Firefox 49 fixes sites designed with WebKit in mind, and more - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/09/firefox-49-fixes-sites-designed-with-webkit-in-mind-and-more/ <comment><USER2> I'm worried about Chrome's dominance, honestly. Google can basically dictate things the same way Microsoft did in the past. We are obviously not in quite the same situation - open source and all, but there have ready been several cases where Google just decided to do things, and other players in the field had no choice but to follow.

<comment><USER3> Yes like this one - just dropping part of current SVG standard that was supported by all browsers. Without any notification and replacement it broke some sites. Why? Because it was too much code, low adoption and it is depreciated in SVG 2.0 _draft_.

[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=539385](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=539385)

<comment><USER4> Actually, Chrome dropping a feature that was removed from a spec, was a lot of code and had low adoption sounds like a good idea.

Engineering is always about trade-offs, and choosing a good balance in Chrome is what made it so popular. The parent of this comment was worried about Chrome's "dominance", but remember Chrome was the last browser to the party. Safari's dominance appears to be the reason Firefox added -webkit prefixes.

If you really think the SVG feature was important and Chrome should support it, then lobby for it to be part of the standard and for other web developers to use it. But it's not a great example of Chrome pushing its whim on others.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but the problem it is part of _current_ standard, 2.0 is still work in progress. Also alternative API from SVG 2.0 is not yet delivered by Chrome either as far as I know.

<comment><USER5> The Chrome team removed something that there was agreement across all browsers to deprecate, and which was made optional in a near-finished spec.

Also, it's perfectly typical for drafts to be what implementers are targeting, as plenty of published specs receive almost no errata and any issues in them only get addressed in new revisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In response to the complaints about "this is Big Internet Corps. fault", i think that is hasty. I code systems for all major modern browsers (including IE and Edge) and Cordova. I can count on exactly 0 fingers the number of times i have used a '-browser' prefix in the last year.

The fact of the matter is that standards are moving fast and better still is the rate at which browsers are implementing those standards is very powerful.

The use of css prefixes is, in my opinion, lazy. Many of popular directives are now implemented by browsers in the generic form anyways. The ones that are not can almost always be achieved through another styling method.

<comment><USER7> I use flexbox (with autoprefixer) extensively and I think achieving similar designs without flexbox is a waste of programmer productivity. Yes I am lazy but I think it's productive.

<comment><USER8> Flexbox is available unprefixed in all current browser versions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks Mozilla! Lots of great work being done, and it can be easy to take it for granted at times. This release makes me particularly happy because if fixes a WebRTC/MediaStream bug that I've been wrestling with on my current project ( [https://www.zombocam.com](https://www.zombocam.com) ) for a few weeks. So thank you Firefox team!

<comment><USER10> Is this named for [http://www.zombo.com/](http://www.zombo.com/) by any chance?

<comment><USER9> Anything is possible with Zombocam :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the perspective of web developers, this is a bad decision as it encourages the _direct_ use of non-standard features and thus leaves even more space for compatibility issues. Here is why:

If firefox doesn't support -webkit prefix, the developers are forced to consider the compatibility issues and use something like "autoprefixer" to help. All of the experimental features will work as well as they could on different browsers (IE, Chrome, Firefox...)

But if firefox support -webkit prefix and the developers buy it, they will write something like '-webkit-feature' directly and assume it will work on the _major browsers_. The problem is, _major browsers_ only includes _webkit based browsers_ , what about IE ?

If a developer uses a non-standard feature directly, forcing he/she to consider the potential problems is better than leaving him/her a fragile solution.

<comment><USER12> I have to agree totally. This change is asinine. They're basically inserting a regression away from standards just so content will look slightly better in their bowser (To gain browser share?)

<comment><USER13> I think Firefox will continue to support non-prefixed equivalents as well. Also, it seems like there are some useful -webkit- prefixed CSS properties that haven't yet been standardized with an unprefixed name. I think this is a good thing, they're adding new features that will (hopefully) get standardized someday.

Let's heap some scorn on those websites and internal corporate teams that do all their work on Chrome and Safari and never test on other browsers. It's always laziness (not testing their crap at all) or lame excuses (Chrome is faster, why would I bother?) that's to blame.

I don't mind being the "Firefox guy" on teams I'm part of and making sure my baby always gets some love.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> These sites have all broken because of the way browsers handle new css properties, and by that I mean the -browser prefix. Web developers see this new shiny feature that either makes the page prettier, or easier to create, of course they'll use them.

If browser developers really wanted web developers not to use these properties they would have to be enabled, manually, per browser. That would allow people to create implementations and test them, but stop prefixes getting onto the general web. Instead we are left with many browsers (i.e. not chrome) being forced to implement each others prefixes, and to a lesser extend JS libraries.

<comment><USER15> > If browser developers really wanted web developers not to use these > properties they would have to be enabled, manually, per browser.

That is precisely the approach being taken these days. Prefixes are legacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> For years now it's been obvious that Chrome is the new IE. This merely makes it even more obvious.

<comment><USER17> No, IE shit the bed with its pathetic compliance with web standards. If anything, Edge is the new IE. Chrome is one of the most web standard compliant browsers out there and as long as it stays that way I'm okay with its dominance.

<comment><USER18> _Chrome is one of the most web standard compliant browsers out there_

It helps if you're the one making the standards. Much of the current web standardization effort is just documenting what Chrome does and what particular bugs Blink has.

<comment><USER8> > Much of the current web standardization effort is just documenting what > Chrome does and what particular bugs Blink has.

Which is exactly what "the current web standardisation" was with respect to MSIE back in the days of the Second War.

<comment><USER18> Well yes, but there was also significant outreach effort to get rid of the most egregious IE specifics and show how things could be done better and cleaner with (non IE specific) web standards. And that part was rather successful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> hah thats funny, back in the day Opera also supported webkit prefixes[1], today it uses the blink engine.

1\. [http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto2.12/css/aliases/](http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto2.12/css/aliases/)

<comment><USER20> Blink is a fork of webkit so it supports webkit prefixes anyways.

<comment><USER21> He's talking about Opera 12 and before which was built on the Presto engine, not the Webkit engine

<comment><USER22> The case with Opera is interesting. The web standards became so complicated that Opera was unable to maintain their alternative engine and implement all of new features. Microsoft might have to switch to webkit in the future too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, will I now see that very very nice mobile ui for outlook on FF mobile as well as on Chrome on android?

Edit: Yes!! Finally!!

Now, if only it would handle favicons the way chrome does it (many sites have a nice favicon for on the Android Launcher desktop in chrome, while in FF they get a low res white on orange star icon. Very ugly... On second inspection, seems like Chrome makes nice icon out of the first letter of the main domain and matches the main color to the one used on the site as a default, while FF has that star.)

Also, it lacks drag-to-refresh as it does in Chrome. But I can tap the address bar and "enter" of course.

<comment><USER24> > Also, it lacks drag-to-refresh as it does in Chrome. But I can tap the > address bar and "enter" of course.

You can also "Menu" > "Reload".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Stick it to 'em, Mozilla! Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

</comment><comment><USER25> Firefox 49 supports background-clip: text, but thanks to these changes, the safest pattern to use to get it working in Firefox is still the -webkit one!

      color: #0dd;

      background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(to right, #0cf, #0fc);
      -webkit-background-clip: text;
      -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;

[https://jsfiddle.net/8kyzg826/](https://jsfiddle.net/8kyzg826/)

</comment><comment><USER26> That was the tipping point of Opera and IE/Edge too. Opera 12 had various methods to emulate other browsers behaviours and compatibility domain-lists, in the end Opera 12 died and the next version, Opera 15, was just a fork of Chromium. IE/Edge feels pretty broken in modern web similar to Opera 12 back then.

