FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/fbi-is-re-opening-clinton-e-mail-investigation-chaffetz-says <comment><USER2> As much as I would like this to be true, I think that's a pretty biased interpretation of his letter.

My reading would be this: "We found some new emails. They're relevant, but we don't know if they're important. We're looking into it."

What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, _the fact that he wrote it at all_. But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report."

Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election.

Either way, he had to know Chaffetz would be shouting this from the top of a mountain...

<comment><USER3> So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the "never Trump" camp. Prior to the public disclosure of Comey's recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted, Loretta Lynch publicly stated that she would try to appear impartial by going with whatever the FBI recommended. This effectively put Comey - a "never Trump" man - in the position of appointing the next President of the United States. If he had elected to recommend prosecution, Trump was the guaranteed winner. If he didn't, most realized that Clinton would beat Trump.

Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right thing in the first place.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey- testimony/2016/07/...](http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey- testimony/2016/07/what-party-is-james-comey-registered-as-225223)

<comment><USER4> Which legal experts?

The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think that was done in this case).

The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate.

In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us have subverted those policies to get our jobs done.

The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The crime of the century!

Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because that's banana republic territory.

<comment><USER3> Ok, so I'll put aside for a moment the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the _former Secretary of State_ told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified, along with the myriad criminal pay-to-play issues that the FBI has simply ignored, both of which are slam-dunk federal felony cases. The law provides for criminal charges when someone uses gross negligence in the mishandling of classified materials - no intent required. According to Comey himself, her conduct actually met the legal definition of gross negligence. He just didn't want to use the gross negligence statute instead of the statute that requires intent because it would have handed Trump the presidency.

<comment><USER5> (C), as a portion marker in a classified document (which it would properly only occur in if the document itself was at least as highly classified, with banners marking the classification in full words) means "confidential", not "classified". In email, the banner text is placed at the top and bottom of the body (the subject line of a classified email is portion marked to indicate the classification status -- including (U) for unclassified if that applies -- of the _subject line itself_.) [0] Any place that portion markers are properly used, the whole containing document is clearly marked as classified with a specific level, and the whole content -- other than parts portion-marked as unclassified -- is classified.

It's kind of funny how the majority of the people who mock Clinton over this get it wrong themselves.

And also omit the context, which was a (C) used in an email which had neither a portion marker in the header (as all classified emails should) nor classification banners. In that context, I think mlet's actually pretty reasonable to have no idea that a parenthetical (C) on a paragraph was intended as a portion marker of classification level.

[0] [http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Inform...](http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Information.pdf)

<comment><USER3> I apparently used the wrong word in my comment (Clasified vs Confidential), but regardless, she claimed that she didn't know what it meant. I'm not the former Secretary of State, so my gaff is understandable. Hillary Clinton, however, _is_ the former Secretary of State, and undoubtedly received extensive training in these matters. That means she either lied or has some kind of mental defect that made her unable to remember some of the most critical training that she received during her tenure. Either of those are disqualifiers for the Presidency in my opinion.

<comment><USER5> No, she said she didn't know what it was intended to mean _in the email in question_ , which had neither classification banners nor a portion marker on the subject line.

It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters have many uses in general written communication, and there special use as portion markers is specific to documents that are classified as a whole, which there are standard ways of marking.

<comment><USER3> Once again, we are talking about the _former Secretary of State_ and _government emails_. In that context, it is not reasonable for her to claim that she wouldn't have applied her intimate knowledge of the indicators of classified/confidential materials to the email in question. We won't agree on this, at least until after the election when perhaps many Clinton supporters like yourself will be free to acknowledge simple, unassailable facts about your candidate.

<comment><USER5> Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context, parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that came to mind in the context of the email in question.

Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that the email itself was classified, there's little radon to think a stay parenthetical (C) is intended as a portion marker.

Clinton didn't say she didn't know what (C) meant as a portion marker (which would be worthy of mockery) , she said she didn't know that the (C) in an email lacking any indication that it was a classified document was intended to have the special meaning that (C) has within a classified document.

<comment><USER3> _> Most government emails are not classified._

I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential. Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President without Trump in the picture. She lied, she will very likely continue lying, and given the history of the Clinton family, the odds are overwhelmingly high that this will be far from the most significant scandal overshadowing her candidacy/Presidency.

<comment><USER5> > I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to > and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential

Probably, so? The fact that it's a mixed environment means that it's a code switching situation, which means that the indicators that a particular context is in play are critical. There's a reason that classified documents have banners (and though it's not the purpose of portion marking email subject lines to serve as a "this document is classified" flag, it probably in practice schedule at least as useful as a code switching trigger as proper banners.

> Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton > supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their > new President

We won't agree on _this_ question even then. I mean, my position on the emails in general or this particular point hasn't changed since I was a vociferous opponent of Clinton in the primary, I don't see why it would even if I became entirely disenchanted with her performance in office.

I suspect you're projecting from the fact that your reaction is based on your prefered electoral outcome to assume the same must be true of anyone who disagrees with you as well.

<comment><USER3> I would prefer that neither of them win. Certainly we can do better than this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is the actual letter. Note the FBI does not say they are "re-opening" anything. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig)

<comment><USER7> The letter states "referred to the fact that the FBI had completed it's investigation". Then the letter states "I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow.... whether they contain classified information".

In plain English, the case was closed, but now there is new evidence and we're investigating it. Sounds like 're-opening' to me.

<comment> o0-0o They are in fact re-opening so they can ammend the findings. If it is determined that new emails warrant charges, she may be charged.

The real news story here is that this is what everyone will be talking about for the next weekend, that's three days, with a response by her on Monday. So, maybe four days. That's more than 30% of the remaining election cycle.

As Trump would say. This is big league.

<comment><USER8> Normally Friday is a classic "dumping bad news" day because most people don't watch the news on weekends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh my god everyone here is splitting hairs like the rest of the goddamn internet.

The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for Clinton no matter how you swing it.

<comment><USER10> She could hire someone to walk her dog and 40% of the country would consider it scandalous and criminal.

<comment><USER11> You're dramatically downplaying the things HRC has been implicated in. It's almost as if you've already made up your mind that she's not guilty of anything.

<comment><USER10> 33 congressional hearings and $7 million were spent on the whole Benghazi thing, and what did it prove? Obviously she should have supported the ambassador better but hindsight is 20/20\. [http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select- committe...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committee- benghazi-report)

Then there's the accusation that she rigged the primary, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with that. It was on the DNC.

Or there was the "scandal" about how her staff was smashing cell phones. It's a legit and basically mundane data security procedure. [https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed- pho...](https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones- better/)

People scream scandal at her over mundane stuff or stuff she has nothing to do with all the time. It's absurd.

<comment><USER12> She ran a private e-mail server for top-secret communication while in office. DNC rigged the primary in her favour, and you're suggesting she had nothing to do with that. Who's being absurd here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been inside baseball, politics-wise. Insiders and pundits love yelling about it but average voters either don't care (the vast majority) or have already assumed she's guilty/not guilty and priced that into their vote. Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome.

<comment><USER14> The e-mails should have put her in prison, and they would have put anyone else in the same situation in prison. But you're right, with her being her, they're a complete nonissue. They simply don't matter at all.

<comment><USER15> To be absolutely objective about it, there really _are_ people in prison for doing with confidential state secrets what Secretary Clinton did with confidential state secrets.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier- inves...](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier- investigation-hillary-clinton-223646)

<comment><USER16> There's a few likely differences, although it's hard to tell from the limited info in the Clinton case:

1) Saucier generated the classified information. He took the photos. I don't think there was evidence the Clinton was knowingly sending classified information to non-cleared individuals

2) Saucier himself deleted the files from his laptop after learning he was under investigation. The FBI in Clinton's case determined that there was no willful attempt to obstruct justice

3) The quantity and quality of the information likely differs. If the Clinton emails contained photographs of classified military hardware, we'd probably see more motion.

