UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/15/uk-surveillance-bill-includes-powers-to-limit-end-to-end-encryption/ <comment><USER3> I think this same logic that is purportedly the reasoning behind this bill would also require us to constantly record all of our vocal communications, as that would be the only way we could ensure that criminals could not have communications that aren't accessible to law enforcement.

This, of course, would require microphones on all citizens as well as many more in the surrounding environment, to ensure communications of unwilling citizens can be monitored as well. And, of course, we'd need video as well to get those pesky sign language users[0].

These sort of bills always make me wonder if we'll ever see a moral stance taken by tech companies. There's a few skirmishes that happen every now and then but there doesn't seem to be any general consensus on what companies will tolerate in both themselves and their business partners. I'd love to see a "Fair Trade"-esque branding used as an indication that the product and its supply chain don't include actors who support government surveillance.

[0]: OT, but it makes me realize you can literally make illegal gestures due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom)

<comment><USER4> I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, because complaining about intrusions on our privacy and how ineffective they are, has become de rigeur on HN and Reddit without much dissent. There clearly is a security problem in Europe at the moment, and I'm assuming that the attacks are not being organised by the security services.

So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks? If not, then what would reduce the attacks and why are the authorities not doing it already? If it will reduce the attacks, how much does it have to reduce them before we accept the intrusion on privacy as a necessary evil?

<comment><USER5> I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back.

"There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in the USA, or killed in mass shootings that don't get attributed to terrorism in the USA. It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. Europe is extremely safe and does not have a security problem.

The entire western world has a problem with xenophobia. It can't control its own politicians who lead military assaults on middle eastern or north african nations for purportedly moralistic reasons. Assaults that are guaranteed to alienate entire generations of people and incite preditable retaliatory violence.

Nothing about the proposed privacy intrusions helps protect people from 'terrorism'. It feeds a cycle of ineffectual security theatre and provocation of western-produced radical activism that makes us all less safe. With one hand we create and promote terrorism, and with the other we strip ourselves of our freedoms and march toward technological totalitarianism.

<comment><USER4> The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year."

So those who _do_ pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave the EU.

There _has_ been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People _are_ growing more worried about it. We need to make those people feel safe again, and we're not going to do that by saying "my privacy is more important than reducing terrorism".

The argument you make at the end is the strongest point: on the one hand we are nurturing terrorism by not dealing with the fallout of globalisation, and our governments have been sold an expensive algorithm that they believe can handle the problem, when in reality it will make us even less secure. Meanwhile, the media can sell more advertising with the increased attention, so they're quite happy to add fuel to the fire.

However, all these arguments end up being lost in whether it will work or not, and the Donald Trumps will always win that argument because they go to a lower denominator. If we want to win it, we need to show more genuine empathy.

<comment><USER6> > There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of > terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it.

This is important to understand.

Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason:

We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO.

Seens we are allowing this stream of immigrants not because we are good-harted but because we are stupid.

This means we could be more secure and help more refugees if we stopped playing for cheap political correctness points and started to think about how we could help as many as possible.

<comment><USER7> We are getting a flow of immigrants because the civil war in Syria did not stop, and instead rage on and on destroying the infrastructure and economy there that is needed to sustain the civilian population there.

We are squeamish because we do not want to send young men and women to die in some godforsaken country, doing god know what for god knows how long.

Remember the last time that happened? Oh yes, the Iraqi occupation that seem to go on forever and forever, draining the blood and treasure of the United States.

Either we pay it now, or we pay it later.

<comment><USER8> It's a misconception to think that the current wave of migration is just because of Syria. Or because of war in Iraq.

The people who come on boats to Europe are mostly not Syrians. They are from the vast lands stretching from Senegal to Morocco to Congo to Egypt to Syria to Iraq to Pakistan to India to Bangladesh, and they are not travelling to Europe because one particular place is very bad; they are travelling right now because they realize that it's about the last time to get a foothold Europe before the gates close, i.e. the current asylum process changes.

(I've met dozens and dozens of underage asylum seeker boys when arranging football trainings for them; they started to hang around in the neighbourhood and I realized it's better if they have something to do, so set up some games every week. Only a couple of them were from Syria. Many more were from Afghanistan and Iraq, but the list of source countries is very long. Mostly these boys are from middle-class families in countries that have some war but mostly just a very corrupt government, and the families have selected those who are able-bodied and have better language skills to seek for a future for themselves and possibly for the whole family, through the well-advertised family reunification programs.

The poor don't get to travel; the cost paid to people smugglers is somewhere in $5000-10000 range but the cost has been decreasing as the people-smuggling business commoditizes.)

<comment><USER7> Is there a source?

I wasn't aware of that fact.

<comment><USER8> Syria was the largest of source countries in 2015, with a particularly large number arriving in Germany as well as Sweden, but the migration is not at all restricted to Syrian refugees. E.g. in my country (Finland) Syrians were only 3 % of the applications.

For instance, in Britain, the largest numbers of asylum seekers came from Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria as fifth. In Ireland, the largest groups were from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Albania, Nigeria and India. In Italy, the largest source countries were Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal and Bangladesh. In France: Sudan, Syria, Kosovo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Bangladesh.

[http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/...](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/File:Five_main_citizenships_of_\(non- EU\)_asylum_applicants,_2015_\(number_of_first_time_applicants,_rounded_figures\)_YB16.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad.

People that _really_ care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted.

* The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat.

* They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc. outside of the affected apps. That software won't stop to exist, nor the mathematics that powers it will stop working.

The sad part is that the people who will be disproportionally affected will be the common people who have nothing to hide anyways, and do not have the technical means, or the will, to protect themselves.

TLDR: useless and damaging.

<comment><USER10> I agree with most of what you wrote. Just one comment:

> (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition)

The vast majority of CCTV in the UK is not networked, and owned by small private companies (e.g. your local corner store), and rarely store data long enough to be of use to anyone unless something sufficiently serious happens to cause a request to be made quickly.

While there are areas covered by networked, government operated cameras, they are not the norm.

<comment><USER11> UK is being watched by a network of 1.85m CCTV cameras.

EDIT: Curious how stating a fact is worth downvotes. What am I missing?

<comment><USER12> You can't state facts that go against the hivemind here, otherwise a downvote will occur.

<comment><USER13> It's demonstrably not a fact, and it doesn't add to the discussion. Add constructively to the discussion and contrary opinions are not only tolerated, but engaged.

<comment><USER14> The comment is factual. It's not relevant who owns the cameras.

Look at any major incident in the UK recently and the police have CCTV footage from private businesses. Either voluntarily given or subpoenaed.

<comment><USER13> The comment was:

        > UK is being watched by a
        > network of 1.85m CCTV cameras.

It's not a network - the comment was not factually correct. I was answering the question and explaining my understanding of a likely cause for the downvotes - I personally did not downvote it.

<comment><USER11> The network is the legal system which controls them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > 'If we do not provide for access to encrypted communications when it is > necessary and proportionate to do so then we must simply accept that there > can be areas online beyond the reach of the law.'

Yes, yes we must accept that, since it's reality. Queen Elizabeth can no more hold back encrypted communications than King Canute could hold back the tide.

<comment><USER16> It's a re-balancing. Before electronic bugs every park and pub had conversations that were completely beyond the reach of the law. And that's ok. We used to call that liberty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If I want to keep my communications encrypted online, I'm going to do so. The only people who won't have the same luxury as me are those that follow the law. I don't get it.

<comment><USER18> If encrypted communications are illegal, then anyone using them is an automatic target for investigation and the encryption itself may be probable cause to open up their lives and property.

It's considerably more difficult to conceal the fact of encryption on the wire than (say) a gun in your home.

<comment><USER19> Ciphertext is supposed to be impossible to distinquis from random noise, so how are they going to prove I am not just sending random noise, with a PGP header?

As for asking why I would do such a thing? I think the law is wrong and want to make the court waste their time.

<comment><USER20> No one would actually send random noise as a message, so the law would assume that comnunications which look like random noise are, _prima facie_ , encrypted comms and something the police have a right to see in cleartext.

<comment><USER21> The folks at [https://www.random.org/](https://www.random.org/) and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ.

They do, in fact, have a _paid_ service to deliver what appears to be random noise as a message, then store that noise in their archive for subsequent re- verification.

I recall seeing videos of lava lamps and handfuls of d6 dice on a vibrating table, broadcast live over the internet, purely for their utility as potential sources for truly random numbers.

I can easily see a case for sending randomness in a client-server game with protections against cheating and bandwidth restrictions. The randomness server sends the same chunk of noise to game client and game server, and the game client sends user commands to the game server. As long as the user isn't cheating, the official server copy of the game state and the client copy remain in sync.

<comment><USER22> Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately.

At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break some arbitrary law, given enough time, at which point you're done.

<comment><USER21> That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of _exercising free speech_ and _security in their papers and effects_ , it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.

