Is globalization to blame? - <AUTHOR> http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/11/is-globalization-to-blame.html <comment><USER3> This is just like the headlines in Bloomberg every day. Stock market went up due to X and went down due to Y where X and Y are some random nonsense.

Trump was elected because some humans (something around 0.3% of the population) happened to feel some different emotion on the day of elections vs. what they felt the last elections. The shift has been small. There's no one factor that explains it.

The world is changing. Like I heard some pundit say the cause for this change was not globalization or trade agreements. The cause was the microchip. Anyone who thinks automobiles will again be assembled by hand in some factory in the rust belt just needs a reality check. Those jobs are gone. They're never coming back. It's not due to globalization. It just happens that in very low wage countries it might make more sense to do more things by hand vs. automation but the Chinese assembly worker isn't stealing an American assembly worker's job.

The US (and maybe other countries) needs to accept the world is changing and to find ways to adapt to this change. Unfortunately it seems most people aren't thinking along these lines and IMO that's partly due to a long history of "each to his own". Erecting walls and barriers to try and keep the world the way it was isn't going to work but also having a fraction of the population that is making profit from the change while the rest is going down won't work either. Looks like you guys have at least 2 years to think about it now.

</comment><comment><USER4> Globalization (and corporatization) creates money vacuums, and dead spots in the places that they replace.

Walmart/Amazon/Etc vacuum money and resources from the local (or "local-ish") community to their respective profit centers. It used to be small towns would be relatively self sustaining and much of the money staying within local boundaries, and while the cost of goods was higher at least buying them would support local businesses.

When a factory leaves a town or a company goes under from overseas competition it creates a big gaping hole in the local economy that frequently doesn't end up being filled. There are no companies coming back, and no capital available in the area anymore since all profits are sucked up.

Maybe all this is inevitable, but it doesn't quite seem so to me.

<comment><USER5> The last 30 years have shown that growth through globalization mainly benefits the top few percent and hurts the rest. For most people wages have stagnated or gone down. You can get cheap T-shirts while housing prices explode. I bet with more automation even in China a lot of the factory workers that escaped poverty will get stuck at low wage jobs or get laid off soon and be poor again.

I hope people everywhere will develop an understanding that growth that isn't widely distributed is useless or even negative.

<comment><USER6> It's location specific. It hurts the lower and middle classes workers in developed countries and helps almost everyone else.

Utra cheap Wal-Mart goods are great if you are retired and living on a small retirement. Or worked in a non factory job in the first place.

A soul crushing factory job is still better than manual farm work in a developing country. Those same factory workers add a lot more income for local economies in developing nations.

It also tends to harm farmers in developing nations. But, that's largely from first world farming subsidies.

PS: After China replaces those workers with robots they will be poor in a developed nation which is generally a lot better than being poor in a poor nation.

<comment><USER7> It hurts developing countries too, e.g. no incentive to give people a good education for free if you'll just lose them to brain drain. Globalization allows the best workers worldwide to spend their time solving the most profitable problems, i.e. rich people problems.

<comment><USER6> That brain drain also tends to remit a lot of money back to the developing country. Even without family in the area many people spend 10-20 years in the west then go back with significant capital.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting enough the left, for example Chomsky, has been talking and opposing globalization / NAFTA for years.

[https://chomsky.info/secrets03/](https://chomsky.info/secrets03/)

(excerpt)

\---

The day after NAFTA passed, the New York Times had its first article on its expected impact in the New York region. (Its conclusions apply to GATT too.) It was a very upbeat article. They talked about how wonderful NAFTA was going to be. They said that finance and services will be particularly big winners. Banks, investment firms, PR firms, corporate law firms will do just great. Some manufacturers will also benefit-for example, publishing and the chemical industry, which is highly capital-intensive with not many workers to worry about

Then they said, Well, there'll be some losers too: women, Hispanics, other minorities, and semi-skilled workers-in other words, about two-thirds of the work force. But everyone else will do fine. Just as anyone who was paying attention knew, the purpose of NAFTA was to create an even smaller sector of highly privileged people-investors, professionals, managerial classes. (Bear in mind that this is a rich country, so this privileged sector, although smaller, still isn't tiny.) It will work fine for them, and the general population will suffer.

The prediction for Mexico is exactly the same. The leading financial journal in Mexico, which is very pro-NAFTA, estimated that Mexico would lose about 25% of its manufacturing capacity in the first few years and about 15% of its manufacturing labor force. In addition, cheap US agricultural exports are expected to drive several million people off the land. That's going to mean a substantial increase in the unemployed workforce in Mexico, which of course will drive down wages.

\---

Note at the bottom the connection between immigration (another hot topic) and NAFTA. I am not sure Trump ever mentioned that, probably not but Chomsky did. I remember reading that from him the first time.

</comment><comment><USER9> It was beautiful vision for corporations, get cheap workforce overseas. Invest billions into China and then wait for those billions to get back to USA. It was true in the beginning because China imported a lot of tech and goods. They didn't have their own tech. Everything would work great but Chinese were not so stupid, they thought we can create our own products with same quality with our own tech with money we got from west. So they built universities and took best minds from west to teach in those schools. Then they started to make their own products that started to compete with those that need mid-high tech knowledge to produce. At this point globalization stopped being golden egg of western countries economies. That's why you see decline in growth in high developed countries in Europe and USA.

<comment><USER10> It's insane that anyone didn't see this coming, because the whole ideological content of the cultural revolution dealt with how international capitalist enterprise can be used to remove wealth from a country, and how to fight against it.

<comment><USER11> Warren Buffet saw it coming _years ago_. He even made a cartoon about it!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DvuyvuHmJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DvuyvuHmJI)

This clip is from a documentary called IOUSA. A condensed version of the film can be found here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It makes me very glad that we are starting to question globalization. Whether or not it is a bad thing --- and it may very well be a good thing --- is still an open question in my mind. But for decades now it seems that globalization has been very unjustly considered good by default.

<comment><USER13> It's "good" but good is a moral argument. We have to examine it on a deeper level, who wins and who loses.

According to economists, it's good because it grows the pie. It makes everyone wealthier.

According to labor, the pie grows but disproportionately the benefits accrue to capital. Without support, whether it be redistribution via tax or job retraining, labor can not react to shock as efficiently.

<comment><USER14> Who loses? Labor in the developed world.

Who wins? Labor in the developing world. In the past 30 years, _half a billion people_ have been dragged out of poverty. That's an enormous win...

... at the price of the US and European working class. That's a very big loss.

<comment><USER15> Causing Political instability in those countries is dangerous

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone actually think globalism is going to be stopped? My guess is it will be harnessed. Corporations fled the US to increase profits - both to preserve taxes and ignore environmental regulations. Given no regulation to prevent/dissuade the exodus, they outcompeted the ones who didn't.

It would now take a very large effort that would look like protectionism to bring all that back. Can Trump administration pull that off?

<comment><USER17> All it takes are tariffs and the economics of having manufacturing over seas becomes radically different.

<comment><USER16> Agreed, but easier said than done. Also it's unclear if Trump will be able to sell it to his multinational corporate supporters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The reason for the "productivity" decline may simply be that manufacturing and agriculture don't have many employees any more. Only about 10% of the US workforce is in agriculture, manufacturing, and mining. Those are the areas where, historically, there's been huge productivity growth. That's how that number got down to 10%. Yet US manufacturing output is at an all time high.

"Productivity" at the macroeconomic reporting level is total output / total workers. So productivity increases in manufacturing are divided by the total workforce size, which dilutes them.

Job growth is in the areas where productivity is low, such as health care and education.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't think many people blame globalisation. They blame neoliberalism, of which globalisation is just a small part.

Neoliberalism is a political project that has been dominant in the West since the mid '80s. Other elements of neoliberalism include:

      - The decline of trades unions
      - <USER2>
      - Power-biased technical change
      - Lower minimum wages
      - A meaner welfare state

There you go, I just made sense of the blog.

</comment><comment><USER20> > \- The decline of trades unions.

That's directly linked to globalization. When you can easily move your factory to Mexico or China trade unions lost all power.

</comment><comment><USER21> One thing not mentioned is that:

1) In booming urban areas, price-of-living can outpace the return to wages-- not everybody is benefiting, and landlords/homeowners are benefiting more than most.