See Comey's quote comparing the Petraeus case to the Clinton case:

"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted."

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey- hillary-c...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary- clinton-david-petraeus/)

<comment><USER17> Regarding #2, there's some circumstantial evidence that there was an attempt to hide emails either through deleting them or not turning them over:

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta- emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ](https://wikileaks.org/podesta- emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ)

<comment><USER16> The FBI explicitly investigated whether there was an attempt to hide emails. Here is Comey's statment:

> The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not > individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those > available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search > terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than > 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in > 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related > e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of > other officials or in the slack space of a server.

> It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did > not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now > gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the > lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic > recovery.

> We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to > understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not > have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the > electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been > sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional > misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey- hillary-c...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary- clinton-david-petraeus/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To say the obvious: There is great risk of the FBI and/or Comey trying to influence the outcome of the election. Earlier, when Comey said Clinton had been "extremely careless", it seemed to overstep his bounds: He played judge and jury, and convicted her without trial.

To do this two weeks before the election raises very serious questions about the U.S.'s most fundamental institutions, rule of law, and democracy. Every Democratic leader is subject to endless investigation and deligitimization.

EDIT: This is not a partisan concern. Everyone needs these institutions, democracy and the rule of law.

<comment><USER19> I don't think you watched Comey's presentation. He said that Clinton should not be prosecuted (ie. no conviction).

<comment><USER20> He said he doesn't _recommend prosecution_ because he didn't believe there was a _reasonable_ prosecutor that would do it. It's a huge load of horse shit. Hillary got off because she's well connected, not because there wasn't a case.

<comment><USER19> "We are expressing to Justice, our view, that no charges are appropriate in this case." \- Comey

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails" \- Sounds very happenstance. What are the odds something coincidental happened two weeks before the election?

<comment><USER22> What is the probability that "an unrelated case" is political speak for "wikileaks"?

<comment><USER23> Given the sheer number of cases and the government's prior willingness to name and shame Wikileaks, I'd expect that probability to be low without further evidence (high uncertainty remains).

<comment><USER24> Would the FBI want to admit to the committee that wikileaks had data they didn't unless they had to though?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Unless an indictment comes down before Election Day, I think it's probably too late for this to have any material impact. Most likely Clinton voters aren't actually Clinton voters - they are anti-Trump voters. An indictment prior to the election would change things, but that will not happen. Clinton has almost no chance of losing.

Once she wins, she will then either short circuit the investigation by forcing Comey and anyone else associated with it to resign, or she will actually be indicted and then she will pardon herself. For the record I believe that both of the candidates are despicable human beings and either one will make the worst President I have ever had in my lifetime, but we are almost certainly stuck with Clinton for at least the next four years.

<comment><USER20> I think the more likely situation is that Obama pardons her some time after election day.

<comment><USER25> Is their a historical precedent for something like this? (ie sitting president pardons incoming president?)

<comment><USER26> Not quite. There is precedent for the new president pardoning the _outgoing_ president, though - Ford pardoned Nixon for anything and everything Nixon had done that was illegal during his term in office. That closed the book on Watergate, but it arguably cost Ford the election to Carter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self- interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and outright illegal things throughout her career. No big surprise here. If elected, she will continue to work the highly imperfect system we've got in lots of shady and questionable ways.

But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society.

Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here and the fairy tale than ANY sufficiently powerful person will be held accountable for their misdeeds. I've never been one to buy the two-party lesser of evils narrative, but we are really and truly at the edge of the cliff right now. Do we let righteous indignation push us over the edge? Or do we live to fight another day?

<comment><USER20> >her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society

Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system.

edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: [http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary- cl...](http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton- proposing-rigging-palestine-election/)

"That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?

<comment><USER28> > And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?

He has stated that if elected, he'll spend the first 100 days suing his accusers.

He believes the press has too much freedom of speech.

He has claimed the election is rigged against him, and has all but told his supporters to engage in vote suppression.

He has said he will attempt to force all Muslims to register into a database.

He has said he will ban all Muslims from entering the nation.

Would you like me to go? If you listen to his words at campaign rallies, they bear a striking resemblance to fascist dictators on the rise.

Clinton may fit the mold of the "crooked Washington politician", but at the least, she has a basic respect for democracy. Trump, on the other hand, would attempt to utterly plow his way through our legal system for his own gain.

<comment><USER29> The reason he said it was 'rigged' is because of the overwhelming bias and frankly twilight-zone behavior of the media who are clearly donating to Clinton and wanting to maintain whatever special privileges they have under Obama.

We have a real problem with the press in this country... great example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsnMuaFjhE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsnMuaFjhE)

<comment><USER28> Yes, I've seen that interview, where Gingrinch accused Kelley of being fascinated with sex and then attempted to use Bill Clinton's indiscretions as some sort of way to discredit Hillary. This is after he talked to his exwife about divorce while she was recovering from cancer and then later has an affair. At that point, it was clear the interview served no useful purpose.

Additionally, all major media publications have come out in support of Trump for the simple fact he has, in no way shape or form, demonstrated any leadership capabilities. He tweeted at 3 am for days following the first campaign about the Miss USA issue. How does demonstrate a steady hand and patience?

<comment><USER20> Oh no, he tweeted at 3AM. Obviously unqualified to be President.

Pathetic.

<comment><USER30> He tweeted at three a.m. that people should look for a non-existent sex tape because he got his feelings hurt that a model he called fat was publicly supporting Hillary.

I for one hope our president isn't concerned about how much models weigh. And if they are, I hope they don't respond to criticism by slut-shaming that person, especially for something they didn't do. So, no suggesting at 3 am that people investigate the sex life of someone who attacked him isn't very presidential.

<comment><USER20> I'm more concerned about our President's view about foreign wars that kill tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians, but I guess if you want to focus on their tweets then go ahead.

<comment><USER30> I haven't gotten to a point where I can compare Clinton and Trump on policy. First I don't think Trump really has consistent or in depth policy on anything. Second, I just don't think Trump has the temperament or stability to be President. I don't know why Trump would be better on foreign wars. But I think foreign policy under a Trump presidency would be based entirely on Trump's personal opinion.

Sure, tweets are inconsequential, and I think politics would be more productive if disagreements focused on policy differences. But his words and actions show that he's a really petty and shallow person. And he would be a petty and shallow President. I don't think he really has many specific well thought out plans he could actually implement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The real question is whether this is because of the KimDotCom tweet, or whether it's related to something in the Podesta emails or otherwise.

<comment><USER32> It would be rather funny if America's justice system is so inefficient that one agency would have all of the evidence necessary for an investigation and another would fail to at least _ask for it_.

<comment><USER33> Career government officials are not likely to be activist about investigations. As with Clinton's denials, which are very passive and "I didn't know" or didn't question something, one can cover oneself very well by simply not offering anything or refusing to ask for something. Sins of omission are much harder to prosecute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What happens if they find her guilty after she is elected?

<comment><USER35> > What happens if they find her guilty after she is elected?

If it's before she takes office, Obama could pardon her. Would be a smear on the end of his legacy but might a Nixon/Ford style situation to take the personal hit and move the country forward.

If it's after she takes office, most likely impeachment or resignation. It'd be very difficult govern as the chief executive if the country and world sees you as a convicted criminal. Depending on how that plays out, Kaine would most likely take over.

<comment><USER36> Obama pardoning Hillary would be very different than Ford's pardon of Nixon. The latter allowed a disgraced politician who had resigned to leave Washington without facing criminal prosecution. The former would allow a politician to avoid prosecution and continue to take the office of President.