The question is were is webkit/Safari is this game. Most website have stylesheets that mention webkit prefixes, and it's now clear why Google removed the prefixes from their webkit fork (blink). It's bad for the end user and the web devs, but good for them.

</comment><comment><USER27> One of the reasons I moved back to chrome from firefox was that it got annoying of dealing with websites that didn't work well in firefox, so this is a good UX improvement IMO.

But now it means firefox has to chase chrome's tail all the time?

<comment><USER28> It shouldn't: experimental web features are now hidden behind browser preferences instead of prefixes that anybody can (ab)use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hmm, I really feel Apple is to blame for this mess, just my gut feeling.

<comment><USER30> Mozilla is at least partially responsible as well. WebKit only became as dominant as it did because it was readily and easily embeddable, highly portable, and nearly language and toolkit agnostic.

Gecko easily could've become a major player as well, but instead of looking ahead and making Gecko more appealing to developers and OEMs, they dropped support for embedded Gecko entirely and doubled down on Gecko and Firefox for all practical purposes being one in the same and forcing anyone interested in using Gecko to wrestle around with XULRunner.

So today WebKit is everywhere (even where Chrome/Blink isn't) and is the bar all others are measured by. Had Mozilla been more amicable to projects like Camino and K-Meleon things might be different now.

<comment><USER31> KHTML was hardly embeddable, portable, or language/toolkit agnostic at the time.

<comment><USER32> It was absolutely embeddadble - the KPart was a first-class supported way of using it (widely used in other KDE applications) - and at least somewhat portable (KDE on windows predates WebKit).

<comment><USER18> But didn't KPart rely on KDE (libs)? That's hardly embeddable in any meaningful sense. Gecko was embeddable too if everything you wrote was XUL :-)

<comment><USER32> Kdeui was (and remains) a first-class toolkit for writing arbitrary applications (and widely used as such) in a way that XUL has never really been.

<comment><USER31> I think "embeddable" means at least "I have an arbitrary Charles Petzold-style Win32 app and I want to put KHTML in it without adopting my whole app to a framework". KParts was never really designed for this.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Machine Pauses - <AUTHOR> https://hedgehogreview.com/blog/thr/posts/the-machine-pauses <comment><USER2> One of the central themes is that all content is mediated - no one reads the original work but rather commentary on commentary.

In the spirit of this I would encourage you to read the original 1909 E.M. Forster piece first before reading this piece of commentary or the replies in this thread: [https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/vetter/Other-stuff/The- Machi...](https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/vetter/Other-stuff/The-Machine- Stops.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a pattern as old as the technology and civilization dependent on it:

        1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
        2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
        3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
        4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
        5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
        6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
        7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
        8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

        9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
        — Genesis 11:1–9[6]

Replace the brick for silicon and slime for oil and here we are, dwelling up high in the sky, each in our own filter bubble, unable to discuss the important issues that build society, but managing to unravel it every time we try to fix it with more technological solutions.

<comment><USER4> Is the lord here just a dick? Why would he do that?

<comment><USER5> I highly recommend watching Jordan Peterson's lectures on youtube called "Biblical Series". They (attempt to) explain this and similar questions from Christianity to people who are typically smart and approach the world intellectually, who will usually have trouble with these concepts and the meaning of the stories.

Regardless of "belief" in Christinity, it is clear to me at least that any such simplistic interpretation as "god was just a dick", is at the very least, missing the point of the stories. There is a much more deep and logical meaning in many of those stories, which becomes very obvious when you get presented to it, and that's before you even start tapping into the spiritual/existential/metaphysical content of the stories. It makes much more sense even as simple life wisdom.

To present an overly simplified answer, I will say that typically (and this is a typical occurrence in the stories, where god does something painful or creates an obstruction), when something like that happens, the phrase "god did it", does not refer so much to the fact that christinaity tries to make up this god character and give him some lines to make him look a certain way, in order to tell some message.

Instead, "god did it this way" refers to god being everything, the universe, including the human societies: god is not something above human world as a guy in the sky (in fact bible never presents that image, it's more something from monty python), god is the personfification of the world and everything that happens in it.

And what happens in it is that sometimes people feel pain, do stupid things, sometimes tragical (appearing so) events happen. That's just the fact of life. Christianity does not triumphantly claim that "god did it" as any form of justification, it simply describes that since those thing do obviously happen, that means the universe, the world, the society - the god (all those things combined) make those things happen. And then the rest of the story is presented in such a way as to understand how humans can act in relationship to those underelying realities. How they can respond to and understand what is happening in the world.

<comment><USER6> Than you really have to stretch the principle of charity beyond what it reasonable. Just read the first of the ten commandments and there is a very jealous undertone about other gods.

"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me."

From this statement it is very clear to me who God is and that is not the Universe, society nor the father of time.

<comment><USER7> Ah, but this jealousy makes perfect sense if God is indeed the 'father of everything'. It is common in contemporary Christian parlance to refer to idols as things that distract us from God. This is a very useful concept that is born directly out of that commandment. And why no idols? Because any construct of the mind that interferes with seeing true reality is probably going to end badly- like someone in a blindfold walking off a pier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A link to "The Machine Stops" for those curious: [http://self.gutenberg.org/wplbn0000627598-the-machine- stops-...](http://self.gutenberg.org/wplbn0000627598-the-machine-stops-by- forster-e-m-.aspx)?

</comment><comment><USER9> I can't help but think of the author as spoiled and out of touch while worshipping a utopia that never was and forgetting both the brutality of the past and the fringes of today who lack much of the benefits.

"What has efficency done for us?" is a real straight line, a question that is a set up for a gag the length of an essay that makes "Who is John Galt" look terse.

Forget the aquaducts of the romans. Aside from allowing specialization to give increased benefits like advanced medicine, education, a rising standard of living for a growing population with a small minority engaged in agriculture, and reducded environmental impact what has efficency done for us?

<comment><USER10> He's talking specifically about disposable consumer tech, cranking out machinery that sits and rots when reality throws a pandemic at us. Chasing new literal machines for the sake of chasing new literal machines

It's the difference between focusing on biology of a tree and not ecology of a forest

Not systems efficiency in general, specific efficiencies we're chasing by describing how much time we put into them relative to other time and resource efficiencies we can look for

There's no efficiency to be found in launching a new phone every couple years? In any context?

Maybe your take is what's "terse"?

<comment><USER11> > He's talking specifically about disposable consumer tech, cranking out > machinery that sits and rots [...]

Where did you get this impression from? No such thing is mentioned in the article, not that I saw at least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This mirrors Adam Smith's later opinions on division of labor

After getting all excited about it early on in Wealth if Nations, he later changed his tune in the book.

Later he went on about it being a monstrous thing that would make people as stupid as they can be

It's a Brave New World out there

I am not a Luddite. Nor do I believe a minority of the human population who can afford these things are owed them at great expense to the planet all humans have to live on

It's authoritarian to force a future mess on others. That they'd have to chose to clean up & stabilize instead of explore

But the west of course is a bunch of nihilists at heart. Too busy ogling the machine itself to be distracted from the idea their impact could possibly be harmful to ourselves or the species

[https://youtu.be/y_7V7tEj2Lo](https://youtu.be/y_7V7tEj2Lo)

</comment><comment><USER12> Sooner or later this is bound to happen and I think the problem is that are too used to things working smoothly and not considering an interruption. Also, time and time again we seem to find it easier to recover from a crisis than to prevent it. It's really strange...

