The Algorithm That Can Crack CAPTCHA (and is changing AI) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcolabs.com/3021474/open-company/the-algorithm-that-thinks-like-a-human?utm_source=facebook

<comment><USER2> Being familiar with Dileep's past research: the algorithm used by Vicarious here is very likely based on the Hierarchical-Temporal Memory (HTM) technology developed by Hawkins, Dileep and the folks at Numenta [1].

HTM is documented in a Numenta white paper [2] and in an older form in Dileep's PhD thesis [3]. Numenta has also open-sourced an implementation of HTM, NuPIC [4].

It is important to note that, while HTM is a very interesting approach to machine learning, it has never been shown to beat (or even concurrence) the state of the art on any problem.

I have been following Numenta/Grok's progress closely because they seem to me to have the most potential for pushing this tech forward. Also I like their open-source strategy compared to the 100% secret approach of Vicarious. Vicarious has an impressively bombastic PR (that you can see in action in the above article) but basically nothing to show for it (until now, that is, if this breaking of CAPTCHA turns out to be real and the be more reliable than existing state-of-the-art CAPTCHA-breaking algorithms).

Long before they had any working technology, Vicarious founders had been throwing around quotes such as: "[our goal is] in five years to make a human- level vision system. Anything a human can recognize visually our algorithm would recognize visually." (2011) [5]

And today, after creating a CAPTCHA-breaking program (which has already been done in the past; I'd like to see a benchmark comparison), they're basically claiming they've created a human brain.

They also claim they will have a strong AI by 2026 [6]. Bombastic much?

[1] [https://groksolutions.com/landing- page.html](https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html)

[2] [http://numenta.org/resources/HTM_CorticalLearningAlgorithms....](http://numenta.org/resources/HTM_CorticalLearningAlgorithms.pdf)

[3] [http://alpha.tmit.bme.hu/speech/docs/education/02_DileepThes...](http://alpha.tmit.bme.hu/speech/docs/education/02_DileepThesis.pdf)

[4] [http://numenta.org/nupic.html](http://numenta.org/nupic.html)

[5] [http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/02/10/vicarious- sys...](http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/02/10/vicarious-systems-says- its-artificial-intelligence-is-the-real-deal/)

[6] [http://www.artificialbrains.com/vicarious](http://www.artificialbrains.com/vicarious)

</comment><comment><USER3> I point you here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6633515](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6633515)

Quoting:

The popularity of this story evidences how universally hated are CAPTCHAs. here are some of the submissions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625245) (forbes.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625247) (kurzweilai.net)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625351](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625351) (technologyreview.com) <\- Main discussion

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6626405](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6626405) (vimeo.com) <\- video of process in action

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6627848](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6627848) (vicariousinc.tumblr.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6628086](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6628086) (cbc.ca)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6628092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6628092) (wired.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629173](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629173) (wired.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629559) (newscientist.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629656) (dailydot.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629708) (mashable.com)

</comment><comment>==

There are two other comments worth reading.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629173](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6629173):

        That's a lot of fancy words to say that they overfit
        to their training data.

        That makes this sound like a very typical result in
        supervised machine learning (if it's a result at all).
        They have used an algorithm to learn a brittle heuristic
        that works in the cases it was trained to work on.

</comment><comment><USER4> anyone have any actual information on the algorithm? this is just fluff.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. The article gives a good primer on how CAPTCHAs work, how basic _versions_ of them used to be easily solve-able, and how / why a general- purpose solution - like this is described to be - would be amazing ... and a bit of background on how such a solution would be similar to human "processing" anyway.

What the article doesn't describe is any detail of how it works. Then again ... the creators of such a revolutionary technology, if true, would want to keep it protected in various ways, not to mention out of adversaries' hands (adversaries = spammers, criminals, other companies, other researchers).

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Is this really some master algorithm that can crack all kinds of CAPTCHAs?

CAPTCHA is pretty much an umbrella term for a variety of anti-spam protection and human verification procedures, many of them having nothing in common beyond the name.

Thus "cracking CAPTCHA" is meaningless unless you specify what type(s).

You'd need textual analysis, sentiment analysis, expression evaluation, OCR, full-scale image recognition, puzzle solving and a variety of other techniques to scratch most implementations. So it can't be one algorithm. It'd have to be many.

Then in most cases it'd probably be simpler to figure out some client-side exploit in the way CAPTCHAs handle and send data. Find a weak link, much like DC949 did with reCAPTCHA.</comment>


Apple announces special event for Sept. 9 - <AUTHOR> http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/08/28/apple-announces-special-event-for-sept-9/#9to5mac

<comment><USER2> Bigger screen, faster processor, health, maybe a new color</comment>


what do you like/dislike about my new company website? - <AUTHOR> http://www.logeek.fr/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I'd love some feedback with fresh eyes on my new company website (single page).

Any feedback is most welcome.

</comment><comment><USER2> Your website lacks clientèle which is what I would be interested to know if I am going to buy your services.

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely a good point. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Looking at Python for commercial apps but there are problems with packaging - <AUTHOR> I'm researching using Python for commercial desktop applications but deployment
seems problematic. I'm trying to decide if I'm looking at the wrong technology?
I love the language and I can see how productive I would be in it but I really need to be
able to produce clean .exe files to deliver, and I would like for the solution to be cross-platform.
I will be using Python 3.6+ and wxpython.  cx_Freeze doesn't do single file exe's.  Pyinstaller
doesn't seem to play well with Python3 (maybe I'm doing it wrong).  py2exe doesn't work for me either.
I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people working on this so it must be a hard problem which I would certainly be willing to help with but I'm wondering if I'm picking the wrong technology.
Alternatively I would use JavaFX, which would be fine, just not quite as productive. <comment><USER2> Try GUI2Exe, it worked for me pretty well, and as GUI it didn't require to learn all tools command line switches

[https://code.google.com/archive/p/gui2exe/](https://code.google.com/archive/p/gui2exe/) [https://launchpad.net/gui2exe](https://launchpad.net/gui2exe)

Another great product by Andrea Gavana

<comment><USER3> Last commit seems to be from 2012 though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You could take a look at a small project that I did a few years ago to create a portable CPython build for Linux. [https://github.com/wavetossed/pybuild](https://github.com/wavetossed/pybuild) The basic idea was to make a CPython binary that did not use any system libraries. Instead, all dynamic linking was to local files within the directory tree of the application. That way you could zip up (or tar up) a directory tree containing this portable Python, its binary libraries and any Python modules/libraries that you needed. The result was a self=contained app that could be copied to any Linux server, unpacked and executed. No prerequisites on the server except a new enough Linux kernel because the Linux ABI changed at some point around 10 years ago or so.

By updating the build script in the Github repo, you could update this to a newer version of Python 3.

To make a Windows binary doing the same thing would require a reasonable amount of knowledge about object files, linking, and Windows DLLs. It might be easier to use the MINGW GCC compiler rather than Microsoft, so consider that possibility. First thing to do is to understand how the CPython binary on Windows works and loads DLLs before actually executing Python code. The key is to intercept this process so that you have total control over all object files and do not rely on anything else being preinstalled on the target system.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you named the ones I used a few years ago. cx_freeze and py2exe both had issues. I was using 2.7 at the time, and I managed to get something deployable that didn't require installing system libs, but wasn't a single file either.

Python is my goto language for fast development, but it's always felt a little clunky in windows. You may also need to consider gui issues. we ended up using pyqt, and it didn't quite feel like a windows app either.

You may want to consider, and I hate to say this, javascript for your language. The app we built had pdf libs we needed in python and not in javascript so a browser based solution wasn't available to us at the time. But being able to host the app is generally considered the easiest way to get cross platform these days.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is also Briefcase, [https://pybee.org/project/projects/tools/briefcase/](https://pybee.org/project/projects/tools/briefcase/)

But last time I looked at it it was very much a work in progress.

</comment><comment><USER6> Pyinstaller mentions that one of the maintainers does paid support. You mentioned it was commercial software, so perhaps just paying an expert to get things going makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER7> The outlook is much better in 2017 than it was just a few years ago. Another +1 for PyQt. I wanted a native Mac look and you can get get pretty darn close with Qt. I've also used PyInstaller, which is superbly well documented.

</comment><comment><USER8> Py2exe with python 2.7 is ised for rcam-pro [http://www.vintech.bg](http://www.vintech.bg)

</comment><comment><USER9> I think you should check Visual Studio with C# and .NET

Thats what I would use (If target machines are windows)

I still havent tried Net core on Unix machines so I cant say much.

If you pack it into exe you lose the cross-platform thing, so you might aswell use any other language.</comment>


SIDH in Go for quantum-resistant TLS 1.3 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/sidh-go/ <comment><USER2> > Because SIDH is still new and unproven, the TLS integration performs a > hybrid key exchange: it sends both an X25519 keyshare and an SIDH keyshare, > performs both X25519 and SIDH shared secret computations, and feeds both > shared secrets into the TLS key derivation mechanism. This ensures that even > if SIDH turns out to be broken, the key agreement is at least as secure as > X25519.

This is the critical bit, and the same thing that Google did with their post- quantum crypto experiment: make it an additional layer of defense-in-depth, while still using standard crypto and ensuring that you still have _at least_ that much security.

