What's Tylenol Doing to Our Minds? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/whats-tylenol-doing-to-our-minds/275101/ <comment><USER2> It is pleasing to see error bars on a graph in a mainstream publication. It's very nice to have them saying that the study was small and there are more questions to be asked.

It's good that they mentioned the severe toxicity of paracetamol in overdose. It does kill many people, and it's not a pleasant death. It also accounts for many organ transplants.

It would have been nice if they'd said that, taken carefully and with no over dose, paracetamol is a very safe and very effective medication. It's very cheap. (At least here in the UK, I found it bafflingly expensive in the US.)

Cultural note: In the UK most medication is dispensed in blister packs. You can buy paracetamol off the shelf but you can only get limited quantities. Most shops will only sell you 16 tablets (at 500 g each) or 32 if you buy it from a person. You can get 100 if you see a pharmacist and persuade them you need them, but that'll be a struggle in most places. You can get large amounts if you have a prescription. 16 tablets at 500 g each would cost around £0.20 (for budget pills). Blister packs was an effective suicide control measure, reducing the number of pills taken and the number of overdoses attempted. Reduced quantities of pills sold had an initial success in reducing suicide rates, but number have since risen. Pills in the homes of old people are especially dangerous. This is because they're not locked away, and young children visiting sometimes take the pills. And also because suicide rates among old people are depressingly high.

<comment><USER3> To be honest, I find the UK law to be absolutely stupid in this regard. I needed to buy 10 packs of paracetamol, and at local morrisons I was told I couldn't, maximum was 2 packs(16 tablets each). So I bought two packs, went out of the store, came back in, bought another two, repeated the process 5x and got my ten packs. The whole law is just an annoyance, nothing else. If I wanted to kill myself with paracetamol I could easily get even a 1000 tablets, would just need to drive around a few supermarkets but this law would not stop me from doing it.

<comment><USER4> > The whole law is just an annoyance, nothing else.

This is not true. It's about preventing impulsive suicides, not premeditated ones. If a depressed person is having an episode and all they have in their house is 16 pills, then it removes the opportunity: maybe by the time they've make it to the shops and buy more, the moment will have passed, and a life would be saved.

It's been shown time and time again that you can reduce absolute suicide rates by removing opportunities like this. If I remember correctly, there was something similar involving gas ovens, though I can't find the reference now. Guns, bridges, etc. are all similar too.

When it comes down to it, if someone's determined enough to kill themselves, they will, but the truth is _most people aren't_ and doing things like only selling small quantities of pills really can prevent suicides.

<comment><USER5> BBC article following reductions in successful suicides (interestingly it says no reduction in number of overdoses. But we have a pretty good reversal for paracetamol-induced overdose - N-acetyl-Cystine - so they should have a pretty good recovery)

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21370910>

<comment><USER2> Yes, but it's very important that anyone with an overdose gets treatment _as soon as possible_ , even if they feel no ill effects at that time.

Death from paracetamol overdose is by liver failure, and that takes a week or so to happen, but after the first 24 hours there's not much you can do to prevent it apart from liver transplant.

Paracetamol overdose is a small number of liver transplants in the UK, but a significant number of the 'super urgent' transplants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As usual in threads on topics like this, you can rely on HN participant carbocation's comments for some thoughtful perspective on the original article.

As the submitted article notes, responding to the press releases by the study authors,

"This all raises more questions than it answers. This study was small. The headlines are grandiose. The way people pass moral judgements is not necessarily indicative of their level of existential anxiety."

Indeed. This is an intriguing issue to study, and well worth some further studies by other investigators to see if the results will be replicated in other study populations, but the author of the submitted article was correct to have a headline with an open-ended question rather than a definitive statement about Tylenol. On my part, because I take different over-the-counter pain relief medications when I need any of those, I'm curious if this result would be replicated for aspirin or for ibuprofen. That the pain of stubbing a toe and the pain of rejection in love might have some of the same brain mechanisms is suggested by our use of the word "pain" for both phenomena. But that requires further study. (I'm sure there are many studies already on that issue, but I'm not deeply familiar with the research literature on that topic.) That pain (of either kind) might motivate action and thus dulling pain might reduce motivation for some actions is also plausible, and also has surely been investigated before, but perhaps there are still some very basic facts about that issue yet to be discovered. As so often happens after a new study is published, the most firm conclusion is "further research is needed."

<comment><USER7> Tylenol has a different mechanism than most other over-the-counter pain relievers. Most other OTC pain relievers are "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs" (NSAIDs), which means that they actually reduce inflammation at the site of injury instead of just reducing the amount of pain that your brain feels (though they do that too). But I still wouldn't be surprised if they had similar emotional effects.

<comment><USER8> Good point. It's hard to see the experience of specific pain as ever existing within a vacuum of human experience.

It's interesting to compare ourselves: a population of pill poppers at the slightest twinge, to those in other parts of the world who simply don't. Perhaps it affords us some extra (or different) mental space in an intangible way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some obvious responses occur to a skeptical reader of science:

1\. This study has precisely no meaning until it has been replicated, preferably with a larger set of experimental subjects.

2\. Science is not one study making ten claims, it is ten studies making one claim. This study falls into the former category.

3\. The study describes, it doesn't try to explain. Science requires a testable explanation, one that can be generalized and potentially falsified by independent laboratories. If the study had offered a possible, testable explanation, it would have crossed the threshold of science.

4\. It's important to say that psychological studies are virtually never replicated. One reason is that the original studies tend to maker nebulous claims that are difficult to quantify (like this study does). Another is that psychological studies tend not to be accompanied by the original study data, to a greater extent than studies in scientific disciplines. A third reason is that psychological journals tend to reject replication papers, especially those that don't confirm the original study's findings.

<comment><USER10> 1\. It has lots of meaning before replication, which is why people tend to replicate things --- they were inspired.

2\. Apparently the first study isn't science. I didn't realize that science was a catch-22 situation.

3\. This is so absurd that I feel like I'm being trolled. They have a testable hypothesis: that acetaminophen/paracetamol has a side effect of X.

4\. See <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/>

<comment><USER9> > 1\. It has lots of meaning before replication ...

Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Of course, you may be speaking of the prevailing standards in psychology, in which case you're right -- but then psychology isn't a science.

> 2\. Apparently the first study isn't science.

That's correct -- it isn't.

> I didn't realize that science was a catch-22 situation.

Only if you can't replicate any studies. That's psychology's problem, but not science's problem. In science, studies are replicated regularly, and no one takes a study seriously if it hasn't been replicated, especially where human health is concerned.

> They have a testable hypothesis: that acetaminophen/paracetamol has a side > effect of X.

That is not an explanation, it's a description. Science requires testable explanations. The paper doesn't presume to explain its results.

If I say "the night sky is full of little points of light", that's certainly testable -- someone else can go outside the tent and confirm it, but it's just a _description_ \-- not a basis for science, which requires that someone have the nerve to suggest an explanation for what has been described.

But if I say "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, at greater distances", I have offered a testable, falsifiable _explanation_. That's science.

If someone correlated a specific biochemical action in individual neurons with later very specific behavior, that might count as science, but that would be neuroscience, not psychology. Psychology doesn't try to analytically connect specific physical causes to effects -- it's satisfied to describe outcomes without pretending to know _why_ they are so.

> See <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/>

The fallacy is yours, not mine. You appear to think one study making ten claims constitutes science. In fact, science is ten studies making one claim.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition, you can hopefully understand that they will be insulted to have what they think is science to be called not science. Whether you meant it or not, it appears as an attempt to elevate yourself (the person passing judgement, by calling it not science) over the study authors. Thus it comes across as contemptuous, and so one starts wondering: why is this person trying to belittle the study? Is there a hidden agenda? Is this person trying to make it look like the scientists performing the study aren't scientists, so that everyone dismisses the results? These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental.

> In fact, science is ten studies making one claim.

If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? I've never heard it before, and it contradicts everything that I've encountered to date.

<comment><USER11> From previous experience discussing on HN, I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate.

<comment><USER9> > I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, > and doesn't consider it open to debate.

And your evidence is that we're having this debate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Always great to see studies looking at the mental implications of non- psychoactive drugs. I suppose it's common to overlook the implications of a drug on the central nervous system with respect to consciousness, when the drug in question never causes any subjective/noticeable change.

I suppose it's all too intuitive, though. Even slight, unnoticeable changes in consciousness - to the point that even you don't notice - may in-fact be detectable on paper. I hope this leads to more research into the mental changes for other drugs classified as "non-psychoactive" (who doesn't love more data? :). Anyways, to end off by inserting some colloquialism into my thoughts here...

