Ask HN: best courses free or otherwise  - <AUTHOR> I recently finished a great course on iTunes university on the history of architecture.  Bricks and mortar architecture not software.  Now I'm searching for another good course.<p>I also have a yearly training budget at work that I've never gotten around to using.  If you had a yearly training budget what would you use it for? <comment><USER2> I love audio courses and lecture series and since the 90s I've listened to them during my commute and pretty much any time I didn't have to listen to anything else (exercise, yard work, whatever). I was classically educated so if I think Plutarch in audiobook form or a philosophy course is entertaining, thats because I'm unusual, not because thats all that is out there.

"The Teaching Company" has rebranded to "The Great Courses" and they produce uniformly great product. Your local public library probably has shelves of their physical products under both names, probably. Mine has more than one bookcase of audiobooks and also the dvd form of some lectures. How you interpret "fair use" once you get your mitts on physical media is your own dilemma. Somehow I got on their mailing list and all I can say is never pay retail, because just like a department store, in a rotation pattern, 25% of the store is on sale for 90% off at any given time. I'm told their products are available to Audible subscribers, but not being an audible subscriber I don't know. I have probably listened to dozens of their courses over the last few decades and never been disappointed.

There are a surprising number of courses only available officially on itunes. Bulliet's "History of Iran" from Columbia U is beyond excellent, I listened to it a couple years ago and I don't remember how I "cracked it" such that my android podcast player had access, I remember it was a huge PITA but worth the effort.

Must be nice to have a training budget. Those disappeared from all my F500 sized megacorp employers in the 90s. Back when we had them, they were awesome. Right around the time those budgets disappeared, we mostly bought subscriptions to the new "Safari" service which was very interesting reading.

</comment><comment><USER3> Peter Singer - arguably (not that I want an argument) the most important philosopher of the past forty years - will be teaching Practical Ethics on Coursera.

[https://www.coursera.org/course/practicalethics](https://www.coursera.org/course/practicalethics)

<comment><USER4> I subscribed to this course. I also recommend Moralities of everyday life by Paul Bloom which I'm currently taking and it's great. A Beginner's Guide to Irrational Behavior[1] starts soon and from reviews it looks like a great course.

[1] [https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon](https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although I think I get enough knowledge about food from reading PubMed and other links from the paleo community, I'm finding the Food for Thought course from McGill on edX [1] to be an interesting perspective on diet + chemistry.

I may not agree with everything but it's a nice refresher and it's certainly the kind of course that more people should take; not enough people know enough about the food they put in their mouths.

[1] [https://www.edx.org/course/mcgillx/mcgillx-chem181x-food- tho...](https://www.edx.org/course/mcgillx/mcgillx-chem181x-food-thought-1213)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is considered to be one of the best courses on Coursera: [https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon](https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon)

</comment><comment><USER7> Coursera

<comment><USER2> I've completed one course (why I bothered I don't know) and I've subscribed to and watched all the videos of a couple courses, and they have an absolute fixation on video even when its completely unnecessary, the videos tend to be very short, and have constant quiz interruptions. So its not going to fly as something you consume while doing something else, like driving or riding a bike or yardwork or shoveling snow or hiking or whatever. Have to stop what you're doing and fumble with the phone for half a minute, every five minutes.

If someone would rip the videos off Coursera, strip out the unneeded video, concatenate, and upload to archive.org it could work out pretty well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that is very helpful. I like to listen to courses while I'm making breakfast in the morning. A bunch of quizzes would be quite annoying.

<comment><USER3> The quizzes only show up when flash is used to display the video. Even then they are useful in my opinion.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Deploy Java Apps With Docker = Awesome - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/06/deploy-java-apps-with-docker-awesome/

<comment><USER2> duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5873636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5873636)</comment>


ADHD Is Different for Women (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/adhd-is-different-for-women/381158/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I think the author has not suitably made her point about the symptoms expressed by female vs. male sufferers of ADHD.

I am a young male suffering from ADHD. I've never exhibited hyperactive symptoms. By all measures, my symptoms are very similar to the authors. I too had a very difficult time expressing my illness to my family and friends (I did not tell my parents for years in fear of being ridiculed, or worse, cut off from my medication). When I did come out, I found the same reactions the author did.

My experience is just one of many, and it's impossible to tell how many other sufferers there are out there that face the same challenges as I did. I think the author crossed a bridge too far by characterizing it as a gender issue when her arguments can apply equally to male sufferers of the passive inattentive variant of ADHD.

<comment><USER3> ADHD is defined in the DSM-IV and now -5 as presenting with predominantly hyperactive tendencies or with predominantly inattentive tendencies (or combined, presenting both).

I didn't read it as the author saying that males don't present with inattentive type. Rather, I thought she was saying that, since women don't as often present with hyperactive type ADHD as males, the general message is "girls have less ADHD." Which, then, can impair seeking a diagnosis for a female that has the disorder, since there's a general bias to look for other things first.

As far as I've ever understood the inattentive type goes under-diagnosed for both sexes, as it's not as disruptive to classrooms, where most diagnoses are started for children. The hyperactive type may be more often diagnosed based on comparisons between US and European diagnostic criteria -- the European model results in fewer diagnoses[1].

The author discusses this early in the piece:

 _[Dr. Ellen Littman attributes under-diagnosis in part] "to the early clinical studies of ADHD in the 1970s. "These studies were based on really hyperactive young white boys who were taken to clinics," Littman says. "The diagnostic criteria were developed based on those studies. As a result, those criteria over-represent the symptoms you see in young boys, making it difficult for girls to be diagnosed unless they behave like hyperactive boys."_

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#cite_note- Cowen2012-13)

<comment><USER4> People also used to believed in 1970 that AIDS had something to do with peoples sexual preferences. Is there a reason to believe that diagnostic criteria has not changed in the last 50 years?

<comment><USER3> I would read the criteria in DSM-III, -IV, and -5 to answer that, but I don't have access.

More inattentive diagnoses occur now, certainly -- I'm one of them. Diagnosed finally as an adult because I wasn't a disruption in my classes. At question is more whether an understanding of initial indicators, and efficacy in flagging both presentations, is equal in parents and teachers.

Obnoxious/hyperactive kids wear on us more than space-cadet/inattentive kids. The hyperactive ones are the squeaky wheel in this case.

(And, interesting choices in your signposting, there.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's great physicians are able to better diagnose disease and are able to see it when it manifests itself in populations where observation was missed or ignored for different reasons (bias, exposure, expectations, etc).

There needs to be better understanding so that boys don't get over diagnosed and women don't get underdiagnosed.

I find it unfortunate the author found it necessary to mention "white boys" throughout the article. What about ADHD in populations where there are few whites, say Asia, Africa, what has been observed there?

Do we need to inject everything with race and gender? I know it's important to lessen the effect of race and gender on things, but this over emphasis on race and gender on everything seems frivolous. Here I don't think it adds to the discussion.

<comment><USER6> _I find it unfortunate the author found it necessary to mention "white boys" throughout the article._

I counted "white" once in the article, and repeated in the abstract/intro. The author was quoting someone who was interviewed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> >"These studies were based on really hyperactive young white boys who were taken to clinics," Littman says.

I don't really get what lines like this are supposed to be getting at. Why is race mentioned here at all? I'm now left wondering if there is also some effect of race on ADHD symptoms, in which case I feel like the quote was not really used honestly (used partly out of context- how much of this is due to gender and how much to race?) or whoever said the quote spoke incorrectly because they felt that the young boys also being white would drive home their point more.

<comment><USER3> Brain stuff is influenced by genetic makeup as much as any other health condition. Many health conditions present with different effect or prevalence in different racial sub-populations or between the sexes.

It's meaningful to include race if it was a factor, because she's saying it was a predominant trait in the study populations on which the diagnostic criteria were originally built.

If you don't study an effect in different populations to determine the universality of your criteria, you could very well be under- or over- diagnosing persons from those groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think it's different on a chemical level, but societal sure.

<comment><USER9> Citing the article, "while a decrease in symptoms at puberty is common for boys, the opposite is true for girls, whose symptoms intensify as estrogen increases in their system". IANA doctor or chemist but if there is interaction with hormones, it's probably different on a chemical level.

By which I mean that the brain chemistry is affected in the same way by ADHD but interaction with sexual hormones changes behaviour in different ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This makes a lot of sense. Every day, at 4am, I would spring out of my bed and begin screaming as I jumped up and down on my parents bed to wake them up, sometimes literally opening their eyelids for them, kept screaming, made myself captain crunch and began watching my daily episode of dragon ball z while eating capn crunch and acting out kung fu moves on the furniture.

