Lockdown: Open-source firewall that blocks app tracking, ads, snooping - <AUTHOR> https://lockdownhq.com <comment><USER2> It's functions similar to other mobile ad-blockers in that it can route all your phones traffic over a VPN tunnel it establishes.

But the ad-blocking vpn server is 127.0.0.1, so perhaps, like it says all the blocking happens right on your phone.

This is what I've been waiting for if this works.

Still getting ads on instagram though.

<comment><USER3> On Android, DNS66 does exactly this, available on F-Droid. [https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/)

<comment><USER4> Blokada seems to be very similar to DNS66, and is more actively maintained. Any reason to prefer DNS66?

<comment><USER5> Blokada doesn't DoH or DoT the last time I checked, but they have added a wireguard-based paid VPN service, which is nice.

Intra [0] can DoH (but no on-device custom blocklists) and Nebulo [1] can DoH and DoT (with on-device blocklists). Personally, I see better latencies with DoH.

Ref: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21598413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21598413)

\--

[0] [https://getintra.org](https://getintra.org) \+ adguard-dns or nextdns

[1] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.frostnerd....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.frostnerd.smokescreen) \+ adguard-dns or nextdns or hostfiles

<comment><USER6> For those unfamiliar with the acronyms.

DoH = DNS over HTTPS

DoT = DNS over TLS

Very useful apps!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks like the core of this is done via [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension)

some cool stuff here:

\- Content Filter Providers: [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/c...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/content_filter_providers)

\- DNS Proxy Provider: [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/d...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/dns_proxy_provider)

<comment><USER8> This application is not using either of those APIs (Content Filter or DNS Proxy).

> Content filter providers are only supported on supervised iOS devices.

> DNS proxy providers are only supported on supervised iOS devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there anywhere with an in-depth overview of what this does? Does it just fail DNS request and block known IPs? How are the lists maintained and updated? With TLS and it surely not mitm-ing connections, that's all it can do correct?

<comment><USER10> > With TLS and it surely not mitm-ing connections, that's all it can do > correct?

Unless it also acts as a web-proxy, yes.

<comment><USER11> It can possibly access all your activity, contacts, microphone, and camera... Hard pass from me at the moment. :/

<comment><USER12> > It can possibly access all your activity, contacts, microphone, and > camera... Hard pass from me at the moment. :/

Camera and mic? How does it do this as a vpn? I see no requests for such things in iOS settings for the app.

<comment><USER11> It's an app you install on your phone. That app can use any service on the device if system permissions allow it, also, tracking and libraries or spyware can be embedded in the app itself which could potentially circumvent device security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's "open source", but there's only been 5 commits since August last year? Where do the updates to blocking rules etc come from?

Also, the homepage states "Over 1 Billion Trackers Blocked", but that really feels misleading.

I'd say Guardian Firewall is a much better choice: [https://twitter.com/guardianiosapp](https://twitter.com/guardianiosapp)

<comment><USER14> $10/month is a lot for a firewall.

<comment><USER15> Important to note, our app is a VPN as well. This way, with the bulk of our business logic on the server-side, device battery is saved and we can do real- time block list updates rather than the app needing to pull down a new rule set.

The $1/day / $10/month / $100/year has been fairly well received, but may not be for everyone, especially those who enjoy running their own VPN server and/or curating their own block lists.

<comment><USER16> > The $1/day / $10/month / $100/year has been fairly well received,

...in countries where $100 a year isn't a lot for one subscription.

> but may not be for everyone, especially those who enjoy running their own > VPN server and/or curating their own block lists.

...and also not for those in countries where $100 a year is a whole lot of money for one subscription.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> On macOS, we got a port of OpenBSD pf (probably not up to date though). I've been able to convert hosts files to OpenBSD pf format in, when was it, 2002? What you'd need to do is create an anchor. Perhaps there's a GUI for it as well for those who prefer. There's at least pfBlockerNG which basically does that for PfSense. [1] FWIW, all of this existed before Pi-Hole (or Raspberry Pi for that matter). IIRC there was also a converter script for hosts files to IPTables rules.

Is it possible to import such rules to Little Snitch? That's the go to firewall on macOS, though it is proprietary. There's also LuLu, a FOSS firewall for macOS. [2]

Now, from my memory, these block lists did cost quite some memory on a machine with 512 MB RAM. Even though it'd do dedup. What one could also do is build up a VPN with a remote server (in the cloud, or at home) and use say use WireGuard to have a secure connection while using a remote DNS on the VPN to get ads blocked.

[1] [https://www.linuxincluded.com/block-ads-malvertising-on- pfse...](https://www.linuxincluded.com/block-ads-malvertising-on-pfsense- using-pfblockerng-dnsbl/)

[2] [https://github.com/objective-see/LuLu](https://github.com/objective- see/LuLu)

<comment><USER18> On the product page[1] of little snitch you'll find a mention of a "blocklist" feature.

[1] [https://www.obdev.at/en/products/littlesnitch/index.html](https://www.obdev.at/en/products/littlesnitch/index.html)

<comment><USER17> Sweet, it was added in 4.1. Thanks for the heads up!

I found this list (by Peter Lowe) for Little Snitch [1]. There's also a shell script to convert to Little Snitch rules [2]

[1] [https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=lit...](https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=littlesnitch- rule-group-subscriptions&mimetype=plaintext)

[2] [https://gist.github.com/SethCalkins/1ac3bee593b37067b489cd6e...](https://gist.github.com/SethCalkins/1ac3bee593b37067b489cd6e275b60ff)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a pihole user for years I recently bought a firewalla blue. Installed pihole on the firewalla, turned off firewalla ad blocking, and done.

I can VPN to my home ad blocking network from anywhere, have more insights into my home network shenanigans, and still use my personal block list built over years. Super easy and most importantly, done.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure I get it? Why not run OpenVPN on your pihole's RPi, forward the port on your router, bingo-bango-bongo?? What extra are you getting with the firewalla? Is it 'just' ease of administration (which is probably worth the price!)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The unfortunate truth is, Apple does not allow us to use a firewall on iOS.

This is a DNS-sinkhole, which can be easily circumvented by apps (for example by using hard coded IPs.)

I would say it's rather dishonest to state your app is a Firewall on the front page, when in fact it is not.

</comment><comment><USER22> Seems to operate the same way adguard from mac/android does?

</comment><comment><USER23> I gave this a try on macOS, but I still see all the ads I'm used to.

