'iPad Mini' Pricing to Begin at Approximately $329 - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/20/ipad-mini-pricing-to-begin-at-approximately-329/ <comment><USER2> Slightly OT: I tried a Galaxy Note 2 in an AT&T store the other day while the wife was upgrading her iPhone. I can't believe how far Samsung is behind Apple at sales-time polish.

The big feature of the Note 2 is the stylus. That's what I wanted to try. So I picked it up and the first screen was this home screen with three buttons. One was for the Notes app. I tapped it, and it took me to an explanatory page about the app. I started scribbling. Nothing. Looked for a "try the app" button. Nothing. Backed out, clicked the "explore this device" button instead. Looked for a notes app on the home screen. Nothing. Clicked "applications". Greeted with 30 apps per screen. On the second page, found a "Notes" app and a "Memo" app. Guessed it was the memo app. Guessed incorrectly, that didn't support the stylus. Finally opened up the Notes app. Scribbled. It was laggy.

I can't understand how other companies can keep sucking so much at this when Apple has it figured out. It's just shocking.

<comment><USER3> We (me, my wife, two small children) have the original Kindle Fire, a Nexus 7, and two iPads (first generation). We used to have two iPad 2s but we had to return them to former employers. The Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire are only used in desperation, while we basically fight over the iPads.

I wanted to like the Nexus 7, but I find it borderline useless for everything including simply browsing the web. (There's a lot to like about the Chrome browser, but it's simply too fiddly to resize text all the time.) Overally, I find the Kindle Fire to be a superior device to the Nexus 7 (which is pretty depressing given the Nexus 7 is a year newer, ostensibly has better hardware, is running a far more modern OS, and was more expensive).

I think Apple is going to clean everyone's clocks with the new devices, even if they're a bit expensive. $330 for a really good device is a way better deal than $200 for a piece of junk.

<comment><USER4> Since I'm in the process of buying a tablet, I'd welcome elaboration on "it's simply too fiddly to resize text all the time".

Do you mean that (like Mobile Safari) Chrome does not reflow text, so that you cannot make the text big enough to read without making the text expand past the edge of the window, so you have to scroll each line of text horizontally?

<comment><USER5> Chrome reflows the text on the Nexus 7 -- pretty much the greatest mobile browsing feature ever and I miss it terribly on my iPhone.

I think his point was more than you have to resize text on the Nexus 7 because the screen is much smaller than an iPad. Pretty much every page on the Nexus will require a pinch zoom and a tap before you start reading.

<comment><USER6> Also, Chrome on Nexus 7 has a lot of "accessibility" options, so you can size the default reflowable text to your comfort, which reduces any need to manually squeeze/expand. (Nexus 7 is dramatically superior to a New(3) iPad.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am in the market for a tablet. I have an HP Touchpad running CM9. Im going to Mexico in a few weeks and will give it away to one of my cousins.

I have the Nexus 7, iPad, Surface, and the (smaller potential) iPad, as viable options. I also looked into Asus' Transformer line.

My Macbook is on its last legs. I purchased an iMac for home use earlier this year. I want to replace the Macbook with something equally as productive. I mainly use it for email and managing customer relations.

The Surface Pro entices me, but lacks concrete information. Nexus 7 has a great price, and I like Jelly Bean. It is a little smaller than I would like. The iPad is a solid piece of hardware, but im not the biggest iOS fan. With that said a cheaper tablet, bigger than the Nexus 7 and smaller than the iPad, would be great. I hope the smaller iPad can fill that niche.

Then I go back to the Surface... I'm tempted by the ability to load to apps on the same screen. The keyboard integration looks very slick.

Too many choices for me. As a consumer, I feel like the tablet market is what I dreamed of as a kid.

As a side note, I am unsure if the Surface Pro fits in with the rest of the group. It aims to be more of a "laptop" computing experience with a touch/stylus input method. Which I like, but am skeptical on the practicality of it.

I should wait a few more months...

<comment><USER8> It sounds to me that you need a device that can stand up like a laptop and has a keyboard (either integrated or BT). I have a Transformer 101 with the keyboard dock. The dock is awesome! Extra battery, USB port, and a great way to type long emails! Hardware: great, software not so much. Boot loader access is restricted in my TF101 (Asus provides an unlock tools for later/premium models but not mine) but luckily there is an open source, reversed unlocker letting me run Ubuntu! Ubuntu was a huge hassle to get working but a great dev environment. Asus took a few months with many delays to deliver 4.0. Rumor has it that it won't get 4.1 from Asus. So I would encourage you to look at a newer Transformer tablet with a keyboard but beware about future support.

The Surface is almost guaranteed to have great support for a long time given MS's history. Keyboard probably isn't as nice (it's squishy, right?) but much more compact than a Transformer keyboard.

<comment><USER7> The Transformer is nice. I held the new one and I like the hardware. I like that the keyboard charges the tablet. Does Ubuntu load side by side or does it over ride Android?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This passes the smell test. All signs are go for Apple to make an extra couple billion dollars this Christmas.

The 7" form factor clearly has value to customers over the predominant 10" form factor. Every review of them touches on how much nicer they are to read on and carry around.

7" tablets will be kids first computers, they'll replace the full iPad for lightweight POS installations, they'll be the go-to for portable employee applications, they'll sell into schools like crazy, and they'll make good purse-able travel iPads.

Plus there's that media ecosystem, that OS, that app stack, that customer familiarity, and that third party universe. No readily identifiable competitive weaknesses.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't see how they could possibly justify their iPhone prices if this were the case (which are respectively $649, $749, and $849)

<comment><USER11> Because Apple set prices for normal human beings, rather than geeks.

The clearest example is the iPod Touch vs the iPhone. From a geek's perspective, they are the essentially same product, differing only in the presence or absence of a cellular radio. The iPhone is more than twice the price of the iPod Touch, which is a scandalous mark-up for the addition of what we know to be a relatively inexpensive component.

From the perspective of nearly everyone who has actually bought an iPhone, the two devices are completely different - the iPhone is a smartphone, the iPod Touch is just an MP3 player with games.

That's why Apple are the most valuable company on earth.

<comment><USER12> Apple is the most valuable _public_ company on earth. There are much larger non-publicly traded companies.

[http://www.quora.com/Business/What-is-the-most-valuable- priv...](http://www.quora.com/Business/What-is-the-most-valuable-private- company-in-the-world)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not sure I buy it. They floated higher prices before the original iPad came out too. I'm still betting on $249. They want the tech media to parrot the 'it's a great value at $249' angle of the story instead of focusing on the 'it's $50 more than this other tablet' angle of it.

</comment><comment><USER14> First, this is a report from 9 to 5 Mac (via macrumors), so their success record isn't exactly golden.

I just have a tough time believing they are going to put out a 7" model for a price that is within $70 of the 10" model. Also, $329 is a weird price for Apple. They are very much into $x49 and $x99 prices. I could see $299, but $329 is just odd for a base price. It seems like the speculation that led people to believe the original iPad was going to be $999. It also seems like a serious deviation from the iPod / iPhone strategy.

<comment><USER14> Well, I guess I was wrong - $329 it is

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was skeptical about the iPad (either you want a phone either you want a computer, but why something between ???)... It turned out well for Apple finally and they have found (or created) a great market.

But now we have something between the iPhone and the Ipad ? Seriously.... I hope for them they will find people who will want to buy it (not only because it's a new Apple product of course...), but it's hard to believe, even for these marketing genius.

<comment><USER16> Fwiw, I have an Android Nexus phone and 10.1" Galaxy Tab and found i rarely used it, and phones just aren't big enough for watching video, typing anything but tweets/short SMSs. But I recently picked up a Nexus 7" and i've found a lot more uses for it and i'm using it daily. It's the right form factor for slipping into the pocket to carry around, you can type adequately while standing/sitting (the 10" i found cumbersome), good size for reading most websites, more comfortable to lounge with on the sofa etc.

Yeah the price is a lot less but many people who buy Apple products are probably pretty price insensitive, and there is def people who would prefer the smaller size

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Prediction: iPad Mini will be priced at $249.