Trippy study, mannnnn.

<comment><USER13> As someone with a family history of mental illness, I try to keep a close eye on my mental state, and it's surprising how much can affect it. Apart from drugs that shouldn't be affecting mental states, even different types of food and how much exercise I get can have noticeable impacts. Those EFA fish oil pills? Not just good for your heart . . .

<comment><USER14> I think you're promoting a healthy degree of self-awareness.

A noteworthy risk however is that you'll make false connections -- ie. garlic is good for fight off HIV.

<comment><USER13> I try to be aware of biases, but the OTC EFAs were prescribed by my physician, and there have been some studies backing DHA in particular as effective for depression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Possibly a dumb question, by why is it called acetaminophen in some places and paracetamol in others? Neither of them are a brand name AFAIK.

<comment><USER16> Its chemical name is para-acetylaminophenol. That's what the names acetaminophen and paracetamol are derived from.

para-ACETylAMINOPHENol

PARa-ACETylAMinophenOL

<comment><USER17> para-aceTYLaminophENOL

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Never mind what it is doing for your mind, in my experience, paracetamol causes pain.

I've suffered from what doctors call "pain syndrome" for years. Many different parts of my body are painful at any one time. It is years since I had a pain- free day.

I never accepted that I had pain syndrome, even when doped up simultaneously on codeine, paracetamol, tramadol and diclofenac. And still in pain. Finally I was moved onto morphine, but I still cannot sleep at night because of the pain.

However, I think that my pain problems were exacerbated by (at the very least) paracetamol (max dose daily for 2 years). It is well known that sulphur compounds (NAC specifically) are required for the detoxification of the byproducts of paracetamol. Long term use of paracetamol will lead to sulphur depletion in many people. And it seems this depleted sulphur is compensated by the body taking sulphur from other places (joints, cartilage), thus causing further pains.

Trying to get an answer from doctors and pharamacists about why taking sulphur reduces my pain more than the above concoctions of "pain-killers" got me nowhere, so the above is my explanation for why the more paracetamol I took the worse my pain problems got.

<comment><USER19> You should try drugs for neuropathic pain if you have not already: amitriptyline, gabapentin, duloxetine, and many others.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the suggestion. Tried them all. Amitryptyline made me suicidal (turns out that is a very common side-effect, and really unwelcome for someone who is in extreme pain). Gabapentin (and pre-gabalin) had no effect, but at least did not cause mental disturbance the way that Amitryptyline and Duloxetine did. The last one they tried me on was Venlaflaxine - I didn't notice any pain reduction, but I just got insomnia from it.

It's been a bad 5 to 10 years. My opinion is that "pain syndrome" was almost certainly not my problem. My pains were all skeletal/joint pains, except for pains that would suddenly appear in my left hand or right calf, even when doing nothing. Those latter two I could explain as being neuropathic, but after being in so much pain from my back, coccyx, hips and shoulder, I think my pain registration system was out of whack. And I wouldn't be surprised to discover that all the different "pain killers" I was taking were in fact contributing to further problems.

Currently I am just on morphine, but must tie myself to the bed at night to stop myself turning over in my sleep. If I lie on my sides, the pain will build (even through morphine) until it wakes me up. By that stage turning on my back will not reduce the pain and I cannot get back to sleep. Taking a sulphur supplement (NAC, or MSM) seems to be as effective as morphine (neither alone or together is really satisfactory though).

What has been so appalling in my case, has been the difficult of getting doctors to look at the individual problems properly in early stages (so a dearth of scans/treatments), until it got to the point where they were saying "you have pain syndrome". Most of the treatments that have had any success are those that I have insisted they do even when they have said they won't work. Some major treatments I have had to insist they don't do (cutting nerves??).

I'm finally getting a scan this week on my hips, after asking for this for almost 2 years. Hopefully it will show what I expect it to show, and they can treat it with steroids.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Among other things, paracetamol activates the cannabis receptors.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17227290>

</comment><comment><USER21> _> They either watched The Simpsons or a film by surrealistic neonoir writer/director David Lynch, in which humans with rabbit heads wander an urban apartment muttering non sequiturs. They then passed judgement on people arrested in a hockey riot. Again, the people in the existential mindset imposed harsh sanctions, but the people who'd watched The Simpsons were lenient._

I shoulda stuck with psychology after all! This sounds fun! Who thinks of this stuff?

<comment><USER22> > in which humans with rabbit heads wander an urban apartment muttering non > sequiturs

I don't know how you could sit through this film without already being disturbed.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSBVo59j9U>

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I see many post mentionning how Tylenol can be lethal in overdose due to liver damage.

Some studies have demonstrated liver enzymes raise significantly on a typical extra-strength dose of acetaminophen, called paracetamol in Europe. This could be indicative of low-level damage, for casual users (it's frequently prescribed for minor pain)

A quick and simple hack is to take it along with N-acetylcysteine, usually given for coughing.

Personally, to play it safe, when I have to take more than half a gram of paracetamol, or when I have to take it for more than 2 days in a row, I add n-acetylcysteine with it.

Cheap, and without side effets at low doses. (BTW, it's used IV in the ER as the antidote for tylenol overdosing)

<comment><USER24> I'm sure I remember a debate being had in the news at some point about whether this antidote should be included in all paracetamol/acetaminophen pills sold.

Since this seems not to have happened, does anyone know if there's some side- effect of taking N-acetylcysteine alongside paracetamol/acetaminophen as standard? Or was it just a question of price?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It should at least be noted that an awful lot of those overdoses are because narcotic painkillers are often doped with paracetamol in a misguided attempt to keep people from using them to get high.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm not all that familiar with social tests like this. Is n=120 generally considered to be a large enough sample size to make any claims at all?

<comment><USER27> It always depends on the effect size.

<comment><USER28> Another important question is always, 'if this effect is true does this generalize to the overall population'. While I haven't read the paper, I bet that the test population were composed almost completely of undergrad students. So much of social science experiments are based on testing done on student. And there isn't anything wrong with that per se, but we must always be careful when trying to infer results, and drawing conclusions on the greater population, or human kind as a whole.

<comment><USER27> External validity is an interesting but quite different question. There are any number of other interesting but distinct features of clinical trials that we could talk about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> EXTREMELY small study. Just push for a larger study on this

[http://www.academia.edu/2057894/The_common_pain_of_surrealis...](http://www.academia.edu/2057894/The_common_pain_of_surrealism_and_death_Acetaminophen_reduces_compensatory_affirmation_following_meaning_threats)

121 people

Search for "We recruited"

<comment><USER30> In Study 2 there we 236 subjects, which AFAIK is a pretty big sample size for these kinds of experiments. There error bars on the graph are still somewhat large, so there was a lot of variability, but assuming there is no bias in what data the experimenters chose to include, combining both studies, p < .02*.01 = .002. Furthermore, as the article notes, there was a prior study that also showed cognitive effects of Tylenol. While these effects could be spurious due to publication or selection bias or deliberate manipulation, it's not all that plausible that they happened by chance.

<comment><USER27> Just multiplying the P-values from different studies is invalid.

You can intuit this by imagining 10000 studies, each of which had a P-value of 0.99. Seeing 10000 negative studies and no positive studies, you'd be convinced that there was no real effect, intuitively. But multiplying 0.99 10000 times yields a P-value of 2.2 x 10^(-44), a result of impressive significance.

To combine studies, many people use _inverse variance weighted meta-analysis_ , e.g., <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-variance_weighting>

<comment><USER30> You're right. There is a mathematical explanation for this in addition to the intuitive one you provide: If the null hypothesis is true, the p-value of each test is uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, but the product of p-values will not be uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, so it is not a p-value.

To combine p-values, what we really want is the CDF of the product of p1 and p2 in the distribution formed by the product of uniform random variables. Mathematica can compute this; the general formula is (p1p2)(1-log(p1p2)), and for the two p-values in question this yields p = 0.0019 (which is close to what I said initially, but only because I made a calculation error; .02*.01 = 0.0002). Thanks for pointing out the mistake in my reasoning! I learned something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > The way people pass moral judgements is not necessarily indicative of their > level of existential anxiety.

That actually makes quite a bit of sense...

These days everyone has an opinion on everything, combined with a very judgmental tone - and at the same time living extremely purposeless and egocentric lifes.

<comment><USER32> And purpose-driven zealots are not judgmental?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Well, I for one will be taking two tylenol daily starting to day. You know, to dull the existential angst.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why do people take Tylenol, when aspirin/asa is safer and likely even good for you?