2) In depressed rural areas, there is likely more people allocated here than there should be-- many oughta be reallocated to job-rich places like cities. However, this mobility is thwarted by high cost-of-living in cities.

<comment><USER21> Anyway, I wholeheartedly recommend reading Henry George's "Protection or Free Trade"[0], which both identifies why free trade is the right way forward, but also identifies all the suffering it is causing today. (The chapters "The real weakness of free trade" and "The real strength of protection" are amazingly insightful to what's happening to Trump's America.)

[0] [http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT.html](http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Probably. Considering the rise of nationalism all over the world from western europe to even india and the phillipines.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's actually worth reading the article, since he links to a few studies that show globalization is not to blame for falling wages and living standards (although of course many do blame it nonetheless). The comments below the article are mostly good too, poking a few holes in his argument.

<comment><USER23> Indeed! I wish HN had comments sections that good. They're civilly debating with references, without demonizing the opposing side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> James Goldsmith predicted problems with globalization in 1994: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI)

</comment><comment><USER25> > If you're spending $5 on a Chinese T-shirt rather than $10 on a US-made one, > you've got $5 more to spend on other things.

Thats disingenuous, you spend $5 less in total in your country.

<comment><AUTHOR> Shop will get 50%, supply chain a bit more, and the Chinese sweatshop under $1.

I think the real problem with this argument is that housing eats up such a large part of wages these days that a $5 saving on T-shirts is more than eaten up by rents and lenders. It's house prices more than anything which stop me and many of my friends from enjoying anything like the lifestyle that our parents had.

<comment><USER26> Housing really is crippling purchasing power for young people especially. Rent is rising at a ridiculous rate.

<comment><USER27> But, as long as inflation measurements includes housing, we really hide the true cost of globalization. We have relative deflation in the cost of good produced overseas and cheapened by labor arbitrage, but loose monetary policy is not evident in those diminished captital flows. Instead, too much money is chasing a stagnant supply of housing and inflates the value further. Net, central banks target inflation, globalization and labor arbitrage cheapen goods, while the lack of any globalization or arbitrage or supply drives the cost of housing up and up. In the end we balance it all out, and it looks like monetary policy is a very low-res tool.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Simple Sticker Tricked Neural Networks into Classifying Anything as a Toaster - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/this-simple-sticker-can-trick-neural-networks-into-thin-1821735479 <comment><USER2> wonder how will be the market for 0-day stickers when every state follow china with facial recognition everywhere.</comment>


Why didn't facebook IPO? - <AUTHOR> http://www.niccolopantucci.com/2010/06/why-didnt-facebook-ipo.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting analysis. I guess some additonal reasons why Facebook is not IPOing are:

1) Expectation that facebook will benefit from high profits in the future - IPOing would mean sharing these profits with millions of shareholders.

2) IPOing involves significant costs - companies often spend more than 10% of the money they actually raise on actual IPO costs

3) Preference not to disclosure internal company information to the SEC which it would have to do if it IPOs (this would also involve additional legal costs)

</comment><comment><USER3> Either they don't need money, or the bankers told them they'd get a crap valuation (or both). Why go public in a recession when you can wait 'til the boom times to cash in?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interested to hear people's opinions...</comment>


Profile pages deserves better contents. Publish only others' best pics - <AUTHOR> http://fwdapp.io <comment><AUTHOR> What would your profile page look like if you only had the right to publish pics that your followers forwarded to you ? Let's see with Forward.</comment>


When is it OK to remake a classic game? - <AUTHOR> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/11/22/when-is-it-ok-to-remake-a-classic-game/ <comment><USER2> I'm really disappointed in rockpapershotgun.com's adblocker strategy. They make you click on "I'm a bad person" in order to continue without disabling adblocker. While somewhat funny, I'm firmly on the side of ending bad ad implementation. The advertising industry needs to improve (I actually like the rare good ad), as most of them are trashy. Anyways, rant aside over.

<comment><USER3> I take a complaint about adblocking as a sign that the creators of the website do not understand how the Web works. Users get to choose what web browser they use and configure it to show or hide any element that they want. If you want to force some specific layout, use a page description language and render the output yourself. Otherwise you're just signalling you're clueless about the medium you're publishing in.

<comment><USER4> I'm also convinced that they haven't thought it through very far. The type of user who wants ads blocked is highly unlikely to click on one, and has been done a great disservice if forced to view the ad.

If the model is pay-per-impression, they are doing their advertisers a huge disservice (and will probably run impression value down to nothing).

Either way, the site is behaving poorly and for no obvious benefit to itself.

<comment><USER5> > _I 'm also convinced that they haven't thought it through very far. The type > of user who wants ads blocked is highly unlikely to click on one, and has > been done a great disservice if forced to view the ad._

No, they thought further than you. If they don't punish adblocking, they risk that eventually it becomes default in browsers, and then no one will see ads, not even those who would click on them.

<comment><USER6> Adblockers will become the default and sites that punish users will disappear.

<comment><USER5> I hope so, but I fear it's just a pipe dream. There's too much money involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you look at filmmaking, a remaster and remake are two clearly distinct things. A remaster is just a high quality rerelease, while a remake is a completely new production and interpretation of the same basic story or script.

The kinds of game remakes this article talks about are somewhere in between, which can be awkward. The redrawn graphics frequently interfere with gameplay in subtle ways, as Brian Moriarty's example from Loom. And while they can make a classic more approachable to a contemporary audience, they are usually limited to new graphics, which can make the untouched aspects of the design seem even more quaint.

I think it could be interesting to see more actual remakes in games; take the most memorable aspects of an existing game (story, characters, core gameplay ideas, etc) and see where modern game technology and design ideas can take them. At least for story driven games, this seems to be pretty uncommon.

<comment><USER8> I've heard good things about the new DOOM remake, which seems to be in that direction.

<comment><USER9> It's not a remake... it's an actual sequel. And it is fantastic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can see the art being preserved as a critical feature for adventure games, but with StarCraft remastered it seems everyone loves the new art. The most important thing for that game was to keep the gameplay exactly the same while supporting newer displays.

<comment><USER11> Lack of detail can often create stronger imagery because the reader/viewer's brain fills in the textures. With a lo-fi King's Quest I imagined gallant heroes on trusty steeds. The same way that cartoons can be more expressive than live action and how books can have more vivid imagery than movies. Who could possibly do justice on screen to the character of Ignatius J. Reilly?

<comment><USER12> > Who could possibly do justice on screen to the character of Ignatius J. > Reilly?

I'm going to say ... lots of people. It's basically Reality TV trash in literary form.

I have never understood the literary lovefest that "Confederacy of Dunces" seems to incur ...

<comment><USER11> I've never heard of a Reality TV character who is as trashy as Ignatius but has also read the Great Books and earnestly believes himself to be a Great Man

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The idea of a re-releasing a classic game with running commentary is interesting, but I can't imagine that there's much of an appeal for commentary during the gameplay. Conversely, I did enjoy watching "We Play Doom With John Romero" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUU7_BthBWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUU7_BthBWM)

<comment><USER14> I seem to remember this being done well for _Portal 2_. A special option would add commentary icons to the game which, when touched by your character, would trigger a brief commentary from a member of the staff or cast. Sometimes this had in-game effects; for example, when an animator explained the animations designed for Wheatley, the in-game Wheatley sprite would demonstrate them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anytime you want. Anytime is a good time to remake something so long as you're not in a position of privilege where your decision to remake x has an unfair advantage (I.e. other than just the actual merits of your remake).

In other words, so long as you're not Hollywood cashing in on a remake of x, y, or z just because you can (eg "why _not_ release a _third_ reboot of the _Spiderman_ series in a span of just ten years?") and people will watch it just because of who you are and how big your marketing budget is, then by all means. Let your remake speak for itself.

<comment><USER16> If people will buy your remake for who you are, I don't fee like that's an unfair advantage or a privilege. If anything it's a much bigger responsibility to make it right, since you risk ruining your reputation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Actually the SCRUMM Virtual Machine plays a lot of these old games using data files from the original floppy disks or CDs to load the original graphics.

[http://www.scummvm.org/](http://www.scummvm.org/)

People who follow that find their old install disks, or buy one used on eBay, and put the data files on their hard drive and run SCRUMM to see what the game looks like when it ran on DOS, etc.