It looks like the block lists are really short ([https://github.com/confirmedcode/Lockdown- Mac/tree/master/Bl...](https://github.com/confirmedcode/Lockdown- Mac/tree/master/Block%20Lists)).

</comment><comment><USER24> I use Firefox Focus and this looks similar for mobile (though they add MacOS too). Has anyone evaluated the difference?

<comment><USER8> Firefox Focus does not block ads the same was as Lockdown does. Lockdown uses the [Packet Tunnel Provider]([https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/p...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/packet_tunnel_provider)) API which has the added benefit of "protecting" the entire device (not just your browser).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So pihole then.

<comment><USER26> This is at the device level as opposed to network level of pihole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Wish I could use this AND 126.96.36.199 Warp. iPhone doesn't seem to be able to do both.

<comment><USER28> That was my observation too. They're both classified as the same class of "VPN" services. So you'd have to choose one or the other. Other VPN apps and services, such as ProtonVPN and Guardian Firewall, can be enabled while using 22.214.171.124 or DNSCloak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Block this! For Android. [https://block-this.com/](https://block-this.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> I did a test of this. uBlock Origin blocked all the calls before it made it to the firewall. IMO why would you use anything else.

<comment><USER28> There is no uBlock Origin for iOS, and never will be because of Apple's list based content blocking mechanism where the blocker doesn't intercept and process requests. It just provides the block list to Safari, which is also the only rendering engine (that can be) used by every browser on iOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Unfortunately, the Mac version requires 10.15 (Catalina) or later. I won't be touching that for quite sometime to come.

</comment><comment><USER31> Does Apple ban apps that interfere with other apps?

Or is it Google that does that?

</comment><comment><USER32> Headline might want to note IT'S MAC ONLY

</comment><comment><USER33> For an open source app distributed on the App Store, is there actually any way of verifying that what you get on your phone is the same as the source code you can read?

<comment><USER34> Checksum of a binary package against checksum of a reproducible build?

<comment><USER33> How do you run a checksum of a binary you download to your phone?</comment></comment></comment>


Report warns computers may threaten constitutional rights (1982) - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/stream/80_Microcomputing_Issue_26_1982-02_1001001_US#page/n295/mode/2up <comment><USER2> I wonder if the people who wrote the report were also considered cuckoo crazy conspiracy theorists then (as Richard Stallman has been since around the same time).

Good thing they gutted it in 1995, I guess. Congress didn't want the public to find out about such facts.

> _Criticism of the agency was fueled by Fat City, a 1980 book by Donald > Lambro that was regarded favorably by the Reagan administration; it called > OTA an "unnecessary agency" that duplicated government work done elsewhere. > OTA was abolished (technically "de-funded") in the "Contract with America" > period of Newt Gingrich's Republican ascendancy in Congress.

> When the 104th Congress withdrew funding for OTA, it had a full-time staff > of 143 people and an annual budget of $21.9 million. The Office of > Technology Assessment closed on September 29, 1995. The move was criticized > at the time, including by Republican representative Amo Houghton, who > commented at the time of OTA's defunding that "we are cutting off one of the > most important arms of Congress when we cut off unbiased knowledge about > science and technology".[1]

> Critics of the closure saw it as an example of politics overriding science, > and a variety of scientists such as biologist PZ Myers have called for the > agency's reinstatement._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment#Closure)

<comment><USER3> Reminded me of the Fat City game on the Apple II:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejm2zUXgMxo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejm2zUXgMxo)

Never really thought about the name of the game, which involves smashing down buildings.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Fat-City-Washington-Wastes- Taxes/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Fat-City-Washington-Wastes- Taxes/dp/0895266806)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The report in question:

[http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_5/DATA/1981/8109.PDF](http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_5/DATA/1981/8109.PDF)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the link. The original post is unreadable on my Android tablet as you can't zoom. Other comments here mention the threat to the first ammendment, I find the one about the 4th as relevant to today:

        The fourth amendment protects the per-
        sons, houses, papers, and effects of in-
        dividuals against unreasonable searches and
        seizures by the Federal Government.
        ● Fourth amendment issues may develop
        from:
        —the use of personal and statistical
        data contained in automated informa-
        tion systems as a justification for
        search and seizure;
        —the search and seizure of information
        per se as personal property, particular-
        ly in electronic form; and
        —the use of automated information sys-
        tems as a tool for search and seizure
        operations.

All the other issues are depressing, the 6th amendment issue is that computer models could be used to predict juror behaviors. What is described as a threat to constitutional rights is depicted as cool in the current TV show "Bull"

That's a very thorough report overall, it evens mentions the issue with software patents:

        The concern that continuing uncertainty about
        copyright and patent protection for
        computer software is significantly im-
        pairing software R&D and innovation.

<comment><USER6> The irony is that I have to scroll back and forth to view the quotes on my phone because of how quotes are formatted on hn.

<comment><USER7> People use pre for quotes, for some reason.

I prefer the _italics_.

 _I don 't think that using the _* _style of quoting breaks wrapping._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Civil rights in the future could be threatened by a bloodless adversary -- the computer.

"That's the opinion of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in a 116-page report released late last year.

"'Extensive data collection and possibly surveillance by government and private organizations could, in fact, suppress or 'chill' freedoms of speech, assembly, and even religion by implicit threats contained in such collection or surveillance,' the report said....

"[T]the use of an electronic funds transfer system to gather the same type of information would be far more intrusive, since much more data, some of it of a highly personal nature, could be collected in secret."

John P. Mello, Jr., writing in 1982.

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel like there needs to be a serious and public debate over the bill of rights and the power of government moving forwards into the future.

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately, any such debate is tacitly pushed aside every time there's another large attack. 9/11 made the PATRIOT act a no-brainer "yes" for nearly all politicians.

The tides are turning the other way because American hasn't had a mass-death attack since then, but that clock can very easily reset, unfortunately (as much as I hope it never will).

<comment><USER10> Interestingly, the use of fearmongering and misplaced patriotism by the government to accelerate the other negative impacts of IT on civil rights is about the only thing the article didn't anticipate.

A powerful and disturbing piece of writing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You can read this issue as a PDF by clicking on the gear icon. This article begins on page 296 of the PDF (page 294 as numbered by the magazine.)

Here is a direct link: [https://ia801705.us.archive.org/12/items/80_Microcomputing_I...](https://ia801705.us.archive.org/12/items/80_Microcomputing_Issue_26_1982-02_1001001_US/80_Microcomputing_Issue_26_1982-02_1001001_US.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Right: this is the Internet Archive, and most materials are downloadable in various formats -- PDF, ePub, DJVU, and with varying degrees of legibility, plain text.