\- Apple has traditionally been willing to eat into their margin a little bit when facing competition & establishing a new market

\- We know that the Nexus 7 & Fire HD at $200 don't make a profit for Google & Amazon, but they do make a small profit for ASUS & Quanta.

\- According to rumours the iPad Mini is lower spec'd than the Nexus 7 (1024x768 screen rather than 720p screen), primarily, but it will probably also have less RAM, dual core vs quad core CPU, etc.

\- Apple gets better prices for their components than their competitors do.

\- combining the 2 above suggests that a $160 cost base is a reasonable guess. (the BOM would be less than that).

\- $250 gives a very Apple-like margin of 40% given the above.

Apple is having trouble with rumour control. The traditional mechanism to deal with rumours if they can't be squelched at the source is disinformation. Given their supply chain, it's quite difficult to control the hardware rumours, but price rumours seem a lot easier to control with disinformation.

</comment><comment><USER18> Curious about the form and if it gets the thinner bezel as rumored

</comment><comment><USER19> I hope this is not true. $329 would not cut it, I think $249 would be more like it - definitely not $329.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, anything above $279 would be a huge disappointment.

For a very long time, I was convinced that Apple would never do a smaller iPad. What's in it for them? The profit margins will certainly be smaller. Then I realized: if they wanted to completely own the tablet market, they need a cheap option that's competitive with the Kindle Fire and co.

$249 gives Apple almost complete dominance in the tablet market. $329 does not.

<comment><USER21> Apple does not want dominance. Apple wants to make money. They are not Google making money on ads sold. They make money on hardware sold.

<comment><USER20> But if that's the case, why make the 7" iPad at all? Like I said, the profit margins will inevitably be lower than on the 10" iPad.

Unless it's about dominance, this is a pointless niche product and a waste of time.

Look at what Apple's been doing with iPhone pricing for the past few years. If you're in the US, you can now get a "free" iPhone 4. That's absolutely a move to seize the low end of the market, even if they're not making as much per device.

<comment><USER22> A few months ago Tim Cook went on record saying he "wasn't going to leave any price umbrellas". As Ryan Jones (via Forbes) observes, "a price umbrella is the cover that a market leader provides other companies by establishing a premium price for their products. Competitors can enter the market at lower price points and disrupt the leader's dominance, in Jones words, 'from the bottom up.'"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/07/22/apple-w...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/07/22/apple- will-sell-a-smaller-ipad-or-be-disrupted-from-the-bottom-up-by-google-and- amazon/)

Per this logic, $299 seems like the best bet. This is $100 lower than the point where iPad and iPod prices presently converge ($399 for either a 64GB Touch or a 16GB iPad 2). This move would also mean dropping the price of the 64GB Touch to $299 (where the 32GB model currently sits) and dropping the 32 GB to $249, which is where you find the 160 GB iPod classic ($100 above the new nano).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Thats too much. The nexus 7 is the same size but only 199.

<comment><USER21> I doubt that pricing of electronics is by square inches.

<comment><USER23> Have you tried it? It works really well, and we already know that price mattters, since HPs tablet flew of the shelf when they lowere the price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If their primary goal with the product is market segmentation, then a price that high is likely a mistake. On the other hand, Apple has a long history of starting with a high price and then creeping it down into the sweet spot (temporal market segmentation?)

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't think $329 is low enough to break into the lower market segment.

<comment><USER21> Why would Apple want to break into the lower market segment? This is their entry to smaller screen market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> At that price, if you want an iPad, it's easy to justify paying $70 more for the iPad 2(non retina but so is the iPad mini) or the iPad 3 for $170 more.

If you want to explore other options, the 9" Kindle Fire HD at $299 or 9" Nook HD at $269, or 7" Nexus 7 are similarly pretty competent. Perhaps Apple is trying to mitigate the cannibalization of the larger iPad, but this does seem expensive.

<comment><USER27> What if people want it for being 7" and not for being a cheaper iPad?

I bought my Nexus 7 because it fits in my pockets. Everywhere I would have a bag with a bigger tablet with me I would have my big notebook anyway.

<comment><USER22> I've always been put off by the size of the iPad, and I could never understand why Jobs thought a smaller device would be too small for people's fingers when the much smaller iPhone was already a bazillion dollar business.

Having passed on every iPad to date specifically because of the size issue, I'm really excited by this one.</comment></comment></comment>


Addictive and sticky HTML5 experiment - <AUTHOR> http://www.spielzeugz.de/html5/sticky-thing <comment><USER2> They also have a Flash version - <http://spielzeugz.de/lab/sticky- thing/flash/>

While there is no way to run Flash on iOS devices, accelerometer works only with iOS.

I belive that's what Steve was talking about in his Thought on Flash where he concludes:

"Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short."

Kudos to html5 and guys creating this experiment. It's awesome!

<comment><USER3> That's silly, had Steve Jobs wanted Flash to work on iOS it would work fine on iOS. Of course it doesn't work.

Power consumption in HTML5 is still higher than equivalent Flash, touch is a non-issue but standards is where HTML5 shines. I believe many times technologists focus too much on the platform rather than delivering a product. There's still a place for Flash and HTML5 is getting better (but is hindered by fragmented browser support).

<http://www.craftymind.com/guimark3/>

<comment><USER4> Does Flash work fine on other mobile devices? Every report I've heard indicates that it performs badly (to the point that watching video doesn't really work) and uses a great deal of power, although my sources certainly could be biased.

<comment><USER3> I have a TouchPad, Droid X, and CR48 and Flash seems to work great on all of them - Flash outperforms HTML5 at least for this example. One major issue is the sheer content of Flash advertisements which will drain your battery if you don't set the "touch to enable" option. Obviously this isn't an issue with the technology though and would (will) happen to HTML5.

The good thing is HTML5 performance will continue to improve across browsers. The bad news is that devs will still need to tediously test across every browser and mobile device.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the info, seems that my info is probably out of date.

Your comment about Flash ads makes me wonder what's going to happen when sites start delivering rich (and battery-hungry) ads with HTML5. Flash at least has a convenient bottleneck where you can disable it on a case by case basis and not lose functionality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully it's Saturday. I've played with this for too long before coming back to comment.

It actually took me a good minute to realize it made use of the accelerometer.

<comment><USER6> no denying. its addictive alright.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pinch to resize it, too. This is amazing. It's working flawlessly in mobile Safari (iOS 5). Well done.

<comment><USER8> On Mobile Safari it actually works with the accelerometer! You can toss it around by shaking your device

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Really cool experiment. I'd love to see a breakdown and explanation of the code. It would be interesting to hear how you went about creating this. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER10> This officially entertained my 3 year old. I just put the browser on full screen and she had a blast. :)

<comment><USER11> I think it's ideal to learn my 14 month old boy the concept of the mouse/screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If all you see is a blank page, enable cookies and reload.

</comment><comment><USER13> Also fun: <http://www.spielzeugz.de/html5/liquid-chars.html>

</comment><comment><USER14> Came here to say how nice it is that I can click through a link (for once) and not have it go blank thanks to IE9. It's a rare occurance, but nice change to be sure.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm surprised at how well it worked on my first gen iPad!

</comment><comment><USER16> Buy the real sticky thingy, then you can even eat it.

</comment><comment><USER17> this is excellent! care to share code?

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow, that's very impressive.

</comment><comment><USER19> wow

</comment><comment><USER20> This requires JS; could you amend the title to note that?

<comment><USER21> I think people assume fun HTML5 HN links are probably going to use Javascript

<comment><USER22> This document is not only broken but completely blank without trusting some random author's javascript—no content whatsoever, not even a warning that they neglected progressive enhancement. It's not a HTML experiment at all.

EDIT: oh, there is a warning, but it's only rendered if canvas is not implemented, and merely links to the not-quite-blank version which requires trusting their actionscript instead. It also blames the browser for the quality of their authoring.

<comment><USER21> If you don't trust "random authors' javascript/actionscript" you should not be browsing the internet.

