Smartphones Are Used To Stalk, Control Domestic Abuse Victims - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/15/346149979/smartphones-are-used-to-stalk-control-domestic-abuse-victims <comment><USER3> > _It 's About Power, Not Just Privacy_

Surveillance is never just about privacy. It has always been, still is, and always will be about power. It doesn't matter whether it's Big Bro or your ex- boyfriend who is surveilling you. They have exactly as much power over you as they know about your life.

Equality of power is only possible when all parties know roughly the same amount about one another.

<comment><USER4> I listened to this on air today. Man was it disheartening. These conpanies make you check a box that says "I won't use this for domestic spying", I think thats it. Above it is noted some mods are required, but a controlling person can easily gain access to the phone. Physical security is a major flaw, especially for someone you trust. You can turn on the microphone, listen in on calls, block people from calling the phone, and even download an manage the stolen ip on a handy dashboard. Pretty appalling.

<comment><USER5> Physical access to anything pretty much means game over, at least for consumer electronics. Thats one of the prices we pay for convenience and useful features. I wonder if it can be changed?

<comment><USER6> Chromebooks are relatively hard to get control off. Physical access makes it possible, of course, but you still need to do more than just install an app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was sitting in a cafe in Ogilive Station in Chicago a few months ago, and one of the guys at an adjacent table was telling a story. His girlfriend left, took the kids, and didn't tell him where they had gone.

But, he says triumphantly, "the bitch forgot I work for AT&T."

He the describes, with pride, the look on her face as he showed up at her new house.

Disgusting.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't AT&T have any privacy safeguards?

(I just started working at Google, and getting at any user data, eg for debugging of a complicated problem, is the single biggest pile of paperwork they make you do. Even anonymized logs.)

<comment><USER8> Not the OP, and it's not about AT&T, but I once knew a HR person who worked for a big and world-renowned telecom company in my (East-European) country. At some point she started to suspect her then-boyfriend of cheating on her, and to convince herself she "nicely asked" one of her IT colleagues at her job to look through the SMS messages of her boyfriend stored in the company's systems (because, presumably, she couldn't lay her hands on her boyfriend's phone directly). Said IT guy did just that, i.e. informed my former acquaintance of the SMS messages on her boyfriend's phone.

<comment><USER9> I...I would have thought that this would be an obviously unethical request to comply with.

<comment><USER10> Ethics obviously don't apply when a friend asks nicely...

<comment><USER11> In this case I took "nicely asked" to mean she offered him some sort of sexual favor (since paganel put it in quotes).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> BetaBoston had a related story looking at technical assistance to victims of domestic abuse. [http://betaboston.com/news/2014/05/07/as-domestic-abuse- goes...](http://betaboston.com/news/2014/05/07/as-domestic-abuse-goes-digital- shelters-turn-to-counter-surveillance-with-tor/) I think this link has been posted on HN previously but I can't find it. Apologies for not crediting the person who posted it.

<comment><USER13> This is one of the most powerful examples I like to use when defending the importance of online privacy and anonymity. Victims of domestic abuse have just as much right to use the internet as anyone else, and their _lives could be in danger_ if their privacy/security is compromised.

<comment><USER14> I wish this comment was higher up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's interesting that spying on a spouse is considered abuse but doing the same thing to children is not. My ex-wife and her boyfriend would do this to my teenage sons - track them with the GPS on their phones, block phone use for most of the day, record and read all messages they sent and received on their computer to a thumb drive. Maybe I'd get it if there was a problem - <USER2> caught them with drugs or thought they were sneaking out - but these kids stayed out of trouble and got good grades. I don't know where I'm going with this... Oh yeah. My ex-wife is a nasty, brutish, turd of a person.

<comment><USER16> > _Maybe I 'd get it if there was a problem - you caught them with drugs or > thought they were sneaking out - but these kids stayed out of trouble and > got good grades. _

The paranoid in me wonders if they had a second set of "clean" phones that they could use to arrange their mischief.

The not-yet-a-parent in me hopes that they did, especially since they seemed to be doing fine otherwise.

<comment><USER17> More likely they'll be passed out on their dorm floor within 15 minutes of arriving at college. I met a lot of people in undergrad with overbearing parents who partied way too hard - some of whom failed out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> mSpy[0] is the software that is featured in this story. For iOS, jailbreaking is required. For Android, some features (Instant messenger tracking and Keylogging) require rooting the phone.

Also, Windows phones are not supported yet, so go for one of those if you happen to have a psychotic partner.

[0] [http://www.mspy.com/compatibility.html](http://www.mspy.com/compatibility.html)

<comment><USER19> Yet another reason not to jailbreak.

<comment><USER20> Assuming your device is jailbreakable, the problem is that your phone is vulnerable to jailbreaking, whether you've decided to jailbreak it or not. In the relevant scenario (the one described in the article, with "a few minutes alone with the smartphone of the person being stalked" and the passcode), if the victim hasn't already chosen to jailbreak the phone, the stalker can easily jailbreak it and install the spyware.

<comment><USER21> Jailbreak, patch the vulns that made it jailbreakable, then re-secure it. Most people vulnerable to this could not do that, though.

<comment><USER21> Downvotes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As it happens, I've had direct personal experience with the shelter organization named in this article.

Several years ago I met a woman, through a friend. We ended up married not too long after.

Just over a month into that, she was acting increasingly erratically, creating fights, attacking me, and disappeared one day with no information as to where she'd gone or why. Turns out she'd gone to a shelter, Next Door. She contacted me (via phone and email from there.

It turns out there's a provision of immigration law, called an I-360 petition, that's part of the Violence Against Women Act (though both the act and petition apply to all genders) in which an abused spouse of a permanent resident can claim citizenship status. The claims of the alleged victim are taken prima facie (on their face) to be true. It's quite the law.

I visited Next Door, by appointment, having been the victim of abuse myself in this case, both for information on where I could turn, and on what they knew about the I-360 process and how I might protect my own interests (another long story). I met with the director, Kathleen Krenek, and one of the senior support staff, I'd have to check my notes, but she doesn't appear to be on the organization's web page presently. They were markedly less than supportive. I made absolutely clear that I wasn't seeking information on my ex.

AT&T employees weren't required to spill this information to my ex. Next Door informed her themselves, as noted in court testimony.