My sister on the other hand is pretty quiet and just sometimes procrastinates too much and doesn't clean her apartment.</comment>


Show HN: A store locator widget that instantly shows nearest stockists - <AUTHOR> https://closestlocator.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Built a store locator widget that can sit in the corner of a website (targeted towards businesses that sell their products in stores or have to do with multiple locations). Instantly shows visitors how close the nearest stockist is and lets them explore other nearby stockists. Made the locator responsive so that it looks and works awesome on mobile devices. Would love to get feedback :)</comment>


Confessions of a living room CEO - <AUTHOR> http://fullstart.com/inspiration/confessions-living-room-ceo/

<comment><USER2> I'm the original author. You can direct your flames and mockery here. :)</comment>


Show HN: Responsive site we built for our game Phil the Pill - <AUTHOR> http://curiousmedia.com/philthepill/

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, I'm not trying to hide the fact that we just launched a Kickstarter campaign for the game today. It will be fairly obvious when you visit the site! Trying to get the word out about the game in general! Hope you like it.</comment>


Use OpenGL to get more RAM - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/graphitemaster/moreram <comment><USER2> I worked with a programmer who cut his teeth on ancient iron in the 1950s. He had a computer that had 4K of ram and two 512 byte I/O buffers. He would set the loader for the program into the I/O buffer and then use that to load and initialize the rest of the program. The I/O buffers would go away on the first read/write. Every byte counted. I used the same techniques when I wrote MASM in the 1990s to create a 16k I/O buffer in the CGA graphics card. The graphics card memory was slower than regular memory, but the 16K made the program fly on reads and writes. I remember a utility that used the Hercules Video card memory for EMS (paged) memory. I think it came with the card.

</comment><comment><USER3> While the readme does state this (could be) a joke, this unfortunately isn't possible with PCI-e today:

Motherboards only support directly accessing a (up to) 256 MB segment of VRAM directly from the CPU. This is the BAR1 space/aperture space.

So attempts to create allocations larger than that that are resident in VRAM but also accessible from the CPU will land in system memory, in order to ensure they are accessible from the CPU. Graphics drivers will either have the GPU read the data from system memory, or will do hidden copies to the GPU when they detect the resource is bound, etc.

The author sort of suspects this could be happening:

"There is no guarantee that the persistently mapped buffer technique actually references video memory. The worst case it's shadow memory and this actually wastes memory."

<comment><USER4> Why do motherboards have this limitation? There's nothing inherent in PCIe that restricts devices to such a small range.

Is this a 32-bit BAR / low 4GB space issue?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure, BARs can be 64 bit and there is 6 of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Around 2002 I had bought a machine with a duron cpu, which required a different kind of memory. I still had lots of memory for my old machine, something like 768MB cobbled together out of 64-256MB DIMMs.

So I created a ramdisk on the old machine, exposed it as a nbd (network block device), mounted it on over the network (one hop over a 100 Mbit switch, didn't have Gbit kit) on the new machine and created a swapfile on it. I couldn't believe how well it worked. I never actually had any flakiness issues and I used it like that for probably a year.

</comment><comment><USER7> A new implementation but not a new concept:

[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/swap_on_video_ram](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/swap_on_video_ram)

[http://ft23.pmenier.net/docext/mtd/TIP_Use_memory_on_video_c...](http://ft23.pmenier.net/docext/mtd/TIP_Use_memory_on_video_card_as_swap.html)

This may be the very first occurrence of the idea on Linux:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20081227185259/http://hedera.linu...](http://web.archive.org/web/20081227185259/http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2002/09/03/_long/1445.html)

<comment><USER8> Hey, I remember using it back in 2005, when extra 28 MB made a big difference. :-)

It was surprising slow, though still faster (and quieter!) than HDD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It used to be standard to use your VRAM as RAM where possible. If you were not coding a game but something like a business tool, you would just stuff parts of the application in VRAM so you could swap it out from there instead of from HD or, before that, floppy. This was without OS support mostly though. For work I haven't needed this technique since the end of 90s I think.

<comment><USER10> Hogging tabs in long-running Firefox instances has taught me that Windows (even 64 bit versions) still cannot address more than 3 GB of memory to 32 bit applications. It used to be that was because 1 GB was reserved for the GPU, among other things. I suspect (but do not know for sure) that this is still the case.

<comment><USER11> Originally, the top 2GB of the 32-bit address-space was reserved for the kernel, and the bottom 2GB available for each running program. This worked fairly well until programs started legitimately using 2GB of RAM, so Microsoft came up with a new scheme where only the top 1GB of address-space was reserved for the kernel, and the bottom 3GB was available for running programs.

Unfortunately, they couldn't turn it on universally; there were a lot of programs that "knew" that malloc() would never return a pointer with the top bit set, so they used it as a flag for their own purposes. Such programs would break horribly in 3GB mode when pointers _could_ have the top bit set. Also, restricting kernel-space meant the kernel had less room to do stuff; if you were running an app that was heavy on kernel-resources but light on RAM usage, 3GB mode would be a downgrade[1].

So applications have to opt-in to 3GB mode by setting a special flag in the executable, and 32-bit versions of Windows had to be put into 3GB mode at startup to support it at all.

Of course, the real solution to "3GB mode at startup" is just to run a 64-bit OS, and the real solution to "2GB is not enough address-space" is to run 64-bit applications.

[1]: [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2007/03/23/memor...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2007/03/23/memory- management-demystifying-3gb/)

<comment><USER12> > Unfortunately, they couldn't turn it on universally; there were a lot of > programs that "knew" that malloc() would never return a pointer with the top > bit set, so they used it as a flag for their own purposes. Such programs > would break horribly in 3GB mode when pointers could have the top bit set.

Fascinating story. Never knew this. This dedication to backwards-compatibility is something Microsoft was known for. Reminds me of how they took great care when writing Windows to ensure perfect compatibility with old, horrible DOS programs, going so far as re-creating DOS bugs that these broken programs relied on. I suppose they were just accepting reality: if a user upgraded to Windows and some third party program broke, the user would blame Microsoft, not the incompetent application developer.

<comment><USER13> Both Windows and Linux are distinguished for their pathological conviction to never break userspace. Linux has its warts because of this, but since it's 10 years younger than DOS and since, as a Unix kernel, it was always very clear what the kernel should and should not do, it doesn't have quite the trail of hacks seen in Windows.

Windows has broken legacy programs though. In Windows 7 a lot of old programs stopped working in the consumer editions of the OS. I don't know if they've continued making their "professional" editions that provide comparability. I suppose that's a reasonable strategy to encourage developers to update their software without killing user productivity, which could workout for the best in the long run.

<comment><USER14> Linux the kernel yes. but Linux user space is notoriously against dealing with backwards compatibility.

As for Windows, best i can tell the problem was Win16 on 64-bit Windows. My father ran into that regarding some old solitaire programs he had been keeping around.

<comment><USER15> Nit: There's no such thing as the "Linux userspace". The GNU/Linux userspace is a collection of many different pieces of software (including the GNU tooling and all of the FreeDesktop stuff).

<comment><USER14> Yes, but outside of the kernel, and maybe the GNU tools, there seems to be very little willingness to entertain the need for backwards compatibility.

<comment><USER15> My issue was with the term "Linux userspace". I agree with the sentiment that many components of a modern GNU/Linux system don't seem to like the idea of backwards compatibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Finally an answer to the age old question "where can I download more RAM?"

<comment><USER17> [http://downloadmoreram.com/](http://downloadmoreram.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Only, that it doesn't give you any extra memory at all. In case you're using a dedicated GPU, the peripheral bus inbetween (PCIe) is a serious bottleneck. In addition to that the OpenGL object model does not have the concept of automatic "object eviction"; on embedded architectures (Android) you may loose the OpenGL context and have to recreate it. But you'll never loose a single OpenGL object.

The bottom line is, that the OpenGL driver _will_ create a backing store in system memory for each and every buffer object. So if you allocate 4GiB of OpenGL buffer objects, it _will_ allocate 4GiB of system memory; if it's a shared memory GPU that's it, if it's a dedicated GPU the GPU RAM is actually more of a cache to the backingstore.

glMapBuffer will usually just give you access to this backingstore so that writes can be coalesced into a single transfer when unmapping. Also you don't want a full round trip read-modify-write. In case of coherent mappings the coalesced transfer is triggered by a GPU side data read operation on that buffer.

TL;DR: RAM on graphics cards is a cache on top of system memory (as far as OpenGL is concerned).

<comment><USER19> On desktop NV and desktop AMD I've observed (at least on Linux) via /proc/self/maps, that the pointer returned by glMapBuffer is a shared memory mapping owned by libGL. Further inspection shows coalesced reads and writes happening by the kernel through a DMA transfer operation, only when GL_MAP_COHERENT_BIT is used. The mapping is entierly virtual and is not touching physical memory until a R/W occurs. The driver's shared-memory explicitly flushes contents of the read or write request to device memory in the same way CUDA/OpenCL does. This can be observed by the ioctls the driver generates after page-faults occur in the kernel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Once it's offloaded to the GPU, it could compress it on an LRU basis...