<comment><USER20> The Internet is larger than your JS and AS and doesn't require people to browse with scripting and Flash enabled. Try browsing HN with JS disabled sometime; it works fine.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Giving an Hour of Code Talk at a Public High School, RFC - <AUTHOR> I've been asked to do a short introductory lesson to "coding" (god I hate that term) for a couple of public high schools.
A day later I'm doing the same thing at a local library.
As many of you have probably experienced, high school and college CS programs aren't always up to date on their content. For that reason, I want to be as real and up to date as I can about getting started in terms of languages, tooling, etc. Like, try and impart actual value.
What do you think of these slides so far - do you think I overstep in some areas or perhaps left something out that was important?
Slides are at: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dKCMdE4Zz6WTAxXcodIURtnNEvNjh9NA4X2nx_GhCkQ/edit?usp=sharing <comment><USER2> how about a slide differentiating back-end vs front-end, traditional applications vs web. might also be interesting for people to see what technologies different companies use. how about a mention of coding boot-camps as a path, as high school kids are currently getting sticker shock while looking at colleges.</comment>


Publishers Sue Internet Archive over Free E-Books - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-emergency-library-coronavirus.html <comment><USER2> When will they sue google for indexing and linking to free e-books?</comment>


What Needs to Be Said - <AUTHOR> http://parislemon.com/post/10309036779/what-needs-to-be-said

<comment><AUTHOR> Google Cache Version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fparislemon.com%2Fpost%2F10309036779%2Fwhat- needs-to-be-said&btnG=Search&hl=en&biw=1377&bih=783&sa=2)

</comment><comment><USER2> This whole ordeal is really wearing on me but I agree with MG's comments wholeheartedly. There's enough blame to go around.

After Arrington, he is the most talented writer there (regardless of his bias towards Apple) and AOL can't afford to lose him, especially after the mass exodus of the talent at Engadget.</comment>


Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-journalists <comment><USER3> Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentially endanger sources and compromise whistleblowers?

These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days.

I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press.

(Oh, and like Sarah Lacey, I'm a mom of young kids too. Reading that article induced such a shudder of horror, and will likely do the same for any parent who reads, or even hears about, that story. Uber has done major, major damage to their brand on a visceral level.)

<comment><USER4> I'm writing this as a throwaway because this feels like mob and pitchforks. I'm a regular here and have no ties to Uber except using it.

This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life.

What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done."

That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage.

Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats.

"Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became:

> threatening to reveal details of the location of their children

There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

<comment><USER3> In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family?

Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.

<comment><USER6> Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it.

Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.

<comment><USER7> > Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved > is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces

1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable?

2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?

<comment><USER6> 1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model.

2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.

<comment><USER7> 1\. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department.

2\. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate "your personal lives, your families" (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.

<comment><USER6> I think Sarah's sensationalizing it because sensationalizing things is her business. That's all.

<comment><USER8> Let's assume that the Uber Executive was also doing his business then.

Seems to me very clear that one's _quite_ a bit deeper in the wrong than the other, "doing their business".

(also, I disagree with the term "sensationalizing" when the facts of what actually happened are in fact already "sensational" enough to stand for themselves. Stating that you're worried about your children when someone calls to investigate and dig dirt on "your personal lives, your families" isn't really adding any extra "sensation" to what is already out on the table, it merely informs me that she has children to worry about)

<comment><USER6> To "dig dirt" means to gather embarrassing private information about someone that could ruin their reputation. Exactly what information could you gather to embarass and discredit a small child? There's no logical way to interpret that as a threat against Sarah's kids, and I'm giving Sarah the benefit of assuming she's clever enough to realize that. Sarah brought her own damn kids into this to tug at the audience's heartstrings and make herself look more sympathetic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If I say: "I wish that guy/girl would get exposed" \- that's a pretty non- specific statement. You can laugh that one off and it can be spun all kinds of ways.

If I say: "I should dig up dirt on that person" \- that's much more specific, but not always. It's harder to ignore and it's far more difficult to put a just-kidding spin on it.

If I say: "I should spend a million dollars and hire four researchers to dig up opposition research on this person to expose their private life" \- that's pretty damn specific. You can't unsay that. There's no way to spin that that it doesn't sound like a threat, especially if it's known, or at least believed, that you have the resources and connections to pull that off.

Michael may be a guy who was just spouting off in frustration without thinking first, which is fine - it happens from time to time. But he's also in the top tier of a very valuable company and he's paid to pay attention and be on his toes.

And he wasn't.

He then tried to laugh it off by saying "he doesn't think that way". Well, it came from somewhere in his brain. There weren't any flying monkeys dropping notions from the sky; no random inspiron from a long-dead galaxy just collided with a neuron and LOL I SEZ STUPID STUFF.

He screwed up badly. He needs to be held to account for that and harshly, because that idea is out there now. It might not be acceptable now, but sooner or later, given enough repetition, it will become acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page. Here, a SVP is not only threatening a reporter and her family (which is truly repugnant) and reporters generally, he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way:

"He said that he thought Lacy should be held "personally responsible" for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted."

The top comment on this page talks about a "visceral" feeling, I had the same one. I had the same feeling I had when I heard things like Todd Akin (a politican in the US) talking about "legitimate rape." Do we really want people like this shaping our future?

<comment><USER11> It's possible he's pissed of at Sarah Lacy for reasons other than that she's a woman.

<comment><USER10> I don't think he's pissed off because she's a woman, he's pissed about because she's critical. Still, when he says someone will be "personally" responsible for someone's sexual assault, he's essentially trivializing sexual assault. It's like saying that a rape victim is "partially at fault", it's wrong, indefensible and misogynistic.

<comment><USER11> That is not in any way 'like' blaming people for being raped.

<comment><USER10> sorry I respectfully disagree -- here a SVP of a company is essentially saying, "by recommending people to not use my product, you are responsible if they get assaulted" \-- it's essentially shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that to my eyes really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators. It's also such a flippant remark that it seems to me to show a callous indifference to what it means to be a victim of such a crime.

ps, agree with scarmig's point -- he's not "blaming the victim" but it does feel like shifting the blame, which minimizes what these crimes mean.

<comment><USER11> Lacy says Uber make her feel unsafe. Using the same deeply flawed logic, doesn't that feel like shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Personally, I've stopped using Uber because of the lack of the company/management's lack of ethics. Lyft comes off as a much friendly, consumer-focused company & frankly, my experiences have been better in a Lyft than an UberX.

Also - I'm not one to usually browse Buzzfeed, but this was their story to break, so props to them for getting it out there.

<comment><USER13> Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way. They also continue to benefit from Uber doing the hard work of fighting the taxi industry and regulators. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you will have to walk.

<comment><USER14> Stating this once is enough, please.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can see how being assholes, intimidating the press, undermining rivals via dirty tricks, and other such behavior, can maximize shareholder value.

So maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal and we should all focus on how we can play dirty tricks on our competitors, how we can intimidate the journalists who have written bad stories on us or haven't covered us. Where does the strategy to use intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?

I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.

It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.

<comment><USER16> Thats defeatist. We have labels for organic food, so why not have something certified asshole-free? You know, a certificate for ethical behavior or something.

I'm only glad that he _really_ looks like the asshole he is (and so does weev btw.). At least you can still trust your gut instincts.

<comment><USER17> That kind of labelling is never going to happen. But really it has always been the wrong way round. For example, you shouldn't really need to have "dolphin friendly tuna" anymore than "kitten friendly chocolate". If a company spends millions on marketing but does horrible things it is incredibly disineguous. Having unethical practices and not telling customers is like selling vegetarian food which contains animal products.

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that stock.

I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.

<comment><USER18> I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork.

However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.

<comment><USER16> Well there are standards that can be checked against, and they go to the companies and talk to them. The good ones often already have CSR departments.

If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company can't just fake a reputation.

Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _The executive, Emil Michael, made the comments in a conversation he later said he believed was off the record. In a statement through Uber Monday evening, he said he regretted them and that they didn't reflect his or the company's views._

They "don't reflect his or the company's views?" How can they _not_ be 100% reflective of his views? And how can we possibly take anything said by anyone at the executive level at Uber seriously at this point?