<comment><USER3> I'm no crypto expert, but why is this sort of defense-in-depth not more widely deployed? It seems that standard practice is to choose a single cipher for a message, rather than multiply enveloping the message in different ciphers, perhaps employing different fundamental crypto ideas, so that some future compromise of one of them may not necessarily reveal the plaintext of the present message.

Obviously performance considerations may answer this in many, or even most cases, but this seems to be the practice nearly always.

<comment><USER4> This is rarely used because usually you don't have any realistic expectation that algorithm a may be secure while algorithm b may not be. To put it like this: AES is just good enough, there's no reason to combine it with anything.

The post quantum + ecc combination is kinda unique here, because you have two classes of algorithms for which you have very different risk scenarios.

<comment><USER5> apples and oranges. With Key exchange algorithms you can get away with this kind of reinforcement. If you start combining encryption algorithms however, you may accidentally reduce the overall entropy of your crypto system by combining algorithms.

<comment><USER6> I have often read this, but I don't understand it.

Why would `cypherA(cypherB(plaintext))` reveal more than `cypherA(plaintext)` or `cypherB(plaintext)` ?

If it did, an attacker might just perform the second encryption and obtain the same result.

The only example I've seen is "if you rot13 twice you get back to the start", but that seems a trivially flawed analogy.

<comment><USER7> You're right that this is an oft-misstated reason for avoiding doing so. Layering encryption this way can only decrease security (in a theoretical sense) if the key and/or encryption algorithms aren't independent of one- another. If both are secure algorithms and you use two independent keys, the composition is at least as strong as the strongest of the two.

The real reason is that the risk of a catastrophic AES break is less than the risk of you _mis-implementing_ this feature. As a real world example, take this [bug in OpenSSL]([https://marc.info/?l=openbsd- tech&m=144472550016118](https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144472550016118)) that was intended to prevent DES weak keys.

A more theoretical example of a buggy implementation might be actually a very narrow interpretation of the original point. If you reuse the same key between both algorithms (or, generally, using keys that aren't independent of one- another), it's possible for the second cipher to "undo" the work of the first. A trivial example is AES-CTR(k, AES-CTR(k, pt)), which undoes the original encryption. A less-silly but potentially problematic one might be ChaCha20(k, Salsa20(k, pt)). The two algorithms are different, but _very_ similar in design. There's no known issue with combining them in this way, but it would make me extremely nervous to see such a construct in the wild.

So in a sense we've come full circle. As I pointed out, the real reason is that you're more likely to introduce a bug implementing layered encryption than you are to prevent a catastrophic failure of your cipher. But ironically, one of the more likely instances of a buggy implementation is reusing the same key for both ciphers, which is something along the lines of what the grandparent poster indicated.

As a postscript, one other reason is performance. AES is hardware-accelerated, but other algorithms aren't (though ChaCha20 is extraordinarily fast in general-purpose hardware). Layering means a performance penalty, which is a generally minor but still very valid reason to avoid layering.

<comment><USER8> Of course you use different keys for the different layers. One uses layering not to compete directly with the underlying cipher but to add a fall-back security. This immediately demands that one must not reuse the key. Since this is simple to understand and to verify, it is far less important than what you make it seem.

Also, you then do not get lower security! You still have the full security of the underlying cipher.

Why all the scaremongering? Crypyography is a science and craft just like other sciences and crafts. One can do misstakes with severe consequences, but that is the case in other sciences and crafts, too. If more people understand cryptography, the better. We should encourage playing with it, not telling people not to touch it.

<comment><USER7> I do not believe it is possible for you to have more greatly misunderstood the point of my post.

<comment><USER8> The point of your post or the intention you had with the post?

Reading your post again, I still see scaremongering in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Unfortunately, this requires writing assembly, because writing high- > performance arithmetic is not possible in Go — it's simply not a design goal > of the language. (There are a few reasons, most notably that there's no way > to directly compute the (128-bit) product of 64-bit integers.)

Can any language do this, without also calling through some library that has hand-crafted assembly in it? Will assigning the product of 2 longs in C to a long long result in the correct instructions?

<comment><USER10> In nightly builds of Rust (on 64-bit x86 platforms; no idea about support elsewhere), `(a as u128) * (b as u128)` where `a` and `b` are 64-bit integers will compile to a single `mul` instruction: see [https://godbolt.org/g/Be7ncs](https://godbolt.org/g/Be7ncs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Excellent. Explained so simply.</comment>


Early data shows strong Black Friday - <AUTHOR> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081129/holiday_shopping.html?.v=3 <comment><USER2> Sales were up, but what about profits? Retailers cut costs like never before, and while sales are up, if you have an item that costs $4 to make and sell five of them at $5 a pop, sales are up but profits are down relative to selling four items at $6, as long as you can still sell the fifth later. And I guess that's the key this year - can retailers sell more after Black Friday, or will it represent an abnormally large percentage of holiday season spending?

<comment><USER3> In my opinion, the financial crisis is (hopefully/mostly/maybe) over, and this is now a consumer-led problem, led by people who are scared about losing their job. But those who still have jobs have noticed that declining interest rates and declining gas prices have given them more money than they had 3 months ago, and are cautiously spending some. The near-constant drum beat of pessimism seems to be the main headwind.

I speak from personal experience here, I'm in an area where I could lose my job if we all stop spending, but it hasn't happened yet. But I'm making the best money of my life.

And the Dow has a five-day winning streak (thank goodness for small good things) and suddenly there's a good retail report from the US. Let's dream of good things.

<comment><USER4>
      In my opinion, the financial crisis is (hopefully/mostly/maybe) over

What data do you base your opinion on? Or is it meant to express your hopes rather than perception?

<comment><USER5> The best stat to go on is here:

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=.TEDSP:IND>

It gives you a rough idea of the health of the credit markets. TARP actually helped quite a bit, but it's been inching up over the past few days (up==bad) at the same time the markets have been going up. "Suckers' market" is what I think, and yet I made a few conservative purchases. Safe money remains firmly on the treasuries.

Here's the only thing I know: Nobody knows. The more important the chart is (like the DJIA) the more it represents prophecy than reality.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the chart, I learned something new today.

Looking at the five year chart I wouldn't call today's situation normal. TED spread is at 2 now and it's been at 4.5 at the peak of the crisis, at 1 throughout last year and at 0.5 before that. Better than worst, but worse than any other recent time since 1987.

Much of the interbank trust sits on the health of the mortgages, and whether the worst in there is priced in or not is unclear. I have couple of arguments towards the worst being still ahead - a) while subprime ARMs are over, option ARMs have not begun to reset yet[1] b) mortgages issued later in the bubble were of lower quality than early mortgages(accroding to my common sense) c) it's unclear when synthetic mortgages come due - it's possible that they have already fallen apart (hence the acute crisis of trust) or they might be the last shoe to drop.

And treasuries are only secure if dollar is secure. The recen run-up in dollar has no fundamnetals behind it other than delveraging, so once that's over it's bound to tank pulverising the real wealth stored in the treasuries. It's a fun time - I can't think of _any_ safe assets right now.

[1] see chart in here: <http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article5047.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> People got their HELOCs taken away and their credit card limits slashed and shopping is still up. Makes no sense...

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm afraid the real hit to many Americans will happen right before Christmas - the standard time when companies lay off. And I'm thinking that there may be a lot of layoffs this season, unfortunately.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I improve my beta subscribe page - <AUTHOR> I'm currently working on a new site, which is going to be launched on March 7th.
Till that moment I want to gather some momentum. Therefore I've put up a page where people can subscribe to the beta. However this page got declined by betalist.com for being a template (which it isn't).
So now I'm looking for some good, unsalted, feedback on what I can do to improve this page. The page can be found via: https://7places.co/beta/<p>Thanks! And if you have any questions about the tool, I'm happy to answer al questions. <comment><USER2> [This submission might be better suited for "Show HN"]

Focus on one thing. Either getting feedback or collecting signups.

If it's feedback, just drop the signup and make trying it no-risk. More users means better analytics. More users means a better chance of finding someone who loves the service.

If it's harvesting email/facebook/gogole+/twitter id's, then keep the signup. That's still a product but not the one you are pitching.

As someone who is curious and skeptical, the first approach would work for me...to the degree I would click on some buttons. The second (and currently implemented) approach doesn't. After many years on the internet, I am reasonably confident I won't get much out of giving you push access to any of my inboxes.

Decide what business you are in.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd drop the word "advising", e.g.,

"Where to go next, based on where you are now"

Or just

"Where to go next from where you are now"

That, however, makes it sound like navigation, which it isn't--it's similarity ranking, leaving

"Places like where you're at"

Or

"Seven places like where I am"

Note the pronoun change; seems more conversational too.

I dunno; none of these strike me as right, but I don't think what's there is going to grab anyone by the face.

I'd make the text below the fold more conversational, e.g., it's a pretty rare occasion I hear anybody say "venue":

"You're at an amazing place"

"You want places like it"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Great tips. Dropping the "advising" part is a good idea.</comment></comment>


How the Paris Catacombs Solved a Cemetery Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://daily.jstor.org/how-the-paris-catacombs-solved-a-cemetery-crisis/ <comment><USER2> And I can assure you that reading the story is quite far from actually living the experience of walking through these tunnels. Sometimes insane (like « get me out of there ! »), and sometimes it just make you think about your own mortality, thanks to the writings.