The online reader, _if_ you can read it, is excellent. I'd linked the 2-up version, there's a single-page setting which should work on most mobile devices fairly well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Relevant & cogent discussion from 1981 Nightline I found on Obscure Media sub- reddit just yesterday. Jobs makes some spot on predictions but managed to avoid speaking too directly on privacy. The author is not nearly as charismatic nor accustomed to speaking on camera/in public... and makes some validated predictions, too.

Intro is a good watch for nostalgia and perspective; relevant Jobs interview starts @ 4:20.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H-Y-D3-j-M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H-Y-D3-j-M)

<comment><USER13> Watching the whole video, you can safely overdub everything Steve Jobs said with the phrase " _My words are meaningless, because by the time any of these ideas represent credible threats, I 'll be long dead._"

Seriously. Everything Steve Jobs says, whatever point he argues in favor of, listening to it is like letting the dead sell you cigarettes.

" _Here, try this amazing thing! Yes it 's bad for you in all the ways described by critics, but so what?! I need to live an incredible life right now, before a terminal disease kills me (just as the bad times begin), so give me as much money as possible._"

<comment><USER14> What the fuck?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The prescience:wordcount ratio in that article is incredible. If I may ask the OP: how did it come to your attention?

<comment><AUTHOR> A friend posted it to Mastodon.

He's been reviewing old computer periodicals, reliving his misspent youth.

[https://mastodon.social/users/natecull/updates/2311520](https://mastodon.social/users/natecull/updates/2311520)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those interested in early explorations of computers, rights, and privacy, there was another large survey article published in a magazine ... sometime in the early 1970s which for the life of me I cannot find now.

It detailed government and business computer use, and was early, closeer to 1970 than 1980 as I recall. Several pages, fairly prescient and well written.

If anyon can reecognize the piece from an admittedly vague description, I'd appreciate a link. I've seen it online, if that helps.

<comment><USER16> Maybe one of these?

Computers, Personnel Information, and Citizens Rights: [https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-4a2389174326d372218...](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-4a2389174326d37221814701c1a7dc23/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-4a2389174326d37221814701c1a7dc23.pdf)

Privacy and Security Issues in Information Systems: [https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P5684...](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P5684.pdf)

Computer Matching Programs, a threat to privacy? [http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/c...](http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/collsp15&div=13&id=&page=)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, but no.

It's a popular commercial press article. _Might_ have been a long-form newspaper report, but I think it was within a fairly mainstream magazine. Not Time or Newsweek, but more like a Harpers or Atlantic piece.

I'm pretty sure I've commented on this ... somewhere, sometime, so it may be at one of my usual haunts: here, G+, possibly Reddit, under my usual handles. I'm poking through those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The rich can win trials... "Before a trial, attorneys for both sides routinely obtain the names of potential jurors on the day of jury selection. It's now possible using big-data sources to flag or score potential jurors on certain factors—fiscal and social ideology, for examply, or on attitudes relevant to liability or damages—enabling lawyers to make exceedingly nuanced strikes.

</comment><comment><USER18> Freakily accurate predictions of the future.

</comment><comment><USER19> 32K of storage for only $299? Wow, just what my color computer needed.</comment>


Ask HN: Are we really getting into the "GitFluencers" era? - <AUTHOR> People are getting paid to open a PR on open source repositories to generate traction, I think this is genius but I can understand why it might feel odd for some. See Sophie Albert's tweet : https://twitter.com/sophiebits/status/1193686558206877696 <comment><USER2> If you knew someone was getting paid to open PRs on projects they normally wouldn't, why would you keep following them?

The guy complaining that he "sent this in confidence" thereby outing himself is priceless.

<comment><USER3> > The guy complaining that he "sent this in confidence" thereby outing himself > is priceless.

It's a joke

<comment><USER4> Is it? The reply seems to nail it down.

<comment><USER3> It is, the reply is just the original tweeter continuing the joke. [https://twitter.com/jdan/status/1193871077790932993](https://twitter.com/jdan/status/1193871077790932993)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People are definitely making packages, just to make packages and look good, and do other things good, too, I guess. Just to mention the triumvirate of awful that exist, in this case is-even, is-odd, is-number: That's at least trying hard to act like an influencer. Or influenza. One of those. I don't care, it's vapid junk.

</comment><comment><USER6> IDK the gitfluencer moniker makes me think like youtubers always ending the videos begging for likes and subscribes

> If you liked that commit don't forget to merge in that PR and smash that > follow button!

</comment><comment><USER7> Great term coinage. Seems we are. I'm not even surprised although this is the first time I've heard of this happening. Getting people to pay attention is hard.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think this is the most direct way to increase visibility on a project.</comment>


MIT Does It Right [appointing Abelson to investigate] - <AUTHOR> http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/2013/01/mit-does-it-right.html

<comment><USER2> Would've been nice for them to "do it right" two years ago...

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely! The theme I'm noticing, however, is that it is miraculous when a large organization _ever_ does anything that isn't intended to enrich executives and screw over all the little people. Maybe we'll get a miracle in this case, but I won't hold my breath.</comment></comment>


Hannes Mehnert on MirageOS and OCaml - <AUTHOR> https://evrone.com/hannes-mehnert-interview <comment><USER2> What kind of latency do they target, and what kind of latency does OCaml allows to achieve? Are there concrete evaluations about it in the context of MirageOS? (Bonus internet points if they are public so as to be referenced in a paper, that would be very helpful to me!) I have learnt on this discuss that low-latency can be obtained in OCaml by writing in a special style where you promote very little. Do you sometimes have to pay attention to your allocation patterns when you program for MirageOS? Have you ever had to profile an application for latency, and fix it by changing allocation patterns?</comment>


Show HN: CourseRoad – A Four-Year Academic Planner for MIT Undergraduates - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dannybd/courseroad

<comment><USER2> Well that's a...niche market.

<comment><USER3> ...how this made HN front page... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER2> My guess is MIT is in the title, and a pretty large subset of the HN userbase went to MIT or similar institutions.</comment></comment></comment>


Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won't End With Gawker - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opinion/peter-thiel-the-online-privacy-debate-wont-end-with-gawker.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this.

My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned some breathless, excited editorial about "the future of media", and at one point he talked about the editorial/advertising firewall as a relic that needed to be abandoned. It was so slickly inserted that you could almost forget what he was really saying: that news desks need to be prevented from reporting things that companies rather they didn't.

