Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/when-officials-tweet-about-government-business-they-dont-get-pick-and-choose-who <comment><USER3> This is a really excellent analysis. The question isn't whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn't. It's whether government officials, by creating a Twitter account, have in effect created a public forum. Having done so, they can't restrict speech on it. This isn't a far out argument, though it might seem like one. Public forum doctrine is well established.

To use a meat-space analogy. Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not. While there is generally no free speech right in a private venue like a mall, where the government creates in effect a public forum on private property, it has to abide by the First Amendment.

Were the law otherwise, government officials could insulate themselves from criticism simply by making speeches in hotel ballrooms and the like. That is, in effect, what Trump is trying to do with his Twitter feed.

<comment><USER4> _Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not._

Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private property.

FTA: _The medium of communication, whether it's online, television, radio, print, or bullhorn—isn't the issue_

I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable users to block other users and it's really not the government's business.

Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.

<comment><USER5> _> it's not the public square_

Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.

It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.

This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.

 _> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different._

There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.

So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.

<comment><USER3> > This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the > government's right to use those features.

This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can't direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.

<comment><USER6> What if the mall owner or manager felt he knew the official well and assumed that he would prefer the protesters be removed? If he had them removed without any communication with the official would that be a violation?

<comment><USER7> It primarily depends on who is funding the politician's venture within the mall. If it's the taxpayers then that removal would constitute a First Amendment violation even without direction of the government itself.

Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an interesting issue. One thing they don't mention is trolls. In a physical public forum such as a town hall meeting, if some crazy gets up and starts uttering threats or stripping their clothes off, they're going to be escorted out. A reasonable person wouldn't consider this a violation of that person's right to free speech just because the cops showed up before they finished threatening every person they disagreed with.

Now consider twitter. If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics, is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room? (This is not considering any action the secret service may take regarding threats)

Note: I'm not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I'm just trying to think through this issue in general.

<comment><USER3> The difference is that there is no physical risk on Twitter, unlike in a public space.

<comment><USER9> People have gone to jail for tweets that were deemed criminal violence.

<comment><USER3> Which is nuts.

<comment><USER10> Is it though? Are you suggesting that me saying "I'm gonna kill you" here on Hacker News shouldn't be treated as a threat simply because it's not a physical interaction, but a digital one?

<comment><USER3> Yes, interactions that happen in close physical proximity should be treated differently than interactions separated by digital distances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the EFF are clutching at straws a bit. Blocking someone from contracting you on social media isn't really a freedom of speech issue - <USER2> long as an alternatives means exists. Though restricting them from reading your content if those posts are in an official capacity is very questionable. More so considering how much official communication is moving online.

For example Twitter now seems to have become a default channel of sorts for announcing power outages and for urgent press releases from government agencies. Is it right that someone misses out on updates because they were blocked?

Maybe what is needed is for twitter/facebook etc to have a special kind of "read only" blocking for government and public official accounts?

<comment><USER4> I have no expectation that any form of communication I make will be listened to. I can call my senator or Donald Trump on the phone but it's very unlikely I will actually be able to talk to them. I can send my senator or Donald Trump a letter but it's unlikely it will actually be read by them. There are many filters in place. Twitter blocks are just another filter on a specific communications medium.

<comment><USER12> Muting is a filter. Blocking imposes restrictions on the actual speech, and on the reception of Tweets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is an interesting argument. I'm persuaded that, say, the Department of Agriculture can't apply viewpoint-based discrimination on whom they choose to block from their Twitter feed.

It's much less clear to me that this restriction should apply to every government official using Twitter in the same manner as a private citizen might. What's the limiting principle? The First Amendment applies just as much at your local school board meeting as it does at a White House press conference; does that mean each of those elected officials must treat their social media accounts as public forums if they ever choose to use them to chat about official business as @realdonaldtrump does?

<comment><USER8> > I'm persuaded that, say, the Department of Agriculture can't apply > viewpoint-based discrimination

I agree. But how far does that go? Lets say there's a small town somewhere that hosts a monthly community BBQ/potluck during the summer. They post photos to the town facebook page, and PETA shows up and starts spamming the comments with "meat is murder" and the like. Can the town block PETA?

<comment><USER5> This is an issue already dealt with at length in existing case law, and is largely unrelated to the case at hand because @realdonaldtrump is not a place for announcing community events or road closures, and the censorship applied there is not viewpoint-neutral.

Relevant quote from the article: _The president has admitted in the lawsuit that he blocked them because he objected to the viewpoints they expressed in replying to his tweets or in their own tweets._

The reason EFF describes that as an "admission", is because it makes the question you raise irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Twitter and social media don't want that door opened. It will almost certainly subject them to strong regulations.

I guarantee conservative/maga types like Roger Stone who have been banned from Twitter will sue, since they would have a right to comment on Official Tweets.

The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company.

I personally find this article distasteful, as Net Neutrality is about to be lost, and the EFF is publishing stuff about Tweets.

Its time like these, where I'm convinced the EFF needs to be replaced by a more aggressive Organization dedicated to protecting our civil liberties from things like PRISM and protecting Net Neutrality.

What the point in a worthless battle/distraction(Trump can just drop twitter), when we are in the middle of a larger war (NN) ?

<comment><USER15> The first amendment applies to the actions of govnerment officials, not private parties.

In the meat-space analogy, the mall is still able to kick out people for violating its rules on conduct, but government officials are not allowed to, nor are they allowed to ask the mall to kick people out on their behalf.

> Trump can just drop twitter

Can he, really? It is his favorite medium, the one that allows him direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like.

<comment><USER12> In what way would a private site (say, a self-hosted GNU Social instance) not allow Trump direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's an interesting argument, but in practical terms, _who cares_ if the government can't censor your tweets when Twitter itself -- an arbitrary, non- transparent entity, with zero representation for users -- can censor your tweets?

It could be a nice first-step to more fair social media, though.

(People are arguing that twitter is not a public forum, it's just a private service, &c. Sure, maybe in origin, but practically speaking, twitter is probably the most important public forum there is right now. Being barred from twitter is a huge loss of ability to participate in civic life.)

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the EFF is dead wrong here, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Aside from the trappings of fame itself, is there any precedent where a public official has been restricted from certain rights that they previously enjoyed in their private lives?

Maybe once you become an elected official, you can no longer chase people off your front lawn. They have a right to speak so maybe that's more important than your private property rights. Maybe they can demand you charge their iphones while they're protesting on your street corner? The government is paying for their salary anyway, shouldn't a protested politician be required to support the protestors in the name of free speech? How far does this go?

<comment><USER18> > _Aside from the trappings of fame itself, is there any precedent where a > public official has been restricted from certain rights that they previously > enjoyed in their private lives?_

In many jurisdictions, the emails and texts and other communiques you make in the course of your job or subject to public records request. That's not the case if you have a private job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Here's where I part ways with the EFF's analysis: The article says, "the First Amendment doesn't just protect your right to speak your mind. _It also protects your right to receive, read, hear, see, and obtain information and ideas._ " (Italics added.)

The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I understand that there are literally dozens of bound volumes of case analysis that apply to the interpretation of this amendment by dozens of courts great and small, but I don't think any of them have gone so far as to say that I have a constitutional right to receive information in a certain medium. If a tweet is that important, some newspaper will reprint it.

<comment> nv-vn This is true, but I think even more importantly, these actions go 100% against the spirit of the law. This article is basically arguing that the private sector can provide a public platform, which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right. It also restricts the right of the media or Twitter to remove Trump if they so wish to.

<comment><USER5> _> which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive."_

No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.

What _does_ follow is that, if the forum the gov't is using does not protect this right to receive, then _the gov 't_ can be forced to use a different forum.

Which is how it should be. Malls shouldn't be allowed to shut down public debate on local tax policy just because the city council chooses to hold their public meetings in the food court.

Of course, the mall is free to perform that censorship. But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.

 _> By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right_

Those "volumes of case law" already deal with this question in a multitude of ways.

<comment> nv-vn > No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.

Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up (or else they have broken it as a platform for free speech).

> But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.

The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government. As a better example, I would say you have a private establishment like a hotel where the meeting is happening. You have a conference room reserved and the public is welcome to come in to observe. If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed). In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech. The issue here, is that the EFF is asserting that if the President chooses to talk to someone in the hotel lobby (somewhere that anyone can listen, but not somewhere that is meant to be official government communications), then that has suddenly become protected.