<comment><USER2> Aspirin is not safer. Aspirin is not "good for you" apart from narrow groups of people taking very small doses of aspirin.

Aspirin can be harmful to the stomach lining; aspirin can be fatal to people under 12; aspirin has a number of risky side effects; aspirin can be very dangerous for some people with under-lying conditions.

<comment><USER35> Thats fear mongering. Aspirin one of the safest drugs known to man, has a much longer history than Tylenol, and some scientists promote a more aggressive use of it in the populace.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/opinion/the-2000-year- old-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/opinion/the-2000-year-old-wonder- drug.html)

<comment><USER36> Aspirin (and ibuprofen) is counter-indicated for people with stomach problems like GERD. That's not fear mongering.

<comment><USER35> Of course not, but it's a big difference to say counter-indicated for one issue vs, leading off a post with "It is not safer".

The point of this story is whether Tylenol IS safer, and that's mostly contingent on the person (and studies showing its own inherent risks).

<comment><USER2> Paracetamol _is_ safer. You've failed to provide any sources saying otherwise.

<comment><USER35> Yes, I did, if you look above, which references several studies. You on the other hand have cited none.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Just legalize opiods. Do you really need a Doctor when you stub your toe?

<comment><USER27> If you take opioids for the pain from stubbing your toe, you should re- evaluate what is important to you.

<comment><USER37> Like getting by for 24 hours until I can put shoes on? I need the government to tell me I can't ease things for a day?

<comment><USER38> Clearly you do.

<comment><USER37> In Soviet Obamerica, authority question YOU !!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


US pipeline industry under "major cyber attack" - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47310697/ns/technology_and_science-christian_science_monitor/

<comment><USER2> Will we soon see legislation restricting industrial control computers from having internet connectivity?

<comment><USER3> I'm amazed it isn't already required.

That said, didn't Stuxnet attack isolated systems via social engineering and USB sticks?

<comment><USER2> True, but sneakernet protocols are more difficult to navigate and hack than any NAT. Why leave that attack surface exposed?

<comment><USER3> I agree completely. It was more an observation that keeping important systems isolated is at least enough of a thing for attackers to be already trying to work around it; if anything, I'd take that as a sign that critical infrastructure that's _not_ isolated is dangerously behind the times.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Nose (Beta) - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/landing/nose/

<comment><USER2> Stoked. Works perfectly on my iPhone 4s!

</comment><comment><USER3> April fool?</comment>


Easy Rails OAuth integration testing with Omniauth and Capybara - <AUTHOR> http://blog.zerosum.org/2011/03/19/easy-rails-outh-integration-testing.html

<comment><USER2> It's amusing that this post about some raft of dependencies that is supposed to make testing easy, painless and fun opens with a mini-rant about an earlier module that was supposed to make things super easy and fun, but ended up causing the author pain.

This seems like a common Rails tradeoff (trading quick development time for dependency chasing and complexity), except it's rarely presented as a tradeoff.

<comment><USER3> I have used the tool in question and recently abandoned it for the same setup described in the article, I'm guessing for the same reasons he did.

Cucumber is only annoying if you don't need to use it. A lot of people who didn't really need it were using it in the rails world, and recently they have got sick of it.

If you have an actual business need for executable documentation like it provides, then it is still excellent and not a headache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I recently started using Omniauth & Capybara like this. It seems to work easily enough even for a relative testing novice like me.

</comment><comment><USER5> I know this would slow down your integration tests and complicate them, but wouldn't you want to avoid mocking twitter this way to actually test that your site is integrating properly with the service? Mocking obviously has its place, but I'd avoid it if possible for end to end testing like this.

<comment><USER6> I have this challenge and I'm very interested in seeing how others solve this without using mocks. For my tests, I have 5 tests that rely on Twitter logins. Given that I run my tests ~10 times per day (on each commit), and other developers run my tests on their commits, I would have number_of_developers * commits_per_developer_per_day * 5 logins per day with a real twitter account. My guess is that that would run afoul of twitter's policies.

I'd love to see a web based stubbing service that would let me test against Twitter and especially Facebook without using real accounts on either.

<comment><USER5> Facebook does offer test user accounts (with an api) exactly for these types of scenarios <http://developers.facebook.com/docs/test_users>

I don't know if twitter offers anything similar.

<comment><USER6> I didn't know about these Facebook test accounts. Thanks for letting me know. These will be very helpful.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Removes App That Tracked Hong Kong Police - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kong-app.html <comment><USER2> Earlier discussion here with many more comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. We'll merge the threads.</comment></comment>


19 year old hacks the Brazilian elections - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR&sl=pt&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viomundo.com.br%2Fdenuncias%2Fvoto-eletronico-hacker-de-19-anos-revela-no-rio-como-fraudou-eleicao.html

<comment><USER2> Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are machines that (literally) determine the fate of a nation, and in democracies, it is of utmost importance that they are thoroughly tested and validated by security experts.

In India (one of the largest democracies using EVMs), security researchers are crucified if they point out flaws in EVMs, the most memorable of these events being: [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/jhalderm/electronic- votin...](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/jhalderm/electronic-voting- researcher-arrested-over-anonymous-source/)

<comment><USER3> Don't call this things "voting machines", call them what they primarily are: computers.

The word machine implies predictability and being built for one purpose only. Computers are not predictable and are furthermore designed to solve _any_ problem, including committing election fraud.

<comment><USER4> > The word machine implies predictability [...]. Computers are not predictable > [...]

First of all, computers can be mechanical - the first computers have been [0].

Furthermore, computers are predictable. If a CPU would not be predictable, how would you program it? If you write a program, you assume that your computer is predictable and that your instructions will be carried out. (If that assumption is not met, a fault occurred - but this happens in mechanical systems as well) In fact, you can perform computation in lockstep to detect errors.

Of course, it can be practically impossible to exactly predict a network of computers with several layers of software deployed... but that is not the issue here.

[0] - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer>

<comment><USER3> Please don't twist it to make them appear safe for voting purposes. They are not.

With today's computers that have any non-trivial piece of code on them it is for all practical purposes unpredictable that they will carry out the task that they are supposed to do, even if every piece of code is known.

The task at hand it "perform a universal, secret, equal and verifiable vote without any fraud involved". I doubt that this can ever be achieved.

If even a small sub-task of this is violated, I consider that such that it didn't carry out the task.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pure politics. This is a blog post written by a party that didn't win the election. (by Apio Gomes, the portal PDT ) PDT is political party. (That's why I'm flagging it)

The original post: [http://pdt.org.br/index.php/noticias/voto-eletronico- hacker-...](http://pdt.org.br/index.php/noticias/voto-eletronico-hacker- revela-no-rio-como-fraudou-eleicao)

I'm not even going into the 'EVMs are evil' discussion, but just pointing that this article is just a bunch of lies.

<comment><USER6> You should show arguments on why these are lies. Whether they lost the elections does not change a thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The quality of google translate is pretty fantastic - the article is very readable in English, despite being written in Portuguese.

</comment><comment><USER8> Before the election I collected on my Facebook lots of data about election fraud here in Brazil.

One particularly interesting case is that in one city there was the exact same number of null votes, white votes and registered voters that did not vote.

One candidate sued to have a recounting.

Not only he lost the lawsuit, but was ordered to pay a huge fine in punitive damages for "frivolous lawsuit".

Another interesting thing is that some Princeton researchers showed how to write a virus that can miscount votes on machines made by Diebold (that also make the Brazillian machines)</comment>


An Introduction To CSS3 Keyframe Animations  - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/05/17/an-introduction-to-css3-keyframe-animations/ <comment><USER2> As much as I love CSS, I could never see myself using any of this technology because jQuery (and many other JS frameworks) can do this with less code, simpler syntax and more browser coverage.

<comment><USER3> You'd need a bunch of callbacks to chain the animations in jQuery, plus the cost of including the library.

The Smashing Magazine article is not using the shorthand declarations for -webkit-animation, which would compact it much more.

Give it a spin, you will be pleasantly surprised, especially when it comes to tiggering the animation (with :hover).

You are right that browser coverage is a joke, but support is there in FF Aurora (who knows about IE10).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it possible to animate the sun on an arcing path using keyframes?