</comment><comment><USER21> When out of FAST RAM, use CHIP RAM :)

</comment><comment><USER22> Is there a reason operating systems don't/can't do this automatically? It sounds like a faster swap space than disk.

<comment><USER23> This only works when you have a dedicated graphics card (IGPs use system RAM) with dedicated VRAM (some dedicated notebook chips also use system RAM), which is also not needed for anything else (which is what you usually buy a graphics card / GPGPU acceleration card for).

That's a so negligible minority of devices (underutilized gaming rigs and nothing else) that OSes just don't bother.

<comment><USER22> If you consider that when you're on the desktop and not running a game, all those gigabytes of VRAM are basically going unused. So it should apply to any system with discrete GPU memory, which is surely quite a few systems? I guess those systems correlate with high-end systems with lots of system RAM anyway though...

<comment><USER23> > So it should apply to any system with discrete GPU memory, which is surely > quite a few systems?

No smartphones, no tablets, only a small minority of notebooks (not a single macbook, e.g.), none of the business desktop PCs (which are by far the majority, volume-wise), no servers nor workstations (except those that have them installed for GPGPU purposes).

The exception are gaming laptops/PCs (and those will need the VRAM for actual gaming) and servers/workstations with dedicated GPGPU cards (which, again, would need the VRAM for GPGPU purposes).

That only leaves a few cases where you have beefy hardware and don't use it, which isn't significant enough for OS vendors to bother with. Thirdparty VRAM- as-RAM (or RAM disk) kernel modules / FUSE layers pop up from time to time (this isn't nearly the first), but they never gain any traction.

> I guess those systems correlate with high-end systems with lots of system > RAM anyway though...

Usually VRAM is less than a quarter of the system RAM, or even less. And usually those systems have so much system RAM that they have enough spare to make RAM disks an a valid option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This seems useful for AMD APUs where system RAM is reserved by the iGPU.

</comment><comment><USER25> sounds to me like a perverse realisation of amd's apu ideal, treating VRAM like system RAM, although in this case they are still disparate memory spaces.

<comment><USER26> Isn't VRAM already used as system RAM in the AMD-based PS4?

<comment><USER27> PS4 has 8 GB of unified memory yes. The Xbox 360 had 512 GB of unified memory too.

<comment><USER28> Indeed. You could also use the PS3's VRAM as swap space when using OtherOS (Linux) before Sony removed OtherOS.

GPU malware is going to become really interesting once memory-coherent GPUs (like PS4's APU) become more available. That combined with something like packet mmap [1] may allow for data exfiltration from a GPU compute kernel without ongoing userspace assistance (MMIO packet send/recv => no need to have the CPU userspace side dispatch syscalls on behalf of the GPU).

[1]: [https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/packet_m...](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/packet_mmap.txt)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> IMO Firefox need more CPU than RAM

</comment><comment><USER30> Always need more ram!</comment>


Marc Andreessen at Startup School [video] - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/10/marc-andreessen-at-startup-school/ <comment><USER2> I grossly underestimated the value of a warm intro in Silicon Valley before getting here, and still did before I started working for a VC firm. Coming in as an entrepreneur from smaller startup ecosystems in Boston & Europe, I was a bit puzzled by it — it seemed like unnecessary decorum or just a cheap ploy by VCs to maintain their inbox zero streak. Beyond the a16z process explained by Mr. Andreessen here, I should note that _any_ third-party intro (to say nothing of a warm intro) will drastically enhance your chances at almost _any_ firm even if they don't require it. It's a sign of hustle, diligence & genuine interest from entrepreneurs, even if the person that introduces you isn't particularly warm about you or friendly with the partner in question. You'd be surprised how many founders fail to display that hustle/diligence/interest in discussions with VCs!

I wouldn't overthink the warm bit too much. Usually just by virtue of being willing to make the intro your contact will be warm and exude warmth. But I've also seen partner take intros from people they barely know/remember/trust if the pitch is compelling. Just make sure you stay connected to partners and potential connectors way ahead of time, and that they know you & your business. When the time comes, an intro will be a no-brainer.

<comment><USER3> > I should note that any third-party intro (to say nothing of a warm intro) > will drastically enhance your chances at almost any firm even if they don't > require it. It's a sign of hustle, diligence & genuine interest from > entrepreneurs

The counterargument is that this attitude reinforces Silicon Valley as a non- meritocratic who-you-know culture instead of one that optimizes producing good products. (case in point, Andreessen's investment in Lucas Duplan/Clinkle)

Many founders _can 't_ get that kind of access, often due to class or other systemic factors. It's not "hustle," and in my opinion, that attitude is an albatross on the startup ecosystem.

<comment><USER4> Many seed-stage investors don't require introductions. For instance, most companies that YC funds were not introduced or previously known, they just submitted a compelling application.

By the time a company is ready for series-A (where Andreessen invests), companies normally have a connection to someone (investors, customers, lawyers) who can make an intro. See [http://www.paulgraham.com/fr.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/fr.html) under "Get introductions to investors" for some tactics.

Angel investors have a huge incentive to find companies with good businesses but no VC connections, invest personally, and then introduce them to their VC contacts for further investment. (That huge incentive is a 10 - 1000x return on their investment). So there are quite a few people scouting for these opportunities.

But I'd be curious to hear about examples where this doesn't work.

<comment><USER5> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but weren't some stats released a while back that said that 50% of the startups accepted by YC had been referred to them by the YC alumni network?

<comment><USER4> 54.7% of accepted companies in the last batch did not have a recommendation. [http://themacro.com/articles/2016/09/common- misconceptions-a...](http://themacro.com/articles/2016/09/common- misconceptions-about-applying-to-yc/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would a YC member please create a youtube playlist for 2016?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure thing - [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ- uHSnFig5NUadFuTNjc...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ- uHSnFig5NUadFuTNjcpHsWUVBueHSh)

More videos coming :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What are the best tools for building and maintaining your network? Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER8> I watched Marc's interview at

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NEOR...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NEOR0AJsziE)

Here are my reactions:

As a preliminary note, Silicon Valley, Marc, and the entrepreneurs are all looking for things that are exceptionally good.

Then:

"Professional CEO".

What Marc describes is an SVP Marketing or at best a COO.

Marc lists as the tasks of a CEO as marketing, sales, finance, recruiting, etc. Nope: For each of those there is a VP, SVP, etc. Over them all is maybe a COO. The CEO is none of those things. Sorry, Marc.

The problem with his professional CEO as the actual CEO instead of the founder is that the pro CEO doesn't have a good understanding of the vision for the future of the industry or the company and is not able to evaluate technical projects within the company or evaluate and hire technical people or leaders. So, the pro CEO is basically and at best one trying to SELL, SELL, SELL the EXISTING product/service.

So, right rush out and sell 300 bps dial up modems, and keep growing to 9600 bps but forget about coaxial cable modems, wireless, and fiber.

Marc wants the CEO to be a cracker jack buggy whip salesman, buggy whip production manager, buggy whip sales channel expert, etc. when Henry Ford is bringing out the Model T. Bummer.

Marc mentions Tom Watson, Jr. who one day, when IBM was still with punched cards and electro mechanical equipment, mentioned to his father (IIRC): "There's a guy at Columbia. I don't know what he's doing, but he's doing it 200,000 times a second."

Well, Tom, Jr. should have been much farther ahead on that theme. Being behind that way is part of why IBM had to play desperate catchup with System 360 and still missed out on a lot that Burroughs, DEC, etc. had. And soon IBM was just blind to what was in Multics, DEC VAX, the future of x86, etc.

IBM VM? First done at IBM Cambridge Research Center as CP67/CMS just as a means of time-sharing operating system development. The real power of VM was missed for a long time.

IBM was awash in people ready, willing, able, and eager to do great things for IBM in operating systems, system security, file systems, programming languages, etc. \-- at one time one such person lamented "Three times in my career I tried to help IBM in operating systems, and three times I broke my pick trying.". Bummer.

Marc has general partners "who have been through the struggle". Well, that's like having a lot of steam engine experts at the beginning of electric motors.

In fact, the nature of "the struggle" is changing. To do well seeing what's new, Marc is looking in the wrong place.

There are better places to look: E.g., in 1940, the US military was really smart and didn't plan the new weapons by talking to people who had "been through the struggle" in WWI with artillery, battleships, and biplanes. Instead, what was crucial was Reynold's number in fluid flow (the reason we got rid of biplanes), radar, radio, high resolution cameras, sonar, monoplanes, the proximity fuse, torpedoes, computers, super charged engines, aluminum in airplanes, encryption, code breaking, and the A-bomb. Nearly all of that was from people with more fundamental backgrounds than having been "through the struggle" of WWI.

Marc needs people with more fundamental backgrounds.

