f.lux for iOS is no longer available - <AUTHOR> https://justgetflux.com/sideload/#notanymore <comment><USER3> Author of f.lux here:

After reversing the new APIs in iOS9, it's really really clear that Apple has added lots of great features to iOS (and the new devices) to adjust screen colors. The new models even have RGB color sensing, so they are an ideal platform to build f.lux on. (I was pretty excited about our next version!)

If this were only about reverse-engineering or using LLVM to compile code I wrote, it would be reasonable to fight it. The remarkable thing about their agreement is that it concerns using information _that is not provided under the agreement_. This is a reasonable term for app store distribution, but it seems unprecedented and heavy-handed for unsigned binaries.

Ultimately, we pulled the app both to show good faith, and also because we were asking hundreds of thousands of people to use Xcode to make accounts and sign our software. When Apple calls up and says they don't want that to happen, it is not really a thing you can fight. It's their infrastructure, and they can decide how it is used.

We were feeling pretty good about introducing "building stuff in Xcode" to people who've never tried it before.

We have been as polite as we can to Apple in hopes that they will open up the platform to developers like us. The demand for f.lux is certainly incredible.

<comment><USER4> I'm rather confused as to why you thought the following:

> _We understood that the new Xcode signing was designed to allow such use, > but Apple has indicated that this should not continue._

Where has Apple ever indicated that the new Xcode signing was intended for your use-case? I never saw the download you provided, but I'm assuming you didn't actually release f.lux as open source, but instead just provided essentially a prebuilt download and had Xcode re-sign it. Is that assumption correct? Because that seems to be a pretty blatant violation of the spirit of the developer program, even if it's not explicitly spelled out in the agreement. The new Xcode signing model is intended to allow people to get started with iOS development without paying any money, so they can build and run their own projects on their own devices, and only have to pay for the dev program when they want to start distributing to other people. If you did in fact release f.lux as an open-source project, that would be within both the spirit and the letter of the agreement (I doubt Apple has any problems with people installing open-source apps on their personal devices). But it should be obvious that Apple wants all binary distribution to be done through the app store (or enterprise distribution where applicable).

Speaking of enterprise distribution, did you ever investigate that approach? I'm going to guess Apple has some stricter requirements on getting an enterprise developer program account, and I don't know if there's any restrictions in the agreement. But I've never actually looked into it myself so I don't know.

<comment><USER5> I gotta say I was infuriated until I read your comment, you totally nailed it.

Distributing binary code to thousands of iOS users is dangerous, if nothing else. So Apple clearly has a point trying to control distribution through the app store.

And if the author truly does believe in curing sleep issues, as they state, then they should have released the source code and let people install the app themselves.

In fact, with 176000 page views, and 15 million downloads of their desktop app (I myself have been a long time user) I don't see why he didn't just pay the 99 USD and distribute it via the app store. I certainly would have payed for it because it pains me to see my SO in bed solving sudoku with a flipping 50W lamp in her face.

<comment><USER6> > _I don 't see why he didn't just pay the 99 USD and distribute it via the > app store_

If I understand correctly, they can't do so since they are using undocumented APIs that they are not allowed to use in store apps.

<comment><USER7> That's correct. Additionally, although there are many ways to work around these static code checks Apple performs at app review time (due to Objective C's runtime capabilities), you can bet an app as popular as f.lux would get pulled very quickly with potentially long-term damage to their relationship with Apple*

(* See [https://ifixit.org/blog/7401/ifixit-app- pulled/](https://ifixit.org/blog/7401/ifixit-app-pulled/) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I usually don't get annoyed at fans wearing rose-tinted glasses (aka fanboyism), but I feel that people sticking up for Apple here is some variant of the Stockholm syndrome. We're heading for a world where advanced users might not be allowed to interact with their devices because They (et al.) Know Best. Protecting knowledgeable users from running arbitrary code is generally a pretty solved problem. There are layers of trust in the system, and human connections that keep the system alive. This delegation of critical thinking to Apple is an unfortunate path.

P.S. I say all of this as someone who has recently converted to iOS from Android after many years of loving Google Nexus devices, and wanted to see what the integrated design of the iPhone 6s Plus was like. I absolutely don't support ANY of the major technology companies as people who won't do the wrong thing so that they can make more money. They're all self-interested actors! We should never forget that. They can be just as evil as big oil or the textile industry.

EDIT: to fix phrasing and the omission of a couple words

<comment><USER9> This is literally the capstone of iOS. You have no power, or privlidge. You work in the languages the master wants, using the tools the master has you buy, using the APIs the master blesses you with.

You never come close to owning the device, and you don't own your software for it.

The greatest irony is how many walked into this with open arms, and how many continue to praise this. iOS only thrives on the developers who sacrifice their power to Apple's will. Apple stands atop a glass house built on lock in and memes about how good their products are. Its the users that pledge allegiance to that manipulation that hold it together.

<comment><USER10> I think years later people are going to look back and say we had it pretty good with Windows/Linux/*BSD and x86.

I can take a bunch of OSes and run them on standard x86 hardware and peripherals more or less, build my own OS if I want to and run my own apps with the compilers, linkers and frameworks of my choice. Skip forward a few years and there's a good chance that will all be gone.

x86 is also a less than ideal proposition with Intel the only game in town - sure they are Open Source friendly for now but still it would've been a better world where the likes of AMD and VIA were flourishing in x86 land.

<comment><USER11> "I think years later people are going to look back and say we had it pretty good with Windows/Linux/*BSD and x86."

I don't agree. I grew up with Microsoft ruling the world. The biggest problem wasn't the dictatorship, is was the poor quality of the experience in the face of the dictatorship.

Apple has major flaws in its experience, but they're nowhere near as bad as the dog days of Windows 98.

<comment><USER10> What people don't get about Microsoft is however bad they were, they practically enabled a hugely diverse and mostly open hardware and software ecosystem and they had to standardize and open up in order to keep it going. Sure they had their monopolistic ways but fortunately they were reigned in for the better.

It's disingenuous to claim user experience requires a closed and non standard system. And besides that Microsoft and Linux distros have made steady progress towards improving the quality and experience while still keeping the PC ecosystem open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This would be a lot more interesting if f.lux was actually distributing source code. Instead, they were just distributing a binary that you sign with your own dev cert.

Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users and never had a chance of being tolerated by Apple. Such abuse puts the new free-tier Xcode dev program in jeopardy.

<comment><USER13> > Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users

No it is not. You can do that on every single computing device out there - except those from Apple. There is some risk if you are stupid about it, but not huge right. A warning screen would be enough.

> never had a chance of being tolerated by Apple

It's my device, not Apple's. (Well, I would never actually buy an Apple device because of this, but those who do buy them should have the right to install whatever they link.)

<comment><USER14> > its my device, not apple's

Except when a device gets highjacked or something by a malware or whatever then user always blames the manufacturer of the OS, I guess apple knowing this just have a strict policies about it. Apple has a right to decide how to build and maintain their OS, they are the ones who created it, not device owners. If device owners don't like something about it, they have an option not to purchase it, Apple does not have an option to not sell a phone to some dumb user who will install viruses and then complain about Apple lack of security

<comment><USER15> > Except when a device gets highjacked or something by a malware or whatever > then user always blames the manufacturer of the OS

In other words, a bad swimmer blames the producer of the bathing drawers for his bad swimming skills. I understand.

<comment><USER16> It would be ridiculous for a bad swimmer to blame the creator of his or her swimwear.

On the other hand, a bad swimmer might be pretty upset with the creators of his or her _boat_ , if hypothetically the goal is to stay _out_ of the water.

It's just possible that it depends on what you expect from the device when you buy it.

<comment><USER8> Except that for many users, they would GREATLY PREFER to have the RIGHT to acknowledge the risks entailed, and use the device how THEY WANT TO USE IT. They purchased a physical device, and they deserve to be able to use it how they want. This is just another example of why the DMCA needs to be dismantled.

<comment><USER16> I've been spending some time trying to understand this today, and I don't understand why such users don't just go buy a device they can root and take full control that way. Why blame a vendor that doesn't ship what you want? Why not just... buy what you _do_ want?

Separately: The DMCA needs to be dismantled, absolutely.

<comment><USER17> There's no good alternative, except maybe the MiPhone in China. Android is pretty horrible and saddled with all kinds of Google integration.

<comment><USER16> Well, I agree with you there (in general I mean, I don't know the miPhone). I would love to see a truly open source handheld computer. I've thought about picking up a Firefox OS phone. I just don't think it's Apple's job to create it. That's not what they do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So it's a violation of the developer agreement, that's why they pulled it? Of course it's a violation. What do they care? They signed no such agreement and they are not registered Apple developers.

Developing for Cydia is a violation of the developer agreement as well, that doesn't seem to stop them. Honestly, I don't get it. It's extremely disappointing, as the app works great but needs some fine tuning. Which we will now never see because they capitulated that they were violating an agreement they were never party to in the first place.

<comment><USER19> Are you sure they are not registered Apple developers? Seems to me that their being registered Apple developers is the simplest explanation here.