Every time a VC tries to tell me "what's wrong with the media", I reach for my gun. Everyone: they're not your friends. They're not trying to help you. Their overriding concern is nurturing the value of their investments, and that sometimes means silencing people who report inconvenient truths.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/technology/facebook- agrees...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/technology/facebook-agrees-to- ftc-settlement-on-privacy.html)

(reposted from other submission)

<comment><USER3> do you have anything to say about the content of the article or just ad hominem attacks on the author.

<comment><USER4> A hypocrisy charge is not an ad hominen.

An ad-hominen would be: "what he says is wrong because he is stupid/bribed/corrupt/a hypocrite" etc.

Saying: "What he says is hypocritical" is not an ad-hominem - it's not an argument on the content or the man, but the relation between the two (what he says and what he does).

<comment><USER5> You're trying to discredit an argument because the person saying it is a hypocrite, which is also an _ad-hominem_. If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical.

<comment><USER4> > _If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person > saying it were hypocritical._

And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument.

But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true.

We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc).

Regarding A though, there might be other premises we haven't checked (and weren't mentioned in the argument), other facts that invalidate it, etc.

Thus it is enlightening to know if an argument for A is being made hypocritically, to evaluate the possibility of A being true in a wider context.

E.g. if I say "A is good for everybody, for X,Y,Z reasons" and I do the opposite of A, then the possibility of A really being good for everybody is somewhat lessened by the prior that "the person proposing A does not follow A".

This is because:

a) nothing guarantees that X,Y,Z (the things mentioned in the argument) are enough to prove that A is good for everybody.

b) the fact that someone proposes A but does the opposite, adds credence to the possibility that there are benefits from NOT following A.

Heck, even if the argument is that "A is good for you for X,Y,Z" and it's correct, someone that knows X,Y,Z (since he put forth the argument) but does not follow A, might know something like A+ or B that's even better, and tries to sell me short.

<comment><USER6> I'm convinced that stcredzero is intentionally misdirecting you into arguing about logical fallacies. Based off of her/his other comments in this thread, it doesn't appear that she or he cares much about them. stcredzero's viewpoint is clear and not focused on policing the thread from logical fallacies.

I would say it's a fallacy to harp on logical fallacies; it's not as if everyone has infinite time to convert all arguments to syllogisms. The common list of logical fallacies entered Western culture from the ancient Greeks but shouldn't be taken with religious fervor.

<comment><USER5> _I 'm convinced that stcredzero is intentionally misdirecting you into arguing about logical fallacies._

I'm just convinced coldtea is wrong. The fallacious use of logical fallacies has taken over far too much of public debate.

 _The common list of logical fallacies entered Western culture from the ancient Greeks but shouldn 't be taken with religious fervor._

Sure. Let's apply them with logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm having trouble reconciling the following two quotes

> I am proud to have contributed financial support to his case. I will support > him until his final victory — Gawker said it intends to appeal — and I would > gladly support someone else in the same position.

> A free press is vital for public debate. Since sensitive information can > sometimes be publicly relevant, exercising judgment is always part of the > journalist's profession. It's not for me to draw the line

So this makes me think that, if Peter Thiel considers a journalist's particular article morally wrong, he will help the supposed victim to sue them. In the case of Gawker it's hard to say Gawker was innocent but at the same time what if the next case is something more grey? Peter says he wants a free press but it sounds more to me like he wants a _free press by his own judgement_.

I'm not a fan of Gawker at all but having a billionaire bankroll lawsuits against publications when his opinion is that they're doing something morally wrong...worries me that it'll stifle.

<comment><USER8> Gawker pissed off Thiel by doing their standard trashy tabloid garbage and invading his personal life.

He took the opportunity to get even when they went too far with someone else. Good for him. He's not taking part to cover up anything, or for revenge because they exposed some wrongdoing on his part. He's doing it because Gawker is a trashy worthless site.

<comment><USER9> Yes, don't worry! Thiel merely wants to shut down worthless, trashy publications like Gawker, and the presidential candidate he supports merely wants to shut down worthless, trashy publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Valuable, classy publications who adopt the proper fellatory posture toward their betters have nothing to fear whatsoever.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps you should look into the Citizen's United court case.

Who was the plaintiff? Hillary Clinton.

And what was she seeking to accomplish? Prevent the release of a movie which criticized her political career.

<comment><USER9> Hint: the case was named "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission". What does that tell you about who the plaintiff was?

<comment><USER11> > Hint: the case was named "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission". > What does that tell you about who the plaintiff was?

Very little, actually, because Supreme Court case title orders don't tell you who the plaintiff vs. defendant is, they tell you who filed the appeal from the case below. (However, it does tell you that Hillary Clinton _wasn 't_ the plaintiff, since she is neither "Citizens United" nor the "Federal Election Commission".)

However, in this case, the plaintiff below was the appellant, so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am actually in favour of Peter Thiel. What Gawker did was illegal and hence it is facing this backlash by the LAW.

Many people committed suicides because of the way Gawker brought their private life in public. [http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay- peopl...](http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay-people)

As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up for it! In case of Gawker, it was someone who was feeding on destroying the private life of people in order to sell ads.

* Whether this sets a precedent or not - That is another question and can be resolved in future. That does not mean we should support a publication which is just gossiping about the private life of a person.

<comment><USER13> Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1].

Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality."

[1] [https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v...](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan- v-gawker/)

<comment><USER14> Those are both decisions regarding _preliminary injunctions_ , so your claim that they were found "not illegal" is erroneous. It's explained pretty clearly in the short paragraphs you linked to.

<comment><USER13> Fair to say, but I believe they were testing the waters again and again just to find a venue that was favorable, undermining whatever notion the original commenter was attempting to conjure about the definitive nature of legality here.

If the legality of a case like this is also supposed as a proxy for the (universal) morality of the verdict and the arguments Thiel likes to make about Gawker's journalistic sins it certainly seems like a federal suit would have been a more appropriate arena for proving the point.

<comment><USER15> Nothing illegal in testing waters. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Implying that objections to Trump's narcissism and probable sociopathy amount to "culture war" is a staggering re-framing of reality. That combined with the gay-conservative-Christian thing suggest that the amount of cognitive dissonance Thiel can endure must truly be Olympic calibre.

<comment><USER17> Accusations of cognitive dissonance are fruitless – there's a sizable block of 'gay conservative Christians' who probably think that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and that their beliefs make sens given their worldview.