<comment><USER5> _> Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up_

This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of _THIS_ lawsuit would be an injunction against Twitter.

So unless you have a very compelling legal argument...

 _> The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government_

Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is _even stronger_. It's not just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an even more obvious restriction on speech...

 _> If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed)._

Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for the city council to host their meeting in that hotel.

 _> In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy._

Yes.

 _> So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech._

And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make two different restrictions on speech?

More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> nv-vn "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't get how somebody can argue for this as a first amendment right. The first amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that you can say anything you want anywhere you want (keyword: anywhere). The Supreme Court has ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional. For example, the government can restrict you from standing at the door of an abortion clinic and protesting, but cannot prevent you from protesting abortions publicly. This case seems like a pretty clear-cut example: you are not being censored by saying that you cannot tweet directly to President Trump, as long as you still have the right to publicly state your views. The fact that the speech doesn't make it to the ears of the President has never been a concern with free speech. The goal is to allow people to assemble and share their views with those who wish to listen. If Trump wears noise- cancelling headphones while passing by a protest, is he infringing upon your right to free speech? The thing here is that the tweets still do get sent out, and it's not like you're shadow-banned. The President has opted-out of viewing your tweets, just like how wearing noise-cancelling headphones is opting out of hearing your speech.

More importantly, it is still important to note that they have not stopped your ability to actually speak to the President. You can send a letter in the mail or protest in front of the White House if you so wish to. It also creates a sticky situation when you think of the consequences of Twitter banning a user. If Twitter is to be considered a protected "free speech zone," the company loses the right to ban users.

Fundamentally, this situation is nothing like what the first amendment has ever been applied to. It's not even really a debate on freedom of speech, but rather a right to audience. Is it within your constitutionally-protected right to have an audience? Based on what the Bill of Rights represents, I would argue that any such restriction is against the spirit of the document. The point of the document is to protect the individual from the government, not coerce the government or individuals into action -- if this becomes a protected mode of free speech, Twitter is coerced into allowing all messages to be published to anyone.

<comment><USER20> The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum, not just your own tweets but also re-tweets and replies. By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them.

Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can't regulate that speech based on content, beyond policing for obscenity and threats (though even that would be at issue in this case, since the President himself has used these forms of speech).

<comment> nv-vn >The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum

The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into certain actions (censoring anything would be illegal).

>By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them.

When did he declare that? As far as I know, the only people who have said that are staunchly anti-Trump.

>Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument.

I get what you are saying, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is enough to be considered free speech in the past.

>If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can't regulate that speech based on content

Who is "you"? This applies to the government, but a private organization need not follow these laws. And at what point has Twitter declared itself to be an open microphone to free speech? I guess you mean that this applies to Trump's Twitter account, but I don't think it has ever been meant to be an open microphone. That is like saying that if Trump were to publish his phone number online it would instantly imply that he's using it to receive public opinions on politics. His Twitter account has existed since long before he became President, so in my opinion it's disingenuous to say that it should be an "open microphone," because do we really expect him to stop using his Twitter/Facebook/whatever accounts just because he's a politician?

<comment><USER20> Commenting on my phone so it's hard to do in-line:

1\. Sean Spicer is among the government officials who said that Trump's tweets represent official statements. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/poli...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/politics/trump- tweets-official-statements/index.html)

2\. Nobody is trying to compel Twitter to do anything here. They are not a party to the suit. The onus is on Trump to act according to the relevant law by not blocking people; or by not posting on Twitter if he can't abide by the rules imposed by the law.

3\. Sorry for the ambiguous pronoun. Twitter creates the rules for their platform, Trump decides to participate there. By doing so, he is explicitly choosing to participate in a forum discussion, which carries certain consequences (as TFA mentions). If he did not want to let people speak in rebuttal, he could write a blog with comments turned off, or broadcast a weekly radio address. What he can't do, as a government official, is participate in a public forum in an official capacity, and then silence or demote dissenting speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Someone blocked by president trump can still read his tweets because Twitter does not prevent you from having multiple accounts. On the notion of free speech, twitter does not block users from tweeting stances in their own feeds.

To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news to provide a 1 hour block at midnight that allows 1 minute video segments from angry people that want to shout at the president. It's not going to happen.

The first amendment was about making it legal to shout from the rooftops, but not a requirement that all mediums re-shout it for you.

If you want to start a newspaper in the US, no one is stopping you.

<comment><USER22> If someone blocks you on Twitter, can you still refer to their account using their handle, and their tweets using the URL? If not, then that is an infringement of speech. We should be able to refer to the president's remarks, for instance; otherwise we are hindered from processing that information.

<comment><USER21> Even if Twitter had some capability to block WhitePower.com or BlackPower.com from showing Tweets, referring to a instance of a communication can always be done the old fashioned way:

Example: This week the New York Times interviewed the president who said "I love people."

No more issues - everyone is allowed to share, read, and post their own views on the mediums that will allow, and are capable of creating their own medium in the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23>
      Does this mean I can't block anyone?

_A non-governmental actor can block anyone they want without violating the First Amendment. The First Amendment only restricts the government's ability to limit speech in this context._

There were 65.8M votes for Hillary. They're gonna need _a lot_ of WH interns to set up that many blocks.

<comment><USER24> > _They 're gonna need a lot of WH interns to set up that many blocks._

* An AI that checks if you are politically aligned with the current government, or a trouble maker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Another argument for Twitter becoming a public good! Maybe then I can finally sell my shares for a profit.

</comment><comment><USER26> If Twitter is a public forum then should they be allow to even ban accounts? Also, can officials have private accounts? In the case of Trump, maybe he isn't allowed to ban people from the @POTUS account but is allowed to ban them from his private @realDonaldTrump account.

<comment><USER12> _If Twitter is a public forum then should they be allow to even ban accounts?_

I don't think the statement is "Twitter is a public forum" but "the Twitter accounts of government officials using in their official capacity make those accounts public forums in the context of the First Amendment restrictions on governmental intervention".

So I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can or cannot do.

 _Also, can officials have private accounts?_

IANAL: probably, but only as long as they don't use it in their capacity as officials. Which Trump does with @realDonaldTrump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > We frequently receive reports from community activists and other social > media users who were blocked from commenting on an agency's Facebook page, > or prevented from contributing to a community discussion prompted by an > officials' tweet, or have faced similar barriers to participation in public > debate. We receive reports about how governmental officials manipulate > social media comments to exclude opposing views to create the impression > that hotly contested policies are not contested at all. And we realize, in > seeing how agencies use social media to quickly disseminate emergency > information during the recent spate of natural disasters, that the ability > to receive such messages can be a matter of life and death.

This is really the crux of why it's a First Amendment issue -- because that amendment is meant to protect discussion from that sort of manipulation by government.

</comment><comment><USER28> In the full title, the antecedent for "them" is "Tweets"

<comment><AUTHOR> I had to butcher the title to fit, HN mods are welcome to unbutcher it. I really hate having to do that, but EFF tends to have overly verbose headlines.

<comment><USER29> OK, we've butchered it differently and updated it from "Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment On, and Reply to Them".

<comment><USER30> Nobody would have to butcher anything if you removed the character limit on titles, or at least increased it to a more reasonable default. I doubt even many HN users are browsing from an 80 column terminal, so the restriction seems not to serve much purpose.

You could also cut the titles off at the nearest word add an ellipsis and a tooltip so people could read the entire thing without sacrificing canvas space - which might also improve accessibility.

Each would seem to be a better option than constantly trying to make titles fit into an arbitrarily restrictive space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> How is this different than real life?

</comment><comment><USER32> But if US citizens are allowed to block president's twitter, then there is an impasse of communication. So US citizens should not be allowed to block the president either.

<comment><USER33> I don't understand this argument. This seems like the equivalent of not attending said public forum. I'm not aware of any law against that, although I personally think it is a bad idea.

<comment><USER32> what's the point of forcing the president to accept a grievance if it's not possible for him to respond?

<comment><USER5> By your logic, city councils should not host any public Q&A sessions if even a single citizen in the city says they will refuse to attend.

That's clearly an absurd position.

<comment><USER32> no the analogy would be that if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request or wear earplugs. i am trying to follow the argument eff is making here and i also see that it leads to absurd conclusions

but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck

<comment><USER5> _> if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request_

Well, presumably at least some of the people in the lawsuit didn't block Trump.

 _> but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck _

It's not an analogy, it's a general principle and the application thereof to a multitude of circumstances to test that principle's reasonableness.