<comment><USER18> I suppose it's possible, but they don't have any applications under their f.lux brand/company published anywhere. If they're just unpublished but registered developers, then sign up for a new account under a different identity.

The only way this threat holds any water is if there is a revenue stream or published application they are at risk of having removed. As far as I can tell, they have no such issue.

<comment><USER20> Theoretically, Apple could revoke/blacklist the signing certificate for the OSX F.lux app.

<comment><USER21> The way this was distributed, everyone who wanted to install had to sign the binary with their own certificate.

<comment><USER22> Notice the parent mentioned the desktop app, not the mobile app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> All this passionate advocacy, and they won't even mention that this is allowed on Android (with a few apps doing it distributed through the Play Store) - <USER2> build an Android app themselves? I get that people are iOS fans, but there seems like a bit of Stockholm syndrome here.

<comment><USER24> The apps that change screen gamma on Android still require root, so it's not as easy as going to the Play Store on any device (at least the apps are on the Play Store if you do have root though).

There are non-root apps that use an overlay instead, which can sorta help but it's not an optimal solution.

<comment><USER25> Regardless of how it is accomplished, I use Twilight for Android, and I love it, and it is the number one reason I can't go back to using iOS. It has made a HUGE impact on reducing my insomnia, and I will not look at any screen without a screen reddener within a couple hours of bedtime.

<comment><USER26> wurd, I really like iPhones and iPads. But I find the OS hard to deal with. Twilight is a good example. Theres also an Audiobook app I love that could not be used on iOS. I don't want to be forced to use Safari or a rebranded Safari. The list grows :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> An open source version that is not affiliated with f.lux:

[https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/](https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/)

<comment><USER28> That does have visible source, but it is "All Rights Reserved".

<comment><USER29> _License

I don't know which license matches this so I'm going to write it out. You can do what you want with the code, but do not distribute compiled copies of the app, especially on mass download sites._

I mean, it's not quite BSD, but it's hardly 'all rights reserved'.

<comment><USER28> That's encouraging, I was going by [https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/blob/2b504461c4f1...](https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/blob/2b504461c4f1afad839513384a754398325cc429/GammaTest/mvc/controller/GammaController.m) which has

      //  Created by Thomas Finch on 6/22/15.
      //  Copyright (c) 2015 Thomas Finch. All rights reserved.

<comment><USER30> That's the default header created by Xcode when making a new file, I didn't add that on purpose. I suppose I should go through and get rid of those lines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm kind of shocked Apple hasn't sherlocked f.lux by now -- it's such a great feature.

<comment><USER32> My guess is that it might have a negative effect on rendering energy consumption.

In OS X you can use CoreImage to filter a view, but that has always been excluded from iOS.

The platform perception management kicks in, they can't let all the cool kids install a filter on top of all the rendering then complain that iPad and iPhone battery life sucks.

In my own Sudoku program I automatically manage the screen white point by sensing the backlight level (I'm not allowed to use the ambient light sensor, so I watch something that watches it.) but I have to do it by changing all of my colors everywhere I draw. It's not a big deal and works beautifully, until you finish a puzzle and the pure iOS alert comes up in full white and burns a hole straight through your drowsy dark adapted retinas. Then you have to go to sleep because you have a huge afterimage floating around in the center of your vision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oh so they plan to incorporate this feature into iOS soon then?

<comment><USER34> Hard to say. Sometimes Apple's OS is just legitimately missing the feature (I'm reminded of the tricks needed to have one process render into another process's window before QuickTime needed that feature for 10.6).

Honestly, I'm surprised more people aren't responding "Wait, why _isn't_ this possible in iOS? Windows has had the necessary tools to do this for years."

<comment><USER35> > Honestly, I'm surprised more people aren't responding "Wait, why _isn't_ > this possible in iOS? Windows has had the necessary tools to do this for > years."

Not enough people care. On the grand scale the number is tiny. I'd imagine that's because so few people have heard of this. As you said Windows has had it for a very long time but the vast VAST majority of people dnot use it, it's still niche.

When enough people want some (say user swappable keyboards, or Notification Center) Apple adds it once they have a good design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Geez Apple just keeps doing terrible on the app developer relations front. I have talked with startup founders time and time again they tell me their iOS apps are more barebones because Apple's policies or permissions prevent them from implementing the same features they can implement on Android

<comment><USER35> How is 'not publishing unlisted APIs that have been unpublished for years' Apple 'doing terrible things'.

These guys _blatantly_ violated the TOS. There should be no surprise here. If anything what they did was basically a stunt.

> I have talked with startup founders time and time again they tell me their > iOS apps are more barebones because Apple's policies or permissions prevent > them from implementing the same features they can implement on Android

Apple implements things at the pace they want. That's one of the reasons things in iOS are generally well thought out and it's so hard for a rogue app to destroy battery life or violate your privacy.

Apple chose the trade offs they want to make, andnit seems to be working very well for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Goddamn it. Shows what I get for waiting to download it.

I found a mirror on GitHub, but I haven't verified it: [https://github.com/jefferyleo/f.lux](https://github.com/jefferyleo/f.lux)

<comment><USER28> Can someone who downloaded yesterday please publish a sha256sum of the zip (or each file in the directory tree), for comparison with the github mirror?

<comment><USER38> 9a5da2e28a1d0633f9940bb3242d9efac28385a27d5882d5b14345e4c0b4b0bb

I think I did this right. I ran `shasum -a 256` on the zip, but let me know if it doesn't look quite right.

<comment><USER39> For various reasons (at least, metadata and the .git folder) it's very unlikely that you'd get the exact same checksum for the entire zip... you'd need to post the sum for each file individually if you want to compare them.

<comment><USER40> > For various reasons (at least, metadata and the .git folder) it's very > unlikely that you'd get the exact same checksum for the entire zip...

This sounds entirely wrong to me. Checksums are used all the time to verify the integrity of archives.

<comment><USER41> The integrity of archives you're supposed to download from a site, not archives you're meant to create yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Anyone have a mirror? Installing it was on my todo list today.

<comment><USER43> I've sent you the code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Curious what the violation of the developer program agreement is. It contained a binary, presumably signed, so maybe that's it?

I downloaded it this morning, very excited to try it as I can't stand the blue glow of my phone after dark.

<comment><USER45> Apple won't let apps use APIs that aren't officially approved. Officially approved APIs can't do the things that flux needs to do. So, no flux on iOS in the App Store. The flux developers put together a beta that used said APIs and made it available for sideloading. Apple killed that off as well by threatening to kill their account due to a violation of the Developer Agreement which prohibits distributing your app anywhere but the App Store. Apple will only let apps onto iOS devices via the App Store. No side loading, no direct downloads, no third party app stores.

<comment><USER31> But exactly is the term they violated?

You don't have to be in the Apple developer program to post an Xcode project on a web site. Nor to download Xcode, since it comes free from the Mac App Store.

<comment><USER45> Lowercase free is not the same as uppeprcase Free. Xcode is freeware (as in no cost) but it has a restrictive 14 page license attached to it that you must agree to to use it. [https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf](https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf)

You can only allow third parties to install your app on their devices for testing if you have written approval from Apple.

You can only use a limited number of devices that you/your company own for testing.

Your license to use Xcode, the SDKs, and release software for iOS can be revoked at any time: "Apple reserves the right to revoke, disable or suspend any Provisioning Profiles or any access to the device deployment and provisioning features of the Apple Software and Services at any time, in its sole discretion. By way of example, Apple may do this if Apple has reason to believe that Apple IDs were fraudulently obtained, that an unreasonable number of devices have been entered into the Apple Software, and/or that the Services are being used in a fraudulent, suspicious, or improper manner."

<comment><USER46> > it has a restrictive 14 page license attached to it that you must agree to > to use it //

That you're _supposed_ to agree to. What proportion of the users of Xcode do you suppose have even read that license?

Also the license doesn't prevent you using it, though it possibly prevents you from legally using it for commercial purposes in most developed nations.

With the recent case concerning sending data abroad to process to circumvent patent restrictions it seems that f.lux could just have someone in a country with no copyright/license restrictions download Xcode, compile and make available the software. Apple Computers after all wouldn't own code created with Xcode, which would be a technical rather than artistic work anyhow, so there doesn't appear to be a problem of copyright.

Apple could likely still pull strings that the f.lux people wouldn't find helpful however (maybe the devs have other apps that Apple could block, for example).

<comment><USER47> I am not sure what you mean by 'supposed to' agree to the license. You are correct in that the license doesn't self-enforce, but legally you have agreed to follow the license when you download the code. So, Apple can take legal action to enforce compliance with the license, which is what they did whey they sent a C&D notice to f.lux.

A license can restrict non-commercial purposes, too (as long as they aren't purposes protected by law, e.g. fair use). While it is true that most companies only go after license violators who are using the software for commercial purposes, that is only for practical reasons, not legal.

<comment><USER46> >but legally you have agreed to follow the license //

I'd say "are bound by the license" \- however if you download Xcode from the app store do you get "adequate notice" of the browse-wrap license?

Can't personally inspect the license from [https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewEula?...](https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewEula?id=497799835&mt=12) as it redirects saying one needs the Mac App Store to do that.