<comment><USER5> This is the first time I've tried using CSS3 animations and I managed to do it: <http://jsfiddle.net/cmCfP/>

<comment><USER3> Nice! Here's a version with CSS transitions

<http://jsfiddle.net/KJAh2/></comment></comment></comment>


Hotjar – An update on your account security - <AUTHOR> https://help.hotjar.com/hc/en-us/articles/360004391673 <comment><USER2> Considering that Github and Twitter admitted to something very similar recently, it seems like there is a pattern emerging. Does anyone have any idea on a common element that might be causing these situations?</comment>


Health Effects of Marijuana and Cannabis-Derived Products - <AUTHOR> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24625&_ga=1.232139931.524626704.1484279064 <comment><USER2> > The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that with greater frequency > of cannabis use, there is an increased likelihood of developing problem > cannabis use.

So they are saying that if you smoke more, then you could possibly smoke more.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was expecting to see a lot more bad news in the report, surprisingly mild adverse effects in general, especially conpared to smoking, alcohol, overeating, etc.

<comment><USER2> Something anecdotally we have all known for decades.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be interesting to see the discussed effects in comparison with the effects of let's say increased sugar consumption for example.

<comment><USER5> Some time ago, a study was done to investigate basically the effect of the munchies on blood sugars. The study was years ago IIRC. Ironically, the MJ smoking (or was it eating?) crowd had better controlled blood sugars. The suggestion was that something about the MJ controlled sugar spikes making the users less prone to the diabetes.

I'll try to find the study.

Edit: Here's reference to the study I recalled... [http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/21/marijuana-the-next- dia...](http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/21/marijuana-the-next-diabetes- drug/)

<comment><USER6> Just wanted to jump in here and say I remember that study, specifically...

I found it here, for ya, along w/ an editorial of the study.

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.002)

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.003)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Although I don't know, I would assume that some of the 10,000 scientific abstracts reviewed were funded by NIDA, which does not fund any study on cannabis that does not show harm.

<comment><USER7> So are you saying that they retract funding if the study shows harm? Because funding needs to be given before the conclusions of the study are available.

<comment><USER8> Grants like this are basically negotiated, between the PI (principle investigator, who carries out the work) and the PM (program manager who provides the funding). They already know each other and talk about what kind of research is going to be done. I've tracked NIDA-funded MJ studies for at least a decade, and it's pretty clear they're vetting for scientists who publish conclusions consistent with the mission of their agency.

I'm sure a sufficiently motivated scientist could get funding, publish something that disproved the NIDA (it's not hard), and then they would probably not get their funding renewed; it's basically career suicide unless you have other sources of funding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Direct link to download the full 395 Page Report (without paying $78)

The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research => [https://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?record_id=24625](https://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?record_id=24625)

<comment><USER10> Didn't work for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is tobacco demonized and marijuana commercialized?

<comment><USER12> Because mass produced tobacco products are conclusively correlated with an increased risk of developing cancers and cannabis is not.

<comment><USER13> surely is, too

<comment><USER8> the report stated pretty definitively there is no evidence showing that MJ leads to lung cancer, or other cancers in a statistically significant way, with the exception of a single type of prostate cancer which is easily cured.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Great Moments in Linux History - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/25/great-moments-in-linux-history/ <comment><USER2> I wish there was a way to get a transcript rather than just a video for things like this. I can read immensely faster than a speaker can speak. And with a transcript I can easily jump back and forth in the text, search for key phrases, and expect Google to be able to help me find it again later.

Does any software exist for automating transcriptions? I suspect that television closed-captioning does something similar. I've noticed phonologic transcription errors on CC TV multiple times in the past.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't bother watching this...

<comment><USER4> Lame annoying sophomoric humor. Big waste of time. I wish I'd taken your advice, but I can't get enough of Linux history.

There's no Linux history here you can't get in less-annoying form at:

<https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/>

or

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Linux_kernel></comment></comment>


We've Broken This Startup Thing - <AUTHOR> http://adii.me/weve-broken-this-startup-thing

<comment><USER2> If some people can work efficiently enough at a startup to only work 9 hours a day, more power to them.

However, it's been my experience that those who truly dedicate every waking moment to their business and immerse themselves in work tend to get their startup off the ground in the biggest ways.</comment>


Gatwick Airport: Drones ground flights - happy-go-lucky https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754 <comment><AUTHOR> I genuinely don't understand how it can be a 24+ hour operation just to take out a drone.

Don't jets regularly get scrambled in response to less disruptive intrusions? Doesn't the battery die at some point? Can't they follow it to where it lands and take it out of commission? Couldn't someone have woven a giant net by now?

<comment><USER2> As I understand it, the drone(s) have been vanishing then reappearing at various points throughout the day.

While it seems quite easy to deal with the issue at first glance, I can see why this would be difficult to deal with. A drone strike at takeoff could be pretty catastrophic, so there is rightly an attitude of erring on the side of safety; flights are unlikely to resume until the authorities are fairly certain the drone is gone. But they are pretty small, so it doesn't seem like it would be terribly easy to track them. The operator may be using multiple drones, and could potentially be quite far away from Gatwick - I'm no drone expert, but I understand 6-7km range with a 30min flight time is feasible. That's quite a wide area to search.

Honestly I'm surprised that we haven't seen this happen before now; it seems like such an easy attack. I would guess that we might even see a rash of copycat attacks.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally understand why they'd have to err towards caution on the initial appearance, but the drones aren't teleporting away when they vanish. The combined power of the authorities can't follow a drone for 30 minutes and capture it? Something just seems off.

<comment><USER3> A few autonomous gps-guided drones are all that is needed. No one would need to come back to get them. $200 could shut down an airport for hours

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone posted a topdown photo of Gatwick from about 3000ft on reddit this morning. I was wondering how they got that picture.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/a7za4i/this_photo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/a7za4i/this_photo_i_took_of_gatwick_this_morning/)

<comment><USER5> I think that's a stock photo (jokingly implying that they were responsible)

<comment><USER6> I see now. My first thought was that they're responsible, but from the text the photo appears to be a PR photo and the post tounge-in-cheek.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Affecting 100K passengers... how come this is not top 10 in HN?

<comment><USER8> It's the main national news in the UK. Whether it is developing into mass hysteria or an agitant is really using industrial sized drones to cause chaos is impossible to know. As one of the main hubs in and out of europe a lot of people are getting very worried for holiday gatherings.

<comment><USER9> By the end of friday 250,000 people will have been displaced.

I dont know how you really deal with that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Half the time these "Drones" are just birds or plastic bags.

[https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2016/04/drone...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2016/04/drone-that-hit-british-airways-jet-was-likely-a-plastic- bag/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Conspiracy theory: a lot of people have pointed out that no pictures of the alleged drone are circulating.

This comes at the end of a week in which the government is moving towards no- deal Brexit.

Is this some kind of test of the emergency response?

<comment><USER12> Unlikely. My "conspiracy" theory would be that there's been an active terror threat, that they're handling but don't want to go pubic with.

The UK government must have anti-drone measures, surely?

It also seems possible that opposing forces could organise this to flush out details of drone responses, you can't exactly hide your countermeasures when they're in the open at Gatwick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how long it will be before airports need to run point-defence lasers to interdict things like this.

<comment><USER6> Automated interceptor-drones must be a thing by now. I know for certain there's a german company specializing in drone-defense, but I think their competency lies mostly with detection/jamming.

<comment><USER12> They're going to have a full order book!</comment></comment></comment>


AMD embraces open source to take on Nvidia's GameWorks - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/amd-embraces-open-source-to-take-on-nvidias-gameworks/ <comment><USER2> I really want AMD to succeed and continue to remain a strong and viable competitor to both Intel and NVidia. Both because competition is good in the general sense, and - more to the point - because AMD has embraced Open Source to a much greater extent. Well, definitely more than NVidia from what I've seen. Intel do make some OSS contributions, but I think, in general, AMD is still more "OSS friendly".

I guess I'm being a little bit sentimental as well. My first PC had an AMD 386DX-40 processor and for many years afterwards I stuck to AMD processors almost exclusively. Definitely during the "build you own machine from parts" years.

Now if only it were reasonable to build your own laptop, tablet or smart-phone from components like that... and run any OS you want... _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER3> relevant excerpt:

>GPUOpen will, when it is published in January, be open source. AMD will use the permissive MIT license, allowing GPUOpen code to be used without any practical restriction in both open and closed source applications, and will publish all code on GitHub.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if that means the drivers'll work for FreeBSD</comment>


How Western media would cover Baltimore if it happened elsewhere - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/04/30/how-western-media-would-cover-baltimore-if-it-happened-elsewhere/

<comment><USER2> So... basically a bunch of talking points, and no real in depth analysis of what exactly is going on. How is that different from what we are getting now?

This is what 24 hour news cycle and constant new published articles has lead to. News organizations giving us something new for the next 15 minutes every 5 minutes.