So in this instance, they just rebuild the game engine and take data files to play the game as the original artists have intended.

</comment><comment><USER18> when microsoft "remastered" age of empires 2 for steam ~15 years after original release, there was a small community-built platform that had kept the original game alive. microsoft released a buggy mess that was inferior to the community-supported platform in every way, but it was available to a wider audience and easier to install, so tons of people played it and it brought a lot of people to the community version.

msft also released a paid "official" version of a fan-made expansion that was broken and really never used. after a few years, they improved performance and released two fully new expansion DLCs

so msft started off with a pretty horrible remake (in intention and execution) that actually ended up reviving the community and leading to a pretty decent new product a few years down the road

<comment><USER19> I recently found my old Age of Empires II CDs and thought about installing them at some point, but then remembered the remastered Steam edition exists and thought about downloading it. I've not done anything yet. Is it worth getting the Steam one now - have the bugs been ironed out? (Running Linux, if that helps)

<comment><USER18> I got the steam version in 2014 and it was the best $5 I've ever spent, although the performance was laggier compared to the voobly platform (the platform you use to play the cd version). I haven't played the steam one in over a year but it had improved to almost on a par with voobly, and the new expansions were actually pretty cool (although not many ppl played them at the time, but that may have changed)

Can probably get it dirt cheap for the holiday sale

There is a pretty active casual and competitive scene, and it's actually a pretty deep game that has aged well

<comment><USER19> It is indeed on sale. I also just saw Age of Empires IV was announced, and a remake of Age of Empires I. Looks like I've found something to do over the winter holidays!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's OK to remake a classic game when you've managed to come up with a title for it that is NOT exactly the same as the old one.

</comment><comment><USER21> Just leave super mario,duck hunt and galaga alone!</comment>


Ask HN: Mongo-Stable.... really? - <AUTHOR>

So I am using MongoDb for a small project (not by choice), I usually do a apt-get update && apt-get upgrade every day I get in the office, to keep on top of the latest packages.<p>Mongo-stable has been updated every other day at the least for the last month... how is that stable?  In fact I am often 'hunting' down the changes that the newest package contains - and yes, I know about their 'jira' page. <comment><AUTHOR> God dammit-

Sep 28, 2010.

Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages will be upgraded: linux-libc-dev mongodb-stable 2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 25.5MB of archives. After this operation, 12.3kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y

<comment><AUTHOR> What changed, is beyond me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> We're running the latest stable version of Mongo (1.6.3) compiled from source and it is definitely stable (we're running 4 shards, 2 servers per shard, 2 config servers and a bunch of arbiters plus mongos on all of our servers that access the DB).

I don't necessarily think stable and actively developed are mutually exclusive.</comment>


Oracle CEO Mark Hurd Slams Amazon Cloud as 'old' - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/oracle-ceo-mark-hurd-amazon-web-services-is-old-oracle-gaining.html <comment><USER2> So, how's oracle services, technology, and prices are "new", exactly?? seriously, tell me about the convenience to hire that expensive monster over the convenient, price friendly services of amazon for startups... LOL</comment>


Show HN: No Account Required, Reverse Proxy - <AUTHOR> https://dns.live/redirect/ <comment><AUTHOR> SS:

This service does not need an account because dns requests will not arrive to the service unless the domain holder sets a record to resolve to dns.live.

It is limited to handshake [1] domains only.

The main driver was that besides github and amazon which work very well with handshake names, other providers lack support for Handshake names. The DNS Live Gauntlet will let sites, who buy and claim their names on handshake, have their site be accessible via their handshake name.

There is also a redirect and frame service - and - dns.live also fully supports the txtdirect standard!

[1] [https://handshake.org](https://handshake.org)</comment>


Facebook censors group criticizing Thailand king after government pressure - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/24/21399940/facebook-thailand-group-remove-king-criticism-threat-defamatory-free-speech <comment><USER2> It's even worse in America, FB volunteers to censor non-illegal content all the time, because, like, businesses reasons. Almost everyone believes in censorship, except it's only called censorship when they disagree with it.

When people support the censorship, it's called preventing fake news, combating misinformation, deplatforming hate, or whatever.

It's started to bum me out that everyone wants to eliminate others from voicing opinions they disagree with, even if they'll never hear or come in contact with it!

<comment><USER3> I have never seen someone decrying others "deplatforming hate" acting in good faith or coming from a nuanced mindset, but it would appear from your comment history (yes, I did check it... I will admit I was sceptical) that you're not a thinly veiled white supremacist. Perhaps I'll read points like these more charitably in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Facebook seems to punch down. If you're an oppressed or persecuted minority, you are out of luck and subjected to hate and incitement. If you are in a politically favored group, or a threat to FB's bottom line, FB is ultra- sensitive.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thai citizen here. I've always seen the lese majeste laws as immoral, but unfortunately talking about the monarchy in any negative way is so taboo that many are not willing to do it publicly for fear of being penalized severely.

Anecdotally, public opinion of Rama X is lower than Rama IX. The latter was, objectively speaking, very prolific in the arts and sciences. The former, well, for one, spends excessive time abroad and has gotten into a number of controversies. It's definitely got more people questioning the lese majeste laws.

<comment><USER6> Didn't the king himself speak out against penalizing people that had criticized him? Might have been the last one, was quite some time ago I read about it and the article suggested that the monarchy is in very high regard in Thailand.

That said, I think it should be permitted to criticize everything without repercussions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are some 50 million FB users in Thailand.

[https://napoleoncat.com/stats/facebook-users-in- thailand/201...](https://napoleoncat.com/stats/facebook-users-in- thailand/2019/01)

Don't expect many of them to comment here about this subject. Or anywhere. The risk is too great.

</comment><comment><USER8> > This month Thailand's digital minister accused Facebook of not complying > with requests to restrict content, including insults to the monarchy. On 10 > August he gave Facebook 15 days to comply with court takedown orders or face > charges under the Computer Crime Act, which carries a fine of up to 200,000 > baht (£4,860) plus an additional 5,000 baht per day until each order is > observed.

[https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistMarketplace/](https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistMarketplace/)

Page still exists it looks like, just enforcing the local laws. It's another one of those damned if you do damned if you don't cases.

<comment><USER9> The real Royalist Marketplace is a Facebook Group not Page. I think your url is the wrong on one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think there is no point in blaming Facebook here . Facebook has to follow a country's laws if it wants to operate there and there are well known laws in Thailand against criticizing the monarchy. If not followed, then Facebook has a real risk on being banned in that country.

</comment><comment><USER11> Remember Thailand knows better than you what is good for their people. You cannot judge a man without walking a day in his shoes.....

</comment><comment><USER12> Friendly reminder that when what can and cannot be said is chosen by a private company, they will always choose what's better for their business.

The only way of having some moral (rather than commercial) principles guiding the choice, is to regulate it at government level.

<comment><USER13> That is much worse.

I can quit Facebook.

Quitting a country is not practical.

<comment><USER12> But a country's policy is decided by the citizens, if you live in a democracy.

Facebook's policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.

There's a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.

<comment><USER13> The key difference is consequence.

Tell Facebook no, they may kick you of.

Tell the government no. You go to jail. Say no to that and you get shot.

The moment it's okay for government to control speech, you have China.

Having armed government agents showing up at a house because they don't "agree" with the official stance is a dictatorship.

<comment><USER12> I never said it's OK for the government to control speech undemocratically like happens in China, maybe I didn't explain myself well.

My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.

I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.

But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!

<comment><USER13> I get your point. I just think it's completely wrong.

The moment government is allowed to say what is not "protected speech" it will be abused.

Only one viewpoint will be allowed. Voting will be meaningless when only one side can get its message out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Database containing details of 56M US residents found on the public internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/09/checkpeoplecom_data_exposed/ <comment><USER2> From the article: _However, under the laws of the People 's Republic, government agencies can more or less search any machine at any time in the Middle Kingdom, meaning profiles on 56.5 million American residents appear to be at the fingertips of China, thanks to CheckPeople – we assume Beijing has files on all of us, though, to be fair._

And that is exactly how the Europeans feel when their health records are handled by Google and the TSA wants to know their Facebook handle: what initially appeared as a nice-to-have is now all over a sudden a government source of data no one anticipated...