A license can restrict use, but copyright concerns copying. They allow copying of the code, which is necessary for use, but attempt to acquire acquiescence to their license terms. I'm not sure however as there is no consideration how users can be considered to be under license. In short if the copying is fair- use, which it looks like it reasonably could be, then how can the use be controlled?

<comment><USER48> The first time you start Xcode you have to agree to a license or it won't open. So, that is the time you make the deal, or, sell your soul.

<comment><USER49> What if they, hypothetically, developed their code with a separate toolchain/IDE and didn't use xcode at all? Are they still bound by the terms of it, or is it the users compiling the app to put on their phones bound by it? I'm also pretty sure advocating people violate a license agreement isn't illegal, or did Apple get an exemption for the first amendment?

I realize f.lux was distributing a compiled binary instead of telling people to compile it from source, but I think Apple would have sent them a C&D just the same if it were just source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is tough. On one hand, there's obviously a demand (of which I am part) for f.lux, but on the other, 15 million downloads, despite being a respectably big number, barely registers compared to an install base that can grow by 75 million in a single quarter. Using private APIs does negatively impact the iPhone experience (witness the constant screen wakes in the pulled Xcodeproj), and making those APIs public has development overhead – As big as the iOS team may be, its human resources are finite (even if Apple's cash reserves are barely so).

That said... What percentage of Apple's user base lives with disabilities? What percentage is visually impaired; what percentage has motor difficulties? These are clearly worthy, comparatively small populations of users that Apple devotes an otherwise-inordinate amount of development resources to. Maybe it's time Apple considers melanopsin sensitivity worthy of admitting to this circle.

<comment><USER51> It seems to me that there could be a half-way model. Some permissions are surely problematic to give to everybody. But perhaps they could then not give them to absolutely everybody? One option would be to require preapproval. The other would be to say that they are sensitive, such that Apple gives apps that use them a much lower threshold for complaints.

<comment><USER52> People don't seem to take to nicely to Apple when they give preferential treatment for developers and allow some to access APIs that others can't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28>
      repost from yesterday's thread

We can only hope that control of blue light emissions will be natively implemented by all phone and tablet manufacturers, to protect the future health of billions of humans. Here are some articles about the impact of blue light on eyes and sleep.

[http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/04/23/7-things-can- righ...](http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/04/23/7-things-can-right-now- protect-vision/), _" Blue light is able to pass through what is called the retinohypothalamic tract, or pathway. This pathway is responsible for regulating our circadian rhythm and a number of other biological and behavioral processes."_

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831986/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831986/), _" Hastings and Sweeney's paper, published in the December 1958 Biological Bulletin, gathered dust for decades. No one thought these findings might hold any relevance for humans, whose circadian rhythms were then widely believed to be relatively insensitive to light. But scientific discoveries in the past two decades have changed all that."_

[https://theconversation.com/a-dark-night-is-good-for-your- he...](https://theconversation.com/a-dark-night-is-good-for-your- health-39161), _" In the last decade or two it has become clear that the genes which control the endogenous circadian rhythm (the "clock genes") also control a large part of our entire genome including genes for metabolism (how we process the food we eat), DNA damage response (how we are protected from toxic chemicals and radiation), and cell cycle regulation and hormone production (how our cells and tissues grow)."_

There is room lighting with low-blue content, e.g. the G.E. Align PM bulb, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PLR3M0M](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PLR3M0M) & [https://gigaom.com/2014/09/01/what-is-the-blue-light-from- ou...](https://gigaom.com/2014/09/01/what-is-the-blue-light-from-our-screens- really-doing-to-our-eyes/), _" It remains unclear whether our screens themselves will soon emit less blue light — Hansler is pessimistic because he says that changing the amount of blue light will be like admitting that the screens are causing health problems, and lawsuits could ensue."_

<comment><USER53> > We can only hope that control of blue light emissions will be natively > implemented by all phone and tablet manufacturers, to protect the future > health of billions of humans.

A little hyperbolic there, no? I'm surprised to hear this is even a problem that exists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Next best - [http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-dim-your-ios- scr...](http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-dim-your-ios-screen-with- an-accessibility-setting-trick/)

</comment><comment><USER55> Has anyone tried GoodNight [1] on iOS?

> Based off of Thomas Finch's "GammaThingy"

> GoodNight is an app that allows you to directly access the screen's gamma > levels, and modify it using IOMobileFramebuffer. With this you can do any of > the following: Change the screen temperature, Put the brightness lower than > iOS would normally allow you to, Adjust the RGB values of the framebuffer

> This application uses dlsym, which loads in the private symbols at runtime, > rather than using headers, so no additional setup is needed once you > download the source.

[1] [https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight](https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight)

</comment><comment><USER56> Solution: hire them and include as an improved system setting. Obviously people want this.

<comment><USER46> Isn't the Apple way to invite them in to talk about their software intimating a buyout then incorporate the software features and sideline the other company?

Just from a misremembered story I can't pull up from memory about Steve Jobs interactions with a music/audio software company in the earlier days of Apple.

<comment><USER57> No, you misremembered it. Apple set up a meeting with Panic (makers of Audion) but they had to cancel because they were trying to get bought out by Aol. Apple ended up buying competitor SoundJam to use as the basis of iTunes and then still offered to hire the Audion devs but they declined.

[https://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/](https://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/)

If you're looking for 10-15 year old story where Apple famously ate someone's lunch then Sherlock/Watson and Konfabulator/Dashboard are some of the more prominent examples but those are fairly obvious directions for OS makers to fill.

<comment><USER46> Cool, thanks will revisit when I've chance to mitigate against misremembering again in the future ... I think it was parts such as:

>"We also seem to remember Jobs painted us a vibrant (but genuinely honest) picture of how he viewed Audion fairing against iTunes:

        "It's like you guys are a little push-cart going down the railroad tracks, and we're a giant steam engine about to run you down."

//

That gave me the impression that stuck with me. Thanks for the sourced correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Atwood captured this well in the past: [http://blog.codinghorror.com/serving- at-the-pleasure-of-the-...](http://blog.codinghorror.com/serving-at-the- pleasure-of-the-king/)

</comment><comment> ryan-allen This is why I much prefer using Android devices. Apple and their grandiose pretense think they know what's best for us, I prefer a bit more control. It's so sad because they do make the best hardware!

</comment><comment><USER59> I don't get it. Is Apple against programmers publishing their own source code? If the authors are giving away the code anyway why not just put it on GitHub and let anyone clone it and use it?

<comment><USER60> It wasn't the source code, it was an XCode project with an unsigned binary.

f.lux isn't open source.

<comment><USER59> Ahhh. In that case, I can understand why Apple wouldn't want to encourage this. if he just open sourced it, Apple wouldn't care about him distributing it or using private APIs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I setup a shortcut on my iPhone. When I triple tap the home button, my screen becomes dimmer than the dimmest setting on a MBP. If I triple tap again, it returns to the previous brightness settings.

How to: [http://lifehacker.com/toggle-your-iphones-brightness- with-a-...](http://lifehacker.com/toggle-your-iphones-brightness-with-a-home- button-trip-1651329242)

<comment><USER62> That adjusts brightness, not color temperature. Color temperature is what changes your circadian rhythm and prevents proper sleep.

<comment><USER63> I haven't read any research on this, but this feels incorrect. If this is true, staring at red-tinged floodlight should do less to keep you awake than looking at a blue LED with masking tape over it.

It feels more likely that this is related to excitation of S cones -- which dimming the screen without changing the colour temperature would also accomplish, to a degree.

<comment><USER64> Gettin' awful feelsy in here. No need to feel, they aggregated a bunch of the research here: [https://justgetflux.com/research.html](https://justgetflux.com/research.html)

<comment><USER63> So according to that (or a quick skim thereof), it's not the overall colour temperature, but the intensity of absorbed light in the ~480nm range.

In other words, dimming the screen should be at least somewhat effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Gah. I have the zip, but didn't archive the instructions. Wayback Machine, you're my only hope.

<comment><USER66> Scroll down the page, they're still there: [https://justgetflux.com/sideload/](https://justgetflux.com/sideload/)

<comment><USER67> 403 Forbidden now

<comment><USER28> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10557004](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10557004)

<comment><USER65> Exemplification of why Evernote chose an elephant for their mascot. [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s176/sh/24469950-c7cc-4e27-bc...](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s176/sh/24469950-c7cc-4e27-bcac-a6ee343130ba/132ccd61aaa50ad14377a5318f2b27e6)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Incredible how developers are always ever so gosh darn polite when complaining about Apple, who in turn tend to respond/not respond in a blatantly passive- aggressive manner.

And on and on it goes.

</comment><comment><USER69> Is there anything stopping you from throwing this up on Github with a CC non- commercial license, or does that also break the Apple Developer Agreement?

<comment><USER70> Problem is that it is pointless, because the f.lux is released as a binary.. it is not like we can just look at the source code to change the 1900K to whatever temperature we wanted

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> May be just app developers integrate something like this to their apps? I believe that people spend most of their times in one-two applications.

</comment><comment><USER72> Namely why I stopped using an iPhone long ago, damn these bastards for making such good computers though...