Disturbing, but in a constructive, human way. Well, at least for me.

And profit-making, btw.

Edit: added missing « mortality »

<comment> m-p-3 The sheer amount of bones makes you wonder how many souls ended there, a truly unique sight.

<comment><USER3> It made me think of myself as a bag of cells that leave behind a mineral deposit after several decades. The large concentrated piles of such "mineral deposits" in the catacombs prompted me to consider all the people who contributed (physically, intellectually, artistically) to building the great city throughout the centuries. Definitely a worthwhile visit!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Medieval Christian cemeteries often overfilled, especially if the cemetery was thought especially holy. Demand was so high in some places graves were regularly reused: the bones were exhumed and stacked wherever they would fit.

For a spectacular answer to the "What do we do with all these bones?" question, check out the ossuary at Sedlec in the Czech republic:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedlec_Ossuary?wprov=sfla1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedlec_Ossuary?wprov=sfla1)

</comment><comment><USER5> One of the "Magnificent Seven" London cemeteries had an open day recently and I went into the Catacombs and learned about the history... Popular in Europe so the shareholders of the Brompton Cemetery decided to speculate so constructed them but in the end it wasn't a money spinner and they went bust. I wouldn't actually recommend going down into the Catacombs. Coffins falling to pieces on shelves basically.</comment>


How two Aussies made the next Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-two-aussies-made-the-next-apple/story-fnkgbb6w-1227462265747

<comment><USER2> Wat</comment>


We're creating a culture of distraction - <AUTHOR> http://joekraus.com/were-creating-a-culture-of-distraction <comment><USER3> Just one of those observations:

A while ago, could be 3 or so years, I was in my local fish and chip shop. For those who don't know, there are small take away food shops in the UK (and I guess else where) and generally you wander up, order your food, then usually wait a few minutes while your order is put together or cooked. 10 mins or so. (I like the wait because usually it means my food is being cooked fresh.)

Usually I stand to the side waiting, and just gaze around, usually at the world going by out side the window. Normally the customers are not just one off people, but a couples or a pair of friends, or a parent and kids, and so on. You know, a decent variety of however people come. Usually there is a bit of a buzz of conversation and what not.

This time, I looked up, and all 10 or so of the people waiting in the show were literally buried, absorbed in their smart phones, and the shop stood stark silence. The people on their own, the kids, the parents, the couples, the whole damn lot. The only sounds were of the people working in the shop preparing the food.

Usually when the food is cooked, the person behind the counter only needs to mention the beginning of the order and the right person usually snaps in to action to retrieved their food, and leave the shop. This time I noticed it took up to 3 or 4 attempts before the smart phone spell was broken and the person realized their food was ready.

And the weirdest thing was, as they came to, coming out of their smart phone spell, each and every one of them had that look of some one who had just woken up in the morning. Eyes blinking, rubbing eyes, the slow realization of where you are, what you are doing, what comes next, etc.

I found the whole thing incredible creepy.

And since then, I've seen it more and more. In fact, I have even been round people houses or in a pub, where there are a few people meeting up, and I've observed the exact same thing. Oh, add to that, railway stations, bus stops, and so on.

OK, smart phones are very, very useful. Great little devices. But Im not so sure about they way people use them. Seems to me there must be something socially damaging about over use. Its like having the kid who is (exaggerate to show the point time) 24/7 in his/her bedroom on their computer. Now its like that but we can take the computer everywhere. Yeah, we can isolate ourselves anywhere.

<comment><USER4> The dosage makes the poison.

So yes, overuse is not healthy. But consider another angle: for me a smartphone can fill useless time like waiting for an appointment, the bus, etc. instead of wasting their time these people text their loved ones, read articles about self employment or check reddit for cat pictures.

Giving someone not the attention they might deserve is indeed rude. But i hope customs will change hopefully to the better and people put their smartphones down when appropriate.

But i don't think it is right other without knowing the context and what they're doing.

Edit: I think i want a better mute button for my phone and a hardware mute button for my laptop. Everything should be hidden besides calls from circa 5 people and the third call from one number. Besides that the OS should not show me any notification, message,etc. not even the notification light should blink and when i check the time on the phone i should not see how many messages i missed

<comment><USER5> Try eating dinner with a group of current college kids and hoping they put their phones down to listen to you.

There is no way the trend is going to reverse itself. I try not to be a cynic but on this topic it's impossible for me - what event could trigger a reversal to this behavior?

What would make people prefer people again over digital distractions?

<comment><USER6> They are socializing with people, but physical presence matters less than it used to. They're not (mostly) playing games. They're generally chatting with their friends, or (if they're really bored) browsing content posted by a smallish list of facebook and twitter contacts.

To trigger a reversal, you have to train people to be engaged, sympathetic, good at body language, and extremely talkative. Basically all the difficult interpersonal things that text chat can't do. Edit: technology isn't standing still, though! Snapchat is adding more personal video content to phones already.

<comment><USER7> 'physical presence matters less than it used to.' Physical presence matters just as much as it always did, what's lacking is the appreciation of how much is being missed.

<comment><USER6> If a smile from a stranger can cheer you up, imagine being surrounded by familiar voices each giving you a friendly "hi" and then moving on. It's not especially meaningful but it's a great feeling. Maybe it's more valuable than the option of actually connecting with whoever happens to be physically present.

<comment><USER7> "Maybe it's more valuable than the option of actually connecting with whoever happens to be physically present."

That's where you and I disagree. Given the choice of minimal connections with those you know and fuller connections with those you don't know, I tend to prefer the latter.

Perhaps it helps to think about it like this. Everyone has something interesting about them, and whilst you might not like everyone you meet, you can at least learn something from them. Openness to meeting new people is a very positive thing (in my opinion).

<comment><USER8> I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. As a former anti-social-randian- nerd, I used to shun social interactions in favor of reading. But guess what? You can learn a whole lot of things just by having an honest conversation with a stranger. And despite the stress of initially approaching a stranger (and the few times your attempts get embarrassingly shot down), I would say that its worth it.

I was reflecting for a bit on why it made me feel better to be good at conversations. Maybe its the way society is set up. Or maybe I have genes which are the result of generations of my ancestors being social (which may have a very tangible benefit if you're living in a pre-modern society)

<comment><USER6> Being good at conversations would be nice. But since I'm not, I don't have much incentive to start one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think part of this trend has to do with the fact that many people tend to have fear/anxiety issues, when they have nothing to do. We have lost the capability to truly relax, even to bore ourselves. When we are not active, we worry, so we constantly distract ourselves from these feelings of anxiety.

Another example - a few years ago there was a huge trend of housewives playing Hidden-image games. It turns out that these games were so simple that people could do them in parallel with other tasks such as being on the phone, but they created a level of 'noise' that kept them from worrying about their lives. It's quasi electronic self-medication.

<comment><USER10> I think that a good deal of that fear/anxiety comes from the fact that people are expected to be more productive. If someone doesn't respond to an email immediately, we think the are not working or are being lazy.

I've recently noticed that I will often think about and come up with a solution to an issue at work while driving or eating dinner. I suspect this happens because I'm not being distracted by the problem. It also bothers me a little. If I worked in a factory assembling widgets, I would not be able to take my work home. You can't leave your brain at work if your job is mostly mental work.

<comment><USER11> _I think that a good deal of that fear /anxiety comes from the fact that people are expected to be more productive. If someone doesn't respond to an email immediately, we think the are not working or are being lazy._

A quick but possibly meaningless e-mail response doesn't constitute productivity. The expectation you describe is just one of availability (or working), while ignoring productivity or presenting real solutions.

<comment><USER12> Absolutely, but unfortunately, in many places of business `availability' is conflated with, or entirely replaces, `productivity'.

<comment><USER13> When you are a _resource_ , you're supposed to be _available_.

Would you not expect your _website_ to be _available_ all the time? Or _running water_? Or _electricity_?

<comment><USER14> _Available_ is indeed a key word. If someone is able to work from a connected location anywhere in the world, and they're at a connected location, are they _available_?

There are certainly some occupations, and some aspects of other occupations, that require a person to be at a very specific place at a very specific time (e.g. emergency room personnel). But there are also many, many jobs that do not inherently have a location and/or temporal requirement for the work to be successfully completed.

So my question to employers is whether it is more important for (a) work to be effectively completed within given time constraints ___or_ __(b) employees to have a physical presence, _particularly when the two are at odds_ (e.g., storm prevents someone from getting to work location, but the person can effectively work from their current location)?

edited: typo and clarification

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone." \- Blaise Pascal

Also, Louis CK on smartphones: [http://gawker.com/louis-c-k-s-explanation-of- why-he-hates-sm...](http://gawker.com/louis-c-k-s-explanation-of-why-he-hates- smartphones-is-1354954625)

<comment><USER16> Immediately thought of the same Louis CK bit from Conan.

Pascal's quote is revealing and shows that this problem is by no means a recent invention. Though I would wager that new technology has made it much, much easier to quickly distract ourselves from idleness.

<comment><USER17> I would argue technology has made it more obvious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Several times, this article mentions the notion - without really explaining it - that we have "anxiety of being understimulated."

I think I understand what the author means, but I'm not sure that's quite right. I agree with the main points that the author is making, but I wonder if this "culture of distraction" is really a symptom of an even larger problem. Consider the possibility that many of us are simply highly anxious just about all of the time, and that the distractions presented by wired life are things we seek out for relief on purpose. That is, that the distractions aren't the cause of the anxiety, but a symptom.

