point: take the Monty Hall problem [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem)]. The probabilities change, even when a door you didn't pick [and doesn't hold the prize] is opened.

I think this is a fair analogy. We've now gained knowledge about the existence of a vulnerability, and that knowledge makes everyone's device less secure [for a variety of reasons -- eg others know to look for the vulnerability, others know it can be bought, etc]. It doesn't matter that the vulnerability "has always been there" if nobody knew about it.

<comment><USER49> > The probabilities change, even when a door you didn't pick [and doesn't hold > the prize] is opened.

That's the common misunderstanding of the problem. Most people think that the probabilities go fro 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 to 1/2, 1/2, after choosing a door and having Monty Hall open one of the others. The probabilities don't change.

The probabilities are 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 at the start. After you choose a door, they're still 1/3, 1/3, 1/3\. Or a put a different way: 1/3 (your choice) 2/3 (what you didn't choose). When Monty Hall opens one of the other doors, the probabilities don't change. It's still 1/3 (your choice) 2/3 (what you didn't choose).

However, because he's removed one of the doors from the problem, the 2/3 probability is now applied to the remaining door.

That can be viewed as "probabilities changing" for the remaining door, but it's better described as the probabilities being shared between the doors you didn't choose.

<comment><USER50> This is a great clarification of how this problem works. I STILL can't grasp why you'd switch. Since you have no idea which door it is, couldn't the 2/3 probability be applied to either his door or your door? For all you know, the one that he removed was just one random one of the goat doors. Your chance of picking the car was 1/3 before, if you could have the car already, why would it be better to switch now that he removed which ever would definitely be a goat? It seems like you still have a 50/50 chance of getting the car and your chance of the one that remains (unpicked/unremoved) is just as likely to be the other goat as it is to be the car..

That said, I made a simulation of it where it does the following: 1. Assign random locations behind doors, 2. Player randomly chooses door, 3. Host excludes door (random if both are goats, goat if one is a car), 4. Player either switches, or doesn't switch based on what's chosen for that simulation (the full set gets one or the other)

After running 50,000,000 then dividing success/tries, my number is nearly exactly the same between the two. Is my simulation working incorrectly?

<comment><USER13> I find it clearer if you have 100 doors. Pick one. The host eliminates 98 doors [with no prize behind them].

Do you switch? Or do you stick with your original guess? As the parent mentioned, switching gives you a 99/100 chance of being correct, staying gives you a mere 1/100 chance.

<comment><USER51> I don't see why the other door has 99x more probability of being correct. It's still 50/50, original door or remaining door, the other 98 don't change the odds.

<comment><USER52> Your initial pick has a 1/100 chance of being right. If you switch, and you were right, you lose. On the other hand, your initial pick has a 99/100 chance of being wrong, and if you were wrong, and you switch, you win. So switch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Windows is less secure. Can we blame FBI?

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't blame either of them. But I do blame users who put confidential information on their phone with the expectation that it will remain so.

</comment><comment><USER55> If Apple refused to comply with the FBI's request, why should the FBI owe Apple a disclosure of this vulnerability they found?

Keep the downvotes coming, lads! They're meant for burying spam and junk comments, not expressing disagreement, but I enjoy them anyway.

<comment><USER56> If I find a vulnerability and exploit someone's device, it's not okay under law. Why is a government institution exempt from law in a supposedly exemplary democracy?

<comment><USER57> Because it's not someone's device anymore. It's government evidence?

<comment><USER58> It was the county's device to start with, too. Not the shooter's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I am sure they just hired some interns to

        code = 0000

        While code_is_valid not true:

            enter code

            reboot device

            code++

Edit: I am pretty sure there's a delay in code execution registering a wrong pin hence by rebooting the phone, the wrong pins won't get detected.

<comment><USER60> Good one, though I can see there is a problem with this "algorithm"! haha :-)

<comment><USER59> What might it be?

I assumed the code is just 4 digits long but judging by the quick downvotes people aren't even considering this to be a possibility.

<comment><USER61> There's a mechanism that wipes the device after too many incorrect code attempts. Disabling this mechanism was the entire point of the FBI/Apple lawsuit.

<comment><USER59> I am pretty sure a reboot bypasses that mechanism.

<comment><USER62> Why would you be pretty sure of that? That would be totally braindead if a simple reboot bypassed the limit. It doesn't. There was a flaw in an earlier iOS version where you could reboot the phone a few milliseconds after an incorrect PIN, before the phone recorded the failure, but that was fixed some time ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I completely disagree with the premise here. This is Tim Cook's fault and it should fall completely on Apple. I've been using Apple products my whole life, and I think security and privacy are great, but I don't believe for one second that Apple is the holy savior of our privacy. They fought the FBI because of marketing and profits, not out of a sense of duty to protect our privacy.

I also don't buy the rhetorical come-back about those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. There is a line between the two, and each side must give and take. If the FBI found a way to do it without Apple, bravo. Let Apple figure it out if they want.

This is Apple's fault and they should not get a pass for spinning the PR in their favor.

<comment><USER64> You're certainly right about one thing: the people want privacy and will reward a company handsomely for delivering.

In theory government is supposed to also be responsive to the will of the people especially with regards to things like privacy from government searches so I guess it's up to the reader to decide for themselves which side they're on here.

</comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands Your iphone just got less secure - so don't use iphones anymore.