<comment><USER13> I used to worry about people not considering interruptions, but I think recent events have convinced me I was being too pessimistic. Almost everything I use, from chairs to obscure condiments to imported canned coffee, can apparently make it to store shelves or my doorstep during an interruption of everything with no precedent in living memory.

</comment></comment><comment> awinter-py > When the mechanical system eventually begins to break down (starting with > the music-streaming service, then the beds), the people have no choice but > to take further recourse in the Machine. Complaints are lodged with the > Committee of the Mending Apparatus, but the Mending Apparatus itself turns > out to be broken.

EM Forster was brought to the future, filed a single support ticket, and was sent back to report to his own age

</comment><comment><USER14> "Mental health cannot be defined in terms of the "adjustment" of the individual to his society, but, on the other hand, that it must be defined in terms of the society to the needs of man, of its role in furthering or hindering the development of mental health. Whether or not the individual is healthy, is primarily not an individual matter, but depends on the structure of his society."

― Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (1955)

"Enclosed within his artificial creation, man finds that there is "no exit"; that he cannot pierce the shell of technology again to find the ancient milieu to which he was adapted for hundreds of thousands of years. . . . In our cities there is no more day or night or heat or cold. But there is overpopulation, thralldom to press and television, total absence of purpose. All men are constrained by means external to them to ends equally external. The further the technical mechanism develops that allows us to escape natural necessity, the more we are subjected to artificial technical necessities."

― Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (1954)

"What is more, the whole apparatus of life has become so complex and the processes of production, distribution, and consumption have become so specialized and subdivided, that the individual person loses confidence in his own unaided capacities: he is increasingly subject to commands he does not understand, at the mercy of forces over which he exercises no effective control, moving to a destination he has not chosen. Unlike the taboo-ridden savage, who is often childishly over-confident in the powers of his shaman or magician to control formidable natural forces, however inimical, the machine- conditioned individual feels lost and helpless as day by day he metaphorically punches his time-card, takes his place on the assembly line, and at the end draws a pay check that proves worthless for obtaining any of the genuine goods of life.

This lack of close personal involvement in the daily routine brings a general loss of contact with reality: instead of continuous interplay between the inner and the outer world, with constant feedback or readjustment and with stimulus to fresh creativity, only the outer world-and mainly the collectively organized outer world of the power system-exercises authority: even private dreams must be channeled through television, film, and disc, in order to become acceptable.

With this feeling of alienation goes the typical psychological problem of our time, characterized in classic terms by Erik Erikson as the 'Identity Crisis.' In a world of transitory family nurture, transitory human contacts, transitory jobs and places of residence, transitory sexual and family relations, the basic conditions for maintaining continuity and establishing personal equilibrium disappear. The individual suddenly awakens, as Tolstoi did in a famous crisis in his own life at Arzamas, to find himself in a strange, dark room, far from home, threatened by obscure hostile forces, unable to discover where he is or who he is, appalled by the prospect of a meaningless death at the end of a meaningless life."

― Lewis Mumford, The Pentagon of Power (1964)

"On all sides man was continually made to feel the natural limitations of earthly well-being. The efficient ministering of the technical, hygienic and sanitary appliances with which man has surrounded himself is spoiling him. He is losing the good-humored resignation in the daily imperfections of human well-being which formed the disciple of earlier generations.

But at the same time he runs the risk of losing the natural ability to take human happiness as it offers itself, as well. Life is made too easy. Mankind's moral fiber is giving way under the softening influence of luxury. In earlier civilizations, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other, there was always this in contrast: in principle the value of earthly happiness is deprecated relatively to celestial bliss or union with the All. As all these religions, however, do recognize a relative worth of early pleasures, and consider them as God-given, denial of the value of life meant ingratitude. It was the very realization of the precariousness of every moment of human well- being which caused it to be appreciated at its true value.

In the present there is a contrast also, but it is a very different one. The increase of security, of comfort, and of the possibilities of want- gratification, in short the greater ease of living has had two results: On the one hand, it has prepared the soil for all forms of renunciation of life: philosophical denial of its value, purely emotive spleen or aversion from life; on the other, it has installed the belief in the right to happiness. It has made people expect things from life. Related to this there is another contrast. The ambivalent attitude which wavers between the renunciation and the enjoyment of life is peculiar to the individual alone. The community, however, without hesitation and with more conviction than ever before, accepts earthly life as the object of all striving and action. It is indeed a true worship of life.

Now it is a question for serious consideration whether any advanced culture can survive without a certain measure of orientation to Death. The great civilizations of the past have all had it. There are signs that the philosophical thought of today is also coming to it. It seems only logical, more over, that a philosophy which rates "living" above "knowing" should also include the end of life in its vision."

― Johan Huizinga, In the Shadow of Tomorrow (1936)</comment>


Can your REPL do this? - <AUTHOR> http://whalliburton.github.com/academy/

<comment><USER2> Still waiting for a REPL that could what Lisp Machines could do in the early 80s -- namely integrate graphics with object-specific behavior.

<http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6946>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Interface_Manager>

[http://www.sts.tu-harburg.de/~r.f.moeller/uims-clim/clim- int...](http://www.sts.tu-harburg.de/~r.f.moeller/uims-clim/clim-intro.html)

<comment><USER3> I think [Racket][1] does this.

[1]: <http://racket-lang.org>

<comment><USER4> Here is a direct link to a tutorial that shows off graphics in the Racket REPL: <http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/index.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Factor's REPL can handle images, colours and fonts:

<http://re-factor.blogspot.com/2010/09/visual-repl.html>

I've been meaning to write something like Factor's REPL for Clojure, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

<comment><USER6> Working on it: [http://cemerick.com/2011/10/26/enabling-richer- interactions-...](http://cemerick.com/2011/10/26/enabling-richer-interactions- in-the-clojure-repl/)

In a heterogeneous mix of tools, getting the channel right is a big part of the challenge. Lots of the interactivity is going to be client-specific (i.e. what's possible / attractive in Eclipse is different from Emacs/vim/TextMate), but the channel underneath is a big enabler.

Would love to hear what you have in mind specifically, if only to see if there's a vector I'm not considering that I should be.

<comment><USER5> I was thinking of using a browser, as you'd get images, tables and so forth for free. The Ace code editor could be used for the prompt, which would provide syntax highlighting and indent rules for the prompt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't get this. Someone wrote a bunch of cute Lisp functions that use Unicode and put them on a webpage?

<comment><USER8> Yes, it was pretty artistic as far as programs linked on Hacker News go, but technically... it was just a bunch of functions and macros which produced formatted strings.

Not that it's bad on itself, but the title suggested otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I didn't find a decent/direct way to get to the code itself. This seems to be the repository that is mentioned/used in that text:

<https://github.com/whalliburton/academy>

Edit: And someone who likes dead prez I certainly got a kick out of the hexagram examples. Haven't seen those for a while.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Prez>

</comment><comment><USER10> Yes. It was called BASIC and it came with my IBM PC XT in 1985.

</comment><comment><USER11> Somebody showed me some shit Mathematica can do (by way of embedding images and live representations of data) that goes way beyond this and any other Lisp REPL I've seen, so let's not get too smug.