The constitution does not and never will have a special subsection of the first amendment on Twitter and Social Media.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is interesting.

Why would Hillary blocking RogerStone be against free speech when he can still use the platform to tweet. The first amendment does not mean someone has to listen to you. You just have to have the ability to disseminate ideas.

On the other hand, twitter suspending Hillary or Roger Stone, even being a private company, is more a direct threat to speech, given the stranglehold Goog-Twitt-Book have on communication.

It seems to me EFF have things a bit backwards here.

<comment><USER12> Being a "threat to speech" is irrelevant - what matters is the law, specifically the First Amendment, and that imposes restrictions on government and its officials that it doesn't on private individuals and companies.

As for Hillary, the point is that RogerStone can no longer receive _her_ messages (and directly comment them) and tag her on his Tweets to others. If she doesn't want to listen to him, she still can mute him, but blocking imposes restrictions on his speech.

<comment><USER34> What happens when those companies become an oligopoly or monopoly on speech?

What if the gov't uses twitter as it's only diffusion platform and what if them Twitter suspends say US EPA or Education twitter handles because they violate "ToS"? Since people can't in that case comms with gov't orgs, does that encumber free speech?

<comment><USER12> Does that encumber free speech? Maybe. Is it illegal? I don't think so.

If the government can't communicate because it only uses Twitter, then I think the answer is "don't do that". The government can always use its own means of communication.

<comment><USER34> Certainly they could revert to phone and snail mail, which was the prev status quo. However, that would be to the detriment of the people.

<comment><USER12> Or they can host their own sites...

<comment><USER34> They could also roll their own "Twitter" like microblogging service...

But I don't think we'd consider that a solution.

<comment><USER30> Actually... that sounds like a good idea to me.

Except for the part where no one would pay attention to it because it's Twitter, and the part where the government controls the platform, making internal surveillance and censorship inevitable. It would probably just wind up a PR machine for the party in power.

But government employees, from the President all the way down to, say, interns having an official and direct means of communication with the people, on public record? I'm all for it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The CEO of billion $ startup is firing employees before their stock options vest - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/The-CEO-of-a-3-7-billion-startup-is-allegedly-11072615.php <comment><USER2> Heavily discussed 2 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14111923](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14111923)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is why I'm skeptical of cliffs: it creates incentive for the employees to quit the day after vesting, and for the employer to fire them the day before.

<comment><USER4> Well in the former case, the employee has stuck it out and really is fully entitled to the shares -- and in most scenarios, has to pay tax on them right then and there.

Most likely in that scenario they got a better offer and probably did a good job. Arguably the cliff worked in keeping them around just a little longer.

I can't imagine many scenarios where the company firing at 364 days purely to avoid the vesting makes sense. Why hang on to someone so long if they're not adding value?

<comment><USER5> As the story alleges, they might be adding value but enough value to offset your loss of majority control.

<comment><USER4> Ah. Yes, completely right -- I was musing more on the top comment relating to cliffs and the practice in general.

In most cases if you're hiring where options are seen as necessary to get that talent - seems like it's going to be an odd (but not impossible) case where you're happy to walk that talent out the door too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why not give employees a % of their amortized stock options per day of employment? Any other scheme is nonsensical and the power balance is clearly on the side of employers. If you're worried about the employee not adding value then maybe they shouldn't be hired to begin with.

A challenge anyone who doesn't like this to explain why they think it is bad.

<comment><USER7> Because of the reason why they introduced "cliff". To avoid "job" hoppers that try to gather stock options from multiple startups in the hope, at least one will go IPO or Unicorn basically, without even doing any substantial effort themselves. And propably for various other reasons...

<comment><USER8> That's an argument for amortization, not against it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> TFA says, "The full Bloomberg story, with all the details, is worth a read »" [0] I agree; what a greedy insecure entitled shithead!

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-13/tanium-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-13/tanium- s-family-empire-is-in-crisis)

</comment><comment><USER10> Somebody designed a financial instrument to make money, in a zero sum game somebody has to lose for somebody to make money. I would rather shake someone's hand and agree to commit to an outcome. It has always worked out well for me

</comment><comment><USER11> So... is it potentially illegal?

</comment><comment><USER12> "On multiple occasions, the firings came within weeks of an employment anniversary, when workers' stock options were due to vest"

Birthday paradox? The title doesn't seem to match the Bloomberg detailed article. The CEO looks like a really bad manager though, but firing near vesting seems to be the least of his flaws.

<comment><USER13> I don't think the birthday paradox is relevant here.

A decent statistical test would be to gather all firings within some radius around work anniversaries (let's say 6 weeks), and see if there's a statistically higher chance of the firing happening before the anniversary than after. If it's egregious, you'll see a lot more before than after.</comment></comment>


The GPhone: So Open It Could Be Closed - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/the-gphone-so-open-it-could-be-closed/

<comment><USER2> I think it'll actually be harder to lock an Android phone than the NYT thinks. Google will make Android available to the public. Any phone worth hacking should be able to have its OS / firmware updated. It shouldn't be too hard to install this new clean (not gimped) version of the OS on the phone, much in the same way I can install a new OS on my computer. The only issue is whether or not the hardware drivers are readily available to make this clean version of Android work. Yet most phone companies release both carrier-specific and unlocked versions of their phones. Unlocked means available drivers.

So yeah, maybe you'll need to do some leg work to unlock your phone, but it'll be much easier to do than with the iPhone.</comment>


If You Can Correctly Pronounce Every Word in This Poem, You're Among the Elite - <AUTHOR> http://mentalfloss.com/article/568043/tricky-1920s-poem-english-pronunciation-inconsistencies <comment><USER2> Indeed, English can be weird - it can be understood through tough thorough thought though.

</comment><comment><USER3> If your website doesn't add several additional entries into window.history just by scrolling, you're among the elite

</comment><comment><USER4> T is for tsunami P is for pterodactyl</comment>


Robert Green on the 48 Laws of Power - Joe Rogan Podcast - <AUTHOR> http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/robert-greene-aubrey-marcus

<comment><AUTHOR> Posting here because everything he says about Hollywood, business, etc. and all the Machiavellian stuff that goes on is very relevant to startupland as well.

Early in the interview he makes the point that Hollywood veils its brutality under a lot of liberal rhetoric, and I couldn't help but think that Silicon Valley and the startup scene in general is absolutely identical in this way.</comment>


Follow HN – Follow Friends, Stories and Comments on Hacker News - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/follow-hn/ikckcpphnfndjmooifkoigdeajpmcajc

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. I created this Chrome extension over the holidays to help feed my HN habit. I use this extension to simply track my conversations on HN so I don't need to constantly refresh the browser to see replies from other users.

I also use this to track posts and comments from other users who seem to consistently post interesting things.</comment>


Dwolla Developers - <AUTHOR> http://developers.dwolla.com/ <comment><USER2> FYI to Dwolla people. The developers page shows a scary red, "This is probably not the site you are looking for!" when I click on it.

<https://developers.dwolla.com/>

"You attempted to reach developers.dwolla.com, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as *.heroku.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration on the server or by something more serious. An attacker on your network could be trying to get you to visit a fake (and potentially harmful) version of developers.dwolla.com. You should not proceed, especially if you have never seen this warning before for this site."

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixing it... thanks for the heads up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I want to love Dwolla, but while it requires people to add money to a balance I just can't see it fitting into a natural flow of purchasing. I see, I click buy, I go to checkout, I checkout... oh wait, not enough money in my account, OK, I'll top it up with some cash... OK, cash added, now I can go back to my original checkout page...

I don't know what the answer is- clearly they want to avoid making a bank transfer for every purchase (which is understandable) but the user experience just seems kind of lacking to me. Last time I checked they did have an automatic option, but it cost users $3 a month. Eh.

<comment><USER4> How is you not checking your balance before a purchase in any way different than making sure you have enough money available through your current payment method?

Sounds like you really should be making a point that Dwolla needs to build confidence and adoption. If Dwolla could become or partner with a net bank that has FDIC deposit insurance, I would think that would seriously blow up their adoption rate. I haven't given it a good look recently, but that would make me feel more comfortable with using it; especially if they also partnered with a behemoth like Amazon or Google for payments. They need to make a marketing push as a way to screw Visa, MasterCard, Banks, etc and it's ability to push down prices through lower processing fees.