It always amazes me when people get on their high horse and start complaining about something when the remedy is quite simple - don't use the iphone. Get an Android phone, or an Ubuntu phone, or a Blackphone or a Windows phone. There's plenty of other devices that haven't been cracked by the FBI.

There's irony in the fact Apple resisted the FBI attempts to crack the phone and now this vulnerability will go unpatched and the FBI now has a zero-day exploit they can use whenever they want.

<comment><USER65> I don't believe even for a second that Android devices are any more secure than iPhones. And I use an android phone. But let's be honest - with dozens of manufacturers there isn't a single one who dedicated the same amount of work to securing their devices or engineering things like the secure enclave in iPhones. I use a Sony phone but I'm sure Sony wouldn't have the guts to stand up to FBI, or that FBI would even need to ask - the hardware is most definitely not on the same level of polish as Apple's.

<comment><USER66> Hi! do you have contact details/email I can reach you on?</comment></comment></comment>


Why do you want to have a startup? - <AUTHOR> http://businessofsoftware.org/2012/09/why-do-you-want-to-have-a-startup/

<comment><AUTHOR> Lifestyle business vs Growth startup :)</comment>


1 in 4 Americans Don't Know Earth Orbits the Sun. Yes, Really. - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/1-in-4-americans-dont-know-earth-orbits-the-sun-yes-really-140214.htm <comment><USER2> While true, the _actual_ data presents a different picture:

[http://i.imgur.com/FXMlOZB.png](http://i.imgur.com/FXMlOZB.png)

[source: [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07....](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf)]

So actually, the U.S. had the second _highest_ score on that question, behind South Korea. Furthermore, the U.S. consistently performed on par or higher vs. the other countries/regions for the remaining questions.

The real outlier for the U.S. on this survey was the question about evolution -- only 48% of Americans got that right, significantly behind the rest of the pack.

<comment><USER3> Does that mean around 1 out of 2 Americans doesn't believe in evolution? That's scary.

<comment><USER4> Why is that scary? If we assume it is indeed a matter of _belief_ the 50/50 chance is not that bad. Now, I suppose both you and me think about it more as a matter of science, but how many people understand what science is (and why), how the scientific method is applied and so on? Well fewer than 50%, I'd guess. US, Europe or Africa, any place.

<comment><USER5> People that operate outside of coherent, explainable, rational principles tempered by compassion are bigger liabilities. It's common sense.

Departing from this is what allows folks to believe violent terrorism to be a viable strategy to "win."

<comment><USER6> Do you have any evidence for this? In my experience people with largely religious principles tempered by compassion are just as reliable as self- identified rationalists.

There has been plenty of atheistic terrorism in the last hundred years...

<comment><USER7> > Do you have any evidence for this?

The history of religion? The Inquisition, as just one example among many? Being absolutely sure that God is on your side is a powerful drug.

> There has been plenty of atheistic terrorism in the last hundred years ...

Yes, but it can't compare to the well-established historical connection between religion and war.

One example -- try to imagine recent Indian history without the effect of religion, without Muslims and Hindus killing each other at every opportunity, true to the present day.

Another example -- 9/11 wasn't an attack by have-nots against haves, it was a largely successful effort by religious fanatics to snuff out some infidels.

<comment><USER8> 9/11 was an attack mostly fueled by Saudi Arabians pissed off by US involvement in the Middle East in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular.

Blaming it on Islam is missing the point.

<comment><USER7> > Blaming it on Islam is missing the point.

I didn't blame it on Islam, I attributed it to religious extremism, something the vast majority of Muslims reject. That attribution is absolutely correct and supported by an unbiased analysis of the events.

<comment><USER8> What's your point? That extremism is bad? I agree.

Are you also claiming that religious extremism is worse than non-religious extremism? Available data shows us that it's not the case.

<comment><USER7> > Are you also claiming that religious extremism is worse than non-religious > extremism?

No, only that a prior poster's claim that religions have no connection to wars is false. This is easily established by reading the thread's contents instead of inventing views for people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The full paper is here (link in the story is broken): [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07....](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf)

To me the worst part is on page 25. Only about 30% of Americans understand scientific inquiry. I believe this is the root of the anti-science undercurrent in mainstream American society.

<comment><USER10> The table on page 23 shows the US tying or beating all other sampled countries for % correct in most of the basic science pop-quiz questions. How does this mesh with the widely-repeated statistics of US math and science education ranking 10th, 20th, or lower in the world? Is it because the answers come from the general population rather than students?

<comment><USER9> > Is it because the answers come from the general population rather than > students?

I believe that is the case. Those studies you mention generally use results of standardized tests taken by students. For what it's worth I'm not convinced the methodologies used by those studies are very good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Somewhat related: I've found in my general experiences that many people don't know what a scientific theory is. They think it means a guess. For example, a lot of people I've talked to think the Big Bang "Theory" is a work of fiction someone invented.

I've found that among a lot of the people I talk to there's this severe, fundamental lack of understanding around how science works. Not a lack of scientific knowledge per se; just a misunderstanding of science's _modus operandi_.

<comment><USER12> >I've found in my general experiences that many people don't know what a scientific theory is. They think it means a guess.

Well they are correct.

<comment><USER13> Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

(Source: [http://arstechnica.com/science/2006/08/5164/](http://arstechnica.com/science/2006/08/5164/))

 _Edit_ :

How it works...

"Massive objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity." == Scientific Fact.