That Vice show on HBO seems like the right direction to me. Does anyone know of an organization that does news similar to Vice?

Maybe I should just abandon the news altogether.

[http://dobelli.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...](http://dobelli.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Delayed Gratification comes to my mind but it's a printed magazine.

[http://www.slow-journalism.com/](http://www.slow-journalism.com/)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Ketchup – Open-Source CMS in Go and Typescript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ketchuphq/ketchup <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I've spent the last few months building Ketchup on nights and weekends, and I'm finally happy enough with it to share (okay it's never really enough). It's a CMS written in Go and Typescript, mostly written for fun to try to combine the best of those two languages, but also with the following feature set in mind:

      - Easy to install and run
      - APIs for almost everything
      - Built-in admin UI, write in Markdown or with a rich text editor
      - Automatic HTTPS via Let's Encrypt

I'd love to get some feedback on this project and suggestions or ideas (or pull requests!) on what might be useful features to add. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Congrats on starting, building, and finishing (at least the first iteration!) a side project. And the cherry on top is that the docs look really good!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice work! What's the best way to get in touch with you? I'm the creator of Pragma ([https://pragma.build](https://pragma.build)) - and we have a pretty similar setup. Wonder if there's an opportunity to collaborate.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there a demo account somewhere? I'd love to try it out, but I have some difficulties compiling

</comment><comment><USER5> Great work! Could you add the function to export to static site? In that case, i would be awesome tools for writing blogs!</comment>


Russia Blocks Access to Major Independent News Sites - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/russia-blocks-access-major-independent-news-sites <comment><USER2> The law, that created internet block list in Russia, was promoted as a measure to stop child pornography:

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

<comment><USER3> UK is next. There's no doubt in my mind they will start blocking news sites, blogs and social media in the next mass protest (if there will be one anytime soon, since UK population seems almost as complacent and docile as the American one, which is just perfect for authoritarians).

<comment><USER4> > since UK population seems almost as complacent and docile as the American > one

That is really quite offensive. We have a culture of protest and resistance. What we have at the moment is a paradise of easy living. Despite the depressing lie of what the media will give you with "food banks and poverty" the standard of living for most Britons is really quite good, much better than the 1980s which saw major public political unrest.

People won't take to the streets for internet privacy or other such soft battles you can think of. The political classes will chatter about whatever games they play with each other but people really don't care about such issues.

<comment><USER5> "really quite good"

This is that media control thing that's being spoken about here. Go north, my son, things aren't so rosy outside of London.

People won't take to the streets here, full stop. The British populace have no appetite for it.

<comment><USER4> I don't live in London, I'm in the East Midlands mining country. I spent years in campaign groups including street fund raising collection so I feel qualified to judge public feeling.

<comment><USER5> Aye - I agree with you re: the public feeling, but the thing is, the public feeling is out of whack with the reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's an idea. Every organization that believes in freedom may consider repurposing their websites to allow access to censored sites.

Let's say you're in Russia and instead of configuring a proxy you simply go to eff.org or nyt.com or columbia.edu and you go to a special page there that then lets you go to all the sites that are censored in that country. The net result is that that country would then need to censor an ever growing list of sites to the extent that they either give up or blackhole the entire country. You could design a system that had distributed rate limiting, crowd sourced censorship lists and all you would have to do is drop some javascript lib in your site and some proxy on your backend. Ya, it's some work, but hey, it's time for the free world to put its money where its mouth is.

<comment><USER7> They'll just blacklist every single one of these sites for enabling access to illegal materials and you won't even be able to read EFF from Russia. And if a Russian citizen creates a public proxy, they'll convict him on anti-terrorist charges. That'll deter the rest.

I am not convinced that pushing Putin to exercise his dictatorial abilities is a good idea when his approval ratings among the general population are so high. I mean, if people already hated him, that might have pushed them over the edge. But as it stands now, general population is more likely to rationalize blocking than admit that Putin is evil.

<comment><USER8> > _" They'll just blacklist every single one of these sites..."_

That's the point: pressure. Outside sites willing to expose themselves to an 'iron curtain' is a true form of solidarity in this era where a world is more connected. Push-back is exactly how successful, peaceful movements are waged.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well... I was expecting a more impressive list then these: \- www.grani.ru \- www.kasparov.ru \- www.ej.ru \- [http://navalny.livejournal.com](http://navalny.livejournal.com)

Not even sure why they bothered to block Kasparov. I have yet to talk to someone who actually lives in Russia and cares about what he has to say.

While not a good move, it doesn't quite live up to the EFF headline.

This is the official site that lists all blocked sites, but it looks like you have to know what you are looking for: [http://eais.rkn.gov.ru/](http://eais.rkn.gov.ru/). Note, I haven't actually been able to get it to return any queries on the above sites...

<comment><USER10> You don't get a more impressive list because these are the only remaining sources. The rest are suppressed - by various means. Echo of Moscow could be the last - and might be closed not because it's oppositional but just because it's more balanced than government-influenced media.

<comment><USER11> It's not balanced, it is more anti-Putin than any of the "western" sources. CNN looks like a puppet comparing to Echo of Moscow hate.

<comment><USER10> I usually point to Yakunin's articles; Matvienko, Peskov are not unusual guests in Echo of Moscow. On the other hand, it's pretty rare to hear opinion of Kasparov, Navalny or Kasyanov on primary TV channels.

I've tried to compare Echo of Moscow to RT, for example. Echo had much more details - when RT said "policemen stopped the people who blocked the way", Echo actually provided photos and videos, together with short interviews with both policemen and people those policemen detained.

There are many people in Russia who don't like Echo. But if you try to find out why, you'll find it's because Echo is simply different - not the majority, as should be expected, frankly, if you'd consider the possibility of the media being filtered by some means. You should go for facts - which is often hard - and Echo is probably most professional in giving you facts, from all sides and opinions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Reporting from the trenches. Here in Moscow all 4 sites from the list [1] are being banned as of this morning.

* ej.ru (assortment of articles by opposition writers)

* kasparov.ru (chess grandmaster and one of the opposition leaders)

* navalny.livejournal.com (possibly most prominent opposition leader as of late; mayor of Moscow candidate in 2013 mayoral election)

* grani.ru (opposition newspaper)

I'd have to agree with said elsewhere in the comments that an average Russian will likely not notice those sites virtual demise. They're not much known or popular outside of a tight opposition camp.

Echo of Moscow is, however, a very popular radio station. Banning their site is likely to cause a little shit storm. It is not banned though and working just fine. What happened is they hosted their own Navalny's blog [2] and this particular URL was banned. However, the banning system is IP based, so along with it all the site would have been blocked. The site admins quickly took down the blog and the ban was lifted.

[1] [http://rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/news24447.htm](http://rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/news24447.htm)

[2] [http://www.echo.msk.ru/blog/navalny/](http://www.echo.msk.ru/blog/navalny/)

<comment><USER13> Isn't Navalni widely considered/painted as a paid US shill in Russia? I've seen him on TV and he didn't strike me as someone who'd put his life on a line for betterment of Russian governance, just in principle. His true motives are far from clear.

<comment><USER14> > Isn't Navalni widely considered/painted as a paid US shill in Russia?

He is. Just as Echo and the rest of our liberal fifth column.

<comment><USER15> Small part of Russia wants to live in a free liberal society but major part says we want to live in a gang-totalitarian terrarium headed by the KGB agent.

Those who have courage to protest on the Bolotnaya square say we want to have free media and have a right to protest but zombied people say we want to be slaves.

Zombied slaves don't want to have alternative media and don't want to think because Putin's propaganda does this for them.

These guys consider all countries around to be their enemies who want to destroy Russia. Why? Because all criticism which is really worth attention (poverty, HIV, abuse of basic human rights, the president who does his 3rd term, invasion to Georgia, Ukraine etc) they say to be an attempt to damage their declining country.

So guys, it is your choice.

Even if people read Hacker News, Silicon Valley will never come to Russia because innovations can't exist in a prison-styled country where semi-military illegal cossaks scourge young girls without mercy. This means your people will never be rich. Of course except your small elite made its weals selling resources and slavery workforce.

And FYI Wiki definition of Liberalism:

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals [...] generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property

<comment><USER14> blah blah blah liberty(TM) democracy(R) innovation ltd

Navalny thrives on anti-caucasus card to pump Russia into civil war when told to by his western masters.

and some of our liberals are quite severely braindamaged judging by what they tell in public

<comment><USER10> To resolve different opinions, we have to agree on some basic relevant facts and some criteria to judge. Apparently it's tough for subjects like this.