<comment><USER20> And once that person rebels, according to Presidential Decision Directive XXX, the government may consider that person an unlawful enemy combatant, apprehend them without a warrant, and incarcerate them at Secure Facility [REDACTED] for interrogation and/or neutralization by means of [REDACTED]. If they are ever heard about again, it will be because the government "found" ISIS materials, CP, or other bad stuff on their computer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interesting to see that at the same time the EU privacy watch dog is proposing to mandate encryption and outlaw these kind of decryption methodologies[0]. While still an opinion, it is good to see that in this area the EU is among the most progressive governments around. [0] [https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/sha...](https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2016/16-07-22_Opinion_ePrivacy_EN.pdf)

<comment><USER24> Interesting indeed. I thought it peculiar that the UK government released the Tony Blair report just before the BRexit vote. That report certainly got many people riled up about the 'establishment' and possibly could have changed the BRexit voting result. My point is that if the UK had stayed in the EU then the UK surveillance bill might have been dead in the water because it might have comflicted with EU law.

<comment><USER25> The EU referendum was on the 23rd June 2016 and the Chilcot report (as it is known formerly) was released 6th of July 2016. So those facts aside your point, do you have any conflicting EU laws in mind? I ask as currently the UK has not left and then looking at 2 years notice so any new UK law coming into play for years (due to the time to formulate them), will be complying within current EU laws and regulations.

TL;DR No and no. But I respect the premise.

<comment><USER24> Thank you for the correction! I have made this cement to some friends, so I will let them know I was wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This belief that you can somehow force the strong encryption genie back in his bottle is fascinating, if sad.

I guess it is not as futile as it may appear at first glance, though - <USER2> all, you don't need all the world's suppliers of communication software to adhere to be successful; just force the major ones to help you out, then simply assume that anyone using an insignificant (by user base) app is up to something nefarious.

Bah. Orwell was an optimist.

</comment><comment><USER27> Anyone hell bent on killing people will likely succeed. Surveillance is not the answer. Too much data is just as bad as not enough. The solution is finding out WHY people want to kill you and fix THAT.

</comment><comment><USER28> What possibly can they do with all this data ?

It seems that current governments can't seem to solve the drug war, the war on terror, gun crime, or the increasing number of terrorist attacks.

How much intrusion do they actually need and what is the cost of the technology before they can actually seem to make headway on solving issues.

</comment><comment><USER29> Dear UK government,

Good luck with that.

Signed,

An open source software developer outside your jurisdiction

<comment><USER30> I mean they're just going to fine/jail anyone within their jurisdiction that uses your software. Pretending that you can't ban encryption because you can't eliminate its availability is silly.

This is a political problem that must have a political solution.

<comment><USER29> The only effective political solution is to get the common person in on using end-to-end encryption so its ban becomes unpopular.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can't help but wonder how this bill, on top of Brexit, will affect the state of technology entrepreneurship in the UK. Why should an entrepreneur start up a technology business in the UK if his efforts will be hampered by politicians who have no clue about how technology actually works?

<comment><USER32> Rest assured that there are people working for the government that know more about encryption then you or I or 5,000 entrepreneurs.

For example, GCHQ came up with PKI before the people that "invented" PKI and published it.

<comment><USER31> I have no doubt that the people working for GCQH know as much as anybody about encryption. The question is, are they smart enough to convince buyers that encryption with backdoors is secure against hackers. Because if buyers don't believe encryption with backdoors is secure, they won't buy it. If the buyers won't buy it, it's going to be very hard for entrepreneurs to succeed in selling it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's time to call this stuff out for what it is: flat out idiocy or lies. Possibly both.

Here's a brief thought to uncover why:

There are two countries. Country A has security capabilities equivalent to today's UK. Country B, equivalent to today's UK plus the proposed changes.

Could maniacs based in country B commit attacks of equivalent fatality to maniacs based in country A? Of course they could.

Could a criminal gang in country B get away with crimes of similar magnitude to a similar gang in country A? Of course they could.

Other threads here have pointed out the minimal extra effort that would be required by perpetrators, if any.

So why propose these changes, and why give the stated reasons?

Perhaps the government doesn't understand the negligible impact they'll have. This seems unlikely, although perhaps they "can't see the wood for the trees" and are getting carried away with the current xenophobic mood in the air.

Perhaps the government is showing its true colours and exercising the basic Conservative desire to deny societal evolution, by tightening control over anything new and complex.

Perhaps they've had a good hard think to the best of their abilities, and have genuinely decided this is The Best Thing To Do.

Whatever the reason, it's either founded on idiocy or couched in lies.

</comment><comment><USER34> It is to an extent funny to think that governments think they can sit on top of communications and implement mass surveillance. If you make it illegal to encrypt your stuff, the knowledged/tech savvy people will start to work on using steganography. There will be an explosion of cat pictures in the Internet. Good luck finding the hideous cat :-)

All the government does now is inconvenience to the majority of citizens who they have nothing to worry about anyway.

</comment><comment><USER35> So, how are companies supposed to keep customer data safe from hackers without encryption exactly?

This kind of thing can only make the people of the UK less safe, more at risk, and more likely to be hacked and otherwise digitally abused.

If you wanna keep the people safe, you don't ban encryption. Better would be to mandate it.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a fairly obvious sacrificial anode bit of the legislation. They'll drop this, while making the "provide the keys" bit of RIPA stronger.

</comment><comment><USER37> If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

They created terrorism in the first place by bombing and occupying other countries, removing dictators.

</comment><comment><USER38> I am surprised they did not add the line "think of the children" in there somewhere...

Meanwhile in the real world, criminals will resort to sending encrypted USB sticks via post, or carrier pigeons, or implanted in mules. There is always a way around these things for those that absolutely do not want their communications compromised. It is safe to say that any criminal enterprise knows that live electronic communication of any sort is likely to be compromised.

Also of concern, is that criminals will now have extra attack vectors to sensitive data, because if encryption has to be weakened for Government, it will be easier for other parties to exploit.

</comment><comment><USER39> Has the UK lost their god damned minds?

I'm sorry but between this and everything else lately...they seem pretty committed to "Security at any economic and/or personal cost! Security for everyone!"

In the real world, that never works.

<comment> k-mcgrady I don't think it's to do with people 'losing their minds'. The weird thing about bills like this, or really anything effecting privacy/IT security, is that no matter how bad it is the general public have no idea it's happening. The number of people I've spoken to who know nothing about Snowden/PRISM etc despite it being front page news for months shocks me.

That basically means that it's up to a small group of people who are informed (like ourselves) to do what we can to stop this stuff. If we sit back and do nothing they won't have any problem implementing these laws.

<comment><USER40> For a long time, people who are concerned about online security and privacy have been derided as paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing kooks.

Not only that, but it seems to me that there's been far less coverage of these issues in mainstream media than in the tech press, and most mainstream coverage seems to take the governments' side. People who get most or all of their news from TV likely won't hear anything about all this; if they do, their eyes will glaze over as they don't have a clue how encryption works, or why it's important. Or, it will just vanish in the news cycle and they never think about it again.

Edit: It also seems to me that most people just aren't going to care unless it directly affects them, at which time it's already far too late.

<comment><USER41> If this is implemented, it's going to be fun the day that someone from the government gets hacked and compromised via the very same security weaknesses they ordered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> _"...there should be no safe spaces..."_

Got it.

</comment><comment><USER43> If the laws are this regressive and encompassing, the very least we as citizens can do is to lobby for full transparency in requests - after all the data belongs to the individual (regardless of what the TOS claims) and the individual deserves to know about requests on his data immediately.

</comment><comment><USER44> "The Lives of Others" [0]

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

</comment><comment><USER45> If UK finishes leaving the EU, they will just be excluded from the market given their diminished relevance. Are sure given the power vacuum in tech, I'll release a gimped software product for their citizens. $£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£

</comment><comment><USER46> Will the last tech company to leave the UK please turn off the lights?

</comment><comment><USER47> Two can play at this game. Surely folks here at HN can create something that is not technically or legally encryption, but accomplishes the same goal.

<comment><USER48> ...until it gets legally declared as encryption as well.

<comment><USER47> Fair enough. Maybe it's like an arms race, or a shell game. but you are probably right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> When does something become encryption?

Say I switch t and r in evetyrhing I rype, is that encryption? No? Then at what point of mixing does it all become encryption?

<comment><USER50> I would guess the point at which they say it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Just another little reminder that you must never confuse the government's interests with your own.

</comment><comment><USER52> Govt should limit end-to-end encryption AFTER open sourcing all their software;

</comment><comment><USER53> > "Doors are now almost ubiquitous and are the default for most houses and > buildings. If we do not provide for access to people's bathrooms when it is > necessary and proportionate to do so then we must simply accept that there > can be rooms beyond the reach of the law,"

There are well-established and functional methods for extending law into areas that you can't see all the time. You don't need to ban encryption, in exactly the same way that you don't have to ban doors. Just because it's ooon the iiiinterneeettttt doesn't mean you need to break everything.

<comment><USER21> The state's enforcers do not fear doors, because they have boots for kicking, and stout legs to fill them. Even the heavier doors can be breached by prybar, ram, cutting torch, or explosive.