<comment><USER16> I'm sure that's true about many, perhaps most gay conservative Christians. But Thiel is demonstrably a smart, capable, and educated person, which makes it all the more impressive that his worldview can apparently accommodate what amounts to wizardry, manifested through a dizzying array of fables whose magical interpretation violate both common sense and Occam's razor to a degree I can hardly begin to express.

I can understand how this system of beliefs could seamlessly cohere in the minds of children or proto-humans. Thiel, and the rare others like him, are harder to fathom.

<comment><USER18> The "culture war" is this idea that just because we are gay we're supposed to be democrats.

But you're ignoring that Hillary Clinton was campaigning against gay marriage from 1991-2013, basically up until the Supreme Court made the issue moot. It was Bill Clinton, with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats support who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 -- the last year I considered my self a Democrat.

Not everyone who is a republican is a christian. I happen to be an atheist libertarian.

Putting me in box, labelling it and then insisting that I must be experiencing "cognitive dissonance" if I'm not a democrat is ... not exactly a rational argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Peter Thiel is all for radical freedom and libertarianism as long as the free speech that he protects isn't critical of himself.

He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" outside an instructor's residence. As he explains in his book, "His demonstration directly challenged one of the most fundamental taboos: To suggest a correlation between homosexual acts and AIDS implies that one of the multiculturalists' favorite lifestyles is more prone to contracting the disease and that not all lifestyles are equally desirable."

How can someone be so radically opposed to encroachments on free speech, and yet so quick to quietly fund lawsuits against those who criticize you?

<comment><USER20> Forgive me if I missed it, but has Gawker been "critical" of Thiel in the traditional sense? I'm tracking that they outed him - not that they've been publishing anti-Thiel business editorials - and that they published a sex tape without the permission of those who made it.

It appears that we're starting to conflate protected free speech with invasions of privacy. It's not immediately clear that shouting "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" falls into the latter category, so I don't really see how that's relevant.

<comment><USER21> "without the permission of those who made it."

Well, no, the person who made the tape (not the "star"(s)) absolutely gave "permission". He sent the tape to Gawker himself.

Guess what? He was sued, and Hogan settled with him. For $5,000.

<comment><USER20> When I used the word "made" I assumed it would be taken as those performing the act.

It's not relevant that the "director", if you will, sent the tape to Gawker.

<comment><USER21> It's true. I noted your point, as well.

I also think it's noteworthy that the fact that the person who actually breached Hogan's -trust- was "punished" so lightly (granted, he settled, but I wonder how much Hogan would have settled with Gawker for, with and without Thiel's involvement).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This has nothing to do with online privacy or the internet, stills and transcripts could have just as easily been published in the Enquirer (where they probably would have been protected), and an article outing somebody could have been in print anywhere. This "Gawker Law", has little or nothing to do with the Gawker-Hogan case. In the courts, the privacy of public figures has always been dealt with differently; if anything, this law will blur that distinction, and you won't be able to publish things about your Senator that you wouldn't be able to publish about your ex-wife.

Also, it's another sex law. If anything, the publication of the video without the consent of the people who made it was a copyright violation, and we already have laws for that that levy tens of thousands of dollars in fines on private citizens for republishing an albumful of music to dozens of people. Peter Thiel is a terrible person who made his entire fortune from knowing the right rich people at the right time. I hope he doesn't find somebody who thinks I may have slandered them in the mid-90s and finance a normally hopeless legal case in order to make sure that nobody who has less than a billion dollars in the bank says anything he doesn't like about him, or anyone he likes, or anyone he may be considering doing business with, ever again. We can call it the Peter Thiel Line of No Good Reason.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here.

I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things but on this one I see his point.

<comment><USER24> I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system.

The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate.

Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep enough pockets can now use the courts to exact revenge in a roundabout way. Yes, Gawker is tawdry but one can't help pondering a chilling effect here on more worthy stories. Were I a journalist, I'd certainly think twice now of pursuing an investigative piece that might offend a billionaire, given that my own financial livelihood could become fair game.

<comment><USER25> Consider the way things were before Thiel showed up. Gawker destroyed lives[1] with impunity because their victims didn't have deep enough pockets to fight back in court. Thiel is just leveling the playing field.

[1] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker- edito...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ- Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html)

<comment><USER24> I'm not defending Gawker; I'm saying there's a better way to have this debate.

We don't have to accept or excuse Gawker's worst stories to protest Thiel's dangerous playbook for attacks on institutions of civil society.

<comment><USER26> You're free to propose that we outlaw the funding of lawsuits by non-parties, as was done historically (google 'maintenance' and 'champerty' if you want more history on that) but you're going to shut down the ACLU and company when you do so. So it's a matter of which is more important to you, really.

<comment><USER24> Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> In Hulk Hogan's sex tape he goes off on a racist rant. That's the reason the WWE fired him. I'm glad my kids won't be exposed to that racist and I'm thankful for Gawker's public services on that issue.

Also, Hogan was never going to earn $140million for the rest of his life. That judgment was ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER28> if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no.

so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech.

not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot of the satellite sites that were actually doing really good reporting. very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges, deadspin (a gawker blog) was probably the foremost site posting about it (and other violations by schools).

<comment><USER17> I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.

<comment><USER28> i'm not confused. i am discussing the hypocrisy of thiel saying he's about protecting free speech when the thing he was originally angry about (his being outed) was free speech. he doesn't give a shit about hulk hogan or his privacy being violated. all he wanted was a legally winnable case to get at gawker.

so to say he still supports free speech is laughable when the origin of his "fight" was something that was legally free speech.

<comment><USER17> Obligatory xkcd about free speech:

[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

Gawker's outing was free speech. Peter Thiel giving money to Hulk Hogan to fight his legal battle was also free speech. There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to protect free speech, yet disliking someone's specific use of free speech.

<comment><USER28> the hypocrisy is in saying, hey i still believe in free speech, while punishing free speech because he doesn't like what was said. that just means he's all for speech that doesn't affect his bottom line.

<comment><USER8> Except he's not suppressing dissenting opinions or hushing up stories about his wrongdoings.

He is going after them for outing him as gay. Gawker does this to people as a matter of policy. This policy has lead to people committing suicide, they have fired reporters who disagreed with it. It is a legal policy, they have the right to do this. You can find cases where doing it isn't that unreasonable. A politician with an awful record on gay rights gets caught with a male prostitute, that's news worthy. It is a matter the public has an interest in.

A VC being gay? Why say anything. It's just cruel tabloid gossip.