<comment><USER20> because his comments have been twisted out of control

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> When Godaddy came out in support of SOPA, after a string of other obviously bad actions, I thought for sure it would harm their business. It didn't.

Unfortunately I don't think this Uber story will be different. Most people don't take a stand on anything (unless it involves consuming _even more_ fast food, like a Chick-fil-a "reverse boycott").

<comment><USER22> I'm ethically opposed to Chick-fil-a's stance, but I like their sandwiches. Most of the time I don't eat them, but every once in a while, the beast takes over and I have to eat.

<comment><USER23> I just ask at the counter "Is this hateful message day? I don't want to endorse your hateful message." If they say no, then I order a sandwich.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Also, it was Travis who said "We're in a political campaign, and the candidate is Uber and the opponent is an asshole named Taxi,"

Well, it seems we have come full circle. Who's the asshole now?

</comment><comment><USER24> I think its abundantly clear at this point that Uber is an immoral company with a greed driven management team that has no ability whatever to properly think about the social consequences of their actions. Or worse still, perhaps they deliberately pursue malfeasance, as was suggested by the executive who made the comments discussed in this article.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is another recent HN article. It links to a Pando post by Sarah Lacy, the journalist being threatened. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187)

<comment><USER26> There's also previous discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> While in SF earlier this month, I noticed that people were using Lyft and Uber interchangeably and given the consistent stories about Uber's management, it seems likely that people will switch to Lyft as a primary option with Uber as a backup.

It's quite possible that Uber will create the market by and then be eclipsed by other players who are less unethical.

<comment><USER15> There is not enough general awareness of Uber's assholeness in the general public to have a meaningful effect. That may change but it hasn't yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> You know what I find the most disturbing about this whole story?? "He also sits on a board that advises the Department of Defense"

<comment><USER29> Yeah, that jumped out at me also, and is likely to give the story legs considering the pushback against sexual assault in the military.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Just looking at my uber rides, I am pretty certain Uber could already infer some interesting facts about my life.

Cross-referencing with geo-data, time, and weekly occurences, I am pretty sure Uber could infer who's in my social circle, and under which category (coworker, wife, arm-candy...)

The day Uber links its userbase with Facebook we are doomed.

<comment><USER31> Seeing as Uber now has distinct ties to Google, I doubt that they are an acquisition target for FB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There's been a number of negative articles about Google during the past years. Some for good reasons, some for bad. Some honest, some paid shills.

Imagine Larry Page saying: We'll sift through whatever data we've got on you and see what dirt we can find.

No need to imagine the threats against family. No need for any of the more nasty details. Just the basic premise, but in the setting of an established Silicon Valley company.

Done yet? No. Because you couldn't. Because any serious CEO worth their salt simply wouldn't.

And all those of you whose natural reponse is to defend these people, please imagine yourself doing it for Page as well. Would you, really?

<comment><USER33> If someone high up at google or facebook threatened to sift through the data they have on me, I would be worried. If they said they would hire external investigators, I would not be more worried than if any random person was going to do so.

Did I miss something, because I'm pretty sure this story is the latter scenario.

They're both bad actions, but only one is an abuse of trust and/or resources.

<comment><USER32> Both. The article talks about how he accessed the data they had on a journalist, without explicit persmission from the person in question.

Not only is it not nice, it shouldn't even have been possible without logging this against a ticket number at the very least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Uber's only purpose and meaning is exploitation. Yes, the app is handy, but it's no disruption. The disruption is in destabilizing the taxi cooperatives and weakening the drivers' position.

We should all cut the crap, there is nothing to be surprised by here.

<comment><USER35> Destabilizing taxi monopolies is a very positive societal disruption. I don't know where you're from but here Uber is half the cost of a cab, better service, and they actually have clean cars.

If you don't think they're disruptive, I'm not sure how you define disruptive.

<comment><USER34> Read my comment again, that's more or less exactly what I said. Except I do not see such a simple black and white picture. Taxi monopolies have formed to enable the drivers a better bargaining position. Uber is achieving lower prices by destroying this, and as we can see, once that is done, nothing stops them from turning the tables and driving the price too low for the drivers to survive. The drivers are not their employees, and so not their responsibility. That is the core of their model. I think they're a little more disruptive than needed, basically :)

Taxi monopolies easily grow into a problem. They overprice the rides and stifle the market. But this can usually be sorted out through political action, through opening competition, all without automatically destroying all semblance of security for the workers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Uber is just not a nice company, they skirt laws around the world, and do very shoddy business.

</comment><comment><USER37> We used to laugh when our CEO/Head went to extremes to put customers first with things like creating a "Customer Bill or Rights." We thought it was overreaction after some glitch or dumb one-off call center rep violating PC correctness. But now I think Uber should get a transfusion.

All rides free New Years Eve and Halloween. No ride will ever cost more than $X (should not be hard to figure out - with an * too) To show good faith, ride once, the next is on us (for x weekend). Publicly terminate knuckelheads ("Jimmy the Greek") [1] Establish & Invite consumer, safety and the driver community to form an oversight group to ensure Uber holds itself to community standards.

My Luddite world has no idea what a Uber is, but they sure know how to ask and find out. New things to my Luds come from hearing human voices - <USER2> neighbors/friends is still #1. Nothing out there now says "Uber has cleaned up its act" First impressions have to be disproven and last the longest.

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE)

</comment><comment><USER38> Actually, Uber is about ethics in tech journalism.

<comment><USER39> Thank you for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I get the competitive nature that Uber's taken against Lyft / Sidecar, but this seems like the worst thing yet.

</comment><comment><USER41> I would _love_ to know if [http://blog.uber.com/applepay](http://blog.uber.com/applepay) means that Uber won't be able to track who they are taking to various locations. That alone would be a big win for Apple Pay.

<comment><USER42> That's not how Apple Pay works; other than using a proxy CC# and hiding your info from the actual sales clerk, Apple Pay isn't more private than magstripe cards — merchants can still identify you, and it actually adds _another_ party to the transaction: Apple.

<comment><USER41> How does the merchant identify you? My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don't share your name with them during an Apple Pay transaction. Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.

<comment><USER42> > _My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don 't share your name > with them during an Apple Pay transaction._

If you check the EMVco specs (they're a doozy! [http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21](http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21)), merchants still receive your name.

The only thing that tokenization provides is a proxy card number.

> _Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the > hardware which hosts the secure element._

That's not actually true; if you read the fine print (or the emvco specs), you'll note that they _can_ track a lot more than they might claim to.

[https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_20...](https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf)

They disclose up-front: "Apple may receive anonymous transaction information such as the approximate time and location of the transaction, which helps improve Apple Pay and other Apple products and services."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Someone @Lyft PR needs to be on this stat. I've hardly seen Lyft take any advantage of fuckups like these by Uber.

<comment><USER6> What makes you think these hit pieces against Uber aren't Lyft's PR in the first place?

<comment><USER43> this one doesnt seem to be. an uber svp was talking directly to buzzfeed editor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Looks like it's time to a) uninstall Uber and b) subscribe to PandoDaily.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think making comments this stupid as a SVP is a fireable offense and I can somewhat see how the "family" mention makes Sarah Lacy worried about her children, but I totally don't get where this gender angle is coming from in this story. I don't read any of that in the original comments by Emil Michael.

</comment><comment><USER46> It seems that most are commenting on why Uber executive shouldn't be doing this. But none has viewed this from Uber's perspective. If your startup was being threatened by a brown-nosing bonus-loving trigger-happy reporter, what are you going to do? Publish a press statement? Hire more reporter to spread positive propaganda? A cost-benefit analysis would show it is simply cheaper to hire a hitman to take her out. Before you argue with me over ethics and human rights, this isn't the first time a company has did this. Do a google on volkswagon and Glaxo-smith klein cost-benefit analysises and they are equally expedient. So why our society allows large corporations to trade capital for human lives while we condamn a startup for doing the exact same thing?!?