But when your bathroom door is protected by 256-bit encryption, the peace of your metaphorical deuce-dropping is (statistically) guaranteed until such time as the sun leaves the main sequence and devours the Earth.

The states conveniently ignore that kicking down a toilet door to pick through someone's poo and count the peanuts is not generally beneficial to anyone's security, especially when holding out a net under the appropriate sewer pipe could usually achieve the same results with less public outrage.

In any case, those with truly incriminating poo-peanuts will likely burn them, or head off into the woods with a trowel, and your toilet raids will only end up menacing those who linger too long in the stall, solving sudoku puzzles or practicing toilet-square origami, or whatnot.

<comment> jon-wood How love how quickly this escalated, have you considered doing a comedy act?

<comment><USER21> My ability to speak on stage before an audience ranges dangerously close to Harpo, Marceau, and Teller. I might be able to write for someone else, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is content creation in the browser such a pain in 2016? - <AUTHOR> Creating content in the browser is IMO something that has not been solved properly in 2016. Either we get TinyMCE/CKEditor with messy mark-up and weird x-platform quirks, Markdown that non-technical users don't want to use, OSS libraries with horrendous APIs (draft.js) or promising OSS libraries that are dropped by maintainers once they realize how much work it is to get this stuff right.
Did I miss something here, or is this just one of those topics that browsers are incapable of handling well? <comment><USER2>

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, I think this is a very appropriate answer. yet, google somehow did it - why no one else?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check out gitbooks.io for writing.

Slides.com + Screencastify allow me to create presentstions and youtube videos.

Draw.io is absolutely awesome for diagrams.

Image and video editing don't have great solutions as far as I know.

</comment><comment><USER4> What kind of content creation are you talking about?

If you just mean making pages online then things are probably easier now thanks to Bootstrap and all the useful jQuery plugins.</comment>


Robocalls, and Their Scams, Are Surging - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/06/your-money/robocalls-rise-illegal.html <comment><USER2> Well, actually there have been hundreds of cases regarding these robocalls that I have read online since years ago. I think the best thing to do for us is to just ignore those calls, or hang up on them. I have just read an article about this at [http://www.whycall.me/news/consumer-wins- massive-229500-robo...](http://www.whycall.me/news/consumer-wins- massive-229500-robocall-lawsuit-against-time-warner-cable/). I think it might be useful for us.</comment>


Chemicals linked with severe respiratory disease found in e-cigarette flavors - <AUTHOR> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/e-cigarette-flavoring-chemicals-linked-to-respiratory-disease/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Chan-Facebook-General <comment><USER2> All the major e-cig juice vendors have been reformulating their stuff over the past year or two to get rid of any flavors with diacetyl due to the possible risk.

Here's the Reddit discussion:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/comments/3vx84...](https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/comments/3vx84p/the_telegraph_ecigarettes_contain_flavouring/)

<comment><USER3> Yep we've known about this for years. There are even some guys that do chemical analysis of some mixes that result in some very scathing letters regarding acetoin and diacetyl contents.

The "bad shit" list for ejuice is usually artificial sweeteners, acetoin, and diacetyl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In synthetic organic labs we often pass relatively small compounds (very much like the favorants in vape juice) over heated elements in order to generate intermediate "activated"/free-radical compounds for the next step of a complicated reaction sequence. So no organic chemist i know is a bit surprised that vaping exposes the user's lungs directly to significant levels of toxic compounds like diacetyl. And they are often heard to wonder out loud: "Why has the FDA not stepped in to regulate these? I wouldn't let any of my family do this!"

<comment><USER5> What regulations should they put on this? A warning like, Breathing in stuff not air is bad for you? Should they ban adults from making up their own mind? I'm fine with the former. I despise the later.

<comment><USER6> _> I despise the later._

I think in general adults should be able to make up their minds about ingesting chemicals that might hurt them. However, it makes sense to make an exception -- if the chemical has addictive properties and empirically is likely to have network effects (i.e. in practice it tends to spread through the community), it seems reasonable for the government to step in and regulate the substance in more substantial ways than enforcing disclosure. I'd argue adults don't make choices with respect to these chemicals out of their own free will, but are coerced into consuming them through biological/social rewards mechanisms, and I think it's the government's responsibility to step in.

For example, regulating psilocybin seems like an obviously bad idea (it doesn't seem to be addicting and doesn't devastate communities), where as regulating crystal meth is an obviously good idea.

I don't know where the line is (e.g. what about cocaine? it's addictive and has propensity to spread, but isn't nearly as bad as meth), but that doesn't mean there aren't obvious extremes. I also don't know what the government can do about it (making distribution illegal doesn't seem to work), but philosophically, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to step in if it can be effective.

<comment><USER7> There is an even stronger case for banning chemicals that are consumed in public in a way that exposes others. I think my right to not consume that crap trumps your right to consume it in a specific public setting, even though I generally disagree with the government trying to protect people from themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The vaping enthusiast community have known about this for over a year. The popular vendors have pretty much all converted their recipes to avoid being the black sheep who still ship diacetyl.

I'd love to know why this story is being pushed everywhere now - is there a bill / legislation coming up somewhere important?

</comment><comment><USER9> _At least one of the three chemicals was detected in 47 of the 51 flavors tested. Diacetyl was detected above the laboratory limit of detection in 39 of the flavors tested. Acetoin and 2,3-pentanedione were detected in 46 and 23 and of the flavors, respectively._

The question is, how much? The lab limit of detection is often in the parts per billion or parts per trillion.

The dose makes the poison!

Hell, frying foods creates acrolein and acylamide which is toxic as hell (it alkylates glutathione, a key anti-oxidant in the body). However, you'd need to eat kilograms of fried food per day to actually reach a toxic level.

Coffee is another great example. It contains 23 known carcinogens.

<comment><USER10> > ranging from < limit of qualification (LOQ) to 239 μg/e-cigarette. > 2,3-pentanedione and acetoin were detected in 23 and 46 of the 51 flavors > tested at concentrations up to 64 and 529 μg/e-cigarette, respectively.

From the article's abstract [http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10185/](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10185/)

I have no idea what those numbers mean or if they're bad for you. But there they are...

<comment><USER9> Nice! I didn't know the abstract was available.

I guess the question is what is the level of diacetyl in the vapor inhaled? The CDC has set a limit of 25 ppb for short term exposure.

<comment><USER11> You don't want to be around any diacetyl at all. If the lab can detect it, it's too much. It's very, very nasty business.

<comment><USER12> You better stay away from beer then...

<comment><USER13> Or just avoid inhaling beer? Granted if it is found in beer _at all_ it would seem likely that just slurping foam would put one over a limit of 25 parts _per billion_?

<comment><USER13> Actually, I suppose it's entirely possible that it's only dangerous to inhale if it is vaporised, not just encapsulated in drops?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I didn't RTFA,could someone that did comment on how much insight was given into "We selected 51 types of flavored e-cigarettes sold by leading e-cigarette brands and flavors"? Some ecigs (disposables) are manufactured in China where I suspect quality control might be suspect, whereas many _juices_ are manufactured by small startups in the US and I'm quite certain they take ingredients _extremely_ seriously.

Any study that "accidentally" doesn't differentiate between the two very different manufacturing scenarios is suspect in my opinion, as it does very little to provide any useful information.

</comment><comment><USER15> Reading the article, it's not clear from they detected any of these chemicals in concentrations that are known to be unhealthy. People who got "popcorn lung" were exposed to comparatively massive doses.

<comment><USER16> There was a study last year that analysed diacetyl concentrations in common e-liquids. They found that 47% of 159 preparations examined were above the safety guidelines for daily consumption

>The median daily exposure levels were 56 μg/day ... They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure ... however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.

[http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/23/ntr.n...](http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/23/ntr.ntu176)

Compared to this recent study, this shows that addition of diacetyl and in what concentration is decreasing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What about the high levels of diacetyl in cigarette smoke?

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24635357](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24635357)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm reposting the top response to this same story on Reddit ([https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3vxbzo/chemical_fl...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3vxbzo/chemical_flavorings_found_in_ecigarettes_linked/cxrq6ro)) because this person says it better than I can, and no one else here has said made these points yet:

Oh boy, time to crosspost for information's sake.

Even diactyl containing e-juice still contains 100x less diacetyl than traditional cigarettes. [Citation: [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.20153/pdf[1]](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.20153/pdf\[1\]) ] And no smoker to date has ever gotten "Popcorn Lung" (Named because it occurs years after dumping pure uncut diactyl into vats and bins when making cheapo microwave popcorn in the factories.)

And despite all that- It's still largely the other factors and chemicals and tar and actual combustion that damages your lungs when smoking is involved. Not diacetyl specifically. Even 100x the amount of diacetyl as e-juice is apparently not enough to cause the "Popcorn Lung" issue related to the compound specifically. So why would 100x less than the amount that does not cause it suddenly start to cause it? Not that it's 100 percent safe (As mentioned by a replier as well- So I have appended my post some for accuracy and fairness.) Just that it's not the immediate or unavoidable threat it's being presented as.