Even common sense becomes not so common for people with different views. Then there is the question of facts - which sources would you trust? Factual bias can effectively shape opinions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Disgusting, first they started blocking random sites for "promoting suicide" or "promoting drug use", and now they don't even try to mask the censorship.

As a Russian citizen, I'm also very interested what Internet Hero Edward Snowden thinks about this.

<comment><USER14> > first they started blocking random sites for "promoting suicide" or > "promoting drug use", and now they don't even try to mask the censorship.

we have good teachers and are learning (from west obviously)

<comment><USER10> Indeed it takes a good sense to learn good things from imperfect teachers. One has to see the forest behind the trees and understand what good US can teach to Russia - even though US is quite susceptible to similar ills itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The context of what's happening in Russia is very important. And very sad:

1\. Lenta.ru, one of the biggest Russian news websites (600 thousand visitors daily) mentioned in the article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenta.ru](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenta.ru) Although Wikipedia says "39 employees out of the total 84 lost their jobs" it is known that they were not fired but were leaving the company together with fired Editor-in-Chief Galina Timchenko as an act against censorship. Some links:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26543464](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-26543464)

[http://en.rsf.org/russia-lenta-ru-website-is- latest-13-03-20...](http://en.rsf.org/russia-lenta-ru-website-is- latest-13-03-2014,45996.html)

[http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2014/03/12/russian- news-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2014/03/12/russian-news-editor- fired-after-interviewing-ukrainian-nationalist/)

2\. And this is what happened with TV Rain news channel. It will be closed soon most probably.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/russian-news- ch...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/russian-news-channel-tv- rain)

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/asking...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/asking- the-wrong-question-on-russian-tv.html)

3\. Echo Moskvy. "The head of one of Russia's few remaining independent broadcasters, Ekho Moskvy, has been dismissed and replaced by an editor from state media.", "Its editor said it was an "unjust" and "totally political decision" aimed at changing editorial policy."

[http://www.rferl.org/content/gazprom_wants_to_dismiss_radio_...](http://www.rferl.org/content/gazprom_wants_to_dismiss_radio_board/24483318.html)

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26239715](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-26239715)

4\. The New Times started a paid subscription to protect itself from censorship a few months ago. This is the only link, in Russian, couldn't find any sources in English: [http://www.newtimes.ru/obrashenie- avtora/](http://www.newtimes.ru/obrashenie-avtora/)

</comment><comment><USER18> The greatest instrument used in the societal tragedies of the last century has (undoubtedly) been state delivered propaganda.

Japan (Empire of the Rising Sun), Nazi Germany, Maoism (and the following Cultural Revolution), in America: Red Scare (age of McCarthyism, ending as a consequence of JMc.'s untimely death), the Red Peril (the predecessor of the Red Scare) -- the list goes on. The efficacy of those at the top to wield their power would have been far less without propaganda. Their ability to acquire it -- even less still.

Consider current-day North Korea, Venezuela, or numerous Middle-Eastern countries (which regulate education as well as the internet); consider the intellectually subdued population of China and the unconscionable acts which have been silently taking place in Tibet (and elsewhere) behind the Great Firewall. All of these nations are suffering from handicapped/censored versions of the internet -- while simultaneously being subjected to propaganda.

Russia can now officially be added to that club. I can't help but extrapolate -- applying this trend to other nations.

An Uncensored and Open Internet* is crucial to the subversion of tyrannical governments' propaganda efforts.

* - (I prefer this to "Free and Open" because 'free' is so easily misunderstood by baby boomers)

~ ~

We are witnessing (again [0]) a complete lack of attempted narrative on the part of the US/UK mainstream press. There isn't the slightest reason to not give this story ample coverage -- it is anti-Putin/Russia (which, we can all agree is the current fetish in the media), and it is absolutely newsworthy -- even by their standards (they covered when the Russia Today anchors quit and spoke-out). SO WHAT GIVES? This is the dereliction of duty in "journalism." Shame. And it is greatly affecting the movement for an Uncensored and Open Internet.

"Coverage" is different from "being reported." This needs to reach baby boomers in the form of a headline. They don't appreciate the internet because they can't connect the dots.

I've snapshoted cnn.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, bbc.com - at 8:51pm CST at web.archive.org . I'm the crackpot that believes there are ulterior motives in this pattern of institutional ignorance/behavior.

~ ~

When it comes to the marketing of high stakes legislation - know that the true motives are often-times blended with an actual public desire, with the bill being a means to another end entirely. As mike_esspe points out: this action being taken is through the passage of Russia's "anti-child pornography" bill. For those that missed it, here's what happening in the UK on the same front of misdirection. [0]

If you care about making a difference, beyond "liking" and "upvoting" \-- I highly recommend (as did Aaron Swartz) reading "The Power Broker," and you will have a greater appreciation of the forces at play and how opaque the processes which deliver and execute the policies of governance really are.

[0] - A recent example of the mainstream press giving essentially no coverage came with GHCQ webcam revelations: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7315743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7315743) The loose connection between the (casually addressed) problems of pictures obtained of minors' nudity in the webcam program and the governments' attempts to censor the internet on the back of the serious child pornography issue is worth noting, for its hypocrisy.

[1] - [http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zhd6i/david_came...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zhd6i/david_camerons_aide_on_child_internet_policy_has/) ~~

For the inevitable Godwin's Law comebacks. People too often focus on Hitler's 1936-39 rise to global prominence: what is often overlooked is the unabated role of the party's propaganda-machine from 1921 to 1932 to gain popular support and 1932 to ~1936 to brainwash the remaining populace.

<comment><USER19> It's a good thing the Mongols didn't have modern _state delivered propaganda_, otherwise some real atrocities might have taken place in the areas they conquered.

<comment><USER20> Or An Lushan. Makes Mao look like a rank amateur. If propaganda is necessary to modern atrocities, what changed to make it so?

<comment><USER21> I shocked the educated English guy next to me at work, when I gave a reference to "The harrowing of the north".

Not exactly the most obscure part of English history, but still not well known. Control of information isn't new.

The fun part will all the Chomsky thing is that in my native Sweden, you have totally different influences on the news media than USA. E.g. left wing extremists have a large space, political discussion are often done by interviewing political left extremists (Gardell, Hubinette, Guillou, etc).

But you see lots of "manufactured consent", lots of head line news stories at BBC/NY Times just doesn't show up. Etc.

<comment><USER21> I should add -- what I meant was, the filtering of the news is very different but still filtered. E.g. pro-Israel stuff (Pallywood, torture between palestinian groups, antisemitism in the muslim world etc)often just doesn't get printed.

Sometimes you see a story at the BBC/NY Times. After it has grown to a headline item, it is grudgingly made news in Sweden a couple of days later.

I assume this is because the left wing extremists really care about Israel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 1\. Create laws to shut down public knowledge.

2\. Use those laws to shut down public knowledge.

3\. Invade a country to see how the rest of the world responds.

4\. This is the most important step. We respond with strength or we respond with diplomacy.

5\. If we respond with diplomacy step 6 would be for Putin to invade another country. If we respond with force, it would lead Putin to respond with backtracking...

The choice is theirs.

<comment><USER10> Actually, soft force could be quite powerful. There is somewhat relevant Iran example.

I think the West has plenty of opportunities here. On the other hand, those won't come free - and I understand the hesitation. Yet again, to some - smaller - extent we have a situation, which is similar to what happened already about 80 years ago in Europe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> While the press freedom is important there are different priorities during the wartime.

Russia today is ready to go to war with the West in order to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. "Russia regards this as an existential threat and will do whatever it takes to prevent it happening. ([http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-26566452)"](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26566452\)")

The banned sites are considered enemy propaganda outfits by Kremlin.

<comment><USER24> This isn't anything Russia hasn't been doing for decades. It has been spreading propaganda for a long time, it cannot even be compared to UK or US or any other developed country censorship levels. Putin wipes out everything that is not directly following orders from him. It is only now that these things came to world attention. Media is not only censored in Russia, they simply make up things and tell as truth and facts. If you'd understand Russian and would listen to their news you'd think it must be some joke how ridiculous their lies are, but it isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is breaking news, so a lot of people who might be expected to comment about this in other press sources have had no opportunity to do so, I suppose. I personally would like to hear what Edward Snowden has to say about this, and I hope the Russian authorities will provide the opportunity for him to comment on Internet freedom in Russia in light of recent events.

<comment><USER3> Are you trying to insinuate that Snowden remained in Russia by choice?

<comment><USER26> Certainly, it is at least somewhat ironic that he is currently in Russia, given all the latest news out of that country. In fact, reading Greenwald's writings on recent events in Ukraine, I am having a hard time ignoring the curious pro-Putin slant in his writings.