"Objects in motion remain in motion. For every force there is an equal an opposite reaction. Force is mass times acceleration." == Scientific Law (Newton's Laws of Motion).

"The bending of space under the influence of gravity can cause light to curve around massive objects." == Scientific Hypothesis (Verified by Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse observations).

All of the above (and a whole lot more) put together == General Theory of Relativity.

<comment><USER12> >Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

...that can be wrong and often are replaced by better theories as more tests and better explanations came out.

Science is based in doubt. If you are too sure of a scientific theory, you are missing what science really is about and what you need is religion.

<comment><USER13> Falsifiability is a feature of every element of science. Something that is not falsifiable isn't science. Period.

But a Theory is not a guess. It is a framework built from individual pieces, some of which may be hypotheses (effectively guesses) that have been tested and found to hold within the larger structure of that framework.

<comment><USER12> If you are based in individual pieces that may be effectively guesses, how you are not also a guess?

<comment><USER13> Try formulating your question again, but this time don't leave out the part where I wrote "that have been tested and found to hold".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The question as it's worded is: "does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth?" There's all sorts of reasons someone might get that question wrong. The way it's framed makes you visualize two systems and pick the right one, and people might have a problem with that. The phrasing depends on word order being significant in English in ways that might be confusing to foreign language speakers (of which the U.S. has many). Heck, just parsing it took me enough time that someone rushing through the survey might just not think about it too carefully before answering.

I bet if you showed two pictures, with a large sun orbiting the earth and one with a small earth orbiting a large sun, you'd get a much higher percentage right.

</comment><comment><USER15> The astrology thing is possibly a matter of vocabulary. Especially in a "let's talk about science" context, it would be easy to just hear "astronomy" and say "sure, that's a science".

<comment> vezzy-fnord You'd be right about that: [http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report- flawed-american...](http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed- americans-do-not-believe-astrology-is-scientific/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I had a fascinating discussion with an ex trucker in Spain (who after an injury worked selling souvenirs in the old windmills where Don Quijote had once jousted according to Cervantes' book).

When he heard I was a physicist, he apologized in advance for being such a tool ... and then admitted that he thought the earth _rotating_ around the sun was a mistake. He saw the sunrise every morning, always in the East, move around ... and then set in the West. Plus, wouldn't we feel the speed, or even disintegrate if we travelled so fast around the sun?

It was the first time I had encountered somebody who didn't think heliocentrism was possible, let alone other cosmological models. I paused before answering ... but then realized the man was right.

What evidence did he have that contradicted a sun rotating around the sun? He only studied until age 12. He never had a Foucault pendulum. And even if he had had one, the fixed stars idea and the earth's rotation is not the only interpretation.

I asked ... what about the astronauts who have been up there? Surely they must have seen the earth rotating. He was unconvinced. Things seem to rotate when you are very high as a result of vertigo. Could that be the explanation? What about the great speed of the earth he insisted? Wouldn't we feel that? [nobody had ever explained that to him, including his son who was an engineer]

I realized that this man was much more of a scientist than his peers who blindly believe what they are told in school: "the earth rotates around the sun". But ask them a deeper question: What is the evidence? Could the evidence be interpreted otherwise? Are we fooling ourselves (as is very common in science)?

Of course the answer to these questions is child's play for most technical people. There is a ton of evidence. But are the 3/4s aware of it? or do they just parrot the accepted wisdom.

The man turned out to be very smart, having learned the names of all his souvenirs in Korean, Japanese, German, French ... and having strong opinions about the dogmatism that religion blindly accepts.

So it's possible that in that 20% of "non believers" there are true scientists (or Quixotes!) who refuse to believe what they are told before seeing credible experimental evidence that they can reason deeply about.

</comment><comment><USER17> Here's a different way of looking a the data, on page 23 of [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07....](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf)

Americans know about as much as people in similarly developed countries.

Really. Compare to the success rates versus South Korea and Japan. And then compare it to less economically developed parts of the world. Americans were the most correct among the surveyed populations about radiation, antibiotics, atomic structure, and lasers.

The takeaway shouldn't be "Americans are ignorant" but really that "Education is hard" and "Poverty inhibits education"

</comment><comment><USER18> Depressing, but not unexpected. The problem isn't necessarily anti-science; it's anti-authority. Anti telling me what I can or can't believe. Anti you think your "science" can tell me what I know in my heart/what I feel in my bones?

The last thing we should do is try to mash heads with this level of warm comfort and confidence in ignorance and instead ask questions to probe the depths of what they do know and why.

Why do you believe this? How would that happen?

People may be allergic to being told what to do and what to accept, but inviting them to wade in the waters of the scientific method may allow them to find answers themselves.

<comment><USER19> You're on to something.

I once met a person who was anti-anything which isnt coming from her own mind.

Science? Nah, she got "power of her mind" to bend and twist metals(move objects around - only if she could just focus and use more than 10% of her brain.

We got into a heated discussion about knowledge, science and philosophy, it all boiled down to "I believe whatever I want and thats the only thing that matters, no matter what you say or how things appear or whatever else".

At one point I asked her how she knows that she is right about that about anything, she said she doesnt really but she chooses to believe it. And hence anything, science, philosophy, knowledge, if the rock over there really is hard and if it really is going to fall to the ground if I keep it in the air and drop it, its all a matter of belief, and if people believe it hard enough it wont necessarily always fall to the ground.

How would you approach further discussion with her?

<comment><USER18> I think there was more to it than "I believe whatever I want". That's just her pride talking.

