The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People - <AUTHOR> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/17/the-seven-habits-of-highly-depolarizing-people/ <comment><USER2> IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person.

The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you.

[Edited]

<comment><USER3> Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face?

I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet.

In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much to each other is in my opinion both a "self-protection" and quite plausibly rather _prevents_ spreading even more hate.

<comment><USER2> I disagree. People generally have to work themselves up to a place of such strong opinions. This usually happens when people cocoon themselves in echo chambers.

If you spend 4 hours a day on zerohedge or infowars, you will reach a point where differing opinions piss you off to the point of yelling. If, however, you were getting different perspectives from other human beings on a regular basis, you would likely be less fervent in your views.

It's a lot harder to dismiss actual human beings as "libtards" or "rethugs" or whatever pejorative. You might still disagree, but you usually won't outright dismiss them like you would an article with a "heretical" viewpoint relative to your personal echo chamber.

<comment><USER4> I think that when the stakes are high enough, you have to work to wind yourself down -- not to wind yourself up. And at this point, between Roe v. Wade and Guantanamo Bay (I oppose both, if you're curious), the stakes are definitely high enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era, which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other mean names seems like small potatoes.

<comment> at-fates-hands You seemed to forget some of these gems:

\- The collapse of race relations. Everybody thought a black president would do wonders for the issues of race in this country, it's done just the opposite.

\- Several ongoing wars with seemingly no end in sight.

\- The illegal immigration _ahem_ "undocumented workers" (for you PC types) issue. 42 million strong at this point and no signs of slowing down. This is quickly approaching a crisis point.

\- Government spying, cryptography and the NSA. Snowden's leaks and how much the government really needs to keep us safe and what they're doing with the loads of data they're gathering every day.

\- The economy and the recent stagnation and recession already occurring in several areas of the country. More capitalism, less government regulation, or should government be even more involved in regulating business?

There's plenty more, but these were off the top of my head. Ask anybody about one of these topics and they'll most likely give you a fairly polarizing view of where they stand.

<comment><USER6> I have never heard the claim of 42 million before. I have investigated only to the point of looking in Wikipedia, but they claim closer to 11 million, which is down from the peak number. Where are you getting that from?

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

<comment><USER7> The total number of immigrants (i.e. foreign-born persons) in the US is at 45 million right now: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population)

About 11 million of those are illegal/undocumented immigrants. The remaining 34 million are people on visas, people with green cards ("lawful permanent residents"), and naturalized citizens of the United States. This does not include the children born to them, who are natural-born citizens, and are thus not counted as immigrants.

45 million is 14.3% of the US population, which might seem high, but if the list on Wikipedia is sorted by % of population, the U.S. is nowhere on the top of the list. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria, Singapore, etc. all have more immigrants per capita than the United States. And gulf countries like the U.A.E. and Qatar have the highest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." \- F. Scott Fitzgerald

<comment><USER9> Not without its dangers.

Doublethink:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies[..]"

1984, George Orwell

<comment><USER8> Opposed ideas doesn't necessarily mean conflicting ideas.

For example, it's possible to appreciate that in the US people need some means of getting an education in order to get a job while at the same time realizing the demand for quality education far outstrips supply, which when paired with federal loans inflates the cost of education so much that it puts it farther out of reach for people.

That's a problem with a solution that exacerbated the problem while trying to solve it. Processing both doesn't involve telling deliberate lies, it just means the solution is more complex than we'd like to admit.

<comment><USER10> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make.

The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness. Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming from, you are encouraged to reject them and their ideas as "the enemy". A very anti-intellectual "Us versus Them" mindset.

<comment><USER3> > To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you > accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It > just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points > they try to make.

If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relativity and quantum physics. So instead of accepting multiple ideas use your mind to

1\. create predictions that each of the conflicting theses imply, such that the two theses will do different predictions, which if they can't be observed will convince you that the thesis was wrong.

2\. develop an experiment with which you can observe these predictions

3\. execute the experiment

<comment><USER11> > If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) > must be wrong.

This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends.

Two opposing half-truths form a paradox. While some paradoxes can be resolved, by finding a deeper theory that unifies them, some cannot. To draw an example from the political realm -- more relevant to this discussion -- here are two truths:

(1) We are all in this together.

(2) Each person is responsible for their own life.

These are both true, but conflict. And I do not think there will ever be a final resolution of this paradox. In some situations, the first principle is more important; in others, the second. Hashing out which is which is a never- ending debate, and a critically important one.

<comment><USER3> > > If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) > must be wrong.

> This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially > wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends.

In this case both statements (light is a wave and light is a particle) are simply wrong and as current scientific matters stand the description given by quantum physics seems to be the correct one (at least for about 70 years no experiment could be given that has disproved it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years.

I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral axioms to simply leave one another alone to build the social/political structures they would prefer.