The outcome of the family law case was annulment of marriage on the basis of fraud.

My ex remains in the US, presumably by way of her fraudulent VAWA petition. Apparently the ICE haven't bothered requesting or reading the annulment decision, or the Court's finding of my ex as "less than credible".

It's been five years since the last court date and decision, but this still burns pretty deep. I absolutely didn't consider myself MRA before this (anything but), and find a hell of a lot in the movement that's pretty objectionable, but there's an absolute truth that the system frequently presumes a role and guilt on men, termed "the abuser" in the relevant VAWA statute, despite the fact that there's no actual proof involved.

One thing I did learn is that the process is ugly, extremely expensive, soul- sucking, and needlessly confrontational in far too many ways. Human relationship are like that, and it's not until you've seen them go south, and encountered the reasons and deceptions revealed, that you really get a full understanding of this.

</comment><comment><USER23> I find the concept of "digital detox" in this situation to be interesting. The Hacker News reader in me wants to say, "But you're missing an opportunity to watch the watcher." I understand most abuse shelters aren't going to be equipped to help teach users how to, for example, monitor and modify the network traffic of background apps on their phone. Or more simply: factory reset the phone before entering the shelter, then turn off mobile networks and GPS and only use the shelter's WiFi.

I think it could be an empowering thing for people - to see that they can fight back against their abuser technically in certain circumstances.

<comment><USER24> Shelter wifi isn't safe either, if you forget to disable coarse-grained location services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This makes me think about every time I call tech support and end up bitching them out. Usually the first thing any customer support does is get all of your personal info like address and stuff. So in essence, by the time they have pissed me off and I have told them they live a worthless existence where toilet paper has more of a use than they do,and that they are friggin idiots, they are sitting there google mapping my house and plotting revenge. Thankfully, phone rage seems to subsist quickly. But I have said some stuff to customer support and then thought twice about how much information that person knows about me when in essence I know nothing about them.

<comment><USER26> I'm not an expert, but maybe you should stop being an asshole to people. Then maybe you wouldn't have to worry about strangers plotting revenge.

<comment><USER25> you're right, you are not an expert.</comment></comment></comment>


Two Simple Steps To Feel Like You're Making An Extra $110,000 Per Year - <AUTHOR> http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2008/06/two-simple-steps-to-feel-like-youre.html

<comment><USER2> Once a week isn't enough sex, I'm happier with alternate nights and occasional 3 nights in a row.

It took me into my twenties to learn that I fall apart when I'm hungry. I'm learning the same thing about lack of sex in my thirties.</comment>


Richard Dawkins: Did Ahmed intend to get arrested for his clock? - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html <comment><USER2> That kid is a little shit. Its not a bad thing, I was a little shit as a teenager too. Thank god the internet wasn't around to blow me way out of proportion.

</comment><comment><USER3> He's been trolling his own twitter ever since last Friday again... Trying to find buyers for his books... Does he make sense sometimes? sure! Does he completely miss the ball on this one: well, you be the judge ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> Pure garbage from the new king of blowhards. He's in way too deep, like Bill Maher, and he's now preaching only to his dwindling choir.

<comment><USER4> Yes, Richard Dawkins, a 14-year-old boy intended to get arrested and deliberately provoked an overreaction by Texas racists, whose existence I'm sure he was totally aware of, because 14 year old boys are some wily motherfuckers.

Richard Dawkins, once a luminary, now a delusional conspiracy theorist struggling to cling to the fringes of respectable society, drowning in his own diarrhea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Won't disagree with you about Dawkins. But he has a point. Looking back at it, I feel sort of ashamed for jumping on the bandwagon so quickly.

Really, other than possibly connecting a few wires, the kid didn't build a clock. He took a clock, and put it in a bomb-looking suitcase.

It seems unlikely a kid would intentionally try to get in trouble for carrying a bomb. But it seems even more unlikely that he would put a clock in a bomb- looking suitcase and bring it to school as a science project.</comment></comment></comment>


What do people think about paying for virtual gifts / goods? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> This works well in Asian markets due to emerging markets and Asian culture. While it is more understated in Western culture, Asian culture is all about progress, and monetary progress is reflected by conspicuous consumption. Therefore, virtual gifts/goods is a display of that same progress. Furthermore, Asians are educated through a largely abstract approach, which allows them to understand the worth of virtual items without tangible interaction. From a Web 2.0 perspective, Asian web clones have made more money than its Western counterparts due to virtual gifts.

Personally, I don't think monetization through virtual goods is going to work for Western markets unless its a very specified niche market which relies on virtual goods already (i.e. gaming). There isn't enough social/cultural value in virtual goods that justifies the price (even if it is just a few dollars).

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide some supporting material when making such broad generalizations about cultures? Are there any sociological studies that back up these findings? Are you talking about any particular region of Asia where this might be particularly true?

Asia is home to a great diversity of cultures and languages, a little more discretion would be appropriate when talking about it in such definite terms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why not?

Whether they know it or not, most people already buy virtual goods.

Every time you buy $150 sneakers, you're buying $120 worth of virtual goods.

Bottle service at a club. $450 worth of virtual goods, $50 worth of alcohol.

An engagement ring. $10,000 worth of virtual goods. $1,000 worth of diamond.

A tier 7 rainment in WoW. $99.999 worth of virtual goods, $0.001 worth of goods.

Etc.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've never made a virtual purchase, but I found a rare object in a video game once and gave it to my brother as a birthday gift. I think he appreciated it more than any physical good I could have given him.

</comment><comment><USER6> According to [http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/facebook-selling- digita...](http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/facebook-selling-digital- gifts-at-a-35m-run-rate/) facebook is selling digital gifts at a $35m run rate. A friend at fb tells me this number is significantly inflated though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't be surprised. I saw James Hong from HotORNot talk about virtual gifts a while ago. You know what one of the biggest sources of revenue on their site was? Flowers.

You could send three different kinds of flowers to someone -- a cheap one ($1), a medium priced one ($3), or an expensive one ($10. Yes, $10 for a stupid little flower icon.)

People bought flowers by the hundreds of thousands; they became one of the biggest drivers of site revenue. Moreover, and this is interesting, James said that when someone sent a flower to a person, they were considerably more likely to get a response when sending a message.