<comment><USER3> _How is you not checking your balance before a purchase in any way different than making sure you have enough money available through your current payment method?_

Well, my credit card doesn't require topping up, it requires paying off every month. And my bank account/debit card gets a direct deposit of my wages- I don't have to top it up.

If a lot of places used Dwolla it would make sense to stick $1,000 in my account. But as it is right now, I would be leaving a lot of money in an account I barely use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are a merchant, please read this before thinking about using Dwolla (or any service for that matter). Feel free to contact me about what I wrote and my personal experiences with it.

<http://www.shtylman.com/archives/319>

This is not meant to be trolling; I genuinely want people to be aware of what they are getting into and understand the risks so they can avoid the problems I (and others) have already faced.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the post. I'm very interested in hearing more real world experience with Dwolla, as there doesn't seem to be much out there. Presumably, the things it would be most useful for (larger transfers - where credit card fees are high, or p2p) are the most risky.

I will say, however, that the API is simple to use, and having a built in mechanism for charging a facilitator fee is great - but convincing my customers and merchants to use it will be difficult if fraud continues to be a sore spot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wanted to love these guys, I really did. I had a b2b operation all set up and just needed some help with the payments. After going through their API I realized I could technically do everything I needed.

But they insisted that each customer have their own account which didn't make sense in my circumstances. I couldn't even get them to return emails or have a phone call to discuss.

Pro tip to startups out there: it never hurts to talk to potential customers.. they may be your next pivot.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yo! I run partnerships at Dwolla. Your email from May went to my spam- I just responded. No excuse, but sorry about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Until I see how they are dealing with fraud instead of just shafting their merchants I won't touch anything Dwolla no matter how pretty they think their api is.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dwolla puts a lot of attention towards fraud. Have you seen any of the recent changes on the site, articles about how Dwolla combats fraud now? If you want to have a real conversation about it- feel free to email me at email@example.com.

<comment><USER8> "articles about how Dwolla combats fraud now?"

Links? Nothing obvious I am seeing even with a search for "how Dwolla combats fraud"

Additionally is there any difference (for a merchant) in how Dwolla handles chargebacks vs. a credit card company?

<comment><USER5> No, Dwolla WILL take your money if they are hit with chargebacks. Do NOT use them if you value your payments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If any Dwolla folks are looking, this page seems to have massive character encoding problems when viewed with the Android Browser (Android 2.3). It's...rather interesting.

</comment><comment><USER10> I used to have good feelings about Dwolla.

Until they dumped Bitcoin.

Now I have bad feelings.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I may be bias but the konami code is pretty awesome :) Unicorns and Fireworks</comment>


HTML5 Web Messaging - <AUTHOR> http://ajaxian.com/archives/html5-web-messaging <comment><USER2> Er, where's the content? All I see is a link to the current version of the in- development spec (<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-webmessaging-20101118/>).

<comment><USER3> and also: where did those 7 upvotes come from? do people not read links before upvoting anymore?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This should probably be updated to point to the w3 proposal document, but I'm interested. For a while now I've wanted to have this functionality, but short of using flash (or sticking yet _another_ backend server between processes) this has been impossible.

It's a shame that the section on security is so short. Hopefully someone will address that soon.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a license like GPL for data? - <AUTHOR>

I am interested in the creation of some publicly created and publicly available datasets. Can anyone tell me if there is a license out there already in existence that would be to data as the GPL is to software? Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> When you say GPL, do you mean copy left? You could probably use CC-BY-SA for that, but I'd recommend reading this article by John Wilbanks at Science Commons

[http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2010/06/open_data_an...](http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2010/06/open_data_and_creative_commons.php)

as well as the Panton Principles

<http://pantonprinciples.org/>

In general, like with certain software tools and libraries a copy left license might not be the best choice, which is part of where John comes from.

</comment><comment><USER3> Before getting to the issue of licensing, at least if you are in the US, you probably should consider whether or not you are doing something copyrightable. If not, the licensing issue doesn't even arise.

Facts are not copyrightable, but the arrangement or presentation can be. The major case law on this is Feist vs. Rural Telephone. Wikipedia has a good writeup at the moment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Tel...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service).

</comment><comment><USER4> Data doesn't have the same protection as forms of expression do.

Copyright doesn't apply in the same way, educate yourself a bit before trying too hard; you may find out you're not going to be able to do what you want to do:

<http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm>

<http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html>

<http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Com...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Compilations_and_the_sweat_of_the_brow_doctrine)

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if it's possible to copyright data (if I understand your definition of data correctly), but it should not be, at least, not in the US. A quick skim of the wikipedia article on US copyright law shows that the scope of copyright is meant only to cover the arts and literary and scientific writing.

Obviously we know that (unfortunately) that includes software, but data would be a stretch.

Also here: <http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/#dbcopyright> The important quote is: "...whether the data itself is copyrightable, depends on what it is. To the extent it consists of factual information, it will not be copyrightable."

If it's not copyrighted, you don't need the GPL or anything similar.

<comment><USER3> "Obviously we know that (unfortunately) that includes software, but data would be a stretch"

How is it unfortunate that copyright covers software? Without copyright there would be no such thing as Free Software as it would be impossible to require people to distribute source with binaries or to distribute their changes.

Closed source could survive somewhat in a world without copyright on software since it doesn't come with source in the first place and can at least attempt to use DRM or other technological means to stop people from redistributing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What about the GNU Free Documentation License: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html>

IANAL, but this seems to be at least close to what you are looking for. I do not know exactly what constitutes the difference between a "document" and a "data set" (outside of the physical format"), but I would think that the license could apply to any data set printed on paper, so it could also apply to one in digital format.

</comment><comment><USER7> A quick google found this: <http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1-0/> YMMV</comment>


Tesla: Great things are launching at 2pm - <AUTHOR> https://www.tesla.com/soon <comment><USER2> They've already paused ordering on their site and redirected people to this page.

The other thing they've got going on is the $1B bond payment due on Friday. I've mentioned this a few times in that its convertible but options are only pricing in a move of up to 3% which won't get them near the strike price to convert their debt.

Rumors are being floated around of pre orders being announced for the model Y. I can't see preorders taking in anywhere near as much as the Model X preorders did for a few reasons.

1) Lost of overlap between the Model X and Model Y customers, and most of these people may have already bought a Model X.

2) Those that put down deposits for a Model X had long waits to get their deposit back or to get their car. We've seen wait times as short as 2 weeks to get your deposit back, a couple of months after the pre orders opened to more than a few months recently. I don't see near as many people rushing off to lock up their money for a couple of years minimum given how long the Model X pre orders forced people to wait.

Given that the Model X has really stretched the assembly lines its clear, at- least to me, that Tesla will need a new factory to build the Model Y because they can't afford to shut down lines at their current plant and shipping cars from the China factor seems not scale-able.

Assuming this is true Telsa will again be entering a bet the company situation like they did with the Model X. Hopefully they can work their way through it like they did with the Model X without burning out their workforce.

Other possible things that could be announced...

A new super charger design and build out would be nice but would make for a pretty underwhelming announcement given how much Tesla has built this up.

Also expecting an announcement on a lower end Model 3 but again given how much Tesla hyped this up, that would be a really yawner of an announcement as well.

Though to be fair, he made a huge deal about an announcement in 2015 and it turned out to be Ludicrous mode, so I guess we could be just waiting to be disappointed:(

Dark horse idea, Musk names someone else CEO but given how there is no leak about this I don't think its likely to happen.

<comment><USER3> His recent tussle with the SEC did not help the share price either.

<comment><USER4> Tesla stock closed Friday at $294.

Monday, the SEC asked a judge to hold Musk in contempt of court for his tweets.

Today, Tesla stock closed at $319, up 8% from immediately before the SEC action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Im guessing Model 3 35.000 usd version.

<comment><USER6> u r wizard

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How many timezones are there in Teslaworld?

<comment><USER8> Im guessing pst. but its now 2:01 pm

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> can't wait!</comment>


Show HN: Awesome Python – the go-to Python toolbox - <AUTHOR> http://python.libhunt.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, mates!

I released this project yesterday. The end goal is this to become the go-to "Python Toolbox". I believe this could become a viable place for package discovery and comparison.

I will be more than happy to receive any feedback or ideas how the site could be improved and become more helpful.

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER2> I like it. On python-ideas the idea of a curated list of pypi packages comes up from time-to-time. The most recent incarnation was started just last month and you can read it here: [https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python- ideas/2016-March/03...](https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python- ideas/2016-March/039287.html)

Such discussions usually die out after some people give their opinions on what such a package curation/voting system should be like, whilst others state why we should not have such a system.