Edit - oh darn, I forgot Ancestry.com and 23andMe, which are even worse examples: US police has full access to all DNA samples provided by anyone in the past. That is 20 million DNA samples. Not name or age - full genetic info...

<comment><USER3> I'm starting to think the Facebook / Google way of harvesting data may really be over complicated. This kind of services shows people are willing to _pay_ to give personal data that literally defines them as individuals to a commercial entity.

<comment><USER4> A dna test was really helpful in finding all my half siblings and other family members because my biological dad is a sperm donor.

The fact that my DNA can somehow turn up at the scene of a crime somewhere and the police can query the sample I sent to Ancestry x years ago, well, let's say that I already knew that risk going into it and it will have to be what it will have to be.

In our lifetimes, I'm not seeing a way for us to dismantle the forces that are pushing for such a big surveillance state.

Therefore, by definition, you can either find a way to cope within that surveillance state, or you can move to somewhere so remote and hidden that you can't be caught doing what they don't like.

<comment><USER5> You are contributing to it though. You also added your entire close family to the searchable registry by submitting your DNA.

It reads like 'people like me are out there and don't care, so if you do you have to move to the remaining square kilometers of Jungle'

<comment><USER6> > You also added your entire close family to the searchable registry by > submitting your DNA.

Noob question, but how does this work?

<comment><USER7> Roughly... Crime is committed, police find DNA sample at scene, police compare sample with online DNA registry, hits as a near-match for personX, police now know that a sibling/cousin of personX is the culprit. That sibling/cousin never allowed their own DNA to be collected.

This happened in 2018... [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true- crime/wp/2018/04/27...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true- crime/wp/2018/04/27/golden-state-killer-dna-website-gedmatch-was-used-to- identify-joseph-deangelo-as-suspect-police-say/)

<comment><USER8> ... police now _think_ that ...

To me, that is the real threat - false positives. myopic reliance on the database, and an assumption the computer is always correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "The repository's contents are likely scraped from public records"

Seems like a non-story to me. If you put it out there, someone is collecting, cleaning, and selling it. The fix in this particular scenario is to put less online.

<comment><USER10> Almost every city in the US has a GIS system which you can use to look up tax record ownership of property parcels. Sales history too even. This information is also available via FOIA requests. There's probably easy ways to scrape it out considering almost every city uses the same 2-3 GIS software systems. In the case of home ownership, the only choice you have for privacy is to register an LLC under a paid attorney as a proxy, and have the LLC buy the home. And even then you may run into issues trying to file for homestead exemption property taxes. You're not able to tell the city to unlist your property info in most cases.

<comment><USER11> Reading the Letters to the Editor and similar features in older magazines and newspapers reveals something that would be unthinkable today: it was common for the home address of the person writing to the periodical to be published along with their letter. As far as I can tell, no one had a problem with this. When I was young, drivers licenses included your Social Security number and it was common to have it printed on your personal checks. This no longer happens.

Is it the information that's the problem or is the problem what others are willing to do with that information?

<comment><USER12> This is an interesting insight.

I think most reactionary pro-privacy responses (the HN default perspective) really stem from a complicated internalization of data gathering/use capabilities that has been adjusted over time combined with a lizard brain feeling of invasiveness. Because almost always no one particularly gives a crap about YOU and your specific data, but they may profit from and misuse your information in passing or in aggregate.

It is a lot like the feeling of having your car broken into or house robbed. You feel personally violated but more than likely you are a victim of circumstance. It can be hard to distinguish between faceless identification for (ad network data gathering, for the most part) and the risks of general data availability that makes anyone as capable as an old P. I. (especially when data leaks conflate the two).

<comment><USER13> "almost always no one particularly gives a crap about YOU and your specific data"

It's really amazing how much time people spend these days trying to gather information on people, considering how useless it is. I don't mean mass surveillance, I mean like people that you want to do business with individually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've always wondered how those people finder sites get all this info. Do they just send a bunch of FOIAs to court houses and cities? I kinda figured maybe they paid to be wired in with the DMV and police computers maybe... I guess background check companies would be similar however they get the data.

I was looking on some before just curious and I noticed some information was inaccurate. Like looked up an old address, it said a dead relative used to live with us, when they never did. Then another site said one of our neighbors were a sex offender when not true.

Then there's companies like LexisNexis too that have massive databases on people too. I think they have a way to run people's credit without it actually showing up on people's reports as I heard car dealers can get info on people credit without it showing up as a pull, so not sure if maybe it's like a cached version of a credit report sold and traded.

Remembering watching some clips years ago on all these big data brokers on YouTube. Last I heard some of these companies won't even delete your information unless you are a police officer who felt your life was in danger. Seems to still have a similar policy. [https://www.lexisnexis.com/en- us/privacy/for-consumers/opt-o...](https://www.lexisnexis.com/en- us/privacy/for-consumers/opt-out-of-lexisnexis.page)

<comment><USER15> Where I live court records and property records are completely public and available for anyone to view online. So just simple web scraping. Voter records aren't online as far as I'm aware, but they're easy to request.

<comment><USER14> I know some of it makes it to the paper too, like bankruptcies or divorces if you don't know where they currently live, but I know some of that stuff is under a paywall or got to pay to make copies at the court house but probably depends on the area.

I was looking at one site about red light camera tickets since there's been debates over them, some states even outlawed them. But looking at one of the examples, some county didn't even have a secure website to put in license and credit card info. Chrome even put a warning next to the address bar. Not sure why they are allowed to process credit cards since a private website would have to be compliance with PCI. But I guess some areas are more technical than others.

<comment><USER15> Divorces and bankruptcies are included in court records and are available online in my state.

Property transfers are posted in the newspaper.

<comment><USER14> For the entire state? I figured a county by county thing. But I do think more legal case law and publicly funded research should be open to the public. I know people feel that way about PACER, so someone created a plugin called Recap.

<comment><USER15> Yes, for the state.

We don't really have county courts here, just judicial districts which are all operated by the state. (We have no county governments)

<comment><USER14> Interesting, sounds more centralized maybe. I'm guessing Louisiana? or maybe Alaska?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's articles like this that make me realize many people really haven't come to terms with how the Internet has changed the definition of "privacy".

As mentioned in the article, this is all public data that probably any script kiddie with enough time could write scrapers for. It's a non-story. What's different is that (some) people somehow expect that this public data is as hard to collect and correlate as it was 30 years ago. Those days are long gone, and people should realize it.

</comment><comment><USER17> General question to HN because i don't know the answer.

Has anyone ever tried de-duplicating and matching up records between multiple leaks to build user/person profiles?

I guess with enough unique keys, compute power and time you could build a reasonably accurate profile of a person by matching up email addresses, phone number or SN numbers?

Would probably make identify thief and fraud a lot easier going forwards.

<comment><USER15> Data broker-type companies do this already and sell it. They even include stuff like your probable religion, probable income/net worth, probable hobbies/interests, etc.

For example:

>Each record contains entries that go far beyond contact information and public records to include more than 400 variables on a vast range of specific characteristics: whether the person smokes, their religion, whether they have dogs or cats, and interests as varied as scuba diving and plus-size apparel.

[https://www.wired.com/story/exactis-database- leak-340-millio...](https://www.wired.com/story/exactis-database- leak-340-million-records/)

HN Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17421140](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17421140)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Paging [https://haveibeenpwned.com](https://haveibeenpwned.com) and [https://twitter.com/troyhunt](https://twitter.com/troyhunt)

<comment><USER15> First off, this is all just public information.

Secondly the location of the database was not disclosed by the researcher, so he can't exactly load it into haveibeenpwned

<comment><USER18> [https://twitter.com/troyhunt/status/1215829082920742914](https://twitter.com/troyhunt/status/1215829082920742914)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Following data leaks like this one I suggest sending the company, in this case CheckPeople, a GDPR / CCPA deletion request. Here's a simple way to do it: [https://yourdigitalrights.org/?company=checkpeople.com](https://yourdigitalrights.org/?company=checkpeople.com)

Disclaimer: i'm one of the creators of the service.

<comment><USER20> How do you make money from it?

<comment><USER19> We don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Meh, it's all public data anyway.