<comment><USER7> The guy that sells the virtual flowers says that buying them will get you laid? Shocking!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One similar thing I've never understood is card games like Magic the Gathering and (perhaps?) Pokemon.

From what I gather this is kind of like playing poker, except you can just go out and buy more decks to stack your hand. Just doesn't seem fair or fun to me.

A similar partly-virtual good I can't wrap my head round is intentionally limited-edition goods such as beanie babies.

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

</comment><comment><USER9> I think this trend will pick up over time. The idea of a virtual gift is a status symbol almost. It is very similar to someone buying a Jean Paul Gaultier belt vs a regular leather belt. Both hold your pants up but the value comes in appearance/brand/perception of success.

With the focus now advancing in social media and virtual worlds, I am sure a large portion of users are willing to pay to "look good" or for a show of status.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have never bought a virtual gift as I understand the definition. They're silly. That may change as the interestingness and utility of these social tokens evolves. Today they seem very...Elementary School. Back then if your dream girl gave you a Crackerjax prize you treasured it. I'm not saying they aren't a good business but today I put them in the same stupidity category as gift cards.

<comment><AUTHOR> Silly as they may seem, gift cards are a $46.9 billion industry: [http://blogs.creditcards.com/2008/04/fed-study-deflates- size...](http://blogs.creditcards.com/2008/04/fed-study-deflates-size-of-gift- card-industry.php)

Now you've just given me a business idea: a gift card that works across different virtual worlds.

<comment><USER10> Well yes obviously they're a profitable industry, I don't deny that. I'd be the first to hunt down numbers to back up what you say, I was in the card industry myself for awhile. But I wasn't answering the question of 'are they a good business' I was answering the question 'would I pay for today's virtual gifts' which I understood to be your submitted topic. And I was being honest: in my experience virtual gifts have never appealed to me _as a consumer_. I likened them to gift cards because gift cards provide no added utility while reducing liquidity - they're a huge _consumer_ sham. But as to whether these items are profitable, absolutely - they're spectacularly profitable!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What do I think? I'm not sure what the question is.

Do I think it's a good business model for certain games and game-like interactions? Absolutely.

Do I think it's silly to pay money for virtual goods? Absolutely not. You pay for hapiness plenty of other ways, who cares what the vehicle of that emotion is?

Have I ever purchased virtual goods? Yes. Over $2,000 across 8 games.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've paid real money for some virtual good in a game, where the good had some active "function", but I've never bought something like a facebook gift which simply sits on your profile. I do wonder if there might be some market for "active" social networking goods: for-pay applications, or integration of a low-price digital music store, etc.</comment>


After a Tax Crackdown, Apple Found a New Shelter for Its Profits (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/apple-taxes-jersey.html <comment><USER2> Let's rewrite that headline: "Due to continued short sighted tax laws in the United States, Apple and other companies keep their wealth offshore"

<comment><USER3> short sighted how?

<comment><USER4> Without taking a side, I'm also curious what specifically OP thought was short-sighted, or if it was just the result post facto indicating short- sightedness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> (2017)

</comment><comment><USER6> One of the most profitable companies in the world definitely needs to have more of their wealth extracted by the least profitable organization in the world — USG.

<comment><USER7> They charge 30% for app store transactions for the paltry amount of services they provide. Governments provide far more services from which the corporations benefit, so if apple can charge that much so can any govt.</comment></comment>


PeekFeed one year later, thanks to HN - <AUTHOR>

One year ago I posted my RSS-to-email service on hacker news (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702937) and got some terrific feedback!
I relaunched in beta last week incorporating suggestions about scheduling options, multiple digests, and OPML importing. I wanted to share these improvements with you today.
To create an account, add your email address to the waitlist, and you'll receive an invitation to the beta.
http://peekfeed.com/ <comment><USER2> Clickable Links:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702937>

<http://peekfeed.com/></comment>


CreatorScape 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://influence.co/go/infographics/CreatorScape <comment><AUTHOR> A market map of all the companies that serve the influencer and creator ecosystem.</comment>


Robot That Makes People Feel a Ghostly Presence - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/11/robot-ghost/

<comment><USER2> The story I posted yesterday has more detail, and references.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8568135](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8568135)

Here's the link to the actual article:

[http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/06/its- behin...](http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/06/its-behind-you- robot-creates-feeling-of-ghostly-presence/)

If you've read this Wired article first then the National Geographic article will feel familiar, but there is more, it's more complete, and it has references.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not the same thing as this, but I remember seeing a documentary about a scientist who kept feeling a "presence" in his lab, so he set out to work out what was going on. It turned out it was something to do with air distribution causing infrasound resonance. I haven't found the specific story but this one is very similar: [http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/a_ghost_story_low_f...](http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/a_ghost_story_low_frequency_illusions_created_by_standing_waves)

<comment><USER4> Fascinating!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _> when the researchers passed a mild current through the electrodes, stimulating a small region at the intersection of the temporal and parietal lobes of her brain, she experienced what she described as a shadowy presence lurking nearby, mimicking her own posture._

Those kind of things feel very existentialist to me. This shows that human perception, sentience, and consciousness are deeply and essentially tied to our biology, and that we're all a few micrograms of chemicals or electrical impulses in the wrong part of our brain from complete schizophrenia.

This seems like a very strong argument against any kind of transhumanist rhetoric, and that no matter how much our understanding of the universe and manipulation of the physical word progress, the very concept of being human is forever tied to our physical body.

<comment><USER6> _This seems like a very strong argument against any kind of transhumanist rhetoric, and that no matter how much our understanding of the universe and manipulation of the physical word progress, the very concept of being human is forever tied to our physical body._

I would replace "physical body" with _physics_ here, and from that draw the opposite conclusion. The fact that we are purely physical/electrical/chemical in our existence suggests that some other physical/electrical/chemical system could reproduce our existence if it behaved in the same way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm sure it's actually a spooky feeling people are getting but somehow this wired article fails to convince me.

 _The researchers suggest that the subjects' brains reconcile this mismatch by creating the illusion of another presence that's doing the poking. After all, something is poking them in the back._

Yeah, It's a robot! Why is it that people feel like it's a person and not a robot or a coat rack or whatever? That part seems odd to me. Is it not because we tend to only be poked by people in our daily lives so given the stimulus, we interpret it to be a person?