Marc talks about "the shit", just "all the stuff that happens". Well, in poorly planned and run projects, yes. But, J. Oppenheimer got the A-bomb ready on time, about as soon as Nimitz, MacArthur, and Boeing had Guam and the B-29 ready. A well planned and run project has a lot less "shit". Admiral Rickover did the same with the US nuclear submarines. The US Navy did the same with their version of GPS, some years before GPS. Similarly for Keyhole -- before the Hubble, essentially a Hubble but aimed at the earth. Lockheed did the same with the SR-71 -- Mach 3, 80,000 feet, 2000 mile range, never shot down. Etc.

Marc has seen a lot of "shit" because he has seen a lot of poorly planned and run projects because he doesn't know where to look for good projects.

Marc mentioned that his firm has a big "matrix" that helps a new CEO with selling, buying, funding, recruiting, etc. Okay. At times that might help.

But, take recruiting: The whole goal of a VC funded company is to be exceptional. Well, I question if Marc's firm is able to select the needed exceptional people, and later in the interview there is good evidence that he can't.

I have to move on. But, in short, to me, the worst thing Marc said was on how a CEO should evaluate VCs and engineers: Marc's main technique was recommendations.

Wrong. Badly wrong. Here Marc is asking the CEO of hopefully a very exceptional company to draw from the knowledge of the general environment instead of using his own exceptionally good abilities, which necessarily we hope he has, to make much better, exceptionally good, decisions himself.

Similarly Marc is impressed by computer science, AI, and ML. Nope.

For the needed exceptional companies in information technology, f'get about computer science: Instead look more broadly in the QA section of the library, especially at selected topics in pure and applied math. There will see AI/ML as mostly special cases of statistics which is a special case of applied math which is a special case of pure math. Better to look at pure/applied math and mathematical statistics.

<comment><USER9> I think you're being a bit tough at times but you definitely hit a vein.

It's always funny when VCs give a talk like this because they will invariable mention how they are down-to-earth ("been through the struggle") and how modern they are, when the truth is that they are anything but.

Warm introduction? Really? Is this straight from an episode of Mad Men? They know very well that they could hire one or two people to take decks from cold sources and run a preliminary review. They don't do that because they _want_ to perpetuate the system. It's an "old boys network" and there's a real effort made to keep it that way. Let me repeat that, the reason they will _never_ get rid of the warm intro is that it's all about perpetuating the old boys network.

Peter Thiel, when speaking to Stanford students, talked about vetting and said, without irony, that coming from Stanford gives you that vetted quality and that (IIRC)"you can give some song-and-dance about how your parents didn't have enough money so you had to go to UC Berkeley, but we all know that's not going to work." (Which is funny because my old roommate who went to UC Berkeley was mentioned in Perlmutter's 2011 Nobel speech; I wonder if he knows that he doesn't rate.) The difference between Cal and Stanford is about money and the perpetuation of wealth across generations, and that's also what we're talking about here: an old boys network.

Professional CEO = crony. Nothing else. The tragic part of all of this is that there is serious innovation waiting to happen and the system that could support and enable it is instead too busy preserving and extending antiquated systems of power and wealth.

<comment><USER8> > Professional CEO = crony. Nothing else ....

Yup. The pro CEO totally owes his job and even his career, house mortgage, the mother in law addition, the in ground back yard pool, the kids' college tuition, new family SUV, wife's happiness, the family vacation home, his retirement, his good medical plan and dental plan, his airline travel card, his company car, country club membership, the respect of his circle of friends, etc. to the VCs.

Then the BoD and CEO can agree on this and that and send the whole founding team out without even their shirts. The founding team can sue, but without even their shirts and against the money and power of the great company they built, they don't have a chance.

So, we're talking CEO loyalty to the BoD, sit, lie down, roll over, stand, heel, etc.

The VCs with the BoD are in a power struggle with the founders, and the ones with more power get more money; the one with enough power can get ALL the money.

I omitted, the people I could get a "warm introduction" from are so high up in business and academics that the Silicon Valley VCs don't know them. And the Silicon Valley VCs don't know the people I know and couldn't get a warm introduction to me. E.g., in information technology, the people I respect and are able to respect me all have good appropriate Ph.D. degrees, usually pure/applied math, and nearly no Silicon Valley VCs do.

To put it bluntly, the Silicon Valley VCs are "too low class" for me! Really, I don't care and am willing to give tutorials to people with poor technical prerequisites for my work, but the VCs wanting "warm introductions" look too arrogant to me. Or, I'm not going to go to one of my Ph.D. dissertation advisers, since then a Dean at one famous university and President of another, and ask for a "warm introduction" to a VC that likely does not know him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> His comments where awesome about ML. Must watch

</comment><comment><USER11> Side note, guy sounds out of breath...</comment>


Good fun with bad crypto - <AUTHOR> https://intrepidusgroup.com/insight/2014/01/good-fun-with-bad-crypto/ <comment><USER2> It's not bad crypto, it's an encoding scheme. It's even in the name! Citrix uses this to pass around credentials between disparate systems which might not be part of the same ActiveDirectory forest preventing the use of OS provided ticketing systems. The traffic carrying these credentials are encrypted with SSL, so you shouldn't be able to pull this in cleartext off the wire. It's obviously not a great system, but it does what it's designed to do. Details on abusing this system are available here[1], but they still require getting access to the unencrypted stream which once again will be passed around the network inside an HTTPS connection.

While I'm sure it was an interesting exercise, the author could have saved himself some time and simply Googled the name, there are published scripts and COM objects to deal with this encoding stream such as[2].

[1] [http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/520869](http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/520869)

[2] [http://www.remkoweijnen.nl/blog/2013/03/19/scriptable- citrix...](http://www.remkoweijnen.nl/blog/2013/03/19/scriptable-citrix- password-encoder/)

<comment><USER3> Good point. What, more specifically, is the purpose of the Citrix encoding system? Is it to map an arbitrary byte string onto a limited range of bytes (ASCII A to P)? If so, any reason base 64 was unsuitable for these applications?

<comment><USER4> Base64 can _maybe_ result in strings unsuitable for pasting as-is into bad HTTP servers' URLs (the default character set include '/' and '+').

Using only the uppercase letters lets them worry less about whether the string got mangled because some systems interpreted it as Unicode and some didn't etc.

Something like Bitcoin and Flickr's base58 would have also worked, but the encoder and decoder would have been more complicated. They got away with only division by 16.

They get a little bit of integrity checking too.

Basically, this is base16 with a poor man's integrity checking baked in. Pretty interesting.

<comment><USER3> Ah, so the design of this encoding is specifically targeting URLs? That makes a lot more sense. Thanks!

Knowing that, it does in fact seem like a sensible encoding for certain applications. _Encoding,_ not encryption, mind you. I assume (or at least hope) the designers intended it as the former only, and never as the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article coincides perfectly with the online Stanford Crypto class that just started up: [https://www.coursera.org/course/crypto](https://www.coursera.org/course/crypto) We just covered the principles of good encryption, and this is a great exercise to witness in that context.

</comment><comment><USER6>
        > x = sys.stdin.readline()
        > while x:
        >     …
        >     x = sys.stdin.readline()

Seeing stuff like that makes me sad. This could be more simply be written as:

        for x in sys.stdin:
            …

<comment><USER7> As written, the code will write the response string out immediately. The for x in version will block until end-of-input.

<comment><USER8> Er... no. No it absolutely wouldn't block until end-of-input.

If list comprehensions were being used to precompute the output and the whole list printed from (what you seem to be thinking of) then perhaps yes, but any of:

        for x in sys.stdin:
            ...

or

        [... for x in sys.stdin]

(where ... is print(func(x)) as per the post)

as per the GP post will print response strings as the input comes in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Firefox returns: (Error code: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap) via https

<comment><USER10> Same here. So i checked what ciphersuits they use.

TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA

Too bad they cant correctly set up their servers ...

<comment><USER9> Funny the blog post is about bad crypto and its all they support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd like to try figuring this out myself as an exercise, and therefore haven't read past the introduction of the article.

Does anyone know where I can find either the application in question or some other program that will at least encode this format?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's in the post.

wget [http://lelf.lu/files/MAGF.py](http://lelf.lu/files/MAGF.py) if you absolutely don't want to spoil it</comment></comment>


Let Snowden Come Home - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/its-time-to-let-edward-snowden-come-home <comment><USER3> If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

<comment><USER4> >I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release.

All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

<comment><USER5> I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue.

1\. [http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious- knowledge-s...](http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge- survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#Nonreligious)

2\. [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver- in...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-interview- political-disengagement-american-public/)

<comment><USER6> I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on board.

<comment><USER7> > I've always hated how celebrities join up causes

Why?

I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the fact that people who happen to be famous _also_ advocate for causes they care about?

<comment><USER6> > Why?

Because most of the time it's celebrity endoresment - appeal to authority, without having authority. Why should I trust George Clooney's opinion on coffee let alone what he thinks about Darfur?

<comment><USER8> At least in Jolie's case, she's visited those places. Regardless of her celebrity (and entourage), she has more personal experience than I do. Exposure should at least count for something, even if you have to take resulting comments with a grain of salt due to other factors.