<comment><USER13> Secession and federalism are fairly naive. We already tried those solutions. In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict.

And at what unit do we consider secession acceptable? The Confederacy believed states had the right to secede but not individuals of African descent. Indeed, it was the American South that originally wanted to interfere in the business of the North in order to crack down on fugitive slaves.

As for people with different moral axioms leaving one another alone, good luck with that.

The US and ISIS have different moral axioms but they're both in one another's business.

The world is interdependent, there's just no way around that simple fact.

I don't mean to silence discussions of federalism/secession, it just seems like this is well-trod territory that some people keep bringing up again and again as if it will solve anything. It hasn't and it won't.

<comment><USER12> _In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict._

Secession and federalism lead to neither. Slavery was a pre-existing institution. War is politics by other means and pre-existed both. It being associated with secessionism in one case is no more an argument against secessionism than war being associated with democratic revolutions is an argument against democracy.

Naive: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

Heal thyself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How about "think for yourself"? I notice that when you discuss something with a lot of partisan people they come to a pretty balanced view if the party leadership hasn't already staked out a position. But they will make a 180 turn as soon as soon as the official position is out and be totally opposed to the view they have developed previously.

<comment><USER15> I suspect that's a big part of group identity. Want to solve that problem? Stop referring to those who disagree (or agree) with you as "Democrat" or "Republican". And stop thinking of yourself that way.

<comment><USER16> It's partially "group identity" and partially that they didn't care about issue X enough to hold onto that idea. I feel like people identify with parties in the U.S. based on its position on a few issues they _really_ care about, like Global Warming or Abortion, and just go along with them on the other issues that they don't care that much about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering.

Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot.

The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.

<comment><USER18> That's definitely a cause for what we're seeing out of Congress, but it's not related to what we're seeing with Trump. He is winning at the polls with his hateful angry rhetoric and it's pretty damn strange.

<comment><USER17> Caucus results are determined by the handful of people who bother to show up. Trump's winning because his supporters are showing up. This speaks more to the failings of the other candidates than the success of Trump.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> well, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races like that's a bad thing ( distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more than they distrust people of other races? Did this study take other parties than the big two into account?

<comment><USER20> _it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races_

Yes.

 _like that 's a bad thing_

No. It did not say this.

 _distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me_

Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism.

You're forced to pick a side.

<comment><USER21> At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself.

For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities.

The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole different ballpark than race.

<comment><USER20> Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways.

On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it.

You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups.

It's a game I refuse to play.

<comment><USER22> Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart to begin with.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Burkean conservatism and classical liberalism (modern right-libertarianism) are leaps and bounds apart. Just go read Russell Kirk's essays chewing off libertarians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Polarization has a very strong tribal component to it. Once you get into the "us vs them" mindset you become the member of the "tribe" purely based on the labels instead of "reality".

At some point in time the label can have a strong correlation with the actual reality,then the label becomes more important than what it actually represents.

Politicians exploit this constantly, "us vs them" is what unites their respective camps and promotes loyalty.

</comment><comment><USER24> So, soon it's time to elect another scapegoat, a social lightning rod.

U.S. presidents seem to get blamed (and sometimes praised) for things they can't really control.

<comment><USER25> Absolutely. My favorite example is the price of gasoline. This often comes up with the _seasonal_ price shifts (Americans drive much more in the summer than in other seasons, so gas is more expensive then). We might as well blame them for the weather.

<comment><USER26> >We might as well blame them for the weather.

Oh we have, remember how Bush caused Katrina?

(for broad definitions of _we_ )

<comment><USER27> I don't recall ever seeing that sentiment, in terms of causing the actual hurricane. Causing the bad response, on the other hand, I've seen a lot and is not on its face an absurd thing to say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> norea-armozel I can't blame the author to trying to focus on the best aspects of how to reach across the political spectrum (even within the same party), but I'll be honest and say that some ideas/positions are fundamentally incompatible with a liberal society. For example, the current crop of social conservatism to seem to be dead set on putting inspectors at the entrances of public restrooms because of pseudo-fears over transgender people (specifically male-to-female transsexuals). Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It's about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making gains in terms of the national discussion. Hell, the fact that Caitlyn Jenner got some conservatives to rethink their ideas signals that certain virulent ideologies are on their way out. So, all they got left is to demonize. Worse still, there's no compromising with these people on such legislation like ENDA. They always want more protection to discriminate in private settings where they would be in violation of existing protected class laws. If such people want to have a seat at the table then they need to stop assuming that transgender people are monsters first and foremost. If that's not in their agenda then there can be no depolarization or compromises, ever. You can't debate the humanity of another person, either they're human or they're not.

<comment><USER28> >Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It's about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making gains in terms of the national discussion.