<comment><USER70> It is still a matter of opinion really.

My 2010 Macbook Pro heats up and has fan going off crazy, and my 2008 ThinkPad T400 is sitting next to the MBP, just chugging away like a champ.

If you are talking about user interface, I agree on that. But hardware wise, I am not that impressed. However, if you do run into hardware issues, AppleCare is excellent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Well I got screwed and couldn't obtain the original version (was in airport at the time) but I seem to have obtained an alternate. Been waiting for this for years, no surprise Apple tried to screw users immediately.

</comment><comment><USER74> Soooo who has a mirror where I can download it for myself?

</comment><comment><USER75> does it still work if you have the xcode-project? (downloaded the file yesterday, but never tried it out)

</comment><comment><USER76> Just go with Android. Less hassle.

<comment><USER77> flux isn't available on Android either.

<comment><USER78> Twilight is: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.urbandroid...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.urbandroid.lux&hl=en)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Why the shock? This is iOS.

There are a lot of compelling and expedient reasons why iOS is the way it is. Apple isn't the only player on the market, and they aren't misleading or a monopolist like IBM was in the 80s or Microsoft in the 90s.

As for why can't you do on iOS what you can do on your Mac... Apple doesn't want the types of problems that android has.

<comment><USER80> You're right this is not like Microsoft in the 1990s. It's significantly worse than that. Microsoft, for all their faults, constantly championed developers on their platform. Just think of that Steve Balmer "Developers! Developers! Developers!" video.

Apple, on the other hand, consistently treats developers on its platform with nothing but disdain.

<comment><USER79> Worse -- For developers. Apple's customers are users.

Users benefit from a secure system, mostly safe applications and consistent UI.

The consequence of Microsoft's fuck-the-user, go developer philosophy has been over a decade a pain for the users. That's why Dell and HP are giving away PCs under cost while giving up share, while Apple is growing and making a killing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Good. As a professional photo retoucher, I hate that app.

<comment><USER62> Why? It even has a feature to turn it off for doing color sensitive work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Speaking as an iOS developer, you do not screw with the fruit.

> Developer learns iOS > Developer uses private APIs (which is neither easy, > or allowed per the terms they agreed to) > Developer sends in app for > approval, is rejected for above because duh > Developer whines on the > Internet and gets a bunch of people angry at Apple, who likely will not > change.

You know I feel the need to point out that Apple doesn't lock us out of code to be mean, they do it because it ensures their devices don't suck, because we as developers do not have access to the system level things that can make them suck.

<comment><USER19> How does forcing someone to take down an Xcode project hosted on their own web site help to ensure that my iPhone doesn't suck?

<comment><USER83> It doesn't help to ensure anything. But having binaries out there that anyone is encouraged to sign and install, with no way to know what hidden features are there in what projects, is not a very well thought out model if Apple wants to make suckage less likely.

<comment><USER19> How is it any different than having binaries on the App Store that anyone is encouraged to install, with no way to know what hidden features are there in any of them?

<comment><USER83> As you well know, upon upload for App Store submission, Apple runs processes that scan those binaries for use of private APIs. Admittedly imperfect processes, yes, but different from having no processes whatsoever.

<comment><USER19> I get why Apple does it, but this prohibition increases my device's suck rather than decreasing it, since it locks out some potentially-useful apps.

<comment><USER83> Yes they are balancing the cost/benefit equation of the untold levels of damage to consumers and to Apple itself potentially done by bad apps on one side, versus the relatively less impactful in their judgement benefits of potentially useful apps on the other side. The assessment that this increases the device's suck relies on an certain assumptions about just how bad the damages could possibly be, assumptions that you make, but that they are reluctant to make on behalf of their users.

<comment><USER19> What potential for damage exists here that doesn't also exist for their millions of App Store apps?

<comment><USER83> Do you think that it might be possible that different inputs to a situation could lead to different likelihoods for various outcomes?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A tracing and troubleshooting tool for PHP scripts is open-sourced - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Qihoo360/phptrace

<comment><AUTHOR> Any suggestions ?</comment>


Session Replay – A Privacy Nightmare? - <AUTHOR> https://systemtrap.org/503 <comment><AUTHOR> Ive used session replay tools for years now to help optimize funnels and reduce friction on websites. However, I always meet a privacy concern along the way. Anyone else have this experience?</comment>


Show HN: Taste the world's authentic food each day - <AUTHOR> http://www.foodcompass.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> After many nights watching food videos with an empty stomach. :-) It'd be great if you can give me feedback on: 1) Would you use it? If not then why not? 2) Any suggestions Thanks!</comment>


Marco Rubio Wants to Permanently Extend NSA Mass Surveillance - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/marco-rubio-wants-to-permanently-extend-nsa-mass-surveillance-20150127

<comment><USER2> What does the NSA/CIA/FBI have on Rubio? Google "alberto gonzalez jane harman" if you don't think that happens.</comment>


EPIC, the end of email - <AUTHOR> http://www.victusspiritus.com/2010/05/12/epic-the-end-of-email/ <comment><USER2> Most people haven't even yet get their heads around PGP ...</comment>


Protests Continue Against Dropbox After Appointment of Condoleezza Rice to Board - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/protests-continue-against-dropbox-after-appointing-condoleezza-rice-to-board/ <comment><USER2> This may be a case where Dropbox feels it's more important to keep her around than kowtow to activist's principles.

Individuals have feeling and morals, etc., and may cancel accounts. Businesses do not, though, no matter how much we try to make them people. Ultimately, Dropbox wants businesses, not people.

That's my take on it.

<comment><USER3> > Individuals have feeling and morals, etc., and may cancel accounts. > Businesses do not, though, no matter how much we try to make them people.

All actions attributed to businesses are actions of people, who have feelings and morals. Now, for certain businesses, management may be effectively serving the shared interests of the owners/shareholders, and those shared interests may be limited to maximizing material returns, which certainly creates a common pattern of behavior...

<comment><USER4> I don't think owners/shareholders of a business care much about which cloud service the business uses. It is extremely unlike for them to force the business to change cloud service just for this kind of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dropbox has learned the lesson of the Komen and Mozilla affairs. The minority who are protesting will not become customers again if their demands are met. (Many aren't even customers to begin with.) If Dropbox caves, however, they stand to lose far more customers.

<comment><USER6> I was a Dropbox customer. I think they provide a very useful, inexpensive, and well-implemented service. But I've uninstalled their software and cancelled my account, because otherwise I'd be a hypocrite or someone who considers a file- sharing service more important than privacy or punishing a proponent of torture. If they fire Rice, I would likely resume using their service, but as long as she's on their board, I'm going to do everything I can to cost them business.

<comment><USER5> Well, I'm a Dropbox customer, and I've just upgraded from a free account to the $100/year plan. If they fire Dr. Rice, I doubt you'll resume _paying_ for Dropbox, but I definitely won't renew.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand the background she brings which makes her a valuable member of the board? The article failed to address that too.

Sure, I understand the gripe against mass surveillance, but if you don't think that was already going on you have issues.

<comment><USER8> Probably gov't connections and therefore possible gov't contracts.

<comment><USER9> And not just in the US, but around the world. It's really not hard to see the value someone like Rice adds to a company with global aspirations.

Not saying it should outweigh the other aspects, but her value add is pretty clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> can this principled stand outlast the public increasingly short memory?

<comment><USER11> These "principled stands" seem very selective and subjective. It looks a lot like the online version of mob justice.

<comment><USER12> What do you even mean by that? Statements like that make no sense at all to me. Do you not believe that those who organise this are principled? Why exactly?

Also, you see exactly how powerless they are. Mobs tend to have power through violence. That's just not to be found here. It's just some people not using the product and being open about their dissatisfaction …

Really, this line of argument confuses the hell out of me.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps I should clarify... It's almost certain that you could find fault with someone involved with virtually any major organization, or their business practices if you look long and hard enough. Singling out one organization among hundreds of thousands of others in the world seems completely arbitrary.

In terms of the mob justice reference, it's largely to do with the mob anger that gets whipped up in forums such as this one. It may not be physical violence, but it does seek to damage the "target" economically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> what does this accomplish, exactly? is it just another slactivist outrage to feel like you're participating in something that _feels_ meaningful?

<comment><USER14> Does it matter? Politicians who do stupid things deserve this kind of negative attention, no matter how insignificant it is. It's a _good_ thing that this is even being mentioned by some of the domestic news agencies.

Even if nothing further comes of this, we as a society will have benefited from some tiny percentage of the population becoming aware of the Dropbox->Rice relationship.</comment></comment>


MIT Report is a whitewash. My Statement in Response - <AUTHOR> http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/56881327662/mit-report-is-a-whitewash-my-statement-in-response <comment><USER2> _" Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so."_

It's natural to look for someone to blame. Should we lay the blame on MIT? If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? Or JSTOR? In any case, aiding in prosecution did not cause his death directly.

The decision to commit suicide was ultimately his own. Of all the options he had available to him, he consciously chose that option. I'm reminded of a quote by Viktor Frankl:

 _" Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation."_

Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't?