I imagine Clooney's also had more access to finer coffee than myself, but I can safely assume that adverts aren't expressing personal opinions in the slightest. :)

<comment><USER9> > I imagine Clooney's also had more access to finer coffee than myself..

I saw an interview where he mentioned this (probably Inside the Actor's Studio). Words to the effect of: "realistically the studios are not going to fund a biopic about Edward R. Murrow. So if I can fund it by doing coffee ads, that's something I can live with".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is infuriating to see SO many articles, even from publications that can usually be trusted, referring to this legislation as "commendable" or "significant reform". It is far from it, and we can't expect the couch- dwellers to pay attention while the dying gasps of the 4th estate trumpet this kind of non-change.

<comment><USER11> And let's assume for a second that they did introduce actual reform. All that would happen is that they would go back to pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Let me explain how that worked...

So pre-9/11 the NSA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans (in most cases), so instead they paid the UK's GCHQ to spy on Americans for them and then relayed the intelligence to the NSA for analysis. This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole. There are no limits on cooperation with other intelligence agencies. When 9/11 happened the NSA got effectively a blank cheque and asked to increase intelligence gathering significantly, so instead of continuing the GCHQ misdirection they simply expanded spying within the US and then legalised it (via executive order at the time, law later).

So the NSA was spying on Americans in the 1990s, they just had to do more legal maneuvering to do it. It just got significantly worse in the 2000s and they dropped even pretending that they weren't. Even if a stronger law outlawed spying on Americans, you'd just see them go back to the GCHQ way.

PS - A lot of Americans seem to want the NSA spying on "foreigners" without realising that that effectively opens the door to the NSA spying on Americans. That way a call between a US citizen and anyone from abroad can be listened in on.

PPS - Don't even get me started on the NSA's spying on behalf of US corporations, that's a whole other can of worms.

<comment><USER12> > This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole

no it isn't, EO12333 disallows the intelligence community from asking someone else to do something that they cannot do

<comment><USER13> But if they don't have to ask, were it to happen, it would be legal.

It's like the recent Smith-Mundt reforms. You no longer have to prevent propaganda from reaching the American public. You just have to not intend for it to reach the American public.

<comment><USER12> what? "if they change the law so that it would be legal then it would be legal" is I think how laws work?

oh you mean if material spontaneously appeared? yeah... good luck explaining that one

<comment><USER13> I'm confused by your response. I do not understand the point you are trying to communicate.

<comment><USER12> the law doesn't work the way you think it works

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Perhaps a minority opinion, but I believe the NSA vastly overstepped and that they need to be reined in (much further than what the USA Freedom Act contains)... but also that Snowden probably should face charges.

Snowden is charged with "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," which -- I think sensibly -- is illegal even if the unauthorized person is a reporter and even if you had good intentions.

I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument.

<comment><USER15> > I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the > law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to > make that argument.

You should know that he would be legally barred from doing so under an Espionage Act prosecution.

[https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us- tr...](https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all- whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible)

[https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong- snowden...](https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-snowden- would-be-barred-arguing-his-case-trial)

<comment><USER16> This is the stuff of nightmares. My nightmares, anyway. A fair and speedy trial in which you are not allowed to argue against the charges you face.

It flies in the face of everything American and everything decent. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing - it's a check against the unbridled power and resources of the prosecution, and any laws that may be unjust by existing.

Seriously, it's crazy to me when shit is ruled inadmissible when the information clearly has everything to do with the case. And if I put myself in the shoes of a juror, if I pass a verdict and later find out part of the truth was withheld, I'm very much going to feel that I was used - a pawn in a broken system, and not at all a participant in justice.

<comment><USER14> That seems a bit overblown. Nothing has been ruled inadmissible because Snowden hasn't made in court or filed any motions -- this is speculation. And "I had a good reason for committing the crime" is relevant to the case, but it's not evidence of innocence. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason the defense can't openly argue for it in court.

<comment><USER17> > There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason > the defense can't openly argue for it in court.

The reason being that if jurors knew they could just choose not to convict people who broke unjust laws, the conviction rate of the American justice system would be cut in half.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers".

A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou (the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him had he made an even bigger issue out of it.

The people who should be supporting rigorous checks on government authority and overstep simply aren't; the system is out of control and punishes those who speak up about illegal activity. He did what any reasonable person would have done in his situation when confronted with a massive criminal conspiracy.

A plea deal would allow the government to taint his actions, which were nothing short of heroic.

<comment><USER19> >A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong.

Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing that the NSA is supposed to be doing.

Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc.

Murky: internet meta data program that ended in 2011, prism, collection of US data on overseas cables

Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Snowden wasn't elected to make US policy and he doesn't get to dictate what US policy should be. The bulk of his secrets were directed at policies he disagreed with, not law breaking.

<comment><USER20> > Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Note that warrantless metadata collection is _not_ illegal, per Smith v. Maryland.

<comment><USER13> To catch you up on the Snowden leaks the government was collecting a lot more than metadata.

It's also true that Smith v. Maryland is highly controversial. The Third Party Doctrine essentially states that you can't expect technology to provide you technology so long as the technology is bought or served by someone else. Via CALEA and the Stored Information Act, as well as 702 in FISA and a constellation of other legislation (now Freedom Act as well) third parties are forced to keep records on behalf of national security hawks.

In praxis this means that there is no manner by which I can communicate with someone in private anywhere except for in my or their house - and then if I willingly allow a third party product that has a listening device in my house provided by a third party it is the law that I can not expect those conversations to be private either.

Smith v. Maryland was in 1979. The world is a radically different place now that software has eaten the world. It is not a good precedent and akin to citing section 215 the way that NSA did.

<comment><USER21> So this means anyone who buys the wrong Samsung smart TV is sacrificing their right to privacy in their own home? Scary.

<comment><USER13> This is correct under the current interpretation of law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is supposed to be doing).

The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald and Binney admit this.

See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly interesting are Snowden's admitted reasons for working at the NSA in the first place, before he knew of the domestic spying.

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_officials_grudgingly_admit_snowden_forced/cru8s3x)

<comment><USER23> > The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not.

It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

<comment><USER24> And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?

<comment><USER25> Because they have limited choice. In an oligarchy the marketing money tends to go to candidates who support the status quo or even better - give the oligarchs even more power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If I was Edward Snowden, I don't think I would return to the USA, even if the president offered me a complete pardon and a medal on top.

I don't think I could trust the US intelligence apparatus to not get me into some kind of "accident" or come up with some fake charges to put me into prison. Not to mention the risk of some "patriot" taking justice into his/her own hands.

Which is very sad, but unless the political landscape in the USA - <USER2> internationally - undergoes some _major_ changes, coming back to the USA would be a stupid move for Mr. Snowden, unless he is ready to go to Jail for a long time. And given the example of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, that does not sound very inviting.

</comment><comment><USER27> "As Snowden intended, the primary impact of the leaks was on political debate inside the United States."

I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies.

That obviously doesn't matter in the short term; but so many things don't matter in the short term.

<comment><USER28> I think the militarization of our local police forces and the tacit support of interdiction, confiscation and especially their extra-judicial killing of unarmed people has done more, but it's not an argument I want to win against your assertion at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As a practical matter, he _can 't_ come home. Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward.

Put yourself in Snowden's shoes. What could anyone in the government say to you that would convince you it was safe to return to the USA?

<comment><USER7> > Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day > there will be another president.

The President has the Constitutional power to _issue_ pardons, it does not grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or anyone else for that matter) power to _retract_ them.

> The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns.

Not to the extent that the new ones are covered within the scope of a Presidential pardon.

> And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with > blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him > released afterward.

To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise) if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.

<comment><USER30> It's easier to retaliate when the target lives just next to you than in another country. But (unless Snowden starts messing with the government again) more likely than intentional government-sponsored execution (er, "accident") is that some nutjob (er, "patriot") will take matters into their own hands. And _that_ is vastly more likely when you're in the country and not abroad.

<comment><USER31> Actually, it might very well be easier (in many senses) for the US military to kill someone overseas than domestically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Don't just bring him home, honor him.

Ticker tape parades, a federal holiday, buy 1 get 1 free at Carl's Jr. - celebrate what this man did.

<comment><USER33> lol...the Carl's Jr. BOGO offer would probably go a long ways toward teaching the average American who he even is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> > Michael Morell, a top C.I.A. official, called it "the most serious > compromise of classified information in the history of the U.S. intelligence > community"

Well, I'm sure if they had respected our right to privacy, Snowden would have respected theirs.

</comment><comment> tosser-004 Snowmen did two things:

1\. Exposed the tools and techniques of domestic surveillance. 2\. Exposed the tools and techniques of foreign surveillance.

The idea of not prosecuting Snowden seems to focus on the commendable exposure of the full extent of the domestic program.