It would be fruitless for me to speculate on the particular aversion you mention to transsexuals, but in general you'll gain a better understanding by looking for a motivation other than malice; that's seldom the explanation. The real rationale may be short-sighted, ignorant, wildly unfair, and unlikely to be advanced by the outlandish actions taken, but nonetheless there is some underlying thought process, and most people care far too much about themselves to go out significantly out of their ways to deliberately do harm to others.

<comment> norea-armozel The fact of the matter is they are open about their malice. Search on Youtube for the South Dakota senator's remarks in response to someone's skepticism of his bathroom bill. He basically states that trans people are effectively bad or broken people. If he's saying that sort of bunk then there's no room for debate for him, he's made his mind up. For me, talking to or trying to compromise with these kinds of people is like compromising with a robber: he's still gonna steal your stuff even if he doesn't beat you up or kill you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is an interesting article, and I think there could be a point made that wasn't expressed. I propose that someone who embodies these methods may be much more likely to have others judge them to have intellectual integrity. That was an awkward sentence. I further propose that this acknowledgement is an important aspect of having even highly polarized people have a worthwhile conversation.

<comment><USER30> In my experience, because they only see in black and white, polarized people see anybody that isn't polarized as belonging to the other pole. It gets boring after a while.

<comment><USER31> So true. Half of my facebook friends think I'm a flaming liberal. The other half think I'm a flaming conservative. This is because I dare to challenge their silly meme posters that lie about and defame the "opposition". They don't seem to notice that I challenge the BS on both sides. They only know that correcting falsehoods that align with their pet belief is proof you're in the enemy camp.

Likewise, they think it's impossible to concede any point made by the enemy, no matter how obviously true, without being entirely aligned with them.

<comment><USER30> It's a pain in the ass, for sure. On the other hand, it's a good filter for finding people you want to be close to and finding people you want to avoid at all costs, that is unless you want to be punished with tedious drama. At least for me, many of my family members fall into the latter category... which is tricky to negotiate...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I believe many of the problems of polarization are caused by cognitive dissonance [1] in particular "confirmation bias" (the article is sort of light on references to academic social psychology and cognitive behavior).

Confirmation bias is often exarcebated with greater choices (as the number of choices brings greater discomfort). An example would be the GOP primaries (ie sheer number of candidates).

I also think certain personality types (ie myers briggs/jung) have a tendency to behave in a polarized manner. I don't think being polarized = stupid as another commenter posted albeit probably being ignorant does have an affect.

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

<comment><USER9> My irony bias makes me think that attributing problems to confirmation bias should be classified as a type of confirmation bias.

<comment><USER32> Perhaps I'm not as knowledgable in the area as you are (and thus think my critique/question trite). Maybe care to elaborate on the irony?

I posted it because the article doesn't bother to answer why the hell people are polarized in the first place. Its like saying America is fat.. here are 7 tips to get in shape... I also think the # prefix tips is clearly a click bait ploy albeit I a nice clever a play on Steven Covey's book title.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to know why people become polarized in the first place or why we are so much now?

<comment><USER9> I want to excuse myself. It wasn't an attack against your comment but I see how it could looks like it.

In essence I share your opinion. It's just I couldn't resist the chance.

I know, childish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I closed this almost immediately because of the giant yellow "this is your free article for this month" banner on the top. Get your shit together web designers, I don't need something blaring so everyone in the office sees that it's my free article.

<comment><USER34> Right click, delete element.

Almost as fast as closing the page, and you're no longer letting crap web designers dictate what you read and what you don't.

<comment><USER33> I have uBlock which I'd reach for sooner as it'd remove the element permanently, however I don't want to support websites like this at all, even with just my readership. There are plenty of other places I can read similar articles. I have no interest in reading junk and these sorts of things are a good indicator of junk in my experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Well needed article. Trying to follow this more and more. Although it's getting harder.

</comment><comment><USER36> he forgot one: they don't watch cable news.

<comment><USER37> Good recommendation, but probably needs to be updated to "don't read Twitter".

140 characters don't lend themselves to sustained and depolarising argument -- quite the opposite.

<comment><USER38> People chain tweets when making elaborate points; nuance does not require length.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I am thinking about what could happen if a large company with communication platform engaged in encouraging these rules within their platform. Good world that woulud be.

</comment><comment><USER40> You could also read this is as 7 ways to lose an election ;)

</comment><comment><USER41> "Of all the mental habits that encourage polarization, the most dangerous is probably binary thinking"

Does this article recognize it's own irony? It's a whole article about 'depolarizing' as opposed to 'polarizing' and within it, is the line I quoted above.

Here's a thought - intelligent people don't have these problems and they don't need 7 vague bullet points that are impossible to follow.

Dumb people lack nuanced points of view - they polarize/simplify a great deal because that's how humans are - we first learn to think 'hitting other people is bad', and only later learn that 'most times hitting other people is bad'.

When do people learn philosophy and different types of fallacies? For most people, the answer is never. How many people grok fallacies, philosophy and have emotional intelligence to boot? Even fewer.