According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from suicidal thoughts and depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case, and long before MIT ever got involved. As long as we're speculating about things we can't know for sure, I'm guessing depression was really to blame for his suicide. That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way.

<comment><USER3> > _Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some > people survive terrible hardships, and others don 't?_

That's bad reasoning.

That "some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't" can just as well prove the reverse: that NOT all people have the same "power to choose".

Especially a self-professed depressive like Aaron.

Some people are more thick-skinned, either due to temperament, upbringing, genetics, circumstances etc.

> _I 'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide._

And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non- issue?

> _That won 't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful > organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way._

I'm finding pop psychology explanations like your serve another plausible rationalization mechanism: it makes those saying them feel superior and more logical compared to the naives that " _seek a powerful organization to rage against_ ". (If you allow me the same pop psychology)

In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true).

Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.

<comment><USER2> _> In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true)._

 _> Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future._

So MIT and the prosecution unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal motives. And now you're suggesting we unfairly pin his death on them to serve your personal motives.

I'm done with this.

<comment><USER4> Set aside the suicide and imagine that Aaron were still alive today, and you'll find that everything we're saying against MIT still stands. They acted terribly.

The thing is, a guy's dead, and the best thing we can do is use his death to make the world a better place.

<comment><USER5> Sometimes I wonder if we've forgotten who broke into who's subnet here. :P

Certainly the prosecution should have been in felony mode, but there wasn't _no_ reason to avoid prosecution, except to pander to a highly vocal group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did.

This may in fact be true, but this claim is leveled with the implication that MIT is responsible for his death. They surely could have responded better; taking a "non-neutral" position (actively supporting lessened punishment), but this claim seems overreaching and narrow.

<comment><USER7> For context, Taren was Aaron's partner at the time of his death and was the person who found him hanging.

<comment><USER6> Thanks. I appreciate that context, and I apologize if my original comment was insensitive.

It must be terribly painful to have strangers commenting on the loss of a loved one, especially in such a politically charged and public arena.

<comment><USER8> "I apologize if my original comment was insensitive."

It's sad that there is a need to apologize such as you did.

This is one of these issues in which ordinary discourse is not possible. You would have to spend so much time padding your thoughts about what you might think to lessen the impact on those that are highly sensitive for one reason or another.

<comment><USER9> Well I'm sorry but that's a pretty basic part of the human experience. While there are some situation in which one can be blunt and straightforward, other situations require all the tact and empathy you can muster… Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job, every single word you say will be taken very personal and be mulled over afterwords. That means it is up to you to pick your words very carefully, and find a constructive phrasing.

<comment><USER8> "Imagine turning someone down for a job interview. If the person cared for this job"

I know but this wasn't in response to someone who claimed they were directly connected to this case though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is probably going to cost me karma, but here goes: "Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did"

So he has _no_ responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one?

Yes, MIT's actions may have had influence. Or they may have hastened the inevitable - a person who makes this choice is not untroubled to begin with, and it's never about just one thing.

Ultimately, it was his choice in the end. The responsibility is his.

<comment><USER11> Consider the attitudes we have towards schoolyard or internet bullies when their victims commit suicide. If the people weev harassed had committed suicide, what would you hesitate to blame weev?

<comment><USER12> In the hypothetical you raise, Weev is at best an unprovoked aggressor, and at worst a bully who harasses people because he can. In contrast, MIT can reasonably claim that Swartz was the aggressor against them; he was the one who sneaked into a network closet to "liberate" JSTOR.

<comment><USER11> We can debate whether or not MIT is a bully, though I have no interest in doing so. It seems painfully clear to me.

What I think is not debatable, unless you think humans are emotionless automatons who cannot be influenced by the treatment of others (a viewpoint seemingly being espoused by several here), is that bullies can be held partially _morally_ ^ accountable for the suicides of their victims.

^ I am not saying _legally_ accountable.

<comment><USER12> I do not believe MIT was a bully. A bully is someone who harms others because they can; MIT was responding, I believe reasonably, to a person breaking into their network closet and violating their terms of access. That that person happened to be at risk of suicide was tragic, but not their fault; I can't even think of a way the legal system would be able to reasonably take that into account, nor can I imagine how a system of morality can indemnify a person's actions because they happen to be suicidal.

You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree.

<comment><USER11> I'll give you that MIT was less the bully... and more the parent standing idly by enjoying the show. As far as I am concerned, that is an equivalent position.

> _You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of > negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree._

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing in the slightest. If you think that is what this discussion is about, then I have to wonder what exactly you have been reading.

<comment><USER12> Whether Aaron's actions were morally wrong is irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of MIT's response to them?

<comment><USER11> Yes? Particularly if I am not making the claim that Aaron's actions were not morally wrong? It is just plain off topic.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6128690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6128690)

<comment><USER12> How does one make the claim that a response to an action was disproportionate, without implicitly claiming that the action that precipitated it was a lesser evil?

Either way, I don't think either of us is ever going to convince the other of anything on that score, so it's probably best to agree to disagree on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems like objecting to the FOIA is all the report we need on how wrong/right their actions were. If they think that whatever in there is damaging to them or likely to cause people enough anger to create a dangerous climate for those involved, it doesn't really matter what MIT's internal report characterizes things as.

<comment><USER14> It's interesting that a hour in, you are the only one to have mentioned how MIT objected to the FOIA request and the governments compliance.

What we have and have had for some time is a democracy (or republic depending on which brand of kool aid one drinks) behind closed doors, by a government that is publicly funded submitting to the will of private institutions. Not that what is going on here is better than anyone else…

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this true?

        This report claims that MIT was "neutral" — but MIT's lawyers gave
        prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing
        access to Aaron's lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence.
        That's not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say
        publicly, "We don't want this prosecution to go forward" – and
        Steve Heymann and Carmen Ortiz would have had no case.

Was there a possibility where MIT could say that they did not want any prosecution?

<comment><USER16> Of course there was. JSOR did, and once they had, the entire case hung on MIT's claims of "hacking".

<comment><USER5> JSTOR dropping their support for the prosecution didn't remove the evidence pertaining to their side of the story from the case. What Aaron did to JSTOR was as relevant for the prosecution after JSTOR asked them to stop as it was before, it's not as if the prosecution was then limited to only evidence obtained from the MIT side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> MIT "Negotiators" were the ones primarily holding out against the "No Jail" plea-bargain [1] which would have otherwise succeeded in getting Aaron the commensurate penalty for his actions.

Instead, because of their pigheadedness, the govt. got a chance to threaten him him with a very large Jail sentence leading to the completely avoidable tragedy that happened.

Whitewash indeed...his death is certainly attributable to MIT & Carmen Ortiz, et al.

[1] [http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_ref...](http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_refused_pl.php)

<comment><USER18> For what it's worth, MIT says it told the prosecutors otherwise:

 _MIT's counsel stated that, while the government might believe that jail time was appropriate in this case, the government should not be under the impression that MIT wanted a jail sentence for Aaron Swartz. The prosecutor responded that the government believed that some custody was appropriate. He said the government had to consider not only the views of the immediate victims, but also general deterrence of others._

<comment><USER19> That falls short of telling the government that they should not seek jail time. It is simply informing them that MIT itself was not asking for jail time, not that MIT felt jail time was going too far. At what point did MIT protest the prosecutor's actions in any way whatsoever? MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so (compare with JSTOR).

<comment><USER18> _MIT was complicit, handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so_

I'm not sure we are going to have productive discussion if you say this.

Either you read the report and think "handing over to the government whatever they asked for without being forced to do so" is an accurate assessment, when MIT explicitly denies turning over anything outside of what was required by subpoenas _except_ for the first few days around the arrest, when they didn't realize that the guy breaking into their network was an internet hero and allowed to do that.

Or you didn't read the report.

For others watching the conversation, I'll point out other things from that very page:

 _• The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely reasonable proposal, and was "dumb-founded" by Swartz's response._

 _• The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel's back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a "wild Internet campaign" in an effort to drum up support. This was a "foolish" move that moved the case "from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level." The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally._

 _[...] The lead prosecutor's comment about a "wild Internet campaign" orchestrated by Swartz to drum up support made MIT concerned that any public statements that MIT might make on Swartz's behalf could backfire._

<comment><USER19> I think you might not have read the report. MIT did not demand subpoenas even after they discovered Aaron's identity; they were eventually served a subpoena but that does not appear to have been required for their cooperation. Aaron was arrested on January 6th; from the report:

"On January 24, 2011, the Secret Service Agent asked IS&T for a copy of the packet data capture and the video surveillance file. IS&T duplicated the hard drive it had used to capture the packet stream (see section I.B), and the special agent picked up the copy at MIT on January 26."

"There were few communications between the prosecution and MIT after the indictment, except for occasional emails from the government seeking bits and pieces of information relevant to the government's case."

(This second bit was done supposedly under the belief that the information was covered by two previous subpoenas. Nobody seems to have been bothered enough to check.)

"For example, when the government's investigation had begun, in January 2011, OGC made the decision that the lead prosecutor, the Secret Service Agent, and the Cambridge Police detective could directly telephone and email previously interviewed IS&T employees without first going through an MIT attorney for follow-up questions, provided no new topics were covered"

"However, MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."