Maybe checking in with Twitter over and over again isn't "stimulation," maybe it's more like a narcotic. It helps us block out genuine, serious anxieties about money, jobs, work, family, and the future in general with easily- digested, glittery trivia.

One possible reason to think about the problem this way - although it may sound like a big change in subject at first - is antidepressant sales, which have been climbing for years and now stand at record levels. Clearly, for whatever reason, we've built a way of life for ourselves that leaves a huge percentage of us desperately unhappy and stressed out for an awful lot of the time.

Perhaps the explosion of smartphones and tablets, of portable, pocketable "brain stimulation" is, for many people, a form of self-medication. When you have a moment of downtime, and you have a chance to think about just how screwed you and your family are if your name comes up in this next round of layoffs, you can instead reach in your pocket and check out the latest celebrity scandal. When a free moment strikes and you find yourself wondering what sort of fascist nightmare future-US your children are going to be stuck with, you can instead check out the latest shiny aspirational gadgets.

Regardless of the cause, the "culture of distraction" is still a real phenomenon worth fighting, I think. But maybe we can fight it more successfully if we understand the causes more completely.

<comment><USER19> Good point, it can be a symptom of something larger. I think with ubiquitous communications and globalization, the world is just more _competitive_. This is very stressful, and can cause anxiety and depression.

Anecdote: I was just playing board games with my friends the other night. After 1.5 hours, I started panicking and feeling anxiety, so I excused myself. It felt wrong I guess, taking that much time off of work/study. Someone else might be outdoing me, right? Heh. I gotta say, I definitely didn't get this a decade ago.

For anyone who feels similar sometimes, it's important to develop methods to bring your mental state to something more manageable. I like to remind myself that even if this is true, the anxiety feelings aren't going to help me "compete" anyways, so might as well be calm and move on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This post is dripping with irony because it is, itself, a form of distraction. Why? Because it doesn't offer any objective evidence for it's assertions. It is prescriptive distraction, a kind of modern, well-meaning form of muckraking that is a kind of politically passive aggressive post-apocalyptic self-help piece. (Don't get me wrong, I love writing these sorts of things as much as the next guy, but I keep them in my private journal.)

The older I get the more skeptical I feel about any of my own attitudes that I don't have clear objective evidence for, especially the kind of vague forebodings that motivate this sort of piece. There are entire "hidden worlds" out there, where people are motivated by completely different things. "Ours is a culture of distraction." Which culture? There are so many cultures in the world, and even in the US, and even in Silicon Valley.

Yes, I too see people walking around with their eyes downcast at their phones, consumed by far-away happenings. And it certainly _feels_ like "we" are more disconnected from each other. But these are feelings, and should be treated as an impetus to look more deeply into the fact of the matter, rather than rush to diagnose and treat an ailment which you don't understand on any objective scale. And indeed, the first and best place to start looking is within yourself, and within your own life. Because the flip side to recognizing any kind of pan-cultural doom is living the alternative. That's the really cool thing about culture, is that it is not enforced by law, you can indeed break from it in very meaningful ways.

An article documenting your experience breaking from the culture, with the implicit message that you found something lacking and went on a search to find it, would be far more valuable than subjective analysis. Because, as fun as your subjective analysis is to read, without action it is merely distraction.

</comment><comment><USER21> I battle with this and one thing that's been helping me a lot is "Letting It Cool". By that I mean that I delay reading "new" things until they've had a chance to lose their "newness".

I've found that _newness_ is a false signal for value. Just because something is _new_ , we tend to errantly assign extra value to it.

You can combat this by removing the _new_ quality from the item by putting it somewhere where it can "cool down".

For me, I save all the articles I want to read for the weekend. I just email the articles to myself and they go in a special folder and that's where they cool off for a few days.

When you first start doing this, it is surprising how much some articles lose their perceived value over a few days. An article that I was really excited about when I first saw it will often induce a "meh" a few days later.

On the other hand, some articles still retain their value and appeal several days later.

I end up spending far fewer hours a week reading articles because of this method. It also helps to keep me focused since I don't let my mind wander to other topics during my work day.

This also works for other things like movies, tv shows, facebook, etc. If you want to see the true value of something, delay enjoying it until the newness has worn off. It helps reduce what you consume and increases the quality of what you do.

If your goal is to produce more and consume less, then this strategy can really help.

[http://devopsu.com/blog/productivity-tip-let-it- cool/](http://devopsu.com/blog/productivity-tip-let-it-cool/)

</comment><comment><USER22> "Smoking has gone out. To be sure, it is a shocking thing, blowing smoke out of our mouths into other people's mouths, eyes, and noses, and having the same thing done to us. Yet I cannot account, why a thing which requires so little exertion, and yet preserves the mind from total vacuity, should have gone out. Every man has something by which he calms himself: beating with his feet, or so."

Samuel Johnson, quoted in Boswell's *Tour of the Hebrides", entry for August 19.

</comment><comment><USER23> I desperately need to fix this.

Since I was a kid I was known to quickly get bored, and then read something, annoying teachers. But back then I could sit still at home and make levels for my favourite games hours at end

Now since I got this goddmn.smartphone for professional reasons ( got phone in 2011, but work making smartphone games since 2008) I am getting more and more easily distracted and anxious, there was even a day recently that I spent the whole day looking at Facebook, Wikipedia, Wikis, tvtropes, hn, newspapers, and other random shit, and when it was time to go home, I noticed that I never even opened my IDE :(

<comment><USER24> So basically your issue is you lack self control.

Sounds like a personal problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Powerful stuff. I've noticed that my "long form" mental focus has gradually declined, I believe beginning from about the time I began using a smartphone a couple of years ago. It's now so bad that if I can't improve it through developing good habits, I'll be ditching the smart phone for a dumb one, and finding other ways to curtail short-form reading and internet browsing :)

A relevant plug: My brother and I are developing a web app to help with this problem of distractedness. It's a to-do list manager that encourages mindfulness by helping you monitor procrastination and training your ability to steadily focus. Launching sometime this fall: [http://fleur.io](http://fleur.io)

<comment><USER13> I've found two things can keep this at bay: reading old-school dead-tree books, and meditation.

I am an avid reader who is quite fussy about _what_ he's reading. Everyone around me knows I read a lot, so of course what better present for my birthday than an e-reader, right?

Wrong. I can't use that stuff. It puts me in the Distracted Mode, whereas when I do serious reading, I need to be in the Focused Mode. E-stuff automatically flips on the Distracted switch. You know - the stumbleupon links, the reddit cats, the endless outpouring of youtube video mud. Old school books do the opposite.

Also, meditation is pretty much the polar opposite of twitter-driven thinking.

Things like The Long Now Foundation, and the book called Anathem by Neal Stephenson, are direct reactions and backlashes to the twitterification of the modern mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Scott Adams, author of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this before. He argues that we've effectively eliminated boredom and that it really isn't a good thing. Why? Because bored people are compelled to do stuff, whether it be creative thinking or seeking out a new experience. When boredom relief is cheap and readily-available then we lose the need for these things.

It's a great read: [http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/creativity/](http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/creativity/)

<comment><USER27> John Cleese's short (13min) lecture on creativity mentions this as well. Very entertaining, too.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijtQP9nwrQA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijtQP9nwrQA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> My personally theory is, that this development has been going on for thousands of years. As we find better ways to deliver messages, e.g. horses, pigeons, telegraph, telephone, eMail, twitter, our time horizon has apparently been shrinking accordingly. Think about the cathedrals which took hundreds of years to build. The mindset that was required for such undertakings seems almost alien now.

<comment><USER29> The person making the decision didn't actually have to work on the thing for a hundred years. If you think of them buying their way into heaven - or making a show of how religious they were - then it's really just a long-term insurance scheme that someone else is going to go on to manage the complexities of for them. I'm not sure that's really any different to paying a pension company that manages part of it's liabilities via long-term bonds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> While I agree that this is a phenomenon, it's too soon to tell how it will play out. It's not possible to be meaningfully productive if you're unable to focus, so this could just be a function of the ages which are represented. Perhaps they'll learn through the requirements of higher education? I've regularly espoused that the biggest advantage to hiring someone with a degree is that they've shown that they can complete a pointless task that they don't enjoy.

Direct link to video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzpX0TLKS9Q](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzpX0TLKS9Q)

<comment><USER23> Not necessarily, some people might finish a degree and get access to broadband and smartphones after it for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > One step, I think, is to take a weekly holiday from your devices.

You have just lost. Denying yourself something is not a viable way to avoid it. (Don't think about elephants.)

There are only two solutions here. Either become someone else, change yourself so that you do not crave it any more, or displace it with something else.

If you want to be fit, or at least less flabby, the psychologically viable route is to tell yourself "I am the kind of person who does 50 pushups after getting out of bed in the morning." Or, "I am the kind of person who cooks his own low-carb meals." And then actually become that person.

If you don't want to stare at your phone in a public place, displace that behaviour with something else. "Instead of mindlessly browsing HN, I'll go talk to that cute chick at the end of the bar." Or even just "I will meditate, I will think about nothing but my breathing while waiting for that coffee." Though that might be even weirder than playing with your smartphone.