Thank god someone wrote an article that by-passes all that though, it's just the 10 commandments you need, oh sorry I meant 7 habits...</comment>


RailsConf 2010: Interview with Fabio Akita - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wyeworks.com/2010/7/1/railsconf-2010-interview-with-fabio-akita Very interesting thoughts on Ruby and Rails community. <comment><USER2> Rails is not about having less number of lines of code. well said.

</comment><comment><USER3> great interview!</comment>


Google Feud: Family Feud Against Google Autocomplete Results - <AUTHOR> http://www.googlefeud.com

<comment><USER2> Surprisingly difficult. Often offensive and disheartening. Real Google results reveal the dark side of society.

</comment><comment><USER3> Consensus is in, very addictive, great job.

Consider partial comparison for multi-word answers.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your best SEO tactics? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Post interesting content. Get it in front of people who are apt to share links to things they like.

HN's patio11 has a lot of posts about his content creation strategy that you can pretty much directly rip off and they'll be useful: <http://www.kalzumeus.com/greatest-hits/> (scroll down to "SEO", though really all of those posts are pretty good)

</comment><comment><USER3> Think about what your potential customers will be searching for when they are trying to address the need that your product fulfills. Then, provide real value to your potential customers on your website in the form of articles and other helpful advice. It sounds too simple, but most of the "seo tactics" that so called seo experts talk about just don't work in the long-term. They are just an attempt to game the system.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am wondering what your actual goal is. I am wondering if explaining that would get more replies. I would love to hear more on the topic. I am trying to figure out how to get more traffic to my sites. I assume that is the same thing but maybe there are a variety of tactics beyond "SEO"?</comment>


Startups, when should I start applying for jobs? - <AUTHOR>

I am going into my senior year of college in upstate New York and looking to land a job with a startup in the City. Should I start contacting them early on e.g. October or is it better to wait until I'm closer to graduation? <comment><USER2> What do you have to lose by applying too early?

Worst case scenario, they ignore your application and you re-apply close to graduation.

Best case scenario, they offer you some freelancing or part-time work and you graduate with some real experience and, potentially, a guaranteed full-time job.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd recommend making a list or just have a few startups you like. Find their founders and cold email them personally. Perhaps try to meet them and then build a relationship and then get to the ask i.e job.

<comment><USER2> The parent has good advice.

Another good way to meet startups is to attend tech events. Go onto meetup.com and search for tech meetups in whatever area you're interested in. Consider favouring topics like Clojure programming seminars over things like "networking and margaritas for SEO rockstars" or whatever. The crowd will be smaller and more personal (and, in my contrived example, probably more technical!) and you will have a better chance of getting recognised as a regular participant in a small community. You get bonus points if you also volunteer to present an interesting project or something.</comment></comment>


Scientists Finally Got Americans to Worry About the Climate - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-01/americans-are-finally-worried-about-climate-change <comment><USER2> [https://archive.is/1NNgL](https://archive.is/1NNgL)

</comment><comment><USER3> Since when is it part of a scientist's job to "get people to worry?" That's contradictory to what scientists do, which is to be unbiased observers who deal with facts and theory. Not political and cultural activism.

<comment><USER4> What you describe is, quite simply, not true.

To start with, most of science is not based purely on observation. Scientists will change things, to see if a change makes a difference.

Second, there's no such thing as "unbiased", and it would be unethical to do so. We could run experiments to deliberately infect prisoners with rabies and let the disease take it course.

That's unbiased science, but (we now agree) deeply immoral, to the point that we do not allow this sort of science to be carried out.

Third, nothing about being a scientist requires that people give up their humanity. If a medical doctor walking down the street sees someone choking, that doctor is likely to help. If a structural engineer sees signs that a structure is about to collapse, that engineer is likely to sound the alarm.

Sure, in these examples it's not "part of [their] job" to do so ... but neither was it part of Einstein's job to co-author a letter to FDR warning about German nuclear weapons, nor was it specifically part of Sagan's job to get people to worry about nuclear winter, as a consequence of nuclear war.

And no one seriously says that their political and cultural activism was contrary to being a scientist.

Lastly, scientists are part of a culture. Where do you think the funding comes from? If an organization wants to develop methods to help improve crop yields in the third world, as a way to reduce hunger, then that's political and cultural activism. If they then pay agronomists to do the related science, the yes, political and cultural activism was part of Norman Borlaug's job. He got the Nobel Prize too.</comment></comment>


Parallel Algorithm Leads to Crypto Breakthrough - <AUTHOR> http://www.ddj.com/222600319

<comment><USER2> Ok, I understand the "parallel algorithm" bit... but where's the "crypto breakthrough"? Breaking 56-bit DES? That was old news over a decade ago.