On another note, it's a pleasure to see a bit of the I Ching in there - in the classic Wilhelm/Baynes edition, no less. It is one of the greatest works of civilization. (As for Wilhelm/Baynes: how a translation of a translation could have turned out so well is a mystery. Putting it beside any other I Ching in English is like comparing a Monet to a daguerreotype.)

<comment><USER12> I rarely use the REPL directly in Lisp anymore, I use the Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs, better known as SLIME. emacs had a project running for a while for video editing. It also has a working google maps embedding. I'm sure with appropriate whacking I could intertwine it with a Lisp listener instead of my IDE.

<comment><USER11> Slime is a Lisp REPL. It's the one I was thinking of. Yes, people have dabbled around the edges adding images and other things that Emacs can do. But that isn't the same thing as a REPL designed with data visualization in mind. Lisp is not the state of the art here.

<comment><USER12> Granted.

To be 100% honest, I'm not sure why a programming language REPL needs to have full data visualization. I may not fully get the idea of REPLs, but it would seem to me that that would be the responsibility of a layer above it to manage data presentation; sophisticated data I would consider to require a domain- specific viewer anyway.

<comment><USER11> I agree with you there, so I guess what I want is a REPL that has hooks for custom printers, i.e to display an object of type X my way instead of the usual way. I'd like "printing" to optionally include graphics or whatever else makes for a good display of that data. And I'd like the representation to be interactive, so that one can drill down into sub-data or whatever else is appropriate. That too (obviously) is the responsibility of the custom printer, not the REPL itself, but I wish the REPL would make it easy to build such extensions. Little domain-specific visualizers.

Why? Well, some programs rely heavily on specific data structures that may not be very easy to interact with if you print them out as generic lists or hashtables or whatever. The Slime Inspector is next to useless for things of any complexity.

<comment><USER12> I present to you print-object, a generic function in Common Lisp.

<http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/f_pr_obj.htm>

So say you have a object type FOO, you can do this:

        (defmethod print-object ((obj FOO) stream)
          ...)

Now, when you have a FOO on the repl, print-object will be called.

Obviously it doesn't provide a drilldown approach and any number of nifty and useful functions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well I learned something new. SBCL and CLISP seem to have good unicode support that work well with emacs+slime.

</comment><comment><USER14> Racket <http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/index.html>

</comment><comment><USER4> Just to make sure I understand: in "Can your REPL do this?" the word "this" refers to printing Unicode characters, right?

</comment><comment><USER15> DrRacket's REPL supports image literals. The racket language also includes functions for manipulating these. Take a look at this program: <http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6493/drracket.jpg>

In the "Definitions" pane at the top, we define three variables, _bruce-lee_ , _energy-blast_ , and _terrible-accident_. In the "Interations" pane at the bottom (here's the REPL), we compose them together.

</comment><comment><USER16> <https://github.com/whalliburton/academy>

Since there's no link to the actual repo in that document.

</comment><comment><USER17> (let ((i0 (parse-integer "4DF0" :radix 16))) (loop for i from i0 to (+ i0 300) do (princ (string (code-char i))))) ䷰䷱䷲䷳䷴䷵䷶䷷䷸䷹䷺䷻䷼䷽䷾䷿一丁丂七丄丅丆万丈三上下丌不与丏丐丑丒专且丕世丗丘丙业丛东丝丞丟丠両丢丣两严並丧丨丩个丫丬中丮丯丰丱串丳临丵丶丷丸丹为主丼丽举丿乀乁乂乃乄久乆乇么义乊之乌乍乎乏乐乑乒乓乔乕乖乗乘乙乚乛乜九乞也习乡乢乣乤乥书乧乨乩乪乫乬乭乮乯买乱乲乳乴乵乶乷乸乹乺乻乼乽乾乿亀亁亂亃亄亅了亇予争亊事二亍于亏亐云互亓五井亖亗亘亙亚些亜亝亞亟亠亡亢亣交亥亦产亨亩亪享京亭亮亯亰亱亲亳亴亵亶亷亸亹人亻亼亽亾亿什仁仂仃仄仅仆仇仈仉今介仌仍从仏仐仑仒仓仔仕他仗付仙仚仛仜仝仞仟仠仡仢代令以仦仧仨仩仪仫们仭仮仯仰仱仲仳仴仵件价仸仹仺任仼份仾仿伀企伂伃伄伅伆伇伈伉伊伋伌伍伎伏伐休伒伓伔伕伖众优伙会伛伜 NIL

<comment><USER18> #x4DF0

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is actually pretty cool. Shame about the title.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow. TRS-80 graphics.

</comment><comment><USER21> To run the demos from SBCL: (require 'asdf) (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op 'academy) (in-package :academy) (help)</comment>


Obama: If you are a US citizen the NSA can't listen to your calls - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/17/pres-obama-if-you-are-a-us-citizen-the-nsa-cannot-listen-to-your-telephone-calls-and-the-nsa-cannot-target-your-emails/?utm_medium=Spreadus&utm_campaign=social%20media&awesm=tnw.to_c0ZGR&utm_source=Twitter <comment><USER2> Obama is still treating this problem as though it's a case of privacy vs security. The real issue is trust. U.S. citizens can't trust what private U.S. corporations tell them if the government has the power to coerce and then muzzle them. This is a poisonous environment to do business in. International business is going to go elsewhere, and domestic business will also choose to outsource to more transparent countries.

<comment><USER3> Well put. Trust has become the underlying issue here, everything else is semantics.

At the same time though, I think Obama is looking at a comfortable point where trust is traded off for security. Problem with such points is that they can shift in either direction depending on who is in charge - that's what's scary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."_

\- Edward Snowden

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward- snowden-n...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa- files-whistleblower#block-51bf317be4b0d3c14258337b)

<comment><USER5> If by "all men", the founders most definitely did intend to leave out blacks and women, why on earth would you assume they nonetheless intended to include foreigners?

See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265-267:

""" The Fourth Amendment provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U. S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law. . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, _refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community._ See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law")."""

The framers were not "global citizen" radicals circa 2013. They were very conscientiously creating a social compact to govern a country of a well- defined set of people. It is entirely natural to assume, as has been assumed, that they did not intend Constitutional rights to be universal.

<comment><USER6> However, it can also be said that the wording in these phrases was so masterfully written that they allow for the meaning to evolve.

<comment><USER5> You evolve the meaning of a phrase when you decide that a digital Word document on a USB key is a "paper" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. Changing something fundamental like the scope of rights in the document, changing it from a social compact, a contract among a community of people, into some universal statement of principles applicable to anyone isn't evolving the meaning, it's rewriting the document and an exercise in historical revisionism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In which the President offers an amazing interpretation of what it means for a program to be transparent--i.e., that it allegedly goes through a secret court whose rulings are not publicly available.

This is not transparency. This is the regurgitation of obfuscating talking points.

<comment><USER8> Transparency: a secret court with secretly appointed judges who make secret rulings on requests whose details are kept secret from the judges.*

* I've seen allegations of this last bit, but not evidence. The claim was that it mostly goes on the word of the requesting agency/analyst and the judge has no real way of knowing whether it's a legitimate request or not.

<comment><USER9> Using secret interpretations of laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I guess I'm used to a more technical definition of "can't" than politicians nowadays.

Apart from that, I'm German, and every time I read this "not to US citizens" excuse, all I understand is that they'll happily rape all my data without any questions asked.