<comment><USER32> Sure, but maybe you only have so much willpower to work with ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion)). It's really interesting how it _really is_ just as easy as making a decision, or just telling yourself something, but so many of us fail so often to do that kind of thing. This is something that bothers me deeply. This failure to do what we know we ought to demonstrates the tension which comes from this struggle between thinking we're really in control when we might not be. Interesting conflict there. Definitely worth thinking about - or ignoring entirely.

Anyways, that doesn't have any impact on other people doing the phone thing. It's a lot easier to not be nose-deep in your phone when other people are engaging with you. I find that most people settle into the "trance" based on whether other people are on their phones. The people who start the "trance" are often preoccupied or just plain rude.

Another facet to this is that we just don't know where this is going. Is it a step forwards or backwards. Hard to say that it looks like a good thing, but many of us didn't grow up with it - what will the story be like in 50 years? None of us has a clue, to be honest.

Anyways, I think what it comes down to is the "responsible use" cliche. There are so many constructive things you can do with technology. But here we all are, reading these comments which don't matter and are just random people screaming into the void. Shit.

<comment><USER31> > maybe you only have so much willpower to work with

That's one of the reasons why simply denying yourself won't work. Hence the trick.

It takes no willpower to do pushups for someone who does pushups. That's just who he is. Now, go be that person. Or, pretend you are. I'm sure you've seen some movie where the guy works out every morning? Ocean's Twelve, Fracture, whatever. Pretend to be him.

> It's a lot easier to not be nose-deep in your phone when other people are > engaging with you.

You have no control over what other people do. But you have a nearly total control over what you do. Then go engage with someone nose-deep in their phone.

Here's the thing, whatever crazy app they have, it's not that interesting. In fact, the interaction with their phone brings so little value that you don't even need to chat them up, just looking at someone for three seconds will likely grab their attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Careful or you will destroy all the social app crap that makes this website profitable.

</comment><comment><USER34> It's not simply that we're constantly hunting for information. It's that too much information is crap. We use Facebook to find out what our best friend watched on television this week, read some blog about "10 secrets of successful entrepreneurs" (they really aren't secret), then head over to our favorite news site to have our political opinions affirmed by pundits.

The advertising revenue model gives the media incentives to make lots of cheap, addictive information. They don't have an incentive to make quality information. So we get what we pay for.

I have vowed to spend less time consuming and more time doing. It's hard. I cave in often. But I recommend it.

<comment><USER35> We use Facebook to find out what our best friend watched on television this week rather than calling up our best friend, going out to dinner with them, and taking about what they watched on TV this week.

Faceboook is very superficial interaction. I liken it to people shouting into a crowded room.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Distraction and technology are related, insofar that technology _allows_ for distraction, but it does not mandate it.

The mistaken assumption is that a person must be "distracted" by one's phone, when that may not be the case at all. Since when was reading a magazine being "distracted", or reading a book being "distracted"? Why is playing a video game considered a distraction?

The facts presented in this article, and the conclusions drawn by this article are orthogonal. Yes, we're bad at multitasking, and yes, people out in the world are buried in their phones more and more, but the connection between multitasking and looking at my phone isn't there.

Besides, why do I have to be particularly _good_ when I'm playing Angry Birds or reading HN? I don't care if I'm performing 10 IQ points or 40% worse than if I were checking my text messages in a park by myself.

The article makes another false assumption that we must always be at our best whenever we do something, which is _also_ untrue. Sure, I could use my slow, deliberate mental system to make all my choices, and I'd be immensely slow but very accurate. Or, I could use my fast, intuitive mental system to make quick, if less accurate decisions that _usually_ get me where I want to be, or in a position I want to be in. I don't need to use my whole brain to hold a conversation with a friend, and I don't need to use my whole brain to wait in line for fish and chips.

There is an anxiety towards seemingly doing nothing, and it's well founded. The author talks about anxiety like it's the enemy, when in reality it's a necessary motivator.

</comment><comment><USER37> A few months ago, I had a brief exchange over Twitter with an artist from perhaps my favorite band:

[https://twitter.com/edwarddroste/status/343418176454926337](https://twitter.com/edwarddroste/status/343418176454926337)

"Maybe they're trying to catch your latest tweet?" was the reply that I wanted to send, but I didn't want to come off as cheeky to someone I revered.

Is the article not a distraction in itself? Sure enough, I came upon it this morning while I was browsing Twitter from my bed. The article itself is over 2000 words long; some of those words being a transcript from a 15 minute video. Now here I am commenting on it; taking up additional time from my day to formulate these points rather than attending to other things; reinforcing the dissonant relevance and irony of the points that the article is making. This article on distraction is a distraction in itself, and my viewership was predicated on finding it on a distracting service used from a distracting device. I found it and read it because I didn't have anything subjectively better to do at the time.

I'm OK with this.

</comment><comment><USER38> This has been on my mind through internships at several major silicon valley social networking companies. There's a line of thinking in the industry that, when revenue is driven by ad impressions, driving more interactions with your product is the highest goal. This means two things: getting more users (fine) and driving more interactions per user (dangerous).

</comment><comment><USER39> Posted the guy on the blog with the RSS, twitter, email links prominently at top right.

There is an assumption that those things he laments are functional parts of today's and tomorrow's world. Maybe he's just really boring and people would rather watch a stream of bullshit tweets than discuss the weather with him... because he seems a bit of a malcontent or judgmental.

One person's distraction is another's attention and purpose. It's the outsider watching the 'distracted' trivializing the value of the benefits that the actor is receiving. How smug.

Context is everything. Opinions are nothing. Smartphones only fail at optimizing the bandwidth of purposeful living in so much as those information flows have not been built out.

If people are anxious about the next packet that comes to them, it might be that they feel unsatisfied with the company and activities before them. People aren't being distracted by the devices. They are hunting for higher purpose.

</comment><comment><USER40> The funniest part is that this "culture of distraction" is so neglictible today compared to what it will be in 50 or 100 years.

"Remember 2013 when we didn't have those lenses showing continuous news feed? When we didn't have 360° vision camera wired directly to our brain? Back then our attention span was sooo high"

</comment><comment><USER41> I think our human desire for constant attention, feedback, approval, communication, collaboration, instant satisfaction, etc. has always been there. But now technology has caught up.

Perhaps though the pendulum will swing back the other way if technology enables us to get too much instant, constant attention?

<comment><USER42> I don't think it's 'perhaps', as much as 'eventually'. One defining characteristic of human (USA at least) generations is their absolute burning desire to find fault in the social norms of the previous generation.

It stands to reason that the next generation or the one after will take it a step back from smart phones and everything instantly accessible simply because that's what their parents or grandparents thought was cool.

You're already seeing this - hipsters are entranced by the pastoral - <USER2> chickens/livestock, city farms, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> When "The Net Is a Waste of Time"[1] (an editorial by William Gibson) was discussed[2] on Hacker News:

      > The winning quote: "[sic] surfing the Web is a procrastinator's dream. And people
      > who see you doing it might even imagine you're working."
      > - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262229

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/14/magazine/the-net-is-a- wast...](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/14/magazine/the-net-is-a-waste-of- time.html)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5261676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5261676)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not convinced this is new. How would one go about showing that it is?

</comment><comment><USER44> Mindfulness meditation[1] is an old but very effective way of training the mind to recognize distractions. I agree with the article that the opportunities for distraction are at an all-time high, but the human brain has not changed much in the last few millenia, and the problem of being distracted is almost certainly as old as the first time a person desired to contemplate something. To someone who wishes to devote a significant portion of their day to contemplation (e.g. a Buddhist monk), _any_ distraction can be a setback, and the so-called "monkey mind"[2] is awfully persistent.

Being able to recognize that you are being pulled away from your object of focus is the essential first step to reduce both the frequency and length of distractions. This is one of the goals of mindfulness meditation. Personally, I have found that the simple act of being able to catch myself in the midst of a distraction has improved my ability to focus.

After spending time practicing mindfulness, I have developed a wonderful skill of being able to "switch off" a racing mind and pull myself back down to the task at hand (or to simply pull myself out of an anxious state of mind and into a pleasant one). Importantly, practicing this during 15 minutes of daily meditation has enabled me to do this during any of the other ~1000 waking minutes of each day. The first time I noticed myself do this "automatically" outside of meditation, I was amazed that I was able to cultivate such a skill.

If you are interested in a good primer on mindfulness and how to actually go about meditation, I recommend _Mindfulness in Plain English_.[3] I recommend it whenever the subject comes up and I'm sure very few people read it, but it had enough of an effect on me that I would not want others to miss out.

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

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

[3] [http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/mindfulness_in_plain_english....](http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/mindfulness_in_plain_english.pdf)

<comment><USER45> Another one : [http://www.siyli.org/take-the-course/siy- curriculum/](http://www.siyli.org/take-the-course/siy-curriculum/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Is it that much different to reading a newspaper/mag/book or watching the shop's TV while waiting for fish and chips?

I'm the first to be pissed when people I'm hanging out with start fiddling with their phone but I'm also the first to fiddle with my phone if I have a spare minute waiting for something and there is nobody to offend.

When going out to dinner or a bar, I like the idea of everyone stacking their phones on the table. Everyone time someone can't resist touching their phone they have to shout a round of drinks.