For my money, most of the objections are really just people pointing out that it is a very difficult to design problem. Rather than objecting to the actual idea.

So anyway, it's really nice to see some actual working code.

A few of comments:

1\. You describe this as the "go-to Python Toolbox", but I'm not sure that really describes what it is well. It's really a summary of github statistics. Even forgetting how the packages are rated, you have a package rating system rather than a single toolbox. I think what you have is more interesting than a single python toolbox.

2\. You have not quite solved the major complaint that usually comes up in discussions of such package voting systems. That is, that a package is not generally just "good" or "bad", but appropriate or not appropriate for given uses. Furthermore, I think the 'Popularity' metric is not quite obvious from a first look at, say, a package category. In other words, it's not quite obvious that this is a measure of how the github repository is starred. At least then the user can decide themselves whether or not this is a useful metric.

3\. Github stars is not a bad measure. A better one would include the ability to downvote.

4\. Pretty much all repulation/voting systems have the problem that for any "votes", or even full-blown reviews, it's not clear which version of the library they are about. This is really difficult to solve. Since you only have positive votes the problem is not so pronounced as it is in other systems (or proposed systems). But the basic problem is that a bunch of users downvote a library because it is difficult to use, or doesn't have tests, or they cannot install it etc. The developer takes that into consideration and produces a new version of the library, what should the reputation system do? It's really not a trivial question. You still have that issue in that a bunch of users may have decided _not_ to star a library because of an earlier version. They may even star a library which later becomes less useful, for example because it is superceded by a better library, or because the code degrades. I understand users can unstar a repository, or flock to a new one, but still, the general problem is not entirely solved. That said, using GitHub stars probably suffers from this problem less than other measures.

5\. I really like the look of it. I think the colour scheme for Python is the best of the three so far.</comment>


feedback for moustach.io - <AUTHOR> http://moustach.io

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been working on this, along with building a customer development strategy, for about 8 to 10 hours a week since October. I'd appreciate any feedback on the app, the site, and the concept. I'd also like to share the custom development strategy in a later post, if this post gets any traction.</comment>


Inferno: Library for high-performance user interfaces - <AUTHOR> https://infernojs.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> > Inferno is an insanely fast, React-like library for building high- > performance user interfaces on both the client and server.</comment>


NZ considering $100M contact tracing 'CovidCard' - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/04/17/1132682/nz-considering-100m-contact-tracing-covidcard <comment><USER2> Kiwi here, I belive this is either snake oil or a conceptual idea rather than a product. The media are touting it as credit card sized device, but with a battery it would need to be much thicker.

Here in lockdown we are allowed to go for a walk or cycle. Potentially this card could register thousands of contacts.

<comment><USER3> Yeah - I design this sort of thing and I can't understand how the power management of this thing works - battery life has to be a month or so (or it's a cm thick).

Remember that when you're talking at GHz (ie BT) you have to keep your receive PLLs powered up to receive data, that's ~1/2 the power requirements of short distance transmitting

<comment><USER2> Some media here have claimed a 6 months to a year of battery life. I am very skeptical.

<comment><USER3> Exactly - I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I'm highly highly skeptical

<comment><USER2> Just noticed the username. Feel free to shoot me an email, would be keen to hear what kind of work you do in nz.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Surely just installing an app voluntarily would get enough tracing to be effective?

As a kiwi who has spent half my life living in different countries, I can say trust in the government here, while not universal, is higher than anywhere else I've been. I think most people would do it

<comment><USER5> Agree. compared to the shit-storms politicians are creating in other countries I'm sort of proud of the way our government acted so decisively and unilaterally, and I generally get the feeling they are acting for the good of the people not themselves.

I can already see the cracks appearing as some idiots try to score points or promote their own agendas and the media are happy to give them air time, the "covidcard" or phone tracing app will open another one of those cracks even though like you say the majority would conform

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The only central register of card IDs would be held by the Government and isolated from other Government databases, so it could not be used for anything other than Covid-19 contact tracing."

What does "could not" mean, anyway?

<comment><USER7> Same argument currently being brought by the German PEPP-PT project. I really don't get why they push for these centralised solutions when clearly defined decentralised models exist.

<comment><USER8> >I really don't get why they push for these centralised solutions when clearly defined decentralised models exist.

power

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The big problem with all radio based contact tracing solutions is the receiver. Receivers use at a minimum several mW of power. A typical Bluetooth low energy receiver will use about 50mW so will drain a coin cell battery in a day. Bluetooth low energy saves energy by transmitting for very short periods of time so transmit power is low but receiver power can be high. Even asking most consumers to leave their phone's Bluetooth recovery on all day is a big ask because of the impact on battery life.

Schemes could be designed to better synchronise receivers and transmitters so the receiver can be switched off most of the time but this currently can't be done with Bluetooth.

<comment><USER10> Your phone's Bluetooth scanning IS always on if it's an iPhone or Android. Always. By default.

<comment><USER9> That may be true when the screen is on, but from my experience scanning is not switched on in sleep modes on iPhones and most Android phones. I don't have definitive proof of this but I have never seen a modern phone be able to reliably scan whilst in sleep mode for any long period of time.

<comment><USER10> it is on just at a lower duty cycle.

source: worked on this for a few years at googl, both chromeos and android

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Once again we ignore Asia and their clear lessons with covid-19 because they are not enough like us.

Electronic solutions don't work, even in compliant countries like Singapore they don't, it's boots on the ground that does.

Here's a good write up on Australia's attempts as they stand -

[https://medium.com/swlh/some-basic-points-on-contact- tracing...](https://medium.com/swlh/some-basic-points-on-contact-tracing- apps-7dc4df1442f2)

</comment><comment><USER12> With all the issues with tracing apps listed. I can see the systems around the world causing more problems than benefits for the person in the street.

Possibly the concern for many of ending up causing massive issues in their social and work circles. Will mean many simply wrap in tinfoil if indeed they bother to carry at all.

No body wants to be known as the person who sat the otherside of a drywall partition to someone covid 19 positive. Which meant they then basically quartined for two weeks all their work mates in a role which was not WFH compatible and hit them all in the wallet.

</comment><comment><USER13> The arguments the promoting organization is using against a smartphone app (e.g. Google and Apple's thing) are pretty dubious. That seems like the easiest way to do digital tracing by far.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Without fast case isolation after restrictions ease, modelling shows that the virus could spread exponentially and ultimately kill 100,000 Kiwis."

The left out the word "unreasonable". "Unresaonable modelling shows..."

See the Tailrisk analysis: [http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/Corona.pdf](http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/Corona.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Yeah but the Tailrisk guy is not an epidemiologist, he's out of treasury and naturally has is more economy focused outlook.

One person's "unreasonable" can be another's "sensible caution"

<comment><USER14> You're right about that guy. So I'll be more specific. The model that shows large numbers like 14,400 (not even 100,000) presumes we do NO contact tracing at all (not just slower contact tracing). I'd wager most people would agree that is an unreasonable assumption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think if they could both work in conjunction with each other that would be ideal. I'd try the app for sure, but success rate doesn't seem to be high enough in Singapore for an app only to be the sole solution. Use as many approaches as you can make compatible ups the chances of uptake.

</comment><comment><USER16> This reminds me of schools early on who wanted to give all their students ipads.

Hello? fundamentals go much further than tech magic bullets.

For instance, the chinese took people's temperatures.

</comment><comment><USER17> The conspiracy theorists almost had it right. It's not tinfoil hats we need, it's tinfoil bags and pockets.</comment>


The RMX16 Sound Lives On - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-sound-that-defined-80s-music-still-lives-on-today <comment><USER2> As someone who has owned some of the really good classical reverb units, this article is ... uh ... not sure what the point is. It reads like an advertisement.

Listen, every uniquely engineered reverb has a distinctive sound. Some are more distinctive than others. Most 80s reverbs are terrible _except_ if you are looking for the quirky characteristics that result from their limits. I am one of those people that does not have nostalgia for the limits of those units; their sound is perfectly replicated in modern software units.

The 90s reverb units sounded really good. Lexicon, Roland, Sony, Eventide, TC, etc. But in 2015 the available Logic Audio plugins, while they may be a bit different, are essentially indistinguishable quality-wise from the original hardware units. I owned and loved a lot of those units. So what do I use today for reverb? The native Logic Audio plugins and the ArtsAcoustic plugin. These are so good and flexible that they cover almost every use case for the sophisticated hardware units of the past. They sound _really_ good. It is almost embarrassing that you can get audio that sounds that good for that cheap.