The only "victim" here is CheckPeople, but I doubt that this will have any impact on their business.</comment>


This GIF Shows the Evolution of the Breaking News from Orlando - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/insider/this-gif-shows-the-evolution-of-a-breaking-news-story.html <comment><USER2> That's some flexible layout.</comment>


Don't write your own framework? - <AUTHOR>

I have read many programming blogs over the years and read many 'how to become a better programmer' entries. Many list 'write your own language' as one of the more advanced lessons. I can how see how that would allow someone to learn about programming from a completely new angle.
I have also read many blogs, forums and threads discouraging people from writing their own framework. 'it's already been done and better then you can do it. don't try to reinvent the wheel.' I have written my own framework and I feel it had allowed me to grow in my understanding of programming. Why is writing a framework discouraged?
Is this a double standard in the program community or am I missing something? <comment><USER2> I think you made the distinction already -- if you're just looking to learn, sure, spin your own thing -- it's fun and you'll gain some perspective on why existing frameworks probably work the way they do...

On the other hand, if you're building something for your job, for a production deployment -- you should probably pick something that's established with ample vetting in other production environments, documentation you can leverage, and a community of users you can turn to if you need help.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my opinion, people who wrote frameworks didn't listen to the criticism. If writing your own framework means becoming a better programmer then go at it, but that likely will also mean maintaining it yourself. Whereas other frameworks are constantly being updated and improved.

This is slightly different than writing your own language. Using Python and Django as an example, when python goes from Python 2.7 to Python 2.8, Django will have to update to be able to use 2.8.

</comment><comment><USER4> Rolling your own framework to the standard and complexity of, say, Zend, would take an impractical amount of time. If that's the kind of thing you need, use Zend.

If, however, you feel that anything more than a front controller, a registry and some common sense is just ego-stroking, roll your own and enjoy ;)</comment>


JavaScript, Once Again, Leads the List of Top Programming Languages - <AUTHOR> http://apl.as/prv6n#.V5JKBBDf1gE.hackernews <comment><AUTHOR> Curious: what do people think of the RedMonk rankings, generally?</comment>


Visualizing Yahoo Mail - <AUTHOR> http://visualize.yahoo.com/mail/

<comment><USER2> Gah, automatically playing sounds is _not_ okay. It's not Flash-based either, since I use the "click to enable" feature in Chrome.

<comment><USER3> I'm fine with it in this context, it's far superior to the way it's usually deployed. I think that sound control should be client side anyway, but this is pretty un-disruptive compared to things like news sites etc. that start streaming immediately.

Admittedly I was amused by the spam sound effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only one who finds those "trending keywords" creepy? Email isn't public like Twitter, after all.

<comment><USER5> Creepy? No. A clear violation of expected privacy? Yes.

<comment><USER6> This is tricky. I was shocked when I saw it, but this is really just a visualization of the terms they're looking at for spam detection.

I'm surprised they added this feature to the data-viz to be honest. People don't like being reminded that our emails are parsed, even if just for spam filtering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's amazing as to how ubiquitous email has gotten in the recent years in spite of being a relatively older technology. It was only a few years ago that you needed to afford the luxury of a blackberry to email on the go.

And now we have very affordable phones zapping out emails over reliable cellular data connections, hundreds of small apps and companies curating and shooting out content-rich emails that can be viewed in your palm, and browser based email clients on desktops evolving to have features comparable to installable thick clients. I wonder what else is in store for the trusty email.

<comment><USER8> It's not just relatively older, e-mail is one of the oldest technologies on the net (we're talking 1960s technology here!)

Frankly, I wish it would die already as it's pretty much held together with ducttape:

* it's all transmitted via ASCII; so any binary attachments have to be base64 encoded that increases their file sizes by ~30%;

* transport encryption still isn't the norm (this is the 21st century, why the hell are we still sending stuff in clear text!?),

* there's no standard error responses meaning it's often guess work whether mail has been received or not

* there's no standard way of rendering HTML mail, so anyone sending mailshots has to revert back to a 1990's web developer mindset (ie assuming that everything doesn't render so resorting to HTML tables and hours of frustration).

* it's not real time / real time daemons are not standardised. (I'm not saying we need something like instant messengers, but it seems silly that we have a small handful of proprietary push systems (eg Exchange) and the rest of us normal users have to instead rely upon re-syncs every 5 minutes (which means a fresh set of handshakes as well). A persistent connection would make much more sense for a 21st century e-mail network.

There's been so many attempts to "fix" e-mail, but most have either missed the point (eg Google Wave) or just added yet more ducttape to the existing problem (eg pretty GUIs that change the way we interact with e-mail clients but without actually touching the core technology itself).

I might actually write my own mail server and client one day because it's becoming obvious that most people are happy with " _good enough_ "

<comment><USER9> I would add postage to the protocol, as well. Spam consumes so much resources because it's basically free -- adding required computational complexity to send a mail (or, even better, an escrow based real money postage system) would go a long way towards cutting the legs out from under the spammers.

Network effects mean that all this is idle speculation, however.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it would make that much difference to spam as most of it is sent from hijacked machines anyway and the legitimate stuff is heavily regulated so must have features like "unsubscribe".

There definitely does need to be a better way of managing it though. But I'm yet to find a better way to manage spam (every method I do consider would either be ineffective or open to abuse to blacklist legitimate senders). But I guess that's the $million question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It looks like they are trying to level-up to Gmail's reputation.

The thing is that at the moment @yahoo.com is the best source of anonymous disposable email addresses. I'm sure they realize that and I suspect they will be taking steps to "rectify" this situation by trying to tie an address to an identity. It'd be interesting to see how that unfolds. Shouldn't be long now.

<comment><USER8> Ironically they used to be. I've not used Yahoo mail in 10 or 15 years, but back in the late 90s your Yahoo mail ID was the same identity for all of Yahoo's services.

In fact quite a number of search engines modeled themselves in this (search, mail, online chat, etc - all using the same single sign on). Then Google came along and reminded those search engines that many users just want a plain and responsive search engine. And those portals closed. Lycos shut down their free hosting, Yahoo closed their chat sites, and so no. And now we have Google integrating chat, mail, and all manor of other things into their search engine. It's funny how trends come full circle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Funny

Yahoo Mail has been really slow these past weeks. Like in "worse it has ever been"

So much I'm considering alternatives (and yes, I use gmail, yahoo is for 'second nature' emails, I use a 3 tiered approach, gmail for the serious/can't miss stuff, yahoo for important but may be subject to annoyances and another one for a throwaway email for non-important stuff signup)

</comment><comment><USER12> At the time of this posting, it seems the whole of Australia is not getting any Yahoo! Mail delivered. ;)

<comment><USER13> Neither is Africa or South America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find it interesting that the only "live data" that it appears to be grabbing (at least in my case) is an occasional "YouAreHere1.mp3" and "YouAreHere1.1.mp3". Instead, in the console I get "Port error: Could not establish connection. Receiving end does not exist."

</comment><comment><USER15> I really like how all the trending keywords are words you'd typically see in spam mail.

</comment><comment><USER16> Worldwide subject line keywords are interesting. So many of them are commerce related.

<comment><USER17> 'Commerce related'? That's a very nice way of putting it. I'd say it's all spam.

From the pile of keywords Yahoo considers 'good': free, rates, coupon, vacation, deals, save, today, lingerie, wants, shipping, alert, extra, daily, favorite, sale.

<comment><USER18> Sounds about right for me. Quite a few of those words occur a lot in subjects I get from legitimate mailing lists relatively regularly, while "non- commercial" e-mails that I receive from individuals tends to vary a lot more and would be unlikely to make the list.

<comment><USER17> Before I send out an email campaign with MailChimp, it lets me test whether my emails will be caught by spam filters of the various major ISPs. If I were to include any of the earlier listed keywords in the subject line, I can be sure that those emails wouldn't arrive in all of my recipients' mailboxes. That's why I refrain from using those, even though I only send out commercial emails that cusatomers have signed up for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wonder how many are spams. No. of emails means little if most of them are spammy.

<comment><USER20> Press the "Reveal blocked spam" button at the bottom.

<comment><USER21> in my experience, Yahoo is terrible at catching spam. Maybe half of it is caught, with some legitimate email marked as spam too.

<comment><USER18> It's interesting how different peoples experiences of that are. I have an "ancient" Yahoo Mail address that I don't use much but that receive a massive amount of Spam, and pretty much nothing gets through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Being snarky on purpose but is this visualizing the spam, or phishing emails Yahoo sends on behalf of people without them knowing about it?