<comment><USER28> i am against outing people. gawker's policy of outing people, at best, is terrible. saying people being outed could cause them to commit suicide is true.

but

> He is going after them for outing him as gay. Gawker does this to people as > a matter of policy. This policy has lead to people committing suicide, they > have fired reporters who disagreed with it.

you're going to have to cite any firing. there have been resignations because nick denton took down an article about a conde nast executive who was gay and the editors disagreed with the article takedown. no one (afaik) was fired. they resigned because their article got taken down. also saying gawker outs being as a matter of policy... what.

also let's talk about thiel's outing. thiel was a huge investor in facebook, therefore he is a public figure. and is it really an out-of-the-closet "outing" if nearly everyone who worked with thiel knew, and told that to people outside of thiel's general circle? you think the author of the story dug through thiel's trash to find out that he was gay? it was pretty much common knowledge regardless of what thiel's dislike of talking about it.

and imo he is suppressing dissenting opinions. cross peter thiel and you better prepare to go through a legal battle for it even if what was said was not libel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> FTA:

        I'm glad that an arena full of Republicans
        stood up to applaud when I said I was proud
        to be gay, because gay pride shouldn't be a
        partisan issue. All people deserve respect,
        and nobody's sexuality should be made a
        public fixation.

From the 2016 party platform[1] of that arena full of Republicans[2]:

        In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers
        robbed 320 million Americans of their
        legitimate constitutional authority
        to define marriage as the union of
        one man and one woman.

And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone.

\----

[1] "A party platform is sometimes referred to as a manifesto[1] or a political platform. Research on American politics suggests that platform positions offer an important clue to the policies that U.S. parties will enact." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform)

[2] [https://prod-static-ngop- pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document...](https://prod-static-ngop- pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL\[1\]-ben_1468872234.pdf)

<comment><USER17> Why exactly do you think those two positions are necessarily in opposition? You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay.

<comment><USER11> > You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between > men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both > Christian and gay.

Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? While I haven't seen things broken out at that detail level (e.g., gay marriage views of gay Christians), in general, belief that society should accept homosexuality tracks pretty well with belief that gay marriage should be allowed; I'd be very surprised if, even among, say, Evangelicals (the Christian religious subgroup polling shows _most_ opposed to gay marriage), the share of that population that is gay isn't mostly part of the 27% (from Pew earlier this year [0]) of that group that says that gay marriage should be accepted.

[0] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support- stea...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-steady-for- same-sex-marriage-and-acceptance-of-homosexuality/)

<comment><USER30> It's perfectly possible to believe that society should accept homosexuality and also be against gay marriage. It's a complex issue. 'Marriage' is a religious ceremony, and freedom of religion and association is a thing. If the Christians don't want to let the gays join their club and do their funny little ceremony, then so be it. Any change needs to be driven by the Pope and the church itself, not enforced by the state.

That is completely distinct from the concept of a legal union as defined by the state, which should be available to all consenting adults. Hell, as a mathematical type myself, if you can get it working in 2 dimensions you should be able to generalize to n dimensions, so why not legalize a union between any n consenting sentient beings while we're at it?

The bigger mystery is why any non-christian gay people would care...?? If you're not Christian, you shouldn't care about a religious 'marriage', only civil unions. If you are Christian, you should take it up with your Church and work on change from within. I mean how is it going to work? If you're a Christian gay and you feel hurt and not included because your faith denies you the right to a religious marriage, are you really going to feel any more included when the state kicks the door down and forces them to accept you? They have to decide to accept you on their own.

I just don't get the whole issue.

<comment><USER11> "Marriage" had been the English name for the civil unions as well as the religious unions for much longer than the modern separation of Church and State changed those into distinct institutions with the same name.

"Civil union" as an institution name was created in the US for the separate- but-notionally-equal state law institution adopted in some areas while denying civil marriage to same-sex partners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Seeing Hulk Hogan force Gawker into bankruptcy has been so satisfying. After all the sanctimonious nattering after the huge iCloud celebrity nudes leak, and then all the hand-wringing while Gawker gets punished for getting waist deep in the exact same thing has been galling. But after dozens of think- pieces about the _troubling implications_ , bankruptcy court grinds on, impervious.

</comment><comment><USER15> If a conservative site was outing gays on a regular basis it would have been shut down long ago. But liberal sites outing gay conservatives is considered totally acceptable and even commendable in today's society. Thus the vitriol towards Thiel.

</comment><comment><USER32> Gawker played dirty, then Peter Thiel played dirty. Peter won. Nothing of value was lost. We're not talking about Reuters here.

</comment><comment><USER33> I posted a link to the "Revenge Porn" bill, incase anyone wants to talk about the topic at hand instead of Peter Thiel. The bill is actually a pretty significant one with some big implications for service providers [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12295410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12295410)

</comment><comment><USER34> The fact that Thiel is still involved with Y Combinator should tell you everything you need to know about the disingenuity of their "commitment" to equality and diversity.

<comment><USER35> Does tolerance mean no Republicans/Libertarians allowed in any of our social/work circles? Is that where we're going as Democrats? If so I will be putting the Kool Aid down and jumping off the wagon at the next stop.

<comment><USER36> Yes, it appears to me to be increasingly popular among liberals (esp. among the younger generation) to use any tactic they can to silence, ostracize, and censor dissenting opinions.

It also seems to me that this has the effect of driving moderates to the right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Suicide queens.

</comment><comment><USER38> I love how he's trying to make his personal vendetta against Gawker Nobel, by trying to dub the IPPA as "the Gawker Bill."

From [https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/peter-thiel-gawker- new-...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/peter-thiel-gawker-new-york- times) : "It's the Intimate Privacy Protection Act or IPPA," a spokesperson for Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the bill's sponsors, told BuzzFeed News. "I have no idea where 'the Gawker Bill' name comes from, but it's incorrect."

<comment><USER39> It had been called that, informally. From a few weeks ago: [http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/gawker-bill- criminal...](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/gawker-bill-criminalize- revenge-porn/)</comment></comment>


Groupon thinks Alexander Hamilton was president - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/groupon-celebrates-presidents-day-by-honoring-alexander-hamilton-2014-02-14-111594018

<comment><USER2> I can't tell if this is corporate trolling or not</comment>


Show HN: Simple Postcard – Send a photo postcard from a text message - <AUTHOR> https://thesimplepostcard.com/ <comment> rm_-rf_slash I have noticed a mild resurgence in postcards now that we are all officially sick and tired of text and email, and it's far more personal than asking someone to look at your Facebook photo album.