<comment><USER11> Here's something interesting I found on wikipedia. According to the "General Data Protection Regulation", which is a data protection law and is supposed to take effect in 2016 in the EU:

 _the Regulation also applies to organizations based outside the European Union if they process personal data of EU residents._

Further in the section "Discussion and challenges":

 _The new regulation conflicts with other non-European laws and regulations and practices (e.g. surveillance by governments). Companies in such countries should not be acceptable for processing EU personal data anymore._

What are your thoughts on this?

Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation)

<comment><USER10> Data on intra-european transactions and matters is often deliberately shared with the US for intelligence purposes OR is processed by companies in the US, which automatically means that it is used by the US for intelligence.

So, if I use Gmail as a non US citizen, I have to assume that the US government will read/analyze my emails. That's a well recognized fact that I've also been told by people working with classified (German) government data on multiple occasions.

Examples: [http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html](http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication#United_States_of_America_government_involvement_in_SWIFT_matters)

<comment><USER11> But that does not address the fact that according to the GDPR in its current state, a company such as Google should not have the authority to process EU citizen's data unless it's fully compliant with GDPR.

How they're going to enforce that, I have no idea. Now if I've understood this correctly, this means that if a foreign company is fully complaint with this new law, we would have much greater access to data that is being collected, and we also have the power to request the removal of said data. The US government might still collect all those incoming data before it has the chance to be removed, but having a law such as GDPR being enforced would be a huge step forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In related news, policemen also cannot break the laws.

But isn't it a good thing we have the public with their smartphones recording the police as they work? Isn't it great that there are multiple separate, public, open channels to provide feedback when the police go astray?

The use of "cannot" here is very problematic.

<comment><USER13> Exactly: Obama is using "cannot" to mean "aren't supposed to" while making it appear like he's saying "aren't technologically able to".

<comment><USER14> Not how I read it. Obviously the technical ability to do so exists so "cannot" can only mean "aren't supposed to" in this context. Honestly I think people would have to be grasping at straws to read it any other way. What else could it possibly mean? Of course it's technically possible that's not even open for debate is it?

<comment><USER15> A plain reading of the word "cannot" says that the person does not have the ability.

<comment><USER16> If you're a stickler for language, then yes. The word "can(not)" refers to the ability, while the words "may (not)" or "must (not)" refer to a policy constraint rather than ability.

But in common vernacular, the word "can" is used in both cases, so it's ambiguous.

"Mom, _can_ I play on the Xbox now?" "No, you haven't finished your homework." Obviously Junior has the ability to play, but his mom won't allow him to do so.

<comment><USER15> We're talking about adults, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Unfortunately the truth appears to be somewhat different. See: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa- sn...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-snoops- on-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)

EFF's position (from the CNET article): "The evidence shows that the NSA seeks a warrant only after the communication is initially acquired and analyzed by computers according to algorithms designed by humans, placed in a government database, and reviewed by an analyst."

</comment><comment><USER13> I think this interview perfectly illustrates the distinction Snowden mentioned between technical capability and policy.

Note that the president says "if you're a US person the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls" instead of saying "if you're a US person, the NSA isn't recording your phone calls".

The word "cannot" in this context means "they aren't supposed to", not "it is technically impossible".

He's saying that listening to your phone calls is "against the rules" but that doesn't mean this data isn't still being captured and put into an NSA data warehouse somewhere, in case circumstances change.

<comment><USER14> I may be in the minority here but that seems completely reasonable to me.

<comment><USER18> There's the reason the Germans wouldn't even take a _census_ until recently because of what the Nazis did with that data during WWII:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230398250457642...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303982504576423814268469244.html)

Can you imagine what kind of weapon this massive library of data would be in the wrong hands?

<comment><USER19> The article is behind a pay wall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Two elements of the government rhetoric surrounding this issue really bug me.

First, they use phrasing like "listen to calls" which is nonsensical in the modern world. If a computer observes all packets traveling across a fiber line, transcribes VoIP traffic into text, and then only persists counts of keywords to magnetic storage medium -- does that count as "listening"? If they do this proactively, but no human ever looks at those counts unless a warrant is pulled, does it count as listening? When we conduct the debate around outdated language, it is impossible to be specific about what is taking place.

Second, the government tends to regurgitate the law, rather than existing practice.

<comment><USER7> What I find a bit more insidious is that "listening" is being discussed in the public sphere in the way it is expected to mean--that is, as a real-time, present-tense, current action. In practice, what is occurring and actually under debate, but being evaded because of the language employed, is "listening" in the context the government is _doing_ it--that is, as a retroactive, past-tense, stepping-back-in-time action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Lets assume everything said in the interview is true. This would only serve to reassure the public that the state is not proactively looking for threats among U.S. citizens. That's a good thing.

However, as my only other comment on the leaks indicates, I still think it's appalling that the infrastructure exists to 'passively' collect the content of U.S. citizens' online communication in the first place. From my experience working with 'big data', the step of collecting information is the difficult part. Mining the data is relatively trivial and can be 'switched on' at any point.

So my original concern still stands: there is no reason to assume that power won't be abused in the future. What happens when a terrorist threat born and bred in the U.S. successfully attacks a target? I'm willing to bet these statements about not actively monitoring U.S. citizens would quickly be forgotten and new rationalizations would be put into place instead -- e.g. the state only searches for key phrases in citizen generated content, like 'hate government'

</comment><comment><USER22> Clapper: "the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails"

Obama: "the NSA can't listen to your calls"

The denial I would like to hear: the NSA does not _collect_ your e-mails, phone calls or internet traffic. The lack of a denial is looking _very_ suspicious, and a careful reader is forced to act as if it's all being vacuumed up.

Their promises only relate to when that data may be used.

<comment><USER17> No... Collect has a very specific meaning to the NSA. Collect means when data have "been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence [that is, NSA] component in the course of his official duties" [http://atsdio.defense.gov/documents/5242.html](http://atsdio.defense.gov/documents/5242.html)

"Acquire" or "intercept" or "intake in any way" would be better. The language is very slippery here.

<comment><USER22> Thank you for helping me decode the double-speak. I had previously read that "collect" had a specific meaning for the NSA, but I'd assumed that meaning also made sense within the context of the English language.

<comment><USER23> That particular instance isn't an example of doublespeak ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak) ) it's just jargon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A bit more thorough engagement:

> _I don't think anybody says we're no longer free because we have checkpoints > at airports._

I think there are actually _quite a lot_ of people who do expressly argue that point in nearly those exact words. The point of contention is arguing we are demonstrably _less_ free or more inconvenienced not because of the checkpoints _per se_ , but because of the invasive procedures forced upon the public's expectations of privacy and the protection thereof.

This--invasive violation of public expectations of privacy & protection--is becoming a bit too much of a constant theme.

> _[W]e don't have to sacrifice our freedom in order to achieve security. ... > That 's a false choice. ... To say there's a tradeoff doesn't mean somehow > that we've abandoned freedom._

The President is an intelligent man with a solid grasp of language and its intricacies of usage. To admit there is a tradeoff is to implicitly assent to the sacrificing of freedom for said tradeoff (this, the achievement of security).

The bit about this being a false choice is interesting. The President invokes the fallacy of the false dilemma, which raises the expectation that there are additional options available--but not considered--where the goal of protecting freedoms and achieving greater security intersect ... _and then does not offer any alternatives or exposition on what other options may be (or have been) considered._ I'm left quite unsure of how he then considers sacrificing freedom to achieve security a false choice.