<comment><USER23> At the bottom you can toggle visualizing spam on/off. As of writing this, it's about ~70k legit e-mails per second but ~330k spam e-mails per second.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This might be a stupid question, but why subject line keyword data from UK, Germany, France, Italy & Spain has been excluded?

<comment><USER25> Just a guess, but privacy laws related to e-mails may be stricter in those countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _Created 2011_

</comment><comment><USER27> Spam email is out of control.</comment>


Show HN: Virtual Mojito – Nocode project that curates virtual event resources - <AUTHOR> https://virtualmojito.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey community! I'm launching a No-code project on Notion: Virtual Mojito - <USER2> curated directory of 70+ tools for virtual events, webinars, mentorships, social gatherings, and Hackathons.

I've been collecting video conferencing tools and verticalized options since the beginning of the pandemic. You're going to see 3 things immediately:

Searchable list of tools for any virtual events Virtual event calendar (Update every week) Bi-weekly newsletter about events, and resources

Plus coming soon People-matching feature allows you to meet new people virtually

Excited to hear your feedback. I'm going to update the page anytime soon!</comment>


Book Summary: 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. The Full List with Notes - <AUTHOR> https://knowledgeartist.org/book/48-laws-power-robert-greene <comment><USER2> I deplore this list as antithetical to good business. Nobody who's had to reform a loss making human organization (think Motorola and SPC, IBM in 1990s, Xerox late 80s, Iacocca and Chrysler, or Dr Schutz of the book Human Element) used or condoned most of what appears here.

<comment><USER3> Good business (if we define good as synonym of revenue) has nothing to do with ethics, whether we like it or not.

Most companies are "unethical" and do use those laws, even if they are successful to convince you otherwise.

<comment><USER2> What I am learning ... is you have a lot to learn. The relatively minor and patently obvious point that there are assholes, players, and politicians in human organizations doesn't give us that much to work with. Moreover, you have defined away most of the context by making good business equivalent to revenue. Meanwhile the interplay between revenue, profit, people has been explained into ground over the years perhaps simplest by Iacocca: There are people, profit, product. Without good people you can't get the other two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is the original source of these? I recognize "find each man's thumbscrew" from reading Baltasar Gracián.

<comment><USER5> Robert Greene, the author of the book, did a bunch of original research and analysis. He then synthesized his findings and wrote a book.

The author is the original source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice summary!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking it out! :D</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to answer "How much should we pay you" - <AUTHOR>

This is a typical interview question - how much should we pay you. How do you/should you answer?<p>Note- this is in reference to a salaried employee, not a freelancer, where the answer to the question would simply be 'this is my hourly rate...' <comment><USER2> The traditional advice is to dodge the question and make them name the first number.

That advice works because they probably have a range in mind already. If you delay, they'll offer you something in the middle or lower part of that range, and you can negotiate them a bit up. If you name the first number and it's below or on the low end of their range, they will just accept and it will be worse for you.

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't had a chance to use this, but the Smith-Wenkle method seems like it should work well: <http://infohost.nmt.edu/~shipman/org/noel.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> That is fascinating. I really liked this sentence: "I am much more interested in doing (type of work) here at (name of company) than I am in the size of the initial offer. " It's such a loaded answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had an interview once where I successfully dodged the question asking how much I wanted, so the interviewer moved on to his next logical question: how much are you making right now? I refused to answer that one as well, and he got completely flustered, finally saying "If I don't know how much you're making right now, how do I figure out what to offer you?" When I wouldn't give that up, he decided that in order to figure out what I'm worth, he needed to know if I was married or had kids, since "people without a family seem to stay later and work harder." At that point, I gave up and walked out.

Not surprisingly, when I spoke to my recruiter after the fact, she admitted that he had been unprofessional in other interviews as well, but sent me on the interview anyway. Lesson #542 on why never to work with recruiters.

</comment><comment><USER5> My past several jobs I have delayed salary negotiations until they have essentially decided to hire me and I have decided I want to work for them. Why talk salary if the relationship isn't going to work anyway?

Once both sides know what they want to do, finding a number to make it work seems pretty easy. Put yourself in the manager's position: you've weeded through a big stack of resumes, interviewed some candidates who obviously aren't qualified, and made a decision about who to hire. At this point you can play salary hardball and risk losing the person you want, or you can pay toward the upper range. They picked you, and they will pay to hire you.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I never talk salary or details about benefits until I'm 100% sure I'm interested in the job. Optimize your (and the interviewer's) time, and stay on topics that either help you figure out if this is the job for you or help them figure out if you're the right candidate.</comment></comment>


There's no space for today's young Einsteins - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/12/einstein-gravitational-waves-physics <comment><USER2> Didn't Einstein create his own space during his time-off from the day job?</comment>


New Mexico teens can now legally sext each other and exchange nude photos - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/new-mexico-legalizes-teen-sexting <comment><USER2> As society slowly starts to realize that more harm comes from denying teens recognition of their agency (and right self-determination) in their own sexuality -- that is, attempting to forcibly "protect" them from it -- than in acknowledging it for what it is, and guiding and nurturing them to be aware of the consequences.

Not that sexting still isn't, in general, a Very Bad Idea. I'd just like to think we'd be better off investing the minimal effort needed to _explain_ why this is a bad idea, rather than attempt to prohibit it with ridiculously (and inhumanly) draconian penalties.</comment>


Big Data, Big Bucks: Palantir Valued at $9 Billion  - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/12/05/big-data-big-bucks-palantir-valued-at-9-billion/ <comment><USER2> > In-Q-Tel, a non-profit venture-capital firm established by the CIA

Good old Mussolini style fascism is steaming full speed ahead in the land of the free.

<comment><USER3> Sssh, we've got to keep the children safe by recording all the minutia of your online life. Because terrorism.

<comment><USER4> This is a reddit-level shitty comment. Unless you agree that the CIA has no right to exist (and you'd be insane [one of the nicest words I can think to put here] to think so), I fail to see why it's bad that the government would contract to people who can do things 100% more efficiently. Also the form of "shh...don't bring your logic here" comments is especially discussion-killing and really doesn't belong here.

Full disclosure: I work for Palantir, but I speak for myself, not the company.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough. I'll dispense with the snark and provide a more specific summary of my thoughts on the matter:

1) Not everybody who works for the government (either directly or as a contractor) is a power-hungry closet totalitarian. In fact, these people are _rare_.

2) Nevertheless, these people exist, and the ambitious ones often claw their way to the upper echelons of whatever organization they work for. Their goals are likely not as diabolic or lofty as overthrowing a country or subverting the Constitution, but rather to check the requisite boxes _their_ bosses deem important and to further their own careers by "empire building".

3) The by-product of these goals can result in the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, if they over promise and under deliver. They may exaggerate the scope of a problem in order to make their pet solution seem all the more critical. Technical problems have more taxpayer dollars thrown at them, to ensure a fix. Legal restrictions are tackled by lawyers, who seek to find workarounds.

4) In the end, rules are bent and billions are wasted to solve a "problem" that really wasn't a serious problem. Most of the hands that touched the "solution" did not intend to waste money or subvert laws, but either believed that the end result was for the greater good or simply didn't care one way or the other.

I see Palantir in this light: not an evil entity, not a shadowy puppet master plotting the demise of America. But they happily accept contracts from agencies full of men and women far more interested in checking boxes and furthering personal careers than any effect it may have on spending or the personal liberties of strangers.

I see them in the same light as I do the people who built the backscatter machines used by the TSA in the airports: an interesting tool being misused by the wrong people in power.

Individuals who work on a project that can be turned against their fellow citizens and sleep well at night because the work is interesting or the pay is good have none of my sympathy and are earning an increasing amount of my contempt as the scope of unconstitutional government espionage becomes more and more clear.

The CIA -- as well as any other government agency -- is an _organization_ and has no inherent "right" to do anything, including exist. I don't care about efficiency if it means that my children and _their_ children grow up in a country where every electronic record associated with their lives is harvested and analyzed so they may _supposedly_ be safer from "bad guys".

A pox on anyone who supports this guilt-by-association, pro-precrime, "efficient" America. It is an Orwellian hell.

How's THAT for a comment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Think of it as an involuntary social network!