</comment><comment><USER47> There's nothing really new in this talk but I have to say it was well- delivered. Well enough that I want to really resolve to keep my phone in my pocket whenever I'm with someone - even if they get up from the table. It's of course unconscionable to start tapping around while you're in the middle of a conversation, but I'm very well-acquainted with the impulse to check facebook or email as soon as a friend goes to the bathroom. I'll really try to capture that valuable mind-wandering time.

</comment><comment><USER48> Distracted from what? If we're distracted from socialization, its probably that whoever we're socializing isn't that interesting. No longer thinking/pondering? I use those mindless games to 'ponder'\- They are simple enough it doesn't take much mental process to play, but leaves enough for me to think about what needs to be thought out (problems, the day, world problems, etc). The same arguments he's made have been made about books for centuries.

</comment><comment><USER49> I just wanted to say that Joe Kraus did an awesome job at keeping my attention and presenting his ideas. It is extremely odd how much people rely on phones, but I think it's deeper that that and it's actually the internet that is the fundamental issue. Yes, it's a great resource; it's a great source of entertainment, knowledge and potential power. But for something that could be described as intangible it seems to be quite detrimental to us as a society.

</comment><comment><USER50> earlier discussion on HN: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4710217](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4710217)

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm sure there's some danger in all this distraction but I also think that people really weren't that interesting and interested before smartphones. Smart and creative people will always find ways to do smart and creative things but lots of people just look for distraction in whatever form they can find.

The point about kids is an important one, though. Smartphone-parents do set a bad example for their kids.

</comment><comment><USER52> You can't blame a "smartphone" for the distraction. It is merely a tool. People don't like to think or create, they like to consume. The smartphone is the best tool for consumption. I try to chose when I want to interact with my phone. Sometimes that means ignoring texts or calls, and turning off notifications. Not perfect but it is a start.

</comment><comment><USER53> I experience this. But my addiction is for information, technical articles, scientific papers in mathematics, physics, machine learning, biology. Now I can do it all on my phone anywhere, anytime. Texting and social media are of little interest to me... Do you think this is still something I should worry about?

</comment><comment><USER54> Hmmm, this appears to be an insightful article. I think I'll read it thoro-- oooh, coffee's done!

<comment><USER14> I do love my latte in the ... squirrel!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> What is this "are creating"? We've had one for decades. We've refined it tremendously over the last 50+ years, by taking advantage of new technological achievements, but the fundamentals have been in place a lot longer than the article's author seems to think.

<comment><USER56> Yeah, Neil Postman wrote about this same basic issue in his book _Amusing Ourselves to Death_ ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death)), and that came out nearly 30 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This resonates so much with me and my kids. On Saturday when school is out, they'll spend 80+% of their day engaging with one screen or another. And during my non-work time, blogs and forums (ahem), online news and magazines are where I end up spending a lot of time...

<comment><USER35> Maybe your family should try what the person in the video has, a weekly "non- screen" day where everyone turns off their cellphones, computers, and TVs. Your kids might object at first, but it will be good for them in the long run.

<comment><USER48> Wouldn't that just open up the family to be 'distracted' by something else? If the family wants social time, yes, there should be a social time set up for games or mutual activity, but otherwise it will just open up for kids to be distracted with books. I've heard very social parents complain that their kids rather read than go play with other kids (and been complaint since books/learning has been around). I knit to keep my hands busy when watching anything or in church listening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> interesting point about the notifications from cellphones being random (and thus addictive like gambling). Perhaps mine would be less random if I were to use the "different sounds for different people" feature...

</comment><comment><USER59> to play devil's advocate (I don't necessarily believe this; I just don't know) - why is this necessarily a problem? For example, one possibility is: Over time, an increased culture of distraction will through social selection filter itself out into "improved multitasking ability". There are always growing pains associated with any seismic shift in society, especially those created by technology. What makes this one different, or are you someone who laments that time given over to learn cursive is now used to teach children to type?

</comment><comment><USER60> Phone can be switched off. The real problem are open-plane offices.

<comment><USER13> Nah. There's a reason why god invented headphones. :)

<comment><USER61> To save others some time:

Inventor of headphones: Nathaniel Baldwin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> This is one of the major problems pointed out in Noam Chomskys manufacturing of consent (1992). Its a really nice documentary. I think the entire thing is uploaded to youtube

</comment><comment><USER63> Fully agree with the title. But haven't read fully - too many characters, don't want to distract that much from the current tasks :)

</comment><comment><USER64> I hope the irony of this story being posted on Hacker News isn't lost on everyone. :-)

</comment><comment><USER65> TL;Look a cat!!!

</comment><comment><USER66> More first world problems..

</comment><comment><USER67> tl;dr

</comment><comment><USER68> This is why I walk. I don't drive, or even have a car. I do my best thinking when I walk and my mind is free to roam. VOW of NOW[1], Summon the Warrior[2] and my upcoming Self Experiments[3] are all products of walking and gap time.

Not only does walking spark creativity, but I've met a lot of new people this way.

[1] [http://vowofnow.com](http://vowofnow.com) [2] [http://summonthewarrior.com](http://summonthewarrior.com) [3] [http://selfexperiments.com](http://selfexperiments.com)

<comment><USER69> I think driving is a less distracting experience than walking

<comment><USER70> It's contextual. If you walk or drive in a disrupting location you won't be able to wander or think. Taking the bus works sometimes when they're almost empty. One disappointing thing I learned is that the less efficient is biking, I thought I'd be able to day dream while riding but it's the fastest path to injuries.

<comment><USER71> Depends on where you live - I grew up in the countryside of the Netherlans, which has excellent biking infrastructure, almost no traffic, and a calm environment in general. Biking to and from school every day was very good for my mind.

<comment><USER70> Probably, but then you must ride slowly, otherwise not paying attention can lead to collision.

<comment><USER71> Nah, did 18 kilometers in 45 minutes every morning.

There's really, _really_ little traffic, and it's mostly long straight roads.

<comment><USER70> Oh okay then, the main bike lane in my area has regular curves and vicious intersections, with people/kids walking by. I don't stare at girls anymore since I don't like kissing trees that much.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Year's Worth of Opinions about Objective-C - <AUTHOR> http://twistedoakstudios.com/blog/Post8237_a-years-worth-of-opinions-about-objective-c <comment><USER2> I actually like the way nil is treated. I'm not a big fan of writing code with guards all the time like this:

// As in C#/Java if (obj != null) { obj.doSomething(); }

At least in javascript it's easier with the && operator:

str && str.doSomething();

In Obj-C you can just:

[str doSomething]; // If you really care if it happened or not, then introduce a check for nil

Once you get used to the idea that nil doesn't break your code, you start writing your methods accordingly.

For me, a lot of the stuff you write about (ARC, Blocks, literals) are the great improvements to the language.

Before ARC you had C/C++ like control of the memory and you could do some crazy stuff like an object holding on to itself and then committing suicide (pretty useful actually). With ARC you _only_ have to care about retain cycles and declaring weak/strong pointers. It's an awesome feature for a non-GC environment.

Blocks are truly the biggest change in Obj-C and made the code much easier to develop. Any async task is now easy to deal with. Alongside GCD, multi- threading is made simple.

What I'm really trying to say is that from the first iPhone OS to iOS7, we've seen some major improvements to the language. If it continues at the same pace, you'll might like it more in your next year's review.

<comment><USER3> There are some annoying circumstances where you still have to check for nil, so it's not exactly consistent. For example:

1\. Adding nil to an array triggers an exception.

2\. Trying to set a dictionary key/value pair with nil for either value triggers and exception. It'd be more consistent with other parts of the code base if setting a nil value unset that particular key.

3\. Calling a block storage variable that's nil will crash.

It'd be nice if these all were no-ops too.

<comment><USER4> It is consistent though.

Sending a message to nothing gets your nothing. Adding nothing to something that expects something causes an exception.

<comment><USER3> I suppose it depends on what you consider consistent (i.e., all nil operations should be no-ops or just message-sending operations), but that only covers 1 and 2. Trying to invoke a nil block still crashes.

<comment><USER5> That's because blocks aren't completely objective-c objects. They can act like them in some cases, but underneath they are still C based. That's why you pass NULL instead of nil to specify an empty block.

<comment><USER6> All of Objective-C is C based in the end. Blocks are completely Objective-C objects. Attempting to call a NULL block crashes not because blocks aren't Objective-C objects, but because block invocation is not a message send.

Note that accessing an instance variable of a nil Objective-C object pointer will also crash, e.g.:

        obj->_ivar;

That's obviously not because Objective-C objects aren't Objective-C objects. The crash when calling a nil block is the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm considering writing a similar post. For me the biggest write was how steep the learning curve for the whole Cocoa (referring mostly to UIKit, but also to a few other pieces) shebang was. It's not even that the system is badly designed (arguably it could be a lot better though) but that the documentation is so so bad. API docs are okay, but don't give you the big picture. Their reference guide, on the other hand are so abstract and 1000-mile high that you don't really get practical value out of them.

After that, the system with small inconsistencies, imprecise documentation and undocumented behaviour. In short, it's not very "systematic". You don't feel there's a well thought-out system that will allow you to predict what will happen. This is especially true when talking about layout, but also other things such how views / controllers interact. There's not a culture of "best practices", so interfacing with someone else's UI libraries can be hell.