<comment><USER3> I think their point was this:

      When using a Pico FPGA cluster, however, each FPGA is able
      to perform 1.6 billion DES operations per second. A cluster
      of 176 FPGAs, installed into a single server using standard
      PCI Express slots, is capable of processing more than 280
      billion DES operations per second. This means that a key
      recovery that would take years to perform on a PC, even
      with GPU acceleration, could be accomplished in less than
      three days on the FPGA cluster.

So, they managed to brute-force DES a lot faster. No crypto breakthrough, please move along. :)

This should have been titled "FPGA cluster brute-forces DES in record time" or something like that.

<comment><USER2> _FPGA cluster brute-forces DES in record time_

Even that isn't true. Deep Crack took 56 hours (matching the "less than three days" claimed in the article), while the combined Deep Crack + Distributed.Net effort took less than 24 hours.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, my bad. I didn't bother to research, just pulled that from the article.

      Pico Computing has announced that it has achieved the
      highest-known benchmark speeds for 56-bit DES decryption,
      with reported throughput of over 280 billion keys per
      second achieved using a single, hardware-accelerated server.

<comment><USER2> Ok, so 12 years after Deep Crack they've managed to get triple its performance. I can't say that I'm very impressed.

<comment><USER4> Deep Crack used specialized ASICs. The breakthrough is that these general- purpose (reprogrammable) FPGAs are actually faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've often wondered how you know when you've actually found the solution.

 _The massively parallel algorithm iteratively decrypts fixed-size blocks of data to find keys that decrypt into ASCII numbers. This technique is often used for recovering the keys of encrypted files containing known types of data._

This doesn't make sense to me. I mean, what if I didn't encrypt ASCII numbers? What if it's, say, an email message that's predominantly text in, say, UTF-8 or UTF-16?

And it seems to me that as we develop richer ways to _encode_ data, it also makes it correspondingly difficult to decrypt that data.

<comment><USER2> The field of cryptography developed in the context of nation-state actors and idiots who use crypto wrong. (Come to think of it, not much has changed.) In WW2, a lot of crypto was broken thanks to known plaintexts -- e.g., "Today's weather is..." -- or chosen plaintexts -- e.g., "Submarine sighted at...". This was made easier, of course, by the fact that military structures tend to use very consistent communications formats.

You're quite right that you can slow down a brute force attack by making the input data hard to recognize -- one trivial approach is to pad it to a large size and then apply an all-or-nothing transform -- but by the time this sort of mechanism was feasible, brute force key searches stopped being useful due to increased key lengths.

<comment><USER6> As far as I know the allies used to spot the plaintext word "EINS" in the Enigma ciphertexts. This was helped by the omission of numbers --- or anything besides letters --- from the Enigma's alphabet. They did not even have a space key.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's running 10 times faster than this rig:

<http://www.copacobana.org/>

And it cracked DES in about 9 days iirc, @35 billion keys / second.</comment>


Ibis Reader: First ereader on the iPad - <AUTHOR> http://blog.threepress.org/2010/03/17/first-ereader-on-the-ipad/

<comment><USER2> Wow, a web page that shows text. Amazing innovation, and buzzword compliant to boot...

<comment><USER3> Try visiting on an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, Droid, or Nexus One for the installable HTML5 version. It will then allow you to view both text _and images_ without an internet connection _even in a darkened room_.

<comment><USER4> Nice. It needs to be web-based because I'm sure Apple will remove all eBook readers for the iPad once they start shipping. Because of the conflict with their own eBook reader.

Side note: I wonder if this will happen to the Kindle app?

<comment><USER5> The conspiracy theorizing about the App Store never ceases to amaze me.

Apple is shipping iBooks as a non-bundled application to be downloaded in the free section of Books in the App Store. Do you really think they would delete every other app in the category they put their offering in? Further, iBooks is only available in the United States at launch. Will they nuke reader apps in Finland despite iBooks not being available there?

<comment><USER6> Probably? They decided the whole world isn't prepared to see boobies on their phones and that doesn't even compete with one of their own products.

<comment><USER5> They said from the beginning porn wasn't allowed, they loosened a bit, there was a flood of soft-core porn apps into every conceivable category, and they nuked em to prevent them from taking over the entire App Store. I'm all for porn, but that was just largely a matter of spam prevention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a nice start. To really take advantage of the iPad, though, will require a lot more thought as to how the UI scales up. What about that list page? It's not necessary (or necessarily advisable) to mimic the Delicious Library / iBooks "shelf," but could the covers be scaled up relative to the type? Maybe the list becomes two across instead of one with all that white space on the right?

The field here is incredibly ripe for experimentation. The winners in this market will be the ones who don't settle for a quick solution.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, there's even a list in the post of what we want to improve. Scaling up the covers is a certainty. I've also considered the two-column list though we haven't tried it out yet.</comment></comment>


What are you banned from? Why? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/What-are-you-banned-from-Why/answers/65209949?srid=uw7w&share=1 <comment><USER2> To be a little optimistic, it does seem to me that the ESTA system (where an electronic check is done for visitors looking to use the visa waiver program before they travel) has greatly reduced these types of situations. However, ESTA is only used for visitors arriving by air/sea and not for people driving or walking over the border.