<comment><USER8> This reminds me of the book Phantoms in the Brain by one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran) in which he describes a similar experiment. It's a great read by the way. Anyway, as I recall, watching someone tap and stroke a model body part, say a nose, in a non predictable pattern, whilst an unseen hand replicates the touches exactly on your own nose, can result in an overwhelming sensation that the model, though yards away from you, is actually your own nose. Always meant to try it out, it sounds great fun.

I don't know if the Wired article or the experiment itself has glossed over this first stage - before the delay is introduced - but perhaps if the first step has already introduced the spooky feeling of your back being an arms length in front of you (maybe to a milder degree than if it had looked like a back), then when you start feeling your back (still in front of you) being touched when you can clearly see noone is touching it, this could naturally lead to a feeling of an invisible actor?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd be interested in developing this further. If you could have a whole robotic hand that you could move, it could produce a much nicer way of body contact. I'm thinking about this as a self-help device for people that are suffering from depression or social anxiety, giving that person full control about where and how to touch, but the illusion that another person does it for them.

<comment><USER10> So a robotic girlfriend is the way to treat depression?

<comment><USER9> No, but physical body contact in a non-sexual way helps (me) a lot.</comment></comment></comment>


Sonic the Hedgehog Protein - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog <comment><USER2> From Wikipedia: Some clinicians and scientists criticize giving genes frivolous, whimsical, or quirky names, calling it inappropriate that patients with "a serious illness or disability are told that they or their child have a mutation in a gene such as sonic hedgehog."

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the best part is : "Robotnikinin: A potential inhibitor of the Hedgehog signaling pathway has been found and dubbed 'Robotnikinin', in honor of Sonic the Hedgehog's nemesis, Dr. Ivo "Eggman" Robotnik."

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> See also: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachurin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachurin)</comment>


Announcing TensorFlow 0.8 – now with distributed computing support - <AUTHOR> http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2016/04/announcing-tensorflow-08-now-with.html <comment><USER2> Is OpenCL anywhere on the roadmap? I now make laptop and desktop purchasing decisions almost entirely on Nvidia card presence. One reason I didn't get the latest MacBook Pro.

<comment><USER3> AMD is so woefully behind the curve in gpgpu and especially deep learning that their management should be replaced. They think they're still competing with Intel (they're not). Nvidia has a wide open field for the foreseeable future and this will end up being a bad thing for consumers.

<comment><USER4> Couldn't agree more. They need to diversify and really push gpu compute and openCL. Where's the equivalent of CuDNN for openCL? How many AMD engineers would it take it build that and what would the impact be?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can anybody offer a TLDR of how this works (or point me to one)? It seems particularly well-suited for convolutional nets with many layers if I understand correctly, but I am curious as to whether e.g. recurrent nets may receive the same speed-ups from parallelization.

<comment><USER6> People at Google use multiple replicas to train RNNs and LSTMs to very good effect.

At heart, the most common distributed training mechanism creates multiple "replias" of the model -- each replica has a full copy. It splits the training data among the replias, and then at the end of every batch, synchronizes the updates to the model weights between the replicas. (A simple way would be to think of taking the average of the gradients produced at each replica, and having all replicas apply the average gradient. Equivalently, just reduce the per-replica learning rate and apply all of the gradients, then propagate back the new state to everyone.)

<comment><USER5> Ah, great, thanks for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since TensorFlow was dubbed as slower than most ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06435](http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06435)) it'll be nice to see how this affects perceived performance

<comment><USER6> That study's way out of date - it benchmarked the CuDNNv2 version. Soumith's convnet-benchmarks is much more up-to-date: [https://github.com/soumith/convnet- benchmarks](https://github.com/soumith/convnet-benchmarks)

but it hasn't yet been updated to reflect the latest performance improvements in 0.8. We've continued to push on both single-machine and distributed performance, and the next update to soumith's benchmarks should continue to show that improvement.

<comment><USER7> >> That study's way out of date

I don't know about 'way' out of date, it was first published just a few months ago (November) and the authors pushed a revised version just a few weeks ago (March 30th), but i definitely agree that it's not using the most current implementations

>> Soumith's convnet-benchmarks is much more up-to-date

I'll definitely check these out, thanks for the link

<comment><USER8> And even those numbers on the front page are out of date :) (we're even faster now: [https://github.com/soumith/convnet- benchmarks/pull/96](https://github.com/soumith/convnet-benchmarks/pull/96), which is from a few weeks ago.)

The field is moving quickly enough that many published benchmarks are stale within 3 months, and it's a lot of hard work to maintain up to date benchmarks, given how many frameworks there are. Also there are performance/memory/scalability/flexibility tradeoffs everywhere, so it's hard to capture everything in one number without a tremendous number of caveats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how effective this would be on a fleet of raspberry pis. With things like Resin.io, Weave, and Kubernetes, I wonder if it would be possible to create something like Seti@home for crowdsourced machine learning for all kinds of different applications. Many of us have spare raspberry pis laying around that could be utilized in a global network.

<comment><USER10> You'd probably have to scale to hundreds or thousands of pis to achieve the performance you could see from a single $100-200 GPU.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm getting 404s for some of the tutorial sections when selecting r0.8 (e.g. [https://www.tensorflow.org/versions/r0.8/tutorials/mnist/tf/...](https://www.tensorflow.org/versions/r0.8/tutorials/mnist/tf/index.html#tensorflow- mechanics-101)). master works. Seems like some of the documentation is only built for master and for r0.7, not for r0.8.

<comment><USER8> (Do you have an example link that doesn't work? I clicked a bunch of links there and they were all working. Feel free to file a bug at github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow)

<comment><USER11> The link I gave, and others, repeatedly didn't work when I tried them, but now they seem to work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very cool! Any progress on Windows support?

<comment><USER13> I doubt it is a priority. But I can certainly recommend Amazon GPU-enabled instances (~0.6$/hour/GPU, not that much actually).

<comment><USER14> g2 instances has a GPU which is not compatible with the stock tensorflow, you must rebuild it from source. Do you have a workaround for that?