I just don't see how one can ignore his exposure of the perfectly legal foreign intelligence gathering.

<comment><USER35> Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

<comment><USER19> And people with security clearance shouldn't get to individually determine what is right by their own moral code.

<comment><USER36> that seems arbitrary and at odds with the modern considerations of superior orders

<comment><USER19> I don't see why it's arbitrary.

It's not at odds with the dismissal of the Nuremburg defense because it was a violation of the international law. I do have to admit that is sort of a cop out since international law at the time was more moral than real law.

Another huge distinction is that nobody was charged at Nuremburg for not exposing the crimes, they were charged with aiding them. If Snowden had a moral issue spying on people, he could quit.

Also at Nuremburg, we were just punishing the losers of a war.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Only a presidential pardon will really suffice to come home without threat of arrest. It may very well happen posthumously, but that of course wouldn't be too useful to him by then.

<comment><USER38> A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting at least until 2020.

<comment><USER39> Rand Paul might pardon him.

<comment><USER40> Except he has no chance of winning. I'll vote for him anyway, but...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Let's not kid ourselves, he will get the Manning treatment for the trouble he's caused.

<comment><USER14> Manning was a solider and subject to (harsh) military law. Snowden is a civilian and charged in a regular federal court in Virginia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> If I were him I wouldn't do it, even if some people said it would be OK. I mean he can't seriously trust the US government ever again, it would just be ridiculous.

<comment><USER43> I agree. They would lie to get him home and if the government reneged on an agreement most Americans wouldn't really care so he would be doomed. I think political asylum in a Western European country would be his best option now. Hopefully Germany steps up and does this as I thought they were seriously considering doing so when his Russian visa was expiring but were pressure by the US not to help him.

<comment><USER26> The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well, at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek asylum there.

<comment><USER43> You might be right about Germany, granting asylum would certainly impose high political cost that they may not want to bear. However, of all the other countries I'd think that Germany would be one that knows a thing or two about the dangers of the direction we are heading. Also, if they did this it might be just the message the US intelligence agencies need to realize they are out of control and check their course. I can't believe there aren't people within these agencies who are not comfortable with the direction they are going with mass surveillance. Snowden asylum would morally strengthen their opposition.

Finally, I don't think Snowden is safe in Russia so I hope he gets out soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > has been languishing in Vladimir Putin's Russia for almost two years.

Is this like Obama's USA? What is the purpose of calling it Putin's Russia?

<comment><USER45> While it is a stupid distinction, and one I wouldn;t personally use, it is objectively true Putin exerts a bit more control over Russia than Obama commands in the USA.

<comment><USER46> This is an understatement. Imagine if Obama had worked for the CIA his whole life, had come to power in a nondemocratic fashion mysteriously after Bill Clinton was forced to step down, had nationalized Chevron and put the CIA in charge, imprisoned the Koch brothers, invaded Mexico twice, held a series of sham elections, stayed in power for decades, and was rumored to be one of the richest people on the planet.

"The Man Without a Face" by Masha Gessen is a great read on Putin's rise to power.

[http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face- Unlikely/dp/159...](http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face- Unlikely/dp/1594486514)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> On the flip side, by not bringing charges against the NSA, there is a clear double standard:

"...the agency had breached its own privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times a year since 2008."

"Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes... that he should face."

</comment><comment><USER48> Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?

<comment><USER16> I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.

<comment><USER8> Waterboarding definitely is, according to the American Convention on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory: [http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_...](http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm)

It's article 5.2, sandwiched in-between 'you have the right not to be murdered' and 'you have the right not to be enslaved'.

Article 11 is fairly wishy-washy, but it states that privacy is also considered a human right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Why should he want to come to the US? It has little if anything to offer him. Better to make a home in Germany or Iceland which are all more likely to respect individual privacy than the US, and are lovely places in their own right.

<comment><USER31> It would be nice if he could see his family again, and moving one person is much cheaper than moving many.

<comment><USER49> Fair point. Home is a complex idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Oh man. That'd be great.

Never, never, never going to happen. Not in this generation, anyway. Maybe in 20, 30 years.

</comment><comment><USER51> After Ross William Ulbricht was given two life sentences for running Silk Road, someone posted the Federal Guidelines for Life Sentences.

link: [http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and- pub...](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub..).

One thing that struck me is that after reading this, it seemed like a mathematical tally that was entirely reasonable that he be given a life sentence given the point system.

Given that the first instances in the guidelines where life sentences are handed out are treason and espionage (drug trafficking is second), isn't there a significant concern that if Snowden came back, already admitting what he did, he'd just rot in prison with a pre-tallied up score?

</comment><comment><USER52> Though others have mentioned it, the fundamental issue is that the 1917 Espionage Act [0] basically provides Snowden no options. Despite the fact that he uncovered ILLEGAL government actions, he's subject to being tried as a spy, not a whistle-blower, which I think he clearly is.

0 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917)

</comment><comment><USER53> Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents?

Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them?

Isn't this treason?

Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial.

If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

<comment><USER54> > Isn't this treason?

Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the US has _prosecuted_ (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was charged under.

<comment><USER31> The constitution says of treason:

 _" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."_

This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution continues:

 _" No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."_

Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here, assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> It took me a long time to come around to the perspective that we should him as a hero and patriot rather than a traitor, but that's where I've ended up.

We don't view the reporters who uncovered Watergate this way--why him?

</comment><comment><USER56> Can we start a white house petition? Is that a thing that make a difference?

<comment><USER57> Like this one that one never answered: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward- snow...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden) ?

<comment><USER58> That one may be obsolete by now... Here is another: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give- presidential-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential- pardon-edward-snowden-any-crimes-comitted)

<comment><USER31> I find the wording more questionable in this one. Still signed, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Probably not until the Millennials are in political power. Too many of the older generation think he was naughty.

<comment><USER7> The polls I've seen that break out by age groups, IIRC, show both Millenials _and_ Gen X believing Snowden served, rather than harmed, the public.

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Верни им небо, тоску по дому утоли, Посеребри путь звездной пылью Верни им небо, хозяин света и любви И в знак прощения дай вновь крылья им...

<comment><USER43> Give them the sky, homesick quench, silver path of stardust Give them the sky, the master of light and love and as a sign of forgiveness give them wings again

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> If Snowden isn't punished then it will effectively encourage others to harm powerful interests. So there is incentive to punish Snowden from those who decide whether he will be.

<comment><USER31> I agree. But hopefully we can provide a bigger incentive _not_ to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> If Snowden came back to the U.S and got released, he wouldn't be the whistleblowing platform he currently is.

</comment><comment><USER62> As long as "home" means "prison next to Robert Hanssen and everyone else who sold secrets to the Russians", then sure.

<comment><USER63> He didn't sold anything to Russia, the leaks are public throwaway shill. That's called whistle blowing and he exposed the wickedness and the corruption of your "adored" government. But Ignorance is bliss for some.

<comment><USER64> I'm sure a nice guy like Putin is only putting up Snowden in Russia out of the kindness of his heart.

<comment><USER31> No, Putin is doing it because it's politically advantageous and/or he enjoys sticking it to the US.

But Snowden is in Russia because the US kept him there while he was passing through (going so far as to _force down the plane of the President of Bolivia_ on suspicion Snowden might be on board).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Two flying taxi startups got Pentagon funding - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/10/flying-cars-taxis-pentagon-us-military-funds-joby-kitty-hawk <comment><USER2> Doesn't surprise me. The tech would be great for extracting battlefield casualties and fatalities.

<comment><USER3> Given that they are -electric-, I would think they're thinking of stealthy operations. For 'regular' military use, noise and pollutions are less of a concern than for civilian use.

<comment><USER2> Oh for sure they'll have all sorts of application but they can already do that one well with parachutes and some special forces even deploy with mountain bikes.

Evacuating casualties though keeps you from having to land a 6 million dollar medevac black hawk with a crew of 4 and support like 1 or more Apache (36 million) and/or Kiowa (5 million) as support gunships.

Depending on the condition of the casualty you could send it in alone or with 1 medic on it. Depending on the distance you could just have it drop in, have the person loaded on and have it hop a short distance out to where a medic is waiting with a more traditional medevac.

You aren't likely to get one of these carrying more than a couple of people due to range and battery weight so primary usage I see is for medevac.</comment></comment></comment>


Free 6 Week Android Development Course by O'Reilly - <AUTHOR> http://creativelive.com/courses/android2/

<comment><USER2> For those not familiar with creativeLIVE.com: [http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/04/introducing- creativ...](http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/04/introducing-creativelive- com-worldwide-free-creative-education-updated/)

<comment><USER3> Also after googling I found the first course here <http://oreilly.com/catalog/0636920004240>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a pretty clever modal, free streaming course to get some publicity, then pay for the download.</comment>


Garry Kasparov: Open-Ended AI [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-jLkaGS-Jg <comment><USER2> ITT: People who refuse to watch the video because kasparov can't possibly know anything else than chess. Being a great chess player doesn't make you an expert in everything, but it also doesn't mean you can't say anything useful about anything else than chess.