In any case, I myself (an american citizen) have been treated with extreme disrespect and a total lack of professionalism when crossing the border at this same checkpoint by car from the Canadian side to the American side. The particularly ridiculous part of this was that after I waited an hour for them to tear everything apart in my car looking for contraband -- at which point it's been _verified_ that I was doing nothing wrong -- they continued to be completely antagonistic.

Edit: I filed a complaint about this, which did lead to a supervisor calling me back and talking to me on the phone for probably 30 minutes. The supervisor was reasonably pleasant, but unapologetic. (Is it reasonable that someone be forced out of their car in the middle of winter and not allowed to get their coat?) He claimed that he put a "warning" on the officer's record, though this didn't seem credible. He again and again seemed to imply that I might have been smuggling, after which I had to remind him that my car was extensively searched and cleared.

<comment><USER3> > The particularly ridiculous part of this was that after I waited an hour for > them to tear everything apart in my car looking for contraband -- at which > point it's been verified that I was doing nothing wrong -- they continued to > be completely antagonistic.

> He again and again seemed to imply that I might have been smuggling, after > which I had to remind him that my car was extensively searched and cleared.

No no, you're definitely guilty. But if they can't find the contraband you're one of the smart drug smugglers, and thus even worse than the dumb smugglers they catch everyday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This story has the happy ending.

To understand what may happen to the US visitor read this book: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30524537-the-russians- ar...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30524537-the-russians-are-coming)

I can confirm it's not fiction as it was written by father of my friend.

TL;DR from goodreads:

 _During a short business trip to California, Irishman Denis Sugrue was arrested and accused of spying for Russia. But this is no Cold War thriller - this is 2005 in Bush 's America.

Facing ten years in federal prison, Sugrue must negotiate the corrupt corridors of American justice and attempt to convince FBI agents that the fact of his innocence outweighs the embarrassment of a failed prosecution._

</comment><comment><USER5> Custom and Border agents are usually mean. Maybe the only exceptions I saw were Hong Kong and Japan. But maybe I was just lucky there to meet a happy dude.

The agent did not over step his powers. In fact, the agent did the _correct_ thing. No job. No entry. This is typical for most visa requirements. The officer will simply not risk it.

As an unlucky citizen of the world; At the different visa processes I have been (or friends) through, it is about checking the boxes. You got a list of stuff to have/have not. Check? Entry. Miss one? No entry. It seemed to me that your language, face, or accent don't play much.

<comment><USER6> > In fact, the agent did the correct thing. No job. No entry. This is typical > for most visa requirements. The officer will simply not risk it.

No, the agent said the reason was he lied. I imagine the magic word is consultant? We can do better. I remember Linus' recent rant about security people in the kernel. No, security is not paramount. In fact, security is useless without usability. This applies in the real world as well.

<comment><USER5> The agent thought the visitor lied because he doesn't understand the freelance culture. Also, having no "roots" to your home country is a red flag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can't verify the truthiness of the story, but the US has become one hell of a paranoid state.

<comment><USER8> Hungary might as well be Zimbabwe in the mind of most Americans (especially the type to be working as border guards at the US-Canada border). They don't really grok that modern civilization exists outside the US, England, Germany and France. I wish I was joking.

<comment><USER9> That might be the most ridiculous statement I've read on HN. To the point that I can't even figure out what you're suggesting. Are you saying Americans aren't aware Hungary is a modern civilization? I'd say that was pretty off base.

<comment><USER10> He's suggesting that most Americans don't own a passport, or have ever travelled outside the US, and have a tenuous grasp of world geography/geopolitics.

I'd find it hard to argue.

<comment><USER9> Yes it can be very hard for non-affluent Americans to travel if they're not near a border. Like anywhere else.

Americans knowledge of geography could certainly be improved. I don't think it means anything negative about the people though.

<comment><USER11> How is it not negative to be aware of the world around you, especially when you're (for now) the most powerful country in it and can vote for people that enact policies that have severe repercussions on many people?

Celebrating ignorance is one reason we have the current administration and Congress.

<comment><USER9> You're putting a lot of responsibility on some regular people. Do you go around to Inuits quizzing them on Southeast Asia too?

Ordinary citizens do not vote on issues affecting an individual country. I'm sorry, you're just going to have to accept the fact that not all Americans are well educated.

<comment><USER11> >You're putting a lot of responsibility on some regular people.

Putting nuclear weapons at the finger tips of someone is a big responsibility.

>Ordinary citizens do not vote on issues affecting an individual country.

They vote on representatives that tend to have a policies that might. See for example those running on platforms on building border walls, kicking out immigrants, banning people from other nations from entering them, pulling out of climate change agreements, etc.