</comment><comment><USER35> I think this article is relevant context- Sarah Lacy is a professional troll: [http://www.cnet.com/news/journalist-becomes-the-story-at- mar...](http://www.cnet.com/news/journalist-becomes-the-story-at-mark- zuckerberg-sxswi-keynote/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Just one more shining example that the easiest way to be successful in business is to be a sociopath.

</comment><comment><USER48> [http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how- fa...](http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-far-uber- will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/) [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/18/sarah-lacy- ube...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/18/sarah-lacy-uber-emil- michael-opposition-research-smear-campaign/19229117/)

All this overreacting and exaggeration is getting to me. Such terrible writing and she really is going overboard with all this.

</comment><comment><USER49> As wrong-footed as Uber appears lately, don't take buzzfeed's word for anything. Dishonest trash-talking + a financial conflict of interest. Headline-baiting 'journalists' trying to steal attention+emotion for profit w/ gossipy attacks _do_ need to consider their own glass house, especially when their sole productive output is stirring up drama.

Being agnostic on the Uber CEO's character (don't know him) I'd caution him to stop giving material to a nascent angry mob and those stoking it.

</comment><comment><USER31> Despite being an impressive company, generating sales, growth fast, expanding internationally, it seems that these founders are a little immature. This isn't the first story about the lack of ethics of the company, and if I was them I would worry about this potential shift in widespread support. Today's shining light can easily be changed into the tomorrows demon. Maybe they could spend $1M on PR to improve the image.

<comment><USER50> _Maybe they could spend $1M on PR to improve the image._

Or spend $0 and actually improve things in the company so they don't need PR to tell people they're not horrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> A better idea is to reveal potential special interests or personal biases of the journalists, especially if it compromises their professional integrity.

</comment><comment><USER52> Are there legal reasons why this SVP does not apologize to the journalist he specifically targeted while recognizing he threatened her and regreting it?

<comment><USER53> He did. He called her (though she has no idea how he got her number) and asked to speak off the record.

No, really. He did. "Hey Sarah, I realise there's this massive story blowing where I threatened to wage war on you and your family and I know you're a high profile journalist in this area but can we just have a quick friendly chat off the record?"

Scroll to the bottom of her article: [http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment- i-learned-just-how-fa...](http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned- just-how-far-uber-will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/)

<comment><USER52> Thanks, the parent link did not mention this. His email reads like something sincere. Still confused why he did apologize on the phone. Harder to CCI your CEO on the phone maybe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I won't use Uber (I live in Paris), because of what they did with Lyft, because some executive harassing a woman (story of yesterday on hn), because of this story as well. There are a lot of competitors who do not have their hands that dirty. I'm using Chauffeur Price here, never had to complain.

</comment><comment><USER55> > A senior executive at Uber suggested that the company should consider hiring > a team of opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media > — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female > journalist who has criticized the company.

Is it at all relevant that the journalist is female?

<comment><USER56> It's totally irrelevant to what happened but totally relevant to the current mainstream narrative of women versus men.

It allows them to take something non-gendered and create an absolute shitstorm from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> So they would investigate the journalists's private lives and publish all their embarrassing details in order to cause drama and controversy to further their own goals.

You mean like the media does with every public figure, ever? Like the media is doing with this exact story right now?

</comment><comment><USER58> I have to wonder if this guy is executing a David Plouffe strategy to take a severance payout and become a lobbyist. That's one way people wouldn't know any developments from this were driven by Uber.

</comment><comment><USER59> The most interesting thing to me about all this is that the tech media is probably about 50 percent responsible for pushing out tech start-ups to the wider world. If you go back and look at the beginnings of companies like Twitter (blogged about by prominent bloggers) and Facebook (published by the Harvard student newspaper), the initial snowball effect to get these companies going is largely based on journalists pushing these startups to their readership.

And now we have the case where a company that has successfully navigated the hardest part of the cycle (becoming a big enough snowball to be self- sustaining) that they can turn around and challenge the journalists.

It's like a child who has grown up and now comes back to challenge the parent. Fascinating in an abstract general way.

</comment><comment><USER60> Publicly considering such STASI tactics for me is the last nail in the coffin, I'll never use a product of this strange company. (I'm from Germany, maybe we are more sensitive to such threats)

</comment><comment><USER61> As long as the valuation keeps going up, the VC's will keep making excuses and looking the other direction. Remember, profits make everything all better.

<comment><USER62> I live in a city where Uber was/is trying to break in. Council has been very vocal that these actions by the Uber executive is harming their chances. I would say that their chances of being given approval is dwindling and they will lose this 1.3 million citizen market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Let's call it like it is. Yellow journalists are going to stop at nothing to smear any company with a libertarian founder.

</comment><comment><USER63> Poke a bear with a hot stick and you might get bit. I don't see what the big deal is.

<comment><USER64> This was closer to being growled at. "Getting bit" is more like the robber baron sending half-a-dozen of pinkertons to your home, and neither you nor your family is ever seen again.

And the big deal is that is very much on the public interest to not see the days of the pinkertons come back again, so the bears have to be trained and get used to being poked at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Just deleted uber from my phone and installed lyft. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.

</comment><comment><USER66> This story is plummeting suspiciously fast from the HN front page...

<comment><USER13> It was only on the front page because the mods put it there. Buzzfeed is a penalized site and this story is getting flagged. Normally it would be on page 10 by now. The mods can't hold it up forever, though, so now it's falling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Buzzfeed stories are normally penalized, but we take the penalty off for major stories. We've done that here. HN tends to frown on media controversy, but since this story seems destined to be above the line in any case, it may as well be the original source. We've demoted the other posts on the same story as duplicates.

<comment><USER68> To say that this is "media controversy" borders on the absurd: this is entirely inappropriate and indefensible behavior from a top executive at a top company -- and it raises all sorts of legitimate questions about corporate culture and how companies internalize public criticism. You use the passive voice when you say that "it seems destined to be above the line" when in fact it is above the line because many in the HN demographic feel that this story is important. In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?

<comment><USER67> I'm a bit confused, because this comment mostly seems in vigorous agreement with what we actually did. We restored the story to the front page, where it still is. But let me try to address your concerns as I understand them.

The posts were obvious duplicates, so we did the routine thing and demoted all but one of them. It's true that we didn't merge the threads (which we've recently begun doing in many such cases), but IIRC that's because most of the discussion in the other threads at that point was about why they weren't the Buzzfeed story. Did I get that wrong? If so, it was for the mundane reason that at 1 A.M. I was tired and less meticulous than I try to be.

By "seems destined, etc." I meant that many people here obviously cared about the story. "Media controversy" doesn't strike me as absurd at all, but let's not quarrel over wording; let's seek each other's meaning instead.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that, assuming the story is accurately reported, it's outrageous. But it's our duty to try to factor personal opinions out of moderation decisions.

You seem to be complaining that HN's front page isn't decided by votes alone. It never has been; it has always been a blend of voting and curation. Voting alone would cause HN to be dominated by outrage, gossip, fashion and promotion. That would kill the site. [1]

I dislike that fact as much as any HN user, and probably have more reason to dislike it. But there's no question that it's true. It's so true that it's an interesting question _why_ it's true, given that this is a community of smart people, and I even have a whole theory about it... but I'll spare you.

1\. I'm just echoing what tptacek already said in this thread, as well as regurgitating what I've posted dozens of times, but it does seem necessary to regurgitate.

<comment><USER69> The entire point of clickbait sensationalist journalism is to get people fighting about non-issues. A guy who landed a probe on a fucking comet was forced to apologize in tears because he wore a shirt that these same people disliked. Now _even the MSM_ is pointing out how ridiculous that was. He was called sexist, exemplifying why women don't work in STEM. They just found evidence of organic matter on the comet. This is groundbreaking. But the fucking shirt. Scientific achievements don't generate the clicks and outrage like sensationalist "fuck ethics" journalism.

Let's make HN about sensationalist articles about shirts and off-hand jokes at private dinners.

Why not just unmod all of the websites that do this routinely. This is hardly as big as half of their "stories", and then let the front page be covered with stories that sit there for 2 days because they have 3000+ upvotes?