 _But..._

Why do we send postcards? Is it for the pretty image? Is it for the message? Yes, but ultimately it's because you want to share an experience with someone that matters to you, and you want them to know that you are thinking of them as more than just a fleeting thought. Otherwise, a text message with an image or video suffices.

Bottom line: Simple Postcard would be a lot more interesting if we could physically write in them before they are sent. Just don't take this as a suggestion to use AI to put pen to paper and mimic our handwriting from samples, because that's plain creepy.

<comment><USER2> Too late: [http://feltapp.com/](http://feltapp.com/) turns your touchscreen handwriting into movements by a robot with a felt pen.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Still, it's not quite the same. I want to press my pen to the paper. I want to screw up and scratch it out and remind whomever I'm sending my postcard to that I am a real human being that dares take an extra five minutes out of the day because I care about them.

But maybe if you're sending the same postcard to a lot of people, I could understand why this would be useful. Then again, I would probably just buy multiple postcards and write something different for each person.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree, which is why we're looking to solve this problem a different way. [http://www.facebook.com/greetpoint](http://www.facebook.com/greetpoint) \- join our #handwrittenrevolution! :)

<comment><USER2> Hi, I clicked your facebook, then your home page, then "learn more" and I still didn't know what you did! I'm not going to sign up for an email just from a slogan.. I suggest you explain your product right on your FB & Homepage so visitors can understand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just came back from a 10 day solo vacation to Europe. Rather than post updates on Facebook I sent postcards to close friends and family each day. It was a lot of fun taking time out of every day to go find a few nice postcards and send a handwritten note. I think the recipients really enjoyed it as well. I'm surprised postcards are around still-- but maybe they'll make a resurgence as people seek to rebuild stronger connections than social media facilitates.

<comment><USER5> I did this on an 8000km roadtrip around Europe. Every couple if days, I sent out 20 to 30 postcards.

Two years later, I still see them on people's walls.

The instagrams lay forgotten only dredged up by facebooks memory algorithms. Sometimes. Maybe. Even then only for me.

Postcards >>> social media.

<comment><USER4> My daughter hung her postcards over her bed. I caught her in the middle of the night looking at them with a flashlight. ;)

<comment><USER6> That is absolutely awesome! I think I might do this same for my daughter (and wife)!

<comment><USER7> must. resist. joke opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Can I send a GIF? We don 't have the technology to print GIFs yet. We have some interns working on it._

Hilarious!

<comment><USER9> Except there are a bunch of services that print gifs to lenticular prints for an animated effect.

Here's one, but there are others: [http://gifpop.io/products/patakk- six](http://gifpop.io/products/patakk-six)

<comment><USER10> Except nothing. Simple-postcard doesn't have the tech, they aren't necessarily speaking for the state of affairs for the entire world.

Edit: that's pretty sweet tech though

<comment><USER11> They could contract one of those services to print it for them

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't know what it is, but there's something about this that i like. Maybe its the "do one thing, and do it right" aspect. (Though it remains to be seen if they do it right.) But I for one wish these guys good luck!

</comment><comment><USER12> I hope you have some human doing image QC or I envision a long conversation with Postal Inspectors regarding all the dick pic postcards that you're sending.

BTW, that said, this reminds me a little bit of rather elegant app developed by Bill Atikinson, "Photo Card", which aims to convert photos in iOS to postcards on demand.

<comment><USER13> >Postal Inspectors

Those exist? I thought that nobody (including the government) was supposed to look at, touch, or investigate mail (except from prisons IIRC)

<comment><USER14> They're federal agents within the Postal Service.

Legally, you can't mail any "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance"

<comment><USER13> Interesting. How do porn magazines, fleshlights, etc ship?

<comment><USER15> Inside a brown paper package or envelope, unlike a postcard.

<comment><USER13> So the inspectors can only look at the packaging, not touch them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really enjoy the US Postal Service's $0.39 stamped postcards. There's a blank front, which makes it convenient to sketch what I'm seeing when I'm writing the message. (A few parks, like Yosemite, will frank the stamp from "Yosemite National Park", which is an even more special treat for the recipient.)

They are quite a good value for the money if you are ever in the USA and wish to correspond with friends and are artistic. :)

</comment><comment><USER17> There was a similar thing years ago on HN that was like $4 for a postcard with the image you uploaded. It went defunct, though. I really liked the idea and did try to use it, but it was already in the process of being shut down by its creator.

<comment><USER18> yep. Maybe this one's a bit more simplified, but various iterations of this concept over the years (just search any app store for postcard apps):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8154009](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8154009)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2437819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2437819)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10726897](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10726897)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9003880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9003880)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Always wondered why postal services don't offer something like this for letters that a sender requires be sent by mail, but giving it to the carrier digitally is okay.

If it was in major cities, literally be possible to send a letter same day.

<comment><USER20> Is there anything that falls into this category which couldn't be done with a fax?

<comment><USER21> Sending to a regular person that doesn't have a fax machine

<comment><USER20> Do you regularly need to send someone a _physical_ copy of something you have digitally?

<comment><USER21> Mostly to relatives who would prefer to receive mail than email. Otherwise I recently had to communicate with a health insurance company that didn't accept anything by email, and said the images of cancelled checks I faxed them were too blurry to read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Very fun – I've already sent 5. The cost is very impulse-purchase friendly, and it's a lot easier than the effort of going to the store to get cards printed out and putting stamps on and such, though less personal because of lack of handwriting. Is the current price introductory pricing or do you think it would be sustainable long-term? Seems low to me for on-demand printing, but I haven't seen the quality of the cards.

<comment><USER23> Lob charges $0.70 per card, seems sustainable.

Edit: Stripe charges a hefty 2.8% + 30ct, so 35ct fees for that. 1ct for Twilio. $1.06 in costs, so a $0.94 margin. Seems ok for a (probably small maintenance side project)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow. I really love this idea. Simple and impactful to the receiver. Really makes people reminisce the days before technology took over our lives.

</comment><comment><USER25> Excellent idea for parents and grandparents that may not be into computers and the internet. Even for those that are, having a physical photo and note show up in the mailbox would be a great thing to brighten their day.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've received really nice feedback from mothers and girlfriends!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There aren't any example shots of the post cards.. How do these things look? I've stayed away from similar products because they have logos and unwanted crap on them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, I'll add some samples in a bit.

There's nothing on them except what you add.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> OT: Who is Jeff from New York that is being quoted three times in the website?

<comment><USER28> Given the tone of the site, I assume it's the creator's friend, or maybe the creator. Personally I think it's a hilarious change from the fake-looking testimonials you usually see on startup sites.