And in the span of 7+ years even in the heaviest vape users no one has (yet, mind. For the sake of fairness and caution.) reported any major health issues tied to vaping or the compounds contained in e-juice. If the 75ml a day heavy diactyl juice user doesn't get popcorn lung then I highly doubt popcorn lung is a problem to watch for regarding it. Also there are many many e-juices available without diactyl. So even if it was an issue you can actively avoid it. And most manufacturers have discontinued it's use or clearely state if their juices are diacetyl free so the risk factors that are purely tied to diacetyl are avoidable and preventable.

As far as being paranoid about what's put in it- This is purely my opinion but, I think that is razorblades in your kid's halloween candy or "Shadey people handing out drugs for free/Lacing your kid's flintstones vitamins with PCP" levels of unfounded overconcern. Caution is important- But so is research and fact checking.

Edit: To append this to- I am not defending the use or previous use of the substance, merely dispelling the immediate "Popcorn Lung" panic around it. I personally don't use e-juice containing it for the sake of risk reduction in general as I like to limit as many potential factors as possible in general. And there are hundreds- if not thousands of brands and types which do not contain diacetyl to choose from which I would recommend. I am also not claiming vaping is 100 percent safe- Just that this instance is an avoidable factor and has been for a while.

Personal safety and active research should always be practiced in all facets of life.

</comment><comment><USER18> I prefer unflavored e-cig juice with nicotine, but it's actually hard to find.

<comment><USER19> I get mine shipped from Mt. Baker in 8 oz bottles (about $30.. no I don't work for them) and decant those into 30 ml bottles for use. You can even specify what PG/VG ratio you like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> When reading articles like this, I often find it useful to at least skim the paper that the article discusses.

The article's opening line seems designed to demonize:

"Diacetyl, a flavoring chemical linked to cases of severe respiratory disease, was found in more than 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes and refill liquids tested by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health."

 _75%! Tested by Harvard! This is huge!_

However, take a look at the actual study. Specifically, page 6, under Methods, e-Cigarette Selection

[http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp- content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/e...](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp- content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/ehp.1510185.acco.pdf)

"A _convenience sample_ of 51 e-cigarette flavors was selected for use in this study. Electronic cigarette cartridges, liquids, and their associated devices and batteries were purchased online and in retail locations. We evaluated 51 flavors, including all available flavors from _three_ large cigarette companies (Brands A, B, and C, with 2, 2, and 7 flavors, respectively); 5 flavors from _a_ large independent e-cigarette company (Brand D); and 24 additional flavors from _three_ ecigarette distributors (Brands E, F, and G, 10, 8, and 6 flavors, respectively) that we selected based on their potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults (Table 2). In addition, we evaluated 11 e-liquid flavors that are inserted into a cartomizer (disposable cartridge and atomizer system) (Brands H and I, 6 and 5 flavors, respectively)"

To break this down a bit.. Let's start with _convenience sample_. A convenience sample is a non-probability sampling technique. It's made up of subjects (in this case, nicotine juice) which are easy to reach. It is _not_ a representative sample of the products offered by the entire industry. You can't make probability statements about non-probability samples. The numbers are worthless in relation to the greater whole. EG, you can't say "Diacetyl was found in more than 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes." It would be like going to a Donald Trump campaign rally to poll public opinion because it's close to your house and then reporting that "75% of Americans believe Donald Trump should be the next President of the United States".

Add a couple of words, however, and although your numbers are still worthless, you can use a technicality to slip past whatever fact-checking apparatus is in place that would call you out on a bold-faced lie and you can lend some additional credibility to your prejudicial pseudo-science. "Diacetyl was found in more than 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes _tested by researchers at Harvard_."

The average person is not going to consider the added qualifying statement in the proper context. Technically, it lets the reporter off the hook for generalizing because they have now (importantly) stated that the number is only in relation to what was tested. Effectively, though, it lends a big name institution and all that it represents in support of the reporter's agenda. Most people will read that sentence as "Harvard reports that 75% of flavored electronic cigarettes contain diacetyl, which causes severe respiratory disease'.

It does help the article's credibility that this 'research' was indeed performed at Harvard, was under grant from the NIH, and that the probabilistically irrelevant results were posted on a Harvard website in a fairly authoritative manner as a _press-release_. The writer of the article isn't credited, so this appears to come from the university itself.

But anyway, back to the numbers they listed. Their sample size, of the many thousands available, was 51. And it came from... 3 cigarette companies, 1 e-cigarette company, and 3 e-cigarette distributors. They use only seven (convenient, non-representative) sources to paint the industry as a whole.

If we ignore the blanketing insinuation of the industry as a whole, though, the number they came up with is still of very limited utility. One company contributed 2 datapoints, another contributed 10. Biased contributions make the overall '75%' figure irrelevant in describing even just those 7 companies comprising their 'research'. If a company uses diacetyl in one of their products, odds are very high that they will use it in their other products. That aside, since the selection of flavors tested are not representative of sales of individual products, there's no point in repeatedly testing the products of a single company once a positive result has been reached.

I'm very disappointed and irritated that an institution like Harvard would lend its credibility to a piece like this. It leads me to wonder whether they are acting with an ulterior motivation or simply incompetently. In the end, their intent means little, though; their words will have impact to discourage the spread of e-cigarettes as an alternative or cessation aid for traditional cigarettes. Is that a good thing? I don't know. We need better research into this youthful industry that has a significant potential health impact.

We rely on valid research by trustworthy institutions to inform our decision making process. There's an opportunity cost to choosing to perform the wrong research and to performing the right research incorrectly. While some good does come of this, in that specific companies are outed (sort of -- the paper does not list the company names) for their use of dangerous ingredients, the research does not address safety concerns around e-cigarette use in the scenario where a responsible vendor takes precautions by ensuring that known dangerous additives aren't added to their products. I know it's not very sexy to report, and might require some additional effort, but why not look at the impact of the additives that _all_ of the e-cigarette companies are using because they are assumed benign in the absence of evidence to the contrary?

<comment><USER21> "In the end, their intent means little, though; their words will have impact to discourage the spread of e-cigarettes as an alternative or cessation aid for traditional cigarettes. Is that a good thing? I don't know."

The UK department of health says no, ie please switch: [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes- around-95-le...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes- around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Who could have known that smoking chemicals could lead to respiratory disease?

<comment><USER9> It's not smoke, like in a cigarette (from combustion), it's vapor from heating a liquid into a gas (boiling).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Inhaling charred chemicals doesn't sound like the greatest idea.

<comment><USER24> Charred? It is called vaping for a reason.

<comment><USER23> So folks like you don't think it's charred.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Let's play a game of Guess How Many Shits The Addicted Person Gives.

I'll start. I guess 0.

<comment><USER26> A lot of people switch to vaping because they perceive it as less dangerous than smoking cigarettes. So yeah, I'd say people care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's obvious that the government is way behind on researching ecigs and regulating them. It's inexcusable to let these things get as popular as they are and remain almost completely silent on the effects of them.

<comment><USER9> The FDA tried to regulate them and got slapped down.

The real question is, which is better for you, smoking tobacco or vaporizing nicotine? Even if there are risks with vaping, I'd say they are likely far, far less than smoking.

<comment><USER28> > The real question is, which is better for you, smoking tobacco or vaporizing > nicotine?

I disagree; I don't think this is really even a question. I do not have the research on hand at the moment, so definitely check it out yourself before taking this on faith, but there's already research indicating that smoking is way worse for you than vaping. Hell, even the only chemical discussed in this latest news (diacetyl) is present in far, far greater quantities in regular cigarettes than in vaping.

The question of cigarettes vs vaping is not really even a question; the real question is the risks of vaping per se (and this is where regulation/study has not yet caught up to usage).</comment></comment></comment>


Norway's Olympic Team Bought 15k Eggs Due to a Google Translate Mistake - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/google-translate-mistake-olympics-norway-eggs <comment><USER2> Is that guy just sitting on the egg crates, with his foot resting on another? I know europeans and americans have differing views on egg handling, but this seems extreme. Even if I had such a surplus of eggs, I'm not sure if I would pose sitting on them. I don't necessarily have an equal surplus of pants.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Norway's Olympians will enjoy them scrambled with salmon, fried in omelets, > and even as egg-rich sugar bread, "for medal winners."

...tell me more about this egg-rich sugar bread because it sounds _delicious_.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_toast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_toast)

<comment><USER3> I wonder if that's what they're talking about. French Toast _is_ delicious, but maybe they've got something even better?

<comment><USER4> > maybe they've got something even better?

They do, bread pudding, which is also sometimes served as a breakfast food in addition to being a dessert.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Might be a case of 'lost in translation' but most probable reflects the real costs of Norwegian eggs.

</comment><comment><USER6> If anyone's wondering, that's a 104⅙ grosses.