This place has become a more toxic version of Reddit. Oddly, this story isn't on the front page there, or even on the front of /r/programming. Or even in the first 4 pages. I guess they're doing something better.

How about we take it a step further and ban positive mention of Uber, since it seems the majority here hates Uber for one reason or another, even if they're mostly uninformed (and yes, quoting BuzzFeed or PandoDaily as fact makes one uninformed) or do so because someone poked their feelings. Maybe next we can ban gendered pronouns and require people disclose their full names, place of employment, and home address, because anonymity is the cause of online toxicity. We definitely need to lower the downvote bar to 0 so that new people can immediately begin downvoting anyone they don't like or disagree with. Let's see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

<comment><USER67> You obviously care about the quality of HN, as do I, as does the GP. What makes this a hard problem is that the community doesn't agree on what constitutes quality.

Serious discussion about how to manage HN needs to begin with the insight that many people here disagree with one, and most are participating in as much good faith as oneself. If you don't take that in, you're not grappling with the real problem. (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us.) In that case it inevitably feels like there are obvious solutions which for dark reasons we're refusing to implement. In reality, it's just a lot harder than that. That's incredibly frustrating, but we can't get anywhere by ignoring it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> "I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press"

Freedom of the press cannot exist under capitalism, who controls the hiring and firing and owns the organization controls the information.

</comment><comment><USER71> I hope all the people commenting with pitchforks in hand have also never said (or have been alleged to have said) anything at a private dinner between friends that could be construed in any way to be similar to these remarks.

<comment><USER38> This was not a private dinner between friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> The US government, FBI and NSA don't mind doing that, why should Uber and other companies obey the law if federal agencies refuse to?

/devil's advocate.

</comment><comment><USER11> Misleading headline, from article it wasn't in any way a serious suggestion.

<comment><USER41> It now reads, "Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists " which is exactly what he did. (Actually, he even went further and said it would be acceptable do so)

<comment><USER11> He 'suggested considering' this at a dinner party, and 'Michael at no point suggested that Uber has actually hired opposition researchers, or that it plans to.' according to Buzzfeed - they're trying to imply it was a serious suggestion while actually sticking to the facts, which imply it very much wasn't. It's fascinating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> The most recent Pulitzer Prize winner for journalism (Glenn Greenwald) says journalism is an "adversarial" process. However, adversarial is by nature a two way street. Journalists who go digging into the lives of people and businesses need to be prepared for adversarial response.

If I'm a business owner that's being investigated by a journalist, I want to find out the who, what, where, when and why.

I am entitled to investigate the people who are investigating me.

journalism startups are businesses. they make money by investigating businesses like uber. Uber is entitled to investigate in return

<comment><USER38> Nope.

Journalism is a constitutionally protected activity that is a cornerstone of democracy. Without an informed public, democracy cannot work. Attempting to subvert that by threatening journalists is flat out wrong.

If you are a business owner, sure, you can legally investigate journalists. But that is very different than threatening to leak material about them to influence press coverage.

Also, your "turnabout is fair play" logic is ridiculous. Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.

<comment><USER74> > Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is > entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.

Isn't the underlying theme behind the secrets that Greenwald got that the NSA feels that it is entitled steal _everyone 's_ secrets, whether or not the targets have first gotten the NSA's secrets, because NSA?

<comment><USER38> Sure. And I'm saying that's wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Here we go again, more Uber drama. The only reason why this is a story is the (pardon the term) disruption of a protected industry, and the misplaced attention on the supply-side. Consumers are awash in convenience and choice right now, but the media and the politicos protecting the industry are ignoring that and going after the biggest member of the disruption so that it can be controlled.

I'm sure there are sleazy execs at Uber, but if the media pointed its glare at any other similar-sized company, I'm sure it would find them there, too. Uber may have more because it has grown so fast. It would behoove of them to start cleaning house so that this type of story doesn't kill the golden goose.

</comment><comment><USER76> I cannot treat complaints from journalists about digging up dirt seriously. This has essentially become their job.

Were was this criticism when some guy's personal phone calls were broadcasted and dissected? When Gawker was buying people's sex tapes? And not months ago, although then too, last week[1].

This is the world you created. Enjoy.

EDIT: And if you're downvoting, I'd love to hear why.

[1] [http://defamer.gawker.com/somebody-is-selling-an-usher- sex-t...](http://defamer.gawker.com/somebody-is-selling-an-usher-sex-tape-are- you-that-som-1657908238)

<comment><USER77> Bad behavior by some journalists doesn't justify personal attacks by companies against journalists.

<comment><USER76> One can hope that once it happens a few times, journalists will maybe rediscover the basic ethics of their profession. Right now, they simply seem to demand a monopoly on digging for dirt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Not necessarily a bad idea...

 _Edit_ FWIW, I personally do not and refuse to use Uber. I think that they are vile. But...

I find that too many journalist hide behind 'freedom of the press' when they are axe-grinding. A lot of online tech reporting that I encounter is knee-jerk reaction and factless click-bait. Personal blogs, where you'd expect to find this behaviour, in my experience tend to be far more credible...

</comment><comment><USER79> On a side note, Uber should also sue all those companies piggy-backing on its name, dragging its name down. What I mean is, that every other month, I'm seeing a case of "Uber-for-X", like Blowhorn, is a startup that claims to be uber for mini-trucks.

What is happening is that, UBER is still going through its real challenge and hasn't established itself as a household name, like Microsoft, Apple, Google. Lot of people are still critical of its intent (including me perhaps), and its ultimate success, but these small startups that are piggybacking on its name are making matter's worse.

Most of these Uber for X startups, are not going to succeed, generally speaking, and when a start-up fails, brand value gets hit as people associate "failure" "didn't work" "not so good" with that name. Uber in that sense, is taking a hit on its brand name due to failure of other businesses (which I think is a bit unfair).

<comment><USER80> That's called "getting disrupted."

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way into private dinners and report every unsavory thing said in confidence and without context, essentially writing off that context as "this is never appropriate." Does anyone else see the outrageous hypocrisy here? One man is joking about something because he's frustrated with poor media coverage (which is arguably of questionable ethical validity) while Buzzfeed is _actually doing that thing_ and now everyone here on HN is joking about how terrible Uber is and how they've distanced themselves. This is HN.

This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.

I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.

Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:

> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben > Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have > expected.

In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.

<comment><USER81> "Off the record" is a specific construct used by journalists. This was not off the record.

Threatening journalists who write negative articles is indefensible. It's a stupid thing to say, especially to a room full of journalists.

It's firmly on topic here because it speaks to ethics of company founders.

<comment><USER69> Even the author of this article recognizes, and confirms, that it was a hypothetical.

It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.

Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it? If there was no confusion about it being "off the record", there's no need to mention any of it. And it still doesn't matter.

<comment><USER82> > _It 's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for > painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever > written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can > never be frustrated._

I haven't read anything suggesting that people should go to jail. I know I'm unlikely to use a taxi service that contemplates blackmailing or retaliating against me using private information if they decide that I'm too annoying, though, even if they decide not to do it. I'm kind of surprised other people feel differently, TBH.

> _Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn 't "off > the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it?_

So that the reporter's future sources will feel comfortable giving explicitly "off the record" information with the expectation that it will stay confidential. It has literally nothing to do with the accuracy of this story one way or the other.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: How to increase Covid-19 test throughput by 46.5x - <AUTHOR> https://wet-robots.ghost.io/how-to-increase-covid-19-testing-by/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is likely an already known trick. However, if it isn't, it is a way that computer science can be applied to greatly increase testing throughput and proportionately reduce the cost of RT-PCR viral RNA testing.

Can someone with better knowledge either confirm the method is already known, or perhaps comment on whether or not this would even work.

Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER2> You could make the method more robust by sacrificing a few bits for error correction. For example, by using a Hamming code: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code).

Also, PCR robotor already exist. Not many around though.