Moving on, this statement

> _... the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot > target your emails … and have not._

directly contradicts the followup statement:

> _... if you're a U.S. person, then NSA is not listening to your phone calls > and it's not targeting your emails unless it's getting an individualized > court order._

This strikes as more talking points rearing their head without substantive difference in an effort to shape public opinion and discourse. If it is said that the NSA cannot target emails and listen to phone calls, that is going to etch itself into the public consciousness that the technological apparatus required is not present. But the follow up clarifies in nearly identical language that the NSA is not listening/targeting " _unless it 's getting an individualized court order._" So now we are at the opposite side--the NSA _can_ target your emails and listen to your phone calls, despite the aforementioned clarification they _cannot_. The talking points are keeping things intentionally muddled where they could easily make it more plain. So, barring other intricately worded explanations, this pretty much makes it sound like the NSA can indeed listen to your phone calls and target your emails, but only--as long as the existing rules are being followed--if they secure an "individualized court order" after good old-fashioned probable-cause seeking.

Of course, this is an even more bizarre clarification for the President to make when he later turns his attention to the phone records program. The 2015 Program:

> _Program number one, called the 2015 Program, what that does is it gets data > from the service providers like a Verizon in bulk, and basically you have > call pairs. You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone > number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, > is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place._

Okay, so admission that bulk call data is there, as Snowden alleged with his leaks. Once again, the talking points that this is all metadata--without explicitly using that particular word, though. And yet, it is trivial to connect a phone number to its owner. So, _your_ call data is there in the database with all the information required to identify _you_ specifically should intelligence agencies deem necessary.

The President further clarifies the nature of the reporting in that he says "[a]t no point is any content _revealed_ ", a perhaps unfortunate, unintended admission that the content is there. I know the President likes to be very clarifying when speaking and interviewing and somewhat sidetracks mid-sentence to clarify a specific phrase or term (note all the em-dashes littered throughout the text of the interview), but this one is particularly interesting because it reads as if he caught himself mid-un-truth when he jumps mid-sentence to say that if the FBI wants content, they then have to go to the FISC to ask for a warrant to get the content.

 _Any rational person should, therefore, conclude the content is indeed there to be interrogated, regardless of what the policy for such interrogation may be._

His comments on the 702 program are nigh-unintelligible for such a careful speaker as the President usually is. He tries to disqualify concerns about it by saying it "does not apply to any U.S. person", then describes it as a program that produces " _essentially_ [but not _actually_ ] a warrant" that compels private companies who hold communications to turn over the content. Then again, the clarifier that this does not apply to U.S. persons and is only in "narrow bands" of criminal/terrorist activity by foreign agents. He further attempts to posit constitutionality and authority by saying "the process has all been approved by the courts"\--but these are not publicly accountable courts whose decisions are made available to we the People.

> _... if people are making judgments just based on these slides that have > been leaked, they're not getting the complete story._

Nevermind that we are only getting a partially complete story--being hidden behind curious clarifications and dubious assertions of state secrets privileges--because of leaked slides.

The big kicker:

> _It is transparent. That's why we set up the FISA court ... My concern has > always been not that we shouldn't do intelligence gathering to prevent > terrorism, but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances?

So, on this telephone program, you've got a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program. And you've got Congress overseeing the program, not just the intelligence committee and not just the judiciary committee — but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works._

This is more informative than most everything else in the interview. The President clarifies that--despite much of what campaign rhetoric made people believe he thought--his concern _is not_ whether we should be enacting these intelligence gathering programs that target _everyone_ and attempt to hide behind _policy rules_ , not _laws_. His concern is the erection of checks and balances that appear _good enough_ , but none of which actually are explicitly in the way of public discourse and notification.

He relies on a "federal court with independent federal judges" that operate _in secret_ and whose decisions are _de facto_ classified, as well as statistically shown to be rubber stamp decisions.

The biggest allegation is that _all of Congress_ had this information available to them before the last reauthorization of the programs, information that told Congress " _exactly how this program works_ ".

Either the President is lying, or Congress is putting on a sham of shock when they were already aware of all of this, or the President is throwing them under the bus for not bothering to read and understand the information before reauthorizing--thus making a move to avert public outrage toward their representatives, all of whom allegedly had this information and ignored it when reauthorizing. Or something else.

I still feel like this interview offers a depressing amount of talking points winning over actual disclosure, and yet another advance of creatively assigning words like "transparency" to programs that are clearly not.

[edit: spelling/grammar mistakes. sorry]

<comment><USER12> It's interesting that they would bandy around the word "transparency" \-- with secret unapproachable courts, not all committee members being read into programs, and so on.

That's gotta win for me the "political doublespeak" award for the week. Better to have made a case that the structures were needed (which he feebly does, incongruously), than simply call one thing something else over and over again.

<comment><USER7> Yes, certainly. Doublespeak, indeed.

<comment><USER24> and i would say that Doublethink was the real main point of 1984. Big Brother and surveilance...that was filler compared to the theme of Doublethink. Go ahead and watch what I do, I'm not ashamed, but DO NOT fuck with my thoughts and my words for expressing those thoughts.

ministry of love, ministry of truth, ministry of peace...2+2=5. it was such a bigger part of 1984 than the surveilance bit.

In the US, political correctness is the slippery slope to Doublespeak.

<comment> mkr-hn That's a very strange segue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wish he had then been asked how they determine if someone is a U.S. citizen. From other sources we've heard that they only need 51% confidence that they are a non-US person.

<comment><USER25> They invented a device that can discern the US-Citizenship-status of anyone merely by knowing the phone's local usage details and privacy-respecting information about the data transmitted.

Well, not really, but that's what would be necessary for such a claim to hold any water.

<comment><USER14> Why would that be necessary? If they are targeting an individual for investigation at this level certainly they have already determined their citizenship status well in advance. From there obtaining permission to investigate citizens who are in contact with this individual probably isn't too difficult. I guess I just don't see why it would have to be some magical automated system when it can be handled on a case-by-case basis quite easily.

<comment><USER25> Because it's unlikely they do all that groundwork beforehand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Every story on this subject from the government uses very specific technical qualifiers. "Listen" in this case. Likely there is some kind of natural language processing done to each call - either to give a complete (written) transcript or a categorical summary. In both cases the verb is not 'listen' \- but in both cases the action is similarly egregious.

<comment><USER17> Here's EFF and EPIC's parsing of the technical qualifiers (they found a lot of weasel words): [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa- sn...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-snoops- on-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Why should we believe him? When companies are legally required to lie on behalf of the government, i find it hard to trust the government to tell me the truth directly.

<comment><USER7> This. Applied to both parties--the corporations and the government agencies/branches/actors.

I find it very disturbing and dangerous to the healthy operation of a free society when any individual or collective entity is required to lie about receiving legal orders to turn over information to the government.

I haven't thought through all the ramifications of that sentiment, of course, but it is very unsettling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In Obama-speak, "can't" means "we have a law that says they cannot, so they certainly must not be doing it."

In human-speak, "can't" means, "do they have a system capable of letting your average NSA analyst do this easily without oversight?" I suspect we'll never get the answer to this question unless it is leaked.

<comment><USER29> You can't stop the government from breaking the law, at the end of the day.

<comment><USER30> Revolutions and civil wars have proved otherwise

<comment><USER29> How?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It comes down to trust. No one trusts Government anymore. They can get up on stage with pretty pictures and screenshots of "proof" that they're not listening to calls. It won't matter. No one believes them anymore. They have to fix that first and the only way to do that is to vote the lifelong Politicians out of office and get some fresh meat in there. Senators and Congressman need to have term limits. They collectively have more power than the President yet they can stay office for life. Checks and balances? Nope!