"Initially, OGC approved the production of information to law enforcement, without a subpoena, as part of a continuing investigation of an ongoing intrusion into MIT's network as well as of a possible crime being committed on the MIT campus. IS&T continued to provide information to the investigators, pursuant to this initial approval, until OGC was eventually served with a subpoena on January 27, 2011."

In other words, we can summarize MIT's conduct as follows: they gave the government whatever the government wanted, and eventually the government served a subpoena that changed almost nothing (at one point, MIT did ask for another subpoena to be served; this is a minor detail, as they were clearly far more cooperative with the prosecution than they were ever required to be).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _Here are the facts: This report claims that MIT was "neutral" — but MIT's > lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while > refusing access to Aaron's lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence. > That's not neutral._

Those aren't really facts, those are assertions that could use some documentation. Which specific witnesses and pieces of evidence did the defense request (and is there a record of this) but were denied to them (and is there a record of that)?

<comment><USER21> My guess this is the thing people are trying to release, and MIT is blocking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> MIT's a bully, and they should educate themselves on the lengths taken by their state's legislature to help prevent suicide [0]. Aaron might have played a part in his own actions, but if MIT is OK with Aaron being classified a cyber criminal, I'm OK with setting them on the express path to blame.

[0] [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/04/grieving_family_by_his_side_governor_signs_legislation/)

</comment><comment><USER23> A sane nation would have recognized Aaron as an incredibly valuable asset to the entire society. The American criminal justice system saw him as a dangerous threat and offered only cruel and unusual punishment. The facts point to just one conclusion: we live under an irrational and pathological criminal justice system.

</comment><comment><USER24> The historical info contained in JSTOR should be free, just as Aaron envisioned. MIT long ago lost its shine as a conduit for information and has now become just another McBiz.

Long live Aaron's spirit and his zeal.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you don't agree with how MIT handled this situation, protest the MIT hackathon in October and any other MIT related events.

<comment><USER26> I believe the hackathon is student-run so you're not doing much by protesting it besides hurting the efforts of some unrelated students.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "...That's not neutral. The fact is that all MIT had to do was say publicly..."

Well, the author's proposal for action by MIT is also not "neutral." Though I hold the same opinion about how MIT should have acted, I feel it's [inadvertently] written with this juxtaposition that goes from a level-headed "that's not neutral and here's why" to an emotional "they should have done X instead" which I fear reduces the effect of this statement.

However, there's been boatloads of public outcry over this whole thing and I'm certain I feel that MIT should address each and every issue people continue to raise, regardless of the how emotionally charged such statements might be.

</comment><comment><USER28> MIT obviously is conducting it's affairs like a business. Therefore, asking MIT to do the "soul searching" they promised is like asking Dow Chemical* to do so some "soul searching" searching after the the Bhopal chemical spill. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

 _Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide

_

</comment><comment><USER29> What, will these hands ne'er be clean? No more o' that, my lord, no more o' that. You mar all with this

<comment><USER30> You're comparing the author to Lady MacBeth?

<comment><USER29> [EDIT:] The Abelson report is a huge effort at hand-washing. [Clearer?]

 _Here 's the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand._

<comment><USER30> e: Much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Ouch. Glad Taren is holding their feet to the fire.

</comment><comment><USER32> This has to be difficult to stomach. I am very sorry for your loss.

</comment><comment><USER33> >his report claims that MIT was "neutral" — but MIT's lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron's lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence.

I'm sorry, but where exactly did this report, or any other literature on the case, indicate that MIT refused access to the defense's lawyers?

<comment><USER34> Page 76: "MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."

<comment><USER33> Well yes, but they mention that the reason for this was because the defense could reasonably expect to obtain these documents from the prosecution, and that they didn't want to duplicate their efforts by re-compiling all the evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Kinda sucks that almost every post here is getting distracted by the "he would be alive today" bit.

</comment><comment><USER36> Some serious misunderstanding of mental illness in this thread and on HN in general that seems to raise its ugly head with news about Aaron.</comment>


Here's why King gave away its 2D mobile game engine Defold - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/19/heres-why-king-gave-away-its-2d-mobile-game-engine-defold/ <comment><USER2> I think the contalk about how Defold uses Clojure and an in-memory, transactional graph database to make the GUI highly customisable might be interesting to the HN crowd:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajX09xQ_UEg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajX09xQ_UEg)

<comment><USER3> Just to be clear 1) all Clojure and other goodness have nothing to do with the game engine. It is editor only. 2) it's not even editor one can download - instead you'll get something based on Eeclipse, which has nothing to do with what is in video 3) Weirdly overcomplicated system around something others (like Corona) was doing for at least 3 years already

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the context, I was not aware of any of these things!

Not sure if I agree with the "weirdly overcomplicated system" comment though, it looks like a fairly elegant system to me?

<comment><USER3> ok. Elegant, future system, not tested in real world, seen only in youtube video. P.S. I'm actually looking forward seeing it. Pardon my scepticism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really want to love Defold, but just think it too big a risk to build your business on a game engine that you can't fork and continue to support if Activision / Blizzard decide that is not making money for them anymore and drop it.

<comment><USER5> I think EULA covers this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks interesting, but I'm not sure how much traction this will get outside of King.

Compared to the competition, such as Corona SDK, King will have to work real hard to build a community and ecosystem around Defold.

In 2016, having a great technology alone is not enough to get traction in game dev, all other parts of the ecosystem matter a lot: language, plugins (own and third party), art assets, tutorials (written and video), books, mind share retaining efforts (podcasts, events and etc).

Unity got this quite right, others are working hard to catch up (Unreal, Corona in 2D space).

Being open source is a huge boost as well, in terms of flexibility of development as well as peace of mind for the third party devs that the owner of the engine won't switch to the dark side with the next leadership change or simply let the technology get obsolete by not releasing new versions any more.

Still, I welcome this, Defold is a cool engine - hope that King open sources this eventually.

<comment><USER7> Just to note, that Defold won't be open source:

> GamesBeat: Is this going to be open source? Hartwig: It's not open source, > but it's free of charge. There are no royalties or team size limitations. > You get all the features on all platforms. For us, the main driver—There are > two reasons. One, we believe that opening the engine up to external > developers will increase our product quality. That will benefit us > internally when we develop our games. Two, we want to support the game > industry. We think we can bring a lot of value to the whole industry by > helping indie developers create awesome games.

<comment><USER3> This was very weird to read, especially with King's attempts to sue/patent troll dozens of indie studios which used anyt of the words "Candy" "Crash" or "Saga" in their game titles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Couldn't find a link in the article, so found it at [http://www.defold.com/](http://www.defold.com/)</comment>


Why We Should All Give Google+ The Finger - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/28/bird-is-the-word/ <comment><USER2> i understand the excuse that people put up with facebook's flaws because so many of their friends are on it, but why are all of these early adopters putting up with google+?

there is not a strong network effect going on there yet, there are no 3rd party apps or even a full api, there are hardly any celebrities or companies that users are joining just to follow, and it only seems to be used by early adopter tech-types. those same users are the ones that keep complaining about flaws like google's handling of pseudonyms and now this middle-finger baloney.

if you don't like a new service and there is no compelling reason to continue using it, why are you using it and writing about it and continuing to drive traffic to it? just stop using it and there will be one less reason for others to keep using it.</comment>


FileVault 2 Easily Decrypted - <AUTHOR> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57369983-263/filevault-2-easily-decrypted-warns-passware/

<comment><USER2> Current Linux disables the device-initiated DMA mechanism for firewire and other "untrusted" busses, though it should probably consider more types of busses "untrusted" than it does. This requires the host driver to initiate DMA, which it'll only do for devices it knows how to talk to safely. Turning this protection off (and thus making the system insecure) requires both compiling a kernel with the debugging-only option CONFIG_FIREWIRE_OHCI_REMOTE_DMA turned on _and_ passing a kernel parameter at boot time, so you can't do it accidentally.

I thought more recent versions of OS X fixed this problem as well, but perhaps not.

<comment><USER3> FireWire and Thunderbolt DMA is disabled if you set an firmware password. On systems which support Intel's VT-d technology, the OS will actually allow restricted DMA even with the firmware password set so you get almost all the benefits of DMA without the security compromise of having all memory exposed to the foreign device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Actually this applies to "all" other similar encryption technologies and is not limited to mac or firewire. You can also use Thunderbolt, PCMCIA, ExpressCard and even esata ports to have direct access to a computers RAM in which you passphrase is being held.

Basically all ports which use DMA are possible if I remember correctly.

Further reading:

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

<comment><USER4> Basically the only "defense" is to shut your computer down when you're leaving it alone / unattended for some time.

<comment><USER5> Why won't disabling features which give easy access to ram work?

<comment><USER6> Because the point of DMA is to give fast access to RAM without involving the CPU. That is what makes the speed of Firewire or PCMCIA or Thunderbolt or PCIE feasible. Without DMA, these technologies would not work.