<comment><USER8> I believe our published wheels now include the code for cuda compute 3.0, so it should work out of the box now.

(as long as the images have cudnn v4 and cuda 7.5 installed, I think :)

<comment><USER14> Great news, I'll try today!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can predict in 10 years we will see a rise of computer psychotherapists.

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice; it only took them 7 months to catch up to amazon:

[http://www.nikkostrom.com/publications/interspeech2015/strom...](http://www.nikkostrom.com/publications/interspeech2015/strom_interspeech2015.pdf)

<comment><USER6> For others who may be interested in the details despite the uninformative tone of this comment: The Amazon paper is about a specific tweak to learning rates for better scalability when doing distributed training. The core principles of distributed DNN training are much older - for example, Dean et al. 2012: [https://papers.nips.cc/paper/4687-large-scale-distributed- de...](https://papers.nips.cc/paper/4687-large-scale-distributed-deep- networks.pdf) trained a model for Imagenet on 2000 cores, using the DistBelief framework that is the predecessor to TensorFlow.

The question of how to improve the multiple-replica scaling of distributed DNN training is very important, as is the question of creating usable, flexible, and high-performance abstractions in which to implement one. They're also fairly orthogonal. TensorFlow as an architecture focuses on the latter. One could imagine implementing the Amazon tweak within either TF or any other framework.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: SSL is free now, why domain names are not - <AUTHOR> Thanks to letsencrypt and others, now SSL is free, but why same is not happening with domain names?<p>I think if fraudulent (or lots of) name registrations will be fixed, then it is possible to make domain name registration free (like telegram did for their bot names, max was 20name last time I checked) <comment><USER2> OK. Let's say domain registration becomes free. Now I want to register all remaining domain names. What's stopping me? Artificial limits of domains per person? That's not really fair, because some people really need to buy domains to prevent cybersquatting.

The current system isn't perfect, but it's better than open, free registration.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is Freenom that let you register free .tk, .ml, .ga, .cf, .gq domains. And the number of scam web-sites IMO discredit those domain zones.

Though according to the feedback online, Freenom to domains is not what Letsencrypt is to SSL. Their business model (cancel domain name registration then ask $xxxx to register it again) looks like fraud to me [1].

[1]: [https://www.quora.com/Is-Freenom-a-fraudulent- company](https://www.quora.com/Is-Freenom-a-fraudulent-company)

</comment><comment><USER4> What stops anyone from squatting all the domain names possible?

<comment><USER5> arent there an infinite number of domains?

<comment><AUTHOR> event though you can generate more than 36^63 combinations, it doesn't make sense to use 63 character long domain name and even now it is difficult to find & register representative domain name.

<comment><USER5> It would definitely make bookmarking a more important feature for browsers, but we remember street addresses that are longer than 36 characters, why not longer domain names?

<comment><USER4> I sure don't remember those anywhere near the scale of app and domain names</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


That iPhone Is Missing a Keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/technology/13phone.html?ex=1339387200&en=a36bb86d614c06b7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss <comment><USER2> I think the lack of a physical keyboard will have minimal impact on the success or failure of the iPhone.

Consider that millions of users adapted to the clunky text message interfaces of their cell phones. They aren't going to balk at a virtual keyboard, especially when the tradeoff is that you get a much larger screen for viewing video. A consumer that wouldn't buy the phone for lack of a physical keyboard probably isn't in the target market anyway.

<comment><USER3> I was going to say the same thing. The whole article is mispremised. If you think, "Who would switch to a virtual keyboard from a real keyboard?" you'll have questions about the iPhone. If you ask, "Who wouldn't switch to a virtual keyboard from a cellphone 0 - 9 layout?" you'll understand the market the iPhone is targeting.

It's a consumer product, not a business product. The idea for the iPhone is that in 5 years everyone age 14-24 will have one, just as has already happened to the iPod.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What if we wait until it comes out and someone has used it and _then_ start reviewing its features?

</comment><comment><USER5> If only they had put a USB slot on it and opened up the platform for development entirely. It would take off like nothing else. I mean, security? Okay.. Don't allow the developers to access the network. Past that, let them do everything to the damn device that they want to.

Doesn't Steve remember the Apple II? It was so successful because it was programmable and had expansion slots.

<comment><USER6> _"...and had expansion slots._

I don't think he does remember or agrees. Jobs was always against that kind of expansion. He's a control freak. Why let other people ruin perfection? Wozniak says that's the only real heated argument they ever had.

Still. I wouldn't bet against Jobs knowing what's up. He was definitely right about the minimalist iPod. I want a fold out keyboard anyway.

<comment><USER7> True; the original Macintosh is well known for having no slots, and for that matter no cursor keys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The iPhone has bluetooth right?!

In the worst case, pretty sure it is no brainer to hookup an Apple Wireless Keyboard or even a cheapo PC bluetooth keyboard with it.</comment>


The most unlikely person to teach me to be a better software engineer - <AUTHOR> https://blog.phuaxueyong.com/post/2020-05-30-6-things-michael-jordan-taught-me/ <comment><AUTHOR> What are some of the other domains that you have learnt and helped you to be a better software engineer! For me, that will be the sports through the life of Michael Jordan. Do check it out!</comment>


A perfect storm that brought down LinkedIn.com - <AUTHOR> https://engineering.linkedin.com/blog/2018/11/coding-conversations--the-perfect-storm--that-brought-down-linke <comment><USER2> Why am I not surprised?

Back in 2011/2012 I worked with LinkedIn's api on a product for one of our clients at a small web shop. While coding the login auth my team and I discovered more than 10 security issues and addressed them to LinkedIn. According to them they had only one dev working on the api and there was no time or resource available to fix these issues. So we filed bug reports w/o LinkedIn ever acknowledging them. Two weeks later LinkedIn was hacked and 167mio user accounts were sold for a few bitcoins on the darkweb.

Bottom line: take security serious. Throw so money and resources on it! Don't be greedy and let things like this happen again. Oh, and don't hire people who can't spell SRE or are 22-year-old fresh out of college folks who are not fully aware of their responsibility.

All this shows us the ridiculous hiring strategy of LinkedIn, a terrible, understaffed and greedy business, you should never work for.