</comment><comment><USER32> It is interesting how violating the privacy of a US person can be considered some kind of issue, not that big, but still a bit of a problem, on the other hand if you are a non US person everything is fine because your life doesn't matter anyway.

This is exactly the kind of thought I hoped the internet would break, and I have worked quite hard to help it happen, the day of the feuds are over, no more lords to came and lie to us telling that people who lives on the other side of that river want bad things to happen us, no more divide and conquer, the middle ages is over, is it?

<comment><USER33> This is what amazes me, it seems that the problem is only when the ones spied are US citizens.

If you're a foreign living, studying or for holidays in the USA there is no problem that the NSA spies you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Bush (2005): We don't torture

Obama (2013): We don't spy on citizens

The President really has no credibility here - it's like asking a CEO if his company is engaged in illicit behavior - even if it is, it's his job to say it isn't (or that he isn't aware of it).

<comment><USER35> I suppose we have to read it like this: Bush says "It is illegal for us to torture, therefore whatever we are doing cannot be torture"... Obama says "It would be illegal if we spied on US citizens, so, whatever we are doing isn't spying on US citizens".

<comment><USER34> Yes, both statements are completely useless. The buck doesn't stop anywhere, it just goes in loops forever. Quite kafka-esque.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals._ \-- Barack Obama, 2009 Inauguration speech. ([http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural- address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address))

<comment><USER37> "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." ― George Orwell, 1984

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> US is not the Roman Empire and you can't get away with "only _our_ citizens matter" these days.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Cannot" as in do not have the technical ability to, or "cannot" as in _absolutely have the ability_ but are prohibited by some easily-ignorable legislation?

<comment><USER17> Or worse yet, "cannot" as in authorized by a secret interpretation of that legislation blessed by a secret court...

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think the core of this double speak or contradictory and obfuscatory vagueness solely is a function of not having poor Snowden under wraps. ie. they don't really know what he knows or what he could say. So the gov't has to be coy. If they arrest or grab him up (which it seems well within their capabilities to do) you will see the subtle tightrope dance Obama and company are doing change as they are now free to become positional and can control the dialog and the message. The message is we are telling the truth. He is a liar and a traitor. There will be no one out there left to refute it. Incidentally folks should read the USA Today account of the three former NSA workers who tried to raise alarms about all this years ago within the system and got treated pretty badly as a result.

</comment><comment><USER3> "If you are a US citizen.."

The constitution of one country is being used to govern an infrastructure that powers many more.

<comment><USER41> High time to change that

<comment><USER16> So long as the fix isn't to give all nations a say in the governance -- because then it devolves to the lowest common denominator.

If there's a fix, it should be some means of taking out of governmental hands altogether.

<comment><USER41> A lowest common denominator in spying wouldn't be such a bad thing, I would think, provided a sensible choice of countries.

Though I was thinking more along the lines of making the internet less reliant on American-housed or -owned infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Yay! It's Us Vs Them. You are all safe because you are in our club. Forget what's wrong and right! /s

</comment><comment><USER43> So how does this work? If I talk to my wife (she is a US citizen, I am European) on the phone about, say for instance, groceries, are the NSA going to listen to it?

<comment><USER44> If you live in the US then NSA cannot listen to your calls as you are what Obama administration calls a "US person".

<comment><USER35> But the NSA can certainly listen to his wife's calls... many of which may include him as the other endpoint. This is an obvious edge case even if this legal smoke-screen offered any actual protection, which seems unlikely.

<comment><USER44> Why do you think NSA can listen to his wife's calls?

<comment><USER35> Because I misread his comment.

Also, because I don't believe that these policies are worth anything; what really matters are capabilities, and the NSA clearly has whatever access it needs to listen to anyone it wants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Title says "If you are a US citizen the NSA can't listen to your calls" when in the text it says that "If you are a US PERSON the NSA can't listen to your calls". This is misleading as in reality the Fourth Amendment protects not only citizens but a broader group of people named "the people" in the amendment. As per United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez: The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 494 U. S. 264-266.

</comment><comment><USER45> as a non-american - fuck you obama.. but I guess you know that already

</comment><comment><USER46> "It depends on what the definition of "can't" is"

</comment><comment><USER47> Well, I guess there goes at least the international business done by gmail, yahoo mail, etc. No guarantees there...

</comment><comment><USER48> I hope the next web is faster, because on this one, the article took forever to load.

</comment><comment><USER49> Look, this is what i want to know, whats the difference between this and the NSA separately collecting the data via the FISA court from google, microsoft, at&t, etc.? Besides sludge-like speed?

</comment><comment><USER50> And non American are cockroaches with which you can do anything you want ?

</comment><comment><USER51> Can't or won't? Or shouldn't?

</comment><comment><USER52> What I meant was look to me as an example. We can't even be sure who's really an American citizen, right Trump?! Fist Bump!

</comment><comment><USER53> the NSA can't, but GCHQ can</comment>


Show HN: Sync your transactions to Google Sheets - <AUTHOR> https://www.cheddarbudget.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey fellow hackers. I made a tool (called Cheddar) that connects your bank accounts to Google Sheets and imports transactions automatically. It was originally a shitty little Python script that I was using personally but decided to make it a "thing". I've had friends and family signup and use it but now I'm looking for feedback from a more honest user base ;)

I'd love to know if you're into spreadsheet budgeting and what you'd expect from such a tool as I try to grow it into a full-blown product! I'm all ears!</comment>


Ways Happiness Can Hurt You - <AUTHOR> http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/four_ways_happiness_can_hurt_you

<comment><USER2> This is great news! Now I can be happy that I'm unhappy! Oh wait

</comment><comment><USER3> trying too hard to find a reason to take a controversial position... felt like very sophisticated click bait

</comment><comment><USER4> I found his article way too vague. I mean, experience happiness in the right amount, what kind of suggestions is that? It's not like a control knob which you can regulate.

Also there was inaccuracy in the term happiness, often I thought the authors meant contentment or something else.

Dealing with happiness I found Dan Millmans' "Way of the Peaceful Warrior" very, very enlightening and gave me clearer way on life, though a lot of its concept discussed are on a meta level and a lot of forgotten after reading, but it helped.

At least it dealt with the topic in a realistic way and not in this pop-style as the article.

I think the following quote of Little Miss Sunshine makes a good statement about happiness:

Dwayne: I wish I could just sleep until I was eighteen and skip all this crap- high school and everything-just skip it. Frank: Do you know who Marcel Proust is? Dwayne: Hes the guy you teach. Frank: Yeah. French writer. Total loser. Never had a real job. Unrequited love affairs. Gay. Spent 20 years writing a book almost no one reads. But hes also probably the greatest writer since Shakespeare. Anyway, he uh... he gets down to the end of his life, and he looks back and decides that all those years he suffered, Those were the best years of his life, cause they made him who he was. All those years he was happy? You know, total waste. Didnt learn a thing. So, if you sleep until youre 18... Ah, think of the suffering youre gonna miss. I mean high school? High school-those are your prime suffering years. You dont get better suffering than that.</comment>


The "Unmasking" of Elena Ferrante - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-unmasking-of-elena-ferrante <comment><USER2> This is quite sad. I know nothing about this author so I looked up Wikipedia and this is a quote from her:

 _Once I knew that the completed book would make its way in the world without me, once I knew that nothing of the concrete, physical me would ever appear beside the volume—as if the book were a little dog and I were its master—it made me see something new about writing. I felt as though I had released the words from myself._

I feel whoever investigated this knowingly taken away her art from her. It isn't super hard to identify someone who has written so much and the fact is that she never made it like a sport or challenged anyone. It's like someone with a gun has this need to hunt deer who was just minding her business just to assert their skills.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I hate to do it, but in the interest of clarity, here, briefly, is what > Gatti claims.