<comment><USER6> Their next project, now in closed alpha, aims "to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"; the preliminary logo is O-shaped.

Whether they buy a tower for their office remains to be seen.

</TheOnionMode>

<comment><USER7> Remember that the "original" Palantir (the ones in the novel) were created by the good guys for communication but were used by the bad guys for spying so is pretty close.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pretty shoddy reporting from the WSJ, Peter Thiel isn't (just) an investor in Palantir he's a cofounder: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies)

<comment><USER9> And editing: > ... the "big data" miner that the counts the CIA and the FBI among its clients...

An extraneous 'the' in the first sentence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great for them; Palantir is definitely a company I respect. I went to their office for an interview about 10 months ago for a job I didn't _really_ want. I didn't get the job and I'm in a better position today, but I have nothing except great things to say about their people and office. During the visit, I learned a decent chunk about how big agencies use software like their's just in a 1-hour demo. They also use their own software to do a lot of humanitarian work.

</comment><comment><USER11> I would have thought post Snowden, Palantir and others like them, would have diminished prospects in the future.

I guess I am wrong.

<comment><USER12> That's like saying that if a gigantic oil deposit is confirmed, the petroleum industry would collapse.

<comment><USER11> To stick with the oil analogy. Yes, but all of sudden now the world at large has soured on gasoline so Palantir has built this massive refinery that has no demand because the people no longer trust how folks are a. refining the oil and b. what they are doing with the gasoline.

<comment><USER12> We would all like to believe people care about being spied on and all, but the truth is everyone is just busy preparing their christmas shopping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To acquire the NSA or to be acquired by them? That is the question.

</comment><comment><USER13> Is it odd to raise $200m at a $5b valuation in September and follow it with $60m-100m at a $9b valuation a few months later?

<comment><USER14> Its a little odd that its a smaller round, but other than that, it just seems to indicate rapid growth, which usually needs financing i.e. "growth capital."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> [http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3052](http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3052)

Podcast with Stephen Cohen speaking at Stanford on starting Palantir.

</comment><comment><USER16> this round of funding is strange to me. Is it necessary? Its already well established and probably generates sufficient revenue to fund itself - or at a minimum raise debt if its in need of cash.

</comment><comment><USER17>
        s/Big Data/Big Brother/g;

</comment><comment><USER18> More like Big Spying.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'll risk even more downvotes -- but -- Palantir may be the creepiest company in the valley.

The relationship they have with the DOD/NSA is simply unreal. their offices on the east coast are full of high-ranking officials, generals, etc -- all the time.

Palantir powers a lot of the retina-database insurgent tracking software in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I've personally heard from US Army Special Operations forces that the imaging software they use to plan "missions" is powered by Palantir (but is frequently slow and buggy, so they resort to Google maps)

I noticed that an Operator featured in Sanjay Gupthas CNN documentary on Marajuana had a Palantir patch next to his US Flag patch on his carrier chest rig.

Creepy stuff.

<comment><USER20> I won't downvote you, but I'll disagree with you.

We live in the world we live in, and counter intelligence is necessary. The fact that it's privatized is nothing different that what's happening with KBR, Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, L3, et al. It's more a function of political realities where critical functions are being subcontracted out.

I'd rather have a Palantir than not have one and be outmaneuvered by other geopolitical rivals.

edit: hey, rayiner, fair point. I think that logistics and 'private security contractors' are in a different category than traditional defense contractors. I'm not really sure where Palantir belongs on that spectrum, so I intentional casted a wide net.

<comment><USER21> >We live in the world we live in, and counter intelligence is critical.

especially against your own citizens. Do "fusion center" and "Suspicious Activity Reports" generated by Palantir software ring a bell?

If you remember history, the most amount of intelligence gathered and acted upon in USSR, East Germany were against their own people, while it was supposedly under the great goal of counter intelligence against [foreign] enemy spies, agents, collaborators. Fusion centers with modern equipment and software is KGB & Stasi wet dream.

<comment><USER22> If you remember history, every single extant liberal democracy has had surveillance capabilities for decades, and continue to be healthy free societies.

<comment><USER21> >If you remember history, every single extant liberal democracy has had surveillance capabilities for decades, and continue to be healthy free societies.

the difference here is the actual massive surveillance (basically total possible by the technological means of the time) performed by the KGB/Stasi outside of the due process inside the jurisdiction of their respective countries. It is exactly the emerging characteristic of fusion centers and NSA activities. Please name an "extant liberal democracy" which has had such massive surveillance capabilities and applied them in such a way.

<comment><USER22> The FBI during the 1950's and almost certainly Britain's intelligence agencies post WWII.

Remember, the FISA mechanism that attracts so much flak these days was put into place because in the past the NSA had no restrictions or oversight, effective or ineffective.

<comment><USER21> >The FBI during the 1950's

yes, great example. If people want back to that game of witch hunting, and with incomparably, multiple orders of magnitude, increased capabilities of witch hunters (like J. Edgar Hoover looking into a fusion center palantir by Palantir) - well, i rest my case.

<comment><USER3> Hoover would have killed for the kind of capabilities that Palantir provides.

But then again, so would have the KGB and East German Stasi.

Palantir's developers aren't evil, but the fact that so many folks wish to don the rose-colored glasses and assume that their work cannot be used for the _wrong_ things makes me nauseous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hey, they recruit on LinkedIn like everyone else, leave them alone! /s</comment>


VC: Here's How You Should Pitch. - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/josh-linkner/11-insider-tips-for-pitching-a-venture-capitalist.html

<comment><USER2> Great new piece on Inc by the extremely credible Josh Linkner. (He can write, too.)</comment>


Control government-backed attack alerts in G Suite - <AUTHOR> https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2018/08/control-government-backed-attack-alerts.html <comment><USER2> This may help people who are under attack by governments of unimportant countries. But attacks by the governments of the world's great powers come in the form of national security letters, sealed court orders, secret warrants, and those are usually illegal to disclose to the target of the attack.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm interested in background as to why, specifically, government-backed attacks are reported differently. In my experience who funds the attack is anecdotal to the triage, midigation, and reporting of an attack; be it from government, corporate espionage, or an independent group.

<comment><USER4> Governments tend to have powers that corporate/individual entities don't have. They have the power the imprison, freeze assets, and other things that organizations may be worried about.

If you ran an NGO that was engaging in activities that governments may not like (such as a group trying to spread democracy in China), you would very much like to know if your accounts were being targeted by government actors, as it may put you on alert that you have peek someones attention that could be bad for your organization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how Google determines that an attack is government-backed? They must have some incredible intel.

<comment><USER6> They run all the attachments and downloadable files in an email in a virtual machine and see where the malware connects to.

Turns out many governments do attacks on a lot of people semi-automatically, and use a handful of command and control servers, so their attacks are fairly easy to identify.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What about attacks from China once it launches its censored version? I believe censoring alone is not enough to do business in China.

</comment><comment><USER8> Except for the ones that Google sponsors and installs on their systems for the US and China to spy on civilians.

<comment><USER9> Source?</comment></comment>


Introduction to Anomaly Detection - <AUTHOR> https://www.datascience.com/blog/intro-to-anomaly-detection-learn-data-science-tutorials <comment><USER2> Thanks for a great intro to the subject !</comment>


Game of Thrones CGI - <AUTHOR> http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/07/29/game-of-thrones-cgi/ <comment><USER2> This might be obvious, but this show is excellent, and if you haven't watched it yet, don't watch this video until you have, as there are some major spoilers.

<comment><USER3> I expected to like it - I really liked Rome, also from HBO - but Game of Thrones fell completely flat for me. Somehow the directing/acting/script just didn't produce much emotion or attachment to the characters from me. There were some interesting scenes here and there, but overall, it was a bit like The Pacific (I loved Band of Brothers and expected to love Pacific too (I read the biographies on which it is based), but it fell completely flat for me.

But I can't hold it against HBO. I _love_ Treme (by David Simon, who also did my favorite show, The Wire) and Boardwalk Empire is pretty good.

I'm actually curious to know if it's just me. Anyone else expected to like GoT but ended up not liking it? The dwarf character was great, but even he couldn't save that show for me.

<comment><USER4> It's not just you. I heard it was great from coworkers and friends, but I also find the characters pretty flat and the plot predictable. I always get this vaguely racist feeling from these medieval fantasy worlds -- in this case form the way the grassland people are depicted as backward with gifts of snakes at weddings.