<comment><USER3> Nice ageism there at the end

<comment> p-squared The key phrase is "who are not fully aware of their responsibility". The commenter is not wrong in identifying a subset of the candidate pool which has a high risk of inadequate experience for this kind of work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's amazing how often perfect storms happen, since every outage is apparently caused by one.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is this a perfect storm like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, or British Rail's wrong kind of snow etc?

Today's systems have become astoundingly, barely-manageably complex, to the point where this kind of thing happens all the time, but let's not delude ourselves with the slightly mystical 'perfect storm' analogy.

<comment><USER3> Every storm is perfect

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "SREs have a saying, "every day is Monday in operations," which means our systems are in a constant state of change and our teams are on call 24/7 to address any site issues that do pop up."

I kinda like that, but at the same time, ugh.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder what this third-party framework is/was...</comment>


6 Words: 'My Name Is Jamaal  I'm White' - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2015/05/06/404432206/six-words-my-name-is-jamaal-im-white <comment><USER2> I don't think the other people are at fault here. I think it's reasonable to assume that someone with a stereotypically black name is black, just like it's reasonable to assume that a random IT professor is male based on the fact that 90%* actually are. As long as you owe up to your error when you notice it (and e.g. apologize). It's a reasonable optimization that works out more often than not.

The problem only starts when the treatment of the person depends on the category they belong to and if that difference in treatment is not based on reason and evidence.

*example, may not be accurate

<comment><USER3> It is absolutely unreasonable. When you say it "works out more often than not" I would ask "For whom?" Many snap judgments based on race lead to the death of unarmed black men and women.

Studies have shown that resumes with black-sounding names get fewer callbacks and we treat black men like white men with a criminal record.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? [http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873)

Norton Pscyhology: Devah Pager and Dalton Conley discuss racism and the stigma of criminal record [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CofLE3q3Qh0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CofLE3q3Qh0)

<comment><USER4> >Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?

That's impossible to say on an individual level, but it is very likely. If you phrase the question differently, there's a pretty clear answer:

>On average, are two white people more employable than two black people?

Without knowing any further info about the possible candidates - Yes. Looking at education statistics in the US, it becomes clear pretty quickly, that the average white person has a higher education level, than the average black person for example. That's a pretty important factor to look for as an employer. I'm sure statistics on work experience will look similar.

And of course this is quite racist, but as long as different races exist, that really just means taking reality into account. Pretending there are no differences between different population groups is insane and counterproductive.

<comment><USER5> Education statistics cut both ways.

Ask the question this way.

Are Brittany McKnight and John Wilson more employable than Lukwesa Nakazwe and Hijani Lungo?

Yes and it is obviously about race. Why? On average, Africans immigrants are more highly educated than native born Caucasians.

It's not about education. It's not about statistics. It's about racism. There have been studies where researchers submitted resumes with identical education and employment backgrounds but substituted "white sounding" names for "black sounding" names and the ones with the "black sounding" names were half as likely to be contacted by prospective employers.

With the same education and the same work experience, "Je'Marcus Johnson" is half as likely to even be interviewed as "Mark Johnson".

<comment><USER3> Survivorship bias. I went to a happy hour a week ago right after the Baltimore riots when a real estate exec starting going on and on about how blacks just needed to work harder - like many different immigrants.

This is survivor ship bias - comparing immigrants who left hell for the American Dream vs people living an American Nightmare. This is akin to comparing Olympic gold medal winners to members in a high school band. A better comparison would be comparing people of a similar socio-economic level in different countries.

<comment><USER5> I thoroughly enjoy those kinds of situations.

I use them to either get the person to re-evaluate their thinking or admit in public that they're just a racist.

One of my fiance's family friends works for the FBI and we were discussing racial profiling. He didn't understand why innocent people object to it. I explained to him that I'm not a criminal and it's always be a negative experience if someone treats me like I am one.

He asked if it doesn't make me feel safer to know that law enforcement is doing its job. I explained that if their only reason to suspect me of anything is the color of my skin, that it's racist and that I already know that I'm not a criminal. I wasn't a criminal yesterday. I'm not likely to become a criminal tomorrow and if law enforcement is wasting time, both theirs and mine, by bothering me; they're not out there actually catching criminals. I saw the expression on his face change. That thought had never occurred to him. The discussion ended with him conceding that he had never considered that before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a white guy with a (very mildly) African American sounding name, I have had similar experiences. When I meet people in person after emailing them they sometimes seem surprised, and some later admit they expected me to be black. The worst example was when I was told by someone renting a room on craigslist that they couldn't rent to me because I was a "security threat", even though I had hardly said anything about myself. It must be tough for those who face that kind of attitude constantly and are unable to escape it.

<comment><USER7> of course they can escape it. they just have to change their name. that's what my family did for me, and what i will do for my kids if i have kids. as far as i'm concerned if you have serious professional ambitions in the US, you're being foolish if you keep an 'ethnic' sounding name.

keeping your disadvantageous name and arrogantly shaking your fist at the world to change to suit your political tastes is insane to me.

<comment><USER8> I think the point is that the name is disadvantageous because it makes people think that he's black, and black people cannot stop being black. In other words, if you're actually black, then you can't escape racism just by changing your name.

I'm not sure what you mean by "political tastes". I'd have thought pretty much everyone was opposed to e.g. refusing to rent an apartment to someone because of their name, or because you think that they're black.

<comment><USER7> > _In other words, if you 're actually black, then you can't escape racism > just by changing your name._

no shit sherlock. but changing your name to a neutral sounding one, no matter what your race, will get you in the door at a much higher rate, where you are _actually able to present yourself and your abilities_ instead of having your resume, application, submission, or email summarily tossed in the trash for no reason other than prejudice.

small advantages like this compound over time. small disadvantages also compound.

it's an optimization, and a highly effective one at that, but nothing more, nothing less than that.

<comment><USER8> Changing your name might help, though it's sad that anyone should have to do this.

I was replying because you (a) seemed to be missing the OP's point and (b) were coming close to blaming victims of racial discrimination for not changing their names.

<comment><USER9> It's absolutely victim blaming, not just coming close to it.

Of all the backwards and ridiculous comments I've seen on race-related threads here, that one is really exceptionally stupid.