All these articles weigh in, ponderously, on the ethics of this, _but continue to spread the information_. Presumably, and hopefully, a report on doxxing would not include the personal information that was released, but that's essentially what's being done here. Why? (The author herself seems to be acknowledging in the quoted sentence that this is undesirable.)

</comment><comment><USER4> This makes me sad. Mystery and anonymity is an increasingly rare thing in today's highly-connected world, especially when so many parts of the Internet strongly encourage the use of real names in an effort to stem the tide of shitty anonymous flames.

\</comment><comment>--

There is an experimental music act that calls themselves the Residents. For years, they performed in costumes; mostly with three members wearing giant eyeballs over their head, and one wearing a stylized skull. They have been deliberately cagey about their names ever since they first appeared in the mid-seventies.

It used to be that if you _really_ wanted to know their names you could, but you'd have to dig. And anyone who cared enough to dig had a good chance of caring about their schtick enough that they'd respect their desire to be anonymous.

Now, though? Type "The Residents" into Google and you get a big sidebar that helpfully lists various information parsed from their Wikipedia page and elsewhere. Including their real names. And that, too, makes me sad.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not too many people venture behind the pay wall of The Financial Times -- even though it is easy to sign up for a trial subscription. So, hardly anyone seems to have made the point in this post:

'Much ado, not by accident: Elena Ferrante has spoken frankly about exploiting the gossip mill to drive book sales — to The Financial Times 06/10/2016'

[https://post-gutenberg.com/2016/10/06/9645/](https://post- gutenberg.com/2016/10/06/9645/)

Does that seem a fair point to ardent Ferrante fans?

</comment><comment><USER6> Ferrante was the name of the (probably imaginary) evil brother in Eco's _The Island of the Day Before_.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do I like that the journalist is using the author's success as justification for trying to cross into the personal life of a person performing a professional task? Not really.

Do I think using a real name or pen name or any kind of pseudonym is a fool- proof, legally protected avenue to avoid being the responsible person for one's art? Not really.

> _Ferrante's steadfast artistic choice to be anonymous can only be that: an > artistic choice, made at the beginning of her writing career for private > reasons that she deemed essential. The cost of anonymity is high; she told > her publisher that she would do nothing to promote her books, and, indeed, > they could well have sunk to the bottom of the literary river without a > trace. That they succeeded, and reached the kind of audience they have, has > happened, if anything, in spite of Ferrante's anonymity, not because of it._

Mostly I feel that because the novels were presented as fiction then researching the "fictitious" author using a pen name is against the spirit of art. Sharing art is very risky, emotionally speaking, and I feel the tradition of using pen names is worthwhile. It's not quite like journalism where there are mechanisms to protect sources who would be personally / professionally endangered by speaking out, but I think they're closer then we may believe.

The article brings in quite a bit of gender-related discussion that could be appropriate, but kind of rubs me the wrong way. It somewhat - and not too forcefully - asserts that women have not had access to writing and publishing historically. As a studied male, I can surely assert that writing has traditionally been seen as a feminine and not masculine enterprise, much like teaching or nursing are seen in modern times. Women flat out effing dominate literature historically, so I don't really like inferences to the contrary. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating here but women in literature are plentiful and highly respected.

<comment><USER8> > Women flat out effing dominate literature historically > women in literature > are ... highly respected

Let's suppose for a moment that this is true. What would be a useful way of testing this? One thing that comes to mind is the Nobel Literature prize. I found a list of female winners: [https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html](https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html) and it appears that prior to Gordimer's winning in 1991 which opened some floodgates, women won in 1966, 1945, 1938, 1928, 1926, and 1909. That's six in 90 years.

<comment><USER7> You're not going back far enough. I'm referencing back to the 1700s or so when there was education in the English language that was outside of the Church, because it did take a while after the Black Plague killed off many of the literate Latin scholars to allow the use of written language to trickle down to Royalty and others, but I've seen enough over the years to know women have earned much respect in literature. Naming a couple names seems futile because distilling "influence" or "respect" into a spreadsheet is fucking bullshit, but being able to say Jane Austen or Mary Shelley or Harper Lee in educated company reflects that there are giants in the field that are reflected upon for the merit of their works.

<comment><USER8> Is that the same Jane Austen who, quoting wiki, "Like many women writers, she chose to publish anonymously" and the same Mary Shelley who published the first edition of Frankenstein anonymously. (You also left out the Brontës, all of whom used male pen names, and, as mentioned elsewhere, Amantine-Lucile- Aurore Dupin, aka George Sand).

(Also which "Black Plague" are you referring to here? Your mention of "the 1700s" makes me think you mean the one of 1665, but that strikes me as extremely late in the 'there are lots of works written in English' game).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Guido will never allow a `compose` function in python - n-s-f https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033491.html <comment><AUTHOR> Python, the programming language that makes you a programmer not better than Guido Von Rossum.

No wonder he's considered a god by Python programmers...

What a sham!</comment>


20B bbl of oil found in Texas' Permian Basin - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/17/untapped-oil-texas-permian-basin-900-billion <comment><USER2> What's the break-even price for these new finds, i.e. how much does a barrel have to sell for for these deposits to be economical to exploit?

Luckily this find is where plenty of oil infrastructure already exists. Prolonged opposition to pipelines originating in Alberta and North Dakota have led to a marked increase in shipping oil by rail, taking more volatile product into populated towns.

<comment><USER3> Price should be way below tar sands, if they were expected to break even then this will.

<comment><USER4> They were, but I don't know about any that has reached profitability yet. I might've missed it though.

Btw, are tar sands still expected to be profitable? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12554315](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12554315) and suchlike seem to mention a new record price for solar power every month or two, at some point that must start to scare oil investors.

<comment><USER2> Oil is used for many things [1][2][3], not just electricity generation. At this point, the falling price of solar only really affects a small subset of oil's potential customers.

[1] [http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_use](http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_use) [2] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil- consuming...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming- sectors-worldwide/) [3] [http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.resource.php?resour...](http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001797)

<comment><USER4> Absolutely.

Its price is remarkably sensitive to changes in production/demand, though. Minor changes in production/demand have caused wild price swings in the past. Take away 5% of the demand and the price might drop wildly.

How might that happen? According to the graphs/tables you link to, that would require that 7-15% of road-related demand shift to electric vehicles in the next decade or two, and the corresponding power generation to solar. How likely is that? Doesn't seem farfetched to me.

(I'm moving some money around right now, as it happens, when it's done it'll be invested in something effectively like "index fund minus oil and coal".)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazin, no hope for slow down of climate change.

<comment><USER6> Forget Texas oil; its Methane Hydrates that will rule the future:

[http://geology.com/articles/methane- hydrates/](http://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please, leave it in the ground.

</comment><comment><USER6> Shale oil?</comment>


"Money doesn't interest me" – Creator of Blender talks about its future - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg <comment><AUTHOR> The interview is long one, but I've found Tom's observations on creating and running open source projects very insightful and interesting.</comment>