Heated arguments aren't very helpful IMO. I have a good friend who still believes the Earth is 5000 years old, but the last thing I want to do is bash his head into science.

That takes a long conversation over coffee (hopefully several cups) and ensuring that I don't make him feel like I'm looking down on him for what he believes. That's the worst way to convince anyone of anything, reality or not.

People have a tough time separating belief from idea. Beliefs need no evidence, but ideas are testable. Find out what her ideas are and we can move on to her beliefs later (or maybe you won't even need to go that far when she realizes the fallibility of unyielding belief).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 1 in 4 Americans don't know a piece of technical trivia that has zero relevance to their lives, and is equivalent to their model on all ways that matter to them.

<comment><USER21> I found it bizarre that the author suggested that the heliocentric model and the spheroidness of Earth are the two most basic scientific facts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So?

Even if title quote is true, what percentage of the population needs to know this (to live better, work better, act in some different fashion)? 5%? 1%? less?

In other words, it is knowledge of trivia for most people. Perfectly fine, if you go in for that sort of thing (and I do), but why look down your nose at those who don't?

Of course, knowing the scientific method can change how you act, but so can understanding lots of things. Finite time and attention. Or be a hater.

</comment><comment><USER23> The EU was even worse at 66% of those surveyed got the answer correct.

<comment><USER24> The EU now includes a large number of ex-USSR countries and is not what most people think of when they think 'Europe'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I thought it's relative to what frame of reference you choose.

<comment><USER26> As long as you choose an inertial frame of reference, it wouldn't matter. Many people forget that while velocity is relative to the observer, acceleration is not. And we all know moving along a curved path has non-zero acceleration.

Imagine that you are in a vast empty dark abyss without gravity (a.k.a. the space) and all you can see is a transparent sealed container with some water in it positioned above your head. Consider these two scenarios: 1. You are rotating around the axis of your body with velocity Ω, and 2. The container has the velocity -Ω around the same axis. You might expect these two scenarios to be identical. After all, the relative velocity of two objects is similar in these cases. But only if the container is the moving body we will observe that the water is affected by centrifugal[1] force.

It is obvious that earth is rotating around the sun not the other way around. You just have to consider the forces.

[1] I know, I know. And you know it too.

<comment><USER7> > And we all know moving along a curved path has non-zero acceleration.

Not to give the OP undue attention for what is a truly weird post, but a curved path through curved spacetime (as seen from a different perspective), as with a gravitational orbit, can have zero acceleration.

> It is obvious that earth is rotating around the sun not the other way > around. You just have to consider the forces.

That's not obvious at all -- there are no forces at work in a relativistic orbit (because gravity is not a force). The earth and the sun orbit their mutual center of mass, neither experiences acceleration, and neither of them experience a real centripetal or fictional centrifugal force.

Therefore there would be no way to use centrifugal force to argue that one of the bodies has a special role in the orbit. It's easy to see why -- just adjust the relative masses, gradually make the sun's mass smaller and the earth's mass larger, and try to argue that there's a special moment where their roles reverse. Clearly not the case -- regardless of their relative masses they're always equal partners in an orbit, with one of the bodies farther from the mutual center of mass in proportion to its (smaller) mass.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> You mean the 6000 year old earth borne through the ether by angels?

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe- Str...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict- Creationism.aspx) [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/believing-in- angels...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/believing-in- angels_n_1167100.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm not sure how you would setup the study, but has there ever been a study to see what percentage of people will respond to a survey like this incorrectly _even if they know the correct answer_ , either due to a mistake, or general disinterest, or confusion over the question? Especially for the last possibility, I think _reading comprehension_ could be a big culprit here.

</comment><comment><USER28> Everybody thinks the general population should be more knowledgeable about the particular topic they love. "Everyone should learn how to code!" "I can't believe people are so apathetic about how laws are made!" "Most people don't understand basic finance; how can they buy a home and save for retirement properly!"

</comment><comment><USER29> I have Wikipedia for this. No joke. This is kind of like the argument about students during math using a calculator. General knowledge is less of a requirement even here in NYS with the Regents system. California I'm sure is more of the same. As long as you know how to find it, that's all that matters in life.

<comment><USER30> Wikipedia for basic facts about the Earth? That's similar to saying you shouldn't need to learn how to add or multiply or calculate percentages because you have a calculator. (Not to mention, the real point of maths isn't calculation.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Also interesting, only 32 percent of Indians answered "true" to the statement "The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move" whereas 83 percent of Americans answered this question correctly.

</comment><comment><USER32> I simply refuse to believe that. The notion that a quarter of the people supposed to vote in the ruler of the most powerful nation can't wrap their head around the most basic of scientific facts is too depressing to contemplate.

<comment><USER33> Note that the USA scored better than most of the rest of the world in this and several other basic science questions. The actual result is "humans aren't well-educated"; it's being cynically spun as "Americans are stupid."

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure that makes me much happier.

<comment><USER33> Nor should it, but you need to understand the scope of the problem before you can address it. The original headline invites millions of people to say "haha, look at those stupid Americans, they sure are stupid" and continue ignoring the problems in their own nations. We can do better than that kind of bullshit tribalism.

<comment><USER32> I hope we can do better in terms of education too, but yeah, look at these stupid _X_ is a common tabloid tactic. We should be better than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Sherlock Holmes didn't either and he was a rockstar detective.