<comment><USER27> I just did a survey of Greenwald's usual haunts (twitter, The Intercept, Guardian, etc) and haven't found anything mentioning Ukraine or Russia at all. Care to link?

<comment><USER26> [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/01/journalistic-i...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/01/journalistic- independence/)

"Wasn't it just 72 hours ago that the widespread, mainstream view in the west (not one that I shared) was that there was a profound moral obligation to stand up and support the brave and noble Ukrainian opposition forces as they fight to be liberated from the brutal and repressive regime imposed on them by Vladimir Putin's puppet? When did it suddenly become shameful in those same circles to support those very same opposition forces?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you are in Russia I would get the TOR browser fast, before the government blocks the main TOR download mirrors as well.

<comment><USER29> I'd further consider

\- downloading the pluggable transports bundle: [https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable- transports.html.en...](https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable- transports.html.en#download)

\- and getting some bridges: [https://bridges.torproject.org/](https://bridges.torproject.org/)

just to have all this ready in case they decide to do some more nasty stuff later on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> And this is the first step towards a country's gradual demise. World will always progress towards freedom. It's a gradual but sure process, just like evolution. Some call it Social evolution.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm from Russia. Yes, sure, it is a plan to control the media. Especially when Internet media are so popular. We still have access to all other western medias. It is pretty simple to compare the facts. Of course these happenings are tightly linked to the Ukraine crisis. I could say that western people also do not get the whole picture as national medias cover the crisis in a very biased way. One more time we see that medias are being controlled by someone imposing "national" interests.

<comment><USER32> I really don't see what _every_ media outlet that isn't Russian state- controlled would have to gain from distributing "biased" journalism.

We've seen raw footage released, we can read live tweets about what's happening and we can even communicate with people effected via the internet. The only side that seems to conflict with what's coming out of the region is the Russian side.

I watched cellphone footage of troops with Russian equipment in Russian vehicles with Russian license plates that spoke Russian and claimed to be from Russia in Crimea, despite Russian media and government reports of there being no Russian troops there.

With the internet and mobile phones, it's really hard to get away with lies in media anymore (unless of course you censor the evidence).

<comment><USER33> What?? Russia has quite officially kept at least 10k troops in Crimea for the last 200 years, give or take. Maybe you can cross-check your breaking twitter news with, I dunno, wikipedia maybe?

<comment><USER32> But they haven't occupied the region and they haven't left bases or done exercises without permission for the last 20 or so _relevant_ years since the fall of the USSR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> EFF's title conjures up images of sites like CNN and Reuters being blocked. A better title might be "Russia Blocks Access to Major Opposition News Sites."

<comment> guard-of-terra Why would CNN and Reuters matter much in non-English-speaking country? Not many people go there.

Russia has no opposition (in the meaning of the world) so your title won't make sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Well at least something they and the States can agree about.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bea-edwards/the-us-and- austral...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bea-edwards/the-us-and-australia- prop_b_4956635.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> It's ironical that this news and the one on "Papers, Please" are at the top of HN at the same time. kind of looks like Russia is warping back to his former soviet state.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm so glad my family got out of Russia 17 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER23> Did EFF complain about Ukraine government outlawing access to any Russian language news a few days ago?

 __Correction __: Above sentence is not correct. Not _all_ Russian language news were outlawed. Instead, only Russian TV channels were banned in Ukraine a few days ago. This has caused OSCE to express concern. See the link below.

Almost a half of Ukrainians speak Russian language. New Kiev government has banned national broadcasts in this language, effectively denying its people access to information.

When we hear the arguments that banning Russian-language press/TV in Ukraine is OK, since those are necessarily 'Putin propaganda', but banning radical sites[1] in Russia is wrong, because they are 'independent news', we can only admire the ability to maintain double standards without as much at batting an eye.

([http://www.osce.org/fom/116312](http://www.osce.org/fom/116312))

[1] I don't necessarily agree with Russian government definition of 'extremist/radical', but their point is that above Russian sites have given their pages to neo-Nazis to call to armed struggle against the state.

<comment><USER38> What a great textbook example of whataboutism.

In Ukraine only 5 foreign TV channels were banned -- Vesti, Russia 24, ORT (First Channel World Network), RTR Planet, and NTV World. All of them were state-sponsored mouthpieces of Russian Goebbels-style propaganda, and it's in a country invaded by Russia. No wonder that these propaganda channels of foreign aggressors were banned.

In Russia Kremlin attacks its own legitimate independent from state press and opposition leaders. Russian independent TV channels were already destroyed long before (with exception of Dozhd that was attacked only recently), but yesterday Kremlin started to broadly use one more method in its fight against freedom of press -- Internet filters. And that what EFF article is about.

These situations have very little in common, and they very bundled together only to be used in the standard "but you are lynching negroes" argument.

> I don't necessarily agree with Russian government definition of > 'extremist/radical', but their point is that above Russian sites have given > their pages to neo-Nazis to call to armed struggle against the state.

Eh, neo-Nazis to call to armed struggle against the state? That's just bullshit. Good example, why Russian Goebbels-style propaganda is a problem.

<comment><USER23> I think your 'Goebbels this' and 'Goebbels that' arguments are amusing.

Thanks for confirming that 5 TV channels carrying alternative views are banned in Ukraine. That's no problem for you because _you_ call them propaganda.

Some people disagree. A lot of Ukrainians Russian-speakers feel that their point of view is not represented in Ukrainian official media, and that Russian news provide some valuable alternative. After all, one of the first laws of new Kiev govt was an anti-Russian language law.

And then in a single breath you deny neo-Nazi issue as a bullshit. You obviously know that lenta.ru editor was fired allegedly for publishing a link to Ukrainian "Right Sector" content.

Next you of may want to deny that Svoboda and their paramilitary wing Right Sector are neo-nazis... I could refer to to European Union officials expressing concern about Svoboda's position in Kiev government, but I think my arguments will be lost on you.

<comment><USER14> > I think your 'Goebbels this' and 'Goebbels that' arguments are amusing.

i'd call them what they are: clueless idiots

this video is for our wannabe freedom lovers [http://oper.ru/news/read.php?t=1051613380](http://oper.ru/news/read.php?t=1051613380)

(in russian)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The thing is EFF article heading is misleading. These listed websites are not "major independent news sites". And they never been. When it comes to independent news sources, Russia uses a lot of newsru.com, lenta.ru, utro.ru, none of those blocked. Besides livejournal.com works from Russia as usual. Serve it from open public proxy in Novosibirsk and see for yourself. It is sad EFF became a channel for demonization of Russian public image these days.

<comment><USER39> To the one who -1-ed this comment - why? It is only the truth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Independent News Site? That is News!!!

</comment><comment><USER41> And EFF "happened" to find out about that just in the midst of Ukraine crisis. How fitting.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Independent" \- they all are profitable _purely_ based on ads and subscribers, right?

</comment><comment><USER43> If anyone can setup / use a web proxy, it's the Russians!

</comment><comment><USER44> Russia no block Hacker News yet?

<comment><USER45> nop. even if it would - HN users will find their way through such blocks, in contrast with mass media users

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> And Edward Snowden thinks he is in utopia.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm from Russia, and you know, average Russian didn't feel that major independent news sites are blocked. May be they're blocked, but we actually don't give a f..k about them. We have other independent news sites. So my position is like the West is trying to force hysteria.

Please don't think that we don't have freedoms here. We have much more freedom that you can ever imagine. As well, we don't need to be protected by the bulwark of democracy - US.

We're just fine!

<comment><USER48> And the feminist punk bands, the homosexuals, and the murdered journalists -- how are _they_ doing lately?

<comment><USER47> Feminist punk bands must be imprisoned right now because of playing shitty punk rock ever. They're real traitors of punk rock :)

Homosexuals? Why do you ask Russia about them? Go to Saudi Arabia and ask them how do they feel about that. We have our own vision of healthy society.

Murdered journalists - that's a shame, I agree. But you know what? Now it's just a tool in hands of the West. And you use this tool in order to justify your own actions.

Wanna bomb Iraq? Yes, they have mass destruction weapons. Wanna bomb Afghanistan? Yes, they have Al Qaeda. Wanna bomb Russia? Yes, they imprison feminist punk bands, banned homosexuals and they have murdered journalist (he was better than Assange and Snowden).

Wanna bomb Japan? Stop! But they don't have nuclear weapon. F..k that, let's bomb them anyway.

US is the only country that used nuclear weapon against other country (and this country had no any nuclear weapons).