Also, the password needs to be stored in memory and accessible by DMA, since you would not be able to use it without having it readily available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is what I set on my MBP (equipped with SSD):

      sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 25 destroyfvkeyonstandby 1 sms 0

<comment><USER8> Thanks, that is very useful, I was wondering why it didn't scrub it from memory when it sleeps.

Article discussing this setting and providing links to a free and open forensic library so people can actually test the FW memory search method themselves, yanking passwords straight off of their friends laptops as a fun party trick or what not: [http://www.frameloss.org/2011/09/18/firewire- attacks-against...](http://www.frameloss.org/2011/09/18/firewire-attacks- against-mac-os-lion-filevault-2-encryption/)

<comment><USER3> It's not scrubbed from memory on short term sleep so the OS can provide a more user friendly experience – rather than dropping you at the EFI login window when you wake from sleep, you'll be presented with the more capable and better looking OS sleep unlock window.

If the machine is asleep for "a while" then it will write out a sleep image file and power off RAM (and other hardware) to go into a deep sleep. Since the sleep image file is written to the FDE volume, you must first unlock the volume at EFI's login window to gain access to the sleep image and resume from sleep. That process takes far longer than waking from a warm OS, so it's not done by default. You can change sleep settings using pmset on the command line and force it to always destroy the FV keys on sleep, if security is more important that a quick wake from sleep.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I switched the pmset settings after reading the article I linked to that discussed his settings and making the comment.

Benchmarking it shows that with all programs quit and hibernatemode at 25, it takes around 2 seconds to enter RAM-off-sleep and 8 seconds to awaken from it, rather than both happening instantly with RAM-on-sleep. It's not really all that slow, I wouldn't say it's all that noticeably longer. It's kind of an impressively fast memory dump and restore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr: direct memory access via firewire can recover the key within an hour.

Anyone know if firewire be disabled at the hardware level on macs?

<comment><USER8> It's not really scanning memory, that's just their marketers trying to spin some razzlemadazzle for the plebes.

It's using Firewire Target Disk mode to get raw access to the disk. Apple stores its admin passwords using the highly obsolete MD5 algorithm, which is easily cracked in most cases using rainbow tables generated using the seed that is stored in plain text. It's pretty simply and I have personally broke into my own File Vault partitions after forgetting the password. You don't even need to spent $995, it's trivial to do with almost no skills. Anyone can do it themselves, which should convince them that File Vault is useless and its CPU load a pointless price to pay for zero security gain. This has all been dead obvious from day one too, the cited article is not even news, it's an advertisement for a company selling junk to clueless law enforcement incapable of doing basic research.

edit: OK, I'm wrong on some technical details:

1\. Apple uses SHA-1 hashing not MD5.

2\. I either need admin access in any account to access the /private/var/db/dslocal/nodes/Default/users/ folder and pull the plist with the hash from the account I am interested in, or I need to boot in Firewire mode which allows raw disk access to the unencrypted partition with that folder. (I haven't paid $995 for the referenced program but that would seem possible that's what it is really doing, not reading memory through FireWire looking for the plaintext password stored in the open in memory, which is also possible: [http://www.hermann-uwe.de/blog/physical-memory-attacks- via-f...](http://www.hermann-uwe.de/blog/physical-memory-attacks-via-firewire- dma-part-1-overview-and-mitigation) \- this also helpfully notes that "sudo kextunload /System/Library/Extensions/IOFireWireFamily.kext/Contents/PlugIns/AppleFWOHCI.kext" deletes the relevant kernel extension to kill FW - I happen to already have this removed for other reasons.)

Still just as vulnerable to rainbow tables, but shoot maybe it does scan memory.

<comment><USER9> Wouldn't Firewire Target Disk mode just give them the encrypted data, i.e. useless? The admin passwords are stored on the encrypted partition.

edit: I guess your edits deprecate my reply

<comment><USER8> Yes, the admin password hashes have to be stored unencrypted otherwise you can't log in at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Since the MacBook Air doesn't have a FireWire port, can I assume this technique doesn't apply? Or would it still be possible using one of the other ports?

<comment><USER11> The thunderbolt port have DMA access also, so I suppose the technique applies as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Additional info is here: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57370628-83/security- concer...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57370628-83/security-concerns-on- apples-filevault-decryption-via-firewire/)

</comment><comment><USER13> On PPC Macs with Open Firmware (pre-EFI), FireWire DMA would be disabled if a boot password was set. I haven't come across any details on recent models...

<comment><USER14> Works for Intel / EFI as well.

Setting a boot password will lock out boot media / FireWire DMA.

You can set it from your install media's Utilities menu (or while booted into Lion Recovery Partition).

Fun fact: All of the Open Firmware / PPC Macs and most of the Intel Macs (with the exception of most every 2010+ model) could reset or blank the password by changing the RAM configuration.

The newest Intel Macs, however, won't do this. You have to take the Mac to a service center where they generate a special binary (using an internal tool) that's specific to the machine(s) they need to unlock and place it on USB media, during boot, to trigger an unlock override.

In short: Got a new new Mac? Don't set a password and forget it, write it down!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Infinite redirect chain on my mobile phone.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I drop out of uni? - <AUTHOR>

At the time of writing this, I should be attending an exam.
I'm currently in my fifth semester, so in theory I should pass my bachelor's degree in another 6 months. That will not be the case.
Some months before starting to study, I co-founded a company. No really exciting startup, just building products for clients. We pretty much bootstrapped and have 5 employees now, making a decent amount of money. But I haven't been to uni for the last 1.5 years, because I was rather working. I haven't told anyone yet that I haven't passed or even attended a single exam after my second semester. I'm not sure what exactly I'm asking for, but what are the Pros and Cons of completely dropping out of uni in favor of the secure job / the company? <comment><USER2> If I understand you correctly, you have already dropped out in practice, and you're wondering if you should go back and finish it. Without knowing much about your particular situation, in general I would encourage you to find a way to do so, particularly if your major is in a field with "hard" employability benefits (i.e. not "studies"). Of course there are exceptions where brilliant people didn't complete their education and achieved great success in business, but it's a huge gamble. Essentially the situation looks like trading long-term benefits for short-term ones. My advice would be for you to talk to your family and friends about this to reach a decision. They probably can help you in unexpected ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks facorreia.

My "plan" (if you can say so) was to continue the company after my graduation, anyway. So the degree would only serve as a backup in my view. But how much of a backup would a bachelors degree be? From others I've heard that real life work experience outweighs degrees in most tech companies, and I think this is what I'm looking for support in.

<comment><USER2> I hear you. Let me offer one counterpoint, as food for thought. Life is long, situations change. 10, 20, 30 years down the road you may regret missing some opportunity which requires a degree. If you are able, it would be great to get one while you're young. At any rate I wish you the best of luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Who has been paying your tuition all this time you haven't been attending? What a waste of money!

<comment><AUTHOR> Here in Germany it's very cheap (only around 260€/semester). I paid it myself. Nevertheless, the benefits that come with being a student here (health insurance, lower tax rates) prevail the costs.

Some might think I've "stolen" the opportunity to study from someone else, but in my field of study, we're always under capacity, so that's not a problem.</comment></comment>


Roadmap to becoming a Web Developer in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kamranahmedse/developer-roadmap <comment><USER2> This would be much more friendly and "2019-ish" if all the text in those diagrams were searchable.</comment>


Ask HN: How to make clear and legible diagrams - contr-error Diagramming software and tools (e.g. PlantUML or even Inscape) are a popular subject on here.
I've played around with them and read their tutorials. But what's missing for me is information about what makes a diagram clear and readable. A lot of the examples are inscrutable (or at the very least ambiguous) if you don't know the conventions of the specific diagram used (the meaning of the icons, the arrows, the text inside and outside of boxes, ...).
Are there any resources that cover the basics of diagramming (starting with the simplest flowchart), regardless of the software/medium used? Once you know how to make a clear diagram with pen-and-paper the most interesting work is done and all that's left is (optionally) converting it into digital form. <comment><AUTHOR> Finding the best tools to represent insight is good.

However, I have found it better to start with thinking about the audience and what I want them to take away.

When you say "clear and readable" I think: "understandable and memorable".

I would recommend focusing first on the content of your message, and then figuring out the form. Tooling, for me, comes last.

Specifically, consider:

* who is your audience * what do you want to convey (and why) * focus on the essentials of your message (too often I see irrelevant detail that undermines impact and recall)

<comment> contr-error Hey, thanks for your comment! I agree that tooling comes last, that's sort of what I was trying to get across.

Those are some good points you brought up. I think they'll be useful next time I need to make a diagram (or even any written communication).</comment></comment>


The Uyghur women fighting China's surveillance state - <AUTHOR> https://codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/uyghur-women-fighting-china-surveillance/ <comment><USER2> I find it amusing that the first thing I saw on that page was a graphic asking me to accept cookies (I'm assuming tracking cookies)</comment>


Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/technology/jeff-bezos-national-enquirer-blackmail.html <comment><USER2> This was already posted, original article (by Bezos) discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109474)

</comment><comment><USER3> Peter Thiel (worth 2.5b) destroyed Gawker with a contribution of 10m to Hulk Hogan's legal fund.