</comment><comment><USER35> This makes me so sad

</comment><comment><USER19> Who cares about these studies?

I too would answer that the Earth orbits the moon if a sciency guy approached me in any kind of test and asked this question.

<comment><USER36> You might have to explain that one to me.

<comment><USER7> These sorts of arguments all fail the most basic principle of relativity -- that any viewpoint is _relative_. One can argue that the earth orbits the moon or the reverse, but the best way to think about it is that the earth and moon orbit their common center of mass. And that common center of mass orbits the sun -- or, if you prefer, the earth/moon common center of mass and the sun' center of mass have another common center of mass, around which they mutually orbit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> In other news : 3 in 4 hacker news readers don't know the earth doesn't orbit the sun at all. That is an impression created by the fact that the space around the sun moves as a result of gravity. This results in that the location of the earth doesn't change, but as the sun is sucking in space and constantly pushing out it's matter the distance doesn't change. This results in the fact that a straight line path around the sun at the relative speed difference that the earth the sun have, and then transpose said trajectory into an approximate euclidean space with the sun as it's point of origin results in a (roughly) ellipsoid trajectory.

But make no mistake : the earth is standing still, it's not moving. There is no actual movement of either the earth, or the sun, or for that matter, any other planet or body, as a result of gravity. The earth is not circling the sun, it is moving in a straight line through what just happens to be non- euclidean space. Hell there is no gravity acting on the earth, nor for that matter on you (on the contrary : you are being accelerated upward, not downward at roughly the rate at which the earth sucks up space).

(Here movement is defined as the only viable relativistic definition of movement : a movement that can be observed to be different from standing still, meaning travelling at a fixed speed in a straight line is not moving at all)

If the earth ever starts orbiting the sun, life on earth will become impossible in a matter of minutes, as the resulting acceleration would affect magma flow and would very quickly change the entire surface of the earth into a liquid state. In that case the earth's surface would quickly change to the average temperature of the earth itself : ~6000 degrees celcius.

People say that the earth is orbiting the sun, because people are thinking within an euclidean reference frame. If you ignore the fact that we live in a relativistic universe and just act as if it's euclidean, it looks like the earth is orbiting. But in (what we think) is the real structure of the universe, that's not the case at all.

Saying that the earth orbits the sun, or God forbid, that it circles the sun, are flat-out wrong statements. The last time scientists actually believed that was about 1931. The "science" that is being popularized is either old, or just flat-out wrong. This goes for other popular versions of scientific theories as well. If evolution is "mutate + natural selection + goto 1", then humans don't evolve at all, and neither does any larger lifeform (and it's still an open question if bacteria evolve or not). Hell, did you know the earth is the exact center of the universe ? No joke. Read a bit about Hubble's discovery. The big bang is not actually the beginning of time, google inflation theory (and even inflation theory doesn't model the beginning of time). Did you know that we lost ~98% (that's a lower bound) of all mass in the universe ? We have zero clue where the rest of the universe is.

<comment><USER38> > the earth is standing still, it's not moving... it is moving in a straight > line

Wait, is the earth moving or not? I also can't figure out what definition of _orbit_ you are using. Your comment feels far too clever for it's own good.

<comment><USER7> The OP is trying to argue that there's a preferred frame of reference in a physical theory (relativity) that explicitly disallows preferred frames of reference. If you took a position roughly 200 million miles (about 320 million kilometers) above the sun's north pole, and watched from there, you would certainly see the earth orbit the sun. The reason? Different curvature from that perspective.

The OP could have simply said that, in relativity, there's no force called gravity, instead planets orbit their parent bodies because of curved four- dimensional spacetime. He then could have quoted physicist John Wheeler, who famously said, "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move."

After the OP correctly said that the earth is moving through curved spacetime in a straight line, IMHO he should have turned in his golf clubs.

> Your comment feels far too clever for it's own good.

You got that exactly right. The OP's intention is to confuse, not enlighten.</comment></comment></comment>


I don't like many worlds, the multiverse and the simulation hypothesis - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/why-i-dont-like-many-worlds-the-multiverse-and-the-simulation-hypothesis-bf0233ee6fd2 <comment><USER2> A completely uncredentialed individual with no published papers, no other published articles, whose entire argument boils down to "the idea of no prime mover is aesthetically displeasing so people should stop talking about it." The constant barely-disguised appeals to God are also rather sad.</comment>


We built an App Store for Heroku, got bored and decided to open source it - <AUTHOR> http://reefpoints.dockyard.com/ruby/2013/03/25/igata.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Before it is pointed out: I am aware of Bushido, I didn't learn about it until went out to Waza but our plan for the biz model was different than theirs. We were really interested in the support options to be sold as a secondary market to the app purchases.</comment>


5/12/13 — Happy Right Triangle Day - <AUTHOR> http://mrhonner.com/2013/05/12/51213-happy-right-triangle-day/ <comment><USER2> I propose an annual International Date Format day, so twice a year we can give consideration to this issue.</comment>


The 'Real You' Is a Myth - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/the-real-you-is-a-myth-we-constantly-create-false-memories-to-achieve-the-identity-we-want-103253 <comment><USER2> This sounds like the idea of "no-self" from Buddhism.

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

<comment><USER3> As someone who is studying at the moment, I thought the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I disagree. I've been keeping a journal for more than 10 years (started when I was 14 and am 25 now), where I report important events and more importantly reflect on them, and also on general concepts. Reading old entries can be very enlightening.