<comment><USER35> > Obama pardoning Hillary would be very different than Ford's pardon of Nixon. > The latter allowed a disgraced politician who had resigned to leave > Washington without facing criminal prosecution. The former would allow a > politician to avoid prosecution and continue to take the office of > President.

Based on my take of Obama as a person, I'm pretty sure he'd require her stepping down as a condition of a pardon. Otherwise the public would question her legitimacy for four years.

<comment><USER37> Nah. He'd let her stay probably. Obama would show up on Saturday Night Live with Hillary and do something quirky. Boom. Nothing but net!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This was the most interesting thing I've read recently about the emails: [https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn](https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn)

</comment><comment><USER39> The big problem with this announcement is that the letter only says "we found some emails and we are reviewing". But in news cycle it will get translated to a guilty verdict and possibly influence election outcome. Shouldn't they have reviewed the emails to see if there is classified information before sending out a letter like this ? Comey surely knew that this letter will be a big deal.

<comment><USER40> Does it matter if it had classified information or not when a high ranking state official is using a personal private email server to bypass the official one?

<comment><USER39> Using a private email server was the norm at state department. Collin Powell used a private server and explained the benefits of it to Hillary Clinton. The only reason this bubbled up top was due to the Bengazhi situation. Otherwise, there would not even be an investigation on this.

<comment><USER41> To provide some clarity about Powell:

1\. He used a personal, private email address--note a personal, private email server.

2\. This was the norm to use a private address, yes. However, policies changed after Powell left and no longer permitted this kind of behavior.

3\. Clinton and her staff blatantly ignored these policies and took it a step further by using her own personal, private email server.

4\. Powell only used the email address to handle non-classified material. Clinton handled classified material on her email server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I find Comey's decision to _disclose_ this new investigation less than 2 weeks from election day extremely perplexing.

By all means, perform your investigation, but to announce it immediately before what's arguably one of the most important elections in modern US history? If I were a paranoid man, I'd say that this looks like an attempt by an unelected official to prejudice voters.

<comment><USER43> He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If there is a smoking gun in the newly discovered emails and he said nothing until after the election, he would be accused of manipulating it in that way.

<comment><USER42> That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that HRC (or Trump, for that matter) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As it currently stands, an indictment hasn't even been _recommended_.

Under such circumstances, the exposure of a _search_ for a smoking gun is suspect.

<comment><USER44> It's tough and I don't think it's so black and white, and ultimately depends on "exactly" what they found.

Waiting until _after_ seems wrong, and I say this as someone who as it stands is voting for HRC.

I honestly don't view this as influence, and more covering his ass, which has me nervous for HRC.

<comment><USER42> If we _knew_ what they found, then I would agree.

Unfortunately, all we _do_ know is that they _might_ have found _something_ that _might_ be important enough to warrant an investigation that _might_ result in an indictment recommendation, &c, &c. With this in mind, it's more than a little strange.

Unless I've misunderstood Comey's powers of discretion over FBI investigations (which is entirely possible), he has little to no need to "cover his ass."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Throughout this whole thing, I can't get past one thing - her using her own server was no big secret when it was happening.

<comment><USER46> Obama said otherwise. He said he learned about it in the news reports at the same time as everyone else.

<comment><USER47> Which some of these emails has revealed was bullshit

<comment><USER37> I believe you're referring to this: [https://wikileaks.org/podesta- emails/emailid/31077](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077)

Podesta is on record saying that "we need to clean this up" when this discrepancy surfaced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What I don't understand is how in the world does stuff like this happen (Private Email Server). Isn't there anyone handling security for these people? Just like the CIA assigns people to guard the President and the folks around him, why in the world are there not Cyber Security Experts over seeing communications and making sure that everything these folks do follows a certain protocol.

They are not allowed to drive cars and the CIA makes sure they don't. So why are they not monitored to make sure their communications are secure and there is no risk to the nations information.

</comment><comment><USER49> If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

Bite it US Gov

</comment><comment><USER50> Note that nowhere is the word "reopen" used in the original source materials.

</comment><comment><USER51> As a third-party voter I really don't want to get into a discussion about the major candidates.

But as a hacker I am interested in how the political system operates. So let's speculate that a candidate is elected to office and then is indicted on a felony. What happens? Obviously anybody can be elected president, so there's no legal problem. But Congress also is charged with certifying electors. Would they certify electors for a candidate that had legal issues? If they did, the candidate could just pardon themselves once in office.

It brings up some weird issues.

<comment><USER52> Interesting question regarding certifying electors. I sure don't know. Wouldn't be surprised if Trump supporting Representatives tries to hold up that process though, were HRC to be found guilty between winning and the certification. I can't imagine the timeline of a trial would allow that to happen though.

Regarding the self-pardoning, as discussed elsewhere, it wouldn't really matter, she could still be impeached. Impeachment is extra-judicial.

<comment><USER51> I believe what we're discovering is that once a major party picks you, you really can't be tried for any crime. You could be charged. If you lost the election you could be tried. But I'm not seeing how the state could effectively conduct a criminal court case of a major candidate.

This leads me to believe that Congress really has to decide. Beats me whether they should decide before or after the person is sworn in.

(Of course this is just speculating about a generic case.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Comey was legally obligated to tell Congress this as his office had told Congress that it was finished reviewing the evidence. In this election of course, Trump supporters will look at this as a sign of hillary's crookedness, and HRC supporters will look at this as a way to sway the election.

Also, the emails in question are not from Clinton and were never withheld in the original investigation. They appear to come from the devices of Anthony Weinar and his ex-wife.

Also, as more than one person has reported, the case was never closed.

</comment><comment><USER53> And absolutely nothing will come of it just like the first time around.

<comment><USER37> One can always hope, my friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I read the quotes from Comey, I would not characterize this as being reopened at all.

I am not sure why he did this, the timing is suspect.

Its pure speculation, but perhaps he is hedging his odds of keeping his job?

</comment><comment><USER47> This reminds me more and more of Julius Caesar and other Roman Republican officials having to stay on the treadmill of the _cursus honorum_ to maintain legal immunity and avoid corruption charges committed while in office.

</comment><comment><USER39> Oooh, so much last minute drama. Great for television.

<comment><USER55> I agree, season 58 is certainly a very entertaining one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Everyone shouting "lock her up" doesn't know exactly what they're "locking her up" for, except for something vaguely relate to emails and the fact they don't like her. Oh, also, they've already decided she's guilty of "emails." Either the FBI says "Clinton is guilty of emails" or the system is rigged.

<comment><USER57> Here are some potential charges I could imagine:

1\. She used her official position as Secretary of State representing the United States to solicit $150M++ of dollars in foreign donations for her personal 501c3.

Imagine how this worked. Picture the scene at a US Embassy social function in some small corrupt country: "Oh sure El Presidente, I'd be happy to look into what's holding up your USAID payments. Sayyy, Bill would love to come and deliver a speech for you. By the way, his going rate is $500,000."

Having our Secretary of State asking foreign dignitaries for payments on-the- side irreparably damages our country's reputation in the world. This is some of the most egregious and blatant corruption we have ever seen in a public official.

3\. She made copies of government information, which any reasonable person would agree qualifies as some level of classification, to a personal server in her home that was not authorized to store such information (and as a result the Russians stole it).

2\. She conducted government business using an unauthorized private server, and did so _specifically for the purpose_ of concealing her actions and correspondence from both internal and official oversight.

4\. She set up some type of shadow internal review process to squash entirely legitimate FOIA requests that might reflect poorly on her department or herself.

Routinely, little people are vigorously prosecuted for far, far less. America explicitly rejects having a double standard for royalty, why shouldn't she be subject to the same rules?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if there is a way to make this thread NOT be flagged to extinction. Perhaps talk only about the technicalities behind this, or compare to distant history.

</comment><comment><USER59> SHUT IT DOWN!