I think he has a valid point, then systems are specifically engineered to work in a domain, for instance chess. The rules and aspects of the game are programmed and then it can teach itself how to optimally play by those rules. It is a very limited scope and VERY fa from general AI

<comment><USER3> This limited scope is still progress though, toward the general AI he is saying will not come in the near future. The Alpha Zero project showed that it could be adapted for any 2-player perfect information game. This is still quite limited, but not nearly as much as a program like Stockfish is, which will basically only ever play chess.

Perhaps the next step is bringing the system further into the realm of the unknown in games, like chance and imperfect information. I don't know if Google is continuing this, but it would be a shame if it wasn't.

<comment><USER4> They showed that the system could be adapted _to learn_ any two player perfect info game.

Once it has learned Go it won't play chess. Also, it has to be manually adapted.

By this logic minimax has also been shown to do the same:

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

<comment><USER5> Minimax is a general rule on how to optimally play 2 player games. It's about as much of a learning algorithm, and as practical, as "buy low, sell high".

In pure form, it can't be applied to any game where you cannot enumerate every last possible board position (so Chess and Go are out). And with heuristics, those heuristics effectively become the algorithm and they're really complex.

<comment><USER4> The minimax principle is used in chess and go and any other competitive two player perfect knowledge game. What improves is the selection of moves to evaluate and the quality of the board evaluation. Chess and Go absolutely use minimax with sleight, but important, modifications. Deep learning extensions with Alpha Go were specifically for move selection and board evaluation.

Alpha beta pruning with heuristics is one of the most fundamental extensions of minimax. It is still minimax.

The alpha go system still clearly applies only to perfect information 2 player games, because it is fundamentally extended minimax.

Edit: I'm not saying the heuristic extensions of alpha go, or the reinforcement learning of zero, aren't brilliant and important. That doesn't take away from the basic fact that it is an algorithm for perfect info 2 player games and one of them at a time (even if modifications can adapt it to other games). Heuristics will be fundamental to general intelligence, but alpha go is not general intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A lot of comments dismiss Kasparov's thoughts because he is out of his element(being one of the greatest chess players of all time, but apparently his brain is too small to understand AI). Can anyone explain why he can't be expert on AI? Is it because he doesn't have a degree in CS?

<comment><USER7> He can be an expert on AI, of course, but this assumption requires proof. He's expert on chess and he proved it many times, but I'm not aware of anything related to AI. That said, he's smart man, of course, and it's interesting to listen to him anyway. I just have much more trust in people who actually work in this industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Kasparov apparently continues to believe that his expertise in chess transfers to other disciplines. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon, even for people with more serious qualifications in a not totally unrelated field. I also shouldn't forget Hollywood actors - their views on scientific matters and foreign policy carry a lot of weight because they're, ummmm, famous.

For the same reason I'm not rushing over to Amazon to snag Garry's books on how to succeed in the boardroom, I won't be spending any time trying to digest his musings on AI.

<comment><USER9> Many many people believe their expertise in one field transfers to other disciplines. Chess expertise is not unique. Even though I generally agree about this particular case, I am aware that I am not an expert on Kasparov or AI. I am also aware that Kasparov is an expert on Kasparov and has practical professional experience interacting with AI's...I mean IBM built AI's specifically tuned for him and Kasparov has had decades to reflect on that experience. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck in Artificial Intelligence land.

<comment><USER8> Neither Deep Blue nor the superior chess playing engines running on PC hardware that came afterwards used machine learning. They relied on basic heuristics as humans do to numerically evaluate a position (material, activity, etc.) with the advantage that they could evaluate many more possible move sequences than a human. They also had opening books to avoid losing games from the outset and endgame tablebases to identify forced wins/draws with a small number of pieces on the board. Only recently did Google come out with a chess playing program that is actually ML-based, and it beat the top rated 'traditional' chess engine.

My point being, despite chess being considered a game that requires deep thinking, the use of actual AI in chess is very very new. As far as I'm aware, Kasparov had nothing to do with it let alone a deep understanding of it. He wasn't even involved in the earlier development of computer chess playing programs as they rose to the grandmaster level and eventually beyond his own level (super grandmaster). He along with many others had confidently predicted that machines would never beat humans in chess. So yes, I'm quite reluctant to believe that he has any kind of vision on this topic.

<comment><USER9> _the use of actual AI in chess is very very new._

      Each generation thinks it invented sex.
      -- Heinlein

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> These topics are discussed in greater depth in Kasparov's book, "Deep Thinking".

My view of the book: Very well written (and occasionally engrossing), well thought out, and strikes a more hopeful/reasonable tone that anything else I've seen on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER11> All learning is reward-based. We can imitate human reward systems to start. The machines will act like humans do: basically random behaviors at the start, then following pleasure and rewards to shape their behavior.

<comment><USER12> what is the reward for learning for the joy of learning ?

<comment><USER13> hmm.. joy?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think it's really funny that the video is Kasparov talking about AI working in closed systems having difficulty adapting any knowledge from a closed system to an open system.

While Kasparov is arguably the best player of all time and has a considerable intellect and vast amounts of chess knowledge, I think the the knowledge transfer from skill in chess to knowledge about other difficult, technical fields is quite difficult. I'm in no rush to listen to his thoughts on transfer learning in AI (although I did watch the video to confirm my suspicion).</comment>


SEOs are Growth Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth-hackers/ <comment><USER2> Growth Marketers? Sure. Growth Hackers? Very rarely.

I love your posts John, but "Hacker" implies a level of coding in my opinion, and I think most here on HN would agree.

As someone who talks to a few dozen SEOs a week, 99% of them cannot code in a fashion needed to be a "Growth Hacker". It's not that they can't contribute to growth, it's just that the traditional methods SEOs use (content, technical fixes, social) would not be considered hacks, but just solid online marketing.

<comment><USER3> I think people need to start breaking out of their current modes of thinking, and this article represents that. SEOs and Developers have more goals in common than people realize, and the approach is very similar. As long as we're talking about real SEOs, not these "guaranteed spots on Google" jokers, but people like John.

SEOs are there to solve a problem. The problem of course is much deeper than getting your site noticed. It's a vision consisting of strategies with the following goals:

The Basics:

1\. Get the most traffic from search engines you can (obviously)

2\. Ensure the traffic you get is from the people you want to reach

3\. Ensure that you are providing what searchers are looking for

4\. Try to build a brand and a vision people can understand

5\. Build an audience that will keep returning to your site

Now these things are solid online marketing, sure but there are other goals too, that are more "hacker" in nature.

6\. Perform analytics to find out which methods are working

7\. Finding the most optimum content to attract new traffic

8\. Find what landing pages are creating customers

9\. Finding the most optimum paths to lead to engagement

Now this is starting to sound like hacking. We're all problem solvers here. This is gathering information and using it to get the best results possible. Like optimizing routines to save cycles.

As a developer, what are you trying to do for a company?

1\. Build software that solves problems for the most people possible (usually)

2\. Ensure that your software is targeted towards the people who need it

3\. Ensuring your software is solving their problems effectively

4\. Making the user interface as effective as it can be (usually by some form of analytics)

5\. Finding the best ways to save cycles and utilize hardware (again found with analytics)

Do you see the parallels? This is exactly why I keep one foot in SEO, and one foot in Web Development, because they seem like entirely separate disciplines, but they have more in common than not. The name of the game here is optimization, and both fields strive for optimizing an experience.

Calling someone a software "hacker" means they learn as much as they can about a process and refine it. Tweak, push, pull and stretch. They optimize software to better meet the needs of those who use it. A SEO is a "hacker" because they optimize the website to meet the needs of those who use it. It's not about writing code, it's about finding ways to do more with less.

This is what I gather he's trying to say.

<comment><USER4> You're overloading the term to the point of it being meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Strongly disagree -- [http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth- hackers/#comment-117...](http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth- hackers/#comment-11777)

[for your convenience]: I definitely agree that growth hacking has a lot of overlap with SEO and Inbound Marketing, but I think there are a couple of critical distinctions:

For one thing, Growth Hackers have to be _the_ expert across a huge number of platforms, because of the environment they work in. Growth Hackers are most prevalent in startups, where they wont have the convenience of a larger team of specialists. A 10-man startup (still relatively small) the Growth Hacker has to be able to do the SEO, the Analytics, the CRO, the Social, the PPC, the Retargeting, the Media, and be on the bleeding edge of new customer acquisition technologies as they arrive. New team members may take on some of this work as the startup grows, but for the most part, it's all Growth Hacker.

The other distinction is implementation. A Growth Hacker needs to be able to code, or it's a dilution of the term — a Growth Hacker who can't code at least a little is a Growth Strategist, still a highly valuable team member, but a different animal.