What comes out of it is that events are the "data", while personality/identity is the "software". The data is various, but the software is the same. The consistency of reasoning between now and then is incredible. When I read the setup of an old recounting, I start reacting to it while reading it from the point of view of my now-self, and then I see that the reflection of my old- self on this event to be very consistent with that. It's naive, uninformed and a bit rebellious (probably because of teenagehood), and sometimes because of that it completely misses the point, but the direction of reflection is the same. It's not alien, it makes sense.

We're reacting to events by using our software on related data. The value of experience entirely lies in the data, which can sometimes create entire shifts in perspective, but the software is the same. If you read an old journal you'll see that most reactions are the same, and for those which differ you can point out exactly what piece of data was missing in comparison to today's perspective.

<comment><USER5> I wonder if you'll change your view on this as you age.

I'm 40. I've been through 2 divorces and 3 full-on professional careers (academics, music, and programming). I have a 17-year-old son.

Although I can probably think out the evolution of my "software", it's really hard to think of my current releases as having a whole lot of backwards compatibility with that 0.0.1 version. If I had to give it a number, I'd say I'm somewhere around release 6.4.3.

:D

Personally (and this is just my conclusions, not one I expect other folks to come to), my views and strategies for working with the world are so removed from 25-year-old me that I have little problem saying that I am almost not the same person.

Certainly, my "software" has so many revisions to essential functionality that it's hardly recognizable as the same collection of code: there is very little overlap between how I reasoned about things when I was 25 and now, and I feel like that's not just a matter of "data" aggregation. My conclusions is that the software isn't, in fact, the same.

I feel like it's more that I've fundamentally revised the software on a number of levels to the point where there are so many essential differences the identity isn't even consistent.

<comment><USER6> I agree but for me the business logic is the same. It's trying to solve the same problems. I want the same things I always wanted and I'm not talking about money or material or social status and relationships. I still want the same specific skills and experiences that did I when I was a kid but outlook is totally different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Real me. Right. Which one is that? 2 Year old me? 10 Year old me? Current age me? Me yesterday? Me today? The me I experience phenomenologically or the me other people perceive, interpret and interact with? The different me's others perceive individually?

Will the real me please stand up.

<comment><USER8> Would it be reasonable to define the real me as simply the perpetually mutating sum of all those things?

<comment><USER7> I dunno, would it be reasonable to call a cloud that temporarily looks like Chewbacca Chewbacca?

I suppose it would make sense in that particular moment in time, and in that particular context, but it's not an image of Chewbacca is it? Not really. It's just a conveniet way of refering to phenomena... happening and being perceived a certain way.

In a similar way, I'd say yes, we are the "real us" at any point in time, but only in the sense that it makes convient sense in that particular moment, and only as a device to point at a set of particular processes/things happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "The 'real you' is a myth – we constantly create false memories to achieve the identity we want"

Isn't this somewhat self-contradictory? Why assume the real me has to be based on true memories -- and I don't even want to start a discussion of what a true memory, a true account (save anything subjective?) of some event could be. If we know who we want to be, we most likely also know our real me.

<comment><USER10> It depends on how you define "the real you." Generally, people use it to mean some long term inner identity that defines them as a person. This is what is a myth. You seems to use "the real you" to mean your current state.

<comment><USER11> Would many people agree with the definition of "real you" as self-identity? I'd define the term as more as a combination of somebody's personality and how they act and think when not consciously trying to act differently. For example, at work you might inhibit some of your normal characteristics and be more serious, or act nice to people you don't really like when you might not do that normally.

I think people can do that to such an extent that's it's possible that they could be deluded as to the nature of their "true" self, thinking themselves, say, kinder, or more competent in certain areas, or less racist than they actually are when their guard is down. Sometimes you need someone else or some experience to realise you didn't really know yourself!

I think current state is part of it - for example, people might become more cynical over time through their life not going the way they want. Things like that can gradually become part of the "real you" without you noticing.

<comment><USER10> >I'd define the term as more as a combination of somebody's personality and how they act and think when not consciously trying to act differently.

This article is about how personality is shaped by memory, and how flawed memory is. I'd say that definition is fairly close to the one used in the article, and there being no "real self" supports the shift over time and need for outside views that you have noticed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm fairly self conscious of the fact that I am at least 3 or 4 different people.

My "work" personality is a completely different one to my "Home" personality.

and My Online and internal personalities are all different people as well.

which one is the real me? _shrug_ they're all real, just used for different purposes. I'm fairly sure I'm not unique in this, but then I suspect I'm better at compartmentalising than most others so maybe I am.

<comment><USER13> I've known people who, at the office, are devoid of logic and are unable to think through complex topics. They operate in a permanent state of lizard brain, reacting with panic to everything that comes their way.

Perfectly normal and decent folk outside of work. Able to hold intelligent and thought provoking conversation, and talk intelligently about many fields.

The lesson? Some people are so good at compartmentalizing that they leave their intelligence in another box.

<comment><USER14> That sounds more into the range of a severe anxiety disorder, "dissociation" rather than compartmentalisation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Be wary of your own self-delusions. Sometimes they might be useful. Other times, they might be detrimental.

<comment><USER16> But what if it's your self-delusion making you think your non-delusion is a delusion?

<comment><USER17> in that case, remain wary

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I find sometimes it's easy to be myself

Sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

\- Dave Matthews Band - So much to say

</comment><comment><USER19> not only that, but all perception is a constructive process based on predictions according to multiple competing models which run in parallel of which we are only aware of a few at most. As such, other people have no single or objective perception of us either.