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm disappointed to see this sort of hysteria and conspiracy theorizing in a HN comment section.

<comment><USER61> "we need to clean this up" ~ Podesta

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta- emails/emailid/31077](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077)

<comment><USER62> Political people say "clean this up" about anything they don't want in the media. Anything. Everything.

(I know this because I over consume political news media and they have adopted it as a term; it's really horrifying, they talk about the campaigns attempting to manipulate them instead of doing real analysis)

<comment><USER61> I work in public policy. You realize what they said they had to clean up right? The president lied on television about his knowledge of the servers.

<comment><USER63> Or addresses are hidden in his email client and he didn't take the time to look.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's wrong with Angular.js - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@steida/whats-wrong-with-angular-js-97b0a787f903

<comment><USER2> I'm by no means an Angular fan (similar to the author I use Closure Tools and React where I can), and while I agree with some of Daniel's points, there are some untruths in that document:

"8\. Google does not use Angular in production for their flag apps like Gmail or Gplus."

Angular is newer than Closure, so this is to be expected. Google does however use Angular for certain newer web properties, e.g. the Google Developer Console (App Engine, Compute Engine etc.).

"9\. Vendor lock. And because Google does not use Angular in production, they can kill Angular anytime. You know that Google is still kind of agile company, not having a problem to kill any project despite it's used by milions people."

As mentioned in point 8 above, Google does use Angular, both in production and internally. Furthermore Angular is open source and has a thriving community - Google can't "kill" it in the way it could end-of-life Google Reader. Rather, there is also a precedent for the opposite - GWT. Google turned ownership of GWT over to a steering committee and is still heavily invested and a a major contributor.

</comment><comment><USER3> Everything is wrong with AngularJS. It's a horrible framework that should be banished to the hell from which it came. It makes absolutely everything more complicated and obscure that necessary. I can't stand it.

</comment><comment><USER4> While I won't say Angular has no issues or that these are all invalid arguments, I think this should start rather than end with the explanation that the author develops a rival framework.

</comment><comment> kuni-toko-tachi Angular is a bad framework, like GWT and JSF before it. Angular is the equivalent of SOAP, needlessly complicated and difficult to reason about. You can tell that Angular started out as a nifty two way binding novelty that grew into a framework and overstayed it's welcome. Most webapps do not need two way binding, and the page based metaphor, like REST, just works.</comment>


Reshma Saujani's Ambitious Plan for Technology - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/articles/reshma-saujanis-ambitious-plan-for-technology-1415237831?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Third

<comment><USER2> Putting the tech industry's supposedly benevolent motives aside for a just a moment, doesn't anybody else think they're just doing this to pay their workers less? Whether it is real or imagined, the people that run these corporations have the perception that they can pay females and minorities less than their white male counterparts. How else would they be able to support diversification of their workforce while simultaneously opposing equal pay? I think the recent spat with Satya Nadella illustrates this quite well.

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/10/microsoft-...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/10/microsoft- ceo-satya-nadella-women-dont-ask-for-a-raise)</comment>


The Problem of Design by Negation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nabble.com/the-problem-of-design-by-negation-td23645054.html

<comment><USER2> this can be accomplished with a simple blend. use negation to understand what is possible, which is quite large and still open ended, and drive your optimism/enthusiasm into there.

don't be silly and abandon negation. negation is the heart of why the sciences works, it is perhaps one of the most elegant and useful tools of mathematics, and I could add some interesting things about negation, Nietzsche and ontology, but decided to cut that out of this comment...

The most reliable way to the truth (essence, ontology) is by knowing what it is not. The most reliable way to understand the behavior of phenomena is by eliminating possibilities (theories) through contradiction against evidence (the sciences).

i like the author's enthusiasm, and it is well suited for within possibility, but if you take the good cheer of this posting to encourage yourself to have less 'you can't do thats' and more 'what can we do?' - you'll get a lot more hype than reality. negation is the way to the truth. within the truth, there are many possibilities.

if anything, negation helps make your creative explorations be more successful and more likely to lead into other true possibilities.

<comment><AUTHOR> > i like the author's enthusiasm

Who? There are mails from several authors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is so very true. I often hear developer friends rejecting every proposition that goes against their current plan with excuses such as 'I don't know how to do that', 'I don't think that's possible', etc. etc. While I appreciate the clarity of mind that this can provide and the fact that it can deliver from 'analysis paralysis' and seemingly infinite development routes, there has got to be an alternative...</comment>


How many lines of C++ does a minimal CRUD database application need? - <AUTHOR> Check this example; two lines for initialization, one line for each operation:

    obx::Store store(create_obx_model());
    obx::Box<Task> taskBox(store);

    obx_id id = box.put({.text = "Buy milk"});  // Create
    std::unique_ptr<Task> task = box.get(id);   // Read
    if (task) {
        task->text += " & some bread";
        box.put(*task);                         // Update
        ...
        box.remove(id);                         // Delete
    }
 Can it be done shorter than that?
PS.: the example shows user code only, there's a tool to generate boilerplate code, e.g. the Task struct and "binding" it to database. <comment><USER2> Here is an example from Wt's DBO tutorial: [https://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt/doc/tutorial/dbo.html](https://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt/doc/tutorial/dbo.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> As many as is required?

This just looks like a competition ...</comment>


Statistical and Machine Learning forecasting methods: Concerns and ways forward - <AUTHOR> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194889 <comment><AUTHOR> "After comparing the post-sample accuracy of popular ML methods with that of eight traditional statistical ones, we found that the former are dominated across both accuracy measures used and for all forecasting horizons examined. Moreover, we observed that their computational requirements are considerably greater than those of statistical methods. "</comment>


Ask HN: How would you solve the chicken and egg problem ( Dating Sites ) - <AUTHOR> I read this:
> 8. Dating. Current dating sites are not the last word. Better ones will appear. But anyone who wants to start a dating startup has to answer two questions: in addition to the usual question about how you're going to approach dating differently, you have to answer the even more important question of how to overcome the huge chicken and egg problem every dating site faces. A site like Reddit is interesting when there are only 20 users. But no one wants to use a dating site with only 20 users—which of course becomes a self-perpetuating problem. So if you want to do a dating startup, don't focus on the novel take on dating that you're going to offer. That's the easy half. Focus on novel ways to get around the chicken and egg problem.
http://old.ycombinator.com/ideas.html
I'm wondering, how would you approach this problem ? <comment><USER2> In other settings, chicken and egg problems are sometimes solved via backwards compatibility. So, in other words, if you already have a thing people go to, you build your other thing on top of that, basically.

From what I have read, clubs do "ladies night" because men are the ones who will show up anyway. It is the women you need to somehow get to show up. This seems to also be the case for dating. For example, women over a certain age do very poorly in most online dating sites. People are people, whether online or off. The same general trends that impact dating offline also influence dating online.

So, perhaps ask yourself why the women would want to show up? If you can answer that question, you may have an edge over other dating sites.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have spent a lot of time thinking about this very subject, and have in fact made a few small stabs at solving it.

Here's one way I think would work: Start as a matchmaking service. A severe, almost crippling problem that many dating sites have is that a great deal of the listings are, in one way or another, not in good faith: scammers, liars, fakes, people who are fantasizing about leaving their spouses but will never get up the nerve to do more than waste other people's time, etc. So you can start as a participant on one of those sites, and get yourself a list of contacts, and start vetting them for sincerity. It would help a lot if you can take a "boots on the ground" approach. For example, if the site is for American dudes to hook up with Chinese women, then you should hire an assistant in a major Chinese city who can interview the women in person.

Eventually, you'll have a deep enough bench that you can open up the site to more traditional participants.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hide one side of the market by "intelligently matching users"; users will assume they are in a large marketplace without actually seeing the other side. Additionally, "intelligent matching" can be marketed as a benefit to the user so they don't have to waste time searching on their own.