A reverb plugin on your laptop today is capable of a great many things that were not even possible for reverb hardware in the 1980s. That is worth keeping in mind.

<comment><USER3> > ... uh ... not sure what the point is. It reads like an advertisement.

It _is_ an advertising - for universal audio's plugin version of said reverb.

<comment><USER4> It make function as such, but it's neither marked as an "advertorial" nor makes much sense as one (the target audience of Vice/Motherboard to the one buying UAD plugins has little overlap). UAD doesn't do such deals anyway, that I've seen in any other place; they do regular ads all over the music tech press.

So, I doubt it's a paid ad -- looks mostly like an article made up from very little substance, praising a unit they don't really understand, about a subject (music production) they don't know much about.

If it IS paid, I don't know what where they thinking. People unrelated with the industry will go out and buy $1000+ hardware units for a specialized effect that's not that enticing even to music gear heads with GAS like me?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> RMX16 hardly defined 80s music sound. There are 100 other boxes equally important for the era. To name but a few: Lexicon reverbs, SSL consoles, Eventide Harmonizer, Aphex Aural Exciter, 808 and 909, the Emulator samplers, the DX7 and D50, and so on...

And even the effect he talks about (gated reverb snares) has been achieved with lots of different units in different records.

<comment><USER5> For me it's all about the lexicon verbssssssssss

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Yamaha DX7 , Linn drums and the Marshall JCM800 defined the '80s sound.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm more of a fan of the TR-808 and the TR-909.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a pretty awkward article that reads like Vice was paid by Universal Audio to write it, but there is no indication of sponsored content.

<comment><USER9> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10573590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10573590)

<comment><USER10> This is a submarine, then [http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

Do publications like Vice disclose whether articles like these are paid/sponsored or organic if you ask them? Vice seems to claim that they value transparency and that they mark sponsored content as such:

[http://gawker.com/vice-is-very-touchy-about-its-wonderful- wo...](http://gawker.com/vice-is-very-touchy-about-its-wonderful-work-on- behalf-1535223061)

[http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/10/07/vice-media-why- conten...](http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/10/07/vice-media-why-content- marketing-so-much-more-ad-smart-media-buy)

> [Vice must] Accept that with millennials there is no trust. It has to be > earned

> Millennials have grown up at a time where they were told one thing and shown > another, said Adams [SVP and Head of Innovation at Vice Media]. Climate > change denial, the financial meltdown in 2008, old media was seen as the > harbinger and the bringer of lies. "At best traditional media seems > irrelevant," he continued and "at worst it seems like it's part of a > vanguard that can't get away with what its been getting away with for too > long".

> Vice plays in the middle of this shift, embracing classic programming but > also mindful of the tension of new media to craft content that rings true > with readers and viewers. "If you're not open and transparent, you'll be > torn pieces," warned Adams.

However, some statements in this article also suggest to me that Vice is willing to participate in crafting and shaping content for advertising purposes:

> [Vice recognizes] An engaged community can be as potent as any media buy. > [...] So how does a marketer go about identifying a busting community > capable of exponentially amplifying their messages? Unsurprisingly, Adams > thinks publishers like Vice and the insights they have into their audiences > are key.

> "Media agencies can do amazing things but advertisers need to work with > someone like us in order to get that initial early adopter curve of anyone > who's going to truly care about that campaign," he continued. "A campaign > should be designed with _somebody who really understands content_ and > doesn't just think about obsessively about CPMs and the efficiency of reach > because this will not be the future model." (emphasis mine)

<comment><USER11> From the linked Paul Graham blog post:

April 2005

 _Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It 's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think._

That was 10 years ago. How times have changed. Now we have various actors subverting online discourse, whether that's some PR company, rumour mill, TLA (Three Letter Agency), etc.

For a moment there the Internet _was_ different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Flagged as spam.</comment>


Google earns 80% of its mobile revenue from iOS, just 20% from Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/29/google_earns_80_of_its_mobile_revenue_from_ios_just_20_from_android.html

<comment><USER2> As BS as I consider business school to be, the Porter Five Forces model is an excellent way to look at everything Google does. Android doesn't exist to make Google money. Android exists to keep Apple honest with the threat of competition so that they don't circumvent the access route to Google.

This is why Google funded Firefox/Built Chrome --- to prevent a monopoly browser from somehow blocking access to Google.

In B-School they relentlessly push the idea that you should "commoditize your complements". Joel has a post on this from 2002 (<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html>).

In the really high level view, everything that Google does that is not search is in service of this goal. That is why it doesn't make money. Commodity markets are _supposed_ to be near-unprofitable. In the larger goal, they exist to prevent supplier-competition.

</comment><comment><USER3> _While Google's chief executive Larry Page recently described an $2.5 billion annual run rate for the company's mobile revenues, the company has testified that it has earned less than $550 million from Android across four years from 2008 to 2011._

wow that's low.</comment>


'Murdered' Journalist Is Alive and Well - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44307611 <comment><USER3> > "The journalist was reportedly found by his wife bleeding at the entrance to > his block of flats, shot several times in the back, and died in an > ambulance.

> He apparently did not tell his wife that the murder had been staged. > "Special apologies to my wife," he said at the press conference."

He'll be in the doghouse for a while after this.

<comment><USER4> No. The story says (emphasis mine):

> Babchenko said that his wife Olechka and his children _were aware of the > plan_ , but he publicly apologised to her at the press conference. "Olechka, > I am terribly sorry," he said, "but there were no other options".

<comment><USER3> Ah, they didn't have that bit in the first draft of the story linked here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _#Babchenko said that he had found out about an assassination that was being planned against him and joined up with Ukrainian security services to catch the killer, and add that according to their info, Russia ordered the murder_

[https://twitter.com/polina__ivanova/status/10018358919487078...](https://twitter.com/polina__ivanova/status/1001835891948707840)

 _#Babchenko: "Special apologies to my wife. Olechka, I am sorry, but there were no options here. The operation took two months to prepare. I was told a month ago. As a result of the operation, one person has been captured, he is being held."_

[https://twitter.com/polina__ivanova/status/10018329989946613...](https://twitter.com/polina__ivanova/status/1001832998994661376)

 _Police said that they had made one arrest in connection with the alleged assassination plot._

</comment><comment><USER6> A similar thing happened in France in the 80ies:

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

A Romanian spy was reluctant to conduct an assassination of two dissidents living in France. So he contacted the french secret services (DST). And fake attempts/executions were staged.

The one that was "killed" officially stayed low for ~3 months, which enabled the (ex-)spy to fetch his brother in Bucharest and defect to the West.

(video in french: [http://lesoubliesdelhistoire.fr/video/200964054](http://lesoubliesdelhistoire.fr/video/200964054))

<comment><USER7> Somewhat similar situations, but I think in this case it was planned in order to capture the assassin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In what way was the murder staging required to save this man's life?

Edit: removed unnecessary language sympathetic to one side or another

<comment> Const-me As far as I understood (I speak both Ukrainian and Russian languages) it was necessary to gather solid evidence against the organizer of the crime, who paid for the assassination of the journalist.

The would-be assassin was an undercover Ukrainian agent, and he'll be one of the key witnesses in the criminal case that will follow.

Locking the organizer up will save more than one man's life, both directly (other people who's killing he might have organized in the future) and indirectly (because of the media coverage of this case, the price tag might raise a lot).

<comment><USER9> Wow. If this was a sting that implicates Russia in paying for assassinating the journalist -- wow.

<comment> Const-me The survived journalist has told to the press the organizer has gave the "assassin" the journalist's photo identical to the photo in his Russian passport.

I'm not a lawyer but that looks like an indirect evidence pointing towards Russian government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure I understand what happened here.

Did they arrest someone who was hired to kill him? What was the point of this?

<comment><USER11> I don't get it either.

Was he not actually shot? Was he even shot at? Him being found by his wife dead and bloody, did this happen?

I don't understand this at all.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, if they had been planning for two months, likely the gun shots were staged.

Then it wasn't really going to fool Russia, they hadn't attacked him. Was it an attempt to influence Western countries?

<comment><USER13> > Then it wasn't really going to fool Russia, they hadn't attacked him.

That's not supported by what we know.

It's not uncommon for people to get caught hiring hitmen that turn out to be undercover police. That may be what happened here.