</comment><comment><USER7> Blame Alexa. [https://xkcd.com/1807/](https://xkcd.com/1807/)</comment>


'If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn't I Need ID to Vote?' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/if-i-need-id-to-buy-cough-syrup-why-shouldnt-i-need-id-to-vote/282636/ <comment><USER2> The outcry in the US over requiring someone to show an ID to vote is one of the most bizarre things to come out of that country. And, to make it even more unusual, it's coming from the left, the very people who used to love issuing IDs, numbers, and whose intellectual and ideological predecessors set up most of those schemes.

Practically, as much as the anarchist in me doesn't like that, you cannot have a mass society without strong, trusted IDs so this is a lost cause. Get used to them.

<comment><USER3> The American left is opposed to voter ID because it's a vote suppression scheme -- not all eligible voters have IDs or have access to obtain them. The voter ID bills have gone hand-in-hand with restrictions on early voting and same-day voter registration, which makes the intention clear. On the other hand, I have yet to see one of these bills accompanied by legislation intended to help people without IDs get them.

<comment><USER4> Would it be fair to conclude that any setup that requires ID is a suppression scheme? I.e., if ID is required for travel - is it a travel rights suppression scheme? If the ID is required for real estate ownership - that is a real estate ownership suppression scheme? If the ID is required to own a firearm - is it a firearm ownership suppression scheme?

Note I'm not asking if IDs were used in the past to suppress votes - I'm sure there were cases where that happened. What you're claiming is that ID requirement and voter suppression is the same, which is much stronger claim. So what I am asking is this ID requirement that makes it suppression or how one can distinguish suppression ones from non-suppression ones?

<comment><USER5> The set of people who do not have and/or will have trouble getting IDs has little if any overlap with the set of people who travel by air, purchase real estate, or lawfully purchase firearms.

<comment><USER4> I wasn't asking about which sets of people overlap or not. I was asking what makes ID requirement be identical with suppression - is it ID requirement itself or something else? If it is something else - what exactly it is? Is it where set of people is relevant - it is OK to ask some people to show the papers but not the others? Which people should be exempt and which should not be?

<comment><USER6> We know that voter id requirements are based in voter suppression because those requirements are targeted to preventing an attack that is economically infeasible and they don't even effectively mitigate the attack.

Look at my other comments in this thread for the details, but in brief, the cost of using voter impersonation fraud is extremely high, the probability that authorities will detect it is also high, and the penalties for breaking the law in this way are very serious. What's more, bypassing the ID requirement is trivial for criminals, in the same way that bored teenagers can purchase alcohol whenever they want because forging ID cards is easy.

Note also that IDs are actually not required for flying in the US. Flying without an ID is annoying and time consuming, but definitely doable (I've done it).

<comment><USER4> Most voter ID proposal I've read also make voting without ID annoying and time consuming, but doable. This is taken as a clear evidence the goal is voter suppression. Thus I am asking, why the same thing with flying is not considered movement rights suppression?

I don't see how without ID checks cost and detection probability of voter fraud is high. You just get a list of guys who are dead or in jail or otherwise aren't going to show up (shouldn't be that hard to do), and pay somebody some small sum to show up at the polling place and vote as the name on the list. Where's the high cost in that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I ever lose the right to buy cough syrup, I might win it back by voting.

If I ever lose the right to vote, can I win it back by buying cough syrup?

<comment><USER4> Americans lost rights to buy marijuana in 1937. Winning it back by voting turned out not that easy in next 70 or so years.

And, btw, if you try to still use you right to own marijuana, you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote. See how nicely it works out?

<comment><USER8> > you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote

Fortunately not in all states. Some allow you to vote, some allow you to vote after you're released or your sentence (including probation or just incarceration) is complete. [1]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any electoral fraud that relies on having bunches of people vote multiple times _necessarily_ relies on there being a conspiracy of >100 people in order for it to be effective (this is the only kind of fraud that can be prevented by demanding that voters produce photo ID).

But if a conspiracy is required, then why not address that directly? Offer a $500,000 reward and immunity to any one who provides information about a conspiracy that could have changed the result of an election. Voila: no more "voter fraud".

<comment><USER10> How does vote fraud necessarily rely on a conspiracy? In many states, knowing someone's name and address is sufficient to vote as that person as long as they've previously registered. Any individual can show up at the polling place multiple times and vote as someone else and it would be very difficult to prove they'd done so.

<comment><USER6> Let's say I show up at the polling place and try to vote in someone else's name. If they've already voted, then I'm in deep trouble. In fact, my polling place often has a police officer hanging out on election day. If they haven't voted but come to vote after me, they're in deep trouble. Either way, there's going to be a big stink and a police report. Moreover, I can't vote more than once in the same precinct: I need to go elsewhere lest I'm recognized, and in most of the US, elsewhere is actually quite far away.

It really doesn't make sense spending money to prevent attacks that are completely economically infeasible.

Besides, let's say we require ID for voting. Now, everyone who illegally voted before can continue illegally voting: all they have to do is get some fake IDs, which any bored teenager looking for beer can do.

<comment><USER11> Every place I've been to vote, the election workers had a printed list of people who could vote and would highlight their names once they voted. It's in plain view and it would be easy to read the names and find one to use while waiting in line to get your ballet.

<comment><USER6> Sure, you could maybe read a name...and then you have to show up later in front of the same election worker who checked you in earlier. Don't you think they'd recognize you?

When I vote, I have to make eye contact and speak with four different poll workers. The odds that I could vote several times without any of them noticing are very low. The odds that a bunch of people could each vote many times over without any of the poll workers noticing are zero.

<comment><USER11> You read the name and vote with that name, not your own... Go to next polling station and repeat with a different name.

<comment><USER6> And what happens when someone whom you voted as shows up to vote? I mean, if this is going to happen on a large enough scale to affect the outcome of an election, that event has to happen many times. Which means poll workers and police are going to record many cases of voter fraud.

So, can you show me an election in the US where that has happened? Even just one?

Or is this a fantasy?

The point is that if each fraudulent voter has to go to multiple polling stations, that dramatically increases the cost and raises the likelihood of detection. In order to scale that attack up to be practical, you'd need buses full of fraudulent voters going from one station to the next.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know what the fuck makes me more sick:

1) that in the US, an electricity bill is sufficient for voting ID purposes (WTF)

or 2) that the US don't have mandatory ID cards. Even our new German ID cards only cost €20 apiece, and if you're too poor you can get benefits. Hello, ID fraud.

<comment><USER13> I was given a national ID card, it's call a social security card. That is my unique identifying number as an American.

<comment><USER4> SSN weren't designed as unique identifying numbers - in fact, until 1972 the cards explicitly said it should not be used as such. It is also way too short to be unique ID within imaginable timeframe. The fact that it is used as such is because americans have no choice - no other common ID to use. Some use name + birthdate instead, but that's even worse.

<comment><USER13> Add another few digits and we're good, kinda like ipv6.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Citing the War on (selected) Drugs to justify the War on Democracy! Yay!

<comment><USER10> If that doesn't appease you, how about... Driving a car. Renting a car. Staying in a hotel room. Flying on a plane. Opening a bank account.

Many, many things in life require photo ID. It's amazing how that's accepted as normal but somehow outrageous when voting is involved.

<comment><USER15> The ID requirement for renting a car or staying in a hotel is not designed to prevent people from renting cars or staying in hotels. It is to protect the rental company or the hotel from actual risks.

The recent ID laws for voting in the US are designed solely to prevent people from voting. The ID requirement are designed to require procedures and documentation that is hardest for poor people and minorities--coincidentally people who tend to not vote for the party that is pushing voter ID laws.

The proponents state it is to reduce voter fraud, but fraud based on exploiting a lack of ID requirements is close to if not nonexistent in the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In WI, if you can't afford an ID you can get one for free for voting purposes (heading "FREE Wisconsin ID cards for voting"): [http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.ht...](http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm)

</comment><comment><USER16> It is interesting how USA is portrayed as a leading country.

Amongst things, What is the point of having to register to vote.

All the fucked up bureaucracy that USA has reminds me more of a dictatorship than a democracy.

<comment><USER17> one person = one vote, so you need to track who voted. I don't think the way we do it is necessarily effective, but that's the justification.

Your other comments are probably justified though.

<comment><USER18> Yes, but other countries do voting without the need to pre-register. Some US states (e.g. Iowa) do voting with same day registration.

I might actually be okay with an ID requirement if we also got rid of the previous registration requirement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another data point that suggests that voter fraud is a real problem: The New York City Department of Investigation reported that their undercover agents were able to obtain fraudulent ballots with a 97% success rate. It's likely that fraud is happening and we just aren't aware of it:

[http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new- york-...](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367278/report-new-york- investigators-obtain-fraudulent-ballots-97-percent-time-john-fund)

</comment><comment><USER19> Why does everyone say that no large scale voter fraud ever happened in the US? What about the presidential election of 1960? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies)

Even small scale fraud is enough to tip a close election, and I don't think too many people doubt that it does happen.