</comment><comment><USER5> Dating and job sites have built-in churn.

If you do it well, you loose clients. If you do it bad, they won't show.

Don't make a dating app. Make an app with a twist, that helps people go on a date... Maybe in special places like cruises, vacation, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> Could you start with an existing community? I don't know if it's an online fan forum or a Christian singles site -- but there might be some way to jumpstart your initial user base. (Choose wisely...)

The other obvious idea is promotion. (This obviously works better if you have some capital.) Maybe flood a college campus with incentives and "free trial" offers. Or host a swanky event which can only be attended by people using your dating site.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are some good points, especially the flooding method.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not joking here, genetic testing.

It's a niche. The allure of genetic compatibility might be overwhelming when we consider that the basic purpose of all our emotions and behaviours around dating and sex is reproduction, which is driven by genetics.

A community of people who want to have kids ( people who are feeling the urge to reproduce ), further reduced to the niche of those such people who are interested to applying genetic testing and compatibility to assessing matches ( in some suitable legal way that doesn't introduce liabilities for participants in terms of insurance or employment ).

An aggressive marketing technique could be that _not_ genetically matching up is introducing a liability.

A "lite" version of this could attempt to sidestep some of the legal, ethical or censorious issues around genetics, but still benefit from it, by using "odour" matching. Body odour, reflects immune system markers, which reflect genetics, and is a real way that people subconsciously assess mate fitness.

I think anything you do to move into the dating space at this time must include science based signals to some extent. The reason is because there is so much untapped potential of applying science to matching, and it's likely going to be an increasing trend ( consider, IMHO, the super cautious, more evidence based, less authority based, natures of Millenials in general for an idea ) in the future.

Another riff on using science could be to offer to pair people up randomly for 10 minute conversations in front of a video recorder, and apply some kind of microexpression tagging and analysis, to try to predict if these people are emotionally compatible. I'm specifically thinking of the assessments used by Dr John Gottman ([https://www.gottman.com/about/research/couples/](https://www.gottman.com/about/research/couples/)).

<comment><USER8> Since we're all part of the same species, we're all genetically compatible when it comes to reproduction! But most people care about other kinds of compatibility, too. It's hard to see how genetic testing would let you find people who are emotionally, intellectually or romantically compatible.

<comment><USER7> This is a valid perspective and it misses much of the picture of genetics, and what makes people feel attracted to each other.

It's very possible that awareness of genetic influence on attraction and relationships, and the potential it has to improve our understanding and choices, is not widely known, so it's worth saying something more about it.

It's true that speciation is a necessary condition of mating usually, but it's not sufficient for getting the best genetic outcome for conception and offspring, and more importantly, attraction is not just about mating. So being from the same species is not enough to have good relationships, genetic compatibility goes far deeper than that.

Our genetic profiles underly much of our individual traits and therefore determine what traits of others we are attracted to and compatible with. Genetics affects attraction in a multidimensional, multiscale way, from subliminally assessing someone's biology from their smell, through how people handle stress in their lives, to determining lifestyle preference, and even to the type of emotional reactions people feel and express when they're fighting, and better or worse compatibility across the genetic spectrum can strengthen or weaken not just the long-term relationship potential but the intensity of the attractiveness.

Relationships reflect who you are, and genetics is a strong signal of who you are. Someone who can factor genetics into their relationship choices is going to be better positioned to create positive relationship outcomes for themselves then someone who is unable to factor genetics in. So in this way a business based on genetic compatibility matching he's giving people a "sixth sense", a kind of superpower to increase their happiness in the world. It doesn't even have to be about changing your choices, you can just be giving you another signal so that you know how better to manage the genetic situation in front of you.

There's useful models of attraction that include a whole range of genetic variables, and evidence that people feel attracted to people whose genetics match their own.

Things like immune system compatibility, and avoiding genes that would produce less fit offspring, all factor into humans biological, subconscious signaling about attraction. A lot of that is based on our bodies doing spectrometry on the chemicals other bodies emit: odor and smell.

But this natural system has room for improvement. People still naturally choose mates with whom they end up incompatible, can't conceive, or inadvertently activate latent generic disease in their offspring with two copies of the carrier gene.

Strengthening the genetic basis of attraction by giving people a "sixth sense", in the form of a matching service backed by genetic science, would positively contribute all aspects of attraction, by giving you a choice of partners you are more likely to be compatible with emotionally, intellectually, romantically over the long term based on who their genetics say they are.

It's not for everyone. Even tho our bodies genetically profile the people we meet, purple understandably have a great fear of this being systematic because independent systematic systems can be abused.

The tl;dr is genetics underly many personality traits, emotional reactions and character as well as biology. Training models on genetic compatibility of successful relationships and using that predictively has potential to improve relationships, not just reproduction.

Even when you take reproduction out of the equation, improving the clarity of genetic signaling, can boost awareness of signals of attractiveness, and of long term, identity based qualities you are looking for in a partner, that can work for homosexual relationships too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Help people. Make real life dating easier in your area. Solve local, think global.

</comment><comment><USER10> Local. It doesn't matter how many people are on a dating site, all anyone cares about is how many are in their local pool.

The way to do this is study how nightclubs are built. This approach does take money though.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is great, thanks for the eye opening suggestion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Paid traffic, affiliates, locality, promotions for users

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you know a service that sells traffic ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> its not true that i wouldnt want to use a dating site with only 20 users, if those twenty users were all relevant. give me 20 really great potential partners and im set for life ten times over.

i dont want to use a dating site with only 20 profiles that im not interested in, but i dont want to use a dating site with 2 million uninteresting profiles either.

its a common misconception that there needs to be quantity. give me 3, or really just 1, thing that i really want, and ill use your product.

how do you solve that? provide what im looking for. chicken and egg in dating is apocryphal.

same with job sites or freelance sites btw. im a member in 3 highly curated, high-end contractor "marketplaces". at any given time, they usually only feature 3-4 active open projects. but each of them is really desirable. i visit them every day. those are amazing lifestyle businesses for the operators and enable me to run my own amazing lifestyle business.

a dating site certainly doesnt need quantity. it needs quality. the problem in dating is that for the general population, quality is just about average (by definition) - and we all want to do better than average. id say that in dating, youd do a lot better if you ran an actual curated list - and then charge a lot of money. id probably pay for that if i was still looking.

the problem in dating is that a dating site is really just a site where people who are boring in real life try to fake being slightly less boring on the internet. finding interesting people is what makes dating difficult. not finding people per se. unless you are socially awkward, you can just step outside and find people. they are everywhere. screening for quality (or really just relevance) is the bottleneck. i cant have 1000 engaging 30 minute conversations with potential mates per day, or even per month, to screen for what i want out of a longterm relationship, due to time constraints.

the other problem is that so far, there is no gauge for "relevance" in dating. most people dont even know what theyd find attractive. they cant verbalize is, and when they can, its often a lie that they, or the media, convinced themselves of. solve those problems. not the "chicken and egg" one.

i can tell you how to find the "girls who really just want to be loved". but you need an open mind and get rid of all the political correctness first, and im certainly not going to post that in a public place, because its just going to incite hate.

edit: to make this more clear: the solution to dating is not a marketplace. the perfect "marketplace" for dating is a club, or more generally, the real world. thats the quintessential example of something where technology makes the task harder rather than easier. if you want to "solve dating", you need to do the opposite of a marketplace. funnel quality leads. and start with some nonobvious group of people. its easy to find hot young women. it may not be easy to approach them or whatever, because society, but its easy to find them. start with an obscure set of potential couples, like: "guys who like obese women and obese women". those people exist. they are socially marginalized for various reasons and they are probably both at least somewhat desperate. find leads for those guys. i mean, you should really be solving the obesity issue here, but if you want to do dating, do the dating first. once youve "conquered that market", try to figure out how to extrapolate your processes to bigger sets of groups of users.</comment>


MIDI.js: A SoundFont-based MIDI Sequencer in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://badassjs.com/post/40190128792/midi-js-a-soundfont-based-midi-sequencer-in-javascript

<comment><USER2> That is very slick, time to convert several CDs to midi and see how it deals with non-classical music (Or may I'll just break out the years of midi tracks from music I've transcribed)

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool! Is it just me, or has the web kind of gone full circle?