 _edit:_ [https://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-44307611](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44307611) states:

> Mr Hrytsak alleged that Russian security services had recruited a Ukrainian > citizen to find hitmen within the country. He said the citizen approached > several acquaintances, including war veterans, offering $30,000 for the > contract killing, one of whom revealed the plot to the security services.

Blanks, blood squib, cooperative ambulance crew, report back with "mission successful" and see what sort of activity happens at the Russian embassy.

<comment><USER12> Ahh I see

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Edit: To be clear, I am sympathetic to the Ukraine's position. They are definitely the good guys in the broader saga, and have suffered greatly due to Russian wrongdoing, but there is good reason to be more skeptical of their explanation here. I'm taken aback at how uncritically people are treating it. This was a staged assassination publicly blamed on another country. That should turn your bullshit-detector to maximum sensitivity. Original post:

So they blamed Russia for a staged murder, creating a very serious and very public international incident, as part of an investigation? How is no one raising the possibility that this was done to frame Russia, and that now they have changed their mind for whatever reason (perhaps fear of the ruse being discovered). Surely that's _worth considering_.

It's exactly what we would be speculating if it was done by a regime considered hostile to the West, instead of one considered friendly.

I have no reason to believe any particular theory of what actually happened and why, but surely, the Ukrainian government's explanation should not just be parroted uncritically by the press and commentators.

<comment><USER15> > creating a very serious and very public international incident

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, sent mercenaries to Donbass and Syria, bombed hospitals in Syria, shot down MH-17, killed dozen of journalists domestically... but you've worried that one murder accusation is a 'very serious' incident?

<comment><USER14> I'm not expressing concern or lack of concern about anything but the uncritical acceptance of the explanation for what's happened here. All of those things you list, they are very serious. And so is accusing another sovereign of carrying out a murder. Truth doesn't have a side, and two falsehoods don't make a truth.

For the record, I am concerned about those actions by Russia. I think it's downright awful what they've done to the Ukraine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Mods: I would advise locking this thread, there is _questionable_ activity here that would seem to indicate a coordinated effort to influence the discussion and I don't see it veering back into a positive place.

Edit: I shouldn't have commented as I didn't add to the conversation. From the guidelines:

 _Please don 't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data._

I'll shut up now.

</comment><comment><USER17> One of the things about mainstream journalism I've noticed in the last few years is that for the most part is they're generally not completely wrong - <USER2> least about something on this scale. I'm referring to generally free and open western news organizations. And I know plenty of news organizations can get stories muted by governments in some cases for national security reasons, but often not as binary as this.

The fact that this happened is pretty amazing.

<comment><USER18> They will report what they're told by the official source, as they did in this case. This isn't on the mainstream media. I'm not entirely convinced you read the article!

edit: there's some confusion over my statement "this isn't on the mainstream media". I mean that this isn't the mainstream media's fault.

<comment><USER19> > This isn't on the mainstream media

This is blatantly false. It was reported on the BBC and the New York Times, two of the world's biggest mainstream newspapers

<comment><USER18> Oops, I hadn't even considered "on" being interpreted in that sense! As others have suggested, I meant "on" in the sense of "blamable on".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A splendid sting operation. Well done, SBU.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great that he is alive.

But if this was a sting, it's not a good move by Ukraine/Kiev. It's just going to help future disinformation by the Putin regime. I wonder what their intended goal was?

>John Schindler @20committee

 _Exactly.

Incredibly stupid move by Kyiv.

Lots of ways to deter Kremlin wetwork without playing Western media for idiots._

>Steven Sullivan @compliancedivis

 _Right. The next time the Kremlin orders someone 's ticket punched they're going to claim they're not really dead._

[https://twitter.com/20committee/status/1001834917054042112](https://twitter.com/20committee/status/1001834917054042112) (John Schindler: ex-NSA, deep knowledge of Western intel, has had some scandals but is a reliable source and has editorial indep at his current pub.)

<comment><USER21> Not sure why you are downvoted, John Schindler's opinion does matter here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm sorry but what TV show are we watching right now Alias, Scandal I'm sure this didn't just REALLY happen.</comment>


Buy and Sell Facebook Apps - <AUTHOR> http://appmrkt.com/

<comment><USER2> Can we buy a vowel?

</comment><comment><USER3> this is interesting, though as with any marketplace liquidity is the winning factor. my gut tells me there won't be enough of that to make this work but who knows.</comment>


The Reconstruction of Ulysses S. Grant - <AUTHOR> https://www.damninteresting.com/the-reconstruction-of-ulysses-s-grant/ <comment><USER2> I think part of it is wrapped up in Grant having come around to an unflinching opposition to white supremacy. At least that was my take away from Ron White's recent "American Ulysses ". The degree to which the Grant was able to move forward on a semblance of emancipation, to have it unwound within a decade of his departing office, not to be realized until a century ranks as one of the great human rights tragedies. He was not without his ineptitides ( be careful putting your friends in cabinet positions), but can't accept that the diminution of his standing was not largely due to racialist backlash.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 1, has an extended section, "About General Grant's Memoirs"[1], describing Grant's financial particulars, at the end of his life.

The "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant"[2] cover his life through the end of the Civil War. It's a great read.

[1][http://www.marktwainproject.org/xtf/view?docId=works/MTDP103...](http://www.marktwainproject.org/xtf/view?docId=works/MTDP10362.xml;chunk.id=d1e2637;toc.depth=1;toc.id=;citations=;style=work;brand=mtp#X)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_Ulysses_S....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_Ulysses_S._Grant)

<comment><USER4> Love links that give diaries or first hand accounts.

I always read summaries like this of Grant with some level of doubt. So just reading a chapter of Grants writing gives my interest and doubt direction.

The part about the surrender is more worthy than a historical summary of his life (which always mentions he was broke). He on the fly included personal items to be taken by the confederates. How he realized most are farmers who needed their horses. And their sidearms.

But don't take my work for it, read it yourself. That is why your post helps me so much. TY

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Grant was probably the first general who really understood what industrial war entailed and how to fight it. Unleashing Sherman to burn his way through Georgia, and Sheridan to burn his way through the Shenandoah, while grinding down Lee in inconclusive battles of attrition across northern Virginia, striking at the logistical infrastructure of the South, instead of trying to fight the ANV in a decisive battle of maneuver.

It's a pity that the lessons learned in the trenches around Richmond were so quickly forgotten and dismissed by the general staffs of Europe.

<comment><USER6> Yes. "War is progressive," he wrote. He meant that technological progress changed war. Grant used railroads and telegraphs well, which was advanced thinking for the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Like the Silicon Valley of old:

> Grant turned the unit around by demonstrating a leadership style borrowed > from Zachary Taylor in the Mexican-American War, marked by thoughtfulness, > decisiveness, simple orders, and—above all—humility. This, his soldiers > admired most of all. Grant shunned ostentation, flamboyance, and even a > commander's uniform. He dressed like his men did and looked "plain as an old > shoe," according to one Army doctor.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if some of it is the perceived relative stature of Grant relative to other presidents of that era (other than Lincoln of course).

I'm not sure that presidents like Buchanan and Johnson used to be perceived as so near the bottom of the barrel as they are today. And while Johnson's impeachment was History 101 in American history classes, I don't remember it in the vein of "he really deserved to be impeached" but as more as a political thing.

<comment><USER9> I think that detail was probably abstracted away due to the limited time in high school history classes.

Andrew Johnson was impeached because he failed to adhere to law passed by Congress. Before that, he conflicted with Congress on the fundamental way Reconstruction was to be conducted. He single-handedly undermined newly-freed slaves' chances to secure suffrage and have refuge from oppressive codes in Southern states.

It's all in the wikipedia article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson)

<comment><USER8> Yes. But since we're quoting Wikipedia, here's the summary in Wikipedia of the chapter from JFK's Profiles in Courage about the senator who opposed Johnson's impeachment trial in the senate:

Edmund G. Ross, from Kansas, for voting for acquittal in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. As a result of Ross's vote, along with those of six other Republicans, Democrat Johnson's presidency was saved, and the stature of the office was preserved.

The point is that the fact that Johnson was able to stay in office was until quite recently widely viewed as a positive outcome.

(ADDED: And the fact that it was in Profiles of Courage in this manner may well have influenced how I learned about the event.)

<comment><USER9> I don't think we're presenting conflicting facts.