</comment><comment><USER20> _But what is selected as a personal memory also needs to fit the current idea that we have of ourselves. Let's suppose you have always been a very kind person, but after a very distressing experience you have developed a strong aggressive trait that now suits you. Not only has your behaviour changed, your personal narrative has too. If you are now asked to describe yourself, you might include past events previously omitted from your narrative – for example, instances in which you acted aggressively._

I have been pondering on a similar question for some time now. I have an amateurish and somewhat _Jungian_ theory:

I think the "real me" is a collection of archetypes that are constantly struggling to take control over the mind and body. These archetypes are also constantly being improved on or new ones are being acquired through life time experiences. The "I" or the consciousness is nothing more than an observer and it also has the role to create a reasonable explanation, a justification if you will, of the motives behind actions. But the motives of the "I" are entirely produced by its collection of archetypes. This, in reality, would mean that the consciousness mind has no real choice in what one does! It is the archetypes that drive us to do or say things and the conscious mind just observes and creates a reason out of our memories and knowledge.

This would explain situations where, for example, one gets angry and says something that offends and hurts another person, but they would then almost immediately ask themselves "Why the heck did I even say/do that?" and the conscious mind creates a justification. After that another archetype prevails, e.g.; the one of compassion, and an apology would follow.

Of course, none of this explains how archetypes came to be in the first place.

<comment><USER21> This is similar to what is presented in Minsky's Society of Mind. What you're calling archetypes, he calls agents.

Question for you...I agree with your observer idea. But why have an observer? What purpose does it serve? Couldn't we make do as just a collection of agents?

<comment><USER20> An observer could be required because of the causality nature of our reality. I would assume the observer is an _agent_ that connects cause and effect. It could be the one thing that brings order out of chaos in reality, if by chaos we mean the collection of agents.

I want to thank you about mentioning "Minsky's Society of Mind". On my reading list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The good news is "real you" probably are not your memories - these are _yours_ , not _you_. The bad news is you are probably going to forget this and have a hard time getting the clue if you lose your memory. But perhaps it may be right the opposite - maybe one with all their memory lost may automatically get "face to face" with their "real self" actually. I would love to test that given a guarantee that all my memories are going to return soon. I've heard some psychedelics can induce this experience (and the memories are supposed to return as it wears off) called "ego death" if taken in sufficiently high doses. Perhaps I have even had such an experience but I'm not sure if it was that: I've once smoked some strong weed after drinking too much booze and forgotten everything (for about half an hour) - the feeling (but no information) of self-identity remained perfectly intact but I was afraid to leave the bar as I had no idea of where do I live and how do I get there.

</comment><comment><USER23> A related book: "Strangers to Ourselves" by Timothy D. Wilson [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013827](http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013827) Excellent book with excellent advice about how to proceed.

</comment><comment><USER24> This has been dealt to death in Dharmic philosophies; I'm surprised there is zero attribution to this anywhere in this article. This is not the first such instance though; I have to wonder why standard academic ethics is not followed with anything concerning Indic traditions.

<comment><USER25> I often find modern psychology heavily resembles ancient life philosophies. For example, CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) is, effectively, applied Stoicism. If you were to explain CBT to an ancient stoic they would just nod and agree, understanding the approach intimately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _Mazzoni G, Scoboria A, Harvey L. (2010) Nonbelieved memories.

Abstract: This is the first empirical study of vivid autobiographical memories for events that people no longer believe happened to them. Until now, this phenomenon has been the object of relatively rare, albeit intriguing, anecdotes, such as Jean Piaget's description of his vivid memory of an attempted abduction that never happened. The results of our study show that nonbelieved memories are much more common than is expected. Approximately 20% of our initial sample reported having at least one nonbelieved autobiographical memory. Participants' ratings indicate that nonbelieved memories share most recollective qualities of believed memories, but are characterized by more negative emotions. The results have important implications for the way autobiographical memory is conceptualized and for the false-memory debate._

"Approximately 20% of our initial sample reported having at least one nonbelieved autobiographical memory." and an anecdote of Piaget vividly remembering something wrong after being consistently misled by his mother as a child.

Some discrepancy between that and "we constantly create false memories to achieve the identity we want".

If _my_ memory serves right it's well established in laboratory conditions that autobiographical memory is vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, but last thing I heard it wasn't at all clear that it spontaneously malfunctions under normal living conditions. I see very little in this piece that gives me reason to revise that impression.

<comment><USER10> That's the research showing that memories shape personality. The research about about autobiographical memory is further down the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Wow, the claim of the headline does not follow from what the article explains at all. OK, people craft a narrative that fits their self-conception and use memories selectively to that end, some of which are not even real. How does "the 'real you' is a myth" follow from that at all?

</comment><comment><USER28> Since having a child, and seeing my friends and sibs having children I have come to the conclusion that there is a large degree of our personalities are "hard-wired". It's amazing how each child comes out differently with their own personality right off the blocks. You typically see invariant characteristics persist through life. To me this is "the real you", the aspects of your personality that are with you throughout your life.

If I had to put a figure on it, to avoid argument I'd say it accounts for between 30 and 50% of your behaviour. The rest is shaped by social conditioning, life experiences and the environment we find ourselves living in. But even these could be said to be mediated in some part by the initial 30%.