<comment><USER4> We just need a new JavaScript library for adding animated "under construction" icons.</comment></comment>


Most Americans see catastrophic weather events worsening - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/most-americans-see-catastrophic-weather-events-worsening/ <comment><USER2> They may be right, but likely not for the right reasons. People also consistently think crime is getting worse even when it's getting better.

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/16/voters- perc...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/16/voters-perceptions- of-crime-continue-to-conflict-with-reality/)

<comment><USER3> Crime often _is_ getting worse while statistics saying the contrary are cherry-picked or plain lies.

There have been numerous reports of police departments changing their reporting and classification of crimes as their regions came under scrutiny for crime rates.

Furthermore, sometimes the crime rate per capita goes down but the population size increases more than enough to make up for it. What you see on the news and the streets is absolute crime numbers, not how much of it exists per person in a given region.

<comment><USER4> No, what you see on the news is whatever sells news. If murder is commonplace, then it's not news. If murder is rare, each event becomes a media storm.

Read _The Better Angels of our Nature_ by Steven Pinker. Violence has consistently been on a long downward trend. There may be spikes localized by time or space, but it's doubtful we are reversing the trend on any long timescale or large area.

Police can change some classifications here or there, but it's kind of hard to reclassify homicides.

<comment><USER5> Exactly. 561 people were murdered in Chicago in 2018, 337 people were killed in mass shootings across the entire United States. The media unsurprisingly focuses on the mass shootings because they are unexpected and rare.

<comment><USER6> The mass shootings are terrorism which are designed to terrorize as many people as possible, and it works. The homicide rate in Chicago is largely confined to south Chicago and it has been about the same for years, so it's not very terrorizing.

<comment><USER7> South and West Chicago (see HeyJackass.com), and it's _very_ terrorizing, just not to white people. I live in Oak Park, just across the street from Austin. Oak Park is upper-income and heavily college educated, and hosts one of the best school districts in the area. Austin is solidly African American (due to historical redlining), has touch-and-go spots w/r/t poverty, sharply more crime, but also a sizable portion of middle class black families.

White kids in Oak Park have almost nothing to fear from Chicago gang violence.

The same is not true of black kids in Oak Park --- and we're well integrated --- and _extremely_ not true of black kids in Austin. Kids in Oak Park have, for obvious geographical reasons, friends in Austin and vice versa. Oak Park kids have been shot and killed in parks across the street from Oak Park.

It is a huge problem, and one that is easy for policy-types to overlook and downplay because it isn't a problem for white people.

<comment><USER5> Sad but true. I live in northern Chicago and had to double check the murder rate because it doesn't fit my experience at all. It's easy to ignore a problem if it only has a small chance of affecting you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The stratifications on this are troubling.

> _But there are wide differences in assessments by partisanship. Nine in 10 > Democrats think weather disasters are more extreme, compared with about half > of Republicans._

It's not a partisan issue: we all pay these costs.

> _Majorities of adults across demographic groups think weather disasters are > getting more severe, according to the poll. College-educated Americans are > slightly more likely than those without a degree to say so, 79 percent > versus 69 percent._

Weather disasters _are_ getting more severe. It is objectively, quantitatively true that weather disasters are getting more frequent and more severe.

<comment><USER4> > Weather disasters are getting more severe. It is objectively, quantitatively > true that weather disasters are getting more frequent and more severe.

Source? What definitions are being used for severity? How is the sample of events selected? Is there a statistically-significant effect or might it be random variation?

<comment><USER8> > _Source? What definitions are being used for severity? How is the sample of > events selected? Is there a statistically-significant effect or might it be > random variation?_

These are great questions that any good skeptic / data scientist should always be asking. Here are some summary opinions based upon meta analyses with varyingly stringent inclusion criteria.

( I had hoped that the other top-level post I posted here would develop into a discussion, but these excerpts seem to have bubbled up. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20919368](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20919368) )

"Scientific consensus on climate change" lists concurring, _non-commital_ , and opposing groups of persons with and without conflicting interests: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change)

USGCRP, "2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I" [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

"Chapter 8: Droughts, Floods, and Wildfire" [https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/)

"Chapter 9: Extreme Storms" [https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/)

"Appendix A: Observational Datasets Used in Climate Studies" [https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/appendix-a/](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/appendix-a/)

The key findings in this report do list supporting evidence and degrees of confidence in predictions about the frequency and severity of severe weather events.

I'll now proceed to support the challenged claim that disaster severity and frequency are increasing by citing disaster relief cost charts which do not directly support the claim. Unlike your typical televised debate or congressional session, I have: visual aids, a computer, linked to the sources I've referenced. Finding the datasets ( [https://schema.org/Dataset](https://schema.org/Dataset) ) for these charts may be something that someone has time for while the costs to taxpayers and insurance holders are certainly increasing for a number of reasons.

"Taxpayer spending on U.S. disaster fund explodes amid climate change, population trends" (2019) has a nice chart displaying "Disaster-relief appropriations, 10-year rolling median" [https://www.washingtonpost.com/us- policy/2019/04/22/taxpayer...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us- policy/2019/04/22/taxpayer-spending-us-disaster-fund-explodes-amid-climate- change-population-trends/)

"2018's Billion Dollar Disasters in Context" includes a chart from NOAA: "Billion-Dollar Disaster Event Types by Year (CPI-Adjusted)" with the title embedded in the image text - which I searched for - and eventually found the source of: [1] [https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond- data/2018...](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond- data/2018s-billion-dollar-disasters-context)

[1] "Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Time Series" (1980-2019) [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time- series](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time-series)

<comment><USER4> Thank you!

It seems these data are mostly counted in dollars of damage or dollars of relief, which is a proxy for the severity.

Would it be correct to say there is still some question about whether dollars are a good measure of severity?

EDIT: As I am browsing the data, it's hard to disentangle actual weather events from things like lava, fires, unsound building decisions, and just the politics of money moving around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do people feel a change or observe a change? People aren't logical and are easily lead. Looking at why people perceive something can be insightful.

For example, in the Atlantic basin there has been a bunch of work to try to measure hurricane changes. See [https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and- hurricanes/](https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/). So far, the impact has been minimal (small increases in rain amounts).

Do we build more in the hurricane zones? Is more talk on it leading people to feel things are worse? Are they worse and if so what measurements show it? Are more people impacted because of population growth?

<comment><USER10> _Do people feel a change or observe a change?_

I'm inclined to put down chips on the former; I often see and participate in conversations about local weather and often people making the conflation that a one off weather event == climate. The two are linked, but I've always understood the difference to be that climate = (weatherevent() x time) where time is usually on the scale of _years_ ; that it's much harder to fully assess climate by remarking on a couple days of severe thunderstorms.

Opening myself up to correction here

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is there any explaination for the severe weather in the 1930's?

From Wikipedia: >> Only in six seasons—1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, 2007 and 2017—has more than one Category 5 hurricane formed.

Assuming global warming is to blame for the last 20 years.

<comment><USER9> If you take a look at the studies you'll find old data has issues because of changes in how hurricanes were measured. Hurricanes are now monitored by satellites. Many of them are short lived and never seen by a ship or other system that would record it. Data collection prior to satellites would not have observed these.

A good resource can be found at [https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and- hurricanes/](https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/). They talk about normalizing the data and look at the impact of global warming on hurricanes. Numerous studies are quoted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are more people on Earth than ever before. There is more media on Earth than ever before.