<comment><USER7> there's basically two kinds of people in the world.

those that will sit around and mope and moan about how unfair the world is, and invent terms like 'victim blaming'.

and those who take concrete, actionable steps to overcome or work around the problem.

don't fucking fool yourself, _nothing_ will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years. just ask any american who isn't white. they've had to deal with this shit from the very beginning, it's not an abstract textbook concept to them.

<comment><USER8> >nothing will erase the prejudice against certain names in the next 50 years.

Why the pessimism? Race relations have come on a decently long way in the last 50 years.

I don't think anyone's saying that it's wrong for someone to change their name to avoid prejudice. The point is that no-one should be expected to change their name for this reason.

<comment><USER7> that's very noble. but you sound like you're a white guy who has good intentions but very loose grasp of how things work in reality. maybe i'm wrong, but that's just my feeling.

<comment><USER8> I think you are missing my point. I'm not criticizing individuals for choosing to change their names. I'm just pointing out that it's pretty shitty that they feel the need to do this. If you're fine with the status quo as (I'm guessing) a non-white person, then, well, good for you. But you shouldn't blame people who don't choose to change their names.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Couple of off the cuff thoughts: Why can't people use the expression "niger" in context? It was clearly meant as a racial insult, and I think people need to remember that that is the way it is commonly used. Replacing it with a placeholder doesn't make racism go away or make the word less racist, all it does it soften the racism used in that instance.

His TSA story is more likely fiction. Is he saying that there are "TSA" in London? And in either case I've never seen the TSA select people "randomly" by name alone (in fact they do their profiling based on appearance, not name, which is arguably even more insidious). Even if they DID select by name, how would he, a selectee know the names of everyone else selected at the same time? The whole story makes no sense and sounds made up (by someone who's never travelled or been randomly selected no less).

I've been randomly selected a handful of times, but they don't know my name when they do so.

<comment><USER11> I have an acquaintance who looks white but was named Mohammed (he is Kurdish). He changed his name to "Michael" because, as he said, "It's easier to say... like for example at the airport."

I agree about referencing the word "nigger", Louis CK has a bit where he says he hates the phrase "the n-word" because, "you still put the word 'nigger' into my head, so it's not like you didn't say it".

But socially one probably has to accept reality, there's a court case about a guy who was fired for saying the word, not using it in a derogatory way but just referring to the word itself.

<comment><USER5> A former co-worker is ethnically Persian but grew up in Belarus so he has a vaguely European accent.

When traveling, he likes to wear a shirt that says "Italia" because when airline security thinks that he's Italian, he gets less hassle.

<comment><USER12> My anecdotal evidence is in accord with this.

During the last few months, I have let myself have a beard. I have a darkish skin, so with a beard I look very Arabic.

In my last flight, security were specially bothersome, making me open and show my luggage. I didn't relate it until my friend pointed it out, but I am very sure he was right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I deal with this from the exact opposite perspective. I have a very midwestern sounding name and people are often surprised when they meet me in person to see that I am a big black guy.

I can be in a waiting room and when my name is called, the person calling me is sometimes surprised when the 6'2" 250 pound black guy responds. I don't really see shock but I do see surprise.

I admit, I have been guilty of this as well. When I was working my way through college, I took a summer job at a machine shop. I was told that I'd be working with "Jorel" on a particular shift. I was expecting, for all the world, a black guy. Well, I showed up for the scheduled shift and I met Jorel. He was a young white guy. It immediately made sense to me. I said to him "Your dad is a comic book fan, isn't he?" and Jorel confirmed that he was. Then I said "With that name, people usually think that you're black, don't they?" and again he confirmed that they did. For us, that was the end of it. He was a nice enough guy and we worked well enough together.

</comment><comment><USER13> I guess, for me, I never associate the name Jamal with black - to me it is arabic like Gamal Abdel Nasser. Then again I was born and raised in South America, so Gamal was not a curious name. It was the name that my "white" brother was given to by my middle eastern dad!

<comment><USER14> Don't worry, for the purposes of discrimination in the U.S. (and many other places, no doubt), stereotypically Arabic names are just as good as stereotypically African-American names. You're covered either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My name is Tyrel, I run into this a lot of the time as well.

I'm from New Hampshire, which has a very small black population (less than 2% I believe). It was always awkward when girlfriend's parents would make a big deal about "Oh my god you're dating a black man?" when they would tell their parents my name.

Another story is when I was in college, I joined a fraternity. The only black member at the time was disappointed, when we met he said, "Aw man, I thought you were black!"

My last story also is from college. I moved into a dorm where I had a black room mate named Jared. People would confuse him for me, and vice versa, a lot if they hadn't met either of us, but needed something from us. Saying to me "Is Tyrel around? Oh I thought you were Jared..." and the opposite to him I presume.

Over all, I don't have many problems with my name, but I do wish it wasn't people's first impression of me. I try to put my face as my avatar on everything, hoping that people aren't discriminating against my name when they do research on me, but that they discriminate for my abilities.

</comment><comment><USER16> So the school wanted diversity so they called him for an interview, but they hired him even though he was white. Yeah I don't buy that.

<comment><USER17> Maybe he didn't interview in person? Not everyone feels the need to physically meet someone before hiring them. What does it _really_ say about us, that we so deeply feel the need to see someone before hiring them? It's not like their credentials change with visual contact.

<comment><USER16> Your statement is ironic considering the school's purported reason for taking in his application.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am not black but I also know what it is to be discriminated. Most of people know it also, it is nearly impossible to belong always to the dominant/majoritarian group.

I grew up in a low-income suburb. When I went to college I was under estimated and segregated. The _poors_ were, for the first time in my life, a minority. I really know how it feels. But I can also say that whinning about it _never_ made my situation better, almost always made it bitter. Some of the _rich_ , once we got to know eachother, included me in their activities. I believe that this can happen in all majority/minority conflicts if both parts are open minded.

The main problem, as I see it, is that majorities don't want to give in anything, and minorities want majorities to give in everything.

</comment><comment><USER19> "In a high school soccer game I was called 'a white man with a [horrific racial expletive deleted] name.'"

Horrific racial expletive. That seems a bit... excessive? Let's elevate the horrificness of this word to the point where if someone utters it they get fined or jailed. That should teach 'em.