</comment><comment><USER3> That is assuming you can detect one part positive when mixed with 92 parts negative?</comment>


How Nature Solves Problems Through Computation - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-nature-solves-problems-through-computation-20170706/ <comment><USER3> I absolutely love this way of thinking. We assume that an "individual" is a single human being, because it's convenient and I guess because that's how our sentience works. But realistically, the body itself is an extraordinarily complicated mass of "human" cells often at odds (see a cake, one part of the brain say "eat it," another says "dude no you'll get fat"), and thats without considering the masses of "non-human" entities, such as gut bacteria, skin bacteria, etc.

And then we can go macro - a tribe can subdivide into gatherers, warriors, and crafters. A city can specialize further. A country even further. Imagine how different the life experience would be if humans existed as single entities alone in endless fields.

Then it gets even more fun to consider interactions with other lifeforms - dogs, plants, cows.

Man, what a cool field of research. I'm glad to hear people are studying this.

<comment><USER4> "Individual" and "single human being" are abstractions. So are "cells" and "skin" and everything else. If you remove abstraction, you remove language, but an undivided landscape of activity of nature remains. Language is just a layer and for our convenience.

But where ever there is communication, abstractions are required to compose a coherent and persistent message. So DNA and proteins and even subatomic particles that entangle can be considered to be tapping into natures capacity to abstract, and to compute those abstractions.

And if you consider nothing exists in a void, and the innate connected-ness of an undivided and unabstracted universe as a whole, everything is coming and going; everything is itself a message and the subject of computation; and nature is engaged in a never ending conversation with none other than itself. If it's messages can be any size, and last however long, then you and I too are just one of its many messages.

(pardon the philosophy... stuck doing mundane work at midnight on a Friday... I had to write something)

<comment><USER5> Quote from an article along the lines:

> However, in broad brush, we might say this: You're a pattern in spacetime. A > mathematical pattern. Specifically, you're a braid in spacetime—indeed, one > of the most elaborate braids known.

[http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/life-is-a-braid-in- spacetime](http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/life-is-a-braid-in-spacetime)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10323222](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10323222)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The last few years have seen a number of very interesting developments along the lines of understanding the natural world through the so-called "lens of computation." Some interesting talks can be found here [1] as well as an essay here [2], on the topics of economics, social interaction, biology, and physics.

[1]: [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/lens-of-computation- workshop](https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/lens-of-computation-workshop)

[2]: [http://theory.cs.berkeley.edu/computational- lens.html](http://theory.cs.berkeley.edu/computational-lens.html)

<comment><USER7> Generally that phrase refers to the asymptotic analysis of algorithms, which I think has relatively little to teach us about natural systems of the kind mentioned here. I have tremendous respect for TCS and those who study it, and I attended the second "lens" conference in Berkeley in 2011. But it does seem a bit like a field looking for justification. And I don't think it's impossible that academic competition drives more of our brightest to spend more time on it (asymptotic analysis) than is optimal.

<comment><USER6> Why would you think it has little to teach? The author even says that it's useful and influential.

> What we are doing at C4 is taking messy, conceptually challenging problems > and turning them into something rigorous. We're very philosophically > oriented, but we're also very quantitative, particularly in thinking about > how nature can overcome subjectivity in information processing through > collective computation. We really think the answer to these questions > requires combining insights from statistical physics, theoretical computer > science, information theory, evolutionary biology and cognitive science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While this field is advancing rapidly, and sophisticated approaches are being constantly developed, for those who want a gentle introduction, I venture to recommend our book: [https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Computation-Chapman- Mathem...](https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Computation-Chapman-Mathematical- Computational/dp/1420087959/)

Section 6.1 deals with swarm intelligence (ant colony optimization, cemetery organization, particle swarm optimization). 6.2 is on artificial immune systems.

A more biological+philosophical exploration on issues of collectivity will be found in the following book, which is already available for pre-order on Amazon, I see:

[https://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Collectivity-Sciences- Theo...](https://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Collectivity-Sciences-Theoretical- Biology/dp/0262036851/)

<comment><USER9> Are there any academic research papers that you would recommend in this field?

<comment><USER8> Too many... What topics specifically interest you? I might have suggestions, if it's topics I am familiar with.

<comment><USER9> My background is in tumor immunology research, so I'd be especially interested in how this is applied to the immune system if you are aware of any good papers there.

<comment><USER8> The Landscapes of Collectivity book has two chapters about collective aspects of the immune system.

if you are interested in a computational perspective, the classic is (Hofmeyr and Forrest, 2000).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> they got data by inducing monkey fights.

""" We were interested in whether we could induce the monkey society we were studying to change from its status quo of many small fights and a few large ones to having many large fights. We observed that fights in this monkey group range in size from two to 30 or so individuals, with small fights common and large fights very rare. By simulating the society using data we had collected on fight-joining decisions, we found that we could measure the number of monkeys whose propensity to join fights would have to increase to move the system closer to the critical point.

<comment><USER11> That sounds like they were just simulating the society based on data they had gathered about their fights. So not inducing monkey fights, just observing the monkeys fighting naturally and extrapolating from there. Though earlier in the article they allude to removing a few members of the society and showing the fights increased.

Also it should be noted that fighting is a very common part of monkey behavior. If you observe these groups in the wild individuals are almost constantly challenging and checking others to maintain or advance their position in the social hierarchy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why is a "social coordinate space" not Euclidean, and why is it worth mentioning?

..."phenomenological rules"...

It is an interesting subject... but this interview is a little annoying since it is with a philosopher in scientists clothing.

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-c- flack-76b454133/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-c-flack-76b454133/)

<comment><USER13> A prior paper contributed to by Ms. Flack ([https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.7720.pdf](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.7720.pdf)) presents a framework for modeling the dynamics between individuals - I would assume that is the abstract "social coordinate space" to which she's referring, which places individuals within "Markovian, probabilistic, 'social' circuits" rather than into some Euclidean space.

And Ms. Flack, though her research interests extend beyond the realm of what is traditionally considered hard science, is most certainly a scientist - <USER2> evolutionary biologist specifically.

I assume you are linking to her LinkedIn profile to point out her "Doctor of Philosophy" degree? That's just the full, formal name for a PhD :P

<comment><USER12> Just to get the full quote from original article: "their metric space is a social coordinate space. It's not Euclidean."

If the space being considered is a probability space like you say, then there is no metric, there is a measure.

\---

Why am I so pedantic?

Because I feel that the liberal arts mindset of writing is not serious enough for subjects where there is a ground truth to uncover.

In the article you link, where is the empirical study that compares how this model predicts reality?

I wish that people who publish on SIAMS, or ASA, AMS, IEEE affiliated journals were the ones trending on HN, and getting interviewed by journalists. A pessimist would say those people are too busy with their work for publicity, and that an empty barrel echoes loudest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "But when Flack removed some of the police, the whole group became fractured and chaotic"

Reminds me Saddam and Iraq :)

</comment><comment><USER15> Can someone suggest FOSS code for experimentation? Any free tutorials, notes, books.

Thanks

</comment><comment><USER14> I believe UNSC does the same;</comment>


Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447 <comment><USER2> Please tag this as 2014.

<comment><AUTHOR> My bad, I didn't realise this is an old article. Sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR: in 2014 Julian Assange wrote a book accusing Google and especially Eric Schmidt of being in cahoots with the US Government.

Kinda fun to read except for the parts where he starts whining. This guy should write a spy novel! Is "analyticity" a word?

<comment><USER3> Anybody care to tell me why this is being downvoted?

Somebody else actually read this and disagrees with my summary? Comment?

<comment><USER4> > why this is being downvoted

Oh my, important internet points! Such a treasure is being taken away haha

On a more serious note, who cares? Your comment is a valid criticism, there is a multitude of reasons for why some decided to downvote without leaving a comment, but again, why should you care?

Refreshingly, HN is not an echo chamber (not gonna work if you are seeking any sort of validation), there are a lot of people who do not share your views, as well as people who do. whether or not to freak out about it is up to you (I wouldn't)

<comment><USER3> I care because the reason I comment is to contribute to the conversation, and if someone thinks I'm doing the opposite I'd like to know why. Usually when I ask this I get a constructive answer instead of getting the question itself downvoted, as happened here. And the habit of asking why one downvotes is something I picked up here, and only really use here, for that reason.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Israeli work management firm monday.com raises $150M - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-monday-com-fundraising/israeli-work-management-firm-monday-com-raises-150-million-idUSKCN1UP14S <comment><AUTHOR> I don't get this company and this product. Insane valuation, insane money. No idea how it is possible with so many competitors around and so weird product...