I will say one thing it has going for it -- that theme music really stuck in my head.

<comment><USER5> Wait a minute: you thought the plot was predictable? How far in advance were you able to predict things? Of all the faults in the books and TV show, that's a new one to me.

As for the racial stereotypes, I can see what people mean, but how exactly do you portray different (fictional) ethnicities without evoking those responses?

<comment><USER6> Yeah that is a strange thing to complain about. Of all its faults, I can't really say GoT was predictable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On a related note, here is the process for making the titles. It's nominated for(and most likely to win) an Emmy.

<http://www.artofthetitle.com/2011/05/12/game-of-thrones/>

<comment><AUTHOR> The titles were pretty amazing, simultaneously being cool and helping to give new viewers some sense of the layout of the world. Like a 3D jacket map.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really want someone to make a CG movie that centers on exploring a made-up world and does _not_ have a storyline or narration. Just some guy traveling from point A to point B and the viewers tagging along. Think Time Machine or Avatar in a format of that Norwegian train movie [1].

\- or -

I would settle for a game of the same kind with stunning visuals and mind- blowing landscapes and detailing, the game that is centered around exploring the world rather than advancing a character or completing missions.

Who's with me? :)

[1] <http://boingboing.net/2009/12/19/norwegian-public-bro.html>

<comment><USER9> Yes, completely. A universe with the beauty and depth of the Myst saga, but with no specific purpose would be awesome.

That's why I loved games such as Baldur's Gate so much: you can travel the world for dozen of hours without having to really participate to any quest.

<comment><USER8> Right, Myst. Totally slipped my mind. Myst 3D was a nice try on their part, but ultimately such a disappointment - too simple and stripped down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow. As an avid watcher of the show and graphics connoisseur, I didn't know that half those castles were CG. Very fine work.

</comment><comment><USER11> The CGI is impressive, but I didn't like a lot of the interior set design, especially those in King's Landing. It reminded me of Las Vegas or some mall shop that sells furnishings with faux patina.

</comment><comment><USER12> As a subscriber to the Game of Thrones reddit, am I absolutely flaging this.

I know I am not supposed to complain about stories on HN, but I feel I have to say this. Let us not have "Oooh, look at these special effects!" type of stories on the HN front page.

<comment><USER13> You completely missed the point of the post if all you got from it was "Oooh, look at these special effects!"

Nevertheless if it got to the homepage since yesterday AND got close to 200 upvotes, it might mean that at least a subset of the community is interested in the effects used in the TV series. Special effects are "technology" and as such people like you and me might find ourselves interested in such things. As a fan of the A Song of Fire and Ice books, an entrepreneur, and a programmer and technologist, my interest in the application of special effects in the Game of Thrones TV series is significantly higher than the excess of complaint posts about the patent system (I care about the patent system, just not for all the ranting you see these days...) that you see every day on the homepage. I don't complain though, because I know that since those are getting upvoted, it means people ARE interested in that type of posts.

<comment><USER12> _I don't complain though, because I know that since those are getting upvoted, it means people ARE interested in that type of posts._

Complex topics also have people who are interested in them. But for complex topics, in general, the audience is small. However, the more generic and easily understood the topic, to wider its audience.

Thus if we simply say, if it's popular it must be good, then we quickly end up with popular culture, which tends to be shallow. Greatest common denominator and all that.

This is why I don't complain about a flood of patent law articles, I know those won't lead us down the path of the reddit front page. But articles like this, especially because so many are clearly interested, do bother me. Because a lot of people, including me, are also interested in rage comics. They are funny and easy to grasp, and quick to read - super popular. But I dread the day a rage comic is on the HN front page.

<comment><USER13> But then a rage comic has nothing to do with entrepreneurship, technology, programming, et al. right? I would also dread the day a rage comic gets to the HN front page.

If something is flagged by enough people, it probably means that it's not something that deserves a spot on the HN homepage. As such you have every right to flag it if you don't think that it deserves it's rightful spot, but if you comment on why you think it doesn't deserve to be there you'll invariably get a response by someone (in this case me!) that does believe that it's useful enough to deserve a spot. That being said, I just want to know: How can you equate a rage comic post to a post leading to the application of (particularly good) special effects on TV series?

<comment><USER12> Are these special effects that much better then what is state of the art today?

Is their application somehow unique or significantly different or more technological?

It seems to me like pretty standard special effects, in fact a bit less special than what you see in big block buster movies.

This is why I perceive this as not much more then neat video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those of you who can't get enough GOT CGI, the SFX company released yet another 3 minute before and after video:

[http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/08/05/more-game-of-thr...](http://all- things-andy-gavin.com/2011/08/05/more-game-of-thrones-cgi/)

Cool stuff.

</comment><comment><USER14> I noticed lots of the background CGI is architectural elements. We'll probably see this techniques used by architects to visualize their projects with moving images that includes real people.</comment>


Ask HN: How do Malcolm Gladwell and Tim Hartford find scientific studies? - <AUTHOR> They always use amazing stories or scientific studies in their writings. I am wondering how do they find scientific studies e.g. what portals do they use? What's the process like e.g. think of a a title and then use those as keywords for search? Any insights are appreciated? <comment><USER2> I only have 3rd-degree connections to Gladwell, so this may be completely wrong, but I've heard he knows _everyone_ in the communications field and synthesizes trends and topics from traveling and talking with a lot of researchers. His books aren't rigorously data-driven - they kind of coax out an intuition that explains things - so I think he gets ideas from conversations with people more than reading published works directly.

As for book titles: [http://www.malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com](http://www.malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com)</comment>


TechStars' David Cohen: you can do it in any reasonable start-up community - <AUTHOR> http://www.venturevoice.com/2009/01/david-cohen-techstars.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I asked David about Paul Graham's claim that "One of the most common emails we get is from people asking if we can help them set up a local clone of Y Combinator. But this just wouldn't work. Seed funding isn't regional, just as big research universities aren't."

David said: "You can't do it anywhere, but you could do it in any reasonable start-up community."

</comment><comment><USER2> If anything, not being in the Valley will keep your brain from turning into mush.</comment>


Science fiction triggers 'poorer reading', study finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/23/science-fiction-triggers-poorer-reading-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other <comment><USER2> As a long time reader of science fiction, what has always drawn me to the genre more than characters or literary quality has been the concepts explored. To me, fiction is just a vehicle for serializing otherwise facinating ideas and philosophies that would be too boring to read a collection of papers about.

I have a certain minimum depth of character development that I look for to separate the pulp from works of more substance, but if I'm looking for that quality expressly, I seek it in other genres.

Many times I've leant out my favorite sci-fi to friends only to have it returned early because they couldn't keep up with the pace of concepts elaborated within.

Am I a stupider reader because I'm not overly concerned with a flawless execution of the same archetypal dramas being rehashed ad nauseum, or my friends for not having the patience to challenge themselves and absorb new ideas?

Many in the stem fields cite science fiction as being a motivating factor for pursuing their specialties, and fueling the ambitions of their research. Elon Musk, for example, has mentioned that The Foundation Trilogy by Issac Asimov was in his top eight works that influenced him the most - a series much criticized for it lack of character development and dimensionality.

For a study that places so high a premium on detecting emotions, motivations, and having a strong theory of mind, it ironically fails to consider the variations in the types of minds drawn to the genre in the first place.</comment>


RIM to offer its mobile device management software on Andriod, iOS - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/rim-to-offer-its-mobile-device-management-software-on-andriod-ios.ars <comment><USER2> This was a good idea a year and a half ago, I even said it to an associate of mine. Basically, the exact same thing, that RIM should leverage it's lead in the enterprise space by becoming "the" enterprise software vendor on all mobile platforms. The problem now is it is to little, to late. Company have already started to invest in enterprise initiatives on the other platforms. Unfortunate, now it is a saving throw, and as such, everyone knows it is a saving throw.

</comment><comment><USER3> "RIM realizes end users want no part of its tech, will just keep trying to sell stuff to CIOs"

</comment><comment><USER4> A little too late to the dinner party.... [http://www.air- watch.com/reports/gartner-mdm-magic-quadrant....](http://www.air- watch.com/reports/gartner-mdm-magic-quadrant.html)</comment>