>I'm sorry, you're just going to have to accept the fact that not all Americans are well educated.

I accept that's the fact now. I don't accept that that should be a fact for the country's future.

<comment><USER9> You'll have to explain to me how a guy in Oklahoma having a passport and knowing the capitol of Hungary is relevant to nuclear policy and the threat of nuclear war. Your argument is all over the place. We're not all rich here in America, many of us weren't given great educations and have the money to travel. It isn't like Europe where another country may be within a couple of hours drive or train ride.

I also accept that we should do better in Geography. That'd be swell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know why anyone would bother to go to try to visit the US with the paranoid state that happens there right now (edit: and especially by road), there's countless people refused for random reasons, some arrested, taken possessions... I would personally never go there fearing that I'm on some kind of random list and arrested for no reason. There are plenty of other nice countries to visit with sane border control.

<comment><USER13> The US is a very large place with lots of unique and beautiful things to see. You can travel around the country via land without restriction, so the biggest problem is just getting in and out.

If you are white and a foreign national, the worst thing they will do is kick you out. They tend to jail their own citizens for much longer for no reason.

However, if you're a Muslim, come from a Muslim country, or are just dark- skinned, try not to be called a terrorist sympathizer. They will probably not provide you basic human rights and will ignore any embassy's attempts to get you back. If you're in the Southwest, try not to be called a Mexican, they may deport you there with no cause.

<comment><USER12> > If you are white and a foreign national, the worst thing they will do is > kick you out

I've attended to computer security conferences in the past, that would not be the first time some security guy is arrested for no reason at the US border.

<comment><USER13> Being arrested is not a big deal. If you are arrested entering the country, unless there is some specific crime they think you have committed or were thinking of committing, they will just deport you. (Though, IANAL)

I'm not saying YAY ARREST WOO!, I'm saying at worst it's a waste of time and maybe money to get on a flight.

<comment><USER14> The question is cost vs benefit.

I am a US citizen and I expect to cross the border exactly once _if_ I leave. We are the evil empire and sure that has benefits, but no place else has used large scale Nuclear, Biological, _and_ Chemical weapons which is probably why we assume others will.

We overthrow democracy's, assassinate leaders, torture, fund terrorists, and ignore the rule of law, but trust us we are the good guys just like those lovable Romans.

<comment><USER15> > no place else has used Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons

Well, no other nation has used nuclear weapons in war, but several have used chemical and biological weapons.

<comment><USER14> The list of countries that have used both biological and chemical weapons at scale is surprisingly short.

PS: Russia has probably used a small scale nuclear weapon for assassination. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko)

<comment><USER15> Radiological weapons like Russia has used for assassination are different from nuclear weapons.

<comment><USER14> That's somewhat semantics. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (1964) for example lists types of Radiological weapons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Funnily I was banned on quora some years back. I can't remember exactly why, I think I refused to give my real name. Definitely no hate speech. Never looked back.

</comment><comment><USER17> "I immediately noticed how itchy the Americans are. They thoroughly scrutinized and tapped down every pedestrian. Before me there was a group of three Canadian teenagers. It was pretty obvious that they are not al- Quaeda..."

This seems pretty simplistic. First, not sure if dude is being racist; second, al-Qaida will want to not look obvious. Profiling visitors isn't a good approach for security.

<comment><USER18> edited

<comment><USER19> "Maybe in east europe they profile you based on how 'obviously dangerous you look',"

I am from Hungary too, and FYI: we are not a dumb group of people who all have the same opinion on everything, and we somehow all 'profile people based on how they look'.

I don't like that sentence of the article, and I don't like how you generalize too.

"but I'm actually glad American border security doesn't discriminate."

Agree on this.

"Secondly, a lot of east europeans again think they are somehow as respected as west europeans"

This sentence is so condescending again. I don't care how respected I am based on my nationality. People I respect don't give a fuck about my nationality, and that is good.

<comment><USER18> Okay maybe my tone was condescending. Apologies, and removed.

<comment><USER19> Ok, no problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I lived on the US / Canadian border for 5 years and traveled to Canada. I can tell you with all honesty that border guards on both sides were very hostile toward me on a very frequent occurrence. When I've traveled through South America and Europe it was very much the same. Hell, it still shocks me that there were soldiers on my train in France with machine guns roaming the aisles.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure I believe you that anyone would carry a machine gun on a train - the long barrels would make it impossible to even turn around on a train.

<comment><USER21> [https://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/103710/55/1037105579...](https://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/103710/55/1037105579.jpg)

That is Charles de Gaulle Airport, but I have seen the same type of soldier at train stations in France. Regardless of what it's called, that is the type of weapon they have.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, that is not a machinegun. Looks (and should be, because France) like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMAS), but I can't find the proper variant.