@Author: Any thoughts about this?

<comment><USER8> I haven't done enough UIKit stuff to really comment on it, other than to say I also still find a lot of the conventions confusing or at least weird and also find that the documentation fails to answer my questions.

I also don't get the distinction between a UIView and a UIControllerView. In C# land I always associated view=.xaml and controller=.cs. In obj-c land both views and view controllers have a .xib and .m/.h, so it's not clear to me how responsibilities are divided.

<comment><USER9> A view can be a scene in a storyboard file, a xib file, or you can create your views programmatically (.m and .h).

A view controller is always a .m and .h.

And if you're not following the MVC pattern you can put your view code in your view controller's loadView/viewDidLoad method.

<comment><USER8> Thanks, that's actually a helpful thing to mention and obvious in hindsight. A view controller can be the _owner_ of a .nib but not the _class_ of a .nib, so the .nib is never a view controller.

Are there particular divisions of responsibility that come up w.r.t. what you put in a view's .m/.h vs what you put in the controller's .m/.h? Is the .m/.h of a view considered to be a controller in the MVC sense but not in the UIViewController sense?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't intend to belittle the author's writeup of their experience with Objective-C. I've been working with the language off and on for over ten years, now, and have been working almost exclusively in it professionally for the last 3 or 4, and I have a ton of complaints about it. But...

With one exception, I feel like this entire post could be summed up as 'I don't like dynamic languages, static typing FTW!' The one exception is with regard to merging pbxproj files, which, I agree, is a fantastically awful experience. The only worse experience I have ever had working with this stack is in trying to merge XIBs (short answer: just don't even bother trying).

<comment><USER6> Getting off topic, but have you seen the new xib format in Xcode 5? It's totally different and _way_ better. I haven't actually tried merging one yet, but I'm highly optimistic for when it comes up.

<comment><USER10> No, I haven't. I'm guessing you have to either explicitly upgrade your existing XIBs to it, or recreate them? Thanks for the head's up, I'll check it out.

Also, thanks again for the ridiculously awesome blog. It's been one of my favorite reads for years.

edit: OK, I had a chance to check out the file format. This looks far more sane and human-readable than it has in the past.

Related: I will happily pay $100 to anyone for a piece of software that has an auto layout constraint generator that works with XIB files and doesn't suck.

<comment><USER6> I think you have to manually convert existing ones. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but I think there's a popup in the right-side info pane that lets you choose which Xcode version (and thus which format) you want to use for the xib.

Glad you like the blog!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In defense of ObjC's type system (which is the author's major gripe).

It is a duck-typed language. This is the philosophy that "if it walks like a duck... it's a duck." This is the philosophy used by lots of modern languages like Python, Ruby, and JS.

Meanwhile there is the statically-typed system, which wants you to declare things to be ducks explicitly (or to pick up a duck declaration through an inheritance system). This is the philosophy used by Java, C++, etc.

Anyway, the author's gripe isn't with ObjC's types. The author's gripe is with any duck-typed system. The whole point of these type systems is to avoid providing any strong guarantees about types. If you want strong typing, use a strongly-typed language. C++ may align better with this author's programming ideology.

It's also worth pointing out that runtime type checks are, all else being equal, slow. ObjC is used primarily in mobile environments where speed is a concern. As the author discovered, you can opt in to type checking by using NSAssert. This forces you to think about whether the cost of a dynamic type check is acceptable. NSAsserts are also disabled by default in release builds, so this gives you checking when you need them (development) and speed when you don't (production).

C++'s type system is deliberately constructed in such a way that the compiler can do the bulk of the type enforcement, which is much faster than runtime type checking. Alternately stated, this means that the programmer must write code in such a way that the compiler can infer/enforce type checks, or else they will get type errors. The author's complaints about not enough compiler errors seem to suggest to me that he would be more at home in a language like C++ that is specifically designed for this purpose.

<comment><USER12> > If you want strong typing, use a strongly-typed language.

Unfortunately in iOS development, we don't have a good alternative to ObjC.

<comment><USER11> Well _good_ is debatable but arguably C++ meets this criteria. I work on many iOS codebases that have C++ layers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a C# dev without a real project for the iPhone, I couldn't get past how cluttered the same code looked.

It would be nice to hear how the class library compared to VCL.

<comment><USER8> Assuming you mean the BCL (base class library).

In my experience, the BCL is more comprehensive. For example, the iOS framework lacks a built-in queue or a sorted list (as far as I know).

One thing Obj-C does have, that I miss in C#, is equality methods defined for collections. You can compare the contents of arrays and sets and dictionaries without writing any special code or using special methods. (Although you can break it by creating cyclical structures, since it does naive recursion instead of unification.)

<comment><USER14> _the iOS framework lacks a built-in queue_

The convention for this sort of thing is to use an NSArray, inserting at position 0 to enqueue and removing the last object to dequeue. The NSArray class _is_ actually written in a way that makes this efficient (for some great analysis see [http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/array.html](http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/array.html)).

 _or a sorted list (as far as I know)_

For sorted lists, I think you're right, you'd have to do it yourself.

The question a Cocoa old-hand might ask would be if you _really_ need it to be always-sorted, or if you can keep your objects in an array, dictionary or set and sort them before using or iterating - or maybe just iterate the collection in a specific order instead of sorting it at all.

If you do need to keep it sorted all the time, note that _inserting_ into an NSArray is also more efficient than you might assume. Keeping a sorted NSArray up to date yourself might not be expensive (it would be a bit more complicated than an auto-sorting class though, of course).

<comment><USER4> You have to sort it yourself, but it's super easy.

For NSArray's:

        NSArray * sortedArray=[array sortedArrayUsingComparator:^NSComparisonResult(id obj1, id obj2) {
            // your code here
        }];

For NSMutableArray's:

        [marray sortUsingComparator:^NSComparisonResult(id obj1, id obj2) {
            // your code here
        }];

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So Objective C is not what you're used to? Awh... It's no secret that Objective C software is generally richer and more robust, thanks exactly to its "strange" differences. Sure it takes effort to learn a new way of doing things but if you're willing, you'll soon realize it was worth it. Dynamic and compiled is a great combination.</comment>


Red Hat engineer renews attack on Windows 8-certified secure boot - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/26/uefi_linux_lock_out_row_latest/ <comment><USER2> A great passage from Matthew's post:

Microsoft claim that the customer is in control of their PC. That's true, if by "customer" they mean "hardware manufacturer". The end user is not guaranteed the ability to install extra signing keys in order to securely boot the operating system of their choice. The end user is not guaranteed the ability to disable this functionality. The end user is not guaranteed that their system will include the signing keys that would be required for them to swap their graphics card for one from another vendor, or replace their network card and still be able to netboot, or install a newer SATA controller and have it recognise their hard drive in the firmware. The end user is no longer in control of their PC.

<comment><AUTHOR> Look at product from company with eaten fruit on the logo. How much can you change there?

<comment><USER3> Apple sells both the hardware and the OS that runs on it, they own the whole stack and thus can do pretty much what they want with it. Even so I don't think there are any problems installing a Linux distro on any Mac, and Windows is directly supported by Apple via bootcamp.

Microsoft only owns the OS part of the stack, and this move, combined with some shady back room dealing or just relying on plain old OEM incompetence, could potentially prevent you booting any other OS on hardware they don't own or manufacture themselves.

<comment><USER4> > _I don't think there are any problems installing a Linux distro on any Mac_

None whatsoever. In at least Ubuntu's case, you need do little more on modern Intel Macs than insert the CD and reboot. If you want to keep OS X around (and have a few other goodies), install rEFIt first for better partition and boot management.

In some ways, dual-booting Linux and OS X is less problematic than Linux and Windows has ever been.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are two things I've not heard from Red Hat on this issue:

1) The (in)validity of the approach in terms of addressing the problem/need for secure OS boot. 2) An alternative approach for achieving the same result.

The practicality of the situation is this: in evaluating a trade-off between running Win8 securely on a PC/device vs. being able to install another OS on said device, the significant majority of users are going to forego the other- OS-install capability.

</comment><comment><USER6> Direct link to the relevant blog post; <http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5850.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> If RedHat is right, does that mean you would not be able to install Windows 7 on a Windows 8 certified PC? I imagine that could be very annoying to corporate IT departments that don't want to upgrade to Win8 (at least not right away) but still need to buy new hardware.

</comment><comment><USER8> Personally speaking, so long as I can turn off secure boot, I don't really have a problem with it.

<comment><USER9> That's the real question... if you can turn it off, there isn't much of a problem. However, if you turn it off to install Linux, can you turn it back on to dual-boot Windows 8? If you can't, how many people will just stick to Windows?

<comment><USER10> I used to dual-boot, it wasn't hard, but having to reboot was still inconvenient. Today the hardware is cheap enough that I just run two separate systems side-by-side; it is more convenient and the two computers and two flat-screen monitors together cost less than my first computer did without a monitor.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Prioritizing interests - <AUTHOR> I find myself drawn to several things at the same time - Wanting to join a finance firm and be a quant, wanting to be a better software developer, wanting to go to grad school to get a PhD, or maybe become a PM and hopefully startup something soon. I'm not an incredibly talented guy, but I have decent logical abilities and I feel my hardworking nature would take care of the rest. However, given our limited lifetimes, you cannot do everything. How do you prioritize your interests/goals? I'm fairly confident that several other people feel drawn towards the things the same way as I am. How do you decide what to focus on at any point of life? <comment><USER2> I'm interested in the answer to this question as it's giving me massive grief (along with regret of not having done X Y and Z already -- I could've had a PhD by now!...) and I'm seeing a psychologist about it.