Edit: yup. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Neat idea. I wonder if the scaling/cropping algorithm is smart enough to handle 4:3 images without chopping people's heads.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's pretty basic. We scale and crop the minimum amount to fit the card.

It would be pretty cool to try something more advanced like facial rec or seam carving [0]!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcIJXTlugc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcIJXTlugc)

<comment><USER29> Is there a preview before paying? (Sorry, if I missed that in the FAQ).

<comment><AUTHOR> No, not at this time, but please let me know if a card doesn't come out to your liking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > Only in the US. We'll support international postcards soon.

I can't wait!

</comment><comment><USER31> I've been using Postagram ([https://sincerely.com/postagram](https://sincerely.com/postagram)) for a few years to send a card to my grandmother regularly from my smartphone. The cards look great, cost $1, and have the image in a perforated square which can be punched out of the card, with the description on the back. They have a solid app with tracking and history. Hard to beat that, but maybe the feature that Simple Postcard has is fitting the image to a 4x6 area (full front of the card) rather than the smaller square (3x3", I think) on the Postagrams.

</comment><comment><USER32> I love this idea. My cousin and I have been sending each other postcards frequently for years. She's always good about sending them often while I'm only good at purchasing neat postcards with the intent to send them.

</comment><comment><USER33> I assume it's built using Twilio + Lob API?

[https://lob.com/services/postcards/pricing](https://lob.com/services/postcards/pricing)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes :) and Stripe. All held together by Django.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I just sent a picture postcard to a friend for $2.

This was a really nice speedy flow.

For some reason I expect the sms interface to be more human and cheeky. I guess it's the weird AI chat bot trend.

</comment><comment><USER35> What Payment Gateway are you using? If I'm not mistaken this qualifies as a micro payment (< $5) and the transactions fees can be rather high on a $2 purchase.

<comment><AUTHOR> Stripe

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It occurred after sending the MMS, that this page could simply be an elaborate attempt to flood some guy with random pics.

I would recommend buying a 5 digit MMS number, to add some more obvious legitimacy to the service.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll look into that! Thanks.

Edit: Short codes cost $500 on Twilio :O

[https://www.twilio.com/help/faq/short-codes/can-i-send-or- re...](https://www.twilio.com/help/faq/short-codes/can-i-send-or-receive-mms- with-my-short-code)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The swiss post does allow you to send any picture as a postcard, even for free: [https://postcardcreator.post.ch](https://postcardcreator.post.ch)

</comment><comment><USER38> "How do you fit my photo to a 4x6 card?

We use an _algorithm_ to scale and crop your image to fit the card.

Can I send a GIF?

We don't have the technology to print GIFs yet. We have some interns working on it."

This is a prank, right?

<comment><USER39> I'd probably take it more seriously if they had a terms of service and privacy policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I remember seeing something similar being pitched on one of the Shark Tank episodes, excep t that I think it was a phone app where you had to install it on your phone

</comment><comment><USER41> Why do you need pay after you sent the text? A lot of TV shows make you pay for the amount as part of the charge for the text for example.

<comment><USER42> TV shows are integrated with carriers.

<comment><USER43> Well you could use a service to do it I believe. However the service fee would be large compared to it's price.

<comment><USER42> I believe Twilio supports this starting around $1M.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> For GIF postcards, they should print as lenticular images! The GIF would actually play as you angle the postcard.

</comment><comment><USER45> What kind of progress are the interns making?</comment>


The Expanse's third season will be its last on the Syfy channel - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/11/17343638/the-expanse-third-last-season-syfy <comment><USER2> This is sad because this show has a wonderfully realized world.</comment>


This is how hackers hack you using simple social engineering - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7scxvKQOo <comment><USER2> Here's the related news article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13193166](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13193166)</comment>


Cannabis and Psychosis - <AUTHOR> http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738.full

<comment><USER2> Summary:

They looked at people aged 14-24 ("time T1", which they actually call "baseline"), and followed them up 3.5 years later ("time T2") and 5 years after that ("time T3"). They looked at whether they'd used cannabis five times or more by T1, or between T1 and T2. And they looked at whether they'd had any "psychotic symptoms" -- quite broadly defined, so that ~10% had such symptoms between T2 and T3 -- between between T2 and T3.

They excluded from their sample anyone who'd had psychotic symptoms by time T2; that was 23% of their sample! (They wanted to avoid finding people who had, e.g., already had psychological problems and taken cannabis in the hope that that would help.)

They also excluded anyone who'd taken cannabis before T1.

(The results without those exclusions were similar to the results with them.)

They found a substantial increase -- about a factor of 2 -- in incidence of "psychotic symptoms" between T2 and T3 among people who used cannabis between T1 and T2. Remember that "psychotic symptoms" doesn't mean actually being psychotic.

They also looked for evidence of that "self-medication" scenario, by looking to see whether people with psychotic symptoms by T2 were more likely to use cannabis between T2 and T3. Apparently not.

They found some evidence that using cannabis over a longer period is correlated with (and probably causes, given their findings about self- medication, but that's harder to be sure of) larger risk increases for psychotic symptoms.

There are a bunch of caveats; for instance, they're relying on self-reported data for both cannabis use and psychotic symptoms. (They give some reasons for thinking that this doesn't hurt their analysis too much.)

I think their investigation would have been improved by introducing an extra delay, and looking at whether cannabis use between T1 and T2 is associated with more psychotic symptoms between T3 and T4. (Compare the two propositions "Taking cannabis now will make your brain a bit weird for a year or two" and "Taking cannabis now will make your brain a bit weird for the rest of your life".)

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR:

 _Conclusion: Cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic symptoms. Continued cannabis use might increase the risk for psychotic disorder by impacting on the persistence of symptoms._

</comment><comment><USER4> Why is it always cannabis and psychosis? How about a longitudinal study on cannabis and creativity?

<comment><USER5> You mean: cannabis and discreativity. Lots of ideas, no will to implement them.

<comment><USER6> Speak for yourself...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a correlative study, so nothing can be concluded from it other than "voluntary cannabis use and psychotic symptoms have some direct or indirect covariant relationship".

</comment><comment><USER8> bought and paid for by the pharma/booze/police state industries

<comment><USER9> Is that the case?

"Funding: The EDSP study is funded by grants of the German Ministry of Research, Education and Technology (01EB9405/6 and 01EB9901/6) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), and this paper is part of NIH grant RO1DA016977-01, PL. Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."</comment></comment>