People are so ultra-politically correct these days I'm too scared to open my mouth for fear of offending someone, saying something sexist, racist, "white male privileged", not fat-accepting enough, etc. It's becoming insufferable.

<comment><USER20> The placeholder was chosen in the context of a relatively personal, informal group blog:

[http://thepoetryquestion.com/about/](http://thepoetryquestion.com/about/)

If you think your sexist, racist, white male privileged, fat shaming thoughts are important to voice, I don't see why you would worry about them offending someone.

The motions of political correctness can go too far, but the basic thought, to consider what words might mean to someone else, is a reasonable thing to do if a person wants to communicate effectively.

<comment><USER19> This type of hyped up placeholder is _exactly_ an example of political correctness gone too far. It's exaggeration. My argument is not even against purposefully using words that are offense. It's about how there are so many words that are deemed offensive today that I can't even keep track of what they are.

For example, calling one of my own non-homosexual friends a "faggot" or "gay" is offensive. Even though I'm not homophobic and personally find it to be a funny, playful insult.

I may or may not be factually correct about this, but in general (I use the word general here in the sense of more than 50%) of those offended seem to be minority groups. I.e. homosexual, African Americans (this is easily to confirm by census results in a country), Semitic groups, etc.

The issue seems to be whether we should give up the ideal of not offending people as there exists no such fundamental right not to be offended.

<comment><USER21> > For example, calling one of my own non-homosexual friends a "faggot" or > "gay" is offensive. Even though I'm not homophobic and personally find it to > be a funny, playful insult.

Um... if you don't have anything against homosexuality then why would you use it as an insult? How is this logical? It shouldn't have anything to do with "not offending people". The real question is "What are you actually communicating?"

Casual use of slurs shows at least a certain amount of unthinking disdain for others if not actual malice. Censoring referential or quoted uses of slurs may be an over-correction but the intent is not to appear disdainful or malicious.

You can say whatever you want, forget about "political correctness" or "offending someone", but expect people to respond to what you're actually communicating (ignorance and disdain at best).

<comment><USER19> Well, for instance, when I'm calling someone a faggot, I'm thinking about what is typically called a "queen" in gay-lingo. Like an overly effeminate homosexual. I happen to find their behaviour and mannerisms to be funny and I have no problem with them whatsoever. Calling one of my friends a faggot is funny to me because I'm drawing an analogy between their behaviour and queenish behaviour.

The point is that I find it funny, for my own personal reasons. But someone else may find it offensive, for their own personal reasons, however now my freedom of speaking this way becomes limited because of the potential for someone else to find it offensive.

Going back to the original post about the author inserting ".. [horrific racial expletive deleted]" into post. I find this type of reaction to only further the agenda of limiting people from speaking freely by falsely implying that certain words may not be used because they are likely to offend. Whether they offend or not should never be a criterion for limiting the use of a word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> That ringed a few bells...

Being an immigrant with both first and last names that people in US have hard time to pronounce let alone spell, I'd never turn the trick "My parents decided they wanted less traditional names for their children" on my children. In fact, I'm seriously thinking of legally changing my own name to look more American, because I'm tired of triple-checking my name spelling on each document and credit card, and responding to calls from people who cannot pronounce my name at all.

</comment><comment><USER23> My wife, also from Oregon interestingly enough, has an Irish first name spelled in a "black" way (with a 'w' rather than a 'u'). Every now and then, hilarity ensues when she meets someone in person who was obviously expecting someone who looks different.

<comment><USER24> Especially if they were expecting a black... uomen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> My english is far from perfect, but there are effectively 7 words, no?

<comment><USER26> The contraction "I'm" is only one word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have also an uncommon name for my country/peer group so I understand how he feels but don't take the easy path and make it just race related, it goes well beyond it. Some names have stereotypes attached that makes them a potential liability in your life (job applications, bullying, negative first opinion, wasted time, etc).

If I had a dollar for each time I had to explain how to write my name during my life, I would be rich by now. So many famous people have changed their name, there must be a reason for it..

</comment><comment><USER27> Couldn't help but think of the Seinfeld episode - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsKpShq2X6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsKpShq2X6s)

</comment><comment><USER28> > [horrific racial expletive deleted]

Nigga please... The only horrific things about a word coming straight from the latin root for "black" are the linguistic segregation behind it and the fact that this segregation is now willingly enforced by the minorities themselves.

<comment><USER29> Etymology is irrelevant in emotionally charged discussions. Context matters.

<comment><USER28> Etymology is always relevant in the analysis of natural languages. Emotions? Not so much.

> Context matters.

It does. The context is a relatively progressive media organization that is afraid to write certain words because they might interfere with the nation- wide policy of linking their acceptable usage to the color of the speaker's skin.

<comment><USER30> In modern linguistics, etymology is given far less weight than it was in the pre-scientific days of philology. So no, etymology is not "always" relevant; arguments based on etymology are typically given weight only in historical contexts (e.g. tracing language evolution, or lexical borrowings). They give very little insight about present meaning, and especially not about pragmatics.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Beginner's Guide to Fuzzing – Simple Fuzzing with Zzuf - <AUTHOR> https://fuzzing-project.org/tutorial1.html

<comment><USER2> This article doesn't explain what fuzzing is/means.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps the tutorial author did not craft that page for deeplinking, expecting that the audience would arrive via the front door -- which does explain what fuzzing is and what the "Fuzzing Project" is attempting to do via that technique.

[https://fuzzing-project.org/](https://fuzzing-project.org/)</comment></comment>


The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html?ml=m_pm#.U7A54Kjp9g-

<comment><USER2> This story has been submitted 9 times.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?q=politico.com#!/story/forever/0/pit...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=politico.com#!/story/forever/0/pitchforks%20plutocrats)

Submission with all the comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7953608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7953608)</comment>


Utter Disregard for Git Commit History - <AUTHOR> http://zachholman.com/posts/git-commit-history/ <comment><USER2> ho hum. Another day, another example of not using git's features to their fullest extent. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he's aware of git stash and local branches, and has his own reasons not to use those options. However, interactive rebase with fixup and squash easily covers the use case mentioned. I've never used hooks, but I imagine they can be [ab]used to squash automatically like the author suggests.

Still, this was a well-written piece; the author is aware of the context, re GitHub vs git.</comment>