</comment><comment><USER20> i'm just going to put this right here:

[http://imgur.com/78MF5i0](http://imgur.com/78MF5i0)

</comment><comment><USER21> I think an interesting question is how many of the 21 million without IDs regularly vote (or have ever voted)?

Hypothesis: Less than 50%

</comment><comment><USER22> you cant make meth out of voting cards. you can out of cough syrup!

</comment><comment><USER23> Right to vote vs right to Psuedoeffedrine?</comment>


Monadic parsing in Haskell (1998) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~pszgmh/pearl.pdf <comment><USER2> Thanks for the paper! I just learned the basics of Parsec[1] in Haskell and was shocked how effortlessly I could construct a parser. Learning Haskell made me fall in love with programming again.

[1]: [https://www.cnblogs.com/ncore/p/6892500.html](https://www.cnblogs.com/ncore/p/6892500.html)

<comment><USER3> Be sure to check out Megaparsec[1].

[1]: [https://github.com/mrkkrp/megaparsec](https://github.com/mrkkrp/megaparsec)</comment></comment>


"Please do not be afraid. I am a medical robot" [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.created-to-help-you.com/

<comment><USER2> Loved it! I really liked that robot view looked like it was using feature detection.

<comment><USER3> I liked that and the initialization screen on the "face" \-- like old-school arcade machine bootup test screens. Really lends to credibility of the robot as a _device_.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I love the description on their blog about why they made this film:

"This is not a film about robots going haywire and becoming hell bent on world domination. The fear of machines is well trodden ground. Instead, _Dr. Easy_ suggests that these machines function perfectly but have an impossible task, because humans are faulty machines."

</comment><comment><USER4> Amazing, disappointed it ended I was really into it. Something like this could be made into a whole movie.

<comment><AUTHOR> Happily, that is what they are planning. This is the apparently based on the first chapter of _The Red Men_ by Matthew De Abaitua.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hideously bad dialog.

<comment><USER6> Very wooden. Almost synthetic. Definitely stiff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> spoiler, don't read if haven't watched:

I was expecting the robot's drug send him to sleepy land.

<comment><AUTHOR> I figured that would undermine the whole thing, like how no-one uses the Red Cross or Crescent as cover (well, almost no-one, someone has probably done it, but it is obviously nuts.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do I "need" a custom domain email? - question-email I've been using a custom domain email for the past year, and I've loved the experience.
I want to switch to Fastmail but I'm having trouble justifying it to myself.
Should I give up and move back to Gmail? Do I want to pay Fastmail's $50/yr to have a "more professional" (custom domain) email? <comment><AUTHOR> No, because GMail works, and anyone who needs email can use it. Or one of its competitors.

Yes, because your email is your identity, and that's a very good thing to own. Unfortunately, you can only rent domain names. But once you do so, you can control your email: it doesn't matter who your service provider is, your address is the same.

Of course, you could trust GMail (or whoever) to have T&Cs that you're happy with, but if one day that changes, you're stuck.

A cheaper alternative to Fastmail's $50 is to use POBox.com's $20 redirection and point it to GMail. $20 + annual DNS rental, and you can switch email provider at will.

</comment><comment><USER2> Since price seems to be a concern, why not selfhost? Get yourself a cheap server and you can create unlimited mailboxes with many selfhosted solutions out there

<comment><AUTHOR> I think self-hosting is the wrong choice for most people.

The effort you need to put in to first build out the system, and then maintain it, and all the while jump through the various hoops that are required to have Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc, accept email from you, is significant.

$50/year is a bargain if you value your own time at minimum wage or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You don't "need" a custom email domain. A custom email looks better to customers if you are running a business.

That said, it's up to you and what you _want_.</comment>


Show HN: Upbound Cloud Community Preview - <AUTHOR> https://upbound.io <comment><USER2> Check out the community preview announcement blog post for more information and a demo [https://blog.upbound.io/announcing-upbound-cloud- community-p...](https://blog.upbound.io/announcing-upbound-cloud-community- preview/)</comment>


Why Are Indians So Entrepreneurial In The U.S.? - Andrew-Dufresne http://readwrite.com/2012/10/19/why-are-indians-so-entrepreneurial-in-the-us

<comment><AUTHOR> The sample set of Indians that make it to the US are largely educated and motivated. I think you'll find any group of people with those characteristics to be entrepreneurial or at minimum over achievers.

I have to answer a lot of people in the US who think all Indians everywhere are smart. The truth is that the Indians who make it to the US are from the hardest working, wealthiest or most motivated families from India.

<comment><USER2> Immigrants, in general, have always been entrepreneurial, whether educated or not -- from restaurants and little shops to major industries like Hollywood.

I conjecture that the factors that make a person willing to pull up stakes and move thousands of miles away to a completely different culture are highly correlated with the desire to become an entrepreneur.

Indians may be more represented in tech for the reasons you state (e.g., education) but let's not overlook all the landscaping businesses, dry cleaners, and convenience store out there. I would bet that many who are reading this have ancestors who started out just that way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely agree. That's why I used "or" instead of and in my last sentence.

My personal experience is that my parents came here in the late 60s. They weren't wealthy but were motivated. Because my parents were in the US they were able to bring over many family members over the course of the last 40 years.

Some of these people were formally educated in a high skill trade (accountant, nursing, etc) and some were not. Regardless, they've all flourished here. Some own gas stations and others own real estate.

It's really amazing to look back at my personal ancestory and see the differences between a single generation.</comment></comment></comment>


Warrant Canary - the FBI are not spying on you. - <AUTHOR> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

<comment><AUTHOR> But it seems the NSA are via fibre tapping.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you concentrate in a noisy open office environment? - <AUTHOR> I have been working on this spaghetti code that is extremely hard to follow and needed to concentrate. After weeks of not being able to successfully finish what I needed to do, I finally worked both weekend days and was able to successfully finished coding.
I blame part of the difficulty on the open office without private space and then partly to the daily agile meetings that make it hard to just sit down and work at a problem for longer period at a time.
How are you coping with it? <comment><USER2> I acknowledge that the company decided to trade productivity for saving money on office space, and then I accept that their choice limits me to 50% of my usual working speed. Maybe I bring this up once, but if my managers dismiss my concern, then I accept that the company wants to pretend that there is no tradeoff. Accepting these things makes it a bit easier to not worry so much.

In your specific case? Let your manager know that this task requires more focus than usual, and ask them if they would prefer that you book a conference room for 4 days or WFH for 4 days in order to concentrate on it.

Honestly, I think the only way to stop this idiocy around open offices is for all of us to get ADHD diagnoses, and to claim a private, quiet space as a necessary accommodation for disability.

</comment><comment><USER3> Chiming in, although most has already been said:

\- noise-canceling headphones with ambiant noise / music. I like Focus@will for this, some of their tracks are spot-ok for me.

\- a large slot of time in which I know I can work uninterrupted. Blocking 2 hours in my agenda does the trick, any shorter and I have trouble motivating myself to get started.

\- no distractions. I close Slack and my email client, put my phone away or in "don't disturb" mode, close my slacking-off browser (I use FF for most of my browsing, including mails/blogs/comic strips, and Chrome for a few websites and when I need to specifically use Google; closing FF effectively leaves me with stack overflow, trello and google). I also explained to my coworkers that headphones on = don't disturb me unless the building is on fire (and even then let me finish writing my method first)

If getting large-enough blocks of time is an issue, you can point your manager to Maker's Schedule, Manager's schedule by Paul Graham

</comment><comment><USER4> I used to work at a small startup in a coworking space that was shared with other small startups. In one large room, there would be loud conversations, sales calls, people coming into the office for meetings, people eating lunch together at common tables, a beeping microwave at the kitchenette, and a lot of movement as teams would go to and from meetings.

I found that a cup of coffee, 25 minute pomodoros, large meeting-free blocks of time, noise-cancelling headphones, white noise, and lyric-less music was the best combination for getting work done.

I also found that I was particularly productive in the off hours. I was taking classes during the day and would sometimes stay until 7:30 or 8 to offset the time spent at class. When nearly everyone left around 6 or 6:30, this meant that there was a lull in the noise and activity around me as well as no Slack messages or meetings, which was also very helpful for concentrating.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can you raise your concerns at the office with your manager and team?

If you have a good manager and good team no one should care about when or how you work, as long as you are productive and are available every now and again (perhaps a couple of times a week) to sync up or answer questions.

E.g. if work is not able to provide an environment conducive to thinking for large blocks of time, can you negotiate to work from home 2-3 days per week?

I have a similar problem at my work, I will be working from home today & will aim to spend most of the day at home with email and slack off. Lots of thinking and programming will happen.

When I am in the office it is sometimes possible to occupy a small meeting room for hours. If I have an afternoon without meetings I tend to try to hide in a room for noise & physical isolation from interruptions. Headphones and lyric free instrumental music work for me too.

<comment><AUTHOR> I could, but I work for a small company and there's no space for larger office or installing cubicles. So I am not sure how that request will go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Working from home mostly. I can't focus without a quiet and calm environment. As with many things related to worker well being, companies just don't seem to care about this. I honestly think that had it not been for the conviction and determination of most software developers to do good work inspite of the sometimes sisyphian conditions they work in, most companies would flop.