I want to do a Masters in Computer Science and study computer vision (whatever uni I can actually do that at).

But also, I want to give acting a shot!

And I have three or four ideas for a startup or kickstarter!

But I really wanna try living overseas!

But at the same time I pretty much need to work full time to pay rent.

How do I pick something to do when even one thing plus work seems exhausting?</comment>


Digital Enhancement Of Amateur Plane Crash Site Footage In Smolensk - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEx7HL4H5yk

<comment><USER2> Let me just say, none of what is claimed in the subtitles is actually audible in the presented recording. The only recognizable part is "ни хуя себе", and contrary to subtitles it's not "we'll never get away with this" but loosely along the lines of "fuck me harder".

</comment><comment><USER3> There is quite a long discussion about it here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-1...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash)

There is a lot of healthy skepticism and some debunking of wrong translations

</comment><comment><USER4> What was the point of this on HN? Conspiracy theories are down the hall, third on the left. We saw a seriously wobbly, low quality video, something inaudible spoken in a foreign language and that's about it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone provide context for this? I know this is the presidential plane crash, but what am I supposed to understand from looking at this? Some conspiracy to kill survivors?

<comment><USER2> That, and probably an assumption that the whole plane crash thing was carried out by Russians. There is a tiny fraction of Polish populace who find that more comfortable than the idea of accident caused by excessive frugality combined with incompetence.</comment></comment>


Bluetooth Low Energy Swiss-Army Knife - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/virtualabs/btlejack <comment><USER2> Using Hacker News as a mechanical engineer with not much interest in software sometimes leads to cases where I misinterpret article titles.

I was very excited to find out how and why anybody would put BLE into a literal multi tool!

<comment><USER3> > Person 1: BLE in a Swiss-Army Knife.. what can you do with that?

> Person 2: Take a look.

"Your Swiss-Army Knife is now connected"

> Person 1: Nice.

> Person 2: Nice.

<comment><USER4> Imagine it connects to your phone and reports temperature, tilt, humidity, its location, works as a compass (Why not use the phone directly? Well maybe I need to monitor the trailer I am trying to get level as I adjust the front wheel?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've only used Ubertooth [0] to sniff BLE. I was not very impressed with its ability to follow connections (it would frequently miss the connection exchange due to channel hopping).

Can using multiple micro:bits at once with BTLEJack increase the success rate?

Most BLE diagnostic equipment that guarantees capture of all traffic costs over $10k.

[0] - [https://github.com/greatscottgadgets/ubertooth](https://github.com/greatscottgadgets/ubertooth)

<comment><USER6> Same here. We've been using Ubertooth One and it was not a pleasant experience. Certainly cheap and easy to set up, but with very mixed results. Not only does it miss connections due to the channel hopping, it also frequently loses connections, which is even more frustrating.

We've had the privilege to know someone with a professional wide-band solution (Ellisys Bluetooth Explorer), and it was miles ahead, including the analysis software.

Disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with Ellisys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are ble connections neither encrypted nor authenticated? How on Earth does the connection hijacking work so simplistically?

<comment><USER8> My understanding is the initial handshake is not terribly secure, and sniffers watching that can obtain the long term key used by the pair forever.

But I gather a third party can force a handshake refresh at will, which may be what they're doing here. Code's available. : )

<comment><USER9> False, basically on every count.

This attack has zero effect on connections established using mitm-protected paring method. This attack is a non-event to any device that follows proper security design as per BT spec

<comment><USER10> There are vulnerabilities in the "standard" LE pairing, even with MITM, that make these things possible.

Fixed with the BT LE Secure Connections key exchange, but many devices don't implement that

<comment><USER9> Please cite

<comment><USER11> [https://www.digikey.com/eewiki/display/Wireless/A+Basic+Intr...](https://www.digikey.com/eewiki/display/Wireless/A+Basic+Introduction+to+BLE+Security)

(Heading: Pairing Methods for LE Secure Connections (4.2 devices only))

<comment><USER9> That talks about 4.2 pairing methods. I'm looking for a citation claiming that 4.1 pairing method is in any way insecure

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Would this work on Tesla Model 3's phone key system?

[https://www.tesla.com/support/model-3#phone- key](https://www.tesla.com/support/model-3#phone-key)

</comment><comment><USER13> Cool! I have been using a Nordic BLE sniffer for reverse engineering fitness bands, which is awful because it's only half duplex. Can't wait to try this out.</comment>


Google Is Making Android as Difficult to Hack as iPhone–and Cops Are Suffering - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/05/23/google-keeping-cops-out-of-android-like-apple/#73f1bdd318cc <comment><USER2> And... I don't feel bad for the cops at all about this. Really they need to go back to good old fashion police work instead of this kind of sting and sweep operation.

They caught the guy selling. Charge him, don't use that as an excuse to open a fishing expedition on his life. Warrants are supposed to be specific, and since there can be certain unknowns about physical locations prior to issuing then courts for a long time have allowed this to be somewhat vague. For a specific phone the warrant should identify it specifically by serial number or imei or some other thing that specifically identifies that device. When searching it again should be specific as to what and where they are looking. Really what we should be doing is having a detailed third party post review of all these warrants to determine the truth of the matter that was sworn too. When the law is used to override a persons rights there needs to be harsh accountably.

Police using this argument of, they are bad therefore we need to stop it, is eroding freedoms and privacy. There is far too much of the ends justify the means going on in modern law enforcement. Our courts are far to slow to catch up and understand the technology.

Sad thing is that people who aren't "bad" don't see a problem with this overreach because it's unlikely to directly effect them, and when it does people will pass it off as an anomaly.

Anyone who has their life subjected to an open ended investigation will be found to have engaged in crimes.

<comment><USER3> It's almost unsporting. But these people aren't "'bad,'" they're meth dealers, and part of protecting innocent people is investigating crimes.

If the phone search reveals information identifying other drug dealers, that's a good thing.

In some sense a decent compromise is that the phone search can only be used for evidence about other people. But only in the sense that it's unsporting. There's another option: don't commit crimes. It's pretty easy to not be a drug dealer. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is about protecting people from harassment, trespass, and invasion of privacy -- not to protect them from the law.

<comment><USER2> It is exactly about protection from the law. I think you should reread my last sentence. You are making the ends justify the means argument, that always ends up in a police state.

Warrants require probable cause. Without post review accountably we can not be certain that all parties are acting properly. On occasions warrants and the evidence collected will be tossed out during trial. Is our law enforcement held accountable for that? My research says no, they are shielded from it and thus there is no downside for bad warrants.

Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in to a very expensive legal defence. Consider the more money the state spends on an investigation the more pressure there is to indict people regardless of actual crimes. Here is a prime example of this kind of crazy overreach. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial)

Yes, he's a drug dealer and people should not break the law, but as you begin to investigate everything, everyone is a criminal.

<comment><USER3> He got caught selling meth, that's probable cause for searching his phone for evidence of other crimes. For example, where did he get the meth? What were his prior locations?

> Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The > police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, > and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in > to a very expensive legal defence.

I have had friends who were drug dealers and I didn't know it. Somehow this didn't result in the gestapo breaking into my house, when they got busted by the police. Police have investigated crimes involving people that have friends for over a century, so I don't buy your hypothetical scenario.

<comment><USER2> They did not specify the place or the items in the warrant. That's a big deal. On an electronic device you can be very specific as to what you're looking for not an open ended everything on this nonspecific device.

Please read the link I posted if you blindly trust our Justice system to always do what's right. There are counter examples to your anecdote.

<comment><USER3> Operating by citing individual examples is dysrationalism. There is a trade- off here, with an entirely different kind of police state formed when the law can't track down organized crime because you won't even let it look at evidence rightfully in its possession.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Back when apple was in news for going up against the FBI and refusing to build a custom OS to help decrypt phones, Qualcomm had an all-hands meeting where somebody asked the president of QCT what Qualcomm's policy was for decrypting phones for governments.

Christiano Amon was very candid. I don't remember his exact words but it was along the lines of "if the police come asking for something, it's a good idea to give it to them"

Having watched that response first hand, I'm deeply skeptical of this unnamed "forensics expert" claiming that androids are more secure than iPhones.

Using a throwaway account via tor for obvious reasons.</comment>


Tarpé Mills, 1940s comic writer, and her feisty superhero Miss Fury - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/hidden-women-of-history-tarpe-mills-1940s-comic-writer-and-her-feisty-superhero-miss-fury-110179 <comment><USER2> There's a revival. A new comic book.[1]

Somewhere, somebody has to be thinking about a movie.

[1] [https://www.dynamite.com/htmlfiles/viewProduct.html?PRO=C725...](https://www.dynamite.com/htmlfiles/viewProduct.html?PRO=C72513020398400111)

<comment><USER3> I was going to say that it would be too similar to catwoman, but hey, comics are derivative by nature, it's not a real problem.</comment></comment>


Apple Wants to Ban Samsung Galaxy Nexus in U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400163,00.asp <comment><USER2> Doubt it'll go through.</comment>