And now you're telling me how homosexuals feel? Yes, they're fine!

<comment><USER49> Does russian propaganda _ever_ change?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes)

<comment><USER50> Nope. It's kinda sad, really, how the crudest opinion-forming tools still work in 2014.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mandelbrot Generation Using Distributed Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://mandlebrotapp.appspot.com/jobs

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone mentioned a while back about using distributed Javascript to generate Mandelbrot sets. This was something I built sometime last year when I messing around with the idea. Please note, I misspelled "Mandelbrot" in the AppEngine name and then could not figure out how to change it.</comment>


Show HN: GopherSwag.com - <AUTHOR> https://gopherswag.com <comment><AUTHOR> The page is a little rushed, but the worst thing you should see is an ugly error message.

This is a TRIAL RUN, but if things go well I want to make this a regular thing with new designs by a variety of artists, and I'd love to donate proceeds to orgs that are doing good things in the Go space. Eg Women who Go or Golang Bridge (suggestions for orgs are welcome). I think there are a lot of great places that could do way more with more funds.

If you experience any issues or have questions just let me know - email@example.com - the FAQ tries to answer most, but I'm sure I missed something.</comment>


Twitter to Name Jack Dorsey Permanent CEO - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2015/09/30/sources-jack-dorsey-to-be-named-permanent-twitter-ceo/ <comment><AUTHOR> The chart looks interesting on this news. It shot to as high as 27.40 in the 30 second period after this was announced and then fell back to its original price level within 5 minutes.

It looks like the machines like the news much better than the humans do:)

<comment><USER2> I wonder how many of those bots detected the others and shorted back to the original price at ~20s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> From a shareholders' perspective this is probably great news. But with Square looking to IPO soon they're likely going to have to find a new CEO also -- there is no way that investors will take them seriously if Jack is running two different companies in two different spaces.

<comment><USER4> Based on fiduciary responsibility to current Square shareholders, I can't believe he's allowed to do this.

<comment><USER5> Square isn't public so I imagine that the private stakeholders either are OK with him taking the job or aren't able to stop him (if he owns enough stock).

<comment><USER2> Since many B2C IPO strategies seem to benefit from generating media buzz, I can imagine the keyword tie-in to Twitter only helps.

Also, the CFO is probably just as important if not more for getting the company ready for IPO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would this be similar to Steve Jobs who served at Pixar and Apple at the same time? Or Elon Musk who simultaneously heads SpaceX and Tesla?

<comment><USER7> Elon maybe, but not Jobs. Jobs was Pixar's investor and an advisor, but he didn't run the company.

[http://alvyray.com/pixar/PixarMyth5.htm](http://alvyray.com/pixar/PixarMyth5.htm)

Although Jobs originally wanted to buy/run Pixar and essentially turn it into Apple's competitor (this was post-Apple and pre-NeXT). It wasn't until Jobs was occupied with NeXT that the Pixar guys were comfortable bringing him in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Performance is all that ends up mattering at the end of the day. Both Apple and Pixar ended up as wild successes - so yes, Jobs could effectively run both (in hindsight).

The futures for both Twitter and Square are not so sure. At face value, seems like a net positive for Twitter and a net negative for Square.

<comment><USER9> Jobs was an investor in Pixar. He didn't run the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Given it's Jack, the guy who obsessively imitates Steve Jobs, I wonder if we'll see this "interim CEO" (gee, wasn't Jobs that for a while in the 90s at Apple?) who becomes full CEO, eventually get Twitter to introduce a mobile hardware device to the market, in the hopes of continuing to go down the Jobs path, a la iPod.

</comment><comment><USER11> [http://recode.net/2015/09/30/sources-jack-dorsey-to-be- named...](http://recode.net/2015/09/30/sources-jack-dorsey-to-be-named- permanent-twitter-ceo/) is the source linked to in the article.

<comment><USER12> Thank you. Url changed from [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-30/twitter- to...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-30/twitter-to-name-jack- dorsey-ceo-re-code), which points to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Surprise, surprise.</comment>


Trump Told Governors to Buy Own Virus Supplies, Then Outbid Them - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/trump-told-governors-to-buy-own-virus-supplies-then-outbid-them <comment><USER2> The only reason for doing this is to get a political win, to be able to turn around and say 'Governor X didn't get the supplies you needed, but I made it happen.' This is the same guy complaining that the federal government 'are not supply clerks.'

¯\\(°_o)/¯

<comment><USER3> I would rather thus forum was discussing how to make sure politicians can't do something like this.

By the way social guarantees for citizens is one way of doing it; because having more money usually implies having more time to contemplate about the idiocy of their own government and thus being motivated to change it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And the next day he stated that he was aware this was happening and if it happened for the governors to communicate back to the feds and the feds would withdraw the bid. How does this article help or enrich anything?

Logistics and bidding collisions during a crisis? Who would have guessed it...

</comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like the governors are better at driving a bargain.</comment>


It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy - <AUTHOR> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000776.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm submitting this article for the discussion from the HNers. I don't necessarily agree with its content or how the content is presented.

I'd love to hear more about the _"alternative methodologies"_ and why they're more _"efficient, extensible, and far more economical"_.

Also, do people think the fees are that outrageous? A common complaint about the .com TLD is that it is too cheap; thus, making it susceptible to squatting. I've no idea about the real costs involved in creating custom TLDs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fees are in part set high to avoid people buying custom TLDs, like .inc or .fb (facebook) and squatting them.

</comment><comment><USER2> The best idea that I've heard so far was to just abandon the TLDs altogether. "<http://google>, "<http://news.ycombinator>.

For a smooth transition all .com owners could be handed their current name in TLD-form (except for those who own com.com and such, naturally).

Obviously that's never gonna happen. Not for technical reasons but because ICANN will not let anyone revoke their license to print money.

<comment><USER3> So, how do you plan to resolve conflict between <http://ripe.com/> and <http://ripe.net/>?

<comment><USER2> Well, the old TLDs would have to stay operational, at least during a transition phase, perhaps infinitely. However, ripe.com gets the 'ripe'-TLD. And ripe.net gets to keep what they have.

<comment><USER3> whitehouse.com owners would be happy with your proporsal.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Young and The Reckless - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/xbox-underground-videogame-hackers/ <comment><USER2> The original title is "The Teens Who Hacked Microsoft's Xbox Empire—And Went Too Far | WIRED"</comment>


Hackers & Backers: Because You Need Each Other - <AUTHOR> http://www.hackersandbackers.com

<comment><USER2> I do like the idea, but perhaps a few more people could have been convinced to join before the link is spread around more widely?

I know, I know, chicken-and-the-egg problem, but it looks a little bare.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we haven't figured out how to do the chicken-and-the-egg problem yet.

We've been promoting the site in our local area heavily, yet it hasn't "sparked" yet.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I turn off/disable all aws services without deleting the account? - <AUTHOR> Ok so I signed up for an AWS account to work on just to explore it. I must've turned on Kinesis and S3 to play around as well. I must've used it for one maybe two days and I have $10 charges. It is isn't a lot but I don't want to keep getting charged for something that I'm not actually using. I've googled around and couldn't find a clear answer. How do I turn off all these services? <comment><AUTHOR> So turns out I had Kinesis streams enabled. However, I had to click on each of the kinesis types to even find that.

If anyone from AWS sees this, for the love of God, please create a simple dashboard which allows us to enable/disable all/any service instead of having to dig through.</comment>


Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children - <AUTHOR> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ <comment><USER2> Well, this is definitely not a politically correct paper.

<comment><USER3> Nor should it be. Its science, not politics.</comment></comment>


Smashicons is the world's largest and most complete icon set with +14000 icons - <AUTHOR> http://smashicons.com/

<comment><USER2> Having the index page prominently display large icons for an erect penis, a vagina, and various breasts seems like a terrible decision. And aside from the whole NSFW aspect, is that really what you want to lead with? Is there a large pent-up demand among medical websites for vagina icons? Surely you want to lead with something that website designers actually need.

<comment><USER3> I think it's for the european market; I can't find other explanation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note: Page loads icons which could be considered NSFW.

<comment><USER5> Shared it in companie's slack saying - how not to promote your icon set on your homepage...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some of the icons in the arrow section seemed to be mixed up between Right and Left.</comment>


How Does F1 Technology Impact You Every Day? (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QisYfvYZks <comment><USER2> And then came Tesla, largely ignored by all car incumbents.

This really destroyed the last believe in (German) car makers as truly innovative. It is more kind of story telling and (over-)selling minor improvements as innovations.</comment>