</comment><comment><USER7> Have you discussed working from home a day or two a week? This does wonders to my productivity.

In summer I often take my laptop and sit on a bench close to the office. Not quiet, but a lot less distracting than the office.

</comment><comment><USER8> 1) Earplugs underneath Bose QC-35s playing foreign-language or instrumental music (Currently: The Free Raisins [1])

2) A target shooting cap with side-blinders to block visual noise. [2]

3) 9 hours of sleep a night.

4) 15 minutes run, 20 squats, 15 pull-ups, 50 push-ups in the morning.

5) A big dot-ruled notepad (like a bullet journal, but larger) to take notes/diagrams on. This is like swap space to augment Working Memory.

6) The app Bear to take notes in, also to augment my Working Memory.

7) 12 minutes of breath meditation when I get frazzled, to de-allocate working memory.

8) A silly 3-second physical ritual when I start or finish a subtask where I slowly bring my hands together or apart and hum very quietly and picture myself allocating or de-allocating memory.

9) Two external monitors side-by-side, so I can see interrelated code all at once.

10) A convention for where on my monitors I tend to put things (roughly: db- ish code to the left, browser-ish code to the right.) so I don't have to store that in working memory.

11) The app Anki to store flashcards to use Spaced Repetition more quickly cement php knowledge into my long-term memory so that it is more effectively "chunked" when I need to manipulate it in working memory.

12) The app SelfControl to block distracting websites from my laptop, which I might otherwise reflecively visit to escape from the discomfort of dealing with a frustrating task.

13) The self-narrative, "this is frustrating. This is uncomfortable. This is worth it and I'm stronger than I think" to say to myself when I run into an inscrutable php error.

14) An attitude of insisting on a clear _why_ for any task so that I know that it actually matters to the people I work with.

15) Pushing meetings and interviews to beginning and end of day. My team does its "standup" by posting {yesterday, today, blockers} to slack by 10:30am.

16) A team that is used to a clean, modular, and well-tested ruby codebase and so is committed to incrementally chipping away at the mess of this externally- acquired one.

17) Humor from team members in dealing with the um...interesting Developer Experience design choices of this php web framework.

18) Occasional pair programming

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Out-Box-Free- Raisins/dp/B00MHX16PQ](https://www.amazon.com/Out-Box-Free- Raisins/dp/B00MHX16PQ)

[2] [https://www.intershoot.co.uk/acatalog/ahg-Anschutz- Hat-325C-...](https://www.intershoot.co.uk/acatalog/ahg-Anschutz- Hat-325C-294.html)

<comment><USER5> > A target shooting cap with side-blinders to block visual noise

Clever. One of my old colleagues used to bring a pair of ear muffs to work and wear them at his desk for noise isolation. That job was in a research lab, not an open plan programming sweatshop, so we all had cube farm partitions between our desks. Such luxury in hindsight...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ask management for a quiet office. Any intelligent boss should understand the need for this. Anything less is a sorry hack</comment>


Python for Kids: A Playful Introduction to Programming - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/12/18/python-for-kids-a-playful-int.html

<comment><USER2> My daughter is following this book (Python for Kids) on her own now, and about a year ago we spent a while reading the Hello World book (<http://www.manning.com/sande/>) which is a very gentle intro to programming, Python and it was great. I liked Hello World a lot because it explained lots of terms in familiar language and the illustrations and characters were very funny.

She's 12 now so her expectations about games are more influenced by gaming consoles, so I think the next stop will be doing some simple stuff in the Blender Game Engine, which can be programmed in Python too, once she becomes more fluent on programming.

Both books use IDLE as the programming environment, which is fine, but expect to have minor issues along the way: you have to be aware of intentation rules (it's Python) and in one game the library name could not be found because the name started with a uppercase letter ("import Tkinter" in Ubuntu). In Ubuntu you may need to install some extra packages, etc.

<comment><USER3> I am working through 'the Hello World book'with my kids and plan to teach an after school course on Python next year. I am very pleased with 'Hello World' but am curious on your thoughts on which one you prefer. 'Hello World' or 'Python for Kids'?

<comment><USER2> It depends, I was more involved with my daughter when we read the Hello World book and it was really nice because some odd things about computers were explained in simple language, and the character of the kid which questions everything is really fit for this type of book. Also, there were lots of small games with different mechanics.

Python for Kids is really good also, has a intro about the Python language which feels more focused than the other book and it has a chapter about drawing with a turtle, as I did with LOGO many years ago! ... Python for Kids also has plenty of notes about running it on Windows, Mac OS X and Ubuntu so you'd be fine on any OS you have.

I think you should try both, but the best order would be to finish Hello World first and Python For Kids second.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've read through the sample of this book and looked at the TOC and read Hello World from Manning, and honestly, as someone who has worked teaching programming to this age range, they kind of suck.

They don't teach kids how to think _about_ programming. Their first instinct is to assault them with syntax and use words that aren't readily part of a kid's vocabulary (for example, introducing the concept of "types" and coercing (using that word) between them in like Chapter 3 is just a recipe for disaster) in an effort to give the kid results. "If they don't see results, they won't stick with it!" Bull crap. If you give them great results for the first hour, but then it becomes incredibly frustrating to proceed because they don't understand the fundamentals well enough to do anything useful, you're not doing anyone a favor.

I know Hello World was co-written with the author's son, and so obviously this isn't an across the board problem. But in my experience, if you don't teach how computers work (in general), how programs work (i.e., you type stuff, the computer does it, etc.), and how to develop logical thinking about problems and how to break them down, all you'll be teaching to do is ape the book until they want riff on it, at which point it just becomes an exercise in frustration.

There is always a learning curve, but I firmly believe that there is a very linear progression of thought that you can teach in that will make the learning curve much smoother for most of the kids trying to learn. I've been doing work on a book of my own very, very slowly, but I'm hoping to fix a lot of the pedagogical failures I see in these books.

Maybe it'll come out soon, but then again, the world ends tomorrow, so why bother? :)

</comment><comment><USER5> If you teach Python to kids, they get a gift from Guido.

[https://plus.google.com/photos/108306457281321389001/albums/...](https://plus.google.com/photos/108306457281321389001/albums/5481524592745079409)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd love to hear from anyone who has observed children learning from this book to hear how it went.

<comment><USER7> Same here. My first introduction to programming happened with BASIC and I remember really liking it; how easy it was to write basic text adventures with almost nothing else than GOTO statements. While Python is little bit more complex it's still the best teaching language I know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I came across Snake wrangling for kids a few months ago <http://code.google.com/p/swfk/> I haven't given it a good run as my son is still 3yrs old

</comment><comment><USER9> Somewhat off topic, but I've heard people here asking what the point of selling the Raspberry Pi to hackers first was. When I loaded mine up and looked through the recently-released Pi App Store, I noticed how many resources for learning Python existed already and were ported/developed for the Pi. Getting this kind of background in place before the full release to schools will be great (if it pans out).

</comment><comment><USER10> It looks awesome but sadly i cannot use it with my childs due to the language, i would love to see a translation to spanish.

It would be cool to have that kind of resource so they can use it while i'm not at home, even tough the most fun is when we all are into it.

If anyone know of a cool book or resource on spanish for them to read on their own i would love if you could drop a line.

<comment><USER2> It seems you're lucky:

Doma de Serpientes para Niños - Aprendiendo a Programar con Python:

<http://code.google.com/p/swfk-es/>

Suerte!

<comment><USER10> That's great, gracias!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I got into programming in the 6th grade via "Interplay's Learn to Program: BASIC." It was a little corny (there's a host that cracks lame jokes), but it totally changed the way I thought about video games and programming. At any rate, I'd say that if you can find a "game"-like presentation for any programming language, that would be the way to go instead of a book.

</comment><comment><USER12> Great to see tools coming that help beginners learn programming.

</comment><comment><USER8> I just realized my earlier post <http://code.google.com/p/swfk/> is by the same author</comment>


Do shellshock scans violate CFAA? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/09/do-shellshock-scans-violate-cfaa.html

<comment><USER2> _This test is bonkers for computers, because a "reasonable person" means an "ignorant person". Reasonable people who know how the web works, who have read RFC 2616, believe Weev's actions are clearly authorized. Other reasonable people who know nothing except how to access Facebook with an iPad often believe otherwise -- and it's the iPad users the court relies upon for "reasonable person"._

"Reasonable" people regularly sit in judgment of other specialists' actions. Therefore I think this eventually devolves to a battle of expert witnesses. Which means security researchers should get something analogous to malpractice insurance, because the best witnesses are the most expensive. In the medical malpractice suit for which I was a juror, the difference between expert witnesses was comical.

</comment><comment><USER2> A thoughtful reasonable important piece like TFA drops with nary a ripple, while his follow-up crackpot "criticism" of the _style_ of decades-old C code causes a 68-comment furor. No wonder the author keeps writing that kind of crap: it's nice to be noticed, even if only on HN...