If Bezos contributed a similar proportion of his fortune (112b), he would be contributing 448m. Not only is the National Enquirer about to be in the shitfight of its life, but every single other lawsuit it's going to be facing will be armed to the teeth with amazing legal talent.

Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

<comment><USER4> Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

<comment><USER3> "Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: \- Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. \- Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice.

In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.

<comment><USER5> It's all but inevitable that a news publisher will get a story wrong at some point, that's why corrections get issued. So it's still a lot of power to put in the hands of the already powerful.

<comment><USER6> There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.

<comment><USER5> Oh sure. I was talking in the context of Thiel and Gawker, not Bezos and the National Enquirer.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but this isn't an accurate description of gawker's case either. This wasn't a case of accidentally falling on the wrong side of the legal line and only realizing when it's too late. They repeatedly ignored direct court orders, eg to take down the video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To modify a quote from The Dark Knight:

"Let me get this straight, you think one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world, who owns the Washington Post and pays out of his own pocket to send rockets to space, won't stand up for himself so your plan is to blackmail this person?

Good Luck

<comment><USER9> Same thing I was thinking. That said, I _hate_ the National Enquirer and I am praying this leads to their destruction.

On a tangentially related note I also believe there ought to be laws restricting paparazzi from harassing people. I think it's awful every time I see someone trying to walk down the street or out of a hospital or courthouse and swarmed by cameras that won't leave them alone even in moments of grief. They're people. I don't understand why it's considered perfectly acceptable to treat them that way just because they've become well-known.

Just a thought connected to my disdain for tabloids.

<comment><USER10> You are missing the point. Entities like National Enquirer are not like Gawker that was bankrupted by Thiel with his wealth might. These entities are funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars. As Bezos clearly outlined in this letter, Trump administration helped these people have very lucrative deals with Saudies to get their financing, very likely, US government doing some favors to Saudies in return. Even if Bezos managed to bankrupt them, they will immediately popup with new name pretty much next day, by same owners and would run in exact same way doing exact same things. You can't kill it.

<comment><USER11> the justice department certainly can in fact kill it

<comment><USER10> It takes less than an hour of paperwork to spin a new business entity that is exactly the same as old. Bankruptcy laws limits financial losses for owners. Entities like AMI are often set up in a way so such financial losses would be negligible, if any.

<comment><USER11> it's pretty difficult when you're in prison

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Blogspam; primary source is [https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you- mr-pecker-146...](https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you-mr- pecker-146e3922310f) , discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109474) .

<comment><USER13> A New York Times article is not "blogspam".

<comment><USER12> Usually not, but this one surely is. It's 90% direct quotes and paraphrase from the primary source, adding nothing of value; and it elides the incredibly relevant letters exchanged between Bezos et al and AMI.

I think it's a pretty great example of how to blogspam and it's somewhat tragic that the NYT is resorting to blogspam for clicks.

<comment><USER14> I'm sorry, but how else would you write about this story? Is the NY Times just supposed to not cover it? The story is literally the post by Jeff Bezos, which they link to first in their article.

<comment><USER15> No, but we should really not have upvoted it quite so highly considering it's a non-primary source that isn't really adding anything

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looks like David Pecker just lost his Prime membership. Enjoy a lifetime of 14 day shipping, bro.

<comment><USER17> Also using AWS for the National Enquirer website including Route 53 for DNS [https://twitter.com/ryanhuber/status/1093665718464327680](https://twitter.com/ryanhuber/status/1093665718464327680)

<comment><USER18> I wonder where they have stored those alleged incriminating photos... An S3 bucket backing some sort of CMS system they use to run that website?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can relate to _a plague on both their houses_ but it is important to worry a bit about 'law of unintended consequences' effects. Bezos is going to get something ordinary mortals cannot, (redress) because of his money. So he isn't a champion for fundamental rights against press abuse, he's a champion for millionaires rights.

A real win here is for a global press industry to adopt redress measures ordinary people can use, and for stories to reflect fundamental truths, not twisted outcomes.

Jeff is still a union-busting, extractive parasite in my personal opinion. He might have made a worldwide empire which drives the economy, but he also helped wreck small-town shopping alongside costco and walmart, and their international cohort of economically efficient traders. Its lovely to be able to buy anything. Its truly sad to walk past small town life consisting of boarded up shops.

<comment><USER20> I don't buy that "buying your shit at huge markup from a local shop" is some great boone to a community. It's effectively a tax on everyone in town, subsidizing the one family that owns the shop. There are plenty of businesses that are more local-friendly, but household necessities aren't one of them.

<comment><USER19> That tax keeps people in jobs. That tax kept social capital i the town heart.

The bigstore on the edge of town, and mail-order destroys social capital.

I absolutely get the prices were higher. I have lived this experience in different times, and short of cash I resented paying that markup in the corner store. But now, older and I think a little wiser I realize that what I did, was suck energy out of the local community. I miss the corner store, and I miss fresh bread from a local baker, and I miss the small indie bookshop and record store.

If the price of these things for a small town is a "tax" then can we be grown up and discuss the tax? I mean sure, you can drive the utility truck down the road to the costco, but what kind of a local are you, if the store-owner is on their hunkers because you stopped shopping? Are you a local at all?

<comment><USER21> So you expect all customers to accept higher prices because of the community aesthetic you personally enjoy more?

<comment><USER19> Yes. I think I do. Which is at the heart of any tax discussion: _So you expect all local citizens to accept higher taxes because of the community utility function you expect everyone to contribute to_

What you're driving to, is that get off my goddam lawn and I drive over the border to buy cheaper and screw the lot of you get off my lawn is really fine.. except it isn't. Its pretty sad. But sure, its legal, go for it, don't worry, I can't stop you. I can feel about it, but you don't care what I feel so there's no downside. Right?

<comment><USER20> It's a super inefficient mechanism. You're better off having everyone save a bit by buying from Walmart, and be able to afford to go out to dinner once a month - instead of never.

<comment><USER19> The small towns I know, its your aunt who runs the store which shut, and its your cousin who used to run the garage who is now nickel-and-diming. Neither of them are working for tips in a restaurant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've read both Bezos' letter and this article and I can't find what value this NYT article adds. There aren't any additional details, no comment from AMI or others, no additional context.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Hey guys let's threaten one of the most powerful, shrewd businessman on the planet who has more money than God"

Well, rest in peace, hope Bezos doesn't launch them into space.

</comment><comment><USER24> Another thing that strikes me is : Wouldn't that AMI lawyer feel embarrassed to type up that pathetic threat letter?

"Hi, I am a high-powered attorney; my client has instructed me to describe some photographs of you that some may construe as naughty..."

It just seems, I dunno, like beneath the dignity that one normally associates with being a lawyer? I mean damn, if that's what the job entails, I bet most people would rather drive a truck

<comment><USER25> The type of person who asks their lawyer to send a message like that probably only hires lawyers that are willing to send a message like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Baffling to see a _lawyer_ commit such an obvious and blatant opsec gaffe.

Also: can of whup-ass duely opened...

<comment><USER27> There is always a market for a lawyer that will say "Sure, I'll do that."

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is actually insane. I know how it's so wrong, but I've always been curious at the inner workings of the behind the scenes things for the elite. It's like a movie...good on Bezos for not giving in, hopefully we'll see some justice here. Bad on him for cheating though

</comment><comment><USER29> This is pretty disgusting, on the level of the "fappening". Can you imagine if the National Inquirer was blackmailing Jennifer Lawrence over her nude photos?

<comment><USER30> unfortunately yes

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This seems like absolutely the right strategic move in his position.

</comment><comment><USER32> I know it's morally wrong to exploit people like Jeff Bezos. If he were some nobody, this would not be news. As it is, he is undoubtedly one of the richest and most influential people in the world. Because of this, his very human mistakes aired out in public seems tit-for-tat. This is the sword of Damocles in action. It's a natural disincentive for too much ambition and opulence.

</comment><comment><USER33> RIP National Enquirer.

</comment><comment><USER34> Here's to hoping that this evidence gets us one step closer to impeaching Trump. The core theme of his letter seems to tie all of this back to the president.

</comment><comment><USER35> It appears Jeff Bezos has partially doxed Howard Dylan. In the email he published he removed Dylan's phone number and email address, but the image included, probably as Dylan's signature, clearly shows his phone number and email address.

<comment><USER36> If your an exec at a media company, it is understood that your (business) phone and email will become widely shared public knowledge. This wasn't even his personal information, but simple a work email and phone that doesn't even belong to him, but to his employer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Trump's minion trying to blackmail Bezos because of the Washington Post's investigations into the Trump admin. Just further evidence that Trump must be impeached, and sooner rather than later.

</comment><comment><USER38> dang

<comment><USER39> No need to bring any mods into this. The legal system can handle it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Something about this begs belief. Stand by.

</comment><comment><USER41> I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

</comment><comment><USER42> World's richest man uses Medium to post an article? OK.

<comment><USER43> Where would you post it if you were him?

<comment><USER44> I'd buy a country and have it inscribed in the earth so it can be read from space.

<comment><USER45> You're the kind of person I'm rooting for to become a billionaire.</comment></comment></comment></comment>