<comment><USER2> I read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature a while ago and your numbers are pretty close to what Pinker says.

About 50% of personality from genetics, 50% from environment, and approximately 0% from parental influence.

<comment><USER29> > 50% of personality from genetics

What's the source of this? Given that siblings are often so different between each other, and from their parents, it could be that _most_ of personality traits come from the environment, but we're still _born with it_ (i.e. it could be influence in early development of the fetus, from the environment (womb, food mother eats and her hormones, sounds and movement from outside, ...) not from genes).

<comment><USER30> > Given that siblings are often so different between each other

But most _identical twins_ are not so different from each other. Read up on twin studies, where twins were separated at birth. They tend to have very similar personalities and outlooks on life, despite never having had contact until the study was conducted.

<comment><USER29> That still wouldn't separate genetics vs. common pre-birth environmental influences (e.g. mother's hormones and nutrition).

<comment><USER31> There's not much known because it's almost impossible to research, surely? You'd have to have one identical twin developing naturally, and the other brought to term inside a surrogate mother.

This probably doesn't happen very often. (TBH I don't know if it's even possible.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If anyone caught Derek Delgaudio's Off-Broadway show "In and Of Itself", he dealt with this concept. Great show, limited run just ended recently.

</comment><comment><USER33> The 'Real You' is not a myth, and it is not based on thoughts. It is what you truly are, and what is lost when you die.

<comment><USER34> How can you actually know what is lost when you die?

<comment><USER28> who said it's about knowing

<comment><USER34> It was implied in the comment I was replying to.

<comment><USER28> _> The 'Real You' is not a myth, and it is not based on thoughts. It is what you truly are, and what is lost when you die._

I don't think it was ... if anything _" it is not based on thoughts"_ would imply the opposite!

An object "is" an object whether it knows it is or not.

EDIT I think maybe you're interpreting the final clause of the sentence _" what is lost when you die"_ as "what is lost to _you_ " but I read it as "what is lost _to others_ ".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "I" is most valuable thing I have and only thing undoubtedly existing. And this thing not exists at all if I believe thats the world exists independently of me. This is not about natural sciences, it's a philosophical paradox that will never be solved.

</comment><comment><USER36> Cogito ergo est.

<comment><USER27> "I think therefore it is"?</comment></comment>


Team at Rice builds machine to transform the way we vote - <AUTHOR> http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Team-at-Rice-builds-machine-to-transform-the-way-10821587.php <comment><USER2> This is an exciting new application of "end-to-end verifiable" voting technology -- together with many other high-assurance features. Voters can check for themselves that their votes have been properly counted without having to trust voting equipment, venders, or officials.

More information can be found at [http://traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/Content.do?code=News.Sta...](http://traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/Content.do?code=News.StarVote) and [https://www.usenix.org/conference/evtwote13/workshop- program...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/evtwote13/workshop- program/presentation/Bell).

<comment><USER3> Ah, thanks for the link to the actual technical details (the Usenix one).

I'm not an expert in this field and I haven't studied this design in detail, but at first glance it appears to have been done very carefully and to take into account all the important requirements around verifiability, anonymity, and hacking-resistance. Looks like good work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://thevotingnews.com/team-at-rice-builds-machine-to- tra...](https://thevotingnews.com/team-at-rice-builds-machine-to-transform- the-way-we-vote-houston-chronicle/)

</comment><comment><USER5> "The drumbeat of election rigging and foreign hacking of voting machines" \--

None of that happened.

<comment><USER6> It was indeed hilarious to watch the media collectively spin two narratives at the same time: 1) The "emergence" of "fake news" and 2) The "hacking" of the election.

For anyone who wasn't watching: Unnamed sources in the CIA claimed that the DNC, a noted private organization, had their email hacked by Russian sources of some variant. The emails detailed among other things the collusion between the media and the DNC to work against Bernie Sanders and Trump. The media, once again collectively, made this seem like the _election itself_ was somehow hacked, with the obvious purpose of delegitimatizing the guy who beat their favored candidate.

Julian Assange says he got the emails from an internal leak.

Okay, so no matter how you look at it, pretty much every major source of news was spewing forth genuinely fake news in torrents of excess. Meanwhile, they were also going on and on about what they called "fake news" coming from two- bit bloggers of the "alt right", as well as some scammers who gamed Facebook's algos or some bullshit. Pure Chutzpah.

<comment><USER7> > For anyone who wasn't watching: Unnamed sources in the CIA claimed that the > DNC, a noted private organization, had their email hacked by Russian sources > of some variant.

It wasn't just the CIA, it was the consensus of the entire US intelligence community. And it was reached after private cybersecurity experts (CrowdStrike) reached and publicly announced similar (but somewhat _more_ specific as to the exact Russian government actors involved that the public statements from the intelligence community) conclusions.

> The media, once again collectively, made this seem like the election itself > was somehow hacked

No, it didn't. In fact the media often explicitly stated that that was not, in fact, the case (often also citing specific government sources who articulated high confidence that that was not the case.)

> Julian Assange says he got the emails from an internal leak.

Which claim the media also prominently reported.

> Okay, so no matter how you look at it, pretty much every major source of > news was spewing forth genuinely fake news in torrents of excess.

Even in your distorted description, there is no account of anything that would be "genuinely fake news"; at most there is a suggestion that entirely factual news was reported in a way that created a false impression of a different event, and that itself rests on your omission of some and distortion of other relevant facts.</comment></comment></comment>