It's possible for a president to be terrible but ultimately better to not be removed from office.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "then thwarted attempts by President Andrew Johnson to suppress fundamental civil rights of newly freed black Americans. "

I've always been aware of General Grant as being a bit of an American hero but that quote may make him one of mine as well.

</comment><comment><USER11> Truly a remarkable man. It's been 150 years but that period is still intriguing.</comment>


Sweet32: Birthday attacks on 64-bit block ciphers in TLS and OpenVPN - <AUTHOR> https://sweet32.info <comment><USER2> To put this in context: You should have been avoiding 64-bit block ciphers to begin with.

[https://gist.github.com/tqbf/be58d2d39690c3b366ad](https://gist.github.com/tqbf/be58d2d39690c3b366ad)

Furthermore, as the article says from the getgo, birthday attacks are not _new_. They are a known problem.

What's new is someone wrote a paper describing a practical attack, and actually bothered to generate enough traffic to exploit the birthday bound of a 64-bit block cipher.

Your takeaway from this should be:

      - If it's not AES or CHACHA20, disable it.
      - If it's not AES_GCM or CHACHA20_POLY1305, consider disabling it.

<comment><USER3> To me, the takeaway is that assumptions made for certain algorithms may lose their validity within ten years. Exchanging 32GB over the Internet was absurd in 1993, when Blowfish was published. With video becoming a bigger part of the Web and Internet speeds going up, it may eventually stop being that way.

<comment><USER2> > To me, the takeaway is that assumptions made for certain algorithms may lose > their validity within ten years.

If we hit 2^64 bytes transferred in under one hour as a norm before 2030, I'll be immensely surprised. (This would implicate 128-bit block ciphers for birthday collisions.)

<comment><USER4> > 2^64 bytes

18446.74 PB

<comment><USER5> GCM has trouble after just 72PB, because of the way the initial block is divided between counter and IV.

<comment><USER6> Where are you getting that number?

<comment><USER5> The Noise framework documentation. I know there's "a" number for GCM, but I always forget what it is, so I keep going back to Noise.

<comment><USER6> I don't think their bound is related to nonce-management issues. From the documentation:

> The GCM security limit is 2^56 bytes because:

> This is 2^52 AES blocks (each block is 16 bytes). The limit is based on the > risk of birthday collisions being used to rule out plaintext guesses. The > probability an attacker could rule out a random guess on a 2^56 byte > plaintext is less than 1 in 1 million (roughly (2^52 * 2^52) / 2^128).

<comment><USER5> Yep. I'm wrong. I'll stop sourcing that number from Noise. :)

(Clarified offline: I'm thinking of the 32 bit counter in GCM, which will wrap in tens of gigabytes worth of bytes under a single nonce. Not a TLS issue, a concern for custom protocols.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the article: "But the take-away is this: triple-DES should now be considered as "bad" as RC4."

OpenSSL developer Mark Cox says: "tldr: "Low", Don't Panic!" [https://twitter.com/iamamoose/status/768431734547484672](https://twitter.com/iamamoose/status/768431734547484672)

The researcher site is [https://sweet32.info/](https://sweet32.info/)

And RedHat has a nice writeup as well: [https://access.redhat.com/articles/2548661](https://access.redhat.com/articles/2548661)

</comment><comment><USER7> Who's still using 3DES? That should already be a shooting offense anywhere where security matters.

<comment><USER8> Sites that want to support IE8 on XP while disabling RC4.

[https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewClient.html?name=IE&vers...](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewClient.html?name=IE&version=8&platform=XP&key=101)

<comment><USER7> _sigh_

Thank you, IE, for once again royally screwing all of us over.

<comment><USER9> Then drop support.

<comment><USER7> I'm not the one writing for it, and I'm not the one who's forced to support it by their employers.

<comment><USER10> Well then it seems a little exaggerated to say "all of us", no?

<comment><USER11> If you lump this in with all of the other effects IE has had on internet standards over the years, then it is accurate enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> TLDR: ~800GB sniffed in one session to perform the attack. Only practical if you never log off your torrent VPN.

</comment><comment><USER13> At what point does using TLS become malpractice? At what point does any software that links to OpenSSL become immediately suspect?

And TLS as deployed isn't secure _even when it works_ whenever you don't trust the certificate authorities. Which is always.

Yes, I get that these are mega standards/libraries with a gazillion knobs, some of which are secure. But maybe kitchen sink crypto isn't the way to go? When will we say enough is enough and do something about it? For my part, I switched to using NaCl with public key pinning a few years ago and haven't looked back.

/sigh

</comment><comment><USER14> Yet another example of key size not being the only thing to consider.

Also: OpenVPN's default cipher is blowfish? That would have been a great choice _20 years ago_ , but not now. It shouldn't even be supported in 2016.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why did Openssl only disable TDES and not Blowfish?

<comment><USER5> Is there a browser that supports a Blowfish ciphersuite?

<comment><USER2> No, but it's the OpenVPN default, so unencrypted traffic over OpenVPN might be interesting to play with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> We changed the URL from [https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2016/08/24/sweet32/](https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2016/08/24/sweet32/) to this post because it seems more explanatory.

There's also [http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/08/attack-of- we...](http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/08/attack-of-week-64-bit- ciphers-in-tls.html), via [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12353314](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12353314).</comment>


Using invoke dynamic to teach the JVM a new language [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://jnthn.net/papers/2013-bs-invoke-dynamic.pdf

<comment><USER2> A recording of the talk can be found here: [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/invokedynamic](http://www.infoq.com/presentations/invokedynamic)

<comment><USER3> And (in the category of don't do what I did) if you don't fullscreen the video of jnthn, you can watch the slides there next to the video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As he mentions in the talk early JDK7 implementations had a number of bugs (especially round class lookup and MethodHandles), but Java 7 update 40 introduced the Java 8 implementation and that is much more stable, though has somewhat different performance characteristics.

He is right that making giant guardWithTest chains will not be very optimal, normally creating a PIC of 1 or 2 tests and then falling back to other lookup and caching mechanism s is generally a good plan, but most callsites only get one or two types going through them anyway.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a neat presentation, but boy does it reinforce my lack of desire to relearn Perl..</comment>


Ask HN: WHat are online resources for learning data structures and algorithms? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for beginner resources for understanding data structures and algorithms. <comment><USER2> Difficult to answer without more information on what you already know, what you already tried, and what level of proficiency you have as a goal.

I took a course in this book, _Introduction to Algorithms_ (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Algorithms>), and it has provided a good foundation for my career. There is MIT Open Courseware and video lecture available for it, which you can get in the previous Wikipedia link or via iTunes U ([http://itunes.apple.com/us/course/introduction-to- algorithms...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/course/introduction-to- algorithms/id495066198)). This book says "You should have some programming experience... [with] recursive procedures and simple data structures... You should have some facility with proofs by mathematical induction... and elementary calculus." So you may need to look into some discrete math and calculus first.

This list of free resources pops up here a lot: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/194812/list-of-freely- ava...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/194812/list-of-freely-available- programming-books)

There are several algorithms/data structures books in the "Language Agnostic" section.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://www.algo-class.org/></comment>


MagicaVoxel – a free lightweight voxel art editor - <AUTHOR> https://ephtracy.github.io/?src=hn <comment><AUTHOR> Recently discovered this amazing app, allows you to create beautiful voxel art. Very intuitive and fun to use.

I'm not affiliated with it, just sharing it because I think it's awesome and more people should know about it. You guys will probably appreciate it even if you're not into 3D art. Also it's really inspiring that it's an indie project, and it's so damn good.

Author on twitter: [https://twitter.com/ephtracy](https://twitter.com/ephtracy)

(he posts feature updates and shares examples of beautiful artworks made with this app)</comment>


The ARPANET Dialogues - <AUTHOR> http://www.arpanetdialogues.net <comment><AUTHOR> From the about page:

In the period between 1975 and 1979, the Agency convened a rare series of conversations between an eccentric cast of characters representing a wide range of perspectives within the contemporary social, political, and cultural milieu. The ARPANET Dialogues is a serial document which archives these conversations. Even more unusual perhaps was the specific circumstances of the conversation: taking advantage of recent developments in telecommunications technology, the conversation was conducted via an instant messaging application networked by computers plugged into ARPANET, the United States Department of Defense's experimental computer network. All participants in the conversation were given special access to terminals connected to ARPANET, many of them located in US military installations or DOD-sponsored research institutions around the world. Excerpts from each session will be published as they become available.</comment>