<comment><USER2> the valuation is insane.</comment></comment>


Doomsday Clock Moves Closer to Midnight - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/doomsday-clock-countdown-2017.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I've taken vague note of the Doomsday Clock for a long time -- and it's a clever concept without a coherent calibration mechanism.

No quarrel with their directional moves ... now or at any other time. But they've ended up in the incongruous situation of saying that 2017 at this very moment is already more risky than the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, or Barry Goldwater's mutterings about nuclear options in Vietnam in 1964, or the China- Russia border war of 1969.

No. Simply no. They missed the chance in the early 1990s to move the clock back to about 3 p.m., giving themselves much more room to create carefully graduated increments of alarm as fresh stresses arose. The current state of play in the USA deserves much more than a 30-second adjustment, and somewhat less than a declaration that it's 2 1/2 minutes before midnight. I can think of at least a dozen ways things could get worse before we're at imminent risk of breathing radioactive isotopes for the (annoyingly short) rest of our lives. Some of those perils already popped up in the 1950s/1960s, and we made our way through them.

The current clock settings hardly do justice to the scientific method, or the rightful role of subject experts in public debate.

<comment><USER3> moving some imaginary clock back and forth to give/relieve oneself anxiety always struck me as kinda weird.

Don't people have anything else to do?

<comment><USER4> The concept of how close humanity is to global catastrophe is difficult to convey directly, yet it's useful to be able to do so. The Doomsday Clock is one easy way.

Large, complex systems are by there very nature difficult to understand. Being able to summarize them easily — even if they don't completely capture the nuance — allows people to get an idea of what's going on. It's not much different from using KPIs and other metrics to understand a business.

You can argue that the metrics aren't useful, but providing reasons why you think so, and possibly suggest better ways would help justify your claim.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that they don't have a clear method of calculation and a clear meaning of what a minute means.

For example, let's made up some criteria:

1 minute = 99% probability of human extinction in 10 years

2 minutes = 98% probability of human extinction in 10 years

3 minutes = 97% probability of human extinction in 10 years

I'm not sure what 2 hours means. Probably the scale should not be more complex than (100-p) * min/%

Or perhaps it's better to define 1 minute = 90% probability of human extinction in 100 years

Or 1 minute = 50% probability of human extinction in 1 year

It's not clear what 1 minute before doomsday officially means.

Moreover, let's say that they define that 1 minute is x% chance of humanity destruction in y years. How are they calculating it? Do they have any model? How did they calibrate the model? How did they test the model? Is it reliable?

It's a made up number, without any scientific base. It's only an opinion of a bunch of people that happened to work as scientific, not a scientific measurement.

<comment><USER4> I think you've made a lot of valid points. It's a pretty complex system they're trying to quantify.

You have to start somewhere, and having a group of people who specifically decide to take into account what they consider useful criteria and deliberate about it is a step forward. I think it's clear it could be better if it were more rigorous. It wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there working to do just that. It's not useless just because it's attempting to quantify a complex system in a more subjective manner when it's not clear better alternatives are available. You're right that it's an opinion of scientists, and not a scientific measurement. They're experts in their fields and their opinion does mean something. You're free to weight that how you want, of course.

<comment><USER5> It blurs the line between science and bullshit. For example in

      Scientifics say the Doomsday clock is 2:30 minutes before Midnight

      Scientifics say this wall painting is 40.000 years old

Which one is reliable? Which one should a young Earth creationist believe? Are 40.000 years real years or some kind of metaphor? Is that number reliable?

<comment><USER4> They should each be interpreted in the context they're intended. What does it mean to describe a particular pain to be a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10? Or the numerical values on the Likert scale to measure opinion? Do these similarly blur the line between science and bullshit? The question "are we closer or further from global catastrophe?" is one worth trying to answer. The Doomsday Clock is one way to make this comparison. Indeed, the Doomsday Clock value is much more like pain or Likert scales in that it's used for comparison, as opposed to an absolute value.

I'm not sure what you're arguing so strongly against. I'm not saying the Doomsday Clock is perfect. I think it's useful. It can likely be improved. When/if we can find better quantitative representation for this, I agree we should use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Advancing it by 30 seconds seems very similar to a parent who has made some threat that they never intended to carry through, counting 1, 2, 2-and-a-half, 2-and-three-quarters...

If you have such a long established tradition of using "minutes" as some kind of metaphor for upcoming doom, it doesn't feel meaningful to suddenly start talking about half-minutes.

<comment><USER7> > a parent who has made some threat that they never intended to carry through, > counting 1, 2, 2-and-a-half, 2-and-three-quarters...

As a parent, I've taken this through as far as 2 and 255/256\. (Although by that point it had changed from a threat to a math lesson.)

<comment><USER8> Is that what finally got them to behave? "Noooooooo!!!! Anything but math!!!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I feel like we've all witnessed so much madness the past few years that we've become desensitized. Nothing shocks us any longer. This is worrying because it allows for gradual escalation until the inevitable.

(I think this is true regardless of political orientation.)

</comment><comment><USER10> This strikes me as more of a statement than an assessment.

</comment><comment><USER11> The clock is now closer to apocalyptic midnight, than at any time during the lifetime of vast majority of readers here, myself included. It is worse than during both the Caribbean crisis and early 80th.

<comment><USER12> Which, given some of the close calls in the early 80s and the Cuban Missile Crisis, illustrates how absurd this whole thing has become.

<comment><USER4> The clock isn't updated instantly.

 _The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Symbolic_timepi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Symbolic_timepiece_changes)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Latest, completely relevant Hardcore History just released yesterday.

[http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the- destroyer-o...](http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of- worlds/)

Certainly worth a listen.

</comment><comment><USER14> "On Thursday, the group of scientists who orchestrate the Doomsday Clock, a symbolic instrument informing the public when the earth is facing imminent disaster, moved its minute hand to two and a half minutes before the final hour."

1984's Iron Maiden - 2 minutes to midnight: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbRHY1l0vc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbRHY1l0vc)

I never really understood the meaning behind the lyrics until now.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's less than the expected change of 1 minute. That's... better, right?

<comment><USER16> When you're at 3 minutes, you can only subtract a full minute so many times without the clock becoming irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Oh great, now they'll do a leap second calibration and end the world.

</comment><comment><USER18> propaganda

</comment><comment><USER19> This clock seems rather opinionated. What happens at midnight? Or better... what if nothing happens? And how would this work anyway... some country launches the first nuke, and someone goes running to update the clock to midnight?

</comment><comment><USER20> It's disingenuous to call this a "clock", given clocks keep their own time through a rigorous standard of counting the passage of precisely measured causality. While we may be "closer" to doom by some arbitrary consensus mechanism, only humans can choose the causality of enabling that final "doom" event, or putting it off for another day. Or, put another way, it ain't over till it's over.

<comment><USER4> _The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock face that represents a countdown to possible global catastrophe. It has been maintained since 1947 by the members of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ' Science and Security Board, who are in turn advised by the Governing Board and the Board of Sponsors, including 18 Nobel Laureates. The closer they set the Clock to midnight, the more vulnerable the scientists believe the world is to global disaster._

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

These are sharp people. They're fully aware it's not a clock in the strict sense you're pedantically ascribing. It's a useful analogy.

<comment><USER21> There's nothing "sharp" about these people. If they were sharp they'd be spending their free time solving hard problems (which include cancer, aids, Alzheimer's) rather than maintaining an imaginary clock. Absolute nonsense, these "scientist" should be ashamed of themselves and in my mind they've already lost all credibility.

<comment><USER22> >they'd be spending their free time solving hard problems.

Well, this update in the clock can't take a significant amount of time.

<comment><USER23> With a board empaneled to decide? Are you sure about that?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>