The reason this is so important is that in a startup environment, the team is always going to be maxing out their bandwidth. A Growth Hacker can hatch a new plan, and then start building it, bringing in other team members as they're available.

A Growth Strategist on the other hand is utterly at the mercy of the other members of their team — if everyone is super busy (and they will be) new growth hacks can take forever to be enacted, and that can spell death for a startup.

I totally agree that the SEO skillset overlaps with growth hacking, but I think it's a mistake to equate them 1:1 — any SEO worth his salt stands partway down the yellow brick road that leads to Growth Hackerdom, but there are many leagues to go before we reach the emerald city.

<comment><USER6> Great points, Jesse, but you're also insinuating that: 1) Marketers/SEOs specifically cannot code; 2) SEOs/online marketers can't do all of the things you mentioned (Analytics, CRO, social, PPC, retargeting).

I absolutely agree on the implementation part, but we can build some pretty cool stuff. Though as a consultant you're always at the whim of the client to get it implemented, no matter what.

We're also getting back to the "What is an SEO" discussion, which I'm tired of. SEO is so much more than linkbuilding. It touches content, CRO, social, analytics, email, everything. And we need to recognize that, otherwise we'll be marginalized and made ineffective quickly.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps I mis-insinuated, the implication I'd intended was that _most_ SEOs can't code. There are absolutely many that can, but it seems problematic to imply that SEOs as a rule are growth hackers, when many (if not most) lack a good number of the required skills.

Totally agree on the exhausted subject of what is SEO, so let's not beat a dead horse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Read in a french accent, it becomes, "SEOs are gross hackers", which is certainly what comes to mind when you have to muddle through a page of w3schools or some other SEO pumped spam-sites results on your way to some actual content.

Some have said that SEOs were not hackers because they could not code, I would argue they are not hackers because their work is all about decreasing the signal/noise ratio for the sake of profit. Hackers should know better.

For hackers the web is a way to free information, not a gimmick to make a quick buck by polluting other people's information streams.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps you focus too much on the bad apples? Anyone can call himself/herself an SEO, just like the barrier to entry for programming jobs is low. Not every programmer writes malware, just like not every SEO creates spam sites.

At least two major things you gloss over, don't give SEO's enough credit for is: 1) Analytics and market research 2) Accessibility.

Improving quality of content and on-page SEO follows well established accessibility guidelines. SEO's can make sites better for all users: humans AND search bots. With a fine SEO'd site, you'd be able to navigate it and consume it, while being blind, drunk or using noscript.

If you have a good (online) product or service, it would be a crime against the efforts that went into creating them, to forget SEO and online marketing. You'd be decreasing the perceived value. You'd give the edge to your competition.

The grossness from SEO comes from people that know just enough SEO techniques, but not how to properly implement them. They hear: Links increase ranking, so they start blog spamming links. Or they hear: fresh content does well in search engines, so they article spin some RSS feeds.

Search engines are for the most part black boxes, even to white hat SEO's. To play it safe you have to align yourself with the vision of Google. To study their papers and patents. To follow their engineers every word. To predict their next moves. To test out your hypothesis. Familiarize yourself with new (sometimes undocumented) mark-up etc.

Yet good SEO practice hasn't changed all that much in the recent years. Adhere to the Google Webmaster Guidelines [1] and the Stanford Credibility Guidelines [2] and you'll get mighty far. Both sets of guidelines increase the quality and the profit part is indirect.

[1] [http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...](http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769) [2] <http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the information in the post - some valuable marketing strategies are in there. But the main point the author is making? I don't get it.

As a marketer I love the idea of "growth hacking" - manipulating existing systems for the purpose of growth and customer acquisition. But I'm confused by the new mantra growth hackers are using to define themselves. "Growth hacking is, at its essence, data driven marketing..." Seriously? Who the hell has been marketing without data?

There are some really cool hacks that SEOs can use. .GOV and .EDU links are valued much more highly than normal sites - how can you get those links? I've seen some dirty yet beautiful tricks. Building out blog networks with DNS's linked to different IPs in order to manipulate Google - though rarely worth it (trying to out-engineer Google isn't my cup of tea), it's also impressive, and definitely hacking. Creative and unique ways to get press from out-of-your- league sources? Sure, that's a form of social hacking.

But A/B testing? Using proper markup? "Hooking your app into a network like Facebook?" Call it proficiency if you like, you can define it as expertise, I'll even give you savvy, but it's not hacking. Calling it hacking turns into a giant "we're hackers too!" circle-jerk.

Again, I reiterate that there is some solid stuff in the post. But using that information as evidence that SEO is growth hacking just doesn't make sense.

</comment><comment><USER10> SEOs should be a laser focused thing, but it is more likely a catch all title for "internet marketers" and the industry seems to be fairly good at latching on to any buzzword in the online marketing world. SEOs last big bandwagon was social media gurus, especially on twitter. Now Growth Hackers? Um... yay... :(

<comment><USER6> Actually we openly hated on social media "gurus", but we respect social media marketers who know what they are talking about.

I'm the only "SEO" I know talking about SEO and growth hacking. I wouldn't say we're latching onto it. Most SEOs seem to disagree with me anyways.

<comment><USER11> I secondly hate on social media "gurus" as well as SEOers who can't code (or at least read html).

IMHO: Growth Hacking is just Inbound Marketing for startups. Going from 0 users to 1MM+. You leverage all the online marketing skills: seo, ppc, email, display (retargeting), ux, social, cro, etc.

BTW, nice post John - glad to see it on here as well as inbound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I find the term growth hacker comical. And it brought to mind these gimmicky attraction seeking roadside characters. There is value in having a clever developer that can quickly build an interface and make a query to target a market, but it is still marketing.

WRT SEO's being "growth hackers" by definition, I think is incorrect. I struggle to call the function even marketing as it is more pure advertising. The only analogy of a "growth hacker" in the SEO space I can think of would be those search bar installers that millions of people downloaded from looking for "smilies" and simultaneously installed a toolbar which re-wrote the organic search results a few years back.

For more perspective on how I feel about "growth hackers". <http://quad10.com/the-latest-sensation-a-growth-hacker/>

</comment><comment><USER13> I think the biggest difference is that Growth Hackers aim to hit much less saturated verticals that are completely disjoint from traditional search engine optimization and marketing.

</comment><comment><USER14> A lot of overlap but not the same. CRO is not really considered SEO and is big part of growth hacking for example. But with the term Inbound Marketer I agree more.

</comment><comment><USER15> Growth hackers need to be inbound marketers, but most inbound marketers are not growth hackers.

</comment><comment><USER16> Aw, cute. People in performance marketing want to be called "hackers" now.

</comment><comment><USER17> by growth hacker, in reference to SPAM i would agree.

<comment><USER6> LOLz. SEO = spam. I see what did there.

I'm tired of that argument. Read some real SEO blogs and you'll see that it's not. Do the investigation.

<comment><USER7> Sorry your feelings are hurt, man.

Real hackers build spam filters and search engine so people can find the information they are looking for. Spewing spam and tricking the search engines to prefer your content are two facets of the same disease.

<comment><USER18> Real hackers are on both sides of the spam game. There is too much money for smart people to not do it.

For a short time I worked for a company who was very spammy and outright sketchy. They had a team of dev and ops people who cranked out hundreds of millions of emails and "free ipod ads" per day.

There were heavy API integrations with Commission Junction and the porn affiliate networks, redundant systems, and all that. I leaned a lot in the 45 days I worked there.

All of them "hackers" in this sense. They got the job done, and it worked. But I hated every minute of it.

<comment><USER7> I used the word hackers as defined in McKenzie Wark's 'Hacker Manifesto' ( <http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html> ).

01\. There is a double spooking the world, the double of abstraction. The fortunes of states and armies, companies and communities depend on it. All contending classes - the landlords and farmers, the workers and capitalists - revere yet fear the relentless abstraction of the world on which their fortunes yet depend. All the classes but one. The hacker class.

02\. Whatever code we hack, be it programming language, poetic language, math or music, curves or colourings, we create the possibility of new things entering the world. Not always great things, or even good things, but new things. In art, in science, in philosophy and culture, in any production of knowledge where data can be gathered, where information can be extracted from it, and where in that information new possibilities for the world are produced, there are hackers hacking the new out of the old. While hackers create these new worlds, we do not possess them. That which we create is mortgaged to others, and to the interests of others, to states and corporations who control the means for making worlds we alone discover. We do not own what we produce - it owns us.

03\. And yet we don't quite know who we are. While we recognise our distinctive existence as a group, as programmers, as artists or writers or scientists or musicians, we rarely see these ways of representing ourselves as mere fragments of a class experience that is still struggling to express itself as itself, as expressions of the process of producing abstraction in the world. Geeks and freaks become what they are negatively, through their exclusion by others. Hackers are a class, but an abstract class, a class as yet to hack itself into manifest existence as itself.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>