</comment><comment><USER3> I propose we create a new convention, "humans.txt", which states in a plain, simple manner what parts of a system one can access and how. This is placed in the web root alongside robots.txt .

This would be a closed-by-default system; it says you can use the shopping cart functionality for yourself. Thus, if you use CSRF to use the shopping cart functionality "for" someone else, you are breaking the law unambiguously.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you zoom in to read webpages? - <AUTHOR>

As a man d'un certain âge, I'm wondering how many of you read webpages at the default zoom setting of your Web browser, and how many of you zoom in on pages to make the text look bigger for easier reading. I think I am older than most participants on Hacker News. I almost always zoom in on webpages, from time to time discovering webpages that aren't designed to be easily resized. (Hacker News is well designed for zooming in.) What is your practice in reading webpages? Do you take every page with its default settings, and use your browser with its default settings, or do you resize pages?<p>I normally use Google Chrome as my main browser on my dual-monitor Windows 7 office computer, and it stores my preferences site by site. I usually zoom in on any given site until the main page text goes all the way to the edge of my screen, which typically is about a 175 percent zoom. I am designing webpages for a couple organizations right now, so I am testing on a variety of computers, monitors, and browsers, to make sure that what I design doesn't break with viewed with different hardware or software from what I habitually use. I've been reading up a lot about the latest advances in responsive Web design and the new versions of HTML and CSS. I suppose most of you are younger than people who need to adapt in this way, but I have become very conscious of middle-aged people with presbyopia as I browse websites, and I want to make sure the sites I build are friendly for them. <comment><USER2> I use safari, and I use the "two-finger double-tap" all the time, which works the same as double-tap on iOS (zooms in so the double-tapped content takes the full width of the screen/browser)

I'm 26 years old, but I'm only going to read one thing at a time anyway, so why not make it easier on my eyes?

<comment><USER3> Same. When I'm coding I tend to lean in and have multiple things going on at once, so lots of small type is fine. Browsing is my opportunity to sit back and rest a little, and double tap is my preferred method as I can completely ignore the size relative to my page (it will just fill to the width). I just switched to FF/Pentadactyl yesterday and this has been the hardest thing to leave behind, so if anyone has any tips...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I frequently use Evernote's Clearly extension in the Chrome browser. I like Clearly better than Readability. Clearly both resizes the text, but also removes most of the ads. Sometimes it removes some images that belong with the content, but it's the best extension I've found for dealing with the current crop of websites with profoundly tiny text.

</comment><comment><USER5> Mid fifties. I do sometimes zoom for size, but more often I end up turning off styles (Firefox: alt-V-Y-Nv) to work around the beautiful but unreadable low contrast text that many sites use. Your post right here on HN is a minor offender, where the text of an original post is lighter colored than the responses. But that's mostly readable; the web is full of cute, unreadable text, which I'm sure took a lot of work to get just right.

</comment><comment><USER6> Funny, I have this problem specifically on my laptop since its a 15" screen with a 1080P screen. I got extremely annoyed over the weekend while I was trying to read documentation on my laptop for Django. I ended up giving up and not reading and switched to using my ipad the next day. Dumb, irritating etc.

<comment><USER7> Haha, 1080p on a 13" here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I remember when web design was a topic. Hasn't been for a few years, and it shows.

I don't zoom my laptop-sized screen much; I usually have to run my minimum font-size at 20. Works fine on about 3/4 of pages; so long as I'm maintaing proper posture.

Poorly-designed pages use lots of small, fixed-size DIVs to segregate spoonfuls of text; because of my font-size they spill text all over. Worse still are the pages that use color:#666 or higher; I just turn away. Printers have turned to that, no doubt to save the cost of ink; otherwise it's a measure of the sanity of the producer.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sometimes. More often now I use something like Readability to not only change the sizes, but also the typography and page layout at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER10> I zoom all over on the iPad or use the built-in browser reading mode. Also on my work laptop when I'm confined to just the laptop screen. I have Readability installed on Chrome, but I use it more often to de-clutter the article I'm trying to read than just to resize the font.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't usually zoom in on Windows but I almost always have to on any phone or tablet.

</comment><comment><USER7> I never used to, but I recently got a 1080p 13-inch screen. I don't like the OS-level scaling in Windows, or turning down the virtual resolution, because it makes the chrome take up more space. Chrome (the browser) doesn't respect Windows' OS-level scaling anyway. The combination of this and Sublime Text 2, which has word-wrapping good enough to use in code and makes it extremely easy to change the font size, has led to me zooming in a ton lately. I've found I actually enjoy reading text that's larger than what I was reading before the high-dpi screen anyway.

</comment><comment><USER12> \- I use GC as well so I don't zoom in. However, on my phone I do.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm a zoomer. I either do CMD+ to increase font size or, sometimes, do the Mac zoom screen thing (control two fingers)

<comment><USER10> I just got a 17" MBP and I'm amazed at how small the default text size is in Safari. Can't find a way to change that so I have to keep zooming in on most pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> 28 m - I zoom in or out depending on the monitor / display device I'm using.

</comment><comment><USER15> Yes I zoom all the time for reading webpages. Ctrl++++ 4 times.

</comment><comment><USER16> I zoom almost all the time on a 24" monitor even more when reading on a tablet.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a few bookmarklets munged up that singly or in various combinations disable, override, and/or adjust style including font, text size, text color, background color, etc.

A click or two, and I have a readable page -- without pumping my browsing history through a third party.

P.S. Google "bookmarklet", look for the old but last I checked (a while ago) still highly ranked site from... Joe, I think, and copy and adjust the relevant bookmarklets as desired.

The suggestions here to simply disable styles, via one or another built in mechanism or extension, are also useful.

P.P.S. For traditional on-screen reading, MS's Georgia and Verdana fonts are your friends. Pay attention as well to leading, and in some cases kerning.

Let me know if you want to see an (ugly) example bookmarklet -- they are very simple and safety is verified in a 5 second glance at them.

P.P.P.S. [I know...] s/Joe/Jesse/

<https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/>

Though mine differ somewhat from what's there.</comment>


Are Hackathon Prizes The Worst Thing Since Moldy Sliced Bread? - <AUTHOR> http://mlh.io/blog/are-hackathon-prizes-the-worst-thing-since-moldy-sliced-bread-04-18-2014/

<comment><USER2> I generally agree with the sentiment. I think it's very easy to each year just look at the standard prize amounts and decide that slightly beating the standard can't hurt, but over time that leads to higher and higher prizes. Certainly $1 million is absurd. We (PennApps) are at $10k for 1st place, which I think you could argue is high (keep in mind that turns into $2.5k/person). But we made a conscious decision not to raise our prize any more than that about a year ago, so at least it's not getting worse on our end.

I'm not convinced that giving already released hardware as the main prizes is a good idea. From my point of view, people don't choose to compete for the main prizes like they do for sponsor ones, and forcing them to take an Oculus Rift or something of the like that they could just buy if they wanted seems a little suboptimal. However, getting unreleased hardware is a value add in my book, and was something we considered for the latest PennApps with Myo, although they couldn't make the delivery date in the end.

Sponsor prizes are tricky. One thing we've done at PennApps is encourage more vaguely themed prizes rather than ones that reward the use of a specific company's API. OTOH, we're not ready to entirely restrict API-centric prizes since I do believe that for less "sexy" companies it is a value add (the writers behind this article both came from arguably "sexy" companies), and the competition for sponsor dollars is such that the negatives mentioned in the article about sponsor prizes do not outweigh the cost of removing them for us.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd like to think I'm a fairly passionate programmer, but I prefer cash prizes. Maybe not obscenely large ones (I'm looking at you, Salesforce), but all the prizes at major university hackathons seem totally reasonable.

A well-organized hackathon is fairly bifurcated. You have new hackers who are there to learn and experienced hackers who want to tackle an ambitious project. For both groups, I think large cash prizes are useful. For the newbies, even if they're not planning to win, the prizes reinforce the message that hacking is something useful and worth pursuing (helping to counteract the societal narrative of geeks being lame). For experienced hackers, prizes are a way of affirming that you've accomplished something amazing, particularly since most of the coolest hacks will never generate other compensation for the creators.

My personal reason for not liking product prizes is an objection to the accumulation of stuff. I really don't need yet another Arduino (won too many already) and would much rather use the money to take my family out for a nice dinner/etc. Most people don't need more _things_.

The idea of experience prizes (a trip somewhere) is a good one though.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure if prizes are really all that at hackathons - one big downside is that if you end up not winning any prizes, it makes the hackathon a bit of a downer, even if you ended up making something cool.

I actually prefer doing something fun at hackathons - case in point, the recent create a music app for Slash hackathon during SXSW, where I ditched my original idea to play with Qualcomm's beacon technology instead.

My biggest complaint about hackathons is if the hackathon is actually judged as a business pitch-a-thon, and that part wasn't clear at the beginning.</comment>