And I think that when we demand respect towards proper terminology from people in other fields, we should have the courtesy to do the same. It is similar to calling a monitor a PC or a computer case a hard drive. And being afraid of weapons does not matter here, quite many people are afraid of computers also.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Oh I have a good one. I'm banned from the Apple Store developer program before I even published an app there.

I created an account to publish my (modest) app to the App Store. I overlooked the security question because this is a really stupid way of securing an account. I paid the super hefty annual fee to get in.

Later down the line, I had to authenticate myself for some reasons I forgot. As a 2FA thing, they asked me for my security questions, which of course I didn't have (the communication with the friendly Apple guy on the phone was interesting "Try `security questions are stupid` as an answer?").

In the meantime, they told me they required some additional documents to confirm my subscription. I politely asked them to cancel that, I'll create a new account since there was apparently no way I could recover the original one. The problem escalated until someone from the US called me to deal with the problem (I was located in Asia at the time).

The not-so-friendly person on the phone refused to help me recover the account, as well as refused to cancel my current subscription (the payment had already been approved and the money withdrawn from my credit card payment, they didn't want to issue a refund. "We can't do that", she said).

I then argued that well, I will not provide whichever document they asked, and they'll have no choice but to 1. cancel my subscription and 2. pay me back. The unfriendly person told me that I'll get a refund in a month, and that I was subsequently banned from the App store and the developer program. She then proceeded to hang up on me. I won, and take pride of being banned from such a toxic place.

</comment><comment><USER24> Funny, I am banned from Canada. I told them I had a criminal record in the eTA form. (mistake, never do this, they can't check)

I was arrested when I was a 10 year old for being a little shit and stealing candy from a pharmacy. They asked for all court records which of course I cannot supply and a certificate from the british police stating that there are no warrants out for me and such.

Such a certificate is only sent if you can prove an address in the UK with two utility bills, I haven't lived in the UK for 3 years. -- I managed to get this but now they want my entire police history, which can only be obtained by a freedom of information request and will return nothing since my record is sealed.

Effectively, I'm banned from Canada.

The kicker? I've been to Canada a bunch of times because my company has studios all over the place there.. but now I can't go due to this eTA thing.

<comment><USER11> Slightly off-topic: Arrested at 10? Jesus, I thought the US was harsh. I don't know how you grew up or if your folks were around but even a tough talking to by the pharmacist / cop would seem more the order of the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This seems like pretty much standard procedure going back at least 30 years. No family ties (wife, kids)? No property? No verifiable job to return to? No Entry. No discrimination there.

Bit of an arse for suggesting he was lieing about being a freelance web dev though.

</comment><comment><USER26> It was never "the land of free getting into it". Crossing the Atlantic ocean was always somewhat difficult task.

But now, it's apparently harder to cross the border than then ocean. :-)

</comment><comment><USER27> He should have called himself a consultant and not a freelancer.

<comment><USER28> And even better, owned his own consulting business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I know this border. The guards there questioned me too (and I'm a citizen) for 30+ minutes. They're either bored or overly suspicious.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sigh, I'm banned from the local mall. I won't get into why.

</comment><comment><USER31> I seem to be shadow banned from here and I have no idea why!

<comment><USER32> You're banned because there's evidence that you broke the HN guidelines egregiously using another account. Obviously we crack down on that hard.

If that's an error, you're welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.com, as is anyone with questions about their account.

Banned users' good comments are often unkilled by fellow community members using HN's 'vouch' feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> why kind of US visa lets you freelance in America? I think all work visas need you to have an employer.

Perhaps some sort of tourist visa?

<comment><USER34> He clearly states that he was only trying to enter the US for an hour or so to view the US side of Niagra Falls, not to work, so yes, he probably was going for a tourist visa.

<comment><USER33> missed that. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> /r/thathappened material.

<comment><USER36> You've obviously never tried crossing the border</comment></comment>


The Koch Brothers' New Brand - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/koch-brothers-new-brand/ <comment><USER2> Throwaway just to say that father was an exec at Koch working directly with Charles Koch. They genuinely see it as a free market thing, and that if people think it's so bad they'll use their money to fix the problem, and if they're right, the market dictates they'll win. They also see their lunchtime as a free market problem. They see departments interacting with other departments as a free market problem, where one department has to pay the other for its time. They think the historically largest government programs should have been private market funded... "if they were that important to society people would fund it."

<comment><USER2> Koch Brothers = YC logic taken to the extremes, and scaled to the extremes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The book this article is about " Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer" is amazing and a little depressing. The funding that is behind the PAC/Super-PAC is very scary, it's a tidal wave of cash. I've always assumed since day one of American politics that cash has been a player. I never assumed that it's as big as portrayed. I'm really starting to rethink my choice of IT and not becoming a political operative.</comment>


Pepsi Design Strategy [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf <comment><USER2> These people must have been not just sniffing but getting high off their own farts.</comment>