Because of the fact there are more people, there are many more developments. Places that were uninhabited now have large communities, infrastructure, etc. Weather that occurs in these places is going to create more damage than before. There is now more media to report on it.

So, yes perhaps there are more catastrophic weather events than before. Is climate change the reason for this? Or are there simply more things to be destroyed by weather than ever before? A combination of this?

</comment><comment><USER13> I talked to a climate scientist about hurricanes a few years ago. He said that while the frequency of hurricanes is probably not increasing (forming a hurricane is a tricky thing) there is some evidence that they are becoming more intense (there's more heat energy to increase speeds).

[https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and- hurricanes/](https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/)

</comment><comment><USER8> How about a link to a chart indicating frequency and severity of severe weather events?

The Paris Agreement is predicated upon the link between human actions, climate change, and severe weather events. 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement with consensus that what we're doing is causing climate change.

Here are some climate-relevant poll questions:

Do you think the costs of disaster relief will continue to increase due to frequency and severity of severe weather events?

Does it make sense to spend more on avoiding further climate change now rather than even more on disaster relief later?

How can you help climate refugees? Do you donate to DoD and National Guards? Do you donate to NGOs? How can we get better at handling more frequent and more severe disasters?

</comment><comment><USER14> americans are generally a hyper-sensationalized people.

</comment><comment><USER15> Whether or not it's factually true, this is good news.

</comment><comment><USER16> 1 in 4 Americans think the sun orbits the earth. More Americans can identify the Three Stooges than the three branches of government. Almost half of Americans don't believe in evolution.

What most Americans believe doesn't hold much weight.

<comment><USER17> I absolutely agree. If you look at Atlantic hurricane statistics reaching back to the 1920s it's apparent that hurricanes aren't actually becoming more frequent or more intense. This headline sounds like the NYPost suggesting falsehoods to support a narrative and offloading responsibility for those falsehoods onto a vague "majority of Americans".

<comment><USER18> Most Americans probably think news quality is getting worse.</comment></comment></comment>


A Woman Spent 10 Years Collecting the Creepy Messages She's Received Online - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/a-woman-collected-the-online-harassment-shes-received-in-the <comment><USER2> "She added: "I've also had a lot of terrified men message me things along the lines of, 'Hey, I think I may have written you something sort of weird seven years ago. I'm really sorry about that.' They're scared I'm going to post their old messages.""

This is the biggest takeaway from the article for me, because it implies that HN user corysama's prediction that attaching a small amount of risk to the activity will have a significant impact on its incidence is essentially correct:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9836242](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9836242)</comment>


Cambridge research team estimates 12% of England has been infected already - <AUTHOR> https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/ <comment><AUTHOR> Other highlights:

Death rate for under-45 is under 0.024%

Look at the "Deaths incidence" tab of the graphs at the bottom to see actual deaths with the curve-fit model.

EDIT: Meant to include in my initial "highlights" comment:

Estimated "peak" daily infections was 23 March, with 500k infections. Estimate for daily infections as of 10 May closer to 10k; estimated country-wide Rt at 0.75, still well below 1.

Bonus highlights: Method seems to be from this 2009 paper, "Bayesian modeling to unmask and predict influenza A/H1N1pdm dynamics in London":

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215054/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215054/)

Not equipped to evaluate their method, really; but if it's reasonably accurate, then the UK is not currently really headed towards "natural herd immunity".

<comment><USER2> 0.024% is 9,100 people.

[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/august2019)

Figure 8 you can highlight the age group (0-45) and get a summary figure: 37,980,275 people aged 45 or less * 0.00024 = ~9,100

I'm not sure I call something like 10,000 dead a highlight.

<comment><USER3> > I'm not sure I call something like 10,000 dead a highlight.

Not on an individual level of course, but on a population scale, it can be. That level would be comparable with driving, with the flu and so on _for that demographic_.

The world will never be risk-free, and "exceeds expectations" can be a highlight even if the expectations were low.

<comment><USER2> The 10,000 are likely to be mostly additional deaths, over and above driving casualties, 'flu sufferers etc.

We are already getting "additional death" scores here which is a sort of measure by proxy of the effect of SARS-CoV-2. There is a standard way of counting this, at least across Europe (and pre-Brexit UK!) There is of course a fair amount of variation but having COVID-19 is something to avoid if you can.

It is going to take some really funky stats to work out the real effect because there is less 'flu already in say Aus due to less travel and N hemisphere residents bringing it down south as they head into autumn/winter. Air quality is up nearly everywhere so COPD might be mitigated somewhat. Less road travel means less accidents. However suicides might be up and at least here in the UK there is a fairly well documented lack of people going to A&E (ER) when they should out, of fear or being stoic. Many other treatments have been put on hold.

SARS-CoV-2 has turned the world upside down. I do look for bright sides eg the huge social WFH experiment seems to be a huge success and opportunity. However, additional people are dying in rather unpleasant ways that they would not have done less than six months ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks optimistic when large scale serological testing in Spain, which has a higher per capita death rate[1] suggest prevalence under 5%, and under 12% in the epicentre of the disease in Madrid.

[1]yes, caveats apply

<comment><USER5> Yes, it would be one thing if this was an antibody/serotological testing result and we could add it to the mix of similar studies, like the ones suggesting ~1.1% rate in Spain (with 5% infected) or ~0.8-1.0% rate in NYC (with 25% infected). But this is not empirical data; it's pure modeling.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's worth pointing out that the _overall_ IFR is estimated at between 0.49% and 0.83%, with 0.63% being the median. That's only a bit lower than your NYC quote, and still about twice the IFR from the study from Germany (0.34%).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is interesting ...

The positive rate for those tested in the Bay Area started at 10% 2 months ago, but new test in past week are under 2%:

[https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#ca...](https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#cases)

<comment><USER7> Without having a source to back it up, I'm guessing that a month ago tests were more scarce. So you had to have a strong clinical indication to get tested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As evidenced in this epidemic, epidemiological modeling is either not very good or overconfident. I mean, all models are wrong, but theirs have also been useless. Why trust a model if you can do a serology study instead?

<comment><USER9> > Why trust a model if you can do a serology study instead?

Because studies require a lot more time and money, while a model is just on a computer and can be constantly and quickly updated as things change?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds more plausible than the 50% estimate put out _two months ago_ by Oxford.

</comment><comment><USER11> It would be really cool if we could confirm some of these estimates. Like maybe if we used tests? The government could run a program to test people. Then they'd know. And they wouldn't need to keep guessing. It wouldn't even need to be everyone, just an appropriate sample.

Nah, fuck it, let's just keep testing MPs and guessing about what to do next.

</comment><comment><USER12> Currently around 500 deaths/ million. If you need ~60% for "herd immunity", that implies they'd get around 2500/1m, or 0.25% of the population. Pretty gruesome.

<comment><USER13> Their normal death rate is ~1%, right? Are we sure that there would be little to no overlap between these groups and they'd end up with a death rate of 1.25%?

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a _ton_ of information to poke around at the link; but here's their [EDIT] median estimated IFR by age range:

15-24: 0.0032%

25-44: 0.018%

45-64: 0.28%

65-74: 1.8%

75+: 16%

The last one looks similar to the _measured_ death rates by age group in Germany -- i.e., the COVID-19 deaths of 80+ in Germany divided by people _tested positive_ in Germany was around 18% when I looked before, IIRC.

So nearly the entirety of the "1-3% fatality" comes from the fact that it's so incredibly deadly to the elderly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shame we can't prove it until they start randomised testing.

<comment><USER15> I was part of a randomised testing survey in Oxfordshire which involved an antibody serology test and swab tests. Hopefully the results come out soon (I took part last week).</comment></comment>


San Diego: join us for SD Hacker News meetup #36 (Fri 12/28) - <AUTHOR> http://anyvite.com/nfa3mjnf9f

<comment><USER2> How is this insignificant self-promotional event frontpage-worthy?</comment>


Composing a message that can be understood by aliens is difficult - <AUTHOR> http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/speaking-extraterrestrials-180953489/

<comment><USER2> They are just not being creative enough. A raw text message would obviously not be enough, but why not video or pictures? What about computer programs?

<comment><USER3> A neural network that takes all conceivable input (electromagnetic spectrum, sound, temperature changes, etc) and then performs the same algorithm google translate uses to communicate a message.

The question would then be, "what input definitely comes from alien intelligence and which is just noise?" so that we can train the NN properly.

Edit: I have no knowledge of NN whatsoever. Just a thought.

<comment><USER2> Google translate has huge amounts of training data. I'm not really sure what you are suggesting.</comment></comment></comment>


FTC says Uber took a wrong turn with misleading privacy, security promises - <AUTHOR> https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/08/ftc-says-uber-took-wrong-turn-misleading-privacy-security <comment><USER2> This isn't an uber problem - it's a startup tech problem - no one wants to take security seriously because it's a cost sink that only averts risk, does not actually make a company revenue. I have seen ssn's store insecurely, open api's with customer data, old frameworks and languages that no longer receive security patches. Nearly every startup says they take security seriously, because that's the right answer to say, but very very very few actually do. This is just another minor blip in the otherwise very large system of data available everywhere. Your data is not safe, trust me on that.

<comment><USER3> I've done InfoSec for a bunch of startups, none seem to grasp the importance of security by design and how it can play an integral role in the business. It's exhausting to have to battle a neon-haired developer that wants to just write code (rightfully so,) not following a process or standards often engaging in arguments just to be right. Imagine one person going asking an entire engineering org to create security priorities until business gets a hold of those and comes back to yell at you for delaying sprints, yep, that's InfoSec for you. Also, any business that says "We take security seriously" isn't. That's a boilerplate they plucked out of the legalese to CYA.

<comment><USER4> I certainly agree with your comment, since it reflects my experience in a lot of cases. But

      "We take security seriously"

Why would such a statement legally cover your ass? From a legal perspective it sounds as dubious as warnings on a Truck "Stay back 10 metres. Truck is not responsible for damage"

<comment><USER3> I can't disagree. However, it doesn't deter businesses from using it as it demonstrates intent to maintain certain security posture, regardless of how ill-conceived that posture might be. That said, the statement is touchy feely, and will more than likely not hold true in the court of law when pressure tested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It may be a good idea to not pull such a shitty in an EU country from May 2018.

According to the General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679). Appart from regular audits you may run into the following consequences :

a fine up to 20000000 EUR or up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater (Article 83, Paragraph 5 & 6[18]).

Ask companies like Microsoft, Volkswagen, Renault, Daimler or Google and they can you assure you that the responible entities don't look kindly at corporate bullshit PR statements, which the likes of Uber seem so fond of.

<comment><USER5> The GDPR is going to be a big blow for the European tech startup scene. For companies in the US, they can just enter Europe once they've addressed its requirements. European companies on the other hand need to implement it from day one.

The fine is interesting because it is easy to minimize by creating a subsidiary per country. That very effectively shields annual worldwide turnover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The craziest part to me:

"As a result of the failures described in Paragraph 18, on or about May 12, 2014, an intruder was able to access consumers' personal information in plain text in Respondent's Amazon S3 Datastore using an access key that one of Respondent's engineers had publicly posted to GitHub, a code-sharing website used by software developers. The publicly posted key granted full administrative privileges to all data and documents stored within Respondent's Amazon S3 Datastore."

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_ube...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_uber_technologies_complaint.pdf) Page 5

</comment><comment><USER7> From the article:

 _For a particular six-month period, Uber only monitored access to the account information of a select group. Who? Certain high-profile users, including Uber executives._

 _What was the upshot? In May 2014, an intruder used an access key an Uber engineer had publicly posted on a code-sharing site to access the names and driver's license numbers of 100,000 Uber drivers, as well as some bank account information and Social Security numbers. The FTC says Uber didn't discover the breach for almost four months._

 _The proposed settlement prohibits Uber from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices. It also requires Uber to put a comprehensive privacy program in place and to get independent third-party audits every two years for the next 20 years. You can file a public comment about the settlement until September 15, 2017._

The complaint: [https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases- proceedings/152-3054/u...](https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases- proceedings/152-3054/uber-technologies-inc)

Links from complaint:

 _Agreement Containing Consent Order (19.87 KB)_ [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_ube...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_uber_technologies_agreement.pdf)

 _Decision and Order (57.66 KB)_ [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_ube...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_uber_technologies_decision_and_order.pdf)

 _Complaint (35.88 KB)_ [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_ube...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_uber_technologies_complaint.pdf)

 _Complaint Exhibits A and B (1.2 MB)_ [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_ube...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_uber_technologies_complaint_exhibits_a-b.pdf)

 _Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment (56.14 KB)_ [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_ube...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1523054_uber_technologies_analysis.pdf)

Press release: _Uber Settles FTC Allegations that It Made Deceptive Privacy and Data Security Claims_ [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- releases/2017/08/uber-...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- releases/2017/08/uber-settles-ftc-allegations-it-made-deceptive-privacy-data)

Settlement agreement quote:

 _Under its agreement with the Commission, Uber is:_

 _prohibited from misrepresenting how it monitors internal access to consumers' personal information;_

 _prohibited from misrepresenting how it protects and secures that data;_

 _required to implement a comprehensive privacy program that addresses privacy risks related to new and existing products and services and protects the privacy and confidentiality of personal information collected by the company; and_

 _required to obtain within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order._

<comment><USER8> > prohibited from misrepresenting how it monitors internal access to > consumers' personal information;

I don't understand why one would need an agreement between Uber and the FTC explicitly mentioning this. Is it not illegal if a company misrepresents its compliance to the regulator?

> required to implement a comprehensive privacy program … > required to obtain > within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, > independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in > place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order

This is worth noting, it clearly alludes to a need for "privacy champion" (or "privacy engineer/compliance officer/deputy CIO") for any business that deals with sensitive (to regulatory compliance) personal information. It's not enough to write a token "/about/privacy.html" and relegate any and all of the system requirements that arise due to regulatory compliance.

I hope other startups take note of this, and plan to allocate resources to this in their roadmap. I don't care when exactly you plan to do it - make sure it's there in your TODO list of things before the regulator comes knocking on your doors.

Also, I was unable to find any number or estimate of cost of compliance mentioned in the settlement. I would really prefer when a government agency agrees to settle with a business they make it public how much the business was fined as well as the future cost of compliance. This information would hopefully make it clear to future businesses to take privacy issues seriously.

<comment><USER9> > I don't understand why one would need an agreement between Uber and the FTC > explicitly mentioning this. Is it not illegal if a company misrepresents its > compliance to the regulator?

Breach of a consent order is a fast track into the court supervising the order, and the terms are usually more specific (and thus easier to demonstrate) than the underlying law, and violating the consent order can risk basically reopening the original litigation with it full potential consequences (not just those for the narrow violation the provision of the order at issue would involve under the bare law), so often consent orders will have restrictions that are special cases of restrictions that already exist in law.

<comment><USER10> Right, this is completely about keeping it within the continuing jurisdiction of the court

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just enough example of how truly awful Uber is.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the most successful company YC has rejected? - <AUTHOR>

Have there been any large, successful companies that applied to YC and were rejected? <comment><USER2> Technically speaking, Dropbox at one point was also a YC reject.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe SendGird

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds like you might be right:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rVpAKziQJA&t=44m20s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rVpAKziQJA&t=44m20s)</comment></comment>